President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

re: Soma Kumar

++
Does he seriously expect that India would be magnanimous enough or is in a position, even if it is, to cede the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan? Is such a stance conducive to the holding of any kind of meaningful negotiations? Am I missing something here?
++

I believe Musharraf is accurately representing Pakistani public opinion when he says that the present line of control cannot be accepted as international border. However, rejecting the status quo does not mean that Pakistan wants all of Kashmir. It is common knowledge that the epicenter of Kashmir Movement is the Kashmir Valley (and not Ladakh and Jammu). When Musharraf talks about a readjustment of LoC, he means inclusion of Kashmir Valley in Pakistan, leaving Ladakh and Jammu in India. I don`t think Musharraf expects India to cede whole of Jammu & Kashmir.

Ref Field-Marshal-Turned-Economic-Analyst #12

[The reason is that India`s economy has recently been stronger, and India had better relations with the USA. Now Pakistan is best friends with the USA. And Pakistan`s economy has stabilized, and is picking up. If the current financial team continues for another five years, it will reach 6% or higher. At that point, Pakistan`s position will be quite strong also..... Since with a stable economy in Pakistan, Kashmir will be hurting India far more than it will hurt Pakistan.]

Yesterday, the news-ticker at the bottom of CNN or Fox News (don`t recall which one) reported that India has joined the IMF as a DONOR nation as opposed to having been a recipient of IMF funds all along.

Dream on.

Following are some interesting solutions to the Kashmir issue. They require India to, at least, give up partially on its atut-ang stance:

Some solutions are presented by The Kashmir Study Group, led by the CEO of the large American furniture chain Ethan Allan, who is a Kashmiri. This group contains a lot of distinguished American South Asian experts.

http://www.kashmirstudygroup.com/

These are presented in a simpler form at BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm

Some combination of 5, 6, and 7 is the only solution that will work, and will be acceptable to everyone. Probably, a little bit of 7 and all of 6. And it fits into the voting patterns of Kashmir also. The Valley is very anti-India. For all practical purposes, India has lost the Valley. I doubt any Indian would want to visit it now openly, unless he is part of the security forces. Jammu is relatively pro-India. And Ladakh is around 50/50 pro and anti India.

The borders fit well also. So Pakistan should keep its Kashmir, since it is by far the most peaceful part of Pakistan, and all us Kashmiris are quite happy with Pakistan. A vote in Pakistan`s Kashmir will overwhelmingly be pro-Pakistan. My family runs part of it as govt. servants, so I know. Pakistan could hold a vote there, if India or UN wants.

India`s Kashmir is easily the most violent part in India, and maybe in the world. It has the highest soldiers/per sq. ft ratio in the world. So much so, that now the economy of the Valley, after the loss is tourism, is dependent on the money that Indian soldiers spend there. The total number of civilians being killed there, is significantly higher than the number being killed in Palestine, Iraq, Kurdistan, Chechnya, and other such areas where freedom struggles are going on. If it were, ``Pakistani terrorists`` doing all the civilian killings, then one would expect the local population to be extremely anti-Pakistan and very pro-India. However, the local population is very anti-India and quite pro-Pakistan and definitely pro-independence. Thus the actual situation is quite different from what the Indian media describes.

So Indians must accept that something is wrong in Indian Kashmir. And they must realize that a big portion of it (thought not all) is the fault of India (and while Pakistanis would like to think they have the power to cause all kinds of troubles in India, whenever they can, it is not actually the case. If Pakistanis had caused the trouble in Kashmir, what is stop them from causing them all over India? Obviously the problems are being caused by Indian policies and the local reaction, and only being assisted by Pakistan). Thus the status quo needs a change. The solution is not to strengthen the status quo, LOC, even more.

Based on this, Jammu should remain with India, since that is where the people will vote, with a small number of border Jammu areas joining the Valley. Ladakh should be partially divided, with the areas bordering the Valley separating from India, and the remaining becoming a part of India.

The Valley plus portion of Ladakh, plus small portion of Jammu, should become independent Kashmir, under the control of the UN, or some similar organization. Once this independent Kashmir gets it feet stable, it should be allowed to vote whether it wants to remain free, join Pakistan or join India.

The whole Kashmir Valley is only 80 miles by 25 miles. It is a tiny area, and yet India is unwilling to even consider giving it independence. The whole budget of this area will probably be smaller than what India is paying its 500k to 700k soldiers in Kashmir. I think Pakistanis will happily accept this kind of an independent Kashmir solution. This is the general point of view in Pakistan, nowadays. They want to solve the problem, they don`t want to get Kashmir from India. They want the Kashmiris to get their wishes. One can see that on this site, and on the Pakistani streets, and in the statements of Pakistani officials. There is no Pakistani version of atut-ang.

Unfortunately, our Indian colleagues, perhaps too influenced by the India media`s one-sided stories on terrorism, or too willing to accept anything the Indian govt. throws at them, are completely unwilling to change the status quo. Most of them, I doubt even know where the LOC runs. If someone drew the LOC on a map, making the Valley a part of Pakistan, I doubt any one of them would realize it. Hardly any Indian visits Kashmir. Very few have any ties with it, now. Yet, they are caught up in maintaining the status quo, regardless of how much violence it leads to. What difference would it make to an Indian, sitting in Karnataka, or Gujrat etc., if the LOC was five degrees in one direction or the other (creating a small independent Kashmir Valley), if he has never even been to the LOC (or to even the Valley of Kashmir)? I fail to understand such a rigid stance.

If, however, India is confident that Kashmiris want to join India, it should not be fearful of asking the Kashmiris, openly, without any influence from the Indian govt. apparatus. If India thinks LOC should be the border, then it should just ask the Kashmiris their opinion. It they agree, fine. If not, then a different solution is needed.

In my opinion, an argument based on LOC as the border, will be very impractical, since it will not end the freedom struggle in Kashmir. The whole struggle is based on the fact that the Kashmiris don`t want a border that draws them into the same map as India, like the LOC does. Forcing this solution down everyone`s throat isn`t automatically going to solve the problem, since this is the problem to begin with. It will just solidify the problem even more.

India stance on this issue makes an incorrect assumption that the Pakistani Kashmiris also want independence (or want to be with India), and thus India is giving an even deal to everyone, by letting Pakistan keep its part of Kashmir. When the actual situation is that Pakistani Kashmiris overwhelmingly want to be with Pakistan, with a minority that wants independence. I have yet to meet a Kashmiri Pakistani, who wants to be with India. What would they gain by doing so? The Indian Kashmiris, specifically in the Valley, overwhelmingly want to be separate from India. They may prefer independence or joining Pakistan (this is why Kashmir is now one of the few reamining spots in the world, where Human Rights organizations and the international press are banned. They are not banned in Palestine and other areas of violence).

Musharraf could be an angel or the devil - doesn`t really matter. Ditto for Vajpayee and Advani. Pakistanis dislike Advani and Vajpayee. Indians dislike Musharraf. Some people in Pakistan dislike Musharraf also. And some people in India dislike Advani and Vajpayee also. I personally dislike Advani. And I think when it comes to Kashmir, Musharraf and Vajpayee do actually want to solve the problem on a middle ground. Musharraf can present his desire to talk to India, openly, since he does not have to rely on votes. Vajpayee has to cater to his RSS constituency, hence he cannot state his desires for peace with Pakistan, openly. But I think, between the two of them, they could solve the problem.

Musharraf is actually correct when he says that LOC as the border will not work, since that is what all the fighting has been about to begin with. If it were acceptable to everyone, there wouldn`t be a problem, to begi with. He should, however, be more cautious and diplomatic when he makes his statements and presents his logic. A better reply would have been to request the Indian govt. to get the Kashmiri`s point of view on this solution. On the other side, Indian leaders need to do the same. They should start preparing India for an end to the very impractical and violent atut-ang theory.

In the long run these three individuals are immaterial, however. What is more important is a principled, non-violent and practical approach to solving the Kashmir problem. At the very least, accepting that a problem exists.

Luckily, over years, Pakistan has accepted it will not get the remaining Kashmir, through force. Its stance now is that the solution should be according to the wishes of the Kashmiris. India still hasn`t caught on to the fact that it cannot keep Kashmir, through force. Hence, it is unwilling to even accept that the Kashmiris don`t want to stay with India. This is a state of denial. Somehow or the other, Indians at least need to at least challenge their govt.`s propogand on this issue, and try to get the views of the Kashmiris themselves.

There is an interesting X factor here. Pakistan has not placed any pre-conditions to talks with India. While India has always placed quite a few. The reason is that India`s economy has recently been stronger, and India had better relations with the USA. Now Pakistan is best friends with the USA. And Pakistan`s economy has stabilized, and is picking up. If the current financial team continues for another five years, it will reach 6% or higher. At that point, Pakistan`s position will be quite strong also. I fear that at that point, Pakistan will also start placing pre-conditions to talks. Since with a stable economy in Pakistan, Kashmir will be hurting India far more than it will hurt Pakistan.

It is difficult enough to solve such a problem when one side is placing pre-conditions. It will be impossible to solve it, if both sides are placing pre-conditions. India would have been wise to get Kashmir resolved, right when Musharraf had carried out the coup (I had mentioned it back then, that Pakistan is at its weakest, and thus India could negotiate from a strong position). If India wanted to pile up its troops on the border, it should have done so, then. Pakistan was a pariah, economically almost failed, etc. India could have gotten a hell of a deal. Yet India stuck to its rigid stance, to its own loss. It will not get that kind of a deal now. But the longer it waits, the more robust Pakistan`s position will become. And at a certain point, Pakistan will also, start saying, we will only accept a solution which is according to our wishes (much like India is doing now). That will not be good for anyone.

On a separate note, a wise move by Musharraf:

``Israel welcomes Musharraf`s consideration of establishing ties (Updated at 2000 PST)

HELD JERUSALEM: Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom Monday welcomed suggestions by Pakistan`s President Musharraf that his country should consider establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, saying such a move would be of mutual benefit, a foreign news agency reported.

Shalom said Israel, which has ties with a handful of Muslim countries, was constantly seeking to establish relations all over the world.

Israel regards favorably the possibility of setting up relations with an important Muslim and Asian state,` he told reporters after a session of parliament`s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

President Pervez Musharraf on Sunday urged his countrymen for serious debate over recognizing Israel, citing moves by Arab states toward repairing relations.`` (www.jang.com.pk)

Pakistan should recognize Israel, while simultaneously demanding that Israel give a viable independent state to the Palestinians.

this wont do. our efforts to reach some sort of reasonable understanding only causes us to go around in circles. these people will not be satisfied even if we give them our first born. i say time has come to emulate our elders. time has come create pakistan in cyberspace as well. any takers?

Soma Kumar:
Basically you wasted your time by attending and listening to what all of us already know. The guy is a thug, an illegitimate ruler, a dictator and yes a speaker of `ishtrong` style poor English.

Even assuming him to be president, the person to deal with such matters and running the affairs of the government should be Jamalo as per constitution (or as he pronounces it - conshchichiushun, like a chihuaua).

I also disagree that India/ Pakistan would enjoy normal relations in any sense once Kashmir is solved. That is a fallacy. That is not gonna happen because that is not in the interest of BJP, Shev Sena, Sangh Parivar, Pakistan military, Islam, mullahism, Islamists and fundamentalists.

You turn LoC to permanent boundry and normalize relations, the long outside-Kashmir permanent boundry becomes temporary. How would they stop people crossing boundries all over Panjab under normal relations? A rise in aspirations would start much bigger issue for India and Pakistan to deal with.

Hostility is the best policy for the integrity of both nations.All India wants is stop on terrorists infiltration from Pakistan and all Pakistan wants is continued low intensity warfare. That is good for Pakistani military, Islamists, Fundamentalists, BJP, Sangh parivar etc etc.