Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

# 113

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``With due respect to Cowasjee, Imtiaz Alam, Ayaz Amir and M.B.Naqvi, I believe a unilateral policy change will boomerang. These distinguished gentlemen are suggesting a unilateral policy change. How naive!!!``
+++

Columnists like the Cowasjees, Imtiaz Alams, Ayaz Amirs and M.B.Naqvis are all professional commentators - theirs are informed opinions - quite unlike the emotional opinion of HisExcellency or of the opinion of self-interest promoted in the cantonments.

Given the fact that the mainstream columnists in Pakistan seem overwhelmingly in favor of of what HisExcellency is dismissing as ``unilateral policy change``, it shouldn`t be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. A sensible person would rather trust the judgement of the Cowasjees, Imtiaz Alams, Ayaz Amirs and M.B.Naqvis than by of a person who goes by the name HisExcellency to denounce those columnists with a ``How naive!!!``.

Temporal has correctly suggested, ``The most obvious one would be to bring in a bilateral or multilateral commission that would recommend turning what is de-facto into de-jure border.`` It is a suggestion that carries conviction with thoughtful Pakistanis as demonstarted by the opinion columns by eminent journalists in mainstream newspapers of Pakistan.

I do believe that temporal`s radical solution will be acted upon if and when Pakistanis free themselves of the military`s dictatorship.

# 112

His Excellency wrote:
+++
``Pakistan claims only Kashmir and that too because of known historical, cultural reasons. And not an inch more of real estate.``
+++

Yes, Pak Military`s case is really about real estate. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily the military) to suggest that it cares any more for freedom and democracy in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for freedom and democracy for Pakistanis!

Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t care a damn for the people of Jammu & Kashmir. All it is interested in is the real estate. To that end, it has been financing cross border terrorism which has already succeeded in imposing the religious homogeneity of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir on the Kashmir Valley as a first step toward turning it into a fiefdom for Pakistan`s ruling elite.

If Pakistan`s ruling elite can let a quarter million stranded ``Biharis`` (who consider themselves Pakistanis) to rot in refugee camps for decades, it cannot possibly care for Kashmiris who don`t even call themselves Pakistanis. The ``Biharis`` will not come with any real estate - naturally
Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t want to touch them even with a 10 ft pole.

Funds were set up in Pakistan, and even in Saudi Arabia, to finance the repatriation of these hapless ``Biharis``. The Rabita trust was one such fund. And General Pervez Musharraf was himself on its board. I don`t know how much fund was collected by the Rabita trust for the purpose
over the years. But I was not very surprised to be told ruefully by a Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen on orders from the American government because they were being misused to promote terrorism. And that, in
a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` !!

Pakistan cannot really afford to fund the cross border terrorism. Unfortunately for Kashmiris and Pakistanis alike, Pakistan`s army cannot seem to afford to end its patronage for these terrorists either because ``Kashmir banega Pakistan`` has become its fulcrum to ensure that the military continues to be allocated a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth.

Jammu & Kashmir is multi-religious and multi-ethnic. Terrorists from across the LoC are trying to ruthlessly impose the religious homogeneity of Pak Occupied Kashmir on the rest of the province - not surprising in
view of the nexus between these terrorists and Taliban/Al Qaeda over the years.

``Kashmir banega Pakistan`` is not a Kashmiri slogan, it is a slogan engendered in the cantonments in Pindi & Lahore. It is a slogan designed to preserve the perks & privileges of Pakistan`s military. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily the military) to suggest that it cares any more for freedom and democracy
in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for freedom and democracy for Pakistanis!

And here`s something HisExcellency might want to mull over. Pakistan`s army had muredered three million Muslims in East Pakistan in 1971 to protect its vested interests. It should be truly frightening for anyone to realize that that is more than the entire Muslim population of the Kashmir Valey in 1971!

More ``freedom`` from the mass murderers of Pakistan. We have people funding killers while giving us lectures on secularism and living together. Shameless hypocrites !!
--------------------------------------------------------------

16 injured in Kashmir blast

02apr03
AT least 16 people were injured in a grenade attack carried out by suspected Muslim militants in the southern region of the Indian-administered Kashmir, officials said.

The attack in the town of Shopian, 50 kilometres south-west of Srinagar was aimed at police, but the grenade missed the intended target and exploded among civilians near a bus station, a police spokesman said.

He said three of the victims were in a critical condition.

In a similar explosion, a civilian was killed and 12 others injured at the southern town of Anantnag yesterday.

More than 38,000 people have died in Indian Kashmir since the start of an anti-Indian rebellion in the scenic Himalayan region in 1989. Separatists have placed the death toll twice as higher.

temporal: You are preaching to the converted here. I dont think (except for a few paper warriors) anyone will seriously disagree that we need to end the feud over Kashmir. But that is not what counts. Please direct your query to Musharaff, who calls the shots (is there a pun lurking here somewhere?) on this one.
You want a solution to Kashmir? Allow democracy to take root in Pakistan. Democracies dont go to war over territorial disputes. This is because normal people (excluding power-hungry dictators, psychopaths and paper warrior hypocrites) value human life much more than they care for how the international boundries are drawn.

re: arjun_m #122

[this change was brought about by ... A phone call from Uncle Sam with the implicit threat of destruction of Pakiland didnt bend over.]

True but only partially. The US also forgave their part of Pakistan`s foreign debt, lifted sanctions and leaned on others to reschedule Pakistan`s debt with 15 years of grace period.

Here is another fact that you might have missed. In August 2001, Musharraf had addressed the Annual Ijtimah (Religious Seminar) of Islamic scholars in Raiwind outside Lahore. This is the world`s second largest gathering of Muslims after the Hajj. Political parties and militant factions are not allowed to push their agendas at this Ijtima. The agenda is purely religious and social.

Unlike previous Ijtimahs, on this particular one the President actually delivered a hard-hitting speech against militancy and isolationist trends in Islam. Musharraf basically laid out a blueprint for the years to come in this speech. Naturally the Mullahs were shocked because they were not expecting this.

This clearly proves that Musharraf`s anti-fundamentalist mindset precedes 9/11. Uncle Sam simply facilitated the next step. In this regard, 9/11 proved to be a blessing in disguise for both Musharraf and Pakistan. It has virtually ended Pakistan`s isolation in the world and revived investment.

The second point: The Pakistan government repeatedly tried to lean on Taliban to stop them from destroying the Buddhas at Bamiyan. The obstinacy of Taliban strained the relationship already.

Assuming that you are one of the 0.001% Indians with an open mind, these facts clearly point out that Pakistan Army as well as politicians were more than willing to ditch the Taliban on September 13, 2000. They just needed a little ``economic quid pro quo`` from the U.S which they got.

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

Folks:

(this is more for my compatriots)

no sense in going around old circles...they have not taken as anywhere in the past...focus on what was written:

1:Do you consider Kashmir a terminal cancer?

a: Yes
b: No

2If you consider Kashmir a terminal cancer would you:

a: Go for immediate treatment?
b: Approach UN, the world public opinion, WHO?
c: Organize nationwide prayer campaign?

3:If you go down with the ship arguing, shouting empty slogans:

a: Would you be a Shaheed
b: A vain stickler
c: A loser

4:Would you prefer a healthy Pakistan

a: without Kashmir
b: with Kashmir only
c: with LoC = IB

dost-mittar: you are right

InYourFace: if you are a knee-jerker i am a savarkarite:)

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

Nice to see all the freedom lovers here. Also the great admiration for democracy and plebiscites. I am also a great supporter for plebiscites. We should have a plebiscite in both India and Pakistan on whether the partition was a good idea.

Let all 1.25 billion people decide whether this organization is a good one. Why confine the benefits of plebiscite to Jammu and Kashmir alone! Freedom lovers ! I will work in India to make this happen, you guys can get cracking in Pakistan. Why not start from Mudrike? The kill-the-kaffir lashkar guys will definitely appreciate this viewpoint.

Amusing the see immaturity here on the J&K issue. The idea that somehow pakistan is a world power that can ``compel`` this or that to happen seems to me the key idea! With that attitude nothing is going to change in the near future.

Preeto:
It would be safe to say that the majority of Indians believe that a Ram temple should be built in Ayodhya where the Babri masjid once stood. Yet, it would be correct to say that the Hindus want to build a temple there, because non-hindus are by and large against this project. With respect to Kashmir, I was tempted to add Sunni to Muslim Kashmiris, since shias of Kargil-Drass are largely disinterested in the movement; their loyalty is neither with India nor with Pakistan but with the ayotallahs of Iran.
I repeat that the fact that only muslims are involved in this struggle does not necessarily invalidate their aspirations, but it does make it clear that this issue, like Pakistan itself, was based only on religion and not on ethnicity, language, culture or any other determinant of nationality.

Only Kashmiris (Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others) have the right to decide the fate of Kashmir. They should be given a fair chance to show their will through a plebiscite as recommended by the UNO.

It`s true that the accessions of some independent states in India were decided by their rulers (Maharajas and Nawabs); but they were in complete harmony with their subjects. Their subjects were satisfied with their rulers. The majority in Kashmir was already upset with the appointment of Maharaja Gulab Singh (f/o Maharaja Hari Singh) as a political agent of the state. They were already protesting against the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh when Pundit Nehru sent in the Indian forces into Kashmir and got the accession of Kashmir by force. This cheat wrote to the PM of Pakistan that he didn`t mean to get accession of Kashmir when he sent his forces there. But he did the opposite of what he said. Later on he claimed that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Kashmiris (the majority) don`t like this badmaashi. India is not ready to give it up. But for how long?

I agree 100% with doug.

Doug:

You`re absolutely right. When there`re no material motives and we think that our discussion is based on some principles only, then why don`t we make our leaders take up the issue according to the universally agreed principles of justice.

It`s useless rather harmful for us to discuss this issue and spoil our personal relationship when the leaders are not willing to resolve it. Let them get punished by the freedom fighters if they don`t come to terms of justice.

The solution of Kashmir is possible only when the people of two countries i.e., India and Pakistan make their leaders sit on a table and make them face the issue directly instead of getting involved directly into it. Presently, they`re attacking the esteem of each other and damaging their own resources by doing so. They should stand behind their leaders to supervise them. They should kick the asses of their own leaders if they try to get away from the table with some blanket excuses. This is a very simple political issue which can easily be resolved with the principles of political science. Therefore, you don`t to discuss it on the forums. You only need to respect each other and make your leaders do their job instead of allowing them waste your resources on this issue anymore.

With due respect to Cowasjee, Imtiaz Alam, Ayaz Amir and M.B.Naqvi, I believe a unilateral policy change will boomerang. These distinguished gentlemen are suggesting a unilateral policy change. How naive!!!

On September 13, 2001 Pakistan made a unilateral policy change on Taliban and Afghanistan. Look what we got a year later. The pro-Taliban MMA now controls half the territory and 20% of seats in Pakistan. And Afghanistan is not even half as critical to Pakistani national interests than Kashmir is. This should be an eye opener for all Pakistanis who let India off the hook, by recommending the ``ditch-Kashmir`` line.

With over 72 political parties and thousands of madrassas, Pakistan cannot just ditch Kashmir. Nor should the world impose a decision on Pakistan (or India for that matter). Only a political party with popular support should take this decision, not a military dictator. Even Nawaz Sharif faced unprecedented embarrasment in 1999 when the Jamaat-e-Islami protested in Lahore against Atalji`s yatra.

Nothing hurts peace more than ham-handed uneven treaties. Humiliation of the one-side Versailles Treaty fueled Nazism in Germany 16 years later. Hitler played to the anger of Germans and militarized an entire generation. Indian and Pakistani chowkies should kindly refrain from one-sided suggestions if they want a lasting, permanent peace. Anything else may win a temporary peace but will unleash a bigger monster in the longer run.

So far India-Pakistan conflicts have been of short-duration, relatively less bloody and relatively less intense than say the Iran-Iraq, Cambodia, Vietnam, Serbian-Bosnian or Rwandan conflicts. There was hardly any ethnic cleansing of Indian civilians by Pak army in 1948, 1965 or 1971. And vice versa. If you count the number of dead in our 3 wars, it will probably be less than 100,000 for both sides combined! These wars were more about prestige and territorial gains than number of people killed on both sides.

But an unjust, uneven policy change made under pressure will generate so much hatred and frustration that this could change. The subcontinent is sitting on a volcano of religious, ethnic, and economic differences that might erupt into ethnic cleansing and nuclear extermination if ``the an angry man, at any angry time, starts saying angry things to an angry public``.