Again, Desperate Times

``Like all other governments in crisis in Pakistan, the military are likely to resort to the cover of Islam. ....``

It is heartening to see a full article with realistic assessment, which was previously restricted to posts by a very few pakistanis.

The UN sanctions on Afghanistan will put strains on the pak economy, which will have to become the provider of most of the goods affected by the sanctions. With a credit rating of SD (selective default) on pakistan sovereign debt, only a wreckless gambler will put money into pak industry. The high cost of commercial loans will make most of the long term investment infeasible. It may only be a matter of months for the pak currency to be devalued heavily.

This coup appear to be very ill timed from an economic perspective. A revolution at last appear to be in the making. An integrated afghanistan and pakistan, united in their economic plight, galvanised by a religious fervour could be the new force in south asia. I would welcome that.

concerned: You are right. Just printing the URL is a better idea, then printing the whole article.

I would appreciate some input on the following topic, from the readers:

Everyone seems to comment negatively on the historical interventions of the army into Pakistani politics. One would have to agree with these comments.

However there is one aspect of the criticism, I do not understand. People keep pointing out that the Pakistan military is taking up a gigantic portion of the country`s budget. This is also true. But I fail to understand the justification of this criticism.

The Pakistani military is designed to be a defensive military. This is apparent from its structure, and choice of armament. It has been desgined to defend Pakistan against India. As a general rule, for a country to defend itself, it needs to have a military one-third the size of the opposing military. The Pakistan army is slightly bigger than one-third the size of the Indian army. While the Air Force and Navy are less than one-third the size. So the Pakistani military, even with the current budget, is barely one-third the size of the Indian military. The members of the military are some of the lowest paid professionals in the country. So the money is spent on armament, aircraft etc. Keeping that in mind, could the critics of the military budget point out how Pakistan can reduce its military budget to a smaller size?

The only two ways I can think of are for Pakistan to unilaterally agree to India`s point of view, and accept the LOC as the border, and stop supporting the Kashmiri struggle. This is the only way India will agree to peace with Pakistan. After that the military can be cut to perhaps 1/2 its current size. However, I doubt a unilaterla peace will not be acceptable to the general populace of Pakistan.

The second method is for Pakistan to use the same strategy NATO used against the USSR in Europe, i.e. to put all our eggs in the nuclear basket. Build up nuclear weapons, and then cut down on conventional arms. Then make the following a part of our defence policy: any conventional attack by India, across the Pakistani border, will be countered by a nuclear attack. Even thought the US is the biggest critic of Pakistani nuclear weapons, this is the policy it used throughout the cold war, in the European theatre. However most of the Pakistani intellectuals disagree with this policy, as well.

What other method is there for Pakistan to cut down on its military budget, keeping in mind that it shares a border with a hostile, and much much larger neighbor.

Any comments from the people criticizing Pakistan`s large defence budget will be greatly appreciate....

In addition to Reply # 14

Dear Chowkwallas:

I wrote: ``After the initial period, Ayub Khan had tried to crush the freedom of expression, in both media and in real life.`` Here is something from Abdul Qayyum (1996). Three Presidents, Three Prime Minister. Islamabad: Dost Publications, that provides some evidence of what I wrote based upon my perception and memory. Abdul Qayyum is a retired senior Pakistani bureaucrat. Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Abdul Qayyum writes (pp. 93-94):

``I found Nawab of Kalabagh a person of impeccable personal integrity, who would not touch a penny belonging to the government treasury. He was always courteous and considerate towards me, and would invariably accept my viewpoint even when he had reservations about it.

Shorish Kashmiri, Editor of ``Chattan`` for reasons best known to him, started, one fine morning, a sort of malicious campaign against me. He would accuse me of snobbishness refusing to meet even senior editors. He even concocted stories about me which were ludicrous by any standard.

During a meeting with Kalabagh, the latter brought up the subject of Shorish Kashmiri`s running campaign and asked me what I intended to do about it. ``Nothing whatsoever, sir``, I replied. ``Why not?``, he enquired. I replied that his attack was directed against my person, but not against the government or its policies. If I reacted to his fulminations, he would feel triumphant, and raise the tempo of his vitriolic attacks. ``I do not intend to oblige him``, I added sarcastically. ``He will get exhausted and peter out.``

Nawab Sahib, thereupon, said to me that it, at any time, I wanted Shorish Kashmiri put in the jug and his paper banned I should not hesitate to ask the Home Secretary, on his behalf to proceed against him and have him sorted out. I thanked Kalabagh and conveyed in clear terms to him that the banning of the press, during my tenure as information Secretary, was simply out of the question.``

Abdul Qayyum adds (pp. 94-95)::

``It would not be out of place to mention here that, among other factors, there were two that tarnished Ayub Khan`s otherwise favorable image. One was the Press and Publications Ordinance promulgated in September, 1963, and the other the spate of ornate supplements on ``The Decade of Reforms`` which every newspaper in the country was obliged to publish.

The first was a sequel to the patent military distrust of freedom of press. Ayub Khan, unfortunately share this suspicion of what the military imagined to be, as expressed in his biography ``Friends Not Masters``, the means of newspaper owners earning ``their livelihood by resorting to blackmail``. It was such a psyche that led to the take-over of Progressive Papers Ltd., founded by Mian Iftikharuddin, a committed leftist. The Progressive Papers published several newspapers including ``The Pakistan Times``, and the Urdu dailies ``Imroz``, and ``Mashriq``. These publications were placed under the National Press Trust. Little did Ayub Khan realize that, in so doing, these newspapers would lose their credibility and readership, and became an awesome financial liability to the Central Government. Meanwhile, the Press and Publication Ordinance was used to muzzle the slightest expression of critical views in the newspapers, and to black-out or issue a revised version of unfavourable reports.``

JAY#16

You end by ``I would welcome that``.In all your arguments it is Debt,foreign investment,sanctions,devalued money.economics economics economics.A prostitute would talk like that money, money money.Obviously since you attach so much importence to these ,you are gleeful as a loving neighbour should be .

American rewards & punishes with economic control.But Afghanistan & pak to some extent ,are not like your Bharat who work overtime to admire the new found Goddess laxmi america,would never do to offend at any cost even after slight indescretion shown in may 98 nuclear experiment,followed immediately willingness to sign the CTBT ,lest almighty may refuse H1 visa to its brightest programmers,

If you know any thing about Afghan,they are totally different to deal with.They dont wear the Levis Jean,Nike sneakers,or Tommy hillfiger like your Hyderabad blues & Bombay Boys.



`` The UN sanctions on Afghanistan will put strains on the pak economy,

which will have to become the provider of most of the goods affected by

the sanctions. With a credit rating of SD (selective default) on

pakistan sovereign debt, only a wreckless gambler will put money into

pak industry. The high cost of commercial loans will make most of the

long term investment infeasible. It may only be a matter of months for

the pak currency to be devalued heavily``

If Shakespeare was right you are already dead with fear.Muday laakh bura chahe to kya hota hai



Wohi hota hai jo munjoore khuda hota hai!



``Cowards die many times before there death``

Talking about devaluation,hasnt the percent drop of ruppee from 7 to 43 is precipitous since last 30 yrs,when Pak & Bangladesh devaluation has been lesser %.But then baniya would do that from business point of view.So devaluation wont be that worse of things in your laundry list of wishes for us in the mellineum.

Americans threatened to bomb Iran to the stone age.Just because american t.v. dont show you how happy,content,satisfied they are,you dont see those pundits of doom & gloom anymore because they dont have the courage to admit that they are no more than a mortal being with no power to change the future.

JAY#16

You end by ``I would welcome that``.In all your arguments it is Debt,foreign investment,sanctions,devalued money.economics economics economics.A prostitute would talk like that money, money money.Obviously since you attach so much importence to these ,you are gleeful as a loving neighbour should be .

American rewards & punishes with economic control.But Afghanistan & pak to some extent ,are not like your Bharat who work overtime to admire the new found Goddess laxmi america,would never do to offend at any cost even after slight indescretion shown in may 98 nuclear experiment,followed immediately willingness to sign the CTBT ,lest almighty may refuse H1 visa to its brightest programmers,

If you know any thing about Afghan,they are totally different to deal with.They dont wear the Levis Jean,Nike sneakers,or Tommy hillfiger like your Hyderabad blues & Bombay Boys.



