Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
Musharraf’s Kashmir deal, mirage or oasis?
Email 
Print
The foreign secretaries, or top diplomats, of India and Pakistan are expected to meet on the sidelines of a South Asian summit in Thimpu, Bhutan on Feb 6/7 to try to find a way back into talks which have been stalled since the attack on Mumbai in November 2008. Progress is expected to be limited, perhaps paving the way to a meeting of the foreign ministers, or to deciding how future talks should be structured.
Expectations are running low, all the more so after a meeting between the foreign ministers descended into acrimony last July. And leaders in neither country have the political space to take the kind of risks needed for real peace talks right now. Pakistan is struggling with the fall-out of the assassination of Punjab governor Salman Taseer among many other things, while Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been weakened by a corruption scandal at home.
However, in the interests of establishing a baseline, I asked former president Pervez Musharraf in an interview earlier this week about a roadmap for peace he had agreed with Prime Minister Singh in 2007 before political turmoil forced him out of office. The roadmap brought the two countries to their nearest in years to a peace deal, and during Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign, there was a great deal of hope it could be revived in order to ease tensions between India and Pakistan in turn helping to stabilise Afghanistan. Even after the Mumbai attacks ended chances of an early “Kashmir to Kabul” peace settlement, the idea has lingered on as one of the more promising models. Yet since the agreement was reached in secret, its details have never been officially released.
Diplomats say the agreement hinged on an acceptance by India and Pakistan that there would be no exchange of territory in disputed Kashmir but they would work to make irrelevant the Line of Control which divides the region. There was also supposed to be a “joint mechanism” under which Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris would oversee areas of common interest. No one can agree, however, on far advanced the talks were. Some say the deal was ready for signing; others that there was still a long way to go. In particular, the two countries had yet to agree the nature of the “joint mechanism”, and bring on board their own people and domestic constituencies in accepting the agreement. Here is what Musharraf had to say when I asked him about the sceptics’ view of the draft agreement:
“You are probably concentrating only on Kashmir. But there were two other issues, Sir Creek and Siachen. On Sir Creek and Siachen we reached a stage that they can be signed yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind.” The disputed territory in Sir Creek had been surveyed and was just awaiting a leadership decision, he said. ”Then Siachen, we had decided on the relocation of troops beyond certain lines, so everything is done.”
“Yes, Kashmir is not that easy. We had found basic parameters; it was my idea actually … the parameters were first of all demilitarising, which meant really demilitarising on the Line of Control; graduated demilitarisation from the Line of Control and also from the cities in the Indian part of Kashmir; that is what is bothering and troubling the civilians there; so therefore in first case leave the cities and go into the outskirts and then further getting to garrisons. The second element was maximum self-governance, and the third was an overwatch of those areas not given for self-governance, and also (to) see how the self-governance is functioning. This body we had proposed, I had proposed, (was to) be of Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians.
”So these were the parameters and then the issue was of the Line of Control, making the Line of Control irrelevant … The Indians thought we should make this as a permanent border. My view was that this has been the cause of wars. How can we have the cause of conflict as the permanent solution? So my idea was that we could look into making the Line of Control irrelevant.
”Now we were in the process of drafting an agreement. Obviously there were differences on the wording and the expressions.” He said that the leadership in both countries needed to show sincerity, flexibility and above all political courage to see the deal through. ”Because when you reach a deal or an agreement, there is always a give and take. Nobody will allow a take-and-take to the other side. So where there is a give-and-take the good path is the one which leader has faced boldly because there will be elements in your country who will agitate, on both sides, because the give has to be on both sides … So now I don’t know whether we could have shown that kind of guts and leadership that we arrived at a conclusion within six months, but we were making fast progress, that I know.”
Asked about how many people had been involved on the Pakistan side beyond Musharraf and his special envoy, Tariq Aziz, he said the foreign minister and foreign secterary were always taken on board, while Pakistan Army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani – then head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – had been there since the beginning. “He was the DG-ISI, so he had to be on board.”
The draft agreement has been virtually disowned by the current government, which says it has no record of it, even in the Foreign Office.
“Do they want peace or not? If they want peace, then let them come up with another idea,” Musharraf said. “Nobody has the right to disown something that was moving forward unless you come out with another idea. If you have another idea by all means go ahead … but I believe that peace is essential.”
The former military ruler who plans to return to Pakistan to fight elections due by 2013 said he believed the deal could still be resurrected. It had been discussed with politicians on both sides of Kashmir, along with the main separatist alliance, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, and everyone was on board on the parameters, he said. And nobody else had come with another solution.
Those Musharraf/Singh talks are history now. The two countries have reverted to their stated positions – Pakistan that the future of Kashmir must be settled through a plebiscite in line with U.N. resolutions; India that the region is such an integral part of the country that it does not even recognise its status as disputed.
Perhaps that deal was always going to be a mirage, the final details slipping elusively out of grasp. Or perhaps it is the only model that could ever have worked. At least if we know enough about what nearly happened we might be to assess better where talks might go in the future.
(Reuters photo: Musharraf speaks during an interview at his London home/Stefan Wermuth)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Myra”Perhaps that deal was always going to be a mirage, the final details slipping elusively out of grasp. Or perhaps it is the only model that could ever have worked. At least if we know enough about what nearly happened we might be to assess better where talks might go in the future”
-Sure, a golden opportunity of peace was lost. Having initiated the Kargil war and then retreat, Musharraf knew peace should be given a genuine chance. With current status quo and situation in Indian side of Kashmir another Kargil can possibly happen. It will be lot more difficult to bring India to negotiating table, and Gen. Kayani is a soldier and spymaster more willing to play it on the battlefield. Things don’t look good for future.
From an Indian stand point, I would never trust Musharraf on anything. This guy is a blatant liar, double dealer, and backstabber clubbed into one.
This was the guy who has been trying various things on Kashmir. If one attempt did not work, he tried another. He led the troops in the Siachien war, gained ground and then lost it. He then completely ignored the Lahore peace accord and launched the Kargil offensive. He declared outright that no Pakistani soldiers were involved. Much later he retracted that statement and agreed that soldiers had been sent in disguise. This is the guy who set up Harkut Al Ansar while projecting a secular face. He led the Americans into his deceptive trap and brought the entire Afghan war to a standstill. Americans had to stage manage his ouster to get closer to the situation. He is a skilled double dealer and I would never trust any facade that he projects.
The back channel talks were probably his next plan to back stab India through the facade of some kind of peaceful settlement. The very fact that the next Pak administration has conveniently lost the draft of this plans means as soon Musharraf doctrine had taken effect, it would not have been honored by the next regime in Pakistan. Indians would have walked into a trap by withdrawing the military and allowing Jihadists to spread far and wide into Kashmir. The current regime would simply have said that Musharraf plans are irrelevant. India could not have been in a position to get the troops back in and Kashmiris would be propped up against the “Indian invasion.”
It was a big elephant trap. Musharraf was very close to trapping India in Kashmir. I am glad it did not work. India needs to hold on to Kashmir for another decade. It is an extremely geo-strategic location in regards to today’s scenario of a nuclear Pakistan, China and volatile Afghanistan bordering that region. Equations have changed from the past. Once upon a time this region was strategic against the expanding Russians. They are history. Now there is a new reality. Much like holding on to the barren Siachien glacier, India has no choice but to hold on to Kashmir. Otherwise we will see the Chinese moving in fast with Pakistan’s help and problems facing Delhi from close quarters. Pakistan’s missiles will move very close to India’s capital if Kashmir is let go.
The only way Kashmir can be settled in today’s context will be by neutralizing Pakistan’s threat to the region by liberating Balochistan, Pashunistan and Sindh. A reduced Pakistan is needed before Kashmir equation can be looked at.
I have nothing against the people of today’s Pakistan. I am simply looking at things from a geo-strategic viewpoint. We have China to deal with in addition to Pakistan. We can’t afford to give both villains any advantage. Pakistan is trying to drive India out of Afghanistan for the same reason.
I don’t think India needs to make any compromises with Pakistan on Kashmir at this time. Pakistan is weakening by the day. Karachi is burning, Baluchistan is burning, NWFP & FATA are a war zone & Punjab is being consumed by radical forces. It will be best for India to wait & see what becomes of Pakistan before compromising on anything. If Kayani is stupid enough to plan another misadventure in Kashmir (which I don’t think he is), it will only speed up Pakistan’s isolation & demise. Having said that, India does need to take bold & immediate steps to come up with a political solution with the Kashmiris in J&K. India needs to take initiatives & bring lasting peace to the valley, making Pakistan irrelevant.
KP Singh said:
> I am simply looking at things from a geo-strategic viewpoint. [...] We can’t afford to give both villains any advantage.
Well, from a geostrategic viewpoint, no country is a “villain”. Every country tries to secure its own interests. From the perspective of other countries, India could be a “villain” by virtue of simply protecting its own interests. I think Indian analysts have started using the term “status quo power” as geostrategic shorthand to say India is a good guy
. i.e., we don’t have territorial claims on anyone else.
I actually wonder about that. If India believes that Pakistan is in illegal occupation of AJK and GB, and that China is in illegal occupation of Aksai Chin and the piece of Kashmir that Pakistan occupied in 1947-48 and gifted to China, then shouldn’t the Indian government be more vocal and persistent about these outstanding items? At the very least, it would be useful in negotiations.
Instead, by already accepting that these other countries are probably not going to return these territories, India has effectively allowed them to be taken off the table, and now only Indian-held Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh remain on the table to be claimed by other countries. Some status quo power! Is there a geostrategic shorthand for foolish?
In contrast, look at the way Pakistan keeps going on about Kashmir. It’s now abundantly clear that the Kashmiris want their own independent country and don’t want to be part of either India or Pakistan. So either the Pakistanis haven’t grasped the momumentally embarrassing import of this desire (the plebiscite they keep demanding will end up costing them AJK and GB!), or they never had any intention to let the Kashmiris have self-determination in the first place (which is probably more likely). Again, India’s silence in not pointing out the contradiction is very surprising. If the Kashmir agitation is truly indigenous, as Pakistan now keeps emphasising, then what is Pakistan’s locus standi anyway? It’s between India and the Kashmiris. In fact, from the Kashmiri perspective, both India and Pakistan are unwelcome occupiers, and both should be on the defensive. Why does India let Pakistan take the moral high ground? Very puzzling.
It’s interesting that Musharraf points out the difference between his interpretation of the proposed agreement and India’s. India believed that the LoC would be made the international border. This is what all of us were led to believe about the agreement, which is why we were hoping for it to succeed. When Manmohan Singh talked about making the border irrelevant, he meant benign stuff like people being able to go across to the other country without requiring visas, etc. In hindsight, I think Musharraf’s interpretation of an irrelevant border was more self-serving. It looks as if he meant, “you remove your troops from the border and our people will occupy Kashmir without having to fight.”
I’m beginning to think India would have made a more foolish mistake in signing this agreement than at any other time in its history. It would have effectively handed over Kashmir on a platter.
Now, of course, as Mortal1 says, it’s best for India to wait and see what becomes of Pakistan before compromising on anything. KP Singh’s musing on actively breaking up Pakistan into four is pointless. It merely offends Pakistanis without achieving anything. If such a breakup happens, it will be because of Pakistanis themselves. If the country stays together, it will be because of Pakistanis themselves. Right now, there are enormous centrifugal forces generated within the country itself with no need for external contribution. The next couple of years will be crucial for Pakistan’s existence, and other countries should avoid complicating the situation through interference or even appearances of interference.
I think the best thing India can do is project a constructive yet strong message. India should show that it doesn’t want to interfere in Pakistan’s affairs, but that it will protect itself and its interests. All said and done, everyone respects strength. If you keep taking your own best negotiating points off the table, never point out embarrassing contradictions in the other party’s position and are willing to sign agreements without knowing how the other party interprets it, then you project an image of foolishness, not strength. It naturally encourages the other party to take advantage, and they shouldn’t be thought of as villains for taking advantage of a gullible country.
That’s geopolitics.
It’s embarrassing that India is one of the few countries on a strong ascendant path to be on the backfoot with respect to a country on a disastrous downward trajectory. Maybe that’s what “status quo power” means. We refuse to take advantage of even legitimate factors in our favour.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
India has two choices in Kashmir – Amend the armed forces protection act and bring in accountability, open up the economy and bring peace through negotiated settlement (OR)
Colonize Kashmir by abrogating its special status, allow Indian businesses to move in, send in families from other parts of India to settle and turn it into a non-Muslim majority state. Arm all the families, and train them in order to protect themselves from the locals until they are accepted. Stone pelters must be countered with stone pelters from the other side. Once balance is achieved, things will calm down. Many Sikhs will gladly settle down in Kashmir. Pakistan has already settle Punjabis and Pashtuns in its part of Kashmir.
Either of the two will help relieve the headache in Kashmir. The latter choice will be somewhat violent at the start. But persistence will pay off. The current status quo will make things worse. There is no use being nice anymore.
When I said “It’s now abundantly clear that the Kashmiris want their own independent country and don’t want to be part of either India or Pakistan”, I meant the Kashmiri Muslims on both sides of the border. Hindus and Buddhists in the territory would probably prefer to stay in India.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Mortal:”2:31 pm ESTI don’t think India needs to make any compromises with Pakistan on Kashmir at this time. Pakistan is weakening by the day. Karachi is burning, Baluchistan is burning, NWFP & FATA are a war zone & Punjab is being consumed by radical forces. It will be best for India to wait & see what becomes of Pakistan before compromising on anything. If Kayani is stupid enough to plan another misadventure in Kashmir (which I don’t think he is), ”
-You are sadly mistaken my friend, Kayani has turnd Afghanistan into a proxy battleground between India and Pakistan. Right now he is planning to train Afghan Army and Police force. I don’t think the military planners in Rawalpindi will let go Kashmir so easily. Once things coold down in Afghanistan, battle lines will be redrawn in Kashmir. Like I stated before, conditions will be created to bring India to a point where concessions become necessary. Like the South African aparthied regime, occupied forces eventually crumble. The power of people toppled a dictator in Tunisia who reigned for 27 years. Ho long can you hold on to Kashmir? Rest assured Pakistan will outlive the turmoil it is facing today. Getting the economy back on track will put the country back on the right course within a span of 5 years. No one is drowning, no mayday calls.
GP: “Well, from a geostrategic viewpoint, no country is a “villain”.”
Therefore China’s conquest of Tibet should not be mistaken.
In the case of Kashmir, India did not invade the place. It sent in its troops to drive of tribesmen who came into plunder the region. It was India that took the case to the UN. Pakistan refused to honor it at that time. And six decades have gone without any solution. In the meantime, China has grown immensely. Pakistan has become a nuclear powered nation and is steaming with Islamic radicals. The whole scenario has changed.
Even if Kashmir had been resolved, the developments in Pakistan are such that Jihad would have continued further. Remember the motto of LeT. If these elements are allowed to take over Kashmir today, which they will if given any room, Khalistan is next. Punjab and Haryana will be the next targets. Let us not fool ourselves. Pakistan and China would love to see India burn. India has not tried to reciprocate that attitude. India has been quite benign. Therefore in this story there sure are villains. It is not a standpoint from one side. Pakistan has taunted India time and again, only to be beaten back. Give me one example of India doing the same in Pakistan. Bangladesh happened because of the genocide committed by West Pakistan.
In the last two decades, India has moved forward and has given up many of the activities it was engaged in to counter the geo-politics of that time. Now things are different. India is being bullied periodically. Mumbai attacks were the latest one. When that is the case, it is not difficult to point at who the villains in this game are.
We have to protect our interests. If we are in chaos and unable to manage ourselves, then sure the solution to seek would be an alternative structure where the union is chopped off into independent states that can take care of their own affairs. Right now that is not the case with India. It is very clear who the aggressor is and my view comes from a defensive standpoint.
“Every country tries to secure its own interests. From the perspective of other countries, India could be a “villain” by virtue of simply protecting its own interests.”
To exist is everyone’s right. To prevent others from existing in peace is not right. India has not prevented Pakistan or China from existing. But there is enough evidence to point otherwise. Therefore India has every right to defend its interests. We have not launched a Jihad in Tibet, now that we have the nukes and missiles.
“I think Indian analysts have started using the term “status quo power” as geostrategic shorthand to say India is a good guy
. i.e., we don’t have territorial claims on anyone else.”
Indian system is slow and lethargic. They lack diplomatic skills. That is unfortunate.
KPSingh:”The only way Kashmir can be settled in today’s context will be by neutralizing Pakistan’s threat to the region by liberating Balochistan, Pashunistan and Sindh. A reduced Pakistan is needed before Kashmir equation can be looked at. ”
-Good luck to you in this age of modern nuclear warfare.
Umair said:
> Kayani has turnd Afghanistan into a proxy battleground between India and Pakistan. Right now he is planning to train Afghan Army and Police force. I don’t think the military planners in Rawalpindi will let go Kashmir so easily. Once things coold down in Afghanistan, battle lines will be redrawn in Kashmir. Like I stated before, conditions will be created to bring India to a point where concessions become necessary.
“My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them”
- John McCain, 3 weeks before the November 2008 election
“Evacuate? In our hour of triumph?”
- Grand Moff Tarkin, seconds before the Death Star’s explosion
“The Americans are committing suicide by the hundreds at the gates of Baghdad”
- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi foreign minister during the US invasion
I find your combination of complacency, hubris and bravado fascinating. Good luck!
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
KP, I understand and empathise with your position. My point is this is an emotional stand and does not pay dividends. India has always wanted to feel appreciated by the world for its morally superior position. This is a naive hope and will never be fulfilled. I think it’s better to let go such dreams and start using strength ruthlessly. Ironically, more countries will line up to say nice things about India once they know how nasty it can be. Realpolitik, after all. That’s the only language people understand.
You can see people on this blog shaking their fists even as they’re drowning, giving a new twist to the old saying, “He’s not waving, he’s drowning”. India needs a bit more of the killer instinct of MacDonalds’ Ray Kroc, “If you see a competitor drowning, you stick a hose down his throat.” Far from India threatening to grab AJK and GB now that Pakistan is in deep trouble, it’s Pakistan that is threatening to grab Indian Kashmir “when it recovers”. Absolutely astonishing!
Those wonderful nuclear weapons will surely come in of use over the next couple of years when hyperinflation hits and people start starving. I’m sure the elites will be happy to say “If they don’t have roti, let them eat isotopes”.
I’m still shaking my head in disbelief.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@”I don’t think the military planners in Rawalpindi will let go Kashmir so easily. Once things coold down in Afghanistan, battle lines will be redrawn in Kashmir. Like I stated before, conditions will be created to bring India to a point where concessions become necessary.” Posted by Umairpk
I know, from an emotional point of veiw, all Pakistanis would like to see Pakistan get back to “challenging India” on Kashmir but facts and reality are quite different from the delusion, you so desperately want to believe in. May I ask, exactly what “conditions” can Pakistan create to bring India in a compromising position? Sorry to inform you Umair, but you are in NO position to gain any consessions from India & you neither have the means nor the resources for it. When you could not shake India when it was the weakest & you were the strongest (back in the 90s), what makes you think you can do it now, with India being where it is & Pakistan on the brink?
). So, all in all, your threats seem nothing more than emotional but hollow rhetoric devoid of facts. I’m not saying this to demean Pakistan or you but one can’t argue with facts & statistics.
Even in your best case secenario, where Pakistan gets back on track in 5 yrs, do you think India will be waiting for you? NO, in 5 yrs India will be 50% stronger than it is today (growing at 9-10% anually) with more clout & influence in the world (your wish of it becoming a permanent member of UNSC might also come true by then
@”Ho long can you hold on to Kashmir?”
That’s why I mentioned in my comment that although India does not need to make any consessions for Pakistan, it needs to work with the Kashmiris & take urgent & bold measures to bring lasting peace & prosperity to J&K.
I agree with Ganesh. There’s no need for India to interfere in Pakistan’s affairs & encourage it’s fragmentation. Pakistanis seem to be their own worst enemies & they won’t need help from anyone, to self-destruct. India needs to concentrate on it’s economic growth & find political solutions in Kashmir & East India.
> > @”Ho long can you hold on to Kashmir?”
> That’s why I mentioned in my comment that although India does not need to make any consessions for Pakistan, it needs to work with the Kashmiris & take urgent & bold measures to bring lasting peace & prosperity to J&K.
I think Pakistan has helped India in its negotiations with Kashmiris by showing them the horror of life as prospective Pakistani citizens. As MJ Akbar said, if Salman Taseer had been an Indian Muslim, he would be alive today. The Kashmiris may want out of India, but they’re not suicidal fools. As a negotiation tactic, India should threaten to let them go
.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Mortal:”That’s why I mentioned in my comment that although India does not need to make any consessions for Pakistan, it needs to work with the Kashmiris & take urgent & bold measures to bring lasting peace & prosperity to J&K.”
-LOL, what if bad boys from Pakistan Army spoil the party, diversionary fire, militant infiltration across the LOC, artrillery shelling, another Kargil. Sounds all too familiar? Afterall Kashmir is still an unresolved DISPUTE. I don’t think you can write Pakistan off so quickly. Only a tri-lateral solution will work.
Umairpk: Good luck to you in this age of modern nuclear warfare.”
Nukes will do nothing. I am talking about Pakistan splintering up on its own the way Yugoslavia did. India has no plans to get involved and I’d like it that way. The only thing we have to make sure that we protect our borders and our citizens when your country starts imploding. Probably some of you will still be thumping your chests as you go down the drain. The only factor that is protecting Pakistan from falling apart is American help. They are doing it not because of any special love for your country. They have their interests in the region – settling Afghanistan. To do that they need a stable Pakistan so that their supplies do not get caught in the cross fire between the factions inside Pakistan. So pray that they stay in the region for as long as it takes. If they leave, Pakistan will burn. Settling scores with India on Kashmir should not be the top priority for you people.
@”what if bad boys from Pakistan Army spoil the party, diversionary fire, militant infiltration across the LOC, artrillery shelling, another Kargil. Sounds all too familiar? Posted by Umairpk
Maybe, you did not read the first part of my response to you, read it again. One needs resources (& plenty of them) to fight conventional or proxy wars, resources which you simply don’t have. If your boys from Pakistani army are stupid enough to start another proxy war while their treasury is virtually empty, poverty is rapidly rising & international support is next to NIL, they will be digging their grave faster than anyone else can dig for them. Chest thumping on a blog is one thing, materializing it into action, is another.
@”I don’t think you can write Pakistan off so quickly.”
Pakistan is writing itself off. Personally, I’d like to see Pakistan get out of it’s current mess & become peaceful & prosperous again as that would mean peace & prosperity for the region but facts point in another direction. If you have a basic understanding of macroeconomics, you would know what kind of damage, a few years of 15% inflation can do to a country growing by just 3.5%. And in these conditions, if you initiate another misadventure in Kashmir, you guys will write yourself off completely.
Umair,
The greatest threat to Pakistan is not India, Islamic militancy or US drone attacks. It’s the economy. Hyperinflation will ravage your country. Watch it.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
P.S. Mortal1, inflation won’t remain at 15% for long. It’s a spiral.
Friends
This post is regarding the Kashmir dispute and Musharraf’s possible solution for future. Why do you want to lecture me on macroeconomics?
BTW, personally I dont think we are down in the drain as yet, we could appear to be one day, but are capable to come back right on top of the world firing on full cylinders the next. Besides, if we were to go down anyways, I would not mind some brinkmanship towards Kashmir/India. As I stated before and I repeat, Kashmir is a dispute. Pakistan has a stand on Kashmir and will continue to take up the stand regardless of inflation or macroeconomic indicators. If India does not hit the economic growth target next quarter for example, will it drop its claim to Arunachal Pardesh? Or if China cannot meet its export qoutas will it drop its claim on Taiwan or Macau? and it would be stupid on part of British PM if he get rid of Northern Ireland because Britain could attract enough foreign investment. If you make a point, give me the right logic.
Lets keep it seperate, Pakistan’s internal situation has got nothing to do with Kashmir. I am not saying that Pakistan will start a nasty little proxy war on Kashmir. What I am implying is that Kashmir is a festering wound both for India and Pakistan. A justified solution will open up opportunities for peace.
And if the situation inside Kashmir gets worse it could push both countries to the brink. We know its a flashpoint, amid so much trouble last thing we need is to go to war over Kashmir yet again.
Lastly, guirella wars are fought with minimal resources, all you need to equip a guirella is with an assault rifle, feed him, guide him to the target. And an angered population will take up arms, fight alongside the guirella and even provide him shelter. I am not implying that these dirty tactics should be used, all I am saying is lets have a good cold look at the possible solutions of Kashmir. It will be a great favour to our future generations if we can put this behind us after almost 65 years.
PS* and it would be stupid on part of British PM if he get rid of Northern Ireland because Britain could *NOT* attract enough foreign investment.
—also, just as you are not economists, similarly I am not expert in guirella warfare. Our objective should be to share ideas, debate the topic and generate goodwill. Without generating goodwill at every level, official, non-official, privately and in opublic, there can be no solutions for longstanding problems.
Having exhausted all coercive options, this discredited general wants to win diplomatically. Mushie must understand that diplomacy comes first and war, only after diplomacy fails.
By playing his trump cards first up(with very dubious results), he is all set to lose any future diplomatic negotiations.
Umair,
I have a number of different questions for you.
1. Sometimes you appear very conciliatory and reasonable (as with your latest post) and sometimes you appear very belligerent. I find it hard to know what exactly you feel and how to respond.
2. The macroeconomics point was about “Can Pakistan afford to be starting a fight”? There are more important things than Kashmir.
3. “If India does not hit the economic growth target next quarter for example, will it drop its claim to Arunachal Pardesh?” This isn’t a good analogy because India already holds Arunachal Pradesh. It should be about something that you claim but don’t have, and for which you’re prepared to fight. There is really no good analogy in the case of India because India doesn’t claim territory that others are holding. (It’s surprising to me that India seems to have given up on AJK, GB, Aksai Chin, etc.)
4. I honestly don’t understand why Pakistan keeps talking about Kashmir, unless one believes Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. But then we also talk about the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination and the need for a plebiscite. Well, the closest thing to a plebiscite has in fact already been held (the Chatham House survey), and it says the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris want independence and don’t want to join either India or Pakistan.
So make up your mind:
a) Emphasise the rights of the Kashmiris => then you have to accept that they view both Pakistan and India as unwelcome occupiers. It’s silly for Pakistan to keep raising the Kashmir issue because like India, you’re the bad guys too!
b) Emphasise Pakistan’s claims to Kashmir => then you have to accept that the will of the Kashmiris doesn’t matter to you. Then it’s silly for Pakistan to keep insisting on a UN-conducted plebiscite.
You can’t have it both ways. The days when the Kashmiris may have wanted to join Pakistan are long gone, if they ever existed.
In short, I think we’re going around in circles. There doesn’t seem to be a way by which Pakistan will ever be satisfied unless
a) India gives up all claims to Kashmir and withdraws
b) the Kashmiris give up their dreams of independence and agree to join Pakistan
Is either going to happen?
I like your suggestion of sharing ideas and debating the topic, so why don’t you please address the contradiction I have pointed out in point 4 above? What do you think about this?
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
GP,
Kashmir is issue is badly needed in Pakistan to keep public attention away from national issues. If you see their view, it is always innocent Pakistan being weakened and exploited by external forces. It never is Pakistan’s contribution to any of the issues. If Kashmir issue had been resolved in the 1940s itself, Pakistan would have raised some other issue to keep its tangle with India. Kashmir’s resolution is a vague term. If you ask them specifically what they mean by it, you will get no answers.
It must be realized that Pakistan’s creation based on flimsy grounds, needs an external threat to keep its fragile unity alive. They have been desperately trying to keep an external enemy at all costs. They have done nothing to build their nation as a result. This is like taking steroids. They have become weakened by them.
Just think about this – their people and generals had no qualms about the slaughter of Bengali Muslims. Now they are campaigning for the rights of Kashmiri Muslims, where nothing done by the Indian military compares in any dimension. They staged a proxy war in Kashmir for a decade, drew the Indian military in, and waited. The military would get frustrated and start taking it out on the public. That would change the public reaction towards India. This is yet another trick up their sleeves and it worked. So now India is made to look like an evil nation. And that does has helped keep Pakistani spirit alive. If kashmir is suddenly given up, they will be in a shock and won’t know what to do with the change.
Umair,
As Ganesh said, you need to make up your mind as to what exactly do you want, cuz you seem quite confused! This is what I mean:
You say “I am not saying that Pakistan will start a nasty little proxy war on Kashmir” but then in the same comment you also say “if we were to go down anyways, I would not mind some brinkmanship towards Kashmir/India”.
As for macroeconomics, it’s the MOST important aspect when it comes to fighting a conventional or proxy war and I pointed that out because you said “Once things coold down in Afghanistan, battle lines will be redrawn in Kashmir. Like I stated before, conditions will be created to bring India to a point where concessions become necessary”
AND you also said “what if bad boys from Pakistan Army spoil the party, diversionary fire, militant infiltration across the LOC, artrillery shelling, another Kargil. Sounds all too familiar?”
If the above comments are not a clear indication of the initiation of a proxy war in Kashmir by Pakistan, can you expalin exactly what are they supposed to mean?
You need to get your thoughts together & figure out if you want be belligerant or concilliatory because you can’t be both.
Also, I’m generally aganist India’s intervention in Pakistan’s internal affairs & efforts towards it’s fragmentation BUT if Pakistan initiates another proxy war in Indian Kashmir or foments any trouble there, all bets are off and I would hope & expect India to return the favor in Baluchistan, Sindh etc. Unlike Pakistan, India has the means & resources to ignite Pakistan & set it ablaze within no time. Pakistanis need to realize that it’s a two way street.
Ganesh,
Another thing I forgot to mention about is the true intention on Kashmir. I don’t think you were in this forum when Umair mentioned that intention – to avenge the secession of East Pakistan. Pakistani army is reeling with this emotion.
When the proxy war was honed and perfected in Afghanistan, Alsam Beg, Hamid Gul and Ghulam Ishaq Khan assumed that the same could be tried in Kashmir. Launch a holy war using insurgents and sustain it over a decade. This is a strategy pulled right out of the famous book “The art of war.” Until the locals support your cause, you cannot win any war in your enemy’s territory.
In 1965, Operation Gibraltor was launched by Ayub Khan. If you read the plan at that time, it was pretty much along the same lines as that plan launched in 1989. The only difference is that they assumed then that the local Kashmiris would support the insurgency. At that time, Kashmiri locals did not have anti-Indian sentiments. They caught the insurgents and handed them over to the security forces. The Ayub launched a war to cover that embarrassment.
In 1989, they had factored in this weakness. They had realized through their experience in the war in Afghanistan against the USSR that the first thing is to bring the locals on to their side. And this is not something that can be done overnight. So they launched a long and controlled insurgency in Kashmir. Their plan was very simple – lure the Indian military into Kashmir and frustrate them. Insurgents were expendable and were promised of room in the Heavens. And these were highly trained insurgents who had experience from Afghan Jihad. Now all they had to do was to sit back and wait. They used diplomatic skills to prevent any sympathy arising towards India. They knew that friction would arise and frustration would build. IPKF in Sri Lanka underwent the same experience. IPKF came back defeated. So it was only a matter of time before the Indian military underwent the same experience.
Militaries are brutal. They go on missions with defined priorities. They are not subject to civilian regulations. If a zone is declared as a war zone, the military does not care if there are civilians in it or wild life. Anything that does not obey its orders is considered a hindrance and gets eliminated right away. And Pakistani planners were waiting for this to happen. Locals were threatened into providing cover for the insurgents. Those who resisted were eliminated. And the blame was put on the Indian security forces. Life came to a standstill. Tourism died. Livelihood was affected. The next generation of Kashmiris were growing up seeing a siege rather than normal life. And they took to arms. The tide began to turn towards Pakistan. This added more to the frustration of the Indian military and it went after the locals. Things gained momentum and it had reached a critical stage where Indian military was going to lose and Kashmir was going to fall into the hands of the Jihadist mission.
Unfortunately for Pakistan 9/11 happened. Al Qaeda started global Jihad and everything changed. Pakistan was caught off guard and had to hurry in and protect its assets and interests before the truth becomes evident. They had to slow down their operations in Kashmir as the war intensified in Afghanistan. By 2007, Kashmir had become quiet. And once Obama came aboard, Pakistan has been at the receiving end of the blow back.
But Kashmir has changed. The current generation grew up watching the horror of insurgency and counter insurgency. They have been successfully alienated. To them the Indian military looks like an invading force. See the parallel in Afghanistan. The Americans are now looked at as foreign occupiers. Another generation of Afghans is growing up watching this scenario.
For India, it will take the next generation of Kashmiris to cool things down. The current generation hates everyone around. Indian security forces need training in treating people in a humane way. In fact all security forces across the world need this training. Even if Kashmir goes, I’d like them to go with goodwill. It has been destroyed there by the efforts of Pak army. It has to be undone first before any settlement is sought. Otherwise we are looking at another Pakistan in the neighborhood. We don’t need two.
Pakistan wants Kashmir conflict alive. It wants to use this conflict to create more inside India. They have tried hard to trigger India into retaliating. Only in Kargil India retaliated. Pak army has gone rogue. Even now Kayani wants India to be considered as the main enemy, despite the fact that his country is burning. Such is their perspective.
We must be careful not to fall for any settlements with them without knowing the true intentions. Just like I want to see smaller Islamic states instead of one Pakistan, they’d like to see smaller Indian countries instead of one big nation. The feelings are mutual. They want to be one nation at all costs, but they do want India to splinter up. So let us not fool ourselves into playing wise men here. True intentions are clear and visible. Unless Pakistani army is forced to change those intentions, nothing will settle between India and Pakistan.
Mortal:
“You need to get your thoughts together & figure out if you want be belligerant or concilliatory because you can’t be both.”
-For a dubious country like India which is biding its time and continues to hold on to Kashmir, does not want to sincerely address the dispute. There can be no one clear way to tackle the situation, Pakistan has to resort to all possible means. And as if India is not already engaged in creating trouble in Baluchistan?
” India has the means & resources to ignite Pakistan & set it ablaze within no time.”
-Having the means and resources is one thing, having the will to go ahead is another. And you know very well Pakistan can defend itself in a number of ways. BTW some of it is already happening in Afghanistan, both countries compete there to curtail each other’s influence.
I do not think Pakistan needs to resort to proxy war in Kashmir, over a period of time things will ignite there on their own. The population there has a seething anger beneath them. You don’t know you are playing with fire here, its disputes like Kashmir that gives a reason for militant groups to exist. The longer this problem is left unresolved the harder it gets to get out of it.
KP:” I want to see smaller Islamic states instead of one Pakistan”
-See, here in lies the problem. Even with a 7th largest Army holding the worlds fastest growing nuclear arsenal you think you can further break up Pakistan. So India has all the right to keep posing an existential threat to Pakistan’s very existence and Pakistan should not even resort to low intensity conflict? It is stupidity to think like this.
KP:”I don’t think you were in this forum when Umair mentioned that intention – to avenge the secession of East Pakistan.”
-In my view East Pakistan was avenged on 28 May 1998 the day when Pakistan became a nuclear power. Now you are on the record of stating repeatedly overtime that Pakistan should be broken up further. Let me simply draw your attention to Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. In case an existential threat is posed to Pakistan, nuclear wepaons can be used. Your thinking is not just idiotic but suicidal and not based on reality on ground.
UN envoy calls for repeal of occupied Kashmir security laws
http://www.brecorder.com/news/latest/180 72:un-envoy-calls-for-repeal-of-occupied -kashmir-security-laws.html
@Umair
“Let me simply draw your attention to Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. In case an existential threat is posed to Pakistan, nuclear wepaons can be used. Your thinking is not just idiotic but suicidal and not based on reality on ground.”
***Umair, I am trying to connect this back to a long post I wrote to you since you asked me to convince you that India is not an existential threat to Pakistan. Among other reasons, one reason is what you mentioned above (nukes; immaterial of the nuke doctrine). In reply to my post, you did not say that I was able to convince you or not but escaped the discussion by telling me that ISI has put India has threat#2 and extremism as threat#1. If you disagree with me, at least tell me why. Let us be frank here. No one here is PM/President of Pakistan or India, you cannot start proxy war in kashmir with a statement nor can I break Pakistan in pieces even if I say anything like that. At least we can have a logical discussion.
I also feel that you blow hot and cold about issues. You want peace and solution but propose proxy war run by your “PA bad boys”, you want prosperity of a common Pakistani and stability internally in Pakistan, but don’t see that funding proxy wars or Kargil type ops will not help that. Use of distorted Jihad will not help Pakistan.
Ganesh asked a valid question to you on Kashmir contradiction.
Umairpk: “Even with a 7th largest Army holding the worlds fastest growing nuclear arsenal you think you can further break up Pakistan.”
No one can break Pakistan up using military means. If Pakistan had acted as a responsible and well behaved nation, no one will think of any solutions or strategies against it. You know very well that Pakistan has been on a mission to take on India right from 1948. Every conflict with India has been instigated by Pakistan. If you keep throwing stones into your neighbor’s house and he comes out with a stick to beat you up, you cannot call your neighbor as someone threatening your life. East Pakistan’s separation was a whack with the stick for throwing stones at our house. Your country has not learned from it. Now that it managed to steal in an AK 47 (read as Nukes), you feel suddenly secure and have decided to taunt your neighbor again using stone throwing (read as state sponsored insurgency).
The break up Pakistan happened on its own in 1971. India capitalized on it because Pakistan had been the aggressor before and there was a potential for aggressive moves in the future from both sides of India. If India did not make the geo-strategic move in 1971, by now it would have lost all of North Eastern part, and the neighboring states would have burned. India is still country because of cutting up Pakistan in 1971. If Pakistan had acted as a good neighbor right from the start, there would have been no need to think along that line. India is not looking at its other neighbors the way it does in the case of Pakistan. This is because they have accepted India as their neighbor and are living their lives. Pakistan never had a life other than to take on India. If Pakistan had not tried to play beyond its size and capability, none of what we see today will be happening. It is time for some introspection on your part.
If Pakistan breaks up on its own, it will be good for India. But we are not intending to push anything in that direction. If you set fire to your own hat, there is no need for us to do anything. But if you do, it does benefit us. Sorry, but that is my thinking.
“So India has all the right to keep posing an existential threat to Pakistan’s very existence and Pakistan should not even resort to low intensity conflict? It is stupidity to think like this.”
Actually it is Pakistan that has been an existential threat to India. Pakistan has made many attempts and has been burnt in the bargain. But you cannot call that as a threat from India. Your country has tried to play big regional super power right from the start. This attitude has been further skewed by contempt and arrogance. You lost East Pakistan due to contempt and nothing else. Your country has taken on India because of the same reason. We have no interest in Pakistan other than to keep a cautious watch towards the developments in Af-Pak. A strong and stable Pakistan has not materialized over the past 6 decades, when factors were much more favorable than now. It has been a steady decline on all fronts. Therefore a strong and stable Pakistan is a Utopian idea. Those who say that they’d like to see a stable Pakistan are being diplomatic. That’s all.
Your country was founded on false ideology and in order to keep your country alive, you have needed an external enemy and constant engagement in one war on another. If your enemy disappears, you will fall apart. There has been no attempt made to unify people through education, economic progress and well being. This constant propping up of an external enemy (India, USA, Israel etc) and focus on issues not relevant for your country’s progress (Kashmir, Khalistan, Afghanistan, Taliban, nuclear proliferation etc), your country has dug a deep hole for itself.
Chest thumping will not help resolve the issues your country has. Most of your political leaders are living in UK. Karachi, the commercial capital is turning into a war zone. You cannot spring back or pull it off when you neck deep into the hole.
Umairpk: “In my view East Pakistan was avenged on 28 May 1998 the day when Pakistan became a nuclear power. Now you are on the record of stating repeatedly overtime that Pakistan should be broken up further. Let me simply draw your attention to Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. In case an existential threat is posed to Pakistan, nuclear wepaons can be used. Your thinking is not just idiotic but suicidal and not based on reality on ground.”
Your nuclear quest started much before 1971. I do not see the logic of avenging East Pakistan by buying a new shirt. You have stated yourself in the past that Kashmir conflict was to settle scores for East Pakistan. I can go in and dig that up for you if you want. Now you are singing a different tune.
Your nukes do not frighten us. Therefore you need to come up with some other scare crow tactics. Your nukes will not protect your country from falling apart due to internal crisis. They are only increasing by the day. I am sure your generals are praying that Obama does not come back to power in 2012. If he does, your country is going to boil more. He knows that peace in Afghanistan can be achieved only if Pakistan is corrected. He has put pressure on your country and it is manifesting as suicide blasts and sectarian violence. Drone attacks have only intensified. Your mighty, nuclear armed military is sitting there doing nothing about it. They are using your air fields to launch the drones. That says how valorous and courageous your military is. Let me see if they have the guts to knock down those drones with their fighter planes.
Ganesh:
“4. I honestly don’t understand why Pakistan keeps talking about Kashmir, unless one believes Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. But then we also talk about the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination and the need for a plebiscite. Well, the closest thing to a plebiscite has in fact already been held (the Chatham House survey), and it says the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris want independence and don’t want to join either India or Pakistan.”
-Ganesh/Rehmat, ofcourse Pakistan does not view Kashmir as an integral part of India. At best Kashmir is defined as a disputed territory. In the above propsed Musharraf solution Pakistan never demanded Kashmir to be handed over and made a part of Pakistan. There has to be a give and take on both sides.
KPSingh
useless arguing with you, if you are among those people who call Jinnah a crook I will call Gandhi an elite racist. If you state Pakistan must be dismembered, it already points out to your open hatred towards Pakistan. India’s ‘strategic move’ in 1971 (in your words) can be termed a foolish mistake. Today India can even retaliate against a nuclear armed Pakistan.
As stated, the keyword here is give-and-take and co-existence, all the rest is just talk.
PS
* Today India can NOT even retaliate against a nuclear armed Pakistan.
KP
“If Pakistan breaks up on its own, it will be good for India.”
-When a country implodes, its the immediate neighbour who gets f*cked up the most. We saw it in the case of Afghanistan back in the 80s, when the situation there affected Pakistan. If this is what you want be prepared for it and without going into much detail I can tell you India will be f*cked up pretty badly in this scenario.
Umair said:
> So India has all the right to keep posing an existential threat to Pakistan’s very existence and Pakistan should not even resort to low intensity conflict?
You’re mixing up cause and effect. As many people here have repeatedly said, no Indian would be talking about breaking up Pakistan if it had been a friendly country. This is more by way of trying to reduce the threat that Pakistan has been posing (more of a nuisance than a threat, really) by taking it apart and reducing its ability to create mischief in future. The strategy works, because Bangladesh hasn’t created problems (at least not on this scale) since 1971.
You periodically come back to the point that we can all be prosperous together. I’m glad you do focus on that goal, but for that to happen, this cycle of mutual suspicion and defensiveness have to end. Each side will keep saying “You first”, because we have different perceptions of cause and effect. What the Indians are saying is that Pakistan’s constant focus on getting Kashmir and its various hostile strategies to acquire it is the cause. Indian hostility to Pakistan is the effect. India did not start off being hostile. If Pakistan decides to stop its hostile acts (it doesn’t have to drop its demands over Kashmir, by the way), then India and Indians will have no reason to want the breakup of Pakistan. In fact, it should be surprising to you that Indians express the desire for Pakistan to recover and become strong and prosperous even in the current hostile situation.
There’s goodwill that can be tapped, but we need to break the cycle. To break the cycle, we have to identify the cause as opposed to the effect, and to stop that. The cause is Pakistani willingness to use violence in pursuit of their Kashmir dream (or maybe it’s something beyond even Kashmir). Unless Pakistan agrees to give up violent means in its dealings, you cannot expect Indians to have a benign and forgiving attitude.
Don’t confuse giving up violence to giving up the Kashmir claim. You can continue to demand Kashmir in every peaceful way. If the demand is legitimate and the Kashmiri people want it too, then it will eventually happen. But it cannot happen in a hostile environment. Remember the story of the Sun and the Wind, and who was ultimately successful in the bet to remove the farmer’s coat.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
I forgot to add – Violent means often work in the real world…provided you are the stronger power.
In the current context, Pakistan is the weaker power, and getting economically weaker, which translates to getting militarily weaker over a period of time. As Gen Kayani has finally realised, economic strength is true strategic depth, not Afghanistan. Pakistan neglected the economy in favour of geographical strategic depth, and now the results are there to see.
So it’s not just on grounds of principle. India can defend Kashmir indefinitely, just like China keeps Tibet in spite of the Tibetans’ will to be free. None of these hostile tactics will work, and the effort will bankrupt Pakistan.
Pakistan needs to give up violent means. That’s the only way out of this impasse.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Umair said:
> -Ganesh/Rehmat, ofcourse Pakistan does not view Kashmir as an integral part of India. At best Kashmir is defined as a disputed territory. In the above propsed Musharraf solution Pakistan never demanded Kashmir to be handed over and made a part of Pakistan. There has to be a give and take on both sides.
This still doesn’t make sense. If Kashmir is “disputed”, between whom is the dispute? The Kashmiris (at least the ones still in the territory and not driven out) are saying they don’t want to be part of either country. So what is Pakistan’s locus standi? It’s not as if they love you, so why do you keep arguing their case?
The self-respecting thing for Pakistan to do would be to say to the Kashmiris, “OK, so you don’t want to join us either? Then why should we support you in your quest to be free of India? Fight your own battle!”
There’s really something else, isn’t there? Pakistan is pretending to support the Kashmiri desire, then once Kashmir is free of India, it’s going to be swallowed up by Pakistan, never mind what the Kashmiris want. That’s the only scheme that explains Pakistan’s current stance. Do you see what I’m saying? You still haven’t addressed the contradiction.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Umairpk: “When a country implodes, its the immediate neighbour who gets f*cked up the most.”
Not necessarily. It depends upon how strong and big the neighbor is. India has taken the brunt of organized and controlled insurgency by Pakistan for 20 years and at the end it is Pakistan that is lying flat. India has handled a number of internal insurgencies at the same time and still making economic progress. Afghanistan fell to rubble and it affected Pakistan because Pakistan was mixed in all the way up to its neck in Afghan affairs. And it has no economic strength to sustain itself while messing around in conflicts.
If Pakistan falls into chaos (for the sake of the ordinary people there, I wish this does not happen), the elements will have no time to look outside at others as they will be busy tearing each others’ dress. When Yugoslavia burned Turkey, Austria etc did not burn. They stayed put.
Your military is the real villain. It is controlling you and everything in the Af-Pak region. If there is any hope for your nation, it has come from the destruction of your military. It is not protecting your nation. It is using your nation as a sand bag to duck and hide from bullets.
Umair,
It’s very difficult to have a constructive debate with you when there are so many contradictions & discrepancies in your comments.
You say “And as if India is not already engaged in creating trouble in Baluchistan?” AND then in the same context (India breaking Pakistan) you also say “Having the means and resources is one thing, having the will to go ahead is another.”
I’m confused, so which one is it, Is India creating trouble in Pakistan or does it not have the will to create trouble in Pakistan?
@”I do not think Pakistan needs to resort to proxy war in Kashmir, over a period of time things will ignite there on their own. The population there has a seething anger beneath them.”
Again, that’s why I said that India needs to take measures to bring peace & prosperity in Kashmir. To which you responded with “the bad boys of PA will spoil your party with another proxy war”. So, in other words you don’t want Kashmir to be peaceful unless it’s a part of Pakistan? So why all the hypocricy & crocodile tears for the Kashmiris?
Umair,
It’s very difficult to have a constructive debate with you when there are so many contradictions & discrepancies in your comments.
You say “And as if India is not already engaged in creating trouble in Baluchistan?” AND then in the same context (India breaking Pakistan) you also say “Having the means and resources is one thing, having the will to go ahead is another.”
I’m confused, so which one is it, Is India creating trouble in Pakistan or does it not have the will to create trouble in Pakistan?
@”I do not think Pakistan needs to resort to proxy war in Kashmir, over a period of time things will ignite there on their own. The population there has a seething anger beneath them.”
Again, that’s why I said that India needs to take measures to bring peace & prosperity in Kashmir. To which you responded with “the bad boys of PA will spoil your party with another proxy war”. So, in other words you don’t want Kashmir to be peaceful unless it’s a part of Pakistan? So why all the hypocricy & crocodile tears for the Kashmiris?
@”I heard Pakistan sent a delegation to china to speed up the indian balkanisation process and Bangladash is already on board.” Posted by babag
The delusional bum, who lives in the gutters of my subway station & eats filth all day long, also heard the same thing. Since you guys have the same source, I assume you must have a lot in common
Mortal1,
Do not feed the troll.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
BTW, the delegations which Pakistan sends anywhere these days have just one purpose: Ask for money!
There was one here in the US a few days ago, headed by your President. He asked for a loan but was politely turned down.
Here Umair, another one of your “non-state actors”
http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/22/uk-judge- approves-us-extradition-of-terror-suspec t.html
(Did you say the other day that sikhs have taken their violent ways to other countries?)
Interesting perspectives from a Kashmiri from PoK:
http://drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com/
Maybe the Monguls will save the region from its present version of the Slave Dynasty of Delhi.
Mortal
Cool down. The other day I also posted a link from Guardian exposing the hindu terrorist Swami aseemanand. Soon Pakistan will demand the extradition of all terrorists invloved in killing of Pakistani passengers onboard the train. Seems nothing changed since 1947.
Babag:
” I heard Pakistan sent a delegation to china to speed up the indian balkanisation process and Bangladash is already on board.”
-Well, the Chinese consider Pakistan most important ally in their ‘strings of pearl’ strategy. Not only Bangladesh, but Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, South china sea shore pretty much everyone is onboard.
@Umair: I’m always cool, man!
@ROWnine: Hey, what’s a mongul? some kind of a dog breed, I don’t know about?