When Pakistan Defeated Herself...

http://www.dailystarnews.com/200104/19/n1041909.htm#BODY1

It is in the back of Pakistani mind that if it can hold on to another decade this desperate group would also be melted in the all absorbing monsoon of Bangladesh. The dilution of the Pakistan Resolution is a thought out plan but the message is not overlooked. According to some diplomats, ``Pakistan prefers a Government in Dhaka that would not take up the irritating point with Islamabad.`` Through re-writing Resolution Islamabad also wish to forestall possibility of Muslim immigration from India. The other fact is that Pakistan feels natural affinity to Kashmiris over her nationals in Bangladesh. Libyan Foreign Minister Omar Mustafa Montassar once asked me, ``Being an ambassador of neighbouring country what do you think about the Kashmiris voting to join Pakistan?`` In my unofficial response I mentioned that in such an eventuality the Kashmiris probably would take the following in to consideration [a] the status of the Muhajirs in Pakistan since 1947, [b] the fate of the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh, [c] the state of power sharing between the heartland and the outlying provinces, [d] Soviet Union was dismembered without war and in the wake thirteen Independent Republics on distinct Nationality and Territorial line came up in the neighborhood of Kashmir. Kashmiris can not be immune to the change of season. Pakistan is well aware of the fact that not all Islamic countries support her position on Kashmir. It is neither a secret to the Indian and the Pakistani leadership that Col.Gaddhafi favours an independent Kashmir. The Libyan leader offered his best services to that end. He has considerable following in the Sub-Saharan Islamic countries.

http://www.newsline.com.pk/html/impressions.html

Indian Spring

MARCH 2001 ISSUE

- By Sairah Irshad Khan

A Muslim Indian explained why. ``Traditionally, the Indian Muslim has displayed a visible arrogance towards the Hindu faith. He has mocked his deities, shunned his beliefs and adopted the high moral ground in relation to the Hindu lifestyle. If this is the Indian Muslim, who has coexisted with the Hindu forever, it is presumed, naturally, that the Muslim from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be far more intolerant. The arrival of seven Pakistanis for the Kumbh and their obvious respect for Hindu customs, has therefore, made for a pleasant surprise. And this really is how we can build bridges, gulf the divide.``

Said an Indian Muslim businessman with a Pakistani wife and a large branch of his family on our side of the border, ``There used to be a time when Pakistanis would visit their relatives in India and speak of the quality of life they enjoyed in Pakistan as first-class citizens. The Indian Muslim would then bemoan his lot, and wonder whether he`d taken the right decision at Partition. But over the years, things changed. Between the Middle East, India`s economic boom, their own initiative, the Muslims have done better. Then along come the `mohajirs` from Pakistan with their tales of oppression and injustice, and suddenly the Indian Muslim thinks, `we`re not so badly off after all.``` He added that Kashmir has created another problem for the Indian Muslim. ``Always hard-pressed to prove his loyalty to his country, every time the Kashmir issue flares up, the loyalties of Muslims in India come under suspicion. Recently, I heard a group of Indian Muslims discussing the situation, and one of them turned around and said the Pakistanis are not interested in Muslims – only Kashmir. If they were, they`d worry about what happens to the huge Muslim community in India every time they instigate trouble in Kashmir.``

Laymen #71

You substantiated your argument by Civil War in America. Although there is no comparision. As civil war was basically fought for human rights and not to deny the basic rights.

But for the sake of argument, suppose south was allowed to seperate, for their rights of self determination to have the slavery system intact. But ultimately it would abolish in very near future.

Basically it was a fight of Northeners, who were Industrial based and so in an advanced stage and Southerners, who were Agriculturist and slave owners, which was a great hindrance in the aspirations of North.

If you compare that to Kashmir, no such analogy exists. In fact with each passing day Kashmir is becoming a liability for India and apart from hegemonist tendencies of India, economics do not justify it.

Your fourth point of giving Karachiites rights of self determination. If Karachiites demand it overwhelmingly, it should be done. But there is no dynamics and no movement for it. In fact dynamics of Karachi is such that, if ever given a self-determination right, they will remain with status quo.

Layman#71

You have based your arguments on few points. Lets take it one by one.

