Shatranj ke Khiladi

Re: # 274


...I think the sardar is pursuing the right track.He will negotiate , whittle it down a bit, get his illegal bangladeshi girls back, and then all will be well in amchie mumbai.NO??.I pray.

Great take on the current situation from an unusual source...The author is right...when the history of Kashmir is written 50 years from now, people will realize that 9/11 was directly responsible for putting jihadi terrorism out of business and bringing pakiland to the realization that it`s going to have to accept reality...

Musharraf goes back, empty-handed

By Zafarul-Islam Khan

New Delhi, 18 April 2005: Diplomacy, as they say, is continuation of war through other means. Pakistani President Musharraf, a full-fledged general in his own right, tried this during the past three days without any tangible results. The reason was simple. He leads a country which has lost all wars it fought against India. Moreover, it has now lost even the indirect war it imposed on India in the shape of the armed secessionist movement in the Indian part of Kashmir for over one and a half decades in which around 45,000 people lost their lives according to Indian figures and twice as much according to Pakistani and Kashmiri secessionist accounts. It seemed at times during this indirect confrontation that India might give in and accept the Pakistani demands to cede territory in Kashmir. But India unwaveringly faced the secessionist movement on one hand and utilised the American war on ``terrorism`` on the other to exert unbearable international pressure on Pakistan until Islamabad had to announce that it does not support terrorists and promised to stop what India called ``cross-border`` terrorism.

Gradually Pakistan moved away from the Kashmiri secessionists though it still supports them financially and diplomatically. India also managed to erect a physical and electronic fence along the Line of Control in Kashmir (740 kms) and thereby stopped infiltration to a large extent. In the meanwhile India also managed to increase control over its part of Kashmir to a point that it could hold legislative assembly elections in October 2002 and municipal elections last February. This changed the atmosphere and the mood in Kashmir and blunted international pressures to solve the issue on lines demanded by Pakistan. India also benefited from the emerging situation in the Valley of Kashmir where the ordinary Kashmiri is fed up with war and violence and yearns to lead a normal life free from shackles of security forces.

General Musharraf was quick to read the new scenario and accordingly changed tack since the last year when he started coming out with some new proposal every now and then, saying that he is prepared to consider any proposal to solve Kashmir, that UN resolutions may be overlooked, that the Kashmiri people should be involved in any settlement (hitherto both India and Pakistan held that Kashmir is a ``bilateral`` issue to which the Kashmiri people were not a party).

During his early days in power, General Musharraf used to insist that Kashmir is Pakistan`s only problem with India, that he would shed his last drop of blood for Kashmir, that no normalisation of relations will take place without first solving this problem. Later he changed his line and started saying that Kashmir is the ``central issue.`` Now he has started talking of ``Kashmiris`` and their rights.

India, on the other hand, always held that Kashmir is one of the issues between the two countries, that the two countries must engage in a ``comprehensive dialogue`` to solve all the pending issues including Kashmir and that normalisation of trade and cultural relations will help in the settlement of other issues.

Meanwhile, Kashmir`s Hurriyat Conference suffered a split in September 2003. Two groups emerged, a ``moderate`` one led by Mirwaiz Omar Farooq and a ``hardline`` one led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The latter enjoyed Pakistan`s support and approval.

All this served the Indian strategy in Kashmir. New Delhi helped increase the chasm between the two factions of Hurriyat by inviting the ``moderate`` group to talks. Two rounds of talks were held while the BJP-led government was still ruling the country early last year. However, no concessions were offered to the ``moderate`` faction. As a result, this faction lost its credibility.

General Musharraf, realising that India remains unimpressed by his changing positions, used the cricket matches between the Indian and Pakistani national teams, and invited himself to watch a match while his real intention was to use the occasion to hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. This is how General Musharaf arrived in India last Saturday. He spent one a half hours watching cricket in Delhi early next day and thereafter held two-hours deliberations with the Indian prime minister.

Even before the general could set foot on the Indian soil, New Delhi had decided what to do with him: more CBMs (confidence-building measures) like opening new outlets for the movement of people and trade in Kashmir and elsewhere, setting free Pakistanis in Indian jails, proposing a joint trade council and discussing the proposed Iranian gas pipeline which will come to India through Pakistan. It was clear that such steps did not require a summit meeting.

India also decided to treat the general and his wife with utmost courtesy and honour without giving him an inch of substance. So we saw the Indian newspapers and TV channels focusing on the general and his wife, their dress, food, body language, gifts they brought and received and the like, while the Pakistan state television simply continued its normal programmes as if no big deal was taking place in the neighbourhood.

Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral had aptly described the Indian strategy to cope with the general on the eve of the visit. Talking to a TV station, he said, ``we are civilised oriental people. We do not offend our guests. We will attentively listen to what the general has to repeat and we will also restate to him with all respect our oft-stated positions.`` Foreign minister Natwar Singh too had said it publicly two days before the visit that India is ready for anything with Pakistan except change of borders. Prime Minister Singh repeated this line during talks on Sunday.

In the maze of all the Indian courtesies and hospitality, the general was lost. India did not offer him except vague assurances of solving the Kashmir problem at some distant time in future. So the discussions, which continue to take place since decades on the issue, will continue in future too. A problem arose at the last minute about using the word ``terrorism`` in the context of peace and cross-border problems. The same word had earlier ruined the Agra summit in July 2001 when India insisted on its inclusion in the joint statement. The general had balked and walked away. But this time round he relented and told Indian journalists that he had come ``with a new heart`` and that ``the circumstances have changed.``

So the joint statement which should have been issued the previous evening, was finally issued at the last minute before the general`s departure to the Philippines on an official visit. The statement said, ``The two leaders pledged that they would not allow terrorism to impede the peace process.`` The general would not have accepted this kind of language only a few years back.

Musharraf`s weakened position was clear when he spent four hours with three groups of Kashmiri separatists, talking separately to each group as they would not sit together. He failed to convince them to join hands again in a single outfit. SAS Geelani, leader of the hardline group, registered his opposition to the new Pakistani line and said that solving ``minor`` issues will harm the core issue.

The general returned empty-handed but his cricket team had a big gift to carry back home: it defeated India in these friendly matches which continued for about four weeks in different parts of India and ended in Delhi the day President Musharraf was holding talks with the Indian leaders

#277 by HisExcellency on April 21, 2005 9:54am PT


Nobody is expecting a land transfer at this stage.


And you shouldn`t expect that from India....at any stage..


It is this intransigence that I am talking about. Given that Pakistan and Kashmiris have already petered down their maximalist positions, there is no reason for India to be hard-nosed about modalities and preliminaries.


Like I said before, India giving up it`s demand for Pakistani Kashmir IS flexibility...no redrawing of borders includes no transfer of land from Pakistan to Kashmir..

Whether you think that`s inflexible or intransigent doesn`t really matter...


All such ideas work fine if we consider Kashmir as a bilateral problem (which it is not).


Whether India considers Kashmir a bilateral problem is for the people of India to decide..


There are 3 parties to the dispute.


Again...that`s the way you see things...but the way India seens things, the kashmiris are party to the dispute but there`s still no way India is giving up this land..

Re: # 277

``Whether the travel document is issued by UN or India is really not the point. The point is that it`s not an Indian passport. All Indian citizens require a passport when they leave the country. But this is not a requirement for Kashmiris traveling from IOK to Azad Kashmir or Pakistan. ``

I think the NDA Government was more interested in having a passport so that no tom-dick-harry from pakistan can come to india and diappear. Passport is more authentic than a single sheet of paper. After the chandigarh test, some 40 pakis didn`t return, the BJP then held a conference emphasizing that UPA should hold to the passport demand.

Re: # 277 HisEx
//.....It is this intransigence that I am talking about. ..//

Yeah well - India doesn`t care. What are you going to do? Start jihad? You have tried that already. Nothing happened...... Look - you have played the game and you have lost. Only thing you can do now is accept defeat gracefully and slinker away.

There is no point whining and chest-beating - you look pathetic when you do that. ``Alas, even a simple little prerequisite to peace process is not being met`` - stop begging like this. If and when we think anyhting is a ``prerequisite``, we would do it. So quit whining.

What a l00ser.

It is this intransigence that I am talking about. Given that Pakistan and Kashmiris have already petered down their maximalist positions, there is no reason for India to be hard-nosed about modalities and preliminaries.

If you go to your neighbour`s and claim his TV as yours and after years you peter down your claim to only the antenna you dare to call it flexibility?

Should you neighbour hand over his antenna to you because you have climbed down from your earlier position of claiming his TV in its entirity?

re: jay

Whether the travel document is issued by UN or India is really not the point. The point is that it`s not an Indian passport. All Indian citizens require a passport when they leave the country. But this is not a requirement for Kashmiris traveling from IOK to Azad Kashmir or Pakistan. Effectively Indian govt has classified Kashmiris as semi-Indian or non-Indian citizens (depending on how you look at it). This is a step in the right direction, but still more needs to be done to accomodate the overwhelming Kashmiri desire for self-determination.

re: vivek

Nobody is expecting a land transfer at this stage. We are only expecting India to let Kashmiris leadership meet their counterparts in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan. Alas, even a simple little prerequisite to peace process is not being met. Leaders of the Hurriyat Conference are even prepared to travel abroad on Indian passports, but the Govt of India has not issued passports to several important members of the APHC. Govt of India isn`t even prepared to accept that J&K is a disputed territory.

It is this intransigence that I am talking about. Given that Pakistan and Kashmiris have already petered down their maximalist positions, there is no reason for India to be hard-nosed about modalities and preliminaries. It is this attitude that sends the wrong kind of signals to smaller neighbors of India such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. As individuals, Indians behave quite reasonably with other South Asians. But the Indian govt has this ``dictatorial`` attitude towards its neighbors.

This attitude of Indian govt shall turn the Big Game into a ``No Game``!

re: arjun_m

The fanfare in India was organized by the govt, not the people of J&K. And there were political reasons for this fanfare. Indian govt wanted to paint this as an official sendoff from India to Pakistan. That is why the Indian PM and J&K CM were there at the ceremony. However, Pakistan does not see this as a bus traveling from India to Pakistan. This is a bus traveling from one part of Kashmir state to another part of the same state. This is exactly why no Pakistani official was present at the receiving ceremony. Only the Azad Kashmir administration led by its PM Sikandar Hayat Khan was present. If you notice the uniforms of the police officers at the ceremony, even they were wearing Azad Kashmir police colors. Not the regular black/khaki uniforms worn by Pakistani police officers.

re: rsridhar

The Nation op-ed is certainly one of the strands of thought in Pakistani think tanks. Whether it hits the bulls eye or misses it completely, is something that the people of Kashmir have to decide. All such ideas work fine if we consider Kashmir as a bilateral problem (which it is not). There are 3 parties to the dispute. Let the leadership of all 3 parties meet without travel restrictions. At this point, India is prepared to facilitate people-to-people contact in Kashmir but not leadership-to-leadership contact. India wants to decide which leaders are allowed to travel and which are not. This is counterproductive.

What part of no redrawing of borders isn`t clear...

Threat to peace process not eliminated: Singh


NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Wednesday that the threat to the peace process had not been eliminated and asked Pakistan to implement its assurances in letter and spirit.

Making a statement to both houses of parliament on President Pervez Musharraf’s recently concluded visit, Singh said he was satisfied with the progress achieved in talks. “I mentioned to President Musharraf that the whole process of serious and sustained dialogue hinges on building an atmosphere of trust and confidence, free from violence and terror. We look forward to Pakistan implementing their assurances in letter and spirit,” Singh said.

He asserted that the redrawing of boundaries was not possible and both countries had agreed to pursue further measures to enhance interaction across the Line of Control. “The threat to the peace process from extremists and militant organisations has not been eliminated,” he said.

Referring to the joint statement made on Monday, the Indian prime minister said the reaffirmation of the commitments made in the joint statements of Islamabad and New York last year addressed “our concerns relating to terrorism from across the border”. He said “the Kashmir issue has bedevilled relations between India and Pakistan for too long to hope for an immediate resolution”.

Emphasising that the redrawing of boundaries was not possible, he said India was committed to take all measures that could bring the people of both sides together, including transportation and trade across the border and the Line of Control. “Both of us agreed to continue discussions in a sincere, purposeful and forward looking manner,” he said. He added that Musharraf had agreed that the confidence building process between the two countries had made significant progress.

Musharraf vows to stop militants in Kashmir

Re: # 269

Babu Ji,
What I am saying is this;
At the end of the day, Nations will do what they want to do. Everybody knows that Pakistan was with old Afghan regime for whatever reasons, and they were pushed into no choice after 2001. They had to comply with the USA for their own survival and Mush had to do this task. He could have picked different words to make his argument or case. Thats All.

Re: # 247
``Hang in there, fight for your rights - I especially approved of one outspoken Sardarhi barowner, who passionately argued for his rights.
Was the bishop, who apprehended for whatever, in the race for Pope? I have every intention of coming to Mumbai again and checking up on your situation. How is Grant Road nowadays?...``

I agree Salim Bhai, I am now absolutely certain that this ban was on account of the exposure of the Rs 100 million per month business that the police were collecting illegally from these bars to the politicians...........the story goes that the current politicians were not aware of the gross amount that was being collected by the policemen....but once it all came out after the first cycle of raids by the then Police Commissioner then the politicians thought that they need to grab the entire money once the police thanas collection stopped on a routine basis after the raids.......so now the politicians want a complete package of 100 million from the Bar Asosciation on a monthly basis which our Sardarji has (correctly) resisted ....

China and India are the last two big markets left.As long as these two nations stay as they are they have nothing to worry about.Each cannot afford to antagonize the other.They have more to gain economically by staying friendly and play chess with the western powers.Bush will be gone in three years.Pakistan will be ripe for an indian invasion or a chinese takeover.Either way, pakistan`s `goose` is cooked and they know it.

#167 by Romair

[All this stuff about becoming a player is ego-based. It has no practical benefits.]

Didn’t see too many Pakis complain when Paki generals thought they could assume the leadership of the Ummah by virtue of being the sole nuclear power in the Islamic world. Now that the US has kicked Paki butt over their support to Taliban post-9/11, all of them have suddenly become against becoming players. Even today, this decision to lie low is based purely on the fact that Pakistan just cannot exert any influence beyond its borders, possibly Afghanistan’s.

[As I asked earlier, whom does India plan to have as its allies?]

Just because Pakistan cannot bring itself to ally with India, do you think there aren’t any other countries that will be willing? Even today, countries like France and Germany have begun to sit up and take notice of India’s growing prowess. As trade between India and these countries begins to grow, there is no reason why India cannot influence them to become its allies.

[India could try to force others to ally with it, much like Russia forced its neighbors.]

India has cordial relations with almost all of its neighbors barring Pakistan and Bangladesh. But then, do you think the US became a great power based on alliances with its neighbors like Canada and Mexico?

[But India is not powerful enough. And the neighbors will jump ship, as soon as they get the chance. And they will hate India for it.]

India is much powerful than all of its neighbors combined, barring China of course.

[Pakistan and India and SAARC nations should aspire to be EU. An economic union, of loosely federated, or even independent states, which have a common currency and free trade and no visas.]

What is the incentive for India to join an economic union with other weaker economies like Pakistan’s? Or do you want Pakistan to piggyback on India’s successes?

[The solutions to South Asia`s problems lie soving internal conflicts and problems. Not in trying to create new problems for others, by becoming players.]

Didn’t see such noble sentiments when Pakis thought they were bleeding India through a thousand cuts? Now that the Paki economy is in shambles and all dreams of wresting Kashmir lie in tatters, Pakis have discovered the virtues of solving South Asia’s problems.

[Had the USSR just solved its internal problems, instead of unnecessarily trying to become a player, it would have been far better off today, than the disintegrated country it turned into.]

The USSR disintegrated more because of its poor economy than its internal problems. Its economy did not keep pace with its military expenditure. India spends just about 2.5 % of its GDP on defense.

[Where is India going to get its energy needs fulfilled from to feed all the people, much less for becoming a player.]

India’s economy will continue to grow well into the 2050s and its economy will be as massive as the US economy by 2075. Even today, India is cobbling up alliances and investing in overseas energy sources.

Re: # 270

khamkhwa he just bought a dictionary and he had to use all the words he knows.... 8-()

[It is the Kuttaas from the Cantonemente & Civilian Kennels and their kuttee spouses and puppies who are the real curse upon Pakistan. These snakes who have been weaned by Miss Muffets of the grammar schools are the haraamzaadays & ghulaamzaadays who are the Rushdick promoters.] - boom boom.

...make up your mind old man...first you think they are dogs (kutta) of civil and military breed and then declare them snakes weaned by miss muffet, and then they are bastard (haramsaday) and finally call them ghulamzaday ( slave)... makes one wonder if you are
right up there...;)

delhiwala #263

`` He should have picked different choice of words.``

His opinion of Musharraf`s speech is less biased than mine or yours

Re # 267

Temporal,

What is Chusni? I have seen you addressing chusni/echoboom.
Is that echoboom`s other/prior handle/nick or does it mean something!
Just curious.