| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Musharraf for joint management of Kashmir |
| 2006-08-17 |
| Endorsing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's suggestion to institutionalise arrangements to bring people from both sides of divided Kashmir closer, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has said this needs to be discussed as it could be a "starter" for the "joint management" of the region. Musharraf noted that "none of us is in favour of their (Kashmir's) independence" and suggested that a "joint framework for self-governance" of the entire Kashmir region should be worked out as part of solution to the problem. "Yes, I think that is a starter. This is a very good term," he told noted Constitutional expert A G Noorani in an interview to Frontline magazine when referred to Singh's recent remarks that there should be institutionalisation of arrangements to bring people from both parts of Kashmir closer. Musharraf was asked whether he would consider Singh's suggestion as "an acceptable mode of joint management" of the two parts of Kashmir. Singh had made the remarks at the Kashmir roundtable in Srinagar on May 24 while addressing various groups of the state. "The term ...'institutional arrangements' is what I think is correct. But we need to define the modalities," Musharraf said in the interview published in the latest issue of the magazine. Musharraf said there needs to be "discussion and thought" with regard to the idea of institutionalising the arrangement. With regard to "autonomy" for Jammu and Kashmir as advocated by New Delhi, he said the word creates confusion and "negative optics", and needs to be replaced. On Singh's contention that the Line of Control should be made irrelevent, Musharraf said, "I think it is a good statement." Asked whether India and Pakistan could agree on a joint quantum of autonomy for the two parts of Kashmir and have a common model, he said, "Certainly, because none of us is in favour of their (Kashmir's) independence. So, therefore, short of independence, what is it that we are devolving on them?" He said the two countries could discuss his proposal of "joint management mechanism on top, consisting of representatives from Pakistan, India and Kashmir, who oversee ...the joint management (aspect)". Musharraf expressed his readiness to allow Kashmiris from both sides of the divided state to meet and debate among themselves the issue of how much power they should get to administer their affairs. Contending that a resolution of the Kashmir dispute was "do-able", he said he saw a "drag" in India with regard to the settlement. "...developing, as you say, consensus for the solution appears difficult on the Indian side," he said. "I am reasonably sure that we will develop consensus on this (Pakistani) side." He noted that he had suggested four points to resolve the Kashmir issue, the first of which was to "identify Kashmir". Elaborating on this, he said that "there are certain areas, nuances, the strategic implications of which may not be acceptable to Pakistan or India. We have to see to that. So, let us identify the region." As the next step, Musharraf said there should be demilitarisation of Kashmir, starting with three cities in the Kashmir Valley. The demilitarisation could be undertaken in steps, he said. He said "self-governance" could be a subsequent measure, followed by the formation of a "super-structure which gives comfort to both, Pakistan and India, and their involvement and some responsibility and some commitment...in having their say on both sides of the border". On the July 11 Mumbai bombings, Musharraf suggested that it could be the handiwork of "freelance terrorists" and said the two countries should have trust in each other. "...these are freelance terrorists who are doing this (terror attacks). That is the reality. There are freelance terrorists who are roaming around and doing all this," he said. He said the two countries should join hands to investigate and "move against them". Acknowledging that intelligence agencies of the two countries have been operating against each other over the past 50 years, Musharraf said it was time that these agencies "reach an agreement to stop interference in each other's internal affairs, if at all there is." With regard to India's demand for preventing certain groups in Pakistan to operate as these are cover organisations for terror outfits, he said, "One has to see what is the evidence against them...There are legal compulsions". New Delhi has asked Pakistan to ban the Jamaat-ud-Dawa as it is a "reincarnation" of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayiba terror outfit. India has also demanded the arrest of its leader Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. |
| Posted by:john |
| #13 I still say to john: If you are not writing your book yet, you should be. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-08-17 15:27 |
| #12 John, thanks for the history lesson and the photos. A worthwhile addition to Rantburg University. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-17 15:17 |
| #11 And this is the "moderate" Hurriyat... |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 13:43 |
| #10 A glimpse at what an "independent" Kashmir would be like Srinagar, Aug 16: Chairman of a faction of Hurriyat Conference Syed Ali Shah Geelani on Wednesday said Kashmir was never a part of India and accused its leaders and troops of occupying it ‘by deceit.’ “Kashmir is natural part of Pakistan. It has 7000 miles of border with it and shares similar cultural bonding. But India through deceit in 1947 illegally occupied it and we are fighting for its freedom since then,” ... “What kind of Kashmir do you see after you get freedom? Will it be Islamic or secular?” a man from the crowd asked Geelani. “Islam and secularism have no relation. Islam is a complete way of life. It has its own culture. Islam doesn’t ask you don’t sing but it tells you to recite Na’at. Allah will not accept any way of life other than Islam,” the veteran leader replied. “See what America is doing in the name of secularism in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon. America is a big terrorist and enemy of Islam,” he said. |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 13:35 |
| #9 Isn't there already a problem because there aren't enough vultures to dispose of the bodies of the sect that uses that method? (I think it's the Sikhs, but I'm not sure, and that isn't the point anyway.) I assume the pictures are of the establishment of Pakistan. Am I correct, john? The towers of silence, where bodies are placed for the vultures to consume are built by the Zoarastrians, who fled to India from Iran to escape persecuation centuries ago. During partition in 1947, there was mass cremation of bodies.. when wood ran out, they used kerosene and oil.  |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 13:21 |
| #8 Over ten million people forced to leave their homes and move across an international border. And for what? According to the Pakistani writer Ayaz Amir... What then was partition all about "But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that. So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India? The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory."   |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 13:18 |
| #7 Isn't there already a problem because there aren't enough vultures to dispose of the bodies of the sect that uses that method? (I think it's the Sikhs, but I'm not sure, and that isn't the point anyway.) I assume the pictures are of the establishment of Pakistan. Am I correct, john? If Dehi were to support Kashmiri independence, then Pakistani interference would only get worse, once Kashmir didn't have the Indian Army to fight interference for them. Once upon a time Kashmir was rich, but that was before Pakistan's pet jihadis started killing people and breaking things on the Indian side of the border. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-17 13:10 |
| #6 In the name of Allan the merciful... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-08-17 13:06 |
#5 Photos by Margaret Bourke-White taken the last time a part of India was given Independence  |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 12:58 |
| #4 There are politicians all over India who would just love to have the ability to print their own currency, loot their own treasuries, parade around the UN giving speeches etc. India would fragment into many pieces and turn into another africa. There are many parts of India as bad as africa but having a federal governemnt, courts, armed forces provides a way out for them. There is money from Delhi for development, corrupt local governments are dismissed, ministers jailed. Micro-nationalism only leads to savagery. |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 12:51 |
| #3 That cuts both ways. If Kashmir gets independence, twenty other Indian states will demand the same. India would fall apart first. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-17 12:50 |
| #2 Dehli should shift gears and support Kashmir independence. The ball would start rolling and before you know it Pakistan would be wracked by independence movements that would tear them apart. Then if Dehli allows Punjab (or Kalistan) to vote for independence or not they could ensure they have a solid nation, or a friendly independent tough as nails nation as a buffer between them and disintegrating Pakistan. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-17 12:38 |
| #1 Does Perv want a pony also? |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-17 12:01 |