Again, Desperate Times

What History Teaches Us?

I have seen many detailed posts on the issues of Kashmir and Indo-Pak relations. Many contributors have shown remarkable interest in specific details. Although such details are important, an abstracted sense of our historical background is something that we need to focus upon. This is the gist of Marx and Engels`s method of historical materialism.

We need to pay more attention on the lessons that could help us to make a peaceful and prosperous future for our coming generations. If we pay no attention to our future today, we will always be in living in our present that is haunted by our ugly past.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAHMAD # 329

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

I have earlier posted an abbreviated version of my reservations regarding devolution of power. Let me further elaborate my point of view. Instead of focusing on my personal opinion, I will present it to you as a case study of four individuals, a cotton grower from Sind, a wheat grower from Punjab, a tobacco grower from NWFP and an urbanite from Karachi. I hope that you will agree with me that these four individuals represent a broad cross section of Pakistani society at present.

It is a safe bet that foreign policy, defense and currency would be remain centralized, other issues are open ended and should be discussed. In a supposed devolution of power to the districts, it is natural that cotton growing, wheat growing and tobacco growing district would demand better prices of these commodities. If they succeed in achieving this goal, neighboring districts whose economy is not based on these crops would like to generate revenues by imposing duty on transportation through these districts. In the cases of districts of Karachi, they would like greater share of their taxes redistributed to these districts which will not be acceptable to the administration of poor districts. Thus the pricing as well as taxation and its redistribution will remain centralized.

A district’s administration being more liberal or enlightened choose to eliminate death penalty while another district becoming more fundamentalist chooses to amputate hands of the thieves. It will be convenient then to abduct the victim in the later district and murder him in the former. It is just not practical, so a unified and centralized penal code would remain in effect.

A district in Karachi chooses to eliminate Sindhi from its syllabus and also projects Mohamad Bin Qasim as the great hero while a district in the internal Sind chooses to eliminate Urdu from its syllabus and presents Raja Dahir as a great hero. Not practical; the textbooks and syllabus would remain centralized or provincialized. Moreover our educational institutions are already semi-independent, controlled nominally from the top except in the matters of administration and salaries, etc. It is even more true for schools in the rural districts where headmasters or principals of the colleges have free hand in the matters of administrations.

If devolution of power means free hand to the district administrators in the matters of development of infrastructure and law and order. The system already in place; that of deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners, has plenty of free hand in such matters. There is no large scale dissatisfaction from the citizen on the basis of Administrators being representatives of the Provincial Governments. Most of the dissatisfaction has more to do with the corruption of some of these people. There is also the system of District Judges, Tehsildars and Qanungos for legal dispensation. Here again the problem may be of individual’s corruption rather than the Central or the Provincial power per se.

I am not sure what other issues would demand greater attention in the name of devolution. If the main problem is checks and balances then how the same people will dispense an efficient administration in the name of devolution of power? The main problems, to me, are economical than political. Only a prosperous Pakistan could deliver the desires of the masses. To achieve economic well being and prosperity will require industrialization, revenue enhancement, reduction in spending including defense and all of these demand a peaceful environment, i.e., reduced hostilities. So as you can see, in my opinion we are in the quagmire of intricate little and big problems. The so-called devolution of power without economic well being is like buying a valet with no money to put in. This is nothing more than to find a short-cut towards legimization of PM’s illegal actions.

On the issue of Nawaz Sharif’s fate, I am about 55% certain that Pervez Musharaf will exterminate him. I see a convergence of U.S. and PM’s interests taking place here. The policy makers here have concluded that their interests about Osama Bin Laden, Talibans, Narco-trafficking, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Islamic Fundamentalism will be better dealt with PM in the saddle. The PM in return will seek for prolonging of his rule and economic aid through IMF and WB. He sees NS as a threat to his longevity on the throne. I will even go this far to say that U.S. might have given the green light to PM before October 12, 1999 to go ahead with the coup. No point here for me to explain the reasons but you are smarter than me to understand how I came to this conclusion. Anyway in such a scenario the fate of NS is doomed. On the other side I am 45% optimistic about NS life based on his close friendships and connections with Saudis, Qataris and UAE’s ruling families. Moreover unlike Z.A. Bhutto, NS has an extended and large clan and elimination of NS will harden their resolve with NS supporters coalescing around them. Finally the support for NS might come from within the top brass of the armed forces.

Sincerely,

Sameer

Umairr

Here is another aspect of the argument that besides the justness of any solution to the Kashmir issue, its durability is as important an issue: the fact that the Indian government can draw no conclusions on the popularity of any mutual solution with the Pakistani polity and public. Say a wonderful agreement is negotiated based on the sincerity and good intentions of the present ruler, the General. Six months or an year down the road, fed up with economic problems, constraints imposed by `Kemalist` secularism and lip-service to the West on Afghanistan, another coup takes place, engineered by fundamentalist sympathizers. First item on agenda: repudiate the `historic` agreement`, annexe Kashmir with the help of a `local` rebellion on the lines of the glorious past. India, again, caught in the web of deceit practised during Lahore/Kargil etc etc and in a much more vulnerable position, specially as the local population would be getting it good from the invaders and the Indian Army would not be in place. Every Pakistani throws up his hands and makes the same `moral` argument ``Only a just solution would have prevented Kargil/Srinagar``.

