Again, Desperate Times

Re: Amit #489

It is a nationalist myth that the British single handedly destroyed the economic potential of India in order to impoverish it forever. I suggest you read, for example, David S. Landes ``The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,`` to see why the West became the rich and we the poor part of the world.

It would take too long to point out all the things wrong with us (or Imperial China, for that matter) and why we did not invent the modern, mass consumption society. Among others, Thomas Sowell has written about the cultural differences between different ethnic groups and how these contribute to their differing economic growth rates.

You can blame the British for many things, but to fix the blame for everything on them is just plain ludicrous. Could they have done much more? Yes, of course. Were they biased, bigoted, racist, etc. etc. Yes, of course. And we are none of these things? Were they worse than previous Indian rulers? Hardly. Were there good Indian rulers before the British? I am sure there were, but they were not norm.

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.

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.

Also, the British were expecting an immediate invasion of India by the Japanese (and the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere was such a great improvement over the British Empire) and were not going to move food and other supplies back into Bengal to drive down the food prices. Callous and heartless yes, but no worse than what many other governments have done in similar situations.

Why no famines after independence? Okay, why no major famines after independence? Fairly straight forward reason: the Green Revolution. The British of course firmly suppressed all the technological advances that would have led India to have the Green Revolution in 1900.

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. This was inspite of all the good work done by the indigenous Indian government, finally free of the diktats of London that India must be kept down.

No one predicted the impact of High Yielding Variety of wheat and rice seeds, the effects of petrochemical fertilizers (better than natural and available cheaply and in mass quantities), pesticides, herbicides, tractors, and so on. In fact, the British were so determined to deprive India of all this, they even deprived themselves of these benefits. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

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.

Regards.

``The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.``

Re: Amit #489

It is a nationalist myth that the British single handedly destroyed the economic potential of India in order to impoverish it forever. I suggest you read, for example, David S. Landes ``The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,`` to see why the West became the rich and we the poor part of the world.

It would take too long to point out all the things wrong with us (or Imperial China, for that matter) and why we did not invent the modern, mass consumption society. Among others, Thomas Sowell has written about the cultural differences between different ethnic groups and how these contribute to their differing economic growth rates.

You can blame the British for many things, but to fix the blame for everything on them is just plain ludicrous. Could they have done much more? Yes, of course. Were they biased, bigoted, racist, etc. etc. Yes, of course. And we are none of these things? Were they worse than previous Indian rulers? Hardly. Were there good Indian rulers before the British? I am sure there were, but they were not norm.

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.

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.

Also, the British were expecting an immediate invasion of India by the Japanese (and the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere was such a great improvement over the British Empire) and were not going to move food and other supplies back into Bengal to drive down the food prices. Callous and heartless yes, but no worse than what many other governments have done in similar situations.

Why no famines after independence? Okay, why no major famines after independence? Fairly straight forward reason: the Green Revolution. The British of course firmly suppressed all the technological advances that would have led India to have the Green Revolution in 1900.

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. This was inspite of all the good work done by the indigenous Indian government, finally free of the diktats of London that India must be kept down.

No one predicted the impact of High Yielding Variety of wheat and rice seeds, the effects of petrochemical fertilizers (better than natural and available cheaply and in mass quantities), pesticides, herbicides, tractors, and so on. In fact, the British were so determined to deprive India of all this, they even deprived themselves of these benefits. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

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.

Regards.

``The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.``

Chowk has provided us a forum where we complain and argue about issues logically (hopefully) and some times even angrily. My complaints have been mostly about religious intolerance and morals of our land.

I found today, however, a piece of news about religious tolerance, freedom of choice and a family where the members seem to be able to live peacefully with their varied choices. I wanted to share with those of you who might otherwise miss it.

I like Islam`s orthodox lifestyle:

Kamala Das

By S Balakrishnan

The Times of India News Service

MUMBAI: Noted writer Kamala Das finds herself in the eye of a storm following her recent decision to embrace Islam and change her name to Suraiya. This is not the first time she finds herself embroiled in a controversy. Her writings in the past have generated considerable heat. But the earlier controversies were essentially confined to literary circles. Her decision to convert to Islam has taken Kerala by storm with applause and criticism both flying in her direction. The Times of India spoke to her over the telephone at her home in Kochi on Tuesday evening.

Excerpts:

Question: When exactly did you decide to embrace Islam?

Answer: I do not remember the exact time. I think it was about 27 years ago.

Q: Why did you wait so long to convert?

A: When I discussed the matter first with my husband in the early seventies, he asked me to wait. He advised me to read books on Islam. I again thought of converting before the 1984 parliamentary elections. But, not all my children were married and settled at that time. I did not want my decision to impact on their lives. Now, all of them are well settled and happy. Hence, I have announced my decision now.