`` The UN sanctions on Afghanistan will put strains on the pak economy,

which will have to become the provider of most of the goods affected by

the sanctions. With a credit rating of SD (selective default) on

pakistan sovereign debt, only a wreckless gambler will put money into

pak industry. The high cost of commercial loans will make most of the

long term investment infeasible. It may only be a matter of months for

the pak currency to be devalued heavily``

If Shakespeare was right you are already dead with fear.Muday laakh bura chahe to kya hota hai



Wohi hota hai jo munjoore khuda hota hai!



``Cowards die many times before there death``

Talking about devaluation,hasnt the percent drop of ruppee from 7 to 43 is precipitous since last 30 yrs,when Pak & Bangladesh devaluation has been lesser %.But then baniya would do that from business point of view.So devaluation wont be that worse of things in your laundry list of wishes for us in the mellineum.

Americans threatened to bomb Iran to the stone age.Just because american t.v. dont show you how happy,content,satisfied they are,you dont see those pundits of doom & gloom anymore because they dont have the courage to admit that they are no more than a mortal being with no power to change the future.

About strategies for change, my humble, not-very-informed 2-paisa`s worth(these could well apply to any country)

1. Go back to the best constitution Pakistan had (sorry to use a vague term) and restore the balance of power between the Prime Minister and the other instruments of government including judiciary which Nawaz Sharif meddled with.

2. Hold elections with mandatory international observers for the next few years and carry out a massive ad campaign to ensure more people cast their vote(17% is a figure I heard on PBS for the last election). Give incentives for voting, like a cash grant for districts which had high turnouts.

3. Make a collective decision to reduce military budgets

4. Put off for the present,further Islamization of government till the decisions can based on more broadbased public debate.

5. Make public the sources and amounts of international funds coming into religious schools. Relax blasphemy laws, encourage theological discourse but become more unforgiving of sectarian violence.

6. Encourage young people to accept that Islam is not under seige in Pakistan though it might be in the Middle East and that Islam must not, in Pakistan, be hijacked by Arab or Afghani political causes (separate guns and Islam)

7. Pay money for citizens to hand in guns

8. Exert better control over the traffic over borders with Afghanistan, Iran and India

9. Carry out extensive land reforms or allow the rich to hold on to large tracts of land/personal assets only on condition of helping subsidize local schools or hospitals or giving employment to some proportional quota of locals.

10. Impose tax on all profit-making enterprises, even military-sponsored, chase tax evaders. Make charitable donations, savings or creation of jobs the best way to get tax breaks.

Get trusted international auditors to audit at least some government accounts like tax revenue accounts for a few years. Hand out national honesty awards to bureaucrats and ordinary citizens.

11. Move toward decentralization of power, ultimately something like elected village councils so people can govern themselves and get some development funds directly(also, it may be easier to impose accountabilty for corruption or fund misuse at a local level, from what has been observed with Panchayati Raj in India)

12. All these steps will encourage overseas investors to support investment and create jobs in Pakistan. The world is only waiting for the right signs.



Sadhana

Quote :

In both countries one cannot buy a railroad ticket, a plane ticket, pay an electricity bill, get a letter registered, make a withdrawal from the bank --or make even a deposit -- without a safarish, rishwat or somebody taking pity on one after you have really dragged your dignity in the mud, filth and slime of their ego. Makes us all lick the behinds of `all` powers that be. We are used to it.

End quote.

I frankly do not know which countries you are talking about, but India is not one of them. I have never had problems with any of the above activities. I cannot imagine that Pakistan is in such a shape either.

I picked one sentence out of many not because this is the only one I disagree with, but because it best illustrates the absurdity of the whole thing.

-arun gupta

UR:

You ask ``What other method is there for Pakistan to cut down on its military budget, keeping in mind that it shares a border with a hostile, and much much larger neighbor.``

This is a very loaded, timely and direct question that made me think. Yes, I have been on that band wagon demanding military reduce its budget.
What with defence appropriations directly and indirectly counting for in excess of 40-45 percentage points of the GDP, WHEREAS spending on education and health were in low single digits.

Options you outlined were fine from a military mindset. I would like you to put on your military cap, and tell me how that wily genius Giap would have answered your question.

