Pakistan, Kashmir, etc...

[jayakris]

This larger kashmir will have a direct border with Afghanistan, and USA will find Pakistan as unnecessary for their plans.

USA would have anyways done that if they wanted to, with or without the plebiscite. Who would have objected them? I still don't understand USA's funding to a terrorist nation just to gain an entry into Afghanistan. India should have been USA's natural friend in the war against terrorism especially in this region, but USA didn't even bother to approach us for any kind of help! In any case why should we allow US army into our country?

You forget what India kept doing, by never supporting the US in *anything* for ever. Americans have always shown that they would play ball with *anybody* if they are willing to deal with stark realities of the world, not what the "idealist aspersions" of the country are. India kept going to Russia because there were enough idealists in India who couldn't see which country was treating even its own people right. USA was going to put strings on India, which was something very unpatable for us then, and so I can understand our behavior till even around 1980. Even then, when India was pretty close to starving to death in the 60s, there was only US who came to our help. Our green revolution was also thanks to some US help. USA has got none, nada, zilch, except badmouthing at the UN from India. The reason why US went to Pakistan again after 9/11 is plain and simple. They knew, like they have known from 1947 onwards that Indians are anachronisms who can't handle the wheeling and dealing needed with the USA. Pakistan was much easier to deal with. Still I believe there was a 2-day period or so when USA gave Musharaff an ultimatum to come through after 9/11 with a veiled threat that they would approach India otherwise (which would have been utter foolishness for the USA, because, face it, India is the least trustworthy ally, for ANYBODY in the world. Sorry, that is a fact that the world knows. They know that in any matter, we might just turn "righteous" and not be with them. It is from the nature of our system mixed with our arrogance about ourselves).

If you want a solution, I had given my version above... Do a plebiscite after a 10 year period. Not that anybody would have the guts for that.

Jay, why should there be a plebiscite. India acted perfectly during the partition, in fact we didn't even ask for Kashmir till it was given to us. We have waited for the king to give his opinion and only after the Britishers acknowledged it, we moved into Kashmir. And ever since we have been protecting it from Pakistanis. Pakistanis have no right on Kashmir whatsoever.

The Indians having your attitude is the FIRST problem. Right or wrong is not the issue here. It was right in 1947, but we made sure of alienating everybody in Kashmir (including the poor Pandits who were ethnically cleansed), by speaking of our "right" thanks to a piece of paper that a King signed and gave to VP Menon, pretty clearly under duress, and vehemently suspected for date-veracity etc by many. Still it was a useful piece of paper, if we were smart to utilize it. The first point was to make sure that the people of Kashmir were with us. If we couldn't do that, then our "right" was lost long back. We did have paper rights, which we chose not to properly use, by simply saying meaningless phrases like "Kashmir and integral part of India" when large areas of what we draw in a map are land where no Indian official has set foot in decades. All that it all did was to further alienate the people. Not to mention the utter lie perpetrated on Iother Indian citizens who have to see the silly map constantly. I am sorry, but if the people are alientaed, then you have to let that place go, or simply get smart and show the people that they are better off being with us. The latter is what I suggested.

They have made a peaceful state into a bloody war. The only solution is war in that region, but can the UN keep quite just like the way they did when USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? In this double standard world, I don't think there is any solution for Pakistan till we become a super super power way more than USA and dictate terms to the world!

So, USA has no right to interfere in our border conflict or use it to deny us a seat in UN security council till they whole heartedly believes that we were and are right when it comes to Kashmir and give us freehand to solve the problem even if it means a war.

Again the same useless rhetoric of whether US has a right or not. If we want their help, we do what is needed. Yes, we do need their help, because we have proven to be a complete failure in doing anything about Kashmir. Because Kashmir is never coming back to India unless USA chooses to screw Pakistan - which they may well do if we play ball. Even then, I am not convinced if USA can manage to solve the problem, because China will show their muscle for sure. They cannot afford to have US and India get together at that level.

Jay

[Sandeep]

You forget what India kept doing, by never supporting the US in *anything* for ever

Did USA do anything right Jay when it comes to international politics? Do they even have a decent name, among the countries other than their allies? Can anyone trust USA? What good did they do for us to support them? If you think, we have to support them just because they are the superpowers then I am sorry, I completely disagree with you. For us to support them we need to believe in what they are doing. Unfortunately the mentalities are so different that it is difficult to go with USA. Name one worthy thing that USA did that deserves our support since our independence. I can think of nothing, literally zero.

The Indians having your attitude is the FIRST problem. Right or wrong is not the issue here. It was right in 1947, but we made sure of alienating everybody in Kashmir (including the poor Pandits who were ethnically cleansed), by speaking of our "right" thanks to a piece of paper that a King signed and gave to VP Menon, pretty clearly under duress, and vehemently suspected for date-veracity etc by many.

Come on Jay, you know everything but you are arguing for the heck of it, especially about the king acceding the territory to India. Is it not true that during partition, India and Pakistan signed an agreement not to enter into Jammu and Kashmir till everything is resolved? Is it not true that the princely states were left with the choice of which country they want to join with (both India and Pakistan accepted it)? Is it not true that there was a Pakistani invasion into the Kashmir region even before the king decided which way to go? He was left with no choice but to accede the territory to India to save himself from the war. Did India cross the line anytime? It was Pakistan all the time who wanted the war!!!!

When UN ordered a ceasefire, why didn't the Pakistanis go back when India did? And what the hell did UN do to Punish Pakistan for not listening to them? Don't you think UN's intervention then would have solved the problem and a Plebiscite would have been conducted then itself? And we all know who dictates what the UN should do.

And regarding alienating people, these are terrorist invasions Jay!!! Nobody can solve a terrorist issue with out waging a war. USA know that and that is why they waged a war against the Talibans, they didn't even try to negotiate a word with them. The only difference is that we couldn't not wage a war fearing the international alienation! You are making it sound as if everything is perfect in Kashmir and inspite of that India alienated its people. There is nothing India could have done in Kashmir apart from what they are doing now.

Again the same useless rhetoric of whether US has a right or not. If we want their help, we do what is needed.

We don't want their help but let them not poke their nose into our issues and say things like "solve Kashmir problem for a seat in UN security council" . The biggest help from the USA would be not to interfere, which is again impossible! The solution will happen 100 years down the line when we will have much bigger army and economy than the USA. Till then I don't see any solution.

And by the way, India-Pakistan is not the only border issue going on in the world right now. There are several and none have found a solution so far.

[Sandeep]

BTW, I would definitely want to hear PKBs view on this issue. PKB, are you there ?

[jayakris]

Somebody help me. I am not sure where to start with sandeep. I can see the effect of how well our government's spin-work on the Indian public has gone, in this matter. Not to mension the idealistic view of the world that only Indians seem to have anymore, which is not helpful to solve anything. I was one like that too, once. But sandeep, no, I was not arguing for the heck of it. I fully believe in what I said.

The only thing I would agree with is that I am willing to cut some slack for Nehru and our later governments for simply being wrong in their judgments - and that they didn't set out to spin everything in certain way for Indian consumption, but were simply getting caught in the troublesome web they weaved.

I will wait a bit to see if others would chime in also with their opinions, and I will respond to some of sandeep's comments soon..

Jay

[prasen9]

Did USA do anything right Jay when it comes to international politics?

I think attacking Afghanistan to take out the Taliban was the right thing to do.

Do they even have a decent name, among the countries other than their allies?

No.

Can anyone trust USA?

Israel can.

What good did they do for us to support them?

The undeniable question is that the U.S. is an economic superpower. It is good politics to engage such a power to extract gain. That is the art of international politics. Our governments could do better to figure out a way to engage the U.S. more. That does not mean that India should concede to every demand.

