India Through Pakistani Eyes

# various by haroonellahi

India is highly unlikely to relinquish control of Kashmir. Universally acknowledged free and fair elections have already helped mitigate some of the Kashmiri grievances. As the law and order situation improves because of the reduced violence, made possible by the fence on the LoC, the prognostications for peace are there. Tourism is booming and except for the stray violence, Kashmir is beginning to resemble its old self. When things are looking so positive, why would India even think of handing over Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter?

The US is wary of creating another nation in South Asia, already a hotbed of Islamic terrorism, thanks to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Another redrawing of the map is going to be virtual suicide for it.

All attempts by Pakistan to gain control of Kashmir have miserably failed. The only hope for Pakis now lies in accepting the LoC as the International Border and get on with their lives. Or the day is not far off when Pakistan will join the ranks of Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan.

#606 by rsridhar
India is vulnerable to US pressures in ways that most Indians do not understand. Some years ago, US issued a travel advisory saying India was not a safe destination. This was, i think, following Gujarat riots but the issue was something else (i am forgetting what it was).
++++++++++++++++

Because you forgot what the issue was, I think you drew the wrong conclusion. The issue was that India massively mobilized troops on the Pakistani border.

If you look at it, US intervention follows a very logical pattern:

Pakistan threatens India (via Kargil): Clinton humiliates and forces Nawaz Sharif to publicly accept LoC.
India threatens Pakistan (via troop buildup): Bush applies pressure to India.

Strobe Talbott has said in his book (and so have many others) that the main US concern is to prevent escalation to a nuclear war. So, international players don`t care what happens as long as India and Pakistan do not go to war. The way they enforce this is by applying pressure to the country that is perceived to be the aggressor.

Nor are international players very interested in a more autonomous Kashmir, since it could become, like Bangladesh or Afghanistan (or even to some extent Pakistan), a target for subversion by militants, whereas a Kashmir that is part of India is less likely to be subverted.

I agree on your part of Hindu pandits being offered entry again. The Right of Return should be there for the Hindu pandits.


``An Open-Minded Debate for Progressive Chowkies, who by clicking submit are agreeing that they will refrain from all sorts of violent remarks. Join Discussion``. That is the name of the discussion on unplugged.


Rsridhar is one of the few progressive open-minded Chowkies on Chowk. Rest are quite disappointing.

re:#605 by MaheshG2
India would have to start thinking ways to relinquish substantial control over Kashmir before International players come in and compel India to do it. India is vulnerable to US pressures in ways that most Indians do not understand. Some years ago, US issued a travel advisory saying India was not a safe destination. This was, i think, following Gujarat riots but the issue was something else (i am forgetting what it was). Anyway, India lost substantial foreign exchange in tourism in the coming months. Just one eg of how US can pressurise India.
India is doing the right things: going for local body elections, starting bus service across the LOC. Next logical step would be to start moving towards substantial autonomy short of independence.
All this naturally puts a lot of pressure on Pak rulers who have to respond in kind. Eventually, India may have to bite the bullet and let Kashmiris decide their own future but not before Jehad from Pak`s side has completely stopped and some arrangement is made for Pundits to return home.
I just feel Kashmir has bogged down India`s potentials for too long. The question is: is it even worth it? If Kashmiris do no want to be with India, they are the losers. India heavily subsidises development in that state. The same money can be put to better use.
Sridhar

Sridhar, why would you want India to relinquish Kashmir?

re:#595 by haroonellahi
I tried Unplugged but i do not see a forum Progressive Chowkies.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
1. ``How can Pakistan trust that India will allow reunification?``
This will be a natural progression once each side (India and Pak) allows substantial autonomy to their respective parts, allows free interchange of men and materials across LOC and local self-governments to get elected in a free and fair manner.
I am assuming this will happen in the natural course of time because the 2 Kashmirs have been seperated by our 2 countries, torn apart by history. Once the impediments to reunification are lifted, the 2 sides will clamor to unite.
I see Pak having more problems than India in relinquishing power over Pakistani Kashmir. India, as i already said, has an elected govt there. Once the process gains momentum, it will not be easy for either side to stop it.

2. ``.. after the respective regions have merged, will they jointly ruled by India and Pakistan?(Condimonium). Or, will we give them independence? Or will we give them the Right to Refferandum so that the People of Jammu and Kashmir can decide whether they want India, indepedence, or Pakistan.``
This is a tough thing to decide. Once the 2 sides are united and have a large measure of independence, my guess is India and Pak would still be holding on to some powers like currency, communication etc. It will then be entirely upto the Kashmiris to decide where they want to go from this point. Even reaching this stage would be a great achievement for both countries. Once the relationship between India and Pak normalize, each side would not view Kashmir thr` an ideological prism.
One thing i failed to mention. I think it is very important that the Kashmiri Pundits be rehabilitated at some point during the normalization process. Right now, nobody is even talking about them.
Sridhar

Re: # 602
Haroon, We can write a book on democracy and its principles.
Basically, I would say that democracy is the will of the majority, constrained by a disciplined set of principles signifying tolerance, compassion, indiviudal rights, and respect for all.

Kardesh, sir, answer my question before you start making more points. We`re trying to come to some sort of a conclusion here, not continue a 50 years + game of musical chairs.

Haroon,
Why do you insist on using religion as the PRIMARY identification for human beings? I think that is both archaic and inappropriate. I may be a Muslim but the last thing I want is to be represented and governed by people ascribing to various shades of ``my`` religion. I would rather have persons who represent my other facets - liberalism, tolerance, compassion, equality, etc. Let`s all grow up. The Middle Ages are over.

A question directed to Kardesh and arjun_m,

What is a democracy? What are it`s principles?

A question directed towards Netizen.

Why did the partition take place? What did it aim to achieve?

MAhesh, I meant on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

I have heard of this famous Nehru example. I envy the long-term thinking strats of the Indians.

Made their own cars, bought it, and promoted it. Our babus prefer mercs and bmws.

but Mahesh, I think both of them were offered to send students abroad. Thats when Nehru said ke please help us make an institute in India.

Tahmed, Haroon and HP,

From another forum but it is relevant here. Did I hear you guys say Pakistan is more progressive than India?

http://www.peoplesforum.com/cgi-bin/forum?14@196.i7YhaFX7tW1.0@.7a51b4b5/1793

Developments in South Asia


Some ignorant Pakis have claimed that progress made during past 57 years in their land of origin is better than my land of origin. You be the judge from the following quotes taken from two Op-eds in Dawn, Feb. 28.


There is a charming story about the time President Eisenhower, anxious to make as many friends for his country as he could, asked both Pandit Nehru and Ayub Khan to specify in what way America could be of assistance to the two South Asian neighbours.

Nehru, an educated man with strong leftist leanings, and acutely conscious of the need and importance of advanced learning, asked Eisenhower if the United States could help set up an Indian institute of technology similar to MIT.

Ayub Khan, a pragmatist with strong rightist leanings, and acutely aware of the constant need to defend his homeland, preferred to ask the American president for some Patton tanks and help in building a cantonment in Kharian.

In continuing with the laissez-faire system, Ayub Khan established the financial predominance of the ``22 families`` who ended up owning two-thirds of Pakistan`s industry and nearly all assets in the banking and insurance sector.


Let me ....... furnish a few stunning statistics to reinforce the point that we have a lot of catching-up to do to survive and flourish in the new WTO regime. The

World Economic Forum`s Global Competitiveness Report, 2004-2005 shows that with respect to: (i) Technological readiness, India`s rank is 26, Pakistan`s 84; (ii) Firm-level technology absorption, India is listed at 18, Pakistan at 44; and (iii) Quality of scientific research readiness, India is placed at 17, Pakistan at 94. In terms of the availability of scientists and engineers. India tops the list and Pakistan is down at 61.
Nehru asked for and got MITs and Ayub Khan asked for tanks and that has made all the difference as it is evident from the a few stunning statistics.

Rsridhar, join us in the Unplugged. We are having a debate on your proposal and trying to see what would be the most flexible.

It`s called Progressive Chowkies...

This proposed state could be a beacon of prosperity, trade, and human rights. It`s constitution could be based on the Universal Principles of Human Rights. However, the Muslims could have their own personal Law system and Hindus& Sikhs could have theirs as well.

It should be a refferandum state. They should pretty much `refferandum this, refferandum that`. Every thing should be done by the people.

Lebanon, we can model it After Lebanon. If we chose to allow them to manage their own Foreign Affairs, then we can allow the Prime Minister to be Muslim, President to be Hindu, and Speaker of National Assembly Sikh. These positions may alternate, but at no time could there be an imbalance.

Rsridhar, I agree with you 100% I think such a solution gives dignified exits to all parties of the region. Also, Pakistan and India could sign Friendship Treaties, promoting culture, tourism, and trade amongst all Indians and Pakistanis.

Rsridhar, your proposal mirrors one of the three proposals of PResident Pervaiz Musharraf.

However, I have two serious issues. How can Pakistan trust that India will allow reunification? And secondly, after the respective regions have merged, will they jointly ruled by India and Pakistan?(Condimonium). Or, will we give them independence? Or will we give them the Right to Refferandum so that the People of Jammu and Kashmir can decide whether they want India, indepedence, or Pakistan.

This is a very progressive forward looking proposal by you. I PERSONALLY feel that a condomonium will be very good. The Pakistanis and the Indians will manage the Foreign Policy and defense, whilst all other matters could be managed by the regional government.

33% of the National Assembly for this proposed state should be left alone for Hindus. Many injustices have been done to them in J&k, and this should help the two communities bridge their differences.