AT present It is very difficult enimity may go on for another decade but they are not eternal enimies
Pakistan and India...Why can't we be friends?
- Thread starter m15t3r7
- Start date
AT present It is very difficult enimity may go on for another decade but they are not eternal enimies
RedBaron
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you kidding me? If India and Pakistan become good friends:
- both India and Pakistan would need to look for someone else to blame for their respective problems
- cricket matches would not be as exciting
- media folks in both countries would starve
- the global military industry would collapse
- religions all over the world will unite and there will be no religious conflict at all
- the whole world will be a better place
And best of all....
- forums like this one would not be as popular
Now who in the world would want all the above terrible things to happen?
slugger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
It is not possible for Pakistan to look at India with anything other than hatred, contempt and feeling of annhilating India
By letting such thoughts of bonohomie arise in an Indian mind, we are only making ourself vulnerable to further damage to India by our Western neighbors
The country that prides itself on being a "Martial Race" continues to sulk under the humiliation heaped on it in a manner that created a world record for the number of soldiers that surrendered in a War
As long as the military leadership contniue to govern Pakistan [overtly/covertly] such a possiblity is a mere mirage [not the aircraft
]
Truckloads of Pakistanis coming to India to seek employment in the entertainment industry in India - Humanitarian aid
By letting such thoughts of bonohomie arise in an Indian mind, we are only making ourself vulnerable to further damage to India by our Western neighbors
The country that prides itself on being a "Martial Race" continues to sulk under the humiliation heaped on it in a manner that created a world record for the number of soldiers that surrendered in a War
As long as the military leadership contniue to govern Pakistan [overtly/covertly] such a possiblity is a mere mirage [not the aircraft
]Truckloads of Pakistanis coming to India to seek employment in the entertainment industry in India - Humanitarian aid
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
There is absolutely no reason why India and Pakistan can’t be friendly neighbors. SAAR C was created for this very purpose. However, there are deep seated suspicions and lack of trust on both sides. Being a Pakistani, it is hard for me to be completely objective; I therefore put most of the blame on India.
Let us face it; aim of the Congress was have a united India. Muslim League was created as an after thought originally by the Bengali Nawabs. Majority of the Muslim leaders such as the Jauhar brothers, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as well Red Shirts of the NWFP and Unionist Party of Punjab (Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan and his brother Khizar Hayat) was secularist and staunch Unionist. Even The Quaid was member of Congress as well as Muslim League. Partition of India therefore never went down well with majority of the Indian leaders.
Disregarding the UN Resolution of 1948 and annexation of Kashmir by Nehru in 1954 meant a breaking his promise to the Kashmiris, which resulted in a staunch Congress Supporter such Sh. Abdullah being imprisoned for 11 years. ( Sh Abdullah also known as Lion of Kashmir was a freedom fighter of renown, he turned secular and reamed his party Musilm Conference to National Conference in 1938. According to him he was removed in 1953 and jailed for 11 years thru machination of Nehru which enabled Nehru to break his promise to give Kashmir a special autonomous status promised in 1948 when Sh Abdullah supported Kashmir annexation to India).
In addition to the above there have been many occasions where India has tried to strangle Pakistan. I am quoting below an article by Shahid Javed Burki related to economics.
Quote
The Indian conundrum
By Shahid Javed Burki
FOR the past several decades, in fact going back to the early days of its existence as an independent state, Pakistan has not used trade and economic relations with the world outside as determinants of economic change and development.
This is unfortunate. As several countries in East Asia demonstrated so vividly, trade can play an important role in producing growth and in changing the structure of the economy.
Other types of economic relations with the world also matter. Among them are foreign capital flows and the involvement of diasporas in the development of the homeland. All three aspects of international economic relations are important for Pakistan if it is to emerge from the difficult economic situation it faces today and if it is to set the economy on the trajectory of long-term growth. If economics is to be the main reason for international relations, Pakistan must begin with the countries in its immediate neighbourhood. Of all the countries with which Pakistan shares borders, India matters the most.
This approach of not building strong economic relations with neighbouring countries was adopted soon after Pakistan gained independence. It has remained that way for more than six decades, and it once again threatens to affect how the country develops its economy. If Islamabad is to concentrate on economic development as the main focus of the government’s attention, it should adopt a very different approach towards India, its neighbour, compared to the one into which it is drifting because of the force of long-established habits.
