Defend the Country, not its Government

Well India`s morality is subject to India`s hegemonistic interests.

1. 1948- The Forced Annexation and invasion of Junagdh - the Muslim ruler had signed for Pakistan. - in flagrant violation of the States treaty.

2. The Indian invasion and subsequent annexation of Hyderabad State - 1948 and forcing the ruler - literally on gunpoint to acceede to India.

3. Indian Invasion of Goa in 1962 - I wonder if a plebscite was held in Goa, the Goans would have voted for India.

4 Indian annexation of French pondichery...


5. Indian supression of THe Naga Insurgency fro the 60`s onwards...

6. Indian supression of Assamese Sepratists in the 80`s.


7. INdian supression of Kashmiris, flagrant violations of the UN resolutions - refusal to hold plebscite for the bast 50 yrs.. and they want a seat on the UN Security council. 1948 onwards


8. India support of insurgent elements in te erstwhile E. Pakistan and a subsequent full blown invasion.

9. Indian genocide in state of Punjab - Ruthless
and genocidal murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

10. Systematic State Sponsored elimination of The Sikhs civilian population in Delhi - post Indira
assasination.

11. Tactic involvement in Sri Lanka by armed support of the Tamil insurgency circa 80`s ... present.

12. Indian annexation of Sikkim - sikkim was never a part of India - historically or otherwise.....

11. Complete Indian hegemony over the state of Bhutan - probable annexation in the future...


India is one of the few countries in the world that has had conflicts with all of its neighbors..

1. Wars skirmishes with Pakistan 48, 62, 65, 72, 98..

2. Tamil Insurgency in Sri Lanka

3. War with China 1962..

4. Conflict with Bangladesh over Water Rights - the bangladeshis are wary of their erstwhile liberators ...

5. Indian hegemony in the Maldives .....

In short te India of Mahatma gandhi behaves more like the US of the Johnson era, - we are a democracy - come into our fold forcefully or else...

Sadna reply #61

Thanks for your reply. I don`t want to go around in infinite circles of finger pointing by bringing up Siachen or arguing about how the Simla agreement says that issues will be solved bilateraly, and that India refuses to talk let alone find a solution (and this is even before we had the current Army rule in Pakistan or the Lahore declaration - on a side note I would be really interested in finding out what exactly was agreed upon in Lahore and how it was different from Simla etc., please let me know if you know)

Please correct me if I`m wrong, but to restate, you say, India does not trust Pakistan, will not talk to Pakistan and prefers to use violence and its military to subjugate the Kashmiris. This may be because India considers itself in a position of strength. The strong do not have to negotiate with the weak, they take what they want (remember Hyderabad). That may be true, but thats not just towards the Kashmiris- and thats my point.

Another point I wanted to make was that violence for land is not limited to Pakistan. When Pakistan walked over the LOC and climbed some hills, India felt they should be removed violently if they do not move after being told. Two wrongs don`t make a right. Some Kashmiris also believe that India should be removed from Kashmir violently if they refuse to go when told. This is wrong way- seriously. Thats why we need a controlled process in which everyone has a chance to listen and be heard (aka dialogue).

On a personal note, by reading your posts I would have thought that you would have agreed on dialogue between all parties, because of its very nature and not necessarily tied to any particular outcome.

Peace.

The issues discussed above apply to Indian army as well, and there are numerous adventures in past half centure that can be related to its part, making Kargil episode look trivial.

The author should also cite atleast some of many such events initiated by Indian army to bring a more universal/subcontinental prespective to this article.

In response to Urstruly (Reply # 66)

Dear Urstruly:

Your statement: ``Honesty and contempt do not go together. You have to choose one of them.``

Comment: Do you think that your point needs some elaboration?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

URstruely,

Post#66

{{Honesty and contempt do not go together. You have to choose one of them.}}

Please forgive me, but I didnt quite get that.

If you could be so kind, could you explain this ignoramus, what that meant?:)

An intersting article `Confrontation or capitulation in 2001?` by Ejaz Haider in today`s TFT. An intersesting look at the `real` motives behind the devolution plan. Bilal, you will, especially, be interested in it!

Kant....

