Again, Desperate Times

KASHMIR A META DISCUSSION

Chowk staff doesn’t like naming names, which unfortunately robs a meta discussion of colour and spice. But in any case there are a few good-hearted Pakistanis trying to identify the conditions and the general viability of such conditions for a fair solution to the Kashmir. No more is the talk about some king deciding to join India, no UN resolution crap, at last simla and lahore seem to have sunk in, it is more on the ‘secular human rights’ approach. That is a great change, at least on chowk, considering the position from where these great souls started.

It is not worth talking about the absurd, independence for Kashmir. Another buffer country like Tibet, bordering China. God bless Kashmiris, Delai Lama could not help the Tibetans. I agree there could be serious scheduling problem for the Chinese, should it be before settling Spartly islands with the Philippines, or after administering the second lesson to the Vietnamese or simultaneous with Taiwan. I am sure Chinese will overcome, may be with another indi-chini bhai -bhai.

What is of interest is the human rights plebiscite line, Pakistan ready to accept the out come whatever that might be. Great Kashmiris have opted for Pakistan.

In all these discussions there is talk of nuclear bomb, military and no mention what so ever of the minorities of Kashmir. There is no mention that Pakistan will offer minorities separate electoral list, they won’t take part in local elections, they will have their own minority representative.

There is no mention what so ever that the great human right line should be applicable to the minorities as well. It is assumed in all these discussions that the Pak system can accept Kashmir, international watch is for Indian actions. The great peacemakers don’t want to mention that for the minorities it is a revisit of 1947 is on offer. In the TNT framework minorities are to be ‘dealt with”, human rights is for the muslims of kashmir.

How sad, Kashmir’s are not even offered the famous speech by Jinnah, .. ‘ now you are free’…May be they will play an old record. May be general PM will give a new speech.

Before even talking about a human right based solution to Kashmir, Pakistan has to achieve some benchmarks in the treatment of its citizens. What is depressing is the hypocrisy and the dishonesty with which the discussions are entered into. At least some inquiry into the internal system of Pakistan would have ensured some credibility.

What is the legal status of the hindus in pakistan, what does separate electoral role mean? May be UR having asked about muslims in india can make a beginning with the electoral status of the hindus.

WITCH HUNT / BANKS.

- The international outrage against the regime and its methods is likely to begin. The problem of bank default is between the banks and their clients and is arbiterated by the local legal system. By intervening in this matter, and the dispicable methods being used, the armed forces

have brought disrepute to themselves from a community that supported them for the last half a century.

- The business community has begun to question as to why we need to spend so much on maintaining this bloated army and its fat realtor generals.

- The International Chamber of Commerce has reported disapproved of these methods. Debtor prisons belong to an era long gone.

- If the purpose of this exercise is to tart the banks up for sale to Citibank at 10% price - this

will remain unacceptable and the individuals involved will be punished. They will be hunted down. You engage in uncivilized conduct - You pay a price - sooner or later.

- What you call the IMF programme is a transparent attempt to take over the financial institutions and other assets of the military industrial complex. Any Pakistani who is an accessory to this is fit to be called a Mir Jaffer....

FIDEL

There is not much difference between the Indian and the Pakistan Army. We have the same traditions and an illustrious shared history. Prior to 1947 we have fought together in almost every corner of the world. All the talk of who is better is nothing more than rhetoric. The soldiers on both sides not only understand each other quite well but also respect each other. Whenever we have met its always on an almost equal footing with the only difference being in the numerical superiority of the Indian forces.

Ask the old veterans of `65 and `71 and I am sure some of them will be able to recall Pakistani acts of chivalry also. I know that we do.

Contrary to the belief of some Pakistanis that the reason for maintaining the large size of our Armed forces has something to do with the ego of our General Staff, its actually nothing but simple arithematic. You don`t need a PhD from Stanford to do that. For the most part only the best of the best officers get the command on the batallion, brigade, division and corp level-after that one might speculate given the political scenario in Pakistan. The process of elimination on basis of merit is applied ruthlessly at each rank especially in the fighting arms. The level of the quality has gone slightly down but its a direct result of the expansion in both the armies after 1971-This has occured on both sides of the border.

