Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
Hopes low, stakes high when Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers meet
Email 
Print
Perhaps one of the most telling features on the media commentary ahead of a meeting between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan in Islamabad this week is the lack of it. Expectations could hardly be lower.
Part of that is the nature of the actors involved. In India, policy towards Pakistan is set by the prime minister’s office, not the foreign ministry. So External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna is not in a position to deliver the kind of breakthrough that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh achieved at a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani when both agreed at a meeting in Thimphu, Bhutan in April to try to find a way back into talks broken off by the November 2008 attack on Mumbai. In Pakistan, the army retains a tight grip on foreign and security policy, limiting in turn the kind of concessions that Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi might make.
Part of the low expectations come too from the very limited agenda set for the talks - to work out ways of reducing the huge trust deficit between the two nuclear-armed rivals. Or as the Indian foreign ministry described it in a terse statement on its website:
“In pursuance of the mandate given by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, during their meeting at Thimphu in April, 2010, to the Foreign Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of both the countries to work out the modalities of restoring trust and confidence in the relationship, thus paving the way for a substantive dialogue on issues of mutual concern, Hon’ble External Affairs Minister, Shri S.M. Krishna will visit Pakistan from July 14-16, 2010 for bilateral discussions at the invitation of H.E. Mr. Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
And they come too from a long and weary history of two countries which have tried, and repeatedly failed, to settle differences dating back to the partition of the subcontinent by departing British colonial rulers in 1947 – and indeed even before that when warring political parties wrangled over whether Muslims needed the protection of a separate homeland or whether they could achieve their political aspirations in a united India.
Over the years, any number of forums and formats have been tried out to find a way towards peace. There’s the formal peace process, known as the Composite Dialogue, broken off by India after the Mumbai attack blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, and yet to be resumed. There’s informal “backchannel diplomacy” – secret talks between special envoys held away from the glare of the media – which came near to a breakthrough on Kashmir in 2006-2007. Then there are “Track Two” talks – conferences held by intellectuals, politicians and retired military officers from India and Pakistan acting in a private capacity without the endorsement of their governments to try to seek common ground.
And equally, over the years, any number of proposals for peace have been put forward, from the “solve-Kashmir-first-and-the-rest will-follow” school of thought to incremental measures like increasing trade, relaxing visa restrictions and improving people-to-people contact in order to build enough confidence to start tackling the more contentious issues.
In the middle of those two approaches, are suggestions that India and Pakistan should try to resolve one of their conflicts which are substantial, but less emotional than the dispute over Kashmir – for example by ending the conflict fought over control of the mountains above the Siachen glacier in the Karakoram mountains since 1984. That in turn would provide enough of a breakthrough to justify a peace summit between the leaders of the two countries and provide the momentum for intensive talks on resolving Kashmir.
Each one of those options has been tried (India and Pakistan had a tentative deal on Siachen as early as 1989); and each one of them has failed – often because some external event got in the way, from a big militant attack, to a change of government, to a major geopotical upheaval like the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year. So what will it take to break that logjam?
At your most pessimistic, you might conclude that both countries tend to make more progress towards peace after major crises. A near-war between India and Pakistan in 2001-2002 led to fresh talks and a ceasefire on the Line of Control dividing Kashmir in 2003 – one that has more or less held to this day. Even the 2008 Mumbai attack led, after an Indian election won in the middle of last year by the Congress party, to a fresh burst of diplomatic activity which eventually dissipated again into mutual recrimination.
If you wanted to find a historical parallel, you might argue that it took two world wars for France and Germany to settle their differences.
Yet neither India nor Pakistan can afford now to wait for a crisis to happen. Over the last couple of years, Pakistan has faced its biggest existential challenge since 1971 (when then East Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh); facing a wave of bombings which are gnawing through the country’s heartland Punjab province. Whatever else India might wish on Pakistan, it does not want to see its neighbour disintegrate in ways which would make Islamist militancy even harder to control, and bring the war in Afghanistan right up to its own borders. Add to that the dangers of all-out war between two countries with nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them, and a tendency to be over-complacent about how well they know each other — and therefore to misjudge each other’s red lines – and you have the potential for disaster that would make the nine-year Afghan war look like a sideshow.
The foreign secretaries, or top diplomats, of India and Pakistan have been working hard behind the scenes to pave the way for the talks between their foreign ministers. More recently, they will have had to work out how to stop the latest flare-up in violence in Kashmir from souring the mood. We will find out this week whether they have come up with an imaginative way forward. Or whether the low expectations are justified.
(Reuters photo: Indian and Pakistani prime ministers in Bhutan)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
fifty_cent, you just killed it man!
Let me try…
—————
I am posting this because somebody argued about searching “Kashmiris cheering Pakistan” and used google search results count as a barometer of Kashmiri people’s support to Pak-based terrorists.
Now eat this:
Pakistan is the number one Muslim nation to achieve total safety for its women from harassments of any kind. Guess what? The men are more interested in donkeys, horses, and don’t raise eyebrows you dwarfs, CAMELS !!!!!
