Borders are Made of These

tahmed321 # 33

Thanks for your kind words and for bringing to mind that ever-enchanting Auld Lang Syne. So long as we have people like you, we`ll take a cup o` kindness yet.

Best regards and a great new year to you and yours.

Prem

Farzana,

Read your piece again, and it remains compelling. Kudos to you for asking some questions regarding the dehumanization of peoples very few people will have the honesty to answer. I was particularly moved by your perspective as a progressive Indian Muslim.

My own experience has led me to believe that hatred is based on ignorance, fear, power and control. No new answers here, of course. It could be my naivete that prevents me from accepting that Pakistanis and Indians must always be at odds, but my interactions and collaborations with South Asians in the US have taught me otherwise.

Could the manufacture of hatred be a manifestation of govt./manipulative community leadership divisiveness? How do our prejudices serve us as individuals or communities in the short and long run? How will our prejudices equip us to adjust to the full ``speckled`` spectrum of this very diverse and beautiful world? Why do we cling to these hatred when the people of the Subcontinent are one of the most ethnically, racially, lingually and religiously diverse in the world? When did we lose the ability to be tolerant and embracing of this diversity, when clearly there were societies from India to Afghanistan that were?

If we can blame the British, can we not blame the Saudis? If we can blame the Saudis, aren`t the conservative BJP next in line? When do we look into our own collective soul?

I know, I know, no new material here...turning to the US, I know several Pakistani-Americans who have married outside South Asian races and religions and are quite happy...any thoughts?

regards

re: rsridhar

{Who cleans human excreta in ``the country of the pure``?}

haven`t you seen them line up 5-times-a-day, row upon row with their behinds raised in the faces of some other men behind them? they do it for each other.

israel deserves india`s fully support...the heck with that terrorist arafat..times have changed...

{{Shimon Peres to visit India next week

``Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres will discuss bilateral, regional and international issues with Indian leaders and seek New Delhi`s `active support` in the Middle East crisis during his five-day visit to India next week.

---

``Israel supports India fully in its war against terrorism and the steps it is taking to fight terrorism. We are facing the same problem unfortunately,`` Zvi Gabay, the foreign ministry`s deputy director general for Asia and the Pacific, said.

``We do not want any harm done to our friend (India)`` in the current situation in South Asia, he said.}}

not too long ago pakis were complaining about the indian cricket team refusing to tour pakistan...looks like they aren`t the only ones...the jehadi culture will not fly...the adventure with the taliban is over...the adventure in kashmir will be over soon as well...

{{West Indies pull out of Pakistan tour

KARACHI: The West Indies pulled out of a scheduled tour of Pakistan on Tuesday to become the third international team to refuse to tour there since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

A Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) spokesman confirmed to Reuters from Lahore that the West Indies cricket board (WICB) has informed it that it is not willing to send its team to Pakistan in the current climate of tension.

The WICB said it would, however, be willing to play its forthcoming series against Pakistan at a neutral venue.

``I can confirm we have received such a letter from the West Indies board and we are looking at it,`` the spokesman said.

New Zealand and Sri Lanka have also pulled out of scheduled tours there after the September 11 attacks.}}

Urstruly (#44):

I have a confession to make. When this piece was published, I was aware of one negative reaction – and I have got it. Just a few minutes ago in my mailbox. I cannot even see the screen clearly. I have lost something precious. Will you still ask me about crossing limits? Me? The confession I have to make is that I was wondering if you would visit this Board, and if you did, what would your thoughts be. It was important for me for one reason – you represent a rabid Pakistani sentiment, you have been called a mullah, and you have held on to this rigid stance. I was given to that your kind would never understand what I was talking about.

Can you imagine my surprise when you posted that letter? I was especially thankful for your comment: “fair and clear- made me once again envious of the fact that why such a fair liberal mind is not on our side”, not merely because it is addressed to me, but because you have understood the spirit behind the article, you who represent all that is static as everyone never tires of reminding this forum.

However, I made the error of scrolling down, and found your views on the shame of the year. If you had laudatory comments to make about my piece where I have spoken of cross-cultural/religious meshing, and you think I am balanced enough for you to want me on the other side, then how can you be so spiteful towards Indians? I am not a Kashmiri. I have spoken against a war. At least you realise I do not make social distinctions, though I am accused of it. I am seriously a non-religious person. And most important of all, I am an Indian. More Indian than the regular ‘patriots’ you are directing your ire against. So, what makes me different? I do not have adequate words to argue with what you had to say, but may I at least hope that you will in future realise that all the trouble you take to often make relevant points get lost in the venom? By wishing bubonic plague, death and misery on us you reduce your stature. We have all of these without your wishes. If you wish us well, believe me, the entire region will thrive, including Kashmir.

