I agree with all this below. Is anyone here who disagrees?

Extended funeral of the core issue

By Ayaz Amir

EVERY time India and Pakistan meet for a round of ‘composite dialogue’ — a process tedious enough to test the patience of a saint — the holy casket containing the ashes of the Kashmir dispute gets lowered another foot into the ground. At this rate, the day is not far off when this casket leaves the diplomatic sphere and enters the realm of archaeology.

The Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers have met again, this time in Islamabad. At the end of their talks a joint statement has been issued, packed with the usual bromides. On Kashmir: “The Ministers reiterated that possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be explored in a sincere, purposeful and forward-looking manner.” If there is any triumph these hollow words celebrate it is that of vagueness.

The whole aim of Indian diplomacy regarding the Kashmir dispute has been to drain the last signs of life from it. Far from challenging India on this score, Pakistan under the baton of military statesmanship has been bending over backwards to assist it. Pandering to Indian concerns about “terrorism” our leaders have been struck by verbal paralysis when it comes to saying anything about Kashmiri self-determination. When was the last time a Pakistani leader — not Shaikh Rashid Ahmed, thank you — brought up the subject?

Signalling readiness to move beyond the UN resolutions on Kashmir was a huge and needless concession Pakistan made to India. When you leapfrog over those resolutions, framed around the right of self-determination, you are left with the husk of the dispute, its spirit exorcised.

Pakistan’s hope, forlorn as it turns out, was to elicit some return flexibility. As the on-off dialogue on Kashmir all too clearly reveals, India is in no mood for flexibility of any kind — verbal, rhetorical, substantive.

We may be the biggest throwaway artists in the world — look at the Jan 6, 2004, joint Indo-Pakistan statement signed in Islamabad which might as well have been drafted in the Indian ministry of external affairs — but Indian diplomats quibble over every comma and full stop. The club of retired Indian ambassadors to Islamabad boasts of some of the hardest-boiled eggs on the planet. I suspect we tend to get carried away more easily, although in defence of self-interest we could do worse than follow India’s example.

The strident objections of the peace-with-India-at-any-cost brigade should not be ignored. Kashmir is an albatross round Pakistan’s neck. Both countries have wasted too much time in empty bellicosity. It’s time to move on and be realistic, code language, in this context, for forgetting about Kashmir. These are weighty objections but then no one is advocating thermo-nuclear war for the sake of Kashmir, merely the proposition that, if a final solution is unattainable, it doesn’t make sense for Pakistan to stop talking about the right of self-determination. By doing so we gain nothing and risk losing what’s left of Kashmiri trust in Pakistan.

Once upon a time Pakistan promoted militants like Ali Shah Geelani in Indian-held Kashmir. Now, in the name of realism, it is promoting the likes of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, considered little better than quislings by most Kashmiri Muslims. What good is this shift doing us?

It’s one thing not to remind India of its bad faith on Kashmir, quite another to become apologists for Indian intransigence and to insist, as General Musharraf did in New York last month, that India was showing flexibility when in fact it has shown none.

The irony is that we are hearing these apologies from the very people who not long ago upheld the banner of military adventurism. The people of Pakistan didn’t vote for Kargil. Come to think of it, even the then prime minister was a bit confused about what exactly the army was up to on those craggy heights, and what it was hoping to achieve.

Having abandoned confrontation under pressure — the pressure of international circumstances — military thinking has swung to the other extreme: a course suspiciously close to appeasement. It is hard to figure out which is more dangerous: the military at war or the military at peace.

The point has come where there is no shortage of Pakistanis positively fearful of their government’s mania for unilateral concessions. Sure, Pakistan is not ceding territory or sovereignty to India. Even so, it is irritating to see Pakistan performing minor gymnastics to show flexibility and then citing its own athletic performance as proof of progress along the road to peace. This is a recipe for self-deception.

The composite dialogue is settling into a familiar pattern. India doesn’t budge an inch from known positions. To induce movement Pakistan throws a concession. Nothing happens, India still refusing to budge. Pakistan throws another concession. Again nothing happens. Pakistan goes into a sulk and there is talk of the peace process stalling. At which point India, by way of a lollipop, thrusts a ‘confidence-building measure’ (CBM) in Pakistan’s mouth. There is rejoicing in Pakistan and editorials are written about how things are finally on the move.

