Kashmir India and Pakistan

CM · Post by CM » Fri May 31, 2002 11:09 am

Good assessment Fable. Just to add to add one thing. According to British military sources, they were not Pakistani troops, they were Pathan fighters who had relatives in the Poonch tribes which were fighting against the Raj....these are the guys that entered Kashmir, when Pakistan was created to help their relatives. This is when Indian and Pakistan forces became involved.

I would like to add more here about the historical aspect of Kashmir and how the whole issue was messed up but it would be biased.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri May 31, 2002 11:28 am

Here's another link about the history of Kashmir and Jammu. I cannot vouch for its accuracy or whether the author of this webpage is unbiased, but the information appears to be reasonably accurate.

Trym · Post by **Trym** » Fri May 31, 2002 12:25 pm

The Cashmir dispute is the origin of the Indian-Pakistani conflict. However the recent trouble is that India claims Pakistan is supporting terrorists in the Indian part of Kashmir and elswhere in India (remember the raid on the Indian parliament).
It's not a secret that the Pakistani secret service supports terrorists (not only islamistic ones) in the entire region.

I have no idea of training standards of the Indian or Pakistani armed forces. But India is superior to Pakistan in terms of human resorces, economy, and technology. So I think India should win a long-time conventianal war - if China doesn't intervene on the side of Islamabad.

I guess that neither side would advance too far in the enemy's territory, even if the could to avoid a nuclear exchange.

Probably the U.S. will try everything to prevent an open war. They are currently definately not interested in destabilized Pakistan.

CM · Post by CM » Fri May 31, 2002 1:47 pm

Here comes the ISI being a rogue agent bit. I am sorry but that just irks me that the ISI, helps run the Mujahids in Kashmir. Runs Pakistan and the Taliban, oh yeah on top of that they help out Al-Qaeda. Heck the ISI runs 2 countries and their govts and fights with terrorists on 2 fronts. Hell this group is more powerful than AIPAC!

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Fri May 31, 2002 3:03 pm

Originally posted by Tamerlane

Well the reason I think a nuclear war may be possible is because (and no offence to CM or Thorin). India has a defence force capable of confidently capturing Pakistan, I'm more worried about what the Pakistani generals are capable of doing if pushed to the very edge.

No offence taken. India does have a much larger army and some more nukes than Pakistan. But who cares how many nukes one has? One nuke is bad enough.

I remember that India and Pakistan used to be one big country colonized by the British. When the British left, the country was divided into (Muslim?) Pakistan and (Hindu?) Indian. The Kashmir area was vaguely(?) shared by both religious groups prior to the separation and both sides claim the area as historically theirs.

India was one big country before the British were there too. The British screwed us over (no offence at any Brits. I have nothing against British people or their government or whatever). The division was badly handled and millions of people on both sides died in Partition in 1947.

Just want to say about India and its government that their major powerful party are Hindu Fanatics. They burnt down the Mosque somewhere in India claiming it was site of some Hindu temple.

Seems like the whole world is only against Muslim fanatics. What about these Hindu fanatics?

Like Fas said, being Pakistani his opinion would be biased. I'm a Pakistani citizen, but I'm Indian too. I'm not a citizen of India, but thats where my family for the past few centuries is from (well its kind of mixed with Arabs, Persians, and who knows what. More Persian than anything really, since thats where my grandfather has traced his family too, around 1000 AD or something.)

Ohwell I hope there is no war. I'm going to Pakistan this summer, and I hope things will be ok. I don't know what either nation can achieve from a war, other than millions of deaths and polluted land for the next century .

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri May 31, 2002 7:08 pm

Seeing there are so many good and informed posts here, I don't have much to add, just a few comments.

I very much want the stress that the 1947 Partition was not as peaceful as many of us in the West might think. Also, Thorin points out something very important - the hindu fanatics. In the West, I believe many people have an image of hindus as more peace loving and less fanatic than muslim, and this image is partly because the christian world didn't have those large scale bloody conflicts we had with the Arab world, and partly because it's geographically furhter away.

As far as I know - and I admit my ignorace about non-European history - muslims in India have unfortunately been unfairly treated in many areas. During the partition, Indian muslims were forced by violence to move to Pakistan whether they wanted or not. Many were also killed. Conflicts between hindus and muslims have actually never ceased in India - but Western media does not focus so much on this and after the 9/11 attack, the worlds eyes has been on muslims. I just wonder how many of us here knows that hindu fanatics burnt 22 muslims alive as recent as last February? And what about the conflicts around the holy site in Ayodah (sp?), similar to the christian/muslim dispute regarding Jerusalem and the Temple church? Hindu fanatics inspired by the hindu national party destroyed the muslim 16th century temple there about 10 years ago, and the conflicts that followed left 2000 dead. Of course want to build a hindu temple there instead - a conflict that is still not solved.

Regarding Kashmir, Pakistan argues that the people in Kashmir should be allowed to hold a referendum on whether they want to belong to India or Pakistan (or neither), but India does not want this but refeers to the agreement between India and Maharaja Hari Singh, who signed that Kashmir should belong to India back in 1947. Personally, I agree with Pakistan in this respect, seeing how much conflicts and violence that have occured ever since the partition. I think there are no better solution than an internationally controlled referendum where the people of Kashmir decide by themselves. I actually have a problem understanding why India doesn't agree with this.

Unfortunately for the Kashmir separatist freedom fighters, the line between freedom fighters and terrorists is very obsure, and perhaps even more so in Kashmir - especially now if it's true that al Queda is involved and supports the armed separatists. The horrible thing with terrorist style attacks and receiving support from known terrorist groups, is of course that the world quickly forgets the freedom fighters may have a just cause and just claims.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 2:26 am

There is a simple solution to all of this, as there is in most troubled situations. The inhabitants of Kashmir have often demanded independance. However we can vouch this not occuring for quite sometime.

I doubt the Russian envoy will resolve anything let alone letting himself being heard. And unlike the Middle East where the US has a strong influence. I don't see them making any in-roads as well.

One worrying trend, of this situation is the lack of accurate intelligence on both parts. The US recently made public that one side recently armed a long range missle with a conventional warhead, possible in fear that the other side may mistake it for a nuclear missle. Which would definetly escalate the whole situation.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 8:27 am

For India, I'm afraid it's a no-win situation. The status quo means governing a hostile province through the military: the best option, according to the current government. If Indian Kashmir votes to join Pakistan, the loss of face internationally will be as nothing compared to the anger of BJP voters who have been roused to fever pitch by some party demagogues. If Indian Kashmir were to go indepedent, it would be both a new predominantly Muslim nation on the border to worry about, and a potential example to other provinces that have never taken kindly to India's tightly centralized, heavily bureaucratic federal government.

Typically, in international disputes, the modus operandi of an arbitrator is to find those conditions which are optimally and minimally acceptable to each side, and then proceed to reconcile they opinions wherever possible. There doesn't seem to be much that can be done if the Indian options I've explored truly represent the views of the current administration--as I fear they do.

Trym · Post by **Trym** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 8:31 am

@ CM

I didn't claim that the ISI runs entire countries. I said they're supporting terrorism. It's true however that (at least since the 11th September 2001) Musharaf tries to limit it's influenced. He replaced the ISI- boss Ahmed with the more loyal and moderate ul-Haq in October 2001.

A question: I read the majority of the people of Kashmir want a real independence - neither the rule of New Dehli nor the one of Islamabad. True?

CM · Post by CM » Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:26 am

Tyrm, that comment was not directed to you. It was directed the western media which protrays the ISI as such. I have read all those comments that i have posted in US and British newspapers. It just gets to me that something so impractical could be published as news.

Pakistan since 1970, has played to the international arena with cosmetic moves. I as a pakistan am pro-military but know very well that any move in the chain of command is not a complete dismisal at all. If you get rid of your friend do you just throw him out and never talk to him again? Nope. Same in the case of Ahmed and Haq.

