The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem

++
Put an asterix next to their victory thanks to all the pre-poll manipulations by the military establishment.
++

Pre-poll manipulations definitely played a part in ensuring a weak parliament that wouldn`t threaten Musharraf`s grip on power.

But pre-poll rigging didn`t take place in urban areas like Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Faisalabad, etc. According to the report released by PPP on pre-poll rigging, most of the manipulations took place in rural areas of Punjab and Sindh. For example, all Lahore seats went to Nawaz Sharif and Benazir as expected. Most Karachi seats went to MQM as expected. There were no surprises in any major cities of Pakistan. The real surprises came in rural areas of Punjab where pro-Musharraf parties won significant number of seats, at the expense of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir`s candidates.

In NWFP and Baluchistan, the result was already a foregone conclusion. The US War on Taliban and Musharraf`s U-Turn had already created a backlash against Musharraf. Election rallies of secular/moderate parties (PPP, Muslim League, ANP, etc) were quite lacklustre and small compared with the enormous crowds at MMA rallies during the election campaign. A lot of innocent Afghans died in the War on Taliban as a result of friendly fire, stray bombs, etc. (Remember the Afghan wedding party that was bombed by Americans because they were celebrating with gunfire!!). Given the ethnic/tribal ties between Taliban, Baluchis and Pashtuns... the sympathy vote for MMA was enormous.

I don`t believe that MMA won election in NWFP and Baluchistan because of pre-poll rigging. This outcome was a result of sympathy vote for MMA and Pashtun backlash against US War on Taliban.

++
While US system is more advanced it is by no means a gold standard. It has its flaws.
++

Yes. The US system is the best system compared to all others in the world today, but certainly not a perfect one. The reason I call it the best is simply because it prevents pogroms and religious exploitation.

Consider the racial diversity of American society. No country in the world has so many different religions, cultures and races peacefully coexisting. Moreover, the American notion of nationalism is totally different from that in rest of the world. Under American constitution, it is the duty of every American to criticize the government if he/she believes that it is following policies contrary to core American freedoms and values.

Think about it. Most Pakistanis and Indians take pride in defending their government policies even if they are morally wrong and cause suffering. Many people in our part of the world believe that criticizing your own country is unpatriotic. We believe in blind nationalism even if that means killing thousands of Kashmiris and Bengalis. There were no mass protests in New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras against human rights violations in Kashmir. There were no mass demonstrations in Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad against human rights violations in East Pakistan.

But in America, people do not justify human right violations in the name of nationalism. Reports of carnage from Vietnam shook the Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon administrations. Reports of Iran Contra Affair shook the Reagan Administration. And War in Iraq has drawn massive protests in Washington, NYC and LA.

Reply #121 ironman

Please do not get me wrong.

I am a South Asian for last 5000 years.
Muslim for last 1400 years.
And Pakistani for last 55 years.

re: #122 by harimau

++
In that case, does India have a legal claim to all of Bangladesh? After all, if an area is not part of Pakistan, it belongs to India, under the Act.
++

That conclusion is legally ambiguous.

Under the Act, all Hindu-majority states would automatically become part of India. All Muslim-majority states would automatically become part of Pakistan. The Act does not stipulate what would happen if a Muslim-majority state decided to secede from Pakistan. Or a Hindu-majority state decided to secede from India.

Do such states technically become ``princely states``? Do such states have the option of staying independent? Do these states automatically become part of India/Pakistan? Will the accession of these states be determined through popular will? Or through the decision of their rulers?

None of these questions are answered clearly by the Indian Independence Act. Given Pakistan`s position on Kashmir, I think the popular will of Bangladeshis determines the status of Bangladesh. I suspect Indians would disagree with this principle and instead insist that popular will of Indians should determine the status of Bangladesh :))

Ref YourStupidity #116

[ Dude, since we are discussing the Indian Indpendence Act to begin with, I would appreciate if you would confine yourself to the IIA. The Indian Independence Act was about the partition of India along religious line. Period. Neither geographical contiguity nor nation-state concepts entered the partition plan mutually agreed between Mountbatten, Nehru and Jinnah.

There exists a fine line between your commentary (or mine) and the stipulations of the Act. The commentaries can vary from person to person, the Act is final.]

In that case, does India have a legal claim to all of Bangladesh? After all, if an area is not part of Pakistan, it belongs to India, under the Act.

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

Pakistanis today are in the gutter. In the west they refer themselves as `South asians`!!! such is their shame.

It is Pakistan that desperately needs peace.. much much more than India does. We all know that, don`t we.

Should we help them at this moment or should we savor their misery and have them crawl awhile?

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

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

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

HisExcellency #113

`` You first challenged me on Saudi Arabia. If you have ever been to Saudi Arabia you will realize that Wahhabism has been ingrained into their culture for centuries. Strict enforcement of hijab, segregation of the sexes, ban on alcohol, strict dress code and monarchy have in vogue in Arabia since 710 A.D. Democracy may bring better governance and financial accountability to Saudi Arabia, but it will not change the Wahhabi character of those people. After all, this orthodox model has been part of their culture for almost 13 centuries! ``

This is a dumb statement. Samurai Japan was even more rigid and regressive than Wahabis. They have changed in the past 140 years.
Hindu society has been rigid over 2000 years. It is changing to adapt to modernity. There is nothing inherent in Wahabi character that would prevent change. The Saudi monarchy has used mullahs and money to keep things the old way. I am not sure how long it will last.

`` You are right. But your definition of Islamic state is perhaps too one-dimensional. There are various forms of Islamic states. You have the strict Saudi Arabian, Iranian and Taliban models on the one hand. And you have the Malaysian, Pakistani, Egyptian, Indonesian and Bangladeshi models on the other. Just because the Kashmiris don`t want the Saudi Arabian model, doesn`t mean that they don`t want the Pakistani/Egyptian/Malaysia/Indonesia model either. The latter are quite moderate in character. For example, in Pakistan the official state religion is Islam. But several Islamic injunctions have been interpreted liberally. As a result, Pakistani women don`t wear hijabs. Music and dancing are not considered a taboo. Nobody gets his hands chopped off for theft. And unlike Saudi Arabia, there are no ``Vice & Virtue Police`` in Pakistan to harass people.``

Other than the fact 99% of population are Muslims what is so Islamic about the Pakistani state ? I really like to know.

`` FYI, the people in NWFP and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan have elected fundamentalist governments to power. These governments have banned music in buses. They have also decided to ban co-educational institutions and instead introduce segregated colleges. So clearly, a certain percentage (20-30%) of Pakistanis want the conservative Islamic model. It may come as a surprise to you that the MMA (religious party alliance) won an absolute majority in NWFP state assembly on the basis of this conservative manifesto. ``

Put an asterix next to their victory thanks to all the pre-poll manipulations by the military establishment.

`` In Karachi, for the first time since 1985, Altaf Hussain`s MQM has lost 3 of its key constituencies to the Mullahs. ``

Put another asterix next to the Karachi elections.

`` Pakistan`s record on democracy is rather poor. With frequent military takeovers, countless ordinances and LFOs, shady governance and extremely corrupt politicians.. the country`s constitution and economic policies keep changing every other year. (The American constitution hasn`t changed in the last 250 years.) ``

You forgot a key factor - military manipulation of politics.

Technically there are 40 amendments to the US constitution.

`` Both India and Pakistan are like freshmen aspiring for a college degree. They have miles to go and dozens of tests to take before they can become a graduate like USA, UK or Japan. Compare the human resource indicators of our countries with those of the industrialized nations and you will get the picture. ``

India is more complex and diverse than Pakistan. India is a notch above Pakistan in its system.

