The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney

saminashah #458
``this week`s mag. section an article by Fouad Ajami on why al Jis considered a propaganda machine.``

Maybe its more of a strong editorial slant. Wonder what stance Al J will adopt and how their audiences will react when they begin to report more extensively on domestic political issues of Arabs, where there are likely to be more dissent than when the subject is Arabs/Muslims vs the West.

btw, it seems an Al Jazeera facility in Kabul got bombed a few days ago...All is fair in love and war?

Fuzair #467
``BUT, if foreign assistance is enough to disqualify a national liberation movement, then the Mukti Bahini were nothing but Indian stooges and Indian intervention vindicates the earlier brutal Pakistani suppression. ``

Fuzair, nothing is right when people are getting killed or harassed, but excuse me, India neither tried to impose a government on Bangladesh, nor is the Kashmir issue one of denying the legitimate constitutional results of a national election and handing over power to E Pakistani leaders like West Pakistanis did with E.Pakistan. There is a Kashmiri government in power with whatever legitimacy, with Kashmiri police also fighting militancy. There is no suppression of Kashmiri identity, Urdu is the state language of J&K.

The lack of a clearsighted leader with influence and credibility with the general public of J&K typifies the myriad motivations of those fighting India in Kashmir. They even come to blows and death threats in their conflicting views of whether the struggle is for an Islamic state, independence, accession to Pakistan or more autonomy. This was not the case in Bangladesh.

Using force to resist seccession is qualitatively different from using force to deny constitutional rights to protect leaders at the top(not to justify the state using force against violent activism, but hey reportedly even Canada did).

Re: Romair (and this addresses Soysauce`s post as well)

In principle, I agree with you: if any group wants to be independent badly enough, let them go away. The problem is that virtually all of these independent movements are romantic-nationalist at best and wholly impractical economically. For example, Kashmir would collapse completely w/out the subsidies that India pumps into it each year. The same is true of Scotland and Wales in the UK but their respective nationalists aren`t really smart enough to figure it out. Similarly, the Quebec nationalists automatically assume that they would get into NAFTA (which they might, unless the Anglophone Canadians veto it) and have all full membership/access to all of the intl organizations/treaties etc that Canada is party to. That is by no means a given.

However, assume that our sub-national body is allowed to go its own way. What about the sub-sub nationalisms that is likely to engender? Even the Valley wasn`t 100% Muslim!

Will India have the right to intervene directly in a Kashmiri State if the local extremists discriminate against non-Muslims? Will Ladakh have full transit rights? Will the Indian Army be allowed transit rights into Ladakh?

After decades of complaining about how badly the W. Pakistanis treated them, the Bengalis are very busy systematically discriminating against their tribals. If the reports about Bangaldeshi Army operations in the Hill Tracts were correct, the Army carried out a particularly nasty COIN-type operation there. For all I know, its still ongoing, although I did read that Hasina kept the Army on a relatively short-leash; one good thing to be said about her, I suppose.

Nobody learns anything. We keep replicating the same pattern over and over again. Is what the Pakistanis did to the Bengalis qualitatively worse than what they did to their own tribals?

So I don`t think that our S. Asian track record is a particularly encouraging one when it comes to handling matter such as this. Before we can go to the Transnational EU-type Socio-Economic Entity, we must first progress through the Nation State stage of development. And this is a stage of historical development that tends to chew up and spit out minorities. Perhaps greater home-rule within a unified India and Pakistan is the best that the Kashmiris or any other ethnic group can hope for.

As Clemenceau, the French Premier during the Treaty of Versailles, remarked upon hearing Wilson`s ridiculous 14 Points and national self-determination garbage: ``Sacre Bleu! Must every language have its own country?`` Where does one draw the line at self-determination?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Shammi:

You are still arguing ``once in, never out.`` Perhaps the India of today is fundamentally different from the India that annexed Goa and Sikkim and rigged the Kashmiri Legislature`s ratification of the state`s ascencion to India but for all of the pontification about military aggression and cross-border terrorism (which I cerainly do not deny), it still boils down to might makes right. No impartial observer, and this goes to Sadna`s post, argues that the start of the Kashmiri intifada (in 1989) was not an indigenous movement that was very brutally crushed by the Indians. Similarly, many (but certainly not all and certainly not some of the most violent ones) of the current insurgents in Kashmir are indeed Kashmiri`s who have been armed and trained by various Afghan and Pakistani groups. BUT, if foreign assistance is enough to disqualify a national liberation movement, then the Mukti Bahini were nothing but Indian stooges and Indian intervention vindicates the earlier brutal Pakistani suppression. You can`t have your cake and eat it too. Admit that Kashmir is Indian because you have more guns than they do and be done with it. After a decade-plus of terror and counter-terror, most Kashmiris just want to be left in peace to mourn their dead and try to rebuild. Perhaps a good thing of the current Afghan war will be a reduction in the level of insurgent violence in Kashmir and the possibility of a reduction of state terror as well.

I guess if Lincoln could brutally suppress the national liberation aspirations of Southern Whites (there is no opt-out clause in the US Constitution but since when have constitutional niceties ever stopped national liberation movements?) and eventually rebuild a stronger Union, who are we to say that Kashmir is not Indian? Now, I for one feel no particular burning desire to liberate Kashmir since I happen to agree with Clemenceau: having your own language does not entitle you to your own state. Within Pakistan, I would settle for a slightly less ham-handed approach to dealing with the smaller provinces and ethnicities.

Regards.

Re khwamkha # 460

Your comments make your handle/pen-name so appropriate!

Simply no rhyme or reason or consistency to your innuendoes!

Just for giggles this what Ronald Reagan said about the martyred Ziaur Rahman, founder of the BNP:

``In his death, the United States has lost a friend, and Bangladesh and South Asia a leader it can ill afford to lose in these trying times.``

You probably don`t want to know what the US says about the henchmen of ISI like Hameed Gul, Aslam Beg, and Akhtar Abdul Rahman.

Apart from certain over-zealous Indians, nobody sees any ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh (I refer you to Indian West Bengal`s Chief Minister`s interview to BBC early this week). SOme regrettable lawlessness, yes. And it will be punished harshly. But no cleasning that the BJP so dearly hopes for.

See, at the end of the day, the BNP is a political party, accountable to people through parliament and other representative institutions. The ISI, on the other hand, is secret mobster cabal which is accountable to nobody and involved in everything from genocide to smuggling to drug-running.

Of course I don`t expect you to understand the concepts of representative democracy or parliaments or accountability. But, as I said, just for giggles.

Fuzair #447: ``Why so gung-ho on self-determination/freedom for Kashmiris? What makes them so special? We denied it to the Bengalis, the Baluchis, the Muhajirs (``Jinnahpur,`` remember that?), the Sindhis, and so on.``

Anyone who believes in self-determination, must as a principle support it for all groups, regardless of religion, ethnicity and politics. Any Pakistani who supports Kashmir`s freedom movement, must in principle, support the Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani freedom movement (or any other past or future ones).

I don`t know about anyone else, but that is where I stand. If there were majority freedom movements in Pakistan, I would suggest Pakistan resolve them politically. If there is no resolution, then Pakistan should agree to a Quebec-like solution.

I do think however, you are over-emphasizing Jinnahpur, Sindhi and Baluchi freedom movements, by a great deal. These are not in the same league as Bangladesh and Kashmir. These are/were opportunistic political ideas of people like Altaf Hussain, which are not supported, at all, by the average person. Otherwise, today there would be massive independence uprisings in Karachi, Sindh and Baluchistan (to the best of my knowledge, Pakistan over-reacted to the ones that did occur in Baluchistan 30 years ago; perhaps fearing another Bangladesh). There arent` even small 500 people freedom uprisings, going on anywhere in Pakistan. Infact, there are no freedom uprisings. There is some understandable dislike of the dominance of Punjab, but not a desire to separate from Pakistan. The solution to this is to split Punjab into three parts, so all provinces are equal in size.

