The Asian Waltz

Sadhna #136

Your spelling of definition is wrong three times in three rows (not in a row)

krashid #134

On a lighter note, if you don`t have any use for an Indian defination of democracy nor for an Indian defination of pluralism, then why ask for an Indian defination of freedom?

And btw, have any of L-e-T or J-e-Mohammad even Hizbul ever campaigned for independence of Indian and Pakistani Kashmir?

Sadhana

bd #133

Thanks for your reply. I understand your point, its a very interesting question I agree and of huge scope meriting several articles. Perhaps Indians can learn some lessons from both the good and bad experiences from the longstanding `setup` in the US and from the future Pakistani one.

From general observation mostly of others more in a position to know, I would like to point out that in India, while bureacrats at the district collector/commisioner levels do wield considerable influence in India, possibly wrt panchayats, too, they are in turn extremely vulnerable to political influence.

I am speaking mostly of middle and lower ranking bureacrats. As I understand it, these officers reporting chain of command is headed by the relevant state minister. Now if their boss, the the minister has political linkages in the local sphere of influence of a district collector, say. local political bosses are in a position to exert considerable pressure on the bureacrat. Continuity of democratic tradition has this disadvantage/ advantage, continuity of the political class and political linkages :-).

The regular practice after state ministries change hands is to transfer a number of bureacrats(usually high-ranking ). Part of the Election Commission`s code of conduct is that after elections have been announced, no civil servant can be transferred :-).

The poor public if unfortunately napping gets caught between these two groups, and exacts revenge for its local troubles during voting for the national government!!

That said I think India manages to present a lot of mutually contradictory scenarios in different places where strong cases can be made for both less and more centralized administration.

Hope to see some articles from you sharing with us your considerable knowledge on these and other subjects.

Sadhana

Sadhna#132

Instead of pointing out flaws on Kashmir freedom movement which you think is wrongly fought.

Why don`t you come up with a bright idea of how an independence movement should be fought by 6 million people in the wake of 700,000 Security personnel.

Please enlighten us on particular mode of freedom movement which can give dividend.

Sadhana

Thank you for your references, I shall check it up myself. I was actually interested in the removal of the district level bureacrat and its effect on local ``micro`` government. Based on a village level democracy, the panchayti raj concept has been well enumerated and implemented. Given the divisional commissioners and the district collector level control by the bureacracy, one wonders as to the level of power actually wielded by the panchayats vis` a vis` the district / divisional level bureacrats. I shall investigate further and hopefully will get a chance to discuss this with you.

Sincerely

bd

Feroz #129
Thanks for your reply.
Feroz, you are right, it is indeed unfortunate when religion is brought into politics, in India or Pakistan.

You say ``to understand Pakistan, you have to attempt to accept``. I urge all to attempt the same wrt India, whose very existence I find is not accepted by a number of Pakistanis, attempting to understand it and its own `dynamics`, tho door ki baat.

bd #130

Thanks for your reply.
``let me clarify that the original meaning of jihad and what passes for jihad now are chalk and cheese, and the difference between terrorism and fight for freedom is based on where you are standing.``

If `spirited Pakistanis` (the CE`s own words) want to fight for freedom, let them do it in their own country is what I say. When people from Multan, Karachi or Lahore choose to arm their compatriots and send them to `fight`. its not a fight for freedom from where anyone stands. And the defination for `freedom` going by the status of Pakistani Kashmir and many armed groups` public statements seems to be nothing but accession to Pakistan plain and simple, not my defination of freedom wherever I stand.

Anyway this newsitem from today is interesting:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/20jk2.htm
Masood Azhar banned from entering Sindh

``Pakistani authorities have stopped Masood Azhar from speaking at an anti-India rally and banned him from southern Sindh province for three months, officials said in Karachi Sunday...``

Yes, the CE`s devolution plan looks interesting. Hope to continue to hear informed comments on it on chowk forums.

In this regard a search on `Panchayati Raj` will yield some valuable material on its structure and its success/failures. Panchayati Raj is considered to have huge potential in India, mainly due to the direct financial empowerment of local bodies. States who donot hold Panchayat elections donot get a portion of their development funds from the Centre. Success/failure seems largely linked to local awareness, something that both bureacrats and NGOs have in many places helped increase with training programmes, many targetted toward women.

``http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/i_oibs/Panchayats.html``
A small bibliography on the subject

Someone provided me these URLs:
http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1708/17081200.htm
The message of panchayati raj
http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1706/17060450.htm
Democratic devolution
http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1705/17050710.htm
Rural realities in Rajasthan

A search on `Panchayati Raj` in amazon.com yielded some 40 results.

Regards,
Sadhana

Forezk #129

Good points, Sir, so true if unfortunate.

Sincerely

bd

Sadhana #128

Thank you for your compliments, does that mean that I can go back to addressing you with the honorific ``ji``?, just kidding.

Your comment: ``No, in my opinion its bad whether its silent or its `caught out`, but its worse if its flaunted in the face of the world in the form of an entitlement or a `let` such as in `jihad is not terrorism`, `inevitable dynamics of jihad`, etc. ``, I agree, jihad is not terrorism is plainly not correct. Before anybody jumps my bones, let me clarify that the original meaning of jihad and what passes for jihad now are chalk and cheese, and the difference between terrorism and fight for freedom is based on where you are standing. Sadhana, the CE (if you are referring to his quote about jihad not being terrorism) couldn`t say anything else. The CE cannot stand up to small issues such as women`s 50% participation in the councils and other issues, do you imagine him saying anything else? he would have got lynched :).

Your next point, ``But religious groups did whip up the same religious fervour in India with equally sad and predictable results.`` Which incident are you referring to, is it an international incident? Surely you are not comparing internal law and order and socio-political tussle with cross-border sponsored violence?

Most definitely not, Sadhana, i am not comparing them at all, what I am trying to say is that religion was used in both cases, where national good was over-ridden by religious based fervour. (The Babri masjid issue as compared to the jihad`s) You would also realise that as soon as religion is ``used``, national boundaries fall apart and that makes our socio-political institutions powerless to control or manage it. Let me put in another way, Sadhana, there is a strong possibility that this religious genie may get out in India as well. In many ways, it will be worse since it has a political legitimacy which Pakistan never had. In any case, i hope it does not. This is in the future, this is my opinion, and I wish i was wrong or am proved wrong.

