Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

What had Jinnah intended exactly?

I support Zardari in his efforts towards 'normalization', but "taali eak haath say nahin bajti".

He has moved to the center quite a bit, the response from the other side has to be seen.

 

[vish]

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.

Really? Then why bother us in the North East? Why the thousand-cut policy? Why all the Khalistani mumbo-jumbo? Why money-laundering via Nepal?

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.

Oh please, all the three countries (India, Pakistan, PRC) have neglected the UN resolutions to varying degrees. We are not the only ones at fault here.

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.

Oxymoron, right? What exactly is your position here?

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 that lip service if India were to attack and occupy more territory.

You are very mistaken; the only reason IA was not allowed to attack post-Parakram was the presence of Uncle Sam in your country. As long as Uncle Sam exists in the Afghjan-Pakistan border, forget the IA being given permission to even adopt an aggressive posture. If this does not affect the threat assessment than what will? Any which ways, our main concern is PRC.

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.

It does.

Pakistan has a strategic intent in Kashmir and Afghanistan. In both places, Pakistan has certain objectives and plans. Her plans for Afghanistan were spoiled by 9/11. That leaves out Kashmir (where the international intervention garb is the only feasible chance she has of altering the status quo). And what better than connecting Afghanistan to Kashmir to bring the spotlight on Kashmir, especially these days when the world’s focus is on Afghanistan?

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

It’s not going to cut ice; the status quo shall continue. The problem is, we are okay with it and you are not.

 

[Vinod2070]

What had Jinnah intended exactly?

I support Zardari in his efforts towards 'normalization', but "taali eak haath say nahin bajti".

He has moved to the center quite a bit, the response from the other side has to be seen.

I guess it would be wait and watch and see how this plays out in Pakistan.

It has to be seen how much his statements mean in terms of action on the ground and how much power he really wields where it matters.

He is making the right noises. If they translate into action (and allowed to be translated into action), India will reciprocate.

I don't think India can be blamed for being cautious. Kargill is not even a decade old.

 

[vish]

Vish,

Spend some time reading the Baluchistan thread - arguments over the Jirga process that the Baluchis had when accepting Pakistan's sovereignty are there.

I agree, but do the Baluchis agree?

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.

Correct; India sees Kashmir with similar eyes. To us these separatists are criminals. What happens in AJK is the least of our concern, and we except a corresponding attitude from your end.

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.

Ouch, hit a nerve, didn't I? All I was saying that you guys seemed okay with the Taliban for they had no qualms with doing your bidding. This is the only reason why you pepped-up the Taliban. As far as NA was concerned, I doubt they were as bad as the Taliban; they at least were not interested in a 9/11.

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.

That remark was under the consideration that people were going ballistic over Kashmir simply because Obama ranted.

 

[Flintlock]

What had Jinnah intended exactly?

I support Zardari in his efforts towards 'normalization', but "taali eak haath say nahin bajti".

He has moved to the center quite a bit, the response from the other side has to be seen.

Well, from what I've read, Jinnah did not envision the relationship between India and Pakistan to be one of hostility. I remember reading also that he intended to retain his ancestral home in Mumbai, and visit India occasionally to meet his family and friends here.

The point being, that India and Pakistan were to essentially remain complementary and cooperative.

 

[Flintlock]

Northern Alliance was definitely the better of the two, considering the fact that no political organization can do significantly better than the society it represents.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

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.

From Pakistan's perspective these issues are connected as it is the common biggest player in both the issues in the sense that both the issues can not be resolved without Pakistan being on board.

However, Afghanistan is a multilateral issue involving so many players who feel threatened if Afghanistan goes down. It is a separate country that has failed and needs to be revived. One thing that needs to happen is that others stop using it for their strategic depth and leave them alone to find their peace, and stop promoting their own agendas.

