ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Madhuri Gupta: another diversion or
By Saeed Minhas
Islamabad: From Simla agreement to cricket diplomacy, from Lahore resolution to Manmohan-Musharraf-US efforts to resolve Kashmir through quite diplomacy, and from NGO-centered people-to-people contacts to media exchanges nothing seems to be working between India and Pakistan.
Diplomatic circles had flurry of activities throughout the past one week and the centre-point of their discussions have been the fear of a fresh proxy war zone developing in the west of Pakistan; i.e. Afghanistan where Americans are planning to bid adieu in a year's time from now. The moot point throughout the week has been that will America leave someone in charge of the situation after its pull out or will the region be pushed back to late 1970s, where an open field would bring in Pakistan versus all the competing stakeholders like Indians, Russians, Iranians and even Chinese?
Amidst a number of theories from our Excellencies, one can easily pick up the stark differences between the Arab and Western diplomats as both view Americans from their own prisms but alarmingly it may sound to Ambassador Anne Patterson as none of them tend to defend the failing US adventures. Nonetheless, one can find unanimity of opinion amongst these Excellencies and that is about a chaotic future of Afghanistan, where President Karzai is seen as failing to establish himself and Pakistan is likely to retain the upper hand much to the disliking of Indians.
In this scenario, the recent talks between Gillani and Manmohan and subsequent assurances from the US to Pak-army regarding its concerns of eastern borders were deliberated upon by many diplomats gathered to celebrate the birthday of Netherland's Queen or national day of South Africa in and around the diplomatic enclave.
Madhuri Gupta may have become just another scapegoat to mitigate the chances of any meaningful dialogue between the nuclear armed rivals but what need to be ascertained here is that who is afraid of whom? Who wants to keep neighbours apart and why? When is this blame-game going to end a six-decade-old rivalry? These were the few concerns of many of the diplomats who were raising these burning issues to get the feedback from the variety of Pakistanis hovering around the specially decorated service tables.
Generations of intellectuals have faded into oblivion and scores of efforts have been made to avert a fourth possible war between Pak-India armies but the end result is that ingrained fears and animosity continues to flourish. All this despite the fact that a new generation, exposed to cyber world is not buying the fabricated histories of their respective curriculums on both sides of the border, yet the extremists on each side are finding it convenient to keep the region in a constant pressure cooker. Poverty is on the rise and if FATA and Balochistan are a concern for Pakistan than Maoists are giving sleepless nights in 13 states of India while Kashmir remains another headache for the biggest democracy having second largest active army in the world. Even a forum like SAARC has become victim to this never-ending proxy war between Pakistan and India and as fears are looming large that after the Americans' exit, both will have a renewed battle for supremacy in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan, peace is likely to remain a dream for the region and progress is obviously going to be measured in terms of military expenditures not social and economic well being of over one and half billion population of the region.
A visible failure of Indian intelligence network in Afghanistan and its reported interference in Balochistan and FATA might have worked out a face saving strategy by popping up the issue of Madhuri but the question remains at what cost and for what reason? Whether we accept the notion of Pakistani side that Madhuri's case shows the mindset of Indian hawks who don't want to resolve issues with Pakistan due to their internal fractured polity or not, one can also assume that finding a clear shift in US policy towards Pak Army, Indians want to play the 'riposte doctrine' not the 'cold start' one envisaged by its war strategists since mid 2000.
An exasperated Arab diplomat after listening to all this conversation blurted out that why India and Pakistan always need a foreign hand to bring them back to the table, haven't they matured enough to sit and talk out their differences? A UAE envoy was of the view that certainly they can but only if it suits the foreign hands, otherwise a peace amongst the two South Asian nuclear-armed neighbours would mean no room for the westerners.
Reacting to this, a diplomat with a marine-cut and lots of bronze medals with stripes decorated on his chest intervened to say that sub-continental leadership might be capable of crisis management but certainly not of crisis resolution. In the changing world, we are only trying to bring them some rationality and not forcing upon them anything. Comparisons between the 1979 and 2001, role of India in Afghanistan, interest of US in the region and importance of Pakistan to this whole conundrum were spelled out by the marine to conclude with the news that "we are here to stay and would not repeat the mistakes of post Soviet Union era." Now what does it mean I leave it to your good judgment.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
By Saeed Minhas
Islamabad: From Simla agreement to cricket diplomacy, from Lahore resolution to Manmohan-Musharraf-US efforts to resolve Kashmir through quite diplomacy, and from NGO-centered people-to-people contacts to media exchanges nothing seems to be working between India and Pakistan.
Diplomatic circles had flurry of activities throughout the past one week and the centre-point of their discussions have been the fear of a fresh proxy war zone developing in the west of Pakistan; i.e. Afghanistan where Americans are planning to bid adieu in a year's time from now. The moot point throughout the week has been that will America leave someone in charge of the situation after its pull out or will the region be pushed back to late 1970s, where an open field would bring in Pakistan versus all the competing stakeholders like Indians, Russians, Iranians and even Chinese?
Amidst a number of theories from our Excellencies, one can easily pick up the stark differences between the Arab and Western diplomats as both view Americans from their own prisms but alarmingly it may sound to Ambassador Anne Patterson as none of them tend to defend the failing US adventures. Nonetheless, one can find unanimity of opinion amongst these Excellencies and that is about a chaotic future of Afghanistan, where President Karzai is seen as failing to establish himself and Pakistan is likely to retain the upper hand much to the disliking of Indians.
In this scenario, the recent talks between Gillani and Manmohan and subsequent assurances from the US to Pak-army regarding its concerns of eastern borders were deliberated upon by many diplomats gathered to celebrate the birthday of Netherland's Queen or national day of South Africa in and around the diplomatic enclave.
Madhuri Gupta may have become just another scapegoat to mitigate the chances of any meaningful dialogue between the nuclear armed rivals but what need to be ascertained here is that who is afraid of whom? Who wants to keep neighbours apart and why? When is this blame-game going to end a six-decade-old rivalry? These were the few concerns of many of the diplomats who were raising these burning issues to get the feedback from the variety of Pakistanis hovering around the specially decorated service tables.
Generations of intellectuals have faded into oblivion and scores of efforts have been made to avert a fourth possible war between Pak-India armies but the end result is that ingrained fears and animosity continues to flourish. All this despite the fact that a new generation, exposed to cyber world is not buying the fabricated histories of their respective curriculums on both sides of the border, yet the extremists on each side are finding it convenient to keep the region in a constant pressure cooker. Poverty is on the rise and if FATA and Balochistan are a concern for Pakistan than Maoists are giving sleepless nights in 13 states of India while Kashmir remains another headache for the biggest democracy having second largest active army in the world. Even a forum like SAARC has become victim to this never-ending proxy war between Pakistan and India and as fears are looming large that after the Americans' exit, both will have a renewed battle for supremacy in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan, peace is likely to remain a dream for the region and progress is obviously going to be measured in terms of military expenditures not social and economic well being of over one and half billion population of the region.
A visible failure of Indian intelligence network in Afghanistan and its reported interference in Balochistan and FATA might have worked out a face saving strategy by popping up the issue of Madhuri but the question remains at what cost and for what reason? Whether we accept the notion of Pakistani side that Madhuri's case shows the mindset of Indian hawks who don't want to resolve issues with Pakistan due to their internal fractured polity or not, one can also assume that finding a clear shift in US policy towards Pak Army, Indians want to play the 'riposte doctrine' not the 'cold start' one envisaged by its war strategists since mid 2000.
An exasperated Arab diplomat after listening to all this conversation blurted out that why India and Pakistan always need a foreign hand to bring them back to the table, haven't they matured enough to sit and talk out their differences? A UAE envoy was of the view that certainly they can but only if it suits the foreign hands, otherwise a peace amongst the two South Asian nuclear-armed neighbours would mean no room for the westerners.
Reacting to this, a diplomat with a marine-cut and lots of bronze medals with stripes decorated on his chest intervened to say that sub-continental leadership might be capable of crisis management but certainly not of crisis resolution. In the changing world, we are only trying to bring them some rationality and not forcing upon them anything. Comparisons between the 1979 and 2001, role of India in Afghanistan, interest of US in the region and importance of Pakistan to this whole conundrum were spelled out by the marine to conclude with the news that "we are here to stay and would not repeat the mistakes of post Soviet Union era." Now what does it mean I leave it to your good judgment.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
