Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
Haha what a joke. I suspect the concern for muslim Kashmiris is a lot more than the other non-muslim people suffering all over the world.
What makes you think the concern is some how diminished for other people around the world? I mean you may be the liar and a hypocrite, but what makes you assume the rest of us are as cynical and pathetic as you?
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict -- alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
What makes you think the concern is some how diminished for other people around the world? I mean you may be the liar and a hypocrite, but what makes you assume the rest of us are as cynical and pathetic as you?
good job on the senseless personal attacks..
its pretty obvious that the concerns for suffering felllow muslims is much much more than the rest.. thats all the muslim world cries about... kashmir and palestine.. muslims brothers suffering... i dont hear even 10% of this about the rest...
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
Exactly. Med, you are a credit to this community.
We should support the Kashmiri cause not for our territorial or political benefit, but rather to free an enslaved people. As a Pakistani of course I would like to Kashmir as the fifth province, but realize that this may not be possible at this time.
I would rather work with the Indians to come up with a solution that will be acceptable for both parties – An independent Kashmir is where the dialogue can be most fruitful. If we try for the territorial grab, then we will to face the mess that India is dealing currently facing.
I want India-Pakistan relations to be devolved from territorial and political disputes.
dear pak one
first thing first ,right from the first post from you .it was due
what a nice and thought provoking and genious and balanced approach filled posts you have written in this thread , i am really gone through each of your posts many times the, level of your ideas really can be discussed and put forward at the highest of the forums , certainly it will be very difficult for the proffessional diplomats of both countries to counter you , because of you the levelof quality of posting are far better,
i would like to know what is your model of kashmir ,if you are given chanceto decide the kashmir problem ,what would you do about jammu area and laddakh area ? would it be fine to make kashmir a seperate buffer country? what will be geography and what will be better a secular? or a muslim state with minorities like hindu and bodhdh . do you think will it be viable. suppose leaders get ready for your solution . what do you think will be the reaction of public? some of the reaction here ,you must be feeling are not getting alongwith this line of solution .some people may see it as a defeat .
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
good job on the senseless personal attacks..
its pretty obvious that the concerns for suffering felllow muslims is much much more than the rest.. thats all the muslim world cries about... kashmir and palestine.. muslims brothers suffering... i dont hear even 10% of this about the rest...
Wow. You are a piece of work. Here you are attacking my character, and im supposed to be nice to you! You must be mental. By YOU, I mean people like you. And people like you have lied from the very start. Thats fact.
Your accusations are just a product of a bigoted and prejudiced mind. You being the bigot you are, you automatically assume that I must only support Muslims, and that my sentiment is feigned somehow.. You are free to think what you like. I know what I stand for and so does everyone that knows me.
My point stands. We should support the Kashmiris not just because we are Muslim, but because we are HUMAN. Emphasis on HUMAN (Look it up)!
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
dear pak one first thing first ,right from the first post from you .it was due what a nice and thought provoking and genious and balanced approach filled posts you have written in this thread , i am really gone through each of your posts many times the, level of your ideas really can be discussed and put forward at the highest of the forums , certainly it will be very difficult for the proffessional diplomats of both countries to counter you , because of you the levelof quality of posting are far better, i would like to know what is your model of kashmir ,if you are given chanceto decide the kashmir problem ,what would you do about jammu area and laddakh area ? would it be fine to make kashmir a seperate buffer country? what will be geography and what will be better a secular? or a muslim state with minorities like hindu and bodhdh . do you think will it be viable. suppose leaders get ready for your solution . what do you think will be the reaction of public? some of the reaction here ,you must be feeling are not getting alongwith this line of solution .some people may see it as a defeat .
Thank you for the kind words - the goal here to have a discussion that is most civil and in the basis of equity and justice. We recognize that Kashmir is a detriment towards peace and economic development in South Asia. It has sapped out meager resources (Pakistan more so), and brought the spectre of Middle Eastern terrorism to the region. We do not want our peoples to suffer in the name of Kashmir.
