Getting Ready for ‘Bus Diplomacy’

Beena, please email me: GG_Agar@ibm.net

re: Aasif
I am saying `most`. Not all. What you are describing is very true on either side of the border. But all that is after the fact. After the 2 Nation theory was already in action. 2 Nation theory was a direct cause for all that. I condemn it all.
However, the reason this even came up was in response to a query from Faraz who said that Indians have never accepted partition. I was saying that MOST Hindu/Sikhs did not care much (then or now) for the ideology behind the 2 Nation theory. Would you agree with that ?
And yes, if I am not mistaken, Punjab voted 50/50, NWFP voted outright for ONE nation. (somebody correct me if I am wrong). But all that is immaterial now. But it can explain what went on where.
Mob madness cannot and should not be justified. No matter who does it. However, the 2 Nation theory was not just about mob madness and revenge. Those were the ugly aftereffects that nobody even bothered to think of. And One of the main reason I despise relisious bigotry so much. 12 million migrations, 1 million deaths is a tragedy not a solution. And to think that the people in positions of power at the time were more concerned with how many Muslim died and how many Hindu/Sikh died. Imagine being an uneducated person on the wrong side of the border, hearing the announcements of the fate of towns on the radio in English (which you don`t understand) and then wonder what is going on when you hear the religious (sic) chants getting louder and louder and finally realize they are zeroing in on you.
There are plenty of such stories I have heard growing up, from my family. I do not wish to trivialize the issue, but I do see mob madness as something you should not try to rationalize. It is defending the indefensible. The fall of man. Sad thing is it still happens. The demographics in a lot of places in India have not changed at all since partition. There are still more Muslims in India than Pakistan.
Although I do not believe that I am responsible for the actions of my ancestors, or the actions of co-religionists, all I can do is echo Saadat Hasan Manto`s words ``Mishtake ho gaya``. And that BTW is also the reason Naseeruddin Shah says all you need to know about partition you can read in 3 pages of Manto.
regards

Rana:

``A Govt. of the Muslims, for the Muslims, by the Muslims?`` Indeed. Yar, this is how the various groups manifest power grab. The Muslim masses, like the masses in any third world country suffer. So what else is new?

As for your other observation about Muslim governemnts entrenching themselves into shariat---I see that as more of a political reaction than a religious one. The politicians have to come up with a raison d`etre and use Islam as such. For an interesting perspective on this (Islam-- a complete code of life encompassing politics as well) please find that article in the Atlantic that I referred to in my post on the latest article on the Chowk--On Top of the World. Maybe we can continue this thread there?

As for Chowk being what kind of site....that was not my thrust. I was merely curious if you knew of a ``indian`` site.

regards.

re: temporal
Thanks for you reply.
Actually I do not believe all Muslims are alike. I do believe all human beings are distinct individuals, though there are similarities that come from religion, culture, ethnicity, etc. Though two brothers may be also be completely different.

Even in my query I am not assuming that all Muslims form a homogenous lot. What I am referring to is that in mixed populations Muslims often use that argument to their advantage claiming that they are indeed one homogenous lot. I see this again and again even on chowk when people refer to `Muslims` without any prefix or suffix.
Since I am not assuming that Muslims are a homogenous lot, I am not sure why my query is off base.
I am pointing to a common trend that can be seen in Iran, Pakistan, kashmir, Morroco, Jordan and many other Arab countries.
First a govt of Muslims, for Muslims, by Muslims. Then a struggle for a govt that is increasingly based on the Shariat, hence MORE MUSLIM.

As far as chowk. So is chowk a pakistani site or a Muslim site or a Pakistani Muslim site ? I always thought chowk was (as advertised !!) `a place where ALL are welcome to come and think`.

In any case, I am not aware of any such `Indian` sites.

regards

re: RanaRansher #28

``most Muslims who went to Pakistan after 1947 DESIRED to go, while Hindu/Sikhs who fled to India in 1947 did so against their will``

I sincerely hope that you really don`t believe this. The millions who were chased out of EAST punjab and other parts of India feared for their life and honor. Most of these people were illiterate and so were the people killing and looting them. Whole villages were burned to ground in both east and west punjab. Don`t tell me that this was due to the muslim elite supporting the TWO NAtion theory. The pathan/sikh , hindu/muslim animosities are pretty old. Pray tell why aren`t there ANY muslims left in east punjab. Those who couldn`t leave were either killed or converted by force. You must`ve read stories about it.

On a personal note. My grand father who decided to stay in india was forced to leave dehli when his business partner for 20 years, a devout sikh, showed up at his house with a mob flashing their kirpans and chanting.

waheguru ka khalsa

waheguru ke fateh

Aasif

Rana:

Re: your open query. The `assumption` in your open query is off base. You use the word `Muslim` as a yardstick that is constant throughout the world----as if it is a certain weight, or height that can relatively be constant in any part of this world. Not so, my friend. Muslims, the one billion plus, come in all shades and sizes and opinions (surely you must have noticed them here?) Hence my-Islam-is-better-than-yours in-your-face attitude.


Now. here is a query for you.


Do you know of any Indian site that is similar to Chowk?

regards

re: Ferozk
Wah ji wah....bhraaji tussi ohr gal karo !

I completely agree with your stand.
Additiionally, any solution should have the following goals (not necessarily in this order):

- Terrorism stops, `Normalcy returns`
- Law and order via the state institutional bodies is restored
- Army moves out completely and instead goes back to what it is supposed to do (?)
- democratic elections take place, and the people actually decide their fate !!!!

