Tunnel Vision

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

Sadna @ 176 & 177:

That is why the current Government of PML Q is envisaging a Kashmir solution in next 3 years that would neither be liked by Pakistanis not by Indians (ref. statement by our Information Minister).

I believe that a deal has already been struck with the US on this issue. Kashmir will be independent as I have proposed in my earlier posts. Pakistanis will not like it, because it does not get them entire Kashmir. Indians will not like it, because they have to let go of the Valley too.

Kashmir will be for Kashmiris. It will be up to them with whom they align themselves.

ahmadzai #174
The point here is that Pakistan doesnot like the world to recognise that a huge number of Indians are Muslims, because this would weaken Pakistan`s `case` in J&K.

ahmadzai #174
The point here is that Pakistan doesnot like the world to recognise that a huge number of Indians are Muslims, because this would weaken Pakistan`s `case` in J&K (the case it makes is of a Muslim country claiming a Muslim territory).

You cannot have a larger vision for S. Asia with a huge blind spot in that vision occupied by Indian Muslims, ie if Pakistan considers itself the sole representative of subcontinental Muslims, and in pressing its case in J&K, displaying in effect a blind spot for the existence and concerns of Indian Muslims.

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

Sadna:

Although I would personally like India to be a member of OIC, I would like to add the following wrt the links:

1. I had thought that this was a recent event. This news is very old and India at that time use to enjoy the friendship of some Arab countries, being a non-US allied country.

2. Some countries also did not allow Pakistan`s entry into Asean as an observer country.

3. Recently, some countries proposed to make India a member of ECO too, which was blocked by Pakistan.

Suffice is to say that in the world relations are made on the basis of economics. But since Pakistan and India are fighting an undeclared war, they will continue to block each other`s attempts to economic gains. OIC is a dead horse in any case.

Ref SaimaShah #166

[re: Harimau
India is the greatest...happy?]

You don`t get it, do you?

ahmadzai
Here are the references for the OIC, India, Pakistan issue(it was 1969 in the time of Yahya Khan) and it was the Indian Ambassador to Morocco I meant, not Portugal, sorry.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/11/17/stories/2002111703830800.htm

India, Pakistan and the OIC


http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/11/25/stories/2002112500131002.htm
India and OIC (letter to editor)

SaimaShah #166
Sure new ideas should be explored but there is no point in talking about imaginary things which cannot be realised.

And its your prerogative to call what I say a rightist position. I call it plain insurmountable fact.

History will show that we landed in the current imbrologio because a certain romantic poet Prime Minister upped and went to Lahore. The Pakistani Army was so thrilled that an Indian Prime Minister was actually offering talks on Kashmir that they decided that the Indians were `tired` and decided if they(the Pakistanis) were being conceded talks, they could have it(Kashmir) all, so they went ahead with Kargil.

If it hadn`t been for Vajpayee holding firm and the Indian Army(and the intervention of Clinton) gaining back lost ground for India, and the whole country rallying behind the government during war, if it hadn`t been for that, the Indian public`s anger at Vajpayee for bringing on Kargil through Lahore would have put an end to Vajpayee`s political career in India. The BJP would have been driven out of power and the party`s fortunes would have been set back many years. So much for BJP`s `nationalism` and Vajpayee`s rightist positions.

This is also reality that the Indian state has shown it can concede the devolution of power or concede new structures for devolution to its own citizens to satisfy their political aspirations or settle dissaffection, but no Indian government will tamely sign away sovereignty, definitely not under the threat of guns. Vajpayee may have managed to pull it off due to his stature in the excitement of Lahore, but no more. And forget about Sonia Gandhi as India`s first Italian-born Prime Minister being able to concede sovereignty either.

As for the US, it doesnot mind fishing in troubled Indo-Pak waters. It will also not mind having a foothold in Kashmir for itself. Any realism or final solution from the Pakistani side wrt India will mean US can no longer extract leverage from a big Muslim country Pakistan in support of the US`s own anti AlQaeda / domination of Arab-regions agenda. Currently the US is winking furiously at Kashmir-directed jihadic activity in Pakistan(and the N.Korea connection) for this reason. If we think US in its advice or actions has Pakistan`s or India`s interests at heart, we will be quite mistaken.

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

To rsridhar and Sadna:

No matter what you say, hear this: Kashmir is still listed as a disputed territory with the UN. Its for Kashmiris to decide what they wish for their own good. Entire world is telling India to start the dialogue with Pakistan to resolve all the outstanding issues (which basically refers to only 1 issue that is Kashmir).

And btw, Kashmiris want to join with Pakistan.

:)

re:#153 by SaimaShah
I will not waste bandwidth by giving you a long post on Kashmir. My answer is simple: Pakistan does not have a ``locus standi`` in the case. If Pakis are emotional about Kashmir, then my advice to them is: get over it. Be rational not emotional. Heck, you guys fritted away what was legitimately yours (Bangladesh) and now covet a piece of land that is not legitimately yours. Now, I know what you will say. Kashmir does not belong to India either but to Kashmiris. That argument is lost in the vortex of realpolitik. Pak`s dictator would be wise to realise the realities on ground and act what is in the best interest of Pakistan (which is not necessarily the same as army`s).
Sridhar

To arjun_m at # 162

They are living in former communist, pro-soviet and pro-India Tajik controlled Afghanistan, speicifically Kabul. The same bunch of people are shown interviewed on CNN and BBC. Not even once has any one from Pushtoon population been interviewed.

All Pushtoons and farsi speaking Hazaras and Shias are with Pakistanis. Lots of my friends have traveled to Afghanistan recently and they have reported the same. Pushtoons have reservations against General Musharraf, but they are strongly aligned with Pakistanis. Reason is religious and economic affinities. So I am confident and Pakistanis are confident about this.

Once the coalition forces desert Afghanistan after failing to control Pushtoon-Hazara rebellion (pessimistic scenario) or introduce democracy there (optimistic scenario) the control will be back with Pakistan-Iran backed Pushtoons, Hazaras and Farsi speaking Shias. Extreme minorities of `Sunni` Tajiks and Uzbeks will retrieve peacefully to their own respective small provinces.

Btw, just out of curiosity, are Jay and you twins?

re:sadna

Sadna, what you are saying in effect implies that both Pakistanis and Indians should buy the rightist Government line. They should cease trying to find common ground, they should give up hope for a better future? Is India flawless? Has India not picked fights? quite obvious to anyone, no.

The blame game that I talked about in the article, persists here as well. And please note that it is not just I who notices the biases--but others too (journalists from both India and Pakistan have pointed the many incorrect stories that are reported in large newspapers in India). The Kashmir problem and sectarian violence has been named by Clinton too as one of the things threatening the hard work that common Indians have been putting into the country to make it a global power.

As for the administrative side to a plural political identity--that is for Indians to figure out how much power they want to devolve to the State level and whether or not they want a central govt and how much power should it have. My job was to point out the obvious failures in the development of the identity of the nation state. When being Indian means hating Pakistan and vice versa, how can war be prevented, how can this region become stable?

Let`s not resort to this pettiness--the very subject of my article was the lack of a positive attitude visavis dialogue.

re: Harimau

India is the greatest...happy?

Let us see what it is that Saima suggests.

Having failed in its military adventures and the War-of-a-Thousand-Cuts to wrest Kashmir away from India, Saima would now like India to be **nice** to Pakistan. In fact, she wants India to come to some agreement on Kashmir with Pakistan.

Pray tell us, what would be an acceptable solution to Kashmir. Would it be handing over the Valley to Pakistan? That won`t happen. If it is Kashmiri Independence, that won`t happen either; we aren`t going to create another country for Sino-Pak-US intrigue on our borders.

All you who are getting misty-eyed at the thought of **inclusive** nations in South Asia should recognize that India is the **only** inclusive nation there, Bangladesh being a close second, Pakistan being nowhere in the game.

As to Pakistanis telling Indians to control Hindutva-jihadis, that is like Satan quoting the scriptures: we don`t need any lessons from Pakistan **until** Pakistan curbs its jihadis. In case you didn`t read the newspapers, Karzai of Afghanistan wants cross-border incursions stopped and he meant the infiltration from Pakistan into Afghanistan, not Kashmir. So it seems like you have a foreign policy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, something not likely to sit well with Uncle Sam.

Face it, India plans to dominate everything south of the Himalayas, That means Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives are going to be under the thumb of India for the rest of their lives. You all have the choice of being like Canada to the US or Mexico to the US. You have the further choice of El Salvador, Honduras or Panama as models. China can stick it up its rear-end if it wants to interfere in South Asia so don`t go looking for China`s support.

Face reality. Just be happy that India hasn`t spent $10 billion to construct LPG terminals at Bandar Abbas and Bombay and to buy a few LPG carriers from Japan so that you can continue dreaming of a pipeline some day through Pakistan. We are more likely to get natural gas out of Bangladesh than have a pipeline through Pakistan.