There is a default position into which Pakistan retreats whenever relations with India become difficult. This needs to change. The change must also come in India which has its own default position of blaming Pakistan for many of its problems.
Pakistan has allowed its international economic relations to be determined by its strategic imperatives, the foremost of which was to protect itself from the perceived Indian threat. That initially the Indians and their government wished Pakistan ill was demonstrated by a number of measures adopted by New Delhi as Pakistan, a new political state, was struggling.
The government of Jawaharlal Nehru blocked the release of the funds owed to Pakistan by Britain in return for the war effort mounted by British India. The series of agreements that led to the creation of Pakistan, an independent state for the Muslims of British India, included apportioning British funds between the successor states of India and Pakistan. Once India and Pakistan became independent, New Delhi, that controlled the funds, refused to disburse them and give Pakistan its share. Even Mahatma Gandhi’s intervention did not persuade Nehru to adopt a gentler approach towards its sister state.
The authorities in Karachi, Pakistan’s first capital, drew the obvious conclusion: that the government headed by Nehru in India wished to strangle its neighbour at birth. This was in 1947-48 when Pakistan needed a great deal of support to establish an independent and functioning economy.
The impression that that may have been the Indian intention was further strengthened when two years later, in 1949, New Delhi suspended all trade with Pakistan. The reason for that move was the decision taken by Pakistan not to devalue its currency with respect to the US dollar. That was done by all countries that belonged to the British Commonwealth, including India. Pakistan refused to follow, believing (I think correctly) that given the demand for jute, its most important export, a lowering of its price through devaluation would not help the economy.
In retrospect it seems odd that a decision with respect to the rate of exchange for the domestic economy would be resented so much by a neighbouring country as to bring to a complete halt all trade. But that is what happened.
The Indian decision to apply such severe sanctions on Pakistan was to have significant consequences for the development of the country’s economy. For decades a succession of governments neglected the sector of agriculture in order to concentrate on the development of an industrial base. The policymakers in Karachi felt that they needed to have the new economy of Pakistan self-sufficient in most items of everyday consumption. Previously these were imported from India. With the need to move quickly, Pakistan, unlike India, gave space to the private initiative to develop the industrial sector. India had put the public sector on the commanding heights of the economy.
The Indians also took an aggressive approach towards the use of the waters of the Indus River system in the two Punjabs. Since they controlled a number of canal headworks, they could block the flow of water to the irrigation system that served Pakistan. In the early 1950s when the Indians threatened to divert water for their own use, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, threatened war.
This problem was resolved a decade later when President Ayub Khan signed the Indus Waters Treaty with Prime Minister Nehru in 1960. The treaty resulted in the division of the tributaries of the Indus between India and Pakistan, with the Indians given the use of the eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi and Sutlej), while Pakistan was left with the Indus itself as well as Jhelum and Chenab.
One important consequence of the preoccupation with India and the perceived existential threat from the neighbour was to bring the military centre-stage of Pakistani politics. As President Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military leader maintained, only the military could take care of the country’s strategic interests. This perception was to be the basis of the military’s repeated intervention in the political system.
The military’s involvement in politics had a number of consequences for the development of the economy. Two of these are worth underscoring. First, it diverted a significant amount of the government’s resources towards defence. With the military claiming such a large share in public funds, not enough was left for economic and social development. Second, with the military intervening regularly, Pakistan opted for extreme centralisation in the style of governance it adopted. This put Islamabad in a commanding situation. The interests of the provinces were often neglected. This slowed economic progress.
Poor relations with India, therefore, pushed Pakistan in the direction in which it should not have gone. Looking at India from the prism of economics rather than that of national security would introduce a different set of dynamics to economic decision-making. Bringing about this reorientation requires both the exercise of political will and the education of the citizenry. n
DAWN - Editorial; January 06, 2009
Unquote
IMO India being a big brother has to show magnanimity towards Pakistan. Regret to say that India has continued in the effort to strangle Pakistan, first by actively supporting Bengali separatist movement and then by military intervention. This continues to this day as evidenced by the dams over Jhelum and Chenab.
From Pakistan’s point of view, only problem we have is Kashmir, India could resolve it by opening up the border to all Kashmiris, same as Canada & USA, once the border becomes irrelevant, Kashmir problem will also disappear.
