Humour: Awesome

I received this as a forwarded email  from a friend. I am not sure if its true, but it still its awesome and worth reading.

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly that made the world community smile.

A representative from India began: 'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Rishi Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named. When he struck a rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath.' He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Pakistani had stolen them.'

The Pakistani representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren't there then.'

The Indian representative smiled and said, 'And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech. 'And they say Kashmir belongs to them................................................

Why is India be talking to Pakistan

This is a billion perhaps even a trillion dollar question and  there are no clear answers. India suspended its talks with Pakistan after 26/11 attacks indefinitely asking Pakistan to stop terrorism from its soil and to punish the accused in the 26/11. Other than the arrest of Lakhvi, there is little to suggest that Pakistan has done anything on that front.

So why then are talks been restarted
I believe one of the major reasons for that are the recent developments at the Afghanistan Conference in London. With a struggling economy at home and lack of public support, Obama is in no mood to fight the War in Afghanistan indefinitely. At the London Conference, it has been decided that the moderate elements in the Taliban would offered a stake in Afghan Govt.

This is where Pakistan can play a major role. It can use its contacts in the Afghan Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table and thus ensure that the Americans can have an honorable exit. But this also means that Pakistan is going to bargain hard to keep India's role in the Afghan reconstruction to the bare minimum. There are some signs that show that the West has agreed to it. Furthermore, there was a renewed International pressure on India to resume talks. Afraid of losing all the strategic gains made by India in Afghanistan by investing over $2 billion, it was thought that Indian interests could be best served by re-engaging with Pakistan.

Why are people opposing talks?
Several voices including those in the BJP are opposed to resumption of the composite dialogue process at this point of time. According to them Pakistan's Army continue to be India centric and have done little to contain the anti-India forces.

This is absolutely true and the Pakistan Army continues to view them as strategic assets. Recently LeT organized mass rallies at POK and Lahore. Infact the rally at Lahore was barely a few kms away from Punjab Assembly. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has publicly said that he cannot guarantee that there shall be no further attacks. But why can't he limit such anti-India forces. Is Pakistan really serious about peace?

The Pakistan argument to the above question is that Pakistan is fighting its own war on terrorism. It has already been said that the current operation would take atleast a year to defeat the TTP. At this point of time, the Army does not wants to open another front with the anti-India forces. The LeT, due to its anti-India stand enjoys massive support in Pakistan. LeT has limited global ambitions and is largely focused on India. It has not allied with Al-Quaida. It is because of these reasons that Pakistan isn't too keen on fighting them at the moment. They are merely arresting them for a while before releasing them again.

What to expect from talks
Personally, I don't have much hopes from the talks. Pakistan would not allow any progress to made unless Kashmir is discussed. It would raise ridiculous issues such as Balochistan and comparing it with terrorism in Kashmir. Balochistan and India do not share any border and the Baloch population is just 4% of the total population of Pakistan. Even if India ever wants, it cannot bleed Pakistan in the same way as Pakistan bleeds us. As far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, it is highly unlikely that any solution that is acceptable to all the three parties can emerge anytime soon.

Secondly, I doubt whether Pakistan would really ever go after the likes of LeT or Jaish once its operations against TTP are complete. Once the American Guns in Afghanistan go silent and the US drones are withdrawn, I doubt if the US can exert sufficient pressure on Pakistan to act against the anti-India forces. Let us not forget that even before 26/11 India tried to get LeT banned by UN Security Council but it was always blocked by China (a Pakistan ally). I expect the Chinese to use their veto power to create more problems for India in the future.

So, if the situation demands that we talk to Pakistan then so let it be. But we should never trust this neighbor. India should build more dams in Kashmir, thereby creating a negotiating point for ourselves and make it difficult to them continue their proxy war. All major rivers in Pakistan pass through Kashmir this building dams can helps in driving our point through.

We must build up additional negotiating points. India has to be prepared to fight its war on its own. Aman Ki Asha cannot be done without Aman Ki Bhasha from your opponent. This is a game, and that the moment its our adversary who has the advantage.

Kashmir predicament: Who really started it?

India and Pakistan, the two nations that were divided on religious lines have been at loggerheads from the very beginning onwards. Of the many issues on which the two sides confront each other, Kashmir remains to be the central and core issue. But today, it has become an extremely complicated issue and no real solutions have come up that would satisfy the two sides.

So what really started the conflict?
All princely states were given an option to either accede with India or Pakistan, or remain independent. Though the third option of remaining independent was given, it was made clear that the princely states could hardly survive on their own. This was true for the landlocked state of Kashmir as well, as it would have to necessarily depend on either on India or Pakistan for trade.

However, the Hindu ruler of largely Muslim dominated Kashmir, Hari Singh chose to remain independent. In October 1947, Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Hari Singh now chose to accede with India. Subsequently India sent its armed forces to recapture Kashmir. It must be noted that this was took place immediately after partition and India had much larger millitary as compared to Pakistan at that time.

After India had captured two-third of the state, Pandit Nehru against the wishes of his home minister, Sardar Patel went to the UN Security Council. He intentions were pure but he was an idealist and not a realist. UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

However, Nehru soon realised that it was a grave mistake to take the matter to the Security Council. By 1948, the Cold war had began to start and the world politics was dominated and dictated by the big powers (US and USSR), who wanted to spread their influence with the Capitalist and Socialist blocs competing against each other. Pakistan never withdrew its troops from Azad Kashmir and thus the Kashmir dispute remained unsolved.

Other similar conflict
Kashmir isn't the only victim in the world of the selfish interests of the big powers. They created many other similar problems all over the world. Korea, Vietnam and Germany are some of glaring examples. While Germany's re-unification was peaceful, Vietnam had to fight a massive war. While USSR supported the communist North Vietnam, the US supported the capitalist South Vietnam. The Korea issue is yet to be solved and has now assumed dangerous proportions with the North Korea acquiring the nuclear capability.

If we look at all such conflicts, the two big powers rarely followed any ethics. For instance, during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the US ignored the massive genocide that was going on in East Pakistan and threatened to intervene in the war.

The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the 'genocidal' activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. When Pakistan's defeat in the eastern sector seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move which was a nuclear threat. The Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean. As the United States were not ready to risk open nuclear warfare with the Soviets the Enterprise simply turned around and sailed back to the US. (Source)

This strategy of US didn't stop and it supported General Musharraf as the dictator of Pakistan until he was finally removed.

A lot many people in India blame Nehru for trying to be too idealistic. But it is the two big powers that must have to share the larger of the blame of creating the Kashmir issue, thus endangering nearly 1.5 billion people of the sub-continent. Subsequently, India has maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue while Pakistan has continuously tried to internationalize it.

Comparing NDA vs UPA performance

Perhaps this is the right time to compare the performance of the two regimes. But before I begin to compare, let me state some facts so that the rest of the discussion is seen in that context.

To begin with, the BJP had 189 seats in the NDA coalition while the UPA had a mere 145. The UPA had to bear left almost throughout its term as an alliance partner. The average oil price during the NDA regime was between 20-25$ while it was well over 50$ in case of UPA. During the UPA, world economy witnessed phenomenal growth except during the last 6-8 months. Average rate of growth ofIndian economy was 8% during UPA while it was 5-5.5% during NDA. NDA era also witnessed the 2001 recession.

Now in the above context of things, let us try to list down the achievements of both the Govts. Let me also admit right at the start that I am a bigtime Congress basher. In case I forget to mention some of the achievements of UPA, I request the readers to point it out to me. Moreover, since I cannot cover everything, I will try to cover the major ones.

First, let me with NDA. The NDA regime began with a bang - yes, literally with a bang. India became nuclear. Ofcourse Pakistan also became one. Now it is no more a secret that Narasimha Rao too wanted to have the tests in 1995 but backed out after detected by the US. So it wasn't just the NDA that wanted Nuclear Tests. But it is not the nuclear tests that was the achievement of NDA. It was the way it handled the post-Test scenario. Jaswant Singh convinced the US that a democratic nuclear India was not a threat to the US. It was NDA that first brought India and US closer. It was perhaps this which in some ways facilitated the Nuclear Deal in 2008.

NDA worked enormously to bring peace in Kashmir and its Kashmir policy is laudable. Vajpayee made three attempts to strike a deal with Pakistan including the Lahore bus journey and also the Agra Summit. It also made regular attempts to bring Hurriyat to table. Vajpayee Govts also made a strategically important move by starting the construction of Baglihar Dam and also KishenGanga. This served two purposes - one, it could provide electricity to a power deficit state, two, it would give India a capability to cut-off water to Pakistan whenever it wanted thus giving India a massive bargaining power. However, unfortunately India could not strike a deal with Pakistan.

1999 also witnessed the Kargil war. Kargil war once again showed India's underpreparedness with respect to weaponery. While some blame of the intrusion could be handed to the NDA regime, its the previous regimes that have to take the entire blame of the lack of modernization of the Indian armed forces. Infact, India forces suffered massive losses initially. It was Israel that came to India's rescue during the war. Had it not been the case, the result of the war might have been completely different. What was also important is that winters were approaching and it would have been virtually impossible to clear Kargil once winter had set in. Therefore winning Kargil was an achievement of NDA govt. It was NDA that started the modernization of the armed forces and also built close military ties with Israel.

