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.

#330 by dost-mittar on April 23, 2005 4:31am PT


-No redrawing of maps


you inflexible warmongering racist you......

amit/romair:

I think that Ayaz Amir has been consistent, at least on Kashmir issue. From what I have seen, his stance is:
-Pakistan should maintain its stand on Kashmir
-It should stop sending jihadis there
-It should have normal relations with India, without compromising its stand on Kashmir.

On the eventual settlement, I wouldn`t be surprised that some tacit understanding has been reached:
-No redrawing of maps
-Soft borders between the two Kashmirs
-Turning those soft borders eventually into a soft international border and a bridge between the two countries.
-Pakistan may have some rights in Indian Kashmir and India reciprocal rights in Pakistani Kashmir.

Unfortunately, the devil is always in the details and the bureaucrats of both countries are past masters in creating those devils.

re: Romair`s last post
``And, at least in my opnion, he (meaning Ayaz Amir) is head and shoulders above any jounalist in South Asia, in pure English writing skills. ``
Ayaz Amir is nowhere near M.J. Akbar in either writing skills or clarity of thought. I used to regard him highly until i saw his vacillating devotion to Pak dictator. Ayaz does not seem to make up his mind: is the dictator good or bad?
Sridhar

#326 by amit on April 22, 2005 4:29pm PT

Better to be a whiner than to be massively self-deluded like some pakis on this thread..
Even a whiner can see the sun set and predict that it`s going to get dark real soon....

Most pakis are self-deluded to the point that they think the sun sets when they close their eyes because everything goes dark....

Dost-mittar/Amit #314: The suggestions in the article are quite valid. Something similar to that will have to be done. There is no other solution, from either side. Considering Kashmir a sheh-rug or an atut-ang has obviously not worked, so far. And there is absolutely nothing to indicate it will work in the future, for either side. Any side purusuing either is going to doom South Asia into perpetual disaster. There is no point in winning a battle against the other, by bringing upon a bigger problem onto everyone lf. In the end, if the solution is not accepted by Kashmiris, it will never work.

Kashmir is nothing more than an ego issue, for both countries. Had it been resolved in 47, no one would even know about it today. Once both sides agree it is neither a sheh-rug nor atut-ang, there are a million and one ways to solve the problem.

Ayaz Amir is an interesting guy. Amit is correct in stating that he is a habitual whiner. This is true for nearly every English speaking journalist in Pakistan. Ayaz does have a lot going for him though. He voluntarily quit as an MPA, from Nawaz Sharif`s govt. However, he did not ditch the Sharif party, in the recent election, when everyone else ditched them to join PML (Q). This is unheard of in Pakistan. He continues to live in Chakwal, while everyone else lives in Lahore etc. And he fights his elections from there.

He has a very good understanding of Pakistan, since he was in the Army, beaurecracy, press and is a politician. And, at least in my opnion, he is head and shoulders above any jounalist in South Asia, in pure English writing skills.

Re:dost-mittar#314

Ayaz Amir is someone who loves to complain all the time. He is a perpetual whiner - a cry baby. If you do something, he is unhappy. If you don`t do something, he is still unhappy. When Musharraf had hardline positions on Afghanistan and Kashmir, he would complain loudly. When Musharraf makes U-turns or negotiates solutions, he is still equally unhappy. I really do not get it. What is his own position?

Ayaz Amir never offered any solutions to any disputes, he just likes to complain no matter what the course of action. I think the Pak government just ignores him as a minor nuisance. If he had any intellectual honesty, he would layout his point of view and stick by it.

Re: # 324

......I did hear `milad-un-nabi` and i heard `bakrid`.I`m not religious so i went with the last word i heard.This was in response to my query about less traffic on the streets.And my source was the dept. peon who is as dull as ditch water.I mean no offense to anyone.

cayenne,
``Today was ``bakrid`` in india.``
I thought it was Milad-un-Nabi today.

316 by kardesh on April 22, 2005 8:35am PT
Today was ``bakrid`` in india.Driving home was a breeze as it is a central govt. holiday.Half the traffic off the streets.I was invited to a friend`s favorite watering hole to while away the night.I obviously cannot name the bar and don`t want to, but they had a ``Crystal Concoctions Week`` and some of the `concoctions` had interesting names that i thought i would share with you ..............

COCKTAILS:
Farmer`s Dream///Zwing///Koyla///Dancing lady///Sky Blue Bird///Black Monk///Thirsty Woman///Red Head Bee///Jamaica Joy///Blue Angel and Tsunami Waves.