Let us face it; aim of the Congress was have a united India. Muslim League was created as an after thought originally by the Bengali Nawabs. Majority of the Muslim leaders such as the Jauhar brothers, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as well Red Shirts of the NWFP and Unionist Party of Punjab (Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan and his brother Khizar Hayat) was secularist and staunch Unionist. Even The Quaid was member of Congress as well as Muslim League. Partition of India therefore never went down well with majority of the Indian leaders.
Disregarding the UN Resolution of 1948 and annexation of Kashmir by Nehru in 1954 meant a breaking his promise to the Kashmiris, which resulted in a staunch Congress Supporter such Sh. Abdullah being imprisoned for 11 years. ( Sh Abdullah also known as Lion of Kashmir was a freedom fighter of renown, he turned secular and reamed his party Musilm Conference to National Conference in 1938. According to him he was removed in 1953 and jailed for 11 years thru machination of Nehru which enabled Nehru to break his promise to give Kashmir a special autonomous status promised in 1948 when Sh Abdullah supported Kashmir annexation to India).
In addition to the above there have been many occasions where India has tried to strangle Pakistan. I am quoting below an article by Shahid Javed Burki related to economics.
Quote
The Indian conundrum
By Shahid Javed Burki
FOR the past several decades, in fact going back to the early days of its existence as an independent state, Pakistan has not used trade and economic relations with the world outside as determinants of economic change and development.
This is unfortunate. As several countries in East Asia demonstrated so vividly, trade can play an important role in producing growth and in changing the structure of the economy.
Other types of economic relations with the world also matter. Among them are foreign capital flows and the involvement of diasporas in the development of the homeland. All three aspects of international economic relations are important for Pakistan if it is to emerge from the difficult economic situation it faces today and if it is to set the economy on the trajectory of long-term growth. If economics is to be the main reason for international relations, Pakistan must begin with the countries in its immediate neighbourhood. Of all the countries with which Pakistan shares borders, India matters the most.
This approach of not building strong economic relations with neighbouring countries was adopted soon after Pakistan gained independence. It has remained that way for more than six decades, and it once again threatens to affect how the country develops its economy. If Islamabad is to concentrate on economic development as the main focus of the government’s attention, it should adopt a very different approach towards India, its neighbour, compared to the one into which it is drifting because of the force of long-established habits.
There is a default position into which Pakistan retreats whenever relations with India become difficult. This needs to change. The change must also come in India which has its own default position of blaming Pakistan for many of its problems.
Pakistan has allowed its international economic relations to be determined by its strategic imperatives, the foremost of which was to protect itself from the perceived Indian threat. That initially the Indians and their government wished Pakistan ill was demonstrated by a number of measures adopted by New Delhi as Pakistan, a new political state, was struggling.
The government of Jawaharlal Nehru blocked the release of the funds owed to Pakistan by Britain in return for the war effort mounted by British India. The series of agreements that led to the creation of Pakistan, an independent state for the Muslims of British India, included apportioning British funds between the successor states of India and Pakistan. Once India and Pakistan became independent, New Delhi, that controlled the funds, refused to disburse them and give Pakistan its share. Even Mahatma Gandhi’s intervention did not persuade Nehru to adopt a gentler approach towards its sister state.
The authorities in Karachi, Pakistan’s first capital, drew the obvious conclusion: that the government headed by Nehru in India wished to strangle its neighbour at birth. This was in 1947-48 when Pakistan needed a great deal of support to establish an independent and functioning economy.
The impression that that may have been the Indian intention was further strengthened when two years later, in 1949, New Delhi suspended all trade with Pakistan. The reason for that move was the decision taken by Pakistan not to devalue its currency with respect to the US dollar. That was done by all countries that belonged to the British Commonwealth, including India. Pakistan refused to follow, believing (I think correctly) that given the demand for jute, its most important export, a lowering of its price through devaluation would not help the economy.
In retrospect it seems odd that a decision with respect to the rate of exchange for the domestic economy would be resented so much by a neighbouring country as to bring to a complete halt all trade. But that is what happened.
The Indian decision to apply such severe sanctions on Pakistan was to have significant consequences for the development of the country’s economy. For decades a succession of governments neglected the sector of agriculture in order to concentrate on the development of an industrial base. The policymakers in Karachi felt that they needed to have the new economy of Pakistan self-sufficient in most items of everyday consumption. Previously these were imported from India. With the need to move quickly, Pakistan, unlike India, gave space to the private initiative to develop the industrial sector. India had put the public sector on the commanding heights of the economy.
