The Indo-Pak Summit, Kashmir and the Taj Mahal
Ras Siddiqui July 8, 2001
#1 Posted by sarwar on January 2, 2001 2:49:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by Romair on July 8, 2001 5:02:45 pm
Pretty interesting article.
A couple of inconsistencies:
``India countered by sending in its armed forces after it had received an “Instrument of Accession” signed by the Maharajah to join India.``
This is incorrect. It has now been proven by Lamb and Schofield that they Indian forces entered into Kashmir, before the instrument of accession had been signed (please read Victoria Schofield`s books on the Kashmir Conflict, in which she explains the events which led to the signing of the accession, by the hour).
``The Princely states were given a choice. Join either India or Pakistan (and in a couple of cases, possibly vague assurances of independence by the British that are difficult to confirm).``
There were 565 princely states at the time of independence, with a combined population of around 100 million. Out of these only three could have survived independently. The others were either too small or geographically locked to survive independently (Hyderabad, though locked, was geographically large enough to be independent, provided India cooperated). These were Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir. Due to this, by August 15, 1947, all other states, except these three had acceeded to either India or Pakistan.
These three states, internally, had opposing scenarios. Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a majority Muslim population. The ruler wanted to join India (although initially he wanted to be independent), while the population wanted to join Pakistan. Junagarh had a Muslim ruler but a Hindu majority. The ruler wanted to join Pakistan, but the population wanted to join India. Hyderabad had a Muslim ruler and a Hindu majority with a strong minority Muslim population. The majority of the Hindu population wanted to join India, while the ruler and the Muslim minority wanted to be independent.
If any singular principle/rule was honestly applied on all three states, it would be logically impossible for all of them to fall into one bucket, i.e. if the wishes of the rulers were considered the ultimate law (this equates to slavery), Kashmir should have gone to India (although the ruler actually would have prefered independence), Junagarh to Pakistan, and Hyderabad would have become independent. If the wishes of the people would have been taken as law (the fair, just and civilized way to handle things), Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan, and Junagarh and Hyderabad to India.
Hence it was logically impossible, under any one fair or unfair principle, for all three states to end up with Pakistan, or for all three states to end up with India, or for all three states to be independent.
Yet, in the end, all three states ended up with India. How was India able to pull off this logically impossible task?
A couple of inconsistencies:
``India countered by sending in its armed forces after it had received an “Instrument of Accession” signed by the Maharajah to join India.``
This is incorrect. It has now been proven by Lamb and Schofield that they Indian forces entered into Kashmir, before the instrument of accession had been signed (please read Victoria Schofield`s books on the Kashmir Conflict, in which she explains the events which led to the signing of the accession, by the hour).
``The Princely states were given a choice. Join either India or Pakistan (and in a couple of cases, possibly vague assurances of independence by the British that are difficult to confirm).``
There were 565 princely states at the time of independence, with a combined population of around 100 million. Out of these only three could have survived independently. The others were either too small or geographically locked to survive independently (Hyderabad, though locked, was geographically large enough to be independent, provided India cooperated). These were Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir. Due to this, by August 15, 1947, all other states, except these three had acceeded to either India or Pakistan.
These three states, internally, had opposing scenarios. Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a majority Muslim population. The ruler wanted to join India (although initially he wanted to be independent), while the population wanted to join Pakistan. Junagarh had a Muslim ruler but a Hindu majority. The ruler wanted to join Pakistan, but the population wanted to join India. Hyderabad had a Muslim ruler and a Hindu majority with a strong minority Muslim population. The majority of the Hindu population wanted to join India, while the ruler and the Muslim minority wanted to be independent.
If any singular principle/rule was honestly applied on all three states, it would be logically impossible for all of them to fall into one bucket, i.e. if the wishes of the rulers were considered the ultimate law (this equates to slavery), Kashmir should have gone to India (although the ruler actually would have prefered independence), Junagarh to Pakistan, and Hyderabad would have become independent. If the wishes of the people would have been taken as law (the fair, just and civilized way to handle things), Kashmir would have gone to Pakistan, and Junagarh and Hyderabad to India.
Hence it was logically impossible, under any one fair or unfair principle, for all three states to end up with Pakistan, or for all three states to end up with India, or for all three states to be independent.
Yet, in the end, all three states ended up with India. How was India able to pull off this logically impossible task?
#3 Posted by stuka on July 8, 2001 7:27:53 pm
How has India managed in getting all three states as part of the Indian Union??
Answer: Combination of RealPolitik and military might.
Just for the Record: Pakistan too applied seemingly illogical standards when it demanded all three states from India. The fact remains that as far as the Princely states were concerned, the poulation`s wishes were to be of no account. Yes it sounds unjust and inhumane, but that is how the rules of the game were set. At the same time that Pakistan was demanding Kashmir, it was also demanding Junagadh and Hyderabad on the basis of the Ruler`s discretion.
Seemingly illogical, but definitely in Pakistans`s national interest. The only difference is that Pakistan lost in all three cases.
The point of the matter is that nations do what they have to, for their national interest. The British, well known for their sense of fairplay and justice also coined the saying, ``My Country, Right or Wrong``.
I truly feel that Humanitarianism, Idealism etc are buzz words when national interest is at stake. Kashmir will be solved peacefully when both countries feel its a win-win situation. No sooner and no later.
Answer: Combination of RealPolitik and military might.
Just for the Record: Pakistan too applied seemingly illogical standards when it demanded all three states from India. The fact remains that as far as the Princely states were concerned, the poulation`s wishes were to be of no account. Yes it sounds unjust and inhumane, but that is how the rules of the game were set. At the same time that Pakistan was demanding Kashmir, it was also demanding Junagadh and Hyderabad on the basis of the Ruler`s discretion.
Seemingly illogical, but definitely in Pakistans`s national interest. The only difference is that Pakistan lost in all three cases.
The point of the matter is that nations do what they have to, for their national interest. The British, well known for their sense of fairplay and justice also coined the saying, ``My Country, Right or Wrong``.
I truly feel that Humanitarianism, Idealism etc are buzz words when national interest is at stake. Kashmir will be solved peacefully when both countries feel its a win-win situation. No sooner and no later.
#4 Posted by shammi on July 9, 2001 11:32:22 am
From the Indian Express:
FOUR LIBERAL MYTHS ABOUT INDO-PAK RELATIONS
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010709/ed4.shtml
FOUR LIBERAL MYTHS ABOUT INDO-PAK RELATIONS
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010709/ed4.shtml
#5 Posted by shammi on July 9, 2001 11:32:22 am
A lack of several consulates between India-Pakistan has placed enormous hardships on the common person who has family in both countries. There is only one Pakistan embassy in India (earlier there used to be consulates in several cities). But after the Karachi Indian consulate was closed down by Pakistan, India reciprocated. This results in people having to travel vast distances from all over India to receive a Pakistan visa, and the long lines outside its embassy in summer heat are a sight to see, with several people camping overnight.
Now, India appears to be opening visa posts all along its border with Pakistan, so that ordinary Pakistanis do not have to travel to Islamabad at great expense to receive a visa. This is a welcome step.
``India relaxes visa regime ahead of summit``
``...Pakistani nationals, particularly in the southern parts of the country, would henceforth not have to travel to Islamabad to obtain visas as they would be able to obtain these at the checkposts...``
http://in.news.yahoo.com/010709/43/10vc1.html
Now, India appears to be opening visa posts all along its border with Pakistan, so that ordinary Pakistanis do not have to travel to Islamabad at great expense to receive a visa. This is a welcome step.
``India relaxes visa regime ahead of summit``
``...Pakistani nationals, particularly in the southern parts of the country, would henceforth not have to travel to Islamabad to obtain visas as they would be able to obtain these at the checkposts...``
http://in.news.yahoo.com/010709/43/10vc1.html
#6 Posted by Romair on July 9, 2001 11:32:22 am
stuka #2: ``How has India managed in getting all three states as part of the Indian Union??
Answer: Combination of RealPolitik and military might.``
It is very refreshing to finally (!!!!!) see honest answers to questions like this. I have been asking them for quite a while, and nearly all the responses received from Indians, attempt to somehow or the other justify India`s actions to be fair and humane in regard to these states (specially Kashmir), based on illogical, self-serving, and inhumane legalistic mumbo-jumbo.
I have far more respect for an Indian who gives an honest answer, even if it is blunt (i.e. India took Kashmir and is holding onto it through military might, and if Pakistanis don`t like it, then tough luck), than an Indian who attempts to disguise the actual events to justify the Indian actions (i.e. the Kashmiris actually want to be with India, and India had a humane right to take over Kashmir).
It is hard to tell whether you are Indian or Pakistani, from your reply. I hope you are an Indian, because I was begining to lose hope of ever finding an Indian who would give an honest reply to India`s actions in these states.
Answer: Combination of RealPolitik and military might.``
It is very refreshing to finally (!!!!!) see honest answers to questions like this. I have been asking them for quite a while, and nearly all the responses received from Indians, attempt to somehow or the other justify India`s actions to be fair and humane in regard to these states (specially Kashmir), based on illogical, self-serving, and inhumane legalistic mumbo-jumbo.
I have far more respect for an Indian who gives an honest answer, even if it is blunt (i.e. India took Kashmir and is holding onto it through military might, and if Pakistanis don`t like it, then tough luck), than an Indian who attempts to disguise the actual events to justify the Indian actions (i.e. the Kashmiris actually want to be with India, and India had a humane right to take over Kashmir).
It is hard to tell whether you are Indian or Pakistani, from your reply. I hope you are an Indian, because I was begining to lose hope of ever finding an Indian who would give an honest reply to India`s actions in these states.
#7 Posted by ferozk on July 9, 2001 11:33:07 am
Re: Ras
Agreed; hopefully this is the begining of the end and not end of the begining.
Agra is a step towards peace and not the destination itself. The journey will begin in Agra and though we may not be here to see it end, the generations to come will see the journey`s end.
Ciao
Agreed; hopefully this is the begining of the end and not end of the begining.
Agra is a step towards peace and not the destination itself. The journey will begin in Agra and though we may not be here to see it end, the generations to come will see the journey`s end.
Ciao
#8 Posted by Syed Ahmed on July 9, 2001 4:37:52 pm
Interstingly enough... the policies of both India nad Pakistan are based on archaic pre World War II notion of land as a source of power and strength.
Since the advent of the information age it has been shown to be the other way around.... that smaller more homoginistic socities tend to do better viz a viz improving the lot of their people...
The Hindu vs Muslim legacy is archaic as well -
If history is to be held correctly MUslim Pakistan murdered more MUslims in state sponsored
terrorism in Bangladesh, Baluchistan, Sind and Karachi more than the Indians ever did....
At last count - the state of Pakistan ( primarily the Army) - has the blood of 2 million Bangladeshis, atleast 10-20 K Baluchs, about 20 K Sindhis and 30-50K Karachites..... on their hand ... - that lays to rest the theory that muslims are safe in muslim lands.....
and lets even not talk about the muslim minorities yet .....
This also does not excuse the excesses of a secular and demorcratic India .... INdian behavior in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir is genocidal .... The Indian pogoms are not directed towards Muslims exclusively - they are directed towards any community that does not proscribe to rabid Indian Nationalism.... which is eventually evolving into a Fascist body politic as Indian flexes its economic muscle....
In addition the democratic govt of India has had
a hegemonitsic land grabbing policy - it not just the illegal invasions and annexations.....
India liberated Junagadh and Hyderabad in 48...
India annexed Goa without a refrendum in the 60`s
India annexed Sikkim in the 70`s.....
India`s military adventurism in the Sychelles, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh are well known... There is hardly an Indian neigbor that is on good terms with the democratic republic of India - `` sounds more and more like the Third Reich ``.....
In the epoch of world history the South Asian countries are more like are akin to the fractured hegemonistic post -napleonic powers of Europe....
So is muslim life and liberty better protected in Pakistan or in India is an open question ???
So what are the Kashmiris to do ......
Since the advent of the information age it has been shown to be the other way around.... that smaller more homoginistic socities tend to do better viz a viz improving the lot of their people...
The Hindu vs Muslim legacy is archaic as well -
If history is to be held correctly MUslim Pakistan murdered more MUslims in state sponsored
terrorism in Bangladesh, Baluchistan, Sind and Karachi more than the Indians ever did....
At last count - the state of Pakistan ( primarily the Army) - has the blood of 2 million Bangladeshis, atleast 10-20 K Baluchs, about 20 K Sindhis and 30-50K Karachites..... on their hand ... - that lays to rest the theory that muslims are safe in muslim lands.....
and lets even not talk about the muslim minorities yet .....
This also does not excuse the excesses of a secular and demorcratic India .... INdian behavior in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir is genocidal .... The Indian pogoms are not directed towards Muslims exclusively - they are directed towards any community that does not proscribe to rabid Indian Nationalism.... which is eventually evolving into a Fascist body politic as Indian flexes its economic muscle....
In addition the democratic govt of India has had
a hegemonitsic land grabbing policy - it not just the illegal invasions and annexations.....
India liberated Junagadh and Hyderabad in 48...
India annexed Goa without a refrendum in the 60`s
India annexed Sikkim in the 70`s.....
India`s military adventurism in the Sychelles, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh are well known... There is hardly an Indian neigbor that is on good terms with the democratic republic of India - `` sounds more and more like the Third Reich ``.....
In the epoch of world history the South Asian countries are more like are akin to the fractured hegemonistic post -napleonic powers of Europe....
So is muslim life and liberty better protected in Pakistan or in India is an open question ???
So what are the Kashmiris to do ......
#9 Posted by SameerJB on July 9, 2001 4:57:24 pm
shammi #4:
[A lack of several consulates between India-Pakistan has placed enormous hardships on the common person who has family in both countries]
Opening up new visa centers along the southern Pakistani border by India and relaxation of visa process really helps Indian Muslim from UP, Bihar to migrate to Pakistan alongwith refugees from Bangladesh. The demand for visa is much more to get into Pakistan than otherway around. What interest Pathans, Balochis, Sindhis and Punjabis have to flock to Indian borders for visa? Tourists in small numbers only.
What defines a family? You can not get even US or Canadian visa from India/ Pakistan to visit your second and third cousins in USA/ Canada. Pakistani Mohajir community is mostly in that kind of relationship now after 54 years of migration. People with their brother/ sisters divided between India/ Pakistan are very few now. It is exactly the same people who think that any pride in ethnicity other than Pakistan is anti-national. Yet same people are keeping the memory of their past in UP and Bihar more alive than Punjabi migrants from east Punjab. They want their language and other aspects of culture accepted as Pakistani language and culture while they remain attached to their pre-migration homeland.
Right for the family based visa is lower category than visa based on being born in India/ Pakistan and that should be the preference. Those who were born in UP or Bihar must have a right to visit their birthplace not their grandchildren who otherwise detest at the smallest hint of a Punjabi wishing to take pride in Punjabiat. My small wish and preference of Lahore/ Punjabi over Agra/ Urdu/ Hindi was termed as undoing of Pakistan.
I am firmly attached to my culture and homeland that is Pakistani and firmly in Pakistan, respectively. Pakistan should deny family based visa to Indians except for old people who can prove their birthplace falling in India, no matter what politics India plays with this issue. Other than New Delhi, Pakistan does not need to open another visa centers in India. Consulates in other places will actually be further away from UP and Bihar unless they are dealing with business/ cultural/ friendly relationships.
We already have so much problem from Afghan refugees (they must be sent back) and can not afford another flood of Muslim refugees from UP, Bihar, Bangladesh and stranded Biharis in BD.
Perhaps Musharraf would like to pick up where Liaquat Ali Khan left off since he believes that everything in Pakistan went down since the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. He is ``honest and heading a clean government``, he would like to follow in the footstep of last honest and clean government Pakistan had-in 1951.
[A lack of several consulates between India-Pakistan has placed enormous hardships on the common person who has family in both countries]
Opening up new visa centers along the southern Pakistani border by India and relaxation of visa process really helps Indian Muslim from UP, Bihar to migrate to Pakistan alongwith refugees from Bangladesh. The demand for visa is much more to get into Pakistan than otherway around. What interest Pathans, Balochis, Sindhis and Punjabis have to flock to Indian borders for visa? Tourists in small numbers only.
What defines a family? You can not get even US or Canadian visa from India/ Pakistan to visit your second and third cousins in USA/ Canada. Pakistani Mohajir community is mostly in that kind of relationship now after 54 years of migration. People with their brother/ sisters divided between India/ Pakistan are very few now. It is exactly the same people who think that any pride in ethnicity other than Pakistan is anti-national. Yet same people are keeping the memory of their past in UP and Bihar more alive than Punjabi migrants from east Punjab. They want their language and other aspects of culture accepted as Pakistani language and culture while they remain attached to their pre-migration homeland.
Right for the family based visa is lower category than visa based on being born in India/ Pakistan and that should be the preference. Those who were born in UP or Bihar must have a right to visit their birthplace not their grandchildren who otherwise detest at the smallest hint of a Punjabi wishing to take pride in Punjabiat. My small wish and preference of Lahore/ Punjabi over Agra/ Urdu/ Hindi was termed as undoing of Pakistan.
I am firmly attached to my culture and homeland that is Pakistani and firmly in Pakistan, respectively. Pakistan should deny family based visa to Indians except for old people who can prove their birthplace falling in India, no matter what politics India plays with this issue. Other than New Delhi, Pakistan does not need to open another visa centers in India. Consulates in other places will actually be further away from UP and Bihar unless they are dealing with business/ cultural/ friendly relationships.
We already have so much problem from Afghan refugees (they must be sent back) and can not afford another flood of Muslim refugees from UP, Bihar, Bangladesh and stranded Biharis in BD.
Perhaps Musharraf would like to pick up where Liaquat Ali Khan left off since he believes that everything in Pakistan went down since the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. He is ``honest and heading a clean government``, he would like to follow in the footstep of last honest and clean government Pakistan had-in 1951.
#10 Posted by stuka on July 9, 2001 4:57:24 pm
Romair: Yes I`m definitely Indian. Glad you appreciated my post, because it is the truth, at least as I see it. Regarding your point about Indians talking about humanity in Kashmir etc, I personally feel that Indians tend to get very defensive about criticism from Paksitan.
Let`s face it, when someone from an offically Islamic country criticizes an officially Secular country for not being secular enough, well the reaction than tends to be a bit bizzare.
Same goes for the whole Gandhi-Jinnah debate. I have repeatedly said that the greatest injustice to Jinnah`s memory is his being known as a rabid Mullah, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. But on Chowk,(and popular debate in general) Gandhi and Jinnah have become symbols, rather than leaders with positive and negative qualities.
Gandhi = Indian = India = Can Do No Wrong / Jinnah = Pakistani = Enemy = Can Do No Right is the Indian refrain. Vice Versa on the Pakistani perspective of history.
Personally, I know they were both human. I KNOW that Human Beings have faults. Why the hell should I raise either of them on a pedestal, when they both f * *ked up plenty of times?
Let`s face it, when someone from an offically Islamic country criticizes an officially Secular country for not being secular enough, well the reaction than tends to be a bit bizzare.
Same goes for the whole Gandhi-Jinnah debate. I have repeatedly said that the greatest injustice to Jinnah`s memory is his being known as a rabid Mullah, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. But on Chowk,(and popular debate in general) Gandhi and Jinnah have become symbols, rather than leaders with positive and negative qualities.
Gandhi = Indian = India = Can Do No Wrong / Jinnah = Pakistani = Enemy = Can Do No Right is the Indian refrain. Vice Versa on the Pakistani perspective of history.
Personally, I know they were both human. I KNOW that Human Beings have faults. Why the hell should I raise either of them on a pedestal, when they both f * *ked up plenty of times?
#11 Posted by stuka on July 9, 2001 4:57:24 pm
Shammi:
Pakistan did not close down the Indian Consulate in Karachi as a unilateral gesture. India refused to hand over the Jinnah House property in Bombay after an Indian diplomat was beaten up in Islamabad (in the days of Heavy Handed Diplomacy), and Pakistan then closed the Indian consulate in Karachi in retaliation.
Just thought I`d set the record straight ;)
Pakistan did not close down the Indian Consulate in Karachi as a unilateral gesture. India refused to hand over the Jinnah House property in Bombay after an Indian diplomat was beaten up in Islamabad (in the days of Heavy Handed Diplomacy), and Pakistan then closed the Indian consulate in Karachi in retaliation.
Just thought I`d set the record straight ;)
#12 Posted by MT on July 9, 2001 4:57:24 pm
I have an interesting link for the people on Chowk.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100501/detCIT15.asp
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100501/detCIT15.asp
#13 Posted by Syed Ahmed on July 9, 2001 6:01:39 pm
RE: SameerJB....
I usually dont respond to ethnophobic rhetoric...as I am sure several sane minded Pakistanis must have argued with you...
But your language has strong fascist tendencies...you are proscribing legitimate behavior for others.... What gives you that right?? and more importantly Who gives you that right or moral legitinacy to pontificate about right and wrong???
Unfotunately your thoughts have been the prevailing undercurrent of xenophobic and ethnocentric mania.. that has been responsible for the variety of atrocities comitted under the name of religion and state....
Pakistanis are generally a savage people - with little or no accomplishment in the arts or sciences with a a pathetic history of digression from the morality of civilization.... so you`re claim of being a Pakistani in Pakistan is more of epitaph to decadence rather than a badge of honor.....
Unfortunately I too am one of you ......
I usually dont respond to ethnophobic rhetoric...as I am sure several sane minded Pakistanis must have argued with you...
But your language has strong fascist tendencies...you are proscribing legitimate behavior for others.... What gives you that right?? and more importantly Who gives you that right or moral legitinacy to pontificate about right and wrong???
Unfotunately your thoughts have been the prevailing undercurrent of xenophobic and ethnocentric mania.. that has been responsible for the variety of atrocities comitted under the name of religion and state....
Pakistanis are generally a savage people - with little or no accomplishment in the arts or sciences with a a pathetic history of digression from the morality of civilization.... so you`re claim of being a Pakistani in Pakistan is more of epitaph to decadence rather than a badge of honor.....
Unfortunately I too am one of you ......
#14 Posted by temporal on July 9, 2001 7:09:25 pm
SameerJB #8
I did a double take as I read your post...checked to make sure it is from you...kya baat hay yaar?...having an off day?
[...Opening up new visa centers along the southern Pakistani border by India and relaxation of visa process really helps Indian Muslim from UP, Bihar to migrate to Pakistan alongwith refugees from Bangladesh....] and [...Those who were born in UP or Bihar must have a right to visit their birthplace not their grandchildren who otherwise detest at the smallest hint of a Punjabi wishing to take pride in Punjabiat. My small wish and preference of Lahore/ Punjabi over Agra/ Urdu/ Hindi was termed as undoing of Pakistan...]
---first of all...i believe firmly that the suspicions and hostilities of the last 50+ years would only whither away and dissolve if people travel...remember the tired cliché?...travel broadens the mind?...it also lessens the suspicions and hostilities...travel between india/pakistan should be like between canada/usa...as for fears of refugees and illegal economic migrants...well..what can we say right now?...despite restrictions don`t we have illegal migrants in pakistan from sri lankan maids to bangladeshis and afghans?... as for your wish and preference for punjabi...yaar kamal kartay ho...yahaan per joshilay jahiloun aur bigots ki koi kami hay?...bhooNknay dou oonhaiN...wohi zab’t ka muzahira karo jou hum riwayatuN aap say waabista kartay chalay aai haiN
[... Other than New Delhi, Pakistan does not need to open another visa centers in India. ...]
---agree...all citizens should be allowed to travel freely without visas...
[... We already have so much problem from Afghan refugees (they must be sent back) and can not afford another flood of Muslim refugees from UP, Bihar, Bangladesh and stranded Biharis in BD...]
---agree...though even the US and Canada as indeed all G7 countries have failed to stem the flow of illegal migrants...people will always find a way to travel to greener pastures...
...I sincerely hope you will take a second look and re-visit your thoughts at a later time?
rgds,
t
I did a double take as I read your post...checked to make sure it is from you...kya baat hay yaar?...having an off day?
[...Opening up new visa centers along the southern Pakistani border by India and relaxation of visa process really helps Indian Muslim from UP, Bihar to migrate to Pakistan alongwith refugees from Bangladesh....] and [...Those who were born in UP or Bihar must have a right to visit their birthplace not their grandchildren who otherwise detest at the smallest hint of a Punjabi wishing to take pride in Punjabiat. My small wish and preference of Lahore/ Punjabi over Agra/ Urdu/ Hindi was termed as undoing of Pakistan...]
---first of all...i believe firmly that the suspicions and hostilities of the last 50+ years would only whither away and dissolve if people travel...remember the tired cliché?...travel broadens the mind?...it also lessens the suspicions and hostilities...travel between india/pakistan should be like between canada/usa...as for fears of refugees and illegal economic migrants...well..what can we say right now?...despite restrictions don`t we have illegal migrants in pakistan from sri lankan maids to bangladeshis and afghans?... as for your wish and preference for punjabi...yaar kamal kartay ho...yahaan per joshilay jahiloun aur bigots ki koi kami hay?...bhooNknay dou oonhaiN...wohi zab’t ka muzahira karo jou hum riwayatuN aap say waabista kartay chalay aai haiN
[... Other than New Delhi, Pakistan does not need to open another visa centers in India. ...]
---agree...all citizens should be allowed to travel freely without visas...
[... We already have so much problem from Afghan refugees (they must be sent back) and can not afford another flood of Muslim refugees from UP, Bihar, Bangladesh and stranded Biharis in BD...]
---agree...though even the US and Canada as indeed all G7 countries have failed to stem the flow of illegal migrants...people will always find a way to travel to greener pastures...
...I sincerely hope you will take a second look and re-visit your thoughts at a later time?
rgds,
t
#15 Posted by narain on July 9, 2001 9:33:13 pm
Dear Mr.Siddiqui,
I must commend you for a very fair article. So where do we go from here? To me it seems that the Indian strategy for the summit seems to be to:
1. Get Pakistan to choose peace.
2. lower the heat in Kashmir, put the issue on the usual backburner and allow India to work on restoring peace in its own part.
3. Get the LOC accepted as the international border in the long term once tempers have cooled down on both sides of the border.
Sops which would be offered to Pakistan to accept India`s terms would include:
1. Demilitarization of Siachen (hence the urgency to get the DGMOs to meet?)
2. Gas pipeline through Pakistan
3. Increased trade opportunities, possibly on unilaterally preferential terms.
To apply more pressure on Pakistan, India is already using various ``feel good`` mechanisms like making travel to India easier by offering more border posts, and making getting visas easier. Travel across Kashmir itself might be made easier depending on how Pakistan behaves at the summit. There is talk of reestablishing the road and rail links to allow separated Kashmiris to travel across the borders once more.
The most interesting part is how differently both countries perceive the summit. Pakistan thinks that the discussion is going to be only about Kashmir. India sees the summit as a chance to talk about relations in general. My feeling is that Kashmir will figure only to the extent that India wants to make it easier for Pres. Musharraf to back down from the issue. I doubt that Pakistan would be able to get India to declare its portion of Kashmir as ``disputed`` territory, without a mention of ``Pakistan occupied`` Kashmir figuring prominently also. A lot could be achieved for the people of the subcontinent though if peace is restored, and especially for the Kashmiris because India seems ready to give them a lot of TLC to help them heal themselves and their economy.
-narain
I must commend you for a very fair article. So where do we go from here? To me it seems that the Indian strategy for the summit seems to be to:
1. Get Pakistan to choose peace.
2. lower the heat in Kashmir, put the issue on the usual backburner and allow India to work on restoring peace in its own part.
3. Get the LOC accepted as the international border in the long term once tempers have cooled down on both sides of the border.
Sops which would be offered to Pakistan to accept India`s terms would include:
1. Demilitarization of Siachen (hence the urgency to get the DGMOs to meet?)
2. Gas pipeline through Pakistan
3. Increased trade opportunities, possibly on unilaterally preferential terms.
To apply more pressure on Pakistan, India is already using various ``feel good`` mechanisms like making travel to India easier by offering more border posts, and making getting visas easier. Travel across Kashmir itself might be made easier depending on how Pakistan behaves at the summit. There is talk of reestablishing the road and rail links to allow separated Kashmiris to travel across the borders once more.
The most interesting part is how differently both countries perceive the summit. Pakistan thinks that the discussion is going to be only about Kashmir. India sees the summit as a chance to talk about relations in general. My feeling is that Kashmir will figure only to the extent that India wants to make it easier for Pres. Musharraf to back down from the issue. I doubt that Pakistan would be able to get India to declare its portion of Kashmir as ``disputed`` territory, without a mention of ``Pakistan occupied`` Kashmir figuring prominently also. A lot could be achieved for the people of the subcontinent though if peace is restored, and especially for the Kashmiris because India seems ready to give them a lot of TLC to help them heal themselves and their economy.
-narain
#16 Posted by shammi on July 9, 2001 9:33:13 pm
Re: SameerJB
It is not only 4th cousins who want to visit. There have been several cross- border marriages since 1947. Even these individuals have a lot of difficulty. I have friends who have married across the border. Besides, since when have illegal migrants respected visas/consular policies anywhere in the world? No visa has ever stopped Bangladeshis from crossing over to India, or Mexicans into the US. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! The same applies to visa rules
Re: Stuka
Thanks for the details. But, your chronology of events still proves my point:
1) Indian diplomat gets beaten up in Islamabad
2) India refuses to hand over Jinnah`s house (why should it anyway (Pakistan govt. sensibilities not withstanding? Could other ordinary Indian refugees ask for ownership of property abandoned in Pakistan?)
3)Pakistan shuts down Indian consulate in Karachi (how do you draw a connection between Jinnah`s house and Karachi consulate? Was Jinnah`s house ever a Pakistani consulate?)
In the end, it are the ordinary people who suffer.
It is not only 4th cousins who want to visit. There have been several cross- border marriages since 1947. Even these individuals have a lot of difficulty. I have friends who have married across the border. Besides, since when have illegal migrants respected visas/consular policies anywhere in the world? No visa has ever stopped Bangladeshis from crossing over to India, or Mexicans into the US. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns! The same applies to visa rules
Re: Stuka
Thanks for the details. But, your chronology of events still proves my point:
1) Indian diplomat gets beaten up in Islamabad
2) India refuses to hand over Jinnah`s house (why should it anyway (Pakistan govt. sensibilities not withstanding? Could other ordinary Indian refugees ask for ownership of property abandoned in Pakistan?)
3)Pakistan shuts down Indian consulate in Karachi (how do you draw a connection between Jinnah`s house and Karachi consulate? Was Jinnah`s house ever a Pakistani consulate?)
In the end, it are the ordinary people who suffer.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- morni: If any one can... The Cry of Karachi
- tahmed32: Tea for you, Masadi... Three Cups of Tea
- tahmed32: yawn...so,how was your weekend,... The Republican Red Scare
- peonofthewest: see how pathetic you... Three Cups of Tea
- altar: I am going to... The Heart of Starkness:
- KaalChakra: "Now or Never" is... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- muqaddam: If one did a... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- muqaddam: Omar Abdulla is just... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
