Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

re. pmishra #296
Amen, to that, brother! --though I don`t think, obsession or not, it would be easy or realistic-- given our history -- for mullahs, or even the common Pakistani, to forget the K issue as long as there are reports from there of gross human rights violations. India should, to this end, ensure transparency not only of state elections but its handling of dissent/ insurrection.

re: A new paradigm for solving Kashmir problem
I read this article in dawn. It is good to know that there are still some people in Pakistan who can think clearly and dissect thr` the problems. I am posting it in full because it think it is an amazing post.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/06/op.htm#1


``Futile calls for a dialogue




By Anwar Syed


Not a week passes without General Pervez Musharraf, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, or Sheikh Rashid Ahmad (media minister) offering India a hand of friendship, and calling for a dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute (the ``core`` issue) and other problems between our two countries. We are willing to talk about educational and cultural exchanges, trade and tourism, and we believe mutually advantageous arrangements can be worked out in these areas, once the Kashmir dispute is settled.

It is not known what our side will say about Kashmir that it has not already said, and which India has not rejected, in case the issue once again finds its way to the conference table. India has told us countless times that it will not let go of its part of Kashmir, and if that is what we intend to propose, it does not want a dialogue.

General Musharraf, Prime Minister Jamali, and other Pakistani officials have been telling foreign dignitaries that we want to negotiate a durable peace with India. ``Good idea,`` they say. We ask them if they will mediate our dispute with India, and their answer usually is, yes, if India will also invite them to play such a role, which of course India has no intention of doing.

Some of them, notably President Putin of Russia, have told us that we must first create conditions conducive to a useful dialogue, meaning that we must stop letting ``freedom fighters`` cross the line of control in Kashmir. We say we are not doing it, but nobody believes us. Note also that even if India does agree to resume discussions with Pakistan - for appearances` sake - there is no assurance that they will come to fruition.

When we know that our calls for a dialogue on Kashmir are not well received, and when we know also that no outside power can force India to negotiate the matter under our terms of reference, it is not clear why we keep issuing them. Where is the audience? Are these calls intended to give the world powers the impression that while we are the nice guys, anxious to resolve our differences with other parties by peaceful means, India is the one that is intransigent, arrogant, and militant? There is no reason to believe that even if our foreign listeners accept our interpretation of India`s posture (which is to be doubted), they will do anything about it.

Could it be that they are intended primarily for domestic consumption; to cause the impression that our government has not abandoned the issue; to create the appearance of activity when in fact there is none? That is a distinct possibility. All governments engage in this kind of rhetoric from time to time. The problem with this approach in our case is that it is at once irrelevant and dysfunctional.

As I may have said once before, it is wrong to assume that the great majority of our people do not want to ease relations with India unless it settles the Kashmir dispute to our satisfaction. On the other hand, those who feel passionately about Kashmir, who are ready to kill and get killed for the sake of its liberation, are convinced that our government has practically abandoned the freedom-fighters in Kashmir under western pressure.

There is still another explanation, astonishing though it may be. One of the more eminent Pakistani commentators said to me the other day that, in issuing these calls for a dialogue, we are only talking to ourselves! Many of us talk to ourselves; some of my fellow-professors do - or so their wives allege. But how does a government talk to itself?

I suppose it means that certain policy positions, having been repeated for decades, become a habit of the mind, and one keeps repeating them even if there is no occasion for their reassertion. This inclination is especially characteristic of bureaucrats, but generals and politicians will adopt it readily enough. It is so much easier and safer to say what has been said routinely before; innovation is both taxing and hazardous.

It is a part of our traditional discourse that if India made acceptable concessions on the Kashmir issue, peace would reign between the two countries, and all kinds of blessings would result on both sides: with peace will come amity and friendship, mutually beneficial trade, lower military expenditures, and more money for development and poverty alleviation. On closer examination all of this may be seen as a gross exaggeration.

Let us first take this matter of peace. It should be understood that everybody wants peace if it can be had on one`s own terms. Second, if peace means absence of war, then note that, excluding the Kargil affair and skirmishes along the Line of Control in Kashmir, the two countries have had peace for more than thirty years.

War has loomed on the horizon a couple of times during recent years as an Indian response to our material aid to the insurrection in the Valley. But now that our government has stopped, or intends to stop, the passage of fighting men and materials from our side to the Indian side of the Line of Control, the threat of war should recede.

