Some Burning Questions

Currently the Chief Minister of J&K is touring around to solicit investment in his state to spur economic growth and employment. This requires peace in the state and is obviously detrimental to Pakistani interests. This is also more than the Prime Minister of Pakistan or its famous Army Chief willing to do for Pakistan (impose peace to encourage investment) much less for Pak Occupied Kashmir where apart from maintaining training camps of terrorists, the govt. of Pakistan has decided to raise the height of the Mangla Dam and displace even more people, lets not enquire into what royalties will NOT be paid to PoK in exchange.

There is no need to talk of any `settlement` with such people, who willnot even look after their own and simply want their pound of flesh.

InYourFace #90 you write ``You sound LIKE a sensible pakistani.`` You have made my day!! All along I had thought that being a pakistani meant being non-sensible. Hallelujah!
I hasten to add (this being chowk, where no poster is barred admission on grounds of having a single digit IQ, or on grounds of utter humorlessness) that the above is said in a joking manner. The real point being: in order to have a discussion, one assumes the other person is sensible. Otherwise, one simply ignores his or her posts, and wishes him or her to have a nice day.
More seriously: You raise a legitimate point when you ask what should be India`s defence against jehadis crossing over from Pakistan. Good question. I dont have any good answer, but here are some thoughts on the possible list of solutions:
First: The Indian government can find a military solution. This however has been the solution the Indian government has been following to date, and despite great cost (700,000 troops in Kashmir for years, a million amassed for months on the Pakistani border for months) this solution has proved ineffective.
Second: Find a political solution, and by this I do NOT mean the standard position of the Pakistani government to implement UN resolutions calling for a referendum in Kashmir. That position has not gotten us anywhere either.
Third: Think ``outside the box``, as I mentioned in my earlier post. The``outside the box`` solution is actually very simple and can be stated in one sentence. HOWEVER, in order to appreciate this simple solution, one must first change one`s way of thinking. Otherwise, sadly (like Fermat about whom there was a discussion earlier on chowk), there is not enough space, not even on all of internet, to explain it. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.

ali87 #94
What is not to jeer at people who donot have the self-respect to discuss their own affairs without spitting on Indians and Hindus. If you are waiting for the heroic Pakistani Army to come rescue you from your fellow-Indians, my suggestion is you should migrate or change your nationality right away. The Pakistani Army has proved a broken reed both for the Taliban and the Kashmiris, it has a habit to running away just when things get tough.

#63 by rsridhar on January 14, 2003 8:25pm PT

Hats off to you for the most sensible statements I have seen on this forum by both indians and pakistanis..

#91 by InYourFace on January 15, 2003 8:16pm PT
#88 by keshto on January 15, 2003 4:48pm PT
and others...

Simple reality check.. forget the excuses of pakistans actions..

As Indians a visit to kashmir valley is sufficient to give you the opinion of the common kashmiris. No need to even ask questions.

Tourists from other parts of India are referered to as ``from India``. I experineced this in 1985. From the auto drivers to kids who act as tout for hotels to waiters in resurants they all refer to people from rest of India as `` accha aap India se hain``.

For a period of time the kashmiris accepted being part of india and put forward the conditions for it. In a few years they got to know the hard reality of the politicans of Delhi and the public of India.

53 years they are yet to see the agreements honoured. Most would prefer to be in pakistan with what ever fate awaits them rather than be with India.

And to think they were thinking of the rights of pandits etc when they prefered to be with India.

See what the nagas say.. Make a visit to Arunacal pardesh (where you still need to have a permit after 53 years of forced integration.) why do these people have to be sacrificed at the altar of Indian union.

What is the basis of this union..

Why is Nepal not part of the Union, Why not sri lanka??

any answers?...

another reality check... for those jeering at pakistan


http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=54492003

Indian attack


SUSPECTED Hindu nationalist hard-liners attacked a US missionary and seven other people with sticks, swords and crowbars after they left a church gathering in southern India, police said yesterday.

Joseph Cooper, 67, was slashed on his hand, arm and right side. The assailants exploded a fire-cracker before attacking.

stuka #65 you write ``You must be naive to think that it was the conventional Pakistan Army that kept the Indian Army away. Plain and simple, it was nukes. ``
I said ``credible defense``. I did not say conventional army.
you write ``Compare the facilities and perks and privileges of power the Pak Army enjoys vis a vis Indian Army. Why does that difference exist? Do you really believe that giving plots of land to brigadiers and above keeps the Army as a credible threat?``
I dont believe that. Nor did I ever say that.
you write ``India as a potent threat is a mirage generated by the Pak Army to keep itself in power.``
Wish that was true. Unfortunately, I dont think the million man army that sat around the borders for months last year was a mirage. Nor was Advani`s gloating when he blew those five nukes some time back. Nor were those five nukes a mirage. Pak generals no doubt benefit from maintaining tensions. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of war mongerers in India. And some in high places.
you write ``Even during the build up of the Indians the idea was to respond against constant jehadi terrorism, not to capture and rule Islamabad.``
Sorry to disagree. I dont think there are any religious terrorists crossing borders in Rajasthen. The Indian army was deployed all across the Pakistan border.
you write ``If, by credible deterrant you mean that Pakistan should keep financing the jehadi actions and also maintain a credible conventional defense``
I dont. I mean nuclear weapons plus missile delivery capacity. The thought of having a nuke dropped on their heads in Delhi, rather than mere soldiers dying on the border, seems to do wonders in curbing BJP politicians warrior instincts. Works for our generals too I am sure, btw. The MAD doctrine has finally found its natural home in the subcontinent.
you write ``If you are willing to accept the status quo in Kashmir``
OK dokey with me. I have always maintained that all of Kashmir is not worth the life of a single soldier, Indian or Pakistani. However, I am still waiting for Musharaff to seek my advice on this matter, and no doubt he will change his policy once he has discussed the Kashmir issue with me. :-)

#83 by tahmed32 on January 15, 2003 11:48am PT

``But that will require a sea-change in the mentality of those in power on both sides of the border, and I dont see that happening anytime soon. ``

I would like to know what changes do you expect from a AB Vajpayee? Just remember that this is the same guy who proposed to take the high road, went to Lahore, talked of ``no war`` at Minar-e-Pakistan. This is the same guy who proposed to buy electricity from pakistan. Do you expect to give kashmir on a platter?

I DO expect a sea change in the mentality of those in power in your side : STOP CROSS-BORDER TERRORISM. I don`t care about honor-killings. I don`t care if there is no democracy in pakistan. I don`t care if hindus/christians are killed in pakistan. I don`t care about feudalism. I don`t care. Period. Just don`t send mullahs across.

#83 by tahmed32 on January 15, 2003 11:48am PT

`` ... credible defence against India, .... ``

You sound LIKE a sensible pakistani. I remember you posted several times that it was a mistake on the part of pakistani army to do a `Kargil`. You are one of the few pakistanis who said so. That is really commendable.

In reference to your ``credible defence`` theory, What do you think India`s ``credible defense`` should be against future kargils? What do you think India`s ``credible defense`` should be against panjabi jihadist murderers in kashmir?

#87 by harimau

Most of the pakis encroaching chowk are part of the Army food chain. They are die-hard apologists for the Army and Musharaf. Rest assured they will slink away from your pointed questions.

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

Ref Periodic-lapses-into-Irrationality #83

[All I am saying is that we should not seek to throw the baby (namely, a credible defence against India, of the kind that kept their million man army at bay on the borders last year)...]

Pray tell, what keeps the Indian Army from invading Bangladesh? Nukes in Bangladesh? The Bong`s defense treaty with China? The overwhelming conventional military advantage that Bangladesh enjoys over India?

#81 Mohar:

How about shaming Musharraf by having pakistan people call him,
``His royal highness, Badshah, Musharaff``?

Would that shame the army enough to step down?

TAhmed:

You must be naive to think that it was the conventional Pakistan Army that kept the Indian Army away. Plain and simple, it was nukes.

Compare the facilities and perks and privileges of power the Pak Army enjoys vis a vis Indian Army. Why does that difference exist? Do you really believe that giving plots of land to brigadiers and above keeps the Army as a credible threat?

India as a potent threat is a mirage generated by the Pak Army to keep itself in power. Even during the build up of the Indians the idea was to respond against constant jehadi terrorism, not to capture and rule Islamabad. Even in Kashmir, has the Indian Army/gov`t has never had territorial claims on Pakistani territory, just a strong determination to hold on to India.

If, by credible deterrant you mean that Pakistan should keep financing the jehadi actions and also maintain a credible conventional defense, then yes, you do need to have a high defense expenditure and the army will be involved in governance simply because that is how you define your priority. If you are willing to accept the status quo in Kashmir, then yes, you can cut down on hostility level with India and gradualyy reduce Army`s role with mutual CBMs.

That is what India has done with China and we scarcely have the need to hold a credible defense barrier on the east. India is the status quo country. Pakistan is revisionist. The choice is yours.

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

sameerJB #80 I fully agree that the military is using up too many resources - the people of pakistan would be better off in the long run if we had medicines rather than missiles, nursery schools rather than nukes. Indeed, I would go a step further and say that military interference in politics is far more costly than the things Ms. Yasmeen correctly identifies in her article.
All I am saying is that we should not seek to throw the baby (namely, a credible defence against India, of the kind that kept their million man army at bay on the borders last year) out with the bathwater (namely, the crore commanders, military interference in foreign policy, and so forth). Someday I hope we wont need a defence against India any more than we need a defence against Iran. But that will require a sea-change in the mentality of those in power on both sides of the border, and I dont see that happening anytime soon.