Let us Not be Foolish

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

Connecting terrorism`s dots

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Dec. 27, 2001

Washington Times

In an attempt to avoid embarrassing Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and to pre-empt any Indian campaign to extend the war against terrorism to cover terrorist training camps in Pakistan, the White House announced Dec. 20 it was blocking the assets of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) which it described as ``a Kashmiri terrorist organization that has conducted a number of operations against Indian troops and civilian targets in Kashmir since 1993.``

That was once over very lightly. If truth be known, the facts behind LET are identical to Osama bin Laden`s al Qaeda`s organization. The terrorists are interchangeable between both organizations. They were all trained in al Qaeda`s camps and some of bin Laden`s Afghan Arabs have already found refuge among LET`s ranks in Kashmir. The White House`s new formulation calls LET ``a stateless sponsor of terrorism.`` But LET is also Pakistan-based and Pakistan-sanctioned.

LET`s ranks consist of Pakistanis, Afghans, and Arabs led by Pakistani cadres. Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence agency oversees LET`s terrorist operations. Headquartered at Muridke outside Lahore, LET holds annual conclaves that are attended by serving and retired officers of ISI and the regular army, political leaders, and retired scientists of Pakistan`s nuclear establishment. LET`s terrorists are ``freedom fighters`` dedicated to ``the liberation of Indian-occupied Kashmir.`` Its political cover is called Marka-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI), a fiercely anti-U.S. pseudo-religious, extremist organization.

LET`s last big meeting was held in Muridke April 13-15 and was attended by retired Gen. Hameed Gul, a former head of ISI and currently ``strategic adviser`` to Pakistan`s extremist religious parties; Retired Gen. Javed Nasir, another former ISI director general; Abdul Qadir Khan, the father of Pakistan`s nuclear bomb; Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, formerly with the Atomic Energy Commission and recently detained at the request of the U.S. for questioning about his meetings with Osama Bin Laden. The conference passed a resolution calling on its ``freedom fighters`` to capture Hindu temples, destroy the idols and hoist the flag of Islam on them.

ISI was tasked with ensuring that no journalists gained access to the meeting. But some did. The News reported on April 22 that LET ``operates six private military training camps in Pakistan and Kashmir where several thousand are given both military and religious education.`` The newspaper also reported that LET runs 2,200 recruiting offices across Pakistan and some two dozen ``launching camps along the Line of Control [LOC] in Kashmir,`` which makes it ``the biggest jihadi [holy warrior] network in Pakistan.``

No militant training center in Pakistan can operate without the consent of the army, now in power, and ISI, a state within a state whose chief reports only to Mr. Musharraf. Yet the government continues to be in a state of deep denial. Presidential spokesman Gen. Rashid Quereshi says, ``No group operating in Kashmir has any base in Pakistan.``

Mr. Musharraf is riding a terrorist tiger and is having trouble dismounting. Last May 18, Najam Sethi, the editor of ``Friday Times,`` an authoritative weekly journal, summed up the president`s dilemma: ``The Musharraf model seeks to covertly ally with the jihadi groups while overtly keeping the mainstream religious parties out of the power loop. This is to enhance and sustain its covert external agenda, while internally maintaining an overtly moderate anti-fundamentalist stance for the comfort of the international community whose economic support is critical to Pakistan`s financial viability.``

The terrorist attack against the Indian Parliament Dec. 13 was almost certainly the work of Jaish-e-Mohammed (Soldiers of the Prophet), another Pakistan-based terrorist organization. This writer found its slogans painted in towns and villages throughout the Pakistani tribal belt last week, to wit: ``Jaish-e-Mohammed and al Qaeda are Bubbling Blood Brothers`` and ``For Commando Training, Contact Jaish-e-Mohammed.`` The motive for the attack was most probably an attempt to disrupt the budding U.S.-Pakistani alliance and isolate Mr. Musharraf.

After ditching Taliban, it becomes increasingly harder for Mr. Musharraf to crack down on those who would Talibanize Pakistan. In fact, he released from detention the No. 1 religious extremist firebrand, Fazrul Rehman.

Mr. Musharraf is now caught between a rock and four hard places — Afghanistan where the anti-Pakistani, pro-Indian Northern Alliance holds the key government positions in the new coalition under Hamid Karzai; a hostile India on the edge of retaliatory action; a disloyal ISI; and a belligerent extremist clergy.

Despite the appointment of a Musharraf loyalist as the new head of ISI when U.S. bombing started last October, the powerful agency has not been responding to the president`s pro-American policies. One regional ISI general even went so far as to rattle tribal chiefs by telling them Pakistan would be next in America`s crosshairs after the defeat of Taliban. The secret organization continues to undermine him at every turn. The country`s principal political leaders are fearful of ISI. They draw the initials with their fingers in the air when the subject comes out lest they be heard by ubiquitous bugs. And they say nothing short of a top-to-bottom reform of ISI, followed by accountability to a yet-to-be-created national security council of civilian and military leaders, will bring the agency back to its proper place in the body politic.

The Taliban infrastructure in Pakistan emerged unscathed from Taliban`s defeat in Afghanistan. While ISI is officially cooperating with the U.S. in hunting down Taliban`s deposed leaders, senior Taliban officials are now resting comfortably in their second homes in Quetta and Peshawar, the two frontier towns where they had parked their families when the bombing started. One has even given an interview to a British newspaper. Another has given a ``religious lecture`` at the madrassa — the ``University for the Education of Truth`` — where he graduated in the town of Khattak. ISI is doubtless aware of these activities. But is Mr. Musharraf?

Belatedly, over the Christmas weekend, Mr. Musharraf decided to freeze the accounts of LET and Umma Tamee-e-Nau (UTN), the group the U.S. believes passed nuclear weapons data to Osama bin Laden. The LET chief then resigned. It is to be hoped that a thorough housecleaning of ISI is next on Mr. Musharraf`s must-do list as he returns from a weeklong state visit to China.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20011227-79790204.htm

Amanullah Khan, chief of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front believes that the divided

Jammu and Kashmir should be reunited (Indian administered and Pakistan administered)

in several peaceful phases and made a fully independent State for, say 15 years, with

a democratic, non-communal and federal system of government. That government should have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The international community should give an undertaking that none of the neighbouring states will interfere in the internal affairs of the new state or violate its frontiers. Similarly, the new state of J&K should ensure its neutrality and not allow its soil to be used against any country. After 15 years the UN can ask Kashmiris if they want to remain independent or become a part of India or Pakistan. Every party should then accept the popular decision of a referendum. A UN peace and monitoring force can ensure the fairness of such an exercise.

