India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario

Ref Headshrinker #: 286

[when that sambar eating butthead takes a dump while i`m having a conversation, if feel nauseous...unfortunately we brahmins have sensitive noses..]

I suppose that is why you eat fish.

Anyway, who accepts you as a brahmin? Only the fish-eating crowd on the Konkan coast.

By the way, I ate a Konkan meal in an upscale Bombay restaurant.... you call THAT food?

Did you attend Dhirubhai Ambani`s funeral? I remember you claimed you went to school with his kids.

.

O god! the guy with the hot poker up his butt showed up...ok bye dostmittarji..someother time perhaps....when that sambar eating butthead takes a dump while i`m having a conversation, if feel nauseous...unfortunately we brahmins have sensitive noses..

Ref dost-mittar #: 283

We all know that the shrink is a loony. Don`t argue with him; it`s a waste of time.

He is probably trying to drive his Jag on Altamont Road in Bombay.

Since Altamont Road is a figment of his imagination, so must be his Jag.

re: dost-mittar # 277

``You weren`t thinking of romair and ylh by any chance, were you?:-)``

LOL...let me say, dost-mittarji, that I am an unabashed admirer of ylh.

True, often his and my views of history are diametrically opposite, but nobody can accuse ylh of obscurantism, or Pakistan-lastism :) Besides, he and I share almost identical visions of the future of Pakistan and India.

I can not say the same about others.

``I think that although everything said about Zia is true, it is a mistake to view him in isolation; he was very much a product of what happened in Pakistan right from its birth and even earlier. krashid is right on that point.``

True. It is patently unfair to demonize Zia, as some people are wont to do (that is why I said that from India`s point of view Z A Bhutto and Zia were two peas in a pod). But Zia`s reign did act as a watershed in many ways. I wanted to highlight that fact.

dostmittar,

{{Jayprakash Narayan can justifiably be credited to leading the peaceful movement which threatened Indira Gandhi`s gaddi and led to her resorting to the Emergency. So, in a way, JP was responsible for causing, though not ending the Emergecy}}

I`m sorry, I guess I must have missed that comment before.

Indira Gandhi may have ended the Emergency because she thought that she neutralised JP, with her govt sponsored propaganda. It was the only time that I remember when it was a crime to criticise the Govt of India.

One incident I distinctly remember. We were medical students then. As all good students, we bunked a college lecture to see a matinee. The movie theater in Bombay`s Fort area (I think it was Sterling)..it was packed with students from neighboring colleges.

The ``Films Division of India`` always had these annoying propaganda films before the main movie . This particular film`s theme was why the ``Empress of India`` had imprisoned that gaddar JP. The WHOLE theater erupted with boos & whistles. We students were very courageous about expressing our views in the anonymity of a darkened movie theater!

Those elections were indeed the most memorable in the history of India...for me, atleast. That was when the citizens of India REALLY showed the power of democracy. They KICKED out the Empress & her heir apparent Sanjay Gandhi. Even die hard Congress supporters would say ``I dont mind the cow, but I hate her calf``. (The symbol of the Congress(I) party was the ``cow & calf``).

Bombayites, (except the shiv sainik goons) who usually dont give a s hit about elections, were energised like never before. IG`s LAW minister, Gokhale was contesting his seat, in Bombay & Ram Jethmalani was his opponent. Gokhale was TROUNCED! Even Sardar Swaran Singh, her stately Foriegn Minister, was trounced in Punjab. Many Congress (I) stalwarts not only lost, they lost so badly, that they even lost their deposits!

JP was freed from jail before the elections. He was the ``father`` of the Janata Party. Maybe your views are different, but my perception is that he was the ``moral`` voice of the election campaign. Too bad those idiots Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, George Frenandes & the BIGGEST idiot Raj Narain started bickering & blaming each other after they were voted into power. That was what disillusioned JP & he died an unhappy man.

However, if there was a revolution in India, after independance, that was it! Indians, whether they were educated or illiterate gave IG a very pointed message; ``whether you are the defacto Empress of India or not, if you start f cuking with our rights, we`ll kick you out...PEACEFULLY!``

We can disagree, but I think it was JP who insisted that Indians ought to fight for their rights PEACEFULLY...by peaceful, non violent Gandhian satyagraha...& demonstrate their resentment to oppression through the power of the ballot. As far as I`m concerned, Indians rose to that message brilliantly. To me, it was proof that even in a country where more than 50% of the population is illiterate, democracy WORKS!

There was NO TV, worth speaking of, in those days. In the large cities that had access to TV, it was monopolised by govt propaganda. Radio was also essentially controlled by the govt. The Times of India was called ``Times of Indira``. Only the Indian Express was defiant in Bombay & the censors mercilessly blacked out any anti-Indira opinions. She jailed the owner of the Indian Express.

Yet, urban or rural, educated or illiterate Indians alike, rose up & booted her highness out.

As far as I`m concerned, I give two hoots to holier-than-thou Pakistanis who have the balls to say Indians dont have a conscience. If Kashmiris are oppressed, let them fight a moral fight & I`m sure Indians will be sympathetic. But if you kill Indians, dont expect them to have a guilty conscience.

Its a myth that Kashmiris have fought Indians peacefully in the past 40 yrs. Kashmiris have been very quiet. Those that have fought have fought with violence. This business of their fight being wholly indigenous is TOTAL BS!!..no matter what holier-than-thou Romair thinks. Is it a surprise to you that the radio transmissions are in Punjabi?! Ofcourse the Pope is going to say its viscious anti-Pak Indian propaganda lies!

Yasser, dear boy, what with all the discussion on Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad, here is a crying need for you to objectively sum up Hodson. We have been waiting two years (40% of Chowk`s life) for your pearls of wisdom on this issue.

Go ahead, Yasser. We all know it is in you. Just sit in front of the PC and start typing. Now that, being in Pakistan, you have no need to be defensive about Pakistan or Jinnah, you can finally let the bright light of truth shine on the dirty corners of Indo-Pak political history.

PS. As usual, I am not holding my breath. I probably will have to wait till Hell freezes over before you will admit the truth.

fawad,

lets agree to diagree...when Gandhi found that his message led to violence, he launched his ``fast unto death`` campaign to STOP his ``revolution``.

{{i think you are living in fantasy land if you think MLK got the black man his civil rights only it was also Malcolm X and the so called radicals........its ultimately the threat of violence and civil unrest that forces an opressor}}

I completely diagree with you. Malcolm X, though a great man, was assassinated by a split faction of the black Islam mvt. It simply destroyed their own cause. Thats one of the reason that the establishment has NO respect for Farrakhan, & dont listen to his ramblings. Black moslems are treated with suspicion by other blacks themselves, let alone the ``establishment``.

MLK, OTOH, was assassinated by the ``white establishment``..the real killer`s identity is still a matter of debate. However, virtually everybody agrees that it wasnt an ``internal`` job..ie, not by somebody who supported his civil rights cause. It made him a martyr, even in the eyes of the establishment. His civil rights issues have become LAWS today. It WAS a victory. His wife is given great respect, no matter which part of the world she visits. Other than some muslim countries, Farakkhan is essentially ignored.

Gandhi & Jinnah were both towering personalities. The difference is that Jinnah didnt come up with anything UNIQUE...his values were based on proven values of democracy & secularism (not that it makes him a lesser person than Gandhi).

Gandhi was UNIQUE in the sense that he showed a way where a weaker party could overcome a stronger oppressor & win the respect of the oppressor..now THAT is a victory! I`m the first one to say that many of Gandhi`s beliefs (esp concepts of economy, vegeterianism, sexual abstinence etc ) were stupid. However, his concept of satyagraha, on a national & international level are applauded, even to this day. Eventhough Gandhi & Jinnah are essentially anachronisms in their own countries; Indians & Pakistanis are VERY PROUD of them, in their respective countries.

Gandhi`s revolution was duplicated 30 yrs after Indian independance by a man named Jayprakash Narayan, who was the ``moral head`` of the ``revolution`` that PEACEFULLY threw Indira Gandhi out after she imposed the tyrannical ``Emergency`` on India. Alas his ``disciples`` screwed up that ``revolution`` by petty political bickering & he died an unhappy man.

After Gandhi died, Jinnah`s (& Pakistan`s) grief was genuine..eventhough they had fundamental disagreements.

