Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

[vish]

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

Vinod has already taken that point, but still just a reminder: DefenceJournal has many articles depicting how ISI supported insurgency in the North East, and how Khalistan was pepped up by you guys. Forget DefenceJournal, just read the ISI thread on this very website.

I'm not saying India is a saint or Pakistan is the devil, I'm saying both have blood on their hands.

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.

These obligations carried certain pre-conditions, which nobody met.

Also, since Pakistan is ever-willing to implement the resolutions, when do I see NA being incorporated into AJK? When do I see the demographic changes being undone? When do I get to see PRC relinquishing the land back to AJK?

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

In other words, what you are saying is that the PA cannot fight a two-front war. I'm pretty certain plenty of your countrymen will disagree here.

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.

ROFLMAO.

One of our corps commanders was removed from his command because he reached the border much earlier than what he was told to. What does that say? The GoI never intended a war (Why? Uncle Sam, that's why); the whole show was a means of financially strangulating Pakistan: "We can afford the build-up? Can you?"

I'm not dismissing the PA, but the capacity mismatch is large.

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.

So you do agree that Pakistan's intention was to have a puppet government in Kabul? And that there are two reasons for the choice of Taliban: NA's India connection and poking of Pakistan and Pakistan's strong bond with the Islamists?

And as I said diplomacy and negotiations will continue.

Waste of time, if you ask me. Why not accept the status quo and move on? Have 60 years of diplomacy done anything?

 

[vish]

Are you even reading the posts?

No

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.

Okay, I guess you have gotten me wrong; currently, the Baluchis disagree.

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.

The plebiscite carried certain pre-conditions, which nobody bothered satisfying.

To us Kashmir is one state; we shall treat it like any other state. Like it or lump it.

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).

Really? I can state that you have no knowledge of how decades of civil warfare affects people's minds. I'll tell you why the Taliban was accepted: they were bringing stability. After years of having bombs exploding and Kalashnikovs gunning, all the Afghan populace wanted was stability and "silence" (literally at that). Taliban gave them that. You guys took advantage of this single fact. Post a long painful conflict, the populace, at large, is willing to accept anything simply because it desires silence.

Once the Afghan populace was rejuvenated, they realized the evil that was there within them, and whose making was this evil.

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

With regard to Pushtun support for the Taliban, we both know that this support is racist in nature. Rashid has also stated that sections of Pakistan's society, government, military, ISI helped the Taliban come to power. I will concede that officially the GoP was not supporting the Taliban.

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.

I doubt that Taliban had no clue that 9/11 was going to happen; OBL was very much in bed with the Taliban. Further, are you saying that Taliban's decision to not hand over OBL is right? I disagree to that.

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.

I'm saying that the whole issue of linking Afghanistan with Kashmir came up after Obama's remarks. I simply stated that Obama's rant is nothing but just that. Hence, I said people are reading Obama wrong; he is simply shooting his mouth.

 

[vish]

You can't compare Balochistan with Kashmir, its not a disputed territory.

Baluchis think they have a dispute; in Kashmir, only you guys think that there is a dispute. See the connection?

We're dealing with foreign funded seperatists in a province which has legally joined the dominion and therefor she's integral part of Pakistan.

We feel the same way about Kashmir.

FATA on the other hand is a warzone, our operations are seen as part of WoT.

Couldn't agree more.

Yes and no! A Pakistan friendly government in Afghanistan is in our interest as long as Durandline dispute is alive. Unstable Afghanistan is not only a threat to Pakistan but the whole region and since she affects us the most its our duty to take matters into our own hands and do the job for Kabul!

I agree, but was Taliban good for Afghans? How would you feel if you were under Taliban rule imposed on you by somebody for their own needs?

Compared to what America and India are doing there, our actions look more legitimate.

Vis-à-vis America, 9/11 changed that. We have our own priorities, but I agree that Pakistan's actions are more legitimate except for the Taliban ploy.

We were dragged into this conflict in 1980 when the Sovjets invaded Kabul with Karachi and Gwadar/Pasni as their intended and final destination with their quest to access "warm waters" of the Arabian Sea.
What country would allow this??

Absolutely true; still, Taliban (and militia running at large) was a very bad move.

Well its not us but the Americans who're also seing the clear connection and I can assure you that we'll do all possible to exploit this opportunity.

Thank you for admitting the truth; please tell the same to AM.

PS: Obama is going to do squat with regard to Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Baluchis think they have a dispute; in Kashmir, only you guys think that there is a dispute. See the connection?

You have shown a remarkable ability to ignore the facts that have been presented time and again, while just continuing to repeat the same flawed point.

The people of Baluchistan followed the process of partition, they held a representative jirga, and they chose to join Pakistan. In Kashmir, the Instrument of accession required a plebiscite to be held in case of a dispute, and Mountbatten accepted the IoA only on the condition that a plebiscite woudl be held. Similarly, India went to the UN, the UNSC issued resolutions declaring Kashmir to be disputed, and a referendum to be the means of resolving the dispute, and India agreed to that.

The only people living in LaLa land are some Indians, who despite all the evidence here that clearly indicates that the international community considers Kashmir disputed, and India's agreement to that position (at the time of resolutions), still somehow think that Pakistan is the only one that 'sees a dispute'.

We feel the same way about Kashmir.

You can feel the same way about Tamil Nadu, Kerala, or Maharasthra etc., that is where your analogy with Baluchistan and NWFP works, not in Kashmir, which is still illegally annexed by India and recognized as disputed by the international community, as explained above.

Thank you for admitting the truth; please tell the same to AM.

PS: Obama is going to do squat with regard to Kashmir.

Neo's opinion, not mine. I have outlined my own, and that was reflected in Ambassador Haqqanis address in the US.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No

Then don't bother posting and waste everyones time please.

Okay, I guess you have gotten me wrong; currently, the Baluchis disagree.

Answered the difference between kashmir and Baluchistan in last post.

The plebiscite carried certain pre-conditions, which nobody bothered satisfying.

India did not, as the thread on teh resolutions shows, and as Nehru's comments indicate.

To us Kashmir is one state; we shall treat it like any other state. Like it or lump it.

Again, the analogy of a thief comes to mind. A thief will of course claim that stolen property is theirs, but the fact is that the UNSC resolutions have exposed the thief for what he is, and the thief agreed at the time, with full intentions of committing fraud later and not implementing the verdict of course.

What kashmir is to you is hogwash, the legal and moral arguments on Kashmir being disputed and how it is to be resolved are beyond question.

Really? I can state that you have no knowledge of how decades of civil warfare affects people's minds. I'll tell you why the Taliban was accepted: they were bringing stability. After years of having bombs exploding and Kalashnikovs gunning, all the Afghan populace wanted was stability and "silence" (literally at that). Taliban gave them that. You guys took advantage of this single fact. Post a long painful conflict, the populace, at large, is willing to accept anything simply because it desires silence.

Once the Afghan populace was rejuvenated, they realized the evil that was there within them, and whose making was this evil.

With regard to Pushtun support for the Taliban, we both know that this support is racist in nature. Rashid has also stated that sections of Pakistan's society, government, military, ISI helped the Taliban come to power. I will concede that officially the GoP was not supporting the Taliban.

Actually you cannot state that, since I have made that point myself to explain why the taliban gained the support of the people tired of the lawlessness and crime under the warlords. And by the way, if the Taliban were 'racist', so were the NA warlords who derived power exclusively from their own ethnic strongholds.

Pakistan's support did not come through until the Taliban had already established themselves with the support of many people, as i mentioned, that is my point. They could claim to be a legitimate political and military force in Afghanistan with popular support at that time.

I doubt that Taliban had no clue that 9/11 was going to happen; OBL was very much in bed with the Taliban. Further, are you saying that Taliban's decision to not hand over OBL is right? I disagree to that.

What evidence is there to indicate that the taliban knew? I haven't commented on whether the Taliban decision to hand over OBL was correct or not, merely pointed out the other sides perspective.

I'm saying that the whole issue of linking Afghanistan with Kashmir came up after Obama's remarks. I simply stated that Obama's rant is nothing but just that. Hence, I said people are reading Obama wrong; he is simply shooting his mouth.

Actually I have been arguing for over a year now that the US needed to address Pakistani concerns in both Afghanistan and encourage some sort of rapprochement with India to allow for more resources being moved to the West. Obama and his advisor's comments were a nice validation of my opinions, but I already subscribed to that POV. And no, I still don't think that he will resolve Kashmir, nor do I want BC as a mediator, the Indian foreign affairs people are an arrogant bunch who will get their backs up and shoot down reconciliation before it even begins. I am more interested in seeing what sorts of assurances Obama can deliver that allow Pakistan to move more resources to the West.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm not saying India is a saint or Pakistan is the devil, I'm saying both have blood on their hands.

No disagreement on that, however the larger and original point is that it all stems from Kashmir.

These obligations carried certain pre-conditions, which nobody met.

Also, since Pakistan is ever-willing to implement the resolutions, when do I see NA being incorporated into AJK? When do I see the demographic changes being undone? When do I get to see PRC relinquishing the land back to AJK?

The preconditions were being met by Pakistan. Again, read the UN resolutions thread to see Nehru's comments, he had already determined not to implement the referendum.

In other words, what you are saying is that the PA cannot fight a two-front war. I'm pretty certain plenty of your countrymen will disagree here.

And further down you have yourself claimed 'the capacity mismatch is large' - so which is it? On one hand you claim that Pakistan posed no military challenge to India, even with its full military deployed in the East, and on the other you say that Pakistan should be able to fight a two front war. I do not think we can fight a two front (East and West) war with current resources successfully, for very long.

ROFLMAO.

One of our corps commanders was removed from his command because he reached the border much earlier than what he was told to. What does that say? The GoI never intended a war (Why? Uncle Sam, that's why); the whole show was a means of financially strangulating Pakistan: "We can afford the build-up? Can you?"

I'm not dismissing the PA, but the capacity mismatch is large.

Err, if he showed up before everyone else what was he going to do? Go Aaarnold on us? The modern military functions best in harmony as a well oiled machine. Showing up early may be just as bad as showing up late, depending upon the situation.

By the way, acknowledgment of Kiyanis capabilities in controlling the Pakistani response has also been offered by Indian and western analysts, which were posted on the threads related to him when he became COAS.

So you do agree that Pakistan's intention was to have a puppet government in Kabul? And that there are two reasons for the choice of Taliban: NA's India connection and poking of Pakistan and Pakistan's strong bond with the Islamists?

Stability and pro-Pakistan government, not puppet. Pakistan has an even larger Pashtun population than Afghanistan, choosing a Pashtun group was therefore our preference. The Taliban offered the only viable alternative at the time, and they were accepted widely. Anyone who had worked with the Mujahideedn would know that it was a frustrating process, and to was always a tough task controlling them. BY the way, Pakistan did attempt, unsuccessfully, to get the Taliban and NA to share power. Again, impossible to control.

 

[vish]

You have shown a remarkable ability to ignore the facts that have been presented time and again, while just continuing to repeat the same flawed point.

You know honestly, stop accusing people of trolling or ignoring facts simply because they do not see your point of view. If you cannot take persistence, stop replying. In my view, your arguments are biased and blinded by pseudo-nationalism, so should I start calling you a troll? If you are loosing it, stop posting.

The people of Baluchistan followed the process of partition, they held a representative jirga, and they chose to join Pakistan. In Kashmir, the Instrument of accession required a plebiscite to be held in case of a dispute, and Mountbatten accepted the IoA only on the condition that a plebiscite woudl be held. Similarly, India went to the UN, the UNSC issued resolutions declaring Kashmir to be disputed, and a referendum to be the means of resolving the dispute, and India agreed to that.

I am not saying that Baluchistan is valid; I'm saying the Baluchis (some of them) think that the Baluchistan cause is valid; Pakistan does not. In Kashmir (J&K governed by India), some sections think that the Kashmir cause is valid. Pakistan thinks that its claim on Kashmir is valid. We disagree just like you disagree on the Baluchistan issue.

The only people living in LaLa land are some Indians, who despite all the evidence here that clearly indicates that the international community considers Kashmir disputed, and India's agreement to that position (at the time of resolutions), still somehow think that Pakistan is the only one that 'sees a dispute'.

You are the only one who see it, and try to portray it as such. The issue is too old for the UN to bother. Further, nobody met the pre-conditions for the plebiscite.

You can feel the same way about Tamil Nadu, Kerala, or Maharasthra etc., that is where your analogy with Baluchistan and NWFP works, not in Kashmir, which is still illegally annexed by India and recognized as disputed by the international community, as explained above.

The Indian states you mentioned have a Hindu majority; hence, Pakistan won't say and feel anything.

I'm not saying what happened with regard to Kashmir is right; I'm saying all three parties (India, Pakistan, PRC) are equally to blame. The problem is we have what you want: the Valley.

The reason behind me raising the Baluchistan issue was to show how viewpoints differ. For us, Kashmir is just like any other state; our treatment of Kashmir is similar to how you guys treat Baluchistan.

Neo's opinion, not mine. I have outlined my own, and that was reflected in Ambassador Haqqanis address in the US.

That remark was for Neo.

 

[vish]

Then don't bother posting and waste everyones time please.

Suggested alternative rejected.

Answered the difference between kashmir and Baluchistan in last post.

Same here.

India did not, as the thread on teh resolutions shows, and as Nehru's comments indicate.

The thread is ongoing and has offered no conclusions.

Again, the analogy of a thief comes to mind. A thief will of course claim that stolen property is theirs, but the fact is that the UNSC resolutions have exposed the thief for what he is, and the thief agreed at the time, with full intentions of committing fraud later and not implementing the verdict of course.

This is true for all three parties, and equally at that.

What kashmir is to you is hogwash, the legal and moral arguments on Kashmir being disputed and how it is to be resolved are beyond question.

I can say the same for you. You guys are making a dispute by being a sour loser.

Actually you cannot state that, since I have made that point myself to explain why the taliban gained the support of the people tired of the lawlessness and crime under the warlords. And by the way, if the Taliban were 'racist', so were the NA warlords who derived power exclusively from their own ethnic strongholds.

I do not disagree but I stand by my psychological reasoning as to why the Taliban had a free run initially.

Pakistan's support did not come through until the Taliban had already established themselves with the support of many people, as i mentioned, that is my point. They could claim to be a legitimate political and military force in Afghanistan with popular support at that time.

Rashid thinks otherwise. With regard to the popular support, please read the psychology behind this happening as I have stated earlier.

What evidence is there to indicate that the taliban knew?

No evidence; I just used my logic.

I haven't commented on whether the Taliban decision to hand over OBL was correct or not, merely pointed out the other sides perspective.

Fair enough.

Actually I have been arguing for over a year now that the US needed to address Pakistani concerns in both Afghanistan and encourage some sort of rapprochement with India to allow for more resources being moved to the West. Obama and his advisor's comments were a nice validation of my opinions, but I already subscribed to that POV. And no, I still don't think that he will resolve Kashmir, nor do I want BC as a mediator, the Indian foreign affairs people are an arrogant bunch who will get their backs up and shoot down reconciliation before it even begins. I am more interested in seeing what sorts of assurances Obama can deliver that allow Pakistan to move more resources to the West.

The most Obama will do is make sure the IA maintains a defensive posture; this, too, seems highly optimistic to me.

 

[vish]

No disagreement on that, however the larger and original point is that it all stems from Kashmir.

Its much deeper than that. Hindu-Muslim divide was far deepened by the partition. Kashmir is dear to you guys for two reasons: it’s Muslim majority and is the source of all rivers. The former reason has always been more prominent. The Kashmir dispute (notice how it is always for the Muslim majority Valley and not the rest of the former princely state) stems from Hindu-Muslim divide.

