Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

#76 by nomani on April 1, 2003
Shayad tum April Fools Day mana rahe ho.
Ya tom abhi-abhi gand mara ke aa rahe ho, kyon ki thumhara hosh thikane par nahi hai. Sir bhanna raha hai, kyon ke gand phati padi hai.

Your whole post is bakwas. Dekha jaaye to ``the so-called Aazad Kashmir`` ke rehne walon ke gand phat rahi hai. Not the other way around. From what I have read even the Kashmiris from the ``so-called Azad Kashmir`` have been replaced by the non-Kashmiris. That area is now largely populated by Arabs and the madrassah graduates of the likes of KhanSahibs and Waqars of Pakistan.

Anyway, we will find out sooner than later if Mr. Colin Powel is to be believed.

#76 by nomani on April 1, 2003
Shayad tum April Fools Day mana rahe ho.
Ya tom abhi-abhi gand mara ke aa rahe ho, kyon ki thumhara hosh thikane par nahi hai.

Your whole post is bakwas. Dekha jaaye to ``the so-called Aazad Kashmir`` ke rehne walon ke gand phat rahi hai. Not the other way around. From what I have read even the Kashmiris from the ``so-called Azad Kashmir`` have been replaced by the non-Kashmiris. That area is now largely populated by Arabs and the madrassah graduates of the likes of KhanSahibs and Waqars of Pakistan.

Anyway, we will find out sooner than later if Mr. Colin Powel is to be believed.

# 64
HisExcellency wrote,

+++
``Pakistani leader or general has ever declared the conquest of India as a policy objective in the last 57 years.``
+++

He also wrote:
+++
``I challenge you to produce any quote from any respectable Indian or Pakistani historian that will suggest that Pakistan Army had designs to conquer India!``
+++

This is what Altaf Gauhar (the powerful information secretary during the Ayub Khan regime) wrote of the original sin by tribal militias when they launched the Kashmir invasion in violation of the standstill agreement that Jinnah`s government had reached with the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir:

``.....the Kashmir invasion, planned by hoardes of lawless tribesmen of the NWF, who indulged in murder and looting as they moved into the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Khurshid Anwar, an ex-army officer, who was killed in the operation, was supposed to be the main organiser of this operation. The tribesmen were assured that the Indian army was too ill-organised to offer any counter offensive, so they could fight their war of freedom without fear. No one remembered that frontier rebels do not fight wars of freedom on behalf of other people. They settle their tribal disputes through looting, murder and devastation.``

``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan never made any secret of his contempt for ``Hindus``. It is another matter that he harbored even greater contempt for East Pakistani Muslims (just read his ghost-written autobiography ``Friends Not Masters``).

And this is what Altaf Gauhar wrote of the thinking behind the 1971 genocide in East Pakistan, ``What were Yahya`s assumptions when he ordered military action in East Pakistan? His first assumption was that the Bengalis would not have the guts to face the tall, muscular, West Pakistani jawans. His associates would recall how Ikhtiaruddin conquered Bengal with only 17 Muslim soldiers in 1203-1204 A.D.``

It was the general view of the army officers, that the people of East Pakistan were not even good Muslims and, obviously, by implication, that
it was the divine-ordained duty of Pakistan`s military officers to do everything possible (including murder and rape) to turn East Pakistanis
into good Muslims.

After General Pervez Musharraf`s Kargil fiasco, Altaf Gauhar wrote in the English-language daily, The Nation that all Pakistani operations against India ``were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan``.

According to Altaf Gauhar the 1947-48, 1965 and the 1971 wars were all started on this assumption. And so was the Kargil intrusion, which, he says, was initially authorised by Gen Zia-ul-Haq in 1987 and finally acted upon by General Pervez Musharraf to sabotage the bus diplomacy at Lahore.

In planning Operation Gibraltar in 1965, Altaf Gauhar quoted ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan as, ``As a general rule Hindu morale would not sustain more than a couple of hard blows at the right time and place. Such opportunities should, therefore, be sought and exploited.`

And when Kashmiris failed to give a ``hero`s welcome`` to the invading Pakistani forces, Altaf Gauhar wrote in a recent article how the ``Field Marshal`` had cried shame on the Kashmiris, themselves, for not heeding to the call of Pakistan`s ruling elite during Operation Gibraltar in 1965.

It is the chutzpah of the highest order for Pakistan`s military to raise the bogey of ``Akhund Bharat``. Pakistan`s ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum had been too brainwashed by the British rulers into embracing the ``martial races theory`` to have ever give any credence to the threat of ``Akhund Bharat``. The bogey was raised merely to establish its indispensability to the ordinary citizens of Pakistan for the purpose of cornering a disproportionate share of the national budget for itself.

General Musharraf gave some good offers to resuce India honorably from IoK which hardliners in Indian leadership rejected foolishly. Honor and grace don`t suit to some people. Nobody knows how Indians will get out of it now. Let them get what they`re getting from there. It`s with their own sweet will. It`s nobody else`s fault.

Here is one radical solution. This one was proposed by Benazir Bhutto.

Open the borders in Kashmir. Let Kashmiri families reunite and mingle with each other on both sides of line of control. Policing can be done by Kashmiris themselves. India and Pakistan should gaurantee that no aggression will be launched against the Kashmiri protectorate. UN may also position some troops there as an insurance policy.

The open border policy should be extended to Pakistanis and Indians i.e. they may also freely enter/exit Kashmir.

In the short-run, this solution will dilute both Indian and Pakistani claims on Kashmir but improve the quality of life for Kashmiris. In the long run, both India and Pakistan will be reap economic benefits.

Before we can talk about the final solution, we need to start the dialogue process between the two countries. The only way to avoid war is to keep talking. It is better to shout at each other than to shoot at each other.

The real challenge here is for India to break out of its ``no-talks`` mould. It is no secret that Indo-Pak relations are at their lowest ebb today.

Because of the internationalization of Kashmir, India is in a catch-22 situation. If they talk to Pakistan, all nations will come to know of India`s weak case and obstinacy in Kashmir. If they don`t talk to Pakistan, infiltration will continue and nuclear tensions will remain high. This will further internationalize the Kashmir issue.

Without international intervention, India can`t pressurise Pakistan. But if international community (read USA, UK, Russia, China) gets involved, it will do so on its own terms, not India`s terms. In other words, India can`t ask them to look at infiltraion but not at human rights abuses in Kashmir.

Therein lies the Indian dilemma. To talk or not to talk is the problem.

# 64
HisExcellency wrote,

+++
`` No amount of pressure on Pakistan or Pakistan Army will ever compel Pakistan to ditch the Kashmir issue.``
+++

I am not surprised by this desperate comment in view of the fact that it was Pakistan that started the cycle when it violated the standstill agreement with the King of Jammu & Kashmir by unleashing tribal militias and Pak soldiers on the kingdom. And this is how it has been recapitulated in a recent DAWN article:

+++
Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the
Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards
Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at
Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of
recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and
possibly a bit of rape on the side.``

``Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the
Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at
least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire
line.``
+++

The DAWN author makes no bones about why and how Pakistan violated the standstill agreement it had with the King of Jammu & Kashmir. No wonderthat to this day the HisExecellencies of Pakistan must maintain:

``No amount of pressure on Pakistan or Pakistan Army will ever compel Pakistan to ditch the Kashmir issue.``

temporal: Your solution, i.e. to change the LoC to an international border, is fine.
Of course this solution assumes that those in power see the Kashmir dispute to be a problem, and not a solution of itself to a different problem: how to keep the military relevant and needed, and thereby perpetuate their power.

ref # 64

HisExcellency wrote:

+++
Wherever Sikhs and Muslims are in majority, rigged elections held under military occupation replace democracy.
+++

HisExcellency is not particularly knowledgeable about the Indian federation. But suffice it to say that it is not just common but verily the norm in state elections in India for power to be transferred peacefully and often thru the ballot. Akalis and Congress have both been in and out of power in Punjab - not surprising in view of the anti-incumbency mood of the electorate.

BJP is currently in power over only 2 or 3 of the 28 states of India. 14 of states have Congress governments - and this includes such economically dominant states as Maharashtra and Karnataka. The ruling Party in Uttar Pradesh is a Dalit Party. Tamilnadu has been ruled by Dravidian nationalist parties of different hues for the last forty years. And Kerala, West bengal and Tripura have been under Communist rule more often than not.

Yes, it is not just common but verily the norm in India for power to be transferred peacefully and often thru the ballot.

