Let us Not be Foolish

here we go again with the blood and gore and martyrdom. Another lovely person wanting to commit mayhem and murder. Besides the point that its quite easy to talk about fighting without actually being there or doing it, I saw your idea of fighting. You go to a truck stop, drag out some of the drivers. Then you arm them with their tyre irons while you have your kalasnikov at 20 paces and BANG!

applauds the wonderful sense of fair play and justice to all. So what did these truck drivers do to deserve this? I suspect it was their horrible driving sense which caused it.

I look forward to your reply, Sir

Yours in fond hope

cheers

bd

On Asif Naqshbandi #: 129

When you say,``The difference is that the mujahideen are only attacking soldiers whereas you attack and kill innocent civilians``, read post #131 and then tell me that the truck drivers were part of a military convoy but the mujahideen only killed Hindu soldiers.

When you say, ``They wish to embrace martyrdom and love it as much as you love life! How can such a force be stopped, o infidel?``, get ready to glow in the dark, you idiot.

You say, ``And remember--these are the descendents of Muhammad ibn Qasim, Timur, Babar, Aurangzeb, Abdali, Ghauri....expect pyramids of skulls...``, but these guys are nothing but social and cultural schizophrenics who don`t know their Arabia from Pakistan and think that claiming descent from these marauders will elevate them socially. It doesn`t matter in the least whether they are descended from the camel jockeys of Arabia or of the Mongolian steppes or just local low-lifes.

Have you noticed how your Pak brethren don`t want to touch you with a ten-foot pole? Yet they all want a moderate Pakistan. How does anyone expect your kind of nonsense to go unchallenged and still expect moderation to flourish in Pakistan?

Amit #128

I am puzzled, the logic doesn`t quite hold together. What was exactly do you think was lacking in the deal you mention that the Pakistani govt and Army took the step of effectively sabotaging it through armed action in Kargil? Even if they were preparing for Kargil many months before the deal was even thought of, what prevented them from changing their plans? It looks unbelievable that they thought they could have such a deal and a military victory, too.

In other words, with knowledge of the deal, for what reasons did the Pakistani Army effectively repudiate it? Its tough to accept that the Army didnot know, if so what on earth was NS`s logic? Its hard to believe that its a matter of left hand not knowing what the right hand is upto.

And what is the Army now trying to achieve over and above the possibilities afforded by that infamous deal by taking increasingly divergent positions from India through its post-coup rhetoric and by encouraging violence in Kashmir?

`Daal mein kuch kaala hai`, I think.

Sadhana

Harimau re:135

concerning Mr. Naqashbandi `Have you noticed how your Pak brethren don`t want to touch you

with a ten-foot pole?`

And here I`d thought Fuzair et al were Pakistanis.. my goof, obviously.

In reply to Asif Naqshbandi (#129) who wrote about the wonderful Warriors of Allah and invoked the shades of Babar and Timur :

This example exactly illustrates your problem with history. Let us look at the wonderful Timur.

When Timur invaded Hindustan the defender of Delhi was Sultan Mahmud Tughlak who had a nice Hindu-sounding name.

Timur had taken a hundred thousand prisoners on his march to Delhi, he had them all executed to try to make Delhi surrender. When Timur took Delhi he allowed his soldiers to commit a large-scale massacre, killing even the people who took refuge in the mosques.

Well, you say, Allah`s holy warriors were ridding the world of kafirs.

Well, in Khorasan, another kafir land, Timur had two thousand of his captives walled up alive.

In Isfahan, a pagan city, I`m sure, he told his soldiers that they must return with one severed head each, and let them loose in the captured city.

In Baghdad, that city of sin and apostasy, Timur had ninety thousand men, women and children killed AFTER he had taken the city.

The capital of Kafiristan, known as Damascus, he treated in the same way as Baghdad.

Timur was always careful to first collect the Mullahs and put them under armed guard before indulging in his killing sprees, and that is why he had good press among Muslims who believe that all they believe should have been approved by a Mullah.

Well, any of these kind want martyrdom, I for one will be happy to oblige.

-arun gupta

haramiau # 126

(but he was not smart enough for Mountbatten who would not give him an undivided Punjab or Bengal.``)

I could have a seperate discussion on whether Jinnah outsmarted Dicky or not, regardless of which, doesn`t the above sentence rephrased read ``Mountbatten might have been smarter than Jinnah, but Jinnah was too smart for Gandhi and Nehru.`` And therefore: so far you`ve done a wonderful job of eluding from my initial point.

On the subject of Mountbatten of Burma and how he `outsmarted` Jinnah, perhaps the following would give you an actual clue into history: Jinnah`s interview with Mountbatten on 10 April, 1946 was their sixth gruelling session in a row. That Mountbatten`s celebrated charm and powers of persuasion had utterly failed to budge Jinnah from his demand of Pakistan had bruised the former`s most vulnerable trait - his vanity. In the Staff Meeting of 11 April Monty gave public vent to his frustration: ``Jinnah is impossible to argue with`` and ``it is a great tragedy that Jinnah should be trying to force me to give up the idea of a united India.`` All of which obviously suggest that Monty was also against a new Pakistan. Moreover, the ultimate slap on Monty`s face was, unlike that of Nehru`s, Jinnah`s refusal to let Mountbatten stay in Pakistan as governer general, which also addresses your second point.

To his daughter Patricia, Mountbatten wrote a letter dated 5 July, 1947 speaking of Jinnah`s refusal to allow him the post of governer general:

``Your poor old daddy has finally and irretrievably boobed and I`ve now landed in a position from which I cannot conceivably extricate myself with honour. I`m so depressed darling, because until this stupid situation I`d done so well. It has certainly taken me down many pegs.``

The man who - according to you - outsmarted Jinnah, used the word `boobed` for himself.

I already mentioned that I was aware of Patel seeing the light in letting Pakistan go. That still puts him in disagreement with Gandhi and Nehru, doesn`t it? And besides, Jinnah was never in competition with Patel, since the Sardar was - and is - a bit below him in political history.

It isn`t difficult for me to listen to healthy critisicm on Jinnah, provided it`s healthy. (However, I might point out that the reason you`ve been replying to my posts is because of my earlier comments on Gandhi and Nehru, which then basically puts us both in the same boat, doesn`t it?) To your credit though, I do have to say that your posts have matured slightly from comparing the man in a most uneducated fashion to African dictators (in complete contrast with Dr.Sir C.R.Reddy`s words: ``Jinnah is the pride of India.``

It wasn`t as if Jinnah had a choice to rely on `toadies` or not. There - simply put - was nobody to rival him (see my last post). And speaking of `pretending` that Jinnah was the ideal politician, then amongst many others, Stanley Wolpert would be a great pretender as well:

``Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Jinnah accomplished all three.``

``Defence budget up as never before

In the steepest hike in defence allocation ever, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha Tuesday raised the budget for that ministry by a whopping Rs 130 billion to Rs 585.87 billion.`` (www.rediff.com)

I think this incrase, in and of itself, is greater than the complete military budget of Pakistan. Is India preparing to go to war against China? Or is this another step in increasing the arms race in the Sub-Continent? A reply from people who do not think it is India which is responsible for ther Indo-Pak arms race, would be appreciated (please do not mention Kargil, without mentioning Siachen, again. That argument is getting a bit old).

Sadhna#137

Because you don`t know Nawaz Sharif.

You will not find any popularly elected leader in the world of calibre of Nawaz Sharif.

I wish you were a Pakistani to understand these things. These are beyond your comprehension.

Narain #123

Your post makes much sense.

Not only the Kashmir problem is destroying Kashmiris, but is also very degrading experience for army.

But how to achieve a solution.

Kashmir might cripple India.

These are not to terrify, but reality.

But how to achieve a solution.

To give you some glimpse on gravity.

You know there is a group for Pak-India friendship. On Pakistan side it is headed by Mubasshir Hasan and others. These Pakistani`s have recently told their Indian counterparts that they are not receiving reciprocity etc. now.

In this situation, when no sane voice is there, on both sides of border, thing will be nightmare for both.

I will mention Cowasjee, regarding truncated Pakistan by India. It will be a destruction for both countries, particularly in this atomic age.

Also, the rhetoric of Loyalty, patriotism etc, signifies clearly the centrifugal tendencies, particularly in India.