Q: Who introduced you to Islam?

A: My first interface with Islam was through two blind Muslim children, Irshad Ahmed and Imtiaz Ahmed. They were sent to me by the National Association for the Blind since I had volunteered to read and teach the blind. The children virtually stayed at our flat at Bank House at Churchgate, Mumbai. I was required to read them Islamic scriptures.

Q: What was it in Islam which attracted you?

A: I liked the purdah which Muslim women wore. I liked the orthodox lifestyle of Muslim women.

Q: But, doesn`t the purdah circumscribe your freedom?

A: I don`t want freedom. I had enough of it thrust on me. Freedom had become a burden for me. I want guidelines to regulate and discipline my life. I want a master to protect me. I wanted protection and not freedom. I want to be subservient to Allah. In fact, for the past 24 years I had worn a purdah off and on. I had gone to markets, matinee shows and even while abroad I had worn purdah. I have several of them. A woman in purdah is respected. No one touches you or teases you if you wear one. You get total protection.

Q: But isn`t freedom the most precious of all gifts enjoyed by humankind?

A: My freedom had become frayed at the edges. It was not good any more. It was no more the toy I wanted to play with. I had outgrown the desire for freedom.

Q: What was the immediate reason to accept Islam?

A: Recently I was travelling in a car from the Malabar to Kochi. I started the journey at 5.45 a.m. I looked at the rising sun. Surprisingly, it had the colour of a setting sun. It travelled with me and at 7.00 a.m. it turned white. For years I have been looking for signs telling me when to convert. Finally, I got the message.

Q: Can you please specify the three chief reasons which prompted you to become a Muslim?

A: I cannot list the reasons like that. I wanted protection. My husband died seven years ago and I am now a lonely widow who is 67 years old. When he was there he provided me with protection. I had not to bother about getting tickets, passports, visa and such other things. I just had to follow him.

Q: Did your children approve of your decision?

A: Yes they did. They respect my decision. In fact, one of my sons has embraced Buddhism.

Q: Now that you are not a Hindu anymore, how do you look at Hinduism?

A: I found Hinduism too lenient for me. There is too much of freedom. In fact, in the past 14 years I had not visited a temple. I did not want to take off my shoes. I feel that God resides in your heart like a little lamp. He cannot be confined to the four walls. But I must tell you that Lord Krishna had exerted a profound influence on me. My grandmother had told me as a child that I was married to Krishna. That had remained with me all along. I had seen Krishna, played with him and eaten with him. I just cannot pack him off. I love Krishna and that love will never die. The essence of Krishna is within me only that the name has changed.

Ref fuzair #: 485

You say {Its been a long time since I studied Indian history and I readily concede that my memory is not as good as yours. I didn`t remember about Hodson and the maps.}

While I do have a good memory, the fact that the local library carries Hodson`s book is helpful! Any history relative to Partition, I learnt after coming to the US. In the textbooks I used in high school, Indian independence was a one-line sentence.

Regarding keeping the peace during 1946-47, it is true that by treating the communal riots as CIVIL disturbances to be handled by civil (read provincial and police) authorities, everybody underestimated the level of violence the mobs were capable of and was not properly prepared.

I will grant you that the Indian Army leadership advised Nehru, as did Mountbatten, that the INA personnel should not be re-admitted to the Army because a time may come when Nehru would need the Army and the mutineers might mutiny again. The INA trials were so charged with politics that the three persons tried for sedition -- symbolically, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Sikh -- had their sentences (they were sentenced to life in prison with transportation to the Andamans) commuted by Gen. Auchinleck the day after it was announced. While the Army remained disciplined, the police did not. Reports suggest that the Punjab and Bengal policemen essentially protected people of their own faiths. The reports also place the blame for starting the communal riots in Punjab squarely on the Akali Dal who were trying to get a Khalistan for the Sikhs but were told they would be part of India and would lose their holiest shrines and capital city of Lahore to Pakistan. Interestingly, Penderel Moon quotes Sikander Hyatt Khan, the Unionist Chief Minister of Punjab, as telling him that partition of Punjab would mean a bloodbath since the Muslims would slit the throats of the bania moneylenders. I guess, like in Indonesia in 1965, several scores were settled between feuding parties, loans were suddenly eliminated, property and women became available for the taking, etc.

Some Muslim League politician is supposed to have remarked that he would be willing to sacrifice 10 million lives to free up the lives of 55(?) million Muslims in an independent Pakistan. Lawrence James attributes this to Jinnah, which I don`t believe. If Jinnah is to be accused of anything, it is that he assumed the rest of the politicians in India played the game like he did: a legal case where a judgement would be rendered and everyone would accept that judgement like civilized people. The fact that the mobs do not behave like lawyers from Lincoln`s Inn was something Jinnah did not anticipate. But then, he never participated in the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics.