Also something people don't understand, well they won't as the western media never tells you is that the ISI is not the CIA or FBI, where you join the organization for life. The people recruited for the ISI have a max of a 6 year stint that is all. They are picked up from the military, Diplomatic core etc. They are not purely on their own at all. Once recurited you have a 3 year stint, that is what all people go through. You may be given a second term for say finishing off a project, that is what 3 Pakistanis got in the 80's for the afghan war.

One question Tyrm do you know how many ISI cheifs or heads we have had since 1989 - when Benazir Bhutto came to power - till now? If you don't I will tell you, but i just want to check first.

Now with Kashmir it is all an issue of propoganda. Nobody truly knows what the Kashmiris want, either Independence, joining Pakistan or India. As a Pakistani I feel that given a vote more than a significant majority will vote for Pakistan. The next group would vote for independence and the smallest group would vote of india in a free and fair election.

But Pakistan is not helping its case with the Kashmiri people, with idiotic Mujahids attacking people. Army bases as well as police installations are valid targets in my mind, which i think is also true for the Kashmiri people. Just check the AI website and HRW websites for the crimes committed by the India army. I will not post such info here, as i don't want to turn this thread into an India bashing one. I will provide avenues from which you can get information. But without an Indian to support his/her side, I think it would not be fair for me to just give a one sided view of the kashmir dispute.

Anything else I can help with just ask

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:29 am

@CM, thanks for that insightful post.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:34 am

No problem Fable, now only if there was an Indian, that would make the discsussion far more interesting.

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 11:22 am

The way I see it, if either Pakistan or India let off any nuclear weapons, there is a good chance that someone like Bush will just push the button and there will be a hole in Asia. That is the only thing that I can see preventing a nuclear war - I never thought I'd have to think about MAD once the Cold War had finished, but with someone of the calibre of Bush in charge of the US (and I'm not going to turn this into a discussion about him, it's just his attitude and that's undeniable) I can't see either side having an "accident" and being there the next day to apologise. Sorry, that's just my POV. I just hope that it never comes anywhere near to that.

These situations are the worst when there's a group of people that two other powers are fighting over for government. The Kashmiris, the Kurds, the Basque, the Northern Irish. It's never pretty, and in most of these cases my opinion is that both governments need to look at the situation and ask themselves whether rather than trying to win the territory through an expensive and bloody war, that is just as likely to cause yet another standoff or just an opposing victory, they should put those resources to use in attempting to do what the people in that territory want, even if it is an independent nation to be set up. Maybe this is just my young mind hoping for things that will never happen, but it's the only way I see that things like this will be resolved.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 2:34 pm

I could well be opening myself up to flames here...but IMHO Kashmir, given the obvious volatility of the situation, should be become a United Nations jurisdiction until some kind of resolution can be reached by the various sides ........

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 2:49 pm

Originally posted by dragon wench
I could well be opening myself up to flames here...but IMHO Kashmir should be become a United Nations jurisdiction........

I believe you have the right idea. I just don't see India agreeing to this.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 3:46 pm

I would think that this war can be avoided, but some of the Pakistani generals are a bit crazy, and may go fire a nuke, just to show that they can do it. Thats what I fear.

Trym · Post by **Trym** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 4:11 pm

I must admit that I didn't pay much attention to the Indian-Pakistani-conflict until last year, so I don't know how many chiefs the ISI had in the last decade.

Personally, I don't like the way you talk of Indian military installations as "valid targets." Though you didn't say it expressivly, you mean the cops and soldiers are valid targets. I served as a conscript with the German army and wouldn't have liked the idea of being a "valid target."

Moreover I don't assume that guerrilla warfare will bring about a solution; it only escalates the conflict. Just look at the wars from 1870/71 on that involved partisans. Even the U.S. forces in vietnam, the army of a democratic nation, did commit war crimes in Vietnam. A regular army is always at a disadvantage when fighting partisans because they can't make a distinction between guerillas and civilians. Partisan warfare brutalizes any armed conflict.

On the other hand I can't state that fighting for national self-determination is really an illegitimate cause.

prateek · Post by **prateek** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 5:17 pm

(raises hand)

I'm an Indian living in America:

Here's my take on it: This will probably just blow away, like the other recent escalations that have happened ever since both countries have revealed that they had nuclear warheads. True: there has been some fighting over the Line of Control, but nothing near a full-scale war. To be honest, I think both countries are FAR too afraid to make the first REAL move (deploying warships south of Pakistan and massing troops near the border is one thing, actually invading or nuking Pakistan is another)

Why? Both countries are not that stupid; whomever makes the first move- either on a large scale conventially or by nuclear means will give the other country a justifiable reason to unleash THEIR nuke. Now, the country who didn't make the first move is going to look at the good guy.

Also keep in mind that this is NOT the cold war ; these two countries do not dominate the world.

And btw, i'm rather unbiased towards this situation as I agree with US policies and ideals more than Indian policies and ideals. Most posters online at other boards intially think of me as a white right wing libertarian......well, they got most of it right

Kameleon · Post by **Kameleon** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 1:57 am

Originally posted by prateek
Also keep in mind that this is NOT the cold war ; these two countries do not dominate the world.

The way I see it, any country can dominate the world if they own nuclear weapons, the means and reason to use them, and people stupid enough to do it.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:05 am

Morning all.....well afternoon.

Fresh from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ ... 021274.stm

Not good news at all....anyway on to the posts.

Kam the issue of a nuclear strike is impratical to say the least. I think the CE said it well on CNN when he said he didn't even want to discuss it as the topic was so stupid. This is not the US and USSR, where a nuke attack won't hurt your own population. If Pakistan or india attack each other, the nuclear fall out will destroy their own countries as well. This is of course in a scenerio where the war is limited to Kashmir alone.

If India attacks and captures large tracts of our land and the military can not get it back, then it would be if we go we take them with us mentality. Then you never know what happens.

DW and Weasel, The official Pakistani line would accept that easily as long as the people can get to choose what they want, because we believe that we will win in the plebicite. However like weasel said India will not agree with that. As Fable mentioned and i had completely forgot, India has 17 internationally recognized independence movements. Be it the Sikhs and Khalistan, be it Sikkim and their independence movement, or the Tamils in the south, if Kashmir goes free it will be very much like Indonesia, where Irian Jaya and Aceh now also want independence after East Timor was given the choice. It would destablize the country and may even balkanise it.

Thorin, that is not true. We have fundos in the ranks but they are by no means the Taliban or Al-Qaeda crazy that they want to destory their own country.

Trym (this name seems very similar, do you visit any pakistani politics sites or cricketing ones?). Anyway in the past 12 years from 1989 to 2001 there have been 6 ISI heads or cheifs. Unusual for an organization that is rogue and is a law unto itself. The policies remain the same, as they are the policies established since the time of Zia in the 80s. Heck if you want to blame the ISI for its relations, blame the US which actively funded and helped the ISI and Pakistani govt establish such relations.

On topic of valid targets, frankly i believe they are more valid than shooting up a bus and killing women and children. Also they are fighting a war of self-determination, to them and Pakistanis who support these acts, the military bases and police stations are the only valid installations. Plus it is also pay back in my opinion, of the mass rapes, killing political dissidents etc. Again i don't want to bash India, so you could look up on AI or the HRW website, for the crimes against humanity (i guess these are what they will be called now that the ICC has the 60 votes) the Indian army has committed.

Why? Both countries are not that stupid; whomever makes the first move- either on a large scale conventially or by nuclear means will give the other country a justifiable reason to unleash THEIR nuke. Now, the country who didn't make the first move is going to look at the good guy.

Prateek well said. I agree 100% with that.

Also it could be an economical thing. It takes 1 billion dollars for Pakistan to keep its troops on the border for 1 month. Pakistan has now 5 billion dollars in Forex, our economy is picking up. Heck our stock exchange was the fastes growing until this whole war thing started. So it might be just a case fo keeping the economy down. As everybody knows today, that without a vibrant and growing economy your country can't do jack.