India - Pakistan Crisis

Top 156. Mar 8, 2002 5:38 PM

» BPyles - Terrorists not listening

Jen: Thanks for all the articles. Can only hope that non-terrorists outnumber terrorists enough that they can demand their government give them a more stable country. Surely there are enough decent, hardworking, sensible people in Pakistan to be able to see the advantages of going forward and not backward. Don't know how they are going to rid themselves of the thugs, criminals and terrorists, but they simply must. No way can the USA go into every country and clean out their vipers. In the beginning I had high hopes for Pakistan, but now am afraid their problem is far worse that I imagined.

Dangers to reporters are certainly top news now and am sure they are all being more cautious. Saw a reporter tonight reporting from Israel wearing a flak jacket.

-- posted by BPyles

Top 157. Mar 8, 2002 6:15 PM

» BPyles - al Qaeda in Pak

One step Pakistan could and should take to prove they are serious in fighting terrorism, would be to make doubly sure this does not happen (or not allowed to continue).
------------------------------------
Rumsfeld doesn't doubt al-Qaeda regrouping in Pak

PTI [ FRIDAY, MARCH 08, 2002 8:20:27 AM ]

W ASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he does not doubt that al-Qaeda are trying to regroup in Pakistan as he has seen intelligence reports in this regard.

"I don't doubt it," he said. "Needless to say, as we find pockets of al Qaeda. we're going to go after them."

Tommy R Franks, Commander-in-Chief of the Central Command,
said though he has seen no evidence of formations of al-Qaeda fighters moving into the Gardez region from Pakistan or outlying villages, "it would not surprise me."

The severity of the latest fighting in eastern Afghanistan and the
casualties the US suffered have come as a shock to the US, which had assumed on the basis of earlier Pentagon claims that the back of the al-Qaeda had been broken and all that remained was some minor mopping up operations.

At a press conference at the US base in Bagram, the officer in charge of the American forces in the fighting south of Gardez,
Army Major General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, said the US forces and their Afghan allies engaged al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in
fierce close combat as both sides poured in reinforcements for the largest ground battle of the war.

Hagenbeck said US troops, fighting in snow-covered mountains as high as 10,000 feet, have killed "several hundred" al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters over the last day.

He said the US has gained the upper hand after an early setback and initial round of casualties in which eight US troops were
killed and 48 injured.

-- posted by BPyles

Top 158. Mar 8, 2002 7:48 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: India Turmoil

In response to message posted by BPyles:

An editorial view from Singapore in 3/5 Straights Times:

India's mayhem

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee called the communal violence sparked off by religious extremists in Gujarat 'a disgrace to the Indian nation'. That is putting it mildly, as the Indian army enforces a shoot-on-sight order against trouble-makers to stop the mayhem that left nearly 500 people dead.

Last week's sectarian violence, the country's worst in a decade, was triggered by a Muslim mob which attacked a train carrying Hindus who had taken part in a controversial campaign to build a temple on the site of a mosque demolished 10 years ago.

The failure of the Indian government - both at national and state levels - to prevent the orgy of violence that followed is a disastrous failure of leadership. It is a dangerous sign that secular India could unravel, unless the religious extremists are reined in.

But Mr Vajpayee has temporised and it is not clear exactly where he treads on the temple issue. His multi-party ruling coalition risks breaking up if he mishandles the problem. It is hard for him to fix it with a firm hand, given that his own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rode to power in part by spearheading a movement which had advocated the temple's construction.

But firmness is required if the problem is to be solved. Unfortunately, Mr Vajpayee has been weakened by his party's poor performance in last month's legislative elections in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state and site of the proposed temple at Ayodhya. Ten years ago, the mosque's destruction by Hindu extremists led to widespread religious clashes in which some 3,000 people died. Last week's carnage was a repeat of the madness.

