Hopes low, stakes high when Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers meet

July 12, 2010

thimphuPerhaps 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

Expectations are low and will remain low since Pakistan is committed to using terrorism as an instrument of state policy and as a negotiating tool.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

As long as they have a dialogue, there would be a stand still for the military people. In my opinion they need not indulge in two topics, namely Kashmir and terrorism! Let the leaders of the country resolve their domestic problems themselves.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti cle/ALeqM5iT_K8Fq4Uw8l72MfuAqOV8dKGDNQD9 GU7CK80

@Myra,

Please read new article in above link. Pakistani State officials cavort with militants, proving beyond a doubt, that Pakistan is fomenting terrorism and unrest in Kashmir India.

How can any talks happen between India and Pakistan, whilst Pakistan continues its multi-front strategy of terrorism against India, terrorism against the NATO mission, via Afghan Taliban and a whole slew of radical youth trying to cause terrorism in almost every western country?

Pakistan is playing with fire, hoping this gamble will pay off, it seems that Pakistan has intensified its actions against NATO, and this is seen with the high troop deaths this and last month and now… the Kashmir unrest. All this is being done, while its own internal security is weakening, especially South Punjab where the militants are galvanizing their foothold and the militant nurseries and madrasas are churning out new radical islamists.

It all points to Islamabad getting desperate to re-affirm its hold on adjacent territories, hoping that once those re-solidify or reach some progress, that internal terrorists can be reigned in to continue the proxy wars into India and Afghanistan.

With Pakistani’s unwillingness to destroy the Haqqani’s and Hekmatyar to its unwillingness to arrest and jail the LeT leader and other militants and criminals, it is becoming clearer than ever that Pakistan is incapable of living honestly with anybody. It just seems to be one game and one lie after another.

This is a repeating back and forth tale Myra. The terrorism and lies and militantism will continue, as long as the Pak Army has a grip on civilian politics and Pakistan’s foreign policy.

All this discussion of militantism is actually the symptom of Punjabi Army Rule.

We should quit wasting time discussing symptoms and take the issue head on, those being how can Punjabi Army rule be reformulated to restore Pakistan to a proper functioning civilian democracy?

Afghanistan, Kashmir, Militantism in Pakistan, Terrorism on the west…at the end of the day…these are all symptoms of Punjabi Army rule. The world needs to single out the Army and call them out on everything and challenge all their actions openly in the media and lay everything out on the table. That is the only way that the people can know the truth.

All other discussions are merely discussions of the symptoms and not the actually root of the problem and are really just a waste of time and do little to create any sort of actionable change.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Oh BTW Myra, we do agree with Rajeev in the previous blog post. There is a huge lack of parity in the attention we are giving PoK and India Kashmir.

In my opinion, while a good job has been done in highlighting focus on India Kashmir and all the troubles there, there has been almost no discussion on the situation in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

To be fair to the situation and give the readers a more broadened and eye-opening experience on the Kashmir matter, it is quite relevant that Pakistan occupied Kashmir be given the same level of discussion here.

Please think about it.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Myra, forgive me for digressing here, since Pakistani’s give the Kashmir issue the blame for every ill in their life, I think it is quite relevant and worth the discussion of what has gone on in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, which in the words of one UN commissioner, is that Pakistan is “is not free”, but in fact has undergone extensive Sunni migration from other areas of Pakistan, to skew the demographic make up and increase the Sunni population. The Shias and Ismaili’s in Kashmir have been pushed aside through what ever means and their populations, along with Hindus in PoK have dwindlwed. As Rajeev, I and others have said earlier, all these factors deserve a proper discussion.

“As in Indian administered Kashmir there has been ongoing political unrest in Pakistan administered Kashmir. The Balawaristan National Front has stated its goal of seeking independence from Pakistan. Abdul Hamid Khan Chairman of Balawaristan National Front states that ‘The Pakistani administration has also been involved in efforts to alter the demographic profile of Pakistan-occupied Gilgit Baltistan, reducing the indigenous people to a minority.’ The Gilgit-Baltistan area is administered directly by Islamabad. The population here, primarily Shia Muslims, was brought under one federally administered territory administered by Pakistan on November 16, 1947, in the name of Islam.’[19] Other groups like Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement are demanding full autonomy for the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan.[20] On January 8, 2005 11 people were killed following an armed attack on a Shia leader.[21] According to B.Raman of India, the main reasons for the unrest were military induced changes in demographic composition by encouraging the migration of Sunnis from the other provinces. As a result, the Shias and the Ismailis, who constituted about 85 per cent of the population in 1948, today constitute only about 53 per cent of the population in 2005.[22] A 2008 report by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determined that Pakistan administered Kashmir was ‘Not Free’.[23].

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVvu2JkJ6 lg

Just to follow up on my last post. There is many indications that at brutal suppression of the indigenous Kashmiri’s is taking place in PoK, at the hands of the Pakistani’ Army.

Let’s give both sides of Kashmir a fair and proper discussion.

It seems the Pok is merely a territorial land grab by the Sunni’s with the intent of making the entire PoK sunni and doing the same to India.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@GW
It would appear that even BBC is now biased against India. Why do’nt you send your post to their Indian representative to enlighten him of your views? Indian military and the political leaders have gone bonkers.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Back channel diplomacy was started by Musharraf. Considering his past actions and his wily nature, I am glad that the plans that were made did not come to fruition. It was basically another Kargil set up where Musharraf wanted the LoC abrogated, militaries removed and allowed for free movement of people. If Indians were gullible and fell for this, he would have flooded the place with his proxy elements, Taliban, army regulars in disguise and taken the place over without lifting his little finger.

Kashmir is not the issue between India and Pakistan as Pakistanis claim.

There are different sets of priorities for the parties involved:

For India, Kashmir issue is just one of the major items in its priority list. Kashmir unrest and the reasons given for it are not convincing. Police brutality, extra judicial killings etc are not confined to Kashmir alone. It is all across South Asia and the Middle East, Central Asia and China. It is not justified. But it is a reality. If that is the basis for seeking independence, then every individual in these countries should be an independent nation.

There are some Pakistani or Kashmiri posters here who want India to disintegrate. Therefore it is not exactly a local problem confined to Kashmir. There are much bigger agenda against Indian interests and there are many players involved. Kashmir can be peaceful if there is no outside interference and disruption.

There is a lot of past history on this region. But we have to see it from today’s context. Today, Kashmir is way too important, geo-strategically for India. We just cannot afford to lose our grip on it. If Kashmiris agree to drop their links with Pakistan’s proxy groups and accept peace, then things will surely improve. India has its military there because of cross-border assault from the Pakistani side. And their Jihadist monsters have become more in number compared to before, because of Pakistan’s own internal mess. All the more reason to stay put and defend Kashmir at all costs.

Hating India, pelting stones at Indian security personal, staging violent protests etc will get to no end for local Kashmiris. Do not rely on Pakistani establishment to take on India. It will only make things worse. There are lot of elements inside Pakistan that want to use Kashmir as a leverage to launch a war with India and launch their nukes. They have completely lost their minds and are itching to drop those bombs on India to vent their hatred. They do not care about disappearing in the bargain.

The only thing I expect from the Indian side is bringing in accountability for the extra-judicial issues by the security personnel. And I’d like it all across India and not just Kashmir.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

There is a huge lack of parity in the attention we are giving PoK and India Kashmir.

Posted by G-W

==
GW,
Do you think this is coincidental? Myra Rocks!

The Westerners are the biggest and most improtant sponors of Pakistan’s jihad against India for 63 years. That has always been the case.

US of A – Champion of democracy and pluralism!

Look how many articles are on Kashmir in this blog titled “Pakistan- Now or Never”.!!

Kashmir has nothing to do with the Pakistan problem- the development of jihadi terrorist, intolerant state, source of trouble to themselves and the rest of the world.

Ironically the westerners spill their blood and lose their treasure waging wars with the aim of “spreading democracy” and their “values”.. …but are hell-bent and committed to sponsoring Pakistani jihadi terrorism on the most populous, pluralistic democracy in the world.

And we are alone! We have always been alone. If we could handle it in 1965, 1989, 1999, we’ll handle it in 2010 from a much stronger position.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@Singh

I believe BBC or CNN as much as I believe Al Jazeera or PTV.

If some western networks are airing dirty laundry against India, that is very unfortunate.

For what purpose? probably the same purpose of drawing dubious disputable borders, with the sole purpose of creating future disputes that will create future wars with no end and arm both sides to the teeth and profit off both enemies, for an extremely long time. Very profitable business model, as no disputes ever get solved, they are not meant to ever get solved, by design and intent, otherwise no profit would be derived if there was no artificially created misery. You be the judge.

Indians have worked hard to earn respect, become culturalized and above all peaceful contributors to whatever western countries they live in.

How many Indian religious nut jobs do you see in the UK, USA or Canada?….none.

Yes, it is prudent to take whatever you read with a grain of salt, the people are too smart to swallow and eat whatever they are being served on TV.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

G-W,

We are dealing with current and past world powers. They are used to controlling others. They get cold turkey if they lose that control. It is not something that is easy to let go. If you look at the defense industries in these countries, that should explain a lot. These are very expensive industries to run and sales depends upon geo-politics. Only if there are enough conflicts in the world, can sophisticated missiles, fighter planes, choppers, bombers, howitzers, smart bombs, mines, guns, night vision goggles etc can be sold. This is not like the car industry. This relies entirely on geo-politics and unrest. Look at the US defense budges. It is somewhere around 650 billion dollars. UK is somewhere in the 50 to 100 billion dollars. There is a lot of money to be made. These industries have evolved over time and these countries are done fighting each other. They have achieved a considerable level of comfort and lifestyle. But like prostitution, the defense industry has grown too big and cannot be shrunk suddenly. The fear is that they’d lose the edge if their size and investment are cut. How many countries in this world can make air-craft engines and special alloys and composite materials for them? – US, France, UK, Russia. They are probably a hundred years ahead of others in terms of technology in this field. How do you demonstrate their performance and reliability in the field? A few stunts in an air show would not suffice. A real war, even a short one would do it. Only then one gets to see the Tomahawk missile or the Drones in operation. And immediately there are enough countries wanting to possess them like the I-phone. Why do you think Pakistan has been allowed to survive all these years? It is a testing field for high altitude warfare (Siachien), Kargil conflict (Mortars and howitzers), fighter jets (F16 versus Sukhoi). It is not just military hardware. There are training for commandos, counter insurgency, intelligence gathering etc which can bring in more contacts and money. What kind of conflict is going on in the region? Commando style attacks, insurgency and mini-conflicts. India buys more helicopters, radar equipment and what not. Immediately Pakistan buys from a different country to counter that. The two countries supplying all the military hardware to both parties have nothing against each other. Their representatives meet and party after the sale. Who cares if these people kill each other? A divided subcontinent will help sell more military equipment and test them out in real wars. The more they can divide, the more is the sale.

Then there are energy companies, which rely on the defense companies to cut inroads into conflict zones. The two industries together drive the geo-politics around the globe. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go. But conflicts have been consistent and the policies towards them have been consistent as well. During Rajeev Gandhi’s time, India was arm twisted into buying British made helicopters when the Indian defense department zeroed in on a French made one. UK basically told India that it would support Pakistan’s cause in the region and the sales deal was made. Relying on the Soviets helped India stand up to these countries for a long time during cold war. The Soviets had to counter every move made by their adversaries and as a result let India buy their latest MIGs and Sukhoi jets.

This is a huge system in which defense companies, establishments, energy companies and lobby groups stage everything. Media, Human rights organizations etc are unleashed to bias everything in their favor. Everything is projected beyond shape and then countries are arm twisted into “peace negotiations” that they do not agree for if they do not make the defense deals.

One has to see the broader picture and see how things fit in so nicely. Countries like UK have no business in the outside world. Yet they are everywhere fighting in wars and selling military hardware.

Unfortunately these powers have ignored China’s growth and have underestimated its potential to become a power. It is going to bite them hard. They are more worried about China than India now. And going against Pakistan would invite China’s wrath. So they have to play a middle game for now.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@Singh,

We live in an evil, dirty world, full of lies and profiteers. It is lawless.

The future looks uncertain at times, yet still I am interested to see it unfold.

The truth can never been hidden for ever.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

The greatest issue in indo/pak relationship has been the disputed province of Kashmir. The hostilities began in October 1947, when the Hindu ruler of Kashmir signed a treaty giving his Muslim province to India, which is predominantly Hindu. Pakistan’s rejection of this agreement would lead to a war with India shortly thereafter. The province would be partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1949, and the established border remains today. Both nations still claim all of Kashmir. The situation has been complicated by the religious differences in the region between Muslims and Hindus. Further exemplifying the problem are the various versions of history that both sides present in their arguments for ownership of Kashmir. When the previous and current situations are analyzed, it is clear that it is Pakistan that has the legitimate claim to Kashmir, as India’s claim is based on fraud and violence.

Kashmir is located in the northern part of the Indian Subcontinent, occupying an area of 220,000 km². As per the United Nations cease- fire agreement that partitioned Kashmir on January 1, 1949, India occupies a majority of the disputed region. India has organized its territory as the state of Kashmir and Jammu. The capital is Srinagar. Pakistani controlled Kashmir is referred to as Azad (free) Kashmir. The capital is Muzaffarabad. Historically, the significant districts of Kashmir are the Poonch, Srinagar District, and Mirpur. The current population of the entire region is thirteen million, of which approximately sixty-four percent are Muslim. The demographics have barely changed since the dispute began in 1947. In 1941, of the four million people living in Kashmir, over 3,200,000 practiced Islam. Though a clear majority of the citizens were Muslim, the region was ruled by a Hindu prince.

The Maharaja Hari Singh presided over Kashmir during the end of British imperialism in South Asia. During the British partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947, the princely states were supposed to accede to either India or newly created Pakistan. Hari Singh wanted neither, and delayed his decision. Both Jawaharel Nehru, the leader of

India, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, urged the maharaja to join their respective nation. In early September, a Muslim rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district. India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh. By mid October, the rebel army was only four kilometres away from capturing Srinagar. It was at this point of desperation, that Hari Singh reportedly signed the Treaty of Accession with India. The Indian army would enter the province the same day, and would be at war with Pakistan within a month. The validity of this treaty would be the basis of both nations’ claim to Kashmir.

Historians often disagree with one and other about the interpretation of the dispute in Kashmir. There are three main concepts that are used by supporters of India to justify India’s occupation of Kashmir. The first is that because of the Treaty of Accession, India’s actions and claim to Kashmir are legal. A.G. Noorani, a lawyer in New Delhi, whose Indian bias has clouded his judgment about the Indian claim, and author of The Kashmir Question, summarized India’s long- standing stance regarding the treaty in his book’s introduction:

“ Kashmir is legally [because of the Treaty] a part of India, Pakistan is therefore an aggressor and must be asked to vacate her aggression; having become a part of the country, Kashmir cannot claim self- determination; her accession is final and irrevocable as there is in law no such thing as a provisional accession.”

The appeals India has made to the United Nations all reflect this attitude. As Nehru argued in a complaint issued to the UN in 1948, because India has a document that states Kashmir belongs to India, all Pakistani claims and actions in the region are void and aggressive, as well as demonstrating a blatant disregard to international law and procedure.

In an effort to gain public support from the international community, India has rallied behind two popular slogans. These are: democracy and multi-culturalism. As an article in the January 19th, 2002, edition of the Economist indicated, these have had considerable success in brandishing Pakistan as an evil, rogue state. After all, India promotes itself as a secular democracy. India embraces its minorities. Pakistan, on the other hand, has always been an Islamic State, has been ruled by successive military governments, and tarnished by civil war. The Kashmiri people, India argues, would be better suited in a secular nation that embraces the rule of law. Legality. Democracy. Multi-

culturalism. These are the three concepts that form the basis of the Indian claim to Kashmir. The relevance and truth of these ideas are questionable.

