Interesting it is going to be.Mr.Narayanan ,who is the strategic advisor to India government had virtualy backed Mr.Musharaff causing an embarassment to Indian diplomatic world.He had even commented about the possibility of a surge in terrorist activities ,in Mr.Musharraf's void.
I personally feel that Mr.Musharaff could bring in a sort of stability to Pakistan barring the final lap of 2007 wherein incessant car bombings and the assassination of B.B ,shook Pakistan.
Under Mr.Musharaff,minorities were relatively safe and both countries had taken sincere,meaningful steps to mormalize the bilateral relations.
Yea, Indians will miss him b/c he sold the country to Indians against our own national interest.
“As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule.” Albert Einstein
He confronted and handled India quite well despite being on the verge of war with them in 2002. I always admire him for walking upto Vajpayee and shaking his hand at a SAARC conference, but it was all downhill from them. He had too many internal problems and issues afterwards. He also failed to present the Kashmir issue properly, and almost gave up on it, thanks to his crackdown on his own people.
With that said, I dont think anything changes as far as relations b/w Pak and India are concerned.
He confronted and handled India quite well despite being on the verge of war with them in 2002. I always admire him for walking upto Vajpayee and shaking his hand at a SAARC conference, but it was all downhill from them. He had too many internal problems and issues afterwards. He also failed to present the Kashmir issue properly, and almost gave up on it, thanks to his crackdown on his own people.
With that said, I dont think anything changes as far as relations b/w Pak and India are concerned.
Wasnt he responsible for breaking the peace between India and Pakistan when Vajpayee visited Lahore. He was not even ready to handshake Indian Prime Minister as army chief and then he was responsible for Kargil fiasco.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=5]What Musharraf's exit means for India
[FONT=Arial]With the resignation of Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan, there is a growing feeling that Islamabad is likely to be more hawkish on the Kashmir issue and its preoccupations with internal politics may affect the pace of the peace process between the two countries. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Although Musharraf is widely seen as the architect of the 1999 armed engagement in Kargil that led to a suspension of the peace process before its resumption in 2004, his tenure as the de facto ruler of the country for eight years and later as civilian president of the country saw perceptible improvement in the content and tone of dialogue not just over the Kashmir issue but in other areas also. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Nearly two years ago, it was Musharraf who floated a trial balloon in the form of a four-point formula for resolving the Kashmir issue that revolved around self-governance, demilitarisation and a joint supervisory mechanism and making the Line of Control irrelevant through more cross-border trade and [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]travel[/FONT][/FONT][/color][/color][FONT=Arial]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Musharraf was the first Pakistani leader to suggest that Pakistan was ready to give up its demand for an independent Kashmir and assured that Islamabad would no longer insist on plebiscite and the UN resolutions on Kashmir if India accepted his four-point proposal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Although India rejected the proposal, it underlined a significant shift from Islamabad's ideological rigidity to a more pragmatic approach, specially Pakistan's increasing acceptance of promoting a soft border, to resolve a dispute over which the two countries have fought two wars. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]"Musharraf was a little more pragmatic than his predecessors. If we look at his exit purely from viewpoint of its bearing on the Kashmir issue, it's bad news for India," K Subrahmanyam, eminent strategic expert and a keen Pakistan-watcher, said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]"Moreover, we don't know how long will the unity between Asif Zardari, co-chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party, and Nawaz Sharif, head of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), last. It also remains to be seen how stable this coalition will be," Subrahmanyam said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]"In such a situation, there is every chance that Kashmir will become an issue in party politics, with each side trying to outdo the other by more hawkish postures on Kashmir," he said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]"Musharraf was a little more reasonable on Kashmir. But his formulations were something India could not accept," said Kuldip Nayar,
]"The peace process is also likely to slow down due to domestic political preoccupations in Pakistan," he said. [/FONT]
Although India has made it clear that its ties with Pakistan are not individual-specific, there are concerns here that a weak civilian government in Islamabad may not be in a position to wield control over the powerful
establishment and the ISI who are seen to be driving the foreign policy of that country.
"We don't really know who is in control and whether they can rein in forces inimical to Indian interests," a government source, who did not wish to be named, said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Last week, National Security Adviser M K Narayanan had voiced these anxieties when he said that Musharraf's exit would leave "a big vacuum" in Pakistan's politics. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The last few weeks have seen a straining of ties due to India's suspicion about the ISI's involvement in the July 7 bombing of its [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]embassy [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in[/FONT][/color][/FONT][/color][/color][FONT=Arial] Kabul, a spike in infiltration and firing across the LoC.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]After last four years of realistic diplomacy on Kashmir, Pakistan is now reverting to hawkish posturing and is threatening to internationalise the Kashmir issue. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Islamabad has accused New Delhi of excessive use of force and violations in India-controlled Kashmir after protests over transfer of land to a Hindu shrine turned violent.