The Indians also took an aggressive approach towards the use of the waters of the Indus River system in the two Punjabs. Since they controlled a number of canal headworks, they could block the flow of water to the irrigation system that served Pakistan. In the early 1950s when the Indians threatened to divert water for their own use, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first prime minister, threatened war.
This problem was resolved a decade later when President Ayub Khan signed the Indus Waters Treaty with Prime Minister Nehru in 1960. The treaty resulted in the division of the tributaries of the Indus between India and Pakistan, with the Indians given the use of the eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi and Sutlej), while Pakistan was left with the Indus itself as well as Jhelum and Chenab.
One important consequence of the preoccupation with India and the perceived existential threat from the neighbour was to bring the military centre-stage of Pakistani politics. As President Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s first military leader maintained, only the military could take care of the country’s strategic interests. This perception was to be the basis of the military’s repeated intervention in the political system.
The military’s involvement in politics had a number of consequences for the development of the economy. Two of these are worth underscoring. First, it diverted a significant amount of the government’s resources towards defence. With the military claiming such a large share in public funds, not enough was left for economic and social development. Second, with the military intervening regularly, Pakistan opted for extreme centralisation in the style of governance it adopted. This put Islamabad in a commanding situation. The interests of the provinces were often neglected. This slowed economic progress.
Poor relations with India, therefore, pushed Pakistan in the direction in which it should not have gone. Looking at India from the prism of economics rather than that of national security would introduce a different set of dynamics to economic decision-making. Bringing about this reorientation requires both the exercise of political will and the education of the citizenry. n
DAWN - Editorial; January 06, 2009
Unquote
IMO India being a big brother has to show magnanimity towards Pakistan. Regret to say that India has continued in the effort to strangle Pakistan, first by actively supporting Bengali separatist movement and then by military intervention. This continues to this day as evidenced by the dams over Jhelum and Chenab.
From Pakistan’s point of view, only problem we have is Kashmir, India could resolve it by opening up the border to all Kashmiris, same as Canada & USA, once the border becomes irrelevant, Kashmir problem will also disappear.
Patriot
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, this is the mindset of Indians, OP.Do you still want to become friend with India?India wants to rule whole SA which is not possible unless Pakistan is destroyed so instead of being arrogant they should act in a friendly way which is not going to happen.
haviZsultan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,045
- Reaction score
- 36
- Country
- Location
U represent those double standards urself.
Then what about terrorist purohit who did samjhauta and what about Bal thakerey who is said to have been involved in it. It was being speculated if Bal thakerey had planned samjhauta. He has on several occassions called for the elimination of pakistan and has called to destroy Pakistan and even called for hindus to form suicide squads (check google). JuD supports the liberation struggle for Kashmir just like every Pakistani. I support the struggle against Indian occupation as well and so does all of Pakistan. LeT is said to be operating only in Kashmir and that is why they support them. There is not enough proof about LeT being responsible. The confession you sent is pretty amusing. So called "Qasab" is speaking in hindi lol. We do not trust you and we cannot in any case seeing your past record. We told you clearly not to base all your 'evidence' on the confession but thats what you exactly did base it almost solely on his confession which could be produced in any way. Rest was hand grenades from pakistan and motor made in pakistan. I find the report pretty amusing actually. We have a copy and we laugh at it... Mumbai is an attack by hindu terrorists. The sooner the Indians wake up and smell the coffee the better.
Samjhauta and Malegaon was blamed in a similar fashion on us and was proved wrong. This is a habit and is denying Indians the very justice they deserve. You are not in the army nor the government and u have not seen a single thing with your eyes. U r a civilian most likely. Try to understand the truth rather than blame. It is hurting the peace process and can ruin it because many of us have very little patience for this sort of propaganda. Our analysis strongly suggests a Shiv Sena link. U either investigate it or do something useful with ur life.
There is minor difference in terms of culture and behavior but only minor and that based on religion. Religion is loose and not everyone follows. Eg many join ya guys f4 a drink n all.... i know how it goes... ya in cultural terms and all there is basically no difference but i think u r again trying to come to the same old place that there was no basis to divide india and pakistan like most indians try to say...
