Re-thinking Kashmir

well i happened to meet a kashmiri in chennai, runs a handicraft store, i was seling him some flooring material, and he happened to be in need of that. as a south indian, im oblivious to kashmir, its not an emotional thing to me, so i was unbiased, but then interacting and knowing hin for three days, i felt, one thing, the kashmiri indifference to join mainstreamindia, is not about religion alone, it is also about a so-called-racial-superiority , of their being fair and light eyed and the rest of us being black and short.i felt pity for this man, while the rest of india, is racing to be the third largest economy in the world after the us and china, this man is denying that freedom to his children. i talked tohim, about his thoughts of joining pakistan, and he flatly refused that is the right solution. how can he agree , seeing the very mess pakistan is? most kashmiris i beleive want to stand up as an independent state. something that both coutries will not agree to. sad state.

Ref veeresh #184

[From today`s Dawn . . .````WANA, July 20: Pakistan Air Force jets and army helicopter gunships bombed militants` positions in Santoi and Mantoi mountain regions in the South Waziristan tribal area on Tuesday. ````

Can anybody see the Kashmiris re-thinking Kashmir, or is it just me?]

It certainly won`t be Mullah32 who was excoriating me for advocating collective punishment in Gujarat but was condoning the Pak Army use of force against Balochi tribals.

From today`s Dawn . . .````WANA, July 20: Pakistan Air Force jets and army helicopter gunships bombed militants` positions in Santoi and Mantoi mountain regions in the South Waziristan tribal area on Tuesday. ````

Can anybody see the Kashmiris re-thinking Kashmir, or is it just me?

An interesting MSN group on Pakistan Popular Culture History:

http://groups.msn.com/PakistanPopularCultureHistory

Ishrat was outfit`s woman activist: LeT

Press Trust of India

New Delhi, July 14: Giving credence to the police assertion, Pakistan-based Lashker-e-Taiba has said that Ishrat Jehan, who was killed along with three others in Ahmedabad, was the outfit`s woman activist.


In a news report published in Lahore-based Ghazwa Times, mouthpiece of LeT, Lashker said ``the veil of Ishrat Jahan, a woman activist of LeT, was removed by Indian police and her body was kept with other mujahideens (terrorists) on the ground.``

#178 by dionysus on July 12, 2004 7:13am PT

sadna, please, enough. The oppressor is the oppressed. The aggressor the aggrieved. The invader the invaded. The violater the violated. Indian logic.

Please, spare a thought for all those people reading your posts and puking all over their computer screens.

hahahaha --

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

dionysus #178
You are attributing a statement/opinion to me which I have never expressed. The Kashmir issue is not so simple nor is it as simple as the reverse.

btw, I do not ask people to write books or publish articles or go on TV. I am merely quoting from them. Even if I stop quoting here, they will still keep talking and writing. So making ME the issue does not help.

sadna, please, enough. The oppressor is the oppressed. The aggressor the aggrieved. The invader the invaded. The violater the violated. Indian logic.

Please, spare a thought for all those people reading your posts and puking all over their computer screens.

#173 by HP on July 11, 2004 10:56pm PT

that pakistani establishment has undermined the kashmiri cause for their ``real`` goal is a forgone conclusion expressed in a veriety of media. what is it that you are defending?

here is (just one) latest
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FG13Df04.html

Asia Times Online sources in the government point to several developments after Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar`s recent visit for scheduled talks with his Indian counterpart. The alacrity with which Jammu and Kashmir`s APHC - a conglomeration of separatist organizations - acquired its moderate chief`s resignation and brought estranged hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani into the fold following the Pakistani foreign secretary`s advice to ``set their house in order`` underscores the influence Islamabad continues to wield on Kashmir`s secessionists.

#171 by aslam644
thanks aslam about mirpuris. i did not mean that sikhs are as good as mirpuris in getting attention of white women ;-) , all i meant was they are similar in the sense of immigration and working hard.

so based on your post, AZK mirpuris dont seem to share kashmiriyat with valley kasmiris, but more of islamiyat. is it correct or not so. this is an attempt to understand given so few kashmiri muslim claimants posting here. there have been several hindu kashmiri postings in the past.

167 by dionysus
Been there, done that, came back with a red face and a sore bottom.
but at least we had a face and a bottom, unlike some........ :)
HP, what is this fixation on hos? Say skanky hos if you`re going to say hos, sounds incomplete otherwise. Since you know so much, who did Sadna sleep with for money? How come men aren`t hos and gigolos?

HP #173
Now if I reply to you in kind you will start whining right? You seem to be obssessed with prostitutes, perhaps you are syphyllitic and so they got a restraining order against you? My sympathies to your wife.

I have not only read many articles by PoK JKLF members, I have also seen them on PeeTV world, in one of those UK-based programs. Gilani and another guy of the IKA on one occasion and Shabir Choudhary on another. Yet another time there was Indian Kashmir`s Communist leader Yusuf Tarigami who also complained about the grenade attacks by jihadis - he said it is mostly Muslim Kashmiris who die in these. BUT NO ONE IS LISTENING.

``There is a `binding` U.N. resolution that upholds the right of Kashmiris to settle their status by plebiscite``.

Heave ho!! Indians are in a dilemma. Any moment Kofi Annan will send his troops and force Indians out of J&K.

I`m scared :-)

#170 by sadna on July 11, 2004 12:56pm PT
”dionysus #166
Repeating PTV or jihadi propaganda material here does not serve any purpose to anyone. On more than one occasion I have heard members of Azad Kashmir JKLF complaining that Pakistani`s mindless propaganda and its blatant inaccuracies are undermining their cause.”

Now this ho has inside track with Azad Kashmir JKFL. She heard them alright on their last visit to the ho district.

kaurasach#117

``Further light you can shed on Mirpuris?``

mirpuris are basically potohari panjabis, there is half a million of them in Britain. some people mistakenly believe that they emigrated because of Mangla dam. There is a large majority in bradford, but they also are scattered all over britain, i am not sure why other pakistanis consider them ``backward``?


jang #120

`` You seem to be mirpuri, so information on this topic will be educational. Our info of mirpuris comes from films like East is East. They seem like a hard working lot like Sikhs.``

apparantly the film East is East is based on a true story, many mirpuris did marry white british women when they first came over, the women virtually offering themslves to mirpuris, but sikhs were not so lucky. It is hard to imagine that these same british a decade earlier in India had signs outside clubs saying dogs and Indians not allowed.

There is a joke in Britain that when in 1947 british left India, the mirpuris and sikhs said we are coming with you.

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

dionysus #166
Repeating PTV or jihadi propaganda material here does not serve any purpose to anyone. On more than one occasion I have heard members of Azad Kashmir JKLF complaining that Pakistani`s mindless propaganda and its blatant inaccuracies are undermining their cause.

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

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

#165 nikki `` ``Let`s just invade pakistan , beat the crap out of them and leave....As far as kashmir is concerned nothing`s gonna change.It is time India flexed its` military muscle a bit.``

Been there, done that, came back with a red face and a sore bottom. Were you comatose on Bhang for the whole of 2002??

sadna,
Right now it`s your raping, murdering, torturing, occupying army that is deciding everything for the Kashmiris.


