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

Re: # 5
re: arjun_m:

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

Possibly. Hazarding a completely hypothetical scenario, suppose, for example, that on paper any citizen of India or Pakistan could cross the LOC, given the approval of the Governments of India and Pakistan. The Pakistani Government would deny permission to anyone who cannot prove birth / equivalent resident status in Indian held Kashmir. This is the situation as it stands with the Muzaffarabad - Srinagar bus. Given the abysmal treatment that the two countries mete out to applicants for visas, India might well ( again, remember, this is a hypothesis ) restrict access to Indian Kashmir to Kashmirs in retaliation.

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

A fair query.

It can, if the paradigm is moved beyond a zero-sum game scenario. For example, say, a uniform strategy for Primary Health Care implemented in both Indian and Pakistani Kashmir could, conceivably, be done with both sides agreeing. I agree that non-acrimonious, robust cooperation would be a minefield in areas such as Education, Internal Security ... but given the piecemeal, ``festina lente`` mood of the times, I don`t think that cooperation in areas that the two countries do not have any existing differences would be unreasonable.

///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....///

According to Annexure D of the Indus Waters Treaty titled ``Generation of Hydro-Electric Power by India on the western rivers``, [1] India is permitted construction of ``run-of-the-river`` hydroelectric power projects. It claims that the Baglihar Project is one. The dispute has arisen (if I recall clearly) over whether the size of the cachement area is greater than ``the sufficient magnitude to meet fluctuations in the discharge of the
turbines arising from variations in the daily and the weekly loads of the plant``.

The point being that if a State Government of Kashmir were to come up with a proposal that did not violate the IWT, then they could implement it.

I agree that there are millions of metaphorical miles to go before we sleep and the nitty gritties will take up a huge amount of effort, goodwill and time to be resolved, but I think that policy formation by Kashmir State in consultation with or jointly along with India and Pakistan is not out-and-out an impossibility.

Cheers,

A_S

[1] http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOUTHASIA/Resources/223497-1105737253588/AnnexureD.pdf

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.

Re: # 12

Nazar Hayat Khan: If Kashmiris of Muzzafargarh can travel to Srinagar and back without passports, why should Punjabis of East and West Punjab travel with passports? Why the immigrants in Punjab and Karachi from Gujrat, UP, Hyderabad, Delhi etc. travel with passports to India? And so the borders melt...

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 ??

Re: # 15 HP

``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``

So with Congress in power, Indians have forgotten Kargil and Mushy`s deeds? So how can you say talks with Congress government will be with trust when congress was at the helm of affairs during 47, 65, 71 (and 84 flashpoint) wars.

``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. ``

Its a very absurd statement. It was NDA gov. which started the peace process. Sometimes you need new thoughts and ideas. I guess you missed this report.

---

We were upset when Vajpayee lost: Kasuri

LAHORE: Describing former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as a ``courageous man,`` Pakistan said it was ``upset`` when his Government fell last year.

``I am today frankly admitting for the first time that we were upset when the Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a courageous man, fell,`` Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri told a visiting Indian delegation here on Thursday night. He said during the NDA regime Islamabad had built a rapport with Ministers like Jaswant Singh and Yashwant Sinha as well as National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra.

``We were not quite sure how the next government would be,`` Mr. Kasuri said. ``But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President [Pervez] Musharraf struck an instant chemistry in New York.`` Noting that a ``sea change`` had taken place in Indo-Pakistan relations, the Minister said the coming visit to Pakistan by Hurriyat Conference leaders was a ``big achievement`` and the Kashmir issue could be resolved peacefully if there was flexibility on the part of governments of both countries. — PTI

---

I hope next time you won`t go ga-ga over Sonia and Congress.

#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.

Re: # 16
re: arjun_m:

///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....///

Wow :) That would surely be a superhuman feat of self-delusion. With investments in energy sources to the tune of billions of dollars, in places such as Sudan and Iraq (these are the ones that come to mind readily), India`s really not pinning it`s energy hopes on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. And if we were ever desperate for Iranian gas, we could always revive the undersea pipleline plan that was under active consideration when relations between India and Pakistan were warmer.

But, arjun_m, can you please point out where HP made such a colossal blunder of self-delusion ? Where he said that India has no choice but to go to Pakistan for energy ? Or that India would give away fabled Kashmir in return for some gas? Or were you speaking metaphorically?

cheers,
A_S

#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....

#13 by Romair

You have raised a good issue and I have been studying that too. I got to go now and would take it up tomorrow.
Thanks.

HP # 15

Have you noticed a strange Paradox in the present situation -

The Pakistani Government and the general Public are receiving Both the Indian Politicians and the Hurriyat members with same gusto and enthusiasm - SIMULTANEOUSLY. They do not seem to find any contradiction between the TWO.

This is an inexplicable display of maturity.

NHK

This article summarizes a whole bunch of things that happened recently. I am not sure which hat are you wearing – a history/political science professor, a reporter, an economist…?

In the short-term, CBMs are good things – at least people are not killing each other. (It also “feels good”.) I doubt that there is a genuine desire for peace behind the measures - perhaps a compulsion dictated by circumstances (at least on the Pakistani side).

In the long-term, I am convinced that true trust between the countries will not be in place until most can face the following two facts:

(1) the division of the subcontinent was a blunder (just look at everything else that followed - how BLIND one needs to be to not see the obvious)

(2) the political/religious leaders who pushed for it (no matter how well-esteemed by the masses (who were brought up on a daily aphrodisiac of the esteem medicine anyway)) SCREWED up and took whole populations along with them. (All the other problems followed.)

These mighty icons need to be pulled down from high pedestals (from where they continue to ruin our present day lives) and pushed down into the “dustbin of history”, where (in my humble opinion) they belong. I don’t see how the Kashmir problem can be “defanged” if religion is at the core of this problem and even the educated classes are too chicken to face up to (1) and (2) above. Any analysis which looks away from these very obvious facts is bound to remain weak.

I personally think it will be a LONG while before that happens! Long term peace between the two countries could remain elusive. (Things which are done under external compulsion do not have a long life.) I hope I am proved wrong!

Notes:

[The sudden urge of the army to resolve the Kashmir issue and the change of heart surely appears to have thrown lots of political observations and calculations off the charts.]
It is very difficult to convince me that the “change of heart” is genuine! Have the jihadis been put away? Has a single admission of past misadventures been made? Aren’t the same people still running the show? There may be some realization that the old tricks don’t work any more and there is a need to come up with a new set of tricks - that’s all!

[The Pak army, sensing the reluctance and skepticism on the Indian side, provided conclusive goodwill measures to affirm its seriousness and determination to take some risks in moving the dialog with India forward.]
Everything you cite (following that sentence) was just talk – what did the army DO? I would say precious little.

[The next step for India is to remove the pockets of militants that still operate in Kashmir as quickly as possible]
India has been at it (and will continue to work on it) for a while. What the Pak army can do (but seems to have little interest in doing) is to also repeat that feat on their side.

[There is really only one problem between India and Pakistan. Once that concern is laid to a rest, there really is nothing that can hold both countries back from making great strides in economic cooperation.]
I believe that’s wishful thinking. Kashmir is not that ONE problem – it’s the deep-rooted thinking which distinguishes between people based on religion!

[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.]
In my view, this hype is over-blown. In any case, it’s too far down the road.

#2 by tahmed32
Tahmed- what happened to your “accent”?

#3 by cayenne
Cayenne, when people say “Indian subcontinent” they mean India and many of its neighbors lumped together.

#8 by - - - ... - - -
Some of your words can be considered provocative, but at some point the Pakistani elite needs to address those issues. Unfortunately, we (people from that part of the world) are more adept at running away from issues than facing them.

#10 by HP
[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! ]
This is exactly the type of example of “running away”

#12 by nazarhayatkhan
[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.]
Mr. Khan, are you predicting that in effect Indian and Pakistan will be ONE country (except perhaps on paper, which will take longer)?

#15 by HP
[Nazar Sahib, We are on the same page here.]
So you agree with the paragraph just above?

Re: # 21
re : harish_hyd:

///Since India doesn’t lay claim to Pakistani Kashmir, ///

Whoops.

Parliament (under Congress` Narasimha Rao, I might point out) adopted a resolution [1] in 1994 which unanimously resolved that ``Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression``

Does that alter your stated position?

cheers,
A_S

[1] http://www.cifjkindia.org/legal_docs/legal_docs_006.shtml

IMHO, I do not foresee any substantial breakthroughs in the Kashmir issue, not at least in the foreseeable future. A lot of hype has been built around the CBMs but the unpleasant fact is that none of the two countries have conceded or are willing to concede anything. India will never agree to concede territory, howsoever nominal, and Pakistan will never reconcile to the LoC as the border. Other marvelous ideas being floated such as making the borders irrelevant, soft border between the two Kashmirs, joint control or a condominium type of arrangement are simply impractical, at least in the subcontinent. If ever such a thing happens, both countries will waste no opportunity to further their agendas and soon it will be back to square or even worse.

The harsh reality is that Pakistan has pushed itself into the corner by claiming ownership of Kashmir. There is no real exit or easy face saver from this extreme position. No country, least of all India, where Kashmir evokes strong emotions, will ever give away land that it has successfully defended in wars. Since India doesn’t lay claim to Pakistani Kashmir, the easiest thing for Pakistan to do would be to accept the LoC as the border and be done with it. But since ordinary Pakis over the years have been made to believe that Kashmir would be theirs one day (Kashmir banega Pakistan), it is not going to be a cakewalk either. But the Paki establishment must pay for its follies. Expecting India to do it would be naïve.

HP #15

`` 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.``

Making peace with India may be less painful than delivering Osama. Who knows what secrets Osama will reveal ? Osama might be worth more than a fight with India which one may or may not win.


“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. ``

India and Pakistan were at loggerheads over Operations Brasstracks in 1986. There was never the kind of vitriol we saw in recent years. The cricket matches continued uninterrupted.

`` 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. ``

The Congress has been in power all the time minus 1977-80 and 1996-2004.

Re: # 23
//....I have yet to meet a Pakistani who thinks it was a blunder or that the partition should be undone...//

Atleast one paki said so - Altaf Hussain. He seems to be a big guy in pakiland these days - being part of the gov`t and all.

Anyway - I agree with you [who`d have thunk?]. Partition was NOT a blunder - there are good reasons why it was done and it should stay that way. It should never be undone or even diluted.

That`s why I don`t like this no-passport travel bullsh!t started by pinheads sitting in delhi..... it`s going to backfire.......Even though it helps some kashmiris in the short run - it has opened up possibilities for greater chaos by jinnah`s children on the wrong side of the border.

Partition is cool .... Peace must come with Passports[and visa].

BeeJay #20 You say you want to face the following ``facts``:

``(1) the division of the subcontinent was a blunder``

This is your view, not a fact. While I always hear this refrain from Indians, I have yet to meet a Pakistani who thinks it was a blunder or that the partition should be undone. Pakistan is here to stay. Get used to that idea.

``(2) the political/religious leaders who pushed for it (no matter how well-esteemed by the masses (who were brought up on a daily aphrodisiac of the esteem medicine anyway)) SCREWED up and took whole populations along with them. (All the other problems followed.)``

Dont blame the ``masses`` for what you think of as a ``blunder``. The masses were smarter than you, and supported Jinnah for good reasons.

Re: # 25 kaal
//...but focus needs to be removed from the issue of partition....//

you can`t. Partition is going to be in focus - that`s the nature of the problem we have. You can`t sweep it under the rug, so to speak.

what you can do is -understand and accept it. Actually majority of indians do understand and accept partition whole-heartedly. People like BJ are exceptions and they are detrimental in this situation[though their intentions may be good].

BeeJay

Expecting Pakistanis to accept that the creation of Pakistan was a `blunder` is probably not a good strategy.

I don`t know how it can be achieved, but focus needs to be removed from the issue of partition. We should not feel compelled to justify it or denounce it.

#13 by Romair

Your post has three parts and I will take the bait.

Let me answer the simple question first and I don’t why Indians are unable to address the question of Natural Gas usage that you have raised before. India’s power plants are mostly coal fired and in Pakistan, natural Gas fires them. This perhaps is the reason for lower per capita consumption of Natural Gas. So, the correct comparison would be energy usage numbers. I think some knowledgeable Indian would come forward to answer the question in details.

“I heard on the TV that the world does not have enough resources”
The TV part is bait. If I know you from you from your other posts over the last one year, I know that you have studied this issue and you would be ready to discuss it with lots of numbers:)
It does not appear likely that any country in the near or even in the next 2 to 3 decades would reach the US standards of living. In this area, I make a distinction between the US and other Western countries. As many Asian countries almost or are at European living standards.
I think the US uses almost 30% of world energy supply especially petroleum products and Natural Gas. (Numbers are an approximation. I will get the right numbers later.) China is becoming another big consumer. India is still far behind and would not be a competitor in the next 20-30 years. There is no doubt that the US would like to maintain a constant supply of Gas. There is plenty of Gas available around the world and the cheapest untapped area is currently Iraq. There are Gas reservoirs in Caspian, Central Asia also that are mostly untapped but the cost to bring them to market is prohibitive. If the Gas price at the pump is higher in the US, the oil from expensive fields can be extracted but higher Gas prices means lower standard of living in the US. To keep the prices down the US must have some control over the Gas fields at least in the ME, which is a big supplier for the US.
One way to contain China’s energy demands is to slow down it pace of development and distribute the current investments going to China to other countries and India is a good prospect for that. The other way to slow china down is to create a military threat and make China invest more on defense. Can India be pressed into this role, only time will tell!

#19 by nazarhayatkhan
Nazar Sahib,
I watched him on India TV when Advani announced his plans to visit Pakistan. One thing that came to mind was why he wants to be in Pakistan when Kashmiri leaders would be in there. It turned out he stole the thunder from the Kashmiri leaders at least in the Indian media. While most of the Pakistani media covered Kashmiri leaders, He turned the Indian politics upside down. Was it all planned? Quiet possibly!

#21 Harish,

Just one more doubting Thomas!
Most of the Indian erroneously believe that Pakistan claims ownership of Kashmir. Pakistan asks for referendum in Kashmir and that is the long-standing Pakistan position. If India had invested in Kashmir, referendum could have gone either way. Rest of the stuff is just semantics. Countries fight over many things and make up too. So, it is not really a big deal if Pakistan and India have fought couple of wars.

Re # 31

OK. So lets call it Quid Pro Quo (or something like that).

India stops claiming POK and Pakistan stops lusting after J&K of India.
Will that work?

tahmed32 #23

`` This is your view, not a fact. While I always hear this refrain from Indians, I have yet to meet a Pakistani who thinks it was a blunder or that the partition should be undone. Pakistan is here to stay. Get used to that idea. ``

I can live with this.

`` Dont blame the ``masses`` for what you think of as a ``blunder``. The masses were smarter than you, and supported Jinnah for good reasons. ``

I think the Urdu speaking people in modern day UP/Bihar/MP were not smart. They supported Pakistan. Some of the elite migrated to Pakistan. Some of their descendants in Karachi will always be hostage to the sons of the soil schemes from Sindhi nationalists. The ones left in India get to face the likes of the BJP. I dunno if I will call their support for Jinnah/Muslim league a ``blunder``. It is pretty close to playing with fire. They can count their blessings that they were not subject to what minorities in Bengal and Punjab went through.

Re: # 93

Stop lecturing aha_Snarl.Let there be a free flow of exchanges and viewpoints.Are you a commie?.If so, i do understand your authoritarian ways.

Re: # 34
re: arjun_m:

///HP didn`t..I agree with most of the points he`s made in his well thought out article. I`m talking about Romair aka captain clueless///

Whoops. My mistake. I thought you were commenting on bbabu #9 (in which he refers to HP) when in fact you were commenting on bbabu #14 - in which he refers to Romair.