You see your treatment of minorities has proved to us that a major bias does exist and 1993 babri massacre, 2003 Gujrat genocide, 84 sikh massacre, daily violence on religious basis, hindu terrorists given free hand, kashmir all point to the fact that we made the right choice. Our family actually shifted to Pakistan quite late.. We tried our best to remain but hindu terrorists khuli choot and their bias and discrimination while the secularists did nothing led to the break up of india. Also the demands we made under the muslim league were all but ignored. It was Jinnah that voted for a united India under Archibald Wavell where we suggested the muslim majority regions be ruled by muslims and hindu majority by hindus. Wavell was removed by hindutva politicians for being "pro muslim" and frankly it was only that which would save india. You simply could not understand that Jinnah represented over 70 million muslims of India.
Anyway I am thankful i am out anyway. Our resettlement programs really prove we made the right choice where women come here crying and begging and kiss the earth screaming they are free from you guys.
However what i want to make sure is that our history books dont focus on difference between hindu and muslim and promote harmony but promote the awful and horrible violence that was and still is perpetuated on the minorities of India and that should be the basis and the real reason for the creation of Pakistan. Hindu and Muslim can always live together. Even Jinnah was extremely secular and is known as the ambassador of hindu muslim unity In any case I have lost quite a few family members frankly and we have no plans to come back. We are very happy with our Pakistan.
There were those who once gave their lives for it to be formed and we are willing to give our lives to maintain it... so are formed the nationalist orders and groupings. We will die but we will not let Pakistan die.
Hail to India Pakistan peace.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I have seen that many Pakistanis see these kind of comments by Indians as either a negation of Pakistan or as indicating some other negative intentions. In most cases that is not the case. I have seen many Pakistanis too share the same feelings.
It is just the way that many Indians feel. Most Pakistanis may feel differently and that is OK. We just have to recognize these differences and move on. There is no need to take offense at the other just because the other person doesn't agree with our viewpoint. We are also doing the same to him.
I have seen this tendency in some people to work themselves up in a lather, having convinced themselves of their moral superiority or the moral position of their country on some matter or just the way we look at history. The fact is people look at these issues differently. Most people are just conditioned into their current thinking.
slugger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
I admit calling it Humanitarian aid is a little harsh on my part.
The more appropriate word can be found in Hindi. It is called Badhappan
It is India's Badhappan that India allows scores of Pakistani musicians to perform in competitions in India. Release their albums in India, perform in shows in India
It is India's Badhappan that standup comedians from Pakistan are allowed to take part in competitions in India, perform in shows around India
Same is the case of Pakistani actors and actresses performing in Bollywood movies
The thing that makes me angry the most - These people earn their money in India, take it to Pakistan, pay their taxes to the govt of Pakistan which is used to train and send the likes of Heeralal and amar singh to kill the very people who have provided your countrymen with employment - we are paying to kill ourselves
Why dont Pakistani singers and actors go to Nepal - they also understand Hindi. Why do they have to come to India
The presence of these entities in India is a fact. If you want us to stop being "arrogant", then stop sending them to India. you will take away our reson for being arrogant [at least in that field]
SA.
your thinking so small buddy
Indians want to rule the world.
India wants her industries to operate in each and every country in the world
India wants the industrial product of her country to be imported by each and every country in the world
India wants her citizens to head each and every conglomeration in the world
India wants her citizens to have the highest per capita income in the world
India wants her Science and technology and education sector to be a leader in its field, with students from all over the world coming to India to pursue their education
Indians want to go on and head each and every media house in the world
India has a long way to go overcoming many a challenges before it can do so, but Indians have it in them to achieve them and the process has alredy started in the right earnest
Last edited:
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
I have given my view point as a Pakistani. Now an educated Indians' view as published in the Hindustan Times. Yes; I read Indian Newspapers as well. How else would one know what Indian print media is thinking?
Somethings got to give
Rajdeep Sardesai
One of the more joyous moments of fatherhood was taking my son, then all of nine years, to watch an India-Pakistan one-day match in Lahore in 2004. Our Pakistani friends had rolled out the traditional Punjabi hospitality: from the waiting limousine at the airport to the best pavilion seats, we were treated as honoured guests. In a sea of competing blue and green, my son was caught up in the excitement of the occasion. Through the day, he had been furiously waving the Tricolour.
In the last overs, as it became clear that India was winning, some visibly frustrated Pakistani supporters handed over a Pakistani flag to my son. The offer was promptly accepted, and on our way home he had two flags in his hand: the Tricolour and its Pakistani equivalent.