Pakistan has, all by itself, limited the choices available to India and Kashmiris by undermining its own credibility even while vigorously asserting its `moral` stand.

Sadhana

Umairr

My question to you is still not answered, namely about the accountability of various radical armed groups operating in the Kashmir/Central Asian region to the Pakistani Army or to any Pakistani committment made on their behalf. Your personal assurances in this matter, donot constitute a convincing answer. I consider the Kashmiri population is also largely helpless at the present time, else, why have so many Kashmiris fallen victims to terrorist attacks? Why would gangs of jihadis from UK, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Sudan who are indoctrinated with need to fight threats from all `kaffirs`(read millat.com for eg) and financed by drug money be more accountable than the army or government of a democratic country which operates in a whole different plane of accountability, which has to worry about its own internal public opinion, its international standing and being held up to its own assertions of democratic standards?

The fact of the matter is that any `vote of self determination` could well be the Kashmiris last vote.

Sadhana

Re: UMAIR’s post # 344

I have come to appreciate UMAIR’s posts. However, for the sake of screening his argument, I will play the role of an ‘Indian strategist/politician’, even though I personally do not subscribe to all the views here. Note: These are not my personal views. They are hypothetical views of an Indian politician:

1) THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO KASHMIR – Not correct. Think Bangladesh. That was a political problem that we resolved military to achieve our political objectives – namely (a) stemming the destabilizing refugee problem into West Bengal, and (b) to finally put to rest ‘the two-nation theory’. What was critical then was the skilful diplomacy of Mrs. Gandhi in world capitals. We dismembered a sovereign state. Who would have thought it possible even in 1968? Political sands shift extremely fast and loose. We can afford to sit this one out. Kashmir, is after all, territory that we have a legal claim (albeit disputed) over. What is to prevent us next time a Kargil occurs from occupying Skardu? World-opinion can be tamed, if the Ministry of External Affairs does its job, and Pakistan continues with its support for the insurgency, or repeats a Kargil. Events like the recent Lashkar conference near Lahore certainly makes our task easier in persuading world opinion. There is also the matter of a Lok Sabha resolution calling for the return of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir territory, that no Indian government can ignore. It also takes precedence in my eyes over any UN resolution. World opinion is not likely to object to Indian control of POK especially if it is seen to be wrested from a failing, fundamentalist state, but it certainly will should a larger war (perhaps even a nuclear one) were to result. That is why war should remain the option of last resort. I think that with a 25% literacy rate, the current trajectory of Pakistan is towards an even more fundamentalist state in the future, regardless of the protestations of its tiny middle class. However, there is a reasonable chance that Pakistan may not survive as a nation state and its internal fissures will cause it to fall apart. I wish it never happens, because it means more problems for us (refugees, etc.), but it is a distinct possibility. If it becomes another Afghanistan or is balkanized due to misgovernance, then a military solution may not only be possible, but may be necessary to establish a ‘buffer zone’ to protect our part of Kashmir. Towards that end, we should not do anything aggressive over Kashmir and unite the various factions in Pakistan, but let the ‘pot boil’ until they push themselves over the abyss. The military coup is a step in the direction of the abyss. When they have taken the final leap and internal dissensions have reached a point of no return, we can intervene. Until that time, it would be folly for us to negotiate with Pakistan, only to (i) see a new Pakistani regime disavow the agreement (ala Lahore Declaration by Gen. Musharraf in spirit), or (ii) see Pakistan to dissolve and an inheritor state emerge that is no longer able to keep its end of the bargain. The Kashmir ‘problem’ exists because of Pakistan – and if Pakistan no longer exists, then all solutions (including military ones) become easier. Pakistan is playing with fire by raising the ante. By making Kashmir its ‘raison daitre’ (or reason for being) it is hollowing itself internally (more on that later). If worst comes to worst, and a full-fledged war were to result, and we were able to successfully thwart international intervention, would we be able to completely destroy the conventional Pakistani armed forces? I think so. The numbers are overwhelmingly in our advantage. What if we blockade Karachi? What if the conflict were to become nuclear? Extremely unlikely, but massive losses on our side, but complete destruction for them. That thought should be enough to restrain them. But who knows? That is why we are developing our second strike capability.

4) ONLY THE KASHMIRIS CAN GIVE A FINAL DECISION ON THE CAUSE OF THE KASHMIR PROBLEM – Not correct. I (Indian strategist, planner, politician) have successfully quelled rebellions in various parts of India that are far more tenuously connected to India (physically, geographically, culturally, religiously) and in each instance (Punjab, North-East states, Sikkim) the final decision was reached politically with the rebels. The final decision was always JOINTLY resolved. For another, important reason, we cannot allow a decision based upon a plebiscite alone. (1) – in the Valley, we would probably lose. Nehru’s promises were a mistake – one amongst many (I might add). (2) No Indian territory joined India by plebiscite – that was never an option under the Independence of India Act, the legal instrument for transfer of power from British rule. (3) it will set a bad precedent for the rest of India, as other states may want to secede. The Constitution of India will have to be amended to do that – not an easy task given the general aversion to the idea. Besides, the Constitution has served us very well – do we want to undermine it? Do we really want 3.5 million Kashmiris to establish a precedent that can have far-reaching, mostly negative consequences for over a billion people? I think not. (4) This whole thing will blow over and be overtaken by events – read below. (5) Why should special consideration be given to Kashmir over any number of other more aggrieved, deprived peoples in India? Should these other groups (Dalits, etc.) who need more, but want less, not be addressed first? Would addressing Kashmiri concerns not be rewarding terrorism and violence?

