The change of perception is plain that during the Musharraf years it seemed we were all about to give big hugs, and then post 26/11 it was back to "I kill you". The same goes for the India population.. from the craze at the Junoon concert of 98 to the anger and fury in Kargil and then 2001.. to the return to "mere dushman, meray bhai" to then back to "we will destroy you and then again "peace must happen" to then again "terrorists".
It has little to do with Pakistan or India, it is a simple reminder that save the few that run nations, the rest are sheep to be led anywhere with a bit of effective rhetoric.
True. But what is the solution? Those few who run the nations will remain, only faces will change. What is most frustrating is that whenever it seens that things are improving, some hostile incident happens and we go back to where we started..even worse.
This reminded me of the childhood story where a man released a ghost from a bottle, in return the ghost promised to fulfill all his wishes, but with one condition, the man must continuously give him new wishes once the ghost fulfills the previous wish, otherwise the ghost will break the neck of the man! Soon the ghost fulfilled all the wishes the man could think of, and the man got very nervous. In the face of imminent death the man then asked the ghost to polish a straight bamboo like glass, the ghost did it, then the man asked the ghost to rub plenty of oil on the bamboo, fix it upright on the ground, and climb to the top of it. Since then the ghost is busy climbing the bamboo, he climbs it a few feet, slips down, and climbs again....that's the relationship between India and Pakistan for last seven decades.
The way I (and most other Indians) see the position of Pakistan:
1. Pakistani army establishment has more say in Pakistani political affairs then it should have, and they have gained such important position through the Kashmir problem. So, they just don't want to solve the Kashmir problem, rather, they make all the effort to keep the fire burning, even by sabotaging any peace effort.
2. Pakistan has released an army of ghosts, those mujahidins, to fight a proxy war with India on its behalf, now if Pakistan tries to lock those ghosts in the bottle again, they will go after its neck!
The way I see our position:
What we are trying to protect is not Kashmir, but India itself. We spend much more on Kashmir than what we gain from it, Kashmir itself is not important in economic terms. Patel didn't want Kashmir, Nehru did, but since history played out in a particular way and we have Kashmir, at least a part of it, we can't let it go. We have some secessionist groups who want to secede from India on ethnic or religious grounds. Allowing Kashmir, or the valley to secede from India practically means offering a successful-model-of-secession-from-India to those groups or any other who might have such desire and embolden them. And we are not even sure about whether Pakistan will seek peace after that or will try to pop-up another Kashmir in some other part of India. Hence, secession of Kashmir is likely to create many more problems for us instead solving anything.
Besides, granting secession to any part of India on religious ground is against the very idea of the secular state of India that was created for the people of any and all religions.
So, where could be the common ground to find peace between India and Pakistan? What
@scorpionx @MilSpec and
@Joe Shearer (if he is here) think?