General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, while in office, termed terrorist as our enemy number one. Going by his assessment, which holds a lot of weight, the biggest threat to Pakistan’s national security today is, therefore, not external but internal from terrorists/forces with extremist ideologies from within. If it is so, then should the state continue to maintain a very significant conventional force posture to deal with the Indian threat? Doesn’t this changed threat perception warrant a change in our military force structures and modification of our state defence and security policies? Given the significance of the internal threat, should we still continue with our India-centric state defence and security policy?
The January 12, 2002 ‘about turn speech’ by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf changed forever the motive for war between India and Pakistan. Faced with serious Indian military threat looming on our eastern front, the general unconditionally announced the cessation of state support to the jihadists, who fought the military’s proxy in Kashmir. The military ruler committed to not allowing the use of Pakistani territory for any terrorist act against India in the future. This resulted in the demobilisation and withdrawal of Indian forces from the international border but more than that, it enabled Indians to complete uninterrupted the border fence along the 1,500 miles long Line of Control. All attempts by the Indians had previously been blocked by intense artillery firing from the Pakistani side of the border. Most significantly, the Pakistan Army also decided to roll back its proxy fighting infrastructures, finally demonstrating to the Indians its resolve to remain committed to the promise the military ruler had made. On the Indian side, the one big reason to go to war with Pakistan — ‘supporting jihadists in Kashmir’ — ceased to exist.
Considering that Kashmir, since then, has gone quiet and also considering that we actually cooperated with the Indians to ensure its quietness, should we still maintain our military-imposed perpetual public desire for acquisition of Indian-held Kashmir through military means? Considering that Kashmir had been the bone of contention and the sole reason for both India and Pakistan to fight almost all wars, is the peace and quiet on the Kashmir front not good news for politics in the region, for the people of the region, for democracy and even for the peace process between the two countries that should now progress towards reaching a meaningful end? Politicians on both sides should take this as an opportunity to build on the prevailing atmosphere and make advances for a negotiated settlement of the issue.
‘Operation Parakaram’ in 2001-02, and its consequent actions by our state, have closed all doors on finding a military solution to the Kashmir conflict. Realistically speaking, the Pakistan Army’s best chances to acquire Indian-held Kashmir through military means are now over, dead and buried in the past. Both the conventional military means, as well as Kashmir proxies, have failed to bring about any meaningful ends that the military desired.
Given the background, it seems that the plausible way forward for the Pakistan Army to ensure the safety and survival of our nation state is to create enabling conditions for politicians to pursue peace with India and carryout organisational and structural changes in the armed forces to meet both the actual threat as well as the external threat. Above all, the army can help the civilian leadership to redefine and reformulate the state security and defence policy, more inclined to meet all the threats with appropriate force structures. It’s also time that the strategic thinkers on both sides of the border carried out some soul-searching and, instead of spending huge amount on defence expenditures, provide the people of the two countries an opportunity to live better lives. This will only be possible if it is realised that it is no more necessary to maintain and sustain huge conventional armies especially when downsizing them is possible, considering the calm that prevails on the Kashmir front.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (79)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
-(1)1714378140-0/AliAminMaryam-(4)-(1)1714378140-0-270x192.webp)
1714370039-0/ojwilson-(1)1714370039-0-270x192.webp)
Mahdi will take back Kashmir.
@Jag Nathan: "do you think the world can force 1.2 billion people to change our ways? " Our ways! You said it.
@mukhtar: Mukhtar, ignorance is bliss but please try not to mislead countrymen further. Since you do not like to read or check facts but rather go on assumption I must inform you that the link to the complete resolution has been provided in the comment by "Raju Thacker".
http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm Please learn to differentiate between propaganda and fact. Wish you well !
@mukhtar:
Cheers!
You are wrong Sir. @ Arjit Sharma. will reply to you of course, but you may appreciate some education from an old Paki. Just Google UN Resolutions on Kashmir and you will get all information.Read them. Pakistan must withdraw from Azad Kashmir before any further action.
The Indian forces in Kashmir are there to look after LeT infiltrators, and to ensure Paki army does not come in just like they did at least twice earlier. Something more about what the followers of Hafiz Saeed are doing in Kashmir will be explained to you by a Paki Maulana on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=FdBpzHIT7WM
If you do not mind some good advice from an old man; Know your facts.
@ Arjit Sharma.Dear there is no such clause on Kashmir as pointed by you, I suggest go through the UN resolution that talks only about acceptance Indian PM Jawahar Lal Nehru to agree to hold plebicite in IOK. Why India has deployed over 7 lac army in Kashmir.They are not on holiday, they are there to supress the Kashmiris.
Let us face the ground realities, India being much larger must show some flexibility and talks should bring some results , so far we meet sit talk and get fresh date.This is not the way to handle the issues
@mukhtar: @Arijit Sharma: Mukhtar, do you think the world can force 1.2 billion people to change our ways? The world could not make a 10 million strong Israel to change her ways. Neither could it make the Russians change their ways in Chechnya, the Assad government in Syria, the Chinese in Tibet and Xinjiang, And you think they can make us change our ways? India uses UN to advance her cause. That does not necessarily mean we will abide bu every BS policy or resolution they send our way.
@Mango Aadmin: "but have you thought of a point that if Pakistan lets go of Kashmir India too will be able to focus to further it’s development." I don't think India's starategic policies are based on Pakistan's attitude.India's ambitions are much biger Aand complex.The thought that invaders have ruled India in past for long times has resulted in a strong urge in indians mind to take that revenge not by assaulting on other nation,but making India super powe.both militarily and economicaly.This is not a bad thinking,however an up hil task requiring too much compromises, patience and sacrifices,Is indian volk ready for that and aware of its responsibilities?.
@Sabi: Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. Leaving aside comaprion between Pakistan and India for the moment, I would like to share what I know about Indians. The nationalistic feeling that you refer to exists but people would want India to become an economic superpower - not a military power. See what happened in 1971 where India made no attempt to use mukti bahini fighting for their own freedom against Pakistan in an assymetric war. Contrast this towhat Pakistan did with mujahideen after close of the Afghan war in 1980s.
India actually had an extremely small army until 1960s because Nehru wanted to spend on development. 1962 made it clear to Indians that we needed to have an army strong enough to defend ourselves. But Indiatruly considers its army as a defense forece not an attack. Regardless of what US may want, India will not base its relationship with China bsed on US diktat but rather Indian national interest.
Back to the 2 countries, India invests far greater percentage of its GDP towards education and health compared to Pakistan. Total number of our of school kids in India (2.3 million) is less than total number of out of school kids in Pakistan (5.1 million) despite having 6 times total number of kids. Infant mortality rate in India is also much lower than Pakistan and polio has been abolished. OFcourse if India and Pakistan compete with each other about who is working harder to uplift its masses nothing could be better..
@Milestogo: ".......because Allah created it." Actually my friend, there are plenty of Muslims in India, and since Pakistan was also created by Allah, It stands to reason that Pakistan also belongs to India. I suggest you all move to another Allah created land, like Afghanistan or Sudan. You will fit nicely in that society.
@Sterry: India is not "holding any resident in Kashmir hostage indefinitely". You are free persons and free to leave India, whenever you want. But you cannot get independence from India while living on Indian land of Kashmir.
We know that you are not native Kashmiris, but alien migrants from central Asia who migrated to Kashmir during Mughal rule. You do not belong in Kashmir and should leave Kashmir ASAP.
I don't know what Pakistan actually wants......? KASHMIR OR KASHMIRIS ???? well then the Kashmir are free to go to Pakistan (if they actually want)......
@gp65: "I am not saying that this cannot happen but am definitely interested in hearing about the multiple reasons. Could you please elaborate?" India's huge population and task to build huge infrastructure requires muh longer time and bigger efforts than Pakistan.Indiad's military goals are much different than Pakistan and are more china centric and beyond, control over indian ocean.This would require India to put much of its sources on war machinery.India is far more pluralistic,diverse and at the same time nationalistic society.This nationalistic sentiments and urge to make india super power will make the task easier for policy maker.In my view India will take much longer time than Pakistan to become full fledge developed country.Remeber India has much higher population density than Pakistan.I wish honestly that India should follow china's Path .i.e freezing expenditures on defence and cocentrating on human developments.But who I'm. This is my opinion and I might very well be wrong.
Kashmir belongs to Allah because Allah created it.
@Kashmirian: "There is only one way to get kashmir liberated from the clings of india and that is to nuke india and push it to stone ages, pakistan army should seriously think about this solution."
This is the most asinine statement I have read from an idiot. You are already in a stone age mentality and nuking India will surely send you to your 72 virgins along with your beloved Pakistan army. In simpler words - so your brain can comprehend - there will be no Pakistan left.
@Its (still) Econonmy Stupid: why would india want to pay money for land it already controls like siachen?
To all Pakistanis who keep talking about plebiscite step one of the UN resolution is"The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors: To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State; To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order"
@Milestogo: 'All land belongs to Allah-------------' Let me put you wiser, there is only one God or Allah who not only created this earth but the whole of this universe and all the existing religions in different places of this earth are part of His creation only. If He was to create only one religion which you wish to be 'Islam' then others wouldn't have been created by Him and existing for the past hundreds or even thousands of years. God created all the religions to co-exist together for a specific purpose of manifesting universal brotherhood on this earth and not spreading hatred or violence against each other religions.
@Hella1:
You aught to be fair Sir. Why compare monkeys with Pakistanis? The Society against Cruelty to Animals will be livid.
There is only one way to get kashmir liberated from the clings of india and that is to nuke india and push it to stone ages, pakistan army should seriously think about this solution.
Here is a challenge for all those who repeatedly ask for plebiscite in Kashmir.
I challenge you to hold a referendum in Azad Kashmir under UN supervision and in the conditions laid down by UN resolutions on Kashmir dispute. Let the people vote on just one question. Do you want to become a part of Pakistan?
If the answer is "Yes", there will be something to show the UN supporting your complaint.
And, if the answer is "NO", get out of Azad Kashmir and leave the Kashmiris alone.
Let us see how many support this idea.
Want to know what Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir think of Pakistan? Listen to a Pakistani, Hamid Bashani, from that area, on this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ekDWIY53Uto
@Milestogo
'All land belongs to Allah so gradually entire earth will become Islamic republic – it’s just matter of time.'
Show me the title deed.
@Milestogo All land belongs to Allah so gradually entire earth will become Islamic republic – it’s just matter of time. ........and Zaid Hamid will be its Amir-ul-Momineen!!!
@Milestogo:
"All land belongs to Allah so gradually entire earth will become Islamic republic – it’s just matter of time."
If you are so sure why fight for it in Kashmir? Why not just wait?
I think you are actually not sure.
Kashmir is Pakistan's achilles' heel. It is like the monkey who goes for the fruit in the bottle, but its' paw/hand, holding the fruit, will not pass thru the bottle opening . To free its hand/paw the monkey has to let go of the fruit, which it does not want to do. Unfortunately the bottle is too heavy for the monkey to flip over and get the fruit out. So it remains, with the monkey's hand in the bottle, neither able to let go nor able to get it out. Indian strategists seem to know this. So all they need to do is maintain the status quo. Rest will be done by Pakistan.
All land belongs to Allah so gradually entire earth will become Islamic republic - it's just matter of time.
