The Indo-Pak Summit, Kashmir and the Taj Mahal

The Pioneer

Prosperity is the core issue

Bobby Sharma



Welcome to India, your country of birth, Mr President. Sir, you`ve pulled the carpet from under the bonhomie by your invitation to Hurriyat leaders and preposterous allegations of violation of human rights by Indian security forces in J&K. The positive fallout of this has been that ``frightening expectations`` have been realistically subdued. We are fully aware of your domestic compulsions. We also know that your economy is virtually on the brink of collapse. Yes, the US is breathing down your neck for restoration of democracy. While these you may overcome, the threat from your own flanks-from unhappy and pro-china generals-is real and may hamstring your moves.

Mr President, you have said in the context of your visit to India that you can change history. The alchemy of hatred unleashed by events in the past has militarised and communalised the mindsets of ordinary, impressionable and uninformed people, who form the bulk of the population in both the countries. The only difference and a significant one is that while India has steadfastly nurtured secularism, Pakistan has assiduously encouraged `self-destructive` fundamentalism.

Here, Sir, are some ideas for the agenda for the summit. within the parameters of ``give and take`` pragmatism and the national interests of both the countries. The core issue of J&K involves the UN Resolution of 1948, Shimla Declaration, 1972 and Lahore Declaration, 1999. The first, which calls for Plebiscite is redundant, as recently stated by UN Secretary General. But then, one is sure you know that already. Instead consider converting the existing LoC into an International Border. Though a testy option for both countries, the alternative is constant friction. Resolving this issue can set the pace for a moratorium, which in turn can lead to a broader resolution.

It is possible to de-militarise the Siachen Glacier, a flashpoint that bleeds both countries. You may take up from where the two Defence Secretaries left off in 1992. You and Mr Vajpayee can initiate necessary CBMs leading eventually to thinning of troops from both the LoC and J&K. Certain sensitive posts on both sides can be identified and manned. India has already taken the first step of sending its Director General, Military Operations to meet his counterpart in Pakistan.

And yes, do rein in those bounders that call themselves jihadis. Do it now or they may prove Pakistan`s nemesis, result in its balkanisation. You have already upbraided the mullahs for their irresponsible behaviour. This is a good beginning. But you will need more than your legal authority to check growing fundamentalism in your country. Tell them to liberate people of their hunger, poverty and miseries; in the modern world, those are the imperatives.

Economic cooperation is the watchword today. Nothing endures (or endears) more. Our official trade is a mere $200 million; unofficially, it is believed to be more than $1 billion. Let us formalise it. You can grant India Most Favoured Nation Status (MFN), like we have given you. The proposed gas pipeline from Iran can fetch you $200 million as transit fee. Pakistan can import our sugar and we can buy power from you. Many other areas can be explored, provided there is political will and mutual trust.

Mr President, the Partition caused great misery, bloodshed and emotional upheavals. But we are neighbours. We have to co-exist. People of the sub-continent are watching you and Mr Vajpayee and are coaxing you to follow the high road to peace and harmony. History may not give us another chance. Instead of fighting each other, let us fight together against poverty, hunger and illiteracy. The core issue is not Kashmir. The core issues are people, peace and prosperity.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sarwar 55

``I need not tell you that in1965, the way the people of Pakistan regarded India was completely different from the way the Government of Pakistan thought of India. To this date, the leaders of the two nations have forgotten the mutual warmth and friendship the citizens of each country enjoyed at one time.``

The author Kamat could be a lunatic. If there was so much friendship and warmth between india and pakistan in the early days, may be the great man a treacherous sherry drinker.

Re:narain#53

I think Vajpayee has been carried away by emotions regarding this summit. Instead of focussing on the problems with Pakistan, he is making wild, unilateral goodwill gestures. When Musharraf became president, Vajpayee was the first person to call him and literally indulge in flattery. Diplomacy cannot be carried out on the basis of wild swings in emotions. On the other hand, Musharraf is behaving in a very cool, calm, professional manner. He knows his agenda on Kashmir and he is preparing for some serious diplomacy on that issue. He did free Vikas Singh, but that is about all he is willing to do.

The irony is that Musharraf is under much more pressure than Vajpayee for a successful summit. If Musharraf gives up too much on Kashmir, he will be toast when he returns to Pakistan. If he does not make any progress and the conflict with India continues, he cannot improve Pakistan`s economy. Without an improving economy the people will remain dissatisfied and he may be forced to give up power at some point. On the other hand, Vajpayee has a good economy, strong popularity and a stable hold on power. Yet, he is behaving like some desperate teenager trying to ``patao`` a girl, who is playing hard to get.

The chances of a war are actually quite high, if previous summits are any indication of the future. Any movement towards a Kashmir solution, will be fiercely resisited by the jehadis and their sympathisers in the Pak army. They may very likely trigger a large conflict to preserve their vested interests in the Kashmir problem.

India’s rightwing remains sceptical about summit

By S. P. Udayakumar

There is no gainsaying that the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit is a bold and progressive move. But neither can one overlook the fact that the move involves a Pakistani military general on the one hand and an Indian swayamsevak on the other. The institutions the two leaders represent — the army and the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) — put more faith in militarism and authoritarianism than in democracy and peace. While much is made of the undemocratic credentials of an army, in this case Pakistan’s military, we must remember that the RSS is no democratic organisation either. With an appointed and unchallenged leader, the RSS promotes military drills and militaristic ethos. The overwhelming political conservatism is an important characteristic of these two institutions.

In fact, most political groups and politicians in India and Pakistan tend to be rather conservative when it comes to bilateral relations and other outstanding issues between the two countries.

Even the progressive-types abruptly become die-hard nationalists and regurgitate conservative rhetoric in order not to be branded as traitors or anti-nationals. For instance, Mr. Chandra Sekhar, a former Indian Prime Minister who feigns to be a socialist and progressive, has advised Prime Minister Vajpayee to be cautious during his talks with General Musharraf and desist from committing anything that could create a difficult situation later.

The traditional right-wingers are almost always absurd about India-Pakistan relations. Some of the common characteristics of conservative politics include religious fundamentalism, answering socioeconomic-political problems without choice, reducing complex issues to simple-minded triviality, scapegoating, victim-blaming and so on. The overriding characteristic, however, is the innate scepticism about progressive ideas and struggles. This negativism often emanates from the right’s deep desire to scuttle the change progressive politics propounds and to retain the status quo.

Consider the reactions to the summit of some of the right-wing politicians and conservative groups in India. The Shiv Sena supremo, Mr Bal Thackeray, has called it “an exercise in futility.” He is quoted in his party mouthpiece as saying: “There will not be any concrete outcome of the summit talks and we should not expect much from it.” He also claims that General Musharraf is indulging in doublespeak on the Kashmir issue by posturing as a peacemaker at times and taking a hard and uncompromising stand at other times.

According to the Bharatiya Janata Party president, Mr Jana Krishnamurthi, the party does not expect any “dramatic results” from the summit. The people in Pakistan, says the BJP chief, have been fed with hate-India propaganda for 50 years and “this attitude must change.” Interestingly enough, he is silent on the anti-Pakistan tirade of his own party and its previous incarnation, Bharatiya Jana Sangh. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, two militant communal groups, have also been unenthusiastic about the summit.

However, the group that shapes the conservative thinking and hardened attitudes on the India-Pakistan relations is the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), the leader of the right-wing Hindutva pack. Thanks to the editorials and lead articles published in the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser , one can discern the overall thinking among the Hindu rightwing.



According to an article by N S Rajaram (“Musharraf’s goal is survival,” June 24 issue), the core issue between India and Pakistan is not Kashmir “but the right of Hindus to rule India.” Kashmir is simply a pretext to keep the jihad against India going. Quoting a Pakistani columnist, the article by the Hindutva ideologue contends that the jihad being waged is not against any policies of India but against “Hindu India” itself.

Interestingly enough, this argument seems to have some truth in it. Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba, is quoted in a Pakistani newspaper as saying: “Even if Pakistan imposed a ban on jihadi outfits, it would not affect them and they would continue their operations in Kashmir…Even if Kashmir got liberated from India, the operations would be continued in the rest of India.” Refusing to endorse the summit meeting, the LeT chief spoke in one of his Friday discourses at a mosque: “We have upheld jihad in the way of Allah and after his commandant, it will continue until monotheism dominates the world.” The Lashkar website has reported that Hafiz Saeed calls on the jihadis to intensify their fight against “non-believers and oppressors.”

Shyam Khosla (“Opportunity for peace,” June 10 issue) argues in a lead article that the “root cause” of tension between India and Pakistan is not Kashmir but the “two nation” theory. He quotes from the Group of Ministers’ Report on the National Security System headed by Indian Home Minister, Mr L K Advani: “Pakistan will continue to pose a threat to India’s security in the future also. Its traditional hostility and single-minded aim of destabilising India is not focussed just on Kashmir but on a search for parity. This arises out of [the] two-nation theory coupled with a desire to exact revenge for its 1971 humiliation.” So both the Hindu and the Muslim communalists reiterate the division that has been the bedrock of their divisive politics.

Another article by Shyam Khosla (“Revive proactive policy in Kashmir,” June 3 issue), explains how “our western neighbor did not relent and continued to promote, encourage and abet cross-border terrorism.” The invitation to General Musharraf is to tell the international community that there is no weakening in New Delhi’s commitment to resolve the outstanding disputes through negotiations. But in doing so, India has negated its own principled stand that it would not talk to Islamabad until it stopped promoting cross-border terrorism. There is no let up in Pakistan’s proxy war, argues the article.

So Khosla concludes in his June 3 article: “In any case, the gulf between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue is so wide that it would be naïve to expect quick results from New Delhi’s new initiative.” He reiterates his scepticism in his June 10 article even more vigorously: “No Indian need have high expectations from the military dictator’s visit to New Delhi. Given Pakistan’s basic approach and positioning, the talks are doomed to collapse.”

N S Rajaram comes up with a suggestion for General Musharraf that he should invite Indian troops to cross the border and demolish the terrorist bases that he could not do by himself. Such a step would be a good start since it would solve problems for both countries. He instructs the BJP-led government: “By all means, talk, but don’t make any concessions in the hope that you will be rewarded. Remember Shimla!”

..its been surprising how brazenly Musharaff has been riding roughshod over Indian attempts to create an atmosphere for the talks.....is Musharaff playing to his home audience or is this all the leeway that exists in Pakistan for ``flexibility``?.... here is what the most pro-pakistan poltician in India thinks of the summit:

http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010712/top3.shtml

`Musharraf holding pistol to India’s head`

SONIA TRIKHA

NEW DELHI, JULY 11: FORMER prime minister I.K Gujral today said his hopes for a successful summit have suffered a setback on seeing how ‘‘aggressively’’ General Pervez Musharraf is conveying his message. It seems he is holding a pistol to India’s head, he said. Former external affairs minister K Natwar Singh, too, said he had ‘‘modest expectations’’ from the talks, going by the recent statements from Pakistan.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Gujral said Musharraf’s statements in the past week have been an ‘‘affront to the hosts’’. He said what irked him the most was the manner in which the General instructed his high commissioner to invite the Hurriyat when India had repeatedly opposed the move. His attitude reflects he is ‘‘indifferent’’ and is ‘‘flouting the sensitivity of his hosts’’.

This kind of behaviour is unheard of on the part of a guest even in private life, the former PM said.

He was also critical of Musharraf’s repeated calls for discussing only Kashmir. Gujral, who has had four meetings on various occasions with Pakistani leaders, said: ‘‘Musharraf is talking as if he is marching in’’. He said Kashmir has always been discussed at all Indo-Pak meetings. ‘‘Kashmir is a part of Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration and India is not shying away from discussing it.’’ But, he added, it was the manner in which he was forcing the issue by making his delegation exclude all trade and industry ministers that was very aggressive.

Singh ascribed Musharraf’s behaviour to lack of diplomatic skill. He said Musharraf was new to diplomacy and ‘‘I hope his foreign minister (Abdul Sattar) will give him some diplomatic tips.’’ After all, Singh says, ‘‘Musharraf is not coming to a defeated country and it will not help matters if he adopts the tone and gestures of a commander-in-chief.’’

Singh said Musharraf was ‘‘shifting his ground each day’’ but he will have to accept a broader agenda beyond Kashmir when he comes to India because in his response to Vajpayee’s letter he had said he is ‘‘willing to listen to anything’’.

Pervez is holding a pistol to our head: Gujral

Agencies/New Delhi

Former Prime Minister I K Gujral on Wednesday accused Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf of being in a ``very aggressive mood`` and virtually ``holding a pistol to our head.``

He said he was not happy with the ``signals`` emanating from Islamabad.





``I have had held four summit- level talks with Prime Ministers of Pakistan but here he (Musharraf) comes as if holding a pistol to our head to say `talk Kashmir or I go back,``` Mr Gujral said in a television programme.

``He (Musharraf) is marching in... He is in a very aggressive mood. He tailors his team accordingly. He does not want to talk commerce, trade or travel but only Kashmir,`` Mr Gujral said in the discussion which will be telecast on Sab TV on Saturday.

``What does he think? Is it a defeated nation he is coming to or is it a friendly nation he is seeking,`` the former Prime Minister said.

Rejecting Gen Musharraf`s style of diplomacy, the former Prime Minister said this was not the way to conduct diplomatic talks between two sovereign nations. ``He should behave as a President and step out of the shoes of an Army General,`` he said.

Mr Gujral praised Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, saying, ``He is conducting himself himself in a remarkably good fashion and showing restraint.``

Mr Gujral advised the Pakistani President to ``learn the merit of restraint failing which there could be no breakthrough in talks but only a breakdown.``

About unilateral goodwill decisions taken by the Government of India, like opening more visa points, Mr Gujral said, ``When I started this unilateralism, the present ruling party was critical but circumstances have forced them to change their perception and rightly.``

`` The relation between people on both sides is extremely important and these gestures will be taken well by the people of Pakistan.``

WHAT DO THE KASHMIRIS HAVE TO LOSE IN THE STATUS QUO

If Peace is costlier than WAR



July 11, 2001

War-Weary Kashmiris Contemplate the Price of Peace

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/international/11KASH.html?pagewanted=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/international/11KASH.html?pagewanted=2













July 11, 2001

War-Weary Kashmiris Contemplate the Price of Peace

By JOHN F. BURNS



John F. Burns/The New York Times

An Indian soldier, part of a 350,000-man force in Kashmir, conducting a stop-and-search operation in Srinagar, Kashmir. The cost of the force adds to the pressure on India to settle its dispute with Pakistan.



RINAGAR, Kashmir — Before dawn each day, Nazir Ahmed, bone- thin and stubble-bearded, rises, dons heavily patched trousers and a sweat-stained shirt, and faces Mecca for his prayers. Then, under the fading glimmer of the stars, he sets out with a rickety handcart, his route framed by a silvery lake, distant Himalayan peaks and centuries-old high-domed mosques.

Once he reaches the city`s main bazaar, Mr. Ahmed loads his cart with bunches of bruised bananas, and on a good day, hawking down the sinuous alleyways of this crumbling city, he can earn 80 rupees, about $1.70.

At 25, his life is like that of thousands of young Kashmiri Muslims, whose poverty has helped provide an inexhaustible recruiting pool for Muslim separatists. Since 1989, they have fought to wrench the state out of Hindu-majority India and set it on a course toward independence or integration with Muslim-majority Pakistan in a conflict that has cost more than 30,000 lives.

But as he sold the last of his bananas the other day, Mr. Ahmed said plainly what many other Kashmiris might not yet be daring to admit: that the peace that almost everybody here craved might require that they accept that this half of Kashmir will remain, for the indefinite future, a part of India.

``It`s obvious to everybody now that India will never leave Kashmir,`` he said. ``So if we want an end to the killing, we will have to accept that we will have to continue as part of India. If we go on fighting for independence, or for Pakistan, we will starve.``

The shifting perspectives of people like Mr. Ahmed, along with a growing number of more influential Kashmiris, will be an important factor when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India and Pakistan`s military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, meet July 14-16. At the top of their agenda will be the conflict over Kashmir, a territory fabled in history for its tranquillity that, for the last 50 years, has been at the heart of the enmity between India and Pakistan.

Caught between India and Pakistan at the partition of British-ruled India in 1947, Kashmir`s Hindu maharajah signed an ``act of accession`` to India that most of Kashmir`s Muslim majority opposed, casting the territory into religious and national conflict.

While the banana seller`s option would at long last reaffirm the maharajah`s decision, Mr. Ahmed made it clear that his choice was a reluctant one, brought about not by shifting affection but by a hard-nosed calculation that nothing but pain has come with the rebels, increasingly Muslim ``jihadis`` from outside the territory who have come to wage a holy war.

Until only two or three years ago, such a view in the streets of Srinagar was virtually unheard of. Today, after more than a decade of violent conflict and with both India and Pakistan in possession of nuclear weapons, it is echoed even among Kashmiri political leaders who have always identified themselves as ``independence`` leaders, as well as other prominent Muslim figures who have in the past campaigned vigorously against Indian power.

One of these men, Shabir Shah, began to make the shift toward accommodation with India in the mid- 1990`s, not long after being released from 22 years as a political prisoner in Indian jails. Although he was once known as Kashmir`s Nelson Mandela, his early hints that the rebel struggle was heading for a dead end led to his being ostracized by other leaders and to several attempts by rebel groups on his life.

Now, from a spacious Srinagar home that is guarded by a bunker full of heavily armed police officers, he says that his shift was prophetic.

``Our stand has always been for an undivided, independent Kashmir,`` he said. ``But we are not ruling out other options. We have always said that there were three options — India, Pakistan, or independence — but if we`re imaginative there are many other possibilities. All of this can be sorted out in negotiations.``

Two months ago, Mr. Shah agreed to meet in Srinagar with an envoy appointed by Mr. Vajpayee to open a dialogue with Kashmiri leaders. The Indian leader`s move was unprecedented in recent decades. Other Kashmiri leaders denounced Mr. Shah as a ``stooge,`` only to shift their stance once the India-Pakistan summit meeting was announced; they then wrote to Mr. Vajpayee and asked for a meeting of their own, only this time with the prime minister himself.

The organization that sought the audience with Mr. Vajpayee, the All- Parties Hurriyat Conference, is an alliance of political groups, several of them allied to rebel factions, that has long claimed to be the ``sole representative`` of the people of Kashmir. While most of the organization`s leaders continue to condemn compromise with India, one of them, Omar Farooq, 27, one of Kashmir`s most respected religious leaders, says, too, that the time has come to seek a negotiated end.

``Twelve years have gone by, and it`s very clear that everybody wants an end to the killing and destruction,`` he says. ``We all recognize that this is not going to be resolved militarily, and that Kashmiris are saying that there has to be a settlement.``

Weighing views like these against the harder-line opinions of Kashmiris who oppose compromise is a black art. Even drawing Kashmiris into candid discussion of the issue is difficult, since few here forget that they live ``in the shadow of the gun`` — a common phrase that captures a widespread fear of retribution, either by the rebels, or by agencies like India`s dreaded Special Operations Group, whose squads, wearing face masks and plainclothes, conduct break-down-the-door, dead-of-the- night arrests.

Some of the harshest views against India`s forces were voiced in the home of one of the conflict`s most recent victims, a 20-year-old Srinagar youth who was arrested when he tried to ride his scooter through an Indian police checkpoint on June 20, and was returned by the police to his family at dusk the same day, dead from multiple bullet wounds in his chest. The youth, Ferdoz Ahmed, had a history of involvement with the Hizbul Mujahedeen, a rebel group fighting for Kashmir`s independence, and had been jailed by the Indians for three years, without trial, when he was only 14.

Exactly how Mr. Ahmed died is disputed, but both sides agree that he was shot when he leaped from a police jeep and took refuge in a nearby workshop. To the police, it was a case of death while fleeing arrest; to the family, murder. A result, in the youth`s neighborhood, was a fresh flaring of hatred for India. As they sat mourning his death in the family home, a group of 15 male relatives and friends vowed never to accept a political settlement with India.





John F. Burns/The New York Times

July 11, 2001

War-Weary Kashmiris Contemplate the Price of Peace

An Indian soldier, part of a 350,000-man force in Kashmir, conducting a stop-and-search operation in Srinagar, Kashmir. The cost of the force adds to the pressure on India to settle its dispute with Pakistan.

(Page 2 of 2)

``All of us would prefer to fight and die rather than be part of India,`` the boy`s father, Ghulam Muhammad Wooveroo, a 49-year-old cook, said to murmurs of assent. The dead youth`s uncle, Muhammad Sultan Ghanai, a 40-year-old butcher, said he was one of several men in the room who had been jailed and beaten on suspicion of rebel sympathies.

``Tens of thousands of Kashmiris have given their blood for our freedom, and we will not let it go to waste,`` he said. ``The Indians have molested our women, and murdered our children, so any thought of being with India is unbearable.``

When Mr. Vajpayee and General Musharraf, the Indian and Pakistani leaders, sit down at their summit meeting, which will be held in India, they will be entering the discussions under the dead weight of history. The official Indian position, repeatedly stated, has been that Indian-ruled Kashmir is an inseparable part of India; Pakistan, just as often, has said that only a free vote among Kashmiris on their future can bring peace.

Still, Indian officials concede that there are pressures to settle the dispute — the loss of about 3,000 men in the conflict; the cost of perhaps as much as $2 billion a year to keep 350,000 troops and police officers in the region; and the pressures from the United States, which stepped up demands for a compromise after India and Pakistan detonated tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998.

Newspaper commentaries in India and Pakistan have speculated that the summit invitation issued by Mr. Vajpayee to General Musharraf in May owed much to quiet American diplomacy. In Kashmir, just about everybody, from street-sellers to the Hurriyat leaders, and India`s governor, Girish Chandra Saxena, cites the two countries` possession of nuclear weapons as a factor pushing toward peace.

Another worry for India has been the growing role played in the Kashmir fighting by so-called jihadi groups — armed bands of non-Kashmiris, many of them from other parts of Pakistan, some from Muslim countries and regions farther afield like Afghanistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, who have entered the conflict here as part of a wider Islamic holy war.

Indian officials say authentic Kashmiri rebel groups have increasingly taken a back seat, and worry about the longer-term consequences for India, with a total Muslim population of at least 120 million. Mr. Saxena, a former head of India`s foreign intelligence agency, tells visitors to what was once the maharajah`s palace, now a resplendent whitewashed governor`s residence, that the jihadis were one among many factors pushing India into a dialogue.

``The big change in the past three years has been the intrusion of the foreign mercenaries,`` he said. ``As recently as last year, our estimate was that they accounted for about 45 to 50 percent of all the militants. Now, we think it`s more than 70 percent. This is worrying, and not only for Kashmir, since the jihadis have said that after Kashmir, they will go for India itself.``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

A New Visaless regime

Reading all these views on the sorry state of the issuance of visas on both sides of this unfortunate border, I was reminded of the conference I recently attended in Poland on visa regime between Poland and its neighbors. While the situation there is very different, we can draw some paralells and extract some lessons as well. At the moment, Poland does not have a visa regime with its eastern neighbors

its relationship with one of the nieghbors- Urkaine has a lot of analogies with the Indo-Pak border sharing - 1) a lot of Western Ukraininas are catholic, have polish ancestry and parts of it was part of the ``percieved poland`` before Nazis invaded it

the only diffrence being that while the governments of Poland and Ukraine are honest about their ties and behave like two brothers...India and Pakistan deny these emotinal ties and prefer dealing with each other as enemies.

Anyway, my point was, after concluding an effective border management process in Poland- I was hopeful about a border management solution between India and Pak too. We can actually pull off a visaless relationship with each other!...provided both the countries agree to joint exercises at the borders, can have efficient border crossing procedure, institutionalize border management bodies so as to prevent infiltrations and illegal trafficing....

OR MAYBE NOT...such norms and rules will work only for two countries that accept and legitmize their border...Wheras the border between India Pakistan has never been fully accepeted by the two countries as final nor legitmized.

Or maybe it is a strong sub-conscious undercurrent that ``THIS BORDER HAS NO BASIS FOR EXISTENCE ANYWAY AND SHALL CEASE SOMEDAY`` influences the political will in either countries???!!!

I think the Agra summit is headed towards a disaster. Prez Musharraf wants to discuss only (the handover?) of Kashmir with India. India`s gaining confidence in him, his rule and in his country`s good intentions are all ``peripheral`` issues. He behaves as if he is in the stronger position, and can actually dictate the terms (of surrender?). That India is desperate for the trade and visa concessions that he will kindly provide only if he finds India subservient enough. I don`t know if he actually believes this, is trying to convince his domestic audience that they have achieved a victory, or is desperately hoping that if he says this enough times it will become true. I mean, a look at any nuetral (non-subcontinental) paper is enough to make the real situation clear.

Unfortunately he is likely to be in for a surprise. His intransigence has made India`s moving even an inch on the Kashmir issue impossible. And becoz of his ``focus`` on only the core issues he is likely to return as empty handed as he is coming to the summit. India would have liked to give him Siachen and trade, but no: he doesn`t want them.

That makes me wonder: is Pres. Musharraf just miscalculating, or has he been looking forward all along to the summit`s failure and the resultant increase in tensions? I waste no sympathy on Mr Vajpayee either. He should have known what to expect.

``(Indian) Cabinet Committee on Security fears flop show; India ready with long-term strategy``

http://www.thenewspapertoday.com/india/inside.phtml?NEWS_ID=20602

Dear Sameer:

``stranded Biharis in BD``

More correctly, ``stranded PAKISTANIS in BD``

UPMAN 7626:

Few Clarifications:

1. I meant Jinnah is looked upon as a Rabid Mullah in a political sense. I realize I don`t make that clear in my previous post. The religious types were against the creation of Pakistan itself. The had their own fantasy about all of India being Pakistan or some such...anyway...

2. All the points you make prove to me that India is better than Pakistan. Dude I am Indian. You don`t have to sell that to me. I am happy being Indian.

3. None of your points actually address the issue. I am not feeling sorry for Pakistani Liberal Bleeding Hearts who ``feel`` for Kashmir.

4. MY POINT WAS, AND REMAINS, you cannot apply the Same Strand of logic to Kasmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh. Independance was NOT an option given to the princely states. If the Rulers wanted it, that was immaterial. The choice was INDIA or PAKISTAN. Legally speaking, and I do disagree with Romair`s time line, India should have got Kashmir and it did get it. If Nehru agreed to a ceasefire, that is our problem, not Pakistan`s. But the legally speaking, India should not have conducted the ``Police Action`` in Hyderabad. Junagadh was an exception in the sense the ruler agreed to accede to India, after a little coercion was applied.

5. BOTH, India and Pakistan threw legal niceties to the winds, and tried to grab all three states, in direct contravention to logic, legalese etc. India won and Pakistan lost, in all 3 cases. End of Story.

Post Script: If Nehru was idiotic enough to offer self-determination where legally none was required, again that is a problem of our own making and not Pakistan`s. Fortunately, subsequent Indian leaders have been more pragmatic.

SameerJB:

Perhaps you do not know how badly each country treats visitors from the other side, and why there is a need to liberalize the travel regime:

``Pakistani pilgrims head home, miss Taj Mahal``

http://in.news.yahoo.com/010711/43/111lp.html

From Tehelka.com, an interesting viewpoint from Zafar Agha. BTW, the site has a lot of stories on the upcoming summit:

Musharraf is India`s best bet

General Pervez Musharraf is the first Pakistani leader

to realise that jehad and the old thinking can only lead Pakistan to the kind of chaos Afghanistan finds itself

in today; he sees improving ties with India as the

first step towards a major paradigm shift in

Pakistani thinking, says Zafar Agha

New Delhi, July 11

``Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is making a fool

of himself. This general is an evidently smart chap. He is taking us for a royal ride. Finally, nothing much will come of the Agra summit. I see another Kargil around the corner. These Pakistanis only know how to fight, and once the summit is over, they will get busy for another war with us.``

This was a journalist friend cautioning me against hoping for too much from the Indo-Pak ``Agra jamboree``. ``We have seen too many tamashas of this sort and have

again gone back to war,`` an executive of a bank said. The Indian middleclass is, in fact, fast slipping into a

dark mood about Agra. The common refrain generally is, ``Agra will just be another photo op for the two leaders. Afterwards, it will be business as usual - the two

sides fighting each other over Kashmir.``

The Indian middleclass has good reason to mistrust Pakistan. What happened soon after Lahore was not, by any yardstick, a reassuring experience. Vajpayee himself described Kargil as ``a stab in the back``, which it truly was. The same General Musharraf was, at that time, unwilling to withdraw his boys from the Kargil peaks.

How can Musharraf turn overnight into an angel of peace?

These are, indeed, difficult questions to answer. If there

is one lesson that Pakistan has learnt from history, it

is: hate India. This wall of hatred is not easy to break. However, there has been an unmistakable difference

in the Pakistani tone about India in the last six months. One no longer hears refrains of ``1,000 years of war`` with ``Hindu India``. Every Pakistani now tells you, ``If Europe can sort out its problems, why can`t we? It is about time both of us invest in peace and earn the dividends of progress and development.`` That Pakistani ``akad``

about India is gone.



Musharraf is basically attempting a major paradigm shift in Pakistani thinking. Improving ties

with India is his first step towards that end





Kashmir may have proved a costly affair for us, but the minefields of Kashmir drained Pakistan completely. Its economy has gone bust. Pakistan`s jehad is consuming its economy. The country has lost its best international backer, the US. We have heard these arguments earlier, but these are facts that need to be repeated over and over. These circumstances and the fear that it could

slip into chaos compel Pakistan to change.

General Pervez Musharraf is an insider and knows the state of Pakistan inside out. He is the first Pakistani to realise that the old paradigm cannot work for Pakistan anymore. He senses that the old thinking can only lead Pakistan to the kind of chaos Afghanistan finds itself in today. He sees himself as the last ray of hope for his country. Musharraf is basically attempting a major paradigm shift in Pakistani thinking. Improving ties

with India is his first step towards that end.

Musharraf is chasing a dream - he wants to go down in history as a man who modernised Pakistan. He is aiming to cut the mullahs down to size. He knows it is the mullah who gets the maximum strength from an ongoing war of hatred against ``Hindu India``. When someone talked to him about jehad, Musharraf abruptly said, ``It

is about time we bring Pakistan into the 21st century.`` Pakistan cannot move into the 21st century unless it puts the mullahs in the dock. To reign in the mullahs, Pakistan has to have better relations with secular India.

Ironically, Pakistani rulers, as well as their middleclass, have always quietly admired India. When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was put behind prison, he expressed admiration for Indian democracy in a book that he penned a few weeks before he was hanged to death. Howsoever much the Pakistani mullah might have maligned India back home, for an average Pakistani, Indian films and songs remained the ultimate in the Pak cultural circuit.

Delhi-born Musharraf seems to be carrying the roots of Indian liberalism. He now wants his countrypersons to put jehadi rhetoric into cold storage and draw inspiration from a modern India - an India that is breaking new paths in the information technology sector, in women`s liberation, in business and industry, in the entertainment sector, films, songs, books.

We must give General Musharraf a chance. He is the

first Pakistani ruler with modern moorings. The Bhuttos looked and sounded modern. But they were too feudal and too aristocratic themselves, and did not truly like change at the grassroots. Musharraf is a typical middleclass person. His father served in the foreign office and rose in the services through hard work. He, unlike most Pakistani rulers, has no feudal ancestry to boast of.

Let us give this man a chance. Let India give Musharraf a helping hand in modernising Pakistan if he wishes to. We must speak to him with an open mind; even if he wants Kashmir to be the principal issue of his discussions with Prime Minister Vajpayee. We have nothing much to lose, even if Agra does not work well. There is no reason for us to be perturbed about the ``smart general``. We can take care of ourselves. But Pakistan cannot afford another Kargil, because the international community is not ready to bail out the already bust Pakistani economy.