President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

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

re: #125


...ouch that has got to give musharaf a hemorrhoid attack...

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

HE:

``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? ``


I don`t know. More importantly, neither do the Kashmiris. All these questions that you have put up, the answers are not constant or rigid. Opinions change, views evolve. If you had asked Sikh in 1985 how many want Khalistan, maybe a majority would have said yes. Today, after many years of peace, a tiny minority may say yes.

I am sure the political alienation in Sindh and Baluchistan too saw rise and fall at different chronological points. In that sense, it maybe that the majority of Kashmiris want independence today. In 10 years, they may resign themselves to living in India. In 25 years, the rebellion may well be a distant memory.

I will give you an existing example of this. The number of people killed in Kashmir are FAR LESS than the numbers killed in Mizoram through the 50s, 60s and 70s. Entire male population of villages were decimated. Ofcourse India`s advantage was that Mizoram is located in an obscure, inaccesible geographical area. Also, information was much easier to control 30 years ago. Therefore, the insurgency and the CI ops of the Army carried on. After years of fighting, the Mizos realized that they were not going to win. The resignation was followed by acceptance, and in turn there was a peace accord.




``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? ``

Yes, they do continue. Not as much as is reported in your media, not as less as reported in ours. Iit is very hard for anyone to curtail HR abuses while an insurgency is going on. That is true of the entire world. Kashmir is no different.

``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? ``

Surprisingly there are not too many political prisoners. The most high profile is Geelani of the Jamaat e Islami. He was arrested in retaliation for the murder of the Hurriyat moderate..the name escapes me at the moment. Basically, there is not much of a political problem that cannot be handled. The politicians have been eclipsed by terrorists. Same thing happened in Punjab in 1980s, till Bbhindranwale was there, the Akalis kept doing Morchas but nobody cared. Only after the militancy died down that Akalis became relevant.

re:#122 by m_souza
Would there be a Hindu-muslim problem if there were no Pak? Certainly, but it would be India`s own problem. Now, we have a state sponsoring a certain ideology, many people in that state are being indoctrined to that ideology and an army which also subscribes to that ideology in as much as it serves its purpose. Kashmir problem is a symptom of that ideological divide which resulted in partition in the first place. At least, that is how i view it.

Most muslims in India i would like to imagine do not subscribe to Pak`s ideology. They may be very religious, some even holding a Talibanisque view on Islam but i think almost all Indian muslims today do not want to have anything to do with Pakistan. This letter in Dawn by a Pakistani is interesting:

`No-visa` proposal

This refers to the statements made by Mr Shahid Siddiqui, a member of the Indian parliamentary delegation which visited Pakistan recently. The statements published in Dawn on June 19, 20 and 21 forewarned Pakistan of the consequences that the 180 million Indian Muslims would face in case solution to the Kashmir dispute is against the wishes of India. Perhaps, no such statement was made by any member of the Pakistan delegation on its visit to India.

I visited India in the year 2001 (after a lapse of 33 years) and I observed that every Indian Muslim spoke of Pakistan and the Pakistanis in a humiliating tone. It is now difficult to distinguish between a Muslim and Hindu while interacting in public. Therefore, the suggestion of Mr Kuldip Nayar and Mr Shahid Siddiqui to abandon the visa formality in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh may intensify terrorist activities by the Raw agents.

I would suggest that Pakistan consider Mr Kuldip Nayar`s no-visa proposal over a period of next 10 years by which time a change of hearts and minds on both sides may take place.

SHAIKH AMIRUDDIN

Karachi`
Url: http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/02/letted.htm#2
Sridhar

#120 by rsridhar on July 1, 2003 9:32pm PT
re:#110 by HisExcellency
Be advised that the muslim problem in India is a vestige of partition. It keeps simmering now and then because some people get political mileage out of it (like Modi did recently in Gujaratand Advani did some times ago when a mosque was destroyed).
As education spreads and people realise how they are being exploited by vested interests, these problem will wither away. It will take time.
However, all these facts are recognised and freely debated. Indians are their own worst critics. You only have to read the newspapers and see T.V to know what i mean. So, do not keep on ranting Gujarat and Masjid all the time. In the 50 year old history of a new nation, India has crossed a number of milestones. It is proud of some and not so proud of others. People and institutions will ultimately take corrective measures. Pakis need to examine their own problems and the morass their country is in and debate among themselves as to what needs to be done (not that much can be done as long as a dictator rules over you guys; but at least let there be a debate).
Sridhar
-----------

