Pssst...This is Rest of South Asia speaking

Re: all of ylh`s posts

Look at you. Do you have anything to say beyond peddling the same garbage over and over again with an ever increasing number of CAPS and exclamation marks and ape-like calls to zindabad this and zindabad that? When confronted with anything challenging your indefensible position, your strategy seems to be stand up on the table in the debating room, try to urinate on the opponents and scream ever louder insults while jumping up and down to create a ruckus.

RSaxena!

You wrote ``Only Pakistanis know the secret Indian agenda (of South Asia hegemony)

It may be secret for you.

Re: InYourFace #124

Right on. I might also add that a lot of middle-class, college educated Indian liberals are increasingly of the conviction that Pakistan ``is a basketcase and a nuisance but one which we cannot afford to see fail for our sake too.`` This is a direct quote from a middle class friend of mine who is neither a fanatic nor obsessed with ``Indian hegemonic`` designs as Pakis accuse. She`s more concerned about getting her next promotion and the price of vegetables.

It`s beyond reason how deluded many of the so-called educated Pakistani elite have become. Last time I questioned why a country on the verge of collapse would be so obsessed with a battle for land that it cannot win, I had all the predictable accusations hurled at me. But that`s the simple fact. You dance to your own drum beat which happens to be different from that of the rest of the world. Your response? To hatch conspiracy theories about how the world has turned against Pakistan and the Jehadi cause. Grow up!

Editorial from Kashmir Times (Srinagar) Tuesday
May 9, 2000

MINDLESS IN NEW DELHI

The successive regimes in New Delhi have unwisely kept the Kashmir issue in a cauldron by
adopting a policy of total drift. The result is that it has already crossed the boiling point with the entire state on fire and resultant untold miseries to the people. The mindless mandarins in
North and South Block have refused the see the realities of the situation even now after so
much destruction and total alienation of the people and realise the grave consequences of their
living in a world of make-believe. The confusion that prevails in the corridors of power is the
logical outcome of their prevarication coupled with intransigence. Though under pressure from
the world comunity, which considers Kashmir issue as not only a major dispute between India
and Pakistan but also a nuclear flashpoint with all its horrendous consequences, New Delhi’s
refusal to accept it notwithstanding. They have yet to realise that an early, just and amicable
solution of the problem alone can bring back peace in the troubled state and is not only in the
best national interests but also a key to peace and climate of cooperation in the disturbed
region. If still New Delhi is trying to make it a question of false prestige and an issue for
securing points then it is obvious that it has not learnt any lesson from its past mistakes.
Though the NDA government at the Centre has started talking of dialogue atleast with the
estranged sections of the population to resolve the crisis, presumably under pressure from
Uncle Sam, still those in authority are betraying an attitude of self-deception. What makes the
confusion worse confounded is that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of
Home Affairs (MHA ) are speaking in different voices on the subject. While the PMO has
conveyed an impression that it is keen to initiate a process of meaningful dialogue with Hurriet
leaders those in North Block are doing every thing possible even to sabotage this innocuous
move. Mr L.K.Advani at Nagpur categorically ruled out any such dialogue by saying that offer
has been made to the Hurriet leaders in this regard. Though he somewhat changed his tone
during his brief visit to the Valley on Sunday the substance of his stand remained intact. He
tried to shift the onus of resuming dialogue on the Hurriet leaders saying that a decision to
make a formal offer depends on them. He described the Hurriet leaders as a confused lot
though the reality is that those at the helm in New Delhi are the one who are totally confused
about what they contemplate to do to break the ice.
New Delhi’s duplicity and confusion are also evident on the question of the release of Hurriet
leaders. Though acting on the pressure from President Clinton on this question the GOI is
trying to create an impression as if they are doing any favour to the detained leaders by setting them free. For there was hardly any justification to detain these leaders and keep them in jails where they were even denied basic amenities including the permission to their kith and kin to meet them and adequate medical assistance to the ailing leaders. Instead of unconditionally releasing all the detained leaders simulateneously New Delhi set them free in batches and a large number of them are still under detention. Perhaps this was done to wash off the
impression that this was not being done under any pressure an d also to create confusion
among the Hurriet leaders and their supporters and present them as a divided lot. This policy of
divide and rule has proved counter-productive in the past and has not in any way added to the
credibility of New Delhi. On the contrary different voices raised in New Delhi about the question of dialogue only show that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister are functioning at
cross-purpose on this issue. What PMO proposes MHA disposes. Or is it a part of their politicking on the this subject which, in view of the gravity of the situation, calls for clear and realistic perspective and unambiguous approach to tackle it. It is still not late for the powers
that be to understand that time is running out for them and if they fail to take a credible and
realistic initiative for resumption of a multi-channel dialogue without any pre-condition the situation will reach a point of no return. Not only New Delhi is prevaricating on the question of
initiating dialogue with Hurriet leaders and others in Jammu and Kashmir, whom they describe
as `` our own people``, but is also adopting a totally negative attitude with regard to the
resumption of talks with Pakistan. India’s stand that Pakistan is not a party to the Kashmir
dispute is also contrary to facts and negates even New Delhi’s own stance on Kashmir. It has
been India’s case that Pakistan is still in occupation of a large chunk of Jammu and Kashmir
territory which legally belongs to it. That certainly makes Pakistan a party to this question
unless New Delhi has reconciled to handing over those areas to the neighbouring country. New
Delhi’s insistence on bilateral dialogue with the people of the State including the leaders of the
Hurriert Conference is understandable. But at some stage Pakistan will have to be involved if
any solution arrived at through such bilateral talks has to become lasting and a reality. Hurriet
leaders too, one hopes, will not adopt a rigid and negative posture, in case any sincere and
purposeful offer for bilateral dialogue is made by New Delhi. Infact the solution of the protracted
crisis calls for a multi-channel dialogue, within Jammu and Kashmir, between New Delhi and
the people of Jammu and Kashmir and eventually with Pakistan. In any case a solution has to
be acceptable to the largest sections of the people inhabiting different parts of the State.