You say {If the British would have stayed on, the partition of the Punjab would never have occurred

and the Sikhs would not have risen up--in turn the Muslims would not have attacked the Sikhs and Hindus.... This would have removed a main cause of much of the subsequent violence.}

The one thing to be said for the Cabinet Plan was that it would have proved to the Muslims that independent India was not going to take revenge for Aurangzeb and others. It is a pity the plan was killed by Nehru`s intemperate public statements. The British were tired and really wanted to leave India. Auchinleck had drawn up plans to abandon India province by province in case a constitutional solution was not found. His concerns were to save the lives of British soldiers and civilians. The prevaling feeling after WWII was that no more British soldiers were expendable in a fight between the natives.

You say {As to just a few ordnance factories, it was much, much more than that. You do not equip 2.5 million men from the odd factory or two. India`s defence industrialization included things like HAL, shipyards, automobile assembly, and so on. Was India an industrial power in 1945? Of course not. But neither was it anywhere as deindustrial as the parts of it that became Pakistan.}

I will go back and check when Hindustan Aeronautics was founded. I believe it was after WWII. The first plane assembled there was the Avro-748 in the late fifties. I remember seeing British and American automobiles on the roads as late as 1955. Hindustan Motors came in at that time with the locally made Morris Oxford. The one thing that might have been asembled in India is the Jeep. Primarily, the ordnance factories were producing small arms, bullets and shells. I will grant you that Pakistan had practically zilch in terms of industry. Everybody mentions the Mangha Ram Biscuit Factory as the only factory in Pakistan in 1947; they forget the Esso refinery in Karachi.

You say {I believe Gurdaspur was then the only all-weather road link to Srinagar from the Indian side. Its somewhat difficult to claim a territory

when its cut-off from you for six-seven months of the year.}

The shortest road is from Sialkot (Pakistan) to Jammu. There is now a road from Gurdaspur to Srinagar, acording to a recent World Atlas. I wonder if that was a pukkah road in 1947. The World Atlas doesn`t show many details but from the lay of the land, it looks like a road could be built closer to the foothills to get into Kashmir if necessary. The China Road from Assam into Burma and China was built during WWII in absolutely terrible conditions (constant rain) and was used to supply the Burma-China thater of war. Compared to that, a road into Kashmir would have been a piece of cake.

Actually, Chaudhri Rehmat Ali`s pipe dream was independent Pakistan, Bengal, Hyderabad and Moplastan (in Muslim Malabar in southwest India) federated together and a Hindu India.

You say {Pakistan should never have come into being.}

In retrospect, in view of the sufferings of the people, this is true. It is normally said that a people get the politicians they deserve. That certainly was NOT true for the average South Asian in 1947. They deserved infinitely better.

You say {I think that the Hindu chauvinists would have gagged on an additional 250 million plus Muslims--and five more Muslim majority states!--in addition to the 150 (?) million they have now.}

There wouldn`t have been the current level of Hindu chauvinism but for the riots and killings during the partition. Till about 1970, people lived in relative peace in India. I blame the whole communal thing on Indira Gandhi. While her Hindu-Muslim divide was not as overt as her Hindu-Sikh divide, she played her cards very well to ensure she would retain power. As is typical of most Indians, the wrong person was killed in 1948. The RSS should have taken out Nehru instead of Mahatma Gandhi; then India would have been spared Indira and Rajiv. (I shudder to think that these people are functioning as systems analysts for the world!)

You ask {BTW, what was the article you submitted to Chowk about?}

Give me your e-mail address and I will mail it to you.

Regards.

Pardesi #482

Dear Pardesiji,

A `threat` was far from what I meant. I`m sorry my inexpert and incomplete expressions have caused you to view my statement as a threat. Forgive me and let me make myself clear. My meaning was that expatriates from all countries can exert a lot of money power and influence on events back home. But they donot have the same issues at stake that the residents have. As you say, I am living in a civilized society where my life and livelihood are not at stake when I am an activist for Indian issues or fund an organization back home to satisfy my nostalgia. If I am unaware of the Indian political climate or how that organization is using or misusing my money back home, I may be funding riots or other destruction that I didnot intend. As an example, my opinion is that if Israeli and Irish ex-pats had refrained from funding organizations in their countries of origin, these places would have seen peace sooner and a lot less lives lost. I was referring to our responsibilities in this regard, not threatening anyone.

Sadhana

Re:Fuzair#475

My fundas on pre-partition economy of the subcontinent are not very strong. However, virtually everyone agrees that India was a major economic power before the britsh arrived. By the time the british left, we were reduced to a massive cesspool of starving beggars fighting over religion. Clearly that did not happen by our choice. Everyone remembers how the british crushed the artesan class and their craftmanship of Indian products in order to fuel the industrial revolution in England. It is not for nothing that the brits called India their ``Jewel in the Crown``.

