After the defeat

Re: Omar1974

``Empty vessels make the most noise``

Continued from last post (read that first please):

To get back to Kashmir, before some Indian puts his foot in his mouth by stating India gives Kashmir `special` autonomy, rights etc, and goes to lengths to show how it treats Kashmiris so well, in order to refute allegations of forcible occupation, and the plain fact that the deaths of Indian soliders were celebrated in Srinagar, let me just say that ofcourse India tries to treat Kashmir institutionally `better` than the rest of the states in the Indian Union. You see, these states had a real father growing up, as a part of India, Kashmir was the illigitimate ba#tard annexed by force. Obviously, deprived of free choice in its childhood, and treated badly, like Territory for Occupation, not as a people deserving the right to decide their own destiny, India felt guilty. It tries to `make up` for this to them, but nothing it does will wipe away the shame of the conception in ba#tadry which were the exact circumstances of Kashmir`s `entry` into the Union of India. Kashmiris never had a choice, because Indians know exactly what would happen if they were ever given that choice. You see, i`m not impressed by so called Indian `moderates` talking, because it gets Kashmiris no-where. Oh, they`re so clever, they`ll even put the cart before the horse. Trying to approach the issue from various angles, fundamentalism Vs. Secular Pluralism etc while all the while ignoring the simple fact that A) Kashmiris don`t and never have wanted to be a part of India nor have ever chosen to be part of India, and B) India`s occupation of the valley is completely immoral (Kindly refer to my little history lesson on the real TRUTH will repost after this). Paki `moderates` simply want to barter away Kashmiris rights and live happily ever after arm in arm with the pagans, just ignoring the Kashmiri issue will make it go away.

Such `moderate` company i find utterly useless, even if it avoids communal bloodshed, for this is only avoided by avoiding the real issue. Poor Indian `moderates`, morally on weak ground, grasping for straws, wanting peace, yet unwilling to pay the price of peace or come to terms with it, and yet swept up in the `patriotic upswing` of `defending the motherland`s illgotten gains`, and in the end more comfortable paying the price of war, than the price of peace. I truly pity such wretched specimens, for they hardly qualify as men who can stand by their convictions, they stand nowhere. Whining for peace, yet content to join the masses in their blind patriotism, while knowing the difference between moral and immoral Indian state acts. Pagans who detest Pakistan, hate muslims and want to drink our blood, well at least these men stand by their convictions. They`re not half hearted. At least to them nonethless, i can accord the respect of one enemy to another, opposed though we maybe. But these SPINELESS self-declared so-called PEACENICKS, who don`t want to pay the hard price of peace, yet never tire of avowing they want peace, i have zero respect for. Yeah, i want Santa Claus to bring me a new BMW this christmas. I REALLY WANT IT. Does that mean its gonna happen? Well, maybe i know a few elves at the North Pole. Do U Truth? So cut the b.s, and say what you really mean to say. India will keep occupying Kashmir with as much brute force as necessary, as it has for over 50 years, the force being used against foreign aggressors and Indian born Kashmiris alike, FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY, because Kashmir is a point of pride for India, we don`t want to hand it (over territory conquered by war) over to Pakistan on a silver platter after having invested so much in our regional military confrontation for so long. In other words there are no men of the stature of Mahatma Ghandhi in Indian politics today, who can afford to take such a huge political risk as giving the Kashmiris the right to self-determination. Never mind that Pakistan was/is constantly lectured on this as far as the East Pakistan issue was/is concerned by these same Indians. Might makes right. India stands on this proposition alone in its Kashmir policy. THIS IS THE TRUTH. All the rest is garbage propaganda sprouted by half wit `peacenicks` on the payroll of RAW.

OMAR

Truth : Your idealist approach

Frankly, i think you dwell in the clouds, Truth. You ignore both Communal realities and facts as it suits you. Indian analyses and approaches to the Kashmir problem are compounded by their inability to seperate the muslims in India itself (those who CHOSE India as their home voluntarily in 1947) from those in Kashmir (who never have). The analogy is clear. Comparing the two and saying India should retain its illegal control over Kashmir is like saying, well, we`ve occupied Afghanistan for over 50 years now. Muslims live there plus a few minorities. We have Muslims in India. Letting Afghanistan have self-determination will endanger our `pluralist` society in India. Lets keep occupying Afghanistan. They are sure to become INDIAN (hah! With 5% turnouts in rigged elections and a clear vacum of political legitimacy, keep dreaming this stupid dream simply because THE TRUTH is you don`t want to let go of territory you have no moral claim to, *thus your angst, since you Indians at heart really all know this * but have occupied by mere force alone and are desperate to legitimise --- but its like the old saying, `once concieved out of wedlock, ALWAYS a ba#tard, so too Kashmir is India`s illigitimate ba#tard, it can NEVER be deemed to be at one/a par, with its legitimate son and daughter states because the Kashmiris never wanted to be part of India, and given free choice would not vote to remain part of it, hence your angst and moral dilemma), in another 50 years or so. This is the typical Indian approach to the Kashmir problem in a nutshell. I don`t think we need to hold `talks` just to hear this crap. Intellectuel or otherwise. STUPID, DUMB, VILE, and characteristic of a nation of horse thieves who have made it their pasttime to live in poverty (who cares about the teeming masses) and seek great power status in the world on the backs of a confrontational military approach to political problems in their region of the world. India in short is and always will remain a miserable country with a lack of visionaries who want real peace on the basis of justice, democratic principles or greatness of heart (for these are a country [not a nation] of small men, with small black hearts).

Omar

Ibn Sina, the world renowned `healer` indeed! It may interest you to know, `Ibn Sina,` you half informed `healer` (so that before the next time you decide to write you`ll check on all the facts first), that the reason for the Nawaz Sharif visit was only revealed in the N.Y Times and the Washington Post because of its sensitive nature. India had begun to arm its nuclear weapons (they don`t want to publicise this since they are `peace lovers`) , and Pakistan had Incontrovertible proof of this which it shared with the Americans. Nawaz Sharif picked up the phone and called Clinton. Under the circumstances, Clinton could hardly say no. Nawaz then boarded the plane for Washington.

Now clearly, the U.S is not there to pull our chestnuts out of the fire, and why indeed should it? However, as far as nuclear preparations, and preparations for the contingency of a full blown war were concerned, Pakistan should have been prepared to go the whole 9 yards, if an inch. Nawaz Sharif`s principle characteristics which can be guaged from his career as politically active industrial magnate from the early days of Zia are the following; A Canny and shrewd ability to Survive any crisis self-made or otherwise and, (b) A Fascist tendency to arrogate all power to himself.

Now assuming a war, possibly nuclear were to occur, just what would be left for Nawaz Sharif to preside over? Would he be around after it? Clearly Sharif made his calculations and decided national pride should get the short shrift, his industrial empire (Sharif Group) could not withstand a nuclear attack (although Pakistan can), nor could his political `career` (damn him). So, Sharif blinked. And thus was the Kargil Crisis lost. Now Khruschev was ousted from power within a few years of the Cuban missile crisis, don`t expect Sharif to be around after the next election. He`s finally done it to himself this time. But his temporary survival is just that, temporary. He`s gone and ticked off a lot more people this time than he has in previous self-created crises.

Omar

Uncle:

What in your mind is the Sikh movement? Some basics on the Sikhs and Indian Punjab: In Punjab, Sikhs are a small majority (of the order of 50-60%). Of this, a small fraction want independence. No Hindu Punjabi wants independence from India - they account for approx 40% of Punjab. Do the math and see if it makes sense for Punjab to separate from India. For every 2 Sikhs in Punjab, there is one 1 Sikh outside Punjab. People like you do not understand pluralism. Since you succeeded in creating a monoreligious state you are convinced that is the only way to go. Take your poisonous thoughts and apply them closer to your home. Let us live our lives in peace. Kargil has demonstrated that a big part of the Kashmir problem is nothing but a search for validation of Pakistan`s noxious and insecure identity.

A good article. There is always a tension between self-determination and pluralism. Over the years, I had reluctantly being losing my faith in Indian pluralism (Babri Masjid, anti-Sikh riots) and had begun accepting Kashmiri self-determination as the winning principle. Post the Kargil episode, my faith in Indian pluralism has been revitalized by the million real and symbolic displays of Indian unity among the pluralism. At the same time, the perfidy of the invasion has tarnished Kashmiri self-determination as the work of people who believe the word ``community`` begins and ends with Muslims. The pluralism of the Indian army pitted against the monoreligious zeal of the fighters has redeemed my faith in India. It has reinforced the belief that India can work on a political solution that allows Kashmiris dignity and a sense of being free while being part of India. For me personally, this conflict has redeemed my faith that in this particular battle between pluralism and self-determination, pluralism should be the winning principle. Long live the principles of freedom of faith and true faith being discovered by each individual. As a once disillusioned Indian, I feel the mainstream moving back to the India I grew up in where the principles of citizenship were not tied to religion. And the ugliness of two-nation theory have been reinforced.

The first civilian government (with BB as PM) after an extended period of military rule saw BB handing over a list of incognito Sikh leaders who were supporting the Sikh movement over to Rajiv Gandhi. With one action, BB compromised the support for the Sikh movement comprehensively.

These are evolving times for Pakistan. Matters are very much in flux regarding the system of government and the spheres of governance. However, it is no secret that there is an uncomfortable relationship between the military and civilian spheres. When you have years of inept military rule complemented with years of equally inept, if not grossly corrupt civilian rule, the spheres of governance won`t develop without growing pains.

It is clear that the recent conflict was not a combined strategy. The civilian government was lagging far behind the initial military tactical gains. If they had their act together perhaps the outcome would have been different.

Unfortunately, nothing succeeds like success. A risk was definitely taken which did not succeed. I wouldn`t go as far to say that the entire effort was in vain. Much needed domestic consensus regarding Kashmir has been triggered in Pakistan, which is good. The world recognizes that the LoC cannot possibly be settled as a permanent boundary with all the loopholes in it. I don`t believe it was the initial objective, but nonetheless, Kashmir HAS been internationalized.