Sherdil #121 wrote:

``What absolute arrogance. Please forward sound and factual information about unconditional Indian overtures toward peace (as Pakistan has done numerous times - Kashmir agenda being the focal point): I and others will listen.``

Sound bites like ``any time, any place, any level` by the Pervez Mohajjir may sound good to irrationally exhuberant jihadists, but real world beats to different drums ... such as Lahore. Lot of educated Pakistanis seem not to understand why lot of middle-class, college educated and LIBERAL Indians are pissed of at Pakistanis. I, for one, was truely hopeful that Lahore will lead to something good. Frankly, the General is not leadership material. Denigrating Vajpayee or BJP doesn`t change that fact.

What a pleasure it was reading this article.

________________________________________

A friendless Pakistan?

Rahimullah Yusufzai

We asked for it! is how one can describe President Bill Clinton`s admonishing lecture during his stopover in Pakistan on March 25. However, in the hullabaloo that preceded and followed his brief visit, we forgot that a few more presidents and prime ministers too have been visiting our bitter foe India and ignoring Pakistan. And to make this realisation even more painful, we were reminded that the dignitaries paying high-profile visits to India were the rulers of some of the biggest and most important Islamic countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria and Uzbekistan. It was a grim reminder that Pakistan, due to a host of factors, was lagging far behind India in winning and sustaining friends.

Our rulers and sections of our population desperately wanted the lame-duck US president to come to Pakistan as they felt the country would lose face if he bypassed us after spending five days in rival India. Even a five-hour stay by the leader of the world`s only superpower and the most powerful democracy was considered enough in a country ruled by generals. We may not have gained anything from the visit but it assuaged some egos and perhaps, despite American denials, granted some sort of legitimacy to our military government. Never mind if the US presidential stopover brought into the open Pakistan`s troubled relationship with its self-centred cold war ally and exposed our country to humiliation in terms of America`s lack of trust in our security preparedness for the visit and Clinton`s insistence to speak directly to the Pakistani people on our electronic media.

Having burnt our fingers on account of the frustration caused by the Clinton visit, we apparently are finding it hard to keep track of the stream of important visitors to neighbouring India and try some damage-control. It appears as if we have resigned ourselves to our fate. General Pervez Musharraf may have tried to respond to the challenge by mounting his own diplomatic offensive but his overseas visits are now being criticised for being too frequent and of little value. In fact, Turkey was one of the first countries he visited after the October 12 military takeover and he even tried to befriend the Turks by publicly praising, much to the chagrin of Pakistan`s Islamic lobby, Mustafa Kamal Ataturk. But it didn`t stop Turkey`s Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit from undertaking a visit to India and bypassing Pakistan.

Musharraf also paid a visit to Indonesia after the new Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid had been to India. Wahid, head of Indonesia`s largest, 30-million strong Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulema, didn`t include Pakistan in his itinerary of several Asian and western countries which he visited in one go in February. We need to know why the 59-year old, moderate Muslim leader of the world`s biggest Islamic country didn`t feel like coming to Pakistan despite its traditionally close ties with Indonesia. Besides lack of democracy in Pakistan, it is possible that there are other factors which prompted President Wahid and leaders of some other Islamic countries to ignore Pakistan. Not long ago, in the 1965 war with India, we are told that President Soekarno went out of the way to support Pakistan but the situation is altogether different now that his daughter Megawati Soekarnoputri is the country`s vice-president.

Ecevit and Wahid may have taken care to not hurt Pakistan through their statements or actions while visiting India but Nigeria`s President Olusegun Obasanjo threw caution to the wind when he was recently invited to attend India`s Republic Day parade in New Delhi. Indian newspapers reported how he pounded a table with his fist while talking to reporters and declared that the world should insist on the return of democracy in Pakistan. He said the Commonwealth should be disbanded if it cannot stand for democracy in member states. The former military strongman-turned-democrat even went to the extent of praising the Pakistani judges who refused to take oath under the military government`s Provisional Constitutional Order and describing them as ``global heroes``. It was a blatant interference in Pakistan`s affairs and the Nigerian president even forgot that he was speaking in the capital of a country which is known for its hostility toward Pakistan.

It is alright for Obasanjo to extol the virtues of democracy but condemning Pakistan in such language, that too in India, was both uncalled for and undiplomatic. One cannot recall any instance of Pakistan poking its nose in Nigeria`s affairs, even during the long periods when Africa`s biggest country was being ruled by military dictators like Obasanjo. There appear quite a few reasons why Obasanjo acted the way he did in New Delhi. He has fond memories of India where he studied at the National Staff College at Wellington in Tamil Nadu state. He was perhaps carried away by the occasion as he hogged the limelight as the chief guest of a big national event in India. It is also noteworthy that Nigeria is a Muslim majority state but Obasanjo is Christian and is finding it difficult to run the huge, restless country in which some provinces have enforced Shariah despite his displeasure. Still Islamabad should find out why Nigeria under Obasanjo is drifting away from Pakistan and coming close to India.

As for Ecevit, the veteran Turkish politician is known for his progressive, democratic and secular views and was thus likely to feel more comfortable in New Delhi than Islamabad. The fact that he is an Indophile and has translated the Hindu religious book ``Bhagvad Gita`` and Rabindranath Tagore`s ``Gitanjali`` into Turkish also explains his bent of mind. Challenged by the Islamists in Turkey and confronted with Kurd separatist movement, Ecevit also found common cause with India facing a string of separatist movements including one waged by the Kashmiri Muslims. Ecevit did mention this during his India visit when he said both Ankara and New Delhi were being targeted by terrorists. Islamabad has reasons to feel unhappy that Ecevit went to India and ignored Pakistan unlike the past when Turkish leaders would first visit Pakistan and then India.

One has this uneasy feeling that President Clinton`s visit to India and US decision to befriend New Delhi at the expense of Islamabad has prompted the pro-West governments in Turkey, Indonesia and Nigeria to follow suit and adopt the same policy. As if on cue, or may be with prodding by the US, a significant shift in policy is occurring in these Islamic countries and pressure is being piled up on Pakistan to follow the prescription decided for it by the West.

Uzbekistan`s president Islam Karimov is the latest leader of an Islamic country to visit India. Karimov, a former communist who has been in power since Uzbekistan`s independence in 1991 and has crushed all opposition to his dictatorial rule, was on his second state visit to India. As usual, he expressed his fondness for India by describing it as a ``natural ally`` of Uzbekistan and criticised Taliban-ruled Afghanistan for fomenting international terrorism. Without naming Pakistan, he was also critical of countries which support the Taliban. Confronted with growing opposition led by Islamist forces in his country, Karimov has found the Taliban an easy scapegoat. Karimov`s brutal tactics to suppress the opposition has prompted the latter to adopt aggressive methods in its campaign against his authoritarian rule.

