The Asian Waltz

Re: All

Folks, please keep a civil discourse here without getting into personal slurs...if you want to get personal, please insult me and my article all you want, but please don`t call each other racial and religious names and question each others personal opinions and degrade them!

Ciao!

satish

{{Though I am very touched by your feelings for Pakistanis and muslims in general, yet your repetetive cries for arabs starting an oil embargo on India are getting a bit boring.}}

Your sarcasm is amusing. If an Indian disapproves of the behavior of his govt in Kashmir, you automatically assume I`m pro Pakistan. Interesting. At least I stirred your boredom enough to get an opinion from you.

As far as I`m concerned India & Pakistan are 2 rapists accusing each other of the same thing: ``my rape is justified, whereas your rape is disgusting``.

As long as Kashmir is not resolved, India can never achieve her ambitions to be a great economic power. Why would investors come to a region which is considered the most dangerous area in the world? Even after the much trumpetted Clinton visit, foreign investment has been much less than anticipated. Capital doesnt care about who is right or wrong; it just wants to feel secure.

There is no way you can hope achieve peace in the region unless India & Pakistan sit down at a negotiating table & start talking to each other. Youre right, I dont like the BJP. The recent offer by the Hizb-- was doomed to failure because the BJP didnt want to involve Pakistan. Right or wrong, Pakistan IS involved; so whats the point excluding them? IMHO, the BJP lost a golden opportunity.

As long as the BJP stubbornly sticks to its stand, there is no hope. The only faint hope is a foreign power twists its arm. I dont think the US/Europe/China is capable of doing that. I was wondering aloud if the Arabs could. You seem to feel they cant, even if they wanted to. Maybe youre right. I`m hoping youre not. That doesnt mean I want the Arabs to blackmail India to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan. Thats never going to happen. I`m hoping that both these countries swallow their false pride & start talking to each other.

If our respective leadership is stupid enough to think an intractable deadlock is an acceptable alternative; then I think they`ll be stupid enough to start a nuclear war--eventually. Lets start digging those bomb shelters. Aw, what the heck, lets just bend over & kiss our butts goodbye.

Ad !

Well how good the Indian Muslims turn out to be.

Yes I can see them in their massacre in Hyderabad, Kashmir, Bombay, recently Rajhastan.

We in Pakistan are happy that we are not as good Muslims as in India.

Badbu kam Karo.

AD!

I have just taken off clothes from your pavitre body and showed your real face.

What is beneath your skin is much worse.

You are spreading lies.

Which court has two non-Muslim witness. The answer to you is really Jihadis.

You are a bunch of liars.

Secularism is your shi-t. And democracy Hinduvta, which incidently is a blessing in duisguise for us.

Killing and raping of nuns, killing christians, demolishing churches. Killing Muslims, Killing Dalits.

Have you ever seen mirror.

Just go and see. And even if you are not ashamed, you are not human but Hindu.

Narain #51

You are misinformed on election results. Sind, and Punjab voted for Pakistan. I have no information on NWFP. And Baluchistan I think had no assembly, but Khan of Kallat and others opted for Pakistan.

As far as two Nation theory. It may be progressive or regressive. But Pakistan is there on that basis.

Either you accept both or nothing.

How can you claim to accept Pakistan formed on the basis of two nation theory and not the theory.

Ref: ylh #46

Just a few things that we should get clear:

1. Pakistan was a ``democratic`` right: I am not so sure about that. There have been past discussions where it has been pointed out that Punjab (?), Sindh and the NWFP all rejected the demand for a separate state by narrow margins. The only province which was unequivocally in favor of Pakistan was East Bengal, which unfortunately is no longer a part of your nation. Thus if democracy was to be the only guiding principle, there should have been no partition, or atleast not in those three states.

2. ``People like Jay make you take a hardline approach against India``: please do not kid yourself. You (as a people) are quite happy taking a hardline approach without anybody`s provocation. If it were otherwise, peace would have been restored in the sub-continent long ago. India has been ready for it for the past decade at least.

3. ``Indians do not ``accept`` Pakistan``: We have an embassy in your country, our PM goes for summits with your PM, we have entered into many agreements with your nation, and we have fought many wars with you. So how is it that we do not ``accept`` Pakistan? Believe me, we have been painfully aware of your existence for 53 years now and accept its reality. In fact, I am very happy that Pakistan exists, because it is a live example of what India should not be. Of course if you think that the only way we can confirm our acceptance of your nationhood is by gifting you Kashmir: sorry that ain`t going to happen.

And if there is something that we do not accept, it is the two-nation theory. We consider its basic premise backward, retrogressive and totally against the modern spirit. I`m sorry if our opinion does not suit you, but there it is. And that is why Kashmir is so important. To lose it would mean a defeat of secularism, democracy and the rule of law, all things that we hold dear.

-narain

Reply #: 46

ylh

``Pakistan is our problem, not yours.``

--Believe me, ylh, india would not care a rat`s ass about what kind of hell Pakistan becomes, were she not our neighbour. A failing Pakistan is bad for us and a prosperous Pakistan is in our interest. And the reason for that is quite simple. Poverty will drive these people to become Jihadis. And this will further aggravate the troubles that India already faces from you guys.