I agree that they did invest in a lot of infrastructure such as railways, post and telegraph, bridges etc. However, their entire focus was on exploitation. There used to repeated occurances of disasterous famines, the last one being the infamous 1942 famine in Bengal, where huge numbers would die of hunger. If Nehru did one great thing, it was to make India self-sufficient in food. British rule was unlike any other imperial rule in the subcontinent. No wonder, even peaceful hindus who had lived for centuries under other occupying forces could not stomach it and got together under the Congress movement to fight back.

Re:SameerJB#472

Dear Sameer,

Your points are well taken. One thing that is different between India and Pakistan economically is that Pakistan is a much more consumption driven economy. In other words, Pakistanis love the good life. Indians, except perhaps for Punjabis, seem to have made a virtue out of frugality. This is evident even among the upper classes in India. The PM in India has no hesitation in riding an Ambassador car, while low level provincial officials in Pakistan demand Mercedes cars for their jobs.

In fact Gen. Zia once said something to the effect that if an Indian had Rs.10/-, he would buy dal-roti with a couple of bucks and save the rest, while a Pakistani would spend the entire amount on a sumptous non-veg meal. I am sure India has a much higer savings rate than Pakistan. A consumer driven economy is not necessarily bad, as long as there is an equal focus on producing more to keep up with the demand. The US economic growth has been fueled mostly by consumer spending. However, if the production does not keep up with consumption, it leads to debts and all the assorted problems.

I have also heard that the service industry in Pakistan such as banks are much more efficent than India. Foreign tourists mention that it takes minutes to do the same transaction in Pakistan that takes hours in India. Maybe this is a legacy of past military rule.

Re:Umairr#477

The leadership of both Congress and BJP is dominated by upper classes/castes. The difference is that Congress has the pre-independence legacy of inclusive ideology that was necessary to develop a coherent opposition to british rule. That ideology has continued but Congress has always tried to maintain the status quo that invariably favors the upper castes. Congress always used to depend on lower caste and muslim vote to get the majority. Hence they would pay lip service to get these votes while keeping the status quo. People have wisened up and lower caste hindus and muslims have moved away from the Congress, resulting in its decline. BJP, on the other hand, started out unambigously as the party of upper caste hindus and it used the communal card to consolidate hindu vote under upper caste leadership. It realized that it could never get a majority if it maintained a rigid communal stance and hence it has softened that image. Thus in a way, the Congress and BJP are similar to the Democratic Party and Republican Party respectively in USA. After all both these parties in US are dominated by rich whites with some differences in ideology.

The real story that is developing is the rise of regional parties. The examples are Telegu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party in UP etc. Although these parties are regional, they have significant clout at the center. This trend will grow over the years. The Indian educated middle class has a mixture of all castes/classes, but is dominated by upper castes/classes. The people who come to USA and are on H1 visa are typically representative of this class. However, the lower sections are fast catching up as the middle class continues to expand. Over the next several years, this will change the entire political environment.

What would be the situation 15 years from now ? It is hard to tell, given the immense social churning going on in India. One scenario could be an accelearated move towards a two party system, if both Congress and BJP evolve with the changing economic scenario. Their differences would be more on economic matters than wedge issues like communalism or casteism. That would be an indication of a real maturing of democracy. The other scenario would be a fragmented multi-party system as you mentioned. In fact, India does have a multi-party system right now and all governments in the past few years have been coalition governments. A lot of political commentators in India and Pakistan have noted that the BJP led alliance was able to win this year due to Kargil, otherwise there would have been another hung parliament.

Oops. My last post should read: NOT going to defend the Raj.

Sorry

Re: Gymnosophist 479

Its been a long time since I studied Indian history and I readily concede that my memory is not as good as yours. I didn`t remember about Hodson and the maps.

However, I still beg to differ on certain points. The Army was not allowed to suppress the communal riots of 1946. This was a failure of the political leadership not the Army. As far as I know, no Army units mutinied or refused to fire upon their fellow religionists. The key is that the Punjab would have been quiet under the Unionist government and the Army was Punjabi (and Gurkha) for all intents and purposes.

The failure of the Army in 1947 wasn`t an Army failure as such. I believe Maj. Gen. Rees was allocated 50,000 troops to keep the Punjab quiet. This was a ludicrously inadequate number but, again, this was a failure of the political (mainly British) leadership. If the Army could recruit 2.5 million volunteers in WWII, they could certainly find more than 50,000 soldiers for the Punjab. The bulk of the Army had been demobilized, yes, but the British (and Nehru and Jinnah) did not want anything to interfere with their plans. By the time they realized the magnitude of the disaster on their hands, it was too late to do anything.

