Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, it may be. It is as Indian as the one linking the issues is a Pakistani POV.

Let us see what the Afghans think of it as well as the rest of the players in Afghanistan.

But what I see surprising is the utter lack of concern for the Afghanistani people here and willingness to hold them hostage to the resolution of Pakistan's pet peeve.

That is your opinion, and once again you are resorting to generalizations and mis characterizations. No one has said that the Afghans do not matter. Has the US cared for them? I find it surprising that a country with a Pashtun plurality woudl have a government, bar the Pres., that is staffed by NA officials. The US has done so deliberately, as the enemies of its enemy were put in power to support ist purpose in Afghanistan.

And it is not just Pakistan's pet peeve - that Indian activities against Pakistan from Afghanistan continue, and the Baluch militants find refuge (Marri was killed according to some sources in Afghanistan) there, indicate that both the current GoA and GoI are using Afghanistan to further the hostility and proxy war in their own interests.

Again, Indian involvement in Afghanistan, against Pakistan, stems from the hostility over Kashmir.

How the Duran border issue between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue are related is beyond me.

Afghanistan may have taken India's help in that theater (its just an assumption as we don't have any proofs) and because of the general enmity between the countries India may have obliged but that enmity was not only over Kashmir but ran far deeper.

Kashmir is a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself. Once we diagnose and treat the actual disease, treating the symptom becomes easy.

The Durand is a separate issue, not related to kashmir, and I have not related it to Kashmir. I am not sure why you brought it up, other than to obfuscate.

Proofs? Maybe not, mostly books and Pakistani writers commenting on the issue much like Farrukh Saleem above. The tensions with Afghanistan over the border are another issue, that must also be resolved between the two sides. Kashmri plays its part in other ways, as I explained above, but is tied into the border issue, since Indian support for Afghan actions in the past woudl not have occurred had the dispute over Kashmir not existed.

The disease is Kashmir - the conventional wars stemmed from it. Then the proxy wars stemmed from it, and then the proxy wars in another nation stemmed from it. Beyond territorial disputes recognized by the international community Pakistan has no issue with India. If we are not contesting over territory, then there is n reason to fear the other.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is no "undeniable proof" and I never claimed it was. But at least it proves that respectable Pakistani writers believe it to be true.

While we can't always believe each other's writers accusations about the other country (they could be motivated), confessions are easier to accept.

Why would he have insight? That is a strange question! Why do journalists and opinion leaders have insights!

If we are talking of smoking guns, none exist for Bangladesh too. What is in public domain is the fact of India intervening after 10 million refugees created tremendous social and economic burden and the international community sat on it's hands.

Smoking Guns were posted in the Disproving genocide thread.

1. Sam Manekshaw's own comments on Indian activities in EP.

2. The book by Ashok Rainia that details covert Indian support to destabilize EP and support separatism, as early as 1968.

The refugees came way after that, so that argument does not fly at all.

 

[smeaglegolum]

That is your opinion, and once again you are resorting to generalizations and mis characterizations. No one has said that the Afghans do not matter. Has the US cared for them? I find it surprising that a country with a Pashtun plurality woudl have a government, bar the Pres., that is staffed by NA officials. The US has done so deliberately, as the enemies of its enemy were put in power to support ist purpose in Afghanistan.

And it is not just Pakistan's pet peeve - that Indian activities against Pakistan from Afghanistan continue, and the Baluch militants find refuge (Marri was killed according to some sources in Afghanistan) there, indicate that both the current GoA and GoI are using Afghanistan to further the hostility and proxy war in their own interests.

Again, Indian involvement in Afghanistan, against Pakistan, stems from the hostility over Kashmir.



The Durand is a separate issue, not related to kashmir, and I have not related it to Kashmir. I am not sure why you brought it up, other than to obfuscate.

Proofs? Maybe not, mostly books and Pakistani writers commenting on the issue much like Farrukh Saleem above. The tensions with Afghanistan over the border are another issue, that must also be resolved between the two sides. Kashmri plays its part in other ways, as I explained above, but is tied into the border issue, since Indian support for Afghan actions in the past woudl not have occurred had the dispute over Kashmir not existed.

The disease is Kashmir - the conventional wars stemmed from it. Then the proxy wars stemmed from it, and then the proxy wars in another nation stemmed from it. Beyond territorial disputes recognized by the international community Pakistan has no issue with India. If we are not contesting over territory, then there is n reason to fear the other.

But who started the proxy wars to begin with. Isn't it Pakistan that started proxy wars in Kashmir and Punjab.

 

[Vinod2070]

Smoking Guns were posted in the Disproving genocide thread.

1. Sam Manekshaw's own comments on Indian activities in EP.

2. The book by Ashok Rainia that details covert Indian support to destabilize EP and support separatism, as early as 1968.

The refugees came way after that, so that argument does not fly at all.

I will check out that thread but if these two are the gist, it won't fly.

Sam Manekshaw's comments were made privately and not publicly AFAIK and don't constitute any proof.

Has India officially acknowledged the book as representing the Indian position?

So if we want to do "nuktachini" that can continue here as well but the fact that it appears that both countries seem to have tried to destabilize each other much beyond Kashmir supports the assertion that Kashmir is just a symptom.

It is an easy and believable justification for a policy that would have found other causes if Kashmir was not there.

 

[Vinod2070]

That is your opinion, and once again you are resorting to generalizations and mis characterizations.

I am sick and tired of these accusations. Anytime I disagree with a position, I am accused of generalizations or ridicule!

Let me put it straight. I don't indulge in these things. I am here for mutually respectful discussions, not generalizations.

And of course it is my opinion. Whose opinion I am supposed to post here otherwise!

No one has said that the Afghans do not matter. Has the US cared for them? I find it surprising that a country with a Pashtun plurality woudl have a government, bar the Pres., that is staffed by NA officials. The US has done so deliberately, as the enemies of its enemy were put in power to support ist purpose in Afghanistan.

If the USA has not cared for them, is that sufficient excuse for you to do that too? But then Pakistan professes brotherly love for the Afghans and the tribal ties!

And it is not just Pakistan's pet peeve - that Indian activities against Pakistan from Afghanistan continue, and the Baluch militants find refuge (Marri was killed according to some sources in Afghanistan) there, indicate that both the current GoA and GoI are using Afghanistan to further the hostility and proxy war in their own interests.

So! Pakistan Afghanistan rivalry is not new. It has existed from day 1 since Pakistan was created. They have designs on Baluchistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan which they feel should be part of Afghanistan. They would be the primary beneficiary of any untoward happening on that side, not India.

You used Afghanistan against India when you could. Taliban also caused a lot of grief to those holding the reins of power now in Afghanistan. They may consider Pakistan to be a villain of the piece and they won't be entirely wrong.

What is happening now (if your comments are accepted) could just be a return of favor from the perspective of those who were at the receiving end earlier.

Again, Indian involvement in Afghanistan, against Pakistan, stems from the hostility over Kashmir.

Refer above.

The Durand is a separate issue, not related to kashmir, and I have not related it to Kashmir. I am not sure why you brought it up, other than to obfuscate.

You tried to relate the Baluchistan issue to the Kashmir issue. I had no intention to obfuscate. What I meant was that Afghanistan may be interfering in Balochistan (as per your narrative) because of reasons other than Kashmir. May be I didn't make myself clear.

May I also suggest to be a little more trusting in the debate and not doubt the intentions of the other person so much!

Proofs? Maybe not, mostly books and Pakistani writers commenting on the issue much like Farrukh Saleem above. The tensions with Afghanistan over the border are another issue, that must also be resolved between the two sides. Kashmri plays its part in other ways, as I explained above, but is tied into the border issue, since Indian support for Afghan actions in the past woudl not have occurred had the dispute over Kashmir not existed.

I submit that what is happening on your Western border is not related to Kashmir. It can not be driven by India.

The disease is Kashmir - the conventional wars stemmed from it. Then the proxy wars stemmed from it, and then the proxy wars in another nation stemmed from it. Beyond territorial disputes recognized by the international community Pakistan has no issue with India. If we are not contesting over territory, then there is n reason to fear the other.

I respectfully disagree. When people like DS (and countless others) talk of wishing for the division of India into pieces it has nothing to do with Kashmir or anything that India does or does not do. There may well be Indian counterparts to them.

I am sure that the general mindset of the ruling establishments has to change first and Kashmir will get resolved in a jiffy. It is at all an issue because of the prevailing mindsets.

The mindset is creating the issue here and not vice-versa.

 

[Neo]

Neo, if what India is doing in Kashmir is state-sponsored terrorism, do let me know what exactly is Pakistan doing in Baluchistan and to a certain extent in FATA?

You can't compare Balochistan with Kashmir, its not a disputed territory.
We're dealing with foreign funded seperatists in a province which has legally joined the dominion and therefor she's integral part of Pakistan.
FATA on the other hand is a warzone, our operations are seen as part of WoT.

Also, wasn't Pakistan using Afghanistan to serve her larger strategic needs?

Yes and no! A Pakistan friendly government in Afghanistan is in our interest as long as Durandline dispute is alive. Unstable Afghanistan is not only a threat to Pakistan but the whole region and since she affects us the most its our duty to take matters into our own hands and do the job for Kabul!
Compared to what America and India are doing there, our actions look more legitimate.

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

You guys are again trying to connect Afghanistan to Kashmir to serve your strategic intent; be rest assured, the status quo shall continue (at most, Article 370 will go).

PS: You are reading Obama wrong.

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

 

[Vinod2070]

I can assure you that we'll do all possible to exploit this opportunity.

This is what is called "opportunity in adversity".

Great spirit sir.

 

[Neo]

This is what is called "opportunity in adversity".

Great spirit sir.

Welcome to Realpolitik!

 

[Flintlock]

Its laughable that Obama will even attempt to convince India to give up territory. At max, he'll adopt the role of a mediator and try to get the LOC converted into a soft border.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will check out that thread but if these two are the gist, it won't fly.

Sam Manekshaw's comments were made privately and not publicly AFAIK and don't constitute any proof.

Has India officially acknowledged the book as representing the Indian position?

So if we want to do "nuktachini" that can continue here as well but the fact that it appears that both countries seem to have tried to destabilize each other much beyond Kashmir supports the assertion that Kashmir is just a symptom.

It is an easy and believable justification for a policy that would have found other causes if Kashmir was not there.

Do check it out. There is no question over Indian collusion support for and sponsoring of destabilizing elements in East Pakistan. That this was acknowledged by the man in charge of the military operations at the time, in whatever capacity, is the 'smoking gun'. Case closed. Whether India 'officially' admits it does not matter, though why a criminal would admit to a crime I do not know.

I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Kashmir is the symptom, when the hostility that led to the intervention in other areas was a direct result of the hostility over Kashmir. Again, barring the Hindutva theories of Pakistan wanting to recreate a 'Muslim controlled India' or the Pakistani theories of India never accepting Pakistan, and wanting to reintegrate it or break it up, there is nothing but the fact that our longest running dispute has poisoned waters beyond Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sick and tired of these accusations. Anytime I disagree with a position, I am accused of generalizations or ridicule!

Let me put it straight. I don't indulge in these things. I am here for mutually respectful discussions, not generalizations.

And of course it is my opinion. Whose opinion I am supposed to post here otherwise!

Then quit implying that the Pakistanis here do not 'care for the people of Afghanistan'. You inserted that insult. I have never suggested that the people of India do not care for the Afghan people. I have criticized Indian policy. You on the other hand continue to try and make the argument that Muslims or Pakistanis are flawed and do not care.

So long as you do that I'll call you out on it.

If the USA has not cared for them, is that sufficient excuse for you to do that too? But then Pakistan professes brotherly love for the Afghans and the tribal ties!

There we go again. I did not suggest that we do the same, I am merely pointing out that Pakistan is not alone in attempting to force solutions on Afghanistan that serve its interests. India and the US have done the same.

So! Pakistan Afghanistan rivalry is not new. It has existed from day 1 since Pakistan was created. They have designs on Baluchistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan which they feel should be part of Afghanistan. They would be the primary beneficiary of any untoward happening on that side, not India.

You used Afghanistan against India when you could. Taliban also caused a lot of grief to those holding the reins of power now in Afghanistan. They may consider Pakistan to be a villain of the piece and they won't be entirely wrong.

What is happening now (if your comments are accepted) could just be a return of favor from the perspective of those who were at the receiving end earlier.

Refer above.

The Afghan-Pak rivalry is not new, but the subsequent Indian involvement is a result of the hostility over Kashmir. And India woudl also be a beneficiary of something 'untoward' happening in the West since it woudl strengthen its own position against Pakistan. That hostility is again a result of Kashmir. Why else would India be involved in Baluchistan or possibly FATA?

You tried to relate the Baluchistan issue to the Kashmir issue. I had no intention to obfuscate. What I meant was that Afghanistan may be interfering in Balochistan (as per your narrative) because of reasons other than Kashmir. May be I didn't make myself clear.

May I also suggest to be a little more trusting in the debate and not doubt the intentions of the other person so much!

I submit that what is happening on your Western border is not related to Kashmir. It can not be driven by India.

Baluchistan separatism is not related to the Durand. However the Indian support for the Baluch separatists through Afghanistan obviously ties in Kashmir.

And you cannot 'submit' without countering the points I made. The links between Kashmir and the hostility between India and Pakistan that drives the support for separatism, and the subsequent use of Afghanistan for a proxy war is clear.

I respectfully disagree. When people like DS (and countless others) talk of wishing for the division of India into pieces it has nothing to do with Kashmir or anything that India does or does not do. There may well be Indian counterparts to them.

I am sure that the general mindset of the ruling establishments has to change first and Kashmir will get resolved in a jiffy. It is at all an issue because of the prevailing mindsets.

The mindset is creating the issue here and not vice-versa.

The opinions of people like DS stem from India's refusal to adhere to its international and bilateral commitments on Kashmir. They stem from India's role in destabilizing and breakign away East pakistan. From a Pakistanis perspective, India has been hostile to Pakistan throughout its existence, and it has violated international resolutions and commitments to continue to occupy territory - all related to Kashmir.

I do not see why you claim that DS's views are not influenced by the hostility that is a result of Kashmir. The mindset is created out of the hostility and historical tension - those come from Kashmir.

Oh and yes there are many Indians who say the same thing. There is no 'may well be' about it, the WAB was full of them, to take one example.

 

[Vinod2070]

Do check it out. There is no question over Indian collusion support for and sponsoring of destabilizing elements in East Pakistan. That this was acknowledged by the man in charge of the military operations at the time, in whatever capacity, is the 'smoking gun'. Case closed. Whether India 'officially' admits it does not matter, though why a criminal would admit to a crime I do not know.

Does that also apply to all the ISI shenanigans? Like the Kabul bombing for instance or the Mumbai bombings or the Parliament attack?

What someone says in a private conversation does not constitute any proof if we really want to be legal. So the case is not really closed, just deferred for another date.

Taarikh pe Taarikh, if you know what I am talking about.

I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Kashmir is the symptom, when the hostility that led to the intervention in other areas was a direct result of the hostility over Kashmir. Again, barring the Hindutva theories of Pakistan wanting to recreate a 'Muslim controlled India' or the Pakistani theories of India never accepting Pakistan, and wanting to reintegrate it or break it up, there is nothing but the fact that our longest running dispute has poisoned waters beyond Kashmir.

I would accept that had the hostilities been confined to Kashmir. The Punjab, NE, fake currency, the general terror all over the country attributed to Pakistan (and not all of it is wrong), the ISI modules all over the country including deep South convey that it is not just Kashmir.

You may of course come back with your laundry list and it would prove the same. Kashmir is a symptom of a deeper malaise.

See, Kashmir has never ever been a part of Pakistan. If people could so easily forget East Pakistan, why would an area that was never a part of Pakistan be such a big issue for them unless it was kept alive by the establishment and the media. I remember watching that gory daily show on PTV sometimes. It would make stomachs churn with the sheer grossness.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Does that also apply to all the ISI shenanigans? Like the Kabul bombing for instance or the Mumbai bombings or the Parliament attack?

What someone says in a private conversation does not constitute any proof if we really want to be legal. So the case is not really closed, just deferred for another date.

Taarikh pe Taarikh, if you know what I am talking about.

Indeed - when Kiyani admits to doing so in his memoirs, as Manekshaw, I shall accept that guilt is clearly established.

I would accept that had the hostilities been confined to Kashmir. The Punjab, NE, fake currency, the general terror all over the country attributed to Pakistan (and not all of it is wrong), the ISI modules all over the country including deep South convey that it is not just Kashmir.

You may of course come back with your laundry list and it would prove the same. Kashmir is a symptom of a deeper malaise.

See, Kashmir has never ever been a part of Pakistan. If people could so easily forget East Pakistan, why would an area that was never a part of Pakistan be such a big issue for them unless it was kept alive by the establishment and the media. I remember watching that gory daily show on PTV sometimes. It would make stomachs churn with the sheer grossness.

Again, nothing but speculative accusations.

The laundry list exists on this side as well, as you mentioned, equally unsubstantiated, or perhaps just as well. But this hostility occurred because of kashmir - we never normalized after that first war, and everything followed from it. There is no other reason, except for the absurd ones I mentioned, from Pakistan's side atleast.

And Kashmir has never been a part of India either. Pakistan is claiming kashmir because we have legal reasons to do so. It is an unresolved part of the partition, and we believe the people of Kashmir wish to be a part of Pakistan as well.

I doubt Indians would care for Kashmir were it not for the Indian media either. If no one knew through the media of the dispute, no one would care.

 

[Vinod2070]

Then quit implying that the Pakistanis here do not 'care for the people of Afghanistan'. You inserted that insult. I have never suggested that the people of India do not care for the Afghan people. I have criticized Indian policy. You on the other hand continue to try and make the argument that Muslims or Pakistanis are flawed and do not care.

So long as you do that I'll call you out on it.

Well I never went so far as to say "Pakistanis here do not 'care for the people of Afghanistan". I referred to the specific people taking a specific position. So I would argue that the generalization if any has not been made by me.

But if not me then who is the culprit of seeing ghosts where none exist?

There we go again. I did not suggest that we do the same, I am merely pointing out that Pakistan is not alone in attempting to force solutions on Afghanistan that serve its interests. India and the US have done the same.

How come India is forcing any solutions on Afghanistan. AFAIK, India is helping rebuild Afghanistan. We are supporting whatever the international community is doing for them.

We are not linking their well being and return from the current decadence to any other unrelated event!

The only forcing, if any, is the imposition of some spurious conditions that some people want to put on Afghanistan's return to normalcy. They may take the Taliban rule as a benchmark of how things should be, the Afghans and the others who matter there obviously don't concur.

The Afghan-Pak rivalry is not new, but the subsequent Indian involvement is a result of the hostility over Kashmir. And India woudl also be a beneficiary of something 'untoward' happening in the West since it woudl strengthen its own position against Pakistan. That hostility is again a result of Kashmir. Why else would India be involved in Baluchistan or possibly FATA?

Indian involvement, if any, could be to counter what it perceives as similar moves by Pakistan in India's NE and other areas. It could be to force Pakistan to look within and be able to spend less resources in creating problem for India. It has nothing to do with Kashmir at all.

Baluchistan separatism is not related to the Durand. However the Indian support for the Baluch separatists through Afghanistan obviously ties in Kashmir.

And you cannot 'submit' without countering the points I made. The links between Kashmir and the hostility between India and Pakistan that drives the support for separatism, and the subsequent use of Afghanistan for a proxy war is clear.

I am not too sure of this. What I understand is that Afghans do claim Balochistan too as a part of the regions that belong to them and were unfairly occupied by the British.

If that is not right, let me know and I will stand corrected.

Again any Indian involvement, if there, would be supplementary to the Afghanistani involvement and would be to counter similar moves by Pakistan against India beyond Kashmir.

The opinions of people like DS stem from India's refusal to adhere to its international and bilateral commitments on Kashmir. They stem from India's role in destabilizing and breakign away East pakistan. From a Pakistanis perspective, India has been hostile to Pakistan throughout its existence, and it has violated international resolutions and commitments to continue to occupy territory - all related to Kashmir.

I do not see why you claim that DS's views are not influenced by the hostility that is a result of Kashmir. The mindset is created out of the hostility and historical tension - those come from Kashmir.

Oh and yes there are many Indians who say the same thing. There is no 'may well be' about it, the WAB was full of them, to take one example.

Well, in my opinion any justification of such opinions is a post facto one.

People take a position first because of the ingrained prejudices and then think of the justification.

 

[Vinod2070]

Indeed - when Kiyani admits to doing so in his memoirs, as Manekshaw, I shall accept that guilt is clearly established.

Sounds like a serious movement of goalposts here.

You will remember that when the discussion first started on this issue. you took the position that ISI is not culprit because the USA did not accuse them.

That happened and the goalposts changed!

Again, nothing but speculative accusations.

The laundry list exists on this side as well, as you mentioned, equally unsubstantiated, or perhaps just as well. But this hostility occurred because of kashmir - we never normalized after that first war, and everything followed from it. There is no other reason, except for the absurd ones I mentioned, from Pakistan's side atleast.

And Kashmir has never been a part of India either. Pakistan is claiming kashmir because we have legal reasons to do so. It is an unresolved part of the partition, and we believe the people of Kashmir wish to be a part of Pakistan as well.

I doubt Indians would care for Kashmir were it not for the Indian media either. If no one knew through the media of the dispute, no one would care.

These things may remain unsubstantiated if we keep looking for the smoking guns. But I guess most people are aware of the reasoning behind certain happenings.

I agree we started on a false note and went downhill after that. But that does not mean that there was only the Kashmir issue keeping us apart.

But I don't think either of us can really "prove" this point. It is subjective and it is not easy to convince the other if he has his own opinions and strong ones at that.