Time for a fresh start

Poor Godot.... his reasoning is so flawed

Hindu and Jewish writers/academics have formed a cabal and have manged to inveigle themselves into the upper echelons of the media(NYT, The Wall Street Journal)and the universities for the express purpose of bashing Pakistan. And so has Sumit Ganguly! This is the raison d`etre of their existence.Somehow in Godot`s mind they become ordinary after critiquing Pakistan.

Note Godot`s use..... `Hindu writers` In Godot`s rather limited world no Indian Muslim writer can be critical about Pakistan.Somehow ... yet again in Godot`s tunnel vision this boils down to a flawed sense of religiosity.

As for Godot`s adulation and naive trust in State Dept officials..... what proof does he have that they have any better understanding of what goes on in Pakistan?

By the way it is Tunku Varadarajan.

Regards

Shourin

While I welcome Army take over of Pakistan and wish the Generals well in their search for peace and prosperity for their Countrymen.

I would like you to point out the following two issues which must be addressed before anyone in India should talk the Generals:

a) Six Jawans of Jat Regiment, captured in Kargil, were subjected to toture and mutilation beyond comprehension. This is against rules Geneva convention to which Pakistan is a signatory. An apology to the familes of these Jawans should be tendered by Pakistani Army; further, due compensation provided to their families and the people who carried out these monstrous acts should be brought to book.

b) Pakistani Army (ISI ?)should stop aiding and abetting cross-border terrorism in India or anyhwere else in the world.

In my opinion, these gestures will be a barometer of the sincerity of the Generals - afterall, what is the point is talking when both parties are not truly committed to truth.

JD Singh

ex-Capt

In respne to jay (Reply # 51):

Dear jay:

Your statement: `` I only take a position based on what others are taking, once up on a time i was a champion debater.``

Comment: If I waste a lot of my precious time, I can write a long rebuttal. You may be a champion debator, I don`t doubt it. Yet, I have a few problems about you style of engaging in a debate: (1) despite your wide knowledge, you lack a good understanding and appreciation of Pakistani state and society (and it seems that you don`t care about it); (2) in your postings, you do not care about specific question posed to you based upon your previous postings; and (3) despite your good command of English language, your composition (and the state of your mind) is sometimes difficult (at least me) to understand. Part of the problem, I think, is the speed with which you want to get back to your (friendly/not so friendly) critics.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P. S. Since there are too many persons on Chowk who share my first name, it would be wise if you find some way of distinguishing between them. May be for me your could either use Bilal Ahmad or bahmad or Bilal (Bahmad) and for Bilal Musharraf use either his full name or Bilal (BM). Take care.

Dear Bilal,

The reach of chowk is far far and wide, I was amused to find this in an indian news paper,

``The very first response on Chowk to his article was a raspberry directed at this consensus: ``Bilal! How`s your father going to pay the salaries of the military? The civilian government managed to give your father eight per cent of the GDP. Your dad can`t manage that any more. You, being his son, would hate to see his body being dragged through the streets by his own militiamen. That`s what he has done. He has killed Pakistan as well as himself.``

Interestingly, Bilal has many Indians supporting him. Jay writes in on Chowk: ``Hope your father does a good job. If he won`t mind, can I send a dozen Hindu gods also to guide him along with the Muslim God?``

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

To UR,

No provocation intented, but i was criticised for stating that Mushrraf was a beneficiary. This is from another post on the chowk, suspects from another pakistani.

2 - Mr Bilal has probably forgotten ( or does not know ) that his father was handpicked by Nawaz Sharif himself, just because he thought that he would be more compliant. He played havoc with the seniority and merit principles of army. General Musharraf was preferred over two generals who unarguably were far far better than him. Not only were they from a fighting arm ( as compared to General Musharraf who was from a supporting arm ), but had far better careers. Between them they had nearly five years of experience as Principal Staff Officers ( as compared to none by the General ), and the Corps they commanded included the most extensive and only operational Corps, and the most strategic and heavily armed

Dear Bilal and UR,

I am no apologist for any indian action, nor i justify any indian actions for that matter, i am no emotionally involved patriot. I only take a position based on what others are taking, once up on a time i was a champion debater.

