The Ground Beneath Pakistan’s Feet

re:#676 by harish_hyd
Why do u even have to debate with a m oron?
The guy is like a gramaphone recorder struck in a groove. Keeps harping the same theme again and again (with some variations of course).
Sridhar

And btw, welcome to Reality -

States and Gods are, unlike humans, not supposed to act morally and they Never do including the one that was in Medinah or what have you.

Romair:
you are ONLY airing one view on kashmir among many from Pakistanis` side. Infact, Pakistani Kashmiri brethren wouldnot agree with your wholesale anticipation of Kashmir Banega Pakistan. I as a pakistani completely disagree with you. So save your BS about how your views are reperesentative of Pakistan, makes me wanna throw up.

Romair#672:

By country-centric policies, I did not mean ``might is right``.

You asked Anil and me to view it from a Pakistani viewpoint. Here is how I would view it as a Pakistani.

``Kashmir rightfully belongs to us because the basis of which British India was divided, it should have come to us. India agreed to a plebiscite in Kashmir under the United Nations and I am certain that in such a situation, Muslims of Kashmir would vote for Pakistan.

But there are certain problems. The two nation theory which ties religion to nation has now fallen into disrepute, even in some circles in Pakistan. The plebiscite is now impracticable because even the UN secretary general has virtually called it redundant and, in any case, we are not prepared to comply with the prescribed pre-conditions for a plebiscite.

So, what do we do? We should now try a new basis, one of the right of self-determination and tie it with human rights. This is something which no reasonable person can disagree with. This means that our earlier stand on Junagadh and Hyderabad was wrong, but what the heck, they are gone anyway! Maybe tomorrow, this principle may come to haunt us in Balochistan or Sindh. So what? Kal ka kal dekha jaayega!``

At least, this is my understanding of the Pakistani stand. I think that even this strategy would not have worked because India hung on to Kashmir during the 1950s and 1960s when practically the whole United Nations was against it, but at least this new stance would have garnered Pakistan some international sympathy if it had not attacked in Kargil or become a training ground for jihad and jihadis.

Harish-hyd (post#676) has brought back the issue of signing of the instrument of accession. I had given the name of Mehar Chand Mahajan not because he was a Chief Justice (although our chief justices are known for not kow-towing to the government) but because he was the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (Dewan) at that time. If you do not believe him because he is Hindu, so was the Maharaja who signed the instrument.

Harish also wants me to bring his post 676 to your attention, which I duly have.:-)

#679 by shankar

[If , as Romair puts it, Pakistan`s course should be linked primarily to the Middle East & China....go for it....Pakistan`s loss more than India`s....]

Absolute bunkum! The Arabs think of Pakis as no more than a minor nuisance. If tomorrow, the Pakis seek support on disputes with India, guess who would the Arabs support? For all their pig-headedness, the Arabs sure know which side of their bread is buttered.

[but dont be as deluded as to think China &/or the Islamic world will support your cause, other than some ``resolutions`` at OIC conferences (which Pakistan threatened to boycott, if the issue wasnt kept alive)....even the Palestinians & Kurds have greater support for independance...]

A case in point is the Kargil invasion. When the Paki Army was getting its butt kicked, it ran screaming to the Chinese. The Chinese quietly told Pakistan to settle its disputes with India bilaterally. That was a polite way of saying ``f*** off, and don`t expect us to butt in for you``.

Re: # 675

The ``Pakistani point of view`` has been hijacked by the Pakistani military, whose spokesman is ...yeah...you guessed it!

The Partition was a divorce...whether it was RIGHT or not is just an academic excercise...In the ``settlement`` of the divorce, Pakistanis feel they got an unfair deal. What BOTH sides agree is that India & Pakistan are 2 countries now & too much water has flowed under the bridge.

The military has kept this alive, they have nursed the Azaaad Kashmiris, because their interests merge.
Who is supporting the Kashmir ``cause`` these days?, the GoP & the Al-Qeeda!!!....a more ORPHANED cause I have never seen.

The Pakistani military-Azaad Kashmiri nexus has & will continue to pull Pakistan down. If , as Romair puts it, Pakistan`s course should be linked primarily to the Middle East & China....go for it....Pakistan`s loss more than India`s....

but dont be as deluded as to think China &/or the Islamic world will support your cause, other than some ``resolutions`` at OIC conferences (which Pakistan threatened to boycott, if the issue wasnt kept alive)....even the Palestinians & Kurds have greater support for independance...

hamid-mia,

the difference between my dear birather Romair & that african cichlid of yours, is that the latter mercifully dies (unless the mrs saves him)....

Romair-mian`s mind, though, will continue to live on..in eternity...

in fact; it regularly leaves this galaxy...he`s even met yoda & darth vader & have apprised them of India`s perfidy...

Re: # 651

hamid-mia,

{{dost-mittar,

............ oh, so that is how it happened !....... that being the case, you can keep kashmir ...... }}

i`m so glad SOME Pakistanis can see reality!

{{...... god bless you and please do let us know if you want any other parts of pakistan ........ }}

Au contraire....in my undying gratitude to you, may I humbly present ...(on a silver platter)...the state of BIHAR to Pakistan?...you may take its enlightened citizens too

Anil Sahib and DM Sahib,

For an intelligent and honest discussion to take place, it is necessary that both parties be honest and intelligent. Even when one of the conditions is not met, either the discussion will lose steam or communication is lost. Romair is intelligent in a twisted sort of way but not honest. He seems to be stuck on one thing, that India has forcibly occupied Kashmir against the Kashmiris’ will.

I have a few questions for the man, and since he has faith in only you two guys, I hope you will help me in making him answer these questions.

1. He claims that the Instrument of Accession that Maharaja Hari Singh (MHS) signed is fake. By the same token, can we not argue that the IoA (of Baluchistan to Pakistan) that the Khan of Kalat (KoK) signed is a fake too? If no Paki witnessed the IoA signed by MHS, no Indian witnessed the IoA signed by the KoK too. Fair enough? Yet no Indian has never argued from that POV.

2. If Pakistan was so concerned about the Kashmiris, how come the tribal raiders (a convenient euphemism for Paki forces dressed in Pushtun gear) stopped by at Baramulla and indulged in plunder and the rape of local Kashmiri women as if there was no tomorrow? Why did not one Paki leader order them to stop the massacre?

3. Again, if Romair is so concerned about Kashmiris, why hasn’t he ever protested the handover of a part of Kashmir by Pakistan to China?

4. And finally, why does every Kashmiri candidate standing in the local elections in “Azad” Kashmir have to sign an undertaking promising full support to the accession of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan? Note that even the so-called PM and President of AJK have signed this undertaking. Is self-determination a euphemism for the accession of J&K to Pakistan?

Gentlemen, unless Romair answers these questions, debating with him is an exercise in futility.

Anil #various: We can take this discussion offline. This thread is going to be gone soon, and the discussion isn`t going anywhere. Perhaps, we can discuss it in detail, when we meet in Lahore. For the time being, do consider Gandhi`s views on Kashmir. Do read his writings on the subject. He was extremely upset at Nehru, for what Nehru did in Kashmir.....

I am afraid you and Dost-mittar are my final hope. I have a reputation for having a very thick skin, on this site. For six years, every Indian (and Pakistani) has hurled all kinds of abuse on me, and I have smiled if off.

However, I do get frustrated when I see even you and Dost-mittar, not interested in any kind of peace in South Asia, that is not based on solely an Indian point of view. I think both of you, like most Indians, have bought into the media biases in India, against Pakistan. Hopefully someday you two will look at it from a Pakistani`s point of view. As well as try to define principles, which need to be followed, consistently, for conflict resolution in Pakistan.....I will let you and Dost-mittar define whatever principle you want. As long as you use it consistently on all events in South Asia. Anything other than might is right......

........As for me, I am gung-ho for peace between India and Pakistan, as long as it takes, but only on terms agreeable to all three parties. The moment an ultimatum is given that there will be no territorial adjustments, regardless of what the Kashmiris want, I will be out of the discussion...........And nearly all Pakistanis agree with me (I have a feeling Hamidm also)......To me that is the legitimization of an occupation. Indians would not have accepted such a solution from the Brits on independence......Would they have......

As long as such ultimatums are not given, and all options are left on the table, I think Pakistan and India and Kashmiris should go all out to restore relations and make peace.........I believe in Pakistan following Kennedy`s saying: ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate``

Re: # 661

Romair:

Regarding your point of bring in pre-conditions to backburner, Dost-Mitter has already addressed.

What looks to you as the solution today may not look as the only solution to the next generation of Indians and Indian-Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Pakistani-Kashmiris. Just as to the generation before you military solution looked very viable. Therefore, I do not agree that Kashmir is put on the backburner only with a road map to something that will be achieved by the next generation in 30 or 50 years. You could see that many Indians of the younger generation have no patience for Gandhian solutions now, and will find their own solutions. Likewise it will be Pakistanis too, I have certainly seen a remarkable difference in the attitudes of born in the U.S., Pakistan-American kids and kids arriving from Pakistan.

Other points that are in your post that I will address here:

People have Friends, Nations have Interests:
This implies there are three areas: (a) where interests clash, (b) where interests coincide and (c) where interests do no have any impact. Nations look to minimize (a), work to maximize (b) and function with (c). This is one basis of diplomacy. I do not want to engage in calling anyone naive etc., because I know you are very smart, sincere and well meaning. However, I can assure you when Nixon made that trip to Beijing he did not go there to sort out (a), but wene there to explore (b).

Today in little over one generation the trade has grown so much and China`s power had increased accordingly.

Do you really think if the war like situation has prevailed, China would have attracted the kind of FDI it has and the kind manufacturing base it has, and soon the kind of knowledge base it will develop? Before you answer this question, let me tell you my answer is NO. No U.S., no European, no Japanese, no Taiwanese, no Korean, no Hong Kong, no Singaporean enterprise would have put the money and resources in China to create a simple upstream integration for Chinese factories to link with the export markets.

I honestly believe you are grossly under rating the power of economics, trade, greed and profit. Or else your are overrating the power of religion and military adventures and may not realize that it is the economic reason that nations and people go into military or non-military adventure.

Why do you expect, Indian leaders to be not India centric? I certainly do not expect Paksitani leaders to be any less than Pakistan centric. If it is diplomacy then I would look interests of each to sorted out in the three caterogies that I mentioned above.

You state:

``If India has cut-off that option, from day one, then what in the world are we heading for? ``

In my view this should tell you that where India has currently drawn its line. May be the next generation might draw a different line. If Pakistan had succeeded in 1948, India`s current position would have been different. The fact is it did not, not in 1948, not in 1965 and not in Kargil. BTW, I do believe if the current Musharaff - Singh negotiations do succeed then there will be some minor adjustments, but nothing like the postal address of Srinagar becoming, Srinagar, Pakistan; or Muzzafarabad, India. May be in 2040, it might when it brings the issue to the front and center with different ground realities, the negotiations may succeed or may be redunant.

I know for fact that if India would keep bringing troops into kashmir for the next 40 years, and Pakistan kept bring peace and prosperity in its Kashmir, India would loose. However, if it is other way round, Paksitan may loose its Kashmir. In the third possible scenario, it will be interesting to see. Also, I do not know what power Islam will hold over the masses as a religion at that time, so how the religious card will get played is unlcear to me. I know hinduism`s hold will be more diffused.

I do regard myself as a decent and honorable business person, who ranks human values quite high. In the industry I work, intellectual capital is supreme, which can only be developed thru respecting human values.

Will I have problem doing business with Pakistan? No I would not, if I have a similar person or group to deal with. My suggestion to you about Electronic Manufacturing in Pakistan is quite serious and after a great thought and experience. It can give Pakistan a jump start, if free-trade agreement can be negotiated by it, rather than the 40 year road map to Kashmir problem. It will create synergistic not competitive situation for South Asian growth.

I don`t have any hang up about ``Atut-Ang``. I have a very limited agenda at the age and stage of my life that I am in. I love to work with younger generation, and spend a lot of time helping them build their ventures. I enjoy this role. In business venture, more than trust, it is the contract, ability to execute the contract, and in case of trouble definable and clear recourse and remedy arising out of the contract are important. After all Iran-Contra affair should be fresh in your mind. Do you really think Col. Oliver North, Pres. Regan trusted Iranians or Contras? Do you really think when Nixon made the first trip to China, he trusted Chinese leadership? Trust is something that is built having workable contracts at least in buisness. Even then you may develop trust, but if it does not make business sense then nations don`t invest, because they don`t have interest.

I would say by not reaching Srinagar Airport before Indian plane loads, Pakistan missed the golden opportunity, and by not winning in 1965 Pakistan lost another golden opportunity, and by not winning Kargil, and not cutting out the supply road to the valley and ladakh Pakistan missed the golden opportunity. The bottom line is each looks golden opportunity when it is missed. India in the current mindset is not going to change on the territorial adjustment, and Pakistan is not going to change either. From an Indian perspective, it can be said Pakistan failed to resolve the Kashmir issue in Agra summit, because of its insistence. This is called a deadlock, and cannot be solved, until somthing changes.

My generation could not solve Kashmir problem, may be your generation would not be able to solve. It might be my grand kids generation might see the futility and decide to solve it over a cup of coffee in Muzzfarabad and Srinagar.

My gut feeling is that when Pakistan becomes less uni-religious society, and the generation that has gown with different values that are more economic, social, non-religous education and entreprenurial then this problem will get solve, provided India keep evolving toward more liberal economic, social, non-religious and entreprenurial society. I am not pessimistic, and I have great hope in humans.

Anil

Anil #670: ``From this web-site, two things became clear to me that Indians of all shades, religions and ages on Kashmir, and Gandhi do have a common voice.``

This is actually not true. Gandhi`s views on Kashmri are diametrically opposite to yours. Gandhi supported my point of view, wholeheartedly. This is what he said,

``The real sovereign of the State are the people of the State. If the ruler is not a servant of the people then he is not the ruler...now the power belongs to the people.....The people of Kashmir should be asked whether they want to join Pakistan and India. Let them do as they want. The ruler is nothing. The people are everything.....If the people of Kashmir are in favour of option for Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so.`` (Gandhi`s Passion: Wolpert)

Everything cannot be put on the front-burner or the back-burner, as and when India wants. I think it is this kind of rigid thinking that only looks at an Indian-centric point of view of South Asia that is the cause of all the problems in South Asia. And I am quite disappointed you hold such views. Hopefully some day you will change them. Pehaps you should listen to Gandhi, if you don`t want to listen to me, on Kashmir.........If you don`t even want to listen to Gandhi, then I am afraid nothing I will say will convince you.........

All civilized countries base their conflict-resolution on well-defined international principles. Not on might is right. From 47 till today, India has been growing geographically at the expense of Pakistan, by following the might is right principle. It took Junagarh. Then it occupid Kashmir. The it assisted in dividing Pakistan in two. It has now even occupied half of a glacier! It now wants to legitimize its occupation of the reamining part of Kashmir. Where will it stop? Will it be sitting in Lahore next? It cannot be allowed to do so, forever.

Try to look at it from a Pakistani`s point of view........

As I keep repeating you and Dost-mittar need to get out of this might is right and India is right mindframe. It has done enough harm to South Asia. India needs to agree to a long term timeframe for Kashmir resolutiion. And in parallel, Pakistan should normalize relations. And both should be kept on course. But if from day one, Manmohan Singh says, we will not agree to terrotorial adjustments, then he is not putting Kashmir on the backburner. He is basically solving the problem, right there and then. Isn`t he?

What options has he left for Pakistan at that point? He is basically saying, ``Its my way or the highway, now lets normalise relations.`` Its the equivalent of you abducting my daughter, and stating I will never release her, but now lets normalise relations.

It doesn`t make sense to me. At least state that you will agree to release her in thirty years, if we start normalising relations from today...........

Dost-mittar #671: ``The only principle that governs countries is one of self interest or, at best, enlightened self-interest. India will follow India-centric policies just as Pakistan will follow Pak-centric policies, Iran, Iran-centric policies, the US, US-centric policies and so on.``

Are you admitting that India has not followed any principles on which it has based its relations, in South Asia? Basically it has been might is right. This is why South Asia is a mess......

Only areas, forever, involved in violence, follow the might is right principle. The rest of the world has moved on. It follows principle based solutions. It is only due to this, that conflicts have been resolved in Europe, etc. In areas, where might is right is followed, violence remains. South Asia being one of them......

Under such circumstances, if it is known that India will follow this policy, why in the world should Paksitan not do the same? India is stuck in Kashmir. It has not been able to militarily win it over, like it won over Junagarh and Bangladesh. Why should Pakistan try to solve the problem? Why should Pakistan make peace?

Using your policy, why shouldn`t Pakistan keep building its economy, while simultaneously funding the insurgency there? Using such a policy, South Asia will remain a mess forever......

It is about time we got out of this train of thought, don`t you think. And started solving issues like mature countries, on basis of principles. Those are the only solutions that last. The only issue solved in this manner was the Indus Water Treaty. Which is why it has lasted. Though now Baghliar dam etc. may ruin it..........

``Hamidm: You have inadvertantly supported Indian viewpoint on Kashmir. They have always been pointing out to the examples of India and China pursuing normalisation of relations while sticking to their respective positions on the disputed boundary issue. It is Romair who says he agrees with your suggestion and then goes on to tell what conditions India would have to fulfil before such normalisation can take place.``

I am not sure if you understood Hamidm completely. Or I didn`t. Pakistan`s, ``respective position`` is that India needs to define a solution for Kashmir, while simultaneously moving on other issues. This is not a condition. It is a position. Just like India`s position is that Pakistan must normalise relations, if it wants to discuss Kashmir.

