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.

Re: URSTRULY Reply # 50

Your math is all wrong. 25000 over 10 years works out to about 6.8 deaths per day. Further, this includes all killed -- terrorists, security forces, civilians (muslim, sikh, hindu etc.). Most of the dead were muslim and died at the hands of terrorists for being alleged `collaborators, informants` etc.

In (46) I argued that it was the belief that Nawaz Sharif had cost Pakistan a military victory that turned Pakistanis completely against him. The logical next thought, which I did not express, was that there is one person in Pakistan who could contradict the idea of a Pakistani military victory, and who would want to do so, and that is Nawaz Sharif.

I privately thought that he would keep silent in order to extract some price for his silence (e.g., commutation of his jail sentence). He has chosen not to, e.g., http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/13/top1.htm

Sharif`s statements there agree with my belief that India was recovering posts, and was successful in using its air force to interdict supplies to Pakistani posts, and in bombing the posts.

As to Sharif`s claims of hundreds of Pakistanis killed, India claims to have recovered 249 bodies.

India estimates overall the Pakistan Army has suffered 725 all ranks killed, which includes 45 officers and 68 SSG Personnel.

Sharif says the Pakistani soldiers killed in Kargil exceeds that in the 1965 war. However, I do not have the 1965 numbers at hand.

Of course, we have to remember that Sharif has good reasons to make the Pakistani army look bad.

But his dash to Washington has the plausible reasons other than cowardice. Suppose, as I believe, that India was taking back the heights and advancing towards the LOC. If Sharif did nothing, what would Pakistan be left with finally ? As it is, we see evidence of back-door American efforts that might be an outcome of the deal Sharif made with Clinton -- other folks have remarked on this forum that ``something is up``.

-arun gupta

Welcome no longer warm in Taleban ``terrorist`` camp



Reuters-Jun 14 2000 4:11AM ET

RISHKOR, Afghanistan, June 14 (Reuters) - A sign at a camp the West alleges was used to train terrorists says ``Welcome`` in Arabic and Urdu. But it appears the Taleban greeting for Islamic warriors is no longer warm -- the camp is almost deserted.

Stung by a fresh Western drive to break the Taleban`s shield around terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden, the Rishkor camp on the outskirts of the capital, Kabul, was vacated about one month ago, according to the Taleban and people from nearby villages. ``Yes, there were Pakistanis and Arabs here a month ago receiving training,`` said Hashmatullah, a youth from the area. ``Now they have gone to the front.``

The ``front`` is the battle line between the Taleban the opposition led by guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Masood, who clings to the 10 percent of Afghanistan outside Taleban control since it swept to power nearly four years ago.

Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taleban`s reclusive leader, denied fresh accusations of giving sanctuary to terrorists when the U.S. State Department said last month that Afghanistan and Pakistan were becoming a new terrorism hub.

But for the Taleban, the line between terrorism and Jihad, or Holy War, is blurred, and does not explain Western intelligence estimates that up to 1,500 foreign militants including Arabs, Chechens and Uzbeks, are in Afghanistan.

The men who trained in Rishkor have melted away into a country which has been at war with the occupying Soviet Union or itself for most of the last two decades.

SHIFTED CAMP

Witnesses said they have merely shifted camp and gone to the Mohammad Agha district of Logar province to the south of Rishkor, where bin Laden has occasionally been sighted.

Or they might have gone to conduct Jihad in Indian Kashmir.

``The Jihad for Kashmir is the starting point of India`s liberation,`` read one slogan written in Urdu on a wall. Another says: ``We are merely fighting for Allah.``

Several hundred diehard Islamic fighters were seen daily training on the now abandoned obstacle courses, firing ranges and ancient artillery pieces that still litter the Rishkor camp.

Not so says Amri Mohammad, the Taleban head of what remains of Rishkor. By his account the camp was used only by Taleban fighters in their war against Masood -- a war the West says is backed by militants from religious schools in Pakistan.

``We didn`t have any foreigners in the past and we don`t have them now. Everyone here is an Afghan saving his own country.``

``We collect our people here before the fighting. If 2,000 men come, 1,000 stay behind and 1,000 go to the frontline. There are 300 fighters here at present, others have gone home, but the time for fighting is come and we`re recalling our men,`` he said.

But the Taleban`s annual summer offensive against Masood appears to be delayed or stalled and diplomats believe the threat of fresh new sanctions being canvassed by the United States and Russia to get bin Laden extradited may be the reason.

Diplomats said U.N. Security Council members were considering fresh Taleban-specific sanctions to augment a November 1999 trade and flight ban aimed at forcing out the man accused of masterminding the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, which killed more than 200.

The multilingual evidence and accounts of local people suggest that the camp was used by foreigners to wage Holy War either in Afghanistan, or in Indian Kashmir or elsewhere.

One sign says Harkatul Jihad Islami, a breakaway faction of Harkatul Mujahideen, a Kashmiri militant group accused of carrying out the year-end hijacking of an Indian airliner to the Taleban`s spiritual capital of Kandahar.

DUSTY VALLEY

The camp, a former military base, is tucked away behind farming land in a dusty valley a half hour`s drive from Kabul.

It was set up weeks after the United States fired cruise missiles against suspected bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan in retaliation for the 1998 bombings in Africa.

Villagers, and even some Taleban fighters, said the camp was closed almost one month ago under pressure from Pakistan, the Taleban`s closest neighbour, ally and supporter.

Pakistan, itself under intense pressure from the West to contain the terrorism virus, wanted it shut to stamp out sectarian violence in Pakistan itself, diplomats said.

RE: Layman Reply# 58

Non- GOI sources are putting the numbers in the range of 70,000 Kashmiri only.

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.

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

Dear Crypto:

A sensible analysis on the Kashmir issue in a while from the Pakistani point of view. I believe this is the first time, a Pakistani (or even Indian) analyst has made the following observation:

``This option would have proved even more difficult than the first option, especially in the absence of any large scale inflow of refugees into Pakistan from i-Kashmir. (This is true even now).``

In 1947, five million Hindus and Sikhs were driven out of W. Pakistan in less than six months.

East Pakistan saw out-flow of ten million refugees, mostly Hindus, in less than a year. Bosnia saw close to a million Muslim refugees within couple of months. Afterwards no more than two thousand bodies were found by Nato forces.

How come the seven hundred thousand Neo-nazi rapist Indian forces( A lean mean killing machine according to some rhyming Pakistani) have not been able to drive three million Muslims out of the Kashmir valley into Azad Kashmir after ten years? Are they pelting the terrorists with marigold flowers or using bad jokes to make them die laughing? Or could it be, on just an outside chance, that GOI has given them express orders to avoid targetting the civilians?

Something is definitely amiss in all the Pakistani slogans on Chowk.

Urstruly #50

``A little arithmatic tells us that Indians are killing atleast 210 Kashmiris a month (based on GOI figures). Let us suppose that half of them are Pakistani intruders, even then a murder of 100 people per month smells like genocide to me.

Are Indian people so shameless to ask their government why it is killing so many people everyday for the past ten years. How do they face themselves in the mirror everyday.

The self proclaimed mother of democarcy is a lean mean killing machine.``

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.

Dear Crypto:

A sensible analysis on the Kashmir issue in a while from the Pakistani point of view. I believe this is the first time, a Pakistani (or even Indian) analyst has made the following observation:

``This option would have proved even more difficult than the first option, especially in the absence of any large scale inflow of refugees into Pakistan from i-Kashmir. (This is true even now).``

In 1947, five million Hindus and Sikhs were driven out of W. Pakistan in less than six months.

East Pakistan saw out-flow of ten million refugees, mostly Hindus, in less than a year. Bosnia saw close to a million Muslim refugees within couple of months. Afterwards no more than two thousand bodies were found by Nato forces.

How come the seven hundred thousand Neo-nazi rapist Indian forces( A lean mean killing machine according to some rhyming Pakistani) have not been able to drive three million Muslims out of the Kashmir valley into Azad Kashmir after ten years? Are they pelting the terrorists with marigold flowers or using bad jokes to make them die laughing? Or could it be, on just an outside chance, that GOI has given them express orders to avoid targetting the civilians?

Something is definitely amiss in all the Pakistani slogans on Chowk.

Ref Mohajir # 54:

Thanks for the links.

`` They see only what they want to see``.

Ref Mohajir # 54:

Thanks for the links.

`` They see only what they want to see``.

Ref: AI #51

``Our (Pakistani) position that the real estate has been grabbed by the predatory neighbour is better known.``

Look at the facts: surely Pakistan was the predator who first tried to gobble up all of Kashmir by sending its ``tribals`` across. If in its haste for the first bite, Kashmir dropped out of its mouth and into India`s laps, how do we become the ``predatory neighbour``?

True the killings in Kashmir are shameful and an abhorrence to all right minded Indians. But in India`s opinion the results of giving in might be equally if not more destructive. And it is not sure that the problems cannot be resolved amicably between the Kashmiris and the government. That is how we Indians justify it to ourselves.

And come to think of it, Pakistan is not completely innocent itself. Justify your actions however you want to, but the fact remains that by some very effective ``moral support``, you started a vicious cycle of violence, and to that extent are also to blame for the sad state that the Kashmiris currently find themselves in.

Unfortunately there are no innocents and no heros in this tragedy.

-narain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_787000/787795.stm

India does not believe the military regime because of Kargil fiasco , when even the Prime Minister was not consulted.

BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_787000/787795.stm

Even though Pakistan says it only provides moral support for the Kashmir cause, the international community knows that all the training and weapons are provided by Pakistan.

Sunday Times http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/10/timfgnasi02001.html

RE: AI Reply # 51 & 52

No offence taken. I also agree with you 100% on all your accounts. Before I go further let me be clear on my post# 45. That particular post was an attempt to explore why Nawaz chose to go ahead with the Kargil plan besides his participation in Lahore declaration and other gestures of goodwill towards India.

I agree that defense budget is costing us an arm and a leg and it must be cut down no matter what. It is easier said than done if you are caught in a vicious circle. Any solution to Kashmir problem that does not include the will of Kashmiris is like putting everything in a pressure cooker and closing all the vents.

Suppose a miracle happens and somehow the three parties reach a mutually agreed solution. Will it solve our problems? Pakistan may be able to cut down its budget by half. The money saved will be diverted to paying debts and ultimately starts going into healthcare, education and building of infrastructure. Given the size of Pakistan as compared to India the economic growth will accelerate at faster pace than India. The people in India will question their politicians about delivering the same pace of growth. India with its plans of being ``chacha Khamkhoa`` of the region, and also due to some other obvious reasons, cannot deliver the same rate of growth. So it is in best interest of Indian politicians to keep the status quo as it is.

India also plays a key role in ethnic and religious violence in Pakistan. It provides training and helps warring factions monetarily- the situation in Kashmir keeps this pressure off of Pakistan to some extent.

Both countries are two of the biggest buyers of weapons from West. The arms and ammunition is the richest business in the world. Corporations and countries have vested interests in this business. Any solution to Kashmir will be like signing the death warrant of their defense industry- meaning joblessness and slower pace of growth. In order to keep this situation as it is they influence heavily on our Politicians and generals (both sides).

