The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem
Dost Mittar May 13, 2003
#78 Posted by FarzanaVersey on May 15, 2003 1:52:16 pm
stuka (#65):
I said ``in future``...and that is when I see an independent Kashmir. I did not mention J&K because the Panun people would not agree and have been talking about a separate state anyway.
So, my reference was to the Valley; your comparing it with examples of Janakpuri or Nasik seceding is facile.
dostmittarji:
If we start with a ``non-starter``, maybe the game will be up for a lot of people, and the Kashmiris will realise their responsibilities too.
I said ``in future``...and that is when I see an independent Kashmir. I did not mention J&K because the Panun people would not agree and have been talking about a separate state anyway.
So, my reference was to the Valley; your comparing it with examples of Janakpuri or Nasik seceding is facile.
dostmittarji:
If we start with a ``non-starter``, maybe the game will be up for a lot of people, and the Kashmiris will realise their responsibilities too.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#77 Posted by stuka on May 15, 2003 1:50:34 pm
Dost Mittar:
``Nehru sent his best friend into Nazarbandi when he started dreaming of an independent Kashmir. ``
and if they do, I will go back to India and raise the flag of the Republic of 30 Link Rd Lajpat Nagar as an independent nation.
``Nehru sent his best friend into Nazarbandi when he started dreaming of an independent Kashmir. ``
and if they do, I will go back to India and raise the flag of the Republic of 30 Link Rd Lajpat Nagar as an independent nation.
#76 Posted by HisExcellency on May 15, 2003 12:30:52 pm
#69 by pmishra2
++
If it so important to Pakistanis, why don`t you write to Jamali and Musharraf and say that it must be in the top 10 items to be discussed with indians?
++
Extradition is important for India, less so for Pakistan. After all, it was India that raised this issue by delivery a list of 20 wanted men. Therefore, this proposal should be on India`s To-Do list, not Pakistan`s.
Pakistan already has items on its To-Do list such as the Indus Waters Treaty and construction of dam by India on Pakistani rivers... I believe all these issues can be addressed once a dialogue process begins.
++
If it so important to Pakistanis, why don`t you write to Jamali and Musharraf and say that it must be in the top 10 items to be discussed with indians?
++
Extradition is important for India, less so for Pakistan. After all, it was India that raised this issue by delivery a list of 20 wanted men. Therefore, this proposal should be on India`s To-Do list, not Pakistan`s.
Pakistan already has items on its To-Do list such as the Indus Waters Treaty and construction of dam by India on Pakistani rivers... I believe all these issues can be addressed once a dialogue process begins.
#75 Posted by sadna on May 15, 2003 12:30:52 pm
dost-mittar #73
``Yes, India has the capacity to maintain the status quo but at what cost? And as the article argues, the costs are not just in terms of human lives and monetary resources``
My point is, if the only reason why a deal is possible at this time is that the strident opponents of that deal in Pakistan like the MMA or the Pakistani Army/ISI desire a temporary reprieve from hostilities, then that deal will not last long and India will be back to paying the same cost, this time defending the NEW status quo(which could probably be a worse position for India than the present status quo).
Achieving long term peace is not as simple as getting two sides to sign on a piece of paper at a given point of time - 1965, 1971, Lahore and Kargil show this. Half measures or tukka-baazi or sleight of hand to get these signatures will not do.
The Pakistani signature on the piece of paper must represent a committment to peace which is genuinely broadbased and deeprooted in Pakistani politics, its long term planning and in its society.
``Yes, India has the capacity to maintain the status quo but at what cost? And as the article argues, the costs are not just in terms of human lives and monetary resources``
My point is, if the only reason why a deal is possible at this time is that the strident opponents of that deal in Pakistan like the MMA or the Pakistani Army/ISI desire a temporary reprieve from hostilities, then that deal will not last long and India will be back to paying the same cost, this time defending the NEW status quo(which could probably be a worse position for India than the present status quo).
Achieving long term peace is not as simple as getting two sides to sign on a piece of paper at a given point of time - 1965, 1971, Lahore and Kargil show this. Half measures or tukka-baazi or sleight of hand to get these signatures will not do.
The Pakistani signature on the piece of paper must represent a committment to peace which is genuinely broadbased and deeprooted in Pakistani politics, its long term planning and in its society.
#74 Posted by HisExcellency on May 15, 2003 12:30:52 pm
Pakistan Cricket Board announced that it will send a team of Pakistani veterans to play in India. Since Zaheer Abbas, Mushtaq Muhammad, Intikhab Alam, Abdul Qadir and Hanif Mohammad remind us of an era of peace and (relatively) cordial relations, this is a good gesture.
I suggest that Indian film industry should send popular Indian artists like Dillip Kumar, Dev Anand, Pran, Amitabh, Lata, Shatrughan Sinha, Hema Malini and Rekha to Pakistan. These icons are regarded with respect in Pakistan. Gestures such as these could help build bridges across the border and push public opinion towards reconciliation and compromise.
I suggest that Indian film industry should send popular Indian artists like Dillip Kumar, Dev Anand, Pran, Amitabh, Lata, Shatrughan Sinha, Hema Malini and Rekha to Pakistan. These icons are regarded with respect in Pakistan. Gestures such as these could help build bridges across the border and push public opinion towards reconciliation and compromise.
#73 Posted by dost_mittar on May 15, 2003 11:06:40 am
sadna#26, stuka#44
Different parties have different reasons and motivations for accepting negotiations. It is good that MMA recognises the new geopolitical realities and is prepared to act accordingly. What better opportunity for the Pakistani leadership to strike a deal when the most strident opponents of such a deal are partners in the process.
Yes, India has the capacity to maintain the status quo but at what cost? And as the article argues, the costs are not just in terms of human lives and monetary resources.
Zahra:
My roadmap does suggest better communications and normalisation and intensification of trading relationships. Once normal trade is allowed, both Indians and Pakistani businessmen will locate their businesses, including call-centres, where it makes more sense.
One of the beneficial areas of cooperation would be tourism, a sector which is more developed in India than in Pakistan. Indians seem to have developed a new wanderlust and are going abroad in increasing numbers. If the bollywood film-makers are allowed to film in Hunza and other northern areas, they would love to do so instead of going to places like Switzerland and Australia. And wherever bollywood filmmakers go, well-heeled Indians and the Diaspora follows!
Ras:
Thanks for reading the article.
Urstruly:
I didn`t expect you to like this article.
But you are wrong! The positions of the two parties are not the same as always. Although the formal positions remain unchanged, informally both parties have moved some distance from it. India did not go the U.N to maintain a status quo but to get back the rest of the state that had acceded to it; that continued to be its position until recently. Similarly, Pakistan has insisted upon a plebiscite as called for by the U.N resolution but has agreed to explore other options now.
But the crux of my argument is that it is the geopolitical conditions which have changed and have made the present a propitious time for a compromise.
Different parties have different reasons and motivations for accepting negotiations. It is good that MMA recognises the new geopolitical realities and is prepared to act accordingly. What better opportunity for the Pakistani leadership to strike a deal when the most strident opponents of such a deal are partners in the process.
Yes, India has the capacity to maintain the status quo but at what cost? And as the article argues, the costs are not just in terms of human lives and monetary resources.
Zahra:
My roadmap does suggest better communications and normalisation and intensification of trading relationships. Once normal trade is allowed, both Indians and Pakistani businessmen will locate their businesses, including call-centres, where it makes more sense.
One of the beneficial areas of cooperation would be tourism, a sector which is more developed in India than in Pakistan. Indians seem to have developed a new wanderlust and are going abroad in increasing numbers. If the bollywood film-makers are allowed to film in Hunza and other northern areas, they would love to do so instead of going to places like Switzerland and Australia. And wherever bollywood filmmakers go, well-heeled Indians and the Diaspora follows!
Ras:
Thanks for reading the article.
Urstruly:
I didn`t expect you to like this article.
But you are wrong! The positions of the two parties are not the same as always. Although the formal positions remain unchanged, informally both parties have moved some distance from it. India did not go the U.N to maintain a status quo but to get back the rest of the state that had acceded to it; that continued to be its position until recently. Similarly, Pakistan has insisted upon a plebiscite as called for by the U.N resolution but has agreed to explore other options now.
But the crux of my argument is that it is the geopolitical conditions which have changed and have made the present a propitious time for a compromise.
#72 Posted by dost_mittar on May 15, 2003 10:58:57 am
asfand:
My comment re. hordes of lashkars referred to the 1948 invasion. The current situation developed almost entirely due to the mismanagement of the state affairs by the successive Indian governments.
The increase in Pakistan`s reserves are almost entirely due to the pouring of international funds because of aid, loan forgiveness, and the U.S payments for services offered by Pakistan in its war against Al Qaeda. The mismanagement by Pakistani civilians undoubtedly played a part in the decline in Pakistan`s economic fortunes, but the role played by unsustainable defence expenditures and the unsettled business environment in Pakistan because of a jihadi culture cannot be discounted.
[Contradiction. Read the two sentences together. What is India trying to do here. Become an American partner and contain China or increase business with China? I guess both the conditions are mutually exclusive. India can do one at a time.]
Not necessarily. The United States is the most important trading partner for both India and China. Both countries recognize this. India is skilfully playing a China card in its dealings with the United States and the U.S card in its dealing with the Chinese. India does not see either China or the United States as a long-term enemy (except perhaps China as a geopolitical rival in Asia). Its main ambition is to dominate the sea lanes in the Indian ocean and this ambition coincides with the American interests. At the same time, it does not like the supercop role that the U.S has assumed for itself and in that it shares a common concern with China.
But I have to admit that this is a very fluid situation right now and we really don`t know what the shape of things to come will be.
My comment re. hordes of lashkars referred to the 1948 invasion. The current situation developed almost entirely due to the mismanagement of the state affairs by the successive Indian governments.
The increase in Pakistan`s reserves are almost entirely due to the pouring of international funds because of aid, loan forgiveness, and the U.S payments for services offered by Pakistan in its war against Al Qaeda. The mismanagement by Pakistani civilians undoubtedly played a part in the decline in Pakistan`s economic fortunes, but the role played by unsustainable defence expenditures and the unsettled business environment in Pakistan because of a jihadi culture cannot be discounted.
[Contradiction. Read the two sentences together. What is India trying to do here. Become an American partner and contain China or increase business with China? I guess both the conditions are mutually exclusive. India can do one at a time.]
Not necessarily. The United States is the most important trading partner for both India and China. Both countries recognize this. India is skilfully playing a China card in its dealings with the United States and the U.S card in its dealing with the Chinese. India does not see either China or the United States as a long-term enemy (except perhaps China as a geopolitical rival in Asia). Its main ambition is to dominate the sea lanes in the Indian ocean and this ambition coincides with the American interests. At the same time, it does not like the supercop role that the U.S has assumed for itself and in that it shares a common concern with China.
But I have to admit that this is a very fluid situation right now and we really don`t know what the shape of things to come will be.
#71 Posted by stuka on May 15, 2003 10:58:57 am
Friend: It might interest you to know that Pakistan never ACTUALLY ASKED for Advani. Quite unlike India which has formally, and through diplomatic as well as Interpol channels, asked for Dawood.
No one knows if the FIR even exists. There was just a media report which conveniently appeared a few days after India gave the list to Pakistan for 20 wanted terrorists. Supposedly Advani was involved in a plot to kill Jinnah back in 1947.
The end of the story was that someone with more intelligence than that of a average minister must have explained to them that an FIR by itself has no meaning. There has to be an indictment and a statute of limitations. Since the Average Paki Abdul (Ahmadzai peing a good example) does not have the intelligence to fathom the legalities of the situation, they make themselves feel good by equating an ``FIR`` against Advani with an Interpol Red Corner Notice and a formal demand for extradition.
No one knows if the FIR even exists. There was just a media report which conveniently appeared a few days after India gave the list to Pakistan for 20 wanted terrorists. Supposedly Advani was involved in a plot to kill Jinnah back in 1947.
The end of the story was that someone with more intelligence than that of a average minister must have explained to them that an FIR by itself has no meaning. There has to be an indictment and a statute of limitations. Since the Average Paki Abdul (Ahmadzai peing a good example) does not have the intelligence to fathom the legalities of the situation, they make themselves feel good by equating an ``FIR`` against Advani with an Interpol Red Corner Notice and a formal demand for extradition.
