India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

urstruly: have you conquered kashmir and the rest of the world yet?

Re: # 145

Oh, I thought you were meaning primate primate. Yes, yes, in that sense, yes, human primate. Anyway, this is UP conversation we are having on FP. So I am out of here.

#144 shishapa: i thought it was no secret that all humans are primates. why the secrecy??

Re: # 147

dost-mittar,

`` he really does not like them and sincerely wants to take Pakistan towards moderation``

dost, it might be hard to believe but pakistan was a pretty moderate place even in the late seventies - there were three liquor stors in sleepy pindi where you could buy fine murree brewery beer and horrible whiskey seven days a week without anyone asking questions .......... somewhere along the line, gabriel visited zia-ul-haq and islam was reborn in ghq and the mullah/military axis has existed ever since ......... musharraf is just playing one end against the other to keep his sorry khaki-clad posterior in power - he needs the mullahs to keep the other politicians in check but he doesn`t realize that he is playing with fire ........... all this talk of moderation is hogwash ! ......... the majority of the people in pakistan, other than the unwashed pathans and the unshaven madrassa students like urstruly, are `moderate` to begin with - they don`t need a fauji goon to define `moderation` for them .......... i will settle for just one liquor store in pindi where a good muslim can buy decent tharra instead of running the risk of being poisoned by bootlegged kingfisher and old monk smuggled from the devil`s side of the border - something musharraf has not been deliver in seven years ......

hamidm2:

``i did mean ``all of kashmir`` - unlike our shameless and fickle dictator, i believe that pakistan`s position on kashmir is just and not negotiable``

But for your ``fickle`` dictator, your beloved Pakistan -and I know you love Pakistan- would be in deep do-do. And although Musharraf did compromise and even boosted the Mullah parties to stay in power, he really does not like them and sincerely wants to take Pakistan towards moderation. Since you visit Pakistan regularly, could you please tell me which other leader -civil or military- had the courage to take on the fundoos the way Musharraf is doing? And as I said in my comment, he realised that without resolving the Kashmir problem, he cannot stop the appeal of Jehad among your countrymen. Even your army is motivated by using Jihad and hatred of the kafirs. And Kashmir problem cannot be resolved without major compromises. Your army cannnot win in the battlefield and the world is quite allergic to any ``freedom movement`` whose most popular slogan invokes Islam (Pakistan se rishta kya, La Ilaha L`il Allah).

Hamidm, whether you like it or not, insurgency in Kashmir is an Islamic insurgency and not a `Kashmiri` emergency; indeed, the insurgents are quite willing to lose their Kashmiri identity for the sake of Ummah, just as their POK brothers have already done.

#139 by hamidm2 on December 21, 2006 9:42am PT


........... doesn`t it scare you a little bit that on this issue even i agree with urstruly ?.......


Do you think the prospect of a shared delusion between a jihadi nut like urstruly and a self-proclaimed moderate like you is going to make India just hand over Indian Kashmir to Pakiland?

seriously...were you expecting India to go ``oooh..let`s hand over indian kashmir to the land of the pure because hamidm in michigan agrees with s. mohammed in michigan``...?

dost-mittar #147
``he really does not like them and sincerely wants to take Pakistan towards moderation. Since you visit Pakistan regularly, could you please tell me which other leader -civil or military- had the courage to take on the fundoos the way Musharraf is doing? And as I said in my comment, he realised that without resolving the Kashmir problem, he cannot stop the appeal of Jehad among your countrymen.``

Pran Chopra pointed out in a recent newspaper column that just as Zia Ul Haq cooled off contentious ties with India so that he could concentrate the state`s energies on the Afghan jihad, so too is Musharraf trying to cool off contentious ties with India to get together with the fundoos and concentrate on winning the Taliban`s war in Afghanistan. So both men pass as `friendlier to India than the rest` among uncritical Indians for some strange reason because in reality Pak`s Afghan policy followed by both Zia and Musharraf has always been aimed at making Afghanistan their fellow traveller against India.

We just have to wait 6 months to see what`s really what.

Re: # 151
[...For all his cricket diplomacy, Zia never gave up Pakistan`s traditional stance on Kashmir...]

Neither will Mushy... for all his once a week ``out-of-box`` ideas - Mushy will not give up on kashmir... He is playing ``moderation`` game because that`s the way times are now... Zia played islamic card because that worked at that time... you switch Mushy and Zia - they would have done exact same thing...