Indian democracy certainly has its failings. But the fact is that the Indian electorate has exercised the power to change governments on its own. India hasn`t had to heed to the dictates of the Generals or of the World Bank to decide on its Prime Minister.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had a love-hate relationship with India. While he had spent much of his political career decrying India and everything Indian, there were moments when he let out that that his negative feelings and words were born as much of hatred as of envy and admiration. His thoughts on Nehru, expressed to an Italian journalist on the eve of the Shimla negotiations, are an example.

Most revealing are Bhutto`s thoughts on Indian democracy that he penned in ``If I Am Assassinated..`` while on death row. He went out of his way to praise the cacophony of Indian democracy and credited it for keeping together a country that is religiously and linguistically as diverse as India. Needless to say, Bhutto went on to make a comparison with his
own country in which Pakistan came off second best!

Kashmiris have been through a very long ordeal only because they don`t compromise on principles. Therefore don`t try to convince them that they should accept the status co and let India get away with IoK peacefully. They can accept death but not the Indian occupation of their holy land. India has to quit IoK at least. It`s not their problem if India disintegerates after this.

ref # 64 by HisExcellency

This is what columnist Ayaz Amir said recently of the massive power grab by military officers under General Pervez Musharraf:

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
07 March 2003 Friday 03 Muharram 1424

Pakistan`s cricket-general: five more years
By Ayaz Amir

``If performance were the criterion for sticking to a job or stepping down, a serious unemployment crisis would hit the higher reaches of the military. Colonels, brigadiers and generals are all over the place. They were scarcely under-privileged before but since the Musharraf revolution they have really come into their own. To the point that the line between the military and civilian spheres is all but blurred.``

``If all these men in uniform, busy these past three years doing everything except their own job, soldiering, were to be judged solely on merit, the ensuing mayhem and slaughter can well be imagined.``

+++

And this what another Pakistani journalist observed about Pakistan`s military officers:

www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Friday March 07, 2003-- Muharram 03, 1424 A.H.

Preserving the status quo
by Masooda Bano
mb294@hotmail.com

``Last week in the National Assembly in response to the criticism over induction of 600 military officers in civilian institutions, Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali`s best answer was that military officials were also Pakistanis and there was no harm in giving them jobs.``

ref # 64

HisExcellency wrote:

++++
Had it not been for Nehru`s obsession with Kashmir, their would not have been 3 wars in the subcontinent.
++++

It would have been far more honest of HisExcellency to write, ``Had it not been for Pakistan Military`s obsession with Kashmir, their would not have been 3 wars in the subcontinent.``

Nehru, after all, has been dead for nearly 40 years. The three wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999 were all fought after Nehru`s death. Furthermore, each one of them were initiated by a Pakistani General. HisExcellency would be more honest to blame ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan and Generals Yahya Khan and Pervez Musharraf for initiating the three wars.

ref # 64

HisExcellency wrote:

++++
``Indian chowkies are in no position to criticise Pakistan Army of being corrupt and genocidal. Look at your own country first.

Your army is not exactly a clean one either. There is massive corruption at the top especially in defense deals. Remember Bofors and Tehelka?``
++++

India`s military, like that in any other democracy, serves under civilan supervision. It is in no position to override the goals and interests of the peoples` representatives with the military`s vested interests.

The military in Pakistan, like that in any other country under military regimes, represent the core of the ruling oligarchy. That is why the Kakul kleptocrats enjoy perks and privileges that are far beyond those of military officers in a democracy.

HisExcellency might want to go over some questions posed on Chowk by Nighat Yasmeen for the army, in general, and for General Pervez Musharraf, in particular, in the article, ``Some Burning Questions``.

[The 1st set has 6 questions and are at the institutional level while
the 2nd set has 5 questions and are at the personal level. And when HisExcellency goes over these questions, he`ll realize such questions can never be asked of military officers in a democracy where defence allocations are set by their civilian supervisors who must seek re-election periodically to stay in power. In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is the military (which doesn`t have to seek re-election) that decides how much of the national budget should be allocated for the military. It is this incestuous arrangement that makes the military regimes so dangerous to the welfare of ordinary citizens in Pakistan. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Pakistan`s military is not an exception.]

Here are the burning questions to General Pervez Musharraf by Nighat Yasmeen:
.
.
(i) How do you explain that a professor holding a Doctorate -- who started teaching at a public university 35 years back, before you joined the army -- is not entitled to a single residential plot whereas the property you have amassed-- squarely due to your military service -- is worth hundreds of millions rupees?

