Deja Vu

Was it ``RIGHT`` to create Pakistan?

Romair,

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Every Indian I know accepts Pakistan. We have NO problems with it. Pakistan should survive long; and thrive as much as it wants and as much as the wisdom of its people allows. What do we get by going back to wallow in history to ``prove`` that it was ``right`` to create Pakistan. Once you go that route, you are looking for disagreements, and that is what you will get.

Should we consider that the creation of Pakistan was RIGHT?

Can we even begin to answer that question, when most Pakistanis themselves can`t agree on why Pakistan was created? Do YOU know for certain what universal principle of human living led to the creation of Pakistan?

YOU tell me the universal principle, and I will tell you whether Indians agree with it or not.

IMO, Pakistan, like all other countries, should find its purpose in its future, instead of constantly wondering why on earth it was created. Of course, that decision is for Pakistanis to make.

Romair:

``I have not been able to understand the above attitude amongst Indians, none of whom were even born in 47. I have no problem considering the creation of Bangladesh as correct. Even though it broke off from Pakistan, after independence (Pakistan was created one day before India). I wish it wouldn`t have separated. But I do consider it correct, if the Bangladeshis consider it correct. ``

Dude, how many Bengalis did you interact with in Pakistan? Assuming few too none, right? Just my opinion, but Indians look at Partition as a tragedy because they see Muslims co-exist with Hindus.

Now, ofcourse you will rightly think of Gujarat. I am in a bind here. Do I consider Partition a tragedy and have Gujarat make a mockery out of my belief? Or do I accept the Pakistani perspective, look at Partition as a godsend, but how do I reconcile that to substantial Muslim presence in India? Do u see where I am coming from?

I apologize to any Indian Muslim if I came across as bigoted in the above statement. That is not my intention. Feel free to correct me.

Romair,

I am glad that you recognize the risks inherent in full mobilization of the Indian and Pakistani armies. I hope that you also recognize the risks associated with supporting armed insurgencies across borders. Games of brinkmanship can have unpredictable consequences. How about letting the Kashmiris select their leadership in a free and fair election? Here is what is going on:

``…A number of Kashmiri leaders, formally aligned with the Hurriyat Conference, have for the first time made statements not rejecting the proposition of participating in the electoral process. Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, the religious head of Kashmiri Muslims, and Abdul Ghani Lone, travelled to Sharjah to meet Sardar Abdul Qayoom of PoK who chairs Pakistan`s Kashmir Council. Significantly, they reportedly reached the conclusion that `jehad` was not the answer to Kashmir`s woes… `Jehad` has clearly become a hot potato which even secessionist elements are chary about holding. Thus, those outside mainstream politics are now seeking more viable alternatives. It can be no coincidence that the Mirwaiz, in talking to Time magazine, should make bold to say that the Pakistani militant groups are ``virtual thieves using the Kashmir conflict to solicit funds, of which almost nothing is passed to the people``. He no longer appears to be insisting on Kashmiri `independence` or a merger with Pakistan, saying: ``I am not going to set any target that another side can dismiss outright. I will go for any solution that restores our dignity.``

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/290402/detedi02.asp

BTW, there was no trouble in the Valley during Partition, so what compelled your family to migrate? Did you know that the Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that Kashmiris who fled across the border before `54(?) can return to reclaim their ancestral property? So, you can still be wealthy if you so desire.

shankar #220: ``Surely, from a humanistic point of view, such an event was a tragedy & clearly regretable--wont you agree?``

Yes, I would consider the deaths a tragedy. I wish they could have been avoided. But all freedom struggles are brutal. That does not make them wrong. There are a lot of deaths. Both my set of grandparents lost literally everything they had. They left behind furnished houses in Indian Kashmir and India, and moved into shacks in Pakistan. They used to go to the Royal courts and stuff, in Kashmir. If their stories are accurate, then I could have been a very wealthy guy in Srinigar, now (perhaps part of the slick feudal off-springs, that I abhor).

My mother almost didn`t make it, in the migration. Yet, while I have heard my grandparents and parents criticize anything and everything about Pakistan, never once in my life, despite my prodding, have I ever been able to get them to criticize the creation of Pakistan, itself.

South Asians are a bit too spoilt, in my opinion, because the British left like gentlemen, and didn`t put up a fight. Had the British continued their occupation, South Asia would have had a brutal freedom struggle. There is even a chance that the South Asians in the military would have sided with the Raj. Freedom struggles are most of the time brutal, but in most, if not all cases, legitimate. People indulge in freedom struggles, because they feel that the other options are even worse.

