Gen. Musharraf Visits Delhi

PAKISTAN PRESIDENT GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF HAS GOT THE RIGHT IDEA, BUT DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT HEART?

UNKE NAYE DIL ME KITNI TAKAD HAI AB WAQT HI BATA PAAYEGA!

STILL, I THINK HE HAS BEGAN TO REALLY UNDERSTAND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES NOW. MILITARY SOLUTIONS HAVE NOW BECOME OBSOLETE. MOREOVER, HE HAS TO LIFT PAKISTAN UP HER FEET.

INDIA`S CASE IS ALMOST TOTALLY DIFFERENT:-

#1 INDIA, BEING A DEMOCRACY, SOME (MOST) PARTS OF ITS POPULATION WOULDN`T EVEN CARE WHOM INDIA`S HAVING A WAR WITH.

#2 INDIA REGARDS PAKISTAN AS EITHER:-
A TROBOULSOME NUISANCE OR, IF FREINDLY, THEN, AN IMPORTANT ALLY.

#3 INDIA WANTS TO EXPAND HER ECONOMIC CAPABILITIES, A REALIZATION THAT PAKISTAN IS RECENTLY WAKING UP TO.

#4 WHILE THE GOVERNMENT TAKES CARE OF THE FOREIGN POLICIES, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA (ESPECIALLY THOSE HAVING BUISSINES INTERESTS) HAVE THEIR MINDS INDEPENDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT`S POLICIES.

I THINK GENERAL MUSHARRAF IS DOING THE RIGHT THING:- HE IS TRYING TO OPEN UP PAKISTAN AND SEPARATE THE MILITARY FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NORMAL CIVILLIAN LIFE. NO WONDER HE IS FACING SUCH OPPOSITION AS WELL AS FULL-HEARTED SUPPORT. HOPE PAKISTAN TAKES UP ALL GOOD LESSONS AND FOLLOWS THE PATH OF PROGRESS.

cayenne,
thanks man. its no big deal theres enough information out there neways. im glad u made the effort :)

nebody read post #69

Re: # 70

Paindu....

I`m sorry man.I`m off to chennai tomorrow on a 6am flt. for a business trip.I`m going to sleep early tonight.I will check out the info(the pak scribe) from my hotel room tomorrow.Saturday i`m off to Pondicherry for the weekend.No tax on booze and i heard they have a cabaret!!!.I am eager to check it out!!.Cheers.

Re: # 70

I wish i did.He was giving, along with an indian ecpert,running commentary, during tv coverage of the Mush visit.Visit www.NDTV.com.you might be able to archive info or you can email the compere or the tv station,(i`m guessing all this) , for more info.The ndtv anchor`s name is Burkha Dutt.She must be punjabi `cause she always has indo-pak issues a mainstay of all her discussions on this channel.I`m at work right now.I`ll try and research it when i get home later this evening.Good luck!!

Re: # 68
cayenne,
do u know which newspaper this guy was representing. i`d like to dig up the details online. thanks

#65 by chandala on April 27, 2005 0:08am PT
#64 by dost-mittar on April 26, 2005 7:41pm PT
guys thanks for your input. i will try posting what i find to share with you guys

#66 by arjun_m on April 27, 2005 4:57am PT
i can understand why you would feel that way, but trust me, i had no such thing in mind. india maybe bigger but pakistan has done more of the `kirkiri` `chero chari` with india like a pesky kid. what we did in bangladesh, what we`ve been doing to baluchistan and nwfp...well its a lengthy story but basically pakistan has been messing up a lot.
i understand a question like the one i posted usually makes ppl think im blaming india for everything or whatever. i was just trying to getting more input from u guys so that i could know more about what u guys think and know.

#67 by ferozk on April 27, 2005 5:01am PT

i agree so much with your views. again my point was not to say india has done the damage and pakistan is just a victim. i have studied the kashmir topic in print and in discussion n debate with indian friends as well as in open forums (face to face ones not online). my conclusion is not about who is at fault. its much similar to what u r saying. that enuf blood has been shed and we need to stop the bleeding and start the ehaling process in kashmir. this has to some extent been possible of late. thanks to the steps taken by leaders of both countries. i hope that trend continues but even more importantly whats important is for pakistan to overhaul its education system. these madaris that teach the language of hatred need to be put in check. only proper islamic education shud be taught not courses in hate and revenge. and from the indian side, i hope that indians realize that denying the right of freedom and self will to ppl is a really big crime. i have limited knowledge about what really goes on in kashmir but i do feel they are highly misrepresented by both countries. i could go on and on but what i want to point out is, as u so accurately mentioned that media on both sides has been telling a one-sided story which has been decieved the public. i have come to realize this over time but we`re all pretty ignorant and predujiced and we readily accept what we want to and reject what does not seem to fit our mindset. i do hope that in the coming decades both countries ``somehow`` solcve the whole dispute. we need to move on but this may be hard to do...as most pakistanis feel they have the religious duty to fight for it. i hope we as a ppl realize that victory doesnt lie in destroying the enemy rather in the progress made thru mutual cooperation and partnership. lets see what happens.

Re: # 67

A pakistani newspaper man , who was commenting on the recent New Delhi summit reporting by NDTV sunday before last was mentioning a poll wherein a majority of the respondents(all indian kashmiris) preferred to stay in India.Now, to be fair, 15.9%, according to the pak scribe preferred the ``Hurriyat`` leadership to decide their affairs.That is a considerable sum of people, according to him, and they should have a say.I agree.But , in a democracy, the majority wins, or a coalition of the majority wins.And, i wish i has enough brain power to remember the scribe`s name , but he himself did not deny the fact that a majority of the poeple of J & K , want to remain a part of India.I saw a blurb of a Musharaf interview to PTV on `headlines today` channel at the cafeteria, wherin he was `appealing` to paks to support him find a settlement to the difficult and complex peace process between pak and india.All his words.The writing is on the wall and india has won this round.Who knows what will happen the next decade?.But for now, i think the paks should give it up and play ball with india.

re: harish_hyd # 52

Yes, I do appreciate that point but it still does not lessen the childish nature of the debate. :)

Allow me to explain my point of view.