Karimov knows that blaming outsiders and religious extremism for his problems would help him in winning backing of the West, Russia and India and hide his own interference in Afghanistan`s affairs evidenced by his open support for the opposition Northern Alliance, especially Uzbek warlords Gen Rasheed Dostum and Gen Abdul Malik. Pakistan, which has faced Karimov`s wrath in ECO summits in the past, can only hope to try and remove his misgivings even though it appears an uphill task owing to his mistaken belief that his home-grown problems are orchestrated by the Taliban and Islamabad.

Pope John Paul II also visited India in November and Russian President Alexander Putin is keen to go there in the near future. India has thus been successful in keeping its old friendship with Russia while embracing the US. This should be a worrying thought for our policymakers as Russia`a growing affinity with China may also complicate the situation for Pakistan. And we ought to be equally concerned why some of the most powerful Islamic countries appear eager to appease India even if it means annoying Pakistan.

_____________________________________

mithuna: pleas find the post you requested at ``Who is Lyahus?`` board, at the bottom of front page.

RE: Ferozk

``Both India and Pakistan, when it comes to Kashmir, suffer from a

Masada Complex, where they are willing to die if they can kill the

other person too, just to make sure that he does not end with the

final prize.``

, not just with

Sharif but even earlier with Bhutto. Pre-Kargil there was a

consensus among policy makers in India that a stable and

prosperous Pakistan was in India`s interests. Beleive it or not,

India does not want Pakistan to disintegrate. If it does, it will be

because of its own follies, NOT because of India.

BTW Kashmir is not a prize that India and Pakistan can fight over.

It is a people and a land who have suffered tremendously.

reply to narain #119

``It is a people and a land who have suffered tremendously``. Truer words were never spoken. Add to it the other truth: `At the hands of the occupying Indian forces`

You have stated:

``Unfortunately while that seems to be true of Pakistan, it certainly is not for India. India was willing to negotiate peace...``

``If Pakistan realizes this, that would save a lot of suffering all around.``

What absolute arrogance. Please forward sound and factual information about unconditional Indian overtures toward peace (as Pakistan has done numerous times - Kashmir agenda being the focal point): I and others will listen.

Arun #80 & Sadhna (numerous)

RESPONSIVENESS AND GOVERNMENT of PAKISTAN


This is my response to Jochen Hippler and Mushirul Hasan and various posts by the indefatigable Sadhna.

Whether it is Hasan’s lower and middle classes in the wilderness or Hippler’s view that the masses were perceived to be destabilizing, in case of Pakistani Governments it remains a fact that they were not responsive to the public.

Here, concisely is what I think.

(In India the successive governments by and large have displayed a greater degree of awareness and responsiveness for the masses. Diversity incubated democratic machinations. Lack of coup de tats helped. After a period of dynastic democratics (my coinage: n; use of democracy and its institutions) India faced unstable governments. From a one party stronghold, that gave way to two party system it is now evolving toward a stable hold of group alliances in which the regional parties effectively have their say and grab of the central pie in the alliances. Perhaps when this dawns on the present Congress leadership it will bode even well for India and democracy.)

In Pakistan to this day the successive governments tend to get away with lip service and minimal responsiveness to the masses. The religion induced (illogical) fate in the hereafter (with guess who’s help?) comes to the government’s rescue and effectively masks their design and manipulation. The successive Governments have been consistently responsive to its core constituency. They are the military, industrialists, landlords, beaurecrats, with additional minimal service to religious barons of late. The power thirst of these groups can only be controlled and effectively diminished (they cannot be eliminated altogether) if the needs of the masses are brought up to be the first in the line. In the short term, if the Musharraf initiated devolution of power takes hold, leading to greater decentralisation it may lead to better democratics for the masses. Other areas that need special attention are the Economy, Law & Order, Education and the Me-right Fanaticism of those who have direct connection with the Almighty. The role of beaurecracy in all this is significant. They can make or break any public policy.

