Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

re: harimau

[Tell me, exactly what constitutional guarantees did Jinnah provide HIS minorities BEFORE or, for that matter, AFTER the formation of Pakistan?]

This is a long debate in itself. In short, the constitution provides freedom of speech, religion, political association, etc. There is no difference between the American constitution and the Pakistani constitution as far as minority rights are concerned. The 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions are egalitarian and tolerant in nature. Since Jinnah had died in 1948, his public speeches were used as guidance in these constitutions. As a result, minorities enjoyed considerable freedom in Pakistan until 1974.

In the 1970s, a wave of Islamic fundamentalism swept across the Muslim world. Iranian revolution, King Faisal`s ascent in Arabia, rise of Algerian FIS, resurgence of Turkish Rifah party occured in this period. This wave affected Pakistan as well. The Mullahs demanded declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims. Bhutto used this as a political issue: he declared Ahmedis as non-Muslims in exchange for Mullah support of his nationalization programme.

Mullahs too this as encouragement and started spreading their wings. Their demands grew harsher and harsher. Finally a confrontation happened. Bhutto lost power. Zia exploited Islam to stay in power. He passed a series of black laws known as Hudood Ordinance in 1981.

Ever since 1981, the Mullahs have enjoyed considerable influence in Pakistan society because of those laws. The Pakistani masses have been protesting against these laws since 1981 but there is a division of public opinion. Sindhis and Punjabis are generally against these laws, Pashtuns and Baluchis are in favor.

To summarize: Jinnah wanted to establish a tolerant moderate Islamic state with loosely defined religious ideology along the lines of European states. Even after his death things remained pretty good for Pakistani Hindus, Christians and Ahmedis until mid-1970s and the advent of Zia-ul-Haq. Ever since, none of the secular leaders (Benazir, Altaf Hussain, Nawaz Sharif) have been able to challenge the Mullahs (Fazlur Rehman, Qazi Hussain, Noorani, Sami-ul-Haq, Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Azhar, Azim Tariq).

Maybe someone should write an article on ``Treatment of Minorities`` in India and Pakistan. It could be a nice topic for constructive criticism.

Cheers.

re: harimau

[I suppose your definition of softline is when you kill civilians with Kalashnikovs and grenades]

Killing of civilians is neither a softline nor hardline. It is not clear who is doing this so I will not comment on Nadimarg, Chittisinghpura, etc. Perhaps a judicial inquiry will reveal which terrorist organization was involved. There are several rogue elements among the freedom fighters such as Lashkar-e-Jabbar who were also involved in acid attacks on women in Kashmir. But such organizations are very few in the Kashmir struggle. The Pakistani Mullahs claim that Indian security forces staged these killings, although this is quite doubtful.

Nevertheless, there are civilian deaths in every revolution. Even in Gandhi`s Civil Disobedience movement, there were numerous incidents like Chauri Chaura. These unfortunate victims are just the collateral damage in the struggle for Kashmir`s liberation.

The Quran condemns killing of civilians. The Quran also condemns the occupation of another people through military force and violating their human rights. Perhaps if India were to stop its occupation and human rights violations, these civilian deaths would stop.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

[Okay, let us assume it is Pakistan that wants peace and it is India that doesn`t. What do you plan to do about it? ]

Absolutely nothing.

Ref HisStupidity (various posts)

You have said that Jinnah wanted constitutional guarantees for minorities (read, Muslims) and since the Congress wouldn`t provide it he got Pakistan.

Tell me, exactly what constitutional guarantees did Jinnah provide HIS minorities BEFORE or, for that matter, AFTER the formation of Pakistan?

In your heart, do you believe that India has failed to provide equal treatment under law to its minorities?

The real intent of these questions of course is: is Pakistan`s existence justified?

PS. By the way, exactly what constitutional guarentees does the MAJORITY in Pakistan have?

Ref HisStupidity #310

{[Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts. ]

Quite a frank admission. It is India that wants the real estate of Kashmir with disregard for Kashmiri sentiment. Pakistanis on the other hand, do give a shit. And when that happens, you will smell it all over you.}

Do you think the Pakistanis will take Kashmir if it comes attached with, oh, let us say, the Biharis stranded for 32 years in Bangladesh?

How about if another 20 million bhaiyyas from UP and Bihar are attached to the Valley? How would you like that? Some Gujjus like Jinnah?

Ref HisStupidity #311

[There is no point in adopting a soft line when the other side is adopting a hardline attitude.]

I suppose your definition of softline is when you kill civilians with Kalashnikovs and grenades.

[If and when India softens its stance, so should Pakistan.]

I don`t think it has softened up India. In fact, it has hardened India.

[Otherwise it will appear that Pakistan is begging India for peace, which is far from the truth.]

So, spend even more on your army and see if we care.

[Peace will happen when both countries want it, and are willing to work towards it.]

Okay, let us assume it is Pakistan that wants peace and it is India that doesn`t. What do you plan to do about it?

re: nakhok

[I can see why HisExcellency believes that readers view him as a madrassah-graduate who has been brainwashed by Pakistani education system.]

I don`t believe that. Only certain Indian chowkies are indulging in this personal attack, as if this will strengthen their hollow, self-serving arguments.

[HisExcellency shouldn`t grudge his readers if they come to the conclusion that he learnt his history and psychology at a Madrassah in remote Pakistan. ]

Speak for yourself only. Most readers are perceptive enough to understand why you are calling me a madrassah-educated Pakistani. You are simply attacking me because you don`t like my opinion. There is a word for that. Bigotry.

I just like to express my opinion aggressively. If Indian or Pakistani chowkies can counter my opinion with facts, I am more than willing to revise my opinions.

Cheers.

Indians are only wasting time on the DF trying to befool themselves. Their knowledge about Kashmir issue is from the leadership which don`t want to face the facts on the table. If they think their leadership is right then they should encourage it to resolve with the power of their argument instead of wasting so much on military action in Kashmir.

PM #306

[quote]
If you have more inormation on the killings of innocent civilians by Hafiz Saeed`s and his cronies (which you may well), then I can understand why my post would rub you the wrong way.
[end-quote]

This is what is called shamelessness. This is just like the VHP in Gujarat; this how people like Bal Thackeray talk. Their language is full of this qualification and contingency. What, innocent muslims were targeteed and killed in Ahmedabad??? oh my goodness, they are amazed and shocked !! Where is the proof? One hindu was also killed! This is a matter of ``pride`` of Gujarat etc. etc.

The difference between you and Narendra Modi is that the latter is more sincere. He is an open bigot. You cultivate a veneer of civility while participating in the same kind of denial and tacit support for murder.

Its interesting to hear from PM that in Pakistan apparently, a psychopathic killer who kills out of blind religious hatred is not responsible for his own actions, someone else is. Is this a characteristic of Islam or is it a characteristic of Pakistan?

And its nice to hear that people feel compelled to become psychopathic killers without control over their actions because other societies in which they donot live have not convinced them that transparent elections are held or have not allowed their favorite human rights organisations to operate as demanded. Forget the fact that in their own country elections are rigged and the premier human rights body in their own country is the target of their vilest rhetoric.

What PM is actually saying is Hafiz Saeed and the ISI are the people whom India must convince about its actions, being as they are the only trusted adjudicators of human rights and democracy on the subcontinent.

Of course donot ask Hafiz Saeed and ISI to be even as transparent themselves as they demand foreign governments to be, namely even to make public their own financial books. No, doing so will jeopardize the security of the subcontinent.

If Wendy Chamberlain deposed last month before a Congress Committee that the ISI had played a `substantial role` in the last 6 years in drug trafficking in the Afghan-Pakistan region, well we all know US has failed to convince Hafiz Saeed and ISI that elections were transparent in the US and its clear to all that GW Bush and the US govenrment is waging war on Muslims.

re: #304

[Shireen Mazari talks like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle of the US talk, except Pakistan doesn`t have enough firepower to back up her talk.]

Who cares what you think of Shireen Mazari or Pakistan`s firepower? Neither are you a political commentator, nor a defence or military expert. Just stick to the facts, not your commentary. As long as Shireen Mazari and others in the English press are pro-Kashmir, nobody can claim that ``the English press in Pakistan is advising the government to ditch Kashmir.`` If Pakistan lacked firepower, India would certainly have crossed the line of control last year.

[Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts. ]

Quite a frank admission. It is India that wants the real estate of Kashmir with disregard for Kashmiri sentiment. Pakistanis on the other hand, do give a shit. And when that happens, you will smell it all over you.

re: PM

``Maybe it`s not just the army, but the whole establishment. I don`t suggest that the Pakistanis have been completely misled/lied to about the oppression in Kashmir, but it has certainly been an easy story to peddle to a mass already predisposed to intense distrust for Indians.``

I don`t disagree with that completely. There are people in India as well as Pakistan who have a vested interest in perpetuating distrust towards the other. Stories like Kashmir, Babri mosque and Godhra help these people.

But most of the population stands in the middle. It listens to protagonists and antagonists of a theory. Whoever makes a more convincing case, the public swarms to that side.

On the Kashmir issue, Indian obduracy on almost all aspects of the issue (plebsicite, political prisoners, talks, troop reduction, mediation) is weakening the case of doves (Cowasjee, Ayaz Amir, Naqvi, etc). As a result, the hawks (Mazari, Shafqat, Mullahs, Kashmir Committee, Military) are having a field day. Pakistanis will not listen to the doves if they feel that India is being inflexible.

There is no point in adopting a soft line when the other side is adopting a hardline attitude. If and when India softens its stance, so should Pakistan. Otherwise it will appear that Pakistan is begging India for peace, which is far from the truth. Peace will happen when both countries want it, and are willing to work towards it.

re. pmishra #286
If you have more inormation on the killings of innocent civilians by Hafiz Saeed`s and his cronies (which you may well), then I can understand why my post would rub you the wrong way. However, I was judging his statements at face value. Killing THE Hinuds [that kill] the Muslims is not hardly the absolute nadir of depravity you can encounter. Unless, perhaps your are willing to believe that the likes of Hafiz are completely deluding themselves about past artrocities by Indian troops against civilians, including women, which I`m betting would not have been among your lists of human rights` violations in the region, though it was on a certain agency`s, called AI, priror to their being unceremonsiusly booted out of that state.

All I`m saying is that it is fatuous to present the issue as black-and-white.

re. harish_hyd #287:

``Now would you support your Jihadi brethren if they target the US Marines stationed in post-war Iraq? I bet not, for the US doesn’t take too kindly to Jihadis unlike India, and you and your fellow Lashkarites will either be shot through your heads or packed off on a never-ending vacation to that exotic tropical island, the Guantanamo Bay.``

Not very big on logic, are we! I questioned the characterization of Hafiz`s stance as `evil`; not the practicality of a stragety of guerilla warfare in a particualr situation. Comprende, amigo?

But to answer your question... sure I would support Jihadi tagetting US Marines in Iraq. FYI, even a certain US infantryman said as much week ago. Why? Heard of the idea of retalliation in War? Remember, the US doesn`t get to say when the war stops only so it can effectively go about its spoils-gathering. Or maybe you believe that fighting and killing under the command of Central Control, often against one`s will and values (if one has not learnt the art of completely suppressing those entities) in a war to secure economic advantage is of somewhat superior morality to jihadis fighting for silly (preceived) oppression of people with whom they identify.

``One reason the Pakis betrayed the Taliban, but not the Kashmiri cause is because they couldn’t make a killing out of giving it up as they did in the case of the former. That’s perhaps why post-September 11, when some journalists apparently expressed surprise at Pakistan’s quick acquiescence to President Bush’s demands, the US State Attorney told them that Pakis would sell their mothers off for a few dollars.``

``One reason the Pakis betrayed the Taliban, but not the Kashmiri cause is because they couldn’t make a killing out of giving it up as they did in the case of the former. That’s perhaps why post-September 11, when some journalists apparently expressed surprise at Pakistan’s quick acquiescence to President Bush’s demands, the US State Attorney told them that Pakis would sell their mothers off for a few dollars.``

Duh! The Pakistanis you refer to above are not quite as lumpen as the likes of noodle-heads would like to believe. There are the jihadis, who, you know, go about the dirty bisumess of killing and (don`t forget!) being killed. Also called fodder -- for the likes of the OTHER Pakistani you`ve stupidly lumped in with them: the administration/ agency bosses etc. The motivations of the former group are purely ideological and give little thought to personal loss. Those of the latter are often politcal and affected, naturally, by pragmatic concerns.

FYI, the like of the Pakistanis that enter Kashmir to wage war, and then some, did go into Afghanistan to fight alonside the Taliban, and DID end up in Guatanamo Bay. Sadly, such did not include the likes of Hamid Gul, former ISI chief. The jihadis may be terribly misguided, but please give them their dues: they`re not mere oppportunists, as are some of teh most powerful folks in the world today (before whom perahps you perform puja).

Some friendly advice: Don`t tune in to Sesame Street today. They`re doing the letter `J`. Wouldn`t want you getting convulsions and/or elileptic-like fits.

re. Ralph #288:
>>>You don`t find this evil?
``We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.``<<<

No, sir I don`t. I might believe that tit-for-tat is not always the best course of action, and that the likes of Hafiz Saeed have no legal right (moral, I`m really not so sure)
to take up arms against the oppressors of their brothers. I might even believe that the oppression is overstated and in any case much more complex than Mr. Hafiz likes to believe (Though, with India not allowing independent montioring agencies like Amensty Internation in, one is never sure about the extent of the oppression, so Indian, I`m afraid, loses the moral highground right there).

(I might even believe that India should have rightly keep control of it`s part of Kashmir, but that STILL does not impact on the issue of `evil`, does it?)

Evil? No, I`m afraid I can`t see it as any more evil than, for argument`s sake, say Turkish Kurds using guerilla tactics against Baath Party goons oppressing the Irqi Kurds (which is a much more analogous situation than what harish-hyd presents in #287)

In any case, I read Hafiz`s statement to be advocating the killing of THOSE Hindus that are responsible for Muslim deaths, as he did use the article/qualifier ``the`` in referring to Hindus, which was why i asked what was so inherently evil in what was SAID.

re. HisExcellency:
``Don`t claim that Pakistan Army is fooling the people on Kashmir, and misleading them into supporting Kashmir policy. After all, the same Army failed to mislead the Pashtuns and Baluchis on its Anti-Taliban policy. The truth is that people in Pakistan (like elsewhere in the world) are very perceptive. The army can`t mislead them on any issue for 57 years!``

Maybe it`s not just the army, but the whole establishment. I don`t suggest that the Pakistanis have been completely misled/lied to about the oppression in Kashmir, but it has certainly been an easy story to peddle to a mass already predisposed to intense distrust for Indians. There is a tendency to vindicate the two-nation theory and general unreliability of the Hindu/Indian by illustrating of Kashmir issue, although the propagation of this half-truth, half-myth has not been half as jingoistic as Jay would like to believe with his `K for kafir` fiction. (In fact, Indian ineractors would be surprised to hear that the Matric Pakistan Studies textbook does admit to the fact that it was India that originally took the issue to the UN, leading to the resolutions).

So, when the Army asks for 35% of the GNP, it knows that if it has to convince the public of its necessity, it already has a favourably disposed audience.

Ref HisStupidity #291

I opine that some English journalists (not the entire English press) are [advising the ``ditch Kashmir`` line. Read my post again. I have mentioned Shireen Mazari and Shafqat Mehmood on the same line. These are respected intellectuals who feel that Pakistan needs to keep the pressure on India by proposing talks anywhere at any level while also reducing infiltration.]

Shireen Mazari talks like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle of the US talk, except Pakistan doesn`t have enough firepower to back up her talk.

[Sooner or later, Kashmiri will erupt against India again like they did in 1964 and 1990.]

Pray to Allah for that. And see if the rest of India gives a sh!t even if the Valley erupts.

[If 90% of militants are Kashmiri then India won`t be able to accuse Pakistan of sending in Punjabis, Arabs and Chechens into Kashmir.]

Make that 100%. All we need is one dead Arab or Sudanese to claim that the insurrection is based in Pakistan.

[I will try to get a hold of a recent article by Shireen Mazari or other English writers and post it, just to give you an idea that English press is not unanimously in favor of ditching Kashmir.]

Please spare us the crap. I see her on PTV.