I don`t know if you are a Punjabi or if you have any affiliation/contact with the Indian Army but ask any old timer if the Army would have stayed loyal? They will give you only one answer. If the British would have stayed on, the partition of the Punjab would never have occurred and the Sikhs would not have risen up--in turn the Muslims would not have attacked the Sikhs and Hindus.... This would have removed a main cause of much of the subsequent violence.

Incidentally, since your command of facts is so much greater than mine (which is restricted to opinions at any rate, not facts), how do you explain the Indian Army`s absolute refusal to readmit the INA traitors to its ranks? Why did Nehru and Kaul back down on this? If the Army was staunchly nationalist after WWII, as many who know nothing about the Indian Army delude themselves into thinking it was, why did they not readmit the ``Delhi chalos?``

Of course this begs the question as to why these ``nationalists`` fought and died for the King-Emperor. My answer is that the Army transferred its allegiance to Nehru/India (and to Jinnah/Pakistan) only after it became apparent that the British were going to defend the Raj. So why should the Indian Army?

As to just a few ordnance factories, it was much, much more than that. You do not equip 2.5 million men from the odd factory or two. India`s defence industrialization included things like HAL, shipyards, automobile assembly, and so on. Was India an industrial power in 1945? Of course not. But neither was it anywhere as deindustrial as the parts of it that became Pakistan.

You are correct in that the major road to Srinagar was through Rawalpindi. I believe Gurdaspur was then the only all-weather road link to Srinagar from the Indian side. Its somewhat difficult to claim a territory when its cut-off from you for six-seven months of the year.

And before you ask, yes, what about E. Pakistan. It was never in the original demand for Pakistan for precisely this reason. And the fact that Bengali muslims were considered to be inferior (too much Hindu contact/blood). However, Pakisan was Ch. Rehmat Ali`s opium pipe dream. I will not deny this simple truth. I believe Rehmat Ali dreamt of a Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Iran, Sind, Turkmenia (sp? not sure of this part) and then the ``an`` suffix. No Bengal here!

Pakistan should never have come into being. Mr. Jinnah overplayed his hand and was left with the ``motheaten`` Pakistan. Personally, I think that the Hindu chauvinists would have gagged on an additional 250 million plus Muslims--and five more Muslim majority states!--in addition to the 150 (?) million they have now.

However, I am getting off the topic now. So why did India fly in a para regiment into Srinagar? Simple, time was of the essence and anyone can see that its much faster to fly into Srinagar than to drive troops up from the plains. In any case, the bulk of the troops India committed to Kashmir in 1948-49 did not fly in. And their supplies were not flown in either.

However, these are all opinions and not facts. I await your marshalling the relevant facts to rebut these mere opinions.

BTW, what was the article you submitted to Chowk about?

Regards.

The Black Box Will Tell The Truth :

An interview with counsel for defense in the Hijacking case Mr. Iqbal Raad .(The weekly Zindagi 12-18 Dec. Translated from Urdu)

Ref : Assad_K # 167 ... benevolent dictators and various contributors interested in the Hijacking case.

Q . How does the recent ordinance amending the scope of the anti-terorist courts affect the case ?

A. This is nothing new. We had expected it from the beginning. The reason is that the FIR filed after a month of mindstorming by govt. legal experts is a wonder in itself in the history of jurisprudence. Spread over 19 pages, it says everything except the clauses that it says have been registered. For example, the first clause is section 402 B which relates to Hijacking. But it says nothing that is of relevance to 402 A which contains the definition of Hijacking, i.e. did a hijacking take place ? How did it take place ? Where did it take place ? Why did it take place ? Similarly section 365 relates to Kidnapping but the FIR says nothing about a kidnapping. There`s no explanation provided as regards the delay in filing the FIR. Further, the person who is the complainant remains a stranger throughout the complaint. In criminal cases, how can a person who has not been harmed/affected by the alleged crime be the complainant ? Indeed, someone who was not in the picture at all ?

Accordingly, we had been saying all along that this case does not fall under the purview of the scheduled offences under the Anti-terrorism act, and we will challenge it as soon as the charge sheet is presented. So, the Govt. changed the schedule of offences and changed the whole structure of the anti-terrorism act to hide their weaknesses. As far as the authority of CE contained in this ordinance is concerned, that itself is subjudice and has been challenged in the Supreme Court i.e. who is this gentleman called the CE ? Where did he come from ? Where is he mentioned in the constitution and who gave him the authority to promulgate ordinances ? All these were the weaknesses which the prosecution has tried to hide but we feel it has actually strengthened our case. All we want is a fair trial.

