Pakistan: Rapprochement with India ‘unstoppable’

Alireza#130:

Some of the movements you have mentioned are for statehood within India - they are not for Independence. The other movements do not have majority support. They are like Jiye Sindh or the Naxalite movement - some support, some violence but not significant enough. Kashmir is the only full fledged secession movement.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Truth #130

Your opinion: ``If Sikh Punjabis and Keralite Christians and Tamil Hindus can live together in India, the only reason Kashmiris cannot is because they are neighbors to Pakistan.``

The facts:

1. GORKHALAND

The areas around Darjeeling, just south of Nepal, is inhabited by a large number of Gorkhas who are fighting for their own homeland. There is an uneasy peace at the moment because the Indians have promised autonomy.

2. BODOLAND

Just west of Darjeeling lies Meghalaya where Bodo tribals are fighting for their independence. This freedom struggle started with bows and arrows, it is now a full fledged guerilla movement.

3. ULFA

United Liberation Front of Assam envisages an independent Assam as the local inhabitants feel they have been colonized by the Indians. As usual, the Indians have met terror with terror, razing entire villages to the ground.

4. NAGALAND

The Nagas have been fighting for their independence since almost 1947. The British had promised them an independent homeland for their active support against the Japanese in World War 2. After the emergence of Bangladesh, the mainly Christian Nagas lost their main supply base for some time and they came to terms with the Federal authorities. However the promises made by the Indians were never fulfilled and as Bangladesh fell out with India, the Naga logistics improved and the guerilla movement goes on in full swing.

5. MIZORAM

Like the Nagas, the Mizos are mainly Christians and their guerilla movement has followed the same route. Laldenga, their leader, had to come to terms after the emergence of Bangladesh. He was brought to Delhi for peace negotiations and then incarcerated when the talks failed in utter violation of the immunity given to him. Today the movement for an independent Mizoram goes on.

6. MANIPURIS

One of the greatest shocks of `democratic` India that awaited tea planters of West Pakistani origin who moved into India while escaping from East Pakistan in 1971 (and were incarcerated in Indian Jails) was to find Manipuri children in many jails of Tripura State, particularly Agartala Jail. Under the Maintenance of India Security Act (MISA), a large number of Manipuri children of Manipuri influentials were kept as hostages for their good behaviour. For a time after Bangladesh became a separate country, there was relative peace in Manipur as the guerilla movement lost its supply sanctuaries. It is now a war-torn country with Indian forces being attacked by Manipur guerillas in areas stretching from Manipur south to the Burmese border.

RE: Studebaker Reply #: 132

Sardar Patel may have called Partition a good

riddance, but as you say, that does not amount to

an endorsement of TNT. The situation at that time was such that if partition had not occured, all progress and development in india would have retarded for a couple of decades since one section of society would have felt alienated, and to appease them, a number of measures that the government was subsequently able to take could not have been taken. land reforms for eg. The atmosphere was already so vitiated that no other action was possible. Why blame the congress for

accepting what had been made inevitable by the

muslim league?

Sure if TNT were to be rigorously applied, there should have been total exchange of populations. The very fact that no such thing occured in india, that there was never even any serious demand that it occur, implies that Indians never accepted the two-nation theory. It is also clear that pakistan took the theory very seriously and proceeded to kick out as much of their non-muslim population as they could. So much for the proverbial ``Islamic tolerance``.

As for 100% of the pakistanis accepting the TNT, well I sure hope they do, or what else holds

them together? But even there, are you sure? I

remember reading somewhere that the NWFP in `47 was against partition, and that even in Sindh the people were split half and half.

-narain

Indian National Congress (INC) and TNT.

The consummate leader of INC, M.K.Gandhi wanted to dissolve it once India became independent, having attained its objective. The later leaders, Nehru and Mrs Gandhi could infuse further life into it by giving INC socialist ideals, and consequently the difference between India and Pakistan of today, at least in terms of guiding ideology and institutions, can be attributed to this evolution . The Chowkirdars, thanks to the chowk post which describes the mental make-up of them, are all taking about corruption, save for a couple on an ideology for Pakistan.

