Should LOC be made the International border?

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by A.V., May 26, 2010.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    For long the talks have been focussed on this many a time things were close but standing at this juncture for the benefit of sout asia for the people of kashmir should not the two countries namely india and pakistan rise above their ego and present to the world a new face , a new generation and new ideas for south asia...

    what might be the pros and cons .?
    whats the biggest hurdle ?
    what other alternatives do you suggest in a peaceful way?
     
  2.  
  3. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Question between india and pakistan is not like if LOC be made permaent boundary or should India give J&K to pakistan or should india set J&K free.....But the real quest is that will pakistan stop its ever india hating attitude???...or the question is will pakistan mind its own business after that????will pakistan stop confronting india after that????

    I would say Answet is big NO.Pakistan will keep churning out hatred against india and keep creating issues like water just to keep india off-balance and will thus make legitimate case of using terrorism against india.Just like in afghanistan.if we look at pakistani reasoning --india doesnt have border with afghanistan so they india should not have relation with afghanistan.....This is just one example......Today they have created one new issue of questioning the validity of dam on sutlej, on which it has no Locus-stand(check out the Pakistan misleading its people about india stealing indus water,beating war drums)

    So the real thing is not that of kashmir but that there is no end to pakistani paranoia against india and one that of identity.Pakistan since its inception trying to define itself in terms of anti-india identity and and culture.And in that defining process they got confused and this confusion cleanly seen in this thrad ..( The state of Pakistan, a discussion on Pakistan's ideology & identity crisis)....Let me quote from the same thread...

    Jihadi public schools?


    He even addresses to kuldip nayar type who think peace between ind-pak is possible???


    And regarding identitity and culture confusion i had once said in thread.... Indians view of pakistan and pakistanis

    You are totally wrong in assumption that problem between india and pakistan is that of islamophobia.If indians were islamophobic as the west is then why india is only islamophobic with pakistan only why mot with any other islamic country.If indians are islamophobic then why they need pakistan indians have enough muslims in india to be islamophobic about..but indians are not......The problem of tensions between india and pakistan is not islam or islamophobia or even kashmir or water but that of the identity.Pakistan since its inception trying to establish an identity that is different from india,which was the basic premise of making pakistan i.e different people,different religion,different culture and different identity.And in search of new different identity pakistan got totally confused and resulted in today's quagmire.Once EMo had beautifully said in thread After FB, Pak further bans Flickr, Youtube & Wikipedia. Edit Twitter, Blackberry too about the pakistan's identity problem and all this confusion...i'm quoting whole of her post here.


    So in order to establish an identity as arab /turkish different from indian identity pakistan tends to be in constant confrontation with india.So every time pakistan creats issues out of thin air to seek confrontation with india(latest being the indus water issue)...kashmir was such a issue created to to seek confrontation with india.pakistan says kashmir is muslim majority province so it has to be with pakistan by that logic all muslim majority districts, provinces all over world has to be with pakistan...now you see the flaw in its logic....

    Bottom line is that through constant confrontation pakistan like to show that they have different identity from india.If you check out the above conversation with emo you will realise it in her posts too that even though she excepts that pakistan tries to be like everyone but she is not ready to accept the sggestion that pakistan is more like india.And thats the identity crisis even she is suffering from.....


    So the point is that kashmir water afganistan etc are just symptoms.Real problem lies with pakistan even if you solve all the issues according to their satisfaction it wont take long for pakistan to pull out new issue.Peace can not be possible with pakistan with sweet talk indian must wield big stick to correct the course..AS they say in proverb," Spare the rod and spoil the child".Even Pakistan's own repoter wrote in daily times today and i quote again...

     
  4. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Geopolitics mistakes wich were the origin of the conflict of Kashmir


    [​IMG]

    The causes of the conflict of Kashmir were many, which you will be able to see at the end of this document - the access to the specific and better documented sites. This Web site proposes a thought of the particular topography of Kashmir and which were, at the time, the root of the conflict of Kashmir.

    Geography is a means of knowledge which also takes into account the heights of the mountains, the lengths of rivers, etc. the social and economic situation of the time, so that it basically, meets a fundamental need which allows to act on the ground. Geography makes use of this information and it’s, more or less high degree of accuracy, enables the people to have an important advantage in a conflict. To behold the geographic keys is to have the base of geopolitics and the military strategy. The punishment of a geographical ignorance is inevitably war. The particular topography of Kashmir, extremely mountainous, had unevitable consequences on the problems of an already complicated partition.
    At the time of the partition, the principal economic situation of Kashmir was forgotten because it was less necessary to seek the richness in its earth, rather than in the immense and unexpected richness that the mountains can offer - thus water was the forgotten element of the partition. By declaring that Kashmir was “the jugular vein of Pakistan” Jinnah underlined a geographic fact of considerable strategic importance. In these areas, water is not only “necessary” to life, it is “life itself” and this expression becomes very important especially at this latitude which is equal to the deserts of Baloutchistan, the Rajasthan and Takla makham, where the rainfall is even less than in the Sahara. The partition of 1947 deprived Pakistan of its river sources of Penjab of Jelhum, Chenab, the delighted one, Beas and Sutlej - rivers which gave birth to the name of the Penjab province. These five river, the sources are in Kashmir, are vital for the economy of the country. The Indus basin in which the majority of the Pakistani population lives, concentrates all the richness of the country and it is supplied by water of various rivers and their affluents. This richness, as well as the formidable icecap of the northern areas, comes from one and the same origin, Kashmir. Without speaking about the sacred character of the Indus river, to conquer these highlands, would allow Pakistan to control the whole Indus flow whose source can be found on the annexed Tibetain grounds of the Chinese ally. The speed by which the partition was set up as well as the geographical ignorance of North Kashmir at that time in the middle of the last century, probably was of great importance in the conflict of Kashmir which opposed India, China and Pakistan. On August 15, 1947, date of the partition, the geography was not better known than in 1937, when Shipton wrote his book “Blank on the map” the title describes the sorry character of these forgotten Arctic areas by humans. The layout of the borders between India and Pakistan, at the time of the partition, was decided upon by a special commission between the 21st and the 24th of July 1947 in only 11 days. These 11 days were not long enough for the commission to decide on the Kashmir borders, whose geography was, in many cases, always vague or even unknown. The considerable amount of information reported by the Survey of India, followed by explorations of Goldwin Austen, Conway of Baltoro, Shipton in the areas of Panmah, Shaksgam and Biafo, the Bullock couple in the areas of Hispar and Siachen, were all ignored. The first existance of Kashmir is the probable consequence of this ignorance.
    In 1962, the area of Aksin Shin, remote aand backwards, was added to India for the same reasons. This negligent Indian strategy, which lead to the loss of their territory, because, at first sight, it seemed without economic value, will have serious consequences to the conflict of Kashmir especially regarding the credibility of the Indian military forces.The origin of the second Pakistani Indo war and the acceleration of the nuclearisation of the conflict of Kashmir. Lastly, during the crisis of Kargil in 1999, India had much trouble to get rid of the Pakistani forces as well as the infiltrated Kashmiries, because, with their excellent knowledge of their homeland and good resistance to altitude, they held an advantage over the Indian military. These exemples particulary show up to what point geographic knowledge is of major importance when war is at stake.This had unquestionable consequences on the conflict of Kashmir especially in this part of the world where ground is very difficult.


