J&K News and Discussion-2011

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Feb 2011 01:16

Chip in with your ideas for a solution, Chidambaram tells J&K Congress

http://www.hindu.com/2011/02/05/stories ... 421100.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Feb 2011 07:36

First time in Kashmir: Sopore protests killings by ‘militants’

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/First ... ts-/746396

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2011 10:33

For all those who jump up and down crying "sellout" at every discussion point, it might be useful to go through the history of the issue fully..Gives different perspectives..

Wrote abou the Nehru-Bogra accord earlier, which spoke of giving almost the entire valley to Pak..That was 1954...

Cut on to 1963 - the US-sponsored talks, post china war...there were 6 rounds between Zulfi Bhutto and Swaran Singh...In the third round, the Indians came up with proposals, complete with maps, of our "maximalist" concenssional proposals...And that was giving about 1500 sq miles of the valley to kashmir..Suprisingly, the Pakis were not interested, they wanted the whole of J&K! Discussions went to a stage where the indians talked of the "defence of Ladakh", and Zulfi said, "why do you have to defend Ladakh?"!!! In any case, nothing came out of it...

This was also the same time that the point on "soft borders" was raised, probably first by Ken Galbraith...

Cut to 1998, Lahore yatra...The "soft border"s approach was picked up again, and the Lahore bus (and munnabao khokrapar bus) were suposed to be a precurser to a similar grand approach towards Kashmir...

1999, Kargil...Niaz Naik and RK Mishra spoke of a resolution...And the Chenab plan was discussed....India's response was not an outright dismissal, but that the aggression in Kargil had to be vacated before talks could proceed...

It is clearly visible that the Indian approach has changed over the years...From a willingness to compromise with international prodding (Averrel Harriman, Foster Dulles), to a steadfast biletaralism (Simla), to a more confident "lets set the agenda with some creative ideas" (ABV, MMS) - the change in stance has been disctated by the geopolitics of the day as well as national power....

Today, with comprehensive power differentials at its highest with Pak, there are opporunities to play around with creative ideas to see what works...Without giving up on the fundamental stance..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Feb 2011 10:50

somnath wrote:For all those who jump up and down crying "sellout" at every discussion point, it might be useful to go through the history of the issue fully..Gives different perspectives..

----------

Today, with comprehensive power differentials at its highest with Pak, there are opporunities to play around with creative ideas to see what works...Without giving up on the fundamental stance..

Why is that everything we discussed about any plan on J&K is all about India making concession to Pak or J&K separatists ? Why there is no other way around ? If not then why anything discussed should not be considered as sell-out?

What are those creative ideas that lay claims to PoK Kashmir ? We dont even legitimize the people who moved from PoK to India ? We dont issue any statements if anything happens in PoK. Why then it should not be considered as sell-out?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Feb 2011 11:13

Many people here might have read this but nothing wrong in posting again, i guess.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jun/20guest1.htm

So, here's a potential starting point -- I'll call it the Neelam plan, as suggested by some friends at Bharat-Rakshak.

Background

First, what is the Neelam valley? It is a 144 km long bow-shaped deeply forested region that makes up much of what Pakistanis call Azad Kashmir. The Neelam River enters Pakistan from India in the Gurais sector of the Line of Control [ Images ], and then runs west till it meets the Jhelum north of Muzzafarabad.

The mighty Neelam River cuts a breathtakingly beautiful furrow in the land -- the Neelam valley; the valley of death and the valley of hatred. This valley and the region around it are infested with every kind of terrorist vermin that Pakistanis have been able to rustle up, with the buying power of their extortion, drug-running and charity money.

So, when you think Neelam valley, think about 4-year-old Suraj from Nadimarg, who was shot and killed in his mother's arms; think of Sharifa Bi of Mandi, who was first set on fire and subsequently had these flames extinguished, forcing her to die in slow agonizing pain. If there's ever a terrorist brutality in Kashmir, you can bet that the perpetrators were trained, launched or passed through this valley of death.

Second, some description of what's happening in the region called Northern Areas. Simply put, what we call PoK, they call 'Azad Kashmir' and Northern Areas. The Northern Areas consist of the Gilgit and Baltistan districts of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ]. The natives of Gilgit Baltistan are the most oppressed people in the entire Indian sub-continent. They have no economic development, have been occupied by Pakistani Punjabis who ill-treat them, no constitution and few, if any human rights. Unlike the people of J&K, who we have treated with special privileges like Article 370, extreme government charity and now even reservations in colleges, the people of Gilgit and Baltistan are truly under brutal occupation.

In fact, our friendly neighborhood dictator Musharraf, first rose to fame in 1988 by massacring people in this region to put down a revolt, with the able help of a then unknown fanatic -- Osama Bin Laden [ Images ]. But, that is another story.

Why don't we know all this about Gilgit/Baltistan? Because depending upon who is in power, our foreign ministry has either been hugging the terrorists or making plans to capture Lahore.

The Plan

While the Chenab plan is based on the bigoted principles of 'division along ethnic lines,' the Neelam plan is focused on clamping down on terrorism and prevention of religious clashes in India. Clearly, these principles only apply to India, since terrorism is revered as freedom-fighting in Pakistan and other religions have mysteriously disappeared (from 20% to about 3% in 5 decades) from the land of the pure. Unlike the Chenab plan, which does nobody any good apart from a few hallucinating generals at GHQ at Rawalpindi, the Neelam plan actually has a sound basis, namely:

* Artificial countries based on religion alone are a hassle -- Britain has already tried that with the creation of Pakistan -- been there, done that; doesn't quite work.
* Any plan that does not explicitly take into account US strategic interests in the area will become road-kill -- so ensure easy US access to the Chinese border.
* Water is the biggest strategic issue in the subcontinent -- talk about it, don't hide it, avoid the next war.
* Terrorism [ Images ] and not the over-hyped repression of the people of Kashmir will cause the next nuclear war -- so, address it.

There are 5 basic principles and 5 associated actions that constitute the Neelam plan:

First, the absorption of integrated areas. India has demonstrated through its fair elections of last year, the enormous dollars spent in economic development ($5 billion) in Kashmir and the special attempts at integration such as reservation in out-of-state colleges, that J&K is well on its way to full-fledged integration with India. For better results, arcane constitutional artifacts, such as Article 370 need to be done away with. Improved industrial investment will follow.