I would also welcome comments from other military minds on the feasibilty of commiting to unconventional defence, with absolutely MINIMUM emphasis on the nuclear defence.

Wars are politics of the last resort. Wars are an extension of political maneuvering. Time to rethink our politics.

Surveying the ground realities what should be our PRIORITIES? If we are truthful in this search we will find the answers. I think this should be the basis of a separate article here on the Chowk.



Here are some troubling queries with very obvioius answers.

---if the Nation(whole) is sick can the Forces(part) be strong?
---if immediate survival is at stake do you worry about esoteric values?
---If all avenues to obtaining justice are denied would one resort to violence?
---if you do not have access to drinking water would you worry about the draught in Mecca?
---will God or Ummah help us if we don`t help ourselves?

We have no choice but to rethinkour priorities.


AT the core the average citizen wants to live decently. A combination of factors adversely intervene. Some of these ills can be alleviated with the implementations of good policies. For that you need money. We have it. We can raise it. But if the phantam of Army is going to devour it voraciously, what is the point?

Let us hear about unconventional defence to get the monkey off our backs.

regards

t

Temporal: What exactly do you mean by, ``unconventional defence?`` Could you clarify that concept a bit more. Conventional weapons usually mean the tanks, aircraft, guns etc. Unconventional could mean nuclear weapons, perhaps. What other type of defence would you put under, ``unconventional defence?``

Ref: post #21 - Durdana

``If you know any thing about Afghan,they are totally different to deal with.They dont wear the Levis Jean, Nike sneakers,or Tommy hillfiger like your Hyderabad blues & Bombay Boys.``

Yes they are different to deal with. Brave people and no doubdt about that... But I have a suspicion that they have a ``stomoch`` too. Just read what Taliban foreign minister has to say:

{Meanwhile, Muttawakil issued a plea to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to end sanctions and ``take pity`` on the poor people of Afghanistan who have nothing after 20 years of war. Muttawakil made his plea in a letter to Annan before meeting de Mul.}

And I am quite sure that they will willingly adorn blue jeans too, only if they can afford to buy it.

(I believe western clothing was not so uncommon before the Taliban landed in Afghanistan)

I hope Afghans start seeing through the mindless macho bluster of Durdana`s type and start using their heads for a change. They have been used as pawns by so many for so long (russia, america, pakistan, taliban...) that it makes me sick to watch it anymore.

In response to UR (Reply #: 17)

Dear UR:

I am one of those who had loudly and clearly argued for a drastic reduction in our so-called defense expenditure. Why? Let me explain briefly:

On my moral grounds, I consider war and killing of people unacceptable and deplorable. In my view, there is no such thing as a just war. Wars reflect our inability to deal with conflicts. We, however, must be prepared to defend ourselves. We cannot defend any country with mere arms and ammunition. Instead of preparing a small army with a lot of expenditure (at the cost of human sufferings), we need to invest in a very large army of common citizens who are strong bodily, intellectually, and spiritually. To create such an army, we need to ensure food, clothing, shelter, education, health, justice, and freedom to every citizen of Pakistan. An utopian goal! The more we move towards this utopian objective, the more our nation would become strong internally to defend itself. In order to understand the worth of what I have said, try to critically analyze the downfall of East Pakistan where 93,000 Pakistani soldiers became the prisoners of war in a matter of just few days (without much resistence).

UR, you have asked for the justification our criticism. It is simple. We know that the country is in an economic mess. We have been on the verge of defaulting our financial commitments (debt). What do we need to do? Give this problem to an eight-grade student of slightly above-average intelligence to solve (with some facts about our expenditure in different sectors). I am sure, the eighth-grader will find the answer. It is share common sense. We often want to find complex and fancy solutions, and don`t pay much attention to common sense solutions. In order to educate our children some fundamental values, we perhaps need to develop a board game called ``National Budget.`` Most (if not all) existing board games teach the value of winning through accumulation and monopolization of economic, political, and/or military power.

There three main sources of our economic, and social, plight: (1) army expenditure, (2) national debt; and (3) fast growing population. We have treated these sources as mutually exclusive. Are they really so?