Re:beheading. Please, have some shame. You people have killed 90 000 Kashmiris and tortured, raped and maimed COUNTLESS more. You`re hardly in an ideal position to mount the moral high horse on Kashmir.

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

dionysus #162
Well, it is Kashmiris who decide what constitutes their Kashmiri nation - you Pakistanis go argue with them(when you are not beheading them, ie).

Dionysus:

Nobody criticizes Nehru`s role in nation building. Not even the rightists. He is and will remain the father of Modern India, more so then Gandhi even.

Please don`t presume criticism of specific acts of Nehru such as foriegn policy or economic decisions as criticism of Nehru the man or his entire legacy.

In terms of foreign policy, he is criticized specifically for his internationalizing the Kashmir dispute, flawed perception of China and also to some extent being a pesky nation jhadoing lectures.


HP: I think you are underestimating the influence Jaswant Singh has had on Indian foreign policy in his few years. To a large extent he reflected Indian elite`s changing self perception and as I am sure you will agree, foreign policy should be articulated only by the elite.

sadna,
More pathetic obfuscation. Jammu and Kashmir is NOT a nation. Apart from the Kashmiris themselves there are at least 4 other major groups in J & K who have nothing to do with each other whatsoever culturally, ethnically and historically except for the misfortune of ending up through British arrogance and Dogra treachery in an artificial entity called `Jammu and Kashmir`.

Partitioning this artifical entity into three, according to the wishes of the people who live there, is the only moral and practical solution to the dispute.

dionysus #160
``India made pledges to the KASHMIRI NATION. Nothing a third party (allegedly) does can invalidate those pledges. ``

A nation you Pakistanis demand India should split into three. That sort of invalidation is OK of course. And read #95 for what Pakistan has been doing for 20 years.

sadna,
India made pledges to the KASHMIRI NATION. Nothing a third party (allegedly) does can invalidate those pledges.

And how in the Lord`s name can you attempt to take the moral high ground after putting the poor Kashmiris through nearly 20 years of this:



Kashmir `torture` sparks protest


Indian security forces are accused of brutality

Thousands of people have protested in Handwara,
a town in Indian-administered Kashmir, against the
alleged police torture of a schoolgirl.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3880797.stm

stuka & HP


It seems fashionable now among Indians with a rightist bent to put down Pandit Nehru. I am no fan of Nehru. His crazed obsession with Kashmir and his deciet in acquiring and holding onto it has cost the subcontinent dear. But if there is one reason why India is secular democracy (just about) and why it is a nation that builds radio telescopes and publishes world class scientific journals while Pakistan is a near-banana republic and a toy in the hands of the world powers, then that reason IS Nehru.

HP-I wonder how you know that these people are cab drivers. Even if they are, what makes you think they don`t have a right to an opinion,or indeed, that they are necessarily wrong.

#155
``Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.?

Then, am I to assume that you diasagree with this HP?

(btw, why HP? a floundering has-been of a company)

HP#155
``Nehru was India’s PM for 17 years. Jaswant was Indian FM or couple of years. His being in RSS does not make him better than Nehru.``

India was in a mess because of Nehru being the Foreign Minister for 17 years. When he died, India was considered a pesky non-entity by most of the world. His spurning US advances forced the US to seek alliance with Pakistan, turning it from a puny neighbour to a military equal. His ``non-alignment`` was a joke as he never found anything wrong with what the communists did and never anything right with what the west did. We are in a mess in Kashmir because of him, he made ill-thought out solemn promises and spent the rest of his life trying to wiggle out of them. Nobody took our sermons about solving all problems peacefully after our military action in Goa. We got humiliated by China because of his naive belief in hindi-cheeni bhai-bhai followed by the idiotic orders to ask an ill-prepared army to ``liberate`` occupied territory from the Chinese - an act which turned China from an equal to a superior from all times to come and even took Nehru`s life. And when China attacked India, none of his non-aligned friends supported India; instead it was the US which not only came to India`s aid but also prevented Ayub from taking advantage of the situation.

Jaswant Singh was truly the best foreign minister ever of India and excerpts from Talbot`s book show why. His remarks were always deliberate and words well-chosen and dead-pan. His logic was forceful. No wonder that during his stewardship -and with Vajpayee`s help- India accomplished the task of improving its relations with every country, including US, Europe, China, East Asia, Iran, Gulf countries as well as Israel. It almost accomplished the task of ending hostility with Pakistan if the men in khaki had not intervened.
Nehru had a grand vision without substance. Jaswant`s was a substantive success because his policies were based on geopolitical realities. Now we have a chamcha of Nehru as external affairs and the intial assessment cannot be called spectacular.

#151 by bongdongs
“Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.”

Dimestore diagnosis! These two bit cab drivers think that they are better than Nehru.
Jaswant hits the nerve! My ass! Nobody would remember that moron in the next five years. Nehru would still haunt these RSS lunatics.
Nehru was India’s PM for 17 years. Jaswant was Indian FM or couple of years. His being in RSS does not make him better than Nehru. Hit the rehab back moose knuckle! Or get back to your favorite pastime watching camel toes.

Here is another dolt.

#145 by nakhok
“If Pakistan`s ruling elite actually cares for Kashmiris, it can very easily force India`s hand. Pakistan can hand over ``Azad`` Kashmir to UN with a request to hold a UN-supervised referendum with the options to join Pakistan or India or even to be an independent state.”

After posting Ayaz Mir 50 times, this felon thinks he knows the solution to Kashmir problem. Read these pearls of wisdom above by a dimwit, who knows it all!! Just read and see how sharp this person is to post the UN resolution back as his own!!

No wonder ABV did not hire these buckwheats and malignant leprechauns as his advisors!

stuka #144

Sorry, mate, but the UN resolutions on Kashmir ARE binding. What Kofi Anan said was that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are not ENFORCEABLE (there is a large difference in meaning between `non-enforceable` and `non-binding`. ) This is hardly big news, though it sent the Indian media into its usual paroxysms of hysteria whenever Kashmir is mentioned and was virtually ignored by everyone else. Neither at the time the UN resolutions were forumulated and India agreed to them nor at any time since has anyone expected a UN force to invade Kashmir to force India to comply to the resolutions.

The Indian Parliament is indeed the supreme voice of the INDIAN people. Good for you. We envy you. But it is not the supreme voice of the Pakistani people, or the English people, or the Outer Mongolion people, or indeed the Kashmiri people. The Indian Parliament doesn`t have the legal or the moral authority to unilateraly declare this or that part of the world to be a part of India.


Agree with Pakistan to partition the state (the WHOLE state, that is) into three, and let`s move on. Its the only way out of this mess.

Bongdongs, Rajendra Prasad was a Bihari, and he went to Presidency.

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

More and more Pakistani writers are readily acknowledging that it wasn`t moral compulsions or the urge to liberate Kashmiris that had led Pakistan to invade Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 in violation of the Standstill Agreement that the Pak government had signed with Kashmir`s Maharaja. Here`s a small sample of what some Pakistani writers have been saying on Kashmir Invasion of 1947:

---

Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):

Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.

Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire line.``

---

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
10 April, 2000

Kashmir: time to change tack
By Brig (retd) M. Sher Khan

``The story of Kashmir is a long saga, which started at the very inception of the new-born nation of Pakistan. While the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was wavering about deciding which of the two new dominions his largely Muslim state should accede to, large tribal lashkars from the NWFP region invaded the state with the aim of forcing the Maharaja`s hand in acceding to Pakistan. When these lashkars were in a position to seize Srinagar and its airport, the lust for spoils, loot and pillage got the better of them. The Maharaja panicked and sought Indian intercession, the price of which was that he should first sign an instrument of accession.``

---

Excerpt from Article in Pakistan Link (1/28/2000):

Men and Events That Mattered in Pakistan
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry

``The Kashmir problem which brought Pakistan to the three most costly wars it fought with India with the fourth looming on the horizon, might have been solved had Liaquat Ali Khan, the then PM, accepted Sardar Patel`s proposal to exchange Hyderabad with the Valley. As Sardar Shaukat Hayat puts it, Liaquat Ali Khan brushed aside the proposal by saying, ``Sardar Sahib, do you take me for a fool to accept a few hills in exchange for the vast plains of Deccan?`` India usurped Hyderabad anyway and forcefully occupied Kashmir too, leaving Pakistanis ruminating as to who was right, Liaquat Ali Khan or the Sardar of Wah who insisted on accepting it.

If this sounds somewhat dramatic, here is another event that let Kashmir slip away from Pakistan`s lap. In 1948 the, Tribal ``Mujahidins``, brought by Major Khurshid, had reached Srinagar which lay deserted. As they put their hands on the National Bank and came by some 3 lac rupees, it so happened that while the Major insisted on taking away that money as it belonged to the government of Pakistan, the ``Mujahidins`` on the contrary persisted in their demand to celebrate Eid-ul-Azha along with it, and in this tug of war they lost three most precious days. This lull and halt provided India enough time to rush its deployments to the area and what happened next to the rest of the story as far as Kashmir is concerned is well known to all.``

Pakistan`s ruling elite talks of ``plebiscite`` not because it believes in elections or votes. It is just a tactical step to create a situation where they get a chance to preach to the Muslims of Kashmir that they have a religious obligation to impose PoK`s religious homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.

Kashmir is seen as a dominoe - its fall will trigger falls elsewhere. India, after all, has more Muslims than Pakistan. Even medium sized states like Kerala and West Bengal have several times more Muslims than Kashmir. Pakistan`s ruling elite sees itself positioning for further mischief if it can convince (thru terror, outright conquest, or even a plebiscite) Muslim Kashmiris that they have a religious obligation to help in the imposition of PoK`s religious homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir.

If Pakistan`s ruling elite actually cares for Kashmiris, it can very easily force India`s hand. Pakistan can hand over ``Azad`` Kashmir to UN with a request to hold a UN-supervised referendum with the options to join Pakistan or India or even to be an independent state.

India, then, will be forced to emulate Pakistan in the Kashmir that is under Indian administration.

But I doubt Pakistan will ever dare to take this step. Self-determination for Kashmiris was never high on the agenda of Pakistan`s ruling elite and never will be.

Pakistan has refused to take in the ``Biharis`` who opted to retain their Pakistani citizenship after the partition of Pakistan in 1971. The option was expressed very explicitly.

``Biharis`` who opted for Bangladesh were promptly offered Bangladeshi citizenship. The ``Biharis`` who opted for Pakistan were temporarily housed in refugee camps run by the UN. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. They have been waiting to be repatriated to Pakistan ever since!

If Pakistan cannot accomodate the ``Biharis`` who had unequivocallyly opted for Pakistan, how can it carry conviction that it cares for the cause of Kashmiris who are yet to opt for Pakistan?

Yes, the ``Biharis`` won`t come with any real estate. So, Pakistan`s ruling elite will rather talk of liberating Kashmiris than bring home the ``Biharis``.

There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily the military) to believe that it cares anymore for Kashmiris across the LoC that it cares for Pakistanis within the border.

dionysus #142
If Pakistanis believed (like Nehru) that Kashmir belonged to Kashmiris, why did Pakistan send WAZIRI tribesmen to rape kill and invade in 47-48?

This is just one of the many mentions of this fact in recent days in the Pakistani press:

http://www.dawn.com/2004/07/09/op.htm#3
``The people of Waziristan have suffered tremendously in terms of both human life and destruction of their property. They fail to understand as to why are they being punished.

They have done no harm to Pakistan which they consider their own home and for which they have sacrificed starting from the insurgency in Kashmir in 1947.``

Pakistani jihadis could not take Srinagar in 47-48 only because they stopped to loot the public and rape nuns at a convent. What is the point of quoting Nehru now?

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
11 June 2004 Friday 22 Rabi-us-Saani 1425

A `sincere` approach to Kashmir
By Ayaz Amir

..... President Musharraf has called for ``sincerity`` in resolving the Kashmir dispute. If the leadership on both sides was sincere a solution to this problem could be found.

Like charity, sincerity too should begin at home. And its starting point in relation to Kashmir is the abiding truth that what you fail to win on the battlefield, you cannot win at the negotiating table. .....

..... The Line of Control is thus not a whimsical line on the map. It marks the farther-most limits of Pakistani military prowess. Beyond this line we couldn`t go. There can be nothing more concrete than this.

We waged war to bring India to the negotiating table but the Dien Bien Phu our generals hoped for, never happened. Instead, our wars exposed the limits of our capability and cast a wan light on many of our cherished illusions (mostly to do with our valour and Indian
weakness).

From 1989 onwards we looked to ``jihad`` as a way to bleed India and unfreeze Kashmir. India has paid a price and continues to do so. But it is no closer to quitting Kashmir now than it was when the insurgency began.

In fact, the insurgency peaked long ago and ``jihad`` fatigue has set in. How does ``sincerity`` fit into this equation? Are we saying that India should do voluntarily, on the basis of sincerity, which we failed to make it do through the use of arms? .....

..... Pakistan wants the division of Kashmir along communal lines, with the Valley acceding to Pakistan or enjoying some kind of international status. A section of Kashmiri Muslims favours accession to Pakistan. But the majority probably is in favour of independence, a plague on both your houses being its motto. How do you reconcile these conflicting positions? .....

..... Pakistan`s intelligence agencies put their stamp on the Kashmiri freedom struggle, not allowing it to develop an autonomous character.

The result is that while the All Parties Hurriyet Conference leads the political struggle, it has no control over the gun, most of the jihadi organizations drawing sustenance from private outfits in Pakistan.

This is a repeat of our Afghan failure when Pakistan`s intelligence agencies insisted on controlling the Afghan resistance, now propping up one favourite, now another. When Najib fell, there was no cohesive entity to fill the vacuum. .....

..... let us also realize that no Kashmir solution is going to emerge tomorrow. Anyone can beat an empty drum. It takes courage and wisdom to make the best of an imperfect situation and accept the inevitable.