However, for this to happen, it may be necessary to take a 2 phased approach. First phase may require that the LOC is made the official border. Pakistan stops sending miscreants over the border and/or makes efforts to prevent the terrorist organistions from sending people over. India works with the presently elected state govt of the National Conference in restoring law and order.
In the entire state of J&K, because of the past 20 years of war, there is a lot of unrest. The state govt, dominated mostly by Kashmiri Muslims, has been Islamizing proceedings which the Jammu Dogras and Punjabis, and the Ladakhis don`t like. This is something that can only be sorted out politically and democratically. It may require the splitting up of J&K into Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. Ladakhis have wanted a separate state for a long time because they do not like the Kashmiri domination and the Punjabis controlling their economy and business. Dogras and Punjabis are also trying to wrest control of Jammu albeit electorally. (this year the MP from Jammu city is Dogra after a long time)

The fate of Kashmir as part of India, part of Paskitan, independant should be put off `officially` for another 10 years or so.
If in that time all the above is achieved then the fate of the people can again be decided democratically. For example, if the majority Kashmiri Muslims want out of Indian whether to set up a govt based on the Quran (which is very likely, partially/wholly a la Pakistan) then they should be allowed to do so. Even if they want out of India and do not want a govt based on the Quran (quite unlikely, given the existing situation) they should be allowed to do so. However, this will be inevitable since you CANNOT force secularism down peoples throats, especially people who don`t care too much for it. In that case the Dogra, Punjabi, Ladakkhi, Kashmiri Muslim mess will get sorted out.
If they opt for India, then only a re-organisation of states is required, which gives each group more autonomy to do what they want. This incidently, is the way, the present govt of J&K, and all the other states operate (even Communist states like Bengal exist !! within the framework)

Now for the ugly move. The militants have already achieved what they set out to do. They have all but cleansed Kashmir of infidels. I am not sure a lot of these people would ever want to go back. If the majority Kashmiri Muslims want out of India then:
Partitioning Kashmir between Muslims and Hindus (sic puke puke) or an exchange of Muslim populations from the Doda area in Jammu may be the option. The Doda area may be a homeland for the displaced Kashmiri Hindus who currently live in refugee camps all over India.

With this last step once again we have done the drastic deed. More religious partitioning. And Muslims all over India should be given yet another choice to go to Muslim kashmir if that is what they desire.

QUESTION TO ALL:
Please do not take this offensively. I would appreciate answers of any sort, though.
What is it with Muslims all over the world ? When they live in mixed populations they seem to feel their identity threatened and the solution is always a govt. of Muslims, by Muslims for Muslims.
However, when they get that they seem to fight amongst themselves about whose govt. is MORE MUSLIM. Look at Iran, pakistan, Afghanistan, many of the middle eastern countries.
Same trends are seen in Kashmir.

regards

Re: Rana Ransher # 26

It seems that Kashmir is the topic of discussion in two reply sections!

All arguments being valid, I think it time to opt for the American approach to the problem. Lets forget what happened in the last fifty odd years and instead, lets just start from an arbitary date. In this case, May 1998, because that is when this backwaters international irritant become a internationally concerned crisis.

In the case of Kashmir, both India and Pakistan have been crippled with their collective histories on the issues. It is time to move beyond the past and deal with the situation as it exists in the present. As far as specfic national positions on the question of Kashmir are concerned, neither India nor Pakistan have the moral ascendency on this issue. Both are equally at fault for perpetually fermenting a state of conflict.

Both Indian and Pakistani politicans have to undertand that the Kashmiri problem can not be solved, but only agreed to in its present status quo ante. The areas presently occupied by India and Pakistan should be ceded to them, because there will be no major disagreement on such an allocation. Otherwise, neither side will be satisfied by any decision on the matter and will always blame the other for getting the upper hand.

In a cynical sense, I think that a lack of progress on the resolution, of the Kashmiri problem, does imply a failure to rationalize a policy on the issue. Neither India nor Pakistan seem to posses a coherent policy with which to deal with the Kashmiri issue. Indian policy, in response to Pakistani inspired insurgency, has devolved into a simple, but brutal occupational régimé.

The Indian army, in Kashmir, is exhibiting the same symptoms which the Americans were suffering from in Vietnam, in their military operations against the Viet Minh. The Indians are increasingly relying on armed might to quell a problem which is basically political in nature. The Indians seem to be of the opinion that through the application of armed might, they can end the insurgency. The Pakistani army and its leadership also mistook the Bengali insurgency as being military based, but never realized the political reasons behind that insurgency either; lack of political self-determination.

On their part, the Pakistanis are extermely short sighted to believe that they can influence an outcome by sustaining an incipent armed struggle against the Indians. The Pakistanis, by supporting the insurgents against India, are falling for the same fallacy which lead to the independence of Bangladesh. They are wrongly of the opinion that this crisis can be influenced by military options.

Hence, by agreeing to the status quo, as it exists, the military element of the crisis will be down graded and with that, there would be a chance to seek a political accomodation. That political settlement should be in the guise of two options; total independence for Kashmir or a partition of Kashmir, based on along the LoC. These are the only two viable choices left to end this crisis and with each passing day, without an end in sight, they will tend to become more attractive.

re: Faraz
History is history. It is our past, we should be able to deal with even if it punctures our pet beliefs of yore. As Amir Khan (the ice-candy man in Earth - Cracking India - Bapsi Sidhwa) says, ``yeh baate karne se dil saaf rehtaa hain``.
Otherwise skeletons in the closet rise one day to become real ghosts.

I am not trying to debate the merits/demerits of the 2 Nation theory in the context of Kashmir either. I brought up the 2 nation theory simply because you alleged that Indians cannot deal with the reality of partition. In that context I told you, yes we can deal with it even though ideologically we deplore it. Imagine if we were to implement it in India and send another 130 Million Muslims over to pakistan claiming that they need to `rightfully` go to Muslim Pakistan. I would not be able to live with my consceince or even face any of my Indian Muslim friends and relatives. You forget that most Muslims who went to Pakistan after 1947 DESIRED to go, while Hindu/Sikhs who fled to India in 1947 did so against their will.
I can deal with the past, I DO NOT WANT IT HAPPENING ANYMORE...........
We have to live with your 2 Nation theory we just do not want that kind of ideology being practised in India anymore.
So much for the Sufi/Bhakti legacy we grew up on !!!
You can do whatever you want in pakistan, but at least appreciate our Secular leanings. That is all I ask. I am not holding present day Pakistanis responsible for it either.

