Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

temporal sahib
this is one of those articles where the heading is the most powerful statement, the rest just an anticlimax..May be this ikhbari style colum-nigaari isn`t your cup of tea..

that should be the solution. LoC as the border. to allow a piece of land drive a wedge into the lives of people is dispicable.

as a Pakistani, i feel no dignity in justifying my country`s stance on Kashmir while the lives of the rest of the people get destroyed.

temporal wrote, ``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.``

I don`t think India has any problem with turning what is de-facto into de-jure border. But Pakistan`s military establishment does. It needs India as an eternal enemy to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the Pakistan`s wealth for the Military.

India is the status quo power via-a-vis Pakistan. From the time Jinnah unleashed the tribal militias of Pathans on to the princely kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir to the time General Musharraf went behind the back of his civilian bosses to start the Kargil war, it is Pakistan that has always tried to alter the status quo to its advantage. If Pakistan could assure India that it would not try to alter the LoC, I am pretty sure India would be more than happy to forgo its claims on PoK (Pak occupied Kashmir).

It is interesting to note 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.

There is a need for a change in the mindset of Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy of which the linchpin is the army. It had started off on the wrong foot when in 1947 it spread the word, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenege Hindustan.`` Flushed in its belief in the theory of ``martial races`` Pakistan`s army officers spread the word that one Pakistani soldier is more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. And to this day, there are those in Pakistan that articulate the dream that the Pakistani flag will one day fly atop the Red Fort in New Delhi. It is Pakistan`s irredentist dreams that had led it to unilaterally lay claim to Siachen.

Peace will not be far behind if and when Pakistan`s rulers stop trying to alter the status quo with force.

India is a status quo power. Regardless of its current public stance, India will gladly agree to giving up her claim on PoK and turning the LOC into a permanent international border. It is Pakistan that feels that it must acquire the entire Jammu & Kashmir to ``finish the unfinished business of partition.``

Pakistan`s ruling elite has a vested interest to paint India as the eternal enemy of Pakistan. It will continue to do so even if India were to aquiesce to the permanent exile of all residents of Jammu & Kashmir whose ethnicity, ideology or faith does not meet the approval of Pakistan`s ruling elite and even if India were to hand over the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan.

When Pakistan`s military swears by:

(1) the ``martial race theory``
(2) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten ``Hindu`` soldiers or,
(3) promises compatriots that they will unfurl Pakistan`s flag at the
Red Fort,

it does so, not because it believes in the bluster, but because that makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.

In real life, Pakistan`s military has always been far tougher on its own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of ``enemy`` countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the Knight in shining armor who will ride his big white horse to the Red Fort to unfurl Pakistan`s flag.

When Pakistan`s military breathes fire, it is to ``prove`` to Pakistani citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation`s welfare. But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make sure that Pakistan`s army can continue steal a disproportinate share of the country`s wealth for itself.

I have no reason to believe that Pakistan`s ruling elite cares any more for justice in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for justice for the residents in Pakistan itself or for justice to the ``Biharis`` left to rot in refugee camps for 3 decades.

Those that had preached, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan,`` on the morrow of independence, those that continue to preach, ``One Pakistani soldier is more than ten ``Hindu`` soldiers,`` will not change their tune or stance even if Jammu & Kashmir is handed over to them on a platter. They have a strong need to have India as an enemy country to justify the usurption of a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for themselves.

Pakistan`s military lobby was strong enough to force the break-away of the majority of Pakistanis in 1971 in order to preserve its own interest in the rest of the country. Today, it is just as determined to perpetuate conflict with India and for the very same reason. Jammu & Kashmir is merely the most convenient excuse at the moment. But, in its absence, it won`t take long for Pakistan`s military to find yet another excuse.

Pakistan`s ruling elite ought to ponder over the fact that here is a limit to what the people will tolerate. When the Kakul kleptocrats exhausted the patience of the long suffering ordinary citizens of Pakistan, the Tsunami of their wrath did not spare even the Ayub Khans and the Yahya Khans. It will not spare Pervez Musharraf either.

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`s ruling elite has been demanding a plebiscite as the panacea to end all injustice in Jammu & Kashmir. But what constitutes a fair plebiscite? Ensuring the fairness of the mechanism of casting and counting of votes is a part of it. But a fair plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir needs to be much more than that.

A plebiscite cannot be fair if it allows the majority to infringe on the fundamental rights of an unpopular person or minority. Thus, even if a referundum in Iran were to validate Ayatollah Khomeni`s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it will not turn the deadly fatwa into fair and democratic action.

The plebiscite that Pakistan`s ruling elite demands in Jammu & Kashmir cannot be fair, in spite of every thing, if they are merely the means to destroying the age old regious diversity of the land.

``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a slogan of the Kashmiris, by the Kashmiris and for the Kashmiris. It is a slogan engendered and nurtured in the cantonments of `Pindi, Lahore and Sialkot that aims to impose the religious homogeneity of Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) on the rest of Jammu & Kashmir as well. Here`s an article that articulates the pitfalls of plebiscite on the plank of ``self-determination.``


The Horizon
30th October, 1998

Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi

Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this
once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.

The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self-determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.

Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of
``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.

Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``

Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.

Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.

[In the meantime foreigners are selling us big ticket armaments, our defense honchos are becoming fat and business leaders fatter.]

Well, I saw a soldier (not a regular policeman) standing guard in front of an apartment complex near my home. It seems the retired Indian Army chief has moved there.

That is what our defence honchos get for 35 years of service. A flat worth maybe $120,000 in Chennai from his savings.

Musharraf bungled it up at Agra. He should have come back with a piece of paper normalization relations between the two countries. People to people contact, trade and commerce and so on.

On this issue, I agree with India`s stance.

At present, there is a no statesman on either side who can look beyond his nose. BJP needs an issue for votes and Pakistan army needs an issue to justify itself.

This is a hangover from the colonial past and let it rest for the present as it is. There are more urgent issues such as poverty and illetracy on both sides.

If China can wait for a decades/century to get its issues resolved peacefully, so can we.

Too much has already been lost. There isn`t much support for an independent Kashmir in the powers that be in Pakistan either. Neither India nor Pakistan have full Kashmir. Kashmiris may not be happy about India and Pakistan holding parts of Kashmir but the state had been quiet until 1980s. The development of industry in Kashmir had lagged but the state did receive the largest share of Federal funds per capita.

Changing the status quo at this time will uncover very deep wounds that time is beginning to heal. New generation in India doesnt carry the baggage of partition. New generation of Pakistanis should also be the same. Rehashing partition at this time should be the last thing on our minds.

temporal,
a good try here. Especially liked:
``Both nations have clouded the ideals of Gandhi and Jinnah. Aside from their portrait hung in all government offices their only practical legacy is etched on the 500 rupees note to facilitate corruption.``

The Challange lies in the turning the LOC into a permanent border.

Without the creation of a ``Kashmiri Entity`` it will be difficult.

A state that is Part Indian and Part Pakistani in landmass but Kashmiri in

identity (meeting at the LOC) is our best bet.