Eastern provinces have some seperatist movements and southern provinces would not like to forego their hard earned prosperity. (I have been with south Indians, different from Northern).

If it is a path of destruction, both India and Pakistan are trying to earn it.

But Pakistani`s will never accept a role subjugated to India.

Sadhna#121

Don`t hide behind what Pakistan did in Bangladesh. Is it a justification?

For your information, we ignorant, fundamentalists, a significant majority, particularly the educated ones were against the role of Pak army in Bangladesh for less than a year.

But I am amazed at the highly enligthened, highly secular and highly democratic, Indian intellectuals, justifying Indian atrocities in Kashmir for more than ten years.

Hamirau#120

You wrote What will happen if India shed its secularism.

Is there anything else which you have not done with the cloak of secularism and democracy.

You have killed more than 100,000 of your so called own people to preserve secularism, what more you want to do preserve secularism. Annihilate the world.

For Sadhna

The number of Kashmiris killed under custody of Army etc is 350- 400 per year not in 10 years.

Reference is Feb 1999 report by AI, as far as digging of graves in Punjab and Assam (or Mizoram)which are still coming to light.

On krashid #: 145

You ask ``Is there anything else which you have not done with the cloak of secularism and democracy?``

Our minority Muslim population has slowly increased from around 8% to 11.7% (figures have been posted by macgupta on this or another board). Your minority population has declined to 2%. Because of our cloak of secularism, we have not expelled 120 million Muslims from India. Would you like to take in these 120 million people? Would your Muslim Ummah, rich in oil wealth, pay for their resettlement costs? Have you taken in the Bihari Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh since 1971? I can see how much you and your ilk shed tears for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Worthy successors to Jinnah, no doubt. Same motive of power grabbing without the slightest worry about what will happen to the common man.

You say {You have killed more than 100,000 of your so called own people to preserve secularism, what more you want to do preserve secularism. Annihilate the world.}

Amnesty International only says 250-400 ``disappeared`` person due to Indian Army action and estimates 25,000-40,000 deaths. You can up the number to 100,000 (up from 80,000 last week). We haven`t reached 200,000 killed and 200,000 kidnapped out of a total population of 600,000 as your co-religionists have done in East Timor. So, we have a loooong way to go. Pakistan is prepared to fight India to the last Kashmiri and India has no problem with that concept.

Perhaps you can Ask the Doctor at Chowk and find out what causes these frequent frothings at the mouth.

On krashid #: 144

You ask ``Don`t hide behind what Pakistan did in Bangladesh. Is it a justification?``

Not at all. Sadhna should know that it is okay for Muslims to kill the infidels but not for infidels to kill Muslims. It is all there in the Quran. And Bangladeshis are close to being infidels. Aren`t they different looking than the Arab ancestors of Pakistani Muslims? Don`t the Bangladeshis wear a dhoti instead of a kurta? That is almost as bad as being a Shia. Did the honorouble Prophet wear a dhoti? Aren`t good Muslims supposed to follow the Prophet in words and deed? So what do you, Sadhna, expect the Pakistanis to do except kill the apostate Bengalis?

You say ``For your information, we ignorant, fundamentalists, a significant majority, particularly the educated ones were against the role of Pak army in Bangladesh for less than a year.``

And killed 3 million and expelled 10 million refugees. All in the space of one year!

You say ``But I am amazed at the highly enligthened, highly secular and highly democratic, Indian intellectuals, justifying Indian atrocities in Kashmir for more than ten years.``

And Sadhna, what have you got to show for it? 100,000 killed. That works out to 10,000 a year. The Indian army should be ashamed. Can`t you see that a Pak soldier is 300 times more efficient than your puny Indian bania soldier? And when you compare the fact that Pakistan had only 93,000 soldiers in Bangladesh compared to India`s 700,000 in Kashmir, the Pakistani soldier is 2300 times more efficient than the pathetic Indian soldier. You call that an army? Even the Indonesians could do more in 3 weeks than you guys could do in 10 years, Sadhna. The Indian Army needs proper training at Pakistani military academies if it is to show anything for the money spent on it.

