India sits up and listens

[Aidoneus]

India sits up and listens
By Sultan Shahin

NEW DELHI - Pakistan is often said to be run by three "As" - America, Army and Allah, in that order. Now the latter two, represented by Muslim fundamentalists and their supporters in the army, are teaming up with the Hindu fundamentalists ruling India to reduce the influence of the first A - America - and oust the pro- American, lately pro-Israel, liberal President General Pervez Musharraf. The prize for India: status quo in Kashmir and revenge for the Musharraf-organized Kargil war of 1999. The prize for religious extremists in Pakistani politics and the army: Talibanization of Pakistan and re-Talibanization of Afghanistan.

The chief patron of Pakistan's Muslim fundamentalists, also known as the "Father of the Taliban" and supporter of Osama bin Laden, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, has just finished his four-day surprise visit to India. He is the head of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) and leader of the opposition Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the six- party fundamentalist alliance that holds 20 percent of the seats in Pakistan's National Assembly and which runs the provincial government of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) as a majority, and Balochistan as a coalition partner. Rahman led a delegation of Muslim fundamentalist scholar-politicians.

He was accorded a warm welcome on many fronts. Prime Minster Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that heads India's coalition government, was able to find 90 minutes to spend with Rahman at short notice. Similar courtesy was extended by other top leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Forum) and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS, the fountainhead of Hindu fundamentalism in India).

As if these first-time high-level meetings between Pakistani Muslim and Indian Hindu religious extremists were not stunning enough, Rahman shocked the country, not by his fundamentalist rhetoric - that would have been expected - but by a peace blitzkrieg. He said all the right things that would have been sweet music to Indian ears, but for the fact that the sight of these words emanating from his fundamentalist mouth, so used to brandishing extremist anti-India rhetoric, was incongruous to Indian eyes.

--snip--

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG24Df08.html

...

Ok, lifetime-militant salafist going over to Hindutva nationalists and fascists and playing nice? Bush is better at this reverse-psychology/uniter stuff than given credit for?

[bemildred]

1. Interesting piece.

Not a pretty picture at all.

[Aidoneus]

2. a longer version of his comments

read it a few days ago but didn't grasp the signifigance at the time.

http://web.mid-day.com/news/nation/2003/july/59051.htm

[bemildred]

3. I can't say I quite know what to make of it.

The unification to expel the interloper I understand.
The idea of undoing the partition was a bit more unexpected.
As was the idea of an independent Kashmir.
I suppose he's just throwing ideas out.
There are forces set in motion here the consequences of which
are "poorly understood". It makes me want to think over my
opinions about Musshy too.

[Aidoneus]

4. my first impression,

it's shallow but FWIW, was perhaps that he wants the eastern border a bit more quiet so they can, as that Asia Times piece suggests, work on removing that first "A" from Pakistan and as an extension of that think about that other border instead of Kashmir, hence his insisting that Kashmir & Afghanistan are seperate matters.

Not sure about all of them having this opinion, but I don't think the "fundamentalists" in what became Pakistan ever really supported "Partition" then or now.

Of course the kneejerk reaction among his friends back home is to call him a traitor to Kashmir, India's collective reaction of "...wha? huh?", etc etc etc, but it will be interesting to see where this goes..

[bemildred]

5. I know the partition was another of the Brits' bright ideas.

But I expect the human territorial/nationalist instinct to take over.
I mean, does Indonesia make any sense? Does Iraq? It's a long list.

I think your hypothesis about the other border makes sense. It is
certainly true they cannot be happy about events there, and it is also
true that they are much more likely to make progress there. The Indians
are not going anywhere, we can be kicked out.

I was wondering which side Musshy is truly on. He is clearly the
designated suckup for the USA, but the fact that he has survived this
well this long suggests there is more going on under the table.

[Wonder]

6. also an interesting piece

"Blaming Pakistan and accepting your inability is not a way out. We accept there is a problem, a conflict between us. Now how should we end that? As ordinary people we can only propose things. We say to the Indians, come let us talk, end the conflict."

will be interesting if this could be worked out WITHOUT all the brokering from the outside. "A" being toned down is a challenge considering the intracies and the corruptions. I am not sure it will happen considering the outside foreign counter terrorist collaborations with India.