Defend the Country, not its Government

There should be no element of surprise.When army takes over it does so for its own aggandisement,only the weaknesses of the political system/erring politicians provides a peg to hang onto supplemented by the slogan of patriotism.It is comical that except Yahya khan,each mily-ruler found ready-made approbation by the supreme court of the country.

As the people are not a free people,anybody can vandalise/brutalise them.The civilian leadership like NS or BB can only add to their sorrows.God help Pakistan!

SB #208

Thanks.

Yes I believe in do as Romans do.

sadna #205 -

``I sometimes sense in those who protest India`s Kashmir policy(and with whom I often agree) that they donot count the real and recurring cost which willresult by yielding to violent tactics of terrorists/religious fanatics.``

I hasten to say that I think it`s a poor show by the govt. to yield to hijackers and kidnappers.

(there should have been protests organized against releasing the prisoners, be it the militants or the smugglers).

But, if we are going to take umbrage at any criticism of India`s handling of the Kashmir issue, why, we could be the Pakistani Joe on the chowk! :-) More seriously, (like you said) if there`s a preception that the groups criticising the Army & the Govt are not giving a complete picture, there`s place in the media for other groups to provide alternates for the news that reaches the people. Their reputation, of course, will count when it comes to who the people will trust...

---

krashid - imbecility cuts across various fields, you seem to be particularly enamored of Biology...

Sadna #200

Sorry for the post.

I thought you are a human.

I did not know you are Indian and not human.

Anjum

#199

Excellent post. Could`nt have said it better myself.

Assad_K #203
I`m not seeing dreams of a liberated Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, I`m saying that if Pakistan wants to dictate terms to India wrt Indian Kashmir, then India ought to do the same wrt Pakistani Kashmir. Get it?

You may be not tempted to go to India and kill anyone, but you were saying that my point of view and the Lashkar`s are comparable. There is no doubt that THEY do cross over with arms and ammunition to kill people, but that doesnot seem to hold much significance to you. So I`m thinking it would be OK with you if I did the same and then I would have soem leverage. My other point, which is not the only one you didnot get was that Lashkar doesnot seem to consider nonMuslims to be human beings. So what do they want with so many Kashmiris who are not Muslims??

I have made no claim that if the Foreign Hand goes away, Kashmir will become paradise. Read my posts #200 #202 before making such an assertion. Yes, I can see that YOU think a plebiscite will magically make a paradise out of Kashmir. About some choice better than none, well see my post #200. The plebiscite as Pakistan demands doesnot constitute a real choice and only hypocrites will call it self-determination. `better` choice than `no choice` : another dependence on a magical formula. Lord Avebury called it the `big-bang` theory and said he didnot believe it would solve any problems. Let me put it this way, Kashmir will be less of a hell if the Foreign Hand goes away than if a plebiscite is held. Thats the real choice.

In any case, India will not consent to holding a plebiscite, scold you never so loudly. So what are you going to do about it?

Sadhana

sb #202
Sure, India is a free country, you are free to protest any action of anyone. I was telling you my point of view wrt J&K. My assessment is that local politicians and administration goof up matters and then call in the Army for jobs they are not trained for. The present or last Army Chief ? even made a few statements some months ago about how this practice ought to be discontinued.

And as far as I know Indians have been beating their breasts about J&K right from 1989. I havenot heard of human-rights groups being branded anti-State. And yes, the Army should be definately be held accountable, as I said in post #202. I consider infringments by state institutions to very serious. But dealing with our own wrongs is a seperate(and important) matter, making no protest about `others` is another. I sometimes sense in those who protest India`s Kashmir policy(and with whom I often agree) that they donot count the real and recurring cost which will result by yielding to violent tactics of terrorists/religious fanatics. Veerappan is a very good example of self-perpetuating capitulation to violent methods.

Re the national media : I remember when there were a few starvation deaths in Koraput(Orissa), the newspapers just reported what transpired in the Orissa Assembly, allegations and counter-allegations related to the cases, not one reporter actually went to the locations to verify the facts and report on the actual story. That was some years ago, I hope and believe things are slightly better now.

Sadhana

Sadna #202 -

There is no such involvement of the ordinary people that you are talking about, yet - the ordinary people only act and gherao the govt when their kith and kin are in danger, like in the recent hijacking case, and the current Veerappan episode.

About our media that the Army supposedly has to contend with - the Army has been in J&K before the 90s - why have the Indians suddenly started beating their breasts about the J&K situation only now? How many of us know whats happening in NE? What has the patriotic and concerned citizenry been doing about the discontentment there? Do they even acknowledge the trouble there yet? Whats stopping the media from taking the trouble in NE to the masses?

You think that the Indian Army shouldnt be branded as the sole erring party - I think that the human-rights groups shouldnt be branded anti-State and anti-people either, just because what they are saying is unpalatable to us. There has to be a strong opposition to the State for a democracy (to keep tabs on it). And the Army should be made accountable for any breaches of conduct just because it is an organized wing of the Govt.

---

`satru sesham` means remnants of the enemy. Its from a saying that `there shouldnt be a trace of the enemy or the debt(run) left`.

Pankaj,

And a happy (belated) diwali to you as well.

Cheers, AK

Sadna,

Settle down.

Seeing dreams of a liberated Pakistani-Occupied Kashmir?

Let me guess.. if the population gets disenfranchised and disenchanted with Pakistan and starts calling for reuniting with India.. you won’t do anything, will you? No support of armed secessionists, etc?

{I donot go into Azad Kashmir with arms and ammunition and kill you and your brethen however tempting the prospect seems. Do you see a difference between myself and the Lashkar? But I must say they have a point, and I should seriously consider their modus operandi as an option for myself. I consider you a human being irrespective of your religious beliefs. Do you see a difference, now?}

Oddly, I’m not at all tempted to go to India and kill your brethren. I guess I should be relieved at my humanity being ‘accepted’.

{I have never seen self-determination being defined as a choice between 2 countries and then touted as a `moral` choice. Where I come from, its called `self-serving hypocrisy`.}

Oddly, the claim that ‘there is no problem, if the Foreign Hand would go away then Kashmir would be Paradise again because the people are ever-so-happy in the Indian Union’ strikes me as a bald-faced lie. And shouldn’t it be a beloved tenet of yours that some choice is better than none? Obviously that is a subjective state of affairs.

{And how will you miss a vote when you see no value in one?}

Ooo, ain’t that a bit of a statement-based-on-no-fact thingie?

Well, this could have become a flame war, but since we’re off the front page, probably not.

:-)

sb #201
sb, you say ``it would certainly not be a bad idea to raise the public awareness in India of the Indian Army`s activities/attrocities in remote and underdeveloped areas in India. Esp. as the fledgling democracy`s middle and upper middle-class elite is exhibiting more and more confidence and pride in the country...``

You are right. I recall reading a report of a human rights group in AP? brought out sometime in the mid `90s. I think a number of books have also been written on the subject. Given the not-insignificant(though not sufficient) interest that various organisations and often the media take in `human-rights`-related events elsewhere the country, I think the sticking point for most of us(maybe even the media) where J&K is concerned is that the Indian forces are contending with more than merely a discontented citizenry in terms of opponents and much more than a discontented citizenry`s sticks and stones interms of arms and firepower. It seems like in the pockets where violence is extreme, its virtually a war, `proxy-war`, another apt cliche.

So I`m not sure `branding` the Indian forces as a monolithic erring entity will accomplish much. I think ordinary Indians can contribute in two ways, firstly keep close enough tabs on the situation maybe through special interest groups or the media and demand information and swift justice for every case of unjustified violation. Secondly organise relief, monetary or material or any other for those whose lives are disrupted by violence. Ordinary citizens around the country could get involved in a people-to-people basis in these activities and not them leave solely to government agencies.

``As for the threat from outside/enemy/whatever - I do not believe in having `Satru Sesham` - but it takes both integrity and brains to get there.``

Could you explain?

Sadhana

Anjum #199:

``Finally, on Kashmir (or anything else for that matter), do you believe it possible for someone to oppose the Pakistani position and yet be critical of the Indian one?``

Anjum - I do believe it is possible.

---

Pankaj, RSaxena, Sadna, Satyavadi, et al - it would certainly not be a bad idea to raise the public awareness in India of the Indian Army`s activities/attrocities in remote and underdeveloped areas in India. Esp. as the fledgling democracy`s middle and upper middle-class elite is exhibiting more and more confidence and pride in the country...

Also - (this is going to sound cliched) when the country is strong, we will not be going out of our way to defend it. And the strength comes from there being a few good people at the helm of state and community affairs; they will get there when there is a public consiousness, when the people who are lucky enough not to starve dont throw their conscience out the window when it comes to matters outside themselves and their families. Its going to be long and painful getting there. But hey we are proud inheritors of an amazing heritage!

As for the threat from outside/enemy/whatever - I do not believe in having `Satru Sesham` - but it takes both integrity and brains to get there.

krashid #197
I`m glad you are accepting the reality of `billions`. Call me a bigot or a spy or secretive, its your choice. I am not trying to be neutral. As a citizen of my country, I have the right and responsibility to form my own opinions and the right and responsibility to act on them as much as any other Indian, Kashmiri or nonKashmiri, Indian Kashmiris are Indians, too and I yield to no Pakistani`s personal or government stand on that fact.

I consider the `morality` of any Indian stand will be proved or justified only when India makes reparations(if even possible) for its disastrous meddling in Kashmiri politics and the Kashmiris trauma of being under seige of such long drawn-out violence, including the Pandit. Further, India needs to promote a revival of a genuine democratic culture in Jammu and Kashmir and provide full scope for all inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir to not only progress as Kashmiris, secure in their pluratistic culture and identity within Kashmir but also take full advantage as other states do, of opportunities which the rest of a huge country like India offers. Thats the only `moral` justification for any group to feel the need to remain within the Indian Union and thats the justification which ought to be underlined in everyway possible. Unfortunately the bread and butter of violent seccessionists who are now acting as spoilers comes from those who care nothing for democratic choices for their own citizens, let alone Kashmiris. For eg, its no surprise that Panchayat elections have been announced for J&K by the government and there has already been a call for boycott.

Yielding solely to the strategic imperatives of an unstable neighbour will not get us(Indians) or the Kashmiris anywhere.

Sadhana

Viking et all,

{{you are not the only one to spit on india`s face........}}

OK guys, for those of you who are offended by my remarks that I feel India is wrong about her treatment of Kashmiris, my humble apologies. If I criticise some of my old country`s policies doesnt mean I`m insulting her. Also, just because I feel India`s behavior in Kashmir is wrong, does`nt automatically mean that I approve of Pakistan`s behavior.

In fact, in my earlier posts ,I have indicated that whenever India makes a mistake, Pakistan graciously saves us by making bigger mistakes. This misguided view Pakistan has that it is a good policy to bleed India in Kashmir by using the mujahadeen is going to come back & bite their own heads off. Whenever, they strike at Kashmir with violence, India doesnt bleed blood. On the contrary, India`s collective testicular glands start oozing testesterone & makes Indians all the more convinced that they are right about Kashmir. For India, losing a few thousand soldiers/civilians is an acceptable loss. After all, we are a billion strong.

Mushy doesnt want to crush these madrassahs because he thinks that its graduates are going to deliver Kashmir to Pakistan. HUGE mistake. For every one graduate who gets traditionally educated in Pakistan, these madrassahs churn out several semi-literate graduates, who are not trained to run a modern society. None of these madrassah trained graduates are going to be the future doctors, engineers, IT workers etc etc that Pakistan desparately needs.

Eventhough these guys are all fired up about jihad, it takes a lot more than religious zeal to become a modern, professional military. In today`s increasingly technologically sophisticated military, it takes technical expertise of traditional education to use & maintain modern weapons. So, they can shout jihad all they want. India will willingly help them by giving them a quick exit to heaven.

If not today, then 10 years from today, these guys will be voting age or at least a big majority of adults in Pakistan. They will soon realise that the biggest injustice to the common Pakistani is not India. Its the feudal/beaurocracy/military that is repeatedly screwing Pakistan, but using the Indian boogey-man as an excuse to divert their attention. Thats when they`ll turn their jihad against the real Pakistani injustice. I could be wrong, but thats my prediction.

Sadhna the secretive #196

I was very much impressed by your post.

It may be true that Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. It may be true that Kashmir dispute was taken by India in UN and India agreed for plebiscite. It may be true that it puts Kashmir as a disputed territory.

But I have to agree with you. Because, I don`t know. Bagher Dimagh Ke Insaan Se Behas Nahin Kar Sakte. Us ka Ilaj ya Khamoshi Hai Ya Jahadi.

So be happy. Inspite of everything you say not only Kashmir is a lost cause for India, but India is at the verge of shattering.

And what is this. Started fighting for fun with Burma. Or you also fight with misunderstanding.

Why you take so much pain of being neutral. You are just another degreed bigot on the street. There are billions of them and you are the rule.

Assad_K
``The dear old Lashkaris etc don’t exactly believe in giving any choice whatsoever, so I fail to see how they are relevant. Let’s see: They say, ‘Pakistan or else’. You support ‘India or else’. But you get sarcastic about ‘Pakistan or India’?``

Assad_K, I`ve now heard it all now.. I donot go into Azad Kashmir with arms and ammunition and kill you and your brethen however tempting the prospect seems. Do you see a difference between myself and the Lashkar? But I must say they have a point, and I should seriously consider their modus operandi as an option for myself. I consider you a human being irrespective of your religious beliefs. Do you see a difference, now? And do you see a difference between the government of a country and armed radicals who obey no laws, national or international? These are the superficial differences, get back to me in a couple of years with your own experiences with more fundamental ones. But oh no, Lashkar is given the freedom of your foreign policy and anything they can lay their hands on in India but only 2% of your votes.

Why should India offer any choices to Indian Kashmir on Pakistan`s say so? Tum ko yaa Lashkar to mirchi lagi tho mein kya karoon? Indians should concentrate on getting back Pakistani Kashmir, thats the real dispute and everything else is smoke-screen.

I have never seen self-determination being defined as a choice between 2 countries and then touted as a `moral` choice. Where I come from, its called `self-serving hypocrisy`.

I can see you don`t get the 100% and 200%, better go read the interview of your own CE. And how will you miss a vote when you see no value in one? Only one vote counts these days with `principled` types, see above `self-serving hypocrisy`.

Sadhana

Bhai Assad

They say complacence is the worst enemy. Dushman(I hate to use this word for Pakistan) ko kam karake nahin aankana chahiye. As far as issues are concerned, we can have academic discussion about ``Self determination`` and TNT to death. But I must congratulate Gen Musharraf for putting the real motives of Pakistan behind Kashmir issue so bluntly(Ref Time Asia interview of Musharraf). It is very clear that the Govt of Pakistan is neither concerned with the high ideals of ``Self determination`` that they love to talk nor the right of Kashmiris. This pious talk can be used by Pak Govt to fool its own people or in brainwashing jihadis but can not con intelligent people.They simply want to usurp Kashmir and since Pakistan failed to do so in conventional war, it resurrected the dead TNT saying that Muslims can not live with India and justified jihad against Indians. It is a kind of proxy war being waged by Pakistan against India to annex a territory.

There is no doubt some atrocities have been committed by the Indian army too. But imagine a situation when the terrorists hide inside the house of a innocent couple and firing at the army. In the shootout, some innocents will also perish. The army has become paranoid; nobody knows when a land mine would explode and claim his life or a bullet may come from some direction. What I detest is custodial deaths or some rape charges and they are being dealt with.But what about Mujahideens who terrorised around 350,000 Kashmiri Pundits to leave Kashmir. I am of the opinion that Army rule is invariably associated with atrocities be it Pak army in Bangladesh or Japanese army in Korea during ww2.

That is why I suggested to make LoC a permanent border, take back terrorists and start planning for the development. Takrav ke raste se kuch bhi haasil nahin hoga. India should start the democratic process ensuring Kashmiris full individual freedom. But as Mr Atal aptly puts

it,`` any attempt to change borders can not be tolerated.``

P.S Aaj diwali hai. So no more Kashmir. Wish all of you a very happy diwali. Go and celebrate man!

(If ISI incites violence in Kashmir, someday RAW is going to retaliate with equal force in supporting forces of secession in Pakistan.)

