The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem

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

His Excellency and the Indian friends:

Have Islamists come to power due to Musharraf`s manipulation?

I just came back from traveling in the region and smoking my skin. If one has to comment on Islamists of Afghanistan and Pakistan then I recommend that he / she gets out of the drawing room into the streets and burn his / her skin to get an eye witness account. Reading the articles written by `drawing room` journalists will not help us in any direction.

Karzai himself is afraid that Talibans have gained popularity. One reason is American attitude that has encouraged warlords much like the Afghan civil war era of 1988-96 that led to Talibans due to popular discontent. Of course, there is no manipulation of General Musharraf and his military junta in that country.

I guarantee that if free and impartial elections are held today in Afghanistan, pro-Taliban Pushtoons will sweep the polls. Do I agree with Talibans taking over Afghanistan and Islamists - Pakistan? Absolutely not. So how to deal with the menace of people making unintelligent choices under religious emotionalism?

Both Musharraf and Karzai in a way agree to marginalize the Islamists through the deeds of economic performance that cascade down to the common man. I believe that this is the way to go.

arjun_m at # 129:

There is a justification for MMA coming into the power as given by His Excellency.

However, how do you explain the coming of extremist Balls of Thakray Advani, Joshi and Modi into the power?

As it is, these 4 are responsible for killing of thousands of minorities through their extremist agenda.

The only elected politicians who can be compared with OBL & his Al Qaeda in their symbolic acts are Advani and Joshi. OBL led the terrorist movement that brought WTC, the American symbol of capitalism, down. Advani and Joshi led a march that brought the Babri Mosque, a symbol of Indian secularism, down.

re: #129 by arjun_m

You are reading too much into my posts. I am not justifying the rise of MMA. I am explaining it, if you understand the difference.

IMHO, American War on Terror was conducted in a mindless, trigger- happy fashion. This glorified an ugly Taliban regime into Pashtun heroes. It is no secret that Taliban were themselves divided over the hand-over of Osama Bin Laden. Mullah Omar and his small clique were being opposed by the Taliban Council of Elders as well as Mullah Zaeef and Taliban Foreign Minister.

On countless occasions between Sep 2001 and Oct 2001, ISI Chief Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad advised Pentagon to play the ``divide-and-rule`` tactics by supporting the anti-Mullah Umar lobby. This was the perfect opportunity for the Americans to isolate Mullah Umar, get OBL and get a pliant Taliban ruler in power. Any expert of Taliban (e.g. Ahmad Rashid) will tell you that not all Taliban believed in suppression of women and minorities.

But Americans weren`t listening. They wanted to make a statement. And I can understand why. The world`s only superpower had been hit hard in its backyard. It wanted to demonstrate its power and awe. President Bush felt the need to restore American confidence by demonstrating US air power and military muscle.

In hindsight, we can safely say that American anger prevailed over American shrewdness in Afghanistan. IMHO, this `angry` approach directly contributed to the rise of MMA in NWFP and Baluchistan. A `shrewd` approach would perhaps have denied the MMA their sympathy votes. Perhaps OBL would already be in US custody. And a pliant, moderate Taliban Pashtun leader would be ruling Kabul, instead of a potpourri of warlords, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.

HisExcellency #124

The biggest flaw of the US system is ther influence of money in politics. It will be the un-doing of the system.

US is a highly prosperous society. India is a society where still daily survival is issue for tens of millions of people. It is hard for democracy to evolve beyond a certain point in such situations.

USA lacks the true diversity of India. Pakistan and USA are similar in diversity. USA became prosperous when they were homogenous. Their diversity came after their prosperity.

HisExcellency # 132

`` IMHO, American War on Terror was conducted in a mindless, trigger- happy fashion. This glorified an ugly Taliban regime into Pashtun heroes. It is no secret that Taliban were themselves divided over the hand-over of Osama Bin Laden. Mullah Omar and his small clique were being opposed by the Taliban Council of Elders as well as Mullah Zaeef and Taliban Foreign Minister. ``

Do I remember some garbage to the tune of ``Afghans cannot hand over their guests. Osama is our guest``. I also remember a lot of garbage about how the brave Mujahdeen with the help of Allah drove out the Soviets. (no mention about those Stingers)

I am glad US had the JDAMs and daisy cutters to put a dagger in the heart of the Taliban. 3000-4000 civillians died in US air strikes. Taliban killed several hundred thousands with their misguided policies. There is no comparison. Most of Afghan refugees have left Pakistan. What more do you want ?