So a strong, vibrant Pakistan is in India`s interest.

You also mentioned that Paksitan was supposed to respect people of all religons. Why don`t you try saying that to your fellow Pakis ? Granted in India, some people are victims of religious intolerance. However, that intolerance is not institutionalized. The Govt. of INdia, does not have a seperate electrate for Hindus and Muslims. All people are equal under the law.

Is that the case in Pakistan ? Hell no. In courts, a muslim witness is equal to 2 non muslim witnesses. Non muslims have a seperate electorate. Since partation, the non muslim population has been shrinking into non exsistence.

And you talk about creation of Pakistan for protection of all religons.

THe only reason why Jinnah wanted Pakistan was becuase he wanted to become the first PM. Why else would an otherwise liberal Jinnah, go against the Muslim fundoos, and demand Pakistan ?If he felt that the COng rule in some provinces of India, before independence was an indication of things to come... he could have tried to change the system from within.

AFter all, look at how well the Indian muslims have turned out to be...(at least the ones who did not get a degree from the Madrassahs).

Your adamant attitude in asking people not ``advise`` people on Pakistan is well taken. I think its time, to start dictating you guys on what needs to be done.

AD

Pakistan`s foreign policy is based on BLACKMAIL and developed by minds similar to FR Khan sitting in our Foreign Office.

US does NOT like muslim fundamentalists gunning down US citizens inside the US or around the world. The US does NOT like a failing muslim nation harbouring nuclear weapons. The US does NOT like Pakistan supplying nuclear and missle technologies to radical muslim countries like libya and iran. and ofcourse the US does NOT like Pakistan to default on the 40 billion dollar of dept so that the interest returns to western banks are guarenteed.

The only logic we Pakistanis understand is the value of a THREAT to other countries`s interests, be it India or US or even our neighbour Iran.

On the streets of Pakistan and in the drawing rooms of Islamabad, people feel so excited to be a little badmash (gangster) to the Dons of the world. Often, in a street rally, a few supporters would gather and burn american or indian or russian flags and exalt in the feeling.

Rather than being a badmash, why does the country not try to be a STREET SMART??

Our concerns should be developing our human resources. Developing educational institutions, armies of scientists, enigneers and smart entreprenaurs to bring to international markets, products with added values. To be reckoned as smart guys like taiwanese, indians and malysians in the world communities, and not as dumbos.

Outside the country, who cares what pakistanis do or dont do. the Foreigners only mind the threats, and once in a while they would come in and throw some silver in the begging bowl. Take it and shut up for a few months!

This is probably the wrong place for it, but having no better place, here goes -- a friend writes :

India Today has made available what it claims is the full text of the Hamoodur Rehman Committee Report on the causes for the Pakistani debacle in Bangladesh in 1971. It is available here:

http://www.india-today.com/ntoday/extra/71war/index.html

-arun gupta

For want of a better place on Chowk - here it is the story never told in Pakistan. THE PAKISTANI REPORT - THE HAMDOOR RAHMAN REPORT ON THE THE 1971

debacle......

This is a story not told in Pakistan. A secret inquiry into the splintering of Pakistan in 1971 held army atrocities, widespread corruption, cowardice, even loose morals, among its generals in East Pakistan as prime reasons in losing the war. The Hamoodur Rahman report, obtained exclusively by NEWS TODAY`s Samar Halarnkar, has never seen the light of day—until now.

Read it on

http://www.indiatoday.com/ntoday/newsarchives/100/8/11/n12.shtml

I am serious. It is a must read for all esp the PAKISTANIS HERE. I AM SURE THSI IS WHAT RAS has been asking for all these years. Never before....not a pakistani paper not a peep from them...they didnot do read it on the abve pages

the gutless army, the butchery this for those in denial...the new post 1971 generation

To Jay,

I have just about had it with your non sense and BS about us being the ``children of the TNT`` and what not.

I don`t wish to change your views. I just have the following to say, We wanted Pakistan we got it. It was our democratic right…. Whether or not it was the right thing for us to do or not but a majority of us decided to make Pakistan and we made it … and you are no one to decide … I know I am oversimplifying the issue but maybe you should really think about getting a fresh attitude. Now we have never been a fundamentalist state and we are not going to be any time soon. Our people are Muslims but for the most part they are not fanatics. We are compelled by people like you to take a hard line approach towards India.

Pakistan is here and Pakistan is here to stay…the question is whether you Indians are going to accept it or not. I mean Jesus! this should not even be an issue … 53 years… wont you forget it now.

Pakistan though initially made to safe guard the Muslim minority but was made in essence for religious freedom for all…. I know we have fallen short of the ideal but your language is out of line …. India and its ruling Hindu Nationalists arent really the best of people either…

Now I`ll come to Kashmir … I am not even get into any justifications on any side …

The question is simple and easy …

DO THE PEOPLE OF KASHMIR WANNA BE WITH INDIA ?

I think we know the answer to that.

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

PS Please JAY spare us the BS? We will eternally grateful.

PPS To all Indians who wish to advise us about Pakistan, Pakistan is our problem not yours.

Re Shankar and the whole arab oil tamasha

Shankar, you give the Arabs too much credit for their potential powers.

Abba Ebban, the former/late Israeli foreign minister once said, ``The palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.`` We could pretty much extend that thinking to the Arab oil producing countries.

They`ve had their chances and they blew them. As Satish rightly pointed out, there are viable options that kick in once oil goes over the magic $30 dollars per barrel mark--which is why they had to pump up production and cut down the cost. If they really wanted to screw the west, they should have stabilized oil prices at around 13 to 15 per barrel so cheap gas would take the wind out of alternative energy research.

Other than than, the US sits on huge reserves which are not being exploited for environmental reasons. Soon, with new technology, such as fuel cells and hybrids, we`ll need less of their stuff which will then take them further into a spiral. And as it is, they`ve done an awful job in reinvesting the dividends of years of petroleum.

Other than that, the oil arabs are disunited and dysfunctional as a group. Case in point, the whole Iraq mess. They`re pretty much the same stock, leave alone this ummah business, but why did Iran invade Kuwait?

In about thirty years, they will slide down the scale and add to that a few violent revolutions. The whole situation is really a mirage in the desert.

Cheers

Jyoti #29

Thanks.

Satyavadi

In my electromagentics class in my undergrad; to derive boundary conditions for several cases, we would haveto consider 20 or 30 odd variables, affecting them.

To reduce the complexity of the problem; by some deft manipulation, we would assume fixed values for like 10 odd variables(oxymoronic!), remove some 10 more altogether from the equation, approximate some 5 odd and then concentrate on the remaining 4 or 5; to derive the boundary conditions for that particular case.

The author has followed the same procedure; only that the problem here is not electromagnetics, but world-politics.

Overly simplistic, confusing, convoluted and ``assumptuous``; is all I would call this article.

Satyavadi

Re: Temporal

Good one, yaar! That count is still steady!

Incidentally, the other project is coming along fine and I will send you my comments on it soon! Prelim analysis suggests that it fine as it is and the subject matter might be a problem for the bohemian crowd, but really compliments the textual narration!

Will send more input soon!

Loved the contradictions!

Ciao!

``Over the course of the last decade, India has emerged as a new power in the region of South Asia``

``The rise of India from the obscurity of a backwaters non-aligned Third World country to the threshold of the major economic powers of the world,``

``India’s rise to the status of a regional power in South Asia,``

``The United States, though its has for all practical purposes conferred upon the India the hegemonic role in South Asia``

I have problems with all the above statements of the author.

Firstly, India has always been THE pre-eminent power in South Asia. It hasnt happened now or in the last decade, it was always the reality in the last 53 years.

Secondly, US hasnt, only recently, accpeted the hegemonic status of India in South Asia. It always did. The difference now, is that unlike during the cold war, Pakistan is no longer allied to the US and neither is India to US`s rival USSR; and so US can openly admit its recognition of India as the regional power in South Asia.

India`s position as a power in the South Asian context was never in doubt. What has changed in the last decade, is that the world community has started acknowledging its potential as one of the key players in the larger Asian scenario, as a counterweight to, and a rival of China; militarily, economically and politically.

So India`s status has changed from being a South Asian power to an (or a potential) Asian power and not from a ``non-aligned third world country`` to merely a South Asian power.

====

Hegemonic intentions of China and India:

``China, like India, has hegemonic aspirations of its own, but those expectations are limited to the region of Far East and China wants to be an economic hegemon, which can rival Japan’s economic ascendancy in Asia. ``

``China’s only overtly militaristic hegemonic pressure is reserved exclusively for Taiwan, whom it considers to be a breakaway province, and other than brow beating Taipei, Beijing has no military interests in the region. ``

``China considers the Spartleys to be a disputed territory, in conflict with Vietnam and the Philippines, and is interested in annexing those islands within its own sphere of influence``

The author seems to hint, that while China aspire`s to be only an economic hegemon, India is looking for military hegemony as well. He goes on to assert how China`s military adventurism will be restricted only to Taiwan and Spartley islands which are disputed between itself and several countries of South East Asia.

By that yardstick, if China is not aspiring for military hegemony, how can India be accused of the same? After all, arent India`s territorial dsiputes, only Kashmir ( disputed between Indian and Pakistan--- China analogy: Spartley Islands) and to a much lesser extent areas lost to China in the 1962 war? (India is not even seriously pursuing the idea of getting Chinese occupied areas back).

Also India by holding on to Kashmir is maintaining the status quo unlike China, which will violate the same, were it to annex Taiwan and/or Spartley Islands.

So, to classify India as a(n) (aspiring) military hegemon and China as ONLY an economic one, based on the facts cited by the author, is not justified.

=====

I am sick of people quoting the grand old, long dead, Brit- Winston Churchill. Isnt he the same person who had once said, by giving independence to India, you will be handing over the ``subjects`` to be ruled by a bunch of thugs? That statement alone shows, how prejudiced and racist his mind was; no matter how great a war time leader, he had been for his country.