``In my view, both India and Pakistan have to choose between the status quo and independence to a re-united Jammu and Kashmir. For India, the status quo will mean continued trouble in Kashmir as is happening right now. On the other hand, re-unification of an independent J&K can go a long way in developing friendly relations between India and Pakistan, with Kashmir acting as a bridge. This is the only solution for a peaceful and prosperous future for the region.

Pakistan has already missed a number of chances. In 1948, India`s deputy prime minister, Sardar Patel offered the entire region of J&K to Pakistan. His condition was that Pakistan should abandon its claim on Junagadh and stop supporting the demand of complete independence then being made by the Nizam (the ruler) of Hyderabad State in Central India. Pakistan rejected the offer with the result that it lost almost all the three states. Today, every Pakistani repents missing that chance. Here is yet another chance for Pakistan.

A friendly, independent Jammu Kashmir will be far more beneficial to Pakistan than the status quo. After some time even this chance may not be available to her. By parroting the demand for implementation of UN resolutions, which deny to Kashmiris their right to independence and may never come to pass, Pakistan is bent upon committing another folly. And after Clinton`s visit, Pakistan should do some soul-searching and try to understand the dynamics that are now driving international politics.``

Pakistan`s combination of a military Government, nuclear weapons capability, and support for Muslim extremists in Kashmir, has transformed its image in the West from a somewhat autocratic, yet moderate Islamic nation, into that of a reckless and unstable country.

Many Pakistanis share such concerns, but welcomed the coup because they thought a military government might crack down on the Islamic right.

Yet five months after the coup, it is clear that General Musharraf has very little room for manoeuvre.

The United States President, Mr Bill Clinton, got some idea of just how little when he dropped in for lunch in Islamabad last Sunday. The general offered no concessions.

The banners that greeted the President on his drive through a capital turned ghost town by a massive security operation, graphically illustrated Pakistan`s fatal obsession with Kashmir.

All the way to Islamabad, the pedestrian overpasses sported official banners demanding human rights for the Kashmiris, a mock-up of Pakistan`s nuclear test site and replicas of the medium-range missiles the country has developed, with China`s help.

Reality, in Pakistan, has become surreal, and dangerously so.

Pumped up by state-run broadcast media, the nation of 140 million people is fed an unrelenting diet of distorted and highly emotive propaganda about the plight of their brethren in Kashmir, India`s only Muslim majority state.

Before leaving their briefing, journalists are handed a video and photographs, depicting decapitated civilians, allegedly the handiwork of Indian troops said to have crossed the Line of Control in February.

On the ground in what the Pakistan Government calls the ``liberated`` area of Kashmir - basically the part it controls - people displaced by the conflict are used to score points.

At Zaffar camp, they are brought out of their tents to denounce Indian shelling, and deny that armed Muslim guerrillas regularly cross over to attack Indian forces, and create mayhem of the kind that struck the Sikh-dominated village of Chattisinghpora, where 36 men were massacred by unidentified gunmen on the eve of Mr Clinton`s visit.

But Brigadier Nawaz admits the wider propaganda war is being lost. ``We can`t get our point of view across, because the world is looking at India as a vast market,`` he says.

``Liberating`` Kashmir has become an article of faith for Pakistan`s generals. Clinton can point out to the military regime that the conflict with India is ruining Pakistan`s economy and its international relations. But will a country with its back to the wall listen to economic and political logic?

Stephen Cohen on Kashmir

For many years there were few Indian-Americans or Pakistani-Americans in the US, let alone Kashmiri-Americans, so the political pressures were not there. Second, the uprising 1989 surprised everyone, including most Pakistanis, transforming the Kashmir situation. Finally, it was not until India tested nuclear weapons that the full dangers of Kashmir were widely appreciated. My concern is that domestic political pressures will polarize the issue further, that the Kashmir uprising (which was pro-democracy and relatively secular) will be submerged by Jehadists, and that the nuclear threat will frighten outsiders away, not draw them in. You will then have the worst of all possible worlds, a torn Kashmir, dominated by extremists, a disinterested outside world, and the prospect of a nuclear flashpoint.



http://www.brook.edu/comm/chat/cohen000321.htm

-

IK Gujral on Kashmir

Like any other Indian politician, Mr. Gujral, too, asserts that the Indian-Kashmir must remain with India, and both the countries (Pakistan and India) should accept the Line of Control as the permanent border. Why? Because if Kashmir goes, the 150 million Muslims in India will suffer heavily; there will be a civil war, a truly catastrophic situation.

If we hold plebiscite in Kashmir, then Tamil Nadu and other areas will also ask for the plebiscite. We cannot allow it.

Mr. Gujral does not accept the special status of the state of Kashmir, which has been given special rights in the Indian constitution. He says the Kashmir issue was solved after the 1971 war. An excerpt from his comments:



Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi had agreed that the Control Line (LOC)will be the permanent border, but Bhutto told Indira that since [he] has recently taken over and the army is still bruised after [the] defeat in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), he [Bhutto] cannot sign the dotted line. He said he needed another six months when he will come back and sign the agreement. Indira Gandhi was naïve. She let Bhutto go back. And you know Bhutto as he was, he changed his mind.

MOHAMMED AYOOB, Professor of International relations at Michigan State University. He`s written extensively about South Asia. Born in India, he`s now an Australian citizen.

: I think, as far as India is concerned, it has to recognize the fact that the United States is a global power and has global interests. And I think it has begun to do so. The talk of unipolarity, while it does continue and aversion to unipolarity in terms of the public media and so on -- but the government of India I think clearly recognizes the fact that there is only one super power in the international system today, and that it has to come to terms with that reality.

On the part of the United States, there must be a clear recognition of the fact that India is the regional, managerial power; it is the preeminent and predominant part in the region, and it is able to provide public goods to its neighbors, which means that is essential to maintain the stability and security of the region. The United States must also recognize that it cannot either mettle on the Kashmiri issue, and also that it should put pressure on its friends in Pakistan to desist from the dangerous game they have been playing now, because in the context of a nuclearized subcontinent, infiltration and aiding and abetting insurgencies, even if you take the moral high ground on that, is a very, very dangerous affair.