*I wish people would reply to interacts using the ``reply to interact`` link below each interact. That way the discussion is properly threaded and much more manageable.*

#30 by Aha_Snark on June 7, 2005 12:19pm PT


But, arjun_m, can you please point out where HP made such a colossal blunder of self-delusion ?


HP didn`t..I agree with most of the points he`s made in his well thought out article. I`m talking about Romair aka captain clueless


Wow :) That would surely be a superhuman feat of self-delusion.


You`re new to chowk, I presume? Capt Clueless has a history of self-delusion...He doesn`t BS..he actually believes all of it...In an oft-quoted(by me :D) example, he told Indians, Sri Lankans and arabs in the US to wear t-shirts with pakistani flags in the days after 9/11 if they wanted to avoid being targets for reprisals..the premise being that Americans would be falling at the feet of pakis,prostrated in gratitude, because Pakistan was going to allow the US to use it`s bases to launch attacks against the taliban...

Sorry, I just returned.

#23 by tahmed32

Dear tahmed:

(1) All I said was the division of the subcontinent was a (major) blunder based on the results that it produced. For just once (instead of throwing wisecracks, or smarting as if you were attacked personally by questioning the logic behind the creation of Pakistan), I would be interested in your doing a simple tabulation of facts, as follows: make a table with two columns - (a) what benefits it produced, (b) what costs were incurred. Go ahead, do it and put up the tables here! Let’s see how honest you can REALLY be!

(2) Since by your own admission (interactor page) you are an average Joe, and since Chowk.com is full of high-octane smart individuals, does it not appear curious that few have come up to counter my points! Could it be (perish the thought) that inside they agree with it but lack the guts to say so publicly (yes, even in the virtual world – such chickens!)

Lies under compulsion (as under the bayonet of dictators) are one thing. The lies that we willingly accept are much worse. There is no salvation from the tragedy that THOSE lies lead to, because such lies have nothing to do with facts or reason and they are self-perpetuating!

#25 by kaalchakra

Listen Kaal, if we can not speak our minds and speak with our hearts in this VIRTUAL world where we are presumably anonymous, what chance do we have in the real one? (We might as well stop wasting our time on this site here, then.)

I am not trying to “strategize” in any fashion – since I am not trying to push for any particular outcome. I am just telling it like I see it and if others disagree – they should try to PROVE me wrong using the cost/benefit table approach I recommended to tahmed.

I also disagree with your implication that ALL Pakistanis will react in a knee-jerk manner to something which admittedly is not said out aloud a whole lot! Also, the issue of partition and its rationale is so germane to the Kashmir imbroglio that it can not be removed from this discussion without being “wishy-washy” (and the author’s lack of response is leading me to believe he is in the same category)!

For crying out loud, we are supposed to be dealing with the EDUCATED elite here!!

#24 by mohar11
Mohar, I did not advocate reunification (one major disruption is bad enough, who needs another)!

tahmed:
``I have yet to meet a Pakistani who thinks it was a blunder or that the partition should be undone``

I am from Pakistan and i think the creation of Pakistan was a complete blunder.

tahmed : ignore me cos i am not gonna get into a debate with you. This admission was just to highlight that there Are pakistanis regardless of their numbers who share this view. I know few of them personally.

Re: # 37

``the recent sacking of Advani by the party for the crime of visiting the grave of Jinnah and for acknowledging that Pakistan was a reality demonstrates the ugly reality of BJP. ``

WRONG.
He has been challenged on these statements:
1. Jinnah was a secular man
2. Dec. 6 1992 was the ``saddest`` day of his life.

So please stop spreading your propaganda. India is at peace with Paks existence. Vajpayee himself visited that Minar-of-Pakistan. No one asked for his head then.

BeeJay #35 Here is the cost-benefit analysis you commissioned me to do:

Benefits:

1. Freedom from hindu animosity: This of course is what turned Jinnah from being the ``Ambassador of hindu-muslim unity`` to the leader of the calls for a separate nation.

Proof of this animosity is of course to be found in a number of way: the vast constituency of the hindu nationalist party BJP that exists to this day; the recent sacking of Advani by the party for the crime of visiting the grave of Jinnah and for acknowledging that Pakistan was a reality demonstrates the ugly reality of BJP. At a personal level, the spite and hatred for islam and muslims and pakistanis displayed by too many indian posters (not all, by any means, but enough) over the past few years I have been on chowk has been an eye-opener.

Costs: the main cost has been the loss of lives (hindu, sikh, muslim) in the 1947 riots and in subsequent wars.

How does one weigh costs and benefits when the cost is in lives? One does not. Nor is it necessary to do this in 2005, because the past is past.

As of today, Pakistanis are far better off living as good neighbors with Indians then they would be as one country: A pipeline deal here, cross cross-tourism there, and we have the beginnings of a beautiful friendship (as the french police chief in Casablanca would have put it). Of course, the hindu animosity will disappear only very slowly - perhaps another couple of generations from now. Who knows. And who cares, as long as the bullying of those extremists ends where the Pakistan border begins.

bbabu #33 actually the UPites who came to Pakistan did quite well for themselves (and not just mushy, but large numbers of businessmen etc.) - and a large proportion of them have taken the next step and migrated to the US.

And even today there are over a hundred thousand bihars in bangladesh who claim (30 years after bangladesh was formed) that they are ``stranded pakistanis`` with a right to enter Pakistan. Obviously, they are not being fooled by Jinnah or anyone else today - they have seen other biharis do well for themsleves in Pakistan and seek to improve their lot as well the same way.