Google “Google ranks Pakistan No. 1″
Another golden feather, yay!!
@“Pakistan ranked #1 in the world for xxx rated website searches” – Fox News
Land of the pure, indeed!
Posted by fitty_cent
Interesting indeed….maybe they’ll ban google now
@KP Singh, RajivK
There is no need for you to spit out so much venom in your post. after all we are human species. We do feel each others concerns and condemn violence when it takes place. Otherwise there would be no need to express our opinions on this forum. I have never indicated that I support a certain group of people or their actions. I read history and write history as much as I consider it nearing truth. I am also prepared to correct my findings when need be. I am always trying to forecast consequences short term and long term within the span of fifty years. I have no patience for the causes you mention of human failures. India is paying a price and is likely to pay for the wrongs it commits and I place Pakistan in the same category. The USA administration for the last several decades, assisted by their “Think Tank” neo conservatives have issued more fatwas than the muslim clergy including the khomenis of this world have. You do not regard the allocation of labels, initiating sanction regimes and wars against sovereign countries as FATWAS, then you are not even able to translate FATWA in English. If Bill Clinton had not ordered the blind firing of tomahawk missiles towards Afghanistan, perhaps there would not have been the retaliation from the ARABS, not Pashtoon Afghans, in NY. The USA is now involved with Pashtoons and not Arabs, we are witnessing the consequences being carried out by the US citizens. You guys lament over the attack in Bombay by the Kashmiri group, and no one is going to condone this act whatever the causual factor. There is no need in my opinion to blame the Pakistan Govt. Pakistan Govt. is not responsible for Indian security, Indian Govt. is!! It is upto the Indian Govt. to stop the military operations in Kashmir or drop a nuke in Pakistan where according to their intelligence info the Kashmiri groups are stationed and organising violent missions. Simaltaneously Indian Govt. should recognise that this will trigger off automatically without the involvement of Pakistzan Govt. or the military, a nuke response eliminating the entire Indian sub continent. Are you surprised, or shocked? This is the reality and is the consequence. You are not aware of this mechanism, then the Nuke Generals have not told the truth to the Indian Govt.
What should therefore be the response of the responsible Govts. of our times is to avoid sources of conflicts paticularly betwee nuclear countries and let the nukes go to sleep for ever. Perhaps there is the need to reset the diplomatic clock and use a dialogue instead of threats in this modern age. The USA is not a good example and this is the tragedy of our modern times.
Rex Minor
Saif,
I have given my take on how to go about things.
I have no issue on any of the points you raise save one. The monthly meeting business seems a bit dodgy to me. For the simple reason that such meetings, too frequently, will not serve the purpose. Things will move faster if backed predominantly by public opinion. Public opinion will change faster if there is more interaction at the man in the street level, not officialdom. Officialdom must perforce follow political lines and be pig headed, public sentiment generates more optimism offialdom generates stubborness and inflexibility.
Saif,
I commend you for breaking from the cycle of mutual abuse to propose practical steps towards normalisation of relations. I’m probably biased as an Indian, but I think if support for terrorism by Pakistan was observed by Indians to have stopped for a number of years, relations with Pakistan would gradually improve by themselves.
We actually don’t need to hold talks immediately, we just need a moratorium on hostility for a few years to let tensions slowly reduce. The same talks can then be had after a decade with much less emotion and much more accommodation on both sides. Borders being made irrelevant is one such relaxed outcome. The Kashmiris will probably be among the happiest people, since they can take advantage of their proximity to two large and vibrant economies without being kicked around like a football by those countries.
I believe the benefits from South Asian cooperation will far outweigh the cost of the problems we imagine exist between our countries today. We’re too focused on today’s issues and don’t stop to think about the possible economic bonanza that will naturally come to two large economies with normal neighbourly trade relations.
In short, my formula is that cessation of support for terror + the passage of time = automatic economic windfall for all the people of the subcontinent.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Let’s say public opinion is improved for a prolonged period and there is good will on both sides for a reasonable period and parties disinterested in peace in south asia are not allowed to derail negotiations by either governments.
what options are acceptable to pakistanis, indians and kashmiris?
1. All of ‘Historical Kashmir’ going to India
2. All of ‘Historical Kashmir’ going to Pakistan
3. Line of Control made ‘irrelevant borders’
4. Regional Plebiscite to join either pak or india
5. Independent Historical Kashmir
6. Independent Kashmir excluding gilgit/baltistan/jammu/ladakh
Thanks.
Ganesh, Thanks. I am sick and tired of mc/bc that goes around as ‘dialogue’ between pakistanis and indians.
Regarding your moratorium proposal, please consider the following:
1. Since India’s position is to maintain the territorial status quo, why would it be interested in negotiating the ‘core issue’ with pakistan or kashmir? Please note, there has been periods of tranquility before but no settlement was reached.
2. I personally think economy/trade carrots is a wonderful idea. However, Pakistanis don’t lay much emphasis on economy/trade as a bargain for what is considered a ‘principled stand’ on a ‘historic injustice’. How would prosperity help in this matter?
Finally, if the above questions are too difficult, what are suggestions after the moratorium?