ETHNIC CLEANSING
Bosnia/Serbia - split up between a Muslim nation, a Catholic Nation and a Protestant nation. When Muslims are made to flee their ancestral homes becuase they are neither Catholic nor Protestant (forget that they are ethnically Bosnian and/or Croats) EVERYBODY calls it ETHNIC CLEANSING.
That is exactly what ETHNIC CLEANSING is. Movement of populations against their will, simply because of religion, caste, creed, etc. Fine. Call it RELIGIOUS CLEANSING.

With regards to RELIGIOUS CLEANSING Kashmir. Do you know that the population of Kashmiri Pundits has been eradicated from 15% in 1960 down to 5% in 1994. Four hundred thousand fled in 1991 alone. They live in refugee camps all over India. Visit one and you will realise.
Are you denying that there are Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in Kashmir who seek to cleanse the area of infidels and enforce their ideas of religion on everybody ? It is part of their ideology. Do you want their web sites ? They make open statements about this since they are so drunk on their religiousity and actually think this is a divine cause.
Do you know so many of these groups are based in Pakistan ? Read up in Pakistani magazines about this. A lot of Pakistanis now fear the same kind of Talibanisation taking over Pakistan (already happening in areas in Balochistan and NWFP per Newsline). I got all this from Pakistani magazines since I too never believed the Indian scribes in this regard.

REGARDING NATIONS:
How many Nations were built by exchange of populations ie ETHINC/RELIGIOUS cleansing ? THat is people moving in and out against their will. GO through the list. I find the basis for all them deplorable. This includes Israel.
Ideally I believe all these boundaries we create are man made. If you look at the globe and travel through the world, It isn`t really a mosaic. It is one continuous mass which seamlessly blends into the other. becomes even more apparent at every border. More on this later, since this is my world-view and is definitely a digression.

AFGHANISTAN - When the Taliban movement started it was hailed as an end to the mayhem and anarchy the infighting had caused. All press reports had only good news about it.
However, any revolution can be highjacked by fundamentalist extremists ( of whatever religion) anytime. Happened in Iran (I hope you know what I am referring to), happened in Kashmir, happened in Punjab, happened in Mumbai.
My father was in Kabul till a week before the Taliban took over. All the signs of things to come were there. he ignored the death threats he got everyday, thinking the protection he was promised would suffice. Till one day, it was too late, the RED CROSS (amazing people really !!) saved his skin. He had to change his name for 4 days, but he made it out safely.
1/3 rd of the Afghani population has fled Afghanistan since the revolution. You decide who the revolution was good for !!!!!
Forget the Russians, they were defeated by a united resilient Afghanistan who did not even give in to the British. The Taliban came post Soviet. What does the Taliban (mainly Pukhtoons) do to the other 4 ethnic groups in the area. Do you even care ?

PS I keep switching between I and WE, but I of course speak for myself and not for all Indians.

regards

re: afrasiyab
I completely agree with you on all counts !
Although I am not sure you completely understood the gist of my posts. Allow me to clarify.
Ras said that the Kashmir problem is India`s and India`s alone, created, sustained and maintained. I was pointing out how wrong that was and was pointing out that that attitude is/was no different than India officially saying `Kashmir is an integral part of India, and an internal matter`. I was pointing out how involved Pakistan was and is. Please do check out Newsline and read what the past, present and future politicians say about Kashmir.
Unfortunately, politicians on either side have maintained these attitudes and you can see the results.
Trivializing the problem by blaming each other will not make the problem go away. I am not at all absolving India of wrongs. In fact, if you actually follow the white paper I pointed out it gives the Kashmiri point of view and blames all India, Pakistan and Islamic fundamentalism for a lot of the problems. Any solution has to objectively consider all these aspects.

I am not even advocating the LOC as a solution. I have a solution in mind, but that would be a different debate.

re: RAS
Yaar you are talking past me, not to me.
I am attempting to provide a rebuttle against your points. The main one being that the ball lies in India`s court (implying Pakistan and other forces has nothing to do with it !)
Also where are you getting all this BS about holding down people by force and making them integral. I have not once said you can hold down people by force. And sir, just what has my country told me that I am parroting !! what are you referring to ....?
You are avoiding the real issues and diverting the whole debate with other points I obviously agree with you on.
Ferozk said it right, when he said ``India and Pak have both dropped the ball long time ago and no one knows where it is now !!!``
Today Kashmir is not just about, pro-India, pro-Pakistan, pro-independance. Even deciding between these three is near impossible because there are people on either side of the border who do not consider the 3rd option (as Newsline calls it) viable. They point to the UN resolution and argue that in 1947 no other state had the third option. Well that is a different different debate
Since the early 1900`s Islamic fundamentalism has weakened the very foundation of Kashmir`s Sufi Islam. Read Farooq Abdullah`s speech given to the UN at the time of the UN resolution.
Today you seem to be oblivious to Pakistan`s official hand in the situation, and Islamic fundamentalism. I am apprising you of the situation.
It is good to know more about you. But you don`t know much about me, etiher. Islamic fundamentalism may never have threatened you, but a homeless person like me whose 3 generations have been repeatedly ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands by these very Islamic fundamentalists has an axe to grind with fundamentalists. Any fundamentalists - People who believe in a perfect unchangeable past which should guide your present.

re: Faraz

You are killing the messenger. At least read the white paper before your judge its contents. I am not denying armed forces attrocities. I am pointing to this white paper to look at the political and ideological causes since the early 1900s. Army attrocities, Pak army shelling Kashmiri towns, mujahids on a killing spree are all effects that have resulted from all these causes. Again my purpose of pointing to the whitepaper was to show Ras that it is not just India`s creation as he believes. Pakistan and Islamic fundamentalism (the 2 overlap when convenient) should also be held accountable.

