Jammu And Kashmir - 2

[Guest]

Ya give Azadi to Kashmir and make Sonia its Queen.
Rest of India will do better.

[acharya]

J&K turmoil
<b>
Had the reported decision to divert land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board for the yatra period, taken after talks between Jammu and Kashmir Governor N.N. Vohra and the Yartra Sangharsh Samiti, been taken earlier, the killings and damage to public property could have been avoided.</b> But one wonders whether the solution will be acceptable to those who are demanding azadi. Can the Centre, which played the role of a silent spectator to the episode, handle them? A failure on its part would lead to a serious threat to the unity and integrity of the nation.

Mohd. Tauseef Hussain,

Katihar
The article “BJP on J&K: reversing its own legacy” (Aug. 25) exposes the BJP’s agenda in the State. In recent times, L.K. Advani, Prime Minister-in-waiting, has been seen by the minorities as having shed his political prejudice. Unfortunately, ever since the Shrine Board row escalated, he and his party moved swiftly to exploit it. History bears testimony to the fact that religious matters can be sorted out only by negotiations, mediation and mutual trust. The Shrine Board issue can be resolved if civil society institutions are roped in and political parties kept out.

Nafees Ahmad,

Aligarh
It is only through concrete confidence-building measures that the Indian polity can assure the Kashmiri brothers that they are as important to us as their land is.

P.C. Hamza,

Mannarkkad

The ongoing turmoil in J&K should be handled with utmost care and caution. The Congress’ bungling of the Kashmir issue is well known. The BJP should stop creating a communal feud between the people of Jammu and the Kashmir Valley. Political parties across the spectrum should rise above narrow considerations to find a lasting solution to this vexed problem, which can threaten India’s territorial integrity.

Sibani Sankar Samantary,

Mysore<b>

Although the instrument of accession signed by the erstwhile ruler of J&K provided the legal basis to India’s claim over the State, it is clear that the people of the State did not emotionally integrate with India. </b>We have been paying a heavy price to retain J&K. Funds badly required to alleviate poverty and other miseries have been diverted to strengthening the military, necessitated by the hostility between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir question. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary solutions. It is necessary to go beyond the Constitution to find a just solution acceptable to all.

Nirmala Asokan,

Cuddalore

The article “Need to rethink our Kashmir policy” (Aug. 22) deserves commendation. It must be admitted that all our policies on Kashmir since independence have failed in bringing Kashmiris into the mainstream. Any anxiety or haste while dealing with the issue may prove to be disastrous in the long run not only for Kashmir but also for the rest of India. As the article argues, it is important to deal with Kashmiri sentiments with more patience and sophistication.

Khan Yasir,

New Delhi
<b>
The problem in Kashmir continues to drag with all parties doing their bit to add fuel to the fire. For the first time, I am coming across a view that Kashmiris should be allowed to decide their own destiny. From the prevalent mood in the Valley, it is very likely that the people will opt for independence if given the option.</b> But is such a course beneficial? Losing Kashmir would be a loss to India but would be a disaster for Kashmir in the long run. The future generation of Kashmiris will never forgive its leadership for distancing it from a vibrant democracy such as ours.

Arvind Narayan,

Mauritius
Americans abandoned Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces and it led to the supremacy of the Taliban. If India abandons Kashmir just because a section of its citizens want azadi, the result would be similar.

S.N. Balakrishnan,

Mumbai
<b>
Despite the huge military spending and pampering of J&K, it remains highly volatile, inviting adverse criticism from agencies monitoring our human rights record. We have fought three wars with Pakistan but Kashmir still remains unresolved. It is worthwhile to consider any of the following: treat the LoC as the international boundary; revert to the 1948 status and try to find a solution;</b> if a plebiscite is not agreeable, take the help of a neutral country to negotiate a settlement.

O.B. Nair,

Poonithura

[Guest]

Azaadi tide swells, govt cracks whip - Valley marchers fall to lawkeepers’ bullets
--------
A CRPF officer was critically wounded when a protester sprang out of the crowd and stabbed him in Beerwah.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Police did not kill 'martyred' Hurriyat leader
Author: Diwakar & Rajeev Deshpande, New Delhi
Publication: TOI
Dated: August 22, 2008

Intro: NSA's Clean Chit To Forces, Who Fired Fatal Bullet Is Still Unclear

Hurriyat leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz, whose shooting during the "LoC march" organized by Kashmir separatists on August 11 gave an explosive turn to the agitation, was not killed by a police or army bullet.

In a shocking revelation, national security adviser M K Narayanan told the Union Cabinet on Thursday that it was not at all clear who had fired the fatal bullet at Aziz, a former Al Jehad leader who was part of the march on the Srinagar-Muzzaffarabad highway.

The NSA also pointed out that there were many rivalries at work in the Kashmir Valley.

Narayanan was responding to a question by Union steel minister Ramvilas Paswan, who pointed out that it was rather unusual for a leader to be killed in police action.