Saif
Remember one thing, this is just not the right time to talk peace with India. India still is an enemy of Pakistan and until that reality changes Pakistan must not forge peace with those who backstab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE_ZtfvQ g0
Will India-Pakistan Peace Talks Succeed?
Running training camps and sending terrorists by providing covering fire and maintaining that these are non-state actors – backstabbing or front-stabbing?
Time is the only commodity not for sale in the open market.
. The Pakistan civilian Govt. has been given a specified time to resolve its disputes with Indian Govt.
. The Obama administration has been given a time scale for resolving security issues in the middle east. The July conference on Afghanistan should reveal to the world the grand plan of President Karzai.
. 2010 is earmarked for resolution of security concerns around the world. The 2011 is likely to see a new scenario on the horizon when balance of power shift from the US and its European allies would become very visible for the naked eye.
Rex Minor
PS Forgot to mention the details could be followed on BBC world, the first cable net work who is dedicating special reports for the shift in balance of power. A real historical event.
Pakistanis don’t lay much emphasis on economy/trade as a bargain for what is considered a ‘principled stand’ on a ‘historic injustice”
Posted by saif_1980
Saif must have excelled in “Pakistan Studies” in school and it shows here!
Your Kashmir project is continuation of TNT. India cannot accept TNT. We are interested in co-existing peacefully with the territory you got. If you are not, we are very much committed to status quo and fighting it out.
A million things are falling apart inside the present territory you have. Economy has tanked completely with no prospects for recovery. It is on life support from US. Sectarian violence is raging…Blaochis want out. “Historic injustice” in Kashmir is not your problem. The mindset of pak ideology focused on territorial conquest, militarism and war mongering, sponsoring terrorism is what ails you.
I don’t expect to convince you. As I always say here, you do what you have been doing for 63 years, and we’ll do what we have been doing for 63 years. Your terrorism and war mongering have not dented our country or its progress. You talk as if India is some sort of compulsion, which is always amusing to us.
Seeker,
Those words were in quotes for a reason. we must understand each others sentiments even if we disagree with them. whoever comes to a solution will have to account for the others constituencies.
i will add option 7: #7 Status quo
Umair,
The condition may be impossible for politicians and diplomats but not regular people. We have the luxury of assumptions just to see what conclusions we draw. Don’t worry. Nothing is going to change the ground reality.
Based on your comments, I think you are of the opinion that we should continue to support militant movements in JK. Kashmiri situation is not analogous to the Soviet/Afghan war. The Kashmiris are not Afghans/Pushtuns. They are a gentle people not well-suited for guerrilla warfare in mountainous terrain. Also, I don’t like the odds of 4 million Kashmiri civilians (many of them elders, women & children) against a million Indian soldiers backed by a 3 trillion dollar economy. The numbers don’t favor asymmetric options. It will only result in more bloodshed in the valley (the very people pakistan wants to liberate).
Let’s asusume Kashmir gets a true and well-deserved plebiscite. They will certainly not opt for India. They will also not opt for Pakistan! The kashmiri majority will easily vote for independence by a very large margin. The Kashmiris I have talked to have spoken of a ‘union of brotherly nations’ with Pakistan and Independent Kashmir but what does this mean?
What is in it for Pakistan?
Rex Minor:
We are not venting any venom. Persistent view of Indians with contempt has led to that perspective in you.
You mention proudly about your knowledge of history. By reading what you write here, it is very clear that you have a very limited view of history. The problem is that you have your own version of history and you are expecting others to acknowledge it. In my case, I have read the history of the sub-continent from various sources. I cannot speak for others. This is not the history they generally teach in schools. Most of it gets forgotten. I have spent enormous amount of time reading historical chronicles from the past and present to get an understanding of historical events.
You seem to have grown up with the notion that both India and Pakistan are on the same boat, made similar blunders and are suffering at the same time. This is typically a Pakistani’s inability to accept India as being different from Pakistan and more progressive.
Some of the things you claim are outright ridiculous. Emotions seem to flood your senses as you start writing.
Here is some of my understanding history:
1. Pashtuns are not super humans. They can be defeated and contained. Just because they carry AK-47s and hide in caves, it does not make them invincible.
2. Pashtuns did not conquer Hindustan. They were part of the conquering Turkic Central Asian armies which consisted of several tribes ranging from Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, Pashtuns, Punjabis and so on. They all had converted to Islam long ago. They had completely lost their original identity and had identified themselves with the Islamic identity. And they stayed that way for two or three centuries before they came to the borders of Hindustan. They understood the differences that they observed. I don’t know if you have heard of Al Beruni’s writings. After Mohammad Ghori established the first Islamic Sultanate in Delhi, the succeeding Afghan Sultans fought each other as well as expanded their empire. This happened over centuries. Many mingled with the locals and settled themselves into the system. When the Mughals arrived, they were denizens of Hindustan. Most of what became Pakistan was populated by non-Muslims to a large extent. In some places like Bengal, Punjab etc, conversion to Islam took centuries and population slowly shifted in that direction. People still lived alongside each other.