Raw Dust: You are entitled to your views, sir. Wont comment further since you do not wish to debate this.

``Freedom from hindu animosity``
Obviously Hindus are the only ones who harbour such animosities.

#37 tahmed

Now you have made me VERY curious:

[Benefits: 1. Freedom from hindu animosity:]
Is present-day Pakistan free from the “hindu” animosity? First of all, hasn’t the “Hindu” animosity increased multiple-fold (and is now located just across the border)? Also, haven’t other varieties of animosities replaced that “Hindu” animosity? By following the same logic, would you advocate further partitions of the current Pakistan so each of the “enemy” factions could become free from the “animosities” of each other? Is that a REAL benefit?

[Costs: the main cost has been the loss of lives (hindu, sikh, muslim) in the 1947 riots and in subsequent wars.]
Tahmed – these were REAL people that got killed!

So let me hear you loud and clear! You are sure the “benefit” outweighs the costs? (Yes/No answer please – go ahead – don’t fuzz your answer now, please!

Ref BeeJay #41

[Tahmed – these were REAL people that got killed!

So let me hear you loud and clear! You are sure the “benefit” outweighs the costs? (Yes/No answer please – go ahead – don’t fuzz your answer now, please!]

If you want to make omelettes, you need to break a few eggs.

In the Indo-Pak context, if you want to make brain curry, you need to break open a few skulls.

Jinnah and Company made brain curry, so what?

Re: # 43
re: harish_hyd:

///Boss, I thought you knew better. If India is not averse to making the LoC the border, does it not imply that India doesn`t lay claim to ``Azad`` Kashmir anymore?///

Of course India`s hinting in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink fashion that it is not averse to the LOC as the border. I only raised the 1994 Parliament Resolution because you talked about the stated and official position of Pakistan and the difficulty it will face in resiling from that. It`s not fair, is it, to compare the official position of Pakistan (which has changed radically in a few years time) with the unofficial position of India is it ? And no doubt, if India ever says officiallly that the LOC is acceptable to it as the border, rather than repeat that the ``whole of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir is Indian territory`` screams of rage will emanate from those seeking to gain political mileage. It`s not going to be easy to contradict a resolution of Parliament right ? Only 40 years have allowed the Government to contradict in real life the resolution calling for the armed forces to throw the Chinese out. We give Aksai Chin, they give Arunachal and Sikkim.

cheers,

A_S

#31 by Aha_Snark

[Parliament (under Congress` Narasimha Rao, I might point out) adopted a resolution [1] in 1994 which unanimously resolved that ``Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression``

Does that alter your stated position?]

Boss, I thought you knew better. If India is not averse to making the LoC the border, does it not imply that India doesn`t lay claim to ``Azad`` Kashmir anymore?

Re # 37

What a racist remark, ``Hindu Animosity``! Amazing there are still fossils like that.

What about ``Muslim Animosity``? Or muslims are not capable or ``Animosity`` towards
Hindus or others? So I guess someone is justified in exploiting such a charge against
Muslims and commit horrible deeds and crimes.

This person needs to start thinking for himself instead of regurgitating those unfounded silly charges, Hindu this and Hindu that and Hindus did this and Hindus did that and how Hindus were bad and how Hindus are vicious.

#28 Aha_Snark
“It can, if the paradigm is moved beyond a zero-sum game scenario. For example, say, a uniform strategy for Primary Health Care implemented in both Indian and Pakistani Kashmir could, conceivably, be done with both sides agreeing.”

Some other areas would be Tourism, common wholesale markets for agriculture products and fruits, and Small home based industries. These and many other areas can be prime targets for a non intrusive type of cooperation between the two Kashmir.

#29 by Netizen
“Indians have forgotten Kargil and Mushy`s deeds?”
History books are full of such acrimonies. Yes! Pakistan and India had more skirmishes during the Congress rule but they have talked more too. Familiarity breads confidence.
About Kasuri-
Kasuri’s father was a former congressi. If you ask him as a private individual, who would he like to go to dinner with in India, He would reel off several names, and none of them would have last names like Advani or Vajpayee.
Sonia rocks!

#35 by BeeJay
“does it not appear curious that few have come up to counter my points!”

There is nothing sensational about your remarks. We have been hearing them for the last 57 years and that act is now stale.

#36 by Raw_Dust

I am glad that you are a Pakistani. Unlike the Pakistani Army, people of Pakistan are generally democratic and live with diversity of opinion. You are entitled to your opinions and nobody has any problem with that.

I am glad that you’re not Indian. You see what they are doing with Advani over there and how about the guy who wrote the thread above about Godhra inquiry. He is being treated to some nice welcome comments. Please also read Romair’s post on Advani thread where he talked about Altaf Hussein and Advani.
An extract here.
#289 on Advani thread.
“Recently Altaf Hussain - the third most powerful politician in Pakistan - went to India, and stated that the whole creation of Pakistan was a grave mistake. He didn`t just praise Gandhi/Nehru etc. He disregarded the whole creation of his homeland, where he was born!! Other than a little hoopla in the media, nothing changed in Pakistani politics. He is still the powerful head of his party. He is still in alliance with the Musharraf govt. His party still runs Sind. Politics goes on, as usual.........”

Personally, I am a great admirer of GM Syed, Wali Khan and Ghous Bax Bizenjo and in Pakistan had the honor of meeting them on several occasions. I never considered them anti Pakistan. They were/are Pakistanis with a different opinion about Pakistani politics.

