A Sign of Things To Come?

``OTOH peace-loving Indians are all for dealing with the genuine grievances of Kashmiris.``

I hope this is this is true. However, I am still waiting for these peace-loving Indians (other than you) to speak up agaisnt what their govt. has done in Kashmir to Kashmiris. Much less deal with anything. To speak up, not in favor Pakistan, nor even for peace for Pakistan, but at least on the basis of human rights.

This line of thought is completely missing from the Indian media, TV, newspapers, movies, and social fabric. I watch and read them closely and regularly. Can you name a few movies made in India, or a few documentaries made that highlight the grieviances of Kashmiris, much less show them being killed? In every single movie, Kashmiris are shown either as terrorists, or as innocent victims of Pakistani terrorism.

Portrayed ass people, who, themselves have no voice, and thus need Indians to speak up for them.

My arguments on Kashmir have been 100% based on the Kashmiri point of view, not on the the Pakistani point of view, i.e. if all of Kashmir willingly wants to join India, it should be allowed to, including my hometown. In addiiton, my comments are based on human rights. This is why I am unwilling to brush Kashmri , under the table, even if it furthur accelerates any peace process.

However, I have seen very very few Indians, on this site, or in the Indian media, etc., who are even willing to acknowledge and accept India`s own actions in Kashmir. Much less try to stop them, most actually encourage and enable them. The majority in India seems to oppose the right of human rights organizations to go into Kashmir. They seem convinced that it is nothing but a war of Pakistani terrorism (I acknowledge that this part exists, but all Kashmiris will tell you that this is not the main problem. If it were, then Kashmiris would be pro-India). There seems to be absolutely no outcry about the tens of thousands of people killed there by the Indian security forces. The banning of the international media is never objected to. A desire to at least ask the Kashmiris, themeselves, who is causing their problems - Indians of Pakistanis - is completey missing.

Human rights organizations and international media is allowed openly in Israel, and actually follows Israeli bulldozers as they raze houses. It is allowed in Iraq to see what Americans are doing. And even George Bush starts shaking in his pants, if he is shown a few photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqis. But everything is banned in Kashmir. Even though the number of innocent people killed in Kashmir, far outnumbers (40 to 50 times more than in Palestine, and five times more than in Iraq) the other two.

I have had so many debates on this issue with Indians, here, and have eventually given up, with the feeling that there are actually very few people in India, who are even remotely interested in human rights of Kashmiris. They only complain about the deaths of Kashmiris, to score political points against Pakistan. When, in fact, if you ask the Kashmiris (and I am one) and the international organizations, an overwhlemingly high proportion of deaths are by the Indian forces.

So you should be able to understand why I have my doubts (not to mention a certain amount of anger at what India has done to people, with whom I share an ethnicity) about India`s desire to crack the tough nut. Arundathi Roy and a handful of other Indians (hats off to them), are the only ones, who tell the real story. Even on this site, you and Shankar are probably the only ones, who at least acknowledge it. And even Shankar has given up and left. So it is you on one side, and gujjubania, sadna, jay, Alpha-Null, etc. on the other side. And I see far more of them, than of you.

Actually it`s not the later group that scares me. There are hate-mongers everywhere. What scares me is when, otherwise balanced folks like Vereesh and bongdongs etc. refuse to acknowlede the real situation in Kashmir.

I am hoping that all of this is due to the decades old conflict that has occured between India and Pakistan, which has brainwashed everyone. And if that situation improves, Indians will start thinking about the Kashmiris` human rights (a politically correct way of saying, they will stop killing them). There is hope, since Indians have given a very objective and fair (perhaps overly fair) view of Pakistan after visiting. Maybe, if they got to actually see what their govt. was doing in Kashmir, they would be, ``overwhelmed`` once again.

If not, then I am afraid, at least I, will not accept any peace process which brushes aside the human rights of anyone.....

dost-mittar#41: ``In summary, first move in areas where there is a win-win situation for both countries, leaving the tough core to be cracked to the last.``

I think you and I agree on almost everything, if not everything. I agree with the above statement completely. However, everyone in India may not be thinking like you do. I don`t know? Are they? There is a genuine concern in Pakistan that India may back-off, when it comes time to crack the tough core. And this is what you see in the Pakistan media. You interpreted it in a different way.

