Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

# 64

HisExellency wrote:

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

If HisExcellency goes thru the columns of mainstream Pakistani journalists like M.P.Bhandara, Ayaz Amir, Irfan Husain, M.B.Naqvi, Cowasjee etc. he`ll find out that they are all advising the Pakistan Army to ``ditch the Kashmir issue``. Here are a few samples from recent publications:

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

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
21 March 2003 Friday 17 Muharram 1424

When words run out
By Ayaz Amir

``Our problem is not the US or our unholy dependence on it. Our
biggest weakness as a nation lies in everything being made hostage to
Kashmir and our India policy. Defence spending and foreign policy,
both derive sustenance from the way we look at India. Shouldn`t we be growing up and casting aside this phobia?``
+++
http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/30/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
30 March 2003 Sunday 26 Muharram 1424

The murder of Pundits
By Kunwar Idris

``Pakistan now needs to give a new direction to its policy on Kashmir and its relations with India. In the 55 years of smouldering dispute, often erupting in hostilities, the people`s right of self-determination has been losing both validity and world sympathy.``

``Once a principled stand, now little more than rhetoric, that Pakistan will never compromise on the right of self-determination or that there can be no peace in the region without it, thus, need not now form the main plank of Pakistan`s policy in seeking a peaceful and constructive relationship with India. The current trends and impending dangers advise against it. India`s defence pact with Iran and its growing influence in Afghanistan should awaken us to the reality of national interests taking precedence over common faith.``
+++
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/20/letted.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
20 February 2003 Thursday 18 Zilhaj 1423

Pakistan`s Kashmir policy
by GHULAM KIBRIA, Karachi

``Is it, therefore, not time we reconsidered our policy of impotent
`diplomatic and moral support` and let the Kashmiri Muslims continue
their freedom struggle, unshackled from ours, in practice, negative
support?``

``I am confident that unshackled from our `help`, the Kashmiri Muslims will defeat Indian imperialism, just like the Vietnamese defeated American imperialism, or other smaller nations overthrew their occupiers.``
+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Saturday February 01, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 28 1423 A.H.

Coping with the enemy
by Mir Jamilur Rahman
mirjrahman@hotmail.com

``Are we the target of Indian hostility because we are Muslims? Is India against Islam? The evidence does not support these premises. India has generally normal to cordial relations with the Muslim countries and Islam is the second biggest religion in India and thriving. India has close relations with Israel as well and yet no Muslim country objects. Even Iran under maulvis, at present the sharpest critics of Israel, has never expressed any resentment over Indo-Israel relations nor does it consider these relations a danger to its security. On the contrary it has signed a protocol with India for assistance and cooperation in the defence field.``
+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Monday January 27, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 23 1423 A.H.

Nancy Powell`s statement
by Imtiaz Alam
imtiazalampak@yahoo.com

``The fact of the matter is that Pakistan cannot afford tocontinue with cross-border infiltration and no justification on whatsoever ground is acceptable to the international community. Taking that course in the present circumstances will serve only the designs of the Indian hawks and the Hindu extremists. Time has come to say farewell to arms and push the Kashmir cause on a popular and political place where we can win the support of international community for the just cause of the Kashmir people. Those who think that militancy is a necessary tool to bring India to negotiation table have been proved wrong. It may have served some purpose at some point of time, but it has now become counter-productive. It`s now damaging the Kashmir cause. Tactics change with the flow and ebb of the situation which Jamaat doesn`t understand.``

``Pakistan must get out of blind alley it was forced into by our flawed security paradigm and must not let extremists push it to point of no-return. But, unfortunately, both the government and the opposition don`t have the moral and political courage to call the bluff of the MMA. It`s time to define what Pakistan can and cannot afford. One thing is clear, we can`t continue with the militancy in any form and on any pretext.``
+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday January 29, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 25 1423 A.H.

A new India policy, please
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``Ambassador Nancy Powell has told Pakistan at a public function that it should honour its commitment to stop ``cross border terrorism`` --implying it is not implementing its promise. American ambassador`s open criticism of the host country, unusual as it was, needs to be taken seriously. It is America`s policy and it drastically diverges from host country`s. It is pointless to rail against Ms Powell; she is only asking to live up to promises made.``

``She has clarified the situation: there is now virtually no country that supports Pakistan`s long running Kashmir policy, while all important governments more or less echo India`s stance that Pakistan `should do more` -- stop facilitating jihadis from crossing the LoC into Indian-controlled Kashmir. It is time to ponder the India and Kashmir policies``
+++
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
24 January 2003 Friday 20 Ziqa`ad 1423

Iraq strategy: grass for the cows
By Ayaz Amir

``About Kashmir we could take a leaf from China`s book which has not allowed the Taiwan question to impede normal relations with the US or the still unresolved dispute over the MacMahon Line to obstruct relations with India. We call China our greatest friend but have yet to learn anything from Chinese diplomacy.``

``All right, all right, Kashmir is more important than Taiwan and the MacMahon Line. It is the jugular vein of Pakistan, the unresolved business of partition. Agreed, agreed. But if a thing hasn`t been solved for 55 years we could at least try some fresh approaches. How long must we continue living in cuckooland?``
+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday January 15, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 11 1423 A.H.

Failed policies
by M B Naqvi
mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

``One thing remains certain: Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, indeed almost all of its India policy, and the consequent cold war, arms race and five big and small wars have not succeeded in their aim. India`s possession of Kashmir Valley --- the only part that interests Pakistan --- is as firmly under Indian control as ever; the 10 years of Jihad have made no difference. India will either go to a supposedly final war or go on frustrating all that Pakistanis and the Kashmiris can do; it has the resources, will and ability for the purpose.``

``Few can doubt that this Jihad-promoting policy has been counterproductive on two counts: it was sure to result in a war and India was ready to go to a war last year that did not suit Pakistan: there is no certainty Pakistan would win a war and Kashmir Valley would be its, despite the predictable costs and other uncertainties. Secondly Jihad-promotion could not but have a domestic cost; Jihadis, when and if done with Kashmir, would retrain their guns on targets in Pakistan. And this they partially did. The rampant sectarianism, attacks on the American or other foreign targets resulted, not to mention other conspiracies. Why pursue a policy with results that are unwanted?``
+++
www.jang.com.pk/thenews

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Monday January 20, 2003-- Ziqa`ad 16 1423 A.H.

Averting Iraq-like situation
by Imtiaz Alam

``Lesson from Saddam Hussein`s Iraq is that one should not become a prisoner of one`s own unwise rhetoric and indulge in adventurism. Suspicion about Pakistan, its nuclear programme and its Kashmir policy, are too much deep rooted and widespread. We will not have the luxury of making a single mistake. This is what our religious right doesn`t understand. And this is what General Musharraf`s administration is not as serious about as it should be. The Bush administration should be condemned for its war mania against Iraq, but we must avoid becoming another Iraq.``
+++

preeto # 92

``Kashmiris have been through a very long ordeal only because they don`t compromise on principles.`` Are you sure? Did you check out the track record of POK?

``Therefore don`t try to convince them that they should accept the status co and let India get away with IoK peacefully.`` Why? Why anybody can`t talk or use non-violent means to convince the other party of any particular stand? Is this a new theory being tested here?

``They can accept death but not the Indian occupation of their holy land. India has to quit IoK at least.`` Really!!!!!! Any logical arguement for this conclusion? And you use `at least` to convey that India can take over POK ?

``It`s not their problem if India disintegerates after this.`` Here at last I agree with you !!!!!!!

Keep it up and enjoy life!

An Appeal to Pakistani Friends:
For sake of clarity, whenever you mention Kashmiris, please have the honesty to qualify it with ``Muslim`` Kashmiris. As has been pointed out again and again by me and others, there are dogras, pandits, sikhs and buddhists in Kashmir but the only ones seeking secession from India are Muslims. The fact that that it is a Muslim problem and not, repeat NOT, a problem of other Kashmiris, does not necessarily invalidate their aspirations, it does however clarify the issue.

Indians know that they`re totally wrong in Kashmir. That`s why they avoid any peaceful discussion or the implementation of UN resolutions in Kashmir. They`ve been trying to apply their force mercilessly in Kashmir to supress the voice of Muslims who are in a very very big majority. They know that it`s not possible to keep them under their supression but they keep on wasting their resources on their foolish assignment given to them by a Kashmiri Pandit. There`s a solution to every problem; but there`s hardly any for the madness.

re:#37 by bhugidar_singh
You are right. In an ideal world, both India and Pak should get the hell out of Kashmir and let Kashmiris alone. But then, can Kashmir survive without India? Kashmir`s main revenue is tourism. Today, a lot of money is being pumped in by GOI to keep J and K going. Can Kashmir survive on its own. The moment India vacates Kashmir, Paki militants and then their army will move into Kashmir valley. Can Kashmiris defend themselves? Other big players like US may want to be there as the area is strategic.
May be, converting LOC into international border is the only viable option at present. If Pak stops terrorism across the border, may be this IB will dissolve and the 2 Kashmirs can be unified together. Relations between the 2 countries have to improve tremendoulsy. I do not see this happening as long as Pak military is in control. Look at this from any angle, LOC = IB is the only option.
Sridhar

Indians wish that the dispute of Kashmir should be resolved according to the will of a very small minority which comprises of Dogras, Pandits, Sikhs and Buddhists living in Kashmir, whereas Pakistanis wish that the fate of Kashmir be resolved according to will of the majority which is Muslim. Therefore, Indians want a radical solution, whereas Pakistanis support a logical solution of Kashmir. The radical solution is still a dream even after applying full military force in Kashmir by India. Logical solution is inevitable. India can only delay it, but with an irrecoverable heavy cost.

re:#44 by nomani
``Ignoring the decision of more than 90% population and giving priority to the desires of Maharaja Hari Singh or that of pundits is a kind of a justice which Indian govt cannot justify on the table or in any international forum``

The Maharajas and Nawabs ruled over their state and had sovereign right to decide on the fate of their subjects. There was no concept of democracy during that time. Even today, countries like Pakistan do not have a concept of democracy. So, it surprises me that, while you have a dictator ruling your country today, you are talking about democratic aspirations of Kashmiris. Get a functioning democracy first in Pak and then we can talk about democracy. What a frikking moron!
Sridhar

re:#69 by enlightening
Let me give you some piece of news that might be enlightening to you. Have you heard of something called the Instrument of Accession signed by Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of J and K.
Url:
http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/KashmirAccession.html
Now, do not jump up and down and say: what right did this guy Hari Singh have to barter away freedom of Kashmiris in this manner. This is how it was in 1947. Some states were ruled by Maharajas and Nawabs who had sovereign right to either join India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh chose to join India. It is another matter he did this under duress. Pathan tribesmen were knocking at his doors and he was not in a position to defend his state. Once he signed the document of accession, Indian army moved in.
Sridhar

re:#84 by nomani
Your dictator Mushy`s A$$ is for sale. It is cheap. Uncle Sam has rammed his dick into it many times. He is now fed up. After Iraq, it is another round of orgy time for uncle sam. Please advise Mushy what posture to adopt so he can satisfy his client (s) well.
sridhar

re:#89 by nakhok
I have always argued that military (especially the Army) in Pakistan is the real problem. It has the whole country in a vice-like grip and is not willing to let go. This sham democracy (that the Mushy whore calls ``democratic dictatorship``) has fooled no one. This army will go on until either Pakis themselves overthrow it (unlikely) or some outside agency does this job for them (more likely; see my post on what US may do after Iraq war is over).
Sridhar

re: Kashmir
Leave aside Kashmir, Pakis should be worried about this:

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=306738
Sridhar

re:#99 by dost-mittar
Your appeal will have no effect on most Pakis. Their mind is made up. I have closely interacted with 2 Pakis in USA. One was a good one. The other was a stupid one. The latter was educated in some place called Agha Khan Medical College, which is supposed to be prestegious in Pakistan. Both had some things in common. Both were passionate about cricket and Kashmir.
My good friend will at least listen to logic. But the stupid guy from this prestegious college (who was with me in fellowship) refused to believe that Ladakh was a part of India. This happened in a party given by an Indian, where all colleagues were invited. A Swedish research student, on learning i was an Indian, remarked how much she had enjoyed her visit to Leh. The Paki stupid guy jumped in to say Leh had nothing to do with India. I asked the student how she went to Leh. She said she had to go from New Delhi. The matter rested there. The Paki cut a sorry figure.
Leh is in Ladakh, a buddhist majority area. Most Pakis are so emotionally screwed up, they do not even have their facts right. They talk of Kashmir as if it is the valley and forget other areas.
Sridhar

---

Whenever we say Kashmiris, it means the majority of people living in Kashmir. By `decision of Kashmiris` it`s meant the decision of the majority. The small minority cannot be given preference over the majority. The dispute of Kashmir revolves only around this issue. The dogras and pundits wish to dominate the majority in the state of Kashmir with the help of Indian forces. The majority which is Muslim doesn`t like this kind of social injustice. The issue of Kashmir can be resolved only and only if the decision of majority living in both parts is given due respect.

----

Temporal,

``In India, with its polyglot democracy, the politicians would have a hard time selling it to their people. But not as hard as in Pakistan where the politicians face a double whammy. ``

On our side the `knee jerk brigade` would gladly agree with your `radical approach` i.e., .. .turning what is de-facto into de-jure border.

But, the real patriots Farzana and Thackarey would never settle for such a solution. Their goal is to make india/pakistan kneel ... and not interested in face-saving solutions.

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``.

re: nakhok

You have diligently quoted from Altaf Gauhar`s reminiscences about Ayub era and 1971 war. Ayub`s views on martial races, Bengalis and Hindus are not shared by Pakistani military top brass today. The anachronistic views of Mr.Gauhar are not relevant to the present Kashmir struggle.

You are clearly trying to obfuscate the issues by firing a salvo of irrelevant facts, half-truths and opinions of some journalists. Therefore, I renew my challenge to you since you didn`t meet it first time: Is there any evidence or opinion to suggest that Pakistan army has ever made designs to conquer India?

BTW, Kashmir is a disputed territory, not integral part of India. Since Pakistan doesn`t recognize Kashmir as Indian territory, liberation struggles in Kashmir do not qualify as ``invasion of India``. There have been secessionist movements in Tamil Nadu as well as Nagaland but Pakistan claim them at all. Pakistan claims only Kashmir and that too because of known historical, cultural reasons. And not an inch more of real estate.