Combining it with an issue that has been a long running one like Kashmir and saying that Afghanistan can not be resolved unless the Kashmir issue is resolved is to hold the people of Afghanistan hostage to another issue totally unrelated to the Afghans themselves. I am sure India will never agree to this linkage and nor would Afghanistan. I don't see why they should.

This linkage is a forced one that basically says that we will not allow Afghanistan to stabilize and won't stop interfering in her internal affairs unless Kashmir is resolved (on our terms).

Not a very happy scenario for anyone!

Kashmir resolution won't be a change in borders and is not going to happen in the short term, it certainly won't be forced by outsiders but has to be a bilateral solution that takes into account the Kashmiri aspirations as well as ensures that the minorities can return back to their homes.

The process will move at it's own pace depending on the state of the bilateral relations and the trust quotient prevailing at the time.

I don't think any reasonable person or country would link such unrelated issues and create a royal mess.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really? Then why bother us in the North East? Why the thousand-cut policy? Why all the Khalistani mumbo-jumbo? Why money-laundering via Nepal?

All of these are mere unsubstantiated allegations - Indian involvement in East Pakistan however is undeniable and a historical fact.

Oh please, all the three countries (India, Pakistan, PRC) have neglected the UN resolutions to varying degrees. We are not the only ones at fault here.

No - the UN thread with statements from UN officials and Nehru's own comments on unilaterally deciding to not implement UN resolutions in teh fifties clearly place the blame at India's doorstep. India is the only country refusing to implement the resolutions - Pakistan is clearly in favor of implementing the resolutions. There is no question of who is to blame here, your nations official position is one of a refusal to implement commitments and obligations it agreed to.

Oxymoron, right? What exactly is your position here?

Not at all - the capability to fight on two fronts exists, given the resources. The resources do not exist.

You are very mistaken; the only reason IA was not allowed to attack post-Parakram was the presence of Uncle Sam in your country. As long as Uncle Sam exists in the Afghjan-Pakistan border, forget the IA being given permission to even adopt an aggressive posture. If this does not affect the threat assessment than what will? Any which ways, our main concern is PRC.

I am not mistaken at all. Kiyani was in charge of PA maneuvers to counter the Parakaram. India's mobilization failed and was completely preempted by Pakistan - hence the need for Cold Start. US pressure may habve also been involved, but the fact was that it worked since the Pakistani military had ensured that any Indian aggression woudl result in a long painful war, likely ending in another stalemate.

It was the fact that India had no military advantage in conjunction with US pressure that led to India blinking and backing off.

It does.

Pakistan has a strategic intent in Kashmir and Afghanistan. In both places, Pakistan has certain objectives and plans. Her plans for Afghanistan were spoiled by 9/11. That leaves out Kashmir (where the international intervention garb is the only feasible chance she has of altering the status quo). And what better than connecting Afghanistan to Kashmir to bring the spotlight on Kashmir, especially these days when the world’s focus is on Afghanistan?

The primary plan we had for Afghanistan was one of stabilizing the country, and ensuring we did not have a repeat of former governments that supported the Baluch insurgency and Pashtun separatism. Any other policies derived out of that attempt. Indian support for the NA, and its historical friendly relation with the GoA, when it was supporting terrorism and separatism in Pakistan, resulted in Pakistani concerns over Indian intentions in Afghanistan. Again, that hostility arises out of the Kashmir dispute, hence the connection between Kashmir and Afghanistan.

It’s not going to cut ice; the status quo shall continue. The problem is, we are okay with it and you are not.

And as I said diplomacy and negotiations will continue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree, but do the Baluchis agree?

Are you even reading the posts?

What do you thing the Jirga process represented? It was a consultative process involving representatives from all the tribes, nominated by the tribes, that chose to become part of Pakistan. It represented the will of the people.

Correct; India sees Kashmir with similar eyes. To us these separatists are criminals. What happens in AJK is the least of our concern, and we except a corresponding attitude from your end.

Kashmir is not the same as Baluchistan, NWFP or Kerala. Kashmir is disputed territory, where India reneged on its commitment to hold a plebiscite under the IoA conditions, as well as the UNSC resolutions. It continues to be considered disputed territory internationally. Therefore the separatists are justified in fighting against Indian occupation - though I am in support of only peaceful resistance at this point.

Ouch, hit a nerve, didn't I? All I was saying that you guys seemed okay with the Taliban for they had no qualms with doing your bidding. This is the only reason why you pepped-up the Taliban. As far as NA was concerned, I doubt they were as bad as the Taliban; they at least were not interested in a 9/11.

You continue to show absolutely no understanding of the Afghan dynamics and political and power scene at the time of the rise of the Taliban, and what led to Pakistani support (hence my suggestion to read those posts, or pick up some books at least).

The Taliban were not supported by Pakistan until they had already established themselves as a group that had gained the support of the overwhlming majority of teh people in the areas they controlled. They also gained the support of many powerful Pashtun Tribal and business leaders, on both sides of the Durand. They in fact gained the support of Hamid Karzai and his family as well (high up in the Durrani Pashtun tribal hierarchy). Hamid Karzai was in fact tortured by the NA in Kabul (he was part of that government), and escaped, which was part of the reason he initially supported the Taliban since he was disillusioned by the NA.

** Above information from Ahmed Rashid's Taliban and Steve Coll's Pullitzer winning Ghost War's

The Taliban were never interested in 911 either. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they were aware of what OBL was plotting, Their problem was refusing to give up their 'guest'. And as I pointed out, the Taliban had also asked for independent courts in a Muslim country, and had no reason to just trust the US on her word at the time.

That remark was under the consideration that people were going ballistic over Kashmir simply because Obama ranted.

No, what you said is that people are reading Obama wrong, implying that we think he is going to do something drastically different on Kashmir - we don't. We on this forum have merely pointed out that the opinion and analysis linking Kashmri and Afghanistan is valid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Northern Alliance was definitely the better of the two, considering the fact that no political organization can do significantly better than the society it represents.

The evidence on the ground before the rise of the Taliban belies that assertion. I already pointed out that they committed ethnic massacres, and activities of the warlords was what led to so many people initially supporting the Taliban in the first place.

The Taliban brought peace and order, albeit through a repressive interpretation of Islam. The NA had crime, chaos and violence, albeit without as many religious restrictions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From Pakistan's perspective these issues are connected as it is the common biggest player in both the issues in the sense that both the issues can not be resolved without Pakistan being on board.

However, Afghanistan is a multilateral issue involving so many players who feel threatened if Afghanistan goes down. It is a separate country that has failed and needs to be revived. One thing that needs to happen is that others stop using it for their strategic depth and leave them alone to find their peace, and stop promoting their own agendas.

Combining it with an issue that has been a long running one like Kashmir and saying that Afghanistan can not be resolved unless the Kashmir issue is resolved is to hold the people of Afghanistan hostage to another issue totally unrelated to the Afghans themselves. I am sure India will never agree to this linkage and nor would Afghanistan. I don't see why they should.

This linkage is a forced one that basically says that we will not allow Afghanistan to stabilize and won't stop interfering in her internal affairs unless Kashmir is resolved (on our terms).

Not a very happy scenario for anyone!

Kashmir resolution won't be a change in borders and is not going to happen in the short term, it certainly won't be forced by outsiders but has to be a bilateral solution that takes into account the Kashmiri aspirations as well as ensures that the minorities can return back to their homes.

The process will move at it's own pace depending on the state of the bilateral relations and the trust quotient prevailing at the time.

I don't think any reasonable person or country would link such unrelated issues and create a royal mess.

Thats a very Indian POV.

The lack of stabilization in Afghanistan also owes itself to India using it counter Pakistan, even before the Kashmir camps were set up there. That indicates that the hostility of Kashmir bled through.

