Editor's Choice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Kashmir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kashmir. Show all posts

Saturday, 17 October 2009

Who are the Punjabi Taliban?


Muhammad Amir Khakwani

On trail of Punjabi Taliban
By Nasir Jamal
Saturday, 17 Oct, 2009
LAHORE, Oct 16: A day after the triple-strike in Lahore, officials, counter-crime experts and academics in the province grappled with the question of how to deal with the upsurge in violence and the discourse was dominated by analysis of who the Punjabi Taliban were and what background they came from.

The province’s security agencies admitted the presence of “individual” militants branded as Punjabi Taliban in southern Punjab as well as elsewhere. “The government and its security agencies are fully alive to the threat and are taking requisite action. But it would be wrong to say that militants have consolidated their position to a level where they can operate under the banner of Punjabi Taliban,” argued a senior Punjab police official who has worked with different intelligence agencies.

This was consistent with a provincial intelligence report prepared some time ago on activities of militant groups operating out of southern Punjab. Although the report dismissed what it termed the much-hyped theory that the Taliban have “set in” in the districts (of Bahawalpur, Multan and D.G. Khan divisions), it acknowledged the potential threat of Talibanisation in some areas if “timely action by law enforcement agencies, coupled with concrete development activity, was not taken”.

The report concluded: “Poverty-stricken, feudalistic, extremely religious and illiterate south Punjab could possibly provide shelter to the Taliban and other jihadi outfits. It has potential to become a nursery or a major centre of recruitment for sectarian organisations. Talibanisation appears to be in its infancy stage. Timely action by law enforcement agencies, coupled with concrete development activity, could avert this danger.”

In a talk with Dawn on Friday, a senior police official listed a number of arrests made in different parts of the province, including southern Punjab, and recovery of arms cache in the recent past and claimed that in doing so, police had averted a number of possible suicide raids and sectarian attacks.

He maintained that militant organisations like Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami and Jaish-i-Mohammad operating out of southern Punjab had a long history of linkages with the Taliban in Afghanistan and tribal areas of the NWFP who provide them sanctuary and support.“Nobody denies that the militants belonging to these organisations have strong links with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and facilitate their operations in Punjab. But this is also true for the militants operating from many other parts of Punjab and the rest of the country,” he added.

Another senior police official surmised the term Punjabi Taliban was just a myth coined and being propagated to destabilise Punjab by the so-called friends and foes (read America and India) of Pakistan. “It’s a stable Punjab which is blocking their designs to harm Pakistan,” he said.

A senior police officer from Bahawalpur wondered: “If the so-called Punjabi Taliban from south Punjab are so big in number why none of the thousands of those arrested or killed during the recent military operation in Swat was found to be from this area.”

The Punjab police say that only one militant, Abid alias Hanzala, out of 11 who had blown themselves up or were killed in as many acts of terrorism during 2007 and 2008 was from a southern Punjab district, Rahimyar Khan.

The rest of them were Mehsuds from South Waziristan. Similarly, all the eight suspected suicide attackers who were either arrested or those who were able to escape arrest during 2007 and 2008 came from South and North Waziristan, Mansehra and DI Khan. Five of them belonged to the Mehsud tribe, according to police.

But there have surely been some signs of change this year. Analysts argue that the active involvement of militants operating out of southern districts of Punjab in a series of terror attacks during this year has brought the ‘Punjabi Taliban’ into sharp focus.

“Earlier, the Punjab-based sectarian and jihadi groups, which were either involved in Kashmir or in sectarian killings within the country, used to only facilitate militants coming from tribal areas of the NWFP by providing them logistical support for carrying out terrorist operations. Now they have become entwined with militants operating under the banner of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and changed their strategy.

“They are pursuing a different agenda, which is to challenge the state (of Pakistan) and pull it down, and are actively involved in the terrorist acts as indicated by their involvement in terror raids on Sri Lanka team and Manawan police training centre earlier this year (and multiple attacks on security installations this week),” Lahore-based defence and political analyst Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi said.

The official from Bahawalpur acknowledged that southern Punjab had proportionately produced greater number of militants because of the presence there of groups fighting in occupied Kashmir in the past. Also, he conceded, a number of top jihadi and sectarian leaders belonged to southern Punjab. But he insisted that there were no sanctuaries or training camps anywhere in the region.

On the basis of how much the official concede, shall we then say that the militants have an operational network in place in southern Punjab to build on?“That network is intact in spite of the arrests and killings of a number of militants in recent years. The area was never cleared and militant organisations and groups continue to recruit in southern districts of the province, which are also used as sanctuaries by militants after carrying out their operations elsewhere in the country,” an analyst said.

“How can you get rid of militancy without demolishing the ideological infrastructure that helps to create this mindset?” he wondered. But he acknowledged that it was a difficult task and required political consensus.

Amir Rana, an Islamabad-based analyst, said the term Punjabi Taliban was coined by Afghan Taliban groups to distinguish militants from Punjab and it became popular after the militant attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad last year.

He said the Punjabi Taliban was not a homogenous group and also included Kashmiri and Urdu-speaking people. “You would also find some Burmese and Bengali immigrants living in Karachi in the ranks of the so-called Punjabi Taliban,” he elaborated.

Dr Hasan Rizvi said that linkages between the militants from Punjab and the Taliban in the NWFP had deepened (in recent years) as the militants shifted their training camps in the tribal areas to avoid action by the government.

He said religious extremism was not confined to southern Punjab alone. “You will find a similar situation in central Punjab as well. Religious extremism is very sharply visible in Gujranwala, Faisalabad, etc. But the problem with southern Punjab is that some of its areas are not under effective state control. There are areas in DG Khan where the government’s authority is weak, which helps the militants to find sanctuary there. Further, the close proximity of these areas to Balochistan and tribal areas of the NWFP also provides the militants an easy escape route.”

Dr Rizvi, however, dismissed calls for a military operation in the region. “It (operation) is not needed because these areas, in spite of weak government authority, are not out of the state’s control. The better option would be to gather credible intelligence on the activities of militants in these areas and then take action.” (Dawn)

Read more...

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Aik jihadi bhai ki shahadat ('martyrdom' of a jihadi brother). May his soul burn in hell.


Ilyas Kashmiri had planned to attack COAS



Friday, September 18, 2009 (The News)
By By Amir Mir

LAHORE: The reported death of the Ameer of the Azad Kashmir chapter of the Harkatul Jehadul Islami (HUJI) Commander Ilyas Kashmiri in a US drone attack on September 7 has confirmed that the trouble-stricken Waziristan region has become the new battlefield for the Kashmiri militant groups, which are increasingly joining forces with the pro-Taliban elements to fight out the Nato troops from Afghanistan.

Ilyas Kashmiri was considered to be one of the most dangerous al-Qaeda-linked Pakistani commanders. No 4 on the Pakistani Ministry of Interior’s most-wanted list, Kashmiri was a veteran of the Kashmir Jihad who had spent several years in an Indian jail after being arrested from Jammu & Kashmir. While the Pakistan chapter of HUJI is led by Qari Saifullah Akhtar, its Azad Kashmir chapter, which is autonomous, was headed by Ilyas Kashmiri. He was arrested by the Pakistani authorities after the December 2003 twin suicide attacks on General Musharraf’s presidential cavalcade in Rawalpindi, but released in February 2004 due to lack of evidence. However, according to the Pakistani militant circles, Kashmiri was released upon the intervention of the United Jehad Council (UJC).

After being released, Kashmiri switched from the freedom struggle in Jammu Kashmir to the Taliban-led resistance against the Nato forces in Afghanistan and shifted his base to the Waziristan region to join hands with TTP. He had later established a training camp in the Razmak area of Waziristan and shifted most of his militants from his Kotli training camp in Azad Kashmir. In May 2009, Ilyas Kashmiri was accused of plotting the assassination of Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, in collusion with al-Qaeda, largely because of the COAS’s lead role in the ongoing war against terrorism. General Kayani’s daily visits to a gymnasium were reportedly tracked by an al-Qaeda cell in Pakistan, and it was decided that he would be targeted by a suicide bomber as soon as he would step out of his car. However, the plan could not be materialised after being leaked out to the intelligence agencies.

Hardly two few weeks before Ilyas was accused of conspiring to target Kayani, he was named in a charge-sheet filed by the Islamabad police in the November 2008 gruesome murder of Major General (retd) Amir Faisal Alvi, the former General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Pakistan Army’s Special Services Group (SSG).
Read more...

Friday, 28 August 2009

Cabinet to approve NAs reforms tomorrow

By: Humza Ikram

I would like appreciate the gesture of Federal Government to finally approve this very important legislation and thank God, the Miniser for Kashmir and Northern Area is no more viceroy of Gilgit and Baltistan.

Cabinet to approve NAs reforms tomorrow
Friday, August 28, 2009
By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has approved proposals for political and administrative measures for the Northern Areas to give the special status with appointment of governor, chief minister and converting its Legislative Council into Assembly.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the committee on Northern Areas Governance Order held under the chairmanship of the prime minister here on Thursday.Sources said a special meeting of the federal cabinet has been summoned on Saturday to give the final approval to the Northern Areas Governance Order.

According to sources, under the proposed administrative measures for the Northern Areas, the president will appoint the governor on the advice of the prime minister while the Legislative Assembly will elect the Chief Minister.