I don’t want to write the whole history here. But no one came to Hindustan to save the locals from their pagan practices. Many of the Sultans and Muslim citizens practiced Hindu rituals, feared charlatans and tantrics. Many took to astrology and were Muslims only from a power holding stand point. They drank alcohol and lived a merry life. Once in a while a Sultan would impose Jazya or break temples. But that was mostly political in nature. They even broke each others’ mosques sometimes.
In India, Muslims are not treated as second class citizens. There is no deliberate attempt. There is discrimination in all forms and it is not exclusively directed at Muslims alone.
I can see from your writings that you have developed a perception of a weak and effeminate India that can be easily rattled by “masculine” tribes from the Northwest. Your words almost sound like a warning to Indians that if they do not get their acts right, the Pashtuns will come back and punish them. This makes us laugh our hearts out.
India and Pakistan chose different paths after they separated. India has nudged along building a nation against the odds. Pakistan has done nothing. It has tried to find a short cut to prosperity by choosing to flex muscles, use power and force and aligned with global conflicts and at the end has bankrupted itself in the bargain. I don’t have to say anything about India. The reality is out there for you to see. India and Pakistan are not equals or rivals. There is a huge difference and you Pakistanis have to recognize that difference. Only then can you focus on your country and its welfare.
@Saif
wrote- Kashmiri situation is not analogous to the Soviet/Afghan war. The Kashmiris are not Afghans/Pushtuns. They are a gentle people not well-suited for guerrilla warfare in mountainous terrain.”
–
So that’s your understanding of Kashmir! It can be charitably described as manifestation of religious fascist mindset.
Indian troops in Kashmir are like Soviet troops in Afghanistan.! Kashmir is linked to our ancient heritage and dotted with shrines. Did the Russians have shrines in Afghanistan? Did the russians share heritage with Pashtuns?
If the Kashmiri muslims in India are in need of “liberation” as you say what about the 170 million muslims who live in the rest of the country across its length and breadth? Are the muslims in Old Delhi in need of liberation as well?
Indian muslim authors, journalists, leaders have written extensively on this. To quote MJ Akbar, India cannot afford to be defeated in Kashmir.
It looks like Paks want more violence. We don’t desire it but we are ready for it. This is one cause I think if I could shed my life it would be worthy cause.
Seeker,
I stated Kashmir/India are NOT analogous to Afghanistan/Soviets. You are hyper-sensitive and might not be suited for this type of discussion.
Saif,
You said K/I is not analogous to Af/USSR because Kashmiris are gentle people. Your post is still there.
I pointed out that they are analogous for lot more different reasons, which you still have not addressed. Instead you have chosen to hide behind a statement i am hypersensitive.
Soviet troops left because they thought they were occupiers. We don’t because we think the land and people are part of us.
typo- meant to say I pointed out that they are NOT analogous for lot more different reasons,
Seeker,
I was talking to Umair who, based on previous posts, feels they ARE analogous and I was telling him how that is NOT the case. Yes, the post is still there.
Seekeroftruth:
Saif1981 is the right guy and my guess is that we cannot classify him as one who is a victim of distorted Pakistan history studies. It is good idea that we do not drive him away. Better to let him play and discuss than talk to lunatics.
Thanks
______________
Saif1981:
My 2 cents:
@what options are acceptable to pakistanis, indians and kashmiris?
1. All of ‘Historical Kashmir’ going to India
2. All of ‘Historical Kashmir’ going to Pakistan
3. Line of Control made ‘irrelevant borders’
4. Regional Plebiscite to join either pak or india
5. Independent Historical Kashmir
6. Independent Kashmir excluding gilgit/baltistan/jammu/ladakh
—
1. I think trying to change the geography would delay or EVEN PERMANENTLY shut doors on Kashmiris for any solution.
Keep the current areas and give autonomy to Kashmiris and let them be part of India and Pakistan.
You said: “Let’s asusume Kashmir gets a true and well-deserved plebiscite.” Unfortunately demography has changed and plebiscite makes no sense.
2. “Making Borders irrelevent”: this is the best option Even PM Singh said that in context of backchannel talks with Musharraf. But I have no idea how this thing will work. India and Pakistan need to trust each other a lot for this to happen.
___________________
@Since India’s position is to maintain the territorial status quo, why would it be interested in negotiating the ‘core issue’ with pakistan or kashmir? Please note, there has been periods of tranquility before but no settlement was reached.
2. I personally think economy/trade carrots is a wonderful idea. However, Pakistanis don’t lay much emphasis on economy/trade as a bargain for what is considered a ‘principled stand’ on a ‘historic injustice’. How would prosperity help in this matter?
–saif: Solving Kashmir and solving Pakistan;s problem of “historic injustice’ may not be the same thing. That is a big problem.
We can discuss what u have een saying but tell me:
1. Pakistan officially asks for self-determination by Kashmiris. But Pakistan does not give self-determination to Kashmris in “AJK”. It has pre-determined that “kashmir banega Pakistan”. Can u reconcile these 2 positions?
