Shatranj ke Khiladi
Dost Mittar April 18, 2005
#315 Posted by Prashant123 on April 22, 2005 8:02:31 am
amit...akhand bharat eh ?...its hard enough to live with you stupid lazy worthless parasitic bloodsucking cow belt bhaiyyas......
Go ahead and form an akhand bharat with your equally stupid lazy worthless brothers from across the border (after all ...the only thing that distinguishes you lot is religion)...we in the south want out.
Imagine.....an India without the hindi cowbelt...we would be like 1st world !!!
Go ahead and form an akhand bharat with your equally stupid lazy worthless brothers from across the border (after all ...the only thing that distinguishes you lot is religion)...we in the south want out.
Imagine.....an India without the hindi cowbelt...we would be like 1st world !!!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#314 Posted by dost_mittar on April 22, 2005 7:45:39 am
arunu-m#313:
I am a great fan of Ayaz Amir but he does have a tendency to go overboard sometimes when he gets emotional, and presumably after he has tried to drown his sorrow in his favourite nectar.
First of all India has made a compromise in allowing people to cross LOC without a passport, even though the certificate is theoretically available to all Indian citizens. More importantly, I suspect (no proof!) that the Indians have made the same kind of pomises that Bhutto was said to have made in Shimla, namely, that they will try to create a favourable public opinion for more compromises in the future.
Incidentally, if those certificates are indeed made available to all Indians and Pakistanis, it means a virtual end to the visa requirement for entry between the two countries, because then all of them can enter into the other country through Kashmir. More importantly, even Kashmiris can trade with each other freely, what prevents Indian and Pakistani businessmen to use Kashmiri fronts to sell their goods to the other country?
As regards to what kind of compromises Pakistan would want India to make in Kashmir without redrawing borders, here is an article by Mubashir Hasan who, I think, is privy to the official Pakistani thinking.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/21/op.htm#1
Some excerpts:
``In such a situation, if a solution can be found which gives India a certain status in the territory now under Pakistan`s control, in lieu of conceding wide autonomy to the state as well as giving Pakistan a certain status in the part of the state now under India`s control, it would be a net gain for India.``
........................................................................
India`s de facto authority as it exercises today along the Ladakh border becomes de jure. Pakistan does the same along the Khunjrab border in a legally recognized manner. If they wish they may form a consultative body on defence matters of which the government of the state may also be a member.
India and Pakistan agree to enter into a treaty with each other that the two countries shall not prepare for or wage war in the territory of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In so agreeing, the need for defending the Line of Control along almost 800 km ceases to exist and the way is cleared for the withdrawal of their forces stationed along this line.
India and Pakistan agree that the former state shall reunite as an undivided entity. This agreement shall fulfil one of the basic nationalist aspirations of the people of the former state.
The state of Kashmir pledges not to build an army of its own and India and Pakistan agree to relinquish the role of their armies of coming to the aid of civil power in the state. These undertakings shall strengthen the internal autonomy of the administration of the state, much to the relief of the armies of India and Pakistan.
No longer required along the Line of Control and to act in aid of civil power, India and Pakistan agree to withdraw their armies from Kashmir except from the borders of Kashmir with China.
FOREIGN RELATIONS: At present the foreign relations of a part of the former state are conducted by Pakistan and of the other part by India. In the proposed solution, India and Pakistan may jointly be responsible for those aspects of relations which affect the security interests of either country including those of foreign investment, aid and grants. The state may exercise authority in establishing ties with other states in commerce and trade and other matters with the agreement of Pakistan and India.
ACCESS AND TRADE: Citizens of Kashmir acquire the right of entry and of doing business in Pakistan as well as India as if they were citizens of India and Pakistan as well.
The communication, transportation, educational and other infra structural facilities of India and Pakistan may be available to Kashmiris without any discriminatory restrictions.
The produce, manufactures and services of Kashmir should have access to the markets of India and Pakistan without any duties or charges; similarly, Indian and Pakistani produce, manufactures and services should have free access to the markets of Kashmir.
The citizens of India and Pakistan are able to travel throughout the former state without let or hindrance. Since the sights of the two countries are on a visa-free regime within the Saarc areas, a beginning with removing travel restrictions with Kashmir may prove to be auspicious.
These measures will be a big gain for India and Pakistan and an economic boom for the state of Kashmir. The currencies of Pakistan and India may be made legal tender throughout the former state.
PASSPORTS: Passports issued by the state of Kashmir have the status of those issued by the state before 1947. Visas issued by Pakistan and India to be valid for Kashmir.
INDUS WATERS: The status and validity of the Indus Basin Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan remains unchanged.``
I am a great fan of Ayaz Amir but he does have a tendency to go overboard sometimes when he gets emotional, and presumably after he has tried to drown his sorrow in his favourite nectar.