[FONT=Arial]Compared to this, Musharraf's reign saw marked improvement in ties, after a brief interlude of Kargil misadventure and near-war situation in 2002, and resulted in a slew of ambitious initiatives, including the launch of more cross-border bus services, the restoration of a train link and cross-border confidence building measures like the setting up of an anti-terror mechanism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Terrorism, however, continued to be a serious issue that shadowed their ties, especially after the 2006 bombings in [/FONT][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mumbai's[/FONT][/FONT][/color][/color][FONT=Arial] commuter trains in which India suspected Pakistan's involvement - a charge that was denied by Islamabad.[/FONT]
No matter the wrath of some people,I willl surely call him the best ruler Pakistan ever had.he was pragmatic and confident.His body language would resemble the charecter of a true leader.I always admired him.
Losing people like him is the biggest loss Pakistan will ever have.
Then you wont mind if I call Laloo Prasad Yadav Bhai as the best leader India has produced, along with shotgun pyareylaal rajnikanth as the finest indian actor ever?
No matter the wrath of some people,I willl surely call him the best ruler Pakistan ever had.he was pragmatic and confident.His body language would resemble the charecter of a true leader.I always admired him.
Losing people like him is the biggest loss Pakistan will ever have.
May he gets a consolence and relief !!!
If you liked him so much than why don't you make him president of India?
Then you wont mind if I call Laloo Prasad Yadav Bhai as the best leader India has produced, along with shotgun pyareylaal rajnikanth as the finest indian actor ever?
Yahaan bhi shuroo kiye ,aap?
Well Laloo uplifted Indian railway,which had been running on loss to a great profitable INC ,Spockjaan...
Rajani.,Well he has got lot of admirers,supporters and followers..........I can't comment on his performance.If you want to term him,pls do it and you will get lot of supporters in T.N
Nothing will change. The age old deadlock will continue.
He presented flexibility and forced India into a position where it could no longer chant 'Pakistan is never flexible and never ready to discuss the matter diplomatically'. Too bad nothing was accomplished.
☼Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit☼
☼Appear as you are, Be as you appear.☼ (Rumi)
Both Musharaf (in his last year as president) and the Zardari/Sharief group are no good. Only difference is with Musharaf, when he gave up on Kashmir everybody knew whereas with Sharief and Zardari, nobody will even know - they'll just cut backroom deals.
Now that army has been sent to barracks in Pakistan finally, India has a unque opportunity - they can simply give some money to Zardari and Sharief and these two will make sure of Indian interests.
Similarly, American no longer need any American troops in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Simply credit the Sharief & Zardari accounts in Cayman and they wil make sure there is no Taliban. For the right price they will even produce Osama
Interesting it is going to be.Mr.Narayanan ,who is the strategic advisor to India government had virtualy backed Mr.Musharaff causing an embarassment to Indian diplomatic world.He had even commented about the possibility of a surge in terrorist activities ,in Mr.Musharraf's void.
I personally feel that Mr.Musharaff could bring in a sort of stability to Pakistan barring the final lap of 2007 wherein incessant car bombings and the assassination of B.B ,shook Pakistan.
Under Mr.Musharaff,minorities were relatively safe and both countries had taken sincere,meaningful steps to mormalize the bilateral relations.
What next now?
Musharraf had only laid sweet-cover on hot issues. He banned Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, he didn't arrest the guys, didn't prosecute them. Its the same organization you guys keep crying about in India to have links with SIMI shimi or pimi (whatever) whenever there is a bombing in India. That is just one aspect of how he "handled" extremists. And you guys still want to support Musharraf.
He presented flexibility and forced India into a position where it could no longer chant 'Pakistan is never flexible and never ready to discuss the matter diplomatically'. Too bad nothing was accomplished.
Mere rhetoric does not mean flexibility. After all it the same person who was responsible for the attack on India in Kargil ……. Inspite of that the Indian leadership wanted to continue dialogue with him.
India presented some 12 concrete proposals during 2003. Of the 12 I would like to stress 2 in particular that we can review in view on what has happened recently
The first one was the proposal for opening up travel between the Srinagar - Muzzafarabad. This was a proposal in good faith.
