Again, Desperate Times

Re:SameerJB#502

Given the socio-economic constraints in Pakistan, the General`s plan is a pragmatic approach to effect change. Anything drastic can cause complete chaos and breakdown. For e.g. some people would want comprehensive land reforms in Pakistan. The reality is that most of Pakistan`s elite belong to the feudal class. This includes the military as well. Therefore, land reforms can easily result in a counter-coup and further destabilization of Pakistan. History has shown that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Russia tried to have drastic economic reforms and it is getting more impoverished than ever. The Southeast Asian nations like Indonesia and Malaysia adopted too fast an approach and they literally were on the verge of complete economic destruction. China and India took baby steps in reforming their economy and that is resulting in robust, growing economies. There is a need for patience in economic matters to get results. At least start with the smaller items and build up to greater changes.

One thing that I liked in the General`s plan was the emphasis on small scale development projects at district and rural levels such as building culverts, roads etc. There was also a proposal for micro-credit like Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Such proposals lead to employment generation for the poorest of the poor. As an Indian, I like the fact that the general is at least focussing the people of Pakistan towards building the economy. The situation today is such that the poor in Pakistan are willingly signing up for Jehadi adventures, because they have a hopeless existence. If their energy is utilized towards more constructive matters, it is a positive step.

I also respectfully disagree with your discounting the trade potential between middle-east, central asia and south asia. I feel that this potential has never been tapped because of the never ending political chaos in these regions over the past 1000 years. The central asian countries are newly independent with growing markets and apetite for goods and services. The middle-east is also settling down with the Arab-Israeli peace process and Iran is making great progress under Khatami. All these countries have excellent diplomatic and trade relations with India. The amount of trade could multiply since the economies of these areas are complementary rather than competitive in nature. Their strengh is in minerals, oil etc. while India`s strength is in agricultural and manufactured products. Business men in India recognize this potential and they have repeatedly lobbied Pakistani governments with no success. In fact recently Iran proposed to Musharraf the building of a gas pipeline over Pakistan to India, when Musharraf was visiting Tehran. The annual benefits were a billion rupees just for Pakistan to allow the pipeline to pass through its territory. Of course, Pakistan said no!! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Therefore, the only piece missing is the Pakistan-Afghanistan recognition of this potential and tapping into it.

Kuldip Nayar is an Indian writer who regularly writes on Pakistan, and Indo-Pak affairs:

``The view from Kashmir

Kuldip Nayar

How does New Delhi look from here? I posed this question at a small gathering of lawyers and intellectuals in Srinagar early this week. One lawyer replied: ``It is ugly and makes me feel ashamed.`` Another one said: ``How could you criticise Pakistan for having lost democracy when you never allowed us to rule ourselves?``

Indeed, as I talked to more and more people û lawyers, journalists, retired bureaucrats, politicians, economists and businessmen û I found that India`s image was more smeared than before. It is not only alienation, it is a mood of indifference.

During my earlier visit, one and a half years ago, I had seen the Kashmiris expecting things to take a turn for the better. A substantial number of them had participated first in the Lok Sabha poll and then in the State Assembly election in October 1996. In more than one way they had rebuffed the forces which were pro-militant, and which had stalled the process of merging with the mainstream. The anti-India elements stood somewhat isolated.

Even otherwise, the Kashmiris were tired of leading an insecure and uneasy life. The militancy had once ignited a spirit of challenge and defiance. But it had also brought in its wake the retaliation by security forces, often brusque and brutal. Enough of bloodshed had taken place. There was a realisation that all that had happened had taken them nowhere. Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah`s promise of a better deal and better administration sounded more credible than before. They wanted to try him again û and also the government of India.

New Delhi was seen learning from the Lok Sabha election in 1996 that a free atmosphere evoked a wider response. The Assembly election was a welcome follow-up. Afraid of gun culture and communal sentiments overtaking their peaceful and Kashmiri way of living, many came forward to exercise their vote. Despite a boycott call by the Hurriyat leaders, who associated themselves with the demand for independence or elections under the UN, nearly 40 per cent of the Kashmiris went to the polls in 1996 to elect the Assembly. It was not that they had come to accept New Delhi but it was their feeling that normalcy would give them better dividends.

Whether the Centre or Farooq Abdullah realised this or not, most Kashmiris had generally reconciled themselves to the situation provided they got good governance and secure living. Two years, from the Assembly election in October 1996 to the end of 1998, was a trial period. It seems that the advantage has been blown. The 1999 Lok Sabha election in Kashmir was the biggest fraud committed on the voters. They were elections only in name. It is a sort of blot which the Central Election Commission will not be able to rub off easily.