Quite creative, don`t you think??.I` sure the Dance Club sardar would order a `dancing lady` in there to forget his problems.

I`m just trying to see humour in anything after reading your interact#316.YOU GOT ME THERE.I`m speechless.Who??.Mullah Omar??.I will get back at you for this.

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

#320 by Prashant123 on April 22, 2005 11:22am PT

#319 by avenger on April 22, 2005 11:18am PT

If you insist on posting with multiple IDs, at least don`t post dupes...

#318 ,

err...you become more of a nut-case every passing day. My days of trying for IITs are long over. I have moved on. But to suggest that the competition for a spot in the IITs is gonna be tougher because `Pakistanis wil be allowed to take part in IIT-JEE` is ridiculous. To get a coveted seat in the IITs requires one to get into the top 700 - out of 150,000 well prepared competitors. One needs a strong grasp of the funda , willingness to slog hard for 2 years preceding the exam and most importantly get the right guidance. If you tell a serious IIT hopeful about competition from across the border , he will laugh at your face. Thats the least of his worries.

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

re:#317 by kardesh
``Gujju - a very nice kid who uses profanity as the peacock uses colors to attract hens.``
Gujjus is also a frustrated kid. He just learnt that his dream of getting into IIT may just be that: a dream, what with GOI now allowing even Pakistanis to compete.
BTW, this is a nice thing happening. I hope Pak also opens up its premier institutions, thereby crating an exchange of students and faculty.
Sridhar

Re: # 316

Amit,
Need to add some clarifications. EVen our hardliners are nice people, they just need love, attention, and applause.
Gujju - a very nice kid who uses profanity as the peacock uses colors to attract hens.
Urstruly - actually loves Indians, but doesn`t want to admit it during preliminary negotiations.
Jay - Couldn`t live a week without consuming some news about Pakistan. Should become a lasting friend of Urstruly.
Echoboom - a real Indian patriot waiting for the right moment to unfurl the tiranga with a star and crescent on it.
:)

#312, cayenne, {``Kardesh!!.....Unity???.....What about porn?.I don`t want any mullah`s running rampage over us telling us what to do or see.Don`t give me nightmares in the afternoon.``}

Cayeene Bhai,
Relax. In our ideal united Pak Hindustan, the Mullahs will be the main stars in much of the porn. :) You will be able to watch it in the afternoon and not have to wait till the Mrs. goes to sleep.


#311, amit {``Yaar, I totally agree with you that these borders are meaningless. I will just add one caveat. Lets take jay, urstruly, Gujjubania, echoboom and all their clones on both sides and exile them to Tibet, Afghanistan, Lakshwadeep or any other corner that is miles away from civilization. That will truly turn the subcontinent into a paradise:}

Amit, friend, I am glad that we are in agreement. Now, what shall we do about our beloved hard-liners?

Tibet - Ah yes, the land of wisdom! Is it wise to have these hard-liners get any wiser? That may be a deadly combination - jingoism and wisdom.
Afghanistan - I asked the Tally Ban contact and they have said that the last thing they want to do is to invite more bombing from USAF. There is one governorship open in Mazar-i-Sharif, good salary, lousy retirement plan.
Lakshwadeep - Last I checked, these islands were still part of India. I insist on having these stay peaceful, just in case I want to retire in a nice, warm, green, tropical place.

I have other suggestions for your kind considerations:

Saudi Arabia,
Nepal,
Finland,
Bylorussia,
Ukraine,
Greenland.
and lastly Bora Bora :)

amit...akhand bharat eh ?...its hard enough to live with you stupid lazy worthless parasitic bloodsucking cow belt bhaiyyas......

Go ahead and form an akhand bharat with your equally stupid lazy worthless brothers from across the border (after all ...the only thing that distinguishes you lot is religion)...we in the south want out.

Imagine.....an India without the hindi cowbelt...we would be like 1st world !!!

arunu-m#313:

I am a great fan of Ayaz Amir but he does have a tendency to go overboard sometimes when he gets emotional, and presumably after he has tried to drown his sorrow in his favourite nectar.

First of all India has made a compromise in allowing people to cross LOC without a passport, even though the certificate is theoretically available to all Indian citizens. More importantly, I suspect (no proof!) that the Indians have made the same kind of pomises that Bhutto was said to have made in Shimla, namely, that they will try to create a favourable public opinion for more compromises in the future.