I would like to put forward a proposal for an independent and demilitarized Kashmir, along the model of Switzerland. Incidentally, being Swiss born, much of my thought process in solving this matter comes from Switzerland (Kashmir being called Switzerland of Asia, no less!). The goal would be to bring back all "true" residents of Kashmir (if they choose to return). Since the Kashmiri kingdom was about 70% Muslim, that means that the non-Muslim minorities must be brought back. An independent Kashmir MUST include all the regions that had been ruled by the King of Kashmir including Pakistani held Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan as well as the Indian controlled portions including Jammu, Laddakh.
The question of the religious-secular orientation of the Kashmiri state is an important one. Which is why there needs to be two prong approach: The recognition of all major religions (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist) on the national level, with guarantees of freedom of practicing their faith and non discrimination within civil society. On more of a local (regional) level, the governments will have a choice to be more expressive of their religious identity (if they choose that approach). The duality allows for a state that is neither Islamic nor fully secular. Call it the Third Way, where the State recognizes religious differences but does not legislate on those basis.
In terms of the public reaction, I'm certain that will be hostile on both Indian and Pakistani sides. Yes it is a defeat - the only difference is that is a defeat for BOTH India and Pakistan, instead of one or the other. For this plan to move forward, true leadership and a sense of sacrifice is required on both sides. But let's review what would be the benefits for each party:
India:
Pakistan:
Kashmir (Independent):
I know that many of these benefits seem like a dream - however they are dependent on the strong decision making of New Delhi and Islamabad. Let's try to change the myopia of the past.
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
I wouldn't call Pakistan's Kashmir policy to be foolish or suicidal(you didn't use the word), though it wouldn't be unreasonable to modify it to suit the post 9-11 world and I believe former President Musharraf was headed in that direction while he was in the office. There is no denying that our armed forces can be trained/equipped better; There is also no denying that unresolved Kashmir does create a lot of friction b/w the two South Asian giants and is a main reason for terrorism/militancy in India/IOK. There is also no denying, that if Kashmir dispute was resolved that Pakistanis wouldn't be needing to spend billions of dollars each year in defence and instead that money can be speny to uplift the suffering people. I'm well aware of the problems our country faces. My only contention is to not throw away Kashmir for pennies. I'm a strong believer that we need to get our house in order and make our economy vibrant(easier said than done, I understand). Till we make our economy vibrant/attractive; IMHO, it would be unwise to touch Kashmir dispute. We need to start with smaller issues like Sir creek, Siachen, water, Jinnah house in Mumbai etc. And I believe that prior to terrorists attacks in Mumbai, we were going in the right direction. But the problem arose, when the Indian government decided to not engage in diplomacy with Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorists attack and I think that was not a wise decision on the part of the Indian government and was solely done to appease the Indian masses and look tough. Getting back to Kashmir(IOK), I still believe that we can make the Kashmiris opt for us(if there is ever a plebisite held) ONLY if our economy is vibrant. I dont see China giving up claims over Taiwan(maintaining the status quo), though they do business as usual.
Here, I am going to write as a Pakistani.
IF you agree with most of what I said, I am not sure how you can make our economy vibrant and "convince" Kashmiris to join Pakistan?
Our economy cannot be vibrant until military spending is reallocated and these terrorist attacks both within Pakistan and in India stop.
We desperately need FDI and for our government to invest in Pakistan's faltering infrastructure. Our youngsters need jobs. Our capitalists need to be plugged into the global economy.
There is no way that "smaller" issues such Sir Creek, Siachin, and Jinnah House can be solved with India, until we resove the black cloud (Kashmir) that is hanging over our heads. All roads lead to Kashmir. Having bitten the bullet and BOTH sides accepted defeat, these smaller issues would be solved in a much more amicable manner.
"Throw away Kashmir for Pennies" I think that your quote is indicative of the mindset of many Pakistanis (not criticizing it, just stating the fact). The problem of using Kashmir as a bargaining chip has forced us to engage Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth, it has compelled us to support unsavory Islamist and terrorist outfits - these actions have tarnished our reputation in the whole world as terrorist sympathizes and damaged our credibility in any diplomatic negotiations.
This brings up the terror attacks in Mumbai. How could you not expect India to suspend the diplomatic talks. Let's be honest here: We're lucky that there wasn't a full scale war. We can not expect India to sincerely engage us in consequential talks on Sir Creek, Siachin or elsewhere - when they still face the threat of Pakistan based terrorism.
A bold move needs to be made. Lets step aside from the plebiscite demand and engage India in track II diplomacy to cede Kashmir and make it a fully independent, demilitarized zone. Let's make this matter a game changer for our relations with India.
I want Quaid-e-Azam's Pakistan - a vibrant, and economically powerful, Muslim country which is the beacon of hope for the Ummah.
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
PakOne you write:- IF you agree with most of what I said, I am not sure how you can make our economy vibrant and "convince" Kashmiris to join Pakistan?
I'm "almost on the same page as you are." I differ only in the approach of handling Kashmir and other complex issues. But, our understanding of the issues is the same.
Our economy cannot be vibrant until military spending is reallocated and these terrorist attacks both within Pakistan and in India stop.
We desperately need FDI and for our government to invest in Pakistan's faltering infrastructure. Our youngsters need jobs. Our capitalists need to be plugged into the global economy.
IMHO, the reason we have low level FDI in our country right now, is b/c of the security situation in our Land of Pure. I believe that security situation would get a lot better, once the Americans start leaving Afghanistan. What's going on in Pakistan today is what in military terms is defined as the "Spill-over effect." As the term suggests, everything is spilling over from the war-torn country of Afghanistan into our country. But as I stated before, once the Americans start leaving and Afghan Taliban(AT) are made a part of the political process in Afghanistan, the situation is going to get a lot better resulting in the same in Pakistan as well. And then we will be able to witness increased amount of FDI. There is already a talk in the power corridors that Pakistan should atleast be given a observer status at the G-20 forum. This step is going to be also very helpful, in bringing the Pakistani economy to the world stage.
There is no way that "smaller" issues such Sir Creek, Siachin, and Jinnah House can be solved with India, until we resove the black cloud (Kashmir) that is hanging over our heads. All roads lead to Kashmir. Having bitten the bullet and BOTH sides accepted defeat, these smaller issues would be solved in a much more amicable manner.
IMHO again, just giving a Jinnah house to the Pakistanis is going to create a lot of goodwill towards the Indians in Pakistan. And quite frankly, compared with the Kashmir dispute, solving the smaller issues is alot easier. Right now, we are waiting on the Kashmir issue to be resolved but **almost **ignoring the other issues. I think this is where Pakistan's Kashmir policy can be modified.
"Throw away Kashmir for Pennies" I think that your quote is indicative of the mindset of many Pakistanis (not criticizing it, just stating the fact). The problem of using Kashmir as a bargaining chip has forced us to engage Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth, it has compelled us to support unsavory Islamist and terrorist outfits - these actions have tarnished our reputation in the whole world as terrorist sympathizes and damaged our credibility in any diplomatic negotiations.
I believe the reason we would like to have a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan has more to do with history than Kashmir. Afghanistan was the only country to oppose the creation of Pakistan back in 1947. Also, one thing we have learned from our 1971 debacle is to not be surronded by the countries with even a hint of hostile intent. We simply cannot have a pro-India government installed in Kabul. At the very least we would like to have a **neutral* government in Afghanistan. Infact, this is where I will support your point where the Afghan government should be made to sign an agreement to stay neutral in case of any hostility b/w India and Pakistan.
This brings up the terror attacks in Mumbai. How could you not expect India to suspend the diplomatic talks. Let's be honest here: We're lucky that there wasn't a full scale war. We can not expect India to sincerely engage us in consequential talks on Sir Creek, Siachin or elsewhere - when they still face the threat of Pakistan based terrorism.
I dont think there was ever a chance of full scale war breaking out b/w the two South Asian giants. Nobody wants war in the region, be it the Indians or the Pakistanis. The Indian government doesn't want to obstruct the economical progress they have made so far. It would be an economic suicide for the Indians to go to war with us. Surgical strikes by the Indian forces in Azad Kashmir- Yes. But even that would be very limited, and both the Indian and Pakistani elites in their respective countries will make sure that things do not get too out of hands.
*A bold move needs to be made. Lets step aside from the plebiscite demand and engage India in track II diplomacy to cede Kashmir and make it a fully independent, demilitarized zone. Let's make this matter a game changer for our relations with India. *
I believe President Musharraf took that iniative and gave a robust push to track II diplomacy, but at the end the hawks(some say on the Indian side) were able to derail the peace process.
I want Quaid-e-Azam's Pakistan - a vibrant, and economically powerful, Muslim country which is the beacon of hope for the Ummah.
