India Hijacks Kashmir Solution

Ray · 10-09-2005, 16:14 PM

Quote:

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.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

Ayaz Amir has raised some interesting issues. He feels the whole issue has been hijacked by India.

While in India, it is felt that Pakistan is hijacking the issue.

What do you feel?

Any takers?

Ray · 10-09-2005, 16:18 PM

Irfan Husain opines thus:

Quote:

Prodding the peacemakers

By Irfan Husain

IF a lasting peace between India and Pakistan seems like a mirage, let us not forget how far the two countries have travelled since those tension-laden days when their respective armies stood eyeball-to-eyeball along the border, and talk of a nuclear holocaust featured widely in the world media.

And just six years ago, hundreds of soldiers from both sides laid down their lives as a result of the misadventure in Kargil. Against this backdrop of hatred, misunderstanding and national pride, it is a wonder that they are talking at all. And not just talking: several concrete measures have resulted from their efforts to put an end to an era of confrontation and conflict.

So is the glass half full, or half empty? Clearly, much needs to be done. But we need to acknowledge that much has been done. Expectations for a rapid breakthrough may have been dashed, but the building blocks for a peaceful subcontinent are being slowly and steadily moved into place.

Steps like a limited bus service between the two halves of Kashmir, the return of prisoners, a slight relaxation in travel restrictions, limited trade and a possible settlement of the Siachen dispute might seem minor when viewed on their own. But taken together, they do provide grounds for cautious optimism. And in the context of our volatile region, that’s saying a lot.

However, despite the gradual thaw in relations, Kashmir remains the hurdle nobody seems in a hurry to jump over. Pakistan, of course, maintains that substantial progress can only be made once Kashmir is resolved, while India says we should move ahead in other areas like trade and travel and continue talking about Kashmir.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the latter scenario. For far too long, the Kashmir tail has been wagging the dog. I am reminded of the Sinbad story in which an old man asks the intrepid sailor to carry him, and then refuses to loosen his grip. The fate of well over a billion people is hostage to this single issue.

A couple of months ago, I attended a seminar in Colombo to which participants from India, Pakistan and both sides of Kashmir had been invited. A participant from Indian Kashmir suggested to me that Kashmiris should be involved in the peace talks between India and Pakistan. “Fine,” I replied, “but which Kashmiris?” One Azad Kashmiri said in his presentation that Pakistan “had paid a very high price for Kashmir.” In my intervention, I said that as a Pakistani, I agreed with him, but I didn’t want to continue paying this price any more. To my surprise and amusement, he interrupted and exclaimed: “But you have to go on paying!”

The fact is that by and large, most people are fed up with the whole Kashmir dispute, and wish it would just go away. It has stunted economic growth, warped the political process, at least in Pakistan, and consigned our region to the backwaters of the global economy. India is clawing its way back, but Pakistan teeters on the brink, despite the hype emanating from Islamabad.

A fortnight ago, a group of us ‘senior’ journalists met a federal minister at lunch, and brought up some of these issues. His view was that for the peace process to advance, there should be greater public pressure. The problem is that in a quasi-dictatorship like ours, decisions are taken arbitrarily, without reference to elected representatives or the people. But for whatever it’s worth, here are a few suggestions:

a) Why can’t the two governments allow the free import and export of newspapers, magazines and books from each other? How is security endangered if Indians and Pakistanis read what’s happening next door? Many misconceptions would be removed by this simple, risk-free step. After all, those who want to can still read each other’s publications on the Internet. I regularly get scores of e-mails from Indian readers every week.

b) A couple of years ago, President Musharraf announced that ‘religious tourists’ would be encouraged to travel back and forth. According to one newspaper report, when a meeting was convened in Islamabad by our tourism ministry to work out the modalities, our spooks put their collective foot down on the grounds that such a step would erode the ‘two-nation theory’. So how about revisiting the president’s decision?

c) Why not encourage student exchanges? Surely national security would not be threatened by school and college students travelling to each other’s countries, and seeing for themselves how much we have in common.

d) The prime minister recently said to the BBC that trade between the two countries is contingent on progress on Kashmir. Surely trade takes place when both sides stand to gain, and not to award one party for good behaviour. In our case, both sides can benefit enormously. Tying trade to Kashmir is actually saying we will continue paying higher prices for goods imported from Japan, Europe and America unless we get our way over Kashmir.

e) According to my friends in very senior positions in the foreign office, our high commission in New Delhi is mostly staffed with officers hostile to the very idea of normal relations with India. Surely their agenda should be to make friends and encourage Indians to travel to Pakistan instead of making it as hard as possible.

f) Cultural exchanges are very popular on both sides of the border. Pop groups, classical musicians and singers and artists should be invited to perform and display their works freely. This flow of creative talent would show people our close cultural affinity.

