Pakistan says Kashmir not its part, people there should decide

[Neo]

No.
Will you give up Balochistan, because Majority of Baloch people want out of Pakistan.

With all respect Malay, thats BS!
Most Balochis don't want out of Pakistan!
Provide independant link to support your claim.

Has China given up Tibet, because Majority of people in Tibet want out of China.

Las time I checked Tibet is still integral part of China.

 

[Neo]

Indian Kashmir is far more developed than Azad Kashmir. Is that proof that common man is getting better services in India than in Pakistan.

Have you been to Azad kashmir?
You make it sound like IoC is as develooped as Switserland compared to our side.
IoC has better infrastructure due fast developping tourism, and you have cultivated valleys for agriculture.
Our side is more rugged, but the economy isn't far behind India.
This is a misconception.

Anyways, the country is trying to bridge the gap in Kashmir, they are trying to provide security to kashmiri people, prociding services, and the plan for Kashmir is sooo different from what it is now. Kashmir is on the path to progress already. I say give Kashmir 10 years, and then i dont think there would be any illness in Kashmir barring some Pak sent tterrorists. The terrorists have already lost their major popular base in Kashmir. Now they dont get half the support they used to. So things are definitely improving.

Time will tell...

 

[Neo]

No.
Will you give up Balochistan, because Majority of Baloch people want out of Pakistan.

Here's another independeant sourse:

‘Baloch nationalists have lost support of people’From our correspondent

4 January 2007

ISLAMABAD — Balochistan Chief Minister Jam Mohammad Yousuf yesterday said the ruling PML will make deep inroads into the areas dominated by nationalist groups and parties in the past.

Talking to newsmen at his hometown Lasbela, Jam Yousuf said the nationalist forces were fast losing ground because of their negative politics. The people of Balochistan have suffered a lot because of this and are now responding to the massive development programme launched by the government to address their grievances.

He said President Pervez Musharraf was personally taking interest in launching mega projects for the province in order to transform and modernise the Baloch society. The president will visit some parts of the province later this month to announce several other major projects for the progress and prosperity of the people.

Jam vowed not to tolerate the elements using negative remarks against Pakistan and called for awarding death sentence to such elements. He said the government had no objection if anybody opposed it on principles but would not tolerate anybody indulging in subversion and anti-Pakistan campaign to undermine solidarity of the country.

“Those dreaming about breaking the country are living in fools' paradise as Pakistan is a stable and strong state having an impregnable defence,” he observed, and said the elements talking about separation of Balochistan from Pakistan would also fail to achieve their evil goal.

These are the same people who have not accepted Pakistan as a country from the core of their hearts, he said, and added that he wanted to tell them that Pakistan was now an undeniable fact which they would have to admit.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...nent_January121.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

 

[Bull]

Kashmir would have voted for Pakistan if a pleb was held in 1947/48, we'll fight till the Kashmiri's get to decide what they want.
You live in world's largest democracy, you'll surely understand the basic rights of comon people don't you?

Well we do nd thats why we have send our troops to protect it from the uneducated,illetrate and militant Muslims.

 

[Bull]

Have you been to Azad kashmir?
You make it sound like IoC is as develooped as Switserland compared to our side....

Well yeah compared to Azad Kashmir, Kashmir is Switzerland.You are right!!!

IoC has better infrastructure due fast developping tourism, and you have cultivated valleys for agriculture....

Well we could also have done the same as what GOP does in Baluch,syphon of all the money from the kashmiri money.We could stop promoting Kashmir and stop any tourists from visitng kashmir.

We didnt bcoz our intentions are sincere,we want our kashmiris to live a good life and earn good money.

Our side is more rugged, but the economy isn't far behind India.This is a misconception.Time will tell...

Give me some source of income for Azad Kashmir.

 

[Bull]

Here's another independeant sourse:

Neo you are wrong here.

The article quotes the GOP puppet in saying "Baloch nationalists have lost support of people".

The writer doesnt subatantiate the point.

 

[dabong1]

Tomcat111, go google on the state of Azad Kashmir and Indian Kashmir, all reports say Indian Kashmir is much better than Azad Kashmir, and all these were before the earth quake. The level of development of Kashmir in India is much below the rest of the country, but still better than the 'Azad Kashmir'. Just Google..[/B]

malaymishra123 my family is from azad kashmir.
Recently my cousin was allowed to come and visit from indian kashmir.
He stayed for a week or two and visited the rest of pakistan.
When he was going back i asked him what he thought about AJK.He said he was amazed at the amount of wealth the people had.
Yes there are certain things in where indian kashmir is better like the education level.If you want to see a part of azad kashmir just check the link below.The azad kashmir bit starts 11.min 24 sec.

The above tv shows a realistic view of pakistan ...its up and its downs

 

[dabong1]

What the hell does that mean?

Kashmiris aren't a blood raven bunch of naked spear chucking Tamil negro savages selling their women to bombay pimps for wheystone money to kill their buddhist, christian or muslim neighbours. We are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for us, thank you very much.

You care so much about India,brahmins do the entire subcontinent a favour. Deal with the hordes of Dravidians that are now filling your universities and army thanks to the socalist quotas and stick them in the reservations where they belong. Leave us Kashmiris be.

"Tamil negro savages" "bombay pimps" "buddhist, christian or muslim" "brahmins" "Dravidians"..........What the fu*k are you talking about?
What has that got to do with kashmir?

.

 

[dabong1]

I want to give people an example of indian justice as reported by a Arundhati Roy.

India's shame


Mohammad Afzal is due to hang for his part in the 2001 attack on India's parliament building. But was he only a bit player? And is the country trying to bury embarrassing questions about its war on terror?

In 1989, when Afzal crossed the border to be trained as a militant, he was only 20. He returned with no training, disillusioned with his experience. He put down his gun and enrolled himself in Delhi University. In 1993, without ever having been a practising militant, he voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force. Illogically enough, it was at this point that his nightmares began. His surrender was treated as a crime and his life became hell. Afzal's story has enraged Kashmiris because what has happened to him could have happened, is happening and has happened to thousands of young Kashmiri men and their families. The only difference is that their stories are played out in the dingy bowels of interrogation centres, army camps and police stations where they have been burned, beaten, electrocuted, blackmailed and killed, their bodies thrown out of the backs of trucks for passers-by to find. Whereas Afzal's story is being performed like a piece of medieval theatre on the national stage, in the clear light of day, with the legal sanction of a "fair trial", the hollow benefits of a "free press" and the all pomp and ceremony of a so-called democracy.


Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an "improved security drill", how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called "Mohammad" who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had "incontrovertible evidence" of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's "confession", extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the "incontrovertible evidence"?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to "Mohammed" and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?

Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five "terrorists" killed in the parliament attack are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1972787,00.html

Read the full article it is very good.

 

[Adux]

I want to give people an example of indian justice as reported by a Arundhati Roy.

India's shame


Mohammad Afzal is due to hang for his part in the 2001 attack on India's parliament building. But was he only a bit player? And is the country trying to bury embarrassing questions about its war on terror?

In 1989, when Afzal crossed the border to be trained as a militant, he was only 20. He returned with no training, disillusioned with his experience. He put down his gun and enrolled himself in Delhi University. In 1993, without ever having been a practising militant, he voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force. Illogically enough, it was at this point that his nightmares began. His surrender was treated as a crime and his life became hell. Afzal's story has enraged Kashmiris because what has happened to him could have happened, is happening and has happened to thousands of young Kashmiri men and their families. The only difference is that their stories are played out in the dingy bowels of interrogation centres, army camps and police stations where they have been burned, beaten, electrocuted, blackmailed and killed, their bodies thrown out of the backs of trucks for passers-by to find. Whereas Afzal's story is being performed like a piece of medieval theatre on the national stage, in the clear light of day, with the legal sanction of a "fair trial", the hollow benefits of a "free press" and the all pomp and ceremony of a so-called democracy.


Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an "improved security drill", how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called "Mohammad" who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had "incontrovertible evidence" of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's "confession", extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the "incontrovertible evidence"?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to "Mohammed" and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?

Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five "terrorists" killed in the parliament attack are?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1972787,00.html

Read the full article it is very good.

anybody but her

 

[sword9]

I shall answer Arundati Roy's questions, and try and show how idiotic those questions are.
BTW Arundhati Roy is....India's hippi kid, so don't take her too seriously.

In 1989, when Afzal crossed the border to be trained as a militant, he was only 20. He returned with no training, disillusioned with his experience. He put down his gun and enrolled himself in Delhi University. In 1993, without ever having been a practising militant, he voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force. Illogically enough, it was at this point that his nightmares began. His surrender was treated as a crime and his life became hell.

Its funny at one point, Afzal's brother claims the opposite...that his brother was active with the Jaish-i-Mohd militants, and he, Aijaz had given Afzal's AK-56 to the BSF. Now whom do we believe?

Now for answers to Arundhati's questions:

Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an "improved security drill", how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

If she views the CCTV tapes Arundhati will see the car was well disgused with an original entry car pass and red light, the occupants mowed down 5 policemen (including a woman) who tried to stop them when they noticed them going the wrong way.

Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called "Mohammad" who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

This "Muhammad" is the associated of one "Gaazi Baba", who was part of the IC-814 hijack in Dec 1999. "Muhammad" is believed to be the person who had killed the passenger Rupen Katyal, during the hijack.

What evidence will you get if a terrorist is caught without a weapon? What proof does one get? Nothing, intelligence is gained by information "correct" or "incorrect" that is gathered from various sources.

It is no secret that before Indira Gandhi was assasinated, she had been warned by Yasir Arafat's Palestinian intelligence that such an attack woukld take place. Very rarely do you get proof of such things.

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV........ The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

So what if there was a sixth man who may have escaped? What has that go to do with Afzal's case. He was the Jaish co-ordinator in Delhi, and has to face the music.

Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

The parliament has been adjouned for varoious issues in the past,....why give it a conspiracy angle.

Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had "incontrovertible evidence" of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's "confession", extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the "incontrovertible evidence"?

Lol....Arindhati seems clueless about the proxy war in J&K, she needs to read up too, apart from writing.

An attack on a nation's parliament is a very serious issue, when it is known that the attackers have state sponsorers. Nations have gone to war on far mundane issues.

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?

C.r.a.p, someone please tell this commie author that winter is the time of training exercises for both India and Pakistan.

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost?

Its in the media reports Arundhati, $65 billion.

How many soldiers died in the process?

It does not concern her, but she can get the information by researching reports in the press releases and media, she will get a 85% correct picture.

How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?

War is not a drama held by a commie youth group. Both India and Pakistan move their villagers away from the fronts, to minimize civilian casulties. Defensive nines have to be planted, she has business asking that question. Next she will ask why do the army and police carry guns and not lathis.

Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?

How is she so sure, was she monitoring Police procedure in Dec 2001?

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

A question based on wrong information, see my reply before question No1.

Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

What survillance did Afzal have on him in Delhi? Since Arundhati knows so much, could she give the surveillance detailment for Afzal in 2001?

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to "Mohammed" and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

What has that got to do with Afzal's involvement?

Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?

Such men get release because of pinko bleeding hearts like Arundhati? Had we kept him in prison they would have claimed that the security forces are brutal, now hey ask whay was he released. Lol...seriously its getting irritating to know that such ******** are celebrity writers.

Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five "terrorists" killed in the parliament attack are?

Would you believe them if we told you, see the question above....

Read the full article it is very good

Thanx, the article proves that Arundhati is actually quite a silly girl.

 

[Contrarian]

Yeah, spare us Arundhati Roy.
I'd post so manu articles about such BS in Pakistan. In justice being done etc. Our judiciary is COMPLETELY independent of our executive. That is the reason why we have a democracy. I challenge anybody to contradict my statement.

Btw, what A.Roy has written above is PURE BS. The govt gets 100 reports everyday that such and such is being targetted. How is the govt supposed to know whether its true or not. Bloody hell, US gets 1000's of reports that its white house and pentagon and WT tower might be under attack, it still could not find out whether it was true or not. How the hell is India supopsed to 'know'. All of her questions are just the ones that are asked which play on public opinion. Anyways, who cares.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4433159.stm

India's gains from Kashmir bus

Letter from Kashmir
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Line of Control, Kashmir

Indian troops painting the bridge at the Line of Control
Painting the bridge in the colours of the Indian flag

The BBC's South Asia correspondent reflects on who gained most from the historic reopening of transport links last week across the disputed territory of Kashmir.

It was once aptly described by former US president Bill Clinton as "the most dangerous place on Earth".

But in recent weeks the Line of Control (LoC) that divides Kashmir has started to look more like a garden centre in rural England.

Turf once scattered with deadly land-mines is now studded with lampposts which could have come from the set of a Sherlock Holmes film.

A spanking new reception centre not only has its own neatly-manicured lawn, but some potted plants and ornamental outdoor furniture to boot.

In just 41 days, the Indian army transformed Kaman Point, the 220-feet (67-metre) steel bridge where last week's historic bus passenger crossing took place, from a war zone into a comfort zone.

According to a colleague, the new reception centre has some of the most impressive public toilets in Indian-controlled Kashmir, if not the entire country.

Looking like a border

On the Indian side, the beautification of the LoC is partly because of the flowering peace process; partly, it seems, in an act of South Asian one-upmanship.

An emotional reunion in Srinagar
Kashmiris reunited, in spite of militant threats

But most importantly of all it indicates the Indian government's determination to make the LoC look like a border.

India is what historian Sumantra Bose has called the "status quo power", administering the largest chunk of this disputed territory (the Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh).

It also has by far the most sizeable population. (There are 10m people in Indian-administered Kashmir, compared to 3m in Pakistan-administered Kashmir).

By agreeing to the bus link between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, Delhi is trying to reinforce the status quo.

Unlike the passengers on those emotion-packed inaugural crossings, I was unable to cross into Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

But, from across the river valley, it seemed to me that the Pakistani efforts at adornment were rather sparse in comparison.

Whereas the Indians have erected a ceremonial archway at the end of the newly-constructed bridge linking the two sides, Pakistan made do with a more modest green iron gate. And I couldn't spot a single lamppost.

Momentous advance

The simple fact that the Indian army constructed the bridge at Kaman Point, and then painted it in the bright green, orange and white of the Indian flag (they later repainted it a neutral shade of white after complaints from Pakistan officials) hammered home the point - of the two arch rivals, India has gained far more from the bus link.


The bus link will not help Islamabad reclaim any real estate in Kashmir, the touchstone of its policy since partition and a central goal of much of Gen Musharraf's military career

First of all, it addresses one of the main grievances of the Kashmiri people themselves who are unquestionably the biggest winners of last week's events - their ability to enjoy tearful reunions with separated relatives.

Although the bus link is only fortnightly, and therefore restricted to a relatively small number of passengers, it is still a momentous advance.

India hopes it will ease tensions in the Kashmir Valley, thereby reducing popular support for the Kashmiri separatist movement, and the violent insurgency it has spawned.

By the same the logic, Delhi hopes to marginalise the Islamic militants fighting Indian rule. Turning the buses into "coffins", the terrifying vow of four militant groups, means killing elderly Kashmiri people - elderly Kashmiris who last week were reliant for protection on the Indian security forces.

When two militants mounted an audacious attack on the tourist reception centre in central Srinagar, where the passengers were being housed for their protection on the eve of the journey, the point was most violently driven home.

The "army of occupation", as many in this Muslim-majority state regard the Indian security forces, suddenly performed a more benevolent role, as "the protectors of the passengers".

Greater respectability

For the Kashmiri separatists, it was a deeply unhelpful visual image.

No wonder the initiative was first mooted by Delhi.

Syed Tariq Hussain meets his nieces - for the first time
Syed Tariq Hussain meets his nieces - for the first time

From his viewpoint, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has gained greater global respectability from this move and pleased Washington.

The American decision to go ahead with the sale of F-16 fighters to Islamabad was most probably partly a reward.

But Pakistan is the "revisionist power" in this dispute and the bus link will not help Islamabad reclaim any real estate in Kashmir, the touchstone of its policy since partition and a central goal of much of Gen Musharraf's military career.

The simple fact that neither the president nor any other official from the central government attended last Thursday's inaugural celebrations as a guest of the Pakistan-administered territory - known locally as Azad (Free) Kashmir - spoke of his peculiar quandary: of the passionate nationalist vying with the pragmatic internationalist.

On the Indian side, as the bus was flagged off we saw a gathering of the great and the good, crowned by a joint public appearance by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi.

The Indian establishment was here in force, celebrating not just what Mr Singh called a "caravan towards peace" but a move which arguably tightens its grip on the Kashmir Valley and safeguards its territorial integrity as a nation.

 

[Contrarian]

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight20061220a.html

EU Report Says Plebiscite Not In Kashmiris' Interest
Mohd. Sadiq

20 December 2006

In her report titled 'Kashmir, Present Situation and Future Prospects', British Member of European Parliament (EP) Baroness Emma Nicholson has observed that the continuing demand for a plebiscite on the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is not reflective of the current needs of local people. Nicholson observes in her report that the plebiscite demand is, in fact, damaging to Kashmiris' interests. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the EP is expected to adopt the report after a debate on amendment proposals on 30 January 2007.


Pakistan Failed To Fulfil Its Obligations
The key observations in the report drafted by Rapporteur Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne during her visit to Kashmir earlier this year are based on a comparison of the situation in Indian Kashmir and Azad Kashmir (Azad Kashmir). The report says that both India and Pakistan are important European Union (EU) partners. Observing that neither of the two countries have called for the EU's mediation, the report observes that the EU and international community should, nevertheless, support the current bilateral talks for the aim of generating a more stable and prosperous future for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Acknowledging that both India and Pakistan are now members of the nuclear club, the report says that 'India is the world's largest democracy and has a functioning democracy at local level, whereas Pakistan still has to show that it is respecting democratic principles in a great many areas.' The 10-page long report with 44 observations also says that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures in Azad Kashmir (called Azad Kashmir in Pakistan).

Echoing India's position, the Nicholson report observes that Pakistan needs to take more effective steps to curb cross-Line of Control infiltration of militants. Moreover, the report supports the Indian position that demilitarisation in J&K is not favourable unless there is genuine reduction in violence levels. Though the report appreciated Islamabad's public commitments to end infiltration, it deplores the frequent incidents of terrorism undertaken in Kashmir by Pakistan-based terrorists outfits. The Nicholson report implores Pakistan to 'revisit its concept of democratic accountability, minority and women's rights in AJK, which it terms as crucial to counter the menace of terrorism. Comparing the governance structures in both parts of divided Kashmir, the Nicholson report observes that AJK is governed through Islamabad-based Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and that Pakistani officials dominate the Kashmir Council besides which the Chief Secretary, the Inspector General of Police, the Accountant General and the Finance Secretary are all from Pakistan. But with regard to Indian Kashmir, the report notes that the state enjoys a unique status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granting it greater autonomy than other states in the Union.

The Nicholson report drew sharp criticism from Pakistan and separatist outfits including the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference which termed the report as biased and unrealistic. Separatists say that Baroness Nicholson was a state guest during her visit to Kashmir earlier this year and members of the EU delegation led by her did not meet any of the separatists to ascertain their views. The separatists called upon the EU to reject the report submitted by Baronnes Nicholson. The Pakistan government also took up the report at an official level with its ambassador in Brussels, Saeed Khalid, writing a letter to Nicholson expressing reservations about her observations. However, in her reply, Baronnes Nicholson reportedly defended the draft report and said that she would welcome a constructive debate on the report. Reports indicate that major amendments are likely to be made in the draft report before it is adopted by the European Parliament. Observers say that while these amendments may seek to soften the observations made in the Nicholson report, there is growing acceptance of the fact that the ground situation in Indian Kashmir is today arguably much better than in Azad Kashmir.
To read the full European Parliament report, click the link below:

 

[dabong1]

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight20061220a.html

BRUSSELS --saturday 13th 2007- The deadline to submit amendments to the draft report on Kashmir to the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee expired today at midday Brussels time. The report, that was drafted by Baroness Emma Nicholson, raised controversies and earned condemnations of Kashmiris from both sides of the divide as it ignored fundamental issues of the Kashmir problem.
Kashmir Centre. EU, which is the prime stakeholder of the Kashmir cause in Europe, over the last six weeks extensively lobbied MEPs of all political groups to alter/amend the report's unbalanced and unfair approach. The "draft" report has been subject of unparallel criticism in the European Parliament and it was overwhelmingly felt to change the report to reflect real concerns and aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. It is understood that over 450 amendments have been registered with the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee Secretariat. The amendments are upholding the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination, deploring gross human rights violations taking place in the Indian occupied Kashmir and seeking funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction for the earthquake victims in Azad Jammu Kashmir.
Elmar Brok, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and James Elles, Chairman All Party Group on Kashmir of the European Parliament where unaware that Baroness Emma Nicholson during her visit to Kashmir in June did not meet any "pro-freedom political parties and their leaders including the All Parties Hurriyet Conference."
Following severe criticism on the report in EU,Pakistan and Kashmir circles, the foreign affairs committee decided to hold discussions on the amendment proposals on January 24-25 for adoption of the report on January 30.



New Delhi, 06 January (Asiantribune.com): A high level delegation of the European Union on the Kashmir issue is here on a short 'low key' visit to meet a cross section of politicians particularly those active on the Kashmir scene.

Both moderate and hard-line factions of the Hurriyat have sent their top leaders to meet Elmar Brok, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and James Elles Chairman All Party Group on Kashmir of the European Parliament.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the hardline Hurriyat leader is leading a three-member team of the breakaway faction of the Hurriyat Conference in the meeting with visiting EU delegation. Masarat Aalam and Ghulam Muhammad Gulzar are the other members of the delegation.

The moderate Hurriyats also have sent a three member delegation. They are former chairman of the alliance, Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat, Abdul Majeed Banday and advocate Nazeer Ahmad Baba. Dr. Mohammad Amin and Dr. Farooq Ahmad represented the Democratic Freedom Party at the meeting with the European delegation held at the Hyatt hotel.