Pakistan has never managed to integrate any part of its country, let alone PoK. A vague case may be made that what they call 'Azad' Kashmir has been integrated as an armed camp, but this should be subject to LoC alterations, as described below.

Second, freedom for the oppressed. The brutally oppressed people of Gilgit and Baltistan have faced complete abrogation of their constitutional and human rights, with hardly any economic development for the last 55 years. Their lands have seen murderous occupation and their standard of living makes the sub-Saharan Africans feel mighty privileged.

According to the Neelam plan, the Northern areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) will become a free country and Pakistani garrisons currently encamped there, will have to depart. Naturally, the Pakistani Punjabis currently usurping people's rights in this land, will immediately become illegal aliens and over a period of time, will have to obtain appropriate work visas to remain there.

Both India and Pakistan need to officially obtain transit rights through this land. This will bring about a demilitarization of the Deosai Plain and thus effect a natural stabilization in places like Siachen, Kargil [ Images ] and Drass.

From the perspective of the main interlocutor, the US, direct access to the Deosai plains could be a strategic coup in its oncoming superpower battles with China. There possibly is no better strategic location for US forces in the northern regions of South Asia -- certainly, far better than being located in the Kashmir valley. All this comes with the added benefit of not having to upset relations with a potential strategic partner -- India.

Third, clamping down on terrorism. The only terrorism of consequence in South and Central Asia seems to originate from Pakistan. There are two problems here -- first, the Neelam valley has become the launching pad and terrorism training grounds; second, Pakistan views terrorism as a legitimate instrument of State policy.

For the first problem, the solution is quite clear -- reduce drastically, the scope of the Neelam valley to act as the biggest terrorist training camp in the world. This is achieved by moving the LoC into the Neelam valley and better international mediation. The specific steps are:

1. Move the LoC north of Gurais till it covers the all infiltration routes emerging from the Burzil Pass.

2. Move the LoC in the Kupwara area to enclose the Neelam valley segment north of Muzaffarabad.

3. Move the Haji Pir Pass within India, since it is the entrance point for most terrorists in J&K.

4. Move the LoC South of Poonch closer to New Mirpur, perhaps along the Poonch river, this will drastically reduce terrorist breeding grounds.

5. Have UN troops guard the rest of 'Azad Kashmir.'

6. The independence of Gilgit Baltistan to the north will bring about a closure of terrorist training and coordination camps in Gilgit, Astore, Skardu and the Deosai Plains area.

The second issue of Pakistan using terrorism as State policy is a little more difficult. Here, international lenders in return for monetary aid must ask for intrusive UN monitoring within Pakistan to ensure that the ISI and other groups do not engage in terrorism.

Connecting monetary aid directly to stopping Pakistani terrorism is the only way to ensure that there isn't a terrorism-induced nuclear war in the sub-continent. The IMF has always used this policy to open up markets for the West; so why not use a similar approach to contain the scourge of jihadi terrorism in the country that has been referred to as the 'epicenter of terrorism'?

Fourth, equitable distribution of water. The Indus Water Treaty is inherently inequitable -- it does not take into consideration that India's population is about 8 times that of Pakistan and Pakistan has eliminated or pushed into India almost all of its ethnic minorities since independence. This treaty must be declared invalid and must be renegotiated on the basis of the population balance on either side of the border.

An equitable distribution would imply that India gets around 40% of the waters currently earmarked for Pakistan. Pakistan has so far depended upon India's inability to use its water resources aggressively and as a consequence not developed its water resource infrastructures adequately. Without such re-negotiation, Pakistan may not realize the criticality of doing so on its own -- leading to disaster for Pakistan within this decade.

If this issue is not solved, the Indus Water Treaty, and not Kashmir, will lead to the next nuclear war -- water has already become the most precious resource in India.

Fifth, no one-sided guns to anybody's head. The only hope for the Pakistani economy are transit fees from oil pipelines. These pipelines will remain pipe dreams unless India agrees to be the key destination market for this oil. One of the main reasons for US interest in peace in Kashmir is related to the big dollars that would roll into the pockets into US oil giants if these pipelines do not flow through Iran.

Unfortunately if these pipelines become reality, Pakistan just obtains a large economic gun to put to India's head. To be fair, any gas pipelines should only be considered if at the same time, India is allowed to build up the infrastructure required to completely stop water to Pakistan. In other words, if Pakistan has the ability to shut off energy supply to India, then India must have the ability to shut off water supply to Pakistan. No one-way weapons, please.

Plan Summary:

1. Complete and equal integration of J&K into India.
2. Freedom for Northern Areas and removal of all Pakistani garrisons.
3. No international charity for terrorists and permanent clamp down on the valley of death and hatred -- the Neelam valley
a. Incorporate Haji Pir into India;
b. Move the LoC from Gurais to Tithwal northwards until it covers the Neelam valley all the way up to Muzaffarabad
c. Move Naushara LoC to New Mirpur;
d. UN monitoring in 'Azad Kashmir';
4. Renegotiate the Indus Water Treaty according to population distributions.
5. No pipelines through Pakistan without equal water shut off capabilities for India.

Where do we go from here?

Division along ethnic lines is pure bigotry. Even if such a strategy makes some twisted short-term strategic sense for the superpowers of the day, in time such a division will lead to the same kind of problems that Palestine and Pakistan cause today. Thousands and hundreds of thousands will die -- we must therefore learn from the historical mistakes of the British. Why repeat the greatest mistakes of the last century?

Remember, the problem is not Kashmir, it is and has always been terrorism -- just take a look at the hordes of Pakistan-based Taliban [ Images ]is beginning to kill Germans, Afghans and Americans in Afghanistan at regular intervals. Nobody believes that the solution to this problem is to give back Afghanistan to the Taliban. Thus, no problem in Kashmir will be solved by rewarding the jihadi terrorists or the Islamist fanatics. Clamping down on terrorism and preventing it permanently, has to be the basis for any peace in the Indian continent. This is the goal of the Neelam plan and should be the basis of any settlement that is reached.