Q. Do you believe that this ordinance was promulgated in view of foreign pressure to appoint a High Court Judge ?

A. No. There was no such pressure. It was because of their own weakness. When they saw that the Sessions Judge Rehmat Hussain Jaffery is a strict sort of a person who is only talking about the law and not submitting to dictates, they simply changed him. When the prosecution requested Judge Rehmat for further police remand of the accused he asked on what grounds ? Because the accused had already been in custody for more than a month he felt it was enough time for the police to have interrogated them so he turned down the request and sent the accused to jail under judicial custody i.e. took them away from police custody. Then, the Govt. came up with more accused in Shahbaz Sharif, Saif-ur-Rehman and Saeed Mehdi to delay the case but the judge refused police remand again. When the Govt. thought they couldn`t get anything out of the current judge, they immediately brought in the amendment.

Q. So what you`re saying is that the amendment was brought in to influence the case ?

A. Yes. It is a tactic to create hurdles in the trial by getting us tied up in Constitutional petitions, like this ordinance is wrong and the authority to issue such is already under debate in the Supreme Court, so the Hijacking case would not go to trial till those questions are answered. These are all delaying tactics. The FIR was filed after one month. The copy of the FIR is supposed to be filed within 24 hours but it took us more than 72 hours to get the copy. Then they arrested three accused and didn`t arrest the others. When we said the others have been in your custody since 40 days why don`t you show them ? Only then they arrested the others one by one causing further delay. We want the charge sheet to be presented right away without delay so we can defend the accused in a normal manner for the sake of swift justice.

Q. Do you think more people will be implicated ?

A. It`s upto them to implicate anyone they want. For a whole 40 days they had been questioning Shahbaz Sharif, Saif-ur-Rehman and Saeed Mehdi as to where are the files ? Where are your properties ? What has Mian Saheb been doing ? When they couldn`t come up with anything despite severe interrrogation of 40 days then these three were implicated in the Hijacking case. There`s no evidence against these three. Saif-ur-Rehman had only said, as per the witness`s statement, that the plane can also be diverted to Peshawar. Where does hijacking and murder come into it ?

Q. It is being said that the attempt to divert the plane was akin to Hijacking and an attempt to murder ..

A. It is not proved anywhere. We have prepared our case in the light of the Tokyo Convention, regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organistaion (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Authority (IATA). Nothing supports the prosecution`s view. The alternative destinations of the flight i.e. Nawabshah and Muscat were pre-determined. If the pilot was instructed to use the alternate destination instead of Karachi and permitted to land in Nawabshah so how is it Hijacking ? When this case is debated in the light of international conventions it will cause great damage to the national airline and the civil aviation authority. It`s all against the interest of this country.

Q. What is the legal significance of the ex- Director General Civil Aviation authority, Mr Aminullah Chaudhery, having turned State Approver ?

A. His legal significance is clear before the world. When Mr. Chaudhery was presented the first time before court he said he was under great pressure to turn approver. He said he had undergone open heart surgery twice and medicines were being grabbed from his hand. Finally he had submitted in writing that mentally he had become so weak that either he would go mad or would have to resort to suicide. So his turning approver was clearly under duress with no legal significance.

Q. It is being said that the plane was heading in a North-Easterly direction which is towards India. Was it instructed to go there ?

A. What`s on record is that the Control Tower had said the pilot was not taking any of their instructions. He kept telling them to ``Hold On``. The control tower people are testifying that they had told the pilot to land in Nawabshah but he started to head somewhere else. When the plane started to climb the control tower asked the pilot we`re telling you to land and you`re climbing ? The pilot said it was to conserve fuel. The tower said but you`ll spend more fuel climbing while we`re telling you to land. There was someone else in the cockpit instructing the pilot not to land. When the the pilot wasn`t listening to ground control, then who was in control of the plane ? Under the regulations of Civil Aviation the plane is always under the control of respective ground controllers along it`s route and if the pilot listens to anyone other than ground control, his license can be revoked. So did the pilot do it willingly or was he under pressure ? You can imagine what shape this case can take if these questions are answered. That is why we feel that the contents of the black box will never be revealed.

Q. Are there any particular secrets contained in the black box ?

A. It contains the conversation of the person who was instructing the pilot and controlling the plane. No witness has testified that the plane was refused landing even though it was short of fuel so that (God forbid) it should crash. The Hijacking was where the plane was kept in the air although it was allegedly precariously short on fuel while the ground control was asking it to land in either Nawabshah or Karachi. That is where passenger`s lives were put at stake. If the contents of the black box are revealed then where will the prosecution`s case go ? That is the real question.