Secondly, India itself assisted in the breakup of East Pakistan, which led to similar human tragedies. That is why I cannot understand why Indians highlight the events of 47 as a tragedy, yet do not criticize their own govts.` actions in 71. Either both are tragedies, or both are not.

``Doesnt matter whether the creation of that State was right, wrong or indifferent``

This is the key point that I am trying to get to. It DOES matter whether the creation of the state was right or wrong or indifferent, in the mind of Indians. If Indians cannot accept the creation of Pakistan as right, then I am afraid they will always have a negative attitude towards Pakistan.

I have not been able to understand the above attitude amongst Indians, none of whom were even born in 47. I have no problem considering the creation of Bangladesh as correct. Even though it broke off from Pakistan, after independence (Pakistan was created one day before India). I wish it wouldn`t have separated. But I do consider it correct, if the Bangladeshis consider it correct. Due to that, I have no in-built hostility against Bangladeshis. Even though Bangladesh was created in my lifetime. That is the attitude you will find amongst Pakistanis on this website, towards Bangladesh. And maybe that is why, when India-Pakistan cricket matches are played in Bangladesh, the Bangladeshi crowd is invariably on Pakistan`s side. And that is also why I meet so many enthusiastic Bangladeshi retired military officers at old military reuninions in Pakistan.

Indians do not look at Pakistan is the same manner. Even though, Pakistan was never a part of India, to begin with. They, at best, are willing to, ``tolerate`` Pakistan, or accept it a reality now, as your reply suggests. But they do not consider the break up of India, and the creation of Pakistan to be correct. It`s kind of like having a black neighbor in a misguided snobby white neighborhood. The white folks are willing to tolerate the neighbor, will not kick him out, but they do wish that the black family hadn`t moved there to begin with. In such a situation, there will be only tolerance at best, but no friendship.

The more I talk to Indians, the more I see what you have stated, i.e. Pakistan`s creation was wrong, but we accept it as a reality, now. This is a psychological block that India has to overcome.

This, combined with India`s assistance in breaking Pakistan into two pieces, is why Pakistanis still (rightly or wrongly) do not trust Indians. They feel that, while Indians may not want a merger, they would be more than happy to divide Pakistan again, since they didn`t want it created in the first place.

So I would like to ask you: do you think, India would be happy in breaking Pakistan furthur (it did do it once); no merger, just a furthur breakup of Pakistan? If not, then why did India break it up in the first place?

And do you think that Indians do consider the breakup of India and its subsequent creation of Pakistan to be incorrect?

If they answer to both the above questions is, ``Yes`` in the minds of most Indians, then wouldn`t you agree that Pakistanis have a valid reason to be concerned.

``What baffles me is that, it seems to me (maybe I`m misunderstanding you) that most Pakistanis believe that India wants that territory BACK!``

I stated that I dont` think India wants the territory back. However, I do think, that going by India`s track record, it would be more than happy to split up the territory once again. If it happened once, it could happen again. That is what most Pakistanis probably think.

Pakistanis do not want to split up India, however. Pakistanis, on this site and elsewhere, do not only tolerate and accept India as a reality, then actually consider the creation of an independent India to be correct. There is far more hostility towards Jinnah from Indians, then there is towards Nehru and Gandhi from Pakistanis (and even that hostility has more to do with issues other than their participation in the Indian freedom struggle). Just look at the comments.

In regard to splitting up India, Paksitanis just want the UN resolutions on Kashmir honored. And I strongly believe that if the Kashmiris voted to join India, Pakistanis would accept the decision, wholeheartedly. However, if the Kashmiris voted to join Pakistan, I don`t think Indians would accept. Once again, this is a difference in attitude, that I fail to understand.

`` may want Kashmir to be independant...but I`m a very small minority (& not even an Indian citizen).``

This is the cause of all the problems between India and Pakistan. And I am afraid, if what you say about majority Indian attitudes on this issue is correct, then there will never be peace. Why cannot Indians get over this attitude? It is unhumane, illegal and destructive. After all, Junagarh became a part of India, under the same rules of plebescite. Nehru himself asked for a vote, since the Muslim ruler of the Junagarh Hindu majority area, wanted to join Pakistan. Don`t you think India is thus holding back peace in the Sub-Continent? Everything that is happening afterwards, is only a by-product of India`s lack of desire to use the same rules in Kashmir that it used in Junagarh.

``suits India just fine``

This is where you are mistaken. It doesn`t suit India fine. Having a violent military struggle in its only Muslim majority state cannot suit India fine. Even Israel has allowed Red Cross and international press into its violent attacks. Imagine what is going on Kashmir, if India is not allowing the international press in there.

The above will only be tolerable for India, as long as Pakistan`s economy remains down. What if Pakistan gets to its traditional economic growth rate of 6%. It is already in a much stronger position than it was in 99. Pakistan could then fight a covert war with India in Kashmir for decades.

Civil wars are always much more destructive for the country in which they are being fought. Not all the religious parties fighting in Kashmir, have an interest in imposing Shariah in Pakistan. Some are only concerned about fighting in Kashmir. What if those organizations are allowed to operate, without any religious persuasions? With a solid economy, and an alliance with the West, and after cleaning up the extremist religious mess in Pakistan (most of which had more to do with the Afghan war in the 80s, then with Kashmir), Pakistan could continue to fight the covert war in Kashmir with far fewer costs than India. I wouldn`t encourage that, but it could be done. Hence, the Kashmir stalemate does not, ``suit`` India. It suits neither India nor Pakistan.

As long as Indians continue to look at Kashmir as a Pakistan conspiracy, they will fail to see the light. There is definitely Pakistani assistance and conspiracy, but the Kashmiris themselves hate India with a passion. One cannot start a freedom movement out of conspiracies. There is an indigenous struggle going on there. It is aided (and in many cases, actually harmed) by Pakistan, but it is indigenous. And I think it is beyond the point of no return for India. It will remain in a state of freedom fight, forever, unless India listens to the Kashmiris. How long will India be able to keep the place in such a situation, even if we assume that everything Pakistan is doing is wrong. One year, ten years, one hundred years?

``So whats the bottom line?...check mate! Pakistan lost!``

I am always amazed at this line of thinking. Will the Kashmir struggle go away if Pakistan loses? If you listen to the arguments of the APHC, they actually opppose a lot of the fighters who come in from Pakistan. Hence the APHC is now happier than before. India will always need to keep 500k soldiers in Kashmir, to keep the Kashmiris under control. Do you consider that a checkmate?

Indians need to learn to look at Kashmir, independent of Pakistan, also. Only then will they understand the Kashmir struggle, and the effects it is having, and will eventually have on India. A perpetual military suppression of Kashmiris is only going to create more problems for India (even if one takes Pakistan out of the picture). Even according to the BJP, over 60,000 people have been killed in Kashmir. Think about it. Is India checkmating others, or is it socially checkmating itself if it can kill so many people in Kashmir, while every single Indian (except you) becomes a vocal supporter of such actions? I think India`s suppression of Kashmiris, and the subsequent indifference or support of such actions by everyday Indians, had a part to play in creating a social mindset which ended up in parties like the BJP coming into power.

Forget about Pakistan for a moment. Let`s assume Pakistan is wrong, on all accounts, on Kashmir. Just think in the India-Kashmir context. Isn`t India checkmating itself, along with checkmating Pakistan, with its Kashmir policies? Is checkmating Pakistan so important, that India should agree to checkmate itself also. Pakistan has been forced out of this mode of thinking now. I think India needs to get out of this mode also.

``Did the build up do India any good? Well, I think it DID.``

It will take too long to explain to you the details of the dangers of military buildups. Suffice to say, they are extremely dangerous. There are over a million scared, nervous soldiers with trigger happy fingers sitting on the border, on both sides. One wrong action, can lead to an all out war.

Look at what happened in Afghanistan with the US pilot accidently bombing Canadians. They had the same frequencies and were working under the same command structure. They were allies, and had no fears about ground attacks. They had the most technically advanced Command and Control systems. Yet the pilot still made a huge mistake.

Multiply that by hundreds, and that is the chance of something like that happening between India and Pakistan, now with their troops are on hot deployments on the border. Sooner or later, some accident will occur. And what happens then?

The conflict will then turn into a political game of one-upmans-ship. It will be out of the control of Generals. The politicians on both sides maybe forced, due to political pressures, to attack and counter attack. This is why this buildup is a huge mistake.

The other factors are that, sooner or later, India will need to draw back its troops. That will be a watershed point in Indo-Pak warfare. It will be an acceptance on India`s behalf that Pakistan finally has an effective deterence against India. This will be the first time in Indo-Pak history that Pakistan would have achieved that status.

