Preventing Military Take Overs

The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration`s Motives

By Michael T. Klare
January 16, 2003

Editor: Tom Barry, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)

Global Affairs CommentaryThe United States is about to go to war with Iraq. As of this writing, there are 60,000 U.S. troops already deployed in the area around Iraq, and another 75,000 or so are on their way to the combat zone. Weapons inspectors have found a dozen warheads, designed to carry chemical weapons. Even before this discovery, senior U.S. officials were insisting that Saddam was not cooperating with the United Nations and had to be removed by force. Hence, there does not seem to be any way to stop this war, unless Saddam Hussein is overthrown by members of the Iraqi military or is persuaded to abdicate his position and flee the country.

It is impossible at this point to foresee the outcome of this war. Under the most optimistic scenarios--the ones advanced by proponents of the war--Iraqi forces will put up only token resistance and American forces will quickly capture Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from office (by killing him or placing him under arrest). This scenario further assumes that the Iraqis will decline to use their weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or will be prevented from doing so by U.S. military action; that civilian casualties will be kept low and that most Iraqis will welcome their ``liberation`` from Saddam; that a new, pro-U.S. government will quickly and easily be put into place; that fighting between competing ethnic factions will be limited and easily brought under control; that anti-American protests in other Muslim countries will not get out of hand; and that American forces will be withdrawn after a relatively short occupation period of six months to a year.

cont``d

Musharaf offers 400 ercent guarantee that there has been no cooperation with anyone in the world.

For those of you who have served in the Pakistani military why not a 100 percent guarantee :-)

To understand the extent of Pakistan`s dirty involvement in Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation, read this most interesting interview:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript: Jane Wallace Interviews Seymour Hersh

JANE WALLACE: Thank you for joining us.

SY HERSH: Glad to be here.

JANE WALLACE: It might be safely said that the one country for whom the war on terror has been a bombless bonanza is Pakistan. In a matter of two weeks they went from being an international pariah, to being our new best friend.

The aid started flowing. It is flowing in the billions. Are they worthy of our friendship and our aid, the Pakistanis?

SY HERSH: In a perfect world, sure, it would be great if Musharraf, the head of the country can hold it together and they can become secular. And we can avoid having an Islamic republic with a lot of nuclear weapons. But it`s dicey.

JANE WALLACE: What kind of dicey?

SY HERSH: I think it`s a losing game. I think it`s a losing game and I think there`s a lot of evidence that Musharraf is certainly much more interested in his own survival than ours. I can`t give you chapter and verse of things. He came to American when and when there was tremendous concern about the fate of Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter.

And he was here about a week or so before it became known that Pearl was dead. And the whole time, we later learned, that he was here, when he was saying, you know telling us that he was doing everything he can. He was sure he was alive. He knew that Pearl was dead. We now know that. We knew he was deceiving us.

JANE WALLACE: How do we know that?

SY HERSH: Because--

JANE WALLACE: Time of death on Pearl?

SY HERSH: More than that. There`s-- we were able to unravel a lot of information, WALL STREET JOURNAL reporters and others about when he died. And there was, if you remember, there`s been a trial. And everything that showed up in the trial indicated that-- witnesses told about telling the government things-- weeks before we thought they had.

JANE WALLACE: There is a man facing death, facing hanging, Saeed Sheikh, in the murder of Daniel Pearl. Saeed Sheikh is reported, in various quarters, to have been an ISI Pakistani intelligence agent.

SY HERSH: Asset. Yeah.

JANE WALLACE: Do you believe that?

SY HERSH: This certainly is a case when he gave up, he turned himself in basically eventually to ISI and-- who-- not-- not right away, but pretty immediately. He turned a-- he was made available to the ISI and they debriefed him first.

JANE WALLACE: Why would he turn himself in to Pakistani intelligence as opposed to the police?

SY HERSH: There`s no question he has some connection. There`s no question he had some deep standing-- long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence.

