An Eulogy For The Hawks

``...Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)...``

Malerkotla -- from where Mansur Ali Khan, the Nawab of Pataudi (and India`s youngest ever cricket captain) hails from. There are also nearly 4000 Punjabi muslims who live in Delhi today (http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100501/detCIT15.asp)

``...I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering...``

I recently read a book called the City of Djinns: A Year in Delhi by William Dalrymple, who has chronicled the major disasters that have befallen Delhi in its history (in reverse order). He starts with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, and goes on to talk about the partition of 1947, and the exodus of the Muslim upper/middle classes from Delhi, and how different Delhi used to be then. The tantalizing fragments that remain give signs of hope, and also a deep sense of loss. From the book, I learned that there is a Prof. Yunus Jaffrey, professor of Persian in Zakir Hussain College in Ajmeri Gate, Delhi whose talents were called upon by the Smithsonian Institution to translate ShahJahan`s Badshanamah (now in the royal collection of England`s Queen). Prof. Yunus is one of the few scholars who can translate old Persian. There is another author (last name Ali) who wrote a book describing Delhi in the 1940s (Twilight in Delhi, published 1941) which I have been so far unable to obtain, who now lives in Karachi. I recently heard Musharraf`s Delhi-born octagenerian mother speak in flawless english on TV. These isolated examples provide artefacts of a well-developed culture that suffered from a scattering of its talent in 1947, and India`s loss.

Zafar al Talib

# 208

Maler Kotla

Reply Shammi #204

Many thanks for the compliment. Yes - I grew up in a refugee neighbourhood in Delhi, and I agree with your point that Partition was a defining process for evacuees (and remains one for their children).

I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering (despite setbacks such as BM/RJB riots, etc.). The only portion of India which seems to have lost its muslim cultural component is Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)

Re: Pankaj

``Are you from IITD``

Yes.

Shammi

Are you from IITD.

Just curious.

Re: Romairr #154

``So my (or the average Pakistani Muslim`s) chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim...``

Obtaining an admission to a CS course, much less a degree in CS from IIT is by far a statistical long-shot. My class in IIT had numerous Muslims, including some in CS. One was a daughter of Syed Shahbuddin, a politically active and prominent anti-Hindutva politician. I would think that she would probably disagree with you. The entrace exams for military, civil services and professional colleges require candidates to anonymize their names (probably the same as in Pakistan). Where, then, does the question of religion enter in a merit-based selection?

Re: Zafar Al-Talib

You write well, sir. I can also attest to the fact that alongwith the stress imposed by the Partition on Indian Muslims (much of it misplaced) and those who migrated, enormous stress was placed on the evaucees from Pakistan which saw its minority population reduced from 25% to nearly 1.5% today. Further, the economic deprivation caused by the flight of the Muslim middle class from N. India leaving an entire impoverished community leaderless, the division of the Subcontinents Muslims into 3 equal parts, thus diluting their voice, are also costs that need to be factored in. Perhaps, one day, both countries will come to realize the loss of their minorities, and their forgotten cultures.

Reply Romair #145

Romair

Sorry for not being clear about it. I am Indian.

I agree with your fundamental premise (if I’ve understood it correctly) that discrimination against minority groups in any union is wrong. There are two approaches to solving this problem: secession from this union by a minority group, making it a majority in it “own” smaller union, or ensuring that minorities are not discriminated against in the union.

The first premise is what resulted in Partition and the formation of India and Pakistan (later also Bangladesh) as we know them. The problem with this kind of solution is that it is geographically messy (there are very very few religiously, linguistically and culturally homogenous areas in the subcontinent, or in fact anywhere), and the solution always results in the creation of new minority groups in the new (smaller) unions. That is why I feel that further subdivision of the subcontinent on ethnic/religious/linguistic grounds is not a good idea. All it would do is create new majorities and minorities, and the potential for new theatres for discrimination, because it does not substantively address the core issue: majorities (whoever they are) have a tendency to discriminate against minorities (whomever they are).

This is why there is a growing realisation that civilised democracies have to both (1) uphold each individual citizens’ right to equality and (2) uphold minority interests as well, ensuring that the views of all sections of a society (not just the majority) are reflected in national polity. It is a balancing act, and I admit a little bit counterintuitive.

I do not mean in any way to criticise your family’s choice to move to Pakistan, and you may be right that Partition resulted in greater opportunities for you personally. As some of the other people responding to both of our responses have pointed out, however, it is very difficult to say this with certainty. (Eklavya #?) Partition didn’t just affect subcontinental Muslims by giving them a country in which they were the majority. It also resulted in a country, India, where Muslims were an 11% (?) minority, were identified in some aspects of popular culture with the movement which “split” India, were a community with a decimated middle class due to immigration to Pakistan (this last is changing, albeit slowly), and were also identified to some extent with the “enemy”, especially during the Indo-Pakistan wars.

Of course the success or failure of Partition depends on whom you ask, what their background is, and which side of the border(s) they found themselves in its aftermath. My point is that if Partition’s objective was to improve the lot of all subcontinental Muslims, you’d have to evaluate it in the light of at least one third of these Muslims (the ones in India) having their lives (to this day) negatively affected by it. (For an example close to home I draw your attention to a certain person who regularly contributes to discussions on Chowk, and who shall remain nameless, who IMHO, has been deeply stressed by the results of Partition on Muslims in India.)

I’m not saying that Partition can, or even should, be undone. Our different countries exist today. We love them. All I’m saying is that Partition does not solve all the problems associated with minorities in heterogeneous societies, and may even create some. It doesn’t get rid of diversity. (See Narain’s comment #148 – he puts it really well.) So we should think carefully before advocating Partitions based on whatever differences there are between different people. As I’ve said above, I think that there is a better way to go, one which is fairer, more long lasting and certainly less violent in its implementation and outcomes.

I empathise with your point of view, and hope that you can now see mine as well.

Ref: Tahmed321 #144

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! It cries out for Bollywood dialogue. Please please continue…

Re: Hobbyty

I think that the difference between a threat and actually carrying it out is only of degree, and of operational `efficiency`. Morally, they are both equally repugnant.

All that i asked for was a condemnation of the death threats against the cricketers, which you have still not done.

What `bait and switch` game are you referring to? I have put all my postitions on the table.

Shammi

You are being less than honest when you say I have condoned a crime. Equating the making of threats to real rapes and murders is something you are doing.

My point was that a threat, is just a threat. Equating it to real rape and real murder is obscene.

You are getting proficient at the ``bait and switch`` game. Careful, you can`t hide that kind of thing. Your game is transparent.

Re: Hobbyty #198

``will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris?``

Of course, I will. Why would you think otherwise? I think that we have had a similar discussion on partition murders, where Tahmed321 showed you the light, as he did again this time. Why are you regressing back to your original position of `two wrongs make a right`? Why does your moral compass drift? Since when is killing a cricketer justified on the basis of a rape elsewhere?

BTW, the law DOES sometimes take its course when rape convictions come to light:

``... there is reason still to welcome the sentencing of (Indian Army) Captain Ravinder Singh Tewatia to seven years rigorous imprisonment and his dismissal from service after a court martial. Tewatia was found guilty of raping a 17 year-old girl and her mother in Nawgam in Banihal tehsil, Jammu...``

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20001006/ied06031.html

Committing a crime, and condoning it are two different things. You, Hobbyty, have just condoned one.

anNy #183 I see my name mentioned at the end of the post with regrets being offered for anything wrong you may have said in the post. Please feel free to write what you wish about these people: As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced there is a reason God put these hate mongerers on Chowk: this is to enable one to be mean to them without feeling guilty (and you were not being mean in your post anyway, just letting off steam). Some people are incapable of being mean to anyone, even to the most deserving cases, and I think you are one of them, and that is why you feel guilty. But anyone who has hatreds so deeply ingrained against Pakistanis or Indians or Muslims or Hindus (depending on where the idiot was born - oops, I just got mean again) as some of the folks you mention do not deserve any consideration or respect.

Shammi

Threats are just that threats - will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris? You don`t have to condone or condemn Mujahids, but will you not condemn the rapes of Kashimiri girls at the hands of security forces? And will you not condemn and put an end to the killings of Kashmiri youth in extrajudicial and custodial killings? Will you not condemn the use of torture by Indian forces against suspected Mujahids?

Romair # 195

But Romair, that is NOT a fair comparison to make, for it tells nothing other than the probable fact that the majority has it better than the minority; and if you apply even a bit of statistical reasoning, not even that much.

So, aren`t any conclusions based on this comparison likely to be false and merely self-serving? We would be comparing apples and oranges. What do you think?

From Pakistani newspapers, it seems the chance of an elected Indian Muslim being the Home minister of India has been much higher than the chances of a elected Pakistani Muslim becoming the Interior Affairs minister of Pakistan.

And lets not even talk of the chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Indian states vs chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Pakistani provinces.

SameerJB #185: ``There is a fatal errot in this argument. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today.``

This is correct. It is impossible to predict the exact situation on pure theoretical scenarios. However, the closest extrapolation one can make is on the facts that are currently available. My argument is based on the current situation, i.e if I were to migrate to India right now, or if I had been born in India.

Had Pakistan not separated, the position of the Muslims could have been much better in India. Then again, it could have been much worse. Or it could have been the same. One can only predict and guess.

What is a fact however, at least according to the various statistics presented by Indian Muslim newspapers, is that the condition of Muslims in Pakistan is better than the condition of Muslims in India. And this direct comparison is really the only comparison one can make (though it has faults), since all other comparisons are, as you have stated, completely theoretical. That was the basis of my argument.

Re: AAmir #184

``...It means Pakistanis & pak,Gov. is not responsible for independent factions L-e-Tauba ``

Sorry, but your explaination is not convincing. A threat to kill/assassinate (including cricketers) is a cognizable offense in most civilized countries (including India/Pakistan). The ruling authorities have the responsibility to check such threats. A similarity is with a child who threatens neighbors, but the parent says that he is not responsible for the behavior of the child even though both live in the same house. One cannot get very far with such reasons. Unfortunately, India has already cancelled several cricket matches with Pakistan citing `security` reasons. This type of unchecked threat only encourages the hawks within India, and leads to cancellation of matches. If Musharraf receives death threats from someone in India, and India refuses to take any action against those groups, then the blame should correctly fall on India.

Is this an original thought or what! I should be awarded the Nobel.

From Dawn 07/08/2001

Advani suggests confederation

NEW DELHI July 7: In a significant remark in the run up to the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani has suggested the formation of a Confederation of South Asian states, including India and Pakistan.

``I am confident that Vajpayee`s initiative will create a conducive atmosphere in the direction of the formation of a Confederation of India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka and Nepal in the days ahead,`` Advani added.

He said the world was witnessing sweeping changes and arch rivals such as the two German republics have now reunited, reports PTI.

The Sangh Parivar, to which the ruling BJP belongs, had originally propounded the concept of `Akhand Bharat` or united India, which comprises the whole of South Asia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Advani, however, said he disagreed with the Western perception of Kashmir as a dispute between India and Pakistan. ``We do not see Kashmir in the context of Pakistan. For us, it is inseparably linked to India`s unity,`` he said.

Advani said the concept of self-determination espoused by separatist groups would prove detrimental more to the interests of Pakistan as it had diverse ethnic and linguistic groups within its boundaries.-NNI

Re: Reply #: 170

upman7626,

``it is however a fact that there is an element of popular discontent in Indian Kashmir...but that is not something that cannot be addressed within the parameters of the Indian constitution...if all violence in Kashmir were to stop (or contained), you will find the much elusive normalcy return to Kashmir in a couple of months, as so famously happened in Punjab...``.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I have argued in the past that Kashmir, like the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu in the 60s, has been a political problem and was turned into religious problem by Jehadists. In this, Pakistan has played a significant role. Had Kashmir been a state without a border with Pakistan, the problem would have been solved within the parameters of the constitution by now. I know i am making a lot of assumptions here.

sridhar

#183 anNy

I like your spunk! I certainly can understand your anguish.

Let me set some things right. The murderous thugs who went on a rampage after BM represent a certain malaise, a certain failure of india`s secularism. That needs to be acknowledged and corrected. I have not said anywhere, nor do i believe it to be true that indians are angels and pakistanis are monsters. I`d say perhaps the best human i have ever met was a fellow graduate student and a pakistani (punjabi). There used to be a pakistani ``mulla`` (he called himself that) on the newsgroup soc.culture.pakistan, by the name of Iftikhar uz-Zaman, a gentle soul and a genuine intellectual. All this by way of saying i don`t believe in stereotypes.

However, there was a discussion here about INSTITUTIONAL changes that can move the society in a direction that it doesn`t necessarily want to go but follows it anyway, lacking other options. Specifically, Jay mentioned how the upper castes of kerala were ``emasculated`` by institutional changes brought about by some of the upper castes themselves. Pakistan to me represents the ugly side, the institutionalizing of prejudice. So long as young people like you who love pakistan but wish its ugly side away as a simple failure like any other (look at the caste system, look at the riots in india, etc.) don`t take up the cudgels, your friend Manoj is doomed. He cannot fight the institutions and win.

Even the good germans couldn`t save that many jews. I`d like to hear your views after you have had a good night`s rest.

All the best.

SIGNS OF HOPE ,

But was this land created for ordinary mortals like me or for the leaders. When you quote Mr Jinnah so frequently that he played a role in the creation of Pakistan, does it necessarily imply that the people of Pakistan do not have the right to choose a system of government for themselves, which might be different to what was earlier envisaged. After all wasn`t this country created to let the people decide about their fate? If we have to follow already prescribed scripts, and the intellectual discourse has to be restricted to arguments and counter-arguments for one or other`s vision, then what role do we (the scum of the earth) have in shaping ``our`` destiny?

///

FROM JUNG OF TODAY. It is time to stop quoting that one speach, and continueing with the TNT tradition.

anNy,

Bilal Ahmed had this notion of internal criticism and external ones. He maintained that when an outsider, especially an indian criticised pakistan, they tend to react negetively. Ok, I accept that as `human`, but the fact is that other than some generic lamenting about the bankruptsy, corruption etc in pakistan there is no identifiable criticism of any pak institution or legal aspects.

Take for example the blasphemy laws. There was a post here that blsphemy laws are not applicable to non-muslims. Is it true. Apparently, it has been alleged that one charged with blasphemy looses all his assets and is used to disposes the person. Is it true, and does the accuser get anything.

What is really shameful about the educated pakistanis is that they are so ashamed of their country that they say little about the legal set up. It is always about islam a tolerant religion, end of TNT, etc.

re: anNy # 183

Applause...

You go, girl! :)

Soysauce 180

Is the creation of Pakistan an expression of hate?

Is the TNT also an expression of hate?

If your answers are yes, then perhaps Indians and Hindus should examine their contributions towards the creation of both.

If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, then, why engage Pakistanis to create normal relations - Won`t Pakistanis still be the expression of hate, that they are, by definition?

Is the caste system an integral part of Hinduism?

Is the caste system an expression of hate? Indians coyly claim that caste system is outlawed, imagining that the rest of the world believes that the caste system was a creation of law. Would Pakistani be wrong in concluding that because of human failings, Hindu Indians hold hate, discrimimation, and degradation of fellow persons and coreligionist, in high esteem as an article of religious faith and social compact? Ofcourse they would. Similarly, very many Indians need to reexamine some of their core understandings about Pakistanis and Muslims. The ``some of my best friends are`` Muslims line needs a refreshing dose of honesty. If it were true, why would there be a Pakistan? Why would hostility persist for so long? Is there really such a thing as a one hand clap?

I request that you not take my post as an attempt at ``one up-ing`` you or in any way personal. The point I want to make is that ordinary Pakistanis face the same kinds of personal demons and challenges that ordinary persons anywhere do. Sanctimonious, self righteous, self congratulatory attitudes based on half truths and out right lies, have for too long prevented us from seeing each other as persons, different and similar.

Kafir K Khan, Romair and Rediskan:

[Yes Romair, you are right. If you were an Indian Muslim, you would not be a civil servant, IT professional or Lawyer. An average Muslim in India is illiterate isnpite of equal opportunity for education. ]

There is a fatal errot in this arguement. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today. India today is about 11 percent Muslim and most Muslims belong to areas of Muslim minority except one economically obscure state, Kashmir. Pakistani Muslim have to create a theoretical model of India without partition with around 35 percent Muslim population and 6 Muslim majority states, two of them very large and politically important-Bengal and Punjab. I would go even as far in saying that if Muslims voted just one party, say Muslim league (in this supposed entity of all India) in any of the elections during eighties and nineties, ML could have formed the government with collaboration from Jayalalithas, Laloos and few other smaller parties.

This is just one aspect of being 35 percent and 6 majority states than 11 percent and Kashmir in Indian Union. Other social, economical and political aspects can also be theorized utilizing these facts and figures in calculations.

By now Sangh parivar and Hindu Fundamentalists might be argueing for expulsion of some Muslim majority states, if it had already not taken place.

hello soyasauce

bully for you too..you manage to very nicely put it all on me and my people...we intolerant we ignorant we hating everything hindu…tell me then who were the people who came at my baree nani`s house in the babri masjid debacle in the poshest area of bombay upstairs in their 4th floor apartment having seen a name plate bearing the name mohammad…that they bloody tore down the door and took everything and wrote obsceneties of the world in their living room and broke all the crystals upon finding out they`d managed to leave just 10 minutes before the mob got there…ill tell you...they were hindus...they were indians...another relative living in the not so posh areas of ahmedabad however wasn’t so lucky…the family got away but the 30 something year old man was in the house when these people descended…he got hurt…how dare you say things like ``…A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus…`` when you yourself are quite obviously just as deeply seeped in the very same hatred? What will you say? That these people were an `exception` too? That it was a mob mentality? How about you hindus indians whatever take responsibility too…how about you admit that you guys are as intolerant as us stopid pakistanis and muslims too sometimes? How long are you going to milk the blasphemy laws? And we have no pathological fears of anything hindi neither any hatred do you understand…its just when you people act like you were completely flawless without any faults and so very tolerant all the while saying we`re scum that I get mad and I start hating…and you and jay and the rest of you could be from timbuktoo and budhists for all I care…our ideology is NOT intolerant…we can live peacefully with anyone just as long as both parties will respect the others ethics…that ofcourse is not possible with you and other indians hindus like you and jay constantly throwing snide remarks…youre saying people like jay and me could live together? The man would probably try to poison my food at the first opportunity he got if I didn’t blow his head of with a bazooka before he could…its this very side of you and others like you that causes problems...this goddamned holier than thou attitude…okay so we have problems...didn’t you have 10 times more of those just a decade or so ago? theres no `inbuilt institution` about anything dyou gettit? We are okay with anyone and everyone just as long as they respect our beliefs...we will respect their beliefs…and no im not an `exception` because i `go to india and meet hindus`…manoj in my class is probably a bigger hindu than you all on chowk put together...how have all the jamaati`s in my class taken to him...jamatiis you know...big bearded pulled up shalwar monsters that kill at the touch of a hat…not because heez a complete doll…because he although as staunch a hindu as they come, respects every bodys religion be it me as a muslim or binfer as a parsi…its all about respect…respect and consideration… individuals like you wipe out within two seconds the goodwill that people like shankar harpreet eklavya and vereesh build…go jump in a lake somewhere man… don’t believe I lost my temper to a schmuck like you

sorry tahmed sahab…haven`t slept all night…8 in the morning on a Sunday…idiots like this chap just make me so mad...i don’t think ive sworn…im sorry if I have…

This is interesting. The Pakistani govt s-ks and has done so for the last 54 years so India should join a (con)federation??

Let Pakistanis vote in ONE general election without Pakistani Army stooges as choices supported by ISI genius, THEN think of putting up all this high-falutin stuff up for their approval. Learn to crawl before you run.

Very nicely stated.

``Great expectations

Ikram Sehgal

Having seen as a soldier (as was my late father before me) the consequences of bad Indo-Pak relations, I cannot remember greater expectations than for the Musharraf-Vajpayee talks. Given the track record, one would normally approach any such negotiations with skepticism, but even the most diehard cynic has been caught up in the fervour generated by the impending event. There is much expectation in the air, a genuine belief about resolving our differences amicably, the readiness to go the extra mile.

Before going, Gen Pervez Musharraf did a series of briefings-cum-consultations with a broad spectrum of the intelligentsia, comprising media representatives, politicians, religious leaders, Kashmiris and entrepreneurs. He already had a consensus within the military hierarchy. Attending one such session, one expected at best a one-way monologue of self-justification from the newly anointed President. It was a revelation to find Pervez Musharraf interested in genuine dialogue, open to ideas and suggestions, and without ego problems. The result was, discounting the odd eulogy from the traditional flatterers, a comprehensive debate between very interested participants where a plethora of ideas were mooted and analysed without rancour. The President got in return quite a few converts and a broad consensus. Making believers out of such a disparate group is no mean achievement. As a PR exercise, the consultations were outstanding, the resultant welding of the President`s mandate brilliant. Musharraf goes to India that much stronger. The bottom line was simple: everyone came on board about peace with India but not at the cost of Kashmir, the core issue for all Pakistanis.

What is the consensus of the Pakistani people, among both intelligentsia and masses, on the visit? Do Pakistanis have any aspirations for interaction with the Indian people? I repeatedly cautioned the President to lower expectations so that any disappointment may only be a temporary setback and not lead to an emotional backlash driving the two countries further apart, maybe permanently. Yet one must admit being caught up in the fever of expectations. Pakistanis are emotionally involved with the Kashmiris and their freedom struggle. A great majority believe there can be no Indo-Pak peace while Kashmir stays a bleeding ulcer.

Massive funds now spent on defence can be diverted to social infrastructure such as potable water, roads, hygiene and sanitation, health, education, transport and housing. And the 55 million in Pakistan and the 400 million in India below the poverty line need these basics. Make no mistake, Pakistan was a historical necessity for the Muslims of India, and while the name may no longer be East Pakistan, Bangladesh does constitute the other sovereign entity envisaged in the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League. But given this need to preserve the Islamic identity under separate sovereignty, the bond between the people of India and Pakistan transcends religion and ethnicity. Human interaction has been only sporadic for 50 years. Since the advent of Islam in South Asia, the two religions have lived together till 1947, sometimes in confrontation but mostly in harmony. Islam teaches us to respect other religions, and not become prisoners of fear spread by the ignorant for their own narrow motives. Is the same true for Hindus?

Tracing most problems to economic motives, there will be great benefit in opening of trade. More than the European Community or ASEAN, or even any other grouping, South Asia is the most contiguous economic unit on earth. Pakistanis drink tea by the gallon, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can provide it at less half the cost of Kenyan. Our wheat, rice and cotton are in demand in the rest of South Asia. If South India can be an IT powerhouse, can Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka be far behind? The roads through Pakistan lead to the vast Central Asian and Middle Eastern markets for all South Asia, while cheap gas vital to develop India`s western states, can be piped across Pakistan. There should be no tariff within South Asia. Rather, there should be a plan for a dual currency, a South Asian rupiah to go along with the national currencies. Goods available in abundance, and economies of scale, will bring down prices. From confrontation we will transit to mutual prosperity.

One cannot discount cultural exchanges, intellectual discourses, the proliferation of print and electronic media, but the people-to-people contact of centuries has been lost over the last 50 years. One has the feeling, despite the misgivings created by years of suspicion, that the logjam has been broken. Only the diehards on both sides can achieve peace. Is it a coincidence that in both countries, those without whom no peace is achievable, the Pakistan Army and the BJP, are in power? The talks initiative has been a giant step forward and we in Pakistan have great expectations that something will materialise, that South Asia may begin to be a better place to live in after July 16. Meanwhile, other than those who cannot see beyond narrow parochial interests, the great mass of Pakistanis want peace with India, but not at the cost of Kashmir. A consensus has silently built up behind Pervez Musharraf. Elections notwithstanding, the President has a mandate from the Pakistani people. Over the past weeks, more Pakistanis have begun to believe that Musharraf must be supported to the hilt. For us the die is cast, it is Musharraf, right or wrong. But does Vajpayee have enough freedom to respond to such a mandate? A resonance has built up that Musharraf will not let us down in Delhi, that if India is really serious, we will have peace in our time. (Nation, Pakistan)

#174 anNy

I think what jay is saying is that the ideology that says muslims and hindus cannot coexist peacefully and that muslims need a separate land naturally leads to the situation you currently have in pakistan. Contrary to what some of you would have us believe the ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` is not Islamic in name only - that shows in you blasphemy laws, your anti-ahmadi laws, etc.

An intolerant ideology produces an intolerant civilization. Bully for you that you haven`t succumbed to it.

A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus. With the internet that may be changing. You are peculiar in that you visit india and get to meet hindus. I admit that indians distrust pakistanis and many may even harbor hatred for them. Notice i said pakistanis, not muslims. Everyone of the indians here, i am sure, has grown up with muslims and have muslim friends. For pakistanis, however, india=hindus and hindus are to be hated (Again, there are exceptions). It probably is not a conscious thing. Even your supposedly secular (as some here have asserted) army, singled out hindu intellectuals in b`desh for murder. If you read the Rahman report it is clear that hindus were targetted simply because they were hindus. What possible reason could there be for that except for a pathological hatred/fear of hindus?

Mind you, i am not talking about individuals. Even Yasser Hamdani baits only indians and not hindus (which i find heartening for the sake of the oppressed minorities of pakistan). However, there is an in-built institutional hatred of hindus which comes from TNT and the civilization that heeded it.

BTW, i don`t care for reunification. If anything i think india should get a better handle on its affairs by decentralizing and federating.

shankar #156: ``Most of your posts make a heck of a lot of sense.``

I thought all (not most) of my posts made a lot of sense :)

shammi #160: I pretty much agree with what you have stated. It seems along the same lines as what I have stated, though the details are a bit different.

I have always wondered about the the partition of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), and what the best case scenario could/would have been, at the times of these partitions. Ironically, I never thought about it much when I was in Pakistan. This bewilderment, interest (and confusion) started after I was introduced to Jinnah (not physically, but through books) a few years ago. I have since then been fascinated by this amazingly stubborn, intelligent, uptight, arrogant and scruplously honest man. Infact, I think Jinnah himself is a bigger event than the creation of Pakistan itself. Had there been no Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan (at least not in 1947). However, had there been no Pakistan, Jinnah still would have been, to quote Wolpert, ``the best lawyer in the British Empire.``

Looking back, I think the best solution in 1947 would have been something along the line of the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946, that you have pointed to. It was one of the few ideas that the British, Pakistani, and Indian (not including Nehru) agreed to. Following is its gist:

``these proposals stipulated a limited centre, supreme only in foreign affairs, defence and communications and three autonomous groups of provinces. Two of these groups were to have Muslim majorities in the north-west and the north-east of the subcontinent, while the third one, comprising the Indian mainland, was to have a Hindu majority.``

This would have given the Muslims the opportunity, ``to sit on the fence,`` regarding independence. If they could have ended up in some sort of a dominion/federation status within India, it would have given them a chance to see whether survival as a minority within Indian was possible. If after a certain amount of time, they felt it to be so, they could come into a closer federation with India. If it was not possible, they could have peacefully separated. This would have avoided the killings that occurred at the time of partition, as everyone would have had a chance to slowly adjust to the new environment over a decade or two.

I think both Nehru and Gandhi did not want Pakistan to be created. However, I feel Gandhi did not want Pakistan`s independence for mostly the right reasons. He was willing to give in quite a bit to the minority Muslim community in govt., politics in the name of pluralism, within an Indian federation. I feel Nehru did not want Pakistan to gain independence for mostly the wrong reasons. He wanted Muslims to stay within India, yet he was unwilling to give in on certain political and respresentative issues which would have gauranteed Muslims a sense of security, within an Indian federation.

I have always wondered how Nehru and Gandhi would have viewed India`s current actions in Kashmir. I am not an expert on either of these personalities, but from what I have read, I have a feeling they would have had opposing views to each other.

My dear friend Stuka:

It was meant to be a satire without being a Pakistani. Sorry to “confuse” you.

It does look like you are really “confused”. Otherwise keeping up with your vulgar posting, you wouldn’t have posted the tenuous explanation for your vulgar proposition -- that “the Joint Chief should have the rank of Cabinet Minister”. Remember, there is a Defense Minister in the cabinet?

My advice: quit sucking up to the no good Pakistani-Army-in governing-business.

Re: my previous post

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

should read

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very FEW high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

the difference being the insertion of the word `FEW`

Apologies for the earlier typo

Re: Romair #145

``But I feel I am better off living in Pakistan as a Muslim, that I would have been living in India as a Muslim. I have had a chance to pursue a career in the military. Had I decided to continue, the highest positions of the Pakistan miltiary were open to me. This is the not the case in India for Muslims, according to India`s largest English Muslim newspaper (www.milligazzette.com)``

I do not know if milligazzette substantiated their claims with any facts, or is it mere heresay? I compiled statistics on all Indian Chiefs (Army, Navy, Airforce) since Independence. It turns out that that fully 11% of Army Chiefs, 21% of Navy Chiefs, and 33% of Air Force Chiefs were non-Hindus (in a country where 85% of the population is Hindu). This should settle any doubts that minorities are not welcome at the top positions of the Indian force structure.

Here are the details on non-Hindu chiefs:

Indian Army Chiefs

Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, 1969-72; General Sunith F. Rodrigues, 1990-93, ie. 2 out of 19 `Indian` Chiefs of the Army (i.e 11%) since Independence

Indian Navy Chiefs

Admiral J. Cursetji, 1976-79, Admiral R.L. Pereira, 1979-1982, Admiral O.S. Dawson, 1982-84, ie. 3 out of 14 Indian Navy Chiefs (ie. 21%)

Indian Air Force

Air Marshal Aspy Merwan Engineer, 1960-64; Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh, 1964-69; Air Chief Marshal Idris Hasan Latif, 1978-81; Air Chief Marshal Dilbagh Singh, 1981-84; Air Chief Marshal D A La Fontaine, 1985-88, ie. 5 out of 15 Indian Air Force Chiefs (ie. 33%)

You also need to factor in the fact that at Independence all officers were given the option to opt for either India or Pakistan. Most Muslim officers opted for the latter with a few notable exceptions. It was not until the late 70s or early 80s that you had an entire officer class that had not had to make the decision to opt for either India or Pakistan. Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces. That situation changed with the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Idris Hasan Latif, 1978-81

So, my request to you is -- before making half-baked allegations, please check your facts.

Re: Tahmed321 #167

Thank you very much. This just confirms that the LeT are a fringe group with little support from the civilized Pakistanis.