The state will have a local identity but no international personality.


Ras

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.``

temporal jee,
very good article in deed.i will come back

Question: If desi governments resolved the issue of Kashmir with radical approaches, how would they disguise bad governance by those in power?

Answer: Those in power are just diverting attention from those who rule, so Kashmir is somehow linked to a solution for good governance in both countries.

With the Iraq war on, never a better time in the last few years than now to improve governance. Point is, will we realise it?

temporal:

Before getting into the discussion, the problem has to be defined. What is the Kashmir problem?

1) Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan because it was a Muslim majority state.

2) Kashmir is a problem because it is a Muslim majority state in India.

3) Kashmir is a problem because Kashmiris are unhappy living within India.

4. Kashmir is a problem because Pakistani military establishment has found it most useful to dominate the civil society in Pakistan

5. Kashmir is a problem because India has not treated Kashmiris badly and they are unhappy.

The problem could be one of them, some of them or all of the above.

Lets dissect each one by one.

1) It is true that Kashmir had Muslim majority state and did not end up in Pakistan. The problem is that legality of Muslim majority going to Pakistan was agreed upon by two makor political parties with colonial government. Whatever, Jinnah, Gandhi or Nehru said or agreed upon was before partition and in the absence of Pakistan and India prior to August 14, 1947, they spoke as leaders of major parties and not nations. Once partition happened, all the movement leading to independence became part of history. The outstanding issues between two countries should have been agreed upon between two governments of independent nations to have legal basis for discussion and taking it to international body like UN. Because Jinnah and Nehru agreed upon something in the presence of British have no legal status once both became head of state of their respective nations. This would be akin to considering all my posts as Pakistani government policies if one day I become Prime minister of Pakistan. Did Nehru and Jinnah agree after independence about giving Muslim majority areas of India to Pakistan and Hindu majority districts of formr East Pakistan, Sikh majority areas of Panjab and Hindu majority districts of Sindh to India?
It is not smart to expect Pakistan and India trading territories once both imposed their currency and administration on all of their countries. It is absically pulling the plug on issue. Pakistan did raise this issue and went to war unilaterally.

2) There is no logic to handover KAshmir to Pakistan now because Kashmir is a Muslim majority state. Many countries around the world have minorities and minorities dominated states. Whole world would be turn upside down if majority-minoiry is made a basis for giving right of self determination. That right once might lead to one result and another time another. Qubec in Canada has come very once to achieve 60 percent vote for breaking away. The independence is usually irreversible no matter if people change their mind as they often do based on situation. Immediately after the fall of Soviet empire, Leningrad voted to change name to St. Petersburgh with 50.4 percent majority and now they would vote for Leningrad again if given the chance. Nobody asked Lyallpuris to change the name to Faisalabad but government would not like to have vote on this topic, even if Faisalabad might win now over Lyallpur.

3. If Kashmiris are unhappy living within India then it is internal Indian problem just as East Pakistan was Pakistan`s internal problem which India did not respect. If it is this a tit-for-tat , that is fine with me as a Pakistani but beyond that it is difficult to get rest of the world agree to me.

4. Enough has been said about the role of Kashmir in the military domination of Pakistani civil society. Most Pakistanis do not like it and no military dictator has ever achieved majority Pakistanis support - Musharraf referendum a case in point. That is why, outside religious plitical parties, Kashmir gets only luke warm support from mainstream political parties with regional and leftist parties almost moot on this issue. The Balochi, Sindhi or PAshtun nationalists hardly put Kashmir on thier agendas. Theoretically a party of Panjabis along the line of MQM would quietly oppose it for the reason fo diluting their strength at the national assembly level.

5. There is definitely some truth to mistreatment of the democratic rights of the Kashmiris with Pakistani style election rigging common in Kashmir. It is still an internal Indian problem.

The bottomline is that justification for going to war over it or inserting terrorists in Kashmir does not exist nor did India and Pakistan had any justification for capturing Siachen and starting Kargill war, respectively. Both nations must be fair to their population irrespective of religion. Both people having found security in the nuclear weapons deserve to divert all attentions to uplifting the standard of living and basic human rights and that should be of prime importance.

Temporal:

Pardon my saying so, and I do not mean it in the wrong way, but this article is a copout.

I agree with everything you say here. Which reasonable person would not? Yes, we need a solution to Kashmir. Problem comes in delineating the solution. That you have stepped away from.

You see, it is easy to blame the politicans and the establishment. But even in the establishment there are people who have tried. Well meaning people, intelligent people. We may call our leaders and the bureaucrats fools, but that too is a copout.

The issue is intractable. Honestly, I do not even blame Pakistan for taking advantage of the insurgency which was home grown to begin with. The Indian gov`t screwed up one too many time. Guess they could no make up their mind, to be soft like Canada or hard like China.

I think India has an advantage, not because of it`s size, but because of it being a status quo power. The Indians too have learnt a lesson. If peace is achieved, a central government would think 100 times before dismissing a Kashmiri gov`t. But both sides are not tired yet.

We all agree on the need of a solution, but we cannot create one to satisfy the power centers. You say time for a radical approach, and yet you shy away from offering one. Why?

temporal saheb:
I agree with you in general.
I think that India should give up its formal stance that it will not accept outside interference on the Kashmir issue. I said ``formally``, because it has informally accepted American intervention since the Kargil war. The earlier Indian suspicion of outsiders was understandable as India and the U.S were on the opposite side of the cold war. But in the new geopolitics, India should not have any such suspicions. And the outside mediation will most likely result in, as you say, de jure recognition of the de facto borders, with some minor adjustments to placate the Pakistanis, and greater autonomy for Kashmiris.
The new geopolitical situation makes it imperative that India and Pakistan should see the danger from outsiders and not give the world`s sole superpower an excuse for ``regime changes`` on the subcontinent. Pakistan faces the more immediate threat in this regard because it, including its state agencies, is correctly viewed as a breeding ground for Islamic jihad. But India should also know that America would not like any regional power to get too big for its boots. The American interests may coincide with that of India today but this situation may not last for ever.
Pakistan keeps saying that it wants to have a dialogue with India. But such a dialogue will be meaningless if it turns into another Lahore or Agra. It would be more useful if the two countries agree to reestablish people-to-people contact. This alone will make it easier for the leaders of the two countries to sell any compromise on Kahsmir to their respective peoples. But Indians, and not just Advani & Co., will not now accept even any normalising of relations between the two countries until they are convinced that Pakistan has stopped recruitment and training of those causing mayhem in Kashmir. Will any Pakistani govt. be willing and able to do that?

Another pathetic article refusing to accept the reality. Kashmir is only a symptom of a fundamental problem. Why did pakistan create taliban. Why are 200 pakistanis in afghan prisons. Why did one pakistani was sent to the US, killed and brought back, legally. Why are the chehnians in pakistan collecting funds. Why is dawood ahmed a honoured guest in pakistan.
Any one who cannot find a common thread linkin all of the above to kashmir problem is a rank idiot. Kashmir, afghanistan, chehniya, hopefully iraq are the bassic needs for the children of an ideology called TNT to meet their inner cravings.

pro long deliberation united nation ordered cease fire in 1949,fate of disputed state to be deceided according to the will of of the people of the state .MR NEHUR himself decleared accassion of kashmir will not be a marriage of comprise,but in the form of plebsite as annalciated by security council,passed anonymously by all members.it is the pledge that people of J&Kare lying down their lives .india has agreed for plebsite and adhere to it for some year,slowly and gradually broke the promise.india must remember non violance teaching of mahatama GHANDI.both india and pakistan hands off from kashmir .declear independant state.that would bring peace,harmony and prosperity,not only to india,pakistan and kashmir but to the subcontenent

Ref sameerJB #13

[... It is true that Kashmir had Muslim majority state and did not end up in Pakistan. The problem is that legality of Muslim majority going to Pakistan was agreed upon by two makor political parties with colonial government.]

Not true at all.

The agreement that Muslim-majority areas will go to Pakistan applied only to British-India. The princely states could make up their own minds about what country to join. Kashmir was a princely state under Hari Singh and Hari Singh had the sole authority to decide which country to join. Bhopal, ruled by a Muslim nawab and having a goodly Muslim population, joined India even though the nawab`s family migrated to Pakistan later.

The real problem was Jinnah sending in the tribals to conquer Kashmir because Hari Singh wanted to test the possibility of remaining independent. If he had given Hari Singh a bit more time, the popular voice of Kashmiris would have been heard and either Kashmir would have joined Pakistan and Hari Singh would have packed off to New Delhi or Sheikh Abdullah would have supported accession to India (which he did anyway). The case would have been very clean. Jinnah muddied the waters.

He also muddied the waters with Junagadh and Hyderabad. But that is a different point. Or maybe not. Depends on your viewpoint.

Ref dost-mittar #11

[And the outside mediation will most likely result in, as you say, de jure recognition of the de facto borders, with some minor adjustments to placate the Pakistanis, and greater autonomy for Kashmiris.]

What exactly is the definition or meaning of greater autonomy? As it is, the louts are running Bihar with no control; the Sangilikkaruppans are in power in Tamil Nadu; SM Krishna of Karnataka thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court refusing to release water from the Cauvery river to Tamil Nadu; Kerala is building dams across a river that starts in Tamil Nadu, wanders a few miles into Kerala before returning to Tamil Nadu, so that they could divert the water into Kerala. One may not like Sheikh Abdullah, Farouk Abdullah or his son Omar but they were/are native Kashmiris who mismanaged the only state which got the greatest amount of handouts from the Center. True, that she-dog Indira Gandhi attempted to bring in a Congress govt through rigged elections in Kashmir but that was long ago and the National Conference came back to power. Does the Center interfere in the affairs of any state? It cannot because it is a coalition government that requires the support of Telugu Desam which is in power in Andhra, National Conference of Jammu & Kashmir (recently ousted in the elections), and those who want to share in the Center`s treasury such as DMK, Congress (N), Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal, and a total of 22 parties. The current chief minister of J&K himself used to be the Central Home Minister a while back whose daughter was kidnapped by the militants in Kashmir and he is trying to ``bring the healing touch`` to Kashmir. Of course when his daughter`s life was at stake, he got the Central govt to meet the militants` demands so that he could get her back but now he is releasing all those guys from prison without consulting the security authorities. How much more autonomy do you want?

J&K is not going to get its own currency, army or ambassadors to the rest of the world. They have to learn to behave like a part of India. Then, whoever gets elected can rip off the locals. Anyway, that is the aim of all these militants: how to get into power. It wasn`t that different in 1947 with Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan.

# 6
nazarhayatkhan
im reminded of something someone said wrt the agra summit which struck me as very true.. musharrafs personal victory at agra was at the cost of pakistan as a nation

...t dude, stick to being a cheerleader in a pink skirt for farceanna`s trash...the rest of your nonsense is exposed quite well in #16...

Temporal:

It should have been easier for all the three parties to backtrack on Kashmir now because:

1. The military for the first time has receded from its aggressive posture on Kashmir (i.e. from proxy war).

2. The Islamists are also talking about Simla Accord and Lahore Declaration. To a question to Maulana Fazal ur Rehman of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (MMA) at ARY Digital TV on Islamic countries not supporting Pakistan on Kashmir as forcefully as Pakistan does on Palestine, he said that `its because Kashmir is a bilateral issue and we have signed agreements to this effect. The issue of Kashmir therefore, has to be resolved bilaterally and not internationally`. Professor Khurshid Ahmad of Jamaat-e-Islami (MMA) yesterday told the PTV interviewers that in response to belligerence being shown by India on the killing of Kashmiri Hindus, we need to be sympathetic to human misery there and keep inviting India to a negotiating table under the provisions of the two bilateral agreements.

Problem: Pakistan has decidedly gone against the USA on War on Iraq instead of maintaining a balanced position, hence our arm has to be twisted. Therefore,

1. Accusation of helping some 3rd country on nuclear technology have surfaced again.

2. Restrictions have been put on our exports once again.

3. And specifically on Kashmir, suddenly the totally non-motive oriented Kashmiri massacre has taken place and Indian Government has become belligerent. In a statement issued immediately after the gory event, General Musharraf had said that `unknown forces are playing in Indian held Kashmir`. I predict that such incidences will increase. There may be a hoax attack on some other Indian national symbol of pride or a hijack drama by these unknown forces. In a matter of factly way, I am suggesting that the USA will now be encouraging India to get back to work on Pakistan. The unknown forces will ensure that India does that.

So much for a radical approach for Kashmiris.

I think temporal aims to twist the facts. He started his article with the following note:

‘Kashmir is the key, let us discuss it first,’ says one side. ‘Let us discuss all bilateral issues,’ says the other.

Indian leaders have never meant to discuss all the bilateral issues. If they`re sincere then why don`t they start discussing all bilateral issues? Why did they get angry when Musharraf asked them to modify their statement as , ``Let us discuss all bilateral issues including Kashmir?``

When Indian leadership is not ready to include the word Kashmir in any of their statements regarding Pakistan then what kind of radical approach you want to suggest?

Do you want to befool others or just yourself?

-

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

Pak-o-Ind relations would have been much better had Nehru fulfilled his promises which he made in the UNO to get a ceasefire in Kashmir. Earlier he made similar assurances to the Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan.

Jawaharlal Nehru sent the following telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan, the Prime
Minister of Pakistan:

``I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view``

Unfortunately he did everything opposite to what he promised or said to make clear. The subsequent governments in India continued this policy of cheating.

I think Kashmir is a matter of a false prestige for Indians whereas it’s a matter of right and justice for Pakistanis.

--

Indians got the biggest piece of land only because of plebiscite. Why do they wish to deny a small piece of land to Kahmiris through the same process? Why do they wish to keep the Kashmiri families divided across LoC permanently? Why are they wasting a big part of their own resources only for this evil wish?

re: #3 by nakhok

A typical Indian response to Kashmir.. Pak army is the villain, everybody else including Indian politicians are the heroes. Tsk tsk, when will you every learn that Pakistanis are too smart to fall for this trap.

Basically, you have not said anything new except the same hardline policy that ignores the aspirations of Kashmiris and pegs the entire blame on Pakistan Army.. as if the Pakistani generals suddenly engineered an entire movement in Kashmir.

I am afraid you give more credit to Pakistani generals than they deserve:)

First, lets set the record straight.

1) Kargil was okayed by Mian Nawaz Sharif himself, in the presence of several cabinet members and military officers. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain (the Interior Minister in Nawaz govt and a powerful Muslim League politician) was sitting in the same room when Kargil was being planned. This is common knowledge in Pakistan.

2) A common misperception in India is that Pakistan Army wants confrontation whereas Pakistani politicians/civilians want rapproachment. This is far from true.

The first Indo-Pak war in 1948 happened while the Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah was in power.

The second war in 1965 occurred when General Ayub Khan was in power. But the architect of Operation Gibraltar (that started it all) was Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a civilian.

The third war in 1971 happened when General Yahya was in power, but once again the architect of this war was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He threatened to break the legs of any PPP MNA who attended the National Assembly session in Dhaka. Until February 1971, the Army was quite willing to transfer power to Mujibur Rehman. Bhutto`s threats to boycott the session became shrill after Feb 17 and the rest is history.

And the near-war in Kargil itself was okayed by Nawaz Sharif.

3) Only a few Jihadi outfits dream of a ``Pakistani flag at Delhi``. The army, politicians and most of the Mullahs don`t share that dream. You are simply using the utterances of a few fanatics to draw incorrect conclusions about an entire nation.

4) And finally, the misconception that India is pro-peace and Pakistan is pro-War. Let me remind you of 1971.

Pakistan and India had already signed a bilateral agreement at Tashkent 5 years ago. Both countries were at peace. Cricket matches were being played, the spirit of friendship was in full swing, Indo-Pak relations couldn`t be better. Then suddenly Indian intelligence engineered the hijacking of an Indian Airliner. The intent was to cancel overflights from West Pakistan to East Pakistan.

The big neighbour was conspiring to breakup the little neighbour all through the 5 years from Tashkent. Mukhti Bahni was funded and given shelter in West Bengal. Indira Gandhi suddenly started making speeches about ``cracks in Two nation theory``. Instead of letting Pakistan take care of its internal problem, India attacked the status quo and broke all rules of Tashkent.

I ask the Indian chowkies: Why this hypocrisy?

If it was okay to uphold human rights and secession in 1971, why not in Kashmir in 1989? If it was okay to challenge the status quo in Dhaka, why not in Srinagar? If it was okay for Mukhti Bahni to kill Pakistani soldiers in East Pak, what is the big deal about Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar fidayeen attacking Indian army in Kashmir?

It is quite clear that there is a large constituency of Pakistan haters in India who will not stop at their machinations even if Kashmir issue is resolved. For them, Pakistan is a defeat for their fantastic ideas of ``Akhund Bharat``.

-

Indian govt thinks that it could keep India united only by keeping its people focused towards Pakistan. If Kashmir gets independent then there`re many other states which are ready to demand their freedom from India. On the other hand if Pakistan gives up its stance on Kashmir then Indian govt will open some other sector. There was only one time in the history when Pakistan kept a low profile about Kashmir, then India moved towards Siachin. Therefore, it’s better for Pakistan not to ignore Kashmir. It must settle this issue first with India before talking something else.

Never turn your face away from a dog when it’s still unleashed.

-

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

Kashmir issue is created by the British rulers who failed to rule over Kashmiris directly. First of all they sold Kashmir to Maharaja Gulab Singh against the will of Kashmiris. Then they paved the way of illegal Kashmiri acession to India by giving the district of Gurudaspur to India even when it appeared as a Muslim majority district in the Indian plebiscite. Without Grudaspur India had no geographical link with Kashmir.

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

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

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

harimau #21: I agree with princely states status including Hyderabad and Junagadh but my point was that an agreement between parties before the existence of India and Pakistan has no meaning officially for the nations of India and Pakistan. Both Pakistan and India existed only after midnight between August 14 and 15, 1947.

The current status of Kashmir is only meaningful in the lights of Tashkent, Shimla or Lahore agreements - if there were any, because those are the agreements between two independent nations and not political parties. Parties act according to different priciples than nations. The JI or JUI can recognize Taliban`s right to rule Afghanistan but Pakistan as a nation does no longer accepts Taliban as legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. Similarly ML of Jinnah represented Muslims of subcontinent and not Pakistanis. Now Pakistan makes up only about 1/3 of total subcontient Muslims and can not speak on behalf of all Muslims.

For example, Colombia considers creation of Panama as unfair or forced separation from Colombia but Panama can not accept it because Panama did not exist at the time of unfair separation under influence from USA.

What is India`s motivation is seeking a negotiated settlment? They have expressed none of the desire for a negotiated settlement, rather their position is ``sign here``. Seems to me, we misread the circumstance, the Indian economy is doing well, thank you, it`s armed forces brim with confidence, it has created a consensus among it`s poulation base that confrontation has paid dividends, all of this while a stuggle involving not only internal suppression but the possibility of armed hostility between the armed forces of both countries - so really, what`s the motivation for the Indian??

People of sub-continet cannot come out of their poverty and other problems unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. Kashmir issue cannot be resolved unless leaders from both countries discuss this issue on the table.

People of the sub-continet should use their common sense to find out which party is trying to avoid the peacful discussion on the table.

They need not waste their own time in the arguments which are based on the propaganda of their incapable leadership. If they think that there`s some weight in the propaganda of their leadership, then they should tell their leadership to speak the facts on the table instead of keeping the issue unresolved for years and years and years.

nomani # 24 wrote:

``Why do they wish to keep the Kashmiri families divided across LoC permanently?``

By Kashmiri, nomani probably means Kashmiri speaking Muslim families. I don`t think Buddhist Ladakhis, Hindu Kashmiris or Hindus & Sikhs of Jammu are certainly not divided by the LoC.

In fact, not too many of the Kashmiri Muslim families are divided either. Kashmiri language is far less significant in ``Azad`` Kashmir than it is in Jammu & Kashmir in India across the LoC.

(1) According to latest census figures, only about 100,000 in PoK(Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue. This is in sharp contrast to Jammu & Kashmir across the LoC where more than 4 million claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.

(2) Kashmiri speakers lack the critical mass to be significant in PoK. They form a mere 2% of the population. In sharp contrast, nearly the half the population of Jammu & Kashmir claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.

(3) Institute of Kashmir Studies in Muzaffarabad does some language promotion - but observers have acknowledged that it is a lost cause in PoK.

nomani should note that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution perpetuated the erstwhile kingdom`s rule that barred ``outsiders`` from owning immovable property in Jammu & Kashmir. This has served to preserve the demography of Jammu & Kashmir on the Indian side of the LoC. That, unfortunately, is not true on the Pakistani side of LoC and ``Azad`` Kashmir quickly got swamped by immigrants from Punjab and NWFP. Today, in PoK, you are far more likely to hear Punjabi/Lahandi/Pothwari than Kashmiri.

Jay #16 and arjun #22 rsaxena #18: see everything through unique tunnel visioned glasses with help from letters to the ediors, TNT, K for Kalam litany…under freedom of speech they can say what they wish…they are the resident bigots …it is not possible to reason with them.

rsaxena #18 as usual has nothing to say of significance. He is one of the eminent resident bigots here and stands exposed for what he is.

worth repeating my last post to him on a previous board:

#87 by temporal on March 31, 2003 1:35pm PT
rsaxena # 4 and # 63:

mr saxena:

you are exposed for what you are --- a bigot!

rgds,

t
____________________________________

Here is the link:

http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_forum_topic_post_list.cgi?tid=00001638

___________________________________


Bigot (n.) n.

---a person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

---Synonyms: actor, attitudinizer, backslider, bigot, bluffer, casuist, charlatan, cheat, con man, crook, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, fake, faker, four-flusher, fraud, hook, humbug, imposter, impostor, informer, lip server, malingerer, masquerader, moutebank, pharisee, phony, playactor, poser, pretender, quack, sham, sharper, smoothie, sophist, stool pigeon, swindler, trickster, two-face, two-timer, whited sepulcher, wolf

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

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

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

Pakistani Perspective

There is no radical approach to this problem. Only solution is persistence and perseverance. Pakistan has legal and moral right over Kashmir by all standards of justice and common sense. If Paksitan insists on holding a plebicte in Kashmir, even then it is a concession and a previlege to Kashmiri people - its the best of all solutions which gives all parties face saving opportunity. Until that happens Paksitan has to adopt a multilateral approach to address this problem (which it already is doing):

1. Explain to common Indians that their occupation of a land and oppression of people who do not want to live with them is immoral and illegal. Indians are human beings, some of them must have a living conscience - we must be persistent until they realize that.

2. Give political, militaristic, ideological and logistic support to the freedom fighters.

3. And be prepared for liberation of Kashmir through military intervention, as and when the opportunity offers itself.

4. To help Indians realize that freedom strugle now has a life of its own, it has a momentum of its own - which is unstopable, therefore, economic and human cost to India is lot more than Paksitan (because Paksitan has an option to get out of picture and yet the struggle will go on) - after all this freedom strugle is happening in the territory under their control not ours.


Therefore, a multipronged approach is necessary; with persistence, prudence, and perseverance. Peace without justice is not possible.

Indian Perspective

From Indian perspective, there however is a radical solution, which I have presented on tens of other boards. Acting on these points may even neutralize Paksitan`s moral stand on holding a plebicite even. In either case the key to the solution of Kashmir issue is in INdian hands:1. India must declare absolute amnesty to all freedom fighter groups with absolutely no strings attached. Who doesn`t want to live in peace.? This action will help separate those who want peace from those who dont.

2. India must formally apologize to all Kashmiris for inflicting so much misery and pain to its people using state aparatus.

3. India must specifically apologize to all victims of rape by its army and law enforcement agencies.

4. India must establish rape crisis centers all around Kashmir to provide releif to the rape victims. Hindu social workers, preferably women, from mainland India must come to Kashmir to heel the emotional wounds that these unfortunate women have suffered.

5. India must establish special victim units to provide relief to the orphans and widows of those Kashmiris whose fathers and husbands died fighting for freedom of their homeland.

6. India must immediately abolish the draconian law such as Disturbed Area act of 1990, which gives absolute authority to Indian Army to murder or rape any one without impunity.

7. India must give Kashmir a special economic rebuild package, for the next ten years to cover all the loses that Kashmiris have suffered at the hand of state apparatus.

8. All the illegally established torture cells, interogation canters must immediately be shut down all acreoss Kashmir.

9. The death squads of Indian Army who hunt for freedom fighters, and set the villages abalze when can`t find them must be called off.

10. International Human rights orgs must be allowed into Kashmir to monitor all these actions.

Issue of Kashmir should be resolved according to the will of Kashmir people. We should respect their opinion about their land. Indian and Pakistani people have no right to impose their decision on them. Who are we to convert LoC to a permanent border which splits Kashmiris for ever? Why don`t we remove LoC according to the demand of the majority of Kashmiris? Why do we support the wrong stance? It`s not good for our own future to compromise on principles.

We shouldn`t forget that LoC was imposed on Kashmiris. It`s a temporary arrangement which is observed by UN observers. It could be removed and normalacy could be restored in Kashmir if relevent UN resolutions are respected.

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

What plans Indian govt has for the prosperity and progress of Kashmir? It can apply all those schemes in India. There`re many areas which need attention. As far as pundits are concerned, they can migrate to other parts of India. There`re many Kashmiris in India who can migrate back if Kashmir is given freedom.

It`s high time for Indian govt to adopt a logical approcah about Kashmir now. It wasted a lot of Kashmiris` time to win their support but failed. Therefore, it should quit Kashmir instead of wasting more time and men there. Sooner the better.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency

Readers, in general, and HisExcellency, in particular, will find the following reference book to be fascinating as well:

DRUGS IN SOUTH ASIA: FROM THE OPIUM TRADE TO THE PRESENT DAY by M. Emdad-ul-Haq; MacMillan Press; Distributed by Vanguard Books Lahore; Pp319; Price UKP45

The author is a professor of political science at Chittagong University.

The book chronicles how the military caused Pakistan`s ruination in its single-minded zeal to line its own pocket. It is the military that has held a monopoly over the drug trade and gun running in Pakistan. When General Ziaul Haq came to power there were practically no heroin addicts in Pakistan. By the time he died, the heroin addicts in Pakistan numbered over a million.

Today`s secterian killings and Kalashnikov culture are a direct byproduct of the military`s gun running.

The situation in Kashmir cannot improve unless the status of Kashmir is settled first according to wishes of Kashmiri people.

You want to try something radical? Try a plebiscite.

Elections have been tried before. Self-proclaimed tigers like Sheikh Abdullah, Mufti Sayeed, Farooq Abdullah have come and gone. The people have seen that matinee show before.

Wars have been tried before. Both sides fight each other for a couple of weeks in Kashmir. Pakistan intrudes into India at some points, India intrudes into Pakistan at some locations. A stalemate is reached, foreign governments rush in to effect a ceasefire. Nothing is solved, the endless circle of more military preparation followed by another stalemated war continues.

Bilateral talks have also been tried before. From Simla to Lahore to Agra, we have had several bilateral talks.. talks that never proceed from ``chai and poetry`` to the real issues. The only real talks we had were at Tashkent in the presence of Russians. Without third-party involvement, even bilateral talks will be meaningless.

Plebiscite, the ``P`` word that gives Indians sleepless nights, may be the best option. But if that doesn`t materialize, the second best option is a negotiated settlement sponsored by the U.S., Russia and/or China.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency

The military has been milking the civilian sector with impunity. Readers, in general, and HisExcellency, in particular, will find the following reference book to be very informative & educational:

Military, State and Society in Pakistan
by Hasan Askari Rizvi
St.Martin`s Press, New York

The author, Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, is a renowned political and defence analyst. He holds PhD in International Relations and Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at Columbia University, New York, Heidelberg University, Germany, and the University of the Punjab,Lahore.

