Famous Last Words or a Messiah in Khakis?

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!!!!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

``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

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!!.

crypto #55

There was a Rand Corporation report on US Military Transport requirements. The orientation of the paper was the possible demands on US military transport capability in this century. One section examined the initiation and a possible scenario of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Consequently, the consequences were mainly from the humanitarian / peace keeping objective rather than from the objectives of either India or Pakistan. Its about $20 and you can order it from their website. Its quite short, the scenario, 1-2 pages, I could have posted it within this board but for copyright issues.

For what its worth, finding myself with some time at hand, I did try to apply statistical and game theory concepts to this scenario. I am afraid I had to give it up very very soon, because I did not have the resources or the knowledge to really carry the exercise to its logical conclusion. In addition, I found that the decision tree suddenly jumped major orders of magnitude in the possible branches and associated probabilities that it soon became impossible for me to complete it. The joint probability distributions although did come up with some surprising numbers, but that may be because of my assumptions being totally off the scale. Some things which I found interesting was that India would be the more likely to keep on lobbing nukes mainly because the longer / deep chain of command, depth of the country and the converse within Pakistan. Secondly, the climatic and weather patterns make a huge amount of difference. For example, a war in July/August is going to hurt India more than Pakistan due to the fallout /dispersal area and the wind direction. Conversely, its going to hurt Pakistan more if the war is done over the winter months, Dec Jan, due to the countervailing months.

Cheers

bd

cbb#60

Azad Kashmir itself has its own Government, ruled by their own president and prime minister.

The problem is Indian held Kashmir, where every election is manipulated by Indians.

Do you think such a powerful independent movement as in Indian occupied Kashmir where a large Indian army is present to suppress came in one day.

Try to think in empathetic terms, to see the reasons of alienation of people of Indian held Kashmir

TRIALS OF A PEACE MAKER

The following is from news international,

``Just because PTV is lunatically and fatuously anti-India does not mean to say that all Pakistanis are anti-India, although it would seem that PTV`s aim is to make them so. Fortunately it is so amateurish and crass as to be a joke amongst real people, but it is a fact that the uneducated masses take some of this drivel at face value. It is also a fact that it is government-controlled and thus gives the worst possible impression of Pakistan`s policies.``

The incompetence of the PTV staffers is the only clue that the pak govt may not be completely anti-indian. There may be some takers for this insane view.

Last year, when NS was still in power, a delegation from India headed by the Deputy Speaker of the Andhra Legislative Assembly visited Pakistan to improve ties at the level of legislators.

Perhaps it is time for Gen Musharraf to visit Hyderabad, Andhra, to meet with Chandrababu Naidu.

The reason I am suggesting this is because of what I read in an interview with the Mayor of Vijayawada.

26-year-old Panchamurthy Anuradha has been recently elected the Mayor of Vijayawada. A graduate in Electronics, she had no connection with politics. It seems Chandrababu Naidu decided that all city-wide elected positions should be filled by college graduates with no prior involvement in politics. Going against the advice of political heavyweights in his own party, he selected candidates for election on this criterion and thus P. Anuradha has become the mayor of Vijayawada.

There is hope that we can get rid of corruption if we give dedicated youngsters a chance to bring fresh thinking to politics and back them up in their efforts to clean up the process.

Aside to Umairr: This same Chandrababu Naidu was quarrelling with his father-in-law NT Rama Rao over leadership of the Telugu Desam Party hardly 10 years back. And you were complaining about how politics is within family hands in Pakistan? You never know what might happen until you give people a chance to do something for the public.

It is in response to a post where corruption and maladministration was equally rampant in Indian and Pakistan Politics and is no reason to do away with democracy in some form.

Who can know it better than Pakistanis. Where every generation has fought for the struggle for democracy. And has lost one part of Pakistan for the same reason. It is so strong that even parties like Jamat-e-Islami and all other Islamic parties like JUI talk about democracy and restitution of 1973 constitution.

Then what was the reason that Elimination of Nawaz Sharif and company was so wholeheartedly accepted the people of Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif was corrupt from beginning, and it was commonly assumed that most of our leaders are corrupt. And there were jokes about nothing behind the skull of Nawaz Sharif. But even then when Nawaz Sharif was sacked first time, people did not react favorably. Nor was the first sacking of Benazir very favorable with people.

It was the subjugation of democratic institutions which people disliked. Like fight of Benazir with Supreme court, Attack on Supreme court by Nawaz Sharif. Subjugation of Press by Nawaz Sharif, Subjugation of Parliament and president.And last but not least, keeping two biggest parties out of Sind province to form its Government and when failed imposition of Governors rule.

Also due to size of India and number of states, a problem in one or two states is still a very small part of country. While in Pakistan a provincial problem means that a significant part of country is in trouble.

The situation can be compared to imposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi (although it was nothing compared to actions of Nawaz Sharif), which lead to her ouster at the hands of Murar Ji Desai apart from other reasons. But in India there was a system of redress like vote of no confidence, or voting out of power by President or electorate etc.

In Pakistan, there was no such choice available. With 13th amendment, voting against Nawaz Sharif would automatically lead to that members cancellation of Assembly seat even if he has 49% of members behind him. (And nobody wants to lose seat for some higher ideal, lower ideal of pocketing money is more dear). Judiciary could not do anything. President was a good neighbour. And army after Zia had a policy of continuation of democratic process. (that is why Army Generals were retired or sacked/resigned on the altar of democracy repeatedly). Nawaz Sharif invited the army itself and people welcomed the sacking of dictator.

Still although the people are tired of recent democratic exercise want some form of democracy. And that is also the reason of rhetoric of Pervez Musharraf.

The rhetoric of democracy at local level very appealing to common man is to appease the people. It is not a ploy to appease the international community. Otherwise the Turkish model can be easily applied where army set the rules.