Historians supportive of the Pakistani claim believe that the Treaty of Accession is void because of the conditions and historical discrepancies pertaining to its signing. India acted aggressively and irresponsibly in forcing the agreement with a leader that did not represent the majority of his population. The Maharajah was a Hindu prince. During the time of accession, seventy-seven percent of the Kashmiri people were Muslim. Indian historians, on the other hand, have debated even the importance and truth of this fact. Prem Shankar Jha, editor of the Hindustan Times, and author of the book Kashmir: 1947, writes that the figure is exaggerated and misleading because the Muslims of Kashmir “belonged to at least three frequently antagonistic sects, two-thirds sharing a strongly synergetic tradition of Islam that had a good deal in common with the Bhaki tradition in Hinduism.” Mushtaqur Rahman, author of the brilliant analytical Divided Kashmir, counters the relevancy of this claim by stating that while the Muslims consisted of different sects, their beliefs separated from them other Muslims no less so than the differences between Kashmiri Hindus and Indian Hindus. Indeed, these Hindus possess their own dialect, dress, and food. In response to questions over why the demographics of Kashmir have changed (Kashmir is now estimated to be 64% Muslim.), he reminds readers that it is estimated that over 4 million Muslims have fled Indian occupied Kashmir since 1947. Despite the exodus, civilians in Indian controlled Kashmir still have great ethnic similarities to Pakistan, as noted by famed historian Richard Reeves, in Passage to Peshawar describing his experience in the region: “When I crossed from Azad Kashmir, in Pakistan, to Kashmir in India – across the disputed northeastern border established after the countries’ 1948 war – the people looked the same. They should have, because many of them were cousins of Pakistanis and practiced the same religion.” In the end these discrepancies and arguments pertaining to how Islam is divided into many types is merely nitpicking by supporters of India, highlighting facts that have no significance to the larger picture. In a census taken in 1941, of 4,021,698 people living in the entire region of Kashmir, 3,101,247 of them were Muslim. In the turbulent Kashmiri Valley (site of most of the recent violence in Kashmir) 94% ( 1,615, 478 to 1,728,705) of the citizens were Muslim. Under the provisions of the divisions of the Indian Subcontinent, regions that were mostly Muslim were designed to accede with Pakistan. Thus, in the natural course of history, if had India not acted irresponsibly, and the Kashmiris’ had a leader that represented their interest, Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan.

The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930’s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive. A legislative assembly, with no real power, was created in January, 1947. It issued one statement that represented the will of the Muslim people: “After carefully considering the position, the conference has arrived at the conclusion that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious conditions…It is therefore necessary that the State should accede to Pakistan.

This is one of the rare instances that an elected block of the people of Kashmir had been given the chance to speak. Representing the subjects who elected them, they sought accession with Muslim Pakistan. Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in 1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book, The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, “The large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally against the Maharjah declaring accession to India.” This statement, and the decision reached by the legislative assembly are important because they dispel any belief that the Kashmiris’ religious ties with Pakistan did not necessarily indicate a will to unite. Indeed, the ethnic bond between Kashmir and Pakistan influenced a majority of the people to seek accession with Pakistan. The Hindu Maharajah would not listen, and continued to delay his decision about which nation to join. Still, even though Hari Singh’s actions were wrong, they do not compare to the deplorable pressure and tactics applied by India to capture Kashmir.

India relentlessly pressured Hari Singh to accede to India. While Pakistan agreed to sign a standstill agreement that would continue trade, travel, and transportation with Kashmir, India refused until the Maharajah did as they wished. India encouraged neighbouring provinces to pressure Kashmir to accede to India. Nehru said that if

Kashmir joined Pakistan the chances of resuming any diplomatic or economic relationship with India would be remote. Pakistan took no such action. While the traditional view has been that Nehru sent his army into Kashmir only after the Treaty of Accession, there is growing evidence that this is not true. Alaistar Lamb, author of a series of books on Kashmir, has discovered evidence based on declassified military papers that India had Patalia gunners at the Sringar airport by October 17 1947, and has scoffed at the Indian apologists who propose that India’s invasion of Kashmir was the triumph of improvisation. Instead, he states that India had troops mobilized for an invasion of Kashmir by October 25th This would mean that India’s army was in Kashmir before the decision of the Mahrajah. With India’s army already in Kashmir it is obvious why the Maharajah would hand his country over to India. Because of the injustice displayed by India, the Treaty of Accession, if it was even signed, is nullified and void.

India claims to represent democracy in the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. If upholding democracy was indeed India’s motivation in their actions over Kashmir, one has to question why a plebiscite has never been issued. The Kashmiris have always demanded one, and India has always resisted. Even Nehru has conceded that Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation. When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.” This logic is more fitting for describing an autocracy, not a nation claming to represent democracy. As for the issue of whether Pakistan is a theocratic state, it certainly cannot be, as its political power is not held by priests and religious heads claiming to represent a God. Islam may be the only official religion of Pakistan, but that does not warrant the title of a totalitarian theocracy. The historians supporting India have no grounds for saying that India has behaved better because it states itself to be the only democracy.

Apologists for Nehru and the successive governments of India have also made the peculiar claim that if Kashmir were to vote to succeed from India, it would lead to other revolts and demands for independence in other dissatisfied regions of India. Victoria Schofield, author of the comprehensive Kashmir in the Crossfire, has researched and analyzed the response of Kashmiris bewildered that a “secular democracy” would use this argument. Kashmiri independence groups have pointed out that it is the only region in India that has already been granted a plebiscite (that never materialised) in a United Nations Security Council Resolution that was actually approved by India. Even if politicians are worried about

the possibility of India disintegrating because of losing Kashmir, this does not warrant the suppression of the Muslims in Kashmir, and the Kashmiris are indeed oppressed. Amnesty International has repeatedly decried atrocities committed against separatists in Kashmir, and they estimate that 34,000 civilians have been killed.

India basing its claim on adhering to diplomatic rule of law and the decision of a nation’s leader is made even more laughable because of its actions in Hyderabad and Junadgh. Hyderabad, located in central India, was the opposite of Kashmir. There, a Muslim ruled over a Hindu majority, and did not want to join India. The Indians did not accept the leader’s wishes and invaded Hyderabad in September of 1948. In Junadgh, the situation was similar. Nehru forced the ruler of Junadgh to hold a plebiscite after the latter claimed that he could not make the decision because he did not represent his people. That Nehru agreed to the principles of self-determination and ethnicity when it served his interests, and not in Kashmir, illustrates the hypocrisy of the Indian claim to Kashmir. As Mushtaqur Rahman reiterates in his book, it even renders the Indian claim illogical:

“Their arguments were that it made no sense geographically, that a ruler had acceded to a region of different religion then his people. Logically then, India should have supported the Muslims majority of Jammu and Kashmir and let them join
Pakistan.” Mr. Bazaz was also mystified by the hypocrisy in India’s actions, as he writes:

“Obviously in accordance with the basic principle governing the partition the consideration of the religion professed by people in different parts… the Jammu and Kashmir State, whose population is preponderating (77 percent) Muslim – almost the same as is the ratio of Hindus in Junagad and Hyderabad to the total populations of these States – should legitimately and unconditionally belong to Pakistan and must in fairness go to it.”342

What the hypocrisy and determination of India to take Kashmir at the expense of logic and the will of Kashmiris does illustrate is the underlying motivation of India to serve Nehru’s interests. Nehru’s family heritage originates in Kashmir. This appears to be one of the only two possible reasons India has so forcefully demanded it be given Kashmir. The second cause is that of deep resentment over the creation of Pakistan.

If one were to base India’s claim on Kashmir on actual principals that are present in its actions, they would be: pride, resentment, and aggression. The government of India’s desperate attempt to validate

its hold on Kashmir is merely just India rejecting the concept of Pakistan in general. Nehru and the government of India’s rejection of Pakistan is well known. Liaquat Ali Khan, the vice-president of Pakistan during accession, reiterated this in a telegram to Nehru when he wrote, “India never wholeheartedly accepted the partition scheme but her leaders paid lip service to it merely in order to get the British troops out of the country. India is out to destroy the state of Pakistan . Indeed, this attitude would explain why India visibly rejected the mandate of the creation of Pakistan, as well as the common sense of ethnicity in Kashmir. The Indian resentment of the creation of Pakistan is not just a rumour started by Karachi. Even A.G. Noorami, sympathetic to the Indian claim to Kashmir, writes, “We are a secular State and we do not believe in the “two-nation” theory. But is it necessary for that purpose to retain Kashmir in India against the will of her people?” Perhaps most telling of this pride and hatred towards Pakistan is the response given by a representative of the Indian government to peace talks offered by Pakistani President Jinnah, which was, “for the prime minister to come crawling to Jinnah, when India was stronger would be a step which the Indian people would never forgive.” With such sentiment, it is little wonder that peace in Kashmir has been hard to achieve.

India continues to use its military superiority over Pakistan to resist negotiating any terms of peace with Kashmir. Unfortunately, as noted by Time correspondent Edward Desmond, the international community shows no signs of challenging India’s claims. “No country was willing to risk its entire agenda with New Delhi over the Kashmiri cause, especially when it was clear that New Delhi had no intentions of backing down.

Due to the contradictions and falsifications that India has used to present its argument towards ownership of Kashmir, and its inaction towards holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, it cannot reasonably be argued that India has the more legitimate claim to Kashmir. In reality, India has kept its army in Kashmir to maintain hostile relations with Pakistan because of the formers rejection of the “two-nation” theory that created Pakistan. India cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kashmiri people and their democratic rights because it refuses to let them decide their future. Its relentless pressure on the Maharajah, as well as Hari Singh’s inability to properly lead, nullifies the relevance and significance of the Treaty of Accession. That the Indian army landed in Kashmir even before Hari Singh had conceded his nation to India proves it never intended to respect his decision anyways. India has ignored the rules set out in the partition of the sub-continent, dividing the region by ethnicity. Instead, the leaders of

India have sought only to use Kashmir to illustrate their superiority in the subcontinent. As long as India continues to act on flawed and aggressive notions, the Kashmir conflict will not be resolved.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

Genocide in Kashmir

400,000 Kashmiri Pandits, constituting 99% of the total population of Hindus living in Muslim majority area of the Kashmir Valley, were forcibly pushed out of the Valley by Muslim terrorists, trained in Pakistan, since the end of 1989. They have been forced to live the life of exiles in their own country, outside their homeland, by unleashing a systematic campaign of terror, murder, loot and arson.
Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits has reached its climax with Muslim terrorism succeeding in ‘CLEANSING’ the valley of this ancient ethno-religious community.
With the completion of 11th year of their forced exile, this peace loving, culturally rich community with a history of more than 5000 years, is fighting a grim battle to save itself from becoming extinct as a distinct race and culture.
Main Camp Sites in Jammu

Muthi Camp, Jammu
Transport Nagar, Jammu
Purkhoo Camp, Jammu
Stadium Camp, Jammu
Jhiri Camp, Jammu
Nagrota Camp, Jammu
Mishriwala Camp, Jammu
Battalbalian Camp, Udhampur
Main Camp Sites in Delhi

Nandnagri
Sultanpuri, Kailash Colony
Maviya Nagar
South Extension
Palika Dham
Lajpat Nagar
Aliganj
Bapu Dham
Amar Colony
Mangol Puri
Patel Nagar
Sultanpuri
Moti Nagar
Begampura
Terrorist Violence against Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir – Role of Pakistan

Terrorism in Kashmir is an ideological struggle with specified political commitments which are fundamentalist and communal in character.

Terrorist violence is aimed at achieving the disengagement of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from India and its annexation to Pakistan. It is, the continuation of the Islamic fundamentalist struggle for the homeland of Pakistan which claims Jammu and Kashmir state on account of its Muslim majority character.

The major dimension of the terrorist violence in Kashmir is the terrorists’ commitment to the extermination and subjugation of the Hindus in the state because Hindus do not subscribe to the idea of separation from India, nor do they expect to be governed by the authority of the state which derives its sanction from the law and precedent of Islam. Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) have always been in the forefront of the struggle against secessionism, communalism and fundamentalism. Hence this peace loving minority with a modern outlook became the main victim of terrorist violence. The strategies involved in the terrorists’ operation against the Hindus in Kashmir include:

The extermination of Hindus

Subjecting Hindus to brutal torture to instill fear among them in order to achieve their submission.

To engineer a forced mass exodus of Hindus from the land of their ancestors and birth by way of issuing threatening letters, kidnappings and torture deaths on non-compllance of the terrorists’ dictates and ensure the destruction of the secular and pluralistic character of the socio-political fabric of the Kashmiri Society.

Attacks, molestations, kidnappings, gang rapes of the women folk of the Hindus in order to instil fear and humiliation in them.

Destruction and burning of the residential houses of the Hindus who leave their homes in look out for safety. Looting of their properties and appropriation of their business establishments to ensure that they do not return.

Attachment of their landed property.

Destruction of the social base of the Hindus by the desecration and destruction of their places of worship.

Appropriation of the property of the Hindu shrines and its attachment to Muslim religious endowments.

Fact sheet Of Atrocities On Kashmiri Pandits

Educational Institutions burnt, damaged forcefully occupied : 105

Religious & Cultural Institutions Destroyed/burnt, damaged : 103

Shops, Factories looted/burnt/occupied : 14,430

Agriculture dependent families deprived of their land and source of income : 20,000

Horticulture dependent families deprived of their resource : 12,500

Houses Burnt : more than 20,000

Houses looted : 95%

Torture killings of Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley : more than 1,100

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/artic les/article.php?id=2074

A letter to Ban Ki Moon on deteriorating Human Rights situation in Occupied Balochistan

Subject: Deteriorating human rights situation in Pakistan and Iranian controlled Balochistan

Dear Secretary General,
On the occasion of International Day against Torture in support of victims of torture on 26 June, we would like to draw your kind attention towards the inhuman treatment of the Baloch by the Iranian and Pakistani security agencies.

Baloch are facing the cruelest state oppression in the contemporary history. Cultural, social, historical, economical and political marginalization by both states is the hallmark of the subjugation of the Baloch. The Baloch have been resisting subjugation measures by peaceful political mobilization. The religious fundamentalist states of Pakistan and Iran have been reacting to the genuine Baloch demands for cultural, economic and political emancipation with the use of crude military prowess. Kidnappings, torture, solitary confinement and extra judicial killings of the Baloch by state intelligence agencies are the usual ways adopted by the Pakistani and Iranian States and have been graphically reported by various international human rights organisations affiliated with the United Nations.
Whereabouts of thousands of the Baloch civilians are still unknown. Pakistani govt. officials have accepted of more then 1000 missing person themselves last year and we genuinely believe that their lives are in grave danger. Abductions of students, doctors, teachers, journalists and human rights activists is going on daily basis in Balochistan. The Chief Minister of Balochistan, the Governor of Balochistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the President of Pakistan have admitted the worsening human rights situation in Balochistan and have shown their helplessness against Pakistani army and its notorious Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) agencies. In addition of this, the Pakistani military establishment has created numerous religious terrorist organizations as proxy “Hit Squads” and with the help of these organizations consisting of dacoits and robbers and working with different nomenclatures is fully determined to get rid of the Baloch political and human rights activists by their physical extermination by these proxy hit squads. This is being done in order to silence the voice of the democratic and secular people of Balochistan. A large number of prominent Baloch social, intellectual and political figures have been targeted and eliminated by these hit squads being controlled by the state securities agencies. Recently these organizations were reportedly involved in the killing of students in Khuzdar district of Balochistan and acid throwing on the Baloch women in the name of religious values.

A brutal military operation is being carried out by the Pakistani State in Balochistan for the last five years in which thousands of innocent men, woman and children have been mercilessly killed. By all accounts, the acts of terror on the part of the Pakistani military establishment are tantamount to acts of genocide against the Baloch people and the tactics of killing the innocent Baloch adopted by the armed forces, paramilitary forces, civilian administration and state security agencies of Pakistan are in violation of international conventions regarding human rights.

Your Excellency,

Pakistan and Iran are combining their efforts for the genocide of the Baloch. The handing over of Abdul Hameed Rigi, the brother of Abdul Malik Rigi by Pakistan to Iranian authorities is against international conventions and a prime example of both countries respect of human rights and international laws. The abduction and subsequent murder of Mr. Abdul Malik Rigi would not have been possible without the involvement of Pakistani security agencies. Both brothers are among hundreds of the Baloch political, social and religious workers whom Iranian authorities hanged publically without proper court hearing and the chance of defending themselves. Hundreds of Baloch activists are lavishing in Iranian torture cells to be hanged and humiliated.

The irony is that the UN and international community are watching silently the violation of human rights and annihilation of an entire people by Iranian and Pakistani states. The silence of the UN and international community can not be justified in the name of the principle of state sovereignty. Pakistan is a state created in the name of religion and religious fundamentalism is the basic pillar of its state ideology.

Now it is an open secret that Pakistan is exporting religious terrorism in India, Afghanistan, UK, Chechnya and other parts of Europe. UN and international community should not forget that the Pakistani State is in the possession of Islamic nuclear bombs and Iran is busy of making its own Shia version of Islamic nuclear bombs. Pakistani Islamic bombs are in the hands of the known rogue army establishment in the contemporary world and Iranian Shia bombs will be in the hands of Shia fundamentalist Mullahs.

Your Excellency,

The situation for the Baloch is alarming, The Baloch are finely being minced by the powerful jaws of the world’s two most notorious and brutal states of Pakistan and Iran. We believe that we are justified in asking for the immediate intervention of UN in order to pressurize both fascist states for an immediate end to genocide acts being committed on the Baloch.

The Baloch Human Rights Council (UK) therefore requests your immediate intervention. We strongly request you to press the Pakistani and Iranian States to stop all atrocities against the Baloch political, social and human rights activists and civilians. We request that this petition be taken as an urgent humanitarian appeal. Your immediate intervention could save not only countless innocent lives but could also prevent the present situation from developing into a total genocide of the defenseless Baloch people. We will be grateful if the UN could establish an international commission to investigate the heinous crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian and Pakistani states establishments in Balochistan.

Yours sincerely
Baloch Human Rights Council (UK)
info_bhrc@yahoo.co.uk
26 June 2010

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Now I know why “Kashmiri cheering India” and “Kashmiris cheering Pakistan” has so much disparity in Google search results.

Same content is being copied an pasted over and over. Now that’s creative. Duh!

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

@tupak_shakir/Usman,

You coward, stop polluting Internet! You could have provided link to your article instead of pasting entire “Quran” here.

Should I paste it for you? Your site may get couple of more hits…

http://reformistani.wordpress.com/2010/0 7/12/pakistan-has-the-legitimate-claim-t o-kashmir-by-steven-meurrens/

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

Tupak sakir mixes facts with lies and presents a very distorted view of the Kashmir issue. If history can be distorted this way, anything can be projected as one desires. In his long comment, he has presented basically a Pakistani version of the whole thing, which paints everything Indian in a bad light. With this attitude, nothing will move in Kashmir. Here are some distortions from his writing:

“Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in 1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book, The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, “The large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally against the Maharjah declaring accession to India.”

Accession decision was made in 1948. So why is Prem Nath Bazaz writing about the population going against the Maharajah declaring accession to India in 1943? Did he have clairvoyance or vivid imagination that Mr. Shakir seems to espouse here?

“In early September, a Muslim rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district. India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh. By mid October, the rebel army was only four kilometres away from capturing Srinagar. It was at this point of desperation, that Hari Singh reportedly signed the Treaty of Accession with India. The Indian army would enter the province the same day, and would be at war with Pakistan within a month.”

This might be true in Pakistan’s version of the story, but definitely not true with respect to others. No one in Kashmir was asking tribals from Pakistan to come to their rescue. The king did not turn into a tyrant all of a sudden after 1947 and started tormenting his people. He wanted their support more than ever before. There is no record of anyone asking for tribesmen from Pakistan to come and save them. The tribals were sent in by Pakistan to capture Kashmir. And they began to pillage and plunder the place and indulged in rape of Kashmiri women. The king ran to India for help and Nehru refused to help because Kashmir was not an Indian territory. The only way the king could help Indian help was by making his kingdom a part of India. Only when he signed the instrument of accession did India take the step to drive the barbarians out. It was not India’s intention to send in the army and take over Kashmir. That place could have walked into Pakistan’s hands, if Pakistan did not hurry up and use violent means to take over the place. This definitely hurt the sentiments of the locals and if a plebiscite was held at that time, the locals might have not voted in favor of Pakistan. And the UN resolution stipulated that Pakistan take its troops out of Kashmir and it never happened. Hence no plebiscite. Would Pakistan do it now? Let us see if there is an answer for it.

“When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.””

Nehru was dead in 1964. I did not know Pakistanis could communicate with dead people. In 1965, Ayub Khan sent in his tribesmen again to take over Kashmir. And the locals caught them and handed them off to the local authorities. And Ayub Khan launched operation Gibraltor after that.

It is very clear that distortion of facts, lying copiously and projecting lies has become a part of the Pakistani system.

All this nonsensical logic about Kashmiris bearing more resemblance to Punjabis and hence they should naturally join Pakistan etc are just that. If that is the case, the Pashtuns in Pakistan bear more resemblance and heritage with Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Using your logic, they should secede from Pakistan and join Afghanistan. Let me see if you will buy that argument. Your logic is so warped that it relies on not only being Muslims, but also bearing resemblance as a criterion for joining Pakistan. Is that the reason why East Pakistanis were slaughtered? Bengalis do not look like Punjabis, do they? Them being Muslims did not seem to count.

Pakistan has ruined its name and reputation by engaging in a bloodbath in East Pakistan and nurtuting Taliban in its belly. Kashmiris are siding with Pakistan only for one reason – they have a gripe with Indian security forces. So they are going by the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” principle. There is no way they are going to be left independent by Pakistan, even if they get one. Your lengthy discourse already justifies the annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan. Kashmir will be yet another backward swamp infested with Pashtuns, Arabs, Chechens and Pakistani Punjabis demanding hard core Islamic rule. After running away from Indians, Kashmiris will fall into the sink hole named Pakistan and will drown. Islam and all won’t matter. Islamic brotherhood is only until Pakistan has eaten Kashmir alive. Once digested in its belly, it will turn into a waste just like the other provinces in Pakistan are. Go for it.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Tribals were asked by kashmiris to provide arms – source – kashmir conflict victoria schofield

kashmiris are the kinfolk of pakistanis – they are not australoids.

dogras were hated by kashmiris well before 1947.

this is not pakistani narrative. The article was written by a neutral westerner. you just assumed this because you cant imagine india ever being wrong.

finally, how was pakistani tribals invading kashmir any different than indian state invading hyderabad? take a look at yourself in the mirror for a change.

Posted by tupak_shakir | Report as abusive
 

finally, how was pakistani tribals invading kashmir any different than indian state invading hyderabad? take a look at yourself in the mirror for a change.”

At least you admit that tribals invaded Kashmir. India never denied its role in the police action on Hyderabad.

In your plagiarised write up, which you tried to pass off as yours, here’s what ‘you’ said:
“In early September, a Muslim rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district. India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh.”

It was not a rebellion, it was a planned Pakistani invasion (which you now admit) and which Pakistan denied till it was blue in the face and then as usual admitted it in the UN in Apr ’48. A leopard never changes its spots.

Hari Singh’s decision was forced upon him by this invasion. Otherwise he was happy to procrastinate.. Instead of picking random authors from a hat why don’t you read official documents including debates in the UN and UN sponsored reports. They will show you how silly and fanciful your whole tirade is.

But the real issue here is that coming here after months I find nothing changed. The usual rantings of the same issue with newer and newer Pakistani versions of historical facts.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

For those interested Shakir has lifted this whole article:

Pakistan has the legitimate claim to Kashmir by Steven Meurrens – available on heaps of sites including The Pakistani Defence Forum.

You could at least have given the author his due.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

” You could have provided link to your article instead of pasting entire “Quran” here.”

Posted by Seth09
……………………………………………..

The mask is slipping. You better adjust it quickly before the people you try to impress with your ‘secularism’ start to notice ;)

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

Like I said the two topics Indian and Pakistan leaders need not discuss are the “Kashmir and Terrorism”. The tempers are above the body temprature and without the Ace Hammer, the blood pressures are likely to go up particularly in the summer heat. They should discuss ways to improve the life of people in their countries, including kashmiris and the so called terrorist resistance people. The territorial disputes should be left to the genius korean sitting in the UNO?
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@KP Singhö1
Sir, have you ever thought of the Kashmiri people as such in the drama which India is currently playing in its back yard? I note that you are always thinking in terms of geo strategic situation and pay very little to the folks you include in one sentence. Just think of the three British gurkhas who were shot down in cold blood by an afghan soldier who was receiving training from them to become a soldier. Do you genuinely believe that even after sixty years Indian military would somehow hang on to the territory regardless of its citizens loyalty.
If the answer is yes, then you are living in a cuckoo land and believe that come what may the current Indian leaders should pass on the buck to the next generation.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@kashmiris are the kinfolk of pakistanis – they are not australoids.”
–Tupak

–Kashmiris are Kashmiris PERIOD.
Rest all is “Mohammad bin Qasim was a Pakistani” type of discussion. LOL

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor: “have you ever thought of the Kashmiri people as such in the drama which India is currently playing in its back yard?”

I presume when you say Kashmiris, you are referring to Kashmiri Muslims. Have you ever thought of the other Kashmiris – like the Pundits, Sikhs and Buddhists? Pundits were driven out of Kashmir valley with the slogan, “Agar Kashmir mein rehna hai, to Allaho Akbar kehna hai.” I am not partial. All people in Kashmir deserve a good life. I admit that the Indian security forces need not be this brutal which is alienating the people even more. But Kashmir is a tug of war between India and Pakistan and Kashmiris have their necks stuck in the middle. If I see the Kashmiris protesting against infiltration by radical elements sponsored by Pakistan and stop taking their support, it would help diffuse the situation a lot. The anger from the Indian security forces stems from the trouble being fomented by Islamabad and Kashmir Muslim’s reliance on that. The more they do this, the more the resistance from India is going to be. As I see it, this has been the plan of the Pakistani establishment in 1989.

“I note that you are always thinking in terms of geo strategic situation and pay very little to the folks you include in one sentence.”

People are the victims of all geo-political games. Afghanistan is a rubble because of cold war geo-politics. Pakistan is burning because of regional geo-politics. So is the case with many countries in Africa, South America, Central Asia and beyond. I am surprised that you are not raising any concerns about your Kurdish Muslim brothers who have faced much worse treatment from your Muslim brothers in Tukey and Iraq. Or the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs. Or the treatment of Uzbeks by the Kyrgyz recently. As I see it, you and your brethren are selective in your condemnation of human rights issues. If it involved Muslims, there is no issue. If it involves non-Muslims, then they are projected as evil monsters. If you are fair in your judgment, you will be fighting for the rights of everyone. We Indians see your selectiveness in regards to Kashmir. That is why we do not show much sympathy for your words. Tell your Pakistani establishment to give up militancy based approach to solving the problem and it will solve by itself. Antagonism will not achieve the desired result.

“Do you genuinely believe that even after sixty years Indian military would somehow hang on to the territory regardless of its citizens loyalty.”

Indian military rule in Kashmir has not lasted 60 years.
India has its military there because it is a state bordering Pakistan and China, two of the most hostile neighbors that India cannot afford to relax on. And the brutal means to contain unrest there has been in vogue only since 1989, when Pakistan launched its Jihad in Kashmir after the Soviets fell in Afghanistan. Whenever Jihad did not happen, peace has returned to the valley, even recently. That should tell you where the source of the problem is – your country.

“If the answer is yes, then you are living in a cuckoo land and believe that come what may the current Indian leaders should pass on the buck to the next generation.”

If you do not project lies, a lot can be done. Your claim of Indian military oppression for 60 years is a blatant lie. It is Pakistan that has been under military oppression for most of its life. May be you should do something about it first. Your country is on fire. First work on putting off that fire before it burns your whole country down. Kashmir must be the least of your worries now.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@Shuqaib.Bhutto/tupak/usman

“The mask is slipping.”

No, its not slipping. It has been snatched from your triple-faced fake identity on this blog. And we thought, Pakistanis were proud people at least!

Own it up and try being honest for a change.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

@DaraIndia

“For those interested Shakir has lifted this whole article:

Pakistan has the legitimate claim to Kashmir by Steven Meurrens – available on heaps of sites including The Pakistani Defence Forum.

You could at least have given the author his due.”

YOU ARE WRONG SIR! Usman lifted the entire article (he is practising some golden journalism and his role model is AQ Khan, hence the plagiarism), and then pasted as Shakir (also goes by the name of Shuqaib) here.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

RexMInor:

@ Do you genuinely believe that even after sixty years Indian military would somehow hang on to the territory regardless of its citizens loyalty.
If the answer is yes, then you are living in a cuckoo land and believe that come what may the current Indian leaders should pass on the buck to the next generation.”
-posted by Rex Minor

—–Do you genuinely believe that you can get away without asking the same question about POK, officially called “Azad Kashmir”. Do not count out Northern Areas when I talk about Kashmir under Pakistan occupation.

I am not going to label you a citizen of cuckooland over this, but do read a bit on constitution of Azad kashmir. Read which segment of Kashmiris (Nationalists for your taste!!!) is not allowed to be part the political process there. That place is not Azad, subject to human rights violations that your one track mind will not begin to think of. Dawn article calls Azad Kashmir as “paradise turned into a living hell”.
Read “”"Azad Kashmir today”"”

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/edit orial/16-azad-kashmir-today-hs-05

I can understand Tupak and Shaquib’s problems that they are Pakistani and are shy to address that isssue, you being a non-Pakistani can do that.

It is impractical to even think that India alone will pack up and handover the region to any Ram or Rahim. The fact remains that Kashmiris hate Pakistan as much as they hate India. You may want to work on finding why.

The other option of begging India or yelling at it is not going to help the Kashmir cause. It is childish.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Pakistanis can read this article:

“””Azad Kashmir today””” By Ahmad Faruqui
Monday, 15 Feb, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/edit orial/16-azad-kashmir-today-hs-05

“”‘Azad’ means free and Azad Kashmir was supposed to serve as a model state whose liberty and freedom would inspire rebellion in Indian-administered Kashmir. That did not happen for several reasons. Constitutionally, Azad Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan. But neither is it an independent state. For its entire 62-year history, it has depended on Pakistan for its economic and political survival. It does not even issue its own postage stamps.

“Because Islamabad has always exercised its claim on the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir is not counted as a fifth province of Pakistan. But for all practical purposes, Muzaffarabad lives under Islamabad’s shadow. Its first government was established on Oct 24, 1947 with Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim as president….”

“n March 1949, after the dust had settled along the ceasefire line, Azad Kashmir signed a power-sharing arrangement with the Government of Pakistan ceding all authority related to defence, foreign affairs, refugees and the plebiscite to Pakistan.”

“In 1955, Pakistan declared martial law in some parts of Azad Kashmir to suppress street violence triggered by the Kashmir Act. In 1957, Pakistan resorted to police action to quell a public meeting that was seeking direct action to create a united and liberated Kashmir. In 1961, President Ayub Khan carried out indirect elections in Azad Kashmir through a Basic Democracies Ordinance which legally only applied to Pakistan, further straining ties with the Azad Kashmiris.”

“Subsequently, faced with Islamabad’s dominance in their day-to-day affairs, several Azad Kashmiri leaders started a movement for liberating Indian-held Kashmir not for Pakistan but for creating a separate Kashmiri state. This further aggravated ties with Pakistan. While all this was happening, Jammu and Kashmir was inducted into the Indian union.

“In 1965, the Pakistani army launched a covert war inside Indian Kashmir seeking to instigate a popular rebellion. This arrow too missed its target. Instead, it enraged India which launched a strong counter-offensive along the international border with West Pakistan.”

@Regardless of the cause, the uprising in the vale provided the Kashmir hawks in Pakistan’s security elite yet another opportunity to press on with their objective. They reactivated their bases in Azad Kashmir and once again decided to fire arrows into Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Soon, ‘freedom fighters,’ armed and trained allegedly by the Pakistan Army, were rolling across in droves across the LoC.

“Azad Kashmir was again in the cross-hairs of armed conflict. Against this backdrop, Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq decided to legally separate the geographically much larger Northern Areas of Gilgit and Baltistan from Azad Kashmir. This caused almost as much consternation in the latter as it did in India. The separation of the Northern Areas by Pakistan eliminated all doubts about the sovereignty of Azad Kashmir. With the reactivation of conflict across the Line-of-Control, the quality of life of the Azad Kashmiris was trammelled. Those who did not want to take part in the proxy war became pariahs.”

“The attacks on Mumbai by a group linked to militant activities in Kashmir in November 2008 were an attempt to reignite the conflict but succeeded only in drawing widespread opprobrium. During the past 62 years, the people of Azad Kashmir have been unable to arise out of poverty in large measure because they are caught in the crossfire between India and Pakistan. The land which their elders knew as a mountain paradise has been turned into a living hell.

“Of the four million people who inhabit the region, nine of 10 live in extremely impoverished conditions in rural areas. Population growth is excessive, at 2.4 per cent per year, and the average house holds no fewer than seven people. Sadly, Azad Kashmir’s future is as murky today as it was in 1947. And the objective for its creation, the liberation of the vale of Kashmir, seems increasingly remote.”"

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Here is something for Tupak-Shakir to chew on:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/irfan-husain-who-will-cast-the-fi rst-stone-470

Kashmiris can go to the land of milk and honey called Pakistan and live happily ever after.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

The synthesis of Shaivism (Hinduism) and Islamic Sufism is the core of Kashmiriyat..This is the opposite of divisive, hate-driven Pakistani ideology.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Thank you Seth. Always glad to be forewarned. Interesting bio.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Myra,

The expectations are low primarily due to the Pakistan’s using terror as state policy, despite so many dossiers, and evidences, Pakistan has failed to rope in so called Non State Actors, terrorists like Hafez Sayeed are roaming freely under state patronage. Secondly, Pakistan has failed to arrest the anti India hate campaign in Pakistan . Pakistan is trying to garner international sympathy by raising K word, Pakistan and its sympathizer have failed to realise that Kashmir is divided in several regions, a major part of Kashmir is under occupation of Pakistan , small part of Kashmir has been gifted to China by so called K sympathizers, how can the K issue be resolved ? The people of Kashmir has become pawns in the power play between India and Pakistan , no body has tried to find out the wishes of the people of Kashmir .

International community seems to be more worried about Iran’s nuclear program, where as Pakistan is also in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and also guilty illegal proliferation of nuclear technology . Pakistan is also ravaged by terrorist violence, international community must take steps to take custody of nuclear weapons to prevent any catastrophe.

Posted by manishindia | Report as abusive
 

If India thinks it can keep Kashmir occupied and keep committing aggression on its Muslim population and oppress them, it is sadly mistaken. Relations with Pakistan will never improve until the dispute is settled. The sooner India realizes this the better it will be.
India has a better economy and stronger military but Pakistan has the courage and will to challenge India and it always will. No wonder once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989. And this time there will be no stopping.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Manishindia:
“international community must take steps to take custody of nuclear weapons to prevent any catastrophe.”

-Manish, just to remind you Pakistan is an independent sovereign nation, which is rapidly developing, expanding and solidifying its nuclear weapons program and increasing the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal including plutonium based warheads. As an independent nation, Pakistan has all the right to do so, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are meant to be for minimum credible deterrence and maintain a balance of power in the region, in fact nuclear weapons are a source of great stability in the region where no regional hegemonic country can perpetrate belligerence. For the world will have to learn to live with a Nuclear Pakistan.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

” Pakistan is also in possession of weapons of mass destruction……………..international community must take steps to take custody of nuclear weapons to prevent any catastrophe.”
…………………………………………………

Molon Labe !!! (google it)

The rest are the same pathetic excuses we’ve been hearing for 63 years. There were no NSAs from the time of Nehru’s promise till his passing away. And yet India showed no interest whatsoever in the peaceful settlement of the dispute. Every decade India comes up with a new excuse (democracy, secularism, akhand bharat etc etc) to delay the settlement in Kashmir and this shows exactly how insincere India has always been.

By delaying a peaceful settlement on Kashmir, India hopes to (1) invalidate U.N. resolutions on Kashmir through political and diplomatic means (2) win over the Kashmiris to the Indian side with economic incentives. The ‘establishment’ in Dehli does not realise that a million boots will not win over anything. As a matter of fact, they may actually be causing the people of the disputed territory to revolt again and again. As for the UN resolutions, they will not be changing anytime soon thanks to China.

Pakistan would never be able to ‘do’ anything in Kashmir unless there was some sort of a political opening (No fire without the fuel). So perhaps the Indian establishment should look in the mirror when they want to find the guitly party in Kashmir’s latest political turmoil instead of blaming it on imaginary cross border infiltrators. Pointing the finger at Pakistan will not help and making excuses will not bring peace to Kashmir. Excuses will only show how insincere India has always been with regards to peacefully settling the Kashmir dispute and THAT is why expectations are low.

As for the nukes, as I’ve said to the Indians before, ‘Molon Labe’.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

“(1) invalidate U.N. resolutions on Kashmir through political and diplomatic means” Bhutto

Can you quote the particular UN resolutions here? You seem adept at googlin.g so it shouldnt be a problem for you.

(HINT: it has been reproduced here on this blog times without number and no Pakistani has ever refuted it. Now, you are most welcome to try)

OR

Like as always happens you will continue to talk of everything else other than the questions asked.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

I have clarified our position regarding Kashmir on this blog and no Indian has so far refuted it. You seem adept at surfing the web so it should’nt be a problem for you to locate it.

(HINT: Its in one of Myra’s previous blog entries on Kashmir. Now you are most welcome to try.)

OR

Like always, you will continue to bring in diversionary issues (e.g. nukes, NSAs, democracy in Pakistan) as a reason not to even come to the table and peacefully work out the modalities for a resolution of the ‘core issue’ i.e. Kashmir.

Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto | Report as abusive
 

@Rajeev K
I get you think loudly and then put your thoughts into answering your own questions. By Kashmiris I meant all kashmiri people excluding the foreign military which is suppressing the population. I could not care about the religion they have or the gender or their agees. I am thinking of human species in that region who call themselves as kashmiris. Indian army is not a national army even after the lapse of sixty odd years. Pakistan army has a similar status. Indian leadership has still not learned that in a democracy you do not deploy militry to maintain law and order, but the police force.
If our basic understanding of the civilian Govt. is not at the same level, then I suggest it is futile to debate the issue. The facts are that we are talking about the current situation and not the UNO resolutions and the love story of Nehru, gandhi and Jinnah. They are dead and gone and so are the respective Govts. in India and Pakistan. This is not the time to bring out the past agreements, UNO resolutions, military arrangements and various episodes. One thing is sure as the day light is sure to come after the nightfall that unless India and Pakistan comes to terms with the current situation then the nuclear war in the subcontinent would become the reality. Not because the two respective leaders would initiate this move but the young turks in the militaries would take matters in their own hands. I am sure the citizens of the sub continent and the peace loving people of the rest of the world do not like to witness this.
Now if you have some constructive ideas about resolving the issue between the Indian Govt. and the kashmiri citizens then I shall be very keen to know about it. If your proposal is for the status Quo, and want to concentrate on what Pakistan needs to do to suppress the so called terrorists and want to take it straight to the Anmerican invention of Talibans etc. etc. then I am afraid we are adding nothing to the well written article of Myra mcdonald.
Have a nice day,
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Umairpk: “India has a better economy and stronger military but Pakistan has the courage and will to challenge India and it always will.”

If Pakistan’s goal is to only challenge India and nothing else, that makes it easy. Keep challenging because there is nothing else in Pakistan. It becomes a hollow state. Such states collapse easily from within.

“No wonder once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989. And this time there will be no stopping.”

We know all this. But it is a huge assumption that things in Afghanistan and FATA will ever become normal with Pakistan sitting nearby. Pakistan will not have the support and money it was getting from the US in 1989. Things have changed a lot between then and now. So a repeat of 1989, be it larger scale or not, will speed up the economic collapse of Pakistan. Military logistics costs enormous money. If Pakistan is hoping to raise the money by selling nuclear bomb technology, components and missiles, it will not get the American connivance like it did in the past. All it takes is one instance of being caught in the act and the US will clamp down hard on Pakistan. Remember that it is still a power with a lot of military budget.

Your warning clearly says what Pakistan itself is up to. You guys never learn and that will lead to your doom. Kashmir will burn Pakistan down.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@Pakistan,

You want some constructive idea on settling Kashmir?

Ok..here you go…

1) Pakistan comply with all Kashmir Resolutions of 1948, remove all punjabi settlers, remove all militants and remove its entire army. Pakistan must also destroy all militant networks in its nexus like the HekMatyar, Haqqani, LeT and all other splinter Taliban like groups.

2) In return, India removes entire presence out of Kashmir, but not Jammu, since Jammu will want to stay with India. All existing water agreements shall remain, for both sides.

3) UN declares Kashmir a sovereign nation, with its own new borders, NO Pakistani presence and NO Indian Presence. Let the Kashmiri’s become their own country. NO plebescite, we will skip that.

4) Balochistan and NWFP have a plebescite, let them decide if they want independence from Punjabi Oppression, this way the Baloch Migraine and the Pashtoon migraine is off Pakistan’s plate. Pakistan can focus on developing its country without any separatist movements.

5) Both India and Pakistan have a new buffer zone. Once Kashmir settles down and develops into a full fledged nation, free of Pakistani’ stoked militantism, Kashmiri’s will be able to decide their own future.

6) For a multi-lateral S. Asian committee comprising of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and other countries, so that they can address mutual issues like terrorism, overpopulation, education, human rights, water rights, energy policies in a formalized and direct manner. Only elected civilian officials from the member nations can serve and all corporate or military alumni shall not be allowed to serve on such a committee, so as not to allow undue political influence by “special interests”.

As you see, the current size of the Armies will become greatly reduced, they can trade their military uniforms for business suits and carry on being the elite business men of Pakistan, this way, Billions of Pak Rupees are saved on both sides by drawing down their armies and Pakistan’s people will hugely benefit from shedding Kashmir, Baloch and NWFP, as it is a migraine to administer areas that do want real autonomy.

The only terrorism left, would be within Punjab itself and Sindh itself, the Pak Army can focus its efforts and purge its new territory and the extra revenue from not having such a large military footprint can be used for educating the children and re-building Pakistan’s infrastructure and so forth.

Everyone can get on with the business of living their lives.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@Umair,

I keep hearing you Pakistani’s say things like:

“India’s Plans for the region”, or “Pakistan has the ability to challenge India’s will”…

Please be absolutely and factually honest, just what the hell is India doing that is so horrible?

Indian army would not be in Kashmir, if Pakistani’s had not re-assigned all Jihadi’s to expand sunni empire in Kashmir, after soviets left, we had to maintain security and it was the right thing to do…to challenge your militants in Kashmir. 911 may not have happened if Afghanistan was not kept as a Pak militant nursery for 20 odd years even after the Soviet occupation. Do you see the pattern here?

What did Indians do that was so bad in Afghanistan? What the hell did we do? We built highways, schools, mosques for the Afghans, are we truly so evil?

On the other hand, you Paks did nothing, but instill the Taliban in Afghanistan and rolled Afghans back to the 7th century, so if Indians are so bad, what does that make Pakistani’s? Let’s get real here Umair, you Paks did nothing for Afghans, except used and abused them and played with their futures for your own benefit. Indians are providing direct benefit to the Afghans and their work there is legit, it is not of a military nature.

Secondly, Pakistan is occupying the other side of Kashmir, why don’t you gets get the Fxxx out of there? Why the double standards?..

You fzzzen army people like living off the civilians and using any religious political issue to involve anybody and everybody to make the most profit you can and can’t make an honest living without robbing or stealing from someone others.

Be honest with yourself Umair, you cannot have everything and eat your cake too. Your BS proxy wars in Kashmir and the BS proxy undermining the Afghan mission has to stop.

We all know this is the tentacles of Sunni imperialism..operating the region like a double dealing lawless biker gang, if this does not stop, it will set the entire region of fire and Pakistan will not survive being ravaged by its own demons.

I am still seeing all perceived threats by Pakistanis about India as just hollow threats and BS. Indians have not done anything aggressive against Pakistan, except hard diplomacy. You guys started all wars, 1948, 1965, 1971, Kargil and Mumbai upon India.

What big military war did India ever choose to inflict upon Pakistani’s? Muslims are the biggest murderers of muslims in Pakistan, not Indians, not Hindus. With the historical restraint that India has showed time and against, we Indians are too damn nice to a fault. Your army has been lying to your people and mindfxxxd them with religious and political propaganda and that is what was done in Kashmir.

If the Chinese were in the same situation with Pakistan as India has been, the Chinese would have destroyed and occupied Pakistan, regardless of your nukes. They would have ravaged Pakistan, just look at how they treat minorities like the Buddhists and Uighers.

Go get your fxxxen military head checked and quit playing games, just because you are from an Army background, have the balls to think outside once in a while and be your own man. Grow up.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

@”once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989″
Posted by Umairpk

One major problem with your fantasy: You forgot to look at the calender. This is not 1989 & things have drastically changed since then. Back then, Pakistan had a decent economy, hardly any internal problems & it had a lot of support from the west, especially the US while India had a bad economy (along the socialist-protectionist model) & the US/west didn’t care much for it. India did not have a voice. Fast forward to present day, Pakistan is a failed & virtually bankrupt state, rife with a multitude of internal problems & it is also in the bad books of the US/west (will be even more after the withdrawal) whereas India has gained the status of a well respected upcoming global power with close ties to the US/west. It has a strong voice in the world today.

If you guys weren’t able to do any damage to India from a position of strength (back in the 90s), what makes you think, you can do so now from a much weaker position? You may “revive the freedom struggle” in Kashmir but how will you sustain it, given that you guys are bankrupt & the plug will soon be pulled on the aid given to you as well? Also, when you guys “revive the freedom struggle” in kashmir, I can assure you that India will not be sitting idle. It will also “revive a dozen odd freedom struggles” in each of your provinces & make sure that the fire in your house keeps burning untill the whole house is gutted to the ground. And while Pakistan hardly has the resources needed to sustain any “freedom struggles”, India certainly has all the means & resources to make sure that the freedom struggles in Pakistani provinces reach their logical conclusion. IMO, your army generals are well aware of the above scenario & will therefore not make any such stupid mistake but if they do, they better be prepared for some serious retribution.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

Mortal, RajeevK, Dara, G-W, Keith et al,

I strongly recommend you guys to read “Nuclear Deception” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark. If not in the book stores, it will be in a library for sure.

This book was an eye opener for me. It not only details how AQ Khan and others stole the nuclear technology from Holland and France, but also the complicity and co-operation of greedy industries in these countries, the efforts taken by the CIA and State Dept to block any effort to curtail Pakistan from pursuing its goal (because of the fear of American efforts being jeopardized in Afghanistan), and on top of all that, how the Pakistani military and ISI planned everything towards the end of the the first Afghan war to launch its offensive against India, the American connivance again, the humiliating treatment for Benazir Bhutto and so on. I could not believe the degree to which Musharraf was engaged in propping up Harkat Al Ansar, JeM, Taliban etc. He was playing a secular front on one side and was up to his neck in dealing with the radicals. Musharraf was directly involved in the campaign in Siachien. Pakistan is burning today not only because of Zia Ul Haq, but also because of Musharraf.

Interestingly Zia, Musharraf, AQ Khan etc were Indian Muslim immigrants. They have the worst hatred for India. I think they were severely affected by the partition violence when they were very young and it never left them. The book describes how frenzied Musharraf or AQ Khan become when India is mentioned. Until these mad psycho generation disappears, Pakistan will be influenced by them. I think the local Pakistanis who never had to emigrate can reconcile and move on.

If Pakistan pursues the wrong policy of conflict again, they are definitely doomed this time. In 1989, they had all the opportunity to turn their country around and make it an economic powerhouse. The Americans would have done anything for them in gratitude. They wasted that away and began to launch their offensive against India and have brought their country to the brink. If they do not see the light and start making the same mistake again, they are going to fall apart. Taliban is not just going to return to Afghanistan. It will spread into Pakistan and take over. These emotional idiots have no idea what they are walking into. Kashmir conflict is only a diversionary tactic and it will not give them any solace that they are seeking. It helps them justify their miserable condition.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@For the world will have to learn to live with a Nuclear Pakistan.
Posted by Umairpk
—As long as Pakistan lives!

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@As for the UN resolutions, they will not be changing anytime soon thanks to China.”
–Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto

—Do you think that support came free? and that too from China? LMAO

To win Chinese support, Pakistan gifted 4853 sq km of the Kashmiri territory in the Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963.

There is enough historical evidence of Pakistani misdeeds to prove that you hardly care about Kashmir and the Kashmiris–”kinfolks” or else.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@Like always, you will continue to bring in diversionary issues (e.g. nukes, NSAs, democracy in Pakistan) as a reason not to even come to the table and peacefully work out the modalities for a resolution of the ‘core issue’ i.e. Kashmir.
Posted by Shuqaib.Bhutto

Dara:
good news Shuqaib.Bhutto is willing to discuss “Kashmir”.

Shuqaib:

What is Pakistan;s official stance:
As I understand Self-determination by Kashmiris.
Now tell us has Pakistan allowed that to Kashmiris in “AJK”? NO.

Pakistan has pre-determined that Kashmiris will join Pakistan, reflected here in Pakistani statements that they are “kinfolks” of Pakistanis.

What is this self-determination song about?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

3:21 pm EDT@For the world will have to learn to live with a Nuclear Pakistan.
Posted by Umairpk
—As long as Pakistan lives!

Rajeev-
-Pakistan is surely here to stay, 1971 was a watershed moment, thereafter Pakistan manufactured and maintains WUDs (Weapons of Ultimate Destruction). In case of Pakistan and India it is a doctrine of mutually asuured destruction, if you attack us we will attack you in retaliation. Its that simple. No more East Pakistan, this time there will be no prisoners. No missile defense shield. No second strike status.

Mortal:
“One major problem with your fantasy: You forgot to look at the calender. This is not 1989 & things have drastically changed since then. ”

-O yeah, what an irony things have surely changed drastically, back then Pakistan was just another country. Today it is the world’s first and so far only Muslim nuclear power.

While I am not threatning nuclear war, Pakistan nuclear doctrine is not offensive in nature, as I stated, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is for minimum credible deterrence. But surely, that status has given Pakistan a chance to embolden its stance on a number of issues. What I advocate is peace between India and Pakistan and resolution of all disputes in a fair manner. If not, status-quo will prevail.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

“Today it is the world’s first and so far only Muslim nuclear power.”

>> This romantic notion for dangerous weapons bewilders me. The first ape who discovered the use of stones as weapons would have had felt similar sense of joy and pride.

If somehow the entire world agreed for global nuclear disarmament, I bet you will cry most inconsolably for loosing your favorite toy.

PS: A mentally unstable person should not keep a loaded gun in his house, accidents may happen.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

okay, its chuckle time for me :)

So when is Pakistan getting a new symbol for their currency?

Moreover, any updates on that solar mission people talked about in blogs in response to India’s launch of Chandrayaan.

Posted by Seth09 | Report as abusive
 

@”back then Pakistan was just another country. Today it is the world’s first and so far only Muslim nuclear power”

Lmao, Somehow I knew that your response would contain the word “nuclear” about half a dozen times. Anyways, so what exactly are you saying here? You’ll use your nukes in kashmir or you’ll use them to crush the insurgencies in your country? Because we’re not talking about nuclear or conventional war here. You started by talking about Pakistan “reviving freedom struggle” in kashmir & I responded by talking about India doing the same in Pakistan. So, where do nukes come in the eaquation here?

@”What I advocate is peace between India and Pakistan and resolution of all disputes in a fair manner”

And how do you do that? By threatening to “revive an unstoppable freeedom struggle” in kahmir & then by threatening with your nukes?

One more thing, if you prefer a bankrupt, failed & radicalized Pakistan of today just because you have nukes to the moderate, progressive & prosperous Pakistan that you had in 1989 then there’s something seriously wrong with your thinking. Can you feed your nukes to your poor who are killing their children because they can’t afford to feed them anymore?

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

Umair:

@“No wonder once the situation in Afghanistan and FATA gets better I suspect Kashmir freedom struggle will be revived and another uprising will begin against India on a much larger scale than previously in 1989. And this time there will be no stopping.”
—Umair

Umair: Are you giving a rationale for India staying put in Afghanistan with torch lights to burn your tail so that you never settle down?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

I am ignoring Umair’s Nuclear decay!

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@I get you think loudly and then put your thoughts into answering your own questions. By Kashmiris I meant all kashmiri people excluding the foreign military which is suppressing the population. I could not care about the religion they have or the gender or their agees. I am thinking of human species in that region who call themselves as kashmiris.”

—RexMinor: I do not think ur post in any way responds to what I said.

@By Kashmiris I meant all kashmiri people excluding the foreign military which is suppressing the population. I could not care about the religion they have or the gender or their agees.:
—I think you do care about RELIGION since you are expecting Pushtoons to reach Kashmir. What else is the commonality? Do you think Pushtoons will be making a visit to save Kashmiri Pundits?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

KP Singh:

@Mortal, RajeevK, Dara, G-W, Keith et al,
I strongly recommend you guys to read “Nuclear Deception” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark. If not in the book stores, it will be in a library for sure.”
–Thanks for recommending that book.

Here is interview on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/medi aPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&i d=16251052&m=16251049

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Obsession with Kashmir is the root cause of most of Pakistan’s current problems i.e weak economy, weak democratic institutions, radicalization etc. Unless Pakistan’s leaders abandon violent means to resolve Kashmir, it’s suicidal demise is inevitable. IMO, the only person in the Pakistani establishment, who gets this, is Zardari but unfortunately due to his character flaws & propoganda by the PA, he’s constantly vilified amongst Pakistani people.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

89-year old “traitor” talking about four Indo-Pak wars

http://www.youtube.com/kashifhkhan#p/u/1  /7rGVpiWH-QI (Hindi/Urdu)

Too bad they could not give a refresher course to everybody in the Pakistan studies.

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

Mortal1: “Obsession with Kashmir is the root cause of most of Pakistan’s current problems i.e weak economy, weak democratic institutions, radicalization etc.”

If Kashmir was not there, it would be some other issue. The core problem is not Kashmir. It is self-doubt in the minds of Pakistanis that has been sustained since the founding of that country. They formed it hurriedly in the name of Islam. Once they got it (too fast in my opinion), they had no idea what to do with it. Jinnah died after achieving his life goal – becoming a head of state. Most people living in the region that became Pakistan, did not care about a separate nation for Muslims. Now suddenly a new country was formed and they had no further agenda. It is always easier to stage protests, violent acts, riots etc against a system than govern one. In India itself the communists and Maoists revel in this. If they get to power, they deliver nothing. They survive by keeping everything utterly backward. Pakistan’s leaders have followed the same principle. They got the nation by staging violence. Once they were given the power to govern, they had no idea how to go about it. They did what they knew the best – stage violence outside of Pakistan and keep it going. So India has become like the governing establishment and Pakistan has become like a party that protests it. The mindset has not changed – protest against the system and let the system clean up all the rubble. This is all Pakistan has been doing ever since its birth. They killed off their potential leaders early enough. Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated. And the military of Pakistan stepped into the power vacuum. Again they did what they knew best – stage violence inside India. Kashmir was the God given opportunity for them. If Kashmir issue had been resolved, Pakistan would suffered from cold turkey and died off along ago due to internecine feud. Kashmir has kept them united. They are able to survive by creating a paranoia about India. So India is the basis of their very existence. And Kashmir helps them stage their protests against that system. If Kashmir is resolved, they would again be left in total confusion.

Thieves get used to way laying people, abucting and robbing others. They do not believe in an honest and ethical life. It appears boring to them. Hard work is not something they seek. Being thieves is more challenging. So Pakistan has sought that path. Thieves believe in macho, weapons, arm twisting, threatening and intimidating. One sees all these characteristics in Pakistan. It is a criminal state in the neighborhood. If Afghanistan or Kashmir get resolved, it will only push them towards killing each other more. They have relied on outward aggression for their survival. If that is suddenly taken away, the fall.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Hello. I would like to ask the Indians here some questions.

Let’s ASSUME Pakistan was to to stop its support of (terrorists/freedom fighters depending on your point of view) in Kashmir, suspend support of separatist organization in Kashmir and come to the negotiating table.

1. GIVEN this assumption, what would you as an Indian be willing to do in return?

Please state your personal answer not your government’s position. Also, please refrain from anger, insults, condescending comments, accusations etc. I am genuinely curious and I don’t want to engage in a pak/indo hate match.

If I get some genuine dialog, I will pose questions for pakistanis. We may or may not learn something in this exercise.

Thanks!

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

“what would you as an Indian be willing to do in return?”

Translation- if you want terrorism to stop, you have to do our bidding.

This is a non-starter.Basically you are reiterating your position of using terrorism as an instrument of negotiation.

And what makes you think Indians here are speaking on behalf othe government.LOL!

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@Saif

Besides I hope you are not trying to indulge in some spin here projecting as if Pakistani terrorism inside India is limited to the state of Jammu Kashmir alone.

I also hope you won’t claim Indians speaking truths here to be “insulting” or “condescending”, etc.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@Saif,

“GIVEN this assumption, what would you as an Indian be willing to do in return? Please state your personal answer not your government’s position.”

You sound sincere but there are problems with your question itself.

1) If it is GoP that would stop support to terrorists/separatists then why shouldn’t the response should come from GoI first. Why do you want people’s version? Had you had asked that if Pakistani mindset stops supporting trouble-makers in K than how would Indian mindset would respond and then your question would have made more sense.

2) Pakistan coming to negotiating table – there is no negotiation table young padawan. If at all, a coffee table might be put in place and then we sort of chat and take it easy, talk weather and do stuff. Expecting ice-cream in return for behaving well in front of guests is childish behavior. Pakistan is surely above that.

Now suppose there is something to be discussed, it would be the trade and it would be on EQUAL footing. People on both sides have much more in common and can greatly benefit from each other.

3) What should a trouble-maker expect from society in return for giving up his rowdy habits? Nothing, may be acceptance later! Or are we talking some sort of blackmail here? If yes, is there a wishlist somewhere?

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

@Saif.

stop support of Kashmiri terrorists?..its a start… but not enough..

more is needed…

comply with 1948 UN Resolutions, Pakistan vacate PoK immediately, removing all non-indigenous settlers, that being the punjabi sunni’s, all militants and entire Army back to Punjab and destroy all terrorist infrastructure in process.

In return, India draws down Kashmir entirely, removes Army and Kashmiri’s be given some time to stew and think it over, how they want their futures to fold, all without undue duress and pressure from either sides, all under the watchful eye of UN monitors.

Mind you, once India starts throwing cash, carrot and incentives of a better life, most of Kashmir, both sides will likely start drooling at the cash that India will infuse, if they both join India. Pakistan cannot compete in this regard, they can only keep Kashmir by brute force and propaganda, but Pakistan has nothing truly good in terms of a better life to offer Kashmiri’s, on either side….sorry but Quaran does not fill hungry man’s stomach.

Posted by G-W | Report as abusive
 

Fair enough.

Revised Assumption:

1.1 pakistan suspends support of all separatists/terrorism/freedom fighters/liberation movements ANYWHERE in India. This would include ‘moral’, ‘financial’ support of even political organizations of kashmir that are pro-pak or pro-independence.

1.2 Let’s assume that india reciprocates with suspension of any actual/alleged links with balochistan or any other group in pak. so that 1.1 does not seem like a one-way ‘blackmail’.

what would indians be willing to offer/compromise/negotiate against this hypothetical backdrop?

Thanks.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

In return For 1.1,

Indians are willing to discuss Trade and another willing to discuss Kashmir based on preconditions.

Here is the Indian Offer:

2.1. Negotiate Trade
2.2 Negotiate Kashmir WITH preconditions:
1 Pak vacate AJK
2 Remove ‘non-indigenous settlers’ based on indian specified ethnicity/sect
3 Remove ‘militants’ from kashmir irrespective of ethnicity
4 dismantle ‘terror infrastructure’

Pakistanis. Shuqaib/Umair/Tupak or others. Would you be willing to negotiate trade on these pretexts? what is your response to the preconditions.

Please be civil, don’t bring in holy books into this discussion.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

There is a severe disconnect here. You claim your latest post is “revised”. I read it again and don’t see any “revision”.

No one should be obligated to do something in return for the opponet stopping terrorism.

Of course we could live as good neighbors and respect each other and focus on economic development.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Some Kashmiri muslims wanting to be out of India is Kashmir problem. Punjabis, Mohajirs living in Lahore and Karachi claiming Kashmiris need “self-dtermination” is manifestation of the much larger cancer called the “Pakistan problem”.

What have you acheived with the land mass and ethnic groups you got in 1947?

Kashmir project is desparate hope to undermine India. It remains only a hope though. We are absolutely committed more than ever. Meanwhile Pakistan is going down the drain.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

seeker, even if you think pakistan is a cancer and going down the drain, i will remind you what prime minister behari vajpayee wrote in the visitor’s book of minar-i-pakistan

“India’s integrity and prosperity depends on the integrity and prosperity of Pakistan.”

but thanks for your feedback anyway.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

To answer Saif’s question:

“GIVEN this assumption, what would you as an Indian be willing to do in return? Please state your personal answer not your government’s position.”

First of all, Pakistan had no business sending in terrorists into Kashmir or Afghanistan or Mumbai or anywhere. If Pakistan is a normal and civilized nation, it would not be sponsoring criminals to act in other countries, train them and protect them. So if Pakistan withdraws its criminal acts, then there is nothing to be done. India was moving on normally. If Pakistan decided to set fire to its neighbor and decides not to blow the air anymore, what should the neighbor do? Nothing. It just needs to snuff out the fire and move on. May be Pakistan should pay India for the damages it has caused.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@Saif

“et’s assume that india reciprocates with suspension of any actual/alleged links with balochistan or any other group in pak”

How does one suspend alleged links? Indian PM Mr. Manmohan Singh announced in Sharm-al-Sheikh that we have nothing to hide regarding Balochistan and it was a very bold and honest statement to make for any country’s prime minister.

Time and again Pakistani foreign office propagates that they have proof of India’s involvement. Someone goes forward and says in the interview that a dossier has been given to India and what not. Do you really believe that if at all they had given anything, it would not come out in global media?

If you understand Hindi/Urdu, hear what Pakistan’s officials and media persons have to say in this regard:

http://www.youtube.com/kashifhkhan#p/u/1 8/QdQvT_cplMo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH1vt3xlB zo

(I believe Rehman Malik is also on phone line in this talk show)

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

Sorry for digressing from the main topic…but cant resist.
I have been keenly following the discussion on this blog for a longtime. I have a few questions for all those who have been vigorously debating here. Can the present situation in Pakistan be analyzed from a social perspective rather than the purely political perspective? We all know that root cause of a social unrest can be radically different from the channel through which that unrest gets expressed. Is something of this sort happening in Pakistan or with the Muslim world at large? On the face of it, the current unrest is manifesting itself as a religious struggle- Jihad. But I feel the root cause of this unrest lies in the feudal social order which by its very nature tends to throttle genuine aspirations of the ordinary folks. In an ideal society with a matured democracy there are adequate political and social channels available through which the grievances of people can be channelized, but in the developing world this is not the case. So in countries like India and Pakistan in the absence of governance and due to lack of appropriate means to redress genuine grievances of various social groups; the unrest simmers-on unattended for a long time, and then it breaks out through whatever channel that is available. In Pakistan today the only channels through which frustrations of troubled society can be effectively expressed are religious ones. But then social or economic distress cannot be effectively expressed through religious or ethnic channels and they can morph into some thing vicious –Terror. Violence that ensues from religious or ethnic unrest tends to be malignant, a self sustaining chain reaction where justification for inhuman actions are sought in religious and ethnic contexts.

So, does Pakistan’s redemption lie in providing people with proper channels for venting their grievances by nurturing democracy and taking steps to ease their distress? Something similar needs to be done in naxal affected places of central India.

Posted by DesiPromethius | Report as abusive
 

@DesiP
Well said, I have tried but most are just obsessed with religion divide and nationality divide.
@KPsingh01
your post is only fifty percent in line with my knowledge. let me mention some history, apparently your fvourite subject, the invaders fron the north did not come as tourists in the so called Indian subcontinent to eliminate the man made gods in temples and private dwellings of the people ho practiced the burning of wifes when the partner left. Yes, they had no intention to occupy the territory but simply to preach to the people of one God and not several man made statues. History also tells us that the moghul rulers were fascinated by the non-believers innocence and rich culture and beautiful country that they decided to stay on and rule the units of India, allowing religious freedom of whatever sort, intermarriagers with the non believers etc. etc. We are all aware that the strategy of iron hand and then the great love affair, both of the mughal strategies failed miserably. To day there are more non muslims than the muslim people in the subcontinent engulfed in chaos and the law of the jungle. The Pashtoons are not likely to come to kashmir as tourists but to revisit the territory of the Indian territory in total, and examine what they left behind in 1947. They need to visit to be sure that another military of Jawans(some one mentioned this) is now brutalising the innocent kashmiri people and I am not saying muslims only but Kashmiris of all ethnic mix.For the so called paradise on earth as one mughal ruler described it is now being trempled by the military boots. Those who threaten loudly usually do not act, even if they have the nukes. The Pashtoons have never threatened the weaker, but have always confronted the strong ones. The myth of the Punjabi Pakistan army disappeared when they surrendered against the Indian army and the myth of the Punjabi Indian army was tainted with doubt when they surrendred against the larger chinese force. Two muslim citizens of India coming from the same village managed to manufacture nuclear bombs, one for India and the other one for Pakistan. Had Indian leaders not opened their big mouth and boasted about the bomb they had Pakistan leaders would also not have dedclared their possessions. They would have been no different than many countries including Israel and Iran, both of whom possess nuclear weaponry. But this is another subject.
Neither India nor Pakistan have achieved the status of a Nation, though they have a administrative control over a certain territory. Their population is in tatters and those who are well off keep boasting about the good old phrase, “I AM ALRIGHT JACK”. Millions of their citizens are migrants or asylum seekers in many parts of the world and even for a very simple education are running around like headless chickens, even in cold north american continent and hot climate Australia. India does not recognise the territororial bounds of Pakistan, never did, and Pakistzan does not recognise the bounds of India. Both country leaders are the vassal of the colonialist Britain and believe that what the Brits left is theirs. What a lot of crap. In both countries the Indian born politicians are running the affairs of the stte with militaryx support and those who disagree are regarded as insurgents, terrprists, communists, religous fanatics and so on and so forth. The engish language media is of little help. Both countries need to establish the identity of the people, the religous identity is insufficent. The institutions need to be reformed. Neither Nehru fanmily nor Jinnah families werre freedom fighters and they are not sufficient to create a Nation of the people!
Rex Minor

PS. Now do not give me a new nationality. I cannot even get rid of the computer allocated ‘Pakistan’.

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Bhutto,
You have penchant for copying others.

Once again – not a single question answered even the very easy one of giving us the UN resolution.

More bombast. Is this how kashmir is to be discussed?

As I said earlier – nothing on this blog has changed except for the same repetition of distorted history.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

I admire your ability to take such a charitable view of Bhutto’s ability to discuss Kashmir. With the responses received so far I refuse to talk to an blank wall!

Last night’s press conference saw Qureshi at his devious, pompous and elusive best. Side stepped every issue and gave us that famous yarn, Pakistan does not as policy subscribe to incursions into others territories. It was one better than the ‘non-state’ now state actors. That about sum ups the level of debate. Why do we even try? :)

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

saif 1980: were u here earlier by screen name “Saf”?

Dara:
Would not disagree with you on what u said.
saif_1980 is the right person to chat with on this.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

saif1980:

Any movement can be supported by indigenous groups and foreigners.

As an example, the foreign (pak)-based groups (LeT, JeM) make a mess of the a movement (Kashmir) since pakistan-based groups will not let Kashmiris take credit for uprising even when it is due.

Let us take this as an example to answer ur question:
@1.2 Let’s assume that india reciprocates with suspension of any actual/alleged links with balochistan or any other group in pak. so that 1.1 does not seem like a one-way ‘blackmail’”
–Assuming India supports Baloch or is sending militants (any XYZ from outside or from India -let us say RSS or Bajrang Dal guys or anyone else) in to Balochistan/Pakistan for Balochistan cause, India needs to stop total support. Stop support both to the indigenous Baloch groups as well as stop sending militants into Baloch and then make sure that this is no longer reversible/temporary withdrawal of support only to be revived later by preserving these groups. Ideally India must dismantle this infrastucture. How to do it and find out is my next question to you.

Same applies to your:

@1.1 pakistan suspends support of all separatists/terrorism/freedom fighters/liberation movements ANYWHERE in India. This would include ‘moral’, ‘financial’ support of even political organizations of kashmir that are pro-pak or pro-independence.

–suspend support? No Pakistan should work to uproot the foundations of this terrorism from outside–at all levels. Or you can tell what is the guarantee that these groups with bigger designs (LeT has its own grand agenda) will not start a movement again or a new one.

–A true “suspend” allows me to suggest that Indian Army is out of Kashmir, Pakistani Army out of AJK and Northern Areas, and Balochistan, handing over administration to locals, withdraw Pakistani settled in AJK and Northern Areas. Army goes to borders or wherever is required.

–There is a need to sign an agreement that India and Pakistan will not use any moral or material support of any kind in each other;s territories. This will fix a lot of problems. THis is basic and 2-way step. I think India did this with Bangladesh at some level.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

First of all Rajeev, thanks for recommending a dialogue with Saif. In fact I had just read his various statements and I was most impressed with the way his views are structured. I have been actually thinking about his questions and came here to give my response when I saw your response.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

@”GIVEN this assumption, what would you as an Indian be willing to do in return?”
Posted by saif_1980

With all due respect, your question is analogous to my neighbour asking me “what would you give me in return, if a put my dogs on leash & prevent them from ruining your garden every night?”. In other words “if you don’t give me what I want, I’ll let my dogs lose on your garden”.

First & foremost, you Pakistanis need to realize that by abandoning terrorism as a state policy, you won’t be doing anybody any favors and by doing so, the ones you’ll be helping the most, would be yourselves. Such a realization is imperative, if Pakistan ever wants to become a civilized & responsible nation.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

Saif,

Good questions which deserve answers.

I have a simple amendment to make to your premises by giving you an idea of the mood that prevails here. It is not just stopping or curbing terrorist activities. The real seething anger in India to-day is on 26/11. This may sound as being repetitive – it isn’t. I have never seen just disinterest and apathy in the man in the street before and every time Pakistan tries to dismiss it with what seem to be irrelevant and disparaging comments – just makes matters worse. To give you an idea, a leading newspaper covered the FMs’ talks at the bottom of page 1 and continued it inside. This would never have happened if the people cared about the talks.

Given that background, personally, if I see even one sincere step from Pakistan in really making an effort to let Indians know that 26/11 is something that they feel should never have happened and that they will go all out to actually take serious measures to bring the perpetrators to book – I would be more than satisfied. At the moment what I see is that there is a farce of arresting some, then carrying out a trial by adjournments which moves not at all. The last time it was delayed because the Indian Home Minister was in Pakistan – why that is reason for adjournment is beyond my limited understanding. Now comes a demand that the magistrate and officers who recorded Kasab’s confession be sent to Pakistan. This is hogwash. The proceedings in an Indian court of law should be accepted anywhere, just as proceedings in a Pakistani court should be respected.

So I want to see some genuine, honest and heartfelt understanding of what 26/11 means to Indians. Forget about the foreign ministers’ fiasco and the trading of insults. 26/11 and 26/11 alone matters to people here.

In return I am willing to sit with Pakistan across the table and discuss anything and everything, freely, frankly and in a spirit of give and take. Kashmir, water, Balochistan, Sir Creek, Siachen, whatever – you name it. What happens thereafter is beyond my understanding, at present, as it is hypothetical. But yes, I will sit across the table and talk and talk, and not stop talking till finally a solution is hammered out.

Some things I would want done straight away – remove the hassles in traveling between countries. I think we two countries are the only ones in the world which do not issue country specific Visas but make them city specific for our respective citizens. Promote cross border education and exchanges at the student level. They need to become the force that makes respective governments to change attitudes. Open more communication links and promote toursim between the two. Money makes the world go round – so lets trade freely, let products from Pakistan flood Indian markets, why do we allow Chinese products to saturate our markets?

I may be against the talks at the moment, but it is only because I see a total disdain for Indian concerns over what happened in 2008. There is no alternate to dialogue really for us, but it has to be in the right spirit. That spirit is elusive at the monet unfoprtunately.

I guess thats for starters….

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor: “the invaders fron the north did not come as tourists in the so called Indian subcontinent to eliminate the man made gods in temples and private dwellings of the people ho practiced the burning of wifes when the partner left.”

All this is distorted Pakistan history where everything is portrayed as some kind of domestic injustice which was quelled by a benevolent foreign army. Muhammad Bin Qasim is depicted as a holy warrior who came in and liberated the natives of Sindh who were suffering under the cruel Dahir. Now the same thing is extended to the sub-continent where the natives are projected as degenerate, wife burning, eye ball eating monsters who were defeated by the benevolent Turks who came in from Central Asia, broke down all the idols and evil temples, brought clothes for the naked natives etc. The same song is sung in praise of the Pashtuns.

Here is what one can sense from this. History written by cowards resembles the above. Cowards quietly switch sides and rewrite their history, distort everything and join those who subjugate them.

The history of the Indian sub-continet has been full of conflicts, empires, golden ages and ruin. Turks from Central Asia first populated Afghanistan. Mahmud of Ghajni was a Turk. He was basically a plunderer who wanted to fund his campaigns in Central Asia. To achieve that, he frequently raided “Hindustan”, stole all the gold and took women as slaves. That’s all.

There is no fear in the hearts of the people in India about these “tribes.” All that is old history. Things are different now. India is now a proper country with its own military. Pashtuns cannot come into India at will. They have to sneak in. And they need support and cover to do that. The “non-Pashtun” coward army of Pakistan is providing that.

For all the glory sung in praise of these Pashtuns, they did not stand up and fight the Americans. They took refuge under the protection of the “non-Pashtun” coward army of Pakistan. They could have been decimated by the Soviets. But survived using the help given by the Americans. And now they are fighting them. What this tells us is that these people are not grateful. They’d take help when they need and stab the same people who help them.

You guys have been living by the principle, “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Here is something for Pakistanis to chew on. Since they have been screaming about Indian military in Kashmir, may be they should take a closer look at their own military first before pointing fingers at others:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-as ia-10667545

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

KPSingh:

RexMinor is no Pushtoon. To his credit, he has been able to provoke anti-Pushtoon sentiments by his false equation Pushtoon = Taliban = “guerrillas” and baseless presumptions (presented as factual).

He does not have the spine to stay put and discuss. So for sure he is fighting like a gueirilla.

The worst is he presents himself as a neutral and then give racist statements as one posted here.

WE all can save energy on this guy.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-as ia-10658865

Pakistan and India foreign ministers in diplomatic spat

-Being in Islamabad, I dont see the atmosphere good for the talks. S.M Krishna’s visit was wasted, another opportunity lost.
India is simply not a partner for peace. They dont want to talk Kashmir, they continue to view themselves as the policeman of South Asia. So be it. Come back when you really feel you need to forge peace with Pakistan. Good Bye!

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

…Also who was calling Mr. Krishna from Delhi?, and phone conversations back and forth between Islamabad and Delhi that Mr. Krishna was having. Someone else was directing policy to him, he was not prepared for talks, did not take initiative. India is biding its time, simply put these talks are another fraud, another cover. Who are we trying to fool? Lets just get back to reality. Peace between India and Pakistan has very little chance.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

@KP Singh
You more or less confirm my analysis. The invaders and the plunderers as you call them did not come into the beautiful territory of maharajas to occupy it . They indeed came to destroy the country as much as they could and to plunder the land and its people and their properties. And if you follow the half truth history you would also note that they went into spain and most of France, not to occupy the territory but to destroy the barons and the kings and the whole european history is a living example of their adventrous and ruthless intrusion. They did not built mosques in today’s Hungary but converted their churches into mosques. This is not to say that the spaniards were kind to them in return after several centuries. They eliminated all the invaders and forced them to convert to christianity. Nor were they treated with love in budapest and Austria. Let us not imagine that the peace loving people of the hills, around sixty millions odd are not capable to repeat the history after having seen their land, their families and their homes being disgraced by the Pakistan military and the super super power USA and its european allies sending soldiers into their homes at night molesting their old, women and children. They have just managed to defeat the famous US general whose scottish ancestors are buried in the same land, with a limited number of snipers called Talibans. You are probably not aware the same Pashtoons marched on foot day and nioght to reach Sirinagar with very little resistance from the Indian military. They had one problem, they could not identify who the enemy was? No one resisted their advance. The Pakistan army could have done the same feat themselves. I am sure they hold no grudge against Indians and even respect the Pashto speaking non muslims.
From the news one reads in the west it would appear that they after the Pakistan military in Waziristan, they are now operating in Punjab proper and most of Sindh area unhindered. The Pakistan military finds it hard to protect their headquarter and the Govt. is already thinking of taking the capital back to Karachi. My advise would be to set up the capital on moon, even then its safety cannot be guaranteed by the military. George W was a great friend of theirs and there were regular flights from kabul to texas. George W did not expect that these famous warriors were not his friends, when they refused to hand over their guest to them, hence the USA action in Afghanistan. What have the USA achieved, a Pashtoon from a very strong tribe is in power today with the blessing of the USA administration, and no wonder the professional four star general had to behave like a civilian NGO director. Does any one still believe that after the withdrawl of foreign army things would return to normality, then they are really imagining. The Pashtoons do not show mercy for the weak one and respect only the stronger.No one on this forum knows more than you about these people but with wrong conclusions. You once wrote that if the british had more time they could have defeated them. One hundred years in your opinion are not enough,(read Warburton famous book about these people). You also wrote that the Soviets could have defeated them. You overesimate the role of USA assistance during the Soviet intrusion and any Pakistan military support for them.
They take what they require by force and not rely on foreigners help.
Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

@RajeeK
I must say you have avery nice title name. You want to understand Pashtoons, the listen to Mr Karzai’s statements about Talibans. He is a Pashtoon and would be willing to sacrifice his american friends to save one single Pashtoon on Afghanistan side or pakistan side. Apart from this I do not favour his alignment with the USA administration. Only time is going to tell if his association with the USA was genuine or in fact the old Afghan Amir strategy with the Brits, when after signing the agreement he ordered the massacre of the British ambassadors and all foreigners in Kabul. He later said to the british that he did not understand the agreement he signed since it was written in english.
Rex Minor
PS what is that you want to discuss. i have expressed my views and you have your opinion. Let us leave it at that.

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor: “The invaders and the plunderers as you call them did not come into the beautiful territory of maharajas to occupy it . They indeed came to destroy the country as much as they could and to plunder the land and its people and their properties. ”

Rest of the drivel deleted..,

In other words, you are an admirer of plunderers, thieves and robbers. You are singing praise of these people, projecting them as barbarians. And by the way, those who invaded Spain are not Pashtuns. They were mostly Berbers who had converted to Islam. For all the praise you heap on your favorite invaders, they got their spines broken by the European colonialists, their nations divided into pieces and turned against each other. Your Pakistan was carved out by the British. And your famous Pashtuns are divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan by the Durand line. The so called brave Pashtuns are still honoring that line. If the Americans did not settle score with the Soviets, the USSR would have crushed them and probably brought them from stone ages to the modern day. You have been inside the cave for too long. You need to come out and smell some fresh air.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Rex Minor: “He (Karzai) is a Pashtoon and would be willing to sacrifice his american friends to save one single Pashtoon on Afghanistan side or pakistan side.”

Thanks for the much needed comic relief. If he is a Pashtoon, tell me why he is being protected by American guards wherever he goes.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Umairpk: “They dont want to talk Kashmir, they continue to view themselves as the policeman of South Asia. So be it. Come back when you really feel you need to forge peace with Pakistan. Good Bye!”

All this is paranoia. Talks do not hinge on Kashmir. Pakistan has nothing to do with Kashmir. India wants to talk about state sponsored terrorism and the recent findings from David Headley investigations which prove ISI’s complete involvement in Mumbai attacks. Pakistan is dodging it by hiding behind the Kashmir issue. Discussions cannot be one sided and on Pakistan’s terms.

We don’t want to come back. So let us know if you really mean your good bye.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Umairpk: “India is biding its time, simply put these talks are another fraud, another cover. Who are we trying to fool? Lets just get back to reality. Peace between India and Pakistan has very little chance.”

Because we know peace talks with Pakistan never led us to anywhere. There was always a Kargil or a Mumbai attacks inserted in between by Pakistan’s non-state actors (namely the ISI and your military). We really do not care if we have peace talks with you or not. When did we have peace in the first place?

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@Rex Minor

@I must say you have avery nice title name.
–Yes Mr Minor! I do.

I am not going to discuss the fresh points u raised.

Address this:
1. You find a logic that Talibans (Pushtoons) are fighting the aggressors. Then at the same time you cheer them up by applauding their Eastward migration and INVASION into Punjab (Pakistan) and Kashmir. You further this by giving a historical evidence:

“The Pashtoons are not likely to come to kashmir as tourists but to revisit the territory of the Indian territory in total, and examine what they left behind in 1947. They need to visit to be sure that another military of Jawans(some one mentioned this) is now brutalising the innocent kashmiri people and I am not saying muslims only but Kashmiris of all ethnic mix.”

So u have 2 sets of rules for the game? Talibans must not be invaded and have the right to invade anyone they please since their judgment cannot be wrong. PLease tell us ignorant ones very clearly how do u reconcile ur 2 rules for one game.

2. @The Pashtoons have never threatened the weaker, but have always confronted the strong ones.”
—Who were those women who are flogged and innocents killed for small crimes? Now do not give me BS that this is American lies. This is reported by people in the region. Not known to you in Europe, perhaps.

3. @The Pashtoons have never threatened the weaker, but have always confronted the strong ones. The myth of the Punjabi Pakistan army disappeared when they surrendered against the Indian army and the myth of the Punjabi Indian army was tainted with doubt when they surrendred against the larger chinese force.”
—Taliban are too smart and they play within their limitations–which is their strength. They are too smart to take on 2 enemies at one time. You do not know them enough. It was a writing on the wall that they will survive. They can make a govt when good time and can hide in caves when it is not.

@… the invaders fron the north did not come as tourists in the so called Indian subcontinent to eliminate the man made gods in temples and private dwellings of the people ho practiced the burning of wifes when the partner left.”
–You mean they came here for social reforms? So nice of them. So ignorant of you. Ya sure u r a pucca Mussalman. They came here for just like any invader comes—money. You can quote Brits and Hindu reformists on the social reforms in India—wife burning etc . This custom has been made illegal since centuries ago and stays so. Unlike honor killing–compare with Sharia.

But if this was the reason for invasion, then you should applaud the West West doing the same—-democracy as a reform to fix Islamic social ills that even good Muslims are crying to get rid of—the honor killings, the stoning to death.

More later

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Umair:

@Pakistan and India foreign ministers in diplomatic spat

India is simply not a partner for peace. They dont want to talk Kashmir, they continue to view themselves as the policeman of South Asia. So be it. Come back when you really feel you need to forge peace with Pakistan. Good Bye!
Posted by Umairpk

—Umair you and me have no say on the matter but tell me what is your take on Kashmir and we go from there. Let this forum be a role model for these leaders.

“policeman of South Asia” is a rant not discussion.

what do u think is the status of:
1. Kashmiris in India
2. Kashmiris in Pakistan
3. What is Indian govt;s position on what Kashmiris need
4. What is Pakistan govt;s position on what Kashmiris need

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

@”Also who was calling Mr. Krishna from Delhi?, and phone conversations back and forth between Islamabad and Delhi that Mr. Krishna was having”
Posted by Umairpk

As always, you post articles without even reading them. Krishna has denied having any conversations with Delhi, during his visit. Here’s an excerpt from the link posted by you:

“But in a news conference upon arrival at a Delhi airport, Mr Krishna hit back, denying he had taken policy guidance by phone during the meeting.
“I was totally cut off from India,” he said. “I never used any telephone. It’s an extraordinary statement to make.”

@”Lets just get back to reality. Peace between India and Pakistan has very little chance”

Yes let’s get back to reality and the reality is that there can be no meaningful discussions between a civilized nation & a criminalized state. If you seriously want meaningful discussions, reform yourselves & then maybe we can have a real discussion.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

Here is the Indian version of what went wrong:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ar ticle518749.ece?homepage=true

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Thank you Rajeev/Dara for your responses.
Rajeev, Dismantling is a very difficult question to answer. I am not sure to be honest. Perhaps we can mark it off as assumption for now and discuss it later.

Revised Assumption:

1.1 pakistan dismantles all militant groups ANYWHERE in India. This would include ‘moral’, ‘financial’ support of even political organizations of kashmir that are pro-pak or pro-independence.

1.2 Let’s assume that india reciprocates with suspension of any actual/alleged links with balochistan or any other group in pak. so that 1.1 does not seem like a one-way ‘blackmail’.

1.3 Dara Ammendment: Pakistan jails and punishes the perpetrators of 26/11 and dismantles this group.

1.4 Rajeev Ammendment: Pakistan dismantles terrorist groups in pakistan.

1.5 India guarantees meaningful negotiations to core issues for amendment 1.1 & 1.4.

In return for above assumptions, A few indians are willing to negotiate the following:

2.0 Discuss Kashmir
2.1 Discuss Water
2.2 Discuss Trade

Pak Response:

I was hoping some other Pakistanis would respond but since this is not the case I will.

3.0 Pakistan would like to have multiple negotiations in monthly increments
3.1 Trade
3.2 Prisoner Exchange (Those poor fishermen caught in the middle)
3.3 Student/Cultural Exchange
3.4 Kashmir

Reasoning:
Mutal Trade concession, prisoner exchanges, student exchanges should be quick and easy to implement.
Some wins to go over the core issue from Pakistani perspective.. Kashmir.
Monthly increments to alleviate pakistan’s fear of perceived ‘delay tactics’

Rajeev & Dara, Would this order & agenda be acceptable ?

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

@Saif
Let’s say you are the pakistani negotiator. We reach 2.0 “discuss Kashmir”.
1. What are you going to discuss? and
2 What do you want from India?

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

KPSingh:
“Pakistan has nothing to do with Kashmir. India wants to talk about state sponsored terrorism ”

-Pakistan has everything to do with Kashmir, we have a dispute and the status of Kashmir is disputed. Wait until the next Indo-Pak war to believe that Pakistan has a dispute with India over Kashmir. What do you guys think? Is Kashmir really yours? I have been to Azad Kashmir, have friends from their serving as officers in Pakistan Army. Your claim on Kashmir is not legitimate.
For Pakistan terrorism that targets Pakistan is a priority, groups like TTP that pose a direct challenge to Pakistan are the priority. Groups like LeT who are hostile towards India can wait, until India takes tangible steps to correct the situation in Kashmir.

-”We really do not care if we have peace talks with you or not.” KPSingh

-We will bring you to a point where you will accept that peace with Pakistan is necessary. Right now India does not realize that, Pakistan must toughen its stance towards India, cease all cooperation on curbing terrorism. This appears to be a reasonable approach given India’s intrancigence.

-”the reality is that there can be no meaningful discussions between a civilized nation & a criminalized state. If you seriously want meaningful discussions, reform yourselves & then maybe we can have a real discussion.”

-Criminal state is India which has kept the Muslim population in Kashmir under brutal oppression, criminal are those Indian security forces who raped and killed later dumped the bodies of two young innocent Kashmiri women. And surely Pakistan has the capability to make India pay for its crimes.

-Personally i feel sometimes a limited war is necessary to break the deadlock, when peace talks don’t work, and tempers boil, threats are exchanged guns are fired, someone somewhere realizes the seriousness of the situation and cool heads prevail. Mr. Krishna was in Islamabad for a ‘natak’ as you say in Hindi. Ye natak zada der nahi chal sakta. Either we push each other towards the edge or we sit down and have balacned talks. I am afraid given India’s advantages, a bigger country, depth, Pakistan’s lack of strategic depth, and many other things. Pakistan will have to continue its current policy of using a mix of proxies along with a strong Army, nuclear weapons and assymetric low intensity conflict to keep India in check. In the meantime Pakistan should continue to maintain links with big power patrons such as China or US. This is the only option Pakistan has in the face of Indian challenge.

Stupid Indians don’t realize the prize of having peaceful relations with Pakistan. Then blame everything on Pakistan military, i dont’ blame Pakistan military for their fixation on India, Pakistan military has to defend Pakistan under all circumstances. Much of the paranoia or whatever you call is because of India. What India did in 1971, Pakistan is justified to take revenge. But still I would say let bygones be bygones and start a new begining. If Indians don’t care about forging peace with Pakistan, for us in Pakistan we are not starving as well, we also have a wonderful country full of potential, once the economy of this country is back on track and picks up, Pakistan can become a regional power in real sense. We are also not that desperate to forge peace with India.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

“Pakistan ranked #1 in the world for xxx rated website searches” – Fox News

Land of the pure, indeed!

Posted by fitty_cent | Report as abusive
 

for some reason i’m unable to post the link for the above article but u can google the foll: “Pakistan top p-o-r-n search fox news” to get the link to the article. thanks.

Posted by fitty_cent | Report as abusive
 

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!!

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

@“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 :)

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive
 

@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

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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?

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE_ZtfvQ g0

Will India-Pakistan Peace Talks Succeed?

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

Running training camps and sending terrorists by providing covering fire and maintaining that these are non-state actors – backstabbing or front-stabbing?

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

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?

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

@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.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

typo- meant to say I pointed out that they are NOT analogous for lot more different reasons,

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

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?

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

(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

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

@Rajeev
I agree w your comments on Saif.
My bad.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by manishindia | Report as abusive
 

test

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

my posts are not getting posted

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

I encourage everyone to read the articles posted by Ganesh.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

@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

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

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!

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

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).

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

“..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?

Posted by Seth | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

> OK, now what on earth is GB?

Gilgit-Baltistan?

Regards,
Ganesh

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

> 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

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

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?

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

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.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

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

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev thanks for the link. I remember now I had seen it earlier.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

saif1981:

@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.”

—My idea for keeping LOC goes along with autonomy to Kashmir; Pakistan do the same. Indian Kashmir is already treated differently than other states (Article 370 and pouring money for development by India). Formal autonomy will not be a big deal for India–Kashmiris stay within India and still control themselves; enjoy the benefits of growing India. Kashmir in Pakistan can do the same.

@Pakistan will have violated its ‘concern’ for kashmir’s self-determination.”
—I am surprised to hear this from you. Saif, where is self-determination for kashmiris in AJK. Who are allowed and disallowed in politics of AJK. Are pro-India and those who want independence of kashmir allowed to survive? Pre-determination (Kashmir stays with pakistan) is so formal that one should not doubt that Pakistan is least concerned about “self-determination” of kashmiris. compare this with Article 370 and the benefits (exclude other factors like “100,000″ killing). if you have not, read UN human rights report on AJK.
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11156/section  /1

Should India fulfill Nehru’r promise (which in any way is not Kashmir Valley alone) or look at the future of the region? WE need to see long-term also.

@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 ?”
–Saif

–Saif, with Kashmiri Pundits driven out of the Valley, where is the “secular” part of the Kashmir movement? The best I can say is the movement has been successfully hijacked by pakistan-based terrorists. The only way is that these terrorists back off and let the movement take its form.

Could you please explain the “Lebanon type set up”?

Independent Kashmir valley (India + Pak Kashmirs) with 90% Muslims (or so…) between India and Pakistan, with Pak having a history of proxy wars over territorial disputes and with issues like Gurdaspur and such ,,,,, is an ideal play ground for future anti-India activity. It is short-sighted option and is pain for all in the region.

There is a deafening silence here on Reuters!

Thanks

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

India will have broken Nehru’s ‘promise’
==
How about Pakistan ideologues not keeping any of the promises they made!

Either you haven’t read partition history and/or conditioned by pakistani (twisted) version of history.

Jinnah/Muslime League claimed minorities will be safe in new Pakistan. They took no effort to stop the ethnic cleansing unlike India, where Congress/ Nehru reassured and asked muslims to stay. Current status of miniscule minority of hinds/sikhs is nothing to write home about.

Jinnah/ML claimed new Pakistan will be a friend and relationship will be like US- Canada. In no time post 14-8-47 Jinnah immediately announced to be desiring of pakistan becoming US lackey. Then one heck of confrontation all the way for 63 years.

What do you think? We are all motivated by self-interest, aren’t we?

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

1. How is “irrelevant borders” any different than the status quo or India’s desired outcome. It seems to give India exactly what it wants and the opposite of what kashmiris want according to your own linked report.

2. It would be dishonest of me to say Azad Kashmir is the model for true autonomous democracy. Especially after reading your report’s summary. However, I think your own position sheds some light on the situation. India invests heavily in JK, provides a great deal of autonomy vis-a-vis AJK. Even I admit, India offers better economy, improving living standard, education etc. Yet Kashmiris are still disproportionately more dissatisfied in JK versus AJK. I think the immediate reflex is to say – Pakistan stoked the fire but surely the fire was already there. I was a little taken aback by this statement: (exclude other factors like “100,000? killing). Surely, this is not just a factor that can sanitized by Article 370. My point in bringing this up is not to say, “India bad, Pakistan Good” but to reinforce my case for an independent Kashmir acceptable to Pakistan and possibly palatable to India. Kashmiris have shown us for 63 years, they want their own country. For the Kashmiris, The 100,000+ may be too much sacrifice to settle for anything less than their own country.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

3. Regarding the pandits, I post annoying questions to Kashmiris just as I do here. They tell me that it is the Pandits that are ‘communalists’. They say Pandits want to be with India on the basis of religion with complete disregard for the wishes of the majority which does not want to join islamic republic of pakistan but have their own independent secular country. They also say pandits have collaborated with the security forces to oppress and massacre the kashmiris. You may see this type of discussion yourself in kashmiri forums.

4. Pakistan is not as irrational and hateful as Indians may think. We may have been aggressive (perceived as retaliation here) but it does not extend beyond Kashmir. If kashmir was settled, the state would not engage any kind of harassment as some have suggested. Perhaps a no-war pact would seal the deal.

Thanks.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

Easy Things Firsts sounds like a good plan if a reasonable and genuine time-line is set to resolve the ‘core’ issues in a somewhat equitable fashion on the basis of compromise.

One thing with delayed negotiations is the danger of what I would call the fourth constituency. This group would be extremists, ultra-nationalists on both sides who will do everything in their power to derail a prolonged process. Other parties disinterested in Pak/India settlement would be China, Western Arms Traders, anyone opposed to a potential South Asian Economic Union.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

Saif and all:

Saif, thanks for the post. as a response, much of what I will write will be repetion. I will get back to it later if needed.

For now let us move ahead:

1. Let us say Kashmir valley (India Kashmir + AJK) is independent. What stops Pakistan from playing dirty like it did it in the past?

Do these pacts treaties any real mechanism to control covert activities of a neigbouring nation knowing very well how hard it is to nail down Hafeez Sayeed et al with all solid proofs of his gangs involvement in Mumbai 26/11. Is UN strong enough to regulate this, knowing that it looked away when genocides happened in the past.

2. What makes you think that a new nation Kashmir will be free of terrorism when all countries around are soaked in it? It will like a magnet for terrorism, Kashmiris want or not. Are we looking for another Afghanistan like India-Pak play here? Kashmiris are no Afghans. who will watch that LeT and cousins are not in Kashmir.

3. What will stop Pakistan to take over Kashmir? It has tried and done in the past.

4. who will put on leash terrorists from Pak with grander designs?

5. you said “Pakistan is not as irrational and hateful as Indians may think”. I cannnot swallow this. some Pakistanis may no be but Pakistan is. do not take me wrong history does not support you. with all due respect, you can do mental gymnastics but what we have got in Pakistan is a population bred on anti-India hate—(I hope u read the spdi report on mainstream Pak education system). these people will make politicians and army generals. so u can calculate. Kashmir solution will be taken as “we taught these infidels the lesson”. Believe me I am no RSS guy here.

6. what are the Indo-Pak issues other than Kashmir?

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Saif,

“Historical injustice?”

May I delve a bit on this please, because I would like to be clear on the nature of this injustice.

The terms of the Radcliffe Commission which determined the shape of Pakistan were very clear. These terms were not just dictated by the British but were agreed to by the Muslim League and Congress. Albeit in a slip shod manner, but they were agreed upon.

1. Contiguous Muslim dominated areas would be given to Pakistan. Please note the term contiguous. The commission would also take into consideration ‘other factors’ (left undefined and this created problems in Punjab – Gurdaspur being one example)).

2. Areas ruled by Princes etc were given a choice to choose either country or declare independence.

3. The rest was India.

Now the ruler of Kashmir made a choice, after mush dithering. That choice was forced on him by the Pakistani invasion. Pakistani ‘tribals’/invaders what you will, started attacking Kashmir in early Oct ’47. In spite of requests from him, the Indians refused to come to his aid as Kashmir at that time was not a part of India. Finally in the last week of Oct he acceded to India. Once he did that, the state became an integral part of India under the agreed terms of the partition. It was only then that India intervened. These dates can be checked out by anyone.

Where then is the ‘historical injustice’?

Kashmiris feel let down by Nehru’s broken promise.

Saif, it was not Nehru who broke a promise. It was Pakistan that failed to keep a commitment made to the UN –

That commitment was to withdraw all troops/tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, not resident to Jammu and Kashmir.

India was to keep the minimum force required to maintain law and order.

Thereafter conditions for the plebiscite were to be met and it was to be held.

I think you will agree that Nehru did not break a promise but could not keep his promise. Pakistan never withdrew its troops or nationals and hasn’t done so to this day, Saif this is the history of this problem.

Nehru was unable to fulfill his promise is also open to discussion in India. It has been argued that the original idea of a plebiscite was given by Mountbatten and jurists have maintained that the Governor General was not empowered to give such a commitment. However, let that pass, because he couldn’t have done so without consulting the India Govt.

I think the real issue is, in my opinion, the one that is the breaker. Pakistan is a country created by Jinnah’s insistence on a Muslim nation. The bedrock of India’s basis is that it is for all regardless of religion. This is the real stumbling block. Much as India’s secular credentials get tested time and again, it has by and large maintained its secularity. Remember there are still almost as many Muslims in India as there in Pakistan. And according to the National Sample Survey, growing at 14%. There are aberrations but people do live freely without persecution, much as Pakistanis here may find it hard to believe.

This brings me to another point. Rajeev mentioned the fear of an independent Kashmir becoming a pawn in the hands of all its neighbours, not just Pakistan. That is just one aspect- albeit a big concern. To me the wider ramification of an Independent Kashmir is the problems that Indian Mulsims will have to bear up with. We are secular but there is fundamentalism too. Anyone who thinks there will not be a backlash on innocents is living in cuckoo land.

An independent Kashmir has other ramifications too – haven’t the people of Balochistan expressed similar views? I am not saying this as to score brownies. I really mean it as a painful fallout of Kashmir for Pakistan itself.. Will Pakistan be able to contain what is a surge for Baloch freedom? On what grounds? The Baloch turmoil is as old as Kashmir too. They too will claim historical injustice.

The most basic issue, to me as I said earlier, is the foundation on which our two countries have based their existence. It seems as impossible as tryong to converge two parallels.

Again I repeat, even though it has very few takers here, it is only through people getting to know each other better and benefitting from the exchanges between them that an atmosphere may eventually be created where the rulers on both sides are assured of support from their own people. Think about it.

We cannot create solutions here. We can however create conditions wherein people themselves will accept that there has to be give and take. We started off saying lets think up solutions without government – we cannot. We have to make conditions where the governments can be emboldened to tackle the issues in a spirit of give and take.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

For those who have read through my whole essay above, I can only salute your patience. I found it a bother to even proof read it! ;)

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Saif,

You make many good points.

> 1. How is “irrelevant borders” any different than the status quo or India’s desired outcome. It seems to give India exactly what it wants.

That’s the way it would appear, but to be fair to India, remember that its position has moved from “we have rights to ALL of Kashmir” to “OK, you keep what you have and we’ll keep what we have”. It is actually a compromise. Both India and Pakistan started off by claiming ALL of Kashmir. India is now moving to the midway position. Pakistan still sticks to the ALL position.

