Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

Wonder if Umairr the myopic monologuist knows that the international press and foreign agencies ARE in Kashmir and hence Bill Clinton`s comments about the government of Pakistan supporting violence in Kashmir and the declaration of the Lashkar-e-Taiba a terrorist organization. The Washington Post, New York Times, and several other international agencies have reported all this. Of course, these papers are Jewish run and owned and so they may be biased as per the grand Hindu-Jew conspiracy against Pakistan. Grow up Umairr. You demand Indians to go learn about Kashmir for themselves yet you report happily from the Daily Dung and Daily Yawn from the safety behind your computer monitor. Why don`t YOU go to Kashmir and learn a thing or two? Imbecile.

shammi #67: It is unfortunate to see that you have bought the Indian propoganda on Kashmir and Indo-Pak relations, hook line and sinker. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with most Indians, and that is why there is still a problem in Kashmir. I have yet to see any Indian criticize the Indian govts.` policies in Kashmir (apart from a few Indian HR organizations, which are doing good work). I do not expect the Indians to believe everything Pakistan says. However, Indians should at least support international HR organizations` access to Indian Kashmir, so that a correct picture can be portrayed. There will never be peace in South Asia, as long as Indians fail to challenge their govt`s. views on South Asia.

First of all, you have a very inaccurate account of what is going on in Kashmir. There is a reason that India has strictly banned human rights organizations and the international press from entering Kashmir. There is also a reason that Pakistan is encouraging the entrance of human rights organizations into Kashmir. If HR organizations were allowed to enter Kashmir, then the situation there would be exposed to not only the rest of the world but to the Indians also. So obviously, there is something being hidden.

I would suggest to you that you not follow the Indian govt. propoganda, and start thinking for yourself. At the very least, please try to figure out why the Indian govt. has 500,000 - 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir. This is by far the highest concentration of military forces per square feet, anywhere in the world. They cannot all be there to fight a few hundred or a few thousand cross border militants. And why India is not allowing HR organizations in Kashmir. Also, if it is the militants who are causing all the problem, then why doesn`t the Indian govt. hold a referendum in Kashmir?

These things obviously do not add up, and until the Indian populace recognizes that, there will never be peace in South Asia. The Kashmir movment is as much a freedom movement as the Indian and Pakistani freedom movement against the British. Anyone with principles would agree to that. Just because it is someone fighting for their freedom against India, and not Indians fighting for their freedom against an occuppier, doesn`t make it any less of a freedom movement. There is no law stating that freedom movements can be launched by Indians, but not against Indians.

``I still cannot figure out how Pakistan could have been stupid enough to launch an operation like Kargil, when it did.``

My suggestion here was the timing of the Kargil offensive, not its moral legitimacy. I would be interested in knowing your views on India`s action in Siachen. Wasn`t that a gross violation of the Simla Agreement?

``Wrong again. Remember Pearl Harbor?`` How can you compare Kargil to Pearl Harbor? They are two different types of battles. Pearl Harbor itself was a loss for the US also. The US was able to recover, when the war was taken to a larger scale. Also, Pearl Harbor was not disputed terrotory. And it was not carried out within the boundaries of a nuclear scenario. There are two many differences to mention here. In either case, the intelligence mistakes did decide the battle.

``While it is true that democracies are beholden to their citizens` welfare and waging aggressive war does not advance that agenda,``

More often than not, the deciding factor in who carries out aggression is not the authoritarian or democratic nature of countries, but on which country is larger in size. The US is perhaps the greatest democracy in the world. However the US launches the greatest number of military offensives of any country in the world, year after year. In any given year, the US is carrying out military offensives in multiple places in the world.

