After the assault, Muzamil said his friends were forced to move into the house of another friend, as they feared for their safety. Updates from : NasirKhuehami pic. As a Kashmiri student, I feel unsafe in India. Kashmir is claimed by India and Pakistan, which rule over parts of it. The Indian side of the Himalayan territory has been witnessing an armed rebellion for decades, with many residents supporting a merger of the region with Muslim-majority Pakistan. The game of cricket was played between two international sides.
It was inevitable that one team would win, another would lose. Why are few among you inflicting wounds on the hapless Kashmiri students? Khuehami said at least 14 Kashmiri students were attacked across India following the match, with seven of them sustaining serious injuries. Today the two countries have three wars between them, a game of proxies inside Afghanistan, and a nuclear arms race, as well as a smattering of disputes over territory, water, and trade. Cohen thoroughly explains these problems and ironies, offering several explanations: a clash of civilizations, a competition between secular and Islamic states, territorial disputes, power politics, "psychological abnormalities," and the influence of outside powers.
Instead of favoring one explanation for the rivalry, Shooting for a Century opts for all of them, accurately conveying just how complicated India-Pakistan relations are.
But the real strength of Shooting for a Century is its ability to detail the often-enigmatic psychology of the conflict in both Indian and Pakistani minds. By taking this approach, he invokes a historical sense of togetherness that is often neglected in the discussions of the conflict.
This Janus-like existence is proof that the legacies of colonialism and the trauma of partition still linger, not just in the form of anger, but also as sadness, fear, and regret. Indian political psychologist Ashis Nandy has eloquently described this paradox: "Pakistan is what India does not want to be… both a double and the final rejected self… the ultimate symbol of irrationality and fanaticism.
Shooting for a Century offers a thorough and balanced analysis of a discussion that is chaotic, confusing and overly biased. Yet the book offers no new ideas. Ironically, Cohen spends most of the book detailing the intractability of the conflict, claiming chances are high it will never be resolved, only to include a chapter on "Prospects.
It is at this point that Shooting for a Century becomes repetitive, and the continued onslaught of reasons why India and Pakistan hate each other begin to fatigue the reader.
Cohen does acknowledge that a "qualified optimism is emerging on both sides and enthusiasm among Pakistanis , especially after the decision in to accept Indian trade terms. Trade normalization alone will not fix everything because, as Cohen points out, any prospect of major breakthroughs can easily "be blown apart" by serious miscalculations, faulty foreign interventions, or terrorism. There are too many spoilers between India and Pakistan for one facet of their relationship to become an all-encompassing solution for peace.
Cohen mentions dialogues between former policymakers and civil society organizations, backchannel discussions between government officials, and foreign efforts to normalize, but concludes that none of them will work.
Instead, he makes a prediction: trade openings will reduce tension, but a "hurting stalemate will continue. He offers a few other scenarios worse than this one, and in the end, none lend themselves to optimism. He dismisses as insignificant the ongoing efforts to collaborate on energy, the environment, and accepting the status quo in Kashmir.
While Cohen could have written a more succinct book with a sharper argument, his reasoning is right on the mark. During the Cold War, Pakistan accepted millions of dollars in U. The Americans and Soviets were able to use India and Pakistan in their cold war fight, while the Indians and Pakistanis used their external allies to strengthen conventional military capabilities against the other.
Cohen begins the book by blaming the British and ends it with blaming the Americans. In the final chapter on "American Interests and Policies," he writes, "the Obama administration failed to develop a South Asia policy that would have encompassed both India-Pakistan relations including Kashmir and the grinding war in Afghanistan. Holbrooke, was persona non grata in India, where "Indian officials were so irritated with his mandate that they made it inconvenient for Holbrooke to visit New Delhi.
But Holbrooke was keen on taking a regional approach — something that the Pakistanis themselves welcomed. Pakistan has always wanted the United States to serve as mediator in its conflict with India. The India policy apparatus within the U. Holbrooke finally made it to India in July By that time, he understood that getting it right in Afghanistan meant that India and Pakistan had to start talking — and President Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed.
Holbrooke wanted to host a "quadrilateral" dialogue between the United States, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan that would be similar to the trilateral dialogue he had initiated between the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It was the only way, Holbrooke thought, to fix Afghanistan, where India-Pakistan tensions bolstered local conflicts. Corning Gorilla Glass TougherTogether. ET India Inc. ET Engage. ET Secure IT. Web Stories. Morning Brief Podcast. Economy Agriculture. Foreign Trade. Company Corporate Trends. Defence National International Industry.
International UAE. Saudi Arabia. US Elections World News. Sruthijith K K. Rate Story. Font Size Abc Small. Abc Medium. Abc Large. The first-time Indian visitor to Pakistan is more likely to be struck by our similarities than differences. The dusty plains of rural Punjab are the same on both sides, complete with crop burning. Lahore looks no different from any major north Indian city.
0コメント