Subcontinental:

Just a brief intro: I do not care to read everyone on Chowk and often times have very little time to even browse through each and every article. Something that I REALLY like is an article, a paragraph, a thought, a phrase, an anecdote, a verse, a stanza, a Soch`....and an expression that makes one think and go beyond thinking. I find that in the very headings of your articles. Somehow or other, I also have a strong feeling that either I know you or have read you or interacted with you before...Pataa` Naheen Kyoun.....I have this feeling..whatever :-)

Coming to the point: I like your way of writing. It is succinct and touches the right nerve. No Kahaniyaan and Fasaanae`! Very Open and Simple. I love it that way!!!

I would love to say few words on the theme of your article. I have quickly browsed through it and am in no position at this time to add my comments till I analyze it rationally and emotionally. I have written some comments on Omar Mirza`s article and the heading of your article kind of nullifies my thoughts. All the more reason, I am forced to add few thoughts :-) I will do that soon before I am off to Iss Paar of the (subcontinent)[Inshallah].

Take Care and continue with your unique and thought provoking style. Chowk needs rational and clear cut thinkers. :-)

Regards

Mun Mau`jee

INDIAN MEDIA STRATEGY-PART V

``ULTA CHOR KOTWAAL KO DAANTAY``

Translation:

RUTHLESS DETERMINATION WITHOUT REMORSE

Yep! That is the name of the strategy. It is not hard to explain but since a picture is worth thousand words please visit the following and try to go through all the links:

http://www.agonyofindia.com

Are our neighbors smarter than us? I don’t know. But I am sure of one thing that they are quick learners. Ever wondered where they learn their lessons? See this:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2000-daily/13-10-2000/oped/o1.htm

Re: baloch1


Advocating land reform is not necessarily a communist idea - France institututed major land reforms after the revolutio of 1789 - and communism hardly existed then, - land reforms have also been introduced in countries like Japan and South Korea with apparent success. Actually in Japan`s case it was instituted on the basis of McArthur`s post war reconstruction policies.
I doubt if you classify MacARthur as a communist :)). ANyway back to the main point.

1. THe vast majority of rural land holdings in Pakistan are not small, - most are by small farmers who rent it not from the Govt of Pakistan but from their Feudal masters at exorbitant rates.

2. INdentured servitude - long abhorred by the rest of the world was practised officially until the early 90`s when Benazir under pressure from the ILO outlawed it. Unfortunately those laws have never been enforced.

3. Agricultural Income has never been taxed in the history of Pakistan, - and any attempts at it have been thwarted by the feudal politicians.

4. The majority of politicians are essentially feudal landowners.

5. Water and Power are essentially subsidised by WAPDA and the Govt of Pakistan - IN reality nobody in rural areas pays for either water or power -
eg Ambassasor Abida ?? / Fakhr Imam


6. Most feudal landowners have a major urban presence as many have diversified from their rural landholdings into urban industries.

7. the AGDP - Agriculture DEvelopment Bank of Pakistan gives massive aggricultural loans which are rarely paid back.

8. As a result agriculture in Pakistan is a practised oligolpoly which controls the means of production, as well as the captive domestic market.

9. Price supports by Govt of Pakistan were instituted in the 50`s to placate the middle class , and to ensure economic stability. Price supports work both ways, in surplus years, the prices donot go down, rather the govt purchases the surplus at fixed prices. Most captialist countries including the United States practises price supports as a matter of agriculture policy. This is to ensure that the food supply remains immune to inflation and ensures political and economic stability.


10. Since there is no competition in the Pakistani
agricultural sector, there is no incentive to improve productivity. Consequently Pakistan has one of the lowest per hectare yields in Asia.
Even substantial portions of irrigated land is deliberately left fallow to ensure a limited supply, despite the fact that Pakistan has one of the most fertile deltas in the world.


11. Any meaningful competion in the Agriculture sector, primarily by small migrant farmers from North Punjab in Sind and Saraiki belt , and pushtuns in Balochistan was seen as a threat to the feudal status quo. Consequently the uproar and the ethnic card which results in riots and effective explusion of these migrants.


11. If economies of scale is required in Pakistan as mr baloch1 states, so be it - open the agricultural sector in Pakistan to competition to the conglomerates from Austrailia, NEw Zealand and other western countries. Now we dont have the ``communist`` card - let it not be the ``national interest`` or ``islamic`` card... - ah well , maybe now I will be labeled a heretic ferengi ...

RE: Subcontinental # 52

Honesty and contempt do not go together. You have to choose one of them.

The same goes for Shankar too.

tahmad321 #65
Very well said.