    Geographers in Kashmir
    Geographical science, when shared with the art of war, is in the interest to control territory. The obvious link between geography and war is the cartography. Already in the 19th century, the British Raj, wanting to affirm his domination in Asia, trusted the British officers who travelled the remote mountains and back are as of the north, with the cartography of the Indian sub continent and its borders. They were long, difficult and perilous missions. Sir Godwin Austen, as well as George Everest were Survey Officers of India. They devoted their lives to writing pages of figures, going through cold and inhospitable places, sometimes disguised as natives, sometimes illness took over, but they always continued to add their contribution to this enormous task, the establishment of a detailed chart of the sub continent. From the south of India in 1808, the great Survey Officers progressed step by step. The Everest (Peak XV) was only identified in 1848 and K2 in 1856, after half a century of exploration.

    G. Hayward
    In the 19th centuary, all of the sheltered kingdoms of the Himalayas were prohibited, for eg, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim as well as Kashmir. One can measure the exclusiveness of these regions and the difficulty of going through their mysteries by reading “Voyage in Tibet” written by Alexandra David Neel and also “Annapurna, first 8000” where Herzog was the first one of the Westerners to open the doors of Kathmandu in 1950. The high, remote back valley of Kashmir, which have a more septtentrional climate than the Himalayas in the South and are closed by snow during the winter, are separated by unclimable mountains. They sheltered various populations who lead a self-sufficient life and were not very open to dialogues. The rulers and the kings of these high valleys made war from one valley to another. The tradition of armed robbery damaged their reputation and brought misfortune to the travellers who went to these high valleys. Karakorum meant “ the black mountains”, which refers less to their colour than to the danger of the paths that the merchants of the silk road were obliged to use. These rulers and heads of tribes kept and strongly protected geographical information which had come into their valleys. The geographicers were then compared to spies. George Hayward, explorer and geographer, paid with his life for his curiosity. He was assassinated in 1870 in Darkot by mir it Walli who worried about the disclosure of the cartography of his valley. These mirs still reigned as masters of their valleys in 1947, at the time of the partition, the country was still completely closed in. These difficulties made good geographic knowledge impossible regarding these highlands and consequently the good partition of Kashmir of 1945, was wrong.

    Alexandra David Neel
    It is difficult to find precise maps of the Kashmir area, they are held by the major states of the armies for obvious strategic reasons. It is still the case in all the massives of the Himalayas. It is curios to note that cartography can be used as a propaganda media, which makes it very political. It is enough to consult several maps of the Indian sub continent to notice that at what point the borders of the 3 countries in Kashmir are changing. Recently, to please the 3 opponents, the World Bank “disadvised” its cartographic Service not to produce maps of the Indian peninsula which could be too precise and show the Kashmir area. Another example, the official altitude of K2 of 8611m was questioned in 1976 by a Pakistani expedition which recalculated its altitude up to 8760m. Another expedition, American this time, recalculated its altitude with the help of a satellite to 8858m, i.i. higher than Everest. For the highest mountain top not to be in Nepal any more (a country politivcally dominated by India) but in Pakistan has obvious political repercussions (the altitude of K2 was later recalculated by Italians and was closer to that of origin). Recently, India opened for expeditions, the powerful tops of the eastern Karakorum, even tough there are violent arguments about this. Expeditions must obligatorily be composed of the Indian army. To conquer the tops, and to make false altitudes in order to represent political borders without definition, are sometimes necessary excercises and part of a means to obtain political goals. The war that the 3 opponents delivered in Kashmir is also part of this manipulation and we may suggest that the territory is also part of a psychological war.

    The real dispute about Siachen territory really started when India worried about the climbing permits granted to the mountaineers by the Pakistani authorities, in the region that was not yet clearly defined in the 1980 maps. India saw a means to expand and started to train its picked groups of soldiers in the 80ties in the arctic, having their men go through hardships and extreme conditions, hardships based on cold weather conditions (this is still the case today as part of the Indian manoeuvres will take place jointly with their US partners in Alaska). After the Indian invasion of the Siachen glacier, Pakistan precisely calls this as " cartographic aggression " coming from India, indirectly pointing out the importance of cartographic gaps of these remote areas and the consequences of a never-ending conflict of Kashmir. Now it is necessary for the bellingent to defend the nation up to the far territories of its ice.

    An extraordinary event was that in 1947 or 1949 none of the governments nor the superior officers who set up and co-signed the line of control (LOC) on the topographic maps, thought it necessary to go as far as the Chinese border. Did they have the geographical knowledge of these remote areas to be able to decide and trace some kind of a border? Probably not. The written agreement only states that after the NJ9842 point, the line goes as "far as the north up to glaciers". This huge inaccuracy leads to the dispute of the two countries who intend to become owners of this area, 35 yrs later, the Siachen glacier in 1984.