Typically, leaders in such situations are surrounded by workers and never directly exposed in an incident of the sort that took place as the marchers approached Uri. Also, at the first signs of tough action, the leaders were whisked away with some help of the local cop always mindful of their stature.

Narayanan said that investigations have established that the bullets which felled the separatist leader were not fired by security forces.

The disturbing disclosure ties in with the suspicion that Pakistan-backed separatists have been stoking passion to put their agenda back on centrestage.

Importantly, Pakistanbacked elements have organised assassinations and then blame these on India to further their interests, killings of Mirwaiz Omar Farooq's father and Abdul Ghani Lone being the two cases in point. Also, Hurriyat leaders remain bitterly divided, with all the unity efforts coming unstuck after temporary truces.

There are no clear accounts of the situation prevailing during the move to transport trucks carrying fruits across the LoC but the death of Aziz and other civilians became a rallying point for separatists and lead anti-India groups abroad to condemn Indian "state repression."

The separatists seized on the Amarnath land-for-pilgrims plan as an emotive issue to fire up sentiments. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Vox populi, vox dei </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
J&K now needs early election
The 'compromise solution' that ended the 61-day protest of the Sri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti was in effect a restoration of the status quo.<b> While the idea of round-the-year transfer of land to the Sri Amarnath Shrine Board has been dropped,</b> the same land will be available to the Board for the duration of the yatra. The agreement also restores the right of managing the yatra, religious ceremonies and temporal logistics alike, to the SASB, a non-controversial responsibility that had been needlessly taken away by Mr NN Vohra, the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir, within days of his assuming office. It led people to the streets in Jammu, triggering a massive counter-mobilisation of Hindus against the Islamist exclusivism being propagated in the Kashmir Valley. It was always clear where an honourable exit route lay. Worried about the reaction from the separatists -- and their self-appointed chief spokesperson, Mehbooba Mufti -- and the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, the UPA Government needlessly delayed the inevitable. Finally, having cajoled the National Conference and found at least one ally of convenience in the Valley, the Government gathered the nerve to go ahead.

What is the upshot of the Jammu protest? First, it has made clear that the Islamism project in the Kashmir Valley is unremitting. However, it is not immediately likely to turn into a full-scale jihad as it did in 1990, primary because Pakistan and the international mujahideen are engaged in battles elsewhere, across the Line of Control, across the Radcliffe Line, across the Durand Line. For all its bravado, the Hurriyat did realise that in case the Indian security forces cracked down it could not expect the degree of cross-border support and sympathy its foot-soldiers may have garnered 20 years ago. That aside, major powers don't want another Islamic territory carved out in south Asia, and are wary of the Kashmiri cause. Second, the relentless and determined pursuit of a cherished belief by civil society in Jammu -- with white collar, middle class people risking bullets or at least long economic disruptions -- has actually given India strategic depth. Jammu's nationalist rage will work as a corrective to Kashmir's separatist extremism; it will come in the way of Governments in New Delhi giving away too much and too soon. At some point, perhaps after the coming Assembly election, it would probably need to be institutionalised into a power-sharing arrangement. Jammu, which contributes 70 per cent of the State's revenue, should get its due. In the long run, this suits India.

Finally, the entire Hurriyat-PDP campaign against the Amarnath land transfer was an attempt to undermine the coming election in the State. Another smooth round of voting would lower the credibility of the secessionists. It is fairly clear that the National Conference changed tack and welcomed the compromise because it sensed that if the State remained turbulent, election would be postponed. The Abdullahs, hoping to benefit from the anti-incumbency mood against the PDP and the Congress -- which together ran the Government for nearly six years -- obviously want an early poll. The BJP, as the natural beneficiary of the Jammu agitation, has similar imperatives. A free and fair election in Jammu & Kashmir would also be to India's advantage and give it diplomatic leverage. That is why, the UPA Government must not delay -- and urge the Election Commission to announce election dates immediately.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[G.Subramaniam]

Actually this episode has called the bluff of the kashmir valley muslims

500,000 marched for azadi, just a few days ago
but GOI was able to shut it down immediately
with great ease

I wonder if some screws may be applied like removing subsidies for the valley muslims and let them stew like bihar

Economic pressure may be used to resettle the pandits

[Guest]

http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/29anil.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The first thing to understand about the people of the Kashmir valley is that their views are fickle and can see radical changes.</b>

In 1947, in the wake of the tribal invasion led and masterminded by Pakistan, the valley welcomed the Indian Army [Images] with open arms. One of INPAD's members, retired Lieutenant General Eric Vas remembers that the soldiers were showered with rose petals. It was thanks to Sheikh Abdullah's secular leadership as well as the Sufi tradition that Kashmiris rejected the poisonous Muslim League propaganda. In 1965, when Pakistan repeated the 1947 feat and sent in infiltrators, there were very few takers for the idea of merger with Pakistan and the infiltration failed to achieve the goal of engendering an insurrection.

In 1975-1976, when Sheikh Abdullah was the chief minister, there was a widespread movement in Pakistan occupied Kashmir to march to Indian Kashmir -- an exact opposite of the present Kashmiri slogan of 'Chalo Muzaffarabad'.

