The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem
Dost Mittar May 13, 2003
#206 Posted by sarwar on July 30, 2003 9:43:33 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#205 Posted by bbabu on June 13, 2003 7:14:30 am
Greatest nuclear threat is Pakistan
Thursday, June 12, 2003
By TED VAN DYK
NEW YORK -- An annual two-week reconnaissance on the Eastern seaboard among present and past policy-makers and analysts causes me to send this message to the home folks: Although the Cold War is over, it is time again to start worrying about the threat of nuclear weapons.
Nukes and their dangerous cousins, biological and chemical weapons, could be used or used as blackmail to kill us in large numbers or to make us more vulnerable in the world.
This fact makes second-guessing about homeland- or airport-security ground rules seem so much childish whining. A recent New Yorker article mocked homeland-security measures in light of the fact that further 9/11s had not taken place. Our own Seattle police chief complained that federal directives sometimes confused him -- as if he did not know, without federal help, which transportation, communications and other facilities in Seattle were obvious terrorist targets requiring his protection.
The most immediate nuclear threat does not lie in North Korea, in Iran or in leakage of weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union. It is in Pakistan.
Pakistan, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and a country in which Osama bin Laden most likely is hiding and being protected, has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials. It soon could be controlled by forces allied with al-Qaida and other groups.
The Pakistani finance minister was shouted down in parliament last weekend when he tried to present his government`s budget. For many months Islamic hard-liners in the parliament have disrupted proceedings, staged walkouts and paralyzed governance. Imagine if you will some 40 percent of the U.S. Congress utilizing `60s` Students for a Democratic Society tactics to stop legislative business.
It is hard to cry for Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup four years ago. But beyond him might lay the abyss. Using time-tested tactics, fundamentalists are trying to cause enough chaos to force Musharraf to rule by decree. That could polarize Pakistani politics, make a peace deal with India impossible and bring to power an Osama-friendly regime.
North Korea has said it will sell nukes, technology and materials to other countries. Its conventional forces and capabilities already are strong enough to destroy Seoul in a few days and kill thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea.
Oil-rich Iran, using the same specious argument as North Korea -- that it required nuclear reactors for energy purposes -- has with Russian help come to the verge of a nuclear capability.
These countries pose a lethal threat. But the Pakistani threat is greater because it could put the same weapons in the hands of a government tied to terrorist networks. If al-Qaida allies were to come to power in Pakistan and then in Saudi Arabia, Osama`s home country, the world`s strategic balance would tip dangerously.
We went to war to remove the threat of special weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But we cannot repeat Iraq in Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. We must trust diplomacy, mobilization of neighboring countries to isolate the threats and, in the end, luck.
Now, a word about the existence/non-existence of nuclear and others weapons programs in Iraq.
Many partisan and media voices have been raised charging President Bush with lying about the existence of such programs in order to justify the Iraq war. My own reaction to these challenges is about the same as to the second-guessing about homeland- and airport-security measures.
A small group of neoconservatives in and around the administration pushed war against Iraq long before Bush took office. In persuading Bush to undertake it, their weapons-of-mass-destruction argument was the clincher.
Despite its source, I felt that argument did justify an Iraq intervention -- but only after U.N. weapons inspections had run their course and a broad international coalition had been assembled in support.
Thus far, U.S. and British troops have not found the weapons they expected to find. Yet, if you watch and listen closely, you will not find many knowledgeable people charging Bush with lying about the weapons. Among those who in the past cited the probable existence of the weapons and/or their development programs have been President Clinton, his former CIA directors, defense secretary and national security adviser, senior members of congressional intelligence committees, French President Jacques Chirac, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the intelligence agencies of several countries, including Germany.
My own conversations over the past two years with analysts I trust have led me to the conclusion that, yes, Iraqi chemical and biological weapons existed and were hidden and that Saddam also was seeking to develop a nuclear capability.
We`re talking life and death here. So casual charges of presidential lying or treachery are not in order. Bush went to war on the basis of an assessment about Saddam`s weapons shared by just about every knowledgeable source.
For now, keep watching developments in Pakistan, most of which are beyond U.S. control.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
By TED VAN DYK
NEW YORK -- An annual two-week reconnaissance on the Eastern seaboard among present and past policy-makers and analysts causes me to send this message to the home folks: Although the Cold War is over, it is time again to start worrying about the threat of nuclear weapons.
Nukes and their dangerous cousins, biological and chemical weapons, could be used or used as blackmail to kill us in large numbers or to make us more vulnerable in the world.
This fact makes second-guessing about homeland- or airport-security ground rules seem so much childish whining. A recent New Yorker article mocked homeland-security measures in light of the fact that further 9/11s had not taken place. Our own Seattle police chief complained that federal directives sometimes confused him -- as if he did not know, without federal help, which transportation, communications and other facilities in Seattle were obvious terrorist targets requiring his protection.
The most immediate nuclear threat does not lie in North Korea, in Iran or in leakage of weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union. It is in Pakistan.
Pakistan, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and a country in which Osama bin Laden most likely is hiding and being protected, has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials. It soon could be controlled by forces allied with al-Qaida and other groups.
The Pakistani finance minister was shouted down in parliament last weekend when he tried to present his government`s budget. For many months Islamic hard-liners in the parliament have disrupted proceedings, staged walkouts and paralyzed governance. Imagine if you will some 40 percent of the U.S. Congress utilizing `60s` Students for a Democratic Society tactics to stop legislative business.
It is hard to cry for Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup four years ago. But beyond him might lay the abyss. Using time-tested tactics, fundamentalists are trying to cause enough chaos to force Musharraf to rule by decree. That could polarize Pakistani politics, make a peace deal with India impossible and bring to power an Osama-friendly regime.
North Korea has said it will sell nukes, technology and materials to other countries. Its conventional forces and capabilities already are strong enough to destroy Seoul in a few days and kill thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea.
Oil-rich Iran, using the same specious argument as North Korea -- that it required nuclear reactors for energy purposes -- has with Russian help come to the verge of a nuclear capability.
These countries pose a lethal threat. But the Pakistani threat is greater because it could put the same weapons in the hands of a government tied to terrorist networks. If al-Qaida allies were to come to power in Pakistan and then in Saudi Arabia, Osama`s home country, the world`s strategic balance would tip dangerously.
We went to war to remove the threat of special weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But we cannot repeat Iraq in Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. We must trust diplomacy, mobilization of neighboring countries to isolate the threats and, in the end, luck.
Now, a word about the existence/non-existence of nuclear and others weapons programs in Iraq.
Many partisan and media voices have been raised charging President Bush with lying about the existence of such programs in order to justify the Iraq war. My own reaction to these challenges is about the same as to the second-guessing about homeland- and airport-security measures.
A small group of neoconservatives in and around the administration pushed war against Iraq long before Bush took office. In persuading Bush to undertake it, their weapons-of-mass-destruction argument was the clincher.
Despite its source, I felt that argument did justify an Iraq intervention -- but only after U.N. weapons inspections had run their course and a broad international coalition had been assembled in support.
Thus far, U.S. and British troops have not found the weapons they expected to find. Yet, if you watch and listen closely, you will not find many knowledgeable people charging Bush with lying about the weapons. Among those who in the past cited the probable existence of the weapons and/or their development programs have been President Clinton, his former CIA directors, defense secretary and national security adviser, senior members of congressional intelligence committees, French President Jacques Chirac, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the intelligence agencies of several countries, including Germany.
My own conversations over the past two years with analysts I trust have led me to the conclusion that, yes, Iraqi chemical and biological weapons existed and were hidden and that Saddam also was seeking to develop a nuclear capability.
We`re talking life and death here. So casual charges of presidential lying or treachery are not in order. Bush went to war on the basis of an assessment about Saddam`s weapons shared by just about every knowledgeable source.
For now, keep watching developments in Pakistan, most of which are beyond U.S. control.
#204 Posted by bbabu on June 13, 2003 7:14:29 am
Greatest nuclear threat is Pakistan
Thursday, June 12, 2003
By TED VAN DYK
NEW YORK -- An annual two-week reconnaissance on the Eastern seaboard among present and past policy-makers and analysts causes me to send this message to the home folks: Although the Cold War is over, it is time again to start worrying about the threat of nuclear weapons.
Nukes and their dangerous cousins, biological and chemical weapons, could be used or used as blackmail to kill us in large numbers or to make us more vulnerable in the world.
