Liberalised visa regime
The most heartening aspect of the improvement in Pakistan-India relations is how widespread the sentiment is. Although it is the PPP government that has taken the initiative and tried to wipe out decades of mistrust and hatred, all the other major political parties are also on board with the process. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has gone so far as to say that travel between the two countries should be visa-free. Imran Khan of the PTI has been similarly positive about the burgeoning relationship with India. Also, given the military’s role in shaping foreign policy, especially vis-a-vis India, it is safe to say that the progress in bilateral relations could not have materialised without its consent. Right now, we are taking baby steps but so long as all political actors are on the same page, the chances of lasting peace increase significantly.
The next step should be to initiate further reforms in the visa process so that everyone can benefit from the relaxed rules. People-to-people contact is essential to wiping out hatred and an increase in sporting and artistic ties will make it harder for hawks to win. The Pakistan cricket team’s visit to India next month will be crucial in solidifying the gains of peace. As always, the peace process will eventually run up against the intractable issues of Kashmir and terrorism, but those problems can only be worked out if we continue to lay the groundwork for it.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (28)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I totally agree, in letter and in spirit. Heartfelt thanks for taking time to reply.
Regards.
@Cynical: I did not ask for an apology nor did I want one. I treat people with respect and all I ask is that the same be reciprocated.
I do not have a problem with your views - even if they differ from mine. My issue is that you have said on 3 separate occasions that my post has been made without understanding the whole point, which is rather presumptuous. The reference to cognition and comprehension is in that context and has nothing to do with the remainder of your post which simply articulates your views. While I may differ from some of your opinions, I - of all people - am unlikely to be offended by the mere articulation of differences.
On occasions when I feel that someone's opinion seems different from what I would expect from that person, I will usually ask for a clarification rather than assuming things and implying motives. In almost all such cases, it has helped further the dialog and furthered my understanding of what the person meant. Others have also shown me the same courtesy e.g. Usman in Farzana's OpEd.
I hope this explains where I am coming from.
@gp65
I have offered my apology on some other page, and am doing it again. The current post was posted 4 days ago, long before the apology was sent. In the post under ref. here; You asked a few specific questions in;
'....but would like to ask you both a fundamental question. Why? Why should we look for similarities? Why not acknowledge differences and yet appreciate them? IF it is too much to appreciate differences, surely it is not too much to be tolerant of differences? Why should we diminish the inherent uniqueness that each one of us possesses and attempt to become clones of each other? Why is that wise? Why is that desirable? I attempted a reply with an added emphasis on certain terms. Suggesting 'inadequacies in cognitive and comprehension skills' in someone, whose posts I appreciate and learn (yes!) from, is just not done. However these are my explanation, if I have failed to communicate, the fault is mine. As the recipient of the message, you have the right to judge and your feeling is what matters to me. I regret the discomfort it caused and say, 'sorry'. Hope, I will be forgiven.
@Cynical: Getting a little tired of repeated references across different posts to inadequacies in my cognitive and comprehension skills. Rest assured that being able to read and understand a 10 line paragraph is well within the bounds of my abilities. If my opinion about Rakib's original post to M. Irfan differs from yours, it does not necessarily mean that I did not understand what was said..
@gp65:
Bigotry and distrust is reducing in India between people of different faiths and we do not need any catalysts to reverse the change.
That risk is always there from any source. IMO, India should learn to deal with situations. Both Ind & Pak will be suspicious of each other still & exercise care before granting Visa, which is a privilege & not a prerogative. However....Bigotry, hatred & distrust in India that appear reduced today need no outside help reassert. Let not the tail wag the dog anyway.. Nobody has monopoly on hatred. We are capable of creating a Delhi-84 or Ayodhya-1992 or Guj-2002, Nellie or Bodoland or recent ugly scenes at Mumbai on our own! Pak Catalysts can work only peripherally on Muslims.If Bigotry like that of Sena or Simi goes up, that has to be dealt with sooner than later. Can't tie up future decades of intra-regional trade to a bunch of cantankerous fellows... Hopefully some day in future all this will lead one day to mutually binding extradition treaty to corner criminals/terrorists.
As I mentioned earlier, there were no visas until 1965 – that did not prevent Ayub from drumming up hate and justifying the 1965 aggression.
Diplomats are not much given to swaying with transient human sentiments in their assignments but they are obsessed with ensuring quid pro quo. Hate as associated with some suspicion AND Love as linked with some confidence are not consequences of, but causes for strict or liberal Visa rules. Ayub broke trust by pushing soldiers in civvies across LoC (as per India) or Shastri became "aggressor" by crossing the Border (as per Pak). This resulted in stricter Visa rules by both, breaking off of cultural ties & banning of each others movies, radio, sports visits etc. No such past examples will serve now in the nuclear armed Subcontinent.
@Cynical:
Thanks!! You are correct about the common origins but not many can appreciate that in our day to day lives! And thanks again for suggesting the book by Spencer Wells. I shall read it.
@gp65:
Becoming clones!? Perish the thought! It is obvious that one is not oblivious to differences. The opinion in relation to the Subcontinent as a whole was as follows: "That the wise seek similarities rather than accentuate differences does not mean differences do not exist.We must accept & learn to live with them & even celebrate them." It is only what we choose to stress & for what reason, that matters. This does not mean political correctness to the extent of hypocrisy. At first glance, it would appear that differences are so many that one need not even enumerate them. On the other hand, the similarities are no less.It is accentuating differences to the exclusion of similarities that causes problems where eventually subtle or blatant antipathy chases away any possibility of empathy. To some extent focusing on what differentiates had kept Indian society fragmented & appreciation of symbols & values that are similar has kept India united, despite politically fissiparous tendencies. At times we do find what we look for. When we look for differences, we find them. When we seek similarities, we find those too. When we accept both as reality we discover not only the other person in totality but may be even oneself!
@Cynical, Rakib: "That the wise seek similarities rather than accentuate differences "
I salute the inherent humanity that prompts such a statement but would like to ask you both a fundamental question. Why? Why should we look for similarities? Why not acknowledge differences and yet appreciate them? IF it is too much to appreciate differences, surely it is not too much to be tolerant of differences?
Why should we diminish the inherent uniqueness that each one of us possesses and attempt to become clones of each other? Why is that wise ? Why is that desirable?
@Rakib
Ref: Your commentary on the post from @M. Irfan Maqsood:
An excellent post, both in substance and style (of naration). For me the best part is, That the wise seek similarities rather than accentuate differences Once more I felt vindicated in my belief that wisdom is not exclusive, it's there for anyone, who dares to open the shackles of their heart and mind. Admittedly,easier said than done.
You are spot on. 'Subcontinent is a potpourri of Races'. Further, If we extrapolate backwards, go beyond the subcontinent, then continents until we cover the whole planet, we will actually travel backwards and reach some where in East Africa (leaving aside the debate whether it is from the shores of lake Turkana, or the rocky outcrop of Kibish) and meet the first batch of homo sapiens; the first migrants who subsequently populated the world that we live in today. That makes all of us, member of one and only race i.e. 'the human race'. There are some excellent treatise on the subject. 'The Journy of Man: A Genetic Odyssey' by Spencer Wells (Princetown University Press) for example.
@Arijit Sharma
@M. Irfan Maqsood: ” … We both nations are in fact one race, The Indian Race. … “ So you are not Arabs, Persians anymore ?
This gentleman made a comment; simple, honest and with malice to none. But that's not enough to satiate your exalted ego. He has to cower; has to prostrate and assert further, that he is not an Arab, or a persian. Only then he will earn your mercy and be granted with a membership of this elite club of great 'Indian race'. (His caste grouping, for the time being can wait for the next executive committee meeting) Self-aggrandizement at it's best, sorry, worst. .
@Rakib: There are 8 catagories in the new regime. I agree wholeheartedly with the one category related to businesspeople which the editorial talks about and not with some of the others. The details were covvered in earlier when Krishna had come to Pakistan and signed the new regime.
@gp65:
If allowed I shall revert later; for now a partial response:: The Editorial does not give any such impression that "liberalised" means an open house. The new regime is specific, & more or less conforms to what you think should be the ideal.{Per Edit:The relaxed visa regime will allow businesspeople to apply for multiple entry one-year visas that would increase the number of cities they can travel to and also exempt them from reporting to the police.). If it is too liberalised (whatever that may mean since it's subjective) it will be altered if necessary. If it can't be altered there are other ways to "kill" it. I am certain that the Babus on both sides (Foreign Ministry versus Home Ministry too) will effectively destroy the proposals. Meanwhile Pak Body builders are still waiting for the Visas to India. Some Section Officer in Home Ministry will ensure NOC is not granted till the event is over.
@M. Irfan Maqsood:
We both nations are in fact one race, The Indian Race.
Not for a moment I doubt your noble intentions while humbly disagreeing with this statement. There is no such thing as "Indian Race" and let not Race be the basis for any understanding. If you insist to bring in Race let's accept that this Subcontinent is a potpourri of Races, each different from the other. That the wise seek similarities rather than accentuate differences does not mean differences do not exist. We must accept & learn to live with them & even celebrate them.. Eons later even if Indo-Pak become less than two, they still will be more than one, with the hyphen forming the decimal point.
@Rakib:
One of the few times that I disagree with you. You think the liberalized visa regime wil not be implemented due to bureaucratic apathy and you imply that is undesirable. I feel that liberalized visa should be restircted to 1) businessmen on both sides 2) Accredited scholars, journalists, entertainers (basically well known people) 3) People with immediate families on both sides.
Ignoring a history of Pakistan officially pushing jihadis to India and the blood and treasure spent on LOC spent to prevent infiltration is the type of polyanna atitude which hurts ongoing efforts at establishment of communal harmony within India. Bigotry and distrust is reducing in India between people of different faiths and we do not need any catalysts to reverse the change.
As I mentioned earlier, there were no visas until 1965 - that did not prevent Ayub from drumming up hate and justifying the 1965 aggression.
@BlackJack: Why so? I don't think it should be.
@Arijit Sharma who said that we are Arabs or Persians or so,.... We are the Indian race who were the part of Indus Valley.
@Manoj Joshi, India: Man you need to change your ways of thinking.As you quoted ,that is not how the world thinks.Even most powerful country like america cannot take the risk of open border and visa free entry.Moreover the person who doesnt learn from the history,god never forgive them.
@Manoj Joshi, India: My eyes hurt now.
@BlackJack: There is a need to change our approach towards one another. The perceptions on either sides have been replete with antipathy and scepticism which ought to be changed if amity and cordial relationship has to be developed. India and Pakistan must learn to coexist amicably and the trust deficit should be reduced and if feasible removed.
The developments cannot be more pleasing to the two neighbours The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and The Republic of India having decided to liberalise the visa regimes. Non-Resident Indians and Non-Resident Pakistanis can become the future of South Asia living in each nation. Pakistan and India have started looking towards one another as a business opportunity, which is the core factor that will resolve the age old distrust and antipathy between the two nations. Trade and trade alone can bring in peace, progress and prosperity and generate new avenues of employment in the two countries. Pessimism is to be renounced and scepticism that has dominated the Indo-Pak mindset needs to be made a story of the past. An aspect that cannot be overlooked is that the two nations of South Asia have begun to take lessons from the past and are now trying to change the future which is a development most encouraging and has to be moved forward with optimism along with enthusiasm. South Asia is changing and this is amply clear with the qualitative change in Indo-Pak relationship. Hawks have remained and will continue to plague positive growth and breed negative patriotism but they are now history which they must accept. Indo-Pak Fraternity now has the major responsibility to carry forward the growing closeness between the two countries.
Indians view Pakistans Establishments as duplicitous, deceitful denying . +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Based on six decades of experience.So till Pakistan gets its establishment under civilian control, relations between India and Pakistan should be 'right & proper
@Toticalling:
You mean well & I admire your positive attitude. However....You can ask the Indians & Pakistanis to stop worrying & show greater faith in the legendary inefficiency & obduracy of their country's Government Machinery that loves status-quo. Do have faith in their lack of faith..Both countries need a "foreign hand" to mask their own failures but they don't need whole body of people running amuck. There can never be "Samjhauta" with "Mumbai" either. Besides, even a lowly clerk knows that Ministers come & Ministers go but the Babu-Bureaucrat is Eternal. They ensure that best laid plans of men & mice will come to nought in a trice.
@M. Irfan Maqsood: " ... We both nations are in fact one race, The Indian Race. ... "
So you are not Arabs, Persians anymore ?
@Toticalling: The people who came on boats had to do so because there were 500,000 people on LOC to prevent infiltration. Controlled liberalization that makes it easy for scholars and businessmen to travel back and even where immediate family is divided is definitely desirable but uncontrolled liberalization will undo all the peace that has been gained in J&K by thwarting infiltrators by letting them walk in through the front door.
The notion that easier visa regimes would help to reduce misunderstanding has no basis in fact. There were no visas until 1965 - so why was Ayub Khan able to rake up so much support for his 1965 aggression?
I also do not want hate preaching mullahs from Pakistan to come to India . It has taken decades to reduce bigotry and improve communal harmony within India. Would hate to see it undone.
We both nations are in fact one race, The Indian Race. This is the good step but it has been taken so late. We should open our gates for each other, this is what we need and our ISI and RAW should join each other for counter terrorism. Now its not the time for territorial wars, its the time of economical games, so jointly India-Pakistan can play a good economical game for the welfare of civilians. Oo God give us the right path....ameen.
@Toticalling: Dude - you are looking at one extreme in the picture. The problem is that all those who visit India from Pakistan may not be interested in better relations between the two countries. David Headley (although not on a Pakistani passport) did come on a visa, and now there is scope for many more Headleys. I support increased contact for business people, but argue that we need to ensure that the process for personal visit visa remains rigid and documentation checks rigorous.
That is a good news. Some Indians say that if restrictions are removed, more terrorists will enter India. My argument with these Indian friends has been that the terrorists who attacked Bombay did not possess visas, it is the innocent guy who gets hurts with these 'walls'