Hands Across The Border

Re: YLH #168

``Infact in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the public opinion is going to be extremely hostile as I mentioned earlier...Now it is quite clear to me, that you are suggesting, that there should be an executive council sort of thing, in which each country regardless of its size or population size have one vote each. I am not sure how much you have actually thought about this issue... but 1 billion souls of India to have only one vote and 500 million or so other inhabitants to have 6 votes?...``

I meant exactly that, i.e. one country one vote. This will negate India`s size, and assuage the feelings of the smaller neighbors. No doubt, it will be hard to sell in India, and it will be against democratic principles. But, that was exactly what Gandhi and Azad had counseled Nehru at the time of the Cabinet Mission Plan, or even during the Intermin Govt. of 1946. Nehru`s failings then should not burden 1.3 billion people of the Subcontinent today. Today, as ever, statesmanship is called for to unentangle the mess. In return, India could ask all member states to adhere to democratic principles in their domestic affairs (it is true that democracies do not go to war against each other). Further, the mutual benefit to all countries may outweigh their sacrifice (i.e drastic reduction in military budgets, closer people-to-people contacts).

sadna #174

Here`s what you wrote in post #148:

``Dionysus #142 #143

One of those references has already been posted by shammi #133.``

I didn`t ask for a reference. In fact, I explicity stated that I didn`t want a link to a propaganda piece in an Indian newspaper. I asked you for your comments on Indian massacres of Kashmiris. But you responded with a reference to someone else`s post which itself contains a link to a totally irrelevent Indian news article. So who`s illiterate?? Or should that be, who`s in denial??



Let`s try again. Here`s what one of the oldest, most prestigious and most respected news organizations in the world reports about India`s behaviour in Kashmir:

``They kill, every day they kill dozens of people for reasons best known to the government of India. Anybody can be killed.``

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1182000/1182243.stm

Please comment.

From The BBC today

Indian peace visit to Pakistan


Kashmir is the biggest issue between the two countries

By Shahid Malik in Lahore

An Indian delegation of 12 retired senior military officers has arrived in Pakistan to hold informal discussions to try to improve relations between the two countries.

The Indian ex-servicemen, who reached Lahore by a regular passenger bus on Friday evening, include four army generals, an air marshal and a former naval chief, Admiral L Ramdas, who is the leader of the delegation.

Speaking to the journalists at the bus terminal, Admiral Ramdas described the week-long visit as an effort to improve people-to-people understanding, which, he said, could lead to a change of heart between India and Pakistan.

As expected, the retired admiral was questioned about whether the Indian Government was prepared to recognise the Kashmir issue as the only major obstacle in the bilateral relations, a position traditionally taken by Pakistan.

He referred to the Lahore Declaration, signed two years ago by the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his then Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif. This, he said, had addressed all the core issues, including Kashmir.

He said the two foreign ministers had also prepared a draft timetable to discuss the Kashmir issue and its allied problems. But he said fighting which broke out in Kargil caused a setback to the Lahore process.

Diplomatic formalities

Admiral Ramdas said the latest extension of ceasefire in Kashmir has now offered another opportunity for peace because the Indian Prime Minister`s decision has the backing of practically all the political parties.

On Saturday, the Indian visitors will join half a dozen former senior officers of Pakistan`s armed forces in an informal discussion at the Punjab Club in Lahore by the English Speaking Union of Pakistan.

Two days later, they will move to Islamabad, where a former president of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Sardar Abdul Qayum, is holding a lunch in their honour.

They will also visit a Pakistan army regimental centre in Abbottabad, and the ancient sites of Taxila, which are traced back to the period of Maharaja Ashoka.

The delegation arrived in Pakistan on a day when police in Lahore arrested half a dozen people attempting to stage a demonstration against Indian policies in Kashmir.

The call for the abortive demonstration had been given by the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami.

Dionysus #172
Are you illiterate? I posted a reply to you #148

By the way are you claiming Geelani was misquoted on the `Islamic state` remark? Are you claiming he has no support from Pakistani organizations like Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-i-Taiba? Are you aware that 300,000 KASHMIRI Hindus have left the valley over the last many years ? That 20,000 KASHMIRI Sikhs are threatening to leave? That Shiite religious heads were among the victims of militants as well as Gujjars?

Sadhana

sadna #170

Pakistani egos? Syed Ali Shah Geelani is a Kashmiri, not a Pakistani. How in the world have you managed to drag Pakistan into this?? Oh sorry, I forgot that DENIAL is the Indian way of dealing with the fact that Kashmiris reject India and want nothing do with it.

sadna #170

It looks as though India is a taking a different and somewhat more direct route to ``denuding Kashmir of its diversity``:

``They kill, every day they kill dozens of people for reasons best known to the government of India. Anybody can be killed.``



http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1182000/1182243.stm

You still haven`t commented on this news article. Why don`t you do that instead of posting propaganda pieces from Indian newspapers, who have no credibility at all when it comes to reporting on the Indian occupation and brutalization of Kashmir.

ABOUT HUMANS AND KAFIRS

There are some educated pakistanis on chowk, a few are card carrying memebers of Amnesty International, they talk endlessly about human rights and kashmir, how thw indian troops are subjugating the kashmiris. These reapeat t6he AI words, human rights blah...blah. One can never hear theses human rights pakistanis talking about, passionately about blasphemy laws. They never are so fanatical about the honour killings. When it is mentioned on the chowk, at best they retort, oh ..yeah we are against it...what is the point in talking about it.

The reason for this schiz.ophernia is simple, right from the school days, the k for kafir education have defined the world for them, there are kafirs nd humans. For these AI memebers, human right is about muslims only. When they talk of liberating kashmir, it is about bringing the kashmir population under the legalised honour killing, under the hoodoo ordinance and the blasphemy laws. For these AI members, the human rights idea should not conflict with the book, that is what is learned early in childhood, the curriculam that requires the identification of kafir have defined the mankind for them.

Schooling gives the verbiage to hide the prejudices learned early in childhood. Pakistanis talking about human rights, pyromaniac on the fire extinguisher.

PS: Deciding that only one community can live per square foot of nationalist/religious territory may be the rule in Pakistan, but is it necessary so necessary for Pakistani egos that Kashmir should also be denuded of its diversity?

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20010224/ina24051.html
``.. Referring indirectly to the moderates in the separatist conglomerate, Geelani said it was time to reject secular politics and politicians. ``We have reached a turning point. The Kashmiri nation is at a two-way junction and now the people have to decide whether they will adopt Islamic politics or secular politics,`` he said...``

After reading the whole article, the question to ask the jihadi-tail-wagging-in-the-Hurriyat is, do only members of one religious community have the right to live in their homeland?

Sadhana

Dear Shammi,

I know your heart is at the right place, and it is great exchanging views with you.

Let us start with the whole confederation issue, I am afraid I still dont see the point to such a suggestion, peace will not necessarily be arrived at by a confederation. Infact in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the public opinion is going to be extremely hostile as I mentioned earlier. Similarly if you are extending this to whole of South Asia, as your SAARC proposal suggests, I dont see how any of the smaller countries let alone Pakistan allow itself be overshadowed by India.

Now it is quite clear to me, that you are suggesting, that there should be an executive council sort of thing, in which each country regardless of its size or population size have one vote each. I am not sure how much you have actually thought about this issue... but 1 billion souls of India to have only one vote and 500 million or so other inhabitants to have 6 votes?

This is not fair, and it isnt fair the other way ie votes according to population, because then the sovereignty of the other countries will be undermined by hegemonic presence of India.

In any event, lets say we are being unfair to 1 billion Indians, and giving them only one vote, dont you think in the SAARC itself you are going to create communal-based voting... Pakistan Maldives and possibly Bangladesh, might even start

Pan-South-Asian-Muslim front within the saarc. In any event, which is not necessarily a religious issue but will become the same old communal issue.

Now coming to Kashmir, I must say you have misunderstood the passion of some Pakistanis for Kashmir. Leaving Kashmir, as an independent body is going to create atleast as big an uproar as it will in India, if not bigger in Pakistan.

You asked the questions ....

1) What if Kashmir becomes a Taliban like state? What about security? What about defence of Kashmir? What about Peace?

Ans: Pakistan and India, as well as China and the rest of the World Community should sit down, and draw the boundaries of Independent Kashmir. A government which has the approval of India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri Politicians, should be formed, taking care that all the members should be willing wholeheartedly to work together. Pakistan, India and China should let go of their claims on Kashmir unconditionally. Multi-Nation UN troops should serve as the Armed forces of Kashmir for a period of 10 to 15 years, and assist in formation of indigenous Kashmiri defence forces.

Pakistan, India, China, and Kashmir should sign a no war pact.

Shammi #159

Is it impolite to rebutt blatant lies, dis-information and propaganda?? This latest post of yours is again full of claims that are just so easy to take apart.

Stop spreading anti-Pakistan propoganda (for eg your post #161) and we will reciprocate.

Shammi #160

Is it impolite to rebutt blatant lies, dis-information and propaganda?? This latest post of yours is again full of claims that are just so easy to take apart.

Stop spreading anti-Pakistan propoganda (for eg your post #161) and we will reciprocate.

Re: Wisecomments #160

Thank you for the link. Upon reading it, I was troubled to learn that even if Kashmir is solved, Pakistan`s perceived insecurity vis-a-vis India, will make her permanently hostile towards India. I would prefer to not believe it, since permanent hostility is not what I wish for. However, my desires may have no bearing on reality whatsoever, and unfortunately, we may be in for a long, adverserial relationship to the detriment of all. This is the extract that I picked up on:

``Despite a war-scare in 1951 and a multitude of unresolved post-partition disputes, India-Pakistan relations warmed in the summer of 1953. In June, the Prime Ministers of both countries met in London, and they agreed to meet again in Karachi in July. The meeting in Karachi was followed by the Pakistani Prime Minister`s visit to New Delhi in August. Though none of the major issues were resolved at these meetings, there was considerable movement on the Kashmir issue during the New Delhi meeting. Nehru agreed to hold plebiscite in Kashmir, if an impartial Plebiscite Administrator could be found. An additional element that pointed to favourable conclusion to these talks was the substantial popular support for them. Both Prime Ministers were warmly welcomed in each other`s capital, and, for the first time ever, the prospect of resolving outstanding issues between the two countries appeared to be good.``

``Nevertheless, the talks soon foundered. Throughout the summer Pakistan had been negotiating a defence treaty with the United States, despite clear public and private warnings from Nehru that such a treaty would seriously affect India-Pakistan relations. Once the defence treaty was announced, Nehru withdrew from his earlier commitment and refused to consider any further changes in Kashmir and relations between the two countries returned to the familiar hostility. Though Pakistan`s pursuit of the defence treaty in 1953 seems difficult to understand, it was clearly motivated by the need to balance India.``

``While resolution of the Kashmir dispute and other outstanding disputes was important to Pakistan, the resolution of these disputes by themselves would not have removed the imbalance of power in South Asia. Because Pakistan`s insecurity was tied to the power imbalance in South Asia rather than to specific disputes with India, Pakistan saw greater security in a defence treaty with the US, even if the pursuit of such a treaty put at risk its negotiations with India over Kashmir. Pakistan`s actions made it clear that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute was less important that the need to balance India.``

``The litany of Pakistani complaints have gone from Kashmir, to the Indus river dispute, to the Indian military build-up after the 1962 war, to Bangladesh, to nuclear weapons and back to Kashmir. Thus Pakistan`s fear constantly forces it to balance India. The consequence of Pakistan`s balancing efforts has been conflict with India. Pakistan`s balancing efforts are viewed with suspicion in New Delhi, where political leaders have repeatedly claimed that such efforts are unnecessary. Pakistan is accused of acquiring military might disproportionate to her `legitimate` needs and, during the Cold War years, of bringing the Cold War to South Asia by inviting external powers to the region.``

``These are valid enough claims, considering that Pakistan rather than India has been the initiator of each of the three wars and that Indian terms for settlement of these wars have been uniformly generous. Nevertheless, such criticism failed to address the underlying imbalance of South Asian power. Pakistan was not responding to specific Indian threats or misbehaviour but rather to this imbalance. This explanation also suggests that unilateral Indian concessions, such as the `Gujral doctrine`, are unlikely to end the India-Pakistan conflict. This is not to suggest that the Gujral doctrine should be given up; but because the doctrine does not address the imbalance of power in South Asia, it should not be expected to resolve the India-Pakistan dispute.``

The Kashmiri Hawk speaks in the Indian Express
today at:

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20010224/ina24051.html

Ras

Shammi, The question we need to answer today:

``Is Kashmir Disputed Territory?``

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/feb/23pak3.htm
Kashmir our unfinished agenda: Pak

K J M Varma in Islamabad

Pakistan has said it considered Kashmir as its `unfinished agenda` and that Islamabad wanted jihad (holy war) in Kashmir to continue.

``We respect jihadi outfits and we never called for giving up jihad in Kashmir,`` Pakistan`s Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider said in a face-to-face meeting with leaders of various Pakistan-based militant organisations.

``We do say that what is going on in Kashmir is indigenous jihad and not terrorism,`` Urdu daily Jang, which organised the meeting, said in its report on Friday.

He said Islamabad considers Kashmir as an unfinished agenda of Pakistan and it would not backtrack on the issue.

The minister said whatever he was saying was not his individual thoughts but the policy of the present Pakistani government.

On his threats to ban open display of arms and public collection of funds by jihadi groups, Haider said, ``If any individual or outfit refuses to abide by the laws, stern action would be taken.``

He said the ban would apply on all outfits, particularly the sectarian groups.
Haider`s comments came when the militant leaders said that the Pakistan government should not have `apologetic attitude` over helping the militants.

``We do get military aid from Pakistan but instead of admitting it, apologetic attitude is being adopted in this regard, which gives a negative impact,`` Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin said.

He said, ``If the State (Pakistan) would not fulfil its responsibilities, people would take power in their hands.``

The Hizb chief said military pressure on India should be intensified as militants had already rejected the ceasefire announced by the government.

``Ceasefire might be a step towards the resolution of the Kashmir issue but not a cure for the disease,`` he said.

Salahuddin and other militant leaders told Haider that they were ready to co-operate with the military regime on issues relating to Pakistan`s security provided the Musharraf government acknowledged that it was their suicide attacks that made India declare a ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir, the report said.

Terming jihad as a `Quranic verdict`, Lashkar-e-Tayiba chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed said, ``Mujahideen do not want to indulge in politics nor have they political motives. But they are fighting jihad for suppressed Kashmiris.``

``Jihad in Kashmir should be strengthened to save Pakistan as political efforts have failed to resolve the issue,`` Saeed said.

The Lashkar chief blamed the Pakistani government for the gun culture in Pakistan, saying people were allowed to fire thousands of rounds from guns during the recent Spring festival at Lahore.

Whether national elections are going to be held in the near future or not(in Pakistan), what prevents entities like newspapers from conducting scientific and unbiased opinion surveys on issues of national interest?

Sadhana