President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

HisExcellency

`` Pakistan`s GDP per capita was higher than India from 1950 till 1990. Incidentally, during 27 of these 40 years Pakistan was being ruled by the military. During the same period Pakistan and India went to war three times. Still Pakistan outperformed India in the economic sphere. This blows a whole through the pet Indian theories that ``Pakistan suffers because of Army`` or ``Pakistan suffers because of Kashmir policy``.``

India followed more socialist policies which did not work. Pakistan got more aid than India and benefited from the Gulf Arabs on a per captia basis. Those days are over.

India makes more money on IT services in 1 year than what US provided to Pakistan in 55 years.

re: hamidm

{.........rsaxena does offer a generous ammendment to this position: ``any kashmiri who wants his own country is free to get the fack out`` ..................now, if this is the official indian positon then there is really nothing to talk about, is there?......... so why even bring it up?.........}

....rsaxena offers this position in light of the fact that pakis already have a piece of kashmir and have already given part of it to china...any kashmiri from india yearning to leave can move to one of those places and make carpets and name himself butt to his heart`s content...

...you seem like a practical fella, but on kashmir even you lose it....the world is not willing to support any ``redrawing of borders in blood`` along religious lines...no one is going to pressure india to do that.....why do pakis have difficulty seeing that?....

re: #96 by arjun_m on July 1, 2003 2:51pm PT

++
The whole shaheen sehbai controversy was over some story by Kamran Khan on Omar Sheikh.
++

Thats correct. I can`t name any of the people involved because they are still serving in the government. A certain gentlemen who threatened `Weekly Independent` is the missing link between Omar Sheikh and Kamran Khan. Sehbai`s report would have forced Musharraf to fire some of his pro-US generals and ISI friends. This would have strengthened the Jihadi camp within ISI. Hence the need for Musharraf to gag Sehbai.

HE:

You have been misinformed. International media is being allowed into Kashmir. You can check any number of stories on Kashmir through western media sources. Pakistani media is not allowed unfettered access in Kkashmir, and I am sure you can find that understandable.


``If perceptions don`t change, Pakistani public will continue supporting the Army`s Mission Kashmir for another 50 years. Just because 3 attempts failed, doesn`t mean another 10 will also fail. ``

Well, I respectfully disagree strictly from a mathematical stand point. If the difference in size (military, geographic, industrial capacity, economy) remains or grows in our favor, then the next ten attempts will fail as well.

Also, you must remember that India enjoys an additional advantage, simply of being the status quo power. India is not actively trying to alter the status quo, except when it was possible to do it in stealth (Siachen) International publicity has helped India simply because it is more convenient for the world to push for it. Pakistan realized this during Kargil (overt hostilities) or during the attack on Parliament and the J&K assembly attack (covert attack but beyond acceptable limitations).

``It is better to either solve the problem or change perceptions through international media. ``

In theory, I agree with you. However, the former cannot be achieved due to lack of common vision. The latter is not possible due to entrenched attitudes. Now, here is where Pakistan can learn from what Iindia has done vis a vis China. We are the weaker party, and all our governments realize that we do not have the means to alter the status quo by force. Therefore, public opinion has not been inflamed about ``Iindian territory`` held by China.

Mush`s dillemma (solving Kkashmir without being accused of sell out) is not of his own making. It is the result of the lack of foresight by successive Pakistani administrations to prepare their population for the fact that forcible alteration is not possible. The end result is that any government is simply too scared of its own people when it comes to accepting this truth.

Hence my point in carrying the conflict on till one entity is exhausted.

HE: Are you connected to the Pakistan Army in any way or form? Tthe reason I ask is that your views seem to have some co-relation, though not an exact one, with the views of the Pak Army (the moderate ones) I understand if you want to protect your privacy. You can email me if you like, my address is on my profile.

re: #99 by hari on July 1, 2003 3:33pm PT

++
If Pakistan were to be a secular nation, where atleast on paper(meaning constitution) every individual is guaranteed EQUAL rights (not protective rights) then the world may listen to Pakistanis
++

Israel has worse citizenship laws. In fact, Arab Israelis did not get citizenship until early 1990s. In contrast, Pakistan gave citizenship to non-Muslims in 1947. Moreover, in Israel too, a non-Jew cannot become Prime Minister.