Oppressors are the BIGGEST terrorists (in that respect Romair is right). But if the oppressee`s adopt the same terrorist methods, it makes the oppressors feel that they are JUSTIFIED to oppress. I agree with you that India`s oppression in Kashmir is IMMORAL (Pakistan or no Pakistan)...but I am a small minority of Indians who think that way.

Similarly, the US has slaughtered more innocent civilians post 9/11, in Afghanistan...many more innocents have died there than the few thousands in the WTC. But does the American public shed tears for them?!..no..at the most they regret that it is an unavoidable & necessary evil. So who is the bigger killer, America or Al-Qeeda? But does the ``land of the free`` acknowlege that?

I`m looking at this issue from a ``psychological dimension``...Indo-Pak wars, henceforth, are going to be fought on psychological, diplomatic & economic battlefields. If it is fought on a military battlefield...its the END for both countries. Air combat ``Kill ratios`` & war casualties statistics are going to (or should be)anachronisms.

Pakistan has the benefit of having powerful friends in the Islamic world, China & even the US (which considers Pakistan to be a KEY ally in their fight against terrorism). India`s only ``suggar daddy`` was the Soviet Union...which no longer exists. Logically, if Pakistan has a stronger legal & moral claim on Kashmir..they should be backed to the HILT by these countries re Kashmir. WHY is that NOT happening? Are these countries scared of alienating India? ...I dont think so.

Despite this Pakistan has FAILED to muster international support to twist India`s arm! Sterile comments that ``they should talk`` are a slap on Pakistan`s face! Its like a card game where Pakistan has more aces & trumps in their hand; but India somehow manages to get more ``tricks``. That is something Pakistanis ought to reflect upon. Polynannish ``Romairian`` optimism is wrong.

re: krashid # 275

You raise an interesting issue.

From the point of view of Pakistan itself, ZA Bhutto and Musharraf may be worlds apart.

However, in their anti-India fervor, they are two peas in a pod.

So, by ``Musharraf type`` I did not mean people belonging to the army. I meant a certain group of fraudulent ``secularists`` - people who believe that they can play with `secularism` and religious fanaticism at the same time.

I have earlier called such gentlemen jihadi secularists. Ofcourse, the armed forces - Musharraf`s home ground - are full of such beer-drinking whiskey-guzzling jihadi secularists. But we shouldn`t underestimate their presence in the civilian population either.

Prem #269

To your surprise Islamic character of pakistan Army has its root in Z.A. Bhutto era.

Bhutto thought Islamic Army will fight India. He forgot that our Army conquers only its own people.

It is probably related to drunkard generals who lost half the country in 1971.

Shammi #270

Let me stay with my history.

IRA was peaceful. Ha.

I don`t know you are talking about Chekoslavakia or yogoslavia.

As far as the peaceful Indian movement. You should be grateful to Hitler for that.

If India would have gotten home-rule that would be enough.

It is nothing to the credit of India for your reflection.

And independent movement of Quebec is peaceful because almost equal partners are there who wants unification or seperation. And Quebec is not a colony of Canada.

As far as Tibet is concerned. I will laugh enough later. I have other things to do now.

Shammi 3271

Whatever way you pick the nose it comes to the same conclusion.

So I change it to this. India is at least at par with Pakistan on moral ground in attacking Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Re: Kashmir, Junagadh & Hyderabad

Can anyone explain why the Great Leader encourage

the rulers of Jodhpur and Tripura to join Pakistan? The

Great Leader even reportedly offered the two

Maharajas a ``blank check`` as far as what they wanted

in return from Pakistan. Granted, the rulers of those two

princely states wanted to opt out of India for their selfish

reasons (thwy wanted to retain their princely privileges).

But why would the Great Leader indulge them, if he

wasn`t the opportunistic scumbag Indians always

alleged him to be?

Please remember, the vast majority of the subjects AND

the rulers of those two states were Hindu!

Re: krashid

``...But will you agree that India attacked Junagadh...So Pakistan is at least at par with India on moral ground in attacking Kashmir...``

That would make perfect sense if India had indeed attacked Junagadh BEFORE Pak attacked Kashmir through NWFP based tribals. However, if you look at the dates, you will see that Pakistan pre-empted India in Kashmir, which hardened Indian attitudes on Junagadh and Hyderabad. The tribal invasion of J&K began on Oct. 22, 1947. It was only after this happened that India entered a standstill agreement with the Nizam of Hyderabad on Nov. 29, `47. Even at this time (i.e. Nov. 29) India was willing to accept the Nizam`s decision to NOT join either India or Pakistan. `Police action` in Hyderabad did not take place until `49 by when the Kashmir war was over.

Also, the plebiscite in Junagadh was not organized until February 24, `48 (formal incorporation came in India `49). So, you see -- had Pakistan not sent in tribals in Oct. `47, maybe all of Kashmir (including Jammu & Ladakh would have been with Pakistan today).

...dang, romair`s getting a serious whipping here...listen buddy, whatever you do, don`t become a negotiator...you won`t go very far, despite your delusions that you are ``fact-based``...

Re: Krashid

``...There is no such thing as non violent independence movement...``

How about the Indian freedom movement? Or, the renunciation of arms (last year) by the Irish Republican Army, after 130 years of violent struggle led them nowhere? How about Tibetan struggle against the Chinese (even though the movement does not call for independence, just more autonomy)? How about the separation of Czechoslovakia into separate states? How about the peaceful breakdown of the USSR? How about the struggle of French Quebec for independence? Need I go on?

``Clever Pakistanis like Romair have learnt political correctness and therefore couch their demands in the politically correct terms of self-determination, Kashmiri struggle, while not calling the movement for what it is, a Muslim separatist movement under the old TNT.``

There appear to be two main types of people in Pakistan pushing Kashmiri ``self-determination.`` One is what I would call the Musharraf type. Aged mostly 25 and older, this group is following what they, in their brilliance, see as a master strategy. Having promoted three wars with India, they have learnt to their chagrin that their dream of planting their flag on the Red Fort is nothing but mere pipedream. They have also learnt that the story of `join Pakistan` carries no credibility. So the trick, according to these brilliant men is - generate as much hatred between Kashmiris and other Indians as possible, and sing the song of `right to self determination.`

This type has the notion that the world was born yesterday, that nobody can see through their silly ``strategies.`` These are the people who have brought Pakistan - a fairly prosperous and progressive nation once, and one with great potential even today - to its current not very prosperous and progressive state. Even though these people wear modern clothes, speak modern languages, may drink beer and whiskey in high-class parties, these men (mostly) are deeply fundamentalist at heart. They instinctively divide the world into ``Muslim`` and ``non-Muslim`` camps. TNT and other such theories remain valid for them even to this day. Despite the foreign dogs these people carry in their cars, you and I have nothing in common with these people.

Then there is a completely different group. This is a younger group, born mostly after or just before Zia began his chicanery. The first instinct of this group is very noble - support your country, a nationalistic ideal. Unless individuals have made an extra effort to learn uncomfortable facts for themselves - this group has been for the most part too young to know how deeply post-Zia Pakistani military has pushed their country into the impossible trap of international terrorism and general thuggery of all kinds.

Since India is no Afghanistan, India`s response to this thuggery and terrorism in Kashmir has been brutal. The younger Pakistani group does not like this development (who can like it?). Unlike the various Musharraf wannabes who know facts having created them, this group genuinely believes that the trouble in Kashmir is `indigenous.` This group does really want to settle the ``Kashmir issue.`` Self-determination appears to be a reasonable and respectable way out. Except for our differing perceptions on Kashmir, this group is very much like us.

