What is it that Pakistanis want?

u don`t have to be a Peer to read the past, the present, and the future -- ``Kashmir Valley never belonged to Pakistan and ``it never will``.......

Kashmir: Musharraf`s many dilemmas

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DB09Df01.html

By Muhammad Rafique

ISLAMABAD - A startling statement by a prominent Sindhi politician and spiritual leader with hundreds and thousands of followers has presented a new dilemma to embattled President General Pervez Musharraf, who is locked in a dangerous standoff with neighboring India over the disputed and divided Kashmir.

On the eve of Solidarity Day with Kashmiris on February 5, the Peer Pagaro Shah Mardan Shah, the spiritual head of the Hur tribesmen and a known supporter of the military in the key Sindh province, shocked both the nation and the military by declaring that the Kashmir Valley never belonged to Pakistan and ``it never will``.

Although the military regime did not directly respond to the Peer`s statement, several pro-Musharraf politicians, mainly belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League party aspiring to form the bulwark of the ``real democracy`` Musharraf is planning to introduce in Pakistan after the upcoming October elections, condemned the statement as ``unpatriotic``.

The Peer Pagaro heads his own faction of the Muslim League, which is divided into half a dozen or more factions, and the military is trying desparately to unite them in order to pick a prime ministerial candidate from among them, by helping it to win the elections. Musharraf himself will become an all-powerful president under the new dispensation, after dumping the ``sham democracy`` under which Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif twice became prime ministers.

The Peer Pagaro, who helped General Zia ul Haq topple prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a coup in 1977, has always been close to the generals, not because of any political skills or popularity among the masses but simply because he commands the unalloyed loyalty of the hundreds of thousands of Hur tribesmen who live in the deserts of Sindh, bordering India, and who have always formed the second line of defense for the Pakistani regular troops in the soft belly of Pakistan.

Most observers say that if and when the war breaks out in the context of the present standoff between the two nuclear-armed adversaries, India will attack from the same very region. In both the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, the Hurs of the Peer (the hereditary spirtual head) fought side-by-side with the Pakistani troops in that strategic area and they will again need the Peer`s help if the war breaks out.

Reliable political sources have told Asia Times Online that the government has sent intermediaries to mollify the Peer to keep him on their side. The Peer, according to sources, wants a nominee from the province of Sindh to become the prime minister of Pakistan under the ``real democracy`` which Musharraf wants to introduce after amending the 1973 prime ministerial constitution patterned on the Westminster model, which all military dictators in Pakistan have spurned and amended to enable them to wield real power.

Musharraf has constituted the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) under a retired lieutenant-general to amend the constitution, which he is allowed to do as the Supreme Court of Pakistan validated his coup until October 2002. The NRB is now busy making the amendments which Musharraf plans to have validated by the new parliament, the seats of which he has already increased by about 30 percent. The NRB is also making provisions for Musharraf to handpick about 50 technocrats to strengthen his hand.

Musharraf has also increased to 70 the quota of seats allocated for women. These will be elected on the basis of proportional representation while the regular candidates will be elected along party lines on the first-past-the-post basis.

But Musharraf is determined to keep both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, both of whom are in exile, out of the electoral arena. Bhutto is now in Washington to lobby for support from the right quarters to allow her to return to Pakistan to participate in the elections. She has even said that she is ready to become prime minister under the new Musharraf dispensation, and has supported his move to crack down on Islamic jihadi organizations. But Musharraf has stuck to his stand that he will never allow either Sharif or Bhutto to contest elections while he is in power, and he is determined to remain in power even beyond the permitted five years from October of this year, unless the fates or the Americans intervene, according to independent political analysts.

And the general has removed far from the scene all the mullahs who can and are determined to muster street power to force the general out and install another general more to their liking.

Politicians other than the Peer of Pagaro are eyeing the key positions, including the prime ministrial post, and they are looking to the Americans more than the ruling junta because they perceive that power in Pakistan comes via Washington. Meanwhile, the Americans, especially the very active American Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain, are keeping a close eye on who might become the next prime minister.

One of the current favorites is Mehmood Kasuri, a lawyer from Lahore who runs a string of schools throughout Pakistan. As for the unpredictable and sometimes jocular Peer of Pagaro, his favorite could be anybody from the half a dozen politicians who go and touch his feet, as is the custom for the holy men of Sindh. The Peer is no fundamentalist and is known to keep the compay of beautiful women.

Intriguingly, some analysts believe the Peer of Pagaro might have made his Kashmir remarks with a wink and a nod from ``someone important`` to help solve the Kashmir dilemma by having both India and Pakistan maintain the parts of Kashmir they now hold - which just may be the ultimate solution.

