India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

``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``

to hell with that `Maharaja` -- The disgusting folly of this stupid Indian line for legitimacy is that it is the Hindu Maharaja who acceded (as if against the wishes of the majority Muslims ) and that made it `legal` -- it did not -- the inside truth is that it is the leader of the Muslim majority Abdullah who acceded -- and that made it legal -- the maharaja just signed the papers......case closed.

``It is possible for the Kashmir dispute to be resolved but for that there is a need for both sides to be more flexible than they are presently. Pakistan needs a civilian leadership, which realizes that covert war against both its neighbors is not a long-term policy and therefore seeks close bilateral relations. For this to happen, however, the military has to back off from involving itself in politics and return to its primary role as the defender of the country from external threats, not internal ones. ``

given all the positive statemments that may emerge from India and Pakistan about resolving the so called kashmir `dispute`, I do not think that this `dispute` will be resolved. the main reason being that this is the issue that keeps the pakistani military, intelligence and religious parties in business. this is also the issue that keeps the large indian military, nuclear weapons establishment and hindu religious parties in business. without the `k` issue, the existence of all these `protectors` of our countries will be in doubt. given the large kashmir lobby in both our countries, any resolution looks doubtful. none of the above parties will be willing to give up the vast resources of funds they can tap into by the very mentioning of the `k` word.

so resolution of kashmir currently looks to be a fantasy flight right now. 50 years from now when the new generation is incharge without the tnt hangover, this `dispute` may be resolved.

till then, we will be at each other`s throats.

rgds,

devkant.

Re: Ranjit # 3

A U-turn is not necessarily a bad idea.

A person can continue to break their heads against a brick wall in the hopes that the wall will disappear or they can turn around and search and find another way around the wall.

If Lemmings had ever learned of U-turns, there would be a lot more Lemmings in the world today! :)

Ciao

Ranjit Re: # 3
``
Our real fear is that in a few years, Pakistan will be to India what Mexico is to the US - a source of illegal immigrants looking for a better economic future. That would be a real challenge``

---

Now that will be very painful to Pakis. They may almost demand unification for economical reasons. No prizes for guessing Indian response.

regards

[...India too has to understand that it cannot pretend that there is no dispute in Kashmir and has to take the plunge by offering both dialogue on the outstanding issues (like border disputes and Kashmir) and build close cultural, economic and social ties with Pakistan. ....]

Yawwnn!! Yet another mindless article on Kashmir ``dispute``. Pakis have already given up on Kashmir. Mushy has virtually made a U-turn that has barely registered in Pakistan - so much for the ``jugular vein`` theory. India needs to do nothing except carry on meaningless polite conversations from time to time.

Give it another 5 years. With 10% per year economic growth in India, the gap between India and Pakistan will become so wide that the Paki demand for Kashmir will become a joke. Why would any Kashmiri in his right mind want to leave a rich resurgent India for a poor declining Pakistan anyway?

Our real fear is that in a few years, Pakistan will be to India what Mexico is to the US - a source of illegal immigrants looking for a better economic future. That would be a real challenge.

Just as only Nixon could go to China, no civilian leadership in Pakistan has, or will have, the courage to solve the Kashmir issue. The crux of the matter is that if there has to be change in the mind-set of the army, it will be a result of ``in-house`` change and not because the army has suddenly decided to obey a civilian leadership. Furthermore, it is a stale stable that suggests that Pakistani army is determined to hold on to Kashmir, because in the recent past, the threat orientation of the Pakistani army is not focused on Kashmir but internal problems and issues.

As to the pronouncements from Islamabad about Kashmiri policy of Pakistan not changing despite Musharraf`s ``out of box ideas``, attention has to be paid to substance and not form when it comes to deciphering India-Pakistani political labyrinths. The indications that some thing might be afoot, came from the Indian prime minister himself, because Manmohan Singh would not have welcomed the suggestions of Musharraf if they had been merely pro forma proposals. Musharraf cannot only suggest alternations in Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, but he can also implement them and in this, he would have the institutional support of the army. The recent statements of Indian foreign minister, on the floor of the Indian parliament, that India would have to re-consider its idee fixe in regards to border disputes with China and Pakistan, also suggest a movement towards a rapprochement on the issue.

A possible endeavor towards a solution will have to start with the admission of the problem and the problem hindering the resolution is not Kashmir, but the intractible nature of domestic politics in India and Pakistan. It is still too early to cement a conclusion on these parleys, but if there is a realization in both India and Pakistan that the official political prisms need to be changed, then there is a reason to expect more gradual, but meaningful movement forward on this issue. Another caveat to be considered, is the appointment of India`s High Commissioner to Pakistan as the foreign secretary. It is safe to assume that having spent time in Islamabad, the new Indian foreign secretary would be knowledgeable about Musharraf`s private thoughts on the issue and will be able to bring these ideas to the attention of Indian policy makers. Another indication that serious progress is being contemplated on the issue, would be the appointment of Pakistan`s next High Commissioner to India.

In the case of India-Pakistan diplomacy, common sense would suggest to look towards newspaper headlines, but also to listen to the silence of the Holmesian dog that did not bark in the night. A confirmation of this can be glimpsed in the newspaper articles in Pakistan, because there are certain newspapers, which have arrogated upon themselves the mantle of Kashmir`s defenders and when the offical policy continues in a bureaucratic status, these papers do not devote much space to the issue, but when the policy meanders; they suddenly start to ring alarm bells and the bells are ringing in Pakistan presently. These papers have a good reason to be concerned, because the Indian government recently reconsituted a committee on Kashmir to study the issue/problem and one of the names suggested for it was Mani Shankar Aiyar.

This name, itself, would not mean much, but when nuanced with the fact that Aiyer is an old friend of Kasuri, the Pakistani foreign minister, and the two have have been friends since their days in Cambridge, the Track-Two diplomacy suddenly takes on added importance and meaning, because we now would have two people engaged in the process, who have the means; the familarity and the trust to by-pass the traditional bureaucratic obstacles and machinations.

There is a growing institutionalization of the peace process in India and Pakistan and this reality would suggest that it now needs to be geared into the next phase, which is to move beyond dialogue to discuss the solution. The process is still to fragile to embark upon an instant solution, but it is robust enough to predict that it is not so vunerable to sudden twists and pit-falls of Indian-Pakistani politics. This is the level of comfort; confidence that the peace process needed and now that it has achieved it, both sides will be willing, in private but not yet in public, to move away from their stated positions on the issue. The important consideration to remember is that it is a process and as with any other process, the yardstick of success is, and will not be, necessarily the attainment of certain politically popular aims, but the continued viability of the process itself.

Once this happens, the next phase would be to prepare the local political sentiments in both India and Pakistan of the offical fait accompli on the issue and as things stand, that is the general direction in which this process seems likely to progess. This might not be the begining of the end of the problem, but it is certainly the end of the begining of the problem. In a lighter vein, the joy of the journey sometimes does not reside in the haste to reach a particular destination, but in the manner how one reaches the end of the journey.

Ciao

It again seems like a De Ja Vu - endless long debate on things already said, minced and digested.

Here is Musharraf - and also Manmohan - who both think that this issue can be wrapped up.

And what better way to do than to simply reach an AGREEMENT on the Staus Quo.

Loc remains there - but irrelevant. Both Kashmirs simply look after their affairs. And India-Pakistan mechanism on top just as a fig-leaf cover.

Instead of splitting hair - and going round and round - just sign the damn thing and let every one rest in peace.

No body is losing & no body is winning - Qazi & RSS can go to hell. Let the common man on both side heave a sigh of relief - travel easily - and trade easily.

nhk

ferozk:
in your highly enlightening interact#4, you forgot to say a prayer for the bright, young pakistani kids from rural and urban areas who died for a hoax (Masala-e-Kashmir). A hoax that was pulled by the war criminals that occupy islamabad, in their yet another game to trade in blood and build their power with ruthless calculation. After nearly 30 years and countlessly many innocent indian and pakistani deaths, this Mafia is going to do an ``out of the box`` solution of agreeing to the status quo of 1989. Just brilliant.

Perhaps, the most immediate question should be about the cruel absurdity of this thing that seems to have completely escaped you.

Re: # 8

Once the army is convinced, you have convinced the politicans in Pakistan.

The Islamic minded parties are around 3-5 percent of Pakistani politics and granted, they might be a nusiance, but they will never control the foreign policy because that is the preserve of the military in Pakistani politics and has been since the 1950s.

Politicans in Pakistan are not interested in foreign policy; they are interested in powers of privelege and perks. As the saying goes, the army has them by the short and the curly and once they army decides, the hearts and the minds of the politicans will gladly follow. :)

Ciao

#4 by ferozk

Musharraf cannot only suggest alternations in Pakistan`s Kashmir policy, but he can also implement them and in this, he would have the institutional support of the army.

That`s exactly where the problem lies, Feroz Sahib. Just because the Pakistan Army agrees, the Kashmir dispute won`t go away. Tomorrow, some politician (most likely the Islamist parties) might whip up the same sentiment that has held Pakis in thrall for the last 60 years, dismissing the peace deal signed by Musharraf, what do we do then?

I don`t know the exact solution to this dispute, but one thing is certain: this solution will have to have across the board acceptance in Pakistan: starting from the Paki Army (and its agencies, ISI being prominent), the political parties, the Islamists, and most importantly, the Paki public.

[In a recent interview to an Indian television station General Musharraf stated that Pakistan would ‘give up its claim’ to Kashmir if India would accept ‘self-government’ in Kashmir.]

Yo, Kashmir WAS self-governing between Aug 15, 1947 and Oct 24, 1947.

That period of self-government was ended when Frontier tribesmen, led by Pak Army officers ``on leave of absence``, invaded Kashmir.

So Pakistanis have to accept that Indians are not going to fall for that line of ``self-governing`` Kashmir.

Pakistanis will have to suck their gut in, accept they can do diddly-squat about Kashmir and get on with life.... which actually means death by a thousand rockets from the US Air Force.

Recent attempts at alterning the definition of TNT, if seriously pursued, may make it a little easier for the layman to accept LOC as the solution.

Re: # 11

The jehadi spirit (for what ever that means) took a mortal blow when the MMA was proven to be a politically minded party. The situation in Pakistan is fluid and it is unsettled because the nation is in the process of changing; changing from the policies of the past. As to FATA, the point to remember is that FATA has always been unruly and if you have not visited the region, you can be easily forgiven for believing CNN. :)

If you are really and trully interested in understanding the region and its politics, I would suggest that you read Rahimullah Yusafzai; an expert on the region who writes for The News in Pakistan and is also the ``voice of BBC`` and has been reporting on the region for the past 30 years.

Ciao

Re:ferozek#5

[..A U-turn is not necessarily a bad idea....]

That is true, except for the fact that Pakistan has made U-turning an art form. As the Afghanistan experience shows, Pakistan first supported the Taliban, then dumped them in 2001 under US pressure and then again from 2005 onwards started supporting the Taliban upon perceiving US weakness and distraction due to the Iraq situation. As a result, the Taliban are ruling the Waziristan areas and have come back as a real threat to the Karzai regime.

The present flexibiliy towards India could be just a tactical move in the face of rigid Indian opposition to any compromise on the control of Kashmir. With the LOC fenced up and the overall US pressure, there is little else that Pakistan can do to influence the ground situation in Kashmir. Once the Indian government relaxes its grip, demilitarizes significantly, allows Pakistan a foot into Kashmir and opens up borders, Pakistan may fall back to the pattern of supporting jihadi activities, this time with an institutionalized foot in the door, sparse Indian military presence to counter the activities and with US pressure not to break down the Indo-Pak compromise. That would be a disaster for India as Kashmir would de facto slip away from India. Hopefully the mandarins in North Block are smart enough to understand this.

The problem is in the lack of institutions in Pakistan side besides the army. One man, the army general, makes all policies. If he is in a good mood he is conciliatory. If he has a fight with his wife, he wants to pick a fight. There is no insitutional basis for formulating policy and maintaining continuity. Until that happens, it is dangerous to negotiate on territorial issues.

#AUTHOR, #1 NASAH.
#1 And what is wrong with a hindu maharaja? ..you almost sound like a religious racist!!
Main question..Why cant muslims live peaceably under non-muslim regimes?
The muslim premise of ``inherent superiority`` ..``martial race`` ..smacks of ``love of the gun`` and ``gun culture`` and ``might is right`` and so on..
Is that the reason why instead of producing ``intellectual capital``..the muslim world has only produced ``terror capital``?

For the last 1000 years, has the muslim world shown any integeration?
Even in the recent past we have
1 - Pakistan
2 - Bangladesh
3 - Southern thailand..
all seccession no integeration anywhere!
And now we have ``more of the same`` in Europe!
Mark my words..it is only a matter of time!
Soon ``root causes for Euro-terrorism will be sought out / cooked up / blown out of proportion as the islamic ``unwashed`` in europe ask ``their rights`` using same causes as in kashmir!

The author! Pls understand giving into shallow religious hoodlums just because they ``killed enough people`` would be the silliest thing to preach and do!

These rascals need to die their own natural death by war fatigue!
Not an inch must be yielded!
Else tomorrow we will hear the all too familiar refrain..
``kashmir to diya ab junagadh dedo, baad mein hyderabad de do!! It will never end.

Foolish ``high horse riding`` Pacifists like you resulted in a 1000 year rule by barbarians in India..havent you had enough?

Or is your memory so short.
Jayen

The problem with negotiating any deal with General Musharraf is that any subsequent ruler may not agree to that settlement. He may simply freeze the constitution and abdicate the deal with India. Now Pakistani army ruler are capable of anything. Note the treatment Gem Musharraf gave to Nawaj Sharif. So first decide how to guarantee that future pakistani ruler follows the deal.