A Line Runs Through It

Re: anarayan # 10

Sorry I missed the second part of your comment. Even though Siachen was not demaracated as an agreed LoC, the Indian moves violated India`s own claim to respect the validity as agreed to in Simla. Simla Accords was an agreement to accept the re-adjusted status of LoC after the 1971 war, in which Pakistan lost Drass-Kargil and other regions to India. The fact that Siachen was not delineated, does not justify Indian attempts to annex it. The Indian gambit in 1984 questioned the re-adjusted status of LoC and started the events, which are being evident in the present crisis. Till 1984, Pakistan did not not seriously contest the LoC and seemed content simply to shell Indians across the LoC!

If the Indians had not moved in on Siachen, there is a strong speculative case that Zia and Rajiv would have agreed to LoC as an international frontier. The present Indian-Pakistani leadership seemed to be moving in that direction too, but then this crisis flared up, which brings up the point I made in regard to Temporal; this is a political issue that has to be settled politically and not by military means.

Hope this clarifies what I meant!

Re: Ras # 7

The ball is not in India`s court. Like I said before, it was dropped a long time ago and no one knows, where it is. As to not foresaking the cause of Kashmiris, Pakistan needs to seriously calculate the costs of such a support. Kashmiri cause is not worth the risk of a war devastated Pakistan and a radioactive South Asia.

Re: RR # 9

Welcome back! You were AWOL for a long time!! My legendary fair minded Brit comment was a sarcasric remark. As to the pre-Hari Singh period, that only exists in a historic context now and discussing it will not solve the present problem, but it will merely fan the old flames. I understand your point, but RR, this problem will only be settled by agreeing on a consensus and not by dredging up old animosities. No; my intention was not to avoid offending my Indian readers and no, I do not subscribe to the Indian point of view, but like said, what the Indians are claiming, in this crisis, is not without merit either. Whether we like it or not, we have to listen to each other in order to get this problem solved.

Re: anarayan # 10

Point well taken!!

Temporal # 11

Cynism suggests you might be be right, but the problem with crisis mangagement is that it can out of hand. In this case, there is a remarkable similiarity between the present Indo-Pak crisis and the 72 hrs. preceding the First World War. If this is a ploy, for political gains, then these gentlemen can not defer to the logic of ``military neccesity`` and allow the hawks in both countries to determine the course of this crisis.

Re: Nameless # 12

Agreed! There is another dimension to this crisis, which reinforces my believe that this is a case of the Holmesian dog.

I have question for you though. In the case of Indians soldiers returned, claimed by India to have been tortured, the question is what makes the Indians think it was Pakistan? Pakistan has been trying to internationalize this issue for a long time and hence, it makes no sense as to why Pakistan would give India an international relations public relations coup by returning dead soldiers it had supposedely tortured.

There is another possibility and that begs the question of how and where did Pakistani Army get access to the remains of these soldiers!

Re: Zeemax # 14

Comments appreciated! Yes, I use two names, but they belong to the same and one dork; me!

Re: UR # 15

The Candian example, in dealing with Quebec, is not applicable to Kashmir. This is a localised problem, which needs a local soluation and not an imported one! I agree with your points 1 and 2. On the second point, what happens when India does not accept Kashmiri choice to join Pakistan or Pakistans accepts Kashmir joining India? What ever the people of Kashmir may vote, it will only be a final settlement if India and Pakistan agree to it!

India needs a strong leadership like in China, so that it takes a strong decision to destroy pakistan. IN this process if Pakistan is strong enough to destroy India then let it try that. It is better to destroy these maniac generals and deranged politicians of Pakistan. It is a pity that the people of Pakistan will be affected in this process. But then, that is the price the people of India and Pakistan have to pay for lasting peace. Lets see which nation can rebuild faster.

My money is on India though

iconoclast

Re: Reply #: 7 Ras Siddiqui

I know lot of areas in India which have Muslim majority. Would you say, there should be plebscite in all such areas?

It is sad to see that in analysing the Indo pak conflicts and the Kashmir issue we put so much emphasis on the dispute about territory. Let us not forget that these disputes involve people; real human beings like you and me who are paying an immense price.

Re : FerozK

FR Khan = FerozK ? You use two handles ? Well I grudgingly have much more respect for you after our argument on the Pak economy. Though I do submit that your skill and knowledge on military/defence matters is much more than on economic ones .. :-)

``irregular forces of Pathan tribesmen, which started to flood into the Vale of Kashmir to fight against the forces of Sir Hari Singh on the behalf of their Muslim brothers in Kashmir``

Sounds just like `irregulars forces` in Kargil - does not it?

The moral solution to this problem, in my opinion, is as follows:

1) Organizations like Amnesty International should be allowed to enter into Kashmir. They should determine whether the Pakistani or Indian views of the situation are correct.

2) The final decision about Kashmir, should be made by the people of Kashmir. There is no need for Pakistan and India to fight it out, ``to the last Kashmiri.`` India and Pakistan should both hold a plebescite in their respective areas of Kashmir. There should be three choices, i.e. join India, join Pakistan, become independent. Whatever the people of Kashmir vote for should be accepted as the final result.