> 2. It would be dishonest of me to say Azad Kashmir is the model for true autonomous democracy. Especially after reading your report’s summary. [...] Even I admit, India offers better economy, improving living standard, education etc. Yet Kashmiris are still disproportionately more dissatisfied in JK versus AJK. I think the immediate reflex is to say – Pakistan stoked the fire but surely the fire was already there. [...] Kashmiris have shown us for 63 years, they want their own country. For the Kashmiris, The 100,000+ may be too much sacrifice to settle for anything less than their own country.

That certainly seems to be the case. I personally believe that the terrorism angle is preventing India from letting go. Letting go now would feed the perception that India has yielded to threats. I would really like to see a relaxed atmosphere for a few years, then a solution can be worked out without anyone appearing weak or otherwise losing face.

>3. Regarding the pandits, I post annoying questions to Kashmiris just as I do here. They tell me that it is the Pandits that are ‘communalists’. They say Pandits want to be with India on the basis of religion with complete disregard for the wishes of the majority which does not want to join islamic republic of pakistan but have their own independent secular country. They also say pandits have collaborated with the security forces to oppress and massacre the kashmiris. You may see this type of discussion yourself in kashmiri forums.

I agree things don’t seem clear-cut, and there are always two sides to every story. I can’t help thinking that “irrelevant borders” is a very real solution to this dilemma.

> 4. Pakistan is not as irrational and hateful as Indians may think. We may have been aggressive (perceived as retaliation here) but it does not extend beyond Kashmir. If kashmir was settled, the state would not engage any kind of harassment as some have suggested. Perhaps a no-war pact would seal the deal.

Judging from your writings, I am confident that this attitude probably describes your own position. Unfortunately, we have also seen the statements of rather extreme people. The fear among many Indians is that Kashmir may not be the end of hostility but the beginning of further blackmail. As DaraIndia says, we need to foster a more tolerant attitude on a people-to-people level, then our governments will find the courage to do the right thing rather than take extreme positions.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

1. Let us say Kashmir valley (India Kashmir + AJK) is independent. What stops Pakistan from playing dirty like it did it in the past?

A) I believe this is based on a faulty assumption that Pakistan has designs on the rest of India. This is equivalent to phobia in Pakistan of ‘atoot tang’. Remember, Pakistan did not protest over junagarh, hyderabad except for comparisons to kashmir.

Do these pacts treaties any real mechanism to control covert activities of a neigbouring nation knowing very well how hard it is to nail down Hafeez Sayeed et al with all solid proofs of his gangs involvement in Mumbai 26/11. Is UN strong enough to regulate this, knowing that it looked away when genocides happened in the past.

A) This is a tough one, I will come back to it.

2. What makes you think that a new nation Kashmir will be free of terrorism when all countries around are soaked in it? It will like a magnet for terrorism, Kashmiris want or not. Are we looking for another Afghanistan like India-Pak play here? Kashmiris are no Afghans. who will watch that LeT and cousins are not in Kashmir.

A) The assumption is Pakistan/India will be friends and perhaps allies if our core issues are settled. I think it is arrogant for us to think of kashmiris as incapable of self-governance. Even if your fears came to fruition, India could easily place a million soldiers around AJK-KV to protect herself. To support the little state, we could make Srinagar the Brussels of South Asia where we are mutually vested in its prosperity.

3. What will stop Pakistan to take over Kashmir? It has tried and done in the past.

A) Paksitan’s invasions were attempts to ‘recover’ DISPUTED territory. In my scenario, Kashmir would be an independent country recognized by the United Nations. Pakistan has a very good record of respecting soverign states.

4. who will put on leash terrorists from Pak with grander designs?

A) That’s what our assumption is based on. Pakistan destroying the terrorist apparatus.

5. you said “Pakistan is not as irrational and hateful as Indians may think”. I cannnot swallow this. some Pakistanis may no be but Pakistan is. do not take me wrong history does not support you. with all due respect, you can do mental gymnastics but what we have got in Pakistan is a population bred on anti-India hate—(I hope u read the spdi report on mainstream Pak education system). these people will make politicians and army generals. so u can calculate. Kashmir solution will be taken as “we taught these infidels the lesson”. Believe me I am no RSS guy here.

A) The government has been combative but the people are quite friendly. Pakistanis extended tremendous hospitality to Indian cricket fans several years back. To get rid of the infidel-hating beards, why not help Pakistan get there?

6. what are the Indo-Pak issues other than Kashmir?

A) Water is the only other major issue. Everything else is an opportunity.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

Saif and all:

I think it boils down to looking at the situation in reverse way: What are the pre-requisites for peacefully addressing Kashmir issue and mutual peace in Indian/Pak?

I have concerns about the viability of any solution on K-issue. Many will have similar concerns. It requires that India and Pakistan get along well. I personally do not trust Pakistan at this point—and the feeling is mutual I am sure. As has been suggested by Dara, Ganesh and yourself, India-Pak–economy/trade, people to people contact, all sorts of links need to open up, student exchange programs begin need to start—-without compromising security; hostilities in any fashion must stop–be that issuing those inflammatory statements from either side or the use of non-state actors. Media must not be used as a medium to express concerns. Set up some mechanism.

So all of the above is not a “pre-condition” in negative term as politicians spin it. It is to facilitate the solution.

Pakistan needs to be clear about who really rules the country. This is not anymore a domestic issue since PA pulls strings to control politicians and they cannot do a thing without asking PA. This has been a huge hurdle except when Musharraf was President and the backchannel talks started. All positive gestures by Pak politicians for India have been ridiculed by PA.

@It seems to give India exactly what it wants and the opposite of what kashmiris want according to your own linked report.”
–NOt true, as others pointed, that is not what GOI’s position. AJK, GB, Shaksgam valley, Aksai China all are disputed and GOI officially claims them including L. Why Musharraf-Singh/Vajpayee were working on borders irrelevant solution? What was their basis? I think it was more out of what is practical. If India and Pakistan are unwilling to lose territory, the next best solution is what the back channels offered. May be I am mixing reality with dream (smiling).

@ I was a little taken aback by this statement: (exclude other factors like “100,000? killing). Surely, this is not just a factor that can sanitized by Article 370.”
—I am not approving or ignoring killings. My idea was to compare the constitutional status of Kashmiris in India and Pakistan in the absence of other factors. Let us always keep in mind that “100,000+” killings are the result of proxy war by Pakistan and IA action—India alone cannot be blamed for it as the propaganda is. Except for 1987 when GOI rigged the election, nothing of the sort happened later on. Election rigging is not restricted to Kashmir it happened in other Indian states in the past. Not anymore anywhere due to better voting system in place. Compare with AJK where in all 63yrs it is Islamabad that selects who will rule AJK and who will stay out. In Indian JK, Separatists boycott the election, not banned by India. So that was my point.

@3. Regarding the pandits, I post annoying questions to Kashmiris just as I do here. They tell me that it is the Pandits that are ‘communalists’. They say Pandits want to be with India on the basis of religion with complete disregard for the wishes of the majority which does not want to join islamic republic of pakistan but have their own independent secular country. They also say pandits have collaborated with the security forces to oppress and massacre the kashmiris. You may see this type of discussion yourself in kashmiri forums”
—–That Hindus left their native place due to terrorism is not restricted to Kashmir. It happened earlier in Punjab. Hindus living in smaller towns with not enough security migrated out of state or to bigger towns. My family stayed back but some of my relatives had to migrate. GOI did not collaborate with Hindus to move them. Sikhs do not blame Hindus for migrating. THis has been an allegation against K-Pundits that they disappeared overnight from valley because GOI planned this thing and that they collude with authorities. This is the worse thing that can happen when one is victim and is not considered a victim but an aggressor. How can I tell this K-Pundit girl I know of that Pundits are communal after she lost her mother and brother to violence by so-called “freedom fighters” (assumption is Pak-based terrorists or Kashmiris: I pick Pak-based terrorists since Kashmiris are not that cruel) and father was permanently mentally disabled, their house burnt in Sringar.

i do not go to many K-forums but I am sure this is unending discussion. Whether Pundits are communal or Muslims did not support Pundits enough, the point is neither supports that K-movement is secular. The displacement of half million K-Pundits killed the secular part of the movement. How many will go back to independent Kashmir is any body’s guess. In the absence of diversity, the Kashmir will not be the same. Where is the Kashmiriyat.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

So India’s position is to make LOC the international border.
I am not completely against this but where does this leave the Kashmiris? I imagine they would now be at odds with both Pakistan and India. They have paid the same price for independence that so many other nations have, including Pakistan, India from the british, Bangladesh from Pakistan, Afghanistan from Russia, Vietnam from china/france/usa. Will Kashmir be the hateful, resentful chechnya of south asia?

One of the reason, I want peace between India/Pak is so that we can get out of the clutches of our military. I have great admiration, respect and love for our troops in the trenches in safeguarding and defending our country, I just don’t like our generals running our government & cricket boards.

Regarding ‘historical injustice’, someone stated that it was a Pakistan problem not an India problem. Given our post-colonial history, I can understand India’s indifference to pakistan’s grievances whether they are legitimate or frivolous. I disagree though that it should be of no concern to India in the context of peace-negotiations. The sense of injustice ,in my opinion, is the most powerful emotion there is. Any settlement would require India to take these sensitivities of Pak & Kashmiris into consideration.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

As I posted before Pakistan ideologues never kept their end of the bargain. For 63 years,  it has always been the story of Pakistan striking alliances with big powers to harass India.  In addition to providing massive aid, and military gadgets& weaponry used against India, USA was providing cover to Pakistani terrorism not only in JK but in other states of India.

Kashmir issue is residual project of TNT. India cannot accept TNT, this doesn’t mean India is not interested in peaceful and prosperous Pakistan with its current borders.  Indian muslim ambassadors who proudly represent India at UN and in Muslim countries have pointed this out repeatedly over 63 years. Rafiq Zakaria (Representative of India at UN and father of CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria) describes an incident at the UN in 1965, where he read a poem about why Kashmir will be /should be part of India, and ZA Bhutto angrily misbehaving towards him and walking out.

Nice exchange of ideas. We can continue to work on resolving problems without redrawing borders.

Posted by Seekeroftruth | Report as abusive
 

@So India’s position is to make LOC the international border.
—saif1981

–Saif this is pretty much what the backchannel talks was about between Ex-Pres Musharraf and ex-Indian PM Vajpayee and later on with PM Singh.

With Musharaf’s exit, Pakistan now has shifted its stance to older one.

@ Any settlement would require India to take these sensitivities of Pak & Kashmiris into consideration.
Posted by saif_1980

—First off let us not talk about pak and Kashmiris in the same breath about sensitivities–perhaps u did not mean that way. Let us keep 2 sensitivities separately and there is a India’s sensitivity too who got attacked few times over Kashmir. But I think Indian position is taken for guaranteed.

So autonomy was an idea to take care of the sensitivities. The world is not perfect. Autonmous Kashmir is much better than no Independent Kashmir.

There are unaddressed concerns of India as mentioned earlier if Kashmir becomes an independent nation.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Saif,

To continue the discussion which seems to be making progress :-) , you said:

> So India’s position is to make LOC the international border.
I am not completely against this but where does this leave the Kashmiris?

OK, this may be a naive position, but there may be many phases to the resolution to the problems of Kashmiris.

In the first phase, there is a significant cooling of political and military tension between Pakistan and India on account of the border agreement. That should stop the terrorist support that so angers India and Indian public opinion. This would be a prerequisite to subsequent phases.

In the second phase, we may see the relaxation of border controls when the terrorist threat abates. Then citizens on either side may freely cross over to the other country for business or pleasure. Gradually, the terms of these visas could be extended and even cover permanent residency, e.g., citizen of Pakistani Kashmir and permanent resident of Indian Kashmir and vice-versa.

In the third phase, cross-border property rights (especially for Kashmiris on either side) may follow. In this phase, Kashmiris do not yet have full self-determination other than free elections to their respective state governments, but the two parts of Kashmir are no longer divided in the sense of restrictions on travel, business, residency, property ownership, etc. This is the “irrelevant borders” phase which is the most that people seem willing to concede today.

In the fourth phase (and I admit this will be the most difficult), if irrelevant borders are not deemed sufficient freedom and Kashmiris on both sides still wish for independence, the two democratic nations of Pakistan and India may agree to hold a plebescite and withdraw from their sides. This scenario is unthinkable in today’s context, but who knows what changes in mindset will come about after a decade of peace?

> One of the reason, I want peace between India/Pak is so that we can get out of the clutches of our military. I have great admiration, respect and love for our troops in the trenches in safeguarding and defending our country, I just don’t like our generals running our government & cricket boards.

This is true of any party that has no accountability, and we see shades of this in every country including India. The PA is no exception, and it will be necessary to rein them in. Only you Pakistanis can do it, and we should all pray for a gradual strengthening of democratic institutions in Pakistan. (I’m not being smug here but sincerely hopeful.)

> Regarding ‘historical injustice’, someone stated that it was a Pakistan problem not an India problem. [...] Any settlement would require India to take these sensitivities of Pak & Kashmiris into consideration.

As Rajeev says, the sentiments of Pakistanis and Kashmiris are probably quite different and shouldn’t be clubbed together. The sentiments of Kashmiris probably revolve around independence and resentment against foreign oppression (whether Indian or Pakistani). The sentiments of Pakistanis probably revolve around the loss of Bangladesh, a sense of being cheated out of Kashmir, Indus water sharing and a dozen other smaller issues.

Yes, these will have to be addressed.

And again, as Rajeev pointed out, India has its share of sentiments too, mainly the feeling that we have put up with sustained provocation of a kind that would have caused any other country in our place to retaliate and annihilate our tormentor, i.e., that Pakistan is immensely lucky to have India as its constantly-provoked neighbour and not Israel, China, Russia or the US. Those are not countries that forgive provocation the way we have done (Compare India’s response to 26/11 (Mumbai), the Dec 3 attack on parliament and other attacks with Israel’s policy of “disproportionate response” towards all its enemies, China’s 1979 response to Vietnam’s “provocation”, Russia’s treatment of Georgia and the US response to 9/11). Pakistanis may disagree with this view (many may like to think it is weakness or fear rather than restraint) but we are talking about India’s *sentiments* here, so you should try and validate them even if you don’t agree!

I am sure many mutually conciliatory statements will be made by both sides if and when a border agreement is finally reached, so the sentiments on all sides may be assuaged. In most arguments, people want validation of their feelings as much as they want a settlement. I’m sure that will be part and parcel of any peace package.

Let’s stay optimistic.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

I think we have consensus that normalization of relationship will require more people to people contact, an effort at decreasing/eliminating misunderstanding.

I must add that in general electronic journalists (the bloggers) have played negative role so far (there are some genuine exceptions here). In my opinion, they are people with biases who have a handle to spreading the misinformation to large numbers of gullible audience who take their word as a fact. I look at them having a public rally and telling lies or spinning facts into the context of India-Pak relationship. This will require that spreading the misinformation about a country is stopped. Temptation is great but rewards are zero and rather this is waste of time and is so counterproductive. All these blogs need to keep overall broader picture in mind not just the short-term.

We need more fire extinguishers than more fuel. Blogs can pick whatever they want. This is not to say that the facts should be buried under the pile of political correctness.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh:

@And again, as Rajeev pointed out, India has its share of sentiments too, mainly the feeling that we have put up with sustained provocation of a kind that would have caused any other country in our place to retaliate and annihilate our tormentor, i.e., that Pakistan is immensely lucky to have India as its constantly-provoked neighbour and not Israel, China, Russia or the US. Those are not countries that forgive provocation the way we have done (Compare India’s response to 26/11 (Mumbai), the Dec 3 attack on parliament and other attacks with Israel’s policy of “disproportionate response” towards all its enemies, China’s 1979 response to Vietnam’s “provocation”, Russia’s treatment of Georgia and the US response to 9/11). Pakistanis may disagree with this view (many may like to think it is weakness or fear rather than restraint) but we are talking about India’s *sentiments* here, so you should try and validate them even if you don’t agree!”

—Ganesh: To that Pakistanis reflex would be to say that India would have done the same as the USA, Russia, China and Israel except that that Pakistan is no Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Vietnam and Palestine.

However, the fact that India did not wage war against Pakistan, especially even when Pakistan did not have nukes (and India did) supports your statement.

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Thank you gentlemen, I have learned a great deal from you. Thanks for helping me understand your point of view. It is amazing what can be accomplished when we don’t hurl insults at each other.

Best Wishes.

Posted by saif_1980 | Report as abusive
 

Saif1980:

I wish there was more participation from Pakistan. Thank you to you and others for keeping the discussion on track. Hope to see you around.

Take care!

Posted by RajeevK | Report as abusive
 

Saif,

Thanks to you too. Your non-partisan overture is what made this friendly exchange possible in the first place.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •