[sacw] SACW #2 (11-12 July 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch No.2
11-12 July 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

----------------------------------------

[1.] Pakistan: All in 'supreme national interest
[2.] Pakistan India: To the Summit - with hope
[3.] If India & Pakistan have easy travel regimes, they'll earn 
goodwill among ordinary citizens
[4.] All partition-based peace pacts have led to bloodshed. J&K's 
partition will be a problem
[5.] Views of The Youth -- From India and Pakistan

-----------------------------------------

#1.

DAWN
11 July 2001

ALL IN 'SUPREME NATIONAL INTEREST

By Asma Jahangir

The US ambassador to Islamabad and our general-president are the only 
two people who would have us believe that Gen Musharraf will revive 
democracy. The US ambassador, if he is quoted accurately, says that 
by assuming the presidency, the Chief Executive has not violated the 
mandate given by the Supreme Court.
Surely, we do not live in times when parliaments can make a law 
granting immunity for the murder of all blue-eyed babies and courts 
offer the crown wrapped up in legitimacy to anyone subverting the 
constitutional path. Common sense says otherwise. Courts protect the 
rights of the people and not act as facilitators of interventionists. 
The irony of it all is that all such brazen acts of illegality are 
being carried out in the name of "national interest".
The general and his supporters have misused the Supreme Court 
judgement as a convenient tool to carve an institutional role for the 
army in political decision making. Elections may be held before 
October 2002 - not to bring in "true" democracy but as a 
window-dressing for military rule. The general's promises to return 
to democracy will be fulfilled, in the same manner as the prophecies 
of the three witches in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'.
There is no indication of the military leaders' submission to 
civilian rule. All civilian institutions are working under strain and 
stress. Ordinary people are helplessly trying to survive. Prices are 
soaring, unemployment is on the rise, lawlessness continues and the 
future appears bleak.
The October 12, 1999, speech of the Chief Executive assured the 
people that he was placed in a situation where the take-over of the 
government was unavoidable. He said that while in Sri Lanka on an 
official visit his plane was not allowed to land at Karachi but was 
ordered to be diverted anywhere outside Pakistan, despite acute 
shortage of fuel, "imperilling the lives of all the passengers". This 
prompted the dismissal of the government but, along with the Sharifs, 
the Parliament and the Constitution too were made dysfunctional two 
days later. This did cast a doubt about the intention behind the 
take-over.
The same day the proclamation of October 14, 1999, declared that the 
courts would continue to function and exercise their respective 
powers and jurisdictions, except to call in question the orders of 
the Chief Executive. Within weeks the general went back on his word. 
On December 13, 1999, the Chief Executive passed an order requiring 
the judges of the superior courts to take a fresh oath. Those 
refusing to do so were relieved from office. Most judges did not even 
see the text of the new oath until they swore by it in public. Some 
judges stayed away honourably, while others were not invited to take 
the oath.
The general then changed his tack. He promised economic prosperity. 
This gave rise to some hope. An IMF-driven economy does not have a 
human face. Right-sizing started from the bottom. There was despair 
but the action was justified in the name of "national interest". The 
retirement age of government servants has been reduced. Over 2,500 
employees of the federal government have been dismissed or retired or 
removed. In contrast to the right-sizing of the civilian agencies and 
institutions, the military is being given key posts. Retired and 
serving army generals are being sent out as ambassadors to 
non-European destinations. A retired general is chairman of WAPDA, 
two serving generals are chairmen of the Pakistan Cricket Board and 
the Pakistan Hockey Federation. The chairman of the Pakistan Evacuee 
Property Trust is a retired general. Around a hundred army generals 
and senior officers hold important or lucrative civilian posts. 
Civilians are being eased out to make way for military officers. The 
trend is towards the militarization of the economy, which discourages 
civilian economic activity.
Gradually, the army has spread its wings at the local level. Army 
monitoring cells are seen everywhere. From jails to schools, the 
monitoring cells are a menace to people's freedom. They have 
arrogated to themselves the powers of the judiciary as well. Civil 
disputes are being resolved by them and people obey under duress. 
Some courageous victims sought protection from the superior courts. 
The Lahore High Court declared the orders of the monitoring cells 
illegal. This was not acceptable to the army, which has appealed 
against the judgement of the single bench of the Lahore High Court. 
Our armed forces are under the misconception that they are masters of 
all trades.
It was with this confidence that the army generals decided to clear 
the path to their ascent to greater power. The arch enemy, Nawaz 
Sharif, who was held responsible for the 'reluctant' coup, was sent 
into exile in the dead of night. New political factions were seduced 
to support the army. All political activity was banned. Local 
elections were brazenly rigged and thoroughly mismanaged by the very 
institution which prides itself on being organized and above board. 
Periodically a few hot-headed journalists and press photographers are 
given a thrashing for trying to expose the shortcomings of our rulers.
The preparations are in full swing and well planned. A deputy army 
chief was appointed to make it possible for the CE to seek 
self-promotion to the presidency. Again this was done in the name of 
"national interest". Rumour mongers excused it as another evil 
necessity in order to add a halo of glory to the CE's visit to India. 
People have short memories but not empty heads. The CE's aspiration 
for the presidency was well publicized before he received an 
invitation to visit India. It was the crucial step of the grand plan 
to give the military a permanent role in politics. The fangs are out. 
The spoils are being shared through the formation of a National 
Security Council which is dominated by the military. In the midst of 
India-Pakistan summit euphoria, the president grabbed the powers of 
the auditor-general of Pakistan as well.
All this to our western diplomats in Islamabad appears to be a 
confirmation that the president sincerely hopes to return the country 
to civilian rule. The logical non-Islamabadi would think otherwise. 
Pakistan is doomed to rule by the military supported by opportunist 
civilians. The restoration of democratic rule will not come simply 
because the judgement of the Supreme Court has to be respected but 
because sooner or later the will of the people will prevail. These 
are the benevolent lessons of history.

