Pakistan News Service

Sunday Jul 21, 2019, Zul-qaadah 18, 1440 Hijri
Logo
LATEST :

Musharraf not the lone ‘revisionist’

20 December, 2006

By Muhammad Ahsan Yatu


  Related News  
Musharraf's lawyers 'threatened with beheading'
Court rejects Musharraf's plea for military trial; summoned on 11th
  Related Articles  
Musharraf Should be Pardoned
By Saeed Qureshi
Musharraf's Indictment and the Related Questions
By Saeed Qureshi
  Related Speakout  
  More on this View All
  Related News Poll

There is not much new in Musharraf’s suggestions on Kashmir. Almost all rulers of Pakistan except Ayub and Zia wanted to end a conflict that had no solution, but to accept the existing realities in an honourable way. Ayub sought the solution in war and Zia in militancy. It is no secret that both the Generals had deep links with the CIA. Musharraf is under media attack, which is routine. All those rulers of Pakistan, be it Liaqat or Bogra or Bhutto or Benazir or Nawaz, who tried for reconciliation with India faced similar criticism. Some of Musharraf’s predecessors thought that remaining silent was a better way out, while some others like Benazir in her first term and Nawaz during his second term preferred a bold approach, though not as openly as Musharraf did. Musharraf’s suggestions are direct and blunt. India, whose stance on Kashmir is that it is not a problem, may or may not agree with the suggestions. If it does, making of a deal will take time and its realisation may take a couple of decades. Let us see how Musharraf is not the lone revisionist.

The elites that were to rule Pakistan after partition were more interested in seeking the accession of Junagadh, Hyderabad, Bhopal and even some Sikh states with Pakistan. This innocent desire surprised even Patel, the first interior minister of India. He was astonished when he met a delegation of Pakistani officials, who despite his invitation to talk on Kashmir, kept on talking about Hyderabad. Patel did not know that they were not as interested in the rugged mountains of Kashmir as in the resource-rich Hyderabad. Besides, some people in the Pakistani foreign office believed that Kashmir would fall like a ripened apple in their lap. It did not, nor did Junagadh and Hyderabad.

The Indian National Congress due to its socialist ideals was not in favour of giving the right of accession to the rulers of the Princely States; it wanted the people of these states to decide whether to join India or Pakistan. The Muslim League insisted that the rulers should decide the matter. Not only that, the Muslim League included another article in the Instruments of Accession that gave the rulers of the state a third option; the states could maintain a kind of independence also. It was not difficult for the leaders of the Congress to read the mind of the Muslim League. They were right in assessing that if things happened as the Muslim League had wished, then that would mean that India would be divided not into two countries, but into many pieces. Thus the contours of the relationship between India and Pakistan were drawn even before the partition. These were the contours of distrust, conflict and clash.

While the Indians were busy with the planning of counter-strategies, the Muslim League obsessed with fantasies, accepted the request of the Nawab of Junagadh to join Pakistan. Junagadh was away from Pakistani borders and it was also a Hindu majority state. Thus the Muslim League initiated the process of violation of the Instrument of Accession. It meant the future of the remaining disputed states was to be decided not through politics but through power. The Indians were prepared, while Pakistan was not. India attacked Junagadh and Hyderabad and annexed them. Pakistan attacked Kashmir with the support of the Kashmiris and annexed one-third of it. India also attacked Kashmir on the invitation of its ruler Maharaja Hari Singh and annexed the rest of it. It was the beginning of the end of the game.

The war ended when India took the ‘Situation in Kashmir’ to the UN. Had war continued, Pakistan would have been destabilised at the beginning. Within the Pakistani establishment, Liaqat Ali Khan rightly longed for the end of war, whereas some powerful Generals thought otherwise. Liaqat was severely criticised for the ceasefire. He had to even face a rebellion.

The UN resolutions went India’s way. The plebiscite in Kashmir could only be held if both sides would agree. On deployment of the armed forces, India was to have another advantage. So the UN resolutions technically favoured the Indians and ended the game completely. Prime Minster Bogra was not a fool when he said to the Indians that the plebiscite would be held whenever they wished, but meanwhile it would be best for both countries to become friends. All Bengali politicians, including Suhrawardy and Nazimuddin, had the same opinion. All of them were labelled as traitors.

