IT Is Not A Magic Wand

Rshridar,

#100

your reply to Krashid was a bases loaded home run!

rsridhar #100

First tell me which hospital you did your residency.

Second to tell you bluntly without going into detail. Do you know where my shoe bites. Let us fight our war in our own way.

Anyway, it was impossible to eliminate Nawaz Sharif by any means. And when army took control people were very happy all over Pakistan for his ouster. How we are fighting our war. Just think how Kashmiris are fighting their war. Or how Bangladeshi fought their war. We have to find our own way according to our circumstances.

Shammi #96

You are too naieve to extrapolate.

Till 1992, the country with the brightest potential in South Asia was Bangladesh.

With Pakistan, Iran, India and Sri-Lanka with a very poor potential.

Whatever prediction is done on current statistics and by no means is true. They are predictions.

The example is surplus budget of America which came as a surprise even to Americans.

As far as your saying that you are humble friend of both India and Pakistan.

I like your humility of Pakistan bashing in all your posts.

Re: reply # 90

Dear krashid,

you say `` We elected Nawaz and we kicked him out.That is not your problem. Try to resolve your problems instead of ours``. The questions is did you (I mean the Pakistani people)really kick him out? Was it not the army which did it? The democratic thing to do if Mr Shareif was all that corrupt would have been to kick him out in an election. You elected him with more than 2/3rds majority, could you not have kicked him out with an equal majority? He was corrupt,so what? By now you know half the politicians in this part of the world are corrupt. That is the curse of our subcontinental politics. Does that mean we give up democracy? I am only amused by the fact that Pakistan`s army, which has time and again in your country not allowed democracy to flourish,is now telling you how to be ``democratic``,who can stand for election and who cannot and so on. I remember the days of emergency rule in India (I believe it was 1976-77)when i was a school student in Delhi. I also remember how Indira Gandhi was `chastised` for her misrule by the people in the elections that followed. A clown by name Raj Narain defeated her and i believe she even lost her ``deposit money``. She never dared to repeat her misdeeds and certainly never again tried to scuttle the press. I believe the people of Pakistan need to teach such a lesson to the corrupt politicians. But certainly you should not allow army to tell you how to run the country. This is not their job. This is the job of politicians whether you like it or not.

Re: reply # 91

Umair,

I do not want to discuss Kashmir again in this forum.Most of your allegations have been answered by Shammi and other people in this forum. I too,like many of them,would like to say: proof please? Pakistanis seem to see nothing beyond Kashmir. Do you sincerely feel that if Kashmir is solved to everyone`s satisfaction,then all hostilities between the 2 countries would end? I do not think so. Kashmir is only a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. The disease lies in the mindset of your army generals and the so called Jihadis. They will go on and on until they can bring everyone in that part of the world to their way of thinking. We Indians are very concerned about the increasing Talibanisation of your country. What is the role of army in all these? Are they helplessly watching all this happening or they hand-in-glove with these fundamentalists? In either case, the picture is not rosy. I am only shocked that the discussion in this forum is not on how to decrease the influence of these fundamentalists in your society,but on Kashmir,which as i said is a symptom of the disease. Kashmir problem,I repeat can be solved by diplomacy alone. For this to happen Pakistan must rein in the Jihadi elements and stop supporting acts of terrorism across the border. Unfortunately,Nawaz Sharief,however corrupt he may have been,understood this. That is why the Bus diplomacy happened in the first place. Guess what, your army did not like it. A friendly India,with whom Pakistan can have free trade, and with whom all problems including Kashmir would have been solved, was not to your army`s liking. Such an eventuality would have undermined its role in pakistani politics. I tell you folks again and again, the only way to go is to put your army back in its proper place,elect a democratic government and start talking to India about everything including Kashmir. The million dollar question is: can your people do it?

rsridhar

FINALLY, all is revealed about evil Indians and bhola-bhala Pakistanis :)

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2001-daily/11-02-2001/main/main4.htm

re: Umairr,

* Assef Ali was extremely corrupt.

So what he has to say about Kashmir must be false. Anyone sees any logic here?

