16
Apr

Realpolitik Rules

   Posted by: gargi   in India

Add Comment

Travelling around the Indian blogosphere over the last week or so, found a number of posts that were saying “No to Musharraf”. The banner goes - “you are not welcome evil dictator.” and ends with “you may find yourself in India, but it is not in my name”

Funnily this is the same set of bloggers who declared a semi constitutional crisis when Narendra Modi - the butcher of Gujarat - was denied a visa to the United States.

Peace with Pakistan, means dealing with whoever they have at the top. And President Musharraf is in control for now. And he seems a better bet than half the wahabized leaders that are sprinkled across the country. Atleast, Musharaf is predictable, and plays more or less by the rules.

I think that the Governments of India and Pakistan are playing out their own version of Realpolitik. Which seems to be a more sensible and development orientated strategy than all the mindless, patriotic posturing that both sides have indulged in over the last 50 odd years.

When President Musharraf comes to watch Pakistan lose to India on Sunday, he will find himself in India, in my name. And hopefully, the names of a lot of Indians who want peace and progress.
But, i still hope that India beats Pakistan on Sunday:)

Sphere: Related Content

Related Reading

Tags:

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 16th, 2005 at 9:16 am and is filed under India. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 comments so far

Patrix
 1 

Dealing with Musharraf is not the same as dealing with Pakistan. Agreeing to talk to him is granting legitimacy to his dictatorship…same goes with talking to the King of Nepal right now. Let democracy be restored and I don’t think the ’same set of bloggers’ would have any problems.

May 14th, 2005 at 3:01 am
gargi
 2 

About half the countries that India has relations with across the world are dictatorships. Some worse than Muaharraf.

The other half includes Democracies with whose interventionist policies we have major issues. The US and Iraq is a case in point. or Israel and the state of Palestenian people is the other. I am sure that we are going to have a major fallout with the Vatican sooner or later on their stand on contreceptives in the fight against AIDS and population explosion.

And these differences are not just policy differences - but fundamenatal issues. In the same league as Democracy and Dictatorship. By your logic, dealing with the US is granting legitimacy to Iraq, dealing with China is granting legitimacy to state sponsored repression, Dealing with Israel is denying the right of the Palestinians. If nations start taking this sort of a stand, it would end up being very isolationist. So why target Nepal and Pakistan. Democracy is the preferred state, and it probably will be achieved better through interaction than isolation.

May 14th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Dilip D'Souza
 3 

Just to say I’m with you on this. I think Musharraf’s regime is a window of opportunity for India; because if some unpredictable nut like Nawaz Sharief comes back to power there, all bets are off. (Though, as you point out, we’ll still have to negotiate with that guy as the head of the state).

May 14th, 2005 at 10:53 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment
Back to top