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

Re: OMAR1974

`` Lets see how much longer they are willing to inflict the price of an India as-is, on the poverty striken Indian masses.``

-- Believe me, Indians can afford it. They have a much bigger economy and the strife that is in Kashmir can be contained more effectively than it is being done, only if the Indian Security forces are given a free hand. But India being India, the human rights commission, the NGOs and the various other watch dog groups buckle up a governmental outlash against the Militants. And remember that Kashmir even now has its own Muslim government, with a lot more autonomy than any other Indian state can dream of. In fact, Kashmiris enjoy more autonomy than those from Azad Kashmir (POK). Do you know that non kashmiris cannot buy property in Kashmir ?

``Pakistanis should up the ante now in the wake f the nuclear tests, and quadruple support to the Kashmiri freedom fighters.``

Yeah, and shoot each other like rabid pigs. And i hope with your grand heroic designs , you too would put your action where your words were and take part in this all out action that you want and not instead sit in a relative comfort of your home and advocate war. Hope you don`t show your yellow streak brother when you have to ?

``let the Indian chief of staff made good on his threats or shut up regarding the possibility of a full scale war. ``

-- Its people like you who were responsible for the bangladesh fiasco...remember, 1971 is not very far in the past..

``Lets find out what India is really made of, lets find out if we are dealing with men, or hijraas.``

-- are we getting a little bit over the top here.

``oh Indians! : Sometimes its better to just let go, accept your own historical treachery, your own contribution to the bloody past of the subcontinent, and reconcile yourselves to the logical course of complete divestment of (the vale of) Kashmir. ``

-- and would you say the same for sindh, baluchistan, nwfp etc.,

India can keep Jammu & Ladakh.

-- Indians must thank you for your generosity.

--If all pakistanis are like you, I wonder what Pakistan would become in the days to come.

-- Iconoclast

An Indian Muslim

OMAR

Re: akif post # 12

This is in response to your comment about seeing the Indian soldiers less than 200 feet while visiting the LoC; the Indian pinups on Pakistani bunkers and wondering why we are all fighting.

This is just an aside, but I think that it is interesting enough to merit being posted. During the Battle of Gettysburg, in July 1863, a Confederate soldier was captured and brought to the Union lines. There one of the Union officers asked him the question, ``Why are you fighting us Johnny Reb?`` after listing all the common things they shared. The Confederate looked at him and replied, ```I am fighting you `cause you are here Billy Yank!``

The reason we are fighting, though it is a stupid reason, is because we are here! We are fighting just for the sake of fighting each other. About ten years ago, one of my cousins who was in the military took me to the forward Pakistani lines and pointed out the Indian positions. Just before we arrived there, it seems that there was a fire fight involving an exchange of mortar rounds between the opposing forces. I still vividly remember the words he used. He did not use the term enemy or anything demeaning to describe the Indians, but merely refered to them as, ``Indian chaps!``

We stayed there for a few days, and seeing the daily life on the front lines was an eye opener. I saw Indian and Pakistani troops wave to each other. The Pakistani troops were listening to Indian songs on a cassette and there was some thing called a wash day truce when there would be no firing so the troops could wash their clothes.

The soldiers who live on the front lines are mostly concerned with the day to day tedium of living. They are more interested in living than they are in fighting each other. While I was there, I saw more of a live and let live attitude than I could have believed possible. The war mongering sense of jingoism increases as you move away from the front lines, where death tugs at your sleeve daily, to the rear away from fighting where death is just an abstract notion.

Ask your self this question; who is the most nationalistic, patriotic and willing to die for his country person you`ve ever meet? It is the civilian who lives in relative safety behind the lines and belives in his own immortality, because he never had to stare into eyes of death on a daily basis. Why is he, like the politicans, so brave and eager to urge war and fight for his country? The simple answer is, because he will not have to do the dying and he has no personal consequences to suffer as result of his actions.

My friend, did you know that during 1971 Indo-Pak war, two young officers, one Pakistani and other an Indian, who once fought each other bitterly now are best friends who see other on a regular basis! Why, because they have seen death and they chose to be friends to avoid it! No wants to fight, specially a soldier, because he unlike the politicans knows too well the horrors of war and is not interested in dying. It is always the politicans who want soldiers to die for mistakes they could have avoided making.