* I am not sure where his loyalties are vis-à-vis Pakistan. Ditto on Nawaz Sharif.

Assef is a traitor. Nawaz is a traitor. B Bhutto is a traitor. Altaf Hussain is a traitor.

Or, could it be that it is the Pakistani army that is full of traitors determined to sell Pakistani people down the river in order to keep its sinecures?

*And believe me, he (Assef Ali) supported and ordered every Pakistani military offensive.

Indians will not believe you. And most Pakistanis won`t either. Most Pakistanis and Indians believe that, after Jinnah, Pakistan`s foreign policy and its foreign excursion have always been, ultimately, in the hands of the Pakistani army. Pakistanis have a most affectionate term for this source of ultimate power, the establishment!

*Almost every single one of (the offensives by Pakistan) has been a counter-offensive to offensives carried out by India.

This does not seem to be a belief shared by journalists and columnists who write for Pakistani English dailies. Perhaps you should take some time off from reading the Indian section of the Amnesty International reports (I am not sure if you read the Pakistani section) and running your IT business, and begin reading the Dawn, and the News. But, alas, they may all be a bunch of traitors too.

*In any case, Assef Ali has made some very good and accurate points. I do not deny that most of the problems he has mentioned do exist in Pakistan.

You are using an unfair trick, first by completely undermining the author`s integrity and loyalty, and then extending a token acknowledgement of ``most`` (you don`t tell which ones) of the problems. I won`t blame you though. We all do in moments of our weakness.

* One could have written the same article, and changed the name of Pakistan to any other third world country (including India) and it would apply equally well.`` And so on.

If that makes an average, educated Pakistani sanguine, then there is some real problem somewhere. First, one is not sure if your basic premise here is correct. Second, even if it is, it does not help Pakistan much.

(The core cause of the arms race in South Asia) is the massive military purchases that India has been making.

Perhaps true. But HOW long will it take for some of my Pakistani friends to realize that India DOES NOT limit itself to a military budget needed to fight Pakistan? India has regional and global aspirations just like Pakistan has aspirations in terms of its perceived Unmah. Neither Pakistan nor India keep their `aspired destinies` secret. If Pakistani military wants to maintain its military strength one-third, half, or double of India`s, they have every justification, and right to do so.

* (India`s defence expenditure) far in excess to its defense needs. Plain and simple.

Won`t it better if people associated with Pakistani military focus on analyzing their own defence needs rather than India`s?

*So even when Kashmir is solved, the arms race will not end

I agree. Kashmir is NOT an issue between India and Pakistan at all. No solution to the problem will make a dime`s difference to the problems between Pakistan and India.

* until India takes it foot off the pedal.

Or, one party`s pedal falls off. That will lead to other problems but I believe that is what we need to aim at.

*If what I am saying is incorrect, then I would like to find out why India refuses to ask the Kashmiris what they want to do with their own lives?

Does Pakistani military have the courage to ask Pakistan`s own Mohajirs and Sindhis in a free election (that is in itself a strange concept for a country obsessed with the freedom of choice for people in other countries!) if they would like to create their own separate countries? They will not, because they know that were the joota of Pakistani military were taken off, Pakistan will fall apart today.

The fact of the matter - one that many people in Pakistan do not seem to like - is that most Indians have decisively rejected the logic that nations should be broken up on the basis of sect, religion, sexual orientation, and the length of people`s noses. In 1947 that option was forced on Indians at a time when India`s destiny was in the hands of foreigners. Just like Taiwan separated from the mailand China when China was weak. Unlike the Chinese, however, most Indians make no claim on Pakistan (despite what Pakistani military tells its people). Unfortunately, that gesture of goodwill seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Rest of the post is irrelevant. Everyone knows that India has always been the fundamentalist state while Pakistan has been a bastion of secularism, that Hindus have been the madcap killers tormenting their minority populations while Muslims have been dedicated to the cause of peace and brotherhood from day one, fully respecting the rights of their minorities. Let us not waste time on such revelations.

The cost of war prevented is much less than actually having a war.

From my perspective (don`t know about the Government of India) the Kargil war ensued in part because India was perceived to be weak after a decade of declining defense budgets.