Pankaj,

Y’mean something like, say, if someday East Pakistan gets sick of taking West Pakistan’s crap and decides to secede? Also, oddly, I read in an Indian magazine (Frontline? Outlook?) that one of RAW’s major successes was infiltrating the MQM during the period when there was, in no small words, a reign of terror in Karachi. I assume that they were busy trying to convince the MQM leadership to moderate their ways and give peace a chance?

Perhaps there really isn’t such a strong secessionist feeling anywhere in Pakistan currently? Or at least, not where it can be exploited.. RAW would have a hard time supplying secessionists in, say, Baluchistan, while secessionists in Sind would easily be supplied.

Sadna

(What can we lesser mortal Indians comprehend the noble aims and choices offered by people close to heaven and God such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Thats something you highminded types will have to explain to us about `principled stands`.)

The dear old Lashkaris etc don’t exactly believe in giving any choice whatsoever, so I fail to see how they are relevant. Let’s see: They say, ‘Pakistan or else’. You support ‘India or else’. But you get sarcastic about ‘Pakistan or India’?

(btw, re choice, when is the last time YOU made a choice, or are you `200%` or `more than 100%` happy? Quite likely, so don`t bother to answer, I can see electoral percentages are calculated by enlightened mind-reading, thats also something outside the understanding of lesser beings like myself.)

Sorry, that was too intellectually put for me. Que pasa?

The Pull of Kashmir: Kashmir is one of the few issues that unite all of Pakistan, and Musharraf’s history suggests that he considers it a question of Pakistan’s honor. There is no evidence that he has changed Pakistan’s policy of supporting militancy in Kashmir. He and his foreign minister describe the support as “diplomatic and moral”; others are less cautious. The country’s economic stagnation and political uncertainty and his reluctance to pick a fight with the militants make major changes in this policy extremely difficult.

And yet Musharraf’s public speeches suggest a growing concentration on Pakistan’s domestic problems. His speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York is a case in point. His agenda of foreign visits has slowed down. The brief cease-fire between India and a Kashmiri militant group raised Pakistani concerns about being left out of a Kashmir-India dialogue. Right now, India’s insistence that violence in Kashmir cease before it will talk to Pakistan effectively locks Musharraf into his own Kashmir hard line. The chances for a major change are not bright, but with such high stakes, even small chances should be exploited.

Assad, RSaxena, Shankar and others

Satyawadi is right. For anybody who has been to India recently(incidentally I was in India till last year) it should be pretty clear that under no circumstances can Kashmir be allowed to secede and the public opinion is vehementally against any secession. IMO there is no logic in secession from an economic angle save religion. All the talk about the ``self determination`` does not hold much water. At a deeper level the question arises, at what scale/size of the group can its demand for secession be considered valid. For example if a few Hindu villages or few lacs Mohajirs under Altaf Hussain or Sindhis demand secession, can it be accepted. The rule of self determination was never applied consistently across various groups in history. ``Self determination`` is like a recursive loop giving rise to perpetual disintegration.

There are several clauses in Indian Constitution(and they are strictly followed) that guarantee the people of Kashmir greater autonomy than the people of other states. If need arises, I also favor giving autonomy to Kashmir in all respects but defence, foreign relations and communucation.

I can cite a number of reasons for my above statements but I think I have already voiced my opinion on this issue earlier and I will not repeat it. I am all for declaring LoC a permanent border and settle down for some more constructive work. Pakistan has 33% Kashmir and India has 45%. Give peace a chance and stop sending terrorists or corrupting the impressionable minds with religious crap for another 15 years. And let us see which part of Kashmir is better off.Let us realise if anybody wants to seize Kashmir by force merely on the basis of religion, it can not be allowed. Violence begets violence. If ISI incites violence in Kashmir, someday RAW is going to retaliate with equal force in supporting forces of secession in Pakistan. And this cycle of hatred and counter-operations is not only vicious but endlessly reinforcing in itself, culminating in a disaster. There is no use of perpetuating enmity, it is more pragmatic to look towards future.

Sincerely

Assad_K #189
What can we lesser mortal Indians comprehend the noble aims and choices offered by people close to heaven and God such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Thats something you highminded types will have to explain to us about `principled stands`.
btw, re choice, when is the last time YOU made a choice, or are you `200%` or `more than 100%` happy? Quite likely, so don`t bother to answer, I can see electoral percentages are calculated by enlightened mind-reading, thats also something outside the understanding of lesser beings like myself.
Sadhana

Oddly, the issue of cross-religious marriages was thrashed out not too long ago on the boards here. I see that a person feeling that there are likely to be problems in such a marriage is immediately to be considered a jehadist! Gotta love these extensions.

Sadna,

You mean as opposed to the principled stance of offering no choice at all?

RSaxena,

So let`s see.. Indians are peaceful, tolerant, loving, beholden to Gandhi etc etc. HOWEVER, if the Kashmiris should CHOOSE to secede, you`ll promptly wipe out 10% of your population? Wearing your civility kinda thin, aint`cha?

Pakistan is in the firm grip of an unholy triangleand this triangle is ARMY,Beaurocracy,and the Business classes.This dirty triangle cosists of only about two percent of the total population and it is sucking the lifeblood of the nation.Neither the people nor the various puppet regimes have anything to do about the dirty game being played in Pakistan.This dirty triangle has brought the country to the edge of the precipice and very soon Pakistan is going to end up on the dust heap of history like many failed states such as the USSR,yugoslavia and a few more.Pakistan can survive only and only of the grip of the dirty and unholy triangle is broken and the common people of the country are allowed to have a say in the running of the country.

#181
Those who advocate `universal` principles of justice to be applied in dealing with Pakistani claims on Indian Jammu and Kashmir and who call their stand a `principled stand` may please remember this excerpt from Gen. Musharraf`s interview.

``...Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it?
A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.

Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them?
A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.

Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence?

A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan. ...``

Now that is definately egg on the face of a large section of the `principled stand`.

Sadhana

Re: shankar

Lookie here, those people appointed satyavadi to say the same thing. But again, his feat is nothing compared to your`s since the guy seems to have the advantage of having lived in India recently.

``It should be clear to anyone who HAS LIVED in India in the recent past, that there is absolutely not an iota of support for Kashmiri secession in the rest of India and that Indians will never accept it.``

Mohajir # 181

Most of the recent posts have been interesting but off-topic from my perspective. Therefore, I would like to thank you for the reference to the interview which re-orients the discussion somewhat.

I am not sure if this interview is a spoof or for real. I don’t doubt that a typical Pakistani general can hold and believe in such views. What would surprise me if the media managers would allow such material to be aired in international papers. Of course, if the media managers are also generals, anything is possible.

Assuming this is for real, it illustrates the point I tried to make about distinguishing between the interests of the country and those of its government. I am always surprised by how readily people are willing to fight and die for leaders like this. I wonder if anyone will argue that the views elaborated in the interview are in the national interest of Pakistan. National interests should over ride a leader`s personal beliefs and aversions, not the other way around.

Re: shankar

``Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.`

You really shouldn`t be too impressed. After all you were appointed to be the person to declare:

``Hindus should not demand a separate state for hindus. .... a majority of hindus agree with me``

Actually, your feat is even more amazing considering that you neither live in the country nor spend much time in it but still command a huge following which asks you to make statements on its behalf. Now that`s impressive!

Ref Shankar:

listen sir, kashmir is a blazing inferno. muslim militancy are its flames, pakistan provides the uninterrupted fuel supply and india is fighting

to put it off with an rusty old foam dispenser, lest it engulf the rest of the house. now, you know precisely what needs to be done to put out

this rot once and for all, but our spineless leaders know only the longest and the safest route: we spend on the foam while they spend on the fuel. the game will be over ONLY when one of us runs out. it is as simple as that. Get it ?

meanwhile, if altruists like you have problems with that, just fine. you are not the only one to spit on india`s face........

RSaxena,

{{``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS}}

Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.

Interview with Pakistani CEO Parvez Musharraf with Foreign Affairs correspondent.

http://www.nation.com.pk/inset.htm

Interview with Pakistani CEO Parvez Musharraf

Q. How many children do you have? A. Two. A son and daughter.

Q. If your daughter would come and tell you that she would like to marry an Indian .... a terrific Indian. ``A doctor``, Would you object? A. If it`s a Muslim Indian I wouldn`t. If it`s a Hindu Indian I would certainly object.

Q. You would object? If she would be willing to marry, let`s say, a Catholic American, Irish American? A. I would again object.

Q. Do you think that Pakistan, in general, Pakistani society, treats its minorities or different ethnic groups better or worse than India treats it own?

A. 200 times better! Q. 200 times better? A. If not more. I`m very sure of that and this is, again, an unfortunate wrong perception that Indians create against Pakistan, of our being not accommodating enough against the minorities and our having extremist attitudes towards the minorities. There is nothing farther than the truth.

Q. With the risk of irritating you, you said a short time ago that you would not be happy to see your daughter marrying a Catholic or a non-Muslim. Doesn`t this reflect some kind of intolerance towards,...

A. No, I would beg to differ. This is not intolerance. I would love to interact with anybody of any religion and I have been interacting. I have been abroad and I`ve been interacting, in fact, let me tell you that when I was at the Royal College of Defense Studies, I respected the Israeli officer very much and my interaction with him and also with his wife was very pleasant. So I have no intolerance against any kind of interaction. But when it comes to marriages that you are talking of, now this is a totally different issue. There are cultural differences involved and there are societal differences involved and therefore that is the reason when I said that I would not like my daughter to be married to a Hindu Indian, that doesn`t mean that I am intolerant. I interacted very well with the Indian Hindu officer who was there on the same course. He was my neighbour and we interacted very well with him.

Q. You point a finger at the media, saying that the media tilts strongly toward the Indian side?

A. Yes. Certainly. I strongly believe that this is the case. There are a lot of Indians in the media, controlling the media and that is the unfortunate part, they distort facts. Actually perceptions that are not the reality.

Q. You are speaking about Indians who work as English journalists in England, and American journalists in America? Are you claiming that their heart is really with India? A. First of all there are a lot of Indians in all places in the international media .... television, newspaper .

Q. Sure. There are talented Indians.

A. These Indians do have actually an interest themselves, and they also influence others, those who are around them, those of other nationalities.

Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it? A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.

Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them? A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.

Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence? A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan.

Q. Kindly mention to me the four countries that are good friends of Pakistan.

A. Okay. Number one, China. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi.

Q. Abu Dhabi is not a very big country.

A. (Here the Pakistani Ambassador suddenly joins in, and corrects his chief executive: ``UAE, United Arab Emirates, and the chief executive accepts.)

Q. You don`t count the United States as one.

A. Well.

Q. I said ``good`` friends.

A. We have been good friends but not all that. ..

Q. Do you think that the nuclear weapons now present in both India and Pakistan make the sub-continent more, or less secure?

A. More secure, I think.

Q. The people of India and Pakistan have shared a history of several thousand years, shared language, shared cuisine, music and common culture. Yet, there are more Muslims remaining in India than there are in Pakistan. Is that true?

A. Population wise, is this true. I don`t think it is true that India has more Muslim than we have. But I would like to comment on the first part when you talked about our history and our commonality. I do beg to differ. Our history is totally different. Our heroes are their villains and vice-versa. Our culture is absolute the opposite. They consider cows as their gods. We slaughter cows and eat them .

Q. Didn`t India`s culture stem partly from the area of what is Pakistan now?

A. No. The Buddhist culture originated from Pakistan. But the Hindu culture did not originate from Pakistan.

Ranan R. Lurie is a Senior Adjunct Fellow with the CSIS, The Washington based think tank, the political cartoonist for FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine, and an internationally syndicated political analyst/cartoonist

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html

Re: Anjum

``This is not peculiar to India. Similar problems exist in many countries/regions, including Pakistan, Spain, Northern Ireland and Australia. The long-term answer lies in trying to find a way to co-exist and to give people a reason to be part of a union. Blaming and wishing each other away, expecting a paradise on earth to follow, is not going to help.``

I know these problems exists in a lot of places, including India. What I am against is secession as a solution to the problem. Especially by a group of people who have had the opportunity to do it once already! I am also against the idea of breaking up countries on the basis of religion!!!

Re: Anjum

``You have expressed this belief a number of times but each time you have not mentioned the Sikhs.``

It wasn`t intentional...but in any case they didn`t wage a 50-year war with foreign terrorism support to secede! Whatever the problem was, it was addressed and things moved on. They, along with all the other groups I mention, treat India as their country (which it is). If there is a problem, you fix it and make the country better, not start terrorist movements to seccede. I know there was violence associated with the Khalistan movement...but nothing compared to what you see in Kashmir (which I don`t believe is ever going to end).

``You are over-simplifying the issue of the coexistence of a majority and minorities within national borders.``

No, I am simply stating the facts. Muslims have continually had problems and in both cases (Pakistan and Kashmir) their one solution has been seccession! What do you discuss with groups who believe the solution to their problems will come from foreign terrorist countries? How do you think the US would respond if tomorrow the black population demanded a separate country (because their concerns have yet to be adequately addressed) and sought terrorism support from African nations to push their demands?

If the violence were to end today, Kashmir is a big enough headache for India that the government would spend the resources from fighting the militancy on development in the state.

Re: shankar

``When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me``

``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS

RSaxena,

{{Call it prejudice or bigotry or whatever you will but the fact of the matter is that the actions of the few million muslims turns the country sour against the whole lot. It leads us to fear how many more Muslim countries will be carved out of India in the future.}}

When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me.

Well, whoever this ``us`` maybe, they have a huge psychological problem--not the muslims who want to remain Indians.

Re: shankar

``Ever since Pakistan was formed as a separate, distinct nation, they have been trying to find an identity thats separate from India. Whats wrong with that?! So if ylh & KRashid justify it by pointing out their Persian & Arabic roots, all I can say is --good for them! Its their business,not ours. ``

Yes, yes, yes!! I`m sorry I haven`t been communicating my points very well. I ACCEPT PAKISTAN AS A SEPARATE COUNTRY FOR MUSLIMS. I WOULDN`T WANT ANY OF ITS PEOPLE IN MY COUNTRY.

My point about Arabic roots was meant to counter your statement somewhere suggesting that India is somehow occupying Kashmiri land. If, as they claim, those peoples` origins are not in the subcontinent then isn`t it really the Indian Kafirs` land to begin with??? That`s all.

``Besides, let me argue that the cultural differences between India & Pakistan are many & getting wider each year.``

Of course!! We have no concept of Jihad and we have adopted the concept of individual liberties!

``Now, you can say Parsis have Persian roots. Most of the Parsis on the subcontinent live in India.....The Goan & Manglorean christians havent asked for a separate homeland. None of these people have asked for a separate homeland.``

Again, this is my poor communication. I want all these people to be a part of India and believe they are as Indian as anyone else. That is what makes India what it is! My point is that if the rest of us can coexist amicably, why can`t the Pakistani mujahideen terrorists and many of the Kashmiris themselves accept the same??? Why does Kashmir have to secede because it happens to have a muslim majority?

``I dont believe Indian muslims (non Kashmiris) have asked for another separate homeland after Pakistan was born.``

Maybe not. But as a psychologist you probably understand this...Partition and now this Kashmir nonsense play on the collective psyche of non-muslims in India. Call it prejudice or bigotry or whatever you will but the fact of the matter is that the actions of the few million muslims turns the country sour against the whole lot. It leads us to fear how many more Muslim countries will be carved out of India in the future.

Irfan Husain puts it very well in his column
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
21 October 2000 Saturday
``Granted that differences in faith still trigger atavistic conflicts, but these are generally aberrations without legal sanction. ``

Taking the liberty of paraphrasing, ``granted that differences in faith still trigger atavistic conflicts, these ought to be reduced to aberrations without legal and political sanction``.

RSaxena #172
``Hindus will and can coexist with Catholics, Buddhists, etc. but not with Muslims (most of them).``

Please realise there is too much at stake here to indulge oneself in gross generalizations. BTW, hope you arenot saying TNT is more viable than secularism wrt present-day India? Have you crossed over then :-)?

Sadhana

RE: anjum

``Alright, send the 150 million Iranian and Persian crooks back to wherever the hell they came from. You may consider the price of the deed bearable if you were actually to be left with a land full of happy Hindus.``

That`s exactly my argument against giving away Kashmir to the mullahs because it happens to have a majority which is different from the rest of India!!!!

``This has almost nothing to do with Hindus and Muslims.``

Yes it does. I won`t get into the details now but it has everything to do with it...no 2 religions can be more different. Hindus will and can coexist with Catholics, Buddhists, etc. but not with Muslims (most of them).