This fact makes second-guessing about homeland- or airport-security ground rules seem so much childish whining. A recent New Yorker article mocked homeland-security measures in light of the fact that further 9/11s had not taken place. Our own Seattle police chief complained that federal directives sometimes confused him -- as if he did not know, without federal help, which transportation, communications and other facilities in Seattle were obvious terrorist targets requiring his protection.
The most immediate nuclear threat does not lie in North Korea, in Iran or in leakage of weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union. It is in Pakistan.
Pakistan, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and a country in which Osama bin Laden most likely is hiding and being protected, has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials. It soon could be controlled by forces allied with al-Qaida and other groups.
The Pakistani finance minister was shouted down in parliament last weekend when he tried to present his government`s budget. For many months Islamic hard-liners in the parliament have disrupted proceedings, staged walkouts and paralyzed governance. Imagine if you will some 40 percent of the U.S. Congress utilizing `60s` Students for a Democratic Society tactics to stop legislative business.
It is hard to cry for Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup four years ago. But beyond him might lay the abyss. Using time-tested tactics, fundamentalists are trying to cause enough chaos to force Musharraf to rule by decree. That could polarize Pakistani politics, make a peace deal with India impossible and bring to power an Osama-friendly regime.
North Korea has said it will sell nukes, technology and materials to other countries. Its conventional forces and capabilities already are strong enough to destroy Seoul in a few days and kill thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea.
Oil-rich Iran, using the same specious argument as North Korea -- that it required nuclear reactors for energy purposes -- has with Russian help come to the verge of a nuclear capability.
These countries pose a lethal threat. But the Pakistani threat is greater because it could put the same weapons in the hands of a government tied to terrorist networks. If al-Qaida allies were to come to power in Pakistan and then in Saudi Arabia, Osama`s home country, the world`s strategic balance would tip dangerously.
We went to war to remove the threat of special weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But we cannot repeat Iraq in Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. We must trust diplomacy, mobilization of neighboring countries to isolate the threats and, in the end, luck.
Now, a word about the existence/non-existence of nuclear and others weapons programs in Iraq.
Many partisan and media voices have been raised charging President Bush with lying about the existence of such programs in order to justify the Iraq war. My own reaction to these challenges is about the same as to the second-guessing about homeland- and airport-security measures.
A small group of neoconservatives in and around the administration pushed war against Iraq long before Bush took office. In persuading Bush to undertake it, their weapons-of-mass-destruction argument was the clincher.
Despite its source, I felt that argument did justify an Iraq intervention -- but only after U.N. weapons inspections had run their course and a broad international coalition had been assembled in support.
Thus far, U.S. and British troops have not found the weapons they expected to find. Yet, if you watch and listen closely, you will not find many knowledgeable people charging Bush with lying about the weapons. Among those who in the past cited the probable existence of the weapons and/or their development programs have been President Clinton, his former CIA directors, defense secretary and national security adviser, senior members of congressional intelligence committees, French President Jacques Chirac, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the intelligence agencies of several countries, including Germany.
My own conversations over the past two years with analysts I trust have led me to the conclusion that, yes, Iraqi chemical and biological weapons existed and were hidden and that Saddam also was seeking to develop a nuclear capability.
We`re talking life and death here. So casual charges of presidential lying or treachery are not in order. Bush went to war on the basis of an assessment about Saddam`s weapons shared by just about every knowledgeable source.
For now, keep watching developments in Pakistan, most of which are beyond U.S. control.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
By TED VAN DYK
NEW YORK -- An annual two-week reconnaissance on the Eastern seaboard among present and past policy-makers and analysts causes me to send this message to the home folks: Although the Cold War is over, it is time again to start worrying about the threat of nuclear weapons.
Nukes and their dangerous cousins, biological and chemical weapons, could be used or used as blackmail to kill us in large numbers or to make us more vulnerable in the world.
This fact makes second-guessing about homeland- or airport-security ground rules seem so much childish whining. A recent New Yorker article mocked homeland-security measures in light of the fact that further 9/11s had not taken place. Our own Seattle police chief complained that federal directives sometimes confused him -- as if he did not know, without federal help, which transportation, communications and other facilities in Seattle were obvious terrorist targets requiring his protection.
The most immediate nuclear threat does not lie in North Korea, in Iran or in leakage of weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union. It is in Pakistan.
Pakistan, a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and a country in which Osama bin Laden most likely is hiding and being protected, has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials. It soon could be controlled by forces allied with al-Qaida and other groups.
The Pakistani finance minister was shouted down in parliament last weekend when he tried to present his government`s budget. For many months Islamic hard-liners in the parliament have disrupted proceedings, staged walkouts and paralyzed governance. Imagine if you will some 40 percent of the U.S. Congress utilizing `60s` Students for a Democratic Society tactics to stop legislative business.
It is hard to cry for Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup four years ago. But beyond him might lay the abyss. Using time-tested tactics, fundamentalists are trying to cause enough chaos to force Musharraf to rule by decree. That could polarize Pakistani politics, make a peace deal with India impossible and bring to power an Osama-friendly regime.
North Korea has said it will sell nukes, technology and materials to other countries. Its conventional forces and capabilities already are strong enough to destroy Seoul in a few days and kill thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea.
Oil-rich Iran, using the same specious argument as North Korea -- that it required nuclear reactors for energy purposes -- has with Russian help come to the verge of a nuclear capability.
These countries pose a lethal threat. But the Pakistani threat is greater because it could put the same weapons in the hands of a government tied to terrorist networks. If al-Qaida allies were to come to power in Pakistan and then in Saudi Arabia, Osama`s home country, the world`s strategic balance would tip dangerously.
We went to war to remove the threat of special weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But we cannot repeat Iraq in Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. We must trust diplomacy, mobilization of neighboring countries to isolate the threats and, in the end, luck.
Now, a word about the existence/non-existence of nuclear and others weapons programs in Iraq.
Many partisan and media voices have been raised charging President Bush with lying about the existence of such programs in order to justify the Iraq war. My own reaction to these challenges is about the same as to the second-guessing about homeland- and airport-security measures.
A small group of neoconservatives in and around the administration pushed war against Iraq long before Bush took office. In persuading Bush to undertake it, their weapons-of-mass-destruction argument was the clincher.
Despite its source, I felt that argument did justify an Iraq intervention -- but only after U.N. weapons inspections had run their course and a broad international coalition had been assembled in support.
Thus far, U.S. and British troops have not found the weapons they expected to find. Yet, if you watch and listen closely, you will not find many knowledgeable people charging Bush with lying about the weapons. Among those who in the past cited the probable existence of the weapons and/or their development programs have been President Clinton, his former CIA directors, defense secretary and national security adviser, senior members of congressional intelligence committees, French President Jacques Chirac, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the intelligence agencies of several countries, including Germany.
My own conversations over the past two years with analysts I trust have led me to the conclusion that, yes, Iraqi chemical and biological weapons existed and were hidden and that Saddam also was seeking to develop a nuclear capability.
We`re talking life and death here. So casual charges of presidential lying or treachery are not in order. Bush went to war on the basis of an assessment about Saddam`s weapons shared by just about every knowledgeable source.
For now, keep watching developments in Pakistan, most of which are beyond U.S. control.
#203 Posted by bbabu on May 25, 2003 3:57:28 pm
Pakistani Islamists tear down ``obscene`` billboards
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, May 23 — Around 50 activists of Pakistan`s hardline Islamic alliance tore down dozens of advertising billboards depicting women in this northwestern city on Friday as part of a campaign to stamp out ``obscenity.``
The young protestors, chanting ``Allahu Akbar`` (God is Great), also tore down several neon signs advertising Western products, including soft drinks giant Pepsi, in several parts of the city close to the border with Afghanistan.
``We will wipe out vulgarity and obscenity from Peshawar, then from North West Frontier Province and then finally from the whole of Pakistan,`` said Jamsheed Munir, local leader of Shabab-e-Milli, youth wing of Pakistan`s largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami.
Jamaat-e-Islami is a key component of the six-party Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance that rules North West Frontier Province of which Peshawar is the capital.
Munir threatened similar action against cinemas and hotels running ``liquor and gambling dens.``
Rights activists have expressed alarm at what they call the ``Talibanisation`` of society in North West Frontier and neighbouring Baluchistan since the MMA swept to power in the provinces bordering Afghanistan in October elections.
Since then, the MMA has banned music on public transport, medical examinations of women by male doctors, male coaches for women athletes and male journalists from covering women`s sports.
It has also cancelled licences for the sale of liquor to non-Muslim foreigners and one lawmaker has called for veils to be made compulsory for women, although it appears unlikely the provincial government will attempt to implement this.
