India’s Failure of Imagination

An excellent article !!

Just one factual point, that Im sure has been made and discussed already: the Siachen conflict, however idiotic it may be from a strategic point of view for India is NOT a violation of the Line of Control: any map- consider the UN official map at the URL http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/maps/pk/unmogip.htm

will confirm that the LoC was only demarcated uptil the point NJ98420 , more than 50 km south of Siachen. Siachen`s status was never discussed.

Just one thing more: Kashmir has always enjoyed a cultural identity as distinct from that of West Punjab as the erstwhile East Pakistan: the valley`s presence in the Indian Union would be much better for its residents PROVIDED the centralized structure of the Union were changed sufficiently FOR ALL STATES. This would allow the people of J&K to maintain their pride in their culture - as distinct from religion - which would be otherwise trampled upon by arrogant Punjabi aristocrats on the one side and uppercaste Sanskritising bureaucrats on the other. Azadi for J&K may not be a viable option politically or be in the interest of the prople of J&K but it one option that would be the best for the rest of India: we would be forced to reexamine our excessively centralized and inefficient administration and devolve power as far as possible, which could only be for the better.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Onward to Delhi brave sons of Pakistan!

Feroz: The Russians plan was to to advance 18 miles/kms a day in the event of a war in Europe. We can at least advance 10 a day.

Omar

Re: OMAR1974 # 57

Yeah, I would agree with you say about the economic pie and access to it, but contary to what you may think, that pie will only get bigger if we spend less on defence and stop planning for a war against India!

A blitzkreig towards New Delhi? Omar, we SERIOUSLY need to talk because, I really have to educate you in the art of operational maneuever. 300 kms in a month?! That averages to about 30 kms a day! That is not a blitzkreig, it is a blood bath!! In 30 days, Pakistan will have exhausted its war stocks, which only allows for combat operations for 45 days (in really optmistic conditions).

Omar, yaar, I hate to say this, but you need to devote more time to study of tactics and less time making outrageous claims!

P.S: I have started working on a plan, as an Israeli military planner, to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities. I have the framework already done and all I need now is to flesh out the details. I have fine tuned, from what I said in post, and when I am done, I will let you know!

As a challenge, I need you to pick the targets for me and tell me what my handicap will be: will it be a joint Israeli-American op, or just a solo Israeli op?

Studebaker:

In your world, every failure represents the failure of all of India (for example the Gujarat text books). Every success (for example the Parsis) represents an individual success and is no credit to India. In my view, this does not reflect the reality of India. Indian secularism is more than a piece of paper. Pakistan`s primacy to Muslims is also more than a piece of paper. If you feel happy in comparing India to Pakistan with the purpose of running India down, go ahead.

Feroz: I think you know what i think of mullah-islam well enough by now to know better than to mention them to me of all people. Sorry to hear about your family`s bad experiences but i really think that the only community that has really been victimized are the Ahmadis, because they want to claim to be muslims, yet are not, and therefore have been declared heretics. The Parsees, Hindus, Christians are generally A-OK in Pakistan with a few notable occasions when there have been incidents, incidents which were motivated by the greed and meanness of certain self-interested individuals to cause bad feelings and problems in Pakistan for ex. in villsage disputes over land with Christians trumped up allegations were made to make them leave by stating they had desecrated the Koran, said nonsense about the holy Prophet (PBUH) etc, really rubbish, with the threat of violence by inciting ignorant mullahs and illiterate fools into mobs. This is of course highly regretable. I hardly think you can blame Pakis for Zia, who after all was never elected to serve them but merely seized power. I might add that many muslims feel that Punjabis have far too much influence in the division of resources, get disproportionaly more of the economic pie, jobs etc. So, if its not one thing its another in Pakistan. Everyone has a gripe. Mohajirs loyalty too has been questioned, and this after all the sacrifices they made to build Pakistan. So, everyone wants to play the Jew in Auschwitz in 1943 in Pakistan. So what? Problems are there for everyone, and thanks to India, the economic pie is not getting any bigger. Instead of trying to split up the same pie, we need to make a bigger pie for all so everyone`s share increases. This is only possible after the Kashmir dispute has been resolved satisfactorily. It may require the occupation of New Delhi, which is where we should strike while India garrisons Srinagar and the rest of Kashmir with 50% of its army, leaving itself open to a blitzkrieg in the Punjab. Sack and occupy New Delhi, and Srinagar will fall into our laps like a ripe plum. Its about 300 miles. That should take about a month to reach with the right mentality. We just need to replace the

T-59s and we can get started within 5 years. With nuclear parity India is at our mercy.

Omar

Re: Studebaker #52

Omar has a point that Parsis, of all the minorities in Pakistan, have been the most successful in Pakistan, but that was mostly true prior to the Zia period. Since then, the paeans to Islamizations have steadly eroaded their rights and though they do not face open discrimination, they are often victims of subtle racisms based on religion.

It was due to these policies that a majority of highly educated Pakistani Parsis fled to Canada and Australia in the 1980s. The ones left behind were not as highly educated or well placed socially and hence, did not have the clout to combat the discriminating polices of the state. In many ways, the dispora of the Parsis was similar to what happened in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. The intelligensia got away before things turned awful and now these Parsis are supporting their families, still in Pakistan.

Parsis have served Pakistan well and yet, they are subjected to ``a second class`` citizenship status. To give you an example, James Marker who was Pakistan`s ambassador to the United States and the United Nations has never been offered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs even though he has been a career diplomat for Pakistan for over twenty years. James Marker recently won international acclaim when, as a Special Representive to the Secretary General, he mediated a truce in East Timor and presided over the modualities of holding an election there.

He has more experience of international diplomacy than all the current holders of authority in Pakistan and he has extensive personal contacts in Washington, Paris, and New York which he could use to improve Pakistan`s situation, but the name of the game in Pakistan is patronage and neopotism and he is not invited to the club!

On the legal front, Zorab Patel, another Parsi, was a determined advocate for human rights in Pakistan and because of this, he ran afoul of Zia-ul-Haq and had to leave Pakistan. Soon after leaving Pakistan, he was appointed to the International Court of Justice at Den Haag (The Haque), where he served for many years. In other case, one of my uncles was denied a chair on the Lahore High Court, in the late 1970s, even though he was the most qualified jurist on the bench, because the political climate was in favor of Muslim judges to implement Zia`s idea of a progressive modern Islamic state, i.e. Pakistan.

These are just some of the examples I can give of the double standards of Pakistan towards Parsis. This is even more resentful, because Pakistan is always eager to claim credit for their accomplishments, like Marker`s or Judge Patel`s, but is not willing to treat them as equals and still subjects them to many legal stipulations vis a vis minority rights. Yes, I am resentful, because I know how Pakistani Parsis feel about their country, but their country does not seem to recipocate that sentiment.

My cousin, a Parsi, was in the Pakistan Air Force and he fought in the 1971 war and he was one of the first PAF pilots to qualify for the F-16 and was a combat instructor pilot with the PAF for awhile. He was disgusted with the politics of Zia, because it was incipently questioning the loyalities of non-Muslim pilots of PAF and was destroying the unit cohesion of its squadrons.

Yes, I am resentful, because Pakistani policies of Islam et al discriminates against Parsis by not giving them the chance to demostrate their loyalities towards Pakistan! This is just not true of Parsis, but of Christians, and Hindus who are Pakistani citizens and who are treated as a second class citizens and then the state has the gall to question their sense of patriotism to Pakistan???

Re Omar # 55

Why? Maybe because I identify more with the humanist Parsi philosophy of tolerance than I do with the xenophobia of Islam, as it is practiced in Pakistan today.

Omar, I learned more about respect, and tolerance from my grandmother, who was a Parsi, than I ever did from any mullah. While the mullahs were teaching me about the evils of Jews and the other enemies of Islam, my grandmother was teaching me to think in another way. She taught me to think of God as a single author and to view the Qu`ran, the Gita, the Bible and the Torah as being merely translations of his work. According her, we may disagree on the translations of the work, but we were all agreement that that author was the same!

When was the last time you heard a mullah preach tolerance in Pakistan? If Islam and being Muslim in Pakistan are seen for what they really are, then there is no reason to claim that title, because it stands for nothing more than fear, ignorance and petty self-interests! Do you really think that I want to claim to be a Muslim and be identified with the Dark Ages in Pakistan and condone what my Muslims brothers are doing to the rest of their fellow citizens of Pakistan in the name of religion?