`` On countless occasions between Sep 2001 and Oct 2001, ISI Chief Maj. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad advised Pentagon to play the ``divide-and-rule`` tactics by supporting the anti-Mullah Umar lobby. This was the perfect opportunity for the Americans to isolate Mullah Umar, get OBL and get a pliant Taliban ruler in power. Any expert of Taliban (e.g. Ahmad Rashid) will tell you that not all Taliban believed in suppression of women and minorities. ``

Mahmud was playing a double game. Once Americans found out Musharraf had to can him. All this crap about moderate Taliban was a means for Pakistan to control Afghanistan.

`` In hindsight, we can safely say that American anger prevailed over American shrewdness in Afghanistan. IMHO, this `angry` approach directly contributed to the rise of MMA in NWFP and Baluchistan. A `shrewd` approach would perhaps have denied the MMA their sympathy votes. Perhaps OBL would already be in US custody. And a pliant, moderate Taliban Pashtun leader would be ruling Kabul, instead of a potpourri of warlords, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.``

MMA won power because military establishment rigged the playing field. Musharaff tried to use MMA to gain leverage with Washington. Washington leaked out Pakistan-North Korea connection to intimidate Mushy.

#131 by ahmadzai
You are right about the Taliban`s resurging popularity. One of the mistakes made by US in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns feel marginalized in the power structure. Most of the key ministries have been taken over by Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks. Given the deep ethnic divisions between Pashtuns and these minority groups, this power imbalance is also contributing to heartburn. Unfortunately, this will just reinforce the MMA in Pakistan and encourage them in their obscurantist agenda. Ensuring a fair power balance in Afghanistan is as much in Pakistan`s interest as in Indian, American, Russian and Iranian interests.

#128 by rsridhar
I agree with your analysis. Since the Indian model works for India, it should not be changed. However in Pakistan`s case, the British Parliamentary model does not seem to be working. Horse-trading, politics of personality cult and lack of intra-party democracy means that in Pakistan political parties are owned by their leaders. Benazir Bhutto, Altaf Hussain and Nawaz Sharif have become the Godfather of their parties. No dissent is allowed inside the party. Any party official who challenges the views and leadership of the Godfather is either expelled or assassinated (in the MQM especially).

This is in stark contrast with India. For example, Sitaram Kesri failed to keep the Congress party hostage to his ambitions. Not only is there a democratic culture outside the party, there is also a democratic culture inside the party.

re: #126 by bbabu
I concede that the Pakistan Army funneled arms to selected Mujahideen who were Islamist in character. But how do you draw the conclusion that this was done to suppress Baluchi/Pashtun nationalism?? Is this your conjuecture or are your views founded on some research??

re: #126 by bbabu

To clear the confusion on my comment:
``We don`t demand self-determination for people in Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab or elsewhere in India.``

Many Indians believe that Pakistan is demanding Kashmir because Pakistan wants to dismember India. If that were true Pakistan would also stake a claim for Sikkim, Nagaland and Punjab. However, Pakistan did not stake a claim despite secessionist movements in those states. In fact, Pakistan assisted India in hunting down the Sikh separatists by giving India the list of Sikh operatives in 1989.

This simply disproves the theory that ``Pakistan demands Kashmir because Pakistan wants to dismember India``. In fact, the opposite is true. Pakistan does not want to dismember India and has no strategic interest in supporting secessionist movements in other states of India.

Kashmir is a special case simply because its accession to India is disputed. The Indian Independence Act 1947 specifically mentioned Kashmir as a special case (unlike Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab, etc) because Kashmir was a princely state and hence not part of British India.

To summarize:
a) Secessionist movements in Nagaland, Sikkim and Punjab are internal problems of India. But secessionist movements in Kashmir are not.

b) Pakistan has no right to support or interfere in secessionist movements in Sikkim, Nagaland or Indian Punjab, But under UN SC 654 resolution and Indian Independence Act 1947, Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute. Therefore, Pakistani involvement in Kashmir does not amount to interference in India`s internal affairs.

In essence, this is also the Pakistani position on India`s claim that Kashmir is its integral part.

re: #135 by bbabu

++
USA lacks the true diversity of India. Pakistan and USA are similar in diversity. USA became prosperous when they were homogenous. Their diversity came after their prosperity.
++

Beg to differ on this assertion. Agreed that India is more multiethnic than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Europe, etc. But India does NOT have the same degree of diversity that USA has. Most of the people living in India are Indo-Aryan or Dravidian by decent. In contrast, American society comprises Mandarin/East Asian, Caucasian, Latino, Jewish, Persian, Hindu, Arab, Buddhist, Sikh, African, Muslim and countless other groups. In America, you will find nationals of every country in the world.