If we keep the Kashmir issue on the back burner, so to speak, there is no reason for either side to make war on the other. Even if some persons on the ``lunatic fringe`` hope to mount the Pakistan flag on top of the Red Fort in Delhi, no intelligent Pakistani contemplates our invasion and conquest of Indian territory. Most Pakistani observers believe also that in case Pakistan remains peaceable, India will not attack.

It is argued that even if there is no actual war, tension will afflict relations between the two countries as long as the Kashmir dispute festers. That may be true, but it seems the Indians are able to cope with this tension reasonably well. The pace of their educational, economic, and technological development is considerably faster than ours. Their nationhood and internal cohesion are firmer today than they were fifty years ago.

Their political system is reasonably stable, and in international relations they are more influential even with our ``allies`` than we ourselves are. Everything considered, tension in their relations with us is not hurting them to any significant degree. If it is hurting us, it is our problem, not theirs, and we are the ones to find ways of overcoming it.

It is said also that if relations between the two countries improve, trade between them will flourish, and that will be great. I have no expertise in that area, but even a layman can see reasons for not sharing this optimism. First, it is clear that, being industrially much more advanced, India will have many more things to sell to us than we can to them.

Second, neither side will want to increase trade with the other to the neglect of its trade relations with other countries, especially the major economic powers. Third, if trade between them and us becomes free and open, it will ruin the relatively inefficient and non-competitive Pakistani industry.

Lastly, it is fashionable to assert that if Kashmir is settled, and peace and amity follow, then both India and Pakistan can reduce their defence expenditures substantially, and direct the resources thus released to economic development. This reasoning is not necessarily valid even if it sounds good. One might have expected that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and with the resulting end of the cold war, American defence spending would decrease significantly, but no such thing has happened.

New enemies and new threats to American security, ``world order,`` and democracy have been discovered, new doctrines (pre-emption) formulated, and new obligations perceived. The United States government has been waging a war that may cost a great deal in blood and treasure, ostensibly to secure to the Iraqi people the ``inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.``

The argument that a resolution of its disputes with India will help Pakistan reduce its defence expenditures may have a measure of validity. It has no other ``enemies`` in the neighbourhood, and its possession of nuclear weapons should suffice to deter unprovoked aggression. If it does not develop the ambition to dominate places across its western border, it would make sense for it to downsize its military apparatus.

But India`s circumstances and calculations are radically different from those of Pakistan. It is not maintaining a huge military establishment only to intimidate Pakistan. It has larger concerns and ambitions. Other world powers regard India as a counterpoise to China, and the Indian policy-makers contemplate the future in the same terms.

Of all the littoral states it has the largest navy in the Indian Ocean. There can be little doubt that it wants to be the dominant power in the region, which in its own reckoning includes Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Gulf emirates. We may then conclude that the state of its relations with Pakistan has, at best, only peripheral relevance to the size of its defence budget.

If amity with Pakistan is not one of India`s more important needs, what do we hope to gain by inviting its leaders to a dialogue in a framework that is unacceptable to them? It is high time for us to devise a course of action different from the one we have pursued for fifty years and which has been shown to be barren.

If we, on our own part, feel that improved relations with India will work to our advantage, then let us first address issues that are more amenable to resolution, and defer Kashmir to a more propitious time. When that time arrives, we can re-energize the issue. We don`t have much of a choice in the matter.``

Sridhar

Pakis pay heed: Here are some very good suggestions from a wise Pakistani.

Futile calls for a dialogue
http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/06/op.htm
By Anwar Syed

Excerpts:
+++
It is argued that even if there is no actual war, tension will afflict relations between the two countries as long as the Kashmir dispute festers. That may be true, but it seems the Indians are able to cope with this tension reasonably well. The pace of their educational, economic, and technological development is considerably faster than ours. Their nationhood and internal cohesion are firmer today than they were fifty years ago.