@sabi Here is the complete resolution
http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm
The author has penned this article with a realistic approach. Why only Pakistan, India too would refrain from seeking a military solution to this six decade old contentious problem between the two countries. That leaves only one way to tackle this issue if not exactly solving it is through dialogue which govt of both countries can afford to continue for several more decades than fighting a war and hopefully one fine day present line of control would be treated as the international border.
Many Pakistanis believe that Kashmir is bleeding India. In fact, Kashmir has already bled Pakistan.
@mukhtar: " ... The world should force India to honor its committment to UN and immediately comply with the resolution on Kashmir and hold plebicite in Kashmir.Let the Kashmiris decide their future so that India and Pakistan can live at peace. ... "
You guys have been hoodwinked by your own establishment. Under the same resolution you are supposed to vacate all of the Indian State of Jammu And Kashmir that you occupy and restore the demography to 1948 levels.
Can you do that ? I guess not. That is why your government no longer talks about a plebiscite, rather talks about "aspirations" of Kashmiris. Pakistan is fooling no one.
The author is stretching what was a policy change compelled by Indian forces on the border to a country's shift in thinking. What musharraf did was out of compulsion not statesmanship and that is why India has not celebrated or embraced this change.
They have just been watchful because what is being taught in the military training centres in Rawalpindi and Abbotabad has not changed too much since the author was a cadet - would like to know what the content of that training was - was it muslim vs kaafir based or was it a proper soldier's training.
I would have loved it if the author had given us an insight into the current training and mentality in the army - infiltration still continues in Kashmir - it is impossible to fence evey bit of the border - the bleeding india by a thousand cuts still continues - despite it causing a veritable haemmorage throughout pakistan.
It is heartening to note that our writers are gradually gathering the courage to talk openly about matter such as Kashmir. This openness of mind also indicates the reducing fear of getting branded as a traitor or RAW agent, and the resultant consequences. It is a welcome change which bodes well for this blighted land-of-the-pure.
The ideas thrown up by the writer are very important for serious consideration by the concerned authorities, both Military and Civilian. The eagerness to throw in gratuitous advise to Indians is a rather jarring element in a well written piece. Let India do what it considers in its best interests, and letr us concentrate on what we can do to save our sinking ship.
@Sterry: I am a Kashmiri , pls. dont make others fool , y would Kashmiri would want to go to a bankrupt nation leaving behind a country who is increasingly becoming powerful and wealhier...u pls save ur Baloochistan and dont worrry about us ..we are quite happy ..and pls dont fake urself to be a Kashmiri
Excellent article by the author and hope good sense prevails on all sides. However India is unlikely to cut its defense budget as long as China claims territory held by it since the last hundred years. What Pakistan or any other country says may not in any way impact their decision making. In fact most global Powers want India to play a much larger role to check Chinese hegemony in Asia and its constant threats to neighbors Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and Brunei.
We all talk about forgetting Kashmir. How stupid is the idea.Founder of the country declared it as "SHEH RUG OF PAKISTAN".Without Kashmir Pakistan is incomplete. I agree that the only solution to take Kashmir is through military might.Question arises can we do it? The answer is no Pakistan with small force can not fight Indians. So where we go from here?
The world should force India to honor its committment to UN and immediately comply with the resolution on Kashmir and hold plebicite in Kashmir.Let the Kashmiris decide their future so that India and Pakistan can live at peace.
Pakistan army is trained on one agenda that is our enemy number one is India, if that be the case how can you change agenda. Change in agenda means reduction in army,stoppage of further recruitment of troops,reducing defense expenditure etc.It is a long debate going on since 1948, every year we have increase in defense budget on both sides,testing long range missiles etc.I think India should come forward and resolve the issue instead of becoming a problem and showing stubborn attitude during discussions.
It iakes two to clap, one sided concessions given to India by Musharraf has otherwise weaken us militarily on the ground.Let us approach UN to bring an end to the issue
Pakistan, with respect to Kashmir, is a guy who is trapped in a small room, with a locked door from the outside(Indian side) and open roof, with a thread hanging to climb up.
