Let us Not be Foolish

Narain where you said that all Vajpaye is saying is posturing as is Pervez Musharraf.

Let me ask you, are you a secretary to Vajpayee or Vajpaye told you or did he pronounced that he is posturing. Also if actions are any indication then recent crossing of Azad Kashmir border and killing innocent civilian and firing on line of control also indicates that.

Also the same I can ask you about Pervez Musharraf. If he is pronouncing use of Nuclear weapon in case of attack on Pakistan by India, it is a reality. Why would a person pronounce such thing particularly if it alienates the world opinion.

Ha!

All the posts atarted with a very friendly attitude very enlightened response from very democratic and secular people.

Now they have not only taken away that veil, but their true HINDU mentality and venom is very much obvious.

``Baghal mein Churee Muun pey Ram Ram``

Hindus you were preaching us to desert our friendship with China with treacherous people like you.

Hell with you. Go to the ``Charan`` of RSS and BJB.

Thousands of years of subjugation has only taught you treachery. We know it very well.

Re: narain, truth, haramiau.

There is no irony. If you`d bother to trace back the thread of this discussion, you`d realize that the reason both of these states came up was for two reasons:

1) Narain`s comment that India would be `loathe` to take over any territory from Pakistan. Now, legally, and this is historical fact, whether old or new, that Junagarh acceded to Pakistan and Indian troops moved in. Logical evaluation: India took over Pakistani territory.

2) cbb`s comment that Kashmir joined India on its own will. True, as Junagarh decided for Pakistan. Now, doesn`t that make us both the same? India took over J, Pakistan is trying to take over K.

That`s it. I never commented on right or wrong as far as these actions were concerned. That is up to you to decide.

Having said that, I might add to Narain`s note that I`m not `crying` at both these areas. They are happy to be in India and rightfully that`s where they belong. HOWEVER, doesn`t the same make all of you hypocrites that here you are defending India`s actions in both these states when Pakistan is trying to do the same with Kashmir?

Siachen has not been resolved for a good period of time. What theory makes it suddenly easy to resolve? Your opinion? And besides, if there was still genuine interest on the Indian side to promote peace, why is there such a big hooha from the Indian govt to stop Clinton from visiting Pakistan when it is the only real chance to promote peace in the region? Clearly, bilateral talks haven`t worked in 53 years. Why not try third-party mediation, which has obviously worked in so many trouble-hit areas in other parts of the world?

As far as truth`s comment on nobody giving two hoots for Pakistan in either Junagarh or Hyderabad, who`s arguing that in the first place, and when has anybody in Pakistan been concerned about that? That is a bit obvious, isn`t it? What you do have to realize, though, is that it is people in Kashmir that don`t give two hoots about India, and India`s concerned about that.

Haramiau, the only time I`d be immune to logic is while deciding to have a conversation with you, so please do keep comments like that to yourself. This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent conversation. Here`s a little history lesson on Junagarh: It was the first Indo-Pakistan dispute over accesion. The Muslim Nawab acceded to Pakistan, but India refused to recognize the act and called for a plebiscite. Indian troops surrounded the enclave, then moved in. In Feb 1948, a plebiscist opted for India, and the state is now part of Gujarat. Now, how different is that from what Pakistan is doing in Kashmir? Consider the similarities: Hindu Maharaja opts for India (under threat of invasion). Pakistani troops try to take over. Obviously, owing to the fact that Pakistan hardly had an army then, and getting by with a little airlift help from Nehru`s friend Dicky, Indian troops manage to hold on to Kashmir. Pakistan calls for plebiscist. India agrees with UN on organizing one. 53 years later, it still has to live up to it. The Kashmir plebiscist case is, fyi, the longest unresolved case on the United Nations agenda.

Get it? Good. Pakistan is not saying boo hoo we want Junagarh, she`s simply saying: this is EXACTLY like Junagarh, and you should have a plebiscist to let people decide for themselves.

Moreover, it saddens me to note how little you know of Jinnah by making such ignorant comments and by comparing him to African dictators. Seems to me like you`re still not over the fact that the man was smart enough to beat Gandhi and Nehru put together. And that, my friend, is a fact.

Narain, thanks for pointing out the #82 error in the next post. As you can imagine, it threw me off a bit too.

Re: truth # 86

Apparently, since lack of thought to provide a proper argument has forced you into a situation where you`ve resorted to personal jibes, all I can say is ``aakhir aa gaye na auqat par.``

Besides which, to answer you query on Junagarh or Hyderabad or Kashmir, please read my accompanying post.

