tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post199000843519036851..comments2024-03-18T16:01:13.871-07:00Comments on Haq's Musings: Obama Backtracks on KashmirRiaz Haqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-9276509837183661912014-11-07T20:09:44.985-08:002014-11-07T20:09:44.985-08:00..when she (Robin Raphel) made her controversial c.....when she (Robin Raphel) made her controversial comments on the Kashmir dispute and the suggestion of a referendum, the Indian government saw her as a formidable, antagonistic voice to contend with. “The U.S. was seen as pro-Pakistan at the time,” describes diplomat Satinder Lambah, who was India’s High Commissioner in Islamabad then, “And Ms. Raphel was a real obstacle in bettering ties between the US and India. They improved dramatically, later, but it was in spite of her.”<br /><br />The Narasimha Rao government issued demarches, both in New Delhi and Washington, expressing unhappiness over the comments. While Ms. Raphel remained in the position for several years, the Clintons changed their public positions on Kashmir soon after. President Bill Clinton, who had even raised concerns over “human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir” at a White house function in 1994, no longer brought those up, even as a visit by Hillary Clinton in April 1995 to New Delhi paved the way for better relations.<br /><br /><br />http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/robin-raphel-the-obstacle-in-indiaus-ties/article6575604.eceRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-10000731644444711282009-09-27T06:30:52.556-07:002009-09-27T06:30:52.556-07:00You say,"And ultimately, Indian lobby' ac...You say,"And ultimately, Indian lobby' actions will most likely prove to be detrimental to India's own interests in the region."<br /><br />----How?? Can you tell me the scenario in which this could happen?<br /><br />You say,"given the history of Indian-inspired animosity toward Pakistan among Afghans"<br /><br />----Afghans hate you,Pakistan, because you supported a repressive regime to further your own interests. Not because India says so. What do you think,the Afghans dont have brains and they will believe whatever India says,which it doesn't even share a border with? How can you possibly believe this after all these years of Pakistani exploitation in Afghanistan?<br /><br /><br />you are right that rising Indian influence is gonna further irritate the Pakistani establishment. India has a plan in place. Sometime in the future we'll say,"leave Kashmir alone and we will do the same in Afghanistan". And, I cant see any scenario where USA or any other country trying to stop Indian assistance. India is already training more than 50% of Afghani bureaucracy in India. The more democratic and independent Afghanistan will become the more Indian influence will rise.<br />Pakistan will probably increase terrorist activity in Afghanistan to counter this. This will again gain India an upper hand where the Govt of Afghanistan will hate Pakistan more and ISI influence will again be exposed for the whole world to see. As a result, military supplies from the western world will end. China will be willing to export arms, of course. <br />Pakistan can opt to live with a hostile neighbour(Afghanistan) or support the Taliban and become isolated in the community of countries. <br />India can play a positive role by helping Afghanistan stand on its own feet and developing its own army to counter the Taliban and help train its police forces in India by training them in anti-insurgency tactics. This will bring the Govt of Afghanistan more closer to India and Indian companies will get reconstruction contracts as benefit in turn. If the Taliban is actively and aggressively helped by the ISI then India can provide arms to Afghanistan. <br /><br />I advice to not to jump the gun and shoot itself in the foot. NOBODY can dictate a country about whom it should consider as friends and who as enemies. Karzai is anti-Pakistan but Abdullah is more so. The only meaningful option for Pakistan is to sit quite and take care of its homegrown Taliban problem and milk the US.<br /><br /><br />Riaz, I'd be looking forward to your reply.anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-85985928338639139882009-09-26T21:08:42.287-07:002009-09-26T21:08:42.287-07:00General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of ...General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked assessment of the war in Afghanistan says as follows:<br /><br />“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter-measures in Afghanistan or India.”<br /><br />Clearly, the rising Indian influence in Afghanistan is a matter of deep concern for Pakistan, given the history of Indian-inspired animosity toward Pakistan among Afghans, particularly those of non-Pushtoon ethnic background who constitute the Northern Alliance. <br /><br />And it would not be a surprise if elements within Pakistan act to stem the tide of India's hostile presence in Afghanistan through their own covert actions which may or may not be in the best interest of NATO alliance and its goals in Afghanistan. <br /><br />That reinforces the belief in Obama's earlier strategy to treat Afghanistan-India-Pakistan as part of the equation that must be dealt with by a single point of focus in the state dept...namely Richard Holbrook. But, unfortunately, Obama has increased his own difficulties by caving in to the Indian lobby's pressure in Washington to leave India out of Holbrook's portfolio. And ultimately, Indian lobby' actions will most likely prove to be detrimental to India's own interests in the region.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-60030539868325700932009-08-28T10:23:14.695-07:002009-08-28T10:23:14.695-07:00Anoop,
The only election that Hurriyet will likely...Anoop,<br />The only election that Hurriyet will likely participate in will be the one demanded and supervised by the UN as a plebiscite based on Security Council resolutions to determine the fate of Kashmir. <br /><br />Nothing short of a free and fair plebiscite that India agreed to and promised to Kashmiris will be considered legit by the Kashmiris and the world.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-962337692453037572009-08-28T10:16:37.573-07:002009-08-28T10:16:37.573-07:00Riaz,
you said- "You can believe whatever you...Riaz,<br />you said- "You can believe whatever you want about the elections in Kashmir. But, as a rule, the presence of over a half a million security forces and a hostile, partisan bureaucracy do not convey any sense of legitimacy to either the elections or its results.<br /><br />As to why Hurriyet does not participate in Kashmir elections, I know that Hurriyet leaders do not accept the legitimacy of India's claim to Kashmir. Participation by them in elections would amount to acceptance of India's illegitimate rule on the territory that is considered disputed by all except India. "<br /><br />You say free and fair elections are not legitimate representation.. Why not? Atleast we agree that elections recently held were not rigged and there was huge participation. I am happy you have indirectly conceded that fact.<br /><br />regarding hurriat, i am aware of their arguments that their participation in election would mean that they would be legitimizing India's supposed occupation. But, I ask you who are they to legitimize anything? They have never contested any kind of election. They are citizens of India for sure but that doesnt mean they can ask anything and we should give it to them. Do you even know how many factions of Hurriat are there?<br />Look at it this way. If they bury their egos and contest elections and let the people decide we'll know if they are truly representatives of Kashmir or not. If the hurriat win even 1/4th of the seats then Pakistan and members of Hurriat can claim they represent a sizable number of people and it would prove that their opinion really matters. Why should India believe an organization that only claims to represent the whole of Kashmir but are afraid to provide any proof. On what basis do YOU believe that they are the sole representatives of the people of Kashmir? If I follow your theory then aren't organizations that call of Independence in Baluchistan legitimate? Those organizations dont prefer to fight election,just like the Hurriat(all factions except one- you know,the won who lost). If you believe Hurriat is the sole representative of Kashmir then they too are the sole representative of Balochis.. <br /><br />I hope you see my point. Let them(hurriat) drop their egos and once fight election on a united front. We'll see who really matters. But, i know for sure the Hurriat will never do that because there is a huge chance that they will never win. All the options tried by Pakistan has failed till date. Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948,65 and recently in Kargil. Pakistan has also supported militancy. It has tried everything. Why cant it persuade hurriat to fight just one election and see what happens. Pakistan is out of choices anyway. Let the Pakistanis insist that UN keep a close watch on the election to make sure they are not rigged. Then, hopefully, pessimists like yourself and other who argue against India's control of Kashmir will stop supporting militancy(I am not saying you support armed struggle but others in your country might). <br />One elections will answer all our doubts and think of the position Pakistan will find itself in International forums. How can you possibly argue against this? This way the people of Kashmir will win.anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-65618824353428871862009-08-28T09:07:20.901-07:002009-08-28T09:07:20.901-07:00Anoop,
You can believe whatever you want about th...Anoop,<br /><br />You can believe whatever you want about the elections in Kashmir. But, as a rule, the presence of over a half a million security forces and a hostile, partisan bureaucracy do not convey any sense of legitimacy to either the elections or its results.<br /><br />As to why Hurriyet does not participate in Kashmir elections, it's obvious to me that Hurriyet leaders do not accept the legitimacy of India's claim to Kashmir. Participation by them in elections would amount to acceptance of India's illegitimate rule on the territory that is considered disputed by all except India.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-28612120135990064262009-08-28T08:49:24.960-07:002009-08-28T08:49:24.960-07:00Oh sorry i didnt notice the video was made by Perv...Oh sorry i didnt notice the video was made by Pervez Hoodbhoy. But, dont you think his opinions would seem prejudiced for me. After all he is bound to be influence by Pakistan's position on Kashmir. <br /><br />Have a look at this link.<br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb137/is_1_25/ai_n28992993/<br /><br />Pardon me,I have not read the link myself but this is what i am referring to about opinion from a neutral source. <br />I have read several articles of Mr.Hoodbhoy and I have admired his writing and his way of thinking. But, regarding the recent elections in Kashmir, they were free and fair. Our Govt takes pride in holding free and fair election in such a troubled region of India. Also, we would not be stupid enough to risk the exposure if the elections were indeed rigged. Look what the election of 1987(i think, not 1989) has brought us to- Militancy in Kashmir. Clearly, You,your media and your govt wouldn't let us sleep peacefully if the elections were rigged. <br />If,finally, we agree that free and fair elections were indeed just that in Kashmir, then how do you explain the separatist losing the constituency race to a National Conference candidate? He didnt even get 2nd place, as i've pointed out earlier. What does this say to you?<br />Why dont the seperatists come and fight the elections. If the people chose them they have a right to air their opinion regarding India's occupation. The Indian Govt has always maintained that separatism is minority in Kashmir but Pakistanis would not listen. We are even prepared to invite the world powers(we have always allowed their representatives to monitor our elections) to make sure no rigging is done. What do you have to say about the fact that these seperatists are not even prepared to risk losing.. They know that they have absolutely no chance of winning..anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-35523173724088274992009-08-28T08:33:55.149-07:002009-08-28T08:33:55.149-07:00Anoop,
Pervez Hoodbhoy is a highly respected schol...Anoop,<br />Pervez Hoodbhoy is a highly respected scholar and professor known for his no-holds-barred critique of Pakistani military and ISI. In my book , he is far more knowledgeable and independent than any one else who has talked or written about Kashmir.<br /><br />You should watch the video before jumping to any conclusions about him.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-25801476572442538912009-08-28T08:28:58.358-07:002009-08-28T08:28:58.358-07:00Riaz,