Incidentally, if those certificates are indeed made available to all Indians and Pakistanis, it means a virtual end to the visa requirement for entry between the two countries, because then all of them can enter into the other country through Kashmir. More importantly, even Kashmiris can trade with each other freely, what prevents Indian and Pakistani businessmen to use Kashmiri fronts to sell their goods to the other country?

As regards to what kind of compromises Pakistan would want India to make in Kashmir without redrawing borders, here is an article by Mubashir Hasan who, I think, is privy to the official Pakistani thinking.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/21/op.htm#1
Some excerpts:
``In such a situation, if a solution can be found which gives India a certain status in the territory now under Pakistan`s control, in lieu of conceding wide autonomy to the state as well as giving Pakistan a certain status in the part of the state now under India`s control, it would be a net gain for India.``
........................................................................

India`s de facto authority as it exercises today along the Ladakh border becomes de jure. Pakistan does the same along the Khunjrab border in a legally recognized manner. If they wish they may form a consultative body on defence matters of which the government of the state may also be a member.

India and Pakistan agree to enter into a treaty with each other that the two countries shall not prepare for or wage war in the territory of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.

In so agreeing, the need for defending the Line of Control along almost 800 km ceases to exist and the way is cleared for the withdrawal of their forces stationed along this line.

India and Pakistan agree that the former state shall reunite as an undivided entity. This agreement shall fulfil one of the basic nationalist aspirations of the people of the former state.

The state of Kashmir pledges not to build an army of its own and India and Pakistan agree to relinquish the role of their armies of coming to the aid of civil power in the state. These undertakings shall strengthen the internal autonomy of the administration of the state, much to the relief of the armies of India and Pakistan.

No longer required along the Line of Control and to act in aid of civil power, India and Pakistan agree to withdraw their armies from Kashmir except from the borders of Kashmir with China.

FOREIGN RELATIONS: At present the foreign relations of a part of the former state are conducted by Pakistan and of the other part by India. In the proposed solution, India and Pakistan may jointly be responsible for those aspects of relations which affect the security interests of either country including those of foreign investment, aid and grants. The state may exercise authority in establishing ties with other states in commerce and trade and other matters with the agreement of Pakistan and India.

ACCESS AND TRADE: Citizens of Kashmir acquire the right of entry and of doing business in Pakistan as well as India as if they were citizens of India and Pakistan as well.

The communication, transportation, educational and other infra structural facilities of India and Pakistan may be available to Kashmiris without any discriminatory restrictions.

The produce, manufactures and services of Kashmir should have access to the markets of India and Pakistan without any duties or charges; similarly, Indian and Pakistani produce, manufactures and services should have free access to the markets of Kashmir.

The citizens of India and Pakistan are able to travel throughout the former state without let or hindrance. Since the sights of the two countries are on a visa-free regime within the Saarc areas, a beginning with removing travel restrictions with Kashmir may prove to be auspicious.

These measures will be a big gain for India and Pakistan and an economic boom for the state of Kashmir. The currencies of Pakistan and India may be made legal tender throughout the former state.

PASSPORTS: Passports issued by the state of Kashmir have the status of those issued by the state before 1947. Visas issued by Pakistan and India to be valid for Kashmir.

INDUS WATERS: The status and validity of the Indus Basin Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan remains unchanged.``

India doesn`t need to do squat....and pakistan can do squat about it...

Not even Munich, simply a meltdown


By Ayaz Amir

Chamberlain kow-towed before Hitler at Munich, allowing Hitler to go ahead with the rape of Czechoslovakia, assuming that this was the price for averting war. ``Peace in our lifetime,`` he proclaimed on his return to London even as the German Wehrmacht moved into Czechoslovakia.

Although disastrously wrong, Chamberlain at least was motivated by good intentions - the old story of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. President Musharraf of Pakistan doesn`t even have Chamberlain`s excuse. There is no war threatening to break out between India and Pakistan. It is all quiet on the eastern front, quieter than it has ever been in living memory.

And yet, for no rhyme or reason - or at least none comprehensible to mortal man - he has just done a mini-Munich in Delhi, effectively agreeing to the Indian position on key issues and getting only bland words and good intentions in return.

No wonder India and the Indian establishment, not to forget the Indian media, are ecstatic, at a loss for words to express their elation at Pakistan, under a military ruler, no less, finally playing on India`s pitch, working on India`s agenda, and far from feeling any sense of loss or shame, revelling in the spirit of surrender.