Is this too tough a proposition for Pakistani minds to accept? We got used to the loss of East Pakistan with remarkable ease. East Pakistan was half of Pakistan, Kashmir never a part of us. Nor did Kashmir figure in the partition plan leading to India`s independence and the birth of Pakistan, as a princely state falling in a different category.

Strange, to say the least, that whereas the loss of half our body and soul is not a ``core issue``, the future of Kashmir is. For too long we have been governed by the pseudo-strategic preoccupations of GHQ and ISI. We know where these can lead. Our foremost concern should be the plight of the Kashmiri people. .....

..... with all our expenditure of defence we are no closer to liberating Kashmir, all this talk of core issue serves as an excuse to make the military the holiest cow in the Pakistani pantheon. We should not neglect our armed forces. .....

..... The primary aim of the Pakistan movement, from where it all began, was to provide
constitutional safeguards for Muslims in the Muslim-minority provinces who were afraid of being swamped by a Hindu majority.

Being in a majority, the Muslims of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Frontier felt threatened by no one. It is an irony of history that those most in need of protection were left behind in India, while those who didn`t need any protection inherited the new state.

This is water under the bridge but given this background, don`t we have a moral obligation to see that our policies don`t hurt the interests of Indian Muslims?

From the strong impression one gathers while visiting India, most Indian Muslims are not in favour of Kashmir leaving the Indian Union. For they look upon the division of Kashmir along communal lines as (1) a threat to Indian secularism, after all their strongest safeguard, and (2) a diminution of their collective strength. The invocation of sincerity should take all these factors into account.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
09 January 2004 Friday 16 Ziqa`ad 1424

Joyride of the victors
By Ayaz Amir

..... what Pakistan has agreed is to bid a last farewell to jihad in Kashmir: the final curtains drawn on the blood and iron of 15 years of history.

Any doubts on this score should disappear with these words from the Joint Statement: ``Prime Minister (Atal Behari) Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President (Pervez) Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan`s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.`` .....

..... For 15 years we defined the uprising in occupied Kashmir as an indigenous freedom struggle. Now a Pakistani ruler has put that struggle squarely in the locker of terrorism. We should forgive the Kashmiris if they feel a bit like the Taliban whom we once supported and then threw to the wolves. If they utter the dread word ``sellout``, what do we say? .....

..... Coming to the all-important question of whether a peaceful relationship with India is good for Pakistan, a thousand times, yes. Was jihad in Kashmir a sustainable and sensible policy? A thousand times, no. Then isn`t Gen Musharraf on the right course, doing the right thing?

He is. The only thing is he could have embarked on this journey much sooner and with less loss of face for Pakistan. .....

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
12 April 2003 Saturday 09 Safar 1424

Winds of change
By Irfan Husain

..... To any objective observer, Kashmir is a dead issue, and nothing will be gained by continuing to flog it. And yet, even sensible Pakistanis are unwilling to come forward and say so openly. The recent appalling slaughter of 24 Kashmiri Pandits shows how explosive an issue it is, and emphasizes yet again the need to normalize relations with India and move ahead on other aspects of bilateral ties like trade and travel. This whole business of jihad (and it is, among other things, a business) has to be switched off and its proponents tamed.

One knows this is a tall order, and not one in keeping with this government`s wishes or priorities. Brainwashed into a knee-jerk `Kashmir at any cost` philosophy, our generals have a single-point agenda to which the whole nation is now hostage. But for how long?

As we stand isolated and virtually friendless, we are in desperate need to review our mistakes and chart a new path. Unfortunately, as one surveys the landscape, one cannot see the kind of visionary leaders needed for such an exercise.

dionysus #142

Abay, Panditji didn`t know the kind of people he was dealing with; neither did he know how international politics works (which we do!) :) :)

#142

Jaswant seems to have hit a nerve here!

As for me I believe all states are kind of ``ersatz`` anyway. No matter who`s typewriter created it, Pakistan exists here and now and its up to pakistani`s to make the best of it. Overcoming their obsession with being ``un-India`` and ``liberators of Kashmir`` would be the best step towards it.

(but I am sure you knew all that anyway, lets have more quotes from Nehru :-))

(btw, more interesting than Nehru it seems was Rajendra Prasad who had a colorful UP vocabulary. A friend of mine narrates hearing Rajendra Prasad call out to Nehru during some ceremony ``Arre Jahurwa mera khaniee ka dibba dikhat hai kya babuwa``)

Dionysus:

Pandit Nehru tau mar gaya yaar. Woh tau bilkul phuddu banda si.

It is Parliament that is supreme as a voice of the people. A Parliamentary resolution of India says that Kashmir is an integral part of India. What an individual said is immaterial. Also, the UN resolution is non-binding. U can check what Kofi Annan said about that.

nakhok

What kind of pyschosis afflicted India to make Pandit-jee say things like this. Perhaps Jaswant Singh sahib should do some psycho- analysing here to. :)


`` [Kashmir] is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision``.

--Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji`s question in the Indian Legislature

nakhok

``We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.

Such noble words. Nakhok send these to Jaswant Singh, India`s greatest Freudian pyscho-analyst. :)

``Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet``.


--Pandit Nehru, addressing the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952

#139
leader of 3-rd world panditji: dead
daughter, and liberator of bangla indira: dead
mr neutrer sanjiv: dead
mr clean rajiv who bought the bofors howitzers for deployment in kashmir: dead

just some news you may have missed. so, look forward.

#131 nakhok

Forget about that idiot Jaswant Singh. Pandit-ji is far more eloquent. :)

``We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it``.

--Pandit Nehru, broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947,




``I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations``.

-Pandit Nehru, In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan

#131 nakhok

Pandit-ji was indeed an eloquent speaker, as well as a man of his word. :)



``I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view``.

-Pandit Nehru , (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).



``We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide - And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir``.

--Pandit Nehru, in a broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947

Urstruly #112:
``As if 700,000 gun totting war criminals were not enough to gag a whole nation, Indians are building a wall to incarcerate a whole nation in Kashmir. Is it that India is hiding something that is worst than South Korea? Where will it end?``
Heh heh. The fence is to protect us Indians (including Kashmiris) from Puki terrorist vermin. Anyone who wants to go to the other side legally has to get a passport, get a visa and is ready to go. Urstruly, why is the fence bothering you, given that it is about one km within OUR territory?
If the Indian army is ``gun toting war criminals``, what do you call the Puki army who have conquered Pukistan innumerable times so far - war heroes?
My sincere advice to Pukis is this - dont worry about Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq or anything else. Worry about Pukistan. Fight for the liberation of Sindhudesh, Baloch Nadu, POK and Pakhtoonkhawa from the oppression of the Punjabees.

Jaswant says it best!

``The Pakistanis keep talking about Kashmir as something that was stolen or lost, when in fact it was neither,`` he said.