Oh, and if I wasn`t relevant, you wouldn`t be writing back.

Does anybody see the irony in Alireza crying about Junagarh and Hyderabad? Since these were Hindu majority states, their accession to pakistan would have been opportunistic on its part, since this would have gone against the ``two-nation theory``, which was the basis on which they demanded partition in the first case.

The same is not true about Kashmir`s accession to India. Since India never claimed to be a Hindu state, any state, hindu majority or otherwise, was welcome to join the union.

-narain

Clarification to my posting #79

When I said that India`s aim will be to occupy land, and force peace, I meant that it would occupy streches of land without any significant, large populations, to pressure a ``land for peace`` kind of deal. I don`t think the Indian army will be happy working as an occupation force over a large and hostile population, especially in times of war.

-narain

Alireza #81 and 83

Bhai, Junagarh and Hyderabad are old history. They were part of the partition process which is now over, finished, ended. Now if Indian aims were to take over Pakistan, why wouldn`t we have held onto Bangladesh? Becoz the benefits of doing so did not justify the costs involved. The same thing applies to any other area of Pakistan. How can you suppress a population the size of Pakistan? Even if we can, why should we?

As for Kashmir, till Pakistan started aiding terrorism, we were content with all that we had. Of course there were periodic noises about ``occupied Kashmir``, but there was no real inclination to force the issue. As far as India was concerned we would have been happy if the LOC could be converted to an international border. This is what the Simla agreement tried to do. And you know what, we would still be happy with any such agreement. All that Mr Vajpayee says is just posturing: just as Gen. Musharraf`s threat of using nuclear weapons is. This is like a street-fight; nobody wants to actually start anything violent, but they circle each other and issue galis, hoping to scare the other one away.

About Siachen: with enough confidence in the other side, i`m sure the issue is resolvable. But by no stretch of imagination does it endanger the existense of either state. About Kutch, wasn`t the issue settled?

I am of course no one important, but I think that on the Indian side there is a genuine resolve to work towards peace. We still remain committed to it, though of course, more wary of pakistani intentions. And I still believe, truly, that India has no designs on any Pakistani terriotery.

-narain

PS; Ali did you know that truth #82 is attributed to you in the other chain, ``Pakistan: a failed state``. Took me quite by surprise.

Alireza:

Two words why I think you are on drugs:

Junagradh and Hyderabad. You did not have a prayer of retaining those two territories as ``Pakistan`` on any grounds. It was a historical inevitability. The fact that so many Pakistanis keep harping on Hyderabad and Junagarh shows they are stuck in a Neanderthalic time-wrap. Visit those places and see if anybody cares two hoots about your perception of Indian occupation. Only you do and you are not relevant.

On alireza #: 81

When you say ``Junagarh and Hyderabad``, let us simply compare Hyderabad and Kashmir.

Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir thinks he could remain independent and doesn`t sign a treaty of accession with either India or Pakistan before Aug 15, 1947. Tribals from NWFP armed with guns supplied by the Pak Army invade Kashmir on Oct 24, 1947 to force the issue. Hari Singh accedes to India. Thus, it is clear that Pakistan`s attitude is that the princely states have no right to independence.

The Nizam of Hyderabad thinks he could remain independent. India negotiates with the Nizam and his advisors. Every agreement that is agreed upon by his advisors is repudiated by the Nizam. Finally, India ``invades`` Hyderabad in September 1948. The Nizam signs a treaty of accession to India and is named the Governor of the province along with the largest ``privy purse`` given to any Indian maharaja. But Pakistan thinks Hyderabad should have the option to remain independent.

Do you see any contradictions at all in Pakistan`s stand? Or, are you just immune to logic?

What you don`t realize is that there was never any program for Pakistan. You all lament the loss of Jinnah so soon after the creation of Pakistan. It is a good thing that he died so soon because if he had lived any longer you wouldn`t have that crutch either. He is the man who objected to bringing in the masses into the independence movement. He believed that the elite have the right and duty to negotiate with the British in a constitutional manner for a change of government and the unwashed masses have no say in the matter. With that as leadership, why does anybody wonder about the lack of democracy in Pakistan? Jinnah was no different than Nkrumah of Ghana, Mobutu of Zaire, Mugabe of Zmbabwe and a host of other African dictators who were initially supported by their people. If Jinnah had lived 3 years longer, you would probably be venerating him as the next Caliph. If he had lived 15 years longer, you would have seen him for the autocrat that he was.