The rigging in the 1998 Assembly election had driven young men from the ballot to the bullet. A feeling of disappointment had turned first to desperation and then into insurgency. The same thing happened in the 1999 Lok Sabha election. The local population is once again showing a sneaking admiration for the militants.

People feel that their expectations have been belied. They find the government failing in every field, particularly the administration. Nor do they find any redress of their grievances. The cost of living is going up, electricity alone, if and when available, costing 50 per cent more. On top of it, daily they come across examples of waste and unchecked corruption from top to bottom.

In fact, people have felt cheated. New Delhi is seen engrossed in security, not in the measures on how to improve their lot. Farooq Abdullah`s acts of omission and commission have come to be seen as New Delhi`s doings. The State government`s defence is that the promised economic package is yet to arrive and the Rs 400 crore released by the Centre is inadequate.

Criticism of India, which was somewhat mute at one time, has now become loud. They feel that they have no say, much less participation, in managing their own affairs. A political solution is at the back of their mind. But a cleaner, quicker and more sympathetic administration would have gone a long way to span the ever-growing distance between the people and the government.

Even during my short visit, I found instances of harassment, maltreatment and authoritarian behaviour. People have fewer complaints against the BSF. But their main anger is directed against the Special Operations Group (SOG) comprising the Kashmir police. The Rashtriya Rifles (RR), which is dubbed Rashtriya Sangh, also comes in for severe criticism. Once again, there are searches by cordoning off a particular area, as was done in the early 90s. There are allegations of excesses.

The militants operate even in the city. A hand-grenade was lobbed at a place near my hotel. There was an explosion at the inauguration of a bridge by Farooq Abdullah. One thing different from the past is that such incidents do not seem to disturb people. They have begun to take such incidents in their stride. There is no hartal, no detour of the affected place by pedestrians.

While walking on the road, I found no sign of Talibanisation of the city. Very few women wore burqa and few men sported a beard. There is normalcy of sorts. The number of bunkers in the city is far less than before. Even security men on the streets are not so visible as it was the last time. No doubt, there are more militants. The local population does give them shelter and provide them guides for ``the target``. The attack on the Army Headquarters at Badami Bagh is one example of local assistance.

The atmosphere of disappointment is conducive to desperation. Since the rigging of the 1999 election, people have lost hope of changing the Farooq Abdullah men through the ballot box. Some had pinned their hopes on a third force, which Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, his daughter Mehbooba, and Muzaffar Ali Beg, the three candidates, were trying to build so as to be an alternative to Farooq`s National Conference and the Hurriyat. But the defeat of the three seems to have convinced many that there is no respite from their plight except through militancy.

Economically, the state has not done well. The apple crop has got spoilt and the Kargil operation has taken its toll. Many people have suffered. There are no openings for the young men leaving schools or colleges. Some of them are tempted to join the militants, who pay their parents Rs 2,500 a month regularly. For some time, the militants have been spending lavishly. If they eat at any house, they leave behind at least Rs 500. There are very few examples of extortion.

In fact, the image of the militants has improved. Lately, they are seen as ``liberators``. When any one of them is killed, there is a burial procession. Even youthful leader Shabir Shah argues that there may not be any other option, ``if New Delhi does not listen to us.`` At present, he favours a dialogue and wants the Hurriyat leaders, who have become more credible after their detention, to be associated with the talks.

It looks as if when it comes to India, almost all Kashmiris join hands. The realisation that Islamabad is in no position to force any solution on New Delhi makes them feel helpless. And then they pick on India all the more. ``

I have been putting up articles from international and Indian sources up here to try to change the minds of the people, who think the average Kashmiri is quite happy with India. And that the militants are the only problem. If this were true, then India would have held a vote in Kashmir a long time ago. The actual situation is quite different. This problem is only going to get worse, as time passes. The more people killed by the Indian army, the more distant the Kashmiris will feel from India.

If history is any indication, then freedom movements of this much intensity always have the backing of the common man of that area. What surprises me is how easily many of the Indian commentators on Chowk are willing to accept the tens of thousands of killings in Kashmir as something that is required. This is usually the thought process of the occupier against the occupied. I believe the British common man actually thought that the British were good for India, because they were, ``civilising`` India. And that in the opinion of the British the average Indian actually liked the British. It was only the few, ``militant`` Indians who were fighting against the British. The average Indian seems to have been convinced of that incorrrect line regarding Kashmir, as well. I would encourage them to understand the actual situation, and not live in a fantasy land, regarding Kashmir.

One should oppose occupations and human rights violations across the board, whether it suits ones personal interest or not. If it was right for the Indians to demand their right of self-determination from the British, if it is right for the Indians to criticize the Muslim rulers who occupied India for hundreds of years, then why is it wrong for the Kashmiris to want a right to vote for their own future. Either all of the above three are right, or all are wrong. I consider all of the above to be correct, as well as the Muslims of India demanding independence, as well as the East Pakistanis demanding self-determination.

It is hard to respect a person who selectively picks and choses, on human rights. Of all the races in the world, Hindu Indians have perhaps experienced occupation more than anyone else. Infact, they have lived under external occupation for over a thousand years. One would think that because of this, the average Indian would be very sensitive to this issue, and would not be in favor of the Indian govt. occupying any other group. But I suppose one`s priorities and principles change when one changes from being the occupied to the occupier.

I picked up this interesting tidbit in an article from Dawn. It epitomizes all that is wrong with the Pakistani polity. Along with the ``I am not responsible for what my hand is doing`` argument in Kargil, the ruling elite seems to have now come up with another doozy - ``We have to hold our breath and suffocate ourselves because India is not giving in to us``. Does anyone think the world is going to take Pakistan seriously with statements like the one below?

LONDON, Dec 17: Pakistan`s ambassador-designate to the United States Dr Maleeha Lodhi has said that the Western countries can help the country in re-adjusting its priorities by asking India to resolve the Kashmir issue so that the resources could be diverted from defence to social sectors.

``We want to re-arrange our priorities so that more resources can be diverted to social sector and for poverty alleviation but for that we need the support of the Western countries,`` Dr Maleeha Lodhi told at a meeting of the British parliamentarians at the Parliament House on Wednesday.

US let down a desperate Sharif

From Shyam Bhatia

DH News Service

WASHINGTON, Dec 17

As the debate continues to rage over whether President Bill Clinton will or should stop over in Islamabad, Washington sources have revealed to Deccan Herald how former prime minister Nawaz Sharif appealed for help and was let down by the United States.

The sources say Mr Sharif sent an SOS message in August last direct to Mr Clinton in which he said he was under threat from the army and the fundamentalist Jamaat Islami.

Mr Clinton dispatched copies of the SOS to the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State department and asked for their comments. Both the Pentagon and CIA, according to the sources, thought it was not worth helping Mr Sharif. ``He is a dead duck,`` one Penatgon official is reported to have said in his comments.

But the State Department and the National Security Council took the opposite view. What seems to have swung the balance temporarily in Mr Sharif`s favour was the intervention of a former US ambassador to Pakistan who is now involved with a think-tank in Washington.

The former ambassador`s suggestion was that the State Department should send a fact finding mission to Islamabad as a gesture of support for Mr Sharif. This suggestion was rejected and instead Mr Sharif`s brother, Mr Shabaz, was invited to Washington as the prime minister`s special envoy.

During his visit in September last, Mr Shabaz had a one-to-one meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, as well as with Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and a member of the National Security Council. Two weeks later a State Department official issued the now famous statement warning against any ``extra constitutional`` removal of the Sharif government.

According to another source, the US by this time had received independent confirmation of unrest within the army and accordingly sent an unambiguous message to Mr Sharif � through his brother � and to the director general of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ziauddin, asking them both to make their peace with Gen Musharraf.

Gen Ziauddin was also cautioned against projecting himself as the likely successor of the army chief. But Gen Ziauddin responded with the comment that there was no tension within the army and his relations with Gen Musharraf were extremely cordial.

On September 29, Mr Sharif formally extended Gen Musharraf`s tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (a ceremonial post) until 2001. This action seems to have lulled the US establishment into a false sense of complacency. The American ambassador to Pakistan felt sufficiently reassured to leave his post for a short vacation in California. But things started to unravel fairly quickly after he left.

In a letter sent to Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, which was made public on Wednesday last, Mr Clinton wrote, ``We cannot have business as usual with Pakistan until it returns to a democratically elected government.`` But, like Sherlock Holmes` dog that did not bark, it is what the letter doesn`t say that is important.

For instance there is no indication that the US will apply any effective pressure on the military regime to return Pakistan to democratic rule. In this respect what US Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering said last week was instructive.

Mr Pickering, who was addressing a foreign policy forum at George Washington University told his audience, ``The tools we have to persuade Gen Musharraf are either limited or excessively blunt. We see no advantage in taking measures in the international financial institutions that would increase the chances of an economic crisis and indeed ensure economic collapse.``

In response to Umairr (#499), the original Jonah Blank article is available at :

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/9911/blank.html

Jonah Blank is the anthropologist, and professor at the University of Brunei (according to a link I posted earlier).

The Jonah Blank article, it turns out, was also posted on Chowk : #219 in

http://www.chowk.com/bin/print_replies.cgi?bsarwar_oct1999

You can read it and judge Brian Cloughley`s reading comprehension for yourself :-)

Since the question is asked by Umairr :

I wonder how many people who are convinced that the problems are being caused by Pakistan, and the religious fighters from Pakistan, would be willing to put this question directly to the average Kashmiri? I would certainly be willing to accept the results.

While we are into accounts by independent observers, let us note, quote :

For five years now, the rebels with clout have been cut from the same cloth: based in Pakistan, trained in Afghanistan, and motivated by pan-Islamic fundamentalism rather than Kashmiri nationalism. Their ranks filled with Punjabis and Pushtuns, Afghans and Arabs, many of the fighters wage war on behalf of a people whose language they do not even speak. According to Western military analysts, all four of the main rebel groups work closely with the Pakistani intelligence services, over which civilian authorities, including the prime minister, had only tenuous control. Pakistan claims to provide the rebels only ``moral and diplomatic`` support, but even on the streets of Lahore few believe it.

-arun gupta

DANDA AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE IN RECOVERING BANK LOANS:

- The military regime has been led to believe that danda and change in Pakistan foreclosure laws will fix the banking system. So the regime followed by creating an environment that led to coercion and recovery of 9 billion rupees. They recovered the 9 billion but the economy contracted by 50 billion rupees.

- Next they want to set up courts and lock up people without trial for 90 days to facilitate the work of banks. The laws are to be changed as per the advice of the IMF and World Bank.

- What about the Pakistani banks operating abroad where the default rate is greater than inside Pakistan ? A case in point is the very recent scam at HBL New York where a guarantee worth several million dollars was cashed - part of an inside job. Similar situations in London, Middle Eastern branches etc. There are foreclosure laws there and the clientele is not necessarily restricted to ``crooked`` Pakistani industrialists. Goras never default on loans. Only Pakis do if not kept under the watchful eyes of citibank trained personel.

- I think Musharraf should simply lead airborne assaults on these locations and lock up defaulters there as well. We are assuming that the IMF, the World Bank and Mr. Rubin will approve of such a cleanup as they have in Pakistan.

Re: BAHMAD # 504

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

You are right in saying that the last post by Amit was not typical of him. He is usually rational in his interpretations but this one gave me goose bumps too.

Most nations try to trade with richer nations than themselves because it brings backs science, technology and other modern skills, not to speak of hard cash. If Pakistan was to preferentially trade with Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan etc., whose per capita as well as skills level are less than Pakistan, it will be more beneficial to them than to us. There are many additional logistic problems to trading with the central asian countries.

Your response at `He Had No Choice` about Sindh was very informative and I thank you for that. I wish you had written that article about autocracy (or dominance) of ruling elites.... I am sure you would have done an excellent job and would have used `clique` or `tribe` without long definitions, instead of unnecessarily bringing`Asabiya` into it. You would definitely have not taken it as ``shoogal writing`` or have submitted an uneditted version.

regards,

Sameer

- ON THE BOLD AGENDA/REFLECTIONS:

- Its just an agenda. It will probably never get implemented. Moving the telephone monopoly to the ministry of science and technology will do no good because the leaches will travel with institution. Plus they will play all kinds of bureaucratic tricks. Frighten the regime at every corner by talking of imaginary revenue losses and spurious national security issues.

- It is claimed to be a home grown agenda according to Mr.Shaukat Aziz and the world bank and IMF have not been consulted. Well he did talk to Rubin for 3-4 hours before coming. That discussion automatically constitutes an a priori consultation. Skeptical talk by this lot about the IMF is akin to the demon`s veiled remarks about ``our father in Hell`` in The Exorcist. I refuse to believe that he is `just a poor struggling demon` and he will get us a better deal from the big boys in New York.

- Removing taxes on the Citibank Visa Card is interesting. They are already charging 36% interest rate in Pakistan and an entire class of people are in the hoc to them. Blood is thicker than public good. Another interesting case is that Mr. Shaukat Aziz has done muck all about removing the `wet behind the ears crooks` at HBL who involved upto to their eyeballs in all kinds of conflict of interest situations.

Re: Amit # 500

(It seems like Gen. Musharraf has outlined a very bold reform agenda for Pakistan`s economy. If implemented properly, it could work wonders for Pakistan.)

I suppose if delivering nice speeches could solve the deep-rooted problems, the world would have been a much better place with perhaps no problems to talk about. Based on good speeches, BB would have been the darling of most Pakistanis. Whatever PM has outlined in his speech is mostly what IMF and WB have been demanding from NS as well as BB. Because of political considerations they were implementing exactly the same agenda slowly and quitely. Even if the agenda is implemented right away with full force, its positive effects will take several years to appear. He wanted to see the fruits of NS agenda within two years but now he would expect people to wait much longer than two years.

He has apologized to the holders of foreign currency accounts which does not do any good to the account holders.

He wants practically non-existent provincial governments to come up with a plan in six months for Agriculture Tax. The only tax Pakistan`s governments have been successfully collecting is the tax taken out at the source, e.g., payroll tax. I suppose they will need military people knocking every rural farmers door? If they decide to levy it at the grain markets, the farmers will simply not bring it to the market. Agriculture tax is exclusively a rural tax. The rural population will rightly demand services in return for their taxes. At present, they practically get nothing because after defense, debt servicing and administrative costs, there is not anything left. Moreover, with Pakistan being a net grain importer at present, do not expect any agriculture tax to generate any significant revenues. It should have been slowly imposed starting as early as 1947 but.....

Decrease in the defense spending was included in NS agenda also.

A great hype was created leading to this speech. This was probably the last trump card PM could use to boost his position with the public. From now on, it will be strictly on performance rather than speeches. After hearing his speech, I would even go as far to say that it is the begining of an end to his honeymoon with most of his supporters. He is left with the trump cards mostly in the foreign policy arena.

(The General has not outlined his trade policy but he should look at Pakisan`s potential as the trade link between Central Asia/Middle East and South Asia. If Pakistan becomes a flourishing trade conduit between these regions, it could easily become one of the wealthiest nations around.)

Sorry, the chances of Pakistan becoming the very wealthy as the center of a trade triangle( India-middle east-central asia) are very slim. We have been trying this triangle throughout this millenium. We have not achieved much beyond artistic and cultural blending. It is time for Pakistan to be the westernmost nation of ASEAN in the next millenium and much less focus on what is west of Pakistan. Pakistan`s greatest strength is human resources which can be tapped well within the framework of ASEAN. India must also look east more often than they do at present.

In response to SameerJB (Reply #: 502)

Dear Sameer:

I have often enjoyed Amit`s post, though his last post raised a few goose bumps. I very much agree with your response.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re:Umairr#499, SameerJB and others

It seems like Gen. Musharraf has outlined a very bold reform agenda for Pakistan`s economy. If implemented properly, it could work wonders for Pakistan. I would like to extend my good wishes to him and the Pakistani people on this matter. An economically strong Pakistan would be a blessing for everyone in the subcontinent. It is difficult to develop an urge for conflict, when one`s stomach is full. On the other hand, economic deprivation leads to desperation. So, let`s hope for the best.

The General has not outlined his trade policy but he should look at Pakisan`s potential as the trade link between Central Asia/Middle East and South Asia. If Pakistan becomes a flourishing trade conduit between these regions, it could easily become one of the wealthiest nations around. It would also do a world of good to everyone in India including muslims. Who knows, muslims in India could become a wealthy influential minority like Jews in USA !!

ON KAMALA DAS

Born in a high caste hindu family, escaped from the conservative confines of the kerala society by moving to Bombay, wife of a senior reserve bank official, having broken every possible hindu taboo in the persuit of liberation and freedom, it is natural that finally Kamala das is sick of it all. May she live as a great muslim hopefully as a model taliban woman. At least this is one conversion on which no one can hang a coercion tag on

My goodness, Gymnosophist, are you actually trudging down to the library to look up books to refute my erroneous opinions!?! I am impressed! I`ve just been relying on my (erroneous) memory and whatever book I happen to have lying around the place.

It seems that on this post, at least, we are in substantial agreement. Frankly, I am amazed. I didn`t think we could agree on anything other than that Monday follows Sunday--and even then we would have to check our own calendars.

You are correct about the Muslims looking at Partition as an excuse to slit the bania`s throats. My great, grand-uncle took in the families of several Hindu traders/money-lenders while their menfolk travelled to India, set up businesses there and then later sent for their families. I am not saying that he did it for altruistic reasons since they sold him their land and houses at pretty much a bargain price but he kept their families safe for several months--with their women`s jewellery and other valuables. If I remember what his son told me, there was only one serious attempt to raid the house and his men fought off the raiders--some were wounded and killed. Incidentally, this is the same man who whose son joined the Royal Indian Navy (broke his father`s heart--wanted he wanted his son to join the Army but the Navy`s recruiting age was six months lower) and he was more royal than the King. I believe that when he heard the news that Partition was definite, he started cursing a blue streak that went on for days. The story goes that he marched down to the AC`s (or DC`s, I don`t remember for sure which) office to give him a piece of his mind about this decidedly unSaab like behavior.

I thought that Operation Scuttle was dreamt up by Viscount Wavell, the then Viceroy, and not Auchinlek. This was one of the reasons why he was replaced as Viceroy--seen as too much of a defeatist.

So, convergence seems to be the norm. Am I convincing you or are you convincing me?

Regards.

An interesting article from Brian Cloughley. His articles appear regularly in the NEWS, Pakistan. I believe he is Col (retd.) Cloghley of the Royal Army. He has written a couple of books on the Pakistani and Indian military. I have found his analysis, as well as Ayaz Amir, and Najam Sethi`s (two Pakistani journalists; one jailed by NS, the other resgined his position as an MP from the NS govt.) analysis on Pakistan and India to be quite objective, and accurate. I am printing the complete article, because it will be archived in a day.

``An anthropologist speaks

Brian Cloughley

Have you heard of Jonah Blank? Well, I hadn`t, either, until I read the current edition of the journal ``Foreign Affairs``. He is an anthropologist, but is also a reporter with a marvellous ear and is a master of the compelling phrase. His description of the Kashmir problem is superb.

It is possible that the world`s soundbite merchants will be beating a path to the door of Mr (Dr? Prof?) Blank, because he crafts a beautiful sentence. No doubt, if they do, he will tell them, mellifluously, to get lost. (I have not his gift.) He conveys in simple, telling, prose what is wrong with Indian and Pakistani policy concerning Kashmir. He does not presume to offer a solution, like some of us, but I wish he had done so because from a man like this it would be well worth heeding.

He says, for example, that Indian-administered Kashmir (a phrase he does not use) could possibly return to comparative calm--the sort of peaceful existence I remember when I lived there for a total of 14 months almost twenty years ago--just as Punjab did after a decade of violence. ``But,`` he says, ``it will not happen simply through government-to-government negotiations, let alone the sort of domineering, high-handed policies that spawned the insurgency in the first place. India has consistently rebuffed offers of mediation, whether by the United Nations, the United States, or any other third party, arguing that solutions must arise locally, without the meddling of foreign powers--no matter how well-intentioned. Quite so. Answers will have to be found in Kashmir itself--and after 25,000 deaths in one decade, the Kashmiris` patience is wearing thin.``

This is an admirable summation, although he then makes the statement that ``India and Pakistan agreed in 1972 to settle the Kashmir question through bilateral talks.`` This is at odds with the terms of the Simla Accord, to which he refers, because it states that ``The two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.`` (Emphasis added.) There was no fixed or supreme agreement (although there may have been intention) at Simla (now Shimla) to exclude Kashmiris from discussion of their future, or to preclude involvement of the UN or any other third party in the Kashmir dispute. However, the admirable Mr Blank, in spite of misreading the Simla Accord, strongly advocates the involvement of Kashmiris and tells us how difficult that will be. He provides a cameo that is as chilling as it is evocative concerning the attitude of the security forces in the Valley:

``Outside the town of Pattan I pass a car that has been stopped at a police checkpoint. In front of his whole family--wife, children, and mortified aunt or mother--the driver is squatting down and hopping in place. `Like a rabbit!` the policeman shouts at him. `Jump like a rabbit!`

`Kya mamla hai?` I ask. What`s going on?` When signalled to pull over for a search, the cop replies, the man didn`t comply quickly enough.

