India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

#361 by shishapa on December 26, 2006 8:55am PT

It`s very possible in Pakiworld™, the magical bizzaro world that pakis live in..

Life in Pakiworld™
If India gives up Indian Kashmir, it`s economy will boom.

Life in real world
India has been growing at around 8% for a long time now..9% in the last quarter..

Life in Pakiworld™
If India gives up Indian Kashmir, Pakiland will open it`s markets to India..something that will benefit India more than Pakiland

Live in the real world
India already has a trade surplus with Pakiland and any more trade can only benefit Pakiland


Life in Pakiworld™
Prophet tahmed(PBUHSRR) adding a smiley icon to his post makes his post funny..

Live in the real world
Indians don`t care for prophet tahmed(PBUHSRR)`s approval....

shishapa

There is definitely a belief amongst us that if we could simply `fix` politics, give enough `justice,` bring greater economic prosperity, offer sufficient `love,` all problems will go away. Gandhi and Nehru in this view, were clearly not fair enough (and Netherlands not liberal enough, Europe not rich enough, and so on and on endlessly).

We will one day become miracle men and women, and sure as sure can be, happiness will be everywhere. :)

How is India conceding entire J&K to Pakistan and accepting all the
Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhits refugees (which is sure to happen, just like there is day and night happen) will amount to India coming out of denial and accepting reality of Pakistan?

Re: # 359

Actually you pakis are in denial that indians are NOT in denial about pakistan... because that makes you feel important... it helps paki ``nationalism``, paki ideolgoies and it helps the establishment keep pakis in line: ``look, hinuds have still not accepted us``...

indians have repeatedly said pakiland is the best thing that happened .... on the ground nobody really cares about pakiland except for times of terror and violence....

If I were you - I will be less worried about imaginary ``denials`` and be worried about daisy cutters that americans are planning to set off up your a$$$...
:)

Re: # 352

HP,

........ excellent post - the best on this board so far ............... and i do agree with you that most indians are in denial about their pathological denial of pakistan - until they accept their denial, how can they accept reality ........... it is a convoluted issue

#356 Mantolives

[The guard in the inner hall of Jinnah`s Mausoleum around Jinnah`s grave:]

Yes, but are you SURE you know what he does there when everyone goes home for the night and nobody is watching?!

Hint: No restrooms nearby!

while the goatbrain tells us about his delusions of kashmir falling into pakiland`s lap, the US forces Pakiland to grease up and bend over..

I see a few hellfires in the future of some pakis....

US for new operation in Waziristan

SHAIQ HUSSAIN
ISLAMABAD - The United States has demanded of Pakistan to launch fresh military operations in South and North Waziristan against the suspected al Qaeda and Taliban militants.
The Bush administration has provided satellite images and other intelligence evidence to Pakistan about alleged hideouts of foreign and local militants in South and North Waziristan, the diplomatic sources told TheNation on Sunday.
They said that Pakistan’s security officials were minutely examining those images and other evidence provided by the United States.
A source said that for the last three weeks, the Bush administration had increased its pressure over Islamabad for the new military operation in the tribal area across Pak-Afghan border while alleging that local and foreign militants were freely roaming there and illegal cross border movement was on.
He said that the uneasiness of Afghanistan’s based US and NATO officials with the peace deal between Islamabad and tribesmen in North Waziristan had led to the demand of new military operations in Waziristan.
He said that nothing could be said as of now about the possibility of major military offensive but NWFP Governor Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai had started consultations with the tribal leaders on vital issue.
An inter-tribal Jirga has already left for North Waziristan to take stock of latest situation and take steps for complete implementation of peace deal in the tribal area.
According to sources, NWFP Governor has also conveyed the government displeasure to tribal elders over the lack of implementation of some clauses in the peace deal.
The Jirga would brief the NWFP governor about the latest situation in Waziristan after its return from tribal belt and it would be in the light of that briefing that the future course of action would be decided.

Here is a mirchi for the Fat Nazi`s metaphorical rear orifice - though it has the ability to metaphorically act elsewhere as well...

The guard in the inner hall of Jinnah`s Mausoleum around Jinnah`s grave:






Jinnah`s dream coming true!

Sardar Harcharan Singh, a 20-year-old Sikh from Nankana Sahib in West Punjab, has become the first Sikh cadet officer of the Pakistan Army since 1947 to guard the Karachi mausoleum of the country’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

On December 25, Jinnah’s the birth anniversary, Pakistan television showed a gun-totting Sardar Harcharan Singh, the first-ever Sikh inducted in the Pakistan Army last year, marching to military tunes in a change of guards ceremony at the Karachi mausoleum of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Singh left the National College of Arts in Lahore to fulfill his dream of serving the Pakistan Army. He is serving his third term of the 116 Long Course at the Kakul Academy.

In another first, a batch of eight smartly-dressed women cadets from the Pakistan Army became the first women honour guards to have taken part in the mounting ceremony at Jinnah’s mausoleum.

(From DNAIndia)

#338 by kaalchakra on December 25, 2006 6:26pm PT


This is not an argument to to be totally ignored.


That`s like saying the possibility ot HP making a flying pig can`t be ignored because he`s bought a pig...

Re: # 352

HP:
“The sad truth is that your understanding of the indo-pak issue so naively limited that it would be hard to discuss the issue with you seriously.”

You may be quite simplistic in your judgment, but it is your judgment. However, I would certainly return the courtesy of responding. I would request you to keep choice adjectives out and let us limit discussions to issues not persons. Comparisons with persons are irrelevant, and unnecessary, each has distinct identity and personality. If you have read my previous postings then you would know that I have often quoted Gen. DeGaulle that “People have friends, Nation have interests”.

I chose the allegoric and lighter language to make my valid point, because even after reading your posting, I did not abuse anyone’s religious rituals, or other sensibilities.
There is nothing that you have said in the rest of the first paragraph reveals any deeper understanding of issues. No doubt you give examples that present parochial logic about nations and their interests. Even in each of these examples, relations among nations have moved, disputes have been relegated to back burners.

People can choose friends, but nations cannot choose neighbors. The nations in your examples have been able to use economic forces to come closer. That is my point in my allegoric expression, in case you missed it. The rivalries of these nations have not diminished, but economic, cultural and technological forces have brought them together to create wealth and prosperity for common good. Be it Mexico-U.S., U.S.-Canada, or European Nations, or the U.S. and Europe.

I cannot believe that this point can escape your attention. Even between Israel and Palestinians there is economic reality, the hostile environment only makes it exploitative. If hostilities can be removed there, the economic interdependence cannot remain exploitative, as jobs and economic prosperity will get created in Palestinian areas as well.

“Indians have a serious psychological problem with Pakistan……………………. Pakistanis don’t suffer with this dilemma…….”

This reflects either immaturity of thoughts or pent up anger as far I see. Without sounding an expert on Indian or Pakistani psychology, I can say that partition happened, wars were fought, Kashmir, even though partitioned, remains a problem. No economic forces were created; cultural forces were cut to give a direction toward the rot. Even worse there was systemic portrayal of each other in villains roles. Each others Heros have been portrayed as evil by each other, each others religious rituals have been put down.
And then you make the above statements, and expect to be believed by someone with a bias, like me, let alone by a neutral person. The fact that you quickly stoop to name calling, and cows, monkeys, choice adjectives, etc. etc. shows your psyche. I, unlike you, will not generalize it to all Pakistanis as I do have many Pakistani friends I greatly admire and enjoy their company.

Peoples have different histories, be they conquerors, or conquered; or master or slave. The differences in their interpretation of history shall always exist, by virtue of the fact they were either conquered or conquerors, or master or slave. There can be other reasons for different interpretations. Tolerating these differences is the first step, and the next could be respecting, and eventually erasing or reducing the importance of differences. American history books portray American Revolution, while English books describe it differently. Today, no American or English are trying to kill each other.

Monroe doctrine severely limited the role European powers can play a role in Americas, it was like calling the war against European powers. All is history. And Europe and America have created probably the most powerful economic, cultural and technological engine ever created by humans. No would want to destroy or bomb / nuke each other to Stone Age. The differences are resolved differently, adversarial spirit is transformed into competitive forces. Economic prosperity trumps all reasons.

Nations have interests, so does China and India. They are reviewing their relations while trying to understand strategic cost and strategic benefits of the border dispute. The trade between India and China has grown to about $3-billion and can grow to $40-billion. Again economic force is the determinant, HP sahib.

You may not like it. I have been to areas of disputed borders between France and Germany. Fierce battles were fought for this area in Alsace region. No one care about it any longer. Besides in EU these boundaries are becoming irrelevant. That is how I understand recent statements of Musharraff and Man Mohan Singh. I can understand your comment, only in the context of Pakistani anger / frustration with India. Chinese ambassador’s statement may be meant for a greater audience, and aimed for Pakistani consumption. From what I read in Indian press, it became business as usual, after Pranab Mukherji replied. To understand what I am saying, you may have to graduate beyond cows, monkeys, penis worshipping and piss drinking Indian. Also if you see in terms of Alsace region now and understand the dimension added by Indian Chinese trade of $3-billion to grow to $40-billion, you may see the logic of what I just wrote.