I do not think so!

Feroz, yaar, how come you always mention that you are half Parsi, instead of saying that you are half muslim? :) Isin`t it the same thing? :) (Something to ponder)

cheers

Omar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Maharaj:

The Kashmiri minority will have the same choice as everyone did in 1947; stay or leave. This is only logical since Kashmir represents the last unfinished business from the partition era. If they want to be Paki citizens, they are welcome to stay. If they don`t, they are welcome to leave. State coercion however, should not be a factor to be tolerated in this matter. As for being `second class` citizens, quite frankly i think the Parsi community is an excellent example of those who have done quite well in Pakistan. Mr.Ardashir Cawasjee is a well known/respected journalist cum public figure whom i for one deeply admire for his efforts to get the truth out about the rape of Pakistan by its ruling classes. There are over a million Hindus in pakistan today. We don`t have Hindu-Muslim religious conflict, although we have other sectarian and inter muslim religious conflict in Pakistan.

Omar

re: Maharaj comment`s Omar

We all know what would happen to them based on what is the present fate of minorities in Pakistan. Being a half Parsi myself, and having friends who are Parsis, I can fully understand the term ``second class`` citizens and that is what they will become if they join Pakistan.

Ref OMAR1974.

A simple question.

There are Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists in Kashmir. Are they not Kashmiris? What will be the fate of these people when Kashmir joins Pakistan?

So, you think that `Pakistan lost` the Kargil Crisis, and `India Won`. Well, from a strategic point of view Pakistan has already won. The cost of India mainting 10,000 troops year round in Kargil, Drass, Batalik is reported by Indian newspapers to be 100 million rupees (more than $2 million daily added to Indian army cost of operations alone). Siachin costs India and Pakistan $1 million and $700,000 daily. It also costs the Indian army hundreds more dead due to the climactic conditions alone, which are not better in Kargil-Drass-Batalik. So, India has now been forced to spend $2m/day ($730 million annually) extra in its desperate bid to continue its illegal occupation of Kashmir and its resulting confrontation with Pakistan. This is a victory for India, of pyhrric proportions. Pakistan`s total cost for this operation $5-10 million and perhaps 500+ dead. India`s cost of eviction was over $200 million. As I said earlier, Pakistan will bleed India white to the bone. Over a decade that is an additional $7 billion! To put things into perspective, the 300 T-90 Tanks India is acquiring from Russia cost is $750m USD. Resources are not unlimited. Poverty striken India cannot afford this, as sane Indians will privately admit. This is a disaster for India. After having lost a few hundred troops, defending worthless territory has become a national point of honor for them. This is excellent. Pakistan has succeeded in its strategic aims w/o increasing its own costs.

Omar

If the British could leave Hong Kong, the French could be driven out of Algeria and Vietnam, the Israelis forced to negotiate with the Palestinians because of the intifada, the Serbs driven from Kosovo (their spiritual heartland), the U.S driven out of Vietnam, the Russians driven out of Aghanistan (the costs of which contributed to the collape of the USSR), and the IRA/Sein Fein and the British, Irish and N.Ireland gov (and basically all Catholic and Protestant groups) could agree to a cease fire and a political peace process, and Pakistan could be driven out East Pakistan, then what is India in the face of the resistence of the people of Kashmir and Pakistan? Its very simple, when the costs escalate, India will be forced to negotiate. Clearly, we have not yet reached the point where costs become intolerable and unsustainable for India. A nuclear war may be required. But whatever it takes, no matter how many people have to die (we really DON`T give a damn), we will prevail in the end, because right is on our side, as are principles. Have no doubts. The basic fact is that the Kashmiris don`t want to be part of India, and do what India may, it cannot change their national/ethnic/ religious sense of identity which is entirely alienated from Indian citizenship. This is a simple fact. Sooner or later India must come to terms with it. Controlling a hostile local population that actively supports action against the state is not a viable strategy in the long term for India. This is a basic fact. It is upto Pakistan and Pakistanis to insure the cost of India`s theft increases daily.

I propose the elimination of all traitors, starting with the puppet Chief minister of IOK, F.Abdullah. His swift death at the hands of determined muslims even at the cost of their own lives (martyrs) will energize our struggle like nothing else. It will also be a warning to other collaborators (the few Kashmiri muslims/x-militants India has recruited)that their fate will be same as meted out to Palestinian collaborators. There is no place to hide any longer. The world IS a global village. We`re gonna get ya. You won`t get a moments peace. No one can protect ya. Hey, the Tamils got Rajiv Gandhi. The Sikhs got Indira Gandhi. The muslims R GONNA GET F. Abdullah. Better believe it. Its a matter of time. His days are numbered. Watch the news.

And as for those Indians that keep bringing up India`s remaining muslim `problem` of co-existence to try to confuse the Kashmiri issue, frankly, all we are interested in is Kashmir, not Hyderabad Daccan etc, those people opted to stay in India, they are cut out to make compromises for the sake of coexistence, they are Indian citizens by choice. I don`t see what that issue, a purely internal Indian affair, has anything to do with the illegal occupation of Kashmir by India, where elections are rigged and produce 5% turnouts and there is no political legitimacy whatsoever of the brazen Indian occupation. India`s domestic problems are its omestic problems. We don`t give a hoot about them. Kashmir is Internationally recognized disputed territory. There is a clear difference between muslims in Bombay, and muslims in the vale of Kashmir. Better understand it.

Omar

To those who are bent on obfuscating the real issue (which is basically very simple, a question of will alone) by focusing on fundamentalism in Pakistan, its internal problems, the `Paki-mindset` etc, I think you should, as diplomatic circles would phrase it, `stop interfering in Pakistan`s internal domestic affairs`. Quite frankly, whatever Pakistan`s internal problems, Pakistanis (Secular and Fundamentalists alike) are by and large united on the Kashmir issue. The issue is quite simple. India as a nation is as guilty as a common horse thief of theft and is a nation of mendacious horse thieves. Over the the past 50+ years they have proven their mendacity and duplicity. We will recover our property sooner or later. The tide is rising against Indian occupation of the valley. Look at the fayte of the U.S in S.Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan. Kashmir is India`s quagmire. Its continued occupation will destroy India. We, in Pakistan don`t give a damn about anything else when it comes to realtions with India. What we want is Kashmir. (Jammu and Ladhakh might be negotible in a final settlement). Whatever we choose to do with it, Kashmir is our business. INDIA GET OUT OF KASHMIR. This is now all that the process of dialogue should consist of. Lord knows India has heard us on this matter before. The question ladies and gentleman is only what punishment shall be meted out for this daily and continuing theft and rape of our lands and people. What will be the penalty we shall impose for this theft. We are not going to wait another 50 years, our patience is NOW at an end. We are quite prepared to pay any price necessary to insure that India returns (voluntarily or otherwise) Kashmir to Pakistan, its lawful sovereign. We don`t want to hear anything further on the matter. Discussion closed. The ends justify whatever means are used to attain our goals. The only language that needs to be spoken from now on is one of bullets, bombs, shells exploding, and the roar of artillery. Pagan-heathen savages must be dealt with firmly. We have been far too lenient with them thus far.

If there are concrete peaceful steps Pakistan should take immediate they are the following:

1) Hold an immediate plebescite under U.N supervision in accordance with U.N Resolutions, in Azad Kashmir, and withdraw the Pakistan Army from Kashmir entirely during the process. After Pakistan has done this, the onus will be on India to comply as well. International pressure will mount on India to follow suit. After such a long time, this would be a bold diplomatic masterstroke of utter genius on the part of Pakistan. The shoe would then be on the other foot. India`s utter moral bankruptcy would stand is sharp contrast to Pakistan`s adherence to the will of the international community.

2) Following the Plebescite, declare all Kashmiris Pakistani citizens, including those in Indian occupied Kashmir (like West Germany dealt with the East Germans prior to 1989 and Germans today worldwide, and like Israel treats Jews worldwide today), with right of automatic residence in Pakistan plus Pakistani passports.

Omar

Re:OMAR1974

I am not a military expert but wrote that the Kargil mission or war put Pakistan about $5 million more in debt and India had to bear $something millions on its part.

