Re-thinking Kashmir

stuka #144

Sorry, mate, but the UN resolutions on Kashmir ARE binding. What Kofi Anan said was that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are not ENFORCEABLE (there is a large difference in meaning between `non-enforceable` and `non-binding`. ) This is hardly big news, though it sent the Indian media into its usual paroxysms of hysteria whenever Kashmir is mentioned and was virtually ignored by everyone else. Neither at the time the UN resolutions were forumulated and India agreed to them nor at any time since has anyone expected a UN force to invade Kashmir to force India to comply to the resolutions.

The Indian Parliament is indeed the supreme voice of the INDIAN people. Good for you. We envy you. But it is not the supreme voice of the Pakistani people, or the English people, or the Outer Mongolion people, or indeed the Kashmiri people. The Indian Parliament doesn`t have the legal or the moral authority to unilateraly declare this or that part of the world to be a part of India.


Agree with Pakistan to partition the state (the WHOLE state, that is) into three, and let`s move on. Its the only way out of this mess.

Bongdongs, Rajendra Prasad was a Bihari, and he went to Presidency.

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

More and more Pakistani writers are readily acknowledging that it wasn`t moral compulsions or the urge to liberate Kashmiris that had led Pakistan to invade Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 in violation of the Standstill Agreement that the Pak government had signed with Kashmir`s Maharaja. Here`s a small sample of what some Pakistani writers have been saying on Kashmir Invasion of 1947:

---

Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.

Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line.``

---

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
10 April, 2000

Kashmir: time to change tack
By Brig (retd) M. Sher Khan

``The story of Kashmir is a long saga, which started at the very inception of the new-born nation of Pakistan. While the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was wavering about deciding which of the two new dominions his largely Muslim state should accede to, large tribal lashkars from the NWFP region invaded the state with the aim of forcing the Maharaja`s hand in acceding to Pakistan. When these lashkars were in a position to seize Srinagar and its airport, the lust for spoils, loot and pillage got the better of them. The Maharaja panicked and sought Indian intercession, the price of which was that he should first sign an instrument of accession.``

---

Excerpt from Article in Pakistan Link (1/28/2000):

Men and Events That Mattered in Pakistan
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry

``The Kashmir problem which brought Pakistan to the three most costly wars it fought with India with the fourth looming on the horizon, might have been solved had Liaquat Ali Khan, the then PM, accepted Sardar Patel`s proposal to exchange Hyderabad with the Valley. As Sardar Shaukat Hayat puts it, Liaquat Ali Khan brushed aside the proposal by saying, ``Sardar Sahib, do you take me for a fool to accept a few hills in exchange for the vast plains of Deccan?`` India usurped Hyderabad anyway and forcefully occupied Kashmir too, leaving Pakistanis ruminating as to who was right, Liaquat Ali Khan or the Sardar of Wah who insisted on accepting it.

If this sounds somewhat dramatic, here is another event that let Kashmir slip away from Pakistan`s lap. In 1948 the, Tribal ``Mujahidins``, brought by Major Khurshid, had reached Srinagar which lay deserted. As they put their hands on the National Bank and came by some 3 lac rupees, it so happened that while the Major insisted on taking away that money as it belonged to the government of Pakistan, the ``Mujahidins`` on the contrary persisted in their demand to celebrate Eid-ul-Azha along with it, and in this tug of war they lost three most precious days. This lull and halt provided India enough time to rush its deployments to the area and what happened next to the rest of the story as far as Kashmir is concerned is well known to all.``

Pakistan`s ruling elite talks of ``plebiscite`` not because it believes in elections or votes. It is just a tactical step to create a situation where they get a chance to preach to the Muslims of Kashmir that they have a religious obligation to impose PoK`s religious homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.

Kashmir is seen as a dominoe - its fall will trigger falls elsewhere. India, after all, has more Muslims than Pakistan. Even medium sized states like Kerala and West Bengal have several times more Muslims than Kashmir. Pakistan`s ruling elite sees itself positioning for further mischief if it can convince (thru terror, outright conquest, or even a plebiscite) Muslim Kashmiris that they have a religious obligation to help in the imposition of PoK`s religious homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir.

If Pakistan`s ruling elite actually cares for Kashmiris, it can very easily force India`s hand. Pakistan can hand over ``Azad`` Kashmir to UN with a request to hold a UN-supervised referendum with the options to join Pakistan or India or even to be an independent state.

India, then, will be forced to emulate Pakistan in the Kashmir that is under Indian administration.

But I doubt Pakistan will ever dare to take this step. Self-determination for Kashmiris was never high on the agenda of Pakistan`s ruling elite and never will be.

Pakistan has refused to take in the ``Biharis`` who opted to retain their Pakistani citizenship after the partition of Pakistan in 1971. The option was expressed very explicitly.

``Biharis`` who opted for Bangladesh were promptly offered Bangladeshi citizenship. The ``Biharis`` who opted for Pakistan were temporarily housed in refugee camps run by the UN. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. They have been waiting to be repatriated to Pakistan ever since!

If Pakistan cannot accomodate the ``Biharis`` who had unequivocallyly opted for Pakistan, how can it carry conviction that it cares for the cause of Kashmiris who are yet to opt for Pakistan?

Yes, the ``Biharis`` won`t come with any real estate. So, Pakistan`s ruling elite will rather talk of liberating Kashmiris than bring home the ``Biharis``.

There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily the military) to believe that it cares anymore for Kashmiris across the LoC that it cares for Pakistanis within the border.

dionysus #142
If Pakistanis believed (like Nehru) that Kashmir belonged to Kashmiris, why did Pakistan send WAZIRI tribesmen to rape kill and invade in 47-48?

This is just one of the many mentions of this fact in recent days in the Pakistani press:

http://www.dawn.com/2004/07/09/op.htm#3
``The people of Waziristan have suffered tremendously in terms of both human life and destruction of their property. They fail to understand as to why are they being punished.

They have done no harm to Pakistan which they consider their own home and for which they have sacrificed starting from the insurgency in Kashmir in 1947.``

Pakistani jihadis could not take Srinagar in 47-48 only because they stopped to loot the public and rape nuns at a convent. What is the point of quoting Nehru now?

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
11 June 2004 Friday 22 Rabi-us-Saani 1425

A `sincere` approach to Kashmir
By Ayaz Amir

..... President Musharraf has called for ``sincerity`` in resolving the Kashmir dispute. If the leadership on both sides was sincere a solution to this problem could be found.

Like charity, sincerity too should begin at home. And its starting point in relation to Kashmir is the abiding truth that what you fail to win on the battlefield, you cannot win at the negotiating table. .....

..... The Line of Control is thus not a whimsical line on the map. It marks the farther-most limits of Pakistani military prowess. Beyond this line we couldn`t go. There can be nothing more concrete than this.

We waged war to bring India to the negotiating table but the Dien Bien Phu our generals hoped for, never happened. Instead, our wars exposed the limits of our capability and cast a wan light on many of our cherished illusions (mostly to do with our valour and Indian
weakness).

From 1989 onwards we looked to ``jihad`` as a way to bleed India and unfreeze Kashmir. India has paid a price and continues to do so. But it is no closer to quitting Kashmir now than it was when the insurgency began.

In fact, the insurgency peaked long ago and ``jihad`` fatigue has set in. How does ``sincerity`` fit into this equation? Are we saying that India should do voluntarily, on the basis of sincerity, which we failed to make it do through the use of arms? .....

..... Pakistan wants the division of Kashmir along communal lines, with the Valley acceding to Pakistan or enjoying some kind of international status. A section of Kashmiri Muslims favours accession to Pakistan. But the majority probably is in favour of independence, a plague on both your houses being its motto. How do you reconcile these conflicting positions? .....

..... Pakistan`s intelligence agencies put their stamp on the Kashmiri freedom struggle, not allowing it to develop an autonomous character.

The result is that while the All Parties Hurriyet Conference leads the political struggle, it has no control over the gun, most of the jihadi organizations drawing sustenance from private outfits in Pakistan.

This is a repeat of our Afghan failure when Pakistan`s intelligence agencies insisted on controlling the Afghan resistance, now propping up one favourite, now another. When Najib fell, there was no cohesive entity to fill the vacuum. .....

..... let us also realize that no Kashmir solution is going to emerge tomorrow. Anyone can beat an empty drum. It takes courage and wisdom to make the best of an imperfect situation and accept the inevitable.

Is this too tough a proposition for Pakistani minds to accept? We got used to the loss of East Pakistan with remarkable ease. East Pakistan was half of Pakistan, Kashmir never a part of us. Nor did Kashmir figure in the partition plan leading to India`s independence and the birth of Pakistan, as a princely state falling in a different category.

Strange, to say the least, that whereas the loss of half our body and soul is not a ``core issue``, the future of Kashmir is. For too long we have been governed by the pseudo-strategic preoccupations of GHQ and ISI. We know where these can lead. Our foremost concern should be the plight of the Kashmiri people. .....

..... with all our expenditure of defence we are no closer to liberating Kashmir, all this talk of core issue serves as an excuse to make the military the holiest cow in the Pakistani pantheon. We should not neglect our armed forces. .....

..... The primary aim of the Pakistan movement, from where it all began, was to provide
constitutional safeguards for Muslims in the Muslim-minority provinces who were afraid of being swamped by a Hindu majority.

Being in a majority, the Muslims of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Frontier felt threatened by no one. It is an irony of history that those most in need of protection were left behind in India, while those who didn`t need any protection inherited the new state.

This is water under the bridge but given this background, don`t we have a moral obligation to see that our policies don`t hurt the interests of Indian Muslims?

From the strong impression one gathers while visiting India, most Indian Muslims are not in favour of Kashmir leaving the Indian Union. For they look upon the division of Kashmir along communal lines as (1) a threat to Indian secularism, after all their strongest safeguard, and (2) a diminution of their collective strength. The invocation of sincerity should take all these factors into account.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
09 January 2004 Friday 16 Ziqa`ad 1424

Joyride of the victors
By Ayaz Amir

..... what Pakistan has agreed is to bid a last farewell to jihad in Kashmir: the final curtains drawn on the blood and iron of 15 years of history.

Any doubts on this score should disappear with these words from the Joint Statement: ``Prime Minister (Atal Behari) Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President (Pervez) Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan`s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.`` .....

..... For 15 years we defined the uprising in occupied Kashmir as an indigenous freedom struggle. Now a Pakistani ruler has put that struggle squarely in the locker of terrorism. We should forgive the Kashmiris if they feel a bit like the Taliban whom we once supported and then threw to the wolves. If they utter the dread word ``sellout``, what do we say? .....

..... Coming to the all-important question of whether a peaceful relationship with India is good for Pakistan, a thousand times, yes. Was jihad in Kashmir a sustainable and sensible policy? A thousand times, no. Then isn`t Gen Musharraf on the right course, doing the right thing?

He is. The only thing is he could have embarked on this journey much sooner and with less loss of face for Pakistan. .....

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 April 2003 Saturday 09 Safar 1424

Winds of change
By Irfan Husain

..... To any objective observer, Kashmir is a dead issue, and nothing will be gained by continuing to flog it. And yet, even sensible Pakistanis are unwilling to come forward and say so openly. The recent appalling slaughter of 24 Kashmiri Pandits shows how explosive an issue it is, and emphasizes yet again the need to normalize relations with India and move ahead on other aspects of bilateral ties like trade and travel. This whole business of jihad (and it is, among other things, a business) has to be switched off and its proponents tamed.

One knows this is a tall order, and not one in keeping with this government`s wishes or priorities. Brainwashed into a knee-jerk `Kashmir at any cost` philosophy, our generals have a single-point agenda to which the whole nation is now hostage. But for how long?

As we stand isolated and virtually friendless, we are in desperate need to review our mistakes and chart a new path. Unfortunately, as one surveys the landscape, one cannot see the kind of visionary leaders needed for such an exercise.

dionysus #142

Abay, Panditji didn`t know the kind of people he was dealing with; neither did he know how international politics works (which we do!) :) :)

#142

Jaswant seems to have hit a nerve here!

As for me I believe all states are kind of ``ersatz`` anyway. No matter who`s typewriter created it, Pakistan exists here and now and its up to pakistani`s to make the best of it. Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.

(but I am sure you knew all that anyway, lets have more quotes from Nehru :-))

(btw, more interesting than Nehru it seems was Rajendra Prasad who had a colorful UP vocabulary. A friend of mine narrates hearing Rajendra Prasad call out to Nehru during some ceremony ``Arre Jahurwa mera khaniee ka dibba dikhat hai kya babuwa``)

Dionysus:

Pandit Nehru tau mar gaya yaar. Woh tau bilkul phuddu banda si.

It is Parliament that is supreme as a voice of the people. A Parliamentary resolution of India says that Kashmir is an integral part of India. What an individual said is immaterial. Also, the UN resolution is non-binding. U can check what Kofi Annan said about that.

nakhok

What kind of pyschosis afflicted India to make Pandit-jee say things like this. Perhaps Jaswant Singh sahib should do some psycho- analysing here to. :)


`` [Kashmir] is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision``.

--Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji`s question in the Indian Legislature

nakhok

``We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.

Such noble words. Nakhok send these to Jaswant Singh, India`s greatest Freudian pyscho-analyst. :)

``Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.


--Pandit Nehru, addressing the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952

#139
leader of 3-rd world panditji: dead
daughter, and liberator of bangla indira: dead
mr neutrer sanjiv: dead
mr clean rajiv who bought the bofors howitzers for deployment in kashmir: dead

just some news you may have missed. so, look forward.

#131 nakhok

Forget about that idiot Jaswant Singh. Pandit-ji is far more eloquent. :)

``We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it``.

--Pandit Nehru, broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947,




``I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations``.

-Pandit Nehru, In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan