#187 by BilalM on October 15, 1999 2:03pm PT

"We are looking at the sanctions now. We`ll come to a judgment on that but from a practical point of view most of the sanctions that we can put ARE ALREADY IN PLACE," says Joe Lockhart, Clinton’s spokesperson. This should address one section of the apprehension out there.
Some amongst us have a valid concern about how a ‘product’ of the system can be critical of the system itself. I do feel that what is at play here is bigger than the position my father is currently holding and it will play itself out for the betterment of the country. I am against dwelling too much on individuals and personalities, so I would request a move away from it. We should all submit to higher ideals of social equality and justice that we all believe in and let actions speak louder than words. On a personal side note however, I have faith that my father has the will and the spirit to see this change through. I think my father understands the importance of what this point in time means for Pakistan and its long awaited overhaul of a decaying colonial system. It should suffice to say that at this point, allegiance is to the people of Pakistan and ‘the system’ is in suspension.
This is really not the time to engage in discussion with folks from across the border. If they want what is best for Pakistan and India, my suggestion to them is that they should really try to be reserved in physical and intellectual engagement. One thing that I tend to see time and time again is that most Indians can not, or do not want to understand Pakistan’s reality.
Folks from across the border should indulge in some honest introspection of their own. Understand what Indian policymakers envision the South Asian region to be and understand why Pakistan feels threatened by India. Try not to confine Pakistan in the subcontinental straight jacket. Pakistan is as much part of West Asia, as it is part of South Asia. Understand why the Shimla Agreement was compromised by India’s voluntary and unilateral actions. Understand how India tries to exude a dictative perspective towards Pakistan. How was Pakistan supposed to reconcile the 1984 Indian military action in Siachen against what India declared to be ‘cartographic aggression’? ‘Cartographic’ aggression being that private European and American hiking groups were showing the glacier (a majority of which fell on the Pakistani side according to the northward LOC definition of 1972) as being within Pakistan because they tended to take the easier terrain to the glacier from the Pakistani side. Troops have been dying on both sides, every year since 1984. Kargil was not an isolated, ‘freak’ incident by a ‘rogue’ Army. The magnification of the Kargil conflict to involving the bigger issue of the dispute over Kashmir had a great deal to do with India’s own insecurity about reinforcing its federation and projecting hegemony within South Asia. We need a fundamental change in perspective in dealing with each other going forward.
I would like to exercise my prerogative as a private individual from answering every single individual’s doubt that lingers out there.
Sincerely,
Bilal Musharraf