If any civilian ruler - Nawaz Sharif, Benazir, et al - had the gall or temerity to show one-fortieth of this `flexibility,` the tanks would have been put on high alert - not to move against India, perish the thought, but - to move against Islamabad, with ISPR (the military`s propaganda arm) muttering through gritted teeth that the civilians were selling out Pakistan.

Don`t blame India for developing a vested interest not in Pakistani democracy - for under democracy whether perfect, half-baked or imperfect, Pakistan has avoided the path of unseemly compromise - but in Pakistani militarism whence all the concessions come.

Handing over the rights to our three eastern rivers...under military rule; the folly of the `65 war...military rule; loss of East Pakistan and military defeat in the east...military rule; Kargil...not under military rule but military auspices; the abandonment of Kashmir, for that is what the new diplomacy signals ...under `enlightened` military rule.

Going to war over Kashmir? Of course not. Folly in the past, it is not even an option now. But saying farewell to Kashmir like this, and dancing to India`s tune in the process, abandoning the Kashmiris to their fate, and getting nothing in return - not even an undertaking to settle Siachen or solve the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, this surely is a novel way of waging peace.

We may have beaten India in cricket but the self-inflicted thrashing Pakistan is receiving in the diplomatic field is a higher plane of endeavour altogether. Musharraf needn`t have gone all the way to Delhi to be told there could be no ``re-drawing of borders in Kashmir``. That`s the Indian line, always has been, much before Manmohan Singh`s baptism as prime minister.

While India is entitled to take what position it likes, there should have been no compulsion for a Pakistani leader to go along without even a whimper about the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, the basis, after all, of our Kashmir policy? Drive a stake through the plebiscite/self-determination principle and Pakistan is left with no leg to stand on as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned.

But time to `think outside the box`, Pakistan`s soldier-president advises. Excellent if this was a two-way process, if not only Pakistan but India too was ready for the same walk.

What do we see instead? Pakistan under military guidance doing all the visionary thing by itself: not only thinking outside the box but frantically jumping out of it, consigning the carcass of its Kashmir policy to the waters of the Arabian Sea, even as India sticks resolutely to its own box, not prepared to give so much as a centimetre either way.

In simpler times such unilateralism went by the name of `capitulation`. Now it is called a `paradigm shift`. Why did Musharraf invite himself to Delhi? What gates of Somnath was he hoping to bring back? What he has achieved is a lesson in Indian diplomacy: Manmohan Singh mincing no words in restating the Indian position that Kashmir geography was set in stone and that the utmost to be hoped for lay in the new mantra of `porous borders`.

Far from getting Manmohan Singh to commit anything in return, on Siachen, Baglihar, etc, Musharraf tried to do India another favour by trying to sell the Indian line on Kashmir to the Kashmiri leadership, advising them to use their ``brains`` to understand the necessity of talking to India.

India doesn`t give a damn for the `soft` face of the Kashmiri leadership as represented by the Hurriyet. Its main concern is not to engage with anyone in Kashmir politically but to crush insurgency in the Valley militarily, for which it thinks this is the best time, thanks to the last of Musharraf`s historic u-turns: this time on the ``core issue`` of Kashmir.

Musharraf could at least have argued for the release of Kashmiri prisoners in Indian jails and for an easing of the human rights situation in the Valley. There is nothing to suggest that these concerns were raised or that India conceded anything on these points.

So the situation is like this: even as Musharraf bangs the drums of peace, Indian army operations in the Valley intensify, with many top-ranking Kashmiri militants killed in recent weeks.

Pakistan should be under no illusion that once militancy in the Valley dies down, India will have the same urgency to engage with it as at present. Like it or not, the present peace process is underpinned by Kashmiri blood and tears.

Once the Indians take care of Kashmiri militancy, they will deal with the Kashmir situation on their terms. This is the lesson of history. Back to 1972: this is the direction in which the peace process is headed. Don`t blame the Kashmiris for being dejected.

The foreign office now says India must stop construction on the Baglihar Dam if it was sincere in resolving the dispute. This is wonderful. In the Delhi joint statement, there are passing references to Siachen and Sir Creek, none to Baglihar. The place to make a pitch about Baglihar was Delhi, not the foreign office briefing room in Islamabad.