There has been neglect of India`s defence readiness -- for instance, Indian pilots do not have a semi-decent trainer plane, and India has had some 130 or more airforce crashes in the last decade (India is buying 66 trainer aircraft from Great Britain).

If hiking up India` defense budget from 2.5% of GDP to 3% of GDP helps in keeping India`s preparedness high, and thus keeps a Musharraf from planning more Kargils, then it is worthwhile. If it makes Pakistanis feel nervous, I`m sorry, but appeasement of Pakistan does not make for good policy for India.

-Arun Gupta

Re: Umairr #91

As I mentioned previously, I am saddened by future economic prospects of Pakistan. While you are correct in saying that current economic statistics depict all countries in the subcontinent in a more or less common situation, it are the TRENDS that are important for forecasting the future. That is where the gaps, by any measure (growth, education, institutional strenght, human development index, scientific/ technical talent, etc.) between India and Pakistan begin to widen. Regional disparities, as you pointed out, do not bode well for peace.

I take exception to your statement that ``Currently, by a huge margin (in the hundred-folds), the largest group of people, based on religion, being killed in South Asia are Muslims being killed by Hindus. The second highest group of people being killed is Christians being killed by Hindus. The only country in South Asia with a religious extremist govt. (by account of Indian citizens themselves, as well as the govts.` own literature) is India``

First, you make an incendiary allegation, with no supporting facts -- a rather dangerous, almost irresponsible, choice of words. If you are relying on anecdotal accounts or press reports, then perhaps this link may convince you otherwise (http://www.thenewspapertoday.com/india/inside.phtml?NEWS_ID=3797) where just today 15 Muslims (yes Muslims) were gunned down by jehadis in Kashmir with children and women allowed to burn to death.

Second, the Govt. of India cannot be Constitutional and religious simultaneously -- there is a distinction between the government and ruling party/coalition. I think that you blurred the distinction between the two. Perhaps, you do not know that the Govt. can be dissolved by the President for engaging in a religious prejudicial manner.

Last, enough energy has been expended on these issues to no end in other articles, but this space should be treasured, and be allowed to maintain its unique debate for it seeks to discuss an issue of great importance for the economic future of Pakistan. I do not believe that it is possible for any organization or country (let alone Pakistan) to SIMULTANEOUSLY pursue economic prosperity and pursue an adversarial path with a giant neighbor. This defies the laws of economics. You mentioned several other smaller, regional countries and describe their blighted existence, but you ignore the fact that they would have been blighted even more had they been continuously confrontational. It is not as if Pakistan has not been down this path before. Various, credible analysts have been predicting a sorry future for Pakistan. It is unfortunate should this come to pass. It does not have to be like that.

You asked me about my origins -- just consider me a humble friend of both Pakistan and India.

rshridhar

Your point about the necessity of primary education is very apt. Illiteracy as a disease that can make even the best of the systems ineffective. But so is the lack of infrastructure, higher education etc. So the question arises, what should be our national priorities?

I have been to villages and I have noted that even though many children are enrolled in primary schools to start with, a large percentage of them drop out after 5th std. or 8th std. This is because many of them fail to see how the education being imparted would better their lives. Lack of economic opportunities in the rural India serves as a disincentive towards education. IMO, if we concentrate on connecting these villages to cities via good roads, telephone lines, a number of small scale industries would spring up in these areas in response to the demand in cities. A removal of licence raj and availbility of cheap loans may fuel this process. A by product of this process would be people realising the need of specialised education as a means to prosperity. So IMO, if we want people to get educated we would have to show them its direct tangible benefits and leave the rest upon them. People are wise enough to take care of themselves. The key lies in creating job opportunities. This could be achieved by improving connectivity by means of extensive road network,telephone lines, internet facilities that would create jobs besides forcing people to educate themselves improving our competitiveness.

Now the question is how we would garner the huge investments required for achieving the above target. The folowing routes come to my mind:

1. The govt should divest/sell its stakes in the major public sector cos. This would not only improve the overall productivity by minimising political meddling but also ensure that the more percentage of taxpayer`s money goes towards developmental projects instead of supporting the loss making organizations.