#70 Posted by dost_mittar on May 15, 2003 10:58:56 am
Farzana:
Emotional reality is not static when it comes to (North) Indians and Pakistanis. Do you remember the emotional roller-coaster Indians were riding on during Vajpayee`s Lahore visit?
I think that an independent Kashmir is a non-starter. Even if Pakistan agrees (which it wont as it would mean giving up not only POK but also Gilgit, Baltistan and Northern Areas), India never will. Nehru sent his best friend into Nazarbandi when he started dreaming of an independent Kashmir. I see no takers for it in India today. But a solution short of independence might be achievable!
Emotional reality is not static when it comes to (North) Indians and Pakistanis. Do you remember the emotional roller-coaster Indians were riding on during Vajpayee`s Lahore visit?
I think that an independent Kashmir is a non-starter. Even if Pakistan agrees (which it wont as it would mean giving up not only POK but also Gilgit, Baltistan and Northern Areas), India never will. Nehru sent his best friend into Nazarbandi when he started dreaming of an independent Kashmir. I see no takers for it in India today. But a solution short of independence might be achievable!
#69 Posted by pmishra2 on May 15, 2003 9:34:55 am
#67 HisExcellency
OK, so there is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan. Has it ever been proposed? If so, who proposed it? Why wasn`t it accepted? Were there some practical problems in its implementations? Why doesnt Jamali propose it as one of the items to be discussed? If it so important to Pakistanis, why don`t you write to Jamali and Musharraf and say that it must be in the top 10 items to be discussed with indians?
Rather than spinning some elaborate conspiracy theory or taking refuge in legalisms, why not work to achieve what you want?
OK, so there is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan. Has it ever been proposed? If so, who proposed it? Why wasn`t it accepted? Were there some practical problems in its implementations? Why doesnt Jamali propose it as one of the items to be discussed? If it so important to Pakistanis, why don`t you write to Jamali and Musharraf and say that it must be in the top 10 items to be discussed with indians?
Rather than spinning some elaborate conspiracy theory or taking refuge in legalisms, why not work to achieve what you want?
#68 Posted by HisExcellency on May 15, 2003 9:19:52 am
re: #46 by pmishra2
++
I can see that now you are completely delirious. Yes, definitely india has sponsored all kinds of insurgencies within Pakistan. No doubt about it. Certainly, I can clearly see that one appears to raging fiercely within your mind.
++
Your posts demonstrate high rhetoric but low factual content. Read the declassified CIA reports about 1971 and you will realize that India was plotting this thing all through 1968 (when Sheikh Mujib met Indian security officials at Agartala to get several caches of weapons, explosives and propaganda material). Sheikh Mujib was later arrested on sedition charges. The case against him was foolproof and he was certain to be sentenced. But then Ayub Khan decided to call an All Parties Conference and withdrew the charges against Mujib as a reconciliatory gesture.
Chalo, let bygones be bygones. But you still didn`t respond to my question...
If India is interested in a formal extradition treaty, Pakistan could reciprocate. But this would prevent India from mounting insurgencies inside Pakistan. Will Indian government agree to this??
++
I can see that now you are completely delirious. Yes, definitely india has sponsored all kinds of insurgencies within Pakistan. No doubt about it. Certainly, I can clearly see that one appears to raging fiercely within your mind.
++
Your posts demonstrate high rhetoric but low factual content. Read the declassified CIA reports about 1971 and you will realize that India was plotting this thing all through 1968 (when Sheikh Mujib met Indian security officials at Agartala to get several caches of weapons, explosives and propaganda material). Sheikh Mujib was later arrested on sedition charges. The case against him was foolproof and he was certain to be sentenced. But then Ayub Khan decided to call an All Parties Conference and withdrew the charges against Mujib as a reconciliatory gesture.
Chalo, let bygones be bygones. But you still didn`t respond to my question...
If India is interested in a formal extradition treaty, Pakistan could reciprocate. But this would prevent India from mounting insurgencies inside Pakistan. Will Indian government agree to this??
