After the defeat

So, you think that `Pakistan lost` the Kargil Crisis, and `India Won`? Well, from a strategic point of view Pakistan has already won. The cost of India mainting 10,000 troops year round in Kargil, Drass, Batalik is reported by Indian newspapers to be 100 million rupees (thats about $2 million daily added to Indian army cost of operations alone). Siachin costs India and Pakistan $1 million and $700,000 daily respectively. It also costs the Indian army hundreds more dead due to the climactic conditions alone, which are not better in Kargil-Drass-Batalik (they occupy the heights at Siachin). So, India has now been forced to spend $2m/day ($730 million annually) extra in its desperate bid to continue its illegal occupation of Kashmir and its resulting confrontation with Pakistan. This is a victory for India, of pyhrric proportions. Pakistan`s total cost for this operation $5-10 million and perhaps 500+ dead. India`s cost of eviction was over $200 million. As I said earlier, Pakistan will bleed India white to the bone. Over a decade that is an additional $7 billion! To put things into perspective, the 300 T-90 Tanks India is acquiring from Russia cost $750 million USD. Resources are not unlimited. Poverty striken India cannot afford this, as sane Indians will privately admit. This is a disaster for India. After having lost a few hundred troops, defending worthless territory has become a national point of honor for them. This is excellent. Pakistan has succeeded in its strategic aims w/o increasing its own costs appreciably.

Omar

Re: ferozk (#17)

I think you are on the right track here. There is definitely a camp of the army that is more hawkish compared to others. I think their strategy is to fight a long-term and low intensity war of attrition against India.

The whole issue of Nawaz and his relation to the hard-liners is very interesting. The hard-liners, encouraged initially by Nawaz himself, are now more of a liability than an asset. He encouraged the rise of the right, he turned a blind eye on the Talibanization of Pakistan, and now they are threatening to grow out of his control. Maybe it is too late -- sometimes I wish that these Talibanized fanatics should be to Nawaz what Zia was to Bhutto!

The issue may be that these Taliban are a major pain in the butt now. You correctly pointed out that China did not pay any attention to Pakistan, it does not want to foster further trouble in its Muslim dominated Xinjiang area by encouraging Pakistan (and its export of radicals). China wishes to project itself as a ``responsible`` power in Asia, hence it wants to distance itself from endorsing Pakistan.

There have been some interesting analyses of this issue ... and a lot of speculation surrounds what actually went on behind closed doors in Washington that resulted in the Nawaz-Clinton agreement. I should note that it is an interesting co-incidence that shortly after the accord, the Taleban announced that they were ready for ``negotiations`` with the international community (read U.S) and that Nawaz paid a visit to Saudi Arabia to thank them for their support.

What perhaps Sharif is not telling us is related to another enigmatic man -bin Laden, who the U.S wants, and the Saudis dislike. Is it a co-incidence that all the players involved with bin Laden are now talking to each other? Maybe, maybe not.

Then there is the issue of an oil-pipeline, that starts from Central Asia and has to make its way to some port. The shortest route is through Iran, which the U.S dislikes (not all European countries dislike it though). The other choices are westward through Turkey or eastward through Afghanistan and then Pakistan. It could be that both Nawaz and Taleban are attracted to the prospect of that pipeline and are willing to make certain compromises to achieve that.

There is definitely a lot more going on than is being said. Probably, the U.S used both a carrot and a stick to force Sharif to toe the line.

Either way, none of this was something that could not have been foreseen earlier, and not taken into account before any military adventurism.

Pakistan and India are unfortunately ruled by the ``hawks`` who have only one way of perceiving each other. These people are slaves of their mindsets, and as long as they stay in power, the India-Pakistan situation will not change. But as I once wrote earlier, when this craziness started, given the current leadership and mentality of Pakistan and India, there will continue to be antagonism. Maybe they, like the imperialist nations of the second world war, require to go through a brutal and pointless war to see the futility of this course of action. Some people are just too thick-headed to see things before they happen... oh well!

regards

A very insightful article. The question is what next. Do we and the Indians keep this nonsense going on for another 100 years. Thanks to Kargill there will be another arms race which we can ill afford more than even India. They will do to us what Reagan did to the Soviet Union- bankrupt us. In the meantime I feel unsafe going to pray in Pakistan as a Shia and a Mohajir. My relatives in India tell me that while the BJP is not too Muslim friendly they have not had any riots. In fact they seem quite happy to have stayed in India. Hum Muhajiron ne Pakistan Bana Ke Kya Bewakoofi Ki. ( We Muhajirs may have erred in making Pakistan and we pay the price in Karachi).