Terrorism was present during the NDA regime as it was during the UPA. Two of the major incidents that happened were Kandhar hijack and Attack on Indian parliament. Kandhar hijack didn't happen on Indian soil but there was a chance to stop the plane from going away from Indian soil. That is something that cannot be wholly blamed on the Govt. Neither can its surrender to millitants. News were flooded with plight of the relatives. Every news channel was only talking about the victims and none of them talked about the broader national interests thus creating huge pressure on the Indian Govt. The Govt. did what it could, negotiate with the terrorists who were now in a safe heaven. Jaswant Singh in a interview later on said that he had no regrets about the release of the terrorists. Critics including the same media have raised time and again this issue saying that NDA too wasn't strong enough against terrorism. My only question to them is, "Will Rahul baba go to Afghanistan to talk to a regime that does not believes in any kind of rational and has no principles". Infact Jaswant Singh's going to Kandhar was an act of bravery rather that cowardice. The problem is that the BJP hasn't really communicated this well and has allowed Congress to attack.

The second incident of attack on Indian Parliament. This was perhaps the attack on the very idea of India, perhaps of the same level as that of 2008 Mumbai Attacks. But there was a major difference. US had started the War on Terror in 2001 and Pakistan was a major ally. Therefore, India could not really do much. They did try the Operation Parakram but failed to meet any objectives. It was a massive failure. On the other hand in case of Mumbai attacks, Pakistan was already under pressure from the US and UPA used it to its advantage to coerce Pakistan into accepting that Kasab was a Pakistani. Ofcourse, UPA hasn't been able to achieve much beyond that but atleast it was better that the former case. But it is important to note that the geo-political situation was completely different in both the cases.

The points discussed so far primarily on foreign policy issues. On the domestic front, NDA made a significant impact as reforms came thick and fast. NDA created a separate ministry of Disinvestment under Arun Shourie and made massive disinvesments including that of BALCO and Maruti. Massive investments were made in infrastructure. Golden Quadrilateral and East-West and North South Highways were planned and started. It was NDA that brought in FRBM act to reduce fiscal deficit which had been ignored and had been increasing.

But the Hindutva agenda was also present. In 2002, Godhra happened and the entire BJP leadership kept quite. That was also what led to its downfall. I am not writing more on Godhra because its already a well discussed topic. Moreover, the benefits of roads and FDI failed to reach to the bottom layer, who voted out the BJP and NDA.

Now, coming to UPA. UPA started its era by announcing NREGA. It was a pretty much a populist measure aimed at getting votes. In someways, it was perhaps required to. But was it really required to be launched throughout the country in such a quick fashion even when there were questions raised about its effectiveness in the 150 poorest districts where it was first launched. Also, the fiscal pressure was also there.

Forming of Sacher Panel was another important step taken by UPA. Though it was primarily meant to garner votes, its importance cannot be undermined. UPA also formed the Sixth Pay Commision. This was once again targetted at getting votes as it was launched strategically at a point so that its report would be out when the Govts. term would be ending. Reservation in higher education was another step taken by this govt. but that can in no ways be termed as an achievement. The problem is that it cannot be openly criticized by the opposition.

Among the major achivements of the UPA govt, two things stand out. The first was RTI while second was the Nuclear Deal. While RTI is surely going make a lot of impact on the long term, Nuclear deal is something that is hard to understand for most Indians like me. But given the fact that Pakistan isn't too happy about it and wants similar deal for itself gives ample proof that it surely in India's strategic interest. Under UPA, India has increased its influence tremendously in Afghanistan. That is achievement for UPA, but also it needs to be understood that things were completely different in case of NDA and they could never do the same.

On the fiscal front, the UPA fared very badly and has failed to meet the targets set by FRBM. It is also important to note that Indian economy grew at 8% during UPA which means that Fiscal Deficit increased in real terms in the UPA era despite the 8% growth.

I have tried to cover all points but I am bound to miss some of them. But what onething that is pretty much clear from above is that it is the NDA that is much more decisive and capable of taking strong and long term decisions. Ofcourse, BJP having 189 seats played a big part in enabling in taking those decisions. UPA has taken some politically correct decisions. Perhaps it is these decisions that got them back in power. They also seem to be benefitting from some of the decisions taken by their predessor. But now is the time to take a long term view particularly in this recessionary scenario. The Congress has the mandate to do so with over 200 seats. But are they really capable of that? Only time will tell.

Historical Turning Points in Kashmir

Kashmir remains at the core of the issues between India and Pakistan and it has once again come to focus with the recent Mumbai Blasts. It has remained an issue for the last 60 years. However, there have been three important events that took place in History; each of them could have changed the History of Kashmir. I am sure most of the Indians or Pakistanis would be unaware of any of them.

The First of them took place a few months before independence of the two countries. This was when the actual border was being drawn. The fundamental basis that was followed for this was the population of the region. So, Muslim dominated areas were given to Pakistan while India retained the Hindu and Sikh dominated areas. One interesting deviation from this rule was the case of Gurdaspur, a border district, now a part of Punjab (India) and is represented by Vinod Khanna. This district had a Muslim population of 50.5%. It was initially given to Pakistan. However, later on it was given to India to please the Sikhs. The Sikh had lost significant portion of their land to Pakistan. Amritsar was the holy city of the Sikhs. Gurdaspur would provide a buffer to Amritsar, which otherwise would be surrounded by Muslim-dominated areas. Moreover, by giving Gurdaspur to Pakistan would have also meant that Pakistanis could stop the river water supply to the Holy City. A lot of prominent Sikh religious places were already lost to Pakistan. Therefore, this was an important concession to be made.

Gurdaspur is an extremely strategic location. Of the three routes to Kashmir by land, two of them are in Pakistan while the third was through the district of Gurdaspur. The route from the Kangra side not that good. So if Gurdaspur had not been given, most probably Kashmir today would have been a part of Pakkistan. Indian troops in 1947-48 used the Gurdaspur route(via Pathankot) to enter the state.

Quite expectedly, there has been a lot of criticism of British for giving Gurdaspur to India. Allegations of bias have been made. However, almost of these allegations fail to mention the case of Chittagong Hill Tracts, which were given to Pakistan despite 97% non-Muslim population. The rationale of giving Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan was to provide some buffer area to Chittagong (now in Bangladesh) a major city and port and also it was argued that its only approach was through Chittagong. Gurdaspur District had a slight Muslim majority, because Ahmadiyya community were counted as Muslims even though they had been declared non-Muslims by Muslim clergy (there was large concentration of Ahmediyas in that area because their spiritual centre Qadian is located in Gurdaspur district). (Source: Gurdaspur & Kashmir accession)

The Second incident occurred soon after independence. All princely states were given the option that could join either India or Pakistan, or become independent. However, becoming independent was not feasible for most as they were to small to survive. British Govt, India and Pakistan all agreed. By August 1947, three states Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir were yet to sign the accession agreement. Junagarh and Hyderabad were Hindu majority states with a Muslim ruler which in case of Kashmir it was the reverse.

The ruler of Junagarh dis-regarding the viewpoint of his subjects decided to accede to Pakistan. The Indian government did not accept the decision. Junagarh was surrounded by India on three sides with Arabian Sea on the fourth. It was 300 miles away from the Pakistan mainland. Govt. of India blockaded Junagadh and then invaded it. Delhi then imposed a plebiscite and secured the result it desired: Junagadh became part of India.

In Hyderabad’s case, it was surrounded by India on all sides. The ruler wanted to accede to Pakistan. Having hostile country right in the heart of India was not acceptable. For Kashmir , it was possible for it accede to either India or Pakistan. When Liaquat Ali Khan met Nehru at the end of November (while the Junagarh was being invaded) he exposed the illogicality of India's position. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim rulers' accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, then Kashmir surely belonged to Pakistan. When Liaquat Ali Kahn made this incontrovertible point his Indian interlocutor, Sardar Patel, could not contain himself and burst out: 'Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach agreement.' However, Jinnah was thinking in terms of legally possible options rather than political realities. In the long term the independence of Hyderabad, while constitutionally proper, was never going to happen. The new Indian leadership saw the issue clearly enough and when the Nizam tried to strike a deal which would allow him to hang on to some degree of autonomy, Delhi flatly refused to consider the idea. (Source: Hyderabad and Junagadh at Partition)

Had Jinnah accepted the deal, it would have meant, Kashmir would have been a part of Pakistan.

The Third incident occurred after Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan. Kashmir’s Maharaj had not joined either with India or with Pakistan. After the partition most of the armed forces went to India. As a result Pakistan sent irregular tribal militia to invade Kashmir. After a substantial portion was captured by the Pakistanis, the Maharaja signed the accession document. After this, the Indian Govt. sent its troops to capture back Kashmir. Indian forces were easily defeating the militia. However, Nehru withdrew the operation and announced on radio that he would hold a plebiscite under UN supervision. This left Sardar Patel fuming. But, Nehru was someone who rather than being a pragmatic wanted to establish himself as a statesmen in the international community. He later went on to form NAM. One of his other major blunders was to mishandling of the Chinese that led to a humiliating defeat for the country.

In short both Jinnah and Nehru had the opportunity to avoid the situation that we are presently in. What is interesting to note that both of them are still widely respected in their respective countries. The Nehru-Gandhi family is perhaps even bigger brand than Mahatma Gandhi(Father of the Nation) as more number of Public schemes, buildings, airports and Hospitals in their name than of Mahatma Gandhi.

References:

1. Jinnah and Kashmir