Dr. Hasan Rizvi has pointed out that the induction of military personnel to civilian jobs has been institutionalized in a manner that led to what British Professor S E Finer describes as the ``military colonisation of other institutions`` whereby ``the military acts as a reservoir or core of personnel for the sensitive institutions of the state``.

In fact, even the universities haven`t been able to resist this colonisation! I am not surprised that General Pervez Musharraf has been commenting with authority and impunity on the educational qualifications of Benazir Bhutto even as he spreads the word on his own educational qualifications thru his minions. Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, has pointed out:

``Six civilian universities had retired Army officers as their Vice Chancellors. The University of Balochistan was headed by a retired Brigadier in the eighties. In 2001, a retired Brigadier was appointed Pro-Vice Chancellor of Balochistan University. A Major General served as Vice Chancellor of Peshawar University for a brief period in 1993. A Lt General worked as Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University in 1993-97. The government`s plan to appoint another Lt General as his successor was scuttled by the boycott threat of the faculty and negative editorials in some newspapers. However, in September 1999, the Punjab`s civilian government appointed a retired Lt General as Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University.

The PU faculty went on strike as protest against this appointment. However, after the military assumed power by dislodging the civilian government in October 12, 1999, the PU faculty had to call off the strike. Several key administrative posts of the Punjab University are also held by retired Army officers. A Lt. General was appointed Vice Chancellor of the Engineering University, Lahore, in 1998. The Vice Chancellor of Engineering University Peshawar, is also a retired senior military officer. The Vice Chancellor of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, is both retired Army officer and former senior bureaucrat. Some Brigadiers were given academic appointments in Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, in the eighties by changing the university rules.``

Military has been calling the shots in Pakistan for much of its history. General Pervez Musharraf`s goal has been to do everything possible to perpetuate the military`s primacy in every sector of Pakistan.

The military is trained to defend the country`s frontiers, and even extend them. But Pakistan`s military has extended its reach far beyond what it receives training for. Needless to say, Pakistan is the loser.

Pakistan`s military has been the defacto rulers of the country for most of its history. It has established itself as the mafia that decides who gets to steal in Pakistan and how much. And needless to say, it is the Kakul kleptocrats that are the biggest beneficiaries of the institutionalized stealing.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency wrote:

``I am afraid you give more credit to Pakistani generals than they deserve:) ``

The ``smiley face`` seems to symbolize HisExcellency`s agreement with the army that ``all the people can be fooled all the time``.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! Pakistan`s military is now absolutely corrupt.

While respected journalists have been writing about army corruption for quite some time, so have been foreign journalists even after General Pervez Musharraf reversed the military`s policy on the Taliban in the wake of 9/11 (more for self-preservation than for any genuine change in philosophy on terrorism).

A recent article in Washington Post (Pakistanis Question Perks of Power, Many Say Military Confuses National Interest With Its Own By John Lancaster) is a good example. See the following URL for the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23614-2002Nov21.html

The article was published in Washington Post of 21 November, 2002.
Here are some excerpts:

.....

``Some critics go a step further, accusing the military of deliberately stoking tensions with India, particularly over Kashmir, to justify its hold on resources and power. ``Peace would be a disaster for the military,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad.``

.....

``There is no denying the military`s dominant role in Pakistan. The military owns the best farmland and several of the largest industrial conglomerates. Retired or active-duty military officers run the ports, postal service, electric utilities, sports federations, telecommunications authority, culture ministry, mineral development agency, anti-drug police, railroads, civil aviation authority, national shipping company and Pakistan`s biggest steel mill. They hold top administrative posts at the best universities. Many ambassadors are retired officers.``

.....

``Under an arcane point-based system that dates to the British Raj, the military also rewards its senior officers by allowing them to purchase agricultural and urban land from the army`s vast inventory of real estate at prices far below market value. A number of these properties are grouped into ``defense societies`` in tony suburbs of Karachi and other major cities. The societies are administered by the Defense Housing Authority, which ensures the provision of municipal services. Officers who acquire such land often develop it as rental property or sell it for hefty profits.``

......

``One of Pakistan`s most coveted addresses, for example, is the blandly named Army Housing Scheme II, which is built on the site of an old antiaircraft battery in the upscale Karachi suburb of Clifton. A gated community protected by paramilitary troops, the development consists of spacious, Mediterranean-style villas grouped around a playground and an elaborately landscaped Japanese-style garden. Nearby are clothing boutiques, jewelry stores, restaurants and a yoga studio.``

.....

``Installing men in uniform in civilian businesses and institutions did not begin with Musharraf. In 1980, Zia established a 10 percent quota for military personnel in civilian government jobs. But Musharraf, by all accounts, has taken the process further than his uniformed predecessors, dispatching military ``monitoring teams`` to key civilian agencies and replacing top officials with senior officers.``

.....

When we say Kashmiris then we mean the majority of people in Kashmir. Maharaja Hari singh or a handful of pundits don`t constitute the majority. Therefore they should be treated as minority while making a decision about the future of Kahmir. 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. However, it befools its people on this useless argument. Only some foolish people can be convinced with this argument. Many Indians try to prove that they`re completely convinced with the argument of their govt. Moreover they feel happy when their govt tells them that poverty is on rise in Pakistan. They can`t use a small thing in their skulls to verify this. They look like beggars when they stand next to Pakistanis.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency errs in blaming India for the Pak military`s crimes against humanity in 1971. The facts are well documented. It just won`t do not to attempt to shift blame by pointing fingers across the border.

The principal cause for the 1971 genocide was the Pakistan military`s utter contempt for civil authority. It is a problem that continues to dog Pervez Musharraf`s Pakistan. The people of the erstwhile East Pakistan are no longer under the boots of Pakistan`s military. But the rest of the population continues to be under its boots - and the military remains as
contemptuous as ever of civil authority.

Back to 1971. HisExcellency might want to refer to the following site:

www.defencejournal.com/march98/theway1.htm

The above Defence Journal site presents Brigadier Z.A.Khan`s ``The Way It Was``. The Brigadier saw ``action`` in East Pakistan in the March and
April of 1971.

I read Brigadier Z.A.Khan`s ``The Way It Was`` some 3 or 4 years ago. If I recall right, he was a Lt. Colonel in 1971.

This is what Brigadier Z.A. Khan says about the way Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (leader of the party that had won the 1970 elections) was arrested from his Dhanmondi residence on the night of March25, 1971: ``I later learnt that after telling Major Belal to break down the closed door upstairs when I went to check on the vehicles, someone had fired a pistol shot into room where Major Bilal?s men were collected, luckily no one was hit. Before anyone could stop him, a soldier threw a grenade into the verandah from where the pistol shot had come and followed it with a burst from his sub-machine gun. The grenade burst and the sub-machine gun fire made Sheikh Mujib call out from behind the closed room that if an assurance were given that he would not be killed he would come out. He was given an assurance and he came out of the room. When he (Sheikh Mujib) came out Havildar Khan Wazir, later subedar, gave him a resounding slap on his face``

Brigadier Z.A.Khan`s gleeful account of the ``resounding slap`` on Mujib`s face by a Havildar (later, Subedar) in the Pakistani Army was not inadvartent. The Brigadier seemed just as gratuitous and gleeful as he wrote with grim satisfaction of crimes committed by soldiers under his command.

