Advani & Moving Forward on Kashmir

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now what do y'all think of these comments by Advani, with references to Pakistan joining a "Confederation" - and Advani is by some standards not considered as much of a hardliner anymore!

Advani was optimistic that a day would come when the two countries would form a confederation to solve the issue. He viewed cross-border terrorism as a “bone of contention” in the India-Pakistan peace process.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

And this not from the RSS, but senior mainstream leadership in India.

 

[Flintlock]

Now what do y'all think of these comments by Advani, with references to Pakistan joining a "Confederation" - and Advani is by some standards not considered as much of a hardliner anymore!

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

And this not from the RSS, but senior mainstream leadership in India.

What's wrong with that idea? Its a great idea...though a bit ahead of its time.

In another 50-70 years, who knows? Maybe it might be possible...

You do realize, that if India and Pakistan do form a confederation, Pakistan will have to agree to it, right?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What's wrong with that idea? Its a great idea...though a bit ahead of its time.

In another 50-70 years, who knows? Maybe it might be possible...

You do realize, that if India and Pakistan do form a confederation, Pakistan will have to agree to it, right?

A confederation implies unification - which leads to my original assertion that the Indian leadership has never really accepted Pakistan, regardless of what they say in public.

A confederation in 50- 70 years, not likely.

SAARC becoming a trading block like the EU, somewhat more likely.

 

[Flintlock]

A confederation implies unification - which leads to my original assertion that the Indian leadership has never really accepted Pakistan, regardless of what they say in public.

A confederation in 50- 70 years, not likely.

SAARC becoming a trading block like the EU, somewhat more likely.

Dude, you are messing up the context here.

If Advani said something along the lines of "India will regain Pakistan" then it implies that he is unhappy about the existence of Pakistan.

Since he is talking about a confederation, it means that India and Pakistan will be on extremely friendly terms, friendly enough to form a union on the lines of EU.

Again, I'm repeating myself, but you have to realize that India and Pakistan cannot form a confederation unless Pakistan wholeheartedly agrees to it.

Its a win-win situation IMO....

 

[Energon]

Now what do y'all think of these comments by Advani, with references to Pakistan joining a "Confederation" - and Advani is by some standards not considered as much of a hardliner anymore!

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

And this not from the RSS, but senior mainstream leadership in India.

A confederation implies unification - which leads to my original assertion that the Indian leadership has never really accepted Pakistan, regardless of what they say in public.

A confederation in 50- 70 years, not likely.

SAARC becoming a trading block like the EU, somewhat more likely.

Advani in this case is referring to a joint confederation within the context of Kashmir; not the national level. Again, as someone who has followed south Asian affairs for some time now from an outside perspective of sorts, I have as yet to come across a movement of any importance which plans to reclaim Pakistan or Bangladesh. The whole concept of Pakistan's existence not being recognized is fairly ridiculous and most probably an attempt to rally local support within Pakistan using the bogeyman clause based on the Israeli model (albeit for Israel, the threat is very real).
Conservative Indian leaders not only recognize Pakistan, but they want nothing to do with it; in fact, they would much rather see Pakistan leave Kashmir and take as many Muslims off their hands as they possibly can. If India truly didn't recognize the existence of other states after the initial partitioning, or if they were truly a malignant imperialistic power, Bangladesh would have been occupied and absorbed in 1971; and Sri Lanka would have been taken over a long time ago through a Tamil proxy. Obviously these are nothing more than conspiracy theories strongly adhered to by members of the pakistanidefenseforum.com (a truly entertaining site might I add).

Having said that, I personally do not trust Advani for a second. He is only trying to be retroactively "amicable" on the Kashmir issue because he has been responsible time and time again for ruining dialogs with Pakistan in the past. It is now fairly evident that his time for any meaningful statesmanship has run out and he wants to do everything in his power to leave a good legacy; retroactive position changes seem to be his only route.