I just wonder how can this be justified when there are many who want to study and cannot get admission because there arn`t many shchools which can accomodate the increasing number of students both in India and Pakistan???

Can someone answer:

Do we really need Agnis and Ghauris or NEDs and IITs??

regards

FT

Re: Najib

At many places in this forum, you have written that the creation of Pakistan was ``wrong`` and ``illegal``.

If that is the case, then my friend all of India should be ruled by muslims just like the way it was ruled before the British came to India.

On the other hand, the Pakistanis should ask for all of the land(India)that they, muslims, ruled before the British came to India. So the Pakistanis should not only be asking for Kashmir, but also for West Bengal, Assam, Hyberabad Deccan and all the other territories and states ``illegally`` occupied by the ``worst`` democracy in the world, India, which can ban news on tv and newspapers which show more facts than fiction about Kashmir and India as a whole.

The influential Washington Post in an editorial captioned `Cooling Kashmir` on Thursday said that `India`s denial of the democratic benefit in Kashmir is what the dispute remains basically about. An initiative along this line would earn India rich tribute.`

Rohan I must congratulate you on being one of the few Indians who has somehow, (perhaps it was an accident of birth?) learned to speak w/o a forked tongue. It seems most of your countrymen are born with forked tongues.

Kargil cost India over $200 million, and at least 3 military aircraft (a couple more not publically admitted probables) and appx at a minimum 500 dead plus untold numbers of wounded. Pakistan`s cost? About $5 million. I like that rate of exchange, lets see if India can keep up at this ratio, and for how long. Well, they`re used to grinding poverty anyhow, better stay used to it! This is just the begining, now that Pakistan and India are BOTH nuclear powers this sort of thing can be allowed to increase exponentially if one is prepared to play the game. All the extra patrols, winter stay etc will add hundreds of millions annually to Indian expenditure, reducing money for acquisitions of equipment, like Siachin has for Pakistan. If Pakistan can increase the costs of occupation/confrontation for India with minimal investment (say $30 million a year on keeping Indian occupied Kashmir boiling over the next decade, Pakistan can literally drain India dry to the bone). I`d say the operation was a success. Its cost Pakistan very little, and just over 1000 men were able to face off the entire Indian army and Airforce`s combined attacks. So what if India `won,` lets look at what it cost and what it was fighting anyhow! Only a thousand men were able to demonstrate its military weaknessess and unpreparedness. Well, until the next round and so on until Indians realize they have to GET OUT OF KASHMIR! Let Kashmir become India`s Vietnam and Afghanistan rolled into one. India can`t win. Even when India `wins` , it loses, because it lost the most battle of them all; for the hearts and minds of Kashmiris long ago. India is no better than a colonial power in occupation by force of Kashmir.

Omar

Re: Najib #38

Najib Sahib,

I fully endorse your views and I am proud that India is producing people with your mindset and attitude. However, I think that we do need to focus our attention on the overall hindu-muslim equation in the subcontinent. The creation of Pakistan, the conflicts, Kashmir etc. are all a symptom of the underlying problem i.e. the lack of good relations between hindus and muslims. While we have coexisted for a thousand years, we have never made an effort to bridge our gaps and develop strong friendly relations. During muslim rule, some efforts were made via the Sufi movement but they were never followed up.

The good news is that as Indian secularism develops and the economy grows, hindus and muslims are getting along better. The recent Kargil affair has shown that muslims were strongly supportive of India and they were even celebrating Pakistan`s defeat in the world cup. This is the right time to cash in on these sentiments. I feel that we should have a complete reconciliation, at least in India between hindus and muslims. Our religious leaders should get together and develop a common code of coduct towards each other. We should bury our differences for ever. If we set an example, Kashmir and Pakistan will turn around on their own.

Looks like the conflict is winding down . . . thank God.

Better to solve differences like rational adults, by negotiating rather than fighting.

Look, even the Israelis and Palestinians are well on the way to working things out peacefully. India and Pakistan should be able to deal with each other. The hotheads need to cool down.

I would love to see Muslims in Kashmir get justice and the right of self-determination -- but it would be horrible to see Taliban conquer Kashmir and treat its women the way they`ve treated Afghan women. That would be sickening. The native Kashmiri Muslim culture is nothing like the Taliban`s brutal extremism. Just pause for a moment and think calmly about it. Even the status quo would be preferable to being taken over by Taliban. If their harsh coercion was to rule Kashmir, that would hardly be ``self-determination`` of Kashmiri people. It would be severe oppression of them worse than ever before.

na`udhu billah

A very flawed article. The very basic assumption made by Rohan is wrong. He says that if Kashmir problem is resolved, all will be well and Indians and the Pakistanis will live happily ever after. Nonsense! What he fails to understand is this: Pakistan was created (out of India) on the belief (on part of the Pakistanis) that we cannot live together peacefully or happily.

So, you see, the very reason for Pakistan`s existence as a nation will be questioned if India and Pakistan become `friends`. If the Kashmir problem is solved, I`m sure the Pakis will find another reason to quarrel with us.

Another point I wish to make is that Rohan, you have said ``...Indian soldiers are being killed like`dogs`..``. It appears you are a communist. In any case, you are full of sh..t! What kind of an Indian are you? In fact, you are not even a human being! It is due to people like you that India remained under foreign rule for centuries. If you wanted to refer to our martyrs (my salute to them), then you could simply have said they are dying (instead of using profanities). YOU ARE SICK.

By the way, India has always had a moral stand on the issue of Kashmir. The creation of Pakistan and the Pakis` demand of our state of Kashmir is based on their thinking that people of diverse backgrounds and religion cannot and must not live together. I refuse to buy that argument. BOTH the creation of Pakistan and Pakistan`s claim over our territory are wrong and unacceptable to me.

Re: Ferozk Reply #: 36

Did`nt keep a copy. Nothing very important.

Thanks anyway.

Re: anarayan

Please re-submit your comments. Chowk was having technical problems, and it seems your comments did not get posted.

This is a test

Re: anarayan

Seems your interact was cut in mid-sentence. Same thing happened to me. I will wait for a complete answer.

Re: Ferozk #: 33

Feroz,

You misunderstood my earlier mail. Let me explain.

When I talked about PAF support for the pakistani soldiers, I was`nt implying ground support

Re: anarayan

Agreed. A full fledged air war will only make matters worse and yes, it is in Pakistan`s interest to make India bleed in this case.

As to PAF`s lack of success in ground support operations, I would ask you to find a good topographical map of the region and you will soon see why ground support is a difficult prospect. PAF can not provide ground support, because the fighting is happening on the Indian side of LoC and it can only do so by crossing the LoC. PAF`s lack of ground support is not determined by its lack of will, but because of political calculations. In a tactical sense, you are right to say that IAF is pounding the opposition, but the IAF is also been unable to provide effective ground support to its own troops advancing against the occupied heights.

There are three reasons for this. One is the mis-allocation of resources by the Indians. The IAF is using its Mirage 2000s in a ground support role and to jam Pakistani missile radars. The Mirage can do an excellent job of confusing Pakistani radars, but in the ground support role it will prove ineffective. The reason is that the Mirage 2000 was designed as a dedicated air superiority fighter and not with the intentions of a fulling a ground interdiction role. It is akin to taking a Porsche 911 and trying to go four wheeling with it; it may seem like a good idea, but unfortunately it will not work out as planned!

The last reason is that effective ground support demands the presense of forward air controllers to direct the in-coming aircraft to their targets, because IAF`s time over targets is barely more than a few second and that is not enough time to locate, identify and engage targets with positive results. Since the nature of fighting is mostly up close and personal, that is hand to hand, IAF is weary of hitting its own troops and thus, it seeks to target the opposition from a safe distance. You are absolutely correct to say that IAF can effectivily hit the supply dumps etc., but the nature of warfare in Kargil is one of fluidity and mobility based on the principles of guerilla warfare in the mountains.

If the Soviet air forces could not defeat the Afghans from the air and NATO could not destroy Serbian forces from heights of 15k plus, IAF is not going to do it either. Also, please remember that military ops are taking place at heights of 15k above sea level, and that there is still late summer snow in those areas. Even if IAF bombs those areas with pin point accuracy, its 500, 1k lbs. laser guided bombs have a tendency to sink into the snow and thus, the resulting explosions are relativily muted and do not result in wide spread collratral damage.