Re: AAmir #169

I failed to understand your point, sir.

Hullo mr.jay,

thank you for writing in slightly easier language…your posts normally go whooosh over my underdeveloped pakistani brain…

``the patriotism leads him to sher sha suri.. his dilapilated tomb, that is the identification of the pak problem, make the muslims of pakistan aware of the actions of the BJP, stinking hindus, that is the problem definition, that is patriotism.``

you use ylh as an example…shouldn’t you know better by now? All the sane people here have tried to knock some sense into the kid (temporal, PM, shankar etc) but he still persists…someone who thinks slapping a man because he is waving an indian flag in a concert where pakistanis are performing and form the majority of the audience is right and worthy of announcing on a forum quite obviously has a problem…a big and very sad problem…his heart might be in the right place since he obviously loves our country but he doesn’t realize what a great disservice he is doing the country by his constant uttering of crap that have made him the butt of all jokes …don`t use him as an example next time or I`ll use pakistanloving mr.veresh as an example for all things india stands for and we both know how much pain that will cause you…and for the record all I knew about sher shah suri was that he was a saint of some sort and this was due to a play I had seen on t.v some years ago…doctor abdus salaam`s work I on the other hand have done 2 projects on in college and then university in a political science and physics workshop conducted partly in karachi and islamabad…and please note that contrary to what you people here think we do not think of our country with love in terms of hate for india as you claim above…the average pakistani youngster couldn’t give a flying walnut…now if someone disses us, indian or nepali or chinese we will obviously diss right back…but whats really funny is that theres no chinese or nepalese here saying bad things...only you indians

my country holds that anyone with pakistani origin irrespective of his religion will be as much a pakistani as anyone else…so weather its dr.abdus salaam or the christian lady on top of kfc saddar who makes kikazz chocolate cake; they will be as much pakistani to me as my maulana sahab who has been making me pray quran for 11 years now and the next door neighbors…the people condemning abdus salaam are the rot that pakistan is infested with...it is these very same people who enforce islam forcefully in complete disaccordance of its spirit for their own means giving hate infested people like you more material to pick on us…so mr.jay whats happening in pakistan right now is not in my hands or scouts or even ylh`s…yet we take responsibility…the political system is in shambles…you think we like the idea of musharaf as president or even CE and nawaz sharif partying in saudia after all he did? The fact that we look like idiots most of the times in front of the world is not lost to us…especially with mean people like you rubbing it in every second day…but like scouty said we know whats wrong…and we will with everything that we have do everything that we can to make things better…things are bad but they wont be for very long now…we`re young with minds of our own (and dynamic minds at that), charm:], solid educations and a lot of time on our sides…another 10 years down the road you wont find any corrupt officials named urstruly, scouty, ali, ylh, hobbyty or anNy…we`ll be in key positions doing whatever we can for our country and we`ll do just fine thank you very much…and my dad says barae bole nahin boltae…aap kee constant harpings about Great Big Huge Powerful India aap ko aik din bharee par jain gae

Re: bharatiya musalman, #139

``the Gujarati Bania convert (Jinnah...yes, I will call him this for his grandfather was a Hindu Gujju Bania).``

By making that statement, you have insulted many decent people you call ``Bania``. You are many things. What you are not is a decent human being.

shammi #166 ``Can any honorable Pakistani please stand up and roundly criticize this latest threat by the Lashkar-e-Toiba?``

Even without the incentive of being ``honorable``, and even if they did not threaten to kidnap the cricketers, I am pleased to say that if I had my way these people would be breaking rocks in Baluchistan with prison guards keeping an eye on them.

Colour of patriotism

scout, anNy and other young pakistanis

You all at some time or other make the claim that we are aware of the problems of pakistan, poverty, corruption, dictatorship, mullaism, blah blah....No this type of identification of problems doesnot help, even when like scout and YLH say that they are going back to help the nation.

Let me give one example, YLH wrote about Sher Sha Suri, how his tomb is not maintained by the hindus. This article is in line with the TNT thinking, the musharaff thinking, the jihadic thinking.

As an educated person, if he is really patriotic to the extend that he wants to inculcate a culture of education to the pakistanis, if he has been influenced by what he has seen and learned in the US despite it being in Rutgers, he would have found the idea of talking about a sher sha suri repugnant. Is it more relevant to create a hero out of abdus salam, write at least a good post about him ... the patriotism leads him to sher sha suri.. his dilapilated tomb, that is the identification of the pak problem, make the muslims of pakistan aware of the actions of the BJP, stinking hindus, that is the problem definition, that is patriotism.

When I talked about the love of country I meant something specific distilled out of ones experience, not the generic ones, the type that propels the jihadists. The love that YLH shows in the article for pakistan betrys his education. May be it is the wrong word, may be for the pakistanis, the children of TNT, striking a path of modernity in education, making a hero out of abdus salam could be a haraam. Sher sha suri is great. abuds who...

Romair # 145

`` Anytime one group separates from a union, the separation is always based on a feeling of exploitation.``

..so sir, everytime such a `feeling` develops, a separation is warranted? ..maybe Sindh- as i gather from several of GM Syed`s impassioned arguments...or now that Altaf Hussein is openly saying that Partition was the biggest blunder in history and singing `sare jahan se accha hindustan hamara` on Indian TV, such a feeling must exist and be valid.....or maybe you have details to argue why these particular feelings may not qualify (of course, post-facto of such an event you may still use the example of a separate Sindh nation to ask for Kashmir`s secession from India- like all pakistanis try to do giving the example of bangladesh now)...

..you also seem to insinuate that muslims/minorities in India may be getting a raw deal...let me assure you, as a minority growing up in India, that the GOI has always bent over backwards to give the muslim/minority more than his fair share, not an easy task with the shining example of Pakistan always in front of us..and as you must be aware, this is something that has not escaped the attention of the hindu bigots too....and its patently false that there are very few indian muslim IT professionals in the US...indian muslims man the middle and upper echelons in several indian IT cos, and we are not just taliking about the richest Indian here..your anecdotal evidence is a convenient one..it may still be true that muslim representation in the defence is only around 3%- but the reasons would definitely not be discrimination... had you been in the Indian Army, nothing would have stopped you from rising to the very top...i can offhand think of several minority Chief-of-staffs in the defence estb, including the current Chief of Naval Staff...if you follow the newspaper you mention, you will note that- with rare instances of getting carried away- they speak of India`s institutions like courts, government, most of the polity- with respect...their main target is a certain segment of india`s political spectrum, and which they should rightly attack...

..in contrast, when one compares the life of Pakistan as a nation- its utter lack of representative politics, the legal discrimination against its minorities, the favour and bias for several sectarian and ethnic groups in its power politics, and then this country turns around and lectures India about how it should fulfil the people`s wishes in Kashmir, that becomes something hard to digest..

..btw, your ``Azad`` kashmir has clauses like this- Part 2 of Section 7 of the POK Constitution : ``No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan``.

and the plight of the ``Northern Areas``,land-jacked by Zia from Kashmir is worse...i quote from a recent report:

``The Northern Areas are a story of deprivation of a people and their land devoid of any development and denial of basic fundamental rights. There is no adult franchise, no assembly and the people have never participated in an election or sent representatives to the National Assembly. The prestigious Pakistani magazine the ‘Herald’ has termed the Northern Areas ``The Last Colony``.

The literacy rate is 14 per cent for males and 3.5 per cent for women! There is just one doctor for 6,000 people. Piped water supply is non-existent. So is electricity for more than two thirds of the population of the area. Except for some brick kilns there is no ‘industry’ in the area. An area of 72,495 sq. kms. had in 1993, according to the Pakistan daily, ‘Muslim’, (December 13, 1993), metalled roads extending merely to 162 kms.

There are only two colleges in the area. There is not a single polytechnic in this seventy thousand square kilometer land. The only paper K2 carries on its mast head the legend ``Voice of a constitutionless land``. There is no radio or TV station.``

..and of course, none of the bleeding Pakistani hearts have anything to say about the 2700 sq. miles of Kashmir gifted by your govt. to China in `63...

..it is however a fact that there is an element of popular discontent in Indian Kashmir...but that is not something that cannot be addressed within the parameters of the Indian constitution...if all violence in Kashmir were to stop (or contained), you will find the much elusive normalcy return to Kashmir in a couple of months, as so famously happened in Punjab...

..pakistan has always indulged in such brinkmanship with no awareness of its own mortality, and this is something that happens from a prolonged lack of democrarcy....when a whole population`s real aspirations are sidelined or confused into an elitist cartel`s egotism....and till your country adopts democracy as its governing ethic and continues with it for a very long time inspite of all its faults, no procession of feel-good generals or their shortcut policies will get you out of your rut..

..and meanwhile you guys can continue getting your kicks by proclaiming how badly India compares with China!

TIMES OF INDIA

Atal`s Burden

Pushed by Vision, Dogged by Betrayal

By MANOJ JOSHI

THE forthcoming Vajpayee-Musharraf summit in Agra is neither the most important nor the most eventful one held between India and Pakistan. But it could be the most portentous, if only because of the personalities involved, particularly prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Given General Musharraf`s commitment to dialogue anytime, anywhere, it should be clear that the primary credit for the Agra summit rests with Mr Vajpayee who undertook what was a minor U-turn in India`s policy of not talking till Pakistan ended ``cross-border terrorism.``

People have seen Nehruvian echoes in Mr Vajpayee`s policies and argued that constancy and consensus have been the hallmark of India`s foreign policy under him. But even a cursory look at Mr Vajpayee`s career, as political leader and parliamentarian since the mid-1950s and minister of external affairs (1977-1979), will show that his has been a substantive but dissenting presence in India`s political history.

As member of the Jana Sangh, his view was coloured by muscular and even strident nationalism. Moderated by a spell as foreign minister, he emerged in the early 1990s as a senior statesman and a pillar of Indian foreign policy. But, his insistence on holding the nuclear tests in May 1998 revealed that beliefs shaped in the crucible of opposition politics in the 1950s and 1960s continue to colour his worldview.

Going by this record, there are two summits that Mr Vajpayee will not want to emulate - the ones at Tashkent in 1966 after the 1965 Indo-Pak war and the Shimla meeting following the Pakistani surrender in Dhaka. At the latter, India returned a captured 93,000-strong army, 17,000 sq kms of territory in exchange for Bhutto`s verbal assurances that he would gradually convert the Line of Control into an international border. Bhutto told Indira that an open commitment to that effect could jeopardise the existence of the fledgling democratic government in Pakistan. Indira Gandhi conceded.

One result of this was that the new line dividing the Indian and Pakistani forces in Kashmir was not called a ``ceasefire line`` connoting a military division, and neither was it a Line of Actual Control which implies more or less the same thing. But the term adopted - Line of Control - indicated acquiescence of sorts. But then, having got back his prisoners, and re-established links with Bangladesh, Bhutto failed to fulfil his part of the bargain.

The Tashkent declaration was the outcome of the 1965 war where Pakistan lost some 1,920 sq kms of territory and India 540 sq kms. But the Pakistani losses were strategic, they lost some 650 sq kms in the Haji Pir salient and in the area opposite Muzaffarabad and, worse, another 830 sq kms near Lahore and other parts of its Punjabi heartland. Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri agreed to return all this without any commitment from Pakistan on Kashmir or any other matter.

Within Parliament and elsewhere, Mr Vajpayee was a stringent critic of both the agreements. Indeed, in 1972, he opposed the return of territory arguing in a debate on the Simla agreement: ``We have conquered that territory. Territory can be acquired by conquest. We have established civil administration and unfurled the tricolour there.``

However, later in that decade, he set aside these misgivings and as foreign minister in the Janata government, he took the lead in re-opening relations with Pakistan, frozen since the Simla talks. Mr Vajpayee visited Pakistan when it was headed by Zia-ul-Haq, then chief martial law administrator, but he established a rapport that is still remembered today.

So it is not surprising in some ways that 21 years later, this was the same man, who, having taken India over the nuclear threshold, decided to visit the Minar-e-Pakistan, a monument built to commemorate the founding of Pakistan. Speaking at the civic reception at Lahore, after his visit to Minar-e-Pakistan, Mr Vajpayee said that the wounds of partition had healed and the scar that remained was a reminder of the need for reconciliation. ``Aap dost badal saktey hain,`` he noted, ``padosee nahin badal saktey, to achey padosee ke natey rahen.`` (you can change friends, but you can`t change neighbours, so why not live as good neighbours). Cliched though it may sound, it reflected deep personal views. But to his chagrin, Lahore died on the snowy heights of Kargil.

For a year thereafter, even as he nursed his bruised ego, the prime minister`s goal remained unchanged - a desire to cap his public life with an achievement that will go down in India`s history - the grand reconciliation with Pakistan. Towards this end, he tried to work around the problem by trying to deal with the Kashmiri militants and, when that failed, he contemplated dialogue with the Hurriyat. When that seemed difficult, he decided to engage Mr Musharraf directly, albeit with some behind-the-scenes help from the US.

So, when Mr Vajpayee goes to Agra next week it will be with a backward half-glance at the troubled 50-year-old history of Indo-Pakistan relations and his personal views. The lesson he will have drawn is that good intentions or one-sided concessions are not enough to untangle the complicated Indo-Pak tangle, and neither is brute strength.

In this perspective, it would be foolhardy to expect that the two leaders will be able to resolve the Kashmir question, or even set it on the road to resolution in Agra. The best possible outcome would be one where India would agree to place the subject on a special agenda, and appoint a senior interlocutor, to negotiate with a Pakistani counterpart. But the price India will certainly demand is a reduction, if not elimination, of violence in the Kashmir valley.

Not surprisingly, the issue of trust will be foremost in Mr Vajpayee`s mind considering that he, the victim, is meeting the author of Kargil. To give Kashmir a reasonable chance of a solution, both sides would be well advised to take measures to build trust even as the talks are undertaken. Among these would be implementing the 1989 Siachen disengagement agreement, demarcating the Sir Creek border, fleshing out confidence-building measures on nuclear weapons agreed to in Lahore and opening trade and people-to-people contacts. Several small steps which Mr Vajpayee could well write about in some future poem.

Can any honorable Pakistani please stand up and roundly criticize this latest threat by the Lashkar-e-Toiba?

``Ganguly, Tendulkar face Lashkar threat``

MUMBAI, JULY 6.The cricket captain, Saurav Ganguly, and star batsman, Sachin Tendulkar, are among those who have been threatened by the militant outfit, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

It has threatened to kidnap and hold them hostages, DCP (Crime), Mr. Pradeep Sawant, said here today...

http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01070006.htm

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

Ref Shankar #156

Okay we cant hold India accountable by Paki standards so which standard should we aspire to, maybe American standards? Oh no, wait we have all that mess related to Central America. So whom then, whom...?

ref: Romairr #145

There is much that is true in what you write, and of course it sounds very good. But I think you are guilty of oversimplifying the issue. For eg; consider that the drug barons in Colombia consider themselves an oppressed people and want to break away from the ``cruel`` majority which does not allow them to carry on their means of livlihood. Would you support such a claim? After all their claim meets all of your criterion. What about the white supremists in the US? they are a minority too. Would you support their demands for partition?

The reality is that we live in a world where we are all different, but we have to live together. Where do we draw the line between a minority getting ``oppressed`` by a majority, and a minority demanding more than is its just due? I confess I do not know, but I do know that just because people are in a minority does not automatically mean that they are right.

The line I draw is that when a minority is part of a representative democracy, has access to political institutions to voice its concerns and a constitution which protects its rights from being unduly crushed by the majority, then the validity of its secession claims are suspect. And violence being used in the above case is a sure sign of a weak case. Can I then support the Palestinians in their struggle, and the Bangladeshis in theirs and not support the Kashmiris? Yes, I can.

-narain

Ref ROmair,

``My prediction: India (after 17 years) will agree to Pakistan`s offer of a bilateral withdrawl from Siachen (Thank God!!).

India will agree to Pakistan`s offer of the Iran-India pipeline through Pakistan``

I think its too early for both to happen:

my predictions:

1) atmost there will be some kind of ``comittee`` to study a withdrawal from Siachen (since there are a thousand complex details details involved)

2)the Iran pipeline thing should be related to other trade issues (an ``in principle`` understanding may be reached)

Bharatiya Musalman

Mr. Imran,

While it will be suffering, you owe it to yourself to visit Pakistan for a period of three to six months. Your assertions (exertions) about Pakistan would be more credible if you can also say that you have visited there and have traveled the length and breadth, and have spoken with ordinary Pakistanis and therefore feel a measure of confidence that your opinions are formulated, not by heresay, but by experience.

To better gauge the thinking of ordinary Pakistanis, you may consider making common cause with them, break bread with them and such, so that you may formulate an opinion backed up by facts of experience and not just heresay.

Do you believe that most Muslims in India, hold opinions about Pakistan, such as yours?

Before Pakistan disentegrates you owe it to yourself to discover for yourself, what evil Pakistan is. No harm can come from such an exercise. Perhaps your experience will confirm your opinions and in that case you can make assertions with confidence, having the benefit of experience.

Re: Romair#146 - follow up to Saad P. Aslam

``since WWII, Western European has gone away from the idea of forced geographic unions and the corresponding terrible economic consequences, to the idea of voluntary geographic unions with a common economic base (EU)...This is what needs to happen in South Asia, and is the only thing that will work...``

I had posted a similiar idea a long time ago, but YLH was completely opposed to it. Disillusioned, I gave up pursuing it further.

Now that Saad P. Aslam and Romair have expressed interest, here is what I propose, and why:

a) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the other SAARC states that want to, should seriously consider unifying their foreign and defense policies under unified, common leadership, while maintaining the status quo in internal affairs -- i.e. separate legislatures, laws, police, constitutions, the works. Kashmir should be reunited, and invited to join as a separate state. This also fits in well with the fact that the foreign and defence policies of each state are severly impacted by the other states. The foreign and defense policies should be conducted by a directly elected leader from all member states subject to confirmation by an elected body that has equal representation from all member states (thereby neutralizing India`s larger numerical superiority, while also ensuring that the directly elected leader will have to work hard to win Indian votes). It could also be required to have the leadership rotate through the member states. A 2/3 or greater vote will be necessary before forces under this unified commander can be committed to any member state (thus preventing India from deploying forces in Kashmir, and Pakistan in erstwhile East Pakistan -- These ideas are still crude, but could be refined further).

Also, to give real executive `teeth` to this new directly elected leader (call him President-General, or whatever) all militaries in the member states will be directly answerable to him/her and swear allegiance to him/her. (thereby preventing dissension, etc.). Likewise for all the foreign ministries.

I support this because it will (a) remove current sources of discord between the beligerents in the Subcontinent and yield a peace dividend which everyone should be able to benefit from (b) preserve Jinnah`s and Nehru`s visions (TNT and joint electorates, respectively), (c) enable greater people-to-people contact and promote commerce, (d) revert the situation back to where the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 (accepted by both the Muslim League and Congress, but rejected by Nehru) left off -- with fully sovereign states in a federation, except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs. If it makes sense to one day have a common currency, then maybe that could be pursued, too.

All of the above arrangements should be fully voluntary.

romair, perhaps you should ask that human rights organizations be given access to pok.

read the following and go into hiding for a couple of weeks. then you can come back and start writing your garbage once again.

from the outlook magazine -

It would seem that the people of the erstwhile undivided Jammu and Kasmir, across the line of control, are beginning to get aware of the double-speak inherent in Pakistan`s right of self-determination rhetoric that is aimed at India and the J&K under it.

In their latest joint communication to the UNCHR, the Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation (JKNSF), Jammu Kashmir National Awami Party (JKNAP) & Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) have condemned ``the terrible, unethical and non-democratic situation in Pakistani occupied Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) brought about by the Government of Pakistan with the help of Pakistan Army, secret agencies and the local police against the nationalist candidates and their supporters in the deliberate genocide of basic human rights of Kashmiri people.``

According to them, ``more than a hundred nationalist Kashmiris have been arrested, tortured and dishonored in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir. This is the second time that the candidates of pro-independence Kashmiri organizations submitted their nomination papers for forth coming election in Azad Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly, but the office of the Election Commissioner has rejected all the nomination papers, just because the nationalist candidates has refused the black Azad Kashmir Constitution Act 1974, par 7 (2) imposed by the Government of Pakistan in 1974.``

Their letter to the President of UNCHR adds:

``It is the gross violation of Kashmiri`s human & political rights. We believe in the complete independence of Jammu Kashmir and it`s our real national emancipation.

``This black act has limited our right of freedom even right of vote. The act is ``No person or political party in Azad Jammu Kashmir shell be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the Ideology of the State`s Accession to Pakistan``.

``While, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article No. 19. ``Every one has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.``

``And the UDHR Article No.21: ``Every one has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.``

``Your Excellency, Are these Articles not applicable and valid for the people of Azad Jammu Kashmir? Are Kashmiri people not living in this Universe? Are Kashmiries not Human beings?

``According to a news agency ``ONLINE`` Pakistan has decided to appoint one hundred thousand Army in Azad Kashmir at the occasion of so called Assembly Election. Beside this other paramilitary troops will be present there at the name of security.

``We appeal to you to persuade Pakistan and so called Azad Jammu Kashmir Governments to omit this act, release the arrested people and accept the nomination papers.

Question: Why were JKLF candidates disqualified from standing in recently-conducted PoK elections? Amanullah and his supporters took out a protest rally and courted arrest to protest.

Answer: They werenot allowed to stand for PoK elections because they refused to give in writing that they accepted that Kashmir as part of Pakistan.

Question: Who claims to support Kashmiri freedom?

Answer : Pakistanis.

Question: So is that called hypocritical, perhaps?

Answer : No they call it the Pakistani principled stand which is totally pureminded, and has nothing to do with strategic concerns nor territory nor religion, mind you.

Lets hear about these cultured Lahoris too, from the secular republic of Pakistan:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/06jk2.htm
Another ambush on Amarnath route

Mukhtar Ahmad in Srinagar

Militants on Friday yet again ambushed an army convoy near Chamalvas, 128 kms from Srinagar on the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway, killing two soldiers on the spot while five others were critically wounded.

Police sources told rediff.com that militants hurled grenades and fired from automatic weapons on the heavily armed convoy.

The five seriously wounded soldiers were air-lifted to the hospital in Srinagar.

Sources said soldiers escorting the convoy had engaged the militants in a fierce encounter, which was on when reports last came in.

The highway is being used by thousands of pilgrims bound for the Amarnath yatra base camp at Pahalgam.
Traffic on the highway was disrupted and senior officers had rushed to the spot.

On Wednesday, Lashkar-e-Tayiba militants had ambushed an army convoy near Qazigund.

Meanwhile, police sources said that 4,236 Amarnath bound pilgrims had left Jammu early on Friday morning in 195 vehicles escorted by security forces.


http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01070006.htm


Ganguly, Tendulkar face Lashkar threat


MUMBAI, JULY 6.The cricket captain, Saurav Ganguly, and star batsman, Sachin Tendulkar, are among those who have been threatened by the militant outfit, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

It has threatened to kidnap and hold them hostages, DCP (Crime), Mr. Pradeep Sawant, said here today.

The threats came to light when some members of the militant outfit were apprehended by Thane police some months ago, he said.

Interrogations revealed that the group had prepared a list of persons who would be kidnapped to secure certain political benefits.

The former hockey captain, Dhanraj Pillay, had yesterday approached Mumbai police seeking protection after receiving threats from the same outfit.

correction #145: ``So my chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim.``

should read

``So my (or the average Pakistani Muslim`s) chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim.``

Romair,

#145

Well said, sir. Most of your posts make a heck of a lot of sense.

Let me be very blunt about India. Even though my bias is pro-India; I feel India has been nothing but a megalomaniacal BULLY of S.Asia, since independance. OK, call it a more politically correct name--India is a HEGEMON--pure & simple. Indians can conveniently cloak themselves under the garb of ``secularism`` & ``democracy``. Puncture that cloak a bit & the truth comes out--we`re a bunch of goddamned hypocrites. Just because we`re better (or think we`re better) than Pakistan in those respects is no frikking excuse.

Lets keep Pakistan out of the picture, for a minute (because pointing to Pakistan`s conduct is the biggest excuse). Why are the Kashmiri muslims unhappy? Why are they protesting? Have India`s leadership ever sat down with them & empathised with their views? Theyre feeling oppressed---pure & simple. People who are oppressed should be given a chance to be heard & differences ironed out like any democracy. If the Central govt plays ``big daddy`` & essentially tells them to go to hell because they have Farouk Abdullah types as puppets, they are not going to endear themselves with Kashmiri muslims. What the heck do you think Kashmiri muslims would do when they`re desparate?--turn to Pakistan, of course!

Dont go blaming Pakistan. Its India`s bullying attitude that disillusioned Kashmiri muslims. Heck even Bengali muslims turned to India when W.Pakistanis were oppressing them. Oh yeah! At that time we were more than happy to aid the Mukti Bahini with men & material. Payback stinks, dont it?!

Mushy & Vaju have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make peace in Kashmir. Like the man said, no Indo-Pak agreement will hold unless the Pak military & BJP signs their name to it. If Indians & Pakistanis dont support them, the whole subcontinent is screwed.

I`m hoping to God some sort of compromise will be reached. I hope those poor Kashmiris had some peace in their sad history. Nothing will be make me more happy if the whole of Kashmir (Indian & Pakistani) secede into a ``non aligned`` ,secular independant country.

As an Indian, I had the pleasure of visiting that blighted Valley many years ago. Words cannot describe its beauty. Its almost as if God has specially made this Shangrila for the blessed few. However, its beauty has become its greatest curse, because everybody covets it. IMHO, nobody except Kashmiris deserve to own it.

Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when all of us Indian & Pakistani moderates on Chowk can have a reunion on a houseboat on Dal Lake & sip Darjeeling tea:) I`d love to meet guys like Romair, Tahmed..etc etc (there are far too many Pakistanis here who have earned my respect; to list..). But we should pray for that meeting ONLY IF KASHMIRIS ARE FREE....

Peace

RE Romair #145

You said: ``They only separate when they feel they are being exploited by the majority. The exploitation can be based on religious differences, ethnic difference, linguistic differences, geographical differences, or any other kind of difference.``

Counterpoint: If at all, the Muslims have been on top of the pyramid for nearly a thousand years. They came as looters/invaders, settled down and established dynasties. They were the dominant ruling class till the brits packed away the last of the mughals. So who`s exploiting who?

You said: ``However, people will never separate from a union just because they have a different religion or ethnicity (otherwise Muslims would demand a separate homeland in the USA). They only separate if they feel that due to their religion, ethncity etc. they are being exploited economically and physically by the majority.``

Again--the british were the rulers for the last 200 odd years and they called the shots. If at all, the muslims were not as quick to take advantage of the educational and professional opportunities offered under the british systems and instead cocooned themselves in their known professions and their neighborhoods.

If you feel you were better off in Pakistan, good for you. What happened at partition was that a lot of the educated, professional middle class muslims migrated leaving the very rich and the very poor of your community behind. With the latter being the majority of the muslim population and given the overall rejection of western education in that community, what can you expect? And if muslims were in power in India for the longest time, why were these poor muslims so behind the curve in terms of education and affluence? In comparison, that can be said of any community with a lot of poor including the backward castes and tribes.

They were way behind and are slowly catching up. It`s a factor of economic backwardness, not bigotry or intentional government discrimination. If you haven`t seen that many Indian muslims in your line of work, that`s again a factor of sampling and perhaps economics. More muslims take to the trade--either as craftsmen or businessmen. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the socioeconomcs of muslims or any other indian community, but let someone like Nasah or B_M pick up from here.

A 3% rate of muslims in the Indian Army is a lot better than close to zero in your armed forces and bureaucracy for the minorities, right? At least those who remained weren`t chased out or forced to convert. Despite all the flaws inherent in India and her systems, Indian muslims are as Indian as the other person and it is a right they know and thankfully are starting to assert.

tahmed321 # 144

Bhai Saheb, main aapka badaa fan ho gaya hoon.

Theory ho tau asiee :)

ref: Ferozek #109

You asked if India has the political will to sustain any course of action which will bring about the dissolution of Pakistan. The answer to that is that it does not-for the present.

Right now India is going through a phase of elation: after a very long time, some things seem to be going right for us. But most Indians are well grounded in reality, and take our supposed superpower, economic tiger future with a healthy pinch of salt. At this stage most of us are more concerned with keeping the current upturn going than planning for our supposed future status. That means getting along as best we can with whatever we have.

It is however also true that in its present avatar Pakistan would pose some problems for us IF we ever became superpowers, and IF the world continued to work the way it has done in the past. It is small enough to resent India, and yet big enought to be used as a means of containing India. China has already been doing that very successfully for the past 5 decades. For this reason it would definitely be preferable for India to have smaller states around us than Pakistan.

So the score card is: yes, India would like smaller buffer states around it. But NO, India is unlikely to do anything to bring this about.

and yet it is do-able! My personal opinion counts for nothing, but I`ll inflict you with it in any case. For a long time I was convinced that breaking up Pakistan further would not be in india`s interests because of the resultant anarchy that this would bring about. However now I am coming round to the view that this may indeed be doable, if Sindh can somehow be induced to break away from the Pakistani federation, preferably with as little violence as possible. This is not that impossible a task. That would leave a paranoid Punjab facing a restive Baluchistan and NWFP, with enough problems of its own to leave India alone. With a relatively strong military government in control in Islamabad, the rest of Pakistan should survive the transition without descending into anarchy. Sindh can then be independent, and hopefully only passively hostile to India.

Of course these are purely academic exercises right now, ``khayali pulav`` really. But if the Kashmir problem continues for another year or two, I have a feeling that the Indian government will probably also start thinking along the very same lines and come to similar conclusions. One must not forget, that this is after all a hardline government of a resurgent India.

-narain

shammi #142
Its better to have 30 professions instead of two?

stuka #147
Sorry, I donot share your opinion that we have seen `enough` elections. We had `stability` for 40+ years under the Nehru-Gandhi family with oneman rule with its good and bad consequences, its time for new leaders, new groups and new ideas to emerge and and the only opportunity is with regular elections and the accompanying airing of issues.

There was a time when Mrs Gandhi(in the early `80s) wouldnot answer more than one question per reporter in press conferences, which would be held how often, can anyone remember? I think we have come a long way from those days of imperiousness, and donot need to return, thank goodness.

And its only the last 6-7 years we have seen governments changing so fast, Narasimha Rao`s minority government lasted 5 years until `95, I think. We may be currently into a semi-stable mode with coalition governments instead of one-party rule. Basically I would rather trust a collective who remain in power only because they are accountable to a diverse set of constituents, than a single person who is accountable to none once he is in power. At least US Presidents care about `legacy`, not many executive-head Presidents from elsewhere in the world do(btw, where else in the world?).

btw, there is already an anti-defection law in place to prevent at least representatives of large parties from jumping ship due to being bought retail instead of wholesale. And I am sure the law has flaws but I`ve seen it in operation even in my local panchayat.

Saad P. Aslam #129: I think you have presented an excellent idea. I have thought along those lines, as well. And I feel it to be the best solution for South Asia.

Volunteer unification of states, like in the USA, is the best and most productive solution. Ideally, the whole world should be one big country, and a member of a federation of planets, like in Star Trek. However, that would be wishing for utopia. This only works in areas with short histories like the USA, or in areas where the local population, as well as the populations of the conquered areas, was at some stage completely wiped out on enslaved (like by the US govt. of the 18th and 19th century).

In regions like South Asia and Europe, due to long rooted ethnic, religious etc. differences, forced unions have not, and will never work. Europe has fought, by far, the bloodiest battles of modern times. All of these were based on one group forcing itself on the other. Whichever state was the strongest at that point in history, would attempt to bring everyone under its borders.

However, since WWII, Western European has gone away from the idea of forced geographic unions and the corresponding terrible economic consequences, to the idea of voluntary geographic unions with a common economic base (EU).

This is what needs to happen in South Asia, and is the only thing that will work. Geographic unions should be voluntary. If Sindh, Punjab, NWFP, and Baluchistan want to voluntarily be part of a larger entity called Pakistan, they should go ahead and do so. However, none of the provinces should force the others to do so. Similar ideas should be applied to other South Asian states.

As long as alll the states are part of a joint economic union (which, most if not all of them will voluntarily want to join), geographic borders will become immaterial. Their will be no visas and free borders for trade and people, much like the EU. The whole group will act as a joint economic entity, but the people in each state will be secure within their own identity and elected political govt. It will infact be easier and more productive for an Indian (or Pakistani) to visit Kashmir in such a voluntary economic union, than in the current forced geographic union.

All the violence and freedom struggles will end and South Asians will actually become closer, even though there maybe two or three new states that are created in the process.

It took Western Europe centuries and millions of lives to figure this out (countries like Yugoslavia have still not figured it out). I don`t know how long it will take South Asia to figure this out.

Forced geographic unions are a failed concept and the source of most of the wars in the world. They are always based on the egos of the majority, and rarely based on practical issues.

Zafar Talib #137: ``The people of the subcontinent suffered terribly when an attempt was made to physically separate them by religion. Repetitions of this on the basis of language/ethnicity would result in even more violence and death. Surely that`s not a good idea. The last partition we went through was not a success - more muslims live in India today than in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.``

I think you are making blanket statements that fit more into the Indian point of view than the Pakistani point of view. I have a feeling that only a minority of the Pakistanis will agree with you, while a majority of the Indians will agree with you.

Anytime one group separates from a union, the separation is always based on a feeling of exploitation. People don`t separate just for the sake of separating, since separations require a great deal of sacrifice. They only separate when they feel they are being exploited by the majority. The exploitation can be based on religious differences, ethnic difference, linguistic differences, geographical differences, or any other kind of difference. However, people will never separate from a union just because they have a different religion or ethnicity (otherwise Muslims would demand a separate homeland in the USA). They only separate if they feel that due to their religion, ethncity etc. they are being exploited economically and physically by the majority.

The majority will alwasy support your point of view. They never appreciate the desires of the minority or the less powerful. That is why you can state, ``The people of the subcontinent suffered terribly when an attempt was made to physically separate them by religion.`` This view is not shared by people like me, and many other Pakistanis.

This is of course a subjective debate, depeding on which side of the border one belongs to. But I feel I am better off living in Pakistan as a Muslim, that I would have been living in India as a Muslim. I have had a chance to pursue a career in the military. Had I decided to continue, the highest positions of the Pakistan miltiary were open to me. This is the not the case in India for Muslims, according to India`s largest English Muslim newspaper (www.milligazzette.com). I believe only 3% of the Indian military is Muslim, and hardly any of the high command is Muslim. I had the opportunity, if I wanted to utilize it, to pursue a career in the Pakistan civil services, and would have had opportunities to reach the highest ranks, if I worked hard enough. Again, in India the percentage of Muslims in the civil services is disproportionately less than the total percentage of the Indian Muslim population. Hardly any of them reach the top ranks. I have now had the opportunity to migrate to the USA, based on the educational opportunities I had in Pakistan, and have a chance to make a successful career in the US IT industry. I can vouch for this through personal experience, that although the US IT industry is literally flooded with Indian IT professionals, hardly any of them are Muslims (Azim Premji excluded). Nearly every South Asian Muslim I have met in the US IT industry is from Pakistan, even though the IT revolution has still not hit Pakistan, while it has already hit India ten years ago (although it seems to have by-passed the Indian Muslim). Added to this is the fact that the per capita income of the avearge Pakistani, with much fewer resources, has historically been higher than that of an Indian, and much higher than that of an Indian Muslim. And all of this has occured when Pakistan has had basketcase leaderships. Imagine how the big the differences will be once Pakistan gets a good leadership.

So my chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim. Added to this, I would have been from a poorer community being ruled by a Hindu nationalist party enthusiastically going after my place(s) of worship. So based on this how can anyone state that the partition was not a success. It definitely was as far as my life is concerned.

This is not to state that India is deliberately discriminating against its Muslims. It is quite possible that the Indian Muslims themselves are responsible for their lack of upward mobility. I don`t know since I have never lived in India. But the lack of success/opporutnity of the Indian Muslims is a fact pointed out by Indian Muslims newspapers and organizaitons themselves. And I have based my argument on information from those Indian Muslim sources.

So in the end if my parents and grandparents wanted to separate, and pursue their own lifestyle on their own land, it was their choice, not yours. I have certainly benefited from their decision.

Pakistanis, when in the majority, applied the same rules to the Bangladeshis, when they wanted to separate. Pakistanis could not figure out why anyone should separate on the basis of ethnicity. And Pakistan used the same tactics India is using in Kashmir (though for a much much shorter time).

The British could never figure out why their colonies wanted independence. They actually sincerely felt they were, ``civlizing`` the natives. Why in the world would any of the Indians refuse to be civilized?

If we apply your rule, not only should Pakistan not have gained independence, but neither should Bangladesh or India have become independent. What was wrong with remaining a part of the giant British empire? Had the British not left peacefully, they bloodshed in the Sub-Continent by the British would have been gigantic. But I think most Indians would have considered it worth the price of independence. At least that is what the Indian movies seem to indicate.

I feel it is quite unfortunate (though perhaps a part of third-world human nature) that when people are in a weaker position, they want self-determination and justifiably fight for it (Indians against British, Pakistanis against British and Indians, Jews against Germans). However, the moment these same people become the majority, they do their level best to supress any minority that feels exploited and wants to separate from the union in a similar manner (India in Kashmir, Pakistan in Bangladesh, Israelis in Palestine). They quickly turn from colonised to conlonists.

You need to apply identical principles to the freedom of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and (hopefully someday) Kashmir. You can either, like me, support all these freedom struggles. Or you can oppose all of them. I don`t see how any principled person, whether Indian or Pakistani (its hard for me to tell whether you are an Indian or a Pakistani by your reply) can support some of these struggels and oppose the others.

P.S. The, ``last partition`` you are refering to was actually the partition before the last partition. The last partition was the partition of Pakistan into Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Zafar Al-Talib #137 ``But surely we should study history and try not to repeat our mistakes vis a vis making ordinary people suffer when it is avoidable.``

Amen. Here is the Tahmed321 Theory of the Morphing of Man from Dog (with apologies to all good dogs):

STAGE I: The Dog Stage

Step 1: Fight like Dogs: with tooth and nail.

Step 2: Fight like Dogs With Apposable Thumbs: with swords and spears.

Step 3a: Fight like Trained Dogs: with maps and bombs and Geneva Conventions; OR

Step 3b: Fight like Deranged Dogs: in civil wars and disturbances as in 1947.

Step 4: Fight like Deranged Paper Dogs: exchange mindless insults. * *CURRENT STATUS FOR SOME FOLKS ON CHOWK * *

STAGE II: THE HUMAN STAGE

Step 1: Think: What am I Fighting About?

Step 2: Think: Why are we here?

Step 3: Think: What can I do to make the most of my time here?

Step 4: Stop thinking. Start living.

Step 5: Smile, smell the roses, greet your fellow beings, humans or dogs. Then do something useful with your life.

STAGE III: THE POST-HUMAN STAGE

(Steps under construction, Internet Connections, Scientific Breakthroughs, Interplanetary Exploration, being one of the first elements).

Cheers.

Interesting article on the current summit. I have always felt that Najam Sethi`s analysis of the military is usually somewhat off target. In this one, he seems to be over-emphasising the ISI (like most people, who have heard of it, but do not understand its structure). But his analysis of social issues is usually quite good.

On the whole, he seems to be indicating that Musharraf is going into this summit with a lot of strength. This is indicated by two new cards that Pakistan has just thrown on the table. The first is an offer for a no-war pact with India. India has always refused such an offer, and will refuse again. The second is a request/demand that the APHC leadership should be allowed to meet Musharraf while he is in India. India has always refused that, as well. Although this time, hopefully India will give in. I think Musharraf should make a third request of lifting the ban on international human rights organizations in Indian Kashmir.

Change the status quo

Najam Sethi`s E d i t o r i a l

General Pervez Musharraf is all thumbs-up. On June 26th he got a pat on the back from the leading editors of Pakistan to go ahead and talk to India with an open mind. Much the same response was forthcoming from the leaders of all religious groups and political parties who met him a day later. But most critically, the ISI, which destabilized both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif when they didn’t see eye to eye with them on how to deal with India, is already in the bag. Indeed, to all intents and purposes, General Musharraf heads a military government in which former ISI big-guns hold sway — two are serving as powerful corps commanders, one is in the federal cabinet, another is defense secretary, a third heads the CE’s secretariat, a fourth is governor of a province and at least two are ambassadors in foreign lands — while the former corps commander of Pindi whose troops arrested Nawaz Sharif on 12 October 1999 is currently DG-ISI.

The irony should not be lost on us. Among the editors who are sanguine about General Musharraf’s visit to India are many who vigourously opposed Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif when they hinted at “flexibility” — the buzzword these days. More significantly, among the religious groups and parties who are now backing General Musharraf are many with overt or covert links to the jehadi forces in Kashmir. Indeed, Qazi Hussain Ahmad of the Jama’at-i Islami, who created such a ruckus during the Lahore Summit in February 1999 and who not so long ago was urging the corps commanders to remove General Musharraf because he had allegedly become a “security risk”, has now gone all the way to Islamabad to say “yes” to the general. Similarly, the other fiery clerics who are given to castigating General Musharraf for his so-called ‘secularism’, were all too conspicuous when they prostrated themselves along with him in the namaz following the meeting. In fact, JUI leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman has actually called for a general ceasefire in Kashmir and on the LoC if the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit makes progress. The Maulana is an important leader in Pakistan because his party represents the grand Deobandi alliance behind the jehad in Kashmir. Together with Qazi Hussain Ahmad, he was until recently most given to making aggressive statements about General Musharraf’s ‘NGO-driven’ cabinet. But so soft was Fazlur Rehman’s stance the other day that the apex jehadi organization, the Mutahhida Jehad Council, could not resist denouncing him, although the very next day the Council was itself front-paged for endorsing the summit. The newspapers also carried the namaz photo of General Musharraf lining up with such jehadi panjandrums as Maulana Samiul Haq, a friend of Afghanistan’s Mulla Umar and a powerful seminary-owner of the NWFP. In fact the jehadi religious parties first formed a six-party alliance topped by an action committee, then went and met General Musharraf to lend him their support vis-à-vis India. All this, while the chief of the main religious party feeding the Deobandi jehad, Maulana Azam Tariq of Sipah-e-Sahaba, was languishing in jail. Meanwhile, an internally riven Hurriyat Conference has also endorsed General Musharraf unequivocally.

The irony is all the greater because the three political parties which wanted peace with India – PPP, MQM and PML-N – did not deem fit to meet General Musharraf and wish him good luck. In fact, they have tried to play the role of spoilers by asking India not to negotiate with a military leader. Equally interesting is the government’s disdainful attitude towards former DG-ISI, General Hameed Gul, a self-styled Islamicist hardliner, and former army chief General Aslam Beg, an avowedly trigger-happy “defiance” theorist. Neither was “invited” to meet General Musharraf. It may also be recalled that on 5 June, General Musharraf, had criticized the jehadi organisations for their lack of accountability over jehad funds and for the empty anti-India braggadocio of their leaders. Only a man squarely in control can express such sentiments and get away with it.

General Musharraf can rein in the jehadis in Kashmir if the situation so warrants. That is the message he is sending to New Delhi. And that will be his strong card at the Agra Summit. Is New Delhi going to stop playing bloody games?

India is forestalling hopes by referring to Kashmir as ang (or part of its body). Pakistan can respond by terming Kashmir its shahrag (jugular vein). But the truth is that both have to show flexibility on Kashmir. India’s view of Pakistan may be that of a deadbeat state now desperate to sign on the dotted line. But Pakistan has the bomb and General Musharraf can bleed India in Kashmir for some time to come. New Delhi should also realize that Agra is not Simla and General Musharraf is not negotiating the release of 90,000 POWs. But if “deadbeat Pakistan” actually goes under as some Indians would like, India and Pakistan will be at the receiving end of jehad like never before. Therefore neither can afford to stick to the status quo. `` (Friday Times)

I think the true colors of the MQM, PPP, and PML can be seen by their efforts to dismantle this meeting, even though it seems to be on fair and balanced terms, i.e. no outrageous demands have been made by either country, and Kashmir seems to be the core issue.

Another interesting point is historically nearly all important treaties (water, border etc.) that have been signed between India and Pakistan have occured when a military govt. was running Pakistan.

My prediction: India (after 17 years) will agree to Pakistan`s offer of a bilateral withdrawl from Siachen (Thank God!!).

India will agree to Pakistan`s offer of the Iran-India pipeline through Pakistan.

India will continue to state that the Kashmiris will not be allowed self-determination, so no major progress will be made on Kashmir. However, India will somewhat soften its atut-ang stance.

Banjaara 207/Ali1 208: ``Romair Saheb,you claim that Pakistanis know more about India than the Indians know about Pakistan,``

I still believe this.

``FYI,The Babri Masjid Action Committee has agreed to let go of the Babri Masjid``

If this is the case, then I stand corrected. I was unaware of this. I am not quite sure what the solution maybe then. If it is one mosque after another, then at some stage a line needs to be drawn.

``VHP/BJP/RSS are the acronyms and the full names are``

This one I did know. I knew what the acronyms stood for. I just didn`t know why the names were so long.

``Waiting for your next advise to theIndian Muslims.``

Based on the above, I really don`t have any furthur advice. I suppose Indian Muslims need to unite and form a national political party of their own. But that maybe hard, because they are so spread out all over India.

``You must know from their websites that there is a list of several hundred mosques which they think have been built over destroyed temples and must be demolished now. Where do you think if will end?``

I didn`t realize the list of mosques was so long.

``Do you think Pakistan was possible if Indian Muslims would have stategically retreated after every 500 casualties?``

A strategic retreat is carried out when one knows one will be defeated if one fights. It is pointless to get into any battle, regardless of the fact whether one`s stance is right or wrong, if one is sure one will lose in the end. It is better to regroup to fight another day.

At the time of partition, Pakistanis did not need to strategically retreat because they had a very good chance of winning. There were certain areas where they were in a majority. The chances of winning were at least 50% or more. Had there been no or very little chance of winning, and in the process all of the Muslims would have been killed in a losing battle, then I think a strategic retreat would have been the answer.

In the current case, although I am not an expert on India, I don`t see how the Muslims can win. They have to regroup and strengthen themselves politically first, and then attempt to take a stand.

ref: saadP Aslam #129

As an Indian, I see no benefit accruing to me from your scheme. First of all I am not so sure of your hypothesis about separate nations in India. There are separate identities for sure. But I feel a kinship with other Indians be they Tamil, Sikhs or Kashmiris. Why should separating everyone into neat little boxes help? Living in the real world means having to deal with people who may not be exactly like us. I see no merit in trying to run away from this reality. Quite the opposite, I think that diversity broadens the mind.

Overall the Indian state is doing well, and we as components of it, are doing well too. I am also all for helping south asia grow as a region, but I do not think that your solution is any way of achieving that objective. But then maybe that is not the problem you are trying to solve anyway?

-narain

Sadna:

I did read your reply. Well, its a matter of opinion, but don`t you think our country has seen enough elections. You suggest making it mandatory for the opposition party to prove its majority before unseating the incumbents. That is hardly a better alternative. It will still lead to buying and selling of Members of Parliament, and a resultant lack of stability. Secondly, political agendas get diluted to satisfy the cravings of every component of a coalition, leading to a government of inertia.

A presidential form of government may not be perfect, but at least it may lead to some form of stability where the chief executive of India (President) can spend more time governing and less time on politicking.(Hopefully)

Nasah:

My main man, where are you from India or Pakistan.

I am just a little bit confused.

If you are Pakistani, are you being sarcastic. At least that will make some sense.

If you are Indian, are you so driven by hate that you can`t make your ass out from your elbow. So what if the Pakistanis have a similar structure of their NDC. Does that make it wrong??

The procurement of military supplies is much better managed in Pakistan than in India, because there you don`t have civilians sitting on every proposal for years. Corruption exists in Defense Procurement in ever country, but at least they get the weapons whereas we don`t. Eliminating bureaucratic control (not civilian) would enhance the fighting capability of the Armed Forces. Food for thought????

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

Re: SaadPAslam #129

``...entirely new structure of all of South Asia. All countries in the SAARC should be dissolved as independent federations...``

I agree. If this is carried out, a lot of our professional patriots will be put out of work.

Re: Sameer, #135

To me it is quite tragic that an educated person such as you sees Pakistan and its politics from an eye of a Punjabi and not as a Pakistani.

It is this ethnic mentality that will undo Pakistan and, if not checked, turn Pakistan into another Bosnia.

I expected better from you.

SameerJB #135
For next time, maybe we should each keep a Sindhi guy ready :).
Isn`t one of the languages spoken by Pakistanis from the Dravidian language family ? Keeping a guy speaking such a language as contingency measure(`Ms Universe runner up`) will also be judicious for next time or next-to-next time:).

Dear stuka:

``Secondly, the Joint Chief should have the rank of Cabinet Minister and should report directly to the Prime Minister/President without bureaucratic intervention``

Don`t you dare proposing a Pakistani malady for Indian civilian governance. That`s really strange.

Reply SaadPAslam #129

Two points:

One: Multiethnic states are not necessarily doomed to failure. Please consider Canada, Australia, the USA, and Switzerland. On the other hand, largely ethnically and religiously homogenous states are not automatically destined for unalloyed success either. For example Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Morocco, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Egypt. The size of administrative units should be based on the requirements of administration - different administrative needs might be best met by different administrative borders. (Boundaries for administration of educational institutions on linguistic boundaries, for adminstration of irrigation systems on catchment area boundaries, etc.)

Two: People of different ethnicities, religions and languages generally live geographically mixed together (to varying degrees and concentrations) right across the subcontinent. The people of the subcontinent suffered terribly when an attempt was made to physically separate them by religion. Repetitions of this on the basis of language/ethnicity would result in even more violence and death. Surely that`s not a good idea. The last partition we went through was not a success - more muslims live in India today than in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I`m not suggesting we turn the clock back, what`s done is done, and today we all love our countries as they are. But surely we should study history and try not to repeat our mistakes vis a vis making ordinary people suffer when it is avoidable.

Among the reasons that Khalistan failed to eventuate were (1) 48% of the population of Indian Punjab is not Sikh. And (2) at least 50% of Sikhs live outside Punjab. I can`t think of many ethnic or religious communities in the subcontinent who are not similarly mingled with others and spread out to many areas where they are minorities. More ethno-religous partitions would make the last batwara look like a picnic.

FROM THE TIMES OF INDIA

There`s a Path to Peace

Dare to Dream, Dare to be Different

By BEENA SARWAR

PAKISTANI painter Salima Hashmi laughingly recalls an art seminar she participated in, hosted by a Japanese organisation, where the hosts apprehensively eyed her and the Indian delegate, wondering when hostilities would break out. ``We told them that if anything, we would be ganging up against them - which we did, because of their colonial attitude.``

Even those serving in the armed forces of India and Pakistan bond with colleagues across the border. Alumni of the Rashtriya Indian Military College (formerly the Royal Indian Military College), have had at least three reunions since 1996 in India and in Pakistan - despite the fact that retired military personnel, and even their children, are not usually eligible for visas. Visas, for that matter, are not easy for anyone, except for group travellers with some influence.

These army reunions are significant. Cynics dismiss them as easy enough for retired officers, but the fact is that the desire for friendly contact has proved stronger than the indoctrination of years in service and active combat against the `enemy` country. There are several retired officers in the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy which facilitates people-to-people dialogue. Through the Forum, hundreds of ordinary people from both countries have come together every year since 1995. Our governments grudgingly grant visas and special permissions, like allowing border-crossing on foot (not among the three approved methods of air, train and, since 1999, bus), because of which Forum members, most of whom pay their own way, can travel cheaply.

It`s not just due to international pressure that these meetings are allowed. Those in power themselves want peace. Locked in the rhetoric of politics, they can`t bring themselves publicly to take on positions that they privately concede to. Any point of contact between an Indian and a Pakistani has the potential for bonding. Take the aggressive flag-raising and lowering ceremony at the Wagah border. When there is no audience, the same guards chat, share food and other items. My friend and television journalist, Barkha Dutt, writes with touching honesty about reporting at Kargil (Himal South Asia, June 2001). The war, she found, was ``a theatre of contradiction that embraced courage and fear, head and heart. The very men who scoffed at your suggestion that the neurosis in the India-Pakistan love-hate relationship may yet subside, would in the next breath regale you with stories of bonding sessions with the `enemy` across the border.`` Like the Sardar earlier posted as a commander at the Punjab border: His Pakistani counterpart had smuggled him across one evening, ``whisked him away in a car with tinted windows and given him the grand tour of Lahore...Others piped in with similar anecdotes of cigarettes and books shared at the post...``

These were soldiers at war. But bonding is not limited to those with shared army backgrounds, language or alma mater. A West Bengali student with no ties to what is now Pakistan wept with emotion when visiting Lahore as part of the women`s `bus` delegation last spring. Barkha and I, listening to woman after woman talk about what this visit meant to her, struggled with our own emotions. ``Do we report, or do we participate?`` we asked each other. We ended up doing both. An engineering student from Lahore volunteering at the meeting was teary-eyed as his new Indian friends departed. He confessed that he had until now hated India. Why did he volunteer? Curiosity. He had never met an Indian before. Now he knew that `they` were people, just like `us`. ``I don`t agree with a lot of their policies. But at least we can talk about it.``

Echoes of the observations made just months earlier by visiting Indian students from Ramjas College. Not all interaction is emotional. The customs officials who make the lives of travellers hell on the ironically (or prophetically) named Samjhauta (`Conciliation`) Express between Attari and Lahore, have it all worked out. Mazhar Zaidi, a colleague from Lahore, found that officials on both sides accept `enemy currency`: later they simply share the booty. Think of the mutual benefits if our rulers started sharing resources.

Think, as friend Isa Daudpota from Islamabad urges, of Pakistan and India as `buddies`. In a letter to newspapers, he suggests: ``To loosen up for the mid-July Musharraf-Vajpayee meeting, try dreaming a bit. Imagine a joint South Asian cricket team...! This seems outlandish...Think of a common market for this region... Think of students from Pakistan going South, rather than North, to study information technology...`` Lata Mangeshkar singing in Pakistan and Abida Parveen in India; our agriculturists learning from each other`s mistakes... Of course, there is `the big stumbling block`, Kashmir - both the Pakistani and Indian parts.``

But for now, as Isa says, ``let`s think of Kashmiris as just humans wishing to lead peaceful lives. Forget that they are Hindus, Sikhs, Christians or Muslims. Let them be free to live as they wish, and don`t covet them and their land. If division is necessary let that happen too. Do that soon - in July. Don`t spend years around roundtables getting fat on conference food.`` A conference in Islamabad last July brought together top print and television journalists from the most powerful Indian and Pakistani media organisations - barely a year after Kargil. Participants condemned the media for fuelling hostilities, and stressed the need to change reporting about the `other`. After his closing dinner address, as General Musharraf opened the floor for questions, Indian journalist Bharat Bhushan muttered: ``Not a good move. All this goodwill will disappear.`` Sure enough, most questions were geared towards extracting a response to feed the next day`s headlines rather than promoting understanding.

But the blame for tensions cannot be laid at the media`s door alone. The media plays an important role in shaping perceptions, but they must also `report`. And there`s not much positive to report with politicians either silent on this issue or making a scapegoat of the other side. Privately, they express a desire for peace and its ensuing economic benefits. Publicly, they keep mum.

It`s time they followed the people in the quest for peace. Lift the visa restrictions, allow publications, music, and movies to be legally marketed. The future is there for all to see. Do our leaders, self-appointed or elected, have the vision and courage to make it happen?

(The author is editor of The News on Sunday, Pakistan)

nasah #132:

[An Indo-Pak Mushaira has been planned in the Haveli where President General Musharraf was born, on July 14, 2001, when the Pakistani leader meets the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in a much-trumpted summit, it was reliably learnt here.

It is expected that the two leaders will attend the Mushaira (poetry reading peculiar to the sub-continent) but there was no immediate confirmation if they will attend.

``It all depends whether the two leaders will be able to grab some time from their packed schedule,`` a source said. But it is likely that they will listen to the poetry by the subcointent`s reputed poets, the source said. ]

I have a title for the Dawn editorial. Mahabharata part II: Indus Valley loses again to Ganges plains.

Musharraf dealt a blow to Indus Valley team by scoring the decisive goal against his own team, a move popularly known as Kargil offensive. He did not like Nawaz Sharif and Inder K Gujral speaking frankly in Punjabi about Indus Valley team that would have lead to a victory for Indus Valley team with Nusrat Fatheh Ali Khan, Ghulam Ali, Hans Raj Hans and Manpreet Akhtar entertaining the victoious team at Lahore. After taking over the captaincy of Indus Valley team through back door, a celebratioin in Agra is planned to toast the victory of Ganges plains. Entertainment menu include mushaira in the language of Ganges plains, paan and paandan, gao takyas, sherwanis, choorhidar pajamas,........

Were 4 years and countless casualties justified the difference between ``tuhada Kashmir tuhada te sada Kashmir sada`` and ``aapka Kashmir aapka aur hamara Kashmir hamara``?

Stuka #130
I posted a reply on the other thread by mistake:
http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=mhussain_jun2601&n=00#reply122

A column from Dawn:

A poetic prelude to the summit

By Muhammad Rafique

An Indo-Pak Mushaira has been planned in the Haveli where President General Musharraf was born, on July 14, 2001, when the Pakistani leader meets the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in a much-trumpted summit, it was reliably learnt here.

It is expected that the two leaders will attend the Mushaira (poetry reading peculiar to the sub-continent) but there was no immediate confirmation if they will attend.

``It all depends whether the two leaders will be able to grab some time from their packed schedule,`` a source said. But it is likely that they will listen to the poetry by the subcointent`s reputed poets, the source said.

Ahmed Faraz and Mehmood Shaam will represent Pakistan while the names of those representing India are not yet known.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is himselfa poet, while the Pakistani leader is reported to be a lover of poetry. ``So it will be anauspicious start to begin a peace process between the two countries, bitter enemies on the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir ``, said an observer.

Meanwhile Ahmed Faraz, the poet-turned-ambassador-of-peace has returned to Pakistan after an eight-day sojourn to Delhi.

Speaking to Dawn, the poet said: `My visit has been a tremendous success. A vast majority of the Indians want peace as do the Pakistanis. We have shared problems and shared poverty. To get rid of our problems we must find ways to live in peace. Arms race will not help the cause. Together we can have a very progressive future for our teeming millions. This is a chance of a life-time.

He added: ``A majority lives below the poverty line in both the countries. Should they continue living that way. There are great avenues for cooperation in trade, culture and social fields. We both now have the nuclear deterrent. We must not use it for sheer destruction that they will cause.``

The poet said that he had met leading intellectuals in Delhi including Kuldip Nayar, Khushwant Singh and Yunus Dehlvi. He also addressed Delhi Press Club and fielded many questions by hall full of journalists. He was also much in demand by the print and electronic media, including widely viewed, not only in India but Pakistan, Zee News. ``This amply proves the keen interest of the media in promoting bilateral ties between the two neighbours``, he said.

Faraz is not known for supporting military regimes, but this time he is backing General Musharraff.

Enthusiasm for peace, says Nasir Zaidi, a fellow poet and a friend, recalling his self-imposed exile in the Zia days in London. But he also has his critics, says Akhter Usman, a poet and a critic: ``He is not a good choice as an ambassador of peace. Mushtaq Ahmed Yusufi, the eminent humourist would have been a better choice.``

That is a matter of opinion, but Faraz remains vastly popular in both the countries.

He said that poems penned by him and late Indian poet Ali Sardar Jafri two years ago and now put together in a pamphlet form were in great demand in India. They are also circulating among the intellectuals in Pakistan. They are in Urdu, translated also in Hindi and English. They were exchanged between the two sides.

Samples: Ahmed Faraz:

Friends I`ve come to your country this time

Neither for musical company nor poetry

If it is a question of your ego

I extend my hand in friendship, first.

Ali Sardar Jafri (late):

May the beautiful of the Khyber

and those of the city of Lahore live long.

May the youth of Kashmir,

the earthly paradise abide.

May the warmth of the songs of fidelity

continue to emanate from our lips

and may the epics of love

Continue to be penned in the book of the hearts.

Here is a quartet from me for that mushaira:

hum kiye jate hai dil se tujh sey mil jane ki baat

dil ko lekin shuk ke hai yeh dil ke bahlane ki baat

Shore qaum-o-deen mein zikre rawadari zeya

kis ko foorsut hai suney tujh jaise diwane ki baat

Dear scout:

Re:#124

``I love my country, I know it`s flaws, and I`m on my way towards helping it out,..``

That`s a sure guarantee that Pakistan will NEVER become a ``failed`` State.

More power to you.

Re: Nasah#69 in ‘Quest for Power’ (Civic Center)

“Did you read Keerthik`s trash? What is your reaction.”