Saif,
You mentioned somewhere that you hoped Kashmir gets a plebiscite. Could you elaborate on just how you think this plebsicite should be conducted now after more than 60 years. Who could vote, what would be the monitoring agency? What would be the preconditions if any?
Saif,
Thanks again for engaging constructively.
You said:
> Regarding your moratorium proposal, please consider the following:
> 1. Since India’s position is to maintain the territorial status quo, why would it be interested in negotiating the ‘core issue’ with pakistan or kashmir?
You make the assumption that India’s position is unyieldingly rigid. Read the links I have provided below.
> Please note, there has been periods of tranquility before but no settlement was reached.
Unfortunately, we have never really had long enough periods of tranquillity. The last thaw was just before Mumbai (November 2008). The terrorist attack was particularly bad timing for those who were arguing for more freedom for Kashmiris, because it straightaway put the entire Kashmir issue on the backburner and the terrorism issue came to the forefront. I’m not just expressing a personal opinion here. In the months before November 2008, many prominent Indian intellectuals had begun to argue for “letting Kashmir go”, and an opinion poll indicated that 30% of the urban Indian population was prepared to let Kashmir go.
Vir Sanghvi: http://bit.ly/byFBQ8
Jug Suraiya: http://bit.ly/bQvH2K
Swaminathan Aiyer: http://bit.ly/dzEycw
Arundhati Roy: http://bit.ly/7EHxEh
The opinion poll: http://bit.ly/cScir2
Arundhati Roy summed up the collective fatigue of many Indians when she said “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as, if not more than, Kashmir needs azadi from India.” What do Pakistanis have to say about that? It’s hardly a rigid attitude.
I have argued as much on my own blog, albeit from the angle of economic resource allocation: http://bit.ly/9766vC
Who knows what a prolonged moratorium will bring? You probably know the fable of the Sun and the Wind. The more the Wind blew to get the man’s jacket off his back, the tighter he held onto it. But when the Sun began to shine and it got really warm, the man took off his jacket by himself.
Pakistan needs to let the sun of peace shine for a few years and not keep blowing the winds of terrorism onto India. You may get want you want without firing a shot, and then wonder what the fuss was all about.
> 2. I personally think economy/trade carrots is a wonderful idea. However, Pakistanis don’t lay much emphasis on economy/trade as a bargain for what is considered a ‘principled stand’ on a ‘historic injustice’. How would prosperity help in this matter?
Well Saif, I suspect both of us live comfortably and don’t have to worry about the basic necessities of life, so we can afford to place principles above our needs. But to the ‘aam aadmi’ on either side of the border, ‘roti, kapda aur makaan’ are much more important. If there’s someone (not a Kashmiri) for whom Kashmiri independence is more important than his own basic needs, I would be very surprised.
I think Indian PM Manmohan Singh made a very wise observation that not many people have grasped. He said, “Borders may not be redrawn but they can be made irrelevant.” Look at the example of the US and Canada, or Australia and New Zealand. There is no tension between these countries, and people of one country have automatic rights to travel to, live and work in the other country. Those near the border have the best of both worlds. So far from Kashmiris being unfortunate people caught between two enemies, they may become the envy of people in the rest of India and Pakistan because they can cross over to either country to study, work or live.
We should get over the “injustice” mindset. Both sides harbour grievances, and we can never get past the current stalemate unless we can let things go. After the Rwandan massacre and even after the South African change of regime, the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions managed to heal some very deep wounds. In many cases, it was enough for someone to stand up and say, “I’m sorry I killed your entire family.” The country was able to move on after a very difficult and horrific period. Pakistan and India have not witnessed quite that scale of atrocity and genocide. We should be able to do even better than those countries.
> Finally, if the above questions are too difficult, what are suggestions after the moratorium?
No, these are not difficult questions. I believe I have provided some reasonable answers.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
(Reuters seems to have lost my comment. Let me try again.)
Saif,
Thanks again for engaging constructively.
You said:
> Regarding your moratorium proposal, please consider the following:
> 1. Since India’s position is to maintain the territorial status quo, why would it be interested in negotiating the ‘core issue’ with pakistan or kashmir?
You make the assumption that India’s position is unyieldingly rigid. Read the links I have provided below.
> Please note, there has been periods of tranquility before but no settlement was reached.
Unfortunately, we have never really had long enough periods of tranquillity. The last thaw was just before Mumbai (November 2008). The terrorist attack was particularly bad timing for those who were arguing for more freedom for Kashmiris, because it straightaway put the entire Kashmir issue on the backburner and the terrorism issue came to the forefront. I’m not just expressing a personal opinion here. In the months before November 2008, many prominent Indian intellectuals had begun to argue for “letting Kashmir go”, and an opinion poll indicated that 30% of the urban Indian population was prepared to let Kashmir go.
Vir Sanghvi: http://bit.ly/byFBQ8
Jug Suraiya: http://bit.ly/bQvH2K
Swaminathan Aiyer: http://bit.ly/dzEycw
Arundhati Roy: http://bit.ly/7EHxEh
The opinion poll: http://bit.ly/cScir2
Arundhati Roy summed up the collective fatigue of many Indians when she said “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as, if not more than, Kashmir needs azadi from India.” What do Pakistanis have to say about that? It’s hardly a rigid attitude.