This is also one of the reasons why I think the Kargil war was a foolish venture on behalf of Pakistan. Had the Indian army not been successful on the battlefield, it would have paved the way for a psychotic megalomaniac like Advani to come to power which in turn would have been a disaster for the entire region.

Let's just hope that this guy just writes his (fictitious) book and is forced out of the public limelight once and for all.

As far as an ad-hoc Confederacy on Kashmir is concerned, I think that is pretty much out of the question as well. There can be no true opening of the borders as long as armed terrorist groups and militias are still around. And even if Pakistan decides to eliminate them, it will take nothing less than a couple of decades to achieve this mammoth task. Until then the borders will have to be restrictive and closely monitored. For now, the first step should be the solidification of the LoC the complete cessation of proxy war and sabotage aimed at communal schisms.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stealth:

Its entirely possible that his reference to confederacy was indeed within the context of SAARC.

Energon:
I disagree with how you are analyzing the context in which he made those remarks.

An autonomous union of the two Kashmirs is one of the proposals that Pakistan has in fact floated, with no response from the Indian side. If Advani was indeed referring to that possible solution, then he would have been more specific. Instead he said that the "two nations would form a confederation to solve the issue", not as a solution of the issue.

There is another article in the Daily News that talks of his displeasure with a RAW chief for supporting solutions to Kashmir outside of India's stated position, so I doubt strongly that he would ever agree to a "Kashmir confederacy".

Thats said, I agree with you that he has has become irrelevant, however his later years in the BJP have been marked by his being viewed as a "moderate within the BJP", which does not bode well in terms of how "extreme" the positions of the rest of the leadership in India, WRT Pakistan, are.

 

[Energon]

Advani's intention is to ensure a certain level of obfuscation without actually suggesting anything concrete. Everyone knows that its just not possible to open up the borders and make both sides of Kashmir some sort of a common area. Logistically given the risks of militancy it is impossible; and there is no way India can afford to even consider such a thing.

What Advani is doing is making grand statements of without being specific because this way he will go down in history as a reformed man who "tried his best" to bring a resolution to the Kashmir issue.

Advani also has a history of opposing recommendations from other sources simply because he cannot take the credit for it. The relationship with the US is by far the best example. He is vociferous of any progressive pacts with the US not because he is against them in principle, but because its the UPA forging these pacts leaving him out of it altogether.

 

[Contrarian]

India's stand is and will be, that with economic integration of the two Kashmir's and no militancy, there can be an arrangement such that visa's are not required for visiting either kashmir from either side. So people to people contact can be had as a normal state with the respective territories in Indian/Pakistani control.

Somehow, and i dont understand why, Pakistan has always been averse to opening up to India for trade while India has always been keen to do so. Pakistan has always stated that Kashmir has to be solved first before any trade can take place while India's stand has been the opposite.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India's stand is and will be, that with economic integration of the two Kashmir's and no militancy, there can be an arrangement such that visa's are not required for visiting either kashmir from either side. So people to people contact can be had as a normal state with the respective territories in Indian/Pakistani control.

Somehow, and i dont understand why, Pakistan has always been averse to opening up to India for trade while India has always been keen to do so. Pakistan has always stated that Kashmir has to be solved first before any trade can take place while India's stand has been the opposite.

Actually Pakistan has been supportive of trade ties between the two Kashmirs and opening up of the borders between them.

A few months ago there was an article from an Indian newspaper on this forum that talked about how the Kashmiris of IK were looking forward to that particular proposal being implemented. Of late I had read that the proposal had been put on hold by the Indian side pending the formation of a new government in Pakistan.

I imagine at this point the two sides are putting out feelers to try and analyze what the others position is going to be before starting work on opening up the two Kashmirs.

Pakistan has a large Kashmiri diaspora, and there is a strong element of support for Kashmir within the population as well. Pakistan cannot just ignore the sentiments of its people and what they view as Indian occupation and atrocities in Kashmir and start trade at a national level with India. There has to be some movement on issues that can be sold to the Pakistani public and Kashmiri diaspora as evidence of an "improvement" in the situation in Kashmir.