1- Your first point is that Secession of Kashmir is secession from India. On paper it is true. But a brief look at the history of Kashmir will tell you that Accession by India was wrong in the first place. (Even now there is a talk between Vajpayee and Sheikh Abdullah and dabate in Kashmir asembly regarding reinstating the status of Kashmir to the level of befor 1953. What happened in 1953 is a history, when Sheikh Abdullah the Chief Minister and some of the vocal people for self determination were put behind jail and hand picked chief minister and parliament decided to join India. (If you have a little bit sense of politics, it would not be difficult for you to understand the modus operandi). But even befor that in 1948 Muharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession against the wishes of people. And so there was a UN resolution to solve the Kashmir issue by the wishes of the people.

Now even after 1953, when Indian Government took control of Kashmir, still it recognised it as a disputed territory. It is very well exemplified by Simla accord, when Pakistan was in no bargaining position, but still India said that all issues including KASHMIR will be solved bilaterally (rather than according to UN resolution). So it is a myth that Kashmir is part of India and not a disputed territory. History of Kashmir denies it.

To be continued.

RE: LAYMAN Reply# 71

You conveniently forgot about one thing while writing your post. I am refering to the principle on which subcontinent was divided. That principle was Two Nations Theory, which you gladly call TNT. You can not compare Kashmir with recent insurgencies or can not apply your socio-antropological theories here-because-Kashmir is a unique situation. This issue has its roots in the TNT and the history. You can not compare it with recent insurgencies like Khalistan because the later started when Constitution of India has already been in force.

You are 100% right in your theory if you apply to the situations that arised after constitution was passed. For the same reason you can not apply it to the Mohajirs of Karachi or Bangladesh. The scession of Bangladesh was not possible without Indian agression.

RE: LAYMAN Reply# 71

You conveniently forgot about one thing while writing your post. I am refering to the principle on which subcontinent was divided. That principle was Two Nations Theory, which you gladly call TNT. You can not compare Kashmir with recent insurgencies or can not apply your socio-antropological theories here-because-Kashmir is a unique situation. This issue has its roots in the TNT and the history. You can not compare it with recent insurgencies like Khalistan because the later started when Constitution of India has already been in force.

You are 100% right in your theory if you apply to the situations that arised after constitution was passed. For the same reason you can not apply it to the Mohajirs of Karachi or Bangladesh. The scession of Bangladesh was not possible without Indian agression.

RE: LAYMAN Reply#68

I am really skeptical about that ``intruder theory`` of yours. Given the geographic size of the IOK and an army of 500k personnels guarding its territory+border security force+ police + intelligence + paramilitary how is it possible even for a bird to cross the border. Putting the statistics aside-it defies common sense and logic.

Another scenerio could be that Indian Army is selling weapons to indigenous buyers or they are being bribed to get into Kashmir. Or Kshmiris are using home-made weapons-but that is not possible because given the size of intelligence machinery working there it is hard to make even a sling-shot.

May be unarmed Kashmiris are shot when they dare to protest in their frustration?

What does your common sense say?

krashid #70

``Do you still call it democracy and secularism. I cannot call denying the rights of self-determination democracy.``

I would like to know your definition of self-determination. Can one individual secede? Can a group of individuals secede? What is the minimum / optimum size required to qualify for secession? Do they have to be geographically in a contiguous area? as opposed to being dispersed throughout the country (eg blacks in USA).

My thoughts are that given the history of India and the sub-continent as a whole, the idea of nation-state is a modern one and should be given time to take root. Sadly this has been denied in J&K by Pakistan supported activity.

The entire population of Kashmiris doesn`t fit the population of Bombay (18 million)... possibly not even Karachi. Would you allow Karachi the right of self-determination - the mohajirs may have a surprise for you. If you talk about Kashmiris as an ethnic or a regional group and that size should not matter, Kashmir itself has several sub-groupings - Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists... And there are dozens of ethnic groups in India that are as distinct and of similar size as Kashmiris... should everybody secede???

In my opinion, the right to secede should be only for large groups, which are a significant number of the population (at least 25% in general, but say 10% for a country of India`s population)... East Pakistan fit the bill because they were more in number than West Pakistan (over 50%)... would you allow assorted tribes in NWFP to secede given that they are distinct and different???