Umairr: there is your answer for the steep increase in India`s defense budget. Compared to Pakistan`s 500,000 man army, India requires 1150 million men to equal it in ferocity. Even with this increase in the defense budget, India is going to lose the next war with Pakistan because the entire Indian population is not yet 1150 million.

Amit #128

krashid #144, krashid #142

Re my question #137

I answered my own question: The track-II deal looked like a workable deal to accomodate Kashmiris wishes(even if not those of all Indians and all Pakistanis)and its possibilities could have well been investigated further and safeguards meditated to overcome even the deepest mutual distrust.

However the Pakistani Army didnot want to even consider the merits of the deal since they donot want to allow any possibility of even semi-independence for Kashmiris!

And the fact that India was willing to negotiate to this extent led them to think that Kargil and international attention on a `nuclear flashpoint` would yield them more than the deal would.

Well, they revealed their true intentions, they caused the deaths of 1000 people and carried out the ultimate tragic betrayal of the cause of Kashmiri `freedom` they keep claiming to espouse.

In hindsight, George Fernandes`s offer of `safe passage` and his saying that ``Army didnot keep NS informed`` early in the conflict makes sense now. He was apparently opening a way for NS, the Army , the `freedom fighters` and India to back down in Kargil and still save the deal assuming that once the conflict began, NS and Army brass looked at each other and said ``oops``. People also say that Gen PM may have given NS the `wrong` impression about China`s support. It also explains one reason why India was caught off guard: with such a deal on the table, why would Pakistan want to mess things up?

The fact that the conflict dragged on so long implies either that NS couldnot convince the Army or that like the Army he too had no good intentions toward the `track-II` deal.

In view of this, the Indian Govt`s present belligerence and refusal to talk is understandable. If Gen PM so comprehensively rejected the track-II deal earlier through actions in Kargil , well, whats there left to talk?

Any surprise why the world is not roused to righteous anger to the extent Pakistanis desire?. I remember Robert Oakley, ex-US Ambassador to Pakistan saying on a Kargil-related PBS discussion ``Vajpayee took a very politically courageous step in Lahore``. On a different show, Stephen Cohen said ``Pakistan has unreasonable expectations from India on Kashmir``. I now understand the full implications of those statements.

So its the land, not the people. The Kashmiris could have had the heat taken off them after Lahore after so many long years of suffering, but the Pakistani Government and Army have always had different intentions. Bravo!

Assad_K: Part of the reason why some officials from the erstwhile government are in confinement may be to prevent them of talking to the Pakistani public about what a golden opportunity Kashmiris lost.

Sadhana

On alireza #: 140

You say ``It wasn`t as if Jinnah had a choice to rely on `toadies` or not. There - simply put - was nobody to rival him (see my last post).``

When you reach a position of manager, you will realize that the way a leader is measured is how well he develops his staff. It was Liaquat Ali Khan who met Jinnah in London and asked him to come back and take charge of the Pakistan movement. Thus Jinnah was handed over the leadership of the Muslim League. He exploited it and ensured he would have no rivals. In this sense, he is no better than the African dictators. All you can say is that he did not rip off the Pak public. I never questioned the personal integrity of Jinnah, only his leadership quality, when I compared him to Nkrumah, etc. Compare Pakistan to China where a succession of responsible leaders have taken over after Mao.

You say [And speaking of `pretending` that Jinnah was the ideal politician, then amongst many others, Stanley Wolpert would be a great pretender as well:

``Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Jinnah accomplished all three.``]

This is the most absurd and pathetic statement I have heard. Off the top of my head, I can point to the founding of the People`s Republic of Mongolia (commonly known as Outer Mongolia and now simply as the Republic of Mongolia with its capital in Ulan Baator) which seceded from China in 1921. So, here was somebody who changed the map of the world and created a nation-state for Mongols and altered Chinese history. The one country that has successfully seceded from China and your Beijing buddies are not talking about their historic claims to Mongolia. Soon, Taiwan, hopefully with nukes from India to defend itself.

Today, I can point to Etitrea as another example.

If you didn`t have Wolpert, you wouldn`t have a single historian to say one kind word about Jinnah.

You guys don`t want to face the one critical issue that Bilal Ahmad is addressing: what is the game plan for Pakistan? Kashmir, it ain`t. Though you guys think it is.