Famous Last Words or a Messiah in Khakis?

Umairr #56

If Pakistan`s main concern is that the Kashmiris be allowed a free vote to decide what they want, then what is stopping Pakistan to conduct such vote in Pakistan-held Kashmir ? At least, that would be a start !

Deception seems to be the order of the day. At least , now, the whole world knows what Pakistan means by `` moral and political support only`` !. And whosoever said that ``word ``k`` in Pakistan`s name, stands for Kashmir`` must be joking!!.

Umairr #: 56

``crypto: Your remarks are quite accurate.

Pakistan has not laid claim Indian Kashmir as part of Pakistan. Pakistan`s claim is that the Kashmiris should be allowed to vote and decide what they want to do with their own future; this includes remaining with India, declaring independence, or joining Pakistan. There were quite a few statements from the Pakistani govt. regarding this a few weeks ago.``

Can anyone believe what Pakistani Government says? They claim that they never were in Kargil, than they can withdraw the fighters. They say dead soldiers were not their, and than start crying for the bodies on humanitarian ground.

And who is ``government`` in Pakistan? only Military? is President not part of government? His last statement on this was that Kashmir is crucial to Pakistan`s existence and it is a part of Pakistan.

I know Umair, you will either duck the reply or will ask for the URL ..)

BTW, what is Pakistani government`s opinion about Baluchi people rights which were supressed during 70s. Would you give them their right?

Regards

The regime is talking about accountability and yesterday the toad faced information minister of Pakistan endlessly obfuscated issues on BBC hardtalk. Why does the dismissed General not initiate an inquiry in Mr. Ejaz ul Haq`s wealth ?

umairr #56:

oooh!!...once again!..

you say [``Pakistan has not laid claim Indian Kashmir as part of Pakistan.``]

``Indian`` Kashmir ???

Pakistan does not claim even ``Azad Kashmir`` to be part of it either. isn`t that true ?

[``Pakistan`s claim is that the Kashmiris should be allowed to vote and decide what they want to do with their own future``]

does the ``kashmiris`` include ``Azad Kashmiris`` too ?

i`ve been having a serious doubt:

whenever the international media (other than those in India and Pakistan) specifies ``Kashmir``, they mean the ``Whole of Kashmir``. they explicitly state ``Indian Kashmir`` or ``Azad Kashmir`` to refer those ``parts``. but a pakistani perspective invariably equates ``Kashmir`` with ``Indian Kashmir``.

and your reply seems to deepen my doubt. pls tell me: is that really so ?

crypto

crypto: Your remarks are quite accurate.

Pakistan has not laid claim Indian Kashmir as part of Pakistan. Pakistan`s claim is that the Kashmiris should be allowed to vote and decide what they want to do with their own future; this includes remaining with India, declaring independence, or joining Pakistan. There were quite a few statements from the Pakistani govt. regarding this a few weeks ago.

concerned #48:

umairr #51:

though the article does mention that a future Indo-Pak war might turn nuclear, it does not discuss the ramifications of a nuclear war.

the world is yet to face its first full-scale nuclear war. the course and results of a full-scale nuclear war may defy all the wisdom and logic that the conventional warfare has established. I seriously doubt that even the `traditional` nuclear powers, with all

their advanced technology, have an accurate idea of ALL the consequences and fallouts of a nuclear-war. India and Pakistan doesn`t stand anywhere.

I`d be interested in a site that discusses the consequences of a nuclear war. Better still if its about a nuclear-war between India and Pakistan.

That apart, there is a line in the article which makes me curious...It says:

[``In any Pakistani attack on India the focus of the attack would be Kashmir as they could expect assistance from the local militants as well as the fact that for some time now Pakistan has laid claim to Kashmir as part of Pakistan``]

Pakistan, claims Kashmir ?...is that true ?...if so, since when ??

crypto.

krashid # 44

Democracy means rule of the majority. Democracy coupled with basic protections for minority voices (religious, ethnic, political etc.)is known as pluralism. Strictly speaking a lynch mob can be a democracy. When American officials talk about democracy, they are essentially talking about political pluralism.

As far as China goes, the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolutions are man made disaters unparalleled in human history.

As far as democracy in Pakistan in the post 88 era, it never had a chance. Thanks to the military and anti-India elements in Pakistan.

It is hard to improve the economy when 60-70% of the budget goes to defense and debt servicing. That was true in the early 1990s. It is even worse now. It gets worse when an elected PM has no authority to pursue any sort of detente with India.

The essence of democracy is that you allow the elcted Prime Minister to complete a five year term and then face elections. Out of the four removals of elected Prime Ministers, I can justify the second removal of Benazir Bhutto.

krashid # 52

China abolished feudalism in the 1950s. In the late 1970s they started economic reforms. Their strict population control policies also helps. India started economic reforms in the early 1990s. China has a 15 year head start. I fully expect the Indian economy to match the Chinese economy in the long run.

Very few foreigners work in Iran anymore. Indians did work in Iran in the 1970s before the war broke out. Iran has a high unemployment (30-40%). It is unlikely desis will ever work there.

