Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Feb. 26, 2010

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Apr 2010 00:03

--Double Post--

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Apr 2010 00:03

Singha wrote:pakistan may soon get its wish to be more arabic - but perhaps not in the way they expected which explains the anxiety by the thekedars to get them a "package" on kashmir and some snowy headwaters

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264925

the pix in link above tell the story best

Most rivers in North India are almost dry these days.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 10 Apr 2010 00:19

Singha wrote:pakistan may soon get its wish to be more arabic - but perhaps not in the way they expected which explains the anxiety by the thekedars to get them a "package" on kashmir and some snowy headwaters

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264925

the pix in link above tell the story best

Going 'down the drain'

Bhima · Post by **Bhima** » 10 Apr 2010 00:21

Just watched Unreported World on Channel 4. Well worth viewing in full.

Pakistan's Terror Central

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Apr 2010 01:15

It is just another subtle psy-ops. The Brits have always wanted "Kashmir" to remain the carrot to control POWI. That programme was entirely leading to create the impression that unless the west pressurized India to concede "Kashmir" to POWI, "jihad" will target west. It is just the buildup to the next round of dances about India coming around to UK wishes. Could also be a coordinate effort - with the self-acclaimed Oxonian [as acknowledged that many Oxonians went forward to rule India] taking initiative from the Indian side, and a whole cackle of geese making solemn declarations about a "Good Friday" style Northern-Ireland model for the "Kashmir" problem.

All the ingredients are there - an Oxonian, a whole spectrum of intellectuals, British "experience" of dealing with Northern ireland, and a Clinton in charge/formal face of American foriegn affairs - another Clinton being a chief US sponsor of the Good Friday "agreement".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Apr 2010 06:28

Nihat wrote:
Unless the masses can be made to realise that the Taliban are a threat to fellow Muslims, Pakistanis are condemned to live in Islamist terror, and peace and prosperity will remain an unachievable goal.
MAHMOOD ELAHI
Ottawa, Canada
Can I just add what a peice of gobshit this is, it's from the letters section of DT but utter rubbsih all the same. I have written the same to the editor of DT in no uncertain terns

Pakis have long assumed that it is OK to be a Jinnah-Muslim.

Now that Jinnah-Muslims are being attacked by the pious they are squealing. It is in India's interest NOT to save the Jinnah Muslims and to support the pious ones. This seems counter-intuitive. After all Jinnah Muslims are "moderate and secular" and it is the pious ones who form the Taliban.

But the fact is that it is the Jinnah Muslims have appeared "secular and moderate" and built up funding sources from the West while they have used the pious ones to do the actual fighting and dying. That went on till 9-11 when the Jinnah-Muslims were squeezed by unkil to crack down on the pious. That has angered the pious ones and they are hitting back and this Paki in the letter above is squealing and complaining that bious ones are killing Muslims.

If we oppose the pious ones (Taliban, good or bad) we are indirectly helping the Jinnahs - the army and unkil. By support the rights of the pious to have sharia in Pakistan and oppose foreigners, more pressure is put on the Jinnahs who will ask for more money for killing the pious and as more pious ones are killed they will get even more angry with the Jinnahs. We need sharia and proper Islamic rule in Pakistan. Islam is pure and uncorrupt. Pakistani rulers are corrupt. Now we don't want corruption do we?

We want piousness and good governance in Pakistan. Islam means good governance no? Sharia means good governance no? Unkil may not be able to survive in Baksitan - but Bakistan belongs to Bakis, not unkil and they need sharia. No?

Here is a depiction of Islamic society. The fight in Pakistan should be between the pious ones (on the left labelled as Core Islamists) and the Jinnah Muslims who are labelled as "assimilated" Muslims

kelik on image

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 07:14

Gilani-Singh meeting likely in Bhutan

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... bhutan-040

Indian and Pakistani prime ministers may have “a brief encounter” in the US capital but proper talks between the two leaders are more likely in Bhutan by the end of this month, diplomatic sources told Dawn.

The sources say that the Americans are very keen to initiate some dialogue between the two embittered neighbours in Washington.

...

Meanwhile, both Indian and Pakistani diplomats in Washington are indicating that the two sides could hold prime minister-level discussions in Bhutan on the sidelines of a Saarc summit in late April.

...

India did not accept the Pakistani roadmap for improving bilateral ties which envisaged a meeting between their foreign ministers in Islamabad followed by the summit meeting in Thimphu.

Instead, the Indians demanded that Pakistan must show sufficient resolve to curb groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Pakistan, however, is more concerned about the water dispute with India.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Apr 2010 07:28

Gerard wrote:
If there is a nightmare nuclear security scenario in Pakistan today it is probably an inside the family job that ends up in a nuclear Armageddon in India.
BS. Why would jihadis use a nuke on land they think they will conquer anyway? Especially when the gleaming towers of Manhattan and Canary Wharf await, full of people with the blood of Muslims on their hands.

It is in the interest of the west that these mad dogs be directed against India. One needs to be wary of false-flag ops. One needs to be especially wary of "deep false flags" ops, in which the ops are in fact carried out by organizations like LeT, but are aided and abetted by deeply embedded operatives, such as the alleged CIA agent Headley or the alleged MI6 agent Omar Saeed Sheikh.

One gets the feeling that this fellow Ilyas Kashmiri is some one to watch out for. He has apparently been involved with Chechnyans in the recent past. See Ilyas Kashmiri strategy behind Dagestan blasts : http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LD02Ag01.html . He was also in touch with Headley (http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... plot-qs-04).

The interesting thing is that these Chechnyans have also been aided by oligarchs like Berezovsky, operating out of London.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 10 Apr 2010 08:19

for what it is worth. anujan et al, thanks for those posts in huffington post. concise, eloquent, well reasoned arguments.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 10 Apr 2010 08:48

Seraiki students agitate

The protestors asked the government to reconsider the constitutional draft package for incorporation of Seraiki demands like creating a Seraiki province, declaring Seraiki a national language, awarding quota in services and educational institutes and giving appropriate representation to Seraiki people in all national forums.

Punjabis in Seraikistan support terror

The Seraiki-speaking nomads harmoniously share the region with ethnic Punjabis, mostly landowning farmers and sharecroppers who migrated from neighbouring districts of India upon independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Residents said the nomads’ preference for living on the margins of village communities and a general tendency of limiting their religious practice to visiting Sufi shrines have kept them apart from the Punjabi-dominated militant groups that have been fighting India.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Apr 2010 09:42

Gerard wrote:
If there is a nightmare nuclear security scenario in Pakistan today it is probably an inside the family job that ends up in a nuclear Armageddon in India.
BS. Why would jihadis use a nuke on land they think they will conquer anyway? Especially when the gleaming towers of Manhattan and Canary Wharf await, full of people with the blood of Muslims on their hands.

Trial run ? easier target? Intimidation? To try to show others same fate awaits them if they don't submit? Plausible deniability by the rabidly anti-Indian PA as "non-state" actors will be involved?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2010 10:28

Pakistan Begins to Ease Backlog of Visas for American Diplomats

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world ... pstan.html

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Apr 2010 10:54

Guys:

This morning on NPR, I heard something interesting. The "anal-ysts" were talking about AfPak and in particular the stellar role of TSP (while in the same breath pounding on Hamid Karzai). And given that these "anal-yst" clowns are mouthpieces of Pentagon/state dept, and hardcore nationalists, sometimes they inadvertently give it way. What struck me was the WP reporter's claim that US struck a sort of bargain with TSP: you go after Afghan Taliban and we (USA) decimate Paki Taliban. I find there is a lot of truth in this because note US has been blowing away Paki Taliban to smithreens, and as they disappear, Sehwag, Gilchrist type fireworks in TSP have also abated (as a consolation, I just subscribed to the remaning IPL 2010 matches

). Combine this with TSP Guboing by taking on Afghan Taliban, the picture is clear. Which begs the question, is there some iota of reality to TSP's paranoia, namely, Paki Taliban were in fact a US creation, and of course true to USA's crass real-politics, they ditched TSP Taliban once they served their purpose? Just wondering. The point being that Paki Taliban have had such a fleeting presence and I wonder who they are, why they took on TSPA etc.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 10 Apr 2010 11:48

CRamS wrote:Guys:

This morning on NPR, I heard something interesting. The "anal-ysts" were talking about AfPak and in particular the stellar role of TSP (while in the same breath pounding on Hamid Karzai). And given that these "anal-yst" clowns are mouthpieces of Pentagon/state dept, and hardcore nationalists, sometimes they inadvertently give it way. What struck me was the WP reporter's claim that US struck a sort of bargain with TSP: you go after Afghan Taliban and we (USA) decimate Paki Taliban. I find there is a lot of truth in this because note US has been blowing away Paki Taliban to smithreens, and as they disappear, Sehwag, Gilchrist type fireworks in TSP have also abated (as a consolation, I just subscribed to the remaning IPL 2010 matches ). Combine this with TSP Guboing by taking on Afghan Taliban, the picture is clear. Which begs the question, is there some iota of reality to TSP's paranoia, namely, Paki Taliban were in fact a US creation, and of course true to USA's crass real-politics, they ditched TSP Taliban once they served their purpose? Just wondering. The point being that Paki Taliban have had such a fleeting presence and I wonder who they are, why they took on TSPA etc.

Are you trying to spread Paki propoganda here?

Paki Taliban has been around as long as there has been Taliban around in Pakistan. Which is a long time. Recall that in Circa 2001 a whole bunch of them went to fight in Afghanistan and got slaughtered there.

While it is true that US has droned some Paki Taliban, it is mainly the TSPA fighting the TTP.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Apr 2010 12:35

Dipanker wrote: Are you trying to spread Paki propoganda here?

Paki Taliban has been around as long as there has been Taliban around in Pakistan. Which is a long time. Recall that in Circa 2001 a whole bunch of them went to fight in Afghanistan and got slaughtered there.

While it is true that US has droned some Paki Taliban, it is mainly the TSPA fighting the TTP.

Definetly not. I was only regurgitating what the WP reporter mentioned. But I do find it puzzling that sixers stopped all of a sudden in TSP. And this coincides with TSP beginning to ditch Afghan Taliban. Go figure.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 10 Apr 2010 12:41

Last summer's Taliban threat of Slumbad take-over was choreographed by the PA. Perhaps there was/is nothing called Paki Taliban. Some irregulars were mobilized and they went off stage after playing their role.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Apr 2010 13:07

"Family Matters" - a review of Fatima Bhutto's book by William Dalrymple

Instead, it was under her watch that Pakistan’s secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), helped install the Taliban in Pakistan, and she did nothing to rein in the agency’s disastrous policy of training up Islamist jihadis from the country’s madrasas to do the ISI’s dirty work in Kashmir and Afghanistan. As a young correspondent covering the conflict in Kashmir in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I saw how during her premiership, Pakistan sidelined the Kashmiris’ own secular resistance movement, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and instead gave aid and training to the brutal Islamist outfits it created and controlled, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat ul-Mujahedin. Benazir’s administration, in other words, helped train the very assassins who are most likely to have shot her.

Benazir was, above all, a feudal landowner, whose family owned great tracts of Sindh, and with the sense of entitlement this produced. Democracy has never thrived in Pakistan in part because landowning remains the base from which politicians emerge. In this sense, Pakistani democracy in Pakistan is really a form of “elective feudalism”: the Bhuttos’ feudal friends and allies were nominated for seats by Benazir, and these landowners made sure their peasants voted them in.

Behind Pakistan’s swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of elitist interests: to some extent, Pakistan’s industrial, military and landowning classes are all interrelated, and they look after each other.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 10 Apr 2010 14:10

Satya_anveshi wrote:Wall Street Leaves Pakistan's Financial Capital

Three Wall Street banks have abandoned their brokerage operations in Pakistan amid the nation's bleak economic situation.

Citigroup's Citibank shuttered its equity research office in Karachi, the nation's financial capital, in March. Credit Suisse Group closed its research operations in the same city earlier this year. That follows JPMorgan Chase's decision in late 2008 to suspend its brokerage operations, also in Karachi.

Some of these banks were responsible for researching venues of privatization of sick baki PSUs according to the book "Who owns pakistan". Nice read. Its available free online!

Interesting so many international entities leaving bakistan. Singapore airlines, and now this! also UN closed its offices for some time. Some terror intel has come to these entities I think!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Apr 2010 14:15

CRamS, as is normally true in this murky business of state actors and non-state actors, not everything is black or white and there are shades of gray.

Everyone knows that the Pakistani Taliban and the Punjabi Taliban are both creations of the Pakistani State. When such armed groups are created, the following things, inter alia, are likely to happen too:

The groups become to big and difficult to handle; so, they are split even by engineering dissensions to be able to be handled easily (like HuJI being split to create HuM or HuM itself being split to create JeM)
The groups develop a mind of their own and decide to follow a new agenda either partially or completely (like HuJI, JeM or LeJ)
The groups continue to remain faithful but increasingly demand heavy concessions in return to the point of even dominating the creator (like LeT)

The same thing happened with the Pakistani Taliban too. For example, they put the Durand Line issue on the backburner, but never refused to give up their demand even when they depended entirely on Pakistan for military, diplomatic and economic support. They refused to give up Riaz Basra who attempted to kill Nawaz Sharif in January 1999. It was providentially that Nawaz escaped a certain death when a police VHF set inadvertantly triggered the explosives minutes before Nawaz Sharif's convoy was to pass through. Riaz Basra was even given an important position within the Taliban cabinet. Saudi Intelligence Chief Turki bin Faisal was sent away empty-handed (and without even lunch) from Kandahar after a meeting with the one-eyed Omar. KSA was after all the second benefactor of the Taliban.

The point being that the unbottled genie may behave unpredictably and may not always do the bidding of the owner. Even while being estranged in a way, situations may develop that needs cooperation. I am therefore not inclined to believe that there are only a 'with-the-PA and against-the-PA' extremes with nothing in between. The topology is not discrete.

At a world-view level, the PA and the Taliban overlap and complement each other. Operationally, they have had issues and definitely so after 9/11. In BRF, many of us believed that the assassination attempts on Musharraf were all stage managed. We now know that was not true. The hudabaiya that Gen. Musharraf & Co.favoured was too sophisticated an idea to be comprehended by the frothing-at-mouth-corners jihadi foot soldiers who were in a tearing hurry to meet their houris and boys. Even the progenitor of the Taliban, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman is a marked man today because the Taliban have churned through the centrifuge and attained a higher purity than the poor JUI-F chief, though he continues to defend them out of conviction (and also dear life).

Let's remember that it was *not* the Pakistani Taliban that took on the PA first. It was the Punjabi Taliban of HuJI, JeM and LeJ. The tried to assassinate Gen. Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz and the Karachi Corps Commander. The Pakistani Taliban took on the PA in March 2004 at Kaloosha in South Waziristan when the PA tried to attack the Uzbeks led by Tahir Yuldashev. That was a real turning point.

There are therefore times when they cooperate, when they seem to cooperate, when they have internecine fight etc.

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Apr 2010 16:49

X Posted. Former member of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is reduced to the sorry state of having to seek asylum in the UK.

The only crime of the former member of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not being a follower of the State religion of Pakistan namely Islam but rather following the minority Sikh religion:

Pakistani politician given new hope of asylum

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Apr 2010 18:47

Former Taliban era Afghan Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef describing Pakistan in his book “My Life With The Taliban”:

“Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad.”

Taken from our former special envoy to West Asia, Chinmaya Gharekhan’s review of the book in Outlook:

Outlook

archan · Post by **archan** » 10 Apr 2010 19:10

arun wrote:X Posted. Former member of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is reduced to the sorry state of having to seek asylum in the UK.

The only crime of the former member of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not being a follower of the State religion of Pakistan namely Islam but rather following the minority Sikh religion:

Pakistani politician given new hope of asylum

What a surprise! looks like Pakistanis don't have the word "tolerance" in the form of Islam they practice. Perhaps they need to learn it from the citizens of other nations?

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 10 Apr 2010 21:01

If that's happening to a parliament member imagine the situation of normal non-muslims in napakistan.

Give peace a chance destroy RATS (Rogue army of terrorist state of Pakistan) is not an empty slogan!! the sooner this is implemented the better it will be for the whole humanity.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Apr 2010 21:28

SSridhar wrote:Where Sipah-e-Sahaba Rules - by Khaled Ahmed in TFT

Please read it completely to understand the emerging menace. PA is willing to let Seraikistan become the new FATA on the eastern borders.

SSji!

Can India preempt this? If so, what are the options?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Apr 2010 22:15

Pious Pakistanis killed by less pious Pakistanis
Pakistan airstrike, gunfight kill 48 militants

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Apr 2010 22:30

As a young correspondent covering the conflict in Kashmir in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I saw how during her premiership, Pakistan sidelined the Kashmiris’ own secular resistance movement, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and instead gave aid and training to the brutal Islamist outfits it created and controlled, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat ul-Mujahedin.

Can some kind soul kindly explain the meaning of the word "secular" to me( esp referred to in the bolded part)?

If JKLF was secular, i am Vladimir Putin.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Apr 2010 22:42

For the Record

The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), a leading pro-independence group, has admitted for the first time that its cadres were initially trained in arms and guerilla warfare by Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The training was imparted during the late 1980s under a deal between the ISI and the JKLF. The chief of the JKLF, Amanullah Khan, has said that the deal struck in 1987 carried the approval of General Ziaul Haq, the military ruler at the time. Khan’s revelations constitute part of the second volume of his autobiography titled Jahd-e-Musalsal or ‘The Unending Struggle’, which was formally launched in Islamabad on June 25. In his book, Khan claims that the ISI first established contact with the JKLF in early 1987 through the organisation’s senior leader Dr Farooq Haider.

The JKLF was to recruit militants in Indian-administered Kashmir, bring them across the Line of Control (LoC) and deliver them to the ISI for training. Besides training, the ISI was also to provide weapons and logistical support to facilitate the launch of those militants in Indian–administered Kashmir to spark an insurgency.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Apr 2010 23:15

The west always creates these fictions to suit their interests. There is no such things as secular about Kashmiri Muslims wanting to seceede from India, everry one of them harbors a deep seated hatred of Hindus and India, mirroring Pakijabis. I have read many a US diplomats say openly that KMs deserve a separate country, and among other things, they suggest that KMs are more "fair-skinned" (TFTA) from the rest of us SDREs.

Now even India is cowered into accepting this bile. So Mirwaiz Umar fukroo is a "moderate" because he demands to join his paki lovers without blowing himself up; I guess thats why he is "moderate", he's probably getting enough 72's here on mother earth.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Apr 2010 23:27

Now even India is cowered into accepting this bile.

Who in India has accepted this?
India will not redraw borders in Kashmir: Manmohan Singh

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 10 Apr 2010 23:34

Kashmiri Muslims are Indians. As are Muslims everywhere else in India. Even if you assume that Kashmiri Muslims want to secede (which is a myth) it is a partial failure of India along three dimensions:

1. Our handling of regional secession movements and politically convenience secession speeches through vote rigging and supporting two bit politicians. Tamil Nadu had a secession movement too -- it was handled better.

2. Our inability to politically tackle the terror emanating from Pakistan. Our Jawans are making more than their fair share of sacrifices -- but our Netas and Babus are making India teeter on the brink by doing such things as handing Haji Pir back, not allowing complete capture of Saltoro Ridge ityadi. More terror = More armed forces = more alienation.

3. Our inability to sell the idea of India as being superior to the idea of Pan-Islamic ummah. Though we have been helped lately by Pakistani hara kiri. As a subtext, it also reflects on our inability to economically integrate JK better with the rest of India. Look at a typical family in Maharashtra/Tam Nadu even Bihar/UP. Everybody has some family member or friend working/studying in every part of India. JK is an exception. Also add to the fact that the economy there is doing a Pakistan (I am not talking about the top heavy economy due to money handouts, I am talking about the bottom heavy productive economy like Bangalore)

Though I agree with you that the Mirwaiz is a F-ing b4st4rd. I still distinctly remember an interview telecast on TV many moons ago, where when asked about Kashmiri Pandits he said that Kashmiris are willing to forget the fact that Pandits abandoned them during their struggle and are willing to take them back.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 10 Apr 2010 23:41

West doesn't have to think about India's interest vis-à-vis pakistan. We shouldnt be giving blank checks to west,instead
hold them accountable for double speak

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 10 Apr 2010 23:52

Anujan wrote:Kashmiri Muslims are Indians. As are Muslims everywhere else in India. Even if you assume that Kashmiri Muslims want to secede (which is a myth) it is a partial failure of India along three dimensions:

Don't disagree with you other points but is this one really true? In my experience all the KMs I've met constantly emphasize how "separate" they are from India. If others call them Indian, they will immediately correct them.

Maybe separatist feelings have increased due to our handling, idk.

R_Kumar · Post by **R_Kumar** » 10 Apr 2010 23:57

I wonder what was the "out of box solution" between him and Mushy. Or it was just a media speculation.

Gerard wrote:
Now even India is cowered into accepting this bile.
Who in India has accepted this?
India will not redraw borders in Kashmir: Manmohan Singh

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 10 Apr 2010 23:58

May be someone intentionally comes across Kashmiris with a jihadi mindset

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 Apr 2010 00:06

Funny thing is that job of the media is to ask tough questions and seek clarifications from ambiguity. When MMS keeps repeating this no redrawing of borders in Kashmir, what exactly does that mean? And to whom is his mantra addressed to? Who is asking to re-draw borders in Kashmir?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 Apr 2010 00:21

Who is asking to re-draw borders in Kashmir?

Pakistanis, five times a day for 63 years.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 11 Apr 2010 00:24

R_Kumar wrote:I wonder what was the "out of box solution" between him and Mushy. Or it was just a media speculation.

There are enough reports to suggest that Mush pulled a con job on India through MMS (although, MMS wasn't conned, he agreed to it). And that is entire Kashmir will be preserved as on entity, there will be de-militarization on both sides of the LOC, and there will be JOINT India-TSP soverignty over all of Kashmir, with a sort of quazi independence to Kashmir itself in that they will have self rule for the most part. One doesn't need a high IQ to see how this will play out practically. With no Indian army, the valley will be flooded with Pakijabis and others from POK (where there is nothing anyway). Elections will be held in which Mirwaiz fukroo, Jeelani etc will win a thumping majority (basically MMS would have conceeded a plebiscite of sorts); and make aggressive demands on India as the "representatives of the Kashmiri people". And despite "joint governence", under such a scenario, you think India stands a chance?

MMS will have basically signed off surrender of Kashmir in slow motion, even as he walks down the Nobel aisle in Stockholm. Once such a crap is agreed to, Kashmir will go away from the headlines, and this is where US steps in, there will be confering of "great power" status on India, perhaps IT jobs and other outsourcing from US will continue at pace, not to mention nuke deal and the like, and Indian people will all but forget about Kashmir; while TSP will be hoisting the green crescent over Srinagar, and the west will be riding their white horses in Gulmarg and their travel agencies offering special vacation packages for the likes of Billy "BJ" clinton and his 20 something mistresses like Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile, India of course will have become a "global superpower of the 21st century".

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 11 Apr 2010 00:37

If Pakistan separates Gilgit from Kashmir, why don't we separate Ladakh from Kashmir? Other than the fact it is politically impossible I suppose.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 11 Apr 2010 00:44

CRamS-ji

Pakis consistently underestimate the Judiciary-Neta-Babu-Media circus of India. "Joint management" of any piece of Indian territory is remote, if not impossible.

1. There is no provision in the constitution about Joint management of any piece of Indian territory
2. Article 370 has to be repealed
3. The Parliament resolution that whole of JK including POK is Indian territory should be repealed
4. It has implications to IWT and has to cross the sea of babudom
5. It has to pass the Supreme court's basic structure doctrine

Before you pooh pooh all of this remember that this is India, and there is a "System". Even MMS's grandfather cant subvert it.

Mush was coming from the angle of a tin pot dictator of a two bit country, he can be excused if does a media propagandu about his imminent victory.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 Apr 2010 00:46

The Indian state has no intention of ceding Kashmir to Pakistan hence no need to divide up the state.
Nothing in the decades since partition suggests that India is willing to cede any territory or remove its army from anywhere. The pockets of lands in adverse possession on the Indo-Bangla (formerly Pakistan) border remain so. Even a simple matter like Sir Creek has not been settled.