Shatranj ke Khiladi

I was just trying to know about the site and just going through the different articles here. I just want to say about this topic that people those who have the courage to stand by their decisions will never have any probloms and once the big game starts who stands where, this you can not think now you can keep guessing on the topic. However one thing is for sure that the one who will pick up the courage to stand on his feet will survive.

There is an interesting analysis in a US think-tank by author of Rising Elephant on India`s emergence focused on last year`s Tsunami:

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4378

Another one is on the same site, which urges the US to sell Pakistan more F-16s, but it is restricted content.
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=633

Regards

Jeet

Re: #338 by amit

[Secondly all the parties have to agree that the other 2 parties have an equal role in the future of Kashmir. In other words, no one can be excluded or sidelined in the solution.]

Is that God`s law, or law laid down by you. Or are they really the same?

You are hoping that this is a 50-50 situation.

Well it is not.

POK WAS STOLEN FROM US. THE BEST ARGUMENT JINNAH GAVE WAS THAT THE SOLDIERS INVOLVED WERE ON VACATION FRON THE PAKISTANI ARMY.


GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.

amit #338 Good post (as is expected from you). The way you describe events unfolding in future in kashmir is the same as I see things happening there. Of course, there may be setbacks and surprises along the way, but for now things look very good for all concerned (kashmiris themselves, as well as pakistan and india). Also your description of Amir is quite apt. I stopped reading him a couple of years ago as being a waste of time.

Ayaz Amir came up on a TV show and made an ar$e of himself by showing himself as another bigoted in the making.......he talked about the petty ``Chalakiyan`` over Kashmir that the (Hindu) Indians have been making ........OTH Mush was very different and realistic this time.............and imagine how some of these Paki journalists talk about the `unfinished business` of partition that Kashmir is........as if the question as to whether the IM-s in 2005 want to go to Pakistan is still not finally settled forever and as if this partition business is an ongoing process which the IM-s would be forced to confront whenever the Pakis want to raise the issue of `unfinished` business of partition!!!

This is the reality of the pathetic Pakistani din-e-fasaad!!! ...............

Re: amit #338

[The most likely scenario is 2 autonomous Kashmirs with nominal links to each country and with joint governance on various subjects. The security arrangement may not change for quite a while but the governance can become a combined effort.]

And 6 months of Sharia and 6 months of constitutional laws?

A brilliant idea!

Ref amit #338

[...The most likely scenario is 2 autonomous Kashmirs with nominal links to each country and with joint governance on various subjects. The security arrangement may not change for quite a while but the governance can become a combined effort.]

This joint governance business, would that be something like 6 months of elected government followed by 6 months of army rule?

re: Romair`s post
``Azad Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan, overwhelmingly. While Indian Kashmiris want to separate from India, overwhelmingly.``
While a poll was actually conducted in Indian part of Kashmir, none has been conducted in POK. So, your saying ``Azad Kashmiris want to be with Pak overwhelmingly`` is just conjectural. The last recent poll done on Indian Kashmir showed that only 6% Kashmiris want to join Pakistan compared to about 40% or so who want to be with India. The rest (majority) wanted independence.
So, instead of just speculating, why don`t u ask your dictator to have an opinion poll in POK?
Sridhar

Re: #338 by amit

[Neither side was very happy about the end result and neither side has been able to let go.]

A 50-50 situation, eh?

An overwhelming majority of Hindus in India were only too happy to let go. The drastic reduction in the number of fanatics gave us some breathing space.


And if Jinnah and his followers weren’t happy why did he sign on the dotted line with Mountbatten? And then betray the deal by illegally grabbing half of kashmir?

Re:Romair#334

The solution to Kashmir is going to evolve gradually over a period of time as both countries take simultaneous concrete steps towards normalization. It is not going be a knife-edge event like 1947 when borders were drawn overnight. That turned out to be a catastrophic event accompanied by a full-scale holocaust and hostilities for decades. Neither side was very happy about the end result and neither side has been able to let go. Given that experience, no one is going to support a similar drastic event in the subcontinent, accompanied by communal passions.

The process of normalization is slow but necessary so that all the parties can trust each other. As of now, there is a considerable trust deficit between the parties and there are vested interests who would love to see a state of conflict continue. Just the start of a bus service led to a burning down of a tourist center, the death of several people and grenade attacks on the vehicle. We must have normalization between the two sides to neutralize these elements. It is important that the 2 countries start up trade and economic relations in full swing to create counter vested interests in peace.

Secondly all the parties have to agree that the other 2 parties have an equal role in the future of Kashmir. In other words, no one can be excluded or sidelined in the solution. Once that is accepted, the process should lead to a joint control of Kashmir whose contours are easy to visualize. The most likely scenario is 2 autonomous Kashmirs with nominal links to each country and with joint governance on various subjects. The security arrangement may not change for quite a while but the governance can become a combined effort.

As far as Ayaz Amir is concerned, he is articulate and I used to like his writing in the past. But over the years, I have noticed that he does not have any core beliefs. Criticism for the sake of criticism makes no sense - in fact he sounds like a nagging wife who will find fault in her husband no matter what he does!!

Experts see Pakistan showing ‘realism’ over Kashmir

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The Musharraf-Manmohan meeting in New Delhi is being seen here by leading South Asia experts as a good augury for relations between the two countries, with Pakistan finally taking a more “realistic” view of the Kashmir issue.

According to Michael Krepon, founder president of the Stimson Centre, “President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh are demonstrating uncommon wisdom on Kashmir. Whose interests are served by preventing divided Kashmiri families from meeting, or by preventing Kashmiris from trading with one another? The best thing that could happen for Kashmiris is to get them out of the crossfire between militancy and Indian security forces. Prospects for peace and even a final settlement look better now than in previous decades. Pakistan cannot achieve its rightful place in the world by walling itself off from the Subcontinent and Central Asia. Trade and peace making are the keys to sustained economic growth and political stability in Pakistan.”

Stephen P Cohen, head of South Asia at the Brookings Institution, was more cautious in his reaction. He said, “I wish I could tell you, if there is any change in policy it will have to be preceded by a change in the mental calculations of both sides - or actually, all three or four sides, if you count the Kashmiris and the extremists. Perhaps this has been a tiny step ‘forward’ and a gain one sideways - doing things which are useful, and which may lead to future substantive changes in both sides. The most positive thing that did occur was that both sides were realistic in their expectations. Agra was a miscalculation on both sides as to what might come about.”

Ambassador Teresita Schaffer, head of the South Asia programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “I believe it leaves the India-Pakistan dialogue in better shape than before, and that the key thing producing this result was not so much the good atmospherics but the fact that they found some new agreements to announce. I`m specifically thinking of the announcement that they want trucks as well to travel between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, and referred specifically to trade. This was both a new agreement, and one that touched Kashmir. What this means for Kashmir - not just for India-Pakistan relations - is that Kashmiris are being given an opportunity to gain some of the benefit from improved India-Pakistan relations. A small opportunity, and that`s a long way from a settlement, but the fact that India and Pakistan are willing to do this together is significant. So I say, good news.” Robert Hathaway, who heads the South Asia unit at the Woodrow Wilson Centre for Scholars, told Daily Times, “Overall, I think that we have reason to be hopeful about the general tenor of Indo-Pak relations at the moment. Of course we have had our hopes raised in the past, only to be cruelly dashed. So we ought not to break out the champagne yet. But it does appear that the political leadership in both countries has made a fundamental decision, each for its own reasons, that it`s time to move beyond the fruitless animosity of the past.

“Inevitably, this carries implications for Kashmir. The ultimate resolution of the Kashmir dispute is nowhere within sight, but all parties to the dispute - with the possible exception of the diehard separatists - appear to have concluded that small steps in the direction of ameliorating the lives of the Kashmiri people, especially those in the Valley, are better than no steps at all. This may not sound like much. But if you are a mother in Srinagar seeing your son for the first time in 15 years, or an old man in Multan returning to your Ahmadabad birthplace for the first time since 1947, you might well think it`s a great step forward.”

Arnold Zeitlin, who served as a major US news agency’s South Asia correspondent during the Bhutto years and who keeps in close touch with the region, said that though he had not had time to go through any detailed news accounts of the Musharraf visit, he did not “suppose there is any progress in this tiresome affair.”

Husain Haqqani, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told this correspondent, “It appears that General Musharraf agrees with the American and Indian view that Kashmir should be put on the back burner. His problem seems to be his unwillingness to acknowledge that fact to the Pakistani public. For the moment, there is little traction in demands for Kashmiri self-determination. Although that is disappointing to Pakistanis, it is a reality that must be shared with the people. At the present moment, India is under no pressure to accept anything other than the recognition of the Line of Control as the international border.”

Dear Romair#34:

You didn`t read what I wrote to arjun-m. This is not ``my`` solution but what I think that the parties may have tacitly agreed upon.