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that both Indians and Pakistan to a degree exist in a mode of self-denial in which they minimize their own faults and maximize other person`s faults.

I agree that there is nothing wrong to set the record straight, but what misses our collective attention, and it is something which both of our compatriots deny, is the similarity which exists between us when it comes to our own transgressions. While we castigate the other, we seem to think that a similar flaw does not exist within our own self and within our societies. I am not objecting to setting the record straight, but I am objecting to a particular moral grandstanding, which our nations and our two peoples routinely practice.

In this case, I do not think that the pot should be calling the kettle black and vice versa. :)

re: paindupastry

First of all, I did not know the background to your question when I posted my reply to your question. However, having an understanding of the context in which you asked the question, my answer would still be the same, but I will add a post-script to it.

I do not blame your Indian friends for denying that any atrocities were committed by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. I would expect nothing less from them. The reason is quite simple. I cannot speak for the Indian media per se, but if I have to extrapolate a reason from the experience of the Pakistani media`s reporting of Kashmir, I would venture a guess that most Indians know only half the story of what is happening in Kashmir. Just as the Pakistani media periodically highlights human rights abuses of the Kashmiris at the hand of the Indian forces and waters down the violence perpetuated on them by jihadi groups, I believe that the Indian media also waters down the abuses of the Indian forces and highlight the violence committed by militant groups in Kashmir.

The problem which showcases itself in the denial of your friends and it manifests itself in the denials of Pakistanis about their role in the violence in Kashmir, is one of ignorance and indifferance. It is an ignorance practiced by the media, on both sides, to report only a very narrow perspective of the story and it is an indifference on our part, because we only feel the pain, because we might have a sense of empathy with the victim on either the basis of religion or nationalist grounds. We, Pakistanis feel the pain of the Kashmiris abuse by Indian security forces and the Indians feel the pain of the cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, but still we feel the pain of the Kashmiris based on our unique bias, which shapes our reactions to the events in Kashmir.

The real tragedy is that in our arguments and justifications, we have dehumanized the average Kashmiri and what we do not seem to realize or care to admit, is that whether pain is inflicted by jihadis or Indian security forces, the pain is still nevertheless inflicted upon a human being and the pain and suffering inflicted is very real. The real change for the better will come when both of our nations will stop fighting each other to the last Kashmiri and that will only happen, once we start the process of humanizing the problem in Kashmir and towards that end, the recent opening of human - people to people - contacts is a welcome step towards a possible solution to the problem.

Hence, my friend, your friends are simply defending what they believe is to be the truth and it is not their fault that those who know the real truth have not told them what is the truth! :)

Ciao

#63 by paindupastry on April 26, 2005 1:20pm PT

I suspect you`re more interested in playing the ``oh look you big bad indians have killed so many kashmiris and you need to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan to atone for your sins`` game...

Re: # 63

Amnesty International says total casualties have been 38,000 since 1989 (2004 figures).
http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/kumar%20testimony.pdf

paindupastry:

No one can answer your question because no one knows. There is not even an agreed upon estimate of total casualties, let alone civilian casualties of Indian forces. As for civilian casualties, Indian official sources would admit to few or none, whereas supporters of insurgency would claim an exhorbitantly large number. You might want to do a google search of Indian human rights organizations, who have done the most work in this area.

apart from arujunm no one has tried answering my question properly. i expected more from u chowkies....maybe im being impatient...but it seems other posts are being responded to. well neways i tried to get an answer.

Re: # 59

Okay.I`ll try again.This time i picture you looking like Karnam Malleswari(Indian Weightlifting Bronze medal winner 2000 Olympics), with a turban.NO?.

Re: # 51

I agree.The past or the future?.Audi today displayed their latest offering for the indian market, the Audi A6, in the lobby of my office building in Mumbai and had a few reps and scantily clad women to attract us derelicts towards them.Good marketing move.But, symbolically, i felt that this is the new india that we are moving towards, market driven, ambitious, hard working and shorn of the past, the petty, narrow minded past.Who knows what religion the people who went to check out the car were?.They were potential customers.They were indians by default, by being there and all looking somewhat similar, like white people do.We are moving away from parochialism to nationalism, the new india offering us our dreams if we are able to realize them , in our very own backyards.We are a very big market.The corporate world will secure J & K for us.That is the price they will willingly pay for access to our pocketbooks.And, we will be more than happy to oblige them.

Ferozk,

I applaud your post. It is high time that people realized that no side has the moral highground. I believe the insurgence has gone down quite a bit in recent times, mainly because of the fence constructed on the LOC.

regards,

Shishapa:

``There were not attrocities commited by Indian troops in Kashmir.
ISI trained terroris in Pakistan to commit all kinds of attrocities in the garb of
Indian troops to malign the image of Indian troops. Indian troops are not capable of
doing any attrocities. If ever they did, they can`t be Indian troops, for Indian troops
are trained and taught only to fight enemy and not commit any attrocities on anybody.

Hope it helps towards your better understanding of pristine nature of Indian troops. ``

HAHAHA!!! That was hilarious. Welcome to Chowk.


FerozeK:

Nation is supportive of Nawaz Sharif`s PML. It backed the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad and was against the PPP within Punjab.

Also, not withstanding Nawaz Shari`s efforts at reapproachment, the current stance of the PML N is aginast Mush`s peace initatives simply because they oppose eveything he does. Also, it caters well in an emotional sense to PML N core supporters who are the equivilant of the BJP`s core supporters in India. Largly urban, trading class types.

anybody else have any more precise numbers as to the deaths by the indian forces. ill really appreciate it. even if u dont have any proper source...i want to know what u may think the number may be!

#56 by arjun_m on April 26, 2005 8:19am PT

thanks bro. i appreciate your help!

#55 by paindupastry on April 26, 2005 8:08am PT


so.....keeping in mind my above post....could u give me a figure est. of how many people may have been killed by indian forces.