General Ayub Khan too knew about the futility of the UN resolutions, but he took a chance. He tried to resolve the Kashmir problem through war. After the end of the war, we were in a big problem of how to get our strategic locations back. The US, whom Ayub Khan had served so faithfully, was not interested. Our ‘enemies’, the Russians, came to our rescue and in Tashkent an agreement was reached. There are not many examples in war history where a weak party was accommodated as generously as in Tashkent. Yet, Ayub Khan had to face criticism.

After the war of 1971, Bhutto tried to get rid of the Kashmir problem through a revolutionary approach. He would do so by making Azad Kashmir a province of Pakistan. He could not, because pro-China intellectuals who were also a part of his political party opposed the idea. And the intellectuals who were from pro-America Jamaat-e-Islami, declared him an Indian agent.

General Zia organised militancy not only in Afghanistan, but also in the Indian Punjab and Kashmir. One wonders what kind of politicians and rulers this unfortunate nation had/has. No one here cared/cares for the people. No one here knew/knows that we have no educational base and no natural resources other than humans, land and water. A look at the world development map will reveal that we were/are only better than countries like Rwanda, Somalia and Ethiopia. Yet, we would indulge in such conflicts that even the mighty US and Russia could not afford. Our obsession with our strategic depth has left us nowhere. The militancy in Kashmir did to the Kashmiris what the Taliban did to the Afghans. If someone still wants to take credit for the cruelties against humanity, then only God can save Pakistan, provided He is interested.

Benazir never looked as wise as she was during her first term. She knew what she was doing. During the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to Islamabad, her silence on Kashmir delineated that she had accepted the existing geopolitical realities in Kashmir. She reached an understanding on Siachen and nuclear control with Rajiv. In spite of these big achievements, she was immediately declared a security risk.

Nawaz Sharif during his second term had become fully aware of all the dimensions of the situation in Kashmir. That is why the bus diplomacy was started. His next step was to expand trade with India and to enter into joint ventures in manufacturing. Only Jamaat-e-Islami and General Musharraf resisted his moves. He was portrayed as a person who had sold out Kashmir. Today the same Jamaat-e-Islami is more than eager to form an election alliance with Nawaz and the same Musharraf is following his footsteps in Kashmir. It is not irony of circumstances; it is about the facts that open the eyes of a ruler. In a country like Pakistan where society and state both are virtually non-existent, Musharraf’s moves will be criticised vehemently by a wayward media. What matters is how his real constituency, the army, reacts. It, too, should realise that Pakistan needs a break.

Ends

Reader Comments:

Realistic and sensible

Realistic and sensible article.Kasmir issue caused a lot of problems for Pakistan over the years. Pakistan got no liverage of any sort(POLITCAL,DIPLOMATIC,MILITARY OR MORAL) to force india to give away Kasmir.Pakistany rulers should learn from their best friend and more powerful COMMUNNIST CHINA how it deals with India in itslong stading territorial dispute.Failure of Pakistan's foreign polices brought most powerful military allience in the world NATO at their door step.

Babu, United Arab Emirates - 20 December, 2006

There is always another way!!!

What is wrong with us muslims? Why do we want our own seprate states in every country we are living in? What really has those independent muslim states achieved that is just great? Algerie? Pakistan? Egypt? Nigeria? Except piles of populations and corruption? Why do we not learn from the jews? Would they have been as influential as they are now,if also they had demanded their own little state in the USA? By beeing a part of USA THEY are ruling USA. And the world. Why can not also the indian muslims be a part of India? And rule it? Like the Sikhs are doing today? Why do they want to join Pakistan? What does Pakistan has of which they JUST can not do without?

Khan. G. Farooq, Norway - 20 December, 2006

The writer's analysis are pragmatic.

The writer possesses deep insightful knowledge on the subject. It sheds more light on the Kashmir issue in the backdrop of other princely states in India and East Punjab.
The fact is that India wanted to part only with a truncated Pakistan. It even withheld Pakistan's share of money that meant lifeblood to the new country.
Yes, true, a peaceful solution of Kashmir is preferable to stop the mayhem there. The future for Pakistan holds bright as Pakistan will tremendously benefit from the development of hidden mineral wealth of central Asia.