Their political system is reasonably stable, and in international relations they are more influential even with our ``allies`` than we ourselves are. Everything considered, tension in their relations with us is not hurting them to any significant degree. If it is hurting us, it is our problem, not theirs, and we are the ones to find ways of overcoming it.
+++

If we, on our own part, feel that improved relations with India will work to our advantage, then let us first address issues that are more amenable to resolution, and defer Kashmir to a more propitious time. When that time arrives, we can re-energize the issue. We don`t have much of a choice in the matter.
+++

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

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

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

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

re: the reality of Pakistani politics
While this forum seems to have become a duel between HisExcellency and nakhok, i thought i should post the following Url, which i found interesting:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_6-4-2003_pg7_60
Sridhar

The only way to end the Kashmir problem fairly is for Kashmir to be Independent. Yet this never happen in reality without Jihad...As Allama Iqbal said:


Qatl e Hussain asl mein marg-e-Yazid hai
Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala kay baad

The above principle can be taken as general: in the case of the Kashmir issue the `Yazidis are the Indian army and the Hussainis are the brave people of KAshmir who are waging jihad...insha Allah their blood will pay dividends. History is witness that no people have failed to win their freedom once they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause..that is why both kashmir and falasteen will be liberated no matter how long it takes...everyone knows it. Most of all the occupying armies of india and the zionist entity.

The core issue with J&K comes down to this: indians must re-affirm their democratic heritage, provide transparency and find a model that respects the grant of autonomy demanded by the Maharaja of J&K when he signed the instrument of accession.

For pakistan, the situation is more difficult. Because, it must give up an obsession and a false ideal. A delusion that its military and mullahs have collaborated on. Herein lies the problem...

Why is it that all the articles about Kashmir are written by people other than Kashmiris? This is the main problem.

I cannot see how the Kashmir problem will be solved by Pakistan and India agreeing to something, even if it is mutually suitable to each of them, without the wishes of the Kashmiris. That would assume that their is no internal struggle in Kashmir.

The solutions to such problems are usually quite obvious. It is just that the problems with the most obvious solutions usually have the most difficult second level solutions.

The solution to Kashmir is to allow the Kashmiris to vote for their future, and let the chips fall where they may. If the join India, Pakistan or become independent should be immaterial. Very simple. If they are allowed to do so, a generation from now no one will even remember there ever was a Kashmir issue.

It is only when this obvious and fair solution is ignored that unsolvable problems arise. The way to solve a problem is not to sweep it under the carpet, or by looking for unworkable second level solutions, which will not last. A problem is solved by making the concerned parties accept the obvious (which is usually the only) solution.

Being a Pakistani Kashmiri, I can safely say I am quite happy in being a part of Pakistan. Now lets get the opinion of the Indian Kashmiris - and not the Indian Hyderabadis, and Madrasi and Kolkatis and Delhiites. That is your solution.

re: #288 Ralph

[You don`t find this evil? ]

From Islamic point of view, killing of civilians/noncombatants is evil. Hafiz Saeed should not make such inflammatory statements for another reason, i.e. he is Pakistani. It would be okay (though not desirable) for Salahuddin, the Hizbul Mujahideen chief to make such statements. Only Kashmiri mujahideen should be making any statements about the Kashmir issue. Pakistanis should only endorse these statements and not vice versa.

re: nakhok

[HisExcellency has opined that it is just the English language press in Pakistan that is into advising the military regime into ``ditching the Kashmir issue``. ]

Incorrect. 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. In their opinion, the source of Kashmir insurgency is Indian misrule. Sooner or later, Kashmiri will erupt against India again like they did in 1964 and 1990. In their opinion, Pakistan needs to continue the low-intensity conflict at pre-1999 levels. This will keep the issue alive without jeopardising the region with war. In other words, groups that indulge in high profile attacks (Parliament, Nadimarg, Kaluchak) must be distanced. But indigenous groups like Hizbul Mujahideen must be supported so that India can`t paint Kashmir as an infiltration problem. If 90% of militants are Kashmiri then India won`t be able to accuse Pakistan of sending in Punjabis, Arabs and Chechens into Kashmir.

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.

Nevertheless, intellectuals in general consider it fashionable to criticize their countries, cultures, ideologies, politics and what not. This is true in America as well as South Asia. End of the day, public opinion can better be guaged through elections, referendums, opinion polls, etc instead of op-ed pieces.