Apparently, the main source of trouble between India and Pakistan is Kashmir. To buy the freedom of Kashmiris (seeing from the Pakistani perspective), we should not self-destruct Pakistan. This is exactly what we have unintendedly been doing. I propose that Pakistan should declare loudly and clearly that it will neither attack Kashmir nor provide covert military support to the Kashmiris, provided India (and some sort of global community) agrees to: (1) a peaceful resolution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir; (2) accepts, on principle, the right of self-determination of all people of Jammu and Kashmir; and (3) allow all people of Jammu and Kashmir to express themselves for a peaceful resolution (without any coercive actions against anyone). In return, all parties should denounce violence and adopt a strategy of slow and steady policy of conflict resolution without any malicious intent to move away from some broadly accepted principles for conflict resolution. I am opposed to the majority rule for decision-making. Ideally, a decision must be unanimous. The majority rule imposes violence upon 49% population. Once an agreement for a peaceful and fair resolution of Kashmir problem is reached, both India and Pakistan can easily sign a no-War pact. To further ensure peace and welfare, we need to develop an Asian Community of Peaceful Nations on the lines of the European Union.

UR, what is so novel about ``one-third`` size? Why not ``one-half`` or ``one-twentieth``?

Your statement: ``So the money is spent on armament, aircraft etc. Keeping that in mind, could the critics of the military budget point out how Pakistan can reduce its military budget to a smaller size?``

Comment: The military hardware is the main culprit. A drastic reduction in this is possible provided Pakistan unilaterally adopts a policy of peace, peaceful coexistence, and the peaceful resolution of domestic and international conflicts. Expenditure on sophisticated military hardware makes us poor, dependent, imposes opportunity costs, and makes other hardware producing nations more strong at the cost of our poor, hungry, malnourished, illiterate, poorly educated, sick, and oppressed masses.

Your statement: ``The only two ways I can think of are for Pakistan to unilaterally agree to India`s point of view, and accept the LOC as the border, and stop supporting the Kashmiri struggle. This is the only way India will agree to peace with Pakistan.``

Comment: I vehemently disagree with you. Peace does not mean weakness or slavery. Peace is power, try it and see yourself. I am calling for a peaceful resolution, not an unjust resolution. We has used one approach for the last 52 years. This approach has failed miserably. We should provide peaceful moral support to the people of Kashmir for a peaceful resolution of the problem, even if it takes another hundred years. I am calling for a civilized war of words and ideas with India (not for the sake of War of any sort) but to resolve a problem peacefully, fairly, and amicably. Adopt this strategy and nothing but this strategy, and see the change in your life time.

Your statement: ``What other method is there for Pakistan to cut down on its military budget, keeping in mind that it shares a border with a hostile, and much much larger neighbor.``

Comment: You have yourself provided a basis. Please think. Let us turn hostility into fairness and friendship. The task is challenging. Are we prepared to accept this challenge?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad: I was hoping you would reply.

As much as I agree with most of the statements you present on Chowk, I am afraid I am going to to have to disagree with your analysis here. It discusses the end-result without providing the actual solution. And it is based on too many assumptions, which I do not see occuring in the near future.

In principal I agree the ultimate goal of Pakistan should be to reduce its military budget. Infact, in an ideal world no country should need a military or even a police force. However, we need to take Pakistan`s geo-political situation into account, which is far from ideal.

Pakistan and India are declared enemies. As much as the Indians and Pakistanis on Chowk, including myself, would like the two countries to have friendly relations, it is not going to happen until the Kashmir issue is solved. Uptil that point, the two countries will continue to exploit the weaknesses in each other defences. This is an unfortunate fact, which has been proven by our historical and present situation. I personally do not see anything changing soon. It has taken 50 years to get India to a state where it is even willing to discuss the Kashmir issue. The reason is simple. Uptil the Kashmiri uprising of the past decade, India had everything to lose, and absolutely nothing to gain by allowing a plebescite in Kashmir. If it had anything to gain by doing so, a plebescite would have been held a long time ago. Now, so much of its resources are being used up in Kashmir, that it is willing to perhaps discuss Kashmir.

You stated, ``I propose that Pakistan should declare loudly and clearly that it will neither attack Kashmir nor provide covert military support to the Kashmiris, provided India (and some sort of global community) agrees to: (1) a peaceful resolution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir; (2) accepts, on principle, the right of self-determination of all people of Jammu and Kashmir; and (3) allow all people of Jammu and Kashmir to express themselves for a peaceful resolution (without any coercive actions against anyone).`` This is what Pakistan has been stating for as long as I can remember. As I stated earlier, India has not agreed to it, and their is no indication that India will agree to it, in the near future. The Indian Parliment, if it wanted, could pass a resolution, in a day, to solve the Kashmir problem, in my opinion. The resolution would include everything you have mentioned. However, I do not see that happening.

Your argument for cutting down Pakistan`s defence expenditure is based on a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir problem. You have stated, ``Peace does not mean weakness or slavery. Peace is power, try it and see yourself. I am calling for a peaceful resolution, not an unjust resolution. We has used one approach for the last 52 years. This approach has failed miserably. We should provide peaceful moral support to the people of Kashmir for a peaceful resolution of the problem, even if it takes another hundred years.`` Most of Paksitan`s military budget is used to protect Pakistan`s border with India, outside Kashmir (i.e. Punjab, Sind). If India was to take offensive action against Pakistan, it would be in the areas of Punjab and Sind, not in Kashmir. The Indians would have to fight their own Kashmiri population, it they attacked Pakistan through Kashmir. This would indicate that if a resolution to the Kashmir problem is not reached for another hundred years, then Pakistan would have to keep its current military budget for the next hundred years. This is exactly the point I was making.

You stated, ``UR, what is so novel about ``one-third`` size? Why not ``one-half`` or ``one-twentieth``?`` It is generally an accepted military rule, that for defence a country needs roughly one-third the firepower of the opposing force. Hence the number one-third.

It would take too long for me to explain the structure of the Pakistan military to justify that the Pakistan military is a defensive force, vis-a-vis the Indian military. However, just the size difference between the Indian and Pakistani military should be enough of an indication. If I am not mistaken, the budget of the Indian military is greater than the total budget of Pakistan. Keeping that in mind, I argued that even though the Pakistan military takes up a big chunk of our budget, it is still barely the budget required to act as a deterence against India.

Suppose the Pakistan military budget was reduced. Then our borders would be exposed to an Indian threat. This is unfortunate, but it is definitely a fact. Infact, if it wasn`t for the deployment of half of India`s army in Kashmir, Pakistan would have already lost the 1/3rd deterence ratio. India has the 2nd or 3rd biggest army in the world, and the fourth to sixth biggest air forces, and navies in the world.

The only way our borders could be secure would be if we declared peace with India. But that brings us back to Kashmir. As long as Pakistan does not accept India`s current stance on Kashmir, of the atut-ang variety, (which you also agree that we should not accept), Pakistan will remain vulnerable to India, regardless of how good your or my intentions happen to be. You need to just look at the comments made by Lal Advani regarding Pakistan, immediately after India`s nuclear blasts.

If Pakistan completely stops arming the Kashmiris, then I have no doubt in my mind Indian occupied Kashmir will turn into Chechnya. The Kashmiris will have no self-defence. They would get slaughtered even more than they are now, and we would be back to square one. I have always felt that Pakistan has given peace a chance in Kashmir. But India`s concept of peace in Kashmir means no plebescite, and no right of self-determination for Kashmiris. If Pakistan is willing to accept this, then why not accept the LOC as the border. Also, as I have mentioned earlier, the armament of the Kashmiris is only a very small portion of the Pakistan military budget. Most of the money is spent on the F-16s, the new tanks, ships etc.

The members of the military probabaly agree with non-violence between India and Pakistan even more than you do. To paraphrase McCarthur, soldiers oppose war the most, because in a war it is their lives that are at stake. I personally agree whole heartedly with the fact that a solution has to be found so that the military budget can be transferred to the civilian sector. We both agree that it cannot be done without India`s cooperation on Kashmir. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that India will co-operate on Kashmir; at least not the extent of allowing a plebescite. Because if it does co-operate, it will result in Kashmir breaking off from India, which the Indians will never accept.

India and Pakistan cannot show any kind of weakness towards each other. Kashmir, Bangladesh, Siachen, Kargil etc. are enough examples to prove that point. The moment one gets an upper hand on the other, it will exploit it. So one-sided peace with India could lead to furthur aggression from India. India, being much bigger than Pakistan, could handle a Pakistani offensive, but Pakistan cannot handle an Indian offensive, without maitaining its current military strength.

