The Significant Unit of War

Check out the map of India shown on Iranian TV, Iranian newspapers and Iranian newsagency IRNA. Entire Jammu Kashmir is shown as part of India. While US shows the LOC as the dividing line between India and Pakistan , Iranian media has consistently shown Jammu Kashmir to be part of India.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=india&Da=1/8/02&Cat=2&Num=29

Iran Ready to Help Settle Indo-Pak Dispute: Official

TEHRAN Deputy Foreign Minister in charge of education and research affairs, Sadeq Kharrazi, here on Sunday announced Tehran`s political readiness to help settle the existing Indo-Pakistan dispute.

Addressing the second roundtable discussions on Iran-Pakistan cooperation, he stressed that any kind of ``arms competition`` in the region will harm the regional peace and stability.

Rejecting the presence of the Zionist regime in the region, he said the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned about the Israeli activities in the indian subcontinent. He called on the Islamic countries to be sensitive toward the issue.

Referring to the key role being played by both Iran and Pakistan in establishment of peace and stability in the region as well as in reconstruction and renovation of the war-torn Afghanistan, he said there are great potentials in both countries which pave the way for active participation of the two states in reconstruction of the neighboring Afghanistan.

Both Iran and Pakistan, as the two major regional states, have had fruitful consultations on different international and regional developments within the framework of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Kharrazi added.

Although there have been several ups and downs in the two countries` bilateral relations, both Tehran and Islamabad should seize opportunities to further promote bilateral cooperation.

He further expressed hope that the ongoing discussions will lead to closer diplomatic ties between the two neighboring states.

Several Iranian and Pakistani scholars are attending the one-day roundtable discussions which will be concluded this evening.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=india&Da=1/10/02&Cat=2&Num=6

Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002

U.S. Aims to Benefit From Islamabad-New Delhi Tension

TEHRAN - The assistant editor-in-chief of the Egyptian daily * * * *Ash-Shaab * * * *, Ahmed Al-Soyufi, said on Wednesday that the motive behind the United States` presence in Central Asia is to benefit from the current tension between india and Pakistan. He suggested that the Bush administration intends to increase its influence over the two countries, both of which have nuclear weapon capabilities, as well as in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

He said that the disputes between india and Pakistan are of concern to the Islamic world and must be taken seriously. He added that the two countries should try to solve their problems as soon as possible, with help from Islamic and Arab states, since the only country that would benefit from a conflict is the U.S., and its interference should be opposed.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=india&Da=1/10/02&Cat=2&Num=9

Date: Thursday, January 10, 2002

Shahroudi Urges Indo-Iran Strategic Contacts

TEHRAN -- Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi here Tuesday urged Iran and india to forge strategic ties against U.S. which he said is eying rich resources of the region.

Washington, he said at a meeting with indian Ambassador to Tehran Pripuran Singh Haer, is seeking to expand its domination on the region under the pretext of an anti-terror campaign in Afghanistan.

``America`s fight against Osama bin Laden and Taleban, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, is aimed at consolidating U.S. presence in the region in order to protect the country`s interests,`` he said.

``While we consider the issue of combating terrorism among our strategic objectives, I do not see American (anti-terror) intentions sincere,`` the Iranian official further said.

Haer hailed the positive pace of developments which the Indo-Iranian ties are going through and called for enhanced judicial cooperation of the two countries.

The indian ambassador also expressed optimism over Pakistan`s measures to check terrorist activities in its territory.

He also invited Shahroudi to pay an official visit to New Delhi to get acquainted with the indian judicial system.

#169 Jay

Hope you find a job soon. You`re getting more & more cantankerous.

What work of great significance has been produced in malayalam lately? The malayali Arundhati Roy chose to write her novel in english!

Principia Mathematica is in latin which is a dead language. On the other hand, Urdu is spoken by millions of indian muslims (including a large number of keralite muslims, i`d bet)and most of pakistan. There`s a Sahitya Academy award for urdu as there is for other indian languages and it has not gone unawarded or unclaimed as far as i know.

Jay, i hate to say it, especially because you have a great insight into things at times, and i count myself as your number one fan, but you`re being mulish on this one.

re: tvarad # 199

Sh1t man! These are the times when I feel ashamed of being an Indian...damn morons...let those children come! They can`t be spies and bombers...

Reply #: 196

Glen

``ALL THE FIERCENESS OF MOTIVATION ,WILL TO FIGHT REASONS & JUSTIFIED CAUSE IS ABSENT ON INDIAN SIDE.``

You are deluding yourself if you think there is no will to fight. If that were the case, we would not mobilise 1 million troops near the border. The whole naval fleet is in Arabian Sea, ready to blockade. About 600 and more IAF aircrafts are ready to strike deep. India did not buy the latest Su and MIGs and the Russian tanks just to look at them and admire. BJP is ready just like Indira Gandhi was in 1971. At least then you had US on your side. Now noone is with you.

If you were to listen to an average Indian, he is raring to go. Everyone in India seems to be fed up of this terrorism and Pak`s role in terrorism.

India is going stepwise up in the path to declaring war, exhausting all options. This is mainly to prepare the Indian mass as well as world opinion.

In 1965 and 71, your generals made the mistake of underestimating India`s resolve. Let us hope your dictator does not do the same mistake this time.

Sridhar

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002



Cover story

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html



A state of war



BY TREVOR FISHLOCK



The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?



Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.

Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.

In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.

It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.

Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.

The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.

Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.

Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.

The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.

At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.

Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.

India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.

India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.

Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.

Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.

Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.

Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.

The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.

Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.

In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.

Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.

It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.

It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.

In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.

People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.

Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.

harimau #197
I may be missing your point, but hope you are counting me among the Malayalis. IMO English was a `-astard language` by Jay`s definition many centuries before Jay, VK Krishna Menon and the British Ambassador were born. Invasions, invasions..( I am guessing)

www.m-w.com

Now what was that Mr. Menon said?``
``Don`t you dare correct my English. I learnt it whereas you merely picked it up.``

`dare`
Etymology: Middle English dar (1st & 3d sing. present indic.), from Old English dear; akin to Old High German gitar (1st & 3d singular present indicative) dare, Greek tharsos courage
date: before 12th century

`correct`
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin correctus, past participle of corrigere, from com- + regere to lead straight
Date: 14th century

`merely`
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin merus; akin to Old English Amerian to purify and perhaps to Greek marmairein to sparkle
Date: 1536

`picked`
Etymology: Middle English piken, partly from (assumed) Old English pIcian (akin to Middle Dutch picken to prick); partly from Middle French piquer to prick --
Date: 14th century


`definition`
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Middle French definition, from Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
Date: 14th century

`point`
Etymology: Middle English, partly from Old French, puncture, small spot, point in time or space, from Latin punctum, from neuter of punctus, pp. of pungere to prick; partly from Old French pointe sharp end, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin puncta, from Latin, feminine of punctus, past participle
Date: 13th century

`invasion`
Middle English invasioune, from Middle French invasion, from Late Latine invasion-,invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
Date: 15th century

Ursturly,

How do Hindus get Sikhs to join the Hindu army? Why not the Muslim army?

January 9, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/international/asia/09KASH.html

Pakistan May Be Unable to Calm Kashmir

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

SRINAGAR, India, Jan. 8 — Pakistan`s president says he is taking steps to crack down on Islamic militants who use his country as a base to drive India from Kashmir. But it seems that word has yet to trickle down to this Himalayan border region, where the countries have fought on and off for 50 years.

There are still fresh killings here every day, by militants and Indian security forces alike, and Indian security officials say more than half of the militants still active in the Kashmir valley are foreigners, mostly Pakistanis and Afghans.

Today the Indian Army shot dead two gunmen who had opened fire in front of an army base northwest of here, killing one soldier. India said the gunmen were Pakistanis and members of a Pakistan-based militant group called Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In a late-night raid last Friday, the army gunned down three men it said were members of Jaish-e-Muhammad, another group based across the border. One of them was a Pakistani, the Indians said.

And two days before that, in the southern portion of the valley, Indian security forces killed two men they described as Pakistanis, also Lashkar-e-Taiba members.

Pakistani leaders are increasingly wary now that any one of the violent incidents that occur daily may become the spark for a full-scale war between the nuclear rivals, who have staged a huge buildup of military forces along their 1,800-mile border.

The latest batch of foreigners, Indian officials say, infiltrated through the Pakistani-held part of Kashmir a few days after the armed attack on India`s Parliament on Dec. 13 that set off the current heightening of tensions.

Even if foreign fighters stop entering, many militants among the local population in Jammu and Kashmir, India`s only predominantly Muslim state, say they will continue the fight against India on their own.

There is no way to independently confirm the nationalities of the slain militants. But India says the incidents show that Pakistan, despite of the pledges by its president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, continues to dispatch terrorists into the Indian-held portion of Kashmir.

The two groups — Lashkar-e- Taiba, whose name means the Army of God in Urdu, and Jaish-e-Muhammad, or the Army of Muhammad — dominate the armed insurgency in Kashmir, Indian officials say, and India holds both groups responsible for the attack on its Parliament.

Pakistan arrested several leaders of the groups in recent days, and General Musharraf is said to have ordered a suspension of support to both.

But Indian officials, who after all are none too eager to give credit to General Musharraf, say his latest declarations have brought no respite to Kashmir. Nor, they say, do they expect peace here anytime soon.

Even if General Musharraf is sincere about wanting to crack down on the groups, it is not clear whether he can exert full control over them or whether the militants will continue to receive the backing of parts of Pakistan`s intelligence service who hold the Kashmiri cause dear.

``These militant groups don`t want it to be thought they are under pressure,`` R. S. Bhullar, the deputy inspector general of the Border Security Force in Kashmir, said in an interview.

The public statements of at least one such group bear out his view. Last week, immediately after General Musharraf ordered the arrest of its leaders, Jaish-e-Muhammad seemed to dismiss the gesture.

``We are in possession of more deadly and sophisticated weapons,`` the group declared in a statement published in Kashmiri newspapers, ``and they will be fully used against the military and paramilitary forces of India in the coming days.``

Indian security officials say that Jaish and Lashkar, manned mostly by Pakistanis from the Punjab and Sind regions, are the best financed, most disciplined and best armed groups operating in the Kashmir valley.

With their penchant for suicide attacks and their sophisticated weaponry, they have in recent years sidelined the much larger groups made up of local Kashmiris, chief among them Hizbul Mujahedeen, that are also fighting to wrest the region from Indian control.

But while the Indian authorities blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba for the attack on the army base today, another Kashmiri group, Jamiat-ul-Mujahedeen, based in the Pakistani side of Kashmir, claimed responsibility.

Some Kashmiri groups welcome the Pakistani crackdown on groups like Jaish and Lashkar. To rid the valley of those outsiders, they say, would only aid their movement, in large part because it would defang the Indian contention that the fighting in Kashmir is nothing more than a Pakistani plot.

Kashmiris took up arms long before the Pakistani-based guerrillas arrived, these local groups say, and they will carry on long after they leave, so long as India denies them a chance to decide their own fate — independence or allegiance to India or Pakistan.

``For Kashmir it is a right decision,`` said Yasin Malik, the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a onetime armed insurgent group that harbors equal enmity for Pakistan and India and advocates independence. ``It is an indigenous movement. It should remain in the hands of the Kashmiri people.``

Others insist that no matter the pressure on General Musharraf, Pakistan will continue to aid the Kashmiri fight against Indian rule. This is the view of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who heads the local political wing of the Jamaat-i-Islami, an Islamic party that is a staunch ally of Pakistan.

Groups like Jaish and Lashkar, he says, operate inside Kashmir with the support of local people. ``They are supporting a suppressed nation,`` he said of the Pakistani-based groups.

Group affiliation seems to matter little to the people of Sonarkalipora, a village just west of here. On Monday the village buried three men. A large, fiery crowd of people from there and beyond paraded down the twisting dirt roads, carrying the dead on their shoulders and filling the air with shouts for freedom.

One of the dead, Nazir Ahmed Khan, 18, was from the village, about an hour`s drive west of Srinagar. Without a word to his family, he had run off just over a week ago to join the Islamic fighters. Of the others, one was from near Jammu, in the southern portion of this state. The last was a Pakistani, Indian officials said. All three, they said, were members of Jaish-e-Muhammad.

The teenager from the village ran off and joined Jaish-e-Muhammad after his father and older brother were arrested and tortured by the police, something that human rights groups say happens with alarming frequency.

His father, Abdul Sattar Khan, said his son had left without any explanation. Had he known, the father said, he would have talked him out of it. ``He was my right arm,`` he said, his face cracked with the ravines of age. ``I never expected him to join the mujahedeen.``

The army discovered the boy and the two men holed up in a nearby village, Kawoosa, its residents said. A gun battle went on in the wee hours of the night, they recalled. When it ended, three bodies were hauled out.

For several days Kawoosa remained under lockdown. An army tank designed to withstand land mines stood sentry at the top of the road leading to the village, along with heavily armed soldiers. No one was allowed to pass through while the army continued its operation inside. No one could say how long it would go on.

The three who died, local and foreigner alike, got a martyr`s funeral in Sonarkalipora, a tinderbox procession of rage and grief. ``Martyrs, we salute you,`` the women sang. Little boys, skinny as twigs, squeaked ``Jaish`` and ``Lashkar`` and giggled. Shouts of ``Pakistan`` mixed with shouts for freedom.

Young men declared that they, too, were ready to sign up with the militants — any militants — foreign, domestic, it did not matter.

``For us it`s one and the same,`` said a young man, who like the rest declined to give his name for fear of his life. ``Jaish or Hizbul. Whoever is fighting for jihad, we don`t make a distinction.``

Anyone caught up in the sub-continent`s bureaucracy can empathise with such thoughtlessness.

Ailing Pak infants caught at the `line of control`



PAAWANA POONACHA

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 09, 2002 11:13:12 PM ]



BANGALORE: These little hearts have nothing to do with politics or the Indo-Pak tension. But they are paying the price for residing on the other side of the border.

The heart of the matter: Six Pakistani infants with serious heart ailments await Indian visas for their scheduled operation in Bangalore. But the cruelty of realpolitik prevents them from crossing the `line of control.`

The distressed parents hope the Indian government will have a change of heart and allow them to visit Bangalore. But as yet there is no word from this side of the border. And the anxious wait continues.

At the Narayana Hrudayalaya, noted heart surgeon Dr Devi Shetty throws up his hands and says: ``Why should these precious lives be sacrificed if the two countries are out to settle scores politically? We are all individuals living in the two countries and we have nothing against each other.``

Narayana Hrudayalaya that operates upon at least one child a week from the neighbouring countries can reel out its list of Pakistani infants awaiting corrective surgeries at their hospital. And visiting India is much reasonable than other advanced countries.

``Each of these infants is suffering from complex heart problems and need to be treated immediately,`` Dr Devi Shetty, director of Narayana Hrudayalaya, explains.

Three-month-old Shabeer Hussain has to undergo an arterial switch -- a complex procedure which is done only in about 20 centres worldwide. Six-month-old Aslam Mohammed Hasheem needs an ``obstructed total anomalous pulmonary drainage``. In this case, the blood does not flow from the lungs to the heart.

Such are also the cases with one-year-old Abdulla Amir, eight-month-old Isha and Ijaz Iqbal Raja.

``The last heard from these families was two weeks ago, when one of the parents said, `Indian Embassy is not giving us visas until further notice. It`s hard to get through them`,`` laments Dr Shetty.

Crossing the borders to reach Indian doctors hadn`t been easy even two months ago. ``Parents of a four-day-old Pakistani baby that required an immediate heart surgery were arrested in Delhi suspecting terrorism. They were released after we had a word with the authorities in Delhi. The baby is hale and hearty back in Pakistan,`` says Dr Shetty.

Dr Shetty suggests that the public come forward and shoot off letters to the Ministry of External Affairs to revoke the ``nasty rule``.

Peace between the two countries will one day be restored but what matters for now is to treat these innocent babies and send them back in good health.

Ref Stuka #: 177

[Right SPM???? Ahem, about that dinner, ahem, um, any chance of that happening soon??!!??? ;))]

Trolling for dates on Chowk, eh? That is the peculiar specialty of Ali1 who gets no takers even at gay bars.

Ref sadna #: 168

[So whos the -astard, here, English or those who wield the privilege of using English though they have NO connection with where it came from and what it picked up on the way?]

Er... (clearing my throat...)

VK Krishna Menon is reported to have told the British Ambassador to the United Nations, ``Don`t you dare correct my English. I learnt it whereas you merely picked it up.``

The score stands at Malayalees One with All Others Nil.

#179

RSRIDHAR``Believe it or not, the only thing that holds India is not Pak`s nuclear deterrence (this has already been factored in during past and present military exercises)but India`s democracy and accountability to its people. BJP`s political future is at stake. Hence, all diplomatic options will be exhausted including scrapping the Indus treaty, naval blockade etc. These are very extreme measures akin to declaring war.``



Its true it will take india FOREVER to think of aTTACKING ,it not only needs guts ,which essentially is a will to fight & motivation & determination ,reason & convinced beyond doubt mind set

Forever ---it will never be easy convincing the world for india to open undisputed border without losing face in the intl. Comunity

Attacking --For india to attack there is no specific target .I think they cannot attack nuclear instillation not only there is mutual treaty but America & world dont want total nuclear warfare for there own allies & there own safety

Will to fight --What other motivation other the pay check & some money like Gorkha Neplese hired guns have to fight .Not more than thugs looting bank when there is no bank across the LOC in Kashmir .Pakistan is relatively green with plants NOT THE KIND OF GREEN BANIYAS LIKE ,the $$ kind.!!

GUTS --comes from true ,just & dear to heart believes.Pakistan has 54 years of atroceties by Indian army to justify there anger .What is the source of occupying forces anger? except? to give the land up to the locals lets return back to Abdhra, Tamil,Keral & Kannada home uselessly seperated from families

ALL THE FIERCENESS OF MOTIVATION ,WILL TO FIGHT REASONS & JUSTIFIED CAUSE IS ABSENT ON INDIAN SIDE.

Just as glibly as you utter ``we have factored in nuclear attack`` as if it was the silly algebra equatio in your SAT test ,its not your equation that balanceses in your favour.We just as well can, non chantantly utter we have determined the endurance of constant nuclear rain & factored it in ....there you go .!!!!!!!!!

Urstruly,

Man you really hate Pakistan dont you?

-YLH

#173

Gymnasophyst

With Blair declaring Pakistans position more strong than Indias ,Hindians would ever admit or like anyone to know about?,There is more awareness about Kashmir NOW than ever in 33 years prior to 89 insurgency or ever could have been possible without he blood & suffering of Mujahdeen & Kasmiris who suffered there end approx from 6000 to upward of 50000 by conservative estimate .

If any ppl. is more deserving of FREEDOM it is Kashmiris after Anti Freedom movement SPY likeAtalji Vajpayee (atal bihari vAjpayee was a MOLE of British & fingered many indian freedom fighters labelled as terrorist....like chandra Sekhar Singh & Bhagat Singh Azad)is eating the fruit of freedom given by british as charity.

I ran across the article below in the International Herald Tribune - I think it is pertinent:

``Independence for Kashmir Could Have Advantages for India

Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune Monday January 7, 2002

BUT ALSO READ ABOUT BRUTALITY OF HINDIANS SO CALLED NON VIOLENT ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Border Security Force (BSF) jawan allegedly set ablaze a youth and deserted the force soon after commiting the macabre crime on Saturday in Baramulla district of Kashmir, prompting authorities to lauch a massive hunt to apprehend him.

The jawan, Goarknath, belonging to 88th BSF battalion, also set afire his uniform, his bullet-proof vest, helmet and shoes apparently to mislead the authorities that he is dead, official sources said here.

They said Goraknath apparently thought that the authorities on seeing the youth`s charred body and his burnt uniform would presume him to be dead which will earn him a huge compensation, amounting to lakhs of rupees, paid to security force personnel who die while serving in Kashmir.

The sources said the jawan allegedly set the youth ablaze inside BSF camp at Damnu near the Sopore bus stand, some 55 kms from here.

They said Goraknath picked up 18-year-old Nazir Ahmad Mir of Naidkhai village during routine frisking and took him inside his room at the camp.

Within minutes, the youth was seen in flames by locals as he jumped out of the building. He was immediately rushed to SMHS hospital here.

Doctors said Nazir had received 100 per cent burns. ``It is difficult to say whether he will survive.``

Nazir told police that the jawan took him inside the camp, poured oil on him and then set him on fire.

``I jumped out of the window and what happened afterwards, I can`t remember,`` he said.

``We have have alerted our forces in Kashmir and other parts of the country to nab Gorakhnath,`` a BSF officer said.

GYMNASOPHYST #173

``Bismillah ur-Rahman Ur-Rahim``.

Its vast difference in meaning instead of sayin `bissmillah ir rehman nir rahim`which is the correct quote ,which you should not incorrectly when not necessarry.

Kashmir is a dispute which BLAIR ,and you cant accuse the British ,of not knowing the facts ,b/c you & i know they made the rules by which we still play specially of a game like Kashmir which despite manty Extra Times has not seen the end of the Innnings.

EnoUgh has been written from all sides in thousand of journals & news papers discussion boards but the fact remainsd ,if it was a Done deal for india you would not need whole countries eskewed efforts military & material for mere 10 millions of people in a billion that makes it 1% roughly.

BRITISH BROAD CASTING (BBC) FORUM ON KASHMIR



The topics discussed in this forum were:

Background to the dispute

Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?

International border

Referendum

Role of the outside world

Military option

Ethnic cleansing

Pan-Islamic groups

Background to the dispute

Bridget Kendall:

Adjit Singh, India asks: Please explain to us what the main issues are that both countries have their dispute?

Jill McGivering:

Certainly the comments that are made most here in India focus on what India sees as a sovereign claim to the whole of the territory of Kashmir. That is basically back to the time of partition when the then Maharajah of the Jammu and Kashmir territory had to make a decision whether he wanted accession to the new Pakistan or to India and after some deliberation chose India. Pakistan never really accepted that decision but India clings to it very much as a basis for its claim and has done over the last more than 50 years.

Since then we have had a lot of debate, a lot of changes and of course a lot of conflict as well over Kashmir. At the moment a lot of the focus really is on the role that India feels that Pakistan is playing in supporting militancy inside the two-thirds of the territory of Kashmir which is Indian Kashmir. A lot of what we`re seeing at the moment, in terms of the possibility of dialogue about how they settle who has the best claim to the territory of Kashmir as a whole is also to do first with whether or not Pakistan is still giving a large amount of support to those militants who India accuses of being involved in long-running terrorism and what steps it is prepared to take to stop cross-border terrorism.

Bridget Kendall:

Victoria, is that the way that Pakistan sees this conflict?

Victoria Schofield:

It is a little more complicated. Jill is of course right. In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was given the choice of choosing between India and Pakistan. However, it was a disputed claim because the Maharajah only acceded under duress because he was being troubled by a rebellion both within his state. Both India and Pakistan agreed at the time of the accession that the issue would be put to a plebiscite. This is really the problem, it is not so much if it had been a clean, simple act of accession, it is the fact that both India and Pakistan agreed that they would put the issue to the people. This was further endorsed by the United Nations, who agreed that both countries should accede to what they had agreed to do and unfortunately they never managed to put the issue to a plebiscite and so it has never been laid to rest. This is really from which arose the insurgency in the 80s, early 90s.

Bridget Kendall:

Anu Anand, you were born in Kashmir. How does this dispute today seem from the point of view of people in Kashmir?

Anu Anand:

I think the issue of the plebiscite is very central because the Kashmiris themselves have never had a voice really in any of this. Especially now - we see Tony Blair meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister - at least on the Indian side of Kashmir, the Kashmiri leaders have not had a partnership in any of this process, they have been sidelined by the Indian Government.

Also there are the very basic day-to-day issues in Kashmir. Things have improved over the last few years than they were when Delhi was directly ruling Kashmir. But there is no economic opportunity in Kashmir - the Indian Government hasn`t fulfilled the sorts of promises and the kinds of things that were bandied about so long ago. Even during the recent elections and a few years ago there was so much talk about economic development, about opportunity - there hasn`t really been much movement and I think the Kashmiris feel sidelined and squeezed by all of the powers who perhaps use Kashmir as something of a political football depending on what the objective of the day is.

Return to the top of the page



Is the accession of Kashmir to India complete?

Bridget Kendall:

Shraddha Chauhan, India asks: From a pure United Nations and official standpoint is the accession of Kashmir to India complete? What would happen if, for example, President Musharraf were to agree to everything and terrorism across the border would stop? What do you think would be the options for India then?

Jill McGivering:

In a sense the premises of the first part of that question seems to be an assumption that the United Nations does endorse India`s claim that basically the next process would be the accession of the whole territory of Kashmir to India. Obviously that`s not the case. We`ve seen a slight shifting in the United Nations` position over the last 50 years, focusing initially on the plebiscite. But certainly the position at the moment - we had it restated quite recently with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, coming to both Pakistan and India in March and addressing this issue publicly and quite forcefully. He was saying that now the United Nations` position is that the only way this can be achieved is through peaceful dialogue between the two countries.

In terms of the issue of stopping cross-border terrorism and what impact that would have - we have just been hearing from Anu Anand about the impact on ordinary people of these years and years of militancy, unrest and difficulties in Indian Kashmir. I suppose the hope would be that in the short-term at least it would be an opportunity for people to start to rebuild normal lives. Every time I go to that part of the world that you meet so many widows, so many young children who`ve had to become the heads of their households because the breadwinner perhaps been lost through some sort of militancy or terrorist activity. It would give a chance to people to try and recover a little both psychologically and also practically in economical terms - perhaps, for example, to start to revive international tourism which has pretty much been killed in the last 10 years of militancy.

Return to the top of the page



International Border

Bridget Kendall:

Sanjay, United Kingdom asks: Could a solution to the dispute be if, the line of control between the two countries - which is the de facto border but is not in fact an international border - were to be made into an international border? Would that be a solution?

Jill McGivering:

That is something that`s often raised as being the most realistic solution in the sense that it is in many ways it is already a de facto border for ordinary people on the ground. It was essentially a temporary measure that was sanctioned by the United Nations very early on as a ceasefire line at a time when they were trying to stop an outbreak of fighting between Indians and Pakistanis. So it wasn`t ever devised as being a possible border. I think one of the difficulties would be in trying to persuade both sides to accept that as an international border and in so doing essentially renouncing their claim to the whole of the territory. Certainly at the moment, with the constraints and pressures that leaders in both countries face from their own domestic constituencies - it is hard not to over-emphasise how passionate and emotional an issue this is - so it looks unlikely as though they would be willing to renounce their claims in that way and make it possible to have that become the border.

Bridget Kendall:

Victoria, is that the same in Pakistan do you think - this question of making the line of control an international border?

Victoria Schoefield:

I think it would be far more palatable for India. Up until the latest outbreak of insurgency that was what India thought had unofficially occurred in 1972 in Shimla. This was very much the feeling that India keeps what they`ve got, Pakistan will keep what they`ve got - which is approximately one-third of the territory including what they call Asad Kashmir and the northern areas. I think India would have very little difficulty in accepting that ironed out with some minor inconsistencies and probably withdrawing themselves from the Siachin Glacier which they occupied in 1984 and which they really don`t want to have. However, the sticking point has always been that Pakistan has not been prepared to accept it and in a way it feels cheated of the plebiscite and the only reason why they stopped fighting at the ceasefire line was on the understanding that they would have the opportunity for the people to choose.

We have also the issue of what the people themselves would want and they are not really unanimously behind one or the other. You`ve got people in Ladakh in India who are happy with the status quo. You`ve also got the people in Jammu, predominately Hindu, who are happy with the status quo and then you`ve got people in northern areas who would like to have formalised being part of Pakistan and the same with Asad Kashmir. So what you are really only talking about is the status of the valley and this has always been the core issue. The valley - predominately Muslim - and making up probably the majority of the population if you put the whole state together. But Pakistan somehow to accept the line of control now as the official border, after 50 years of saying it`s not good enough - they`ve got to have something more to offer to their people.

Return to the top of the page



Referendum

Bridget Kendall:

M. Choudhury, UK asks: Why is India so opposed to having a referendum in Kashmir to let the citizens decide in which country they wish to be aligned?

Anu Anand:

I think they are afraid of the outcome. India in the very, very beginning I think there was a certain amount of good faith. They genuinely wanted Kashmir to be a part of the union. But in I way I think it`s a jewel - a possession - and a referendum means they have to open up the question of letting the Kashmiris decide if they want to be a part of India. Essentially for 50 years and especially in the last few decades, the Indian policy in Kashmir, especially under the BJP government, has been to contain this problem because it is a part of India and no more discussion about it. If there is a substantial change in the status of Kashmir, it has very serious repercussions throughout the rest of India and other Muslim communities.

I that is essentially the problem that the Indian Government is afraid of what the answer to that question would be and that just fuels the resentment endlessly. Also the Indian policy in Kashmir - not allowing political dissent to have a voice, not allowing political parties to mature and to be equal partners, not having human rights controls, not checking up on the Indian army to make sure that Muslims aren`t being brutalised - these are all the core questions. This is where I think India has failed in not addressing these core questions and I think even Indian leaders themselves would admit that they really have failed to bring stability, prosperity and peace to the part that they do in effect control.

Return to the top of the page



Role of the outside world

Bridget Kendall

Jill in Dehli, we`ve just had Tony Blair visiting the Indian Prime Minister - he is now in Pakistan. A question from Sondi in the UK: I would like to know why the United Nations, the US, the UK and Russia cannot force India and Pakistan to come to a diplomatic solution on Kashmir. They can try to impose tougher sanctions etc. What about the role of the outside world?

Jill McGivering:

Obviously various members of the international community have tried their best to exert pressure in certain directions. At the moment we`re seeing a lot of pressure on Pakistan precisely on this issue of the support of cross-border terrorism, partly because the political landscape has changed since September 11th. If there is a lot of success then it may be possible that we reach a stage where the two sides are willing and able to sit down and reopen dialogue and that could be a positive step.

But certainly I think the United Nations in particular has been quite cautious about how heavy-handed a role it would be appropriate or helpful to play in all this. When we talk about some of the United Nations resolutions - for example the one involving the plebiscite - those weren`t enforceable resolutions, they weren`t binding - they were much weaker than that. As I said earlier, the Secretary-General quite recently made it very clear that although the international community was watching very carefully and was eager to try and play a part - if that was appropriate - it also recognised that the only real way to lasting peace had to be that both governments were able to sort out their differences themselves and come to some sort of agreement. Obviously if they wanted some sort of mediation, then the international community would be very willing and probably eager to try to provide it. But certainly India, in particular, has always seen this as a bilateral issue and hasn`t wanted any sort of intervention, which it would see very much as interference.

Return to the top of the page



Military option

Bridget Kendall:

Giri, India asks: If this crack down of extremist elements in Pakistan turns out to be a temporary affair, would India exercise the military option?

Jill McGivering:

It is a very frightening question. Obviously a lot of people here have watched with alarm as we`ve seen a tremendous build-up, militarily, along the international border and also along the line of control and have been concerned about what that might mean - either in terms of strategy by either government or even in terms of a mistake of the tension becoming so high that one isolated incident, for example, sparks another and we end up getting into a conflict that wasn`t necessarily intended.

We have heard both leaders, including the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee, in the last few days, although sounding very tough, also repeatedly saying in public that they don`t want war, they don`t things to escalate, they don`t want things to come to that pitch. I think that is something that`s very much echoed, certainly by the ordinary people that I meet here. Many of them are concerned that there has been an increase in tension - a sort of brinkmanship at the moment - and they can`t really see how that can be resolved. Although President Musharraf has made signs towards trying to curb some of the activities of some of the groups that India has accused of involvement in terrorism most recently in the attack on India`s parliament - a lot of those gestures have been very cautiously received by India and even described as cosmetic. So it`s hard to see at the moment how the two positions can be bridged peacefully.

Return to the top of the page



Ethnic cleansing

Bridget Kendall

Anu, if I can come to you now, having been born in Kashmir and lived there part of your life, we`ve got a question from Rupert here in England and he asks: I often see stories of the specific killing of Hindus in Kashmir. Is this ethnic cleansing and why is no one highlighting it?

Anu Anand:

I think it is highlighted - I think it is highlighted endlessly, for example, by the Indian Government. My family are Hindus in the predominately Hindu part of Kashmir and Jammu. If you go to Jammu, you find thousands and thousands of Hindus who`ve had to leave the valley over the last few decades because of the instability and I think they would like to go back. They feel that they`ve lived side by side with Muslims for many years but things have become so unstable and because of, what they call, foreign militants - people coming over from, for example, Afghanistan or outside - that everyone is a target.

We had the massacre of Sikhs in Kashmir - a small minority but very significant why they should be targeted and that coincided with Bill Clinton`s visit. If you speak to the Indian Government they say this is the problem we are faced with. If you speak to the Pakistanis they say the Indians organised this to embarrass us when Bill Clinton was visiting. So I think it is highlighted. The problem in Kashmir, I think, boils down to being able to quantify and to really pin down who is doing what - there are so many groups and there are so many agendas that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of why certain people are being targeted and who is responsible for it.

Return to the top of the page



Pan-Islamic groups

Bridget Kendall

Some recent experts have suggested that some of the militantancy is now becoming less to do with territory and more to do with a religious and Islamic agenda. Victoria, We have a question from TLJ in Austria: Is it true that over 70% of the captured or killed Kashmiri freedom fighters or terrorists are not in fact Kashmiris but are Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechyns and Afghans and doesn`t that point to a connection with pan-Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda?

Victoria Schoefield:

I think there has definitely been a change in the complexion of the movement since it began in 1989. We have got two issues: one is the territorial dispute, which goes back to 1947 between India and Pakistan and had it been resolved swiftly, we might not have seen the events that we`ve seen now. The other issue has been the situation in the valley for how the Indian Muslims felt they were treated which gave rise to the insurgency movement in the late 80s and 90s.

But subsequent to that it is true that the movement has in a way been hijacked, partly because the indigenous movement was very severely repressed by the Indian Government and it coincided at a time with the end of the Afghan war - you had the training that was provided for the pan-Islamic militants. We had militants coming from other countries to fight in Afghanistan so it was in a way a natural progression - they would then turn their attention to Kashmir. I`ve certainly talked to a lot of Kashmiris who say this isn`t exactly what we want. We want to live in peace with the Hindus. What we were fighting for was better rights, better civil liberties within the political status we already had. They may have thought they`re not particularly happy with the way things turned out. They may have preferred to have been given the choice with the plebiscite. But in a way, since the movement began it has almost been taken hold of itself by this extraneous element.

In addition to which, it is very difficult to say, when you are talking about a Kashmiri - we traditionally talk about Kashmiris as being those people of the valley who are both Hindus and Muslims and those people who essentially have a culture in common. But you`ve got now what are called the Asad Jammu Kashmiris - and Pakistan insists on keeping the name Jammu even though the Jammu region is within India. They call themselves Kashmiris - actually they are from Mayapore or they`re from different districts - they don`t even speak the Kashmiri language. They say, number one, we don`t recognise the line of control because we feel we`re all part of the state and number two, we therefore feel we are entitled to go and fight for our brethren. A lot of the people of the people who came over to fight were from the Asad Jammu Kashmir region but were not really having very much in common with the Kashmiris. This is why it`s become so complicated because you don`t quite know whose fighting for what and you`ve got the political parties with different objectives. Some say that they would they would like to reunite the whole area with Pakistan - others say in the events that have happened with the break up of the Soviet Union, that`s not what we want any more - we would like our independence. So the whole issue breaks down again because independence of what particular part - whether it`s the whole state, whether it`s a part of the state?

Return to the top of the page

Re: Urstruly

Thank you very much for your sophisticated analysis. Don`t you think that you are doing a service for the `Hindu army in Rajasthan/Punjab` and the `Indian Army in Kashmir` by disclosing and discussing your plans indiscreetly in public? I also appreciated your distinction between the Indian and Hindu armies, and their deployment (as revealed to you) -- deciding upon an attack strategy based upon the religion of the enemy has always been proved in battle, has it not?