The then Pakistan administration resisted this by insisting on involving UN. And then you claim that Pakistan has been even handed on Kashmir.
Another proposal from India was for treatment of 20 children per year on its own cost. This was after the successful operation on Baby Noor. Now this was in good faith as it was doctors in Pakistan which had felt that India had better facilities in some areas for treatment. How did Pakistan respond ….. they said they will give free to 40 children in Karachi and Lahore. Now after 5 years how many children have been treated in Pakistan? And how many have been treated in India?
To add to this Pakistan establishment came up with another gem
“Pakistan would offer one hundred scholarships for Kashmiri students to study in professional institutions provide treatment for disabled Kashmir’s and assist widows and victims of rape in Indian held Kashmir through international human rights organizations,"
This was supposed to be a confidence building measure from Pakistan to India !!!!!
That is just one aspect of how he "handled" extremists. And you guys still want to support Musharraf.
No one is backing Musharraf .... the offical line is that it is Pakistan internal matter ... period.
What Narayanan has said is just a statement that after his removal there is going to be a vaccum. It has to be read in correct context. India does not want an unstable Pakistan ....... an unstable neighbour is cause for worry for India.
No one is backing Musharraf .... the offical line is that it is Pakistan internal matter ... period.
Sure, after resignation comments like that are coming out. There was one comment in news few days ago which wanted Musharraf to stay (or sorta preferred him), can't find the link right now. Also look at likes of gesto who support Musharraf.
^ The official Indian comment is We do not want to get involved in Pak internal affairs.The ousting is an internal affair of Pakistan
.
I support Mr.Musharaff and I have laid ot my reasons for that also there is a wide media support here in India for him.The Media believes that Musharaff was strong in his words and his commitments .
Kargil is a closed chapter and one can not cry over it again and again.Mr.Musharaff may have been responsible for that but it does not mean that his other qulities should be forgotten sweetly.If that was the case,then there should not have been any Thashkent peace talks,because Mr.Ayyub only started/masterminded Operatin Gibralter.
You can't keep permanent hostilities in diplomacyor politics.
Musharraf had only laid sweet-cover on hot issues. He banned Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, he didn't arrest the guys, didn't prosecute them. Its the same organization you guys keep crying about in India to have links with SIMI shimi or pimi (whatever) whenever there is a bombing in India. That is just one aspect of how he "handled" extremists. And you guys still want to support Musharraf.
True,but you simply can't forget that he had taken iron methods to contain terrorists and Jihadis,if not uprooting them.You simply can't anhilate an organization lke LET that easily, especially when it has got it's strong links and roots in a country where the resentiment for a particular cause is quite active and the organization that works out to meet that resentiment,ofcourse enjoys a deep rooted support from public.
LET is not an organization you can contain fast because of it's presence,it's support in pan region(?).
No offence but Markaz-E-Dawaz is involved in abetting and funding that organization.
Kindly remember that a few petrol pumps in Lahore have openly displayed fund boxed for `somebody`.
Pls remember tht the same Musharaff had carried out a military operation to choke out extremists from La Masjid and carried out military operations in baloch and even*********ted Mr.Nawab Bugti.The same Musharaff carried out military operations in FATA .
You simply can't accuse a man like that especialy when his acts were sincere and sensible.(barring one or two)...............
I still doubt if Pakistan can find a leader to replace him...........
I had hopes in B.B, she also could have been a true leader for Pakistan......................
See in country,that's marred with so many internal issues,people need iron leaders like Mr.Musharaff.Time will corroborate my statement.But still,I do not want to be pessimistic.
Army's power and people's inability to identify or find right leaders for them could be reaons.
Partly political turmoils and army thinks, at times ,democratic leaders can not handle the situation effectively.
Why is that in Pakistan, there is never a smooth transition of power. Either Leaders are dismissed, killed, flee ...
b/c we believe in instant justice so they have to flee or meet the maker...unlike in India half of the members of parliament are either choors or murderers who will never face justice.
Why is that in Pakistan, there is never a smooth transition of power. Either Leaders are dismissed, killed, flee ...
There have been smooth transitions you probably didn't notice. All the govts that came to power were "smooth transitions", sadly most of them were dismissed later on.
^ The official Indian comment is We do not want to get involved in Pak internal affairs.The ousting is an internal affair of Pakistan
Even "official" line before his resignation was kinda supporting Mush, of course after he is gone they'll have to say "oh its their internal matter" to save the blushes.