(ii) How come a brigadier in the army has more perks and privileges than the Chief Justice of Pakistan (his tamely churning out of order-made indemnifying verdicts notwithstanding).

(iii) Why a senior surgeon serving in a government hospital doesn`t get a fraction of monetary rewards as compared to what a GOC grabs without doing anything productive at all?

(iv) What does a police officer get from the state, despite risking his life, putting up with abuses and curses of the public on daily basis (and quite often flouting the law at the behest of the junta), in relation to good-for-nothing military officers?

(v) Where in the world, a FA or at the most BA passed supervisor/foreman in a security firm is multi millionaire, by default, on his retirement, entirely because of his job?

(vi) Which government service, irrespective of tenure, academic qualifications and/or assignments, in the entire region of South Asia, results in comparable amount of financial gains than that of military career in Pakistan? What extraordinary, the military of Pakistan accomplishes to deserve the amazing remunerations?
.
.
(i) My son doesn`t get as little as a few tablets of Paracetamol after having queued for hours and endured endless humiliation at public hospitals. For your son there are helicopter ambulances, luxurious
VVIP wards at well-equipped military hospitals [strictly out of bound for common man] -- free of cost. Why this callous discrimination against innocent Pakistani civilian children - in their own homeland? General sahib, my son demands an answer.

(ii) Barn for cattle at military farms are generally better furnished than the government school of my daughter. And, she is lucky that she has at least a school, be in rubbles, to go to -- more than 50% of her civilian age-fellows don`t have even this symbolic consolation either. In contrast, your daughter`s birthrights include O-Level at sumptuous Army Public Schools on highly subsidized rates. Sir, my girl holds you and your fellow officers responsible for this malevolent disparity. What should I tell her?

(iii) 90% civilian children don`t have access to decent playgrounds, but for your kids the state provides thoroughbred stallions and instructors for riding. A pointer: 140 million ``ordinary`` Pakistanis have fewer swimming pools available to them than the sports centres exclusively on the disposal of officers of the armed forces. [I can substantiate this claim with exact figures]

(iv) My old frail father toils in scorching heat to make the ends meet, to pay the ever-swelling utility bills in time, you write off millions of rupees, due from your defaulting chums, as it was your dad`s property. One fresh glaring example: Wasim Sajjad. Why?

(v) Billions of rupees from the national exchequer were shamelessly frittered away on that lousy referendum, just for appeasing your unconstitutional ambitions. An exercise, ``the heaviest ever mandate``, no one gives a damn to. Doesn`t the hard-earned money of my husband and taxpayers like him deserve a bit more respect and a better use? Before I forget, how free and fair the referendum was if the Election Commission has to straight away [and illicitly] destroy all the records on your orders? Would you kindly elaborate this unmatched urgency?
.

Many Indians try to prove themselves as a big authority on Kashmir and they teach Kashmiris about their language and culture to justify Indian occupation of their land. Their governtment seems to know nothing about Kashmir and is facing hardships and disgraceful defeats in the hands of Kashmiris. Indian leaders don`t want to discuss Kashmir issue on table because they know the facts. Why don`t common Indians learn the facts about Kashmir from the actions of their leaders instead of learning from their false propaganda.

www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday April 02, 2003-- Muharram 29, 1424 A.H.

A new foreign policy?
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``To think that India would not negotiate is silly. It has to. There are
issues that require discussion and give and take. War is not an option
for India too. But it also wants a price; it looks it has to be paid
for various reasons: The Jihad is going nowhere; Kashmiris, after
sacrificing 70,000 young men and 14 years of penury, are not an inch
nearer to their Azadi. Pakistan also remains helplessly caught in the
coils of international crises because of that fruitless Jihad, with no
initiative. These are too good reasons for change. Let`s admit Pakistan is not in a position to force a desired Kashmir solution on India. ``

How Azad is ``Azad`` Kashmir? About as Azad as Pakistan itself. It ``elects`` its President from the same pool of talent, namely, Pakistan`s military:

http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/09/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
09 February 2003 Sunday 07 Zilhaj 1423

Governors in politics
By Kunwar Idris

``Last year an army general was asked to resign one day to take over as president of Azad Kashmir the next day. That may not have violated a law but inevitably caused dismay. Pakistan stands for the right of self-determination for all of the people of Kashmir but here even the free and unsuspecting among them were given no say in choosing a leader of their own.``