The joint statement as a whole is a limp document from Pakistan`s point of view but from India`s an undisguized triumph, breaking no new ground, merely restating old positions. If anything, the reference to Kashmir is more watered down than before.

It is a bit audacious than for the foreign office to describe the joint statement as a ``landmark statement``. If this is the foreign office`s definition of ``landmark``, it will run out of adjectives if something truly dramatic were to occur.

Another aspect of this exercise in furious back-pedalling is also noteworthy. Capitulation of this kind should at the very least bring some colour of shame to Pakistani cheeks.

Instead, far from feeling sorry, the outlook of our leadership is positively jaunty as it accepts India`s point of view. When the military made war, it made no sense to anyone. When it makes peace it swings to the other extreme, its pacifism making as little sense as its jingoism.

Re: # 308

Kardesh!!.....Unity???.....What about porn?.I don`t want any mullah`s running rampage over us telling us what to do or see.Don`t give me nightmares in the afternoon.

Re:Kardesh#308

Yaar, I totally agree with you that these borders are meaningless. I will just add one caveat. Lets take jay, urstruly, Gujjubania, echoboom and all their clones on both sides and exile them to Tibet, Afghanistan, Lakshwadeep or any other corner that is miles away from civilization. That will truly turn the subcontinent into a paradise :-).

There can be no solution to kashmir through a simple indo-pak action. It is up to the world to decide whether it can tolerate a kargill-khan nexus. Kargill organised military action with out any kind of govt or higher military support, it was done a few jihadic elements in the army. Kahan mission is aso the same, the notion of islamic bomb to all islamic countries done by one individual. When will the kargill-khan combine came into existance. Should there be a iraquisation of pakistan, and that is what the world has to decide.

Re: # 295

Spurious arguments by the entire Pakistani establishment which includes the bootlickers of the dictator in the media.............

Whatever Mush did in moving out of his Jehadist mindset was due to ``changed s circumstances`` (read post 9/11 world) which he readily admits............

So how is India obliged to ``make concessions`` in order to please HIS Jehadist elements which HE had created in the first instance???

These guys are FRAUDS!!

amit #304, {``Salim, that is a good plan, except that we will end up with Akhand Bharat again :-)!! ... If that`s the idea, why bother to fight? Let`s just reunite and have Akhand Bharat. Kashmir problem is solved forever :-).

Amit,
You are one smart dude. You got it. I was trying to show the stupidity of these two countries fighting over borders. One way of getting all of Kashmir for BOTH sides is to take the rest of it for free, without a fight. Pakistan gets all of Punjab, Delhi, UP, MP, Bengal (at least west Bengal), Assam, Orissa, Jarkhand, UA, AP, Maharashtra, even Gujrat, TN, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Rajasthan, Haryana, HP, and yes, Bihar. India gets all of Punjab, Baluchistan, and yes NWFP (because you can`t say no - we took Bihar, so you should suffer, too), and then Sindh - thus making your national anthem technically correct.

As long as we can visit the area without hindrance, who cares where the damned place is anyway. Once united, with maximum local autonomy, people will love the idea. In the end, that is the ultimate solution, we will get there now or much later. :)

Re: # 305,
bbabu,
I know my Indian geography. Some one in Pakistan has to think strategically, why not me? :)

Re: # 118
``In all of this mess the countries which seem to be getting away lightly - with their proverbials intact are the old european countries - U. K. France and Germany. They seem to be...going from strenght to strenght in temrs of...the strengheting of their states ``

hey...
could you explain how so?

kardesh #294

`` Pakis have been concentrating on J&K for too long. When you bang your head against a brick wall and the brick wall doesn`t give, you must simply go around it.

What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight. When you pull them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. :) ``

You almost got me :-) I thought for a moment Rajasthan was separated from UP by Haryana and MP.

Re:kardesh

You wrote,``What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight.``

Salim, that is a good plan, except that we will end up with Akhand Bharat again :-)!! Since Musharraf cant rule Akhand Bharat by himself (I dont think he has the bandwidth to rule Nagaland from Islamabad), he will have to share power with us hindus. If that`s the idea, why bother to fight? Let`s just reunite and have Akhand Bharat. Kashmir problem is solved forever :-).

#289 by HisExcellency on April 21, 2005 1:13pm PT


Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil.


So musharraf can`t live with the status quo and he can`t do anything to change it...not through a war, which he tried and failed in kargil..not through an insurgency, which you`ve tried for 15+ years only to see Pakistan`s name now associated with islamic extremism....