    The Siachen war started precisely where the geographical maps ended in the north of the NJ9842 point. India claimed its border as from the high mountains of Saltoro up to the top of Gasherbrun (8068m) by going through the strategic passes of Bilafond and Sia. The Siachen glacier is therefore Indian according to Delhi, based on a hydrographical argument: the Nubra river that flows downstream from Siachen and that irrigates Indian Ladakh, must belong to them up to its source. Pakistan, however, demands the border set up in 1949, which means, the one that separates the Siachen glacier into two, the upstream belonging to them by right.
    Today, the new military technics of observation (in particular satellite observation, drones,…) and the reinforcement of communication means, improve the monitoring of the control line and stabilize the concerned forces. Invations, similar to those of 1962 and even 1999, are no longer possible, even more so because these extremely mountainous areas cannot be used as fast and significant openings. It only allows the infiltration of small groups of armed men whose terrorist activity in Kashmir is still currently more significant either – befor or after the winter, when the high passes are accessible after the melting of snow.


    Not to know all about this mountainous area was probably one of the many causes of the conflict of Kashmir. Perhaps the enclosure and the very mountainous topography of this part of the world will, in the future, avoid some misunderstandings. Today, in a conflict context, geographical information refering to Kashmir is kept secret defense. Certain territories, like the glacier of Siachen, the solid mass of Kailash or Aksin Chin, remain of very difficult access, they are isolated by mines and the control line remains solid. They are much more accessible to a satellite exploration than to a human exploration, it is always “Blank on the Map”.
     
  5. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Geopolitics mistakes wich were the origin of the conflict of Kashmir


    [​IMG]

    The causes of the conflict of Kashmir were many, which you will be able to see at the end of this document - the access to the specific and better documented sites. This Web site proposes a thought of the particular topography of Kashmir and which were, at the time, the root of the conflict of Kashmir.

    Geography is a means of knowledge which also takes into account the heights of the mountains, the lengths of rivers, etc. the social and economic situation of the time, so that it basically, meets a fundamental need which allows to act on the ground. Geography makes use of this information and it’s, more or less high degree of accuracy, enables the people to have an important advantage in a conflict. To behold the geographic keys is to have the base of geopolitics and the military strategy. The punishment of a geographical ignorance is inevitably war. The particular topography of Kashmir, extremely mountainous, had unevitable consequences on the problems of an already complicated partition.
    At the time of the partition, the principal economic situation of Kashmir was forgotten because it was less necessary to seek the richness in its earth, rather than in the immense and unexpected richness that the mountains can offer - thus water was the forgotten element of the partition. By declaring that Kashmir was “the jugular vein of Pakistan” Jinnah underlined a geographic fact of considerable strategic importance. In these areas, water is not only “necessary” to life, it is “life itself” and this expression becomes very important especially at this latitude which is equal to the deserts of Baloutchistan, the Rajasthan and Takla makham, where the rainfall is even less than in the Sahara. The partition of 1947 deprived Pakistan of its river sources of Penjab of Jelhum, Chenab, the delighted one, Beas and Sutlej - rivers which gave birth to the name of the Penjab province. These five river, the sources are in Kashmir, are vital for the economy of the country. The Indus basin in which the majority of the Pakistani population lives, concentrates all the richness of the country and it is supplied by water of various rivers and their affluents. This richness, as well as the formidable icecap of the northern areas, comes from one and the same origin, Kashmir. Without speaking about the sacred character of the Indus river, to conquer these highlands, would allow Pakistan to control the whole Indus flow whose source can be found on the annexed Tibetain grounds of the Chinese ally. The speed by which the partition was set up as well as the geographical ignorance of North Kashmir at that time in the middle of the last century, probably was of great importance in the conflict of Kashmir which opposed India, China and Pakistan. On August 15, 1947, date of the partition, the geography was not better known than in 1937, when Shipton wrote his book “Blank on the map” the title describes the sorry character of these forgotten Arctic areas by humans. The layout of the borders between India and Pakistan, at the time of the partition, was decided upon by a special commission between the 21st and the 24th of July 1947 in only 11 days. These 11 days were not long enough for the commission to decide on the Kashmir borders, whose geography was, in many cases, always vague or even unknown. The considerable amount of information reported by the Survey of India, followed by explorations of Goldwin Austen, Conway of Baltoro, Shipton in the areas of Panmah, Shaksgam and Biafo, the Bullock couple in the areas of Hispar and Siachen, were all ignored. The first existance of Kashmir is the probable consequence of this ignorance.
    In 1962, the area of Aksin Shin, remote aand backwards, was added to India for the same reasons. This negligent Indian strategy, which lead to the loss of their territory, because, at first sight, it seemed without economic value, will have serious consequences to the conflict of Kashmir especially regarding the credibility of the Indian military forces.The origin of the second Pakistani Indo war and the acceleration of the nuclearisation of the conflict of Kashmir. Lastly, during the crisis of Kargil in 1999, India had much trouble to get rid of the Pakistani forces as well as the infiltrated Kashmiries, because, with their excellent knowledge of their homeland and good resistance to altitude, they held an advantage over the Indian military. These exemples particulary show up to what point geographic knowledge is of major importance when war is at stake.This had unquestionable consequences on the conflict of Kashmir especially in this part of the world where ground is very difficult.


    Geographers in Kashmir
    Geographical science, when shared with the art of war, is in the interest to control territory. The obvious link between geography and war is the cartography. Already in the 19th century, the British Raj, wanting to affirm his domination in Asia, trusted the British officers who travelled the remote mountains and back are as of the north, with the cartography of the Indian sub continent and its borders. They were long, difficult and perilous missions. Sir Godwin Austen, as well as George Everest were Survey Officers of India. They devoted their lives to writing pages of figures, going through cold and inhospitable places, sometimes disguised as natives, sometimes illness took over, but they always continued to add their contribution to this enormous task, the establishment of a detailed chart of the sub continent. From the south of India in 1808, the great Survey Officers progressed step by step. The Everest (Peak XV) was only identified in 1848 and K2 in 1856, after half a century of exploration.

