Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

HP,
I am not convinced that US plans to use India as a major player in the ``contain China`` policy. Recent events don`t seem to indicate so. For all the talk about India-US relationship, the facts don`t seem to concur. For India to become a major player, she still has to prove that she can sustain current level of growth as well as diversify. Also the US would prefer its present allies in the region over India on ``contain China`` policy.

China is a smart player too. She will avoid direct confrontaion with the US.

This indo-pak rapprochement is indeed very good news. I dont think it is the result of a sudden feeling of goodwill on both sides - rather, it is due to structural changes in terms of the nuclear stalemate coupled with the new economic realities. Pakistan`s 8.4% growth rate is, I think, partly the result of the improved investor climate due to good relations. A pakistani government official was telling me that he had received an inquiry from an indian investor who wished to invest $100 million in pakistan. i also understand indians are buying land in the lahore area. These economic links will no have a snowball effect.

I strongly take issue to the oft used ``Both india and Pakistan etc. line`.India is pursuing its` own track with issues regarding development and its` place in the world.Indian foreign policy is dictated by our regional concerns, being that we border more than seven nations.As foreign policy in the North-east is dictated by Chinese and Asean initiatives, the policy in the west is dictated by Pakistan and Central Asian initiatives.India is the only nation in the world that is officially classified as a sub-continent.We are a big market and as much as we want to interact with the rest of the world, the rest of the world wants to interact with us.It is time Pakistan stops coat-tailing India and come up with its` own strategy for survival.

Also, the author of this essay talks about how we are yet to develop our infrastructure in India.I do not know how to paste pics, but the link offers snapshots of highways in India and from all parts of the country.There is still a lot of work to do as we are a big country and the govt. has only recently made this a priority, but i resent the `tone` of this writer.I do, however , wish that relations will improve between our two countries.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221282

At the end of three years, we may see a Kashmir, which is open to all with a state government that listens to both countries without undermining anyone’s sovereignty.


What does this mean really? That the LoC will be like a border but Kashmiris won`t need a visa to cross?

How can the state government listen to both countries without undermining anyone’s sovereignty?

case in point...The (Indian) J&K clearly wants work on the Baglihar hydro-electric power project to continue but Pakistan is clearly against it....

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

I like HP`s recommendation. Realism is the only solid basis for good relationship. So, hope for the best resolution of Kashmir issue, but don`t assume that it is immiment.

so they thought they were
(a)as good as the yanks but the yanks used them and didnt let them ride their coat tails
(b ) they tried china, but china let them standing when the chinese ecnomy started galloping, and are currently of not much use to the chinese
(c) so now the oft repeated india-pak hyphenation continues and want to ride on the India factor.

But the crucial question is not answered, what is it that Pakistan wants to do with itself?
Why does pakistan have to always hyphenate itself, and sell its soul to the highest bidder (yanks and the chinese are cases in point here)?
Perhaps if Hire Purchase had thrown some of his light on this the article would have some purchase. As it stands it is no more than a rehash of of the articles from Dawn, and The News (people like Burki, Ahmed, Inayatullah, Saleem and others).

This has always been a problem, for an outsider like me, this is something I find extraordinary. When ever I ask relatives/people about this the answer consist of three parts+1sometimes

(a) backgrounder on hindu-Muslim history (jinnah and all that)
(b ) then the brits are bad since they (agains depending on the mood and the audience) (i) divided and ruled and this led to the current situation or (ii) thank the lord that the Brits did it otherwise we would have been under the hindu foot and there would have been more bloodshed right now
(c) the third part India is such a bad country it will not let us survive they have forced us to become what we are

(d) the +1 part

---

> if they can do it are we any less - we can do it too.!

Never once is a direct answer given, as to the objectives, the place in the world etc etc. The only person who has come nearest to answering this is Mantolives, long may he live. The rest seem to be given to bombast, rehashing old tripe, obfuscation. That si the pity of it all.

The old cliche ``grass is greener...`` comes to mind whenever I read articles of this sort. I would have thought for someone as smart as Hire Purchase would have gone of the trodden path and thrown more light. BUt maybe I am expecting a little much! However, life is full of surprises, who knows, the light might dawn on him and we might see one here soon.

`` The interesting part of the whole saga is that the Pakistan army and its COAS are the strongest supporters of better relations with India and their concessions over Kashmir negotiations though not exactly galvanic revelations still represent a significant departure from the long stated Pakistani position. The army’s biggest spokesperson Gen. Musharaf is not willing to put a timeframe on the process although his civilian spokesperson and a former Kashmir hawk is predicting a reasonable solution by the year 2008. ``

Pakistani army are under pressure to deliver Osama and his top lieutenant. They are under pressure on AQ Khan affair. US military has mounted severe pressure on Taliban in Southern Afghanistan. Why continue a fight with a India that is economically growing ?

`` Kashmir affects Pakistan deeply. Removing the Kashmir issue from Pakistan’s defense, would make it hard for the army to justify ever-increasing defense budgets that often exceed acceptable levels of GDP share. In the last 50 odd years, the army had used Kashmir and the defense of Pakistan persistently to undermine any effort to sustain a democratic or civilian set up in Pakistan. ``

Pakistani military spending in the early 1980s was close to 40% of total budget. The current troubles in kashmir began in 1989.

`` The Pak-India off again on again dialog started a couple of years ago. Despite hefty nudges and strong support from the US, a strong mistrust of each other held up the process. It was hard for Indian diplomats and politicians to negotiate with the Pak army as the army did not have an exactly impeccable record of good faith negotiation with India. On the Pakistani side, trusting the BJP and its warped sense of history was a hard pill to swallow. Like the Pak army, whose meddling in the civilian affairs in Pakistan depended on anti Indian-ism and the fear of Hindu dominance, the BJP, its allies the RSS, and the whole Sangh Pariwar counted on the anti Pakistan, and Anti Muslims stand to gain political foothold in India. Both the BJP and the army talked about the Confidence Building Measures but the parties to the negotiations were so far apart in trusting each other that the CBMs were long on rhetoric and short on actions. ``

I doubt Pakistani army ever trusted the Congress Party. I do not know if the BJP makes a difference. Other than the fact it is hard to negotiate with someone who is being demonized in the media.

`` India is more or less a centerpiece in the unspoken “restrain China” US policy. To divert investments to India or to some extent Pakistan, both countries need to ensure secure environments for investors. Indian need of foreign investment is far greater. The current flow of Investment will only pick up momentum, if the infrastructure in India is ready to facilitate large-scale manufacturing. There is an immediate need to upgrade decaying railroad, seaports and airports. The need for investments in these areas alone exceeds $150 billion. India also has some legitimate foreign policy goals that are important for its economic growth. The conflict with Pakistan creates an impression that the Indian capitalists and political leaders lack the vision to move beyond their local conflicts. ``

I hate to put it. While conflict with Pakistan is a distraction economic growth in India will be determined by the global trading environment, literacy rates, quality of entreprunership and corruption among bureaucracy.

`` The feel good statements, the enthusiasm on both sides and the talk of good news within three years leads to one and only conclusion that the current leaders in both countries may be well advised to dissolve this issue for the benefit of both countries. It is doable and optimistically, we should see the bits and pieces of this process wedged between growing bilateral trade and cultural relations. At the end of three years, we may see a Kashmir, which is open to all with a state government that listens to both countries without undermining anyone’s sovereignty. ``

I hope India and Pakistan can find ways to build on the current momentum.

`` The US and China interests would begin to collide in the near future or right after the current terrorism and fundamentalism menace is done with. The world may see a revival of the cold war type confrontations and encirclements between the US and China. Both Pakistan and India will need to work together to be in a position to maneuver the expected escalation in any Sino-US conflict to this region’s favor and achieve the economic stability and prosperity that both countries deserve. ``

I hope US and China are not going to fight each other. A confrontation between USA and China is bad for the world economy. It is not good news for anyone including India.

#5 by arjun_m

“What does this mean really? That the LoC will be like a border but Kashmiris won`t need a visa to cross?”

Could be and most likely would be! However, this is just a small step; the next step could be that Kashmiris may own businesses on both sides of Kashmir. I mean I can speculate on many things but the first step is to have the intent to dissolve this issue.

AFA Baglihar is concerned, I believe that Pakistan has not shown that it is totally against it and would like to work on some settlement on water distribution issue. (I have not studied the Dam issue yet, so I may not be completely right on Pakistan’s stand).

#8
Blank,
I think you need to read the whole thing again. Nobody, at least in Pakistan, has mentioned that the Army in Pakistan can stay in power without relying on Kashmir issue. So, guy/gal give me some credit for an original idea :)
There may be a few more things that you missed…

“But the crucial question is not answered, what is it that Pakistan wants to do with itself?”

I agree that you have asked an important question but what countries really do with themselves? Take a swimming lesson, Go bowling, or just horse around!

Different nations can have different aspirations and national goals evolve over a period of time. For a country like Pakistan, the first thing is to make itself an economically viable unit. It is easier said than done as India too is finding out.

I don’t know what hyphenation means exactly. It is a term coined by the US state department and last I heard Indians were desperately trying to get out of the hyphen but w/o much success. May be Indians need some more clout in the US State dept. I think Pakistanis can help them there. Any takers?

HP: I think musharaff and manmohan singh have already worked out a settlement on Baglihar. Technically, a neutral european (swiss?) acceptable to both parties has been appointed to see if the indian design violates the waters treaty.

HP

What is the definition of `Solution`. It is mostly a state of mind.

The latest batch of Indian Kashmiris have travelled to not only Pakistani side of Kashmir but to Pakistan without any Passport. 50% of the solution has already been achieved.

If the Kashmiris can move across freely, mix freely and do trade and business freely, what difference does it make whether they are in Muzafargar or Srinagar?

The Kashmir Border which was reduced to LOC will further get reduced to just a legal jurisdiction. Not any different than the Board we see while entering from Virginia to Tennnessee or from Punjab to Sind.

This is not something new. For the last 57 years, the people in Pakistani Tribal areas have been moving across Afghanistan without any document and Pakistanis of settled areas only required a `Red Pass` to enter Afghanistan.

So the `Solution` does not always have to be as complicated and painful as the Partition. It could simply be a Board that changes the legal jurisdiction of place.

The ideologies as such have already died a natural death. The Borders are becoming Soft and peoples, regions and communities now look towards mutual peaceful coasling for the good of an ordinary citizen.

Let this melting pot melt for some time. The actual piece of paper will come in due course.

nhk

Regarding, USA using India against China etc.....

I heard on the TV that the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have the standard of living of the Western world. The Western world consists of around 700-800 million people, with extremely high living standards. The rest of the world is way way behind. The per capita income of the Average American is tens of fold that of the average India or Pakistani.......

However, every country seems to be aspiring to get the living standard of the West. How in the world is that possible, if there aren`t enough natural resources in the world to sustain that.

Either the living standard of the West will have to come down, or the living standard of the non-West will have to not go up, beyond a certain point.........Neither will be acceptable to either party.........

So what will happen.......

I really don`t know how USA can, ``use`` India against China, when India, itself has a population that is going to need resources to grow. Currently, India uses the same amount of natural gas as Pakistan, i.e. the average Indian uses 1/7th that of the average Pakistani. This means India`s own demand for natural gas, will go up ten to twenty times, for it to continue to grow. China`s demand is growing. So is Pakistan`s etc.

Where in the world are all these resources going to come from? The world will be in an imbalance in 30 years, with everyone fighting over these limited resources......I don`t know how anyone will be able to, ``use`` the other, when the other will itself be trying to get those resources.......

#13 by Romair on June 6, 2005 9:09pm PT

`` Regarding, USA using India against China etc.....

I heard on the TV that the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have the standard of living of the Western world. The Western world consists of around 700-800 million people, with extremely high living standards. The rest of the world is way way behind. The per capita income of the Average American is tens of fold that of the average India or Pakistani.......

However, every country seems to be aspiring to get the living standard of the West. How in the world is that possible, if there aren`t enough natural resources in the world to sustain that. ``

Fighting each other is not going to increase supply. Is it ??

#9 by bbabu

“Pakistani army are under pressure to deliver Osama and his top lieutenant. They are under pressure on AQ Khan affair. US military has mounted severe pressure on Taliban in Southern Afghanistan. Why continue a fight with a India that is economically growing?”

That is a good assumption but how true is it? If the Pak army was under pressure to deliver Osama, then why is he not delivered? I would seriously question any proposition that even remotely suggests that the Pak army can defy the US pressure because it cannot and will not. AQ Khan has been singing the right song from the day one. He was never outside of the Pak army and the US probably had already talked to AQ Khan. I agree with the second part that fighting or even maintaining strained relation with India is not a good idea. We need to move forward on better relations with India. I see that as a very important step in turning Pakistan around both economically, and politically.

“Pakistani military spending in the early 1980s was close to 40% of total budget. The current troubles in kashmir began in 1989.”

The Kashmir issue was very much there before 1989. In 1971, Pakistan and India fought a war. After 1974 nuke test by India, relations went sour and again in 1984 the Indian army was pretty much on the International borders. Don’t forget the Pak support to the Khalisa movement in Punjab. Basically Pakistan and India have been taking potshot at each other for sometime and that is enough for the Pak army to extract as much as it can from the budget.

“I doubt Pakistani army ever trusted the Congress Party. I do not know if the BJP makes a difference. Other than the fact it is hard to negotiate with someone who is being demonized in the media.”

Trust is a difficult sentiment in international diplomacy. The better word probably is confidence but I used trust deliberately as the Indian side felt betrayed after the Kargil skirmishes and lack of confidence/trust was pretty much evident every step of the way as long as BJP was in power in India. With Congress, feelings are different. The army may not completely trust congress but over the years it has worked more with congress than any other political party in India and familiarity helps in improving the relations.

#11 by tahmed32
Tahmed,
Thanks for the info.

#12 by nazarhayatkhan

Nazar Sahib,
We are on the same page here. What I am suggesting here is a “No solution” solution. Let the whole thing melt away, disappear, dissolve but if you have nurtured an issue for as long as both countries have, it would take a process to melt, disappear and dissolve the issue. I am proposing that bureaucrats and political leaders on both sides should devise a plan to incrementally dissolve the whole thing.

#14 by bbabu on June 6, 2005 9:16pm PT

His point is that Pakistan is India`s only hope for meeting it`s energy needs and that India has no option but to come crawling to Pakistan with Kashmir on a platter(at which point Pakistan will graciously accept Kashmir in return for natural gas)....remember..it`s Captain Clueless we`re talking about here....