Much as I hate to agree with Iconoclast (post #3), he has outlined an India minus Kashmir scenario that i believe is what preys on the minds of the intellectual and military, i.e influential circles in India. They will do anything in their desperation to hold onto Kashmir because they know that if Kashmir secedes from India, that will be the begining of the end of multi-ethnic/religious India. Lets see how much longer they are willing to inflict the price of an India as-is, on the poverty striken Indian masses. Pakistanis should up the ante now in the wake f the nuclear tests, and quadruple support to the Kashmiri freedom fighters, let the Indian chief of staff made good on his threats or shut up regarding the possibility of a full scale war. Lets find out what India is really made of, lets find out if we are dealing with men, or hijraas.

oh Indians! : Sometimes its better to just let go, accept your own historical treachery, your own contribution to the bloody past of the subcontinent, and reconcile yourselves to the logical course of complete divestment of (the vale of) Kashmir. India can keep Jammu & Ladakh.

OMAR

Bravo, Rohan Oberoi.

I have been reading articles on international politcs for over two decades. That includes Times, Newsweek and the lot. I cannot recall having read a more analytic, visionary, brave, and refreshing article (It may possibly be my personal bias in favor of your thought process or the feeling that you have taken words out of my pen).

I am sorry that you are a computer programmer; perhaps we need people like you in the more intellectually barren field of India-Pakistan strategic planning. But on second thoughts, who would listen to people like you. As you write quoting Shastri(``This is very good, but Parliament and my party will not accept it``).

I fully agree with you, its time with took off the handcuffs that have bound us to an unenviable history and a very uncertain future. What do we and our leaders owe to our children and their children: hatred, disillusionment, misery?

Once I had the chance to visit the Line of Control from very close - 200 feet. I could practically see the faces of the Indian soldiers. On my side some of the soldiers had Indian film actresses` pinups (no kidding, absolute truth). I could not help saying ``What the hell is the whole fight about?`` Would you believe it that today in a seminar I - a very staunch Pakistani - used the words ``Pakistan occupied Kashmir`` to place neutrality above my nationalism.

Yes, we the Muslims have not been able to convert you fully after a 1000 years (just as you failed to incorporate us into the Hindu way); but so have the Sunnis not been able to convert the Shias and the two fight each other with ferocity that Attila the Hun would have enied.

Well done. Keep it up

AZ

I am sure that the following that i have to say can be and will be repeated ad nauseaum by myself in the days to come.

In a politically immature, economically regressive, societally pluralistic, predominantly uneducated countries like India and Pakistan, ruptures within the concept of a central authority and unity within the nation can be easily created. All it needs is a few self centered, and disgruntled elements and a sponsor.

Repeat a lie a thousand times for it to become a truth is being absolutely practised in our countries. Hence give India a political will, some time and a lot of money , and India can easily cause an upheaval in Pakistan`s Sindh, Baluchistan etc., and with an effective role played by these secessionists can bring these provinces of Pakistan to the level at which Kashmir is today or Punjab was till yesterday or TamilNad might be tomorrow.

Actually since the nature of war as changed, neither India nor Pakistan can do a bangladesh to each other as was done by India a couple of decades back. Hence waging a low key warfare is the only option which both can do as long as they can whip up the euphoria and the rhetoric along with the money.

To debunk Pakistani`s claim for self determination of Kashmir... why don`t these erstwhile good natured well intentioned pakistani`s first liberate their portion of Azad Kashmir and make it an independant nation among the comity of nations. Would that not give the Kashmir issue more respect ?

For Kashmir to be liberated from India, all Pakistan needs to do is to liberate its portion of Kashmir and make it into an independant country. This portion of Kashmir can be made safe to India overtures with promised protection from both China and Pakistan.

But then, we all know what the intentions of both the Pakistanis and the Indians are ? don`t we ?

--

Iconoclast

Rohan,
the interviews of Nani Palkhivala, an
eminent Indian on ``Rediff`` are worth looking up.
His Kashmir stance is similarly worthy of review.

On another note you can always contact me through
CHOWK. Your e-mails will get to me.