#67 Posted by friend on May 15, 2003 9:19:52 am
ahmekzai saheb,
would you mind giving some details on the contents of this FIR against Advani? When was it filed? What are the charges? Who are the accusers? and Why was it not discussed till date?
would you mind giving some details on the contents of this FIR against Advani? When was it filed? What are the charges? Who are the accusers? and Why was it not discussed till date?
#66 Posted by Urstruly on May 15, 2003 8:10:21 am
The article is terribelly written in its content. It repeats the same positions that we have for the past 55 years. According to Einstien we cannot solve a problem with the same level of understanding which created the problems in the first place.
#65 Posted by stuka on May 15, 2003 7:11:43 am
Farzana:
``In future all three countries -- India, Pakistan and Kashmir (yes!) -- will have to learn to mind their own business.``
By what definition is Kashmir a country? And do you mean the valley the entire state? And under what law, agreement etc do you state that Kashmir is a country? Independence was after all not an option for Princely States.
If it is the valley by itself, would similar support be extended to Janak Puri in delhi if the majority of residents there wanted to secede? Or the city of Nasik?
``In future all three countries -- India, Pakistan and Kashmir (yes!) -- will have to learn to mind their own business.``
By what definition is Kashmir a country? And do you mean the valley the entire state? And under what law, agreement etc do you state that Kashmir is a country? Independence was after all not an option for Princely States.
If it is the valley by itself, would similar support be extended to Janak Puri in delhi if the majority of residents there wanted to secede? Or the city of Nasik?
#64 Posted by stuka on May 15, 2003 7:09:27 am
Ahmad Zai: To give you a straight forward answer, India has no reason to give up Advani because it has not even been asked. Pakistan has repeatedly been asked by India as well as Interpol.
Why get into hypothetical case of Jinnah being handed over to India for treason or Advani being handed over to Pakistan?
The reality is:
India has evidence that Dawood Ibrahim was involved in Bombay bomb blasts and he is in Pakistan. Pakistan refuses to hand him over.
Pakistan has not even made a demand for Advani so replying with hypothetical situation has no meaning.
You say...
``India has been avoiding any Government to Government, people to people, businessmen to businessmen level talks with Pakistan ``
What a laugh. First you kill my wife and children. Then you complain why I don`t come and play Gulli Danda with you?
Why get into hypothetical case of Jinnah being handed over to India for treason or Advani being handed over to Pakistan?
The reality is:
India has evidence that Dawood Ibrahim was involved in Bombay bomb blasts and he is in Pakistan. Pakistan refuses to hand him over.
Pakistan has not even made a demand for Advani so replying with hypothetical situation has no meaning.
You say...
``India has been avoiding any Government to Government, people to people, businessmen to businessmen level talks with Pakistan ``
What a laugh. First you kill my wife and children. Then you complain why I don`t come and play Gulli Danda with you?
#63 Posted by stuka on May 15, 2003 7:09:27 am
Zafar: You are right. Musharraf is an opportunist. He knows which side it`s bread is buttered.
Let me ask you a question...Why is it that Pakistan strives for equality with India in every sphere except in it`s treatment of Generals who are one star and above?
Compare a Major General of the Iindian Army with his opposite on the Pakistan Army. I am talking legal compensation only, whereas the latter actually has much more opportunity to make money on the side, just compare what they actually are eligible for.
The Indian general barely scrapes the Upper Middle class whereas the Paki is part of the elite.
Therefore, as far as Iindia is concerned, both Army and Jehadis are extremists.
Let me ask you a question...Why is it that Pakistan strives for equality with India in every sphere except in it`s treatment of Generals who are one star and above?
Compare a Major General of the Iindian Army with his opposite on the Pakistan Army. I am talking legal compensation only, whereas the latter actually has much more opportunity to make money on the side, just compare what they actually are eligible for.
The Indian general barely scrapes the Upper Middle class whereas the Paki is part of the elite.
Therefore, as far as Iindia is concerned, both Army and Jehadis are extremists.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Massaddi Mian: Please show me... Why is Karachi Turning
- Ajeet: Now that Romair has... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- anil: Re: # 111 Kaal: "...they call... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- quin: Re: # 52 thanks... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I would like to... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: The hadith are the... Translation of a (Love)
- dost_mittar: Eklavya#118: "The other option is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Vedas(knoweldge of manifest) and... Dhokha and Being a