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
Here, I am going to write as a Pakistani.
IF you agree with most of what I said, I am not sure how you can make our economy vibrant and "convince" Kashmiris to join Pakistan?
Our economy cannot be vibrant until military spending is reallocated and these terrorist attacks both within Pakistan and in India stop. We desperately need FDI and for our government to invest in Pakistan's faltering infrastructure. Our youngsters need jobs. Our capitalists need to be plugged into the global economy.
There is no way that "smaller" issues such Sir Creek, Siachin, and Jinnah House can be solved with India, until we resove the black cloud (Kashmir) that is hanging over our heads. All roads lead to Kashmir. Having bitten the bullet and BOTH sides accepted defeat, these smaller issues would be solved in a much more amicable manner.
"Throw away Kashmir for Pennies" I think that your quote is indicative of the mindset of many Pakistanis (not criticizing it, just stating the fact). The problem of using Kashmir as a bargaining chip has forced us to engage Afghanistan to ensure strategic depth, it has compelled us to support unsavory Islamist and terrorist outfits - these actions have tarnished our reputation in the whole world as terrorist sympathizes and damaged our credibility in any diplomatic negotiations.
This brings up the terror attacks in Mumbai. How could you not expect India to suspend the diplomatic talks. Let's be honest here: We're lucky that there wasn't a full scale war. We can not expect India to sincerely engage us in consequential talks on Sir Creek, Siachin or elsewhere - when they still face the threat of Pakistan based terrorism.
A bold move needs to be made. Lets step aside from the plebiscite demand and engage India in track II diplomacy to cede Kashmir and make it a fully independent, demilitarized zone. Let's make this matter a game changer for our relations with India.
I want Quaid-e-Azam's Pakistan - a vibrant, and economically powerful, Muslim country which is the beacon of hope for the Ummah.
I am disappointed as a Pakistani to read that. India staged the whole 6-day event- it is very well KNOWN. There was no Kasab's family in Punjab, Pakistan. Indians are very crafty at doing something like that. Very. In 1947, Quaid wanted entire Punjab and Kashmir to be part of Pakistan with Hindus and Sikhs leaving and settling in other parts of India like UP, Bihar but that never happened. I have seen pictures of the so called "terrorists"(some pics Indians published after they were killed in fake encounter) and none of them look even 1% Pakistani (to be from Sarhad and/or Punjab). They all had South Asian features, not Central Asian.
India must leave Kashmir immediately and hold an independent election there.
Re: Arundahti Roys “Seditious” speech on Kashmir!
Kashmir was an **independent state **until Pak invaded Kashmir **illegally **and Maharaja annexed it to India legally. So now leave the POK first or just listen to “Maharaja”, which is India now 
Re: Arundahti Roys “Seditious” speech on Kashmir!
kashif rathaur786 and you both have some talent of entertainment channels ,pl carry on your show
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
kashif rathaur786 and you both have some talent of entertainment channels ,pl carry on your show
Good one...
Re: Arundahti Roys “Seditious” speech on Kashmir!
LOL… You know Hyderabad Deccan was also an independant state until India invaded it illegally and made it a part of India. And they didnt get the approval of her ruler to do it either. Infact, there were a few other independant states that were invaded by India. So thanks for the insight but you need to read you history.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,799164,00.html
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
**
I agree that the spillover effect has damaged the prospects of an economic growth. I am not sure that the US withdrawal will mean a significant change in the domestic security situation with TTP, BLA and the ethnic warfare in Karachi still blazing. Although I do think that Pakistan will no longer be in the world (read U.S.) spotlight which means that there will be a freer hand to deal with the three issues that I have highlighted:
TTP: Needs to be eradicated no doubt. Ostensibly US/NATO departure from Afghanistan and the eventual resolution of the Afghan Taliban issue should weaken their hold, however there needs to be complete eradication of the TTP. The tribal militias need to be empowered and the Frontier Corps should be under Provincial (KP, Baluchistan) command not the Interior Ministry.
BLA: There MUST be a political solution in Baluchistan. The Baluchis have not only been given an unfair deal since 1947, but there is significant evidence of a systematic discrimination of Baluchis within Baluchistan. Military solutions only serve to roil up an embittered populace leading it susceptible to foreign subversion. Furthermore, any Baluchi activities in Iran must be stamped out, we can not afford to mess around with the Iranians, especially since Pak. Baluchistan is undergoing a low intensity rebellion.
Karachi: The lawlessness and the mafia style tactics of political parties, need to be curtailed. We can not afford to see MQM, ANP and PPP morph into Hezbollah style parties that not only control the political levers but also act as extrajudicial enforcers of gangland style territories. Karachi is the economic engine of the nation – if we can not bring it in control, there is very little hope of sustained economic development.
**
* IMHO again, just giving a Jinnah house to the Pakistanis is going to create a lot of goodwill towards the Indians in Pakistan. And quite frankly, compared with the Kashmir dispute, solving the smaller issues is alot easier. Right now, we are waiting on the Kashmir issue to be resolved but *almost **ignoring the other issues. I think this is where Pakistan's Kashmir policy can be modified. *
What is the incentive for Indians to give Jinnah House? I mean, creating goodwill is a nice thought, but India has no reason to discuss the smaller issues particularly when there have been multiple terror attacks in the country.
**
I believe the reason we would like to have a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan has more to do with history than Kashmir. Afghanistan was the only country to oppose the creation of Pakistan back in 1947. Also, one thing we have learned from our 1971 debacle is to not be surronded by the countries with even a hint of hostile intent. We simply cannot have a pro-India government installed in Kabul. At the very least we would like to have a **neutral* government in Afghanistan. Infact, this is where I will support your point where the Afghan government should be made to sign an agreement to stay neutral in case of any hostility b/w India and Pakistan. **
The reasoning for opposing the creation of Pakistan has a lot to do with the Pakhtun question of that period. That question and the fact that Pakistan is a stronger state than Afghanistan no longer stands as a valid reason to manipulate the Afghan political system. I agree that we need to have a friendly government in power, but lets not forget that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan had training camps as well as contingency bases in case the plains of Punjab and the deserts of Sind were occupied by India. This strategic depth idea and militant training is directly linked to Kashmir and is a recent phenomenon. Solving the Kashmir issue, deincentivizes us and the Indians from jockeying over Afghanistan, in attempts to install pliant regimes.
**
* I dont think there was ever a chance of full scale war breaking out b/w the two South Asian giants. Nobody wants war in the region, be it the Indians or the Pakistanis. The Indian government doesn't want to obstruct the economical progress they have made so far. It would be an economic suicide for the Indians to go to war with us. Surgical strikes by the Indian forces in Azad Kashmir- Yes. But even that would be very limited, and both the Indian and Pakistani elites in their respective countries will make sure that things do not get too out of hands.**
I think you should consult the Pakistani and Indian dimplomatic papers before the 1965 and 1971 Wars. In both instances neither elite wanted nor expected a war. The stakes are much higher. If there was any chance of a nuclear exchange in any part of the world (N. Korea included) it would be highest between India and Pakistan. Your threat perception might be different, but I can assure you that the nuclear option is very much part of the current Pakistani military doctrine.
Furthermore, any “surgical” strikes in Azad Kashmir would be met with a devastating response by Pakistan – which could very well involve crossing the international borders. So things can escalate very quickly. While India has, arguably, less of an incentive to engage in conflict for the potential economic harm, I have no doubt that another series of catastrophic attacks in India would push it towards open conflict with Pakistan. I mean think about it: Series of terrorist attacks in India -> Economic uncertainty/loss of FDI, why not bring the war to Pakistan? The problem on the Pakistani side is that neither Zardari nor Kayani can absolutely rein in these militants who are using Kashmir as a pretext towards attacks in India. I say lets remove the pretext of conflict by working towards Kashmiri independence joint with India.
**
* I believe President Musharraf took that iniative and gave a robust push to track II diplomacy, but at the end the hawks(some say on the Indian side) were able to derail the peace process.**
I believe President Musharraf engaged more along the Chenab formula rather than complete Kashmiri independence. Regardless of the past, a new initiative needs to be put forward.
We can not sacrifice the security and economic viability of South Asia for 6 million Kashmiri people – who want to be independent from India and Pakistan, anyway.
Pakistan Zindabad
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
** I agree that the spillover effect has damaged the prospects of an economic growth. I am not sure that the US withdrawal will mean a significant change in the domestic security situation with TTP, BLA and the ethnic warfare in Karachi still blazing. Although I do think that Pakistan will no longer be in the world (read U.S.) spotlight which means that there will be a freer hand to deal with the three issues that I have highlighted:
TTP: Needs to be eradicated no doubt. Ostensibly US/NATO departure from Afghanistan and the eventual resolution of the Afghan Taliban issue should weaken their hold, however there needs to be complete eradication of the TTP. The tribal militias need to be empowered and the Frontier Corps should be under Provincial (KP, Baluchistan) command not the Interior Ministry.
BLA: There MUST be a political solution in Baluchistan. The Baluchis have not only been given an unfair deal since 1947, but there is significant evidence of a systematic discrimination of Baluchis within Baluchistan. Military solutions only serve to roil up an embittered populace leading it susceptible to foreign subversion. Furthermore, any Baluchi activities in Iran must be stamped out, we can not afford to mess around with the Iranians, especially since Pak. Baluchistan is undergoing a low intensity rebellion.
Karachi: The lawlessness and the mafia style tactics of political parties, need to be curtailed. We can not afford to see MQM, ANP and PPP morph into Hezbollah style parties that not only control the political levers but also act as extrajudicial enforcers of gangland style territories. Karachi is the economic engine of the nation – if we can not bring it in control, there is very little hope of sustained economic development.**
What is the incentive for Indians to give Jinnah House? I mean, creating goodwill is a nice thought, but India has no reason to discuss the smaller issues particularly when there have been multiple terror attacks in the country.
The reasoning for opposing the creation of Pakistan has a lot to do with the Pakhtun question of that period. That question and the fact that Pakistan is a stronger state than Afghanistan no longer stands as a valid reason to manipulate the Afghan political system. I agree that we need to have a friendly government in power, but lets not forget that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan had training camps as well as contingency bases in case the plains of Punjab and the deserts of Sind were occupied by India. This strategic depth idea and militant training is directly linked to Kashmir and is a recent phenomenon. Solving the Kashmir issue, deincentivizes us and the Indians from jockeying over Afghanistan, in attempts to install pliant regimes.
I think you should consult the Pakistani and Indian dimplomatic papers before the 1965 and 1971 Wars. In both instances neither elite wanted nor expected a war. The stakes are much higher. If there was any chance of a nuclear exchange in any part of the world (N. Korea included) it would be highest between India and Pakistan. Your threat perception might be different, but I can assure you that the nuclear option is very much part of the current Pakistani military doctrine.
Furthermore, any surgical strikes in Azad Kashmir would be met with a devastating response by Pakistan; which could very well involve crossing the international borders. So things can escalate very quickly. While India has, arguably, less of an incentive to engage in conflict for the potential economic harm, I have no doubt that another series of catastrophic attacks in India would push it towards open conflict with Pakistan. I mean think about it: Series of terrorist attacks in India -> Economic uncertainty/loss of FDI, why not bring the war to Pakistan? The problem on the Pakistani side is that neither Zardari nor Kayani can absolutely rein in these militants who are using Kashmir as a pretext towards attacks in India. I say lets remove the pretext of conflict by working towards Kashmiri independence joint with India.
** I believe President Musharraf engaged more along the Chenab formula rather than complete Kashmiri independence. Regardless of the past, a new initiative needs to be put forward.
We can not sacrifice the security and economic viability of South Asia for 6 million Kashmiri people &; who want to be independent from India and Pakistan, anyway.
Pakistan Zindabad
[/QUOTE]
**
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
[quote]
* PakOne: Once the Americans start leaving Afghanistan and Afghan Taliban(A.T.) are made a part of the political process, the situation is on the ground is going to get a lot better(atleast that's my opinion, and after reading your reply, it seems that you agree with that). As far as the BLA is concerned, I have to give credit to the present government for taking initiatives to calm the situation down, specially after the killing of Bugti. Though, I'm not fully satisfied with the outcome, I do believe that we are headed in the right direction. Once , the economic opportunities open up in our biggest province, and the locals are given a fair chance to improve their lives, BLA will simply loose support among the locals and peter out. In Karachi, situation is a little bit easy to control. It's a turf war going on mainly b/w two political parties. If the leaders of all the parties(ANP/MQM/PPP), sit down and negotiate, and stop issuing statements against each other, I believe we can witness long lasting peace in the City of Lights.
[/quote]
Afghanistan: I can definitely see the situation improving in Afghanistan once the US/NATO troops leave. I am actually very supportive of the current Pakistani (military) policy with regards to Afg. We need to make things clear: Afghanistan, under no circumstances, should fall under the camp of Anti-Pakistanis. I have no doubt that the Taliban will be back in power once this mess is cleared.
Baluchistan: It’s true that this government has tried to come up with initiatives to mollify the situation, but we need some concrete gestures that will kill this BLA/Bugti (externally sponsored) insurgency. We need a two pronged political and economic program, one that will bring enough of a difference in the lives of everyday Baluchis to cut the legs of the popular support for insurgency.
Karachi: The politicians have made a mess of it. I think that either the city is brought under political control or else we set up a localized martial law and military control to pacify these ethnic actors. Karachi is a power keg that becomes ignited a few times every decade, we cannot afford that. I mean think about it: We bring in an MNC to set up an offshore operation and within 5 years, we are back to square one with the violence, no one (justifiably) is going to invest in a city that has ethnic mafias feuding over their respective turfs.
I know that the military is not inclined to take over the political arena, however order needs to be restored immediately and it has to b sustained across decades. If anything, a city like Karachi could operate on the Singapore model – heavily regulated by the military and politically dominated by technocrats who are economic growth oriented. We need to make Karachi on par with Hyderabad (India) but tough political decisions must be made, in order to get there.
[quote]
[/quote]
I see where you are coming from. However the problem is that these non-state actors do control the agenda, they always have. I mean look at 9/11 where the US not only attacked Afghanistan but also Iraq using terror as the excuse. Because of these terrorists, we all have become racially profiled, Muslim countries held in suspicion, and Islam in disrepute.h I don’t think that the Indians and Pakistanis have the mettle to persist through an extended peace process while terrorists are running amok.
Of course we have been victims of terror – I would argue that we have suffered more than India and the US combined. But no one recognizes that fact. I also wonder, how much of that terror originates outside of Pakistan. As we have seen from Wikileaks and other diplomatic communiqués, we have an extremely weak government along with a host of domestically sponsored terrorists, which leads to an opening for our enemies to strike within that chaos.
Bottom line is that we need some stunning resolutions. These elongated diplomatic discussions over Kashmir have been going on since 1949, 3 wars later; we have nothing to show for it.
[quote]
[/quote]
I agree that Pakistan’s role was over exaggerated at times, however things were a lot better than they are right now. As for the border issue, the best way to proceed is to recognize that it is a soft-border, which is why having a government that does not stir up problems is critical. However we should not meddle in the internal affairs of the country. After all, I was extremely unhappy about the level of US/Saudi Arabian influence in Pakistan, so how can we justify messing around in Afghanistan.
If we can remove the Kashmir issue, then the calculus over Afghanistan changes. While we would always be working towards establishing friendly relations with any Afghan government, there will be less of the jockeying over influence vis-à-vis India. Indians will have less of a reason to take an interest in a country with a lowered geo-political status, and more importantly, we will not have to work towards strategic depth or setup a resistance/Kashmir oriented military infrastructure in Afghanistan.
[quote]
[quote]
Re: Arundahti Roys "Seditious" speech on Kashmir!
Pakistan was created with people in mind. It is not a territory. It is a state of mind. It is a sanctuary of the Indian Muslims. It is not the areas of muslim majority. Pakistan has to go back to the roots to solve the problem of Kashmiri muslims.
Kashmiri Muslims are indian muslims. Pakistan is created for the sake of Indian muslims. That means they have to come to Pakistan.
India is the one that thinks in terms of land. Pakistan needs to think in terms of People. They should give a open invitation of Kashmiri Muslims to come to Pakistan. Let narrow minded land hungry India take the land and Pakistan take the people.
We need to show to the world the duplicity of India and expose its land hungry, power minded Brahminical mindset.
The only way India would be exposed to the world and ashamed before the world opinion is when Pakistan asks each and every Muslim in Kashmir to come to Pakistan to settle.
This way the Muslims of Kashmir would get what they wanted. A merger with Pakistan. India would get what it wanted... land