So don`t fall for this Ataturk and visiting a Hindu temple gimmick... it means nothing...

sadna#149:

There is a difference between Zia and Musharraf. Zia made no secret of his love for Islamic laws and did everything to islamise all Pakistani institutions, including the army. Musharraf, on the other hand, has publicly declared himself to be against the extremists. In his very first interview to the BBC after assuming power, he declared Ataturk to be his personal role model. He moved against sectarian lashkars and spoke against extremism in an assembly of Mullahs even before 9/11. He is the only Pakistani leader to ever have shown the gesture of visiting a Hindu temple and has sanctioned funds for the restoration of old Hindu temples in ruin.

And he does not need to give up claim on Kashmir to ``buy`` peace on the Eastern front. For that, all he has to do is to temporarily turn off the jihadi intrusion across the border and bide his time. For all his cricket diplomacy, Zia never gave up Pakistan`s traditional stance on Kashmir.

dost-mittar #151
Musharraf is playing by the rules of today - he and even regimes like Saudi Arabia are under huge pressure after 9/11 to display `moderation` due to Western rhetoric against `radical fundamentalist Islam` `Islamic intolerance` even `Islamic education` etc. Their playing by the rules of keep Umrika happy on these counts does not translate to real determination to be moderate in policies. It shows in how he has allowed cable TV channels to function with quasi freedom but journalists in a position to question the govt`s spiel on war on terror regularly disappear and then resurface mysteriously murdered.

I suggest you don`t go by Musharraf`s words but by his actions and policies. The training camps were never shut down, just shifted. If anything the Laskhar e Taiba gained wider acceptance during the earthquake. Al Qaeda never disappeared, they are still training people this time on Pak territory. Musharraf says clearly that he supports the Taliban but is under pressure from the US. Yet the Americans haven`t been able to buy him off on the issue of Taliban even with 6 years of humongous economic and military aid. If Pak Army and Taliban gain territorial control in Afghanistan this year, it will mean that armed jihad and the Pak Army`s fundoo connection are alive and well with Musharraf`s own blessings.

Re: # 155

frau sadna,

........ why can`t you get it through your protein deficient head that the struggle for kashmir doesn`t have much to do with jihad - it is simply a territorial dispute and we have a legitimate right to pursue our dream even if it is a pipe dream at this time .......... i know that india has invoked squatter`s rights to lay claim to kashmir, but just because you squat on the railroad tracks every morning doesn`t mean you own the tracks - they still belong to the indian railways .......

Yeah and I`d like to point out that Zia wasn`t being asked to give up on his Kashmir hopes because the US needed his help in Afghanistan. Heck he was allowed to fulfil his nuclear and missile ambitions with China`s help with all the freedom in the world. After 9/11 the US can`t afford to completely pander to the pro-Kashmir jihad sentiment in Musharraf (though they certainly keep trying) because the word jihad has totally unacceptable connotations in the west now.

Re: # 156

Yep - like hamidm says, pakis may kill each other for nothing - but they all agree on one thing - kashmir... it`s an obsession beyond comprehension... pakis are like that pre-historic squirrel in the movie ``ice age``... he wants that nut, even if he gets killed in the process... :)

The new generation pakis may turn out to be different - but the current lot is beyond repair... any chance of peace has to wait until these l0sers are dead and gone...

So - keeping that in mind - all india has to do is keep talking but carry a big stick... Muhan mein ram ram, bugal mein chhuri... :)

Dost Mitter, the big kashmir jihad with fiyadeen etc is a post-zia (after 1989) enterprise. so actually, as far as jihad against india goes, zia was prolly less pf a jihadi than musharaff.

#158
And why can`t you get it through your protein deficient head that you should be arguing this point with dost-mittar not me. I also believe like you do that Musharraf and Pakistan have no intention of giving up their `freedom struggle` in Indian J&K any time now or even in the next 10 years. All his nice sounding words to the contrary are being believed by dost-mittar not by me and that was precisely my point.

And in case you haven`t noticed, I have a legitimate right to express my views on this forum so why are you so rude when I do? Do you own this place?

Re: # 160 mullah32
[..Almost a 750,000 soldiers for a population of 4-5 million...]

pakis have been whining about ``700,000 soldiers`` for as long as I can remember ... Is this number correct?... Is their a reliable source to verify this?...

not that it matters... I mean - indian army has to do something... instead of sitting on their a$$es - they can as well do some target practice in Kashmir.... right?... :)