Sources said the Council of the Northern Areas would also be established and the prime minister would be its chairman.The legislative Assembly will consists of 36 members, 24 would be elected directly, while seven seats each reserved for the technocrats and women.

Sources said the issue would be taken up in the special cabinet meeting and after getting its nod; the presidential ordinance will be issued to give a special status to Northern Areas.The meeting was attended by Federal Minister for Information & Broadcasting and KANA, Qamar Zaman Kaira; Federal Minister for Labour & Manpower, Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah, Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Dr Zaheer-ud-Din Babar Awan; Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan; Minister of State for Law & Justice, Mohammad Afzal Sandhu; Minister of State for Finance and Economic Affairs, Hina Rabbani Khar and Secretaries Interior and KANA.
(The News)
Read more...

Friday, 6 February 2009

Kashmiris and Tamils: Violence will get them nowhere

Violence will get them nowhere


By Kuldip Nayar

IN a way, what has happened to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka is similar to what has happened to the Hurriyat in Kashmir. Both of them, ‘freedom fighters’, have ceased to be relevant in their respective places.

This does not mean that the alienation of the people they represent, either the Tamils or the Kashmiris has ended. But it does mean that the fight to project their stance has not met with success. In any case, the violence, which has no place in the settlement of political problems, is practically over, more in Kashmir than in Sri Lanka.

This is the only conclusion which can be drawn. Anything beyond that may be wishful thinking on the part of the LTTE and the Hurriyat on one hand and the governments in Sri Lanka and India on the other. What we see is a military victory. Moral victory is still distant. Tamil Nadu cannot force its will on Sri Lanka through bandhs and hartals.


I do not want to belittle the two struggles. The LTTE has fought for eelam (independence) and the Hurriyat for azadi (independence) for many years. Both have sacrificed thousands of their adherents. Yet, they did not realise in the midst of their fight for their ‘cause’ that the gun would never give them victory. They pitted themselves against states which had more guns.

Even the general opinion was against them. In the long run, the governments were bound to get the better of the ‘freedom fighters’. Neither the LTTE nor the Hurriyat has ever faced the fact that no nation would allow any part of its territory to break away, however emotional the call for self-determination or autonomy may be. Had the two asked for a status within their respective countries, the sky would have been the limit.

Some countries like China are unfortunate examples. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibet, has said more than once that he was prepared to accept an autonomous state within China, leaving defence and foreign affairs to Beijing. India would give its right arm if the Kashmiris were to accept that.

Maybe the solution to Kashmir lies in a similar formula whereby people of the state enjoy power over all subjects except foreign affairs and defence. Islamabad could do likewise, transferring all power, except foreign affairs and defence to the elected government in Azad Kashmir. Both New Delhi and Islamabad can give the Kashmiris a sense of coherence and integrity by making the border between Kashmir and Azad Kashmir soft. This will make the borders irrelevant. Pakistan has already said that it would agree to an arrangement which the Kashmiris accept.

Jammu will still need to be tackled. If it is assured of its identity, it would rather stay with the Valley — a ‘relationship of decades’ — than jump into the welter of India where linguistic chauvinism is taking over the centuries’ old coherent tradition. Much depends on the people living in the Valley in terms of how far they are willing to accommodate Jammu.

In the same way, it depends on the Sinhalese how far they are willing to go to win over the northern part of Sri Lanka where the Tamils abound and where the LTTE has been most active. Absorption of Tamils or those who harbour the dream of Eelam depends on the government in Colombo. A federal structure instead of the unitary system the country follows or the devolution of power to the different parts may provide a way out. But then the authoritarianism of the ruling party will have to be curbed. The spirit of democracy must defeat the sense of ethnic superiority which has come to guide the winning side.

I was shouted down when I told a gathering of students at the Srinagar University that their movement would have made far more impact if it had been non-violent. Yasin Malik, the first militant, underlines the futility of violence when he says that he has turned Gandhian.


Similarly, when I met a few LTTE leaders some years ago, they were violent even in their tone. They are as much in the wrong as the Hurriyat leaders if they believe that a principle can only be stoutly defended by the language of violence or by condemning those who do not accept their point of view.

For both of them, there are no shades, only black and white — those who are not with them are against them. This is the old approach of the bigoted, not of tolerance and feeling that others might also have some share of the truth. This approach is wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised, whether it is applied to the realm of politics, religion or economic theory. All Saarc countries must realise this.

Whatever Colombo and New Delhi may think about their respective strategies, we have arrived at a stage where an attempt of forcible imposition of policy or an idea is ultimately bound to fail. In the present circumstances this may lead to further alienation.

I wish the two would realise this and treat the defeated with dignity and care. They have to win them over and make them feel that their stake in peace is no less than that of the government. If the LTTE and the Hurriyat continue to defy reason and live in the darkness of misdoings they would be living in a make-believe world.

Similarly, there can be no victory for Sri Lanka and India. In fact, the status quo is a defeat for everyone. We have seen in the past that it is not easy for even great powers to reintroduce colonial control over territories which have become independent. Both Colombo and New Delhi have to accept that the desire for identity is strong and cannot be suppressed.

The ground is ready for Sri Lanka to have a settlement with the Tamils who harbour a feeling of denial in their own country. In the same way, the government in Delhi has to sort out things with the Kashmiris who find that the autonomy they enjoyed in 1950 has been eroded over the years.

In fact, people in all the countries of South Asia want to rule themselves without governments’ interference. They are sick and tired of violence and would like to settle down to a stable, secure future. They want democracy, but they know that it is not an end unto itself. It is the means to attain peace and equal opportunities. What has not sunk in is that wrong means will not lead to right results.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi. (Dawn)
Read more...

Monday, 2 February 2009

Talat Masood: Jihadi organisations not only have to be banned but demobilised and disarmed.

Confronting the reality

Monday, February 02, 2009
by Talat Masood

Pakistan is being frequently characterised as a “failed,” “failing” or at best “fragile” state. In the latest world ranking of failed states by an influential US think tank it has been placed ninth and every year or two it has been climbing a few notches. Intelligence estimates by several countries indicate serious reservations about Pakistan’s future. Of course, many among us would discard such categorization a part of a broader conspiracy by the Indo-US-Zionist lobby to undermine Pakistan. Or consider it “unfair,” as Prime Minister Gilani said at the Davos forum. The fact, however, is that alarm bells are being sounded because the world fears that a nuclear state in the midst of internal turmoil could lead to grave consequences.

Some of the country’s most crucial challenges are the rising power of Taliban in FATA and Swat, simmering nationalism in Balochistan, the faltering economy, weak state institutions and poor governance. Of foremost importance would be the quality of leadership that would be provided during these challenging times.

Each of these determinants is interlinked. For example, the rise of militancy would further push the economy into a downward spiral, which in turn would weaken governance and reduce the ability to deal with the militants. In short, failures or successes in any of these areas would be mutually reinforcing, thereby weakening or strengthening the state.

When countries are faced with major challenges political and military leaders have to lead from the front. It is indeed regrettable that our civilian leaders have not once visited FATA or Swat. For that matter, even General Musharraf, though otherwise full of bravado, never visited the troops in FATA.

Many of the rightwing political leaders and media are not prepared to own the war, and stress that it has been imposed by the US to advance its strategic interests. But the fact remains that it is now our problem. This confusion, coupled with hostility to the US, is creating misunderstanding within the leadership and the people and also raising tensions between Pakistan and the US.

Moreover, building institutional capacity is critical for the success of counterinsurgency operations. The Army and the Frontier Corps have to be further trained and equipped for counterinsurgency. There has been some progress, but a lot more has to be achieved if tribal elders and all those willing to support government efforts are to be protected and the writ of state established. The government so far has been unsuccessful in crafting political will for combating the insurgency and depends mostly on what the Americans or the army leadership has to say.

The fight against the insurgency will also require improving the economy, reforming the educational system, streamlining the Madrassa education and strengthening the judiciary and the police force. In the media war militants have proved to be highly subtle and effective. Security forces have been unable to technically jam the FM transmitters or physically destroy them making it so easy for Mullah Fazalullah to spread a reign of terror.

The quality of governance will be a major factor in shaping Pakistan’s future. Both politicians and military rulers have been smart at capturing power but unable to transform political power into good governance. The cry for Sharia and Islamic rule is a manifestation of how people have lost faith in the present system of justice and law enforcement. If the current state of governance is any indicator the future is indeed bleak. The PPP and the PML-N, the two main political parties, instead of competing in areas of governance are locked in intrigues and efforts to destabilise each other. In all fairness, the Punjab government is demonstrating the desire for improved governance, but whether it will be allowed to continue is a matter of speculation. At the centre and in the provinces there is less of institutional governance and more of ad hocism and patronage.

The external dimension is equally crucial. If we are able to normalise relations with India in the coming years it will give a huge peace dividend. Peaceful borders would mean better prospects for the economy, less expenditure on defence and more on development. It will also deprive the militant of his motivation in Punjab. But this cannot happen unless a bold and fundamental shift in the Kashmir policy takes place, in which Pakistan relies solely on diplomatic and political tools for resolving issues with India and forsakes the use of proxies. In the past non-state armed groups may have served certain foreign and strategic objectives have now become a huge liability and need to be abandoned. And jihadi organisations not only have to be banned but demobilised and disarmed.

No one expects that the multiple challenges that Pakistan faces will be resolved soon. What is needed is to set the country in the right direction and take courage’s steps to address the long standing problems, even if it means a total reversal of past policies. (The News)

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats. net.pk
Read more...