you and I would both agree that both will be...Riaz,<br />you and I would both agree that both will be satisfied if one produces videos and articles from a neutral source.. Thanks.. This is regarding your video on Kashmiri election.anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-16473593880720711912009-08-28T08:25:11.395-07:002009-08-28T08:25:11.395-07:00Riaz,
if thats true then even the polls held unde...Riaz, <br />if thats true then even the polls held under general musharaff is not free and fair. Dont you think the UN and states such and the US and EU send representatives to make sure the elections are not rigged?? See what happened in Iran, the elections were rigged and people instantly drawn to the streets. Dont you think if the elections were rigged the people would come out into the street like it happened in Iran? I agree that there was massive rigging in 1989(i think) which started this militancy.. You have to know more about Indian election commision. why dont you research that? I am sure you can find somewhere a report by the UN on Kashmir elections. Election commission in India is totally independent. Coming from Pakistan i can understand your pessimism and the ill or,rather, distrustful feeling about the independent Election Commission. After all the pakistani election commission has been under attack by forces in pakistan more than once. But, the constitution of India clearly defines the boundaries of our election commission and nobody, i mean, NOBODY interferes in its affairs. Elections are not even close to being rigged in the most poverty-striken districts of UP and Bihar.. It is impossible to rig elections and get away with it when Pakistan,China,US,EU and especially the UN is watching them.. Dont you think they would be more vigilant considering this is Kashmir of all places?? would your own media ignore rigging in Kashmir? Surely, you could not disagree with my opinion about India's election Commission.. Face it, in the recent elections in Kashmir a separatist lost..anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-15335428834478618172009-08-28T08:11:01.677-07:002009-08-28T08:11:01.677-07:00Anoop,
Any election held under a military occupati...Anoop,<br />Any election held under a military occupation by over 500,000 Indian soldiers and 80% of bureaucracy consisting of partisan Hindus can not be free or fair. <br /><br />In fact, it was the massive electoral rigging in late 90s that triggered the insurgency in India.<br /><br />If you are interested in facts rather than propaganda, please watch this video:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LLnuglrW34Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-26716113847747905172009-08-28T07:01:48.999-07:002009-08-28T07:01:48.999-07:00Look, in the last year 2 elections were held in Ka...Look, in the last year 2 elections were held in Kashmir. As your media might have reported 60% participation was there. Also, a seperatist contested the election who is not so friendly with India. He didnt even come 2nd place. What does this say? Please dont suggest the elections were free and fair.. I've read your media reports and other foreign journals who suggest that the elections were very free and fair.. This is what India stands for and we'll be damned if somebody accuses us that we cheated. Now, that the people have chosen their representative shouldn't you ask him to explain about everything you think is wrong with Kashmir? There are anti-state elements in every country. Like pakistan has balochis. Atleast the elected representatives in Indian Kashmir are pro-India. Even elected balochis hate the idea of Pakistan. you seem to ignore everything that is right in Kashmir and focus narrowly on few things that are wrong. <br />Looking forward for your reply. <br /><br />Thanks..anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-4247985120560725082009-08-27T16:22:14.293-07:002009-08-27T16:22:14.293-07:00Anoop,
You talk about Human Rights Watch report, h...Anoop,<br />You talk about Human Rights Watch report, here's one much more recent report about <a href="http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/09/india-hold-abusers-kashmir-accountable" rel="nofollow">Indian occupied Kashmir</a>:<br /><br /><i>(New York) - The newly elected Jammu and Kashmir government should hold security forces to account for human rights violations as an important confidence-building measure to promote lasting peace, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.<br /><br />Human Rights Watch called for an independent, transparent, and time-bound commission to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances. The commission should be empowered to summon members of the security forces to testify and to order forensic investigations to establish the identities of those buried in unmarked graves as unidentified foreign militants.<br /><br />"The new government should break with past practices and ensure that those who commit abuses are investigated and appropriately prosecuted for their crimes," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "There can be no lasting political settlement in Kashmir unless human rights abuses that have fueled the insurgency are addressed."<br /><br />Human Rights Watch called for the repeal of laws such as the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, and the Public Safety Act. These laws provide the armed forces with extraordinary powers to search, detain, and use lethal force, leading to numerous human rights violations. They also provide immunity for security forces. Prosecutions of security force personnel, even where the facts are well established, are rare.<br /><br />Human Rights Watch has, over the two decades of violence in Jammu and Kashmir, documented numerous failures to ensure protection of human rights. A September 2006 report, "‘Everyone Lives in Fear': Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir," found that the Indian army and paramilitaries, as well as the militants, many backed by Pakistan, were responsible for human rights abuses and that the political and legal systems in India and Pakistan had failed to end abuses or punish the perpetrators.</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-13428653028999344202009-08-27T16:21:07.794-07:002009-08-27T16:21:07.794-07:00Anoop,
1. Unlike Indian occupied Kashmir, there ar...Anoop,<br />1. Unlike Indian occupied Kashmir, there are no Kashmiris on the streets of Azad Kashmir screaming for azadi from Pakistan, they are alreasy azad and ruled by their elected reps. <br /><br />2. Unlike India, Pakistan is not holding on to Azad Kasmir by deploying more than half a million troops.<br /><br />3. Tappan Bose, an Indian activist whose organization collected the data, says 86% of the civil service jobs in Indian-occupied Kahmir are held by Hindu pandits.<br /><br />For more, watch this view:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d1-Zgo4nO8<br /><br />4. The number of armed attacks in Kashmir valley has dropped to its lowest since the insurgency began in 1989, according to Indian officials. Yet the air is filled with chants of Azadi from Indian occupation by peaceful Kashmiri protesters.<br /><br />How has India responded to the the peaceful movement for freedom in Kashmir? Not recognizing the reality of change on the ground, the Indian government has attempted to demonize the struggle as LeT led terrorism. Beyond that, it has continued to use force against unarmed, peaceful civilian protesters on the streets of Kashmir.<br /><br />Recently, Wall Street Journal has reported on the situation in Kashmir as follows:<br /><br /><i>"Indian troops often resorted to lethal force, killing more than 50 Kashmiri civilians. Scores of protesters and separatist politicians have been thrown behind bars or placed under house arrest. Indian officials say these detentions are necessary to preserve public peace, and that the troops have to use force to maintain law and order. Some half a million Indian soldiers and policemen remain deployed in the Indian-administered part of Jammu and Kashmir, home to 10 million people. (About 5 million people live in Pakistani-held Kashmir.) Indian laws grant troops in Kashmir almost total immunity from prosecution, including in cases of civilian deaths. Srinagar, once India's prime tourist destination, is dotted by checkpoints, its indoor stadium, cinemas and hotels surrounded by sandbags and converted into military camps. Broadcast media are censored....As Kashmir descended into chaos after these killings of innocent civilian demonstrators, India responded with increasingly severe curfews and lockdowns that continue. Often they come without prior warning or formal announcement, as in Srinagar over the past weekend."</i>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-86983012038958376732009-08-27T14:43:22.663-07:002009-08-27T14:43:22.663-07:00Riaz,
You seem to be critical of India and well, t...Riaz,<br />You seem to be critical of India and well, think it is full of hindu extremists. You seem to think BJP is a extremist being. But, you fail to understand that BJP is just another party in India. BJP is evaluated on its economic performance and most of its religious accomplishments are thoroughly ignored. <br />Now, to Kashmir. Riaz, as with most Pakistanis you think Kashmiris are running an armed struggle against the Indian state. But, do you really think India can hold onto Kashmir if Kashmiris didnt approve? Take for example, Vietnam or even Bangladesh. Pakistan has its forces in high numbers but could not hold on to the territory. What does this say? <br />Another point. A democracy works by People choosing their representatives. Correct? Elections are being held in Kashmir for a long time and why do you think not a single separatist has been elected to the assembly of Kashmir? Take for instance the recent assembly election. There was a huge voter turn-out,60%. What do you have to say to that? In the recent Parliamentary elections a separatist dared to contest election. He fought from north Kashmir. Do you think he won? NOOOO! he didnt even occupy the second place! Let all the Kashmiris who want "independence" from India fight the elections and we'll see the results. Until, then dont claim as if Kashmiris are getting a raw deal from Indians(not that Kashmiris themselves are not Indians). Kashmir doesnt need any representation from the Pakistani side as they already have picked their representative- Omar Abdullah for the next 5 years. <br />Hopefully, the Kashmiris on the Pakistani side will get to see elections soon. I was recently reading a UNHRC report and i felt disappointed that Kashmiris on the Pakistani side are being treated this way.<br /><br />Here is the link- http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/09/20/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free<br /><br />Hope, you are for democracy Riaz. I for one believe there is solution to every problem in a democratic setup! who knows the representative from PoK might ask for India.!anoophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953390714660751518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-73615737304137593922009-02-23T08:44:00.000-08:002009-02-23T08:44:00.000-08:00Here's an interesting story by Steven Coll on Mush...Here's an interesting story by Steven Coll on Musharraf-Manmohan being close to agreement on Kashmir, as published in the <A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/02/090302fa_fact_coll" REL="nofollow">New Yorker</A>: <BR/><BR/>ABSTRACT: A REPORTER AT LARGE about back-channel negotiations between India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir. Two years ago Pervez Musharraf, who was then Pakistan’s President and Army chief, summoned his most senior generals and two Foreign Ministry officials to review the progress of a secret, sensitive negotiation with India, known to its participants as “the back channel.” For several years, special envoys from Pakistan and India had been holding talks in hotel rooms in Bangkok, Dubai, and London. Musharraf and Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, had encouraged the negotiators to seek what some involved called a “paradigm shift” in relations between the two nations. The agenda included a search for an end to the long fight over Kashmir. The two principal envoys, Tariq Aziz and Satinder Lambah were developing what diplomats refer to as a “non-paper” on Kashmir which could serve as a deniable but detailed basis for a deal. By early 2007, the back-channel talks on Kashmir had become “so advanced that we’d come to semicolons,” recalled Khurshid Kasuri, who was then Pakistan’s foreign minister. Details for a visit to Pakistan by Singh were being discussed. Neither government, however, had done much to prepare its public for a breakthrough. Tells how domestic unrest in Pakistan contributed to the postponement of the summit. Musharraf slipped into a political death spiral and resigned in August of 2008. Mentions the periodic funding by India and Pakistan of guerilla or terrorist violence on each other’s soil. Describes the Mumbai attacks of last November 26, which were apparently coordinated by the Islamist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba and the concession by Pakistani officials that the attackers appear to have come from their country. India reacted to the attack with relative restraint, though many Indian politicians continue to call for military action. Writer visits the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and interviews Atta Muhammad Khan, who tends to the graves of about two hundred unknown young men in a village there. Gives a brief history of the dispute over the region and the shifting approaches taken by India and Pakistan to the dispute through the years. Writer interviews N. N. Vohra, the governor of Jammu and Kashmir, and then travels across the border to meet with Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. Tells about the events preceding the back-channel talks and the potentially catastrophic results of an escalation in hostilities between the two nuclear powers. Discusses in more detail the process of the back-channel negotiations. Writer visits the regional headquarters of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the educational and charitable organization that, depending on how you see it, is either the parent of or a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba. He is given a tour of the grounds by Mohammad Abbas, also known as Abu Ehsaan. Considers America’s role in Indo-Pakistani relations and how relations between the two countries bear on the war in Afghanistan. Writer attends a reception in Washington, D.C., for Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf says that he always believed in peace between India and Pakistan and that an agreement “would have benefited both.”<BR/><BR/>Mr Coll writes that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute was the cornerstone of a broad agreement that would have represented a “paradigm shift” in relations between India and Pakistan: a moving away from decades of hostility to acceptance and peaceful trade.<BR/><BR/>Under the plan, the Kashmir conflict would have been resolved through the creation of an autonomous region in which local residents could move freely and conduct trade on both sides of the territorial boundary. Over time, the border would become irrelevant, and declining violence would allow a gradual withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops that now face one another across the region’s mountain passes.<BR/><BR/>“It was huge -- I think it would have changed the basic nature of the problem,” the article quoted a senior Indian official as saying. “You would have then had the freedom to remake Indo-Pakistani relations.”<BR/><BR/>According to Mr Coll’s account, the secret negotiations consisted of about two dozen meetings in hotel rooms in various overseas locations. The sessions revolved around developing a document known as a “non-paper”, diplomatic jargon for a negotiated text that bears no names or signatures and can “serve as a deniable but detailed basis for a deal”, the article says. The US and British governments were aware of the talks and offered low-key support and advice but otherwise elected to let India and Pakistan settle their disputes unaided, the article says.<BR/><BR/>The article portrays Mr Musharraf as an enthusiastic supporter of the deal who succeeded in winning converts among the country’s skeptical military leadership. Yet, just as the two countries were beginning to consider how to sell the plan domestically, Mr Musharraf was compelled to seek a delay because of domestic political problems.<BR/><BR/>Mr Coll observes that after Mr Musharraf’s departure, India-Pakistan relations -- and hopes for resuming the peace initiative -- began a downward slide. In Kashmir, anti-India fighters began an aggressive campaign of public demonstrations and terrorist attacks that seemed designed to send a message: “Musharraf is gone, but the Kashmir war is alive.”<BR/><BR/>In recent weeks, there have been signs of a modest thaw in Indo-Pakistani relations. Last week, The Washington Post reported that Indian and Pakistani spy agencies have been cooperating secretly in India’s investigation of the Mumbai attacks, sharing highly sensitive intelligence, with the CIA serving as arbiter and mediator. Pakistan has announced criminal charges against Pakistan-based men linked to the attack and acknowledged that some of the planning for the three-day assault occurred in that country.<BR/><BR/>Yet, in the emotionally charged aftermath of the attacks, the new civilian-led government of Pakistan may not find it easy to return to negotiations on Kashmir, even if it wishes to, the writer notes.<BR/><BR/>“The military is completely on board at top levels -- with a paradigm shift, to see India as an opportunity, to change domestic attitudes,” a senior Pakistani official was quoted as saying. But, he reportedly added, “the public mood is out of sync.”Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-37131211553663275792009-02-17T01:49:00.000-08:002009-02-17T01:49:00.000-08:00Mr. Haq,I agree with all your points. The disparit...Mr. Haq,<BR/>I agree with all your points. The disparity between rich and poor is staggering. But in a chaotic democracy like India's, the wheels of change grind slowly. And even the development is quite staggered. We have 27 states currently in the Union, but 5 states out of 27 contribute more than 50% of the GDP. The governance in many northern rural hinterlands is abysmal (I agree to your reference to sub-saharan Africa). When i watched the movie Swades, it bought tear to my eyes, but there were many ignoramous sitting beside me in the multiplex who thought the movie was a bore. But the fact that the movie was based on a real life story gives hope for future. Though we are hurtling headlong towards capitalism, there are many young people who care deeply about the downtrodden. <BR/><BR/>Another point i wanted to make about Kashmir. You say that to normalize relations between India & Pak, the Kashmir issue has to be resolved. I think you got it completely backwards. I come from the southern state of Tamil Nadu. There was a serious separtist movement back in the 1950's to carve out a seperate country for the Tamils. Even the name Tamil Nadu is an oddity, as it literally means "Tamil Country". But looking back, i think it would have been disastrous. Today, we are one of the most industrialised state in the Union, very high literacy rate, very high affirmative action. I have engineer friends who have literally come from hut dwellings to working for high tech semiconductor companies. But i digress. My point is, despite our ethnic difference (dark skin), different tongue, different script, dravidian customs, we believe in the Indian dream. Why can't the Kashmiri people get along. why do they need Azadi. Infact who do they need azadi from.<BR/><BR/>Is azadi for Kashmir even a viable option. If you have seen the movie Zeitgeist, the western imperial powers of the world would like nothing more that infighting among people. Divide and conquer. Why should we play into their hands. <BR/><BR/>The people belong to the land and not the otherway around. The right approach should be one of mutual respect between (Ind & Pak), shun the external mediators, even the chinese. It is the Indian, pakistani and kashmiri people who know the "mitti ki khusbu", not the outsiders. We have got to stand down slowly, guns should fall silent, increase trade, allow the people to contribute to the economy, give them a sense of purpose and hope, and then decide if we really want to split the paradise on earth or restore it to its original glory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-42289217663097255562009-02-16T16:52:00.000-08:002009-02-16T16:52:00.000-08:00Anon:It's become fashionable to compare India and ...Anon:<BR/><BR/>It's become fashionable to compare India and China. Here's an interesting take by Sashi Tharoor titled "India is Not China":<BR/><BR/><I>It has become rather fashionable these days to speak of India and China in the same breath. These are the two big countries said to be taking over the world, the new contenders for global eminence after centuries of Western domination, the Oriental answer to generations of Occidental economic success. Some even speak of "Chindia", as if the two are joined at the hip in the international imagination.<BR/><BR/>But in case anyone wanted confirmation that such twinning is, to put it mildly, premature, one has only to look at the medals tally at the Beijing Olympics. China proudly ranked first, with 51 gold medals and a total of 100. You have to strain your eyes past such step-children of the global family as Jamaica, Belarus, war-torn Georgia, collapsing Zimbabwe and even what used to be called Outer Mongolia before stumbling across India in 50th place, with precisely three medals, one gold and two bronze.<BR/><BR/>This is not, in fact, a surprise. Whereas China has set about systematically striving for Olympic success since it re-entered global competition after years of isolation, India has remained complacent about its lack of sporting prowess. Where China lobbied for and won the right to host the Olympics within two decades of its return to the Games, India rested on its laurels after hosting the Asian Games in Delhi in 1982, so that it is now considered further behind in the competition for Olympic host-hood than it was two decades ago. Where China embarked on "Project 119," a program devised specifically to boost the country's Olympic medal standings (the number 119 refers to the golds awarded at the Sydney Games of 2000 in such medal-laden sports as track and field, swimming, rowing, sailing and canoeing), Indians wondered if they would be able to crack the magic ceiling of two, the highest number of medals the country has ever won at this quadrennial exercise in international sporting machismo. Where China, seeing the number of medals awarded in kayaking, decided to create a team to master a sport hitherto unknown in the Middle Kingdom, India has not even lobbied successfully for the inclusion in the Games of the few sports it does play well (kabbadi, for instance, a form of tag-team wrestling, or polo, or cricket, which was played in the Olympics of 1900 and has been omitted since). Where China has maintained its dominance in table-tennis and badminton, and developed new strengths in non-traditional sports like rowing and shooting, India has seen its once-legendary invincibility in field hockey fade with the introduction of Astroturf, to the point where its team even failed to qualify for Beijing this year.<BR/><BR/>Forget "Chindia" - the two countries barely belong in the same sporting sentence.<BR/><BR/>What's happened at the Olympics speaks to a basic difference in the two countries' systems. It's the creative chaos of all-singing, all-dancing Bollywood versus the perfectly-choreographed precision of the Beijing Opening Ceremony. The Chinese, as befits a Communist autocracy, approached the task of dominating the Olympics with top-down military discipline. The objective was determined, a program ("Project 119") drawn up, the considerable resources of the state attached to it, state-of-the-art technology acquired and world-class foreign coaches imported. India, by contrast, approached these Olympics as it had every other, with its usual combination of amiable amateurism, bureaucratic ineptitude, half-hearted experiment and shambolic organization.<BR/><BR/>That's simply the way we are. If China wants to build a new six-lane expressway, it can bulldoze its way past any number of villages in its path; in India, if you want to widen a two-lane road, you could be tied up in court for a dozen years over compensation entitlements. In China, national priorities are established by the Government and then funded by the state; in India, priorities emerge from seemingly endless discussions and arguments amongst myriad interests, and funds have to be found where they might. China's budget for preparing its sportspersons for these Games alone probably exceeded India's expenditure on all Olympic training in the last sixty years.<BR/><BR/>But where China's state-owned enterprises remain the most powerful motors of the country's development, India's private sector, ducking around governmental obstacles and bypassing the stifling patronage of the state, has transformed the fortunes of the Indian people. So it proved again in the Olympics: the wrestlers, boxers, runners, tennis players and weightlifters who made up the bulk of the Indian contingent, accompanied by the inevitable retinue of officials, returned with just two bronzes amongst them, while India's only gold - in shooting - was won by a young entrepreneur with a rifle range in his own backyard and no help from the state whatsoever. Young Abhinav Bindra is, at 25, the CEO of a high-tech firm, a self-motivated sharpshooter who financed his own equipment and training, and an avid blogger. He is, in short, a 21st century Indian. At one level, it is not surprising that he should have won India's first individual gold in any Olympics since a transplanted Englishman competed in Indian colors in the 1900 Games. India is the land of individual excellence despite the limitations of the system; in China, individual success is the product of the system.<BR/><BR/>Indians excel wherever individual talent is given free rein. The country has produced world-class computer scientists, mathematicians, biotech researchers, film-makers and novelists, but the only Indian sportsmen who have worn the title of world champion in recent years have been a billiards cueist and a chess grandmaster. Come up with a challenge that requires high levels of organization, strict discipline, sophisticated equipment, systematic training and elastic budgets, and Indians quail. This remains as true inside the Olympics stadium as outside it. When China built the Three Gorges dam, it created a 660-kilometer long reservoir that necessitated the displacement of a staggering 2 million people, all accomplished in 15 years without a fuss in the interests of generating electricity; when India attempted its Narmada Dam project, aiming to bring irrigation, drinking water and power to millions, it has spent 34 years (so far) fighting environmental groups, human rights activists, and advocates for the displaced all the way to the Supreme Court, while still being thwarted in the streets by the protestors from non-governmental organizations like the Narmada Bachao Andolan (the Save Narmada Movement). That is how it should be; India is a fractious democracy, China is not. China will win the Olympic medals for many games to come. India, perhaps, might win some hearts.</I>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-11092233757814093202009-02-16T16:45:00.000-08:002009-02-16T16:45:00.000-08:00Anon:You say, "You make mentions about Indian econ...Anon:<BR/><BR/>You say, "You make mentions about Indian economy being more hype than substance". <BR/><BR/>As I have indicated in many posts, India has made significant strides since the reform process began in the early 90s. <BR/><BR/>However, India still has a very long way to go. It's important to recognize that the media hype usually far outstrips the reality on the ground. Media tend to exaggerate both the good news and the bad news. India's progress has been very uneven and it has left behind a very large part of the population which has not shared in the fruits of its success. It is home to about 450m desperately poor people, the largest number of poor in any country of the world. Its Gini coefficient (inequality of income and wealth) is the worst in its region. <BR/><BR/> Look at international data and statistics on poverty, hunger, literacy, rich-poor gap, India shows up as having very serious problems. <BR/><BR/>But I am very happy hear of pervasive optimism in India. It's important to be hopeful to make progress.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-18367664145230388822009-02-16T14:52:00.000-08:002009-02-16T14:52:00.000-08:00Mr. Haq,I read your posts regularly and respect yo...Mr. Haq,<BR/><BR/>I read your posts regularly and respect your views. I am one among the millions of IT engineers who work in India. You are right about hope and cynicism. Right now the dominant feeling in India is one of hope and cheerfulness. I can't properly describe it, but it is like a virus, infectious. I work in europe, where every day there is more doom and gloom in the workplace. In a satisfaction survey conducted across all our sites world wide, the India centre scored the best, which confounded our bosses, as the Indian engineers earn still only 2/3 of their european counterparts. Why is that?<BR/><BR/>I can't even begin to describe to you the hope and optimism that the whole country felt when we launched our moon mission. Though the Mumbai blasts and the subsequent financial crisis have dampened our spirits a bit, but the dominant mood in the country is still happy.<BR/><BR/>You make mentions about Indian economy being more hype than substance. But the interest rates for borrowing in India are still high, still people are buying, and it is not like U.S. In the sub-continent (India & Pak), we know how to live within our means, so we save first, make a downpayment then buy a property or a good. This fiscal conservatism & strong middle class family values, cutting across religons, castes is what makes India strong. <BR/>Atleast that is what i believe. What say you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-21710490296995497912009-02-04T18:27:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:27:00.000-08:00Reuters is reporting that Holbrooke will visit Ind...Reuters is reporting that Holbrooke will visit India as part of his maiden voyage as "envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan".<BR/><BR/><I>U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke will travel to India this month as part of his mission to find a way to stabilize Afghanistan seven years after U.S.-backed forces ousted the Taliban, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.<BR/><BR/>The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be named, stressed that Holbrooke was going to India to discuss Afghanistan and not to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since 1947.</I>Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-62260968270134518512009-02-03T11:28:00.000-08:002009-02-03T11:28:00.000-08:00Anon:You claim, "As for what's happening in India ...Anon:<BR/><BR/>You claim, "As for what's happening in India - don't see how that's relevant - guess it's a reflex for many Pakistanis to first look at what India is going through - the poison-pill mentality."<BR/><BR/>So only the insurgencies in Pakistan are relevant to any discussion of insurgencies? Anything that paints Pakistan in bad light is fair game? You gotta be kidding. Or just perpetuating India's disinformation campaign as part of your nation's covert war as explained by RAW's Vikram Sood. <BR/><BR/>Wake up and smell the veggie burger. Maoists are every bit as determined, if not more so, as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan's border region. After all, they toppled the Nepalese king just recently. The real issue is your security forces are totally incompetent when it comes to counter-insurgency, the key mission of almost every military from US to NATO to Pakistan in the modern age of fighting non-state actors. Pakistanis are at least coping, if not winning yet. But, like US and NATO, they are learning in the process.<BR/><BR/>As Mumbai has shown recently, your military has no clue about it. Your commandos became a laughing stock for the world when a few young terrorists took over your financial capital for three days. You security forces looked totally helpless.<BR/><BR/> Other than firing on un-armed Kashmiri civilians and raping and pillaging the people of Kashmir, your security forces don't know any better.Riaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-31475500195471237602009-02-03T10:00:00.000-08:002009-02-03T10:00:00.000-08:00Pak military is doing what it is supposed to do: F...<I>Pak military is doing what it is supposed to do: Fighting an insurgency on behalf of constitutional government. They are heroes ...</I><BR/><BR/>Pardon my saying this - it could be construed as an insult - but you sound like the mouthpiece of a dysfunctional government. <I>"Fighting an insurgency on behalf of constitutional government"</I>? Surely you don't take your readers for fools. It's been Jinnah in 1948 since the Pak Army took orders from the Pak government - when they were _not_ the official government of course. And using the word "heroes": good grief! Some heroes they are - 4000 fighters in Swat have helped drive out 250,000 (and counting) local Swati and set up a separate Islamic state - courts and all. Rah-i-Haq - the operation in Swat - is now in Stage 3. This fight did not begin in 2009.<BR/><BR/>As for what's happening in India - don't see how that's relevant - guess it's a reflex for many Pakistanis to first look at what India is going through - the poison-pill mentality. But since you brought it up - yes, I'm aware. There's no glossing over the naxalites - they are a serious threat. But it's no different that any other time in India's history. There's always some insurgency or secessionist movement going on. India has been generally good about putting them down: yesterday's secessionists are today's Chief Ministers and tomorrow's opposition. Kashmir would have been there a long time ago if it weren't for Indian screwups in 1987 the meddling Pak military thereafter. <BR/><BR/>And to the "heroic" Indian military: they're not supposed to put down internal strife. The function is to ward off external aggression - you'll agree they did plenty in 1971 and 1998? Got their butts kicked by the Chinese - but at least they cannot and do not lie about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-80407961982647421472009-02-03T08:22:00.000-08:002009-02-03T08:22:00.000-08:00Anon:As expected, you deprecate Pak military by sa...Anon:<BR/><BR/>As expected, you deprecate Pak military by saying "Have you taken a look at what is happening in Swat? The Pakistan establishment and the Army are certainly covering themselves in glory there."<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you this: Have you taken a look at what is happening in thirteen of India's 28 states? Do you know even know what is going on there? Do you realize your "heroic" Indian military is shirking its duty while committing atrocities against Kashmiris?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Pak military is doing what it is supposed to do: Fighting an insurgency on behalf of constitutional government. They are heroes, unlike the Indian military which has conceded much bigger chunks of Indian territory to insurgents operating in thirteen of India's twenty-eight provinces and boasting between 10,000 and 20,000 dedicated followers, the Naxalites pose India's biggest internal security challenge. In contrast to the scattered actions of the Pakistani-backed Kashmiri separatist terrorists, the Naxalites are in every way a traditional communist insurgency.<BR/><BR/>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-elkus/maoist-insurgency-a-blas_b_44285.html<BR/><BR/>Manmohan Singh himself has called the Maoist insurgency centered on the state of Chhattisgarh the biggest internal security threat to India since independence. The Maoists, however, are confined to rural areas; their bold tactics haven't rattled Indian middle-class confidence in recent years as much as the bomb attacks in major cities have.<BR/><BR/>http://www.riazhaq.com/2008/08/western-myths-about-peaceful-stable-and.htmlRiaz Haqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00522781692886598586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5848640164815342479.post-38870576891970377282009-02-02T23:34:00.000-08:002009-02-02T23:34:00.000-08:00A few Pakistanis, I am sure, will fall for this ki...<I>A few Pakistanis, I am sure, will fall for this kind of treachery by Indian agents.</I><BR/><BR/>Guess you subscribe to the Andy Grove school of paranoid thought. <BR/><BR/><I>Pakistan will stay nuclear and stay strong. It'll overcome or at least effectively manage the insurgency it faces better than India or Sri Lanka.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you taken a look at what is happening in Swat? The Pakistan establishment and the Army are certainly covering themselves in glory there. The enemy is not at your (Eastern) gates - the enemy is in your house. Swat is 80 miles north-west of Islamabad. Putting up stout (read nuclear) defenses against evil Indians designs - or evil Afghan designs, or evil American designs, or evil Israeli designs, or whoever the bogey-du-jour is - will not help this house that is already on fire. But this is just evil propaganda from the Vikram Sood School of Thought - so pay no attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com