Keeping the above in view, I would appreciate some more comments, and practical solutions from you. Please keep in mind that everything indicates that the solutions you presented for Kashmir have not been, and will not be acceptable to India. So any reduction in the military budget based on your solutions to Kashmir, have already been tried, and have proven unsuccessful.

We need some newer ideas to this problem.

UR:

I am only a minor poet, not the military mind here.I miss my erstwhile friend Feroz Khan. (Does anyone knows his whereabouts?) I thought I had hinted at the unconventional defence when I asked you, ``would like you to put on your military cap, and tell me how that wily genius Giap would have answered your question.`` That was General Giap of North Vietnam. Some consider him to be one of the best military minds of his kind of warfare.

I abhor any kind of final solutions including nuclear ones. Now that we have the nuclear option, we cannot revert back to the earlier status quo. Recognising this, extremely reluctantly I wrote, ``... would also welcome comments from other military minds on the feasibilty of commiting to unconventional defence, with absolutely MINIMUM emphasis on the nuclear defence.``

Hope this clarifies,

regards

t

In response to UR (Reply # 29):

I am not sympathetic to your viewpoint (though I have developed a lot of respect for you). I think, you have missed the point. Why? In my opinion, I and you see world from two different perspectives and worldview, though both of us are apparently good human beings. In my earlier response, I had raised several points based on the way I see reality. In the interest of my viewpoint, I am prepared to take a few risks. Why? Because I believe goodness and evilness coexists in us as individuals, communities, nations, etc. I want to give a chance to goodness. It is a risky proposition. But, it is worth trying.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RV(mr.recreational vehicle)# 2 6

Stop shedding those crocodiles tear for dying hungry people of Afghan,Iraq,Bosnia,Kosovo,albania,Chechenya,Dagestan......for privately you are nothing less gleeful than Jay.

What is pleaded in court of Anan is a PROTOCAL that one follows.Dont mistake them as breakdown in their will or regret. Havent you heard from your modern messiah,American founding fathers say ``give me freedom or death`` as license plate of NH,states ``LIVE FREE OR DIE``Yes like you feebles,Afghan have ``STOMACH``as you say but please dont suggest that they are anywhere near hungrier than the under nourished,under fed 1/2 of crawaling bn. mouth in always diplomatic,complying nation of yours.

Temporal: I think I get your point. And yes, Feroze would have been very useful here. I didn`t stay in the Pak military long enough, to make it to the general level, but I do read a lot :) So you will have to make do with me, at the moment. Because, apart from Feroze, I haven`t really run across anyone else here, who understands the Pakistan military. The people in the Pak military, although not genuises, are quite a bit more intelligent than people give them credit for. Since they have to risk their lives on a regular basis, the junior military men, are by far the most patriotic Pakistanis, out there; at least in my book. One cannot say the same about some of the senior officer. However, the senior officers were all patriotic junior officers, at one time or another.

20% of my friends who joined the Pak military with me, in the combat branches, are now dead. They all died before reaching the age of 30, in the line of duty. One was killed flying, a week before he was to be married. I think I also lost a few friends in the two recent naval aircraft crashes (I don`t have the complete list of names). Because of this, I get a bit upset, when people try to portray the Pak military as a budget-eating, self-serving organization. This is probably true at the general level. That is why I do not think very highly of the generals. But generals don`t even constitute 1% of the Pak military. This is also why I wanted to find out whether the people crticizing the military had actually done any kind of realistic analysis, before they started criticizing. So far, it doesn`t seem so.

Anyways, back to the topic, I will try to turn into General Giap (or retired Capt. Giap :)), and see what I can come up with. Any input from you would be helpful.

In the meanwhile, here is a, ``minor poem,`` from Ron Lago,

``I heard the sound of taps one night,/when everything was still/ I listened to the bugler play/ And felt a sudden chill./I wondered just how many times/That taps had meant ``Amen,``/When a flag had draped a coffin/Of a brother or a friend.

/I thought of all the children,/Of the mothers and the wives,/Of fathers, sons and husbands/With interrupted lives.