If you think, we have to support them just because they are the superpowers then I am sorry, I completely disagree with you.

You do not support unconditionally. You extract your pound of flesh and advance your strategic interests.

The Indians having your attitude is the FIRST problem. Right or wrong is not the issue here. It was right in 1947, but we made sure of alienating everybody in Kashmir (including the poor Pandits who were ethnically cleansed), by speaking of our "right" thanks to a piece of paper that a King signed and gave to VP Menon, pretty clearly under duress, and vehemently suspected for date-veracity etc by many.

Come on Jay, you know everything but you are arguing for the heck of it, especially about the king acceding the territory to India. Is it not true that during partition, India and Pakistan signed an agreement not to enter into Jammu and Kashmir till everything is resolved? Is it not true that the princely states were left with the choice of which country they want to join with (both India and Pakistan accepted it)? Is it not true that there was a Pakistani invasion into the Kashmir region even before the king decided which way to go? He was left with no choice but to accede the territory to India to save himself from the war. Did India cross the line anytime? It was Pakistan all the time who wanted the war!!!!

Whatever happened sixty years ago may have some legalistic bearing, but, my thought is that whatever some king, Pakistan, and India did does not matter. We need to determine in a true sense what all ethnic Kashmiris including the Pandits want.

When UN ordered a ceasefire, why didn't the Pakistanis go back when India did? And what the hell did UN do to Punish Pakistan for not listening to them?

The U.N. is largely toothless.

More later.

[jayakris]

Is it time for the next military takeover in the bug-country? - Pakistan tense over reports of judges' removal

When their elected governments run into such problems, usually it is instigated by the military as a reason for their next takeover.

Jay

[genius]

So, what exactly does making Kashmir free solve? I would be glad to make Kashmir free if it can thrive as a reasonably functioning state. I am not sure that in that area and with the resources it has, it can. Any thoughts on this?

no...if people want their fantasy country of a state blatantly favouring one religion, with religious laws,dating back to 7th centruy arabia, they can choose some place antartica or the arctic where people of one religion or sect can live alone.

i am even horrified that this medieval rubbish continues in this age.

its a total failure of politcians, thinkers and jurists in the islamic world.they always make the wrong choices(unpragmatic and destructive) . nehru is not responsible for 1400 years of islamic politics.as he said helplessly once, he can't find a democratic talent in kashmir to bank on.

The destructive premise behind it is---" islam is a complete code of conduct hence political control to favor islam is necessary".This rubbish idea has continued to be favored by much of the islamic world when it should have been discarded (as the west largely did) 300 years ago. and it continued to do immense damage this century as well with cases like pakistan.

the wise thing would to be make common cause with your neighbour irrespective of sectarian affiliation and
get different communities to live together. that's the idea behind our country.

the idea of a religion biased state threatens our system and that of the western democracies as well.

fight those second rate and third rate thugs to the death.its us against them.

[prasen9]

Suresh Raina is of Kashmiri origin. Looking at the sportsmen of Kashmiri origin, I see that there are very few of them. Kashmiri sportsmen I would have thought that given the rugged area and the proximity to Pakistan, they would have better physique and produce at least some fast bowlers. Anybody has any wild theory why they have not? In contrast, look at the number of artists, poets, or even politicians of repute they have produced. Strange.

[prasen9]

So, the Sri Lanka tour of Pakistan was incident-free. Doubt taken down. One incident-free tour does not prove that terrorism is fully controlled, but it shows that if Pakistan wants and is willing to allocate resources and has the will to do it, they can ensure a safe tour to a very large extent.

My POV is that we need guarantees by the government, find out what security level they are willing to provide, ask for whatever we feel is needed and then decide if they will do it or seem serious or not. As to what we gain by going to play tennis? Nothing. Except that we do not want to forfeit a tennis match. What we gain is that we move forward and not backward. But, again, we should not do it unless we are satisfied by the security arrangements.