Like I said in another post, military ops in the region are a headache for both sides logistically and tactically.

Concerning Pakistan`s alleged Northern Light Infantry, that smacks too much of a British regimental title and Pakistani infantry forces, in the northern areas, are known as Frontier Forces. I am not denying that Pakistani soldiers are not involved, but I highly doubt it that regualar troops belonging to established units of Pakistani Army are operating in the area. The more realistic possibility is that if there are Pakistani troops, they belong to the Special Services Group.

During the Afghan war, special units of Pakistan`s SSGs were detached from regular duty for intelligence ops inside Afghanistan and to coordinate attacks against the Soviet Red Army. It is logical to assume a similar approach is being made in this case too. The nature of warfare in Kargil is unorthadox and is more suited to the temperment of special forces, who train for such ops, than a regular army unit.

On the issue of re-claiming bodies of supposedely dead Pakistani soldiers. That has more to do with the nature and inacccesibility of the terrain than it has to do with Pakistan`s mea culpa in the matter. Since military ops are happening on the Indian side of LoC, those dead bodies come under the preview of the Indian military and so far, to the best of my knowledge, it has not brought down the bodies of those killed from the heights. Only way Pakistan can re-claim those bodies is by ingressing into the Indian side of LoC and we all know that is a verboten idea.

As to the dishonor of slain soldiers, when was the last time the Indians brought all of their dead down from the battlefield? The mountain sides are still littered with the dead of both sides and this is a war that either side will admit as being a war.

My friend, in this matter you have to read between the lines and you should not believe everything you read or hear. In other words, on one end of the spectrum you have the truth and on the other end, you have have the lie and some where in between these two imposters lies the reality of the situation!

Well, Mr.Oberoi certainly does not lack in imagination as is evident in this article. He throws in a few facts, a lot of ``imagination`` and lo - an article is ready.

Pakistanis always want peace. What rubbish? It is India which has always been the defender in all three occasions that we went for war with Pak and once with China. Pakistan will not settle for peace or friendship with India, because its whole identity and existance will become questionable then.

That is right. What is Pakistan? Ostensibly, historians claim that Pakistan is the home of all the Muslims who were a part of British India. This is what Pakistanis claim too. However, they are all at a loss to explain how India still has more muslims than Pak itself!

There is a concept in semi-conductor physics called a ``hole``. It is not a physical entity - it is merely the absence of an electron. It is condemned to be the negative image of an electron, which is the one that really exists. Pakistan is in a similar situation when it comes to India.

If it happens that India and Pak co-exist peacefully, then the world will start wondering if it was necessary to create a separate Pak out of India at all! After all, if everything is peaceful, why can`t the two countries reunite like Germany or Yemen?

It is the inability to face this question that makes Pakistan the juvenile agressor that it is today. So, Mr. Oberoi, please realise that a peace-loving Pakistani is an oxymoron.

Re: Ferozk Reply #: 30

Dear Feroz,

Despite your sincere explanations, everyone knows why the PAF is avoiding the IAF. An air battle would be the beginning of a full-fledged war which pakistan wants to avoid at any cost.



What a predicament. Pakistan`s air force cannot come to the aid of its own soldiers. Indian planes have been bombing the daylights out of pakistan`s Northern Light Infantry almost from day one (everyone knows who the so-called mujaideen fighters are). The PAF coming to their aid would be tantamount to admitting the truth.



This sad state of affairs is also affecting hundreds of pakistani families since the Pakistan Govt.is officially refusing to accept the bodies of its slain soldiers.

Can there be a greater dishonour to the memory of a soldier ?

Re: veeresh

PAF is on BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) over LoC. That means it is flying defensive race track patterns beyond the LoC to avoid accidently ``tripping the wire`` and crossing into Indian side of the LoC. Air operations are tricky in that area, because of the high mountains most of the planes have a minimal turning radius, and by operating close to LoC they might egress over it for a few seconds while undertaking turns.

Since most air ops are undertaken by flying nap of the earth, over the valley floors, to avoid AAA (anti aircraft artillery) situated on the heights above, planes have to contain with the restrictions of limited airspace and given the narrow defiles, the speed of the aicraft at around 350-500 IAS (Indicated Air Speed), a turning radius is nearly five to eight miles and hence, difficult to avoid crossing the LoC.

Contary to what the Pakistanis may claim, I think most of the Indian incursions into Pakistani side of the LoC were accidential and the PAF knows this and hopes that some day the Indians will return the favor too!

Another reason why the PAF planes are operating beyond the LoC and away from the IAF air ops is to avoid being caught in the ``kill box``. The air ops over Kargil is a free fire zone and missiles do not discriminate between PAF and IAF planes! There are tactical reasons why PAF is keeping its distance from the IAF. Besides, with the operational use of P-3Cs of PAF, PAF has ample warnings and time to detect and vector an interdiction of IAF ingressions from a safe distance and it does need to go ``eyeball to eyeball`` with the Indians. Also, by being away from the LoC, PAF is causing the IAF an element of uncertainity as to when they might have get ``jumped`` by PAF BARCAP!

As to Pakistan`s mumitions, Pakistan has enough war stocks for 50 days of sustained combat operations against the Indians. The critical element in this is not the war stocks, but the international reaction to a conventional war and how it will impact Pakostan`s overall financial situation.

``In 1971, India enjoyed overwhelming military superiority over Pakistan......people have come to take this superiority as a law of nature, rather than as simply the balance of military advantage at a specific point in time``

Well said!

OK. Let them have Kashmir. I am all for it. What has Kashmir done for me lately?

ap

In reply to Rohan Oberoi :

First, as far as the Pakistani English newspapers on-line are concerned -- Dawn, Nation, Jang, Frontier-Post -- it is very difficult to discern a desire for peace with India from the letters to the editor, the opinion pieces and the editorials.

The occasional Urdu pieces that are translated and published in forums like India Abroad are even more belligerent.

Second, dealing with the matter of Indian perceptions, rightly or wrongly, India has felt betrayed by the UN and so disregards it. The issue that India brought before the UN in 1948 was that of an invasion of Kashmir by Pakistan. Instead of a clear statement on that issue, the matter took different twists and turns. What India was hoping for then was exactly what has happened in this round -- the G-8 and China have placed the responsibility for creating the current hostilities squarely on Pakistan. So, in the future India may be more open to mediation -- but the Indian public will be in no mood to yield anything.

Finally, while Sartaj Aziz may be right in that the Pakistani people will not accept a dialogue in which there is no progress on Kashmir, the point is that before the Lahore bus trip there was no dialog worth the name. By precipating military action so close to the bus trip, the length of dialog with no progress on Kashmir cannot be more than two-three months it seems. Under such circumstances, no progress is possible.

The potential peacemakers must also answer the question as to why India would want to make peace with a country that is in the state Pakistan is.

For example, as far as I know, Pakistan is one of only two countries that recognizes the Taliban, and is probably the prime supporter. There can not be peace between an aspiring secular democratic state and the Taliban, and by extension, with Pakistan.

-arun gupta

re: UR

errr....even the ``fighters`` in Kargil today disregard those issues. Your stand is typically DUAL in nature as described by the article by Fauziya Khan. You argue self-determination and human rights, but dish out and support Islamic fundamentalism and holy war against the kafir.

Do you honestly believe that Islamic mercenaries (lashkar-e-tayyiba fame) are fighting for the liberation of Kashmiri people ? (on the Indian side first ??????)
Do you honestly believe that the Pakistan army is fighting to liberate the Kashmiri people ? If that were the case, they could start by `liberating` POK, or maybe even stop non-Kashmiri migration to POK ?
And if you do so believe that `the Kashmir issue` will be decided by Kashmiris then why do you support this war (and therefore this motley crew of Islamic crazed fighters and Pakistan) ?

The only `civil` way for Kashmiris to get their `due` is to form an autonomous govt. that negotiates with the Central govts (on both the Kafir and Muslim side) on more and more autonomy. ie politically. Maybe you ought to find out about the autonomy the J&K govt has achieved over the past 53 years no thanks to the so called `Mujahideen`.
Just as most Muslim countries around the world are tussling between the Islamic fundamentalists and the seculars, have you ever wondered that even Kashmiris may not see rabid fundamentalists as their `liberators`. THeir view on them being part of the Indian Union has nothing to do with it. THe only victims are Kashmiris (kafir and Muslim) and the Indian army.