``Pakistan`s fixation with Kashmir should be understood as an objectification of Pakistan`s predicament as a lost soul among nations, an ersatz country whose founders` only real legacy was a permanent reminder of what a tragic mistake partition had been,`` Singh said.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/09us.htm

# 133 rsridhar

thanks for the info, nothings perfect :)

HP:

I see your point about the core issue. There is however a perception, not exactly unfounded, that the the core issue is Pakistani self definition as the Un-India. In the Indian mind, that is the core problem.

However, your thesis about diplomatic maneouvring is equally valid. India percives or wishes the Kashmir issue as one that has already been solved externally. Their regret is its internationalization by Nehru and the failure of Indira Gandhi to end the issue in 1971.

Ofcourse the dormancy was vitiated by the Indian state itself and the fruits are there for us to see. But then again, India percieves the issue to be easier solved if Pakistan is not involved.

I think you misunderstood my reference to ``status quo`` which is used in India at least in a territorial sense.


You said..

``An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore. ``

I disagree to the extent that if the situation again becomes dormant with nothing having changed in a realistic sense then status quo is maintained. Look at the Indian Punjab insurgency as an example.

re:#102 by Urstruly
``With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution....``.
The 77% muslims in that state can ensure that the majority of MLAs in the state assmembly are muslims. These MLAs in turn can make laws pertaining to the state. That is how it works. To change the constitution, we need 2/3rds majority vote in the parliament (in the center). I hope u now realize how stupid your above statement was.
As always, i am happy to educate the ignorant.
Sridhar

re:#113 by americanFOB
I thought you were a Paki (by which i mean a Pakistani; i use it not in any derogatory sense). I guess all of us suffer from some biases which are inbuilt!

``So assume that the muslims and other minorities are usually underdogs, while the majors groups such as the Hindus are always in massive numbers..``

Well, it is true that in a democrazy, there is strength in numbers. But, this is really illusory not real. What matters more is: how much strings can a community pull at the political level (what is called as ``political influence`` or ``lobbying`` in USA).
In these matters, clearly communities like the Parsees or sikhs pull more strings than hindus who are divided along caste lines. Even among hindus, Gujaratis pull more strength than marwaris in Bombay due to their wealth and greater control they exercise over the stock market (i am discounting the influence of goons like Thackeray here).
Even in USA, Jews have disproportionate influence over politics (compared to their numbers).
So, to assume that a community must be holding all the cards just because of their numbers is not true in a democrazy.
Muslims in India have not organized themselves well until very recently. They have let themselves be pampered by selfish ``so called seulcar`` politicians who treated the former as vote banks. This has led to a situation where there is no real leadership among muslims. But, it is gratifying that IMs have realized who their real benefactors are and have been voting cleverly in a clear departure from the previous pattern. The recent general election is a clear proof of that.
``...all I here that: in India politics run hand in hand with religon....``
Religion does play a role in politics in India but not to such a great extent. In fact. BJP and the ``Sangh Parivar`` would like nothing better than to see hindus vote on the basis of religion and give BJP a clear majority. This has not happened as Hindus have traditionally voted along caste lines. AT least in one sense, caste has done India some good in that it has kept away a right wing party from getting an absolute majority!
Sridhar

Re: urstruly #102
“With 77% majority of Muslims in Indian Oppressed Kashmir, Muslims can even change the constitution because that is well over 2/3rd of the population. No wonder Indians need 700,000 guns to stiffle their voice.”

In Pakistan you have 99% majority of Muslims, Muslims can write or change the constitution as much as they like but it does not matter because the 500,000 strong Pakistani army uses it for toilet paper in the morning. Chew on that!

Faruk

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

#25 by stuka

“we say it is not a core issue, what we mean is that it is not the only issue bedeviling Indian-Pakistani relations.”

Well! Which issue is bigger or central then the Kashmir issue between the two countries?

Here is what I think Pakistan’s real position in Kashmir:
-Kashmir is an issue that India has to resolve and Pakistan should be part of the settlement whatever form and shape it takes. -

India for a better part of the last 50 years has been trying to sidestep the Pakistani claim though admitting Kashmir to be a major problem that India would rather like to be resolved between Kashmiris and Indians.

When Pakistan claims that Kashmir is a “core issue” between India and Pakistan, it becomes important for the Indian side to diplomatically counter that with the argument that there are other issues that are important. That is another way of saying that Pakistan is not part of the Kashmir issue so there is really no “core issue” to talk about.
To preserve its position it has to always maintain that Kashmir is not a ‘core issue” or it gives into Pakistani argument. The weakness of the Indian argument is that there is really no issue worth talking about even.

Kashmir aside,Pakistan and India have lived w/o each other for a long time now to not to worry about each other but being neighbors, it is the feel-good factor that becomes important in neighborly relations. Pakistan army hates that feel-good thingy and the Indian side knows the importance of feel-good thingy. Imo, There is lot of gamesmanship in Pakistan-India relations and talks than the substance. Then there are some international pressures that both countries have to live with and that makes them talk and talk again.

When I castigated the “core issue” I attacked the way Veeresh has argued about the core issue. India or Pakistan’s existence does not depend on Kashmir. But if you closely study the issue-Kashmir- it is much more important for India than it is for Pakistan. Now you and DM have already discussed this in details so there is no point in getting into it now. But the reality remains that it is an Indian problem as you have stated and it is a big problem where some of post Independent India’s ideological and other essential issue are stake.

Status quo is even more difficult position to defend. The simple logic would be; If the issue is dormant, the status quo can be maintained but once the issue becomes active there is no status quo any more. An issue may have several minor issues to go with it but once “the issue” is under challenge, it is or any part of it can not remain under status quo anymore.

#101 by Dost-Mittar

The ceasefire line after the first Kashmir war of 1947-1948 coincided with the limits of the political influence of Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference. But in the years since the first ceasefire, the LoC has come to acquire religious and cultural significance as well.

Dost-Mittar has noted the wholesale expulsion of all Hindus and Sikhs from Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) during the 1947-1948 war. And the wholesale expulsion of the Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley since 1989 is quite in line with the philosophy of ideologues in the cantonments in Rawalpindi, Lahore or Sialkot who feel that the 1947 partition will remain an unfinished task till they can impose the religious homogeneity of PoK on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.

It is only the Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side of the LoC that has retained the legacy from Maharaja`s time that prevents non-residents of the state from acquiring
immovable property.

But that is certainly not true on the Pakistan side of the LoC. This has led to a drastic alteration in the demographic composition of PoK.

To retain Jammu & Kashmir`s sense of identity the Indian Government scrupulously honored a law (enforced by the Dogra Maharajas of the State) which forbade any
non-Kashmiri, someone not born or a resident of the State, from acquiring immovable property of any kind in the State. This was done to ensure that the demographic
character of the State is not altered. The law exists and is enforced to this today.

Contrast this with the virtual colonization of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and also of the so-called Northern Areas of Pakistan.

Kashmiri remains an Indian language, even as it failed to become a Pakistani language. It needs to be noted that Kashmiri language is far less significant in ``Azad`` Kashmir than it is in Jammu & Kashmir in India across the LoC. In PoK Punjabi/Lahandi/Pothwari is far more important today than Kashmiri:

(1) According to latest census figures, only about 100,000 in PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue. This is in sharp contrast to Jammu & Kashmir across the LoC where more than 4 million claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.

(2) Kashmiri speakers lack the critical mass to be significant in PoK. They form a mere 2% of the population. In sharp contrast, nearly the half the population of Jammu & Kashmir claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.

(3) Institute of Kashmir Studies in Muzaffarabad does some language promotion - but observers have acknowledged that it is a lost cause in PoK.

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
June4-10, 2004

Pakistan at war with itself?
By Khaled Ahmed

..... Kashmir forms the central plank in Pakistan`s national consensus, firmed up through years of the army`s paramountcy as allowed by Pakistan`s nationalism. The unspoken agenda of the army is defeat of India and reclamation of Kashmir. Pakistan has lost national consensus for many reasons but the big reason is that it has not been able to defeat India within a reasonable period of time. The state no longer believes that the nation can go on seeking India`s defeat - not even through jihad – or hoping that India would somehow collapse by itself for following the flawed doctrine of secularism. The state wants to purge the early consensual folly of adopting the formula of palpable external threat. It wants to replace the threat-of-India theory with a more realistic economic dream. It wants to ‘rationalise` India to be able to live alongside it. But the doctrinal demons it released earlier in its history refuse to exorcise. .....

The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
July 2-8, 2004

A n a l ys i s
Are jihadis waiting in the wings?
By Khaled Ahmed

..... Recent incidents demonstrate that the jihadis are continuing to kill the Shias in Pakistan quite freely. In some cases the police has been found involved in this Shia-killing spree. It has been trying to spare the sectarian killers of Al Qaeda by interpreting murders as family feuds or the doing of the ‘foreign hand`, India or American, in the latter case an extension of what is happening in Najaf in Iran. .....

..... Mahnaz Ispahani, of the New York-based think-tank, Council for Foreign Relations, wrote in her article ‘Religious Sword hangs over Pakistan` in Los Angeles Times (22 May 2004): ‘Even as Musharraf bans certain groups and speaks out against sectarian violence, the militants flourish and the number of dead rises. One wants deeds as unflinching as his words. Only if he is able to put a full stop to the kind of Islamisation that makes a mockery of an inclusive Muslim homeland; only if he eliminates the sectarian jihadi complex that feeds off Shias and other minorities` lives, only then will Pakistan will have secure future. If Musharraf fails then the question ``Who is a Pakistani Muslim?`` could destroy all hope for a more progressive and peaceful Pakistan`. .....

..... Available literature on Al Qaeda reveals close contacts between Lashkar-e-Tayba and Osama bin Laden. .....

..... Jaish, together with Lashkar-Tayba, was the top ‘freedom-fighting` organisation in Held Kashmir. Its leader Maulana Masood Azhar, a graduate of Karachi`s Banuri Masjid seminary, was on the side of Osama bin Laden in Sudan when the Pakistani troops were representing the UN in Somalia. .....

..... President Musharraf should grasp the nettle of terrorism in Pakistan and get rid of it even if it means no option on the resumption of jihad in Kashmir. The administration is trying very hard to play down the sectarian violence of the jihadi militias to stave off public resentment. The Shia-killers of Brigade 313 are being secured against the stain of fratricide in Pakistan. The price for the ‘Kashmir option` is very high and the people of Pakistan may finally refuse to pay it with their blood.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-6-2004_pg3_2

The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Sunday, June 20, 2004

[..... the only workable solution is to convert the Line of Control into a soft border with India and Pakistan retaining sovereignty on their respective sides]

Solving the Kashmir dispute
By Ishtiaq Ahmed
Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

..... no zero-sum approach or ‘winner takes all` solution is going to succeed.

The UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite have failed to work. Since they are under Ch VI of the Charter, they require the contending parties to agree to UN mediation. India has ruled out any such possibility.

The third option of an independent Kashmir has no serious takers among the Indian and Pakistani establishments. One can also wonder if indeed the overall security concerns of India and Pakistan will lessen if a weak state emerges in this volatile region bordering Afghanistan, Iran and central Asia. Indeed, such a state could well increase the sense of insecurity and set in motion another round of confrontational politics between the two states. An independent state will also be opposed tooth and nail by the Hindus and Buddhists on the Indian side.

Similarly, the idea that Kashmir should be partitioned along religious lines is a non-starter. The Muslims of Jammu and the Shia minority of Ladakh would have their own reasons for opposing it. The former would be left behind in India and become an even smaller minority. They would thus be precariously placed and would very likely face the anger of militant Hindus who would hold them responsible for India losing much of its Kashmir to Pakistan.

Such a situation is already faced by Indian Muslims who stayed behind in India after Partition. The Shias only have to look at the way their sect is being targeted by terrorists in Pakistan. Neither the Pakistani fundamentalists nor the Kashmiri militants present a tolerant and peaceful image of Islam. It is futile to believe that the spread of a terrorist political culture in the garb of freedom struggle will impress the world or deter the Indian state.

There is also the proposal that the Kashmir Valley should be made independent. The tiny but very vocal Kashmiri pandits who have been driven away by the militants and now live in camps in Jammu and Delhi would oppose any such idea. Also, India will never agree to grant self-determination on the basis of religious differences.

Under the circumstances, the only workable solution is to convert the Line of Control into a soft border with India and Pakistan retaining sovereignty on their respective sides. The idea of a soft border should be understood as a series of measures aiming to provide substantial autonomy to the various sub-regions on both sides. Such an approach would require both states to withdraw or at least drastically reduce the number of troops stationed on both sides of the Line of Control. Kashmiris on both sides should be permitted to move freely
across the border though without the automatic right to settle on the other side.

But solving the Kashmir dispute is impossible without India and Pakistan agreeing to a comprehensive peace and cooperation agreement. The Kashmir issue is not the cause but a symptom of a deeper mistrust between India and Pakistan. The two sides have to appreciate the fact that they are two sovereign states and that is a settled fact of history. .....

..... One may rhetorically argue that India is an imperialist Hindu state or Pakistan heads a worldwide Islamic expansionist movement. But the fact remains that the United States and other Western states remain the real determiners of international economic and political policies.

Therefore instead of wasting time on mutual recrimination and hostile propaganda India and Pakistan should close ranks and along with the other players in South Asia try to develop robust economic and social ties. That is the only way this region can justly claim respect and admiration from the rest of the world. .....

..... It is most important that extremists and militants are weeded out from the whole of South Asia and especially from Kashmir. .....

Faruk#123:
It may be of interest to note that Asma Khan Lone is the daughter of the JKLF leader, Amanullah Khan and was brought up in POK/Pakistan. She was married to the son of a hurriyet leader, Abdul Ghani Lone, in a much heralded cross-border wedding four years ago.

http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_frame.php

Pakistan’s paranoid Great Gamers
For Pakistan, if Afghanistan has meant strategic depth, then Kashmir always means historic defeat. As Pakistan jostles to gain control over Kashmiri politics, the people are left out of their State’s destiny
ASMA KHAN LONE


Of the many analogies between Kashmir and Afghanistan, the most distinctive is the imposition by Pakistan of an elite group of seven on the political horizons of these respective places, in stark negation of the prevailing realities. After the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghan soil, the logical end game seemed the return of sovereign power to the people of Afghanistan followed by a process of national reconstruction.

However, not so for the covert agencies of Pakistan which had ‘‘better’’ alternatives in the offing. (It is important to differentiate between the people of Pakistan and a minuscule albeit powerful mindset within its establishment.) The turn of events characterised for these agencies the unique opportunity to capitalise on the fluid political situation of its neighbourhood and materialise its cherished doctrine of ‘‘strategic depth’’ — securing and control over its western border which in the eventuality of an Indian attack from the East would provide tactical territory and time to absorb a first strike and reinforce for a follow-up response. As a corollary, the border dispute over the Durrand Line would also be laid to rest, enabling Pakistan to retain the vast expanse of its North-West Frontier region.

All through the Afghan war the CIA-backed mujahideen were based in Peshawer, Pakistan, which served as their base camp. At the time of the Soviet retreat, 21 major mujahideen organisations were based in Peshawer, not all amicable to the new Pakistani Great Game. This posed a dilemma for Pakistan, which at no cost was ready to forego such a strategic prize. Thus began a spate of negotiations, which after the spending of $25 million in a week and other carrot-and-stick tactics, finally yielded the desired results.

A group of seven lesser known, with lesser public support hence lesser stakes, coalition was cobbled together and placed at the helm of a new political dispensation in Afghanistan with its command structure firmly in Pakistan. This was bound to create resentment, triggering a bloody civil war and thus setting the stage for the next round of turmoil within Afghanistan.

At about the same time a mass-based armed struggle erupted in Kashmir. After decades of political suppression, the Kashmiris were left with no other discourse. ‘‘Azaadi’’ became the buzzword, epitomising Kashmiri pride and aspiration. However ‘‘azaadi’’ in certain quarters of Pakistan became misconstrued to mean accession to Pakistan. Though Kashmiris had welcomed the ‘‘moral support’’ extended by Pakistan, they were in no way ready to repay by a merger with it. As this reality sank in in Pakistan so did the desperation to secure its gameplan in Kashmir.

If Afghanistan had represented ‘‘strategic depth’’, Kashmir symbolised ‘‘historic defeat’’. After a series of high-profile purges, the mantra of the magic seven was transported to the Valley and thus was born, in 1993, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). The APHC was a motley group of various organisations having various ideologies. The APHC’s all-powerful Executive Council comprised the ‘‘mighty seven’’, constituting both heavyweights and non-entities. Some joined the conglomerate out of the tactical need to forge a united front, others due to ideological proximity, still others to simply have a slice of the accruing pie.

Ostensibly established to strengthen the ongoing movement and provide it the much needed focus and organised direction, the APHC increasingly came to denote Pakistani interest, often to the detriment of the indigenous Kashmiri cause. This till a point where Pakistani interests and the Kashmiri struggle unfortunately came to symbolise two diametrically opposing notions. This in turn bred a fresh set of dissidents both within and outside the APHC, only to be conveniently ‘‘silenced’’ like their predecessors. Meanwhile, for the remaining APHC it was ‘‘business’’ as usual, only now with the tragic departure of the balancing voice within its ranks it further became a prisoner of its myopic vision, faltering like a pack of cards to the earliest machinations directed at dividing and weakening it, thus finally imploding its inflated myth.

Like its counterpart in Afghanistan, the legacy of the APHC in Kashmir has been that of devastation and destruction. Also like its counterpart in Afghanistan, the APHC ultimately met its nemesis, robbing itself of a sobering epitaph. As the reigns of the movement shifted from the indigenous leadership to Pakistan, so did the character of the movement, from its secular nationalism to a parochially interpreted fundamentalist Islam — a paradigm alien to the common Kashmiri. The notion of Jehad catapulted to the centrestage in all its rhetorical finery, in actuality reduced to the clausewitzian ‘‘continuation of policy’’.

Islam is an all-pervading belief system. In order to preserve its dynamism and relevance to changing realities, its teachings have been dealt in a broad framework avoiding detailed specifics so as to accommodate a wider range of issues. This open-endedness has often led to varying and conflicting interpretations, giving rise to the debate ‘‘Spirit vs Ritual’’ — is the essence to have precedence or the sheer act of undertaking a certain exercise. The concept of Jehad also runs into this debate especially in the context of Kashmir.

Jehad is a central concept of Islam. The word Jehad has been derived from the Arabic word ‘‘Jehd’’ meaning, to exert. In Islamic tradition, Jehad means to exert against evil, for good to triumph over bad and truth to prevail over fallacy. Jehad has further been divided into various types, organised into a hierarchy based on importance and obligation. The primary and most intrinsic kind of Jehad is ‘‘Jehad-al-nafs’’ or Jehad against one’s desires, against the innate human traits of deceit, temptation and lust. Jehad-al-nafs in a way sums up the core of Islamic teachings, the practical embodiment of its reigning spirit. Jehad-al-nafs is mandatory upon every Muslim, the pivotal aspect of his everyday life.

It is later that Jehad-al-saif or Jehad by sword follows, again an important concept but not central. Where Jehad-al-nafs signifies the spirit, Jehad-al-saif represents the ritual. Though Jehad-al-nafs is mandatory upon every Muslim Jehad-al-saif is obligatory, and that too with Jehad-al-nafs as its cornerstone.

In Kashmir, Jehad-al-saif was undertaken against the forces of oppression to restore the Kashmiri’s right of self-determination. However, as the Kashmiri movement metamorphosed from an indigenous struggle to a limited war by proxy, so did the nature and objectives of the Jehad. From a cause it transported to a livelihood. Perceived as a means to salvation it became a mode of power. While the indoctrinated young starry-eyed fighter spilled his blood on the ground, the ‘‘sipah-i-salaar’’ at the higher echelon indulged in stratagem perpetuating his authority and that of the vested interests.

This fractionalised the movement into factious ‘‘warlordism’’ — with one group pitted against fellow comrades of another. Starting with the elimination of ideological rivals JKLF vs Jamaat (which at a plane could be read as pro-Kashmir vs pro-Pakistan), it further splintered into obscure sectarianism with Barelvism vs Wahabbism, stripping the movement of its fundamental cohesion and purpose.

Jehad also became subjected to selective derivation. The provision of a social security net for the affected — schools for the orphaned, vocational self-sufficiency for the widows and healthcare for the maimed — a practice undertaken by groups like the HAMAS in Palestine, so central to the concept of Jehad, was conspicuously missing in Kashmir. With the volume of funds being funnelled into Kashmir, a successful model of the Islamic Welfare System could have been set up. However these unaccountable funds had other utility.

The essence of Jehad gradually evaporated from the exercise leaving behind a sorry caricature of the ritual. The impetus of the movement progressively shifted from combating the oppressor to conservation of peculiar interests. This eroded not only the credibility but also the legitimacy of the Jehad, an essential pre-requisite to continue it under the premise of Islam. With its moral justification long lost, its legal pretext too lay at stake. What had started off as a noble cause against human suffering degenerated into an unholy alliance of interests, its sole achievement the tainting of the sacrosanct institution of Jehad.

The changed regional and international dynamics post-9/11 had directed greater focus on Kashmir. This was a cause for cautious hope. Where Pakistan had its internal interests to allow peace in Kashmir, India too had its stakes. Years of turbulence and pain, alongwith a freedom movement gone dreadfully awry, had taken its toll on the Kashmiris. Internal turmoil within Pakistan had further forced them to reassess their predicament. Matured by the cruelty of events, they were ready to take a more realistic and probably futuristic stock of things. Psychologically, this was a fluid and transitory phase for the Kashmiris. Though still suspicious of Indian overtures, they were ready to give peace a chance and play ball. For India, this represented a unique opportunity to reach out to the Kashmiris and win their trust, if not their hearts. Instead, the Indian establishment, unable to break from its traditional mould, committed itself to the same mistakes. Driven partly by the compulsions of electioneering, partly the desire to mount pressure on Pakistan and overwhelmingly the urgency to showcase to the diplomatic community Kashmiri support for its peace process, New Delhi rushed into a dialogue with a group of Kashmiri politicians, in the process eroding its own credibility and that of the Kashmiri politicians within Kashmir. The old cycle of events was once again being resurrected.

What seemed a more plausible and long-term proposition was the engagement of representatives of a wide section of society, which in turn would be able to mobilise an entire public opinion. However, the Indian government chose to talk to a select few, with ironically nominal collective public support. This not only drew a large question mark over the entire process, limiting its appeal to a few individuals, but also alienated other more potent forces. The inability on the part of the Kashmiri leaders to chalk out a substantive and forceful agenda for the talks further undermined the process. However the singularly most overwhelming implication of the whole exercise was the breeding of a Generation Next of rebellious youth.

Unable to legitimise the talks with the masses, these leaders resorted to double and often contradictory talk, the hallmark of all Kashmiri leaders. At a recent rally in Srinagar marking the death anniversary of a religious leader, also ostensibly a show of strength for the talks process with India, there emerged besides the understandable slogans of ‘‘Azaadi’’, simultaneous pro-Pakistan slogans. This was reminiscent of the 1977 elections, when fresh on the heels of the Indira-Abdullah accord these very leaders waved green handkerchiefs at the people, signifying affinity with Pakistan. The contradicting loyalties then had resulted in the cataclysmic eruption of the generation that followed; the contrary pulls of the dogma practiced by these leaders now will only result in the same. History has to be allowed a natural course. A truce with the people, not a few individuals, is required.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Srinagar

#114 by aslam644 on July 8, 2004 9:24am PT

Thanks aslam, we need to understand more on this topic. For the folks in India, kashmiris speak kashmiri, have names like Bhatt and Kachru, wear Kangri and women wear some kind of head-gear etc. Also, Hindu kashmiri (Pandit), while being somewhat different in dress, also speak kashmiri and urdu, are generally well educated and eat the same food as muslims. Then there are ladakhis, shias etc. but they are yet more distinct.

Based on what you say, how similar and different are mirpuris from valley folks? They seem to speak different language, so likely to have different cultural roots. Clearly they are muslims (the main uniting thread). Perhaps the neelam valley has some people closer to the valley folks? You seem to be mirpuri, so information on this topic will be educational. Our info of mirpuris comes from films like East is East. They seem like a hard working lot like Sikhs.

Also, on chowk, there is not a single muslim (valley) kashmiri poster ever inspite of hundreds of posts on kashmir. This is strange. Atleast an imposter will be a change. Is chowk staff disouraging them?

thanks.

#110 by rsridhar on July 8, 2004 7:55am PT

You have said it!!

#110 by rsridhar on July 8, 2004 7:55am PT

Infact most of them would love to see communal riots spread all across the country so that they say prophetically- ``Didn`t we tell them? Secularism is a failed concept!``

aslam644:
We all share your hopes for the future.

Urstruly#102:
You assume that all muslims will vote against India. Even the RSS does not go that far. Some friend you are! Huey tum dost jiske dushman uska asmaan kyon ho?

#105 AmericanBirdBrain

[quote]
You still have to admit that the government in India is predominantly hindu. Hey I`ve done my research. India is also a country with one major religon even though it claims to be secular.
[end-quote]

This is truely a masterpiece of analysis your part. Could you please provide us with examples of secular countries where the majority population is not of a single religion?

Do you even understand what the meaning of secular is??? Are you still bottle-fed or at least on solid food? Please enlighten us further with your infinite wisdom.

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

dost-mitter#101
thanks for reply

The reason why you heard people from POK speak potohari is because that’s the indigenous language of the area not kashmiri, not because they are potohari settlers from panjab.

There was a sizable minority of hindus and Sikhs, in the area that is now azad Kashmir, in the turmoil of 1947 all fled, or were forced out. Quite a few women were abducted from both sides at partition. One such case I knew of a woman in our village in Mirpur (A.K), she had been abducted by a police man from our village, he had converted her and married her against her will no doubt.

When I was a young lad growing up, I remember her as being kind and the only woman in her age group in the village, who was literate.
Looking back at it now, I remember she sometimes had a blank stare in her face as though she was longing for someone.

After the tyrant husband of hers had died, another one of these abducted woman some how made contact with her relatives in Jammu, she went over to meet them while she was there, she met many other hindus from mirpur. One of them asked her about our village woman, she told him she is alive and well he gave a message for her to contact them, on receiving this message our village woman along with her grown up son, went over to Jammu, and met all her surviving relatives, she was laden with gifts when she returned. There is a happy ending to this sad story if we can call it that.

Let us hope for every one’s sake in South Asia our future is very different from our past.

Most of the problems of the Indian subcontinent including Kashmir will go away if the British will come back to rule.

An Indian is proposing to form a party BBB (BRING BACK BRITISH)!!!
He is encouraging everyone to join it.

Desis are misfit rulers and can serve only.

re: more on the movie Lakshya

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=339175
Sridhar

``Secularism is not just a good idea. It is the only way. ``

I totally agree. Discrimination of any kind is not condoned by Islam to begin with. Government should be secular in order to be fair, I think separation of church and state is a beautiful thing, but difficult to acheive. Why even in the some legislation shows some bias towards rleigon, such as the very debatable moment of silence rule enforced in schools. Religon is the tool of the exploitators to gain power and followers. And every religon has the exploitaters, so there`s no point in arguing about shias and sunnis and what not...


When I say the Indian government is predominantly hindu I mean the Indian government is mostly composed of individuals of one faith. No I do not know the ins and outs of how the Indian government works, but I would think from all I here that: in India politics run hand in hand with religon. So assume that the muslims and other minorities are usually underdogs, while the majors groups such as the Hindus are always in massive numbers. Regardless of the religon of the person at the top, the composition of the body he guides is also important.

You make an assumption I`m Paki...interesting.

As if 700,000 gun totting war criminals were not enough to gag a whole nation, Indians are building a wall to incarcerate a whole nation in Kashmir. Is it that India is hiding something that is worst than South Korea? Where will it end?