Then there are Pakistani people who are like our Shankar da here - genuinely good people who love their countries but are not blindly nationalistic. They see Kashmiris in pain, but are unwilling to fight `for them` to the last Kashmiri, and therefore support self-determination. They have no interest in grabbing Kashmir for Pakistan, either now or after ``self-determination.`` As in India, this is a relatively small group. This group deserves our respect even though we may not always agree with them.

shankar,

i re-read your post are you serious ????? use gandhian tactics ??????????? and i though i was a wooly-eyed idealist .......i mean where`s rsaxena doesnt he have something sarcastic comment? i mean this is 2002 the gandhi of india is dead.........i dont think that indian pride in their freedom struggle outweighs the national penchant for as you aptly put it their ``homeland`` .........i mean protest and the like wont work .....the only thing that will work is if either the kashmiri muslims themselves fight you guys violently like the Palestinians when the Jordanians cut them off .......or you indians win........personally id like you indians to win...........the kashmiri muslims and this ``movement`` have backstabbed pakistan for too long .................

shankar

i disagree with you totally........gandhi MLK have their place and violence has its .......gandhi`s tactics used violence! how? it was the threat of violence and civil unrest on a large scale that made the british go home?????? i think you are living in fantasy land if you think MLK got the black man his civil rights only it was also Malcolm X and the so called radicals........its ultimately the threat of violence and civil unrest that forces an opressor

stop opressing.........i mean seriously the opression of the palestinians and kashmiris cant be marginalized no matter how much you say they use violence...........fine i agree you the use violence forces one to accept the priniciple that might becomes right ........in that sense suicide -terrorism is also warfare for them........if india doesnt stop its opression in kashmir i think the situation will escalate and you might have a palestine scenario.......you know i think india should take kashmir but this in no way makes me believe india`s stance on kashmir is moral ..............

dost-mittar

i do not think that the kashmiri independance movement is simply an islamist movement.....it is islamist under TNT you are 100 per cent right there but then again kashmir should have been part of pakistan by any standard of common sense it goes back to partition is pakistan an islamist movement? Indian position on kashmir is not moral or based on int`l law its like the israeli position :we stole it fair and square , might makes right ---thats the indian position. India to me doesnt have an ounce of credibility in kashmir .......but then again i like most other pakistanis want to give you kashmir just so u guys can stop trying beat pakistan with it .........keep kashmir by all means .......good riddance to violence , terrorism , and hatred if u guys want it keep it but we keep azad kashmir ............

dost mittar

do u really believe its a muslim separatist movement .........i sort of agree but then again you must admit india is doing something wrong that is alienating the kashmiri muslims??????????

dost-mittar,

{{Give Pakistani people an independent voice. They are a good people, a nationalist, reasonable people. All problems between India and Pakistan will become easier to solve.}}

If that happens, Pakistan`s world famous military will become increasingly redundant. There is NO way they are going to let themselves self-destruct. Their military thinks they are the only patriotic Pakistanis left in that country. The only way their military will get the biggest slice of the pie is if they continue hostility towards India.

Out of all the leaders Pakistan has produced, I dont think there has been any leader more hawkish than Mushy. If he wants to screw the people of Pakistan, India would have left him alone (like they did Zia)...its their internal matter & its their perogative to do what they want. But the problem is that he constantly rattles his sabres at India.

After his independance day speech, I am convinced that there can be no hope for peace between India & Pakistan. The man who has made a mockery out of Pakistani rights has the BALLS to lecture India about the rights of Kashmiri muslims.

Romair reflects the mentality of the of their military. They are so steeped in their self importance that they dont see the forest from the trees. The BIGGEST delusion is they feel that it was their tactics in Soviet occupied Afghanistan made the Soviet Union crumble. What they conveniently forget is that Ronald Reagen gave them a blank check to fund that war, not to mention their best equipment.

Is it just a coincidince that the Kashmir problem started in 89, when the Soviet`s were giving up on Afghanistan? Field Marshall believes that the actual Soviet prize was not Afghanistan, but Pakistan!...& the brave Pakistani military scared them off!

If you look at the comments of several Pakistani posters, both on Chowk & in their press...many Pakistanis are sick & tired of their govt`s obsession with Kashmir. Eventhough they may support the principle of kashmiri freedom, many are disgusted that its coming at the price of their own well being.

Pakistan has had to pay an enormous price for it...to the detriment of the people in the entire subcontinent; ESP the citizens of Pakistan. But who has ever given a s-it about what an ordinary Pakistani citizen wants?! The needs of the ``captive`` Kashmiri muslims outweigh the needs of their own citizens.

The sad part is that Mushy has now made sure that there is military ``approval`` in every domestic & foreign policy from a rubber stamp Parliament & a puppet Pakistani PM, from now on. No Pakistani PM will DARE make peace with India, from now on. Thats REAL democracy, for you!

Guys like Romair will go to their graves quoting Ghalib & Faiz. Unless & until Allah Himself intervenes, there will be a stalemate. Because, in a stalemate...MIGHT BECOMES RIGHT! Ofcourse, these guys believe Allah is on their side. When people use Allah`s name to comit violence, they go down to the same gutter as their oppressors. But what do Hindians know about Allah?...they dont pray to Him 5 times a day...they worship stones, foGod`ssake!

Dost Mittar#

In response to Umair you are saying, If Pakistan had rejected acceding by Nawab of Junagadh, Pakistan would be justified in Kashmir demand.

But will you agree that India attacked Junagadh.

So Pakistan is at least at par with India on moral ground in attacking Kashmir.

Fuzair: Any comments on reply #222.

Romair,

There isn`t any chance that India is going to let Kashmir or any other of its parts go away. You may think that is unfair. The only thing unfair, it seems to us Indians, is totally unjustifed Pakistani interference in Kashmir.

So, what are we going to do? Are you, as Pakistan`s well-fed military rulers, going to keep Pakistani people in a position of perpetual war with its neighbor? That doesn`t seem very wise, despite the penchant some idiots have for thousand year wars. For the most part, unending enmity with India doesn`t seem to be the goal that Pakistani people have in mind, even if they disagree with India`s stance on Kashmir.

Before making a racket over Kashmiri rights, shouldn`t you give Pakistani PEOPLE the right to make their own decisions?

Matters may not be as complicated as you make them out to be. Everytime there is even a nominally democratic set up in Pakistan, India and Pakistan inch closer to some agreement. Everytime there is any such movement, you military bosses suffer from indigestion, arrest your Prime Ministers and put them behind bars. Then we are treated to the macabre sight of silly generals holding dogs, proclaiming their love for real democracy and defending the democratic rights of Kashmiris.

I hope you see why we Indians have learnt to treat such generals and their defenders with what can only be called, in politest of terms, utter and complete contempt.

Give Pakistani people an independent voice. They are a good people, a nationalist, reasonable people. All problems between India and Pakistan will become easier to solve.

Shankar #239

I think position of both parties is rigid and so there is no way out. Until some change in power balance occurs. It is a stalemate (if you play chess).

India would have gotten home rule, but bot independence. You can pray for Hitler who destroyed the whole Europe, so none of them was able to retain their colonies.

There is no such thing as non violent independence movement. The reason is JKLF which tried to gain independence through political means was ruthlessly crushed.

Moreover you will agree that India is no Gandhi style non violent country. It has so far killed 60,000 Kashmiris.

Why do you not tell your Indian colleagues about non violence of Gandhi. Instead of telling it to Kashmiris.

If non violenece is so good, why India does not believe in it. And see how Kashmiris abandon their independence movement due to Gandhian non violence of India.

Ref Field Marshal turned Political Analyst #: 242

]At the time of partition, there were around 500 princely states, with a population of around 100 million. Out of these, three could have survived independently, if they wanted. These were Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. (Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict).]

It is pathetic to see the argument that Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad were the only princely states that could have remained independent. If landlocked Hyderabad could have been independent, then so could Cooch-Behar. If Kashmir could have been independent, so could Swat. Junagadh was surrounded on all sides by the Kathiawar states and had one port, Velavel I believe, that was usable a few months in a year. If any state could have remained independent, it would have been Travancore-Cochin with its access to sea, sizeable lands and an educated populace led by a reasonably progressive maharajah and dewan. The next might have been Mysore but Mysore was landlocked.

Kashmir tried independence and it lasted till Oct 1947... exactly two months from Aug 1957.

[The general law was that the ruler of the princely state decides where he wants to go. This is outright slavery. But lets leave human rights out of it for a while. Since human rights is a concept unknown to many of our Indian arguments.]

So, when are you guys going to take a poll in Sindhu Desh?

[If the identical law (even an unjust law) was applied equally on all states, then mathematically it was impossible for either Pakistan or India to get all three states. They could have at most gotten two. Yet, all three ended up with India. How was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? And how in the world can Indians defend something as legal and just, when it is a logical and mathemetical impossibility (even if we don`t count human rights)?

Junagarh had a Muslim ruler with a majority Indian population. Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a majority Muslim population. And Hyderabad had a Muslim ruler, with a large Muslim population, but majority Hindu population. The ruler of Kashmir, initially wanted indepdence, but later decided to join India. However, the people of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan (they still do). The ruler of Junagarh wanted to join Pakistan, but the people wanted to join India.]

Jinnah and Co saw Junagadh as a perfect way to grab either one of the two big prizes: Hyderabad or Kashmir. So they installed Shah Nawaz Bhutto as Dewan in Junagadh when the Nawab was vacationing in Europe and the Nawab, who was willing to go along with the rest of the Kathiawar states about joining India, was persuaded to change his mind. If in fact India had given in on Junagadh, you would have no arguments about Kashmir and Junagadh would have done a Bangladesh much earlier setting all sorts of precedents for others who wanted out of Pakistan. God, what missed opportunities!

[And the ruler of Hyderabad wanted to be independent. Its hard to tell whether the people wanted independence or to join India, since they were invaded before they could decide.]

Let us get one thing clear about Hyderabad. India was not about to tolerate a Mughal-appointed governor claiming independence when there was no longer a Mughal empire. So stop talking about how the rights of the ruler were violated. As to the people there, they have been voting regularly every 5 years since 1950, something that Pakistanis haven`t still gotten the right to do.

[Junagarh should have gone to India, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, and Hyderabad should have either been independent or gone to India (depending on what its citizens wanted).]

Just cut out your crocodile tears for Hyderabadis and Junagadhis. Just say you want Kashmir.

No, you ain`t getting it.

Romair

``And it will not do so, until it is forced to do so. And it is about time, India is forced to do so.

``

And who will force India to do that. Dum ho to yeh bhee kar ke dekh lo miaN

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

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

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

Romair #241

Al Margolis has certified that indians are human rights abusers !! OH MY GOD !

Now I am really convinced. These indians are really bad people. A great intellectual like Al Margolis, renowned throughout the world for his hysterical anti-indian ranting and the vapidity of his output, has made this judgement. Now I am truly enlightened.

I am deeply ashamed that my silly relatives who are cowering today in fear in Kud, Batot, Jammu and who were ``cleansed`` out of their homes in Srinagar are unable to understand this situation. I will call them tonight and explain at length.

BTW, How is your friend the Nazi Baker doing? I recall he was the last ``impartial observer`` you cited explaining how bad the indians were. Been to any KKK marches with him lately?

Kashmir a secular and independent country! get outta here! a piece of land 100 x 150 miles - a valley - wants to be an independent country? these jackasses live off Indian tax-payers` money and Indian tourists` money and want an independent country? get lost! every part of India belongs to every one of its citizens - Art.370 be damned! secular no problem. let`s get back all the pandits who have been driven out of Kasmir Valley since 1946 and also let people from all over India come to settle down in the Valley. Let`s give these scum a taste of their own medicine.

Re: Fuzair, Harimau, Romair on the princely states accession analysis

Please look at the chronology of events before jumping to conclusions on diplomatic niceties.

The tribals from NWFP invaded Kashmir in Sept./Oct. `47. At that time, the fate of neither Junagadh nor Hyderabad had been decided. India had a standstill agreement with atleast two of them (Hyderabad and J&K). Hyderabad was not be incorporated into the Union of India until `49, after 2 years of a subsequent war with Pak on J&K. Might it be that the tribal invasion and Pakistan taking the law into its own hands may have forced India to respond with kind in all three situations? Think about it. Moral of the story (as Shankar writes), if you take up arms, then might becomes right. Had Pak not invaded Kashmir in `47, chances are that eventually all of Kashmir may have gone to Pakistan. Nehru was a stickler for procedure.

Re: Fuzair

``...After all, they (Assam/NEFA) were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons...``

I don`t think that you are on terra firma here. Assam was annexed by the British on February 24, 1826, the date on which the Yandaboo Treaty between the East India Company and the King of Ava (Burma) was signed. Assam was made a province of Bengal. In 1937, the British separated Burma from India administratively. (Had they not done so, today Burma would have been part of India!).

re: shankar

{1) I WILL include Kashmiri hindus, sikhs & buddhists in my movement.

2) My vision for an independant Kashmir should be a secular, democratic country, FREE of meddling from either India, Pakistan or China.

3) My message should be; We are KASHMIRIS...muslims, hindus, sikhs or buddhist..DOESNT MATTER...We want to be INDEPENDANT..}

...there are two HUGE problems with that...first, most hindu and buddhist kashmiris have been driven out of their homes by the jehadis...second, no hindu or buddhist kashmiri would ever support such BS, and that is why they have never been asked to...

Princely States Argument:



At the time of partition, there were around 500 princely states, with a population of around 100 million. Out of these, three could have survived independently, if they wanted. These were Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. (Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict).

The general law was that the ruler of the princely state decides where he wants to go. This is outright slavery. But lets leave human rights out of it for a while. Since human rights is a concept unknown to many of our Indian arguments.

If the identical law (even an unjust law) was applied equally on all states, then mathematically it was impossible for either Pakistan or India to get all three states. They could have at most gotten two. Yet, all three ended up with India. How was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? And how in the world can Indians defend something as legal and just, when it is a logical and mathemetical impossibility (even if we don`t count human rights)?

Junagarh had a Muslim ruler with a majority Indian population. Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a majority Muslim population. And Hyderabad had a Muslim ruler, with a large Muslim population, but majority Hindu population. The ruler of Kashmir, initially wanted indepdence, but later decided to join India. However, the people of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan (they still do). The ruler of Junagarh wanted to join Pakistan, but the people wanted to join India. And the ruler of Hyderabad wanted to be independent. Its hard to tell whether the people wanted independence or to join India, since they were invaded before they could decide.

What did India do?

It held a plebescite in Junagarh, and got that state (very fair, and I agree with it). It invaded Hyderbad militarily and got that state (very unfair, since there should have been a plebescite; the plebescite may have resulted in Hyderabad joining India anyways). And it refused to hold a plebescite in Kashmir and occupied in militarily (extremely unfair).

In this manner, India applied three different set of rules to each state, and pulled off the mathematical impossibility. How in the world can anyone in India present a moral or even a legal justification to a mathematical impossibility. Yet so many Indians keep doing that, thereby keeping South Asia in a perpetual state of war.

Junagarh should have gone to India, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, and Hyderabad should have either been independent or gone to India (depending on what its citizens wanted).

It is very incorrect to blame Pakistan and India equally for the Kashmir problem, as many Pakistanis trying to be overly politically correct attempt to do. Had Pakistan invaded Junagarh and not allowed the citizens of that state their wishes, then Pakistan would be to blame for that problem. In Kashmir, Pakistan has just requested the promised plebescite, and is willing to accept the results. All the other actions of Pakistan (some of which have increased the violence) are an after-effect of India`s extremely unfair policies.

Uptil now, there is absolutely no published statement of any Indian govt. that states that it is willing to allow self-determination in Kashmir, under any circumstance. The only statements are that India will look for a solution, or will talk to the representatives. India needs to define an end-goal of self-determination. After that, there are many ways to reach it.

My own guess is that India is completely insincere of self-determination for Kashmiris. And it will not do so, until it is forced to do so. And it is about time, India is forced to do so.

www.kashmirstudygroup.com

www.kashmircriesforjustice.com

For people looking for solutions to Kashmir, please check out: www.kashmirstudygroup.com.

This is a US organization headed by the CEO of Ethan Allen, Farooq Kathiawari, who was a student leader in Indian Kashmir. It includes US ambassadors, etc. As you will see on this site, they have presented and have signed on to many solutions to the Kashmir problem. But the main problem is that India has to give up its atut-ang stance. Once that happens, a million and one ways, processes etc. can be agreed to skin the cat.

For those interested in the internal situation in Indian Kashmir, there are some good international credible works. I would completely disregard anything from the Indian (or Pakistani) press and authors.

Some of the authors include the work done by AI, Margolis, Walker and Schofield. All of them say the same thing, and the human rights vioalations they point out are probably unprecedented in the world today. I have a feeling most Indians themselves are unaware of them.

Another good site is kashmircriesforjustice.com. This is a new organizations of lawyers in England, who are building up the case of massive human rights violations in Indian Kashmir, and planning to take it International Criminal Courts.

If you want to find out how things are in Pakistan Kashmir, just go there. You will be welcomed. It is probably the most peaceful place in all of Pakistan. It has easily the lowest crime rate in Pakistan. If you are in Muzzafarabad, give me a call.

Ref Fuzair #: 237

[Actually, since the princely states were not de jure a part of ``British India,`` no provision of the Indian Independence Act. Now, Mountbatten informed them that they were a de facto part of British India and that they should opt for either India or Pakistan and that the third option, although it was a perfectly valid one legally, was in effect ruled out. So, you see, the argument is a very complicated one legally in that the British Crown had paramountcy, by virtue of the various treaties signed between the princely states and the British government. Now, if the British voluntarily relinquish paramountcy, does it automatically devolve onto the Government of India? This was the position of the post-independence GoI but NOT that of all of the princely states.]

