Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maaalik, CM...need help asap!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Maaalik, CM...need help asap!!

    I need websites on Indo-Pak Kashmir tension issues, like nice official websites, not some extremist idiot's personal page. Pleeeaaze, I need them NOWWW!!! Stuff that will give me good back ground info (especially on Kargil and Nuke proliferation). Thanks in advance.
    A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

    #2
    I am sending you some info..check your PM.

    Comment


      #3
      aww thanks, but I don't have any new pms yet.
      A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

      Comment


        #4
        If something is edited due to particular reason, don't try to overwrite it.

        [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited May 15, 2002).]

        Comment


          #5
          Here you go on nuclear info on Pakistan China and India as well as Iran etc etc. Damn good book this.
          http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/track98b.htm

          Pakistan: http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/pakistan.htm

          Indian is a PDF file.

          ------------------
          I’m just a freedom fighter
          No remorse
          Raging on in holy war
          Soon there’ll come a day
          When you’re face to face with me
          You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

          Comment


            #6
            thankyous!
            A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

            Comment


              #7
              CMMM...I need more political history stuff! That last website is really good.

              Outlaw, what happened to that PM???

              [This message has been edited by cat-woman (edited May 15, 2002).]
              A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

              Comment


                #8
                Ok Cat give me a few hours and I'll see what I can dig up.

                Trust CM to louse things up.

                Comment


                  #9
                  A few hours????

                  Maalik Bhaiii...I thought you'd have them at the tip of your tongue!!
                  A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by cat-woman:
                    A few hours????

                    Maalik Bhaiii...I thought you'd have them at the tip of your tongue!!
                    ..no hes busy nowadays getting information against PPP.. all other matters are secondary important..

                    Saints are fine for Heaven, but they are hell on earth.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      PPP? I only know the KDP and PUK...just kidding...
                      A samurai bares no sign of weakness, even when dying of hunger.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        http://www.defencejournal.com

                        From the BOARD of EDITORIAL ADVISORS, Ms NASIM ZEHRA focusses on the stray voices of protest raised on the issue within India.


                        There are voices, however marginal, inside India that do tell the truth about Kashmir. These brave voices, however, may not get the publicity they deserve. Hiding,killing or mutilating the truth is a costly affair. Especially for governments. Pakistan learnt that in 1971. Pakistan’s successive governments ignored its blunders in East Pakistan and New Dehli built upon it. Bangladesh was born. Pakistan received its most hurtful and disastrous blow. India too is busy making its own Bangla desh.... And more than just in Indian-Held Kashmir. However, it is Dehli’s Kashmir policy which finds often vocal critics at home including in the capital. These capital critics go unheard beyond the conference halls. As they did in Dehli on May 20 at a seminar on Kashmir: The Way Forward. The seminar wasorganized by a Kashmiri voluntary organization Concern for Kashmir.

                        The only english national daily that appears to have reported the event was The Asian Age. However the story In the May 22 internet edition of the paper a story entitled “Set up reconstruction fund for Kashmir” did appear which covered the event.

                        The title and the story both failed to capture the thrust of what journalists and politicians participating in the seminar stressed upon. The chief guest at the seminar was Arun Jaitley Minister for Information and Broadcasting.

                        The minister naturally defended his government’s policy. He introduced the government’s three-pronged strategy: one strengthening the security, two conducting a dialogue with the militants and three initiate development activities to meet the needs of the local population. Since 1947 successive governments in Paksitan have been surviving on the “myth of Kashmir” without realizing that Kashmiris do not want to be a part of Pakistan which is bogged down with corruption, law and order and a failing state structure and a crippled economy and a hub of international terrorism. Confident that the strategy will bear fruit. Already the APHC leaders have been released. We will talk to them within the Indian Constitution, they are our own people. During the last one year Pakistan attempted to internationalize Kashmir through Kargil, hijacking of Indian airlines flight IC814 and through the Chhatisinghpura massacre. Pakistan failed to internationalize but Pakistan’s character as an international terrorist has been internationalized.

                        Karan Thapar, a media personality and anchors famous talk show on BBC and Talk Back on Doordarshan. Also interviewd Parvez Musharraf for Doordarshan. We should recogbnize three realities; Kashmir is a core issue between India and Pakisrtan; two there is complete alienation in Kashmir because of our flawed policies and third we have to accept that without engaging Pakistan in a sincere and serious dialogue we cannot resolve the Kashmir issue. At this point the minister intervened and said that Pakistan has no locus standi in Kashmir and they have no role in the matter. Kashmir is an internal issue and when we talk , we talk of talking to our own people. We are looking for a settlement within the Indian Constitution. He argued that Dehli’s policy of engaging the “misguided youth” will also show positive results.

