The Baluchistan Issue

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

mohar11:

I agree let India march on...

Anil

It is no one else but Punjab, which is absolutely responsible for all the murder and mayhem that is going on in Baluchistan and Waziristan as we speak. It is Punjab`s responsibility to disbanned napak fauj, reduce its number to less than 50K, and create a civil social contract that is palatable to smaller provinces. The source of every evil in Pakistan is its army; army is strong because Punjab support`s it and its dictators; and punjab support all the dictatators because army help Punjab plunder natural resources and revenues of smaller provinces; therefore Punjab is as much responsible for destruction of Pakistan as its army. A time has come that Punjab must wipe off the blood of others from its face - enough is enough. We must become a humane and law abiding society, if we wish to survive the present times. Even if we divide Punjab in 5 provinces, as long as the source of this evil is intact, we cannot become a just and law abiding society. I see that Punjabis and agents of military establishment are busy in blame game but rest assured that it is nothing more than a bandaid that is being applied to hide a big gangrenuous wound. Punjab must take responsibitly and send its fauj back to the kennels, where it belongs.

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

anil
//...Sadly, my generation of Indians did not include Indian Muslims well enough to groom them into a force..//

Sadly, your generation of Indians did not do a lot of things that should have been done .... or did exactly the wrong things. You guys are the reason why India is where it is today - poor, weak and pathetic. So let`s not even go there.

amit #34

`` I think the Baluchistan crisis might give India an opportunity to mend fences with Pakistan. A meltdown in Baluchistan will actually benefit Iran the most. Iran is already licking its chops about controlling the shiite portions of Iraq in a post US scenario along with the oil assets that will come with it. If Baluchistan also becomes available, suddenly Iran becomes a very powerful player, especially with its potential acquisition of nukes. In the past there was little interest in Baluchistan when people didnt know about its gas resources. While Iran is friendly with India today, a resurgent nuclear armed Iranian theocracy with control of oil/gas in Iraq, Iran and Baluchistan, may not be very desirable for India`s long term ambitions.

Hence India should come out strongly in support of Pakistan`s sovereignty and unity in Baluchistan. Our support will silence a lot of the hawks in Pakistan`s establishment that are eager to undo the peace process with India. It will take away the temptation of Pakistan to start some conflict in Kashmir in order to divert attention from Baluchistan. Finally and most important is that it will give us leverage when we sit down and talk about Kashmir. It will be hard for Pakistan to demand territorial concessions from us when we strongly support their territorial integrity. They will have to reciprocate that gesture which will reduce their intensity to break our territorial integrity.``

Pakistanis will decide whether Pakistan stays united. Bengalis would be independent even without Indian intervention. It would have taken a few more decades and a few million lives.

Almost all the Pakistani hawks do not see any point in continuing a fight (at least temporarily) with a rising India. The current peace process is just a face saving way out for some of them.

Amit:

Should India come out unequivocally on Baluchistan at this stage? It is very premature and would sound interfering when suspecion levels are high. India should let the nature take its course there and simply must not interfere. Equating Baluchistan with Kashmir is a mistake for India. Ground realities on Kashmir issues are very clear and are well known to Indians and Pakistanis in power, and also to the facilitators in Washington DC and London. These are not spelled out for the general public. After 57 years of vitriolic brainwashing, Pakistan needs time to prepare itself to accept the reality on Kashmir. Baluchis live in Pakistan and Iran, Kurds live in Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Kashmiris living in India and Pakistan has to become acceptable to Pakistan. Therefore, India must give support to the Paksitani governmental and non-governmental inititiatives, it must try to find ways to build military cooperation with Paksitani military also, for this part, it could involve help in Sri Lanka`s rebuilding, and in Nepal to combat Maoist. I am not sure if Indian military is prepared for such a cooperation yet, while the Pakistanis may be more prepared to cooperate.

Anil

Lobbing a few bombs at the JK Border would turn the attention of every brainwashed Paki from the baluch problem..........................................


and that is exactly what Mush has asked the DGMO to do................................

Lob a few bombs at the JK Border and watch the idiots stop complaining about the issues of democracy, Roti, Rozi and Baluchistan ........................................that is the Pakistani reality about Baluchistan................................


Maths of keeping the conflict stakes in check
INDRANI BAGCHI

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 10:52:17 PM ]

Sign into earnIndiatimes points

NEW DELHI: The Indian government maintained a strategic silence on Wednesday on Pakistani firing across the LoC on Tuesday night. Refusing to get into a name-calling exercise, the foreign office indicated that India would wait for the Pakistan government to investigate the incident.