Israel is not secular, yet its stand on Peace Process, Yasser Arafat and Palestinian Occupation enjoys the support of US and UK. In fact, the Indian government has itself established close bilateral ties with Israel. India is purchasing defense equipment and airborne radar systems from Israel. Moreover, both countries are collaborating on intelligence as well.

Clearly, this alliance is against Islam, not for secularism. Otherwise, how would an officially secular country like India form an alliance with a Zionist state like Israel? Why would secular U.S. form an alliance with Zionist Israel?

It seems that Indian and US governments are pursuing Hindu and neo-conservative Christian agendas under the pretext of secularism. And that is why they want to form an alliance with Israel, which is another sworn enemy of Muslim states. This Islamophobia is even more pronounced in India than in US.

Which secular country in the world lets a Hindu majority party destroy a Muslim mosque without evidence that it is built on top of a temple?? Maybe we can blame this incident on lack of education and civilized behavior. But how do you explain the fact that the architects of that demolition are now serving as Home Minister (Advani) and Education Minister (Joshi) of India? In another part of the country, the Chief Minister collaborated with the Bajrang Dal to kill more than 2000 Muslims on the pretext of ``equal and opposite reaction``??

I know that Pakistan is not perfect, but atleast we never claimed to be secular in the first place. Sikhs, Hindus and Christians living in NWFP, Sindh, Baluchistan, Punjab and Bengal were informed that after Aug 14, 1947 they will be living in an Islamic state. So they could leave if they wanted to and migrate to areas where they can grow and prosper. Those who stayed back either chose to live under Islamic rule or couldn`t afford to leave. But they knew the shape of things to come.

In 1945, 90% of the Muslim voters made the informed decision to reject Gandhian secularism and opt for Jinnah`s 2-nation theory. Clearly, there was a problem with the Secular Ideal. That problem is credibility.

Although official Indian ideology is secular, narrow religious interests still find their way into the corridors of public policy. And this has been happening continuously over the last 57 years.

If Indian secularism were a stronger ideology than Jinnah`s Two-Nation theory, it would certainly have won the hearts of Kashmiris. The fact that 38,000-70,000 Kashmiris still died in their bid to separate from `Secular` India should be an eye opener for everybody.

At the end of the day, you cannot impose your ideology on another people, no matter how great you may think it is. All ideologies have to be accepted/rejected through the ballot box. Unfortunately, the Kashmiris were promised this plebiscite in 1948 but denied ever since.

Chalo, history is history. Pakistanis are also not insisting on the plebiscite in all of Kashmir any more. The problem is now confined to Kashmir Valley only. Why not put Indian secularism vs. Jinnah`s Two Nation Theory to vote in Kashmir Valley??

re: #99 by hari on July 1, 2003 3:33pm PT

++
Pakistan had 27% minorities at the time of partition, now has less than 3%.
What happened to the people?
++

You are indulging in flimsy propaganda. Use your common sense. How can the population of one wing equal the population of two wings? The 1947 number is for the combined minority populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh whereas the 3% number is for Pakistan only.

After the initial migration of minorities to India, West Pakistan had 4% minority population. The rest of the miniroties (mostly Bengali Hindu) were in East Pakistan. Notwithstanding isolated terrorist incidents, there is no recorded mass conversion or pogrom of minorities in West Pakistan since 1948. The only massacre of minorities occured in Bangladesh in 1971 when Biharis took up arms against Mukti Bahini.

In fact, 90% of the refugees driven out of East Pakistan into India`s West Bengal province were Bengali Hindus. With these facts in mind, you can easily do the math.

Bottomline:
The population of minorities in West Pakistan was 4% in 1948 and is roughly the same in 2003 as well.