Indian support for the NA was its own attempt to attain 'strategic depth' vs Pakistan (two fronts against Pakistan, through a pro-India regime). Why all of this involvement from both sides? Hostility out of Kashmir.

So long as India and Pakistan do not resolve their disputes, they will continue to be suspicious and use whatever means they can to undermine each other. This is a pretty strong connection, and it is good to see so many commentators and analysts recognize the relationship and the need to come up with more regional solutions.

 

[Vinod2070]

All of these are mere unsubstantiated allegations - Indian involvement in East Pakistan however is undeniable and a historical fact.

While you guys are doing just fine and I don't want to get in, just want to share this opinion from a respected Pakistani writer.

By Dr Farrukh Saleem
These are the most dangerous of times. The trajectory of events on the Pakistan-Afghan border has a shocking parallel to the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had begun in 1959 and by 1966 -- seventh year of the war -- the Viet Cong had established safe sanctuaries across the border in eastern Cambodia. The Viet Cong crossed the border through the Sihanouk Trail; crossed the border to rest and to rearm.

For the following three years, a unit of US Special Forces conducted covert intelligence operations across the border. The collected intelligence was repeatedly presented to Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia. Inaction on part of Sihanouk resulted in a regime change whereby Lon Nol was brought in as the new president (Sihanouk ran to China and Russia for help). Cambodia under a new president, and American operations turned from covert to overt.

Look at how history repeats itself: the Viet Cong turned against the Cambodian army. Nixon entered the White House on 20 January 1969 and within a year ordered General Abrams to "launch American forces into Cambodia with the special objective of capturing the headquarters of the entire communist military operation…."

America killed 1.5 million Vietnamese at the cost of 58,159 of its own soldiers. Remember, the only force that pulled the Americans out of Vietnam was the American public opinion (because too many Americans were getting killed). Over the following three decades -- and a dozen wars later -- the Pentagon has learned to keep American casualties low. In Iraq, over a million Iraqis have lost their lives while US casualties stand at 4,159.

Iraq has been destroyed; destroyed for no reason, destroyed for weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist. Imagine; if there is another 9/11 and it's traced back to Pakistan. They'll have a reason -- a reason to vaporize Pakistan. If they can destroy countries for no reason just imagine what they'll do if we give them a reason.

The Shireen Mazari-Imran Khan-Qazi Hussain Ahmed trio defines 'pro-Pakistan' as 'anti-US'. The trio can make us lose everything we have built by eating grass for the past 61 years. The trio can make us lose everything that's dear to us and everything that's near to us. The Munir Akram-Zamir Akram duo defines 'pro-Pakistan' as 'anti-India'. That definition is no longer in Pakistan's national interest.

The 'Great Game' will encircle us and then crush us, choke us, squeeze us and squash us beyond recognition. There are no morals or ethics on either side. The game is about containing China, and America has already recruited India and Afghanistan. On September 8, Indian army's Corps of Engineers completed the construction of a road by virtue of which Afghanistan now stands connected to Iran's Free Port of Chahbahar. On September 13, India blockaded Chenab River just when our Kharif crops -- cotton and sugarcane -- need water the most. On September 17, Air Marshal P K Barbora redeployed six of his most advanced Sukhoi-30MKI, heavy-class, nuclear-capable, air superiority fighters from Pune to Awantipur Air Base (the airbase is next to Srinagar). Now we have Su-30MKIs in the east, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles in the west and USS Ronald Reagan in the Arabian Sea.

July, August and September are proving to be the deadliest months for American forces in Afghanistan. America's GDP stands at $14 trillion; next in line are Japan, Germany, China and the UK. Imagine; the collective GDP of Japan, Germany, China and the UK is less than America's. The whole wide world outside of the US spends $500 billion a year on killing machines and soldiers. Imagine; the US alone spends $500 billion (China $59 billion, Russia $50 billion, Japan $48 billion, India $27 billion and Pakistan $8 billion).

For the past two decades, Pakistan's ISI has outsmarted all Indian generals by pining down India's 15, 9, 16, 14, 10 and 11 Corps in the northeast in a low-intensity, low-cost confrontation -- and Indian generals have failed to find a way out. General Deepak Kapoor, India's 23rd chief of army staff, would now love a way-out.

America has her own interests and India has her own. We must determine a path that is best for Pakistan. Eventually, we would have to decide -- proxy wars or regional economic integration. Our decision must be knowledge based as oppose to being honour based.

Postscript: we have no intention of either returning their F-16s, stop applying for US visas or deny their wheat under PL-480.



The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Saturday, December 30, 1899

So no point in denying the obvious. Pakistan does promote the insurgencies in the NE. Everyone and his uncle know that.

 

[Vinod2070]

Thats a very Indian POV.

Well, it may be. It is as Indian as the one linking the issues is a Pakistani POV.

Let us see what the Afghans think of it as well as the rest of the players in Afghanistan.

But what I see surprising is the utter lack of concern for the Afghanistani people here and willingness to hold them hostage to the resolution of Pakistan's pet peeve.

The lack of stabilization in Afghanistan also owes itself to India using it counter Pakistan, even before the Kashmir camps were set up there. That indicates that the hostility of Kashmir bled through.

Indian support for the NA was its own attempt to attain 'strategic depth' vs Pakistan (two fronts against Pakistan, through a pro-India regime). Why all of this involvement from both sides? Hostility out of Kashmir.

So long as India and Pakistan do not resolve their disputes, they will continue to be suspicious and use whatever means they can to undermine each other. This is a pretty strong connection, and it is good to see so many commentators and analysts recognize the relationship and the need to come up with more regional solutions.

How the Duran border issue between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue are related is beyond me.

Afghanistan may have taken India's help in that theater (its just an assumption as we don't have any proofs) and because of the general enmity between the countries India may have obliged but that enmity was not only over Kashmir but ran far deeper.

Kashmir is a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself. Once we diagnose and treat the actual disease, treating the symptom becomes easy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

While you guys are doing just fine and I don't want to get in, just want to share this opinion from a respected Pakistani writer.



The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Saturday, December 30, 1899

So no point in denying the obvious. Pakistan does promote the insurgencies in the NE. Everyone and his uncle know that.

Are you making the case for Pakistani support for insurgencies in East India on the basis of opinions? What insight does this man have on any covert Pakistani operations? Why would he have any insight? This is just silly.

But if we were to accept that yardstick one must admit that India is, and has been, promoting the insurgency in Baluchistan and FATA as well, as many Pakistani commentators have argued, and as has been argued by intelligence and security officials in articles by many respected Pakistani writers.

So that leaves us with opinion and allegations on each sides role in supporting insurgencies in the other. However there is no doubt that India supported an insurgency and destabilized East Pakistan, sovereign undisputed Pakistani territory.

 

[Vinod2070]

Are you making the case for Pakistani support for insurgencies in East India on the basis of opinions? What insight does this man have on any covert Pakistani operations? Why would he have any insight? This is just silly.

But if we were to accept that yardstick one must admit that India is, and has been, promoting the insurgency in Baluchistan and FATA as well, as many Pakistani commentators have argued, and as has been argued by intelligence and security officials in articles by many respected Pakistani writers.

This is no "undeniable proof" and I never claimed it was. But at least it proves that respectable Pakistani writers believe it to be true.

While we can't always believe each other's writers accusations about the other country (they could be motivated), confessions are easier to accept.

Why would he have insight? That is a strange question! Why do journalists and opinion leaders have insights!

So that leaves us with opinion and allegations on each sides role in supporting insurgencies in the other. However there is no doubt that India supported an insurgency and destabilized East Pakistan, sovereign undisputed Pakistani territory.

If we are talking of smoking guns, none exist for Bangladesh too. What is in public domain is the fact of India intervening after 10 million refugees created tremendous social and economic burden and the international community sat on it's hands.