As I finish this article, there are reports on India being pushed towards the Chenab plan. The main protagonists seem to be Pakistani-Americans with only Pakistani strategic interests at heart. For the sake of India and the rest of the world, I hope that the editors of Kashmir Telegraph are wrong when they say:

'Kashmir Telegraph has reasons to believe -- beyond any shadow of doubt -- that United States is 'arm-twisting' Pakistan -- more specifically, India, in accepting the 'Chenab Plan.' A 'sinister plot', which if America has its way, brings about the division of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir on religious lines -- with Muslim-majority areas accorded a quasi-sovereign status. BJP -- the ruling party -- it seems, has all along been clandestinely involved in this sinister plot, which undermines the basis principle -- rejection of the two-nation theory -- on the basis of which India was founded. It is in this context that one must examine the remarks of General Jay Garner, setting December 2004 as the American deadline for resolving the Kashmir issue.'

In the past, India has happily given away precious water of the Indus, the Coco islands, the Tibetan buffer, control of the Haji Pir pass, 90,000 Pakistani PoWs and other strategic advantages without any payback at all. This time, the hope is that our leaders will not give away strategic strangleholds, for minor personal or political gains.

The Neelam plan represents the beginnings of a proposal that represents Indian interests as opposed to placing India in a position of constantly fighting off Pakistani expeditions. Let us at least start here.

Arindam Banerji (arindam_banerji@yahoo.com) took the usual route of going from the IITs, through a PhD in the US, to finally working at sundry research labs. He describes himself as a scientist, entrepreneur, and political thinker on South Asian geo-political issues.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2011 11:20

Kanson wrote:What are those creative ideas that lay claims to PoK Kashmir ?

Because, a) India is a status quo-ist power - we need to consolidate and formalise our existing frontiers, and b) given the headache caused by 4 million Kashmiri muslims today, who wants another 3-4 million (or whatever the numbr in PoK) muslims to be managed?

The Neelum plan is a good fantasy - the author might as well have simply articulated a plan for the invasion of PoK, under a nuclear shadow..Now, THAT is the difficult part..

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Feb 2011 11:27

^ that is insulting millions of patriotic Kashmiri Muslims and racist in nature.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Feb 2011 11:38

somnath wrote:
Kanson wrote:What are those creative ideas that lay claims to PoK Kashmir ?
Because, a) India is a status quo-ist power - we need to consolidate and formalise our existing frontiers, and b) given the headache caused by 4 million Kashmiri muslims today, who wants another 3-4 million (or whatever the numbr in PoK) muslims to be managed?

The Neelum plan is a good fantasy - the author might as well have simply articulated a plan for the invasion of PoK, under a nuclear shadow..Now, THAT is the difficult part..

Status quo-ist power? Whose fantasy is that? Then why we have re-taken Goa or Sikkim ? PoK is not someone's land. What is the meaning of Parliament resolution on that. So you say, those parliamentarians didn't think of those 4 million kashmiris? If b is the reason, as you say, then what we have done to remove the illegal migrants from Bangladesh? Have we not lived with those illegal migrants so far? if PoK joined India they wont be migrants but will be part of the country.

The Neelum plan is a good fantasy - the author might as well have simply articulated a plan for the invasion of PoK

Atleast there is plan which talked about PoK to put against Chenab plan. By the sametoken is Chenab plan is to be taken as invasion of Indian Kashmir?

As long as we dont claim PoK & NA in any discussions or plans it will be considered as sell-out only.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Feb 2011 11:54

This is known as disruption discussion and post anything to cut the reason and logic

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Feb 2011 12:10

So seeking PoK is a "fantasy". We should be "confident" and "creative" to erode sovereignty over our territory for "geopolitics of the day as well as national power". Who needs this type of "confidence" and "national power"? I guess we should show more "confidence" and "creativity" by giving Assam and Kolkata to Bangladesh.

Moreover, if we seek Neelam Valley, it could lead to nuclear war. But if Pakis seek the Kashmir valley, it is completely safe. No danger of nuclear war!

Yeah, right!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 05 Feb 2011 12:20

abhishek_sharma wrote: Moreover, if we seek Neelam Valley, it could lead to nuclear war. But if Pakis seek the Kashmir valley, it is completely safe. No danger of nuclear war!

Yeah, right!

Excellent articulation. I have for ever wondered why the eunuchs in Delhi are ever so silent when US and its western lackeys scream "nuke flashpoint" whenever India thinks of retaliation to a TSP terrorist provocation. In other words, TSP terror is not "nuke flashpoint", but India threatning to retaliate is.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 05 Feb 2011 12:26

Kanson wrote: Why is that everything we discussed about any plan on J&K is all about India making concession to Pak or J&K separatists ?

I would attribute that to "dhoti shivering". I mean here we have a country that is on the brink of social, political, and economic anarchy and our leadership STILL thinks that we should be negotiating with them. You negotiate with someone who at the very least has the ability to enforce any agreement from their side. Does pakistan have the ability to enforce it's side of the agreement?

Given the condition that Pakistan is in today, Kashmir at this point is a completely unilateral issue, i.e for all practical purposes the only thing that matters is how India wishes to solve this issue. Pakistan is irrelevant at this point and the only reason that hasn't registered on our leadership is because they are too scared of taking any action and in a complete paralysis mode as a result of their irrational dhoti shivering.

If they continue this way, the Kashmir issue will morph from an India-Pakistan issue into an India-China issue as a Pakistan, unable to govern itself, will conveniently and gradually hand over administrative control of PoK to China.

somnath wrote: Because, a) India is a status quo-ist power

More like a country with a leadership that is too scared to act one way or the other. Boils down to same thing.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2011 12:51

RamaY wrote:^ that is insulting millions of patriotic Kashmiri Muslims and racist in nature.

Racist!?? (strange, given that in the not-so-recent past, people here have described them as as "lazy, perfidious" etc!)..Anyway, it is not a value statement on the KMs, but a statement of fact about their attitde towards India...Sullen at best and hostile at worst..I have no illusions about what they think, even if I dont really care (from India's perspective)...

This is something that successive PMs (and other politicians) have understood - from JLN to LBS to IG to ABV to MMS, our maximalist poiiton in reality has been formalising the LoC...Even a victorious IG ws loking for just that...Its important to understnd why they did that, just describing everyone as a "CIA agent" or "dhoti sivereer" is a bit too simpolistic, no?

Neelum plan etc...Good words..But plans depned on capacities...Pak, through history and actions, have built a "stake" in J&K, we like it or not..What capacities have we built in PoK? nothing...for want of intent? It would seem so..When we had intent, we built capacities in East Pak..We integrated Turtuk b\ecasue there was a tactical opportunity...Why is it that successive govts have not intendedto build capacities to integrate PoK? Simple, it was never an intention...

