Vajpayee’s Srinagar offer of Talks to Pakistan

#310 by V_Agnihotri

My friend, you are a dying breed. Although you will no doubt come in for some flak from the rest of your noble countrymen, I am at least delighted at the fact that my optimism of there being a peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue (which has been waning since arjun_m began with the first post on this thread) is now revived.

I salute you and I hope there are many others like you who accept the magnitude of the problem at hand and believe in resolving things without conflict.

The decision on whether Kashmir should have gone to India, based on the decision of the Royalty of Kashmir, has two main holes. These are highlighted in various books, including, ``Kashmir in Conflict`` - by an authority on the subject named Victoria Schofield. One of the holes is as follows:

At the time of independence, there were hundreds of princely states in India, with a combined population of around 100 million people. Out of these, only three could have survived as an independente states. These were Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. The situation in all three states was somewhat different from each other. Kashmir had an overwhelmingly Muslim population, with a Hindu ruler. Hyderabad had a Hindu majority with a Muslim Nawab. And Junagarh had a Hindu majority with a Muslim ruler.

There are two different rules that one can apply on where these three states could have ended up: a) The population should be allowed to decide based on popular vote b) the ruler should decide on his own wishes and the population should be forced to follow.

I personally consider rule a) to be the civilised way of handling things. However, we can apply rule b) also, to see the results.

In Kashmir, the population wanted to join Pakistan, while the ruler wanted to join India. Actually the ruler wanted to be independent (nothing like having one`s own country), but when he realized he couldn`t be independent, he decided to join India.

In Junagarh, the population wanted to join India, but the ruler wanted to join Pakistan.

In Hyderabad, the population wanted to join India, while the ruler wated to be independent.

If we apply rule a), then Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, and Hyderabad and Junagarh should have gone to India. This would have been the sensible long term stable solution, which seems to have worked on all other cases in South Asia.

If we apply rule b), then Kashmir should have gone to India, Junagarh to Pakistan, and Hyderabad should have been independent. This would have not have been a stable long term solution. But it would have been a consistent rule applied across the board.

From here, we see that, regardless of what rule was applied, it was a mathematical impossibility for all three States to go to one country. It just could not happen. So anyone presenting an argument that all three could or should have gone to one country, is basically trying to defy the laws of logic. No amount of spin can defy mathematics. It is black and white.

Yet, what ended up happening was that India ended up with all three States. How in the world was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? Simple. It applied rule a) in Junagarh and Hyderabad and rule b) in Kashmir. Basically, it took over these States by force when it couldn`t get them on principle.

And ever since 47, South Asians are paying the price of India using conflicting principles. Anytime principles are vioalted, problems occur. So it is natural to expect that Kashmiris are fighting for their rights, against India, while those in Hyderabad and Junagarh are not. It is a basic rule of nature, if you take over someone`s home, they wil fight you, if they can. It is bad enough if someone`s home is taken, it is worse if that person is then blamed for the fighting for trying to get it back.

I am surprised our Indian colleagues are trying to justify a mathematical impossibility. I would be even more surprised if they actually believed in it themselves.

If today, China were to come in and take over Delhi, would the Stukas, Vereeshes, Ralphs, Arjuns, Dost-mittars, Shankars, Rsexanas fight back? Or would they just sit there, and allow the Chinese to subjugate them? My guess they would fight back. I doubt they would want to change their names to Yin, Yang and Dong. So why are they so surprised when the Kashmiris are fighting back? What else should they do? Should they just kneel and roll over? They are doing exactly the same thing that all our Indian friends would do in such a situation. Blaming them for terrorism, while simutaneously banning human rights organizations in Kashmir is quite a double standard.

I must say as a peace-loving patriotic Indian who firmly believes in Baapu`s teachings, I am ashamed at our government`s shameless stand on Kashmir. It goes against the raison d`etre of our independence from colonial British. Did we demand independence to subjugate an entire region? I am sure Baapu would never have allowed it.

Just an addition to JacobianMatrix questions

What about Hyderabad Deccan? since we are already talking about Junagadh and Manavdar

#various_trash by arjun_m

And on and on you rattle. What happened ? Question I asked too difficult for your limited cerebral faculties to handle ?

#Ralph`s ``unexpected`` response

Thank you for making your stance clear:

1) The decisions of one man take precedence over those of millions.

2) ``Indians have grown up with the ideal/belief that ... land takes priority over many other things``

As much was to be expected of you.

speaking of all this legalities bs i have another 2 questions of my own;

can you tell us why you think india should keep kashmir simply because the raja there acceded to pakistan while also annexing junagadh when the nawab there acceded to pakistan.

ralph. also who are you to say the people of kashmir are better off with india. shouldn`t they be able to choose whats better for themselves?

just a bunch of snivelling hypocritical rss thugs. all of you.

#bartwannabe

``As Homer Simpson said: D`oh!``

At least now we`re clear where your sense of logic comes from.

:-)

LATEST NEWS FROM LOC:

It’s head for head along the border
Vishal Thapar
New Delhi, September 28

Rules of engagement

Unlawful act: Soldiers have immunity for killing enemy soldiers only in a declared war

Geneva Convention: Focuses on treatment of POWs. Treatment of bodies is in realm of military tradition


India and Pakistan may not be at war, but on the Line of Control (LoC), they are playing a game of gore that may get out of control.

Last month, elements from the Pakistan Army walked across the LoC in the Rajouri sector in Jammu and Kashmir. They ambushed a Jat Regiment patrol and killed four troops.

But the intruders weren`t through. They chopped off the head of a slain Indian soldier and carried it back across the LoC as a trophy. The Pakistanis also took away a light machine gun that the Indians were carrying.

The Indian retaliation was ferocious. Earlier this week, a battalion of the Jat Regiment shot dead nine Pakistani soldiers. And for gruesome impact, the Jats got the heads of two Pakistani soldiers.

The Army brass, however, isn’t saying anything about this macabre medievalism. “There`s nothing to state officially. We`re not making a statement,” says a senior officer at Army Headquarters.

Even the community of soldiers is taken aback by this barbaric dimension to Indo-Pak hostilities. Says Lt-Gen Satish Nambiar, who commanded the UN peacekeeping force in the Balkans in the early nineties, “Mutilation of bodies is not natural even in the heat of battle. Even in Yugoslavia, the scene of a bitter ethnic blood-letting, I did not hear such things.”

But this isn`t the first time bodies have been mutilated in a no-war, no-peace situation along the LoC. Former Vice-Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen Vijay Oberoi has recollections of similar incidents in 1998-99 when Pakistan started sending across its Border Action Teams (BATs).

“This was a mixed lot of Pakistan Army regulars and mercenaries wearing black civvies. Their purpose was to open infiltration routes for cross-border entries,” says General Oberoi.

“On occasion, this trend did trigger Indian retaliation,” he admits, adding, “One such incident occurred after the Pakistanis carried back the body of an Indian jawan.”

Even during the Kargil war, bodies of some Indian soldiers, which the Pakistanis returned, were badly mutilated. One such posthumous humiliation was inflicted on Lieutenant Saurabh Kalia.

Oberoi, who regards such competitive sadism as an aberration, argues that it`s primarily motivated by the intruders` quest for proof of inflicting casualties on the adversary.

“Some may be considering an enemy soldier`s head a better evidence of a successful foray, compared to a captured weapon or some other material proof,” he says.

The General, who interacted with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, then Pak DG of military operations, as his counterpart in the mid-nineties, gives the benefit of the doubt to the Pakistani brass.

He says the equation at the lower levels matters. “Not everything that unfolds on the LoC is policy,” he says. “What transpires is mostly prompted by local considerations.”

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

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

HamidM:

`` i don`t see kashmir as an ``abdul`` issue - it is an issue for all pakis......... ``

Interesting. Assume for a moment that I am Pakistani, a Muslim who lives and works in Lahore. Assume also that I am patriotic and will gladly support a nuclear riposte to an Indian attack across the border (Lahore after all is the first city across the border) provided they do launch an attack. Also, assume that I am not interested in Pakistan going to war with India.

Now, please tell me why the liberation of Indian Occupied Kashmir is important to me. What gain will I get if Kashmir comes. What do I lose if Pakistani Kashmir stays with Pakistan and Indian Kashmir with India?

``but if we abandon it to the abduls because we are too uppity, polite, civilized and reasonable then we deserve it if the jihadis take over ............... there is a fine line between being reasonable and being a grovelling wimp ............ ``

You are a 100% correct except on the wimp part. It is common sense and not being wimpy to walk away from a battle you cannot win. If you disagree, I am very glad that I belong to a wimpy country that is not trying to fight China to recover Aksai Chin nor training Buddhist Jehadis to create trouble in Tibet.

Khair, the crux of what u say is true. Either join battle or give it up. The other alternative is that the Abduls will see you as cowardly traitors and sooner or later will turn against you.

Ballu Khan:

``Great lines again! You can count on me to be on your side as long as these guys roam in the cyberspace spewing out venom against other people whom they have never met. ``

TAhmed is a class apart. Ofcourse thanks to my influence he has also developed a sense of humor in the last year or so. Pehley he had a very ``Uncle`` type personality :0)

Sigalph:

Wasn`t Tin Bigha already transferred to Bangladesh during Gujral;`s time?

Yasser, you are getting married! No wonder your posts are also becoming mellow. Chalo, all the best . . .

And while you were doing the Moulin Rouge and others were hitting the qawali tiles in Ottawa, I was at a live performance by the 70+ Malti Gilani, Hindustani classical vocal in the Bade Ghulam Ali tradition, all in honour of Ajmer Sharif.

Ofcourse, in our case here in Delhi, this was followed by an even more invigorating evening of some new Nasik wines (try to get hold of Sula Pacifica from yor bootlegger) and that other great invention, deep double fried everything.

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

# 291

Declaring victory may be the best way to go!

There are many practical ways in which Pakistan has won. These arguments can be made.

1. After so many years, we have made absolutely sure that India will never dare attack us. Our existence and pride is forever secured. Indian dreams of taking over Pakistan are gone for ever.

2. India`s designs of grabbing Azad Kashmir have been forever thwarted. Now we can live with dignity. Indians have had to eat crow.

3. Despite its size India has been forced to deal with us as equals.

4. We are taking this step to protect our brother Muslims in India.

5. We have brought India to its knees and now we can reap a peace dividend.

The point is not whether these are totally true or not. But given what the state has been telling people, these arguments provide a way out. They address the issue of pride that can motivate even someone like Hamidm!