I also disagree with your assertion that USA progressed first, and became diverse later. Economic history of US reveals that each wave of immigrants facilitated progress, instead of just benefiting from it.

* The Irish wave brought cheap manual labour that was necessary for the American railroad project.
* Jewish immigrants introduced the first financial services (J.P.Morgan, Goldman, etc), stock brokerage and efficient trade (Chicago Board of Trade) to the US market. A later influx of German Jews helped America in developing the Atom Bomb.
* Indian & Russian immigrants facilitated growth in the Info Tech industry
* East Asian immigrants brought highy developed mathematical skills that we put to use in R&D

Progress happened because of immigration, not vice versa.

HisExcellency #98

[++
Do you think Pakistan has met that condition? And what is your stand of legality of Pakistani`s stand after this?
++

The UN Security Council Resolution 654 stipulated that Pakistani invaders will withdraw from Kashmir and Indian administration will hold a plebiscite at an appropriate time that will be mutually decided by Pakistan and India. No time frame was stipulated by the UN SC about withdrawal of Pakistani invaders. ]

knock! knock!! Helloooo!

Have you read security council resolution 654? This document just details creation of a commission of three members that will (1) to investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations; (2) to exercise, without interrupting the work of the Security Council, any mediatory influence likely to smooth away difficulties, to carry out the directions given to it by the Security Council; and to report how far the advice and directions, if any, of the Security Council, have been carried out.

You have very vehmently declared ``No time frame was stipulated``. I am copying below resolution dated 21st April.


Text of Resolution on the India-Pakistan Question submitted jointly by the Representatives of Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and adopted by the Security Council at its 26th meeting held on 21st April 1948.

A - Restoration of Peace and Order

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.

(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council`s resolution of 20 January that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission, a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

----------
Don`t you get the meaning of ``When it is established`` in point 2(a).

---------------

*RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO.S/1100, PARA 75, DATED 9 NOVEMBER 1948)

......

PART II

TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A. (1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.


--------------------
Do write if you do not understand the text copied above? And before you say that these documents have been doctored by RAW, please note that these have been copied from the site of ``Permament mission of Pakistan to United Nations``.

I would be quite interested in knowing your interpretation of these documents.

from stratfor

Pak`s peace moves driven by economics: Report

Washington: Although Pakistan`s recent attempts to improve relations with India is motivated by security concerns, economics is the primary driver behind its actions, according to US analysts.

``Although Islamabad has yet to make concessions where New Delhi most would like -- on the issue of its support for Kashmir-based militants -- any progress in smoothing relations with India would significantly improve Pakistan`s attractiveness to foreign investors and its chances of growing its economy internally,`` Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) said in its latest South Asia situation report.

However, President Pervez Musharraf`s government was not looking solely to India for revenue opportunities, the report said.

Islamabad also has begun talks with Iran regarding improved drug interdiction efforts along their shared border. Although Pakistan derives no direct benefits from such cooperation, it could pave the way for communication and negotiations on other issues, such as a proposed natural gas pipeline from Iran to India.

The Pakistani economy has been in rather grim shape for years, the report said. In 1998, the country`s total domestic and internal debt equaled 100 per cent of GDP -- prompting a sharp depreciation in the rupee.

That in turn caused per capita income to decline from 473 dollars in 1998 to 443 dollars currently, according to the Pakistan Board of Investment.

Meanwhile, the percentage of the population living below poverty level has grown from 25 per cent to fully one-third.

Although the nation`s economy has stabilized somewhat -- mainly as a result of funding from the United States and multilateral lenders -- Islamabad still is trying to get back into the black, Stratfor said. UNI

I got a chuckle at this

------------
White Lies
It is generally believed that when Washington wants things done, it sends in the remorseless Richard Armitage, a daily 200-benchpresser to deliver its wish list. Last week the barrelchested wrestler, who can bloody anybody`s nose, was in Islamabad for another bout, this time on Kashmir.
A story has it that after an audience with the top brass, Armitage had, what he thought would be a freestyle encounter with prominent parliamentarians from all parties to gauge any resistance. He need not have practised his moves because the match was a walkover. The parliamentarians that gathered had but one request. Could Armitage assist in solving problems faced by their sons and daughters, working or studying in the US.

Reportedly the meeting developed into an INS helpline with people seeking his intervention. Parliamentarians slipped him their telephone, fax and e-mail details and the US heavyweight flew out of Islamabad feeling he knew who would receive his calls, should the occasion so demand.