Call it the innocence of a nine-year-old, but the Indo-Pak equation has always had a romantic edge. No relationship has been as schizophrenic as that between the two subcontinental neighbours. Where else can you have a heated argument on Kashmir one moment, and then proceed to draw up an all-time best Indo-Pak cricket eleven the very next? How does one explain travelling to the headquarters of the Lashkar during the day, and sitting in the evening in the hotel lobby listening to a pianist play a Lata-Rafi melody?
The dualism was starkly driven home when I was interviewing then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the midst of the Kargil war in 1999. The interview saw a few sharp, testy exchanges over just who was responsible for the war. With the camera off, Sharif was back to being his gregarious self. As we ate a several course feast in the luxurious prime ministerial gardens overlooking the Margalla hills, the tone was anything but bellicose. Instead, Sharif proceeded to reminisce on his favourite Hindi film star, Rajendra Kumar. Waah, kya actor tha! (perhaps the only time anyone has recognised Jubilee Kumars acting capabilities). The conversation then drifted to Sharifs other great obsession, cricket, and he appeared awe-struck by Tendulkars batting. Finally, while leaving, I mentioned that I hadnt eaten better kebabs. Sharif, the foodie, smiled, Not as good as the ones I once ate in Purani Dilli. And the gajar halwa was something else!
Perhaps, the food and conversation was only meant to soften an Indian journalist in a time of war, but the affection has always felt just as real as the enmity over the years. Has 26/11 changed that? Are we now as a people less inclined to give our Pakistani counterparts the benefit of doubt, less prepared to distinguish between the Pakistani State and its civil society, less willing to get carried away by nostalgia and shared interests?
At one level, the end of the jhappi-pappi culture in the Indo-Pak relationship is to be welcomed. Candlelight at Wagah and the sound of guns along the Line of Control were always colliding images that discomfited those whose minds were less cluttered by sentimentalism. Geography and generational change had perhaps something to do with contrasting attitudes. For those who had been affected by Partition, the love-hate relationship with the other side was connected with their collective memories of childhood. But for those who lived south of the Vindhyas, with no real connect with Pakistan, the obsessive relationship always seemed a little incongruous.
The romantics were looking for a Veer Zara equation; while the extremists on both sides were keen for a Gadar-like confrontation. The more mature approach lies somewhere in-between, based on a more pragmatic and less emotional assessment of the relationship. Take cricketing ties for example. In the afterglow of that heady 2004 series when chants of Balaji zara dheere chalo! were heard across Pakistani stadiums, the romantics believed that there had been a tectonic shift in attitudes, with the average Pakistani ready to embrace the idea of India.
The truth is that cricket has its limitations beyond the boundary. Cricket matches cannot be a substitute for statecraft, an Indian cricketer being cheered by a Pakistani crowd does not mean that the terror infrastructure has been dismantled. It is too much in the first place to have ever expected our cricketers to achieve what politicians on both sides of the border cannot: a permanent peace. You cannot, for example, have a situation where cricket is expected to compensate for our failures to work out a meaningful joint mechanism against terror. It is no use for Pakistan to claim that it, too, is a victim of terror, and then use that as an excuse not to act against Masood Azhar or Dawood Ibrahim. What 26/11 has done is driven home the double-standards of a feeble Pakistani State to the average Indian citizen: how can you play normal cricket with a country which is living through an abnormal situation by denying the links between a section of its State apparatus and terror groups?
And yet, it is difficult to accept the extreme view that all Indo-Pak sporting and cultural contacts be abandoned as a demonstrable measure of our anger post-26/11. The idea that the social isolation of Pakistan could have the same effect as that of the ostracism of South Africa during the apartheid years is misplaced. The campaign against apartheid worked because it was a global effort. Moreover, apartheid was institutionalised by the South African government while Islamabad retains the fiction of terror being a non-State act. Importantly, the only hope for a stable Pakistan lies in the strengthening of its civil society as was seen during the anti-Musharraf lawyers protest. We havent seen the same kind of nation-wide movement against the jihadis yet.
The challenge then is to strike the right balance. We must hold the stick of sanctions economic, sporting and cultural if Pakistan refuses to cooperate with the 26/11 investigation but also offer the carrot of even greater interaction if there is concrete proof that Islamabad is acting against the jihadis. Above all, we must all live in hope that sanity will ultimately prevail. My now teenaged son certainly does: he still has the Pakistani flag in his room.