I have argued as much on my own blog, albeit from the angle of economic resource allocation: http://bit.ly/9766vC
Who knows what a prolonged moratorium will bring? You probably know the fable of the Sun and the Wind. The more the Wind blew to get the man’s jacket off his back, the tighter he held onto it. But when the Sun began to shine and it got really warm, the man took off his jacket by himself.
Pakistan needs to let the sun of peace shine for a few years and not keep blowing the winds of terrorism onto India. You may get want you want without firing a shot, and then wonder what the fuss was all about.
> 2. I personally think economy/trade carrots is a wonderful idea. However, Pakistanis don’t lay much emphasis on economy/trade as a bargain for what is considered a ‘principled stand’ on a ‘historic injustice’. How would prosperity help in this matter?
Well Saif, I suspect both of us live comfortably and don’t have to worry about the basic necessities of life, so we can afford to place principles above our needs. But to the ‘aam aadmi’ on either side of the border, ‘roti, kapda aur makaan’ are much more important. If there’s someone (not a Kashmiri) for whom Kashmiri independence is more important than his own basic needs, I would be very surprised.
I think Indian PM Manmohan Singh made a very wise observation that not many people have grasped. He said, “Borders may not be redrawn but they can be made irrelevant.” Look at the example of the US and Canada, or Australia and New Zealand. There is no tension between these countries, and people of one country have automatic rights to travel to, live and work in the other country. Those near the border have the best of both worlds. So far from Kashmiris being unfortunate people caught between two enemies, they may become the envy of people in the rest of India and Pakistan because they can cross over to either country to study, work or live.
We should get over the “injustice” mindset. Both sides harbour grievances, and we can never get past the current stalemate unless we can let things go. After the Rwandan massacre and even after the South African change of regime, the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions managed to heal some very deep wounds. In many cases, it was enough for someone to stand up and say, “I’m sorry I killed your entire family.” The country was able to move on after a very difficult and horrific period. Pakistan and India have not witnessed quite that scale of atrocity and genocide. We should be able to do even better than those countries.
> Finally, if the above questions are too difficult, what are suggestions after the moratorium?
No, these are not difficult questions. I believe I have provided some reasonable answers.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@Rajeev
I agree w your comments on Saif.
My bad.
You mentioned somewhere that you hoped Kashmir gets a plebiscite. Could you elaborate on just how you think this plebsicite should be conducted now after more than 60 years. Who could vote, what would be the monitoring agency? What would be the preconditions if any?
— Sure. In an altruistic, Utopian world, I think kashmir does deserve a plebiscite that includes the independence option. But alluding to what I think Rajeev was trying to say, I don’t think Pakistan really wants an independent ‘historic kashmir’. I do think Pakistan is open to an independent ‘kashmir proper’ i.e. minus northern areas and jammu ladakh.
To answer your question, how about this setup?
1. Monitoring Agency – A Scandinavian country
Security by United Nations
2. Who would vote? Despite emotional allegations on both sides of ‘ethnic cleansing’, I don’t think the demographics have changed so dramatically as to completely abandon plebiscite option. (especially from the kashmiri perspective)
3. Pre-conditions –
3.1 Miltary withdrawal by both pakistan/india.
3.2 Repatriation of Kashmir Pandits
Having read so many forums full of warriors on both sides, these are a real eye-opener. everyone should read.
Vir Sanghvi: http://bit.ly/byFBQ8
Jug Suraiya: http://bit.ly/bQvH2K
Swaminathan Aiyer: http://bit.ly/dzEycw
Arundhati Roy: http://bit.ly/7EHxEh
The opinion poll: http://bit.ly/cScir2
saif_1980,
There should be plebiscite in Kashmir , but it should not remain within Indian Kashmir but Pak occupied Kashmir as well, but before the plebiscite, the following must be considered :
a)Kashmir has been inhabited by people of different ethnic and religious background
b) What will be status of part of Kashmir which has been gifted to China by Pakistan
c) What will be status of Hindu dominated Jammu
d) What will be status of Autonoimous region of Ladhakh
e) Whether the result of plebiscite should be acceptable to people of Pak occupied kashmir
Plebiscite should be held to determine whether people of Kashmir want to join Pakistan or want an independent Kashmir .
In the event of an independent Kashmir , who will take the guarantee to protect Kashmiris from the invasion by their neighbours . Similarly , there should be plebiscite to determine whether Pandits want to live in Kashmir , if not, their wishes should be considered in the plebiscite . The future of Ladhakh should also be part of plebiscite.
The modalities of plebiscite can be determined later, first the broader terms should be agreed upon between the diverse factions and interested parties.
test
my posts are not getting posted
Good questions Manish.
Utopian ideals are great but realpolitik is the need of the day.
I think a three-way compromise will be required. Equally painful for all sides. According to both recent and historic polls, roughly speaking L and J want to stay with secular India. Gilgit and Baltistan want to stay with islamic Pakistan. Azad Kashmir and Kashmir Vale want independence.