________

2.

The News International
11 July 2001

M B Naqvi

TO THE SUMMIT - WITH HOPE

(The author is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist )

We are at a pregnant moment for South Asia. Let us not forget the 
India-Pakistan cold war rivalry, now nuclear, is balanced on a 
knife's edge. Not unexpectedly, both sides recoil from the prospect 
of another cold war and have taken some measures to mend fences. The 
question at this juncture - still only a start of the 21st Century, 
the third Millennium of the Lord and the second half century of 
independent statehood for both states - is stark and insistent: 
Having spent the earlier half a century in military confrontation 
over Kashmir, policies of India and Pakistan collide at every step. 
Shall we continue living in this past or can make a break with the 
help of the unlikely duo of Pakistani military and Hindu nationalists 
of India?

Nuclear weapons have already played much mischief: behind this 
invincible shield, brinkmanship comes natural to both. Pakistanis 
have gone on stoking the fires of Jehad in Kashmir; Indians have 
countered with a Poorna Vijay message (war). The world is still 
aghast at the unfolding events in South Asia, when suddenly Indian PM 
AB Vajpayee brought an attractive rabbit out of his hat: he 
unexpectedly invited CE General Pervez Musharraf for talks to Delhi 
and President Musharraf gratefully accepted. Can they rise to the 
occasion?

There is something peculiar, almost mysterious, about Indo-Pakistan 
relations. Dire forebodings of a nuclear winter over the populous 
Indo-Gangetic plains have suddenly given way to rosy expectations of 
possible friendship, large amounts of mutually, beneficial trade, 
economic cooperation, civilised political harmony and reasonable and 
accommodative spirit. These things have begun to seem to be round the 
corner. Nobody actually stopped to ask the question, in either 
country, what had actually motivated Mr Vajpayee in making the U turn 
from his stand offish stance about not dealing with a murderer of 
democracy and the Lahore Process. Today he is reduced to trying to 
lower of expectations of his countrymen from the Summit. Musharraf 
too is, by reassuring the religious and other hardline lobbies that 
he has not diluted the stance on the core issue, doing the same 
thing: lower the common man's expectations.

How can such 180 degree turnarounds in popular moods and climates of 
expectations be possible? What is underlined is two basic qualities 
of Indo-Pakistan relations: First, they are really ambivalent. There 
is a strong enough foundation for sustaining an utterly hostile 
relationship almost indefinitely - in which wars, murders, rapine and 
arson can go on, even nuclear devastations can be contemplated. But 
if there is a credible constructive move from any side, the climate 
of popular opinion and of their desires and expectations almost 
instantly changes in favour of closest possible friendship and 
cooperation. Suddenly amicability becomes a dominant feeling in both 
countries. Secondly, given half a chance, the common folks on both 
sides leave no one in doubt about their innate preference for peace, 
friendship and cooperation with the other side. Expectations suddenly 
rise unrealistically high because these were always there: dormant 
and overlaid with the contrary set of history's legacies, stereotyped 
attitudes. Given statesmanship, people will like to see peace being 
strengthened almost endlessly by friendly cooperation between the 
Indians and Pakistanis. At other times and with manipulative 
leaderships feelings of hostility can take over and move on to 
struggles, tensions and confrontation. But people's first choice is 
peace, progress and a better life for common people.