Your suggestion of Pakistan Army`s obsession with Kashmir is not entirely incorrect. The existence of Pak Army depends largely on Kashmir, there would be no need to maintain 0.5 million troops otherwise. When the people of Pakistan feel overwhelmingly against some policy, they demonstrate their opposition to it quite ferociously. The Taliban-about turn was opposed by only about 20% of the population. Yet you could see thousands of people taking to the streets of Peshawer, D.I.Khan, Quetta, Bannu, Karachi and Waziristan against the Army`s decision.

Similarly in 1984, when the army was in power, there were widespread demonstrations in Sindh in the so-called Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD). During the late 1980s, Karachi saw massive demonstrations by Mohajirs against discrimination. In the 1970s, people filled the streets against Bhutto in favor of Nizam-e-Mustafa (i.e. The Islamic System of Muhammad) movement. During the 1960s, PPP and Awami League mobilized the masses against Ayub Khan.

If Army`s Kashmir policy is indeed at odds with the people`s wishes (as you claim), why have there been no massive demonstrations against Pakitan`s Kashmir policy? On the contrary, every year people hold large demonstrations in favour of Kashmir policy on February 5 (Kashmir Day). Clearly, your argument of Kashmir issue being Pakistan Army`s creation breaks down in the face of facts and logic.

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!

Any student of Pakistan history will tell you that Pakistani masses are quite knowledgable about Kashmir issue and support it wholeheartedly. The criticism of intellectuals simply adds color to the debate, but does not tilt it against the opinion of masses.

Cheers.

re: #286

I agree that internationalization of Kashmir has highlighted Pakistani misdeeds in Kashmir. Pakistan`s policy of using non-Kashmir jehadis hurts the indigenous movement. Pakistan should instead support Kashmiri-led jihadi organizations such as Hizbul Mujahideen. Hafiz Saeed and Maulana Azhar are Pakistani citizens. They have no right to lead armed struggle against India.

But on the other hand, internationalization of Kashmir has also highlighted the Indian misdeeds. The increased focus on Kashmir means that people all over the world are following elections, human right abuses and complaints of Kashmiris against India.

If this attention facilitates the reduction of 700,000 troops in India, the release of political prisoners and restoration of Kashmir`s ``special status`` under Article 370, Pakistan Army could sell these steps as a ``victory to the Pakistani public``. This will pave the way for a toning down of Pakistan`s involvement in Kashmir.

Both countries have maximalist positions. Pakistan wants plebiscitge, India claims Kashmir is its integral part. But in a negotiated settlement, the foreign office and top leadership deviate from maximalist positions to come to a middle-ground. This is how the bargaining process works. You start with an extreme position, then climb down slowly as the other party softens its stand.

In the end, Pakistan is not expecting to get a plebiscite in Kashmir. The US has already ruled out that possibility. But a unilateral climb down is also not possible. India will have to open talks, and then offer some fig leaf in the form of troop reduction, prisoner release, etc.

As for the Iraq option, I believe pre-emption is not a new option. India always had the option of preemptively attacking Pakistan. And vice versa. Drawing parallels between US-Iraq and India-Pak is pure rhetoric. US forces have a tremendous technological and numerical edge over a depleted Iraq. Iraq does not have nukes and its Republican Guard is already 1/3rd of its fighting capability in 1991. Most Iraqi tanks are outdated and immobile. These are being used as artillery pieces instead.

Pakistani nukes can obliterate all the major Indian cities in less than 5 minutes. And vice versa. Indian Army is aware of this. All this jingoistic talk by Yashwant Sinha is just coercive diplomacy. He is trying to threaten war, without actually fighting it.. in the hope that Pakistan will roll back its Kashmir policy unilaterally out of fear.

This sabre rattling is usual. I wouldn`t be surprised if suddenly one day Yashwant Sinha makes a hard hitting speech against Pakistan, and the next day India agrees to open peace talks with Pakistan.

#284 by PM on April 4, 2003 11:40pm PT

Let’s see what happens to Hafiz Saeed’s statement when India is replaced with the US, Hindus with Americans, and Kashmir with Iraq.

``Our policy of `Iraq through jihad (holy war)` is absolutely right... The US has shown us this path for jihad....We would like to give the US a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Americans, just like it is killing the Muslims in Iraq.``

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.

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.

Now, why are you frothing from your mouth?

PM # 284

Excuse me?

You don`t find this evil?

````Our policy of `Kashmir through jihad (holy war)` is absolutely right... India has shown us this path for jihad....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.``