Pakistan wants India to unlock the door, while refusing to simply climb out of the room using the rope. India has the keys to Pakistan's well being. Like today, India just has to sit and watch, while Hunger and Hate(translated to Terror and Poverty) eats away at Pakistan.
There are 2 choices for Pakistan as @Lala Gee lucidly points out.
1) Hope for India to unlock(India giving up Kashmir).
2) Climb up the rope(Pakistan give up Kashmir). This means India will not give an inch and Pakistan has to answer its own people for the propaganda and grandstanding for the past 66 years.
@Lala Gee:
"There was only one way to get Kashmir, there is still only one way available, and there will always be only one way to get Kashmir, and that is by militarily winning it. "
Fifth time's the charm? :)
(Not counting the several Terror attempts on India by Pakistan. Well, you know by now that we are better at countering that too and giving it back)
Overall, a good article.
It will help our Pakistani friends to understand that Indians are absolutely certain that they are morally right on Kashmir. They just don't proclaim their morality from rooftops. It could be that they are not the revisionist power so they don't have to make a show of their morality on Kashmir. In any case, all but a few extremist Indians believe that Pakistan's occupation of any part of Kashmir is both illegal and immoral, and its handing over a part of Kashmir to the Chinese unforgivable using any moral equation.
@Lala Gee This is a sensible comment from your side.
@sabi: Good comment, but have you thought of a point that if Pakistan lets go of Kashmir India too will be able to focus to further it's development. You can wishfully become as progressive as Europe but don't expect India to stay a third world nation. Peace Regards
The author is suggesting the Pak army wind down to a police force, and the air force/navy to a coast guard outfit because of changed threat perceptions?
Nice sentiment. What happens when the current threat perceptions mutate?
Regards.
'Militarily win'?!!...Delusion again.............when can we come out of this over-confidence?
@Sterry: "Pakistan holds the moral high ground on the Kashmir issue" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pakistan also holds the moral high ground on the War on Terror, OBL, Afghanistan, cricjet match fixing ... ....the list is long!
@Sterry: Pakistan holds the moral high ground on the Kashmir issue and should not forget that.
Pakistan does not hold any high ground - morally or militarily in "Kashmir".
@gp65: I agree with you regarding India occupies Siachen and 2/3 of the Kashmir. However, when one is making an agreement it is better to lump all dispute big or small in to the basket to close to book. When it comes to calculating the fair price than the number crunchers will calculate value proportionately e.g. Siachen will get very small price, Kashmir will get only 1/3 of total price and 48 km (half of 96km) of Sir Creek will get value accordingly. Sir Creek may get higher price because of the potential commercial leases for oil and gas explorations. I admit that the caveat is that Pakistan would bargain hard by introducing the China card and try to sell her portion to them. Once the objective is to make a deal, then price is always negotiable. It can also calculated by various angel. Just like any commercial property transaction i.e. fair market value. End of the day a monetary solution can help Pakistan with its financial vows and India gets to close the books on the so called disputes. Both countries can save on defense budget too. You know Money talks!
The logic behind the nuclear power plant idea is to help integrating the economies of two countries. Peace through interdependence Like a North American grid.
@Kashmiri Brahmin: "Kashmir resolution, clearly, states that Pakistan must vacate the occupied land of Kashmir, return to its point of origin (pre-occupation position) and then talk about a plebiscite" Given the rule, might is right, I'm of the view Pakistan should forget Kashmir and accept the ground realities.However, just out of curiosity,I'm intrested if you could provide the refference to that resolution where it clearly states what you have reffered to in the above post. I have read Lala gee's post and there I found nothing strange.What I have understood from his post is ,either grab it or forget it and stop doing dirty politics.If you think Pakistan can not grab it then let Pakistan do this suicide,there is nothing to worry about.I hope there will be no war on Kashmir in fiture.
