Guest guest Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 "Sadly, few of them bother to ask the obvious follow-up question: if we are the same people, then why are we two separate countries? It is the answer to that question that determines the course of India-Pakistan relations. The reason we are two different countries is because Pakistan is dedicated to the two-nation theory, to the proposition that Hindus and Muslims are two separate peoples and must therefore live in two separate countries." >BJP News <bjpnews >bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group) >vaidika1008 >[bJP News] Laloo and Pakistan >Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:57:41 -0700 (PDT) > >Laloo and Pakistan >Vir Sanghvi >The Hindustan Times, >August 17, 2003. >http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_341442,00300001.htm > > > Two weeks ago, I wrote about a discussion I moderated at the >Infosys campus in Bangalore. The subject was the North-South divide and >I was struck by the contempt most South Indians seemed to have for the >politicians of our cow-belt. > > > Again and again, the audience would contrast S.M. Krishna and >Chandrababu Naidu with the likes of Laloo and Mulayam Singh Yadav. More >than one person told the story of how people like Chandrababu wanted to >turn their states into the Indian equivalent of Singapore while North >Indian politicians only wanted to engage in cheap populism. > > > As moderator, it wasn't my job to intervene in the discussion so I >did not tell my favourite Laloo Yadav story. Though it is almost >certainly apocryphal (and unfair to Laloo, who is a wise and wonderful >man, or so my libel lawyers have asked me to say), it has a certain ring >of truth about it. > > > A delegation from Singapore goes to Patna. They call on the Chief >Minister and say they intend to invest hundreds of millions of dollars >in the State of Bihar. All they want is that some of the laws and >procedures should be altered to make it easier to do business in Bihar. > > > "And why should I change my laws to suit you?" asks Laloo. > > > Well, say the Singaporeans, we can promise that if you give us a >free hand, in five years Bihar will be another Singapore. > > > "Ha!" says Laloo. "That doesn't impress me at all. Take me to >Singapore, give me a free hand and I can promise you that within five >months Singapore will be another Bihar." > > > I thought of this story when I read about Laloo's posturings >during his trip to Pakistan. > > > The great man was clearly in his element. I trust Pervez >Musharraf, he declared, he genuinely wants peace. Put me in charge, >Laloo seemed to be saying, and in five months I'll make sure that there >will be peace between India and Pakistan. > > > In fact, as we all know, Lalooji is as likely to ensure peace with >Pakistan as he is to turn Bihar into another Singapore. > > > But his rhetoric is instructive. Nearly every open-minded North >Indian who goes to Pakistan comes back saying roughly the same sort of >thing. > > > "My God!" they all say. "It's just like India! There's no >difference at all between us as people. And the Pakistanis are so >friendly! They are so hospitable!" > > > And all of this leads, inexorably, to the same conclusion: if we >are really the same people, then there's no reason why we can't be >friends. There must be some mistake here, which is easy to sort out. > > > Sometimes, if the Indian visitor is gullible - and Lalooji seemed >less gullible than eager to be gulled - then he comes away taking >Pakistani politicians at face-value. They become, as Laloo says of >Musharraf, people you can trust. > > > There's just one problem: no matter how overwhelmed Indian >visitors to Pakistan are, things never really get better. > > > A.B. Vajpayee can go to Lahore, receive a hero's welcome - and >then, only a few months later, it is back to Kargil. Laloo and his >peacenik pals have only just returned but it is safe to say that even as >they were convivially sharing kababs with their Pakistani hosts (all >except for Lalooji who is, of course, a strict vegetarian and therefore >went hungry in Pakistan) terrorists were being infiltrated into India >across the Kashmir border. > > > The reason for this lies within the peaceniks' own rhetoric: we >are basically the same people. > > > Sadly, few of them bother to ask the obvious follow-up question: >if we are the same people, then why are we two separate countries? > > > It is the answer to that question that determines the course of >India-Pakistan relations. The reason we are two different countries is >because Pakistan is dedicated to the two-nation theory, to the >proposition that Hindus and Muslims are two separate peoples and must >therefore live in two separate countries. > > > If you accept that proposition then two consequences follow. > > > One: Pakistanis must hold that Indian secularism is a sham, that >Muslims suffer from the tyranny of the Hindu majority and that Hindus >and Muslims can't live in peace. > > > Two: No Muslim majority region can ever really be a part of India. >If the Kashmir valley has a Muslim majority, then it is, according to >the two-nation theory's definition, an integral part of Pakistan, >occupied by India by force. > > > Almost every aspect of Pakistan's policy towards India has been >governed by these two propositions. Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of >partition. Even while the Indian delegation was there, Pakistani >politicians - including the Prime Minister - repeated again and again >that no peace was possible in south Asia till the Kashmir issue was >'resolved' and the 'suffering' of the Kashmiri people ended. > > > Similarly, why do you suppose Pakistan offers shelter to the likes >of Dawood Ibrahim? Why did the ISI help organise the Bombay blasts? Why >are so many domestic Muslim militants armed and financed by Pakistan? > > > Because Pakistan needs to be convinced that Muslims and Hindus >can't live in peace. Any damage to Indian secularism, and to relations >between the two communities is a victory for Pakistan. > > > So, no matter how nice the Pakistanis are to Indian visitors, or >how impressed Laloo Yadav is with General Musharraf's 'trusting' nature, >nothing will really change between our two countries as long as the >principles of the two-nation theory are upheld by the Pakistani regime. > > > General Musharraf's position, repeated time and again, is that >Kashmir must be settled before anything else goes forward. And his view >of Kashmir is that the election - a triumph of democracy in face of >terror, by any standards - was a farce and that the current state >government has no legitimacy. We are illegally occupying Kashmir, he >says, by using troops to suppress the aspirations of the Kashmiri >people. > > > Does anybody seriously believe that if the General regards this as >the 'centrality' of the Kashmir issue, any kind of peace or settlement >is possible? > > > My view has always been that all those - like Lalooji - who offer >unsolicited tributes to General Musharraf do us no favours. They merely >create expectations that can never be fulfilled - as we saw at the Agra >summit. > > > But there is another route, one that bypasses the General and his >friends in camouflage trousers. > > > Our problem is that the average Pakistani is fed a steady stream >of lies about atrocities in Kashmir, about the manner in which Muslims >are mistreated in India and about the farcical nature of Indian >democracy. > > > The truth is that despite Narendra Modi and other such >aberrations, Indian secularism and democracy do work. If they didn't, >our President would not be a Muslim; he wouldn't even be a civilian. Our >top stars wouldn't be called Shahrukh, Aamir and Salman. And the >National Conference would never have lost power in J&K. > > > The way ahead, therefore, is to let the Pakistani people see how >India has flourished while their country has gone from coup to coup, >bankrupting itself in the process. This can only be done by being open >and transparent in showing off our achievements. > > > Ironically, while Lalooji may have gone overboard, his peacenik >pals actually had the right idea. People-to-people contacts (dreadful >phrase!) are the only way to get around the lies and hostility of the >Pakistani military establishment. We must be willing to allow eminent >Pakistanis - including the media - to come to India and to see how >things are for themselves. It is instructive that while every Indian >cable operator provides PTV, Indian news channels are banned in >Pakistan. We are not threatened by their society; but clearly, they are >threatened by ours. > > > I was encouraged by the Prime Minister's speech on Independence >Day. While he talked tough about cross-border terrorism, he made a >distinction between Musharraf and his commando pals and ordinary >Pakistanis like baby Noor who were treated with love and affection in >India. > > > I think Vajpayee has now got it right. He was too trusting at >Lahore but that betrayal hasn't diverted him from following a path of >peace. But this time, he knows that peace will only come when the people >of our two countries break free of the hatreds foisted on us by such >proponents of the two-nation theory as the Pakistani establishment. > > > Nevertheless, we must be patient. In the short run, we must be >prepared to fight Musharraf militarily, if necessary, no matter what >Laloo Yadav thinks. It is only in the long run that a people-to-people >approach can work. Our strongest asset is our own record. Let >Pakistanis see how much India has achieved in 50 years while their >country has descended into a morass of dictatorship, corruption, >lawlessness, fundamentalism and economic ruin. > > > And who knows, in another 50 years, there may not be a Pakistan at >all? > > _______________ <b>Get MSN 8</b> and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.