Why don`t people like Omar1974 and his ilk join the Mujahidin or ISI or whoever and go down fighting the Indians- They can become Shahids. The world would be a better place without them.

Whether we like it or not we have to change our views and strategy. The world does not care about Kashmir. We can`t beat India and so must negotiate with them and end this madness.

History lesson for Narain

British India had a number of princely states, these states were to be given the free choice to join either Pakistan or India, no other choice was offered. Now that was the first principle on which partition was based. Even Indian historiofabricators should have no problems with this. Now, what India did in fact do FIRST to violate this principle was to deprive Munawadar, Hyderabad and Junadgah of this free choice and use force to insure they joined the Indian Union. Sardar Patel is still eulogised for this act. When this occured, the rules of the game changed. India had come out and set the precedent for breaking the basic principle on which the partition of the subcontinent was based in 1947. What this meant was that India has defacto stated that all Hindu majority states were going to be forced to join India, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Now, the contrapositive of this principle is also equally simple, i.e Muslim majority areas should thus join Pakistan. You see it was India that abrogated the basic principle of partition, not Pakistan. Therefore, based on logic and fair play alone, the Maharaja`s signiture on the instrument of accession to India, AFTER he had lost control of the state was tantamount to signing a ratti ka kagaz (worthless piece of paper), which had no significance and cannot be used to legitimise Indian occupation of J&K. The U.N General Assembly decided that hey, lets ask the people of Kashmir which state they want to join. This populist principle was not the principle on which British India had been partitioned, but it was in fact the raison d`etre of India`s actions in Munawadar, Hyderabad and Junadgah, neverthless, there is probably no doubt that these other 3 Indian princely states that were annexed would probably have, if they had held a majority vote, voted to join the Indian Union. Similarly, there is little doubt that the Kashmiri people if consulted in 1947, would also have voted to join Kashmir. It is India ironically that introduced this new principle into the partition process. The U.N General Assembly merely gave it sanction in International law. The process of partition is still unfinished today as a result of Indian-Hindu duplicity, typical of the Hindu-bunya mentality of wanting it all (the cake and eating it as well), willing to squeeze every last drop from the poor peasants given the opportunity-chance, without a care (this is an excellent characterization of India`s International behavior since the days of Nehru). Now, no where was it ever stated that the Kashmiris had the right to independence, as opposed to accession to either India or Pakistan.

It is only the norms of democracy, and the seemingly intractable nature of the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan that have given birth to this new notion of a third way.

Any questions? I just call a spade, a spade. No need to mince words.

Omar

Taqdeer ke qazi ka yeh fatwa hai azal se

he jurm-e-zeifi ki saza marg-e-mafajat

RE: Omar

Sahib if India does not have a strong case in Kashmir, neither does pakistan. Here is a list of arguments and counter-arguments from either side:



A. The instrument of accession to India is not justified becoz it was signed by an unpopular ruler. However at the same time pakistan`s sending in troops to take over the state was hardly more justified, leave alone legal.

B. Kashmiris are tired of India`s rule and want freedom. This maybe true right now, but it was not always true. Since the 1950`s Kashmiris participated in elections, elected popular governments. In 1965 they actively helped the Indian army rout the Pakistani invasion. And anyway after Kargil, who`s to say that the movement is indigenous anyway? It certainly seems more Islamic than Kashmiri, and even the BBC reports thatan increasing number of the mujahideen are non-kashmiri mercenaries.

C. India is opressing the Kashmiris and carrying out a ``genocide`` against the muslim population there. Well nobody but the pakistanis believe the story about any genocide, and it comes naturally to them becoz they remember their own treatment of the Bengalis. True, international human rights bodies have protested the Indian record. But they have also gone on record to say that the so-caled mujahideen are guilty of genocide, and the massacare of Kashmiri hindus.

India is not going to give up Kashmir. I will always hope that we can do a ``punjab`` to it. if the Kashmiri got disillusioned with India becoz he was denied his political rights, then we can fix that. Pakistan of course cares zilch for the kashmiris, and only wants Kashmir for itself. Therefore it will keep sending militants to spread terror and oppress the Kashmiri people. We can deal with that.

As for the nucleat weapons, Omar, you may be crazy, but not everyone is. I do not really think that either country will ever really use them.

-narain

Re: Ibne Sina et al

The intersting thing about this whole episode is what will surely emerge in the following days, as the rats leave the sinking ship.

First we learn that Pakistani Army was involved contary to its past protests of denials and then we are told that Nawaz Sharif was ``in camera`` to the whole procedings. Lets forget about the militans and their ilk, because they are simply, what British Army once refered to its colonial troops as, ``cannon fodder``. The interesting note in all of this is, who is calling the shots and who is pulling whom`s puppet strings. Did Nawaz Sharif go to Washington, because the army dispatched him or he wanted to? Conversely, did the army twist the militant`s arms and told them to back down, because Nawaz promised Clinton that he could win their disenagement from the heights and ispo facto, is under Nawaz Sharif`s political control?

Who holds the reins to and commands Pakistan`s nuclear weapons and can authorize their use? The politicans or the army leadership? Did COAS of Pakistani Army obey Nawaz Sharif, because he is a professional soldier, who seems to abide with the principle that civilians have the last word? Was the army in ``an understanding`` with Nawaz Sharif when it launched and later, withdraw from the operation? Or, was the operation planned without Nawaz Sharif`s concurance and later he was informed incase he needed to pull the army`s chestnuts out of the fire? Or did Nawaz Sharif, himself, order the move into Drass-Kargil region?

The most realistic possibility is that the army leadership and Nawaz Sharif are working at cross-purposes with each other. It seems that there is no clear cut delineation of authority and each side is operating independently of the other, which to a degree with would explain faux pas that Pakistan found itself in and this could be the first step in creating the right conditions for a power play in Pakistan. We have to remember that COAS is the offical spokesman for the rest of the armed forces and his tenure, to a large part, rests on his ability to mollify the unrest within the army itself.

If the emerging news can be gauged as a barometer for forecasting likely events in the future, it would seem that the army itself is divided between those favor western ties to those who seem to support the radical Islamic elements, i.e. the Talibans. In domestic political terms, this could be seen as the final option of removing Nawaz Sharif, because of his policies of shariat and this faux pas could be the glue, which binds the opposition together to seek his removal and if the military takes sides in this debate, based on its own interests, things will get extremely volatile in Pakistan.

Let us all remember, that the present COAS was hand picked by Nawaz Sharif over two senior officers and he is supposed to represent and advocate Nawaz Sharif`s interests to the military brass and hence, if he goes, so too will Nawaz Sharif. Why did Nawaz Sharif opt for him over his immediate superiors? Could it be, because he shares with Nawaz Sharif a vision of Pakistan, based on shariat, that Nawaz Sharif thought he could win over the army leadership to his views by picking an COAS who favors radicalism over moderation? If so, then he has opposition to his tenure within the army itself, because we all know that there were a few noses out of joint, in the army itself, when he was chosen for the post of COAS. Hence, this gives those forces the perfect cover and excuse to seek his removal from power and realign the direction the army might be going, according to their perceptions; more ties with west than a Talibanization of its ranks.

The key to disciphering the yet unfolding events will be to wait and see how the army reacts to the growing sense of dissatisfaction towards Nawaz Sharif in the post-Kargil environment. Nawaz Sharif has been known, in the past, to imbroil himself in problems, because of his perchant for ad hoc policy decisions, which have to do with securing his power and than advancing the nation`s long term interests. Depending on the ``spin``, which will be generated in the post-Kargil situation, in Pakistan, and where the final blame will come rest shall determine who will emerge as a the final scapegoat for this mess.

Re: OMAR1974

I am no longer amused by your postings, I am scared. You talk of nuclear weapons and nuclear wars as if kids talk of their 2 rupee toys. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You said that Nawaz Sharif hurried to Washington because the Indians had started to arm their nuclear missiles. Let us think about this. This outcome was so predictable, why did the Pakistanis not consider this possibility BEFORE starting this adventurism? Any idiot on the street could have predicted that this could happen, so why wasn`t it taken into consideration??

Now, you may say that Pakistan gambled that India won`t do so and then backed down. I say that this probably points to something else.