Per se, a Summit is no guarantee of success. Six have taken place in 
54 years. Despite high expectations each time, none ushered in an era 
of friendship, not even Shimla accord and Lahore Declaration. True, 
Shimla agreement was respected for 18 years - thanks to the traumatic 
events of 1971. Today, the reality is (a) India and Pakistan are just 
a few escalatory steps away from a possible nuclear war, virtually on 
a hair-trigger alert; (b) few know the real calculations of the 
Indian PM and BJP government's decision to invite Musharraf; and (c) 
no one knows how the differing dynamics of the two entrenched 
political classes - the generals-dominated Pakistani establishment 
and India's rightwing NDA - will deal with the inherent complexities 
of issues. Can they rise above the special interests of war lobbies 
and heed the popular yearnings of peace and plenty?

Still, history has afforded a chance to these two hostile power 
systems to make a new beginning. A wholly new sort of relationship - 
however unrealistic it may still sound to hardened players of power 
game on both sides - is suddenly and bewitchingly beckoning from 
afar. Whether Vajpayee and Musharraf, representatives of the two sets 
of opposing power elites, will respond positively to that knock of 
opportunity or will fudge the main issue with a few partial 
agreements, some CMBs and some minutiae of diplomacy like a somewhat 
relaxed visa regime, some progress on specific projects like Iranian 
gas pipeline and resuming cricketing contacts (broken in a spasm of 
excessive hostility). Cunning politicians prefer to make short term 
gains and fail to see larger challenges of history. That can suit 
both politicians, Vajpayee and Musharraf; with appropriate mutual 
concessions, they can easily preserve their basic cold war attitudes, 
especially military confrontation - so profitable to a whole lot of 
hardliners in either country - while tom tomming their success in 
making this partial agreement or that minor accord. Agreements over 
the US-suggested, indeed drafted, restraint regime, CBMs, can 
befuddle and befool the unwary that a breakthrough has been made. But 
the logic behind the typical Bush moves is relentlessly driving them 
towards collision and confrontation.

The questions posed by history are several: would in the 21st Century 
the leaderships of a billion Indians and 140 million Pakistanis 
continue presiding over policies that condemn a majority of their 
people to remain poor who are unable to afford adequate social 
services normally associated with civilised living standards. This is 
achieved through wasting scarce resources over totally non-productive 
pursuits in militarising the minds, economies and societies, to the 
advantage of hardliners, including their propagandists. While the 
threat of war is in fact growing at macro level, the only rapid 
growth the Pakistanis have seen at grassroots is in poverty; now 40 
percent (60 million human beings) live below the official poverty 
line. Human dignity is knocked around daily everywhere in South Asia. 
Would all this continue into the new Century? If so, will there not 
be a big blow up, one way or another in later years?

There is more to the affairs of millions than clever-by-half 
political calculations of self-serving political elites. Large issues 
require statesman-like approach and treatment. South Asia's problems 
are of gargantuan proportions and the need for statesmanship cannot 
be over stressed. But alas! statesmanship cannot be bought off the 
shelf. While no esoteric route to it exists, it does arise when 
politics is conducted with dedication to the aim of human weal.

However, the choice today is for Vajpayee- and Musharraf-led 
political classes to make - on the Pakistani side by mainly uniformed 
politicians - to live in the new Century and the Millennium as a set 
of squabbling and hostile power elites, each perennially worried 
about the (military) security threat from the other; or, as a set of 
humble, well meaning and probably blundering politicians who mean 
well but are not clued up enough into the arts of effecting 
grassroots level reconciliation among such populous nations. In the 
latter case, setting such large chunks of humanity on a course of 
friendly cooperation in the fields of making more wealth, trading 
intensively, cooperating in economic planning, attaining cultural 
excellence, competing in sports and making life more beautiful and 
meaningful for all is a practicable aim that however requires a 
leadership that can rise above self serving lobbies. The choice of 
basic direction belongs, at this juncture, to just two persons: Atal 
Behari Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf - or at most to two power elites 
behind them.

________

3.

Outlookinddia.com

Outlook

Magazine | Jul 16, 2001 
SUMMIT INDO - PAK

TRAIN TO/FROM PAKISTAN
If both India and Pakistan have easy travel regimes, they'll earn 
goodwill among ordinary citizens who may become a force for change.
KANTI BAJPAI

When Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf meet in Agra, one 
elemental item should be on their agenda: travel between India and 
Pakistan. The India-Pakistan travel regime-the rules and conventions 
governing how we can legally visit each other-is confounding and 
enervating.
Can and should anything be done about the travel nightmare? A lot can 
be done, but only if the Indian and Pakistani governments are 
convinced that something should be done. The standard operating 
procedure of both governments is to be unhelpful and tedious. Why so? 
Why is letting in ordinary Indians or Pakistanis so dangerous?
There are two basic lines of thought among government (read 
intelligence) officials on this. The first is that a more liberal 
travel regime will allow all kinds of nasty subversives from the 
other side to come in under the guise of the ordinary tourists. The 
second argument is liberal travel rewards the enemy. Why let the 
citizens of the other side enjoy your hospitality when their 
government is trying to bring you down? Since we all get the 
governments we deserve, we're all implicated in their acts and can't 
claim innocence.
Neither argument is terribly convincing. Terrorists and other 
subversives typically don't depend on entry permits to commit their 
vile acts. Denying them visas will slow them down to be sure, but not 
much more. Denying a lot of innocent people visas has to be balanced 
against the gains of delaying a terrorist or two. In whatever way you 
do your sums, it doesn't add up. The goodwill of thousands of 
ordinary Pakistanis is worth more than complicating the travel plans 
of a spy or a terrorist.
Nor does the second argument bear much scrutiny. We don't always get 
the governments we deserve; sometimes they ride to power behind a 
cavalcade of tanks. A lot of ordinary Indians and Pakistanis who want 
to visit each other are guilty of very little except being powerless. 
To burden them with the crimes of their rulers is only to add to 
their many intolerable daily human burdens. Besides, these very same 
ordinary, ineffectual citizens may someday become a force for change, 
good change, in their societies. Why not have them well-disposed 
towards your country?
If there is little to the argument that we should have a draconian 
travel regime, what can be done to liberalise it?
As things stand, there is a whole range of potential travellers that 
India and Pakistan have to take into account. These include at least 
seven categories: those who want to visit families; those who go on 
religious pilgrimage; sportsmen and artists; those who are invited to 
conferences and for other academic purposes (e.g. short- or long-term 
fellowships); those who are engaged in ngo activity; business 
representatives; and tourists. Of these, it is only the first who are 
fairly regular and unhindered travellers. Even these people don't 
have an easy time, but can, if they persevere, triumph against 
illogic. The others face a labyrinth of difficulties, from clerical 
pettiness to police reporting.
Here are five things that should be done right away:
* Stop playing the reciprocity game: "We'll be more liberal 
with visas when the other side is more accommodating." One side has 
to be the "loss leader" on this in the sense of unilaterally setting 
the pace. Of course, as an Indian, I would prefer that India be that 
leader. My impression is that India has been somewhat more generous 
on visas over the years; but we can certainly go further.

* Pakistan should dismantle its internal No Objection 
Certificate regime. Pakistani nationals, if they want to come to 
India (and only India, from what I know), have to get permission from 
their authorities! India has not gone that far but Indian 
intelligence keeps very close track of who goes to Pakistan and for 
what purpose, as I found out on one occasion six years ago when a 
very polite IB official called me at home just minutes after I picked 
up my Pakistani visa!! From his conversation I learned that there is 
an "informal" no-objection procedure in India as well.
* Both countries should be prepared to issue different types of 
visas for the seven categories of people that I listed above. Why 
not, as we do for the nationals of other countries, have five-year 
visas with multiple entries, one-year visas for a specified number of 
entries, single-entry visas for a restricted period, and so on. By 
and large, we should err on the side of liberalism and issue the 
longer-term visas rather than the restricted ones.
* Both countries should abolish police reporting, which makes 
absolutely no sense. The police in the two countries are quite nice 
to middle-class, English-speaking types like me who come visiting, 
but there is enough evidence to suggest that they are awful with the 
non-metropolitan kinds of people who come to India and Pakistan. The 
reporting procedure helps in no way in terms of national security and 
only propagates fear and loathing for one's hosts.
* Why can't the two governments open more visa counters? It is 
truly sickening to see the crowds of visa applicants, who are 
harassed but also helped by touts, out in the scorching sun in front 
of the Pakistani High Commission. I know that neither country cares a 
hang about the comfort of ordinary citizens when they have to deal 
with the bureaucracy-just look at the appalling lack of chairs and 
benches in any government office in India-but the visa scene outside 
embassies is shocking here and in Pakistan.
The time is ripe to end the Stalinist regime on travel. Unhindered 
travel may or may not make us good friends and solve the 
India-Pakistan quarrel; but it would certainly improve the lives of 
many Indians and Pakistanis.
(The author is a professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University.)

________

4.

Outlook Magazine | Jul 16, 2001
OPINION

THE (COM)PROMISED LAND
All partition-based peace pacts in the recent past have led to 
bloodshed. J&K's partition sans its liberation will only formalise 
the problem, in the guise of a solution.
TAPAN BOSE

>From the day Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced his 
decision to invite Gen Pervez Musharraf to Delhi, the impending 
summit has become the number one story for the Indian media. Almost 
all the foreign affairs specialists, peace activists and 
Pakistan-watchers have praised Vajpayee's foreign policy initiative. 
The Pakistani general has also received a lot of kudos for his prompt 
and positive reciprocation. The most noteworthy feature of this media 
hype is the carnivalesque atmosphere that has been created. Peace 
between India and Pakistan is the main focus of the media, which is 
playing the role of the pragmatist who believes that 'politics is the 
art of the possible'.
But the 'peace' that is achievable within 'the possible' isn't based 
on principles of democracy and justice. For, this approach argues 
that since the ground realities in j&k couldn't be changed over the 
past five decades, they should 'accept' what exists on the ground as 
the permanent solution. In other words, convert the LoC into an 
international border and then move ahead to do business together. 
This is precisely why the Kashmiris, who are raising the 
uncomfortable issues of democratic rights and justice for the victims 
(of state oppression), are being asked to keep quiet and join the 
mainstream.
This is evident in the suggestions of several intellectuals that 
initially Vajpayee and Musharraf should avoid the 'hard issue' of j&k 
and take up some of the less controversial 'softer issues' like 
easing of restrictions on transborder travel, border trade and 
exchange of newspapers, journals, books and other cultural material. 
Some have also suggested finalisation of the Iran-India gas pipeline. 
Public uneasiness about the derailment of the summit by the Kashmir 
dispute has been strengthened by the recent statements emanating from 
India and Pakistan.
It's true that the dispute over j&k can't be resolved readily and 
that taking up of less controversial and somewhat 'softer' issues 
might smoothen the dialogue process. However, any attempt to avoid 
the j&k issue will send negative signals to its victimised people. 
Being far less powerful than India and Pakistan, the people of j&k 
might play along for a while. But like in Palestine, this peace too 
won't last long.
Over the past 50 years, both India and Pakistan have treated the 
denizens of j&k as a subjugated people while playing out their 
territorial ambitions. Despite every attempt to make the 12-year-long 
struggle for right to self-determination in j&k look like a totally 
Pakistan-sponsored proxy war, the Indian government is aware of the 
fact that an overwhelming majority of the people of j&k have become 
deeply alienated from India. Similarly, the Pakistan government is 
aware that the majority of the people of j&k no longer accept its 
claims on them on grounds of religion.
The virtual split in the Hurriyat on the role of religion is a 
powerful indication of the emergence of an indigenous Kashmiri 
political perspective, which is democratic and secular. Rejecting the 
position taken by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the jehadi groups in 
Kashmir, the majority of the aphc constituents have clearly said that 
their struggle for right to self-determination is a political 
struggle and that it has nothing to do with religion. During his 
visit to Pakistan last year, aphc leader Abdul Ghani Lone told a 
gathering of Kashmiris in Muzaffarabad that slavery was slavery, it 
did not matter whether the masters were Muslims or Hindus.

The Vajpayee government's failure to take cognisance of the emerging 
political trends in j&k is apparent. Similarly, Musharraf's soft 
approach towards the jehadi forces, the suppression of popular 
struggles for political reforms in Gilgit and Baltistan and 
Islamabad's rejection of the 'independence option' exposed the 
hollowness of that country's commitment to the Kashmiris' right for 
self-determination.
The growing involvement of the forces of globalisation in the 
subcontinent is evident from the willingness of the regimes and the 
ruling elite of India and Pakistan to accept the diktats of the 
western powers. The US government is known to be exerting enormous 
pressure on the governments of India and Pakistan to 'settle' the 
Kashmir dispute soon so that the region becomes safe for global 
business interests. It's believed the US state department has been 
pushing different versions of a partition-based solution. The bjp's 
willingness to settle the Kashmir dispute on the basis of the LoC, 
after suitable realignment to protect vital 'national security 
installations', is a known fact.
The failure of all partition-based peace agreements in the recent 
past-Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Palestine-stares us in the face. 
These peace agreements have generated greater violence and bloodshed. 
The much-hyped Camp David agreement has been shred to bits. The 
signals emanating from j&k is that its people won't accept any 
partition of their homeland. Under these circumstances, any attempt 
by the two governments to settle the future political status of j&k 
without consulting its people will achieve no purpose.
States are powerful and the dominant wisdom dictates the acceptance 
of the division of j&k as irreversible. The military, and religious 
and right-wing groups in India and Pakistan will have no problems 
with that. But that shouldn't be any reason to accept injustice. I'm 
for a peace that would promote values of coexistence, respect the 
right to self-determination of all peoples based on principles of 
equality between all nationalities and the peoples of India and 
Pakistan. Violence and hatred are bred out of injustice, poverty and 
a failed sense of political fulfilment. Without the liberation of j&k 
from the subjugation of India and Pakistan, there can be no durable 
peace in the subcontinent.

(The author is a filmmaker and founder-member of the Pakistan-India Forum.)

_______

5.
[Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:36:37 +0530]

VIEWS OF THE YOUTHS -- FROM INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Amit Chakraborty

Rahul Mukherjee from India and Shafique Ahmed Khan from Pakistan are 
students of International Relations Departments, Webster University, 
USA, Thailand Campus. They conducted a random outline survey through 
e-mails to find out what the youth of India and Pakistan think of 
their present, past and future and of course on Kashmir question. 
Total respondents were 78 - 40 from India, 37 from Pakistan and 1 
from Azad Kashmir (Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir). The 
participant from Azad Kashmir declined to fill in the survey form as 
he claimed himself to be neither a Pakistani nor an Indian but a 
Kashmiri.

The conductors of the survey do not claim their effort to be a very 
exhaustive one to give a general view of the youths of India and 
Pakistan as the participants were very small in number and were 
limited to cities and towns and having access to e-mails. However, 
when the elders of the two counties are busy these days in hair 
splitting analyses and discussions on all relevant issues keeping 
theirs eyes open to the possible outcome of the ensuing summit to be 
held between the head of the states of India and Pakistan, it is 
interesting to note the views of the youth of India and Pakistan even 
if it appears as a fractional view.

The detailed result of the survey was published in The Statesman, in 
their Kolkata edition of 10th July, 2001. In stead of reproducing the 
total survey we are restricting ourselves to the views related to 
Kashmir question only. And we have converted the figures to 
percentage basis for better understanding.

THE SURVEY

1. Considering Kashmir issue the main point of conflict between 
India and Pakistan 

47.5% Indian respondents' offer for solution was to give whole of 
Kashmir to India,

32.5% Indian respondents' offer for solution was for settling LoC as 
International boundary,

War can solve the problem is the view of 12.5% Indian respondents,

5% Indian respondents thought of Plebiscite in Kashmir to be the 
only solution.

Whereas, 29.72% Pakistani respondents wanted to give whole of Kashmir 
to Pakistan ,

54% was in favour of Plebiscite in Kashmir and 16.20 % thought of 
making Kashmir an independent state.

All the respondents considered that their offer for solution will be 
acceptable to both India and Pakistan.

2. What are the possible developments with respect to Kashmir 
dispute in foreseeable future:

Positive - 20% Indian respondents,

Negative - 55% Indian respondents and 56.75% Pakistani respondents,

Kashmir to India - 25% Indian respondents,

Kashmir to Pakistan - 43.24% Pakistani respondents.

3. Whether other states or international organizations should 
act as arbitrators to resolve Kashmir conflict:

27.5% Indian respondents are in favour of the proposal and 72.5% 
are against it.

100% Pakistani respondents are in favour of the proposal

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch
archive from 1998 can be accessed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

[ All interested and concerned by the dangers of Nuclearisation of South
Asia are invited to join South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List. => send a
blank e-mail message to : <saan-subscribe@l...> ]
--