The British government, and not just Lord Mountbatten, took the position that British paramountcy over the princely states would lapse on Aug 15, 1947, and that the British government would not entertain the idea of entering into treaty relationships with any of the princely states. The princes argued, and Sir Conrad Corfield, the Secretary of the States Department argued on their behalf, that with the lapse of paramountcy, the prines regain their independence and are free to do as they pleased. The British were not interested in seeing India fracture into 600 pieces. Thus Lord Mountbatten urged the princes to accede to EITHER of the two dominions BEFORE Aug 15, 1947. In fact, one of the major considerations for accession should be contiguity to the particular dominion. This would have ruled out Hyderabad acceding to Pakistan no matter how much the Nizam`s advisers wanted him to do so and no matter how dearly Jinnah wanted Hyderabad as part of Pakistan. This merely avoided the possibility of 550 Bangladeshes in the future.

[If the GoI had fought it out in the courts and it had been appealed to the House of Lords, the case would have gone against the Princes. Presumably, the House would have ruled that physical realities being what they were, Paramountcy had, de facto, devolved onto the GoI and the Princes could just lump it. But then again, maybe the Law Lords might have ruled in favor of the Princes. It takes two sides to sign a treaty and some of the Princes (Kashmir, Patiala, Hyderabad, Kalat, etc) truly did want to be independent. So, one never really knows with senior judges.]

It is going to be pretty hard for a landlocked state to be independent. It would be totally dependent on the neighboring countries for its survival. Witness the case of Kashmir. It signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan that required Pakistan to allow unfettered transit of civil supplies into Kashmir. Yet Pakistan violated the agreement. As for Kashmir`s attempt to be independent, one must remind oneself that the country that invaded Kashmir was Pakistan, not India. I know that fact brings you apoplexy but then facts have a way of slapping you in the face.

[Of course, pretty soon after independence, the GoI declared itself a republic and the House of Lords was no longer its highest court. So who would have to decide the case then? The Hague?]

All the states other than Kashmir and Hyderabad decided before or shortly after Aug 15, 1947 about acceding to India or Pakistan. Kashmir signed up in October 1947. Hyderabad signed by Sept 1948. India declared itself a republic on Jan 30, 1950, about two and a half years after independence. The fact that Pakistan could not put together a constitution for ages does not mean that India rushed through the process to avoid hearings before the House of Lords.

[However, the key point here is that the GoI did not play this legal, and time consuming, game since it had the military resources to enforce whatever interpretation of events it wanted.]

India did not invade any of the princely states. The law and order situation in Hyderabad required action by the Indian Army and even that happened only in Sept 1948. In Junagadh, after a few months of anarchy, the Dewan invited India to come in and restore order and provide food supplies. He even suggested to the Nawab who had fled to Pakistan that accession to Pakistan should be rescinded. You know, Yasser keeps asking us all to read HV Hodson. I heartily second his recommendation. It might clear up the cobwebs in your head.

[Oh, yes, BTW, what exactly was the Indian legal claim for hanging on to Assam and the rest of NEFA after 1947? After all, they were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons.]

Oh, dear. You are off by only 99 years. Here is some history for you.

http://www.assam.org/assam/history.html

{The early history of Assam is obscure, although there are numerous references in the Mahabharata, the Puranas, the Tantras to a great kingdom known as Kamrup that encompassed the Brahmaputra Valley, Bhutan, Cooch Behar, and the Rangpur region in eastern Bengal….. The Ahom, a Shan tribe from which the name Assam is probably derived, crossed the Patkoi Mountains from Burman in 1228 AD and by the sixteenth century had absorbed the Chu-tiya and Kachari kingdoms of the upper Brahmaputra, subdued the neighboring hill tribes, and integrated the bhuyans into the administrative apparatus of a feudalistic state. During the latter part of the sixteenth and much of the seventeenth centuries, the Ahom repulsed a succession of Mughal invasions of their territory from Bengal as they moved to annex the eastern portion of the powerful Koch kingdom (1682) and to consolidate their rule over the entire Brahmaputra Valley. The kingdom of the Ahom reached its height under Rudra Xingha (reign, 1696-1714), the renowed military strategist and patron of the buranji, or Ahom chronicles. Rudra Xingha established extensive trade with Tibet and built the great city of Rangpur. During the latter half of the sixteenth century, the revered gossain (teacher, saint) and Assamese cultural hero, Shankara Deva, inspired a popular Vaishnavite movement that sought to reform the esoteric practices of Tantric Hinduism and to limit the prerogatives of the brahmanas attached to the Ahom court. The Ahom came to sponsor an extensive network of Vaishnavite monasteries, whose monks played an important role in the reclamation of wastelands for wet-rice cultivation throughout the Brahmaputra Valley. Because of the repudiation of caste privilege, Shankara Deva`s Vaishnavism appealed to the broad tribal base on which the Ahom had erected their state. From 1769, disaffected population of the kingdom, under the leadership of their ``Mahanta`s`` (religious leaders), took part in a series of uprisings against Ahom rule that devastated upper Assam. The leader of the first uprising was Ragha Maran. His two wives Radha and Rukmini also participated in the battles against the royal army. Afer their victory, Ragha`s son Ramakata became the king and Ragha became the Barbarua. At the request of king Gaurinath Xingha (reign, 1780-1795), the Governor General of British India, dispatched a mission to Rangpur, the Ahom capital, which restored peace to the kingdom. Civil strife, however, persisted. In 1817, the Burmese took advantage of the dissensions within the Ahom nobility and overran the Brahmaputra Valley. The Burmese, who came at the invitation of the Bar Phukan (Governor) Badan Chandra who conspired against the king, killed one in three person in Assam over a period of five years. Fearing incursions on their own territory, the British drove the Burmese from the Brahmaputra Valley, and under the conditions of the treaty of Yandaboo, between the Burmese and the British, annexed the Ahom kingdom in 1826. In 1838, all of northeast India became part of the Bengal Presidency of British India. …… In 1874, Assam was separated from Begal, and was constituted into a separate province by itself, with its capital in Shillong. In 1905, on the initiative of the British Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, the province was amalgamated with east Bengal following the paritition of Bengal into the west and the east. In 1912, the partition was nullified, and Assam was made a separate province once more.}

Maybe you were thinking of 1935 when BURMA was separated from India and became a separate Crown Colony. No Indian Government has ever maintained a claim on Burma.

[The boundless hypocrisy of the GoI and Indians never ceases to amaze me. The GoI does whatever it wants (invade Hyderabad, annex Sikkim, carry out nuclear tests, arms and trains Tamil terrorists, invades Sri Lanka, etc) and this is done for nothing but the purest and highest motives, true exemplars of Gandhian/Nehruvian selflessness and whatnot. When the GoP does whatever it wants (invade Kalat, suppress the Bengalis, train Kashmiri insurgents, etc), it is because the Pakistanis are nothing but a bunch of fanatical Islamist terrorists and mad dogs who must be put down for the good of humanity. Go on, tell me another Indian lie.]

No. You go ahead and tell me another Pakistani fable.

Fuzair,

A nation-state is not a piece of property so questions of paramountcy are irrelevant. Read Ambedkar for a thorough refutation of this idiotic thesis. The Indian leadership that won freedom for the Indian sub-continent (and yes that includes present-day Pakistan as well!) considered British/UK/Imperial paramountcy as unwanted, unwarranted, illegitimate (by India`s own legal principles). India wasn`t a piece of property conveyed by sale to an Indian leadership. The Indian leadership acted on behalf of its sovereign constituents to throw out a rapacious hegemon. In deciding the contours of the new Indian State the boundaries of British India were used as an indicative guide. But more important was the ancient concept of India in the pre-nation state times (as Ambedkar so convincingly proves) that India was guided by and rightly so. Take it or leave it! That`s it! While Jinnah with his limited intelligence put forward some sophomric arguments about J&K (While doing as much in the case of Balochistan) the Indian leadership moved quickly to do away with the Princely States. There were an anachronism in any case! You can rave and rant and rail against it as much as you want. It doesn`t mean a thing!