You object to my last para: “Yes, I have always taken extreme positions, but today I have only one small prayer to offer that unseen god of small things: Please keep me on the fence. From here I shall make my own borders – that hazy line where the sky meets the sea.”

This is no cop-out. I have never believed in borders. I shall fight those that I perceive are against ‘human decency’, but if I sit put on one side I cannot see them clearly. Which is why I wish to sit on the fence (for all those who wondered about this line… Behram, are you listening?). And when I talked about the hazy line where the sky meets the sea, I knew it is called the horizon (Veeresh!); I deliberately referred to it as the border because it stretches as far as the eye can see and is really an imagined distinction.

If two people as disparate as you and I can have a dialogue then I think there is hope. And if, on the other hand, people say that beneath the skin we are both the same, then again it is not such a bad deal. We would have crossed borders. Either way, it is a win-win situation.

-----

Someone wanted to know if he was included in my New Year greetings message (I shall not name you for you have confessed to “evil designs”)…of course, you were and always shall be. But yes, agar rishtedaari ke naam se pukaroge to yeh rishta shaayad bohat mehenga padega :)

-----

Thank you all for your comments…I shall be with you shortly.

Regards,

Farzana

Urstruly #various
A KK song for you and some famous people us-paar (and not ANY other poster on chowk, pl. note)

duniyaa oh duniyaa, teraa jawaab nahin
theri jafaao`n kaa, bus, koi hisaab nahin

theri wafaa se thaa, zikr strategic depth kaa
theri training camps se thaa, naam mujahiddeen kaa
aaye nazar kaise ab Durand Line bhi, embassy cchoDo

kal jo na bol paathe the, Musharraf-Vajpayee ke naam
aaj khaDe-khaDe wohi Bush, bol lethe hain LeT aur JeM
iraada thaa internationalize karnaa, J&K ko, hai khud ho gaye

sochaa thaa plebiscite mein, haath bataa denge
Bharati nakshe ki, hum gardan uDaa denge
par ab hum khush ho lenge, PoK ke camp hi bacchaakar

aage ka sochnaa hai, viz. Assam Tripura ke baare mein
gardan nahi sahi tho phir, haath-pai`r hi tuDwa denge
proxy war ideology ke Gul, S.Asia mein khilthe rahai`n

kyo`nki-
duniyaa oh duniyaa, teraa jawaab nahin
theri jafaao`n kaa, bus, koi hisaab nahin

Bengali # 86

I dont understand why you took offence of me calling you bengali, isn`t that what you people wanted all along; isn`t it the reason that 100s of millions of bengalis died because they preferred being called bengali over paksitani. Similarly hindus are offended when I call them hindus; even some paksitanis are offended at me calling them hindus. Why you people are so ashamed of what you are? I understand hindus if they are offended by calling them hindus because i will kill and maim if someone had called me hindu....but bengali...humph.

Bengali# 87

Thank you

(But plz cut the bulshitt of Frontier Crimes Regulation-ok?)

Farzana,

Your angst is understandable but naive. Obviously you are in a different position from the average man in the street because you have had the opportunity to interact freely with Pakis and found to your delight that some of them ARE smart, warm, decent human beings like yourself. So you can`t understand why we have to go to war with these nice people who`re at the bottom of it our genetic brethren.

The reason it doesn`t hold is that EVERY society has its good eggs. Ditto rotten ones. But as a nation, you have a consciousness that transcends the micros. At the end of the day every Indian knows that Pakistan is Islamic and is non-democratic. That they have waged three wars on us since 1947. That they have lost all three, and the anger has never gone away, only worsened because of it. That to Pakistan the loss of Bangladesh was like having an arm and a leg cut off. That Kashmir represents the last ``righteous`` avenue for Pakistan to vent its aggression and hostility against the cowardly filthy thousand-God worshipping Hindoos.

Ultimately it doesn`t matter if nice sweet Muslims and Pakis on this website and elsewhere think like you do and ponder the fultilty of war, THIS is the reality: Pakistan is our enemy No.1 and if they send their crazy, bloodthirsty goons into our homes and the home of our elected representatives, we BETTER retaliate and good. It`s the SANCTITY of Parliament that was violated when those basstuds entered the House and if you think the only reason our politicians are talking of war is because their own lives were in danger, either you are realy shallow or our politicians are (which is a fair assumption butuntrue). Nobody really WINS in a war, but if we sit tight without responding to acts of violence in one of our sacred institutions, we will only live up to the cowardly hindoo definition.

SM

Dear Chandan:

re#68

I guess I spoke too soon – too optimistically -- too naively -- hoping against hope -- what can I say.

May be for that dastardly act -- by those crazed murderer Jihadis -- who slaughtered an innocent Hindu family in cold blood -- one should replace the word “NO” with “YES” -- may be the sentence should read as follows:

There will be -- YES Terrorism -- YES War -- between India and Pakistan -- in 2002 -- Inshaallah.

Now I hope everybody feels a little better.

There will be -- NO Terrorism - No War -- between India and Pakistan -- in 2002 -- Inshaallah.

re urstruly and Kashmir

Urstruly, you may want to copy this reply down on your madrassa`s slate since I have probablt mentioned parts of it several times before. But for the other interactos I`ll be happy to reiterate:

``Please explain why the Kashmiri predicament is any different from Bengalis when you say 100s of millions of Bengalis when bengalis had won the elections with majority and still they commited an act of treason;``

Bengalis formed 54 % of Pakistan. Kashmir, if you want to concede it to India, forms no more than 3 %. A very fundamental difference on premise.

``...why didnt they kept quiet and waited for their CM; why Kashmiris are supposed to take the dracoinian laws lying down``

The Prime Minister elect of united Pakistan, SHeikh Mujibur Rahman, was never allowed to become Prime Minister since Pakistan`s military junta did not allow the Assembly to convene. The question of waiting, therefore, did not arise.

``... while Bengalis found themselves conveniently commit an act of treason in the face of Martial Law.``

Martial Law, in itself contravening the Constitution of Pakistan of 1956, is treason. Hence, that question is seriously flawed in premise and in logic.

`` Why Bengali freedom fight is any differnt from kashmiri-was Bengali struggle really a struggle for freedom in which 100s of millions died according to you or was it the treacorous blood of Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim that made Bengalis act the way they did?``

The racist comments notwithstanding, I am great supporter of the right of self-determination of KAshmir, that is ALL of Kashmir. Ask any Indian on the board, they`ll gladly tell you that, without too many good wishes for me. I wish ALL foreign troops, INdian, Pakistani, and Pakistani-sponsored Arabs will get the h * * * out of there.

`` Oh I get it, you would say that since India has a democracy and Paksitan had Martial law therfore Bengali struggle was valid but Kashmiri is not.``

The Bengali struggle was valid and so is the INDIGINEOUS Kashmiri struggle. What is in question is the terror by mercenaries.

``Please then explain to me how Kashmir is not under defacto Martial Law for the past 12 years with the laws such as Disturbed Area Act of 1990?``

The same reason that inspite of being under the Frontier Crimes Regulations since 1947, the so-called Northern Areas of Pakistan are not considered under MArtial Law, de facto or de jure.

`` Ok just answer a simple question why Bengalis are not traitors whereas Kashmiris are.``

NAtive KAshmiris struggling for freedom are not traitors. Begalis who did the same in 1971 were not either. If there were any traitors in 1971 it was the cabal that aborgated the Constitution of Pakistan, physically stopped the convening of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly, and declared MArtial Law in direct contravention of the laws and Constitution of Pakistan. Whose treacheous blood did they have in their veins?

Traitors? How on earth can more than half of a whole be traitor to it? Silly.

re urstruly

Others had answered you the ape-peacock question quite well. I didn`t want to increase your misery by my answer- this being the Christmas season and all. But you haven`t answered one of my very basic questions to you either which is all the more important given the verbage of your current post:

Did you learn that kind of language at home or at your neighborhood Taleban-run madrassa?

You see, your language and rank prejudice represents to the world, far more than I can ever explain, why Pakistan broke up in 1971. You don`t have to look up the genesis of Martial Law or the history of Mir Jafar for the fundamental reason of united Pakistan`s demise: just look in the mirror and you`ll see that reason.

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

Re:Reply #: 40

ali1,

Who cleans human excreta in ``the country of the pure``? I think the low class hindus do it to this day. Why, your country would not even give right of passage to a few thousand Biharis muslims struck for many decades in Bangladesh. And these people are your muslim brothers and belong to the ummah.