Your other point about the ``genie``. I am as much likely to know about Pakistan or India as you, Sadhana. After all, who can claim to know about such complex societies such as Pakistan or India. On the other hand, if somebody can comment on my statement, i would love to hear and discuss with them. Perhaps they are busy with other more interesting issues? :) Discussions about GDP or number of phones or growth rates are easier, insofar as numbers are concerned. It is also easier to discuss about history. Simply because they are historical in nature and your viewpoint is as good as mine. On the other hand, discussions about religion, national psyche/identity and future directions are difficult. You see, given the rather ``unhappy`` experience with institutions in Pakistan, who does the common man turn to? the courts? the politicians? the education system? the executive? the army? the NGO`s? the businessman?, the answer comes down to religion who say, forget about all these guys, you will get your reward in your next life. (Thank you for saying that I keep out of these discussions :) ).

On the other hand, Sadhana, I would strongly recommend that you take a look at the CE`s devolution plan. If he manages to pull it off, it will be fascinating and excellent to the Pakistani state. As a matter of fact, that could very well be appropriate to India`s case as well, if not more so. The role of the bureaucracy has been relatively benign in case of India, but still can be improved dramatically. Another mailing list, which I found very interesting indeed, is the South Asian Citizens Web, to subscribe, send a blank email to act-subscribe@eGroups.com.

Sincerely

bd

Re Sadna # 128

Cross-border or internally inspired religious paens for violence is wrong. Period! I have said this before on Chowk and will do so again and that is, violence in the name of religion does not justify the fact of killing another person!

It is the misfortune of Pakistan that religion is being used to serve political ends for the few and no one can stand up against them, because they would, in toto, be against Islam as the debate in Pakistan is presently misunderstood.

Pakistan is a contradiction and to understand Pakistan, you have to attempt to accept, not understand or even rationalize, the contradiction!

We are a contradiction inside a puzzle wrapped within an irony!

Ciao!

bd #125

``As with everything else, if one does it cutely and silently, then its good, the real problem comes when one are caught out.``
No, in my opinion its bad whether its silent or its `caught out`, but its worse if its flaunted in the face of the world in the form of an entitlement or a `let` such as in `jihad is not terrorism`, `inevitable dynamics of jihad`, etc.

``But religious groups did whip up the same religious fervour in India with equally sad and predictable results.``
Which incident are you referring to, is it an international incident? Surely you are not comparing internal law and order and socio-political tussle with cross-border sponsored violence?

``It is my contention that given the national psyche of the common man in Pakistan, ``Kashmir, Islam, Pakistan`` has become inextricably linked, and NO PAKISTANI STATE BODY can do anything about it. As Feroz Saheb succinctly mentioned, that genie is out of the bottle.``

I will be really sorry if this is true, you are likely to know more about it than me. However, I quite wonder why no Pakistani chowkwallah is debating this point here with you, specially the `nothing to live for and religion to die for in defiance of all rationale` corollary :-).

Elsewhere on chowk if someone even mentions India`s per capita GDP, one gets howls of protest about putting down Pakistan in comparison. I`m wondering that if Indians are worse off than Pakistanis(I concede you have not said so yourself) and noone can expect a rational foreign policy from Pakistan with the genie and all, then why expect anything better from India, where things are worse in the sense that the leaders can do nothing without the consent of the general public? An element of wanting it both ways, here, I feel(though as I hastily repeat, not on your part, apparently).

I hope for the day when this current `fashion` ends and when the world flocks to Pakistan to recruit the talents of its people for many varied endeavours except the wrong type of IT. Thats the more constructive vision/image to project internally and externally(and the self-image matters a lot in bringing change, IMHO) and will pay off more in the long run, I sincerely believe.

Sadhana
PS: I do appreciate your innate courtesy and patience :-).

Re: Sac

Sorry yaar! I over looked your question!

Taiwan-China relationship is an interesting one and I am still ``reading``, but till China incorporates Taiwan into the mainland, China will be prone to an adventurist role in Asia. As to the Americans, it is more tricky, because they do acknowledge one China policy, because in 1974 USA agreed to this policy in lieu of the opening of its ties with Beijing. The Americans want Taipei to keep China pre-occupied and it will be interesting to see how this develops!

Are you in the IR business to?! :)

Ciao!

Re:Pankaj # 123

I did not suggest war as an option. I was saying that actions which cause misunderstanding and lead to war have to be avoided! Military option is not a viable option!

Agree on the LoC suggestion!

Ciao!

Sadhana #124

I have to apologise if you felt that I was being sarcastic towards you by appending the honorific ``ji`` to your name, it was my intention to be polite and respectful, ah! well, the best laid plans of mice and men and all that. Onwards and upwards with the discussion, i say. :)

The issue, as we were discussing, was how religion can have a very strong hold on a human`s psyche, and I explained that with reference to the jihadis in Pakistan as well as the Bajrang Dal and its compatriots in Ayodhya. I presume that you do agree with me on that issue that religion can overshadow normal human rights, national ``good`` and human development. You raised some examples and I raised some about government sponsored international terrorism. You as well as I agree that India as well as Pakistan has been involved in that. Whether it has been more or less, is a relative matter. Proxy wars are cheaper in the short run than all-out wars, and in the long run we are all dead. As with everything else, if one does it cutely and silently, then its good, the real problem comes when one are caught out. So that settles that point.

Now comes the point that Pakistan is using the same religious fervour to whip up religious sentiments to gather Kashmir into the fold of Pakistan while India did not do that. But religious groups did whip up the same religious fervour in India with equally sad and predictable results. Same concept, different countries. I do believe that the essential difference between your point about ``leverage`` and it being an excuse/argument and my point that its a fact and we have to deal with it is the following. It is my contention that given the national psyche of the common man in Pakistan, ``Kashmir, Islam, Pakistan`` has become inextricably linked, and NO PAKISTANI STATE BODY can do anything about it. As Feroz Saheb succinctly mentioned, that genie is out of the bottle. You may think that this is leverage or an argument, I tend to see it as a fact. For India to succeed in containing the Kashmir issue, it has to be a combination of military skills / economic development on the ground as well as a judicious amount of political/diplomatic effort on the domestic and international circuit. India also has to manage the dichotomy between professing a belief in secularism and the rise of religious based organizations in society. As for Pakistan, as I mentioned, I am extremely doubtful whether any state body or institution can control the aforementioned situation. One can hope, but one cannot see how this can be controlled in the short term. A convenience or not, it is here to stay.

