Dear Editors,

This is in response to Mr. Williams personal piece on the above subject. After coming to know about your site while watching C-SPAN, I thought I would visit and read some of the comments on your web-site. I am extremely disppointed by Mr. Williams piece. It is so one-sided and full of Pakistani propaganda, that I wondered, whether this piece was written by the Pakistani embassy in Washington.

I expected a more balanced piece about the India-Pak conflict instead of the jaundiced view presented here, no doubt a result of the cold-war mentality prevalent among the American foriegn policy pundits who served during the 80s and 90s.

The plebisicite which Mr. Williams talks about was on the condition that Pakistan withdraws all its forces from Kashmir and India does the same. Also, if you would carefully look at the map (presented along with the piece), you will find that China has occupied about 25% of Kashmir and Pakistan has ceded some territory to China, so that they can build a highway from China to Pakistan. This confilct is so complex, that it would take me hundreds of pages to explain it. In recent years Pakistan has sent thousands of jihadis/terrorists from across the border to fight in Kashmir. I do not say that India's hands are clean with regards to Kashmir, but to completely absolve Pakistan of any complicity in this matter is laughable and does no credit to American Diplomacy.

India helped Bangladesh get independence after millions of citizens of then East Pakistan were killed by the military and couple of millions of those citizens came to India as refugees. Please refer to any of the hundreds of books/opinions available on the Internet about Bangladeshi independence movement. Please also refer to your own State department web-site.

As for India using militiary power to annex Portugues terrritories, of course we did it. India was under colonial rule for about 300 years and the European powers did not walk up and ask for Indian land. They took the land by military means and ruled and exploited Indians for generations. So, why shouldn't we take what is rightfully ours?

Regards
Arvind Sherigar
Oak Creek, Wis. USA

Respected sir,

I read your article , "“India, Pakistan and Kashmir: a Personal View” ..I was really moved by knowing your view sir...I mean , being an Indian , and just 22,, i surely do not know the world,,but I would take your permission to express my views ..

It was very much informative on knowing what is the "Reputation of India"..As we know, Bharat (India) also called HINDUSTAN got divided into India(HINDUS) and Pakistan (MUSLIMS )..The reason of the division was religion, no doubt ..But , i think, 0.001% the reason of the separation was the difference of the "Attitudes".. Because , there are still thousands of Muslims living in India ,being proud of their nationalities,,they pray so that India would win at the match of Cricket when its India vs Pak..,,they are muslims but they don't want a different patch of land to breathe on..

And i am sure , there are forces acting behind the scenes to make india and pak fight..Because , if we see the economic state of Pak, we would see that people are not even blessed with daily meal and they have guns , nuclear powers and all the tools to fight..Same it is with India..Indians are not bothered about illiteracy rate, about the OVER population problem , about the caste system problem ,,etc.,etc but they have hours to spend on wars,,life to sacrifice for the so called "MOTHER NATION" that has given them the nationality and only a nationality and nothing else...

UN led a decision to let the people living in Kashmir to decide,,And ,,you know sir, I have heard Kashmiris (localities of Kashmir) saying its better for us to merge with the Pakistan. When i asked why, they let me know that the military forces were cruel and till the Pakistanis don't get Kashmir, they will repeat the tortures ..So, its out of the question for letting the people living in Kashmir chose where should Kashmir club to. And one of the Major point is that AT PRESENT , in Kashmir , most of the Kashmiris have escaped and run away ..The Kashmiri Pundits (Brahmin --Hindu top caste among the 4 Hindu castes) left their properties, wealth and ran to some Hindu places in India after bearing the torture..In some areas,,the actual residents of Kashmir don't live there anymore..

SIR,KINDLY NOTE THIS POINT..During the riots stated "religious riots",,it is always said that a Hindu went to a Muslim community and started the riots OR a Muslim went to some place and started the riots...But the question is, How do they know ,who actually is doing the riots??They say , there is all political parties influences .Inter state and international parties too...As we all know , the best way to stop a successor is to cut his feet,,even then if he goes on , with the help of his hands,,cut the hands ...The same way,,India is a developing country..One of the Asia's man power with brains within. So, there is, I am sure , some other burning countries too , wanting India to be engaged with this..

Sir , in your article , you have also stated that in spite of the recent parliament attacks, it does not give permissions to India to fight and everyone , even the UN, is frowning at India, i need a bit justice...Now, we've faced the terror in the states ..If the US gave a punch back to the country who did it,,((even without giving profound proofs whether it is that country only,,)),,,,No one has a word to utter. Not even the UN...But had it been India, everyone would drop their comments and dissapprovals..

thanks a lot for giving my view a glance..

Naandi Bhatt
Tokyo Technical College,
Japan

I refer to the recent article by J. Edgar Williams entitled “India, Pakistan and Kashmir: a Personal View,” that appeared recently on your website.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Williams and American Diplomacy in exposing Indian duplicity concerning its dispute with Pakistan. The international community and media have studiously avoided focusing on India’s aggressive acquisition of territories ever since it became a sovereign state, which in turn has given rise to insurgencies India likes to call “terrorism.” In this respect Mr. Williams’ article helps to balance the lop-sided exposure self-serving Indian claims receive world wide.

The Kashmir problem is indeed a result of Indian militarism, but the dispute is not simply territorial rather it is ideological. This is not a dispute over territory; instead it is dispute over the existence of Pakistan. India has still not reconciled itself to the creation of Pakistan out of Colonial India, and seeks every opportunity to terminate Pakistan’s existence as a nation state (almost succeeding in 1971). India’s irredentism is the reason why it cannot tolerate Pakistani sovereignty in Kashmir, and why it refuses to honor its own undertaking to allow a UN ordered plebiscite—not quite the stance of a democratic state.

While India takes pride in calling itself the world's largest democracy, its governments' actions fall short of democratic norms. This is specially true of the present BJP-led government which came to power by stoking the majority population’s chauvinism, including the destruction of a 300-year-old mosque. Religious minorities in India have been subjected to increased violence, as the BJP is the political arm of the militant VHP that seeks to enforce Hindu religious beliefs over other minorities. It is this ideology which also fuels anti-Pakistani attitudes in India. India’s ostensible secularism has brought a religious extremist group to power, which cannot be a good advertisement for democracy.

Similarly in spite of loud claims to secularism and democracy, India gave full hearted support to a tyrannical and expansionist Soviet Union during the cold war against the United States. India’s lust for great power status trumped its democratic ideals to such an extent that it never even condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India could not find the will to speak up for democracy and freedom because the Soviets were supplying it with vast quantities of latest military hardware, which India believed conferred to it the status of a regional superpower.

India’s military expenditure averages approximately $13 billion every year, and unlike Pakistan it has never been subjected to effective military embargoes. In addition to receiving all manner of military equipment and technologies from the Soviet Union/Russia, including ballistic missile and nuclear technology, India has also received the latest military equipment and technologies from Britain, France, Sweden, South Africa, Israel, Germany, and the United States.

A militaristic India is a threat to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the region. International supplies of military hardware and associated technologies allows India to use these arms to bully its neighbors and annex their territory, recent examples being Sikkim in 1975 and Siachin Glacier in 1982. Such military supplies to India must be stopped as a first step towards reducing regional tensions, and a balance of forces must be created to counter India’s dangerous superiority in weapons that tempts it to undermine its neighbors' sovereignty.

Mr. Williams’ article helps reveal the true nature of Indian conduct that has been ignored by the international community for too long, and I commend American Diplomacy for publishing his views on its website.

Naved Naqui
Houston, Texas

Much has been discussed about the Kashmir issue by several so called "experts" and I being no expert, will not dwell on it suffice to say, that history records that the ruler fled to India and signed a treaty with India, only after Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan. (Though Mr Williams opines differently and makes it seem as though India invaded Kashmir first and Pakistan had no option but to belatedly grab a third of the land. )

Mr Williams also talks about the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Daman and Diu. Funny he mentions that. I'm originally from Goa, under the Portuguese rule, my forefathers had the option of either converting to Christianity or to lose their lands (and in several cases their heads) and pay a religious tax to practice their religion. Our temples were destroyed and we were driven out of our own land. The fact that Portugal invaded a foreign country, took over territory, conducted a brutal inquisition in the name of religion, does not bother Mr Williams, nor does the fact, that when the Portuguese left, they decamped with its riches. He takes issue with the fact that India had the "temerity" to ask the Portuguese to leave.

Ditto with the French occupation of Pondicherry. (Though the French mercifully left religion out of the equation). As for India invading Portuguese/French territory, when I last looked at the map, Portugal and France were still separated from India by a few thousand miles. Have the imperialistic countries ever paid for their crimes against humanity? Well actually they do not have to, it seems that their victims are the guilty ones for demanding their own land back.

Extrapolating Mr Williams' logic, perhaps, he also resents India's freedom movement that "invaded British territory", and drove the British out, that probably should top the list of India's "crimes".

Speaking of Bangladesh, Mr Williams, casually fails to mention that reportedly over 1 million Bangladeshis were butchered by the army of what was then West Pakistan, a genocide which the west ignored, since Pakistan was a cold war ally. Never mind, that millions of Bangladeshis poured into India, straining its already fragile economy or changing the demographics of India's North Eastern states drastically. Never mind, that it was Pakistan who declared war on India assuming that India would not be able to fight a war on two fronts. Never mind that the UN censured India for it's "role" in the liberation of Bangladesh and the prevention of further massacres. Never mind that the experience of the Bangladeshi Muslims debunked the theory that Pakistan is the sole "protector" of the Muslims in the sub-continent.

Is India a perfect democracy? No! Nor is the US for that matter. Mistakes may have been committed in India's handling of Kashmir, but India is undeniably a stable, pluralistic, secular, democracy in a region that is not. I have a couple of questions for Mr Williams, how would he feel, if the US was sandwiched between two countries, one an increasingly fundamentalist state that uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy to further it's cause and has fought 4 wars with you in the last 55 years (the Kargil war, which General Musharaff orchestrated and could have led to a nuclear war if not for India's restraint has conveniently been forgotten by Mr Williams), and another a communist country with a brutal history of repression and human rights violations that does not recognize it's borders with you? What if the communist country continues to supply nuclear technology and missiles to the other state and the two threatened his very existence? What would he do?

If I was in his position, I would ensure that my country was protected. I would say that the attack on my country's parliament is equivalent to an attack on my country's sovereignty and has been preceded by other acts of terrorism throughout my country over the last 10 years that has left over 50,000 of my countrymen dead. I would be surprised if the international community threatened me with sanctions and retribution while it ignored the role of others who continue to wage a proxy war of a "thousand cuts" against my countrymen.

This is my personal opinion and a personal opinion perhaps shared by a billion of my countrymen.

And while on the subject of Kashmir, perhaps this might make interesting reading for Mr Williams: http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/

Sincerely,
Rajesh Nayak, M.S. in Engineering

The article in Jan 2002 by Mr. Williams is an insult to Indian people. He describes India's decision to take back Goa and Pondicherry as 'invasion'. I wonder if he would use similar language to describe the American War of Independence. Both states are happily part of the Indian Union ever since and there is not even a murmur of protest or requests to become slaves of Portugal again.

Regarding his position on Kashmir, no one denies that India offered a referendum. But subsequent events made that offer meaningless. Pakistan never pulled its troops back, Kashmiri leaders willingly accepted being part of India in democratically held elections and to top it all massive ethnic cleansing carried out by Pakistani fanatics permanently altered the demographics. The only way out of the mess is through dialogue, and India is ready for it once Pakistan passes back into the control of moderates. The process has been started, thanks to 911 and American pressure.

India has border issues with China too. But they deal with it maturely. They do not send terrorists into each other's territory. The two have decided to focus on issues where thier opinions converge and leave the contentitous issues for a time when both develop better mutual understanding and trust. Trade, business and cultural ties are allowed to flourish and they bring their own momentum. When estranged couples try to rebuild their marriage, having another child is not the first topic that is discussed. That is exactly the model that should be followed in the case of India-Pakistan issues as well. The problem is the fanatics that control Pakistan, the very same ones that created the Taliban and Al-Qaeda nurture fond hopes that by seizing Kashmir, they can start a process that breaks India up. A united secular India is not in their interests since that is not the model they recommend for Pakistan. Once these forces are marginalised, dialogue will surely follow. The international community should focus its efforts on that.

Trying to browbeat India into submission is not just morally wrong, it just will not work.

Ganesh Rangamani
Singapore

I appreciate Ed Williams' article on this subject. I have spent much time in India, and have traveled through Pakistan. My first stay in India was during British India days during W.W.II. I returned there in 1951, just as the Kashmir debate was well under way. I helped start the Point IV Program there, and we set up headquarters in Faridkot House, a large palace, once the Delhi home of the Sultan of Faridkot. Part of the palace at that time was set aside for an international group which was supposed to be overlooking a Kashmir settlement. Obviously, it never happened!

We need peace in South Asia, and we're not going to have it until the Kashmir dispute is settled. I agree with Ed Williams that the settlement should be by the people who live in Kashmir. Let them decide. I say this despite the fact that I have had many friends in India who would probably prefer a settlement in favor of India.

Regards,
Carl R. Fritz

Please send your letters to our editor at editor@americandiplomacy.org.