Umairr #51

I think you are delibrately overlooking one

thing: Pakistan needs at least 200 missiles to

finish India off.

On the contrary. Pakistan would be all done in 20.

No more Kashmir problem

Sigalph 235 # 50.

I did not say in my article that democracy is bad.

I just stated the fact that in thirld world (or for that matter 2nd world) America makes sure that democracy works in its favor. It uses not only CIA but also other methods to make sure it happens.

Compared to that we as a nation have to think what is in our interest. Like China although not democratic is poised to have the largest economy of the world in less than a decade, due to its pro-people policy. And that is why America is trying to put a third rate economy as India to counterbalance China by giving it a permanent UN membership seat. (Pitting India against China and trading with China itself).

So with Iran. Inspite of all efforts by America, Iran is putting all its resources to infrastructure and education.

As far as migration. Why should I migrate to India when I can earn more in my country or for that matter China or Iran. (Many doctors and engineers from Sub continent used to work in Iran for economic reasons). Also going to Saudia and other Arab countries is for the same reason.

concerned #48: Thanks for the URL. Actually, the technical information is quite accurate. It doesn`t take into account the use of nuclear weapons however.

This is what I think would happen if an all out war broke out between India and Pakistan, and if no one was able to stop it.

For the first few weeks, things would remain even. India would have to remove most of its troops from Kashmir to occupy them on the Punjab/Sind border. Pakistan would thus make very strong gains in Indian Kashmir, because the local population would support the Pakistani troops. It would be impossible for India to fight the Pakistani troops, the Kashmiris and the religious volunteers in Kashmir. Pakistan would eventually gain control of a major portion of Indian Kashmir.

India would focus on the Punjab/Sind border. After the initial few weeks of stand-off, India would gain advantage due to the much larger size and budget of its armed forces and economy. Pakistan would not be able to sustain the war for too long a time. India would eventually make a breakthrough, and attempt to divide Pakistan into two parts by destroying bridges, roads etc. connecting the north of Pakistan to the south.

If the situation reached such a stage, Pakistan would use tactical nuclear weapons (if Pakistan has them) against the Indian troops. India would do the same against Pakistani troops in Kashmir.

If the situation was still not brought under control, both countries would launch strategic nuclear missiles against each other. Pakistan`s major cities would all be destroyed. Most of the Indian major cities within the range of Pakistani missiles would be destroyed.

Chowk would only have Non-Resident Indians and Pakistanis as interactors, because Indians and Pakistanis in their respective countries would have been bombe back into the stone age.

re krashid # 44

For all your criticism of a pluralist liberal representative democracy, here are a few eternal words of the late Sir Winston Churchill:

DEMOCRACY IS THE WORST FORM OF GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT FOR ALL OTHERS TRIED.

Funny how rather naive semi-philosophers can actually claim that Communism or `limited democracy` is better than the Anglo-American variety! No wonder that`s why there is a bee-line of people wishing to immigrate to Cuba and Iran!

I guess even though the Communists lost the Cold War, their apologists never stopped shooting blanks in the dark!!!!!!

Devolution of power is the need of the day, no doubt.

But not SHAM devolution, as outlined by the junta.

The strings will be still manipulated by the centre, and the identities of the provinces will be slowly eroded.

The system is akin to what the One Unit was.

The devolution scheme announced seems to be simply a dilatory tactic and/or an attempt to build a constituency of civilian Quislings by the junta.

this is for umairr -

indian first strike and pakistan first strike analyzed in detail.

http://www.alphalink.com.au/

The post war period has shown that professional soldiers make lousy, and anti-people rulers, either serving the cause of vested interests or stooges of foreign powers.

Pakistan`s history, too, bears out this fact.

Ayub, prior to toppling the government he had taken an oath to be loyal to, had been on the payroll of the CIA for quite some time.

Zia was the kind of person about whom his Commanding Officer, Gen. Niwazish Ali had written in his ACR, `` he is unfit to be an officer in the Pakistan Army, `` which, mind you, is a third rate army commanded by tenth rate generals.

Events after October 12, 1999, till date, have gone to show that the present junta too, will do all it can to exacerbate the agony of the deprived people of Pakistan.

It is worth a study in sociopolitics how some people can support military rule.

final proof,

Many do not appreciate the good aspects of military rule. I was looking forward to this to make the ex-military men of chowk happy, giving a positive spin to the military rule. It is from dawn of today

Improvement of railways

I AM a frequent rail traveller. As such, I have been witness to the state of the Pakistan Railways as far as the conditions in which people have to travel are concerned. Therefore, it has come as a welcome surprise that most of the trains are now running on time and the service has also improved after the military take-over.

Last month, I travelled twice on the Awami Express and once on the Shalimar Express, and all reached their destinations on time. Moreover, there were no breakdowns in the air-conditioning system which had become very common last year. Just before the military takeover, conditions had deteriorated so much in Pakistan Railways that none of the trains were running on time.

We are adept at criticizing the government, but when it comes to appreciating the good deeds, we are unwilling to admit it.