The whole problem in South Asia is based on the fact that the Indian democracy has been suppressing the Kashmiris. The current govt. of Kashmir was forced upon the Kashmiris by New Dehli (this was reported by Indian newspapers, also). I believe Siachen was occuppied by an Indian democracy. E. Pakistan was invaded by an Indian democracy. India is much larger in size than Pakistan, and has always been on the forefront of aggression in South Asia. Pakistan has only invaded disputed and occupied area, India has always invaded internationally recognized borders (in 1965, 1971). India is also responsible for the nuclear arms race in South Asia. It is also trying its best to accelerate the conventional arms race in South Asia. Kindly check the current Indian military budget increase. These are documented facts.

``There are other, more effective methods of passive resistance that can potentially embarass the Indian government more. Trust me, the militancy is giving the Indian government no heartache, but it is also allowing India to maintain the status quo.``

If killing 5,000+ civlians a year in Kashmir is not giving the Indian govt. or Indians a heartache, then I am not sure if they have a heart. If the Pakistani govt. was killing 5,000 people a year in Pakistan, I would certainly have a heartache. I would speak out against it, even if it did not change the attitude of the govt. At the very least I would not cheer the govt`s. actions. That would be quite inhumane.

I think it is quite arrogant for the occuppier to define to the freedom fighters, how they should fight their battles. If I take over your house, then what right do I have to tell you how you should try to get rid of me. I believe the Kashmiris have tried everything you have mentioned for 50 years, and nothing has worked. Military conflict is always the last resort for freedom fighters, since they suffer the most losses.

``A quick armored thrust through Rahimyar Khan to effectively cut Pakistan in half is another.``

I can tell that you have never participated in an armoured thrust. And do you know where Rahim Yar Khan is? It will take a lot more than a quick armoured thrust by India to make it to Rahim Yar Khan. India is seven times Pakistan`s size, yet has still not even been able to get past Lahore, much less to Rahim Yar Khan. This is somewhat unprecedented in modern warfare, i.e a country 7 times the size of its adversary, having such little success. Compare this to the success China has had against India; two countries of proportional size. In a non-nuclear scenario, India may have eventually made it to RHK, in a long war of attrition, due to the much larger size of India. However, now I think the war between India and Pakistan would turn nuclear before India gets anywhere near Rahim Yar Khan. The days of long drawn out conventional warfare between India and Pakistan are over. Pakistan has a solid deterence. The only Indian getting close to RHK now would be an Indian tourist. That is why Pakistan has now gotten out of the South Asian arms race.

It is quite disheartening to see so many Indians following the Indian govt. line of Kashmir, and South Asia. One would expect some independent thinking from Indians; not believing everything put out by Indian newspapers and DoorDershan. As long as Indians refuse to find out for themselves what is going on in Kashmir, there will never be peace. At the very least, you should at least support the entrance of HR organizations and the international press into Indian Kashmir. That will give a neutral picture of Kashmir.

I am a strong supporter of allowing unbiased and neutral media into Kashmir, so we can justify whether you are correct, or I am correct.

Pakistan already allows this. From your response, it seems like you would not support the entrance of HR organizations in Indian Kashmir. Until that point, I find it impossible to believe that what you are stating is accurate.

Re: Umairr # 61

``I still cannot figure out how Pakistan could have been stupid enough to launch an operation like Kargil, when it did.``

Don`t sweat over this one, Umairr. Pakistan has been down this path several times before. The 1948 pushing of Afghan tribesman, 1965 war, 1971, etc. The list of Pakistan blunders is endless.

``Any military (read Indian) making such a huge intelligence blunder would lose any military conflict, even before the battle starts. ``

Wrong again. Remember Pearl Harbor? It was a big American intelligence screw up? Do you also care to remember who won the war? Recently disclosed documents have revealed that there were plenty of US naval intelligence signals that were ignored by the US government. Despite this, the US held the strategic advantage.

Authoritarian regimes throughout history have systematically underestimated the strength of democracies to wage war or have a `stomach for war`. While it is true that democracies are beholden to their citizens` welfare and waging aggressive war does not advance that agenda, it is equally true that dictatorships are far likelier to declare war (if for nothing else but to divert attention from more pressing domestic needs). However, to wage `total war` requires the consensus on the dedication of all national resources for prosecuting a war. It is here that democracies have an upper hand over dicatorships. Dictatorships cannot marshall national will in a war effort like democracies can.

