India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

Re: # 62

What, you think that gives me some kind of sadistic pleasure, actually, I wish, in the case of muslims on our side of the border that were not the case today.

#65 ``sadistic pleasure`` - i didnt say that. i said - ``dream on.`` kapeeshy, sri passerbyjee?

#64 shishapa: good question, actually. If you look at the past record, whatever their shortcomings pakistani leaders have generally played their cards right - starting from the Cold War (where they clearly sided with the US rather than with the now-defunct soviet union or the NAM nonsense); when China split from the soviets, Pakistan was ahead of the curve (selling used PIA planes to them when no one else would sell western airlines to china, serving as bridge between the US and China); and so on.

While there are ideological nuts in Pakistan, by and large people (and leaders) are I think non-ideological and pragmatic.

Now, my brain needs a rest after this strategic thought. :-)

#67 tahmed sirjee shishapa asked what is the long-term goal ..is there a common shared vision amongst its succesive rulers? if so, what is it? what you stated are the tactical twists and turns in response to ``geo-political`` conditions.

Aparna-ji,

I have bad news for you. Being a good intentioned + noble person does not mean you have any worthwhile ideas. Somehow that is hard for you to grasp. This is a big failing of our secular-badis.

Now here is an article that critiques the indian state AND is based on history, analysis and thought. It takes time, sweat and effort, not just vague ideals.

HOW PLURALISM GOES BAD
- When it comes to its borders, India is dogmatically status quoist

http://telegraphindia.com/1061207/asp/opinion/story_7103712.asp

Any audit of India’s record as a democracy has to account for the atrocities committed in its name, particularly in its borderlands. Put crudely, the Indian state’s pluralism seems to fail in every state and territory that isn’t predominantly Hindu. The violence inflicted on Kashmir and the north-eastern states, to take just two examples, has been systematic, unremitting and almost colonial in its indifference to civil rights and due process.

Aparna:

There is reason to be hopeful.

A couple of years back, I wrote an article on chowk: ``The beginning of the end of the Kashmir Problem``. [url: http://chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002176&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1]. Events seem to be following more or less in the direction pointed therein. In particular, I had predicted that ``Musharraf will do an about-turn on Kashmir similar to the one in Afghanistan, if and when it becomes necessary in the interest of Pakistan.`` I believe that Musharraf has now come to the conclusion that a peace with India is necessary if Pakistan has to develop into a stable, moderate Islamic country.

All the ingredients of a settlement are there. Politically, Pakistan is under army rule. A civilian leader in Islamabad cannot enter into a deal with India without looking over his shoulder towards Rawalpindi; Musharraf only has to get his Corp Commanders on side. In India, Manmohan is merely carrying on a process started by Vajpayee.

Manmohan Singh had said that the borders cannot be redrawn, everything else is negotiable. Musharraf has now agreed that borders need not be changed. Manmohan Singh has talked of common institutions for the two sides of Kashmir; Musharraf has talked of the common supervision. The following interview of Musharraf with the Indian journalist A. G. Noorani shows how close the two are:

``Noorani: You have used some phrases or concepts which are misunderstood. I know you have not spoken of joint sovereignty (over Kashmir) but joint management; maybe joint control.

Musharraf: One of the four steps after demilitarisation is self-governance. Let the people govern themselves. You talk of maximum autonomy, lots of people talk of maximum autonomy. We need to define what is the maximum autonomy that you are talking of and what is the self-governance that I am talking of. We need to see how the people should govern themselves. Lastly is the superstructure that gives comfort to both, Pakistan and India, and their involvement and some responsibility and some commitment; involvement, I would say, in having their say on both sides of the border.

Noorani: I was coming to that. I am very happy that you have mentioned it. The prime minister of India, at the round table conference with Kashmiris in Srinagar on May 25, used strong words - `institutional arrangements’ between the two parts of Kashmir. Would you consider that as an acceptable mode of joint management, an institutional arrangement linking the two parts of Kashmir?

Musharraf: Yes, I think that is a starter. This is a very good term. Would you identify?

Noorani: There is a model. The Ministerial Council between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, it may not have executive powers. Let us face it, we cannot have executive powers. But if there are regular meetings, trust builds up and they evolve joint policies by common consent without wielding executive powers. Would you consider that a good substitute?

Musharraf: The term you use, `institutional arrangements’, is what I think is correct. But we need to define the modalities.

Noorani: If the leaders agree politically, then the lawyers come in. What you have said is a very forward step because there was misunderstanding about joint control and joint management? Now you have said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s proposal on institutional management is doable, I think that is a step forward.

Musharraf: Yes. But let me clarify. Noorani Sahib, this term `joint management` was first coined by (former Indian diplomat) Mr. J.N. Dixit. These are not my words. I took these words from Mr Dixit when he coined them, where we had backdoor diplomacy going on, and that is how I started calling it joint management. So these are not my words really.

Noorani: I find much common ground between what you have said and what our prime minister has said. For example, both of you agree that the LoC should be made `irrelevant’. The prime minister said at the round table conference on May 25 that it becomes just a line on the map. Do you think this is a good statement?

Musharraf: I think it is a good statement.

Noorani: In other words, de jure the sovereignties end at the line on the map. But de facto the state becomes one.

Musharraf: Yes. That kind of an arrangement, as you said, this institutionalising the arrangement, needs discussion and thought. I have said we give governance to the people and we then make an arrangement which is acceptable to both Pakistan and India.``

India should not hesitate to agree to a joint management. I think that India will get more out of this than Pakistan. In exchange for giving Pakistan a say in Indian Kashmir, India would get to have a say in the affairs of Pakistani part of the Kashmir and, in particular, the strategically sensitive Northern Kashmir with boundaries with China.

I believe that the Kashmiri universe is unfolding as it should.

Re: # 67

Ja, and so my little brain concludes that as long as Pakistan does not
obsess and takes actions over Kashmir, they will do just fine for themselves.
So things like 1965 war, 1989 onwards policy of thousand cuts,
Kargil adventure, will they or similar things happen in future or they are they
are out of fashion now as far as Pakistan is concerned and would not be
used in future?

Re:mohar#63

[..As usual pakis are trying to be too clever by half... supporting taliban on one hand and then inviting chinese military for ``strong support against domestic terrorists``...]

Yaar mohar, Pakistan has been making a ``choutia`` of a lot of people, particularly the Americans and the Afghans for a long while. They have been playing double and triple games, siding with the Taliban, going against the Taliban, going partially with the Taliban, supporting the US, sabotaging the US and so forth.

The Americans are too straight-forward and trusting to understand this level of machiavilllean tactics while the Afghans do not even have the IQ to figure out how the Pakistanis are systematically ruining them.

It takes desis like us Indians who operate at a significantly higher level of cunningness and IQ levels to see through Pakistani tactics in geopolitics. Thats why they have not been able to make any progress in screwing us while they are making complete fools out of the americans and the afghans.

[The official Pakistani view is that Kashmir is the ‘unfinished business of Partition’; it is the missing ‘K’ in the word Pakistan. The basis of Pakistan is the ‘two nation’ theory and the existence of a ‘Muslim majority’ region in India negates this theory.]
[The official Indian view has been that Jammu and Kashmir ‘lawfully acceded’ to India when the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India in 1947. Kashmir provides basis for India’s secular status, a Hindu majority country with a Muslim majority region]

``Two nation theory`` was also an agreed upon ``Partition principle`` for the division of sub-continent into India and Pakistan. India implicitly accepted this principle by applying the same to the division of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab. I wonder whether you can apply a principle without accepting it? And if India accepted this principle then why do they refrain from applying it to the case of Kashmir?

``India`s Secularism`` has nothing to do with ``Kashmir Dispute``. This is an example of reaching a decision before on some other grounds and then ``creating artificial reasons`` to justify the decision. India can still remain a secular state by resolving Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of all concerned that is, Indians, Pakistanis and above all Kashmiris. Pakistan has shown flexibility a number of times but India is still maintaining it`s rigid stance that Kashmir is an integral part of India.

This is not an issue of secularism or ideology, it is simply a right of self-determination of Kashmiris. ``People who identify themselves as a nation are a nation`` and people who think themselves as different on whatever grounds, religious, cultural or linguistic are a different nation. That`s why Kashmiris are a different nation and India should accept this fact. In fact it did accept it in 1947 and now India`s claim on Kashmir is nothing but unjust and gross opportunism.

Line of Control as permanent borders and free unhindered travel of Kashmiris on either side of two Kashmir will be good humanaterian consideration as was demonstrated for the first time more than year ago.

Both Mushaaf and Manmohan Singh are the last chance of Indo pak `link`who knows what the gen x leaders are growing up with on both sides of the border .....

We have situation of two bulls locked in horn and no matedore to steer them away.........

Re: # 70
[...India should not hesitate to agree to a joint management. ... In exchange for giving Pakistan a say in Indian Kashmir, India would get to have a say in the affairs of Pakistani part of the Kashmir and, in particular, the strategically sensitive Northern Kashmir with boundaries with China]

India should NEVER agree to any ``joint management`` cra@p...

1. India don`t need to have a say in paki part of kashmir - we have been doing just fine without it... so too wrt ``strategically sensitive Northern Kashmir`` - we are doing fine without it...

2. Reciprocity works with ``normal`` nations... with pakis, it will not... paki establishment has wheels within wheels - nobody controls the system fully... no matter what anybody says or promises - islamism will never go away in pakiland and there will always be groups with their own agendas which will take advntage of ``joint management``...

Learn from Kargil - how many lessons do you really need before you learn this simple, obvious fact?... Never trust pakis with any accord, treaty, agreement, joint management or whatever... keep them at arm`s length is all that india has to do...

Re: # 70

So who are considered Kashimiris on Pakistani side and Indian side?
Are residents of Northern Areas considered Kashmiris?
Are people from Jammu and Ladakh considered Kashmiris?
Or Kashmiris means those whose mother tounge is Kashmiri or
residents of what Pakistan calls Azad Kashmir and Vale of Kashmir on
Indian side?

Re: # 72
[...They have been playing double and triple games, siding with the Taliban, going against the Taliban...]

True and they will continue to do so... which is why there should never be any ``joint management`` with pakis... pakis should never be trusted.... Indians like DM never seem to learn from history and they are repeating the same mistake again and again...

Pakis have lost the ``kasmir cause`` - they have no cards to play now... so they are begging for any crumbs that may come along... Mushy is floating ``ideas`` every other week - somehow to get a foothold to get back in the jihadi game... And fools like DM are falling for it - hook, line and sinker... it`s a f**ing shame, really.... even after losing so much to islamic jihad, these people have learnt nothing...

F***ing shame indeed...!!!

#76:

shishapa, the discussion is about the entire Jammu and Kashmir state, so all of them are included.

Re: # 76

It`s a f***ing red herring... kashmiri this, kashmiri that - paki ``kashmiris`` don`t speak the language no more, settled with punjus anyway.... indian valley has 4 million people - that`s about it...

The border is sealed - keep it sealed, let people have business/cultural association and that`s it... no joint management bullsh!t... it`s f***ing retarded to even consider such nonsense...

Re: # 77

I agree. When LOC becomes IB, it should be treated as International Boundary just like rest of the India Pakistan border.
No special provision and India should abrogate that silly Article 370 or 365
or whatever it is at the same time. No special provision to anybody.
Kashmiris have not tapak`ed from aasman, it is just another state with
just another language with as colourful history as any other state within
Indian union.