`` Even in terms of democracy, India may be ahead of Pakistan but it still has to progress a lot to reach the American standard. Forget about the Presidential and Senate elections. Even at the lower county/municipality level, there is such transparency and awareness.. that only a competent, politically correct, and experienced candidate can emerge victorious from the endless debates, investigative journalism and issue-oriented political wrestling. I believe a Presidential system of democracy and transparent political process from top to bottom, should be adopted in Pakistan. ``

While US system is more advanced it is by no means a gold standard. It has its flaws.

re: ##114 by bbabu

You demonstrate symptoms of AIRDS (Acute Indian Reading Disability Syndrome). First of all you claim that Pakistan has no right to demand Sikkim, Nagaland, etc. Well Pakistan never did!.

Next you discuss Vatican and Bangladesh in the context of Indian Independence Act 1947. Dude, since we are discussing the Indian Indpendence Act to begin with, I would appreciate if you would confine yourself to the IIA. The Indian Independence Act was about the partition of India along religious line. Period. Neither geographical contiguity nor nation-state concepts entered the partition plan mutually agreed between Mountbatten, Nehru and Jinnah.

There exists a fine line between your commentary (or mine) and the stipulations of the Act. The commentaries can vary from person to person, the Act is final. The reason we have so many different commentaries is because the Act was ambiguous about the precise modalities for accession (or independence) of princely states. Many people blame the British for being deliberately vague so that India and Pakistan would continue to quarrel even after independence.

Nevertheless, we can`t blame the past for everything. We have a situation at hand (i.e. disillusionment of Kashmiris with India, coupled with militancy and nuclear-armed neighbours). Now it is up to us to make sense of a bad situation.

Finally you make the preposterous claim that Pakistan Army (the favorite Indian scapegoat) fostered Islamist movements in NWFP and Baluchistan to counter Pashtun nationalism. Were you on drugs during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan from 1979-1988?? Because it you weren`t, you would know that CIA and Pakistan set up Mujahideen training camps and in NWFP, Baluchistan and eastern Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets.

Since this discussion is veering away from dost-mittar`s positive article, I think we need to set some things straight:

A) Pakistanis and Indians will continue to disagree on politics, secularism, Kashmir, aspects of their history and a plethora of other things. This disagreement is normal. France and U.S. have severe differences with each other despite sharing the same religion and political system.

B) Differences of opinion that result in violence are not normal. It is abnormal for Indian troops to kill, rape, maim and torture Kashmiris because of a difference in opinion. (Secession, after all, is just the effect of an extreme difference of opinion). There are peaceful ways of dealing with such issues. Similarly, the infiltration of Jihadis, attacks on Kashmiri Sikhs/Hindus and armed resistence against Indian security forces are also not normal. A peaceful way must be found to further these ends.

C) No amount of bilateral talks, summits or peace conferences will remove the normal differences of opinion between India and Pakistan. If removal of such differences is the yardstick, all Indo-Pak talks will fail.

D) The objective of talks should be end to violence on both sides.. in other words: the removal of abnormal differences of opinion. If India permanently halts human rights violations in Kashmir and Pakistan permanently halts infiltration into Kashmir, the talks will be deemed a success even if both countries do not change their stance on Kashmir (and other issues).

This distinction between normal differences and abnormal differences must be kept in mind by both governments when they enter talks. This distinction should also be understood by Indian and Pakistani chowkies.

Lets agree to disagree on politics, ideology, religion & history but lets all agree to never disagree on peace, security, sanctity of life/property and mutual coexistence.

re: #104 by pmishra2

I am amazed at your lack of reading comprehesion skills. In my post, I said that the Islamic model is gaining popularity (which it is). You mistook that to mean that Islamic model is already popular (which it is not, atleast yet).

You first challenged me on Saudi Arabia. If you have ever been to Saudi Arabia you will realize that Wahhabism has been ingrained into their culture for centuries. Strict enforcement of hijab, segregation of the sexes, ban on alcohol, strict dress code and monarchy have in vogue in Arabia since 710 A.D. Democracy may bring better governance and financial accountability to Saudi Arabia, but it will not change the Wahhabi character of those people. After all, this orthodox model has been part of their culture for almost 13 centuries!

