Backed by Pak Army Chief, a Kashmir deal was nearly reached: Kasuri

Discussion in 'Internal Security' started by ejazr, Jan 22, 2011.

  1. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Backed by Pak Army Chief, a Kashmir deal was nearly reached: Kasuri

    New Delhi: India and Pakistan's near resolution of the Kashmir dispute had the backing of Pakistan's present Army Chief General Kayani. This was the dramatic revelation made by Pakistan's former foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri.

    Speaking to NDTV in New Delhi, Mr. Kasuri said both governments had almost signed off on a draft agreement on Kashmir. This agreement included self-governance on both sides of the Line of Control and a joint mechanism to oversee governance.

    General Kiyani, who was then the Chief of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was actively involved in the back channel talks, said Kasuri.

    In the back-channel talks between October 2006 and March 2007, the Indian side was represented by the then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, then Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon who is now the National Security Adviser(NSA), PM's special envoy to Pakistan Satinder Lambah and the then NSA MK Narayanan.

    On the Pakistani side, there was President Pervez Musharraf, Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan, Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri and the then ISI Chief, and present Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  2.  
  3. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    Thank goodness this hasn't happened. Kashmir is like any other state of India and has to live like that without being pampered. After the racket they created, they don't deserve any special privileges. Neither their current culture is indigenous of Kashmir and nor is their mentality. All this is a 14th century import that costed thousands of other original Kashmiris their lives and their homeland.

    If Kashmir doesn't learn to fall in line, we might have to resort to force ignoring this spineless government. Tunisia's movement is a glaring example of what happens when a nation's people are pushed beyond limits.
     
    mayfair likes this.
  4. Flint

    Flint Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    This is well known. What I want to know is whether Ladakh and Jammu would get dragged into this.
     
  5. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    ^ Oh hell neither of the 3 would... it was a proposal that got rejected later thanks to some terrorist attacks in India (I am not praising the attacks, but it disrupted a spineless agreement).
     
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Any future resolution (if at all) on kashmir should be ratified only with a 2/3rds majority in parliament. Over the years the GoI, irrespective of the party in power has toed only pak agenda in talking about kashmir and never brings PoK which includes gilgit baltistan to the table. Pak has finally annexed that region as a part of its country thus changing the status quo of the entire state of jammu and kashmir. No resolution on kashmir that does not talk about this region should be accepted by the people of india.
     
  7. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    Yusuf, slowly Chinese are taking over the issue of Kashmir(including POK) from Pak. Notice the recent moves of all the parties involved...
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    India sure is missing the plot on kashmir, sadly right from the start. GB is so damn strategically important that in a final resolution of kashmir (it at all) I would consider trading a bit of the valley to get entire GB which gives india access to CAR and cuts Pak off China. Make this a condition in talks which will put pak on the defensive. So far only india has always approached talks being on the defensive. We have to get offensive.
    If there was a war to happen, india should capture parts along international border and trade it on the table with this region.
     
  9. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    India is missing the plot because I feel that the politicians are not interested in the resolution. Indian politicians seem to have some contradictory interests. Specially, the dynasty seems to be susceptible to outside pressures from foreign powers who seek to preserve pak...
    We need a dynamic leader who can break the mould and dictate the terms. This is where we miss Indira...
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Sadly Indira didn't do anything when she had bhutto by his balls. ABV first and now MMS are looking for legacy, to go down in history as the one to solve kashmir. Man this country's think tanks need to push pressure on the govt and repeatedly harp on the entire kashmir to be bought to the table. In fact I had written to a number of such people which ultimately led to a program being aired on times now regarding GB by maroof raza when wen ziabow was on town. But this needs a sustained effort from many quarters to make sure india does not end up losers on the table.
     
  11. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    467
    There are two parts of how India fails:
    a) Carrots for leaders.
    b) Sticks for leaders.

    Carrot for leaders are talk of legacy, potential nobel peace prize, or cash or kind.
    Sticks are unleashing the indian national media(which is heavily under the influence of US), or NGO/Human right activists, or revealing the dirty secrets of leaders or their party/family predeccessors, or dislodging the present Govt through opposition...etc.

    Then there is another category:
    a)Sticks for the country.

    Sticks for the country are threats of various kinds of sanctions, activating the sedition movements within various parts of India, ...etc.

    Now, India is caught in these tricks. And so, over the years, most Govts tend to balance the view of indian public and their personal interests. Thats the reason for India's patchy trackrecord. Now, a dynamic self-confident leader can break this mould and set the terms for a new reality...
     
  12. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    You all are debating on what Pakistanis are saying. One thing should be noticed here that only Pakistanis are revealing facts not Indians.
    This is what Pakistani do after each bilateral talks with India; go in press to make themselves look just. What Kasuri is saying is just an attempt to disseminate the misinformation to try smell what GoI is cooking.

    BTW I would like to know what GoI has to say about this. Any media person or RTI activist interested, its been long time? I mean why we Indians shouldn't have the say. Both parties have urgency to resolve this issue especially BJP. Even if they will have people's mandate to take decisions for us, but for Kashmir before signing any deal they should present all possible options (they agree on with Pakistan) for the referendum to all Indians above 18 years of age.