Politicians and generals on either side will never try to find a solution to this problem. Only common people on both sides can decide and change their fate. Since India is a democracy people in India can influence their politicians better than Pakistanis?

To yours truly:

My appologies in advance for me for being offensive. I have an interest in the security and happiness of Pakistan as much as you. The need for financial discipline in our defense apparatus is obvious. In this respect Gen Karamat`s prediction that the armed forces will be viewed be the part of the problem in case of a takeover is in fact coming true.

#: 45

Urstruly

RE: AI Reply # 42

- There is no denial that the Kargil issue brought the Kashmir before the world. Our position that the real estate has been grabbed by the predatory neighbour is better known. but bear in mind it endangered the lives of 150 million people. The run of events brought the destruction of the rickety democracy - a method of government that the people of Pakistan were beginning to get used to.

- To ascribe the defeat in the entire Kargil episode to commodity scams involving indian and pakistani politicians is unreasonable. The total earnings to all concerned probably do not add up to one years pensions for the good men sent to their deaths. The possibility of elements in both the armies cooperating to keep the spending going is more likely than a seasonal commodity scam. Gen Musharraf has not provided us with an accurate transcript of his conversations in Sri Lanka with the Indian deputy chief of staff either.

-I am not denying that scams and mafias severely impact public policy. For years people have speculated that the continuation of the liquor ban in Pakistan is no longer a political exigency. A liquor mafia operates in the country and involves the local distilleries, the distilleries in east punjab and the shaheen C130 squadrons that fly in the black label cases.

- Regarding the defence budget any discussion is annoying. Draculas do not like to discuss crosses and crucifixes. Rather in this case discussing the defence budget is like showing a motorised plastic object to a priest. He will also shirk at it.

- Yourstruly must appreciate that we cannot sustain this expense. By trying to maintain parity we will collapse like the soviet union. However no Pakistani will like to risk the dismantling of partition. We have to find a way out. The armed forces may be asked to put their own house in order in terms of providing the same level of security in less amount of money. This is technical exercise. I refuse to buy the argument that ``my father in law Lt Gen so and so was given 70 plots for the defence of the country``. Yahni ke if this guy had not been given 70 plots the country would have been gone. Yar hum itney chutiay to nahee`n hien.

RE: Shammi Reply#48

You said ``Official GOI figures are 25000``. That is the number of Kashmiris killed with in past 10 years.

A little arithmatic tells us that Indians are killing atleast 210 Kashmiris a month (based on GOI figures). Let us suppose that half of them are Pakistani intruders, even then a murder of 100 people per month smells like genocide to me.

Are Indian people so shameless to ask their government why it is killing so many people everyday for the past ten years. How do they face themselves in the mirror everyday.

The self proclaimed mother of democarcy is a lean mean killing machine.

macgupta #46

You can say any possibility regarding ouster of NS.

But he was already very unpopular.

What would you say of atomic bomb blast by Pakistan under the leadership of NS.

The same thing gave boost to BJP.

The real reason is betrayal to people.

He amended constitution to concentrate power in his own hand.

He stormed the supreme court.

He tried to crush the press.

He tried to forcibly suppress all opposition.

Economy was in shambles (that is a very potent reason) for which people were blaming the corrupt rule.

And it was not the last nail but he is blamed for retreat in Kargil.

With all these legacy in your hand how can you expect people not to welcome the ouster.

Re: Umairr # 10

Umairr, you raised essentially similar issues in another article - Game Theory and Pakistan.

I had responded with my post #49 (even though I had been warned that you won`t respond, lob another `grenade` and move on). For the record, I am reproducing my post #49 for everyone`s convenience.

BTW - Pakistan`s claim of dropping all territorial claims on Kashmir is hogwash -- it it was not Pakistan would have no trouble accepting India`s control over Siachen -- an unihabited area where the issues cannot be clouded by `human rights violations`. Here is my earlier response:

I will take on the MINOR points made by Umairr first:

`` Pakistan has openly stated that it has no territorial ambitions over Kashmir.``

-- Then explain Pakistan`s disgust with the Indian occupation of Siachen. Siachen is part of Kashmir. The Pakistani reaction cannot be explained on the basis of technicalities of the definition of the LoC (as defined in the 1972 Simla Agreement) alone. Is it a territorial dispute or is it not? India certainly feels that it is. That is why both sides have soldiers in Siachen enforcing (or trying to atleast) their will on each other.

`` It (Kashmir) also has, on the average, the most yearly killings of civilians in the world.``

-- Wrong. Even if you accept the AHPC numbre (70,000 civilian and security forces dead over 10 years, ie. 7000/year. Official GOI figures are 25000) this number is much smaller than several current conflicts (e.g. Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, war-induced famine in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Rwanda).

`` It is a well-accepted fact that Kashmir has the highest ratio of soldiers to civilians in the world.``

-- This by itself does not mean much. What would the ratio be in one of the desolate, unpopulated Aleutian Islands where there are perhaps two (2) USAF personnel? Such comparisons are meaningless and are demagogic. The nature of the terrain, acclimatization time needed at high altitude, defensive strategy, etc. are crucial factors. However, these ratios are easy to explain and understand. They make great press copy, too! Perhaps, that is why you quoted it. The ratio changes as threat perceptions change. BTW, the oft-quoted `700,000 security forces` figure in Pakistani media includes the following - Indian Army mountain divisions in Siachen, Kargil sector, Ladakh (towards China), and the entire LoC; Border Roads Organization, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Air Force persoonel, various federal and state outfits. The civilian-facing or counter-insurgency units are likely much fewer than the 700,000 figure.

Now on to the MAJOR points:

`` If you think that Pakistan is the main cause of the problem, then why not hold a vote of only the local Kashmiris, and get the whole problem over with… The whole Indian stand on Kashmir is self-contradictory and illogical``

-- Actually not. The Indian stand on Kashmir is based upon realpolitik and legal arguments. True, a plebiscite in the Valley will probably not go India`s way today - it may lean towards independence! But as many Pakistani politicians have so eloquently demonstrated - merely holding elections (or plebiscite) is no guarantor of democracy or results to everybody`s satisfaction - in this case to India`s satisfaction. My friend, politics is the art of the impossible - contradictions in positions are an inescapable reality and a necessary ingredient. The Indian concern is as follows -- (i) hold a plebiscite, (ii) the Valley votes for independence, (iii) other disaffected religious/ethnic groups in India want their pound of flesh, (iv) in a few years you have opened a can of worms, and India becomes ungovernable - not a pleasant outcome for India, its neighbors or the rest of the world; just as the disintegration of Pakistan is a nightmare for India. It is possible that Kashmir could be independent and the rest of the nightmarish/alarmist scenario may never materialize. However, the risk and cost/benefit analysis dictates that India oppose the plebiscite. This is also the reason why that China opposes it. Note: Both India and China were jointly opposed to NATO intervention in Kosovo, UN intervention in East Timor (for realpolitik reasons).

Further, what is to prevent Pakistan from `Talibanizing` an independent Kashmir? Who can guarantee that that won`t happen? No elected government in India could rationalize that as a positive outcome to the Indian people. You will probably respond with theoretical safeguards and guarantees, but I doubt that they could be sold to a majority in India.

Also, the current trajectories (economic and political) of Pakistan and India are diverging --- with India emerging as a rising power and Pakistan sinking towards anarchy. This belief (which has been long-held in India since Independence) is finally coming to fruition. In that context, it would seem foolish to `let Kashmir go` when India can negotiate from a position of strength. Even Mansoor Ijaz thinks that Kashmiris will come around to rally behind India, albeit reluctantly, due to the economic disparity between India and Pakistan. It would be certainly foolish to risk a plebiscite at this stage.

Further, due to brazen `mujahideen`/`terrorist` attacks on civil authority, Pakistan`s reneging on commitments during Lahore `yatra` by Vajpayee, Musharraf coup, and last year`s Kargil invasion have severely weakened Pakistan`s moral standing in the world over Kashmir affairs in a relative quick order. This reality has not escaped the attention of Indian planners and the public. The world is rightly disgusted by alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir (as are many in India), but it is also very alive to the `Talibanization` of Afghanistan and the situation in Paksitan. There is no incentive at this point to give total independence to Kashmir.

Also, the Constitution of India does not allow plebiscites or secession of states. That is not a trifling matter. A plebiscite will require a constitutional amendment - an unlikely prospect. Then there is the matter of a Parliament resolution that calls for the integration of POK with India`s J&K. Note: UN resolutions carry less weight in India than Parliamentary resolutions. The Simla Agreement has also ruled out the role of UN or any third parties in J&K.

You might still ask: What about morality and principles, leaving aside realpolitik and legal hurdles? Here the Kashmiri is on stronger ground, and India (principally the Congress governments in the Center in cahoots with Farooq Abdullah) on the weaker. However, the appropriate thing to do here is to strengthen democracy and local self-governance in Kashmir, rather than to uproot it and invite the `Taliban-style` forces of jehad. (I have no illusions regarding the fate of Kashmir, if India were to pull out.) There is tremendous scope of improvement for strengthening democracy and local self-governance, before `dangerous` (from India`s perspective) ideas of independence can be entertained. I think that India`s actions in the past have roiled the waters in Kashmir, and Pakistan has found it convenient to fish in troubled waters. There is a tremendous, powerful wave of federalism and states-rights sweeping Indian politics currently. Most of this has occurred since 1990 - the year the `trouble` in Kashmir began. The unusual situation in Kashmir has caused it to miss out on most of these benefits impacting the rest of India. With normalcy restored, I think that the chances of Kashmir exacting its special privileges under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution will improve, not diminsh. If and when that fails, independence remains an option.

Re: #11 RSaxena

``Oh Allah, here we go with Ummair`s old and tired monologue on Kashmir. What worse form of torture is there than to read one of these every time the word Kashmir is uttered.``

Its a whole lot better than the normal garbage you spout from your mouth.

On October 12, 1999, Nawaz Sharif was ousted as Prime Minister with nary a squeak from the Pakistani public.

There was much post-coup rationalization that Sharif was destroying the institutions of Pakistan; playing politics with the army etc.

But it wasn`t as though Sharif hadn`t done such things before. Even the story of how Musharraf came to be the COAS involves politics and politicians.

I think the reason that the Pakistani people did not protest the ouster of Sharif is that they believe that he cost them a military victory.

That is why the truth about exactly what happened in Kargil is important.

India was caught by surprise, there is no doubt about that. If we are to pay respect to rumors, then the rumors were that the first ``Confidence Building Measure`` after Lahore was for India to withdraw from Siachen. So, the Kargil episode was entirely unnecessary, even given the theory that Kargil was a response to Siachen.

There was one element of luck that played in India`s favor and that is the Zoji La pass opened early that year, about three to four weeks early, and so there was more time to respond to the intrustion.

I also believe that India did succeed in clearing the peaks of the Pakistani intruders. It was with one hand tied behind the back, because the Indian political leadership instructed the armed forces not to escalate by opening new fronts or by crossing the LOC.

I should say here that I agree with the commentators who say that ending up with an entirely avoidable pile of corpses cannot be counted as a victory. India`s intelligence and surveillance lapses cost it dearly.

Now, when an enemy occupies high ground, the logical thing to do is to beseige them and to cut off supplies. But the base camp and supply routes began across the LOC. Therefore, the only thing to do was to try to interdict the mule trains carrying supplies. Yes, it was expensive in munitions, and Pakistani defence sites can have their jollies at using precision laser guided bombs to blow up mules. But it was less expensive than losing more lives.

Ultimately, because Pakistan had only so many soldiers mobilized and acclimatized to fighting at 14,000 feet ( in part because of the hope of keeping the operation secret till well into June), India prevailed.

If an Indian division had been in danger of starving in Siachen, as alleged, it would be Vajpayee, and not Sharif, trying to get an appointment with President Clinton. Or dashing off to Beijing (or Moscow in Vajpayee`s case).

But the belief that Sharif cost Pakistan a military victory is part of what sustains the public support for the army coup. The army is not likely to dispel that notion anytime soon. We will have to wait for a couple of decades, when some retired Pakistani military leader will spill the beans (as ``The First Round``, by Asghar Khan did for the 1965 war).

-arun gupta

RE: AI Reply # 42

You are right on several accounts in your post but I will have to disagree with you when you said that“There is across the board consensus in Pakistan that the Kargil business was unnecessary” and also that common people are questioning the military expenditure.

The majority of general public shares a consensus that the stated military as well as political objectives were both valid; military objectives being taking back of Siachin and political objective being the raising awareness about Kashmir issue. People unequivocally blame the failure to achieve military objectives on political leadership. They, however, are also sold to Nawaz Government’s final take on the issue that the whole Kargil affair was to bring out the Kashmir issue in front of the world by giving it a new perspective in the light of newly achieved nuclear status of both countries.

The Kargil (military)plan took shape in 1984 right after Indian occupation of Siachin Glacier. You are right that military approached almost all Pakistani regimes to materialize the plan and it was rejected every time. So one may raise a valid question why Nawaz Sharif chose to go ahead with the plan despite his bus diplomacy and gestures of goodwill towards India.

There are several theories and each has its merits and demerits. One of the theories is based on word of mouth. The word of mouth (and now it is proved with hard evidence) is that there is a racket in which some of very high profile personalities on both side of the border are involved. On one hand fingers are pointed at Sharif family and some people from Muslim League and on the other hand names are named of some very “pavitter (sacred)” names from BJP.

The racket is the commodity trade between two countries. This racket is not new; it has been going on since Zia era. It happened during both Benazir government and both time in Sharif governments.. Let me explain this by an example. Suppose Pakistan (names are interchangeable) is expected to produce certain amount of sugar in a year. In the same year Indians create a pre-planned artificial shortage of sugar in India. (The businessmen buy bulk of sugar at the nod of BJP officials and store it). India buys sugar from Pakistan to meet its shortage. Now India has its own sugar plus the sugar that it bought from Pakistan. That creates a shortage (pre-planned) of sugar in Pakistan. Guess who comes to the rescue? The same sugar comes back to Pakistan. The businessmen (who are actually agents of politicians or politician themselves) on both sides of the border make money on both transactions. Other commodity is cement, wheat and even perishables like onions and potatoes. This racket is run so shamelessly that perishables don’t even cross the border, they stay in the same storage.

Everything was cool and dandy on Pakistani side and thugs of BJP were all game when unthinkable happened. BJP lost its majority and a new election was rescheduled. Because of this racketeering BJP became very unpopular due to commodity shortages. There was a strong possibility that the BJP might loose the election when Nawaz offered its help. The plan was simple. Pakistan would have a little misadventure at the Kashmir border, BJP would come as the savior of the nation and win the heart of people.

Things, however, got complicated when military approached Nawaz with the original Kargil plan. Either Nawaz could not comprehend the plan or he was so sure about his political grip over army and public that he thought that he may call off the whole expedition at his will.

A part of this plan went well that BJP got re-elected all because of this Kargil affair, whereas Nawaz’s doublecrossing with army created a rift between army and his government which resulted in his dismissal.

So dear readers, it was just potatoes, onions, and sugar that we were fighting for.

RE: ZZ Reply#41

Dear ZZ

I respect your opinion about me and I have absolutely no intention to change it. I am writing this post just to ashamedly and humbly admit to you that I am the dumbest student on this forum. Yes, I always consider myself a student thinking that I might learn something by rubbing shoulders with so many intelligent people here.

This particular individual shows utter disrespect for intellectual property. All of his posts are mile long clippings of copyrighted material. Let me be very clear on this again that I do not consider myself a self appointed policeman of intellectual property. What someone does with it, I simply don’t care. In case you are wondering, what really irked me then, it is this individual’s arrogance towards the people who choose not to rape other people’s intellectual property.

AFTERMATH OF KARGIL:

There is across the board consensus in Pakistan that the Kargil business was unnecessary. The operation did not quite have cabinet sanction. This operation or something like this was on the GHQ`s drawing boards since the time of Prime Minister Junejo who apparently went through the motions of having an exhaustive review of the ``proposal``. Apparently all the ministries and agencies objected to this operation or the need for it Junejo dutifully closed the file and taped it shut. They again sheepishly brought it up in Benazir`s first government who again went through the motions and closed the case. For some odd reason they did not bring it up in Mr. Sharif`s first government. But they did bring it up again in Benizirs second government and she summarily

rejected it.

The subsequent takeover by Musharraf may well prove to a move as fatal as military action in East Pakistan irrespective of his pretensions of being a reformist. All military regimes talk about reform. Yahya Khan ensured that all butchers had wire mesh ``jali`` put in their shops to keep the flies out. Large sections of the Pakistani public remain skeptical. This is the first occassion in over five decades that people have begun to question the motives behind the real motive behind the the Kashmir issue and the GHQ`s sabotage of all attempts at accomodation with India. That is not to say that the people of Pakistan have accepted the grabbing of Kashmir by a predatory neighbour - I must emphasize. The unsustainability of the present levels of defense spending is more publicly known than before. When Musharrafs own bhayia panwalas start debating the need for so large a top heavy army the problem has started.....

Reply to #37 (AD) :

I find that between yahoo, altavista and northernlight I can find most things. I will try google, thanks !

-arun

A surfeit of experts

by

Dr Humayun Khan, a former foreign secretary of Pakistan who visited India in April and wrote his impressions of that visit in TFT, responds below to the criticism his article has elicited and gives his own view on India and Indo-Pak relations

``Frankly, I see little hope in Pakistan. The true believers are unlikely to change the thinking of a lifetime. They will never concede that they might have been wrong all along. As an old Quaker once said to his friend ``JOSH, all the world`s a fool except thee and me, and even thee is a little odd``. So, in a sense we may have a surfeit of experts. On the other hand, they are in a minority of one.``

more @

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/

go to `Opionion.`

RE: MacGupta Reply#36

Thanks for your reply. This time you didnt me disappointment me. I was expecting that answer from you.

Reply #: 31

macgupta

Arun, yahoo`s search engine su-cks. Try google.com

AD

Urstruly ;

Thanks and no thanks for

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/hotlinks.htm

and

http://www.virtual-pc.com/journal/other.htm

I have plenty of such compilation of links (including the first).

No thanks for http://www.army.mod.uk/sandhurst/archive.htm

it is pretty worthless. I had been through it yesterday before replying to you on Chowk.

Perhaps readers here believe you have information. I don`t.

Good bye,

-arun gupta

RE: MacGupta Reply# 34

Mr. Cut & Paste!

Now you have turned my disappointment into complete disgust. So I am gonna spoon-feed you with what you asked for.

For US army sites:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/hotlinks.htm

(a little (re)search here will help you find what you are looking for)

For British army:

http://www.virtual-pc.com/journal/other.htm

(I can spoonfeed you but you have to chew your own food, here you will definitely find what you are looking for)

For Sandhurst (rigt into their archives):

http://www.army.mod.uk/sandhurst/archive.htm

Next time do your own home work. It always pays if you work hard honestly.

In reply to Urstruly :

I think you have nothing meaningful to say, or else you would have said it. If you have meaningful information to share, say so. ``I know xyz is true`` and ``I`m not telling you how I know`` doesn`t cut it with me (don`t know about other Chowk readers).

My personal beliefs are based on what are roughly private and public information. While my opinions are based on all the information I have, I will not advocate positions in public based on information that I am unwilling or unable to share. My opinion is that respect for the reader demands that much.

FYI, I could not find a link to the Sandhurst Royal Academy even from the British Army web-site.

If there really was something interesting on the Sandhurst web-site, I imagine you could have easily provided the URL.

So long, until you have something to say.

-arun gupta

RE: MacGupta Reply# 31

yahoo.com????-thats all? No wonder you cant find Royal Military Academy-Sandhurst on the web-Gupta! now you are begining to disappoint me.

If you werent a ``cut and paste`` scholar you would have asked me what is ``word of mouth`` on Kargil. You might have got your answers that you asked in your last reply.

Re: 22, 23

The Intifada began after several decades of Israeli rule. Presumably the ISI also had a hand in that.

In reply to Urstruly :

I agree with you that openness does not equate to trustworthiness.

Nevertheless, even after the Kargil hostilities were over, we saw Pakistani leaders -- both military and political -- continuing to insist that the Kargil intruders were Kashmiiri mujahideen only.

Re : Sandhurst discussions -- I`m sure they are very interesting. But http://www.yahoo.co.uk finds only the Sandhurst Town Council and Cricket Club, so a URL would be helpful.

-arun gupta

RE: MacGupta Reply# 28

War is a highly fluid situation. Hiding information from enemy means saving lives of your soldiers, whereas feeding incorrect information is also a common practice. This common sense course is called ``The War 101``. Any 8th grader with a little bit interest in wars can tell you that. So if Indian Army web sites were updated in real time it means nothing more than changing alphabets on the computer screen. If you trust them or believe them its really your business, perfectly fine with me.

About foreign URLs on the Kargil issue, I thought you were THE-WEB-RESEARCHER-GUY. I have seen mile long clippings cut from copy-righted material and posted on this ``discussion forum`` from you. (Does Chowk have a policy about posting copy-righted material on its space???)

By the way also check Sandhurst Military Academy`s web page- discussion forum. They have been discussing this issue for a while. I hope they keep it in their archives.

http://www.time.com/time/daily/0,2960,46862-101000607,00.html

Sometimes, It Helps to Add a `Rogue State`

Suddenly, according to a report, Pakistan, not India, is viewed as South Asia`s reigning nuclear power. There may be mischief behind such a leak...

Reports that Pakistan`s nuclear capability far exceeds India`s are likely to be taken with a pinch of salt among observers of South Asia`s arms race — and among missile-defense skeptics. According to a number of unnamed military and intelligence sources cited by NBC, the U.S. now believes that far from being the region`s

nuclear underdog, Pakistan may have up to five times as many warheads as India and is way ahead of its rival in developing missile systems to carry them. Whereas it had originally been believed that Pakistan had between 10 and

15 nuclear devices while India had between 25 and 100, the NBC report suggests India`s capability had been overstated and that Pakistan was more likely to have between 25 and 100 devices.

``Given the history of Pakistan`s nuclear program,

these figures will certainly raise a few eyebrows,`` says TIME U.N. correspondent William Dowell.

``Pakistan struggled unsuccessfully for decades to

develop nuclear weapons, and half of their devices failed to go off in their 1998 tests, which created the impression they were still battling to perfect the technology. Pakistan`s nuclear program is generally assumed to be heavily dependent on Chinese assistance, and it sounds a little far-fetched that Beijing would allow them to develop a nuclear program on that

scale.``

Military and intelligence leaks to the media, of course, are not always inadvertent. ``At a time when we`re trying to promote a `Star Wars` missile defense against rogue states, it always helps to have a few more potential threats out there,`` says Dowell. ``Somebody may have a reason for encouraging looseness with this information.`` To be sure, advancing the notion that a state as unstable — and as prone to Islamic

fundamentalist pressure — as Pakistan is developing an arsenal of nuclear warheads and a fleet of converted intermediate-range Chinese and North Korean missiles on which to carry them underscores the dangers cited by

missile-defense advocates. It makes little difference, however, to the balance of nuclear terror on the ground in South Asia. Pakistan is a lot smaller than India, both geographically and in population, and would need a larger nuclear capability to annihilate India than vice versa. Such economies of scale, though, may be irrelevant to the language of nuclear deterrence. Says TIME Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson, ``Once you have one or two that you`re capable of using, it makes no difference whether you have five or 500.``

In reply to Urstruly, #25 :

The Indian armed forces web sites were being updated in almost real-time during the fighting, as far as I remember. That is why I trust them more, it is hard to publish something and then have to change the story later.

Despite searching, I haven`t found any analysis from, say, a US perspective, of the military action in Kargil, so any URLs would be most welcome.

-arun gupta

Good analysis but one should never give up
hope. If not Pakistanis, the Kashmiris still
need full support to get their best deal from
India at this time.
Something is definitely in the air. A deal perhaps? The rest as they say shall be history.

(After that maybe we at CHOWK can all get back
to indulge in HamidM`s many well recommended activities)

Ras

http://www.msnbc.com/news/417106.asp

Pakistan nukes outstrip India’s,officials say



U.S. reverses assessment of South Asia nuclear balance By Robert Windrem and Tammy Kupperman

NBC NEWS



WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power. Senior U.S. officials have told NBC News in the past week that Pakistan not only has more warheads than its longtime adversary, but has far more capability to actually use them.



‘Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians.’ — GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI Commander, U.S. Central Command

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS by India and Pakistan in May 1998 caught American intelligence off guard. While U.S. agencies long had known about weapons-development research in both countries, the decision by both to go public with their capabilities shocked policymakers.

Since then, U.S. intelligence and diplomacy has focused on South Asia with a new intensity. Until recently, for instance, Pakistan was considered to have somewhere between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons and India between 25 and 100.

But after two years of intelligence gathering, officials now believe those figures overstate the capabilities of India’s home-grown arsenal and understate those of Pakistan, whose program has relied on generous Chinese assistance. One official said the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers [25 to 100 weapons] than the Indians.”

Perhaps most important, the official said, is that Pakistan appears far more capable than India of delivering nuclear payloads. “I don’t think their [the Indian] program is as advanced as the Paks,” the official said, speaking particularly of ballistic missiles.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said longtime assumptions that India had an edge in the South Asian strategic balance of power were questionable, at best.

“Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians,” said Zinni, the senior U.S. officer responsible for the Middle East and South Asia.



Other military and intelligence officials, as well as an intelligence analysis of South Asia’s nuclear balance obtained by NBC News, shed more light on the revised view.

“They both have a capability,” said one senior military official. “Pakistan’s may be better than India’s, with more weapons and more capability.

“You can’t underestimate the Pakistani program,” said the official. Like most of the officials NBC News contacted, this one would speak only on condition of anonymity.



DOCUMENTS SUPPORT REVISED VIEW



These officials believe India understands that it is behind. A recent Defense Department analysis of the Indian program obtained by NBC News states that India is moving to address its shortcomings.

Quoting India’s recently publicized draft nuclear doctrine, the Defense Department report said that “India announced its plans to develop a minimum nuclear deterrent force comprised of a triad of nuclear delivery systems — air, mobile land-based launches and sea-based platforms. The air component of its triad is the only one that may be in place already.”

The U.S. report also states that “India probably has a handful of nuclear bombs,” meaning about five. With regard to delivery systems — the missiles and bombers needed to launch a nuclear strike — U.S. officials now believe Indian capabilities to be seriously lagging.

According to the Defense Department document, which is unclassified, India has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer aircraft capable of delivering a nuclear payload than Pakistan does. India has twice tested a new intermediate-ranged missile, the Agni, which may eventually provide the basis of a nuclear missile force. However, current U.S. analysis suggests the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. Additionally, India appears to only have begun work on missile warhead design and on the miniaturization of weapons — two critical hurdles to the actual use of weapons.



The U.S. assessment of Pakistan, on the other hand, has been greatly upgraded.

A U.S. official stated that Pakistani air and missile delivery systems are now believed to be “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.

Most importantly, Pakistan is now thought to possess about 30 nuclear-capable missiles: the Chinese M-11 short-range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile (known locally as the Ghauri).



HAIR-TRIGGER CONCERN

The mystery that shrouds both of these growing nuclear arsenals has become a major cause for concern among U.S. policymakers, who even before the 1998 tests had deemed South Asia the most likely site of a nuclear war.



According to one analysis done by the U.S. Air Force, more than 150 million Indians and Pakistanis could perish in an all-out nuclear exchange — three times the total number of people who died in World War II.

One frequently cited fear among U.S. intelligence officials is an accidental nuclear war in which Pakistan mistakes the firing of an Indian missile bearing a conventional warhead as a nuclear strike.

Despite what appears to be a healthy fear of the other on both sides, the United States still fears there could be a series of crises that lead to something worse. Last year’s Pakistani incursion in the Kargil area of Kashmir, the disputed Muslim territory controlled by India, is a good example of the region’s unpredictability.



“Kargil scared both sides,” Zinni said. “There is usually a gentleman’s agreement to keep conflict around the Line of Control,” he said, referring to the U.N. cease-fire line set after the two nations’ 1947 war over the region. “It escalated with mobilizations on different fronts — tit for tat. Both sides are now very concerned about how escalation works and how it could happen very quickly.”

Zinni said the United States intervened in the “nick of time” with Kargil. The United States doesn’t exert much influence on the daily level of fighting, but a senior military official does believe that Washington has some sway in terms of escalation because neither side really wants an all-out war, despite some hard-liners on both side who publicly claim they want to bring the issue to a head.



NBC News’ Tammy Kupperman is based at the Pentagon. Robert Windrem is an NBC News investigative producer based in New York.

RE: MacGupta Reply#17

Thanks for enlisting the sites to get information about the Indian Army tactics in the Kargil affairs. BTW, I had already visited those sites earlier and that was not we were discussing about. Pakistan Army maintains similar sites; one of them is

http://www.pakdef.com/army/index.html

I am mentioning this sites because it discusses in detail how the IAF miserably failed in its operations in Kargil. The link is :

http://www.pakdef.com/army/news11.html

To tell you the truth I really don’t believe what IA or PA sites discuss. It is usually better to go and look into independent sources. There are many links available to Institute of Strategic Studies and US Army Strategic Studies sites that have a slightly different perspective. I think they analyze the situations very logically and professionally (not politically). Another source which is better than all is the word of mouth- that is conveyed from one person to other from generations to generations. If you have an access to that you are a part of conventional wisdom.

And ylh, Happy Birthday. Wish you many more years of happy hating. At least you`re a good Pakistani - hating Indians as you should - and I`m sure you can ask for a grand old present.

Ummair, you`re right. I don`t know why I read your posts because they`ve always repeated the same tired monologue ad nauseam. Maybe one of these days apni aadat se baaz aaoonga and I`ll stop.

What is ``inaccurate`` you ask? You`re whole damn habit of pulling ``facts`` and figures straight from the Daily Dung and the Yawn and Jehad.com

Come on, it`s been said a hundred times. There was no violent uprising of this type before 1989. We all know the significance of that timing. And what UN resolution do you buzz on about? The one which requires PoK to be vacated as the first step!!

And what exactly are you cringing about? Certainly not about the way you treated a section of your Ummah in Bangladesh. And now you`re oh-so-compassionate-I-just-want-liberation-and-not-land heart cries for the people of Kashmir?

And which Kashmir are we talking about here? The one where your cousins from the Lashar-e-Kill-the-Fakir started wiping out the non-Muslim population? The one where they exploited a poor and negligible governance situation to find their next pass time, creating demons and violence where all that was required was a new government?

And what about that so conveniently forgotten piece of Kashmir bartered away to your friends, the commies in China? Can we have a plebiscite there too?

While we`re on the topic of China, what about your brothers from the Ummah in the southern Xinjiang (sp?)province? Will you support their ``fight for freedom and self-determination`` too?

I know you`ve already started cutting and pasting large blocks of text from your previous 346 posts on this topic to respond to this post, but please, spare us.

Umairr

{{Why don`t people just admit that India is carrying out its actions in Kashmir because it does not want Kashmir to break away from India, and India knows that if Kashmiris are given their free will, they will definitely break away. I think this should be quite obvious to everyone in India, Pakistan and Kashmir}}

Of course its obvious!!

I might remind you that some of us Indians have denounced India`s behavior on chowk.

So why cant Pakistan stop interfering & let India fall on her face? Sending in the mujahadeen only defeats that purpose.

You say the uprising is totally indigenous. I beg to defer.Is it any coincidence that it flared up in 89, when the cold war was winding down & all these jehadis were suddenly facing the prospect of unemployment? Sure there was discontent in i-Kashmir. But Pakistan`s involvement is a diplomatic disaster for Pakistan. It only worsened the problem for Kashmiris .Does any country believe Pakistan when she says she is providing only moral & political support to the mujahadeen? The world wasnt ``born yesterday``.

EST Reply #: 10

Umairr

``

... the last thing Pakistani Kashmris want to do is to join India (it was pretty ridiculous for anyone to assume that they would want to do that); so that option is out.

``

Why, is it ridiculous. Muslims in india are doing better for themselves than those in Pakistan (except the Punjabis and Gujrati muslims ).

YOU WROTE:

``

Indian soldiers killing the Kashmiris (yes they are killing innocent people in huge numbers, regardless of what kind of spin the Indian govt. attempts to put on the whole situation to convince the rest of the world and its own Indian citizens

``

Why do u think so ? Why would indian soldirs kill Kashmirirs ? U think India will kill all the muslims in Kashmir and get away from it ? Trust me, Indians are not as dumb, as their neighbours.

Besides, India has a large muslim population that has always been a segment to be courted by various political parties. And if these parties found out that Kashmiri muslims were being killed they would hype that matter, no matter what...

That is a benefit of living in a democracy.... too bad its something that you have not had too much of experience with.

AD

AD