Militancy itself will be impossible to completely end as long as there is no movement on the Kashmir dispute, regardless of whether the GoP supports it or not. There is too much popular support for the Freedom Struggle, by Pakistanis and the Kashmiri Diaspora (in Pakistan and abroad). You are essentially arguing for something that even the US cannot achieve in its WoT, an absolute destruction of the movement without addressing the core issues.

That is why both your and Energon's idea of how reconciliation between the two nations will proceed is flawed, since it puts the complete demise of militancy as a pre-condition to even begin some sort of resolution to the issue.

Minimizing militancy, as Pakistan has done in these last 5/6 years is possible, but a complete or almost complete eradication cannot happen (regardless of whether the GoP tries) until the two sides start moving towards a resolution of the dispute acceptable to the Kashmiris .

 

[Contrarian]

Actually Pakistan has been supportive of trade ties between the two Kashmirs and opening up of the borders between them.

A few months ago there was an article from an Indian newspaper on this forum that talked about how the Kashmiris of IK were looking forward to that particular proposal being implemented. Of late I had read that the proposal had been put on hold by the Indian side pending the formation of a new government in Pakistan.

I imagine at this point the two sides are putting out feelers to try and analyze what the others position is going to be before starting work on opening up the two Kashmirs.

Pakistan has a large Kashmiri diaspora, and there is a strong element of support for Kashmir within the population as well. Pakistan cannot just ignore the sentiments of its people and what they view as Indian occupation and atrocities in Kashmir and start trade at a national level with India. There has to be some movement on issues that can be sold to the Pakistani public and Kashmiri diaspora as evidence of an "improvement" in the situation in Kashmir.

Militancy itself will be impossible to completely end as long as there is no movement on the Kashmir dispute, regardless of whether the GoP supports it or not. There is too much popular support for the Freedom Struggle, by Pakistanis and the Kashmiri Diaspora (in Pakistan and abroad). You are essentially arguing for something that even the US cannot achieve in its WoT, an absolute destruction of the movement without addressing the core issues.

That is why both your and Energon's idea of how reconciliation between the two nations will proceed is flawed, since it puts the complete demise of militancy as a pre-condition to even begin some sort of resolution to the issue.

Minimizing militancy, as Pakistan has done in these last 5/6 years is possible, but a complete or almost complete eradication cannot happen (regardless of whether the GoP tries) until the two sides start moving towards a resolution of the dispute acceptable to the Kashmiris .

That is what i meant. Pakistan has been averse to starting trade at a national level with India. If Pakistan develops some kind of stake in the Indian market then i feel, they will automatically start reducing support to terrorism in India. Trade will also be a huge CBM, better than almost anything else, so it does help a LOT towards solving the Kashmir issue diplomatically.

Like i said, Pakistan has to get out of this isolationist strategy for everyone to win. But mostly politicians there put up resolving the Kashmir issue as a predondition to opening of trade...

 

[Energon]

Militancy itself will be impossible to completely end as long as there is no movement on the Kashmir dispute, regardless of whether the GoP supports it or not. There is too much popular support for the Freedom Struggle, by Pakistanis and the Kashmiri Diaspora (in Pakistan and abroad). You are essentially arguing for something that even the US cannot achieve in its WoT, an absolute destruction of the movement without addressing the core issues.

That is why both your and Energon's idea of how reconciliation between the two nations will proceed is flawed, since it puts the complete demise of militancy as a pre-condition to even begin some sort of resolution to the issue.

Minimizing militancy, as Pakistan has done in these last 5/6 years is possible, but a complete or almost complete eradication cannot happen (regardless of whether the GoP tries) until the two sides start moving towards a resolution of the dispute acceptable to the Kashmiris .

The GoP has supported terrorism in Indian Kashmir for some decades now. This is supposed to be one of the most expensive insurgency ever, for which Pak occupied Kashmir has served as the logistical base. A lot of time money and effort has gone in to set up an infrastructure that supports this violent movement. Ever since the insurgency hit it's peak in 1989, the people of Indian Kashmir have suffered a horrible human resource catastrophe. Most of the indigenous small scale industries producing artifacts or supporting tourism for instance have perished. Concurrently, a lot of people, especially the younger generation who would have otherwise developed skills supporting these industries have taken to radicalism, guns and terrorism; and the region still isn't safe enough for the Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homeland. Lastly, on account of the Article 370 which prohibits non-Kashmiri Indians from coming into Kashmir has resulted in skill vacuum which if left unchecked can result in a massive catastrophe akin to what happened in Afghanistan. No government in its right mind can allow this to happen. Right now the GoP has merely kept a lid on the terrorism on account of external pressure; and perhaps some of the fighters have been re routed to the Afghan conflict just as they made a migration towards the east at the end of the Soviet war. Nonetheless, the insurgency machine is still very much there, albeit latent.

Unless the roots of organized terrorism are denuded at the very source; and its members either detained or rehabilitated and trained to re-enter society as contributing members, there is no way Indian Kashmir can ever be opened up. Doing so without these preambles would result in the whole region being a smaller version of Western Pakistan.

Now the Indian government can certainly help finance such a program, but eventually only the GoP can actually pull something like this off because they exert far more influence over the terrorist groups than the GoI or most of the political factions of Indian Kashmir.

Now I realize that the terrorism may never come to a complete halt. But unless there are strong advances made by Pakistan on the abovementioned front, any possibility of opening up the border is pretty slim (despite public overtures). This I'm sure will be a mammoth task that will take at least 2 decades if not more.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Energon:

Regardless of how you see the current decline in militancy in Kashmir, and what you attribute it to, you have to realize that there will be even less public support for going after Kashmiri Freedom Fighting groups than there was for going after the Taliban.

It will be propaganda just waiting to be exploited by AQ, and I bet you that the Taliban will own the "Kashmir Jihad" as well, and announce support for their "brethren". It will result in a massive uprising against whichever government tries it. That is why it is essential to get some sort of progress going on Kashmir before attempting to crack down on those groups.

I also fail to see how opening up borders between India and Pakistan for trade and cultural exchanges is going to be any worse than opening up the borders between IK and AK. In fact the one proposal for trade that I mentioned earlier is talking about doing just that, before any significant movement on trade between India and Pakistan proper.

If people from Pakistan can enter India through liberalization of trade, then they can essentially also enter IK, so how does keeping the borders sealed there help?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is what i meant. Pakistan has been averse to starting trade at a national level with India. If Pakistan develops some kind of stake in the Indian market then i feel, they will automatically start reducing support to terrorism in India. Trade will also be a huge CBM, better than almost anything else, so it does help a LOT towards solving the Kashmir issue diplomatically.

Like i said, Pakistan has to get out of this isolationist strategy for everyone to win. But mostly politicians there put up resolving the Kashmir issue as a predondition to opening of trade...

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument - that the GoP has supported terrorism in India - we have supported an insurgency in Kashmir, and there can be no better guarantee of ensuring peace in Kashmir than to have an accord or road map towards a comprehensive solution to the Kashmir Dispute that is signed off on by all parties involved.

The Kashmiri groups will continue to find funding regardless of GoP support, and for reasons I mentioned, you will not have the GoP mount a crackdown on them, so violence will continue, and then fingers will be pointed once again at Pakistan for "not doing enough", when we can't really do enough until we can show some progress towards resolving Kashmir.

 

[Logic note]

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument - that the GoP has supported terrorism in India - we have supported an insurgency in Kashmir,

LOL , now this is funny

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

LOL , now this is funny

Just as funny as the denial by Indians that they have nothing to do with the terrorism in FATA, Baluchistan and Punjab.

And I suppose soon you'll be saying it was Martians who supported a violent separatist movement in East Pakistan and started a war to dismember Pakistan.