I do believe, and you may choose not to, that Musharraff and Man Mohan Singh have similar vision to reduce Kashmir problem by creating bigger and powerful economic, social and cultural forces. Technologies are not there in that region to make it a determining force.
Nothing happens overnight and would take time. It might take even longer time, without the support of people like yourself on the other side of the border. I have faith that such progress will happen in that region too, because Nations have interests, and people have friends, I might even add people have emotions. Interests in economic and cultural areas will be created. These collective forces are beyond the reach of people who can either choose to become friends or remain enemies.

I completely agree with you about war, humiliation and rebound of nations. Although if you thought that is what I was stating, then you have completely missed my point. that the action in 1971 has made it impossible for Pakistan to take Kashmir by force, even with the nuclear weapon. There are many more reasons also for this situation.

Regarding your point about peaceful Kashmir would favor Pakistan more. I cannot prejudge the future so precisely. Although, I feel that peace dividends will push South Asian economies and prosperity to a new orbit. Else the next dispute will be about water not land.

Therefore, I still say that “tail ki dhar dekhiye, aur dushmano mein dost dekhiye”, HP sahib. May be, you won’t, or don’t want to see it now. But, for me, this secular trend is irreversible.
Thank you.

Re: # 352

Hizra Paaki said: Kashmir is a dispute and any one refusing the existence of the dispute is nothing more than a chuti-ya to put it mildly.

+++

People who say that Kshmeer belongs to Pakistan is a chuti-ya, to put it mildly.

2. Unless Pakistan made it, India has no problem or dispute whatsoever. Kashmir is solely as issue created by Pakistan. The bullcrap of self-rule is another vacuous moral standing. Kashmir was a self-ruled princely state of India until Pakistan army invaded PoK. Pakistan wanted to grab it. Now they wanted to use this 20th century arguments like self-determination, human rights etc., The goal is the 18th century concept of Islamic rule. People like Hizra Paakis learn English and eat copious amounts of paalak (and good amount of swine`s dinner implied) and tell us from a podium....`blah blah blah....blah blah...blah blah blah...... `

Get Lost!

3. Again we need to reiterate: India has no dispute whatsoever on Kashmir unless Pakistan rakes it up. For them `solution` means `give us Kshmeer` stance. Since we dont give u anything......resort to mosquito tactics (since u cant face us fair and square)....i.e terrorism.

#332 by anil

“1947 mein Kashmiri dilwala dulhaniya ley gaya tha, sahib.”

Mostly, I stay away from responding to the childish comments. I will make an exception for you. The sad truth is that your understanding of the indo-pak issue so naively limited that it would be hard to discuss the issue with you seriously. However, I would give it a try.
Throughout the centuries, neighboring countries have rarely been friendly to each other. When the physical rivalry is not on the surface, the cultural and social issues still linger on in the background. In the modern world, most Europeans countries were adversaries at one point or another in the history. Closer home the US and Mexico have not always been on good neighborly relations. Even Canadians often disagree with the US. The threat of physical aggression in many countries has diminished considerably but the cultural rivalries still persist. Pakistan and India have a unique history and the points of conflict are so numerous in both countries that you would be totally naïve to wish better relations based on some sentimentalism. In politics and international relations, there are no good or bad feelings. It is all about what is good for the state.

Indians have a serious psychological problem with Pakistan. It sits on the ancient Indian cultural and historical sites and it is a symbol of what was wrong with the Indian nationalism before the partition. Bangladesh was also carved out of India but most Indians can live with that as it was a remote and culturally non attractive part of the pre-partition India. It is hard for Indians to deal with Pakistan in a rational manner simply because the sentimental links to the land they lost are way too much to handle.

Pakistanis don’t suffer with this dilemma. They don’t care for the historical bogey that ails every Indian and especially of Hindu persuasion. Without going too much in details as that will again open a Pandora’s Box of accusations, the best course to follow in improving India-Pak relations is not your sentimental sermons nor is it the jingoism displayed by both sides.

You have to follow a pragmatic path to improve relations recognizing that it is impossible in a short run to eliminate all points of differences between the two countries.

Pragmatism means that both countries should still follow what is in the best interest of their State and within that context, find some grounds that reduce the numbers of differences in a long run.

Kashmir is a dispute and any one refusing the existence of the dispute is nothing more than a chuti-ya to put it mildly. The Pakistan state will take all the actions and find every opportunity to resolve the dispute in its favor. So would the Indian state. India is not going to back down just because Pakistan says so. Neither would Pakistani back down just because India wish them to. So both countries will find a way to harass each other in that region and so far Pakistan is playing the game a whole lot better than Indians.