Never mind progress on serious issues: Siachen, Baglihar Dam, Sir Creek, etc. India has a large jar of lollipops to keep the leading lights of Pakistani diplomacy happy: more bus services, incremental expansion of trade, notification of missile tests, etc. These are useful items of progress and indeed there should be more of them. But for a change we could do with some movement on the larger issues.

Certainly we possess no lever to induce India to relax its iron grip on Kashmir. The people of Kashmir may be sick and tired of Indian rule — if they weren’t, there would be no need to keep so many troops there to keep their heads down — but India is not about to consult, much less honour, their wishes. Even if India has no legitimate title to the state, and it doesn’t, the fact of possession or occupation (nine-tenths of the law, remember) is in its favour. After three and a half failed wars — Kargil being the half-volley — there is nothing we can do about it.

But if this is realistic map-reading, seeing the situation as it really is, how does it follow that a Pakistani leadership should assume the burden of easing India’s conscience by playing down the right of self-determination, which is the essence of the Kashmir dispute? It is in India’s interest to dilute this essence. We should not be playing India’s game.

It is a mistake to encourage the false belief, as this government seems to be doing, that all this one-sided flexibility is deployed for a noble cause, that from it will emerge the outlines of a final Kashmir settlement. An opium-eater is allowed such delusions, not a nation aware of its surroundings.

India is not about to meet Pakistani or Kashmiri aspirations. The only settlement India favours is to freeze the status quo, put the Kashmir dispute on ice and engage Pakistan on other fronts. This is the course it has always advocated and now that the composite dialogue is being conducted very much on these terms, India is not about to abandon it.

How many times in the past one year has Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ruled out any change of frontiers? This is plain enough English. It shouldn’t be so hard for us to understand what this means.

So let’s not kid ourselves. Kashmir is not about to be solved in a hurry and certainly not during the tenure of this government. Musharraf’s uniform may work wonders at home, sadly, it works no miracles abroad. Let there be more bus and train services, easier visa conditions, more bilateral engagement but without false hopes and, preferably, without the tear-jerking sentimentalism at which we Pakistanis seem to be so good.

its quite true ... reality, a clean image of the situation ... nothing as such to be disagreed upon in my opinion.

__________________
~*~ Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult ~*~ Hippocrates

Assalam Alaikum,

I strongly believe that Pakistan's attempt to have some diplomatic interactions with Israel automatically negates the viable solution of Kashmir. Both of these disputes are of military occupation, and for Pakistani government to accept Israel even by a bit, is an open invitations to Indians, that Pakistan is no longer with the people of Kashmir.

Thanks

Salaam,

Mr. Babban I appreciate the efforts you're taking to promote discussion to a higher level.

I will present my views as under.

Creation of Israel:
In 1917, Balfour Declaration was passed which invited Jews from all over the world to migrate to Palestine. After the mass-migration, the number kept increasing and they started ousting the Palestinians from their place. Finally in 1945, a sovereign state of Israel appeared on the map of the world after the passage of a UN Declaration. I wonder if its really a breach of International Law and a body like UN supported the stance.

Creation of Pakistan:
Soon after the uprising of Islam in Arabia... the arab sailed all over the world for spreading Islam and trade. In the east, they operated as far as Ceylon. Some of them had settled in India and Ceylon (Srilanka). As some of the Arab traders in Ceylon died, the ruler of the state sent the widows and orphans with gifts back to Arabia through ships. On the way, they were looted by some buccaneers at the seaport of Daibul (Karachi). The ruler of Arabia demanded the return of those ships with the crew and gifts. However he declined to have any influence over those pirates. Thus the ruler of Arabia sent an expedition under Mohammad Bin Qasim to punish Dahir. Thats exactly what he did and developed his rule over the conquered territory. After that Muslim rulers kept fighting over the throne. Finally in 1857, better say after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the British took control. The muslims then kept fighting and in the end they got Pakistan.


The point is... as the Jews are settlers, we're also one of them. If we have objections for the creation of Israel then India was right to object the vivisection of their country.

This is my personal thought. I welcome others' suggestion over it! If I am ridiculous, I can be civilized!

Regards,
Adil Memon

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

AoA

in response to adil,

dear Israel was created in 1948, after UN Resolution 181, which partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against it. The Arab side lost the war, and the Palestinian state never really came into being.

the Jews cannot be termed as the settlers after 1917, in fact Jews remained there throughout Islamic era, as from first Islamic Ruler i.e. Hazrat Umar Ibne Khatab, they were allowed to live there in peace.

The creation of Israel was based on greater Zionist state and the idea was fostered by Western mindsets, some of whom had an idea to give Jews some place for settlement.

Note that israel is a small territory of 21,596 sq. km including East Jeruselum and Golan Heights, which were annexed by it in 1967.

So far as Indian Subcontinent is concerned, it is a vast area of land, nd as per Allama Iqbal it is a sub-continent inside continent Asia, it was never a single entity, we quote that it remained united in three times :

1. under asoka
2. under akbar
3 under union jack

but in a sense the indian subcontinent never remained a single entity in either of above rulers, as some good piece of land remained seperate as Asoka was never to capture the southern india and the same remained with the akbar, who also did not annex balochistan, specifically its western part. British though claimed to control all of India but it allowed the states inside the British India, so it never remained a singly entity

one thing is attributed coinciding both in Pakistan and that is ideology, the ideology of Pakistan is based on Islam, whereas the ideology of Israel is based on Zionist principles,

sory ending it here due to paucity of time

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

hope u got the point,
sory ended it due to paucity of time

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

Assalam Alaikum,

Mr. Memon, though I appreciate your response in the light of historical perspective, but your analysis lacks some facts, (though I am no genius so correct me if I am wrong).

Let's start with Medina and its population of Jews, well Jews were the citizens of Medina, therefore they were respected of such status until historically they tried to become threat to such harmonical society created by the Prophet PBUH, by their cheap tricks, but muslims were not to take step against them until they were to openly challenge their authority. And this brother shows how Muslim democracy works, it teaches you to co exist.

Then, Let us talk about Mohammad Bin Qasim, he attcked sindh because the captured muslims by Raja Debal sought help by their Muslim Ruler. But, once muslims started trickling down the South Asia, they also respected the citizens and religions that co exist there. Such was the case throughout the muslim rule in South Asia. But there were pockets that remained Hindu Maharaja's, but never tried to be hackled with by Muslims, because they agreed to co exist.

Same goes with Quaid i Azam, he was first in Congress, but when he realized that Hinduism will prevail with anything that Congress achieves from British and will endanger the existence of Muslims in South Asia. Only then that he officially pushed for the two nation theory, and ideology started taking effect officially. Therefore, the occupation of Kashmir is Illegal, because under India it threatens the co existence of Kashmiris in their lands, be that kashmiri a hindu, muslim or any religion, key point being they are Kashmiri and they have a right to their Land not us.

Let us jump back to Middle East, and ask ourselves What is Palestine?
I think it is the land that belongs to Plaestinians, be that Palestinian a Jew, Christian or Muslim. But it does not belong to people who migrated to their land and threatened the co existence of the citizens of Palestine. If you look at the big Picture, Christian Europe was and is more anti semitic, than muslims can ever be. This hatred was displayed by Hitler, but it was also shown by other European Countries as well by seeing World War II as an excuse to kick Jews from the whole Europe, and have them to claim Palestine as their true Zionist State, so Jews would just get the hell out from their countries. Therefore, it was a ploy from GORA SAHAB, to be rid of their problems they just dumped it in our backyards, and named this problem a century old dispute between Jews and Muslims.

Therefore, Kashmir and Palestine are the just causes, they are of military occupation, and shame on ourselves as muslims, instead of facing it, are beding backwards to GORA SAHAB.

Thanks.

Salaam,

I am very thankful to you guys for replying over here. I will entertain your posts respectively.

Tabassum:
According to my flawed knowledge, Israel was created after the end of Second World War. Thus there is a possibility that I stated the year wrong, so I will take yours as the right one (indeed, you're better informed than me).

And I also remember that there were mass migrations after the passage of Balfour Declaration. British wanted a 'client regime' (Israel) in the Middle East to settle her scores with the Muslim Countries in case any such situation arised in future. The point I wanted to discuss here was that they migrated from all over the world to Palestine. However, you replied that they were no new settlers (simply speaking, you decline that there was any migration). Please clear your point here!

As far as the size is concerned... I don't think it disqualifies Israel to be a sovereign state. There are much smaller countries (in area) than Israel. Today Israel has everything that a country should have. Its a reality now.

Regarding the mandate stuff, British was in power at that time. It had to authority to modify the mandate, do you disagree here?

Babban:
I truly appreciate your response. Actually my question didn't need any deeper quotations from the history so I just started from 1917. The point I wanted to prove is that Israel is a land of settlers and Pakistan is the same. The difference is just about the period.

Well, regarding your views about the creation of Israel I must say that as Israel can't be a state of settlers how can Pakistan be a state of Muslims who settled in India. I want people here to prove that Muslims were not settlers. This would be the final answer to my query and would ultimately prove me wrong!

Regards,
Adil Memon

The replies of both of you people were excellent, though I would better wait till you guys fully convince me!

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

Assalam Alaikum,

Well Mr. Memon, I agree to disagree here that the analogy you have made between the creation of Pakistan and Israel.

Just to give you an example, Prophet PBUH was also a migrant to medina, but the key point being that muslims went to medina on the invitation from the natives and did not occupied the land but came up with the system to co exist and made the first ever Islamic society.

When the muslims went outward from Arabia, they were migrants too, and settled with the natives of other parts with the outlined Islamic system of co existence. In the history of mankind muslims were the only civilization, who only co existed with other religions but gave protection to the adversay nations, when they agreed not to fight.

The contemporary world only came up with their international relations of co existence in 20 th century after two world wars, but we the muslims have been practicing it from 1400 years.

Look at another example, When the Puritans fled Europe to the New World to save themselves from religious persecution, they were migrants as well. Yet, you know very well what they did with the Native Indians, they killed as much as they could and took their land away from them. Now, we can only find some traces of natives in All Americas, and its the land of GORAH SAHAB.

Look at the spanish Muslim History, when the muslims conquered spain they could've very well wiped the spanish christians from the face of spain, yet they made their peace with them. And after the fall of Muslims in Spain, most of them did not even got a chance to get out and were faced with inquisation, forced to change the religion, and were taken as slaves and some were stacked in the ships to be sent to the New World (by some accounts some muslims fled to africa as well, and it also included spanish Jews as well).

Well, In world war II, Jews were forced as well (refer to my post above).

But, in case of South Asia, from Mohammad Bin Qasim and onwards, there were muslim migration into the Sub continent lands. But there were majority of the natives who accepeted Islam as their religion of the choice, because of discriminatory caste system of Hinduism, and other aspects of that religion. But How many Hindus do you see historically moving out from South Asia to other parts of the world to save themselves from persecution, close to none, because there were no genocide. Muslims could have wiped out hindus from the face of the world, but that's not us.

And as for pakistan and India's independence, first freedom struggle and onwards of 1857 war with british, muslim and hindus fought british side by side, because they fought as South Asians as natives. And all throughout the struggle against british it was a joint struggle, given that there were some sensitivities, and GORA SAHAB capitalized them. And issues like these were raised, to divide them and rule them and it became so apparent, that there was no choice but to push two nation theory forward.

Brother if we were to claim who is migrant and who is not, we probably gonna have to ask all the GORA of America to leave America, and go back where they came from.

My last and very crucial point:

Muslims only moved to Pakistan, only when it was created and vise versa with Hindus living in Pakistan. Jews moved to Palestine in mass numbers Before and after the creation of Israel, and what happened to palestinians living there? you know that as well as I do.

I hope this is convincing enough for you, if not, it is fine by me! just kidding.

Thanks

Salaam Mr. Babban,

This time you've given an easier reply. You see you've been trying to state instances where migrations have taken place. Migrations took place all over the world. And it also did in South Asia. I guess you answered my query that whether the Muslims were settlers or no.

(Majority of Muslims in Pakistan are the progeny of either converts or settlers of Central Asia, Arabia and other areas)

I didn't question that Muslims were peaceful or no. However, I would like to state that we're mostly shown the side of the history should see. Do you think that Muslims in the past were angels and committed no atrocities?

We read Muslim versions of history and we believe them. Why not sometimes try a Hindu version. Mahmood Ghaznavi, Allaudin, Tughluq, Aurangzeb they have some nice history. (Just trying to be funny)

As regarding the creation of Israel and Pakistan, there are some difference (I agree your points over here). But what concerned me was the migration part.

I found your reply very interesting and I would like to discuss some more points with you. (But not now...)

I hope its going to last long. We're going to have some good time!

What do you say about the state of Muslims in India, today?

Regards,
Adil Memon

(I give up... However, I enjoyed )

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program