The TNT having achieved the objective of creation of Pakistan should have been reviewed for its relevance, it was never done, and the Pakistani guiding principles are trapped in a time warp. Concern for the Muslims of India still dominate the Pak psyche, babri masjid and Kashmir are always in the news, term occupied Kashmir permeate Pak reporting. Even look at the chowkirdars, mention Kashmir, quotes about the history, UN resolutions and other erudite scholarship keep pouring out, they are well versed in it, it is uppermost in their minds, thanks to operational TNT. Once,a post on the refusal of Pak legislature to condemn honour killing, resulted in a only few questions about the make-up of the political parties that voted against it from the moderator chowkirdar. There was deafening silence from the chowkidars. A distinct characteristic of the TNT is a lack of interest in the plight of Pakistani Muslims, they are in the home land, while the Indian Muslims are suffering.

It is this preponderance that accepts the 50% budget for the Pak military, that welcomes the coup, declares military as sacrosanct, all because only military, now the el-cheapo version can protect the Kashmir brethren, the operational TNT.

An understanding of how TNT permeates Pak life cannot be achieved by reading of history, it will only lead to the ‘Islam is good, Muslims are bad kind of absurdity’. What is needed is to analyse the references to India and the Indian Muslims in the day to day news items, conversations and other discourses.

It is not my view, but according to the chowkirdars, Pakistan is corrupt, no law and order, public institutions are defunct, is not a country they are proud of at present, is not the home land, but still, instead of working to improve the home land, diversion of money to support and to allegedly improve the plight of Kashmiris is considered paramount. Military is supreme, chowkirdars dare not criticise, of course with some very notable exceptions. Again it is TNT behind it.

It is probably time that the educated Pakistanis ask the basic question, why is Indian Muslims so important to Pakistanis?. When they see a report about India, ask the question, is it important. Then you are on the scent of the dead dog, when you find it, burn it, and then and then only can Pakistan realise the dream of Jinnah. May be, just may be, even he would have abandoned TNT after the creation of Pakistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Bahmed #129

The two nation theory is still alive??!!

Well, let me ask its proponents then if the muslims only have a problem with the Hindus, for they sure don`t seem to be asking for seperate Islamic states in Europe or america... or maybe that is only a matter of time? Americans beware!

If the congress allowed india to be partitioned in `47, it was to prevent civil war and fratricide, but that does not amount to an endorsement of the two nation theory. I don`t think that anybody in India ever believed in that ridiculous theory, neither in 1947 nor now. If that is the only reason why pakistanis now lay claim to Kashmir, it is easy to see nobody takes their claims seriously. Why, even the Kashmiris now tend to be plumping more towards independence then to a union with Pakistan!

And as for relations with neighbours; Pakistan desires tense relations with India always. With Iran, its relations are tense what with the taliban and all. With Afghanistan, relations would have been tense if the pakistani army had not been able to install its stooges on the throne. But not to worry, relations seem like they are going to worsen even there. Since pakistan`s main export to Russia is Islamic terrorism, relations there are not too cordial either.

-narain

Studebaker: You are a good man and we have had many discussions before. It seems to me obvious that Hindus from Jammu, Buddhists from Ladhakh (and maybe Shias from Kargil) support India. The area/people of resentment against India is the Kashmir Valley Muslim and certain Muslim areas of Jammu. Ask yourself honestly - do you need a plebiscite to prove this? We know this. It IS a Hindu-Muslim issue.

Kashmiri independence is a variant of the two-nation theory. The two-nation theory says that Hindus and Muslims cannot share the same political space. Kashmiris are just acting this theory out - this time dressed up as a regional movement. If Sikh Punjabis and Keralite Christians and Tamil Hindus can live together in India, the only reason Kashmiris cannot is because they are neighbors to Pakistan, the ideological base of the two-nation theory.