Musharraf had reversed Pakistan Kashmir policy after Sept 11, primarily to solve internal problems with exremists, and to solve US problems in Afghanistan. He was going after all the militant religious organizations in Pakistan. As you stated, the Americans themselves would have pressured him to do so. All India had to do was to wait, and the results would have been the same, as they are now.

However, by deploying troops, India has appeared the aggressor. The world opinion is that Pakistan has reversed its policies, yet India is still threatening. Quite a few in the US media, have commented that the Indian deployment is not allowing Pakistan to deploy its troops on the Afghan border. Pakistan has not agreed to any of India`s demands (the primary one being the list of 20 people, which is basically the only demand, now). And India will eventually end up withdrawing anyways, without getting the 20 people.

While I agree that Bania`s are very clever, as you stated. They are only clever when they think logically (and that too, only South Indian banias). In this case, the banias started thinking emotionally like Pakistanis normally do, and made mistakes. The troop deployment was initially done to pump up the populace for the Uttar Pradesh elections, by the BJP. That didn`t work, and the BJP lost. Then the list of 20 people came into the forefront, because the buildup had to be justified under some reason. That hasn`t worked. Now it is just a game of ego. If India backs off, then it will have accepted the fact that Pakistan has a deterence now. Which in my opinion, is a negative for India, since it never had to do so before, i.e. everytime it deployed, it eventually attacked.

Unfortunately, in the process hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted, which could have been spent on the poor. Even more important is the fact, that while you (and I) may have many theories (and mayble Colin Powell has already assured Musharraf that Indians will not attack, since Powell has ordered them not to), Havaldar Allah Rakha and Corporal Ram Din may not be aware of all of this. They are sitting one hundred yards from each other, nervous, with their fingers on the trigger. One wrong move by them (like the US pilot in Afghanistan), and things could spin out of control, eventually resulting in nukes being launched at Delhi and Karachi.

This is the biggest deployment of troops on one border, I believe, since WWII. It is not a joke. And with all the problems the BJP is now having, I am afraid, the deployment will turn into something it wasn`t meant to be when it started.

Would be interested in your comments.....

shankar 220:

East Pakistan is fertile but not minerally rich. It has unknown amount of natural gas.

Prem,

Kindly contact me at pakistanigreywolf@hotmail.com to discuss `reasonable compensation`...

I will be happy to do the detailed research with factual evidence.

Thankyou

YLH

Re: Shankar

``...but Pakistanis always seem to help them out by sheer stupidity...``

I would not go that far... you could have said `Pakistani Generals`, instead. Also, being a smaller economy, Pakistan has limited options. What may seem stupid, could also be termed as tenacity.

There is another psychology at work -- I think that there are elements in the higher echelons of the Pakistan Army who have come to view two things as being very important (i) wresting Kashmir, and (ii) avenging Bangladesh. These foreign policy `goals` cannot be subordinated to any other goal, no matter what the consequences may be.

In `65, Operation Gibraltar left the erstwhile E. Pakistan completely undefended and vulnerable on the basis of Ayub`s doctrince `The defence of the East lies in the West`, and created disastrous doubts in the minds of E. Pakistanis regarding the commitment of the W. Pakistani army to the defence of the east, and the recklessnes with which the East could be made vulnerable to Indian attacks should a Kashmir war break out. For its Kashmir obsession, Pakistan paid the price in terms of Indian support for Bangladesh. To this day, despite insurgencies/coups in many neighboring countries (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Burma, Bangladesh), Pakistan remains the only country to have received unwelcome hostile Indian troops to change the status quo. Other countries, despite misgivings, have ultimately received Indian support to quell insurgencies (even Sri Lanka, where India changed its position on LTTE in `87 after 4 years of supporting them).

Ditto over the U-turn for Afghanistan/Taleban -- `Kashmir cause` is most important. While Pakistani Generals are entitled to formulate their foreign policies, they are sucking Pakistan into a gradual war of attrition with an economy ten times its size. The results are pre-ordained, as is the human suffering.

A favor, someone?

In response to romair, could any good Pakistani please inform us how school-level history books written by Pakistani authors describe/treat/honor Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujeeburrahman.

If you do, or ask someone to do, some research, I will be happy to offer a reasonable compensation.

Thank you.

Romair,

{{I am attempting to find out why (or if) Indians think Pakistan`s creation to be incorrect. And how peace can be possible between two countries, when one considers the creation of the other to be wrong.}}

Most Indians alive today were born AFTER partition or were too young around that time to remember, first hand, the horrors. Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis & Bengalis suffered the most. Indians from the rest of India (which is the majority) didnt bear the brunt of the tragedy.

What happened during Partition was, in terms of human suffering, a very painful time--for everyone..hindus,muslims & sikhs. ALL parties are to blame. Surely, from a humanistic point of view, such an event was a tragedy & clearly regretable--wont you agree?

For the overwhelming majority of Indians, Pakistan`s existence is a reality. Doesnt matter whether the creation of that State was right, wrong or indifferent--it happened & no Indian can or wants to go back in time & change it.

What baffles me is that, it seems to me (maybe I`m misunderstanding you) that most Pakistanis believe that India wants that territory BACK! Jeeze, if Indians did, why did`nt we annex East Pakistan? We already had the army in Dacca. East Pakistan is the most fertile & minerally rich part of the subcontinent!

What Indians do emphatically disagree with Pakistanis is that there is ``unfinished business of partition`` to attend to. I realise this is an emotional & touchy subject for you..being a Kashmiri an` all. I may want Kashmir to be independant...but I`m a very small minority (& not even an Indian citizen).

So, as long as Pakistani leadership wants that to be the core issue for peace (whether you have a valid point or not)..there can & will be no peace. So if there is no prospects of peace..might becomes right..& the status quo will continue. That suits India just fine (remember, they are just as stubborn as Pakistanis).

Pakistan has tried both overt & covert military operations to wrest Kashmir & has failed. Then they supported separatist Kashmiris to fight a proxy war. That HAS failed..the ``Strategic U-Turn`` is a tacit admission of that. India has sucessfully linked the Kashmiri miltants as part of the larger Al-Qeeda network(just as the Russians have linked the Chechen war with Al-Qeeda).

Well, right or not, that strategy HAS been successful. Why?..primarily because America has BOUGHT it..hook, line & sinker! Well, I dont think if it was India`s ``brilliance``..it was plain stupidity on the part of Pakistanis ``this-e-thats``.

Why do you think Mushy is so pissed at the Azhars & killers of Danny Pearl..they just played into the hands of the Indians. I say SERVES HIM RIGHT! for giving refuge to those SOBS (Azhar & sheikh Omar)..they would have been more beneficial to Pakistan if they were rotting in Indian jails & the hijackers had`nt negotiated them out!

Now the only hope for Pakistan to settle the CORE issue is diplomatically. And it needs the US, primarily, to be the arbitrator. It is the only superpower that has the ability to twist India`s arm. The US has made it very clear that it does NOT want to play that role...esp if India says ``no`` to 3rd party mediation. If Kashmiri militants up the ante, it will backfire because the US considers them part of the Al-Qeeda ``network`` that it continuously talks about.

So whats the bottom line?...check mate! Pakistan lost!

Did the build up do India any good? Well, I think it DID. It convinced the Americans to twist Mushy`s arm to reconsider his Kashmir policy. Why are they still keeping the army there?...just in case Mushy does another ``strategic U-turn`` tomorrow, when the snow melts. The US wants Mushy fully focussed in helping them fight the Al-Qeeda network. The US will do everything it can to prevent him being distracted with Kashmir. The ``kashmir issue`` is NOT a priority for the US. So the build up is as much for US`s ``benefit``.

Thats what I mean when I say the Pakistani militarily thinks one-dimensionally. Battlefield strategy & tactics, ``kill ratios`` etc etc are redundant. Increasingly, wars between Pakistan & India will be fought on the diplomatic, technological, economic & psychological battlefield...NOT on the military battlefield.

Dont underestimate those wily banias. They THINK multi-dimensionally:) Ah well...they arent THAT smart...but Pakistanis always seem to help them out by sheer stupidity.

Re: Nasah

``...one of its OFFSPRINGS is another stupidity -- the current 5 years Presidency of Pakistan ...``

You are forgetting another -- BJP govt. had fallen in `99 April (or was it March?) and would have won fewer seats later in the year had it not been for Kargil.

Re: Romair

``...I am attempting to find out why (or if) Indians think Pakistan`s creation to be incorrect. And how peace can be possible between two countries, when one considers the creation of the other to be wrong...``

I think that the more nuanced way of putting it would be that Indians object to the violence that accompanied Partition. What is going on in Gujarat is Partition on a small scale. I do not believe that the objection is to the creation of Pakistan. I recognize that the above stance can appear contradictory (e.g. how can you have Pakistan but no Partition and the violence?), but it is not -- had the Cabinet Mission Plan or a similar formulation been adopted things may have been OK.

As for peace, there is peace between India and Bangladesh (and Pakistan and Bangladesh). Both sides are reconciled to each other`s existence. The same is possible with India and Pakistan. Ordinary people are far more forgiving than politicans and nation states.

````I wanted to make the point that Kargil was NOT terrorism....```` (Prem)

You may be right Prem miaN -- it was not an act of terrorism -- it was the MOTHER of all strategic stupidities -- NEEDLESS loss of thousands of Pakistani and Indian youngmen’s lives -- for a militarily and politically untenable position..

Now -- one of its OFFSPRINGS is another stupidity -- the current 5 years Presidency of Pakistan -- whose seeker FATHERED the whole monumental stupidity.

Now the SAME guy will apply the SAME ``strategic brilliance`` to ``save`` Pakistan -- for an eternally long -- FIVE years -- with a new -- made to order Parliament -- SELECTED -- every year!!

By the way --- who is paying for all this “democratic” extravagance?

Shankar #161: ``Since you subscribe to the theory that India covets a merger with Pakistan...may I ask you? what benefit would such a merger be..for India?!``

I replied to this earlier, but the reply did not make it onto this board, for some reason. The gist of that reply was as follows:

There seems to be a miscommunication. I do not think India wants a merger with Pakistan. I do think that Indians consider the break up of India, and the subsequent creation of Pakistan, in 1947, to be incorrect. This is evident by the hatred of Jinnah on this site amongst Indians, and in India in general. I assume Jinnah is not disliked because of his looks, or dress sense. But because he created Pakistan.

I am attempting to find out why (or if) Indians think Pakistan`s creation to be incorrect. And how peace can be possible between two countries, when one considers the creation of the other to be wrong.

Prem:

``BUT many Pakistanis are likely to see what Pakistani army did in Kargil as being not very different from what we did in Siachin.``

Are you sure it was Pakistani army? Not according to Musharraf and co. Indians are 100% sure that it is the Indian army in Siachin... though I would have loved to send all the shiv sainiks and Bajrang Dalis for a long long time.

Shankar

Skank man, the reason for Gujrat riots``

``Indian troops suffer from impotence

NEW DELHI: Indian troops deployed in the world’s highest battlefield in Kashmir have to brave more than harsh weather and enemy fire — the brutal conditions also lead to impotence, a report said on Saturday.

Just 90 days in the most hostile of weather conditions on the Siachen glacier which is 20,000 feet above sea level leaves many soldiers impotent when they return home, the Hindustan Times reported. Temperatures on the Siachen fluctuate between minus 55 degrees Celsius in winter and minus 15 degrees Celsius in summer. However, the army’s research and referral hospital in New Delhi has found a solution to the problem — an inflatable organ implant which uses a bladder and a pump, the report said.

The cost of the implant is expensive at 250,000 rupees but is seen as an important step towards curing “mental stress”. —AFP

re: Shammi # 213

One of the things I have spent a great deal of effort learning to do is to accept mistakes when I make them (which is very rare :))

``Kargil was illegal under international law and the Simla Agreement. Period.``

Agreed. No disagreements there. No ifs and buts, at least from me. I thought somebody argued (was it you?) that kargil was an instance of terrorism. I still disagree with that, and am willing to debate that point.

Re: Prem

Sorry to say this, but you appear confused (your post touched on all conceivable topics -- terrorism, Siachen, legitimacy, etc..) but came to a conclusion that I neither asserted nor disagree with! All I said is that Kargil was illegal under international law and the Simla Agreement. Period. Everybody is entitled to their delusions and opinions, but not to their facts. In international law, two wrongs do not make a right. No state has the power to unilaterally abrogate treaties unless there is a clause within the treaty that allows this. Also, no state can retaliate against another antagonistic state that has abrogated one treaty by abrogating another. If Pakistan feels wronged for Siachen, it cannot unilaterally terminate the Simla Agreement (which BTW does NOT define who possess Siachen). Should Pakistan still do so, then India cannot legally abrogate the Indus Waters treaty in retaliation. Of course, this principle applies both ways.

Either you can call all of the above bunk, and let politics (read `might is right`) always decide what the resolution of such disputes should be, or you accept the rules that have evolved over centuries of statecraft. One way takes you towards barbaric chaos, and the other towards a semblance of stability. Wishy-washiness influenced by politics is a formula for disaster, and is not acceptable. One has to draw the line somewhere.