Short of a multi-faith project with both Hindu temples and Muslim mosques co-existing side by side, as they do in many parts of the country, Mr Vajpayee cannot let Hindu radicals build on the ruins of the mosque in Ayodhya. To do so will open up Pandora's box because some 3,000 Muslim monuments are said to have been built on sacred Hindu sites. The only way out of India's Hindu-Muslim bind is religious tolerance, without which the country's 130-million-strong Muslim minority will never be able to live in peace with its 800 million Hindus.

Mr Vajpayee has condemned the latest violence, but he has to do far more than this. To get back to sanity, those guilty of arson and murder must be brought to justice. This is not just to restore faith in law and order. Indeed, the Muslims have accused the police and paramilitary forces of doing little or nothing to stop the rampaging Hindus seeking revenge. There are many wounds to heal, for the latest killings have sowed more distrust and hatred between the two communities. How Delhi deals with its Muslim nationals will have reverberations in Pakistan and Bangladesh, India's two Muslim neighbours.

Mr Vajpayee's leadership is going to be sorely tested. Thousands of Hindus are said to be waiting to erect the temple on March 15. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a religious activist group allied to Mr Vajpayee's BJP, claims that some 200,000 Hindu activists will converge on Ayodhya on that day. Mr Vajpayee must prevail on the VHP to drop its plans to construct the temple on the disputed site. He must do everything to stop the Hindu militants from stirring things up. He has to bridge the sectarian divide or face catastrophe. Like it or not, India has been the secular homeland of Hindus and Muslims despite the tensions. This framework must not break apart. If it does and the religious extremists win, woe betide India.

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 159. Mar 9, 2002 12:10 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: Daniel Pearl Case

Another article by Daniel Pearl in 1/21 WSJAsia - he was abducted on 1/23:

Broadcasters of India, Pakistan Respond to Kashmir Dispute, Competition From Cable Companies

`We Are Not Scared of Them'

By staff reporters Daniel Pearl in Islamabad and Eric Bellman in New Delhi

01/21/2002
The Asian Wall Street Journal
Page 10

As the armies of Pakistan and India stare each other down at the border, the two countries' national broadcasters are waging a war of words over the air.

Each day, Pakistan's state-controlled PTV runs special 10-minute broadcasts called "Indian War Hysteria and Public Opinion." Producer Imran Bashir Siddiqui heads out to the streets and thrusts a microphone into the faces of passersby. Last Monday's question: "Pakistan wants peace. But if war is imposed on Pakistan by India, what's your opinion?" Not surprisingly, almost everybody said they would rush to the border and fight.

India's state-financed Doordarshan, meanwhile, started a new show recently called "PTV: What is the Reality?" The first segment started with a PTV report about residents of Kashmir -- the disputed Himalayan territory at the center of India-Pakistan tensions -- being ordered out of their homes, humiliated and shot by Indian security forces. It then cut to a tape of locals denying seeing any violence and finally to clips of Kashmiris hugging Indian soldiers. "This is more than an answer to their propaganda but a slap in their face," the narrator says.

The bellicose programming seems like an old-fashioned brawl between two government mouthpieces. But PTV and Doordarshan also are reacting to a common adversary: private Indian television networks, whose loyalty both Pakistani and Indian officials doubt and whose growing influence national broadcasters fear. Mr. Siddiqui of PTV said he gets ideas for his questions by monitoring the Indian private networks. Doordarshan, meanwhile, launched its anti-PTV show after new network head S.Y. Quraishi held an urgent meeting recently, assuming the private networks wouldn't take on the responsibility.

PTV and Doordarshan have monopolies over broadcast television, but cable TV reaches half of Indian homes and one-fourth of Pakistani homes with televisions. On cable, viewers in both countries enjoy Indian soap operas, music videos and game shows on services such as Bombay-based Zee Telefilms Ltd.'s Zee Networks and News Corp.'s Star TV. In Indian homes with cable, Doordarshan's news channels attract just one-tenth of the viewers of flashier private networks. In Pakistan, only 10% of viewers who have cable watch PTV, according to Gallup International's Pakistan affiliate, and advertisers have considered using Indian networks to help reach Pakistani consumers.

When war clouds gathered after India blamed Pakistan for a Dec. 13 terrorist attack on India's parliament building, Pakistan barred Indian television channels from Pakistani cable systems. The ban also included Star, even though Star said it provides only entertainment and sports, not news, on its Pakistan signal.

Pakistan officials said the ban was a reaction to an unannounced Indian ban on PTV.

Sushma Swaraj, India's minister of Information and Broadcasting, says she hasn't pulled the plug on PTV. "We are not scared of them," she says.

Still, some Doordarshan employees save their sharpest criticism not for PTV but for the private channels in India, which they say pander to Pakistan to get viewers there. The private networks don't interrupt regular programs to show full coverage or India's Republic Day parade or debates in the Parliament, for example, as Doordarshan does. Launched by the government in 1965, the network has been run by a board of nongovernment directors since 1996, though the government still finances it.

PTV's managing director, Yusuf Baig Mirza, thinks the private channels pander to India. Before joining PTV, he was a sales and marketing manager in London for Zee. He says he became frustrated when he couldn't get any Pakistani programming on the air, and left after the network refused to show Pakistan's independence-day celebrations. (A Zee official confirmed Mr. Mirza worked for the network but said he couldn't discuss the circumstances of his departure.)

Mr. Mirza accuses private networks of fanning war fever in India by showing frequent coverage of the Indian army buildup. Barka Dutt, host of a popular news and debate show on Star News, defends such coverage, saying: "The kind of upsurge we saw on American networks was far more black and white than our own."

PTV, launched in 1965, is still under direct government control, which, since an October 1999 coup, means military control. This past Wednesday, though, Pakistan's military government passed a law allowing domestic private broadcasters to compete with PTV. Journalists at PTV say they have had more freedom in recent years than under previous elected governments.

How they use the freedom is another matter.

Naeem Bokhari, a longtime PTV anchor, said he has thought of showing film clips of the atomic bomb's devastation in Nagasaki, and asking guests, "Are we willing to risk Pakistan for Kashmir?" Instead, he wrote and taped a monologue in which he lists 10 things India had to gain from the Dec. 13 parliament attack, and declares, "it is still debatable whether this was a mock exercise or a failed state-managed drama."

Subscribe to WSJ Online @ http://www.wsj.com

interesting near the end of the article he talks about increased freedom for journalists in Pakistan - but he says...How they use the freedom is another matter....unfortunately now we know why Pak journalists are careful to toe the party line and not step out of bounds......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 160. Mar 9, 2002 10:38 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: Daniel Pearl Case

An editorial by a former WSJ foreign correspondent on the Daniel Pearl case in 2/24 SFChronicle. The author suggests that post 9/11 there is more pressure on American journalists covering the war zone to be Americans first and reporters second....and this very perception could put them in greater danger....he says

"Making them part of the "us" in a righteous war against "them" only serves to increase the danger they already face."....

The meaning of Pearl's death

Governments, media must allow reporters to keep their distance

G. Pascal Zachary, Special to the Chronicle Sunday, February 24, 2002

Along with the search for the killers of Daniel Pearl, there is another search going on: for the meaning of his death, especially among journalists.

While we may never know why the Wall Street Journal reporter was murdered, his death carries a message for reporters -- and for all Americans -- who travel to the poor, angry and confused places of the Earth.

Having walked in his shoes -- we were both foreign correspondents at the Journal -- I can only shudder at the horror Pearl faced when an enterprising interview turned into an abduction: his own. As journalists, we are used to witnessing the suffering of others with a kind of stoic detachment, a hard- eyed mentality that serves to shield us from the ultimate news flash -- that most of what's awful in the world lies beyond explanation.

But we often are unprepared to suffer ourselves. We are protected by the unwritten rule that nobody in their right mind messes with a visiting journalist, especially an American. Maybe they mistreat their local reporters, but not us. We are untouchable. We are always one phone call, or plane ride, from safety.

Whatever one calls this mentality -- to some it's another example of American arrogance -- it helps us revel in enterprise, to get things done in strange places, to sift the wheat from chaff, and, most importantly, to believe in our own independence. We represent, we tell ourselves, no one but our readers.

FALSE ACCUSATIONS

That belief is crucial to our ability to function in foreign countries. Danny's captors accused him of serving the U.S. and Israeli governments. He did nothing of the sort, of course. Such charges are as specious as they are predictable. In my own travels, across the former Soviet Union, in west Africa and in southeast Asia, I constantly heard similar charges. I would try to explain -- as Danny must have -- the tradition of press freedom in America, that we are neutral, as our Constitution guarantees, that we seek to report honestly about the people and places we see, even in the face of government pressure to do otherwise.

That has become harder to do since Sept. 11. Not taking sides is un- American, we are told. Displays of patriotism remind us that we, too, are American citizens, just like those who died so cruelly on Sept. 11. Aren't we entitled to take sides, too?

For media executives, the pressures are equally acute. Newspapers and television stations want their readers and viewers to feel they are on their side, that we are all in this war on terrorism together. Thus the full-page newspaper displays and television icons of the proudly flapping American flag.

In this climate, it has become increasingly difficult for editors to resist the pressure to take sides with a government that is presumably fighting the good fight.

DANGERS OF ASSISTANCE

Thus, in mid-January, the Wall Street Journal admitted that it had turned over to the Department of Defense a discarded laptop computer purchased in a Kabul market by one of the paper's foreign correspondents. The computer contained many files created by al Qaeda terrorists.

The Journal's managing editor, Paul Steiger, decided the Defense Department could not only assist his reporters in interpreting the documents, but that the government's war against al Qaeda also might benefit from the paper sharing the knowledge gleaned from its find.

As the Journal's foreign editor told the New York Times, "If something is abandoned, and it comes into our possession, and we determine that lives could be at stake, we will hand it over to the authorities."

Pearl was kidnapped two days after this "policy" was disclosed in the New York Times.

There is absolutely no suggestion here that the two events are linked, nor that the Journal behaved with anything less than the best of intentions. But it may be time now to rethink that policy. Confirming the suspicions of those predisposed to believe the worst about journalists' allegiances is a prescription for more of the kind of disaster that befell Danny Pearl.

Without qualification, foreign correspondents must feel fully free of the obligation to assist their government, even if the sharing of information might further the war effort. We have a State Department and CIA to gather information the government might not otherwise discover from reading the newspapers. Foreign correspondents are not agents of Interpol hunting international criminals, nor are they front-line soldiers saving American lives. Making them part of the "us" in a righteous war against "them" only serves to increase the danger they already face.

AVOIDING TEMPTATION

In this perilous post-Sept. 11 world, foreign correspondents also have an obligation to better observe elementary rules of risk-taking. The danger often lies within ourselves as we acquiesce to the relentless, competitive pressure for the scoop, the exclusive, the prize that awaits the most daring. For print journalists, the opportunity to go where cameras can't, or won't, only raises the stakes, tempting us further to throw caution to the winds.

It sounds pathetically sophomoric now, but I confess I long fantasized about getting abducted on a foreign assignment because of the great story I could tell on my release.

In the fantasy, of course, I always got released. I always saw my children again. I always wrote the big story. Now we know there is another ending to what we American foreign correspondents have thought of as adventure in the service of democracy -- knowing this means that the practice of both journalism and democracy may change.

How they change will tell us, in the days ahead, how we honor Daniel Pearl, in life and death.

Pearl foundation
Daniel Pearl's family is creating a foundation to support charities, as yet unnamed, that focus on causes he championed, according to the Wall Street Journal. Donations can be sent to: The Daniel Pearl Family Foundation, c/o The Wall Street Journal, P.O. Box 200, Princeton, NJ 08543.

G. Pascal Zachary was a staff correspondent for the Wall Street Journal for 12 years. Currently a visiting professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Journalism, he is the author of "Endless Frontier," a biography of Vannevar Bush, wh

The story about the computer left behind by al-Qaida when they fled Kabul, looted and sold to a computer merchant, and picked up by a WSJ reporter for $1,100 is reported above on this thread:

Seemed to me at the time that handing the info found on the al Qaida computer over to the U.S. gov was the only responsible thing to do.....and I still think that....but this author gives another perspective.

IMHO Daniel Pearl's abduction-murder....has revealed the Sad Truth that Any journalist... American or otherwise.... attempting to uncover the truth in an otherwise corrupt, unscrupulous and secretive government..... and publishing the truth in detail in widely read and respected media.... is putting their life in peril......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 161. Mar 9, 2002 12:08 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Terrorists not listening

In response to message posted by BPyles:

Betty - you said....

Can only hope that non-terrorists outnumber terrorists enough that they can demand their government give them a more stable country. Surely there are enough decent, hardworking, sensible people in Pakistan to be able to see the advantages of going forward and not backward.

Don't know how they are going to rid themselves of the thugs, criminals and terrorists, but they simply must. No way can the USA go into every country and clean out their vipers. In the beginning I had high hopes for Pakistan, but now am afraid their problem is far worse that I imagined.

Betty - I agree with you totally. The last thing I want to do is paint all Pakistanis with the same broad brush anymore than I want to condemn all Muslims for the acts of Islamic extremists. Have never been to Pakistan, but my co-worker is Canadian-Pakistani... and in the few conversations we've had about Pakistan she's said that the majority of Pakistanis are - as you say... "decent, hardworking, sensible people .... able to see the advantages of going forward and not backward". And also have talked with several moderate Pakistani Muslims in Yahoo chat, along with a few radical ones!

I'm afraid that as you say "their problem is far worse" than anyone can imagine. I don't know what the solution is short helping them to wipe out their den of vipers - starting with the viper handlers on the inside. And I hope that in the future the U.S. thinks long and hard before we ever enlist the help of another country's viper handlers or vipers to do our dirty work. We have to realize and learn from our complicity in the whole sorry mess in Pakistan....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://hulk.bu.edu/~lilly/index.html

Top 162. Mar 9, 2002 8:42 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Kashmir

Another Daniel Pearl article in WSJ - this article and the one posted above were both filed on 1/21 - 2 days before his abduction:

Many Kashmiris Favor Independence

Growing Sentiment for `Third Option' Unnerves India and Pakistan

By staff reporters Daniel Pearl in Islamabad and Joanna Slater in Srinagar, India

01/21/2002
The Asian Wall Street Journal
Page 1

Pakistan has taken steps in recent days to remove outside Islamic militant groups from the struggle over the future of the divided Himalayan territory of Kashmir. But the crackdown could raise another uncomfortable issue for both India and Pakistan: a dormant movement for Kashmiri independence.

Independence is sometimes called the "third option" for Kashmir, after the options of joining India or joining Pakistan. The military insurgency began 13 years ago with a pro-independence group, although pro-Pakistan Islamic groups later displaced the independence fighters.

Still, pro-independence sentiment has quietly been rising on both sides of the line of control, as Kashmiris grow frustrated with the way both Pakistan and India have used Kashmir to justify military buildups like the one that now has the nuclear-equipped countries facing off along their common border.

(Indian and Pakistani troops continued to trade small-arms fire over the weekend. India reiterated its position that it won't reverse its troop buildup until Pakistan does more to quell violence by Kashmiri extremists.)

If Kashmir joins Pakistan, "We are slaves again," said 32-year-old Ghulam Nabi, who lives in a village west of Indian-controlled Srinagar where more than 30 men are buried in a local "martyr's cemetery." "Then we might as well stay with India," he added.

Separatist sentiment also is fed by a feeling that India has acted as a quasicolonial power, with a huge security presence made up of non-Kashmiris. In Srinagar, Indian soldiers, most of them Hindus, patrol a predominantly Muslim populace. Young recruits from warmer climes -- Bombay, Calcutta, Bhubaneshwar -- shiver in the wintry weather.

The Pakistan-controlled area of Kashmir, called Azad Kashmir, or Free Kashmir, nominally has its own democratically elected government. In practice, Islamabad runs key elements of the region's affairs, and helped install a pliant "prime minister" in 1996. Sardar Khalid Ibrahim Khan, a leading politician in Azad Kashmir, doesn't think independence is practical, but says support for that option is "growing with the passage of time." That creates a quandary for India and Pakistan, and for U.S. officials, as they attempt to defuse the current military buildup and restart talks on Kashmir and other issues.

Both countries say the will of Kashmiris has to be central to any solution. But independence makes both India and Pakistan nervous, in part because both countries' governments have staked their credibility on keeping at least their part of the pie. India fears Pakistan would dominate an independent Kashmir, while some Pakistanis fear losing a border with Pakistan's powerful ally, China. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, outlining steps toward resumption of talks, said last week that options unacceptable to both India and Pakistan should be ruled out before three-way talks begin.

The possibility of dialogue is growing now that Pakistan is cracking down on Islamic groups involved in militancy in Kashmir and India, and India is giving grudging praise to the moves.

Pakistan has arrested about 2,000 members of such groups in recent weeks, and banned two organizations, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, that India blamed for a Dec. 13 attack on India's parliament building. Both groups had become dominant in the Kashmir insurgency in recent years.

Officially, Pakistan says the crackdown is for domestic reasons, having nothing to do with India or Kashmir. Still, in recent days the government extended the crackdown to Azad Kashmir. Kashmiris say several offices of banned groups have been closed.

"It is very significant because before last week, the Pakistan government was claiming it will not arrest anybody in Azad Kashmir," said Ershad Mahmud, Kashmir specialist at the Institute of Policy Studies, an Islamabad think tank. Gen. Rashid Qureshi, chief spokesman for Pakistan's military government, said, "Whatever Pakistan does against the people who are inciting violence holds true for all of Pakistan, and it includes Azad Kashmir."

The crackdown puts new emphasis on the political side of the insurgency. The All-Parties Hurriyat Conference, a group of separatist leaders who represent the political face of the insurgency, recently held talks in New Delhi with American, British, and German diplomats.

One reason the Hurriyat Conference has managed to hold itself together is that some of its leaders are deliberately vague on whether Kashmir should join Pakistan or be independent. "Kashmir will survive as a part of India or of Pakistan," said Abdul Ghani Bhat, chairman of the conference. "Kashmir will equally survive as an independent state. After all, there are smaller states than Kashmir." The economy would rely on industries such as tourism and hydropower, he said, and cultivate strong links with India and Pakistan.

The pro-Pakistan faction includes the Jamaat-e-Islami, which has strong links with the biggest militant group remaining in Kashmir, the Hizb-al-Mujahedin. In his Islamabad office, Abdul Rasheed Turrabi, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Azad Kashmir, said talking about independence undercuts the 55-year-old U.N. resolutions that "provide legitimacy" for the Kashmir struggle. Those resolutions call for Kashmiris to be given a choice between India and Pakistan.

Still, Mr. Turrabi says Jamaat-e-Islami doesn't rule out independence. "First of all India should recognize the right of self-determination. Later on we can decide whether we should be part of Pakistan," he said.

The pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, or JKLF, portrays an independent Kashmir as the "Switzerland of South Asia" -- open, democratic, pluralistic and peaceful.

Still, it was the JKLF that brought violence to the modern Kashmir movement, with two bomb blasts in Srinagar in 1988. Amanullah Khan, the group's 67-year-old chairman, said he couldn't get foreign officials to take the Kashmir struggle seriously as long as the Kashmir valley seemed peaceful. He acknowledges that Pakistan helped in the early days, allowing JKLF fighters to be trained in Azad Kashmir and then infiltrate to the Indian side. Then, he said, "The Pakistan side started to create hurdles."

Mr. Khan's office, above a mobile-phone shop in Islamabad's twin city Rawalpindi, gives a good indication of why. Hanging on the wall beside photos of martyred militants is a map of the nation the JKLF seeks. It includes not only the territory divided between India and Pakistan, but also territory controlled by China, and also the "northern areas," a region under firm Pakistani control that abuts Afghanistan.

"It will be a viable country -- that is not the problem," said Yasin Malik, the 35-year-old leader of the JKLF's India wing. "The problem is India and Pakistan, who do not allow us to live."

But there are other problems, too. The JKLF suffered splits in the early 1990s and suspended its violent campaign after Mr. Malik emerged from a long stint in an Indian prison. He was in the U.S. for the past year, receiving treatment for persistent health problems.

In the Kashmir valley, a common language -- Kashmiri -- and a unique liberal form of Islam have helped to create a sense of separate identity. A poll by India's Outlook magazine in 1995 found that 72% of those surveyed there favored independence. But Kashmir's own internal diversity is also a major stumbling block to independence. Two of the three regions that make up the state, Jammu and Ladakh, have sizeable Hindu and Buddhist populations that have shown no inclination to leave India. During the past decade, deliberate killings of religious minorities have destroyed remnants of harmony between the state's different communities.

Most observers believe the furthest India is prepared to compromise will be some form of greater autonomy for Indian-controlled Kashmir, as defined by the current cease-fire lines. With open borders and free trade, and more autonomy for Azad Kashmir, too, Kashmiris might consider that an acceptable alternative to full independence.

Then again, regional powers may opt to keep the status quo. "If you say Kashmiris should be given a right to choose their fate, then Pakistan should be prepared for that and China should be prepared for that," said Mehbooba Mufti, an opposition politician in Srinagar. Rhetoric aside, the reality is that "everybody who has a piece of Kashmir wants to keep it."

Subscribe to WSJ Online @ http://www.wsj.com

"Kashmir will equally survive as an independent state. After all, there are smaller states than Kashmir." The economy would rely on industries such as tourism and hydropower, he said, and cultivate strong links with India and Pakistan.

IMHO an independent Kashmiri state is not a bad idea. Would that it could be so without anymore fighting! From what I could see during our trip there in 1976 their economy was for the most part dependent on tourism.

Here's a nice website on Kashmir in more peaceful times:

Here are a few pics from our stay on a houseboat on Dal Lake in Srinagar:

http://www.suite101.com/files/mysites/je...

.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Arrest of an ISI gang

Top 163. Mar 9, 2002 11:58 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: India Turmoil

More on Pak ISI instigation of India Religious Turmoil in an Aug. 28 - Sep. 10, 1999 issue of Frontline. Yeah - Aug-Sept '99 was long before 9/11 and long before the current Hindu-Muslim violence in India....but by gosh....this report shows how Pakistan ISI/militant group cells were operating in India even then:

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 164. Mar 10, 2002 9:55 AM

» JenL_2 - India - Pak Relations

Some current articles from Mar 2-15 Frontline India's National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU. Frontline seems to be very well archived so will just post links. The articles are good discussions on current & past India-Pak-US relations, their current military stand-off, Musharraf's rise in world-stature, Musharraf's crackdown on Pak militant groups - perceived & actual, & the Daniel Pearl case.

Musharraf's new high
General Pervez Musharraf, buoyed by the economic and defence packages he has managed to get from Washington, is now less likely to accede to India's demands.

Battle-ready still
India is firm on keeping its troops in deployment mode, indicating that the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with Pakistan will continue for as long as it takes.

Romancing the U.S.
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's visit to the United States did not quite go according to his script.

Back from the brink?
The NDA government's perception of war as an option stems from the shifts in domestic distributions of power, a misperception regarding the place of Pakistan in U.S. strategic designs and the related delusion about India's own importance in the U.S.-Israeli design for South-West and Central Asia.

Of the Delhi tea and the Agra breakfast
India and Pakistan ought to publish a compilation of the July 2001 Agra drafts in order that the whole truth regarding the respective positions may be known.

I bookmarked Frontline - seems to be a good source of info. The seemingly free India press is such a contrast to Pak censorship by intimidation....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2