Hope you see this on your return, and have a safe trip.
Joe, sorry for the late response. I had to attend to pesky distractions like work and all...
At best you can argue incompetence on her part; what remains certain is her animosity to Pakistan and we believe she wasn't the last of the breed. Not by a long shot.
I see what you are writing, and am truly astonished.
Those of us who watched as the slick, smooth, well-groomed team of spin-meisters led by the Grand Wizard turned up in Simla pitied them. They had no cards to play, representing a shattered country, a shattered military, and hoping to recover 93,000 prisoners, half of them soldiers. They walked away with the most extraordinary, the most generous terms. Imagine what would have happened if the tables hd been turned. Actually, there is no need to imagine. Every young Pakistani poster never fails to remind us of the Roman attitude toward the defeated:
vae victis. If we had applied that savage dictum, there would have fragments of Pakistan left. We did not, not because we are timorous, but because, as a nation, we reject the killer instinct. We are famously accused of this in sports. How strange that in the case of international relations, this national trait is known, recognized but never acknowledged. Scholars call it our habit of strategic restraint, and the cat-calls and jeers break out. Sadly, mostly from those who have benefited most from the trait.
I should say that far from displaying animosity, Indira Gandhi displayed a distinct magnanimity and humanistic breadth of vision. It is part of this same syndrome that after having done so, she is remembered by her greatest beneficiaries for her vindictive attitude, not for her forgiving, accommodating actions.
While I don't dispute your statement, my claim is a more general observation that (almost) all countries engage in illicit conduct through unsavory middlemen. Pakistan gets put on the spot now while India gets a pass, and it is taking full advantage of the situation. We don't blame India for being opportunistic, but it doesn't change the fact that India is engaged in a full diplomatic assault on Pakistan.
If I might parse this, and interpret the parsed version, our opposition has never been to Pakistan per se, but to policies of the Pakistani state that we find disturbing and barbaric. That particularly refers to your practice
from the inception of pursuing national interests through covert murderous assaults on our unarmed citizenry.
Would you call this a diplomatic assault? Or opportunistic?
By culture, I meant the wider "Indian" culture that we all share in south Asia. In terms of ethnicity, again, it's a relative concept consisting of an ever-widening circle. Pakistanis are ethnically closer to Kashmiris than to, say, Rwandans.
It's the old "think globally, act locally" concept.
I note this, with unrestrained admiration, and salute your dexterity with words. On the substance, permit me to reserve judgement.
If I were OJ, on trial for my life, with an open-and-shut case against me, I would have no hesitation engaging you as my attorney.
That is a very impressive and admirable program and I am not at all surprised that you would be involved with something like that. Best of luck.
Gives me a chance to put my money where my mouth is. And **** the Hindutvavadis.
While I fully accept that a sizable segment of the Indian population sees the Indian Muslims as equal citizens, I am not so sanguine about the future. This topic will take us into a whole other tangent so I don't want to belabor the point, but I feel that Indian secularism is under threat from a resurgent Indian nationalism that equates itself to Hinduism.
While much of this resurgence is an understandable desire to show the world what Indian/Hindu culture can achieve after being unshackled from centuries of foreign domination, there is a danger of it getting overzealous.
The Trojan horse used to bypass secular safeguards is the same one used in Europe -- religious bigotry disguised as cultural chauvinism.
You don't have to labour the point. I agree with you 100%.
In case you haven't noticed, half my time is spent resisting Hindutvavadis. Why do you think I feel paranoid about them?
Opportunistic politicians have been with us since the dawn of time, so I fully accept your claim. Also, not having been there, it's hard for me to comment on the ground realities of the Hindu/Muslim relationship in that era.
My recommendation to address Kashmir (and the Indian relationship in general) through non-military means has an element of morality as well. Achieving one's goals through killing may be unavoidable at times, but it shouldn't be the first resort. If Pakistan can achieve its objectives vis-a-vis India through diplomatic and media pressure, then so much the better.
Point well made. A fair point, at that, although we may differ on the extent and scope of the violence that you are referring to. Essentially, all right-thinking people must agree that the present situation is unacceptable.
Always a pleasure learning from you, Sir.
Unfortunately, I have to be off for a few days.
What was it about "a feast of reason, and a flow of soul"?
.