Let`s consider the scenario that Pakistan gambled and backed down because it did not want to have a nuclear war. In that case, the whole rationale for developing nuclear weapons goes to pot, for if Pakistan cannot count on them in situations of conflict to defuse the situation, then it is a waste of time and money. Didn`t the military say that now that they have nuclear weapons they would not ever have to risk a conventional war?

But maybe there`s something else. If India had started to put nuclear warheads on its missiles, then the question arises why didn`t Pakistan do the same and threaten them right back??

Probably because Pakistan does not have nuclear warheads that can be mounted on missiles. Not yet at least. It may be that the whole story of missile launches etc. was just a big media stunt to create an impression of Pakistani mastery of nuclear warheads. Maybe in reality Pakistan does not have this capabililty.

Now realistically speaking, despite all the centuries of accumulated hatred, I think it is definitely time to move on for Pakistan and India. People with extremist views like you cause India and Pakistan to continue to descend into an abyss of mutual animosity.

If push comes to shove, and there is an outright war, I do not think that Pakistan can win. Wars are fought on logistics in the long run, and previous wars have shown that Pakistan cannot fight a sustained war. Therefore, there is no point to this brainless animosity and constant escalation of stakes.

Pakistan has bigger fish to fry than trying to compete with India ... it has to shift its focus to being an independent state which is an economic powerhouse.

Let`s rationalize this aspect of peace process.

Now, as per the Pakistan`s own govt., it is the mujhideens who crossed the LOC, the govt. says it has no control over mujahideens, and the corollary of this is that the mujahideens are more powerful than the Pakistani army. If you think of it, the Pak Army has never occupied the Indian territory this long, nay! So, what purpose will be served in negotiating with the ones that were never involved in this mess? The Indians should rather negotiate with the mujahideens, for they do not want these intruders to intrude again. Any settlement with the Pakistan govt. or army will not stop the mujahideens to repeat the intrusion. The Pak army and the govt., by their own assertion, are weaker than the mujahideens and unable to control them. Just ponder and think.

Dont confuse Kashmir with Kargil.

Kashmir, with all the arguments etc for both sides is a complex mixture of moral, military and religious issues.

Kargil was a shameful example of military adventurism. When Pakistan signed the Lahore agreement, it agreed to discuss all issues including Kashmir with India on the table.

To treacherously try to change ground realities by military action is despicable. India has now realised how foolish it is to trust Pakistan, even if conciliatary noises are coming from there.

As far as the mutilation of the bodies of Indian soldiers are concerned, it is horrible and deplorable. Pakistanis are not even human - the Pakistani army seems to be mentally sick and depraved. Please dont call yourselves Muslims. The prophet (PBUH) would never approve of such actions.

For peace it is said that men are willing to go the extra yard. Indians also never tire of telling us, `more people to people contacts`, more trade. Well, how`d ya like to start meeting me and trading insults? :) Will that satisfy the prerequisites for peace in Kashmir? I volunteer!

On a serious note, i think Pakistan at some point has to make India a serious peace offer it just can`t afford to refuse. Quite simply this, Freedom for Kashmir, including a plebescite to decide the future of all Kashmir and consequently peace between India and Pakistan for a thousand years, or immediate nuclear war, starting in a few minutes. It would take more balls than mian sahib has to bring reality of certain death home to the Indians. Are the Indians as prepared to meet Hanuman their fabled monkey-god, as the Pakis are to meet their Allah? (As for reincarnation, I assure you, if it exists you won`t want to be reborn into what is left of post-nuclear India --- most likely you`ll be deformed at birth, and die an agonizing death from radiation poisioning.) As yes, now where was I? Yes, I was talking about allowing Kashmiris the right to decide their own fate. rather mundane stuff compared to where your emphatic NO! led us a few moments ago, don`t you think? Won`t you reconsider? Every Paki is not as yeller as mian sahib`s infamous cabs (take the valient Sher Khan, a shining example to us all of what manhood, true valour and love of country demands). Some of us have no intention of backing down when the occasion presents itself in the future. Take heed my fellow humans across the border. We are prepared for our owns deaths and yours. Are u prepared for your own swift extermination off the face of the earth? I ask not in jest but am deadly earnest and serious. It could happen. Is denying Kashmir the mere right to choose its own fate really even worth this possibility? Why r u so intransigent? This is no joke. Nor is this a laughing matter. This is the point we have reached today. There is no turning back to the good old days of conventional slaughter. Now its nukes baby. Yeah, baby, yeah!