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

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

HamidM:

``.......... so we can`t have a referendum, or partition, or an independent kashmir............ essentially you are saying that there is only one option and that is that the kashmiris and pakis have to either accept the loc as the permanent border or, as arjun put it so eloquently, go pound sand? ............ ``

Crudely put, but accurate. Yes.

``.........rsaxena does offer a generous ammendment to this position: ``any kashmiri who wants his own country is free to get the fack out`` ..................now,``

Well, RSaxena only says what actually happened in reality. When the rebellion initially erupted in 1989, thousands of Kashmiri Muslims did stream across to POK. The Indian government did nothing to stop it.



``if this is the official indian positon then there is really nothing to talk about, is there?......... so why even bring it up?......... ``

Well, the official Indian position is that all of POK is ours. Something as realistic as Pakistan saying all of Jammu and Kashmir is ours.

Therefore, offering the LOC as IB is a concession. I know what you are thinking at this point...

Let me elucidate the Indian vision further. There are two aspects of the Kashmir problem. The first is Pakistan`s claim on land, the other is Kashmiri alienation. The former claim we do not recognize. The second we are willing to work on. The Indian position (not official but fleshed out in think tanks, papers etc) is that in exchange for peace, Kashmir can be given increased autonomy ie complete independence except in case of currency, defense and foreign affairs. Then the LOC can be converted into a soft border enabling Kashmiris to interact. For this to occur, there has to be trust and beyond that a stake in mutual prosperity which can only occur through trade and the building of financial stakes in each others country.

This has to be a long drawn out process. That is why, in case of China, India has given up trying to reclaim territory and is concentrating on building bridges of economic cooperation. A case in point is Chinese cooperation with the 2 Koreas. Though China had a hand in the near destruction of South Korea, today it is one of its leading trade partners. As of today, China, as North Korea`s sponsor, applies no political and military pressure on South Korea at all. In the long term, we wish to build a similar relationship with Korea, while improving and expanding ties with the United States. A local conflict in Kashmir can therefore be managed as long as it is contained in nature.

re: #91 by stuka on July 1, 2003 10:38am PT

The problem with conflict management is that it needs to be done again and again.

In 1999, we came close to full-scale war. US had to intervene. Nawaz Sharif was confronted with evidence on July 4 by Clinton that Pakistan Army was preparing for a nuclear strike on India. Nawaz was jolted by this information and pledged to withdraw NLI-backed intruders. Once again US conflict management pulled the two nations back from the brink.

Once again in 2002, US played a key role in conflict management. This time US applied pressure on both countries instead of just Pakistan.

Unless the conflict is not resolved, justification to militarily alter the status quo will remain. The Americans will not be keen to play conflict managers every time. That is why a settlement, no matter how painful for both countries, is better than just freezing the conflict.

True, conflict resolution is easier said than done. Which brings me back to the `perceptions` in both countries. Introduction of international media will identify the roots and nature of this conflict. It will answer the following important questions:

a) What percentage of population in Kashmir Valley favors independence or merger with Pakistan?

b) What percentage of population in Kashmir Valley wants greater autonomy within Indian Union?

c) What matters more to Kashmiris? Jobs and tourism? Secularism? Moderate Islam versus Radical Islam?

d) Are human rights violations continuining in Kashmir Valley? What measures have been taken by Mufti Sayeed govt to bring justice to rape victims and their families? How many missing persons have been recovered or traced down by the Mufti Sayeed govt? What measures have been taken by Mufti govt to punish rogue elements in J&K Police, BSF and Indian Army who were involved in human rights abuses?

e) How many political prisoners are being held in Indian jails? How many have been released? And how many were killed in custody? Have families of those killed been financially compensated by the state/central government?

re:#88 by nazarhayatkhan
Excellent post. I applaud you for your frankness.
Sridhar

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

re: #93 by arjun_m on July 1, 2003 1:25pm PT

Such `multiple regulations` are completely ineffective and un-enforceable. Above all, such regulations presume that the Pakistan Government will also go out of its way to help enforce the regulations. You bet this is not going to happen anytime soon.


re:#91 by stuka on July 1, 2003 10:38am PT

Yes, perception is reality. And since India refuses to let international media and foreign press into the Valley, India is being perceived as the aggressor by Pakistanis. Indian news channels do not enjoy the same credibility in Pakistan as CNN, Al-Jazeera, BBC or other European news agencies do. I am sure Indians perceive PTV and other Pakistani news channels the same way. If things in Kashmir have really improved since elections, then India should open the valley to foreign media. This will lend credibility to Indian claims.

If perceptions don`t change, Pakistani public will continue supporting the Army`s Mission Kashmir for another 50 years. Just because 3 attempts failed, doesn`t mean another 10 will also fail. It is better to either solve the problem or change perceptions through international media.


re: #88 by nazarhayatkhan on July 1, 2003 8:03am PT

IMHO, Pakistan`s spectacular U-turn after 9/11 would have been impossible under a democratic government. Only a military government can take such quick and sensible decisions. Dictatorship is like driving on the Interstate Highway. You can go really fast, there is very little traffic and your car won`t get scratched/dented by pedestrians. But even a small mistake usually ends up in a fatal accident. Democracy is like driving in a crowded bazaar. You can`t drive above 10mph, and have to negotiate lots of traffic and pedestrians. Sometimes, the car gets scratched and dented... But you never have a fatal accident in the bazaar.

Dictatorships are efficient/nimble but unsafe.
Democracies are slow but safe.

Pakistan`s GDP per capita was higher than India from 1950 till 1990. Incidentally, during 27 of these 40 years Pakistan was being ruled by the military. During the same period Pakistan and India went to war three times. Still Pakistan outperformed India in the economic sphere. This blows a whole through the pet Indian theories that ``Pakistan suffers because of Army`` or ``Pakistan suffers because of Kashmir policy``.

I suggest you reconsider your opinion of the Military in the light of its economic performance.

Pakistan`s stand on Kashmir is not sustainable in this current climate:

As I read somewhere, someone mentioned, Islam as ideology has become a bogey/trojan horse for land-grab. And the people are slowly waking up to that situation.

If Pakistan were to be a secular nation, where atleast on paper(meaning constitution) every individual is guaranteed EQUAL rights (not protective rights) then the world may listen to Pakistanis.

It is like this:

Suppose for arguement sake, a Hindu kashmiri pandit born in PoK, is a resident of
PoK, says he wants to stand up for election to be Pakistan`s President?

My question is: Can the Kashmiri Hindu under the current Pakistani dispensation aspire to become Pakistan`s president? The answer is a BIG NO, because Pakistani constitution BY DESIGN discriminates against non-muslims EVEN IF THEY ARE PAKISTAN BORN NATIVES.
It is one thing for an individual to discriminate based on race, religion, gender but when the
state itself discriminates based on institutional design, then that is very very bad.

I agree, in India, many indians may or may not discriminate based on gender, race, religion but that is a private choice but the state does not discriminate because the constitution atleast on paper provides equality.

This is what is lacking in Pakistan. Till Pakistan becomes a fully functioning secular democracy its locus standi on Kashmir will be a zero. After all, Kashmir belongs to muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists. Muslims must not think that Kashmir belongs to muslims only just like Hindus must not think that India belongs to Hindus only.

Can the kashmiri pundits belonging to the valley claim then, to have their own land carved out of the valley and seek self-determination minus muslims?

And please, dont tell me that Pakistan guarantees minority rights. I will ask then, what minority rights? Pakistan had 27% minorities at the time of partition, now has less than 3%.
What happened to the people? The answer is obvious. they were driven out if not converted.

The more Musharraf keeps opening his mouth re Kashmir, the more he sounds like an idiot.

stuka,

.......... so we can`t have a referendum, or partition, or an independent kashmir............ essentially you are saying that there is only one option and that is that the kashmiris and pakis have to either accept the loc as the permanent border or, as arjun put it so eloquently, go pound sand? ............

.........rsaxena does offer a generous ammendment to this position: ``any kashmiri who wants his own country is free to get the fack out`` ..................now, if this is the official indian positon then there is really nothing to talk about, is there?......... so why even bring it up?.........