Sunday, 1 February 2009

Holbrooke’s entry will lead to India-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir

Holbrooke’s entry will lead to dialogue

Sunday, February 01, 2009
by Aakar Patel

India must engage Pakistan on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir before it is forced to. It must settle on a solutions process that is approved by both democracies, and by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.

Last week, India averted Barack Obama’s focus on the issue by using its muscle. America’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke was initially meant to also deal with ‘related matters’. This was apparently a euphemism for Jammu and Kashmir. However, according to the Washington Post, India forced President Obama to delete the words ‘related matters’ from Holbrooke’s brief before the official announcement.

This showed India’s clout extending seamlessly from a Republican administration to a Democratic one. But it also showed how alarmed India is at the prospect that someone would inspect a problem that is clearly worrying the world. A week before that, India sulked at Britain’s foreign minister David Miliband, who wrote in an article that Jammu and Kashmir needed to be resolved because it gave jihadis an excuse for terror. The Hindu reported that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee were upset by the tone Miliband used in a meeting he had with them, where he was forthright. As the younger man, they expected him to show deference.

India rejects the argument that terrorism against India is fuelled by the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. To an extent this is true. There are groups in Pakistan that seek more than the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar-e-Taiba says it wants to conquer the Red Fort. There are also Muslim groups in India that are doing terrorism for other reasons, like the killings in Gujarat. And there are groups in Pakistan, and Lashkar is one of them, that are part of the global jihad that has Caliphate aims that are not based on specific grievances.

But what the world is concerned with is that extremism in Pakistan has surged, in part because of India’s reluctance to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. This must be addressed by India sooner or later, because extremism in Pakistan is no longer just its internal matter. Having just held an election that India sees as very successful, this might be seen as the right time.


India has two fears on Jammu and Kashmir. The first is the fear of loss of territory. The second is the fear of the unravelling of its secular structure, where the two-nation theory is eternally in application, and never ‘settled’. India has a complicated view of the issue, and its legal and constitutional positions on Jammu and Kashmir are separate from its most powerful argument.

India’s legal view: the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Hari Singh acceded to India on October 26, 1947. This accession is legal and Prime Minister Nehru’s subsequent moving of the United Nations Security Council to vacate Pakistani intrusion does not supersede it. India also points out that action under the resolutions of the Security Council was sequential. The UN had sought Pakistan’s retreat from the disputed territory first, something that Pakistan had not done.

India’s constitutional position: India’s constitution came into force in 1950, by when it was acknowledged that Jammu and Kashmir would need special status. This was given to it through Article 370 a couple of years later. Through this India agreed that except for defence, communications and foreign affairs, all central legislation would require the assent of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. There was also mention that the head of the Jammu state would be referred to as the Sadr-e-Riyasat.

Temporary in nature, this law was greatly eroded over the years, as India tried to absorb the state into its democracy. Compromises that India made with the National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah did not penetrate into the state’s population, however, and the simmer remained. Instead of autonomy, India ruled with a heavy fist. Sheikh Abdullah was jailed and the chief ministers of the state came to be seen as nominees of New Delhi.

After the eruption of the Azadi movement in the late 80s, India unleashed its army, first on the separatists and then, as Pakistan got involved, on the jihadis. After a few years, in the mid-90s, New Delhi again brought up the self-rule solution, saying the “sky was the limit” on autonomy.

Only in the last decade has India stopped fiddling with the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. The army was used to boost turnout in neither of the last two elections, according to independent observers. India’s most powerful argument, though it has not articulated it clearly, has been that it offered the people of Jammu and Kashmir democracy under a first-rate constitution.

That Kashmiris, if they voted, would have the government of their choice ruling them. That if azadi was sought by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, it would have to be defined in light of this reality. This could, of course, only apply if India did hold elections that were widely participative. The Indian state believes it did this with last year’s elections, which damaged the claim of the Hurriyat that it was sole representative of the Muslims of the state.

Even if the issue of azadi was separated from dal-roti issues through the last elections, India believes there has been trust built between the Jammu and Kashmir electorate and India through the vote.

Pakistan’s fear on Jammu and Kashmir is that its nationhood is unresolved, both through geography and the existence of a Muslim-majority state in the Indian union. It needs Jammu and Kashmir, or even just the valley, to ‘complete’ the national project. There is also a secular fear that Pakistan cannot let its water resources be under India’s control even if the Indus Waters Treaty appears to have held so far.

Pakistan’s legal position is that the United Nations Security Council asked for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir and that it should be enforced. Gen Musharraf gave India an ‘out’ from this, by saying he would discuss the issue outside of the ambit of the plebiscite. Pakistan’s worry, not without merit, is that in the absence of an interlocutor, India just does not get serious in talking solutions. That is why the Pakistani media is keen on Holbrooke playing referee even though America is not seen as being on Pakistan’s side.

Pakistan’s problem has been convincing the world what it will do with Jammu and Kashmir’s non-Muslims, against whom its constitution is discriminating. Jammu and Kashmir’s problem is that it is not really a homogenous state. Few states in India are, but Jammu and Kashmir in particular is not. The Hindus of Jammu are very different in their inclination from the Muslims of the Valley. The Shias do not have the same enthusiasm for azadi after their experience in the Northern Areas.


The Buddhists of Ladakh are also removed from the movement. The Hurriyat did its cause a great disservice by making their movement Islamic. The Hurriyat’s leadership comes out of Mirwaiz Omar Farooq and the Jamaat-e-Islami’s Syed Geelani. Their support to jihad and the kicking-out of Pandits from the Valley undermined their cause globally.

If the separatists had been able to articulate their demand as universal rather than Islamic, they would have had much more sympathy from Indians, and from around the world.


But the separatists have a trump card: their right to demand freedom, and they have the history of the Indian state’s brutality to point at in justification of this demand. No solution between India and Pakistan on the matter can really result in a full settlement of the issue till this matter is resolved. In that sense, the problem can actually be seen as between India and the Muslims of the Kashmir valley.

Once Holbrooke understands the motivation of the Pakistani military leadership, and the limitations of its civilian leadership, he will be led inevitably to thinking about Jammu and Kashmir.

America will not intervene directly because India will not let it. However, there is no doubt that Holbrooke will encourage India to take the matter up bilaterally. India should do this before it is pressured into doing it.

The problem of Kashmir may well be insoluble. But the dialogue on it should be open and free, and incidents of terror should not be used to shut it down. (The News)

The writer is a former newspaper editor who lives in Bombay. Email: aakar. patel@gmail.com
Read more...

Friday, 2 January 2009

In the aftermath of Kashmir polls: Can India and Pakistan agree to confine itself to three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications?

In the aftermath of Kashmir polls

By Kuldip Nayar

STATE elections in Jammu and Kashmir may not have provided many answers but it has made one thing clear: the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference has been exaggerating its strength.

It was wrong in assessing the mood of the Valley because the voters rejected the Hurriyat’s call to boycott the polls. Nearly 61 per cent of the voters queued up before the polling booths in the severe winter to elect their representatives. As many as 354 candidates contested to return 87 members to the assembly. It was democracy versus the boycott call.


The problem with the Hurriyat is that it is frozen in time — when the Valley was agog with the demand for azadi. People have moved on because they have realised over the years, after losing thousands at the hands of the security forces, that the ground realities are far different from what the Hurriyat has been peddling.

This does not mean that the Valley’s alienation from India is over. It only means that the Kashmiris are questioning the Hurriyat’s way of seeking a settlement with New Delhi. They are sick and tired of violence and extremism and want peace and normalcy which they believe will give them back the tourists and free them from terrorists. Even those with guns did not disturb the polls lest they invoked the voters’ anger.

Without doubt, the Kashmiris want to have an identity of their own. The pattern of voting indicates that. Both the National Conference (NC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) have won practically all the seats in the Valley — the first getting 28 and the second 21 — underlining the aspirations of the Kashmiris to be different from the rest of India. The NC asked for autonomy plus and the PDP proposed self-rule and dual currency. Yet neither have talked of a status outside the Indian Union. It is, however, significant that the PDP increased its tally from 16 to 21 by taking a hawkish line. It looks as if it will continue to do that.

New Delhi would be deluding itself if it believes in the aftermath of the elections that it can arrive at a settlement without the separatists. They represent a dream which tickles the imagination even if it remains unfulfilled. However, there is a new opportunity for the governments at Srinagar and New Delhi to start afresh; to begin a dialogue with the separatists in order to hammer out a settlement which is acceptable to India, Kashmir and Pakistan.

The disconcerting fallout of the elections is reflected in the sharp division between the Kashmir and Jammu regions. The NC has won four seats in the Jammu region, and that too from Poonch where the Muslims have a majority. The party has also lost three per cent of the votes. The PDP has increased its support by 3.8 per cent but mostly from Poonch and Rajouri. Communal polarisation is also visible because the BJP which had only one seat has now returned 11. Its voting percentage has also increased in the Jammu region — from 12.4 to 21.8.

The Amarnath temple controversy over the piece of land allotted temporarily to the shrine management board came in handy for the BJP which was able to mix religion with politics and reap the harvest of agitated Hindu voters. The party also benefited from the negligence of the Jammu region as pointed out by various commissions. In comparison, the Valley’s main parties found less support from Hindus.