On Thursday, the provincial Cabinet approved a draft law to set up a body to promote religious observance reminiscent of that established by the fundamentalist Taliban regime ousted from power in Afghanistan by a U.S.-led military coalition in late 2001.
Critics say the MMA has done little to improve living standards since coming to power in the provinces and is using strict Islamic laws in an attempt to placate its more fervent supporters.
Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters
#202 Posted by Paigham on May 23, 2003 11:13:42 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#201 Posted by pmishra2 on May 23, 2003 8:07:33 am
Tipu #199 (and about 10 other messages)
Here is the link from Dawn:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag14.htm
Isn`t it amusing that Pakis always attribute insightful articles about paki identity and history etc. always to the RSS? My own impression of the RSS is a bunch of tired old men with ZERO new ideas and an obsession about the past. But I guess in Pakistan they are considered an intellectual powerhouse. Hmmm....
PS: Tipu-sahib, we always enjoy your fine writing style. But I do have one comment to make. In India we consider terms like ``Bhangi`` ``Brahmin`` ``Chamar`` ``Baniya`` ``Mussala`` etc. to be ugly forms of speech. Generally, civilzed people aspire to rise above these categories. I realize this will come as a shock to you but please try to spare us your obsession with caste and religion.
Here is the link from Dawn:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag14.htm
Isn`t it amusing that Pakis always attribute insightful articles about paki identity and history etc. always to the RSS? My own impression of the RSS is a bunch of tired old men with ZERO new ideas and an obsession about the past. But I guess in Pakistan they are considered an intellectual powerhouse. Hmmm....
PS: Tipu-sahib, we always enjoy your fine writing style. But I do have one comment to make. In India we consider terms like ``Bhangi`` ``Brahmin`` ``Chamar`` ``Baniya`` ``Mussala`` etc. to be ugly forms of speech. Generally, civilzed people aspire to rise above these categories. I realize this will come as a shock to you but please try to spare us your obsession with caste and religion.
#200 Posted by arjun_m on May 23, 2003 7:00:42 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#199 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 10:25:58 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#198 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 10:25:58 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#197 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 10:25:58 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#196 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 9:34:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#195 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 9:34:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#194 Posted by Tipu on May 22, 2003 9:34:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#193 Posted by nasah on May 22, 2003 8:12:22 pm
blunders and blunders by Mr. Jinnah --
arrogant underestimation of the then powerful National Conference -- overestimation of a weakling Muslim Conference -- refusal to sit with the freedom fighter ( against the Dogra regime) Abdullah --
and THE mother of all blunders -- the inexplicably mysteious decision to unleash the maraudig hordes of tribal looters and rapists on the gentle nonviolent Kashmiris populace.
Diplomacy -- not Violence -- could have resolved the issue -- but then it wouldn`t have been the Muslim Way of resolving issues -- would it?
arrogant underestimation of the then powerful National Conference -- overestimation of a weakling Muslim Conference -- refusal to sit with the freedom fighter ( against the Dogra regime) Abdullah --
and THE mother of all blunders -- the inexplicably mysteious decision to unleash the maraudig hordes of tribal looters and rapists on the gentle nonviolent Kashmiris populace.
Diplomacy -- not Violence -- could have resolved the issue -- but then it wouldn`t have been the Muslim Way of resolving issues -- would it?
#192 Posted by friend on May 22, 2003 4:31:36 pm
stuka #189
Frontline article quoted by HE does raise some questions about why Nehru changed his stance. However picture is not complete till we examine conduct of all the political leaders during that period.
If appears that Maharaja of Kashmir was undecided till end. Gilgit revolt in Sept 1947 and Jinnah`s order to Gracey in 1948 may have pushed him in Sardar Patel`s lap.
Read following text from one of Pakistan military historian
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/apr/war-lost.htm
``It was remarkable that as a very sick 71-year-old man in 1947, Mr Jinnah possessed the tremendous Coup d Oeil (unusual strategic insight) and resolution to order Gracey in October 1947 to employ two brigades of Pakistan Army to attack Kashmir; The Maharaja of Kashmir had been requesting the Indian government for military aid since 24th October and on 26th October signed the Instrument of Accession joining India. ``
While Noorani`s article raises question about Nehru, Jinnah will share equal blame for never wanting to acknowledge any competing leader. Mistrust between Jinnah on one hand and regional stalwarts like G M Syed, Khan Abul Gaffar Khan and Sheikh Abdulla is well known. Sheikh Abdulla was most well-respected Kashmiri leader in 1947. Maharaja had him in jail. Jinnah`s willingness to talk to Abdhulla would have perhaps tilted picture in favor of Pakistan. However that didn`t happened and Pakistani leadership instead attempted to use military might to achieve this goal.