And there is, I would argue, no give on the Indian position on Kashmir, no matter what, because it would reopen -- any concession on Kashmir would reopen all the wounds of partition, the trauma of partition. India cannot afford another division of the country on the basis of religion because it would have a tremendous negative impact on the future of the 130 million Muslims in the rest of the country who are citizens of India and equal citizens of India and should be treated as so. Opening up this Pandora`s Box would pander to the basis instincts of those Hindu chauvinists who consider all Muslims fifth columnists. So there is no give on the Indian position on Kashmir. The 120 million Muslims of India cannot be sacrificed at the altar of so-called rights of the three or four million Kashmiris.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june00/clinton_3-22.html

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BC21Df03.

Caught between here, there, and nowhere

By Tabibul Islam

DHAKA - It`s not a shortage of eligible grooms, but an acute accommodation problem that`s the reason behind a large number of women remaining single in the cramped refugee camps for Pakistani nationals in Bangladesh.

Hard pressed to raise money to build even an extra room, refugee parents are in a bind. There are some 20,000 unmarried girls in the 65 camps spread across the country. These were set up to shelter Pakistanis who remained after the creation of Bangladesh in December 1971.

``Where shall I live with my wife if I marry right now?`` asks a 30-year-old man, pointing to the tiny one room in which he lives with his parents, and eight siblings and cousins in a camp at Mohammadpur.

Sheikh Md Jalaluddin owns a small semi-permanent room in the camp. His two daughters are of marriageable age, but he cannot afford to build two rooms for them. Each would cost about $700. ``Where can I get so much money from?`` he laments.

These refugees, who are called Biharis since they are originally from Bihar, India - having migrated to what was then East Pakistan in 1947 - have been interred in refugee camps in the hope of being repatriated to Pakistan. But successive governments in Islamabad have stalled on the issue, unwilling to risk a backlash against a fresh flux of outsiders in Sindh province where a majority of refugees from India had settled following the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Nor are the Urdu-speaking Biharis are welcome in Bangladesh. Though the majority of refugees in the camps were born after 1971, they are still seen as having sided with the Pakistani army during the country`s liberation war. Over the last two decades they have tried all possible ways to draw international attention to their plight, taking to the streets, holding demonstrations and hunger protests. ``Our life is hell, the animals are better than us,`` says a very bitter Jalaluddin, a refugee.

Tanvir Adnan, a young Bihari thinks there`s no future for young people like him in the camps. It`s worse for the girls, he says. There`s every chance of their going ``astray``, he adds. Another refugee said young women in the camps are targetted by sex-traffickers and pimps. There is a hint that sometimes the girls leave willingly because of the bleakness of life in the camps.

Ejaj Ahmed Siddiqui, chairman of the one of the groups representing the refugees, says his organization offers monetary assistance for the marriage of poor Bihari girls. ``But our capacity to help is limited,`` he adds.

The Bihari refugee camps are squalid. Piles of garbage lie unclaimed, everywhere. Sanitation is deplorable and water supply is scarce. Residents have to queue up for hours to use the toilets. Tempers run high, and fights and scuffles are common sights as people hurriedly try to get ready for work. Many of the younger people have found jobs in the garment and sari-weaving factories, handicraft units and other small establishments. But many more are involved in the illicit liquor trade, and in petty crime.

Older refugees blame Pakistan for the mess they are in. After four rounds of repatriation of some 175,000 Biharis between 1974 and 1992, the rest have been left to languish in camps, they say.

Refugees under 35 years are increasingly reluctant to share their parents` hopes of migrating to Pakistan. Born in Bangladesh, they want to become Bangladeshi citizens.

A 40-year-old Bihari with two children said two generations of his people have led ``sub-human`` lives in refugee camps awaiting repatriation. ``Our children are now studying in Bangladeshi schools and speak Bangla. Bangladeshi culture is now our culture. We have no intention to go to Pakistan if the Bangladesh government gives us citizenship, voting rights and other facilities,`` he says determinedly.

Some refugee leaders are now publicly making this demand. Addressing a press conference at the National Press Club, Dhaka, on March 5, Sadakat Khan, president of a refugee youth organization, said they would ``prefer`` to stay. ``We prefer to rehabilitate and settle ourselves in Bangladesh deviating from the earlier stand of repatriation which seems a closed chapter with no prospect at all.``

Urging the government to accept them as nationals, he said Pakistan has betrayed them. He said that while Pakistan provided food and shelter, and even arms, to some 4 million Afghan refugees during the communist-rule in Kabul, it ignored the Biharis in Bangladesh.

``Pakistan is testing nuclear bombs and weapons and also providing help to Kashmiris fighting against India. But it is a matter of shame to say that Pakistan cannot afford the burden of its own citizens stranded in Bangladesh,`` said Khan.

(Inter Press Service)

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/03/20/fp9s1-csm.shtml

Will South Asian leaders get real?

Clinton visit to Pakistan and India is fleeting opportunity for peace

Irfan Husain- KARACHI

An outsider watching Pakistan Television or the plethora of Indian channels crowding the airwaves can be excused for thinking war between the two nations is imminent. Those of us who are used to this saber-rattling have been to the brink - and beyond - before.

This is not to say that the war hysteria being fanned on both sides makes it easy to go to sleep: Terms like ``limited war`` and ``hot pursuit`` are gaining currency. And to give explosive substance to this war of words, the Indian government has announced the intention of jacking up its defense budget by 28 percent.

PAUL LACHINE



Not a day passes without a bellicose statement by leaders at the highest level in both capitals. The Indian defense minister has gone so far as to claim that India would win both a conventional war and a nuclear exchange. Such irresponsible statements do nothing to calm the situation. The fact those in power are even contemplating nuclear war is the stuff nightmares are made of.

One frightening problem is that most of our leaders are too unsophisticated to comprehend the chilling implications of using nuclear weapons in densely populated areas. For them, atomic bombs are just bigger conventional explosives. They have neither the technical information nor the imagination to grasp the horrors of nuclear fallout on a vast population scale.

People on both sides of the great divide talk glibly of nuclear deterrence as a viable - even desirable - doctrine, pointing to nearly half a century of cold war between the US and the Soviet Union that ended in defeat for the latter without a shot being fired. They forget there were elaborate fail-safe systems in place on both sides to prevent the accidental use of nuclear weapons. Also, vast distances separating their nations gave leaders an opportunity to abort an attack erroneously launched. India and Pakistan do not, alas, enjoy the luxury of geographic separation.



US to tread softly in South Asia tour



The 28 percent increase in India`s defense budget works out to around $3 billion - about the size of Pakistan`s entire annual military expenditure. Fortunately, General Pervez Musharaf, Pakistan`s chief executive since the October coup, has said Pakistan won`t try to match India`s budget and will not be drawn into an arms race. Hopefully, this refreshing sanity won`t dissipate by the time the new budget is presented in the next couple of months.

By any standard, the amounts being spent on armaments in South Asia are enormous. But set against the abject poverty here, they assume obscene proportions. Year after year, both India and Pakistan sink billions of dollars into defense expenditure. At the same time, both are at the very bottom of international rankings in education, nutrition, health, housing, and sanitation. Despite the obvious contradiction between widespread destitution in both countries and the vast unproductive defense expenditures, successive governments in New Delhi and Islamabad have consistently shown a lack of will to settle their differences through negotiation.

Both are so completely fixated on the disputed northern region of Kashmir that it would seem they have no other problems. Although leaders on both sides pay lip service to the well-being of the unfortunate people of the Kashmir Valley, the truth is that they only covet the land and are willing to fight to the last Kashmiri to get it. Along the way, if thousands of Indians and Pakistanis are nuked to cinders, too bad.

The mulelike rigidity on both sides makes a peaceful resolution of the problem virtually impossible. Pakistan`s stand can be reduced to an unshakable resolve to talk about Kashmir, and only Kashmir. India, on the other hand, repeats the mantra of ``everything but Kashmir.`` After the coup in Pakistan, India`s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party has seized upon the unconstitutional nature of the present Pakistani government as an excuse to refuse negotiations. Neither side has shown any imagination or vision in handling this Gordian knot. Meanwhile, the likelihood of both sides stumbling into war increases.

Under these circumstances, both nations should welcome President Clinton`s South Asia visit this week as an opportunity to break the logjam.

So far, India has refused to accept a third party playing a role on Kashmir on the grounds that problems with Pakistan must be resolved bilaterally. But as it is presently rejecting direct talks with Musharaf`s military regime, it makes sense to speak to Islamabad through an intermediary.

Given the current thaw between Washington and New Delhi, as well as Pakistan`s previously cordial relations with the US, Mr. Clinton is ideally placed to mediate. The US has the clout and the credibility, and Clinton has the personal charisma and the diplomatic skills required to make a breakthrough. This visit is the best chance South Asia has for peace in the foreseeable future. Even though Clinton`s term of office is drawing to a close, his personal involvement in initiating a peace process will be crucial to kick-starting a dialogue.

To create a conducive atmosphere for peace, it`s important both sides take some initial steps. Pakistan can use its influence with the guerrillas in Kashmir to temporarily halt their attacks, while India can stop its bellicose anti-Pakistan rhetoric and temporarily cease offensive military measures in Kashmir.

While such minor initiatives may seem too much to expect from our immature leaders, it is time they realized far more than their frail egos is involved.

It`s time, in short, to get real. This fleeting opportunity must not be wasted.

Indeed, public sentiment has been whipped up to such an extent in both countries that it is difficult to discuss a rational solution all three parties can live with. It`s clear none of them will get what they want - but then that`s what negotiations are about. The Indians will not get all of Kashmir, nor will Pakistan - short of an all-out war in which one side emerges the undisputed victor. But in a nuclear war, there can be no winners. The Kashmiris will not gain complete freedom as most of them seem to want, though in an ideal world that would be the best solution.

If all three parties grasp the fact that in the real world, you make compromises and gain part of what you want, then we can start talking about solving this problem once and for all. But above all, they have to realize that posturing is no substitute for realistic, hardheaded policies.

No sir! it is not the time to resolve Kashmir. Other issues like

1. Return of war criminals being held in Pakistani jails since 1965.

2. Mutiliation of Indian soldiers.

3. War of Kargil.

4. Hijacking of Indian airlines.

5. Return of criminals like Dawood Ibrahim, Chhota Shakeel (who blew bombay in early 1990`s),

and are living in Karachi.

I think it is time that Pakistan must stop supporting Kashmir and Kashmiris and concentrate on its economic, social, etc, etc, efforts.

Musharraf must declare to the world that ``We do not support Kashmir and it is India`s internal matter, we will help India to solve this problem``

As long as Pakistan keeps its nose in India`s Internal affairs (Indian muslims, etc), problems between India and Pakistan won`t be solved.

Best Regards,

Amrinder Singh Nalua

http://www.nzz.ch/online/04_english/background/background2000/background0003/bg000307kashmir.htm

NZZ Background on World Affairs, March 2000

The Kashmir Conflict: Rooted in Colonialism

Dim Prospect of Compromise between India and Pakistan

Hermann Kreutzmann

The territorial, strategic and legal dimensions of the Kashmir conflict are many-layered. In part, they may be traced to the

colonial domination of the British Empire, the consequences of which did not disappear with decolonization. The following

article examines the historic background of what is still the most prominent field of tension between India and Pakistan. The

author, a professor of cultural geography and development at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, stresses the region`s

traditional ethnic heterogeneity, which remains an obstacle to any solution on the basis of territorial division.

Many after-effects of the British colonial empire are still being felt today. The Kashmir crisis is an enormously costly and controversial field

of conflict, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. The conflict involves not only India and Pakistan, but also the inhabitants

of Kashmir itself. They do not constitute a homogeneous society and do not even all belong to the Kashmiri language group. In addition to

their division into Indian (Kashmiri, Punjabi, Dogri, Pahari) and Tibetan (Ladakhi, Balti) languages, the population is split into different

religious communities. The region is inhabited by followers of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. The lines of religious separation are not

congruent with the linguistic divisions, and it is not easy to demarcate clear areas of settlement in terms of language or faith.

The Two-Nation Theory

The starting point of the conflict is complicated. The partition of British India into Muslim-dominated Pakistan and a predominantly Hindu

Indian Union was accomplished on the basis of the so-called two-nation theory, according to which those districts of British India which had

a Muslim majority, according to the last available census data from 1941, were to go to Pakistan, while areas with Muslim minorities would

remain in India.

This criterion applied to Kashmir as well. But its application failed there, because the British had also granted rulers of principalities

unilateral deciding power. The reigning Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was of the Hindu Dogra dynasty, while the majority of his

subjects followed the Muslim faith. There were also regional differences within his territory. Most of the Muslims lived in the densely

populated Kashmir Basin and adjacent mountainous areas; Kashmiri Muslims made up more than 90 percent of the Basin`s population, that

percentage dropping to 86 percent only in Srinagar, the capital, where members of other religious communities played an important role in

commerce and administration. The Hindu and Sikh centers of settlement were in neighboring Jammu to the south and in the surrounding

Pir-Panjal Mountains. But even there, non-Muslims constituted a majority of the populace only in localized parts of the eastern section. It

was from that area, which had a 53 percent Muslim population according to the 1941 census, that the Hindu ruling house of Dogra had

come. After partition of the subcontinent, however, due to border adjustments and the flight of refugees the population structure in Jammu

shifted to produce today`s Hindu majority. Numerically less significant, but clearly present through a significant portion of Maharaja Hari

Singh`s area of rule, was settlement by a Lamaist-Buddhist population in the east and northeast. Ladakh, Zanskar and Rupshu make up the

thinly populated area with a non-Muslim majority.

According to the 1941 census figures, all of Kashmir had a total population of 4 million people, with the following religious breakdown:

77.1 percent Muslim, 20.1 percent Hindu, 1.7 percent Sikh, 1 percent Buddhist and .1 percent Christian.

This geographic and religious heterogeneity - particularly between the majority of the population and the ruling house, but also between

various social groups - laid the foundations of the subsequent conflict and provided different interest groups with a welcome instrument of

political mobilization. All of which was exacerbated because Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision about whether to throw in his lot with

India or Pakistan until the last moment.

Briton Against Briton

The history of the first war between the newly independent states of India and Pakistan has often been described in exhaustive detail, and

yet there are sharp differences between the views of historians in each country over the trigger and course of the controversy. Be that as it

may, the important point for our purposes is how the first war was conducted and how it ended.

The troops on both sides were still under British command when they fought one another in Kashmir. At the start of combat in October

1947, British officers were still in charge of both armies, supported on both sides of the front by troops of the nascent armies of the

respective countries. And those colonial British officers were commanded by Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, who ranked as the

supreme commander of both Indian and Pakistani troops. Some researchers stress that this paradoxical situation led to a rapid UN

intervention aimed at peace talks.

In his 1991 book ``Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990,`` historian Alastair Lamb notes that, in the view of most British observers at the

time, a partition of Kashmir would have been the most sensible solution, quite in accord with the two-nation theory. India would have been

assigned large segments of Jammu and Ladakh, areas with Hindu and Buddhist majorities, while the rest of the territory ruled by the Dogra

dynasty would have gone to Pakistan. That model for a solution was put forward again in 1950 by Britain`s ambassador to the United

Nations, but both India and Pakistan rejected such a compromise. At that time, both parties were calling for a general referendum to decide

to which country the entire territory would belong. As a result, in the peace settlement of 1948 there was agreement on a withdrawal of all

troops to behind the agreed cease-fire line, the creation of separate zones of influence in Kashmir, and the immediate holding of a

referendum.

Siachen - a Battle over Ice and Rubble

Without significant changes, that cease-fire line survived the second war between the two countries, which was fought mainly in Kashmir in

1965. Mediated by Soviet Prime Minister Kosygin, the peace treaty of January 1966 was negotiated in Tashkent between Indian Prime

Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, and confirmed the status quo as well as a pullback of each side`s troops

to behind the Line of Control, which became the permanent new name for the cease-fire line.

In the third round of armed hostilities between the two states, which culminated in a second partition (of Pakistan, this time) and

independence for Bangladesh, the Kashmir conflict played only a subordinate role and the status quo there was again confirmed in the 1972

Treaty of Simla between Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The question of an independent and internationally supervised referendum

on the future status of Kashmir remains unanswered on the diplomatic level to this day. Since the mid-1980s, however, behavior in the

Kashmir conflict has changed. Every summer, there are high-altitude clashes between India and Pakistan over the Siachen Glacier, which

bring with them fighting on both sides of the Line of Control. Observers sent by the UN keep a careful record of these events, in which the

adversaries do battle from their high-altitude perches over an area in which no one lives and which has no economic treasures to offer.

Indian maps still show all parts of northern Pakistan, known there as the Northern Areas, as Indian territory. If that presentation is violated,

in textbook maps for example, the books are stamped as follows: ``The external boundaries of India as depicted in the Maps are neither

correct nor authentic.`` In serious cases, such books are banned from public sale or not allowed to be presented, as has happened at the

International Book Fair in Delhi. The Bartholomew maps of the Indian subcontinent, published in Edinburgh, are issued in two versions: one

edition is meant for India, the other provides the rest of the world with a look at the borders as they actually exist today.

The areas involved include the former Gilgit Agency, with the old principalities of Hunza and Nagir, the governmental districts of Punial,

Yasin, Kuh, Ghizer and Ishkoman, and the administrative districts of Chilas and Baltistan. Taken together, the area covers roughly 67,000

square kilometers (somewhere between the size of Switzerland and Austria). In the Indian view, the North-West Frontier Province with

Chitral constitutes Pakistan`s eastern border, and the Shandur Pass at an altitude of 3,700 meters would constitute the northwestern access

gate to India. Kashmir`s northern frontier would thus be its border with China. But India also denies the validity of this borderline. A border

correction was made here, agreed upon in the Pakistan-China treaty of 1963 and meant to clarify frontiers demarcated during the colonial

era. The area in dispute was of some 8,800 square kilometers, two fifths of which is now under Pakistan`s control. In fulfillment of this

treaty, agreement was reached on construction of the Karakorum Highway, which was actually built in the Northern Areas with Chinese

assistance. India has repeatedly protested against both the territorial division and the highway construction, terming the latter an ``unfriendly

act`` in various documents and diplomatic notes.

