145;Stop jehad, then talk146;

Both Pakistan and India have very rigid positions on Kashmir. India cannot contemplate giving up an inch of land in Kashmir while Pakistan won8217;t consider leaving the state in Indian control, or at least leaving the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus in Indian control. Under the circumstances, what can be the best face-saving solution, acceptable to both the countries as well as to the Kashmiris?

8226; First, there should be ceasefire between militants and the Indian Army in J038;K.

8226; Gradual decrease of the Indian Army8217;s presence in Kashmir. This must happen vis-a-vis de-escalation of militant presence in the State, in which Pak must play a role.

8226; Better human rights conditions in Kashmir.

8226; Free and fair elections in Kashmir, with the participation of all Kashmiri groups including the APHC.

8226; India should strengthen the amended Indus Water Treaty by giving more sovereign and international guarantees. This should be passed by Indian and Pakistani Parliaments as well as the Kashmir Assembly. It should be a constitutional part of both the countries.

8226; Pak should allow permanent Indian observers in Pakistani Kashmir to verify the presence of any terrorist training camps; India should allow Pak observers in Indian Kashmir to report any violation of the Indus Water Treaty.

8226; LoC should be slightly amended in Kargil and Neelam Valley to convert it into the International Border.

8226; People of both parts of Kashmir should be allowed to move freely. Experts can modify this solution to make it acceptable to both the countries and Kashmiris.
8212; Shahid Mahmood

All Indo-Pak peace initiatives in the last five years have been followed by more, not less, violence. India8217;s latest olive branch to Pakistan is like taking a pill that, far from treating the ailment, will produce violent side effects. Vajpayee8217;s personal motives are also suspect. He knows that peace talks are going to fail. The sole aim seems to be to ensure that he 8216;8216;goes down in history8217;8217; as 8216;8216;a great statesman, a moderate amongst hardliners, the right man in the wrong party8217;8217; and so on. In doing this, he is like a batsman who plays, not to win the match for his team, but to add another century to his record.

Vague calls for peace cannot succeed for several reasons 8212; vested interests and political instability in Pakistan as well as India8217;s refusal to better its human rights record in J038;K. The only way relations can be 8216;8216;normalised8217;8217; is through a decisive war, like the one in 1971. The new bogey of jehadi terrorism would never have arisen if Indira Gandhi had been prudent enough during the Simla Agreement. In any case, ISI-led terrorism could have been obviated by taking PoK through a full-scale war. Unfortunately, rendering this option null and void is Islamabad8217;s nuclear blackmail: attack us and we nuke you. It turns out, therefore, that the BJP-led government8217;s 8216;8216;Hindu bomb8217;8217; in Pokharan was its greatest mistake because it effectively and permanently rendered us impotent in the face of the Pakistani proxy-war. Don8217;t shed too many tears for the jawans who have died in the conflict so far. Preserve some for many more who are going to die due to the stupidity, short-sightedness and selfishness of Indian PMs 8212; from Nehru to Vajpayee.
8212; Shivam Vij

The debate on Indo-Pak relations in Parliament was truly 8216;8216;A peace of Vajpayee8217;s mind8217;8217;. The sincerity of his peace overtures to our belligerent neighbour appeared genuine. The rationale of his initiative carried much more weight as he spoke from a position of great moral strength. For the last over half a century, the military establishment in Pakistan has been trying in vain to usurp Kashmir from India 8212; by war, terrorism, Trojan horse outfits and adventurism of all sorts. Their obsession has resulted in Pakistan becoming the main EPZ of terrorism. The jehadi elements seemingly have acquired their own momentum and could spiral out of control- if they haven8217;t done so already. Pak needs to dismantle its anti-India infrastructure as a prelude to talks.

Pakistan has no locus standi on J038;K after the instrument of accession has been signed. Instead of supporting the separatists in J038;K, the military leadership in Pakistan should first allow freedom in their own country by demilitarising democracy. They must realise that if four wars could not get them Kashmir earlier, negotiations will not either. Their so-called equaliser arsenal is useless since they lack the geography to support a nuclear chain reaction. Ultimately, acceptance of the LOC as the international border, with some give and take, remains the only viable solution. The proposed dialogue needs to be well-structured around this basic fact.
8212; AIR CMDE R. Singh retd

Pakistan had the advantage of the 3 billion aid given by US to help Afganistan throw out Russians. I think these funds showed up in its GDP figures for 1985. You wrote: 8216;8216;It is true that Pakistan8217;s economy has improved over the past two years under Musharraf8217;8217;. Don8217;t forget the US dollars provided to Pakistan for supporting the 8216;8216;war on terror8217;8217;. Aside from this, there may not have been much difference in the economies of the two countries. Both had closed markets, dominated by red-tapism and corruption.
8212; R. Panwar

The Iraq war has changed the geo-strategic situation across the world. The world has been polarised into two camps: a pro-American hegemony and a pro-Multilateralist. There are two questions we must ponder over: Small-medium sized non-allied nations, including Pakistan, are at risk of invasion. Is this good or bad for India? We have to live with the Pakistanis, not Americans. So can we allow divide-and-rule policy to run our lives? At the end of the day, our national interest lies in not allowing Americans in the region.
8212; Shiv Sinha