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

It is in the back of Pakistani mind that if it can hold on to another decade this desperate group would also be melted in the all absorbing monsoon of Bangladesh. The dilution of the Pakistan Resolution is a thought out plan but the message is not overlooked. According to some diplomats, ``Pakistan prefers a Government in Dhaka that would not take up the irritating point with Islamabad.`` Through re-writing Resolution Islamabad also wish to forestall possibility of Muslim immigration from India. The other fact is that Pakistan feels natural affinity to Kashmiris over her nationals in Bangladesh. Libyan Foreign Minister Omar Mustafa Montassar once asked me, ``Being an ambassador of neighbouring country what do you think about the Kashmiris voting to join Pakistan?`` In my unofficial response I mentioned that in such an eventuality the Kashmiris probably would take the following in to consideration [a] the status of the Muhajirs in Pakistan since 1947, [b] the fate of the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh, [c] the state of power sharing between the heartland and the outlying provinces, [d] Soviet Union was dismembered without war and in the wake thirteen Independent Republics on distinct Nationality and Territorial line came up in the neighborhood of Kashmir. Kashmiris can not be immune to the change of season. Pakistan is well aware of the fact that not all Islamic countries support her position on Kashmir. It is neither a secret to the Indian and the Pakistani leadership that Col.Gaddhafi favours an independent Kashmir. The Libyan leader offered his best services to that end. He has considerable following in the Sub-Saharan Islamic countries.

http://www.dailystarnews.com/200104/19/n1041909.htm#BODY1

http://www.newsline.com.pk/html/impressions.html

Indian Spring

MARCH 2001 ISSUE

- By Sairah Irshad Khan

A Muslim Indian explained why. ``Traditionally, the Indian Muslim has displayed a visible arrogance towards the Hindu faith. He has mocked his deities, shunned his beliefs and adopted the high moral ground in relation to the Hindu lifestyle. If this is the Indian Muslim, who has coexisted with the Hindu forever, it is presumed, naturally, that the Muslim from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be far more intolerant. The arrival of seven Pakistanis for the Kumbh and their obvious respect for Hindu customs, has therefore, made for a pleasant surprise. And this really is how we can build bridges, gulf the divide.``

Said an Indian Muslim businessman with a Pakistani wife and a large branch of his family on our side of the border, ``There used to be a time when Pakistanis would visit their relatives in India and speak of the quality of life they enjoyed in Pakistan as first-class citizens. The Indian Muslim would then bemoan his lot, and wonder whether he`d taken the right decision at Partition. But over the years, things changed. Between the Middle East, India`s economic boom, their own initiative, the Muslims have done better. Then along come the `mohajirs` from Pakistan with their tales of oppression and injustice, and suddenly the Indian Muslim thinks, `we`re not so badly off after all.``` He added that Kashmir has created another problem for the Indian Muslim. ``Always hard-pressed to prove his loyalty to his country, every time the Kashmir issue flares up, the loyalties of Muslims in India come under suspicion. Recently, I heard a group of Indian Muslims discussing the situation, and one of them turned around and said the Pakistanis are not interested in Muslims – only Kashmir. If they were, they`d worry about what happens to the huge Muslim community in India every time they instigate trouble in Kashmir.``

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

October 10, 2000

LAHORE JOURNAL

A Jihad Leader Finds the U.S. Perplexingly Fickle

By BARRY BEARAK

Barry Bearak/ The New York Times

LAHORE, Pakistan, Oct. 2 — The professor uses henna to redden his long beard, and that, along with a natural smile, makes him appear somewhat jovial, an unexpected cheerfulness from someone who commands what many believe to be a group of terrorists.

Killing, of course, is a pious man`s obligation, ``to destroy the forces of evil and disbelief,`` explained the professor, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. His rapidly growing organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Army of the Pure), is duty-bound to ``bring death to oppressors.``

With that in mind, he sends hundreds of Pakistanis to fight in the jihad against India in Kashmir, he said. First the young men are taught to recite the Koran and to reflect on the virtues of a reverent Muslim society. Then, as with almost any other army, they are taught how to fire automatic weapons, set off explosives and slit throats.

But these days the killing by Lashkar is too often confused with killing by others, the professor said testily. He is distressed by ``Indian propaganda`` that falsely accuses the Army of the Pure of slaying the purely innocent, as in the massacre of 35 Sikh villagers in March on the day President Clinton arrived in India for a visit.

And this concerns him: the State Department is considering Lashkar for Washington`s roster of the world`s most wicked, the blacklist of ``foreign terrorist organizations.``

``This would be a grave injustice,`` said Mr. Saeed. ``We do not kill civilians, only aggressors. We don`t believe it right to kill even a non-Muslim unless he is an aggressor.``

The interview was conducted in one of Lashkar`s many offices in the historic city of Lahore. Cookies and dried fruit were brought in on silver platters. The politeness was exemplary, though in serving an American guest, the graciousness did not extend to removing a wall poster that showed the American flag in flames, along with the Indian flag.

``Destroy the nonbelievers,`` the placard read.

The professor`s anxiety about the opinions of the State Department was a bit puzzling. Why does he care? The punitive effect of being on the blacklist would be minimal, he admitted. Lashkar has little need for American visas. It has no assets to freeze in American banks.

Mostly, he said, he is offended by the simple gall of it. ``Who is America to judge us?`` he said. ``We don`t trust America, and we certainly do not see it as a champion of justice.``

He has fired off a letter of protest.

Mr. Saeed is 53, retired now as a professor of Islamic studies at an engineering college. In the 1980`s he went off to fight in the jihad that chased Soviet invaders out of neighboring Afghanistan.

``America supported us with guns,`` he said. ``If we were not terrorists then, why are we terrorists now? How can Americans stand for such double standards?``

To him, the 53-year-old custody battle for the Himalayan territory of Kashmir is an open-and-shut case, with Pakistan in the right. He likens the Indian ``occupation`` of the disputed territory to the imperialism of the Soviets.

Not only does he want Kashmir to become a part of Pakistan, but he also wants Pakistan to become a part of a global Islamic state. ``Muslims throughout the world are one country,`` he said.

Mr. Saeed`s vexation with America is hardly uncommon in this nation of 150 million. Uncle Sam is perceived to favor India, the emerging regional superpower and a potential market with one billion consumers. Pakistan, on the other hand, is near financial collapse.

In addition to jihad, men like Mr. Saeed provide schools to the masses, places where the poor can send their children to be both educated and fed. Those are services that Pakistan`s relentless tag team of military and civilian governments has been unable to provide.

Mr. Saeed sits atop more than the Army of the Pure. In 1989 he began the Markaz Ad-daawah Wal Irshad, the Center for Preaching. It has more than 130 schools and a modern- looking university that rises out of the wheat fields near Lahore.

Lashkar is now a political force within Pakistan, just as it is a guerrilla army in Kashmir. The money behind the group, the professor said, comes entirely from private donors. He denied widely held suspicions that Lashkar is on the payroll of Pakistan`s government, whose intelligence agencies have been a willing sponsor of the 11-year-old Kashmir jihad.

``People who send their sons to fight in jihad also give money for that purpose,`` the professor said vaguely, uncomfortable with the subject. ``Do not ask me about numbers.``

Mr. Saeed had selected the group`s media center for the meeting. Only a single guard was stationed out front, a machine gun in his hand, an ammunition belt across his shoulder. Inside, young men were hunched over computer keyboards, writing for Lashkar`s various magazines. An escort enforced a ban on photographing people. The professor said the capture of human images is forbidden by Islam.

Lashkar has proven itself a clever self-promoter. Its posters are bright and arresting. Its magazines are enticing, with articles like ``Koran and Astronomy`` and ``Prophet`s Medicine: Olive Is the Cure for 70 Diseases.`` The last page in the international edition of Voice of Islam is a recruitment pitch for jihad: ``Learn how to use swords, spears, daggers and how to attack disbeliever forces, how to set up an ambush and lay siege to the camps and cantonments of the enemy, how to protect yourself and other oppressed Muslims during crackdowns and blackouts. Learn all these things through the Koran.``

The professor made a gift of a bound volume of back issues of the magazine. He was tiring of all this talk about terrorism, though his interest slightly revived when the subject turned to Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal. He said those apocalyptic bombs were good to have, but only as a means to deter an enemy.

``To use such weapons in jihad would be un-Islamic,`` he said, pointing his finger. ``To use them: that is terrorism. And what is the only country to use them?``

The answer left him with a triumphant smile.

``America,`` he said. ``So who is the terrorist?``

I think this articles is merely a reproduction of

media projection supported by the government which is far from reality & supported merely by a

public survey & other vague logics(usually projected in media).The needs as mentioned in

the article could & had not developed only in the so called disiplined Military General`s rule who

I think should be taught well to only perform the duties meant for them.

Democracy could not develop in pakistan if

1 It is not given a breathing space.

2 peolpe who wish to see pakistan prosper dont

spend their energies to real democratic norms

as against the undemocratic forces pulling it

to the other end in both military and the civil

rule in the 50 year history.

Amanullah Khan, chief of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front believes that the divided

Jammu and Kashmir should be reunited (Indian administered and Pakistan administered)

in several peaceful phases and made a fully independent State for, say 15 years, with

a democratic, non-communal and federal system of government. That government should have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The international community should give an undertaking that none of the neighbouring states will interfere in the internal affairs of the new state or violate its frontiers. Similarly, the new state of J&K should ensure its neutrality and not allow its soil to be used against any country. After 15 years the UN can ask Kashmiris if they want to remain independent or become a part of India or Pakistan. Every party should then accept the popular decision of a referendum. A UN peace and monitoring force can ensure the fairness of such an exercise.

``In my view, both India and Pakistan have to choose between the status quo and independence to a re-united Jammu and Kashmir. For India, the status quo will mean continued trouble in Kashmir as is happening right now. On the other hand, re-unification of an independent J&K can go a long way in developing friendly relations between India and Pakistan, with Kashmir acting as a bridge. This is the only solution for a peaceful and prosperous future for the region.