DOst-Mittar #231

Actually Sekhar Gupta - the same person that YLH raved about 8-10 years back , had visited Pak part of so-called Kashmir and he was able to talk to the so-called Kashmiris who actually spoke Western or Pothari dialects of Punjabi.

Historically , it seems the Kashmir valley is the only part that really speaks Kashmiri, you have Pahari / Dogri / Gojri in Jammu and then you have the Sudhan, Jatt and Rajput clans of Mirpur etc who seem to be more Punjabis by culture than Kashmiri.

krashid,

{{Is there a way out in Kashmir?}}

Romair`s post #222 reflects the typical one-dimensional thinking of the military. Anybody with military training is trained to think in those terms. Kashmiri independance will NOT be won by the Kashmiris or Pakistanis by a guerella war.

The French, Americans & Russians gave up in Algeria, Vietnam & Afghanistan respectively because these countries were never psychologically considered ``part of the homeland``. Whether Pakistan or Kashmiri muslims thinks IOK NOT part of India`s ``atut-ang`` is immaterial...Indians do! So if Kashmir wants to gain independance by a guerella war; your great grandchildren & mine will one day argue about the ``Kashmir problem`` on Chowk.

So, if I were a Kashmiri muslim, hell bent on independance from India..what do I do? If I feel I have a MORAL right to fight Indian oppression...then for Heaven`s sake fight it MORALLY!! If I kill Indians..whether they are soldiers or civilians..I go down to the same level as my oppressors & the rest of the world will NOT give a s_it about your ``moral`` right. After all, if a weaker party has to fight a stronger party then pressure from the rest of the world, ESP the West is crucial. So, yes I should KEEP fighting...but in this day & age, there is a RIGHT way to fight & a WRONG way to fight.

What is my opponent`s (India`s) GREATEST psychological ``weakness``? If you know that, then the war is 50% won. IMHO, India`s GREATEST psychological weakness is their ``pride`` in the way they got independance from the British--by Gandhian non-violent satyagraha. Whether Pakistanis think thats all BS is immaterial--INDIANS THINK THAT WAY! Doesnt matter if Gandhi is an anachronism in today`s India, Indians are VERY VERY proud of that struggle.

So, as a Kashmiri muslim, I will head a movement for an independant Kashmir. In order to do that, I must be principled, charismatic & have the capability to lead people by my message,

1) I WILL include Kashmiri hindus, sikhs & buddhists in my movement.

2) My vision for an independant Kashmir should be a secular, democratic country, FREE of meddling from either India, Pakistan or China.

3) My message should be; We are KASHMIRIS...muslims, hindus, sikhs or buddhist..DOESNT MATTER...We want to be INDEPENDANT..

4) Renounce ALL violence, in ANY form...& KEEP extolling the virtues of GANDHI (y`see...NOTHING will scare the Indians more than a Kashmiri Gandhi)

Now THAT is a real JEHAD! (First clean the crap from within & THEN fight your enemy, armed with the strenght of your values).

Keep having peaceful, non violent demonstrations, CONTINUOUSLY...doesnt matter if Indians imprison me & my collegues...the strenght of my values will keep Kashmiris demonstrating peacefully. If I get killed, I will become a REAL martyr...& my collegues will keep the fight on with renewed vigor. Let the Indian army shoot, kill, imprison & rape my people (they are doing it anyway)...but THIS time, it will make them feel guilty. NOTHING will make Indians feel more guilty than brutally quashing a Gandhian revolution.

Why is Romair so frustrated?... because he finds a COMPLETE lack of guilt or conscience on the part of Indians. Indians have ``justified`` this as a ``necessary evil``...that cant be helped because Kashmiri muslims are Pakistan sponsored terrorists. A part of his frustration also comes from the fact that (other than Pakistan), the rest of the world does not hear the suffering of Kashmiris in a way that they are outraged at India`s behaviour. Indians have successfully managed to paint the picture that Kashmiris fighting for independance are NO BETTER than the AL-Qeeda terrorists.

If you have a Gandhian based revolution, it will scare the pants of the GoI! Only THEN will the world acknowledge that India is WRONG & hypocritical. So what if Indians ban journalists, AI or any independant agency. In this day & age, especially, news travels with the speed of light. China doesnt allow these agencies either...but havent the Falung Gong, Dalai Lama won a lot of international (read Western) sympathy?! Didnt Sakharov, Mandela, that Burmese lady (wass-her-name) get international recognition, when the lead a fight based on PRINCIPLES?!

Lemme tell you, we conscience-less Indians will agitate for an independant Kashmir.

Will it take time?---YES!

Will it take patience?-YES!

Will it require sacrifice; even at the cost of lives?-YES!

Will it take courage & resolve?--YES!!

Will it succeed?-YES YES YES!!

Not only will it succeed, it will be supported by Indians themselves. All these 40 yrs, for all practical purposes, IOK had more autonomy than any other state. NO Indian could establish domicile, buy land in IOK, unless & until he could PROVE he was Kashmiri! Millions of Kasmiri livelihood depended on tourism from India.

In these 10+ yrs...all these Kashmiris are probably starving. They are not one INCH closer to independance. If India is forced to talk..to Kashmiris or even Pakistan...I`ll guarantee you, Indians will tie up those talks forever...& there will be NO resolution. Sooner or later, there will be more terrorist attacks because of Indian foot dragging & the same cycle will start all over again...& India & Pakistan will blame each other...

For God`s sake, somebody should think ``outside the box``. Mushy`s military CANNOT do so! For Indians, a perpetual stalemate is more acceptable than giving Kashmiris independance. Go ahead & think Indians are EVIL...they dont give a flying fuk what Pakistanis think of them.

How dida few hundred thousand British rule a few million Indians for 400 yrs?! They used CUNNING. They had the knack of knowing Indians` psychological weakness...that hindus & muslims have deep seated grudges...they CAPITALISED on those weaknesses. ``Divide & Rule`` was a very successful strategy that lasted for 400 yrs!

Is it POSSIBLE to have a Kashmiri Gandhi?!---YES!

Is it likely?!--NO!!

Peace.

dost-mittar #231
A BBC World report a couple of days ago from a reporter who accompanied Indian forces in their anti-terrorist activities showed how the wireless messages/instructions from Pakistanis across LOC to terrorists with J&K were also in Punjabi.

Re: Harimau

Actually, since the princely states were not de jure a part of ``British India,`` no provision of the Indian Independence Act. Now, Mountbatten informed them that they were a de facto part of British India and that they should opt for either India or Pakistan and that the third option, although it was a perfectly valid one legally, was in effect ruled out. So, you see, the argument is a very complicated one legally in that the British Crown had paramountcy, by virtue of the various treaties signed between the princely states and the British government. Now, if the British voluntarily relinquish paramountcy, does it automatically devolve onto the Government of India? This was the position of the post-independence GoI but NOT that of all of the princely states.

If the GoI had fought it out in the courts and it had been appealed to the House of Lords, the case would have gone against the Princes. Presumably, the House would have ruled that physical realities being what they were, Paramountcy had, de facto, devolved onto the GoI and the Princes could just lump it. But then again, maybe the Law Lords might have ruled in favor of the Princes. It takes two sides to sign a treaty and some of the Princes (Kashmir, Patiala, Hyderabad, Kalat, etc) truly did want to be independent. So, one never really knows with senior judges. Of course, pretty soon after independence, the GoI declared itself a republic and the House of Lords was no longer its highest court. So who would have to decide the case then? The Hague?

However, the key point here is that the GoI did not play this legal, and time consuming, game since it had the military resources to enforce whatever interpretation of events it wanted.

Oh, yes, BTW, what exactly was the Indian legal claim for hanging on to Assam and the rest of NEFA after 1947? After all, they were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons.

The boundless hypocrisy of the GoI and Indians never ceases to amaze me. The GoI does whatever it wants (invade Hyderabad, annex Sikkim, carry out nuclear tests, arms and trains Tamil terrorists, invades Sri Lanka, etc) and this is done for nothing but the purest and highest motives, true exemplars of Gandhian/Nehruvian selflessness and whatnot. When the GoP does whatever it wants (invade Kalat, suppress the Bengalis, train Kashmiri insurgents, etc), it is because the Pakistanis are nothing but a bunch of fanatical Islamist terrorists and mad dogs who must be put down for the good of humanity.

Go on, tell me another Indian lie.

Shankar #207

I agree with your point of view.

Actually, I think it is British conspiracy or policy to divide and rule.

In 1947 there was no such thing as attachment to India or Indian psyche.

It was in 1953, when the status of Kashmir changed.

It is made into such overtime.

The prime importance is what the people of the region want.

Kashmiris always wanted self- determination or independent status, even before partition.

Hari singh was afraid to join India for the same reason. With political maneuvering, so called instrument of accension was signed.

Historically, politically, religiously, geographically Kashmir is associated with parts now comprising Pakistan.

It is not Musharraf or other hawks who determine Pakistani policy towards Kashmir. It is the people of Pakistan, mainly Punjab and NWFP who have kith and kin relation with Kashmiris.

The problem is, what is the philosophical basis for the solution of Kashmir.

Because if India insists that Kashmir is its pride and is acceptable without people in Kashmir.

And Pakistan insists on inciting people for their self determination, there is no solution.

Simply meaning, in this dead lock situation, what is happening needed to happen.

Do you have a way out.

From The News International (Jang Group)

Warming up to BD

I M Mohsin

General Musharraf`s expression of `regrets`, about the `sad events` of 1971 may be seen by many as too little, too late. Though ZAB and Mujibur Rahman had broken the ice in 1974 yet both lost their lives subsequently in military coups nullifying the initial gains. However, the latest gesture was a wise move considering that Zia kept on beguiling BD and the `Biharis` till he died. The civilian governments of the 90s were too scared of the army to address the issue fairly as the atrocities and the ignominious surrender leading to the break-up of Pakistan was the consequence of the shenanigans of the junta hell bent on discharging, as Yahya Khan claimed, a ``legal and constitutional responsibility -- to save it (the country) from internal disorder and chaos``. Ayub`s constitution, custom-made for himself, did not provide for C-in-C to have such pretensions. However, Yahya Khan, like Musharraf, was financially not corrupt. Despite this strength, the former finally proved to be a power-hungry sinner. As Zia`s chicanery dictated ducking the ethical problem, the conscience of the civilians also remained dormant taking a leaf from the dictator`s book of morals. If we claim to be Muslims, the atrocities should have been avoided when the inevitability of the break-up, reinforced by the damning prospect of a permanent military rule initially under Yahya, became clear. we should have parted company with good grace and taught a lesson to the Indian forces in the Eastern theatre. Unfortunately we lost our national honour as well as the Eastern wing with the surrender and we appear to be impervious to learning even from such a catastrophe as is sadly projected by our current predicament brewing like the plot of a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect it appears that the break-up was prompted by the divergence of cultures and ethos. The Bengali Muslim was educated, poor and politically conscious. Accordingly, the Muslim League owed its birth at Dacca to the local initiative. The Muslims of UP/CP etc had also acquired astuteness and they emphasised their political rights as the Congress started the Independence movement. Those belonging to north (beyond Delhi) were the most downtrodden, illiterate and politically prostrate. It is no coincidence that such provinces did not join the fray till the mid-forties. These areas, mainly, provided the gun-fodder for the British Military to control their compatriots` yearning for liberty. Historically, the mercenaries hired by the British from these areas saved the day for them after the Revolt of 1857. Sindh was slightly better off because of the influence of Bombay and NWFP had also experienced some political awareness, thanks to the Khudai Khidmatgars/ML.

An independent Pakistan, as such, saw the Quaid-e-Azam, as Governor General, helped by the Bureaucracy and Army, mainly from West Pakistan. While the Bengalis started the process of developing a Muslim platform at the all-India level, it was quickly overtaken by the Quaid-e-Azam, particularly in the thirties because of his attributes and location. No Bengali leader had the potential to fairly challenge Mr Jinnah`s leadership. Being ardent Muslim nationalists, generally, the Bengali leaders played their part despite certain reservations to the form in which Pakistan finally emerged. The Lahore Resolution of 1940, introduced by Mr A K Fazlul Haq, with the approval of the Quaid, recommended ``that the areas in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.`` While the Bengali mindset was anti-feudal and defiant to authoritarian recipes, which reflected their level of education and enlightenment, the West Pakistani, generally, was submerged in an avalanche of age-old degradation wherein anybody wielding some authority became a `mai baap`. This pompous role was assumed by the government, the bureaucracy, the army and the feudal on the debris of the servility and fear complex of the populace. No wonder the perceptions differed dramatically in the two wings. Since West wing, despite its low calibre, enjoyed a monopoly on state power, the equation got heavily loaded in its favour to the detriment of the precocious bigger half as well as national integrity.

The people of East Pakistan were patriotic despite irritations. This writer was in Dacca immediately after the 1965 war with India ended. The scene was no different from the one in any major city of `West Pakistan`. Incredible show of gratitude was being showered on armed forces for their heroic performance (despite faux pas). I was told by some friends that they felt very insecure as East wing was literally undefended on the questionable fauji dictum that `the defence of East Pakistan lies in West Pakistan`. However, Ayub`s misgovernance and Yahya`s takeover drove the last nail in the coffin of Pakistan`s integrity. It created two Pakistans: one wanted constitutional rule in a democratic set-up at any cost; the other supported army dictators either out of fear or devious motives or both. Yahya did not want to give up power but the ignominious surrender by his buddy, tiger Niazi, forced him out while breaking up Pakistan. No democratic set-up, howsoever weak and not aboveboard has lost Pakistan`s territory; it has always been the brave overlords who play with the people`s destiny with abandon because of the serf-like disposition of our society.

In 1996, this writer paid a visit to Dacca on way back from Colombo wherein I had led the Pakistan delegation to the SAARC Conference on Promotion of Co-operation in Criminal Justice. It was like homecoming as I still have very many friends there. I made the then Prime Minister approve the arrangement of training two ASPs for two months each, on a reciprocal basis, every year. Such a step would create goodwill among BD police and vice versa. As there is no continuity of governance in Pakistan, nothing has happened since the BB government was sacked.

The new protocols signed should be pursued with commitment. General Musharraf should request some civilian with integrity to head a BD Cell to cultivate goodwill using the current qualified euphoria. He should not play politics, like Zia, with the `stranded Pakistanis`. The government should also take some action against those involved in atrocities of 1971.This would be in the interest of justice, our poor image and a deterrent to future misadventures.

The writer is a former Secretary Interior

imnor@brain.net.pk

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities. But we have exhausted that debate many times over so let us not. I mention it only because you were trying to pull a fast one there about the tyrant Hari Singh`s absolute right.]

A host of other little principalities? There has been not a single peep from any of the 500-odd pricipalities absorbed into India, not even from Sikkim which was made into a state in the 70s. But Kalat attempted to secede from Pakistan in the 1950s and was promptly squashed.

As for the tyranny of Hari Singh, at least he was not into foreskin reconstruction.

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities.]

I would also like to know where exactly in the India Independence Act there is a provision for plebiscites in princely states which in any case were not under direct administration by British authorities.

The only three states which had disputed accessions were Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. Of these, Kashmir and Hyderabad never acceded to Pakistan. Junagadh, after acceding to Pakistan due to the machinations of Jinnah through its Dewan Shah Nawaz Bhutto, rescinded its accession.

As Yasser Latif Hamdani likes to point out, HV Hodson`s book ``The Great Divide`` provides excellent information on the three situations.

Ref cpothik #: 215

[Chandrasekhar was another guy, a Tamil who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for Astrophysics (Study of the stars and heavenly bodies). Incidentally, Chandra`s uncle also won Nobel Prize in 1931. His name was C V Raman and he is the only Indian scientist to win the prize by working within India. A very smart family indeed!]

On behalf of the Sangilikkaruppans and Maasanamuthus of Tamil Nadu, I want to bring out the issue of discrimination against OBCs by the Nobel Committee. Not only was the prize given to CV Raman because he is a Brahmin and the scientific and educational establishment in India at that time was dominated by Brahmins, but the fact that his nephew also got the Nobel Prize shows how strong the Brahmin nexus was and continues to be both within and outside India. This is the kind of nepotism which The Great Intellectual, Father Big Man and Doctor Artist Leader fought against. it is now our demand that at least the next 70 Nobel Prizes must be awarded to OBCs as compensation for past injustices to OBCs. If the Nobel Committee does not agree to our demands, we shall follow the Gandhian path of fasting until our demands are met. Doctor Artist Leader will initiate the relay fast in which DMK volunteers will fast for 30 minutes each in sequence. We warn the Nobel Committee that we have thousands of volunteers for this fast and thus are in a position to continue our protest indefinitely until the Nobel Committee agrees to meet our demand.