    No dhotiwala or safari suitewala should go and piss in his pants on the table, bent under bullying of Pakistan's evil friends USA and China or be deceived by some cunning Pakistani promises which they never keep but raise disagreement and debate shamelessly after some time passed.
     
  13. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    no GoI or congress spokes person has ever denied it on the contrary barkha dutt is on record saying that there is a silent yes on part of the PMO that all this was infact discussed and this is where the final solution was headed to.
     
  14. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    This is where we need Narendra Modi like man who is strong, decisive and fierce. He's the only one who can think like that right now from all parties and his thinking is reflected in the way he transformed Gujarat. I cannot think of anyone more worthy of the PM's post than him right now. Especially with Pak and China breathing down this not-so-Singh's neck.

    I just hope that fraud is lying and exaggerating because any compromise would mean that we lose this land and the party continues its dirty politics. Once the region is blanketed by Pakistan, it goes under their "very short nuclear threshold" and makes it easier for China to come in. Our side of J&K hold all the water towards Pakistan and even for a $ 100 trillion we shouldn't let it go away.

    POK is ours and we have to stress this. NaMo is the only one having the nuts to do this. No one else.
     
  15. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    coming from barkha i wont write it off someone who is very close to the congress and has a good feel on what all is happening with in so her getting all such details is not such a big thing, lets not forget she was also cutting deals for congress/dmk when the UPA2 cabinet was formed.

    if i recollect well she recently did an interview with musharraf where he talked in detail about what all was discussed with ABV and MMS at various meets on kashmir and it is here he talked about the 4 point agenda that he pro-claims was his making and then in that interview he asked her what does MMS have to say on the 4 point agenda and on how far had the things gone ahead and it is on this she reacts saying that "they (if i recollect well, then she says PMO) say a yes to it".

    if one recalls, india has insisted that the ground work has been done and india will carry on the discussion only from that point onwards (which is in reference to what the musharraf side has been saying all this while in public) and there wont be any reinventing of the wheel to which now kayani is opposed to and so all the drama now over kayani then agreeing to the 4 point agenda but why not now.

    the only obstacle is kayani and not 26/11 or cross border terrorism that has stalled the dialog, if kayani agrees, the dialog will be resumed and the deal wont be too far off on kashmir. now whether we like it or not, whether congress stays or bjp comes, this is where the kashmir dispute is headed to. getting 2/3rd majority wont be big deal because bjp will also agree to it later on though with a little noise here and there

    what kayani has done and contrary to what musharraf had done, he now has got the hardliners on board as well and with a bigger say, people like gilani had been sidelined and made irrelevant when mush was there but now the policy of pak army has changed and so one saw the street protests which were started all over again in 2008 just to make sure they could turn the tables on us on kashmir (their aim was to gain sympathy world over like what was done in palestine, but no sympathy was generated) since they see the WoT, their land used as transit and influence on aghan taliban as a big bargaining chip on kashmir though from the looks of it the US is not ready to give in since india has said a blunt no to restarting the whole process from scratch and then there is the bulging economic muscle that no one can ignore and rather than any sympathy pakistan was lectured on flow of terrorism and the need to stop it.
     
  16. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    here it is :-

     
  17. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    The deal got stalled not because of the 26/11 attacks but because Musharraf had sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan and his presidency was in turmoil. This happened way back in 2007 March. So this stall came from the Pakistani side first due to political compulsions. Then after the 26/11 attacks the Indian side cut of the composite dialouge as well.

    The point to be noted is that this solution has been worked through two governments. The BJP led NDA and the Congress led UPA. The contours of the solution in both the governments were around no change of LoC or converting of LoC to IB. So to say this party or that party will have a different agenda is frankly speaking not the reality. IF we go back to the BJP policy on Kashmir in 2003-2004 you will understand what I mean.Other than Kashmir, there was the Siachen and the Sir Creek issue that has also been considered finalised for a number of years.

    The fact of the matter is that China will be the spoiler here. Even if Kashmir is resolved, lets not forget that Arunachal Pradesh is claimed almost in full by China. I don't think the trust level is still up to the mark that even after signing the deal it would be implemented in full unless there is complete cessation of terrorist activities and shutting down of groups like LeT e.t.c. that indulged in cross-border terrorism. China would prefer that the Kashmir issue remains unresolved and it will do its level best to keep it unresolved.

    On the other hand, its in the US interest to have it resolved and get India and Pakistan to co-operrate with each other rather than with China. So the US will definitely be trying its level best to resolve the Kashmir issue.
     
  18. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Khurshid M. Kasuri: We Were This Close To A Peace Accord
    -ForbesIndia


    Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri
    Age: 69
    Designation: Chairman of the steering committee of Pakistan Muslim League
    Education: Law Tripos from Cambridge, post graduate study in politics at Oxford, called to the Bar from Gray’s Inn, London (a professional association for barristers and judges)
    Career: Senior vice president of the Pakistan Muslim League and former foreign minister of Pakistan under the Pervez Musharraf regime (2004-2007)
    Hobbies: Reading, swimming

    You made the rather startling revelation that India and Pakistan had almost concluded an agreement on Kashmir by the end of 2006. What were the main points of this agreement?
    First, there would be gradual de-militarisation in Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC). Nothing would fly without that. The second one was that Kashmir would have a special status. So we had worked out a very complex scheme of self-governance which the Indians insisted must be replicated on the other side of the border too. So we agreed to that [move] which would provide maximum self-governance in many areas [of Kashmir]. Then, for the Kashmiris to feel that they had achieved the bare minimum, the LoC would cease to be of any meaning. Because Kashmir could, for purpose of movement of persons and goods, feel that it was one entity. So it was agreed that there would be no barrier on the movement of people and goods, which means that there would be no visas and passports. They would just travel on the basis of an identity card, because without that we could not have sold the agreement to the people of Pakistan. The conflict was costing South Asia far too much and that is why we wanted a settlement.

    There were some areas which were of common interest, like tourism, because Kashmiris live by tourism; or a water sharing arrangement, [a lack of which] can cause massive problems between Pakistan and India in the future. We had discussed how Kashmiris on both sides would be represented, but we were still discussing how the Indian and Pakistanis would be represented in the joint mechanism. It needed a few more months. We had also [decided] that we [would review it in] 10 to 15 years, so that if people found that there are some problems in its implementation, then the agreement could be improved. So no key issues were left unresolved.

    So what held it back from being finally concluded?
    We felt that if the Indian prime minister were to come to Pakistan towards the end of 2006 and sign the Sir Creek agreement [regarding coastline disputes], then it would provide a change in the atmosphere. [Everyone would] believe that Pakistan India can resolve issues bilaterally, without third party intervention. [This] would be a big thing for Pakistan also because Pakistan has historically demanded third party intervention. The Sir Creek agreement, if it was signed, would have provided a massive boost to the Pakistani and Indian negotiators and the remaining 10-15 percent [of the Kashmir agreement] would have been nothing. But the Indian PM could not come due to elections in five or six states. [The date was then set for March 2007] and I wish we had given him February instead. In March 2007, all hell was let loose; all the furies were out on the road (against President Pervez Musharraf). The lawyers were out in full force with the media supporting them. And so the President asked me if we should call the Indian prime minister and I said ‘No, don’t call him, because if we call him now, with the lawyers and media against us, with parts of civil society against us, we will not be able to sell this deal to the people despite the fact that this was the best agreement, in my opinion, that could ever be done.’

    So has the consensus been lost?
    I don’t think our work has been lost. The Pakistani decision makers know the maximum that India can live with, and the Indians know the minimum that Pakistan needs. Now, that is no small achievement.

    Was there a formal Kashmiri contingent that took part in these negotiations?
    No, no. Pakistan wanted formal Kashmiri participation but the Indian government said no. So there was a compromise. So we convinced the government of India to at least allow them to travel to Pakistan. And we allowed our people to travel to Delhi and Srinagar. India allowed people to travel to Pakistan and Muzzafarabad (in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir). So this was the best we could achieve. But believe me when I say that most Kashmiris were on board.

    In the past decade, India’s economy has grown rapidly. Did that help or impede the peace process?
    It has helped the peace process. In fact, the best time in our negotiations was when both the countries were growing. Two years after we heard about the ‘BRIC’, we heard about ‘N-11’, or the Next 11 economies which included countries like Pakistan, Turkey and Argentina. In fact, in one of the years we grew at 8.6 percent, second only to China, even higher than India. We had a lot at stake. We had a lot of [reasons] to have peace.

    So I think the fact that there was greater prosperity in South Asia was something that encouraged both, Pakistani and Indian decision makers to adopt the path less travelled.

    You have been an observer of Indo-Pak negotiations. Is there some innovative solution, some new element that can help the peace process?
    [It will help] if we encourage people-to-people contact; media is a part of that. [We should have] a liberal visa regime. You see, for some strange reason, bureaucracy in both countries think exactly the same way. [Smiles wryly] I don’t know why, or who has trained them, but they react in exactly the same manner. Like when we were discussing Sir Creek, we were told (by our own bureaucracy) that there were huge oil deposits. So I said to the President, how come all the oil deposits can only be found in these very 50 miles. We have 1,500 miles of coastline along the Baluchistan-Sindh coast, but we found nothing there. It seemed everything will be found in this area…gold, gas and oil [laughs]. So these are very entrenched approaches which only politicians can get over. That is their strength. But then, you need politicians who are willing to spend political capital and not always looking to count their votes.

    The new element that you asked me is the media; because media is composed of people with differing views. Media encourages debate and I think the one thing which can make a difference is the presence of free media on both sides. The one single reason that I am optimistic is because of the power of the media to break barriers; and bureaucracy won’t do it.
     
  19. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    " Backed by Pak Army Chief, a Kashmir deal was nearly reached: Kasuri" this is joke or what because same pak army chief today questions the vaildity of back channel negotiation which where held in past whom he was supposed to be supporting . at present same army chief is today not ready to acknowledge the result of back channel negotiation and everybody in pakistan know - how says that this was sole flight of pakistan`s ex president general Pervez Musharraf
     

Share This Page