Gen. Musharraf Visits Delhi

anybody else have any more precise numbers as to the deaths by the indian forces. ill really appreciate it. even if u dont have any proper source...i want to know what u may think the number may be!

#56 by arjun_m on April 26, 2005 8:19am PT

thanks bro. i appreciate your help!

#55 by paindupastry on April 26, 2005 8:08am PT


so.....keeping in mind my above post....could u give me a figure est. of how many people may have been killed by indian forces.


During the NDA administration, Advani told the parliament of India that the death toll in Kashmir since 1989 was around 60K. This includes the ``informants`` killed by the jihadis and the civilians killed when the jihadis toss a grenade and it misses it`s mark...There is no breakdown of these figures....

so.....keeping in mind my above post....could u give me a figure est. of how many people may have been killed by indian forces. the point of asking for a figure is to get some sort of an estimate from non pakistani sources since my friends dont quite believe in anything printed on pak media. so if u could give me something...like a dozen killed a hundred...a thousand...several thousand...etc

Reply to # 51
``which seeks rationalizations by comparing the worst acts of each other and by a method of statistical comparsions, seeks to justify a wrong as a right. ``

that was not my intention. the reason i put forth this question was that i was having a discussion with some of my indian friends (as in real friends) and i said something about the number of kashmiris killed by indian troops in response to thier question of why these insurgents r there in kashmir....they absolutely denied it. they said not a single kashmiri (excluding insuregents and those who wished to harm the state ) was hurt by the indian forces thats why i wanted to get the opinion of a much larger group of people namely all you chowkies out here. my motive was not to underpin the horrible stuff that has been done in revenge of this or that. its all been wrong but i just wished to know whether the sort of news i have is true or whether my friends have been fooled all along or perhaps they dont want to admit any wrongdoing on thier part. once again, i was not justifying any violence from anybody.

``but to admit that we both are not without sin``

thats the sort of conclusion i wanted to get to. im glad u share my views on that. thanks

i do hope that u get to read this

#51 by ferozk

Feroz Sahib,

I whole heartedly agree with you, but you will appreciate the fact that Indians by and large have only responded to Paki interactors who waste no opportunity to talk about atrocities committed by Indian forces in Kashmir, yet never mention 1971, or Jihadi killings, or the recent campaigns in Waziristan and Balochistan.

#47 by paindupastry

[i believe muslims have this sense of brotherhood, where if one is being hurt the other is obliged to come to help and respond with equal force.]

Is that why the Paki Army raped and killed 3 million Bangladeshis, mostly Muslims? Is that why it is bombing Waziristan and Balochistan even as I type this?

re: paindupastry # various

Do the number of atrocities commited by the Indian troops in Kashmir really matter?

One act of abuse by the security forces against a civilian is an atrocity in itself.

I have been on Chowk long enough to admit that there exists a very twisted logic, shared by the Indians and the Pakistanis alike, which seeks rationalizations by comparing the worst acts of each other and by a method of statistical comparsions, seeks to justify a wrong as a right. It does not matter whether the Indians committed more atrocities or the militants committed more, beause one such act of abuse against the civilian population is an act of atrocity itself.

However, what matters and what is the need of the hour is not to engage in nitpicking the worst offenders amongst us, but to admit that we both are not without sin. It makes no sense to point fingers at the Indians and claim that they have a blemish on their characters, because we are also not without any blemishes on our own character! A time is fast approaching, when all these sorts of arguments will have to be laid aside, because there is a limit of endurance beyond which it becomes impossible to sustain a sense and a feeling of hatred. For too long this sense of enemity has done nothing but devour us from the inside as a cancerous tumor and it will not do anything good and sooner, rather than later, we will have to tear it out of our body politic and throw it away.

No one is denying that the atrocities did not happen, but no one amongst us has the monopoly on grief or moral indignation. There were atrocities committed during the hellish days of August in 1947, but we moved beyond its limitatations and in time, the wounds healed; the only memory of the pain was the scar, which snakes across the maps and seperates our two nations. We have to move beyond the emotionalism of Kashmir and not judge the comparative crimes we have committed but decide how best we can act, so that such crimes and atrocities are not committed again in the future.

We all have a choice; either we can exist in the past and watch the future slip away from our grasp or we can all stand up and cry, ``carpe diem`` and hold on to the moment, when everything seems possible and if there is a chance that peace is possible, then we must not let the baggage of the past burden us so much that we may stumble in the sight of our final destination.

Ciao

#46 by paindupastry on April 25, 2005 6:43pm PT


they WILL fight back!


As will the Indians....last man standing wins....

Re: # 44

any figures on how many people were murdered, women raped etc. during the mid 80`s onwards
whats the figure in your mind.

Re: # 43

once again. id like to hear the answer to my question...not how it relates to other stuff! ur answer will not mean anything apart from giving me more information. i hope some of u will be of help. thanks

Re: # 42

i believe muslims have this sense of brotherhood, where if one is being hurt the other is obliged to come to help and respond with equal force.

cud u please answer the question specifically rather than asking me a question

Re: # 42

they WILL fight back!

from manto`s rag...

to summarize: post 9/11, jihad became uncool...The Pakistani army ran out of options...add US pressure to the mix and both sides have decided to accept the status quo..without the shooting at each other part....

Realism sets in —Rashed Rahman

President General Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India and the meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have produced both hope and scepticism among commentators on both sides of the border. General Musharraf himself has characterised the exchanges in New Delhi between the two sides as constituting the irreversibility of the peace process between Pakistan and India and as a “breakthrough”. The contrast with the failure in the Agra summit in 2001 could not be more glaring. It is well to keep in mind though, that the Agra summit 2001 and the New Delhi summit 2005 are separated by 9/11. This defines and helps explain the difference between the two outcomes.

What exactly has been achieved in New Delhi 2005? On the part of the Pakistani military establishment a coming down to earth and acceptance of undeniable realities. These realities dictate recognition of the fact that India has outstripped Pakistan in economic, military and diplomatic strength. Our repeated forays into the uncomfortable territory of being the ‘most allied ally of the US’, far from reaping the touted benefits, have produced nothing but disappointment and pathos. Neither diplomatic means nor resort to war (conventional and irregular) over almost six decades helped nudge Pakistan any nearer to its goal of resolving the Kashmir issue, the greatest cause of contention between the two neighbouring countries.

Washington, meanwhile, has discovered post-9/11 the economic and strategic importance of India, especially as a counterweight in Asia and the world to the growing clout of China. Alliance with the US, even when it was prepared (fitfully) to provide modern weapons to our armed forces, did not live up to the hopes and expectations of the military establishment, Washington’s ‘best friend’ in Pakistan.

Pakistan has accepted in New Delhi that its traditional stand based on the 1948-49 UN Security Council resolutions no longer finds a sympathetic international audience. The only way out now therefore, given India’s preponderance in military, economic and strategic terms globally, and the reluctance of the Bush administration (General Musharraf’s most ardent backers in the US) to go beyond nudging both Pakistan and India to settle their issues peacefully through bilateral negotiations, is to go for a historic compromise. That is exactly what has transpired in New Delhi.

General Musharraf has accepted Manmohan Singh’s proposition that “borders cannot be redrawn” while rejecting accepting the Line of Control as an international border. In turn, India has not underlined its usual insistence on an end to the so-called “cross-border terrorism” as a precondition for meaningful talks and progress. General Musharraf has spoken of “soft” borders before embarking on his journey.

The two sides have translated this in black and white in the Joint Statement after the summit by accepting the need for an enhanced bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; allowing trucks to ply the same route to encourage trade between the two sides of divided Kashmir; a new bus route between Amritsar and Lahore, later to be extended to Nankana Sahib; and the implementation of the decision to open the Khokropar-Munabao border.

These steps represent a softening of the borders, or at the very least, normalisation of the border regime between the two countries. On the contentious issues of Siachen and Sir Creek, it is back to the drawing board. On Kashmir, the likely eventual outcome of the present series of confidence building measures will be a scaling down of the insurgency and of the Indian military and security forces’ presence in Indian-held Kashmir and an internal political compact between New Delhi and Srinagar and Islamabad and Muzaffarabad for autonomy, democracy and genuine special status to the two halves of the state. Whether this will meet General Musharraf’s criteria of a ‘final’ solution that satisfies Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris, is a moot point. General Musharraf has warned that unless such a solution is found, although he is now prepared to give it more time, the problem could erupt again some years down the road.

For the moment at least, the potential ‘spoilers’ of a series of concessions on Kashmir by both sides, have failed to create any momentum despite the attack on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service. As a consequence perhaps, the Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest Kashmiri guerrilla group, has in principle accepted the possibility of a ceasefire, should New Delhi propose any such measure.

It is axiomatic by now, but was not sufficiently clear to our military establishment and policy makers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that their reversal on the Afghan policy left the door ajar to the likely, reversal of jihad in Kashmir since all irregular warfare struggles would more than likely find themselves lumped into the ‘terrorist’ basket. That has now come to pass. History may therefore have passed by the armed militant movement in Kashmir. Whether they accept this or not, their best bet now appears to be to bide their time and explore whatever political openings present themselves during the continuing talks between Pakistan and India to normalise their overall relations and find a compromise on Kashmir that can prove acceptable to all.

paindupastry #35

`` Kindly answer the question or refrain from responding to my query. I am not giving a final judgement on anything rather i am just asking a simple question to better understand the situation. ``

The Indian state is hardly an example of human rights. Indian army was pretty brutal in crushing Kashmiri rebels. It will certainly be a blot on their record.

Counter-insurgency operations are a dirty job. But human right violations of the Indian state pale in comparison to some of neighboring entities - China under Mao, Burma .............

#42 heh heh real arjun is missing. else he would have answered..

indian army commited 1/100 th of atrocities as compared pakistani army in east-pakistan.