(Rajdeep Sardesai is editor-in-Chief, IBN Network)
Something?s got to give- Hindustan Times
Somethings got to give
Rajdeep Sardesai
One of the more joyous moments of fatherhood was taking my son, then all of nine years, to watch an India-Pakistan one-day match in Lahore in 2004. Our Pakistani friends had rolled out the traditional Punjabi hospitality: from the waiting limousine at the airport to the best pavilion seats, we were treated as honoured guests. In a sea of competing blue and green, my son was caught up in the excitement of the occasion. Through the day, he had been furiously waving the Tricolour.
In the last overs, as it became clear that India was winning, some visibly frustrated Pakistani supporters handed over a Pakistani flag to my son. The offer was promptly accepted, and on our way home he had two flags in his hand: the Tricolour and its Pakistani equivalent.
Call it the innocence of a nine-year-old, but the Indo-Pak equation has always had a romantic edge. No relationship has been as schizophrenic as that between the two subcontinental neighbours. Where else can you have a heated argument on Kashmir one moment, and then proceed to draw up an all-time best Indo-Pak cricket eleven the very next? How does one explain travelling to the headquarters of the Lashkar during the day, and sitting in the evening in the hotel lobby listening to a pianist play a Lata-Rafi melody?
The dualism was starkly driven home when I was interviewing then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the midst of the Kargil war in 1999. The interview saw a few sharp, testy exchanges over just who was responsible for the war. With the camera off, Sharif was back to being his gregarious self. As we ate a several course feast in the luxurious prime ministerial gardens overlooking the Margalla hills, the tone was anything but bellicose. Instead, Sharif proceeded to reminisce on his favourite Hindi film star, Rajendra Kumar. Waah, kya actor tha! (perhaps the only time anyone has recognised Jubilee Kumars acting capabilities). The conversation then drifted to Sharifs other great obsession, cricket, and he appeared awe-struck by Tendulkars batting. Finally, while leaving, I mentioned that I hadnt eaten better kebabs. Sharif, the foodie, smiled, Not as good as the ones I once ate in Purani Dilli. And the gajar halwa was something else!
Perhaps, the food and conversation was only meant to soften an Indian journalist in a time of war, but the affection has always felt just as real as the enmity over the years. Has 26/11 changed that? Are we now as a people less inclined to give our Pakistani counterparts the benefit of doubt, less prepared to distinguish between the Pakistani State and its civil society, less willing to get carried away by nostalgia and shared interests?
At one level, the end of the jhappi-pappi culture in the Indo-Pak relationship is to be welcomed. Candlelight at Wagah and the sound of guns along the Line of Control were always colliding images that discomfited those whose minds were less cluttered by sentimentalism. Geography and generational change had perhaps something to do with contrasting attitudes. For those who had been affected by Partition, the love-hate relationship with the other side was connected with their collective memories of childhood. But for those who lived south of the Vindhyas, with no real connect with Pakistan, the obsessive relationship always seemed a little incongruous.
The romantics were looking for a Veer Zara equation; while the extremists on both sides were keen for a Gadar-like confrontation. The more mature approach lies somewhere in-between, based on a more pragmatic and less emotional assessment of the relationship. Take cricketing ties for example. In the afterglow of that heady 2004 series when chants of Balaji zara dheere chalo! were heard across Pakistani stadiums, the romantics believed that there had been a tectonic shift in attitudes, with the average Pakistani ready to embrace the idea of India.
The truth is that cricket has its limitations beyond the boundary. Cricket matches cannot be a substitute for statecraft, an Indian cricketer being cheered by a Pakistani crowd does not mean that the terror infrastructure has been dismantled. It is too much in the first place to have ever expected our cricketers to achieve what politicians on both sides of the border cannot: a permanent peace. You cannot, for example, have a situation where cricket is expected to compensate for our failures to work out a meaningful joint mechanism against terror. It is no use for Pakistan to claim that it, too, is a victim of terror, and then use that as an excuse not to act against Masood Azhar or Dawood Ibrahim. What 26/11 has done is driven home the double-standards of a feeble Pakistani State to the average Indian citizen: how can you play normal cricket with a country which is living through an abnormal situation by denying the links between a section of its State apparatus and terror groups?
And yet, it is difficult to accept the extreme view that all Indo-Pak sporting and cultural contacts be abandoned as a demonstrable measure of our anger post-26/11. The idea that the social isolation of Pakistan could have the same effect as that of the ostracism of South Africa during the apartheid years is misplaced. The campaign against apartheid worked because it was a global effort. Moreover, apartheid was institutionalised by the South African government while Islamabad retains the fiction of terror being a non-State act. Importantly, the only hope for a stable Pakistan lies in the strengthening of its civil society as was seen during the anti-Musharraf lawyers protest. We havent seen the same kind of nation-wide movement against the jihadis yet.
The challenge then is to strike the right balance. We must hold the stick of sanctions economic, sporting and cultural if Pakistan refuses to cooperate with the 26/11 investigation but also offer the carrot of even greater interaction if there is concrete proof that Islamabad is acting against the jihadis. Above all, we must all live in hope that sanity will ultimately prevail. My now teenaged son certainly does: he still has the Pakistani flag in his room.
(Rajdeep Sardesai is editor-in-Chief, IBN Network)
Something?s got to give- Hindustan Times
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I think you need to learn alot my friend...art has no boundaries or limitations...why dont indians stop listening to pakistani music if they feel this way....i assure you no pakistanni artist would launch their album in india than....and btw indian artist too visit pakistan and perform here...so thats not an issue...
personally I think that as long as Kashmir is an issue we arent going anywhere.....
slugger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
Did you not read what I said - Badhappan aka Benovelence
Visa Denied: Javed Akhtar - A Dangerous Indian?
personally I think that as long as Kashmir is an issue we arent going anywhere.....
I think you are wrong....as long as Pakistan does not succeed in getting 93001 Indian soldiers to surrender in War, we are not going to go anywhere.
Since this is never ever going to happen, we can never become friends
Occasions may rise when an Indian may have to interact with a Pakistani and as an Indian he/she will be cordial towards a Pakistani, but do not mistake our cordiality for friendship
rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Sure, they can be. But you need not look far to find that there are few people like us.
Yes too many lives have been sacrificed, the origin being the hasty withdrawal of the British.
'Pakistan and India' is nowhere near 'Palestine and Israel'. Read Wiki.
In fact Pakistan was formed on the same principle as Israel formed. 'Homeland for Muslims'. which many people fondly call 'Two Nation Theory'.
Count the number of people who died in Pakistan due to violence since independence. Count how many Muslims died in India due to riots. Muslims are not doing that badl in secular India. If you complain I would say people fight for some or other reason everywhere in India, the recent attacks were from 'Marathis' against 'North Indians' who came for livelihood in Mumbai. There can be no total equilibrium in a multicultural nation. But as we develop, there will be more and more harmony.
Search yourselves dude...
Indians and Pakistanis share a lot of culture and similarities.
They are close enough
The point stands.
I will point out some of the difficulties from the Pakistan side which prevent a 'living together' apart from all the blood that was lost. This is more about the thinking part.
Pakistanis hold the reason for the creation of their nation as very sacred(every nationalist should). The reason being the notion that 'Muslims cannot prosper under a Hindu majority'.
In line with that they feel that Indian Muslims are living under low standards and that they are persecuted and harassed by hindus.
And they feel emotional about this and so picture India as a bad country and an enemy of Islam. But Indians regardless of religion do not feel anything in return. The hindu fanatics show these and entice people to treat Indian Muslims are aliens. Many people used to belive them when there was less media. And there would be 'retaliation'. Similar provocations used to happen in madarasas. But today these activities are getting more and more cornered into rural undeveloped areas because people know better. This is partly why we see less and less of local jihadi attacks.
The low standards part is true, but atleast a hint of it is because generally Muslims have high fertility rate and still a good number of them study in madarasas. The age-old low standards still remains and but are better now.
I think India and Pakistan can form a loose EU kind of union.
When this happens Kashmir would not matter if both countries feel secure. After all people here would agree that 'Pakistan is ours(our=India+pakistan, this as a formal logical statement)'
As for the Indian security, I fear the religion extremism that would come with Pakistan.
What do Pakistanis here fear about this kind of proposition?
x_man
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,012
- Reaction score
- 1
This statement can go well in the archives of this forum as one of the dumbest quotes from a person who is perhaps suffering from an acute superiority complex Is this your best shot? Is this the reason for contention between two countries ?
Sorry for shooting the message and messenger with single shot .But Slugger,I thought you were better than this But guess what? Another disappointment .
Dont worry about our mistakes, we guys know you very well for past 60 years..
As far as friendship with India, it reminds me of the old proverb, I did rather prefer a wise enemy than a stupid friend.
Similar threads