Pakistan has already missed a number of chances. In 1948, India`s deputy prime minister, Sardar Patel offered the entire region of J&K to Pakistan. His condition was that Pakistan should abandon its claim on Junagadh and stop supporting the demand of complete independence then being made by the Nizam (the ruler) of Hyderabad State in Central India. Pakistan rejected the offer with the result that it lost almost all the three states. Today, every Pakistani repents missing that chance. Here is yet another chance for Pakistan.

A friendly, independent Jammu Kashmir will be far more beneficial to Pakistan than the status quo. After some time even this chance may not be available to her. By parroting the demand for implementation of UN resolutions, which deny to Kashmiris their right to independence and may never come to pass, Pakistan is bent upon committing another folly. And after Clinton`s visit, Pakistan should do some soul-searching and try to understand the dynamics that are now driving international politics.``

http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0407/nat.kashmir.srinagar.html

A New Kind of War

Kashmir`s militants are becoming more audacious than ever, putting Indi an forces on the defensive

By ANTHONY DAVIS Srinagar

They waited in the half-light of dusk, unnoticed amid the traffic and passers-by. Only when the iron gates opened to allow a military vehicle into the barracks did they move. Before the gates had swung shut, the two men hurled themselves into the compound, assault rifles blazing. As troops of India`s paramilitary Border Security Force (BSF) dived for cover or fell wounded, the two raiders barricaded themselves into second-floor rooms dominating the street below. What followed last week unfolded according to a script that across Kashmir is becoming increasingly predictable: hundreds of BSF and local police backed by armored vehicles surrounded the building in a siege that dragged on for 18 hours. Punctuated by explosions and exchanges of fire, it ended in a blaze set by the military that reduced the building to a roaring funeral pyre. Both militants died. So did four BSF soldiers.

This is the new face of rebellion in India`s Jammu & Kashmir state: determined, irrepressible and suicidally audacious. The men behind it are fedayeen commandos of holy war trained in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, mostly Pakistanis and often members of the militant Islamist Lashkar-e-Taiba (``Army of the Pious``). Since late last year their readiness for self-sacrifice has repeatedly brought the struggle for Kashmir home to Indian forces, as army camps, BSF bases and police stations have been targeted. ``Since [last summer`s] Kargil [mini-war], the number of militants and the extent of operations are far greater,`` says a Western military analyst. ``They`re riding a wave of success.``

Kashmir`s Contenders

The Militants: Some 1,500 to 2,000 strong. Spearheaded by Pakistani-dominated groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harakat ul-Mujahideen, who account for maybe 50% of the active manpower. Well-trained and -equipped. More professional and harder-hitting than ever before. Largely Kashmiris, but with growing proportion of foreigners - mainly Pakistanis with a smattering of Afghans. Motivated by Islam as well as money.

Indian Security Forces: Jammu & Kashmir police, 50,000 strong. Backed by Indian army Rashtriya Rifles counter-insurgency units, the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force and others. Approximately 150,000 for internal security, not including regular army divisions on or near the Line of Control. Since a major reorganization following the 1999 Kargil mini-war, the security forces are stretched thin and on the defensive.

The National Conference State Government: Elected in 1996 and headed by Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah. Provides New Delhi with a fig-leaf of political respectability, but has achieved little and remains widely unpopular. Corruption flourishes in Jammu &Kashmir state, while the economy languishes.

All-Party Hurriyat Conference: Led by spiritual leader Umar Farooq. Embraces a wide range of political parties and groupings, but is united behind call for a U.N.-sponsored plebiscite to determine Kashmir`s future. Several key leaders are in jail, and its activities are constrained. Has links with militant groups but argues for a political solution.



Last week`s attack in Chanapora, a suburb of state capital Srinagar, came exactly one day after the savage slaughter of 35 unarmed Sikhs in the village of Chettisinghpora, 70 km south of Srinagar. That atrocity was almost certainly also the work of militants - according to authorities, both locals and fighters from across the Pakistani side of the Line of Control (LOC). Apparently timed to coincide with the visit of U.S. President Bill Clinton, the double-barreled assault was aimed at underscoring one brutal message: that Indian hopes of imposing anything approaching normalcy in Kashmir - tantalizingly close before Kargil - are once more light years removed from realities on the ground. Indeed, security officials in the state are bracing for things to get a lot worse before they get better. Concedes Brig. Mohan Bhandari of the Indian army`s Srinagar-based 15th Corps HQ: ``The next few months are going to be hot.``

Just how hot will hinge largely on how many militants - Kashmiri and Pakistani - join the fray from across the LOC when the snows melt and mountain passes open in April and May. Indian intelligence sources estimate there are already 1,500 to 2,000 hardcore fighters operating on the Indian side of the line. And, they claim, up to 4,000 more are currently training in camps in Pakistan-administered ``Azad Kashmir`` (``Free Kashmir``). Indian reports indicate that since early February several hundred men have been given heavy-weapons training at the Pakistan army`s Tilla Range camp near Jhelum and not far from the LOC. That, believe some intelligence analysts, may presage further small-scale incursions along the LOC intended to provide cover for spring-time infiltration.