[prasen9]

------------ Moving some posts and comments here, from another thread on Chinese bullying. (Jay, Mod)

That is what I am proud of. We have a history of being peaceful people, of not attacking other countries for our personal gain, etc. We do not need to stoop to the level of lowlife riffraffs. Now, I do understand that does not mean we need to be spineless. We need a strong defence. But, a true defence and not an offense...

And I responded

The part in bold, is the important thing that you said. What "anti-nationals" have often tried to establish is a spineless mind-set, and they often used great statements from age-old Indian literature (sometimes even non-religious works like pancha-tantra) and twisted them to make Indians become too nice and spineless. The above line is terrific and it is advocating a strategic play against the enemy, and nothing spineless.

Also,

We need to show the world that we have class and we do not stoop to the levels of Pakistan (ISI) while not harming our self interests. That is my view. Anyone is free to disagree.

To which, I responded,

Our current government has by and large done that, and in way with some show of strength and conviction also that we won't be pushed around. Like how India handled the latest Kashmir action and simply stayed put with our plan, without kowtowing to international pressure. The Congress and Communists leaders who warned against international repercussions and prayed for everybody to jump on India, are left crying.

-------------- Prasen's response next.

I don't think this government has any more or less spine than the one before. Now, spineless was the V.P. Singh government and Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. That was shameful.

What we are doing in Kashmir will not solve the problem. It may solve the problem in that we will wipe out the Kashmiris by force but then we are stooping down to the low levels of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Denying human rights to the Kashmiris is not to be celebrated. In mankind's history, I have not seen anyone solve a problem with a territory as big as Kashmir using force alone. Modi's actions are alienating the entire state and he will leave a festering problem worse than we had before to the next generation leaders. Modi's actions are like Bush's in Iraq. You *have* to win over the locals. Otherwise, your only choice is to hold land forever as an occupied territory, which is what we are doing now.

I am against apartheid and second-class citizenship. I do not mind army operations but along with that the leaders should have shown a vision to help the general people in the state. This action will result in endless cycle of violence and not solve the core problem.

As I had said before that the lure of Modi's economic miracle is just a result of shiny PR and it has largely been proved right. I am also willing to go on record to say that this strategy of subjugating a state and holding them by force will not result in resolving the Kashmir problem. Let us revisit this post in five years.

I do not mind deploying the army but there has to be a clear vision and that vision should be propagated to the Kashmiri people so that they see light at the end of the current darkness. All they see now is that army humiliating them every day. This is a failing strategy. The problem will get worse. Or if we maintain the levels of the army, it will be sort of a stalemate.

We should ask ourselves whether the money we are spending on the army occupation of Kashmir is better spent in the rest of India. Taxes from the whole country are sinking in an operation where we are losing lives. To what use? I do not know if this is the best use of the nation's limited resources.

As always, I have gone off topic. Please move this to the Kashmir thread if you can. Sorry!

[jayakris]

What we are doing in Kashmir will not solve the problem. It may solve the problem in that we will wipe out the Kashmiris by force but then we are stooping down to the low levels of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What do you mean? Wipe out? Where did you get that idea? Are you saying we did that to spite the Kashmiris or because we just wanted to? It is because we wanted the terrorists (and anti-India militia) not to be able to do anything. The Kashmiris know it. They don't like it, and are not going to be friendly with the Government, but depending on how we behave from now on, it can change. Who in India wants to wipe out Kashmiris? Nobody. Why are you parroting the crazy lines that Pakistan says?

Denying human rights to the Kashmiris is not to be celebrated.

If it is temporary, and couldn't be avoided, it had to be done. No reports of ethnic cleansing, or army atrocities on women, people being made to starve for food, etc. Internet, phones, and school operations got shut off. And as of today, 40 lakhs of 60 lakhs cell phones are back working - they can tell their stories, and we will hear it soon. If there were atrocities committed, then we will stop celebrating. But if it was done for a specific reason to prevent opposing forces from coagulating, it had to be done. Whether the phone/internet shutoff needed to be there for this long, etc, can be questioned. It so far looks like all kinds of violence and possible injuries/deaths were avoided so far.