In the indian forum i am probably one of the most virulent critics of india, some have accused me to be a pakistani agent.

In the overall scheme of things we are insignificant, this www. is a new mode of interaction, which was not there before, all that it helps is to bring some other viewpoints, you can take it or leave it. The problem arises when there is too much self importance, when we presume that this chowk forum with a few hundred expat indians and pakistanis determine the desiny of nations, misguide the younger generation, spread misery through pakistan, happiness through india etc. and misinformation through the cyber space.

We are little people, some times with big egos, but the fact that we are hitting away is proof enough that we dont have country to run, close multi billion deals, even to tell stories to little children which is lot more a worthwile task. We are here to expand our minds, let in some disturbing thoughts and in that process understand the devils inside us. Tke it easy.

Jay: You stated: ``I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india.`` I don`t know whether Mr. Ganguly is a propogandist for India or not. I have seen Mr. Ganguly on TV discussing India and Pakistan, quite a bit. He is currently a fellow at Stanford. He stated in the Christian Science Monitor that, General Musharraf is known to be a militant, and a fundamentalist. He also stated, that General Musharraf had been brought up in the the Pakistan Military by Gen. Zia. I do not personally like or dislike Gen. Musharraff. What I objected to was that people who are considered scholars in America should not spread misinformation amongst the American public, because it causes problems between Pakistanis and Indians.

The reason I call it misinformation is that there is absolutely nothing to indicate that General Musharraf is a militant and fundamentalist. I have been in touch with friends in the Pakistan military, and no one has indicated General Musharraf to be a fundamentalist. Even the BBC has called him, ``pro-Western.`` How does Mr. Ganguly know this sitting in Stanford. Also it would have been impossible for Gen Zia to, ``bring up`` Musharaff, since Musharraf was probably one of the hundreds of majors or colonels in the Pakistan Army. Generals do not have time to bring up Majors and Colonels. And by the time Zia died, Musharraf was probably at most a Brigadier. I do not know what Mr. Ganguly`s motivations are. Perhaps he just wants to sound like an, ``inside expert,`` but to me Mr. Ganguly is spreading misinformation.

``You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action.`` I never said I think that. Please do not generalize. I stated earlier that India did achieve a, ``political`` victory in Kargil. I will be the first to admit it, because it is fact. That still does not justify spreading misinformation. The reason India achieved a political victory, was due to the lack of coordination between the Pakistan military and the Pakistani political decision-making bodies.

``Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the punjab dominated military.`` This comment makes no sense to me.

Jay, you make take the following as a compliment or as an insult. I enjoy discussing issues with Indians, because it I want to understand their point of views on situations. Because of this, I have carried on most of my discussions with Indians on this site, and not with Pakistanis. However, I will have to say, that I cannot carry on a discussion with you anymore. I have nothing against you personally, but I get the feeling you know very little about the internals of the Pakistani society. So there is no point in discussing baseless conspiracy theories. If you have any specific questions for me, I will gladly answer them, apart from that I think we are both wasting each other`s time.

In response to jay (Reply #: 45):

Dear Jay:

Your statement: ``I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india. You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action. Soory sirs, Bilal Ahmed included, you are in a time warp, this the world of the present and the soud bites, no one is interested in historical justification.``

Comment: The name of Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-American who is Professor of Political Science, was first mentioned by UR. UR was critical of a part of Ganguly`s piece. After reading UR`s comments, I felt that UR is not aware of the fact that Professor Sumit Ganguly (henceforth Ganguly) is a well-known scholar. So, I provided some information about him. I am still not clear about the veracity of the statements made by Ganguly, though I felt that UR was making some sense. Anyhow, I provided some additional information about Ganguly`s contribution, particularly excerpts of a review on Ganguly`s book on Kashmir. I think, Ganguly`s reviewer has provided a powerful critique of some of his ideas and his historical narrative. Then, came the posting of Godot in which he provide some of his personal views and experiences with Ganguly. Then, came a parody of Godot`s narrative in which RV finally advised Godot to attack the issues not personalities. Unfortunately, RV himself/herself did not follow his/her own advise. So, Godot came back and said: ``Attack the issue not the person.``

My narrative is important to understand and evaluate what you have said in your statement. Kargil was not a simple single incident. It needs to be explained in terms of the historical-geographical background of Indian-Pakistani political relations. Although I don`t support the Kargil venture, why do you expect Pakistan not to intervene in Kashmir when: (1) Pakistan believes that the Indian occupation of Kashmir is unjustified; and (2) Pakistan had experienced fatal blows to its security and solidarity at the hands of India in 1971. Do you justify the Indian invasion of East Pakistan? If yes, why? If you don`t, what punishment do you suggest for the Indian administration?

Can you figure out why history is so important and so cruel?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Ref # 45

“...Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the Punjab dominated military...”

I think you are really obsessed with the MOHAJIR thing, and you will really believe whatever someone will throw at you!

Why not a single Pakistani news media (includes all the respected and not so respected ones) have mentioned your Australian invented interesting theory. Why is that, because there is not a single shred of evidence of truth in there.

Recently, TFT (Friday Times) has mentioned the selection of Musaraf, a prelude to the grand design of PM to eventually put his right man after the forced departure of Musarraf.

Nawaz was not able to put ISI chief Ziauddin directly after the resignation of General Karamat due to his qualification so he created the situation where he putted him first as a

Chief of ISI and then one’s the condition were good he can make him COAS, thus become

the true democratic elected dictator.

But his grandiose design backfired and Musarraf strike back with vengeance and dear PM

lost his chair instead. This would never had happened if the dolt has thought it carefully

instead of relying on sycophant’s advice. The coup was not planned as you have accused

him, the signs are there, the hesitation in imposition Martial Law right away, abeyance of

the Constitutions, the rights of the people are not suspended and etc.,

So, if you want to believe an obscure journalist’s fanciful theory then its your choice but

the facts are there. Give this General a benefit of doubt but then, if you are typical Indian

who has been brain washed about the Pakistan Army (no wonder their movies, articles are

so full of fanciful stories) then I’m sorry. I will give him the chance first, before pointing

my finger at him (and for your info I’m not related to any kind of Army link).

Pakistan’s problems are myriad and there is no easy way out, but today we are at the critical juncture in our history and the time is now for Pakistan. I pray that the General uses his intelligence and commonsense to steer away the country from the engulfed

trouble waters.

Moez Momin,

There is a general stereotype exist in the world about Pakistan, which is not favorable. India, has successfully projected it`s image abroad and no wonder when Kargil happened world was with them. I`m here not sympathizing with that misadventure, but the great hypocrisy is also self evident, when India occupied Siachen in the pretext of gray area. They claim it was never the part of LoC, thus they didn`t violated it. But great Irony here is that area was left in ambiguity because it is so cold & barren that no one would be interested in occupying the it. So, India used that ambiguity in their advantage and attained the strategic upper hold. Then came, the Kargil (which in my mind was happened in really at a bad time, when Lahore process was going on) and whole west raise hue & cry.

In Pakistan`s Military circles, there is an assumption that a serious military conflicts is needed before the American can guide the Kashmir conflict (Dawn Oct 16,1999 Crying over split Sharif), and bring both parties to table for permanent solution.

When Army backed Mujahideen secured the hills at Kargil, which was intended to cut off the supply line for Siachen, suddenly all the hell broke lose and Pakistan become the `rogue` state and needed to teach a lesson. There was no mention of their aggression, the typical double standard. When you try to point out that hypocrisy they will in turn called you a typical Pakistan brainwashed mindset. Why there is no cries for Pakistan`s point of view, the reason might be we`re Islamic country and therefore west put all of them in one garb of Islamic fundamentalism. Our own government is also to blame for not putting credible foreign policies or effort to educate the West. Our own misdeeds has also not garner the support from the biased west.

We need to put our own house in order first before we can see the tilt on our side, otherwise, the West is comfortable with `secular` India. In, today`s world politics it`s not justice but the interest that counts. Remember, it was Jinnah`s liberal Pakistan that made possible the UN resolution on Kashmir but if we keep portraying the fundamentalist image of us we will never win the Indian propaganda war and sympathetic west view.

To UR,

I can understand your desperation and frustration about Ganguly, you find them to be propagandists for india. You all suspect that the kargill political `win` was a consequence of coordinated indian action. Soory sirs, Bilal Ahmed included, you are in a time warp, this the world of the present and the soud bites, no one is interested in historical justification.

You can try your best, but people want simple, intutively plausible explanations. The following is from a commentator in australian press, just as an exercise try to debunk this.

Musharraf was selected by Nawaz because of he is a mujahir so that he cannot develop a power base with in the punjab dominated military. So he took support of the mujahideen and created kargill. Now he is ruling the country, with punjabis dominant in the military, the new chief will turn to mujahideen and the fundamentalists for support, more militancy and sooner war in pakistan, indian hope for peace is doomed.

Re: RV (the clueless), #43

``Attack the issue not the person``.

Re: Godot

I know Godot. I read him several times and chatted with him at Chowk where he was a contributor. He has an assuming personality (and a very ordinary vision, according to those who read his posts on Chowk) and does not come across as a brilliant scholar.

He has been manipulated by the system and people around him to get to where he is: knowing the wrong people at Pakistan (and now USA), knowing the journalist who quote him (the people who helped him have very unsympathetic view of India, and are quite pro-nothing-but-anti-every-thing-Indian). He was part of a War Game in which there was a nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. He was with the team that was Pakistan and like Mahmood Ghaznavi he single handedly inflicted nuclear anhillation on India and detroyed every Hindu. (gloat, gloat...)

That Hindu writers, and many American journalists, especially in the New York Times, try to create

a wonderful image of India and exact opposite of that for Pakistan for the American public is no

secret. Its infathomable that how these vile people can cast bad light on Pakistan, the ``Jannat`` on the earth. (he has only left this Jannat for the land of great satan to make room for other poor souls)

A writer in the Wall Street Journal, an Indian named Tunku V. (last name too long to spell

correctly), next day after the coup, wrote a very negative article about Pakistan that why America

should not support Pakistan. How dare he question the right of propriety of of martial-law over democracy. Its every Pakistani`s right to murder and rape democracy.

To Godot, the article was too stupid to be worthy of the Wall Street Journal, and the reflection in the mirror upset him so much that I am sure every one can see froth dripping from the corners of his mouth. But Tunku somehow has manipulated to become a writer for the Wall Street Journal. Damn it. Would somebody stop these guys. (more froth)

Thank goodness for the world that American policy makers and those at the State Dept are not as stupid and idiot as, say, ``Godot``.

:-) Attack the issue not the person

UR:

Your Points well taken.

Thanks.

Re: Sumit Ganguly

I know Sumit Ganguly. I met him several times and chatted with him at Columbia University where he was a visiting professor. He has an unassuming personality (and a very ordinary teacher, according to those who took his classes at Columbia) and does not come across as a brilliant scholar. He has manipulated the system and people around him to get to where he is: knowing the right people at Columbia (and now Stanford), knowing the journalist who quote him (the people who helped him have very sympathetic view of India, and are quite anti-Pakistan). I was part of a War Game in which there was a nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. I was with the team that was Pakistan and Ganguly was one of the overseers of the Game. In that game, Pakistan stared India down.

That Hindu writers, and many American journalists, especially in the New York Times, try to create a wonderful image of India and exact oppsite of that for Pakistan for the American public is no secret. A writer in the Wall Street Journal, an Indian named Tunku V. (last name too long to spell correctly), next day after the coup, wrote a very negative article about Pakistan that why America should not support Pakistan. To me, the article was too stupid to be worthy of the Wall Street Journal, and I am sure the editors of that newspaper would not agree with it. But Tunku somehow has manipulated to become a writer for the Wall Street Journal. Thank goodness for the world that American policy makers and those at the State Dept are not as stupid and idiot as, say, A M Rosenthal of the New York Times.

Dear jay:

Thank you for your last two replies. I am also thankful to you for saying ``Dear Bilal`` instead of the usual ``To Bilal.``

I will get back to you soon. Take care.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad