Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

[johnee]

India is terrorist state to invade Kashmir!

mate, wat is this! none of your posts has any logic or reason.....just india-bashing.......huge fonts with chinese and pak flags with insane rantings........

I wonder whether any of the other nationality posters would have been spared if we had resorted to this kind of behaviour.........

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

mate, wat is this! none of your posts has any logic or reason.....just india-bashing.......huge fonts with chinese and pak flags with insane rantings........

I wonder whether any of the other nationality posters would have been spared if we had resorted to this kind of behaviour.........

Don't tell me that you are not an Indian nationalist.

Don't tell me that you are non-China bashing.

 

[Black Stone]

Don't tell me that you are not an Indian nationalist.

Don't tell me that you are non-China bashing.

Indian and Pakistani members killing each other is nothing new to me.

Indian and Chinese members killing each other is less frequent but expected.

What suprises me was that despite a Indian-Chinese argument, I see this...



You got to love this forum.

 

[Neo]

No, it is not.

Kashmir is a separate issue and Afghanistan totally separate. The only thing in common is that Pakistan is involved in both.

For India the major interest in Afghanistan would be that it does not return to the bad old days of Taliban when terror against us flourished there.

I am not sure what interest Afghanistan as a country has in Kashmir, pretty much close to zero I guess.

Trying to mingle both issues would mean never resolving even one. They are separate issues with different players needing separate resolutions.

yes...Afghanistan and Kashmir both are totally different things....

But there are 2 similarities -

1) Pakistan is involved in both the cases.
2) Both are badly hit by terrorism.


Both the issues must be solved internally...
Mix them and you will mess them ...
And only America will get profit from it..

Yes, from our point of view they're both connected. Kashmir may not be the key to Afghan peace it will certainly reduce the chances of multi national conflict in the region as third parties have vested interests including the destabalisation or complete disintegration of Pakistan.

India is actively involved in state sponsered terrorism in Kashmir and turning Afghanistan into her proxy against Pakistan. Peace in Kashmir is the only way to end this six decade old hostility between the two regional adversaries and nuclear armed military giants. Only then we can play a jointly coordinated constructive role to solve Afghan problem. Till then she'll continue to serve as a battleground for both India and Pakistan who're trying to gain strategic depth.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kashmir is linked to Afghanistan since the unresolved dispute is what drives hostility between India and Pakistan, and keeps Pakistan's resources focussed in the East, when they could be better employed in the West.

The hostility from the dispute has resulted in India supporting seperatist movements in Baluchistan and East Pakistan, and caused three wars. It has also turned Afghanistan into a proxy battleground for both sides, as seen by Indian support for the NA warlords and Pakistani support for the Taliban and Pashtun Mujahideen leaders. The festering of that dispute continues to stoke Pakistani concerns over Indian (and now US, though its building up of a strategic alliance with India) intentions and activities in Afghanistan, and therefore complicates the task of stabilizing Afghanistan further.

There are a lot of connections between the two.

 

[vish]

Yes, from our point of view they're both connected. Kashmir may not be the key to Afghan peace it will certainly reduce the chances of multi national conflict in the region as third parties have vested interests including the destabalisation or complete disintegration of Pakistan.

India is actively involved in state sponsered terrorism in Kashmir and turning Afghanistan into her proxy against Pakistan. Peace in Kashmir is the only way to end this six decade old hostility between the two regional adversaries and nuclear armed military giants. Only then we can play a jointly coordinated constructive role to solve Afghan problem. Till then she'll continue to serve as a battleground for both India and Pakistan who're trying to gain strategic depth.

Neo, if what India is doing in Kashmir is state-sponsored terrorism, do let me know what exactly is Pakistan doing in Baluchistan and to a certain extent in FATA?

Also, wasn't Pakistan using Afghanistan to serve her larger strategic needs?

You guys are again trying to connect Afghanistan to Kashmir to serve your strategic intent; be rest assured, the status quo shall continue (at most, Article 370 will go).

PS: You are reading Obama wrong.

 

[vish]

Kashmir is linked to Afghanistan since the unresolved dispute is what drives hostility between India and Pakistan, and keeps Pakistan's resources focussed in the East, when they could be better employed in the West.

The hostility from the dispute has resulted in India supporting seperatist movements in Baluchistan and East Pakistan, and caused three wars. It has also turned Afghanistan into a proxy battleground for both sides, as seen by Indian support for the NA warlords and Pakistani support for the Taliban and Pashtun Mujahideen leaders. The festering of that dispute continues to stoke Pakistani concerns over Indian (and now US, though its building up of a strategic alliance with India) intentions and activities in Afghanistan, and therefore complicates the task of stabilizing Afghanistan further.

There are a lot of connections between the two.

The only connection between the two is your strategic intent.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only connection between the two is your strategic intent.

Let me know when you can offer a rebuttal to the points I made to validate my assertion of a connection.

On what you did post - Kashmir from day one was about territory that was not demarcated properly, even though the means of settling the dispute were determined and agreed to by both sides through the UNSC - at least it was for Pakistan.

India's reason, hard to say, given her hostility in engaging Pakistan outside of disputed territory in East Pakistan and Baluchistan, some say even tacitly supporting Afghanistan in sponsoring the failed separatism in NWFP. To me India's intent historically is far more hostile, and reaches far beyond Kashmir, as has been seen.

Kashmir drives 'strategic intent' for both sides, Pakistan does not have a 'strategic intent' in Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Neo, if what India is doing in Kashmir is state-sponsored terrorism, do let me know what exactly is Pakistan doing in Baluchistan and to a certain extent in FATA?

Neither FATA nor Baluchistan are disputed territories with UNSC resolutions calling for the disputed territory to be resolved through referendum. So the analogy does not fit.

Secondly, barring a few sources with vested interests (such as Selig Harrison) there is no evidence of a systematic campaign to intimidate the local population in either Baluchistan or FATA. Collateral damage has occurred, as is to be expected, and it has occurred in IK as well, but what is being referred to is deliberate intimidation and targeting through violence and threats, in the hope of subduing a seperatist movement in occupied territory

Also, wasn't Pakistan using Afghanistan to serve her larger strategic needs?

You guys are again trying to connect Afghanistan to Kashmir to serve your strategic intent; be rest assured, the status quo shall continue (at most, Article 370 will go).

The 'strategic needs' that were being served by Afghanistan rose out of the hostility with India due to the Kashmir dispute. Beyond that, Pakistan's intent for intervening in Afghanistan was to stabilize the country so we would not experience the blow back of the chaos resulting from the Soviet invasion.

PS: You are reading Obama wrong.

Has anyone here suggested that Obama is going to do XYZ? Personally I do not think he will shift drastically from current US policy, and I opined when I first heard of his intentions to use B Clinton as a mediator that it was not a good idea, and that whatever involvement needs to be done, should be low key.

It seems Pakistani officials have been suggesting the same, if the Pakistani Ambassador's (US) comments are anything to go by.

 

[vish]

Kashmir is linked to Afghanistan since the unresolved dispute is what drives hostility between India and Pakistan, and keeps Pakistan's resources focussed in the East, when they could be better employed in the West.

The hostility from the dispute has resulted in India supporting seperatist movements in Baluchistan and East Pakistan, and caused three wars. It has also turned Afghanistan into a proxy battleground for both sides, as seen by Indian support for the NA warlords and Pakistani support for the Taliban and Pashtun Mujahideen leaders. The festering of that dispute continues to stoke Pakistani concerns over Indian (and now US, though its building up of a strategic alliance with India) intentions and activities in Afghanistan, and therefore complicates the task of stabilizing Afghanistan further.

There are a lot of connections between the two.

In addition to my previous post and upon your request, I shall state the redundant:

Hostility between India and Pakistan runs far deeper than just Kashmir; I doubt it will cease with a Kashmir solution.