On your other point. Funny you should call it Thackerayesque. I guess Thakrey also reads TIME magazine. It is no longer a secret. The whole world acknowledges Paks official hand in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Even Pak politicians do not deny it, anymore. Read your own publications and their statements about Jihad in Kashmir, or the more PC, `moral, physical, financial support` for Kashmiris. Strange these same politicians never wonder about freedon in POK Kashmir. They also contradict themselves by saying that the 3rd option is not really an option per the UN resolution.

What this has to do with India`s secular credentials, I don`t know. But since you ask. At the heart of these arguments is not the fact that partition happened. We accept that. It is reality. We live that reality everyday and there is no talk of any uniufication, etc.
Being a secular person as opposed to a `hypocrite who enjoys the benefits of secularism when convenient and adopts religious bigotry when convenient` I strongly detest bigotted ideologies which deivide HUMANS on the basis of religion, caste, creed whatever. Yes we did not like the 2 Nation theory, it amounted to ETHNIC CLEANSING. But now we would like to at least have a border so that we can keep these bigotted ideologies on THAT side of the border. But the Mujahids keep pouring in.
On the other side. Peaceful Bangladeshis pour into India by the millions seeking employment. A whole problem of Assam has been created because of this. What does India do in that case ? Shoot these unarmed people, most of whom do not even care for these borders of partition ?
Yes, we definitely do not like ETHNIC CLEANSING.
Unfortuantely, these same VALID arguments are used by fundamentalists in India to justify their own extremism. Instead of pointing it at people who are responsible for this they instead victimize other innocent, very secular, Muslims and other minorities. How this affects India`s secular credentials in the future remains to be seen.
The next elections will definitely be decisive.

Rana,

I am all for giving Kashmiris the choice (including the third option). And I do not want to get in to a big argument on the 2 nation theory but in response to your post (which I am sorry to say was very offensive and bigoted)

1. ``I strongly detest bigotted ideologies which deivide HUMANS on the basis of religion, caste, creed whatever``

All nations are based on some sort of division of humans (please explain why there should be 200 odd countries in the world). You are not arguing for one India, what you are arguing for is the abolition of nation sates!

2. ``ETHNIC CLEANSING``

To use that term is absolutely disgusting and deplorable. What you are saying is that Pakistan`s ideology is Fascist. There is nothing in Pakistan`s ideology that supports the killing of Hindus or their extermination (which is what ethnic cleansing is) Incidentally, Pakistan is based on religious identity and not an ethnic or racial one. So you cannot make the argument for racial bigotry in the ideology for Pakistan.

3. Afghanistan - What has happened in Afghanistan is truly deplorable. But let me point out that during the Soviet Invasion, Pakistan`s role should be lauded. While you guys were in bed with those godless commies, Pakistan did help fight them and was instrumental in their defeat. For that I AM PROUD of my country. Have you ever thought what the map of the region would be like if Russia had won Afghanistan? Would it be any better than it is right now?

Faraz

RE: Rana and his many postings

Rana Ji,
thanks for attempting to educate this
naive individual with your several attempts.
First of all I could not agree with you more
about the dangers along the unfortunate path
that Pakistan appears to have taken (with a
little help from it`s friends).
I do not want to turn this into a newsgroup
chat, so I`ll try one last time to respond to what
is now becoming an unwarranted tit for tat.
First, since you know very little about me,
let me start by telling you that the people that
you call ``fundamentalists`` are no friends of mine.
Neither do I have much sympathy for the Military
types in Pakistan.
I sometimes find it more relaxing to socialize
with Indians rather then Pakistanis mainly due to the cultural commonality that exists between us, and the openess of their views on various subjects. ``Fundamentalists`` do not have
much of a place in my world view, and I`ve made
it a point to oppose them every chance I get
especially in Pakistan.
I have also lived in what is now Bangladesh, where much injustice was committed by my former countrymen. I cannot forget that and the ``Biharis``
that they left behind in misery.
But please spare me these ``White Papers`` because
I have encountered the likes of them in the past.
The fight against injustice is and I hope will
remain a part of me. That is why I appeal to you not to get carried away with what your community
and country have told you. Question them often.
There is and has been great injustice done in Kashmir against ALL the people there (including the Hindu Pandits). Many Kashmiris that I have met, thanks to this melting pot called America, do not care much for most Pakistanis but they seem to hate India`s guts. The Pundits hate Pakistan, and 90%+ of the Muslim Kashmiris that I have met want out of India and their freedom. The POK Kashmiris just want this issue settled so that they are out of this limbo.
Given this background, the past history, especially the promises made by the UN to the
Kashmiris, I still remain unconvinced that by
turning the LOC into a permanent border now will
solve this problem. Pakistanis have taken advantage of the Kashmir problem and yes, both Afghanistan and Kashmir are backfiring on them.
But India has created quite a major quagmire for
itself and continues to blame Pakistan for all of
it.
Rana Ji, beating/killing a people into submission
does not make them an integral part of you. The
Bangladeshis have already proved that to Pakistan.
India needs to use all it`s creativity in the
next few months. And I`ll be waiting to see what
new ideas emanate from Farooq Abdullah too during
this time (Surprised?)
In closing, let me refer you to an article by
Mansoor Ijaz in the LA Times of 3-1-99. I`m
sure that you will appreciate it more then I did.
Best of luck to all in South Asia during the next
few months.
Rana Ji, I apologize for having written something that goes against your wishes and I`m glad that you stand up to support your position, but my friend I for one want this problem to end, not India and Pakistan. I still care very much for
the deprived masses in both countries.

Ras (Mr. Naive)

Rana,

I have read some of your other posts and frankly speaking, I think, you appear to have the most balanced set of opinions. Part of growing up as a nation requires atleast the educated class to recognize its mistakes and blunders. Pakistan and India, sadly are pretty close to each other somewhere way back in that race of maturity. I think Ras` point has some validity to it as far as India`s role in Kashmir and its creation as a problem. However, I think it is now time for everyone to move on and decide once and for all, exactly what needs to be done.