Personally I don`t see a reason why India should mantain such a huge Armed Force-Can anyone from the other side explain that? And please don`t say China-All of your forces are deployed right here on your wetstern front.

We have seen that 1 Pakistani soldier is not equal to 3 Indian soldiers-And I don`t think that the Indian High Command thinks otherwise.

Re: nashat Reply #: 71

``As far as ``mutilated`` bodies of Indian soldiers being sent back is concerened-you should`nt buy into all that BJP propoganda. Both the Indian and Pakistani Armies consist of professional soldiers with traditions going back to 200-300 years back. Plus what do you think happens when you make a frontal assault uphill, with the enemy sitting in a heavily fortified bunker using high-calibre ammo and in some cases RR and mortars. Very few will reach the top intact, if any. To insinuate that the bodies were mutilated is ridiculous.``

Some clarifications:

1. The Indian Army has no political linkage - unlike the pakistan army. It has its deep pride. There is NO WAY a political party can falsely propagandize the mutiliations and get away with it in this country.

2. Capt. Saurav Kalia and his men were NOT involved in ANY frontal assault. They were part of a preliminary patrol sent to investigate the alleged intrusions into Indian soil.

Actually it is You and some pakistanis who are `insinuating` that the mutiliations never took place. Perhaps you are feeling ashamed inwardly. That is understandable.

I am convinced the mutiliations took place. If you had followed the entire episode (articles in TIME, among other things) you would know that the operation was planned to give the appearance of the handiwork of mujahideen, freelance mercenaries and the like. Pakistani soldiers were asked to proceed in civilian clothes and build bunkers as early as november (read their interviews in TIME). Mutiliating the soldiers would assist in the folowing ways:

1. Lend credence to the idea that these intruders were not professional soldiers.

2. As a psychological terror tactic - that they were fierce and unforgiving.

Also, `professional soldiers` dont fight in civilian clothes.

To be sure the Indian Soldiers paid back the compliment. No prisoners were taken, except the single token one.

I hope you are not so naive as to think that the Indian soldiers captured peak after peak by actually charged uphill with no cover, while the Pak soldiers picked off as many as they could before falling back. This may have been true of the first few assaults. But soon tactics were changed. All assaults were at night, supported by pin-point artillary support. There are reports of soldiers asking for bombardment only a few metres away. I would`nt want to be in the pak soldiers shoes for anything. Imagine their plight. The deafening and continuous bursting of shells all around the bunker and the unseen enemy inexorably crawling closer and closer. And no sleep, no knowing when the final charge would come.

Still it must not have been easy for the indian soldiers. The pak soldiers had night vision equipment, flares etc. I am proud of the Indian Army. They have done what few armed forces in the world can do.

An American General, to save his men`s lives, would have had no hesitation in using chemical weapons first, nerve gases later and finally if all fails - asphixation bombs.

FYI: It has now been established that most of the Indian casualties were due to air-burst shells

fired by the pakistani army in support as the indians crawled upward.

THE GREAT STRATEGIST FROM KARGIL:

Why has he not arrested Ejazul Haq or Akhtar Abdur

Rehman kids ? Their dads made a hell of a lot of money and the sons are known to flaunt their criminal wealth. Locking up the old business elite

is nice but what about these heroes and General`s

sahib`s colleagues with a lot of plots. Well the

only real estate these guys have captured is real estate in our own country. The indians would not

let them have an inch of their territory. And I

do not believe in their lies about winning in `65

either. I think they were thrashed royally....

Fidel

veekaydee #82

very beautifully said.

tariqlodi.

In this discussion I have come acroos the name of gen. Akhter Hussain malik and I also read some article on gen. Iftikhar of Pak army. Can anyone give some information on these two figures in pak army. Some authors seem to think very highly of these two and I would like to know why.

Asfand Siddiqui

Another election will bring the same corrupt people provided the ballot box is rigged again as ever and the power that be do not allow the people to exercise their verdict.

tariqlodi.

nashat, ur:

latest news on the `bjp propaganda` about torture of soldiers

http://www.expressindia.com/news/32320799.htm

Re:Asfand #79

One problem in both India and Pakistan is that the Westminister form of parliamentary democracy is unsuitable in our respective nations. Unlike UK, India and Pakistan have a tremendous diversity of people. It is very hard to create a true parliamentary democracy that is responsive to people`s needs, enables hard decisions and yet allows accountability. India has managed to create a democratic tradition, but it has been very difficult to create a stable working government that can take proper decisions. Pakistan was able to create stable government but it was always facing problems from various sectors like the judiciary, presidency etc.

Perhaps, we should dump the parliamentary form and pick up the US style presidential form of democracy in our respective countries. This would allow charismatic leaders to become presidents. The Congress and Senate arrangement would provide proper representation to the diverse groups of people while providing a check and balance against the president. Perhaps, Musharraf might think along these lines after the military rule is over.

Re: SameerJB #81

You have made a very persuasive case for settling the Kashmir problem, but I do not believe that making the LOC as the border will solve the problem. Pakistanis will never accept that and neither will Kashmiris. Secondly the two nation theory was quite valid at the time of partition. We Indians may not like it but the fact is that hindus and muslims were totally alienated from each other in 1947. Otherwise we would not have had that level of violence. Neither side wanted to live under the rule of the other. If there was a hindu majority area in some part of Pakistan, it would have wanted to separate just as much as Kashmir wants to separate from India. This is a reality that we cannot wish away. It is just the way hindu-muslim relations developed in the subcontinent with each side calling the other malech/kafir etc.

In the past 50 years, India has initiated and developed a deep rooted desire to build a multi-religious nation. Kashmir is important from that context. Similarly from strategic perspectives, Kashmir is very critical for India. However, India has not been able to provide good governance to Kashmir or integrate Kashmiris into the national mainstream. Unlike other provinces, it is not common to see Kashmiri muslims in the public sector, private sectors or educational institutions like IIT. Since Kashmiri pundits and muslims come from the same stock, it is hard to accept that one group is smarter or more hard working than the other. From an economic perspective, Kashmir is a drain on India while Kashmiris themselves have not benefited economically from the money poured in.

The solution lies in a creative compromise. The POK areas should be integrated with Pakistan while Jammu and Ladakh should be integrated with India. The Kashmir Valley should be quasi-independent with defence and foreign affairs controlled by New Delhi. Both Indians and Pakistanis have equal access to the valley for travel and tourism. Special trade and people to people contacts are setup between the valley and the rest of the Islamic world. India provides extensive financial aid to the valley for development. If the arrangement works out for 5-10 years and Indo-Pak relations improve, India can bring in Pakistan to share in the defence and foreign affairs of the valley. That would also require Pakistan to share the financial aid provided to the valley. Such a compromise solution or its variant should be acceptable to all the parties.

Amit: As usual, another very insightful analysis from you. I think you have the Kashmir issue figured out quite well. The solution I was about to present is almost identical to what you have presented.

The only difference is, as follows: The valley of Kashmir would have an independent govt. However, under no circumstances would it be allowed to join Pakistan. Their would be restrictions on the type of trade it could do with Pakistan. Pakistanis would need visas to visit the valley, while Indians would not. Pakistan would have to remove all its forces from its part of Kashmir, while India would have to remove all of its forces from Jammu, Ladakh etc. The valley of Kashmir would not be allowed to have its own armed forces. It would be protected by a UN military. This scenario would continue for a certain amount of time, say ten years.

The valley of Kashmir, although independent, would by default, still be dependent on the Indian tourist for its economic survival. (Ironically, the current economy of Kashmir is being kept afloat by the money spent there by the Indian soldiers.) So Kashmiris would have their independence. India would still have control of Kashmir economically, with little interference from Pakistan. It would not be a, ``defeat`` for India because Pakistan would not get any land, in any circumstances. It would not be a, ``defeat`` for Pakistan, because Kashmir would be independent. Jammu and Ladakh would become a part of India. Pakistan`s part of Kashmir would become a part of Pakistan. After ten years, the Kashmiris would have a pretty good idea whether they can survive on their own or not. They would then be given an opportunity to remain independent, or join back with India.

The solution you have presented is acceptable to me, as well. The reason I think that the valley would need an independent govt. is because I do not think Kashmiris would want any kind of participation from anyone; even if the participation is symbolic. Also, the infiltrators that enter Kashmir from Pakistan`s side, are not completely under the control of the Pak. govt. They belong to non-government groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, etc. Lashkar-e-Tayyaba alone has a membership of hundreds of thousands of volunteer, ``mujahids.`` Their aim in life is to liberate Kashmir, or to die trying. Currently the Pak. govt. supports them. However, I think that if the Pak govt. tried to stop their efforts, they may turn on the Pak govt. Keeping this in mind, I do not think the Pak govt. will go out of its way to stop them, in any scenario. I think these mujahids will stop, only if they know that an independent Kashmir has no influence from India, as indicated by the following, in DAWN:

``HYDERABAD (Pakistan), March 6: Mujahi-deen-i-Lashkar-i-Tayyaba, Markazul Daawa Wal Irshad has made it clear that the people of occupied Jammu and Kashmir and the freedom fighters will not accept any arbitration or any other decision on Kashmir except its complete independence and subsequent affiliation with Pakistan.

This was stated by the leader of the Lashkar and Amir of the Markaz, Professor Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, at a news conference at the local press club on Saturday.``

In either case, your line of thinking, in my opinion is correct. Have you ever had the opportunity to visit Indian Kashmir. I am trying to contact AI to get an opportunity to get involved furthur in their Kashmir operations. So far all the information I have is through the info they have sent to me, as well as through other international journalists you have gone there. I need to make sure my analysis of the situation is accurate, and not off the mark.

I think there a couple of points, people need to understand:

1. I doubt Pakistan will ever get any of the land of the Indian part of Kashmir. So Pakistan should not base its Kashmir policy on trying to get any land.

2. Even if Pakistan accepts LOC=border, the Kashmiri struggle will not stop inside Kashmir. There will still be infiltrators also, due to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba situation I explained above.

3. The Kashmir situation is an huge economic drain on both India and Pakistan (not just Pakistan). Infact it is a much bigger drain on India than it is on Pakistan.

nashat:

i guess the discussion has moved to this thread after all. i would abandon the other one now.

`Ask the old veterans of `65 and `71 and I am sure some of them will be able to recall Pakistani acts of chivalry also. I know that we do`

i personally don`t know any old veterans of `65 and `71 or even of `99. do you? however, since you seem so confident about `pakistani acts of chivalry`, i guess, i will have to take your word for it.

ur:

your case for independence of the valley is based on -

a. valley people do not want any interference from anyone

b. hundreds of thousands of lashkars (and the like) would stop once your scenario is presented to them.

while `a` has some legitimacy for now, there is absolutely no reason to believe `b`. and you have yourself provided the reason for that - the statement from dawn.

lashkars and the like-minded people have to be eliminated from the earth. their aims in life are not confined to kashmir.

Amit Sahib,

Your idea about re-evaluating the form of govt. is excellent. An ideal scenario would be in which the influence/involvement of the feudal lords is also minimized.

Amir

Their is no alternative to democracy, democracy in Pakistan failed because of the intrigues of the military and civil bureaucracy. They will never like the people of Pakistan to be masters of their own destiny. Salvation of Pakistan lies in drastcally reducing defence expenditure, now that we have the nuclear weapons as a detterence we don`t need such a huge Army.