We have been reliably informed that Viswanathan Anand, the current contender for the world chess champion title, is also a brahmin. We also include among our demands that OBCs should be recognized as grandmasters in chess and given the title of world chess champion to remedy past injustices. We demand that the Nobel Committee award the title of world chess champion to the Doctor Artist Leader.

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities. But we have exhausted that debate many times over so let us not. I mention it only because you were trying to pull a fast one there about the tyrant Hari Singh`s absolute right.]

Sometimes, it is better to do a 5-minute search on the Web to be sure of one`s facts.

May I humbly refer you to http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/101-125.html

There you will find the text of the Instrument of Accession. I would like you to tell me exactly where it refers to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`.

I would like you to refer to also Lord Mountbatten`s reply.

It says in its entirety:

{I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Mountbatten of Burma

Governor General of India.}

A second letter says:

{My dear Maharajah Sahib,

Your Highness`s letter, dated the 26th Octobers has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government`s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State`s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to your Highness`s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.

My Government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,

(Sd/-) Mountbatten of Burma}

The specific part that is operational is: ``it is my Government`s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State`s accession should be settled by a reference to the people``.

I believe certain parts of the original territory of Kashmir, namely ``Azad`` Kashmir and the Northern Areas, are still not cleared of the invaders.

Incidentally, the UN resolutions also call for the complete pullback of Pakistani troops and the state`s return to Indian administration before a plebiscite.

Let Pakistan and all admirers of stop Jinnah pulling fast ones on an unsuspecting public.

re:Reply #: 206

Layman,

I stopped responding to people like Romair long ago. These people have fixated ideas. As you said, 1 billion Indians will not allow Kashmir to go to Pakistan. Period.

In a worst case scenario, Kashmir will be trifurcated, Ladakh and Jammu forming seperate States or Union territorries. The fight will then be for the valley. Kashmiri Pundits will then have to be accomodated and given a share of that valley. After all they have lived there for centuries and have been forced out of their homes today. After all this is done, let us fight over what little is left of the valley! Not a pleasant thought, is it?

Sridhar

rsaxena,

{{...and why the hell is ISRO working on a mission to the moon...let`s first make the electricity grid work, then worry about going to the moon....}}

haha! Indians are the world`s biggest megalomaniacs...

fawad,

{{if most pakistanis dont care anymore what are the obstacles to negotitations ?????????}}

great question! Because ordinary Pakistanis DONT get a say in the govt; the military does!

Re: Romair

``...forget about human rights, morality etc. and just look at all military decisions in purely Machievillian strategically successful terms, i.e. a legitimate military decision is one that leads to victory, with or without human rights violations...``

Thanks for the confession (a very public one at that too). We suspected it all along, but now you yourself have admitted what the true rationale is for sending infiltrators.

Re: Romair

``...Some of the political goals that have been mentioned include winning the elections in UP, forcing Pakistan to hand over some individuals on a list, forcing Pakistan to stop the insurgencies across the LOC. These differences indicate a lack of cohesive political objective...``

The political objective was and is the cessation of the use of terror as an instrument of state policy. (UP elections and the list of 20 are what you think was the cause, but they weren`t). The results on infiltration have been mixed, and it is too soon to tell what will eventually happen -- hopefully saner minds will prevail on both sides. There is a great risk that Musharraf may be assassinated in pursuit of his crackdown on militants (apparently there have been 3 recent attempts, and only one has been reported in the press. 3 SSG commandos were killed in Islamabad in foiling one). (And despite your spin that the crackdown on jehadis happened because of US, not Indian pressure, it does not matter in the end. What matters is the result. Do you think that the Americans had raised this issue with Musharraf anytime before 9/11 or even until Dec. 6? What, in your opinion, was the deciding factor? Indian pressure in concert with the US?)

Fawad # 221,

Bose discovered/ postulated the class of particles called Bosons. These are force carriers as opposed to Fermions which are particles acted upn by some force. photon is a boson, so is a graviton (still eluding discovery). Protons, neutrons etc are called fermions.

Adios

Fawad # 221,

What Chandrashekhar discovered is called chandrashekhar limit. It is the state beyond which there can be no further compression of matter under the force of gravity. It occurs when the star ceases to produce energy by fusion, and thereby cannot counter the inner pulling force of gravity by explosive fusion reactive force (outward). Thus the star collpases under its own weight until it crushes all the orbits of electrons and forces prtons to combine with electrons making neutrons. The star now is called neutron star which is erady to implode depending upon its mass. It is called degenerate state of matter, beyond which there is no compression. If i remember exactly, neutron star stage is reached after crossing Chandrashekhar limit. Plese check.

Adios

Unfortunately, my reservoir of Ghalib`s poetry is limited to what I can recall of Naseer-ud-Din Shah uttering in Jagjit Singh`s voice. And I have exhausted this reservoir.

The purpose of this article was to present a solution to the biggest short-term problem Pakistan is currently facing, i.e. how to handle all the possible outcomes that could occur from India`s military threats and possible attacks, in a successful manner. It wouldn`t make any sense to present solutions which would result in a loss for Pakistan. They wouldn`t be very good solutions, would they? Hence the title. The word, ``potential`` indicated that the solutions presented may or may not work. Many of our Indian friends seem to have missed this word in the title.

The counter to this article should have been the presentation of a potential win-win-win scenario for India. The intention of the article was not to suggest that Pakistan should or could destroy India, etc. Unfortunately, most of the replies assumed this incorrect premise. Hence, it was better to just view them, without replying, in order to see what causes this knee-jerk reaction everytime articles related to Indo-Pak affairs are written.

* * * * * * *Badal kar faqiroon ka hum bhais Ghalib......Tamash-e-ahl-Karam deikhtay hein * * * * (I had one left in the reservoir)

So I will attempt to explain this article a bit furthur, and will attempt to answer some of the legitimate queries in one long reply, before it goes off the main page, rather than adding more of Ghalib`s verses.

Let`s, for the moment, forget about human rights, morality etc. and just look at all military decisions in purely Machievillian strategically successful terms, i.e. a legitimate military decision is one that leads to victory, with or without human rights violations. Based on this, I will explain why I think India overplayed its cards, this time, resulting as my basis for the potential lose-lose-lose scenario. There are a few rules of war that need to be understood.:

1. Offensive military actions should only be initiated if one is sure one will win.

2. All military actions have to be subordinate to clearly defined and achievable political goals, i.e. there is no point in losing ten people, and successfully, ``taking the hill,`` if it results in no political gain.

3. While an individual soldiers` bravery etc. is based on emotion, unit and national pride, religious motivations like Shahadat or re-incarnation, a desire to protect one`s country, etc. all strategic military decisions have to be based on 100% objective practicality, i.e don`t laucgh military offensives just because you think God ordered you to, or because you feel humiliated, or because you want to get more votes in the next election etc.

Pakistan`s traditional Strategic approaches:



If one keeps the above in mind, one can see that Pakistan has traditionally not followed the above rules. India is seven to eight times Pakistan`s size, with a military budget which has fluctuated between 3 to 4.5 times Pakistan military`s budget. The two countries have been roughly at the same level of economic development.

Considering the fact that it takes at least a 3:1 ratio to consider winning an all-out offensive battle, Pakistan should, under no circumstances, have launched any military offensive against India. Its military budget would have to be 13 times its current size to consider that. It doesn`t matter whether Pakistan`s stance is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Fighting offensive wars that you know you cannot win, is bad decision-making. It violates rule no. 1. At most, Pakistan can only use undercover operations, gurreilla ops, etc. But never an outright war. I cannot recall any country in history that won offensive wars against enemies eight times their size.

Let`s look at Pakistan`s decisions, one by one, from 1965, onwards:

-- Pakistan lauched an offensive in 1965 (though it was not across an international border). It violated rule 1, and from that point onwards, there is no way it could have won. Added to this, the political decisions were not inline with the military decisions. Bhutto initiated the plan, and his motivation was to discredit Ayub Khan`s regime, by deliberately putting Pakistan in a situation where it would lose. His converstation, declaring this to the book`s author, is mentioned in, ``The Clash of Fundametalisms`` (Tariq Ali). Added to this, were the emotion-based decisions by the Pakistani military leadership, assuming that one Pakistani was equal to ten Indians etc. (based on historical rule of Muslims in India). Not the most objective and practical decision making, in a time of war.

Pakistani soldiers, pilots and sailors