The Ongoing IT Revolution and Security Implications for Pakistan

Scout,

{{Hey, what about Slink and Sadhna and Jawahara and Zahra and Zehra and Fozia and Frog-goddess and Sobia and Lubna and Anamika and many many other women without whom Chowk lacks flavor and female worldliness.}}

Sorry about that:) When youre right youre right!

Aapeki maufi chaahata haun.

There are too many names (yours especially) that I included in the category of ``many, many others``.

I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state. After all, think about what Benazir could have done for Pakistan, if it had`nt been for her idiot ``Mr 10% husband`` !

RSaxena,

Hehehe

You cretin, I KNEW you could`nt resist swallowing my bait.

Baaaa

What a b-a-k-r-a!

Re: vsn

``But dont you discriminate against dumb people, arrogant people, irresponsible people, obnoxious people,..etc in one way or the other?``

Good point you raise. I wonder what people think of firms throwing out resumes from students who don`t come from Ivy League or other top-10 schools. Is that a type of unfair discrimination?

Pakistan should stop copying India if ever wants to come out ot Indian shadow. What is good for India is not necesssarily good for Pakistan. Instead of wasting precious resources in trying to find a niche in an already crowded field of IT, Pakistan should concentrate building on its areas of strength. Pakistan has advantages in textile and agriculture. World needs clothes and food more than IT. World textile market is worth 1 trillion dollars and if Pakistan can tap even 5% of world textile market, its foreign currency problems can be resolved. These sectors are man-power intensive and can provide millions of jobs. Unfortunatley Pakistan sell only raw cotton and low margin items like T-shirts and beddings. There is no effort in tapping high value market with newer designs. Pakistan can also develop its fashion industry beyond salwar-kameez era. Imagine if Pakistan had peace, multinational companies will start moving shops to Pakistan, a country with plenty of cotton/textiles and talented work force in that field.

IT is not panacea for Pakistan or even for India but India is much better placed because it has strong foundation and had a head start. I hope my comments are not construed as discouraging Pakistani efforts in IT field but in my opinion IT sector is not the right course for Pakistan`s economy. IT will benefit only few thousand but other sectors can benefit millions.

Pakistan should stop fantasising about taking advantage about strategic location. I have yet to hear about a country which is not strategically located. American spin bowlers use this term to pump up their lackeys in various parts of the world. No country prospers just on the basis of their location. Rule of law, hard work and peace within its borders is must for any development.

Just my two anna thoughts...

RE: shankar

``I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state.``

Are you related to Barbara Streisand or Sally Struthers?

shankar #243, ``I guess if there were more women leaders in this world, we wouldnt be in this sorry state.``

I once read an interesting joke:

A woman once asked God why he created man first.

God replied, ``I had to make a rough draft before making the final copy.`` ;)

Perhaps these male leaders are rough drafts of the final copies yet to come.

Once, I came across a bumper sticker that read ,

``God bless President Clinton and her husband Bill.``

scout

Yes, it was india that occupied the heights at Siachen first in 1984. Whether that was a preemptive move or otherwise is debatable. As somebody has pointed out, the LoC is delineated only until map point NJ 9842. ``thence north to the glaciers`` - is how ceasefire line was defined in 1949 indo-pak agreement. this is suffieciently vague enough for our strategists to latch on to their own interpretation. pakistan extrapolates LoC in a straight along north-east joining NJ9842 with the karakoram pass. india - needless to say - extrapolates to the north west direction along the soltoro range.

there are different opinions among the indian political establishment about the handling of siachen. some people favour a settlement with pakistan about mutual withdrawl from siachen, as the defense of siachen comes with a HUGE price tag for india. considering the extremely hostile and uninhabitable terrain, it is not worth the while to defend it at that cost. it is also true that unlike its policy on J&K, pakistan is quite flexible with siachen. (even as recent as 1992, both the countries came close to a settlement)

some others argue for holding siachen tight at any cost, since it is pakistans`s `bleeding ground`. pakistan also drains a lot of resources in siachen, and therefore withdrawing from there would release the pressure on pakistan.

But the indian army has the last say. the army`s position is that the holding on to siachen is vital to the defense of indian forces at Leh and kargil against a chinese and/or pakistani assault. siachen is the wedge between pakistan-kashmir and aksai-chin, and as such the presence of indian forces at siachen would enable india to monitor the karakoram highway and to prevent the aksaichin highway from being connected to karakoram pass.

who`s right, who`s wrong we might never be allowed to know. fact is, it IS india that holds the key to resolving siachen. india is in sitting tight on the commanding heights of the glacier, that directly dislodging them from that position by the relatively low-lying pakistanis would be next to impossible task. may be that`s why pakistan chose the low cost kargil route to cut-off indian supply lines. many pakistanis on chowk have already convinced us of this fact ;-).

That does not take away the foolishness of the move. everything about it was stupid except the purpose. and now you guys are paying it dear.

(i remember reading a article, of indo-pak combined authorship, that pakistan considers siachen as a local issue while the J&K as an international one. may be it is true. look at the scant attention siachen gets even in paki press compared to the prominence given for indian-JK affairs. WHY ???)

PS: 97% of deaths on both sides in Siachen is caused by the harsh weather and living conditions and only 3% on combat.

sameerJB #230, crypto #249

` India went into siachen first etc etc ...`

A)

Obviously Sameer , crypto you need to brush up your military history a bit. Pakistan started sending military/civilian mountaineering expeditions into the Siachen area. This was a prelude to a Pakistani cartographic agression of the unmarked areas ahead of NJ 4982. Indians got wind of these expeditions and sent out a patrol to investigate. The patrol collected some vital info but persihed in the icy wastes. In 1983 Pakistan army (SSG company) came to a position called Bilafond La and occupied the position. It wanted to go further but becuase of approaching winter and logistic problems went no further. The operation to go ahead of Bilafond la was codenamed ` Taqbeer` or something similar sounding. The Pakistani army planned to go their in May 1984. The indian army as part of op `meghdoot` occupied Siachen in April 1984. Pakistan army took lot of casualties when they went to occupy the positions they thought were vacant but occupied by Indians. The present CEO of Pakistan was among some of the SSG who were part in these and other failed attempts.

Subsequent to 1984 Indians pushed Pakis to the Saltoro ridge. One of the most important posts to fall was the Pakistani `Quaid ` post. subedar Bana Singh of J&K LI got Param Vir chakra for the effort. benazir bhutto taunted Gen Zia for Pakistani rout at Siachen and its withdrawl ( lots of experience in withdrawls). So the current position is at saltoro and not Siachen. Howeber, the Pakistani governement made its citizens believE that the positions were at SiAchen. Pakistanis now dont own an inch of Siachen!!!!! However the name Siachen has stuck becuase the first round of fighting occured at Siachen.

For a better perspective

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/5040/map7.html

a very interesting map indeed. Some vital points

a) LAC - line of actual control ( this is the position today )

b) Since LOC was not defined ahead of NJ 4982, the map somehow shows a LOC ahead of NJ 4982!!!!????

c) From NJ4982 if one were to go in a NORTHERLY ( as suggested in Simla accord) direction , you certainly cant reach Karakoram pass!!!! for that you need to go EAST!!!!

B) How about the 1965 war? The common argument is Indians attacked Pakistan first in Punjab. But what was the provocation? Pakistani regulars dressed as freedom fighters ( a la Kargil) entered Kashmir to plunder, pillage and hopefully annex. What they did not bargain for was an Indian riposte in Punjab. ( how similar to Kargil, some people dont ever learn)

C) 71, the less said the better.

Looking at the replies, here it seems to me, Pakistanis are enjoying the vacation, while Indians are arguing. Look at the last few posts, it is all by Indians (Including this one).

Umairr #222

I will make the following points in response to what I believe is the gist of your characteristically l..o..n..g piece:

(1) If you thought hiring someone will be disruptive to collegiality, would you still hire that person who might be qualified in every other respect? If the answer is yes, then may be we differ on where you set the threshold. If the answer is no, then presumably you run a charity for South Asian workers in which case your situation is unique and does not apply to what is being discussed here.

(2) As to the equivalence of Siachin and Kargil, pardon me, but it sounds like a *post facto * justification. The road from Siachin to Kargil (figuratively of course) is not continuous except may be in Pakistani military minds. There had been several peace overtures on the political front between the two countries, with the latest being Lahore. Your type of thinking where past actions are just as valid as present ones, peace will NEVER be possible. There are two related points.

(1) As someone else has said already, to the generation that is dominant among Indians in the valley, Kargil is a big deal. They are too young to remember other conflicts. OTOH, to a Kanwal Rekhi, Kargil may be just another blip in history and he can continue to claim to be a product of the Indus valley.

(2) Prior to Kargil, among educated Indians at least, you`d have found the feeling that continuing to hold on to Siachin at an enormous human cost is foolish. There were any number of press reports/articles on the stypidity of Siachin. It was the (Indian) military that had always deemed Siachin to be strategically important. Popular opinion, or whatever passes for it, was unconvinced but unsure now of what to believe after Kargil. Your backhanded condemnation of Kargil notwithstanding, it is hard for an Indian mind to believe that you really mean it when you say Kargil=Siachin=every other confict.

Manoj,

Ah, the old cartographic aggression bit again.. been reading up on the SAAG papers or something?

Re:1971, oddly enough, Indian troops were already in East Pakistan a full 2 weeks before the `official` start of the war (started by the `Pakis`, natch). And heck, Pakistan beat India into opening the conflict in the Western theatre by what, a couple of days? We may as well have waited those tw0 days, for all the good it did us.

Pakistani commandoes were looting and pillaging who, exactly, in the Kargil mountains?

Rsaxena #245, ``Good point you raise. I wonder what people think of firms throwing out resumes from students who don`t come from Ivy League or

other top-10 schools. Is that a type of unfair discrimination? ``

What world do you live in? Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation is constitutionally illegal and morally wrong. That is what this VSN jerk is doing. Personal characteristics such as responsibility, ability, intelligence etc are determined by the interview process. I`m sure you know this but your hatred for Pakistani blinds you into accepting vsn`s arguments as sound.

scout

This level of goofup is too much even for me. I`ll correct the most significant of many. Please read (1) If you thought hiring someone will be disruptive to collegiality,

would you still hire that person who might be qualified in every

other respect? If the answer is NO, then may be we differ on

where you set the threshold. If the answer is YES, then presumably

you run a charity for South Asian workers in which case your

situation is unique and does not apply to what is being discussed

here.

anamika

#212, 252, 255

You are skating on very very thin ice.

When you justify hiring or not hiring someone because it would effect colleguality or morale in the office; it smacks of racism & bigotry--pure & simple. A trial lawyer could have a lot of fun with you on the witness stand. (I`m assuming you live in the US).

The bigots made those very same arguments when the US military wanted to racially integrate itself. They say the same thing when women or gays want a job in the military.

I disagree with your logic on both, legal & moral grounds.

shankar #256

Are you a lawyer? If not, please desist from straying into legal territory. There is discrimination and there is discrimination. Bad-tempered, hard-to-get-along-with persons are denied tenure on university campuses every day and not many of them win reinstatement and tenure with a lawsuit. Stuff happens. As to morality, the situation is very specific. Just because A is sort of B, etc. (the famous Sac Logic) it just doesn`t make any two random things equal. There simply is no historical discrimination or a pattern of discrimination of Pakistanis by Indians in the US. If there indeed is any discrimination - which I am aware of only through vsn`s public confessions, it probably has not been around long, not systematic and you have no case.

VijayAmrit #251

The people here are busy Government of Pakistan and Government of India officials.

So better go to a lighter area.