Strategically, the biggest gain from is having the water heads of the major rivers...That is already with us..PoK would have other advantages as well...But bringing "in" another hostile terrrirotyr never seemed attractive enough..Even when we had th\e Pakis by their proverbials in 1971...

Subsequently, no other govt has thought otherwise...Think about that....

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 05 Feb 2011 13:04

somnath wrote: our maximalist poiiton in reality has been formalising the LoC

You can't formalize the Loc when there is an anarchy on the other side because this anarchy does not have the ability to enforce any agreements either within, or along, or outside of its own borders.

PoK would have other advantages as well...

Anyone who controls PoK also has influence over J&K simply because of the close cultural ties between the two regions. If stability in Kashmir Valley is desired, then PoK must be stabilized. Whether PoK is stablized when it is effectively under TSP's control or when it gradually passes into Chinese control is a choice that cannot be looked at in terms of maintaining "status-quo". Secondly, it opens an air corridor over Afghanistan.

But bringing "in" another hostile terrrirotyr never seemed attractive enough..Even when we had th\e Pakis by their proverbials in 1971...

Firstly, a hostile territory that is under India's control is a much safer place as compared to a hostile territory that is under a hostile power's control. Secondly, PoK has sub-regions and a raging insurgency which does not come into limelight mainly becuase the rest of Pakistan itself is in an insurgency of its own. Not all of PoK is hostile, only parts of it specially the parts that have been actively settled by Pakjabis since the 1971 war.

sum · Post by **sum** » 05 Feb 2011 13:30

Student killed during army operation in Kupwara

A student was killed, allegedly during an ambush operation of the army, in north Kashmir's [ Images ] Kupwara district on Friday.

Manzoor Ahmad Magray, 22, was allegedly shot dead by the troopers of 4 Para of the army, who had laid an ambush in Chogal area of Handwara town, 85 kms from Srinagar [ Images ], in Kupwara district, official sources said.

The sources said the youth had ventured out during the night and the security forces challenged him. Magray failed to pay heed to the warning of the troopers, following which they opened fire which led to his death, they said.

The killing of Magray led to protests in Chogal as the residents demanded arrest of the army personnel involved in the killing, the sources said. Protests were going on in the area till last reports came in.

Next round of stone pelting can now start as the snow starts to melt..

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 05 Feb 2011 13:53

somnath wrote:Pak, through history and actions, have built a "stake" in J&K, we like it or not

Then they should tie themselves to the stake and call in an vaccum bomber, problem solved

Na rahega stake, Na hogi takleef

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2011 17:59

Dhiman wrote:Given the condition that Pakistan is in today, Kashmir at this point is a completely unilateral issue, i.e for all practical purposes the only thing that matters is how India wishes to solve this issue

BTW, I agree 100% with that...Which is why the Indian govt is setting the agenda..Has been since maybe post-Kargil...

Among the various policy choices available, the biggest objective is the render the issue irrelevant to the broader world...That kills the insurgency/separatist movement like nothing else..IMO that has been the approach across govts over the years...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Feb 2011 18:02

It is a most interesting question about "hostile" populations in Kashmir Valley and POK. Are we saying that all Kashmiri Muslims are "hostile" ? What are they hostile to - India or "aspects"/entities/parties/ideologies in India and not India per se? The exact answer to both questions determines to a large extent how effective the "hostility" argument is and its impact on policy.

There are Congress supporters among KM, are they hostile to India? Is NC and PDP hostile to India? If not, then are we saying that these are a minority - and the dominant majority among KM are hostile to India?

Are all POK Muslims hostile to India? We do have regular noises from areas in the POK that appear to look upon [or shout so for political baragaining with Slumabad] India as also having a stake in the region [the latest example I think was about relief in case of a natural disaster].

In case of Valley KM, the most recent debate in the previous incarnation of this thread appeared to claim that the Valley KM hostility was not to India per se, but to only certain parties in India - as supposedly exemplified in the "hostility" towards one particular party being in India/part of the ideological spectrum of India - but not to India as a whole. When I analyzed the logical basis for such a claim, it turned out that any such perception on the KM side could not be based on what actually happened or were done by the two supposed opposite ends of mainstream Indian politics - on the ground in Kashmir - there were not much difference between the two where the Valley proper was directly concerned.

If we still insist on that line, as I showed it would lead to the conclusion that the Valley KM are hostile to the majority religion/community of India. In that case, such a hatred would be based on religion and not whether it is POK or Valley, whether they are outside or inside India.

As has already been pointed out, a hostile area under Indian control and not that easily manipulable by really hostile forces from other countries or groups of countries who use the area to continually launch attacks on India - is a much better option than allowing it to retain sovereignty and be a permanent nuisance.

By the way, I can see that at least in one aspect some of us still have not moved beyond the attitudes of the 30's and the 40's. This is the underlying hatred and distrust of all Muslims, and not just their behavious when the mullahs are allowed to operate freely. When really cornered in debates - this argument and blanket claim that "Muslims are hostile" is inevitably brought out as the main justification that "Partition" after all was a good thing to happen, and that such a partition remains forever, because it means less of the "hostile" element inside. So those who most strongly push for letting Pak be, lettting Pakistan continue to exist, letting POK be as it is and not brought back under Indian sovereignty - are actually scared of the "Muslim" and more importantly they themselves hate the Muslims. Psychologically and physically they need a wall and barrier to segregate the Muslm awaya from themselves.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2011 18:20

Dhiman wrote:Firstly, a hostile territory that is under India's control is a much safer place as compared to a hostile territory that is under a hostile power's control. Secondly, PoK has sub-regions and a raging insurgency which does not come into limelight mainly becuase the rest of Pakistan itself is in an insurgency of its own. Not all of PoK is hostile, only parts of it specially the parts that have been actively settled by Pakjabis since the 1971 war.

Well, it depends on what is the "form" of that hostility...For KMs, are they congenitally hostile to India (like the Pakis)? Most likely not...But they sure ARE hostile to the idea of being within India..But as I said, thats their problem, one that I( or GOI) really dont care about..But for all the strategic benefits of Kashmir, we need to pay a price in the form of this perennial insurgency...Is PoK worth strategically so much that we mark up the insurgency levels (I am assuming, a BIG assumption, that we manag to somehow integrate PoK) by an unknown, but undoubtedly large factor?