In mankind's history, I have not seen anyone solve a problem with a territory as big as Kashmir using force alone. Modi's actions are alienating the entire state and he will leave a festering problem worse than we had before to the next generation leaders.

It cannot be by force alone. And I do not think we need military operations like in Iraq for keeping Kashmir. The people are not going to like Modi, but to hell with that. The problem had to be solved. And making the Kashmir we control be a regular part of India and moving on, was really the only solution. They may vote against Modi for sure, but they are not going to be allowed to leave. Too bad. Sikhs wanted a sepaarate country too. Where did that go? Drop the thought that Kashmir is ever going to be free. Let us move on. If that is taking away from Kashmiris "liberty", so be it. We cannot move on in this world with the arrogance of some people in some part of our country that they are better than us and want to be separate. They are NOT different than us, that is the point. They wer part of India (Bharat) through history just like everybody else. They stay with us, like it or not. I am not going to buy any claims of extra-Indian rights by any Kashmiri (muslim or pandit). They could be part of Pakistan (which is also a country that everybody agreed to let exist in the Bharat area of the world, like India), but that idea got killed by Pakistan who ran into the territory and forced an LOC to be established long ago.

I am against apartheid and second-class citizenship. I do not mind army operations but along with that the leaders should have shown a vision to help the general people in the state. This action will result in endless cycle of violence and not solve the core problem.

Who said that Kashmiris will be second-class citizens? You just keep making up things like this. Cut out the terrorists there, take away the Kashmiris right to any "super first class" status, and bring them to the status of regular Indian citizens -- that is all we are doing. If the government does anything else later, I will object. I have no reason to believe they have any plans to make Kashmiris second-class citizens. The Kashmiris won't like it, and that will be so for along time (2-3 decades or more) but there is no other option.

I am also willing to go on record to say that this strategy of subjugating a state and holding them by force will not result in resolving the Kashmir problem. Let us revisit this post in five years.

5 years won't do. But there may well not officially be a Kashmir problem anymore in due course of time (unless a stupid new government restarts it by promising the world to Kashmiris that other Indians do no get). The talk will die out in 5-10 years and Pakistan will find it much tougher to infiltrate into Kashmir without Kashmir state government (2 or 3 families) playing games with them using their "special-status" that India was giving.

I do not mind deploying the army but there has to be a clear vision and that vision should be propagated to the Kashmiri people so that they see light at the end of the current darkness. All they see now is that army humiliating them every day. This is a failing strategy. The problem will get worse. Or if we maintain the levels of the army, it will be sort of a stalemate.

You forget that state police will change too. We won't need army of the kind we need now, in due course of time. But you are right that Kashmiris shouldn't be humiliated on a daily basis. It was the ruling families and "special" Kashmir courts etc, who had caused the situation of India's having to do everything with military. It can change. And it must. If not, the Kashmir problem won't go away, like you said. Ultimately the Kashmiris need to make peace with the idea that the sky won't come down if they are part of India. We need to do whatever to facilitate that.

As always, I have gone off topic. Please move this to the Kashmir thread if you can. Sorry!

Will do soon.

[prasen9]

Denying human rights to the Kashmiris is not to be celebrated.

If it is temporary, and couldn't be avoided, it had to be done.

Denying human rights should always be avoided to the extent possible. It is wrong to say it cannot be avoided. We should hold our army to a high standard and punish the ones who abuse the Kashmiris. How many army personnel have been hauled up for their abuses? If we took the high road, then we would have won back the Kashmiris who have to live with the army's abuses. What makes you think it is temporary? It seems the government is happy to just occupy and hold. It is not necessary to hold a state by force and deny human rights for long periods of time. It is a crime against humanity.

There are tons of stories about atrocities on women. You choose not to read them. Every army everywhere in the world abuses women. This is nothing new. Some are very well monitored and policed and bound by strict norms. Ours is not as bad as some countries but neither are they monitored as well as some European countries are.

If Kashmiris are held as prisoners in their own land, then they are being treated as second class citizens. Their rights to live freely is curtailed. That is the definition of apartheid. I never said Kashmir was a concentration camp. So, no, they are not being starved. But people are being physically abused including innocent women. That is what armies that are not supremely regulated do all over the world. These guys are no exception.

If you think that the Kashmiris will forget about the abuses by the army over the years, then you are sadly mistaken. Human rights abuses only creates more terrorists. The army alone cannot resolve terrorism. And, the government has shown no plans that it has any other plan than holding the state by force. It is human nature to look for revenge for deep atrocities that they see. Everywhere people always remember the abuses that armies inflict on them.

[jayakris]

Prasen, you are talking about what went on under all the previous governments (and not just this), with army deployment in a state where the state government was not fully under the Indian constitution and Indian system. I have written in the past about how I was against all of that, and how it was never going to make the Kashmir problem go away (EDIT: see the previous pages of this thread, now that the post is moved here). We had to stop doing things that would only fester anti-India feelings in Kashmiris. But we were never able to do that in the previous constitutional set-up. And a big reason why things needed to be like that was because the political forces in the state government were not helping much -- and they controlled vast areas outside of the Kashmir valley where the people's feelings were not always the same as of those in the valley. Then it was an occupation force, but now it no longer is. Now Indian laws apply fully there, and we will see how things go from now on. This step was necessary and should've been taken a long time ago, if the Congress (and Morarji, Vajpayee) governments had the guts. They didn't. Indians need to be allowed to go and there, starting with the Pandits who were pushed out by these Kashmir muslims. We are talking about a small area of India, that is the Kashmir valley, and it can be handled. From now on, if we continue to hear of Army or police atrocities, I will react like I will react to it happening in Kerala or Bangla or anywhere else.

But let things normalize to a fair extent first. The steps taken so far, were necessary, and a lot of anti-India guys (who are now just like Naxalites in Telengana or Khalistanis in Punjab) had to be taken to jail. If anybody is tortured, now I will stand with them, because they are Indians like everybody else. That wasn't the case before. I couldn't even question the military actions when J&K was not even properly under India (even in a constitutional sense) in the past. Soon, within a few years, we will need an army presence only in the border area in the Kashmir division. Again, we are talking about a land area that is about half the size of Manipur, or one-sixth of Kerala. We can handle it, and we will.

[jayakris]

An update on the Kashmir situation. The latest today, is from a 4-member group that released a report based on their visit in late sepetember to Kashmir. As an "activist" group, they can naturally be expected to blame our Government in the "opinions". But the situation they report appears to make sense. Citizen's report has a different story on Kashmir (UNI wire news)

In other words, unlike the impression the activists wanted to give, things are probably better in Kashmir than I thought! The people are defiant, and are on a civil disobedience couurse of action. They won't open their shops, etc. I can live with that. Totally expected. It is their lives. They can decide what to do with it (except ask for leaving India). India probably had 10% support among Kashmiris in the valley and parts of Jammu before August, which may have gone down to 1 or 2% now. Big deal! We need to take control within the Indian system, on what happens over there. be nice to Kashmiris from now on, or the problem won't go away.

Some other latest news reports:
https://www.firstpost.com/india/relucta ... 62271.html
https://www.news18.com/news/india/empty ... 43731.html
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ ... ons-556146

[Atithee]

I think the biggest impact is that it has taken a pulpit for the peace loving neighbor away to a large extent, IK Niazi’s grandstanding not withstanding. He claims Modi has played his last card. Yeah, he has, and won the game. Remember his party manifesto called ‘Uno’ just before the last elections? The same game which one of Niazi’s ministers tagged instead of the UNO in his tweet? That was hilarious. As was Japan sharing borders with Germany.