Both need to happen in parallel. However, if from day one, India states, that there will be no territorial adjustments, then it has kicked out Pakistan`s position. It is basically stating to Pakistan that you normalise relations, but we are not going to consider your point of view on Kashmir.

It has basically disregarded Paksitan`s point of view, once and for all. At this time, should Pakistan disregard India`s point of view also? Or should Pakistan keep going........

Romair:

The only principle that governs countries is one of self interest or, at best, enlightened self-interest. India will follow India-centric policies just as Pakistan will follow Pak-centric policies, Iran, Iran-centric policies, the US, US-centric policies and so on. The various-centric policies will sometimes converge and other times diverge. Winners and losers are decided by the cards which players hold at any given time, the knowledge of the cards the other players hold and the skill with which they use those cards.

This does not however mean that India`s India-centric policy should preclude a movement towards a resolution of the Kashmir issue. At least this Indo-Canadian does not think so.

hamidm2:
You have inadvertantly supported Indian viewpoint on Kashmir. They have always been pointing out to the examples of India and China pursuing normalisation of relations while sticking to their respective positions on the disputed boundary issue. It is Romair who says he agrees with your suggestion and then goes on to tell what conditions India would have to fulfil before such normalisation can take place.

soysauce:

Going by the number of words, if not posts, my friend Romair wins every debate in which he takes part. :-)

Re: # 661

Romair:

Backburner is the only solution for now.

I know you are very fond of calling ``Atut-Ang``, call whatever you may. BTW, I had never heard of ``Atut-Ang`` being used for Kashmir, until I read your posts here, this is honest truth. Give whatever name, Atut-Ang or its Urdu / Arabic / Persian equivalent that you want to give to the ground reality. My expectation is limited, that as long as you accept it and agree to put it on the back burner for now, Pakistan can even have the bragging rights to raise the isssue in the forums. Later it can come back with the world`s most powerful nuclear weapons, to world`s world`s most powerful religion, to world`s most powerful economy to lay its claim and take over Kashmir. I don`t care. Right now South Asia can develop economic block with or with Pakistan, it needs serious and peaceful time for about one generation.

While on the back-burner, you have your Kashmir, and India has its Kashmir to do what it would take to create appropriate environment. I know if India keeps delivering troops, it will loose, but if it delivers peace and prosperity then things would be different.

In all these 669 post, the only voice from Pakistani side I will support is that of Hamidm Sahib. I would not be alone on this from Indian side.

Regarding economic relations with Pakistan. I think you are reading too much in it. If Pakistan does not want, India cannot have. It is as simple as that. Does it mean that India`s economy will collapse without Pakistani trade? I really don`t think so.

While I do believe that if India does not develop strategic partnership with the U.S., and EU - for the consumption side, and yes with with China on the competitve production side, then India will loose out. I do not know if you read that recently, ONGC - an Indian company, and Mittal - the steel guy were jointly bidding to buy controlling interest in Kazakh Oil, against China. China won, Indians complained that Goldman Sachs had skewed the bidding process in Chinese favor. Irrespective, India has to learn how to win in the international scene. India would have to identify where its interest clash with China, where they concide, and where the interest are so different that it does not matter. India must sit down with China and negotiate ways to deal with the situations where interests clash.

Also you are quite used saying ``Govt. Line`` for Indian voices. You may not realize that in India the government is also called ``of the people, for the people, and by the people``. Please do turn the mirror around and look at the Pakistani side, and wonder why your statement ``Govt. Line`` may be more applicable, which is not applicable in India`s case. Another reality that Pakistan has to understand.

From this web-site, two things became clear to me that Indians of all shades, religions and ages on Kashmir, and Gandhi do have a common voice. The dissent notwithstanding, like in any plural democracy.

Anil

Re: # 665 raw

A lot of questions and there is one simple answer: petting zoos [to borrow the phrase from arjun].....

No kashmir ``core-issue``..... no moolah for paki military..... no petting zoos for army brats [while unwashed abdul goes to madrass]........See - this not really about occupation/self-dtermination or whatver..... this is about moolah for paki military and royal living for its generals and their progeny......

Abduls are dying so that paki generals can live in royal style ......