Pakistan gives up Azad Kashmir to Kashmiris
India gives up the valley to Kashmiris.
Kashmir gives up Gilgit and Baltistan to Pakistan.
Kashmir gives up Jammu and Ladakh to India.
In the macho, chest-thumping politics of south asia, it is extremely important that no one appears to lose face. Both would give up equal contiguous territory for a viable kashmiri state.
contd.
b) What will be status of part of Kashmir which has been gifted to China by Pakistan
I have no answer for the China question. I am not trying to dodge your question but to mix a third power in these negotiations will surely end up in yet another stalemate. I don’t think it would be in China’s interest to see Pak and India settle their issues. Undoubtedly, western arms manufacturers will also be disappointed so will the Pakistani army and extremists on both sides of the border.
To add to your question (b), what of the area taken by china in the 1962 war? Was that part of kashmir? I can’t recall.
I encourage everyone to read the articles posted by Ganesh.
Shuqaib & Umair,
I have read your posts. you are easily more knowledgeable and intelligent than I am. Please speak up and correct me where I am wrong.
Regards.
@KP Singh
I would go along with your narration. Yes I know of Albaruni and Bellow and many other renowned history writers. I also feel that you have a very good knowledge of history, perhaps our understanding of history is different. You do make an error in your calculation and i.e, that historical events are static and if you were to polish your research a bit more, you would be in a position to see the turning points in history. I can see the defeat of the Americans at the hands of Pashtoons,besides they do not live in caves, another fancy propaganda peace from the USA, you would see them in dfaylight having grilled meat in Peshawar, jalalabad and Qandhar restaurants, besides others. The same warriors are on foot in many parts of afghanistan sniping on foreigners and laying IED’s.
I can also see the turn in history for India, not for better I am afraid, though India has a great potential like China, but their leaders are very weak and not capable to rise above, depending time and again on a wrong partner, Soviet Union, followed by the now weaker USA and the unpopular and broken Israel. Their weakness is their citizens who live in chaos and are left with hunger and decease without any marshal plan to close the gap between the haves and the have nots.
Pakistan is another tragedy of our times they have not yet managed to establish the identity of their citizens. They do not know how to reform their institutions including military and even allowed a delhi born foreigner to become the military chief and later the President. I do not notice any difference between him and the current Indian PM. Both are like foxes, perhaps excellent in their profession and performing the minimum in their jobs, but not to be trusted as a leader of the country with a vision for the future. I deliberately say vision and you would understand that it is the people with vision who determine the course and turn of the history. Needless to mention some in recent hisztory Mao se Tung and the Nelson Mandela.
Have a nice day.
Rex Minor
Saif1981:
@Pakistan gives up Azad Kashmir to Kashmiris
India gives up the valley to Kashmiris.
Kashmir gives up Gilgit and Baltistan to Pakistan.
Kashmir gives up Jammu and Ladakh to India.
—In the above, I assume you are suggesting Kashmir in India and Pakistan to become one Kashmir.
How about Kashmir proper (with or without autonomy) stay in India and Pakistan like they are and borders made irrelevant.
@Despite emotional allegations on both sides of ‘ethnic cleansing’, I don’t think the demographics have changed so dramatically as to completely abandon plebiscite option. (especially from the kashmiri perspective)
@@3.2 Repatriation of Kashmir Pandits
–There is a difference between the situation in the valley now and 2-3 decades ago. At that time as a minority Pundits might not have changed the results of the plebiscite but would have happily lived in Kashmir (even minus L, J, G&B). Kashmir is their homeland and they are very attached to the place. But much has happened since then and if I were a Kashmiri I would vote Kashmir In favor of India (2 autonomous Kashmirs with borders made irrelevent). Kashmiris as people as you said are gentle but it is the direct/indirect external factors that drove minorities out of Kashmir and it can happen again for some other possible reasons. Autonomy/borders made irrelevant might take care of this.
RexMinor:
@There is no need for you to spit out so much venom in your post. after all we are human species.”
—You can think whatever.
Despite my request, you did not continue to discuss the points I made about your posts. Each time you come up with something new,,,,like a new history lesson….full of assumptions about your readers. Serves no purpose.
Have fun!
Saif1981:
correction:
“But much has happened since then and if I were a Kashmiri PUNDIT I would vote Kashmir In favor of India (2 autonomous Kashmirs with borders made irrelevant).
“..and even allowed a delhi born foreigner to become the military chief and later the President.”
ROFL! I wonder what Mushy would think of that label. But yeah, I see his impurity in leading the land of the pure. Had he had born in a gutter in Arab, he would have been a fit candidate, no?
Hmmm some posts just get lost in the ether here. Had a fairly long one to Saif and do not have the energy to repeat myself again.
Briefly – Saif you talk of Pleabiscite minus the areas in Pakistan control. What is the logic reason for that? Why not the complete state of J & K?