The Hurriyat too has no base in the Jammu region because it has preferred to give its movement an Islamic edge. The new government at Srinagar will have to give the Jammu region a sense of participation which it lacks. Otherwise, the sentiments for Jammu to be part of a neighbouring state in India may intensify.

The Congress, part of the ruling coalition after the last election, has suffered the most. It has lost 10.7 per cent of the electorate, 5.3 per cent in Jammu and 5.4 per cent in the Valley, although in terms of seats, its loss is only three. Its tally has been reduced from 20 to 17. The main reason for this is that it has been held responsible for the Amarnath land debacle, although it was the PDP minister who had approved the allotment when Ghulam Nabi Azad from the Congress was chief minister.

The NC and the Congress which have joined hands to form a coalition government represent the middle-of-the-road approach. Their problem will be to figure out how to deal with hardliners PDP and BJP. The PDP will try to distance Kashmir from the rest of India while the BJP would be for closer integration.

Election results show that the PDP, which has increased its vote percentage by 6.1, was helped by the Jamaat-i-Islami, headed by pro-Pakistan Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The NC and the Congress coalition have an absolute majority, 45 in the House. Yet, the history of relations between the two is not a happy one. The first government in the state was that of Sheikh Abdullah, the NC chief and grandfather of Omar Abdullah.


Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister of the Congress party. They were friends and comrades-in-arms in the struggle of independence against the British. This was an ideal combination. Yet they fell out and Sheikh Abdullah remained under detention for almost 12 years.

Once Nehru wrote to the Maharaja of Kashmir saying, “the only person who can deliver the goods in Kashmir is Abdullah.” But they went so far apart that Nehru wrote to him: “I greatly regret that you should have taken up a position which indicates that you do not value any friendly advice that we might give and, indeed, consider it as improper interference….”

Omar Abdullah, son of Farooq Abdullah, has an advantage because he knows the Gandhi family well. But personal relations may matter little if and when Srinagar pushes to implement the autonomy resolution which Farooq vainly tried to do when he was in power a few years ago. The central government’s authority, according to the Instrument of Accession Act, extends to three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications.

If New Delhi agrees to confine itself to three subjects, most of the separatists may go along. They have asked for azadi, but have yet to define it. Is New Delhi ready to roll back from the extra space it has occupied since the Instrument of Accession Act? Can Pakistan do likewise in Azad Kashmir, giving it all the subjects except defence, foreign affairs and communications? Elections in Jammu and Kashmir have provided yet another chance to sort out these questions.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.
Read more...

Wednesday, 31 December 2008

The end of the Kashmir jihad: Elections in Kashmir... By Aakar Patel

The end of the Kashmir jihad
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
By Aakar Patel

On Jan 12, 2002, President Pervez Musharraf banned Laskhar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad. He promised that “no organisation would be allowed to carry out terrorism on the pretext of Kashmir.”

On Sept 17, 2002, Jammu and Kashmir went to vote. In the two months before polling, 570 people died, including 327 militants.

The average vote was 44 percent. The lowest turnout, 7.8 percent, was in Sopore, home to the Jamaat-e-Islami’s Syed Geelani; the highest, 78 percent, was 10 times that, in Kargil, a stronghold of Shias, always more wary about Jihad. US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill acknowledged a dip in infiltration across the Line of Control and called the turnout “remarkable.”

On Nov 2, 2002, Mufti Mohammad Saeed and the Congress Party formed the government, agreeing to split the six-year term between the two parties with Mufti Saeed as chief minister for the first three years and Ghulam Nabi Azad the last three. They focussed on governance, not identity, for almost the whole of their terms. But then, in the manner of the subcontinent, identity appeared.

Amarnath, 90 kilometres from Srinagar, is where Hindus pray to a giant ice stalagmite, which they believe is a representation of Shiva’s phallus. The Amarnath shrine was discovered by a Muslim shepherd in the 19th century, and pilgrims walk 42 kilometres from Pahalgam in the Hindu month of Sravan (July-August) to worship there.

On May 26, 2008, the Jammu and Kashmir government agreed to give 100 acres of land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Trust, for the setting up of tents for pilgrims. In Srinagar, this was immediately shown as evidence of how Kashmir would slowly be taken over by India. (The Indian Constitution’s Article 370 gives Jammu and Kashmir separate status from the rest of the Union and Indians cannot buy land in that state.)

Kashmiri Muslims came to the streets to oppose the transfer; Jammu’s Hindus came to the streets to defend it. Hindu groups, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, blocked the road to the Valley from Jammu, threatening an economic blockade and alarming the country. The government cancelled the land transfer, but Mufti Saeed withdrew support from the Congress government, which resigned on July 7, 2008.

On Oct 19, the Election Commission of India announced Kashmir’s elections would be held from November 17 in seven phases till December 24. Few believed the elections would be successful.

The communist Yusuf Tarigami said “elections were no solution to the Kashmir problem.” The secular Yasin Malik said his group, the JKLF, would campaign actively for a boycott and that the elections would fail just as they had in the past. “To boycott the elections was every Kashmiri’s right,” he said. Sheikh Abdullah’s grandson Omar said his party, the National Conference, would contest but he worried that “turnout would be low.” Hurriyat spokesman Abdul Ghani Bhat said elections were a non-issue and, “whether or not they were held, would cause the Hurriyat no consternation.” The Jamaat’s Geelani said that the “so-called elections were no solution.” The JKDFP’s Shabbir Shah promised a “total boycott.” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq asked people to stay away from the elections “or face social boycott.”

On Nov 17, Bandipora, Leh, Kargil and Poonch polled 69 percent; on Nov 23, Ganderbal and Rajouri polled 68 percent; on Nov 30, Kupwara polled 68 percent; on Dec 7, Baramulla, Udhampur, Budgam and Reasi polled 59 percent; on Dec 13, Pulwama, Shopian and Kathua polled 58 percent; on Dec 17 Anantnag, Doda, Kishtwar, Kulgam and Ramban polled 66 percent; on Dec 24 Jammu, Srinagar and Samba polled 55 percent.

Why did this happen?

In 2003, there were 3,401 incidents of violence in Kashmir. In 2005 this fell to 1,415 incidents. In 2007 this fell to less than 900. Infiltration across the Line of Control also plummeted.


Without the leverage of the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s and Jaish-e-Muhammad’s guns, the Hurriyat showed it had little influence. In a democracy, there is no substitute to rallying people, other than through daily contact on daily issues. Leadership on one grand, emotional issue cannot be sustained.

Musharraf ended Pakistan’s jihad; Kashmiris have put a moratorium on identity issues. Kashmiris have damaged the credibility of the Hurriyat Conference, and made it irrelevant for the next six years.

The Mirwaiz is conservative, as religious leaders must be. But along with worrying about Bida’a, in the manner of all South Asian maulvis, he fought a political battle—but without ever fighting an election. He has lost. After the results were announced on Sunday, Dec 28, he said this was a “lesson for separatists.”

Who were the winners?

Thirty-eight-year-old Omar Abdullah will become chief minister. He is secular (married to a Hindu), intelligent and experienced. Exactly the kind of man the state needs. His grandfather, Sheikh Abdullah, and Rahul Gandhi’s great-grandfather, Nehru, had a friendship that fell apart and Nehru jailed the Sheikh for a dozen years. This was after Nehru fought against Hari Singh before Independence to have Sheikh Abdullah released. Now, these two young men, who are also close friends, are at the doorstep of history.


The BJP was rewarded for its opportunism in inflaming Jammu and won 11 seats, 10 more than last time. But it has polarised Jammu from Kashmir in its recklessness. It says the issue is of discrimination against Jammu, not Hindu versus Muslim, but this is untrue. Where it has the opportunity to use bigotry—in Gujarat, and elsewhere—it does so without qualm.

The BJP talks tough to Indians, but in December 1999, Vajpayee surrendered to the Jaish-e-Muhammad after the Kandahar hijacking and released Masood Azhar and Omar Saeed Sheikh. This act of myopia under pressure from a few dozen middle-class families led to more terrorism in India, including the attack on Parliament in December 2001. It also led to the attacks on Musharraf, whose death might have led to a different story in Kashmir, and to the savage murder of The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl.

The Congress calmed tempers even at the cost of being hurt by angry Hindus in Jammu and elsewhere in India—and it is down three seats to 17. Under Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, it remains the party that puts nation above self.

What about the separatists? They are fighting the wrong people.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s father was killed by the Hizbul Mujahideen in May 1990. Sajjad Lone’s father, Abdul Ghani Lone, was killed by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in May 2002.


I met Abdul Ghani Lone in his Srinagar house, and while showing me out he pointed at the Indian army soldiers protecting him and referred to them as “these butchers.” But I wondered who they were protecting him from.

Mufti Mohammad Saeed’s daughter Rubaiyya was kidnapped by militants in December 1989, when he was India’s home minister. The V P Singh government released five prisoners to get Saeed’s daughter back.

These people are the victims of militancy, but they became its champions. As it now fades away, they will become irrelevant, unless they separate their message from violence.


Yasin Malik’s young face bears testimony to the brutality of the Indian state, whose guest he has been for much of his adult life. He says elections are not the solution to the Jammu and Kashmir issue.

But India has no strategy beyond offering secular democracy and the recurring right to vote, which it has been begging Kashmiris to take—and which they have finally taken, at least for now.