At present, the Karakorum Highway is the only economically functional traffic artery between South and Central Asia, though the

once-friendly relations between Pakistan and China have cooled markedly. In 1997, Chinese border troops built a metal fence and new

guard posts along the nearly inaccessible line at an altitude of more than 4,500 meters (roughly 15,000 feet), claiming that the move was

intended to provide better control over the yak herds that graze at that altitude and also to prevent Islamic fundamentalist fighters from

infiltrating across the border to join Uigur separatists in Xinjiang Province.

In legal interpretations of the status of these areas under international law, a 1941 internal decision by the British colonial administration is

used as a key document. The binding decree contained a precedent-setting formula with regard to the principalities of Hunza and Nagir,

stating that ``Though these are under the suzerainty of the Kashmir State, they are not part of Kashmir but separate states.`` The term

``suzerainty`` remains crucial to the bilateral differences in this region to this day and permits a great latitude for interpretation. As in the

question of border demarcation, here too there is an intentional, deliberate imprecision both in the demarcation of spheres of influence and in

the determination of sovereignty. During the first half of the 20th century this strategy was used to keep the door open for later colonial

intervention. But today the formulation is a major obstacle to a peaceful settlement between the adversaries.

Controversy in International Law

The Pakistani government regards the Northern Areas and Kashmir as two distinct structures under international law. This view is also

reflected in their constitutional structure. The Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir (which is Kashmir in the narrower sense of the term) is

known as ``Azad Kashmir`` (Free Kashmir) and has its own constitution, with separate governmental organs - presidency, cabinet and

parliament. Strictly speaking, then, Azad Kashmir is not an integral part of the territory covered by Pakistan`s constitution.

The residents of the Northern Areas live under a very different arrangement. They have been granted neither a semi-autonomous

constitution nor integration into and equal status with the rest of Pakistan, in the sense of being considered a province. Their lives are

governed by the Pakistani constitution, but that document grants them only a segment of the rights it gives to other citizens of Pakistan. The

people of the Northern Areas, in turn, see themselves as a football caught between mutually antagonistic powers, and lately they have been

trying to put a spotlight on their interests by creating a so-called Balawaristan (Highlands) movement.

The external trigger for this intensified attention is efforts by politicians from Azad Kashmir to give their own cause - namely, the

implementation of a referendum throughout all of Kashmir - a greater chance of success by extending voting privileges to the people of the

Northern Areas. They assume, quite correctly, that in case of doubt those people would vote for adherence to Pakistan. But fearing

renewed Dogra domination in northern Pakistan, politicians from the Gilgit and the surrounding area reject that approach. They have very

real reservations about ending up in a minority position within Pakistan; while Kashmir has a population of more than a million, the

inhabitants of the Northern Areas number just 870,000.

Independence as a Solution?

Kashmiri nationalists see a third possibility of solution to the crisis: the creation of a landlocked State of Kashmir independent of both India

and Pakistan, which ideally would be made up of Pakistani-controlled Azad Kashmir and Indian-dominated Jammu and Kashmir.

For strategic and economic reasons, Pakistan and India are unanimous in rejecting that vision. Numerous resistance groups are pursuing

their own separate paths in an effort to gain independence and to shake off the puppet regime under Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah which,

it is widely felt, is barely visible in Srinagar and spends most of its time in Delhi.

The present mood among the people of Kashmir would seem to favor separation from the two big neighbors and pursuit of the third option.

But in view of their own domestic instability, which poses a danger to their national unity, that is something neither India nor Pakistan would

permit.

http://www.fas.org/eye/indo-pak.html

Pakistan’s Nuclear and Missile Facilities Revealed

News Briefing

When: Wednesday, 9 AM 15 March 2000

Where: National Press Club, Lisagor Room

Contact: John Pike - 202-675-1023

New satellite images of Pakistan’s nuclear and missile facilities provide fresh insight into the nuclear dangers on the subcontinent. The high resolution images, acquired by the Federation of American Scientists from the Space Imaging IKONOS satellite, show details of Pakistan’s weapons facilities previously known only to the secret intelligence world. The public release of these images on the eve of President Clinton’s trip to India and Pakistan highlights the urgency of new initiatives to address the risk of nuclear escalation between these countries.

The Federation’s Public Eye project is acquiring imagery of nuclear and missile facilities around the world. In February it released imagery of the North Korean missile test facility, and imagery of additional facilities will be released in coming weeks.

The imagery covers two of Pakistan’s most important special weapons facilities, the plutonium production reactor at Khushab, and the nearby medium range missile base at Sargodha. Plutonium from the Khushab reactor would probably be used in light-weight nuclear warheads for the M-11 missiles at Sargodha, which Pakistan acquired from China in the early 1990s. The new satellite imagery indicates that construction of the Khushab reactor is essentially complete, and that Pakistan has built a dozen garages for mobile missile launchers and associated vehicles at Sargodha.

“Pakistan has laid the groundwork for a force of dozens of nuclear tipped missiles capable of striking Indian cities and military bases. But Pakistan is in danger of having most of its nuclear eggs in one basket, which would be a tempting target for a pre-emptive Indian attack in a time of crisis,” according to John Pike, who directs the Federation’s Public Eye project. “The United States needs to work with India and Pakistan to reduce this temptation for launching disarming attacks. With Pakistan and India apparently moving ahead with deploying nuclear forces, the danger of such attacks will grow. In the past, American policy focused on preventing these countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the future, American policy need a new focus on initiatives to reduce the risk that these weapons will be used.”

PAKISTAN`S CHRONIC COUPS

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0003/press.html#5

Pakistan`s Never-Ending Story

Why has Pakistan, throughout its 52 years, experienced nearly constant political instability? Stanford scholar Sumit Ganguly finds an answer in the country`s early days, when the state`s founding party served elite interests and opened the doors to a dangerous military-bureaucratic collaboration. Now General Musharraf, leader of the October coup, wants to clean up Pakistan`s economic, social, and political messes. But the record of military regimes in this hapless country offers little hope that he will get the job done.

Despite his solemn promises and patriotic rhetoric, it is unlikely that Musharraf will be able to ease Pakistan`s deep-rooted malaise in the short period of time that the West will tolerate his unelected rule. Already, the British Commonwealth has voted to keep Pakistan out of its proceedings until democracy takes hold. The longer Musharraf stays in power, the less likely it will be for civilian institutions to make a comeback.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/news4-03102000.htm

Pakistan agency fuels violence, U.S. official says

By Ben Barber

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A high-ranking State Department official says Pakistan`s Inter Service Intelligence agency (ISI) is fomenting extremist violence in India`s northeast, possibly working through dissident groups with bases in Bangladesh.

``We believe the ISI is helping the militants in Assam,`` said the State Department official, who spoke on the condition he not be identified.

``Since they attack unarmed civilians for political purposes, [the militants] meet the classical definition of terrorists.``

Indian and Bangladeshi sources said their governments had determined independently that ISI agents in Bangladesh were encouraging, training and arming some of the militants of the United Liberation Front of Assam and other groups.

The militants for more than 10 years have been blowing up trains and shooting policemen and civilian officials with a goal of winning independence for Assam, a remote Indian state almost entirely cut off by Bangladesh.

Indian academic and journalist Rajeev Sharma charged in a 1999 book that ISI`s goal in backing the anti-India extremists in Bangladesh was ``to disintegrate northeastern India.``

The accusations come as President Clinton prepares to visit India, Bangladesh and Pakistan from March 19 to 26 — despite recommendations by his Secret Service that he faces a risk from terrorists in Pakistan.

India for years has claimed that Pakistan is aiding militant separatist groups in Assam.

But the comments by the senior U.S. official in an interview were the first indication that the United States also believes Pakistan is working to spread discord 500 miles from its border with India.

The United States earlier this year accused Pakistan of granting refuge and support to the Harakat ul-Mujahedeen, the group blamed for hijacking an Indian Airlines passenger plane in Kathmandu, Nepal, in December.

Indian diplomatic sources say Pakistan also gave arms and training in the 1980s to Sikh separatists crusading in Punjab for a separate state they would call Khalistan.

India also blames Pakistan for encouraging Islamic militant groups based in Pakistan to cross the border into Indian-held portions of Kashmir, which has been torn by sectarian fighting since 1990.

Zamir Akram, deputy chief of mission at Pakistan`s embassy in Washington, denied the charges Thursday. He in turn accused India`s intelligence agency — the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) — of sponsoring terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

``It`s not unusual for India to blame the ISI for everything,`` said Mr. Akram. ``It`s impossible. What kind of outreach can ISI have in Assam?

``We accuse the Indians of terrorist acts in Pakistan. We have arrested people who were interrogated and said they were paid by RAW to plant bombs in railway stations and markets.``

Mr. Akram also said there were reports RAW was behind sectarian violence in Karachi and that some Indian politicians openly advocated terrorism against Pakistan as a punishment for its anti-Indian stance in Kashmir.

A senior South Asian diplomat who is not from India said Thursday that Pakistan`s ISI has been infiltrated by Islamic militants who are working with fundamentalists in Bangladesh to prepare attacks on India.

``The ISI is active in Bangladesh,`` he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``ISI is very active and has a large number of fundamentalists in the organization and they have links with fundamentalist groups in Bangladesh.

``We are very watchful about it, and if we find any link we try to bring them to justice. We have told the U.S. State Department to be careful about that and keep a watch on their activities.``

Pakistan`s ISI also is acting in the politics of Bangladesh ``to destabilize the political setup through fundamentalist elements with links to the Afghans,`` said the diplomat.

The Indian diplomat noted that last year a Bangladeshi man working with the Osama bin Laden terrorist group in Afghanistan was caught in New Delhi preparing to bomb a U.S. consulate.

Bangladesh is a mostly Muslim country of 140 million that was part of Pakistan until it won independence in a bloody civil war in 1971, aided by the Indian army.

Some Bangladeshi political and military groups still hate India and favor Pakistan. Bangladesh sources accuse them of allowing the ISI to operate.

Supporters of bin Laden recently were captured in Bangladesh, where they had infiltrated with the help of ISI, according to the sources.

Bangladesh Ambassador K.M. Shehabuddin said Thursday that Pakistani intelligence has been operating terrorist cells in his country, but they have been stymied by the Awami League government of Sheik Hasina, who is grateful for India`s help to her father, Sheik Mujibur Rahman, in the struggle against Pakistan in 1971.

``The present government makes it impossible for ISI to operate against India from Bangladesh — the president won`t allow it,`` he said. ``We are careful about it. We are always opposed to fundamentalism.

``We want good neighbors.``

Don`t worry!

Even hawks are working for Pakistan.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR KASHMIR

This report is Part 2 of a symposium held recently in the San Francisco
Bay Area city of Fremont on September 19th organized by the American
Muslim
Alliance (AMA) and United Muslims of America (UMA). Abdul Gani
Lone of Indian Held-Kashmir`s All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC) was
The chief guest. A report ``Why Does the World Not Take Pity`` covered his
speech a week or so ago. This article adds the ideas and suggestions
presented by representatives of the American Muslim community present at
this meeting.
In light of recent events in South Asia where two nuclear powers,
India and Pakistan have emerged on the world scene in 1998, and with the
``near war`` that was diffused in Washington in 1999 between the two on
last July 4, America`s independence day, it was good to see that Muslims
in this
country have begun to realize the significance of the Kashmir problem
while the rest of America remains largely ignorant of it. Even as East
Timor and Kosovo have been on page one of the press in the United States
several times recently, once again Kashmir, to the immense relief of
India, has largely escaped such attention. Or has it?
Is the September 1999 issue of National Geographic magazine any
indication? Or is the letter to President Clinton just circulated and
signed by over 50 US Congressmen and Senators requesting a special envoy
for Kashmir? Either way there appears to (finally) be some movement to
discuss this problem in Western capitals after five decades. The Kargil
mini-war has shaken some people, especially of South Asian origin in the
United States too. The question that is on everyone`s mind now is what
next?
After Abdul Gani Lone`s speech which was covered in Part 1 and widely
circulated, the AMA`s Agha Saeed and UMA`s Shafi Refai invited the
participants at the symposium to present their ideas in front of both
American Muslims and some members of the Indian Community including two
Kashmiri Hindus. Unfortunately both Jeevan Zutsi, a very politically
active Indian
American and Mr. Surinder a Pandit (Kashmiri Hindu) representative towed
the standard Indian line that the whole problem was because of
Pakistan, and the only solution was for Pakistan to end its ``proxy war``
and then the tensions would disappear. One could sense that even when
this argument was nothing new, their efforts here reflected a lack of
conviction. That both of them
sat through the event, and were not intimidated in any way by the
overwhelmingly Muslim participants, and listened quite politely, is a
reflection of the regard that South Asians are capable of having for
each other. And if this same regard could somehow be translated to the
negotiating table, maybe over a
billion people of South Asia could sleep better at night, be much
better fed, and educated on both sides of this divide called the Line Of
Control (LOC) in Kashmir.
The solutions suggested by the participants were as follows:
1) The APHC should declare statehood and become the de-facto Government
of Kashmir in exile. 2) A Kashmir Task Force be formed in the US so that
the violation of human rights in Indian-held Kashmir could be
continuously monitored and exposed. 3) The State should be partitioned
between India and Pakistan and the boundary should be the river Chenab.
4) Create soft borders between the two Kashmirs so that people could
meet each other and lessen tension. 5) The Kashmiris should try civil
disobedience instead of armed opposition against India.
6) Maximum autonomy should be granted to the area of Kashmir held by
India. India would agree to anything that involved the continuity of an
Indian flag flying over Kashmir. In other words anything short of
independence or merger with Pakistan. The Hindu Pandits could then also
return to Kashmir. 7) There should be 4Th Party mediation (US or UN)
since there are already three parties in this dispute including the
Kashmiris. 8) We should ask the Kashmiris what they want. Only that
should be implemented. 9) Kashmiri Muslims and Hindus should get
together and both India and Pakistan should leave the area. 10) India
and Pakistan should become closer. South Asians should co-operate and
Kashmir will get resolved only then. 11) Outside mediation is a must.
12) Let both India and Pakistan fly their flag over one Kashmir. 13)
Pakistan has to stop this war. (But can it and will that solve this
problem?) 14) Kashmir has to be divided in the context of the partition
of 1947. There cannot be a third option (independence). Only a
plebiscite or a negotiated settlement is possible. Muslims in America
can play a role. 15) Kargil was a political fiasco. Limited plebiscites
in parts of Kashmir on whether they want to join Pakistan or India are
the only solution now. 16) Let India give autonomy to Kashmir for now
but Pakistan should never give up it`s claim to it. 17) A totally
independent
Kashmir is the only solution. 18) Totally free independent elections in
Kashmir should be a start in which everyone should be allowed to
participate without rigging. 19) Economic progress in Kashmir should be
the goal now. Once the economy recovers, Kashmir will then no longer be
a problem.
After listening to all these suggestions, the Kashmiri saying shared
with us by Abdul Gani Lone makes a great deal of sense. He said that a
dog fell in a village well and the water started smelling bad. So many
people gathered together to find a solution to this problem. One said
``let us remove 200 buckets of water from the well then it won`t smell
bad``. Another said ``leave it alone for a while and the water will get
better``. People had many different ideas except for the most logical
one. That was to get the dead dog out of the well so that the problem
could really be solved once and for good. Mr. Lone said that in this
case the ``dead dog`` is India`s claim that Kashmir is it`s integral part.
And to resolve this issue India must first recognize that Kashmir is
disputed territory. Then there will be many reasonable
solutions that can be found which will work. But who will help us get
this dead dog out of the well that is smelling up the entire region of
South Asia and now beyond?
Keeping all these suggestions in mind and if India is willing to be
reasonable, this scribe would like to add a solution number 20. Even
though this involves some degree professional risk and assuming that
someone is able to get this dog out of the well, the following comes to
mind:
When two parties to this dispute absolutely agree that only they are in
the right then the only logical solution is to divide the area of
Kashmir not lost or gifted to China by both India and Pakistan into two.
50% each or strictly half the land to each is the only fair solution.
This is done in many family quarrels when two people fight over an
inheritance. Someone in India has recently suggested
something similar. And the suggestion about regional referendums or
plebiscites makes sense here, but with one exception. The Hindu Pandits
have to be given a part of Kashmir to call home. Because like the
Muslim Kashmiris, they too have
a very rightful claim to the once enchanted land. India would part with
roughly 17% more territory in Kashmir by losing most of the Valley
(minus Panun Kashmir for the Pandits), Doda District in Jammu and small
parts of Ladakh. The Siachen Glacier could also be permanently
demilitarized. India thus loses the land, wins the peace and reaches the
UN Security Council as a permanent member for this ``sacrifice``.
Short of complete independence for Kashmir which neither China, India
and Pakistan will agree to, all creative ideas should be welcomed that
will solve and not perpetuate this problem. A full-scale war between
India and Pakistan is no longer an option for the sane. Converting the
current LOC to the international border will not satisfy either Pakistan
or the
Kashmiris. And as the twin destinies of India and Pakistan have been
tied from birth, it is very possible that neither will survive the death
or disintegration of the other. And finally for God`s sake, let us end
this hell that the Kashmiris live in today once and for all.

Ras H. Siddiqui

Kargil Blues

Coiled in this deception lie many betrayals
Of the murdered and brutalized
As the mountains of Kargil become silent
Humanitarians turn a blind eye to tears
Only the Kashmiris know their fate now.

For fifty years we quoted UN Resolutions
The champions of human rights responded
As the Pavlovian bells for Pakistan took their toll
Cannon fodder and used lemons of the Cold War
Friendships were never meant to be lasting

The Sanctity of an unholy line is asked from us
But do they bless the raising of the Berlin wall today?
Which came down with the help of Afghan blood
Sacrifices of two generations and the streets of my city
The legacy of guns and heroin our reward

Kashmiris will die for lost freedom
Pakistan from across this Line Of Cruelty will watch
India will agree to talk for the next fifty years till
The Mahatma Gandhi reincarnates himself except this time
To appear as a horseman in
A future South Asian apocalypse.


Ras H. Siddiqui

Umairr #: 141

Pakistan`s only viable response should be to reduce defence spending, incredible as it sounds, and go for modified Giap option. (Months ago you promised to look into that option. Did I miss your response?)


rgds

t