During the NDA administration, Advani told the parliament of India that the death toll in Kashmir since 1989 was around 60K. This includes the ``informants`` killed by the jihadis and the civilians killed when the jihadis toss a grenade and it misses it`s mark...There is no breakdown of these figures....

so.....keeping in mind my above post....could u give me a figure est. of how many people may have been killed by indian forces. the point of asking for a figure is to get some sort of an estimate from non pakistani sources since my friends dont quite believe in anything printed on pak media. so if u could give me something...like a dozen killed a hundred...a thousand...several thousand...etc

Reply to # 51
``which seeks rationalizations by comparing the worst acts of each other and by a method of statistical comparsions, seeks to justify a wrong as a right. ``

that was not my intention. the reason i put forth this question was that i was having a discussion with some of my indian friends (as in real friends) and i said something about the number of kashmiris killed by indian troops in response to thier question of why these insurgents r there in kashmir....they absolutely denied it. they said not a single kashmiri (excluding insuregents and those who wished to harm the state ) was hurt by the indian forces thats why i wanted to get the opinion of a much larger group of people namely all you chowkies out here. my motive was not to underpin the horrible stuff that has been done in revenge of this or that. its all been wrong but i just wished to know whether the sort of news i have is true or whether my friends have been fooled all along or perhaps they dont want to admit any wrongdoing on thier part. once again, i was not justifying any violence from anybody.

``but to admit that we both are not without sin``

thats the sort of conclusion i wanted to get to. im glad u share my views on that. thanks

i do hope that u get to read this

#51 by ferozk

Feroz Sahib,

I whole heartedly agree with you, but you will appreciate the fact that Indians by and large have only responded to Paki interactors who waste no opportunity to talk about atrocities committed by Indian forces in Kashmir, yet never mention 1971, or Jihadi killings, or the recent campaigns in Waziristan and Balochistan.

#47 by paindupastry

[i believe muslims have this sense of brotherhood, where if one is being hurt the other is obliged to come to help and respond with equal force.]

Is that why the Paki Army raped and killed 3 million Bangladeshis, mostly Muslims? Is that why it is bombing Waziristan and Balochistan even as I type this?

re: paindupastry # various

Do the number of atrocities commited by the Indian troops in Kashmir really matter?

One act of abuse by the security forces against a civilian is an atrocity in itself.

I have been on Chowk long enough to admit that there exists a very twisted logic, shared by the Indians and the Pakistanis alike, which seeks rationalizations by comparing the worst acts of each other and by a method of statistical comparsions, seeks to justify a wrong as a right. It does not matter whether the Indians committed more atrocities or the militants committed more, beause one such act of abuse against the civilian population is an act of atrocity itself.

However, what matters and what is the need of the hour is not to engage in nitpicking the worst offenders amongst us, but to admit that we both are not without sin. It makes no sense to point fingers at the Indians and claim that they have a blemish on their characters, because we are also not without any blemishes on our own character! A time is fast approaching, when all these sorts of arguments will have to be laid aside, because there is a limit of endurance beyond which it becomes impossible to sustain a sense and a feeling of hatred. For too long this sense of enemity has done nothing but devour us from the inside as a cancerous tumor and it will not do anything good and sooner, rather than later, we will have to tear it out of our body politic and throw it away.

No one is denying that the atrocities did not happen, but no one amongst us has the monopoly on grief or moral indignation. There were atrocities committed during the hellish days of August in 1947, but we moved beyond its limitatations and in time, the wounds healed; the only memory of the pain was the scar, which snakes across the maps and seperates our two nations. We have to move beyond the emotionalism of Kashmir and not judge the comparative crimes we have committed but decide how best we can act, so that such crimes and atrocities are not committed again in the future.

We all have a choice; either we can exist in the past and watch the future slip away from our grasp or we can all stand up and cry, ``carpe diem`` and hold on to the moment, when everything seems possible and if there is a chance that peace is possible, then we must not let the baggage of the past burden us so much that we may stumble in the sight of our final destination.

Ciao

#46 by paindupastry on April 25, 2005 6:43pm PT


they WILL fight back!


As will the Indians....last man standing wins....

Re: # 44

any figures on how many people were murdered, women raped etc. during the mid 80`s onwards
whats the figure in your mind.

Re: # 43

once again. id like to hear the answer to my question...not how it relates to other stuff! ur answer will not mean anything apart from giving me more information. i hope some of u will be of help. thanks

Re: # 42

i believe muslims have this sense of brotherhood, where if one is being hurt the other is obliged to come to help and respond with equal force.

cud u please answer the question specifically rather than asking me a question

Re: # 42

they WILL fight back!

from manto`s rag...

to summarize: post 9/11, jihad became uncool...The Pakistani army ran out of options...add US pressure to the mix and both sides have decided to accept the status quo..without the shooting at each other part....

Realism sets in —Rashed Rahman

President General Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India and the meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have produced both hope and scepticism among commentators on both sides of the border. General Musharraf himself has characterised the exchanges in New Delhi between the two sides as constituting the irreversibility of the peace process between Pakistan and India and as a “breakthrough”. The contrast with the failure in the Agra summit in 2001 could not be more glaring. It is well to keep in mind though, that the Agra summit 2001 and the New Delhi summit 2005 are separated by 9/11. This defines and helps explain the difference between the two outcomes.

What exactly has been achieved in New Delhi 2005? On the part of the Pakistani military establishment a coming down to earth and acceptance of undeniable realities. These realities dictate recognition of the fact that India has outstripped Pakistan in economic, military and diplomatic strength. Our repeated forays into the uncomfortable territory of being the ‘most allied ally of the US’, far from reaping the touted benefits, have produced nothing but disappointment and pathos. Neither diplomatic means nor resort to war (conventional and irregular) over almost six decades helped nudge Pakistan any nearer to its goal of resolving the Kashmir issue, the greatest cause of contention between the two neighbouring countries.

Washington, meanwhile, has discovered post-9/11 the economic and strategic importance of India, especially as a counterweight in Asia and the world to the growing clout of China. Alliance with the US, even when it was prepared (fitfully) to provide modern weapons to our armed forces, did not live up to the hopes and expectations of the military establishment, Washington’s ‘best friend’ in Pakistan.