HisExcellency #133

`` I concede that the Pakistan Army funneled arms to selected Mujahideen who were Islamist in character. But how do you draw the conclusion that this was done to suppress Baluchi/Pashtun nationalism?? Is this your conjuecture or are your views founded on some research?? ``

It is based on conjecture. Most of the information I get is from Jang, Dawn, Defence Journal and western policy think thanks like Brookings, CSIS.

The Pakistani army is really dominated by Punjabis. There is a sprinkling of Pathans much like Sikhs in the Indian Army. The Bangladesh debacle, oil money from the Gulf, Baluchi revolt, Paktoonistan claim must have persuaded Pakistani army to use Islam as a unifying force. It has been a partial succees in that Pakistan is intact without any overt separatist movements. The achiles heel is the Deobandi/Wahabi sect of Islam being propagated is completely inmical to building a modern society. It does not help they went on a Jihad in kashmir and in Afghanistan.

HisExcellency #136

`` Many Indians believe that Pakistan is demanding Kashmir because Pakistan wants to dismember India. If that were true Pakistan would also stake a claim for Sikkim, Nagaland and Punjab. However, Pakistan did not stake a claim despite secessionist movements in those states. ``

Some Pakistani officials have openly said that support for Kashmir is payback for 1971. It is an open fact Pakistan abetted Sikh militants during the 1980s. Where do Pakistanis think guns grow ? The list of 20 given to Pakistan during last years standoff includes 5 Sikhs. Pakistani ISI has been using Bangladesh as a base to supply insurgent groups in North East India.

`` Pakistan assisted India in hunting down the Sikh separatists by giving India the list of Sikh operatives in 1989. ``

If Pakistan was not involved in any way what is there to assist ???

HisExcellency #137

`` Beg to differ on this assertion. Agreed that India is more multiethnic than Pakistan, Bangladesh, Europe, etc. But India does NOT have the same degree of diversity that USA has. Most of the people living in India are Indo-Aryan or Dravidian by decent. In contrast, American society comprises Mandarin/East Asian, Caucasian, Latino, Jewish, Persian, Hindu, Arab, Buddhist, Sikh, African, Muslim and countless other groups. In America, you will find nationals of every country in the world. ``

If you look at races proportionally
Whites in USA = Browns in India
Browns in USA ~ fair skinned in India
Blacks = Darks
Orientals = North Eastern peoples of India

If you exclude first generation Hispanics 95% plus of Americans use English. In India there are 20 different major languages - each with its own script.

India has more religious diversity than America.

Plus America is a melting point. India is not really a full feldged melting pot. Some of the diversity is lost over time.

USA had a strong economic base even as immigrants were coming. Most Indian immigrants studied advanced degrees in American universities and had their first job stint in an American company. It is not like immigrants are turning an improvished society into a prosperous one. They are making a rich society even richer.

USA was the richest society by the 1920`s. Everything immigrants brought after that is sort of icing on the cake. It was mutually benefical.

friend #138

I am glad that you have posted the text of the original UN resolution and the manner in which has been ignored by Pakistan. Now that ethnic cleansing in indian J&K and systematic settelemnt in POK has moved forward, it is more convenient to claim: ``indians will not allow UN resolution to go forward`` !

It is also easy to get gullible liberals (in the West) and others to think: wow, there really must be something here. Basically, it is a badly used propaganda tool and one whose time has come and gone.

Meanwhile, here is more freedom from our friends across the border:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven die in Kashmir violence
At least 11 people have died in fresh violence in Indian-administered Kashmir.
In the worst attack, suspected militants killed six Muslim villagers in a remote mountain village.

Two Indian security personnel were killed in a separate gunbattle with militants in Poonch district.

In another incident, police said Indian troops shot dead three militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen group in an operation in Anantnag district.

The violence comes at a time when India and Pakistan have taken steps to defuse tensions over the Kashmir dispute.

Family killed

In a midnight attack, four women and two children were killed by unidentified militants in a remote village in Rajouri district, some 180 kilometres (112 miles) north of Jammu.

The dead were all family members of Mehboob Iqba, a 55-year-old shepherd, including his wife, three daughters-in-law and two children, aged two and four.

Mr Iqba was not at home at the time.

No group has said it carried out the attack, which took place in an area known for militant activity.

Three of Mr Iqba`s sons, whose wives were among those killed, work for the Indian army and police.

The BBC`s Binoo Joshi in Jammu says militant groups have been targeting the families of soldiers.

Peace initiative

The latest attack comes amid fresh moves to resolve the long-running Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.