Why Vajpayee’s Trip to Lahore Was a Failure

Hi all

Rohan,

U have some great ideas and i wish people of both Pakistan and India can be educated about this flashpoint. Pakistan cannot afford another war and so can India. Intellectuals from both countries can do that if they want to. Politicians are not worth a penny in Pakistan. Generally people of both the countries want peace and want to travel for soul searching.

years of hatred has destroyed most of the hope, but maybe if people can be educated about the core of the problem it can resolved.

Regards,

Kamal

Rohan,

Your opinion about Vajpayee`s whole trip being a failure is definitely questionable.

As a marketer i see the same `contrived ploy` in a totally different light. There was a feeling of goodwill in the lesser educated masses about the hostile neighbors and this was certainly a big positive step. Not everyone is as well informed about the tumultous past of these two nations, the secret conversations of Ayub Khan and Minoo Masani or the logical point that the Kashmir solution is a prerequisite for peace and incase there is no Kashmir solution there can be no peace. I disagree vociferously. A small step, a sincere effort, an honest jesture.... these are the ointments needed to remove the blood stains from the past 50 years. The advertising was good, and this marinates the consumer`s mindset.

I`m all for a solution for Kashmir, but that doesnt mean everything else has to wait. Instead of over exploiting the issue we should aim at small victories elsewhere - in cultural, commercial, athletic and other arenas. The road to peace is a long ardous one and like all journey`s it does require the FIRST STEP.

I recently visited Delhi (after Vajpayee`s visit) and the general feeling was that the relations between the two countries will improve. The positive sentiment created between once-enemies cannot be discarded as `nothing`.

Aamir

Extremely well written article.
Your sane and articulate summary is a pleasure to read. I feel I must remark on the feeling of crossover the article achieves. When I read your `we` meaning the Indian `we`, I could see the Indian point of view. Maybe the two countries should switch their newspapers once a week to be able to see each others points of view.

Your solutions are practical and real. It is high time we realised what harm so-called politicians have caused, with their macho hate mongering politics. My fear is that when the whole lot finishes with tearing up Kashmir, Kashmir itself may have forgotten its identity and an Afghanistan like situation may appear, with poor, violent `fighters` scavenging to form a society.

I do so hope your vision comes true. I think we are all so tired of South Asia`s harsh life and continual violence and misery over God. The whole world suffers from the same problems centering around food, clothing, sex and disease; dividing the world has not brought anyone closer to the One, nor have these problems been resolved.

However, solving the root intolerance through dialogue and interaction will take a long time and may be only possible once a certain level of prosperity has been achieved in the region for which a solution along your lines is necessary.

Meanwhile:

Peace with India! Yeah!

Michael Foot, the former Leader of the Opposition in Britain, has asked for ``international backing for India to deal with terrorists in Kashmir.`` Speaking at a launch of his book ``Dr Strangelove I Presume`` in London, Foot said such international support is ``the only way`` to deal with the situation in Kashmir.``Kashmir is, of course, Indian territory,`` Foot, former Labour Party chief, said, adding. ``It is absurd for some people in other parts of the world not to recognize that fact.``

Vaid Vishnu Dutt is the MP from Jammu. He defeated the National Conference [which came 2nd] and Congress candidates.

re: Harish

Who is the current MP from Jammu? When you say that the previous MPs was/were punjabi are you refering to Bhim Singh of the Panthers party? I am asking just out of curiosity. Thanks.

Ashish

Rana ji,

Just to talk about Kashmiris in J&K would be simplistic. There is a great deal of tension in other areas too. Since i was born there I can say that the literacy rate is less than 10%.

1. There a Laddakhis wanted to expell Dogras and Punjabi businessmen who control economy of Laddakh [instead of them].

2. Laddakhhis wanting to form separate a state [or a centrally goverened Union Territory], so that political [and hence means of corruption] dominance of Kashmiris can be broken.

3. Dogras wanting to wrest political and economical control from Punjabis in Jammu [City] -- this election was the first time that a Dogra won from the Jammu City election, in past MP has been always a Punjabi, even Karan Singh, technically still the ruler [Sadar-e-riasat], lost from the seat.

4. People of Jammu division wanting to form a separate state, -- to create a separate council was even BJP`s manifesto before the Kashmiri Pundit massacre hijacked the whole agenda.

5. Kashmiri Pundits, who escaped the genocide and are living in camps all over India, wanting a state of their own.

6. Not to mension there is a sizable Ahmedia influence -- why there is even a a big retreat in Kashmir too.

Thankfully, the whole issue`s been hijacked by those with simplistic religious-hatred, otherwise it would have been a different mess.

International   UK MPs seek recognition of POK nationals as Kashmiris

Fourteen ruling Labour party members of British parliament have urged the government to recognise Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) nationals resident in the United Kingdom as Kashmiris in the forthcoming census. The fourteen lawmakers led by Bradford west MP Marsha Singh introduced a motion in the House of Commons seeking a distinct ethnic status category for their sizeable community in Britain. Signatories to the motion, calling upon government to categorise POK nationals as Kashmiris in the 2001 census, include leader of the all party Kashmir parliamentary group Roger Godsiff. Godsiff and Peterborough MP Helen Brinton said POK residents have expressed resentment as being categorised as Pakistanis with Punjabi as their main language in the census. They said POK residents, who far outnumber Pakistanis living in the U.K., have expressed their desire to be categorised as ``Kashmiris -- a distinct ethnic category`` in the census. The meeting, which drew widespread support of POK groups here, has come as big blow to Pakistani authorities, seeking to project these groups as favouring Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan

Re: Line of Control

This is in response to the query why the LoC was not mentioned in the Washington Post article.

One assumption would be that a future division of Kashmir would tactily be agreed upon the present zones of occupation. Secondly, since most international maps, including CIA`s political map of South Asia, show the LoC as a defacto border between India and Pakistan, it is not necessary to mention LoC by name. Within this idea, there is a sub-idea that suggests the LoC, as presently existing, by a fiat consitutes the working border and except for Siachen and Boltoro glaciers, the terroritial rights at LoC have been historically delineated and defined, as far as possesion is concerned, for the last half century.

The statement by the Washington Post, though instructive of the American thought process, does not signify a shift in American policy towards the region. This statement, of accepting the status quo at the LoC, merely indicates that this issue is on the short list of American international concerns.

Though Pakistan would like a third party mediation in Kashmir, the Americans reject that idea, because they do not want to irk the Indians. The Americans wish to use India as counter-force to Chinese influence in the region and due to the fact that bi-lateral trade between the Indians and the Americans has been steadily increasing. The United States will support a resolution to the crisis, and in this it will support Pakistani position of putting Kashmir on the Indo-Pak bi-lateral agenda, but it will not push India to do so for obvivious reason, as already listed above.

At the present stage, the United States` foreign policy, regarding Kashmir, is in a passive stage. Unlike Kosovo where American policy is interventionist, in South Asia the United States is merely interested, via back channel diplomacy, in fostering confidence building measures between India and Pakistan. A better understanding of the American approach towards the sub-continent will emerge, in late summer, when both India and Pakistan come close to their self declared dates for signing CTBT. Till that happens, the American foreign policy will be in a wait encourage and see modus oprendi.

The only critical nuance of the Washington Post article is that, in a sotto voce sense, it is implying that top American leadership, in both the State Department and the National Security Council, have agreed in principle, based on a ``finding`` that this is the only pratical solution to the problem. Though they have not articulated this option, there is a strong indication that this is the approach the Americans will favor and would like to see as the end result of Indo-Pak détenté.

The ``early bird``, or the initial debate, within the American foreign policy establishment on this idea will determine the feasibility of this option.

re: Mohajir
THe groups operating in Kashmir can be broadly broken up into the following:
1. groups that want more autonomy within India (Sheikh Abdullah`s National Conference which holds democratic elections and is at loggerheads with the Islamists)
2A. groups that want to secede to Pakistan
2B groups that want to secede to Pakistan but are Islamists and want non-Muslims out.
3. groups that want an independant Kashmir including POK (not Islamic)
4. groups that want an independant Islamic Kashmir including POK (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. They don`t even care.
7. Groups of militants that are pro-India. A lot of these have surrendered and joined Sheikh Abdullahs National Conference. When they were attacked by `other` militants some then took up arms again citing the Indian govts inability to protect them.

Now where do India and Pakistan fit into this picture is quite obvious. Each supports whatever suits their short term political needs.

Regarding the populations. THe Indian govt has adopted very discriminatory (towards other Indians) policies in Kashmir. No non-Kashmiri can buy land anywhere in J&K, while they are free to go anywhere in India.
Ladakh is pretty much all Buddhist, Jammu is predominantly Hindu/Sikh. more and more Hindus from Kashmir have been fleeing to Jammu (and other parts of India). Kashmir is predominantly all Muslim. If you take J&K all together then Muslims make up a majority. I had exact numbers in an article. I will try and dig it up.
regards

I have a few questions

1. What percentage is Jammu ? (of Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kasmir together)

2. What percentage is Ladakh?

3. WHat percentage is kashmir.

According to an atricle in a Foreigh affairs

magazine (by some Mr. Berber) there are 3 types of militants in Kashmir

1. Pro-India militants ( wanting Kashmir to be part of India)

2. Pro-Pakistan (wanting Kashmir to be part of Pakistan)

3. Pro-Independence (kashmir to be ind. country).

Pakistani armed forced treats Pro Independence and Pro India militants as terrorists. Indian armed forced treat Pro-Pakistan and Pro Independence militants as terrorists. There have been human rights abuses from both countries. I am not sure if there is a plebicite what % would like to join India, Pakistan or Independence.

pak787@hotmail.com

Ras:

Reuter`s Web Site. Go to World News , then Asia Pacific . Date : Feb: 28, 1999. I went through www.chron.com -- WORLD news.

Let me know if u need moore info . EMail:pak787@hotmail.com

re: Ras

I haven`t seen any mention of LOC in the statement of D P Moynihan either.

re: mohajir

This article from the Washington Post is yet another one along familiar lines. Any progress towards peace anywhere is assumed to be as a result of US initiative. Notice the importance attached to Jim McDermott`s meeting and his statement. I don`t understand how Daniel P Moynihan continues to be an expert on the region.

I especially hated the childish alliterations ``mad Muslim militarists`` and ``haughty Hindu hypocrites``. The paragraph should have read:

American officials make no bones about their contempt for Indians and Pakistanis. They think Pakistanis are mad Muslim militarists and Indians are haughty Hindu hypocrites.

As for proof, Chuck Hagel`s statement leaves no doubt.

Ashish

RE: Mohajir

There was talk of division, yes!
But nowhere was the LOC mentioned as the line
of division. I have read the quote thus far in
five different newspapers and have not run across
the mention of the LOC yet.

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