Your army is more than capable of taking on the two-fronts (as if they exist); it, however, is COIN operations, and initial hiccups are but natural. It is interesting to see how these initial worries have been blamed on not PA's inexperience but on India's might, which consequently boils down to Kashmir for Kashmir is marketed as the be all and end all of India-Pakistan tug-of-war.

Further, what is your army afraid of? Us attacking you while you sort out your mess on the Afghan front? You really think we are that stupid to attack you while Uncle Sam is present? And consequently invite the wrath of most of this planet? No, we are not going to attack you; I also doubt the GoI would ask the IA to maintain a dominant posture as Uncle Sam will not allow it. In sum, you have nothing to fear on your Eastern Front.

With regard to Kashmir, international intervention is the only chance Pakistan has of altering the status quo, and the current stunts are nothing but that. Hence my statement: The only thing common between Afghanistan and Kashmir is your strategic intent.

 

[vish]

On what you did post - Kashmir from day one was about territory that was not demarcated properly, even though the means of settling the dispute were determined and agreed to by both sides through the UNSC - at least it was for Pakistan.

India's reason, hard to say, given her hostility in engaging Pakistan outside of disputed territory in East Pakistan and Baluchistan, some say even tacitly supporting Afghanistan in sponsoring the failed separatism in NWFP. To me India's intent historically is far more hostile, and reaches far beyond Kashmir, as has been seen.

Kashmir drives 'strategic intent' for both sides, Pakistan does not have a 'strategic intent' in Kashmir.

Nobody was interested in the UN-solution for Kashmir, except for perhaps Nehru. You wanted J&K; we wanted J&K. We managed to get the juicer part; you got the not-so-juicer part. Finders keepers, losers weepers. This is the summary of the J&K saga. You no longer can have what you want (the Valley) by force; hence, the recipe of international intervention, in which you now have added a very juicy ingredient: Uncle Sam's Afghanistan.

As far as poking and hostility in intent is concerned, we both are equally bad; but I doubt you will ever accept that.

You say Baluchistan, I say what about Khalistan? You say NWFP and Bangladesh, what about our North East and the Valley? Do you find us poking our nose in AJK, where I'm pretty certain, not all is hunky-dory?

In sum, we both are equally bad.

Also, you are using the Afghanistan-Kashmir link for your strategic intent.

 

[vish]

Neither FATA nor Baluchistan are disputed territories with UNSC resolutions calling for the disputed territory to be resolved through referendum. So the analogy does not fit.

Secondly, barring a few sources with vested interests (such as Selig Harrison) there is no evidence of a systematic campaign to intimidate the local population in either Baluchistan or FATA. Collateral damage has occurred, as is to be expected, and it has occurred in IK as well, but what is being referred to is deliberate intimidation and targeting through violence and threats, in the hope of subduing a seperatist movement in occupied territory


The 'strategic needs' that were being served by Afghanistan rose out of the hostility with India due to the Kashmir dispute. Beyond that, Pakistan's intent for intervening in Afghanistan was to stabilize the country so we would not experience the blow back of the chaos resulting from the Soviet invasion.

Has anyone here suggested that Obama is going to do XYZ? Personally I do not think he will shift drastically from current US policy, and I opined when I first heard of his intentions to use B Clinton as a mediator that it was not a good idea, and that whatever involvement needs to be done, should be low key.

It seems Pakistani officials have been suggesting the same, if the Pakistani Ambassador's (US) comments are anything to go by.

Yes, Baluchistan and NWFP are not disputed, but according to whom? According to you. The Baluchis think otherwise. Similarly, we do not Kashmir as disputed territory; for us Northern Areas and AJK mean squat.

As far as Afghanistan goes, are you asserting that the Taliban (which bought "woman-beating, boy-loving, Islam-abusing stability" to the country) is good for Afghanistan? I mean I agree they suited your interests, but still...

Pakistan's intent with the Taliban was simple: You needed recruits and camps and a trouble-free East. I see nothing wrong here; selfish, yes, but wrong, no.

With regard to Obama, had Obama not ranted about Kashmir, this issue would have never come up; hence, my statement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hostility between India and Pakistan runs far deeper than just Kashmir; I doubt it will cease with a Kashmir solution.

Nothing is redundant about your first assertion - it is in fact a completely inaccurate and invalid argument. If hostility exists deeper than Kashmir, it is primarily on India's side - the whole canard about "Bharat maata divided', the covert destabilization of East Pakistan etc.

Pakistan's hostility with India stems entirely out of Kashmir. 1965, Kargil - sole cause was kashmir, disputed territory, as recognized by UNSC resolutions and out of an Indian decision to go back on her obligations and commitments on that count.

Your army is more than capable of taking on the two-fronts (as if they exist); it, however, is COIN operations, and initial hiccups are but natural. It is interesting to see how these initial worries have been blamed on not PA's inexperience but on India's might, which consequently boils down to Kashmir for Kashmir is marketed as the be all and end all of India-Pakistan tug-of-war.

Further, what is your army afraid of? Us attacking you while you sort out your mess on the Afghan front? You really think we are that stupid to attack you while Uncle Sam is present? And consequently invite the wrath of most of this planet? No, we are not going to attack you; I also doubt the GoI would ask the IA to maintain a dominant posture as Uncle Sam will not allow it. In sum, you have nothing to fear on your Eastern Front.

The Army can take on two fronts, but not without relocating a substantial number of assets from the East, and given the numerical and qualitative (equipment) superiority of the opposing force in the East, that is a major concern.

Its not a question of being 'stupid enough to attack', that woudl be a rather absurd reason to not consider a hostile country with India's history a threat. And yes, I do not think the US would do more than lip service if India were to attack and occupy more territory.

With regard to Kashmir, international intervention is the only chance Pakistan has of altering the status quo, and the current stunts are nothing but that. Hence my statement: The only thing common between Afghanistan and Kashmir is your strategic intent.

Your last sentence does not really lead from the first one here, nor have you still explained the last one, or addressed all the points I raised in making my case for a connection.

But yes, diplomacy and negotiations should be the only way forward.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, Baluchistan and NWFP are not disputed, but according to whom? According to you. The Baluchis think otherwise. Similarly, we do not Kashmir as disputed territory; for us Northern Areas and AJK mean squat.

As far as Afghanistan goes, are you asserting that the Taliban (which bought "woman-beating, boy-loving, Islam-abusing stability" to the country) is good for Afghanistan? I mean I agree they suited your interests, but still...

Pakistan's intent with the Taliban was simple: You needed recruits and camps and a trouble-free East. I see nothing wrong here; selfish, yes, but wrong, no.

With regard to Obama, had Obama not ranted about Kashmir, this issue would have never come up; hence, my statement.

Vish,

Spend some time reading the Baluchistan thread - arguments over the Jirga process that the Baluchis had when accepting Pakistan's sovereignty are there.
NWFP had a referendum and an overwhelming majority chose Pakistan. That is who decided that Baluchistan and NWFP were not disputed - the people of Baluchistan and NWFP. Once that happened, any group challenging the writ of the state in any of those areas is a criminal group. The same argument applies to say Tamil Nadu or Kerala etc.

As far as Afghanistan goes, you have no clue and I have no patience for your rubbish of 'wife beating' blah blah blah. The arguments on why Pakistan supported the Taliban etc., the crimes of the Northern Alliance (including an ethnic massacre of thousands of Heratis) have been made time and time again.

They are on the Bajaur thread and others. Please read through them and respond.

Obama can say whatever he likes, we will discuss it, that doesn't mean we are 'reading him wrong'. Like I said, so far no one here has said anything about what Obama is going to do.

 

[Flintlock]

I actually think that if Zardari can manage to make the "Pakistani elite" agree with his recent assertions in the press, the hostility between the nations can end fairly quickly.

If he can manage to translate his assurances of a hands-off Kashmir policy to reality, I really don't see any reason why the two countries come together as Jinnah had intended.