Sacramento or Boston, a chai/tea is on.

Ras

Saying that the Trip was a failure is over-simplification -- a malice inflicting desis that is a typical product of desi babudom. Looking at the debate this trip has issued [at this site or in the print-media] I`d say that it has galvanised the intelligensia to introspect beyond ``the White paper on Pakistan sponsord terrorism``.

Moreover, parroting ``the trip was a failure`` is a typical negetive Desi attitude. What were the expectations that one had of this trip ? Was it aimed at solving the POK issue ?

No,.. but whatever the aim was we didn`t accomplish it.

Considering the past history of the two nations -- rapes, massacres, bombs, genocides, female-infanticide [part of glorious heritage of the Sub-continent] -- the trip was a remarkably civilised gesture.

I think dividing Kashmir on the Line of Control would be the best solution to solve the Kashmir problem. India will never agree on giving 100% of Kashmir to Pakistan. Pakistan will never agree to give 100% of Kashmir to India. Pakistan wants a plebicite.

If there is a plebiscite then I say Kashmiris would prefer to become an Independent state, which Pakistan doesnt want. If Kashmir becomes independent, Pakistan may have to give it`s administered portion (Azad Kashmir) to independent Kashmir. US will definitely gain an advantage if Kashmir becomes independent and under UN control. US will have a military presence in that region keeping a check on two emerging superpowers India and Communist China and Pakistan. US is already funnelling money in North East India through Christian missionaries. If Vishal Nagaland becomes an independent Christian country US will definitely have a presence in Indian subcontinent.

There are three regions of Kashmir 1. Jammu 2. Kashmir 3. Ladakh.Again if there is a plebiscite in Jammu and Ladakh they would definitey be part of India. Jammu has a Hindu majority, Ladakh has a Buddhist majority.

If Kashmiris are forced to be part of Pakistan against their will they will break away like Bangladesh in a couple of years. What has Pakistan to offer to Kashmiris. It`s financially bankrupt virtually on the verge of breaking up (karachi, sindh).

Nearly one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed during 1947 partition. If entire Kashmir goes to Pakistan, India fears about it`s Muslim minority. Afterall India has more Muslims than Pakistan.

There is bound to have the same riots like 1947. Hindus would be killed in Pakistan and Muslims would be killed in India.

In all I feel US would be the winner. The problem created by British and look who`s suffering. Poor Indians and Pakistanis. India is desperate to solve the Kashmir problem and reduce it`s defence spending.(like Indonesia in respect to East Timor). India wants to concentrate on trade and reduce it`s defence spending.

1. Many thanks to Iconoclast for the pointer to the article by Irfan Husain on Dawn, which I greatly enjoyed.

I think we are making the same point, which is also the same point that many Indians and Pakistanis have raised before: that the Kashmir dispute has injured India and Pakistan a great deal, and it is dragging us both down.

Mr. Husain is approaching the problem from a Pakistani viewpoint, and I from the other side of the border, but we both want something done to end it quickly.

The only disagreement I would have is on the remark that ``it is not India that is being penalized by our `Kashmir first` stance`` --

While Pakistan, as Mr. Husain rightly points out, has probably been injured more by the dispute (for many reasons), the dispute has also impoverished India greatly and continues to do so. It has also given an unwarranted respectability to our extremist elements. For example, whenever the Shiv Sena wants to attack Muslims in Bombay, it couches its anti-Muslim rhetoric in anti-Pakistan and anti-Bangladesh terms. Our official enmity with Pakistan is what makes the Shiv Sena`s hate speech respectable.

2. I plead guilty to the charge of being overly pessimistic, and perhaps even deaf to the hopeful symbolism of Vajpayee`s trip.



Nevertheless, I think there is a tendency to get caught up in the symbolism and ignore the substance.

I am as pleased as anyone that the bus service to Lahore has been started, and that it has received this high profile; I only want to stress the point that much deeper reflection on the problem will be needed if anything substantial is to come of it.

3. As to the rights of the Kashmiri people (separate from the interests of India and Pakistan in this problem):

The right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination is a cause that has been pressed before the Indian public (in vain) by much more eminent people than myself, some of whom made quite valiant attempts to make the case in public during the 1960s.

Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan wrote two articles in the Hindustan Times in 1964. In one of these he said ``it has always seemed to me to be a lie to say that the people of Kashmir had already decided to integrate themselves with India. They might do so, but they have not done so yet.``

Mr. C. Rajagopalachari (Governor-General of India from 1948 to 1950) wrote in 1965 that ``it would be as foolish as any foolish thing a nation can do, if we proceed on the assumption that we can hold people down by sheer force and without making it

manifest to world nations that we have the consent of the people concerned by imposing any administration on them. The political decision concerning Kashmir, or any part of it, should... be on the basis of self-determination``.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, these arguments have never made much headway with the public in India, though the minuscule minority of concerned and thoughtful people in public life has always been aware of them.

In the 1990s, people whom I am aware of having written articles criticising our Kashmir policy include Mr. Som Benegal, Mr. Ajit Bhattacharjea, Mr. Pran Chopra, and of course the late Mr. Minoo Masani. Mr. J.N. Dixit has also been quoted on one occasion as supporting a plebiscite in Kashmir, though I don`t know if he has changed his position since.

(If anyone else is aware of other public figures in India who have spoken out in support of the Kashmiri people`s rights, I would be very interested to hear about it. My email address is: ``rohan.oberoi@cornell.edu``.)

4. Thanks to everyone who has commented on this article. Mr. Siddiqui: let me know how to contact you if I am ever in Sacramento, and do come and see me if you are in Boston.

Rohan Oberoi

Rohan,
if you are ever in the Sacramento California
area of the US, let me invite you for a cup of
tea at my humble home.
You have written what the ``experts`` here on
CHOWK and some in South Asia refuse to understand.
Kashmir is the key to the long term well being
of many people in India and Pakistan. The lack of settlement does nobody any good.
India pays in money and manpower spent, Pakistan
too does that plus encourages extremism within
itself and has to know of the consequences, and
last but not least the Kashmiris pay with their
lives and daily misery.
If India cannot be seen as losing face in Kashmir
by letting the Valley join Pakistan, then the
option that you suggest is a good alternative.
Again the cup of tea offer is open. Thanks for
writing such a sensible article, one which your
critics here on CHOWK could learn a lot from,
but then again they would have to give up on their
``expert`` understanding of the situation.

Ras

Re:Rohan Oberoi

An extermely well balanced article detailing all the nuances presently being faced by the Indian-Pakistani sides vis a vis Kashmir.

Kashmir is, and remains, the sine quo non of India-Pakistani intractibility which is undermining an improvement of bi-lateral relations. Fifty years of a perpetual war have intrenched mutual hostilities into a mental status quo which refuses to change. The conversion of the Line of Control, if that ever occurs, into an international boundry is not the solution to the problem either. The root cause of the Indian-Pakistani problem, in my opinion, is one of misperception. We all have an image of the other side, as an insidious enemy, which is so hard to resist and unless that perception changes, demarcating a defacto border as the de jure internationl frontier, the ``core`` problem will persist. Kashmir is not the problem. Kashmir merely is the symptom of an illness, in our mutual relations, called mistrust. The issue of mistrust, in our bi-lateral relations, needs to be settled if the life of our two peoples is to move forward on to the broad sunlit uplands of prosperity and harmony.

As to the Kashmiri issue itself, the Kashmir issue will not be decided by the Indian and Pakistani diplomats practicing weltpolitik by drawing a few lines on the map. Drawing lines on the map created the prsent artificiality known as modern Africa; it created legacy of the Versailles Treaty - world war two; and it created the illogic of partition. The fate of Kashmir will be decided, for better or for worse, by the Kashmiri people themselves. It is the height of national arrogance for both India and Pakistan to offer themselves as champions of the Kashmiri cause and think that they can do justice to the problem. Cyril Radcliff thought he was just too, but regret at the misery he caused hounded him to the last days of his life. What makes us believe that we can do better?

It is too early, in the eye of history, to pass a judgement on the events of last weekend. Whether the trip was a failure or a sucess only time will tell and time will relentlessly plod on to its final verdict, indifferent to all our contempory hopes and fears. It will render a verdict, as surely as fire burns and water wets, but not neccesarily in our life times. To paraphrase what Sir Edward Grey, the greatest of all British Foreign Secretaries said on the eve of the First World War; the lamps are being slowly relit all over the sub-continent.

All things being considered equal this, in of itself, is an encouraging sign. Hope springs eternal only to be muddied by cyncism, but it would not be too unreasonable, in this case, to expect what could be called, the ``Lahore Spring``; a time of hope, a time of renewal and a time when life looks ahead to a wonderful summer.

Over-analyzed in typical desi fashion.

Everyone realizes that Vajpayee`s trip was a symbolic gesture, but in the annals of diplomacy some of the most symbolic gestures have had some of the most profound consequences.

Why not give credit where it is due ? The trip breaks the ice, opens a channel of communication, deflates the posturing, humanizes the relationship, creates a platform for peace. And so what if Vajpayee himself enjoyed some political capital from it ? Let him. Focus instead on what the trip can do for India and Pakistan.

Saad

Hi Rohan! Great to see you on chowk.

The bus trip appears even more of a sham on the heels on the persecution of christians in india, and vajpayee`s non existent response. Watching him promote friendship with pakistan (over the shouts of RSS) and ignore the appeals of the minorities (supporting RSS) is extremely confusing.

One positieve feature of this bus trip is in fact the direct refusal of the RSS/VHP. Of course that does not make this a sucecess.

Lastly, it has always irked me that no one ever asks the kashmiri what they want. For example do they want to be an independent country? Or join Pakistan? Or, though unlikely, stay with India. The right to the referendum was snatched away by their politicians. Do you think there any chance of that being revived?

Re: Rohan.

Solution you offer :

provide independance to kashmir, and integrate Ladakh and Jammu with India.

The outcomes i see :

- End of rivalry between India and Pakistan.

- Pakistan installed proxy government in independant Kashmir.

- Liberation struggle for independance in Pakistan held kashmir and china held aksai chin , actively supported by Independant Kashmir and India. (assuming the Pakistan Held portion of Kashmir does not integrate with Independant kashmir). Conversely, if kashmir is integrated with Pakistan then liberation struggle for independance in the whole of Kashmir. Same game, same players but different roles. Only this time, Pakistan would give up much before India ever had to, being an economically weaker country.

- India becomes a dominant economic and military power.

- And finally, India declares itself a Hindu republic (the second hindu country in the world

after Nepal )

Outcome :

We would defenitely see a Sikh Khalistan following closely with parts of Indian Punjab integrating with Haryana and another partition in Punjab based on religion. The Sikhs living in other parts of India would be persecuted while the Hindus in Punjab would get it lighly based on their numerical strength.

India becomes a hindu pakistan persecuting its 30 % minorities by consolidating hindu votes across castes and communities And becomes an international pariah. The economically powerful hindu population across the world actively supporting such a move (a la the jewish population with Israel )

-- Hmm, the RSS would like.. But then what about the miniscule christian and the considerable Muslim and sikh population in India..? If the muslim majority kashmir gets its independance why not a hindu maharashtra ? a christian nagaland ?a sikh khalistan ? DravidaNad ? Sonar Bengal ? a TamilNad ? An Andhra Desam ? and a Assam ? and all the other jokers in the pack who would take a cue from the kashmir episode..

And in Pakistan the story would start with Sindh, Baluchistan and Finally Punjab itself. (all emboldened and supported by Hindu India )..

And however i look at it we finally would have managed to make us into what we were before the british settled there feet into India. A subcontinent of warring states based on religion, culture, language, sects, creed, caste, etc etc

And India would be a desi version of the balkans with the minorities persecuted all over the place. poor muslims, buddhists and christians and the others

Most possible outcome :

- independant muslim kashmir.

- independance struggle in pakistan held kashmir.

- independant khalistan. (well how can india proclaim itself a hindu republic if the sikhs stay within the framework. After all the sikhs are a majority in Punjab )

- Hindu India with religious persecution.

less possible outcome :

- struggle for independance in pakistan (sindh, balochistan etc)

- struggle for independance in nagaland, assam , etc.,

have fun everybody

_

Iconoclast

Read

http:www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

if you will. He offers an explanation which is more reasonable than yours.

Iconoclast