India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

Satyavadi,

Sorry, I addressed you as Satyamvada.

Re: # 232

Satyamvada,

I agree with you that this time Indians are not backing off.
But what makes you think things would stand as they are now in future?
Arabs were knocking at the door for 70/80 years before they finally succeeded
in capturing Sindh. It has been only 60 years since Pakistanis are knocking hard
at Kashmir and I do think they are in a mood to give it up despite the aparent
costs.

sadna #228:
I agree. Indians would have to be insance to want to undo Partition. I think even Pakis know this, but they just want to use the Akhand Bharat bogeyman to a) rally their people and `troops` b) to beat Hindus/India with the Akhand Bharat stick from time to time.

Satyavadi

hamidm,
You probably have been consistent, but your tone has definitely become harsher lately :)

Anyways, yourself and other Pakistanis consistently raise the bogeyman of ``Indian desire for Akhand Bharat`` from time to time. This despite, Indians from across the political spectrum saying they DON`t want Akhand Bharat for reasons explained by many including me. So bury the Akhand Bharat fear once and for all.

Also, if wresting Kashmir was so easy, you guys would have been able to do so after three and a half wars, Kashmiri insurgency and Paki supported terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of India. Well you guys can continue to try and we will continue to push you back. If you have a grievance about the `occupation` of Kashmir we have ours about your country sponsoring terror in India, harboring known Indian criminals etc. We have a just and principled position just as you think Pakistan does. It`s going to be a long war, and this time, unlike in the past, the horrible Hindus are not backing off :)

Satyavadi

Re: # 227

satyavadi,

.......... i have been consistent in my position on kashmir - just i i don`t believe in rolling over for the mullahs i do not believe in rolling over for the horrible hindoos as much as i love them ..........

Re: # 229

anil mian,

...... i agree with everyting you say except why does pakistan have to give up its position on kashmir - why not india ?............ it is a rhetorical question and as any school yard bully can give you the answer ............

Re: # 221

Hamidm Sahib:

May be the rape of Kashmiri was started by in 1948 by some, whom you might now recall. Pakistani hands are not as clean as you might like.

Kashmir was partitioned. The bloodshed, compare to what happened in the Punjab, at that time was avoided to a great extent. You can say Pakistan fought to get it upto Neelum Valley. Or I can say that the british chiefs of staff of Pakistani and Indian armies were taking their orders from somewhere else to achieve different objectives. There is too much bad and wrong history Hamidm sahib.

Fast forward to the present. Fareed Zakariah recently wrote in Newsweek, it is stability that is the most important for Pakistan rather than ``strategic depth`` that some in the army pressure the general to achieve.

Also distant thunder can be heard and viewed differently in Islamabad and New Delhi. Simlarly, what happens in Srinagar is heard and viewed differently in Islamabad and New Delhi.

If Bush could not bring democracy in Iraq, due to think the general can? No matter what happens to the government, I think Pakistan will probably be the most liberal islamic society, how it is governed it of lesser importance.

Having said this, yes, I do feel that Musharraff can fix some of Pakistan`s problems. He can also give a direction to relations with India this includes Kashmir (mind you I regard Indian-Kashmir differently than probably you do).

I believe that Kashmir for Pakistan is an emotional problem than a real problem. Musharraff is doing a great job to gradually move Pakistan away from the emotional plane.

Major challenges as I see for Pakistan are building institutions that will devolve power away from the army, reforming education, and create a viable economic model that can handle global imbalance and create value-added jobs.

Religion, much as I do not care, is part of Pakistan like oxygen is to humans.

This is quite different situation from India, no matter what Gujju Bania and BJ conjure image in your mind. Such extremes will exist in India, but institutions are there to marginalize them.

Extremes in Pakistan will also exist. Currently there is no mechanism to control it. Therefore, extremism has spread like cancer in its fabric. Musharraff is trying to tackle it. I do not think he will succeed, and therefore, he will push it only to an extent so that moderates do not loose power in Pakistan. If this is not enough for the U.S., this may be a bad situation for Pakistan.

Considering from India centric view, India has options to deal with the situation where it cannot work out a deal with Pakistan. These options will disappear if its economic progress slows down and cost of controlling become a huge portion of its GDP. Therefore, Man Mohan Singh will play ball with Musharraff to see if minor adjustments to geographic and political situation will yield a deal to improve economic, cultural etc. etc. relations.

If this deal emerges, it be great for the region, else India will walk away. And if India does walk away, Pakistan`s position will greatly weaken, especially after its publicly stated positions have moved it toward India`s position.

Indians are tough negotiators, Madani sahib has quoted Nixon here. It is a game of chess and diplomacy. It is in Indian genes, Could have been in your geners too, but you gave up Chanakaya, and his niti. If I am not wrong, Chanakya, like Panini, was also from what is Paksitan now.

Into the future, nation-state boundaries will be less relevant, except to control what you termed as terror-tourism.

Knowledge, capital, labor and goods important to Gross Knowledge Product, can move faster than ever and thus create assets faster than ever anywhere in the world. This is advent of knowldege economy. Regional economies and regional blocks will be more relevant. I have personally seen the transformation that took place in late 80s to mid 90s in coastal China.