Yasin Malik talks about Gandhian protest, but Gandhi did not fight for a theocratic state. In a truly Azad Kashmir, Yasin Malik will be stamped out by Mirwaiz, Geelani and the Kashmiri population that will get down to the mischief of Hudood, Riba, Zina. Pakistan thinks it inherited it from Zia, but that actually came from the Muslim League and Liaquat’s 1949 Objectives Resolution.

Having predicted that Kashmirs would boycott the election, Indian liberals are now urging the government to act to resolve the Kashmir issue with some sort of geographical solution. They are wrong.

Elections are the solution. Secular democracy is the only goal. It is what Jinnah wanted. Kashmiris already have that. (The News)

The writer is a former newspaper editor who lives in Bombay. Email: aakar.patel@ gmail.com
Read more...

Monday, 15 December 2008

view: The Kashmir tinderbox - By L. Ali Khan

India and Pakistan should work towards forging an open borders regional community. They can use and develop the existing institutional structure of SAARC to move toward an economic community

The Mumbai massacre was a heinous crime, allegedly carried out by the Lashkar-e Tayba, a militant organisation that is fighting for the liberation of Indian-occupied Kashmir. Formed in the days when liberation movements enjoyed legitimacy under international law, LeT was outlawed in 2002 as a terrorist organisation in Pakistan, India, the United States, and several other countries. The post-9/11 war on terror has further weakened the liberation movement for Kashmir. Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan has withdrawn its moral and military support from militant groups that have been training for decades to liberate Kashmir. The Mumbai massacre is a sad reminder, however, that the unresolved Kashmir dispute is the tinderbox of South Asia.

In 1947, British India was partitioned between Muslims and Hindus. The law of partition, however, did not settle the future of more than five hundred semi-independent princely states, including the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The law allowed each princely state to decide for itself. Due to their geographical compulsions, most states had no choice but to join India or Pakistan.

However, a dramatic anomaly bedevilled the accession of two princely states. The predominantly Hindu state of Junagadh was ruled by a Muslim prince, who opted to join Pakistan. India sent its military forces to annex Junagadh, arguing that the people, and not the prince, must decide the question of accession.

Ironically, the predominantly Muslim state of Jammu & Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu prince who opted to join India. India happily accepted this princely accession. A militarily weak Pakistan could not take Jammu & Kashmir by force. A militarily strong India, which relied on the peoples’ choice to take Junagadh, has since refused to apply the same logic to settle the Kashmir dispute.

Over the years, the United Nations Security Council has passed several resolutions in a bid to settle the Kashmir dispute. In 1948, the Security Council passed Resolution 47, which became the principal source for resolving the Kashmir dispute. The Resolution recognised “that the question of accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.”

No such plebiscite was ever held, forcing India and Pakistan to engage in periodic wars. Rebuffing the Security Council Resolution, India gradually shifted away from its commitment to hold an internationally supervised plebiscite.

A frustrated Pakistan resorted to war in 1965 to settle the Kashmir dispute. India defeated Pakistan and through Soviet mediation forced Pakistan to sign the 1966 Tashkent Declaration, a treaty that effectively partitioned Jammu & Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

In 1971, India played a key role in breaking up Pakistan. Instead of acquiring Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan lost more than half of its population and territory to the new state of Bangladesh. Furthermore, India forced Pakistan to sign the Simla Agreement, a treaty under which the Kashmir dispute would be resolved through bilateral negotiations. Thus, India finally removed the Kashmir dispute from the international forum. After the Simla Agreement, the Security Council was no longer interested in resolving the Kashmir dispute. A dysfunctional bilateralism produced no settlement either.

During the Cold War, even though Pakistan sided with the United States in ousting the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, the United States showed little interest in resolving the Kashmir dispute. As the Cold War ended, the United States abandoned Pakistan and instead began to woo India as an economic and possibly a military partner against China. Pakistan, now completely on its own and nursing the wounds of betrayal, resorted to fomenting militancy in Indian-held Kashmir. Pakistan’s option to keep the Kashmir dispute alive through state-sponsored militancy crashed in the post-9/11 world in which all freedom fighters are now labelled terrorists. Meanwhile, both India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, creating a dangerous stalemate in South Asia.

In 1994, I proposed a possible solution in an article titled “The Kashmir Dispute: A Plan for Regional Cooperation” in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. After analysing the historical roots of the Kashmir dispute, I offered the following points for a possible settlement:

1. Except for the Valley of Kashmir, which has been a distinct province in the historical princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, India and Pakistan should lawfully partition the rest of the State. In fact, they already have. India controls Jammu while Pakistan controls Gilgit. Other parts of the state have also been partitioned. I suggest that the existing line of control be converted into an international border between India and Pakistan.

2. An internationally supervised plebiscite should be held in the Valley of Kashmir, which would allow its people to choose their own destiny, including the possibility of an independent state. To preserve its neutrality, the Kashmir Valley may be legally disabled from entering into any military alliance with either India or Pakistan.

3. India and Pakistan should work towards forging an open borders regional community. They can use and develop the existing institutional structure of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to move toward an economic community. The partition of Jammu & Kashmir will lose many of its scars and burdens in the context of an open-borders South Asia, including Nepal and Bangladesh.

To reverse the process of periodic wars, I have even proposed that India and Pakistan sign a defence pact to avert external threats. South Asia needs a new stimulus framework, a bold psychological initiative, if it wants to solve its more mundane problems such as air pollution, dirty drinking water, load-shedding, and undignified poverty.

Ali Khan is professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, and the author of the book A Theory of International Terrorism (2006)
Read more...

Tuesday, 9 December 2008

Pakistan arrests suspected mastermind of Mumbai attacks: Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, a terrorist of Lashkar-e-Taiba /Jamatud Dawa arrested.

Pakistan arrests suspected mastermind of Mumbai attacks

Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, named by sole surviving attacker as ringleader, held after raid on militant camp in Pakistani Kashmir

* Saeed Shah in Islamabad
* guardian.co.uk, Monday December 8 2008 16.56 GMT


Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi speaks during a rally in April 2008 Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi speaks during a rally in April 2008. Photograph: Abu Arqam Naqash/Reuters

Pakistan today captured a suspected mastermind of the Mumbai terrorist attacks in a raid on a camp run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, the jihadist group accused by Delhi of carrying out the assault on India's commercial capital.

Pakistani authorities moved after indications India was considering air strikes against Lashkar-e-Taiba camps inside Pakistan if there was no action by Islamabad.

Twelve members of the group were arrested last night by the army in the town of Muzaffarabad, according to reports, including Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, named by India as one of the planners of the Mumbai attacks, which left 171 people dead. A helicopter gunship hovered overhead during the raid, and gunfire was heard.

Muzaffarabad is the regional capital of the part of Kashmir held by Pakistan and is the nerve-centre of jihadist activity aimed across the "line of control" to the part of Kashmir ruled by India.

The raid was the first concrete sign of a crackdown against militants in Pakistan following the attack on Mumbai. Indian officials privately described it as "an important first step", though there was some scepticism in India about the nature of the raid.

The camp includes a hospital, a madrassa (Islamic school) and offices; it was unclear whether it was a training facility for militants. As it was on the outskirts of Muzaffarabad, it may only have been an administrative and charitable site. The complex was ostensibly being used by Jamaat ud Dawa, an Islamic organisation believed to be a front for the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, but which claims to have no Islamist links.

The camp was subsequently sealed and the area cordoned. The Pakistan army acknowledged the raid but provided few details.

"This is an intelligence-led operation against banned militant outfits," said Major General Athar Abbas, the chief spokesman for the army. "There have been arrests and investigations are on. We are not disclosing any names. Further details will be available after preliminary investigations."

There was no move against the alleged headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is located just outside the eastern city of Lahore at Muridke. The group has denied involvement in the Mumbai attack.

Lakhvi is alleged to be the operations chief of the militant group and, according to some reports, recruited Ajmal Ameer Kasab, the lone gunman caught alive during the Mumbai assault.

It is unclear what happened to Lakhvi after his arrest. Also, the whereabouts of Yusuf Muzammil, the head of India activities who has been named by Indian officials as the other main planner of the Mumbai attack, is unknown. Reports suggested Indian authorities had asked for both men to be handed over.

Some locals in Muzaffarabad suggested some aspects of the raid may have been staged, and there are rumours the militants were tipped off. In the past, Pakistan has arrested the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed, but then quietly let him go.

Analysts see little chance that Lakhvi or any other major Lashkar-e-Taiba commander will actually be given up to India. Pakistan's president, Asif Zardari, has said that anyone detained in Pakistan will be tried there.

Pakistan is under intense international pressure to act against Lashkar-e-Taiba but any concerted attempt to quash the group in Pakistan would be likely be met with a violent response by its followers and a political backlash, placing Islamabad in a no-win position.

Today, the Pakistani government again complained that India had not shared evidence it claims to have on the participation of groups or individuals based in Pakistan. Islamabad also proposed that it would send a "high level delegation" to New Delhi.

"The main site of LeT is Muridke, Lahore, but they haven't done that," said Vikram Sood, an analyst in New Delhi and former head of India's RAW intelligence agency. "I wouldn't say this is a major move but I think it's to pre-empt any [Indian] action."

Within Pakistan, the religious right was predictably scathing over the Muzaffarabad raid.

"We've known for a long time that it [the camp] was there. If we wanted to take action, we should have done so, but not under external pressure we now face," said Fazlur Rehman, the head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a hardline religious party that is part of the ruling coalition in Islamabad.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the head of the other main religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, said: "This [raid] is wrong. It's all a conspiracy by India and the US. This action shows up the weakness of this [Pakistani] government."

.......

What do ordinary Pakistanis think? Some comments:

anclub Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
comment-top

we must accept our negligence to handle the terrorists activities inside pakistan.all the activities inside or outside pakistan are patronised by our (so called)security agencies,just for the political reasons.they simply turn the situation into an other way.agencies are responsible.

Plato Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
comment-top

Dear Friends,

Has anyone gone into the depth of why the Air Chief Marshall may have issued the statement about Pakistan’ capability?

Has anyone also gone into the depth of why our Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani issued multiple statements against drone attacks stating at a few occasions that Pakistan would retaliate. He even issued orders for two F16s to patrol the tribal areas more than twice.

While looking at the above two questions that I have put for you, please remember that under our previous president, General Pervaiz Musharraf, not once did ISPR or any officer from the Pakistani Army or Airforce made a statement against the attacks or even implicitly against America.

Please also remember that the civilian government issued orders for the closure of ISI political cell. And ISPR issued statement that ISI political cell has not been “closed”, but made “inactive” after the Prime Minister made an announcement that the political cell had been closed.

Within 3 days of the Prime Minister’s statement and its partial refutation, terrorists struck Mumbai.

Ask ourselves what maybe going on and things would hopefully sit in place for all of us. You must also ensure that the commentary should be neutral. Patriotism does not demand that we close our eyes when the name Gilani or the word army is mentioned. I am asking you to question everything.

Also, please check Dawn Main page’s news on:
http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=30_11_2008_001_006

Please check out the above article (along with my note above) to make sense of what may be going on between our military, civilian government, India and our innocent people.

Once you have a clear mind (cleared of your biases towards one thing or another), you may notice:

Army is trying to rescue itself by issuing statements which are directly in conflict with the civilian government.

I am not in love with the civilian government, but why the hell should those whose primary responsibility is on the borders of our country issue statements to undermine a sitting government when they, themselves, when in power, are the worst kind of puppets for the foreigners.

A few days ago, controversy surrounded the statement by an air chief marshall who said we can take out the drones and it is well within our capability. Remind this intellectually dishonest cheat where he was when during Musharraf’s time so many attacks took place - in fact, it was Musharraf who was the chief architect of this whole (drone, “strongly condemn”) arrangement.

That said, our army is trying to regain the public confidence, that it presumably thought it once had, by issuing statements whose nature is not logistical, military, or professional. These are political statements telling the Pakistanis how incapable and inept, lacking any balls, their government is.

I would also like to point out that on the one hand we have our corrupt leader Zard-ari offering help to the Indians on investigation (to assure them that Pakistan had nothing to do with it), and on the other hand, I would not rule out the possibility that the attackers were trained by our own ISI.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, when created this horrible political cell, did not know that he would be unable to curb its powers. Now, we have had a credibility issue. Army on the one hand trying to reassert itself by, on the one hand, arranging these attacks, because it was not happy with our corrupt leadership’s statement issued to all major newspapers 12 days ago that Pakistan will not be the first country to use nuclear weapons.

Zardari made statements which he, as President of Pakistan, should never had made (such as the one using the words “non-state actors”). He wanted to shrug responsibility, but in doing so, he assumed more responsibility than he would have if he had only kept quiet or even outright defiant.

Our army lives, breaths, sleeps and mates with the Kashmir issue. It is weak without an Indian threat (in its own eyes and in the eyes of the Pakistani public). So, it is now again creating that Indian threat. It is also trying to destabilize a sitting government (whether or not we like that government, that aside for now) just as Musharraf arranged the Kargil adventure (or misadventure) so he could later claim, “Nawaz Sharif’s run to Washington made us loose a war which was already won”.

Any sensible thoughts which may be unbiased and which can be tested through available facts and theory?

gditpp Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
comment-top

Technically, is Azad Kashmir a part of Pakistan? If India chooses to go for a surgical strike there or Pakistan retaliates by attacking occupied Kashmir, would that be considered a violation of international borders? Isnt the two parts of Kashmir seperated by a line of control? Can the government’s decision to act before India does, be considered right as it will deny India an oppurtunity to do things herself, frankly I donot know, not for now atleast.

jazoo Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
comment-top

@plato
First you have to understand what is Pakistan Army & who is Pakistan Army only then you can accuse PA.
PA is a body of Core Commanders working under COAS–Under Constitution of Pakistan COAS is servant of civil Govt but a God within the body of core commanders–where core commanders are consulted but theres no voting system that 7 CC have one opinion & 5 have other–COAS is decision maker, not bound to go with majority–He may disregard all 7+5 opinions & come up with his own unique opinion or decision.
So to say Army has its own thinking is partially right but it changes with COAS to COAS.
COAS may not have imposed his own thinking if civilian Govt is strong which is not the case in Pakistan.
I agree with you theres a tussle between Army & Civilian Govt. Kiyani goes everywhere after Zardari either it be China or USA–smells of trouble.
ISI character also changes with the chief operator either it be Army or Civilian Operator. Since Zia-ul-Haq ISI is working for American interests with a slight difference in all the era & big difference in Musharaf era.
Hamid Gul was ISI Chief when fighting against Soviet Union or Jihad against Invasion in Afghanistan. There was a National & Islamic Character included with American interest so its hard to say who was playing whom–Character of Hamid Gul can not be declared as puppet of foreign powers neither he did out of greed so when he talks we can feel a pride in his character.
Yes theres one most corrupted ISI Chief who can never face the public–He is right hand of Musharaf–Gen. Mehmood Ahmed.
What Musharaf wrote in his book that he rcvd a call from Washington is all BS–He knew all about 9/11 well before it happened & everything was planned even post 9/11 impacts & strategy with CIA.
We can not blame India for pointing their fingers towards ISI every time something happened because they have some knowledge of ISI which our Govt. never deny strongly.
Indian Intelligence found out the money trail to Hijacker Atta Mohammad–That was $100000/- sent by Omar Saeed Sheikh(also an ISI & Al-Qaida operator) on instructions of Gen. Mehmood Ahmed(ISI Chief)–This story was also confirmed by FBI but it was suppressed by western media & CIA–It only got a place on Wall Street Journal(internet version only)then removed from online version also as done by Fox News on many stories linking Israelis to 9/11.
Because of leakage of his linkage to money trail Gen Mehmood was removed as an ISI Chief–This story many Pakistanis do not know.
Please follow this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdu0tLb2frk

Gen Mehmood was also in Washington DC on the eve of 9/11.

dadarocks Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
comment-top

I have asked so many Pakistani will try even here the same question.

What in your view constitutes evidence because whatever India provides you claim it’s not strong evidence. If you are looking for paper trail then in events like these that’s next to impossible.

BTW here is Irfan Hussain journalist of dawn.com vouching for my point.

http://dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20080312.htm

Each time an atrocity like Mumbai occurs, and Pakistan is accused of being involved, the defensive mantra chanted by the chorus of official spokesmen is: “Show us the proof.” The reality is that in terrorist operations planned in secret, there is not much of a paper trail left behind. Nine times out of ten, the perpetrators do not survive to give evidence before a court. But in this case, one terrorist did survive, and Ajmal Amir Kamal’s story points to Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. The sophistication of the attack is testimony to careful planning and rigorous training.

mibrahim Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
comment-top

jazoo@
“Character of Hamid Gul can not be declared as puppet of foreign powers neither he did out of greed so when he talks we can feel a pride in his character.”

The one who has confessed and apologized to the nation several times for his ‘acheivements’, no subsequent inquiry or trial. Is it a PRIDE? It is shame.

All these rtd. generals (Baig, Gul etc.), while in power spent all of their energies and resources for doing conspiracies against Civilians. Once their tenure is over they pretend like Champions of Democracy.

Gen Yahya/Gen Niazi– After loosing half of the country– died naturally not for saving the country—- burried wraped in national flag with great HONOR. What a pride.

Gen. Zia’s bruial ceremony– with full national HONOR. What a Pride

Gene Musharraf stepped down: again Guard of HONOR. What a pride.

Are these words HONOR/PRIDE are devoted for these Generals for their shameful acts?

jazoo Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

@mibrahim
Pride is what you feel not what you see.
All the Ibrahimic Prophets lacks your definition of pride–They were shepherd & Peasants & belong to Masses.
Pharaoh had all the pride he traveled with dignity & grace with slaves prostrating before & around him–that is very similar to pride of Guard of Honor you so impressed of.
You add one more merit to Hamid Gul that he confessed & apologize to nation many times.
Hopefully now you will understand the difference between Adam & Iblees–In these two characters theres a whole philosophy of life one was arrogant & other repent & cry–One was thrown out other was forgiven–Since then theres a follow up of these two trends & it will continue until the day of judgment. You make up your mind which group you want to belong.
Although Hamid Gul was not the Chief Operator–He was an important part of Zia Setup as ISI Chief–He feel guilt of Zia Policies because he had seen the repercussions of his policies–He feel guilt because he had an important roll under those policies.
Perhaps he does not feel the pride but we do because we believe his conscience was clear that whatever he was doing it was under pretense that it will bring good to the people of Pakistan & Islam–unfortunately it turn out be a mistake but he did not do it for money or personal benefits or exclusively as American bidding–thats where we feel pride in him.
Army is the only viable institution left in Pakistan which can save Pakistan if & when the time comes–Your vehement against Pakistan Army is not appreciated.