Pakistan controls 33% of Kashmir, India only 45% and China occupies 22 % of Kashmir, (Askai Chin) which it took over in 1962 after defeating India.. India does not control 2/3rd of Kahmir.
I have nothing to add as fellow Indians have already said whatever had to be said. However, I must admire author's fair analysis of the ground realities. Author's article affirms my view that the numbers of Lala gee's ilk are dwindling rapidly in Pakistan.
Kudos Muhammad Ali Ehsan. This is a well thought out article. A war on the sub-continent will only end in a major nuclear conflagration from which neither nation will emerge victor. Most of North India and all of Pakistan would become an unlivable radioactive desert for at least 10,000 years. A rough estimate of possible death count is in the region of 500 million. The political and economic fall out will make us lepers in the world of nations and no friendship of ours will survive the calamity. The world community will simply walk away from us leaving the remaining millions on the continent to eke a life of extreme poverty and disease. If any one thought it would be otherwise, they are smoking something normal folks don't. In these circumstances, as they say, "its best to let sleeping dogs lie". Let Kashmir be what it today. A piece of it with each of us - Pakistan, India and China.
@Prakash Lal: "@Sterry: Does the Destiny of Hindu in Jammu,Budhist in Ladakh and Pandits in Valley also lies West with Pakistan and Muslim Central Asia."
You forgot to mention Shias who are not having such a great time in Gilgit.
@Its (still) Econonmy Stupid: "Pakistan should sell POK, Sir Creek, Siachen etc to India in exchange for x amount of dollar paid over twenty years (a guarantee for peace) either to pay off international loans or circular debt or whatever".
I usually find your posts logical but am perplexed by this one. India occupies Siachen currently and per the 1949 agreement with Pakistan where the LOC is NJ 9842 extending due North, it belongs to India. Why would India pay Pakistan for something that it occupies physically and owns morally? A similar situation holds for 2/3 of Kashmir based on the instrument of accession.
If unsubstantiated and unenforeceable claims from Pakistan are the basis for compensation, tomorrow they will claim Mumbai.
@Sterry: Does the Destiny of Hindu in Jammu,Budhist in Ladakh and Pandits in Valley also lies West with Pakistan and Muslim Central Asia.
@sabi: "Pakistan has a full ptential to leave India far behind in social sector progress and prosperity for multiple reasons"
I am not saying that this cannot happen but am definitely interested in hearing about the multiple reasons. Could you please elaborate?
@Arjun: Amen
@Lala Gee: Sir, you are assuming that the Indian stockpile of Nukes are all duds and India does not possess a second strike option. Every war Pakistan fought, it was somehow assumed Hindus will not fight and one Pakistani solider is ,more than equal to two Indian ones. At the end of 60 years of wars and hostilities, Kashmir remains no closer to becoming a part of Pakistan than on 14 Aug 1947. I hope you will not fall victim to your own propaganda.
@Sterry: In the business of nations, moral high grounds have little value. One has to only look at the fate of the the Armenians, the Kurds, Shiias in Bahrain, Tibetians, Uighurs in Xinjiang, Coptic Christians in Egypt, and so on. Nations bond on the basis of national and mutual interests and nothing else. Kashmir shares a similar fate. India has something to offer the world that far exceeds what Pakistan can. As long as India can keep this lead, Kashmir is a dead duck in the water.
Suggestion Pakistan sells POK, Sir Creek and Siachen to India. In exchange India will purchase a nuclear power plant, install it and operate it for export of 100% of power free to Pakistan for next 65 years. This power plant will produce sufficient power to meet 100% need of Pakistan for next 65 year. Offer ends Dec 31, 2012.
Sterry:
You may think you hold the moral high ground but India holds the ground you want. Given your inability to change that situation on the ground, you can only ride your moral high-horse off to the sunset...may I recommend riding due west...conditions may not be hospitable towards the east.
Here is out of the box solution for Kashmir and Pakistan. Leave emotions aside and think from economic point of view. When someone is in trouble they sell part of there property. USA purchased state of Alaska from Russia. Pakistan should sell POK, Sir Creek, Siachen etc to India in exchange for x amount of dollar paid over twenty years (a guarantee for peace) either to pay off international loans or circular debt or whatever. End of the day there will be surplus money ( less for money for defence on both side) in Pakistani budget that can be utilized for power generation or education etc. It will be a bargain considering that right now world thinks that Paksitan has 0% claim on Kashmir. In the climate of regime change in Middle East to resolve Palestine issue once for all. To curb terrorism and nuclear proliferation US wants the following: The United States must remove itself from the Indo-Pakistan equation by declaring that it no longer entertains Pakistan's central claims on Kashmir. Pakistan was not entitled to Kashmir -- the legality of Pakistan's claims is specious and always has been. Equally important, the United States should rubbish any notion that Pakistan has a positive role to play in ameliorating the suffering of Kashmiris, due to the decades of terrorism it has sponsored in Kashmir and beyond. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/pakistanipowerplay?page=0,2
Author, The best revenge that Pakistan can take from India is,seriously,to forget Kashmir, role back ultimately strategic depth policy and concentrate on building Pakistan.Set next ten years for progress on war footing.Make europe in india's western borders and open it for indian tourists.Make Pakistan a strong, rich market for india and makeIndia a stake holder in Pakistani market.Pakistan has a full ptential to leave India far behind in social sector progress and prosperity for multiple reasons.Atom bomb may be a deterent militarily but much biger deterents are in economical fields i.e foreign stakes in domestic market.USA is a biggest example.If Ksahmir belongs to Pakisdtan it will come otherwise we don't need it. Excellant .Regards.
@Lala Gee @gp65:
Reading the comments of this guy Lala Gee, I feel he is probably this newspaper's -- indeed, Pakistan's -- Rip van Winkle. His savage hostility against India, reflected in all his comments found in the columns of this paper, betrays his deep-rooted prejudices against which no amount of reasoning will help. While the whole Pakistani nation, except for fringe elements of the military, the mullahs and the madrassah-educated people, craves for peace and stability for their country, which is already bankrupt according to the WB and IMF reports, Lala Gee and his ilk clamour for war to recover Kashmir as if it was a cake walk. The UN resolutions he is referring to are, again, half-baked lies; the Kashmir resolution, clearly, states that Pakistan must vacate the occupied land of Kashmir, return to its point of origin (pre-occupation position) and then talk about a plebiscite. Pakistan has not done this since the conflict with India over Kashmir first broke. Six and a half decades -- and four disastrous wars for Pakistan -- have gone by. The resolution itself is as good as obsolete within the UN and no power, including Pakistan's "all-weather friend" China, will think it wise even to talk about it, let alone call for its resurrection. Meanwhile, Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement in 1972, superseding the UN resolution and accepting the ground realities in Kashmir. If anything, Pakistan has violated the UN resolution by surreptitiously giving away a chunk of Kashmir to China -- a fact which is unforgivable in the eyes of Kashmiris who see in this act a betrayal of their Azadi. It would also be interesting to find out what the people of the so-called "Azad" Kashmir (a.k.a. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir) think of their Pakistani masters who neither allow transparency nor let the Kashmiris caged by them to speak openly. This is the situation, dear Lala Gee, if your brainwashed mullah mindset will allow you to see reason.
The retired Lieutenant Colonel has an interesting view point. Would he care to tell us why he retired from the army or was he forced to retire given his views?
What a change of mind from a pak army professional. Hope when they are in army they have the same thinking about India as not an enemy no. 1 but when they all retired they wants to be friends with India.
@Sterry: you talk for the Muslims of the Valley, or the Buddhists of Ladakh, or the Hindus of Jammu, or the thousands of Pandits and Sikhs you have driven off from the Valley?
Finally, the penny drops! Let's break the situation down as it is today - India controls a little less than 2/3rds of the land; Pakistan controls a little more than 1/3rd and China, a small area gifted to it by Pakistan.
An independent Kashmir, comprising the cummulative of above lands is NEVER going to happen - none of the 3 countries will permit it, including Pakistan, which keeps harping on "Azadi" for Kashmir The UN Referendum is now DEAD - the ground realities have changed from what they were in 1947 - a key condition for the referendum to be implemented On the Indian side, India has maintained the demographics of Kashmir - Indians from other states cannot buy property in Kashmir, while Kashmiris can so so anywhere in India. Also only a small minority in the valley proper want independence; that too only on religious grounds - the Jammu & Ladakh folks and many Kashmiris wish to stay with India. Given the last experience of a partition, India will never let it happen again. Pakistan has allowed the demographics of their side of Kashmir to be changed - so they are never going to let go of their share of the land - if India were to go be the deed of accession, it in theory can lay claim to Pakistan's share of Kashmir; but it knows that will never happen,You have wasted 65 yrs trying to wrest Kashmir from India, having tried all options - failed. Given its size, India can afford to grow even with an uneasy Kashmir; while if Pakistan were to continue to focus on Kashmir; it does so at the cost of developing the rest of Pakistan. The only option is to convert the LOC into an IB; let peace prevail and development begin.
@Lala Gee: "There was only one way to get Kashmir, there is still only one way available, and there will always be only one way to get Kashmir, and that is by militarily winning it."
How exactly do you imagine Pakistan can militarily win Kashmir? How many times has it been tried and how many times has the effort failed? (1971,1984, 1999)
Also Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a deterrent preventing India from ever attacking it but India's weapons are toys? No deterrence value whatsoever in your opinion?
Sounds sensible. But who is going to bell the cat?
Guy is talking sense !!! unfortunately that is also probably why he was retired as a Lt. Col level.
There was only one way to get Kashmir, there is still only one way available, and there will always be only one way to get Kashmir, and that is by militarily winning it. Either we prepare for it, instead of erecting General's colonies at premier locations, or else we better cut down on army and spend the resulting huge savings on education, health, affordable food for the poor, etc. etc.
Mr Ehsan has hit the nail on its head. It is not worth having a war that may end in an apocalypse for the subcontinent or that may end badly for Pakistan considering India's defence spending is rising and it is on its way to become a serious military power of a high ranking in the world. Pakistan currently, is in no position to match that level of spending. When nations go nuclear they tell their populations that once we have the bomb we can reduce the size of our conventional forces and reap the peace dividend. But many times it does not happen. Militaries continue to spend and spend and spend. After 1971, a war to get Kashmir was never a realistic option for Pakistan, India is the status quo power,so they would not purposely go to war with Pakistan. Kargil was the last military endeavour to occupy Kashmir and sanctified the LOC as the de facto border. Pakistani politicians should start educating the public on this issue and create an atmosphere of amity and friendship towards India and enable their government to negotiate a border settlement based on the current realities on the ground. Pakistan may wait another thirty five years for the same result. Indians already know that. All they have to do is to involve Pakistan in an expensive arms race and force an economic defeat on it that will eventually translate into the same end result as the author is suggesting.
Pakistan holds the moral high ground on the Kashmir issue and should not forget that. The Indians and the British cheated Pakistan at the time of partition but no one can deny the sentiments and aspirations of Kashmiris indefinitely. Pakistan should not normalise relations with India until India agrees to UN resolutions on the issue. India cannot hold the Kashmiris hostage indefintely but will have to listen to their voices eventually. As a Kashmiri, I can tell you no Kashmiri will willfully wish to remain with India no matter what they say or do because the destiny of the Kashmiri people lies West with Pakistan and Muslim Central Asia.