In terms of referendums, I would only support a division on the basis of religion if that were to be held everywhere in India. Not once am I saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India. But I do see the Islamic separatism as a threat to secularism. We dont want more 1947`s. Our parents had no clue what was going on in 1947 and were removed from their ancestral homeland by some decision taken by a few who thought division on the basis of religion was necessary, although India should remain multi-religious and secular ???? We want this narrow minded nonsense to STOP.
Kashmir has already seen the division on the basis of religion. HIndus and other kafirs have all been driven out, not by the average Kashmiri believing in Kashmiriyat, but by the Islamic terrorists. (In 1991 alone 300,000). Frankly, it is time the seculars in India woke upto the politics of the Islamic separatist. We dont want to be fighting Islamic mercenaries for the rest of our lives, now, do we ?

Your facts about human rights organizations in Kashmir are false. For some time in the 80s there were no human rights orgs allowed. Now it is a different story. You ought to read what some of them say.

UR:

Does tolerance require us to tolerate the intolerant? That is the fundamental question. The will of the Kashmiri valley people is anti-India because they have been exposed to the two-nation theory, a singularly nasty and quixotic piece of ideology. Your argument is that this will should be given free expression and if it leads to secession so be it. I happen to believe that certain ideologies such as slavery should be resisted militarily. Clearly there is a big jump from slavery peddlers to mujaheedeens. However, people who claim to be carrying out the will of God through arms should be resisted. These jihadis and there ideology are people who should be resisted. We have seen two very bloody secessionist movements (Pakistan at a cost of a million people and Bangladesh at a cost of millions as well). Self-determination as a positive projection of ones identity as opposed to a rejection of another larger identity is a subtlety that is missed in our part of the world.

Fine political principles are often missed in the roughness and bluntness of South Asian politics. That is why Jinnah for all his fastidious in creating a secular state for Muslims eventually was the handmaiden for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a virtually minority-free state. That is because most of his followers missed his subtle points. I can virtually guarantee you Kashmir will end up the same way. Some may argue in favor of a secular independent Kashmir - I am almost certain the rank and file of Kashmiris will view it as Muslims disassociating from Hindus and soon these subtleties will be lost. That is why we are fighting in Kashmir. This may not be a fight between India and Pakistan, or Hinduism and Islam but it is a fight between Islamic identity and secular identity. You say there is a secessionist movement - let it run its course. We say - WHY is there a secessionist movement. Lets address that and change the course of the secessionist movement. Regards.

All the arguments seem to disregard two issues:

1. Kashmir is still considered disputed territory, according to the UN. The fact that India or Pakistan occupies it, does not make it undisputed. None of the agreements Simla, Lahore etc. declared Kashmir to be undisputed territory.

2. The future of Kashmir must be decided by the Kashmiris, not by Pakistanis or Indians. Regardless of what kind of logic Indian supporters present, and how much they try to blame Pakistan for the Kahsmir problem, they still cannot answer one simple question, i.e. if Kashmir is an integral part of India, and most of the Kashmiris (apart from the freedom fighters) want to side with India, then why is India so reluctant to hold a vote there?

The independence of Kashmir will not be decided by India or Pakistan, or any of the other countries of the world. It will be decided by the people of Kashmir. People that want independence have to fight and sacrifice for it, themselves. That is what the Pakistanis had to do to get Pakistan, and that is what the Indians had to do to get India. Just like the British had to be forced out, similarly the Kashmiris will have to force out the Indians.

The international governments have turned a blind eye to the fact that India has not allowed human rights organizations to enter Kashmir. USA and other countries do not want to, ``rock the boat`` with India. They are very hypocritical when it comes to human rights. What the Kashmiris need to do is bring their struggles into the homes on the common man in these countries through the various news sources like CNN, BBC etc. That is when the general population of the world will get up and notice, and force their governments to denounce Indian actions.

Armies cannot go on commiting human rights violations forever. They are not trained to kill civilians. Eventually something has to give. If the Kashmiris can continue with their struggle, then that is what is going to happen with the Indian army in Kashmir.

This should not be looked at as a battle between Pakistan and India; nor is it a battle between Islam and Hinduism. This is a battle between the oppressed (Kashmiris) versus the oppressors (India). Whether India and Pakistan like or dislike each other is immaterial, because it is the innocent Kashmiris that are being victimized.

To quote a famous Kashmiri, from 1947:

``We have decided that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the Kashmiri people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot, back out of it. We are prepared, when peace and law and order have been established, to have a referendum held under the auspices of the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept the verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.``

Jawahar Lal Nehru (Oct 1947, All India Radio)

It is time that India held up its side of the bargain.

Rohan:

Overall, I liked your piece. I agree with you that a lot of Indians just tune out what Pakistan is saying and also make a lot of stupid arguments for India`s claim on Kashmir.

Here are my reasons why India should not agree to Kashmir`s secession:

1. India has not changed Kashmir`s demographics - for 50 years India had the opportunity but not the will to do this. This is probably the best testimonial to the fact that, absent a separatist ideology, Kashmir could have a secular autonomous framework.

2.Kashmiris desired Urdu as their language - they have it.

3. The adminstrative framework has not desired to project Hinduism. Tibetan Buddhists are even more different from majority North Indian Hindus as Kashmiri Muslims are from the Hindus but there is no secessionist movement in Ladakh. The Ladakhi Buddhist feel no threat from ``Hindu`` India. The only reason why there is a secessionist movement in Kashmir is because of the Nazi two-nation theory that exists in Pakistan has infected the people of Kashmir. We are not fighting for Akhand Bharat, we are fighting for a principle. The principle is multi-religious multi-ethnic multi-lingual states can work. In different ways, other Muslim countries are fighting the same battle - specifically Egypt, Turkey & Algeria against their own fundamentalists.

4. Finally, there are plenty of Hindu fundamentalists as well. A secession of Kashmir will unleash the barbarism latent in these fundamentalists against India`s Muslim minority. This is a risk not worth taking. One day when we get to Quebec-Canada type of civility or Czech-Slovak type of civility we can try this good fences make good neighbours approach. India is more like the Balkans in handling secession. The creation of Pakistan has institutionalized the fissures in our society. To recognize a Kashmir-India fissure is not to automatically assume that the right answer is secession.

The core issue remains the two-nation theory, not Kashmir. We must kill the appeal of that theory. In our rejection of the two nation theory, we initially went to the other extreme - everybody is the same - clearly a lie. Now, we will arrive at a more honest equilibrium - there are differences in views among a lot of Hindus and a lot of Muslims. Not all these differences translate into a different country.

Mihir:

You apparently missed my discussion of the terms of the Shimla Agreement:



Article 4(ii) declares that ``neither side shall seek to alter [the Line of Control] unilaterally``

and that ``both sides undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force``, while Article 1(ii) states that ``neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation`` and that ``both shall prevent ... any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations``.



Even if you reject the argument that the Siachen action of 1983-1984 sought to extend the Line of Control, thereby seeking to alter it, there is no argument that the action was a ``unilateral alteration of the situation`` by the Indian Government in violation of Article 1(ii), as well as an act clearly detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

So yes, the Siachen operation did violate the Shimla Agreement (and please understand that this is independent of whether or not it violated/altered the Line of Control).

re: Rohan Oberoi

I still miss your point.

Let me try and re-phrase my view.
In your article you state:
``Given the clarity and persistence with which Pakistanis have repeated their country`s simple one-point position (ONE Peace with India and TWO Kashmir stands in the way that peace), and given the broad spectrum of Pakistani opinion that supports this position, this level of confusion in India is astounding.``

Maybe you should explain how the Kargil attack reflects this SIMPLE ONE POINT POSITION. Or more importantly HOW is it a MEANS to that GOAL ? What does it possibly achieve ? Not sure how much you have been reading up on this whole Kargil saga, but you could read about it from ALL sides (every newspaper on the internet) and conclude. If you could explain that, I am sure there would be no more confusion or `lack of imagination` (????I think we are using too much imagination and hence giving the masterminds of this conflict too much credit, hence the confusion????)

And its not just about the Army in Pakistan. Since every power centre has given different statements at different times regarding the Kargil issue it is not clear to anyone about what exactly is going on or what was supposed to happen.

I wonder how many people like you believe that Afghani and other foreign Mujahideen (from Pakistan govts official statement regarding their having NO CONTROL over these holy warriors and hence NO PULLOUT) are fighting for the rights of Kashmiri people. THE ONLY CIVILIAN CASUALITIES OF THIS WAR ARE KASHMIRIS !!!!!!! Start by analysing the `fighters` ( both sides) , who they are, what do they represent, and what are their projected goals.

You really should explain some of this before drawing the kind of high handed conclusions you draw in your article.

.....meanwhile on the Kargil issue.....
Even Pakistani newspapers are asking the same questions with same level of `confusion`. With the recent DEAL between Nawaz and Clinton in which they supposedly agreed to a pullout of troops from Indian side of the LoC, people in Pakistan rightfully want to know what did they gain and what did they lose ? Afterall, what was the point ?

Among many flaws: the occupation of Siachen was not a violation of the line of control as the LoC was not drawn as far as the glacier either in 1949 or in 1971-72 . So that invalidates your point. Pakistan has undoubtedly violated the Simla Agreement now.

A great analysis, would have been fairly accurate if the role of religion could be wished away. A country dominated by a backward looking interpretation of the religion, where the public policy is guided by the dictates of religion, a constitutional amendment to declare sharia the supreme law has been passed by the elected representatives, one has to discount ant analysis which ignores the political and foreign policy implications of islam.

It simply cannot be coincidence that the muslim dominated regions, the latest is kosovo, where the muslims cannot live in peace with neighbours of another religious belief.

I was struck by the parallels between kosovo and pakistan, now that the muslims are cleaning out the serbs, a pakistan is created there, while in the rest of yugoslavia, muslims will continue to stay as in india. May be a reading of Koran on how the kafirs should be treated could have added a touch of realism to the analysis.

Any analysis of indo-pak relations with out listening to the promptings of islam is a verbiage, after all pakistan is an ISLAMIC country, a secular analysis has not much relevance.

Re: Faraz Reply #: 16

``Whether you like it or not, there is genuine intrinsic unrest in Kashmir..``

Nobody is questioning that. The issue is WHO is responsible for it. Who created it and who is sustaining it.

``I doubt you would be willing to give the pakistani military credit for necessitating 2/3 million troops remaining in Kashmir around the year.``

You do have a point there. After all nearly 100,000 pakistani soldiers preferred to raise their hands rather than fight to the death in Bangladesh (incidentally, this was the largest number of POWS in one operation ever in history). But let me answer your question. Maybe these Indian troops are there to prevent `Operation Gibraltar`. Oops, I made a mistake. That was in 1965, when pakistan launched a kargil-like operation - pakistani regulars in civvies infiltrating into kashmir by the battalion. However the local kashmiris refused to oblige them (note this please), and the pakistanis were thrown out by the Indian Army. Ah ! Now I remember, the troops are there to counter `Operation Topaz` - launched by Zia-ul- Haq in the late eighties. A proxy-war with India,taking advantage of the long porous border to push in trained mercenaries (kashmiri, afghan,arab, sudanese...anybody) at regular intervals to cause havoc in kashmir. The operation is just big enough to totally disrupt normal life in kashmir - but not big enough to cause a war to be declared. For your information nearly 3000 such merceneries are lined up near the border every year for infiltration as the snows are melting. It has been a grand success. If you are truly ignorant of these facts, I don`t blame you. After all even your PM does`nt seem to know what the army is up to.

``It does discourage me from thinking about a viable peace if Indians still cannot accept that FACT.``

Most Indians are least bothered about the FACT of pakistan. Most Indians are very much bothered by another FACT - pakistan has slowly become a breeding ground for narco-terrorism whose dollar power is being used by its army to create trouble for India.

``Everyday I read in Indian papers of several militants killed, yet the number remaining seems to stay constant at 700; this despite assurances from the Indian military that they have stopped new infiltrations.Where are these replacement militants coming from.``

How would you estimate the enemy strength in such a situation ? Obviously it is just an approximation. So many in this bunker and so many in that. Peaks are being cleared one by one. No new peaks have been infiltrated. Where are these replacement militants coming from - hmm, lets see, it can`t be from India, so I guess its from pakistan.

Its interesting that you peruse Indian papers - don`t you believe Brigadier Qureshi ?!!!

``The ball is clearly in India`s court ...``

Yes it is. But it came from Pakistan`s court. And most Indians hope India will go for a smash.

Anil:

I think you are giving the Islamic ``fundamentalists`` in Pakistan too much importance. They have always had a certain nuisance value, and are very vocal, but the common man has never voted for them. Look at the Pakistani parliment, and you will notice there are only a couple of members who represent religious parties of any kind. Compare this to India, where the party in power is a Hindu fundamentalist religious party.

Kashmir to Pakistani common person is not a religious battle to bring a piece of land under Pakistani Muslim rule. If that were the case, Pakistan would also attempt to bring the other Muslim dominated parts of India under Pakistani rule. This would be immoral and against Islam as far as I am concerned.

Kashmir is a struggle of oppressed people against an oppressor. That is why the Kashmiris have been fighting for ten years, against a giant Indian army. That is also why India does not allow human rights organizations, like Amnesty International into Kashmir. What is there to hide? And most of all that is why India does not hold a vote in Kashmir, letting the people decide their own future.

Obviously, India is afraid if the Kashmiris are allowed to vote, they will definitely want independence, or side with Pakistan. This could turn into a domino effect for India. Currently there are other minor independence movements, i.e. Sikhs etc. going on in India.

When freedom movements get this far along, they usually succeed. That is why despite all the efforts of the Indian soldiers in Kashmir, the Kashmiris keep getting stronger and stronger.

Eventually the Indians will remove the fighters from Kargil and the other hills. 600 fighters have held of the whole Indian army and air force for this long. Obviously they cannot do it forever. But things like this will keep occuring. Afghanistan, and Viet Nam are examples that show how the big military powers have been unable to conquer a civilian population.

Pakistan should not turn this into a war between India and Pakistan. Nor should Paksitan try to get any political advantages out of this. Pakistan should just ask India to allow human rights groups into Kashmir, and a vote by the Kashmiris for their independence.

This is what will eventually solve this problem. Otherwise, India has a long drawn out bleeding wound on its hands.

A very well thought through article. However, I must say that a lot of the responses have only confirmed your initial statement

Re: anaryan

``India has correctly identified the problem. It is not Kashmir, it is Pakistan``

Whether you like it or not, there is genuine intrinsic unrest in Kashmir. I doubt you would be willing to give the Pakistani military credit for necessitating 2/3 million troops remaining in Kashmir around the year. I can tell you that if that is the average Indian`s point of view; that Kashmir is just incidental and it is the Pakistani mindset that is the problem, this problem will not be resolved. As far as the Pakistan identity is concerned, rest assured there is one. It does discourage me from thinking about a viable peace if Indians still cannot accept that FACT.

Re: Rana

Pakistanis tend to be just as cynical and given to conspiracy theories as anyone else, but most people in Pakistan (even diehard anti-Nawaz types) are not putting much stock in there being a power struggle; or Sharif being duped by the military.

Re: the actual state of affairs in Kargil

Judging from reports in western, Indian and Pakistani media it is clear that:

1. India is having a much tougher time than they originally thought they would. Everyday I read in Indian papers of several militants killed, yet the number remaining seems to stay constant at 700; this despite assurances from the Indian military that they have stopped new infiltrations. Where are these replacement militants coming from.

2. The ball is clearly in India`s court; if they cross the line (and it is a line people not a border) than there will be war. Otherwise not. lets hope for the latter.

Faraz

Rohan:

You gave an excellent bean-counters account, with a nominal strategic value. I contrast your article to an earlier one written in Chowk by FerozK, which showed strategic vision, that would require bold initiatives to implement.

Allow me explain the difference this way, if one side can obliterate the other and proclaim ``no-prisoners hold`` complete victory in Kashmir then it makes eminent sense to consider points made in the article. Otherwise, these facts are only good for applogists and romantics game of jeopardy, because this case would not close and LOOSING side would unleash such a blood bath that would put partition to shame.

The strategic thinkers in New Delhi, Islamabad, London and Washington now realize this oddity as truth. When a war cannot be conclusive, then talking (sooner or later) is the only way out.

Currently Pakistan obviously has an upper-hand, therefore wants talks to start sooner, while India for obvious reasons wants talks to be later.

Kargil would be partially resolved for now (because no solution would guarantee that new Kargil would not happen again). And this partial resolution would be accomplished through talks, to allow both sides to claim victory. That has been the history of all conflict resolutions between India and Pakistan, and current endgame would be no different. India-Pakistan independence was a partial resolution (please do not blame the British, we accepted it too). The 1948, 1965 and 1971 wars were all partial resolutions. I guess, we south asians like partial resolutions over no resolution.

Also, like Ghouri and Gaznavi, the Islamic fundamenatlist intruder (= freedom fighters) are driven by a zeal to bring their religious justice to Kashmir. They would therefore show up more than seventeen times now at India`s door. According to their logic, they have nothing to loose but everything to gain. Historically, India has provided a good testing ground for their ideology, they are not relentessly hunted in India, like in the U.S., Israel; they have significant expansion (conquests and conversions -- voluntary or involuntary)in India. Hence India a has been a very good return on their investment. It is my opinion that the fact times have changed, does not matter to them, because they, like other religious fundamentalists, live in the past religious glory.

I also do not subscribe to the notion that India and Pakistan would live happily ever after, once Kashmir problem is resolved. The fundamentalism of all shades (Hindu / Muslim) can never be simultaneously satisfied, therefore problems will perpetuate. Kashmir is a just manifestation of more deep rooted conflicts in South Asian societies. These conflicts are in the eyes of different beholders, who are unable to see the common good, and have been only seeing uncommon for several hundred years.

Gandhi and Jinnah of previous generation saw common good, but had uncommon solutions. Unfortunately, in our generation who now own the power, has failed to produce leaders who can see common good.

When you look at the map of South Asia, you find that Punjabi Muslims (72 Million) form the single largest cohesive group, right from Iran border to the gates of Red Fort. In modern times of borderless societies, this group could do wonders in this part of the world. Unfortunately, this group has chosen to drown itself into hatreds of opposing thoughts on the frigid heights of Kashmiri mountains, rather than lead this part to its historical glory. Pakistan`s cricket team and hockey team (two peacetime ventures of this group that I am familiar with)provide a sneak preview of what world-class prodcuts can be produced there.

India must develop an effective long term strategy to deal with this situation at its door. A sustainable $100-million a year, annual surgical military operation strategy on the lines of Israel`s South of Lebanon could certainly be one. However, this strategy could lead to a closer alliance between Islamic fundamentalist, drug traders and Pakistan army, which could be more harmful to India and Indian economy, simply because India is not 3-million strong country with the U.S. sugar daddy, but it is a billion poor and well on its way in the region to build a strong market economy.

Alternate strategy would, therefore, be to jump start what Vajpayee and Sharif had started through Lahore Declaration. To jump start Pakistan must immediately withdraw intruders and India must immediately initiate the jump start of Delhi-Lahore Bus, with an even bolder initiative.

In Delhi-Lahore-Kargil trajectory (as someone called it), Indian strategists should not loose the sight of an interesting development while Vajpayee was in Lahore. Sharif, a Mulsim League Prime Minister was able to control Islamic fundamentalist much easily in the civilian set up on the Streets of Lahore. While he may have little control (without Pakistan army) on them on frigid heights of Kargil mountains. India certainly does not want Pakistan`s civilian authority to loose control. Therefore, it is in India`s interest to let a democratic Pakistan control its fundamentalists. India has enough problem of its own problems.

India may need not to invest $100-million per year in an annual surgical operation. It may now have no choice but to spend certain amount to strengthen its defenses. This money would be well spent in Jammu & Kashmir to create prosperous market economy, and to economically integrate it with the rest of India.

Indian strategist can take a consolation that Pakistan`s investment in Nuclear program to use it as a threat to gain an upper hand in Kashmir has failed. The speed with which the U.S. sent a General to Islamabad; forceful and decisive intervention by NATO in Kosovo; and quick response of international community to Kargil crisis are strong indicators of a new world order. Therefore, Indians would be right, and may rethink about Pakistan-Kashmir-Nuclear dimension, and re-calculate how it can get maximum peace dividend, bring collective leadership to whole of South Asia. India may not get a permanent security council seat on its own, but South Asia can certainly get one permanent seat in the security council.

Above all India should not confuse a victory in Kargil with a victory in maintaining a status-quo in Kashmir.

Re: Ras Siddiqui #: 7

`` But allow me the benefit of doubt ...to view this work with a suspicious eye.``

I`ll second that.

Rohan,

``Our government was told clearly that hostility between India and Pakistan could not end without some concessions on Kashmir.``

Exactly what ``concessions`` are we talking about here:

(1) Plebiscite ? - after 10 years of actively supporting cross-border terrorism. After having driven out hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri hindus ? After having massacred tens of thousands of moderate muslims ?

(2) Obtaining Kashmir on a platter ? - Let us not insult our intelligence here.

(3) Withdraw from siachen ? - No ground for this since this is literally no-mans-land. In 1984, both sides began a race to occupy this ummarked but militarily useful high ground - the Indians won. Pakistan has had an eye on this for long - as seen by the repeated attempts to dislodge the Indians and occupy it themselves.

I don`t understand at all the author`s meaning of ``concessions``.

``We want good relations with India, but only after the Kashmir problem is solved. Once this is done, we can live like good neighbours,`` said one Lahori, a taxi-driver``

India has correctly identified the problem. It is not Kashmir, it is Pakistan. The ``land of the pure`` was, at its inception, a predominantly feudal system. It is now the land of unmitigated corruption, feudalism and economic chaos. In addition, there is another problem. Pakistanis have always had an identity crisis. What are they ? What are their roots ? Names like Rathod,Rana, Malik, Naik, Chauhan, Bajwa, etc. point to hindu ancestry. They have nothing to call their own - culture, language,religion, history. They cannot even claim to be representative of all Indian muslims since there are more muslims in India now than the whole of pakistan. All this has produced an unrelenting hatred - the ``India-centric`` attitude, that never fails to amaze Indians. Look at the daily news in the pakistani media for example. Small accidents,problems, deaths in remote corners of India are reported (not without a modicum of glee). If the kashmir problem were to be solved, another will take its place - the human mind is adept at creating illusions. India has correctly identified the problem. It is not Kashmir, it is Pakistan.

``While the infiltrators kill Indian attackers ``like dogs`` from the Kargil heights...``



These `dogs of war` have captured the strategic Tiger Hills according to the latest news. The kargil war has brought out the unmatched bravery and daring of the Indian soldier. To capture the heights, rapelling up inch by inch, with little to no cover, against a bunkered enemy. No napalm,asphixation bombs or poison gas was used (one can imagine what the US would have done in such a situation). The pakistan army meanwhile has earned some credentials: Fighting in civvies,Torturing captured Indian soldiers (gouging out eyes and chopping off the genitals)and running away when the Indian soldiers get too close.

A thorough and rational analysis, which reasonable people from both sides can agree with. Question is, are progressive views executable as policy? Maybe when both economies are humming along and there is more to life than bashing the enemy on the battle field or cricket field. But, right now with hawkish, weak governments on both sides, realpolitik is political suicide.

Where can I read more of Jayaprakash Narayan?

Random

UR:

In answer to your questions, Indians generally oppose a

referendum in Kashmir because

a) They have been persuaded that it is part of the sacred

motherland and not even the question of it seceding can be

raised;

b) Most know that Kashmiris would not vote to stay Indian;

c) They are afraid that other states would similarly secede in a

``domino`` effect (this is much like the thoroughly false

``domino theory`` that many US scholars used in Vietnam).

Except in regard to the north-east (which has many similar

grievances to Kashmir) this domino theory has no basis in

fact, but it is no less powerful a factor in people`s thinking

for that.

As to the exclusion of human rights organisations from the

Valley, that is not really something that most Indians would (I

believe) support, but it is the natural reaction of any South

Asian bureaucratic organisation like the Indian government to

dissenting or potentially dissenting opinions.

Veeresh and ZZ:

I can understand your angry reactions, but certainly not approve

of them. Patriotism means trying to achieve the best for your

country. It certainly does *not * mean blindly supporting it in a

disastrous, expensive and futile policy.

You probably have a (justifiably) bad opinion of the Pakistani

``establishment``. The point that gets lost in international

disputes like this is that our ``establishment`` is not much

better, and is equally capable of acting through greed,

hypocrisy, corruption and arrogance.

If you don`t blindly support our Government`s policies when the

question is Bofors, or Uttarakhand, or the 1984 riots, or the

fodder scam or any other scam -- then how come you blindly

support our Government`s policies in Kashmir?

Do you imagine that the same people who have been acting

stupidly, arrogantly, corruptly, and (most importantly) contrary

to the nation`s best interests when it comes to domestic affairs

have not been making the same mistakes when it comes to relations

with Pakistan or policy in Kashmir?

So, try not to react so vehemently; cool off, think about how the

situation can be made better rather than worse.

One more piece of advice: read up on how the Kashmir problem

became such a headache. I recommend Tavleen Singh`s 1995 book,

``Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors``, published by Penguin India Pvt

Ltd. She is a prominent journalist who has written for (among

other papers) the Telegraph and the TOI, and has reported

extensively from Kashmir.

Rana Ransher:

I understand your concerns about the Army being independent from

Pakistani public opinion. However (and I invite Pakistanis or

others who know more about this to correct me if necessary) Nawaz

Sharif is perfectly capable of overruling the Army *if he has

public opinion behind him *.

In this case, the Army may well have started the operation, but

Pakistani public opinion supports it. Nawaz Sharif`s

consolidation of power has been unscrupulous and often

repressive, but it has left Pakistan with a somewhat stronger (if

somewhat less democratic) popular government.

I have been arguing this case for a while. I had an earlier

article on Chowk which you may have seen:

``http://chowk.com/CivicCenter//roberoi_feb2299.html``

Many analysts predicted that the bus was

not going anywhere, but since Vajpayee himself says he was

surprised at the Delhi-Lahore-Kargil trajectory of affairs, I do

think these are important points which are totally missing from

the debate at home.

Responses to UR’s questions:-

Q1) What do Indians think about allowing a vote by the Kashmiris to decide the future of Kashmir? This seems like the civilized thing to do. I think most Pakstanis would agree, would most Indians agree?

Ans: By all means, as soon as complete Kashmir is permitted, including what is now with Pakistan. But how do you define “Kashmiri”? And if it were the civilised thing to do, then wouldn’t, say, Long Island be entitled to vote itself to freedom? Or maybe Murree? Kasmiris are voting within India for the past 52 years, which is more than what they have been permitted to do within Pakistan. Also give my parents and grandparents the right to vote the Hindu and Sikh parts of Jhung back to freedom, while you are at it, why only Kashmir? So there is no point saying Pakistanis would agree when Pakistanis have been doing just the opposite all these years! You are welcome to keep Seelampur! And so on and so forth . . .

Q2) If India claims Kashmir to be its integral part, why is hesitant to allow a vote by the Kashmiris?

Ans: The Kashmiris are and have always voted in India. What they have chosen to do with their vote is their decision, very individual. Remember, just one Kashmiri M.P. brought down the Vajpayee government a few months ago, how much more proof do people want?

Q3) Why does India not allow human rights organizations like Amnesty International to enter Kashmir?

Ans: Of course they are already there, as is the world’s media. Much more than what Azad Kashmir permits. The United Nations Military Observer Group is there. We would probably allow Pakistani human rights organisations and NGOs into Kashmir but your Pakistani Government itself has shut almost all of them down, so what can we do, shall we Indians form some Pakistani human rights organisations for you, free to operate from here?

Please, UR, let us have a reasonable set of questions, not the usual stuff. Nobody is stopping anybody to fly or drive up to Srinagar, Kargil or Leh, from Delhi, by regular civilian flight or bus/car, to take a look. Come to Delhi and I shall personally drive you up to take a look, which will answer your questions better.

Mjaved: Your brave comments on the PAF notwithstanding, fact remains that your ports are bottled up (three ships with munitions for Pakistan have already been quietly brought into the Gulf of Kutch, remember, a large number of merchant ships are owned, controlled and manned by Indians) and constantly under threat (remember Karachi ’71?), while ours are open and cannot be reached by your people. Your Pakistan Air Force does not have the courage to come near the LOC or border because it is at daggers drawn with your own Pakistani Army, and as for F-16s at Skardu, the Yanks have shut off your maintenance tap. So let the matter rest, and let us not talk of military superiority when it is a subject deeper than you think. The Pakistanis have been unable to control their jihadi-Muslim/Taliban element, so now it is left to us Indians to do so, including Muslims from India. Take it as an example of showing brotherhood that we are cleaning up your slightly messy house for you . . .

IF YOU ARE A INDIAN - YOU HAVE MADE THE POINT VERY WELL?

RE: Vereesh



You are mistaken that PAF is miles away and are unwilling to engage. F-16 planes are there on CAP`s all the time. Rest assured, IAF will be engaged, if it tries to cross the border. For now IAF plays cat and mouse(meaning crosses the LOC for a very insignificant time period); PAF does the same sometime. Lately F-16 are stationed in Skardu for obvious reasons.

javed

Rohan, I agree with just about everything except
the title ``India`s Failure of Imagination``.
Indians that I have come across are extremely imaginative and talented people. About the problem
of Kashmir, they have written some of the best articles possible, some that would make the best writers of fiction in the West blush (with envy?).
Anyway great job here. It appears that
this writing makes too much sense to be popular.
But allow me the benefit of doubt on this one occasion to view this work with a suspicious eye.
These days Pakistanis in general have their guard
up. I will apologize later.

Ras

re: roberoi

Your facts leading upto the situation are all good albeit stale.
However, given the present state of affairs you are neglecting the fact that there has been no clear direction of who, what, when master-minded this war (unofficially or officially). THe WHOLE WORLD (not just India !!) is confused about who is actually in-charge in Pakistan (re: Economist article with the same title).
With regards to the present conflict nobody can explain why this current war will help anything. The power centres in Pakistan making various claims include Lashkar-i-Toiba (read their official statements in any press, this is an anti Shia group and these areas have Shias !), Harkat-ul-flavour-of-the-day (these are the guys who believe infidels must die, doesn`t matter what you and I think or the rest of the world thinks !), International Islamic merceneries, Pakistan Army regulars. It is not clear what invlovement the govt and ISI have. They keep insisting that these are ``Freedom FIghters`` while satellite images of the area in great detail are available to anyone in the world and everybody can see exactly how the ``freedom fighters`` got there and what the Pak army regulars are doing.

Now does this motley crew of warriors represent the average Pakistanis sentiment. Can this possibly solve any problems ? (It can surely cause more and it IS) The Pakistani army has harnessed Islamic fundamentalist passions in floating the Taliban which overan Afghanistan. The same kind of army masterminding is in evidence here. How long is the average Pakistani safe from this ?

Dear Rohan,

(== is what you said==)

==No one in India, it seems, has a clue what people across the border in Pakistan are thinking.==

When you start with a premise like this, which does not respect another view, what do you expect us to have, respect for you?

==Indians variously attribute this Pakistani hostility to the Army and the ISI, to ``hawks`` in the Government, and to the Pakistani people as a whole. They have devoted much debate to trying to figure out whether the Kargil infiltration was planned by Nawaz Sharif, the Army, or some other shadowy figures in the Pakistani establishment.==

Well, when the Pakistani establishment themselves make `secret` flying visits, begging for cessation of hostilities and spelling out pictures of ``jihadi Muslims/Talibans`` over riding the Pak establishment, what does the government do? It does need to find out who the enemy is, no? Or should they just say, `thank you, have some more?`

==One, they would like peace with India. Two, the Kashmir dispute stands in the way of peace.==

So, believe it or not, would the Indians, what is so new about it?

==We want good relations with India, but only after the Kashmir problem is solved. Once this is done, we can live like good neighbours,`` said one Lahori, a taxi-driver, echoing the views of many.==

Just for the records, would you like to tell us which taxi-driver, when? he has a name, a taxi number? Or is this the favourite media ploy, when in doubt, quote the cab-driver. Sheeeesh! And certainly, I can see Amritsar taxi-drivers saying the same thing!!

==A goal doubly flawed==

In this complete section, Mr. Oberoi, you`ve forgotten one thing: does your thesis want Kashmir to be independent or do you want Kashmir to be part of Pakistan?

==For anyone to cross it is not