Sher Mohammad, Pakistan - 20 December, 2006

A cool rational approach.

Yatu Sahib,
I am surprised but impressed at your analysis.Surprised because there is no tradition in Pakistan to look at problems analytically considering ground realities (we look at them emotionally and like any one else I was no different).This approach needs to be made bigger.There is a need for making "think tanks" which look at all national issues rationally,impartially etc etc.And only those people who are educated,mature and sincere need to be involved in it on voluntary basis to stay out of any bias and make their recommendations public so eventually they will be accepted as another angle to the problem.

Dr.Khan, United Kingdom - 20 December, 2006

Musharraf

There is no doubt that the leaders of Pakistan who ruled in the past were more interested in something else but Gen. Musharaf is keen in establishing the fact that Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris and must have an end and future decided for all. Gen. Musharaf is not only a blunt leader but also a man who knows what is going to happen later in the sub-continent though he is aware of the world sitution as well. He is too shrewed and must not be taken lightly because he got some cards which he will play when the time is right. India and Pakistan must live in peace otherwise the entire world could remain volatile and no government around would like to see that happening. Kashmir solution is coming to its conclusion as majority of the people of both countries love to see happy ending rather than having any war of nuclear weapons. Fighting over mountains is not worth or wise having a risk of that magnitude and resolution would be ideal if left Kashmir alone for Kashmiris to decide and a bit of overlooking by both countries would assist them to bond relations together. That will give birth to an evere lasting peace in that region both Pakistan and India can devote their energies to development and feeding the poor and needy. Mr. Singh PM of India is a geneous and knows the sitution and finally decided to listen to Gen. Musharaf's plan. I wish them success on Kashmir issue and also on other outstanding disputes. Living like one nation is the only way as there is no other way.Good luck.

mohammad, United Arab Emirates - 21 December, 2006

How the world Runs?

History of India Pakistan also start at 1918. Gandhi was brain washed with implanted David Henry Moreau’s Civil disobedience and Leo Tolstoy after taken to South AfricaThen he Returned to India to apply it (just prior to 1918) .MA Jinnah joined Muslim league in 1916 after working For a khoja dadaibhai secretary for a while to start 1918 era Khalian wala Amritsar massacre began just after 1918 with Jewish proposal for homelands for Jews sabah sauds Sikhs and RSS at the cost of Turkish Sultan am Mughals. British East India company Govts winning Mughal princely states and Muslim empire everywhere. Until then Sir Syed Ahmed Khan got spin Last Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar 1842 with Deoband Seminary and Ahmediya in Islam via sikh Punjab. Blasphemy allegation on Sir S A Khan amid 1857 gadr Dragged on until 1918 era .

Since 1918 world plunged into wars of the world ww1 ww11 gulf wars Iran Iraq to Kashmir Balkan Chechniya to Yugoslavia Lebanon Syria and Iran.Since 1918 it is acquisition something for nothing amid massacre and wars with Muslim Have least control in Manipulated Manoeuvre.

I have no control over my properties assets career job banks saving s home family pension In fact 1918 era monopolist control as usual with implanted sequence of events .Like wise Saddam Hussein has not control. Egyptian Syrian Indonesian Malaysian Ahmeddinejad Ayotollahs and even Pervez Musharaff Karzai BB Nawaz under the banner of USA India Israel in control of economy or Terrorism.Democracy is Terrorism. This is the Share of 1500 m Muslim Umma under foreign control.If 14 out of 18 WTD bombers came from Saudi Arabia with Muslim Name it does not mean 1500 Umma are Terrorist or in control of their share of the wealth or asset. 37 countries soldiers and Civilian in transit in Afghanistan to control the flow of oil LNG or ores gold and Resource using cheapest local Taliban labour is what is on going. The invaders Looters and sinners are 14 out 18 WTD terrorist representing 1500 m Umma This Is just the game they play? Why willing partners in above lay out and set up?I visited
IHK and AJK for accurate analysis .Both security still at it with analysis to the dismal Point accuracy where I had been like every thing else without access .This is their income.That is my income is their. Even Just writing Goa 2 days ago came alert in Mumbai Delhi Goa Israel and in allied Capital as potential Alqaeda attack amid phone tapping and their control my life Property and family for years.

Z_Belal, Canada - 21 December, 2006

Re:Gee Farooq.

Why do we not learn from Jews to occupy forcefully other's lands to estabelish a state and manipulate the minds of others, to protect religious interests.Force the weak into repression and when they fight for their existence call them Terrorist. If State of Pakistan had not been established the condition of Muslims in India would have been that of Palestinians under Israel. A few Muslims in the congress party did not mean equality.Pakistan's creation helped change the attitude of Hindu politicians towards the Muslims in India and you know how long it took?

Khalid Rahim, Canada - 22 December, 2006

Why we muslims are so obsessed with religion?
Why we don't believe in separation of Mosque & State?
Why don't we keep the religion in our heart & home and not bring in the streets, at work or impose on our neighbors? Why is the religion preached on TV & public schools? Why is the religion has to be declared when applying for a job, running for office, joining military or on passport? When are we going to grow up?
Though we are a Muslim majority country we don't have to be an Islamic Republic.

It's important to note that founding father Jinah created this country for Muslims, that his mother was a Hindu & his only living blood relative is not a muslim or even citizen of Pakistan, so wise up!



asahmed, Pakistan - 23 December, 2006

Happy New Year, Khalid Rahim!

Khalid Rahi, bahi, whom are u calling weak? Did they, the Palestians, have some kind of handicap? Did the Jews came just suddenly? Who sold them parts of their land? Why could they not see what was going to happen? Lack of education, may be?
Had not the great Saladin taken the Holly land back from the Cruseders? Whos fault was it when it was lost again?
Why do we Muslims not stop this blame game and take ALL, or at least some responsibilty for our misdoings? Always we are blaming others for our misery, do not we? We just love it. Well, my dear friend let me tell u. This is not the ulitimate and promised paradise. No, this planet earth. Here only the smartest and those who are awaken, ALL THE TIME, rule. Here there is no mercy for long time sleepers. They will be run over again and again.
I do not have anything against Pakistan. Thank Allah for that. BUT WHAT HAVE WE ACHEVED AFTER THAT? Can u please write a list? Or other Muslim countries for that matter.
What I am saying is this: There are now more than enough Muslim-majority countries in the world. Seeing how well of people arethere, may be it would be better if rest of the Muslim population in diffrent parts of the world would be better off if they RATHER stay in their own countries and be THE NEED OF those? Like the Jews are in the USA and Sikhs in India.

Now u tell me one simple thing: What is best for Pakistan, regarding India?
1. LIKE TODAY,always state of war-like situation and an unfriendly next door country. Where Pakistan is using evry penny on militry and nothing left for other sectors? Where the army is soo strong instituion, that it seems that THE ARMY IS NOT FOR PAKISTAN, BUT ENTIRE PAKISTAN IS FOR THE SOLE SAKE OF ARMY.
OR
2. An India where its Muslims population has huge influence over its course? And thereby Pakistan do not need to be afraid of India. An India where Muslims are well educated, strong and therby THE NEED OF India?

So may dear brother that day will be great day for Islam, when we Muslims will stand up and TAKE RESPONSIBILTY for our plight/destiny. And stop blaming others for our being helpless, handicap etc etc. It does simply not suit us. Neither as a nation nor our relgion. Both of them are too big for kneeling and asking for mercy/pity.

Have a happy new year and a very very NICE EID!

Khan. G. Farooq, Norway - 23 December, 2006

Separation of Mosque and state.

There is no such society in the world now or before where there is separation of church and state.Because these are two forces with tendency of overcoming each other,they can't continue parallel.In Islam where Quran give rules to run state while in west state controls church.Is queen of England not head of the church.Are the flags of many European nations not with cross on it.How about In India,or Israel.In India which claims itself secular country yet in every walk of life there is open discrimination against all other faiths be muslims,christians,budhists or even hindus of lower casts and killing of minorities is common but West with its tall claims of human rights never lifts a finger.In Israel muslims are second class citizen,and even christians are fearful of their life and many have left Israel for other countries.In USA,Republican party openly says US is a christian country,In US military ,there are generals who recommend teaching evangelism to cadets.THere is lot of hue cand cry against a Muslim congressman first time in history of US becaus he has taken oath on Quran in congress.Muslims womens face discrimination in Job,schools and while travelling more than muslim men because of dress.

These are examples of state over religion or controlling or reflecting its bias in dealing its citizens.There is nothing wrong for any muslim to be proud of his faith.As a matter of fact It was Islam's tolerance that kept India's population Hindu even after 800 years of rule and they enjoyed much higher status and peace than Muslims now.Also it was the same tolerance of Islam that let Jews prosper in Muslim Spain to the extent that even their Rabbis say that the Golden Period of Jews was in Muslim Spain,and remember the jews were chased in Europe from country to country.Was their any Harvard University or Oxford University No.But It was Islamic Laws that guaranteed safety and secutrity of minorities and it was time of peace, how could peaceloving people forget that.Now let us look at the so called"separation of church and state" and the performance of their religion.WHole North,central and SOuth America was Indian,their language,their culture,their relgion and white christian came and starting killing every one who came in the way.Those who were left behind were approached by Christian clergies who converted them.Today Indians are living in reservations in USA,they are given free alcohol to drink so they could not think this is their country and they have more rights.They are almost all christians.See the difference. Also look at Australia,Newzi Land,Look SOuth Africa same story.Phillipine was a Muslim country with its last king named Prince SUleiman,It was all peace when Spaniards thought they have to go out ward to christianise and civilize world and they came to Phillipine,killed every man,raped every woman and christianised who couldn't run.Now the Phillipino people that you see are christians,even names changed,culture changed. These are the examples of spreading religon with sword.Do you see the difference?
Problem is not Islam but that majority of Muslims haven't read Quran and they like christians and other faith think that only their muslim names or their lip service to God/Muhammad will guarantee their entry in the paradise.
West has waged war on Islam under the cover of fighting terrorism and wants to change Islam in the mould of christianity and huge amount of funds are allocated to it and lot of propaganda goes on.

Dr.Khan, United Kingdom - 23 December, 2006

For the initiated ...

people seem to believe that since we have a sikh PM, sikhs are ruling India. This is the most ridiculous interpretation of democracy I have seen and smacks of ghetto mentality. irrespective of their religion, every Indian has a right to vie for constitutional positions in India, and it does not imply that the community our PM belongs to is in fact ruling India.

Another thing sikhs have always been a part of India and sikh panth was established to protect hindus from tyrants like aurangzeb. FYI, the current Indian PM is Manmohan Singh KOHLI, belongs to a Hindu family. It is a tradition in Punjab to make the eldest son in the family a sikh.

Chan, United Kingdom - 25 December, 2006

If only...

If only people like you can understand that "humanity" is above all religions. How long will you be keep butressing you theories on religion? How long?? What has religion given this world other than blood-shed and mayhem? So, please stop arguing/explaining your notions in the name of Hinduism, Islam etc. If only people like you could see beyond the barriors of religion the world would be a much much more safer place...

Shub, United Kingdom - 25 December, 2006

exactly

If only, some people can look/think beyond the boundries of religion this world would be a much safer place to live...

Shub, Pakistan - 25 December, 2006

Interesting observations

I am an Indian and it's interesting to read a very sincere and straightforward analysis of Pakistan's foreign policy with respect to Kashmir. I was lead to this site after i read a shocking poll in which majority of Pakistanis are accepting Army rule as opposed to a democracy.

I am glad that there are people like Mr Ashan Yatu who see the Kashmir question with more clarity.Hopefully, there are more people like him.

I was stuck by one question from a reader as to why religion is so widely prevalent in public life and why there is no seperation between the mosque and state in Pakistan.

I hate to put this to you bluntly, but Pakistan's only basis for creation was its religion - or atleast thats how the Muslim League would have every one believe. They feared being dominated by the Indian Congress even though they knew that there would be NO DANGER to freedom of religion.

Religious identity has been a curse to Pakistan, inspite of the great resources it was invested with after the Partition.

There is still a way out, but this downright hatred for anything and everything that is India is not going to solve anything. The country has to come out of the clutches of religious extremism and a military that has been dominating society since the beginning. It requires a lot of young, smart and forward thinking people.




Nagarajan Sivakumar, United Kingdom - 26 December, 2006

Hech char e Khoar mash e.

Ask those who were made to sell their land at behest of
their occupiers the English
and the French? Betrayed by those imposed upon them and in turn shackled by your mentors.Stop! advising at the
behest of another and step on
to the streets of Gaza or Jenin to practice what you are trying to preach.

Khalid Rahim, Canada - 07 January, 2007

SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN!!!

Ask those who were made to sell their land at behest of
their occupiers the English and the French?
... SO WHY WERE THEY OCCUPIED? WHY DID NOT THEY GO AND OCCUPAY FRANCE OR ENGLAND? WHY DID THEY HELP ENGLAND TO FIGHT OUR TURKISH BROTHERS?
Betrayed by those imposed upon them and in turn shackled by your mentors.
... OF COURSE. THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THINGS SHALL BE WHEN PEOPLE LIKE U NEVER TAKE RESPONSIBILTY. WHILE THE WORLD IS PROGRESSING U WANT TO SLEEP AND HAVE FUN. OR FIGHT EACH OTHERS. RESULAT OF DOING THAT IS IN FRONT OF U. AND NOW U ARE CRYING. SORRY TOO LATE. U SHOULD HAVE WAKEN LOOOOONG BEFORE.
Stop! advising at the
behest of another and step on
to the streets of Gaza or Jenin to practice what you are trying to preach.
... NOW????? IS IT NOT A LITTLE BIT TOOOOOOO LATE?

Khan G Farooq, Norway - 16 January, 2007

Mr. Chan, why so touchy?

Heading For the initiated ...
Comments people seem to believe that since we have a sikh PM, sikhs are ruling India. This is the most ridiculous interpretation of democracy I have seen and smacks of ghetto mentality. irrespective of their religion, every Indian has a right to vie for constitutional positions in India, and it does not imply that the community our PM belongs to is in fact ruling India.
...SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT SIKS WERE MUCH MORE SAFER UNDER HINDU PM INDRA GANDHI THAN THEY ARE NOW? IF U HAD TAKEN OF UR [TURBAN?] PERHAPS THEN YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT A GROUP HAS MUCH MORE INFLUENSE 'BEHIND STAGE' THAN ON STAGE. ANYWAY THE GOOD THING IS THAT THE HINDU MAJORTY IS SHOWING VERY MUCH TOLERANSE ABOUT WHO IS LEADING INDIA. THAT IS GOOD. IN PAKISTAN WE HAD THIS POOR FELLOW FROM BALOSHISTAN WHOM MY PUNJABI BROTHER COULD NOT SEE AS PM VERY LONG. THE BEST DAY IN PAKISTAN HISTORY WILL BE THE DAY THE BEST MAN TAKE OVER. NO MATTER HIS BACKGROUND REGARDING>RACE, ZAAT, KABILA,PROVINCE, LANGUAGE,GENDER OR RELIGION.

Another thing sikhs have always been a part of India and sikh panth was established to protect hindus from tyrants like aurangzeb. FYI, the current Indian PM is Manmohan Singh KOHLI, belongs to a Hindu family. It is a tradition in Punjab to make the eldest son in the family a sikh.


Khan G Farooq, Norway - 16 January, 2007

 What do you think about the story ? Leave your comments!

Heading (Optional)
Your Comments: *

Your Name:*
E-mail (Optional):
City (Optional):
Country (Optional):
 
 
Field marked(*) are mandatory.
Note. The PakTribune will publish as many comments as possible but cannot guarantee publication of all. PakTribune keeps its rights reserved to edit the comments for reasons of clarity, brevity and morality. The external links like http:// https:// etc... are not allowed for the time being to be posted inside comments to discourage spammers.

  Speak Out View All
Military Courts
Imran - Qadri long march
 
Candid Corner
Exclusive by
Lt. Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
Pakistan itself a victim of state-sponsored terrorism: Qamar Bajwa
Should You Try Napping During the Workday?
Suggested Sites