I am not hopeful this wish-list will find favour in Islamabad, or, indeed, in New Delhi. The bureaucracies in both capitals are too fixated in their half-century old ideas to think outside the box. And to a great extent, politicians and generals are captive to this moribund mindset.

But as the Dylan song says, ‘the times, they are a-changin’. The pressures of globalization are sweeping away the cobwebs of rigid minds. We have already slipped far behind the rest of the world. When it comes to innovation, new ideas and increased productivity, Pakistan is the last place anybody thinks of. And yet, many of our countrymen excel when they move abroad.

We have the talent, clearly, but so far we have lacked the will and the imagination. To unshackle our minds, we must move away from past conflicts.

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

Sameer · 10-09-2005, 18:07 PM

I have been saying the same thing as the author on this forum since i signed up.

A free trade agreement will end all hostilities and bring peace to the region. ONly Pakistan has refused to go for such a measure.

Ray · 10-09-2005, 22:28 PM

I presume Pakistan has good reasons to not join into a free trade.

The Indian industry and products are superior in some sectors, while Pakistani one are superior in others.

However, the balance tilts heavily in India's favour at the moment and hence it may not be ideal for the growth of their indigenous industry.

It is a fact that governments, the world over, are to a great extent infuenced by the money bags of industry.

Sameer · 10-09-2005, 22:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

I presume Pakistan has good reasons to not join into a free trade.

The Indian industry and products are superior in some sectors, while Pakistani one are superior in others.

However, the balance tilts heavily in India's favour at the moment and hence it may not be ideal for the growth of their indigenous industry.

It is a fact that governments, the world over, are to a great extent infuenced by the money bags of industry.

Ray this is because there is a misconception out there about free trade economics.

Free trade theory tells us that if India has a comparative advantage in producing basket of goods x, then Pakistan must have a comparative advantage in producing basket good y, there is not ifs and buts about that. Hence both countrys should concentrate on producing their specialized good and import the other basket of goods, hence utility is maximized. India is already forging a free trade agreement with south east asia, this will be signed within 2 years, the Indian govt is not scared of "better quality goods flooding the indian market" such things only exist in the minds of politicians.

Of course having an army running the country cant help.

Sameer · 10-09-2005, 22:49 PM

As both countries concentrate (this does not mean completely) on their good basket, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem tells us that an increase in the price of a good caises an increase in the price of the factor used intensively in that industry and a decrease in the price of the other factor. This essentially means that both countries will see higher real wages as a result and both benefit.

A perfect example of how free trade works is East Asia. Fishing villages transformed overnight by following this theory to the letter. Problem is some countries do not follow it to the letter and then turn back to blame it.

Ray · 10-10-2005, 04:06 AM

I have very little idea of economics.

I do hope someone who knows can pragmatically analyse the issue and post something what a layman can understand as also give all the dimemsions of the issue that are there.

Sameer, I don't even undersand Pythogorus" theorem let alone the theorem you are mentioning. I will however take it for the Gospel Truth.

What's this thing called "Balance of Trade"? Could you explain the same. I believe Bangladesh is wild about the Balance of Trade being heavily in India's favour. What exactly would it mean in terms of economics and security and itnegrity of the country?

Could you also explain the equation between China and the US in this context? If China is flooding the US markets, then what is the implications for the US and what is it for China?

indianguy4u · 10-10-2005, 04:50 AM

Sir,
In a simple way china is helping US keeping inflation in check, in return it earns $$$. Also chinese have been buying US bonds in huge quantities, thus financing the US fed. Acc to this link japan has something in the region of 680 billion US$ in US bonds, while china has 243 billion US$.

Ray · 10-10-2005, 05:30 AM

China is buying the US bonds?

Now, if they dump them, what happens?

indianguy4u · 10-10-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

China is buying the US bonds?

Now, if they dump them, what happens?