Pakistan under Musharraf has all but admitted that Indian-held Kashmir will probably never become part of Pakistan. That is saying something.


That is waking up and smelling the coffee....


This makes it imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful”


A majority of a billion Indians would beg to differ....

Tell you what...since you think Pakistan was victorious in Kargil, why don`t you try that again....

Pakistani facts.

The educated of pakistan, like the tahmeds and romair keep talking about the human rights issue in kashmir. The fact remains that the umbrella organisation in pakistan collecting funds from abdul pakis in donation boxes, which the stukas and dost mitters never saw, is the ``united jihadic council``. That sums up the pak average attitude to india. It is ajihad and tahmeds and romairs are the educayed face of the same jihad.

next name chage for pakistan after the 1971 change has to be `` jihadic republic of pakistan``. Pakistan has moved so far from the ``islamic republic``, it has its own version, the TNT version of islam.

HisExcellency #289

`` Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil. He is the coup maker who accused Nawaz Sharif of “selling out” on Kashmir during the Lahore summit with Mr Vajpayee in 1999. He is the general who returned from Agra 2001 in a huff because Mr Vajpayee wouldn’t accept Pakistan’s Kashmir-related pre-condition for a dialogue without posing India’s own cross-border terrorism pre-condition. He is the general under whom the jihadis became audacious enough to attack the parliament in Srinagar and then the parliament in New Delhi. So if you consider the distance he has traveled in the opposite direction since then, you can measure the depth of his courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India. ``

If he can survive a sellout of the Taliban he can survive the cutoff of Jihad in Kashmir.
If the hardliners can live with a freeze on Kashmir from 1965 to 1989 I am sure they can live now. The gap between India and Pakistan is greater than before.

`` General Musharraf’s New Delhi visit aims to spur the Kashmiris into uniting under one platform, showing flexibility and taking bold decisions. He also wants more flexibility from India on the urgency of a tripartite dialogue and settlement of the Kashmir dispute. If the Kashmiris can stamp their approval on any settlement with India, he can “sell” such a Kashmir solution to Pakistanis instead of being accused of selling out to India. The sooner India recognizes the true worth, and limitations, of General Musharraf and his strategic approach, the better. It would be a great mistake to view his flexibility as a sign of current weakness rather than potential strength. ``

India has improved relations with several countries - USA, China, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. All of them have supported you in the past. Pakistan has a limited deck of cards to play - nukes or low intensity warfare.

re:#277 by HisExcellency
To me, both India and Pak seem to be actors in a drama whose script has been already written (by USA) and each act well rehearsed.
Slowly, the items in the script are unfolding.
If India has such a stranglehold on Kashmir (as many Indians in this forum would like to believe), why is the LOC being opened up to Kashmiris from both sides. India should have delcared LOC as sacrosanct, not allowed any travel across it until it is duly recognised as an IB and certainly no travel with anything other than an Indian passport. Why is LOC being made into a loose border.
In this regard, opinion poll on J and K recently is revealing.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/18/top8.htm
(According to the poll conducted by Synovate India, a market research agency, 53.9 per cent of the respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri chose independence.

A staggering 77 per cent of those polled in five metros - Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad - and 55 per cent of respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri think the de facto position of the Line of Control as the effective border should be made de jure as well.

``Considering that the poll in J&K was restricted to Kashmiri Muslims, that`s a revealing reflection of the popular mood,`` the Times said. The poll also shows all too clearly that public opinion, whether in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere, is solidly behind the idea of the border being `soft`.

Thus, there is massive support for the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service with 80 per cent in the metros and 92 per cent in Jammu and Kashmir backing the idea.)
Clearly, having a loose border serves the strategic purpose of India. It is a popular step (as the above poll highlights). Extremists, trying to stop this popular step (as they have already) will only make themselves more unpopular. Their popular base has already taken a nosedive with the attempted attack on the first bus service across the LOC. India must have been desperate to see this happen to have allowed Kashmiris without Indian passport to travel. After all, LOC is not I.B and a passport is not required. It would have been foolish to believe that Pak would ever allow Kashmiris across LOC with an Indian passport.
From the press coverage of the bus service in International news, it seems like something that major powers agree to.
Is this then a first step towards unification of Kashmir? What would happen after that? It is all unclear right now. Only time will tell.
Sridhar

HisExcellency #285

`` These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India. ``

What makes you think drilling of an Indian BSF officer makes India any less potent than it is ? Killing of Pakistanis in Afghanistan or Iran has no relevance to the strength of Pakistan.

Comparing the size of the current Bangladeshi army with Pakistani deployment in the 1970s is silly. Pakistan never had a plan to defend East Pakistan. Bangladesh is an independent state. 7 divisions of infantrymen is a pretty small force for a country of 140 million people.

When is Nepal a benchmark of stability and wisdom ? It is a country in chaos.

Nepal requires access to the sea through India. Bangladesh requires the help of India to control flood waters. Irrespective of their elites warped thinking they will come back to the table to negotiate with India.

correction to my previous post -
no Indian leader has the option of transfer of land today or anytime in the future.

HisExcellency,
Pakistanis can think whatever they want, but no Indian has the option of trasfer of land today or anytime in the future. If that means the end of the talks period then so be it.

Prashant,
Pal try to convey your point without abuses.

Re: # 284
Very Simple,
Siyasat only works like this.

Re: # 291

Is Sethi a Pakistani too?
Sethi te Sikh hondey ney.

Prashant123 #292 {``But if Pakistanis actually believe that Indians are willing to give up even the tiniest piece of territory...I want to know what they are smoking.....``}

Pakis have been concentrating on J&K for too long. When you bang your head against a brick wall and the brick wall doesn`t give, you must simply go around it.

What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight. When you pull them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. :)

HisEx
//....imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful” ...//

Najam Sethi and other paki ``editors`` don`t know sh!t even when hits them right on the face. These fools have been crowing about kashmir for a long time. it`s always the same old tune: ``......India has to do this, India has to do that. ....... Otherwise, Freedom fighters would do this to india.......Poverty will increase in India...... South Asia will be a bad place...... Mushy should be strengthened, otherwise `hardliners` will take over ..... blah blah blah``

Like I said - we don;t give a damn. So you can ask Mr sethi to stuff his editorial wherever he wants.

``But at the end of the day, the fact remains that India has not budged a millimeter from its rigid positions on Kashmir. ``

Perhaps..India can afford not to budge a millimeter from its `rigid` positions on Kashmir ? The problem here is that Pakistanis seem to believe that India-Pakistan are equal-equal , and so for every concession by Pakistan , India should respond accordingly. But obviouslyly that ain`t the case. We will have bus travel now and possibly train travel in future. More people-to-people contact. But if Pakistanis actually believe that Indians are willing to give up even the tiniest piece of territory...I want to know what they are smoking.....

In Sethi`s immoral words,

`` you can measure the depth of his (Musharraf`s) courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India. ``


this is why, whenever there will be a People`s revolution in Pakistan, newspaper columnists should also be sent to Lahore Fort for a final phaintee before execution along with generals, bureacrats, profiteering-cronies and corrupt businessmen and feudal lords.

Reading HisChutiyaExcellency`s posts would give one the impression that it is Pakistan that has 11 times the economy of India , and not the other way around...

Now here is a man who knows its important not to put the cart before the horse:

True worth and limitations of Musharraf’s Kashmir policy
Najam Sethi`s Friday Times Editorial


The One Day cricket match between Pakistan and India in Delhi on April 17 promises to be a thrilling clincher. But it isn’t even the pretext any more for General Pervez Musharraf’s forthcoming trip to India. He wants some palpable, perceptible, movement on resolving the Kashmir dispute before doubts of a “sell-out”, especially in the rank and file of the army and among the hardliners of the Pakistani establishment, begin to weigh him down.

Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil. He is the coup maker who accused Nawaz Sharif of “selling out” on Kashmir during the Lahore summit with Mr Vajpayee in 1999. He is the general who returned from Agra 2001 in a huff because Mr Vajpayee wouldn’t accept Pakistan’s Kashmir-related pre-condition for a dialogue without posing India’s own cross-border terrorism pre-condition. He is the general under whom the jihadis became audacious enough to attack the parliament in Srinagar and then the parliament in New Delhi. So if you consider the distance he has traveled in the opposite direction since then, you can measure the depth of his courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India.

Pakistan under General Musharraf in 2005 has closed the jihadi tap and stopped infiltrating militancy into Indian-held Kashmir. That is saying something. Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has accepted the notion of “composite dialogue” first advanced by India in 1992 and constantly rejected by the military establishment since then. Indeed, there are no Pakistani pre-conditions to the current dialogue and CBMs between the two countries today. That is saying something. Indeed, Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has enabled the road links between the two Kashmirs to be restored after 58 years and made the Line of Control “soft” without any concession by India on the core question of how to settle the Kashmir issue. That is saying something. Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has unilaterally stopped harping about the UN resolutions in an effort to reach a compromise on Kashmir. That is saying something. In fact, Pakistan under Musharraf has publicly floated the “various-options” approach to resolving Kashmir. Indeed, by suggesting that both sides should abandon their maximalist positions, Pakistan under Musharraf has all but admitted that Indian-held Kashmir will probably never become part of Pakistan. That is saying something. And Pakistan under Musharraf has confirmed that the Kashmir issue is not a bilateral territorial issue of dispute between India and Pakistan but one that involves the life and blood and aspirations of the Kashmiris. In fact, in pursuance of this, he wants the Kashmiris on the table in a three way dialogue. This is a far cry from stressing the theme of the “unfinished business of partition”. That is saying something, really saying something, about how far Musharraf has traveled in just two years in his search for a peaceful compromise on all issues, including Kashmir, with India.

But this cuts both ways. If it indicates Musharraf’s swift reappraisal of the new ground realities, it also puts his peace initiatives on the spot at home. If the “peace-with-India” lobbies in Pakistan and in the West see his new policies as bold and beautiful, certain hard line vested interests at home see them as nothing short of a duplicitous “sell-out” to the “old enemy”. This makes it imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful” so that the anti-India hardliners in Pakistan can be suitably silenced and Musharraf can secure his flanks and move forward with confidence.

It must be admitted that Mr Vajpayee’s decision to reopen negotiations with General Musharraf at Agra after the “distrusting” episode of Kargil was a bold move. His risky decision to send the Indian cricket team to play in Pakistan just months ahead of the Indian elections was truly “bold and beautiful”. The Congress, too, has taken laudable steps in the same direction. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that India has not budged a millimeter from its rigid positions on Kashmir. Indeed, the recent statements of various Indian officials, including prime minister Manmohan Singh, on the inviolability of “borders” only sour the dialogue-environment by posing pre-conditions.

General Musharraf’s New Delhi visit aims to spur the Kashmiris into uniting under one platform, showing flexibility and taking bold decisions. He also wants more flexibility from India on the urgency of a tripartite dialogue and settlement of the Kashmir dispute. If the Kashmiris can stamp their approval on any settlement with India, he can “sell” such a Kashmir solution to Pakistanis instead of being accused of selling out to India. The sooner India recognizes the true worth, and limitations, of General Musharraf and his strategic approach, the better. It would be a great mistake to view his flexibility as a sign of current weakness rather than potential strength.

//..utopian ideas of Big Game and sibling partnership that the respectable dost-mittarji is writing about....//

Exactly my point. I have been trying to drill this into DM`s[and other old coots] head for long. But fools like DM don`t listen. Now you tell him.

Like you pointed out - bdeshis just dragged an indian army officer and murdered him, for no good reason. The viciousness of the killing is beyond barbaric - the hatred towards India is beyond mention. And this is from a people who were liberated by us - we gave them liberty and a country. We shed our blood for them. This is how they reciprocate......And yet people like DM are talking about some grand ``sibling partnerships``. Fools never learn.

So you are right. These ``sibling partnerships`` aint gonna have an IPO any time soon. We don`t even want it. We don`t care. We can do it alone. As long as commies and fools keep their trap shut and let the hard-working Indians do their job.

So Mr HisEx, I hope you understand. We don`t need pakis, bdeshis or whoever else to be our ``partners``.

#286 by HisExcellency on April 21, 2005 12:34pm PT


Let India sober up first.


India has control of Indian Kashmir..India isn`t going to let go of what it has...nothing Pakistan can do about it....period..end of story...

re: arjun_m, mohar11

From myths about the power of Shivaji to delusions about global power, the modern Indian seems to be getting drunk on an (empty) bottle of Powerade! Let India sober up first. Then we talk about the utopian ideas of Big Game and sibling partnership that the respectable dost-mittarji is writing about.

re: arjun_m, mohar11

Your posts just prove the point that I had made in my earlier post #144.
These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India.

These ``sibling partnerships`` aint gonna have an IPO any time soon :))

delhiwala #275

`` 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. ``

What you say may be true. It begets the question why some people want to adopt irredentist positions only to make U-turn after U-turn under external pressure.

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.