CRamS wrote:I don't know about M.J.Akbar's stance on Aman Ki Tamasha, but if did support MMS's surrender then its disingenuous to criticize MMS now because this is precisely the out come one would have expected. And the very premise of Aman Ki Tamasha is "looking to the future" meaning 26/11 is history. MMS's minions have to make some noises about 26/11 but thats only for some public consumption. In other words, one cannot support Aman Ki Tamasha and expect any other outcome, TSP is not going to surrender at the altar of this piss process what it was not forced to do prior to the piss process. So while M.J.Akbar makes sense, I need to know his position on Aman Ki Tamasha before praising him.
CRS, here's a take from another one of the proponents of Aman Ki Tamasha and an uber WKK - some nuggets which should give an idea about this nonsense that's going on ... posting in full:
Beyond Malik’s gaffe-prone visit
Only when the dust raised by Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s gaffe-prone visit to New Delhi settles down will the contours of what it actually achieved to strengthen bi-lateral ties begin to emerge. This is unlikely to happen soon for Malik’s provocative statements have incensed Indian public opinion. He spoke of the demolition of the Babri masjid, the Samjhauta Express bomb blasts and the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in the same breath; he made obscene comments on the death of Capt. Saurab Kalia in Kargil; he claimed that Abu Jundal, a Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist, was working for an Indian intelligence agency; and, not least, he reiterated that India had not provided hard enough evidence to prosecute Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attacks.
The Pakistan Interior Minister subsequently tried to make amends by clarifying that his statements had been misrepresented in the media but these are not going to easily undo the initial damage. Those utterances, it is clear, were aimed at Malik’s domestic constituency including, in the first place, the army establishment whose intelligence wing continues to protect jihadist outfits in the country that serve its purpose.
Routine judicial delays alone cannot explain the fact that Pakistani courts have not been able to convict the accused in terror-related incidents that have taken place even on that country’s soil. To expect them to prosecute the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks is therefore akin to chasing a chimera. Moreover, Malik, who has also to keep in mind the impending general elections in Pakistan, could not afford to be seen to be ‘soft’ on India especially as a guest of the country. He thus stuck to a well-rehearsed script.
Against this background, New Delhi has responded to the Interior Minister’s remarks with a judicious mix of toughness and pragmatism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has left him in no doubt that he will not visit Pakistan unless there is a clear movement forward in the prosecution of the accused in the Mumbai blasts. The Home Ministry too has shown him his place by pointedly refusing to issue a joint statement and indeed by calling his claim about Abu Jundal ‘ridiculous.’
Alongside, however, an agreement has been reached for a Pakistan judicial commission to visit India to cross-examine the 26/11 witnesses and for our National Investigative Agency to visit Islamabad in mid-January. Add to this the signing of a liberal visa regime and the prospects of enhanced trade relations between the two countries. Malik’s visit has by no means eclipsed the ‘asha’ for ‘aman.’
This should become in more and more obvious the coming days. One pointer would be the outcome of the current visit of the moderate faction of the Hurriyat to Pakistan. Its head, Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, has been urging India and Pakistan to facilitate a hassle-free movement of people and goods across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. And he has called on Islamabad to insist that Kashmiris – meaning his separatist faction - must be treated as privileged interlocutors to settle the Kashmir ‘dispute.’
On the first score the prospects are reasonably bright. On the latter score however New Delhi can engage with the Mirwaiz only if his Hurriyat faction abjures separatism. Whether his Pakistani hosts make him see reason is still a matter of speculation. Much depends on how far the army establishment is prepared to go to place strong ties with India ahead of its so-called strategic interests in J & K. It is significant that Rehman Malik never mentioned the ‘K’ word during his visit. But one must not clutch this straw in the wind.
The reason is simply this: the Pakistani army still nurtures the hope that the forthcoming withdrawal of Western forces from Afghanistan will enhance its bargaining position with Washington. In return for its willingness to ensure that Afghanistan remains stable and united in the post-withdrawal phase, it will doubtless expect some sort of a quid pro quo from the Americans. And that could be American pressure on India to make tangible progress to settle the Kashmir ‘dispute’ in order to re-deploy Pakistani troops along the Afghan border.
Nothing – not even a substantial role for India in Afghanistan – can allow New Delhi to succumb to this pressure, especially as the much-battered UPA-II readies for the general elections. What the government can do – and indeed what it is already doing to some extent – is to take baby-steps to mend fences with Pakistan and to engage with stake-holders in Jammu and Kashmir to address all issues of interest and concern to its people squarely within the Constitution of India.
This means jettisoning all shades of separatism, upholding the special status the state enjoys under Article 370, devolving real powers to the regions and sub-regions, seeking the rehabilitation of communities forced to flee their homes, especially the Pandits, and making the LoC redundant in all but the name. This also means that the Pakistani army gives up its self-defeating policy of using the terrorist outfits it supports to create mayhem in J & K. A tall order? Sure. But the alternative – a stalemate – can be even more self-defeating. Rehman Malik’s visit could well be seen in retrospect as one of the many pieces of a puzzle falling in place.
Specially the last line ...
A tall order? Sure. But the alternative – a stalemate – can be even more self-defeating. Rehman Malik’s visit could well be seen in retrospect as one of the many pieces of a puzzle falling in place.
Sure he doesn't explain, what does India loose by taking a tougher stance of atleast severing all diplomatic and "people-to-people" contact nonsense with them. The all powerful army there will continue to dictate their blood-thirsty actions against India anyway - so why is it "even more self defeating" for taking such a stance in the first place. Surely, he doesn't want to us to believe that because of this Aman Ki Asha and other surrendering posture, they will not ask for a " quid pro quo from the Americans" wrt a Kashmir solution favorably to them.
Still, IMO it does give a rare glimpse of the rational/logic/whatever-you-call-it that's driving the current set of actions/utterings of GoI and also atleast some of the wkk crowd, don't you think?
SSridhar, Shiv et all your views pls.