Refusing The Sitara-I-Imtiaz

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Fuzair # 193

[``Gen. his-name-escapes-me-but-the-Qadiani-general-in-charge-of-the-initial-phase-of-Grand-Slam``]

Major Gen. Akhter Hussain Malik. He was indeed a Qadiani and related to both Nazir Ahmed and M.M. Ahmed, two top bureaucratic guns in Ayub regime.

[``But, hey, I`m a stinking, Hindu-loving liberal, right Urstruly, AAmir and Co.?``]

Wrong. You are a true patriot. Please accept my fatwa... aapko aapki pyari merlot ki kasam :-)

[``Incidentally, I am one of the few Pakistanis who seems to think that we should suspend aid to the insurgents in Kashmir``]

Wrong again. We were not actively helping Kashmiris when India was working overtime in East Pakistan or when Indra presided over the Sindh conference in Rajhistan in `83. We can choose not to take advantage of India`s weakness but I doubt if the dhoti-clads will be that generous.

Re: Fuzair #193

``As I also said, we can argue that if Pakistan was not deliberately provocative, there would be NO Indian threat at all but thats another issue.``

``Pakistan`s military expansion in the 1980s merely redressed an imbalance that had existed in the region since the 1971 disaster. Indian screams about Washington fuelling a regional arms` race are hypocritical joke when you look at the Indian`s own weapon`s acquistion program. ``

I tend to agree with your first observation, and it is worth dwelling upon. Assume for a minute, that relations between India and Pakistan were cordial. What do you think would have been India`s response to events subsequent to March 1971? Without offering any tangible proof, I submit that India would not have made the military moves in the manner that it did. As indirect proof, I offer the case of India-Sri Lanka. Even after having armed/trained Tamil insurgents (LTTE) in the early 80s, India quickly fell in line with the beleagured Jayawardene Sri Lanka govt. and sent in the IPKF to DISARM the LTTE. (IPKF`s subsequent ignominious withdrawal has more to do with Sri Lanka`s then newly elected President Premadasa`s informal alliance with the LTTE. Premdasa has since been assasinated by the LTTE. As recently as last year, the Sri Lanka govt. was looking for military assistance again after the fall of Elephant Pass). This despite the fact that for a while Tamil separatism was a real issue in the 60s in India, and spillovers of Sri Lanka`s problems can have repurcussions in India. (In other words, it is politically tempting to side with the Tamils than with the majority Sinhalese).

I think that you can expect the same in the future vis a vis Nepal. As the Maoist insurgency grows in Nepal, rather than seek short-term political mileage by leaning on the Nepalese govt., I think that India will make moves to bolster the constitutional authority in that country. Also true with Bangladesh: India`s Hindu nationalist leaders have given a muted response to the Bangladesh flare-up, primarily (it is belived) because any hot words will only help the less-than-friendly Opposition in Bangladesh. Indeed, Pakistan does the same: When its 1st secy was declared persona non grata in Nepal recently, Pakistan did not respond in kind.

I know that I cannot say `If Pakistan quits spoiling for a fight, then all will be well`, and expect it to go unchallenged because all concerned will immediately pounce upon me. (There I said it, while maintaining deniability!).

As regards your second statement, I belive that it is subject to charges and counter charges (with no end). I do, however, believe that India is a status-quo power, while Pakistan is unhappy with the status-quo. (The Indo-Pak stances on Kashmir are demonstrative). Therefore, Pakistan is continuously seeking to perturb the state of current affairs, and many of its policies/public utterances are explainable in the light of what I just said. This, I think is not without its risks. I have already alluded to you, how India`s response could have been different had the underlying relations been cordial. You, too, I believe prefer to maintain the status quo, since the risks may outweigh the perceived benefits. While it takes both sides to keep the peace, it takes only one to break it.

Regards, and please pardon me if I offended you in any way. That is not my intention.

Fuzair, thank you for your considered response. Best regards.

Ref Fuzair #: 193

The Rann of Kutch seems to have a connection with Kashmir. In 1965, the first skirmishes were in the Rann of Kutch followed by Operation Gibraltar. In 1999, Kargil was followed by India`s shooting down of Pakistan Navy`s reconnaissance plane Atlantique which was on a training mission.

While Pakistani Chowkwallahs protest too much the shooting down of the plane, they are too young to know that in 1965 the Pak Air Force shot down a Cessna flying from Ahmedabad. Among the passengers killed were the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. I wonder what explanation the Pak government provided in 1965 for shooting down a small Cessna plane well inside Indian territory, except to demonstrate that India did not have effective air defenses around its perimeter.

Aamir and Studebaker #

And I can also say that a people who have no self respect due to servitude throughout their entire history.

And think that only money can save them and which is their god.

Who have been raped and killed by their own people in collusion with foreign invaders.

This nation can only produce Jays and Harimou`s.

Their sadist tendencies are very much satisfied when I say them gutter and scum.

Are you listening loathsome Siraj Dharam.

Do you feel elation and an incentive to work hard for money by my remarks.

Janwar Ko Jis Naam Se Pukaro, Janwar Hi Rahe Ga.

Re: Reply #: 188

AAmir,

You have quoted some occurrances from the Indian press. No doubt all these happenings are deplorable but really what is your point. To me the fact that such matters are routinely being reported in press only points to the freedom of press and vibrancy in the Indian democracy. I am amazed at the fact that some Pakistanis in this forum are pointing fingers at democracy in India when democracy has even failed to strike roots in their own country. Nobody is ever saying that democracy is the perfect system. Even in US it has never been perfected. Only the other day i saw over TV how a white American from one of the Southern states,who was responsible for burning a black church causing the death of 2 black women in 1963 received sentence only on 2001. Talk about justice delayed.

In India,democracy, however imperfect, works. There are so many voices of dissent pulling at different directions that democracy affords a consensus to emerge. One case in point will be the formation of coalition government. When it became clear that the will of the masses did not favor any single party to emerge with majority votes,and after several governments fell after short lifespan,the philosophy of coalition government emerged. BJP had to give up some of its extreme agendas and agree to a common program with its coalition members. It has reined in its extremist elements and is going soft on Babri Masjid. Here again the will of the people prevailed. Of course coalition government also brings to surface some ugly elements of horse trading and suitcase diplomacy with tons of mony changing hands. Tehelka tapes have exposed such issues and hopefully some amount of transparency will emerge. That is how democracy works. In India it is a painfully slow process but it works nevertheless. Allahabad high court`s rendering of Indira Gandhi`s election null and void and thrashing of Congress in the election that followed emergency rule are a standing testimony to the effectiveness of Indian democracy.

I will instead of doing a cut and paste routine,which is easy to do,narrate 2 incidence where i thought democracy worked to our advantage.In India,until i believe 1987,it was not easy for a student from one part of the country to get into a medical college in another part. After finishing my MBBS from Delhi when i moved to Bombay and tried to get into postgraduation,i was told that no. 1 preference was for Bombayites followed by Maharastrians and then only rest. As an Indian i found this very discriminatory and wondered how such a system if it existed elsewhere could be tolerated. Very soon i heard that a student had moved a Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court demanding uniformity in selection (to medical colleges)throughout the country. Soon the court came up with guidelines. Each state was required to submit 25% of seats to a common pool. By a common computerised exam conducted by AIIMS,any student from any part of the country can aspire to enter into a medical college anywhere else. That is how i came to do MD in Madras.Were there any murmer of protests? Of course there were. No state likes to give away its previleges but everyone respected Supreme Court`s decision.

Another incidence (if i have not exhausted your patience already)is worth mentioning. While doing DCH (Diploma in Child Health)in Delhi, one of us found a discriminatory clause that restricted our course to 9 months instead of a full 12 months,the last 3 months being adhoc so that we were denied some previleges. Three of us moved the Tees Hazari Metropolitan Court in Delhi against discriminatory practices by Delhi University. I remember the day vividly when 3 of us were sitting in front of a judge arguing our case,with our exams just 1 week away. Finally,we got the decision in our favor,got the exams postponed. The judge ordered the Delhi University to stop such practices.As far as i am concerned,democracy worked for me that day.

Trying to prove that democracy does not exist in India is pointless. Democracy is as alive today as it was 50 years ago.

sridhar

Re: Shammi #191

As I said, it was a rushed post and needed a good edit and rewrite. What I should have written was the ``increased level of the perceived threat from India.`` As I made clear (or thought I had made clear) IF the IA goes on an arm`s purchasing binge, the Pakistanis have no choice but to either try to match it or to accept de facto Indian hegemony over South Asia and roll-over and play dead (a la Nepal/Bhutan). As I also said, we can argue that if Pakistan was not deliberately provocative, there would be NO Indian threat at all but thats another issue. Militaries are paid to think up worst case scenarios and the Pakistanis had no choice but to try to match the Indians if we were to maintain some modicum of independence of action (i.e., independence of action vis a vis India).

Pakistan`s military expansion in the 1980s merely redressed an imbalance that had existed in the region since the 1971 disaster. Indian screams about Washington fuelling a regional arms` race are hypocritical joke when you look at the Indian`s own weapon`s acquistion program. Indian arms are peaceful ones (just like the first nuclear test), ours are the dangerous and destabilizing ones.