The then Lt. Colonel Khan saw ``action`` in Comilla and Chittagong. Mass murders and rapes were perpetrated by the commando that he led. The then Lt. Colonel Z.A. Khan makes no secret of criminal acts of soldiers under his command. Did he take any action against any of them for the crimes? There is nothing in Brigadier Khan`s book to suggest that he did. In the absence of any punitive action, the commanding officer cannot escape responsibility for the crime. It wont`t wash even if Lt. Colonel Khan were to claim that he was merely following orders of his superiors (of a Colonel, a Brigadier or even of a General). Lt. Colonel Khan had the responsibility to resist such illegal orders, if there were any.

As I read Z.A.Khan`s book, it was apparent that the Shah of Iran, for example, could have never used his soldiers, the way Yahya Khan did, to protect his throne. No Iranian soldier would have agreed to participate in the mass murder and rape of his kith and kin to save the Shah`s throne. But Yahya Khan could do what he did because the soldiers had been brainwashed into believing that the Bengalis were not fit to be their compatriots, the Bengalis were deemed fit to stay within Pakistan only as a subject race.

Brigadier Z.A. Khan`s gleeful account of the ``resounding slap`` on Mujib`s face is just a specific instance of the general contempt for civilians, in general. The Pakistan Army could do what it did in East Pakistan because the ruling elite had brainwashed the soldiers into believing that Bengalis were not good Muslims. In fact Bengalis were portrayed as belonging to an inferior race (``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan`s ghost-written autobiography is a good indicator of the low esteem in which the Bengalis were held by Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy.)

The ``resounding slap`` is a much more general problem. I see it as an expression of the Pakistan military`s utter contempt for civil authority. It is a problem that continues to dog Pervez Musharraf`s Pakistan. The people of the erstwhile East Pakistan are no longer under the boots of Pakistan`s military. But the rest of the population continues to be under its boots - and the military remains as contemptuous as ever of civil authority.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency brought up the bogey of ``Akhund Bharat`` to blame India to expalin away the genocide of 1971.

But enough has been written by thoughtful Pakistanis to point fingers at the real culprits.

Here are two quotes from articles by Altaf Gauhar who was a high official in Islamabad under ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan.

The quotes shed some light on the thinking among Pakistan`s Generals regarding India and Bangladesh. It might be a hangover from the ``martial race theory`` that was propagated by the British. The belief is very much a fact even today, especially in the ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum, and might have led the Pakistani
Generals to launch their 1999 ill-fated Kargil misadventure.

Here are the quotes:

This country deserves me
By Altaf Gauhar

The Nation Lahore
Sunday Nov 14,1999


``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.``

Pakistan Today
Friday, October 22, 1999

1965 war: cease-fire
By: Altaf Gauhar

``The directive issued by Ayub bore the title: `Political aim for struggle in Kashmir.` The aim was `to take such action that will defreeze the Kashmir problem, weaken Indian resolve, and bring her to the conference table without provoking a general war. However the element of escalation is always present in such struggles. So whilst confining our action to the Kashmir area we must not be unmindful that India may in desperation involve us in a general war or violate Pakistan territory where we are weak. We must, therefore, be prepared for such a contingency. To expect quick results in this struggle, when India has much larger forces than us, would be unrealistic. Therefore, our action should be such that can be sustained over a long period. 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.```

Pakistan`s army officers had a vested interest to swear utmost faith in the British propounded theory of ``martial races.`` Even in the early years of Pakistan, these officers would proclaim, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan`` and openly proclaim their belief that the Pakistan flag will get to be raised by them atop the Red Fort in Delhi. And ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan had made no secret of his disdain for Bengalis in his ghost-written auto-biography, ``Friends, Not Masters.``

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.

Altaf Gauhar, in a series of articles, had written how ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan had become victim of the racist view within Pakistan`s army that one [West] Pakistani soldier was more than a match for ten ``Hindu`` soldiers. Fortified by this racist belief, the ``Field Marshal`` had put into motion the ``Operation Gibralatar`` in 1965. It was a foolhardy deed that would unleash a chain of events that would ultimately lead to his own overthrow in 1969 and the surrender of the Pakistani army in Dhaka on 16th December of 1971.

The Shah of Iran could have never used his army to perpetuate the perks and privileges of Iran`s ruling elite because ordinary Iranian soldiers were not willing to turn on the common people of Iran on the orders of the Shah. Unfortunately, in Pakistan in 1971, the situation was very different. From 1947 thru 1971, ordinary soldiers of Pakistan had been brainwashed into believing in the British propounded ``martial races`` theory, and into believing that East Pakistanis belonged to an inferior race. The ordinary soldiers had been persuaded to believe by their officers that it was their sacred duty to punish East Pakistanis because the East Pakistanis were not good Muslims!

Pakistan`s army officers had institutionalized racism to the point where the soldiers were willing to believe that they were engaged in rape and murder to save Islam in East Pakistan. Veteran Pakistani journalist Z.A. Suleri (father of writer Sarah Suleri) has written how shocked he was in 1971 to find Pakistan army officers nonchalantly joking about the on-going rapes in East Pakistan as a service to the Bengalis to improve their genes! Much the same story was confirmed in accounts of DAWN correspondent Anthony Mascarenhas.

I have quoted Altaf Gauhar to illustrate the arrogance of the military. Openly expressed belief in the superiority of the Kakul kleptocrats over ordinary citizens is nothing more than posturing to begin with. Its their means to preserving their monopoly over power. But it is a measure of their true worth that they have shown more ``bravery`` in the oppression of their compatriots than in fighting the external enemy. It is no accident that General Tikka Khan won more ``fame`` as the ``Butcher of East Pakistan`` and then as the ``Butcher of Balochistan`` than as the General who would liberate Kashmir or would ride a white horse to the Red Fort in New Delhi to unfurl the Pakistani flag.

The Kakul kleptocrats have a vested interest to exaggerate and even exacerbate perceptions of external threat to establish the need to expropriate a major share of the nation`s wealth for themselves. And that is exactly what they have been doing. It is no accident that the military was at the helm in Pakistan when the Generals initiated the conflicts of 1965, 1971 or 1999.

General Tikka Khan was quite representative of the military`s thinking when he unashamedly declared in 1971 that he was interested only in the land in East Pakistan and not in its people. He was able and willing to kill as many million civilians in East pakistan as it takes to make Pakistan safe for the military!

Pakistan`s destiny has been controlled from inception by the 3 As - Allah, America and the Army and not necessarily in that order!

General Pervez Musharraf has continued with the same tradition. He has inducted some 600 military officials to take over top civilian posts (from chairman of cricket board to chairman of WAPDA) for which they have no training. And he has imposed the LFO on the country to institutionalize the army`s supremacy.

The erstwhile East Pakistanis are no longer around to be kicked around by the Pakistan`s army which continues to enjoy a monopoly over power in what remains of Pakistan. So, it is now the ordinary citizens of Pakistan that must bear the brunt of the army`s boot. It is to the interest of the ordinary citizens of Pakistan to demand a return of the military officers to the barracks - or else they will continue to be kicked around. Forcing the Pakistani army to face the music for its crimes of 1971 will go a long way toward liberarting the ordinary citizens of Pakistan.

I am the cheese:

``im reminded of something someone said wrt the agra summit which struck me as very true.. musharrafs personal victory at agra was at the cost of pakistan as a nation ``

I had said something similar to you right after Agra (don`t ask me for proof coz I don`t wanna go digging and I`m not trying to score points) but at that time your attitude was Rah Rah Mush for socking it to the Indians.
Also, while the above statement is true, the fact that Mush`s popularity sky rocketed after Agra means that the people in general too were impressed with transient perceptions of victory rather than a slow painstaking solution.

People deserve the leaders they get. Why blame Mush alone?

The majority of people are rehashing history. History is bunkum.

I do see that on the Indian side there is a consensual approach towards converting the LOC into the border.

On the Pakistani side, is it possible to achieve a consensus? I am just curious to see if a realistic position with which all or vast majority of Pakistanis can arrive at.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency wrote:

``there is a large constituency of Pakistan haters in India who will not stop at their machinations even if Kashmir issue is resolved. For them, Pakistan is a defeat for their fantastic ideas of ``Akhund Bharat``.``

This ``Akhund Bharat`` bogey is chutzpah at its best. It is not India that wants to acquire ``Azad Kashmir``, it is Pakistan that wants to ``finsish the unfinished business of partition`` by coveting land on the other side of the LoC. In fact, Pakistan`s ruling elite goes a lot further when it mouths slogans like ``Crush India`` or ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan`` and dreams of hoisting the Pakistan flag at the Red Fort.

``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a Kashmiri slogan. It is a slogan spawned in the cantonments in `Pindi, Lahore or Sialkot. This sloganeering is for the express purpose of promoting and preserving the perks and privileges of the the Pak army that constitutes the core of Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy. No wonder that it is the pet slogan among the ``martial races`` in the ``recruitment area`` between the Indus and the Jhelum.

In 1971, in a moment of candor, General Tikka Khan had declared that he was only interested in the land in East Pakistan and not in its people. Kashmir is no different. Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy covets the real estate in Kashmir. It couldn`t care less for the Kashmiris. To make its case, Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy sheds copious crocodile tears over the plight of Muslims outside Pakistan in general and of Muslims in Kashmir in particular. But there is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan to suggest that its ruling oligarchy cares anymore for the Muslims outside Pakistan than it cares for the ordinary Muslims within Pakistan.

If General Musharraf, like other Pakistani generals before him, would rather shed blood to turn Kashmiris into Pakistanis than repatriate the stranded Pakistanis (aka ``Biharis``) in Bangladesh, it is only because ``Biharis``, unlike the Kashmiris, will not come with any real estate. Is it any wonder that General Musharraf has been declaring, ``Kashmir is in our blood`` ?

I am not surprised that General Musharraf and his henchmen have Kashmir in their blood but not a trace of the ``Biharis`` !! So, even if General Musharraf is himself a Mohajir, he`ll not raise even a finger for the sake of the ``Biharis`` who have spent well over a generation in UN-run refugee camps in Bangladesh.

Kashmir is not the core issue between India and Pakistan - it is merely the core symptom of the irredentist dreams of Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy and the primary means for it to ensure that the army can garner a disproportionate share of the nation`s wealth for itself. Peace will not come till Pakistan`s ruling elite rids itself of this game. It behooves Pakistan`s ruling elite to assure democracy and self-determination of people living within its borders rather than cynically and gratuitously crying for democracy and self-determination of people living beyond its borders.

Re: #26 by HisExcellency wrote:

``Instead of letting Pakistan take care of its internal problem, India attacked the status quo and broke all rules of Tashkent. ``

HisExcellency shouldn`t forget that it no longer remained an internal problem of Pakistan when its military`s crimes against humanity terrorized more than 10 million Bengalis to seek refuge in India. It was Pakistan`s military that was playing a cunical game in East Pakistan. Just recall how the military had recruited the ``Biharis`` to act as its cat`s paw in 1971 and then how the military had discarded the ``Biharis`` like the rind of a squeezed lemon after 1971.

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`` !!

Are Dumz and temporal same person?

Chowk staff!!
Is it possible for you to please print IP address along with poster`s handle? It would be interesting to know how many people are posting from same machine/IP address. Yes, people can spoof the IP addresses but still it would be an interesting stats.

Kashmiris don`t like the presence of Indian govt. (For verification of this a plebiscite could be held but Indian govt avoids it because it already knows what Kashmiris think of it). It should quit Kashmir ASAP.

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

harimau#20
You are right that the States have been flouting established norms and even the Supreme Court injunctions. But that is a problem of the sickness of the Indian federation. As far as J&K is concerned, the famous instrument of accession gave it certain unique powers, which were whittled down over time by India. Don`t you think that Kashmir is entitled to have some of those powers back?

re: nakhok

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?

Your politicians are not exactly honest and upright. From the fanatic Modi to the Muslim-hating Advani to corrupt Laloo Prasad Yadav, Indian lack integrity and vision. Had it not been for Nehru`s obsession with Kashmir, their would not have been 3 wars in the subcontinent.

Your democracy is also an oxymoron. Wherever Hindus are in majority, democracy is allowed to flourish. Wherever Sikhs and Muslims are in majority, rigged elections held under military occupation replace democracy. Punjab and Kashmir are the only two states where Hindus are a minority. In both states, the Indian army indulged in genocide of Sikhs and Muslims.

Only a genuinely democratic state with excellent human rights record like USA, France, Germany or UK may criticize Pakistan. These states consider Pakistan as a frontline ally in the war against terror.

Instead of behaving like the world`s cry baby, India should accept its failure in Kashmir. Accepting failure is the first step towards resolution of the conflict. No amount of pressure on Pakistan or Pakistan Army will ever compel Pakistan to ditch the Kashmir issue.

Kashmir is the test of Indian integrity and commitment to peace in subcontinent. Actions speak louder than voices. India`s actions in Kashmir have not been sincere to the Kashmiris at all.

friend:

pls. email

ttemporal@lycos.com

re: nakhok

You are dismissing Indian slogans such as ``Akhund Bharat`` as chutzpah and declaring Pakistani slogans such as ``Haske liya tha Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan`` as the stated policy of Pakistan Army.

Come on, be objective here. Either accept both as chutzpah or accept both as real.

Except for Jaish-e-Mohammad, no Pakistani leader or general has ever declared the conquest of India as a policy objective in the last 57 years.

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!

right stuka.. and your point was?

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