Cheers

bd

bd #117

I havenot forgotten the international cross-border exercises you mention, I don`t know about Burma. But if one looks at the issue as government encouragement of popular involvement of its own citizens in cross-border violence and using it as leverage against the targetted country, the LTTE episode comes closest but still not close enough. The Indian government may have encouraged covert support of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu, politically and wrt arms, funds and as a refuge for Sri Lankan Tamil activists, violent or otherwise, but did the Indian government at any time encourage any group of INDIAN citizens to actually and openly organise itself and go wield arms against the Sri Lankan Army. Did India use a thriving cottage industry of its own armed citizens as leverage while `pursuing peace` with Sri Lanka? Was a stated goal of any Indian group of citizens, ever accession of foreign-held territory in common with the government`s goals? If anything, welcome or unwelcome(and things have changed 180 degrees now)the Indian Army was ultimately sent to disarm the former protege, LTTE.

And tell me of one gathering of Bajrang Dal or any other organisation in a major Indian city where arms were brandished against another Indian entity, let alone another country? Also, has any state action been ever taken `in national good` against `jehadi` activity in Pakistan? (religion leaving so many citizens in your words `foaming at the mouth, bereft of any kind of sense, human rights thought for the future well being of society or even national good`). Or is it like women`s rights and Islam, the principle not even professed and the practice unfortunately invisible, but everyone still self-congratulatory?

Thats what I meant by leverage. I`m guessing its worth a lot of money(millions of dollars and the world`s disinclination to `isolate` or even take punitive steps) to project Pakistan as half-a-step away from being swept away by zealots. Who am I to get in the way of this? The part which sticks in the gullet is trying the same argument with Indians. `We are in this great mess, so you have no real alternative but to grant us our point or we will go under`. `War is inevitable if you oppose our willing-to-die jehadis having free rein of Kashmir, and see, we can do nothing about them even in Pakistan, the only way out is India stop obstructing our aims`.

All I say to this argument is `very convenient` :-)

Sadhana

PS: Do please drop the `ji`, we are all fellow-acronyms here and I sense sarcasm :-).

Re Mr Ferozk

I think that the war between India and Pakistan can not decide the fate of Kashmir. It will only cause further bloodshed, deepening of hatred between people and push us years behind in the development race. The scenario has become even more scary since both the countries have nukes.

So lets leave that option out.

I remember you once suggested that LoC should be made the permanent border between the two countries. I would rather agree with that. Also the parts of Kashmir which are in India and Pakistan can be given greater autonomy. They can be made independent in all repects except defence, Communications, and foreign policy.

I do not think that there is a future of an independent Kashmir. First of all, its creation is fraught with all kinds of power conflicts which may mar its inception. Secondly it has got a very stragetic location between India, Pakistan,China and Russia. So India or Pakistan would not like to part with it. Thirdly, it has very meagre economic resources to support it and as such it will have to look to the other countries for help. This may give other powers a chance to interfere in the region and give rise to a potentially explosive situation. Indian Kashmir collects only Rs 800 crore as revenue and the Central Govt provides it around Rs 3000 crores to meet its basic needs. Fourthly if ever it is created it will only be a weak military state which is landlocked. Economically there does not seem ample proof that it will be stable or its people will prosper. Except for tourism no other major buisness thrives there and also it does not have a port facility.

So in my view, LoC should be accepted as an international border and then we should start work on a war scale to develop our own countries. We could not participate in the industrial revolution because we were a colony. The time beckons us to participate in a knowledge revolution, else we will again be thrown in the dustbin of history as a third world people.

Cheers

Ref: Asif #116

``That`s an idea from a typical Hindu mind which always has and alwayz will be anti-Muslim``

By the way, just how many Hindus do you actually know to be able to come to this conclusion?

And I guess you personally, as a muslim, have been spreading religious amity and peace all around?

-narain

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

Kudos to you Feroz, for the sheer hardwork and thoughts you have put into writing this piece. It really took a lot of my time assimilating all of it... Most of the tidbits of information that you have provided on your way to putting together your `hypothesis` are, in fact, facts... to quote one example, its a fact that the state of indigenous military research and development is one of the major impediments facing india to realize her ambition of becoming a wider regional military power...rhetoric notwithstanding, it would be quite long before India realizes her ambition...

That aside, i do have serious problems comprehending some of your derivations. You hypothize that ultimately India and Pakistan might be forced by their respective mentors to settle in for the third option vis-a-vis kashmir. you seem to have hastened into this conclusion without backing it up with a compelling arguement as to why this should be the case...(it could be that i missed some point). you haven`t enumerated all available options ; your arguements as to why the other prominent options might fall through are either weak or non-existing... this stands out in stark contrast to the elegant manner in which your logic flows with respect to most other points...

on a relative scale, would it not be easier to ``force`` india and pakistan to settle for a solution wherein the LoC would be converted to international border than to ``force`` them to cough up thier respective parts of kashmir to create an independent entity ?

In the first case above, it would not be hard - for the US - to ``pressurize`` india into accepting this arrangement... the only effort required would be in `bringing` Islamabad around into accepting this arrangement... this might have a favourable fallout on sino-indian border dispute too: india might quietly discard its claims on aksai chin for a reciprocal offer from china on Arunachal Pradesh... (True, this line of reasoning has its own share of ifs and buts, but at least on paper it looks viable, which is an essential prerequisite for contemporary political solutions...)

Compare and contrast this with the option wherein an independent kashmir has to be thrust down the throats of india and pakistan... well, i don`t have to elaborate, but the path that would lead to it will be anything but extremely painful for ALL the powers involved.

(It is in this context i am very surprised that the indian leadership is not making ANY noise about ``recovering`` the part of kashmir under the control of pakistan... though it could be attributed to indian restraint, it might boomerang on india herself... For IF a final solution to kashmir is to be reached wherein the loc would be converted to an international border - certainly an international intervention would proceed in that direction - pakistan could stall it on the pretext that india had conceded nothing in the bargain... )

Ref Umairr #: 96

You say {I think a good example of this would be an analysis of the armed forces` build-up of the two countries. India`s armed forces are offensively inclined, specifically targeting Pakistan. Pakistan`s armed forces are defensively oriented; specifically to defend against an attack from India.}

I still haven`t got an answer on what defensive operations the Pak army was conducting on October 24, 1947, in Baramulla.

You say {India regularly augments its Pakistan-specific offensive weapons. Pakistan always reacts to this with a build-up of defensive weapons to counter the Indian offensive. All of this is well-documented.}

Who built up its arms inventory between 1947 and 1962, India or Pakistan? Who joined anti-Communist blocs such as CENTO and SEATO and received US arms for use against Communists and used them for other purposes? Who started the 1965 war? (Remember Operation Gibraltar?)

You say {A look at the current (and previous) increases in the Indian military budget, along with the sizes of the two militaries with respect to external threats, as well as the offensive-defensive ratios of their armament, will prove this.}

Is it true that the Pak Army is twice the size of what it was in 1971 even though you have only half the territory to defend?

You say {A lot of the above has to do with the size of the two countries with respect to each other. Bigger countries are almost always more offensive towards smaller countries, than vice versa. And bigger communities are almost always more offensive towards smaller communities, than vice-versa.}

Come on, Umairr. Let us all admit that there has been one noble exception to this general rule and it is called China. They have been ever so gentle in their treatment of their Uighur (Muslim, in case you have forgotten that, in your fervent desire to see justice done for the Kashmiris) minority and want nothing but the best that Communism has to offer for Taiwan, no matter that Taiwan has been free of Beijing`s control since 1895 (when it was occupied by Japan). And how can anyone forget their civilizing mission in Tibet? However, they have been wantonly attacked by smaller neighbors such as India, Vietnam, and even their territories such as the Mischief Reef and the Spratley and Paracel islands are being disputed by the small but mighty Philippines.

Umairr, don`t justify the size of the Pak Army and its nuclear weapons on its giant neighbor (code word for India). You guys don`t need any justification for running your country the way you (or your army) see fit and certainly you owe no explanation to Indians. But have the intellectual honesty not to spread around manure here; it will be more useful and efficacious in your garden.

Re: Pullu

Thanks...I will hold you to that! :)

Re: Inyourface

What has a Pakistani to lose? There is no future here, people commit suicide to get out of their miserable lives each day! 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!

Do you really think we want to continue living with no hope for a better tomorrow? What have we to lose? If you know something, please enlighten me! This is not about religion; death is preferable, because living is hell and we would, if given the chance, try to escape from this hell as best as we can! There is no future, there is only a night which never seems to end!

* * * * * *

I was not defending China per se! China views Tibet in the same terms India sees Kashmir. Are you willing concede, as you would wish China to, that Tibet is disputed territory and its occupation is unjust? Just take all the points you have raised about China`s attitude towards Taiwan and ask the same questions, but subsitute the word ``China`` for India`` and tell me what your answer is! People in glass houses should not throw stones! :)

Ciao!

bd #99

``You asked a very good question, why has a country of 150 Million people got nothing to lose?. Perhaps one of the reasons is religion, where dying for the faith is an integral part of the psyche and people are well rewarded post death. As is it, life really doesnt offer them that much, does it?``

bd, correct me if I am wrong but something is not quite consistent here. 150 million people with nothing to lose and willing to die for their faith where Kashmir is concerned(or say 10,000 in Karachi), but none to do so solely for Pakistan`s internal good where they do have something to lose?

No one really wishes to even hold a single political rally on any issue concerning Pakistanis issues except Kashmir? No one is willing to challenge the government order banning political party rallies and their participation even in important upcoming elections, all the more important because of the major accompanying changes in administrative heirarchy but all are willing to `die` for religion.

And if general elections were held none of these `worth dying for` religious causes would win even 2% of the vote?

Something really really inconsistent here.

Sadhana

Ferozk #re 90

Sorry Yaar! My intention certainly WAS to carry out an autopsy on your lovely article.

Par Kya Karen...This ``time``. I have a problem with ``Time`` and ``Female``. Never seem to have enough of them. .......

You say future generations might leave partition behind. But seeing our generation I wonder If we can trust the coming ones` with so arduous a task. How many in our generation have seen or felt the pangs of death and separation! But look at the passion involved. It could get worse.

In this context I must re-emphasise what Sri Vajpayi said on Aug 15(yesterday)

We can`t go back to History and undo something.

53 Years have gone by. You wanted Pakistan, we did not want it.You got it.

You wanted kashmir, We didn`t want to part with it. I am not trying to justify anything.

But the fact of the Matter is, everything is Alive as though it all happened a few years ago. People speak with authority on Mr.Jinnah and Sardar Patel here, as if they walked miles with them. Irony!

I would love to be optimistic but am pragmatic enough, not to thrust our failures on another

generation. Wishing them best of Luck and hoping for the best.

Your article was a good read and good one to write posts on. Better than some of the other unsubstantiated emotional spillovers.

Pullu

p.s. get the number of U`s in my name :)

Ferozk #re 90

Sorry Yaar! My intention certainly WAS to carry out an autopsy on your lovely article.

Par Kya Karen...This ``time``. I have a problem with ``Time`` and ``Female``. Never seem to have enough of them. .......

You say future generations might leave partition behind. But seeing our generation I wonder If we can trust the coming ones` with so arduous a task. How many in our generation have seen or felt the pangs of death and separation! But look at the passion involved. It could get worse.

In this context I must re-emphasise what Sri Vajpayi said on Aug 15(yesterday)

We can`t go back to History and undo something.

53 Years have gone by. You wanted Pakistan, we did not want it.You got it.

You wanted kashmir, We didn`t want to part with it. I am not trying to justify anything.

But the fact of the Matter is, everything is Alive as though it all happened a few years ago. People speak with authority on Mr.Jinnah and Sardar Patel here, as if they walked miles with them. Irony!

I would love to be optimistic but am pragmatic enough, not to thrust our failures on another

generation. Wishing them best of Luck and hoping for the best.

Your article was a good read and good one to write posts on. Better than some of the other unsubstantiated emotional spillovers.

Pullu

p.s. get the number of U`s in my name :)

InYourFace #95

You asked a very good question, why has a country of 150 Million people got nothing to lose?. Perhaps one of the reasons is religion, where dying for the faith is an integral part of the psyche and people are well rewarded post death. As is it, life really doesnt offer them that much, does it?

Cheers

bd

Re: krashid

I have espasal blessed liquor which doesn`t smell. What do you say? You can dress up like a beatnik, ruffle your hair, and meet me at Washington Sq Park. I`ll even throw in a kebab from that little Persian place around there. You`ll be in heaven I tell you.

RSaxena #86

Hai Allah, Ram, Buddha Asaiy Boliay Na.

When are you inviting for heroine Party. (inviting police party for raid also)

I think I would prefer Heroine over Liquor.

Liquor smells too much.

#94: ``I agree Indians think Pakistanis are more violent.``

This is a subjective topic at an individual level. Everyone`s experience will be different. Personally, I have found Pakistanis to be more aggressive (perhaps borderline violent) as compared to Indians. Individual Indians seem quite mild mannered, and don`t seem too aggressive; infact not aggressive at all.

However, at a community and public and national level, my personal experience is that Indians are more attacking, aggressive (and bordeline violent) as compared to Pakistanis.

I think a good example of this would be an analysis of the armed forces` build-up of the two countries. India`s armed forces are offensively inclined, specifically targeting Pakistan. Pakistan`s armed forces are defensively oriented; specifically to defend against an attack from India. India regularly augments its Pakistan-specific offensive weapons. Pakistan always reacts to this with a build-up of defensive weapons to counter the Indian offensive. All of this is well-documented. A look at the current (and previous) increases in the Indian military budget, along with the sizes of the two militaries with respect to external threats, as well as the offensive-defensive ratios of their armament, will prove this.

Another example of Indians being more aggressive at the community level are the attacks on Pakistan from the Indian organizations in the USA. Indian organizations in the USA generally target Pakistan first, and not vice versa. Examples of this are the efforts to stop Clinton from visiting Pakistan, and attempts to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state etc. Pakistani organizations generally come into existence to counter these Indian offensives, and are generally themselves defensive in nature, i.e ensuring that Clinton did visit Pakistan, but not attempting to stop him from visiting India, etc.

A lot of the above has to do with the size of the two countries with respect to each other. Bigger countries are almost always more offensive towards smaller countries, than vice versa. And bigger communities are almost always more offensive towards smaller communities, than vice-versa. On an individual level in a violent scenario, the individuals of smaller communities tend to be more aggresive than individuals of bigger communities; because smaller communities face a larger threat from bigger communities than vice versa.

FerozeK #90:

``Pakistan will enter that war with a Masada complex, because we have nothing to lose, but India has everything to lose.``

How? Why? Why a country of 150 million people (fifth biggest country in the world) has nothing to lose?

F.R.Khan,

1)China is erring in Tibet...but not hegomony.

2)China was not internally stable in 1962 so cannot be hegomonic. (When do u think India was internally stable, and when did it go hegomonic? Whatever you mean by internally stable.)

3)China just wants Taiwan.

Interesting arguments, to defend China. You seem so balanced, I am surprised at your determination to defend China (or may be accuse India of hegomony). (I am not saying China is hegemonic, only saying that India has even less desires than China. India treats Pakistan better than China does Taiwan. China get respect for their miltary power and there power is taken for granted, so it might not be visible to its friends.)

An example of Indian Hegemony you give is nuclear doctorine. Do you think France is hegemonic too?

Sometime (foolishly in the eyes of others) a country (as I think is the case in France too), tries to use miltary power for social equality/importance, when it feels (rightly or wrongly) that it is not being respected because it is not strong. This is not hegemony. I cannot expect you to understand or agree with this, but I had to try. Though I am not a politician and milatary personnel, I think I know India enough to be sure about it.

I agree Indians think Pakistanis are more violent. Even one my Muslim friend thinks that muslims are more violent. I don`t think like that. But I do think, that Pakistanis tell themselves that they are more agressive and violent. So what do you think others will think about Pakistan? I think the above totally stupid, as human beings are same everywhere, there are agressive and soft people everywhere. (Indeed I have defended Pakistan on occasions when they were portrayed as violent). I think that before other can think good about Pakistan, they should correct the image they have of themselves.

It is nice thing to look balanced but if one is more at fault, it should be said so. Truth should be upheld at the cost of looking biased.

Vijay

scout #91
Notice a scroll bar on the right? I`ve found it very useful.

re ferozk #90:

I find your grasp of Asian affairs admirable. I am curious to know your thoughts regarding China and Taiwan in the coming years and how would it impact the global economy. An intern of mine did some research on the subject recently but I have still to form any solid conclusions of my own. Its one of the most fascinating modern historical puzzles I`ve come across in a while. I am particularly interested in scenarios whereby the US grows more militant in its attitude towards China or how is its relationship with the two effected by a Republican victory in November. Thanks.

later

-sac

sadna, rsaxena, etc etc.....

Why are you guys so obsessed about Pakistan? It`s getting redundant and boring. Write about something else.

Live and let live.

You have your problems we have ours. Kapeeshhhh.

Happy Rakhshabandhan to you too sadna.

Wish I had a brother to tie a rakhi on (and get money and protection) :)

with luv,

scout

Re: vijayamrit # 82

As to my opinion about the Sino-Indian war of 1962, I think it was not hegemonic, either for China or India, as much as it was a result of an irredentist claims over undefined border delineations. At that particular point in time, China was coming out of a bitter break up with the Soviet Union and was flirting with the idea of Mao’s Cultural Leap and was not, thus, internally stable enough to aspire for a hegemonic role. Also, Chinese economy did not take off till Deng’s reforms in the 1980s. Either did India, in 1962, have the means to be a hegemonic power, though Nehru wanted India as a fulcrum between the First World (US and W. Europe) and the Second World (Soviet Union and E. Europe). The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was more likely as a result of circumstantial misunderstandings than anything else.

In international law, as status quo, determines the territorial claim by the virtue of which country is in possession of a said piece of territory. Having said this, Tibet is for all effective purposes considered to a part of China and though the Chinese may be lambasted for their role in Tibet, the reality is that morality has nothing to do with convincing the Chinese to amend their erring ways in Tibet. International law cannot decide the fate of Tibet unless the political leaderships of Tibet and China settle this issue through bi-lateral, if necessary through tri or multi-lateral, discussions. The case of East Timor is a valid one in this sense, because independence for East Timor came, not as result of United Nations’ resolutions, but because the Indonesians, a party to the conflict, agreed to hold a referendum on the issue of East Timor’s future.

I think, and thank you for raising this point, that the Indian-Chinese perceptions of an Asian ascendancy have more to do in economic terms than in purely political calculations. In one of my earlier posts, I had asked people not too view this relationship within the context of South Asia, but within a larger Asian framework. Yes, military might and force projections are important in preserving ones’ economic interests, but they should be seen in the context of economic rationales. In the present integrated global economy, wars will be the continuation of a nation’s economic policies by other means. Unfortunately, most people chose to ignore the economic implications and opted to concentrate only on the perceived military indicators measuring Sino-Indian intentions.

I have to make this point clear that political hegemony is often a result of economic compulsions than it due to a desire for political aggrandizement. Political hegemony, or super power status, flows from a nation’s relative economic strength and cannot be attained from purely military mean; the case of the Soviet Union, in the period of 1945-1991, would a good example, because the Soviet Union collapsed politically due to its economic insolvency to continually compete with the American economy. Thus, the Sino-Indian Asian intercourse must be seen in economic terms with the use of military force projection as a necessary ancillary in the attainment of their economic objectives.

As to the fourth part of your question, the answer lies in the perceptional distortions, which sadly plague both Pakistani and Indian notions of reality. In a similar sense, not all Pakistanis are jehadis or terrorists, as the Indian media seems to claim. In many ways, the greatest obstacle in improving Indo-Pak relations is the lack of reality in our attempts to seek a middle ground, because we have became so accustomed to extremist rhetorical justifications of diametrically opposed views, that we have started to believe our own peculiar creations of the other’s historic and political personas and we cannot break out of this self-perpetuating myopia. The fallacy of perceptional misunderstandings exists on both sides of the international demarcation and is not inclusive of just one side only!

Concerning your fifth part, the simple answer is none of the above. Pakistani politics and Pakistani raison d’ etat have always been India-centric. The last 53 years of Pakistani history have been an attempt to define Pakistan as a viable counter-point to India in everything and to blindly follow India specific policies at the cost of everything else. If India disappears, how is Pakistan going to define itself? I think a better answer would that Pakistan is concerned about India’s unity for the sake of its own political unity!

Jay # 77

I would caution you from employing the Israeli experience in Lebanon in the context of South Asia, because firstly, Lebanon has no nuclear weapons and there is no danger of a small tactical engagement escalating into a nuclear as it will happen in case of Kashmir if India opts for a military solution to the Kashmiri problem. The tragedy of the Kashmir problem is that it is a political problem and both sides are trying to solve it via application of military force.

Secondly, the political dynamics of Kashmir-South Asia are vastly different from Israel-Lebanon-Middle East and it is highly unlikely that the Indian military actions in Kashmir against the jehadi groups will not lead to full-scale war in South Asia. If there is a war with India, which I hope will never happen for the sake of a billion plus people, Pakistan will enter that war with a Masada complex, because we have nothing to lose, but India has everything to lose.

Jay, you are intelligent person, which is why I am always surprised by your latent xenophobia when it comes to Pakistan. Could you care to enlighten me as to where this xenophobia of yours towards Pakistan stems from?

One more point; it is quite safe to be an arm chair tactician and urge sacrifices for the nation, but it is another thing to actually die for ones own country! Will you be encouraging the dying only or would you be willing join the Indian forces and put your money where your mouth is if the situation warrants it?

I think that Sac was right in the sense that it is mindless xenophobic idle chatter such as yours and others from Pakistan, which inflames the hatred on both sides of the fence. After May 13 and 28, 1998 we need to be partial more towards common sense in our mutual relations than towards emotionalism!

Re: Krashid # 74



The Americans will never sacrifice Israeli interests to keep the Arab world happy and to think otherwise would be nothing short of a utopian fallacy. Arab influence did not force the Israelis to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, but the Israeli political will, which no longer could justify its military presence in Lebanon in political terms.

Also, the majority of the American oil is imported from the Canada and from Alberta, where there is plenty of oil and American dependency on Middle Eastern oil is less than it was 20 years ago!

Rsaxena # 73

Would you agree that India would be better off economically without a threat of war over Kashmir and that foreign investments in India would much more safer?

I think that Shankar should have instead asked the question of whether foreign investors coming to India to whether they feel that their investments are really safe. There is no denying the fact that India is a economic beacon to worldwide investors, but wouldn’t you agree that India could attract more investment if there was peace in South Asia?

Re: Ras

Thanks for your comments!

Re: Pankaj # 60

Good points…we will just have to wait and see!

Re: Umairr # 57

I did not comment on the role of the Russians or the Europeans, because I wanted to keep this article limited to the quadrant of China, Pakistan, India and the United States.

Re: JamshedN # 49

Thank you for your brilliant insight into my mind!

The article was not an excuse for black mailed based foreign policy options, but merely an attempt to discern some trends in the current politics of Asia and of South Asia. In case you missed the observation, the point of the article, referring to Pakistan, was that Pakistan has very limited foreign policy options, because all its foreign policy options stem from domestic considerations and those consideration are based on the principle of confrontation; status quo in international relations favors compromise and not confrontation!

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that my conclusion was that the Chinese and the Americans would foster the economic conditions you seem to advocate which would discourage the policies of “threat” in South Asia!

Re: Satyavadi # 43

IR is not like an electromagnetic theory; it’s more fluid, because you have to deal with the human elements and that is always tricky. I guess, papers in your field will also look as confused, convoluted and a waste of time, reading wise, to me also! The idea was to narrow the scope and limit the analysis to a few points and not do a “mission policy statement/thesis” as you seem to suggest!

Prior to this year, when was the last time when the Americans accepted the Indian reality of being primus inter pares and said so? During the Cold War, at Partition or any other date since then? India , in the past 53 years, was never officially certified as a power by the Americans as it was recently. Also, thanks for validating my thesis that India is being used by the Americans as political, economic and military leverage against China!

Still, thank you for reading this and taking the time to post your comments!

Re: Solitude # 36

I just relapsed into my IR mode and afterwards when I was doing the editing, did the IR nature of the first paragraph become evident! I am not a “bean counter”. My background and work experience is IR related and I guess, that most IR terms would be too banal for the average person.

Re: Vicky # 33

China’s modernization program is based on four things; economy, industrialization, agriculture and defense. China realizes that Americans have a nasty habit of attaching political considerations to their wheat sales and if given the opportunity, it would like to lessen its dependence on western sources for its basic food grains. Whether you agree or not, land is priceless in China, because it use has to be decided between urban/economic growth and for agricultural use. Feeding its growing population will be a huge problem for China in the future and its effects could have a profound influence on its internal security concerns.

China is looking after its own self-interests and thus, your analogy of a beggar with stock options, though sardonic, is just another poor attempt at trivialization! Better luck next time!

Re: mcgupta # 31

Chinese pressure is intended for Taiwan exclusively. In each case, I tried to see the “issue” from the perceptions of a given nature and since China considers Tibet to an internal matter and it considers the other conflicts you mentioned as, “necessary side shows”, it’s real aim, for which its defenses are being upgraded are to brow beat Taipei into accepting the one China policy.

To get Taiwan back has been the foci logica of the Chinese foreign policy for a long time and other conflicts, which you rightly mentioned, will not force China to lessen its efforts or distract it from its political intention of incorporating Taiwan into the Chinese mainland.

Re: Alia # 30

Thank you for your comments.

I never said that the Sino-Pakistani was real; what I was suggesting that it is going to a quid pro quo relationship. For Pakistan to become a Chinese protégé, it will have to undergo a massive over hauling of its domestic policies and become more stable and less prone to “adventurism”. Rest assured, there will be a cost to all of this!

As an aside, I think that most Chowkwallahs just scanned the article and read what they wanted to and drew their conclusions accordingly. I do not blame them, given its tedious length, but I think that on a closer, less nationalistically passionate, reading they will find a different interpretation.

Re: Narain # 24

Narain, I am glad that you asked those questions.

The reason that makes China an economic hegemon in comparison to India being a military one is in the perceptions of their politicians. The politicians in New Delhi see India’s military power augmenting its economic strength and in their use of their military force projections to influence the events in their favor. Now there is nothing wrong with this approach in IR, but India more than China see its nuclear weapons as a stepping stone to great power status and hence, the reference to the French force d’ frappe doctrine in Indian policies after May 13, 1998. I would suggest that you re-read how the French sought to employ their force d’ frappe and for what reasons and I am sure the difference will become clear.

China is relying more on its economic potential to leverage political influence and not on its military whereas, India is more apt to use its military to reinforce its great power status in IR.

As to the center-periphery issue, by that my intention was to refer to the bureaucratic control of New Delhi, which still opts for direct control and no matter how many states you create in India, but if the bureaucracy refuses to relinquish power, from the center to the periphery, then the argument still holds validity about a sense of alienation in the states. I should have clarified my assertions in this sense and for any misunderstandings thus caused, I take full responsibility.

Again, there was a reason why I included a paragraph on the French nuclear doctrine of force d’ frappe. I think most people just glossed over the details as to why certain things were happening. For everything I have said, I have given a historic rationale for it and if you would just re-read the article, I am sure you will find the answers you were looking to your questions! Also, I do apologize for the fact that most people would have found the historic backgrounds to certain analysis as boring and might not have been aware of them, that is why I would highly recommend a second reading of the article if time permits such a luxury!

Re: Pallu # 23

Where is the critique? You have just taken a thread or two from the article and have based your “taking apart of the article” theme on that! I was accepting more from you, but you disappointed me!

As to your contention about forgetting Partition, it is feasible in the sense that as the partition generation dies and the new generations replaces them, they will not have the living memory of Partition and thus, will see it more as a historical fact than a personal experience. Once that happens, there is hope that we, as nations, can move beyond the policies of hate and rancor and so my friend, there is always hope, but unfortunately it will not happen in our life times.

The present tête-à-tête of hate, though an offshoot of the partition, has more to do with a particular vision of confrontation and intractability to compromise and it is fueled for domestic political reasons in both the nations.

As to the economic reasons, you have to ask yourself the question can India jeopardize its economic growth for the sake of its historic animosity for Pakistan? Can India afford to risk its economy in a crisis with Pakistan? India, in an economic sense, has more to lose in a perpetual state of conflict with Pakistan.

Pakistan has no options, but to agree to such a Carthaginian peace, because its sovereignty, and by implication its foreign policy, has been already mortgaged to its donor nations. Recently, the IMF announced a policy under which the IMF will not financially support nations that support terrorism. Since Pakistan is an aid economy, it cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds it. The only question is whether the Indian leadership realizes the fact or not that it has more to lose than to gain by allowing a state of confrontation to continue with Pakistan.

Re: Shankar # 19

He, who places faith in the Arabs, builds on sand only to weep his misfortune!

In case I missed someone, please let me know! Again, thank you to all who contributed to this discussion!

Ciao!

sac #80

I always feel optimistic after one of your posts and I would rather be optimistic than pessimistic :-).

The pessimistic take on all this is that with TNT taken as fundamental premise, many good things are prevented from happening both internally and externally, including resurgence of the middle class which you rightly say is very important.

Even a dynamic political class of moderate Pakistanis may be always asked to prove itself against this premise. Whether demanding equality and need for justice to all citizens without regard to the exact shade of their religious faith or the prospect of eventual peaceful coexistence with India on any terms, both could be made to look like a sellout wrt the same `fundamental premise` of the Pakistani state.

The optimistic take is that if Pakistan does well economically and stays free of conflict, both internal and external, TNT can be allowed to become a dinosaur(as I think someone said a while ago on chowk).

Sadhana

PS:With a different level of urgency, I would love to ask VHP/RSS/Shiv Sena enthusiasts the same question:``are you saying one country cannot afford to believe in universal justice and equality even for all its own citizens while the other exists?``

PPS: Happy Rakshabandhan to all chowkwallahs!

Re: krashid

Oh and one more thing, go have a drink. It will help you think through what I just wrote.

Re: krashid

``You bypassed my question. Can a person not do drugs and even then be a liberal?``

Jesus Christ..Allah...Ram..Buddha!!! learn to read dude! It is the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE which matters, not the choice itself. Not everything is as simple as an inverted onion or right-side up onion. Take an english class on reading, writing, and most importantly, thinking.

Re: sac

``Personally I find the younger Indian generation to be more xenophobic than its equivalent Pakistani counterparts. What do you think?``

Try Pakistan-o-phobic, not xenophobic. And for good reason too, what with 30,000 youngsters in Pakistan chanting for Jehad on India on your TNT Celebration Day festivities. And that number is straight from the Associated Press...size of crowd at Lashkar-e-Terrorist rallies.

RSaxena!

You bypassed my question. Can a person not do drugs and even then be a liberal?

And what if society curbs drugs? Is it going against liberalism.

Or limit of liberalism end on alcohol, but not drugs.

Considering the same ill effects of alcohol as drugs, why not liberalism end before alcoholism rather than before drugs.

Points to ponder for you.

As far as inverted onions and all BS, I know how much you are liberal.

Liberal only to drink.

Re: All

I will have a summary of my response to all the questions asked soon and in case the article slys off into the back pages, please keep checking for my replies!

Thank you all for taking the time to read this behemoth! All your comments were welcomed and appreciated and I realize that most of you raised a few valid points in questioning this article. I hope that my replies will satisfy your questions.

Next I promise you keep my articles short, but then again, promises are meant to be broken... :)

Ciao!

FR

Some of the points I had was:

1)What is your opinion about India-China war 1962? China was hegomonic? India was hegomonic or a matter of circumstance.

2)How come you understand China`s view on Taiwan, Tibet (u did not mention Tibet), but not India`s?An actual comparision between China and India`s view I think would be if India treats Pakistan like China treats Taiwan. This makes me feel India is better than China. Your comments? (FYI, South Chienese and North Chinese don`t understand each other spoken language even if they have the same written language. I ASSUME tibet will have a different language than Chinese. China`s position is being understood and India is asked to be divided for a simple reason.. China is powerful).

3)Britishers did not rule India for a year or two. They were here for almost 90 years. How long should one country be united? (now add 50 years after independence it is 140 year, boundary may not be the same but similar)

4) I hear(from Pakistani sources on web):

a)Indians are not agrresive (or cowards).

b) Indian always welcome foreign rules.

c) Indians are hegomonic.

I guess a) and b) are taught to children, to justify the injustices done to Indian. b) to encourage the Jehadis and c) is for the western educated Pakistanis. I cannot proove that the three are reasons are in-consistent with each other, hey but they certainly seem so.

5)Why are Pakistanis so concerned about Indias unity?

a) Just an observation. Well wishers.

b) Jealousy.

c) Nosey Neighbour.

d) Devious Intentions.

Well if it is b, c or d I have no comments. My comments follow otherwise. Indians have learned from history that divisions causes tensions and fights(Ideally it should not, but India and Pakistan are practical example). It is the division which caused the Mughal rules.It is the division which made the brave,agressive,Mughal warriors loose to Britishers.

Let us compare Pakistan and India. I think Pakistan always had better per-capita income than

India but the advantage will be clear:

i)Pakistan has better fast bowlers than India. (Only advantage I could think Pakistan has).

ii)India`s space program is ahead of Pakistan. (I assume from general reports. Not talking about military at all).

iii)India has more scientifically advanced hospitals. (A Pakistani was asked to go to Indian hospitals even during Kargil war).

iv)India attracts more attention from buisness people because of the large middle class (result of unity).

v)India has so many engineers to tap from and again attracts buisness. Result of unity.

When poor people unite, they can do better than rich individuals.

This is all inspite of India having lower per-capita income than Pakistan (I am not sure of now). Does this tempt you to Join India? (Just kidding. What is a chowk without some humor? We lack humor in chowk or maybe I don`t see it).

Vijay

FR

Some of the points I had was:

1)What is your opinion about India-China war 1962? China was hegomonic? India was hegomonic or a matter of circumstance.

2)How come you understand China`s view on Taiwan, Tibet (u did not mention Tibet), but not India`s?An actual comparision between China and India`s view I think would be if India treats Pakistan like China treats Taiwan. This makes me feel India is better than China. Your comments? (FYI, South Chienese and North Chinese don`t understand each other spoken language even if they have the same written language. I ASSUME tibet will have a different language than Chinese. China`s position is being understood and India is asked to be divided for a simple reason.. China is powerful).

3)Britishers did not rule India for a year or two. They were here for almost 90 years. How long should one country be united? (now add 50 years after independence it is 140 year, boundary may not be the same but similar)

4) I hear(from Pakistani sources on web):

a)Indians are not agrresive (or cowards).

b) Indian always welcome foreign rules.

c) Indians are hegomonic.

I guess a) and b) are taught to children, to justify the injustices done to Indian. b) to encourage the Jehadis and c) is for the western educated Pakistanis. I cannot proove that the three are reasons are in-consistent with each other, hey but they certainly seem so.

5)Why are Pakistanis so concerned about Indias unity?

a) Just an observation. Well wishers.

b) Jealousy.

c) Nosey Neighbour.

d) Devious Intentions.

Well if it is b, c or d I have no comments. My comments follow otherwise. Indians have learned from history that divisions causes tensions and fights(Ideally it should not, but India and Pakistan are practical example). It is the division which caused the Mughal rules.It is the division which made the brave,agressive,Mughal warriors loose to Britishers.

Let us compare Pakistan and India. I think Pakistan always had better per-capita income than

India but the advantage will be clear:

i)Pakistan has better fast bowlers than India. (Only advantage I could think Pakistan has).

ii)India`s space program is ahead of Pakistan. (I assume from general reports. Not talking about military at all).

iii)India has more scientifically advanced hospitals. (A Pakistani was asked to go to Indian hospitals even during Kargil war).

iv)India attracts more attention from buisness people because of the large middle class (result of unity).

v)India has so many engineers to tap from and again attracts buisness. Result of unity.

When poor