India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario

Re: Fuzair, Harimau, Romair on the princely states accession analysis

Please look at the chronology of events before jumping to conclusions on diplomatic niceties.

The tribals from NWFP invaded Kashmir in Sept./Oct. `47. At that time, the fate of neither Junagadh nor Hyderabad had been decided. India had a standstill agreement with atleast two of them (Hyderabad and J&K). Hyderabad was not be incorporated into the Union of India until `49, after 2 years of a subsequent war with Pak on J&K. Might it be that the tribal invasion and Pakistan taking the law into its own hands may have forced India to respond with kind in all three situations? Think about it. Moral of the story (as Shankar writes), if you take up arms, then might becomes right. Had Pak not invaded Kashmir in `47, chances are that eventually all of Kashmir may have gone to Pakistan. Nehru was a stickler for procedure.

Re: Fuzair

``...After all, they (Assam/NEFA) were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons...``

I don`t think that you are on terra firma here. Assam was annexed by the British on February 24, 1826, the date on which the Yandaboo Treaty between the East India Company and the King of Ava (Burma) was signed. Assam was made a province of Bengal. In 1937, the British separated Burma from India administratively. (Had they not done so, today Burma would have been part of India!).

re: shankar

{1) I WILL include Kashmiri hindus, sikhs & buddhists in my movement.

2) My vision for an independant Kashmir should be a secular, democratic country, FREE of meddling from either India, Pakistan or China.

3) My message should be; We are KASHMIRIS...muslims, hindus, sikhs or buddhist..DOESNT MATTER...We want to be INDEPENDANT..}

...there are two HUGE problems with that...first, most hindu and buddhist kashmiris have been driven out of their homes by the jehadis...second, no hindu or buddhist kashmiri would ever support such BS, and that is why they have never been asked to...

Princely States Argument:



At the time of partition, there were around 500 princely states, with a population of around 100 million. Out of these, three could have survived independently, if they wanted. These were Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. (Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict).

The general law was that the ruler of the princely state decides where he wants to go. This is outright slavery. But lets leave human rights out of it for a while. Since human rights is a concept unknown to many of our Indian arguments.

If the identical law (even an unjust law) was applied equally on all states, then mathematically it was impossible for either Pakistan or India to get all three states. They could have at most gotten two. Yet, all three ended up with India. How was India able to pull off this mathematical impossibility? And how in the world can Indians defend something as legal and just, when it is a logical and mathemetical impossibility (even if we don`t count human rights)?

Junagarh had a Muslim ruler with a majority Indian population. Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a majority Muslim population. And Hyderabad had a Muslim ruler, with a large Muslim population, but majority Hindu population. The ruler of Kashmir, initially wanted indepdence, but later decided to join India. However, the people of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan (they still do). The ruler of Junagarh wanted to join Pakistan, but the people wanted to join India. And the ruler of Hyderabad wanted to be independent. Its hard to tell whether the people wanted independence or to join India, since they were invaded before they could decide.

What did India do?

It held a plebescite in Junagarh, and got that state (very fair, and I agree with it). It invaded Hyderbad militarily and got that state (very unfair, since there should have been a plebescite; the plebescite may have resulted in Hyderabad joining India anyways). And it refused to hold a plebescite in Kashmir and occupied in militarily (extremely unfair).

In this manner, India applied three different set of rules to each state, and pulled off the mathematical impossibility. How in the world can anyone in India present a moral or even a legal justification to a mathematical impossibility. Yet so many Indians keep doing that, thereby keeping South Asia in a perpetual state of war.

Junagarh should have gone to India, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, and Hyderabad should have either been independent or gone to India (depending on what its citizens wanted).

It is very incorrect to blame Pakistan and India equally for the Kashmir problem, as many Pakistanis trying to be overly politically correct attempt to do. Had Pakistan invaded Junagarh and not allowed the citizens of that state their wishes, then Pakistan would be to blame for that problem. In Kashmir, Pakistan has just requested the promised plebescite, and is willing to accept the results. All the other actions of Pakistan (some of which have increased the violence) are an after-effect of India`s extremely unfair policies.

Uptil now, there is absolutely no published statement of any Indian govt. that states that it is willing to allow self-determination in Kashmir, under any circumstance. The only statements are that India will look for a solution, or will talk to the representatives. India needs to define an end-goal of self-determination. After that, there are many ways to reach it.

My own guess is that India is completely insincere of self-determination for Kashmiris. And it will not do so, until it is forced to do so. And it is about time, India is forced to do so.

www.kashmirstudygroup.com

www.kashmircriesforjustice.com

For people looking for solutions to Kashmir, please check out: www.kashmirstudygroup.com.

This is a US organization headed by the CEO of Ethan Allen, Farooq Kathiawari, who was a student leader in Indian Kashmir. It includes US ambassadors, etc. As you will see on this site, they have presented and have signed on to many solutions to the Kashmir problem. But the main problem is that India has to give up its atut-ang stance. Once that happens, a million and one ways, processes etc. can be agreed to skin the cat.

For those interested in the internal situation in Indian Kashmir, there are some good international credible works. I would completely disregard anything from the Indian (or Pakistani) press and authors.

Some of the authors include the work done by AI, Margolis, Walker and Schofield. All of them say the same thing, and the human rights vioalations they point out are probably unprecedented in the world today. I have a feeling most Indians themselves are unaware of them.

Another good site is kashmircriesforjustice.com. This is a new organizations of lawyers in England, who are building up the case of massive human rights violations in Indian Kashmir, and planning to take it International Criminal Courts.

If you want to find out how things are in Pakistan Kashmir, just go there. You will be welcomed. It is probably the most peaceful place in all of Pakistan. It has easily the lowest crime rate in Pakistan. If you are in Muzzafarabad, give me a call.

Ref Fuzair #: 237

[Actually, since the princely states were not de jure a part of ``British India,`` no provision of the Indian Independence Act. Now, Mountbatten informed them that they were a de facto part of British India and that they should opt for either India or Pakistan and that the third option, although it was a perfectly valid one legally, was in effect ruled out. So, you see, the argument is a very complicated one legally in that the British Crown had paramountcy, by virtue of the various treaties signed between the princely states and the British government. Now, if the British voluntarily relinquish paramountcy, does it automatically devolve onto the Government of India? This was the position of the post-independence GoI but NOT that of all of the princely states.]

The British government, and not just Lord Mountbatten, took the position that British paramountcy over the princely states would lapse on Aug 15, 1947, and that the British government would not entertain the idea of entering into treaty relationships with any of the princely states. The princes argued, and Sir Conrad Corfield, the Secretary of the States Department argued on their behalf, that with the lapse of paramountcy, the prines regain their independence and are free to do as they pleased. The British were not interested in seeing India fracture into 600 pieces. Thus Lord Mountbatten urged the princes to accede to EITHER of the two dominions BEFORE Aug 15, 1947. In fact, one of the major considerations for accession should be contiguity to the particular dominion. This would have ruled out Hyderabad acceding to Pakistan no matter how much the Nizam`s advisers wanted him to do so and no matter how dearly Jinnah wanted Hyderabad as part of Pakistan. This merely avoided the possibility of 550 Bangladeshes in the future.

[If the GoI had fought it out in the courts and it had been appealed to the House of Lords, the case would have gone against the Princes. Presumably, the House would have ruled that physical realities being what they were, Paramountcy had, de facto, devolved onto the GoI and the Princes could just lump it. But then again, maybe the Law Lords might have ruled in favor of the Princes. It takes two sides to sign a treaty and some of the Princes (Kashmir, Patiala, Hyderabad, Kalat, etc) truly did want to be independent. So, one never really knows with senior judges.]

It is going to be pretty hard for a landlocked state to be independent. It would be totally dependent on the neighboring countries for its survival. Witness the case of Kashmir. It signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan that required Pakistan to allow unfettered transit of civil supplies into Kashmir. Yet Pakistan violated the agreement. As for Kashmir`s attempt to be independent, one must remind oneself that the country that invaded Kashmir was Pakistan, not India. I know that fact brings you apoplexy but then facts have a way of slapping you in the face.