No, India doesn`t **have** to do anything about its neighbors until they fall in line and behave.

ahmadzai #161
Which reservation would you say is `unnecessary`? Just curious?

RE Siachen, there have been enough posts on chowk showing India might have been there second. In any case, a game of exclusion once started, can be played by both.

In any case hope you realise, finally its not for Pakistanis to decide which reservation of Indians is `unnecessary` for Indians. Just like Pakistan has been pursuing its Kashmir policy according to its own best interest, so can India pursue a policy according to its(including JK`s) best interests. India cannot be generous to Pakistanis while hurting its own citizens.

In this pursuit of their best interests, ordinary Pakistanis cannot ignore some things:

Pakistani Army would LOVE to be in J&K. With a foothold there, it can intefere with Indian control over the rivers of the region, and keep testing India`s control over regions like Jammu and Ladakh. In other words, a small foothold for Pakistan through Kashmir valley will be a giant leap in territorial control for Pakistan Army. Which Army will not like to win territory?

As you also said, they have tried before three times and failed. Has the Pakistani Army`s attitude really changed now? Or now they want through talk what they couldnot get through war. Is India so stupid? And with such high stakes, its very well worth it for Army dictators who do not practice at home what they preach to others, to talk piously of freedom struggles, of UN resolutions, of human rights, of principled stands of peace and the great big WE.

Unfortunately Saima and ahmadzai are not the only ones in the India-Pakistan equation. Indians are not taken in by the above pious talk of Pakistani establishment, or by Pakistani moderates knowingly or unknowingly in their idealism, acting as softspoken `reasonable` front office for back office business run by Army agenda and violent religious fanatics for their often-stated goals of pure land grab.

Secondly for a long time, the pious talk hasnot matched actions. The disaffection of some section of Kashmiris for India is no excuse for Pakistani/Pakistani-armed jihadis to kill other Kashmiris indiscriminately, often also Muslim. Its no excuse for jihadis to attack civilians in other parts of India. And as long as India`s soldiers are under attack, no Indian leader(or any leader anywhere in the world) can ask them not to fight back, for any talk of peace.

India can (and did) declare a ceasefire for the benefit of disaffected armed KASHMIRIS (allow them to give up violence, listen to their demands and help them get back into mainstream), but NOT for the benefit of armed Pakistanis. India even held elections to allow Kashmiris of many inclinations to get elected through popular support for their various agendas, and even here Pakistan tried to sabotage their process and jihadis went to the extent of killing candidates and threatening voters.

As for furthering the Pakistan`s own ideological/ political agenda in J&K, like in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, the Pakistani establishment had/has no clue how to do it.

So like it did in Afghanistan, and has done in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army has backed a `front organisation` of paid off supporters, called the Hurriyat Conf. who refuse to demonstrate mass base, whose merit is that they speak for Pakistan`s interests and propped up by the violence of armed religious extremists.


Lord Avebury who was given a high honor (Nishan-e-Pakistan?) by Pakistan for his support of the `Kashmiri cause` said after a visit to Indian J&K that he was not at all impressed with the Hurriyat or the `freedom movement` for this reason.(Do you want a reference to his statements?). He was not impressed with the violence of jihadis either. His organisation commissioned a survey last year, and it was found that J&Kashmiris were not impressed either.


There is no single leader or movement in J&K which has been broadbased across all religious and community boundaries articulating a single vision for Kashmir. Even JKLF was Muslim, though it professed itself secular and since it was seeking independence was quashed by the Pakistani Army. Anyone and his uncle is encouraged to fight jihad in Kashmir, including John Walker Lindh from California. In short, listening to Pakistan on J&Kashmir doesnot necessarily translate to furthering the best interests of J&Kashmiris.

In conclusion, Pakistan has no case for changing status quo except threats of violence, to which India has now decided not to yield and increasing the scope of violence, eg by restarting the Khalistan movement as Pakistan is reportedly attempting, also will not help.

A total change in Pakistani security establishment`s attitude toward India and its own place in the world is welcome and should be encouraged by India, as it tried in Lahore and Agra, but Kargil and post Sept 11 have proved there is no such change in attitude. .

PS: re OIC, India and Pakistan, I had read an interview (in the last few months), with a former Indian Ambassador to Portugal?, a Sikh gentleman who was present at the meeting in question along with other Indians(Muslims Indians). I will try to dig it up.