If we don`t do it today, we will be leaving this mess for the next seven generations on both sides of the border.

Don`t you agree?

As far as the suggestion that the LoC should be declared the border,..., I am a little reluctant about that. Maybe a little bit more trust in each other is needed for that to happen and to avoid creating another set of problems in the future.

re: Rana Ransher

Yaar, I can understand that this Kashmir thing is very emotional for both sides but this time even you seem to have become an overly juzbatee desi:

1. ``www.kashmir-information.com/whitepaper`` Yaar first of all if you see anything containing information.com you should be suspicious. There are plenty of loonies on the web. For example this web site make no mention of Indian army atrocities in the region (for these stats you should check UNBIASED sources such as Amnesty International.) Also the site compares Kashmir to Auschwitz--- which I think is not only insulting to the readers intelligence but to all those people who died there. If you want to give supporting evidence that`s fine, just make sure you provide good sources.

2. ``On the other hand, little of Pakistan`s budget goes towards education. Young Pakistani men, with very little opportunities for jobs, turn increasingly towards Islamic schools advocating fundamentalism and violence, and end up either fighting with the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan, or infiltrating into Kashmir to carry on the decade-long terrorist insurgency in the state``

How Thackerayesque. Oh yes going to fight in Holy Wars is the number one past time for young Pakistani men. Can you please provide the percentage of the Pakistani male population that is fighting in Afghanistan and Kashmir, because you clearly believe that so many of us do.

Rana, usually I like your posts especially because you are willing to listen as well as inform but these last few posts of yours have lacked those qualities.

Finally, India`s secular credentials are very questionable right now. I have to say that at the heart of these arguments is the fact that you guys can`t live with the fact that Partition actually happened.

Faraz

re: Ras
Since you are so naive about Pakistans involvement in Kashmir, maybe this should provide a much needed reality check.

Time on-line magazine (Nov. 30, 1998) reports that Pakistan is supporting terrorism in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir by paying up to $5,000 to Islamic militants for a year`s worth of combat in the region.
On the other hand, little of Pakistan`s budget goes towards education. Young Pakistani men, with very little opportunities for jobs, turn increasingly towards Islamic schools advocating fundamentalism and violence, and end up either fighting with the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan, or infiltrating into Kashmir to carry on the decade-long terrorist insurgency in the state.

This same state funded Islamic fundamentalism will come back and haunt Pakistan, when the Talibanisation backfires. Already so many Pakistanis are going hoarse crying that Jinnah afterall wanted a nation based not on the Islamic law but the British common Law (which in turn is based on secular fundamentals). So much for Jinnah and so much for secularism.
Naive people like you would still be looking for `external` enemies to blame or maybe you will start asking for a separate Islamic America to preserve your Islamic identity !!!!!!
No, thats no knee jerk reaction. I am amazed at how educated people who voluntarily choose to live in a secular country, can be so blind to Islamic fundamentalism operating right under their noses. How long will you deny it ? When Karachi falls ? Look what happened to Afghanistan ????? Kashmir ???? Is Pakistan far ? Comments.

Note: in none of my replies am I supporting the Indian govts. official stand. On the contrary I am pointing out to its inability to deal with the issue or even achknowledge it as an issue. We frankly don`t want anybody who threatens secularism in India. Whatever religion they may claim to be.

re: RAS
Here is a whitepaper on J&K which covers issues since the early 1900`s.
CHeck it out. Will definitely challenge your stand on it being India`s creation.
www.kashmir-information.com/whitepaper

regards

re: Ras regarding India`s problem and India`s royal mess (alone !!!!)

There you go again double-speak a la the politicians.

-You claim Kashmir is India`s problem alone. A mess created by India alone. yet all your past, present and future politicians (read recent Newsline) have Kashmir on top of their agenda. THey `officially` vehemontly oppose India`s `official` stance on Kashmir being an integral part of India. Something I realise too, since I can`t even visit Kashmir because of ground reality.
- Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir after war. What about POK ?
- Pak has sent in all kinds of militants, mercenaries, terrorists, murderers for the last 20 years. Now even Pak politicians don`t deny this. Are you still denying this ? Just go over the groups operating in Kashmir and see how many Pakistan is responsible for ?
Your answer to this is Pakistan is not capable of controlling them ?????? Whose problem is that ?
- Pakistan `officially` shells parts of Kashmir. Villages like Kargil have been reduced to rubble. They are bombing Kashmiri Muslim civilians.
Can Pakistan control this ? It is their army.

Oh yeah the army doesn`t really listen if THEY don`t feel like.

Ras you are not making coherent arguments. They Don`t even merit a discussion. That BTW has been the problem so far. Both sides have made ridiculous arguments which do not even merit discussion.

You obviously have a problem with the LOC (evident from your other replies). IT has nothing to do with Kashmiris (Hindu/Sikh or Muslim)

I detest ethnic cleansing on the basis of religion. I refuse to inherit a dirty ideology of religious separatism that has guided Indo-Pak affairs so far.
In this regard you should really read up on Dr. Farooq Abdullah. He has consistently been the lone champion of the Kashmiri self-determination cause. And had also made a lot of headway in this regard, up until militancy in the `80s took on a distinct Islamist flavour (killing of Kashmiri non-Muslims was not always the trend ). Till then they were asking for and getting more autonomy. Read up on this regard also. he realizes that to be an independant country he needs to have diplomatic ties with India and Pakistan.

We should start by being a little more honest and candid in our replies.

regards

RE: Mohajir

No mention of the LOC appears to have been made
in any of the newspaper reports that I have read
thus far on Moynihan views. Could you let us
know where you read this?

Ras

WASHINGTON, Feb 28: A leading US senator has suggested the division of Kashmir at LOC (Line of Control) into Pakistan and India as the end solution to the dispute between the two nuclear neighbours.