Pakistan has accepted in New Delhi that its traditional stand based on the 1948-49 UN Security Council resolutions no longer finds a sympathetic international audience. The only way out now therefore, given India’s preponderance in military, economic and strategic terms globally, and the reluctance of the Bush administration (General Musharraf’s most ardent backers in the US) to go beyond nudging both Pakistan and India to settle their issues peacefully through bilateral negotiations, is to go for a historic compromise. That is exactly what has transpired in New Delhi.

General Musharraf has accepted Manmohan Singh’s proposition that “borders cannot be redrawn” while rejecting accepting the Line of Control as an international border. In turn, India has not underlined its usual insistence on an end to the so-called “cross-border terrorism” as a precondition for meaningful talks and progress. General Musharraf has spoken of “soft” borders before embarking on his journey.

The two sides have translated this in black and white in the Joint Statement after the summit by accepting the need for an enhanced bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; allowing trucks to ply the same route to encourage trade between the two sides of divided Kashmir; a new bus route between Amritsar and Lahore, later to be extended to Nankana Sahib; and the implementation of the decision to open the Khokropar-Munabao border.

These steps represent a softening of the borders, or at the very least, normalisation of the border regime between the two countries. On the contentious issues of Siachen and Sir Creek, it is back to the drawing board. On Kashmir, the likely eventual outcome of the present series of confidence building measures will be a scaling down of the insurgency and of the Indian military and security forces’ presence in Indian-held Kashmir and an internal political compact between New Delhi and Srinagar and Islamabad and Muzaffarabad for autonomy, democracy and genuine special status to the two halves of the state. Whether this will meet General Musharraf’s criteria of a ‘final’ solution that satisfies Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris, is a moot point. General Musharraf has warned that unless such a solution is found, although he is now prepared to give it more time, the problem could erupt again some years down the road.

For the moment at least, the potential ‘spoilers’ of a series of concessions on Kashmir by both sides, have failed to create any momentum despite the attack on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service. As a consequence perhaps, the Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest Kashmiri guerrilla group, has in principle accepted the possibility of a ceasefire, should New Delhi propose any such measure.

It is axiomatic by now, but was not sufficiently clear to our military establishment and policy makers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that their reversal on the Afghan policy left the door ajar to the likely, reversal of jihad in Kashmir since all irregular warfare struggles would more than likely find themselves lumped into the ‘terrorist’ basket. That has now come to pass. History may therefore have passed by the armed militant movement in Kashmir. Whether they accept this or not, their best bet now appears to be to bide their time and explore whatever political openings present themselves during the continuing talks between Pakistan and India to normalise their overall relations and find a compromise on Kashmir that can prove acceptable to all.

paindupastry #35

`` Kindly answer the question or refrain from responding to my query. I am not giving a final judgement on anything rather i am just asking a simple question to better understand the situation. ``

The Indian state is hardly an example of human rights. Indian army was pretty brutal in crushing Kashmiri rebels. It will certainly be a blot on their record.

Counter-insurgency operations are a dirty job. But human right violations of the Indian state pale in comparison to some of neighboring entities - China under Mao, Burma .............

#42 heh heh real arjun is missing. else he would have answered..

indian army commited 1/100 th of atrocities as compared pakistani army in east-pakistan.

#40 by paindupastry on April 25, 2005 1:19pm PT


do u deny or accept that attrocities have been committed by indian troops in kashmir. esp during the 80`s and 90`s


The Indian state has committed atrocities against a lot of people...hindus and muslims alike...what makes muslim suffering so special?

how many kashmiris were killed before 1989? See a link there?

Re: # 39

Here is my take on it!

Yes, atrocities have taken place, even sometimes by army personnel although more commonly by the police and paramilitary forces.

Unfortunately, there is a symbiotic relationship between any insurgency and the efforts to suppress it, especially if insurgents enjoy a certain level of support among the populace. It is harder for those fighting the insurgents to always distinguish between innocent people and those who are indulging in violent activites. The result is that they become trigger happy and get into the habit of shooting first and asking questions later. Unfortunately, these trigger happy acts of security forces are counterproductive. Every innocent person killed and tortured produces many more insurgents burning with the desire of revenge. This is why I call this relationship symbiotic.
I used to be much more critical of the Indian security forces than I am now, after I have seen the level of violence that the US troops indulges in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq; they are willing to kill/bomb hundreds of civilian to avoid risking their own casualties.

I might add that human rights abuses in Kashmir have not been a one-sided affair; the jihadis have indulged in as much, if not greater atrocities against civilians suspected of supporting the government and administration. Therefore, those who have been sending/supporting these jihadis cannot escape responsibility for human rights abuses either.

#32 by paindupastry on April 25, 2005 9:20am PT
``just a question for my indian mates.

do u deny or accept that attrocities have been committed by indian troops in kashmir. esp during the 80`s and 90`s

if yes, what kind and how many ppl did they effect.

just seeking ur views on the attrocities committed by the indian troops! thanks``

.....still awaiting an adequate response!!

Re: # 32
``just a question for my indian mates.

do u deny or accept that attrocities have been committed by indian troops in kashmir. esp during the 80`s and 90`s
if yes, what kind and how many ppl did they effect.
just seeking ur views on the attrocities committed by the indian troops! thanks``

.....still awaiting an adequate response!!

#29 by ferozk on April 25, 2005 8:48am PT


Arjun, ``The Nation`` is a newspaper which claims to be national newspaper but in reality represents the view of Punjab and its editorials have always been pro-Kashmir and against any compromise over the issue of Kashmir.


Yup....Their editorials always scream ``We need to build <insert a proposed dam that punjab wants but sindh/b`stan don`t> because big bad India is running off with the waters of the Indus``

Re: # 36

thanks shishapa for ur comments. i know u tried ``very very hard`` but im looking forward to hearing a ``proper`` answer to my question. let the others have a chance as well! thanks!

Re # 35,

OK, then here is my reply.

There were not attrocities commited by Indian troops in Kashmir.
ISI trained terroris in Pakistan to commit all kinds of attrocities in the garb of
Indian troops to malign the image of Indian troops. Indian troops are not capable of
doing any attrocities. If ever they did, they can`t be Indian troops, for Indian troops
are trained and taught only to fight enemy and not commit any attrocities on anybody.

Hope it helps towards your better understanding of pristine nature of Indian troops.

