Pessoal,
Segue abaixo uma verdadeira aula sobre a questão da Índia e Paquistão. Quem nos presenteou com as informações, foi o meu amigo Haris Gazdar, diretor do Collective for Social Science Research em Karachi no Paquistão.
Ele me enviou este e-mail motivado pela coluna "você sabia?" deste blog e, gentilmente me autorizou a publicá-lo.
Quem quiser conhecer mais o trabalho realizado por Haris e sua equipe, acesse:www.researchcollective.org
Dear Juliana,
The history of the 10 January agreement is quite colourful.
The war started in September 1965 and there was a ceasefire pending
negotiations within a couple of weeks. The Soviet Union emerged as a key intermediary and invited both sides to a conference in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Indian delegation was led by Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. The Pakistani team was headed by the military dictator President Ayub Khan. His Foreign Minister was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who later became famous as the first elected Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Bhutto claimed that Ayub had got scared and conceded too much to India in the negotiations despite an equal military outcome. He resigned soon after and led a successful campaign against Ayub. Shastri, meanwhile died of a heart attack in Tashkent just a day after signing the agreement. But there was no nuclear threat in that war because neither country possessed an atom bomb.
India and Pakistan went to war again in 1971, and this was a complete military
defeat for Pakistan. The Pakistan military was also accused of war crimes
against its own population in East Pakistan, which rebelled and became Bangladesh. (Its leader Sheikh Mujib Rehman was assassinated in a military coup in 1975).
Bhutto emerged as a powerful leader after the defeat and restored national pride through populist politics and skillful diplomacy. In India the founding Prime Minister's daughter Indira Gandhi had been asked to take charge of the ruling Congress Party and the country after the sudden death of Shastri in Tashkent. She was the main force behind the 1971 war on the Indian side, and she also became a very powerful leader.
In 1974 under her command India carried out its first nuclear explosion to prove that it had acquired nuclear capability. Bhutto speeded up Pakistan's own
nuclear programme in response.
In 1977 Bhutto was overthrown in a military coup and then executed on trumped up charges in 1979. He became very popular in opposition and became known as a martyr after his execution. Indira had become increasingly dictatorial and lost the Indian election in 1978. She amazingly regained popularity and then returned as Prime Minister a few years later, but was shot dead in 1984 by her own bodyguards. Later, in 1991, her son Rajiv who was fighting an election campaign was killed in a suicide attack carried out by Sri Lanka's separatist Tamil Tigers (they are currently facing military defeat). Zulfikar Bhutto's daughter Benazir replaced him as leader of his People's Party, and was twice elected as Prime Minister. Her first period in government coincided with Rajiv Gandhi being prime minister of India.
They tried unsuccessfully to improve relations between the two countries but were sidelined by hawks on both sides. Benazir was assassinated in a suicide attack on 27 December 2007 after an election rally.
Today Rajiv's widow Sonia Gandhi is the most powerful politician in India, and Benazir's widower Asif Ali Zardari is the president of Pakistan. After the recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai, for which Pakistani groups are blamed, Zardari spoke to Sonia Gandhi and reminded her that both their families are victims of terrorism. He used a saying in our country which translates as: your loss reminds me of my own grief. Currently both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, which is why all responsible people are so eager for them to avoid a further war following bad blood over Mumbai.
Bhutto and Indira both were leftist populists with strong nationalist rhetoric
who coincidentally emerged out of the 1966 Tashkent accord. Their children
Benazir and Rajiv moved centre-left and were sought cooperation rather than
military conflict - but were both too weak to resist the hawks on their own sides. It is now the turn of Bhutto's son-in-law and and Indira's daughter-in-law (both of whom say they will leave centre-stage when their children are ready to take over their party leadership) to play a role in achieving lasting peace. The challenges are huge, but a friend of mine in Brazil reminded me in her blog that change might be possible in 2009. And of course, apart from these two tragic families there are hundreds of millions others in these countries - intelligent, smart and charming ;) - who will make a difference.
And oh yes, in case you wondered about Sheikh Mujib the leader of Bangladesh who was killed in a military coup in 1975-well, his daughter Sheikh Haseena Wajed has just won a landslide in the Bangladesh elections last week.
This in a nutshell,is a brief political history of an entire region.India and Pakistan might find peace in 2009, Bangladesh starts the new year with a new government after two years of military rule, Sri Lanka might be about to end its 26-year civil war, and Nepal will have its first full year as a republic after over 200 years of monarchy.So despite all of the difficulties,my Brazilian friend might be right after all.
Warmest,
Haris.
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
Um comentário:
Cara, algumas coisas consegui perceber logo de cara tanto na socieade indiana como na paquistanesa outras só analisando calmamente.
Primeira coisa: Eita povinhos pra gostarem de votar na mesma família/partido! Parece que são eleitores paulistas! (risos) É a filha do Bhutto, depois vem o viúvo dela, depois a irmã de criação, isso do lado paquistanes, aí do indiano: um sujeito que morreu de ataque cardíaco após assinar um acordo de paz do nada, depois a indira ghandi, o filho, a neta, ah, dá um tempo! Pelo que dá para perceber, não tem verdadeiramente muita alternância de poder não, apesar dos regimes serem democráticos (na marra pelo lado paquistanês) é de se perceber uma clara falta de inteligência política, as pessoas votam nos símbolos e não na real capacidade deles de realizar feitos.
Nada pessoal contra os políticos paquistaneses e indianos, mas o que se vê, agora falando um pouco da índia: é um país que é desenvolvido tecnologicamente, é uma potência militar e nuclear, e no entanto tem uma grandiosa quantidade de pobres, uma população imensa ignorante (mais de 1 bilhão de população e taxa de analfabetismo de quase 50%, é como se juntassem quase 3 brasis só de analfabetos) e esse maldito sistema de castas que segrega o sujeito ao nascer (pelo lado da etnia hindu) e muçulmanos que não foram para o paquistão na época da divisão e não se sentem confortáveis cercados por hindus. NOta histórica: Para quem não sabe, ao sair do jugo inglês, tentaram dividir o território da colônia em um país muçulmano e outro hindú (paquistão e india). mas de fato não tem uma separação nesses dois países, apenas maioria. A briga de fronteiras e por territórios dos dois países tem pano de fundo religioso e cultural, na minha humilde opinião esse tipo de conflito não se resolve com bombas, mas com bastante diplomacia. Dou extremo crédito ao autor do texto citou os atrapalhantes "hawks" os falcões, ou seja, os militaristas que não perdem a oportunidade de ganhar cada vez mais verbas do governo em troca de uma bela disputa estúpida, sabotando tudo e todos que estiverem no meio do caminho. Sei lá, isso me lembra ytzhak rabin e yasser arafat, não? Abraço a autora do blog, uma pessoa formidável e parabéns ao autor do texto.
gustavus.
Postar um comentário