Democratic Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, a one time ambassador to India and who will be retiring from Senate in 2000 possibly to be replaced by first lady Hillary Clinton, was quoted by the Washington Post on Sunday saying: ``May be now at last they (India and Pakistan) will look at Kashmir and say; Divide it up at LOC and be done with it.``

Many think tanks and scholars here believe this is the only way to end the 50-year old problem as none of the two countries was in a position to militarily force a solution.

Moynihan was quoted as saying: ``Now that this conflict (Kashmir) can escalate and it`s not confined to the hills anymore, it could

lead to nuclear war, which is a different thing altogether --

annihilation. May be now at last they will look at Kashmir and say;

Divide it up and be done with it.``

The Post article made a comparison of the US role in Kosovo and

Kashmir and said: ``Just as high and mighty diplomacy was taking a

fall at an ancient castle in France (over Kosovo), a humbler peace

offensive was opening at a bus terminal in India. There is a world of

differences between the fiasco over Kosovo and the modest move

toward new relations between India and Pakistan...``

It said the US government has no such high visibility in the bus

diplomacy that took Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over

the border and into the welcoming embrace of Pakistani Prime

Minister Nawaz Sharif.

``But we are there, behind the scenes. Our concerns about

one-sixth of the

world`s population have intensified since both countries exploded

nuclear bombs

in May 1998. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has had

eight rounds of

talks with the two sides, urging them to sign the Comprehensive

Test Ban Treaty

and show other signs of nuclear responsibility.``

It said Democratic congressman Jim McDermott was in New Delhi

talking with

Vajpayee just before the historic bus ride. McDermott thinks that

Indians and

Pakistanis are, at long last, talking about their differences because

their entrance

into the world`s nuclear club ``frightened them as much as it

frightened the rest of

the world.``

``Peace would mean doing something about the disputed territory of

Kashmir ...

Pakistan points to an enormous Indian army presence as the

stumbling block to

peace. India charges Pakistan with covertly financing terrorist and

separatist

organizations that make daily life a hell in the area`s beautiful

mountains. On the

weekend that Vajpayee took the bus, violent protests in Kashmir

left two dozen dead.``

Indians and Pakistanis make no bones about their mutual contempt.

Indians think

their neighbours are mad Muslim militarists; Pakistanis see Indians

as haughty Hindu hypocrites.

Senator Chuck Hagel, who serves on the Committee on Foreign

Relations, has a

rule in his office: He will not permit the two ambassadors to talk

about each

others` countries. ``They go on forever,`` he says.

All times are CT (US)

ne

Re: Rana Ransher # 15

Before I begin, I must offer my apolgises to you Rana. That reference about Truman-MacArthur was just a tangent...that is different story for another day!

As to your point about Kasmmir being a part of India, I wrote a reply on that issue under Rohan`s article. I agree that both sides have an acute case of tunnel myopia on this issue. Right now both India and Pakistan have to decide whether to transform the Line of Control into a fixed border or to grant Kashmir independence. It is highly unlikely that Kashmir will be returned to its pre-partition status in either nation`s favor.

As an aside to Ras, I think the ball is neither in India`s court nor Pakistan`s for that matter. I think that we both have dropped and lost the ball and now no one knows the hell it is! :)

Re: Rana Reply # 13

I do claim to be naive but I believe
that the following comment shows an uncalled for
knee jerk reaction:

``You said, ``let Indians be rest assured that this visit by the Indian PM would NOT have taken place
WITHOUT the approval and SUPPORT of the people in uniform in Pakistan.`` What is that supposed to mean ? Is that a threat ?``

What I meant was quite the opposite in fact.
I believe that the Pakistan army also wants to
give this Peace Bus a chance.
As you wrote, there are several groups operating
in Kashmir and what I was hinting at was that
I doubt that Pakistan can fully control any of them.
An finally on my comment that the ball is in India`s court, there is absolutely nothing new
there. Kashmir is India`s problem and a Pakistani
aspiration at best. And in the end, besides the
additional suffering caused to the Indian and Pakistani masses due to the wasteful spending
on arms, the Kashmiris want this nightmare to end
(one cannot ignore the Hindu Pandits in our discussion here). India needs to settle this issue
with either the Kashmiris and/or the Pakistanis.
What a royal mess you have created there (Pakistanis are great in that department too).
Army occupation does not an ``integral part`` make.
Autonomy, Independence or LOC adjustment, the
problem is not going away.

Ras

PS: My naive vested interest is to see an end to this problem in a peaceful manner, because from
this distance it appears that India, Pakistan and
the Kashmiris are not the only party in this miserable picture.

re: Ferozek
Bhraa ji tussi thaand raakho. I mean to cause no trouble or heart ache.

I consider you a Gyaani in these matters and hence solicited your opinion. I raised the military issue (among others) to point out, that to say `Indo-Pak relations hinge on Kashmir and Kashmir`s solution lies fairly in India`s court` is being tunnel visioned. This, in my opinion, has been Paks official stand for a while. Mind you, I am not even maintaining India`s official stand of `Kashmir is an integral part of India`. Simply because I believe ground reality prevents me (an Indian) from even visiting Kashmir.
I am surely not trying to get into an Indo-Pak penis contest comparing the relative democratization (that would make another interesting debate )

Regarding the pomp and show in most state sposored stuff. India is still nauseatingly Angrez. All the ceremonies (Republic Day Parade and stuff) are left overs of the Angrez and now the kala Angrez touts it.

regards

Re: Rana Ransher # 13

My friend, way are you causing me a heart ache?

I still to this day think Harry Truman, whom I admire as a president, was wrong in firing General Douglas MacArthur, my one of favorite battlefield commanders, but then again that is another story....

I agree with you, those remarks and the actions of the military brass were in poor taste and as military men, they should have respected the chain of command. My friend, what is done is done. Do not let that one incident distract you from what actually happened. Rana, my friend, the unquestioning obedience of the military towards the democratically elected leadership is crucial, as you point out, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, Pakistan is not a democracy! The ancien regime of yesterday still lingers in the mindsets of many of key political participants.