Are Muslim Indians just Indians because they are trapped by geography and if they are not trapped by geography they want to be something else? This is the message that Kashmiris are sending us. This is the ``dead dog`` - it stinks and is fouling up relations in South Asia.

Dear Chowkwallas:

The following opinion piece is an examination of the issue of Kashmir, the Two-Nation Theory, and the role of India in South Asia. This piece is confrontational. Chowkwallas need to examine: Are the facts right? Should we need to bring in the Two-Nation Theory to resolve conflicts? Can we achieve peace by simply talking about the need for peace? Or, should we confront violently to engage in a serious peace dialogue?

Additional questions and comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The News International Pakistan; Wednesday, October 27, 1999; Opinion

The struggle continues

Mir Jamilur Rahman

This day 52 years ago the Indian government on the strength of a fraudulent, and most probably a non-existent, document had lifted its forces to Srinagar to crush the freedom-loving Kashmiris who had taken up arms against the Hindu Maharaja. The British Raj had ended ten weeks earlier and according to the partition formula, the princely states were required to accede to either Pakistan or India. It was generally understood and accepted that the princely states of Hindu majority would accede to India and those of Muslim majority opt for Pakistan, notwithstanding the religion of their respective rulers. That was the Two-nation theory in essence, which had given birth to Pakistan on August 14, 1999.

It has been established by historical evidence that though India had agreed to partition based on the Two-nation theory as expounded by the Quaid, but it had from the day one conspired to thwart the partition plan. In fact, the Indian plan to frustrate the Two-nation theory was set in motion even before partition when Gurdaspur district was awarded to India in spite of its Muslim majority. This little enclave in East Punjab provided India with a common border with Jammu and Kashmir and an all-weather access to the vale.

The maharaja`s reluctance to make the accession announcement had raised doubts about his intentions. Over two months had passed since independence and the fate of Kashmir and its inhabitants was still undecided. The Kashmiris were naturally perturbed about their future. Their worries were not unfounded because on or about October 17, 1947, Patiala troops had arrived in Kashmir to lend support to the maharaja`s hold on the state. The presence of Patiala forces, which were under the command of New Delhi, was sufficient evidence to prove that India was conspiring to annex Kashmir against the wishes of its inhabitants.

From then on, the political struggle in Kashmir became very intense. The Kashmiri leaders appealed for help in response to which the tribal forces crossed into Kashmir at Domel on October 22. Two days later the state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was established and Sardar Ibrahim became its first president. The maharaja`s authority had disappeared fast. He fled his capital to take refuge in Jammu from where on October 26 or 27 he formally acceded to India. The date of accession is doubtful because India has yet to make the accession document public.

The Transfer of Power papers that have been made public by the British government reveal that India had no intention of letting Kashmir opt for Pakistan. Alastair Lamb who has researched these papers has concluded in his book ``Kashmir--A Disputed Legacy (1846-1990)`` that India had regarded itself the true geopolitical successor to the British Raj. Therefore, Pakistan, which might or might not survive, had no business meddling in the affairs of a region as strategically significant as the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Mr Lamb has quoted a memorandum that India had addressed to British Prime Minister Clement Attlee on October 25, 1947. This communication clearly indicates that India was determined to intervene in Kashmir militarily, with or without accession, to secure the state for itself. Mr Attlee was told that a crisis has developed in Kashmir, which had been just invaded by a large number of Afridis and Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had asked for Indian help in restoring order. The government of India, the memorandum continues, was considering a favourable reply because ``Kashmir`s northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with three countries, Afghanistan, the USSR and China. Security of Kashmir, which must depend upon its internal tranquility and existence of stable government, is vital to the security of India, especially since part of the southern boundary of Kashmir and India are common.``

Mr Lamb writes that the memorandum made no mention of Pakistan that claimed an interest in an adjacent princely state of Muslim majority. Pakistan`s claim was based on the Two-nation theory that India had accepted and which had led to the division of India into two nations. The memorandum, coming so soon after partition and independence, exposes the Indian chicanery that the acceptance by Congress leaders of the Two-nation theory was just a ploy to expedite the British departure. Once the British were gone, India would act to hasten the collapse of Pakistan to kill the Two-nation theory .

The post-independence events bear witness to this nefarious design. Among other things, India stopped the transfer of liquid assets that were apportioned to Pakistan. This action was meant to destabilise and destroy the nascent economy to prove that Pakistan was not a viable proposition. Indian intervention in Kashmir was also a part of its campaign to negate the Two-nation theory .

The government of India was gripped in euphoria when its military intervention achieved the separation of East Pakistan. The establishment of Bangladesh led Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to boast that she has buried the Two-nation theory in the Bay of Bengal. Hardly so! True, that East Pakistan had parted company with us, but it did not fall in the Indian lap. It is independent, sovereign, and proud to be a Muslim country. The reason for its being a separate entity from India stems from its enduring adherence to the Two-nation theory. Therefore, the theory does not lie buried in the Bay of Bengal. On the contrary, it is more alive and Pakistan and Bangladesh are two of its living examples.

India in pursuit of its hegemonic ambitions has been following a strong-arm policy towards its neighbours. It intervened militarily in Kashmir to deprive its inhabitants the fruits of freedom. Its forces intervened in East Pakistan to separate it from Pakistan. It sent its army to Sri Lanka ostensibly to help end the civil war but in reality to establish its hegemony. It has made Bhutan its vassal state by slowly gnawing on its sovereign status. It remains at loggerhead with landlocked Nepal on the issue of transit trade.

It is in constant dispute with Bangladesh over sharing of river waters. It has forced Bangladesh to change the names of its rivers, the Brahamputra is now the Ganges. It proclaims China at its enemy number one and refuses to resolve the border dispute peacefully. In short, India is in quarrel with each of its neighbours be it Hindu Nepal, Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh, Buddhist Sri Lanka or Communist China.

The Indian military intervention started 52 years ago continues. The Kashmiris have been in constant revolt since then. They are fighting the Indian atrocities with courage and determination. Their sacrifices will not go to waste. Sooner than later, the world would wake up to its promise made in the UN Security Council Resolution. The resolution calls for a plebiscite in Kashmir and that is the only solution that would ease the tensions in the nuclear-armed subcontinent.

-- The News International, Pakistan

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear bahmad:

The more I think about insurgency in kashmir, the more I am inclined to believe that it was caused by pakistan and served as a catayst for the events to follow. I know you wouldn`t like to agree with me, but I have to say that even after several chances, you have not explained to me what `internal factors` or `indian coercive apparatus` or `enslavement of kashmiris` mean for a period of more than 40 years till 1989. You quote bose regularly and agree with him, but would not present how he/you justify your position. I fail to see the meaning of `Insurgency was a result of counterinsurgency`.

`What real measures India and Pakistan have taken to deal with the conflict between India and Pakistan? I hope, you won`t tell me that the Bus Diplomacy and a visit to the Minar-e-Pakistan was sufficient`

there have been other measures - many people to people contacts, cultural exchanges, pakistani school children visiting india, track-2 diplomacy are a few that come to mind immediately. There may be more. The bus diplomacy was not a farce in my opinion – there were good intentions and a serious effort to solve the issues. The visit to minar-e-pak was a symbolic gesture to address `india has not accepted pakistan` type of statements. I don`t even know what that means. Does india need to say everyday in the paper – we accept pakistan?

`Support for such movements is often provided very passively, cleverly, and you could find the evidence by deconstructing various, for example, backdated newspaper articles and editorials (you may also find evidence in the speeches of many second level politicians)`

first of all, i don`t think that pakistanis believe anything india or its politicians say. even otherwise, these are very feeble arguments in my opinion, when we are talking the separatism of the type in kashmir.

