07-02-2004, 01:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishal+Jul 1 2004, 03:50 PM-->QUOTE(vishal @ Jul 1 2004, 03:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Like the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, the Indo-Pakistani rivalry is a legacy of history. Itâs roots lie in the Muslim separatist movement of the 1930s and, indeed, can probably be traced back further to the 17 century battle of succession between Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remeber reading the review of his book.
A Review of J.N. Dixit's India-Pakistan in War & Peace
His list of psychological hurdles to normalization has been discussed around at a lenght in some forums
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Towards the conclusion, Dixit identifies a series of Pakistani traits that refuse to live amicably with India.
First, "artificially nurtured memories of Muslim superiority and a subconscious desire to rectify the unfair arrangements of partition".
Second, a certain envy Pakistanis would not acknowledge openly about the failure of their civil society to solidify democratic and tolerant traditions in comparison to an India where khakis and bayonets follow popularly elected representatives.
Third, assumption by Pakistan of the role of protector and overseer of the welfare of Indian Muslims, who in the words of Maulana Azad, could be exploited from forces across the border owing to their "socio-political schizophrenia" since partition.
Fourth, avenging the military defeat of 1971, which is a formal objective declared in the official oath-taking ceremony of every Pakistani officer-cadet when he graduates.
Fifth, irrational faith in the "profound capacity for commitment to jihad amongst the momin", as was publicly declared by Foreign Minister Gauhar Ayub Khan at a press conference in Delhi.
Sixth, confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is an instrumentality to
further geopolitical objectives in Kashmir.
Seventh, widespread belief in the Pakistani establishment and media circles that India is getting exhausted in Kashmir and would not be able to hold on to it for long (a presumption of Musharraf in Kargil). Eighth, and most significantly, "the unarticulated ambition and hope that if India broke up, Pakistan will emerge as the strongest and most powerful political entity in South Asia". (p 392)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remeber reading the review of his book.
A Review of J.N. Dixit's India-Pakistan in War & Peace
His list of psychological hurdles to normalization has been discussed around at a lenght in some forums
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Towards the conclusion, Dixit identifies a series of Pakistani traits that refuse to live amicably with India.
First, "artificially nurtured memories of Muslim superiority and a subconscious desire to rectify the unfair arrangements of partition".
Second, a certain envy Pakistanis would not acknowledge openly about the failure of their civil society to solidify democratic and tolerant traditions in comparison to an India where khakis and bayonets follow popularly elected representatives.
Third, assumption by Pakistan of the role of protector and overseer of the welfare of Indian Muslims, who in the words of Maulana Azad, could be exploited from forces across the border owing to their "socio-political schizophrenia" since partition.
Fourth, avenging the military defeat of 1971, which is a formal objective declared in the official oath-taking ceremony of every Pakistani officer-cadet when he graduates.
Fifth, irrational faith in the "profound capacity for commitment to jihad amongst the momin", as was publicly declared by Foreign Minister Gauhar Ayub Khan at a press conference in Delhi.
Sixth, confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is an instrumentality to
further geopolitical objectives in Kashmir.
Seventh, widespread belief in the Pakistani establishment and media circles that India is getting exhausted in Kashmir and would not be able to hold on to it for long (a presumption of Musharraf in Kargil). Eighth, and most significantly, "the unarticulated ambition and hope that if India broke up, Pakistan will emerge as the strongest and most powerful political entity in South Asia". (p 392)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->