On the other hand, if you are so proud of Jinnah, maybe you should work for his goal of a united India with electoral parity (unjustified on the basis of population) between Muslims and Hindus and see if there are any takers in New Delhi, parity or no parity.

Narain #79

where you wrote that you don`t know why Pakistan feel insecure about its annexation by India.

I think instead of coming to this board read the rhetoric of your Prime Minister, foreign minister and army chief.

I am not telling you to read RSS.

I am telling you to read rhetoric of people who are in a position of responsibility.

If responsible people are saying that they will annex Azad Kashmir, and teach Pakistan a lesson, who are you ``WHO ARE YOU`` a very insignificant person, to pronounce otherwise.

Loved the poetry but please cut the Bagwhan bit out from the title, It`s Hindu for God`s sake. Next thing, your`re going to fit in Budha and rama. A|ll the best.

Re: narain # 79

(``The truth is that India would be loathe to take over any area from Pakistan``)

Two words: Junagarh and Hyderabad.

Please read my post number 71.

Also, Vajpayee`s speech a week ago proclaiming that all of Kashmir will be in India one day seems to be on a different plate than what you`re saying.

(``For India, the business of partition ended in 1947 with two separate countries``)

What then is the struggle over the land in Kashmir, or Siachen or Kutch?

(``Indian intentions will be only to occupy land to force peace``)

Force peace, eh? Tried and tested succesfully by the Indian Army in K.

I have read in some replies here that Pakistan feels insecure because it is one-seventh India`s size.

Let it be recognized that India`s size did not drop from the sky. It is because we Punjabi, Bengalis, Goans and Tamils and others have sunk our differences of race, language, religion to forge this country called India. That is why we are the size we are. We had offered you the option of being part of the family but you turned it down, you wanted Pakistan. Now we have no sympathy if you cry about the different sizes of India and Pakistan.

re: Umairr #57

I don`t know why Pakistanis have this strange belief that India wants to somehow annex their country, by force if necessary. It is totally incorrect. The truth is that India would be loathe to take over any area from Pakistan, even if it fell into its lap, as Bangladesh did in `71. For India, the business of partition ended in 1947 with two separate countries. We are happy with what we have, and feel no need for anything more. It is Pakistan which wants to reopen the whole business, India certainly doesn`t.

Even if there is a war, Indian intentions will be only to occupy land to force peace, never permanent annexation. Civilian damage too will necessarily be kept to the minimum, since India knows that it will ultimately have to sit down with our neighbours and smoke the peace pipe, and its no good queering the pitch unnecessarily.

As for the need for war rhetoric, hey! We guys first tried talking peace, and it failed. In a way pakistan has forced us to harden our attitude, since that is the only alternative left. So expect to hear more of it as Indian popular attitudes towards Pakistan continue to harden.

-narain

Isn`t it sad: we came so close to peace, and now we are so far. I continue to believe that peace will inevitably be achieved, becoz it is the only logical thing to do. But then I believed that there could never be a war again between our two nations, and I was wrong wasn`t I?

In the meantime Indian attitudes towards Pakistan are hardening. Gone is the presumtion that a strong and stable pakistan is in India`s interests. Instead there is a growing resolve to pay them back in kind for what they have been doing to us. For some reason there is a feeling in India that peace with pakistan is just not possible, and that it is foolish to even try. Thus our PM who loudly proclaimed the Lahore process as his biggest achievement in 100 days in office, is now going around spewing war rhetoric.

....And strangely enough the army chief in pakistan who could not find time to attend the reception in Lahore, is now crying for talks and peaceful relations.

These are sad developments, and can only portend even more trying times for South Asia.

-narain

Re: Cbb #66



I am with you, brother. Everything you said is spot on. There is absolutely no point in talking with bleeding heart punjabis, fakes like Benazir, or any other moderates on the other side. They exercise no control over the extremists and cannot influence policy towards India. Why waste time talking to them?..(One thing though: They serve their purpose when the west wants some action on our part..talk to them and lo..their hidden masters unleash another Kargil to wipe out any (in)significant concessions!)

The standard Pakistani reply is that these folks don`t win elections, so they are not representative. All we know is that the establishment breeds terrorism, and the state claims that it cannot control it, the people claim they cannot influence it, so why should we talk to anyone, and whom should we talk to?..The puppetmasters are not interested in talks, and the puppets are, well, ..just puppets.

And to all the bleeding heart Indians who weep about Kashmir, I`m sure they will be happy when the bombs start going off in Hyderabad and Bangalore next (They already are, read the papers). Forget the insurgents, these ``liberals`` should be the first to be taken out and sh...