Also, remember that India has the option of squeezing Pakistan in several ways -- naval blockade of Karachi is one option. (Indeed in last year`s Kargil war, there were rumors in the press that India was prepared to do just that. Musharraf`s much ballyhooed opening of a new port at Gwadar this year may be a response to just a threat).

A quick armored thrust through Rahimyar Khan to effectively cut Pakistan in half is another.

Besides, the losses in Kashmir are entirely bearable by India. A war of attrition will work only in India`s favor. The day Pakistan stops the military support to the militants, the insurgency in India will collapse upon itself. There are already signs that local Indian Kashmiri`s are disenchanted with the foreign militants -- because it undermines their livelihood by scaring away tourists. Further, the means are just as important as the ends. Not only are military solutions to change the status quo untenable, they are also unfortunately giving bad international publicity to some of the just demands of the Kashmiris. The modern world does not look very kindly at instigators of violence. There are other, more effective methods of passive resistance that can potentially embarass the Indian government more. Trust me, the militancy is giving the Indian government no heartache, but it is also allowing India to maintain the status quo. The ultimate nightmare scenario for the Indian government would be to have a Kashmiri Dalai Lama, or Lech Walesa, or Gandhi win a Nobel Peace Prize -- not a couple of small firearms from a rootless militant! I have no doubt that overwhelming Indian military odds will prevail. The total counterinsurgency expenditure nationwide is an insignificant portion of the national budget (something like less than 0.3% of the budget, not the GDP). You have got to remember that the insurgency is in the valley alone. The valley has a population less than that of Bombay and Delhi! How much does it cost to police a city? The army is not policing the valley -- the paramilitary forces are. If you want to REALLY needle India, try something else -- like growing a Kashmiri Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, etc.

``Pakistan may recover from its economic drought, and may be able to dictate stronger terms than it can at the moment ``

I doubt this very much -- I see no evidence of this happening. All indicators are negative. Musharraf has not announced ANY program on education. Without this, there will be no growing middle class, no clamor for democracy, no return to rule of law, no foreign investment. This economic drought in Pakistan is not a passing event -- it is a watershed. It is the unadulterated result of reduced economic aid that Pakistan received in the 50s, 60s, and 80s. Now that aid has dried up. It is unlikely to be restored unless Pakistan restores the confidence of the international community and works aggressively to improve its image. To do this, it must distance itself from the notion of advocating jehad as part of a national policy, quit waffling on what is terrorism and what is jehad, reign in the Taleban (Osama is simply a sympton of this malaise, not the cause) and return to democracy.

``This campagign furthur reduced the Indian govts.` options on negotiating on Kashmir, ``

READ MY LIPS -- The Union of India (as constituted presently) will NEVER give up control over defence, foreign affairs over Jammu and Kashmir it controls.

Also, UMAIRR, have you ever wondered why the 100 million plus muslims of India are AGAINST India`s relinquishing control over Jammu and Kashmir? There are two reasons for this -- a) disappointment at Pakistan`s failure to live up to its claim as the homeland of muslims of the subcontinent, and b) anxiety regarding their own welfare should they be seen as supporting yet another partition in India

My version of recent history is substantially different from Umairr`s (#61). However, only time will tell which one is closer to the truth. Here is my version.

In 1998 the tourists, both Indian and foreign, started returning in large numbers to the Kashmir Valley. The J&K economy was looking up, various hotel chains were planning new investments or restarting those that had been held in abeyance.

The Kashmir Assembly was due to pass the Panchayati Raj bill in the spring of 1999. Whatever complaints people had about the state government would become much less relevant as they got control of the development funds that would be spent in their neighborhood.

Vajpayee went to the Lahore summit in February 1999 with a good comfort level regarding where he thought he could steer events. The Hurriyat was making preliminary noises that they might even participate in elections. ( English Lord Avebury had visited Kashmir in late 1998 and come to the conclusion that the Hurriyat were not representative, nor democratic in character, and that working to improve the situation within the Indian Constitution was feasible.)

By that time, apart from the improving situation in Kashmir from India`s viewpoint, it was apparent that Pakistan`s macro-economic health was not good. The basic problem was that Pakistan had a heavy burden of foreign debt, and the sanctions after the nuclear tests of May 1998 were making the situation worse.

India, on the other hand, was seeing fruits of the economic reforms, and was poised for takeoff. Also, India`s defence budget had been sinking in real terms and that was helping too. For the first time since Independence it was possible that India might open a qualitative difference in the nature of economy with Pakistan.

To avoid any challenge to these favorable conditions, Vajpayee thought it best to improve diplomatic relations with Pakistan.

The Pakistani establishment that has made its career on Kashmir, however, saw the danger of complete collapse of their policies. Out of that fear was born the Kargil (mis)-adventure. The Hurriyat was instructed not to do anything, conditions were due to change.

Pakistan did catch Indian intelligence completely by surprise. There was a bit of bad luck in that the mountain passes opened early, and that gave India a few more crucial weeks. After initial confusion, India started a steady battle of attrition, losing a lot of men, but slowly gaining back the heights. Another thing was that by its story of non-involvement, Pakistan lost the ability to use its air force in support of its men.

Pakistan had thought that the Kashmir crisis would be internationalized; the threat of a nuclear war would make the world intervene and force a solution. The Western capitals however knew exactly what was going on (e.g., army involvement). They also did not take kindly to the nuclear sabre rattling. So, on the diplomatic front, Pakistan found itself isolated.

As India made slow but bloody headway in the mountains, Sharif had to do something or risk coming out of the whole mess with neither territory nor diplomatic wins. It was he who sought an audience with Clinton ( and this was announced in a news-conference Musharraf gave in Karachi on June 27, 1999 : http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9906/27/kashmir.01/ ).

The fallout of the conflict has been as follows :

1. Most seriously, Pakistan lost its civilian government. Pakistan`s army would not do anything to dispel the notion that Sharif had cost them a victory in Kargil, and thereafter Sharif`s position was precarious, to say the least. That Sharif went to Washington with full knowledge and concurrence of the army will conveniently be ignored.

2. Clinton did promise Sharif to try to do something about Kashmir, and that promise is being worked. ``There is something in the air``; whether it works out, well, wait and see.

3. India began remilitarizing. Attention began to be paid to weaknesses accumulating over a decade. However, this is to the detriment of development.

4. The Kashmir situation flared up again. Encouraged by the events and with more Pakistani support, and with better tactics ( keeping out of the civilian space more than before, attacking the armed forces only, going into minority areas rather than fighting in Muslim majority areas has kept the militants from alienating the Kashmiris unlike in earlier times ) the situation has become extremely violent; it has returned to the days of 1991-92, when the writ of the ultras held.

-arun gupta

``And, yes, khuda hafiz, Kashmir. You were never mine.``

Farzana - safely ensconced in Delhi or Mumbai or wherever you are, have you ever paused to think how the AVERAGE Indian Muslim will be affected in case any part of J&K goes to Pakistan or becomes independent??? How the AVERAGE Hindu will react to it? I have no doubt that the Hindu-Muslim amity, in whatever shape it exists today, will totally break down. No longer will Hindus tolerate those who support Pakistan`s cricket victories over India... not just that, even `sane` Hindus will march into the arms of the Sangh Parivar...

Kashmir means a lot more to India and Hindu-Muslim relations than just the people in J&K. If Kashmir goes, it will affirm the two-nation theory, and that will lead to calls from Hindu extremists for Muslims to leave India... they will not succeed but there will be a lot of violence and mayhem all around... making what followed Dec `92 seem minor in comparison.

Hindu-Muslim relations in India are still raw from all that has happened and is happening around us... it does not have the MATURITY and STABILITY to survive secession of J&K. If I were an Indian Muslim, I would think TWO steps ahead rather than bid goodbye to Kashmir (your last line).

The ONLY way ahead that I can see that will benefit ALL Indians including Kashmiris, is for J&K to stay in the Indian Union, kick Farooq out and ensure FAIR elections, protect Kashmiri culture (as with other Indian cultures) etc...

Pakistanis too, if they can see what`s good for them, will find that forgetting Kashmir and buckling down to getting their political and economic affairs straight will benefit them more than their `moral` support to self-determination...

Regards,

Layman

concerned #52

Thanks the ref to Tavleen Singh`s article.

Tavleen Singh has made a point but I wish life (esp in India) were so simple. Maybe, sometimes politicians go ahead and do what it takes to prevail and then go looking for whitewashing justifications later.

Just want to add some points. In at least one newspaper report about attacks on a Christian-run school in the North, the school authorities themselves said that prominent political bosses in the neighbourhood had often used influence to get their own children into those schools and those who could not be accomodated took out their anger by promoting vandalism and dadagiri! We know there is this mad rush for English-medium education. Also, in my personal knowledge, even private schools have to follow either a state board or national board curriculum, else they may not be financially aided by the government and also may not be as marketable.

Secondly it cannot be denied that`Christian` schools have filled huge gaps in availability of education in urban-semiurban regions across the country.

Thirdly, on a lighter note, not too long ago,maybe even now, scores of matrimonial ads of many communities and religious orientations advertised of or for `convent-educated` girls :-). Why didnot anyone speak up then :-)?

Sadhana

Pakistan has consistently ignored the requirements for the implementation of the UN resolution. What is the fear? Why is Pakistan standing in the way of its implementation? Why not vacate PoK so it can be implemented? Why do you insist on destroying the lives of innocent Kashmiris by sending your uselss sons and brothers with RDX packed to their chests to Kashmir and turning Kashmir and its economy into hell? Kashmiris are your blood brother muslims, give them a break and stop the violence. Let India remove the army and allow normalcy to return. What will allah say about you for murdering local muslims who did not support your terrorists and hide them in their houses? Why do you murder their daughters who wear jeans instead of burkhas and do not follow your rules of Islam? Why?

A lot of things seem to be happening on the diplomatic front regarding Kashmir. Turbulence is a sign of progress, it is said. If that is to be believed, then it seems the wheels are in motion, and something may happen. Hopefully something good.

My own guess is that India had figured out before the time of the Lahore declaration that it had to cut its losses in Kashmir. It accurately calculated it is gaining absolutely nothing from Kashmir, and losing quite a lot. A solution had to be reached, and the problem had to be finally solved, because the uprising showed no sign of dying out. The trick was to get as good a deal on a solution as possible. This could be done by first reducing its importance (which was dne in the Lahore Declaration), and then negotiating something with the weak Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif.

Kargil basically ended all that.

I still cannot figure out how Pakistan could have been stupid enough to launch an operation like Kargil, when it did. On a moral level, there was nothing wrong with it, considering the fact that India had thrown the first stone by invading Siachen (thereby, violating the Simla Agreement). Fifteen years after India`s Siachen action, Pakistan felt secure enough under a nuclear umbrella, to launch a counter attack, and gain the upper hand. On a tactical level, it was brilliant. Militarily, India lost the Kargil battle the moment Pakistani army occupied the hieghts. Any military making such a huge intelligence blunder would lose any military conflict, even before the battle starts. However, on the diplomatic and political front, Pakistan lost big time. That is why Pakistan eventually ended up the overall loser.

I think Kargil put the Indian leadership in a strange situation. It still wanted to cut its losses in Kashmir, even after Kargil. However, after Kargil, it could not do so; doing so at that time would be viewed as a cowardly act by the Indian voters. The Indian govt. also had to portray Kargil as a military victory (which it was not), in addition to a political victory (which it was) for India.

This resulted in a massive propoganda campaign inside and outside India (I haven`t even seen such a massive campaign in the USA for this sized military conflicts). This campagign furthur reduced the Indian govts.` options on negotiating on Kashmir, because it tilted the public opinion in India furthur against Pakistan, and against negotiation on Kashmir. However, the Indian govt. still wanted to cut its losses in Kashmir. Kashmir is a cause of massive economic and military drain on India; Kargil hasn`t changed that part of the scenario. Kind of a damned it you do, damned if you don`t situation for the Indian govt., on Kashmiri negotiation. If it negotiates, the Indian population will view the govt. as a group of weaklings. If it waits and does not negotiate, Pakistan may recover from its economic drought, and may be able to dictate stronger terms than it can at the moment (in addition to the day to day costs to India of the uprising in Kashmir).

The following article however indicates that quite a bit of back door negotiating is occuring. The name of Farooq Kathwari seems to be coming up a lot. He is the CEO of Ethan Allen (big US furniture chain), I believe. He is also an Indian Kashmiri (now in the US), and a vocal supporter of the Kashmiri cause. He leads the Kashmir Study Group in the USA.

``Old and new formulas for Kashmir

M. Afzal Khan

The latest developments in Kashmir are being keen watched in Washington. The release of leaders of All-Party Hurriyet Conference (APHC) and subsequent statements by Indian leaders indicating their willingness to hold dialogue with them, was publicly welcomed by the US as sign of a thaw inside the Valley. Senior officials in their private conversation even claimed that the US has pursued a quiet diplomacy to encourage Indian government to open lines of communication with genuine Kashmiri leadership.

This set in motion a chain reaction. The release of leaders, Indian government`s willingness to talk to those whom it had erstwhile termed as terrorists and the US endorsement of the unfolding process, suddenly raised APHC`s stature. It had a familiar ring of historical progress in a liberation struggle drawing closer to its goal, by winning international recognition on the one hand and willingness of the occupant to deal with its political arm on the other.

Kashmir`s chief minister Farooq Abdullah and his National Conference felt left out and marginalised by the turn of events. Abdullah had acquiesced to play the Indian tune by participating in the 1996 sham elections boycotted by the APHC.The polls in which voter turn out was less than 7 percent, threw an 87-member assembly in which Abdullah`s party has a brute majority of 78 seats. His four-year rule is marked by continued insurgency, violence, repression, and corruption. His image has plummeted to an all time low.

Last week, in a desperate move to revive his sagging fortunes and deflect the spotlight away from APHC, Farooq Abdullah used the autonomy trump card by tabling a resolution in the assembly. It demanded special status for the state. Ostensibly Abdullah hoped to play the martyr by provoking an angry response from the ruling BJP and other extremists in India. During debate in the assembly, his ministers and party members made enough noises to win popular support by accusing Indian forces of repression and regarding every Kashmiri a Pakistani infiltrator.

In between came a sensational `Chenab Formula` for trifurcation of Kashmir. It was proposed by a wealthy and influential Kashmiri American, Farooq Kathwari, who runs a think tank, Kashmir Study Group (KSG). Because of his close contacts in the administration, it is widely believed that the formula enjoys US blessing.

It envisages drawing new borders of an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir alongside Chenab in Jammu division and Mulbek in Ladakh region on the Indian side of line of control (LoC). It will include all the districts of Kashmir valley, the districts of Kargil and Doda, three northern tehsils of Rajouri and one tehsil of Udhampur.

Farooq Abdullah trumpeted his loyalist credentials saying he alone could deliver Kashmir to stay as integral part of India. The Hurriyet, on the other hand, wants separation. He said the Chenab Formula was not backed by US alone.

``The people who are apparently opposing division of the state, are the ones who have finalized plans to divide it into four parts. The formula for division of Jammu and Kashmir has already been devised in New Delhi and Chenab will be the new international border with Leh and Kargil being divided near Mulbek,`` he told the assembly.

Despite some heroics in the assembly, Farooq Abdullah tried to assuage New Delhi saying he wanted a debate in the country on the issue before any further move. When home minister L.K. Advani endorsed dialogue with APHC, Farooq felt cut up and dashed to New Delhi for a meeting with prime minister Vajpayee and claimed he supports the autonomy plan. It is obviously intended only to upstage the APHC and New Delhi would welcome anything that ensures such an outcome.

The Hurriyet leaders have reacted with great maturity and farsightedness to Farooq`s antics, Indian government`s offer of dialogue, and the Chenab Formula. The Conference represents a compact of disparate parties and groups. Yet their leaders including Syed Gilani, Abdul Lone, Shabbir Shah, and Umar Farooq spoke remarkably in unison. They rejected the autonomy plan as farcical and a non-issue, and repudiated trifurcation of Kashmir as unacceptable. APHC said it has ``an ideal solution`` but will not reveal it until the government of India concedes that Kashmir is a dispute and that there are three parties to it - India, Pakistan, and the representatives of people of Kashmir.

In sharp contrast to its public pronouncements on release of APHC leaders and prospects of their dialogue with New Delhi, the United States has avoided any direct comment on autonomy move or the Chenab Formula. Contrary to common perceptions, rather than backing any specific proposal, the US would welcome any initiative that calms tempers in the region and leads to a resolution of the Kashmir problem.

The talk about a shift in US policy in Kashmir after the Kargil episode may have some substance. But the euphoria built in India in response to President Clinton`s various pronouncements during South Asian trip, proved largely misplaced and has since evaporated. In recent years, US officials have subtly referred to the need for recognizing ``new realities`` and injecting ``innovative thinking``, instead of seeking implementation of UN resolutions. Pakistan is being advised to renounce any idea of a military solution by sponsoring or abetting violence in the Valley. There is also emphasis on sanctity of the line of Control (LoC).

At the same time India is being reminded that it cannot have a solution by use of force and repression in Kashmir. That it has to talk to genuine Kashmiri leadership, and ultimately to Pakistan, for any enduring settlement of the Kashmir issue..... (The Nation, Pakistan)

The remaining article is available in the Opinion section at www.syberwurx.com/nation.

re: krashid # 57

The response here of most Indians as also to the article by Udayakumar are a response to bad journalism. We are frustrated that instead of discussing pressing issues many journalists in India, who come from a rather disconnected strata of society, tend to pursue contrived ones. You are only seeing this frustration here on chowk.

And it is not just memebers of the ``majority``. I belong to a minority community.

Ashish

re: krashid (# 56)

India took the illegal occupation of a part of Kashmir to the UN where it committed to holding a plebiscite once the occupied areas were vacated (POK). That hasn`t happened and matters have changed significantly since then (Chinese occupation, ceding of part of occupied territory by Pakistan to China, terrorism). As for other nations, whatever political position they take shouldn`t matter to the legal status of J&K though many recognize J&K as an integral part of India.

Annexation of Junagarh, Hyderabad or for that matter Sarguja, Bastar (to put things in perspective I pick two examples from my home state of Madhya Pradesh- hindu ruled but wanted to be independent) were on the same basis as other states annexed by India and Pakistan. They were forced to sign- with police action in case of Sarguja, Bastar, Hyderabad- with privy purses to their erstwhile rulers. Accession of J&K by Hari Singh under the agreement negotiated with Sheikh Abdullah was a similar agreement (please note that article 370`s last clause says that it can be scrapped by the President of India at any time- this was a temporary measure).

The Indian position has consistently been only that the occupied territory should be vacated. That is the only issue up for bilateral talks with Pakistan as with China. India has maintained that the whole of J&K is an integral part of the union as any other state. India doesn`t recognize any claims by Pakistan to any part of J&K.

The Hurriet does not constitute the major parties in J&K. National Conference is the major party. Other significant ones are Panthers Party, Indian National Congress, etc. Hurriet leaders haven`t proved their support in any election. A small disruptive minority can sometimes hog newspaper headlines- true especially of those who take part in or support terrorist activities- leading to a skewed perception of their real support.

Ashish

Re: concerned

That India today article does hold some weight. It is true that several missionaries in India have proactively sought conversions, if I remember correctly, at the direction of the pope who then watered down his statement after a public protest.

There`s no such problems in Goa for example where both Hindus and Christians coexist without trying to enforce their religions on each other.

By no means am I condoning the violence - these missionaries do not engage in violence a-la-convert-by-the-sword as some Muslims have in the past. I am just making the point that actively seeking conversions is going to come back and kick you in the face. Live and let live. There`s no need for confident religions to actively pursue conversions...if it`s so damn good people will flock.

RS

I am very much appalled to see the Indian response en masse to one of their counterparts.

At least if 100 voices are for then 100 voices are against any such writings in Pakistan.

It also gives an idea how the minorities are treated in India.

ASK #54

Status of Jammu and Kashmir is different.

First of all, Kashmiris want their right of self determination, which is given to them by special UN resolution. There is no such resolution for any other state of India, including, Punjab, Tamil Nadu etc which are considered a part of India and any problem there a internal matter of India.

Although, India attacked and annexed Junagadh, Hyderabad etc, although, these states opted for Pakistan or remained independent, but Pakistan accepted the fact because of predominantly Hindu population and in my memory it has not raised it as issue. But by the same token, Pakistan accepts the rights of Kashmiris to determine their future.

In all the dealings between Pakistan and India even after the handpicked assembly of Kashmir decided to join India, meaning Simla accord, Lahore declaration etc, Indian Government stand is that all issues including Kashmir will be solved bilaterally. THis is in marked contrast to other states of India.

So at local level, Kashmiris are fighting for independence (which is evident from rejection of talk about autonomy proposed by S. Abdullah, by all major parties including Hurriet Conference).

India in response is putting a large number of military presence to curb the movement.

Internationally, all the countries recognise the Kashmir as disputed territory, not with any other state of India.

this reports seems a little old but provides some insights in pakistani kashmir -

http://www.comcen.com.au/

re: krashid#42

Comparison of the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a state of India to colonialism is incorrect. Nobody has denied the people of Jammu and Kashmir their right to life or their right to choose their future. They have these rights and their rights are protected just as they are of Indian citizens from any other part of India. They have their own state government and their vote to elect the central legislature, government and the head of state has the same significance as that of any citizen from any other part. Quite different from colonialism.

Ashish

ps. The current problem in Kashmir is at best similar to the American civil war though there is the added factor of external support and much less local support in the case of Kashmir. People in India look forward to a day when this terrorism will end and they will be able to concentrate on the development of their nation. There is no intent of any subjugation of the Kashmiri people or their culture. There never was, never will be.

The author of this ``story`` seems nutcase to me. Instead of blaming all the failures of Muslims on Hindus she should try to find faults withen her own community.

Why are Majority of muslim girls uneducated?

Why is that in almost all the conflicts going on in the world today Muslims are always the party involved? Be it Kosovo, Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, Middle east etc.

The author has gone to such a lowly depths of defending Azhar because he is Muslim. Has she forgotten that he divorced his muslim wife so that he can roam around with Sangeeta Bijlani? That guy is morally and ethically screwed up. All the doubts were removed about his guilt when he defended himself by saying he is targeted because he is muslim.

She goes further down in trenches when she puts price in defending Kashmir. My dear Lady, defense of the country is and will be number one priority of the policy makers whether you like it or not.

She talks about sex scandal of ISKON which took place in USA and completely igonores hoardings of arms and ammunition in Mosques of India.

The author is completely biased and does not hold any moral ground.

Al