Re: # 33
Kindly answer the question or refrain from responding to my query. I am not giving a final judgement on anything rather i am just asking a simple question to better understand the situation.

Re # 29

Ferozk,

What do you think about pakobserver.net?
Does it have a English/Urdu/Regional Language print edition besides net edition?

Re # 32

Paindupastry,

Have you pondered over the question why there were no troops in J&K before late 80s
before asking such questions to Indian mates?
If not, can you ponder and answer the question?

just a question for my indian mates.

do u deny or accept that attrocities have been committed by indian troops in kashmir. esp during the 80`s and 90`s

if yes, what kind and how many ppl did they effect.

just seeking ur views on the attrocities committed by the indian troops! thanks

Re: # 8

very well said...! bravo!

long live kashmir, pakistan and all freedom lovers

re: Dost-Mittar # 27

Dost, the bureaucratic resistence is also a concern in Pakistan.

Ciao

re: arjun_m # 28

Arjun, ``The Nation`` is a newspaper which claims to be national newspaper but in reality represents the view of Punjab and its editorials have always been pro-Kashmir and against any compromise over the issue of Kashmir. Most Pakistani provinces do not share Punjab`s love for the Kashmiri cause and would much rather see the end of the problem. The Nation upholds the values and virtues of Punjab and not of Pakistan per se and it does, as you pointed out, reflects the more militant Pakistani viewpoint over Kashmir, whereas Dawn, The News and the Daily Times have been very pragmatic and realistic in their editorials over Kashmir.

Yes; The Nation is opposed to converting the LoC into an international border and in this, it will find an alliance with the MMA and specially Qazi Ahmad Hussain of JUI, which is also against the idea. Ironically, PPP and PML-QA and PML-N will eventually embrace the idea of LoC as a formal border, because these parties are interested in political power and not interested in picking a fight with the army.

Tarar is the mouthpiece of Nawaz Sharif, because as a judge, he was very instrumental in pushing the idea of sharia in Pakistan and in moving the 15th Amendment through the national assembly, which sought to make sharia a law in Pakistan.

Ciao

#23 by ferozk on April 24, 2005 11:02pm PT

The editor`s of ``The Nation`` are completely oppossed to this solution: converting the LoC into a border of some sort. This item was printed with the intentions of sending out a message ``Look..they`re selling out the Kashmir cause``..

This is an article the day before...I`ve posted the parts that lead me to this conclusion...this and the tone of their editorials for the past year or so...

Enlightened moderation killing Islamic culture: Tarar


He lamented that under the name of moderation, Kashmir cause was being forgone and the government was deviating from the UNO resolutions by forgetting 90,000 Kashmiri martyrs and the insinuation of modesty of thousands of women. He said by cowardice, the ruler was seeking forgiveness for himself from the greatest terrorist, America. He said people should think what they were before Oct. 12, 1999 and what they had become.

Rafique Tarar paid rich tributes to ‘The Nation’ Editor-in-Chief Majid Nizami for his courage, perseverance and upholding of the Islamic and Pakistani values under heavy odds.

ferozk#25:

Yes, I do remember that chat!
But I am not opening the champagne yet. I have full confidence in bureaucrats, especially Indian, to be the flies in the soup. Manmohan is no Musharraf who can ride roughshod over everyone else. Vajpayee did try to go over the heads of the bureaucrats from time to time but was more often than not pulled back by them.

Mere khyal se, Pakistani aur Kashmir musalmanon ka Nasha utar raha hai,
asmaanse dheere dheere jameen par aa rahe hai.
Ye isi ka natija hai. Aur kuch nahi.

re: Dost-Mittar # 24

I think you have made an apt observation.

I am not sure, how far down military hierarchy this mode of thinking has trickled, but it seems that the corps commanders are ``on board`` with this new policy. It will eventually reach the lower ranks, but it will encounter a resistence from the ``bearded`` members of the armed forces.

Dost, I hope you remember that conversation which we had in the car, as we were returning to hotel room after the Chowk lunch. If you do, you might remember that I had suggested that once the people of Pakistan see an economic prosperity, they will shy away from politics of aggravation. They seem to heeding the call of restraint and during the recent MMA marches, the government`s counter-agrument was not to disallow the marches/rallies, but to suggest that such activities harm the business interests and might hurt the economic growth of the nation. The argument had a favorable response from the people, which might also explain why the MMA marches were so lukewarm. That also why the political parties are not raking too mud over the issue, because they know that the people of Pakistan, except for a minority, are not interested in politics but would like to better their lives and are thus, more interested in economics of growth in Pakistan.

Ciao

ferozk:

``In Pakistan, and especially in the only institution that matters, there is a visible understanding that Pakistan`s economic growth and prosperity is linked to the ending of the Kashmiri problem. The end of the Kashmir problem will also end the militantcy which is becoming pronounced within Pakistan itself and as long as the militancy does not end, there will be no in investments in Pakistan and to end the militancy, Kashmir needs to be solved. Kashmir is the proverbial red flag to the jihadi bull and there is an acceptance in the GHQ that the only way to deny the militancy in Pakistan is to take away its caus celebre: Kashmir. In other words, take away the flag and the bull will not be so agiated and once it calms down; it will be more easy to corral and to neuter it!``

I totally agree with this. I don`t know if this is the thinking of the entire GHQ but this certainly seems to be the thinking of PM and opinion makers in Pakistan. I haven`t read urdu papers but there is virtually no opposition to the leaked plans in the english language media in Pakistan. And except for Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the politicians also seem to be showing their aquiescence by their silence. So, Musharraf has used the US pressure to do what he is now convinced is necessary to realise his vision of a moderate, modern Pakistan. Another thing, which might have played a role is his muhajir origin. He cannot but have some emotional links with Indian muslims and realise that an end to hositility with Pakistan will deprive the anti-muslim elements in India of a powerful weapon they continue to use against Indian muslims; in other words, he is taking away the ``the flag`` from the bajrangdali bulls too.

re:arjun_m # 22

Thanks for the snippet of news, Arjun. This confirms my own understandings based on interacting with a few people and following the trend and intent of offical announcements from Delhi and Islamabad. I follow very unscientific rule in discerning the intentions of our governments; right off the bat, I infer an opposite meaning to what ever is announced and then the next step is to ask, what was the reason for the denial issued. For example, when Manmohan Singh said the borders in Kashmir would not be re-drawn, I was wondering what was reason the statement was made - to pre-empt a public acknowledgement of a fait accompli or not? Likewise, when Pakistan says something on Kashmir, I automatically assume the opposite to be true! :)

The formalization of the LoC into an international border is the only realistic solution to the problem, and the fact that there is alot of harping in India and Pakistan about the ``rights of Kashmir`` suggests that there will be some autonomy for them within an Indian-Pakistani condominium of Kashmir. I think that the UN resolution on Kashmir will be implemented but with an amended proviso; Indian and Pakistani troops will withdraw to pre-1947 lines and there will be a plebsicite not to decide the issue of Kashmir deciding it fate, but to elect representatives to politically administer Kashmir within an Indian and Pakistan understanding on a joint political administration; soft borders paving the way for a formal border and a more papable intergration of Kashmir into Indian and Pakistani politics as a means to administer the region jointly.

I am speculating, but the time frame of 3-5 years for the end of the problem seems reasonable. This is also speculation and I have no documentation to prove it, but it seems probable that Kashmir issue was decided in Shimla in 1972, but the governments of the time did not develop a popular political constituency in their domestic public opinions and that was to accept the LoC as an international border. I am infering this possibility from the Kargil conflict in which the Indian response hinted that India was incensed about the ``violation of LoC`` more than cross-border terrorism, because Delhi was tolerating cross-border terrorism into J&K since early 1990s. Cross-border terrorism gained importance after the events of September 11, 2001 and the attack on the Indian parliament, but Kargil suggested that the Indians were upset because Pakistan had reneged on the Shimla agreements.

In Pakistan, and especially in the only institution that matters, there is a visible understanding that Pakistan`s economic growth and prosperity is linked to the ending of the Kashmiri problem. The end of the Kashmir problem will also end the militantcy which is becoming pronounced within Pakistan itself and as long as the militancy does not end, there will be no in investments in Pakistan and to end the militancy, Kashmir needs to be solved. Kashmir is the proverbial red flag to the jihadi bull and there is an acceptance in the GHQ that the only way to deny the militancy in Pakistan is to take away its caus celebre: Kashmir. In other words, take away the flag and the bull will not be so agiated and once it calms down; it will be more easy to corral and to neuter it!

Remember: the Pakistan army is now adjusting its threat perceptions and accordingly, the newly defined axis of threats in Pakistan are from its internal political situation and not from external threats. Once Kashmir is solved, the militancy will be dealt with and after that, the issue of Bugti and Sui and Baluchistan will be solved. No Kashmir means that the influence of MMA and the religious parties, which use the issue of Kashmir emotionally, will also be lessened. There are too many potential pipelines coming from Baluchistan and Islamabad does not wish to lose all those millions in transit fees because Bugti claims the region as a personal fiefdom!

It has been a while, since I converted to the logic of accepting the LoC as a formal border, but I will give you the credit for being one of the first ones on Chowk to preach this idea! :)

Ciao

Kashmir solution with status quo in the offing?

From Ghulam Nabi Khayal
SRINAGAR - Both India and Pakistan have agreed on a possible solution to the Kashmir problem involving some redrawing of borders but not conceding any major part of Jammu and Kashmir territory to each other.
Sources close to the Prime Minister’s office in New Delhi told this correspondent on phone that this solution had already been disclosed to the leadership of All Parties Hurriyat Conference led by Mirwaiz Omar Farooq who met President Musharraf in New Delhi when he was there a few days ago. Mirwaiz, when contacted, did not comment on this development but one of his aides said this plan was actually accepted by the APHC (Omar) but almost rejected by APHC (Geelani).
According to plan, both the governments shall give greater autonomy to their areas of J&K state. In the Indian Held Kashmir the pre-1953 status shall be revived which unites this State with the Indian union only on the subjects of foreign affairs, communications and defence. Rest of the internal autonomy shall be revived and the offices of the president and the prime minister, instead of the governor and the chief minister, shall be restored.
A similar plan has been drawn for Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Though the offices of president and the prime minister exist in Azad Kashmir, an equal status shall be introduced in Gilgit-Baltistan with greater autonomy given to both these regions under Pakistani control at present.
The softening of borders with free travel between Srinagar and Azad Kashmir is also on the cards. The Line of Control, with some adjustments, might be made into an international border.
This plan though kept secret for the time being has somehow leaked out from the prime minister’s office in Delhi.
The disclosure of the Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed that the Kashmir problem shall be resolved before 2008 seems to be based on this ‘mutually accepted’ plan.

Last Updated: Saturday, 23 April, 2005, 16:15 GMT 17:15 UK

BBC News

UN`s Annan set for trip to India
The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is to make a three-day visit to India starting on Monday.
Mr Annan will meet President APJ Kalam, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Natwar Singh.

Mr Annan, who last visited India in 2000, is currently in the Indonesian capital Jakarta for the Asian-African Summit, also attended by India`s PM.
India is one of the countries hoping to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

---

The last sentence explains the special treatment meted out to Musharaf.I understand.And, all along i thought he wanted to visit his hometown, with a long term view of retiring there instead of being disposed of . like his army predecessors.Sorry!!.I can be forgiven, for wishing Musharaf well, i hope.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4477079.stm

Pakistan has to integrate its economy with the Indian economy. That is no longer debatable. Just like India has to integrate with the global economy.

In so doing, expect other types of integration as well (education for one). In 20 years, it will be closer to a EU type situation (India is already like an advanced EU, it is essentially a multi nation setup).

Territorial disputes dont hold precedence over economic issues. Welcome to the 21st century.

#11 by taqat-e-parvaaz on April 23, 2005 6:05pm PT

uh-oh...think of all the Indian soldiers who pee in the kashmiri rivers...you know, the rivers that flow from Indian Kashmir into pakistan...the one`s that Pakistan is sooo dependant upon...

#9 by taqat-e-parvaaz on April 23, 2005 4:11pm PT


india must resolve the problem of kashmir.


or what porkchops....you`ll send your army to take liberate Kashmir from the evil hindoos?

You might find that evicting the Indian army from Kashmir is slightly more difficult than evicting Nawaz Sharif from the PM`s house.....

The Indian embassy in Pak is issuing 10000 visas a month!!!.10000 paks are traipsing through india every month!!!.I have had heartburn ever since i came across this little tidbit.The pak embassy in New Delhi doesn`t even receive so many applications in three months.Raise the alarm!!.Sound the bugles!!.Call or email your local MLA/MP.Read ``Outlook`` mag.Natwar Singh is the brother-in-law of Punjab CM Amarinder Singh. I will include the PM in all my prayers from now on.As far as the army sex stories, india is an open society where all matters are discussed and dissected by the press.Sometimes, news is also exaggerated by vested interests.Army men have been having sex with each other through the millenia.Who else will they have sex with, other than local whores?.I have heard stories about the pak army too from tourists.It seems they like young white men.This was in the old days, when the few white men would venture into pakistan!!.Big deal!!.As for AIDS, typical indian way of dealing with something.Make a big deal, scare the public into submission.Better than enforcement.

#15

The reference to Tahmed sahib was from another board, apologies for the mix-up.

I find this equation (India = Hindu) decidedly misleading. It is used by Pakistanis in many other fora. It does grave injustice to members of the `minority` who have made stellar contributions to India`s progress since independence.

#14

Are you suggesting that a premier writer/thinker is always correct ? That we have no right to belittle anything he/she says of does because he/she is beyond reproach, and any criticism relegates the proponent to being labelled a dimwit ?

Tahmed sahib :

Sir,

You extrapolated my assertion about some Indians being arrogant to us belittling other nationalities, and then somehow equation all this to VHP/RSS ideology. I submit I may be blind to your line of reasoning because of my relatively tender age, please enlighten me on this particular line of logic.

Re: # 13

i can safely say after reading your post that ayaz amir`s IQ is probably double what yours is. he`s one of pakistans premier writers. belittling him just shows the indian character.

Re: # 2

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!!! ...............

taqat-e-parvaaz #11

`` instead of believing what your fundoo press is telling you, bring me some partial proof that the US is `putting a gun` to pakistans head to make peace with india. if you cant, refrain from making typical indian inferiority complex statements like that. pakistan has never taken pressure from the US over kashmir. never. it has only done what it feels has been in the interests of the kashmiris and the interests of pakistan. and if there is pressure on pakistan, i can assure you there is pressure on india as well. india is not some mighty power. sorry to break that to you. we`re both third world countries with millions of poor. if the need arises though, the US state department could very easily stick a rod up your PM`s ass. i hear he`s into that. :) if you want pakistan and the kashmiris to think your establishment is sinceres, stop proliferating terror in the valley and killing innocent kashmiris. reduce the number of your army men in the valley. theres no need for half a million troops to battle a few thousand freedom fighters. last but not least, tell your army men to stop having sex with one another. hahahaaa... ``

Can you bother to tell us why there is no more inflitration from Pakistan ?

Indian Prime Minister has never had to take a phone call from Colin Powell to decide if he wants his country to be friend or foe of USA.

Indian army has not vacated an inch of Kashmir.

What is your problem with 500,000 Indian troops in the Valley ? Cannot fight them !!!

Re: # 10

instead of believing what your fundoo press is telling you, bring me some partial proof that the US is `putting a gun` to pakistans head to make peace with india. if you cant, refrain from making typical indian inferiority complex statements like that. pakistan has never taken pressure from the US over kashmir. never. it has only done what it feels has been in the interests of the kashmiris and the interests of pakistan. and if there is pressure on pakistan, i can assure you there is pressure on india as well. india is not some mighty power. sorry to break that to you. we`re both third world countries with millions of poor. if the need arises though, the US state department could very easily stick a rod up your PM`s ass. i hear he`s into that. :) if you want pakistan and the kashmiris to think your establishment is sinceres, stop proliferating terror in the valley and killing innocent kashmiris. reduce the number of your army men in the valley. theres no need for half a million troops to battle a few thousand freedom fighters. last but not least, tell your army men to stop having sex with one another. hahahaaa...

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002326.shtml

More soldiers killed by AIDS than bullets: general
Defence authorities sounded a health alert on Friday with scores of soldiers engaged in anti-insurgency operations in the country`s troubled northeast struck by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

``The time has come to wake up with HIV infection among our troops assuming serious dimensions. Now we find more soldiers dying to HIV-AIDS than to bullets fired by militants,`` Lieutenant General Bhopinder Singh, Director General of Assam Rifles, said in Shillong.

``We have a challenge at hand and we need to tackle it sensitively,`` he told AFP at the force headquarters.

The Assam Rifles is a premier paramilitary force of 55,000 troops deployed in the rugged jungles of the northeast against some 30 guerrilla groups waging insurgencies for independent homelands or greater autonomy.

The first HIV-positive Assam Rifles soldier was detected in 1992. Since then, 32 Assam Rifles soldiers have died of AIDS and 180 more are in serious condition at two treatment camps in the region.

After random blood screening, Assam Rifles doctors sounded the alert saying the number of soldiers infected with HIV was alarming.

Doctors with army and other paramilitary and police units in the northeast also say they are concerned but have not carried out the random blood screening that has revealed the extent of the spread of HIV among the Assam Rifles.

While the percentage of soldiers suffering from HIV-AIDS is in line with the less than half a percent of India`s total population, experts say soldiers deployed in the region are still ignorant about how the illness spreads.

``We find awareness levels about how HIV spreads very low among soldiers,`` said S I Ahmed, an AIDS specialist from Assam`s main city of Guwahati.

The Assam Rifles held a day-long HIV-AIDS awareness campaign Friday in Shillong with a host of celebrities, including actor Shilpa Shetty and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, taking part.

As part of the drive, Assam Rifles soldiers were being given free condoms.

One paramilitary soldier, who asked not to be named, said he was devastated when doctors told him last weekend that he had tested HIV-positive. ``I was traumatised,`` he said.

Promiscuity explains the spread of HIV. ``We`re invariably stressed out and monotony sets in working in isolated and hostile terrain for a long period,`` the soldier said.

``So the easy way to relax is to go for casual sex. And I also did that without really knowing the consequences.``

``In most cases we have found the soldiers mingling with the locals and then going for unprotected sex to fight stress and fatigue,`` one Assam Rifles doctor said.

``Life away from families for a longer duration is one of the reasons.``

The Centre on Wednesday strongly disputed claims by an international anti-AIDS group that India has outstripped South Africa as the country with the highest tally of people living with HIV-AIDS.

Officially South Africa has 5.3 million infected people and India 5.1 million.

However, the executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Richard Feachem, said the official statistics were wrong and INDIA HAD OVERTAKEN SOUTH AFRICA. (good luck with that!!)

The northeast has been declared as one of the country`s high-risk zones with close to 100,000 people infected with HIV.

taqat-e-parvaaz #5

`` i think its exactly this mistrust that has to change. musharraf too could have said a lot of things about the indian leadership, as it was essentially elements within the fascist BJP that sabotaged the agra summit. dont consider it pakistans weakness to show magnanimity. musharrafs heart is in the right place right now. it would be in the interest of south asia for the indians to leave their complexes aside and sit down and talk like humans. ``

peace is not something you do when Uncle Sam puts a gun to your head.

if you want trust the Pakistani establishment is going to have to do the following
1. stop using Islam as a political tool
refrain from promoting movements like Taliban
shut down religious schools that promote Wahabi ideology
stop spreading hate in your religious curriculum

It makes no sense. You have to co-exist with a billion plus Indians.

2. renounce violence as a weapon.
I hate to put it to you - you cannot beat the Indian military even if you wage a thousand war

3. promote democracy within Pakistan
give provincial autonomy to Sind, NWFP and Baluchistan similar to what Indian states have
you will be surprised how powerful a broad based democratic government is compared to a narrow clique.

Re: # 7
i cant believe your back for another round of my favorite game, `kick the crap out of arjun!` hahahaa. you need 10 cc`s of protein urgently in your body!! keep believing that pakistan will back off its stance under `US pressure.` you`re so deluded its hilarious really. india must resolve the problem of kashmir. not doing so will just be inviting more ass kicking. no indian would want for your army nigger`s to start falling like flies to mujahideen!

Gajendra Sahib
Your article is typical indian article i read in any other indian newspaper. It simply implies that everything in pakistan is going bad, and everything in india is going great. There is thing called,````power to define````, so your whole arguement fall in that category. You can call kashmiri freedom fighter terrorist or enemy, but they are heroes to many kashmiries and pakistanies.
It is like a game. Sometimes, you score first. But it does not not mean that it has ended.
Your state sponsored terrosrism can oprress kashmiries for time being, but struggle will not end. Kashmiries will rise, and freedom will ring its bell in the valley.
Long live pakistan and long live kashmir

hello pork chops...

#5 by taqat-e-parvaaz on April 22, 2005 10:36pm PT


musharraf too could have said a lot of things about the indian leadership, as it was essentially elements within the fascist BJP that sabotaged the agra summit.


So where is Pakistan 4 years later? It`s agreed, under US pressure, to stop the jihadi infiltration...what does it have in return? zilch...


dont consider it pakistans weakness to show magnanimity.


Magnamity because you agree to give up something you didn`t have a snowball`s chance in hell of getting? ...in this case, the UN resolution....

how kind of you....i`ll bet you think musharraf voluntarily dumped the taliban....

Look porkchops...there can be no transfer of land in the next 20 years...maybe after that, when the mutual histolity has cooled down....

I don`t think we indians have a `chip` on our shoulders.Common misconceptions continue to exist.We are a big country and we are aware of it.We do swagger a bit, but we too are knocked to our senses ever so often.Life goes on.We are a huge market and we`re a rather productive lot, inspite of our many desi failings, so the world is eager to interact with us.Combined with our size, our market and the inherent free nature of our society, we our a favored destination and we`re basking in the glow a bit.Our neighbors don`t seem to share in our good fortune.That`s why i think musharaf has decided to give the farm away.He knows the game is up.The indian economy is not dependant on the political system.Infact, it is the other way around.The indian polity is united and will not compromise on national issues and the indian public, so diverse, is actually more united than the polity!!. Military subversion as a toll for destabilization is a thing of the past.What is there left for pakistan to do?.Absolutely nothing.That`s why i think Musharaf decided to do what he did.Pakistan`s future lies in close cooperation with India.

Re: # 1

kaurasach on April 22, 2005 10:28am PT

i think its exactly this mistrust that has to change. musharraf too could have said a lot of things about the indian leadership, as it was essentially elements within the fascist BJP that sabotaged the agra summit. dont consider it pakistans weakness to show magnanimity. musharrafs heart is in the right place right now. it would be in the interest of south asia for the indians to leave their complexes aside and sit down and talk like humans.

Who is this guy?

I REALLY want to fulfill my dream of riding around Lahore in a `Qing Qi` driven by a rotund ,jolly punjabi with ear hairs sprouting with abandon, a bucket of chicken and some hooch, if i can get away with it, but i`m still going to stick my neck out and say, that, the general in question wants to spend his retirement in the city of his birth.Just a wild guess and i`ve mentioned it before, but i got to run with my gut feeling.Just as Gorbachev gave away the Soviet Union and changed the face of Europe, Musharaf just did something similar, but in a low-key fashion.He let the genie out of the box, slowly.

I wouldn`t be surprised to see former ISI chiefs spending their days lolling about on the sand dunes of Candolim beach in Goa, while the pak young join their indian counterparts and party on in Anjuna beach(known as the Freak Capital of the world), `Splash` bar at Colva beach, known worldwide for its` midnight raves and parties hosted by MTV regularly.Why should paks be denied the pleasures of life that we indians take for granted?.Le bon ton roulette.

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.

``Naya Dil`` .....he he.....Nacch meri bul bul kay paisa millay ga....he he.


He has brought a new schem, strategy. A Trojan Horse. Does a cheetah change its spots?

He hasn`t changed. His circumstances have.