Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

Hey guys,

here is an article about kargil.. in rediff.com.

what do you say?

Pakistan at the Crossroads: The Fallout of Kargil

Speaking to correspondents at Attock where he has been incarcerated by the Musharraf regime, Nawaz Sharif recently squarely blamed General Pervez Musharraf for Pakistan`s military and diplomatic debacle in Kargil. Revealing that Pakistan had suffered heavier casualties in its Kargil misadventure than in the entire 1965 conflict, Sharif went on to say: ``The fact is that unit after unit of the Northern Light Infantry were wiped out. With every passing day, Pakistan was losing posts.``

While the military regime predictably branded Nawaz as a traitor and liar, his wife Kulsoom, whom many in Pakistan consider to be far more politically savvy than her husband, joined the fray, demanding the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to look into who was responsible for the Kargil debacle.

Influential and highly respected newspapers like The Dawn supported this call. But given the veil of secrecy and absence of public accountability that shrouds every activity of the army, there is no way that General Musharraf is going to oblige those who demand that his actions in Kargil should face the same measure of public ``accountability`` as the actions of those whom he is now seeking to prosecute.

Many Pakistanis now privately acknowledge that it is the lack of transparency and public accountability that has led to their army becoming a virtual state within a state in their country. It is only after a lapse of over three decades that eminent Pakistanis like Air Marshal Nur Khan and Altaf Gauhar now acknowledge that the 1965 conflict instigated by Bhutto and executed by Ayub was a national disaster rather than the great victory it was claimed to be.

With the country unable to meet its international debt repayment obligations and regarded as a breeding ground for sectarian religious extremism by countries in its neighbourhood ranging from Iran and India to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan, there is growing international concern about where Pakistan is headed. This concern is naturally shared by many thinking Pakistanis. But is a regime that sought to present President Clinton`s televised address during his brief stopover in Islamabad as an endorsement of its policies, at all capable of genuine introspection?

The military establishment presents the Kargil debacle to its own people as a great military feat whose gains were bartered away by a blundering Nawaz Sharif. One has, therefore, to really ponder over whether the military establishment in Pakistan has learnt any lessons at all from its recent history.

The military, strategic and diplomatic aims of the Kargil misadventure became evident to the world from the two conversations in May 1999, between General Musharraf who was then in China and his Chief of General Staff Aziz Khan. In diplomatic terms the aim was obviously to get waning international interest refocused on Kashmir. The expectation was that India would not be able to retake the heights astride the Srinagar-Leh road and its communications and supply lines to Siachen and Ladakh were cut off.

So confident was Musharraf that these strategic objectives would be achieved that he directed Aziz on May 29 that Pakistan should not accept any Indian offer of a cease-fire in Kargil. Aziz Khan was also ordered that the Pak government should claim that the Line of Control was not properly defined or demarcated and that all military activities should be attributed to the ``Muhjahideen``.

The tunnel vision of those who planned and executed the Kargil venture soon became apparent. The argument that the LOC was not accurately demarcated was promptly rejected by the USA, the European Union and others who had been provided copies of maps signed by Indian and Pakistani military commanders in 1972. Further, by the end of June, virtually all Pakistan army posts overlooking the vital Srinagar-Leh road were overrun.

When United States CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zini visited Islamabad towards the end of June, Musharaf realised the game was up. Every strategic post except Tiger Hill had been lost. It needs to be remembered that Nawaz Sharif agreed to meet Zini only after Musharraf had agreed that withdrawal from remaining areas of Kargil was the only viable option left, both militarily and diplomatically.

By the time Nawaz left for his fateful trip to Washington on July 4, the Indian flag was flying on top of Tiger Hill and supply convoys were proceeding unhindered to Leh from Srinagar. Pakistani army intruders, drawn predominantly from the Northern Light Infantry, had been forced out of over 95 per cent of the strategically crucial Dras and Batalik sectors and the Indian army was poised for a major attack in Mashkoh where over 50 per cent of the territory had been cleared of the intruders.

But the weekend meeting between Nawaz and Clinton signaled the beginning of a new and deadly rivalry between Nawaz and Musharraf, over who exactly was responsible for the Kargil misadventure that ended ignominiously in military terms and earned Pakistan a reputation for irresponsible behaviour, internationally.

The fallout of the Kargil episode was inevitable. As Musharraf visited cantonment after cantonment seeking to explain the debacle to sceptical audiences, he inevitably had to claim that he had ordered the withdrawal on instructions from Nawaz Sharif. The Punjabi prime minister was obviously not pleased at this explanation of his Mohajir army chief. Matters came to a head over Musharraf`s decision to sack Corps Commander, Quetta, Tariq Parvez for his allegedly unauthorised contacts with the prime minister. The impetuous and rash Nawaz Sharif in turn decided to sack Musharraf. The 111 Brigade in Rawalpindi, on red alert for just such an eventuality struck and Pakistan again slid back to military dictatorship.

One would have hoped that given Musharraf`s credentials as a modern minded Ataturk oriented general, things would change. But the repeated invocation of jihad naturally raises serious doubts about the directions in which Pakistan intends to proceed. Has the Pakistan army learnt any lessons at all from the futile deaths of its soldiers and young officers, many of whom bravely laid down their lives for what was, by any yardstick, a military adventure doomed to failure? Was it necessary to get involved in a situation where a professional army refused to accept back the bodies of its slain comrades ? Would the Army high command have been so callous on this score if the soldiers killed were from Chakwal and Rawalpindi instead of from Gilgit and Baltistan?

Finally, has Bill Clinton`s admonition that the international community does not reward those who seek to change borders in blood at all sunk into the minds of the military establishment ?

Pakistan and its military rulers today stand at the crossroads of their nation`s history. Will they choose the path of their country continuing to be a focal point for jihad in Chechnya, Algeria, Egypt, Central Asia and Kashmir? Will they persist in a sterile and futile quest for ``parity`` with a neighbour several times their size and further bankrupt their crisis-ridden economy? Or will they choose the path laid down in the SAARC Vision for the Year 2000 and beyond and constructively join a collective endeavour for developing a South Asian Community, dedicated to the progress and welfare of its people?

Gopalaswami Parthasarathy retired from the Indian Foreign Service in May 2000 after a long and distinguished career. He served as India`s ambassador/high commissioner to Burma, Australia and finally, Pakistan and at Indian missions in Washington, Moscow, Dar es Salaam and Karachi earlier. In Delhi he served as the spokesman at the ministry of external affairs and as information adviser to then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Currently a visiting professor at the Centre for Policy Research, he will contribute a regular column on foreign policy to rediff.com

Krashid I totally agree ...

Asif Naqshbandi

The link is the same old .....

The same old propaganda by the Khilafatists ...

as long as we are alive there will be no Khilafah and that is an eternal position...

Asif Naqshbandi, did you know that the great Quaid e Azam was opposed to the Khilafa ...

Also please enlighten me on what Kemal said bout the Prophet ... I am yet to read anything of that sort....

Perhaps you have all the more reason to hate him because he outlawed and executed your fanatical sufi order of Naqshbandia??? Naqshbandis have been the most orthodox and the most fanatical of

the sufi orders ... They live in the 15th century not the 21st .... they are a shame to Islam!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

YLH -- you know, you almost have a Kemal fetish! If you had read that article which I posted from www.murabitun.org you would have seen that yes he did some good things for the Caliphate in the beginning miitarily, but then he showed his true colours...anyway, it is obvious we will not agree so just forget it. BTW, do you actually know what kind of filth Ataturk spewed about Our Master Sayyedina Prophet Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam? That is the primary reason I hate him...

Sigalph...is Turkey as powerful as you are making out? It is percieved as the sick man of Europe..and as for its much vaunted Kemalis secularism --well, since when has that meant thatyou prevent people from graduating just becoz they wear a headscarf?? Why was the Refah party prime minister forced quite blatantly to resign by the generals?

And Turkey is not a part of the EU yet. I hope it does become a part of it..as long as it can keep its Islamic credentials...but I bet the deal is that you become like us and then you can join! As for NATO--well, Turks make good fodder you see..rather a few dead Turks than Western Europeans is the thinking behind that. Otherwise, why is the EC so terrified of the Islamic parties coming to power?

Sadhana #97

Sadhna, do you really not eat meat? How about machhi, bhat?

That creates problems. Don`t you think!

Ref Asif #126:

Dear Asif:

thanks for the following link:

http://www.murabitun.org/programme/khalifate/kha5.html

It was interesting to read the effect of European banking, Oriental express etc. on the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman empire though was brutally repressive throughout the nineteenth century, specially towards the Serb, Montenegro, Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian christians. During Sultan Abdal Hamid`s reign, thousands of Armenians were massacared periodically, as depicted by the gloating letter of a Turk soldier in 1896, where his unit killed 1200 Armenians as `food for dogs`.

These massacres pale into insignificance to what happened during the rule of the so called secular Ittehad rule, where Kemal was one of the leading lights. From 1915 on, under the name of `Turkey for Turks` and `internal enemy` pretense 1.5 million Armenians fell to the first genocide and ethnic cleansing of the last century.

It was this genocide that prompted Hitler later to ask `Who remembers the Armenians?` when the final solution of the Jews was considered.

Ref Asif #126:

Dear Asif:

thanks for the following link:

http://www.murabitun.org/programme/khalifate/kha5.html

It was interesting to read the effect of European banking, Oriental express etc. on the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman empire though was brutally repressive throughout the nineteenth century, specially towards the Serb, Montenegro, Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian christians. During Sultan Abdal Hamid`s reign, thousands of Armenians were massacared periodically, as depicted by the gloating letter of a Turk soldier in 1896, where his unit killed 1200 Armenians as `food for dogs`.

These massacres pale into insignificance to what happened during the rule of the so called secular Ittehad rule, where Kemal was one of the leading lights. From 1915 on, under the name of `Turkey for Turks` and `internal enemy` pretense 1.5 million Armenians fell to the first genocide and ethnic cleansing of the last century.

It was this genocide that prompted Hitler later to ask `Who remembers the Armenians?` when the final solution of the Jews was considered.

YLH:

Your impassioned defense of Kemal Ataturk and Jinnah is admirable. Funny how the nutcases cannot stand the name of Kemal, calling him all kinds of names, the most benign of which is probably `apostate`. Funny it was these very mullahs who had bestowed the title ``Gazi`` on him.

Kemal saved Turkey and set it on a course which has, today, brought it on the verge of being recognised as a regional econimic and military power. He reclaimed a civilization which was ready to drown in the abyss of Ottoman debauchery.

When the Saudis, SUdanese, and the Afghans gain entry into NATO and the European Union, then we will be happy to listen to the types of Naqshbandi.

In essesnce, the Kashmiri Muslims have a similar choice to make. They can follow the model of Afghanistan and Sudan in their freedom struggle and make the civilised world more and more suspicious of them(and India more gleeful). Or, they can eschew the poisoned chalice offered by the Taleban and Pakistani radicals with a firm ``thanks, but no thanks``. The latter course will make it a tougher go in the long run but most likely be more successful than the alternative. One cannot blame the world or even India itself for being paranoid about the prospect of an Islamic radical state next door. With the fall of communism, Islamic extremism has become the most well organized threat to the idea of a free society.

ylh# on your posts.

My thinking on AtaTurk is that he must have been a great figure in Islamic world during his time as a saviour of Turkey, and much respect in Islamic world. I think Allama Iqbal has written a poem in his praise also.

And since it was Sultan with his allied Mullahs, who were defeated badly and failed to protect Turkish Caliphate. So AtaTurk must have been a hero and Sultan a villian of Turkish people. That is why it must have been easy on AtaTurk to not only put the blame on Sultan and institutions created by him, but also to believe Islamic orthodoxy as the direct cause of decline of Muslims. And it cannot be otherwise, except by full support of people to ban all Islamic identity of Turks, like banning Turkish cap, banning veil for women, changing the character of language from Arabic to Roman etc.

In Pakistan situation is different. Islamic parties have never been in power. They think that Islam will give prosperity to our country. Their work is easy because Pakistan has been ruled by liberals, Socialists and everyone except Islamist.

The Zia era, they say is utilization of Islam for his own end and was not Islam.

They are providing education (of whatever sort) to people who would otherwise were not able to get education. Moreover that education is religious, taking to heaven. (Sone pe Suhaga). They also do community services. They take credit of downfall of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. You can judge from the fact, that Pervez Musharraf, who first said that he is impressed with AtaTurk, is now talking about Islamic system of everything and kind and has to budge under pressure of Islamic parties.

I have to do a lot of reading, but one thing which I am realizing is that education should be our second priority after economic self sufficiency.

krashid, the last time the ``dust settled`` bangladesh had disappeared from Pakistani paws. And so far the dust from Kashmir has clouded Pakistan`s eyes...50 years and Kashmir is still in India. Another 50 will be no different.

It gives me great pleasure to hear you reassure us that Pakistan should continue to support muslim terrorism all over the world. Now I can be assured that your path to bankruptcy and international isolation will continue.

And genius, the OIC conference was ``held`` in Malaysia. Regardless of what was said or not said, the outcomes don`t necessarily represent Malaysia`s views. And if I remember correctly, Malaysia was recently considering banning Paki students to prevent terrorism and unrest.

Pardesi thanks for your elaborate response. Jinnah`s vision had one dissimilarity with Ataturk`s vision. Jinnah believed that a secular Democracy is perfectly compatible with the Islamic ideal of polity. Ataturk, though started out that way, didnot believe that Islam was compatible with his secular vision. Kemalism as you said was a gift of God for the Turks. However Kemalism in its

crude form was perhaps only implementable in Post World War 1 Turkey. Earlier on I quoted Bobby S Sayyid`s book in which he described Pakistan as a Kemalist state. However we need to work on it. Islam doesnt need to be ridiculed the way it was in Turkey. Therefore the reformed Kemalism will have scorn for obscuranitism and bigotry and not the rational religion of Islam itself. Ofcourse the state will be completely secular but in this secular state no religion will be suppressed but left alone. This is the vision of Jinnah. Laicism is just a part of Kemalism. As Bobby S Sayyid says that in the Modern Islamic World Kemalism was introduced with various strategies, the Pahlvist strategy, the Quasi Caliphate strategy, etc. I think Pakistan has the necessary composition to become a true Kemalist state without the aid of these strategies. Kemalist ideology, as you can discern, is only applicable to Muslim states and in essence is Muslim discourse in secularism... remember Ataturk`s nationalism also has a lot to do with the fact that Turks were all Muslims.

With that said, let me say Pakistan is loosely structured as a Kemalist state. Sure the influence of Bigotry and fanaticism is strong and thats what we have to work at. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had an excellent opportunity but at the time he was busy bringing the Muslim World close together.

The fact remains that you are correct that the Kemalism in its true form will never be successful in Pakistan but Neo Kemalism will, Kemalism which will be purged of all undemocratic and draconian practised that Kemalism became known for. There will be no more repression and measured terror though obscurantists and fanatics will be dealt with severely.

Personally, and it might sound cruel to Indians but charity begins at home, the sure shot way of getting rid of fanatics will be to send them with even more religious zeal into India/Kashmir. Hopeful they will be wiped out and India will be weakened to resolve the Kashmir issue. Once resolved the Moderately Muslim Moderately Kemalist state of Pakistan will move to reclaim its destiny.

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Ylh:

Turkey became secular (Kemalist) only when it suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of Allies in WWI. Kemal (my hero too) was a gift of God to Turkey at the time since - #1 Turkey was in “soul searching mood” after loss of their empire, #2 Kemal was a secular visionary who understood value of science and technology and #3 he had his patriotic credentials in place by defeating Greek troops in last couple of battles. With all these stars aligned, he could take the monumental task of reshaping a conservative Muslim state into a 20th century modern state. In fact, he also placed stringent laws in place so that the patient does not lapse into its old familiar religious ways again. Some of these constitutional measures were: armed forces keeping a close eye on the political affairs, no officer in army with any personal or familial links with religious organization etc.

Now whatever vision Mr. Jinnah had, does not matter here since the poor guy died too soon. Real issue is how any one is going to be able to transform Pakistan into a Kemalist state. Let us compare Pakistani conditions with those of Turkey after 1918.

1. Credibility with people - I would venture to guess that the only ones, who have some credibility with public at this time on emotional level, are the Jihadis since they are the ones who shed their blood in Kashmir for what they believe in. Regular army has not achieved any victories over last 50 years. Elite and their US educated children have not done much for masses in terms of nation’s education levels or material progress. I personally may hate these Jihadis as an Indian, and you may dislike these guys since they threaten well being of your kind in Pakistan, but they have credibility with ordinary Pakistani people since they are doing some thing for your national passion/objective # 1, Kashmir, rather than just talk.

2. A General with vision - You do not seem to have any visionary general (secular with love for science and technology) and most importantly, who also has credibility with the nation. All the generals have done is hide behind Jihadis and hope to somehow grab Kashmir so that they can get credit while others spill their blood. If there are indeed such people with iron resolve and great vision, they are not visible to the outside world.

3. Right circumstances - Last, but not least, Pakistan has not suffered any humiliating defeat that readies it for radical steps of this magnitude. The last time this kind of situation existed was in 1971 and the generals practically begged Mr. Bhutto to take over the government. That was perhaps as close to perfect time as Pakistan is going to get to implement blue print for Kemalist Pakistan.

Asif Naqshbandi

I donot suffer fools gladly!

Your analysis of the history and of the rational religion of Islam ..... is indeed messed up.

In any event I donot wish to defend Ataturk, everyone on this forum will view your post with scorn.

I am going to say one thing... if you read about Ataturk closely you will see that he himself wanted to enlist Islam as an influence for he believed that Islam was the most natural and rational of all religions... but then he probably ran into people like you who made him hate religion.

I leave you the choice ... you can go on claiming

that Islam and Democracy are incompatible... in the case of which we will have to do away with Islam completely (because people like you have corrupted it) or you can expound upon the rational true Islam and state Democracy and Islam go hand in hand ... saving both Islam and Pakistan.

If people like you dont change your views, and consider me fascist if you may, we will be forced to choose Democracy over the medieval philosophy that you choose to claim exclusively as Islam...

My Islam is not irrational....

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

In reply to ZZ, RSaxena, etc., : why I termed the analysis posted by Mohajir to be junk.

I do not know whether US-Pakistan relations have thawed or not. However, that is irrelevant to India. India-US relations will be, as far as is possible, independent of Pakistan-US relations, each relationship following its own trajectory.

There are many issues in India-US relations, for example, CTBT and non-proliferation, and the embargo on high-tech. exports to certain sectors in India. Moreover, the US has tried (and succeeded) in several instances, in keeping Russia from honoring signed contracts with India, for civilian programs. India is concerned about the US`s proposed missile defense system, because it might trigger an arms race in Asia. These are issues that would exist even if Pakistan did not exist.

In any case, if the US is going to rely on India as a guarantor of security in India`s corner of the world, then it can have no objection to India acquiring the necessary military strength from Russia, especially when the US itself is not willing to sell to India.

As to not trusting those Hindus because of Pakistani newspapers, I see more and more of these being hired by American firms to do work in IT, the very core of intelligence in the company.

So, what is wrong with the analysis is :

1. Viewing US foreign relations as a zero-sum game -- any pro-India move is necessarily anti-Pakistan, and any pro-Pakistan move is necessarily anti-India.

A more accurate view is that the US moves are pro-US, and India and Pakistan eat the fall-out.

2. Misunderstanding what a thaw is -- let the US resume pumping investment into Pakistan, buying more from Pakistan, lifting embargoes, and you can interpret it as a thaw in relations. Ambassadors singing you sweet words but doing nothing is not a thaw.

3. Buying of Russian weapons by India being perceived as anti-US : for all you know, the US might be happy to raise no objections in return for less Russian objections to US anti-missile defence plans. In any case, India is also shopping from France and Britain.

4. Viewing American foreign policy as being based on religion -- the US is happy to do business with countries as fundamentalist as Saudi Arabia. I think the US would not mind constant anti-US slogans being raised by the public in Islamic count ries, as long as business continued, and business was not threatened by bombs or guns.

Nor does the US foreign policy view India (or China) for that matter, as Hindu or non-Christian or Communist countries. These are places to do business and these are expected to comply with US wishes. As long as they do this (or at least, do not rock the boat violently) they are friends, strategic partners, etc., irrespective of ideology. As soon as they make trouble, they are threats, enemies, and whatever ideology they follow will be anathema, and painted to be a threat to the world as a whole.

Rantings in Pakistani newspapers are irrelevant to this.

-arun gupta

Re: RSaxena

Isn`t it true that Hanuman, the god-king of all monkeys, lives in India with his pack and those monkeys, as you correctly say, do not separate from the pack?

ylh, how would you, or other Pakis for that matter, feel about this hypothetical idea:

Make all India-Pakistan borders impermeable, cut off diplomatic relations, ban flights, ban whatever trade there might be, ban cross-border media proliferation, and completely isolate the two countries from each other. Ignore Kashmir for a second if you can, for this purpose.

Would you be as delighted as I?