About the opinion of peple in PoK, no one has a great clue what they think of India...But the Chatham House poll, if it is any indicator only shows tbat those guys are as "freedom loving" as their "Indian" counetrparts...Not a lot of love for India at least...They dont like Pak too much, but they like India less, and would ideally like to be independent..Sounds familiar? Does that give any clue that a march toward PoK by IA with a view of annexation will be greetd with open arms?

Over time, hopefully the economic realities of India will blunt the edges of KM sullennes, but for now we need to deal with the issue taking that as a ceterus paribus condition...

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 05 Feb 2011 20:54

Not all KMs are hostile to India- some are hostile to certain parties, some to under development/economic problems. This stems from article 370 directly and indirectly.
Since independence many have been in India for 2-3 generations. Things changed drsatically in 1989 thereabouts. This is not to say that there were no problems earlier than 1989. This period coincided with TSP getting brazen with the nooclear issue knowing that India will not attack with conventional superiority militarily.
IIRC some polls have been done which showed India will win if plebiscite is held. Even in KV India had upperhand.
Some of the hostility is related to economic issues.
1) Give jobs to the youth- that is possible only when they have industries- this can happen when article 370 is diluted to allow industrialists from other parts to enter in a big way.
2) Firm hand in dealing with separatists- no double standards in dealing with them.
3) POK has to be dealt with along with KV. It cannot be left behind if borders are made to be irrelevant.
4) TSP has to be handled carefully and destroyed- no pappi jhappis aman ki tamashas.

One of the reasons for not formulating an appropriate response is that Indian politicians are weak in strategic /geopolitical issues. They are adept at scoring self goals on other Indians themselves because they came thru' that way in winning elections.
They get outsmarted by non Indians easily. It is to the credit of people like KS and many other brilliant individuals who were able to convince the top leadership to stay on top of things. Once in a while top leadership commits harakiri in a moment of madness which takes months/years to solve. So far India has been fending it successfully. There is always a threat internally rather than externally.
There are no strong institutions in foreign relations/strategic affairs etc which can churn out 1000s of Indians adept in helping formulating opinions amongst aam aadmi. This will put pressure on the politicians as india is a democrazy and depends on winning elections.
In fact KS was pushing all along for the above till his very end.

India has to maintain its land for now, not budge from it. GOI is initiating some high profile manoeveres as seen in look east policy, increased interactions with other countries with growing influence. This will make Indian politicians to improve their smartness in foreign relations also.
Hopefully in future with improved soicoeconomic military conditions along with growing awareness among aam aadmi I do forsee a sea change in the understanding of politicians in startegic affairs.
Even DDM will change with changed circumstances among Indians.
The following ingredients are reqd for all the above to mature
1) time- not yet ripe now
2) patience-for the above things should mature
3) god's blessings- to those who believe in god and to atheists--I mean no untoward things happen to India in the meanwhile say in the next 15-20 years.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2011 02:11

This is just another example of how expectations are lowered. We are told that "Pakis have built a stake in J&K" and "LoC = IB" is a maximal demand. It implies that we should make some concessions to the Pakis and that would be a fair solution. I wonder why we can't use our "confidence" and "creativity" to get back some PoK territory. Probably we should start using the word "chankian" to describe this state of mind.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Feb 2011 02:34

Its a matter of relief that Poaks have not staked claim over few "khass" family members of DIE/ interlocutors etc as Nazrana . I have the gutt feeling that Indian public will be happy to endorse and leigitimize such claims without hestitation and negotiated with Jihadis across the border and promise similar annual tribute .
Instead of ordering additional Scorpenes, Indians ought to import some stuff related to French revolution. This will be more of actual enhancement in national security measures than any Submarine or Squardon of fighter planes can do defensivly.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2011 02:37

Prem wrote: Instead of ordering additional Scorpenes, Indians ought to import some stuff related to French revolution.

Instead of importing weapons, we should start exporting DIEs. It would help national security.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2011 02:46

Panchjanya has some articles on the flag hoisting issue (in Hindi). http://www.panchjanya.com/dynamic/

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2011 03:52

krisna wrote:Not all KMs are hostile to India- some are hostile to certain parties, some to under development/economic problems. This stems from article 370 directly and indirectly.
Since independence many have been in India for 2-3 generations. Things changed drsatically in 1989 thereabouts. This is not to say that there were no problems earlier than 1989. This period coincided with TSP getting brazen with the nooclear issue knowing that India will not attack with conventional superiority militarily.
IIRC some polls have been done which showed India will win if plebiscite is held. Even in KV India had upperhand.
Some of the hostility is related to economic issues.
1) Give jobs to the youth- that is possible only when they have industries- this can happen when article 370 is diluted to allow industrialists from other parts to enter in a big way.
2) Firm hand in dealing with separatists- no double standards in dealing with them.
3) POK has to be dealt with along with KV. It cannot be left behind if borders are made to be irrelevant.
4) TSP has to be handled carefully and destroyed- no pappi jhappis aman ki tamashas.

Krisnaji, it is a fallacy that the problem in Kashmir is because of economic reasons...The GOI has pumped in more per capita mney into J&K than it has for any other state..HDI numbers for J&K are at the upper tier of the Indian range...But the problem persists, because there is a political problem with the KMs...(FRankly, if economy was the issue, Bihar should have been up in arms by now)...I 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...

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

BTW, I had mentioned before, it would be an interesting exercise if someone did a bit of a scenario analysis around the "get PoK" scenario...Besides the bravado, what sort of capabilities does it entail? What kind of operation? What would be the interntional reaction to such an initiatve? How would the nuclear dimension play out?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2011 04:03

somnath:

I agree with you, getting back POK borders on fantasy. Even ABV did not dare to cross the LOC despite TSP provocation in Kargil. Although, I am not sure I agree with you that ABV ever entertained that Chenab BS you keep peddling.

But here is the problem, altough too late now, in up front settling for LOC as India's maximalist position. That puts TSP on a stronger wicket. It lets them to define the "dispute" as changing the LOC statu quo. After all TSP will argue, as does US, that India & TSP are fighting over the "dispute" which is valley centric. In other words, LOC is the baseline. So any "peaceful deal" will have to involve LOC++. But had India made a strong case for POK, then a "peaceful deal" would be LOC == IB. So now we are stuck with having to move beyond LOC because by essentialy accepting TSP's version of the so called "dispute", and agreeing to talk, it means the LOC status quo change is up for negotiation. And this is what MMS agreed to with his terrorist pal Mush: joint soverignty over the valley. This is surrender by another name.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 06:52

If we find India not "strong enough" now to demand all of POK, not strong enough to retaliate for any atrocity that Pak sponsors - and we are confident that if we stay out of trouble like schoolkids big daddy and mommy will one day reward us - why this morbid hurry and clamour for a "solution" then when we are "not strong enough" and at our "weak" phase?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Feb 2011 07:16

CRamS wrote:somnath:

I agree with you, getting back POK borders on fantasy. Even ABV did not dare to cross the LOC despite TSP provocation in Kargil

Fantasy? India Gandhi and Army Generals at that time had this 'fantasy'. But didn't materialize. Before that during Nehru time, Generals had this 'fantasy'. Later Gen. Sunderji had somewhat similar 'fantasy', though we don't know what his final game plan was.

Crossing the LoC and capturing PoK should be planned for logistics & other things and cannot be done just like that. Considering the kind of military preparedness we were in then, it is an astute move in not crossing the LoC during Kargil.

Are we becoming - to borrow a term - dhoti shivering, self-flagellating, self-demurring Indians..., I wonder.

If in my view, even the two-front far which India started preparing has a component for Kashmir.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2011 07:28

We killed the sisters, say ‘LeT’ posters in Sopore

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/We-ki ... ore/746659

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 07:40

^^^Cannot be true! The poster must be a saffron conspiracy. They should hand over the poster samples to the CBI who will find positive chemical traces that links the posters to RSS run factories. I do wish that the CBI actually did that - and see the faces of LET operatives and their supporters in Sopore.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 06 Feb 2011 08:22

@ Somnath

krisna wrote: <snip>

Krisnaji, it is a fallacy that the problem in Kashmir is because of economic reasons...The GOI has pumped in more per capita mney into J&K than it has for any other state..HDI numbers for J&K are at the upper tier of the Indian range...But the problem persists, because there is a political problem with the KMs...(FRankly, if economy was the issue, Bihar should have been up in arms by now)...

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,governanace issues. Many other states are doing something or the other. There is freer movement of people and goods. In JK 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.
About Bihar- it had its share of problems wrt violence- hope you have not forgotten about caste wars/dacoity/robberies/kidnappings/migration of biharis elsewhere etc all related to economic activity. With good governance and economic activity it showing signs of improvement. this has reduced the violence dacoity kidnappings etc remarkably.

I 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...

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

take the latest poll - the chatham poll.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publicat ... /-/id/881/
PDF is here-http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16 ... ashmir.pdf
Please go thru it completely. it is easy read.
The devil is in the details. One cannot say they want independence. You have to see the totality of the polls before making some assumptions.

Q ‘What do you think are the main problems facing people in Jammu and Kashmir/Azad
Kashmir these days?’
For a very large majority of the population (81%) unemployment was thought to be the most significant
problem faced by Kashmiris (66% in AJK and 87% in J&K). Government corruption (22% AJK and 68%
J&K), poor economic development (42% AJK, 45% J&K), human rights abuses (19% AJK, 43% J&K) and
the Kashmir conflict itself (24% AJK, 36% J&K) are all given as main problems.

Graph 3&4 on page 11
India is a democracy with good democratic institutions- Human rights abuses tend to drop with improvement in improved socioeconomic conditions. it is high in violence prone areas. no prizes for guessing. In the above unemployment is the most significant issue followed by corruption and governance. kashmir conflict fares poorly. In fact even KMs reject it in significant numbers as it interferes on economic activity as shown later.

See figures 7,8,9,10 on pages 15 & 16 regarding Indo pak talks, its awareness and effect on peace.
It shows that KMs are the least aware of the talks and hence less enthused about peace. IOW people bordering azad kashmir are more aware and believe more in peace. So making the talks transparent, create more awareness by GOI and J&K govt will help in creating better conditions to help KMs. May be the interlocutors are fulfilling this role.

Militant violence
Just over a third, 36% in total across both sides of the LoC, believed that militant violence would be less
likely to solve the Kashmir dispute, compared with nearly a quarter, 24%, who thought it would be more
likely to. In J&K only 20% thought militant violence would help solve the dispute, compared to 39% who
thought it would make a solution less likely. However, in AJK 37% thought militant violence would be
more likely to solve the dispute, against 31% who thought it would make a solution less likely. Overall 34%
thought militant violence would make no difference to finding a solution, 30% in AJK and 36% in J&K.

This is very telling that KMs do not want militancy but want employment. If they wanted independence desperately they would go for it. No power can stop them if determined.
See figure 13 & 14 page 19 which is very revealing in kashmir valley.

For the whole of Kashmir to be independent
More than four in ten, 43%, of the total adult population said they would vote for independence for the
whole of Kashmir, 44% in AJK and 43% in J&K. The preference for independence was fairly uniform
across the districts in AJK but it was very unevenly distributed in J&K:
• Kashmir Valley Division – between 75% and 95%.
• Jammu Division – nobody in Punch, Rajauri, Udhampur and Kathua, and in Jammu only 1%.
• Ladakh Division – Leh 30%, Kargil 20% (both with a small sample size).

However, there is no clear majority in prospect for independence either. In J&K there is a majority in
favour of outright independence for the whole of Kashmir in only four districts, all in Kashmir Valley
Division. In five further districts support for independence is 1% or less.

It is uneven in J&K and uniform in azad kashmir(TSP side)-- meaning paki kashmirs would prefer to be independent rather than with TSP as it staring down the barrell. In J&K it is secondary related to unemployment, corruption and militancy. KMs want jobs and less militancy. Interestingly unemployment scores over independence. See previous graphs please.

For the whole of Kashmir to join India
• 21% said they would vote to join India, but the voting intention was predictably split, both between
AJK and J&K and within J&K.
• AJK: 1% said they would vote to join India.
• J&K: 28% said they would vote to join India.
However, J&K showed very wide variations between districts:
• Kashmir Valley Division – from 2% in Baramula to 22% in Anantnag.
• Jammu Division – from 47% in Jammu to 73% in Udhampur. However, Punch and Rajauri stood
out with 6% and 0% respectively.
• Ladakh Division – 67% in Leh and 80% in Kargil.

In AJK over 44% want independence- potential to side with Indians(J&K) with continued economic development. also 50 % favoring TSP will change once TSP sinks further down into its graveyard.
J&K will be with India with continued focus on socio economic conditions and good governance.
See figures 15 & 16 on pages 21 and compare with figure 3,4 %5 in page 11,12.

For the whole of Kashmir to join Pakistan
Voting intentions were also heavily split.
• AJK: 50% said they would vote for the whole of J&K to join Pakistan, with 64% in Bagh the highest
level of support.
• J&K: 2% said they would vote to join Pakistan. In six districts no one said they would vote to join
Pakistan. In the Vale of Kashmir, the only region with anyone intending to vote to join Pakistan,
the highest proportions, 6% and 7%, were in Srinagar and Badgam districts.

So TSP loses here. By continued focus on governance, reduce corruption and employment these can be weaned. the support for these will be further reduced.mainly hurri rats and some assorted orgs getting funds from across borders and outside Indian subcontinent. By plugging these funds their support will be eroded.Also conversely the economic difference becomes stark wrt TSP which is IEDing itself.

An end to all militant activity is also seen as very important. In J&K, 77% of the population think an
end to militant violence will help to bring a solution – highest in Kashmir Valley Division, but strong
everywhere except Punch and Rajauri, where the overwhelming majority do not believe that this holds
the key to resolution.

Following a question asked in the 2008 Peace Poll, 1 held in J&K alone, this survey asked whether
people believe that war would provide a solution. Overall one in four thought war could solve the
dispute. 40% supported this view in AJK. In the J&K districts of Jammu (46%), Udhampur (78%)
and Kathua (82%), there was an even stronger view that war would help bring a solution, but it was
profoundly opposed in the Vale of Kashmir, Punch and Rajauri and Ladakh Division, where support
was 3% or less.

See the distaste for violence by ordinary KMs. Who is doing violence not the Indian state but the terrorists with support across the border. It is a telling rebuff to these separatists.
If KMs desperately wanted independence they would have supported whole heartedly for it.
It is primarily driven by unemployment etc. Give and create jobs, things will change.
see figures 26 & 27 on pages 32 & 33.

Three-quarters of the population believe that bringing all sides of Kashmiri political opinion into talks
will help to resolve the dispute – 73% in AJK and 77% in J&K. The majority support this view in almost
all the districts of J&K and AJK.

chai biskoot sessions to be held all over, make people the stake holders in it along with economic development. See previous graphs related to peace and political talks awareness among people.
Never give an inch.

Conclusions

Despite the complexity, some conclusions are clear. 81% say unemployment is the most significant
problem facing Kashmiris (66% in AJK, 87% in J&K). Government corruption (22% AJK and 68% J&K),
poor economic development (42% AJK, 45% J&K), human rights abuses (19% AJK, 43% J&K) and the
Kashmir conflict itself (24% AJK, 36% J&K) are all seen as major problems. 80% of Kashmiris say that the
dispute is very important to them personally.

The poll shows that most Kashmiris see economic problems as high on their list of priorities, most
notably unemployment. Given that the conflict is likely to be exacerbating the economic problems of
Kashmir, a resolution will be crucial to improving the day-to-day lives of the Kashmiri people, the vast
majority of whom think, as this poll demonstrates, that the conflict is ‘very important’ to them personally.

this violence can stop only when TSP is destroyed.
Give peace a chance destroy TSP.
POK will be absorbed into India as there are connections across LOC. With time patience and god's blessing it will be India's for the asking provided India does her job slowly surely and efficiently.
It requires men of calibre like KS et al with correct leadership as in previous post

would like to have alternative opinions please to make sure we are not missing some of them.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 06 Feb 2011 08:34

Krisna,
Self-goal.The poll was done by albion goras,masters in psy-ops.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 06 Feb 2011 08:43

svenkat wrote:Krisna,
Self-goal.The poll was done by albion goras,masters in psy-ops.

self goal is a misnomer. goras try to project that India is forcibly holding onto the state.
TSP is valuable to them,but still India is in better position despite all tricks.
Many areas of J&K not covered by the poll if you see the PDF.
these polls reinforce our claims more starkly despite TSP getting western support.
All the more hope that J&K is firmly with India with more to gain if we play our cards correctly.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 06 Feb 2011 12:01

Which is why the Indian govt is setting the agenda..Has been since maybe post-Kargil...

Nothing could be further from the truth Sir. The reality on the ground is that it is the Pakistani military-isi-mullah combo that is setting the agenda by carrying out and sponsoring terrorists activity. GoI is just reacting to that. Kargil itself was a reaction to that.

Just because GoI limits talks with this fake civilian leadership (whose sole purpose is to provide some legitimacy and protection to the real rulers of Pakistan), we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that GoI is setting some sort of an agenda here. Clearly they are not since the civilian leadership is completely ineffective within and outside of Pakistan.

What we have is a GoI that is not just talking to an entity (Pakistan) that has no ability to enforce any agreements, but on top of that GoI is talking to those parts of the entity that are fake (i.e the civilian leadership). Who are we trying to delude here?

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 06 Feb 2011 12:11

brihaspati wrote:If we find India not "strong enough" now to demand all of POK, not strong enough to retaliate for any atrocity that Pak sponsors - and we are confident that if we stay out of trouble like schoolkids big daddy and mommy will one day reward us - why this morbid hurry and clamour for a "solution" then when we are "not strong enough" and at our "weak" phase?

Not that this option hasn't been discussed to death before, but the only workable option is to proactively work towards ensuring full-breakup of Pakjabi dominated Pakistan into its multi-ethnic pieces. If (and I agree it is a big if) that is done, then POK will be waiting to be collected provided that China can be kept at bay. The difficulty in doing so is not Pakistan itself, but the artificial propping up that this country receives from US and China both.

Currently, since post 9-11 US intervention in Af-Pak region, the whole issue India-Pakistan issue has gone dormant (as it is not compatible with US interests in the region). While successive GoI continue to delude themselves into thinking that all of India's enemy will either see the light one day or simply disappear given enough time and sitting on ass doing nothing, the military-mullah leadership of Pakistan has gone into hibernation waiting for a day when US leaves, so that they can reassert their overt Jihad against India.

The time to carry out any agenda is now instead of waiting for a day when Pakistan becomes more powerful and stable. No issues will be solved as long as Pakistan continues to exist in its current form. A radical makeover is needed.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 06 Feb 2011 13:22

With every passing year, the economic power between the two countries gets more disproportionately in favor of India. US is trying to hold up their end with the hopes of keeping them as a nusiance factor/bargaining chip against India.

But instead the US is the one who's getting the screwing over and being milked for money & trapped in endless warfare by the abduls.

So long as this continues, India should just put it in cruise control and stay focused on economic growth to further widen the disparity in power. IMO a war if it is to be faught should be faught on an economic battlefield with use of money power and economic warfare rather than military power.

habal · Post by **habal** » 06 Feb 2011 15:35

If India is not prepared to figuratively 'bite the bullet', no amount of economic power will help it against Pakistan. Even with all it's econimic power,a puny like North Korea threatens Japan. So if Pakistan has a 100 or tomorrow even a 'thousand' virtual weapons, Indian civilian and military bureaucracy have to be prepared to strike nuclear, biological, chemical weapons against Pakistan's population centres in order to finish this issue once and for all with current capabilities. And Pakistan with all it's bluster and international support will cave down under a determined assault. Postponing a fight for tomorrow can also be the biggest mistake.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2011 17:43

CRamS wrote:somnath:

I agree with you, getting back POK borders on fantasy. Even ABV did not dare to cross the LOC despite TSP provocation in Kargil. Although, I am not sure I agree with you that ABV ever entertained that Chenab BS you keep peddling.

But here is the problem, altough too late now, in up front settling for LOC as India's maximalist position. That puts TSP on a stronger wicket.

Re Chenab plan, it is now part of numrous Kargil anthologies..HAvent heard anyone really dismiss it out of hand..There was a discussion between Naik and Mishra (we also have Naik's own recollections), the proposal was on the table..But EOD, nothing came out of it...Thats all that matters...

About LoC being our maximalist position, actually it has far greater strategic benefits than is given credit for..One, and the biggest, is the sanctifying of the LoC as a de facto border that is delineated and documented..We saw that during Kargil, when the whole world sanctified the LoC as the de facto border, much to Pak's chagrin...Now if we keep harping on the "whole of PoK" as our position, the borders never get defined...And the territory therefore in international terms remains "disputed", with people giving a spin acording to their own objectives...Our single minded focus on the LoC (cidified finally in Simla and reiterated ever since) has basically consolidated the territory for us rather than keeping it up as a dispute...This is precisely the reason why ABV govt did not cross the LoC during Kargil - it is useful to read Jaswant Singh's accounts on the affair...As long as India did not cross the LoC, it remained a problem of Pak intrusion into "Indian territory"..the moment we crossed LoC, the spectre of nuke war would stare the world at the face with its own ramifications..

In terms of our negotiating positions, well we can afford to be a bit more blase in the knowledge that possession is 9/10th of the law..We are not fighting a legal battle here...Whateve we do in "talks", we can alwaysresind without any harm to actual ground positions...whether its Chenab plan, soft borders or anything else...That is why I say that we are seting the agenda...Soft borders, our agenda (ABV)...More familial linkages between both parts of J&K- our idea (MMS)...None of these things are anyting that would change the military ground position, and nothing that cannot be reversed when we want to...That is the reality..We talk when we want to, we talk aboutnthings that we think fit, we make statements pious and putrid, but nothing changes for Pak....

Kanson wrote:Fantasy? India Gandhi and Army Generals at that time had this 'fantasy'. But didn't materialize. Before that during Nehru time, Generals had this 'fantasy'. Later Gen. Sunderji had somewhat similar 'fantasy', though we don't know what his final game plan was

Was J&K in the scope of our plans in 1971? Maybe you can illuminate a bit more..Ditto for Brassstacks...

Krisnaji, good analysis of the Chatham House poll..The key issue (for me) really is that of the valley (we dont havea problem in Ladakh and Jammu)...In the valley and in PoK, the sentiment for azaadi and Pak overhwhelms any for India in political terms...This despite the problems internanly with Pak...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...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? We will be able to take a dispassionate view of the situation only if we realised that fact..The GOI has, over the years...At least so it seems to me...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2011 18:52

If anyone has problems with being an "Indian" he or she should leave India and consider him/herself as a temporary resident. The entire state of J&K is Indian, including that now called POK and that ceded by Pak to China. Even near-historically these areas were "in possession" of Indian empires, kings, regimes, and the latest stage was the "occupation and possession" of these areas under a "Hindu" and "Sikh" army which formed the basis of the last Kashmir kingdom.

The Hindus and Sikhs have as much claim to the valley and the state as the Muslims. If Kashmiryiat is after all - all about Islamic self-determination, then it is not nationalism as we understand it, and it is a land-grab in classical Islamist fashion that seeks to dispossess non-Muslims of their cultural centres and lands. If Muslims of the Valley have so much intense hatred of India because of the presence of "Hindus/Sikhs" they should leave and go to more Islamic nations.

It is all our land, and those who hate us should leave - for it is they who are the intruders into our society and lands. Tolerance cannot be one-sided forever, and one-sided hatred should not be tolerated forever.

Our maximalist position for J&K is simple, there can be no negotiation on the entire state belonging to India. Internally, all Constitutional provisions blocking full integration of the state as any other state of India, should be immediately repealed. The state's separatism is based on Islamic self-determination and it has been allowed to strengthen itself by preventing non-Muslims from remaining and settling in the valley. This has to be reversed. If Pak wants we can negotiate on a Plebiscite for Sindh and Balochistan - where Muslims torture and violently repress non-Muslims with Pakistan state help, and the Paki state tortures and represses both Muslims and non-Muslims and occupies those states with the PA.

It should be put out, that things negotiated or conceded that falls short of this - by any current GOI - will be reversed in the future, and by any and every means. Simply stated, if the above is compromised on, there is not going to be any solution, for future forces within India will seek to reverse those concessions, and trouble will continue for that region. This should be the clear warning for all now promoting even such minimalist position as conversion of LAC into IB. Even on such terms it will never be a permanent solution.

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 06 Feb 2011 18:59

Re Chenab plan, it is now part of numrous Kargil anthologies..HAvent heard anyone really dismiss it out of hand..There was a discussion between Naik and Mishra (we also have Naik's own recollections), the proposal was on the table..But EOD, nothing came out of it...Thats all that matters...

The Chenab plan is yet another Pakistan keeps what it has-but let's negotiate with what India keeps, approach to negotiation. That's why the Neelam plan was proposed by some of us. The plan had broad receptivity amongst MEA staffers, but little political support to take it forward.

Pusillanimity as a strategy does not lead to success against a predatory people and state.