New Peace Moves ?

Are the new peace initiatives from India to Pakistan really meaningful ?  How many, how many, how many times does the Vajpayee government change it's mind about whether it trusts the Pakistan leadership and what steps should be taken for "peace".

These lines in T V R Shenoy's recent article struck me as certainly requiring some introspection :

There are two myths that continue to bedevil any attempt at a serious analysis of the relationship with our meddlesome neighbour. First: increasing people-to-people contacts will put pressure on the respective governments to improve relations. Second: ameliorating matters should be an easy task given the shared culture.

Who says the people of Pakistan have any influence on their rulers? Not a single ministry has lasted its term of five years, going back to Liaquat Ali Khan. Power in Pakistan does not rest with the multitudes but with the armed forces, the feudal elements, some bureaucrats, and a section of theocrats. Remove the thought of India as a threat and what justification do the generals have to wield power?

Second, what shared culture are we talking about? True, some Punjabis have a little in common with their neighbours. But what of the rest of India? What does a Tamilian share by way of language, clothing, or cuisine with Pakistanis? Yet the ISI is as much a threat to Chennai as to Chandigarh. As General Musharraf once candidly admitted, 'We hate each other!'

Should the US now turn around and walk out of Iraq ?

No.  Just because a few hundred have died and people are comparing Iraq with Vietnam, there is no reason to give up on what has been started, albeit in a wrong manner.  Janadas Devan's article is certainly worth a read. What was wrong were the reasons for the war and the assumptions about how the war and "liberation" would work out in Iraq.  What is still wrong is the refusal to hand over responsibility and authority to the U.N.  What would be worse would be to just walk out of  Iraq.

Democracy in the Middle East ?

Bush may be pushing for democracy in the Middle East.  Howver, in my opinion, he seems to be pushing for the American brand of democracy -- capitalism, the entry of American brands, individuality and unfettered freedom of speech and expression in countries which do not have strong local leadership   ;;   and         pliant or friendly dictatorships in other countries.  I have been asserting that it is not necessarily true that what the Americans think as the right forms of democracy and capitalism are the best ones.  India and Singapore are differing from the US in both "the democratic process" and "capitalism" and yet both are right in their own ways.  It is quite likely that an Islamic democracy can still be a good example in certain circumstances -- Malaysia has faults but is better than some nations friendly to the US.

Will his words "'Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." really mean in the next few years what they seem to mean at first glance ?  Time will tell as to what actions are to follow.