    G. Hayward
    In the 19th centuary, all of the sheltered kingdoms of the Himalayas were prohibited, for eg, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim as well as Kashmir. One can measure the exclusiveness of these regions and the difficulty of going through their mysteries by reading “Voyage in Tibet” written by Alexandra David Neel and also “Annapurna, first 8000” where Herzog was the first one of the Westerners to open the doors of Kathmandu in 1950. The high, remote back valley of Kashmir, which have a more septtentrional climate than the Himalayas in the South and are closed by snow during the winter, are separated by unclimable mountains. They sheltered various populations who lead a self-sufficient life and were not very open to dialogues. The rulers and the kings of these high valleys made war from one valley to another. The tradition of armed robbery damaged their reputation and brought misfortune to the travellers who went to these high valleys. Karakorum meant “ the black mountains”, which refers less to their colour than to the danger of the paths that the merchants of the silk road were obliged to use. These rulers and heads of tribes kept and strongly protected geographical information which had come into their valleys. The geographicers were then compared to spies. George Hayward, explorer and geographer, paid with his life for his curiosity. He was assassinated in 1870 in Darkot by mir it Walli who worried about the disclosure of the cartography of his valley. These mirs still reigned as masters of their valleys in 1947, at the time of the partition, the country was still completely closed in. These difficulties made good geographic knowledge impossible regarding these highlands and consequently the good partition of Kashmir of 1945, was wrong.

    Alexandra David Neel
    It is difficult to find precise maps of the Kashmir area, they are held by the major states of the armies for obvious strategic reasons. It is still the case in all the massives of the Himalayas. It is curios to note that cartography can be used as a propaganda media, which makes it very political. It is enough to consult several maps of the Indian sub continent to notice that at what point the borders of the 3 countries in Kashmir are changing. Recently, to please the 3 opponents, the World Bank “disadvised” its cartographic Service not to produce maps of the Indian peninsula which could be too precise and show the Kashmir area. Another example, the official altitude of K2 of 8611m was questioned in 1976 by a Pakistani expedition which recalculated its altitude up to 8760m. Another expedition, American this time, recalculated its altitude with the help of a satellite to 8858m, i.i. higher than Everest. For the highest mountain top not to be in Nepal any more (a country politivcally dominated by India) but in Pakistan has obvious political repercussions (the altitude of K2 was later recalculated by Italians and was closer to that of origin). Recently, India opened for expeditions, the powerful tops of the eastern Karakorum, even tough there are violent arguments about this. Expeditions must obligatorily be composed of the Indian army. To conquer the tops, and to make false altitudes in order to represent political borders without definition, are sometimes necessary excercises and part of a means to obtain political goals. The war that the 3 opponents delivered in Kashmir is also part of this manipulation and we may suggest that the territory is also part of a psychological war.

    The real dispute about Siachen territory really started when India worried about the climbing permits granted to the mountaineers by the Pakistani authorities, in the region that was not yet clearly defined in the 1980 maps. India saw a means to expand and started to train its picked groups of soldiers in the 80ties in the arctic, having their men go through hardships and extreme conditions, hardships based on cold weather conditions (this is still the case today as part of the Indian manoeuvres will take place jointly with their US partners in Alaska). After the Indian invasion of the Siachen glacier, Pakistan precisely calls this as " cartographic aggression " coming from India, indirectly pointing out the importance of cartographic gaps of these remote areas and the consequences of a never-ending conflict of Kashmir. Now it is necessary for the bellingent to defend the nation up to the far territories of its ice.

    An extraordinary event was that in 1947 or 1949 none of the governments nor the superior officers who set up and co-signed the line of control (LOC) on the topographic maps, thought it necessary to go as far as the Chinese border. Did they have the geographical knowledge of these remote areas to be able to decide and trace some kind of a border? Probably not. The written agreement only states that after the NJ9842 point, the line goes as "far as the north up to glaciers". This huge inaccuracy leads to the dispute of the two countries who intend to become owners of this area, 35 yrs later, the Siachen glacier in 1984.

    The Siachen war started precisely where the geographical maps ended in the north of the NJ9842 point. India claimed its border as from the high mountains of Saltoro up to the top of Gasherbrun (8068m) by going through the strategic passes of Bilafond and Sia. The Siachen glacier is therefore Indian according to Delhi, based on a hydrographical argument: the Nubra river that flows downstream from Siachen and that irrigates Indian Ladakh, must belong to them up to its source. Pakistan, however, demands the border set up in 1949, which means, the one that separates the Siachen glacier into two, the upstream belonging to them by right.
    Today, the new military technics of observation (in particular satellite observation, drones,…) and the reinforcement of communication means, improve the monitoring of the control line and stabilize the concerned forces. Invations, similar to those of 1962 and even 1999, are no longer possible, even more so because these extremely mountainous areas cannot be used as fast and significant openings. It only allows the infiltration of small groups of armed men whose terrorist activity in Kashmir is still currently more significant either – befor or after the winter, when the high passes are accessible after the melting of snow.


    Not to know all about this mountainous area was probably one of the many causes of the conflict of Kashmir. Perhaps the enclosure and the very mountainous topography of this part of the world will, in the future, avoid some misunderstandings. Today, in a conflict context, geographical information refering to Kashmir is kept secret defense. Certain territories, like the glacier of Siachen, the solid mass of Kailash or Aksin Chin, remain of very difficult access, they are isolated by mines and the control line remains solid. They are much more accessible to a satellite exploration than to a human exploration, it is always “Blank on the Map”.
     
  6. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    read this to understand why POK is important for india....

    India and the Great Game


    By Kosla Vepa PhD

    The term Great Game popularized by Rudyard Kipling in his famous novel Kim, has its origin in the astonishing conquests of Temujin, the Mongol warrior more popularly known as Genghiz Khan. This child of the steppe , was so effective in subjugating the duchies of Eastern Europe after laying waste many of the cities of Central Asia, that he was called the ‘Scourge of God’. At its peak, the Mongol Horde and the successor Khanates controlled not only Central Asia , China , Persia, most of what is now Russia, but had crossed the major rivers of Eastern Europe. It was not until the 15th century, almost 2 centuries after the advent of Temujin that the Muscovites were able to stand up to the successors of the Golden Horde. The small but insignificant Muscovite Duchy eventually laid the foundation for the Great Game and conquered most of Asia. Russia, the name for the land of the Rus, expanded eastward and southward in successive waves, waves so powerful that in the ‘course of four centuries, the Czarist empire grew at the remarkable average of fifty five square miles a day’

    Thus was born the name Great Game as it was called by the British and as the Tournament of Shadows by the Russians. It was a deadly serious game starting from the late 1700’s just about the time the British had consolidated their hold on India. The main players in the game were Czarist Russia and Britain. What is interesting by today’s standards and notions is that it was Czarist Russia which was expansionist and the Soviet Union, its successor which eventually dismantled a substantial portion of this empire in 1991. There were many subsidiary players including Napoleon, the Turks, the Germans, the Iranians, the Japanese, the Central Asian Khanates and last but not least the Chinese.