Think about it, and then think again. You still want this? Keep repeating your standard lines on Kashmir till you`re blue in the face, we now expect little different, we`re reconciled to it, and to nuclear destruction of both our countries, keep wondering when people who think like me (quite a few actually) will come to control Pakistan`s growing nuclear arsenel and what they will do with it. Remember deterence only works on the mentality of a person who sees they have something to lose in this world, not on the mentality of a person who doesn`t care about anything in this world beyond country, honor, revenge. It may interest non-muslims to learn that aside from a reunion with wives promised in heaven, even parents and children are but strangers on the day of judgement for muslims. Think about what that means to the truly religious, let alone the secular like myself, in terms of an all out nuclear war. The world after all, is a temorary abode, for a few days, the afterlife is the promise of infinity. What do we have to lose (assuming we are real believers)in a nuclear war ? Our lives? What are they worth anyhow to us? Our loved ones? Shall we see them on the day of judgement? No? Then what do they matter after all? But our enemies(so the least a man can do is settle scores while here in this temporary world, afterall, it must end one day, why not choose which exact day! What a privilige to work as the hand of G-D himself in heralding the day of judgement by ending the world, eh! :), well, we all know their (our enemies) guaranteed promised fate in the hereafter.:)

sleep tight.

Conspiracy Theory?

Now, I know very little (o.k, next to nothing) about the situation in Pakistan, but it seems to me that some of Nawaz Sharif`s biggest problems are powerful ``Islamic`` movements, a powerful millitary that won`t necessarily do whatever he wants them to, and an alarming number of armed hoodlums in Pakistani territory from Afghanistan and a bunch of other places.

So, is it possible that by setting up a little millitary misadventure, he has managed to: make the ``Islamics`` look reckless and dangerous, humiliated the army leadership in the eyes of both the people and their own troops, and managed to get the Indian army to do the dirty work of eliminating a few hundred (if not more) armed hoodlums who would otherwise be creating trouble in Pakistan proper.

All this sets the stage for Nawaz Sharif to further usurp power (possibly even declaring some form of emergency rule) and consolidate control. This explains why the fighting did not stop immediately after he issued the statement with Clinton: he wanted to let the Indian army eliminate a few hundred more of his troublemakers.

As far as why he backed down when he did, the likely answer is the IMF loan (as opposed to any

developments on the Indian side: why would India change anything when it was already winning?) which he did not want to lose. After all, rupees aren`t very good for stuffing into Swiss Bank Accounts...

THE HARSH AND BITTER TRUTH

To all Peacenicks (Indians & Pakis) and the ever present, `Kashmir should join Pakistan` supporters. I think those who dream of peace between India and Pakistan will get peace all right, the peace of a grave under the pall of a big black mushroom cloud hanging over the subcontinent. Why should Pakistan expect to get in peace what it could not by war? This is being unreasonable of us Pakis entirely, the Indians are right from their point of view as far as this goes. The price of Kashmir is bloodshed. The thirst for blood of those beautiful mountains and valleys (our national Paki-Mirage in the desert) is insatiable. Stop these unrealistic expectations of getting Kashmir. Either put up or shut up. Which means either get ready to deal a nuclear blow and finish off our enemies for good, and prepare to sustain casualties in the tens of millions, and destruction of all major cities at a minimum, or stop talking about Kashmir. These are the harsh choices. I`m ready to advocate use of the bomb NOW, rather than accept humiliation or the status quo any longer. You better get ready to prepare to either a) meet your maker, or b) eat national humble pie and crow, like Mian sahib is ever so willing for the sake of his personal political hide. In other words prepare to live the lives of hijras if Kashmir is not freed by this generation.

I for one, am ready to face both personal death as well as the death of everyone i have ever met/known in life (afterall, when the nation calls ... :), in exchange for MAD (mutually assured destruction). These are the choices. Either Pakistan backs down, or we launch a full scale nuclear war. Starting a war, and backing down for fear of being nuked is just plain dumb. However, since we`ve waited this long, i reccomend waiting until Pakistan is able to test and build a sufficient number of hydrogen bombs (20 megaton plus city busters). After all there`s nothing more embarasssing that SURVIVORS after you`ve nuked a city. Gotta do a proper job of it if we`re gonna do it. Whether India builds these or not is only a question of redunduncey for them, after all, how many major cities do we have anyhow, but India has a billion people. We need to build not just 10-20 weapons, but at least about 100 hydrogen bombs to make a significant impact. This make take upto 20 years, but i`m sure we can do it. I say 300 million dead in the first strike, is significant. Large numbers will die later in unmatched agony. The ones who die immediately will be the lucky ones. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will look like picking daisies on a Sunday picnic on a quiet afternoon out in the country after the next Indo-Pak nuclear exchange.

Ladies and Gentlemen, those ARE the stakes. So, you really wanna play? Lemme deal you into this little game of ours. Everytime you lose a hand, you lose a close loved one. JUst think about that carefully. Are you in? Lets play, shall we? I`m in. I`m even prepared to deal. I`ve seen Indians are big gamblers at the casinos in Atlantic city etc. They`re welcome to join this game, in fact, i insist they join us, like it or not. This time Ghauri won`t leave any survivors.

You fools get the picture of what we`re facing yet? Or ya still wanna go on occupying Kashmir on Indian side/Asking for liberation of Kashmir on Paki side?. Both sides better get ready to pay the ultimate cost now of foolhardy policies. Cause baby, this AIN`T going away. And disliking my bluntness, ain`t gonna make it go away. YEAH,BABY,YEAH. Lets get it on.



Omar

re: Ibne Sina

An insightful article on the topic of post-Kargil.

Why was it over so soon. Well for starters, Nawaz Sharif got cold feet, because he is afterall a bully and when you call a bully`s bluff, he will fold within an eye blink!

Secondly, it is over, because the world told Pakistani leaders that they would not be able to buy expansive watches, because all IMF loans would be cut: what Nawaz and his wife were doing; while he was begging Clinton for help, his wife was shopping in Washington, D.C.

The real reason was that China said no, because China is becoming increasingly concerned about the levels of Talibanization in Pakistan and also, China does not want the Islamic fervor to affect its own Muslim populations and China seems to like India as a buffer keeping the Talibans from Pakistan away. Furthermore, since China wants to emerge as a ``responsible`` regional power in Asia, it could not be seen by the west as encouraging this ``adventurism``.

Saudi Arabia, another of Pakistan`s friends, does not like the prospect of the religious polarization in Pakistan either and it was at Saudi Arabia`s ``suggestion`` that the Council of Islamic States`s statement on Kargil was so luke warm in its support of Pakistan.

Pakistan thought it could play musical chairs in this matter, but found itself with no chairs to sit, because its friends never showed up with the chairs in the first place!

To the Pathetic so called Indian moderates

You never tire of claiming India is a Secular Pluralist utopia, but the sad fact is that it is not, it is far from it. The only way India can ever be any kind of civilized society is when the ever widening chasm between the haves and the nots is bridged. The basic reason why it cannot be bridged is because India is more interested in continuing its morally bankrupt confrontation with Pakistan over Kashmir, rather than allocating those scarce resources to alleiviating poverty, and its people (poor included) are too stupid to understand the economic and social fruits they are being denied simply because the Indian govt continues to deny the right of Kashmiris to choose between Indian and Paki citizenship and they, morbidly and patriotically

support this bankrupt policy of occupation by force, rape, torture, murder, paramilitaries, and state sponsored terrorists.

Omar

The responses to a honest analysis of the kargil situation, has once again, as usual decended to personality explanations. Sheriff is a bully, he wnts to save bussiness interests etc. Again a kind of belief that changing the person would help, may be with Imran Khan.

Pakistanis have to wake up and realise the changed environment, and also what islam projects in real terms, not in scriptural terms in the modern world. If this realisation were ever to dawn on the pakistanis, may be the kargil and the kashmir would be solved.

Firstly by maintaining that the pak army is not involved, it is only the mujahideen, projects a freightening prospects. There is a mauroding band of islamic fundamentalists, armed with stinger missiles to take on the army of a neighbouring country, a situation no non-muslim country wants to support.

A consequence of the above position is the question, who is in control in pakistan. Is it worth talking to Mianji. This again leads to the position that supporting the pakistani position is futile, supporting a govt which maintains that it has no control of what is going on is absurd.

There is no need to sink into the gutter politics and come up with personal motivations for the katgil debacle. The problem can be traced to the fundamental processec in pakistan, the hatred that the system builds up against india and how it clouds clear thinking in every aspect of pakistani life.