++
My mother belongs to the hindu minority in J&K and I have spent months in the kashmir valley. Other than a vicious lunatic fringe that assaults unveiled women NO ONE is intererested in an ``islamic state``.
++

You are right. But your definition of Islamic state is perhaps too one-dimensional. There are various forms of Islamic states. You have the strict Saudi Arabian, Iranian and Taliban models on the one hand. And you have the Malaysian, Pakistani, Egyptian, Indonesian and Bangladeshi models on the other. Just because the Kashmiris don`t want the Saudi Arabian model, doesn`t mean that they don`t want the Pakistani/Egyptian/Malaysia/Indonesia model either. The latter are quite moderate in character. For example, in Pakistan the official state religion is Islam. But several Islamic injunctions have been interpreted liberally. As a result, Pakistani women don`t wear hijabs. Music and dancing are not considered a taboo. Nobody gets his hands chopped off for theft. And unlike Saudi Arabia, there are no ``Vice & Virtue Police`` in Pakistan to harass people.

++
As for your belief that people in Kashmir (and even Pakistan!) want an islamic state ---- it is complete nonsense too. There is not the slightest evidence for this: opinion polls, elections, whatever....
++

FYI, the people in NWFP and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan have elected fundamentalist governments to power. These governments have banned music in buses. They have also decided to ban co-educational institutions and instead introduce segregated colleges. So clearly, a certain percentage (20-30%) of Pakistanis want the conservative Islamic model. It may come as a surprise to you that the MMA (religious party alliance) won an absolute majority in NWFP state assembly on the basis of this conservative manifesto.

In Karachi, for the first time since 1985, Altaf Hussain`s MQM has lost 3 of its key constituencies to the Mullahs.

Facts demonstrate that the Islamic model is gaining popularity in rural Sindh as well. The liberal, secular PPP led by Benazir Bhutto is still the largest party. And the moderate Muslim League holds the cards in Punjab. But corruption, economic mismanagement and political wheeling-dealing (Lota-ism) is discrediting the leadership of PPP and Muslim League. Since the Mullahs have never been directly in power, many people are turning to them to provide alternate leadership. As a PPP supporter, I think the Mullahs will just push our country into the dark ages. Yet denying the increase in their popularity would be politically dishonest.

++
I am glad you have felt free to espouse your ``political ideas`` freely. We can observe the bankruptcy of your ideology: one that is always willing to criticize other countries for failing to meet high ideals in law, treatment of minorities, openness, fairness etc.
++

I never gave a clean chit to Pakistan on minorities, openness, and fairness. True there have never been any genocides of Hindus in Pakistan, but there are other instruments (such as blasphemy law) that is used to harrass them. Just like the VHP blames Indian Muslims of being Pakistani sympathizers, Mullahs accuse the Pakistani Hindus of being Indian sympathizers.

Indian courts enjoy much more independence and integrity than Pakistani courts. In Pakistan, politicians don`t bother to hire lawyers since they can buy the judge anyway!

Pakistan`s record on democracy is rather poor. With frequent military takeovers, countless ordinances and LFOs, shady governance and extremely corrupt politicians.. the country`s constitution and economic policies keep changing every other year. (The American constitution hasn`t changed in the last 250 years.)

Both India and Pakistan are like freshmen aspiring for a college degree. They have miles to go and dozens of tests to take before they can become a graduate like USA, UK or Japan. Compare the human resource indicators of our countries with those of the industrialized nations and you will get the picture.

Even in terms of democracy, India may be ahead of Pakistan but it still has to progress a lot to reach the American standard. Forget about the Presidential and Senate elections. Even at the lower county/municipality level, there is such transparency and awareness.. that only a competent, politically correct, and experienced candidate can emerge victorious from the endless debates, investigative journalism and issue-oriented political wrestling. I believe a Presidential system of democracy and transparent political process from top to bottom, should be adopted in Pakistan.