First of all India has made a compromise in allowing people to cross LOC without a passport, even though the certificate is theoretically available to all Indian citizens. More importantly, I suspect (no proof!) that the Indians have made the same kind of pomises that Bhutto was said to have made in Shimla, namely, that they will try to create a favourable public opinion for more compromises in the future.
Incidentally, if those certificates are indeed made available to all Indians and Pakistanis, it means a virtual end to the visa requirement for entry between the two countries, because then all of them can enter into the other country through Kashmir. More importantly, even Kashmiris can trade with each other freely, what prevents Indian and Pakistani businessmen to use Kashmiri fronts to sell their goods to the other country?
As regards to what kind of compromises Pakistan would want India to make in Kashmir without redrawing borders, here is an article by Mubashir Hasan who, I think, is privy to the official Pakistani thinking.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/21/op.htm#1
Some excerpts:
``In such a situation, if a solution can be found which gives India a certain status in the territory now under Pakistan`s control, in lieu of conceding wide autonomy to the state as well as giving Pakistan a certain status in the part of the state now under India`s control, it would be a net gain for India.``
........................................................................
India`s de facto authority as it exercises today along the Ladakh border becomes de jure. Pakistan does the same along the Khunjrab border in a legally recognized manner. If they wish they may form a consultative body on defence matters of which the government of the state may also be a member.
India and Pakistan agree to enter into a treaty with each other that the two countries shall not prepare for or wage war in the territory of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In so agreeing, the need for defending the Line of Control along almost 800 km ceases to exist and the way is cleared for the withdrawal of their forces stationed along this line.
India and Pakistan agree that the former state shall reunite as an undivided entity. This agreement shall fulfil one of the basic nationalist aspirations of the people of the former state.
The state of Kashmir pledges not to build an army of its own and India and Pakistan agree to relinquish the role of their armies of coming to the aid of civil power in the state. These undertakings shall strengthen the internal autonomy of the administration of the state, much to the relief of the armies of India and Pakistan.
No longer required along the Line of Control and to act in aid of civil power, India and Pakistan agree to withdraw their armies from Kashmir except from the borders of Kashmir with China.
FOREIGN RELATIONS: At present the foreign relations of a part of the former state are conducted by Pakistan and of the other part by India. In the proposed solution, India and Pakistan may jointly be responsible for those aspects of relations which affect the security interests of either country including those of foreign investment, aid and grants. The state may exercise authority in establishing ties with other states in commerce and trade and other matters with the agreement of Pakistan and India.
ACCESS AND TRADE: Citizens of Kashmir acquire the right of entry and of doing business in Pakistan as well as India as if they were citizens of India and Pakistan as well.
The communication, transportation, educational and other infra structural facilities of India and Pakistan may be available to Kashmiris without any discriminatory restrictions.
The produce, manufactures and services of Kashmir should have access to the markets of India and Pakistan without any duties or charges; similarly, Indian and Pakistani produce, manufactures and services should have free access to the markets of Kashmir.
The citizens of India and Pakistan are able to travel throughout the former state without let or hindrance. Since the sights of the two countries are on a visa-free regime within the Saarc areas, a beginning with removing travel restrictions with Kashmir may prove to be auspicious.
These measures will be a big gain for India and Pakistan and an economic boom for the state of Kashmir. The currencies of Pakistan and India may be made legal tender throughout the former state.
PASSPORTS: Passports issued by the state of Kashmir have the status of those issued by the state before 1947. Visas issued by Pakistan and India to be valid for Kashmir.
INDUS WATERS: The status and validity of the Indus Basin Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan remains unchanged.``
#313 Posted by arjun_m on April 22, 2005 6:38:54 am
India doesn`t need to do squat....and pakistan can do squat about it...
Not even Munich, simply a meltdown
By Ayaz Amir
Chamberlain kow-towed before Hitler at Munich, allowing Hitler to go ahead with the rape of Czechoslovakia, assuming that this was the price for averting war. ``Peace in our lifetime,`` he proclaimed on his return to London even as the German Wehrmacht moved into Czechoslovakia.
Although disastrously wrong, Chamberlain at least was motivated by good intentions - the old story of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. President Musharraf of Pakistan doesn`t even have Chamberlain`s excuse. There is no war threatening to break out between India and Pakistan. It is all quiet on the eastern front, quieter than it has ever been in living memory.
And yet, for no rhyme or reason - or at least none comprehensible to mortal man - he has just done a mini-Munich in Delhi, effectively agreeing to the Indian position on key issues and getting only bland words and good intentions in return.
No wonder India and the Indian establishment, not to forget the Indian media, are ecstatic, at a loss for words to express their elation at Pakistan, under a military ruler, no less, finally playing on India`s pitch, working on India`s agenda, and far from feeling any sense of loss or shame, revelling in the spirit of surrender.
If any civilian ruler - Nawaz Sharif, Benazir, et al - had the gall or temerity to show one-fortieth of this `flexibility,` the tanks would have been put on high alert - not to move against India, perish the thought, but - to move against Islamabad, with ISPR (the military`s propaganda arm) muttering through gritted teeth that the civilians were selling out Pakistan.
Don`t blame India for developing a vested interest not in Pakistani democracy - for under democracy whether perfect, half-baked or imperfect, Pakistan has avoided the path of unseemly compromise - but in Pakistani militarism whence all the concessions come.
Handing over the rights to our three eastern rivers...under military rule; the folly of the `65 war...military rule; loss of East Pakistan and military defeat in the east...military rule; Kargil...not under military rule but military auspices; the abandonment of Kashmir, for that is what the new diplomacy signals ...under `enlightened` military rule.
Going to war over Kashmir? Of course not. Folly in the past, it is not even an option now. But saying farewell to Kashmir like this, and dancing to India`s tune in the process, abandoning the Kashmiris to their fate, and getting nothing in return - not even an undertaking to settle Siachen or solve the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, this surely is a novel way of waging peace.
We may have beaten India in cricket but the self-inflicted thrashing Pakistan is receiving in the diplomatic field is a higher plane of endeavour altogether. Musharraf needn`t have gone all the way to Delhi to be told there could be no ``re-drawing of borders in Kashmir``. That`s the Indian line, always has been, much before Manmohan Singh`s baptism as prime minister.
While India is entitled to take what position it likes, there should have been no compulsion for a Pakistani leader to go along without even a whimper about the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, the basis, after all, of our Kashmir policy? Drive a stake through the plebiscite/self-determination principle and Pakistan is left with no leg to stand on as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned.
But time to `think outside the box`, Pakistan`s soldier-president advises. Excellent if this was a two-way process, if not only Pakistan but India too was ready for the same walk.
What do we see instead? Pakistan under military guidance doing all the visionary thing by itself: not only thinking outside the box but frantically jumping out of it, consigning the carcass of its Kashmir policy to the waters of the Arabian Sea, even as India sticks resolutely to its own box, not prepared to give so much as a centimetre either way.
In simpler times such unilateralism went by the name of `capitulation`. Now it is called a `paradigm shift`. Why did Musharraf invite himself to Delhi? What gates of Somnath was he hoping to bring back? What he has achieved is a lesson in Indian diplomacy: Manmohan Singh mincing no words in restating the Indian position that Kashmir geography was set in stone and that the utmost to be hoped for lay in the new mantra of `porous borders`.
Far from getting Manmohan Singh to commit anything in return, on Siachen, Baglihar, etc, Musharraf tried to do India another favour by trying to sell the Indian line on Kashmir to the Kashmiri leadership, advising them to use their ``brains`` to understand the necessity of talking to India.
India doesn`t give a damn for the `soft` face of the Kashmiri leadership as represented by the Hurriyet. Its main concern is not to engage with anyone in Kashmir politically but to crush insurgency in the Valley militarily, for which it thinks this is the best time, thanks to the last of Musharraf`s historic u-turns: this time on the ``core issue`` of Kashmir.
Musharraf could at least have argued for the release of Kashmiri prisoners in Indian jails and for an easing of the human rights situation in the Valley. There is nothing to suggest that these concerns were raised or that India conceded anything on these points.
So the situation is like this: even as Musharraf bangs the drums of peace, Indian army operations in the Valley intensify, with many top-ranking Kashmiri militants killed in recent weeks.
Pakistan should be under no illusion that once militancy in the Valley dies down, India will have the same urgency to engage with it as at present. Like it or not, the present peace process is underpinned by Kashmiri blood and tears.
Once the Indians take care of Kashmiri militancy, they will deal with the Kashmir situation on their terms. This is the lesson of history. Back to 1972: this is the direction in which the peace process is headed. Don`t blame the Kashmiris for being dejected.
The foreign office now says India must stop construction on the Baglihar Dam if it was sincere in resolving the dispute. This is wonderful. In the Delhi joint statement, there are passing references to Siachen and Sir Creek, none to Baglihar. The place to make a pitch about Baglihar was Delhi, not the foreign office briefing room in Islamabad.
The joint statement as a whole is a limp document from Pakistan`s point of view but from India`s an undisguized triumph, breaking no new ground, merely restating old positions. If anything, the reference to Kashmir is more watered down than before.