Subcontinental #52: I am disappointed to see you dismissing the discussion on your article as ``Indo-Pak noise`` rather than troubling yourself to identify key issues in these posts and respond to them. Not the least of these issues is the criticism in a number of these posts that your article itself is biased in terms of focussing only on the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people. It is easy to preach, hard to practice, as you have amply demonstrated, both in your article and in you post #52.

Scout,

Anything that can produce a response and not a yawn from you is worth every key stroke. Good night.

#47 NOT A RAW WORK, A RETRO SPORT.

This is the time of the retro fashion, the good old VW beetle is back, but it only looks the old self, it has a more powerful high tech engine, all the goodies in transmission and breaks, but it is enjoyable like the old times, but all the modern niceties. Same is true with the MG-B for the UK people. Crysler ``Prawler`` is the version for the US.

How about in the area of sports, now that the olympics is over. In the seventies many a youth in the english suburbs of Derby, I know ,indulged in a sport, paki bashing. Every evening they went out in groups looking for pakis to bash them. In those days it involved blood and guts, like the carbysand oil leaks in the MG-Bs. Now it is the modern times, one can still indulge in paki bashing without having to come to cantact with them, like the ABS on the MGs, the modern technology.

It is quite possible that those bashing the pakis on the net are reinventing an old sport, not the work of RAW that is driving the good urstruly, krashid and others to paranoia and scout to insomania.

Take it easy, enjoy the sport, thank god for the internet, it could have been a lot more painful.

ARMY, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND NATIONAL COHESION

In concluding his opinion piece, S. Najmuddin wrote: “The officers and generals of the army have come into sharp focus for their land grabs in prime urban areas. The windfalls are being questioned as what is good for the gander should be good for the goose. Then there is talk of kickbacks in arms deals.

Lack of representation in the government has encouraged dissidents to challenge the foundation of Pakistan. Ethnic and parochial sentiment is growing fast at the cost of the federal spirit. This situation can only deteriorate under the present dispensation.

The army`s strength is constituted of people of extraordinary sincerity towards the nation. However this does not give them extraordinary or even ordinary capabilities to govern a civilian society. It has its own specific nuances” (The Nation, October 12, 2000)

Comments welcome!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to krashid (Reply # 54)

Dear Rashid:

Thank you for a good response. Are you saying that the General is either misinformed or he doesn`t care about the truth?

You inform that ``700+ people did suicide in Pakistan in one year, mostly from Sind.`` What is the source of the information? One of my reading suggests a much much smaller number.

There is no change in the luck of common man.

I concur with the rest of your post, particularly your statement: ``The thing is power perks and priviledges are so deeply entrenched, that it is impossible to fight it to get benefit for common man without organized political activity at the grass root level.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Karakoram #50
``As far as the Kargil episode is concerned, the Indians were the aggressors. The Pakistani forces merely defended the hills they had walked over.``
I`m guessing you are joking? That the clearly demarcated LOC was infringed, that the action was long-planned on the Pakistani side, that the Leh highway became unacceptably vulnerable as a result, etc etc is now history.

``All the elected Indian leaders have disowned the Kashmir plebiscite commitment they made at the UN.``
It may have had something to do with the fact that the plebiscite was to be held for entire J&K area, Pakistani forces were to withdraw as a precondition. Also, subsequent events such as handing over portions of the state to China, various Indo-Pak actions and agreements, including the Simla Agreement with an elected leader of Pakistan, changing of the Pakistani Kashmir demographic since Independence, etc, have only provided India with more covering reasons to disown a plebiscite.

Another interesting factor in ordinary Indians minds(though maybe not in the Indian government`s view) is that there seems absolutely no dialogue within Pakistan or even in Pakistani Kashmir about independence. Extremely interesting to note that a much-flaunted `principled` stand goes only so much self-serving distance and not an inch further.

Anyway, finally, what matters is what is in Kashmiris` best interest. In my opinion, seeding a conglomeration of potential breakaway religiously-hardline Islamic republics under the (reluctant, I`m assuming) tutelage of the Pakistani Army, including perhaps NWFP, parts of China and regions from other Central Asian countries starting with capitulation to mujahiddeen and their tactics/mo in Kashmir cannot be considered, again in my opinion, to constitute the Kashmiris` best interests.

Peace to you too :-).

Sadhana

IS THE GLASS REALLY HALF FULL?

General Musharraf has “blamed those who criticize his policies for spreading despondency in the country. According to him, these people ignore the positive work that has been undertaken by the military government.”.

For a rebuttal, see: Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad’s opinion piece in the Nation (October 12, 2000).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad