Deja Vu

shammi, bongdongs

Guys, look, I know Indians consider Kargil as legitimate as would a family of tigers anybody trying to steal their cubs. But let`s put our nationalism as well as issues of ``legality`` aside for a minute. Unlike in the days of Mahabharatha, war is rarely fought by legal means these days. Sometimes morality is given short-shrift too, though some basic kind of morality must be excercised.

Believe me, I am NOT a born pacifist. I get very mad at times, and I was as enraged about Kargil as was every other Indian. But once that anger subsides, some calm analysis must be made. The occupation of kargil by Pakistani army must be seen in light of a history of mutually antagonistic miltary manoevures by India and Pakistan. Surely, it was an attack, and few attacks can be seen as ``legimate`` in a moral sense; BUT many Pakistanis are likely to see what Pakistani army did in Kargil as being not very different from what we did in Siachin. And I think they would be at least partly right.

The basic facts about Kargil are pretty ugly, and almost all of them are, IMO, about Indian military preparedness. First we failed to anticipate a move that was, we are told, in the works going back to Benazir Bhutto`s time! Second, we failed to detect the operation, as it was unfolding. That was quite something given that sending so many people up in the mountains, stocking them with food supplies, weapons, protective gear, tents etc. must have been a quite a large operation. Third, we rushed headlong into the embrace of Nawaz Sharif, ignoring the fact that the dynamic of Indo-Pak relationship was decided, on the Pakistani side, by its military. Fourth, our weaknesses in fighting high-altitude war became quite apparent.

In any case, I wanted to make the point that Kargil was NOT terrorism. I still argue it was not.

Fuzair:

Loved your posts on the LTTE phenomenon and the actions of the IPKF. The distinction is that we messed around with Sri Lanka, and the Tamil Tigers had a local outlook. The Jehadis have a global outlook and therefore will attract more attention.

I am with you on the ``morality`` aspect. The practise of statecraft is devoid of morality. In fact a leader who sacrifices self interest at the altar of morality is a traitor to the people. Indians seem to be woefully ill informed on the deeds and actions of our successive governments.

Zakkk

“Vis a vis a intercators comments about Pathans ..from the chowk guidelines



Please refrain from frivolous statements that are inflammatory towards any race, nationality, ethinicity or religion”

….when was the last time rules/guidelines stopped racist retards from spewing their two cents?…

Prem # 199

The idea behind occupying the Hills in Kargil was to cut off the highway to Ladakh. The Pakistani troops on the hills would serve as spotters for Pakistani artillery gunners. They did cut the highway for a while. If the highway was not vital India would love to get Pakistan in a artillery duel which drains Pakistan`s finances.

narain # 204:

I don`t think Musharraf is desperate. The idea behind the referendrum is to conduct it while the USA is still busy battling the Al-Qaida in the tribal areas. If the past is any indication, US will wink at the referendrum.

Hey Anny, anyone know what happened at Karachi University, and the Tehrik e Insaf clash?

Shammi (#205) - might has always been right in war. I remember a series of posts elsewhere in Chowk between Sher Dil and Layman/shankar/(?) in which the indian posters freely admitted that the reason 2/3 of Kashmir is occupied by India is because of this same rule: that might is right. India occupies it simply because she hase the military force to do so. Similarly, Israel occupies Palestine because she is militarily stronger and is able to do so.

I don`t see the point that some posters are making in justifying military actions in legal terms.

Prem:

``...was a legitimate military operation...``

I would be very careful in using the word `legitimate` and `military operations` in the same sentence without understanding the ramifications. You have previously used the word `exercise` in describing Kargil. A wrong word here or there makes all the difference.

The only legitimate military operations beyond a country`s borders are those that are sanctioned by the UN Security Council or are bilaterally agreed to by the concerned parties or are used in self-defence in face of an armed aggression. That is why the Kosovo war was probably illegal under international law (it did not have UN Security sanction) but only Yugoslavia will be willing to make the case. Kargil did not meet any of these criteria. `Exercises` have an entirely different connotation. Kargil was not an exercise -- it was an attack. It was an attempt to unilaterally change the LoC through armed force -- a violation of both the `49 UN Ceasefire agreement and the `72 Simla Agreement.

And, if you take the position that countries can unilaterally take the decision to walk out of international agreements (as Hitler did by marching into the Rhineland or the Japanese by marching into Manchuria in the `30s) then you are putting the entire global order of international agreements and treaties at risk. It will be a return to the `might is right` system, and no international border or agreement will be considered sacrosanct.

Is Pres. Musharraf sounding somewhat desperate these days? His rallies are becoming more and more like those of the hated politicians of yore.

....Also interesting view of the General`s mind (from todays`s dawn):

``In a panel interview with Dawn at the Army House, he (Pres. Musharraf) did not rule out the possibility of another referendum after a period of five years. However, he said, so far, he had not thought about the issue. ``I`ll look into the possibility keeping in mind the environment prevailing at the time. I`ll keep national interest supreme.`` the president said.

``What if a future prime minister having good relations with the president decides to have the term of his government extended through a referendum rather than elections?`` he was asked.

The president said in such a situation it would be for the Supreme Court to decide whether such an option was available under the Constitution. He said under the Constitution, only the president could hold a referendum.``

Shah mian,

We could argue till kingdom come (or is it ``jannat come``) about who started the fire first. (Maybe I`ll say it was the Pakistani support to the Razakars in Hyderabad). But the important point is for both of us to denounce violence againt civilians (Ye, I also am including Gujarat, and the attacks on Shia mosques in Pakistan)

Get it?

scout #188 you write ``Prem`s assumption that the Pakistani military uses the concept of jihad to carry through terrorist actions.`` and I assume this is what you are referring, in his post #187: ``Musharraf has called for Jihad many times, and not always for ``Jihad-e-Akbar.`` ...My fear is that we are stuck with terrorism for years to come.``.

My view is that any man who talks as much as our glorious leader does is bound to say a many things that are mutually inconsistent and many things that he will change the following day. So, I am not sure what he said that Prem is reporting. And regardless of what Musharaff`s personal views are (and I sense the mullahs are not his favorite people anyway), he cannot ignore the post- 9/11 international pressures to get the Islamists under control in Pakistan either. But who knows whether Musharaff will support the Lashkar`s in future - let us hope not anyway.

The following editorial in Friday Times, points in the same direction, as I had highlighted, regarding the groups who support Musharraf:

``As we race to April 30, R-Day, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer. All pollsters say a majority of those polled are in favour of General Pervez Musharraf. Whether or not the polls were conducted to fairly represent the respective weights of the urban and rural areas of the country in a scientific manner is not known. Nor can anyone be sure that those who are said to be in favour of General Musharraf will all come out and vote for him. But other signs also point in his direction......

All other things being equal, too, one should expect certain groups in society to be more disposed to voting in his favour than others – women, non-Muslims, government employees, expatriate Pakistanis, technocrats, students, etc. Women are more likely to vote for rather than against him because they rightly perceive him as having promised more to them (especially public representation) than any Pakistani political leader in history. Non-Muslims, too, fall in the same category – his promise of a “moderate and modern Pakistan” based on the abolition of the separate electorate system and a stern attitude towards the extremist Islamic parties has gone down well with them. Government employees, especially those from the armed forces (serving and retired), expatriate Pakistanis, middle-class urban students and technocrats are also likely to favour General Musharraf because these groups have historically preferred the illusion of stability over the din of democracy, and political accountability (a la NAB viz corruption) over popular representation (a la elections and parliaments). (Sethi, www.thefridaytimes.com)

Another article in this newspaper states that BB is opposing Musharraf because he did not allow her back. Had he allowed her back, she would have been fine with the unconstituionality of his govt. So much for an argument that points to PPP taking a constituional stand against Musharraf:

``Bhutto is opposed to the referendum, but is ready to get Musharraf elected as president through the assembly. “She is ready for a compromise and is ready to work with him provided he accepts her.`` (Hussein, www.thefridaytimes.com)

Jamaat-i-Islami`s Ghafoor, gave an interesting interview a few days ago, in which he stated that he had made a mistake by accepting a minister`s position in Zia`s cabinet. Raja Zafar and other PML members were ministers in Zia`s cabinet. Nawaz Sharif was handpicked by Zia. So all these guys are just out to save their own skins, and are hypocrites. If a military govt. supports them, they forget about the constitution. One can only laugh, when they (of all people) talk about Constitutions and democracies.

Four of the most honest and credible politicians I know of in Pakistan are Imran Khan of TI, Asghar Khan of T-Istaqlal, Khattak of National Awami Party, and Umer Asghar of Qaumi Jamhoori Party.

Imran Khan and Umer (son of Asghar Khan) are well known philathripists. They were into philanthrapy long before they got into politics. Asghar Khan built the PAF into an internationally recognized instituion, literally single handedly. He is widely recognized as a honest man. Khattak is one of the oldest and awami politicians in NWFP (don`t know too much about him, but he seems very well respected and a man of the people).

Interestingly Imran, Asghar and Khattak have all been kicked out of parties. Imran Khan`s party was a member of the original ARD. The current ARD is now the big alliance of maulvis, PPP and PML(N) to get rid of this govt. Interestingly the original ARD was formed as an alliance to get rid of the PML govt. of Nawaz Sharif. Now the same PML is in alliance with the same parties in the same ARD to get rid of this govt. How strange! TI was kicked out of this ARD when it refused to accept these double standards.

Asghar Khan was kicked out of the party he originally founded Tehrik-e-Istaqlal. And Khattak was kicked out of ANP (which strangely also supports Musharraf).

If any of these four politicians were to talk about the Constitution, then one could take their stance seriously. Interestingly, all four of them are the biggest supporters of the current govt. (they even support the referendum, which I don`t really support). And these four are the biggest opposers of people like NS and BB.

Anyone who is using the Constitution as an argument, needs to wake up and realize that BB and NS and PPP and PML have never themselves given a damn about the Constitution. Even now, they are just trying to save their own skins against the corruption charges. If the current govt. was to drop the corruption charges against them, BB and NS would once again become any military govts.` biggest supporters.

After all Z. Bhutto was a minister in Ayub`s govt., and the JI and PML leaders supported Zia 100%.

THUS SPAKE KEMAL ATATURK

Musharraf vows `Islamic democracy`



REUTERS [ FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2002 7:20:48 AM ]



AWALPINDI: Pakistan`s military ruler Pervez Musharraf vowed on Thursday to promote ``Islamic democracy`` if people vote for him to stay in power for five more years in a controversial referendum next week.

He did not elaborate his concept of Islamic democracy, but his promise at a high-security campaign meeting in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad, seemed aimed at appeasing Islamic fundamentalists opposing him.

General Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless 1999 army coup that toppled prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and who declared himself president, said he would ``not allow the pre-1999 lot to return``.

``We want to promote Islamic democracy...where Pakistan will get its (rightful) status as an atomic power of 140 million people,`` he told several thousand elected local councillors seated under large awnings at a racecourse, ringed by troops and armed police.

``A political and democratic system will be established here that will focus on people`s poverty.``

Musharraf pledged to fight religious extremism and banned five Islamic militant groups after he backed the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism following the September 11 attacks on the United States.

But in recent weeks he has toned down his criticism of Islamic parties, most of which oppose his April 30 referendum along with most other political parties and lawyers` groups.

Thursday`s closed meeting, near army General Headquarters, was arranged after authorities cancelled a public rally for Musharraf at a Rawalpindi park, apparently for security reasons.

Soldiers frisked and searched invitees who were not allowed to carry mobile phones, cigarette packs and matchboxes.

Lawyers march

One guest, apparently an elected official who sat on the stage with Musharraf, was dragged away by his hair by security men as he tried to say something from the podium just as the president was invited to speak.

His identity was not immediately known.

In a related development, Pakistani lawyers boycotted court proceedings across the country in a partial strike to protest against the referendum.

About 500 lawyers marched on streets in the port city of Karachi where police briefly detained about a dozen protesters, witnesses said.

``The lawyers` boycott was very successful,`` Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Hamid Khan said in the Punjab provincial capital Lahore after a protest march there by hundreds of lawyers who chanted ``go Musharraf go``.

But some lawyers` groups dissociated themselves from the strike and their members attended court proceedings, witnesses said.

The SCBA and Pakistan`s two main political alliances have gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the referendum on the ground the president must be elected by a two-chamber parliament and four provincial legislatures as laid down in the constitution, and not by referendum.

But Musharraf, who has promised to hold parliamentary elections by next October, argues the constitution allows him to hold referendum on ``important national issues``.

re: prem

{{such groups as LET and Jaish-e-Mohammad of Azhar Masood, escalating to such potently dangerous actions by these groups as the attack on the J&K Assembly, Indian Parliament, and hijacking of the Indian airplanes }}

...silly indian, everyone knows india did all those things to malign pakistan...

InYourFace,

Kargil was not terrorism at all. That was a legitimate military operation, no different from India`s operation in Siachin. Yes, I do know all our arguments about Siachin being an unmarked terrirtory and Kargil not so, and the ``cartographic war`` that proceded India`s occupation of Siachin. But these arguments don`t really wash, or make it different from Kargil. Kargil was a brilliant excercise. Had it succeeded, India`s security would have been dangerously threatened. In that sense, Kargil was very much like Operation Brasstacks.

International terrorism is the direct or indirect support for individuals and groups who commit acts of violence in order to advance some political agendas outside the national boundaries of their supporters. It differs from war in that war is fought between the militaries of two nations, and is usally overt, while international terrorism also involves and affects civilians, and is usually covert.

Pakistani military didn`t intend to kill anybody in Kargil, had they been left alone in possession of those hills. How can that be terrorism?

Re: Prem

``...Kargil was a legitimate military excercise...``

Legitimate? By what standard (legal or otherwise)?

War is hell, and the only legitimacy that is conferred upon it is by a victor. The defeated, no matter how righteous their cause, are given short shrift by history

Re: Scout

``...i can`t agree with Prem`s assumption that the Pakistani military uses the concept of jihad...``

I would like to refer you to Ayaz Amir`s column in The Dawn from June 11, 1999 (at the height of the Kargil war) (QUOTE):

SETTING aside the threat of war, it is instructive and not a little inspiring to consider the courage and skill of the fighters who are challenging the might of the Indian army and air force along the cruel heights of Drass and Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir. Risking a battle in which the chances of death outweigh those of remaining alive requires motivation of a high order. Whatever the Indian side may say, these fighters have a better right than most to call themselves mujahideen, those who fight in the way of Allah. Whether any or most of these fighters acquired their combat skills in Afghanistan is a matter of detail. What is important is that their spiritual outlook has been shaped by the Afghan experience which they, and a GOODLY PART OF THE religious AND MILITARY establishment in Pakistan, considers to have been a true JEHAD. It was the spirit of JEHAD which drove the Soviet army from Afghanistan. It is the spirit of JEHAD which can drive the Indian army from Kashmir. (END QUOTE)

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/990611.htm

PS: We now know that Kargil was a Pakistani military (as opposed to irregulars) action