The firing is just the latest in a series of knocks sustained by the India-Pakistan peace process. Pakistan`s decision on Tuesday to go to the World bank to settle the Baglihar dispute was a big negative, LoC firing was another. Recent statements by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf rejecting a ``made in India`` solution to Kashmir or even refusing any more CBMs sound a definite sour note. Islamabad has also taken the line that the Baglihar dispute would be a ``bad omen`` for the peace process. Why does India believe the peace process will survive these knocks?

The process has not had an unblemished record. From the Srinagar bus service to the visa liberalisation regime to the present situation, the process has been buffeted by rejections from either side. Yet it has continued, officials and ministers continue to meet, timetables continue to be drawn up and most important, neither side seems to want to back away from the process.

For India, the process serves a very crucial strategic goal - to keep terrorism and infiltration down in J&K while an intensive internal strategy within the country addresses the serious problems in the state.

Indians wake up!!! It is not frustration...but diverting the attention of Pakis from their burning backyards.....this is the favourite tactics of any military dictator...............that is why Indians need to be very careful in dealing with this SOB called Musharaff.......





Did frustration make Pak army violate ceasefire?
RAJAT PANDIT

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 10:35:20 PM ]

Sign into earnIndiatimes points

NEW DELHI: Apparently ``frustrated`` at no longer being able to push militants into India with the effortless ease it could in the past, the Pakistani army violated the ceasefire on Tuesday, said a senior Army officer.

``With most of the infiltration bids being foiled due to the multi-tiered fence, surveillance devices and tactical deployment of troops along the Line of Control, the Pakistani Army is obviously frustrated...this apparently led them to violate the ceasefire on Tuesday,`` the officer said.

A ``violation`` of the 13-month ceasefire, it certainly was. And India conveyed it to Pakistan in no uncertain terms on Wednesday morning. ``The DGMO (director-general of military operations) spoke to his Pakistani counterpart and informed him of India’s concerns,`` said Army vice-chief Lt-Gen B S Thakur.

At first, the Pakistani DGMO expressed ignorance about his forces having fired at least 13 mortar shells at the Durga and Banwat posts near Poonch town on Tuesday night. But on being confronted with the exact coordinates of the shelling, ``he promised to investigate and come back to us,`` said Thakur.

``Though we take it as a violation of the ceasefire, we will maintain restraint and not retaliate. We hope the Pakistan government will consider this case with all seriousness,`` he added.

Mortar and missile, with love from Pakistan
JOSY JOSEPH

INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 02:06:26 PM ]

Sign into earnIndiatimes points

NEW DELHI: On Tuesday evening, around 6.30 pm IST, a junior Pakistani Army officer ordered firing of mortars into Poonch sector of Jammu region.


An hour and over a dozen shells later, he must have returned to his camp, proud to have created the expected reaction in ``enemy territory`` - and perhaps elated to have been the chosen one.

However, what he would have never realised is that the breach of ceasefire was most likely an emphatic diplomatic statement by the top brass back in Islamabad.

Coming just a few hours after it upped its ante against India on the water-sharing agreement, the move reeks of Pakistan trying to assert its aggression, once again.

Missiles and mortars have always been critical diplomatic weapons in Indo-Pak engagements, especially since the Commando-turned-Army Chief-turned-CEO of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf came to power through a dramatic coup in 1999.

The 15 mortars that landed in Poonch sector of Jammu region is a significant statement on a day when Pakistan decided to call in World Bank into dispute over a dam that India is building on Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir.

General Musharraf`s decision to move the World Bank, which originally was the mediator in 1960s for finalising the Indus Waters Treaty, is highly significant: The Indus Treaty is the only agreement between the two countries negotiated by a third party and it is the most effective of all bilateral agreements.

The decision to move World Bank over Baglihar dam has been questioned by India, saying the bilateral technical talks were making progress. India is irked by the impatience.

Why is Pakistan so impatient?

``The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is under immense international pressure to have a dialogue with India because of their involvement in Afghanistan and Iran and the fallout of all these on the morale and discipline of Armed forces, where a number of officers and soldiers both from Army and Air Force are being prosecuted,`` says G Parthasarathy, a former Indian high commissioner in Islamabad and a frequent commentator on the bilateral relations

#33 by veeresh on January 19, 2005 7:43pm PT
``The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the `town square test`: if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society.``

Can you do this in Baluchistan?


yes u can unkill jee -- aur kuch?

Re:anil#31 and romair #30

I think the Baluchistan crisis might give India an opportunity to mend fences with Pakistan. A meltdown in Baluchistan will actually benefit Iran the most. Iran is already licking its chops about controlling the shiite portions of Iraq in a post US scenario along with the oil assets that will come with it. If Baluchistan also becomes available, suddenly Iran becomes a very powerful player, especially with its potential acquisition of nukes. In the past there was little interest in Baluchistan when people didnt know about its gas resources. While Iran is friendly with India today, a resurgent nuclear armed Iranian theocracy with control of oil/gas in Iraq, Iran and Baluchistan, may not be very desirable for India`s long term ambitions.

Hence India should come out strongly in support of Pakistan`s sovereignty and unity in Baluchistan. Our support will silence a lot of the hawks in Pakistan`s establishment that are eager to undo the peace process with India. It will take away the temptation of Pakistan to start some conflict in Kashmir in order to divert attention from Baluchistan. Finally and most important is that it will give us leverage when we sit down and talk about Kashmir. It will be hard for Pakistan to demand territorial concessions from us when we strongly support their territorial integrity. They will have to reciprocate that gesture which will reduce their intensity to break our territorial integrity.

Excerpts:

In a New Yorker article last weekend, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh suggested that the US had succeeded in subverting Pakistani nuclear scientists who had previously worked with Iran. The scientists were now providing information to US to enable it penetrate the Iranian nuclear program, Hersh reported.

The report has panicked the Pakistani establishment, with some pro-military analysts worrying that it has wrecked Islamabad’s relations with Teheran. The development has grave consequences for Pakistan, particularly given the festering insurgency in Balochistan, a province largely bordering Iran.

The report has also enraged some conservative American analysts, one of whom suggested Hersh could be prosecuted for betraying state secrets.

``Hersh informs the world that our commandos are working with certain Pakistani scientists who had previously worked with Iranian scientists. Such information might further assist the Iranian security forces in their investigations. After all, there can`t be that many Iranian nuclear scientists who worked with the few Pakistani nuclear scientists in the past,`` Tony Blankley, a former senior congressional aide wrote on Thursday.

``Hersh has virtually given Iranian intelligence the names (if not the addresses) of the Pakistani scientists who are working with our forces from their jumping-off places in Pakistan,`` he added.

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2005/13/editorials1.php

The Nation, Pakistan
Thursday, January 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Balochistan

THE President has unwittingly sent an unfortunate signal to the people of Balochistan, especially those who have misguidedly taken up arms these days, by referring to the 1973-5 Insurgency there. In an interview to a Pakistani news channel, he was forthright in warning the Balochis that ‘this is not the 1970s,’ that they could not hide in the mountains. Why the need to see the situation in such drastic terms? True, there is unrest in the province, unprecedented since the 1970s, with the latest episode being an attack on the Sui gas field which left eight people dead, with PPL installations coming under rocket fire, and the company evacuating its personnel from the area. It is understandable for a soldier still in uniform to take a military view of a combat situation, but will it lead towards a solution? Before going into specifics, a clear distinction has to be made between the 1970s and the 2000s. In the 1970s, Pakistan as a state had just suffered its worst ever trauma, caused by the shameful defeat in East Pakistan. An example of secession had been set which was at the back of the minds of those who carried forward the insurgency. The insurgency itself settled the issue of potential secession, and even those who went into exile, have returned. The present unrest is not backed by separatist rhetoric, but has an autonomist underpinning. This armed conflict, no doubt unjustified, is about provincial autonomy within the federal framework, not setting up a separate state.

The problem is therefore essentially political, not military, and it would have been more helpful if the President had sent a political message. However, the government’s performance in this respect has been sporadic. A false assumption was made that a few Sardars’ bruised egos were at the root of the problem. This ignores the fact that there are genuine issues to be discussed, mainly the development of Gwadar and the establishment of new cantonments. What has made matters worse is the perception that these measures were imposed on Balochistan without discussion by an arrogant and uncaring Centre. The setting up of the joint parliamentary committee on Balochistan was a positive step, but its lethargic pace, and the government’s sitting on its work, has created further reservations, instead of removing those that exist. The latest spark, the alleged gangrape of a PPL lady doctor, should not have been a spark at all, had it not been a combination of two factors which separately would have not had this result: the heightened tension in the area, and the supposed cover-up of the involvement of military personnel.

True federalism does not employ brute majorities to ram through projects or measures. It requires taking into confidence and building consensuses among the stakeholders. It also requires recognising who the stakeholders actually are, rather than merely affixing pejorative labels on those with a different point of view. The parliamentary committee, which represents a political and representative approach, should be the key to a more nuanced approach to the unfortunate situation in Balochistan than dire threats of retribution.

``The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the `town square test`: if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society.``

Can you do this in Baluchistan?