If in your opinion, as stated earlier, you feel Kashmiris will vote overwhelming for a soverieign nation state – could you please give us the basis for this conjecture? Moreover, if as most pakistanis claim that all they want is that Kashmiri opinion be what should be done, would you be agreeable to declaring the part of Kashmir annexed by pakistan as a sovereign nation.
Regret do not feel like repeating my old post which had reasons for my questions. But very briefly I think before we let ourselves undertake flights of fantasy it would be prudent to keep in mind the true legal and actual situation as it exists today on the ground.
I notice that some active members of the safran brigade have appeared on this forum. Gentlemen, if your intellect is not up to the standard of reuters Blog then choose some other fancy corner for your cheap snotty comments. Are do you believe that you are in majority here and can thertefore degrade the standard with impunity. I am sure that the moderator would not permit it, so be careful or exit with grace.
Rex Minor
Dara, my flight of fancy; you diverted it and landed on the pot-holed runway of reality. I don’t object to J & K plebiscite. GB would not want to join India, JL would not want to join Pakistan. Even I am not so naive to think that pakistan and india would be willing give up such a massive amount of territory.
Rajeev, I am okay with LOC but Kashmiris would be ‘cheated’. India will have broken Nehru’s ‘promise’ and Pakistan will have violated its ‘concern’ for kashmir’s self-determination. Not quite air-tight logic, i concede but a 3-way compromise nevertheless. your question about pundits; kashmiri movement was secular, if there is a settlement, I am certain sufi inspired kashmiriyat would welcome their kashmiri brethren. in some sense even the pandits of the vale would compromise as well with an independent kashmir. their security and role in govt. would be guaranteed in a lebanon type setup ??
If in your opinion, as stated earlier, you feel Kashmiris will vote overwhelming for a soverieign nation state – could you please give us the basis for this conjecture?
— No, not conjecture. Rajeev posted an eye-opening report from some third party. Kashmiris want independence for sure. Please go back 2 or 3 articles.
Saif,
My intention was not to puncture any flights of fancy but to suggest they be undertaken keeping realities in mind.
The one thing you are not is naive. OK, now what on earth is GB? JL I presume is Jammu and Leh, pardon my ignorance.
This is what I mean about realities and history. J & K is one state, it cannot be divided. It has to be all or nothing according to me. Once you start looking at it in pieces, you sett off a chain reaction which has ramifications beyond merely J&K, that at least is my view.
As for Rajeev’s article, I have missed it, and will take your word for it. The reason I raised this issue was because, as far as I know, most if not all polls or studies retsrict themselves to Srinagar and surroundings. That is my main objection to them. Moreover they are also at great variance with each other depending on when the survey was conducted.
I would like to make a suggestion here. Your attempt to get to the bpttom of the issue began well. However, I feel it is getting bogged down in details(nuts and bolts of a solution) on how to solve the problem. Personally I think it more important to first start off by agreeing as to how to go about conducting it and broad solutions. Anyway that is just my opinion, you initiated the discussion you decide how you want it to proceed, just wanted to give my perspective.
> OK, now what on earth is GB?
Gilgit-Baltistan?
Regards,
Ganesh
> Your attempt to get to the bpttom of the issue began well.
I think Saif is doing an excellent job. This is by far the most civil and productive discussion I have seen on this forum for a long time.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Dara, I was joking about the flight of fancy.
I had no particular plan for this discussion but to hear out the ‘other’ side. If you have some suggestions on the protocol you should share. We have our commentary here about the ‘stubborness’ of India as I am sure you have of us. I just wanted to know what the ‘other’ side really thinks. Can we not find a middle ground?
Sorry we are going thru a name-changing process and i just assumed everyone is keeping up with our naming convention: really long hyphenated names for british anarchonisms that lend themselves to abbreviation.
GB is gilgit baltistan – formerly nothern areas
KP is khyber pakhtunkhwa – formerly northwest frontier province.
Thanks Saif. I think Ganesh feels I was criticising your attempts here. Nothing further from the truth.
After my last post, I felt I had not put across my point well and then I read an article in the Times of India by a former Pakistani High Commissioner to India, AJ Qazi and I agree with him. He has said what I meant in more precise language.
I agree with his sentiments and I strongly feel that we need to build up public opinion and thereby dictate terms on how to engage. At this juncture, as an Indian politician said (forget whom) structue is more important than substance. We are at a nascent stage even 60 years later. Let us discuss ways and means of getting there instead of jumping into our jalopies and driving aimlessly.
I am no admirer of Musharaff’s. But he did have one idea I found appealing, start with the easy things first then move on to more involved and complicated problems. I think there is much merit in that.
As I said in the beginning when this discussion began – people to people exchanges such as co-operation in health, education, sport, trade etc can be used to form a glue for the tempo and tenor of official discussions.
Sorry forgot to add the URL for that article quoted abpve:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/ Opinion/Edit-Page/Time-For-A-Game-Change r/articleshow/6187928.cms
I agree with the sense that he conveys.
Kashmir: Paths to Peace
Robert W. Bradnock
King’s College London & Associate Fellow, Asia Programme,
Chatham House
May 2010
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/166 64_0510pp_kashmir.pdf