Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic?

The Kashmir issue as it has evolved to where it is now has to be viewed in the broader perspective of the partition of India and creation of Pakistan.

In my earlier posts on the matter on another submission, I said that on either side there are entrenched vested interests who have a stake in keeping Kashmir on the boil, even though, as at present, on the slow burner.

Until and unless, somehow, these vested interests can be made to relinquish their lucrative ``guzara`` due to the existence of this issue, no effort to resolve this issue will bear fruit.

One of the parties that has a massive stake in letting the Kashmir issue fester is the Pakistan army.

Statements for pubic consumption aside, Kashmir and the beneficiaries of the Kashmir issue will continue to bleed white Pakistan`s potential for progress, peace and internal harmony.

Siddiqua Haqnawaa

I think the tangible concession that Mr. Naeem wants is the handing over of Kashmir to Pakistan. Ain`t gonna happen.

man -- what is so wrong with Kashmiri managing their two states on each side of the border with autonomy with soft loc and with minimum control from the respective central governments....?

transfer of real estate -- would never happen.....

Islamization of Valley -- would never happen....Kashmiri Muslims will have to learn to live with Kashmiri Hindus, Kashmiri Sikhs, Kashmiri Christians and Kshmiri Buddhists...period

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

From the article:

``Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Nov. 11 called for a reduction in Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir this winter as the first troop reduction since the 1999 Kargil attack. ... There are approximately 200,000 Indian troops currently operating in the region, much to Pakistan`s and the Kashmiri separatists` disapproval.``

Only 200,000 troops for all of J & K? Say it ain`t so. For years on end Pakistanis have been repeating ad nauseam that India stations 700,000 troops in Kashmir - the most heavily militarized region in the world, etc. etc. - just to torture and oppress the poor Kashmiris. They couldn`t possibly have been lying - or manufacturing numbers out of thin air - now could they?

The Indian PM said it all at the Hague. No matter how much Pakis get worked up over Kashmir, the maximum India will be prepared to concede is to convert the LoC into the international border. In 57 years, not once has the Indian government said that it will concede territory to Pakistan. I wonder why Pakis are expecting anything different now.

Siddiqua, you displayed great skills in the past and now seem to reclude to the same old theories. As an academician, other than linking Kashmir to the issues of partition, what viable intellectual contribution have you made towards the solution to the issue. Most academicians in Pakistan and the establishment are stuck with the precis of Alistiar Lamb and Owen Dixon on Kashmir. Unfortunetely India cares a hang about the intellectual work of these two. Amongst the institutions, the army remains the most organised and thus dominates the security perceptions. This is an establishment bias that has surfaced repeatedly in history be it the Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Berlin Airlift or the famous telegram from Moscow. If strong establishments in USA can have their way, what of Pakistan?

Naeem, I am of the view that President`s talk in an Iftar party could well have been avoided. All that Messers Lamb and Dixon do is recognise the issue and thats it. None of their proposals are acceptable to any leadership in India. So its a non starter and damages the basic legitimacy issue of Kashmir viz ziz UN. Let me hypothise that,

``THE QUESTION OF KASHMIR IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE PARTITION PLAN. BEING AN IDEOLOGICAL DISPUTE, IT REMAINS A POLITICAL ISSUE EMANATING FROM THE SOCIAL SPECTRUM OF POLICY. HENCE ANY SOLUTION TO THE WILL COME FROM THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, the main precursers being SOCIO ECONOMIC.

In the 90s, the politics took a wrong turn and we must make course corrections rather than playing to the international gallaries for a quick fix solution, which will ultimately lead to ethnic instability within Pakistan.

Factually India will increase her force level in Kashmir. Scores of Rashtriya Rifles have been raised that will replace the regulars. These are like the Civil armed Forces of Pakistan and paramilitary troops with a military outlook. Thus wither the reduction oF troops. Its just a political non starter which could best be used to exert pressure on Pakistan via USA.

Cheerios

This step should be seen as an extension of the over 90 CBMs that India has recently announced. Some of these CBMs are `symbolic,` some are `substantive.` In an atmosphere where missiles are named Gauris and Ghaznis, the symbolic are not less important that the substantive.

One mustn`t bury all Indian steps under the rhetoric that India is unwilling to ``incur strategic loss`` or ``reach real results.`` Indians have reached near consensus on how far they would ever go on Kashmir. And consensus in a democracy is a very strong source of collective power.

We will all be happy if Pakistanis too reached a democratic consensus on this issue. In most cases, democracies sort mutual issues out peacefully. But until that happy state is reached, the fact remains that Abdul Naeem represents only himself and his buddies.

Both India and Pakistan reduce their military presence every winter around the cease fire line where it snows heavily and passages are blocked for good 4 months. Only India makes a big deal out of this tactical withdrawl every year, probably to feel good about themselves. Sometimes being pathetic works wonders politically.

Urstruly:

Ignorance is not the same as sagacity.

India never withdraws troops from the valley. Both India and Pakistan withdraw troops fropm forward positions in the winter. We have stopped doing that since Kargil.

Indians never learn so they need kick in the rear from Pakistan. They are going to get it soon.

What a world of difference a few words make. I will rephrase ijaz_gul`s hypothesis (#7), with most of which I agree -

THE QUESTION OF KASHMIR IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE PARTITION PLAN. BEING AN IDEOLOGICAL DISPUTE, IT REMAINS A POLITICAL ISSUE EMANATING FROM THE SOCIAL SPECTRUM OF POLICY. HENCE ANY SOLUTIONS WILL COME FROM THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. THE UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION FOR ALL BUT THE DUMBEST IS THAT THE MAIN PRECURSORS (TO SOLVING THAT PROBLEM) ARE SOCIO POLITICAL.

The (Pakistani) politics took a wrong turn as early as February 9th, 1979 (even ignoring the impact of Objective Resolutions) and we must make course corrections rather than once again succombing vested interests who remain wedded to the doctrine of `keeping the pot boiling` both inside the country and outside of it.

//... New Delhi has been reluctant to negotiate with Islamabad over Kashmir and will employ every method to buy time ....//

``reluctant to negotiate`` ??? What gave you that idea? As far kashmir is concermed - there is No Negotiation whatsover, with anybody. How many time does India have to tell you that??

So India is not stalling or trying to ``buy time`` ( from whom ? ) - India has just flat out refused to do any negotiation with anybody. This should have been clear to you pakis a long time ago. True to characters - pakis never get it even when things hit them right in hte face.

this is a first: a common interact for the following three boards
Women, Conflict and Conflict Prevention by Naveen Qayyum
Madrassahs and Schools by Xoheb Sheikh
Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic? by Abdul Naeem

---

…the common strand that runs through these three articles on the main page is the inability of the occupying army to deal with the looming crisis in Pakistan…ok let’s dispense with the white-wash…democracy and all that blah blah…and about how the power is transferred to the people..more blah blah…

…(came across these figures about four years ago from the then sec. education…a laeeq khan...am relying on memory and am searching for more current numbers)

…every year more than three million young Pakistanis are added to the school going age…between the stretched educational resources of the GoP (digression: the defense related expenses eat up between 48- 66+ % of the budget –depending on how you add up)…here is the low down:

number of new school age children......…….3,000,000
based on an average of 30 children
per class—number of additionalclass
rooms required.......................................…..100,000
new class rooms provided by govt............….10,000
new class rooms provided by madrasah...…....6,000
new class rooms provided by pvt groups.....….3,000

yearly class rooms shortfall.......................….81,000

...that is 2,430,000 plus children that are added every year to the numbers of uneducated…and this folly is compounded every year…millions of hopeless soul scurrying for petty existence and fodder for physical and mental slavery…is there any wonder the literacy rate is going down…(so much for Madrassahs and Schools …not to mention law and order…infra structure development…women issues, gender inequality, honor killing…heck, just about everything except nuclear aresenal and land grab by the faujis?

… am sure there are saner minds in the fauj that have figured this out have come to realize that the pie is shrinking and the occupying army’s share cannot be increased beyond a certain point…remember ..no Pakistan, no pakistan army…perhaps that is the driving force behind the fauji’s push for a solution to the Kashmir crisis (Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic? )…so that the meager budgetary resources can be allocated to developmental fields…a bare minimum level of economic prosperity is introduced to help the pie expand…and with a bigger pie the percentage yield for them will become bigger too…

rgds,

t

I am intrigued by the opposite conclusions Ijaz_gul and I reach, reading the same historical data. There seem to be two key sources of our differences.

One, we view the dominant parties implicated in the dispute on both sides differently.

Ijaz_gul sees the main Indian and the Pakistani disputants on Kashmir as being fairly similar in nature and behavior. I think that whatever may have been the case in 1947, the two sides have evolved into very different ideological entities. The confrontation over Kashmir has become focused between an ideologically unified Pakistani military and an ideologically unified Indian populace.

I make two assumptions. (1) Pakistani people and the Indian military are secondary influenes in ultimately settling the dispute. (2) Mulayam Singh Yadav, Sonia Gandhi, Karunanidhi, and Vajpayee speaking much the same language on Kashmir indicates a discernible unity of opinion across India.

Two, we differ in our views of the right course of action, or what `should` be done now. Ijaz regrets departures from the past because he sees for his country an identity of vested interests between Pakistan`s primary (the military) and secondary (the people) disputants to the Kashmir conflict. Naturally, I disagree. I think that except in rare cases, militaries represent their own interests, not the general interests of the people they are professionally sworn to defend.

# 12

``No Negotiation whatsover, with anybody``

About internally or externally inspired separatism. There is always some flexibility about internal arrangements, within the bounds of reason. This has happened with the establishment of linguistic states, and in the case of North Eastern states.

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