I see India`s stand on Kashmir not in terms of Kashmiri rights (or wrongs) but in terms of a principle - secularism. It is similar to Lincoln who risked a Civil War for one principle (abolition of slavery), DESPITE the states having the right to secede... No such right exists in the Indian Constitution.

Layman #68

Your arguments were going great,a nationalistic chauvinistic approach until you interrupted it with

Democracy will let people share the pie.

Do you still call it democracy and secularism. I cannot call denying the rights of self-determination democracy.

Or there should be a new term for that.

NATIONALISTIC CHAUVINISTIC DEMOCRATIC SECULARISM.

Creation of Pakistan on the basis of `Two-Nation theory` (TNT) was wrong.

http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/22/top15.htm

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain has said that the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 proves that the Two-Nation Theory of Pakistan`s founders was a ``farce`` and ``it was the biggest fraud played with the Muslims of India.``

``Events after the creation of Pakistan have proved that it was a wrong theory,`` he said, adding that if the theory was correct, he would be convinced only when the government agreed to open borders and allow Indian Muslims to settle in Pakistan and repatriated stranded Pakistanis living in Bangladeshi camps.

Talking to a delegation of intellectuals and professors from the Sub-continent, which visited the MQM International Secretariat, Mr Hussain claimed that history had proved that the Two-Nation Theory was wrong.

No name of the delegation members, or from which city they had come, was mentioned in a press release issued on Wednesday from the MQM International Secretariat.

Saying that there was no future of Pakistan, which was disintegrated in 1971 and whose remaining part is ``on the verge of catastrophe,`` the MQM chief said that East Bengal was the first to support the creation of Pakistan based on the Two-Nation Theory.

But the same part rectified its mistake by separating itself in 1971 thus ``proving that the theory was a farce``.

He said the supporters of the theory were now asking the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh to opt for Bangladeshi citizenship or settle in any Muslim country instead of inviting them back to Pakistan.

``On what ideological basis are you offering such an advice to the stranded Pakistanis? Does this advice relate to the concept of the Two-Nation Theory or does it negate the very concept?,`` he asked.

He said that if we analyse the history of the Pakistan Movement, it emerged that virtually all Muslim majority provinces of the present-day Pakistan had opposed the creation of Pakistan. He said only the Sindh Assembly had supported the creation of Pakistan and that too with a majority of only one vote.

Mr Hussain said that all those who had supported the concept of the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan, including Mr GM Syed, had been labelled as ``traitors`` in Pakistan.

``Mr Fazl-i-Haq, the Lion of Bengal, who had presented the Pakistan Resolution, was labelled as a ``traitor,`` the Sindhis were labelled as ``traitors``, the Balochs were labelled as ``traitors``; and now the Mohajirs have also been labelled as ``traitors,`` he said.

The MQM chief said that the Pakistan army had forced the people of East Pakistan to separate by carrying out their massacre in 1970 and raping their women. Similarly, he said, the army had marched against Balochs and Sindhis and now it had been targeting Mohajirs for last eight years.

``The army operation against Mohajirs, which commenced on June 19, 1992, was also a negation of the Two-Nation Theory,`` he said.

Mr Hussain also said that the formation of a nation on the basis of religion was fundamentally wrong because if the religion was the basis for nationhood then more than 45 independent and sovereign Muslim states would not have been the members of the United Nations as separate and independent states.

He said though it was claimed that Pakistan was being created for 100 million Muslims of India, it became the homeland of Muslims of the Muslim majority provinces only.

``Today, if we compare the population of Muslims living in Pakistan with that of the Muslims living in India then we see that the population of Muslims in India is much more than the total Muslim population of Pakistan.

It means that the Two-Nation Theory has failed to provide protection and security to the majority of Muslims of the Sub-continent because the number of Muslims living in India is greater than the total Muslims of Pakistan,`` he said. ``If the Muslims of India were to remain under the Hindu majority then why were they taught the doctrine of the Pakistan Movement and the Two-Nation Theory,?`` he asked.