Nehru alleged going back on plebiscite, when seen in this context, makes some sense.
In fact, if we look at statements made by other members of Pakistani establishment, it appears that these ``sermons`` of self-right for Kashmir`s are nothing more than hogwash.
Read following
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/kashmir.htm
When the Quaid declared Kashmir to be ‘the jugular vein of Pakistan’, he was stating a geographical fact of strategic dimension. Having lost control of three rivers of the Punjab in the Partition, Kashmir with sources of the remaining three rivers (Indus included) assumes vital importance for our economic survival. This was and remains the main reason why India aggressed into Kashmir and maintains its stranglehold. The oft-propagated bogey of Nehru’s homesickness is nothing but hogwash. For India it is a simple matter of territorial advantage over Pakistan’s northern flank and the control of its water sources. We simply cannot allow these lifelines in hostile hands that reached there and are being sustained by a series of fraudulent and deceitful practices. In this respect, Kashmir after all and much to the dislike of many is a territorial concern of vital importance.
Frontline article quoted by HE does raise some questions about why Nehru changed his stance. However picture is not complete till we examine conduct of all the political leaders during that period.
If appears that Maharaja of Kashmir was undecided till end. Gilgit revolt in Sept 1947 and Jinnah`s order to Gracey in 1948 may have pushed him in Sardar Patel`s lap.
Read following text from one of Pakistan military historian
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/apr/war-lost.htm
``It was remarkable that as a very sick 71-year-old man in 1947, Mr Jinnah possessed the tremendous Coup d Oeil (unusual strategic insight) and resolution to order Gracey in October 1947 to employ two brigades of Pakistan Army to attack Kashmir; The Maharaja of Kashmir had been requesting the Indian government for military aid since 24th October and on 26th October signed the Instrument of Accession joining India. ``
While Noorani`s article raises question about Nehru, Jinnah will share equal blame for never wanting to acknowledge any competing leader. Mistrust between Jinnah on one hand and regional stalwarts like G M Syed, Khan Abul Gaffar Khan and Sheikh Abdulla is well known. Sheikh Abdulla was most well-respected Kashmiri leader in 1947. Maharaja had him in jail. Jinnah`s willingness to talk to Abdhulla would have perhaps tilted picture in favor of Pakistan. However that didn`t happened and Pakistani leadership instead attempted to use military might to achieve this goal.
Nehru alleged going back on plebiscite, when seen in this context, makes some sense.
In fact, if we look at statements made by other members of Pakistani establishment, it appears that these ``sermons`` of self-right for Kashmir`s are nothing more than hogwash.
Read following
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/oct/kashmir.htm
When the Quaid declared Kashmir to be ‘the jugular vein of Pakistan’, he was stating a geographical fact of strategic dimension. Having lost control of three rivers of the Punjab in the Partition, Kashmir with sources of the remaining three rivers (Indus included) assumes vital importance for our economic survival. This was and remains the main reason why India aggressed into Kashmir and maintains its stranglehold. The oft-propagated bogey of Nehru’s homesickness is nothing but hogwash. For India it is a simple matter of territorial advantage over Pakistan’s northern flank and the control of its water sources. We simply cannot allow these lifelines in hostile hands that reached there and are being sustained by a series of fraudulent and deceitful practices. In this respect, Kashmir after all and much to the dislike of many is a territorial concern of vital importance.
#191 Posted by arjun_m on May 22, 2003 4:31:35 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Naqshbandi: quin: thanks for your... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I don't know why... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: I wrote 'love' in... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: Tahir, I apologise for calling... Translation of a (Love)
- chaltahai: masadi, how would you... Translation of a (Love)
- mullah_toofani: Masadi baitay, You seem like... Translation of a (Love)
- masadi: g'night... Translation of a (Love)
- masadi: In #22 "facing" not... Translation of a (Love)