Same as yours. He could have written the same article with half the number of words, without using any high-falutin’ language. I am not in favor of increasing tension with Pakistan. We should be doing the opposite. His recommendations 3,4,11(?)and 15 are highly irresponsible.

Sadna:

If Advani is proposing a Presidential form of government, exactly what is the problem with that?

The United States has a presidential form of government and is yet a democracy. If India was to adopt a Presidential form of governement, at least we would get a stable governement, not vulnerable to the whims of a Jayalalitha. The most shameful event in Indian political history was the fall of the BJP led coalition gov`t because of 1 VOTE, and without an alternative governement being in place.

Regarding the presence of a Unified Chief of the Armed Forces, that is exactly the kind of reform we need, among others, as far as defence management is concerned. The lack of co-ordination and inter-service rivalry has been the bane of the Armed forces. Secondly, the Joint Chief should have the rank of Cabinet Minister and should report directly to the Prime Minister/President without bureaucratic intervention. I agree that there needs to be civilian control of the Armed Forces, but civilian control does not automatically translate into bureaucratic control. The complete inertia of defense procurement is a result of complete control by Ministry of Defense civilians who lack the interest and capability of understanding military needs.

With regards to respect for the constitution of the country, let me put it to you this way. One of the greatest constitutions of the world is that of the U.S. Its greatness lies in the fact that the framers realized that they did not, could not possibly have all the right answers for all time to come. Therefore, they included a clause for changing the constitution as and when the need arose and with due process. I am not an expert on constitutional law, but don`t similar provisions exist for the Indian constitution. Is there anything wrong about not respecting the Indian constitution in its entirety? After all, change is a necessary consequence of dissatisfaction. There is nothing condemnable in wanting to amend the constitution and bring it in line with present day requirements.

I agree with the future presented for Pakistan in this article i.e. restructuring into smaller manageable regions. However, I would present the same solution for India itself. Despite its recent successes in terms of economic and international acceptance, no one can deny the fact that India is an underdeveloped third world country. This particularly stems from the fact that it is not a single nation at all. It is more of a union of nations comprising people of different ethnic, social and religious attributes. These are the very reasons for continued unmitigated poverty, illiteracy, racism, corruption, bigotry and ignorance existing in every aspect of life there. In addition, countless regional separatist movements, from Kashmir and Khalistan in North to Assam and Nagaland in the South East, speak of the state of the union. In these terms the cohesive factors binding Pakistan i.e. a common religious identity are a lot more justifiable.

What I purpose is an entirely new structure of all of South Asia. All countries in the SAARC should be dissolved as independent federations. Instead, regional governments and states composed of, and based on ethnic fractions should be formed i.e. Kashmir for Kashmiris, Khyber for Phatans, Tamilland – Tamils, Khalistan for Sikhs etc. The government in these states should have complete autonomy i.e. their own education system, police and revenue generation. At the same time all these states would join together to form a single South Asian Federation with a common defense, foreign and economic policy. Such a federation should be run by a body (e.g. senate) comprising equal representation from all these states wanting to take part. This model will be a lot like EU, as the South Asia in terms of ethnic diversity is comparable to Europe.

This model is based on broad thinking and definitely needs a lot of refinement. However, my point is that instead imagining India as a superpower, which unfortunately is an absurd illusion at best, lets think of how to take the entire South Asian region forward.

re: acheron2

Even if Indians attack first the chances are good that we can take out a couple of their cities. I am not sure that even a dickhead like Advani would like to see Dehli or Bombay wiped out in exchange of a Pakistani wasteland-and I would`nt even expect Vajpayee or Jaswant to take that chance. Fall-out was also one of the things I had in mind. And no matter how much the Believers (I being one of them, alhumdolillah) might wish that the Almighty will ensure the winds to blow east for the next ten years after the bombs fall, its a safe bet not have it as a factor in our calculations. Its like the angels who are supposed to come down on the battlefield to aid the momineen. The fact is that there have been many no-shows.

Regarding Sadat, I`ll just say that I usually associate the word brilliant with the likes of von Manstein, but you are welcome to admire this fellow and Nasser. Lets leave it at that.

And no matter what your brothers might say, bharatiya_m, Manstein is not a character on Beavis and Butthead.

jay #103, ``Pakistan has moved in the direction of intolerance, the young of pakistan, YLH, aisha, scout and others do not fill me with optimism. Waht I see is only denial that the events have moved, no assuming of responsibility, it is all slogans, flippant remarks, no love for the country.``

Aisha and YLH can speak for themselves, but I for one have a life beyond Chowk, which you will not and do not see, so you have no right to make judgements about my love for my country through what I type on an anonymous opinionated forun such as Chowk.

Take it easy, and don`t think too much, chotasa brain toot jaega.

bhartiya musalman #104, ``.I do believe on Average Indians have a much much higher IQ than Pakis``

What happened to you then? ;)

`` But please remember Pakistan does not mean much to Pakis except in juxtaposition to India.``

Oh really? Please put down that reefer. Ask the families of Pakistanis (other than your relatives) who found a home in Pakistan after the Partition, who built Pakistan from scratch, from teh bottom up, who developed a distinct identity, people like my grandparents, my parents, and in the future, myself what Pakistan means to us.

Now please, leave us alone, Pakistan obsessed freak.

anNy (cutie pie) #121,

You tell em girl. I don`t even read Jay`s posts anymore. Koi faida nahi hai. The parrot keeps yapping biased statements and hate filled propaganda.

And when he does say something intelligent, he follows it with verbal poison.

Jay,

I believe more Pakistanis here admit their flaws than Indians admit theirs. Why don`t you preach to your own countrymen, whose head is filled with arrogant notions about their country.

Better yet, take your advice and apply it to yourself.

I love my country, I know it`s flaws, and I`m on my way towards helping it out, after I complete my education.

Now relax and have a glass of iced tea with lemon.

It cools the mind and the soul.

xxabu #114
Re Advani
``But I pose to you - would it be the end of the world?``

Advani still doesnot admit that destroying a ``structure`` in Ayodhya was the wrong thing to do. He doesnot express regret(or take responsibility) for the riots and violence accompanying his Rath Yatra. In this context, it would be pretty close to end of the world if he becomes PM.

``Now assuming that Advani and other hawks are more interested in power than ideology - it`d be preposterous for an Indian politician to do otherwise - wouldnt the new leadership necessarily have to conform, ``democratise``? ``

Exactly, he is more interested in power than ideology, so he has been talking of the ``presidential form of government``. He supports the Armed Forces having a unified head, etc.

Saifuddin Soz once said about Advani(on rediff, I think): Advani doesnot have any respect for the Constitution. I think we shouldnot ignore any signs that such a statement can be true.

``when and if Advani goes around asking for votes on the basis of Ram Mandir, peopel are going to have a good laugh. I think BJPians in general, and Advani in particular realize this. ``

The fact remains that whether the communal agenda is allowed to prevail or not, the cost in terms of human lives lost in riots and damaged(and polarized) communal relations is too large a price we have paid due to Advani and the rest of the hardliners. Either they admit this, or they are the same as the Congress, manipulators of public sentiment with pious facades, caring nothing for even 1000s of lives lost inteh process.

The terms on which BJP or any other parties seek power and public approval have to be changed, its not clear that that change has really, fundamentally happened. These leaders will certainly behave differently if they had a majority in hand, remember every Congress Prime Minister to date.

Dear Bhartiye Whatever (nobody calls a muslim a musalman these days)

There is little difference between a Muslim fascist of Pakistan and an Indian fascist claiming to be a ``musalman``.

Disintegration of Pakistan is as much real as the disintegration of India. Don`t kid yourself.

Look around yourself, Mr. Keerthik, there are so many centrifugal forcess spinning in poverty ridden India, your fascist limbs could split any moment if you don`t hold to your ``secular`` pants real tight.

India of ``sacred cows`` is only as much ``sacred`` as Pakistan of ``holy Qurans`` is ``holy``. No difference.

Kettle calling a pan how black you`re! Amazing!

SAMEER 106

``by accepting Indian Kashmir as part of India unilaterally, decreasing military spending, replacing Islam with secularism through constitutional means``.

I agree with your above statement, but I was talking about what prevents pakistan from doing this, some ontological reasons.

Once up on a time a grasshopper was getting anxious about the approaching winter, the cold was becoming un bearable, the grass supply was reducing. It went to the wise old owl, `` oh the wise one you should have a solution to this``.

The owl said, `` turn into a cricket and hybernate``.

Good answer, but there are some structural reasons, unalterable elements of the anatomy, some ontological reasons that prevent the metamorphosis of grasshopper into a cricket.

That is the level at which one has to address the pak issues.

( By the way, that story written as a prologue to a report nearly twenty five years ago about the industrialisation prospects of third world countries got me a job with an international organisation).

regards

jayaprakash

bharatiya musulman #104 ``Jay...Yes I am in full agreement...Pakistan must go and the sooner the better.``

I am glad to see Jay finally has new company in the ``I Hate Pakistan`` Club. Dream on. There are people like you in Pakistan too who are convinced India will not survive. To both of you geniuses on either side of the border, I have this to say: So what??? There is nothing sacred or eternal about nation-states. They are like bubbles. All you can see is the bubbles. What is important is the water under these bubbles - this being the current and future generations. And (this may be hard for you to believe), those future generations belong to ALL OF US. It is their welfare that is important. When you get it, you will stop wasting your time with ``I Hate Pakistan`` or ``I Hate India`` bs on chowk and start thinking in more meaningful ways.

Re: Jay, #103

Jay, I dislike writing long posts. But your post merits a response, and I have to say in this post more than just the issues you have raised and statements you have made in yours.

First, in your post you made some statements and raised some interesting questions. I hope you find time to answer my queries. And please give it a thought before you start typing away.

- Dissolution of Pakistan – Say your wish is granted and Pakistan as a country is dissolved. What then? Would that put the South Asian region on the fast road to peace and prosperity? Would it eradicate poverty and hunger from a region that is worst than any part of the world in terms of quality of life? Would it eliminate diseases from South Asia? Would all ``jihadis`` suddenly stop preaching violence and turn their weapons into plowshares? Would killing the demon of Pakistan be a fairy tale ending and everybody would live happily ever after?

- Pakistan Being an Accident – A lot of people, including Pakistanis, agree that Pakistan is an accident of history. However, out of 160 countries--or is it 180? This number has been increasing by the day. I have lost count--that claim sovereignty, how many can you count that are ``natural`` and not ``accidents``, including present-day India? Did ``India`` ever exist as a nation prior to 1947? Is it also not an accidental result of the crumbling of the British Empire?

- Jinnah – Dead and gone, to me, at this point in time, he is just a historical curiosity. How long are you going to beat that dead horse? To what benefit?

Secondly, as for Yasser and Scout, I don`t know them personally, but I`ve read some, if not all, of their posts. I can vouch for them. They are good people. They neither hate the Hindus or India, nor they want to dismember India. India to them is just another country like, say, Japan. Nothing more, nothing less. They just dislike those who insult their country and/or their religion. What`s wrong with that?

Now the Important Stuff.

Jay, it is my conviction that some people are more ``developed`` than others. Following the laws of Karma, if one were to take it somewhat seriously, some have achieved a ``higher`` form, a ``form`` that has absolutely nothing to do with either intelligence or physical prowess. Those people, however, are very rare. I know that you know exactly what I am talking about.

In you I saw one of those people. I find it quite disturbing, then, when you defend the likes of bhartiya_musalman (aka Imran Zulfiqar) and Keerthik Sasidharan, who, I know, are ``undeveloped`` and are of ``lower`` form. I find that disturbing not for my sake but yours. You are much better than them. I hope you realize it. You once welcomed me to my ``natural state.`` I am asking you to realize yours.

Jay:

``Pakistan has moved in the direction of intolerance, the young of pakistan, YLH, aisha, scout and others do not fill me with optimism. Waht I see is only denial that the events have moved, no assuming of responsibility, it is all slogans, flippant remarks, no love for the country. ``

So how come you didn`t take my name…especially since I`m the youngest of all three mentioned? do I scare you?

What denial are you talking about? Elaborate please…as far as assuming of responsibility is concerned, I (and many other interactors) have time and time again admitted that the country is in shambles…the moral social political economical structure is rotting like nobodys business…we take responsibility of all this that is happening...also the unwarranted deaths of hindus and christians and wahabis in the name of islam or our own in karo karo and sectarian violence...its wrong…we condemn it vehemently…what more do you want us to take responsibility of? and as far as flippant remarks go, that`s something you cant talk about sir, since theres more of that coming from you than scout or any other interactor on chowk…and she doesn`t crack jokes and be bychy about things dear to (evil) men like you as a matter of her daily routine...you do

I take strong offence to your ``no love for the country.`` I love my country as do you yours and this crazy child bharatiya musalman, his. Don`t base your ideas and conclusions on stuck up brats like sarwari and confused well meaning individuals like ylh. Gettit? And if you decide to answer please use easy language. the last post u`d addressed to me on Sarwaris board was cramped with jargon that was very irrelevent to what I had asked of you.

thank you

Bharatiya muslaman:

``the Pathans and Afghans are a highly uneducated, primitive and barbaric lot...``



darling you are a classic example of what propaganda does to people…how many pathans and afghans do you know? Have you personally ever interacted with a bunch of afghanis and pathans? In most probability you havent (ofcourse you may say yes you have considering your shaky credibility as I percieve it in connection of your writing style and attacks on others faith and beliefs) afghanis are some of the nicest people ever...they are incredibly polite, very well read and kind in the truest sense of the word…if the taliban are afghani to you then narsimah rao and jayalaitha will stand for all things indian to me…now do you understand?

``....today War is all about control of information and intelligence, not about physical brawn...and India has a decided advantage....I do believe on Average Indians have a much much higher IQ than Pakis...stats prove this....compare Pakis educational results in UK with those of Indians...the latter are light years ahead.``

I`ll kick your cute lil butt in any exam, test or other measure of intelligence…actually anyone could…but id like to do it in full view of everyone here so you suggest how we go about it…and just for the record my cousin at LSE which in case you didn`t know is one of the best schools in your U.K, has topped being one of 3 pakistanis in his batch with 9 indians…but unlike you I wont base the intelligence of indians on this certain incident…im sure there are smarter individuals in india than you…god help them if there arent…and provide stats and sources next time you decide to shoot of the hip

``…please remember Pakistan does not mean much to Pakis except in juxtaposition to India. My own Pakistani relations have admitted as much. We Indians consider the soil of India sacred..whereas to the Neurotic converted Paki..only the desert Sands of Arabia are sacred....tragic but true…``

child don`t u ever think before you write? are u like a little mad? Do you realize what ure saying up there doesn`t apply to even .5 percent pakistanis?? We`re not obsessed with india dollface…you seem to be with us… you sound like a sad indian flick as far as the soil bit goes…might as well humor you...for me the soil of my city, my country is as precious as is yours to you…saudisoil doesn`t do anything for me…and its not just muslims who feel this way about pakistani soil..my various hindu, christian and parsi friends feel the same was about India as you do about Pakistan…they don`t dig india just because there are people of their faith there…the sense of belonging is here for them just like its for you in india…for them Pakistan is as much home and theirs as india is for you but they`re a little more polite and tolerant in their views…we uneducated poor undernourished jehadi IQless village bumpkins here in pakistan believe in basic manners…so how about you be a little less volatile and rude since youll love india and I pakistan at the end of any dissing contest…?

STORY OF PAKISTAN

Sameer 106

I do agree that accidental creation need not hamper the continued survival, but when it happens due to stupidity, the cansequence can be catasprophic.

In kerala it is common in those days to see elephants being taken every evening for a bath in the rivers. Men and women line up the katcha roads to see the elephants. One farm labourer, every day yelled out to the mahout, `` will you give me the elephant``. One person asked, you should be stupid to ask this, do you know how much an elephant costs``. The farm labourere replied `` At best I loose a few words, if lucky I get the elephant``.

And one day it happened, the king was on the elephant and he decided to give the elephant to the worker.

The worker took it to his hut, and proudly tied it to the coconut tree next to his hut. He didnt know that the elephants are to be fed at dusk, no idea that the elephant was a male in musk. The elephant trample his hut, uprooted the coconut tree......

If one really struggles to get something, there is an eagerness to know about what one is after.

Accident, if it is a pure accident could have some redeeming hand of the `god`, when it is what do I loose....approach.. we have problems.

If you can see some parallel with pakistan so be it. It is not debatable, we are in the realms of wisdom.

regards

jayaprakash.

I think people on this board will agree that the Indo-Pak relationship should better be of the USA-Canada sort (without saying which is which, and I personally find Canada a better place to live in especially Vancouver BC . . .) otherwise we will see it becoming like the East-West Timor sort of relationship.

Choice, ladies and gentlemen, is ours.

(By the way, how come the Canadians never howl for Alaska??)

re: xxabbu99

I think xxabbu is right about how most of us (at least North)Indians view Pakistanis as ``our guys`` at some level. Why else would we get sooooo cross with you with such frequency? (Apart from Kargill and all.) And if it isn`t to some extent the truth, how would we be able to easily push your buttons (with articles like this one) and make you soooooo cross also? Would you react the same way if an Afghanistani or Iranian had written these things?

I also agree with xxabbu that there is a increasingly broad-based feeling of ``who we are as a people`` in India which is not based on religion but on culture (a broader thing). Right wing ideologues of all religions find this a little bit difficult to handle - and who can blame them? It questions their world view.

Nasah,

``The horrible thought is that the Bamiayani destroyer of Babri Masjid, Advani, despite his ``prashchit`` at the dargah of Khawaja Moinnuddin Chisti -- is still an unreformed criminal -- will be next in line.``

Yes, its kinda disconcerting. But I pose to you - would it be the end of the world? Think about the main reason BJP has held onto power - there is only one and it starts with V. Isnt it obvious that for a party like BJP to succeed, it needs to present a moderate, wise, Vajpayee-esque figure as leader? Otherwise it will be deserted by voters as well as prospective coalition partners. Now assuming that Advani and other hawks are more interested in power than ideology - it`d be preposterous for an Indian politician to do otherwise - wouldnt the new leadership necessarily have to conform, ``democratise``?

This is the norming influence I was talking about. Point is, regardless of Advani`s personal convictions, it`d be impossible for him to impose a communal agenda within the govt. Even more pertinently, why would he do it? What does he gain? In contrast to some people, I do not believe him to be a fundamentalist - just a shameless opportunist. He`d do whatever it takes to keep him in power. If it involves reciting the kalima tomorrow, he`ll happily do it.

Nasah, do you seriously think BJP, with or without Vajpayee, has even a remote chance of securing power on a communal agenda? Havent you seen what has been happening quietly in India in the last 10 years or so? In cities and towns, mufussils and villages, the only talk is now development, employment, money, and going one up over the next guy. There is no more of that colossal national insecurity that Advani exploited a decade ago. This time round, when and if Advani goes around asking for votes on the basis of Ram Mandir, peopel are going to have a good laugh. I think BJPians in general, and Advani in particular realize this. You just watch that man - as the elections come nearer, he will mutate into the greatest champion of minority rights. All sweet reasonableness and baby-kissing sugar daddy.

Regards.

``ps...for those of you who are interested, some friends of mine are organizing a goup called ``Deen Ilaahi Again``...it attempts to revive Akbar`s syncretistic approach among Indian Muslims. Also tries to get Indian Muslims to re-connect to their Hindu roots.``

Great idea ol` chap. Now get it signed and attested and send copies to the MS branch and His Holiness Sri Thakeray. A promotion to Major, maybe? Prospects of in-laws from the house of Jaipur? Who knows what the future might hold. Bloody good show.

I normally don`t post articles that aren`t mine, but this is worth it I believe...

JP Morgan commends Federal Budget 2001-02, terms it investor-friendly

ISLAMABAD, July 4 (APP): JP Morgan, the third largest financial services group in the world has commended the Pakistan Government for living up to its promise of making the Federal Budget 2001-02 an investor-friendly. In its analysis of the Federal Budget 2001-02, it said, besides the wide-range of incentives aimed at inducing investment flows some landmark decisions towards good governance and restoration of investors’ confidence were also announced, says JP Morgan report. The report said an ordinance for the protection of foreign currency deposits will soon be enacted.

It said a Fiscal Responsibility Law targeted at limiting government borrowing is also under consideration. The report analyzed the budgetary announcement on three key determinants of equity prices corporate earnings, liquidity and equity risk premium. According to their assessment, liquidity will improve in the capital market and will become an even stronger driver of equity prices as the market moves towards a T + 3 rolling settlement cycle over the next six months, the report added.

It said the number of budgetary measures such as a three year capital gain tax exemption, tax brakes on equity investment, and preferential tax treatment of dividend income for insurance sector will go a long way in attracting long term capital flows to the equity market. As far as impact on corporate earnings is concerned, the report believes that the budgetary measures will have a positive impact on corporate earnings.

It said the budget speech of Finance Minister, Shaukat Aziz was truly one of the most important and comprehensive policy statements made by the current administration. The report further said the Federal Budget 2001-02 is based on 3-5 year economic plan that revolves around the government’s debt management strategy, with an unerring focus on revenue growth and fiscal discipline. In this respect, the public sector investment will be targeted at a broad cross section of the economy to stimulate growth and create employment opportunities.

While development spending will increase in actual terms, it will be targeted at mainly improving infrastructure in priority sectors such as agriculture, small and medium sale industry, information technology, oil and gas. By following this strategy, the government hopes that public sector investment will trigger private sector investment, it added. The Federal Budget 2001-02, report said, aims to further the structural reforms take over the past 20 months among the measures announced, those focusing on fiscal reform, documentation of the economy, good public governance, restoration of investors’ confidence and poverty alleviation were the most prominent. Significant fiscal announcement include no new taxes, rationalization of tax rates, freezing of defence spending and a 28 percent increase in the development expenditure. Two of the important legislatives announcements are the proposed promulgation of an ordinance for protection of foreign currency deposit and a new Fiscal Responsibility Law to limit the government borrowing. This focus on fiscal reforms, growth and poverty reduction, in their opinion, will go a long way toward restoring investors’ confidence. The report contends that perhaps the government’s single most significant achievement since coming to power is the expansion in revenue base not by way of regressive ad-hoc taxes, but in an environment of tax rationalization.

It is heartening to see that this unerring focus on revenue growth has been maintained as a critical policy initiative in the Federal Budget 2001-02, the report added. Despite significant resistance, the government has extended the General Sales Tax (GST) at the retail level. Efforts to document the economy are also commendable.

While attempting to grow revenue, the government has maintained a tight limit on current expenditure, and both large discretionary current expenditure heads-defense and civil administration—have been kept stagnant. It further said talk of austerity and belt-tightening has actually been reflected in the budget. Discretionary current expenditure is up only 7 percent for 2001-02, a 2.4 percent budget increase in real terms. Budget development expenditure on the other hand, is up by 28 percent. More importantly, there are significantly large reallocations toward priority sectors while relatively wasteful expenditure has been slash quite dramatically, the report said.

reply #: 100 rajanjua

``A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation should tell you that MAD is a reality exactly because of the proximity. It should`nt matter who strikes first.``

Actually, you have it backwards there... let`s compare the US vs. USSR and India vs. Pakistan, shall we? If the USA or USSR had fired nukes, the other side would see them coming over, say, the north pole and thus would have time to fire a counterstrike which would be equally as devastating. If Washington fired upon Lenningrad, Kiev, Moscow and Baku, Moscow would fire upon Washington, NYC, San Francisco and West Virgina.

However, in the case of India Pakistan, the proximity means that by the time either India or Pakistan realised the other side had fired on them it would be too late; in other words, they would find out as the bombs basically hit them. This gives the initiative to the first strike.

Of course, if you meant in some way that the nuclear fallout would devestate each side no matter who fired first, I`m not positive about wind factors there but most likely there would be tremendous damage to both sides no matter what. Thus, it`s a bad move, but the greater damage would go to the one who did NOT strike first.

Also...

``Correct me if I am wrong but if my memory serves me right, Egypt has lost Sinai (three times), Syria the Golan Heights and Jordan the West Bank. Israelis still hold the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The last brilliant Arab generals were probably Umar ibn al-Khitab and Khalid b. Walid. The word ``brilliant`` does`nt fit well with Nasser, Sadat or that other joker- Hussain of Jordan.``

Egypt lost Sinai after the 1967 war which was an unprovoked attack by Israel. It remained this way until 1973 when the Egyptians crossed the Suez and captured a large strip of land on the other side of the canal (the occupied side) and then dug in to await international intervention. They did this because of several things (not the place here to really go into it) but among them were #1) It was only designed to be a limited scale war, not all out war (Sadat used the term ``give them a bloody nose``) and #2) Logistically, Egypt could not have pressed the war onwards much further and decided to quit while they were ahead. The bottom line is that after 1973 Israel was forced to consider talking with Egypt in order to resolve the issues that arose after 1967. As a result of the peace talks, Egypt regained the Sinai penn. and it holds it to this day.

Syria did indeed lose the Golon Heights, something that has never been accepted by the international community and neither has the occupation of the West Bank nor the occupation of Arab East Jerusalem. Most of this is due to the fact that Israel struck first and her air force was superior and in this day and age it`s the air that usually decides the war. The Arabs have been a little down on their luck lately as far as great generals go, this I will give you. However, Sadat was a brave man who went to war because he knew it was the only way out of a bad situation for Egypt but THEN had the courage to sign a peace treaty with the ``enemy``. He knew Egypt had much greater things to worry about internally like her moribound economy and rising class discrepencies. He also paid the ultimate price when the fundamentalists killed him.

Finally, as for the ``brilliant`` term, I think that Nasser and Sadat were brilliant in their own ways; Nasser for showing the Arabs there was an alternative to subservience, Sadat for finally beating Israel in a war (or at the least showing the world that Israel was NOT invincible and could indeed be beat) and for signing a peace treaty that showed tremendous foresight and Hussain for keeping his country in one piece. This last part was very difficult if you know the history of Jordan esp in the aftermath of the 1967 war.

bharatiya musalman
In the context of statecraft, what you recommend for Pakistan would be counterproductive for India as others have pointed out. Only in the Balkans and in the depths of Africa is the horrendous human price paid for such upheavals as you suggest, considered acceptable.

As for people`s aspirations and Islam, just a question: aren`t you giving inordinate importance to Pakistanis and their future in the context of the future of subcontinental, including Indian Muslims?

By giving so much importance aren`t you doing precisely what you were saying Pakistanis do?

The veto power for Indians and Indian Muslims to be a vibrant and confident community lies with Indians and Indian Muslims only. The cause of Islam is best served by an ideology focussed on happy and secure Indian Muslims, not an ideology based on Pakistanis in disarray.

The counterpart lesson about an ideology based on happy and secure Pakistanis being better for Islam than ideology based on Indians in disarray is what a number of Pakistani leaders have not understood to Pakistan`s(and Islam`s) detriment. Why emulate their mistakes?

Re: bhartiya musalman #104

Bhartiya, no plan survives its first contact with reality.

Having said this, for the sake of argument, let us postulate your hypothesis a bit further.

Suppose that Pakistan does break up, how would you manage the following scenrios:

a) replace the political/regional vacuum that will exist; how will Iran feel about Baluchistan going to India or being independent; how will China react to a power struggle in South Asia with United States as being one of the interested parties; what will be the Russian/CAR reaction to turmoil on their southern borders - turmoil that can be exploited?

b) offer a security detente/pact to the post-Pakistani states/provinces; will you be willing to deploy Indian forces to maintain law and order, before these state are fully functional to do the job themselves?

c) would you be willing, if deployment is not possible, to give them economic credits ala Marshall Plan to make them intergrated into the Indian confederation?

d) would you be willing to give them special status or would be willing to have them as Indian protecterates?

e) how would India solve the various ingrained problems associated with these states - lack of education, high employment, fedual culture, sectarianism et al?

f) more importantly, does India have the POLITICAL WILL (sorry to all chowkwallahs for yelling this out...)to sustain this course of action?

Also; Bhartiya, international relations favors a status quo and not policies of destablization. Do you think, more critically, does India think that the world will allow it to destablize a ``key node`` in IR; an important geo-strategic link?

I hope you will answer my questions realistically and not on the basis of nationalistic rhetoric.

Ciao

xxxabbu#101

``And who knows what`ll happen after Vajpayee exits and Advani and clowns like Joshi take centrestage. The BJP needs to be kept on a continuous notice of good behaviour.``

You`re so right.

The civilizing proces of the yesterday`s rabble rousers and mobocrats of BJP into today`s `democrats` -- by the mainstream Indian politics -- is by no means complete -- it`s shallow, only Vajpayee deep.

Vajpayee at his age with so many health problems is not expected to be at the scene for long.

The horrible thought is that the Bamiayani destroyer of Babri Masjid, Advani, despite his ``prashchit`` at the dargah of Khawaja Moinnuddin Chisti -- is still an unreformed criminal -- will be next in line.

Dost-Mittar #131 I dont think anyone ``deserves`` riots of the kind that took place in Gujerat. It is all too easy in a developing country to pull together a mob, given the high number of unemployed or underemployed people. Personally, I think since Babri masjid is gone in any case (and a loss of cultural heritage for future generations regardless of religion, like the Afghanistan Buddhas), logic would say that the muslims in India may as well forget about it - there is no shortage of space on God`s good earth to worship. The problem of course is pride and emotions and so forth. The best solution imho would be to build an ``Interfaith Meditation Hall`` where hindus and muslims and people of other faiths could come and pray together for peace on earth for all people.

I had suggested this before on chowk, but did the Indian government pick up on this idea placed before such an august forum as chowk? Noooooooo :-)

Those who wishfully think that only their religion,their country, and their race would survive and all the rest would vanquish are deluding themselves, IMO. If wishes were horses, the beggars would ride. Indians would do better concentrating on their own welfare instead of nurturing wishes to see the break-up of their rival. Partition was a tragedy; but any act that seeks to reverse it would result in a greater mayhem.

Amit: Apparently, Bhartiya_M does not know much about internal ethnic related and communal realities of Pakistan. His predictions are clear example of it. Anarchy leading to a break up of Pakistan will, in my opinion lead to another Pakistan in any name with a Canada-USA like relationship with India, provided India stays on a path to progress.

None of Pakistani province is as ethnically pure as some people think. Balochistan excuding Pushtu speaking Pathan and joining parts of Balochi tribes from Sindh and Punjab would rather go independent than joining India with not much common history or culture. They have less population and huge mineral and gas reserves and potential for 2-3 seaports to sustain them easily and actually boost more per capita income than either India or Pakistan. NWFP pathans are more prosperous than Afghanistan. Actually parts of Afghanistan will join them than other way around. Part of NWFP (about half the population) would like to join Punjab or Kashmir than living under the hegemony of Pathans. In Sindh, Karachi may be interested in becoming independent city state, liike Singapore because they will be then most prosperous in all of South Asia. In the worst case, being part of India, they will be successful also due to the backing of UP dominant politics of India. No matter what the outcome, Karachi can not lose. In Pakistan, only two district will be joining India happily, Tharparker and Mirpur Khas of Sindh. Land-locked Punjab is not interested in independence because their interests are better served being part of a federation or confederation with access to sea for trade. They also have surplus labor force that can not be absorbed within Punjab, particularly with a smaller military. For sharing water resources, from Indus and Punjab on upstrean, Balochistan/ Sindh alliance have to have good relationship with Punjab. With Punjab being the inheritor of nuclear capabilities, a new three component confederation of Punjab-[part Balochistan-part Sindh]-[part NWFP-part Kashmir] is most likely outcome if current Pakistan breaks apart.

If India falls apart in future for any reason, it will be much more difficult to come up with a federation or confederation again because many Indian states are big enough to survive independently and actually progress at a faster rate than current India.

Jay #103:

[The problem with pakistan is that as many on the chowk agree, is an accidental creation. Pakistan could have pulled through with some cohesive forces, like india has done in the last fifty years. ]

Jay dear, I agree with you about accidental creation of Pakistan as do many others, including Bilal Ahmad (as I recall frm some of his posts). However, accidental creation has no bearing on love for Pakistan by Pakistanis, considering it a temporary state or current economic and political mess we are in. Actually most of the countries of the world, most events in the history of world and social matters of personal life are accidental in begining. Accidents more fittest to survive through natural selection were/ are the engine of evolution. Accidents and being fit to survive have no direct relationship. Marriages, arranged or love-based are absolutely accidental to begin with and most of the children born are also accidental/ unplanned. But once you marry a person or have children, it is present and future that determines the fate. TNT was also an accident and should have been placed in the basement or attic long time ago in Pakistan. Two words that are detrimental to Pakistan are Islam and Kashmir leading to poor prioritizing of spending, i.e., military spending. It is unsustainability of military spending than corruption of politicians or feudalism. With all that spending for 50+ years military failed in defending Pakistan, job they were paid for so handsomely. Pakistan can easily catch up or even surpass Indian growth rate within 5-7 years by accepting Indian Kashmir as part of India unilaterally, decreasing military spending, replacing Islam with secularism through constitutional means. Pakistan, then will be a successful state as India of today, with or without corrupt politicians and feudalism.

B.musalman,

I am happy to find one more person who supports the view of dissolution of pakistan. The problem with pakistan is that as many on the chowk agree, is an accidental creation. Pakistan could have pulled through with some cohesive forces, like india has done in the last fifty years. Some kind of an identity has been created, the country has collectively achieved something, or to put it more accurately, most of the indians believe that.

May be the IT, may be the bomb, may be slow improvement in the well being of a large number of people, has forged an identity of `indian`, which was not there fifty years ago.

In the case of pakistan, nothing has been delivered, only the fragmentation. Other than TNT there has been no ideological binding agent of pakistan. Now in the eyes of the world and that of the educated, pakistan is a synonym for corruption, jihad and dictatorship.

It is not the question of india dissolving pakistan, it is the corrosive effects of the image of pakistan among its own people that will disolve it from with in. A nation just to fight another has been the only basis so far for pak existence. Now, other than the jihadists many are wondering, is it worth it.

The missing element are only the detail of the last gasp.

Godot,

I do believe that pakistan could have become a progressive modern islamic state. Now the chances are very remote. Pakistan has moved in the direction of intolerance, the young of pakistan, YLH, aisha, scout and others do not fill me with optimism. Waht I see is only denial that the events have moved, no assuming of responsibility, it is all slogans, flippant remarks, no love for the country. I can look back at the changes in kerala, the chief minister of kerala today, A.K Antony was our hero during the `liberation` struggle against the marxists, it was stupid, but we were ready to agitate.

Well, that reminds me of Jinnah, sipping sherry and watching the agitation, a value imbibed by the YLhs of pakistan. Antony went to prison several times, YLH will never, the generation of Antony changed the political landscape, YLH will never.

The rules of creation, may remain with us for ever, till it is disolved.

regards

jay.

Re:bharatiya_m

A breakup of Pakistan will be a serious problem for India, even if it proceeds along the lines that you suggest. The Afghans will be the big winners because they will be able to unify with NWFP. That will result in a larger Afghanistan, which can be a much bigger problem for India in the long run. Traditionally, all invasions on India have used Afghanistan as the stepping stone and the Afghans themselves have attacked South Asia for centuries. A larger, resurgent Afghanistan would be a much more belligerent and dangerous enemy than Pakistan. Of course, they would start out by attacking the Sindh/Baluchi nation and the Punjabi nation that you suggest. Ultimately they would arrive at India`s doorsteps, and history would repeat itself.

If we take a step back, we can see that Pakistan actually insulates us from any invasions from the Northwest. Any invader would have to take on the Pakistani state before reaching India. Pakistan has also completely neutralized Afghanistan as a potential problem. That place is now so backward and poor, that it is at best a satellite of Pakistan. Also the ordinary people of Pakistan are not consumed with hatred against India. The people like Hamid Gul and Javed Nasir, spew rhetoric but cannot do much harm either. The reality is that after 50 years, Pakistanis are simply tired of the conflict with India. They too want a better economy and improve their standard of living. They want a honorable, face saving solution to Kashmir and move on with life.

Vajpayee is well aware of the general mood in Pakistan. He knows that Kashmir will require a compromise solution and this is the best time to negotiate a compromise. If Pakistan becomes very weak or collapses, India has to deal with a severe distraction on its borders instead of focusing on the economy. If Pakistan becomes strong and prosperous without a Kashmir solution (an unlikely scenario), India will not be able to negotiate a good solution in the future. Therefore, the trick is to come up with a reasonable framework for a Kashmir solution, stabilize relations with Pakistan and hope that it spurs economic growth in both countries to the extent that there is a vested interest in maintaining peace.

Ref SaadPAslam #94

“We, India, are based on the solitary founding principle that religious sensibilities has nothing to do with nationhood”

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between your statement and the ground reality in India at present, i.e. the government itself comprises of a right wing religious party. ``

Yes, you are right. The right-wingers constantly undermine the basis of the Indian Union - unity in diversity - by their very presence. Which is why I think they are the gravest threat India faces today. Insurgencies, rebellions, regional disparity - these can all be fought, removed incrementally. But once Indians lose faith in this raison de etat which binds them together, there can be no hope, not just for Muslims or other minorities, but for India herself.

However, do not think that this is about to happen, or that we are going to let it happen just like that. There are enough thinking Indians, and enough institutional mechanisms, to stop it. Do not presume that everyone, or even a significant portion of people who voted for BJP are communally-minded. Apart from their first ``break``, the BJP has not been able to sustain a communal agenda in elections. Like every other party, they have had to contest on local or national issues affecting peoples` lives. If they have attained a measure of public endorsement, it is because of their performance and superior leadership provided by Vajpayee. Sad as it is, even those who detest their ideology find them more palatable than the fossilised Congress. Hence their continued electoral success is despite, NOT due to their dodgy communal agenda. The day the BJP lets their parivar friends get out of control, people will desert them in droves.

It is my feeling that BJP (and Parivar clowns) are tolerated by the public due to an innate faith in the norming influence of our national institutions. That this faith is not unwarranted has been proven by the record of the BJP-led coalition in power.

What caused the rise of the Parivar in the first place? I believe that the Parivar addressed a definite need for many hindus in the early nineties. Rightly or wrongly, there was a widespread feeling that the Congress in its quest for power had subverted the idea of secularism to the disadvantage of many hindus. Many people hankered after cultural renaissance and pride in their roots which they thought was denied them by asinine leftism of the Congress. In the early years, the BJP capitalized fully on this account. But soon, other people not interested in the ideological baggage started to notice that the BJP might provide a centrist alternative to the hypocritical socialism that Congress offered. This has indeed turned out to be the case. Today, the BJP govt is generally seen as competent, with many redeeming features. It has a dynamic leader, is reformist, forward-looking, internally democratic, and has a generally better sense of federal and constitutional propriety than Congress.

While this is all good, Indians need to watch out for danger signs. While they have ignored certain unpleasant associations kept by BJP for now, theres sth quite unsatisfactory about continuing with this state of affairs indefinitely. And who knows what`ll happen after Vajpayee exits and Advani and clowns like Joshi take centrestage. The BJP needs to be kept on a continuous notice of good behaviour.

Regards.

``However, since Mutual Assured Destruction is not really possible due to the proximity, the scary reality is that whoever strikes first would wipe the other side off the map before there was a chance to counter. This is why both sides are quite wary.``

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation should tell you that MAD is a reality exactly because of the proximity. It should`nt matter who strikes first.

``It was a brilliant move by Sadat to avenge the 1967 disaster.``

Correct me if I am wrong but if my memory serves me right, Egypt has lost Sinai (three times), Syria the Golan Heights and Jordan the West Bank. Israelis still hold the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The last brilliant Arab generals were probably Umar ibn al-Khitab and Khalid b. Walid. The word ``brilliant`` does`nt fit well with Nasser, Sadat or that other joker- Hussain of Jordan.



``As for Sharon, he`s about to be called in on War Crimes in Belgium so he better watch his next foreign trip :)``

I am no fan of Mr. Sharon, but as far as his long-overdue-appearance in a War Crimes Tribunal is concerned, I can only say - forget about it.

Ref Hobbyty #85

What exactly did you find so outrageous about the article? Apart from its generally condescending tone and some selective quoting , I thought the article was actually pretty accurate factually. Its as decent an attempt to get to the puzzle of non-democracy in Pakistan, as any I have seen. Of course, its conclusion could be wrong, but its plausible, no? Do you have a better explanation? Er, other than the ``hangover theory`` doing the rounds on another board...

Please do not equate the Indians` rejection of TNT with hate for Pakistan, let alone Islam. You are entitled to expect us to accept the existence of your country, even to show a brotherly solidarity in times of travail, but pls do not ask us to accept your rationale for the creation of Pakistan. Most Indians will continue to see you guys as ``our own``, no matter how much it pisses you off.

Dont get me wrong - I consider your desire to forge a distinct national identity as a valid, even admirable, enterprise. However, rejecting your historical and civilizational roots chasing an imaginary Ummah bird is a pretty pathetic way of doing it, IMHO. Your identity problem is not new - many nations have gone through this phase.

To give an example of a successful case, take the USA. As a young nation, the founders could have chosen to impose a national identity based on not-english, or whatever. Instead they chose one based on the idea of freedom of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Americans of all hues and backgrounds continue to believe as one in this identity, so awesome is its resilience and tenacity. Why dont you try sth like this. You might be more successful.

(Hopefully) without sounding offensively smug Sadna-like, I note that sth similar to the US has happened in India. It is my firm belief that a US-like broad-minded national ethos has been the only cement that has held together this nation, and will continue to do so. Long after those nations have come and gone that straight-jacket their people within an ideology based essentially on difference rather than similarity.

Regards.

``I don`t know what honor are you talking about. The Israelis have kicked the Egyptian ass thoroughly on more than one occasion. They are so whuped that I bet they duck when Sharon sneezes.``

Rajanjua, while I agree that war is not the most enviable option on either side, I must make a few comments:

Nuclear war is of course not an option, as it will bring international condemnation and probably result in mass destruction the likes of which neither side really wants. That is why conventional war is much more feasible. However, since Mutual Assured Destruction is not really possible due to the proximity, the scary reality is that whoever strikes first would wipe the other side off the map before there was a chance to counter. This is why both sides are quite wary.

Also, I posted the first bit that you said because it shows that you have a misconception about the October War. The Egyptians did get their heads handed to them in 1967, but in 1973 the Egyptians crossed the Suez (which, incidentally, the Soviets Americans and Israelis all wrote off as impossible) and inflicted heavy casualties on the Israelis before digging in and waiting out international intervention. It was a brilliant move by Sadat to avenge the 1967 disaster. By the way, Sadat also lost his son during the war (an Egyptian Air Force pilot) so he had personal sacrifice and wasn`t just sitting back ordering men around as so many do; he knew what war would bring but felt it was the only choice. Also, right now Egypt is slowly building up offensive weaponry (there was a Zionist Org of America petition to get them to stop this) and Egypt could probably hold her own against Israel in the event of another war. As for Sharon, he`s about to be called in on War Crimes in Belgium so he better watch his next foreign trip :)

``The result was that Sadat realised that Israel was trying to bankrupt and bury Egypt, so he figured a war was the only thing to bring international attention and aid to the region. It was, in retrospect, a wise decision for Egypt since they gained honour back (for domestic purposes) and got international aid.``

I don`t know what honor are you talking about. The Israelis have kicked the Egyptian ass thoroughly on more than one occasion. They are so whuped that I bet they duck when Sharon sneezes.

``If India tries to cripple Pak as you suggest, it will be in Pakistan`s best interest to go to war, and if they attack first there is a very good chance that it will be a disaster for India.``

It is neither in Pakistan or India`s interest to go to war. War has never been and never can be good, especially now that both countries are armed with nuclear weapons. This guy bharitiya_m is a bonafide idiot. He needs to understand that the Subramanyam doctrine of bankrupting Pakistan through an arms race is valid only if Pakistan decides to continue stockpiling nuclear weapons. Which I doubt it will. Compare the number of warheads China has against the U.S. and Russia. Why did`nt China increase its stockpile? Because it does`nt have to. In an event of a nuclear war both Pakistan & India will lose miserably-and the number of warheads won`t matter and neither the number of armoured divisions or jet fighters or freakin` frigates. bharatiya_m`s staff-college-flunked-out brothers have been filling his head with all sorts of nonsense.

re: bharatiya_m

We get your point brother. You are a true Indian patriot. You have proven it beyond any doubt. You hate Pakistan and Pakistanis in general (& especially, for some unknown reasons, the Punjabi Musalmans), you have a Kashmiri Pandit-Rajput descent, brothers wearing the uniform to preserve the honor of bharat-mata, an avid reader/admirer of ancient Indian epics and the list goes on and on. Your credentials have been duly noted by Sri Jay & Her Holiness Sadna and a seat next to Sri L. K. Advani has been reserved for you in the next meeting of the saffron-clads. Ask Sadna to take you with her to Sai Baba`s ashram on her next vaccation.

re: Bhartiya # 90

Oh bhartiya, please dont suggest the break up of any country. There are absolutely wonderful people in Pakistan who love their country just like you and I love ours. I know that when some one suggests anything that involves any break up of my country, I dismiss that suggestion out of hand. So why say things that are not only NOT possible, but also are likely to cause emotional anguish to many good people.

Let us accept the political entities of India and Pakistan as they are, warts and all; and try to bring the two good communities together. You with your unique and proud background and knowledge can play a key role in such efforts. If you can find time, please write to me at eklavya786@hotmail.com.

Thank you.

“We, India, are based on the solitary founding principle that religious sensibilities has nothing to do with nationhood”

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between your statement and the ground reality in India at present, i.e. the government itself comprises of a right wing religious party.

Re: Jay, #80

``I too believe in that. Let us drink to that along with hamidm, the single malt variety, the pure, unmixed, the real halal stuff.``

I did not try to read too much into what you wrote (you are as subtle as you are smart.) However, since none of your sentences end in an exclamation mark, I am assuming that you are being sincere. If that is the case, I`ll drink to that, kosher or not.

You can also tell hamidm (him and me are not on speaking terms, mind you) that I`ve had sex with whores (but no syphilis) and have tasted meat that, it may smell fishy, tastes a lot better than pork.

bhartiya musalman, as much as I respect your right to an opinion about Pakistan, I must remind you that 50 years is far too short a time to term a state ``failed``. It may do us well to remember that the United States almost fell apart almost 80 years after she became a country with the Civil War. However, Pakistan is nowhere close to death; her economic indicators for the next year are actually looking up as more taxes are being collected and the IT sector is starting to catch up to speed.

AGAIN, I MUST IMPLORE you to look at the results of Israel trying to do the same thing against Egypt that you`re advocating here for India to do against Pak. The result was that Sadat realised that Israel was trying to bankrupt and bury Egypt, so he figured a war was the only thing to bring international attention and aid to the region. It was, in retrospect, a wise decision for Egypt since they gained honour back (for domestic purposes) and got international aid. If India tries to cripple Pak as you suggest, it will be in Pakistan`s best interest to go to war, and if they attack first there is a very good chance that it will be a disaster for India. If you`re willing to risk that you can beat Pakistan in an all out war, then fine try and cripple her. But those of us who do NOT want bloodshed would rather that you work other ways.

BTW, Afghanistan is the state you want gotten rid of... it has no historical significance as it never existed as a unified region but was always tribal and owned by someone or another. It was created as a region when the British and Russians wanted a buffer zone so they didn`t accidentaly go to war against one another during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Attn: Scout

Doc, what says you; does the patient need another dose of strong medicine? The last one worked for 3-4 days but the symptoms are returning now. The bakri is bleating again. (Or is it braying.... damn my punjabi medium education)

For others who are sick of this bakri`s bleatings and can`t empathize with her, this article below provides some information.

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/extension/animal/meatgoat/MGWormer.htm

PS. Scout, I didn`t like it one bit when you apologized to the bakri.

Shammi 88: ``The Master of Objectivity, who frequently appeals for `objective` responses is giving us a lesson in making subjective judgments! Carry on, sir!``

You seem to be on a personal mission to discredit everything I say :-) There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But once again, I would like to request you to highlight my points you disagree with, so I can give counter-arguments. Not just attack. Because I have no way to counter a personal attack. Apart from attacking you, which at least in my opinion, would be a childish immature idiotic hate-filled and ridiculous act. So I will not do so.

I suppose in this reply you have made an attempt, however small it maybe, to present some kind of a point. Calm down, and take a deep breath, so we can initiate an intelligent discussion. Let me give you my point of view.

There is a small group of my ex-military friends who are now employed in the Silicon Valley industry. This includes one friend who went to the US Air Force Academy, another who became a VP of a startup before the age of 29, another who has started a well-funded start up, etc. We hang out together, quite often. All of them went to the same college ylh mentioned.

In my opinion, I have found these people to be more succesful at a younger age, than other Pakistanis I have hang out with, in Silicon Valley. Perhaps because, the college ylh mentioned has (or had in my days) one of the highest academic standards of any school in Pakistan. It was one of the toughest colleges to get through, graduating only around fify percent of the people who joined. It has laid the foundation, since the early fifties, of one of the best internationally recognized Air Forces in the world (there is perhaps no other college in Pakistan that can make such a claim, in any field). During my days, amongst other things, it had some of the most highly recognized names in Urdu literature teaching there. These professors edited/wrote many of the Urdu books, dictionaries, etc. used in Pakistani schools, at the college level. One of them, I believe, was picked up by Oxford, after retirement.

Having seen both the military and the civilian life, and because most of them are self made success stories from middle class Pakistani families (the families with no Internet connection in their homes), I feel this group of friends have a very balanced view of Pakistan`s problems. Or perhaps they seem so competent because my circle of friends is too limited. In either case, I gave a personal opinion on their capabilities, vis-a-vis other Pakistanis I know. That does not necessarily make it a fact. It is just something I have experienced.

anNy #92: Thanks for the kind opinion. I have actually been quite interested in Shammi`s opinion on nearly all issues (except Kashmir; I believe in non-violent self=determination for every group in South Asia, including Kashmiris, Bangladeshis etc., while he does not). However, lately I have become his target. I am not quite sure why.

ROMAIR #1

``despite Nehru`s strong belief that Pakistan would crumble back into India, Pakistan is still around.``

I have heard different versions of this ``nehru`s belief``. Is it possible for you to give reference to where you read about this ``belief``?

veeresh
I am NOT the same as any people who welcome military dictatorships.

I am NOT the same as those who argue `economic pragmatism` and also call others calculating banias.

I am NOT the same as those who express disdain for `nationalist fervor` then use the threat of violent fundamentalists roaming freely in their country as a reason for demanding compromise.

If there are any such Pakistanis as I describe above, any detente with them is just invitation for more grief of the same kind. And I am hard put to understand what good such detente would do OTHER Pakistanis.

We should at least recognise this as a possibility and then set about working harder to fill those empty plates.

Re: bhartiya musalman # 81

I am not sure whether you are trying to be a zealous patriot or are just confused, when you prescribe that India should administer a coup d` grace to Pakistan. India cannot afford to have a Pakistan tottering on the brink of a political abyss, because whatever happens in Pakistan is certain to cause ripples in India.

Whether India likes it or not; whether India admits it or not, but India`s economic future is linked to the fact that Pakistan remains stable and does not undermine India future potential by imploading as a state. India has more to lose than Pakistan and both sides know this reality.

The name of the game in the 21 century is economic pragmatism and not nationalistic ego.

The age of the nation state has been replaced by a world of economic reality and patriotism has been replaced by a sense of economic mobility and globalization. Flags are no longer in vogue; the battles are now fought in the virtual world of computers for the right to master the information war; who ever controls the information will control the future and who ever will control the future will dominate the world.

As to your wish, all I can is be very careful, when you play with fire and try to set your neighbor`s house on fire, because you might burn down your own house in the process. We, Pakistanis, know about the hazards of fire, because we tried to play with fire in Afghanistan and in Kashmir and now that fire, which we helped in igniting, is threatening our own homes.

The fire is a devil`s friend, because you may ignite it, but once its starts to burn no one can control it and one day it will burn the hand that set it aflame!

Ciao

Fuzair #94: I would agree with you on Cowasjee. Cowasjee is one of my favorite writers. He is probably one of the only people in Pakistan, who knows/knew every major Pakistani leader personally, from Jinnah to Musharraf. He would be on top of my list of Pakistanis I would like to meet, and have discussions with.

From his articles, what I have gathered is the following:

He loves Pakistan greatly, to the extent of taking on Supreme Courts and construction mafias. The leaders he likes include Jinnah, Yahya, and Musharraf. The ones he does not like are Z. Bhutto, B. Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Zia, Altaf Hussain and the religious right. I haven`t read much about his views on Ayub, but I get the feeling he is neutral on him. I would say my views are identical to his on all these leaders, except Yahya. I do not know much about Yahya Khan, and Cowasjee seems to be on of the only guys who thinks well of him.

Musharraf`s education team has been complimented by even George Bush. So he must have selected well.

``The six in charge of the country`s education, with four women in the majority, get on well and form a competent team.`` (Cowasjee)

Parsis, on the whole, seem to be the most successful communities in Pakistan. Every Parsi Pakistani I know, seems to be quite educated, and doing well, in Pakistan.

Reading the posts on this and the top board after the Gujerat riots, I am proud to see that there are mostly expressions of sorrow among both the Indian posters and the Paki posters at these riots. No one has used the opportunity to moralize (except ali1) or to act like one of the mob (except harimau) (and hopefully they will learn something from the others on chowk). With this kind of a mature, humane response from those who do not have the excuse of poverty for any communal or nationalistic hatreds, there is hope indeed of better years ahead for the subcontinent.

A nice article for those not excited by the prospect of a perpetual war

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2001-daily/03-07-2001/oped/o5.htm

Any comments on the author`s solution for the resolution of the Kashmir problem?

Most Pakistanis and Muslims do not fully understand the Indian capacity to Hate Islam and Pakistan. Senseing a rising concern in the ``West`` over being targeted by terrorists, these Indians, - ever the zealots - have launched into a international effort at hate and the rewriting of History - Pakistan will progress if it adopts an Indian identity over others. That we are ``one``, ``the same`` as Indian and that Indian ``civilization`` can make room for Muslims.

Islam as a civilization and culture is itself the root cause the social, economic and poltical evils that dog Muslim countries. The Two nation theory is itself pornography. Democracy can find no home in Islamia, because Islam itself is hostile to the idea. Islam and Muslims have inante hostility towards towards the world because Islam is itself ``militant``. These vile ideas do not find expression under some rock, but are diseminated in the pages of major Indian newspapers, witness:

``Wish you were here

K.R. Malkani



GENERAL PERVEZ Musharraf of Pakistan is visiting India in the next few days. He is welcome. Khush-Aamdeed.

Some people say that India had taken the position that there will be no talks until the cross-border violence is stopped. Obviously, the government is satisfied that this violence has abated.

Others wonder why we should negotiate with a man who toppled a duly elected Prime Minister and who has now removed the President also and made himself President. These are internal matters of Pakistan. That is the way Pakistan is. And in any case he was the boss as Chief Executive and he is still the boss as President. It makes no difference to India.

Musharraf has said and done some commendable things. Perhaps he is the first top Pakistani leader to pull up the mullahs and tell them that they are corrupt and irresponsible. Also, he has cut Pakistan’s defence budget. Some people argue that he has done so because he is short of money and the World Bank led him to it. Whatever the reason, he has done the right thing.

The talks will be held in Agra and Musharraf will be paying a visit to Ajmer also. And that will make the talks something more than official business. It will give depth and ambience to this Indo-Pakistan interface. Next only to Mecca, Ajmer is the most sacred place for Muslims of the Indian peninsula.

How will the talks fare? Pakistan has said that Kashmir is the core issue. And India has made it clear that the only thing to discuss about Kashmir is the end of aggression in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Shorn of verbiage, the position is that India cannot give up Kashmir, and Pakistan cannot give up the Kashmir issue. The only solution to this problem is acceptance of the LoC as international border.

We can take steps to facilitate trade and travel. Both countries can also put books and newspapers on the interaction list. Let people across the Radcliffe Line know what people on the other side are saying and doing.

Indians and Pakistanis are the same racial stock amalgam; they have the same languages, historical and political experience. And yet their responses tend to be quite different. Why? How is it that democracy is as safe in India as it is unsafe in Pakistan, although both the armies were trained under the British?

During the freedom movement, the Congress took the position that all Indians are one nation. Later, the Muslim League took the position that Hindus and Muslims are two nations. (Our communist friends saw a dozen nations). The word ‘nation’ or quam is imprecise. As Nehru once rightly put it, if you feel one, you are one; if you don’t, then you aren’t.

From the Himalayas to the sea, civilisationally, we are ‘One People’; you may call it ‘One Nation’ or you may not. Hindus and Muslims may or may not be one nation; but they are two societies. And these societies consist of many sub-societies. No Constitution can possibly take separate note of all these societies and sub-societies. But a full-blooded democracy, with adult franchise and free elections, can take care of all these societies in proportion to their strength.

The Muslim League made the mistake of thinking that Pakistan will take care of the ‘Muslim nation’. Now they know that ‘Indian Muslims’ are something more than a ‘nation’. Apart from Bangladeshis, they are also Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis and Pathans — and Mohajirs. Also, Shias, Sunnis, Qadianis, Syeds, Khans, Arains and Jats, etc.

Although etymologically Islam means ‘peace’, it spread mostly by the sword. The sword is no doubt important in life. But the Hindu does not concede any role to the sword in matters of religion. As Al Biruni, the great medieval historian, noted a thousand years ago, “At the utmost, Hindus fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or property on religious controversy.”

Sufism did tend to soften the militancy of Islam; but the dominant militant character of Islam remained. And so Muslims think in terms of the amir, imam, khalifa, quaids, kafir, fatwa — the jehad and the ghazi. The emphasis was on leadership — preferably of the militant variety — and not on the people.

And so Iqbal regretted that democracy was a system in which “men are counted and not weighed”. Maulana Mohammed Ali once said that “the little learned of the land” were too much of a nuisance; it was much better, he said, in the middle ages, when inconvenient heads were just cut off. Zia said that he had been made chief by Allah and he was answerable only to Allah. He added that Allah had told him in a dream that elections were “un-Islamic”. And that was that.

Jinnah was a big barrister. But he also believed in his own — and only his own — leadership. He not only continued as Muslim League president year after year, after Partition he combined in himself the offices of governor general, commander-in-chief, and president, not only of the Muslim League but also of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. The only Muslim leaders close to the masses, like Fazl-ul-Haq of Bengal and G.M. Syed of Sindh, had to leave the Muslim League in disgust.

We should remember that the Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf take-overs were not the only military interventions in Pakistan. There were nine infructuous attempts at military coups, the first one coming under Maj. Gen. Akbar Khan as early as 1951. The amusing thing is that every time the military overthrows a civilian government, all opposition parties welcome the change.

An important aspect of militant leadership is the premium on successful leadership, on success in life. Badshah Khan said that if a Hindu renounced wealth or office, he commanded greater respect. But if a Muslim did the same, he was viewed as something of a freak.

Once Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of Sir Sikander, Prime Minister of Punjab, called on Jinnah. Jinnah’s advice to him was: “Go and make money. Muslims don’t follow poor leaders like Hasrat Mohani or Zafar Ali. Muslims followed me only when I had collected 50-60 lakh of rupees.”

And since Muslim politics revolves round the rich, the militant and the successful, the people as such do not count for much.

In Hindu society, the people’s urge lies in reform and advancement. Apart from the Congress, the liberals and the revolutionaries, we had the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, Theosophical Society, RSS. In the Muslim society all you had was Deobandis, Barelvis, and Tableeghis. You can’t get any Muslim leader to come out even against such evil practices as polygamy, instant talaq and burqa.

Why is this so? After all, for centuries Islam carried not only the sword but also spread agriculture and industry, science and art, culture and commerce. What has paralysed Muslims the world over, so that not even two out of the 40-odd Muslim countries have a proper democracy? It would seem that the world has changed but Muslims do not know how to respond to the new ideas and institutions of democracy and human rights, capitalism and socialism, secularism and liberalism, science and spirituality.

However, there are some stirrings of ideas in Pakistan. Recently, Aitzaz Ahsan, PPP leader in the erstwhile Pakistan senate, counselled in his book The Indus Saga, that Pakistan is based on the Indus basin; it cannot disown the Vedas written on the banks of the Indus; and Pakistan does not have to disown either Krishna or Indra, as if they will “pollute the Islamic faith”.

And now we have Pakistan’s top Mohajir leader Altaf Hussain saying on TV that every Pakistani should sing Iqbal’s Saare jahan se achha, Hindustan hamara as the ideal.

Even Mao echoed the same feeling. In August 1968, Arshad Hussain, then foreign minister of Pakistan, met Mao in Beijing. Sultan M. Khan, then the Pakistani ambassador in China, reports in his Memories and Reflections that the very first remark of the Chinese leader was: “Tell me what is the difference between you and Indians? You look the same to me. Aren’t you only temporarily separated from the Indians.”

This is not a plea for annulment of Partition. Scrambled eggs cannot be unscrambled. But Indians and Pakistanis are brothers. And brothers can also quarrel and separate. However, they don’t have to keep quarrelling even after separating. It is about time we relaxed, admired the Taj, saluted Ajmer and went back home, happy and content.``

Having taken a intellectual dump on Islam and Pakistan - we can now be the brothers and sisters we always were? Why quarrel? You Muslims can`t help being who you are and we Hindus will patronize you, if you will be Indian. Isn`t that a better deal than the one you Muslims have now?

An excellent article from M J Akbar. It is good to see that sane minds are prevailing. There is Hope!!!

``Failure of talks could be infanticide``

By M. J. Akbar

Barring the unthinkable or the unbelievable, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President and Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf will meet in Delhi in the middle of this month. That is the easy part.

The truth about this dialogue is that failure will have many fathers and success will be an orphan. Cynicism is now in-built into India-Pakistan relations; and more people with influence on both sides of the border want this dialogue to fail than those who want it to go somewhere.

It is a mistake to believe that everyone wants something as obvious as peace, and its first cousin, prosperity. Time - and we are talking of five decades and two generations in power now - breeds, sustains and encourages a vested interest in confrontation. The cost of confrontation is huge, but its benefits are wide. As the witty bureaucrat pointed out to his successor on the eve of his retirement, just because a policy has failed is no reason to change it.

At one level this vested interest is material interest. There is money in war. The game of defence-offence requires vast outlays of hard cash (hard as in dollar-hard) that feed mammoth institutions, turn huge corporations profitable and look after the needs of layers of individuals. But this too is easier to negotiate than the other problem. A vested interest also develops in the mind. Hatred can become comfortable and comforting, particularly when cloaked in simulated ideology of paranoid nationalism.

Even those free from the poison of hatred are prone to the temptation of suspicion. After all, what can fifty years of continual war breed except evidence that trust is foolish if not suicidal? Atal Behari Vajpayee rose above his party when he travelled to Lahore. He left behind his baggage of the BJP`s political and emotional history when he took that short bus ride across Wagah in the penultimate year of a century that had ripped and shredded a common subcontinent.

Today he has risen above himself. For who can have experienced more than him, with his political background, evidence of the proposition that trust is a foolish virtue? The participants were still heady with the intoxicating spirit of Lahore when the intrusions along the Kargil cease-fire line took place, blowing up eventually into a nasty mountain-top war that shook the Vajpayee government before it consumed the Nawaz Sharif regime. Mr Vajpayee`s instinctive aversion to the coup that overthrew his Lahore comrade underlined his anger against the perpetrators of Kargil. In meeting the general with whom he had to do literal battle, Mr Vajpayee has placed his perception of the national interest above his own sorrow and anger.

It is obvious that this would not have happened if, so to say, the general mood in Pakistan had not changed. The warriors of Kargil adopted the language of accommodation the moment they seized power. Words alone, however, do not create trust. Words can be pre-planned, manipulated. But General Musharraf has proved a surprisingly effective communicator; few men in uniform have used television better than he has. Television does of course convey words, but it also photographs body language, which is infinitely harder to disguise than words. General Musharraf is a bad actor; you can see him getting uncomfortable when compulsion requires him to be evasive. But this also doubles the effect of his sincerity when he is being sincere. When he reaches Delhi General Musharraf will bring with him the promise of sincerity.

This is what makes Delhi more dangerous than Lahore. Too many things are right. The talks are between representatives of hard-line constituencies and therefore leaders whose commitments will be backed by parties that could have sabotaged any agreement, as indeed they have done in the past. The timing is right, since American interest in the dialogue is a given: six months ago, Washington had a mess instead of an administration. This is going to be a dialogue pregnant with possibility. An abortion will depress both countries immeasurably, and there may be no medicine available to stop the bleeding.

The stakes could hardly be higher: we are playing nuclear poker out here. The first, and immediate, requirement, therefore, is a definition of success. Success in any manifestation is a comparative fact. Only those who want failure see it in absolute, and, therefore, unachievable terms. There will be one chorus (you can hear it practising already) in both India and Pakistan that will measure everything said and done against a ``solution`` to the Kashmir dispute that achieves their present positions. No dialogue can survive the scrutiny of such parameters.

If one wants to be disputatious, there is no end to this game. There is enough ammunition to blow apart any position, including the holy ones that the hard-liners assume.

Self-determination might be a very noble idea, but it does tend to sound more relevant in the vocabulary of a nation committed to democracy. A country that has not managed more than two or two and a half honest general elections in five decades, that has been ruled by unelected bureaucrats, presumptive politicians and dictatorial generals is hardly qualified to preach about the will of the people. The people of Sindh and Punjab could make a good case for self-determination at this moment, having seen their elected leaders dismissed and exiled. India, heaven knows, has had its share of incompetents but its leaders have only been removed from office by the will of the people, not by the will of army officers.

There is a growing view in India that the best solution to the Kashmir problem is to convert the cease-fire line into an international border; this was believed to be the ``secret`` (although there is no evidence of any ``secrecy`` in Pakistani records) understanding behind the Simla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Logic is acid to this idea.

Why does an accident of January 1, 1949, have to become a permanent fact?

Would we have been equally sanguine if the cease-fire line had been ten miles further to the east? If Maharaja Hari Singh ceded the whole of Jammu and Kashmir to India and that is the basis of our international position, what right does then any government have to hand over any portion of that land? Does this not dilute and destroy the very principle on which Jammu and Kashmir came to India?

It does, but the counter argument is that this is the only pragmatic solution left. Ah. So we have conceded the role of pragmatism. This opens a whole new world.

The only sensible definition of success in the Delhi talks is this: if the gamut of problems between India and Pakistan stretches from A to Z, then the Delhi summit should be deemed successful if Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf achieve clarity on A. At this moment relations are in negative space, outside the alphabet and therefore outside the flexibility of dialogue. To reach the beginning may sound paradoxical, but that is the only phrase that does justice to the truth. Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf must create a new beginning.

And they must find the structures, preferably stable, in which to house and nurture this new beginning. To send them into the doghouse conventional formats would be equivalent to infanticide. A series of parallel streams, or feeder systems, needs to be put in place to create a political-government-popular interface that begins to soothe the stretched nerves of the subcontinent. If this does not happen together, it will not happen at all.

It is these feeder systems that will keep the momentum rolling when the high drama of Delhi and Ajmer Sharif has crossed the clock. Politicians have their role, but they also have their limitations. Government, in the form of bureaucrats, is by training careful to the point of immobility, and will only respond to factors rather than create them. If there is spring in the air, the bureaucrat will stir (stir, not leap); if there is winter approaching, he will freeze by autumn.

Both governments need to involve those outside the political machinery. To expect a breakthrough in people-to-people relations at this point is to expect too much. But there are sectors that can be linked. The media is always a good starting point; it controls communication and can, deliberately or inadvertently, shift the mood. Pakistan Television and Zee TV have already done their bit by informing India and Pakistan that they are exactly alike when it comes to scheming in-laws, mischievous relatives, flirtatious cousins and ruthless impostors. This must be reassuring to mothers-in-law all over.

But more important than media is business, and particularly private sector business. Why has Dhirubhai Ambani become such an advocate of friendship between India and Pakistan? I doubt if he wants to win the Nobel Prize for Peace. He wants peace between India and Pakistan because he wants an even fatter bank account. That is an excellent reason. Peace must bring a dividend to attract motivators. Those Pakistani and Indian sugar dealers who traded right through the Kargil war may have been members of the Jamaat-i-Islami or the RSS in their spare time. In their useful time they were making money for each other. Money is a very strong cement for trust. When Iran, Pakistan and India begin to make or save money out of their gas pipeline, improving the lives of countless millions in the process, then the peace dividend will become a daily fact. You should be able to bank on peace.

If the account can be opened in Delhi, even if there is not enough for an initial deposit, then the Delhi talks can be considered successful.-Dawn/Asian Age Service

veeresh #77

.......i appreciate your sentiments which are probably provoked by an inner goodness which exists in all of us and sometimes makes us behave like humans, but i still cannot trust an indian as far as i can throw him ......this is rather sad because because i am about as ``liberal`` as a paki can get without having to eat eat pork with a syphillitic whore - and most of us would do that before we break roti with the devils from your side of hell on earth .......

........... even though most pakistanis living in pakistan are not as obsessed with hindustan as the expatriate community which feels the constant need to reaffirm its pakistaniness, all of us , from the wild-eyed jihadis to the tree-hugging heretics, hate ( and fear ) india with a passion bordering on schizophrenia.......... the only reason we can sleep at night is because we have the ``bomb`` which keeps the saffron-clad bogey-man away ...........

.......... so we are doomed..... our only consolation is that we go straight to heaven whereas you have to come back and suffer again and again .......

pakistan zindabad !

hidustan murdabad !

Studebaker and Bharatiya Musalman seem to be the two extremes of the Indian Muslim.

Studebaker blames everything on Hindus for the plight of the muslims and on the other hand Bharatiya Musalman blames everything on the muslims themselves.

Godot

. ``That is my belief. I firmly believe that Pakistan is Islam`s last hope.``

I too believe in that. Let us drink to that along with hamidm, the sigle malt variety, the pure, unmixed, the real halal stuff.

regards

jay.

Adnan 76,

What ever one might say, the impact of islam on education is there for every one to see. Middle east countries are pretty high on the income totem pole, but what about education, indonesia for a long tome had higher income than india.

Education of women, it is hard to dismiss the effect of religion. Islam and democracy, again the correlates are obvious.

I do accept that quran might contain all the knowledge, kalifait may be better than democracy. women might be better as chattels. These are mutially exclusive world views, islamic and the `western`, comparisons in which case becomes baseless.

Bhar-Muss #64:-

1) Your assumptions on my ``ethnic``/Punjabi background are incorrect. I don`t have to defend that here, though those who know me, know about it.

2) Your assumptions on my not knowing India, and a lot of the rest of the world, are incorrect. However, I am always willing to learn more. As part of my multi-faceted worklife, I regularly criss-cross India by air, rail and road. Some of the best travel guides about India have small acknowledgements for inputs from me, especially about the backwaters.

3) Your assumptions that I am obsessed with Indo-Pak are incorrect, I have after all only lost a brother and a few cousins and friends to the strife between our countries. I am obsessed with getting ahead, and the Indo-Pak thing does hold us back.

4) Your assumption that the Indian model of nation building is ``reaping results`` is quite incorrect, please take a look at our public health and education system as only two examples of how much things have deteriorated and how much more distance we have to cover.

5) Your assumption that I do not consume coffee in large amounts is incorrect. 80 plantation, 15 peabury and 5 chicory, freshly ground, black, without sugar, if you wish to try my favourite brew.

6) But the largest assumption incorrect on your side is that people in the rest of the country are not ``obsessed`` with Indo-Pak matters. There seems to be no other topic, inspite of the Manipur & Tamil Nadu problems, lately, all over the country.

7) Your assumption that I am a refugee is also incorrect.

8) The only possibly correct assumption you may have made is that my humour is pathetic. I think some of your reasoning is correct. But then again, both of us may have assumed wrong as seems to be the trend.

Dear Bhar-Muss, I am not trying to run you down. All I am saying is, give our poor countries a chance. Muslim or Hindu, Indian or Pakistani, nobody is sucking up from those on this board because we already have enoug to eat. But for our unwashed millions, kafir or otherwise, the Indo-Pak problems just reflect lesser food on their plates. Please try to look at it fromt hat perspective / assumption, call it wat you may, and move ahead on this board.

bhartiya _ _ _ _ _:

Your confused and incoherent nonsense needs no reply but kust for fun and to point out why u desparately need a shrink here goes:

``..our societies, which range from Indonesia to

Morocco -They are all in an economic mess: Pak is in a state of collapes; Turkey desperately needs an I...``

The point here is not r they an economic mess or not but rather is ISALM responsible for it. My confused friend the economic mess is there as a legacy of colonialism and slave regimes in these countries supported by the enlightened west. It is precisely the lack of Islamic values which r the root cause of all this.

``Not a single successful democracy - even Turkey is high handed and hence finds its membership to the EU.....Most are ruled by Kings, Sultans, Amirs, Dictators, and General Sahebs``

Agian u twist the facts, precisely bcos the SHariah is NOT the law these problems arise, Islam did not sanction these regimes these r proxy govts of the so called democratic WEST

``Low levels of education; Not a single Muslim Nobel Laureate (remember, AbdusSalam is a Qadiani and a Non Muslim)``

Low education levels I agree, again IS isalam responsible?

Next part is a lack of info on ur part or a blatant lie. Ahmed Zewail was awarded the 1999 nobel prize in Chemistry. DO u need to lie in order to support ur nonsensical theories?

``Abysmal Human Rights Records..including torture and killing of members of the Muslim Ummah..Shiis killed in Pak and Iraq, Kurds in Turkey, Hazaras and Tajiks in Afghanistan, Biharis in Bengal-desh and the list goes on and...``

Lets take this one at a time

Shias in Pakistan: All major religious groups condemn this, only a handful of idiots are not representative of Islam, btw the question here was Does Isalm demand this?



Iraq and Turkey: Ruled by declared anti islam anti shariah regimes, this goes against u just think before writing down things.



Biharis: Killed no doubt mercilessly but by a secularized army, it is precisely ISlam and Shariah we need, ur post make that clear enough.



``Abuse of women and Legal Slavery...slavery still practiced in Arabian peninsula...Arabs, for all their talk of the Equality of Islam were the greatest Slavers and continue to believe in this odious institution``.

Again u confuse two separate issues:

Women: When u speak of status of a group in religion u shd look at the laws (Shariah). Now take any code and compare the protection (legal) given to women in Islam (For one take some time to read the Nikah Nama, ull find that a lot of legal cover is given to women.

The evils u point out r not there due to islam but rather because of a lack of it.

Slaves: Again the issue is not wht xyz is doing but rather is it sanctioned by ISlam. No my simple minded muslim friend, the last words of the prophet (SAW) were ``Take care of slaves and remember to say your prayers``

Why did Islam allow slavery it was a political and military need of the times, slavery is now explicitly prohibited.

As far as so called muslim countries are concerned there is an acute lack of Islam. Shariah IS the solution.

``Archaic legal codes...based on tribal Bedouin cusotms (is`nt this really what Sharia is?) Stoning women to death, chopping of hands, beheading criminals - all occur in Iraq, Saudi, Afghanistan``

No my friend Shariah is a code of rights, as with any law punishments have to be there; The rights come first and punishments folow; the opressive west supported regimes for their own advantage have misused the Shariah laws.

These harsh punishments are there whn the state provides all facilities to her citizens; they remain suspended till such time.

``..that most of my fellow Indian Muslim friends will be the first to take up arms agains you in case of another war``.

I am shivering in my shoes.

A few observations on ur posting:

1. You did not mention any deficiency in Shariah a single time all u did was to cite examples of despotic mostly anti islam regimes and their deeds.

2. Your study of islam, history and even current affairs is rather poor.

Some suggestions for reading:

1. Duniya par musalmanoan kay urroj o zawaal kay asaraat by syed abol hassan ali nadwi

2. Islami Riyasat by Mawdoodi

3. Traditional Islam in the Modern World by Sayyed Hossain Nasr

4. Islam aur Ghulami by Mawdoodi

After these please let me know and i will suggest some other books to improve ur understanding.

Adnan Khan

Try writing like this..

From The Indian Express today:


Pre-summit mood is pro-summit

By Prakash Nanda

IF the pre-summit mood in Pakistan is so optimistic these days, it is mainly due to a perceptible change in the average Pakistani mindset about India. Be it in Lahore, or Peshawar, or Islamabad, or Karachi, the general impression that this writer gathered during a just concluded visit to Pakistan is unmistakably clear. Pakistanis, like never before, realise that they have to live with India, not against it. Their stand on the so-called core issue of Kashmir is much more ‘flexible’ than anytime in the past. And their aversion towards conducting trade and commerce with India is much more diluted than ever before. Gone is the craze of projecting Pakistan as a ‘West Asian state’. Instead, Pakistanis are being increasingly convinced that their destiny lies within the subcontinent of South Asia.

Of course, the ranks of the ‘jehadis’ and fundamentalists in the country have swollen in recent years. However, they are still not strong enough to give one the impression in the streets and homes in Pakistan that the country cannot co-exist with India. More Pakistani men may now be growing beard. Similarly, more Pakistani women may have abandoned ‘sari’ in favour of ‘salwar-kameez’. But at the same time, almost all the Indian TV channels have now a dominating presence in Pakistani homes as never before. In fact, from 8.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. every weekday the Pakistani families are literally hooked to Kaun Banega Crorepati, Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki and Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi.

In what would have been considered heretical a few years ago, many Pakistanis are now openly challenging in newspaper columns the country’s education system that has been injecting in the young minds the elements of anti-Indianism. ‘The ideology of Pakistan’ as taught to the students, sportsmen and bureaucrats is nothing except anti-India by using such phrases as ‘Hindu mentality’ and ‘devious Indian psyche’. Therefore, social scientists like Dr Inayatullah of Islamabad are now talking of the desirability of the Indian and Pakistani historians to write common textbooks.

Discerning Pakistanis are now pointing out how the anti-Hindu militant chauvinists have proved to be Frankenstein monsters who could turn against their creators any moment. Small wonder that General Musharraf has just launched a campaign against the war cries of the ‘irresponsible religious leaders’ who have undermined the country’s economic growth and distorted Pakistan’s image in the international community.

The growing perception is that Pakistan has not won the covert war in Kashmir, but its economy has been sacrificed considerably in the process. Very few responsible Pakistanis are now talking seriously of Islamabad’s traditional position of the implementation of the 1948 UN resolution. The catchword now is ‘flexibility’. In fact, it is just a new trend among the Pakistani scholars to see merits of other options on Kashmir that could maintain the territorial status quo of India and Pakistan with little modifications. Advocating a step-by-step approach, they want India to cooperate with Pakistan at the moment in working out a framework by which India’s military presence in Kashmir could be brought down to the pre-1989 level, Kashmiris’ fundamental rights could be restored, and above all, a mechanism is devised to facilitate the people on both sides of the line of control to visit each other, preferably through a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarbad.

The business circles would like the politics of the subcontinent not to dictate its economics. They are particularly keen on the over-land gasline from Iran to India through Pakistan.

However, will all this optimism be sustained under the regime of President Pervez Musharraf, the author of Kargil war? ‘‘Yes’’, say the thinking Pakistanis. For them, General Musharraf alone has the capacity to lead them on the road to reconciliation with India at Agra, as he wants to perpetuate the military’s legacy in the Pakistani polity. The theory is that if the Lahore Declaration in 1999 and the Shimla agreement in 1972 could not ensure peace, it was because these were brokered by the civilian prime ministers and the military did not like them to earn credits. The situation, this time, is different.

Re: Yawaah #25

Yaar I dont like giving you frequent English lessons but when you pointedly attribute certain adjectives to me I feel compelled to respond.

You call me a Pakistan hating, fascist fanatic.

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Fascism as, ``emphasis on the nation, race or state as the center and regulator of all history and life and on the indisputable authority of the leader behind whom the people were expected to form an unbreakable unity``. So er... that`s not me. Just because you are not a fascist does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you is one. I can imagine you going to a restaurant and getting bad service and calling the waiter a fascist. Arre yaar while using adjectives at least stay remotely within the parameters of language!

The Webster`s dictionary defines the word `fanatic` as, ``marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion``. Again... dat not be me. In fact if one took a poll on Chowk about who best qualifies as the one exhibiting excessive enthusiasm & intense uncritical devotion, I suspect your bungling self would win in a landslide. So quit accusing other people of being what you secretly despise yourself of being.

And about being a Pakistani or Indian hater... again my little snot nosed friend, you have made all and sundry plenty aware of where and how your hatred for all things Indian arose & progressed. I am not the one making statements here wishing all Pakistanis death. You however have famously wished death upon a billion Indians.

And please do not give me your usual crap about how that statement was made under `extreme provocation`. At least have the balls to stand behind your statements you gutless little twit.

So in summation therefore. As per the English language I am neither a Fascist nor a fanatic. I am - by empirical demonstration - not a Pakistan hater either. Which means that you are either a liar or unfamiliar with English. Take your pick.

Your disappointed English teacher

Prof. Latif Chappu

Re: bhartiya_musalman, #58 & #60

To me it is totally irrelevant whether you are an RSS Hindu fundamentalist masquerading as an Indian Muslim.

I, for one, cannot disagree with what you had to say about the world of Islam, ie, those countries that are Muslim majority, particularly the Middle East, and the varied political and social systems they have adapted in this day and age. That is precisely the malaise Pakistan is currently trying to get out of; or, to be more accurate, those who truly love Pakistan want Pakistan not to emulate the rest of the Islamic world.

If Islam is to evolve, which, in my opinion, it stopped about 500 years ago, into a progressive and liberal social and political system that is more in tune with the twentyfirst century rather than the seventh, then it is Pakistan where Islam`s evolution to a higher level is to renew. That is my belief. I firmly believe that Pakistan is Islam`s last hope.

Now, lets come back to you and your friend Keerthik Sasidharan. Calling people like you two ``Hawks`` is an insult to that bird. The hawk is a freedom lover who spans the vastness of space, hence he can see far and therefore has vision.

You, and your friend Keerthik, are more like Bats, not Hawks. Bats are afraid of daylight when the things are clear, can be seen and analyzed. Daylight makes them blind. Bats live in the confinement and narrowness of a cave in the darkness of ignorance hanging upside down. That about sums you and Keerthik up.

Peace is the good path.

But some people like Keerthik have nothing but bad intent. People like Keerthik are one of the primary reasons we have high military spending & nukes in Pakistan. Oh well, we`re not there (peace) yet so its best to be prepared for all eventualities.

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

Ref BM-Veeresh,

``You are really just an ethnocentric man caught up in your Punjabi identity and chasing after the mirage of Indo-Pak friendship``

Though you may not get full points for diplomacy I think you have a point :-)

soysauce:

off topic:

Have some friends who have worked /are working for Ahmed Zewail, and they have some very uncharitable things to say :-)

bharati musalman ( kae naam par bohat ghanda dhabba) to vereesh:

((((Give up your pathetic attempts at humour and your self-righteous posturing as a liberal apostle of peace and friendship.))))

He`s actually very funny.Why dont u try and be funny instead of bitchy for a change? hmmmn?

Feroze,

Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that the events of the past few months are an enourmous blessing in disguise for Pakistan. The removal of the Taliban implies that the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia can be accessed via Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan`s foreign policy should be tailored to make this happen, given the financial implications for Pakistan. Since Pakistan would control the access to cheap, abundunt energy resources, India would have to engage with Pakistan out of self-interest. The Indo-Iranian pipleine provides another such opportunity. By becoming a player in the oil industry, Pakistan can enrich itself and enhance its power.

The second factor is trade between Central Asia and South Asia. This is a hugely untapped opportunity, especially for the Indian manufacturing sector. Once again, Pakistan would provide the logistics, resulting in enormous economic benefit for Pakistan. A combination of oil and regional trade could change Pakistan`s fortunes. Even on Kashmir, India may be a lot more flexible, if there are strong financial issues at stake. The key thing is to shift Pakistan`s foreign policy from mindless India centric confrontation to developing economic strenth.

#51 nasah:

Isn’t it a bit too early, too cocky -- not to mention – sounding like

crass and crude expletives:

“Fundamental factors that need to be encouraged.

(1) Increased Defense Spending.

(2) Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Liberalization. (The

Government in the business of Governance)

(3) Encouragement of anti-Pakistani state factors, ranging from

tactic support to secessionists, encirclement of Pakistan

geographically with the Central Asian Republics, Iran, Qatar

(4) Unequivocal American ally.

(5) Continue to engage positively with Russia.

(6) Studied ambivalence towards China, with respect to defense

and foreign affairs. Challenge their increasing market presence

through legislation.

(7) Increase Naval Presence to controlling a sea-supply isthmus

for Pakistan. .

(8) Unite with Russia, China to ally against Islamic extremism.

(9) Electrification of Indo-Pak border.

(10) Strategic Pro-US, Pro-India media used to change the tone,

from indictment of Pakistan it must be the indictment of their

Government and not the people.

(11) Neutralization of Pakistan’s efforts to redefine its government.

(12) Systemic extermination of Jehadi networks within India – in a

manner a la Waco or Ruby Ridge.

(13) Create an appetite for power amidst local “serfs” within

Pakistan’s feudal landscape.

(14) Let talks on Kashmir continue between Pakistan and India

alone.

(15) Neutralize the Hurriyat politically and reduce them into

irrelevancy.

(16) Improve local schooling, employment, medicine and

bureaucracy in Kashmir simultaneously.

(17) Strengthen the RAW/IB/Military Intelligence with a coherent

external agenda and specialist directors”.

Why don`t you spell out which of these you found unpalatable? That would make for a more interesting conversation.

From my pov, (1) is iffy - with the high-tech bust, the revenues are falling and as it is too much money is being spent on the military. That`s why, the low-cost option, the one that pak has been engaged in may be desirable which leads to (3).

I think (8) is offensive. The brutalitites (to put it mildly) perpetrated in chechnya and xingyang (?), we should be no part of. It`s worth pointing out that while the jihadi camps in pak are sending fighters to chechnya, pak govt and citizens have not made a peep about what their historic ally has been doing to its muslim minority.

(9) is impractical.

(11), i`m afraid, Vajpayee has gone too far for that.

(12)& (13) sound like good STRATEGIC ideas but may not be practicable. I know (13) sounds like maoist revolution turned upside down; in a way, it`s what the kings and the monarchs used to do to contain the population. I`m not sure how I feel about this specifically.

(15) is already happening. Hurriyat has reduced itself to irrelevancy by offering nothing constructive or concrete.

Over to you.

SammerJB:

The India : China rivalry does not stem out of a deep rooted hostility. There is an issue with the border demarcation, but even that is a colonial hangover, which can be solved over a period of time, with face saving gestures from both sides. The rivalry however stems from the fact that both are comparatively large nations in the same neighborhood and they have respective self interests which are not always co-incidental. After all many Republican lawmakers view China as a rival and a potential threat, even though the two nations are not in proximity and do not have ideological baggage to deal with.

Tariq2World:#24

Tariq, I am a believer of the free market system and therefore have an abiding faith in the selfishness of human nature. Individuals get along because they get something out of the friendship, be it companionship, self-actualization ..whatever. In a similar sense nations get along with each other if there is something in it for them.

Don`t get me wrong. I`m not against peaceful co-existence between India and Pakistan. However, I`m convinced that there can only be a genuine peace if both nations feel that there is a peace dividend that can be earned. I will want peace if it benefits India, and you will want peace if it benefits Pakistan. It is only if the individuals of both countries desire peace under similar conditions, believing it to be in THEIR OWN NATIONAL INTEREST, that such peace be acheived, would a breakthrough be possible.

That is the essence of the point I was making. I hope my command of the English language is acceptable to Godot, since I did not have the good fortune of doing my third grade in his school. ;)

#60 Bharatiya Musalman

Ahmed Zewail, and egyptial-american and professor at caltech, won the 1999 nobel prize in chemistry. I don`t know if he is a practising muslim but he certainly was born one and educated in a muslim country. He graduated from the university of alexandria before coming to u.penn for his Ph.D. He became a full professor at caltech within 5 years. There are numerous scientists and engineers of great renown in the west who are muslim by birth. Self-criticism is good but it must be tempered by knowledge.

I would bet that Bharatiya Mussulman is a BJP supporting Hindu. I have known some nationalist Muslims, but this guy really takes the cake. He is the Fantasy Mussulman of the RSS types...the way they would like Indian Muslims to be....Again I`m not 100% sure...just sounds too much like a RSS Manifesto

ylh #33: Your comments about Sargodha college are interesting. I spent some of the best years of my life there, and graduated from there, with an utmost amount of respect for that institution.

I have lost touch with it over the past seven to ten years. But I am regularly in touch with people who graduated from there, and know many of the senior officers personally, including the Chief of Staff you mentioned.

Rest assured, it does not produce fanatics, by a far shot. It does not produce secularits either. It produces very balanced thinking patriotic Pakistanis (my info is current till early 90s), who are free to decide how secular or non-secular they want to be. I am still in touch with my friends who graduated from there, and who are now in the USA. I would rank them as the most successful Pakistanis I have met here. I would also rank them as the least fake, and the most balanced of the various Pakistani I have met here.

There is a difference in the way you and I view Pakistanis. I do not view them through a secular/religious pair of glasses. These two factors are immaterial to me. Neither has anything to do with progress, in my opinion. Pakistan will not become a better place just by becoming secular (or religious). I don`t think religion should even be part of the debate (this is different from what secular fanatics want; they want to forcibly remove religion from private and public life (even if it is against the will of the people), all together, and thus spend most of their working day debating religion).

Similarly, people`s capabilities cannot be viewed in a secular/religion light, either. The Chief of Staff you mentioned is quite secular, as were most of the people in the PAF, during those days (as well as nearly all my friends in the military now). Primarily because the Pakistan military, is by design, a secular institution, based on British traditions.

I have not evaluated him professionally in detail, but so far my opinion of his professionalism is the same as my opinion of most Pakistani Generals, i.e. quite low. On a personal note, I always found him to be somewhat of a fake. Much like the Turkish officer(s) I met on their exchange appointments in Pakistan. Anyone obsessed with acting like an American, while being a Turk or Pakistani, is suffering from an inferiority complex, regardless of how secular or islamist he/she maybe.

One cannot use secularism as a professional criteria, or as something inherently good or bad. That, in my opinion, is no different than using religionism as a professional criteria, and viewing it as inherently good or bad. The only criteria of advancement should be professionalism, within the rules and regulations of the institution. And a person and a society should be judged by the content of its character, not by lack or access of religion.

. . .small straw in the wind . . . Indian Railway Ministry announces non-budget/non-plan expenditure of about 17000 crore rupees for railway safety and modernisation, track renewal, bridge renewal (560 bridges are over 100 years old . . .and distressed) and computerisation.

. . .where will the money, technology and manpower come from?

. . .small bird told me ``reorganisation in Indian Armed Forces budget``.

. . . please let us all wake up and smell the coffee/tea.

Booze (the consultancy firm . . .) lost so much money and so many clients that they wound up and left (just btw)

Re: Krashid # 54

I have no idea.

Ciao

Dear freethinker:

#16

Read with delight the thoughtful article by Ferozk -- and as usual your erudite post was an icing on the cake.

Ah Allama Iqbal – a great poet – and a not so great politician – and just like religion and politics make high octane inflammable mixture – poetry and politics – make a messy gut searing cocktail.

Allama started on the right foot – but later on he was much influenced by those day`s fascist ideals of Mussolini, and Nazis and its jewish counterpart of Zionism – the concept of ``superman``--``super race`` -– ``chosen people`` -- ``marshal race`` -- which he wanted Muslims to be -- entitled to DOMINATE the ``inferior people`` –was certainy a WRONG MESSAGE for the future.

There was a devolution in his thought process from the days of Sare JahaN se achchaa HindustaaN hamara -- to -- bahre Zulmat meiN dauraa diye ghorey hum ne.

Allama in his later years did turn into a crypto fascist. His Ilhami poetry was a marvel of the plasticity of URDU language – and deeply affected the URDU readers – and it still warms our coddle -– but it definitely did screw/skew the perception of nationhood, country, and politics -- for our community for all times to come.

I love Iqbal’s poetry – especially this couplet of his – wahee meri kum naseebi, wahee unki benayazee – mere kaam kutch na aayaa yeh kamale nai nawaazee.



He was so right.

All his Kamaale Nai Nawaazee – did no good -- it only created a MUDDLE -- of religion-in-politics -- called Pakistan.

What a ``kum naseebi`` -- for the Muslims of the subcontinent --and Afghanistan.

Dear freethinker:

#16

Read with delight the thoughtful article by Feroze -- and as usual your erudite post was an icing on the cake.

Ah Allama Iqbal – a great poet – and a not so great politician – and just like religion and politics make high octane inflammable mixture – poetry and politics – make a messy gut searing cocktail.

Allama started on the right foot – but later on he was much influenced by those day`s fascist ideals of Mussolini, and Hitler and their victim’s Zionism – the concept of ``superman``--``super race`` -– ``chosen people`` -- “marshal race” -- which he wanted Muslims to be -- entitled to DOMINATE the ``inferior people``.

There was a devolution in his thought process from the days of Sare JahaN se achchaa HindustaaN hamara -- to -- bahre Zulmat meiN dauraa diye ghorey hum ne.

Allama in his later years did turn into a crypto fascist. His Ilhami poetry was a marvel of the plasticity of URDU language – and deeply affected the URDU readers – and it still warms our coddle -– but it definitely did screw/skew the perception of nationhood, country, and politics -- for our community for all times to come.

I love Iqbal’s poetry – especially this couplet of his – wahee meri kum naseebi, wahee unki benayazee – mere kaam kutch na aayaa yeh kamale nai nawaazee.



He was so right.

All his Kamaale Nai Nawaazee – did no good -- it only created a MUDDLE -- of religion-in-politics -- called Pakistan.

What a ``kum naseebi`` -- for the Muslims of the subcontinent --and Afghanistan.

re: Krashid # 53

Ah...did I mess up some names? Didn`t know that Hamid Gul is a Deobandi, or who Noorani Mia is :(

And if Naqsbandi is a pious kind of Muslim, he has all my regards. I am sorry, I just dont follow these things all that closely.

Best,

EK

Dear Soysauce:

I am no fan of army dictators and certainly not of Mr. Mushaarraf.

In fact I considered the invitation by Mr. Vajpayee a betrayal -- for totally different reasons – not because Musharraf was the foolish aggressor of Kargil – or not because it was against Vajpayee’s Hindutva “idealism” -- but because of Musharraf`s betrayal of democracy in Pakistan – and Vajpayee`s betrayal of democracy in Pakistan.

Yes legitimizing an army dictatorship -- that has silenced political dissent -- (a birthright of every Pakistani) -- that has put the two main political parties of Pakistan (that represent 70% of the voting populace) in a virtual slammer, by the barrel of the gun – is something that was not expected from an elected leader of a democratic country like India.

Nevertheless, for that precious peace and reconciliation between the two obsessively/compulsively quarrelsome brothers – everything is forgiven, and for that matter even Attilla the Hun is welcome if he comes as a messenger of peace and goodwill between the two countries that have been at each others neck for half a century..

At a time like this, coming up with an Indian Mein Kampf (mixed with Reaganism) is not going to do any good to anybody – except drive the majority of moderates and secular Pakistanis – and believe me majority of Pakistanis are NOT religious extremists (otherwise Vajpayee would have to sit with an “elected” Mulla Fazlurrahman instead of unelected Musharraf in Paniput)-- into the folds of irreconcilable militarists and irascible fundamentalists.

Isn’t it a bit too early, too cocky -- not to mention – sounding like crass and crude expletives:

“Fundamental factors that need to be encouraged.

(1) Increased Defense Spending.

(2) Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Liberalization. (The Government in the business of Governance)

(3) Encouragement of anti-Pakistani state factors, ranging from tactic support to secessionists, encirclement of Pakistan geographically with the Central Asian Republics, Iran, Qatar

(4) Unequivocal American ally.

(5) Continue to engage positively with Russia.

(6) Studied ambivalence towards China, with respect to defense and foreign affairs. Challenge their increasing market presence through legislation.

(7) Increase Naval Presence to controlling a sea-supply isthmus for Pakistan. .

(8) Unite with Russia, China to ally against Islamic extremism.

(9) Electrification of Indo-Pak border.

(10) Strategic Pro-US, Pro-India media used to change the tone, from indictment of Pakistan it must be the indictment of their Government and not the people.

(11) Neutralization of Pakistan’s efforts to redefine its government.

(12) Systemic extermination of Jehadi networks within India – in a manner a la Waco or Ruby Ridge.

(13) Create an appetite for power amidst local “serfs” within Pakistan’s feudal landscape.

(14) Let talks on Kashmir continue between Pakistan and India alone.

(15) Neutralize the Hurriyat politically and reduce them into irrelevancy.

(16) Improve local schooling, employment, medicine and bureaucracy in Kashmir simultaneously.

(17) Strengthen the RAW/IB/Military Intelligence with a coherent external agenda and specialist directors”.

Believe me I did read every word of that serpentine prose and it sent chills through my spine and raised hairs on my neck -- here it was the Pakistani bogey man -- the proverbial Ugly Indian -- of whom every rabble rouser, and hate monger of Pakistan had been foaming about for decades – which most of us thought was a fiction –and here it was in Keerthik column, writhing, twisting and turning -- alive and well -- and in print.

Urstruly #34

Why are you looking towards Hinood for fighting China.

Don`t you think Pakistan is a better bet with lots of money to be pocketed by our Generals.

After all if Pakistanis can take part in UN forces against Muslim Aidid in Somalia, against Muslim Iraqi`s in Gulf War. I don`t see any reason what is hindering Pakistan to take stand against Atheist, Communist, Buddhist (three faults at a time) Chinese as long as our economy can get more aid and our Generals can pocket more money.

On one side is China. On other Iran and on third Afghanistan. We have only to determine our own price. As any good ``Randi`` determines her worth depending on age (Each new customer is first customer with a high price). This is Capitalism my dear. No Hindu or Muslim.

FerozK #

I am sorry. Can you repeat the name again who you are selecting for people of Pakistan as elected prime minister?

Actually with so many names I get confused. Give me one name on whom I can stamp my thumb.

Eklavya #36

Asif Naqshbandi is not at fault. Noorani Mian has taken this line. The line to Noorani Mian is given by Pervez Musharraf.

Pervez Musharraf is appointed directly by God as per his own admission.

So Asif Naqshmandi is serious in giving a hand of friendship to Hinood.

In fact as far as I remember his party was not even in favor of creation of Pakistan (Or Noorani Mian was a splinter group I don`t remember).

And don`t mention that Deobandi Taliban inclined Hamid Gul with the name of Naqshbandi. Fire and water cannot exist and pray behind each other.

Naqsbandi is more pious kind of Muslim.

It is certainly NOT in India`s best interests for a destabilised Pakistan to emerge. Does anyone think that the Taleban-esque characters who reside in Pakistan (yes, sadly there are some of that mindset) would not use it as an opportunity to try and get power? The military is the best guarantee that the fanatics will never seize power. I know I am going to get Zia thrown at me for that, but seriously let`s even compare him to, say, Mullah Omar. Does India want a Talebani state with nuclear power on her border?

Pakistan has enough problems internally that she needs to concentrate on now, things that Musharraf is trying hard to deal with, and needling India is not one of them. He is trying to deal with the internal issues such as the economy and sectarian violence in cities such as Karachi, along with the Afghan refugee situation. Economic success tends to do wonderful things for a state... but only if they don`t have to worry about a neighbor who is constantly trying to destabilise them.

Musharraf is the best option for Pakistan right now and India should be very happy that they have someone of his stature in power. Attaturk took 19 years to bring stability and democracy to Turkey... if it takes Musharraf only 5 or 10 years then he has done a wonderful job and truly served his country as very few ever have.

RE GODOT # 32

[``India`s approach to Kashmir ``problem`` in adapting Israel`s strategy``]

Godot, do you think that India has not adopted Israel`s strategy out of goodness of it heart?

Until India attains complete conventional and nuclear superiority over Pakistan akin to what Israel has over the towel heads, it can`t even think about doing it. This won`t happen IMO.

Remember the tow trucks that were called when Indian planes crossed over LOC during Kargil?

Re: Romair

Yaar, I have known the Soomro family for the past 30 years and I can tell you personally, if there is a choice between Soomro and suicide, I will gladly commit suicide.

Ciao

nasah #47

How was this fascistic?

Did you read the article? He makes the point that Pakistan will, in time, can only up the ante and take advantage of india`s problems. In other words, pak will continue to throw stones at india (to use your metaphor) and, therefore, it cannot get any worse if india does the same with respect to pakistan. It might even be to india`s advantage. What aspects of this do you disagree with? That pak has already been fishing in troubled waters (punjab, kashmir) and will continue to do so? Are you arguing morality? Please clarify.

I suspect you did not read the ``crummy analysis`` and are outraged because you are confusing realpolitik with individual morality. Do i have it about right?

I may not agree with all the approaches that Keerthik outlines. However, as with most indians, i share his suspicion of Musharraf`s trustworthiness. It would be very nice to walk the ``high road of peace in the interests of our peoples`` but that is not gonna happen with the military stranglehold over pakistan. Vajpayee will only end up legitimizing the pak miliatry`s authority which is not good for india in the long run.

Over to you.

Soyasauce#45

``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``

Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on a balance beam.

And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against it. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?

There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.

Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...

And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.

Soyasauce#45

``Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that?``

Dont get too cocky, mister. Yes it is BAD FOR INDIA to destabilize Pakistan -- especially for an India that itself is walking on balance beam.

And yes it is altrusim and enlightened self interest that argues against. Look around yourself and see how many ``conflicting forces`` are operating in India. Should I enumerate them for you?

There are two aphorisms that every Indian and Pakistani of the Keerthik kind should carry as an amulet around their fascists necks.

Don`t do unto others what you don`t want others to do it to you. And the second one is : intelligent people who live in glass houses don`t throw stones at the neighbor`s house. And there is a third one...but I won`t mention it on this forum...

And it was a crummy ``analysis``, by the way.

Ferozek #35: ``Romair, please rectify your comments...Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan.``

Perhaps you did not read my complete post. I stated the following:

``According to Ayaz Amir, Mian Azhar is the best amongst this lot. And according to Cowasjee, Soomro is pretty good (Soomro`s nephew (I think) is the governor of Sind, and his son is/was the president of a major Pakistani bank under the current govt.). I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.``

I have no information on either of these two personalities. That is why I stated, ``I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.`` But the two journalists I mentioned seem to consider these two men better than the other lot available in PML.

``Education of the military

By Ayaz Amir

The political space it vacates can be filled with the `clean` figures of military mythology - people like Mian Azhar who, among a descending order of scoundrels and charlatans, are the least tainted by the shenanigans of the past 15 years......

The Eighth Amendment model of a powerful president and a representative prime minister served only to spread strife in the political arena. It`s time to move on to something more stable and enduring. With someone safe like Mian Azhar as prime minister, how about General Pervez Musharraf as the country`s first Gaullist president?

Will this be a perfect democracy? Of course not. But then this hybrid solution is the only thing allowed by the prevailing circumstances.`` (DAWN, Pakistan)

I was unable to find the reference to Soomro by Cowasjee, but it is out there somewhere.

Very impressive analysis!

I happen to think that India should not be bailing out Musharraf. Keerthik goes a step further and says that india, in its own self interest, should not bail out pakistan. An arguable, but nevertheless a valid, point! Why would it be bad for india to encourage the various conflicting forces within pakistan? Is it altruism or enlightened self interest that argues against that? A looser, federal structure would be good for india as well. Methinks in a loosely federated pakistan, the military`s role might be curtailed and the scope for peaceful relationship is stronger. Keerthik is also right, i think, to point out that the current crop of pak military officers may be more strongly hostile towards india. Musharraf represents the cusp of the trasition from the old-style to the new-style military thinking there.

You raise a lot of important points, Keerthik!

ps: the title, i think, is slapped on by the Chowk editors. There are a few typos and the language a little strained, but overall, the article makes its point well.

urstruly #34 . . . pl replace Muslim with, say, desi?

blood

Re: Jay, #14

India`s approach to Kashmir ``problem`` in adapting Israel`s strategy of force and contempt towards the Palestenians will, in my opinion, be counterproductive to the South Asian region in the long term.

Culminating the jihadis is as bad for Pakistan`s well being and its future as it is for India. The only way to get rid of the curse of the jihadis from Pakistan`s face is to turn Pakistan, and India, into economically prosperous region instilled with liberal values. The strategy of eliminating the jihadis will only work through satisfying the basic needs and necessities of general populous that includes a majority of the population, say, at a minimum of 60 percent.

I know that may sound like a pipe-dream but an evolution towards that goal must begin somewhere. Musharraf and Vajpayee seem to understand that.

Re: Romair, #31

An excellent article by Irfan Husain. Thank you for posting it.

``Romair`` sounds like the name of a cheap, discount airline. Fitting name I suppose, given how enamored this guy is with militaries running governments.

Asif 33,

Poor old asif turning a pacifist, you have forgotten the book or what, started forming opinions based on interactions. Being a religious scholar of some kind, you have to think of the lasting influence of some religious concepts.

The one who follows the religius path are usually rewarded, in every religion, a grand prize, usually after death. In islam this grand prize is assured only for the Shaheen. Now tell me what impact that will have on the masses, and tell me whether it has got anything to do with events in kashmir and the larger indo- pak relations.

When madarasies in their thousands pump out the young with this notion, you know asif, the seeds of hatred are spouting in the thousands.

re: Humsab # 38

HA HA!!

Reading about all those moons, suns, and jupitars sent my mind into outerspace doublequick.

Pervez`s kundali gives him 2 yrs

By K N Rao

Musharraf will visit India in a dark lunar fortnight - July 14 - which will be ashadha Krishna ashtami till midday and then begins navami. The yoga will be sukarma, which means doing good. If he visits the Taj on July 15, the moon will have less sheen which can be made up by neon lights. If the visit is during the day, a clouded sun of a rainy day will shed a mild solar lustre on the Taj marbles.

Birth data: Taking his birth date as August 11, 1943, Delhi, as given in the official website of Pakistan, it can be seen that he and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will get along well on a personal level as both have the same Moon sign which is Vrischika or Scorpio. His horoscope, if made for the day of his birth with karka lagna, will give him the image of an impulsive dictator with no Hitler like streaks or even the doggedness of his Israeli contemporary Ariel Sharon. Aspect of Mars on his lagna, Jupiter and Rahu give him strong streaks of fundamentalism. His Kargil misadventure must have been the result of such inerasable traits of fanaticism. In classical Hindu astrology it is known as guru chandal yoga, which finds expression in devastating iconoclasm in which, and not in distinguished military achievements, he will find his métier. Musharraf is visiting India in his Moon-Sun period in vimshottari mahadasha, both luminaries aspected by Mars, the planet of aggression and in his case, adventurism. Sun as his second lord of finance can lead to fruitful discussions on economic problems facing both countries in the wake of both signing the WTO agreements.





Danger to him: But then a cataclysmic traumatic failure in his own country can put an end to his career sooner than one expects. It can be less than two years. His self-appointment as president of Pakistan can only give him a surreal tenure. The dasha to follow his present Moon is that of Mars, in the tenth, which can make him more powerful than he is, but not without serious opposition. The aspect of Mars on his lagna can mean provocation by someone to make a bid on his life.

Present transit: The present transit of Jupiter and the future transit of Saturn show how heavy is the sword that hangs on the head of this self-appointed president.

The oath: Sinister however is the chart of the oath-taking ceremony of General Musharraf, which was 4/15 pm on June 20, a day before an eclipse. At the time of the oath, there should have already been a well-hatched plot to throw him out in a violent way. It can happen anytime now, in any case in less than two years. A very bad eighth house and an afflicted Moon in this chart is the surest indicator of a violent overthrow of Musharraf. Pakistan`s history may then have to record that the CEO who came to power on October 12, 1999 had a better and longer tenure than the self-appointed president. At the time talks will be on, Jupiter the planet of wisdom and dignity is in an unhelpful eighth house from the Moon of both Vajpayee and Musharraf, aspecting the second house which will again emphasise finance and nothing of greater significance in the context of serious tensions on the Jammu and Kashmir front. Mr Vajpayee was born in a dark fortnight, Pausa Krishna Chaturdashi ( December 25, 1924) in vrischika lagna as recorded in his biography. Many astrologers have given him a wrong lagna and reeled off incorrect guesses as predictions which is why political astrology is often misleading and wrong. Mr Vajpayee is passing through a period of idealism, promoting Jupiter which is combust and, therefore, powerless. Musharraf is passing through dasha of a weak moon aspected by Mars but fortunately Jupiter too. Thus, talks will be more sober than useful, less provocative than gainful for either side. Nothing substantial will be achieved on the political or Kashmir issues with Mars and Saturn opposing each other these days which is not auspicious for India and Pakistan. In Pakistan`s Independence chart, it is the mahadasha of Ketu in the intrigues-ridden eighth house. If Musharraf desires and deserves to see the Taj on a poornima (full moon), he should come around September 2 because the Moon does not oblige dictators.

- The writer is advisor, institute of Astrology Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, New Delhi, and retd Director General, Indian Audit and Accounts Service.

re: Asif Naqshbandi # 33

bechara! :)

Asif bhai, I have a solution for you. Everytime you run into a sasidharan, just take someone like Hamid Gul out of your left pocket and look at him hard for thirty nine seconds. This exercise will achieve two goals. One, you will feel better; two, the scared Hinood will run for its pathetic life.

You just can`t lose.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Having consoled Asif bhai thus, let us recognize that there a LOT of people in both India and Pakistan who share the mindset underlying this article. It does no good to quibble over where such people have a greater hold - India or Pakistan. For, hold they do have. These are people in power, people who have kept us warring for half a century. We can not wish them away. we can not ignore them.

But these people are NOT our enemies. Hamid Guls and ISI chiefs and their counterparts in India are GOOD, DECENT people committed to honorably serving their nations.

It is IDEAS that come in the way of peace and aman. We need to understand and deal with these IDEAS that continuously regenerate, and thus perpetuate the conflict between two peoples who have absolutely no God-mandated reason to fight together like dogs, all the time.

So, more seriously, asif bhai, dont focus too much on the evil hinood. Take up the more difficult challenge. Focus on creating new ideas that enable you and others to live together.

Can you do that?

Re: Romair # 29

Romair, please rectify your comments!

Jinnah would weep in his grave if Elahi Bux Soomro ever became the prime minister of Pakistan. His nephew, the Governor of Sindh, is a far better person for the job Elahi Bux Soomro.

You seem to be an intelligent person, so I will excuse your comments as a lapse of reason and I hope that it is a lapse of reason, otherwise I have serious doubts about you!

Ciao

KHOTAY DA SIR

The plan is simple.

The rebels in Muslim majority province of China, Sinkiang, will be trained and given weapons by India. The pretext that will be used in Western and Indian press would be of Palkistan and Ossama Bin Laden. The Indian agents will accelerate the violence in Sinkiang and will bring it at a stage where the situation will be irreversible.

One must be very careful to analyze the news that US Army`s special units are going to ``get`` training from Indian Army in the region near Nepal`s border in July. Whereas one may anticipate a secret ``training`` mission in the Laddakh region. The purpose of such excercises is to explore the possibility of transferring men and material into the Sinkiang province. One must also keep in mind the undertones that International (and US) strategic analysts have started using these days.

Once the rebel ``movement`` will get into full swing, Ossama will be used to provide and smuggle men and material into Sinkiang. There definitely will be loss of life of the people of Sinkiang which will be used to exploit the general public opinion in Muslim countries against China.

It is quite obvious that US and China will not let a chaos create in China like that of USSR. However, it will be used to get more access to get into the Chinese markets and negotiate better prices on trade with China. Whereas India will be reined and kept under control using the threat of Pakistan in Kashmir.

NET RESULT:

- China will thus be brought under control, and its voice will be muzzled that it usally raises for an equitable system of trade and Global society, condemning Neo-colonial aspirations of the West and US.

- Muslim blood keep on spilling in Sinkiang and Kashmir while stressing that Muslims are actually terrorits.

- And what will India and Pakisatn will get in return for all this- Khotay Da Sir, as usual.

THe plan is simple.

Romair #29

``He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person.``

Did you read Ayaz Amir`s column?

Being nice is not the point

By Ayaz Amir

Nothing is so calculated to make one want to run one`s thumb over the edge of a sharp knife than the line heard so often this past year and a half that Musharraf is a nice guy: clean, transparent and honest, someone who talks straight and has the good of the country at heart.

If politics was about likeability and personal attractiveness we should not have had any problems in the first place. All the generalissimos who have strutted on the national stage were attractive figures. To look at photographs of Iskander Mirza, Ayub, and Yahya in their prime or at the height of their power is to be reminded of the bearing and personality for which they were once praised. Even Zia did not fail to impress visitors with his humility and good nature.

Of our democrats Bhutto had a great personality but that did not save him from his walk to the gallows. Most other politicians who rose to high office look like dry sticks compared to their military counterparts. Who would have wanted to spend an evening with Junejo? Or with Nawaz Sharif for that matter? Benazir, with her ready wit and gift for one-liners, could be the epitome of charm. But by harping on her righteousness and never admitting to any wrong (traits which have not deserted her) she could also be insufferable. By all accounts, Asif Zardari is a friend`s friend, a boon companion, and an easy person to get along with. But this exactly is the point. If being nice was all there was to politics, Zardari should have been the answer to Pakistan`s problems.

Musharraf`s military predecessors were unmitigated disasters not because they lacked charisma and charm. They failed and left Pakistan worse than before because the institution which was the source of their power was at once their biggest strength and greatest handicap. Their thinking and vision were shaped by this institution. Their prejudices were a product of their military training. They were thus pre-programmed to see things in a certain light and brought up to believe that the military was the repository of all the virtues, politics was a deceitful game and politicians were venal and corrupt figures who deserved nothing better than to be handled with a stick.

And since, for all their outward impressiveness, the generals who ruled Pakistan were essentially pedestrian figures, with little imagination and no vision, they could never go beyond the limitations of the army mind. This is not to say that Pakistan`s military saviours have not played small games of deception, have not said one thing and done another, or have not been devious in other ways. They have indeed and often more so than their civilian peers. But this kind of cleverness does not translate into great leadership. Pakistan`s military rulers have all been clever without being intelligent. Beginning by reviling politicians, they often proved more adept at politics than regular professionals. But this is what they remained right till the end, even when the shadows began closing in on them: clever jugglers. None could make the grade to anything resembling statesmanship.

Why? Two factors, I think, account for this failure. Firstly, for some reason the intellectual tradition has never been very strong in the ranks of the Pakistani general staff, intellectual brilliance being the exception not the norm. Secondly, the Pakistan army is a deeply conservative institution, intrinsically oriented to the preservation of the status quo, and therefore averse to any profound or radical altering of the socio-economic foundations of Pakistani society.

The expectation of radical steps on its part is therefore wholly misplaced. Whenever the military steps into the political arena it will always do what comes the readiest to it: installing streetlights, terrorizing the sanitary staff of municipal organizations, starting anti-encroachment drives and in the process making life difficult for street-sellers and cart-vendors. And at a bigger level talking loudly about accountability and recovering looted money. This is all. This is what it was like under previous military governments. This is what it has been like under Musharraf. Beating empty drums, glorifying the small and petty: trust the army always to do this and then to describe its efforts as nation-building.

This is not deliberate deception. To think so is to get the whole thing wrong. The army as an institution is incapable of anything better. To the pursuit of the small and ephemeral it brings a vast amount of zeal and enthusiasm. Even when grappling with municipal drains and streetlights, an endeavour which ends by leaving army units exhausted, the army thinks it is reordering the fundamentals of society. Meanwhile the Chief - Yahya, Zia or Musharraf - becomes a jack of all trades. He devotes some time to the army and some to the civil administration. Since he is neither Napoleon nor superman he ends up being part-time army chief and part-time administrator, beholden to his generals for the smooth running of the army and to his civilian technocrats for running the government.

Small wonder and contrary to popular belief, the worst excesses of nepotism and cronyism in Pakistan take place under military regimes, with generals and bureaucrats being promoted and kept in office long past their usefulness simply because the General-in-chief has had so many favours to return. In every military government favourites emerge whose power is less a reflection of outstanding merit as of their services to the ruler of the day. On a broader level, the privileged status of the higher echelons of the Pakistan army is not a fortuitous development. It is a direct outcome of the need felt by successive generalissimos to keep their core constituency happy.

So wherein lies the fault? Not in the qualities or defects of character of Pakistan`s military rulers but in the structural and intellectual limitations of their rule. It is not that one-man rule or autocracy is always and everywhere bad. England apart, the Europe that we see today is a product of various forms of kingship and authoritarianism. Democracy made a late arrival in much of the continent. East Asian prosperity, including China`s emergence as an economic powerhouse, is based upon the politics of authoritarianism. It is just that the same solution does not fit every situation. The Pakistani model of authoritarianism which derives its legitimacy and currency from the army is flawed because the instrument at hand, the Pakistan army, is not equipped to deliver the wages of good administration (the necessary condition for economic prosperity).

The Pak Army is not the Kuomintang of Taiwan. It is not the Communist Party or People`s Liberation Army of China. It is not the British civil service of Hong Kong nor the army of South Korea. It can only produce the figures it has done; it can produce no Lee Kuan Yews. This is not to say it has no strengths. It has them indeed and they are not to be scoffed at. But among these strengths, as the history of the last 50 years has demonstrated, lies not the art of government or administration. The Pakistan army can do many things and it can do them better than the armies of many other countries. But it simply lacks the ethos or grounding to bring about a social revolution or lay the foundations of an enduring political order.

This is what makes Musharraf`s assumption of the presidency such a sad event. For in laying bare his ambition, and perhaps that of his closest generals, this move reveals, as nothing else could, that we have learned nothing from the past. That Musharraf at a personal level may be a very nice soul is an irrelevant circumstance. He has embarked upon a course that can only spell disaster for the country. For the continuity of which reforms is he so concerned? What reforms has his government brought about? If anything, the last year and a half has added to the sum of national suffering and confusion. So, apart from the prompting of a paranoid ambition, what justification is there for the emerging Suhartoization of Pakistan? In Asia there are bad authoritarian models and good and we seem to be going for the worst of the lot.

Pakistan came into being as the result of a democratic process. Let no confusion surround this central truth. Authoritarianism of the military kind fits nowhere into its founding principles. This kind of rule fails also the test of pragmatism for it has brought nothing but disaster for Pakistan. The conclusion is obvious. The only service Musharraf can do Pakistan is to return it to democracy. That the Benazirs and Nawaz Sharifs of democracy may have been corrupt and inept figures is a matter of detail. It takes away nothing from the substance of the argument that time and again the military model has failed in Pakistan and, nice strongman or not, will fail again. Jaded as the refrain may sound, the only experiments we can afford to make are on the democratic plane.

Why is it that every time I start thinking that peace with India might actually be possible and desirable--normally based on most Indians i meet in real life who on the whole tend to be educated and decent people who actually think we have more in common than against and who generally want peaceful coexistence--some Shrii Ramdaas or whatever comes crawling out of the woodwork and re-asserts the doubts and suspicions about the hinood?

*shaking his head.... * *

Pakistani journalist, whenever they have the opportunity to write freely, criticize greatly any and every Pakistani leader. Perhaps its cynicism, or perhaps all of the leaders deserved to criticized. So the worth of a Pakistani leader can be judged in Pakistan, not by how highly the journalists speak of him/her, but by how little criticism he/she receives. Based on that, I would have to say that Musharraf, though not praised greatly, has received far less criticism from the Pakistani press than any leader in my lifetime.

An excellent analysis of Pakistan`s current political scenario. I specifically agree with the last paragraph:

``The end of politics?

By Irfan Husain

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Frances Fukuyama, an American political scientist, wrote a paper with the provocative title ``The end of history.`` The thrust of his thesis was that with the global triumph of the free economy, liberal-democratic model, there was no longer any countervailing ideology left to serve as an antithesis.

Fukyama argued that without any opposition, the dominant western juggernaut would prevail and effectively end the conflict and friction that generate historical events and shape the flow of history. Understandably, this thesis caused a furore in academia as well as the media, and a decade later, it stands largely discredited.

Whatever the fate of the Fukuyama paper, it is possible to argue that in Pakistan today, we are witnessing ``the end of politics.`` Consider the facts: on the eve of a crucial and possibly historic summit meeting between the leaders of India and Pakistan, the two biggest political parties have decided to boycott the pre-summit consultative process initiated by General Pervez Musharraf. The PPP leadership says it is doing so because Benazir Bhutto has been sentenced in absentia. Nawaz Sharif`s faction of the Muslim League (how many factions are there, for God`s sake?) says that to attend a meeting with Musharraf would imply acceptance of his accession to the presidency.

The only other significant component of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) is the Awami National Party (ANP), and its leadership has sensibly endorsed the talks and sent its representative to meet the president in the face of much carping and cribbing from its ARD partners. But the fact is that Pakistan today is a two-party state and the leaders of both parties are sulking for their own reasons. At a time when a domestic consensus would strengthen General Musharraf`s hand in Agra, Pakistan`s two biggest parties have no input to offer. Benazir Bhutto has gone to the extent of criticising the Indian government for having extended the invitation to begin with. We have not heard from Nawaz Sharif yet as his voice has been effectively stifled by his Saudi hosts, but it is doubtful if he would have contributed anything of note.

This is just one example of the irrelevance of our political parties. Caught up in the short-term compulsions of their corrupt leaders, they have become so much an integral part of the problem that they cannot possibly be part of the solution. Their supporters are so fed up of the antics of these exposed politicians that they will not come out into the streets for them. Unable to mount any pressure on the military government, the PPP and PML leaders are reduced to mumbling hollow threats. Whenever they offer sensible criticism, their arguments lose their force because of their own record while in office.

The third biggest political party, the MQM, has effectively marginalized itself by boycotting the local body elections in its stronghold of urban Sindh. The reasons for this decision - as for most MQM decisions - are murky: from his comfortable exile in London, Altaf Hussain makes Delphic pronouncements that might make sense to him, but to nobody else. But what is more amazing is that his followers accept these bizarre declarations without even a murmur of protest. In any case, the MQM has by now so thoroughly alienated all parties and centres of power that despite its support, it is largely irrelevant except when it shuts down Karachi by implicit threats of violence against anybody who does not pull down his shutters when it calls its periodic ``strikes.``

The religious parties with their fundamentalist agenda want to drag the country back into medieval times, and their action plan consists of abolishing interest, support of the Taliban, confrontation with India and a rejection of rational thought and modern concepts. In every sense they are irrelevant to Pakistan and its need to modernize and progress. Indeed, by their words and actions they are acting as a major hurdle to investment.

The scary part is that these people are the best we have in politics: the few intelligent and honest politicians in the ring are kept at arm`s length by their leaders, lest they become popular in their own right. In any case, politics in Pakistan is such a dirty business that very few upright and capable people are tempted to take the plunge. What we are left with is a class of unproductive drones who fatten themselves when in power, and are the source of endless intrigues when they are out of office. Small wonder that there are hardly any idealists in the ranks of professional politicians. Among their priorities, serving the people is very low down on the list.

The army`s attempt to induct another breed of politicians through the local body elections being held under the grand ``devolution plan`` has failed as familiar families and faces are being elected in droves. How these freshly minted local democrats will fare when hostile provincial and national governments are formed next year remains to be seen. But it can safely be predicted that the cohabitation is likely to be uneasy.

Having talked of the irrelevance of our politicians, can we honestly say that the generals are any more relevant? The past record of military governments is anything but reassuring. Zia`s era has saddled us with a large proportion of the foreign loans that are like a deadweight pulling down the economy; he unleashed fundamentalism and a tidal wave of drugs and guns; and he was instrumental in formulating the foreign policy that has so isolated us.

Strictly speaking, the relevance of generals lies in the field of defence and not in politics. However, given our peculiar and convoluted history, the army has become Pakistan`s most powerful political party. But the record of our generals in politics is very poor, and it would be a brave man who predicts that the current crop will fare any better.

So what is the answer? We must face the fact that sooner or later (and preferably sooner), Pakistan must return to the democratic path. And I do not mean the `guided` variety so dear to the generals. There are no short-cuts, no magic wands to suddenly clean up the system. And as we know to our cost, the longer a military government hangs on to power, the more disastrous the results. The most we can hope for from General Musharraf is a brief interregnum in which extremism is curbed; the economy stabilized and relations with India improved.

One knows this is a tall order, but if he can pull it off, he can live in the presidency for as long as he wants. (DAWN, Pakistan)

Interesting little note from the Sind budget:

``A significant move has come in the form of extension of free education from primary to government-run secondary schools as the minister announced the abolition of tuition fees to achieve what he declared the objective of providing access to education to the maximum number of citizens. Sindh has thus become the first province to declare the secondary education free.`` (NEWS, Pakistan)

SameerJB #19: ``Since he can not openly go against Islam and major political parties against him, he would be backing a JI-JUP-like minded PML-Tahir ul Qadri alliance during next election. In this way, he will be able to keep PML (N), PPP and MQM away from power and pleasing to USA simultaneously by distancing from JUI-Jehadis-deobandi-SSP militaristic Islamic alliance.``

This is quite interesting. I would have to say I disagree with a portion of it. I have done some research on Musharraf, through colleagues who know him in the military. This is what I have been told:

He is an extremely liberal man. He drinks, parties, had girlfriends; the whole nine yards, i.e. possesses all the qualities that Pakistani liberals consider the foundations of an enlightened person. Based on that, the last thing I see him doing is supporting any kind of a religious party, anywhere. He is the only leader in the last twenty years to not seek the support of religious parties (Zia-ul-Haq`s parallel legal system, Nawaz`s Shariah Bill etc.). He is the first leader to openly criticize them and attmept to tame the extremists amongst them. Considering the fact that he called Qazi Hussain an unbalanced person, I cannot see him seeking their support.

He definitely does not want the PPP, PML and MQM in power. So you are correct on that point. Considering the fact, that these three parties together have destroyed Pakistan thoroughly, I don`t blame him. I don`t want any of these parties in power either. However, this is where his hands are tied, since the feudal base of these parties will get them elected again and again (MQM`s ethnic base). And there are still, ``lovers of democracy`` educated Pakistanis around who will support a convicted killer as their leader, even if he/she is the product of a basketcase election system.

So Musharraf has to make a deal with them. The deal he will/has made is to get/force them to get Mian Azhar and Soomro onto the forefront. He dislikes Zia-ul-Haq, and has thus not given Ejaz-ul-Haq too much importance. According to Ayaz Amir, Mian Azhar is the best amongst this lot. And according to Cowasjee, Soomro is pretty good (Soomro`s nephew (I think) is the governor of Sind, and his son is/was the president of a major Pakistani bank under the current govt.). I have no idea, since I have never met any of them.

My feeling is that Musharraf wants Imran Khan or Asghar Khan to be the next Prime Minister. The two best candidates amongst whomever is available, in my opinion. Asghar Khan`s son (a philantrapist and head of an NGO) is in his cabinet. And Razzaq Dawood (the current industries minister) is on the board of Imran Khan`s cancer hospital. However, neither Imran Khan nor Asghar Khan have a shot in the feudally dominated Pakistani politics (although I have a feeling, this time around Imran Khan`s party will win a few seats in the urban areas).

Based on the above, I think Musharraf is going to completely sideline the religious parties. He is attempting to do that, though somewhat unsuccessfully, already (no other leader has ever even attempted it). He will support Mian Azhar or Soomro as the Prime Minister candidate through the breakaway faction of PML, and will get them to give Imran Khan`s PTI an important position in the govt.

The NSC will keep an eye over the govt. for five years (it is a well-proven fact that someone needs to keep an eye over Pakistani politicians, until the feudal system is broken, and true free and fair elections can be held. The Pakistani Supreme Court has proven too cowardly to fullfill this responsibility). After that, he will leave the post of the President.

After seeing the way, from an Indian perspective, how Vajpayee handled/is handling Kargil, Kashmir, and his own borderline fanatic Hindu nationalist party, I would have to say I am quite impressed by him (my opinion could be incorrect, since I do not know too much about Indian politics). He is quite the politician, and seems to be a realist on the above mentioned issues. Doesn`t seem to quite fit into the BJP model Prime Minister mold.

Based on that, I think he is too intelligent to follow the advice in this letter. However, if he does, it would be great for Pakistan. India has historically been following the advice in this letter, and that is why it is placed in the same group as a much smaller Pakistan, and not in the group with China, where it should be placed due to its large size.

I still cannot figure out whether this letter is supposed to be encouraging the Indian hawks or is actually making fun of them. Perhaps the author could enlighten us.

Dear YLH . . . please get over this mania of considering all Indians as your enemies, as we say, if we don`t even know you, how can we hate you?

Please try to be part of this getting to know each other, warts & all, process. Give the rest a chance.

I cannot and will not name the extreme rabble rousers from India (or Pakistan) on this chowk because (a) that is what they want and (b) it will do no good.

The writer has a point of view which deserves respect for the effort that went into it, if not a few other simple home truths. The future scenario presented with an eye on the past is not an exactly incorrect method either.

The point on economic rivalry brings forth another aspect: so be it, then. Better than killing the best of each other`s generations.

Proves my original hypothesis. Amongst Indians from our experience on chowk one concludes that people like Eklavya, Anil, Dost Mittar and our other genuine Indian friends are very few... A little more in number are people like Sadna, but the majority of Indians are Pakistan-Hating, fascist fanatics like Rsaxena, Harimau, Devkant, Sasidharan, Upman7626, Jay, Latif Chappu and Bhatiya Musalman.

Hinduvta is what its all about. The ancient `Bharat Mata`s` mutilation is what they want to avenge.

Beverley Nichols said at Jinnah`s death

`Now that Jinnah is dead, two thing are for sure

1) Indian leaders will try and dissolve Pakistan

2) Pakistan will persevere because it is a nation and it will exist as a nation till eternity.`

Let this be a battle till eternity, we will die, but we will not surrender our sovereignty till eternity.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN!

Stuka:

``

Our getting on as individuals does not mean that we have to shy away from the fact our two nations have important political differences and our respective national duties may lead us along different paths. You do what you have to do as a Pakistani, and I will do what I have to do as an Indian, and that does not make either of us a bad human being...I think????

``

Peace will never be achieve this way. Not until we start to see ourselves beyond our nationalities, will we achieve true peace. What good is the individual friendship if it cannot affect and touch us enough to think about peace.

Klutz, Godot-

``..i think chowk did the write thing by publishing this article..why is it that ppl with good english can only get their articles published???``

..i think thats a devious attack....theres much that can be argued against in this article, but bad language is not one- considering several other articles on chowk...actually the author has a feel for the language- even if he does use a few big words too often, understandeable again as he is supposed to be 19....if you compare some of the semi-literate articles by YLH or atrocities of sarwari with this one, you`ll get what i am saying.....actually i see that the author`s use of language has been praised in both his previous articles....

Where are the CHOWK editors when you need them?

Keerthik, Vajpayee is more intelligent than you
might think. Get a life!

You wrote:

``All of us, in life and in larger abstract social constructs, are in need of the Other -- and no Other is more exciting to inflame minds than that of an unjust tyrannical force. India will consistently be the bogey man to Pakistani public, the Guy Fawkes to their children’s fantasies, the Kafirrs to their religious idealogues.``

No such luck in real life. Pakistanis in general
do not have the luxury of devoting their lives to hating India. They are too busy trying to survive.

And on your words of advice to Vajpayee:
Such wishful thinking should be rewarded by your having to spend at least a 24 period with Mullah Umar, preferebly downwind from him.

Ras

Reply #: 11

Godot

Why thankyou kind Sir... i hope u werent being sarcastic and even if u were ill be a good little gurl and ignore ur sarcasm...rather ill take ur comment as a compliment :)

by the way maybe how one writes and expresses himself does matter but if u dont give ppl a chance then how will they be able to improve their written english?

I think everyone should be given a chance..no matter how they write....i think chowk did the write thing by publishing this article..why is it that ppl with good english can only get their articles published???thats really not fair.

...... there have been times when i wondered if i had been wrong in worrying myself to death after india exploded its a-bomb and then throwing a ``bomb Party`` after we tatted the tit ...... this article proves that i the money was well spent ..... and maybe i will throw a chagi hill anniversary party every year .....

nasah #12: The best response thus far. Thanks for some excellent write-ups.

Klutz #9: I would have guessed author`s first language to be Tamil or Malayali and not hindi based on his name.

[Because Musharraf is the embodiment of discipline your dicey politicians can ever possess.]

He has been most disciplined in issuing PCOs. He has been more successful as a former general than as a general. He was never successful in conquering any territory and held on to it for 21 months and counting, except Islamabad. All he needs now is one more PCO to proclaim himself a King or Khalifa. A specialist in gorilla warfare whose every move is so predictable by friends and foes alike. A foe can congratulate him on his moves prior to his move. A specialist in gorilla warfare whose could not keep secret his plans to overthrow civilian government and even a prime minister of allegedly low IQ knew it ahead of time.

Let me guess his next move without any source of information. Since he can not openly go against Islam and major political parties against him, he would be backing a JI-JUP-like minded PML-Tahir ul Qadri alliance during next election. In this way, he will be able to keep PML (N), PPP and MQM away from power and pleasing to USA simultaneously by distancing from JUI-Jehadis-deobandi-SSP militaristic Islamic alliance.

Stuka: I have never understood the superficial India-China rivalry in Asia. India and China do not have long history of hostility.They were separated by Himalaya and pretty much developed their civilizations independent of each other. There is no TNT syndrome, no great wars. All I can say is that if Tibet was not part of China, it would have been under Indian hegemony, like Bhutan or Sikkim. It is also well-known fact that Maoist gorilla movements in certain part of India are more ideologically maoist than really supported by China now. China has never gone out of the way to support Pakistan during wars to make a difference-because their technology was no match for Russian or American military yechnologies. China and particularly chinese people seldom talk about India whereas Indians, at least on Chowk, are very hawkish about China. Does all this boils down to chinese support to Pakistan?

Re: K. Sasidharan

The personalities you mentioned (Richlieu, Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, Hitler, Kissinger and Thatcher)in reference to comparing Musharraf`s indivduality were all advocates of the raison d` état and Realpolitik.

If Musharraf is their company, then you are paying him the ultimate compliment and I am confident that he will in the words of Spike Lee, ``do the right thing!`` :)

As to your letter/article, it sounds more like a manifesto of action based on the premise of historic animosity and a egocentric national vanity than anything else.

India has a well defined raison d`état, but you seem to missing that distinction!

Ciao

I couldnot understand does the writer think a developed Pakistan is better for India or an underdeveloped Pakistan is better for India?

Do I understand it right that he is saying that the eventual peace and friendship with Pakistan is just not possible and India should stop making any effort in that direction?

Well, since I donot understand the author`s rationale for his opinions, I can only say my opinion is India should not be second-guessing what Pakistanis want. They may want perpetual enmity under seige, or an arms-length disdain, or new frontiers for Islam, or they may want normal relations with trade and cultural exchanges, or something else.

Pakistanis donot seem to know themselves, and until they do, donot expect a change in the outlook of the Pakistani military. I mean, there is no reason to think that the 3 1/2 wars and insurgencies will not happen again after Musharraf and Vajpayee meet.

``bleeding India by a thousand cuts`` will continue to be considered a `profitable` policy, because what will be the reason for this to be considered unprofitable?

Positions will change only by attrition, because Musharraf`s points of view have not come from any measure of public debate about Indo-Pak relations. The only substantive public debate on Indo-Pak relations has been the one since Independence that ``Kashmir is rightfully part of Pakistan``. Until this debate is replaced by some other, nothing will change.

Those who will quote Dawn/Jang columnists to the contrary, I will only ask, how many people subscribe to English newspapers in Pakistan? What does the Urdu press say? What has been the policy of Pakistani civilian leaders and political parties on the subject of Indo-Pak relations in recent times?

Trade between India and China has grown since the grant of mutual MFN treatment in 1984. Over the last six years between 1994-1999, the trade volume has more than doubled from US$ 895 million to US$ 1987.68 million.

(from http://www.indianembassybeijing.org.cn/ES1T3BilateralTrade.htm )

(

Total Indian foreign trade (imports and exports) were of the order $85 billion in 1999.)

-Arun Gupta

No comments! :)

Sasi,

In a labyrinthian way, seen never since the days of `Castle`, the author has asked the most pertinant question. Muslim countries from the philippines to the west asia have been in conflict with nations of different religions. The invasion at Kargill by the pak jihadists is the final proof that the children of TNT have come to positions of influence in pakistan. 150,000 armed jihadists are there at present, ever increasing, and any indian action has to take this into account.

Kashmir is only the symptom of a larger conflict that takes place at jihadic frontiers. The deweaponisation in pakistan is primarily in karachi and will not affect the jihadists. Indias only longterm hope is to arrive at situation like in isreal where the desire of the jihadists can be delivered at his door step. Iraquisation is the only long term option.

An Indian fascist sidewinder writhing through intellectually barren desert with an undulating serpentine prose.

Finally, an Indian who makes no bones about Indian hostility towards Pakistan - a Neo Hindu?

All Pakistanis who read this article should be grateful to the author for awakening them from the hyponosis of ``we are the same people``, ``we are one``. The fact that we are not the same does not, however; mean that a state of continuous hostility should prevail between us.

The author suggests the reasons for the hostility, it`s inate, it`s built into the structure. OK - This is an Indian, insufficiently armed with facts:

1. Mr. Author, the Americans or West were not born yesterday - they know and understand the psychological needs and strategic ambition of the Indian - and they will use it as long as it also serves their purpose. In a recent lecture series, Mr. Henry Kissinger has stated that America was correct to challenge the nation that sought to dominate Asia, but she is wrong to prejudge which nation it was that was seeking to dominate Asia.

2. Indian defense spending has always, compared Dollar for Dollar, been higher than Pakistan`s Can a arguement be made that such levels of spending has earned India proportional dividends?

Compare American investment in China, with American investment in India - Has the dime dropped yet?

3. Just examine who is it that is being encircled (talk is cheap) : Pakistan to the West, A reconstructed Nepalese polity evolving to the North, Pakistani naval exercises, for the first time since 71, in the Bay of Bengal - with (oh no!)Bangladesh navy, Chinese influence and Pakistani weapons in Lanka - Pakistan Navy in Myanmar - soon Chinese Navy in Gwadar

Examine the following: India and China and East Asia will be major consumers of a source of energy that is as significant as the change over from coal to oil - this change is oil to gas -examine where all the cheapest land route gas supplies to Asia will transit?

4. A ceasarian birth? - Again, the Muslims broke our country? Bad Muslim! Our country is 5000 years old? when it was called...? The ISI network in India? The same ISI whose network in Pakistan can not even guarantee a facade of democracy in Pakistan?

Author, I sincerely appreciate your honesty and your pride and your hostility. Peace can only be made with those such as yourself, but only after you get to go around the block a couple of times; has the effect of seasoning reason and tameing pride.

Re: Stuk-up #7 & Klutz #9

How one expresses himself determines his command and depth of his knowledge, and hence determines his credibility. It is not only important what one has to say, but more importantly how he says it. This article is a total waste of disk space and one`s time if one bothers to read it. Shame on Chowk for publishing this infantile writing. I know 3rd graders who can write better than this.

And Klutz, you did pick a pretty good alias for yourself!

Now off to Stuk-up and Klutz Greatest Adventure! Dude!!!

latif chappu # 6

..i noticed the mistaken `an` too..

stuka:

..you put several things in perspective...

sarwari # 4

``However you need to understand a few things before you assume authority to comment on it.``

..such trivialities dont seem to have stopped you from commenting on a variety of things..

``and hope you`d know that there is something called human greatness, that springs out of the need to be authentic over lies, the desire to develop than to disintegrate and that only comes when one is to serve beyond one`s self.``

..such dovishness is a real change, coming from you...

``May your wrinkled skin, heal form marinating in your bile of me-ism.``

..does a lot of bile cause wrinkled skin?...you should know...

Give the author a break guys....I agree with stuka Reply #: 7.We shouldnt look at the authors english rather we should look at what he is saying.And anyway waht does it matter if his english is poor..our first language is urdu (and if the author is an indian) then his first language is hindi so what does it matter if he cant write proper english...its nothing to be embarrassed of or be criticized for...so plzz give the author a chance and criticize his views rather than his command over the english language.

Romair:

A couple of quick comments with no malice intended:

Do you really think China dominates India? How? Economically? Indo-Chinese economic interaction is minimal at best, and therefore a scenario of domination does not exist. Militarily? The last Indo-Chinese flare-up took place in 1986 with regards to the Sumdorong Chu sector. This was followed up by Deng`s visit to India and the establishment of the Joint Working Group. Infact, the resultant lack of threat perception has enabled the Indian Army to move its mountain divisions to Jammu and Kashmir. Culturally?? well yes there is a version of Chinese food available in India, and yes Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee movies are popular, but I would hardly call that dominance. Politically? I would venture to say that Pakistan dominates the political conciousness of India far more than China. Yes we blamed them for nuclear testing, but gimme a break, who else could we blame.

Does India dominate Pakistan? I`d suggest that you ask yourself that question. Isn`t it your foreign minister who goes around telling the whole world that the only reason Pakistan won`t sign the CTBT is coz India doesn`t. And the only reason you guys went for nuclear testing is coz we did. So who seems to have the reactive foreign policy?

Aisha Sarwari:

I guess my background is very different than yours. My childhood and youth was spent on airforce bases across India, and Pakistan was always considered the enemy. Black and White, and no two ways about it. But when I came to the States, and started coming across ``people like you``, that I realised that its okay for our countries to not get along, but as individuals we do and can get along. Our getting on as individuals does not mean that we have to shy away from the fact our two nations have important political differences and our respective national duties may lead us along different paths. You do what you have to do as a Pakistani, and I will do what I have to do as an Indian, and that does not make either of us a bad human being...I think????

Yes Mussharaf may be the embodiment of discipline our dicey politicians will never posess. But thats not saying much is it?? Our Generals are the embodiment of discipline that your politicians will never posess. Why compare apples and oranges? It is a universally known fact that you have to have the soul and a temperament of a right b`stard to be a politician in the first place.

BTW, by your statement, is it it okay for me to infer that you would prefer a military takeover in India, and that our respective Generals do the talking in their disciplined way?

Er... that would be `A` Eulogy not `An`.

Words that start with `vowel sounds` have the infinite article `an` in front of them and not every word that literally starts with a vowel.

Ever heard of `an European vacation`? Or `an Universal appeal`?

I am surprised that the writer is being criticized for his command over the English language. The author is presenting a point of view, not scoring brownie points in an essay competition, and therefore the criticism should be directed at the views being presented.

It is pertinent to look at the question that is being brought up, rather than the solution. As a nation, have we ever taken a long term point of view of what Pakistan means for us in purely pragmatic terms. It is a cliche and a foregone conclusion that Indians and Pakistanis can and do get along on individual levels. So what? Are we to formulate our policy on the basis of humanitarian goodwill or pragmatic national interest? It would be erroneous to assume that Kashmir is the be all and end all problem bedeviling India-Pakistan relations. Can any one of us state with certainity that had Kashmir not been an issue, India and Pakistan would have seperated amicably and developed ``normal`` relationships with each other.

The 64 million dollar question is, `` Where do we go from here?`` As Indians,it is important for us to develop a coherent, viable and independent policy towards Pakistan. Currently, the pendulum seems to swing wildly from the Bhai-Bhai to the Jaani Dushaman mode, and is almost always reactionary rather than proactive. One only has to read the press archives from the days of the Lahore yatra to Kargil to the upcoming Agra summit to test the validity of this statement.

A casual look at interactions on the Chowk board reveal how deep the intellectual divide between India and Pakistan is. We have a common culture, history, language etc., and yet we look at the same history from opposite ends of the mirror. Their victories are our defeats, and vice versa. Their heroes are our villains and vice versa. I am not talking about individual opinions here, which vary across the board, but the general tenor of views most accepted by the establishments of both countries.

It is the ambition of the Indian establishment to be the predominant power of South Asia. We want our writ to run in our part of the world, and as we grow and develop as a nation, our ambitions will expand. On the other hand, Pakistan will not countenance or acknowledge Indian predominance, even if it is benevelont ie. does not threaten the territorial integrity of the current Pakistani nation state.

Therefore, what are we to do about the current as well as future state of affairs between India and Pakistan? It is the duty and moral obligation of the Indian establishment to define this view in terms of supreme national interest, and not on the morality of right and wrong, good or bad. Are the national interests of India and Pakistan a zer-sum game? Would increasing prosperity result in a desire by the Pakistani establishment to mantain the staus quo thereby agreeing to disagree on certain aspects of our historical, geographical and political boundaries. Or would a prosperous Pakistan just be a prosperous enemy, equally determined but better equiped to wage war against our national interest.

If it is the latter scenario that seems to be the more plausible, then it is essential to further examine the author`s paradigm, not in terms of morality and right and wrong but pragmatic achievability. On the other hand, if the Indian establishment decides that a dismembered Pakistan in the shape of an unstable collection of poorly administered nation-states or even a unified but socio-economically weakened Pakistan would be far more harmful to Indian national interest than a prosperous one, than as a bigger nation we need to be benevelont.

This article is pertinent not for the solution it provides, but the question that it throws up. Currently, the Islamic Republic is an enemy. Is it an enemy that can be brought around, or is it`s destruction the only answer? Our national interest lies not in jingoistic statements that lack validity, but in asking ourselves the right question and then formulating a viable long term policy.

Stuka

keerthik:

..a good write-up (forget some of those snipes), though there are several things one could disagree with..

..i think Pokhran was one of our major mistakes and no amount of american or international non-isolation changes that..the act, the time and the country- everything about it was wrong..we had made a radical change from several years of consensual foreign policy and a very vulgar one..

..and the second one now- with this invitation to Musharaff...having thought about all the factors that could have led to it, it seems to me it is vajpayee`s awareness of his own mortality and hence desire to do something significant that has led to this unthought-out proposal (i had this hope that something might have been agreed on via Track 2 with the Bukhari trip and all that but subsequent events dont support such a conclusion)....a country and a general which/ who was planning the Kargil effort while we in india were getting all sentimental about Indo-pak friendship etc. should be allowed to remain in the pit it has dug itself into...

`` Our long term goal must be the dismantling of the present Pakistani state apparatus, into smaller units of self governance. Nothing less than that will ensure our long term business and security interests.``

...i do not think a fissiparous pakistan is in india`s interest, either economic or strategic, but that is where it is headed anyway- without any help from India

`` Trenchantly planned excursions will be unleashed by President Musharraf’s regime in face of growing frustrations and hostilities that the following years inevitably will elicit from the Pakistani public – as all efforts at national restructuring does.The entire existent machinery will, to invoke John Wayne, “itch for action.” History will, inevitably repeat. This is of course, President Musharraf’s trump card; his reverse swing that he would employ if situations get worse for him domestically.``

..you bet..

``(13) Create an appetite for power amidst local “serfs” within Pakistan’s feudal landscape``

...if most pakistanis do not feel the need for any such power and are content with a heritage of political shamocracy and in agreement with a feudally defined and limited ``pakistani nationalism`` (with their intellectuals like ayesha jalal constantly telling them that its about the same as democracy in india)- theres little india can do

``If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck – it must be a duck.``

..true...

..btw, you write pretty well for a 19 yr old (as i gather from your previous articles/interacts)...

Romair #1

Very true, one must seek to simplify intricate political issues... which is not what we find here.

Sasidharan:

There is something about the way you write that I like. However you need to understand a few things before you assume authority to comment on it. Although its not forbidden for one to comment on something that they are not part of...nonetheless You are devoid of ground realities.

I have never felt antagonism against India until I came to the US. All the time I stayed in Pakistan, apart form the cricket matches nothing I saw or indulged in socially kept India as #1 enemy. Maybe the news during the nuclear tests, but even that never got me to realize the relation. I was oblivious to the technicalities behind the deals and hence no negative emotion seeped through as such.

Now, at this point in life, when I come across people like you, I am pushed against the wall to defend my right to my existence. When you are not attacking, you sharpen your knives and look at us from the corner of your eyes, with a subtle smile on your faces. And still expect us to meditate.

I wish you would use whatever you have in that Machiavellian mind of yours, and hope you`d know that there is something called human greatness, that springs out of the need to be authentic over lies, the desire to develop than to disintegrate and that only comes when one is to serve beyond one`s self.

There is noting original you suggested in your long write up. This peace is long overdue, then why prolong war? It costs the people who have little interest beyond their next meal. So let us as intellectuals find creative ways to stop it.

You will never like Musharraf. Because he is the embodiment of discipline your dicey politicians can ever possess. It is clear with such articles who is obsessed and who isn`t.

May your wrinkled skin, heal form marinating in your bile of me-ism.

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari.

This looks like something Aslam Beg (ex-COAS) of Pakistan would write. I always considered him one of the worst writers from amongst the varoius, retired/fired/kicked out senior Pakistan govt. officials who turn to journalism, category of individuals. He attempts to use big words and complicated scenarios to describe simple concepts. While the true merit of a good writer and political commentator should be exactly be the opposite, i.e. he/she should be able to use small words and simple scenarios to describe complicated concepts.

Anyways, I hope India follows the agenda described in this letter, specially

(1) Increased Defense Spending.

(3) Encouragement of anti-Pakistani state factors, ranging from tactic support to secessionists, encirclement of Pakistan geographically with the Central Asian Republics, Iran, Qatar

(7) Increase Naval Presence to controlling a sea-supply isthmus for Pakistan.

(9) Electrification of Indo-Pak border.

(10) Strategic Pro-US, Pro-India media used to change the tone, from indictment of Pakistan it must be the indictment of their Government and not the people.

(11) Neutralization of Pakistan’s efforts to redefine its government.

(12) Systemic extermination of Jehadi networks within India – in a manner a la Waco or Ruby Ridge.

(15) Neutralize the Hurriyat politically and reduce them into irrelevancy.

(17) Strengthen the RAW/IB/Military Intelligence with a coherent external agenda and specialist directors.

Too a great extent, India has been doing the above for decades, and hence despite Nehru`s strong belief that Pakistan would crumble back into India, Pakistan is still around. Had India followed a different non-Pakistani-centric agenda, India may have been able to excercise the kind of control over Pakistan that any country should be able to excercise over a neighboring country 1/6th its size (Pakistan would have completely dominated India by now, had India been 1/6th Pakistan`s size; China is proportional to India, and traditionally as poor as India, yet it completely dominates India).

Of all the things that surprise me about India, the one that ranks near the top is India`s obsession with Pakistan. India is a genuine threat to Pakistan, since it six times the size of Pakistan, with five times the defense budget, with a Hindu Nationalist party running the show. Not the mention the fact that it has already assisted in breaking up Pakistan. Pretty good reasons for Pakistanis to be paranoid about India, if you ask me.

However, why does India fear Pakistan? The ratios between India and Pakistan are similar to the ratios between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. How many Pakistanis would ever be obsessed enough with Sri Lanka to take a Sri Lankan threat seriously (no offense to Sri Lankans).

If Vajpayee follows the advice in this letter, within twenty years or so, India and Pakistan will be back to the pre-90s scenarios, with Pakistanis once again way ahead of India in economic growth rates and infrastructure.

I hope the writer is a kid. Otherwise he/she is no better at political analyses and their explanation, than Aslam Beg.

On the other hand, if this is satire, then it`s not too bad.

I hope this is a joke!

It is a very poorly written article, hence it lacks credibility (thank goodness.) The author has no command of the English language. Seems as if he taught it himself through second rate books (Teach Yourself English) and did not learn it by living in the English speaking environment.

Too long and too boring. I give credit to anyone who bothers to read the entire article without going out of his/her mind with boredom.