I don`t think Pakistanis want Kashmir resolved tomorrow. They do however, want a genuine framework defined, thereby locking both countries into a solution at some stage. Currently, there is no framework from the Indian side. So no one knows what India will do. India has to put, at least, some of its cards on the table. Like Pakistan has done. Once that is done, everyone in Pakistan will quite down, and will patiently wait for the tough nut to be cracked at the end.

I have never quite figured out, why India is unwilling to even define the boundary of a framework. To just keep saying, there will be discussions, is neither here nor there. What exactly does that mean? Is it a delaying tactic? Is it a desire to wait till Pakistan is more vulnerable, and pressurize it into a one-sided solution? Is it a genuine desire for peace? Do you know?

Pakistan has defined its side of the framework, and it is away from UN resolutions, provided India moves away from the status quo also. Musharraf is the first leader in the history of the country to state that (as far as I know). This is a bigger, ``political`` risk for Musharraf, than a similar statement would be for Vajpayee. . To some extent, Vajpayee has attempted to define a framework. He did mention, ``human rights`` etc., but in the end he seems to get pulled back, by the hawks in his govt.

At the same time, perhaps you are being over-critical of one comment.

This discussion started, when you stated that Pakistan would derail the whole process by trying to get its way on Kashmir, at some stage. You pointed to one comment from Musharraf, on one program, which could be interpreted in many different ways, to support your argument. You disregarded the hundred other comments he has made, and the fact that the govt. itself clarified the comment a day later. You furthur went on to add that no one objected to it in the press. When in fact, the press could have interpreted it the way, I did. and not the way you did. And you did not look at the million other articles the press in Pakistan writes, on this issue.

I am sure there are many comments made by BJP leaders, which could be taken out of proportion, or misinterpreted in Pakistan. I am not sure it is a good idea to read too much into them. Musharraf is already facing a backlash for his support of the USA. I am sure he does not want to give an image that he will agree to a one-sided solution to Kashmir, and have to face the remaining 85% of the country. His statement, even if interpreted the way you have done, is probably an attempt to talk to the Pakistani crowd, not the Indian crowd.....

dost-mittar -- i agree with you on most points -- esp. about what you said on the need for the media in pakistan to separate kashmir from the issue of normalization -- by the way your remarks that most newspapers/journalists in pakistan supported musharraf when he said the deadline thing -- and by the way many many articles have been written by columnists saying that govt should detach kashmir from the process of normalization , you are right no editorials have been written on this line, but columns under personal bylines have been -- wrong -- some journalists/columnists and newspapers didnt -- which is why the government then clarified that no such deadline had been given -- veeresh -- i was in delhi in july 2002 for a week (this was at the height of the pak-india confrontation) and all i did when i was free was to walk about in the city -- was staying in lodhi gardens and would walk every day to khan market in the morning -- as for the newspapers cost question -- that is exactly what we tell our publishers here -- their view is the economies of scale issue (dont know how true that is) but i think what is a valid point is advertising -- indian papers regularly have up to 30-50 per cent of column space of advertising, even on a weekday -- that is generally unheard of in pakistan -- also duties on newsprint -- and probably an element of monopoly control by the owners of the newspapers

Hello All,

At the very outset of my post, i would like to request the author ``Mr.Qureshi`` to apologise the reader he called ``moron``. Such a personal comment, and specially coming from an author to its reader is just not acceptable. No matter what ``jay`` or anyone would have said, it does not give anyone a right to use such a langugage. Only a weak and intolerant person would resort to the use of such languagge, which i am sure Mr.qureshi is not, given his abilites to vocalise himself in an articulate manner.

Now, about the article, well.....programe definitely is an idicator of change in the attitude of Official Pakistani Media, the affect of such a change, nevertheless, can be argued.

My personal view on the issue of pak-india relation is that the truth lies between the position taken by both sides on this issue, i.e. antagonists and protagonists. Neither the problem is so deep and the state of affairs has gone sooo contaminated that it cannot be cured not matter what, NOR is the case that differences are soo superficial which can be redressed by visits of persons like Urmila and the coverage of such visits by official media.

The problem, in my view, definitely is one which is very much soluble, but needs a rather more carefully articulated, well thought and consistant policy/plan alongwith a patience to sit and wait before the process/policy brings about intended results. Hatered, and for that matter all the negative things and notions are very easy to spread and but difficult to root-out.

One of the key factors which have shared to this sore state of affairs, both at the govenmental leve, as well as on man-on-the street level, is the respecive perception developed by both the governments among their masses through, media and books, specially text books, specially Pakistani text books. The story of pakistan and the personality of Jinnah depicted in Pakistani books, even those written by scholars with a secular perspective is so very untrue and partison that it makes one wonder as if Jinnah was the only the person who led the freedom movement of india and had it not been the creation of Pakistan, India would have still been in British clutches. Whereas the fact is something very opposite to it. Pakistan can be seen as a bye-product, though unintended, of the freedom movement of Indian National Congress with the alliance and support of other parties and factions of the society and not vice-versa.

The contradictions piled around the Pakistani version of history and political personality of jinnah needs some serious efforts of reconciliation or if adopted an easy way ``an admission of certain facts``. These contradictions prevailing in the history of pakistan have led to the formation of a society and socio-political culture of hypocracy, false ego and self-righteousness and a general habit of intolerance. Ironically enough, these traits are more commonly found among the intelligensia and educated class of the society, irrespectivve of their socio-economic status. The masses trying to make both ends meet, probably don`t have enough time and energies left to hate their neighbours.

Being born and raised in Pakistan and then having a chance to visit india to see some of the left behind relatives in Dehli, i always used to wonder, why we Pakistanis are so different from the rest of the world, and specially the muslims of the rest of the word, and when i say different, its not always ``difference in a positive sense``, till i got a chance to interact with Jews from Israel (i am not talking of american jews and jews from the rest of the world, but strictly Israeeli jews and specially those who migrated to israel). It was only then that i realised that there is another society on the face of this earth besides us pakistanis which have very similar, if not exact, traits. That led me to conclue that one of the major contributor is the very idea of creation of a state/nation/country on the grounds of religion, be it Islam or Judaism. Since the very idea of such a state negates and contradicts the fundamentals of the concept of nationality and thus inevitably reflects on the general attitude of the society and its members who are made to adopt a ``forced identity``. You will not probably find any other country and its people trying to justify their existence and the creation of their country except Pakistan and Israel....why??? And yet, ironically, both the countries, at governmental as well as masses level, are extremely hostile towards each other. The traits mentioned above express themselves more evidentally among intelligensia and educated class as they conciously try to justy the unjustifiable which leads to the nourishing of a general habit of justifying their actions and their stance, no matter what..!!

In my humble opinion, tension between these 2 neighbouring countries should be solved at a rather more grass root level by indiividuals/groups/NGOs and the action which is really required by the governments and specially that of the pakistani government is to teach the history of pakistan in a correct and factual perspective. Actions taken by the Governments such as broad-casting the ``show in question`` sometimes prove counter productive as they raise suspicion and distrust among the people. How would a common man must be feeling, the one who has been fed with hatered of India continuously by the successive governments, including the present, when he all of the suddent see the things turning into a ``honey-bunny lovy-dovy`` affair.?? He would feel betrayed, and would feel so genuinely. Another befitting gesture on part of both the Governments would be to let such individuals/NGOs and groups work without being hindered by beurocratic red-tapes and political opportunism and to facilitate such activities by changes in the policies such as visas and trade.

In nutshell, without a comprehensive campaign to bring awreness among the masses, and specially correction of the offical version of Pakistan`s history and creation, such programes will not serve any real purpose.

Regards to all

P.S. sorry for such a long post...!!

jay -- get a life -- the rest of your post is not worth writing a detailed response to, in any case as you said your observations are based on `long-term social changes in pakistan` so who can argue with your wisdom -- you have delusions but i suppose you have a right to them -- whippinzed?? style piece -- no it came in a mainstream newspaper -- ``most of the work done by PRs for you`` -- hahah quite laughable -- by the way whippinzed, what does this line that you wrote mean `you could have done better for` ? -- gujju -- actually u r asking for a too much -- sorry too much at work right now

#37 by veeresh on April 30, 2004 11:58am PT

While stating the facts on Kashmir, why do (almost) all Indians conveniently forget what your security forces are doing to Kashmiri civilians? Please take some time to read reports of Amnesty International on the ground realities there. Killing 20+ Kashmiri civilians every month is not something you can proudly present. And who told you that anyone can drive to Srinagar? Your government doesn’t allow any independent international observers. Not so long ago, India denied suggestion from Collin Powell to appoint independent international observers to monitor elections in Kashmir. Hiding something?

If Pakistan’s track record is not good on Kashmir, India`s track record on Kashmir is worse. And most Pakistanis realize that very well. We do have internal problems, but that is a different issue, so please don’t try to mix that up with the Kashmir issue. The only logical solution is for both states to show flexibility and let Kashmiri people decide their future. If India is so confident that Kashmiri people love India, why don’t you hold a plebiscite there and shut Pakistan up for good? In recent months, Pakistan has gone out of the way to show flexibility on Kashmir, but thanks to total inflexibility on the Indian side, 50 years later our next generations will still be going over this same debate.

And I don`t know from where you are getting the figure that 99% Indian Muslims are content in India. The ones I have come across in the USA tell quite a different story. For example, one of them was saying that Pakistan should not insist on Kashmir. I asked him why. The chilling reply was that because if Kashmir joins you, Indian Muslims will face a kind of massacre which will make Gujraat seem like picnic.

Sir, the “sab acha hai” report works well on ignorant audiences, but not on people who have the exposure to facts and figures. About the whole Urmila (whoever the lady is) thing, I don’t think anyone should take that seriously. And from a personal point of view, I think instead of projecting such functions to spoil tastes of TV audience, Pakistani channels should focus on the underground music scene of Pakistan.

Romair#33
``This is not what was said. Nor is this what Pakistan has been proposing. In fact, Musharraf, himself, has specifically stated, four steps in solving the conflict. The first of which is for both countries to move away from their current uncomprimising positions. Pakistan has moved away from it, by stating that it is willing to move away from UN Resolutions, if India moves away from its position (i.e atut-ang).``

I, for one, will be very happy if there is progress on the Kashmir issue, and so will be most people. But Musharraf did say explicity and repeatedly that if there was no progress, it would be back to square one. Now, we all know what `square one` means, dont we? It is this threat that is the problem. The overall improvement of the relationship between the two countries is too important for India and, especially, Pakistan to be held hostage to a progress on the Kashmir issue.

As regards `atut ang`, I see this expression a lot more at chowk and in Pakistani media than in the Indian media and I suspect that you also picked it up from there -the Indian media is more likely to spell it to sound like the Hindi `atoot` than the Panjabi `atut`. To the extent that Indians consider Kashmir to be `atut` from India, it has to be the entire territory ceded by the Maharaja to India, including POK and FATA. A resolution was passed by the Indian Parliament a few years ago which requires India to insist upon getting back the entire territory. To the extent, that nobody is seriously demanding that anymore, India has already given up the `atut ang` stance for all practical purpose.

As regards UN resolution, its Secy. General has already said that they are not binding. Almost every Indian party, including Nehru`s own Congress, believes that Nehru made a blunder in agreeing to those resolutions; although he was smart enough to put some precoditions which he knew Pakistan will never implement.

``There is a huge, and genuine concern in Pakistan, that India may not interested in genuinely dealing with Pakistan`s concerns, i.e. India wants concessions from Pakistan, and has gotten nearly all of them, but in the end will not provide any concessions from its side. So far, Pakistanis have supported everything Musharraf has offered India.``

And what are those Indian ``concerns``, a normalisation of relationshsip between the two countries; is it just India`s concern? Isn`t it in Pakistan`s interest to have normal realtions? What Pakistani interests are served by a state of permanent hostility with a country that is seven times larger in population and even larger in economic terms? As far as cricket series is concerned, it was actually India which agreed to the long-standing Pakistani insistence on this series to bale out its beleagured and insolvent cricket board. And if the two countries become friendlier, the first beneficiary will be Pakistan as its repeated proposal for a pipeline from Iran to India is accepted.

Yes, Kashmir is the core issue between the two countries. But this is so because Pakistan chooses to make it a core issue. The mature thing is to not let core issues to paralyse relationships; Taiwan is a core issue between the US and China but that has not stopped them from cooperating in other areas; heck it hasn`t stopped Chinese and Taiwanese to let economic cooperation between the two peoples flourish. The Sino-Indian border dispute was the core issue between India and China until the two countries decided to cooperate in other areas, while continuing to work on the border dispute. Now, nobody in India even pays attention to when and where the next round of border negotiations is taking place, the issue has been de-emotionalised to the extent that when a settlement does take place and some compromises made, there will not be the popular backlash which would have happened when issue generated passions. The same could happen wrt Kashmir; the two countries have a lot to gain if the state of hostility ends; India has been consistently opposing Pakistan`s entry to Asean as an observer and reentry to the Commonwealth; Pakistan is the main reason why India is having a problem getting a permanent seat at the UN security council. The mutual loss to both countries because of the bilteral trade through third countries has already been mentioned. Once Kashmir is no longer the core issue, there will be much less emotions invested in it and a much better chance to resolve it through slow and deliberate process where people can accept give-and-take in the spirit of friendship, rather than yielding to the `enemy` under threats.

``Howver what scares me is that, and I hope I am anlaysing this incorrectly, even peace-loving Indians seem to want peace on their own terms, i.e. they are unwilling to put any pressure on their govt. to address Pakistan`s concerns.``

It is probably because India is a status-quo country; because a much smaller country is using force to seek changes in the status quo. OTOH peace-loving Indians are all for dealing with the genuine grievances of Kashmiris.

In summary, first move in areas where there is a win-win situation for both countries, leaving the tough core to be cracked to the last.

godot #39 You ought to see ``The Man Who Would be King``. Brit goes to some village in the subcontinent. Local villagers tell him they hate neigboring villagers because...``they peess on us when we walk by. We take revenge, and we pees on them.``

“The West Wing” TV show is about American President and how he deals with his staff, crises, and journalists.

In one episode, the President meets with diplomats from India and Pakistan about a crisis between India and Pakistan. After the meeting, the President’s aide asks, “How did it go with these guys?” “Just shoot me,” responds an exasperated President. Reading some of the posts on this board, one can empathize with the President.

Romair 34 . . .

newspaper economic basics . . .

apart from the gross over-billing on imported newsprint in Pakistan as a result of fiddling with the quality/cost equation, please appreciate that even the smallest of 50000 through 100000 circulation newspapers in India manages to sell for 1.50 through 2.50. Pakistani media keeps quiet because they probably know the truth. . .

Which is that after a certain number, say 4-5 lakh copies in a city like Delhi, a typical 16-24 page broadhseet newspaper with a production cost of 5-7 rupees selling for 2 rupees starts making a loss because the ad revenue and money earned by utilising the machinery / infrastructure elsewhere is a fixed input . . .

Now has anybody seen any debate in Pakistan on this subject? Even the cheapest of copybooks in the bazaars in Pakistan cost 25 rupees upwards (64 pages soft bound horrible re-cycled paper that blots), the same copybook sells for 3 or 4 rupees in Chawri Bazar/Delhi.

As for the trucks example, I was talking about Indian products like Hinduja Ashok Leyland aggregates rolling as HinoPak at three times the price and Tetley Teas from tata likewise. I know what you mean about defence equipment . . . one of the first hand accounts I remember from 1965 was of the surprise that some of our soldiers got when they saw that Pakistani soldiers also used Milkmaid Condensed Milk by Nestle, and they brought some cans back to show too.

So Romair, on a personal note, forgive me the atut ang tirade, but the sooner you realise that Pakistan`s problems are increasingly within Pakistan, and that Kashmir is becoming irrelevant as a problem by sheer exhaustion, the better. A few days of election related violence in Indian Kashmir is nothing compared to what seems to be going on though less reported on the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

Please look within your own home . . . and ask your media friends in Pakistan to solve this riddle of high priced newspapers. Not to mention low quality weekly magazines for 60-100 rupees. be aware, sirji, that in this day and age, economies of scale have nothing to do with newspaper or publication costs.

Hello Romair . . .

I think, many Indians think, and now I think that a lot of Pakistanis also think, that ``Kashmir`` is just some sort of Happy Hours booze brainwave kind of scheme by Pakistani military + mullah backed by Pakistani media kind of combined smoke screen for the benefit of the large numbers of illiterate and poor cannon fodder variety Pakistanis . . .

if you look at the track record of Pakistan on Kashmir so far, donating bits to China and purloining their land as well as water, then even to the dumbest radical Kashmiri it is clear as sun rises in the East everyday that the Kashmiris and others can not expect anything better from Pakistan for POK / Mirpur / Ladakh / Jammu / Srinagar and all the other bits than what Pakistan did with Bangladesh in 1971 . . .

IMHO the real ding-dong maximumus problem between India & Pakistan is that Pakistan for some wierd reason feels that Pakistan is the real voice and champion and representative of Muslims in India . . .

while in reality more than 99% of Muslims in India seem to be quite content championing their own causes in India . . .

and so in due course this manages to upset a lot of people in India because you know how it is real life in Pakistan is so difficult for those who are not a fit in the definition of ``A MUSLIM`` . . .

so next we come to the definition of Muslims in Pakistan and there suddenly we have a mis-match between India and Pakistan again . . .

you see Dear Romair, IMHO Pakistan defines Muslims by exclusion and India defines them by inclusion . . .

so you can please take your atut-ang theories aside, and start doing something good by first improving the lot of Muslims in Pakistan. Here is a short list to help you get started:-

a) Muslim women in Pakistan (50%)
b) Muslim men in Pakistan who are not PLUS (People Like U, Sir) (another 49%)

To the rest of us at chowk, my apologies for such a radical post, but Romair`s harping on atut-ung as an essential issue twoards resolution of all of Pakistan`s problems is funny as well as pathetic. What the Indian Government does or does not do vis-a-vis the Pakistani Government will, increasingly, have lesser and lesser effect on ground realities in J&K.

On the other hand, Jihad and the mayhem that goes with it, in Kashmir, is now more a Pakistani problem for POK, by and for Pakistanis in POK and on Pakistani soil, circa 2004. If people can not see and realise it, then tell me:- why are there more guns and military on standbye in Islamabad than in Srinagar? Why is Amritsar full of tourists while Lahore isn`t? Why can most anybody drive up to Srinagar if they want while the barriers start at Kashmir Chowk in Islamabad for the rest of the world?

Yes yes, I know, we can divert the complete issue by talking about Urmila Matondkar`s histrionic skills, then?

Romair
``I have always stated that Pakistan should move away from UN Resolutions, and India should move away from atut-and, ``

can you please spell out exactly what you expect by moving away from atut-ang stance? To most of us atut-ang is pure ``bhasanbaahi`` and mean little specifically. So, what specifically does it mean to you since you are asking for an action. e.g. is it sufficient if DM, a pakistani born from canda says ``tut ang``?

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

vereesh #31: ``You also did not honour me with an answer to the ``why do Pakistani newspapers cost so much`` question?``

Allow me take a shot at this one....

The total newspaper sales of all Pakistani newspapers, in all combined langauges, in all of Pakistan is 3 million (according to Irfan Hussain of Dawn). From what I am told, this is less than the number of newspapers sold in the city of Delhi, alone. Assuming that printing newspapers, and hence their price, is dependent greatly on volume, Pakistani newspapers cannot make money, unless they raise their prices.

``isn`t it interesting that nobody else from the media notices that we have Hinduja Ashok Leyland trucks on the Indian Army side and HinoPak trucks on the Pakistan Army side. and all have axles made in Pune and engine blocks in Chennai?``

Actually, there are many other similar facts. India buys billion(s) of dollars of Mirage-2000 aircraft from Dassault in France. Pakistan`s buys its mainstay aircraft, Mirage III and V, from the exact same Dassault. India`s highest inventory of military aircraft, is of Russian Mig-21 BIS, built by Mikh...Guryovi...... Pakistan`s mainstay is the Mig-21 (F-7 variety) build in China, and designed by the same Soviet company. India bought Su-27s from Russia. Pakistan has been evaluating the exact same Su-27 (and Mirage-2000s that India has), hoping to buy one or the other. The list goes on and on......

Why stop there? Don`t quote me on the following, but, Sahibzada Yaqub of Pakistan fought in 1947 in Kashmir, from Pakistan`s side. His brother (according to Freedom at Midnight), Sahibzada something else, fought in Kashmir from the Indian side. If legend is correct, Saif Ali Khan (the famous actor) has a cousin in the Pakistan Army. An officer, senior to me, died in an aircraft crash in Pakistan. His family had been abroad on an assignment, where their best friends were an Indian officers` family. They spend their whole tenure together, on that assignment. Not sure, but last I heard, I believe the Indian officer recently died in an air crash in India.

atut-ang...that is what is holding everything back....convince your govt. to move away from that (like pakistanis have convinced theirs to move away from UN stance). after that, pakistanis will handle everything else.........as you have seen on the recent trip...

dost-mittar #32: ``As far as I am aware, all Pakistani journalists supported Musharraf`s not-so-subtle threats to India that, if he does not get his way on Kashmir, he will pull the plug on this Indo-Pak bonhomie currently on display.``

This is not what was said. Nor is this what Pakistan has been proposing. In fact, Musharraf, himself, has specifically stated, four steps in solving the conflict. The first of which is for both countries to move away from their current uncomprimising positions. Pakistan has moved away from it, by stating that it is willing to move away from UN Resolutions, if India moves away from its position (i.e atut-ang). This is a huge step from the Pakistan side. It is an acceptance that Pakistan does not claim Indian Kashmir as a part of its own territory (even though, both Indians and Pakistanis know that a plebescite would have resulted in Indian Kashmiris voting to join Pakistan)

So Pakistan has already accepted that it will not, ``get its way`` on Kashmir. This has been supported by most Pakistanis, 85% of whom, by the way, do consider Kashmir to be the main problem between Indian and Pakistan. I think Pakistanis, including Musharraf, are just afraid that India will continue to try getting its way, and in the process, shatter everything.

There is a huge, and genuine concern in Pakistan, that India may not interested in genuinely dealing with Pakistan`s concerns, i.e. India wants concessions from Pakistan, and has gotten nearly all of them, but in the end will not provide any concessions from its side. So far, Pakistanis have supported everything Musharraf has offered India. They have also supported Vajpayee, since they feel he is the best bet for peace.

I think Pakistan has actually addressed nearly all Indian concerns, i.e. a) moving away from UN resolutions b) stopping aid to militancy (now it is all local Kashmiris, as acknowledged by India) c) free trade, which will become active under SAFTA. In addition Pakistanis have given Indians a welcome, which according to your own words, cannot be matched by Indians.

Now Pakistanis are waiting for India to address its concerns a) move away from atut-ang. I don`t know of any other issue that Pakistanis have with India. Even things like India`s actions in Siachen are related to Kashmir.

This is quite different from stating that, ``he does not get his way on Kashmir, he will pull the plug on this Indo-Pak bonhomie currently on display.`` Musharraf cannot pull the plug on anything. What you saw in Pakistan was not stage-managed by Musharraf. It was a disassociation of Kashmir from Pakistani public`s behavior towards India. This disassociation occured a long time ago. These issues are generally mutually exclusive, amongst Pakistanis, as I have been telling you ever since we started interacting, a few years ago, i.e. Pakistanis will be nice to Indians, regardless of what happens in Kashmir (infact there is a Siachen battle going on as we speak). And Pakistanis will not forget Kashmir, regardless of how friendly the relations get. This is what you saw in the Pakistan, i.e. a huge welcome for Indians, with simultaneous support for the Kashmir cause.

I cannot say that the above holds for all Pakistanis. But it does hold for around 85% according to suveys.An observant and unbiased (for an Indian, that is :-)) person like yourself, should have been able to analyse it better.

Howver what scares me is that, and I hope I am anlaysing this incorrectly, even peace-loving Indians seem to want peace on their own terms, i.e. they are unwilling to put any pressure on their govt. to address Pakistan`s concerns. In fact, they almost seem to have an attitude that Pakistanis are wrong to want India to leave its atut-ang stance on Kashmir, even if Pakistan is willing to leave its stance. I have seen very few, if any, interactors on this site who criticize India`s policies, vis-a-vis Pakistan. While it is filled with Pakistani interactors, who criticize the Pakistani govts.` policies, vis-a-vis India The general attitude amongst Indian repliers seems to be, Indians want peace with Pakistan (which I think they genuninely do), but India has not done anything wrong in creating this perpetual situation of animosity....it has all been Pakistan`s fault and it is good to see Pakistan is finally accepting it.

Indians really need to start putting pressure on their own govt. to solve these Indo-Pak problems fairly and honestly. Rather than asking Pakistanis to just sweep all their (Pakistnis) concerns under the carpet. I do not know of any successful peace process, in which, one side wants the other side to just address the former`s issues, while asking them to forget their own.

I am hoping, after the elections, Vajpayee will openly or subtly move India away from its atut-ang position. After that, we will have a situation, where there will be a million and one ways to solve this issue. It can then be solved over the next five, ten, fifteen years.

If he doesn`t do the above, then what exactly is India doing from its side to bring about peace, other than sending a cricket team and talking peace, and blaming Pakistan for all the problems. It will have gotten everything it wanted, without conceding on anything. It will have shot the peace process dead, without Pakistan having to do anything. And the process will be back to square one, by itself. Not because of anything Pakistan did.

I have always stated that Pakistan should move away from UN Resolutions, and India should move away from atut-and, thereby, both countries giving the Kashmiris a chance, themselves. I do hope that you, and other peace-loving Indians, support India giving up its atut-ang stance......although I am slowly starting to have my doubts.

As I stated, I really don`t know of any other issue that Pakistan has with India. If you know of any, please highlight.....

Omar:
I think that many Interactors missed your point which, if I understand it correctly, is not that the official media have started singing songs in praise of India-Pak friendship, but that there is a significant change. I agree. I personally feel, on the basis of my Interacts with Pakistanis at various levels, that the average Pakistani is fed up with confrontation with India -much more so than the average Indian. The roles were in reverse until the `90s but it all changed when Pakistan stabbed India in the back after Vajpayee`s Lahore Bus.
There are small but significant stirrings of change that I have noticed in Pakistan. Here are a few:
-Sari seems to be staging a minor come-back in Pakistan, after having been discarded as unislamic. You would hardly find a single grandmother of a Mohajir who felt/feels comfortable in a shalwar kameez and you will hardly find any of her daughters/daughters-in-law who wears sari these days. You see the old Pakistani black and white films and the heroine was generally dressed in a sari -not any more. But as I said, there are some small changes that can be seen. Some of the hostesses in the hotels where I stayed were wearing saris, as were some participants in some TV programs. So, it looks like the avant-garde no longer thinks it is unislamic to wear a dress which ``hindus wear``.

-The temples of Ketas Raj had been neglected and allowed to become ruins until recently. Every single idol had been destroyed. Hindus from India had been consistently refused permission to visit their shrine despite repeated requests. Now, the govt. of Pakistan has recognised it as a heritage and has sanctioned a small, but symbollically significant, amount for its restoration. The place has received at least a superficial face-lift and I was told that a group of yaatris from India was to be allowed to visit the shrine for the first time after Partition.

-A conference on classic music was held in Karachi when I was there, for the first time after several decades. Classical music was discouraged because it was said to invoke Hindu gods and godesses, I remember once hearing a famous classical song on PTV where the singer was either asked or voluntarily changed the wording from `Bhagwan` to `Rehman`.

-Fashion shows and entertainment programs that do not meet the Mullah`s approval are again being openly staged.

-The sheer number of private TV channels and the diversity of opinions on them is refreshing; it is ironic that Pakistan had to await a dictator to provide this unprecedented freedom of expression to its people.

But...and here is the problem. There is no attempt on the part of the media to seek a separation of the Kashmir issue from the general issue of normalisation between the two countries. As far as I am aware, all Pakistani journalists supported Musharraf`s not-so-subtle threats to India that, if he does not get his way on Kashmir, he will pull the plug on this Indo-Pak bonhomie currently on display. I waited, without success, to see even a single Pakistani on TV panel discussions suggesting that Pakistan should not let Kashmir be an albatross around its neck and get on with establishing normal relations with India while maintaining its stand on Kashmir.

To me it is imperative, that the Pakistani media, at least the English language media, should start viewing India-Pakistan relations outside the prism of Kashmir. If not, ``we will be back to square-one`` as Musharraf puts it. And no Urmillas or Shah Rukh Khans will be able to stop it.