``The driver, a well-dressed man sufficiently prosperous to own a shiny new Maruti sedan, stares into the distance, his face a mask of stone. He keeps hopping. The officer has not yet given him permission to stop.``

This is a terrible tale, straight from the pen of an independent firsthand observer. Mr Blank recounts the wicked and unnecessary humiliation of a man in front of his whole family, just for the joy that a petty official takes in the wielding of power. Who knows? In 20 years` time there might be a young man who assassinates the Indian prime minister and says ``I did it because my father was shamed before me and my mother; my life was changed.`` And it made me think of my own counterinsurgency experience in the declining years of British colonialism. We young officers were taught to teach our subordinates that dignity was supreme. We called everyone `Sir`. Village headmen were accorded the distinction that their age, wisdom and rank deserved. (My correspondence with one of them ceased only on his death a few years ago.) I wish that one single member of the Indian security forces would call an ordinary Kashmiri `Sir.`

Mr Blank describes the leader of a former insurgent group who has joined Indian government forces, one Javaid Hussain Shah: ``an immaculately tailored warlord who has his own business card. Wearing gold-rimmed glasses, a gold pen in the pocket of his elegant pin-striped suit, a gold ring on his finger, and a diamond-studded gold watch on his wrist, Shah radiates authority and confidence.`` Personally, I give Shah a short life-span, but I wonder where his gold and diamonds come from. They are not, surely, from a tax on the monthly Rs1,500 that his 1,827 men, former militants, receive from the Indian government?

I was involved in the appalling `Phoenix Program` in Vietnam in 1970-71, when serving in the Australian Army, and can from firsthand experience say that `ralliers` such as Shah are loathed and despised by everyone: the former comrades they betray; the people whom they join; and--especially--the civilians who not only despise them but cannot accept them within their society ever again. Their fate is death, usually horrible, at the hands of any number of enemies or temporary friends from whom they will not be defended by their equally temporary allies in authority. They are a short-term expedient. And the perceptive Mr Blank goes on to say, ``The Indian government has bought off or fought off any true [Kashmiri] grassroots leaders, and now finds itself with no credible negotiating partner.`` How true. How terribly true.

Blank observes that there is a generation of young men in Indian-administered Kashmir who are ``employable only as guerrillas``. He is right, here, too, of course; but India--the government in New Delhi--will not recognise that this is a mammoth problem. The Indian government wants only to win a military victory in what it considers to be its territory, humiliating people whom it regards, after a fashion, to be its own, while treating them as colonial subjects. Even in 1982 in Srinagar I heard soldiers from a battalion of the Madras Regiment speaking about `going home to India` when they finished their tour in Kashmir, and now there is an even worse attitude, according to Mr Blank, because Indian soldiers--Hindu to a man--use the words `Muslim` and `terrorist` interchangeably.

I recollect the Indian defence adviser in Islamabad in the early 90s telling me that the war against insurgents would go on ``for as long as it takes and as much as it takes,`` and his prophecy, so far, has proved correct. But the cost is enormous, in every way. Surely there is a better solution?

My eyes were opened by Prof Blank. (I have decided he must be a Prof.) He refrains from drawing facile conclusions and eschews slick recommendations, while being scrupulous in his descriptions of wickedness and stupidity. He lays in front of us a truly anthropological problem that he, in his wisdom, is superbly qualified to describe. If only the rest of us could see things in such a pellucid way. If only the leaders of India and Pakistan could be presented by their staffs with Professor Blank`s unedited words without having them pre-digested in the form of a `brief` that all national leaders are given by staff members who only too often have their own agendas.

It is disturbing that on November 28 at the WTO lead-up in Seattle, Pakistan`s proposal to have `margin` discussions between Indian and Pakistani commerce ministers was turned down by India on the grounds that ``we did not want to be seen as giving legitimacy to the military government in Islamabad.`` This is myopia at its peak, cream and apogee, and if such a policy continues there will only be worsening relations between the countries. The rest of the world accepts that the Sharif regime was ruining Pakistan and that something had to be done. Even Britain agrees that dialogue with General Musharraf is essential. It is time India came off the high horse.

If Prime Minister Vajpayee and Chief Executive Musharraf could ponder the wise words of Jonah Blank, then perhaps they might be persuaded to sit back and consider anew the terrible implications of the Kashmir problem. Then they might agree that it is time to talk.

PS: I have discovered him, in Washington. He is modest and is Dr Blank.``

(NEWS)

I had a chance to read the complete article by Blank in, ``Foreign Affairs`` magazine (It is a small light blue colored magazine). I also wish that Blank had presented a comprehensive conclusion. Various contributors on Chowk have been supporting different points of views on who is causing the problems in Kashmir. I think the only way to find out who is right is to ask the Kashmiris directly. Otherwise we can argue forever. I wonder how many people who are convinced that the problems are being caused by Pakistan, and the religious fighters from Pakistan, would be willing to put this question directly to the average Kashmiri? I would certainly be willing to accept the results.

Re: Amit # 488

(I have also heard that the service industry in Pakistan such as banks are much more efficent than India. Maybe this is a legacy of past military rule.)

You are right about efficiency, but it is the legacy of private banking and more so to some very smart bankers who not only ran the banks but also trained a whole new breed of younger bankers. Military rulers have noyhing to do with it.

(I am sure India has a much higer savings rate than Pakistan.)

You are absolutely right here. Without knowing the exact figures, in my opinion this is due to 1) higher birth rate and larger families have less savings. 2) Higher inflation which forces people to consume as fast as they can before the prices go up, although higher inflation offers higher interest rates on savings, especially the CD`s and fixed deposits. 3)Higher religious expenses on slaughtering of animals and Hajj which every year reduces the saving for large number of families. In case of animal slaughter, 100% of the spending rotates within the economy but same can not be said about Hajj.

(Indians, except perhaps for Punjabis, seem to have made a virtue out of frugality.)

I wonder what made Indians so different than Pakistanis in just 50 years of living apart and why such a difference with Punjabis?

Ref Fuzair #: 492

You say {The indigenous Indian model of government was the parasitic/extractive state (indigenous here meaning non-European obviously but including all the Turkic and Afghan rulers) that returned absolutely nothing at all to the ruled. The post-1857 Indian government did not quite fit into that category.}

Probably, even earlier than 1857, the British Raj had adopted a benevolent approach to ruling India. But the thing one could fault Britain for is that they did not import ideas of city planning, waste management, etc., into India. They were content to leave India as it was, improving the life of the agriculturalists so that they could derive increased tax revenues. Certainly, the British were never so rapacious as the earlier Indian rulers after about 1800. But all rural development was still oriented to keeping the peasants in their place.

You say {Regarding famines: the 1942 Bengal famine was a huge blot on the British record. However, as Amartya Sen as pointed out, there was no net food shortage in Bengal then. People starved and died because they did not have the money to buy food as food prices had been pushed up by (mainly) NATIVE speculators and grain traders.}

In earlier famines, the government undertook famine relief efforts. In return for working on projects such as roadbuilding or digging of tanks, the peasants were paid in grains so that people didn`t starve. This was not done during the 1942 famine. Such inaction is inexcusable. Further, rice was being exported out of Bengal and no rice import from Burma was forthcoming. These contributed to the famine.

You say {Callous and heartless yes, but no worse than what many other governments have done in similar situations.}

In Britain, which was a net importer of food at that time, not one person starved to death during the entire war period when the sea lanes were being blockaded by the German Navy and merchant ships were being sunk by the U-boats. Clearly, the British government did better than the British Raj.

You ask {Why no famines after independence? Okay, why no major famines after independence? Fairly straight forward reason: the Green Revolution.}

The Green Revolution came in around 1972. Before that, there were near-famine conditions between 1962 and 1966 when the monsoons failed for 5 years in a row in India. The Indian government had to swallow its pride and ask for food aid from the US which was granted under P(ublic)L(aw)-480. The US agreed to accept payment in rupees, and not to spend that money without approval by the Indian government. The hundreds of crores of rupees that the US government had in its accounts were finally written off only in the 80s.

You say {By the late 1950s, early 1960s, even Indian economic planners were predicting wide-spread near-famine conditions in India by the end of the 1960s and early 1970s.}

Even today, India is so dependent on a good monsoon for a good crop. The Green Revolution ushered in early maturing crops that enable 3 rice crops a year instead of the more usual one or the very unusual two crops. The near-famine of 1962-66 gave the impetus to improving agriculture, setting up fertilizer and pesticide plants (an essential input for the newer crops), as well as storing of excess production. Companies such as the Central Food Corporation and Central Warehousing Corporation were set up to procure and store grains for uncertain times.

You say {I`m sorry, but the British are not responsible for all the bad things that have happened to us. They may have made some specific circumstances worse, but they were not the architect of all ills.}

You may be correct in saying this. But I think the British indifference to the plight of the Indian farmer was atrocious.

Regards.