India is shooting itself in the head on Kashmir

The Indian national security establishment is convinced it has put Pakistan in an impossible place on Kashmir, and is in a marvelously self-congratulatory mood. India knows full well that (a) Pakistan cannot stop infiltration across the 750 km Cease Fire Line, and (b) even if it militarily could, politically it can not. Since India says it can take no further steps to ease tension until Pakistan proves its bona fides - and since it is for India to say if it is satisfied or not - New Delhi comfortably sees a future in which it will have to make no concessions, while continuing to paint Pakistan as the source of evil in the subcontinent.

We should be clear that Pakistan does not want to stop infiltration. In case anyone has missed it - the K in Pakistan stands for Kashmir. For Pakistan to give up its claim to Kashmir is in essence to say that Pakistan itself has no right to exist. Because if a Muslim majority state can find a place in India, then why have an independent Pakistan to begin with?

The Indians, however, have committed the third of their Big Mistakes in the last 55 years, with their usual casual, half-baked nonchalance in dealing with their security. The first was to spurn America and embrace the Soviet Union in the years 1947-1990; the second was failing to take China seriously till it was too late; the third, which may turn out to be the biggest mistake of all, was to internationalize Kashmir.

Hold up, our Indian friends will say. Who says we have internationalized Kashmir? We are in control because as you yourself say, infiltration will not stop. No stoppage, not talks.

Actually, folks, we have internationalized Kashmir, and it probably happened after we woke from one of those 3-hour naps we are so famous for. We internationalized Kashmir the day we told the United States - another bit of brilliance for which we are still congratulating ourselves: "You say you are against terrorists. Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. So you must stop Pakistan."

Some Indians are starting to see this for the mistake it is, and they are perceptive enough to see where this is leading. Most, however, are still delusional.

Let me ask my brethren one thing. What makes them think they US will want nothing for putting the brakes on Pakistan? Is Washington supposed to be so overcome at our awesome smarts in making the point about terrorism is terrorism that it will blindly rush all over South Asia knocking out terrorists, and then come panting to us for approval?

In case my friends in Delhi haven't got it, the US has already stated the price of its cooperation. It wants India to talk to Pakistan about Kashmir, and it wants a settlement of the issue once and for all.

My Indian friends will respond: "its you who don't get it, Ravi. No stoppage of terrorism, no discussion. We have to give up nothing. Meantime the US is out there sitting on Pakistan, and that can only help us."

Here's the problem, folks. You're assuming that the Indian viewpoint is the US viewpoint. The US has never said that terrorism must be stopped before India must talk. If we know stopping terrorism is impractical, the US knows it too, and is its not about to predicate its entire South Asia policy on something unattainable. It wants verifiable progress from Pakistan, that's all. Further, you're assuming the US buys our side of the story with regard to Kashmir. Sorry about that - the US does not buy our story. It feels Pakistan has some rather strong points in its favor on the issue. That's why it wants India and Pakistan to talk about.

And what exactly is it we are supposed to talk about? The Pakistanis say there is only one thing to talk about: allow the people of Kashmir to decide their future democratically.

Now this talk drives Indians quote crazy, understandably, because Pakistan allows its part of Kashmir no rights at all. Moreover, its given away about a fifth or a sixth of the state to China, and incorporated about one-third directly into Pakistan. There is not going to be any vote in about half of the state. Still further, Pakistan will insist that the state must vote as a whole, and since Muslims outnumber Hindus, Sikhs, Shia Muslims, and Buddhists put together, we don't have to guess that once again the minority is going to get the short end of the stick, as has happened both in East and West Pakistan after 1947.

But whereas these are critical issues from the Indian point of view, they are points of detail for the US. Washington wants us to get talking, period. It figures if we are talking, we are not fighting. None of the above is going to stop Washington from forcing us to the negotiating table, whine and complain as we might.

In itself that might not be a bad thing. Except for two very big traps the Pakistanis are preparing for us.

The first thing the Pakistanis are going to say is, let the people of Kashmir decide if they want to go to India, come to Pakistan, or be independent. We know this is just a negotiating ploy because Pakistan does not want an independent Kashmir any more than we do. But it's a negotiating ploy that will carry great force with the post Yugoslavia world. And we do know that if independence as a US protectorate is an option, the Kashmiris are going to jump at that.

The second thing Pakistan is going to say is, no fair vote is possible with 750,000 Indian troops in Kashmir. We've been into that at analysis.orbat.com, and we've looked at the figures. Still, from a neutral point of view, who is to say the Pakistanis don't have a point, and lets not quibble about if the number is 400 or 500 or 750 thousand.

Where is all this going to leave us? Up the creek without a paddle, in fact, without a boat.

Oh yes, lets not now start on how the US can't pressure us. The US can, it is, and it will continue to. We haven't seen anything yet. The US is simply putting a toe in the water right now: that's why its behaving so politely to both India and Pakistan.

Meantime, I hope my American readers don't fall into the trap of asking: "well, if the Kashmiris want independence, why shouldn't they have it?". If my American friends will explain why their southern states couldn't have their own country in 1861, I'll be glad to explain why Kashmiris shouldn't have theirs.

Why India should have gone into Pakistan and Kashmir

1. During Christmas - NewYear 2001 after the attack on Parliament and while media attention would have been distracted by Xmas and the Afghan War.

2. After the attack on the army camp that targeted parents and dependents of Indian soldiers.

3. Restraint leads to being considered a laughing stock by the Jihadis, aka, all bark and no bite.

4. Pakistan has SUCCEEDED in its strategy of nuclear blackmail (Stop us before we fire nukes) and internationalising the issue.

I hope this pessimistic analysis is wrong but it rings true. Overconfidence, a misreading of the US strategic priorities and intentions have hurt India before and could again.

But if Musharraf's new campaign in the tribal areas leads to civil war or waves of unrest, this analysis could be moot. And also if the infiltrations and jihadi attacks continue in Kashmir; but they probably won't as the Pakistan military and ISI are convinced that easing up is a very good tactical move for now.

The last paragraph might merge with the thread about the Dixie Bomb.

You're probably right.

Question is, with the stakes set to nuclear is there any realistic way India could have kept the situation from becoming a global issue? I don't think so.

India's future will include international meddling now, just like the kind the Israelis have endured. Indian students can expect to see Palestinian-type blowback effects on our campuses, too, as the campus lefties and jihadis set another target for their hatred.

Just one more reason that an India-Israel alliance makes sense.

The Indians, however, have committed the third of their Big Mistakes in the last 55 years, with their usual, casual, half-baked, nonchalance in dealing with their security.

We Report. You Decide.

Anyway, I'm with the Indians on this one.

If Pakistan were to be folded up into India; it would become the world's largest Muslim nation - 140mill in pakistan and 120 or so in India.

This would hopefully allow a viable alternative to Wahhabism to develop.

Being a democracy in itself has never counted for much when it comes to geopolitics, US strategic thinking is no exception; it's a nice to have but not a necessary component from an ally. If Pakistan had been a democracy, its government would not have been able to withstand the stress caused by Musharraf's adroitness.

But the democratic tradition in India has strengthened its diplomatic hand in international relations. And it can rightfully state that it is not a 'provisional' democracy.

Democracies are prickly, moody, have too many voices. But India's has proven resilient enough. While Pakistan calls for elections in Kashmir, it's never held them in its Kashmir or plans to.

Elections in the arabislamic world would produce anti-US, jihadi governments; that's the paradox we face. Elections will put enemies of the nonmuslims into power. It's quite a quandary if we care about democracy that much.

I tend to agree with the author that India has internationalized the Kashmir dispute, although I don't necessarily agree that it was a mistake.

I doubt it was intentional, because India has maintained (and continues to maintain) that Kashmir is a matter only for discussion between India and Pakistan.

But that policy wasn't working. No resolution of the matter has been forthcoming, and the level of violence had reached unacceptable levels. The logical conclusion to this was a war with a high probability of nuclear escalation.

Now maybe Kashmir is worth more to India than the losses it would incur in that type of a war, I don't know. I don't think it would lose Kashmir if that came to pass, but it seems to me that internationalizing the dispute as an alternative to that result is not a mistake. It's entirely possible that a final resolution might look a lot like the situation did in the early 1980s when the LoC was a defacto border and terrorism hadn't been added to the mix. That would obviously be the most desirable outcome from India's POV.

I also agree with the author that the US won't automatically take India's position in the matter. In fact, I assume we won't because I don't think we care how the matter is resolved, so long as it is resolved peacefully and finally. The US position is that we would like to develop firm ties to both Pakistan and India while encouraging democracy and stability in both countries.

What we will do to facilitate a final solution to Kashmir is unclear at this point. We're probably still trying to figure that out. But, like it or not, the US will be involved, because South Asia has suddenly become a region of strategic interest to us, and we can reasonably be expected to impose Pax Americana in the region.

"India has internationalized the Kashmir dispute"

Actually, Pakistan precipitated the internationalisation by unleashing a no-hold barred terror campaign against India to while simultaneously "fighting" terrorism on its Afghani border. Then by threatening the nuclear card, it caught the attention of the world. Game, set and match.

That's why India should have retaliated; as a nation-state defending its borders. But it didn't. Shame.

"the level of violence had reached unacceptable levels"

Entirely due to Pakistan's terror campaign carefully coordinated by its nonstate proxies, the alqaeda and the other heads of the islamic hydra. Senior Pakistan military and ISI officials have been quoted as saying that easing up on terror is a tactical move only.

"encouraging democracy and stability in both countries."

Remove Pakistan and you will have democracy and stability across the subcontinent. It's a jihadi sponsoring murderous regime with a thin veneer of ProAmericanism.
Let's see how long it can survive its own vicious double game. Musharraf has done pretty good so far in getting what he wants out of the situation. He's slick.

I agree with everything you said, except that your recommendation/conclusion to get rid of Pakistan isn't a very likely outcome. The US certainly isn't going to support that, at least as long as Pakistan appears to cooperating with us.

A long-term solution to the Islamic problem is to support those states that are taking steps to follow Turkey's lead. We don't care what religion dominates a country as long as it is reasonably tolerant and preferably democratic. India and Israel would be two perfect examples of that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.