They wont b'coz they dont want to rock the boat & loose the $$$. China earns nearly 200 billion US$ in exports from US alone.

Ray · 10-10-2005, 10:27 AM

Thanks.

Sameer · 10-10-2005, 11:36 AM

Balance of trade essentially means exports - imports,

GDP= CONSUMPTION +INVESTMENT+ GOVT SPENDING+ (EXPORTS-IMPORTS) in its simplest form, bangladesh says that they will be importing more than they will be exporting to India but this is hogwash.

There are cases wherein a quota system or even a tariff system is a maximal solution and also producing the good in which you have a comparative advantage in producing, ie its relatively cheaper for bangladesh to produce a certain basekt of goods, is better and more efficient for Bangladesh and they still end up having more national income.

10-10-2005, 04:06 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	I have very little idea of economics. I do hope someone who knows can pragmatically analyse the issue and post something what a layman can understand as also give all the dimemsions of the issue that are there. Sameer, I don't even undersand Pythogorus" theorem let alone the theorem you are mentioning. I will however take it for the Gospel Truth. What's this thing called "Balance of Trade"? Could you explain the same. I believe Bangladesh is wild about the Balance of Trade being heavily in India's favour. What exactly would it mean in terms of economics and security and itnegrity of the country? Could you also explain the equation between China and the US in this context? If China is flooding the US markets, then what is the implications for the US and what is it for China? Last edited by Ray : 10-10-2005 at 04:11 AM.

10-10-2005, 04:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
indianguy4u Real Madrid CF *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-07-05 Location: Mumbai Posts: 3,213 Country:	Sir, In a simple way china is helping US keeping inflation in check, in return it earns $$$. Also chinese have been buying US bonds in huge quantities, thus financing the US fed. Acc to this link japan has something in the region of 680 billion US$ in US bonds, while china has 243 billion US$. __________________ Hala Madrid!! Last edited by indianguy4u : 10-10-2005 at 04:58 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debate about China, india and US economies, by Businessweek	oneman28	Political Discussions	7	11-28-2007 08:43 AM
Indo-Pakistan Talks – Myths, Delusions and Fantasies!!	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	11	05-06-2007 21:25 PM
India's broken promises on Kashmir - a "self-legacy"	Hongkongfuey	Political Discussions	185	09-07-2005 10:22 AM
Hatred between Indians and Pakistanis	amit	Political Discussions	251	08-16-2005 01:37 AM
An old article: To explain why China is ahead of India in 50 years	oneman28	Political Discussions	17	05-24-2005 17:40 PM

10-09-2005, 18:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sameer Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-12-05 Posts: 2,541	I have been saying the same thing as the author on this forum since i signed up. A free trade agreement will end all hostilities and bring peace to the region. ONly Pakistan has refused to go for such a measure.

10-09-2005, 22:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	I presume Pakistan has good reasons to not join into a free trade. The Indian industry and products are superior in some sectors, while Pakistani one are superior in others. However, the balance tilts heavily in India's favour at the moment and hence it may not be ideal for the growth of their indigenous industry. It is a fact that governments, the world over, are to a great extent infuenced by the money bags of industry.

10-09-2005, 22:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sameer Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-12-05 Posts: 2,541	As both countries concentrate (this does not mean completely) on their good basket, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem tells us that an increase in the price of a good caises an increase in the price of the factor used intensively in that industry and a decrease in the price of the other factor. This essentially means that both countries will see higher real wages as a result and both benefit. A perfect example of how free trade works is East Asia. Fishing villages transformed overnight by following this theory to the letter. Problem is some countries do not follow it to the letter and then turn back to blame it.

10-10-2005, 05:30 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	China is buying the US bonds? Now, if they dump them, what happens?

10-10-2005, 10:27 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	Thanks.

10-10-2005, 11:36 AM	#12 (permalink)
Sameer Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-12-05 Posts: 2,541	Balance of trade essentially means exports - imports, GDP= CONSUMPTION +INVESTMENT+ GOVT SPENDING+ (EXPORTS-IMPORTS) in its simplest form, bangladesh says that they will be importing more than they will be exporting to India but this is hogwash. There are cases wherein a quota system or even a tariff system is a maximal solution and also producing the good in which you have a comparative advantage in producing, ie its relatively cheaper for bangladesh to produce a certain basekt of goods, is better and more efficient for Bangladesh and they still end up having more national income.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)