As far as the 1965 War goes, of course we started it by initiating Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir. We mistakenly (thanks to Bhutto-- an unstable megalomaniac in a position of power and influence) thought that (a) the Kashmiri Muslims would rise up, (b) that the Indians would keep hostilities confined to `disputed` Kashmir and (c) that, in any case, if push came to shove, the dismal Indian battle performance in 1962, and the somewhat better but still bad Indian performance in the Rann of Kutch in April 1965, meant that one good push and the Indian Army would collapse on the Western Front and we would have IHK and a very favorable strategic position. None of this happened, of course. Turns out that there was nothing wrong with Indian jawans and junior officers and, once the Kaul Boys had been sacked, the Indian brass was at least as good as ours.

(Warning: digression. All right, I`d trade Manekshaw or Harbaksh Singh for Musa and Yahya in about 10 seconds flat but our deficiencies in higher leadership did not really become apparent until 1971. Gen. Eftikhar Janjua and Gen. his-name-escapes-me-but-the-Qadiani-general-in-charge-of-the-initial-phase-of-Grand-Slam could hold their own against the best the Indians had, though).

Our take on 1965 was that we were using force in an area, IHK, that was disputed territory so we did not, technically, attack India. It was the Indians who attacked across the recognized international border first. A mere technicality to be sure but that is what makes lawyers wealthy. Pakistan deployed limited regular troops in the Rann of Kutch when India pushed out Pakistan Rangers from their border posts and occupied Pakistani border posts. I believe the reason for this was (false) Russian geologist`s reports about the presence of oil in the Rann. In the Rann, I believe there were brigade level actions fought by Indian and Pakistani troops in which the Indians got the worst of the initial engagement but both governments agreed to de-escalate the situation before it grew out of control.

Asghar Khan was an Air Marshall (one step lower than Air Chief Marshall) in 1965 and he was no longer a serving officer, having been transferred to head PIA before the start of the war. Nur Khan had been brought in from PIA to head the PAF and he was a heck of a lot more aggressive and willing to challenge the Indians than Asghar Khan would have been (but I might be doing him a disservice here as he did build up the PAF to the point that it could give a good account of itself in 1965).

The Pakistani position in E. Pakistan is very similar to the Indian position in Kashmir in that both sides claimed that there would be no internal security problems if it wasn`t for the evil Indians/Pakistanis arming, training and funding the insurgents. In any case, while Pakistan technically attacked first in December 1971, Indian and Pakistani troops had been fighting an undeclared war since early November.

Incidentally, I am one of the few Pakistanis who seems to think that we should suspend aid to the insurgents in Kashmir, accept the LOC as the international border, and clean up our own mess first before we try to save every Muslim in India and extend the Nizam-e-Mustapha to Central Asia. But, hey, I`m a stinking, Hindu-loving liberal, right Urstruly, AAmir and Co.?

So there was an increased Indian threat that had to be either countered or a fundamental shift in Pakistan`s position vis a vis India be accepted.

Regards.

In response to shammi (Reply # 190)
Dear Shammi:

Your statement: ``Guys, if the best that you can do is to slant your perception of reality by quoting extensively from readily available web-material, then I pray that as you gradually mature you will come to realize that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at another, and that there is more to be gained by self-criticism than by criticizing others.``

My reply: I agree. Let us worry about our problems first.

Chowk cyber-war is most likely to produce more enemies than friends. Let us appeal to the good side/sensibilities of all ``Others``.

And, let us be thankful that there are still some people in this world who have the moral courage to decline symbolic awards from the states that are ``generally`` ruled by scounderals. Why scounderals prevail? Because, the people don`t resist and assert themselves. Any comment?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Fuzair #135

Fuzair, this may have some bearing on your statement,``There are several good and some not-so-good reasons for expanding the size of the Army. The good ones are the increased threat from India``:

``India never started a war with Pakistan: Asghar

By our correspondent (The News, May 5, 2001)

LAHORE: President Tehrik-e-Istaqlal Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan said that Pakistan initiated the 1965 and 1971 wars with India.

In an exclusive interview with The News Friday, he said Pakistan opened the front with India by sending troops to Runn of Kutch in 1965, and later in 1971 created such conditions in East Pakistan that India had to wage a war.

``India never started a war with Pakistan,`` viewed Asghar Khan and contended that there was no need to revamp Pakistan Air Force as India had never been a threat. He said Pakistan need not spend much on defence as India would hardly dare attack Pakistan.

He said a certain ``section of the society,`` time and again, created hysteria in the country that jehad should be launched against India and USA. He proposed an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir whose defence should be the joint responsibility of India and Pakistan. Suggesting that both the countries should station one or two army brigades in the valley, he said the Kashmiris be allowed to rule themselves in a peaceful atmosphere.

He said as the people of Kashmir could not be won over with force, Pakistan and India should make efforts to establish peace and tranquility in the region. Recalling that he had proposed this to Ayub Khan and told him that the ``will of Kashmiris`` must be ascertained instead of winning them over with the use of force. But, Ayub, intoxicated with victory in Runn of Kutch, didn`t pay heed to his sugestion, said Asghar Khan

He condemned the the role of political parties on Kashmir issue, and termed their ``rhetoric`` as exploitation of public sentiments on Kashmir dispute.`` (end of article)

Others, all right -- I confess. Having just castigated many for resorting to cutting and pasting, I have just done the same. But, please understand, my intention is not to criticize, but to shed some light. Asghar Khan was the Air Chief Marshall during the 1965 war, and his perspective should be very credible. Incidentally, there is an interesting story about Asghar Khan and Arjan Singh, who both found themselves on opposite sides as Air Chiefs in 1965. They had been batchmates in training school before Partition, and on one occassion they played a stunt by flying low under some power lines in a two-seater plane with one of them at the controls. For this conduct, I believe that they were both pulled up by their senior officers. After the war, they both got together and recalled this story to the amazement of junior officers on both sides.

For a while the mistake made by Chowk to have two threads for the same article seemed to have been a blessing in disguise. The clutter was on one thread while the eclectic exchanges were on the other. Now that manoj, siraj, jay, harimau, and Aamir seem to be migrating to this thread, this blessing is beginning to look more and more like a Trojan horse. Guys, if the best that you can do is to slant your perception of reality by quoting extensively from readily available web-material, then I pray that as you gradually mature you will come to realize that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at another, and that there is more to be gained by self-criticism than by criticizing others.

manoj, siraj, jay, harimau: Your hatred for Pakistan seems pathological to me. Maybe it is a deep-rooted inferiority complex, or maybe it is some other problem - I dont know and I dont care. My suggestion to other chowk posters: dont fall to their level by responding.

Interesting comments about the recent ARD (Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy) rally. I agree completely. The ARD members are not interested in Democracy, nor are they an Alliance. And the only thing they want to Restore is themselves, so they can start looting the country again. Anyone who supports any of their rallies does not even understand the definition of democracy:

``Better late than never

Brian Cloughley

I wonder if the people of Pakistan have short memories. Surely they recollect the hideous days of wholesale looting of the country`s coffers by politicians? The military government isn`t perfect, and has made some startling errors, including its recent ill-advised alienation of Washington, but reruns of the appalling corruption of either of the old regimes would be hard to take. The May Day demonstrations for a `return to democracy` in Pakistan were not planned because old-style politicians are desperate to serve the people, which is a particularly ludicrous image: they were planned because they want to get back on the gravy train of power, patronage and perks (ppp), and of course they are praised abroad by similar toad-like creeps with identical proclivities, all in the sacred name of `democracy`. The European Union supports them, of course. And with Blair, Berlusconi, Chirac and Kohl as exemplars of European probity, one has to have a chuckle about that.

There are plenty of honest civilians in Pakistan who are capable of leading the country, but the trouble is they aren`t politicians. It seems rare to have honesty and political ambition combined in one person (My note: Imran Khan/Asghar Khan/Afrasiab Khattak; coincidentally all three of these are in the process of forming an opposition alliance to the ARD, and are quite happy with the current govt. Unfortunately, none of these guys can win any seats in Pakistan. Hopefully, this will change in the next election.), but the sooner the government encourages some of the honest people to engage in politics, the better. Better, in fact, late than never.`` (NEWS)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN

FROM jang of today

Educating in isolation

N Omar

In the hills around Ayubia there is a religious school. The institution, however, is not open to general public. One wonders why visitors are not allowed in an educational institution, more so if it is a religious institution. There are reports of similar institutions in small towns which do not allow visitors. Hopefully, some concerned department knows what is going on inside these schools.

Islamabad

///There he goes poor omar, `some department knows, sorry omar, we know it, they are preparing the students for a quick trip to heaven, they are called k for kafir schools. But in any case Omar, only less than 3% of the pak schools are like that.

RA Janjua #172

I don`t condemn your criticism of politicians.

Politicians have been actively prevented from developing their constituency by our rulers throughout history of Pakistan.

And as soon as they start developing their constituency they are replaced.

Still in majority of instances they were playing by the rules set for them. In that awkward situation, when politicians know that their ``Gaddi`` is not dependent upon people but Army, why should not they act the way they did. Were they answerable to people for their selection.

My criticism, for Nawaz Sharif was never for corruption per se. Because corruption only changed hands. My criticism of him was attack on institutions of democracy like Judiciary and Press.

And as long as people are answerable to Army and America instead of people, they will continue to act the same way.

If you think any new person will act differently, then remember all our previous politicians are product of same dispensation.

So instead of continuing to experiment the same way, it is better to leave politicians to be answerable to people rather then Army.

My reference to meddling in Civil affairs is not limited to current overt rule, but also referes to covert rule all along.