`I do believe that the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination`

I think you should very seriously consider the repercussions for nearly 135 muslims in india. There would be mayhem in india if kashmir became independent. Do you want to see that as a result of this `right`? I hope you don`t. `the coercive state apparatus` was the reason behind the creation of pakistan. do you think muslims in other parts of india also have a right to self-determination, to form yet another pakistan, if they feel `the coercive state apparatus` too? Those very kashmiri muslims, lived in kashmir, as a part of india, with hindus, for decades before they were incited by pakistan to hate hindus and india.

In a lighter tone, do you think tibetans have a right of self-determination? And should china agree for it?

Ras Siddiqui #51 reg Abdul Lones ``dead dog`` theory:

THe ``dead dog`` here is not Indian intransigience but Muslim separatism. In other posts, I have indicated that although there has been an attempt to dress the Kashmir movement as a ``secular self-determination`` movement, the fact of that matter is that the self-determination demand would not have come up if it was a Hindu majority area. So this is really a Hindu-Muslim issue and therefore the issue is broader than Kashmir. This is Kashmir`s burden to bear.

In response to RaviK (Reply #: 123):

Dear RaviK:

If I were an Indian, I would have asked the same questions that you, and perhaps concerned, have been trying to ask.

I am not an expert on Kashmir, I am more interested in the affairs of Pakistan. I do believe that the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination. I don`t prefer and approve violent means of protest and particularly the use of violence by the state. I don`t support wars and a very large and unwarranted expense on war machinery. In this sense, I am a supporter of Gandhi`s philosophy of non-violence.

States all over the world use repressive measures to crush protests and separatist movements. I do believe that the governments have a right to maintain law and order but without unnecessarily depriving the basic citizenship and human rights of people and without crushing their demands by share force. This is the reason that I deplore the event of 1989 in Kashmir or of 1971 in East Pakistan or of 1974 in Baluchistan. Let me address your concerns more concretely.

You could be right (as you seem to implicate) that there was negligible insurgency in Kashmir before 1989. You could also be right that Kashmiris were much better off before 1989 (I know that India had poured a lot of money to appease the Kashmiris). You could also be right that the moral and material support provided by Pakistan may have triggered a chain of protests and violent actions. But, I don`t accept that Pakistani support worked as a catalyst for the events of 1989 and beyond. I think, the problems are internal and essentially a product of the way India has tried to deal with the Kashmiri insurgents. I think, the primary reason is the sufferings of a good number of Kashmiris at the hands of Indian state apparatus. I think, Kashmiris do not accept the presence of Indian Army (and/or security forces) in Kashmir. It is a truism that violence breeds violence (which indeed is sad and deplorable).

Your question: ``Do you accept that without Pakistan`s support in terms of arms and training the onset of militancy would not have occured despite the dissatisfaction of the populace ? ``

My answer: It would have delayed the process if the people of Kashmir are really dissatisfied and if the insurgency was basically a product of Pakistani support. I think, the issue of Kashmir is political and it requires a political solution. Strategies to deal with the problem of Kashmir have so far proved to be inadequate. We need to find an appropriate solution, such that there is a lasting peace and an environment of goodwill in South Asia. What do you propose in this regard?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

India: Challenging the people`s mindset

A veteran diplomat shares his views on India`s decades of failures and achievements in the aspirations for the future. The Nation`s Rita Patiyasevi writes.

INDIA can proudly claim it has maintained a democratic system since independence when in most developing countries, democracy got distorted or transformed -- to plain military dictatorships, military dictatorship in the guise of democracy or one-party government.

It has for over five decades experimented with democracy despite earlier predictions by international scholars and local pundits that a country as vast and complicated would not be able to sustain for long institutions of democracy such as free and fair polls, a free press, an independent judiciary and a non-political civil servant selected on merit.

India proved them wrong.

As the country commemorates its 51st anniversary of independence, Dr Abid Hussain, a renowned veteran Indian diplomat, who was recently in Bangkok, shares his views on the country`s decades of failures and achievements in laying the foundations for democracy and what aspirations it holds for the future.

Unlike most countries where independence was achieved through violent means or radical revolutions, India`s independence from the British in 1947 was relatively non-violent.

Although there were bloody incidents in its struggle, it was relatively non-violent and with the use of politics as the guiding force, it brought change from the traditional society to modern India.

``It was true politics that India was united for the first time as a country,`` Hussain said.

Freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhai Patel who engineered the bringing of the territories together, had with 50 other lawyers carved the democratic regime which was a way ahead of what the British left the country with.

``Britain gave us the form of democratic institutions minus freedom,`` he said.

There are certain conflicts and contradictions in the Indian democracy which are clear signals that the democratic structure has to undergo a change.

``This is where the second transfer of powers has started in India today,`` he said.

Hussain said of the million mutinies which people talk about today, the undisciplined behaviour seen in the parliament and the legislature, or some of the hounding activities in the street, are really the manifestation of the powerless trying to become the powerful themselves.

``What gives the impression of anarchy in India, or chaos, or that something is happening in India is really the rising of the underdogs to demand their rights, and this is due entirely to the political process and democracy,`` he said.

Indian democracy has a unique aspect -- it centralises and decentralises, integrates and disintegrates India at the same same time.

He explained that in a country with such diversities in religion, race and language, the people are able to retain their culture and heritage but within the framework of India.

``You have a right in the democratic framework to assert your culture and values, but the assertions should not be at the expense of the country because it would destroy the very basis of the type of society which we want to achieve,`` he said.

``A just political society is one in which minorities are safe, but the state is also safe from minorities,`` he said.

India has had its achievements and failures, but despite the noble ambition that all men must have access to opportunities to earn an income and become rich, India failed to achieve this goal.

Blaming the country`s failure on open politics but a closed economy, Hussain said with the state, the bureaucrats and the clerks deciding who should get a licence and who should not, and where the money should be invested and where not, had crushed any creativity or motivation to compete.

Although India made good advances in the first decade after independence, the state`s hegemonistic economy had brought about failure.

Looking back, Hussain beams with pride that today, the country, which was not even able to produce 50 million tonnes of food grain, has started growing 118 million tonnes for local consumption and export.

A country once gripped with illiteracy and hardly any colleges now stands in the forefront of education with its men and women accepted all over the world.

Hussain acknowledged that the economic regime of India did go wrong and democracy was not to blame.

What India needed was a democratic leader who lends voice to the people with checks and balances.

The people have to play a role and this is where the media comes in.

He said change must come through the process of politics and the process of politics finds its best expression in democracy.

``Democratic values, in my own feelings, have universal positions -- universal moral positions which have got to be taken by everybody and the right of an individual has got to be accepted,`` he said.

He said India`s economy in 1947 was in a miserable state, being backward and primitive in agriculture. There were a few industries of textiles and some connected with railways. But most of the industries were meant for Britain and not India.

It was also the most illiterate country at the time with very few universities that taught only philosophy and not subjects of functional and professional values.

But soon, the country became the 10th industrial state in the world exporting parts to Korea and Germany and agricultural products outside, and the seventh largest school of technocrats in the world.

India boomed in the first phase of development in the 1960s but not for long. In the 70s, it reached a plateau -- when it became clear that the economy, which was increasing by five per cent, was faced with a situation where the population was growing at two per cent. This hardly left any surplus for the regeneration of the domestic economy.

``It was at this stage when we also realise the state which earlier played a very important role in development had become a hindrance to development because it was too bureaucratic and too oriented to licensing and regulation,`` he said.

Licensing and regulation were done to such an extend that competition was not permitted with the result that those who got into the industry asked for more protection in terms of giving rights so a monopoly situation became evident in India.

India realised that all along it had had an economy which was inward looking, but then started to think of changing the system during former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi`s time.

Three committees were established to look into the areas of finance, public sector and policies relating to trade and commerce.

The committees conceded that banks were not to be under the control of the finance ministry but the Reserve Bank of India, and that the public sector enterprises which were not doing well should either be closed or management handed over.

In the first two years of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, reforms were carried out in the first two years but then relapsed.

Today, after over five decades of experimentation with democracy, the journey remains incomplete, and although India will persistently pursue the path of reform, it will still be cautious towards total opening of some of the sectors -- such as financial institutions.

Hussain said the challenge grows even greater in trying to handle globalisation and changing the mindset of the people.

The Nation , Thailand

To Bahmed

Regarding the Kashmir issue, you cite Bose`s work highlighting the repressive counterinsurgency measures which the Indian army have been implementing. However as i understand it these measures were instituted after 1989 as a reaction to the onset of armed militancy in the state.

The key questions that Concerned has also raised are the reasons for the uprising in 1989 in the first place. As far as i`m aware, prior to 1989 the army was not based in any huge number in the civilian areas of Kashmir, and the question of army repression does not arise.

What are your opinions on the reasons for the onset of militancy in the state ? I`m aware of the charges of rigged elections and mismanagement by the state and central government over the 40 years, but at the same time the average Kashmiri was a lot better off prior to 1989 than they are now.

Do you accept that without Pakistan`s support in terms of arms and training the onset of militancy would not have occured despite the dissatisfaction of the populace ?

In response to concerned (Reply #: 120):

Dear concerned:

I also think we should delink the events of 1971 with the Kashmir issue. Why? Because: (1) the issue of Kashmir is basically one of self-determination; and (2) the revenge factor would make the case of Kashmir morally weak. However, if a nation (Pakistan) has a (perceived; imagined; or real) problem of national security then it is not so difficult to justifiably/unjustifiably link the two issues. Such threats along with other developments continuously produce and reproduce adversarial relations. There are many small and big examples which I would prefer not to identify (unless forced to do so). So, my message is: Let us try to find ways to coexist peacefully and honorably.

Your statement: ``pakistan has invaded kashmir a few times since independence.``

Comment: Kashmir is a disputed territory. I personally do not support a violent solution of Kashmir (which may or may not include the invasion of a disputed territory).

Your statement regarding the invasion of Kashmir: `` i do not consider it justified. simply because india is not conducting a genocide in kashmir and millions of refugees are not pouring in pakistani territory. if these conditions were true, pakistan could be justified.``

Comment: This statement, although honest, is geared to provide a justification to the Indian invasion of East Pakistan. I don`t think India was justified. India had long been training the Mukti-Bahinis and Indian Army was also actively involved. India, being the largest working democracy in the world, should have used other more civil methods to deal with the issues of genocide and the refugees. We must forget the past, but we must ensure a peaceful present and future. What real measures India and Pakistan have taken to deal with the conflict between India and Pakistan? I hope, you won`t tell me that the Bus Diplomacy and a visit to the Minar-e-Pakistan was sufficient.

Your question regarding the `slides of mutilated bodies...`: I saw these slides in a seminar. I don`t remember the exact year. Perhaps it was earlier than 1989 (but I could be wrong).

Regarding the separatist movements: I was talking about the ``potential`` separatist movements. I don`t think that there was a true separatist movement (other than East Pakistan, at a very late stage) in Pakistan. There have been ``potential`` separatist movements in NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sindh. These potential movements are normally latent and have very little chance of becoming true separatist movements. Support for such movements is often provided very passively, cleverly, and you could find the evidence by deconstructing various, for example, backdated newspaper articles and editorials (you may also find evidence in the speeches of many second level politicians).

Regarding Sumantra Bose and the role of the Indian coercive state apparatus: I borrowed Bose`s book from the library. However, Bose has argued that the repressive counterinsurgency practices of Indian security forces in Kashmir, including such things as routine cordon-and-search operations, arbitrary detention of thousands of youths, extended curfews in major towns and cities, looting, rape and torture, far from being aberrations ``are integral components, or at least inevitable extensions, of a systematic policy.

We need to develop an honest critique of the problems facing our respective countries. We also need to find ways to resolve our conflicts peacefully and amicably in the greater interest of our coming generations. Aren`t we already too far behind in this World (with massive internal problems)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad