J&K News and Discussion-2011

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2011 16:38

somnath wrote:^^^It ould be interesting to read the book then...(if that is the only source)...Importantly, it was widely reported that Gen Sundarji had amased 400k troops along the Raj border - thats a huge number for a "feint"...Did we have the resources to shift these troops quickly to the Kashmir theatre for a mountain war, acclimatise them, and then launch an attack to overrun PoK?

There were,and are, enough troops available to prepapre for assault on POK. IA had airlifted a Mountain Division for the task; none of the troops from plain were moved.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 07 Feb 2011 20:05

@ somnath,
Blue is mine

somnath wrote:
krisna wrote:what is the problem- I countered your own statements with mine. Now you are quoting that statement. Please re read your post and mine. pointless to keep dragging on .wonders never cease.
Krisnaji, I did..And I dont get it - you said
take Junagadh and hyderabad and some other areas around independence- they wanted to align with TSP but where are the aspirations now
My simple point is that they never "wanted to align" with Pak, and to start with their "aspirations" were with India! So where is the comparison to J&K!
I wanted to stick around J&K/polls only, somehow you intend to bring in other matters also widening the issue. You said the following---- Fact is, there wil never be any human situation anywhere when there isnt a ground for grievances..It is there in all states - but how many rise in protest at each pretext? hence I talked about any state like bihar(which you mentioned) and hyderabad and junagadh for the issues around independence

krisna wrote:POK is not included- please go through the chatham polls.
Page 19 of the report - district-wise distribution of the choice of AJK..
The districts excluded were Doda, Pulwara and
Kupwara. 1400 were in seven of the eight districts in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), the district of
Neelum being excluded, along with Gilgit-Baltistan (the Northern Areas).
correction it should read northern areas whereas I have mentioned POK which is not correct. My bad

krisna wrote:You have not answered my questions- because you choose to convenietly ignore it. I questioned though GOI gives enormous grants/money where does it go
Presumably through the same delivery channels that the rest of India has - and victim to the famous "15 paise for every rupee" syndrome...But whatever be the systemic leakages, the fact that it has made the average poverty levels in J&K the lowest in the country means that if anything, it is having an impact..

now you have conveniently inserted independence to the paki votes. Paki votes are 6% and 7% in srinagar and badgam
I am not "conveniently" inserting anything..A solution that gives "independence" would suit the Paki strategic objectives fine, in fact multiple rulers from Pak have constantly harped upon the theme of "self determination" for a long time...
This is your assessment from the chatham polls when I asked about the insertion you say this!! to suit your opinion.

krisna wrote:Hence despite GOI spending enormous sums of money it is not reaching the people due to mismanagement. It is really shocking that over 90% are unemployed in KV. These people are easy targets for separatists.
1. Leakage in delivery is true for the whole of India, a much in Kanyakumari as it is to Kashmir.(Good governance can reduce the problem as shown in Gujarat. Bihar is improving also recently. many other states are also improving it.)
2. 90% unemplyment - source of the data?!( peoples vote chatham polls data.)
3. Again if unemployment can create separatists, West Bengal should have been a juicy target since the '70s ( You misread my statement- I said with over 90% unemeployment, they are easy target for separatists. Separatists give money to youths to indulge in protests etc. OTOH if separatists are present in WB they can exploit the unemployed youth and create disturbance with time. There is potential. )

The theory that the issue in Kashmir is that of economic development has been sought to be projected many times..That is why every time a PM visits J&K, there is an "economic package" thrown in...In terms of outcomes, it has had its impact...But the political problem persists...

When there is a mass of unemployed youths floating around they will do any bidding when the question comes to feeding family. Separatists giving

400-500 to indulge in stone pelting is easy. Give the youths jobs, create industries things will change. it will increase their cost for sustaining the independence movement.

If J&K has the lowest poverty levels then why does it have high unemployment levels. they do not go together- the high unemployment levels was per the chatham polls where people voted for it in multiple choice question format. Something is wrong here. It scores easily over violence. in fact people want peace more desperately than violence. again who does the violence! In a democratic set up any problem can become political- ex- unemployment, onion prices, corruption etc

You said

TO somehow think that roti kapda makaan worries will transcend the sullenness of the KMs is a big leap of faith, something that huge investments over teh years havent fructivied into

True GoI has pumped lot of money into J&K. But the returns are absymal due to lack of encouragement in setting up industries, lack of encouragement of entreprenuership, corruption,governance issues. Many other states are doing something or the other. There is freer movement of people and goods. In J&K it is one way --from Rest of India(ROI) to J&K. What ROI gets to hear is only violence mayhem TSP interference KM domination over the rest of J&K.
One of the problems is related to article 370 which restricts some freedom.