Indian military has a half a century`s worth of democratic tradition behind it and ours, the Pakistani military, has a mere ten years of democracy behind it. This would explain my attitude, which you refered to as ``lightly``, but I assure you it is far from that! Rana, do not be too hasty to judge us against a standard which even we do not claim to have attained!

Re: Kant Patel # 12

Interesting points and well taken!

To return the compliment, I was bemused that we, Pakistanis and Indians, still attache a great deal of importance to ceremonies and pomp and circumtance. I grant you the argument that this was an offical visit. Could it not be an offical visit without the color guard or the 21 gun salute? It is time we moved beyond symbolism and gestures in our mutual relations.

As to your concerns about the Pakistani military`s response to Nawaz Sharif, you raised some critical concerns which need to addressed. I have friends who are in the military and I can tell you personally that compared to our Pakistani politicans, they are a lot more wiser and saner! Now, if you want to discuss their tact or subtlety, that is a different story.... :)

Pakistan is like Alice in the Wonderland...things do have not to make sense! It is like that Budweiser beer commerical, ``why ask why?``

re: Ferozk

Your points are well taken. However, I was trying to point out that NO DEMOCRACY in the world should take this kind of flagrant violation of authority lightly. Ultimately, it comes back to haunt you. You seem to take it rather lightly, though.
Your point about ``sources`` for comments is also well taken.

re: Ras
I am sorry, but your whole view on Indo-Pak issues is, at best, naive.
With regards to the massacres in Kashmir, I am not trying to blame anything on Pakistan. However, I would like to point out that you need to take your blinkers off and look at the big picture. Stands like yours, on either side of the border (Ooops LOC !, I love doing that) are what has led to the current situation.

You say the ball is in India`s court. You offer no explanation for that. Yet you completely chose to ignore the following facts:
- There are people on either side who would rather see every person from across the border dead than talk to them. (Bal Thakre who violently tried to prevent the Cricket team from playing, Jamaat violently protesting against Vajpayees visit)

- Within Kashmir there is no united front. There are:
1. groups that want more autonomy within India (Sheikh Abdullah`s National Front which holds democratic elections)
2. groups that want to secede to Pakistan
3. groups that want an independant Kashmir (not Islamic)
4. groups that want an independant Islamic Kashmir (all infidels out !)
5. groups that want an end to militancy at ALL COSTS
6. Pan-Islamic mercenaries (foriegners from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bosnia, Jordan, etc.) that just want to wage JIHAD and kill infidels, with no real idea of what the future of Kashmir should be.

FOrget the fronts within Kashmir. I was just trying to point out that even within Pakistan there doesn`t seem to be one opinion of what should happen to Kashmir, or for that matter POK.
Within India there isn`t one either. However, Vajpayee was trying to answer that on behalf of India by thumbing his nose at his own co-alition members (Shiv Sena, RSS) and proceeding to Pakistan for this trip.
What disturbed me about Pakistan was not the Jamaatis (I expected that ) but the reaction from the Armed Forces. What amazed me even more was your support (almost admiration really) for their blatant disregard of authority and institutions.

You said, ``let Indians be rest assured that this visit by the Indian PM would NOT have taken place WITHOUT the approval and SUPPORT of the people in uniform in Pakistan.``
What is that supposed to mean ? Is that a threat ?
back to the same question ``is it an army with a state or a state with an army``. Little wonder that the army has taken over so many times.

To say the ball is in Indias court is trivializing the whole issue. What about the voice of Kashmiris ? DO they matter at all ?
I would be all ears if you could actually explain how the ball is in India`s court sans the rhetoric.

regards

RE: Reply #: 7 RanaRansher

Rana Sahib,
first of all it is difficult to say that Pakistanis are somehow responsible for the murder of the 22 Hindus in Jammu. I would like to remind you that the Pakistan cannot even control such killings of a sectarian nature in Pakistani Punjab. How can Pakistanis stop these killings across the LOC?

On the issue of the Service Chiefs not meeting
Vajpayee Ji at the border, let Indians be rest
assured that this visit by the Indian PM would
NOT have taken place WITHOUT the approval and
SUPPORT of the people in uniform in
Pakistan.

I still say that ``The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court (and has been for a while).``
But what the final shape of this peace will be
is anyone`s guess. Lets give ourselves some time
(at least 6 months)to think this over. If
Tendulkar can be clean bowled for a duck on the
first ball of a cricket match, miracles are
possible even when they may appear impossible.

Ras

PS: I strongly condemn the killings of the 22
fellow human beings.

Re: Rana Ransher #9

First of all, please accept my sincere apologises for the unfortuneate incident in Kashmir.

If you would have read the TheNews articles, the service chiefs did attend the ceremony at the Lahore Governor`s residence and were formally presented to the Indian Prime Minister. Their refusal to attend the border ceremonies was not, and should not, be taken as a rebuke of Vajaypee`s visit. Yes, their comments were regretable and should not have been uttered.

There was a slight misunderstanding on the nature of the Vajaypee`s visit. Was it a formal visit or an informal one? Protocol dictates that if the visit is informal, the service chiefs do not have to be present and even in formal situations, the presense of the military brass is highly unusual. In such cases, the military is represented through the proper cabinet minister. Even in the United States, an arriving head of state government is not greeted by the Joint Chiefs, but later in a formal setting such as the White House reception etc.

As to the rest of your queries, I would have to say NS is in charge, but the military is too tradition bound. Besides, do you really know if a flag officer said those words, or someone was ``attributed`` as saying those words. In politics, if I were you, I would not pay too much attention to what some ``unidentified source`` said. Unless you have the name of the officer responsible for saying those words, this just heresay.

The military is not interested in taking over the country. It has the common sense to stay away from the present mess.

re: Ferozk
I am referring to a new report (News International) which said that the heads of the 3 armed forces refused to abide by Nawaz Sharif`s order that they join him in welcoming the Indian PM at Wagah Border. THe report said that they refused to salute a PM from an ENEMY country and instead attended a banquet given by Sartaj Aziz for the Chinese Defense Minister. The fact that Vajpayee was coming on a `peace` mission was irrelevant.
The fact that they may be wagging a finger at Nawaz Sharif for whatever reasons is besides the point. There message is loud and clear for the takers. NS is the C-in-C isn`t he ? You may not like him, but can you defy authority like that ? Who is in-charge afterall ? Is there anybody in-charge ? Why doesn`t the army just take over ?
And why does Vajpayee even bother wasting his time with someone who is obviously not in-charge.

Meanwhile in Kashmir. Terrorists go on a killing spree in protest to Nawaz`s `betrayal` by talking to Vajpayee. Sheikh Abdullah is busy trying to stop this so talks can go on.

Daaaacter saab ab aap bataayen whose court the ball is in.

Re: Rana Ransher Post # 7

Just who is the CinC of Pakistani armed forces?
Are you talking about Nawaz Sharif or the Chief of Army Staff?

If it is the former, the military might be giving him the proverbial finger for getting it involved in the extra-judical military court crisis in Sind. The Supereme Court of Pakistan just invalidated that idea and the army did not like being caught with its dicks hanging in the wind. That high court decison was a slap in the face of the military and the military in Pakistan rarely admits that it was wrong. This was a public rebuke and there are lot of rankled people in khaki at the present time.

Other than that, I agree with you: keep the numbnuts in check and lets hear what the moderates have to say!

Did you read the latest pronouncements from the meeting: same old words, different day and a different time! Do not pay any attention to the western media either, because these idiots have no idea what they are talking about either!

For a comprehensive understanding into Indo-Pak relations, I would suggest a classic: Alice in Wonderland. Read the chapter on Mad Hatter`s Party and you`ll see the absurdity of this coeur-a-coeur. While you are reading that, I would suggest listening to Jefferson Airplane`s White Rabbit in the background!

re: RAS
You say,``The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court (and has been for a while).``

yet, when Vajpayee makes a friendly move towards peace who protests the loudest and most violently.
Hindus gunned down in Jammu. Pak Armed forces chiefs refuse to come to welcome Vajpayee inspite of their C-in-C ORDERING them to do so. I wonder who controls the Nuclear bombs.
Come on, please....you need a more honest and candid picture of your own nation. The above is the same old story which nobody believes anyway. Sounds more like an army with a nation rather than the other way around.
Little wonder that the Bal Thackreys of the world reach where they do.
If you keep letting the extreme right wings marginalize the politics, the moderates will have no choices left. Deja VU.

I still think a `Death match` is the only way out. Will please everybody.

Did you guys check out the NYTImes summarizing India-Pakistan relations for the last 50 years. Depressing, but true.
Moves like these (bus diplomacy) CAN ONLY be GOOD for Indo-Pak relations. They don`t necessazrily have to be effective in fixing real problems but they can never be detrimental.
However, on either side of the border (ooops LOC !) there are a lot of extremists who would rather see a war of the last-man-standing nature.

I think we should start an Indo-Pak `Death Match Contest` a la MTV. people from either side can volunteer to participate in a no-holds-barred all out Death Match. You can sell tickets for this. The passion extremists and right wingers waste on the streets while getting pummeled by their own policeman can be channelled to become a big revenue generator.
FOrget slimy proxy wars and all out Nuclear wars. Lets start this Death Match contest. It will be a positive step. If anybody has an axe to grind they can volunteer for this contest.

Diplomacy GOOD

War BAAAD

4 Legs GOOD

2 Legs BAAD

Baaaaa!

OMAR1974

A well written background of the current style
of diplomacy. Loved the ``Basant`` backdrop.
One can only hope that something concrete
comes out of all this and that its not all
just for the sake of appearences.
The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court
(and has been for a while). Once Kashmir is
settled, the future can be much brighter for
all parties including the Indians.

It was great how Beena concluded this piece
with a parting shot at the fundos..
Since I`m not writing this note for national
publication in Pakistan I`d go further to
state that if Benazir had tried this move,
``Ghaddar``(Traitor) is the least that many people
including some posters on CHOWK would have called
her.
Any comments?


Ras

Re: Beena Sarwar

Your sense of hope was really admirable, but I have to tell you; wait and see. It is too early to get excited about nothing. A couple of politicans sharing a bus ride and then discussing mutual interests over a lavish luncheon, is not going to change the misery of a billion people over night!

How is Nawaz Sharif going to sell this idea to the Islamic zealots or to the pro-Kashmiri lobby? How will his Indian opposite deal with his extermists? Both these gentlemen are playing poker and neither one of them is prepared to have his bluff called! I am not interested in how and what they talk, but I am only interested in seeing results emerge from their discussions and not more empty communiques stating a creation of another working group to study the feasibility of bi-lateral discussions!

What ever these two gentlemen agree to is crucial, but in reality it will be the acceptence of this idea, by all the political groups on both sides of the Radcliff line, which will usher in the dawn of peace upon a sub-continent cloaked within a craven night of dispair. Celebrating mustard poppies and flying kites does not mean anything even in the company of Indians.

As far as this situation goes, I have a perspective of a trench soldier: I have heard too many promises; seen too many preparations; I have hoped too often; I have seen too much time wasted and I have seen nothing change for the better.

Pardon a cynic Ms. Sarwar, this is just another tempest in a tea cup and soon after it is over, life will still plod on and all the grand gestures of this memorable event will be forgotten. This is not the first time and it is not the last time when promises are being made which never be fulfilled.

Ferozk Cynicus Maltemperate!

Beena:

Vajpayee-- all backbone no muscle, and Sharif all muscle & no backbone meeting in Lahore.

Predictable outcome. (yawn---over to you Dr. Feroze).

If the bus service works out then it will be really convenient for a number of people to visit India who have always wanted to go there.