If the people of a geographic region want independece, they should have a right to vote for it. This is how moral democracies are supposed to function. In Canada, when the people of Quebec indicated they wanted to distance themselves from Canada, they were given the right to a referendum. The Canadian government did not send the Canadian army into Quebec.

If India is so sure that Kashmir is an, ``integral part`` of India, then it is in India`s interest to hold a plebescite there. If the people of Kashmir vote to be a part of India, then India has every right to its claim that Pakistan is unnecessarily complicating the Kashmir issue. I fail to understand why India is hesitating in holding a plebescite in Kashmir.

I completely disagree with the statement that the Kashmir issue was decided in 1947. The reason is that it is not an issue to be decided by India or Pakistan. It is an issue to be decided by the Kashmiris. And as far as I can see, they do not think the issue has been decided. I have a feeling, given a chance to vote, the Kashmiris will opt for complete independence.

Does the author really think the Kashmiris will stop their struggle for freedom, even if Pakistan stops supporting them, and accepts the LOC as the final boundary. I think the Kashmiri struggle is based more about ``getting away from India,`` than about, ``joining Pakistan.`` A lack of Pakistani support will only make is easier for India to militarily suppress the Kashmiris into submission. So I cannot see how Pakistan will agree to stop supporting the Kashmiris, until a final plebescite date is decided upon.

This, is to me, is the moral solution to this problem. Obviously, the ground realities are completely different. But the civilized democratic solution is to any problem like this is to adopt a similar solution to the one adapted by Canada in the case of Quebec.

A good subject, but the question arises why india and pakistan are fighting over kashmir, when formally both have decided to let kashmir decide for herself?

though , politically there is nothing wrong with it, but in my point of view that situation will not be acceptable to india, `cause there are not many hindu`s there. Pakistan favours plebicite because it thinks kashmir will decide on Pakistan. i believe if pakistan did not have such confidence , they will also do the same thing as India is doing now.

i agree with Mr. Feroz in making loc as an international border. everyone gets a piece the problem resolved, off course there will be a lot of talk, but it`ll go away. at this moment that appears to be the only possible way to decide this, without seeing red.

Feroz:

Another well written piece covering most major points. Here`s is my tuppence.

Kargil incident is a deductable donation, by the Prince of Raiwind to the re-election fund of Prince Vajpayee. The Indian Army, after a lot of huffing-puffing will eliminate the intruders just before the elections. Vajpayee will get his just rewards. Deductible, you say? Yes, by throwing in those two thousand or so madressah bred and trained, battle hardened and well armed Mujahids that form the nuclei of the taliban style Deeni Lashkaris of one of the many fundamentalist groups, Prince of Raiwind will remove a minor irritation in his side that could have proved a major thorn. And help his pal, too.

sceptically,

Feroz, well written but not acceptable to many.
Here is my reply to another writer who wrote a
similar piece in The L A Times:

South Asia and Solutions to Kashmir

Mansoor Ijaz in his opinion column (LA Times, March 1, 1999 ``Perspective on South Asia``) writes of ``bold political initiatives`` necessary to resolve the dispute between India and Pakistan by the current leadership there, yet he himself really suggests nothing really bold or new. He concludes by not only giving
India the benefit of doubt, but a permanent status quo, something that the Indians currently desire the most.
No mention is made of the basic wrong done to the Kashmiri people for over half a century or their
payment for freedom from Indian rule with 30 to 60 thousand lives (estimates vary) in the last decade.
Once again to inform the readers, there is and has been a very dirty war going on in Kashmir since 1989. Kashmir is now not a State in India but militarily occupied territory. It takes only a reading of Amnesty International Reports and to contact the Physicians for Human Rights to find out what is and has been going on in Indian held Kashmir. No ``Korea-like demilitarized buffer zone`` can be acceptable to the Kashmiris as a solution to their cry for freedom from India. And the possibility of a Osama Bin Laden taking refuge in Kashmir, a ploy which will work well on American readers has been making the rounds in a wishful Indian news media for quite some time. One can only wonder why it was repeated here in this article?
The fact remains that unlike Kosovo, Chechnya, or even Northern Ireland, the United Nations
on more than one occasion had promised the Kashmiris a plebiscite/vote, a choice of joining one
of two countries (India or Pakistan), something that the Indians are almost sure that they will lose in. And there is a further complication of religious demographics and areas inhabited by the three main groups in Kashmir.
The Jammu area has a Hindu majority, and in all probability wishes to stay with India. Ladakh is a Buddhist majority area, which may also want to stay with India. That leaves the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley with some adjoining districts in Ladakh and Jammu that want out of the ``World`s largest Democracy`` (India).
If any bold initiatives are needed, it is for India to take them, keeping in mind the above demographic facts and geography. The conversion of the current line of control in Kashmir into a permanent border will please the Indians. But if this was a solution then why do we still have this problem after over 50 years? Many Pakistanis, and the majority Kashmiris will not find this acceptable. An anxious world within the backdrop of last year`s nuclear tests is looking for a permanent solution instead of a permanent problem. One way is to let the Kashmir Valley and some adjoining districts in Ladakh and Jammu become independent. Another is to let them join Pakistan. These are ``bold initiatives`` that could possibly work.
To conclude, this writer welcomes the ``Bus Diplomacy`` begun at Lahore with the visit of Indian Prime
Minister Vajpayee there in February. But the word ``Bus`` in the Urdu and Hindi language spoken in the region also means ``Enough``. So I can only find myself in agreement in that translated context also. ``Enough`` is the right word now to stop a fifty year old cause of hatred. The world will have to assist India and Pakistan in being bold and creative instead of showing it`s willingness to sell out the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiris because they have no oil and are the weakest of the parties involved.

Ras H. Siddiqui 3-1-98

After the beginning of the Kargil confrontation:
As I have said here and recently on Television
in California, Pakistan cannot abandon the
Kashmiris. If it does then the Kashmiris will
never forgive us.
The ball remains in India`s court!

Mr. Khan,

I appreciate your article as being very close to the truth as against the half-truths being flung by each side.

I have a few points. (1) `` ...the matter was decided by the irregular forces of Pathan tribesmen ...

to fight on the behalf of their Muslim brothers in Kashmir``. Then you add ``... the Pathan tribesmen who instead

of pressing their attacks had resorted to plundering and burning of villages``. (I might say you forgot to add `mass rape` of

kashmiri womenfolk, including muslims) - but I hope you see my point.

(2) ``When Indian military forces occupied certain heights in Siachen, they violated their own commitments to Simla

Accords and invalidated them``. According to my limited understanding, the Siachen area has never been marked with a

line. So what Accord does this violate ?

Feroz:

A good analysis over all. But your article skillfully rushes into the details of the post-``Sir`` Hair Singh period. Its as if you are trying to avoid discussing the causes of the Kashmir conflict so as not to offend your Indian readers. And judging from the responses from them, its safe to say that in your attempt to appear as an objective observer, you have become partial to their POV.

I understand that repeating the following is futile as it has been discussed exhaustively in the past, but the fact is that had it not been for that narrow passage that that English `Mt. Bad-end` allowed the Indians to have to reach Kashmir during the partition, the map and history of Kashmir would be different altogether today.

It is ironic that all nationalist Indians and most political pundits avoid discussing Hyderabad Daccan`s, and Junagadh & Manavadar`s, forced annexation by India even though both states opted to join Pakistan just like Kashmir joined India. While your legendary ``fair-minded`` English were quick to accept Kashmir`s decision to join India, did not do so in Daccan`s and J&M`s case. Only an `Angraiz` can knowingly do his `Raqeeb` a favor. Too bad, unlike Nehru, Jinnah didn`t know how to manipulate married women to squeeze favors out of their husbands.

You also mentioned Parachinar`s name in the battle fronts. Isn`t it located in south-western part of NWFP on the border with Afghanistan?

...Rehan

Re:

I hope pakistanis make another mistake and force the indians into launching a full scale war. It is better to fight it out and destroy one or the other than to hang on like this. And even after a deadly war, let us see if Pakistan can limp back to normalcy. I shall leave the fate of a war ravaged Pakistan to the imagination of the Pakistani leaders. And for India, the costs can well be acceptable in comparison to Pakistan where all development work of the past few decades will be destroyed in a matter of week. The same will happen to India too, but then By its sheer size and economy India will get back while Pakistan will never be able to do that. Go ahead make the day for the Indians .

Iconoclast.

Re: Sid # 5

I did not omit the people of Kashmir and their choices. Your contention is absolutely correct, but the final determination of the Kashmiri peoples` decision rests with India and Pakistan accepting it as a final settlement. In the case of Bangladesh, it was only because Pakistan accepted the fait accompli of Indian military intervention and did not seek to challenge it after the ceasation of hostilities.

Re: Godot and Anil

You have both raised interesting questions, but given the article lenght constraints, I could not include every aspect of the situational analysis in this article.

Re: Zeemax # 1

Interesting insights. If you were to study the military operations, preceding the 1965 War, you will see an errie similarity. Pakistan Army`s operation Grand Slam was designed to remain confined to Kashmir, but instead it provoked the Indians to launch an attack towards Lahore to relieve the military pressure in Kashmir. Recently, there have fire-fights between Pakistani-Indian forces near Sialkot.

The key indicator, of whether combat is imminient, will be the movement of the two Pakistan Army Strike Corps, which include the Ukrainian TU-80 tanks, towards their forward areas along the Lahore-Multan-Sialkot axis and the operational deployment of Pakistan Air Force to its secondary bases. The Indian Air Force has already dispersed to avoid Pakistani pre-emptive strikes.

To find out what is happening, attention should be paid to the movement of military forces and not to what the diplomats are talking about. This is a case of the Holmesian dog, which did not bark in the night!

Re: FerozK

Very incisive Feroz. need i add ``as usual``

Rishi