On April 1, 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged by military dictator Zia-ul Haq. His hanging sparked off large-scale violence in the Kashmir valley. Those owing allegiance to the Jamaat-i-Islami, led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, were the main target of attack. Their houses were destroyed by firebombs. The provocation: The Jamaat had distributed sweets to celebrate Bhutto's hanging. It was the Indian Army that rescued Geelani and his people.

On April 4, 1979, Kashmiris held a massive congregation in Hazratbal to thank Allah that they were a part of India and paraded a donkey with a placard that read 'I am Zia-ul Haq'.

The flip side

Post-1947 support for India vanished in a few years. In the late 1950s when Nehru sent Haribhau Pataskar to gauge public opinion in the valley (in order to hold the referendum he had promised), Pataskar told him that the valley was all for joining Pakistan.

Sheikh Abdullah, who was elevated to the status of 'Pir' (holy man) by Kashmiris, fared no better. He died in 1982. Within seven years, his birth and death anniversary became occasions to burn his effigy. A police guard was placed to protect his grave from vandalism. He now became the 'great betrayer' from his erstwhile position of 'Lion of Kashmir'.

Zia-ul Haq, the Pakistani dictator, saw a total reversal of fortunes. His bemedalled photographs began to adorn the homes of Kashmiris.

The late Hamid Dalwai, a Muslim reformist from Maharashtra, recounted his encounters in Kashmir that aptly sums up the reasons for Kashmiri flip-flop. He asked several people as to why they were unhappy in India. The answer given to him by one shikara owner was that they had everything going for them in India, "but after all, must we not care for the flag of Islam?"

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

the spanking continues...

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/02guest.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kashmiri separatists are isolated from reality. India must sit tight and not succumb to pressure tactics. After relative peace that Kashmir has got used to, let there be a dose of unrest for the Kashmiri to come to his collective senses.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx...eID=7073&SKIN=W

[acharya]

<b>Kashmir: Now or never</b>

Sajjad Shaukat

The solution of the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) has entered the stage of ‘Now or never’ due to Indian state terrorism such as curfew, killing of innocent people and large-scale arrests which could not reduce the strong determination of the Kashmiris, calling for freedom of their land.

The present phase of the Kashmir struggle began on August 12, 2008, when Indian forces killed All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz along with five other persons, who were protesting against the government decision to give land to the trust that runs Amarnath, a shrine of Hindus. On the same day, more than 0.2 million Kashmiris marched towards the Martyrs Graveyard to participate in the funeral of Abdul Aziz. The police killed 18 innocent Kashmiris. On the other hand, extremist Hindus, who favoured the government decision to allot land to the shrine, started violent protests and economic blockade of the Muslims of Srinagar and other Muslim areas, emulating the Israeli siege of Gaza which resulted in starvation of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

It is notable that according to the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, “any Indian citizen cannot purchase land in Kashmir”, but in the name of Amarnath shrine, with the support of the authorities, Indians have tried to repeat the example of Israel which constructed a religious headquarter at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, giving a dominating position to the Jews over Muslims.

Nevertheless, more than 70 innocent people have so far been massacred by the Indian security forces in the controlled territories of Kashmir in the last few weeks. Now the issue has moved beyond the land allocation to the Kashmiri Muslims, sparking a massive movement of Kashmiris, calling for their genuine right of self-determination.

Unlike the past, this time IHK has become a special focus of world’s attention, including India itself. In this regard, The Washington Post wrote on August 28, 2008, “Despite the government’s use of force, many Muslims in the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) seem determined to find peaceful ways to voice their aspirations as the non-violent movement by the unarmed protesters flourishes, especially among the young”.

New critical situation has also affected other parts of India and its gravity could be judged from the fact that even Indian intellectuals have favoured the independence of the Occupied Kashmir.

In its editorial, the editor of The Times of India wrote on August 17, “On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British raj. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley”.

The editor further elaborated, “We promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India”. It was also admitted that subsequent state elections were also rigged in support of leaders nominated by New Delhi. But this time, taking cognizance of the intermittent strikes by Kashmiri freedom-seekers to denounce the engineered elections, affecting businesses across the occupied territories, India has now postponed the forthcoming elections in Kashmir.

On August 16, The Hindustan Times pointed out, “Nothing has really changed since 1990s. A single spark such as the dispute over Amarnath land can set the whole valley on fire — Indian forces are treated as an army of occupation. New Delhi is seen as the oppressor”. The paper further indicated, “The current crisis in Kashmir is a consequence of Indian establishment, raising the confrontation to a new level”. It realised that during the present demonstrations, “there is active hatred towards India, threatening to further internationalise the present crisis. The world looks at us with dismay”.

This Indian newspaper clearly suggested a referendum in the Valley, writing, “Let the Kashmiris determine their own destiny — whatever happens, how can India lose? If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right of self-determination is the correct thing to do”.