``It has almost everything to do with how we decide to deal with differences.``

Right, and what are we to do everytime there is a difference? Demand a new country or secede into another?

I agree with your points..understand that my arguments are meant to highlight why I and most Indians will never agree to give Kashmir away.

Re: satyavadi #68

Thank you. You articulated what I`ve been trying to say in the past 2 posts: There cannot be a half-a * *ed implementation of the TNT. Either we do it all the way and or we do none of it. Unfortunately, we did not do it all the way but Kashmir will make the deal even more asymmetric.

But I don`t necessarily agree that India would need to be broken up further...buddhists, jains, etc. etc. have not demanded separate nations and can coexist with each other. Only the Muslims have (Pakistan) and continue to do so (Kashmir).

Satyavadi,

Perhaps I was in quite a defeatist/depressed mood yesterday when I replied your post:)

RSaxena is right, there are no easy answers to this problem.

Kashmir was the last unfinished business of the Partition. The way Kashmir was incorporated into India is the core issue. IMO both India & Pakistan were at fault. Both wanted to wear this beautiful crown that sits on the head of the Subcontinent. Frankly, IMO, neither side has earned the right to wear it.

I admit that my knowlege of history is limited. This is partly because I`m not a student of history & I wasnt born at that time. So, if I`m wrong, I will stand corrected.

The Maharajah of Kashmir was waffling about whether to join India, Pakistan or remain independant. Unfortunately, Pakistan sent in infiltrators to take over Kashmir. However, they were a rag tag, non professional army that seemed more interested in raping & pillaging rather than achieving their objective. That was just the push the Maharajah needed to ask India for help, because his personal butt was on the line. Nehru being a Kashmiri himself, wanted Kashmir to be part of India. Nehru shrewdly told him that India would send her troops to his rescue as long as he opted to join India. The rest is history.

Unfortunately, nobody asked the Kashmiri people what they wanted. Pakistan assumes (rightly or wrongly) that since the majority of Kashmiris are muslim, they would have opted for Pakistan. India basically says, ``hey, too bad pal, they legally opted for India, you blew that chance``. So, if Kashmiri muslims dont like India, they can go pack their bags & move to Pakistan occupied Kashmir --or more precisely, Pakistan proper. In any case, many Kashmiri muslims felt that they were just pawns whose feelings & sentiments were trampled upon.

So, the next alternative was to have a plebiscite.

Over the last 50+ years, for one reason or the other India has been able to justify not having a plebiscite. Now India states that plebiscite is a moot issue because Pakistan has changed the demographics of POK & havent withdrawn their army from there. Besides, what about the territory Pakistan has illegaly gifted to China? All the arguments on Chowk (re Kashmir) have gone round & round about this issue.

We cant turn back the clock & undo what has happened. There is no use pointing fingers at each other because everybody gets very hurt & defensive. I remember Umairr, sometime back, had suggested a sort of a truce, with Kashmir being a semi-autonomous state. Thats the only way to untangle this Grideon`s knot. If we dont sit down & talk, Kashmir will doom both countries.

RSaxena,

Ever since Pakistan was formed as a separate, distinct nation, they have been trying to find an identity thats separate from India. Whats wrong with that?! So if ylh & KRashid justify it by pointing out their Persian & Arabic roots, all I can say is --good for them! Its their business,not ours.

Besides, let me argue that the cultural differences between India & Pakistan are many & getting wider each year. They are certainly wider than, say, US & Canada.

Now, you can say Parsis have Persian roots. Most of the Parsis on the subcontinent live in India. The Indian Parsi Panchayat has publicly stated (during every one of their conventions) that even if their roots are Persian, they are Indian--first & foremost. Similarly, those Anglo-Indians who have not migrated to England, consider themselves as Indian. The Goan & Manglorean christians havent asked for a separate homeland. None of these people have asked for a separate homeland. I dont believe Indian muslims (non Kashmiris) have asked for another separate homeland after Pakistan was born.

A majority of Sikhs do not want Khalistan, even after the tragic events in the 80s. Most of the radical pro-Khalistan elements live abroad. Their rantings are meerly a storm in the teacup. I hope I`m right. Even though sikhs are still hurt because of what happened, there is a slow, but definite healing & are back in the mainstream. It would definitely help if those murderers that killed many innocent sikhs after IG`s assassination are bought to justice.

My fear of the RSS & the hindutva ideology is that if these minorities start feeling increasingly insecure, then they will start agitating for autonomy or independance. All India will be doing is trying to douse these fires. If one is doused, another will start elsewhere. How the Hell can India progress if she`s mired in this kind of crap?

IMO, India & Pakistan is like a divorced couple. The division of property/parental rights that isnt resolved is Kashmir. If I can make an analogy, the people of Kashmir are like the children of divorced parents. They keep suffering because their parents keep fighting with each other to get their custody. So they keep suffering as long as the parents fight. If I was a grown child of divorced parents, who are still bickering with each other, I`d tell them to stop this nonsense because I want to live by myself because I`m sick of the two of them. But thats me, I cant speak for the Kashmiri people.

The only way out of this mess is third party intervention. After all, cant we agree on one thing? If the Kashmiri problem is resolved, it will be beneficial for India, Pakistan & Kashmiris--most of all.

Anjum #167
``This has almost nothing to do with Hindus and Muslims.``

Very good point. It has always been who wants to wrest power from whom on which easy pretext. I learnt yesterday that the movie `Fizaa` has been banned in Malaysia. The reason apprently is that there is a scene in the movie where the Muslim hero is told by a Hindu cop to whom he has gone for help during the M`bai riots to `go to Pakistan`. Now why would Malaysians care about a scene in a Hindi movie? It seems some religiously inclined Malaysians say something like ``look here is proof Malaysian Hindus will never cooperate and coexist with us``. So the movie is banned in Malaysia so that some pathetic sod trying to stave off starvation and scrap together a decent life for himself in an effort to qualify for `human being` doesnot get killed in the crossfire of a fight he has no stakes in, triggered by a movie made 1000 of miles away. Pathetic is what it is.

Sadhana

( I posted this reply on the Lahore Declaration board by mistake (#125). I repost it here.)

Shankar #161:

``The whole basis for the TNT was that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan``

Thats not correct. The whole basis of the TNT was that Muslims and Hindus of British India were two different nations, and hence couldnot co-exist in one nation.

Had the theory, been fully implemented there SHOULD have been complete exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations at Partition.

So the Muslims who chose to remain in India then, not necessarily because they didnot approve of the TNT then, CANNOT now demand another slice of the land that is India on the basis of the TNT. The reason being, that by staying in India then, they decided that the TNT was not valid to them. For those Muslims who have had a change of mind since then, and support the TNT, should migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh - countries created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. This includes the Kashmiri Muslims. A vast majority of them doesnt want to stay with India. Fine, they can migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh, no one would object. But slicing off another part of India as a homage to the TNT is unacceptable. The sooner the Kashmiri Muslims realize that, the better it would be for themselves and other Indians, though not necessarily for Pakistan. The longer they take to accept this fact, the more likely becomes a Chechnya like operation in Kashmir. It should be clear to anyone who HAS LIVED in India in the recent past, that there is absolutely not an iota of support for Kashmiri secession in the rest of India and that Indians will never accept it. Worst case scenario will be the destruction of Kashmir, Pakistan and maybe the rest of India. No one is enamoured by that possibility, but there is no other recourse for India. After having shrinked on both the northwestern and eastern sides once, to satisfy the ego/ unreasonable demands/ persecution complex/ displaced mughal sybdrome complex/ islamic inability to coexist as equals with other communities - of a section of its Muslim population, it cannot go on doing it indefinitely. There has to be some end, ``enough, no more`` and I think that the end was defined and pronounced at Partition.

There cannot be a Hindu India in its present form, because though Muslims have their own countries in the subcontinent, the rest of the non-Hindu communities donot. If there has to be a Hindu India, there have to be carved separate Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and Christian Indias from the present land mass; and there are already Muslim Indias in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Satyavadi

satyavadi,

(Re post#125 on the Lahore Declaration ---board)

{{The whole basis of the TNT was that Muslims and Hindus of British India were two different nations, and hence could not co-exist in one nation}}

Since my knowlege of that era`s history is limited, I will accept what you say is true & I stand corrected.

Your post made me realise that any Indian leader who lets go of Kashmir will probably be assassinated.

My conclusion is it is India`s misfortune is that it will be perpetually caught in this trap. India will never catch up with the developed world. Yes, India may delude herself & act as a regional superpower, & sometimes even a bully. As long as she is tied up with these successive uprisings & deal in an authoritarian manner, she will jump from one frying pan into another. I guess that is the fate of my old country.

If Indians are saying ``its OK, we accept that fate & we`ll make it despite that``; all i can say is ``good luck, you have a hard & unending task ; you have voluntarily chosen to bear this unnecessary burden on your shoulders``. If India`s goal is only to be better off than Pakistan, I feel sorry for them.

At times like this I feel real glad I got the Hell out of there. I feel even better that I accepted US citizenship. I know Indians dont need my sympathy. Thats OK, but they cant stop me for giving my opinion.

Re: shankar

``I`m not pretending to be the smartest guy on Chowk. There are many on Chowk who are much smarter than me; you included.``

This has nothing to do with who is smart and who is not....

``This is just one hindu`s opinion. Incidentally, it is similar to those in my family in India & most of my hindu friends here.``

Well you and those you speak of are entitled to those opinions...but I am also informing you that there are plenty others who feel that if Kashmir is given away on the grounds of it being a Muslim majority state, then a lot of Hindus are going to become militant in their demands to have complete segregation....the few Muslims who want to separate (and their Pakistani brethen) need to consider the well-being of their 150 million coreligionists.

``I feel that if the RSS/BJP`s ideology becomes the dominant discourse in India, it will bring nothing but disaster for India`s future.``

This has nothing to do with the RSS ideology...the people I speak of above do not all support the RSS...in fact many of them are perfectly happy and fine living side by side with Christians. Some of them have married Christians...

``Speaking about Kashmir--I`m not condoning what Pakistan is doing; or even what the homegrown harkat-ul-whatever is doing. Part of secluarism means you should sit & listen to people when they have a beef.``

That`s a fine idea but what do you expect to hear when you sit down with them?? That they want to seccede because they are sick of the violence, terror, and human rights violations by the army? Do you think that`s a secret? And how are you going to address their concerns? Withdraw the army so the Pakistani mujahideen terrorists invade the place like vermin and run amock shooting girls for wearing jeans?

I don`t have a solution either...all I am saying is that the matter is complicated.

RSaxena,

{{Who are you to decide that for everyone? You don`t even live in the country. There`s a reason why the BJP has more support now than it did in the past.

``RSS doesnt speak for all hindus.``

Right, but neither do you.}}

Youre absolutely right. I`m not trying to be a representative for a faction of hindus. In fact,I say this with all humility, I could be wrong. I`m not pretending to be the smartest guy on Chowk. There are many on Chowk who are much smarter than me; you included.

This is just one hindu`s opinion. Incidentally, it is similar to those in my family in India & most of my hindu friends here. I feel that if the RSS/BJP`s ideology becomes the dominant discourse in India, it will bring nothing but disaster for India`s future. I feel the BJP won because they played their cards very cunningly & they were helped by Pakistan`s stupidity.

Speaking about Kashmir--I`m not condoning what Pakistan is doing; or even what the homegrown harkat-ul-whatever is doing. Part of secluarism means you should sit & listen to people when they have a beef. When you take a highhanded approach like we have done to the Kashmiris or Sikhs, & give them the message ``might is right---love it or leave it``; it slaps secularism in the face.

Re: shankar

``India has recognised Pakistan as a distinct separate country. We accepted that contract at the time of independance. Whether we like it or not we should honor the terms of that contract.``

I agree completely...I never stated otherwise. God knows we don`t need a pack of jehadis in our country...keep them in their own.

``Hindus should not demand a separate state for hindus. As a hindu, I dont believe it is important or necessary.``

Who are you to decide that for everyone? You don`t even live in the country. There`s a reason why the BJP has more support now than it did in the past.

``RSS doesnt speak for all hindus.``

Right, but neither do you.

``As far as your example about ylh or KRashid, I`m afraid I didnt get your point. What difference does it make to us where they trace their roots to?``

Sorry, I should have been clearer. There`s tons of krashids and ylhs (muslims) in the subcontinent who claim roots exclusively in Arabia and have used that (amongst other things) as a basis for demanding a separate homeland. Well, why are they in the subcontintent to begin with and why should anyone be granting them land for anything? Kind of like the Palestinians` claims on Israel`s land.

Kashmir is a more complicated matter than you make it out to be. It has everything to do with the secularism you wax on about. And I know the human rights violations occur.....put an army that size in any part of the world and its guaranteed to happen. Take out the mujahideen terrorists and back goes the army and the human rights violations with them.

TNT,

The following is from nation of today,

Referring to interview of Altaf Hussain on Zee TV, Farooq said that Altaf had clearly mentioned that `we want to attain our right within the geographical boundaries of Pakistan. He said as far as the debate on the two-nation theory and the division of the Subcontinent were concerned, it was purely academic topic with political overtones.

Altaf Hussain had presented his views with arguments and those who disagreed should reply with historical facts, he said. Is it sensible to use state force in reply. Why the champion of the two-nation theory do not open the borders of Pakistan for the Muslims of India. Why the stranded Pakistan living in Bangladesh are not repatriated to Pakistan, he asked.

///Many of the pak supporters of TNT and jihad are unaware that india still allows the return of hindus to india, in fact last year 400 hundred returned, and can live any where except in certain border areas and have to surreneder the pak passport. The pakistanis while expressing their concern about barbri and you name it do not want their own brothern in their country, the land of the pure.

RSaxena,

{{By the way, what are we to do with the 150 million other Muslims who remain behind in India after Kashmir secedes? The muslims get their homelands in the form of Pakistan and Kashmir....what about the Hindus?}}

The whole basis for the TNT was that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan. India has recognised Pakistan as a distinct separate country. We accepted that contract at the time of independance. Whether we like it or not we should honor the terms of that contract.

Those 150 million muslims chose to remain in India after partition. If they arent happy in India, they should migrate to Pakistan, like millions of mojharis. Has any Indian govt prevented them from leaving? However, those who have chosen to remain in India have as much right to live there as hindus.

Hindus should not demand a separate state for hindus. As a hindu, I dont believe it is important or necessary. I also believe a majority of hindus agree with me. A poorly operating secular system is better than no secularism at all. RSS doesnt speak for all hindus. This idiocy about Hindutva will destroy India.

As far as your example about ylh or KRashid, I`m afraid I didnt get your point. What difference does it make to us where they trace their roots to? They are Pakistanis, not Indians.

Re: shankar

By the way, what are we to do with the 150 million other Muslims who remain behind in India after Kashmir secedes? The muslims get their homelands in the form of Pakistan and Kashmir....what about the Hindus? Can we ship all 150M muslims off to Pakistan and Kashmir so the Hindus can have their own homeland too?

And since we are on the topic of freedom and conquerors...how did these Iranian and Persian crooks (as ylh and krashid said of their origins) end up in India??? Shouldn`t they go back to wherever the hell it was they came from and leave the Hindu kafir`s land to the Hindu kafir?

Urstruly #157

Your other posts do not support your claim that you are a man of few words.

And would it not be better to do your little background checks before shooting from the hip?

URstruely,

Wait a sec. Are you saying you are one of the Chowk staff who has access to my real name & home address?! Now I`m really getting paranoid:)

RE: Shankar

I am a man of few words-that`s all. Sorry about the one liner again.

PS. A little backgroud check confirmed that you are kosher :)

Anjum

Re post#155

Many thanks for the input. I`m relieved to know that there is at least one person on Chowk who thinks like me:)

I was particularly impressed by your letter ``To Bomb or not to Bomb``. It reminded me of a famous saying in Godfather III ``Finance is like a gun; Politics is to know when to pull the trigger`` Alas, our desi mentality is such that we have more testesterone than common sense. In that respect, both Indians & Pakistanis are doomed to the same gutter.

Let me stick my neck out & give my 2 cents about the most sensitive button--Kashmir. What I`m going to say will undoubtedly piss a lot of Indians, but I dont care. Lets, for once, think ``outside the box``, if you will--ie,lets keep our nationalistic egos & our testesterone on the shelf. Lets also ,for the time being , keep what Pakistan is doing in Kashmir on the side.

