Jungibaaz
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,756
- Reaction score
- 113
- Country
- Location
I quite like Shashi Tharoor, he is usually very sane and impressive with the depth of his analysis which he delivers quite well.
On the subject of Pakistan though, especially in this interview, he seems thoroughly disappointing. The whole purpose of the type of questions the host was asking was to steer both to talk about areas of agreement, mutual understanding, and reflection on the roles both countries have played. Hina responded by fully admitting the mistakes made by the Pakistani state as she saw them, and very openly criticised the role Pakistan has had in worsening or at least not improving relations.
Shashi's opinions weren't at all interesting though, he refused to acknowledge much wrongdoing on the part of the Indian government and security forces in Kashmir, citing Pakistan as the only reason for not only violence, but also the internal movement in Kashmir which he has conveniently not spoken about. I believe he is sincere in saying he wants to see matters peacefully resolved, but I do not appreciate what I perceive to be a double standard on his part, which is to level accusations at Pakistan for its role in sponsoring trouble in Kashmir, while not even once speaking about internal movements in Kashmir that are motivated by Indian policy which is often nothing to do with Pakistan. He also applies this double standard more broadly, again he rightly accuses Pakistan of sponsoring violence in India, yet won't even entertain the notion that India has ever done the same or still does through Afghanistan.
He's too smart to not know any of this, only a fool would believe exactly as he claims to believe. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, at best I can determine that perhaps he is taking this line of denial on a neutral venue but is fully aware of the reality in Kashmir and in bilateral relations more broadly. And Hina to her credit pointed out in the beginning that the current state and civilian leaders of Pakistan are steering Pakistan in the right direction, whereas she feels the opposite is gaining momentum in India, and she goes on to display this when she speaks openly about the mistakes made on Pakistan's part and in other criticism of our own policy, while Shashi refused to do the same for Indian policy.
I would also add that Shashi's thoughts on achieving peace in Kashmir are quite unsophisticated in my opinion. He talks about peace as if it solely in the hands of Pakistan, and I'm sorry, if that's the case, then India is truly lost in Kashmir. His opinions on Kashmir paint a very odd picture, and aren't at all in line with reality, according to him, and I am not strawmanning him here: India is the victim of state sponsored terror in Pakistan, there is no conflict local to Kashmir, and Indian security forces are not responsible for any repression of Kashmiris, and Indian policy in Kashmir bears no role in bringing about peace since it is already good enough and has never added to hostilities, oh and Pakistan's use of covert means of destabilising India are completely unilateral, while India's intentions and actions with respect to Pakistan are wholly benevolent.
And as for peace being achieved if Pakistan and locals switch off all hostilities unilaterally, I can say and I'm sure he knows this, that there are perhaps none, or maybe only very few conflicts in history in which peace is achieved in this way. In Northern Ireland, peace talks and a decade long peace process allowed for a gradual end to the conflicts, starting first with an end to the violence and then to eventual hostilities that remained. He may not realise it, but he is also portraying India as an inept state that is completely helpless and has no capacity to restore order within its own borders, it's all Pakistan's fault. An absurdity that is unbecoming of a man of his intelligence.
On the subject of Pakistan though, especially in this interview, he seems thoroughly disappointing. The whole purpose of the type of questions the host was asking was to steer both to talk about areas of agreement, mutual understanding, and reflection on the roles both countries have played. Hina responded by fully admitting the mistakes made by the Pakistani state as she saw them, and very openly criticised the role Pakistan has had in worsening or at least not improving relations.
Shashi's opinions weren't at all interesting though, he refused to acknowledge much wrongdoing on the part of the Indian government and security forces in Kashmir, citing Pakistan as the only reason for not only violence, but also the internal movement in Kashmir which he has conveniently not spoken about. I believe he is sincere in saying he wants to see matters peacefully resolved, but I do not appreciate what I perceive to be a double standard on his part, which is to level accusations at Pakistan for its role in sponsoring trouble in Kashmir, while not even once speaking about internal movements in Kashmir that are motivated by Indian policy which is often nothing to do with Pakistan. He also applies this double standard more broadly, again he rightly accuses Pakistan of sponsoring violence in India, yet won't even entertain the notion that India has ever done the same or still does through Afghanistan.
He's too smart to not know any of this, only a fool would believe exactly as he claims to believe. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, at best I can determine that perhaps he is taking this line of denial on a neutral venue but is fully aware of the reality in Kashmir and in bilateral relations more broadly. And Hina to her credit pointed out in the beginning that the current state and civilian leaders of Pakistan are steering Pakistan in the right direction, whereas she feels the opposite is gaining momentum in India, and she goes on to display this when she speaks openly about the mistakes made on Pakistan's part and in other criticism of our own policy, while Shashi refused to do the same for Indian policy.
I would also add that Shashi's thoughts on achieving peace in Kashmir are quite unsophisticated in my opinion. He talks about peace as if it solely in the hands of Pakistan, and I'm sorry, if that's the case, then India is truly lost in Kashmir. His opinions on Kashmir paint a very odd picture, and aren't at all in line with reality, according to him, and I am not strawmanning him here: India is the victim of state sponsored terror in Pakistan, there is no conflict local to Kashmir, and Indian security forces are not responsible for any repression of Kashmiris, and Indian policy in Kashmir bears no role in bringing about peace since it is already good enough and has never added to hostilities, oh and Pakistan's use of covert means of destabilising India are completely unilateral, while India's intentions and actions with respect to Pakistan are wholly benevolent.
And as for peace being achieved if Pakistan and locals switch off all hostilities unilaterally, I can say and I'm sure he knows this, that there are perhaps none, or maybe only very few conflicts in history in which peace is achieved in this way. In Northern Ireland, peace talks and a decade long peace process allowed for a gradual end to the conflicts, starting first with an end to the violence and then to eventual hostilities that remained. He may not realise it, but he is also portraying India as an inept state that is completely helpless and has no capacity to restore order within its own borders, it's all Pakistan's fault. An absurdity that is unbecoming of a man of his intelligence.