It is of particular attention that demanding immediate withdrawal of Indian Army from the IHK, a renowned Indian author and book prize winner, Arundhati Roy, while criticising the Indian media had already pointed out in 2005 that it failed to highlight the plight of ordinary Kashmiris, exposed to brutalities perpetrated by the Indian security forces.

As regards Indian delaying tactics regarding the solution of Kashmir dispute, it has become fashion to blame Pakistan and ISI for infiltration, using it as a pretext to crush the Kashmiris’ war of liberation which is indigenous as now recognised even by Indian media.

Under the cover of ISI, India also wants to distract the attention of the West from its atrocities, being perpetrated on the Kashmiris. Recently, hundreds of unidentified graves with at least 940 bodies were discovered in the Indian Held Kashmir. Sources have accused Indian RAW of the custodial killings of Kashmiris through brutal methods. In the recent past, even the European Parliament passed a resolution, condemning India for human rights violations in this regard.

Since 1989, India has deployed more than 0.5 million troops to quell the freedom movement of Kashmiris, but it cannot eliminate it at present as it could not do so through many years of oppression. Instead, a study report, prepared by Indian government revealed that the Kashmir violence has been affecting Indian forces’ psyche. In this connection, the report has disclosed that disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir have had adverse psychological problems found especially among the officers and jawans such as an increase in short tempers, quarrelsome attitude, mental disorders and abnormal behaviour. Sometimes, the situation leads to suicide attempts or attacks on their seniors and colleagues.

Now, it is a turning point for the liberation of Kashmir as the Valley is burning and bleeding. It is ample clear that India still wants to equate the innocent Kashmiris with terrorism and is keen to continue its state terrorism in Kashmir. It does not show any serious willingness to settle this issue in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris.

At this crucial juncture, President Asif Ali Zardari also promised good news about Kashmir during his first day in office. He pointed out that besides composite dialogue process with India, back channel activities are going on to resolve the issue. No body knows about this good news. But every body will agree that it is the right time to resolve this old dispute on which Pakistan and India fought three wars.

However, the magnitude of the present movement is unprecedented in the history since 1989. The slogans for liberation in every nook and corner of India have strained New Delhi since independence. No doubt Kashmir has reached the phase of ‘Now and never’. Taking cognizance of the new developments seriously at this sensitive juncture, Pakistani and Kashmiri leaders must take steps, making combined efforts to resolve this thorny issue. In this context, Pakistani government, Kashmir leadership, other Kashmiris, living in the Subcontinent and abroad must keep the teapot boiling by highlighting the dispute, voicing the aspirations of the people for freedom. It is hoped that the day is not far off when the Kashmiris will be blessed with the fruits of independence.

The writer is author of the book: US vs Islamic militants, invisible balance of power

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Major encounter on in Valley forests</b>
Pioneer.com
Khursheed Wani | Srinagar
<b>Jawan, 11 militants killed in shootouts</b>
A fierce encounter is going on between militants and security forces in deep forests in Kangan belt of Ganderbal district, around 50 kilometres from capital Srinagar. Officials said that seven militants and an Army havildar have died so far in the encounter, which is likely to continue for several days. Army has used helicopters to airdrop food items and provide directions to the columns of troops fighting a large group of militants in the jungle area, defence sources said.

The encounter started on Thursday after security forces received a specific report that a group of militants was on way to Ganderbal from militant-infested Bandipora through a treacherous forest route. The security forces tracked down the militants and engaged them at Laanz in Gangbal pocket of the forest. Sources said that militants, whose organisational affiliation was not confirmed, have taken positions in rocky caves.

"Seven militants and a soldier have been killed so far in protracted gunbattles in the forests of Kangan", defence spokesman Lt Col Anil Kumar Mathur said.

<b>"There are many more militants in the area. The operation is likely to continue",</b> he said.

Sources said that Army used helicopters to trace the militants' hideouts and also airdropped food items for the troops engaged in the prolonged operation.

Meanwhile, four other militants were killed in the Valley in two separate battles, a police statement said on Sunday.

<b>"One of the dead militants was identified as Abu Khubaib, a Pakistani,"</b> the statement said, adding he was serving as a "launching commander" for hardline rebel group Lashkar-e-Tayyeba.

Security forces claimed to have gunned down another militant in village Kadipora of Pulwama district of south Kashmir.

Police spokesman said that on specific information about the presence of militants, a joint party of troops of 44 RR, 183 Bn CRPF, 182 Bn CRPF and Pulwama Police launched joint search operation in the forest area near village Kadipora.

Soon after the troops zeroed in on the target area, militants hiding there opened fire on troops triggering an encounter, which resulted in the killing of a militant. A police constable was also injured in the shootout.

<b>The slain militant was identified as Rayees Ahmad Dar alias Shiab, son of Mohammad Yasir, resident of Gadipora Shopian</b>, who was killed in the encounter. One AK 56 rifle, three magazines and 25 rounds were recovered from the killed militant.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2008/11/oba...in-kashmir.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>obama wants to interfere in kashmir</b>
nov 3rd, 2008

but naturally. it would help pakistan. why i am not in the least bit surprised.

need i spell it out for you? m-a-n-c-h-u... or a-t-l-a-n-t...

cold warriors ki jai! the blighters will be coming out of the woodwork in droves.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Ba...-thesis/380615/

Barack Obama's Kashmir thesis!
C Raja Mohan
Posted: Nov 03, 2008 at 1431 hrs IST

Singapore, November 3: As Obamamania grips much of the world,
including India, the man who might become the next President of the
United States has ideas on Jammu and Kashmir that should cause some
concern to New Delhi.

Given its vastly improved relations with the United States and
Pakistan, India has no reason to press the panic button. Yet it should
be quickly flagging its concerns with the foreign policy team of
Senator Barack Obama, should he be declared the Forty-fourth President
of the United States on Tuesday night.

In an interview broadcast on MSNBC, Obama suggested that his
administration would encourage India to solve the Kashmir dispute with
Pakistan, so that Islamabad can better cooperate with the United
States on Afghanistan. Obama's definitive thesis comes in three parts.

... deleted<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/11/...nerve-in-india/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Monday, November 03, 2008
<b>Obama's Kashmir Comments</b>
Obama seems to have made some comments which indicate he might make India the scapegoat for the Taliban/AlQaeda problem. His comments imply that India has to be made more flexible on Kashmir, in order for the War on Terror to succeed. This is why I don't trust having Brzezinski lurking around in the background, whispering in Obama's ear. So now Pakistan's cooperation on terrorism -- or lack of it -- will be claimed to be a result of India's stance on Kashmir. I find this very worrying.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SUBVERSE: Lay off Kashmir - K Subrahmanyam
7 Nov 2008, 0001 hrs IST,
The incoming US president, Barack Obama, has suggested in an interview that he might consider sending former president Bill Clinton as a special
envoy to India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. He conceded that it was a diplomatic trap, yet wanted to devote serious diplomatic resources to send a special envoy. The purpose was to make the argument to us Indians that we are on the verge of becoming an economic superpower and it does not help us to keep the Kashmir issue burning. And, to ask Pakistanis why they would want to remain bogged down by Kashmir, particularly at a time when their biggest threat was coming from the Afghan border.

The president-elect could not have selected a worse moment to air these thoughts. Kashmir is due to go in for elections in the next few weeks. Such a suggestion will come in handy for secessionist elements.

It will compel the Indian government to declare that no special envoy will be acceptable. It will be difficult for Bill Clinton, who is popular and has a lot of friends in India, to come to this country as a special envoy without being greeted by demonstrators with black flags. When President Clinton offered to mediate in the Kargil war, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee politely declined.

Obviously, Obama had not been adequately briefed on the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Clinton years. Otherwise he would not have missed that the Taliban was established by the Benazir Bhutto's government, with the help of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during 1994 when Clinton was in office. His administration tried to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan and hatched the 9/11 plot under Clinton's watch. As the Pakistanis point out, the jihadis were a joint creation of the CIA, the Saudis and the ISI. The present threat to Pakistan on its western border is an outcome of this joint blunder.

India and Pakistan already have a no-war pact under the Simla agreement and there is a composite peace process going on between the two countries. Largely due to Indian initiative, cross-border trade has been initiated. All these steps have been taken without any third party help. Unlike Iran, Cuba and North Korea, India has never taken a stand against directly talking to another country with which it has problems.

One of the problems that India may have to face at the start of the Obama administration is the likely return of many former officials tainted by the cultivation of jihadi forces, who are tolerant towards the Taliban and permissive of the China-Pakistan nuclear proliferation axis. While Obama himself may have a tough line towards the mixing of faith and politics, many of the traditional Democratic party ex-diplomats, ex-militarymen and ex-intelligence officials may not be able to shun the cronyism they have indulged in with their Pakistani Counterparts.

This is likely to prove to be an albatross around Obama's neck in dealing with the Afghanistan-Pakistan issue. General Petraeus has been entrusted with formulating a new surge strategy for Afghanistan as the new chief of the central command. He has assembled a team of American, Pakistani and Afghan specialists. It will be useful to invite him for a comprehensive briefing to New Delhi.

This will provide Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an opportunity to prove that the Indo-US nuclear deal will not compromise India's strategic autonomy. Obama is a flexible intellectual with an acute sense of pragmatism.

Under the influence of non-proliferation ayatollahs during the deliberations on the Indo-US nuclear cooperation legislation, he did move a killer amendment. When he was outvoted, he went along with the majority and voted in favour of the Bill. Similarly, in this case it has to be explained to him that Pakistan's claim to Kashmir is based on the jihadi philosophy. His suggestion will only result in Pakistan continuing to evade its responsibility to act against both the Afghan and Pakistani sections of the Taliban.

The writer is a Delhi-based strategic affairs analyst.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Now we have to see how Indian UN PM will react.
I am waiting for GE and strong PM not loony Manmohan Singh

[ramana]

Book Excerpt, Deccan Chrnoicle, 13 nov., 2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->‘Nehru bared fangs at mention of plebiscite’
By Walter Crocker

Gandhi’s Quit India movement of 1942 had much to do with making Pakistan practical politics for Jinnah, the vain, coldhearted, clever, impressive demagogue, himself so little Muslim that apparently he had not mastered the prayer ritual. How much Nehru’s famous gaffe at a press conference decided, or enabled, Jinnah to turn the agitation for Pakistan from a bargaining point into a commitment for a separate sovereign Muslim state can be left to the historians.

It is enough to say here that after both Congress and the Muslim League, following on the Attlee government’s decision in July or August 1945 to give India Independence as soon as possible and to send Cripps and two other ministers out to India to arrange the terms, had accepted the British Cabinet Mission’s plan of a centre with control over defence, foreign affairs, and communications, while other matters were to be left to the control of Muslim provinces and non-Muslim provinces, Nehru, following Azad as president of Congress, suddenly announced, without consulting his party, that the plan, a precarious compromise in a very difficult situation, was not binding on Congress.

He blurted this out because he was hungering for the strongly centralised state dear to all revolutionaries and socialists and was still refusing to see the reality of Muslim fears and hatred and separatism. Jinnah decided to strike. The Congress-Muslim interim government of 1946 thus never really functioned. When Mountbatten arrived in Delhi in March 1947 he decided that the only way to avoid bloodshed and chaos was to accept Partition and for England to quit that summer instead of in June 1948, the date mentioned by Attlee just before Mountbatten had left London.

From time to time it is said by journalists — who often repeat one another — that the Partition of the subcontinent, that is to say, the creation of Pakistan, was “the supreme failure of the British”. The truth, on the contrary, is that the British had no blame for it. The blame was religious hatred. <b>Religious hatred was stirred up to the pitch where the two communities lacked the necessary minimum homogeneity for constituting a single state.</b>

Rajagopalachari, with his usual penetration, saw, and was reconciled to, the case for Partition years before it came. If Mountbatten can be blamed at all, which is questionable, it would be for hastening with so much speed that the boundaries were not decided upon before Pakistan was created, and that the necessary protective measures against communal disturbances had not been worked out”.

<b>Partitioning Bengal should have been resisted. At least an attempt should have been made to set it up as a third republic. Here again the blame belongs to the Hindu and Muslim leaders and to religious hatred.</b>  <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

The creation of Pakistan was a disappointment to Nehru; probably a mortifying disappointment as it cut against his conviction that the state must always be secular, and therefore against his sense of the rational. But his own record in the affair was one of exasperation rather than cold statesmanship, and of a hurry to get Independence.

He certainly did not agree with those, reportedly Gandhi among them at the end, who thought that it would have been better to delay Independence for a generation or two rather than to pay the price of Partition. <b>About Muslims he was always ambivalent — insisting on protecting them and encouraging them on the ground that they were Indians but at the same time irritated, often angered, with them because they took their religion, which he little valued, so seriously.</b> Confronted with the existence of Pakistan as a fact, however, Nehru did try his best to coexist with it — to live and let live.

Unluckily, after the death of Liaqat Ali Khan he had to deal with heads of state and heads of government in Pakistan, such as Nazimuddin, Ghulam Mohamed, and the two Mohamed Alis, most of whom were incomparably inferior to him in intellect or in integrity and all of whom were incomparably inferior to him in political standing inside their own country. It was not unreasonable that he should be circumspect or distrustful. Ayub was another matter; but Ayub did not arrive until the end of 1958.

<b>On the issues dividing India and Pakistan, with one exception only, Nehru always insisted, often against the advice or wishes of his ministers or of his senior officials, on the generous view and on giving Pakistan the benefit of the doubt. This was so in the case of the financial disputes, in the canal waters affair, in frontier readjustments, and in movement of persons. In India itself he always made it clear that he was the unflinching protector of the Muslim minority; by then a rather frightened demoralised minority. </b>

<b>Thus the Muslims were allowed to retain customs which Nehru himself regarded as barbarous, such as polygamy, and which were made illegal for Hindus. He also gave place and promotion to more than one Muslim who was inferior to Hindu candidates just because he was a Muslim.</b>

The one exception was Kashmir.

Kashmir, like other such cases, Schleswig-Holstein or Trieste or Danzig, attained an emotional and political status altogether out of proportion to its intrinsic importance. The millions of words uttered on Kashmir by both sides inflamed public opinion and produced rigidities and quasi-commitments which made it almost impossible to negotiate. <b>The Security Council had held no less than 124 meetings on Kashmir up to April 1964. The millions of words also befogged the truth. Thus the weaknesses on Pakistan’s side were sometimes overlooked.</b>

Thus, too, little men and big scoundrels were given an importance. It is enough to say here that after fighting broke out in Kashmir, Nehru, in effect, undertook to have “a fair and impartial plebiscite” and to abide by its results. That is the first plain truth. The Indian delegate told the Security Council in 1948 that the accession to India was not unalterable and that after the Emergency Kashmir would be free to ratify the accession to India, or to accede to Pakistan, or to become independent.

The second plain truth is that after making that promise India refused to hold the plebiscite. Splitting straws and trailing red herrings, such as about aggression or about the validity of the instrument of accession signed by the fugitive maharaja, or about the validity of its confirmation by the packed Kashmir Assembly, and building up a huge sandhill of legalism, has been on a scale, and with a subtlety, familiar to those who know the workings of lawyers and the courts in India and Pakistan. The detached student, however, can find little escape from the presumption that Nehru circumvented the plebiscite because, in the Valley at least — <b>and it is the Valley which is wanted </b>— it would have gone against India.

Why did he persist in this circumvention? <b>The Kashmir affair is one of the mysteries in Nehru’s political life. It remains a mystery even when we allow that the West exaggerated Pakistan’s innocence or Pakistan’s Westernism; Pakistan, as we have noted, joined Seato and Cento as an insurance policy against fire from India. By 1963, when India, under the stress of her fears of China, and of Anglo-American pressures, was offering concessions unimaginable a little earlier, Pakistan refused to compromise.</b>

<b>The West on more than one occasion increased the tension between the two countries by well-meaning but ill-formed efforts to mediate instead of letting the two countries feel their own way to a solution.</b> But why, in the first instance, did Nehru promise a plebiscite? Was it because he thought at the time that he could win it? If so he made a big mistake in not holding the plebiscite at once. <b>And why did he take the issue to the United Nations? </b>

And, not long after promising a plebiscite and taking the issue to the United Nations, why did he do so much, and go so far, to get out of the plebiscite? Had he come to believe that he could not win it? Had he some personal infatuation for Kashmir? His family was Kashmiri Brahmin by origin but they left Kashmir seven generations ago. <b>Or was his motivation political?</b>

…Though wavering about Kashmir for a month or so after the Chinese attack in October-November 1962, Nehru soon became adamant again. And, in fairness to him, it must be admitted that Indian public opinion, once it recovered from the shock of the Chinese attack, as expressed in Parliament or the Congress Party or the press, was by then no less adamant than Nehru, and much less restrained.

How easy it was to inflame Indian public opinion was shown in the excited reaction to the request made by Britain in the Security Council when Pakistan once more, in January 1964, brought to it the Kashmir question. <b>The British delegate was unable to accept the Indian plea that no dispute existed and that therefore there was nothing to negotiate; he requested that both parties hold constructive and sincere talks.</b> This was denounced in India as a betrayal by Britain. Krishna Menon brightened his armour, tarnished since his fall a year or so earlier, by denouncing, with much applause in Parliament, “the temerity of Britain” in asking India to negotiate with Pakistan “after Britain had misruled India for 150 years”...

After the fever of nationalism fomented by the Sino-India border dispute Nehru would have seen the acutest political difficulties in changing his old stand on the plebiscite, or to make significant concessions to Pakistan.

Yet after the massacres in Bihar and Orissa in 1964 he came to believe that the change must be made; that communal feeling was rising so dangerously that it risked war with Pakistan as well as massacres inside India on a scale which might end the secular state. So he had Sheikh Abdullah released in April, after 11 years of jail. This was a very courageous step.

<b>According to one of the members of the first UN Commission sent out to Kashmir (1949-51), Nehru was adamant already by 1950. This Commission consisted of five members,’</b> and one of the members happened 13 years later to be a fellow ambassador of mine in a certain European capital and used to talk about his experiences on the Commission. <b>He said that the Commission had come to the conclusion privately that the plebiscite ought to be held;</b> that a plebiscite would result in a majority for Pakistan; and that Nehru, knowing this, was determined to get out of a plebiscite.

He recounted how he and two other members had a meeting with Nehru in Delhi and, on a personal basis, made the suggestion that the only solution was to hold the plebiscite. This apparently provoked Nehru into one of his tempers. The outburst impressed my informant deeply. “We saw all at once,” he said, “that inside this fine man was a gorilla”. Nehru was no gorilla; but for years he always bared his fangs at the mention of a plebiscite or of any real UN intervention in Kashmir.
-This is an excerpt from Walter Crocker’s Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate, being reissued by Random House on Nehru’s birth anniversary

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think its very crucial to hold the state for purposes of access to Central Asia and the secular state of India. It is essential to have a Muslim majority state that is in India.

[Husky]

Christoterrorists all for donating Kashmir to Pakistan, they were already preparing for this since 1993 at least.

Christian science monitor: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081121/wl_csm/orivals
from a comment off http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2008/11/mor...y-panky-in.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Kashmir (is the itch that has driven Pakistan towards supporting terrorism for the last 20 years."
(I think this one should be filed under "christian apologetics for islamic terrorism".)
Apparently, once that is dealt with, it'll be all roses in Pakistan..

From the Christian Science Monitor<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Two army personnel, six ultras killed in two encounters in J-K</b>
PTI | Srinagar/Jammu
Two army personnel, including a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), and six militants of whom two were of Jaish-e-Mohammad, were killed in two separate gunbattles in Poonch and Baramulla districts of Jammu and Kashmir, a police spokesman said on Friday.

<b>JCO Rakesh Kumar and Naik P K Singh </b>besides four militants were killed in a fierce gunbattle between security forces and militants in the forest area of Bhatidhar in Mendhar sector of Poonch, the spokesman said.

The encounter started last evening after Army troops and a special operation group of the state police jointly launched a search operation in the forest area following inputs of militants presence in a hideout there, the spokesman said.

The spokesman said reinforcements have been rushed to the area and the operation against holed up militants, believed to be about six in number, continues.

In another encounter, he said two JEM militants including a Pakistani national were killed in a three-hour long gunbattle at Bontingoo village of Sopore in North Kashmir's Baramulla district.

The gunfight took place around 6 pm when militants, hiding in a house of Rouf Ahmad Lone, opened fire on a joint search party of police and Army, the spokesman said, adding during the gunfight the house was completely razed.

Bodies of two hiding militants, identified as Bilal Ahmad Malla, a local militant, and his Pakistani associate Abu Bakhti, were recovered from the debris of the house today morning. Two ak assault rifles, six magazines and 105 rounds of ammunition were recovered from them, the spokesman said.

He said security forces also recovered two pistols, three magazines and 30 rounds during search operations at Nigil sahib forest in Poonch district on Thursday<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Ten-day operation in Jammu and Kashmir ends with escape of all holed-up militants </b>
The ten-day long operation by the security forces (SFs) which targeted about a dozen commanders of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) outfit in Bhati Dhar forests of Mendhar in Poonch District came to an abrupt end in the evening of January 8 with all militants managing to escape, Daily Excelsior reported. Army sources confirmed that the operation has been called off and all militants, who were being searched for last 10 days, might have escaped. "The operation, which had started on December 30 afternoon in dense Bhati Dhar forests, is off. All militants were reported to have escaped taking advantage of rugged terrain and prevailing climatic conditions in the area", they said. This was the longest ever anti-militancy operation in Jammu region in two decades. Reports had been indicating presence of eight to 10 Pakistani commanders of the JeM, including Abu Dawood and Babbar, in cave hide-outs converted into permanent shelter place by the militants using boulders inside the dense Bhati Dhar forests. As reported earlier, two Army soldiers, a Special Police Officer and at least four militants were killed in the operation. All casualties took place during the initial phase of the gun-battle.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Kudos to Moron Singh , another feather on his pagari.

[Guest]

<b>Miliband slammed for Kashmir remark</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Columnist Melanie Phillips wrote: "This is an astounding error for the British foreign secretary to make There is indeed a unified transnational enemy and it is the Islamic global jihad. "To say that Lashker-e-Taibas cause is merely Kashmir is simply risible." </b>

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was described as shallow and ignorant after saying Thursday the Kashmir dispute must be solved because the Pakistan-based terror outfit Laskher-e-Taiba "says its cause is Kashmir".

The aims of the LeT, blamed for the Mumbai terror attacks, were much wider than Kashmir, a critic pointed out.

Miliband - now on a three-day visit to India - wrote in The Guardian newspaper Thursday that the War on Terror was "misleading and mistaken" because it failed to take into account the different motives of various terror groups.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh No, Rahul Gandhi just gave him grand tour and his buddy punked him in daylight. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or it just prove Rahul is unfit to be even MP. poor judgement.
Media and MEA was so giddy, this is hilarious.

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Hindus Remember 19 January! Kashmiri Hindu Displacement day.......
</span>

........When the world remain silent !

19 January 1990, Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were asked to leave their homeland in their own country by the so-called brothers. Lakhs of Hindus were killed, homes were looted, girls and women faced horrible torture. Indian Congress Government gave them place in some camps lacking even basic facilities. Even after 28 years, they are not rehabilitated ! This is the importance of Hindus in India.

Photo Galleries - The wound on Hindu heart
1. The Muthi refugee camp photos in photo gallery when HJS team visited that camp.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/phpgal/index.p...vel=album&id=86

2. Online Exhibition of Hindu Genocide
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/cam...vel=album&id=17

3. Photos of Remnant of Sharada Devi temple - When would Hindus get 'Darshan' of Sree Sharada Devi in Kashmir?
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/1028.html

4. HJS Jammu Visit
http://www.hindujagruti.org/phpgal/index.p...vel=album&id=82

In order to create awareness about this issue, HJS has organised exhibitions on this topic all over India. More than 5 lakh people visited the 260 exhibitions conducted so far. Here is the report.

You can support HJS for creating awareness by donating.

8. Wailing relatives of Chattisinghpura massacre in which 36 Sikhs were brutally killed by Pak sponsered terrorists.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/cam...vel=album&id=17

2. Dead bodies of Kasmiri Hindus awaiting cremation
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/cam...vel=album&id=17

10. Victims of Wandhama massacre. Twenty three Hindus were killed by Jihadi terrorists.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/cam...vel=album&id=17
http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/cam...vel=album&id=17

Vande Mataram,
HinduJagruti.org

This is black day in history of Hindustan. 19 January 1990.