    Is it a coincidence that the Great Game started at about the same time as the consolidation of British power in the Indian subcontinent. Not really. Britain was the pre-eminent power during that period. It’s navy was unmatched and it ruled the sea lanes of the world. Yet as Victorian scholar J. R. Seeley observes “Every movement in Turkey, every new symptom in Egypt, any stirrings in Persia or Transoxania or Burmah or Afghanistan, we are obliged to watch with vigilance. The reason is that we have possession of India, and a leading interest in all those countries which lie upon the route to India. This and only this involves us in the permanent rivalry with Russia, which is for England in the nineteenth century what the competition with France for the New World was for the eighteenth century. It is very clear , the raison d’etre of the Great Game, was India.

    Thus began a series of clandestine ‘explorations’ to exotic places such as Khiva, Merv, Bokhara, Samarkhand, Tashkent, Kashgar, Khokand, Herat, Kandahar, Chitral, Leh, by intrepid adventurers from both England and Russia. These adventures are chronicled in great detail by Peter Hopkirk in ‘The Great Game’ and in ‘Tournament of Shadows’ by Karl Meyer and Shareen Brysac. The point to make however is that the purpose of the Great Game was from the point of view of Britain to keep control of India, the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire and on the part of Russia it was to wrest control of the heartland of Asia to challenge the British control over the oceans and of India.

    After the advent of WW II and the consequent break up of the British Empire, there was a change in the nature of the Great Game. The great Game essentially morphed into a Cold War. Now there was an ideological underpinning to what was a merely a land grab by Britain and Russia. Mackinder’s hypothesis was that whoever possessed the landmasses would dominate. It was now possible to cloak the suspicion of Russian imperial ambitions and the resulting massive land grab , in an ideological garb, as a fight against Communism. India’s compulsions in having to find a steady and reliable supplier of weapons, gave one more excuse for the US/UK alliance to wrest Kashmir from India.

    But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Documents newly released indicate that Lord Wavell, then Viceroy of India had concluded in 1945 that a Congress Party government in Delhi would not support Britain in its endeavors to counter a Soviet thrust downwards towards the oilfields of the Gulf, and it would therefore be prudent on the part of Britain to concede his demand for Pakistan, in the hope that a loyal Muslim League would keep watch on behalf of Britain on the strategic northwest abutting Iran and Afghanistan. Mountbatten had as much as told the Maharaja of Kashmir on June ,1947 that Delhi would have no objection if he acceded his state to Pakistan. In fact it was never the intention of Britain that Kashmir fall into India’s hands.

    Finally we come to the latest version of the Great Game or as GG3 as some have dubbed it. First let us review the background to the GG3 as it is currently being played. Second we will review the principles under which GG3 operates. The situation changed radically with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The reasons why this happened is not the subject of this column at this time, but the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet union were indeed far reaching. Several countries became independent overnight as a result. Among them were the Central Asian republics Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, where much of the drama of the Great game in the nineteenth century was played out. Countries that were a blur in people’s consciousness and could barely be pronounced , suddenly leapt into prominence. What was of interest to the West and to India was that, while these countries had Islamic populations in varying degrees, their world view was colored by their long association with the Soviet Central State and prior to that with Russia. Most importantly many of these countries especially those bordering the Caspian Sea had extensive energy resources of oil and natural gas, without at the same time having the burden of supporting the needs of a large population. The paramount question was how to transport these resources to the countries that needed this energy.

    Other issues including religion will continue to play a major role in the region for many more decades. That Afghanistan is particularly crucial as it was during the days of the Great Game is obvious even today , in spite of the failed attempt of Pakistan to play a major role in dominating this region. Afghanistan continues to be the hub of American operations to control the spread of international terrorism.

    GG3 revolves therefore around theocracy, resources, drugs, terrorism, trade and territory. The countries vitally interested in these issues and in the region are the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. From India’s standpoint recent events have generally tended to favor the long term strategic interest of India. India’s relations with Afghanistan are being restored to a level that approaches the friendly relations during the immediate years after 1947. Each of the above factors forms a compelling reason for India to take a keen interest in developing a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with the Central Asian Republics. Srinagar can form the hub of an expanding trade relationship with the region.

    The US has now a toehold in more than one country in the region and hence Kashmir loses the importance that it once had during the days when most of central Asia was controlled by the Soviets. Diminished interest on the part of the US does not mean complete neglect of the region however, and it is safe to say that the US motives in Kashmir are driven by more than mere altruism. Even the British are shedding their long held post WW II aversion and allergy to a strong and economically prosperous India.

    Thus, while it is a reasonable premise to make that Kashmir is no longer central to the interests of the US/UK alliance, it is obvious that Central Asia remains as important as ever to India as it was to the British during their Imperial era. This realization has definitely taken concrete shape in Delhi , as one sees a steadily increasing presence of India in these republics.
     
  7. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    good article but i donot think so indian policy makers are interested in capturing pok that why Iran/Afghanistan angles are being explored (but without any success). but one fact didn`t went behind my throat while pakistan first president mr Jinnah has foresight of kashmir beign imporatant both parts kashmir + Gilgit and Baltistan while our prime minister nehru didn`t had so much foresight so he didn`t went till gilgit and baltistn and stopped militrary activity in the middle=sad
     
  8. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    While I'm sure most of us are familiar with the treatise presented here on Pakistan's virulent activities I think it's rather ironic that you address Pakistan's paranoia by an even more paranoid rant of your own. What you're advocating here is that the GoI should make decisions based on how Pakistanis perceive matters and on projections of their future thoughts/actions and their existential philosophy at large. This is not how responsible states (or sane ones) conduct critical decision making. Intelligent policies when it comes to chronic conflict zones are made based on the needs of the focal area and with the broader perspective of the national interest. Kashmir has been a humanitarian disaster for a very long time. On the Indian side the chronic military occupation has ravaged its society along with the jihadi spurts here and there, and on the Pakistani side Kashmir is a designated jihad production factory and a terrorism center of excellence with patronage from the military of course. Clearly nobody has really thought of the millions of people who inhabit the area who either have to contend with a heavy handed occupation or a torn social fabric inundated with radicalism and violence.

    If the LoC is to be declared a national boundary it should be because it:
    1. Benefits Kashmiris: Once the aura of uncertainty is removed Kashmir can be rehabilitated financially, especially through better local policy. The ambiguity itself is a major driver of this insurgency. Removing that will go a long way in resolving this issue.
    2. Benefits India: By hopefully reducing the large amount of resource expended upon the military occupation of Kashmir which has no returns. And by making Kashmir more socially and financially viable for everyone to enjoy.
    3. Benefits Pakistani: Perhaps giving them an opportunity to move away from this vicious cycle of radicalism and terrorism and concentrate on the financial and social rehabilitation of their side of Kashmir. Now whether they make use of such an opportunity or not is entirely up to them.
    If both sides of Kashmir are stabilized and prosperous there is a realistic chance of opening up of borders. Of course it would be great if Kashmir were to be an independent state, but it is clear that neither India nor Pakistan has any intention of letting go and even if they were to do so, a small region drained of its valuable human resource only to be replaced by radicalism and violence would end up being a gangrenous entity and a burden for everyone.

    Either way, these are some of the reasons that should be taken into account when debating the status of the LoC, not Pakistan's obsession with a separate identity.
     
    Soham likes this.
  9. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    you are making wrong assumptions here.Kashmir will not stabilize if you make LOC as permanent border.With divided families on both the side of the border.Kashmir has to go away from india in order it to stabilize.And Btw even if you make LOC as border even then terrorists will keep coming and army will stay there as it is.What assumptions you are making are based on ideal world but reality is world is not ideal.If it were so ideal then morally superior india would not have gone into east pakistan to divide it..BTW whom you call terrorists are projected as freedom fighters in pakistan.And what you call as my rant is the real reading based on india's past experiences with pakistan....And regarding improving the lives of 10 million kashmir why you stopped at kashmiris only why not improve the lives of say 1.4 billion people of south asia.lets erase all borders and lines after all we all are same.Ah....but i see its too ieal thing to do.so you stopped at 10 million kashmiris.Or lets bring peace to south asia by converting all to islam.isn't that the main goal of lashkar -e-toiba.why leave othe 1.4 billion people to be slaughter by terrorists lets accept their demand and do as they say it will be hunky -dorky after that.see we dont need to maintain 1.5 million strong army and spend on guns missiles we can all live peaceful lives.

    For peace to return to kashmir there is only one way kashmir has to be set free by india.but then after that peace will return to india or not there is no guarantee about that....coz india still illegally occupying junaghar, hyderabad and other muslim princely states. .So its the duty of pakistan to free all muslim princely states from the kafir india...And if you think its all rant then once visit L-e_t site.Btw if you think L-e-t will simply vanish by making LOC as border then you are again wron.Pakistan army /jehadi sees only one solution to kashmir that is to merge it with pakistan.BTW 1971 surrender is still fresh wound for them and it will remain so untill they make india surrender and capture it..And the terrorists will keep coming to kashmir and whole india even if u make loc as boundary or give up kashmir....I think india still occupying illegally arunachal pradesh and parts of assam/northeast which both china and bangaladesh say is disputed ....ok lets solve those problems to along with kashmir...
     
  10. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Kashmir problem is by-product of pakistan's obsession with identity which is separate from india.And india will be foolish enough to let go its claim on POK and northern areas.Coz both are of strategic importance to india.

    1.it severs pak-china land link.
    2. it opens up land route to central asia
    3. it makes india to play ball in afghanistan and central asia directly.

    Wakhan corridor was separated from kashmir and merged t with afghanistan to severe ussr link to indian subcontinent.during the great game....


    [​IMG]
     
  11. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Kashmir survey finds no majority for independence

    (AFP) – 12 hours ago
    SRINAGAR, India — Less than half of residents in both the Indian and Pakistani zones of Kashmir favour independence as a solution to end unrest in the disputed Himalayan region, a survey said Thursday.
    Conducted by British academic Robert Bradnock, the independent survey found that 44 percent of people in Pakistani-administered Kashmir favour independence, and 43 percent in Indian-administered Kashmir.
    United Nations resolutions soon after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947 called for a plebiscite to determine whether the region should belong to India or Pakistan, both of which claim Kashmir in full.
    "These results support the already widespread view that the plebiscite options are likely to offer no solution to the dispute," said the survey, which was released by the London-based Chatham House think-tank.
    Titled "Kashmir: Paths to Peace", it was a rare attempt to assess the opinions of people on both sides of the Line of Control (LOC) -- the de facto border that splits the region between the two rival nations.
    "Any solution will depend on the Indian and Pakistani governments? commitment to achieving a permanent settlement," Bradnock said.
    The survey interviewed about 3,800 people to record their views on how they saw the future of Kashmir -- a scenic region that has been a constant source of tension between India and Pakistan.
    In the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, which has been at the heart of a 20-year-old insurgency against Indian rule, between 74 percent and 95 percent respondents favoured independent Kashmir.
    But in the Hindu-dominated Jammu region -- which is also part of Indian Kashmir -- support for independence dwindled to less than one percent.
    The survey found that the "overwhelming majority" of people wanted a solution to the dispute, even though there were no "simple fixes".
    More than 47,000 people have died in Indian Kashmir since the eruption of the insurgency in 1989.
    India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over Kashmir, but a recent peace process has brought a reduction in violence.
     
  12. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    Unfortunately your obsession with Pakistan's obsessions is just as much a problem; and yes, in the larger picture India is just as culpable in the Kashmir disaster as is Pakistan. The only difference is that unlike Pakistan, India actually has a viable solution to better at least its part of Kashmir. And while I'm sure there's appreciation for the relentless cut/paste jobs (IMO a link would suffice) it's only part of the story, the part you want to show/see. This jingoistic nonsense flooding everything from living rooms to the Indian parliament has achieved absolutely nothing for India, mostly because the narrative itself is intellectually dishonest. The data too is sullied for the most part. It has been recently increasing slightly in quality and validity, but its too early to say.

    What is clear is that the likelihood of the borders being re drawn is somewhere between remote and nil (mostly because of the strategic aspect). The closest realistic resolution is what was proposed between Musharraf and the Vajpayee administration which requires Pakistan and India to administer some aspects of their portions of Kashmir while leaving the rest to an autonomic system of governance. While there was major traction for this movement during the Musharraf administration (prior to his collapse) the actual mechanism was proposed during Rajiv Gandhi's administration and has been making the rounds since then (so there's definitely some validity to it).

    Now whether Pakistan will be stable enough to go through with any such endeavor is entirely up to them. The first step nonetheless is for the LoC to be declared an international border. Once that is done it will markedly change things for at least Indian Kashmir (after a period of acute violence of course).

    What's critical however is the dire need of competent leadership on both sides, and none of what you've pasted is a good indicator of it. I realize that you've been indoctrinated into believing a lot of this crap, but whether you choose to persist with it or not is up to you. In the event you want to pursue objective information, I suggest you look into better source material of higher quality.

    Lastly, there is abundant evidence (explosive evidence rather) indicating that third world countries with third rate state mechanisms have no business playing "great games." And even if they are delusional enough to try, the consequences are disastrous, debilitating and virtually fatal in nature.
     
    mehwish92 likes this.
  13. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,410
    Likes Received:
    971
    X-posting per request:


     
  14. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    No solution to kashmir is viable without pakistan.IF declaring LOC as international boundary was/is a solution as you are making it out then you are totally wrong.If you think having a international boundary in kashmir will stop pakistan from sending terrorist then again you are wrong.If international bounday would have been the solution then pakistan had not sent terrorist across international bounday in punjab whole 1980 decade o recently mumbai.if international boundary had been a solution then indian RAW would not have played its mischiefs in east pakistan during 1971.

    we have seen all this circus being repeated again and again.After shimla it was thought atleast in india that kashmir got almost settled but then india had to go into siachin coz pakistan started changing boundary.Ah biggest example is lahore declaration....even if india sign an agreement with pakistan then who do you think will honour it in pakistan.every new general who comes shreds all agreements by previous govts to pieces.Latest example being present govt. denying any thing that was negotiated during singh-musharraf in 2007-2008 period which you hold to your heart as solution .Alas govt pakistani govt. has shreded your heart to pieces again and kashmir is back to square one for new negotiations along with new problem Water.


    Whether or not Pakistan is stable Kashmir will be made to boil unless...
    1. Kashmir is given to Pakistan.
    2. Kashmir is freed of Indian clutches.
    3. involvement other players in the region like USA.... Kashmir will not be allowed to cool until India remain there.

    And speaking of leadership it will come only from pak army not from civilian but the after 10 years of rule one general goes other comes and he plans his own operations and treaties.its not like India where incoming new govt. honors previous govt's treaties.there its like new govt. shreds all treaties of previous ones.
    Ah third world countries are made to play great game with powers standing behind them... didn't Pakistan was made to play same great game in 1980s against USSR in Afghanistan or is your memory is too short to remember that.And as far as i remember Pakistan was not a developed first world country who was playing great game then....or the same Pakistan will be made to play again.

    And what you call is jingoism is reality based deduction ....not like yours as u think like declare loc as boundary and everything will be hunky-dorky with Pakistan .... Pakistan will stop sending terrorist and India and Pakistan will be living like ideal neighbors like your Alice in the wonderland scenario.



    Just look at kashmir map and india's local neighborhood map and try to understand the strategic importance of POK and kashmir.
     
  15. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Kashmir: pessimism may be good news


    Praveen Swami
    New Delhi seems to be realising that doing nothing might, paradoxically, yield the best outcomes.
    Last month, Noorjehan Baba left her home in Srinagar's Dal Gate area to start a new life across the Line of Control with the man who unleashed a war which claimed her first husband's life. Her husband, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen field commander Khurshid Baba, died in 1995, fighting the Indian forces in central Kashmir. For the next five years, Ms Baba retreated into a dark shroud which widows across South Asia are expected to do. Early this year, though, a family friend approached her with an offer of marriage. Her suitor was much older — but had wealth and status.

    United Jihad Council chairman and Hizb supreme commander Mohammad Yusuf Shah's marriage to Ms Baba at his Rawalpindi home drew neither television crews nor newspaper reporters. It ought to have: that the 61-year-old jihad commander had love on his mind this summer, rather than war, tells us not a little about where Jammu and Kashmir is headed. Eight weeks after the November 2008 carnage in Mumbai, Shah told a rally in Muzaffarabad, “Jihad will continue until the independence of Kashmir.” Instead, violence in the State has diminished to an all-time low and the Hizb has all but disintegrated.

    This is good news for India — but a serious problem for New Delhi's efforts at peacemaking in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's low-key visit to Srinagar this week illustrates the rise of a new caution in New Delhi's policy on Jammu and Kashmir. In an address to students graduating from the Sher-i-Kashmir Agricultural University, Dr. Singh focussed on issues linked to development. For those hoping for a call to Kashmiri secessionists to renew their engagement with the government, there was only the repetition of a long-standing offer to “to hold talks with the representative of any group which shuns violence and terror.” Meaningful dialogue with Pakistan on the State, he suggested, would be “possible only when Pakistan doesn't let its territory be used for acts of terror against India”.

    The Prime Minister's language illustrates the rise of a new pessimism in New Delhi on the prospects of a breakthrough in the peace process. In November 2004, during his first visit to Srinagar as Prime Minister, Dr. Singh called on young people to join him in the “adventure of building a new India and a new Kashmir.” The next year, he met twice with leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. He also initiated a consultation process with major political groups, and held separate discussions with secessionists like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front's Yasin Malik. From 2006, New Delhi's envoy Satinder Lambah and his Pakistani counterpart Tariq Aziz started working to close a deal on Jammu and Kashmir's future.

    That deal, though, was blown away by the storm winds that swept Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf from power in 2008. Pakistan's all-powerful military establishment has since made clear that it has no desire to make concessions on Jammu and Kashmir. Last year, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram initiated a process he called “quiet diplomacy”— a series of covert contacts with the Mirwaiz Umar Farooq-led APHC, which were first made public by this newspaper. That process has come to a grinding halt. Mirwaiz Farooq has closed the door on talks until a new consensus evolves in Pakistan; jihadists made their position known by shooting a key pro-dialogue leader, Fazl Haq Qureshi, in December.

    Jammu and Kashmir's political landscape has been transfigured by the death of the war which began in 1988. Last year, the State saw 3.95 terrorism-related killings per 1,00,000 population including combatants, who made up over three-quarters of the dead. Its residents are now less at risk of terrorism-related death than citizens of many countries in firearms-related crime. In South Africa, there were 71.97 murders with firearms for every 100,000 of the population; for Colombia, the figure was 50.98; Thailand recorded 31.20.

    India has a low-rate of firearms-related deaths; there were 4,101 killings of this kind in 2008, National Crime Records Bureau data show. But it is interesting to note that 19.8 of every 100,000 Indians were victims of a violent crime — a probability far higher than that of being killed in terrorism-related violence in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Despite concerns at the continued operations of jihadist groups, violence in the State remains in decline. In 2007, there were 170 civilian deaths; last year, 83 were killed. The security forces and the Jammu and Kashmir police lost 79 personnel last year, down from 122 in 2007. Two years ago, 472 terrorists were killed; just 239 were shot dead in 2009. Improvised explosive device use fell from 56 in 2007 to 23 last year; grenade attacks from 107 to 56. Levels of violence were marginally higher in the first five months of 2010 than during the same period in 2009 — but infiltration has been lower, suggesting that no major escalation is imminent.

    The decline in violence has, oddly, made it difficult for the two key actors in the peace process — the jihadists and Kashmiri secessionist politicians — to reach for New Delhi's olive branch.

    Pakistan-based jihadists have found their political leverage within Jammu and Kashmir severely degraded. India's intelligence services estimate that there are between 500 and 600 jihadists operating in the State today — less than a tenth of the numbers in 2001. Ethnic Kashmiri jihadist groups like the Hizb no longer have the network and infrastructure to benefit from post-peace politics. Islamist elements in urban Kashmir are increasingly supportive of the global jihadist project of organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, not the Jamaat-e-Islami linked, State-focussed politics of the Hizb. None of the five sons Shah left in Kashmir to be brought up by his wife Taj Begum when he left for Pakistan in 1994 has, notably, been drawn to their father's cause; three of them hold government jobs.

    Last year, Shah expressly asked the Hurriyat leadership “not to take a hasty decision with regard to dialogue with Delhi, as bilateral talks had proved futile in the past.” In February, he asserted that there was “no option other than the armed struggle”.

    Lashkar chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, for his part, called in a recent speech for closer jihadist-secessionist politics. “The first priority “is to end this [India's] tyrannical occupation, and to end it, it is critical that both armed struggle and political parties must be united.” “The most important thing,” Saeed went on, “is that the people of Kashmir, through their untold sacrifices in the struggle for freedom, have shown that they can give their all in the struggle against Hindu imperialism.”

    In practice, this means the jihadists have thrown their weight behind Islamist patriarch Syed Ali Shah Geelani, whose Tehreek-i-Hurriyat has long rejected dialogue with New Delhi. Pressure from Mr. Geelani and the jihadists has made it difficult for the Hurriyat — the second key actor in the peace process — to move forward. It has deeper problems.

    Ever since the Assembly elections were held in 2008, it has been evident to the Hurriyat that its constituency in Jammu and Kashmir is contracting. “Elections are ultimately projected as a sort of referendum by India, and that is why we have called for a complete boycott of such a process,” Mirwaiz Farooq said that November. He issued “a last call to the so-called mainstream politicians to join the separatist movement.” Humiliation followed hubris: starting from a week after the Mirwaiz held out his threat, well over half of registered voters in the State participated in the elections. Interestingly, more than 63 per cent of voters in Shah's home village, Soibug, defied the boycott call.

    Last year's protests in Shopian against the alleged rape-murder of two south Kashmir women — later established as accidental deaths by the Central Bureau of Investigation — also demonstrated the Hurriyat's limited reach. Just 17 of 111 documented Shopian-related protests between May 30, 2009 and June 30, 2009 took place in rural and semi-rural areas. More than half of the rural protests, moreover, occurred in villages just outside Shopian town. Fewer than a dozen rallies drew more than 1,000 supporters.

    Kashmiri secessionist politicians have come to realise that their political position rests on weak foundations. But they seem to have little idea of what to do about it. Torn between pro-dialogue realists like Butt and anti-negotiation hawks like Shabbir Shah, Mirwaiz Farooq has chosen to retreat into a shell. In a recent interview, he called on Pakistan to evolve consensus on its future position on Kashmir, a process that could, quite obviously, take years. He has also ruled out immediate engagement with New Delhi but offered no alternative.

    Prime Minister Singh's speech suggests that New Delhi's patience has worn thin — and that might be just good news. Barring small pockets of Islamist-led protests in Kashmir's inner city neighbourhoods, the State government faces no major political challenge. It has, however, been unable to move forward. For more than a decade, democratic politics in Jammu and Kashmir has had to confront the prospect of a new dispensation emerging as a consequence of the peace process. Elected leaders have thus had little incentive to focus on the kind of long-term issues needed to institutionalise democratic governance. Instead of chasing the chimera of a historic peace deal with Pakistan and the secessionists, New Delhi seems to be realising that doing nothing might, paradoxical as it might seem, yield the best outcomes.
     
    AkhandBharat likes this.

Share This Page