And now am ready for the brick bats.

regards

t

PS: Had a mixed weekend. Saturday had a long and heated session -- a bitter divorce/custody battle between two friends. Sunday Planted 30 or so cedars. Excerpts from ``Come Back To Me My Language --- Poetry and the West Indies`` by J Edward Chamberlain will have to wait.

RE: Ferozk

``Both India and Pakistan, when it comes to Kashmir, suffer from a Masada Complex, where they are willing to die if they can kill the other person too, just to make sure that he does not end with the final prize.``

Unfortunately while that seems to be true of Pakistan, it certainly is not for India. India was willing to negotiate peace, not just with Sharif but even earlier with Bhutto. Pre-Kargil there was a consensus among policy makers in India that a stable and prosperous Pakistan was in India`s interests. Beleive it or not, India does not want Pakistan to disintegrate. If it does, it will be because of its own follies, NOT because of India.

BTW Kashmir is not a prize that India and Pakistan can fight over. It is a people and a land who have suffered tremendously. If Pakistan realizes this, that would save a lot of suffering all around.

-narain

Ref Fuzair #: 107

You said {Your posts are always a pleasure to read}

Thank you for the kind words.

You ask {BTW, on a personal note, if you wouldn`t mind answering, I was wondering what is your background? Academic and otherwise. I am impressed by your breadth of knowledge and I seem to recall you once saying that you were (are?) an engineer and not an academic.}

I studied electrical engineering in India at one of the Regional Engineering Colleges (2nd tier to the IITs). Got a degree in Computer Science here. So that makes me an IT person, I guess.

History is being made in ordinary places every day. It is only when it gets written up we seem to recognize how past events shaped the future.

I grew up in a small town with the last remaining portion of a fort in the corner of the bus station. As you take the bus north, about a dozen miles away is the town where one of the earliest rebels against the British was hanged. As I read the history of the British in India, I realized that some of the earliest decisive battles were fought in dusty towns such as these. There are no historical markers anywhere but if a fort survives, you know that is where the local raja holed up against the British. I absorbed a whole lot of history in this fashion without realizing I was learning something. Now, when I get an opportunity, I go to the library and pick up books on British-Indian history and a whole lot of memories of the places I have been to/through come flooding back.

It is no different in Pakistan. Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar are all locations where important battles were fought. You have walked through the places where history was made and our destinies were determined.

We are indeed fortunate to have such a rich history behind us.

Regarding all those ``me too`` posts

When the going gets tough Pakistanis cry foul.

And Mr Saxena ...

you never answer why INDIA DOESNOT HONOR ITS COMMITMENTS TO THE UN AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY .... MAYBE FOR YOU IT IS VERY EASY TO PICK UP THE WORD JEHAD AND CRITICIZE US ......

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UN AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ....

AND THE LAST TIME YOU MADE OTHER ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME ..... SIMILARLY YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME AGAIN ... YOU DONT KNOW ME SO STOP REFERRING TO ME ...

-YASSER HAMDANI

To Saxena

I am not fighting in Kashmir myself because I feel that Freedom fighters are doing a good enough job .... and I personally dont like groups like Harkat ul Muahideen and wouldnt wanna join them ...

BUT IF PAKISTAN AND INDIA GO TO WAR .... .. I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO FLY BACK TO PAKISTAN ....

AND TELL YOU ``HINDU`` COWARDS ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!!!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Jinnah Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto !

-Yasser Hamdani

RSaxena

First of all dont put words into my mouth ... I never issued a call for Jehad.... do you even try to read what I wrote ????

From now on I am just going to ignore your posts -Yasser Hamdani

The block of wood

Brian Cloughley

Please imagine an eight-inch cube of wood. There is a six-inch screwnail embedded in the cube, with half an inch of its head protruding. Two people are puzzling over how to remove it because they have never seen a screwnail before. They know about levers, so they bring greater and greater pressure to bear, using higher fulcrums, longer levers, more brute force. Eventually the screw comes out. It is damaged beyond further use, and the cube of wood is split in half. A simple screwdriver would have solved the problem. Does this remind you of Kashmir, with the wood as the territory and the screw as the people?

The rest at:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/may2000-daily/07-05-2000/oped/o4.htm

rgds

t