The Asian Waltz

Re: Jay # 120

Jay, are you feeling ok?

I did not remotely echo what Asim had to say, but merely cautioned you about the latent dangers your suggested course of action might unleash!

Armed response to settle South Asian political problems, from both sides, ceased to be a viable option since May 1998.

You cannot compare Isreal/Lebanon scenrio to India/Pakistan, because it is akin to comparing apples and oranges just like you cannot compare the referandum in East Timor to holding one in Kashmir! The Kashmiri problem is unique to South Asia and it will solved via a South Asian political solution.

For an Indian, whose nation keeps telling Pakistan that armed interventions will not solve the problem, but merely increase them, you are by your thoughts and words undermining your own country`s arguments for talking with Pakistan! If you are a reflection of the Indian opinion, then what your government is saying is a pure facade, because your real intentions are to seek an armed conflict with Pakistan. If you continually threaten some one, do you think they will not react in a negative manner?

With a xenophobia like yours, is it any wonder why a Pakistani thinks that India is not keen on dealing fairly with Pakistan.

Ciao!

BOMB STRATEGY,

Asif and Ferozk,

It is remarkable that the most virulent muslim and the refined have come up with the same antidote for a israeli like strategy from india.

I am not a great believer of technology, may be in a few years time and with adequate technology it might be possible to nuetralise pak bombs. A preemptive strike, missile defense anything is possible.

But I am disturbed by your acceptance that a middle east style peace might be the only feasible one, if the technological problem can be solved.

It is quite possible that the world is slowly coming to that conclusion, containing islamic terrorism emnating from pakistan has been recognised explicitly by india, russia, several arab countries, and the philippines.

Weapons of mass destruction are likely to fall into terrorist hands, precisely that is what will happen when the jihadists overrun the pak military. May be the rest of the world might act preemptively, a la Iraq.

regards and best wishes for the jihad to continue under the shadow of mushroom clouds.

jay.

Ferozk

I am not sure either. It might make India look like China, might make Pakistan understand India`s feeling and position better. It might make India look un-hegomonic like China :-). It might result in better understanding and hence peace. It might make it worse as will be anyone`s first guess, who knows.

Vijay

Does anybody know what`s happening in Kashmir? Both the Times of India and India Today say that the Hizb is going to start talks with the Indian government again. The latter also claims that the Hurriyat has formally split between those who want to hold peace talks with India (Lone) and those who are against it (Geelani).

Sadhana #111

Thank you for your excellent points which you raised. The point which I was trying to make was that people regularly send other people to die for their causes. Now whether that was lawful or unlawful is another argument altogether. Sending a person out do die for protection of the borders or to send a person out to die for the safeguarding of the faith, well the objective differs, but the fact remains that we HAVE sent people out to die.

As for your very pertinent point on crossing borders, Mukti Bahini in West Bengal and LTTE in Tamil Nadu, Tibetan resistance in Leh, Sikkim & Arunachal Pradesh etc. were definitely international cross border exercises. Let us also not forget Burma where the Karen rebels are being currently funded by government agencies. Anyway, both sides have and were at fault and there is nothing more to say there and examples are many where both India as well as Pakistan has merrily mucked around in different countries. I do take your point that in India, no political or religious leader can organise a group of armed men and take political mileage out of it (but the bajrang dal, ranbir sena and other groups do come dangerously close to it and they do have very strong political links).

The point which I raised about Babri Masjid was not the legality or the repercussions on the leaders. I raised that point to illustrate the grip that religion can have on a common man, which leaves him foaming at the mouth, bereft of any kind of sense, human rights, thought for the future well being of society or even national good. The actions of the mob at Babri Masjid as televised were driven by this primeval or deeply religious desire. This is what I meant by religion taking root in the psyche and over-riding other emotions. The fact that India is going after the perpetrators (high level, mind you) is extremely commendable, and even though the wheels of justice spin slowly, they do spin.

Sadhana, memsahib, I wish I was doing Pakistan a disfavour by branding the entire Pakistan as a single monolithic entity defined by ``Kashmir`` or ``dying for the faith`` or even broadly, ``Islam``. Sadhana, I wish I was wrong, but this has become the National Identity of Pakistan. Myself wishing it away is not productive nor can the rest of the educated and intellectual Pakistani`s help in this matter. Perhaps I am being too cynical here and I apologise. I am neither putting down Pakistan or even branding it, I am just observing this situation and trying to understand the implications. I would invite comments from other chowkies, am I wrong in saying this?

:) I really didn`t understand your comment ``I`m sorry, but I believe the time for gaining leverage through such a projection of the Pakistani psyche is passing rapidly.`` could you please explain?

As for your last point, Sadhanaji, I totally agree, its logically not correct at all, how the 2% can capture the rest of the 98%. Perhaps the reason is that these guys relate to a different dimension. Now, if a political party had a particular human ideology in a manifesto and it had 2% in India, well, you could logically say that it is impossible for them to control the 98%. On the other hand, you have hit upon the reason in your very next point, religion, that makes mockery of all logic. The only way out could be the arrival of the Mahdi, because when a man is being directed by God, no human agency or emotion can stand in its way.

Sincerely

bd

Jay (#77)wrote:

[quote] * *israeli model for peace.

At last there is a dawn of arab-israeli peace. This is acheived by

the complete military domination of the arabs, by reciprocating the

activities of the jihadists, but magnified several times over. As

israel withdrew from the lebanese borders, the jihadic fighters

started attacking the israelis. Several cities of lebanon were with

out power, several of the economic infrastructures were destroyed,

at last the jihadic guns are silent.

India also will have to develop a similar model. The attackes in

kashmir will have to be responded, the israeli way. The people of

india will have to be more alert and aware of the pak agents, the

terrorists. It will be a long process, there is no way out. Recent

increase in indian military spending is a step in the right direction.

Iraquisation of pakistan is the only way to secure peace with

pakistan, and israel has the experience to give the necessary

guidelines.

There is no other way the children of TNT could be taught the value

of peace. * * [endquote]

That`s an idea from a typical Hindu mind which always has and alwayz will be anti-Muslim (unless the `Muslims` are totally ``hindu-ized`` eg some well known actors with Muslim names) but it has one serious flaw: unlike Pakistan, unfortunately none of the Arab states has nukes to hit Israel with in retaliation and this total military superiority of the Israelis vis-a-vis the Arabs lets them do whatever they want in Lebanon etc.

Pakistan, though conventionally weaker than India in military terms, HAS a nuclear deterrent AND the delivery systems to reduce most Indian cities to a burning cinder. The Hindus know this and therefore will NOT do what the Israelis can do with impunity against the Arab brethren...

Re: Crypto # 104

Your analysis on Kashmir was right on! I am sorry, but you are right and I should have stressed the Kashmiri question. The best so called third option would be turning LoC into a fixed border. The present status quo would be the best option, because the others are too fraught with unforeseen implications.

Re: Sadna

I think you are trying to understand the Pakistan mind through a western/liberal educated prism. As to why the Pakistanis would not fight for political rights, there is a line from Joseph Heller`s Catch-22 which might help:

It is better to live on your knees than to die on your feet!

Yes, there is contradiction in this statement! :) Pakistan is a contradiction!

Re: RSaxena

You have your problems and we have ours! :)

Re: Amrit

I am not in the position to suggest anything! Do you think that India should change its ways?

Ciao!

The last line of my post #111 should read:

A common fact that is commonly overlooked is that the majority of Indians are also very religiously inclined. The situation only becomes explosive if religious factors are brought into politics, the struggle for basic necessities of life and international relations.

Sadhana

Sadhna #102

``Something is really inconsistent here.``

Baffled so soon.

Re: Ferozk

``As to the 5th largest country, do you think that a person who has no clean drinking water, no hopes for educating his children, who has to bribe everyone to get his TV permit renewed cares about living in the 5th largest nation in the world!``

Feroz, the same holds true for many people in India. It may be democratic and the middle-class may have a lot going for it, but what about the other half of the country who suffers exactly what you describe above? Then, going back to your orginal point, does India not have anything to lose either?

``Do you really think we want to continue living with no hope for a better tomorrow? What have we to lose?``

Oh my...I thought I dwelled on negativity but you`re worse.

bd #109, #110

Thanks for your replies.

``The politician and through them, the defence forces regularly send people to die for causes (whether willing or unwilling), whether it be in the army or it be a private (Ranbir Sena) or a religious group (Bajrang Dal, LeT, HM, etc). Quite commonplace and very well accepted in society, perhaps not said so blandly, but very common indeed.``

No defence force or government agency uses Ranbir Sena or Bajrang Dal or any other organised political entity to perpetuate violence in `rest of India`, and definately not to cross borders with arms or even threaten to do so. Those holding political office may use violence and break the law of the land, but then are identified has having done so, often though not often enough, have to face up.

And in India no politican can organise a large rally of armed men openly brandishing weapons in a major city and expect to gain any political mileage from it.

``Let me also hasten to add that to a certain extent, the same situation also exists in India (those hordes of people crawling over the babri masjid is a very visual example of religion taking over all other ``national/social`` objectives). ``

The demolition of the Masjid was an extremely unfortunate incident, but it has had nonvanishing political and legal repurcussions for the perpetuators too. The Indian Home Minister still has a criminal case pending against him as do many functionaries of the erstwhile UP government and a top level enquiry is on, which recently summoned the (now former) UP Chief Minister. Meanwhile no temple has been allowed to be built on the site.

``you can see why I say that the main rationale or psyche behind the nation has become Kashmir fixated with a willingness to die for the cause.``

I believe you are doing Pakistanis a big disfavor by considering them all part of a single monolithic entity caring for nothing but deliverance by death in the name of religion and Kashmir. If chowk Pakistanis, their level of education, what and who they write about are any indication(leaving out wellknown Pakistanis, constituting worldfamous personalities, software tycoons, best selling authors, sportsmen among others), this sort of `branding` and `putting down` is not doing Pakistan any good.

I`m sorry, but I believe the time for gaining leverage through such a projection of the Pakistani psyche is passing rapidly.

`` I believe several chowkies have already explained the difference between why these religions based parties/causes dont get more than 2% of the vote but still have a stranglehold over the nation`s politics, institutions and even economy, so I would not reiterate those arguments.``

Its still not clear how a nation of 150 million loses nothing if the wish to die by 2% has a stranglehold over it and it(the 2%) is said to be allowed to have its way.

A common fact that is commonly overlooked is that the majority of Indians are also very religiously inclined. The situation only becomes explosive if religious factors are brought into politics and the struggle for basic necessities of life.

So anyway, lets just agree to disagree, right? :-)

Sadhana

Sadhana mem sahib #106

Just when I think I have managed to get my head around your questions and comments, you go and change the question :), just kidding. I have to admit that you have raised some extremely penetrating points, ye banda uttar dene ka pryatna karega :-).

``Willing to die`` is almost synonymous with ``willing to kill``. The idea is, if you go out to die, you try to kill some ``infidels/enemies`` before you die. The issue is, its very difficult to deal with an opponent who doesn`t have any fear of death or wishes to die. I would refer you to the Kamikaze pilots and the bewilderment that the Americans experienced when faced with the pilots and the banzai suicide charges. Same with the Palestinian suicide bombers. Culture shock, so to say. On the other hand, speaking out of personal experience, people who are willing to live tend to keep away from people who have a death wish, for obvious reasons. So, as far as the referred point was concerned, willing to die is no different to willing to kill.

Now for the ``willing to send to die`` question. This is a function of leadership/politics/government/authority. The politician and through them, the defence forces regularly send people to die for causes (whether willing or unwilling), whether it be in the army or it be a private (Ranbir Sena) or a religious group (Bajrang Dal, LeT, HM, etc). Quite commonplace and very well accepted in society, perhaps not said so blandly, but very common indeed.

You may want to consider the corollary, ``willing to be CONVINCED/SENT to die`` assumes some extremely profound questions which I dont think I am capable of answering. You can see the minefields in that question.

Sincerely

bd

Sadhana #102

Thank you for your comments, you raised the ``logical or economic`` dichotomy behind my statement.

Needless to say, its not all the 150 million that I mean, but a significant number, and I suspect a majority do believe in the ``Kashmir`` issue, Jihad, and Houri`s in heaven and all that. Let me reiterate my hypothesis, Islam (or what is taught / believed in Pakistan) believes (amongst many other things and ideas) that dying for religion is much better than any other human motivation. Once you add in the potent mix of the partition, its rationale, 53 years of equally venal military and civilian rule, 4 wars, separation of Bangladesh, pathetic state of the economy, lack of opportunities, Afghanistan, etc. etc., you can see why I say that the main rationale or psyche behind the nation has become Kashmir fixated with a willingness to die for the cause. (Whether this fixation extends to hating ALL Hindu`s or eradication or whether this is Huntington`s clash coming true, I dont know, I hope not, but I dont know).

Now, for your point about these people NOT doing anything for the internal temporal (sorry Mr. Temporal for taking your name in vain :-) ) good of the country. Now, lets first see the ground realities and then try to establish the possible reasons for the same. You yourself will appreciate and confirm, as would most of the chowkies, that the chances of a common man (or woman??) actually coming out and protesting against common goods (as opposed to party political rallies etc. etc.) is abysmally low if not non-existent. First and foremost, the country didn`t really have role models (Baba Apte type role models) who selflessly devoted their time/money/energy to common man problems. That is NOT to say that there were no such role models, lets just say that they were overshadowed and overtaken by the sheer ineptitude, weaknesses and selfishness of the major institutions. Given the lack of either economic outlets or productive activity or role models or institutional strength, religion has taken over as a major outlet. Let me also hasten to add that to a certain extent, the same situation also exists in India (those hordes of people crawling over the babri masjid is a very visual example of religion taking over all other ``national/social`` objectives). Please do note that this is NOT meant as a criticism, just an observation. Dying for the faith gives them something (not going into whether this is right or wrong) to look forward to which normal life doesn`t.

I dont really see this apparent inconsistency at all. On one hand, Kashmir has become part of the nation`s psyche, which appeals to a different ``part of the brain`` so to say. On the other issues, corruption, education, economy, land reform, political reform, etc. etc. etc., there is a sense of fatalism (all too common across South Asia I am afraid) that the little man can do little or wants to, specially when they see that the movers and shakers or institutions havent done so either. Neither do they have the inclination or time nor the resources to actively do something about it, but when Kashmir is mentioned/raised, it appeals and interacts with the different ``part of the brain``. I believe several chowkies have already explained the difference between why these religions based parties/causes dont get more than 2% of the vote but still have a stranglehold over the nation`s politics, institutions and even economy, so I would not reiterate those arguments.

Again, solutions to the above have already been hashed and rehashed several times before, like education, economic opportunities etc. etc., so I will not reiterate them again. I trust I have managed to explain the reasoning behind my prior statement, Sadhana. Look forward to your comments.

Cheers

bd

RE:Sadna #106

A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it. - Oscar Wilde

Ferozk:

Let us say that China sees Tibet the same way as India sees Kashmir.

I think India sees Pakistan the same way, as China sees Taiwan. India treats Pakistan better (recognizes it as a country) then China sees Taiwan. Should India change its way?

You are right about Glass house and stones :-).

Vijay

My own post #102

On second thoughts, what if `willing to die` for a cause was substituted with `willing to kill` or `willing to send to die` ? Hmm.

Sadhana