I think that the key word in the joint statement is the acceptance of the word ``irreversible`` by Musharraf. This is a huge change, in my opinion. It is the direct opposite of his earlier mantra that the situation would return to square one if there was no progress on the Kashmir issue. I noted that the Indian PM reiterated ``no redrawing of borders`` mantra which he has adopted. I also recognize that Musharraf would have to get something in return for not redrawing borders. The rest was just my putting two-and-two together.

#332 by dost-mittar on April 23, 2005 8:04am PT


#334 by Romair on April 23, 2005 8:53am PT


see what I mean...you`re already being called inflexible because you won`t advocate a solution that gives pakiland on a platter what it failed to win in war....

dost-mittar #330: ``-Turning those soft borders eventually into a soft international border and a bridge between the two countries. ``

I don`t think your solution will work. Specifically the above-mentioned step. Pakistanis have openly declared that they will not accept LOC as the border. Nor will the Kashmiris. Just like India has stated it will not let go of its part of Kashmir. That is what the whole conflict is over, to begin with. This is what atut-ang is.

As I said earlier, and have been saying for a long time, we need to get out of this sheh-rug and atut-ang nonsense. I am surprised so many people, including those not even living in India (and Pakistan) are so attached to it. This is nothing but an ego-based attachment. It benefits no one and causes a lot of problems. For example, will your life really change if Kashmir is no longer an atut-ang of India? Will there be a famine in Ottowa (or Banglore, for that matter), without an atut-ang? Mine will change if it is no longer a sheh-rug, because I have a lot of family there. But I am still willing to go along with it.

The solution lies in the other direction. Not in hardening the border, but in eliminating it all together, while somehow, all parties being involved in the custody. Pakistan has now accepted this. It has dropped sheh-rug. Kashmiris will accept it also. Now everyone is waiting for India to drop atut-ang. It has kind of dropped it through the no passport on bus required.

I hope this is a first step and not a last one, in that direction.

We have seen what atut-ang and other concepts have done so far. They are the cause of this mess. Why in the world would the results be different if these concepts were coninued with?.............I think the big fear in Indian govt. is that if Kashmir has some joint custody or no border, or is independent, it will completely tilt towards Pakistan, since it is culturally, religiously and geographically and in terms of trade routes far more cohesive with Pakistan, than with India.

This is the hump that needs to be crossed by India, and Indians. No entity can force someone to stay with them, forever. Even a husband cannot force a wife to stay with him, through things other than abuse. Maybe the best thing is to let her separate, without a divorce. Which is what India should do with Kashmir.............

All other solutions, even if accepted by Pakistan, will not work because the local population will not accept them..........Pakistan is merely a third party............

Following is a solution that will work, in my opinion, without causing any loss of face (other than the fact, that Kashmir will eventually end up leaning towards Pakistan, on its own, which maybe why India would be hesitant to accept this solution also).....

-The Northern areas become a part of Pakistan
-Jammu and most of Ladakh becomes a part of India
-This leaves the Indian Kashmir Valley and the Azad Kashmir in Pakistan. Azad Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan, overwhelmingly. While Indian Kashmiris want to separate from India, overwhelmingly. However, I think Azad Kashmiris will accept an independent state also. So Indian Kashmir Valley and Pakistan`s Azad Kashmir is turned into one entity, which is jointly governed, or governed by the UN, with no borders in between.

Everyone wins something and everyone loses something. After that, it will be upto India to seduce this new Kashmiri entity with trade offers, aid, roads, etc., so that it doesn`t lean towards Pakistan, and becomes economically tied with India. A good idea might be to spend a few of the billions earned through IT on turning it into the tourist center for all of India, by building roads to it from all of India.

This is the big fear in Pakistan, and I tend to share it, and why Musharraf keeps saying India must not delay Kashmir too longer, i.e. that India will not drop atut-ang, while expecting Pakistan to drop sheh-rug. This would be completely the wrong path for India to follow, since no one will accept it. Just ask yourself, would India agree to drop atut-ang, if Pakistan refused to drop sheh-rug. If not, then what solution is there, but, for both to drop their stances, and then look for a solution...........

``If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was, and always will be yours. If it never returns, it was never yours to begin with.``

#332 by dost-mittar on April 23, 2005 8:04am PT

I`m merely suggesting what the pakis will call you for making such an outrageous comment...never mind the fact that it`s grounded in reality....

Re: # 331

arjun-m: I am merely suggesting what I think is happening.