The preconditions were being met by Pakistan. Again, read the UN resolutions thread to see Nehru's comments, he had already determined not to implement the referendum.

No, they are not. Your actions clearly indicate that: separating NA from AJK, leasing land to PRC, demographic changes, etc.

And further down you have yourself claimed 'the capacity mismatch is large' - so which is it? On one hand you claim that Pakistan posed no military challenge to India, even with its full military deployed in the East, and on the other you say that Pakistan should be able to fight a two front war. I do not think we can fight a two front (East and West) war with current resources successfully, for very long.

I’m saying you can fight a two-front war; how good your chances are is anybody’s guess. IA has a definite lead over PA but other factors in the arena make sure war never happens. These other factors are what is helping the PA, and the PA should take advantage of it. As long as Uncle Sam is in Afghanistan, there would not be an Indo-Pak war. Take a cue from this and go lock, stock, and barrel on the COIN operations.

Err, if he showed up before everyone else what was he going to do? Go Aaarnold on us? The modern military functions best in harmony as a well oiled machine. Showing up early may be just as bad as showing up late, depending upon the situation.

His was one of India’s three strike corps. He was removed from command because the GoI wanted no war, and his actions might have hinted otherwise.

By the way, acknowledgment of Kiyanis capabilities in controlling the Pakistani response has also been offered by Indian and western analysts, which were posted on the threads related to him when he became COAS.

No denial about this.

Stability and pro-Pakistan government, not puppet. Pakistan has an even larger Pashtun population than Afghanistan, choosing a Pashtun group was therefore our preference. The Taliban offered the only viable alternative at the time, and they were accepted widely. Anyone who had worked with the Mujahideedn would know that it was a frustrating process, and to was always a tough task controlling them. BY the way, Pakistan did attempt, unsuccessfully, to get the Taliban and NA to share power. Again, impossible to control.

This translates into the following: we pepped up the Taliban to suit our needs after our other plans failed. Frankly, I do not see anything wrong with this. It is just when you guys talk about how India is supporting her agenda and loathe that she is do I feel you are being wrong and hypocritical. Further, Taliban’s fundamentalism could have been controlled by you guys; at least that’s how I see it.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Your initial argument on Afghanistan works both ways - Afghanistan cannot be held hostage to India's desire to weaken Pakistan through supporting an insurgency in Baluchistan or other anti-Pakistan activities either ... the question is one of removing the reason for both India and Pakistan using Afghanistan as a proxy battleground ... I do not see how this can happen unless the underlying cause for the hostility is addressed, which is Kashmir

India's interests in Afghanistan are things like child nutrition and road building.

As regards apprehensions about Afghanistan becoming a proxy battleground, there are simple ways to address these fears: Pakistan promises not to use folks like Haqqani against Afghanistan, and India assures that its development activities in Afghanistan will be transparent.

That way, the Afghan people are not held hostage to the Kashmir issue, which will take years to solve.

On Kashmir, I have posted some comments in the thread on Kashmir resolutions here .

 

[Halaku Khan]

deleted - double post

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Actually most of that 'evidence' has appeared in the Pakistani media and was posted in threads that are still up and running - go check them out, and keep your 'bloody' ill manners to yourself.

Yeahhh I remember .. the horse and poney show put by your government.. Three morons who sais they were trained by RAW right.. (I still don't understand what training RAW can give them when they themselves are battle hardened).

The rest of all is mere speculation by armchair analysts who want to appear serious in news papers .. aww yaawn.. Bloody third world media. .. I am still waiting for weapons cache, Financial transffers, radio intercepts... still waiting..

PS: I forgot how the terrorists got hold of sohisticated weapons(as mentiond by your papers) like sniper scopes, GPS, Satellite phones.. When on earth did sniper scope these become sophisticated, heck lot of fishermen here own a GPS and satellite phoness...