I can say -- like this- To somehow think that independence worries will transcend the sullenness of the KMs is a big leap of faith, something that violence and deaths of many innocent Indians over the years havent fructified into.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Feb 2011 23:12

Somnath wants India keep making the mistakes of past when Indians onlee defended and never took the war to Islamist lands from where the attack were orginating . Paid the price in 100 Million dead and god knows how Indians endured the mayhem for few hundred years . With current weak Government of Congress, DIE/RANDIS now laying down the foundation for round2 of same destruction. The poisonous seeds they sow in J&k will be detrimental for the long term welfare of Indic people.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 Feb 2011 23:22

Regarding going back on history and how far one should go, it is again typical American Football rules. Go back only until 1947 or go back only until 1920 is always you will be told. Anything beyond that will be called as revivalist, impractical etc.

It is childish to ask one to go about only 50 to 60 years when the civilization with rules of life in this land is about 5000 years old. What is that so impractical to even go about 1500 to 2000 years which is part of well written history.

What exactly is going to happen if India says no negotiations on JK including POK. Go to hell. Let us discuss the ramifications of such a posture. What is that the fear is ? Is it just less number of lavotories that can be constructed in India? This truck load of bull shit is being peddled on this forum for quite a while and it needs to be given a break.

munna · Post by **munna** » 07 Feb 2011 23:37

What exactly is going to happen if India says no negotiations on JK including POK. Go to hell. Let us discuss the ramifications of such a posture. What is that the fear is ? Is it just less number of lavotories that can be constructed in India? This truck load of bull shit is being peddled on this forum for quite a while and it needs to be given a break.

Mupallaji the ideological defense against the purveyors of "rationality" and "practicality" is wrong. Any argument for "concession" or "adjustment" touted by this constituency stems from innate need to preserve their status in the regime du jour (hint hint random invites by some Mr J. Chand to Af-Pak kingdoms). Since regime du jour matters more than republic of the people, regime and its continuance takes precedence over anything else.
No need to argue with such interests, just mobilize and keep the masses engaged. Dekh lenge kisko kya denge yeh?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Feb 2011 23:38

From his posts, it is clear that Somnath thinks that India's history started in 1947. Anything beyond that time line is mythology for him.

For a nation that is born only 300 years ago, 400 years old history is remote as they cannot find any connection between that old and new history. Bharat existed for many millennia and what happened after Mahabharata war in ~3120BC is the new epoch. One has to see the Bharat from that point to date as a single thread of history.

Compared to that the J&K issue is very new and its resolution ends in its unconditional and complete integration with Bharat.

munna · Post by **munna** » 07 Feb 2011 23:46

Ajatshatru wrote:And tell me something....whose side are you on, anyway?

Pardon sir but never ask this question in any debate. This is the most easily defeated question by purveyors of "rationality" and "progress". By asking this question you imply that there are sides and you belong to one too. Moreover this also implies that these "sides" exist within the nation and all sides are valid. The other guy will easily claim that he is on India's side but not the one that you claim to be on. That easy.

The best strategy on Kashmir for all nationalist people is to keep at it. Mobilize opinion in aam aadmi, agitate on streets, scuttle and stymie pappi-jhappi, establish a nationalist veto on J&K policy and to revive Lok Sabha as the primary arbiter and not GOI in dealing with J&K issue.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Feb 2011 23:57

Who is catering to the aspirations of Non Muslims population who has only one home to live in with all of their cultural ,spiritual centres within their country?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Feb 2011 00:31

Logic is never a part of the thinking that dismisses all non-Muslim claims to Kashmir Valley and the whole of the state of J&K as mythology.

For example if history only starts at 1947, where do the events of of 1947 come from - without any previous historical connection? Nothing led up to 1947? No the claim to start history only at 1947, at least for Kashmir, is for a much more sinister purpose. That is to paint the history of Kashmir as Islamic, with NC and its leaderships' supposed fight against "feudalism" all ready and ripe, and that Islamic past of Kashmir has to be painted as a peaceful "spiritual" conquest by oh-so-peaceful "sufis". If you allow the history of the Kashmir region to go beyond 1947, then all the history of torture and genocide against the Kashmiri Hindus and Buddhists under successive Islamic regimes may become exposed - and may simply show that nothing really has changed in the "valley" as far as roots of hatred against their perceived traditional targets goes.

Then again, at various times the "Hindu/Sikh" claim on Kashmir has been dubbed a fantasy, mythology, and the general "Hindu/saffron" position on anything over national issues have been lambasted as being marginal, and fringe. Now marginal and fringe means they are a "minority" - right? Now as a minority, should not their rights and claims be protected? Because even if all other arguments and excuses are dropped - the only argument that is still used to defend pandering to Kashmiri Muslim demand - is that it is the demand of the minority.

If you do not use that minority card to even say why you should listen to their aspirations, then the only other thing that remains is that you listen to them or try and compromise because they can make "trouble" and come out on the streets. Now if that is the logic - then it means if the saffron/Hindu comes out on the streets and makes trouble - you should listen to them too.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 08 Feb 2011 00:39

X posting from TSP thread,
EDITORIAL: Territorial solidarity for Kashmir

Every year, our leaders and people go through the usual motions without realising that they are not helping the Kashmir cause much with their rhetoric, not to mention that most of this ‘solidarity drive’ is confined by and large to Azad Kashmir, the northern areas and Punjab. The rest of Pakistan — Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — have little interest in this cause. The reason is that people in these parts of Pakistan are themselves fighting for their own rights. It was a bit disconcerting to see President Asif Ali Zardari asking India to give up the disputed territory of Kashmir. With due respect to the president, this is not realistic. Dialogue with India on Kashmir, among other issues, is the right thing to do, but to envisage India giving up Kashmir is a pipedream.

On the other hand, Pakistan-based jihadi groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen weakened the genuine case of the Kashmiris due to their terrorist activities during the 80s and the 90s, particularly after the 1989 uprising in IHK triggered off by rigged elections. Jihadist groups not only drove out the Kashmiri Pundits from Jammu but also alienated many Kashmiri Muslims. A recent example of this is the murder of two teenage sisters by the LeT militants in Sopore as a result of ‘moral policing’. After 9/11, our military had its hands full. The Kashmir militancy was put on the backburner. General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s plan of demilitarisation on both sides of Kashmir was something that did not go down well with the militants who carried on with their activities, albeit irregular, without overt support of Pakistan’s military establishment.

realising the facts that there are not really TFTA.
admitting that LeT and HM were terrorists and weakened the cause- that is something.
some paqi brain cells starting to function.

hope the editor does not become wajib ul katl soon.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2011 02:03

A free translation of an commentary from Andhrabhoomi (Telugu news paper)

http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/ka-main-fea ... rticle-158

The “unfurling of national flag in Lal Chowk” event demonstrated lack of unity in Indian political parties even in the matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.
Disagreeing with BJP on governance policies and principles is the democratic right of any political party. But it is unfortunate that these parties oppose BJP even in the matters of national security, integrity.
The unfurling of national flag in Lal Chowk is a symbolic campaign against the forces that are trying to destroy Indian territorial integrity in devious manner.
…
For decades, there is no indication of public pressure against political parties in the direction of protecting national interests and territorial integrity. This is mainly because majority voters in India do not understand the dependency of their economic and employment security on India’s national security and territorial integrity. The immediate needs such as interest-free loans, ration cards, employment reservations, scholarships etc are dominating the public space when it comes to election demands. It is extremely worrisome to note the apathy of Indian citizenry about India’s territorial integrity that can severely influence the national security that has been enabling their economic security for generations.
…
If India were not to split in 1937 (Burma) and again in 1947 (Pakistan & Bangladesh) the national integrity of undivided Bharat would have been secure. It would have allowed billions of dollars of national wealth to be invested in the areas of economic progress instead of fighting the threats from Bangladesh, Burma, Pakistan, and China etc.
A united India would have evolved into a formidable economic power by now. The secret of China’s, which was way behind India in 1940s in all aspects of human development index, development is its unaltered territorial integrity.
…
The pseudo intellectuals who saw “Raising of National Flag in Lal Chowk” as BJP’s political issue; argued vehemently against it. But the same people do not have any comment on the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Neither they would say anything against the external affairs minister who wanted to settle the separatists from POK in Jammu and Kashmir.
…

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Feb 2011 02:36

Dhiman wrote:
somnath wrote: One of the things that I am frequently amused by is invocation of historicities in a discussion on realpolitik

Sorry for OT,
Most of Dhimans i know are from Doaba belt. Sir ji, any relation with Arya pathshala or early morning work out at Bhooa Tamri ?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Feb 2011 07:13

Propagation of religion, and not the pursuit of politics and power, is primary concern: Jamaat-i-Islami

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/az ... mi/747199/

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2011 07:50

somnath wrote:^^^ Dhimanji, studying history to gain a perspective is useful..But invoking history of Rishis, Sikh armies et al without having an iota of capacity on the ground is not realpolitik, because no one gives a damn..That was the limited point...

My rishis (Viswamitra, Aghamarshana, Kausika) are my history, my existence, my duty, and my lineage.

This is like one wanting to "wish away" one's forefathers as they are all dead and no one gives a damn.

It looks good in a discussion until it comes to one's own mother and sister. After all one's sister has to have a sex-partner, be it a secular marriage or hindu saptapadi or muslim nikah. Why not get away with that "ritual" and directly get into business; because no one gives a damn.

***

Realpolitik is a good theology.

Realpolitik (see also Political realism; from German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”, German pronunciation: [ʀeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian. Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles. Balancing power to keep the European pentarchy was the means for keeping the peace, and careful Realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races.

On what realpolitik GOI must negotiate with a Pakistan?

- That is global sponsor of terrorism, especially against India
- That is 1/5th of India's economy
- That is 1/3rd w.r.t armed forces
- That has demonstrated history of dishonoring every bilateral treaty that it has signed with India.

Now if you are talking about realpolitik with Kashmiri separatists; please elaborate on the "realpolitik" parameters you want to apply in your negotiation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2011 07:58

A observer in India noted all J&K stuff is coming from PMO. PM thinks its a legacy issue for him and also eCONomy related matter. The U S hand is very slight and is hardly there due to a lack of clout and baksheesh to accommodate the key players.

So waht does this nugget mean to me?

I think some sort of a maya like the IUCNA is underway. In this case is mainly India & Kashmir to allow just like Hyde protects US H&D there is something to protect TSP H&D.

Thats all my brain says for now.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Feb 2011 08:04

ramana garu - just two words - motivated selloff.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2011 08:26

ramana wrote: I think some sort of a maya like the IUCNA is underway. In this case is mainly India & Kashmir to allow just like Hyde protects US H&D there is something to protect TSP H&D.

My biggest worry is the one with the real strings... Rishi Hun!

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 08 Feb 2011 09:59

Why does every PM thinks that resolving Kashmir issue with Pakistan is the Legacy they want to leave behind?
Why not the legacy of ignoring TSP for few decades to let it stew in the marinade of its own terrorism and fundamentalism or better getting back what is known as PoK.
The scary thing is that there are no plans, no discussions even within the strategic community. I am sure if tomorrow opportunity arises, GoI will find some convenient reason not to take over POK and ascribe it to some Chanikianess.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 08 Feb 2011 10:48

I don't think there is any attempt on GoI's side to "resolve" Kashmir. It's just diplomatic time pass i.e. Chai biskoot with TSP, a statement here and there added to a meeting on the sideline of some random summit. GoI is more than happy with status quo with TSP and peace in the valley. everything else (including media activism) is just a circus.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Feb 2011 11:38

Krisnaji,

1. If you estimate economic numbers through an opinion poll, I have nothing to say...Suffice to say that 90% unemployment (which has to be the higest in the country) cannot translate into the country's lowest poverty levels..More reliable numbers are here..

http://www.onemint.com/2010/11/10/india ... ds-at-9-4/

J&K's unemployemtn stands at 4.9%, half the national average...

2. People across the country have economic grievances - Jairam Ramesh's "East of Kanpur" puts the matter into perspective..and they manifest themseves multiple manners - communitarian (asking for reservations etc), agitprop (the NAC-type recos) or even violent insurgencies (NAxalism)....But none of the insurgency movements in India, asking for seccession have had economics as the top of their agenda....Punjab was the richest state in the country when the Khalistan movement blew up...J&K's so-called azaadi movement has little economic narrative, in fact none at all...

If anything, J&K is one of the economically well-off states of the union, and pampered as well (as its well being is funded almost wholly by the taxpaying public from the rest of the country)...

If you still conclude that economics defines KM attitudes towards India, well, thats a POV, and you are entitled to it..My reading is that it is a political problem, and an Islamist problem - we need to deal with it as that...

RamaY wrote:For a nation that is born only 300 years ago, 400 years old history is remote as they cannot find any connection between that old and new history. Bharat existed for many millennia and what happened after Mahabharata war in ~3120BC is the new epoch. One has to see the Bharat from that point to date as a single thread of history.

RamaYji, you can study the grand sweeps of history to discern trends, try to analyse events etc..But they are not worth anything when you negotiate/bargain geopolitical positions...That can only be done out of hard capacities on the ground TODAY...Invoking Ranjit Singh's armies to lay claim on PoK is not a relevant realpolitik variable, having disruptive capacities in PoK to "annex" the territory is...

This is an important question:

VikasRaina wrote:Why does every PM thinks that resolving Kashmir issue with Pakistan is the Legacy they want to leave behind?

Why indeed? PVNR, IKG, ABV and now MMS - resolving the Kashmir issue has remained paramount in the objective goals for every PM in the last 20 years...IMO the reason is what Jaswant Singh explains (in his "Call to honour") - consolidating and sanctifying national borders is one of the imperatives of a nation state aspiring for greatness....China has boundary issues with most of its neighbours...In the last 30 years, it has preferred to keep these issues on the backburner while it builds up its capacities....It does not concede much, but niether does it force (a military) issue...Now China is lucky in its constellation of neighbours, India isnt so...

If annexation of PoK is a real strategic imperative for India, we should be building capcities to do it...Not invoking Ranjit Singh's armies...The point is that most PMs have believed that it is not worth the effort, and sanctifying the current LoC is a good enough solution to move on with...

And to give sue credit, the LoC has been sanctified, as a de facto if not a de jure border.....What we need to do now is take the sting out of the "azaadi" movement, so that it becomes irrelevant....One component of that is military, which has been achieved largely..The other component is to keep Pakistan on the diplomatic backfoot all the time, which keeps the diplomatic irrelevance of the matter going...As a status quo power, we can afford to do that - we have the land, and that is 9/10s of law! Which is what is really happening, if you see...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Feb 2011 12:17

rohitvats wrote:There were,and are, enough troops available to prepapre for assault on POK. IA had airlifted a Mountain Division for the task; none of the troops from plain were moved.

One division for an invasion of PoK? That sounds really low!

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 08 Feb 2011 12:35

somnath wrote:But invoking history of Rishis, Sikh armies et al without having an iota of capacity on the ground is not realpolitik, because no one gives a damn.

I don't understand your correlation between "invoking history" and "without having an iota of capacity on the ground." Please clarify

Now that is a separate discussion. Balkanisation of Pak per se...We have some capacities there (presence in Afghanistan, equity in Sind/Balochistan etc)...Developing on that theme would be a more worthwhile exerise than fantasies of integration of PoK into India....

Fine, so let's forget about India helping along Pakistan on its way to Balkanization. Just consider the fact that global mainstream media was full of stories regarding "collapse of Pakistan" in the aftermath of last year floods. Another man-made or natural disaster in Pakistan and same concerns will come up.

So I ask you this: if this very real concern of Pakistan collapsing does happen, who will gain control of PoK? Would you continue shouting from roof top that "Integrating PoK is a fantasy" while China and/or Taliban take over PoK? Forget about voluntarily integrating PoK, the scenario where India has no choice, but to take over PoK, is very real - not a fantasy in any sense of the word.

Consolidating borders is a waste of time! So you would prefer international borders to remain disputed,

LoC is "Line of Actual Control" not border. Did you not know that Sir?

With respect to "borders", they should be fully consolidated without giving those who have changed borders illegally any weight (as you seem to be doing).

with references to UN and every other worthy commenting on it?

Does UN and "every other worthy comment" have sovereignty over India's border?

Look at our actions in the last 15-20 years...We insisted on "bilateralism" - it has become a bilteral matter with no foreign govt comenting on it anymore..the UNSC has taken it off its agenda...We talked of inviolability of the LoC - sanctified during Kargil...We talk when we want to, we break off talks when we want to (has Pakistan ever "broken off" talks in the last 15 years?)...When we talk, the enduring agenda - Composite Dialogue, Soft Borders, Talks on Terror only, Talks on muliple issues - they are all set by us...W break off, we come back and continue where we think it is appropriatre to ake off from...Who is setting the agenda?

When it comes to the reality on ground, all this chit-chat has been completely useless - that's what 60 years of India-Pak historicity has shown.

The realistic option is to at the very least recognize that there are more proactive ways to solve the problem rather than GoI chitchatting with those on the other side who don't even have the ability to enforce solutions on ground.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 08 Feb 2011 12:53

Prem wrote: Sorry for OT,
Most of Dhimans i know are from Doaba belt. Sir ji, any relation with Arya pathshala or early morning work out at Bhooa Tamri ?

You seem to have more knowledge of those than me Sir

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2011 13:25

somnath wrote:
rohitvats wrote:There were,and are, enough troops available to prepapre for assault on POK. IA had airlifted a Mountain Division for the task; none of the troops from plain were moved.

One division for an invasion of PoK? That sounds really low!

And care to explain why should that be? Low with respect to what?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Feb 2011 17:50

rohitvats wrote:And care to explain why should that be? Low with respect to what?

The assault on Haji Pir Pass took two brigades supported by two different infantry divisions..Would a division strength troops be adequate for an assult to take over PoK?

Anyways, its speculative at the extrme, given the paucity of references to Op Brasstacks....

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2011 18:40

somnath wrote: RamaYji, you can study the grand sweeps of history to discern trends, try to analyse events etc..But they are not worth anything when you negotiate/bargain geopolitical positions...That can only be done out of hard capacities on the ground TODAY...Invoking Ranjit Singh's armies to lay claim on PoK is not a relevant realpolitik variable, having disruptive capacities in PoK to "annex" the territory is...

Somnathji,

On what basis China claiming Inner Mangolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, etc.,??? On what basis Britain or France are holding on to numerous islands in Indian ocean or Pacific?

Once again you are avoiding the straight question. On what realpolitik parameters India should negotiate JK with Pakistan or Cashmiri-separatists?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 Feb 2011 19:25

RamaY wrote: On what basis China claiming Inner Mangolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, etc.,??? On what basis Britain or France are holding on to numerous islands in Indian ocean or Pacific?

Once again you are avoiding the straight question. On what realpolitik parameters India should negotiate JK with Pakistan or Cashmiri-separatists?

Simple enough..Your example hides (or doesnt!) the answer!

For Tibet and Xinjiang, China has sanctified its borders internationally, crushed the military opposition and rendered the insurgency irrelevant...For Taiwan, instead of going on and on about "re-annexing" it, China has gone ahead and built extensive economic linkages with it - Taiwan is probably the highest foreign investor in China...Both are instances of realpolitik!

For India, we have largely crushed the militancy, talks with Pak is to sanctify the border (LoC) and talks with the separatists is to make the movement irrelevant (by either coopting them in the mainstream or simply showing them up to their audience as nincompoops who cant deliver - either way is fine)...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Feb 2011 22:01

Somnath,

But China still cries at one-china policy; which implies there exists more than one China at this moment. If China is confident with it's "economic integration", then why is it building the war-machine pointed at Taiwan. Another point is that USA doesn't encourage Taiwan to conduct cross-border terrorism.

Again, you are trying to wiggle out from a straight question. You were talking big about NOT bringing history and cultural ownership of Bharat on JK (that is the topic for now, before you jump on to why not entire Pakistan; which we can discuss in an appropriate thread), and instead use "Realpolitik" (some fancy word you picked there) in negotiating a "just deal" (what is Realpolitik in a just deal?) with useless JK separatists (on any parameter they are smaller than fly in front of the elephant that is Bharat) and Pakistan which has the strength of Jackal.

And then you bring democracy (What type of "Realpolitik" item democracy is?) and Human Rights (another "Realpolitik" parameter I suppose) and Standing up to one's commitments referring to ABV's "insaniyat" statement (one more "Realpolitik" parameter).

Do you see the intellectual fallacy here?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2011 03:41

I guess this is the right thread. .

Tamasha at Thimpu

Tamasha at Thimpu Managing Pakistan's failure and denuking it should preoccupy India most, says N.V.Subramanian.

7 February 2011: Can there be successful engagement between a thriving and rumbustious democracy like India and a failing jihadi state like Pakistan?

Not really.

Which is why this writer dismisses as hyperbole (or uncharacteristic cunning?) the Indian foreign secretary, Nirupama Rao's description of her Thimpu talks with her Pakistani counterpart as "successful".

Pakistan and India come to talks with mirror-opposite positions on Kashmir, the subject of Pakistan's eternal obsession. Pakistan claims it as the elusive prize of Partition.

Pakistan believes that with the possession of Kashmir, its problems of nationhood and national identity will cease. That's completely misguided.

If Pakistan had to become a nation, it would have done so in more than sixty years of independence. Kashmir is an excuse it trots out for its own failures in nation-building.

It sees Kashmir's breakaway as a catalyst to Balkanize India. It visualizes India as an artificial construct of secularism to be destroyed for its own survival.

That is one more reason why India will -- and can -- never give up Kashmir. No Central government could survive bartering away the state or changing its boundaries.

The problem for India is that it cannot not keep up the pretense of talking to Pakistan. The United States which has a handle in both countries wants talks to continue even though it is reconciled to its failure.

The US and India share fears about Pakistani nukes. The fear that those nukes will leak to the terrorists, in whole or in part, is what worries them and other responsible nuclear powers.

The crisis centres on the Pakistan army and the intelligence services. They control the deployment and security of the weapons.

Earlier, the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment nuclear-blackmailed India. Alongside, it expanded anti-India terrorism under a nuclear overhang, going all the way up to waging a "limited war" in Kargil.

It's when all this didn't deter India that it has attempted to blackmail the world about its nukes. The blackmail has taken two distinct forms.

One is that the Pakistan military must continue to be richly Western-aided so that it does not weaken against the terrorists and lose control of the nukes. Most of the aid is used to build the war-machine against India.

When Pakistan is questioned about the need for nukes, seeing it is the aggressor against India, and voices are raised to denuke it, it adopts the second distinctive form of blackmail. It lets out that the nukes will be leaked to the terrorists if it is not supported.

This vicious cycle could go on except for one thing. Pakistan is failing at a rapid pace. A terrorist takeover of Pakistan is as much a mid-term possibility as the state breaking up into its rival provinces. Don't imagine a Tunisia not to happen in Baluchistan.

For its internal failings, Pakistan must manufacture an external enemy. It is the United States and India. But for the Pakistan military and ISI, it is more often India.

Given this state of affairs, what can India do? At the most, it can keep up a fiction of talking, which is what this writer suspects the engagement with Pakistan is all about.

Nobody will admit it on the Indian side. But India is playing for time till Pakistan self-destructs.

Except for the huge problem related to the final disposal of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, nobody really cares (including the West) whether or not it survives as one state.

If Pakistani nukes can be evacuated, there will be active Western connivance to dismember it. Remember that together with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has become the incubator of Sunni terrorism.

So do not be surprised if Indo-Pak talks are really about managing Pakistan's failure and to minimize the fallouts. To expect anything more would be unrealistic and optimistic.

A failing nuclear state is a mega threat. If it is jihadi to boot, it becomes a nightmare.

India should benchmark its success dealing with the failed state of Pakistan and seeking ways to denuke it. Nothing else matters.

Opinion writers are despairing. Not good.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Feb 2011 05:59

@ Somnath,

I said

90% unemplyment - source of the data?!( peoples vote chatham polls data.)

You said

Krisnaji,

1. If you estimate economic numbers through an opinion poll, I have nothing to say...

Earlier you said which started the whole issue

dont know which polls you refer to, but all the polls one has seen (Outlook, Chatham House) say pretty much the same thing - KMs want "independence"...Which is both a good news and a bad news...Good, because at least they are not all Pakis...Bad, because we cannot give them any independence...

Based on the opinion polls like chatham you said

Which is why managing a group of aother 4-5 million sullen (Po)KMs does not sound to be terribly attractive...

When you take polls to suit your agenda it is valid when I take the same , you say it is not valid.
Say that the polls are either valid and accept it or invalid and discard it.
1) You cant accept data to accept your view point and refute others if the same polls are taken.
2) However flawed the data is regarding the chatham polls – one thing strikes very clearly – people are fed up of violence and want militancy to end particularly in KV. They feel militancy/kashmir conflict is less of a problem than economic development. Mind you it was a multiple choice format with all options. If they were desperate for independence every one would have ticked it. But it is not so.

Both of us have our views which may be at variance with each other. Most likely the end goals are same.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 Feb 2011 07:14

Krisnaji,

I have no problems with data from opinion polls...It gives you "what people think"...Not economic data...So Chtham House polls put "unemployment" as a top concern, thats fine..However, you cannot deduce form there that J&K has 90% unemployment! the former is an opinion, the latter is an economc fact...And the same poll (for the valley and PoK) very decisively opt for "independence" as the end political solution...

Rest of it, of course are POV..

RamaY wrote:You were talking big about NOT bringing history and cultural ownership of Bharat on JK (that is the topic for now, before you jump on to why not entire Pakistan; which we can discuss in an appropriate thread), and instead use "Realpolitik" (some fancy word you picked there) in negotiating a "just deal" (what is Realpolitik in a just deal?) with useless JK separatists (on any parameter they are smaller than fly in front of the elephant that is Bharat) and Pakistan which has the strength of Jackal.

And then you bring democracy (What type of "Realpolitik" item democracy is?) and Human Rights (another "Realpolitik" parameter I suppose) and Standing up to one's commitments referring to ABV's "insaniyat" statement (one more "Realpolitik" parameter).

There is no "justness" or "morality" in realpolitik, only expressions of national interest through hard(and soft) power...No one is talking about a "just deal" with Pak or KMs..Only the fact that we need to recognise how we can get the best deal we can..

I dont believe ABV was "selling down" when he spoke of insaaniyat..It was merely a diplomatic gambit to keep the process going...the BIG fact of the story is, (and people somehow have a problem with that) that we are a status quo power..We can afford to make any of these statements and a few more to keep the so-called talks going on endlessly, without an iota of difference on the ground...the more these talks drone on, the more irrelevant the issue will become - which is our objective anyways...

And realpolitik also dictates that we take facts as they are, and not what we wish them to be...In our approach towards Afghanistan, whether Gandhari came from Gandhara is hugely besides the point, our stakes with the Northern Alliance is what matters...Pak has the ability and intent to meddle in J&K - our approach has to be to defang the military and diplomatic abilities as far as possible...We need to work with the US (and the greater world community) in order to find ways of achieving both...Talks (and selective talks, and occasional talks suspensions) with Pak are also a way of defanging its diplomatic ability to raise the stakes...

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 09 Feb 2011 08:32

IGP Jammu Dilbagh Singh said the killing of three top militants of Hizbul Mujahideen has delivered a major setback to the militancy in Jammu region. With the killings, now only 27 militants were left in Doda-Ramban range including 10 in Ramban district (seven of HM Pir Panjal Regiment and three of LeT Abu Moosa group). 23 Rashtriya Rifles led by Commanding Officer Sanjeev Kataria and police parties headed by SP Ramban Anil Magotra launched a search operation at village Manjoosh of Banihal tehsil in Doda district.

With the onset of dawn, security forces and police launched a search operation by laying a cordon around the nullah and asking the militants to come out and surrender. However, the ultras started heavy firing with automatic weapons on the security personnel, who retaliated, leading to heavy exchange of gun fighting. By this afternoon, Army and police killed two militants while their third associate kept on fighting before being eliminated late in the afternoon.

Recoveries made from their possession included two AK-56 rifles, one Under Barrel Grenade Launcher (UBGL), three mobile telephones with earphones, battery chargers, AK magazines and ammunition, explosive devices and other items deep inside the nullah. The militants had intentionally picked up the spot to raise their hideout in nearly 60 feet deep nullah filled with water to ensure that the security personnel did not easily detect it. The hideout was being used for the past quite sometime. It had the space of accommodating at least half a dozen militants at a time.

3 top HM commanders eliminated

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Feb 2011 08:38

@ somnath,

Krisnaji,
I have no problems with data from opinion polls...It gives you "what people think"...Not economic data...So Chtham House polls put "unemployment" as a top concern, thats fine..However, you cannot deduce form there that J&K has 90% unemployment! the former is an opinion, the latter is an economc fact...And the same poll (for the valley and PoK) very decisively opt for "independence" as the end political solution...

What people think- in order of importance
1) unemployment
2) corruption
3) poor economic development
4) human rights abuses
5) Kashmir conflict.

In the same breath you mention the same poll very decisively opt for independence as the end political solution. What is this if not the opinion of people? How can you be selective in not choosing the former but only the latter.

If you believe people voted for independence then explain why they think Kashmir conflict is low in their priorities. They think militancy is not the solution particularly in KV.

You have mentioned that top concern of people - unemployment is an opinion and not economic data. Why do people say economic problem – unemployment/corruption/economic development are a major concern and rate very highly and not independence. If unemployment concern is an opinion then independence is also a opinion isn’t it and comes poorly compared to economic priorities.
Now are the polls faking.
If so then discard the polls and do not quote that KMs want independence according to the said polls.
hope there is uniform consistency from you.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Feb 2011 08:40

Realpolitic is about the national interest and maximizing Indian interest.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Feb 2011 08:43

Somnath,

Since when realpolitik became more important than national interests?

What happens if we don't talk at all, neither with Pakis nor with separatists?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 Feb 2011 08:52

krisna wrote:If so then discard the polls and do not quote that KMs want independence according to the said polls.
hope there is uniform consistency from you.

I am completely consistent

...If you think (based on this poll) that J&K has an "economic problem", then thats fine, thats a POV...Just dont conclude that "J&K has 90% unemployment" - that is factually wrong and no opinion poll can bring out economic data (the correct numbers are there in the link I provided)...

As for the "economic problem", it would be useful to study what would qualify for "more" (the lowest poverty level in the country AND the amongst the lowest unemployment rates notwithstanding)....Especially in light of a complete absence, nay negation of an econimic narrative in the separatist movement (which was NOT the case with any other insurgency movement - most of them had some, even insignificant alluskion to economics)...

RamaY wrote:Since when realpolitik became more important than national interests?

What happens if we don't talk at all, neither with Pakis nor with separatists?

Realpolitik is the process of acting (only) for supreme national interest, on the basis of facts as they exist and capacities as they exist...

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Feb 2011 09:08

@ Somnath,
You said

I am completely consistent ...If you think (based on this poll) that J&K has an "economic problem", then thats fine, thats a POV...Just dont conclude that "J&K has 90% unemployment" - that is factually wrong and no opinion poll can bring out economic data (the correct numbers are there in the link I provided)...

All my posts to you are related mainly to the polls as you initially based your independence part on the polls. Now you are backing up with data from other sources which every brfite knows.
KV has 90% unemployment is from the polls.It is not my conclusion. your conclusion that KMs has decisively opted for independence is based on an opinion from the polls. You appear to be consistently inconsistent.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 09 Feb 2011 09:54

krisna wrote: All my posts to you are related mainly to the polls as you initially based your independence part on the polls. Now you are backing up with data from other sources which every brfite knows.
KV has 90% unemployment is from the polls.It is not my conclusion. your conclusion that KMs has decisively opted for independence is based on an opinion from the polls. You appear to be consistently inconsistent.

Sir ji - thoda dimag lagane ka. The poll says 90 % (or 87%) of the people consider unemployment to be a major issue (it is a poll). It does not mean that there is 90% unemployment.

As an analogy - if there was a poll across India about what is the most critical problem facing India. And assume 50% of them answered 'Kashmir'. Does that mean 50% of Indians are kashmiris?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Feb 2011 12:10

somnath wrote:
rohitvats wrote:And care to explain why should that be? Low with respect to what?
The assault on Haji Pir Pass took two brigades supported by two different infantry divisions..Would a division strength troops be adequate for an assult to take over PoK?

Anyways, its speculative at the extrme, given the paucity of references to Op Brasstacks....

Somnath, the troop requirement is with respect to enemy diposition. It also draws reference from the element of surprise.

As per the book, IA airlifted 6th Mountain Division (or substantial part of it) to Leh. It is not known whether 6 MD or Leh based 3rd Infantry Division were tasked for the role. But chances are 3 ID would have led the assault as troops were already acclimatized. IIRC, there was supposed to be Brigade level assault on Skardu and Gilgit. Northern Areas were relatively lightly held. But uncle alerted PA about it and they reinforced the sector in double-quick time. India lost the surprise and the initiative.

As to how authentic the airlift part is, during some casual conversation with some old timers it came out that airlift had actually happened. But none of them, then (or even now) knew about the reason for the same. I just put 2+2 in light of what I read in the book. And btw, 6 MD makes perfect sense; it is AHQ reserve and triple tasked for northern, western and central fronts.

PrasadZ · Post by **PrasadZ** » 09 Feb 2011 15:14

arnab wrote:Sir ji - thoda dimag lagane ka.

OT

glad to see some bambaiya boli in here. Welcome change from the typical ganga kinare boli in here
OT ends n poster goes back to lurking a little happier