Pakistan alone cannot survive, it does not have big enough critical mass to be a regional block in itself. Pakistan must either choose south asia, or islamic ummah.

If its choice is south asia, then it must accept India as a big brother at the very least. This again is more of an emotional issue. Canada has accepted big brother next door, over a time Pakistan can too. After all Canada still beats the U.S. in Ice Hockey, and that brooming on the ice game. Pakistan can beat India in field hockey, and cricket now and then.

Given this scenario needs to be implemented. Kashmir claim needs to be given up.

Can general do it, I can only ask why not?

Generals in Pakistan have created and solved more problems than its civilian government.
Who else than generals can solve emotional problems like Kashmir, and co-existence with a big brother neighbor?

Think about it, Hamidm sahib.

`` Nothing would get done and everything would become a religious issue.``

Liaquat Ali Khan said to Mountbatten about the Constituent Assembly proceedings in 1947 - that the fact that it had recommended after debate that customs (tariffs) be part of external affairs proved that Hindus were determined to crush and subjugate Muslims economically.

I can`t imagine why Pakistanis think Indians would want to live with that sort of cr_p today. I can just imagine even the Prime Minister coming out of his house and turning west would be interpreted as determination to crush and subjugate Muslims geographically.

Hamidm2 #various,

Wow, the Paki-Muslim in you has defeated the libertarian-humanitarian-atheist in you.

One more falls to Islamitis-Ummahitis :)

This is what Chowk did to Tahmed, now to you and many others in between (Zeemax is one of the prominent ones, that comes to mind).

I think the Indo-Pak enmity is so visceral to all of us, that a few provocations here and there and all the hate/stereotypes/rivarly imbibed from childhood keep tumbling out. Some like Hamidm can withstand it for a long time, but ultimiately everyone falls. This applies to Indians also, however Indians have also moved on since the early 90s. If Kashmir and jihadi terrorism were not problems, I doubt if any Indians would care about Pakistan just like the don`t about Bangaldesh.

That being said, Kashmir is India`s and will remain so. If there has to be peace, Pakis should forget the ``unfinished business of Partion`` and get on with their lives. And contary to what many Pakis believe, there is not much constituency for Akhand Bharat in India. Imagine returning to the 60% Hindu 40% Muslim, pre-partition balance. Nothing would get done and everything would become a religious issue. So with due respect to my Muslim compatriots, I think most most Hindus are very happy with the current borders.

Satyavadi

hamidm:

Now, we are approximately on the same page.

In my estimation, Musharraf is a moderate muslim himself and does want to see Pakistan in his own image. At the same time, he is willing to sleep with the devil to stay in power. And I wont be surprised that, faced with a potential combined force of Nawaz-Benazir and a dissention in in the king`s party, he would go into their embrace once again. As an aside, I think that, unlike the Taleban or Al Qaeda, your Mulla parties are also harjai types and seem to be more interested in power than in pursuing their religious agenda.

As for Kashmir, I do support Musharraf`s compromise. I can fully understand Urstruly`s uncompromising attitude on this issue, I find it more difficult to understand how you can support Kashmiri separatists whose raison d`etre is unification with the Ummah. It must be that in-the-blood thing. :)

tahmed:
I am thinking of the chowkies who are dreaming of an `akhand bharat` and the only one that comes to mind is Salim-Chauhan who claims to be a Mohajir.

As regards Pakistani elite, my definition would include most of the English speaking Pakistanis.

#221 hamidm2
But wasn`t the great thing about the coup that you, along with other chowk pak luminaries, were cheerleading that the dictator could cut thru crap and get things done? Isn`t that what he`s doing?
The problem with dictators is they don`t have to listen to you.

This ``unfinished business of partition`` must be like repressed memory syndrome. It could mean whatever one wants it to.

Re: # 221

``elected government ``? In Pakistan? Ha Ha Ha, good one.
I think Musharraf is treating Pakistan as his ``baap ki jaaydaad``, Kashmir ka kya kehna!

Re: # 220

soysauce,

.... no, it was not meant to be funny - it was meant to be cruel ........... frau sadna and a bad hangover bring out my my mean streak ............

Re: # 215

anil mian,

........ i have a problem with a dictator making an arbitrary decision - as most pakis would say ``kashmir us kay baap ki jaidad tau nahin hai !`` ............ if an elected government did so after open public debate i would go along with the decision even though i disagree with it .......... walking away from kashmir after sixty years and telling the kashmiris to lay back and enjoy the rape is unconsionable ......... some things cannot be measured only in dollars and cents .............

........but it strikes me as funny that you take his silly words on kashmir seriously when he cannot even build a dam in kalabagh or reopen the liquor stores in pindi

#219 madaniji
You should also be wary of indian music - it could be a device to soften you up before we unleash our trojan horses. Remember, just because you`re paranoid, it doesn`t mean we are not out to get you.

#210 hamidm2
Was that supposed to be witty? Christmas shopping must be weighing you down and you must be having one too many.