As I have said in my previous post #296 and several stupids still did not get it that Pakistan has built enough goodwill and political capital in Kashmir with Kashmiris that any peaceful relationship in Kashmir would work in Pakistan’s favor. India had that opportunity but they lost that a long time ago.

“Aur uski kashmiran beti ne 1971 woh kar diya jo dilwala nahi kar saka to seal the future.”

I am not going to indulge in any childish debate with you on this issue. But that really shows your actual mindset which is not different than Sadna or Arjun.

Only thing I would say to you is that countries don’t win all the wars and some times they are humiliated but the vibrant and healthy nations always bounce back. Take Japan or Germany of the second WW. And remember that after India was humiliated in 1962, they decided to never revisit the issue so much so that recently, the Chinese ambassador made claims on an Indian state in Delhi and Indians had no adequate answer for that. India is still dealing with Pakistan…..

#351 by ranjit
Taun paahnjo sindhi bah ahain, Maan taun khay kucj na chawandoos.

Re:mohar#350 and bjkumar#344

[..Only risk is - if pakis take advantage of free movement to step up jihad and violence... that`s something india has to guard against.....]

Guys, if you ever get the chance, please look up the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Basically the Treaty of Hudaibiya was signed by Mohammad when he was fighting with the superior Quraish tribe in Mecca who were against Mohammad. Since outright military conquest was not feasible, he negotiated terms which allowed him to infiltrate spies into Mecca and get a foothold for muslims among the Quraish. A couple of years later, he returned in full force and crushed the Meccans.

Musharraf had invoked the Treaty of Hudaibiya with the mullahs when he signed up with Bush in 2001 during the US war in Afghanistan. Look at the way he has double crossed Bush with his covert support of the Taliban to the point that Afghanistan is becoming a lost cause for the US, even as the US pours in billions of dollars aid for Pakistan.

What HP is saying is exactly what Musharraf is upto with his overtures on Kashmir. It is yet another Treaty of Hudaibiya. Musharraf or his successor, will do exactly the same with Kashmir. Once we have naive people like bjkumar opening up the fenced up LOC, we will have a flood of jihadis (overt or covert) who will just walk over the LOC. Of course, the jihadis would first just come in and lie low for a while to build a critical mass. India would have to at least partially demilitarize to create a spirit of ``goodwill``, coupled with some institutions for ``joint governance``.

At an opportune time, there will be a vicious revolt by the embedded jihadis, at a level that is unimaginable today. There would be severe international pressure on India not to go back on the treaty or send back troops to do a crackdown. As a result, India will sue for peace and either hold a plebiscite or essentially just hand over the valley. The only other thing India can do then is to threaten nuclear exchange, but the land would already be under full jihadi control. This is the reason people like Syed Salahuddin and the United Jehad Council members are quiet. They are waiting in Azad Kashmir, to put this plan into action. It is a massive trap for India and will be as fatal as the Treaty of Hudabiya was for the Quraish.

Re: # 348

PS: Only risk is - if pakis take advantage of free movement to step up jihad and violence... that`s something india has to guard against... and that`s still an open question... india is going to take it slow and calibrate according to the situation on ground...

Hopefully pakis will resist the tendency to play that game - otherwise, it will be back to sqaure one with more kashmiri blood flowing...

But - there seems to be positive changes in pakiland in some fundamental ways... hopefully that will be accelerated... the relative peace on kashmir may even help the process of moderation... in absence of an hostile/conspiratorial intent on part of pakis - there was no reason kashmir to go out of control - in any sense of the word...

It all depends on many factors... we will see how it unfolds...

Hey guys,

Time to move to the Imran Khan board where the Masadi is peddling ``leggy blondes``. And, for a change, the price is unbelievably reasonable...

Happy Holidays all.........

Re: # 338

Well, then what was the need for pakis fighting jihad and 3 wars over kashmir? all they had to do was allow ``free`` movement of people and kashmir would have been banega pakistan...In fact - there was relatively free movement of people before pakis started 1965 war....

The ``free movement`` is dependent on stop of jihad and violence.. thus increasing business activities... indian corporate/business presence will increase as well as movement of people to and from kashmir and the mainland.... tourists as well as residents... there will be tigther integration with mainland... And of course, at the same time, there will be movement of people from pakistani side, probably lesser numbers... how does that translate to ``kashmir banega pakistan``?...

HP is like baghdad bob - don`t waste your time on his ``analyses``... :)