N.B. Above interview was taken before the new judge was appointed and the case moved to High Court. The contents of the black box have still not been revealed in court neither the defense has been provided with copies of the tapes. The charge sheet still hasn`t been presented on one pretext or the other and now may be presented (as so far thought) on the 27th of December. The same should have been presented by 16th of November as ordered by the original judge.

A previous post regarding Kashmir(I couldnot locate it) said something like, if Israel/PLO, US/Soviet Union and Northern Ireland could reach peace accords, why not India and Pakistan. There are some very good reasons why such a thing cannot happen very soon.

Any solution to the Indo-Pak Kashmir conflict would obviously be influenced by strategic and political concerns. Take strategic concerns: The extent of India/Pakistan strategic adjustments based on mutual understanding may be much more than required by any of the above situations. Only strong political will and able leaders can carry through the level of strategic changes required. The US/Soviet U situation is not comparable because the Cold War really came apart on its own, apparently due to Soviet Union`s admission of its economic disabilities, the end was not brought about by mutual agreement and negotiation.

Take political concerns:

In both Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland, the negotiators are chosen political representatives of a public strongly desiring peace. Every step of the way, any deal has to be ratified by those represented. For example, Netanyahu had to get his Cabinet to accept committments he made on Israel`s behalf, then the Israeli Parliament had to agree. He was finally defeated in elections by the voters who considered Ehud Barak`s approach more representative of the Israeli public`s wishes to settle the issue.

In Northern Ireland, at every stage in the talks, for example, the Unionist leader has to go back to his party for approval. If his party splits leaving him with less than 2/3? support, he can no longer talk on its behalf and the talks break down.

The point is, is there any such political representation on the Pakistani side of the Kashmir problem which is closely in tune with public will? Secondly, where are the norms for such negotiations? All parties involved in the issues mentioned above consider themselves bound by what is agreed upon. If the agreements are eventually broken, its because the leaders could not convince all concerned, including the public that the agreements were just. The strong public desire for peace and the comprehensive representation of majority opinion is what makes these accords possible.

My question is, what is the basis for the current leadership in Pakistan to claim to reflect the nuances of Pakistani public opinion regarding Kashmir? Is the general so charismatic and all powerful that any agreement reached by him on Pakistan`s behalf can be sustained by Pakistan for a long time to come? If all previous agreements have been discarded without spelling out any rationale, what are the agreed norms for new agreements to be negotiated? Kargil, the coup and Pervez Musharraf`s involvement in both has set back any detente on this issue many years.

A wide variety of political and strategic opinions about how to resolve Kashmir can be seen in the Pakistani public.

1. Kashmir is rightfully ours, the identity and future of Pakistan depend on acquiring it, its a matter of patriotic honor without counting cost.

2. Kashmir is a Muslim land under occupation, its our duty as moral Muslims to free it, leading hopefully to a new `Islamic dawn` in the region. No cost is worth counting (anyway we are not paying, we are getting paid though we don`t admit it)

3. Kashmiris are being oppressed, Pakistan has a moral obligation to intervene to obtain for them their freedom or to allow them to join Pakistan. Cost to us is high but must be borne somehow.

4. We are worried about Kashmiris, but it is time to cut losses and get an honorable deal for them and for us. Peace with India is not the wish of our hearts, but is a reality we must accept.

5. The only way Pakistan can reach its full potential is with peace with India. If we have to give a little or even a lot on Kashmir, its not a large cost to pay, considering that Pakistan may be stronger for it.

6. The prevailing one: Pakistan has a strategic advantage in Kashmir, though India has an overall dominance and desire for hegemony. Its critical for our country to keep India on the run in Kashmir and elsewhere, since our country`s very existence is at stake. The easiest approach is to keep up the heat, it will serve us well the day India lets down its guard, or defeated by its own and our moral arguments, makes a deal to our advantage. Pakistani standard of life means nothing without honor and freedom so the cost is not worth counting.

Now, a Pakistani leader or a group who looks for a real and longlasting solution on Kashmir will have to

a. Visibly represent the majority of Pakistani public opinion(one or more of the above). He would have to demonstrate his power and support to ensure all parties fall in line with any agreement.

b. Figure a way to recast what have always looked like the strategic disadvantages of peace into an longterm strategic advantage and prevent the military/strategic establishment from running riot.

c. Figure a way to convince radical Islamists to accept the possibility that Kashmir may not be their newest prize.

d. Negotiate a deal with India that satisfies the Pakistani public.

Can this be done? Frankly, I doubt it. The easiest way out for current rulers is to stick to option 6 (a `military` approach) with help from those to believe in option 2. The most dispensable parties in Pakistan`s current approach are the Pakistani public, their opinions and their long term welfare. Only after the populace in Pakistan begins to loudly and clearly express itself on Kashmir, or even any other issue, can any deal be sustained. My worry is, the Pakistani public may speak up only after its sufferings become severe enough to become associated with the lack of its leaders give-and-take on Kashmir or any other issue. Whatever lengths India goes to make `concessions` to reach agreement in the interim will not work, short of giving `universal emotional satisfaction` to all Pakistanis by handing over Kashmir without conditions. Due to lack of consensus in Pakistan itself and lack of mechanisms to reach a consensus, Pakistan is currently neither in a position to know what it really wants in Kashmir, nor in a position to adhere to any agreement its leaders enter into.

Sadhana

INTOLERANCE AND BAD POLICY:

- The Iranian government has once again raised the issue of placing a gas pipeline all the way to India crossing Pakistani territory. The reported earning to the Government of Pakistan is a cool 1 billion dollars plus per annum. As usual the matter has gone into cold storage. In all probability the army has again butted in and found reasons for not letting it happen. There is no apparent national security justification for not going ahead with this kind of project. The matter can be discussed with India and linked to a disengagement in Siachen - another saving of a billion dollars a year - for both parties.

- Imagine two billion dollars going into education and science alone would do to our country, its industry and penultimately its security. However out here national security is defined by realtors and property developers in uniform. Quality of manpower and national strategy do figure into our conceptual framework. Once again, one is inclined to believe that this lot of military officers, are way behind times have been inspired more by Alstair MacLean novels than hard science taught in western staff training institutions.

- Had these guys invested in science and engineering we would have the capability to rapidly plug holes left by unexpected events. In a matter of weeks we have had our naval monitoring capability seriously effected by the crash of the Orion and the destruction of the Atlantic. A solid design team could have been commissioned to reverse engineer the Orions immediately after they were delivered.

Sadna # 480

{I fervently hope you keep yourself fully informed about events in India relevant to the causes which you pursue while abroad, else your actions may unwittingly put innocents back home in harm`s way. This is universally true for all expatriates, even myself.}

Sadhanaji, thanks for passing on the threat. I realize that whenever actions of majority are questioned, the local hostages are under danger as was evident in 1984.

BTW, why do you have to watch yourself? You have best of both worlds. Here you live in a very civilized country where your safety is assured, whether you agree or disagree with the government. Back in India, you are part of the majority and no one will ever question your loyalty.

I think time has come for us to close the argument and move on. It’s not going to change anything over there and for us it’s total waste of time and energy arguing about it.

Let’s wish all the best to those who still have to live in India.

This will be my last post on this topic.

Goodbye.

In response to Shahzad c (Reply #: 474)

Dear Shahzad:

An interesting post. It is like a puzzle that I can`t solve. Are you trying to tell me something about theory, its basis, ground reality, predictability, and common sense? Please clarify.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I wrote this reply only as a matter of courtesy.

rajanjua #435

My reply was to your last post. I`m sorry if I attributed something to you that you didnot mean. However, I still think that Pakistani posters seem to hold the Indian system to a much higher standard than they hold their own. Its something for Indians to be grateful for, because it benefits us directly by making us confront various issues but I suspect it is a form of escapism on the part of Pakistanis which is counterproductive to themselves.

SameerJB #439

I`m a Hindi speaker myself, but I`m REALLY envious of chowkwallahs command over Urdu, my personal favourite among the beautiful languages of the subcontinent. BTW, reportedly, one of current Ms India`s parents is originally from Multan so let us share mutual congratulations by association. Also BTW, I don`t see any protests about midnight oil.

Pardesi #462

I fervently hope you keep yourself fully informed about events in India relevant to the causes which you pursue while abroad, else your actions may unwittingly put innocents back home in harm`s way. This is universally true for all expatriates, even myself.

Money is no recompense for tragic human losses. However I still want to mention that the nation-wide tri-centenary celebrations of the birth of the Khalsa Panth were assisted to the tune of Rs 1 Billion by the Vajpayee government. http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/nov/06pm.htm. A search on `Khalsa` in rediff.com will yield more information.

Politicians and various bodies were pressing for the Indian government to declare 2000 the `Year of Christ` but that hasnot come through, yet.

About HR reports:

Its heartwarming to see these true benefits of globalization. The Indian villager or Indian citizen can be more secure in the knowledge that the entire world is keeping watch on the treatment meted out to him by social, political and legal entities in India. Such reports can force these entities more responsive and responsible in their actions. For the record, these are published and discussed in Indian public forums quite as vigorously as anywhere else.

I have been wondering how to return the favor to the Pakistani villager. I`m finding it difficult to come up with a single document(except the Quraan) that can be held up as `vaasta` to hold someone responsible for the common Pakistani`s fate. Posting the Constitution of Pakistan also maynot do the trick. Can I be helped out here? (No really, I`m not being as sarcastic as I sound)

Sadhana