So indirectly..it is partition demanded by Pakistanis who are the actual cause of any trouble that Indian muslims are facing today...and now they cry on paki shoulders

there is absolutely no reason why kashmiris cant find salvation within indian political union (or for that matter, tamils within sri lanka). further division of south asia is not a solution to anything. honourable thing for pak sarkar to do now -- and this will require getting rid of hatred of hindus - - is to exercise leverage over kashmiri leadership and force independence minded leadership to negotiate with india.

this course of action will only work however if indians stop treating kashmir as payback for perceived historical humiliations suffered at the hands of muslims (ultimate manifestation of humiliation being creation of pak) . insurgencies can be fought off without the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and mass rape of women. crises in karachi in mid-nineties was worse than crises in kashmir in late eighties. to their credit, security forces in karachi only targeted militants while leaving alone the general supporters (i myself know people who shot mqm cadres in cold blood). needless to say we dont see mqm people shutting down the city anymore.

re:#110 by HisExcellency
Be advised that the muslim problem in India is a vestige of partition. It keeps simmering now and then because some people get political mileage out of it (like Modi did recently in Gujaratand Advani did some times ago when a mosque was destroyed).
As education spreads and people realise how they are being exploited by vested interests, these problem will wither away. It will take time.
However, all these facts are recognised and freely debated. Indians are their own worst critics. You only have to read the newspapers and see T.V to know what i mean. So, do not keep on ranting Gujarat and Masjid all the time. In the 50 year old history of a new nation, India has crossed a number of milestones. It is proud of some and not so proud of others. People and institutions will ultimately take corrective measures. Pakis need to examine their own problems and the morass their country is in and debate among themselves as to what needs to be done (not that much can be done as long as a dictator rules over you guys; but at least let there be a debate).
Sridhar

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

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

His Excellency: I repeat, international media is allowed in the valley. I think you are confusing international media with international human rights organizations. Two different things.

#98 by HisExcellency
India, as a soveregn nation can decide who should come in and who should not as International observers. India is a fiercely independent country and not ruled by a tinpot dictator like Pak is.
India is the largest democracy and holds mammoth elections every 5 years, the scale of which will make US elections look puny. Most Indians, in India or abroad, are proud of these elections.
India`s only blot was rigged elections in the past in J and K. It finally corrected that blemish when it held a fair (and not necessarily free; it could never be with terrorists gunning down the participants) election in 2002 in J and K.
It did have initial reservations about international mediators. Here is Powell`s take on why India was averse to International mediators during the last electins:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/07/29/stories/2002072905340100.htm

``Asked by a foreign correspondent why India was resistant to the idea of international observers in Kashmir, Gen. Powell said India believed it was capable of managing the elections without a formal monitoring system. He said India should make it as easy as possible for people to travel to Kashmir to give credibility to the poll results. ``If you have enough outsiders to watch the election process this would benefit the Indian Government,`` he said. ``
So, were there enough outsiders to watch the election process? What was the general impression of the International media about this election?
In a detailed review of post-election results, this article talks about the presence of local and international observers. So, they were there. Perhaps only those who mattered in the international community were invited. Let us not forget that this was a dangerous elections where a number of candidates were murdered prior to elections and security was always a big concern. Guess what? Pak media was not invited. Nobody invites a spoiler to a party.
Url:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/mar03/southAsia.asp#references

``The Indian government permitted and facilitated national and international media coverage of the J&K elections. 28 diplomats, including four each from the U.S. and U.K. were issued special passes by the Election Commission, which authorized them to enter polling booths and other administrative facilities. Indian Express, September 14, 2002``

An Indian daily, while commenting on the results hailed it as a victory of democracy.

http://147.208.132.202/news/181_87594,00300001.htm

``The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who had been so unwilling to say anything good about the Kashmir elections on the first day of A. B. Vajpayee’s visit, rushed to praise the electoral process once the results became known. And by the time the PM and his entourage moved to London, we knew that India’s image as the world’s largest democracy had received a huge boost, just as the results of General Pervez Musharraf’s deeply flawed election began trickling in.``

``Independent observers who witnessed the polling process have all declared that there was no rigging. There have been reports that in a few constituencies, the army forced people to vote. But even these reports; if they are accurate, do not say that the voters were forced to do anything more than cast their votes. They were not asked to vote for any particular candidate, they were allowed to exercise their right to a secret ballot, and nobody stopped them from spoiling their ballot papers (or whatever the electronic equivalent of that is in these days of voting machines).

And besides, here’s the most compelling proof: if Delhi had rigged the elections then wouldn’t it have rigged them so that somebody got a majority? Why would it have allowed Mufti’s party to do so well? And why would a BJP government at the Centre rig elections to ensure that the Congress did well while the BJP itself was annihilated?``.
Yes, the international media has accepted the credibility of this election. The J and K ministry under Mufti Sayeed is firmly on saddle. Now, this to me is already like a referendum.
INDIA IS NOT GOING TO HOLD A REFERENDUM JUST BECAUSE PAK WANTS IT.

Pak is a pathetic state living in denial. It does not give any freedom to Kashmiris in POK (see my previous posts on POK; there is no freedom there) and yet demands a referendum on J and K in India. It has gifted away a part of Kashmir to China but covets the valley. Pak reminds me of a whore who sleeps around but talks about chastity. People in Chowk who talk in the same vein are no different.
Sridhar

re: stuka

Yes I have family in both Pak Army GHQ and senior civil bureaucracy. My father and father-in-law serve in an intelligence agency (not ISI). Thats how I know of the scoops about some journalists and politicians. As for Kashmir, this is entirely the domain of Army and ISI. Civil bureaucrats and politicians are not allowed in that territory.

You said that given India`s size factor, it is unlikely that Pak Army would succeed in wresting Kashmir from India. I disagree. Here is why... Each successive attempt by Pak Army has relied on softening Indian Army through insurgency first, and then adding Pak Army regulars later.

In the first attempt (1947-48), the tribesmen from NWFP were pushed into Kashmir to capture territory. Indian Army fought the tribesmen for the first half of the war. Pak Army regulars joined the conflict at a later stage. Because of the Kashmiri resentment and weakness of the Maharaja`s army, this was by far the most successful attempt.

In the second attempt (1965), military agents were sent into Kashmir (Operation Gibraltar) under the assumption that Kashmiris would rise up against India (like in 1962). Under the details of this plan, an insurgency would take India by surprise and weaken Indian position in Kashmir. In phase III of Operation Gibraltar, the Pak Army would roll into Kashmir and drive the weakened Indian troops out. There were two flawed assumptions made by Z.A.Bhutto when he framed this plan:

* Kashmiri public would launch an insurgency against Indian Army
* India would not spread the conflict to international border

On both counts, Bhutto was wrong. He overestimated the disenchantment of Kashmiris with Indian rule. The agents sent across into Kashmir were handed over to the authorities by Kashmiris. Because of poor radio equipment, those who escaped arrest, failed to inform their commanders back in GHQ. Pak Army continued with Phase II unaware that Phase I had already failed. After the failure of Phases I and II, India unsuccessfully attacked Lahore.

But if you follow the plan... it is clear that the Pak Army and Bhutto were not planning to directly engage the Indian Army during Phase I and Phase II. If Kashmiri response had been more enthusiastic, Phase I and Phase II would perhaps have succeeded, paving the way for Pakistani success in Phase III.

Now lets flash forward to Kargil conflict. Once again, the same formula was applied. This time Pakistan was 100% sure that the infiltrators would enjoy Kashmiri support. Once again the plan was to infiltrate into unpatrolled areas of northern Kashmir, hold the positions, cut off the Srinagar-Leh highway and hence cut off the land supply routes for Indian Army. Once again Jihadis were sent in first to soften up the Indian Army. Then the NLI entered the conflict. The only miscalculation made by Pakistan was about the Indian Air Force. Pakistan was not expecting IAF to enter the fray given the altitude. Involvement of IAF suddenly increased the pressure on PAF to give air support to NLI/jihadis. But this would elevate a low-intensity conflict into full-scale war (which Pakistan didn`t want).

If you follow the plot in each successive conflict, there are a few strands common:
a) Capitalizing on widespread Kashmiri disenchantment with India to induce an insurgency
b) Pushing undercover agents or Jihadis to start low-intensity skirmishes
c) Using the terrain in Kashmir to pin down a larger army thru a few hundred trained Jihadis/commandoes
d) Inflicting rapid losses on the Indian side during the first few weeks to destroy morale
e) Delaying the involvement of Pak Army regulars until as late as possible

All these 5 factors diminish the size advantage that Indian Army enjoys vis-a-vis Pakistan. From my discussions with relatives, I have realized that as long as the Kashmiri public is perceived to be sympathetic to Pakistan, the Pak Army will continue to hatch plans like Gibraltar and Kargil.

To me atleast, it seems reasonable not to rule out any formula for settlement of Kashmir at this early stage in the peace process. Keep in mind that Musharraf is surrounded by Jihadi generals who will not retire until 2005.

re:#94 by HisExcellency
Cowasjee`s article (whose Url you posted) talks about Human Right Commissions Report (2002) on Pak. There is nothing on Sehbai or SA tribune. Perhaps you posted a wrong Url?

Anyway, the following Url that i had posted has Mushy`s Tax details. Let someone refute that proof with something better. Musharraf no doubt is a patriotic Paki but his is a misplaced patriotism tinged with intense hatred of India. He is like a feudal lord who may not deem it necessary to pay taxes (how dare they ask him for Income tax!) but would defend his turf to the end. After all, whole of Pak is his turf and he treats is as his personal property (see another article i had posted sometime back about land grabs by Army Generals).
http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/P1_taxstory.htm
Sridhar

HisExcellency #110

`` 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? ``

India did not enjoy good relations with Israel until 1990. India-Israeli friendship is not against Islam. Palestinians and Pakistanis do not equal Islam. What does Pakistan`s all weather friendship with communist aetheist pork eating China mean ? Pakistan is un-Islamic.

`` 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. ``

India needs another supplier of sophisticated weapons. Russia is lagging behind in a lot of areas. Your friend China does weapon deals with Israel. It does not seem to bother you.

`` I know that Pakistan is not perfect, but atleast we never claimed to be secular in the first place. ``

Then you should stop talking about secular and freedom of religion in other countries.

`` 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. ``

Jinnah never intended to form an Islamic state. All this ranting about Islam started with the advent of OPEC, Saudi petro dollars. May be the loss of Bangladesh had something to do with it.

`` 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.``

The elections were for the constituent Assembly not for any partition plan.

What makes you think all those voters knew what they were voting for ? Especially in light of the fact a lot of Muslims are in India. Remember literacy was under 10% in 1946. With the hindsight of history do you think a poor Muslim in UP/Bihar/MP would vote for Pakistani plan put forward by Jinnah ? Explain to us why he would !!!

People do have the right to be stupid. They cannot complain about the consequences.

`` 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. ``

Indian secularism extends all over India not just Kashmir. If India was a cruel place a lot of Indian Muslims would have packed up for Pakistan. Other than the initial wave in 1948 most people have stayed put. Kashmir was quiet till 1987. Their initial revolt has nothing to with religion.

`` 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.``

The British imposed their ways on a lot of people. It works over decades and centuries.

``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??``

Feel free to do whatever you want !!!

re: stuka

++
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.
++

Musharraf does not have the political space to make any compromises on Kashmir. He doesn`t have a constituency yet in Pakistan, whereas the Jihadi generals have one in the MMA. Only a mainstream political party like PPP can provide him with that constituency.

Perhaps, Mushy should set aside his personal aversion towards Benazir and strike a deal with her. Not only will this bring stability to Sindh, it will also extricate Mushy from the Mullahs who don`t represent the vision of majority of Pakistanis anyway. A PPP-Musharraf deal will confine the Mullah menace to NWFP/Baluchistan only, instead of all of Pakistan.