However, if that stage is reached (which I don`t see happening, since these leaders, and most importantly the people, know it is better to be part of Pakistan, then to be a vulnerable little independent country), then they should be allowed to become independent through a referendum.

People in the Sub-Continent have yet to come to grips with two facts:

1) The Sub-Continent was never one or two or three countries. It was not like North America, it was like the Europe. The British forced it into a North America type area. The natural pushes and pulls of the culture and history of the Sub-Continent call for a European Union type solution, and not a North American type solution. If the EU solution was accepted by everyone, then any province that wanted to separate would be allowed to do so, and the whole area would become a lot more prosperous.

After all, is it easier for a Pakistani to go to Dhaka today are carry out trade with that city, or was it easier in 71, when Dhaka was a part of Pakistan? Would it be easier for Indians to go on a vacation to Srinigar in an independent Kashmir, or is is easier to go ther right now, when it is under Indian occupancy? It is common sense. But we let our misplaced egos get in the way.

2) EU not, N. America: All groups in the Sub-Continent that want to separate from any of the countries should be allowed to do so peacefully (How many Indians have actually spent a day in Kashmir (or how many Pakistanis for that matter), and how many Pakistanis ever visited Dhaka? Why the hell are/were they so emotionally attached to these areas?) There should then be open trade, a common currency perhaps, open borders etc., with independent govts. The Sub Continent begs for a European Union type solution.

Most areas that wanted independence fiercely, in the Sub-Continent, now have it. And it is a well-established fact that the countries they broke off from are better of without them, i.e. Pakistan is better off without East Pakistan, India is better off without Pakistan. The only, ``major`` area left is Kashmir. Once the people there achieve self-determination (whatever they decide on), then I think perhaps the Sub-Continent will have settled along its natural, ``self determination`` boudaries, and maybe we can move towards a EU type situation. However, this cannot happen until India makes some bold decisions.

``So let me propose again that we accept the LOC as the international border and each side firmly squashes any separatist tendencies in its own part.``

This would probably be the worst possible solution, under the current circumstances, if the Kashmiris do not agree to it (which they won`t). If we haven`t learnt our negative lessons from, ``squashing separatist tendencies`` by the now, the may Allah and Bhagwan help us. It is a, ``neither here, nor there`` solution. It actually converts a freedom struggle, into an all-out possible war. It will legitimize India`s actions in Kashmir, while the freedom movement is still going on. At best, India will be able to attack the Kashmiris with much more resolve, and completely subjugate them, against their will. If they continue resisting, we may have another India-Pakistan war on our hand, if the Pakistani people and/or govt. continue to support the Kashmiris.. After all, isn`t that exactly what happened in 1971, when the Indian govt. got involved in East Pakistan, to support a popular uprising that was being crushed.

If, of course, the Kashmiris accept this, then it should be accepted by everyone. But this is somewhat of a status quo, and if the Kashmiris were going to accept, they would have done so by now. Infact, LOC = border, is exactly what they don`t want.

The best solution, in my opinion, would be for Pakistan to keep POK, India to keep Jammu and Ladakh, and the Valley to be independent (with open borders to India and Pakistan). This is actually the situation on the ground, as judged by the behavior, voting patterns, and movement of the people. If the Indian military were to leave, this would be the de-facto solution, regardles of the LOC, or any kind of border.

From that point onwards, all South Asian borders should be opened, and an EU type SAARC should exist (this would probably happen naturally, due to the strong cultural ties within Indian and Pakistani provinces, that were divided; Sikhs do feel more comfortable speaking Punjabi with Lahoris, then communicating with South Indians, etc.)

The EU has a common factor of wealth, and the SAARC would have a common factor of poverty. All of the above, requires just one hour of work in the Indian Lok Sabha. The Pakistanis and Kashmiris have accepted the above (either voluntarily or against their will) already.

``So let me propose again that we accept the LOC as the international border and each side firmly squashes any separatist tendencies in its own part. Is it a deal?``(Fuzair)

IT`S A DEAL.

Dear hamidm:

You write to soysauce:

“but one one issue you are right - most pakis, including rabid mullahs and equally rabid apostates, agree that india is an implacable enemy who doesn`t need an excuse to try and harm pakistan ..... it is the nature of the beast (hamidm).

You may be right – it is the nature of the beast –or it could be -- an inherent defect in our rythmic system of political beats and taals.

Here is what Ayaz Amir has to say about Pakistan’s “obsession” with Afghanistan and Pakistan’s “attitude” ( mind you not “obsession”) -- towards Kashmir:

“For 20 years - that is, since Ziaul Haq`s time - Pakistan has been in the grip of state fundamentalism: a mindset manifested in

(1) our pursuit of nuclear status;

(2) our obsession with Afghanistan; and

(3) our attitude to Kashmir.



At the altar of these sacred shibboleths all other aspects of national life, including democracy and sound economics, have been sacrificed``

He further states: -- ``It is instructive to recall that when justifying Pakistan`s joining the US war effort, among the four reasons General Musharraf cited, two related to protecting the Kashmir cause and our `nuclear assets`, the irony no doubt being lost on him that supposedly our greatest strength had turned in a moment of danger into our biggest weakness.

At long last we have a chance to give Pakistan a new direction so that it looks ahead instead of back.``

``This does not mean we resile from our stand on Kashmir.”

Now that’s what I call the famous intellectual Pakistani “summ” – ( with one breath -- “to give Pakistan a new direction” -- and in the next –“that does not mean that we resile from our stand on Kashmir) -- in the “rhythmic cycle” of 3 beats -- in the Indo-Pakitani musical interlude

Even though in the ensuing paragraph Mr. Ayaz Amir admits:

“But we must recognize that after Afghanistan the freedom struggle in Kashmir is bound to come under greater American scrutiny. In the new global climate now forming there will be less patience for such extra-territorial organizations as Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Muhammad.”

Ayaz Amir is 100% right when he says:

“Why don`t we leave Afghanistan alone? Geography dictated Pakistan`s importance for the US attacks on Afghanistan. Geography dictates a working relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, no matter what regime - communist, Taliban, Tajik or Hazara - holds sway there. Why shouldn`t we be content with this? Why should we insist on playing the role of king-maker in a land which has made nonsense of all our attempts at dictation?”

Indeed great suggestion.

NOW -- my suggestion to the distinguished columnist - why not PRESCRIBE a similar medicine for Kashmir as well -– something that could go like this:

“Why don`t we leave KASHMIR alone? ……Geography dictates a working relationship between Pakistan and India , no matter what regime – National conference or Hurriyet - holds sway there” -- through fair and free elections``

Fair enough?

RE: Reply #: 446 Romair

``Critical mass in a freedom struggle is different from critical mass in an all-out war. The Kashmiri struggle itself has already achieved critical mass, as far as the struggle goes.``

Romair, while the uprising in Kashmir in the late 80s was genuinely against the court intrigues of the NA/Congress at that time, it has long since ceased being a revolt against Indian rule and has become a proxy war being waged by Pakistan against India. Don`t take my word for it, read all the op-ed pieces and editorials in the Western press nowadays. The Indian state is very accomodating on every issue except separatism. The former is exemplified by new states being formed within the Indian Union even now (Chattisgarh & Jharkand) and also by a hands off policy in state affairs (as in Bihar despite it`s lawlessness); the latter is exemplified by the ruthlessness with which it is put down (as in Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland etc..). The Kashmiris know it and are willing to sue for peace. They would get self-rule with honor as in other Indian states were it not for the gasoline being poured on the fire by the Pakistanis to keep Kashmir boiling for their own nefarious ends. But make no mistake about it, Pakistan will break up before Kashmir secedes from the Indian Union. 1 billion Indians will see to that.

#447 Fuzair

What if Anantnag wants to be independent or Udhampur or some tehsil in these districts? India is not simply a collection of states, it is a constitutional union of states. For Kashmir to be independent of india the first practical step may be for the aphc or other disgruntled, disaffected parties to contest elections, come to power and then work toward independence by slowly dismantling the overarching power of the central government. It`s happening in small ways now where states are pulling the rug out from under the overseers appointed by the Centre - the governor.

Of course the other option is to go to war with the indian state as it is happening now. But there will be no niceties in a war.

hamidm & tashmed321

As i see it, without kashmir as an issue, pak army would not be as important. It`s the army that`s holding your country together with all other institutions either having been rubbished or never were allowed to take root in the first place. Good intentions alone won`t get you anywhere. You need strong institutions to keep the peace to smooth out differences, etc. What is the emotional issue that keeps pakis together - islam, paki-nationalism or indophobia?

Re: Fuzair #447

``...So let me propose again that we accept the LOC as the international border and each side firmly squashes any separatist tendencies in its own part. Is it a deal?...``

Yes. Let the tensions subside. Let each side do whatever best it can for their protectees, and let both sides work to reunite Kashmiris at some point in the future. If neither side feels threatened by any as-yet-determined future status of Kashmir, then even independence to a unified Kashmir should not be off the table. But, let not violence be the arbiter. Kashmir could be the keystone that holds the future stability in the subcontinent.

Re: Fuzair #447

``...If the Kashmiris (or the Sikhs or the Nagas or the whatnots) truly wish to be independent, why won`t the Indian government allow it?...``

Short answer -- you don`t give a kid a lollipop each time he/she asks for one.

Long answer -The Sikhs struggle, it turned out, was not really about political freedom -- it was something else that I cannot even fully define (perhaps a Taleban style Khalistan). Having allowed it, and granting Khalistan (which, BTW included Lahore and all of West Punjab, NWFP) would hardly have solved anything. Khalistan would have fallen victim to Indo-Pak intrigues, and what you are seeing in Afghanistan today would have been repeated. Maintaining law and order is the primary responsibility of any government. Ultimately, the Khalistan movement reached a polical compromise with Delhi that installed the protagonists in power in Chandigarh. Subsequent events prove that the movement lacked popular support.

Regarding the Kashmir struggle, the above holds true as well. I think that one of the nuances that many do not understand is that Delhi is perfectly willing to reach a political compromise with the Kashmiris, but not through military means.

Besides, the memory of rival centres of power balkanizing the Sub-Continent, and foreign powers playing off one prince against the other is all too fresh.

sigalph-435

[ If Pakistan doesn`t learn the lesson, it ought be taugh again. Maybe the US should force the ISI to be dismantled and decimated entirely.]

Yeah right....but before that they should concentrate on the BNP and their ethnic cleansing.

Joi Bangla.

nasah-434

[Are you sure it doesn’t look like Afghanistan WILL split? ]

You would like that, won`t you.

Dost Mittar and Sadna,

Last week`s NYTimes Sunday`s op-ed had a piece on why the US should let al Jazeera be and this week`s mag. section an article by Fouad Ajami on why al J is considered a propaganda machine. Any thoughts?

regards

nasah-425

[Jamaate Islami’s Rabbani is NOT ACCEPTABLE as the “head” of the government” of Afghanistan.]

Isn`t he the UN accepted President of Afghanistan?

If so,who cares what YOU think,you little twit.

nasah-434

[“Kabul is in the hands of Jamaate Islami” – now that should cheer up some tearful Pakistanis.]

Kuss ka laaR sha.