US–India Deal and Kashmir

Re: # 109 by pmishra

HP`s saying or not saying does not affect anything. Pakistan will be, and is, trying to take the war to the rest of India. This is because it is cheap for Pakistan to do so. Recruiting terrorists is cheap in India. The relevant question is: What should India do?

Instigating trouble in Waziristan is not a solution. The cost of a Pakistani life in Waziristan is low for the military junta in Pakistan. As I had referred to earlier, in a feudal society you simply shoot protestors and not worry about it. The loss of lives, if not in Kashmir then at least in Bangalore, is costly for the Indian government.

Your statement:

``Ultimately the indian economy will be 20x and military will be 10x and that will be the end of the story.``

implies that India do nothing and the problem will ``ultimately`` go away. Even if you are right, what is the cost of this ``ultimately`` in terms of time, resources and life?

Indians need to increase the cost of recruiting terrorists in India. This can be done by increasing the efficiency of police and the judiciary. Indians need more democracy, more decentralized public spending and more deregulation of the economy. And fast. This all of us will agree.

I would also like the govt. to start talking to the militants with an open mind. This I know many will disagree.

My two cents(american):

There is no peace possible over the issue of Kashmir until one side is completely annihilated.(not my favorite choice).

I have some Kashmiri blood in my veins, somewhere and I was told that no Sikh was left alive in Kohalla/Mujafarrabad. If somebody does a plebiscite in Kohalla, it would be a all muslim victory and total disrespect to my murdered ancesstors there.

That is why I dont like this plebicite stuff.

Re: # 13
Next time you cut and paste from other websites, please make sure that you change the Font style.

-Chowk Staff

I see the great thinkers have come up with a new strategy - ``take jihad to the mainland``.

Reminds me of all the garbage one read on chowk before 9/11 about how inevitable the taliban was, how they were partners in Afghanistan, how much depth that was going to provide blah, blah, blah....

Any way, if you think killing a few hundred indians regularly is going to derail indian economy, you are crazy. Britain had an IRA problem with bomb blasts in London regularly. No problem with their economy or importance to the world economy. Israel is the regular target of terrorism and has a per-capita income ten times its neighbors. The largest block of foreign companies on NASDAQ originate from Israel.

All that will be achieved will be tit-for-tat explosions and continued involvement of pakistani state on jihad and other mindlessness. I think we all aware how much the kashmir jihad has helped the pakistani state and its peoples.

But dont let that stop you. Dream away about the glory that will accrue from sponsoring more terror. Ultimately the indian economy will be 20x and military will be 10x and that will be the end of the story.

Re: # 104 by HP

On the dot. Chanakya would have said the same (if he hadn`t already).

Continuation # 101,

kaal,

In my last post I ended by saying we should rethink existing institutions. This is easy to say but how do you go about doing it. Here is an example.

If you look at the recent budget you will see a proportionate decrease in the capital outlay for infrastructure. Why is this so, when everyone is talking about the importance of infrastructural development? It is simply because the way this money is spent (through corrupt govt. servants) the marginal expenditure does not buy you additional votes. My point is that the Ministry should have planned things differently. Instead of channelizing the ADDITIONAL money through state officials it should have channelized the money through panchayats. Panchayats all the way from Kashmir through Assam to Nagaland. Furthermore, the Panchayats should have been given the option of spending the money on whatever they thought was infrastructure: wells, school buildings etc. Yes there would be pilferage, but so what? There is pilferage anyways. This would change people`s perception of their relationship with the State. In particular, given such resources, responsibility would set in at local levels. I am not saying that terrorism would vanish because of this. But by making local communities responsible for development, employment etc. some economic causes (like unemployment) leading to terrorism could have been dealt with at the local levels. All it needed was a different way of thinking and everyone could have been better off.

#105 by ahmadzai on March 30, 2006 1:59pm PT



I fully agree with you that sooner than later Pakistan will have to take freedom struggles to other states of India.


and the reason you haven`t done this yet is because of the goodness in your heart?

mmmkay..

HP at # 82:

Very good post.

Let me tell you one thing more. Although Bush`s tone in Pakistan was harsh, it was purely for the consumption of his constituency.

In meetings otoh, USA has assured its support to Pakistan in many areas.

I fully agree with you that sooner than later Pakistan will have to take freedom struggles to other states of India. It has to be very very soon - a simple pay back for what India is doing in Balochistan and in our Tribal areas.

Politics and diplomacy are all about looking for opportunities and exploiting opponent’s weaker sides. It is good politics to explore opponent’s vulnerable areas and then use them strategically to gain the upper hand. Politics is not about being nice and friendly all the time. Even when countries are friendly, they continually search for better positions in many areas. As someone said, Russians and the Americans maybe on the friendly terms now but they have not shut down their spy agencies.

The recent reports of the Russian passing on the US plans to Saddam illustrate the point. Reportedly Russians obtained those plans form inside the central command in Qatar. If the report is true, then it shows that the Russians still maintain a network that can penetrate the most secure US military areas. Similarly, Israel actively spies on the US. There are many instances and arrests of the Israeli agents prove that.

All this is done to gain a position of strength. It is important for Pakistan and India to ensure that they are in position all the time to guard their interests in the area. Pakistan and India have a history of bad relationship and a mighty suspicion of each other`s intents.

If Pakistan wants to find solution to the problem it has with India, it should naturally look for where India is vulnerable and exploit that. Indian is also actively involved in this process. Even when India and Pakistan are best of the buddies, they both will have to maintain a healthy suspicion of each other just to be ready for any future situation.

This is life in relations between the countries and people should accept this reality and live with that.

Re: # 99

Hmmm can someone please tell why Pakistan was created again?

Salim Chauhan at 71:

You wrote:

``Get with the program, sir. Pakistan just wants to keep the Kashmir issue alive not to solve it. Any final solution to Kashmir, whether it gives it all up, attains all of it, or reaches some sort of compromise, is bound to dilute the raison d`etre for Pakistan. Already the AKs, Baltits, and Gligitis are fed up with Islamabad`s heavy hand. Democracy is running rampant in the Valley and the recent earthquake proved how much Pakistan cares about the people of Kashmir. Sectarian violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has gone a long way in scaling down Muslim feelings for unity, Islamic state, or Ummahdom. So, the best thing that India can do for Pakistan is to continue the dialgue and keep the pot stirred for the Pak Army to get its toys. ``

In your other posts you have stated that Mohajirs were bombed on which I had to write an iLog for consumption of some other participants.

May I humbly ask you: Are you a Government representative to so convincingly state what we want in Kashmir? Or are you a citizen living in Balitistan/Gilgit to have noticed all the atrocities?

Neden bu forumu fikri masturbasyon ile mesgul ediyorsun?

Re: # 99

kaal,

It is very likely that Pakistan is trying to set up and operate small cells all over India. The question is: why is it cost-effective for Pakistan to do so. According to Praveen Swami, a specialist on terrorism, it is because of two reasons: social and economic alienation of Muslims in India. Now people will jump in and ask me why only Muslims, others are also alienated in India and so why don`t they do jihad? I would say that they do too, but their jihad is called by other names: in Mumbai it is working for the mafia; in UP it is dacoity and goondagardi; in Bihar it is caste warfare; in Assam (where we will have a problem greater than in Kashmir in a few years) it is independence; in Jharkhand and MP it is class warfare etc. etc. etc.

It is all very good to curse HP and talk of our Mittals instead. But HP`s points are valid and Indians have to smell the coffee.

The problems that I talk of in the first paragraph would not have arisen had India been TOTALLY feudal. For in that case people would not have challenged, and had they challenged one would simply shoot the protestors and get back to life. But starting from Gandhi`s popularization of politics amongst the unwashed masses more and more people are challenging the State when they have felt that the State has failed them. It is high time for people to rethink existing institutions. The benchmark here is not Pakistan but the US.

Re: # 76

Zeena:

Thanks. I am optimistic, if religion is kept out, and kept as regional issue, a healthy consensus will emerge among the parties. Knowledge society of your times, nation-state cannot protect, movement of labor, capital, and technology and other valuable assets. I am confident thtat in your life time you will see the dilution of borders, and other forms of protection than Nation-State. European Union will show ways to the rest of us.

Anil

HP

Excellent analysis of a realistic way ahead for Pakistan. If it is true, as has been asserted by some Pakistanis on chowk, that Pakistan has put in place an exellent enabling infrastructure within India, then India can be repeatedly attacked from within, and simultaneously, prevented from responding in any serious manner. Such one-sided losses may build pressure on India till such time that India surrenders to Pakistan or dissolves.

Two issues do arise. One, naturally, there is or can be nothing new in this and other such proposals. Two, Pakistan may end up wasting the next fifty years too if India neither surrenders nor falls apart.

Neither provides strong disincentive. Reinventing various wheels is costly and will take time. It is also unnecessary if basic objectives don`t change in a significant way. Besides, risks do not deter a brave people. If the end is sufficiently valued, Pakistani nation, and those who rule the nation, may gladly make the calculated choice to take those risks.

#97 was by ``The writer is a former foreign secretary.``

Changing geostrategic landscape


By Shamshad Ahmad Khan

PRESIDENT George W. Bush’s recent visit to Pakistan continues to be the subject of debate and discourse at all levels and in every segment of our society. The mood at the level of people has been one of anxiety and concern over the spectacularly preferential treatment that India received during his visit to New Delhi.

By all accounts India came out as “a big winner” whereas in sharp contrast, unequal dialogue, minimum protocol, cheerless welcome, arrival and departure in the dark of the night, maximum security, terrorist scare, death and debris in the vicinity of US consulate in Karachi, and a sombre mood on both sides characterized President Bush’s less than 24-hour sojourn in Islamabad.

According to a revelation in the New York Times a week after the visit, President Bush made an “unrivalled” gesture to Pakistan by overruling his secret service and going ahead with an “overnight” stay in Pakistan, a country alleged to be “the assumed haven of Osama bin Laden and one of the most dangerous countries in the world.” According to this report, all our diplomatic exertions in recent months, including those during the recent visit of our prime minister to Washington, were focused on persuading the US president to spend a night in Islamabad.

He did oblige us and took “calculated risks” by committing himself to “the overnight stay” in Pakistan. Indeed, it must have been a great solace to our leaders to have the world’s “most powerful” man spending a night in their neighbourhood. He slept at the US embassy in the heavily fortified diplomatic enclave. He may have had a restful night after his tiring schedule in India but for his secret service, it must have been a rare night of nightmares.

Even on the four high-profile issues on Pakistan-US agenda, namely, nuclear, technology, democracy, terrorism and Kashmir, the US message was loud and clear. There will be no nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, not even for peaceful purposes, until it re-establishes its non-proliferation credentials. For Washington democracy is merely a subject for sermonic discussion and not a priority issue. On terrorism, Pakistan was doing great but still needs to do a lot more. On Kashmir, the US will only encourage a bilateral approach as the only “way forward.”

No matter what we now say to keep face, the fact remains that the US has given us an “unmannerly” reminder of the changing realities and a new geo-strategic landscape in South Asia. Not only the tone and tenor of what was said at the joint press conferences in Islamabad and New Delhi but also the texts of joint statements issued in the two capitals represented a clear contrast in the US treatment of its two strategic partners.