HisExcellency # 111

`` The partition act does not contain any geographical contiguity restrictions. Any princely state situated in any part of British India had the option of acceding to Dominion of Pakistan or India or stay indepedent, regardless of geographical continuity. (BTW, Pakistan was demanding Junagadh and Hyderabad only to highlight India`s inconsistency in the 3 states. This was never a serious claim and didn`t become a national foreign policy objective like Kashmir) ``

Geographical continuity is a pre-requisite for nation-state. You conveniently deleted the part about only 2 completely encircled countries - one of which is the Vactican (not a real country). It gets hard to defend your territorries and maintain your sovreignity. You could not defend Bangladesh even though it had a coastline.

`` Even if we accept the ``geographical contiguity`` principle for the sake of common sense, it still presents us with India`s legal, moral and political inconsistency in Kashmir because Kashmir is geographically contiguous with Pakistan and has a Muslim majority. ``

Geographical contiguity is not just common sense.

Kashmir is geographically contiguous with India too. Its ruler acceeded to India.

`` It is precisely because of such inconsistencies that Pakistan insists that all disputes be referred to third-parties. Consistency and transparency in bilateral relations does not seem to be Indian priorities when dealing with Pakistan. No nation can be accuser, judge, jury, witness and executioner in its own cause. ``

There is nothing inconsistent with Indian position. Pakistan had no real claim on Hyderabad and Junagadh. Kashmir could have gone either way. Kashmiri ruler acceeded to India. You can whine Nizam of Hyderababd did not get his chance to run an independent state. To which I say tough luck and life isn`t fair.

`` No sir, you are mistaken. Religion WAS the raison d`etre, the primary cause of partition. You are more confused about history than I thought. ``

Gee whiz I wonder why Bengali cousins wanted out within 25 years. I am sure Sindhis and Baluchis would be pleased to leave given the choice. I wonder why 100 million Muslims choose to stay in India.

`` You must be kidding me! Pakistanis are neither worried about Indian conquest nor about Pashtun unification. Pakistan`s impregnable military capability guarantees the former. Entrenched Pashtun interests in Pakistan`s power structure ensure the latter. FYI, Pashtun nationalism has been dead for over 23 years since the exit of Zahir Shah. Since then Pashtuns have become key players in Pakistan`s military, bureaucratic and economic landscape. Moreover, 14 of the 18 major Pashtun tribes are based in Pakistan. Therefore, unification would only result in tge merger of Jalalabad, Kandahar, Paktia and Patkia districts with Pakistan... not vice versa. ``

Unless Pakistan changes its ways there is no benefit in Pusthuns joining Pakistan and living under Punjabi domination. Pakistan has nothing to offer other than access to the sea. Pusthuns have 20-30% share in the bloated Pakistani military which will be trimmed down in the future. Pusthuns have a say in the Taliban policy towards Afghanistan which has been a disater.

If your military is not worried about Pathan and Baluchi nationalism you ask yourself why Pakistani military (read Punjabi military) has been trying hard to promote Islamic movements in Pathan belt.

`` To be polite, Pakistan`s right to demand [Kashmir] have already been acknowledged under India Independence Act 1947, UN Security Council resolution 654, Tashkent Agreement, Simla Accord and Lahore Declarations. ``

You have no business demanding self-determination for Nagaland, Sikkim and Punjab especially coming from a society with no record of tolerating self-determination. Never mind Nagaland has been peaceful state for more than 30 years. For a change ask your own military to allow Pakistani people to determine their own destiny. It might really help.

ahmadzai #107

I keep hearing about this FIR nonsense. Could you please tell us what Advani crimes exactly are. Since ithe crime happened 50 years ago are the witnesses alive ? If I am charged with a crime I presume Pakistani courts give me the right to cross examine my witnesses. If the witnesses are dead you might as well toss the case in the garbage bin. Of course such details might not matter in the Pakistani court system.

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