2. By attracting foreign investment. This is a huge topic and needs attention in a separate post.

3. By controlling budget deficit in cutting down on the unnecessary expenditures, trimming the govt office intakes, and demanding more accountability from govt workers. This would free the public savings for more pvt investment instead of locking them up into the coffers of inefficient org.

4. By decreasing the defense expenditure, at least for a decade. We can definitely take back the additional $3 bn increment after Kargil war. We should learn from China that has chosen to concentrate on economic development over military power, if only temporarily. Our defense expenditure of around $14 bn is about the same as that of China inspite of the latter`s GDP being 1.9 times ours. It`s not nuclear/military ability that would make us a big player, it`s economic power.(See where is Pak after N-explosion today).

5. By mobilising NRI savings through various schemes like India resurgent bonds.





In short term, there might be a transient increase of unemployment if one implements such policies. However if implemented judiciously they would yield long term bonanza. Hence these decisions require a political will. Mr Vajpayee`s dream project of creating a North-South corridor and a Golden triangle that would connect the major industrial areas of our country through expressways is a step in the right direction. He has also announced the commencement of another project worth $15 bn that seeks to lay an extensive network of roads to connect rural areas with the urban centres. These projects have the potential to turn India into an economic powerhouse.

Sincerely

Mr Umairr

You say,``The last time I checked, Indians and Pakistanis had two arms, two legs and one brain, each. So unless Indians have grown an extra brain, I am not quite sure how they can be superior or inferior to Pakistanis in IT``

It seems that the ``tinka`` is indeed in your ``dadhi``. Please dont put your words in my mouth. I never talked about any racial superiority, it was you who interpreted it thus. Now mark my words carefully, it was never a question of race, but it is definitely a question of quality of technical education. When Pakistan has its own share of IITs, Roorkee, RECs they can claim to have achieved a status at par with Indians in the technical/IT field. But it is well known that they(Pakistan) haven`t and hence my comment. Looks like there is some complex deep inside you.

You say,``Cheap labor`` is mentioned, reference to IT, Indians seem to take it personally :-) I used this term equally for both Pakistan and India; while none of the Pakistanis seem to have taken it personally, you have``

This is because most of the Indians are ``currently`` have come of age where they had to provide ``cheap intellect`` but I can not say the same about Pakistanis. Indians(note not South Asian) project a brand image because of their talent and good work and we would not like to dilute it. Indians have no dearth of role models who have made big. You see I would never lump Indians and Pakistanis as ``South Asians`` because I know they do not form a common bracket at least in this discussion. And btw, *my * rates would be far higher to ever be offended by the use of term ``cheap labour`` at any point of my career cycle.( You see I am not an IT man too!).

Sincerely

Dionysus,

{{What makes people think things are going to be hunky-dory with Pakistan after we capitulate on Kashmir? And if we capitulate on the Kashmir issue we will set a dangerous precedent by legitimizing Indian aggression - }}

Youre absolutely right. India & Pakistan will be locked in enimity perpetually. The basic problem is that neither side will trust each other-ever. Without trust there can never be true friendship. This Kashmir peace process is a total waste of time.

Pankaj #81: ``Whom are you fooling. Cheap labour!`` I have always found it interesting that whenever the term, ``Cheap labor`` is mentioned, reference to IT, Indians seem to take it personally :-) I used this term equally for both Pakistan and India; while none of the Pakistanis seem to have taken it personally, you have.

``Do you know the average billing rate of Infosys- it is $68 per hour.``

InfoSys falls into the category of companies that are on the Nasdaq, and have an international reputation. So it can afford to charge higher than other companies in South Asia. 99.9% of the IT companies in Pakistan and India do not fall into that category. Even then, $68/per hour is still dirt cheap in comparison to the rates in the US.

``the Indian immigrants in USA are not here providing dirt cheap labour.``

Once again, I used the term, ``South Asian,`` and you have, for some reason, narrowed it down to India. Chor ki darhi mein tinka :-) I am very familiar with the lifecycle of the Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrant in the US. I am one myself, and have interviewed and hired way too many of them to not know this.

I never stated that the Indian immigrants in the USA are cheap labor. The ones who come directly from India, without a US education, are cheap labor for about the first two years (when they are with the contracters that initially got them the H-1B visas). Once they are able to get rid of these shackles, they are able to get a salary equivalent to anyone else in the US. I am actually a great admirer of the Indian programmers in the USA. 60% of my current engineering team is Indian, all of whom I hired myself. And believe me, my company has to pay them a fortune. So you are preaching to the choir, regarding the success of Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrants in the USA. However the discussion was regarding investment inside India and Pakistan, and not the salaries of the immigrants who make it to the USA. So you have gone on an unnecessary tangent.

``and pls dont put Indians in the same league as Pakistanis at least in IT.``

The last time I checked, Indians and Pakistanis had two arms, two legs and one brain, each. So unless Indians have grown an extra brain, I am not quite sure how they can be superior or inferior to Pakistanis in IT. There are stupid Indians and intelligent Indians, just as their are stupid Pakistanis and intelligent Pakistanis, and stupid Bulgarians and intelligent Bulgarians. Are you suggesting, like Hitler, that Indians have all of a sudden become a superior race? I don`t buy that argument. Intelligence is an individual-based phenomenon, and not a race or nationality-based phenomenon (although some scientists may not agree with this; perhaps you fall into their category). Otherwise one could argue that Hindu Indians from Banglore are superior to Sikh Indians from Amritsar, or Muslim Indians from Dehli, since nearly all the Indian IT people seem to come from South India.

Your remarks about achieving critical mass are accurate. However, I do not know of any country that has achieved critical mass, without first educating and feeding its poor. Otherwise, only one group in the societly achieves critical mass, while the rich-poor divide increases. This can actually be counterproductive. Pakistan was in a similar sitaution to present-day India, in the 60s, i.e. potential critical mass with unequal distribution based on ethnicity. The result was the country being divided into two. If India does achieve critical mass, in my opinion, it will be critical mass, with unequal distribution also, based along religious (Muslim/Hindu) and geographical (North/South) lines. In any case, you have attempted to predict the future, while I was discussing the current situation. So another unnecessary tangent.

I still think that nearly all of the IT business currently (important word) going to South Asia from the US (hence the references to John Chambers, Bill Gates etc.) is because of the much lower human resource costs (I will not use the term cheap labor, since it seems to offend you) available in South Asia, in comparison to the US.

Shammi #84: There aren`t too many things that I know too much about, but I do know something about the following three: An immigrant`s perspective of the US IT industry, the defense policies, equipment, arms race between India and Pakistan, and Kashmir. The first two because it was/is part of my profession. The third because I trace my heritage back to Srinagar, and have followed everything going on there through Amnesty International, and hope to go there someday, myself.

You have touched on all three of these issues in your post. I am not sure whether you are Indian or Pakistani. I also do not know whether your knowledge exceeds mine on these subjects. But since I appreciate objectivity, your national origin or knowledge is not important. I will concentrate on the text of your reply, and the person you have quoted.

First of all, I would encourage you to read up on Assef Ali. He was a foreign minister in one of the most corrupt governments in the history of mankind. So I am not sure where his loyalties are vis-à-vis Pakistan. Ditto on Nawaz Sharif. It is now proven beyond a doubt that he was a corrupt, incompetent and insincere leader, who was only interested in himself, and was ready to sell Pakistan to any buyer. And believe me, he supported and ordered every Pakistani military offensive (almost every single one of which, has been a counter-offensive to offensives carried out by India).

In any case, Assef Ali has made some very good and accurate points. I do not deny that most of the problems he has mentioned do exist in Pakistan. And they do need to be solved.

However, one could have written the same article, and changed the name of Pakistan to any other third world country (including India) and it would apply equally well. So, if your point is that third world countries, including Pakistan, have a lot of difficulties, then point well taken. But please do not limit this list of countries to Pakistan. The last time I checked all of South Asia was in terrible shape. Pakistanis just make more noise about what is going on in their country, since they have generally been used to a higher living standard than the rest of South Asia, and because they face a threat from a much larger neighbor.

Apart from that, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. The biggest economic problem in South Asia is the arms race between two equally (yes, equally) poor countries. What is the core cause of this arms race? It is not Kashmir, as you seem to be hinting. Nor is it extremism of any sort in Pakistan (or India). It is the massive military purchases that India has been making; far in excess to its defense needs. Plain and simple.

If you follow the build-up of the Pakistan defense forces, you will notice that every military purchase has been directly in response to, and 1/3rd of, the purchase made by India. India tested the bomb, Pakistan followed. India is buying Su-30 aircraft, in a $3 billion dollar deal. What do you think Pakistan should do? These aircraft have nothing to do with Kashmir. Why is Indian purchasing them? So even when Kashmir is solved, the arms race will not end until India takes it foot off the pedal.

As far as a solution to the Kashmir problem, it`s plain and simple. Let international human rights organizations into Kashmir, and let them report on what is going on, and expose it to the rest of the world. It will become quite clear whether it is India or Pakistan or BSF or the jehadis that are causing the problem. Unfortunately, India goes out of its way to stop human rights organizations from entering Kashmir. Why does it do so if it is convinced it is in the right? What do you expect Pakistanis to do? Stand there and watch, as the Indian forces, with civilian support, massacre tens of thousands of people, who historically have wanted to join Pakistan (at the very least, leave India). If what I am saying is incorrect, then I would like to find out why India refuses to ask the Kashmiris what they want to do with their own lives? No one seems to answer this direct question. Anyone who knows what the Kashmiris would do, if given self-determination, already understands the solution to the Kashmir problem.

How you have related all of this to IT is something I fail to understand. Pakistan`s economic problems will not be solved unless corruption and insincere leadership is tackled, even after Kashmir is solved. Pakistan will not be able to lower its defense budget until India stops pointing billions of dollars of guns towards Pakistan. Bangladesh and Nepal and Bhutan and Tibet and Sri Lanka do not have any major external conflicts with anyone. Why are they still in the third world? And why do they have so many internal conflicts, if they do not have a Kashmir problem?

There are a few well-documented statistics you need to keep in mind, in regard to South Asia. You may or may not like them, but they are facts: Currently, by a huge margin (in the hundred-folds), the largest group of people, based on religion, being killed in South Asia are Muslims being killed by Hindus. The second highest group of people being killed is Christians being killed by Hindus. The only country in South Asia with a religious extremist govt. (by account of Indian citizens themselves, as well as the govts.` own literature) is India. By a gigantic margin, the most poor people in South Asia are in India (in 1990, there were 17 million Pakistanis below the poverty level, there were around 400 million Indians). The most separatists’ movements in South Asia are in India. The greatest economic difference amongst religious groups in South Asia is between the Hindus and Muslims of India, etc. etc.. However, India is still producing computer scientists by the tens of thousands. And these computer scientists are running the IT shops of the whole world.

Basically I have presented these statistics, not to denounce India, but to point out that all of South Asia has problems that need to be solved. All these countries are in the third world. So it is unfair to limit your arguments just to Pakistan. Also, the arms race in South Asia is not controlled by Kashmir, but by the Indian offensive arms purchases (just in the past year, India augmented its military budget by an amount equal to Pakistan`s whole military budget; in addition, it bought $1 billion worth of military aircraft from England; signed a deal for $3 billion dollars worth of offensive fighter aircraft and equipment with Russia; rolled out a series of nuclear missiles; began development on a tri-platform nuclear strategy by deploying nukes on submarines; bought hundred of millions of dollars worth of T-90 tanks, etc. etc.) This is just in the past year. For what purpose, when it already enjoys a 4.5 to 1 superiority over Pakistan in military equipment and budget? India itself has declared that these purchases have nothing to do with Kashmir. Can you name a few major military aircraft purchase, submarine purchase or tank purchase in the past year made by Pakistan?

So please look at all of South Asia when you attempt to figure out what ails Pakistan. And please realize that every country in South Asia, on a per person basis, is equally or more ailed. And that despite all the statistics I provided, above, India is still doing well in IT. So why cannot Pakistan do the same.

Allowing India to carry out the killings in Kashmir without saying a word, is not going to turn Pakistan into an IT power. These two issues are relatively unrelated. In my opinion, Pakistan should continue to support the human rights of Kashmiris, and continue to solve its IT problems simultaneously.

This of course does not mean that Pakistanis should not attempt to solve the Kashmir issue, in line with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This, however, requires that the Indian govt. realize that the Kashmiri people have wishes, and they should not be killed by the tens of thousands, for having wishes that don`t fall in line with people sitting in Banglore or Dehli.

There are country(ies) in South Asia where people cry for the victims of the recent earthquake, and simultaneously support the presence of the Indian army in Kashmir (and thereby the killings carried out by the Indian army in Kashmir). As long as Pakistanis simultaneously feel bad for the people who died in the earthquake and the people being killed by the Indian army in Kashmir, then I would have to say that Pakistan is far less radicalized than many other countries, regardless of what the CIA, Assef Ali, or the Indian press says.

On a personal level, I have actively raised money for the earthquake victims in India, I strongly support the self-determination of Kashmiris; by peaceful means at first and by militant actions if India does not accept their peaceful requests, and I am simultaneously trying to run an IT business. I consider all three of the above activities to be genuine and moral, and do not see one conflicting with the other. All three should be pursued simultaneously, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Because all three are noble. I hope all of Pakistan does the same.

Suppose you were going to a market, that was about to be close, to sell a computer. Suppose you saw someone trying to kill an innocent person. Would you try to save the innocent person, or would you try to sell the computer, or would you attempt to do both? Would you worry about what the rest of the world was thinking about your actions, at that time?

Shammi #81

We elected Nawaz and we kicked him out.

That is not your problem.

Try to resolve your problems instead of ours.

I think Saeed Naqvi`s conclusion is the same as that of many, many other Indians.

Comments ?

-Arun Gupta

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20010209/ied09016.html

In self-destruct mode

Saeed Naqvi

Just when New Delhi is contemplating its response on Pakistan, comes the latest assessment by Standard and Poor, placing Pakistan so far down in sovereign ratings as to be a cause for general concern. Surely an outfit like Standard and Poor must represent the distillate of where Pakistan stands in the eyes of Western financial institutions. ``In the past three years multilateral flows have been disrupted by the Army`s nuclear test``, says the report.

Cross-border terrorism, Shia-Sunni clashes, highest public sector debt and much more have all been cited as having contributed to the dismal picture.This disturbing economic picture is compounded by unbridgeable political fissures along linguistic, ethnic and communal lines.

Globally, the country stood exposed after Kargil. The Clinton administration in its final months had recognised Pakistani intransigence. Not only among the developed West, Pakistan was also being gradually isolated among Muslim countries. Since the Casablanca Summit at least, the OIC had demonstrated a sense of boredom with Islamabad`s continuous chant on Kashmir.

`Should not Pakistan be saved from the impending implosion?` an American scholar asked me. `Surely it is in India`s interest to help Pakistan come back from the brink`.

Of course, an economically viable, stable, Pakistan is in India`s interest, I said. But what can India do if the authors of the Pakistani state see hostility to India as an essential ingredient in Pakistan`s national self-definition.

My personal attitude towards Pakistan has evolved from my childhood. My first exposure to Pakistan was through its cricket team which arrived in Lucknow to play a Test match on a ground next to the Gomti river. Lucknow in those days had three very colonial hotels -- Carlton, Royal and Burlington, in that order of excellence. Since the visitors were staying at Royal, that precisely was where we were headed (having bunked classes) on a frenetic autograph hunt.

The main lounge at Royal had a large, semicircular bar, lined with wooden stools on which, to our great delight, sat several members of the Pakistan team, including a dashing looking pair, Maqsood Ahmad and Fazal Mahmood, sipping beer from large, frosted glasses.

For us school boys from backgrounds where drinking was a taboo, the image of players from the Islamic Republic sipping beer in public was a wickedly exciting sight.

It was years later that I realised that in the early 50s Partition had registered with us only as some sort of a temporary drifting away. Architects of the Islamic Republic or of Hindu India had not got down to the business of setting up their respective edifices. The Pakistani players sipping beer at the Royal were actually creatures of Lahore cosmopolitanism who had not yet had the Mullahs breathing down their necks.

I saw my uncle plant the sapling of electoral politics in his first assembly election from Rae Bareli in 1952. From that day onwards I never had any doubt that India`s diversities would be mediated through an ever-strengthening democratic process.

The picture on the other side was different. When I visited some aunts in Karachi who had drifted in that direction by the simple affiliation secure in the notion that the Ganga-Jamuna culture they had left behind could somehow be reconstructed on the sands of Karachi and Sind. This delusion of theirs was fed by the presence in their midst of such icons of Avad culture as Josh Malihabadi.

But the brutal crackdown by the `Punjabi` Army on the Muslims of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) in 1971 inaugurated the process of various ethnic, linguistic groups to regard themselves against the looming backdrop of Punjabi dominance:

Josh Malihabadi wrote:

``Yun Karachi mein hoon jis/tarah se kufey mein Hussain`` (I feel in Karachi exactly as the Prophet`s grandson Hussain must have felt among the betrayers of Kufa in Iraq).

Sub-continental Islam, steeped in the linguistic and cultural hues of Hindustan, was of insufficient strength to hold together the Muslim state. Arabised Islam, cleansed of its Hindustani civilisational baggage was the answer. Maqsood Ahmad would no longer be seen sipping beer at the Royal bar.

The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan gave this burgeoning Islamic fervour and its mentors, the ISI, a boost beyond measure. The Jehadi juggernaut lurched into Kashmir in 1989.

Local discontent, stoked and fueled by trans-border militancy is a lethal mix, not easy to manage. Indian mismanagement compounded the problem. For paramilitary forces working under pressure, local units of hospitality to externally sponsored terrorism becomes indistinguishable from the common citizenry. Alienation follows.

Even so, a great deal of ground had been retrieved in Kashmir in the past few years. Tourism was picking up. Vajpayee`s bus journey to Lahore would have consolidated on these gains but the project was scuttled in Kargil.

Let us face it. The roll of the bus to Lahore and the roll of the Islamic juggernaut are violently antithetical processes. The purpose of one is to retard the progress of the other.

This being the state of play, what credence should one give to anything resembling a peace overture from Islamabad. In any case, why would General Pervez Musharraf, who authored (or was the instrument of) Kargil be embarked on something for which he has so severely punished Nawaz Sharief? Is there a general amnesia on this count?

The world community, fearful of a nuclear armed Pakistan on an unstoppable Islamic spiral, hopes that an Indian overture to Pakistan, even a compromise, will have the effect of circumscribing the spiral, of making it finite.

Ask the world community to read the three recent articles written by Gen Javed Nasir, former Director General of ISI. It is clear as daylight that Kashmir is only a staying post. The project is actually to unravel the world`s greatest experiment in democracy and multi-culturalism which includes the world`s second largest Muslim population.

What then should India do? Wait till that trans-border terrorism ends. In the meanwhile calm the waters in India, including Kashmir. Be watchful that the roll of the juggernaut on the other side does not generate a backlash on the Hindu fringe, which is exactly what Pakistan wants. Patience, patience, and slow movement on the SAARC track.

Be watchful that the roll of the juggernaut on the other side does not generate a backlash on the Hindu fringe, which is exactly what Pakistan wants.

Re: Dionysus #85 and Umairr #78

I am somewhat disappointed by the fact that Dionysus and Umairr have not fully appreciated my well-meaning and well-intentioned concern for Pakistan. Indeed, I am afraid now that any benefits of IT to Pakistan will remain illusionary. It did not have to be like this, the choices are stark, but they will be frittered away (just as the former Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Aseff Ahmad Ali laments in my previous post). Dionysus` post that even if the Kashmir issue is sorted out, there will be permanent hostility between India and Pakistan, is also troubling. This is the first time that I have heard this admission/statement. I had believed what Pakistan leaders have said all along -- that Kashmir is the root issue, etc. Now even that may not be true. Well, history has provided ample examples from the past where conflict can lead. Overall, I am now quite (sadly) bearish on Pakistan`s economic prospects.