What India is doing in Kashmir is wrong, TERRIBLY WRONG!! Lets, cut through our bs DENIAL about plebisite. The REAL reason why India doesnt want a plebisite is because the majority of Kashmiris will opt for secession. The very fact that India is giving a 100 bs reasons for not honoring the original UN resolution are mere rationalisations for this mass nationalistic denial. If the Indian govt was confident that Kashmiris will opt to stay within India, I`ll guarantee you they will conduct a plebisite tommorrow. We cloak our egos with these millions of rationalisations & justify our highhanded subjugation of Kashmiris.

Think for a minute. Isnt that what our British lords did to us for 400 years!? I`m sure the British mentality in that era was that Great Britian is a benevolent power, a benevolent dictatorship. The countries who accept their crown & domination will be rewarded by British education, British institutions, British jurisprudence & all that good stuff. The British righteously believed that their empire would ``civilise`` these backward medevial societies & bring them into the modern era. In the minds of Churchill et all, Britain was indeed doing good for India & dissmissed all the crazy ideas of independance from half naked fakirs.

Indian freedom fighters like Gandhi ,Nehru & Jinnah acknowleged that there are many good things about the British. Their contention was that they will be very happy to emulate democracy, civil service, British common law etc etc. But first & foremost, no matter how benevolent you think you are, the fact that the British are ruling India is unacceptable. Its subjugation, pure & simple. Might is NOT right. So, first & foremost we want freedom. If you give us freedom, we will carry out what is good about the British legacy & even be good friends.

Well, if we Indians are very proud of those principles, isnt it absolute hypocracy that we will not acknowlege this in Kashmir? Nehru was more of a pragmatist & wasnt objective about Kashmir because he was Kashmiri. I feel if Gandhi was alive today, he would have blasted the human rights violations India is commiting in Kashmir. We Indians justify what we are doing in Kashmir to Pakistani ``mischief``. Heck, we are missing the big picture! Two wrongs dont make a right! Unfortunately, our desi mindset dripping with testesterone & paranoid insecurity about our neighbor, would rather bleed just because the other guy is bleeding more. Thats absolute STUPIDITY! Both are nations are digging themselves into a deeper & deeper hole, with no end in sight. Not to mentiont he unkindest cut of all--the suffering of the Kashmiri people.

Given our testesterone filled egos, even a nuclear war is not out of the question. NATO & Warsaw pact had more maturity than us. Clinton was absolutely right when he called our region ``the most dangerous place in the world``. When the Indian President criticised him as alarmist, it just showed the extent of denial used by the Indian govt.

URstruely,

{{My condolences to your patients/clients ;)}}

I notice your comments about my posts are usually one liners. Its OK yaar, feel free to disagree with me. I can take constructive criticism. But please dont accuse me of being a RAW agent or whatever you were trying to say on the other thread:)

I`m not qualified to comment on military tactics & strategy or theoritical politics. But being a psychiatrist, I`m particularly interested in how Indians & Pakistanis interact as individuals on Chowk & how our respective governments think, from a psychological standpoint. So my previous 2 posts were 1 Indian psychiatrist`s opinion of what happened these past few years. That does`nt necessarily mean my views are correct. If they are not, I`ll be the first one to admit that I stand corrected.

After going to several psychiatric conferences all over the US, I roughly estimate Indians & Pakistanis combined are atleast 30% off all US psychiatrists. So I`m almost 100% sure that I`m not the only psychiatrist participating on Chowk. I`d particularly like to hear from those psychiatrists what their take on about what has happened in the subcontinent. One of the criteria of being a good psychiatrist, is that he/she seldom agrees with a colleague:)

Fuzair & rest of Pak posters,

Just in case any Pakistani was offended with the tone of my post, I apologise in advance. Stupidity is not a Pakistani characteristic. The Indian govt probably has people who are 7 times more stupid.

I also apologise to ylh for bringing him as an example. My analogy was just to show that Pakistan has a lot of brilliant people, like ylh. Like ylh, I`m sure the Pakistan govt/military has many itelligent people too. But collectively, they have vulnerable psychological buttons, which if pressed at the opportune time, cause them to behave impulsively. When you do that, you dig yourself into a hole.

When India conducted Phokaran II, not only was I offended because they needlessly started another nuclear arms race; esp at a time when the cold war ended & both superpowers were actively destroying their nuclear arsenals. It was totally unnecessary & uncalled for. I also felt it was the beginning of the end for India.

The weeks before the Pakistani response, Indian public opinion was beginning to experience reality & protests were beginning to take place on the streets. Pakistan`s stock was skyhigh. The Western press were scrambling over each other to interview Pakistani govt officials. They all revelled in the spotlight. The foreign minister even admonished Clinton for not ``using their good offices`` to act as a honest broker in Indo-Pak disputes(as he had done in the Middle East), despite repeated pleas to him from Pakistan. He got a lot of IR mileage out of that. Clinton was very pissed at India; as were the Western Allies & Japan. India`s traditional sugar daddy, the Soviet Union was in ruins & wouldnt/couldnt come to India`s rescue. Scores of countries begged & even ``diplomatically ,economically bribed`` Pakistan not to follow suit.

I`m getting more & more convinced that the BJP is stupid, but they are definitely not CRAZY. India would have been crazy to conduct a preemptive strike against Pakistan. Even the hawks in the Indian govt/military know that attacking Pakistan in a conventional war is not a cakewalk ;like Saddam taking over Kuwait. Unlike the Kuwaitis, the Pakistanis would fight to the last man. Pakistan`s military is one of the best equipped & trained professional fighting force in the developing world--dont you agree? Even if India could ultimately win a conventional war, she would suffer grevious losses & irreperable damage. India`s military equipment is aging. Besides, do you think the rest of the world would stand by idly! Most of the Islamic countries would rush men & material to Pakistan. I would`nt be surprised if the US gave Pakistan the guarantee of a nuclear umbrella.In todays new world order nobody tolerates a bully (esp if the US President is pissed at the bully). Ask Saddam or Milosovic, if you dont believe me.

India would have been in an economic & diplomatic shithouse. The BJP would have fallen long before that (central govts in the coalition raj have fallen on flimsier reasons). The BJP & RSS, the main nemesis of Pakistan, would be in permanent political exile. The revolution & economic bankrupcty, would have been India`s fate, not Pakistan`s. Kashmir would have seceded by now.

The BJP pushed 2 buttons, that are Pakistani vulnerabilities

1) An intense need to compete with India at every level. Its a matter of national prestige. It doesnt matter how pathetic we are, at least were better than India! I bet you if India won the soccer world cup tommorow, within 5 yrs Pakistan will develop a soccer team that will beat India:) If India has the bomb, Pakistan will eat grass & develop the bomb. If India explodes the bombs, its a matter of national honor that Pakistan does the same, as a proud newspaper said ``blast for blast``!

2) India is out to destroy Pakistan, no matter what! Now, if you start quoting BJP/RSS webpages, dont bother. Believe it or not, most Hindus are moderate (like Pakistanis) & want peaceful coexistence. Granted, if the circumstances were right (& God was on our side) we`d love to kick youre butt, as I`m sure most Pakistanis would say vice versa:) Even the BJP is not as crazy to destroy themselves in the process of trying to destroy Pakistan. Disagree with me if you like, but paranoia about India is Pakistan`s weakness. Their troop buildup simply pushed that paranoid button--just to ensure that Pakistan doesnt hesitate about the ``tit for tat``.

This nonsense in SAsia was started by India, who drew ``first blood`` by exploding the bomb. Eventhough I love my country, I am incensed at her irresponsible behaviour. I think she should have been punished with the fate Pakistan suffers today for starting this crap.

What has happened in these past 2 or so years is nothing short of a miracle. Today India looks secure & confident & Pakistan is stuggling. Vajpayee, the man ultimately responsible for all this is invited to address the US Congress; NS is in jail, Mushy is in the economic/ diplomatic doghouse. Who lost this ``battle``?

Think about this. Did this miracle occur because of Indian cunning & Pakistan is so ``bhoola bala`` that she became the proverbial bakra? Or did Pakistan shoot herself in the foot by exploding the bomb & then carry out Kargil? I remember that open letter on Chowk many intelligent Pakistanis wrote to Nawaz Sharif, imploring him not to get sucked into this trap. Alas, NS/Pakistan did`nt listen to them.

Maybe there`s a third possibility--maybe Allah sided with India---tauba tauba!

RE Fuzair #150

``So this was a controlled incursion and not some sort of Pearl Harbor like strike.``

But India was caught totally offguards. If they were prepared, it wouldn`t have amounted to just a more-than-average round of skirmishes. In that respect, it was Pearl-Harborish. And in retrospect, with the pickle Pakistan ended up in, it definitely was Pearl Harbor-ish. The initial surprise lead to a resounding political and policy defeat.

RE: Shankar#147

My condolences to your patients/clients ;)

Re: Shankar #147

Actually the Kargil affair was done quite well in terms of plausible (OK, not too plausible since logistics in the region require that PakArmy resources be used) deniability. Regular army troops were not used, it was the NLI and, I believe, some Frontier Corp (could be Frontier Constabulary, not entirely sure) elements as well. These are lightly armed, paramilitary troops something like your BSF (without the armor--APC--or artillery/heavy mortar support) or Rashtriya Rifles or ITBP. In addition, there were some genuine Mujahideen as well but every Pakistani Army officer I have ever met who has served with them agrees that they are fanatics but lousy soldiers. Thus the nature of the incursion clearly signalled that this was not some massive preemptive strike but really only what Gen. Pervez Musharraf said it was, ``aggressive patrolling`` or a reconnaissance in force.

If the Kargil objective had been some sort of a premptive strike to wrest Siachen and change the reality on the ground in that part of IOK, using lightly armed paramilitary troops is really not the way to do it. No matter how much Indians sneer at us, Pakistanis aren`t THAT stupid. Even when regular PakArmy elements were used, it was to provide artillery support from inside Pakistan. Isn`t that provocative/an act of war? Not really. Both India and Pakistan regularly shell each other`s positions in Northern Areas and Kashmir, so thats nothing new. What is new is the level of firing.

So this was a controlled incursion and not some sort of Pearl Harbor like strike.

Certainly Kargil was a Godsend for the BJP--won them the elections, didn`t it? So it was clearly not in our national interest, with perfect 20-20 hindsight of course. However, as far as the Pakistani nuclear test goes, the general perception in Pakistani government and military circles is that Paksistan had no choice. Indian troop movements on the border were such that, in the perception of the Army, a preemptive strike on both the Pakistani Northern Areas/Kashmir and/or nuclear research facilites was more than likely. I believe that Indian hawks have long argued for a preemptive strike on Pakistani nuclear facilities, a la the Israeli raid on Iraq in the 1980s, and for Indian cross-border raids on ``terrorist`` camps inside Pakistan. The way the story was told to me was this. Hawkish elements in the Indian National Security establishment argued that the Pakistani nuclear programme was nowhere as far advanced as many have supposed. If Pakistan does not test in response to the Indians, this is because they cannot do so yet. Thus a massive Indian preemptive strike can be safely carried out.

I was talking to some fairly junior Army officers who were assigned to logistics for the Pakistani test and for a while after the Indian test there were no Pakistani preparations at all. It seems that the decision to carry out the test was taken only after the Pakistani government considered that Indian troop movements and attitudes had become absolutely belligerent and indicative of a preemptive strike.

So take it for what you think its worth. Many Pakistanis don`t feel that it was sheer stupidity to carry out the tests. I think we could have, for once, gotten the moral high ground on the Indians. But, if the Indians were indeed preparing a preemptive strike, thats another matter entirely.

Regards.

a question,

The following is from a news item in dawn of today,

Maulana Abdul Sattar Edhi calls begging a big ``industry`` where a newcomer can earn as much as Rs 20,000 per month while an old hand could make Rs100,000. This he learnt from questioning women whose husbands are drug addicts and widows who take to begging. Such women are ``trained`` how to beg by ``champions`` in the field.

//is this person the same Edhi that chowk wallahs appear to praise so much.

POWER OF POLICE,

In kargill an allegedly rag tag group of jihadists pinned down the indian army, in delhi a group blind protesters have attacked and injured eight policemen. When will india develop a virulent culture like pakistan where even the mullahs travel with armed escorts. From hindustan times of today,

City



Blind students break barricade, attack cops

HT Correspondent

(New Delhi, October 19)

Over fifty blind students who were holding a demonstration near IP College in Civil Lines area bit policemen and hit them with sticks after breaking the police barricade. Thirty three of them were arrested and booked for rioting.

Eight policemen were injured in the incident. The police said that 56 students from Seva Kutir, Panchkuian Road and from Trans-Yamuna congregated near the barricade at 11 a.m. today saying that they would gherao Vidhan Sabha if they could not meet the Director Social Welfare to discuss their demand for hostel accomodation.

Fuzair,

{{There is one scenario that does put Kargil in perspective and that makes sense to me. The whole point of the Kargil incursion was to invite a large-scale Indian military response. Fighting would rapidly escalate and threaten to reach crisis (war) proportions. The West, especially the US, would be petrified at the thought of a full-scale war between two nuclear powers and intervene to force a cease-fire and compel India to the negotiating table over Kashmir}}

I`m dissapointed that this logic makes sense to you. From a psychological standpoint that kind of logic is idiotic.

Let me explain .If a kid craves attention & engages in naughty or destructive behavior, adults will pay attention to him. Overwhelmingly, adults will respond to ``negative attention`` with anger. In the case of kids, that anger easily subsides because adults understand that kids are immature.

However,when grown men or govts engage in this kind of negative attention, the rest of the world responds negatively. No matter how noble youre cause, the act of provoking this kind of brinkmanship, especially when both sides have nuclear weapons is ABSOLUTELY STUPID!! Does it surprise you that even Pakistan`s all weather friend told you to cut the crap?!

I certainly hope for the sake of Pakistan that it was`nt Mushy who thought up this logic. If so, Pakistan has an absolute fool for a CE.

The Olympic massacre in Munich definitely highlighted the plight of the Palestinians & brought it to the forefront of the International news. Do you think it HELPED the Palestinian cause!? IMHO, it was DESTROYED !! After that most people in the world, esp the West, would equate Palestians to terrorists--not poor displaced refugees.

Pakistan lost a golden opportunity to internationalise Kashmir. That was when India stupidly exploded the bomb. If Pakistan had`nt done the ``tit for tat``, India would have been an outcast today--sorta like an Asian Serbia.

Let me state that if the BJP has true friends, it is the mujahadeen & their patron, the govt of Pakistan. Its common knowledge that neither the BJP or the previous Indian govts ever had the aptitude for great IR. Internationally, Pakistan always has had more friends than India. But what India is really good at is baiting Pakistan, who then makes stupid impulsive decisions & land up playing into the hands of India.

There have been 2 occassions where India internationally isolated Pakistan---in 71 & 99. Let me argue that India did it by exploiting your weakness than great international diplomacy. What Pakistan should realise by now is you can never get international (read Western) sympathy by aiding & abetting terrorists. I dont care how loudly you call those mujahadeen ``freedom fighters``. To the West they are terrorists, pure & simple. Now you can moan & groan that the West is hypocritical, as much as you like. That doesnt make a damn bit of difference. Live with it! Do you really think that India has the power to influence the Western media so effectively? If yes, alas, you give us too much credit.

I see this on Chowk all the time. Ylh, IMO is a truely intelligent & multitalented young man. However, he has a few very sensitive buttons. All you have to do is poke those buttons & a very intelligent young man turns into a fire breathing dragon & sometimes says things that dont usually come out of the mouths of mature people. I have to admit some of us Indians like to poke those buttons just to watch ylh fire off about 10 posts one after the other. When India burst the bomb they were certain that Pakistan would`nt rest until it followed suit. India knew, at least for 10 yrs, that Pakistan had the bomb. The BJP took a huge gamble by conducting the tests, but I guess they knew if the pressed the right button, Pakistan would respond as predicted--& then dig herself into a hole.

Instead of lambasting Indians for being ruthless, cunning, devious, without honor etc etc--it would be much better for Pakistan to look inward, understand her weaknesses & bolster them. All that anti-Indan rhetoric falls on deaf ears, not just in India but in the West as well. If you really want to beat us, use the brain that Allah has given you. But first you should`nt succumb to your massive nationalistic ego---its a fatal button.

There is special feature on Pakistan on the latest issue of Foreign Affairs

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html

Foreign Affairs November/December 2000

Pakistan`s Jihad Culture

By Jessica Stern