It is a bit audacious than for the foreign office to describe the joint statement as a ``landmark statement``. If this is the foreign office`s definition of ``landmark``, it will run out of adjectives if something truly dramatic were to occur.
Another aspect of this exercise in furious back-pedalling is also noteworthy. Capitulation of this kind should at the very least bring some colour of shame to Pakistani cheeks.
Instead, far from feeling sorry, the outlook of our leadership is positively jaunty as it accepts India`s point of view. When the military made war, it made no sense to anyone. When it makes peace it swings to the other extreme, its pacifism making as little sense as its jingoism.
Not even Munich, simply a meltdown
By Ayaz Amir
Chamberlain kow-towed before Hitler at Munich, allowing Hitler to go ahead with the rape of Czechoslovakia, assuming that this was the price for averting war. ``Peace in our lifetime,`` he proclaimed on his return to London even as the German Wehrmacht moved into Czechoslovakia.
Although disastrously wrong, Chamberlain at least was motivated by good intentions - the old story of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. President Musharraf of Pakistan doesn`t even have Chamberlain`s excuse. There is no war threatening to break out between India and Pakistan. It is all quiet on the eastern front, quieter than it has ever been in living memory.
And yet, for no rhyme or reason - or at least none comprehensible to mortal man - he has just done a mini-Munich in Delhi, effectively agreeing to the Indian position on key issues and getting only bland words and good intentions in return.
No wonder India and the Indian establishment, not to forget the Indian media, are ecstatic, at a loss for words to express their elation at Pakistan, under a military ruler, no less, finally playing on India`s pitch, working on India`s agenda, and far from feeling any sense of loss or shame, revelling in the spirit of surrender.
If any civilian ruler - Nawaz Sharif, Benazir, et al - had the gall or temerity to show one-fortieth of this `flexibility,` the tanks would have been put on high alert - not to move against India, perish the thought, but - to move against Islamabad, with ISPR (the military`s propaganda arm) muttering through gritted teeth that the civilians were selling out Pakistan.
Don`t blame India for developing a vested interest not in Pakistani democracy - for under democracy whether perfect, half-baked or imperfect, Pakistan has avoided the path of unseemly compromise - but in Pakistani militarism whence all the concessions come.
Handing over the rights to our three eastern rivers...under military rule; the folly of the `65 war...military rule; loss of East Pakistan and military defeat in the east...military rule; Kargil...not under military rule but military auspices; the abandonment of Kashmir, for that is what the new diplomacy signals ...under `enlightened` military rule.
Going to war over Kashmir? Of course not. Folly in the past, it is not even an option now. But saying farewell to Kashmir like this, and dancing to India`s tune in the process, abandoning the Kashmiris to their fate, and getting nothing in return - not even an undertaking to settle Siachen or solve the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, this surely is a novel way of waging peace.
We may have beaten India in cricket but the self-inflicted thrashing Pakistan is receiving in the diplomatic field is a higher plane of endeavour altogether. Musharraf needn`t have gone all the way to Delhi to be told there could be no ``re-drawing of borders in Kashmir``. That`s the Indian line, always has been, much before Manmohan Singh`s baptism as prime minister.
While India is entitled to take what position it likes, there should have been no compulsion for a Pakistani leader to go along without even a whimper about the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, the basis, after all, of our Kashmir policy? Drive a stake through the plebiscite/self-determination principle and Pakistan is left with no leg to stand on as far as the Kashmir dispute is concerned.
But time to `think outside the box`, Pakistan`s soldier-president advises. Excellent if this was a two-way process, if not only Pakistan but India too was ready for the same walk.
What do we see instead? Pakistan under military guidance doing all the visionary thing by itself: not only thinking outside the box but frantically jumping out of it, consigning the carcass of its Kashmir policy to the waters of the Arabian Sea, even as India sticks resolutely to its own box, not prepared to give so much as a centimetre either way.
In simpler times such unilateralism went by the name of `capitulation`. Now it is called a `paradigm shift`. Why did Musharraf invite himself to Delhi? What gates of Somnath was he hoping to bring back? What he has achieved is a lesson in Indian diplomacy: Manmohan Singh mincing no words in restating the Indian position that Kashmir geography was set in stone and that the utmost to be hoped for lay in the new mantra of `porous borders`.
Far from getting Manmohan Singh to commit anything in return, on Siachen, Baglihar, etc, Musharraf tried to do India another favour by trying to sell the Indian line on Kashmir to the Kashmiri leadership, advising them to use their ``brains`` to understand the necessity of talking to India.
India doesn`t give a damn for the `soft` face of the Kashmiri leadership as represented by the Hurriyet. Its main concern is not to engage with anyone in Kashmir politically but to crush insurgency in the Valley militarily, for which it thinks this is the best time, thanks to the last of Musharraf`s historic u-turns: this time on the ``core issue`` of Kashmir.
Musharraf could at least have argued for the release of Kashmiri prisoners in Indian jails and for an easing of the human rights situation in the Valley. There is nothing to suggest that these concerns were raised or that India conceded anything on these points.
So the situation is like this: even as Musharraf bangs the drums of peace, Indian army operations in the Valley intensify, with many top-ranking Kashmiri militants killed in recent weeks.
Pakistan should be under no illusion that once militancy in the Valley dies down, India will have the same urgency to engage with it as at present. Like it or not, the present peace process is underpinned by Kashmiri blood and tears.
Once the Indians take care of Kashmiri militancy, they will deal with the Kashmir situation on their terms. This is the lesson of history. Back to 1972: this is the direction in which the peace process is headed. Don`t blame the Kashmiris for being dejected.
The foreign office now says India must stop construction on the Baglihar Dam if it was sincere in resolving the dispute. This is wonderful. In the Delhi joint statement, there are passing references to Siachen and Sir Creek, none to Baglihar. The place to make a pitch about Baglihar was Delhi, not the foreign office briefing room in Islamabad.
The joint statement as a whole is a limp document from Pakistan`s point of view but from India`s an undisguized triumph, breaking no new ground, merely restating old positions. If anything, the reference to Kashmir is more watered down than before.
It is a bit audacious than for the foreign office to describe the joint statement as a ``landmark statement``. If this is the foreign office`s definition of ``landmark``, it will run out of adjectives if something truly dramatic were to occur.
Another aspect of this exercise in furious back-pedalling is also noteworthy. Capitulation of this kind should at the very least bring some colour of shame to Pakistani cheeks.
Instead, far from feeling sorry, the outlook of our leadership is positively jaunty as it accepts India`s point of view. When the military made war, it made no sense to anyone. When it makes peace it swings to the other extreme, its pacifism making as little sense as its jingoism.
#311 Posted by amit on April 22, 2005 2:18:17 am
Re:Kardesh#308
Yaar, I totally agree with you that these borders are meaningless. I will just add one caveat. Lets take jay, urstruly, Gujjubania, echoboom and all their clones on both sides and exile them to Tibet, Afghanistan, Lakshwadeep or any other corner that is miles away from civilization. That will truly turn the subcontinent into a paradise :-).
Yaar, I totally agree with you that these borders are meaningless. I will just add one caveat. Lets take jay, urstruly, Gujjubania, echoboom and all their clones on both sides and exile them to Tibet, Afghanistan, Lakshwadeep or any other corner that is miles away from civilization. That will truly turn the subcontinent into a paradise :-).
#310 Posted by jay on April 21, 2005 11:12:29 pm
There can be no solution to kashmir through a simple indo-pak action. It is up to the world to decide whether it can tolerate a kargill-khan nexus. Kargill organised military action with out any kind of govt or higher military support, it was done a few jihadic elements in the army. Kahan mission is aso the same, the notion of islamic bomb to all islamic countries done by one individual. When will the kargill-khan combine came into existance. Should there be a iraquisation of pakistan, and that is what the world has to decide.
#308 Posted by kardesh on April 21, 2005 7:13:36 pm
amit #304, {``Salim, that is a good plan, except that we will end up with Akhand Bharat again :-)!! ... If that`s the idea, why bother to fight? Let`s just reunite and have Akhand Bharat. Kashmir problem is solved forever :-).
Amit,
You are one smart dude. You got it. I was trying to show the stupidity of these two countries fighting over borders. One way of getting all of Kashmir for BOTH sides is to take the rest of it for free, without a fight. Pakistan gets all of Punjab, Delhi, UP, MP, Bengal (at least west Bengal), Assam, Orissa, Jarkhand, UA, AP, Maharashtra, even Gujrat, TN, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Rajasthan, Haryana, HP, and yes, Bihar. India gets all of Punjab, Baluchistan, and yes NWFP (because you can`t say no - we took Bihar, so you should suffer, too), and then Sindh - thus making your national anthem technically correct.
As long as we can visit the area without hindrance, who cares where the damned place is anyway. Once united, with maximum local autonomy, people will love the idea. In the end, that is the ultimate solution, we will get there now or much later. :)
Amit,
You are one smart dude. You got it. I was trying to show the stupidity of these two countries fighting over borders. One way of getting all of Kashmir for BOTH sides is to take the rest of it for free, without a fight. Pakistan gets all of Punjab, Delhi, UP, MP, Bengal (at least west Bengal), Assam, Orissa, Jarkhand, UA, AP, Maharashtra, even Gujrat, TN, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Rajasthan, Haryana, HP, and yes, Bihar. India gets all of Punjab, Baluchistan, and yes NWFP (because you can`t say no - we took Bihar, so you should suffer, too), and then Sindh - thus making your national anthem technically correct.
As long as we can visit the area without hindrance, who cares where the damned place is anyway. Once united, with maximum local autonomy, people will love the idea. In the end, that is the ultimate solution, we will get there now or much later. :)
#312 Posted by cayenne on April 22, 2005 4:32:40 am
Re: # 308
Kardesh!!.....Unity???.....What about porn?.I don`t want any mullah`s running rampage over us telling us what to do or see.Don`t give me nightmares in the afternoon.
Kardesh!!.....Unity???.....What about porn?.I don`t want any mullah`s running rampage over us telling us what to do or see.Don`t give me nightmares in the afternoon.
#305 Posted by bbabu on April 21, 2005 4:38:33 pm
kardesh #294
`` Pakis have been concentrating on J&K for too long. When you bang your head against a brick wall and the brick wall doesn`t give, you must simply go around it.
What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight. When you pull them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. :) ``
You almost got me :-) I thought for a moment Rajasthan was separated from UP by Haryana and MP.
`` Pakis have been concentrating on J&K for too long. When you bang your head against a brick wall and the brick wall doesn`t give, you must simply go around it.
What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight. When you pull them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. :) ``
You almost got me :-) I thought for a moment Rajasthan was separated from UP by Haryana and MP.
#307 Posted by kardesh on April 21, 2005 7:05:39 pm
Re: # 305,
bbabu,
I know my Indian geography. Some one in Pakistan has to think strategically, why not me? :)
bbabu,
I know my Indian geography. Some one in Pakistan has to think strategically, why not me? :)
#304 Posted by amit on April 21, 2005 4:00:50 pm
Re:kardesh
You wrote,``What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight.``
Salim, that is a good plan, except that we will end up with Akhand Bharat again :-)!! Since Musharraf cant rule Akhand Bharat by himself (I dont think he has the bandwidth to rule Nagaland from Islamabad), he will have to share power with us hindus. If that`s the idea, why bother to fight? Let`s just reunite and have Akhand Bharat. Kashmir problem is solved forever :-).
You wrote,``What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight.``
Salim, that is a good plan, except that we will end up with Akhand Bharat again :-)!! Since Musharraf cant rule Akhand Bharat by himself (I dont think he has the bandwidth to rule Nagaland from Islamabad), he will have to share power with us hindus. If that`s the idea, why bother to fight? Let`s just reunite and have Akhand Bharat. Kashmir problem is solved forever :-).
#303 Posted by arjun_m on April 21, 2005 3:26:14 pm
#289 by HisExcellency on April 21, 2005 1:13pm PT
Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil.
So musharraf can`t live with the status quo and he can`t do anything to change it...not through a war, which he tried and failed in kargil..not through an insurgency, which you`ve tried for 15+ years only to see Pakistan`s name now associated with islamic extremism....
Pakistan under Musharraf has all but admitted that Indian-held Kashmir will probably never become part of Pakistan. That is saying something.
That is waking up and smelling the coffee....
This makes it imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful”
A majority of a billion Indians would beg to differ....
Tell you what...since you think Pakistan was victorious in Kargil, why don`t you try that again....
Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil.
So musharraf can`t live with the status quo and he can`t do anything to change it...not through a war, which he tried and failed in kargil..not through an insurgency, which you`ve tried for 15+ years only to see Pakistan`s name now associated with islamic extremism....
Pakistan under Musharraf has all but admitted that Indian-held Kashmir will probably never become part of Pakistan. That is saying something.
That is waking up and smelling the coffee....
This makes it imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful”
A majority of a billion Indians would beg to differ....
Tell you what...since you think Pakistan was victorious in Kargil, why don`t you try that again....
#302 Posted by jay on April 21, 2005 3:25:59 pm
Pakistani facts.
The educated of pakistan, like the tahmeds and romair keep talking about the human rights issue in kashmir. The fact remains that the umbrella organisation in pakistan collecting funds from abdul pakis in donation boxes, which the stukas and dost mitters never saw, is the ``united jihadic council``. That sums up the pak average attitude to india. It is ajihad and tahmeds and romairs are the educayed face of the same jihad.
next name chage for pakistan after the 1971 change has to be `` jihadic republic of pakistan``. Pakistan has moved so far from the ``islamic republic``, it has its own version, the TNT version of islam.
The educated of pakistan, like the tahmeds and romair keep talking about the human rights issue in kashmir. The fact remains that the umbrella organisation in pakistan collecting funds from abdul pakis in donation boxes, which the stukas and dost mitters never saw, is the ``united jihadic council``. That sums up the pak average attitude to india. It is ajihad and tahmeds and romairs are the educayed face of the same jihad.
next name chage for pakistan after the 1971 change has to be `` jihadic republic of pakistan``. Pakistan has moved so far from the ``islamic republic``, it has its own version, the TNT version of islam.
#301 Posted by bbabu on April 21, 2005 3:06:04 pm
HisExcellency #289
`` Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil. He is the coup maker who accused Nawaz Sharif of “selling out” on Kashmir during the Lahore summit with Mr Vajpayee in 1999. He is the general who returned from Agra 2001 in a huff because Mr Vajpayee wouldn’t accept Pakistan’s Kashmir-related pre-condition for a dialogue without posing India’s own cross-border terrorism pre-condition. He is the general under whom the jihadis became audacious enough to attack the parliament in Srinagar and then the parliament in New Delhi. So if you consider the distance he has traveled in the opposite direction since then, you can measure the depth of his courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India. ``
If he can survive a sellout of the Taliban he can survive the cutoff of Jihad in Kashmir.
If the hardliners can live with a freeze on Kashmir from 1965 to 1989 I am sure they can live now. The gap between India and Pakistan is greater than before.
`` General Musharraf’s New Delhi visit aims to spur the Kashmiris into uniting under one platform, showing flexibility and taking bold decisions. He also wants more flexibility from India on the urgency of a tripartite dialogue and settlement of the Kashmir dispute. If the Kashmiris can stamp their approval on any settlement with India, he can “sell” such a Kashmir solution to Pakistanis instead of being accused of selling out to India. The sooner India recognizes the true worth, and limitations, of General Musharraf and his strategic approach, the better. It would be a great mistake to view his flexibility as a sign of current weakness rather than potential strength. ``
India has improved relations with several countries - USA, China, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. All of them have supported you in the past. Pakistan has a limited deck of cards to play - nukes or low intensity warfare.
`` Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil. He is the coup maker who accused Nawaz Sharif of “selling out” on Kashmir during the Lahore summit with Mr Vajpayee in 1999. He is the general who returned from Agra 2001 in a huff because Mr Vajpayee wouldn’t accept Pakistan’s Kashmir-related pre-condition for a dialogue without posing India’s own cross-border terrorism pre-condition. He is the general under whom the jihadis became audacious enough to attack the parliament in Srinagar and then the parliament in New Delhi. So if you consider the distance he has traveled in the opposite direction since then, you can measure the depth of his courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India. ``
If he can survive a sellout of the Taliban he can survive the cutoff of Jihad in Kashmir.
If the hardliners can live with a freeze on Kashmir from 1965 to 1989 I am sure they can live now. The gap between India and Pakistan is greater than before.
`` General Musharraf’s New Delhi visit aims to spur the Kashmiris into uniting under one platform, showing flexibility and taking bold decisions. He also wants more flexibility from India on the urgency of a tripartite dialogue and settlement of the Kashmir dispute. If the Kashmiris can stamp their approval on any settlement with India, he can “sell” such a Kashmir solution to Pakistanis instead of being accused of selling out to India. The sooner India recognizes the true worth, and limitations, of General Musharraf and his strategic approach, the better. It would be a great mistake to view his flexibility as a sign of current weakness rather than potential strength. ``
India has improved relations with several countries - USA, China, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. All of them have supported you in the past. Pakistan has a limited deck of cards to play - nukes or low intensity warfare.
#300 Posted by rsridhar on April 21, 2005 2:59:52 pm
re:#277 by HisExcellency
To me, both India and Pak seem to be actors in a drama whose script has been already written (by USA) and each act well rehearsed.
Slowly, the items in the script are unfolding.
If India has such a stranglehold on Kashmir (as many Indians in this forum would like to believe), why is the LOC being opened up to Kashmiris from both sides. India should have delcared LOC as sacrosanct, not allowed any travel across it until it is duly recognised as an IB and certainly no travel with anything other than an Indian passport. Why is LOC being made into a loose border.
In this regard, opinion poll on J and K recently is revealing.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/18/top8.htm
(According to the poll conducted by Synovate India, a market research agency, 53.9 per cent of the respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri chose independence.
A staggering 77 per cent of those polled in five metros - Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad - and 55 per cent of respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri think the de facto position of the Line of Control as the effective border should be made de jure as well.
``Considering that the poll in J&K was restricted to Kashmiri Muslims, that`s a revealing reflection of the popular mood,`` the Times said. The poll also shows all too clearly that public opinion, whether in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere, is solidly behind the idea of the border being `soft`.
Thus, there is massive support for the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service with 80 per cent in the metros and 92 per cent in Jammu and Kashmir backing the idea.)
Clearly, having a loose border serves the strategic purpose of India. It is a popular step (as the above poll highlights). Extremists, trying to stop this popular step (as they have already) will only make themselves more unpopular. Their popular base has already taken a nosedive with the attempted attack on the first bus service across the LOC. India must have been desperate to see this happen to have allowed Kashmiris without Indian passport to travel. After all, LOC is not I.B and a passport is not required. It would have been foolish to believe that Pak would ever allow Kashmiris across LOC with an Indian passport.
From the press coverage of the bus service in International news, it seems like something that major powers agree to.
Is this then a first step towards unification of Kashmir? What would happen after that? It is all unclear right now. Only time will tell.
Sridhar
To me, both India and Pak seem to be actors in a drama whose script has been already written (by USA) and each act well rehearsed.
Slowly, the items in the script are unfolding.
If India has such a stranglehold on Kashmir (as many Indians in this forum would like to believe), why is the LOC being opened up to Kashmiris from both sides. India should have delcared LOC as sacrosanct, not allowed any travel across it until it is duly recognised as an IB and certainly no travel with anything other than an Indian passport. Why is LOC being made into a loose border.
In this regard, opinion poll on J and K recently is revealing.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/18/top8.htm
(According to the poll conducted by Synovate India, a market research agency, 53.9 per cent of the respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri chose independence.
A staggering 77 per cent of those polled in five metros - Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad - and 55 per cent of respondents in Srinagar and Rajouri think the de facto position of the Line of Control as the effective border should be made de jure as well.
``Considering that the poll in J&K was restricted to Kashmiri Muslims, that`s a revealing reflection of the popular mood,`` the Times said. The poll also shows all too clearly that public opinion, whether in Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere, is solidly behind the idea of the border being `soft`.
Thus, there is massive support for the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service with 80 per cent in the metros and 92 per cent in Jammu and Kashmir backing the idea.)
Clearly, having a loose border serves the strategic purpose of India. It is a popular step (as the above poll highlights). Extremists, trying to stop this popular step (as they have already) will only make themselves more unpopular. Their popular base has already taken a nosedive with the attempted attack on the first bus service across the LOC. India must have been desperate to see this happen to have allowed Kashmiris without Indian passport to travel. After all, LOC is not I.B and a passport is not required. It would have been foolish to believe that Pak would ever allow Kashmiris across LOC with an Indian passport.
From the press coverage of the bus service in International news, it seems like something that major powers agree to.
Is this then a first step towards unification of Kashmir? What would happen after that? It is all unclear right now. Only time will tell.
Sridhar
#299 Posted by bbabu on April 21, 2005 2:56:45 pm
HisExcellency #285
`` These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India. ``
What makes you think drilling of an Indian BSF officer makes India any less potent than it is ? Killing of Pakistanis in Afghanistan or Iran has no relevance to the strength of Pakistan.
Comparing the size of the current Bangladeshi army with Pakistani deployment in the 1970s is silly. Pakistan never had a plan to defend East Pakistan. Bangladesh is an independent state. 7 divisions of infantrymen is a pretty small force for a country of 140 million people.
When is Nepal a benchmark of stability and wisdom ? It is a country in chaos.
Nepal requires access to the sea through India. Bangladesh requires the help of India to control flood waters. Irrespective of their elites warped thinking they will come back to the table to negotiate with India.
`` These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India. ``
What makes you think drilling of an Indian BSF officer makes India any less potent than it is ? Killing of Pakistanis in Afghanistan or Iran has no relevance to the strength of Pakistan.
Comparing the size of the current Bangladeshi army with Pakistani deployment in the 1970s is silly. Pakistan never had a plan to defend East Pakistan. Bangladesh is an independent state. 7 divisions of infantrymen is a pretty small force for a country of 140 million people.
When is Nepal a benchmark of stability and wisdom ? It is a country in chaos.
Nepal requires access to the sea through India. Bangladesh requires the help of India to control flood waters. Irrespective of their elites warped thinking they will come back to the table to negotiate with India.
#298 Posted by vivek on April 21, 2005 2:51:07 pm
correction to my previous post -
no Indian leader has the option of transfer of land today or anytime in the future.
no Indian leader has the option of transfer of land today or anytime in the future.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- hamidm2: ........ the bigger question... Pleas For Sanity as
- stuka: Jang: Borivilli Express has... Pleas For Sanity as
- TOLKININ: Re: # 11 ACheema bhai... Nothing Queer About It
- laddu: indians need to understand... The Future of Indo
- dharma: The police should lose... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: If everytime mob goes... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 202 "Yes Modi... Pleas For Sanity as
- KHYBER: RE # 101...THANKS FOR... Pleas For Sanity as