5) KASHMIRIS WILL CONTINUE THEIR FREEDOM STRUGGLE EVEN IF PAKISTAN STOPS SUPPORTING THEM – Not correct. Refer to (4) above. Pakistan support of the insurgency is coming in the way of a political settlement. We have reached political accords by transferring greater autonomy over local affairs in Assam, Tripura, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab etc. The former rebels/separatists/insurgents are now Chief Ministers. I can’t believe how normal they have become – to the extent of being as corrupt as the rest of Indian politicians! The insurgencies have been relegated into law and order situations, with the former rebels (now ministers) actively tackling them with the machinery of the state. Heck, we have even absorbed Sikkim – a previously independent country, into India. Going even further back, there are no protestations today over Hyderabad, Goa, Diu, Pondicherry, etc – all areas that at one time or the other someone had a claim against. They have been amalgamated into the Union of India, and the issues have been put to rest. Sure, Kashmiris can continue their struggle, but if Pakistan stops supporting them, the insurgency will be immediately ‘de-fanged’, and the armed insurgency will die. We know that. The world knows that. The Kashmiris know that. The Kashmiris (in India, that is) do not want the violent state of affairs to continue – this is consistent with our experience in all formerly insurgent states. The middle class overwhelmingly wants a return to normalcy so that they can send their kids to school, college, etc. The tourist industry wants to begin earning money. And we can promise normalcy that with our Constitution, elections, and rule of law, Human Rights Commission, etc. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference has already asked Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir. That is a hopeful sign which indicates that they may be placated with sufficient regional autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India.

6) THE CURRENT KASHMIR SITUATION IS IS A BIGGER DRAIN ON THE INDIAN ECONOMY THAN THE PAKISTAN ECONOMY – Not correct. As an analogy, I point towards a remark made by K. Subhramanyam (a defense strategist in a New Delhi think-tank, and principal independent investigator of a recently submitted report on security lapses that led to Kargil) on whether India’s new (draft) nuclear doctrine will initiate a weapons race in the sub-continent. His response was “Race? What race? The faster they (Pakistan) run, the further they will fall behind”. That sums up majority opinion in India. Pakistan has a 25% literacy rate, tiny middle class (5% of the population), a shrinking economy, $30 bn external debt, $1.5 bn forex reserves, and with a very limited ability to wage a sustained, modern war. India has a 50% literacy rate, large middle class (20-30% population, i.e. 200-300 million souls), 6-8% economic growth rate and appearing to be sustainable for the next 10 years or so, $70 bn external debt, $32 bn forex reserves (and growing), $50 bn annual software export target in software alone by 2008, and an increasing ability to wage a sustained, long war. The disparity is likely to widen, not narrow. As for the soldiers in Kashmir, they would have to be stationed elsewhere anyway, and are getting first-rate training and being battle hardened in instances like Kargil. Indian muslims could not care less because they see the situation for what it is, and are not likely to be deluded by Pakistan’s overtures, especially after Bangladesh and Kargil. Any support for Kashmiri secession will weaken gains they have made since Independence in being considered ‘loyal’ citizens. Their support, however, should not be taken for granted. There should be absolutely no semblance of any religious discrimination or persecution in Kashmir. The problem should be tackled as a law and order problem.

One of UMAIR’s comments is especially puzzling – “Pakistan`s military size cannot be reduced until a final solution is reached on Kashmir. So Pakistan will not gain anything by stopping the support of the militants.” Is that not a contradiction in terms? If Pakistan decides to stop pressing the issue of Kashmir, can the size of its military not be reduced because of lowered tensions with India? Is that not a gain? UMAIR adds “Pakistan will have to increase troops if it stops supporting militant outfits because it would free up Indian troops in the Valley”. If that were true, then perhaps India has visceral hatred reserved for Pakistan over Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives, etc? Why do these much smaller countries, not feel threatened by India and compelled to sustain the military spending/GDP ratio like Pakistan? Maldives and Sri Lanka, in fact, had at various times sought the help of India to overcome domestic problems. Maldives was a success, Sri Lanka was not. UMAIR completely ignores the fact that if Pakistan stops meddling in Kashmir, overall tensions will be lowered, and enable Pakistan to reduce defense spending. Lowered tensions will also help a political settlement in Kashmir.

Further, UMAIR has ignored the hidden, collateral costs to Pakistan. These are: (a) growing fundamentalism and disenchantment with any regime that cannot attain stated objectives on Kashmir, i.e. ‘liberation’. When every regime will be finally discredited in failing to achieve this objective, the fundamentalists are likely to step in and seize the reigns of power, and lead to a further nose-dive in Pakistan’s polity and economy. More governments (as a percentage) have fallen in Pakistan over disagreements over foreign policy failures, than perhaps in any other country (Ayub Khan, Yahya, Nawaz, etc.) leading to a cycle of ever shriller (holier than thou) rhetoric over Kashmir. Not only has this process harmed the Pakistani Constitution and disrupted the rule of law, it’s long-term effect on the economy is incalculable since it has a detrimental effect on investment, development policy, etc. (b) Pakistan has to maintain current forces, that are far beyond its means without ruining itself economically, by CHOOSING to maintain hostility with India over Kashmir, while India can spend less as a percentage of GDP. To understand this, ask, “Why does Bangladesh not feel compelled to attain the same military spending/GDP ratio as Pakistan and is able to devote more for development spending? They are surrounded by India on three sides and the sea on the fourth. They, too, were part of British undivided India. Recently, when they sought to buy three (3) Mig-29s there was an outcry in their parliament. Would Pakistan not be able to spend less on defense if Kashmir were not an issue?” Not being able to spend more on development is going to undercut Pakistan’s future ability to nurture a world-class military, by reducing the tax base. (c) What if the State Department declares Pakistan to be a terrorist state, and imposes the tougher sanctions that accompany it? The not-so-covert support of groups like Lashkar, etc. does not help in this regard. US Allies will be expected to follow suit (e.g. Japan, UK, France, Germany). This will dry up investment in needed sectors. After all, when Pakistan risked sanctions under the Pressler Act (?) before it was a declared nuclear weapons state, it miscalculated American resolve and as a result lost the advance payment on F-16 deliveries. Pakistan took a calculated risk that the US will not turn its back on an ally, that had a very real associated cost. Nobody in Pakistan believed that George Bush would apply the law – but apply it he did! There might be similar amnesia in Pakistan today. They ignore it at their own peril. These cost needs to be factored in.

8) THE INTERNATIONAL TREND IS TOWARDS NON-VIOLENT SELF-DETERMINATION: True. But, the self-determination drive by Kashmiris stage-managed by Pakistan has been anything but non-violent. I believe that genuine non-violent struggles can be enormously powerful (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, etc.). As long as Lashkar outfits with the support of Pakistan continue to wage Jihad against India, they will continue to harm the interests of those Kashmiris that want a peaceful settlement. As a stark contrast, take the example of Tibet. The Dalai Lama wages a peaceful, non-violent struggle against the Chinese, and enjoys domicile in India. His government-in-exile is located in India, but he is not allowed any rights to pursue his struggle politically in India. There are many Tibetans who are restless, and want the Dalai Lama to renounce non-violence. But doing so, would immediately lead to such a loss of stature of the Tibetan struggle that it would be quickly relegated to the back pages of most newspapers, and hit a Chinese wall of diffidence. In fact, by being different, the Dalai Lama has ensured that no Chinese leader can tour the free world without inviting obligatory protests from demonstrators over Tibet. More importantly, many of these protestors are non-Tibetans! Now, would that not be a change for Kashmir?

PROPOSED SOLUTION – Except for the plebiscite on future status, there is very little in the proposed solutions that Kashmir (the Valley) does not already have under the Indian Constitution. In fact, under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution relating to Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (visit http://www.economictimes.com/guide/p21370.htm for details), the Lok Sabha cannot pass a law that would be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir without the consent of its elected assembly. This is a special status reserved only for Jammu and Kashmir in the Union of India. In effect, this means that New Delhi cannot unilaterally pass laws for Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, Kashmir already enjoys regional autonomy that is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. All that Kashmiris have to figure out now, is how to elect their own assembly that can adequately represent them in this regard. The gun-toting Laskhar outfits’ death threats to candidates and voters alike make this even more improbable. Consider the opposite – can a fair plebiscite ever be held if there are death threats to candidates and voters in local elections? No. Can the Laskhar be believed if they say that they will allow a fair plebiscite? No. Can Pakistan give any assurances that it can rein-in Lashkar? No. I doubt Pakistan will, because if it does, its complicity will be proven. If it can’t then why even bother to have a plebiscite because no one in India will trust fair elections while the Lashkar reigns. International supervision is anathema to India and to Indians because of our long history of foreign occupation and subjugation.

Finally, why even bother with a plebiscite, if those (i.e UMAIR’s) are the only choices available because the most likely outcome (LOC will become an international border, the only difference being Kashmir being independent or being part of India) will only validate the status quo? The risks, even if India wins all the plebiscites in its favor, are high – namely setting a precedent for other states in India to secede via a plebiscite. Why not simply accept the status quo with the accompanying reduced risks, and give a better deal to the Kashmiri under the Indian Constitution? I would any day, accept the latter over the former since it is a no-brainer in terms of risks to the Indian Constitution.

Plebiscite in Jammu and Ladakh is probably not needed because the result is a foregone conclusion. Besides, Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin– a part of Ladakh, in 1962 has complicated matters even more since the UN resolutions over Kashmir were passed. Would the Chinese recognize a plebiscite in Ladakh to include Aksai Chin? I think not. In the highly unlikely event that they do, India will be sure to insist upon their withdrawal from there. Thus, the Chinese are unlikely to support any motion/resolution for a plebiscite.

UMAIR writes, “Also, further restrictions would be placed, to ensure that Kashmir remains economically tied to India, even though it is politically independent.” That again is a contradiction in terms – how can one be politically independent if they are (or are forced to be) economically dependent? Just like occupation is 9/10ths of the law, so is economic dependence. Once you are economically dependent, political dependence follows (as the history of India with the British proved so eloquently), and any votes from then on can be influenced.

Reminder: These are hypothetical ruminations of a top Indian leader/politician/strategist, not my personal beliefs.

Gen. Aqleem Akhtar Rani, SJ, HJ (Bar)

In regard to midnight knocks and other midnight activities we must not forget Gen. A.A.Rani whose contribution to our military history and meritorious service to the nation will never be forgotton. And General Rani sahib was not a sneaky Giap - shooting down Huey helicopters and hitting poor GI`s in the tail - her able advice to Generals Hameed and Yahya in 1971 reminded us of Field Marshal Rommel advising Rundstedt in the West. Her advice to General Tiger Niazi reminded us of FM`s Slim and Manstien.

The only known treatment for demagoguery which dismissed Full General Mutt has engaged in is public ridicule. Demagogues like Joe MaCarthy were ultimately destroyed by public ridicule. And I think Chowk is playing a healthy role.

RE: Gymnosophist et al.

Ah, I see I`ll have my work cut out for me replying to Gymnosophist. OK. Here goes (Amir, you are right. No sense replying but I relish a good argument/fight that

can go on without completely degenerating into name calling).

[If so, why would the question of lapse of paramountcy arise? When these treaties were being drawn up in the 1700s to the 1800s, was

there any thought of the British leaving India?]

Sir Conrad Corfield convinced the Sec. State India of the legality of his views. Hence Mountbatten`s actute dislike of Corfield--by sticking to the letter of the law

and his moral beliefs, Corfield was making Mountbatten`s job of winding up the empire at minimal cost to the UK impossible. The Sec. State India agreed to the

proposal that all the British treaties would lapse the day power was transferred to an ``Indian`` govt (I presume he had conferred with his legal advisors before he

came to this decision). Goodbye paramountcy. The Indian government could presumably have appealed to the House of Lords and would have received a decision

in due course but this would have completely destroyed Mountbatten`s desire to quit India as soon as possible while keeping it (economically) tied fairly closely to

the UK.

On a practical note, independence for most of the states was a ludicrous notion. They would have to choose either India or Pakistan. However, my argument was

not that the states should have been independent but that, legally, Indian assumption of paramountcy was highy questionable.

I refer you to James`s ``Raj.`` Indians of course disregard his work because it states flatly that Mountbatten changed the Radcliffe awards AFTER they had been

finalized. Evidence of this? Preliminary maps had been issued to GHQ India (so it could deploy troops to prevent massacres by both sides) by Radcliffe, on August

10th, that showed Gurdaspur and Ferozepur districts in Pakistan. Also, a 1992 interview with Radcliffe`s (I believe) private secretary confirmed the intense pressure

exerted by Mountbatten on Radcliffe to change the awards and how Radcliffe agreed to do so. In any case, it is a fact that Radcliffe was so disgusted and disturbed

by what was done to his awards, he refused the payment (20,000 pounds, I believe, then a mind boggling sum) offered him for his work.

[As I said before, the treaties were only with the East India Company till 1857. Any statement by the Viceroy that their brother King in

England was going to take care of pesky issues for the native rulers was so much hogwash because Britain was rapidly becoming a

constitutional monarchy. Even Queen Victoria did not rule, she just reigned.]

Yes, true but irrelevant from a legal point of view. The treaty was with the Crown and lapsed when the Crown left India. Practically, perhaps even morally, the

Princes did not have a choice. But legally, the princes had the right to choose independence.

[There were just a couple of meetings between Mountbatten and the maharajahs. The fact that people like the Nawab of Bhopal, the

Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, saw reason and signed the accession papers led smaller states to sign up too. Interestingly, Jinnah

negotiated with Patiala to see if he would accede to Pakistan. So much for a country for Muslims! Man, it was the Oklahoma land rush!]

I thought it was a Rajput state (Udaipur?) not Patiala. The logic there was that Rajputana has had historical links with Sind and it was natural that these states would

continue to do so. For example, Soomros, as Sindhi as any one you are likely to find, are Rajputs who accepted Islam in, I believe, the 17th century. In any case,

this is perfectly in keeping with Mr. Jinnah`s views on the future of Pakistan.

[India merely said that without accession, with the lapse of paramountcy, India had no treaty obligations to do any favors for [Hyderabad].]

Ah, so you agree that paramountcy had lapsed.

[It has been a historical fact that when the colonizers left, the colonial boundaries were accepted by the world. This may be bad but the

alternative is to fragment the world into another 100 countries. Are you arguing for independence for the Shans from Burma? How far do

we go back in history? How about establishing Kanishka’s empire that included Kashgar and Yarkand from Chinese Turkestan? Why are

Tibet and Inner Mongolia, with Mongolian, not Han Chinese, populations part of China? Why is NWFP in Pakistan? Why is not

Baluchistan in Iran?]

Well they do have a part of Baluchistan but that is besides the point. There are probably more Pathans in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, but again irrelevant. The

OAS had as its main plank the inviolability of state borders in Africa. That is clearly no longer official policy now since Ethiopia has broken up. So much for the

worldwide recognition of colonial borders.

Your arguement seems to be that large powerful groups have the right to rule smaller and weaker groups. So why didn`t the British have the right to rule us? In an

earlier post, you argued--from a historical perspective--that Goa was Indian. This conveniently disregarded the past 500 years of Goan history. You cannot now

argue that going back in time is irrelevant. You cannot have it both ways. Choose one or the other. I would suggest giving up Goa (and the rest of Portugese India)

since you gain more that way.

[Why would that be the case? Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP, united Bengal and united Punjab would still have Muslim-led governments

today in a united India as they did in British India. So would Kashmir. Assam would have been swamped by now by Bangladeshis and

would be a Muslim majority province. How could anyone alter the demographics in these provinces? The only thing missing would be 150

ambassadors from Pakistan. Not that India doesn’t send Muslims as ambassadors. And you guys would have had a constitution, the army

would be staying in the barracks, there would have been meaningful land reforms, and there would have been regular elections. You guys

missed out on all these because some Lucknawis wanted Pakistan! You guys all looked at the monolithic Congress and couldn’t see a day

when it would die. But die it did and Jinnah’s condition of a weak center for a United India has actually become a reality in India but not in

Pakistan.]

Actually, I agree completely with you here. I was hasty in my response. I should have said that the UP-dominated Muslim League was afraid of independence. No

arguments from my part here.

[What is it they say about the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Muslims? That the Hindus look at what is coming and plan for it, the Sikhs wake

up and ask what is happening to them, and the Muslims wonder what happened to them. Yeah, about right, I would think.]

Hadn`t heard this before. Good one. Must remember it.

On the ungovernability of India:

[Not really true. Read any history of India by Britishers and they would agree that India was ungovernable after WWII started. That was

because the expectation after WWI was that India would get a measure of self-rule. When that didn’t happen, Gandhi deliberately called

for the Quit India movement in 1942 knowing fully well that, unless forced, the British would never leave India. Why did the British keep

talking to the Indians? What was the point of the Round Table Conferences or the India Act of 1935? The British were still trying to limit

the amount of self-rule they were willing to grant. By 1942, they had practically martial law in India.]

Yes, parts of India were under Martial Law. And, lo and behold, India was calm and peaceful. My point here is that without the catalyst of the nationalist

leadership, the Indian masses were perfectly quiet and willing to obey the Sirkar. You cannot raise an all-volunteer army of 2.5 million men if the masses you are

recruiting from actively hate you and are plotting to do you in. And the Indian Army was almost uniformly loyal. The Indian National Army propaganda to the

contrary, the sepoys were loyal to their salt. Out of approximately 60,000 Indian POWs, only some 20,000 or so ``volunteered`` for the INA. And this was after

months of living in the worst conditions possible and watching their Indian officers and loyal JCOs and NCOs being tortured and executed in front of them. Another

20,000 or so died in the POW camps. Almost all of the INA men went back to the British the first chance they had. There were a few die-hard nationalists but

these were in so small a minority that they were irrelevant. Note that I am referring to the ex-Indian army men in the INA. The INA members recruited from the

local Indian populations were a somewhat different matter.

So why were the British talking to the Indians if they could rule by force majeure? I refer you to Gandhi`s answer to this. He was once asked by a jounalist how

effective his tactics would be against the Germans or the Japanese. He answered that he would be dead by now and his followers as well. But, he went on to say,

the difference between them and the British was that you could shame the British into doing the right thing. I don`t think that you can shame too many Indians or

Pakistanis into doing the right thing.

[Let us not wax eloquent about how great the British Raj was. While they might have been impartial between one native and another, they

were not impartial between the goras and the darkies. Nor did they care about bleeding the country white. The amount of money

repatriated to Britain for the British army in India and for the British administrators ensured there would be no budget surplus in India.

They couldn’t screw India out of the moneys owed for services and material during WWII, otherwise we would have been paupers in

1947.

The British could have introduced political reforms earlier. They didn’t have to fan the flames of separatism by partitioning Bengal in 1905.

They could have opened more schools and colleges even it were only to train clerks for the British empire. They did nothing of that sort.

To expect that they would have spent another 15 years doing all that is baloney. When the British left, the literacy rate in India was 8%. It

is closer to 60% in India and 30% in Pakistan, despite a trebling of population. I know Churchill mentioned 1960 as the possible year of

Indian independence but at some point, sooner or later, we have to run our own countries, and the sooner the better.]

The British were far from perfect but, to compare post-war India and Pakistan is to make an invalid comparison. Are you arguing that British India would not have

benefitted from the post-war global prosperity? That the benefits of trade and economic growth would have passed India by? So what about Hong Kong? Or are

you now going to argue that its size makes it a unique case? Or S. Korea, or Taiwan or Japan? True, if the British in India had pursued Nehru`s Fabian Socialism, it

would still be what it is now but then it wouldn`t be any worse-off.

[Defence of the realm is the excuse. Punjab is quiet now. The trouble in Punjab was economic. With the green revolution and the increased

money it brought, agriculture was rapidly mechanized, throwing a lot of people out of jobs. So there was poverty amidst plenty. Normally,

this would have led to violent revolution or Communism. Sikhs being individualistic, don’t take to Communism very well. The high

unemployment was utilized by politicians to drive wedges among people and this was skillfully used to create a demand for Khalistan.

Pakistan of course gave training and arms to exploit the situation and make India uncomfortable. The army units that suppressed the

Khalistanis were predominantly Sikh. We can do that in India because the indoctrination is Indian first, religion next.]

It was nothing to do with economics. Please look at any economic history of the Indian Punjab. Compared to the rest of India, there was no poverty worth talking

about. Seasonal migrant labour from outside the Punjab came in to help harvest the crops. Punjab was probably the only part of India that had a labour shortage

any time of the year. The key to Khalistan was that the Sikhs felt (rightly) discriminated against. If you look at recruitment patterns in the Indian Army or BSF, you

find 10 (or more) Sikh applicants for every opening and this is at the same time that the Army is bemoaning its inability to recruit ``underrepresented`` castes/groups.

The same holds true in the IAS and other central government institutions. Also, the Sikhs view Punjab as ``theirs`` and greatly resented the splitting off of Haryana and

Himachal Pradesh. This feeling of acute resentment against a UP/Hindu dominated center that dictated to them is what set the stage for the Sikh crisis. And of

course Hindu insistence that Sikhism is just another sect of Hinduism (BTW, is it true that in the Indian constitution Sikhs are officially listed as being a part of the

Hindu whole?). Mrs. Gandhi thought that she could diffuse the Akalis by siphoning off their strength through Bhindranwale. And he of course grew out of control.

However, most Sikhs were (are) still loyal to India. Pakistan did NOT give any material help to the Sikhs worth talking about. We were then (under Zia) far too

afraid of India to do so. I know for a fact that the Sikh Light Infantry recruits who mutineed were promptly interned when they made it across the border to India.

They had believed the Indian propaganda that Pakistan was the main source of the Sikh insurgency. I believe the Pakistanis decided to let them infiltrate back to

India since we didn`t know what to do with them. However, they went back without the money, arms and training they were expecting to receive. Were arms

smuggled into the Punjab from Pakistan. Of course they were. Howerver, that was the normal smuggling that goes on. Pakistan then (the 1980s) was not arming

and training the Sikhs.

This is more than long enough now.

your turn again.

BTW, I`m going to be out of the country for a few days so I`ll be late in responding.

Regards.

In response to AI (Reply #: 333)

Dear AI:

You have made some good observations. However, IMF is perhaps trying to help Pakistan from its own viewpoint. Needless to point out that IMF is a capitalist organization. It is doing what it is supposed to do as a capitalist organization. By the way, the IMF people who suggest various measures for reform are either mostly Pakistanis or those who have good contacts with many Pakistani experts and government functionaries.

The problem, in my view, lies more in our habit of borrowing more than what we were able to pay back, and in our inability to make good use of the money borrowed.

Musharraf`s regime had acted in a rush against the defaulters. Nasim Saigol made lat minute arrangements concering his debt, while some officials were just ready to act against the defaulters perhaps to show their efficiency or to create a mess in the country. Nasim Saigol, I believe, was released soon. The issue of action against the defaulters has one again demonstrated that there are a lot of mindless people in our government. The issue of default is indeed important, but there are many other issues that are equally if not more important.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad



In response to satyavadi (Reply # 343)

Dear satyavadi:

Asia has produced a good number of great personalities during this century. I am glad that Gandhi Ji was chosen as the greatest. This choice, however, does not make many other great personalities like Jinnah and Mao Zedong as less important. I think, people like Abdul Sattar Edhi and Mother Teresa are as great as Gandhi or Jinnah from a different angle. Similarly, in the field of literature Tagore, Iqbal, Faiz, and Prem Chand are some noteworthy personalities. In the field of Music, I consider Lata as the greatest (though I personally love Asha a lot). I can assure you, for some people may singer Jagjit Kaur as the greatest (depending on personal liking and taste). In my view, Lata has done no less service than Gandhi in her own way (yet we may find critics of both). There is no need for you to be over-joyous or for any Pakistani to feel humiliated. We should all be happy for Gandhi`s selection. He, on the whole, was a great man and a good human being.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Satyavadi (Reply #348)

Dear Satavadi:

I believe in the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I personally do not view the majority voting method as very reasonable and effective. The majority voting is good only as a theoretical solution if all other measures have failed. If the issue of plebiscite was so simple, we would have solved the problem long time back. I think, India will never agree on this solution. Your post is an evidence of this claim.

The issue of Jammu and Kashmir is political and it needs only a political solution. I don`t believe that its should be a quick and dirty solution, like the Partition of India in 1947.

In view of the difficulty of this problem we need several players in the political process. These, in my view, should include at least one representative each from India, Pakistan, Hindu Kashmiris, Muslim Kashmiris, Militant Muslim Kashmiri, Buddist Kashmiri, Muslim Kashmiris (Azad Kashmir/POK), China, and the United Nations. The task of this Committee should be to try to find a unanimous solution within a period of 12 months (which would be an almost impossible task). If they reach a unanimous resolution, then that solution should be ratified by the Governments of India, Pakistan, and China (and the United Nations). If they fail, they should be given another six months to try to find the second best solution (all in favor, except one). If they fail again, the Committee should be given another six months to try to find the third best solution (all in favor, except two). The Committee should not be given more than three years to reach a solution. At the end of three years, the Committee should inform the United Nations about the situation for further consideration. During this interim period all effort be made to maintain peace (and status quo) under some high-level international team of observers. A partition of Jammu and Kashmir would become inevitable if even one of the Kashmiri groups casts a no vote for a ``united solution.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

To Pakistani participants in this forum:

Being a newcomer on the Chowk, I have gone through the posts in this board to familiarize myself re. what has gone on before in this board. I have noticed that there seem to be four major and prominant opinions/positions on Kashmir. Both among the Pakistanis and Indians, the sentiment seems to be, primarily, of the two-solution genre.

That is:

1. The problem can be solved if we apply ourselves. If we tax our imaginations. And think in terms of compromises, with the Kashmiris` rights of freedom, security, protection and religious and political identity recognized.

2. The problem is not soluble except only, i.e., exlusively, on Pakistan`s or India`s terms.

I am going to request, and suggest, to my Pakistani compatriots that priority concerns of problems facing Pakistan at this time demand our immediate and exclusive attention to the current internal situation in Pakistan. That problem is being discussed in the Bilal Musharraf board, `He had no Choice`.

Can we postpone the ``BI-NATIONAL`` discussion on Kashmir in this board, and let our Indian brethern of both opinions and positions strugle with this issue, and succeed in coming up with viable solution(s) resulting from their discussions, among themselves, to see which posions are viable and which not, while the Pakistanis attend to the immediate concerns as briefly outlined above. The discussions on Kashmir, between Pakistannis and Indians, can be resuscitated, commenced, again with something to put one`s teeth in.

Right now, then, the Pakistanis could concentrate on discussing the `strategies` to get freedom, democracy, and/or whatever else is needed to stabilize the country both internally as well as internationally, back on the scene in Pakistan.

In the interim, then, our Indian friends and brethern can discuss the Kashmir and, Pakistan-as-a-neighbour issues; without the perceived and putative `interference` of `anger`, `aggrevation`, and `interruption` from the Pakistani discussants and posters, at least.

Pakistanis, it seems, over the last five to six weeks, have arrived at a point where their opinions on that issue seem to have jelled, i.e., on the needs and desires of Pakistan. Strategies need to be discussed. I feel, as some of my friends have also pointed out, that in this board, namely,|He had No Choice!|, we have both his own and his father`s ear.

What I have seen in the posts of this forum is typical of all discussions. The positions tend to get based on what `Jeevay` once said, in the Bilal board, that either the Jain story of the `conception`, by the five blind men , of the `elephant`, &/or that of the `wormy elephant` seem to be characteristic of our discussions so far. I feel everybody would benefit from this brief `separation`.

Regards,

Ravian One

Sadna: Reply 318: You stated, ``I think it is making opportunistic use of their services right now but will be in dire straits to implement ANY committment it makes regarding Kashmir.`` I agree with this. This is why it is very important that any commitment made regarding Kashmir, takes into the account the wishes of the Kashmiris. If the Kashmiris are happy with the commitment, they will not need the support of the infiltrators from Pakistan. And the participation of these infiltrators is Kashmir will die out.

You stated, ``it is self-deception of another kind to dismiss the large share in abuses of those who have shown themselves accountable to no one but themselves and their own defination of rule of God.`` I agree with this as well. However, this applies more so to the Indian army in Kashmir. They have all the power, and have killed far more than the militants have. This is why it is so important that a mutual solution is reached. I am positive, once India agrees to some sort of a solution, which takes into account the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, violence on both sides will stop. However the opposite is not true. If the militants unilaterally stop their violence, that does not mean India will agree to their right of self-determination. This is how all freedom movements works. All the chips to start peace lie in the hands of the Indian government. It is the only source which can initiate it. All the actions of the militants, whether right or wrong, will continue to be reactions to the policy that the Indian govt. adopts. The militants will be more than happy to drop their arms, once India agrees to give them their right of self-determination.

You stated, ``I do not support rights abuses by anyone`` Neither do I. So, I am glad to hear you say this. So far you are one of the only repliers from India, who has stated that. I am hoping others will join you.

re: gymnosophist

I posted a reply to your comment on the `he had no choice` thread. Please do find the time to read it.Thanks.

Happy

To everybody who keeps on suggesting a vote in Kashmir:

The demographic in POK (Azad Kashmir or whateverelseyumacallit) has been altered beyond recognition! There`s Sudanese living there for crying out loud… Sudanese!!

Pretty much every Kashmiri Pandit lock stock & barrel has been unceremoniously `cleansed` to Delhi from the Vale.

And only the ooperwallah knows who`s `occupying` the erstwhile Kashmiri land that is now under Chinese `occupation`!

What the heck is a plebiscite going to achieve now??

Will the `Average Chang` perched in the Chinese bunker in Aksai Chin be voting?

Will the `Average Mbantu` as he mails his monthly stipend of $400 to famblibackinkhartoum be voting?

Will the `Average Kaul` rotting in a refugee camp in Delhi be enfranchising himself via proxy vote?

All hopes of a just & fair plebiscite disappeared a long long time ago…

Forget the vote.

Not gonna happen!

aaker patel : (cont`d) By the way, next time, kindly post the complete UN resolution. Here is the part that describes what India needs to do: The complete text can be found at http://alumni.caltech.edu/