Claremont Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
comment-top

Why we cannot have peace. Why cannot we live with our neighbours.Why should we go to war. Are we not capable of having peaceful relations with our neighbour and the rest of the world. Why not initiate why not take the first step.Don’t you think others will respect us for that.

aahmad Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
comment-top

So 2 weeks of our media aggression has gone down the drain? So is India has spoken the truth first time in the history? It is hard to believe… I would like to know more details about this new development.

What Hamid Mir, Kashif Abbasi and Talat would say and how would we defend ourselves to international media!!

mibrahim Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
comment-top

‘Pride is what you feel not what you see.’

Now compare these comments of yours with these comments.

‘He feel guilt because he had an important roll under those policies.’

What feeling he has, GUILT or PRIDE?

It is a separate debate whether PRIDE is only a subjective feeling or it has objective manifestations also.

Additionally

‘You add one more merit to Hamid Gul that he confessed & apologize to nation many times’.

If someone commits a murder or other crime, offering apologies is not enough.
A civilian has to undergo punishment for confessing a crime. An army general will become a hero if he confess a crime. That is our basic problem. We have differnt sets of criterias for different categories of people. This is known as unjuistice.

You can use historical events of past but there should be a limit. How you can compare a general of current era, confessing a crime ( not mistake), whith a prophet.
You can compare any person with a prophet and point out mistakes of prophet jut to justify a Generals. this is not appreciable either.

These generals are not prophets. Making them MUQADDAS GAAY has brought us down to this level.

Further more

‘Army is the only viable institution left in Pakistan’.

Because rest of the institutions have been destroyed by use of power by this ‘only’ viable institution. There power (given by wealth generated by labours, farmers etc. for their lucritive expenditure)was supposed to be used against enemy. Rather than that was utilized against their own people and institutions. This is an auto immune disorder (in which once own body’s tissues get destroyed by body’s own immune system).
as Per Late Ahmed Faraz

Meray Paasban Meray Naqab Zan
Mera Mulk Mulk-e-Yateem Hay
Mera Des Ameer-e-Sipah Ka
Mere Shehar maal-e-ghaneem hay

jazoo Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
comment-top

@mibrahim

I wrote everything in English–where did I write he feels pride–I said he feels guilt thats why we feel pride in him.
To my knowledge theres no murder charges on him.
He did not confess a CRIME–He confessed policy of Afghan Jihad on American prompting was a mistake–Although he did not make those policies.

You wrote

“You can compare any person with a prophet and point out mistakes of prophet jut to justify a Generals. this is not appreciable either.”

Mr. I do not want to insult your intellect–I believe you are grown up man.
I am not comparing General’s mistakes with Prophet’s mistakes.
I believe every word in Quran has a message–do you think all these narratives in Quran are just fantasy readings that Mr. Ibrahim should read them & enjoy–These narratives has message & whole philosophy of life.

mibrahim Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
comment-top

jazoo@
You don’ need to apologize. I understand that we all sitting in front of computer leaving all other activities because we all have good and sincere intentions for our beloved country.

Please don’t ignore the crucial facts that I am trying to point out.

Creating IJI by bribing political right wing leadership and those confesses and apologies comitted by group of retired army generals taht included Gen. Gul. Their resons for apology in their on words

“for imposing martial laws in the past, abrogating the Constitution several times, and not letting democracy flourish in the last 60 years”
Ref. = Daily Times, February 01, 2008).

I don’t concider them mistakes. They are crimes. As you targeted my word ” murder” which I used as an example, not as literal meaning (I am not concidering it as your lack of intellact).
I am not accusing these general for comitting murder of one human being. I am accusing them for murdering the future of 170 million people. I am not willing to forgive them, no matter you bring QASAS-UL-AMBIA in their defance.

‘do you think all these narratives in Quran are just fantasy readings that Mr. Ibrahim should read them & enjoy–’

I agree. These are not fantacies. But their purpose is to promote juistice. It is extremely unjust to not only forgive but portray them as a hero.

FahadAfridi Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
comment-top

We can longer keep playing dumb about ISI connection with LeT and other jihadi groups. It is a well known and old link. Of course if Pakistan supportes militants/terrorists that attack India, India and the World will blame Pakistan and take action.

What can you expect if you try to scam the world with our duplicitous policies? Either we come out in support of jihadi movement and say that we are prepared to destroy Pakistan for the sake of jihadis or we destroy the jihadi and other terror networks. No other choice is left. This game can no longer be played on the lives of innocent people by killers like Hamid Gul, Javid Nasir, Khalid Khwaja etc.

FahadAfridi Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
comment-top

It is sad that we cannot prosecute criminals like hamid gul in pakistan ourselves but need foreign directions to do the right thing.

#
ataraxis6 Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 1:02 am
comment-top

Why the HELL did they wait for Mumbai carnage to happen, before taking action against terrorist living and operating freely in Pakistan?

The sad fact is the current rulers don’t really have a stake in the future of Pakistan. They only act against terrorist in Pakistan, when immense pressure is put on them by the international community.
comment-bottom
#
Ghost Of TK Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 1:26 am
comment-top

@atarxis6: Although I agree that most of our political leadership is corrupt and spineless, I think in this case it has to do with the abusive behaviour of the army brass and their real bosses the americans.

Our politicans act like abused children and don’t know what is the ‘right course’ because they might get beaten by the drunk abusive parent ie; the army coas.

This action is happening because there is the threat of force (read: the american plus indian boot up the jurnails’ ar$e) which the jurnails abhor with a passion.

They have NO respect for the people or their representatives.. .but they comply like shameless b!tches when cuntolickza tells them to do it or get their houses burnet
Read more...

Monday, 8 December 2008

Pakistan army raids Laskhar-e-Toiba /Jamaatud Dawa compound in Kashmir.

Army raids LeT compound in Kashmir, say witnesses
Tariq Naqash and Syed Irfan Raza
Monday, 08 Dec, 2008 (Dawn)

MUZAFFARABAD/ISLAMABAD: Security forces have launched a ‘quiet’ crackdown on activists belonging to the banned jihadi outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba in different parts of the country and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

In Muzaffarabad, a major army operation was under way in the city suburbs on Sunday against a site being used by the Jamaatud Dawa, which is headed by Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. Sources said that more than 20 members of the banned organisation and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s ‘commander’ Zakiur Rehman Lakhwi had been arrested.

There are reports that similar actions are planned in some cities and towns of Punjab. Pakistan is under international pressure to take action against the organisation for its alleged involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

However, reports of the crackdown could not be confirmed from the interior ministry or the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

Police and civil administration officials in Muzaffarabad told reporters they did not know what was happening.

Local residents, however, said they had seen army personnel taking control of the area along Shawai Nullah, some five kilometres northwest of Muzaffarabad, where the organisation possesses a large plot of land on which several buildings had been built. The Lashkar-i-Taiba (LeT) of Hafiz Saeed occupied the same place before the organisation was proscribed.

“I saw an army helicopter hovering over the area and around 5pm I heard two or three loud explosions,” a woman who lives in the area told Dawn on phone.

Another person said: “The helicopter … may have airlifted people detained or injured during the operation.”

There were unconfirmed reports of an exchange of fire.

Ambulances from various city hospitals had been called to the area by troops but witnesses said they returned without any injured person.

In Chehla Bandi, soldiers are reported to be checking vehicles bound for the Neelum Valley.

Several attempts were made to obtain army’s version about the reported operation but reporters were told that a statement would soon be issued by the ISPR.

A Jamaatud Dawa office-bearer denied that a crackdown had been launched on his organisation in other areas. The organisation has another office in Muzaffarabad where no such action was taken.

However, AFP quoted an intelligence official as saying that three Jamaat-ud-Dawa members had been arrested on Monday.

‘Three people were rounded up in a brief operation against the Islamic charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa,’ the official said.

‘The raid was carried out to get details about the activities of the group in Kashmir in the wake of allegations by India that LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) was using Pakistani territory for training.’ The arrests took place Sunday at the charity’s offices outside the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, where the banned Islamic group Lashkar-e-Taiba is active.

Senior government officials refused to confirm or deny the arrests, which came as international pressure mounted on Pakistan to act against the group seen as the number one suspect in last month’s devastating Mumbai attacks.

News of the arrests emerged hours after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday urged Pakistan to act quickly and said there was evidence the country was used by ‘non-state actors’ to mount the attacks.

‘I do think that Pakistan has a responsibility to act,’ Rice said in a televisions interview.


Earlier Sunday, the Pakistan government declined to comment on a report that it had agreed to a 48-hour deadline set by the United States and India to hand over Pakistanis suspected of involvement in the attacks and form a plan of action against Lashkar-e-Taiba. (Daily Dawn)

.......

Read story on BBC Urdu dot com:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/12/081207_lashkar_camp.shtml
Read more...

Thursday, 6 November 2008

What is wrong with the assessment of many Pakistanis regarding the change of government in the United States?

After America has spoken for Obama

Pakistanis have been discussing Obama these past months with a lot of hope and some misgiving. This is in line with the general Muslim sentiment in the world, as expressed by some debates televised from the Middle East where America is judged every living moment. The vote was for Obama, barring some Arabs who thought the Democrats would lean more heavily in favour of Israel and not do much to stave off the danger of Iran in the region.

In Pakistan, the view that Mr Obama will initiate a policy of “engagement” rather than insist on unilateral “pre-emption” gave him full marks. Similarly, the hope is that he will positively “engage” with Iran instead of threatening it with attack. His selection of Joseph Biden as vice-president has also been well received. Mr Biden has introduced a bill in Congress that will triple the American annual aid to Pakistan. And Congress is expected to be “conquered” on both sides of the Hill by the Democrats.

Of course, raging anti-Americanism in Pakistan has filled some with misgivings over what he will do from across the Durand line. He has promised to target Al Qaeda inside Pakistan if Pakistan can’t manage to do it. He also has pledged to beef up the force in Afghanistan by transferring troops from Iraq. Will that mean that he will increase the “drone attacks” hurting Pakistan today as its army actually makes headway in its fight against the terrorists or “militants” in the Tribal Areas? The balanced view is that there are better chances of Mr Obama listening to the democratic government in Islamabad than was the case under Mr Bush.

But there is still something wrong with the assessment of many Pakistanis regarding the change of government in the United States. The main flaw is that we want the outside world to adjust to our feelings without first examining the validity of the way we feel and think. If we protest “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” against the ISAF-NATO raids, why don’t we protest the terrorists who have violated our territory much more palpably and have shown to the world that our state is not capable of controlling its own territory? This unrealistic attitude also attaches to Mr Obama’s presumed reference to Kashmir. We are overjoyed at Mr Obama’s statement that he will work on normalising relations between Pakistan and India and helping us resolve our disputes. We “assume” that he will address himself to the Kashmir dispute because in our eyes that is the only obstacle on the road to peace with India. But it is clear that that is not how the coming diplomacy will proceed. America relates to India and Pakistan in accordance with the positions they occupy in the world. India belongs to the category of strong nations which don’t take external pressure for policy change. Pakistan belongs to the category of weak nations that have to adjust their policy to external developments. It suffers if it doesn’t conform to the rules of this category.

Luckily, Pakistan is adjusting much better under the current democratic government than it did under General Pervez Musharraf. Its security is threatened from within rather than from India. One can easily perceive this to be true if one takes off the old strategic goggles. The “proxy” war with India in Afghanistan, in Balochistan, and in the Tribal Areas is becoming a problem, and this is where Mr Obama will most probably concentrate. This is where Pakistan and India can both make adjustments without feeling cheated of their sovereignty.

All in all, a new era of global change seems to be in the offing. The question is: will Pakistan trim its sails in line with the changes as they occur, and in the light of its economic interest which should override all other “strategically” invented ones, or insist on behaving recklessly as it has done in the past? (Daily Times)

A prayer: May God save Pakistan from psuedo-intellectuals such as Hamid Gul, Roedad Khan, Irfan Siddiqi, and Mullah leaders such as Mullah Imran Khan and Mullah Qazi Hussain Ahmed.
Read more...

Tuesday, 21 October 2008

India, Pakistan resume Kashmir trade after 60 years: A great day for peace lovers in Pakistan and India, A bad news for Taliban & their supporters...

Kashmiri leaders hail trade launching as victory

SRINAGAR: Kashmiri leaders on Tuesday hailed the opening of cross-LoC trade as a victory. “This is the first step toward achieving economic independence for Kashmir,” APHC leader Mirwaiz Omer Farooq said. The opening of the trade route has been a key demand of Kashmiri separatists. However, they said India still needed to acknowledge Kashmir was disputed, and should be prepared to address the issue of the future of the region. AJK President Raja Zulqarnain said the event was a positive development, but not the resolution to the dispute. He said, however, it was a step in that direction. agencies (Daily Times)

India, Pakistan resume Kashmir trade after 60 years

Tuesday, 21 Oct, 2008 | 01:18 PM PST |


Kashmiri fruit dealer drive towards the Line of control, Kashmir's de facto border in Baramulla.—AP

President Zardari delivers on his promise of reinforcing peace in the region.


ISALAMABAD: India and Pakistan began trading between their respective parts of Kashmir for the first time in six decades on Tuesday, raising hopes of a drop in tension in the disputed Himalayan region.

A convoy of 13 trucks carrying mostly apples set off on a historic trip to Azad Kashmir from occupied Kashmir, with 14 trucks with Pakistani goods making the journey in the opposite direction.

‘It is a historic day which will surely help the economy of both parts of Kashmir,’ said occupied Kashmir’s Governor N.N. Vohra, as he flagged off the convoy from Salamabad, 12 kilometres (seven miles) from the heavily militarised Line of Control.
‘I hope it will herald peace in the region,’ he said.

Villagers here cheered and waved at the truck drivers as they steered their vehicles out of a warehouse, as traditional drum-beaters entertained the crowd.

The crossing is the first time that vehicles will be allowed to cross Aman Setu or Peace Bridge on the LoC since India and Pakistan fought a war over the region in 1947.

Security was tight for the trade opening, with even the fruit subject to stringent security checks.

‘The items were scanned in x-ray machines here before allowing the truckers to take them across,’ a police officer Faisal Qayoom said.

The opening of the trade route has been a key demand of Kashmiri separatists.
Kashmiri truckers said they were delighted about the resumption of trade.

‘I am very happy to be part of this historic moment,’ said Ghulam Hassan Baba, a driver from Srinagar.

‘It is a big leap forward,’ said Mubeen Shah, head of the traders’ federation in occupied Kashmir.

Separatists, however, say India still needs to acknowledge that Kashmir is disputed, and be prepared to address the underlying issue of the future of the region.

http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/india-pakistan-resume-kashmir-trade-after-60-years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/india/story/2008/10/081021_kashmir_trade_rza.shtml

Making the borders ‘irrelevant’?


As fifteen trucks laden with “gift items” cross
the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir today, a first step will have been taken in “making borders irrelevant”, a policy agreed between Pakistan and India. The decision on this policy was taken last month by the PPP coalition government and agreed to by New Delhi. The idea is to replace an earlier policy of confrontation in which neither party was making headway with a lateral attempt to “to solve the Kashmir dispute by creating ‘soft borders’ and allowing free movement of goods and people”.

What has been thrown open is the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route. Another route between Poonch and Rawlakot will be open for trade on October 30. Under an agreement, the trucks will cross the LoC at the two designated points twice a week and no customs duty will be imposed on the traded goods. Traders on both sides will conduct business through barter, as no banking facility exists at this stage. A total of 21 items have been approved for import and export by the Joint Working Group of India and Pakistan.

The route just opened is familiar to few old Kashmiris because the last time it was used was 60 years ago. This was Indian Kashmir’s only link with the outside world in those days. It is all-weather and shorter than the only road coming from India, snaking through Jammu on a road often blocked in winters. Any strategist with imagination — and strategy is self-defeating without imagination — will know the advantages that will accrue to Pakistan from this arrangement. He will know that Pakistan’s stance of not accepting the LoC as an international boundary would be upheld as trade punctures the putative frontier.

The Indian side has agreed to this puncturing of the LoC clearly in favour of Pakistan’s stance by popularising the idea of “making boundaries irrelevant”. The use of the plural for boundary is of a piece with India’s traditional stance on the boundaries existing between India and Pakistan, a familiar stance of a status quo country. While Pakistan is constrained from objecting to the trade route on the basis of its doctrine of non-acceptance of the LoC as a sealed boundary, India is happy that it is adhering to its old status quo doctrine, inviting Pakistan to open up to India instead of confronting India.

The truth of the matter is that neither India nor Pakistan has been able to impose its solution on the Kashmir dispute. They have tried wars and they have tried diplomacy, but both have been forced to wake up to the fact that they cannot have their way in the disputed territory on the basis of their separate and mutually exclusive policies. On the Pakistani side, the stance taken on the LoC has forced it to modify the earlier inflexible attitude towards an easing of contacts including trade with India. The attitude of shying away from contact has evolved out of the revisionist strategy of the state demanding a solution of the dispute before any “normalisation” is allowed.

Pakistan’s former foreign minister, Mr Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, had said in August 2007 that that any solution to the Kashmir problem could not be “ideal” for the concerned parties, but that both parties would have to make concessions to resolve the problem. He had added, “Ultimately, a solution to Kashmir will be one that is not the best perceived either by a majority of Indians, a majority of Pakistanis or a majority of Kashmiris”. The two mainstream parties of Pakistan, the PPP and the PMLN, had already expressed their resolve to seek normalisation with India in the Charter of Democracy in 2006.

Unfortunately, the word “irrelevant” has not been favoured in discussions on TV channels. That is understandable because of its extrapolation to the rest of the Indo-Pak boundary, but its application to the latest trade route is not at all against the interests of Pakistan. On the ground, Pakistan’s position is strong in so far as the people on both sides of the LoC want to have a freer intercourse and would rather have the LoC “punctured” than sterilised. That is why the decision taken by India and Pakistan to ease interaction across the LoC after the earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 was accepted. Indeed, a recent food emergency in the Valley could have been averted had the cross-LoC trade been open.

In a way Pakistan’s options have become clearer after its confrontation with terrorism inside its boundaries. The government and the army would not like to be distracted by trouble with India while they are trying to re-establish the writ of the state in the Tribal Areas. Also, the economic crisis looming large in the coming months would be reduced in its intensity somewhat if headway is made in expanding trade links with India all across the international frontier. Of course, this can happen without Pakistan formally giving up its traditional stance on the status of Jammu & Kashmir. (Daily Times)
Read more...