Urstruly,

Please refer to my earlier post on the killings in Kashmir - ``Urstruly, the bulk of the 25,000+ deaths come due to the killings by the militants, not India. The victims are Kashmiri citizens, police and security forces. Take a look at any newspaper (including Dawn) on the number of attacks by militants on civilians and you will know.``

I only said that the bulk of the killings are by militants. I would categorise killings by Indian security forces (including army, paramilitary, J&K police, counter-insurgency forces etc) as follows:

- Killing of militants in encounters

- Killing of militants in custody (actually not as much as we think. Dreaded militants were in custody only to be let off after the hijacking).

- Killing of civilians caught in cross-fire (accidental, or as Americans say - collateral damage)

Nowhere do the Indian forces randomly or wilfully kill people, esp civilians. If any force the size of the army in J&K was serious about genocide, the numbers would be in lakhs or millions, by now - similar to Pak genocide in Bangladesh pre-1971.

It is the militants, all of them trained across the border and most of them now `guest` militants (Afghan/Pakistani) that indulge in random acts of violence. Initially it was ethnic, driving out the Pandits, later they turned on Kashmiri muslims, only post Kargil is it more focussed - army, legislators, govt servants etc.

Much has also been written about Kashmiris in J&K wanting to choose the third option / independence. What is the number of Kashmiris? 12 million, of which 4 million are in PoK and 4 million outside the valley. Assuming everyone in the valley wants out of the union, it is still just 4million people. In a country of 1 billion, it works out to 0.4 percent. In a country of this size and diversity in terms of language, religion, ethnicity etc, it is not surprising to find various degrees of feelings of alienation by different sections of people, not just Kashmiris. The solution is not to secede, but to work towards getting more political power.

India is a young nation politically (though it has been a civilisation for over 5000 years), this form of representative govt is new, add to that the historical oppression of the caste system / feudal system etc, the sharing of the pie has not always been equal, causing alienation. But democracy is the BEST way to share the pie equally, to bring everyone into the mainstream. Secession / violence is not the way. The sooner that people realise it, the better it will be for all of us.

When everybody has a stake in the economy and the country`s well-being as a whole, will such issues die away. The sooner this happens, the better.

Re: #63

Only a brilliant Pakistani brain honed on the education given in Pakistan will get the idea that Layman claimed nobody is killed by Indian army. All he was trying to say that `majority` were killed by the terrorists you are so nice to send us. And yes, the sikhs were also killed by the same terrorists, unless they were your brave soldiers on deputation as terrorists.

Layman # 63

I have to admit this.

Your conscience is not only clear but very robust.

What kind of Pakistan do we want?

http://www.paknews.org/cgi-paknews/paknews.cgi?articles=100/June/articles14-6-14&key=pakistan



By Dr Farrukh Saleem

We cannot fight ‘holy wars’ around the world and expect peace within our own boundaries. We must pick one or the other. We cannot think of nuclear mobile launchers and social development both at the same time. We have got to pick one or the other. We could either have a chaotic, isolated, Talibanised Pakistan or an orderly, integrated, progressive nation-state. It all boils down to what kind of Pakistan we really want. To be certain, we cannot embrace competition in the economy and continue to deny pluralism in politics for very long.

Should we sign the CTBT or not? Sign it if we want to be a part of civil society. Should we, or can we, put an end to cross-border terrorism? Again, it is a choice between isolation and integration. If we want to become part of the global village we have no choice but to abide by rules of the ‘new world order’. New configurations, with far reaching consequences, are taking place in the international arena. Iran, Syria and North Korea are now courting the US for better relationship. Iran and India are discovering overlapping interests. In February, Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, during his 13-nation tour, visited India but not Pakistan. In his 40-minute discussion with Vajpayee, Wahid “underscored the importance of abiding relations with friends like India which were particularly relevant in difficult times”. President Wahid went on to identify “India, China and Japan as the three Asian countries with which Indonesia must build up strong strategic and economic relations in its bid to rebuild its battered economy”.

On April 2, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit urged “closer cooperation between India and his country to fight fundamentalism”. Earlier, Ecevit “declined Pakistan’s invitation”. In May, Uzbekistan President, Islam Abduganievich Karimov (Uzbekistan is the most populated Central Asian country), also visited India but not Pakistan. On April 30, The New York Times reported that the “State Department has for the first time identified South Asia as a major hub of international terrorism, accusing Pakistan, a traditional American ally, and especially Afghanistan, of providing safe haven and support to international terrorist groups”.

On May 1, Secretary of State Albright said, “We’re seeing an eastward shift in the terrorism centre of gravity from the Middle East to South Asia, particularly Afghanistan.” On May 2, Representative Gejdenson, the senior-most Democrat on the powerful International Relations Committee, expressed “deep concern over the growing threat of international terrorism emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan”. He further said, “We have seen what militarism and extremist ideologies have wrought in Afghanistan.” Consequently, “I am deeply concerned that Pakistan is headed for a similar fate if democracy is not restored”.

On May 4, the UN Security Council “warned Afghanistan’s Taliban of fresh sanctions”. Earlier sanctions that went into force on 14 November 1999, deny “permission for any aircraft to take off from or land in the [Taliban] territory” in addition to “freez(ing) funds and other financial resources owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban” The Security Council then “urged all States to cooperate.. (Resolution 1267)”. The ground reality is that the Taliban do not require arms and ammunition as the US had left plenty. Recruits—including willing Egyptians, Algerians, Palestinians, and Saudis—are not difficult to find either. Fuel shipments and wheat must, however, pass through Pakistani territory. What if the Security Council imposes renewed sanctions? Would Pakistan comply or become further isolated? On May 27, Britain’s Foreign Office Minister Peter Hain “accused Pakistan of rapidly becoming a threat to world peace”. On May 30, Russia and the US jointly urged Pakistan to t ake “effective measures to break its ties with groups having links with international terrorism...”

On May 30, the Associated Press filed a story from Mirali (Pakistan), 20 miles east of the Afghan border. It reads: “Emboldened by the success of the Taliban religious militia next door in Afghanistan, men espousing the same restrictive brand of Islam have formed their own Taliban movement and started to impose their rules It wants to eradicate music, TV, videos—virtually all forms of light entertainment. It seeks to ban women taking jobs and to limit girls’ schooling to the study of the Quran and only up to age 8. All men are to grow beards and wear turbans.” According to Zar Gul, a Mirali resident and a tribal elder, the “campaign against television and music was just a beginning toward the goal of Islamic laws’ enforcement” adding that “television and music are evil...they should have no place in a Muslim society because they promote obscenity and corruption”.

“Patterns of Global Terrorism 1997” stated, “There continue to be credible reports of official Pakistani support for Kashmiri militant groups that engage in terrorism”, adding that “these individuals, in turn, were involved in fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chechnya, Tajikistan, the Philippines, and parts of the Middle East”. “Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999”, the 107-page report, states, “Pakistan is sending mixed messages on terrorism by harbouring and aiding known terrorists”. On June 4, came another bombshell. US National Commission on Terrorism recommended that Pakistan be designated as a nation “not cooperating fully” against terrorism. Presently, the only country in that category is Afghanistan. Just one notch above are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria; categorised by the State Department as “states that sponsor terrorism”. On June 5, Amnesty International announced that five countries are playing a very “obstructive role” in efforts towards improving the lives of women. These include Pakistan, Algeria, Libya and Iran.

Is the civilised world preparing ground to make another Cuba or Iraq out of us? Warning bells are ringing l

RE: LAYMAN Reply# 63

So basically you are saying that no Kashmiri is being killed by Indian Army. That`s just so perfect-thanks for enlightening us. Could you please also tell us why 500-750K Indian army is miserable at stopping cross border intrusions and ``mutual`` killings of Kashmiris. I would also like to know why Kashmiri go on strikes every other day. Is it to protest killings by intruders/themselves. Please also say ``yes``, that 36 sikhs killed in a Kashmiri village during Clinton visit was a work of Kasmiris or intruders, otherwise I will really be disappointed.

Urstruly Reply #59:

``GOI figure is 25,000 (mixed). A more reasonable approach would have been to average 70k and 25K. But benefit of doubt always goes to the ``accused``. So I took the GOI number that is 25K- even reduced it to half.``

Urstruly - I am not debating the figures - whether it is 25,000 or 70,000 or somewhere in between, I dont know. What I am interested in is who is causing these killings? Is it the armed forces or is it the militants, trained by Pakistan?

``But as long as your conscience is clear (or dead), keep up the good work.``

The same goes for Pakistan. Kill fellow-Muslims in the name of liberating them. No wonder they are falling over themselves to join Pakistan.