                        Shujat Bokhari, a prominent Kashmiri journalist who writes for the Indian Express. He refuted the minister’s position that the three pronged strategy is working. He argued that militant attacks against the security forces have been intensified and their frequency has increased. One of the main reasons for the alienation is the massive repression in Kashmir .He claimed that rapes and custodial deaths have become a norm. The security forces’ action of first killing five innocent labourers wrongly accusing them as militants responsible for the sikh killlings and then shooting eight peaceful demonstrators, after the Chhatisinghpura incidents have left the local people very angry. Such scars take years to heal.Shujaat also raised the issue of the unemployment. When you have a puppet government in Kashmir, when you have nepotism, corruption and lack of sensitivity to the genuine problems of the people then alienation is a natural outcome of this situation. When educated youth cannot get jobs they will join the ranks of the militants.

                        Mahbooba Mufti, the daughter of a former Union Home Minister Mufti Muhammad Saeed.She is also a member of her father’s Kashmiri political party — the People’s Democratic Party. In 1947 Kashmiris willingly joined India. Dehli must look into the causes of the present alienation. All elections since 1953 were rigged. The 1999 elections managed only a 5% turnout is solid proof that the alienation is 100% complete. Wrong politicies pursued by Dehli, installations of puppet governments since Shiekh Abdullah. Legitimate concerns of the Kashmiris never factored in by Dehli. The stage has now come that the pro-independence minority of the past has now in the nineties been turned into a majority. The militants, she maintained had increased their activities which had left many more security personnel dead. Morale of the security forces in Kashmir had greatly suffered. Most did not want to serve in Kashmir. Infact to avoid having to serve in Kashmir the Indian soldiers shoot themselves in the foot, so that injured they can go on leave.

                        She maintained that whichever village she has visited in Kashmir rape victims came up to her and recalled their horrifying experiences. Mahbooba asked the audience whether the relatives, the brothers of the rape victims will support the security forces or avenge the humiliation of their mothers and sisters. She reminded them that the whole country including politicians mourned the death of Chattipura victims but no one mourns the death of Kashmiris. It is this very fact that establishes a link, a tie between the Kashmiris and the Pakistanis. You alienate the Kashmiris through such acts of omission and commission. You own up the Kashmiris pundit and Kashmiri Sikh but every muslim is put “into Pakistan’s account”- is treaty as a Pakistani agent.. Mahmooda argued free as fair elections as the only answer.

                        At his point the minister rose to leave on the pretext of attending another meeting. Agitated men from the audience demanded that he remain seated since they had questions for him on Dehli’s three-pronged strategy. Specifically a retired Indian civil servant, a Kashmiri pundit thundered that Dehli has brought Kashmiri to a point where not only do the Kashmiri muslims “hate” you but “the Kashmiri pundits also hate you. “ The civil servant reminded the audience that being a civil servant he was a responsible man therefore his statements reflected the sober ground reality. A couple of others from the audience questioned the wisdom of the minister’;s statement that Pakistan was not a party to the Kashmir dispute. They reminded him of the UN Security Council resolutions.

                        Prem Shankar Jha , a senior columnist made two points. During the Kargil crisis he said he had opposed a negotiated settlement of the Kargil crisis and I had suggested that the government to militarily defeat Pakistan since openly a militarily defeated Pakistan will be forced to “accept the realities.” Jha maintained that his fears had been proven right. Pakistan is now continuing to support the militants from across the border to keep the pressure on India. His second contention was that India should talk to Pakistan which is a party to the dispute. India, he argued must “engage” Pakistan. He believed that there was no talking to pro-Pakistan Kashmiri leaders since Pakistan guides their policies.

                        The Dehli seminar reflected the many actors and the many dimensions of the Kashmir struggle. The ground situation as sketched by journalist Shujaat Bokhari and politician Mahbooba Mufti merely reinforced the reports filed by many other Indian journalists , by BBC and Rueters news agencies; the endless deaths, the suicide attacks, the total alienation of the Kashmiris, Dehli’s failed Kashmir policy, the accentuated cycle of repression and of resistance , the thousands of wailing and protesting women calling for justice as their young men die daily fighting against state terrorism, the rock-bottom morale of Indian soldiers who must question the wisdom of their counter-insurgency tasks. All this is untenable. Indian military might will never be able to deliver to the Indian state what it seeks; Kashmiri subservience. India and Pakistan must talk.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Renowned Indian columnist KULDIP NAYAR writes his point of view about the “autonomy issue”, which is generally believed in Pakistan to be another Indian ploy to divert international public opinion.

                          “AUTONOMY is what you promised us,” says Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Farooq Abdullah. “Azadi does not literally mean independence... Autonomy may not be a solution, but it can at least be a starting point for a debate,” says Mir Waiz Umer Farooq, a leader of the Hurriyat Conference. “The autonomy resolution, if implemented, may take the wind out of our sails,” says a Pakistan leader. The three points of view, heard at Srinagar and Lahore in the last few days, cover practically the debate in favour of autonomy. But first a word to explainautonomy. After partitioning India into two countries, the British advised the 550-odd princely States to join either India or Pakistan. One such State was Jammu and Kashmir.

                          Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, but the ruler, in ‘the instrument of accession,’ indicated that he was giving up control over only three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications. The State held its own constituent assembly in November 1952 to ratify the accession and New Delhi’s hold over the three subjects. This is what is generally referred to as the pre-1953 status.

                          India after receiving the instrument of accession on October 26, 1947, conferred the special status on Jammu and Kashmir through Article 370 in the constitution. The power of parliament to make laws for the State was restricted to defence, foreign affairs and communications.

                          The State, if it wanted, could extend any law operating in the rest of India. But the assembly had to indicate so by passing that law. In other words, Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed autonomy, self-governance, in all central and concurrent subjects listed in the constitution except the three.

                          Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, who succeeded Sheikh Abdullah, when the latter was detained, ‘worked’ with the centre on the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, to extend its rule beyond the three subjects. Many provisions of the Indian constitution and laws were extended to the State, a couple of them by the then governor, Jagmohan, after the dissolution of the state assembly.

                          The furore over the resolution is unreal because the state is with in its right to reiterate that its accession to India was confined to the three subjects. Whatever was done during the Bakshi regime or later was ‘wrong.’ The Centre’s reaction that the clockcannot be turned back is considered by the Farooq government a one-sided statement with no legal backing. If New Delhi wants control over other subjects, the State’s plea is that the Centre has to hold talks with it and reach an agreement. An influential segment of opinion says that if the pre-1953 status is reviewed for Jammu and Kashmir, it would evoke similar demands from other States. The argument is fallacious. It is J and K which joined the Union, not the other way round.

                          No doubt, most of the princely States gave defence, foreign affairs and communications to the centre to begin with. But then they themselves agreed to merge with the Union. J and K did not. Nor did the Union amend Article 370 to indicate that the State’s special status had been changed. So much so, the BJP set aside its demand for abrogation of the Article to head the government at the Centre.

                          Where the autonomy report can be faulted is that it does not take into account the Accord reached between Sheikh Abdullah and Indira Gandhi in February 1975. It should have formed the bed rock of the relationship because the Sheikh has sanctified it. He took over thereins in 1975 itself. He was the one who agreed to span the distance between 1952 and 1975. The committee on autonomy should have begun its journey from the 1975 milestone.

                          The 1975 accord authorises parliament to make laws to prevent “activities directed towards disclaiming, questioning or disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or bringing about cession of a part of the territory of India from the Union or causing insult to the Indian national flag. The Indian national anthem and the constitution.” Why should the Farooq government feel shy about it? Apparently, there were differences over the interpretation of the 1975 accord. In a letter to Indira Gandhi, the Sheikh had said: “As you are aware, it is my view that constitutional relationship between the Centre and the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be what it was in 1953. Nevertheless, (are mine) I am happy to say that the agreed conclusions (the 1975 accord) provide a good basis for my cooperation at the political level and for Centre-State relationship.

                          ”The Sheikh went on to say: “The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India is not a matter at issue. It has been my firm believe that the future of Jammu and Kashmir lies with India because of the common ideals that we share.” Farooq Abdullah has used more emphatic words than these. But by ignoring his father’s accord, he has created doubts about his political strategy. Did he want this only as a plank for the assembly election next year?

                          It is a pity that the RSS has succeeded in its endeavour. The BJP members in the cabinet buckled under the RSS command to reject the autonomy resolution without delay. The worst part of the report is the regionalisation of J and K on communal lines. This recommendation tallies with views expressed by the RSS and some of the Hurriyat leaders. Indeed, the straight rejection of the report has disappointed the people in the valley generally. I heard them expressing their unhappiness. Farooq Abdullah has yet another reason to be unhappy. The Centre is holding secret talks with the Hurriyat leaders. The reported offer to them is to head the State government. Is it the solution? New Delhi has not learnt a simple thing: those who live in glass houses should not change their clothes with the lights on, as Bernard Shaw put it.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Kargil: Misguided Perceptions

                            By Dr. Shireen M. Mazari


                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            The post-Washington declaration shock within the national polity has naturally resulted in all manner of accusations and insinuations being cast against the political leadership. Without getting into the name-calling, what is abundantly clear is that without formal, structuralised, professional decision-making processes, political leaders can be misled and misdirected into all manner of decisions. Thus, even with the most well-intentioned motivations leaders can fall prey to misperceptions and erroneous assumptions fed by those with their own agendas and interests - when informal, personalised decision-making is the vogue.

                            It is this milieu that ironically allowed the US and India to turn Pakistan's nuclear status into a disadvantage rather than a strategic advantage. And this is precisely what led to the Washington dash and subsequent joint statement, the fallout of which also needs to be examined rationally. Finally, this article contends that even now Pakistan can use the joint statement to its advantage in the wake of Indian and American posturing that has followed.

                            But, first let us examine the validity of the assumptions that led Pakistan into being unable to translate tactical military success into strategic political victory.

                            Misperception No 1: The inevitability of all-out war between Pakistan and India leading to the threat of nuclear exchange.

                            The reality is that there was simply no danger of even an all-out war between Pakistan and India because India was not in a position to instigate such a war. The sheer number of Indian conventional ground forces that were tied up in Kashmir and in the northeastern insurgency was large enough to deny India a conventional advantage in case of an all-out war with Pakistan. Already the body bags were increasing and while India showed that it was prepared to take huge losses in Kashmir, it also lacked the ability to move beyond this limited theatre. That is precisely why India was roaring for help at the diplomatic level and it is probable that in the desperation it has come to some quid pro quo with the US - which compelled the US into such a heavily biased anti-Pakistan posture.

                            Meanwhile, because there is no formalised, professional body to evaluate and discuss such issues, the "doves" - some would say capitulators - within the personal circle of prime ministerial advisers were able to put forward the US line by using the fear of a possible war and threat of nuclear war to get to the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister relies so heavily on informal, personalised inputs into decision-making, a particular lobby had its way. Adding to the force of this lobby was the fear of war created by the US, especially the pro-Indian elements like Inderfurth, who created a panic situation that led the Pakistan ambassador into sending an equally panic-stricken cable that led to the PM's dash to Washington. All along, certain persons around the Prime Minister were ensuring that this element of fear of nuclear war was sustained and built up. The favourable reality on the ground was totally lost sight of. As the Prime Minister himself finally explained to the nation, he was not going to let his heart rule his head and lead the nation into a devastating war. But the fact of the matter is that there was no chance at all of an all-out war between Pakistan and India according to the ground realities.

                            Misperception No 2: That the Pakistan army could not sustain its efforts beyond two weeks.

                            This was again incorrect but supposedly "credible" sources like General Zinni and the Defence Secretary (who is Ch Nisar's brother), according to this scribe's research into the issue, convinced the Prime Minister that the Pakistan armed forces could not sustain even this limited, albeit covert, war effort beyond two weeks so he must seek a quick way out. When counter claims by the military were thrown back at these sources, they simply said that these were "lies" - that the Prime Minister was being misguided. Well he was, but by them!

                            One very critical reason why all these technical misperceptions were possible was because right from the start no attempt was made to be completely open and truthful about the whole operation--despite the fact that Pakistan was not only within its rights regarding the LoC, but was also acting within the parameters set by India itself in 1984. When the truth is not totally apparent, then misperceptions are also much easier to fester.

                            War panic was also aided by the sheer force of India's military and diplomatic reaction which took Pakistan by surprise - although it should not have. For those who have studied Indian behaviour in the security field, this was the natural  reaction (remember 1962 when India suffered military losses against China?) just as India's nuclear tests were also expected - and just as India's signature to the CTBT should also now be expected.

                            Misperception No 3: That the US would actually put pressure on India to somehow not only come back to the negotiating table but also to move towards a political resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

                            Despite President Clinton's good intentions, the fact of the matter is that American interest in the joint statement was limited to seeking "Pakistani withdrawal". This was clear in the statements of "explanation" the US began issuing even before the ink was dry on the joint statement. And this has continued. For instance, the US government has not denied the story that has followed in a weekly US magazine which states that Clinton and the US are not going to intervene to pressurise India on Kashmir. To the contrary, the State Department's Karl Inderfurth declared, on the BBC on July 14, that the US and the international community are not in a position to mediate in the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India.

                            As for President Clinton, his 'personal interest' notwithstanding, he cannot do much on his own without State Department back-up and until the Indian elections are over with. By that time, it must be remembered, that the Clinton presidency will be entering its lameduck period!

                            The fallout: Pakistan for its part has complied not just with the letter of the joint statement but with the spirit in which the Prime Minister made commitments to President Clinton. The negative fallout has been substantial for Pakistan generally, and for the Prime Minister personally. To begin with, Pakistan has been unable to turn military advantage into political advantage. Second, people in Pakistan are angry and demoralised, for the moment at least. Third, the Indian propaganda machinery is busy trying to claim political and military victory out of a stunning military defeat.

                            Fourth, in many ways, Pakistan has given India the opportunity to now deceive the world into believing that the whole indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle is basically "Pakistan-sponsored". Fifth, an expected casualty is expected to be the foreign minister, Sartaj Aziz, who may be replaced by Ch Nisar - more acceptable to the US. Sixth, an unfortunate impression has been created of the Kashmiri mujahideen being primarily bearded, obscurantists. The broad base of the struggle has been effectively pushed out of the public mind.

                            For the Prime Minister, personally, there has been a serious dent in his popular image. It is a misconception to assume that only the religious parties are angry with him. Many ordinary people also feel humiliated and upset. Luckily for him, there is no credible popular opposition leader to galvanise the masses.

                            Future options: While there is a need for damage control, it is imperative to prepare an offensive political and diplomatic strategy for the future. Two critical immediate issues are the exposure of Indian lies and revitalising the national spirit domestically. The former should prove easy given the absurdity of these lies. The latter requires action on many fronts, beginning with telling the people the truth from beginning to end. Domestic morale will also be boosted if the government is seen as now challenging the US into pressing India on Kashmir--given how Pakistan has complied with its side of the joint statement.

                            For one, Pakistan must focus US attention on the commitment made in the joint statement for the "…restoration of the LoC in Kashmir". There is no room for ambiguity in this phrase and it clearly requires Indian withdrawals from Siachen and the Qamar sector. Whatever US State Department officials may say, Clinton has committed the US on this score.

                            Secondly, Pakistan must ask the US to compel India to deescalate militarily in Kashmir by removing the extra forces it has introduced there since the Kargil crisis began. Unless the US lives up to its side of the bargain, there is no onus on Pakistan to do so either.

                            In addition, Pakistan has to reiterate the point that the LoC is a temporary military arrangement that cannot be "sanctified" permanently. Not only would that mean sanctifying military aggression, but the fact is that the Kashmiri people have never accepted this arbitrary division. Also, it is high time Pakistan owned up to its moral political obligations to aid the Kashmir struggle both materially and diplomatically.

                            There are many opportunities for Pakistan to overcome some of the disadvantages thrust upon it by the July 4 statement - and this statement itself offers the opportunity in its very wording. But nothing can be achieved unless decision-making is institutionalised within a formal, professional organisational form so that the chances of misperception and factional opportunism are minimised, if not totally eradicated. Such a setup would also allow better civil-military coordination on issues of national security. Already there is a fear that the way the political leadership is going - or being misled by certain quarters - it may well end up acknowledging the LoC as the permanent border between Pakistan and India, as desired by the latter. Only a formal, informed body can put forward and evaluate the many alternative solutions that exist on Kashmir and which are based upon the notion of self-determination.

                            That the nuclear factor was used to our disadvantage and that a military victory was not translated into political advantage are the supreme ironies for the present. Let us for once learn our lessons - and in time. History does not afford too many chances for redemption.
                             

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Women! How easily they get men to do work for them! Well not this man!

                              I will see what i have in me book marks.

                              ------------------
                              I’m just a freedom fighter
                              No remorse
                              Raging on in holy war
                              Soon there’ll come a day
                              When you’re face to face with me
                              You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X