JANE WALLACE: Now let me draw the picture ... If in fact he has a deep long standing connection to Pakistani intelligence, we are supporting a government that has some responsibility in the murder of an American reporter?

SY HERSH: What can you do?

JANE WALLACE: Let`s talk about Konduz. During the war with Afghanistan--

SY HERSH: Great story.

JANE WALLACE: -- you reported that during a key battle our side in that battle had the enemy surrounded. There were a reported perhaps 8,000 enemy forces in there.

SY HERSH: Maybe even more. But certainly minimum that many.

JANE WALLACE: It`s your story, take it.

SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it`s one little village and it`s a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...

We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that`s how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn`t do it that day.

JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.

SY HERSH: They`re whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.

JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they`re told to back off--

SY HERSH: From a certain area--

JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.

SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I`ve heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.

And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden`s immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.

JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?

SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized — Donald Rumsfeld who — we`ll talk about what he said later — it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.

JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don`t have any knowledge of that operation.

SY HERSH: That`s what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, ``Gee, really?`` He said, ``News to me.`` Which is not a denial, it`s sort of interesting. You know,

JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?

SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.

JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?

SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.

JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.

SY HERSH: Absolutely.

JANE WALLACE: Yeah.

SY HERSH: Yeah. That`s why. You asked why. Because we believe Musharraf was under pressure to protect the military men of — the intelligence people from the military, ISI, that were in the field. The Pakistanis were training the Taliban, and were training al Qaeda.

When the war began, even though this is-- again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.

So, to protect him, we perceive that it`s important to protect him, he asked us-- this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked-- he said, ``You`ve got to protect me. You`ve got to get my people out.``

The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once there planes began to go, the Pakistanis began-- thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so-- we weren`t able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn`t to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.

SY HERSH: What else can you do? We need the idea of some sort of country as a bulwark to what`s going-- look, Afghanistan is smoking today. You know if you want another reality, the reality that nobody wants to hear about is that probably from Khandhar to Jalalabad and all of the southern part of Afghanistan is cowboy and Indian territory.

It`s ISI. It`s Taliban. It`s Pashtun. Some al Qaeda. You know you don`t find our troops-- a little bit in-- on the coast near-- you know in the north-- the northern territories. We`re-- it`s-- we have un-- we`re-- we`re really at square one even in Afghanistan.

JANE WALLACE: Okay, I`m gonna slow you down because you know your material very well. The northwestern part of Pakistan--

SY HERSH: Right.

JANE WALLACE: --that borders on Afghanistan now is where the-- the al Qaeda forces are said to be regrouped?

SY HERSH: Along with Kashmir. They probably are there too.

JANE WALLACE: Yes. This is where some of our American troops-- we have about 8,000 left in Afghanistan, are facing some of the heaviest fighting they`ve seen in a year.

SY HERSH: The forces that are seeing heavy fighting are a few special forces that are there and some elite units from the 82nd Airborne. Most of our troops are just guarding bases. But we have some elite units in contact. Yes.

JANE WALLACE: What you`re saying is that then part of the forces our guys are facing are forces that are being supported by or intermixed with Pakistan intelligence which is a government we support. And al Qaeda, which is supported by a government we support. In other words we`re doing battle with ourselves to some degree?

SY HERSH: I`ll make it better. We have reason to think, from intelligence-- I haven`t written this that-- that the Saudi`s are financing some of this all the way.

JANE WALLACE: Financing what?

SY HERSH: Saudi`s put a lot of money into Pakistan to religious aspects. I`m not saying the Saudi`s necessarily-- the Saudi government knows that the money they`re putting in is ending up supplying the forces that are in contact with our forces in the northern territories. But the fact is the Saudi`s are still a supplier of a great deal of funds to Pakistan. We`ve got a country that`s teetering on the edge, we don`t want Pakistan to go Islamic. We don`t want the weapons to get out of control.

JANE WALLACE: How exactly did the Pakistanis acquire nukes?

SY HERSH: They stole the technology from Europe-- to-- basically-- they used enriched uranium, Enriched uranium makes as perfectly a good a bomb as plutonium without a big nuclear reactor that anybody can see and-- and get intelligence on. They began turning out warheads. We now know I-- as they say, we estimate up to 40-- and that`s just a rough guess.

JANE WALLACE: Forty warheads means what in terms of destructive power?

SY HERSH: Well, it depends the average warhead probably-- takes out New York. A good chunk of New York.

JANE WALLACE: So forty warheads is a lot--

SY HERSH: Yeah.

JANE WALLACE: --for a country the size of Pakistan?

SY HERSH: I would say one isn`t a lot if you can fire it. Yes, if you know how to do it and-- and-- it`s a lot. They--

JANE WALLACE: So formidable, especially in a third-world country where we`re not entirely sure--

SY HERSH: It could--

JANE WALLACE: --who`s in charge of the switch?

SY HERSH: Well, we`d like to think that the military and Musharraf is in charge of the switch. That makes us very happy to think that. That`s the whole issue. The issue is making sure and reinforce Musharraf being in charge of the switch, which--

JANE WALLACE: But the--

SY HERSH: It`s--

JANE WALLACE: --on the--

SY HERSH: --it`s a--

JANE WALLACE: -- issue--

SY HERSH: --it`s a crap game. It`s a roll of the dice. That`s what it is.

JANE WALLACE: You reported recently that not only do the Pakistanis have the nukes, the international community knew that. That`s why they were ostracized for many years, because they wouldn`t stop developing their own nuclear program. So they were blackballed by the rest of the world. Forget it, we`re not trading with them anymore.

They were in that position when 9/11 struck. Not only do they have these nuclear weapons, but then they go one further to put it in our face and start helping North Korea develop the same cheaper, more efficient warheads. What is that about? These are our new best friends?

SY HERSH: Well, this started before they became our new best friends. This isn`t-- this started in `97. What I did is I wrote about an intelligence report that the White House had for, what, eight months before it became known.

I love the story that this administration does live in a sort of a web of it`s own sort of stories. They-- the story they put out was last fall one of our guys goes to North Korea, the Pyongyang and-- and confronts the North Koreans. And they admit they have it. And we`re stunned. They`ve admitted they have it. Something we`ve known they`ve had for a year.

What they did is in `97-- they buy missiles from North Korea. The North Korean government is insane. Half the people starve and meanwhile they have a tremendously efficient missile system. They-- they-- if-- if the leader of that country decided that he wanted to-- to get rid of the missiles and start spending money on-- on-- on food, they could all live. There`s enough there. But it`s-- it`s a madness society.

And so the North-- the North Koreans are supplying missiles for-- for Pakistan for years. And in `97, Pakistan had some serious economic problems. And I can tell you right now i-- if nu-- if Pakistan`s economy is-- is in the toilet, North Korea`s deep in the sewer.

So here they are. North Korea`s-- one of their great exports is missiles for cash and then they sell some missiles to the Paks. And the Paks come to the North Koreans in `97 and they say, ``Hey guys, we can`t pay. We got no money. We`re broke too. But we`ve got something in kind. I`m giving you the most--`` this is actually an interpretation the community-- intelligence community, same people in the American intelligence community.

And by the way, there`s a lot of good people in our system. And awful lot. And they must be very frustrated with it, because I think things at the top-- it`s a very strange world at the top of this government. It`s a cocoon. And no bad information invited. I`m talking about in a-- in the-- in the leadership.

JANE WALLACE: What do you mean cocoon, no bad information invited?

SY HERSH: Oh, I just don`t think it was hard-- I don`t think they could sell this story of the-- the-- I don`t think the intelligence community was-- was able to get the President and the Vice President and other people to focus on North Korea-- for a year before it became known. It was just-- they didn`t wanna focus on it. They had other issues.

But the Paks then start giving the fruits of their 10, 15 years, 20 years of nuclear labor to the North Koreans. And you have to understand, to start with a centrifuge and some designs and get to the point where you can actually make bomb-grade material is a 12, 15 year process. The Paks--

JANE WALLACE: It`s very sophisticated?

SY HERSH: Oh. The Paks cut it way down to a couple years, three, four, maybe five years.

JANE WALLACE: So you could really spin `em out?

SY HERSH: You can kick it out. You can put it in high gear. They gave `em prototypes of the centrifuges that they made. They gave `em prototypes of the warheads. They gave `em test data.

There`s something called cold testing. You can actually test natural uranium in a warhead and it gives you a lot of information about the real stuff-- enriched stuff would work.

JANE WALLACE: So both third-world powers become more dangerous?

SY HERSH: To put it mildly.

JANE WALLACE: Colin Powell did not deny your story. He did go out of his way to say, the Secretary of State, that Musharraf has assured the State Department that this is not happening now.

SY HERSH: Right.

JANE WALLACE: That`s all-- well, what do you make of that?

SY HERSH: It`s the-- it`s the-- it`s the-- the three-card Monty we have going, which is that, ``What are you going to do with this guy? Are you going to say--`` it`s clear that some of the help that Musharraf gave the North Koreans took place after 9/11. That is a continuum.

Musharraf`s answer to us was a-- you know, ``Oh my god. There`s gambling on the premises?`` You know shades of Casablanca. And, ``I`ll stop it right now.`` And we say, ``Great.`` What else are we gonna do?

Are we gonna take a run at this guy and make it-- make him more vulnerable to his critics that are there already? The fundamentalists-- the Islamic-- the mujahadin? So we--

JANE WALLACE: Or are we gonna pretend it didn`t happen or-- or at least it`s stopped?

SY HERSH: We-- the rationalization for pretending it didn`t happen or that it`s stopped-- and it probably has stopped. The rationalization-- first of all, why shouldn`t it stop? They`ve got what they need already?

The rationalization is that we can`t jeopardize Musharraf. We`ve gotta keep him going. Prop him up as much as possible.

JANE WALLACE: This is getting to be a very costly prop up.

SY HERSH: Absolutely. But you know, let me give you another-- theory. Why do you think Pakistan has only helped North Korea with nuclear weapons? Why haven`t they helped other countries?

JANE WALLACE: I don`t know why.

SY HERSH: Well, the answer is, they probably have. They`re interested in spreading it to the Third World. How much control does Musharraf have?

JANE WALLACE: Do you have any evidence?

SY HERSH: No, no. I`m just telling you-- heuristically, I`m just telling you-- I`m telling what I-- my instinct tells me that in a perfect world, if our editor of the world`s newspaper, I would-- I would want to look at our-- is Pakistan-- I`d look at Pakistan and Iran, look at Pakistan and-- and Indonesia. Look at Pakistan even and Lebanon. There`s a lot of ties that I`m interested in. Are they gonna be spreading nuclear technology into the Muslim world above and beyond their own country?

JANE WALLACE: If we were really going after the people who sponsored al Qaeda, wouldn`t we be bombing Pakistan?

SY HERSH: Well, it`d be attacking Pakistan is not like attacking Afghanistan, or Iraq. They have an air force. They have nuclear weapons, of course. They have a-- very strong powerful Army. We`re not gonna attack Pakistan. That would be-- that would be an impossible chore. If you said to me, ``Are we better off in Pakistan or in Iraq in terms of beating terrorism?`` I would say to you-- if you`d asked me that question, I would say, ``No question. Let`s forget about Iraq and let`s focus on Pakistan and start doing-- the money we`re gonna spend if we go to war there, even in moving troops, if we tried to use some of that money in-- in positive ways in Pakistan, we might be able to accomplish more than we are right now.``

JANE WALLACE: The picture you are painting here is that we`re dealing with the devil.

SY HERSH: It`s not a perfect world.

#51http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/usiraqwar.neo
Coup in Pakistan? India Seeks To Exploit U.S. Distraction
=======================
Rumors are emanating from New Delhi that a right-wing military coup might be brewing in Islamabad, and if Washington doesn`t act to replace President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, it might have a new problem to deal with after Iraq. While Musharraf faces a serious challenge in balancing competing forces at home, talk of a coup might be premature. Rather, India is trying to catch Washington off-balance as the United States focuses on Iraq -- and New Delhi might not be alone in pursuing such a course.

arjun_m #50
The same thing happened to India many years ago when the earliest of the Indian satellites was launched( one of the INSAT 1As I think), namely that the satellite was up and running but P&T dept on ground was not ready or equipped to make use of its transponders.

General Mahmood planned to overthrow Musharraf
reported by Pakistan second largest daily newspaper (alas in Urdu) today (15/2-2003).

http://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/daily/feb-2003/15/ak4.htm

Filth produces filth. Intervention of the military in political affairs is not only harmful for the civil society, it is much more detrimental for the army itself. It is a matter of time that these generals will be plotting against each other, planning each other’s assassinations and cutting each other’s legs.
Please, wake up, before it is too late.

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

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

Strange country it is, Paksitan, where Jamali as PM is the boss of Mushraf but Musharaf who as a general is subordinate of Jamali is also the boss of Jamali as President. But Jamali as boss of Mushraf cannot fire his subordinate Musharaf whereas Mushraf who is subordinate of Jamali can fire his boss Jamali as the President. .......now excuse me my head is getting dizzy, will write the rest of the post later.

Reply to the recent posts by nakhok, harimau and friend.

I am grateful to you people for giving the other side of the story. It has been a good education. Sometimes, one lives in his own fixated world. That is the reason I am a strong believer of people to people contact and exchange of news papers and magazines. The histories written by us are also faulty and these sow seeds of hatred. Our medias are mostly one-sided.

Your views on Plebicite have got me thinking. More about it some time later.

But most of what you have said, I have believed all along. May be some day I will share with you two of my old write ups - `Coming to terms with Kargil` and `Killing Kashmiris with kindness`.

Thanks.

nakhok
If you are a student of history, consider submitting a detailed article on the Cabinet Mission Plan.

#36 by friend on February 12, 2003 9:35am PT

[along with your advice, you have expressed your take on where India is at fault, and have included ``refusal for plebicite`` in this list]

The Horizon
30th October, 1998

Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi

Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this
once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.

The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self-determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.

Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of
``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.

Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``

Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.

Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must
summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.

#36 by friend on February 12, 2003 9:35am PT

[along with your advice, you have expressed your take on where India is at fault, and have included ``refusal for plebicite`` in this list]

http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/09/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
09 February 2003 Sunday 07 Zilhaj 1423

Governors in politics
By Kunwar Idris

``Last year an army general was asked to resign one day to take over as
president of Azad Kashmir the next day. That may not have violated a law but inevitably caused dismay. Pakistan stands for the right of self-determination for all of the people of Kashmir but here even the free and unsuspecting among them were given no say in choosing a leader of their own.``

``That episode is behind us, all but forgotten. If that unusual and undemocratic method of selecting a president helped the people of Kashmir or their freedom cause in any manner, it is not apparent on the surface. This much however is known that in the fight that fast ensued between him and the elected prime minister, a Lahore editor had to intervene to broker a truce.``

#36 by friend on February 12, 2003 9:35am PT

[along with your advice, you have expressed your take on where India is at fault, and have included ``refusal for plebicite`` in this list]

The oft repeated demand of the ruling class in Pakistan for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir is a non-starter. It should ask itself a few questions everytime it is tempted to put on a facade of self-righteousness over the province. Will it really be an exercise in democracy if Pakistan were to hold a plebiscite to determine how, where and how the Ahmadiyas should be allowed to pray? Will it really be a homage to freedom if the Ayatollahs were to hold a plebiscite in Iran to decide on the appropriate reward for the ``ghazi`` who murders Salman Rushdie?

Many a member of Pakistan`s ruling elite seems completely unaware of the difference between mobocracy and democracy. He has conveniently redefined democracy to suit his misgiuided fervor for theocratic dictatorship. It is fundamental rights, and not majority rule, that is the essence of democracy. No plebiscite can ever sanctify the deprivation of fundamental rights.

The chauvinist from Pakistan proclaims proudly that the majority of the Muslims in the subcontinent had wanted to partition India. But it was certainly not democracy that led to the exile of Hindu Sindhis from their ancestral land. And, it won`t be democracy if the Sindhi experience is allowed to be repeated in Jammu and Kashmir as well. It was criminal that the world had stood by as Jinnah`s Pakistan cleansed itself of non-Muslims. It will be no less criminal if the religious fanatics from across the LoC are allowed to Pakistanize yet another province of the subcontinent.

The Kashmir Valley has been ``cleansed`` of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris. They are living wretchedly in refugee camps in places like Jammu and Delhi. Does Pakistan`s ruling elite ever bother to spell out a plebiscite that will not infringe on the fundamental rights of these hapless refugees to live in their ancestral land?

Jinnah and his cohorts in the Muslim League never cared for plebiscite when it didn`t suit their ambitions. Why were they so sore that the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawab of Junagadh had failed to transfer their jageers to Pakistan? Let alone democracy, not even the obnoxious two-nation theory of religious apartheid could have supported the inclusion of Hyderabad or Junagadh in Pakistan.

But, Kashmir`s inclusion in India is quite another matter. Jammu and Kashmir account for only a tiny fraction of Muslim Indians who number more than Muslim Pakistanis. Furthermore, the Indian Constitution recognizes neither the two-nation theory nor the hegemony of the religion of the majority. Jammu and Kashmir has absolutely no parallel with Hyderabad or Junagadh.

Pakistan`s rulers choose to remember the United Nations resolution on plebiscite, but they very conveniently forget that the withdrawl of all Pakistani soldiers from Kashmiri soil was a prerequisite for the plebiscite. No plebiscite could be held because of Pakistani refusal to abide by the rules. It was at this point that the elected legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, ratified Jammu and Kashmir`s accession to India. Much water has flown through the Jhelum since then. Today`s problem cannot be solved with yesterday`s solution.

India, unlike Pakistan, is a multireligious country. We cannot, at this stage of nation-building, afford a plebiscite in Kashmir that will inevitably revive the obnoxious two-nation theory of religious apartheid. Unfortunately, that is precisely the reason why Pakistan insists on a plebiscite.

There is nothing in the record of the ruling elite in Pakistan to indicate that it cares any more for the rights of Muslims in Kashmir and in the rest of India than it had cared for the rights of Muslims in Bengal. India is under no obligation, either legal or moral, to hand over Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. In fact, India has an obligation to do everything it can to liberate the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir.

General Pervez Musharraf has promised America that he`ll put an end to the pipeline that finances the terrorists and also to the camps that trains the terrorists. General Pervez Musharraf has also promised America that he will do his best to stop cross border terrorism. Jammu & Kashmir will certainly be a happier place if General Pervez Musharraf lives up to his promise.

Jammu & Kashmir is multi-religious and multi-ethnic. Terrorists from across the LoC are trying to ruthlessly impose the religious homogeneity of Pak Occupied Kashmir on the rest of the province - not surprising in view of the nexus between these terrorists and Taliban/Al Qaeda over the years.

``Kashmir banega Pakistan`` is not a Kashmiri slogan, it is a slogan engendered in the cantonments in Pindi & Lahore. It is a slogan designed to preserve the perks & privileges of Pakistan`s military. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily the military) to suggest that it cares any more for freedom and democracy in Jammu & Kashmir than it cares for freedom and democracy for Pakistanis!

If Pakistan`s ruling elite can let a quarter million stranded ``Biharis`` (who consider themselves Pakistanis) to rot in refugee camps for decades, it cannot possibly care for Kashmiris who don`t even call themselves Pakistanis. The ``Biharis`` will not come with any real estate - naturally Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t want to touch them even with a 10 ft pole.

Funds were set up in Pakistan, and even in Saudi Arabia, to finance the repatriation of these hapless ``Biharis``. The Rabita trust was one such fund. And General Pervez Musharraf was himself on its board. I don`t know how much fund was collected by the Rabita trust for the purpose over the years. But I was not very surprised to be informed ruefully by a Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen on orders from the American government because they were being misused to promote terrorism. And that, in a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` !!

Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t care a damn for the people of Jammu & Kashmir. All it is interested in is the real estate. To that end, it has been financing cross border terrorism which has already succeeded in imposing the religious homogeneity of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir on the Kashmir Valley as a first step toward turning it into a fiefdom for Pakistan`s ruling elite.

Pakistan cannot really afford to fund the cross border terrorism. Unfortunately for Kashmiris and Pakistanis alike, Pakistan`s army cannot seem to afford to end its patronage for these terrorists either because ``Kashmir banega Pakistan`` has become its fulcrum to ensure that the military continues to be allocated a disproportionate share of the country`s wealth.

#4 by nazarhayatkhan on February 11, 2003 0:53am PT

[Pakistan was created for the economic and social well being of the Muslims of the Subcontinent after the Cabinet Mission Plan, which said that Muslim Majority areas should have Muslim League Governments in a Federal India, was rejected by Nehru. So Nehru created Pakistan. ]


The Cabinet Mission Plan deserves an article in Chowk. For the time being, let me point out that it was Jinnah, and not Nehru, who formally rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah did so when he realized that Nehru could rely on paragraph 15 of the Cabinet Mission Plan to legally justify any move by the Congress ministries in Assam in the East and NWFP in the West to refuse to join groupings dominated by Muslim League ministries (in Groups B & C).

Anyway, as Shahid Javed Burki (a Pakistani official at the World Bank)has pointed out in his book, ``Pakistan, a Nation in the making``, it was Jinnah`s refusal to rule out Pakistan even as he initially and grudgingly accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan that was at the root of the problem. The popularly elected governments of Assam & NWFP were alarmed at the thought that Jinnah was not accepting the Plan in good faith, it was merely his stepping stone to Pakistan. As such, both Assam & NWFP refused to be compulsorily grouped with the Muslim League provinces. Nehru merely pointed out that paragraph 15 of the plan allowed the provinces to refuse to join the groupings.

While Jinnah was absolutely against any Muslim League ministry in a grouping (Group A) where Congress ministries were in the majority, he was aghast at the though that the Congress ministries in Assam and NWFP would have the power to walk out of groupings (Groups B & C) in which Muslim League ministries were in the majority.

In oher words, in Jinnah`s view there were two types of decentralization in the Cabinet Mission Plan:

(1) The good decentralization that gave groups B and C the autonomy to act without the concurrence of group A.
(2) The bad decentralization that gave Congress ministries in Assam and NWFP to act without the concurrence of the Muslim League ministries in Groups B and C.

Jinnah opted out of the Cabinet Mission Plan because he wasn`t willing to allow Assam and NWFP the type of autonomy within Groups B & C that he insisted for Groups B and C vis-a-vis Group A.

Jinnah & Liaqat Ali Khan, before partition, were not willing to allow the Congress majority to have a greater say over the Muslim League minority in any government decision taken in New Delhi. But they didn`t change a bit even after partition. Jinnah & Liaqat Ali Khan were not willing to heed to the demands of the majority even in Pakistan. For example, both insisted against the wishes of the majority that Urdu and Urdu alone will be Pakistan`s national language!! And in doing so, they paved the way for the tragedy in 1971 that saw the murder of 3 million Bengalis at the hands of the ``martial races`` from West Pakistan.

Ref nazarhayatkhan #25

[Both countries are losing out of this childish animosity. I do not think leaders on both sides have the courage to get out of the past. The only hope is the present day generation.]

I agree on all but the first statement. In the eyes of the world, India has behaved with great restraint with regard to Pakistan. That is why India is considered today to be the bulwark against China and all sorts of military weaponry (including F-16s, C-130s, etc.) are being offered by the US which refused sales for cash (not credit or for free) in the past to India. The most any US firm could offer was the F-20 which nobody in the world bought and died a merciful death.

Pakistan is abviuosly losing out of this animosity. India is also losing out and is finding it difficult to assume its natural status in world affairs. Even physically, Himalayas block it in the North and Pakistan blocks it from East. All Central Asia, Iran and Middle East which could be opened up to the entire South Asia, is in a state of limbo. The entire areas West of India have a historical link with India.

[Majority of common Pakistani folks are for a frienship with India. The biggest damage that Kargil did was that it changed the perspective of an average Indian. You are absolutely right in that. I think it made an average Indian think anti-Pakistan.]

No; the average Indian still doesn`t think of Pakistan unless there is a bomb set off in some Indian city oe diplomats are expelled. The former does bother them but the latter doesn`t. But if an Indian meets with Pakistani, you will find genuine friendship from the Indians as much as from the Pakistanis.

[I feel that India should start thinking big. It should appear magnanimous. Give those few miles to Bangladesh and have a happy neighbour.]

India wants trade liberalization with all countries. Ahead of the WTO and ahead of all bilateral trade agreements, India has relaxed import of a large number of items from Sri Lanka despite Sri Lanka`s decision not to reciprocate. What Bangladesh is afraid of is what would happen if Indian goods swamp the market.... there is no border dispute worth talking about. In fact, the border is being fenced off to prevent Bangladeshi migrants from entering India.... this pisses off Bangladesh much like fencing the southern US border pissed off Mexico. Tell me, is there a reason for Pakistan to import its automobiles straight from Japan when the same vehicles are made in India, particularly when Pakistan doesn`t have an automobile industry? The natural trading partner for Pakistan is India and so long as political considerations come in the way, the average Pakistani will pay more for goods. The same thing holds good for Bangladesh.

[Let Nepal have free access and trade; and not brow-beat and black mail this little country on trade passage issues. Nepal is no match to India.]

The issue is similar to Afghanistan`s relation to Pakistan; we just don`t want the Nepalese selling the imported goods on the Indian market. Heck, we might as well let the average Indian trader make the middleman`s profits instead of the Nepalese.

[Kashmir is a difficult issue but there can be solutions acceptable to both India and Pakistan. But the issue has to be recognized.]

The trouble is that the status quo favors India and jihadi terrorism favors Pakistan. Thus it is not in Pakistan`s interest to keep the Valley of Kashmir peaceful. If peace can be obtained and maintained, Pakistan is afraid that it will never get the Valley. The most that India can offer the Kashmiris is free elections within the context of the Indian Union: just what is being offered the Nagas and the Nagas probably have a better case than Kashmiris for independence. At some point, India has to draw defensible borders and not let sparsely-populated areas like Nagaland or Mizoram demand independence, no matter how sacred the principle of self-determination is. This has been acknowledged by India with regard to Tibet and we expect to enforce the same in our Northeast and in Kashmir.

Someone referred to a US think-tank report that seems to have given up on Pakistan and suggests that the only hope for Pakistan is re-integration with India. Jay tends to call for the ``Iraq-isation`` of Pakistan. If there is a war over Iraq, you can be sure the borders will be altered so as to favor the West. If Pakistan continues its double dealings with North Korea, the Taliban, etc., and is consequently classified as a terrorist nation, you can be pretty sure that Jay`s wish might actually come along. Who knows, the newest imperial power might decide that NWFP is better off with Afghanistan and the rest forcibly integrated into India. Fiftyfive years of professed undying friendship might actually mean nothing more than writing `finis` to the history of Pakistan.