How far Islamabad intends to up the ante is unclear. In his meetings with Pakistan military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf and in his address on Pakistani national TV, Clinton urged on Pakistan - as he did on India - the importance of respect for the LOC. But beyond that, Musharraf and his Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt.-Gen Mehmood Ahmed, will need to take two other factors into consideration. First is the near certainty of raids by Indian commando teams into Azad Kashmir, with the risk of a major Indian incursion if the situation in the Kashmir valley deteriorates unacceptably. Second is the concern that the militancy in the valley may already be slipping beyond the control of ISI.

``Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harakat ul-Mujahideen may be funded and equipped by ISI,`` says a Western military source in Islamabad, ``but they have more initiative now. They`re gung-ho, full of confidence and slipping away from ISI`s leash.`` The brutal slaughter at Chettisinghpora may well confirm that analysis. Few independent observers believe that an atrocity targeted squarely at civilians just five days before Clinton`s visit to Islamabad could have been sanctioned by Pakistan`s military.

The ominous build-up of militant strength in Azad Kashmir is providing New Delhi with ample grounds for its own well-rehearsed version of events in Kashmir. At the root of the crisis is what the Indians regard as ``cross-border terrorism`` and ``proxy war.`` Close down the Pakistani-run training camps, eliminate ``foreign mercenaries`` runs the line, and Kashmir will reconcile itself to its place in the Indian Union. But that`s a line increasingly coming to serve as a fig-leaf for New Delhi`s own political nakedness in the Kashmir valley. ``People are not happy,`` says one senior official in Srinagar. ``The situation on the ground is a mess.``

Elections in Jammu & Kashmir in 1996 ended seven years of rule from New Delhi and brought to power the National Conference (NC) of Farooq Abdullah, son of the legendary Sheikh Abdullah, father of post-Partition state politics. Since then the presence of the security forces - in the early 1990s a virtual army of occupation - has became far less oppressive. But despite weariness with violence and a marked drop in the insurgency from 1996 to 1999, recent years have brought only political drift and corrosive alienation among most Kashmiri Muslims.

Isolated and unpopular, Farooq is seen by most as a puppet of New Delhi, more interested in golf and movie starlets than the tragedy he presides over. ``In his position you need at least to give the impression you care,`` reflects a senior official in Srinagar. ``But he`s not even doing that. The perception is he`s having a good time while people suffer.`` In the wake of the Chettisinghpora massacre, Farooq did not visit the village to offer his condolences - wisely enough. When two of his ministers put in an appearance, both were nearly lynched by frenzied mourners. Under four years of NC rule, corruption in the administration has flourished while the economy has languished. ``Both the state and central government have been responsible,`` says an official. ``There`s been no central investment in industry or employment and no big effort at improving infrastructure.`` One estimate has 30,000 to 40,000 college graduates without jobs.

The political opposition, meanwhile, remains confined within the All-Party Hurriyat Conference. Set up in 1993 and today comprising 23 different parties and groupings (some favoring accession to Pakistan, others Kashmiri independence), the APHC is headed by Kashmir`s spiritual leader, the young Umar Farooq. Steadfastly wedded to its goal of a plebiscite enshrined in the U.N. resolutions of 1949, the APHC has consistently boycotted elections, arguing that participating would imply a recognition of the Indian Constitution. Several of its key leaders remain in jail, while Umar was under house arrest to prevent him from traveling to New Delhi during the Clinton road show. ``When we formed the APHC we felt it was a golden opportunity for the Indian government to go for a political solution,`` says Umar. ``But they know they have a weak political case. They`re going for a military option, and we can`t win militarily.``

Amid the political drift, local militancy, while at a far lower level than in the heady years of 1990-93, continues as a central element in the crisis. The Hizb ul-Mujahideen, one of several factions spearheading the insurgency, remains largely Kashmiri-dominated. And sympathy and passive support for the militants - local and foreign - is widespread. ``Obviously plenty of people support the militants,`` shrugs Arshad, a waiter in a Srinagar restaurant. ``If they didn`t, the security forces would be able to round them up in 24 hours.`` There are some indications that small numbers of local youths are once again moving into hardcore militant ranks, motivated either by money or anger. It`s the sort of anger triggered when, according to locals in the town of Pattan north of Srinagar last week, a police special task force unit set fire to over 17 shops in the early hours of March 21 in retaliation for a militant attack on the town`s police station.

Though disappearances and deaths in custody still occur, human-rights abuses by Indian forces are nowhere as bad as before. In fact, New Delhi is pinning what political hopes it has on winning hearts and minds with the prospect of wide-ranging autonomy - promised back in 1952 but never delivered. Now, the State Autonomy Committee`s report, adopted by the state assembly, has been submitted to New Delhi. But whether a central government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party will today find palatable prescriptions involving two flags, a state ``president`` and ``prime minister`` and limitations on the writ of India`s Supreme Court is doubtful at best. Meantime, for a government inNew Delhi with a crisis but little strategy, the threat from across the LOC provides a distraction that is real enough.

The partition of British India into Muslim-dominated Pakistan and a predominantly Hindu

Indian Union was accomplished on the basis of the so-called two-nation theory, according to which those districts of British India which had

a Muslim majority, according to the last available census data from 1941, were to go to Pakistan, while areas with Muslim minorities would

remain in India.

This criterion applied to Kashmir as well. But its application failed there, because the British had also granted rulers of principalities

unilateral deciding power. The reigning Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was of the Hindu Dogra dynasty, while the majority of his

subjects followed the Muslim faith. There were also regional differences within his territory. Most of the Muslims lived in the densely

populated Kashmir Basin and adjacent mountainous areas; Kashmiri Muslims made up more than 90 percent of the Basin`s population, that

percentage dropping to 86 percent only in Srinagar, the capital, where members of other religious communities played an important role in

commerce and administration. The Hindu and Sikh centers of settlement were in neighboring Jammu to the south and in the surrounding

Pir-Panjal Mountains. But even there, non-Muslims constituted a majority of the populace only in localized parts of the eastern section. It

was from that area, which had a 53 percent Muslim population according to the 1941 census, that the Hindu ruling house of Dogra had

come. After partition of the subcontinent, however, due to border adjustments and the flight of refugees the population structure in Jammu

shifted to produce today`s Hindu majority. Numerically less significant, but clearly present through a significant portion of Maharaja Hari

Singh`s area of rule, was settlement by a Lamaist-Buddhist population in the east and northeast. Ladakh, Zanskar and Rupshu make up the

thinly populated area with a non-Muslim majority.

According to the 1941 census figures, all of Kashmir had a total population of 4 million people, with the following religious breakdown:

77.1 percent Muslim, 20.1 percent Hindu, 1.7 percent Sikh, 1 percent Buddhist and .1 percent Christian.

This geographic and religious heterogeneity - particularly between the majority of the population and the ruling house, but also between

various social groups - laid the foundations of the subsequent conflict and provided different interest groups with a welcome instrument of

political mobilization. All of which was exacerbated because Maharaja Hari Singh delayed his decision about whether to throw in his lot with India or Pakistan until the last moment.

Briton Against Briton

The history of the first war between the newly independent states of India and Pakistan has often been described in exhaustive detail, and

yet there are sharp differences between the views of historians in each country over the trigger and course of the controversy. Be that as it

may, the important point for our purposes is how the first war was conducted and how it ended.

The troops on both sides were still under British command when they fought one another in Kashmir. At the start of combat in October

1947, British officers were still in charge of both armies, supported on both sides of the front by troops of the nascent armies of the

respective countries. And those colonial British officers were commanded by Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, who ranked as the

supreme commander of both Indian and Pakistani troops. Some researchers stress that this paradoxical situation led to a rapid UN

intervention aimed at peace talks.

In his 1991 book ``Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990,`` historian Alastair Lamb notes that, in the view of most British observers at the

time, a partition of Kashmir would have been the most sensible solution, quite in accord with the two-nation theory. India would have been

assigned large segments of Jammu and Ladakh, areas with Hindu and Buddhist majorities, while the rest of the territory ruled by the Dogra

dynasty would have gone to Pakistan. That model for a solution was put forward again in 1950 by Britain`s ambassador to the United

Nations, but both India and Pakistan rejected such a compromise. At that time, both parties were calling for a general referendum to decide

to which country the entire territory would belong. As a result, in the peace settlement of 1948 there was agreement on a withdrawal of all

troops to behind the agreed cease-fire line, the creation of separate zones of influence in Kashmir, and the immediate holding of a

referendum.

Stephen Cohen says ``The UN resolution called for the withdrawal of forces, and neither side (India nor Pakistan) has been willing to do this. Perhaps the Simla and Lahore agreements would be a better legal basis for dialogue on Kashmir than a resolution which cannot be implemented. I don`t foresee any likelihood of either country (India or Pakistan) getting ``all`` of Kashmir (that would include Northern territories and Jammu as well as Ladakh) peacefully, and if there was a war it would probably have gone nuclear, and we wouldn`t be worried about Srinagar. A legitimate concern on both sides is future ``ethnic cleansing,`` fortunately in India the Muslim population (150 million) is well-integrated into the political system, and pro-Hindu parties are afraid of alienating them as voters.

Former Indian Prime Minister IK Gujral on Kashmir

Mr. Gujral asserts that the Indian-Kashmir must remain with India, and both the countries (Pakistan and India) should accept the Line of Control as the permanent border. Why? Because if Kashmir goes, the 150 million Muslims in India will suffer heavily; there will be a civil war, a truly catastrophic situation.

If we hold plebiscite in Kashmir, then Tamil Nadu and other areas will also ask for the plebiscite. We cannot allow it.

Mr. Gujral does not accept the special status of the state of Kashmir, which has been given special rights in the Indian constitution. He says the Kashmir issue was solved after the 1971 war. An excerpt from his comments:



Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi had agreed that the Control Line (LOC) will be the permanent border, but Bhutto told Indira that since [he] has recently taken over and the army is still bruised after [the] defeat in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), he [Bhutto] cannot sign the dotted line. He said he needed another six months when he will come back and sign the agreement. Indira Gandhi was naïve. She let Bhutto go back. And you know Bhutto as he was, he changed his mind.

Mohammed Ayoob, Professor of International relations at Michigan State University: I would argue, no give on the Indian position on Kashmir, no matter what, because it would reopen -- any concession on Kashmir would reopen

all the wounds of partition, the trauma of partition. India cannot afford another

division of the country on the basis of religion because it would have a tremendous

negative impact on the future of the 130 million Muslims in the rest of the country who are citizens of India and equal citizens of India and should be treated as so. Opening up this Pandora`s Box would pander to the basis instincts of those Hindu chauvinists who consider all Muslims fifth columnists. So there is no give on the Indian position on Kashmir. The 120 million Muslims of India cannot be sacrificed

at the altar of so-called rights of the three or four million Kashmiris.

Fareed Zakaria on Kashmir:The conflict in Kashmir won`t be solved until there is a marked evolution of attitudes within India and Pakistan, something unlikely to happen any time soon. If India`s ruling class had the courage to move boldly and integrate their country into the world, many old, seemingly intractable problems like Kashmir might even yield to solutions. After all, it is surely not a coincidence that Ireland came closer to resolving its troubles after moving forthrightly into the European Union and experiencing the heady economic growth that came with it.

Stephen Cohen on Kashmir

For many years there were few Indian-Americans or Pakistani-Americans in the US,

let alone Kashmiri-Americans, so the political pressures were not there. Second,

the uprising 1989 surprised everyone, including most Pakistanis, transforming the

Kashmir situation. Finally, it was not until India tested nuclear weapons that

the full dangers of Kashmir were widely appreciated. My concern is that domestic

political pressures will polarize the issue further, that the Kashmir uprising

(which was pro-democracy and relatively secular) will be submerged by Jehadists,

and that the nuclear threat will frighten outsiders away, not draw them in.

You will then have the worst of all possible worlds, a torn Kashmir, dominated

by extremists, a disinterested outside world, and the prospect of a nuclear flashpoint.



http://www.brook.edu/comm/chat/cohen000321.htm

-

Former Indian Prime Minister IK Gujral on Kashmir

Mr. Gujral asserts that the Indian-Kashmir must remain with India, and both

the countries (Pakistan and India) should accept the Line of Control as the

permanent border. Why? Because if Kashmir goes, the 150 million Muslims in

India will suffer heavily; there will be a civil war, a truly catastrophic situation.

If we hold plebiscite in Kashmir, then Tamil Nadu and other areas will also

ask for the plebiscite. We cannot allow it.

Mr. Gujral does not accept the special status of the state of Kashmir, which

has been given special rights in the Indian constitution. He says the Kashmir

issue was solved after the 1971 war. An excerpt from his comments:



Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi had agreed that the Control Line (LOC)

will be the permanent border, but Bhutto told Indira that since [he] has

recently taken over and the army is still bruised after [the] defeat in

East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), he [Bhutto] cannot sign the dotted line.

He said he needed another six months when he will come back and sign the

agreement. Indira Gandhi was naïve. She let Bhutto go back. And you know

Bhutto as he was, he changed his mind.

MOHAMMED AYOOB, Professor of International relations at Michigan State University.

He`s written extensively about South Asia. Born in India, he`s now an Australian citizen.

: I think, as far as India is concerned, it has to recognize the fact that

the United States is a global power and has global interests. And I think

it has begun to do so. The talk of unipolarity, while it does continue and

aversion to unipolarity in terms of the public media and so on -- but the

government of India I think clearly recognizes the fact that there is only

one super power in the international system today, and that it has to come

to terms with that reality.

On the part of the United States, there must be a clear recognition of the

fact that India is the regional, managerial power; it is the preeminent and

predominant part in the region, and it is able to provide public goods to

its neighbors, which means that is essential to maintain the stability and

security of the region. The United States must also recognize that it cannot

either mettle on the Kashmiri issue, and also that it should put pressure on

its friends in Pakistan to desist from the dangerous game they have been

playing now, because in the context of a nuclearized subcontinent, infiltration

and aiding and abetting insurgencies, even if you take the moral high ground on

that, is a very, very dangerous affair.

And there is, I would argue, no give on the Indian position on Kashmir, no

matter what, because it would reopen -- any concession on Kashmir would reopen

all the wounds of partition, the trauma of partition. India cannot afford another

division of the country on the basis of religion because it would have a tremendous

negative impact on the future of the 130 million Muslims in the rest of the country

who are citizens of India and equal citizens of India and should be treated as so.

Opening up this Pandora`s Box would pander to the basis instincts of those Hindu

chauvinists who consider all Muslims fifth columnists. So there is no give on the

Indian position on Kashmir. The 120 million Muslims of India cannot be sacrificed

at the altar of so-called rights of the three or four million Kashmiris.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june00/clinton_3-22.html

Fareed Zakaria on Kashmir:

http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/a17748-2000mar26.htm

The conflict in Kashmir won`t be solved until there is a marked evolution of attitudes

within India and Pakistan, something unlikely to happen any time soon.

If India`s ruling class had the courage to move boldly and integrate their country

into the world, many old, seemingly intractable problems like Kashmir might even

yield to solutions. After all, it is surely not a coincidence that Ireland came

closer to resolving its troubles after moving forthrightly into the European Union

and experiencing the heady economic growth that came with it.

Reply to #263

Dear Bilal,

I was not criticizing, I was only disagreeing.

Talibanization and the RSS/Shiv Sena brand of extreme opinion are more inter-related than one may think.

Take Talibanization: many feel this to be right at India`s doorstep. Think of it from Pakistan`s point of view, if fundamentalist organisations are able to claim even more success in their Kashmir strategy, than they do now, they will win a lot more than 5% of the vote in the next 20+ years in Pakistan. Then future elections might also have to be rigged or army called in again, to keep fundamentalism at bay (as happened justly or unjustly in Algeria with foreign interference), assuming that underneath it all, some Pakistanis donot want to go the Afghanistan way. How can Indians ignore the fact that Pakistanis donot seem to have the leisure or the power to confront these and other issues? (leaving aside having to fight the effects of militancy and drug trade within our own borders)

I think many common Indians in the last few months have woken up to the fact that if things donot `go well` for Pakistanis, it is likely to have an osmosis effect in India. By `not going well`, I mean if the majority of Pakistanis are unable to influence events and consequences triggered by a powerful minority.

One approach for Indians is to shield ourselves, but I think solely relying on this approach is not a good long term solution. Another is to develop a seige mentality, this may be the safest way, but seeing what such negative attitudes have done around the world and in our neighbourhood, this is not recommended. (RSS and Shiv Sena might disagree here, they benefit directly from the seige mentality)

The best way lies in working toward the common good. The free flow of information and ideas is indispensable for this.



Sincerely,

Sadhana

THE MOST CORRUPT IS JERNAILE`s BUDDY!

We the Pakistanis in Canada do not understand that why the Ex- president Farooq Laghari is not being arrested? He is clear-cut offender in the cases of BOGUS PURCHASE OF HELICOPTERS as declared by Public Accounts Committee and MEHRAN BANK SCANDLE. This is fair to take severe actions against Nawaz Sharif, but this is unfair not to take any action against FAROOQ LAGHARI. General Mutterraf`s softcorner for Leghari is deplorable.

Roohi A Ditta

In response to sadna (Reply #: 262)

Dear Sadhana:

I wonder if you have supported my position or criticized it (when I said: `I, however, consider it a wiser course if we Pakistanis take care of our problems and the Indians take care of their problems`).

I, however, have not made a case of emotional isolation. I was referring to issues like Talibanization, RSS, and Shiv Sena.

Excerpts of letters published in The Hindu suggest that the real source of power are the common people of a country. I have also written about learning from each other on several occasions.

Sincerely, Bilal

bahmad:

`I, however, consider it a wiser course if we Pakistanis take care of our problems and the Indians take care of their problems`

Look where emotional isolation of 52 years have landed us. We have a lot to learn from each others` successes and failures.

This may be of interest:

Excerpts from Letters to Editor in `The Hindu` dated Mon Nov 22,1999



Sir, - It is heartening that Pakistan`s military regime has taken a bold decision to bring to book all wilful defaulters who availed themselves of huge bank loans and did not give a damn about repayment. People`s money should not be looted and that is the prime objective.

....

Well, if a small nation, where the Government machinery and other infrastructure are not at their best, could do this, why not India follow in the footsteps of Pakistan in this particular issue?

...

A list of wilful defaulters should be published in leading dailies and the press should cooperate in this direction. The Government should gear its legal machinery. Why not Parliament constitute a body on the lines of the one set up in Pakistan - a National Reconstruction Bureau?



(from Chennai)

Sir, - Whatever one`s antipathy to the military regime which usurped powers from a democratically-elected Government, the step initiated by Gen. Pervez Musharraf to recover Rs. 211 billion in bad debts will be welcomed by one and all.

Contrast this with the picture in India. Non-performing assets, a euphemism for loans not paid, of the banking system have touched Rs. 50,000 crores. These should include the loans taken by politicians of all hues,their henchmen and business houses. All of them feel they are immune from the legal process, because of their proximity to powerful politicians. People expect the Government to resort to strong-arm tactics, if necessary, to recover the entire loan.

(from Chennai)