Open Letter to General Musharraf

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

In responce to all...

Just wanted to say that few people here think that if they are paying taxes which obviously they are not they are doing favour to army.... Just wanted to tell u that many of u won`t have the guts to enroll in the army and lay ur life in the harms way. It was the jawan of this country which on many occasions saved you. When you sleep at night just remember that someone is standing in the cold just for you. You wear his blanket of safety and walk around and than you say it is useless. Well let me tell you friend about Kargil. No post was vacated there, few taken when every one inside was martered but none vacated. Not enough, how about that the dead bodies which came down when biopysied showed grass in the stomach, well ofcourse you paid for the grass in there stomach so why care. If for fifty years the economy of this country was sleeping it was not the responciblity of army. They did their job, all the Jawans and Junior Officers kept the integrity of this country. Yes I agree that it was ill planned or may be not even planned but don`t blame Jawans and Junior Officers who fought there. They also had a family like you do and just because after giving heavy casualties they returned doesn`t we should not respect them. Now you want to blame Generals for this yes I am with you. But first those who died for there country and weren`t given a military burial should be respected. You have no right to humilate them.

This letter is specialy to Mr. Qadeer...

I commend Dr.Faruqui for a very thoughtful letter

to the Genral.The real spoilers are those generals

who grab the powers under pretext of setting the

house in order as they say the previous civilion

government had destroyed nearly every thing and

their continuation was not in the interest of

the country. And they declare that they would not

stay a minute longer once they set the house in

order, and that they would go back to their barracks. But they never set the country right,

and so they never leave, unless forced to.In

every civilian government, the ministries of

Foreign Affairs and Defence are controlled by the

top generals.They dont allow the civilian governments to normalize relations with India, as the army would be cut to the size and this will reduce their traditional importance and that they

will have to work under a civilian goverment, to which they not accostomed to now.

After having said this, I must confess the even

so called elected civilian governments equally proved disastrous. Each government destroyed the

fragile institutions, pludered the wealth and

promoted corruption, and misuse their powers. As

per Nixon`s defination of leader, they were those

who thought what power would do to them, and not

what they will do the power. They were not men of

history. In fact they proved third rated leaders.

What we now need are honest and dedicated leaders

who care more about poor families, rather than their own, who restore and consolidate the institutions and provide basic amenities like job,

health and education to the masses.Difficult task

though considering mutiple problems and meager

resources at hands

Sadhna!

Again you went back on Pakistan bashimg.

You have not given any point on Kashmir.

And your breaking up and skipping parts of my post is priestly. Taking what is in your interest and skipping rest.

Friend!

So why you are so much worried about Pakistan`s support of Kashmir.

If Patel and India are ``Dada`` and hegemonist, it is important to put them in their correct place. Have you heard ``Allah Ganje Ko Nakhun Na De``. ``May God not give nails to Bald``

krashid #116

``Stick to Kashmir issue.``

I was replying to your mention of Hyderabad, Junagadh and Goa and I have been curious to know why Pakistanis think more of those issues than for eg how to fairly resolve armed violence between ethnic groups in Karachi, another legacy of Partition.

``Indian logic is criticized``

Which logic? The existence of the Indian state in its current form inspite of `principled` and delibrately nurtured Pakistani opposition to the concept?

``The only thing which was holding India was democracy and secularism which is fast disappearing. Considering the centrifugal tendencies in India throughout history proclaimed by Indian historians themselves, it is bound to happen. Peoples desire or verdict is never wrong.``

You seem to contradict yourself here. You somehow say both that India is disintegrating and that only economics is holding it together?

Wheres the peoples verdict in Pakistan? Where are the economic reasons? Wheres the principle of equality of all citizens even accepted in principle by the Pakistani polity?

One major justification for a nation to exist is how successfully it meets the different needs of its citizens. Is Pakistan really better off than India in that respect?

Sadhana

krashid#: 116

``Stick to Kashmir issue.``

Yes, Let us stick to the Kashmir issue. Read ``Defence Journal of Pakistan``. April issue gives a complete chronology of Kashmir issue. You will also find an article in an old issue from the first commandant of Pakistan Military Academy.

Also check the dates when various princely states were merged with Pakistan or India.

Attacks started in Kahsmir first. Pakistani army officers, may be against the directive of civilian leaders, lead the attackers. Only after attackers where at the outskirts of Srinagar, raping and looting kashmiris, that Patel dispatched Indian Army. It was at that juncture that Patel decided to act in Hyderabad and Junagadh also. Once Pakistan decided to resolve Kashmir issue by force, how could you expect Patel not to pay you back in same currency.

Check your history once again.

Regards

Re: Shankar # 97

Interesting counter-points! Just a few additional questions, and then I will answer your questions.

Granted Kargil brought about a level of patriotism (you should know by now how I feel about patriotism in general) in India not seen in a generation or more and Kargil, ironically, politically unified India more than ever, because it was due to Kargil that BJP won the election and you folks should thank Pakistan form saving you from all the constant elections and coalition governments, which were dominating the Indian political scene! You mentioned that the masses did not object to the most recent Indian defense hike, and my question is; when were the masses consulted about this? Did your politicians inform them where the money was going and what social programs would be suffering as consequence of this “patriotism”?

Shankar, the masses are never consulted in either India or Pakistan and they are merely told that they would have to suffer a little more in the name of the nation and for the love of the nation, that “p”word again, they should be proud to support the nation in its hour of peril! The word “masses” in India and Pakistan means a faceless, hopeless, deprived anguish of a humanity, whose raison d’vie is in the paraphrased words of Lord Alfred Tennyson and that is not to question why, but to suffer and die and silently lest they offend anyone with their foolish prayers of hope. My friend, the masses in the sub-continent have been brutalized by indifference and have been a victim of official apathy for too long and if given the opportunity, I am sure that their immediate concern would be more akin to a betterment in the eternal grind of their daily miseries than in equipping India and Pakistan with the ability to cremate and bury what ever may be left of their miserable existence in this world.

Getting to the crux of your question, Pakistan would have never have opted for a Geneva style declaration of war, because it would have been aborted under pressure from its international creditors. Even if we had managed to pull the operation off, there is a slim chance that it could have ended up radically altering the reality of LoC or for that matter, deciding the fate of Kashmir. No; we could have not won the war, because Pakistan’s economy would not have been able to withstand the strains of a wartime economy (even for 20 days) and this is especially true when you consider the non-existence amount of foreign exchange Pakistan has and its inability to exist without the financing of foreign loans, as a life supporting mechanism, for continually floating its aid dependent economy.

Shankar, I agree with you on the score that Pakistan is, presently, in a position where, as Clinton rightly told the Pakistanis, it is no longer in a position to influence events outside of a diplomatic venue. War is no longer an option for Pakistan to settle its outstanding questions with India and it hoped that India does not harbor the same illusions as well, because from reading and listening to the Indian leaders, it seems that the A-bomb is another bomb to them, but only a little bit bigger with a bigger bang!!! We know, at least the sane half of us, that we cannot defeat India militarily, but do people on your end of the fence realize that too? Do they also know they cannot defeat Pakistan militarily without irradiating a large part of Mother India?

Next time we will not invite your Prime Minister to Lahore, because we really do not want to hear him recite his “kavitias” anymore; the halwa-puri was for Nawaz Sharif, not for your esteemed leader! J

Yes; you’re correct that there is an impression in Pakistan, which seems to reinforce the perception that Pakistan is “bleeding” India in Kashmir. The problem is, in Pakistani political calculations, that Kashmir is a sacrosanct cause for Pakistan and its dilution will be met with a determined political reaction and no government in Pakistan, civilian or otherwise, can risk, nor it wants to hazard, its political fortunes arguing a justification for amending its position on Kashmir, as the economic realities of Pakistan are increasingly demanding that Pakistani position on Kashmir be reexamined. The perceptional problem, which is lending credence to these Pakistani assumptions, is that Pakistan thinks that it can afford to “bleed” India, but what it does not seem to realize, or in reality is not willing to admit, because of the vocal response it might get from certain quarters, is that Pakistani policy on Kashmir, in an economic sense, has entered a realm of diminishing returns and though we can, at an extremely prohibitive cost, continue with this policy, it will only compound our problems economically in the long term.

Hence, in a strategic sense, if this policy is followed and not amended, there is a possibility that the Pakistani economic situation, internally, will start to undermine Islamabad’s external policies, because the greatest threat to Pakistan’s security (my sarcastic posts to Satish, not withstanding) are from within the myriad contradictions of its own civilian society, which is in a state of institutional disintegration. Basically, you are right though your comments were understated on the dilemma of Pakistan’s Kashmiri policy; though we may be bleeding India, we are ourselves hemorrhaging internally, because of our Kashmiri policy and unless we stop this policy, Pakistan will eventually die from its own massive internal bleeding, which the trauma of Kashmir would have caused on our body politic !

Shankar, the bus diplomacy, I am sorry to inform you, was a waste of breath and when it happened, Bina Shah (I think) posted a wistful article on Chowk on its hope of a new promise and in one of those posts, I had warned the would be revelers of Indo-Pak détenté that they should not hold their breaths on its success. There will be peace between India and Pakistan, but not in our life times, because the Partition generation and the next two generations after it need to die out and peace will only come to the region when partition is a historic memory and not a personal familial experience.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr. said a long time ago in his speech in Washington, D.C.:
“I have seen the Promised Land and though I may not get with you to the Promised Land, I know that we, as a people, shall one day reach the Promised Land”.

Amen!

Ciao!

Sadhna#115

Stick to Kashmir issue.

You are again diverting.

Pakistan, has always accepted the fact of Junagadh and Hyderabad.

It is the Indian logic which is critized.

When it comes to Hyderabad, and Junagadh where Rajah has joined Pakistan, although majority of population was Hindu, it has to join India by force even. There is no other consideration except the will of the people.

When it comes to Kashmir, where majority of population is Muslim and Rajah joined India, it has to remain with India. This time democratic principle is superceded by secular principle.

You probably can now see more clearly.

As far as telling you that throughout history India has been divided into principilaties rather than one sub-continent, it has nothing to be ashamed of or getting irritated. This is the fact.

The only thing which was holding India was democracy and secularism which is fast disappearing. Considering the centrifugal tendencies in India throughout history proclaimed by Indian historians themselves, it is bound to happen.

Peoples desire or verdict is never wrong. It is mainly related to economic interest. In the short term an economic interest is not visible, but in a long term it is. Who would have thought in 1947 that one day Tata (or Berla I forgot) will acquire Tetley tea company from England.

If you have the guts to fight against people`s will do it. But be ready to pay the price.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

krashid #113 #114

Are you asking me to believe you have been ignoring all those detailed posts on Partition history posted by many chowkwallahs? In India we have a saying, `Listen to the whole Ramayana and in the end ask `who`s Sita?`` :-)

Post-Independence history of Jammu and Kashmir:

The more knowledgeable can speak in more detail. And I`m trying to find a rediff.com article which listed a number of books.

Just a general question: Why are Goa and Hyderabad(among others) so strong in the Pakistani imagination? Do Pakistanis have plans for those territories? For eg, right now, how will you resolve the current hot political issue in Goa, i.e.,language, Marathi vs Konkani. Would such a debate be considered anti-national? Would the resident population, mostly Catholic and Hindu, be barred from holding political office due to being nonMuslim? Would it be considered important what they think of blasphemy laws? And those Portugese carnival traditions celebrated with gusto?

And Hyderabad/AP: How about those demands for Rs 2/kg rice, subsidized cooking fuel and subsidized electricity for farmers? Would Naidu keep his CM job, being a nonMuslim? And those Naxalites taking up arms against landowners, what if their movement spread into feudal-dominated areas of Pakistan?

Sadhana

Sadhna#111

Also your assertion that Kashmir solution should not be forced from outside.

According to Harimau in his post militant Kashmir problem basically started in 1989.

Before that there was no foreign intervention to any significant extent.

If India is such as you are trying to tell us then what prevented India for 42 years to find the just solution for Kashmiris.

Sadhna!

Where did I say Pakistan was a single entity.

When dealing with Kashmir. You don,t want to take any argument. Most important what do Kashmiris want. Then other historical, Geographical, religious aspect.

Your argument is Kashmir is part of India. Reasoning changes with time like it is a danger to secularity and now national integeration.

Consider that to your response. Why Pakistanis are so much interested in Kashmir. Why Pakistan does not take care of Jihadis. Why there is India as enemy number one in curriculum and so forth and so forth.

When you are dealing with Kashmir. Bring argument for its favor or against.

Tell me if it is India bashing to say that Kashmiris should get their rights for self determination. If it is so that India has been criminal of South Africa, Vietnam bashimg etc.

If it is wrong to point out the historical, Geographical, Religious background for Indians, then they should first cede back Hyderabad, Junagadh and Goa.

Harimau #110

The point was two nation theory (or for that matter more than two nation theory) is still valid as is amply evidenced by Massacre of Sikhs and Kashmiris.

You contended that since a Sikh General was leading against Sikhs and Golden temple etc (implying that it was a fight between Sikhs and Sikhs). No it was fight of Sikhs against Indian Union.

I think that is enough.

krashid #109

``I did not get your point. The reason is you are forcing your argument not by logic but by Pakistan bashing. India was never a single political entity.``

``If you don`t believe wait``

``We are talking about desire of Kashmiri people.``

Lets talk of India and Indians and leave Kashmir aside totally for a minute.

If you are so logical, why force your argument by bashing India? Why tell an Indian that India is/was less of a political entity than your own country? What about the desire of the Indian people about India? If your `national ideology` is your holy cow, why deny others their own holy cows?

Thats what I meant by equality.

What Kashmiris need is the most just and sustainable solution for them, the closest possible version of their own holy cow, not some half-baked fundamentalist mishmash cooked up by someone else and forced on them by lawless radicals` guns.

Sadhana

Ref krashid #: 109

``Harimau! In response to your response that a sikh general was leading the massacre in Khalistan. I don`t know how dumb or intelligent you are?

If a Bengali was fighting with Pakistan forces in Bangladesh does it negate the Bengali claim.

Or a Muslim might be fighting alongwith Indian forces in Kashmir. Does it negate their movement. Or vietnamese were fighting alongwith Americans. Does it negate their claim.

That is enough for you.``

No, that is NOT enough for me. Tell me exactly what is the status of the demand for Khalistan today? Other then Gurmikh Singh Aulak, the self-styled President of Khalistan who is sitting safely in Washington, DC, is there anyone who cares about Khalistan? There is a difference between Bangladesh and Khalistan.

Even Kashmir was quiet till 1989 and will become quiet again when the Hurriat decides to contest the elections and when they win a substantial number of seats in the J&K legislature. Stop exporting terrorism. Even Bangladesh officially admitted supporting ISI activities in the Northeastern states of India. So stop believing the propaganda that all these people are spontaneously rising up against India.

Harimau! In response to your response that a sikh general was leading the massacre in Khalistan. I don`t know how dumb or intelligent you are?

If a Bengali was fighting with Pakistan forces in Bangladesh does it negate the Bengali claim.

Or a Muslim might be fighting alongwith Indian forces in Kashmir. Does it negate their movement. Or vietnamese were fighting alongwith Americans. Does it negate their claim.

That is enough for you.

Sadhna!

I did not get your point. The reason is you are forcing your argument not by logic but by Pakistan bashing.

India was never a single political entity. Only in English rule it became. Still at that time there were semi autonomous state like Kashmir. So how come it has to go with India.

Politically, geographically, historically, religiously, ethnically it should go with Pakistan at the time of independence (with the instrument of accesion! compare Junagadh, Hyderabad etc)

The people of Kashmir should be a deciding authority regarding their future. But plebiscite will never be held by India to find that out.

So according to one friend it is realpolitik. So if you have not learned from history. Learn it now realpolitik is the people.

If you don`t believe wait.

I can very clearly see your argument.

The main argument is Kashmir should be a part of India whatever Kashmiris desire has nothing to do with it. Now for that argument reasoning has changed with time. Initially it was the Indian secularism which was in danger. Now it is the Indian union which is in danger. You are taliking about annexing Kashmir whatever the people`s desire. We are talking about desire of Kashmiri people. The main argument remains same.

India wants Kashmir to be part of it at any cost. Pakistan wants desire of Kashmiris to be the determining factor.

You are wrong on another account. Foreign aid does not lead to a very strong movement of independence, whether it be Kashmir, Afghanistan, Vietnam or any other country. Take this out of your mind.

FerozK

Re post #103.

I agree with (& applaud) your post, except for the first para.

Your definition of ``walk the walk`` is nothing but pure Pak propaganda. 2 articles on Chowk (by Profs Hoodbhoy & Nayyar) have attested to the fact that Pakistanis have been fed that drivel right from primary school.

If you guys believe that India`s goal is (a)destroy Pakistan--like a scorched earth policy or (b) annex Pakistan, then thats unfortunate. However, it certainly not the agenda of the overwhelming majority of Indians (except for a few ``patriot/idiots``).

Lets look at both those ridiculous scenarios. (thats providing it was realistically possible--which I doubt)

a)Destroying ANY country is morally repugnant. Whether Pakistanis want to accept it or not, we Indians do have a sense of morality.

Even from a pragmatic perspective, it is absolutely foolish. It will come at a wrenching cost of Indian lives (even in the prenuclear days) & bankrupt our economy. Not to mention, we would probably be excommunicated by the rest of the world, especially the Arabs--whose oil we cant live without.

b)Annexing Pakistan!! Are you crazy?! We have enough problems of our own, why would we want yours?! It would be analagous to eating a bad piece of meat & dying of food poisoning. The preindependance generation has either died or going senile. I dont know of any Indian born after partition who wants Pakistan back (even in the unlikely event that Pakistan wanted it).

As far as we are concerned ,Pakistan is here to stay whether we like it or not.

Have we walked the walk?-- sure we have! IMO, winning a war means achieving the final objective. In 65, our objective was to prevent Ayub Kahan`s infiltrators from capturing Kashmir. In 71,it was liberating Bangladesh. From our perspective we achieved those & hence won both wars.

So let me clarify what India`s ``resolve`` means --(in the here & now). The mujahadeen may kill a few jawans & cause trouble. But we will NEVER let them take Kashmir. Kargil`s legacy was to make India (hindus & muslims, etc alike) rally around that resolve.

The mujahadeen prevailed over the Soviet Union in Afganistan because you had ``sugar daddys`` like the US & S Arabia. They could dip into their pockets for unlimited funds & armaments. Besides the common man in the Soviet Union did`nt have his heart in the Afgan war. A fanatical zeal to die in the name of jehad by a bunch of semiliterate mercinaries wont win you an inch of territory. Ask the Palestinians if you dont believe us.

{{India is our enemy and with an enemy you certainly do not fight according the marquis of Queensberry rules! All is fair in love and war.}}

Ha Ha, good one Feroz. I KNOW you are more intelligent than that. You may not fight according to the marquis of Queensberry rules. But surely you would want to fight according to the rules of the Geneva convention --Pakistan is a signatory isnt it? Besides, the Pakistani military is the most honorable & trutworthy institution of your country ,isnt it? Even Gen Mushy didnt dare make that comment--he would have been eaten alive by the world leadership. I guess he chose the lesser of the 2 evils & said that the Pakistani military wasnt involved.

As far as the rest of your post--bravo!!

Peace.