[Of course, pretty soon after independence, the GoI declared itself a republic and the House of Lords was no longer its highest court. So who would have to decide the case then? The Hague?]

All the states other than Kashmir and Hyderabad decided before or shortly after Aug 15, 1947 about acceding to India or Pakistan. Kashmir signed up in October 1947. Hyderabad signed by Sept 1948. India declared itself a republic on Jan 30, 1950, about two and a half years after independence. The fact that Pakistan could not put together a constitution for ages does not mean that India rushed through the process to avoid hearings before the House of Lords.

[However, the key point here is that the GoI did not play this legal, and time consuming, game since it had the military resources to enforce whatever interpretation of events it wanted.]

India did not invade any of the princely states. The law and order situation in Hyderabad required action by the Indian Army and even that happened only in Sept 1948. In Junagadh, after a few months of anarchy, the Dewan invited India to come in and restore order and provide food supplies. He even suggested to the Nawab who had fled to Pakistan that accession to Pakistan should be rescinded. You know, Yasser keeps asking us all to read HV Hodson. I heartily second his recommendation. It might clear up the cobwebs in your head.

[Oh, yes, BTW, what exactly was the Indian legal claim for hanging on to Assam and the rest of NEFA after 1947? After all, they were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons.]

Oh, dear. You are off by only 99 years. Here is some history for you.

http://www.assam.org/assam/history.html

{The early history of Assam is obscure, although there are numerous references in the Mahabharata, the Puranas, the Tantras to a great kingdom known as Kamrup that encompassed the Brahmaputra Valley, Bhutan, Cooch Behar, and the Rangpur region in eastern Bengal….. The Ahom, a Shan tribe from which the name Assam is probably derived, crossed the Patkoi Mountains from Burman in 1228 AD and by the sixteenth century had absorbed the Chu-tiya and Kachari kingdoms of the upper Brahmaputra, subdued the neighboring hill tribes, and integrated the bhuyans into the administrative apparatus of a feudalistic state. During the latter part of the sixteenth and much of the seventeenth centuries, the Ahom repulsed a succession of Mughal invasions of their territory from Bengal as they moved to annex the eastern portion of the powerful Koch kingdom (1682) and to consolidate their rule over the entire Brahmaputra Valley. The kingdom of the Ahom reached its height under Rudra Xingha (reign, 1696-1714), the renowed military strategist and patron of the buranji, or Ahom chronicles. Rudra Xingha established extensive trade with Tibet and built the great city of Rangpur. During the latter half of the sixteenth century, the revered gossain (teacher, saint) and Assamese cultural hero, Shankara Deva, inspired a popular Vaishnavite movement that sought to reform the esoteric practices of Tantric Hinduism and to limit the prerogatives of the brahmanas attached to the Ahom court. The Ahom came to sponsor an extensive network of Vaishnavite monasteries, whose monks played an important role in the reclamation of wastelands for wet-rice cultivation throughout the Brahmaputra Valley. Because of the repudiation of caste privilege, Shankara Deva`s Vaishnavism appealed to the broad tribal base on which the Ahom had erected their state. From 1769, disaffected population of the kingdom, under the leadership of their ``Mahanta`s`` (religious leaders), took part in a series of uprisings against Ahom rule that devastated upper Assam. The leader of the first uprising was Ragha Maran. His two wives Radha and Rukmini also participated in the battles against the royal army. Afer their victory, Ragha`s son Ramakata became the king and Ragha became the Barbarua. At the request of king Gaurinath Xingha (reign, 1780-1795), the Governor General of British India, dispatched a mission to Rangpur, the Ahom capital, which restored peace to the kingdom. Civil strife, however, persisted. In 1817, the Burmese took advantage of the dissensions within the Ahom nobility and overran the Brahmaputra Valley. The Burmese, who came at the invitation of the Bar Phukan (Governor) Badan Chandra who conspired against the king, killed one in three person in Assam over a period of five years. Fearing incursions on their own territory, the British drove the Burmese from the Brahmaputra Valley, and under the conditions of the treaty of Yandaboo, between the Burmese and the British, annexed the Ahom kingdom in 1826. In 1838, all of northeast India became part of the Bengal Presidency of British India. …… In 1874, Assam was separated from Begal, and was constituted into a separate province by itself, with its capital in Shillong. In 1905, on the initiative of the British Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, the province was amalgamated with east Bengal following the paritition of Bengal into the west and the east. In 1912, the partition was nullified, and Assam was made a separate province once more.}

Maybe you were thinking of 1935 when BURMA was separated from India and became a separate Crown Colony. No Indian Government has ever maintained a claim on Burma.

[The boundless hypocrisy of the GoI and Indians never ceases to amaze me. The GoI does whatever it wants (invade Hyderabad, annex Sikkim, carry out nuclear tests, arms and trains Tamil terrorists, invades Sri Lanka, etc) and this is done for nothing but the purest and highest motives, true exemplars of Gandhian/Nehruvian selflessness and whatnot. When the GoP does whatever it wants (invade Kalat, suppress the Bengalis, train Kashmiri insurgents, etc), it is because the Pakistanis are nothing but a bunch of fanatical Islamist terrorists and mad dogs who must be put down for the good of humanity. Go on, tell me another Indian lie.]

No. You go ahead and tell me another Pakistani fable.

Fuzair,

A nation-state is not a piece of property so questions of paramountcy are irrelevant. Read Ambedkar for a thorough refutation of this idiotic thesis. The Indian leadership that won freedom for the Indian sub-continent (and yes that includes present-day Pakistan as well!) considered British/UK/Imperial paramountcy as unwanted, unwarranted, illegitimate (by India`s own legal principles). India wasn`t a piece of property conveyed by sale to an Indian leadership. The Indian leadership acted on behalf of its sovereign constituents to throw out a rapacious hegemon. In deciding the contours of the new Indian State the boundaries of British India were used as an indicative guide. But more important was the ancient concept of India in the pre-nation state times (as Ambedkar so convincingly proves) that India was guided by and rightly so. Take it or leave it! That`s it! While Jinnah with his limited intelligence put forward some sophomric arguments about J&K (While doing as much in the case of Balochistan) the Indian leadership moved quickly to do away with the Princely States. There were an anachronism in any case! You can rave and rant and rail against it as much as you want. It doesn`t mean a thing!

DOst-Mittar #231

Actually Sekhar Gupta - the same person that YLH raved about 8-10 years back , had visited Pak part of so-called Kashmir and he was able to talk to the so-called Kashmiris who actually spoke Western or Pothari dialects of Punjabi.

Historically , it seems the Kashmir valley is the only part that really speaks Kashmiri, you have Pahari / Dogri / Gojri in Jammu and then you have the Sudhan, Jatt and Rajput clans of Mirpur etc who seem to be more Punjabis by culture than Kashmiri.

krashid,

{{Is there a way out in Kashmir?}}

Romair`s post #222 reflects the typical one-dimensional thinking of the military. Anybody with military training is trained to think in those terms. Kashmiri independance will NOT be won by the Kashmiris or Pakistanis by a guerella war.

The French, Americans & Russians gave up in Algeria, Vietnam & Afghanistan respectively because these countries were never psychologically considered ``part of the homeland``. Whether Pakistan or Kashmiri muslims thinks IOK NOT part of India`s ``atut-ang`` is immaterial...Indians do! So if Kashmir wants to gain independance by a guerella war; your great grandchildren & mine will one day argue about the ``Kashmir problem`` on Chowk.

So, if I were a Kashmiri muslim, hell bent on independance from India..what do I do? If I feel I have a MORAL right to fight Indian oppression...then for Heaven`s sake fight it MORALLY!! If I kill Indians..whether they are soldiers or civilians..I go down to the same level as my oppressors & the rest of the world will NOT give a s_it about your ``moral`` right. After all, if a weaker party has to fight a stronger party then pressure from the rest of the world, ESP the West is crucial. So, yes I should KEEP fighting...but in this day & age, there is a RIGHT way to fight & a WRONG way to fight.

What is my opponent`s (India`s) GREATEST psychological ``weakness``? If you know that, then the war is 50% won. IMHO, India`s GREATEST psychological weakness is their ``pride`` in the way they got independance from the British--by Gandhian non-violent satyagraha. Whether Pakistanis think thats all BS is immaterial--INDIANS THINK THAT WAY! Doesnt matter if Gandhi is an anachronism in today`s India, Indians are VERY VERY proud of that struggle.

So, as a Kashmiri muslim, I will head a movement for an independant Kashmir. In order to do that, I must be principled, charismatic & have the capability to lead people by my message,

1) I WILL include Kashmiri hindus, sikhs & buddhists in my movement.

2) My vision for an independant Kashmir should be a secular, democratic country, FREE of meddling from either India, Pakistan or China.

3) My message should be; We are KASHMIRIS...muslims, hindus, sikhs or buddhist..DOESNT MATTER...We want to be INDEPENDANT..

4) Renounce ALL violence, in ANY form...& KEEP extolling the virtues of GANDHI (y`see...NOTHING will scare the Indians more than a Kashmiri Gandhi)

Now THAT is a real JEHAD! (First clean the crap from within & THEN fight your enemy, armed with the strenght of your values).

Keep having peaceful, non violent demonstrations, CONTINUOUSLY...doesnt matter if Indians imprison me & my collegues...the strenght of my values will keep Kashmiris demonstrating peacefully. If I get killed, I will become a REAL martyr...& my collegues will keep the fight on with renewed vigor. Let the Indian army shoot, kill, imprison & rape my people (they are doing it anyway)...but THIS time, it will make them feel guilty. NOTHING will make Indians feel more guilty than brutally quashing a Gandhian revolution.

Why is Romair so frustrated?... because he finds a COMPLETE lack of guilt or conscience on the part of Indians. Indians have ``justified`` this as a ``necessary evil``...that cant be helped because Kashmiri muslims are Pakistan sponsored terrorists. A part of his frustration also comes from the fact that (other than Pakistan), the rest of the world does not hear the suffering of Kashmiris in a way that they are outraged at India`s behaviour. Indians have successfully managed to paint the picture that Kashmiris fighting for independance are NO BETTER than the AL-Qeeda terrorists.

If you have a Gandhian based revolution, it will scare the pants of the GoI! Only THEN will the world acknowledge that India is WRONG & hypocritical. So what if Indians ban journalists, AI or any independant agency. In this day & age, especially, news travels with the speed of light. China doesnt allow these agencies either...but havent the Falung Gong, Dalai Lama won a lot of international (read Western) sympathy?! Didnt Sakharov, Mandela, that Burmese lady (wass-her-name) get international recognition, when the lead a fight based on PRINCIPLES?!

Lemme tell you, we conscience-less Indians will agitate for an independant Kashmir.

Will it take time?---YES!

Will it take patience?-YES!

Will it require sacrifice; even at the cost of lives?-YES!

Will it take courage & resolve?--YES!!

Will it succeed?-YES YES YES!!

Not only will it succeed, it will be supported by Indians themselves. All these 40 yrs, for all practical purposes, IOK had more autonomy than any other state. NO Indian could establish domicile, buy land in IOK, unless & until he could PROVE he was Kashmiri! Millions of Kasmiri livelihood depended on tourism from India.

In these 10+ yrs...all these Kashmiris are probably starving. They are not one INCH closer to independance. If India is forced to talk..to Kashmiris or even Pakistan...I`ll guarantee you, Indians will tie up those talks forever...& there will be NO resolution. Sooner or later, there will be more terrorist attacks because of Indian foot dragging & the same cycle will start all over again...& India & Pakistan will blame each other...

For God`s sake, somebody should think ``outside the box``. Mushy`s military CANNOT do so! For Indians, a perpetual stalemate is more acceptable than giving Kashmiris independance. Go ahead & think Indians are EVIL...they dont give a flying fuk what Pakistanis think of them.

How dida few hundred thousand British rule a few million Indians for 400 yrs?! They used CUNNING. They had the knack of knowing Indians` psychological weakness...that hindus & muslims have deep seated grudges...they CAPITALISED on those weaknesses. ``Divide & Rule`` was a very successful strategy that lasted for 400 yrs!

Is it POSSIBLE to have a Kashmiri Gandhi?!---YES!

Is it likely?!--NO!!

Peace.

dost-mittar #231
A BBC World report a couple of days ago from a reporter who accompanied Indian forces in their anti-terrorist activities showed how the wireless messages/instructions from Pakistanis across LOC to terrorists with J&K were also in Punjabi.

Re: Harimau

Actually, since the princely states were not de jure a part of ``British India,`` no provision of the Indian Independence Act. Now, Mountbatten informed them that they were a de facto part of British India and that they should opt for either India or Pakistan and that the third option, although it was a perfectly valid one legally, was in effect ruled out. So, you see, the argument is a very complicated one legally in that the British Crown had paramountcy, by virtue of the various treaties signed between the princely states and the British government. Now, if the British voluntarily relinquish paramountcy, does it automatically devolve onto the Government of India? This was the position of the post-independence GoI but NOT that of all of the princely states.

If the GoI had fought it out in the courts and it had been appealed to the House of Lords, the case would have gone against the Princes. Presumably, the House would have ruled that physical realities being what they were, Paramountcy had, de facto, devolved onto the GoI and the Princes could just lump it. But then again, maybe the Law Lords might have ruled in favor of the Princes. It takes two sides to sign a treaty and some of the Princes (Kashmir, Patiala, Hyderabad, Kalat, etc) truly did want to be independent. So, one never really knows with senior judges. Of course, pretty soon after independence, the GoI declared itself a republic and the House of Lords was no longer its highest court. So who would have to decide the case then? The Hague?

However, the key point here is that the GoI did not play this legal, and time consuming, game since it had the military resources to enforce whatever interpretation of events it wanted.

Oh, yes, BTW, what exactly was the Indian legal claim for hanging on to Assam and the rest of NEFA after 1947? After all, they were only added on to ``India`` in 1937 for purely administrative reasons.

The boundless hypocrisy of the GoI and Indians never ceases to amaze me. The GoI does whatever it wants (invade Hyderabad, annex Sikkim, carry out nuclear tests, arms and trains Tamil terrorists, invades Sri Lanka, etc) and this is done for nothing but the purest and highest motives, true exemplars of Gandhian/Nehruvian selflessness and whatnot. When the GoP does whatever it wants (invade Kalat, suppress the Bengalis, train Kashmiri insurgents, etc), it is because the Pakistanis are nothing but a bunch of fanatical Islamist terrorists and mad dogs who must be put down for the good of humanity.

Go on, tell me another Indian lie.

Shankar #207

I agree with your point of view.

Actually, I think it is British conspiracy or policy to divide and rule.

In 1947 there was no such thing as attachment to India or Indian psyche.

It was in 1953, when the status of Kashmir changed.

It is made into such overtime.

The prime importance is what the people of the region want.

Kashmiris always wanted self- determination or independent status, even before partition.

Hari singh was afraid to join India for the same reason. With political maneuvering, so called instrument of accension was signed.

Historically, politically, religiously, geographically Kashmir is associated with parts now comprising Pakistan.

It is not Musharraf or other hawks who determine Pakistani policy towards Kashmir. It is the people of Pakistan, mainly Punjab and NWFP who have kith and kin relation with Kashmiris.

The problem is, what is the philosophical basis for the solution of Kashmir.

Because if India insists that Kashmir is its pride and is acceptable without people in Kashmir.

And Pakistan insists on inciting people for their self determination, there is no solution.

Simply meaning, in this dead lock situation, what is happening needed to happen.

Do you have a way out.

From The News International (Jang Group)

Warming up to BD

I M Mohsin

General Musharraf`s expression of `regrets`, about the `sad events` of 1971 may be seen by many as too little, too late. Though ZAB and Mujibur Rahman had broken the ice in 1974 yet both lost their lives subsequently in military coups nullifying the initial gains. However, the latest gesture was a wise move considering that Zia kept on beguiling BD and the `Biharis` till he died. The civilian governments of the 90s were too scared of the army to address the issue fairly as the atrocities and the ignominious surrender leading to the break-up of Pakistan was the consequence of the shenanigans of the junta hell bent on discharging, as Yahya Khan claimed, a ``legal and constitutional responsibility -- to save it (the country) from internal disorder and chaos``. Ayub`s constitution, custom-made for himself, did not provide for C-in-C to have such pretensions. However, Yahya Khan, like Musharraf, was financially not corrupt. Despite this strength, the former finally proved to be a power-hungry sinner. As Zia`s chicanery dictated ducking the ethical problem, the conscience of the civilians also remained dormant taking a leaf from the dictator`s book of morals. If we claim to be Muslims, the atrocities should have been avoided when the inevitability of the break-up, reinforced by the damning prospect of a permanent military rule initially under Yahya, became clear. we should have parted company with good grace and taught a lesson to the Indian forces in the Eastern theatre. Unfortunately we lost our national honour as well as the Eastern wing with the surrender and we appear to be impervious to learning even from such a catastrophe as is sadly projected by our current predicament brewing like the plot of a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect it appears that the break-up was prompted by the divergence of cultures and ethos. The Bengali Muslim was educated, poor and politically conscious. Accordingly, the Muslim League owed its birth at Dacca to the local initiative. The Muslims of UP/CP etc had also acquired astuteness and they emphasised their political rights as the Congress started the Independence movement. Those belonging to north (beyond Delhi) were the most downtrodden, illiterate and politically prostrate. It is no coincidence that such provinces did not join the fray till the mid-forties. These areas, mainly, provided the gun-fodder for the British Military to control their compatriots` yearning for liberty. Historically, the mercenaries hired by the British from these areas saved the day for them after the Revolt of 1857. Sindh was slightly better off because of the influence of Bombay and NWFP had also experienced some political awareness, thanks to the Khudai Khidmatgars/ML.

An independent Pakistan, as such, saw the Quaid-e-Azam, as Governor General, helped by the Bureaucracy and Army, mainly from West Pakistan. While the Bengalis started the process of developing a Muslim platform at the all-India level, it was quickly overtaken by the Quaid-e-Azam, particularly in the thirties because of his attributes and location. No Bengali leader had the potential to fairly challenge Mr Jinnah`s leadership. Being ardent Muslim nationalists, generally, the Bengali leaders played their part despite certain reservations to the form in which Pakistan finally emerged. The Lahore Resolution of 1940, introduced by Mr A K Fazlul Haq, with the approval of the Quaid, recommended ``that the areas in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.`` While the Bengali mindset was anti-feudal and defiant to authoritarian recipes, which reflected their level of education and enlightenment, the West Pakistani, generally, was submerged in an avalanche of age-old degradation wherein anybody wielding some authority became a `mai baap`. This pompous role was assumed by the government, the bureaucracy, the army and the feudal on the debris of the servility and fear complex of the populace. No wonder the perceptions differed dramatically in the two wings. Since West wing, despite its low calibre, enjoyed a monopoly on state power, the equation got heavily loaded in its favour to the detriment of the precocious bigger half as well as national integrity.

The people of East Pakistan were patriotic despite irritations. This writer was in Dacca immediately after the 1965 war with India ended. The scene was no different from the one in any major city of `West Pakistan`. Incredible show of gratitude was being showered on armed forces for their heroic performance (despite faux pas). I was told by some friends that they felt very insecure as East wing was literally undefended on the questionable fauji dictum that `the defence of East Pakistan lies in West Pakistan`. However, Ayub`s misgovernance and Yahya`s takeover drove the last nail in the coffin of Pakistan`s integrity. It created two Pakistans: one wanted constitutional rule in a democratic set-up at any cost; the other supported army dictators either out of fear or devious motives or both. Yahya did not want to give up power but the ignominious surrender by his buddy, tiger Niazi, forced him out while breaking up Pakistan. No democratic set-up, howsoever weak and not aboveboard has lost Pakistan`s territory; it has always been the brave overlords who play with the people`s destiny with abandon because of the serf-like disposition of our society.

In 1996, this writer paid a visit to Dacca on way back from Colombo wherein I had led the Pakistan delegation to the SAARC Conference on Promotion of Co-operation in Criminal Justice. It was like homecoming as I still have very many friends there. I made the then Prime Minister approve the arrangement of training two ASPs for two months each, on a reciprocal basis, every year. Such a step would create goodwill among BD police and vice versa. As there is no continuity of governance in Pakistan, nothing has happened since the BB government was sacked.

The new protocols signed should be pursued with commitment. General Musharraf should request some civilian with integrity to head a BD Cell to cultivate goodwill using the current qualified euphoria. He should not play politics, like Zia, with the `stranded Pakistanis`. The government should also take some action against those involved in atrocities of 1971.This would be in the interest of justice, our poor image and a deterrent to future misadventures.

The writer is a former Secretary Interior

imnor@brain.net.pk

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities. But we have exhausted that debate many times over so let us not. I mention it only because you were trying to pull a fast one there about the tyrant Hari Singh`s absolute right.]

A host of other little principalities? There has been not a single peep from any of the 500-odd pricipalities absorbed into India, not even from Sikkim which was made into a state in the 70s. But Kalat attempted to secede from Pakistan in the 1950s and was promptly squashed.

As for the tyranny of Hari Singh, at least he was not into foreskin reconstruction.

Ref sigalph235 #: 220

[re harimau

``Yes. Someone named Hari Singh. He happened to be the ruler of the state and had the right to sign over the state to India. ``

Subject to the `ascertainment of the sentiments and wishes of the people of the state`. It never ceases to amaze me how Indians forget that part of the Independence Act when it comes to Kashmir but promptly remember it for Hyderabad, Junagadh, and a host of other little principalities.]

I would also like to know where exactly in the India Independence Act there is a provision for plebiscites in princely states which in any case were not under direct administration by British authorities.

The only three states which had disputed accessions were Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. Of these, Kashmir and Hyderabad never acceded to Pakistan. Junagadh, after acceding to Pakistan due to the machinations of Jinnah through its Dewan Shah Nawaz Bhutto, rescinded its accession.

As Yasser Latif Hamdani likes to point out, HV Hodson`s book ``The Great Divide`` provides excellent information on the three situations.

Ref cpothik #: 215

[Chandrasekhar was another guy, a Tamil who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for Astrophysics (Study of the stars and heavenly bodies). Incidentally, Chandra`s uncle also won Nobel Prize in 1931. His name was C V Raman and he is the only Indian scientist to win the prize by working within India. A very smart family indeed!]

On behalf of the Sangilikkaruppans and Maasanamuthus of Tamil Nadu, I want to bring out the issue of discrimination against OBCs by the Nobel Committee. Not only was the prize given to CV Raman because he is a Brahmin and the scientific and educational establishment in India at that time was dominated by Brahmins, but the fact that his nephew also got the Nobel Prize shows how strong the Brahmin nexus was and continues to be both within and outside India. This is the kind of nepotism which The Great Intellectual, Father Big Man and Doctor Artist Leader fought against. it is now our demand that at least the next 70 Nobel Prizes must be awarded to OBCs as compensation for past injustices to OBCs. If the Nobel Committee does not agree to our demands, we shall follow the Gandhian path of fasting until our demands are met. Doctor Artist Leader will initiate the relay fast in which DMK volunteers will fast for 30 minutes each in sequence. We warn the Nobel Committee that we have thousands of volunteers for this fast and thus are in a position to continue our protest indefinitely until the Nobel Committee agrees to meet our demand.

We have been reliably informed that Viswanathan Anand, the current contender for the world chess champion title, is also a brahmin. We also include among our demands that OBCs should be recognized as grandmasters in chess and given the title of world chess champion to remedy past injustices. We demand that the Nobel Committee award the title of world chess champion to the Doctor Artist Leader.