Lesson #1: Clean the SH!T in your backyard before you accuse others or to put it more politey: practise before you preach.

Sridhar

Ref nasah #: 63

[The incomparable Ayaz Amir with his new brutally frank, hard-hitting column.]

Well, how about this from the Friday Times? Maybe now Romair will shut up about the BJP being worse than Pakistan`s fundamentalist religious groups.

Khaled Ahmed`s

A n a l y s i s

The Musharraf government has stated repeatedly that it will not tolerate extremism of the religious organisations. It is more clear about such manifestly terrorist organisations as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which it has already banned; and interior minister Moinuddin Haider is outspoken about the extremism of Sipah Sahaba and Tehreek Jafaria. But will the government ban Sipah Sahaba or take action against its seminaries to eliminate what it thinks is extremism? Meanwhile, most leaders of the religious parties are taking `extreme` positions against the government - and some of their leaders are behind bars - without fear of being declared extremists.

Difficulty of defining extremism: The government definitely does not want to accuse the jehadis fighting the war of liberation in Indian Held Kashmir of being extremist. But that does not mean that the leaders of these organisations are not issuing extremist statements. Some of these organisations, like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Harkatul Mujahideen, are both offshoots of Sipah Sahaba and have armed fighters in their ranks that move easily from mother to branch organisations and back. Sipah Sahaba has achieved a dominant position of deployment of armed men in Sindh - most observers still think that the Sipah is dominant in Jhang, Kurram Agency and Northern Areas alone. If the Taliban are a measure of extremism, then all the Deobandi jehadi organisations would have be counted extremist.

One has to confess that the government is most unlikely to take any action against the extremists in Pakistan - mostly because it is difficult to grasp its definition of what is extremism. The easiest way out is to stick the label on to the shia-killers among the religious organisations, but that may not mean that it will go ahead and ban the party and haul up its offending activists. The 90 percent `silent` supporters of the government, who showed that they did not admire the Taliban by not joining the protest marches called by the religious parties, do expect the government to apply the law uniformly to all citizens including the religious and jehadi organisations and eliminate those elements that defy the law. But the government is going to disappoint them all. It will also not take advantage of the international support Pakistan enjoys these days to cleanse the country of religious violence and institutionalised extremist vision of Islam.

Extremism and shariat: One reason Talibanisation spread in Pakistan was the identity between what Mulla Umar wanted to enforce in Afghanistan and that which the ideological state of Pakistan wants to enforce as shariat . There is a general misconception in Pakistan that the Taliban actually put forward a vision of Islam which was alien to Pakistan. The truth of the matter is that the Taliban vision was alien to Afghanistan and was exported to it from Pakistan. The department of Amr bil Maruf , responsible for most of the extreme measures taken in Afghanistan, was actually proposed by the PML government of Nawaz Sharif in its 15th Amendment. The only difference is that Mulla Umar went ahead and implemented what the Pakistani state was first in contemplating. The Council of Islamic Ideology in Pakistan has been recommending institutional reform - for instance the inquisition-like office of Hisba - that would `complete` the ideological state.

It would be interesting to examine the orthodox Islamic view in Pakistan to see if what we have here is less extreme than the extremism of Mulla Umar`s Afghanistan. In the Islamic intellectual tradition the least impressive aspect is the theory of the state. That is not to say that the clergy has not written about the subject. There are in fact half a dozen respectable names that could be mentioned in this field, but the inconvenient truth is that no agreed and practicable vision of an Islamic state has emerged. The one great thinker in this regard has been Pakistan`s Abul Ala Maududi whose work became popular in the entire Islamic world, particularly because of his focus on the formation of the Islamic state. As a thinker he has been most influential in the process of law-making in Pakistan although this influence was wielded by Maududi while he sat in the opposition and criticised what the state was doing for Islamisation, starting in 1949 with the Objectives Resolution.

The idea of the Islamic State: In Maududi`s book Islamic Law and Constitution published by Jamaat Islami in English first in 1955 he expresses the most popular concepts relating to the creation of an Islamic state. The source of law is the sunna which actually encompasses the Quran, the tradition of the Prophet PBUH, the example of the Four Caliphs, and decisions recorded by the great jurists of Islam. Women are allowed participation neither in government nor administration; and the non-Muslims are not accorded full citizenship of the state. Only Muslims can hold the key public offices while the non-Muslims are the zimmi subjects of the state on the payment of a special tax. In his book Political Theory of Islam Maududi envisages a totalitarian state saying `no one can regard his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic state bears a kind of resemblance to the fascist and Communist regimes...no doubt the Islamic state is a totalitarian state and comprises within its sphere all departments of life`.

If Pakistan thought it could ignore Maududi`s firm verdict in favour of polygamy in Islam it was quite mistaken. In the post-Zia period all the `reformist` Islamic legislations like those pertaining to Family Laws were set aside by the Federal Shariat Court. The last straw that broke the camel`s back was the abolition of bank interest as riba by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1999, something that reformists like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan - regarded as an apostate by the clergy - had ruled as not riba . The Supreme Court may not resist long the groundswell of reaction against the Hanafi tradition of allowing girls to marry without the permission of a wali or male head of he family. Although in Islamic Law and Constitution Maududi had declared that Hanafi law shall be the law of the land in Pakistan, in Purda he asserted that `while marrying, a woman is obliged to obey the head of the family or the guardian and if he objects to her choice she cannot marry that person`. While it is true that Pakistan`s Islamic jurisprudence is Hanafi, there is a strong tradition originating with Shah Waliullah to `unite` all the schools of fiqh , which compelled Shah Waliullah`s biographer and religious leader Unbaidullah Sindhi to insist that in India Hanafi law alone must be observed.

Closing of the Muslim mind: In Rasail-o-masail , Maududi clearly foreshadowed the extremism of the Taliban when he outlawed still photographs while ironically allowing cinematography. About the treatment to be meted out to women, his thinking seems to be of a piece with the Taliban: `In an Islamic civilisation it would be hundred times better to bury the Muslim girls alive in the graves rather than send them to the present day colleges or to the institutes for training nurses, or to hospitals. The same would be true of educating them in the present-day girls` colleges in order to train them as teachers`. These views are clearly at variance with Pakistan`s more universally accepted intellectual Allama Iqbal, especially in relation to the address he gave to the women of Madras in 1929. But in Pakistan, Allama Iqbal - and his objection to hudood laws in the Sixth Lecture - have steadily lost ground to Maududi.

The closing of he Islamic mind in Pakistan has been steady. The march to the Taliban style of Islam has been unbroken by any periods of relaxation. Even under a `secular` General Ayub Khan, Pakistan`s biggest post-1947 Islamic scholar Dr Fazlur Rehman was drummed out of the country for recommending a rationalist and moderate version of Islam. Elsewhere in the Islamic world reformists like Abduh and Afghani have not fared any better and there is a wind of extremism blowing in the Muslim society. Al-Azhar, once a seat of enlightened Islam, no longer accepts contraception, and its doctors will not give a clear verdict against female circumcision. All this will only complicate the government`s campaign - if ever it materialises - against religious extremism.

The problem of commanding and forbidding: The real trouble for the state of Pakistan comes from the Quranic concept of amr bil maruf wa nahi anal munkar (commanding right and forbidding wrong) which is in force through the ulema but has not been legislated. This transfers the sovereignty of the state to the ulema who may not agree with one another on the basic tenets of Islam as was proved by The Munir Report (1953). It is the duty of all believers to command that which is good and forbid that which is wrong. There are numerous verses in the Quran asking the Muslims to observe this principle. Should the act of forbidding be an individual act or a collective one? There are verses in the Quran that mostly advocate collective action, while there are some others that recommend individual action. But an individual could get into trouble challenging a powerful man on his misdeeds. An early story linked to Imam Abu Hanifa shows the Imam was reluctant to advise individuals to undertake the act of challenging.

The problem is that amr and nahi could have become obsolete in our day because of the setting up of a modern Islamic state, the framing of a constitution, the preparation of the penal code, and the establishment of a police department. If you think that something wrong is being done or that something right is not being done, you can look up the penal code, and if the act is described as a crime, you can go to the police station and register an FIR. In other words, the state is the enforcer of amr and nahi . If someone ignores this and enforces amr and nahi on his own, he would be deemed to have taken the law in his own hands and would be committing a crime himself. Nahi when enforced like this can be dangerous. In Pakistan, often when an individual tries to stop eve-teasing or rebukes persons not observing the fast, he is attacked by the violators and sometimes even killed. When prime minister Nawaz Sharif introduced the concept of amr and nahi in his 15th amendment, he intended to give the executive responsibility of amr and nahi to the government in power. Amr and nahi is law-making as you go along, somewhat on the lines of the Federal Shariat Court. In Afghanistan, the department of Amr bil Maroof were a group of hardline ulema who did law-making on their feet, innovating through such decisions as the destruction of the archaeological heritage of Afghanistan.

The state in Pakistan must march on to the realisation of the dogma it has embraced. In modern times, it is an extremist agenda. There is no way one can conceive that the Musharraf government will tackle it. The state must reach its terminal stage, like the state created by Mulla Umar. There is no institutionalised trend in Pakistan of learning from history or even taking lesson from the unfolding of the present.

WOW!!! WHAT IN THE WORLD HAPPENED TO CNN. CAN`T BELIEVE THIS!



http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/01/tully.column/index.html



The wounds of South Asia`s partition

By Mark Tully

After last month`s attack on the Indian Parliament the government declared a war on terrorism and demanded that Pakistan end all support for Kashmiri separatists operating from any territory it controls.

Pakistan has taken some action to curb the separatist groups but India continues to demand more and makes preparations for military action.

Although the Indian government insists that it does not want an armed conflict its aggressive diplomacy and deployment of troops could just provoke that.

Indian television is showing crowds cheering soldiers as they leave their barracks for the front-line.

The newspapers have pictures of tanks and artillery loaded on trains making their way to the border with Pakistan.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee speaks of a war against terrorism and refuses to rule out armed combat as a means of waging that war.

But there are voices protesting against the dangers and the futility of war.

At a meeting of leaders of all the parties, which gave broad support to the prime minister, a veteran communist objected to ``ministers talking uninhibitedly about war.``

Dangers of ``saber rattling``

In the Indian Express, Kanti Bajpai, one of India`s most respected scholars of international affairs, has warned those`` infected by war fever`` that they are in danger of ``shaming their government into action which can only lead to disaster.``

Gautam Sen, an academic from the London School of Economics, has written in the daily Hindu of the danger of ``saber-rattling taking over and leading to war.``

The government has upped the anti so far that it is in danger of being bounced into a war, and will find it difficult to pull back unless all its demands are met by Pakistan.

India`s bellicose voice is making it more difficult for President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to take the measures it is demanding.

He can`t afford to be seen to be acting because of India`s threats.

The risk of warlike noises

All the warlike noises and the risks they carry could lead to military action that would cost India dearly and achieve nothing.

It is not at all clear what military action India could take with any guarantee of success.

The risks are all too clear especially now that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

A limited objective would be to change the Indian army`s rules of engagement and allow soldiers to cross the line of control in Kashmir to pursue militants who have infiltrated from the Pakistan controlled side.

The snows and winter weather don`t make that an easy option.

Any success would be so limited that it would not satisfy the political aim of the government, which has to show some decisive outcome of the ``war against terrorism,`` it has declared.

Talk of bombing

There is much talk in India of bombing what the Indian government describes as terrorist camps in Pakistan or Pakistan administered Kashmir.

But Pakistan is not Afghanistan, India is not America, and who is to say that the militant Kashmiri separatists are sitting in their camps waiting to be bombed.

This would not be the time of year for India to advance across the line of control in Kashmir to try to expand the territory under its control, and the terrain is in Pakistan`s favor.

An attempt to move across the western border, where India advanced successfully in the 1971 war, could possibly mean capturing territory, which would serve as a bargaining counter in subsequent peace negotiations.

But this would almost certainly lead to all-out war and the danger of nuclear retaliation.

Any of these options, even the most limited, runs the risk of escalation.

As it is no one can rule out the possibility of an accident sparking off a conflagration with the two armies standing eye ball to eye ball along the international border and the line of control in Kashmir.

They exchange fire almost daily across that line. A hot-headed officer leading troops in pursuit of militants over the line of control, an aggressive deployment of armor could cause a panic reaction on the other side.

Wounds of partition

India`s belligerency is not only dangerous if it spills over into military action.

It will prove futile to whoever emerges victorious.

Three wars, and Pakistan`s occupation of terrain on the India side of the line of control in Kashmir in 1999 have shown that there can be no military solution to the Kashmir problem, and war only deepens the other wounds which still fester from partition.

The collapse of Pakistan`s policy in Afghanistan has given Musharraf an opportunity to revise the policy of supporting those he calls freedom fighters in Kashmir.

He has shown signs of willingness to do that. What is needed now is for India to give him space, and to acknowledge that it too needs to do a lot of rethinking about Kashmir.

The problems there can`t all be blamed on Pakistan.