#289 by Romair

[Recently Altaf Hussain - the third most powerful politician in Pakistan - went to India, and stated that the whole creation of Pakistan was a grave mistake. He didn`t just praise Gandhi/Nehru etc. He disregarded the whole creation of his homeland, where he was born!!

Other than a little hoopla in the media, nothing changed in Pakistani politics. He is still the powerful head of his party. He is still in alliance with the Musharraf govt. His party still runs Sind. Politics goes on, as usual.........]

But that is because he is a stooge of Musharraf, and we all know what happens when someone close to El Presidente is criticized. On the contrary, India is a democracy so there is no sacred cow and everyone is fair game.

#26 by HP

[Just one more doubting Thomas!]

Nope. As you will discover once you`ve read the entire post.

[Most of the Indian erroneously believe that Pakistan claims ownership of Kashmir.]

Bhai Sahab, we have been hearing this from Pakis for the last 57 years. If what you say is true, why is that in the so-called ``Azad`` Kashmir, every candidate contesting the local elections required to sign an undertaking in the nomination form promising his/her whole-hearted support to Kashmir`s accession to Pakistan? A few years ago, JKLF chief Amanullah Khan was not allowed to contest because he refused to sign this undertaking. The JKLF which started the armed rebellion against Indian rule has virtually been sidelined because it advocated independence, while pro-Pakistan outfits such as the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen been allowed a free run. Can you explain this please?

Oops!! #46 does not belong here.

raw dust: you too? i also am from pakistan and feel the creation of pakistan was a total blunder.

wow, my family and i are not alone afterall. :)

Another bombshell from Jammu: J-K disputed, says its Congress minister


Make it a federal state with foreign and defence affairs under Indo-Pak control: Minister Babu Singh’s ‘individual views’
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE


Posted online: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 at 0200 hours IST

JAMMU, JUNE 7: Jammu and Kashmir’s Minister for Finance Babu Singh, an associate Congress Party member, today threw a bombshell when he described the state as ‘‘disputed territory’’ and suggested that it be made a federal entity with foreign and defence affairs under the joint control of India and Pakistan.

Addressing a packed press conference here, Singh said that Kashmir was a triliteral issue to be sorted out among the people of India, Pakistan and J-K. Leaders ‘‘should not stress on it being an integral part of India,’’ he said.


‘‘Jammu and Kashmir should be made a federal state, with India and Pakistan having joint control over defence and foreign affairs. For the peaceful future of South Asia, there is a need to take bold steps,’’ said the minister.

‘‘Jammu and Kashmir is a multi-ethnic state and different ethnic regions may be given autonomous units under a federal state,’’ said Singh.

Although Singh clarified that these were his ‘‘individual views’’, it’s for the first time that any J-K Minister has expressed such opinions in public.

Singh, who joined the Congress as an associate member a year ago, also demanded that India announce a unilateral internal ceasefire in J-K.

‘‘It is a must that armed conflict should be stopped so that it cannot sabotage the ongoing peace process,’’ said Singh. He added that detenues should be released and sought a check on human rights violations by both security forces and militants.

Strongly opposing a military solution, Singh said there should a joint meeting, without any pre-conditions, involving the people of India, Pakistan, J-K and PoK to discuss a roadmap which is acceptable to all.



http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=71889

Stop calling Kashmir integral part of India - Indian Minister of State for Finance


Jammu, June 7 : Minister of state for Finance Babu Singh Tuesday said that India should stop calling Kashmir as an integral part of the India.
The Congress minister acknowledged the representative character of the Hurriyat Conference by stating that it does represent the people but only of valley and not the entire state.
Singh, who is also an associate member of the Congress party has questioned the Kashmir policy of Congress led central government by stating that the repeated insistence of Indian government that Kashmir is an integral part of the India was hampering the peace process.
‘It is an old problem and it should be accepted’, the minister added.
Addressing a press conference here Jammu, the minister said that Hurriyat’s visit to Pakistan does have representative character.
‘ Hurriyat has a representative character but is limited to valley and does not represent the persons of Jammu and Ladakh which have different aspiration’, he added.
The Congress member giving out proposal in his individual capacity said that “there should be a joint control of India and Pakistan in the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and PAK as well,”.
Calling for joint conference to this problem, for lasting solution, the minister said that a conference to be attended by all mainstream parties in J&K, separatist, parties of PAK and other political parties of India should be held so that a long lasting consensus could emerge.
The minister said that both countries should agree on a treaty which should clearly stipulate that gun and war is no solution to any problem.

Take Kashmiris` will into account: Advani:-


Karachi | June 04, 2005 5:43:47 PM IST


Karachi, June 4 : Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief L.K. Advani said Saturday the ``will`` of all Kashmiris ``must be`` taken into account to resolve the dragging dispute over the state.

``The will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is a must for resolving the issue,`` Online news agency quoted Advani as saying while talking to reporters along with Sindh Governor Ishrat-ul-Ebad here.

``However, it should not be forgotten that different regions of Jammu and Kashmir are divided into diversified communities, and their viewpoint should also be kept in view,`` Advani added.

Advani avoided a query about the ongoing visit of Hurriayat conference leaders to this country.

``Specifics are decided by the government rather than the opposition. I am in the opposition now, but I want to remind you that our government had initiated the dialogue process with the Hurriyat leaders, and I had personally met with them two-three times,`` Advani pointed out.

``The Opposition`s role is to strengthen the consensus and dialogue on particular issues. So, I am here to strengthen the dialogue process,`` he maintained.

Advani said that both the governments should try to resolve the Kashmir issue with patience, optimism and determination.

``I have met (various leaders) and I am glad to see that both the government and the opposition want the peace process to continue. I have no hesitation to say that both countries have a consensus on this issue,`` he maintained.

It was the responsibility of both countries to take the peace process to its ``crucial`` conclusion.

The BJP leader said it was hard to even imagine four to five years ago about the current conducive atmosphere and determination of the two countries to resolve their lingering disputes.

``This is a credit to the BJP, which had initiated this process. We are glad to see that a change of government in India has not affected the process, and the incumbent government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is pursuing our initiative``, he added.

Now, the peace process should be made irreversible, Advani said.

Terming his visit to Pakistan, especially his hometown Karachi, a ``historic`` occasion, Advani said he was visiting the metropolis after 27 years, and could not express his happiness in words.

To another question, he said his ancestral home was located in the Jamshed Quarters neighbourhood of Karachi east.

(IANS)

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=85745&cat=India

BJ #41: you write ``hasn’t the “Hindu” animosity increased multiple-fold (and is now located just across the border)?``

I thought I made quite clear in #37 that I recognize that hindu animosity still exists, and that (thanks to the formation of Pakistan), it ends where the Pakistan border begins. So, you already have the answer to this question.

Similarly, I made it quite clear in #37 that I recognize the cost paid in terms of human lives. So, no need for this reminder either, my friend.

scott #40 agreed. there are good and bad people in ever society. only trouble is that hindus were the majority, and too many hindus seem to think this gives them a right to insult and ridicule religious minorities (particularly muslims and christians) as being ``converts`` (as if that is a dirty word) or traitors.

shishapa #44 please re-read my post #37 and you will see that far from ``regurgitating those unfounded silly charges`` of hindu animosity, i base it on some undeniable facts.

i am sorry if the term ``hindu animosity`` offends you - i dont like such distinctions based on religion, race, etc. myself, and consider us to be humans first and last - but at the same time it would be naive to ignore the above-mentioned facts.

#53 TAhmed

You haven’t answered my question – was the “cost” worth the “benefit”? Yes or No?

(Once again, don`t go ``fuzzy`` on me. I know you are too smart to play dumb! Be a MAN for God`s sake and give a straight answer for once.)

BJ #56 I consider the cost to have been too high given the large scale killings of 1947. And I think the british are to blame since they were the departing authority, and left in an irresponsible manner like the french king who said ``Apres moi, le deluge``; and the newly formed indian and pakistani governments are to blame, for not doing anything either (Gandhi was the sole exception, as he went on hunger strike to end the communal killings in Bengal). And indians and pakistanis in general are to blame for never calling for justice to be served to the criminals who did the killings from their side.

But, those are ``sunk costs`` and therefore irrelevant to the situation today, as financial analyst will tell you. Pakistan is a reality. And the benefits of a separate nationhood (not having to live next to muslim-hating hindus being one, but not the only one) outweigh the ``incremental costs`` today.

#52 by dionysus on June 8, 2005 2:37am PT

None of this translates into a territorial concession by India....If you think otherwise, you`re deluding yourself....

Re # 54

So when Muslims consider theirs is the only true religion, Allah is the only god, Quran is
the final and only book, rest are all false books and god, non-believers are Kafirs,
non-muslims are just suppoed to take it. I think there are enough i.e. majority of the muslims who believe in this.
Can Hindus use this excuse to exclude Muslims (such as drive out) from where they
are majority? Would that be right?
How can you generalize the perceptions to all of the population? The same BJP was defeated by Indian population in the poll. Resorting to extra judicial methods for imagined
grievances is really bad to thing to do.

Muslims cannot use such lame excuses and ask for separation and countries and destroy families in that process.

Re # 54

On a similar note, whites are majority in USA and if (note if) most consider, even they
do not show, they are not superior to non-white, are you going to ask for a separate
country?

Should african americans be justified in asking to carve out a country for
themsleves somewhere in Southeast of USA and justifiy the ``sunken costs`` for the
human life that will involve for the purported benefits of not having to live next to
racist (not outwardly showing) white american and not having to live with competing
with whites for jobs, education etc..

read

, they are superior to non-white

in post # 61 instead of

, they are not superior to non-whites

#60 by shishapa on June 8, 2005 7:37am PT


So when Muslims consider theirs is the only true religion, Allah is the only god, Quran is
the final and only book, rest are all false books and god, non-believers are Kafirs,
non-muslims are just suppoed to take it.


Yes...unless they force you to convert or something, their thinking that way isn`t against the law...I think all religious books are false..that`s within the law too...and, yes, you are supposed to shut up and take it...

tahmed, you are incorrect, its not hindu animosity, its hindoo bania perfidy.

dyno, babu singh making these statements is not abnormal in india (dog bites man genre). now, if a minister of azad kashmir makes such statements, that would be a bombshell (man bites dog). no offense to recently much-maligned dogs ;-)

Re: # 65

``Perhaps it is the truth that too many Indians are not at peace with ``

Trust me. almost everybody is. Forget about Pakistan, no one even cares about PoK, its a lost cause. Only VHP/Bajrang Dal will make noise about it. But they are known for their rhetoric, no one takes them seriously.

Regarding Jinnah, I am glad that pak was created. Only regret is that millions stayed back in india. I think people/gov of pak should work on his dream and should open its door for muslims from india. People like you should work on it.

Netizen #59 Perhaps it is the truth that too many Indians are not at peace with - and the truth is that the mullahs opposed Jinnah in the creation of Pakistan. Their head-mullah Maudoodi came to Pakistan only after a few years had passed after partition when he some political opportunities for mullahism in Pakistan.

So clearly Jinnah was not one of the mullahs. And the truth is he had the moral character to not pay any hypocritical homage to mullah fetishes: he openly drank, didnt make a big deal about pork, and dressed in western clothes. And the truth is that he changed from being the ``Ambassador of hindu-muslim friendship`` to being the worst nightmare of the Congress only after he saw the realities of hindu chauvinists.

Advani was doing nothing more than belatedly recognizing this reality about Jinnah. And, like ideologues of all stripes (hindu, muslim, neo-conservative, commuist), the BJP ideologues are as scared of the light of truth as dracula is scared of the light of the sun.

jang #64 i see hindu animosity every day on chowk - not hindu perfidy. so, i am quite correct in what i said.

shishapa #60 Thank you for inadvertantly illustrating the point i made earlier about the demeaning of muslims and of islam. Thankfully, it doesnt matter what indians like to think about islam and about muslims. You are only deluding yourself - Pakistan is here to stay, and Islam is considered in the west as being one of the world`s great religions.

But dont let that stop you from re-inforcing my point by providing live illustrations of your animus to islam. :-)

tahmed

article from rediff.com. Just an opinion from B.Raman

---

Jinnah was not a fundamentalist Muslim. He did not want the Muslim clerics to have any say in the governance of an independent Pakistan or in the formulation and implementation of the laws of the country. However, he was not secular. He was responsible for the polarisation between the Muslims and the Hindus, the consequences of which the Indian subcontinent continues to witness even today.

Anyone, who had studied the British archives of the period before 1947, would have known how Jinnah let himself be used by the British colonial administration before 1947 in order to divide and weaken the independence struggle of Mahatma Gandhi. Periodic Hindu-Muslim riots in different parts of India were not the creation of Jinnah. They were an unfortunate occurrence even before Jinnah made its appearance in Indian politics.

But Jinnah, with the quite encouragement of the British, imparted to them a virulence which they did not have before he started demanding the Partition of India on the basis of his two-nation theory that the Hindus and the Muslims could not live together in the same nation. The British used the aggravated communal tension and violence as a result of Jinnah`s policies to try to deny independence to India on the ground that the Indians would not be able to govern themselves and that the people belonging to different religions would be at each other`s throat if they left the country.

When, despite their machinations with the help of Jinnah, Gandhi`s independence struggle continued to gather momentum, they cunningly encouraged Jinnah`s demand for the partition of India. After having opposed it initially, Gandhi had to ultimately agree to it. It was the British fear that a largely Hindu India might not serve the Western interests that led them to encourage Jinnah`s demand for Partition. Their calculation that an independent Muslim nation would serve the Western interests proved right.

Jinnah`s two-nation theory was supported by the Punjabi, Bengali and Sindhi Muslims, but not by the Pashtuns and the Balochs. The Pashtuns led by Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, who came to be known as the Frontier Gandhi, and the Balochs led by their tribal sardars, strongly opposed the policies of Jinnah and supported Gandhi. There was a time when Jinnah could not set foot in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan because of the strong local support to Gandhi and opposition to him.

Even the Muslims in other parts of India refused to support Jinnah. The Jamaat-e-Islami Hind strongly opposed the demand of the Indian Muslim League headed by Jinnah for the partition of India on the basis of the two-nation theory because it feared that the coming into existence of Pakistan could endanger the position of the Muslims in the rest of India.

Gandhi believed in a non-violent independence struggle. Non-violence had no appeal for Jinnah. He used violence to push forward his struggle for a separate Muslim nation. He instigated communal clashes, which resulted in bloody massacres of Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress leaders condemned these massacres, Gandhi went on a fast unto death and they repeatedly toured the affected areas in order to calm the communal passions.

Jinnah rarely condemned the communal riots and used them to advance his cause for an independent Pakistan. His first statement calling for inter-religious amity, from which Advani has quoted, came after Jinnah had achieved Pakistan and felt that continuing his communal politics in an independent Pakistan could prove counter-productive.

But, by then, it was too late. The communal poison injected by him into the civil society of the areas which now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh acquired a virulence which could not be eradicated. He found himself marginalised by his colleagues in the Muslim League. The Jamaat-e-Islami and other religious parties came to the forefront.

This set in motion the train of events, which ultimately led to the proclamation of Pakistan as a theocratic state and an Islamic republic and the inclusion in the preamble to its constitution of the principle that the State shall be governed according to the will of Allah. This gave an exalted position to the mullahs as the only people competent to interpret the will of Allah.

Jinnah has always been a controversial leader in the subcontinent`s history and he does not command even today much respect among the Sindhis, the Balochs and large sections of the Pashtuns. While the Balochs and the Pashtuns opposed the creation of Pakistan, the Sindhis supported it and their leader the late G M Syed was a co-sponsor of the famous Lahore Resolution, calling for the creation of Pakistan. Even he got disillusioned by the post-1947 evolution of Pakistan as a nation dominated by the Punjabi Muslims. Before his death in the 1990s, he admitted that he had committed a Himalayan blunder by co-sponsoring the Lahore Resolution.........