Military Action Begins in Afghanistan

Iran fills a void left by Pakistan`s decline

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/008/nation/Iran_fills_a_void_left_by_Pakistan_s_decline+.shtml

By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 1/8/2002

SLAMABAD, Pakistan - Long the regional heavyweight, Pakistan now finds its role in Afghanistan has all but vanished, dealing a blow to the nation`s influence in southwestern Asia and leaving an opening for rivals like Iran, diplomats and officials say.

Iran is seeking to capitalize on the dramatic shift in Pakistan`s fortunes with moves to tie its economy more closely to Afghanistan, according to officials here and in Washington. Pakistan`s longtime rival is opening links to Afghanistan by air and road, the officials said.

``There has been a complete flip-flop on who was the major player, and it has gone from Pakistan to Iran,`` a Western diplomat in Islamabad said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``The Iranians are good about not gloating over that fact.``

Iran`s entry into the void shows both the extensive diplomatic realignment in the region since Sept. 11 and how far Washington has come in its perceptions about Iran, a state it still lists as supporting terrorism. Moreover, diplomats said, it underscores how far Iran itself has come in moderating its policies and playing a more assertive international role.

The decline of Pakistani influence here is remarkable, given the formidable authority Islamabad wielded in the US-backed fight against Soviet troops in the 1980s and the far-reaching support it provided the Taliban during its rise to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Today, Pakistan`s once-extensive intelligence network in Afghanistan has gone the way of its Taliban allies. In Kabul, it faces an Afghan government with a still-vivid memory of Pakistan`s support for the Taliban and consequently an intense distaste for any hint of Pakistani meddling.

Mushahid Hussain, a member of Pakistan`s Parliament and a former government minister, said that in his nation`s pursuit of `` this flawed policy to install a friendly government in Kabul, we promoted favorites, we ditched friends, we suddenly had a romance with the Taliban.

``Of course after Sept. 11, we realized that our pro-Taliban policy was buried in the wreckage of the World Trade Center.``

Iran played a more extensive role than has generally been acknowledged in reaching the agreement in Bonn last month that made possible the provisional government in Kabul, the diplomat said. Tehran has also taken on a higher profile inside the war-shattered country by providing aid, including the funding of teacher salaries in Kabul for the next six months.

In a farther-reaching effort, Tehran has sought to bolster its links by road from Mashhad in western Iran to Herat, an Afghan border city with longstanding links to Iran. Iranian officials have urged the United Nations to make more use of the Iranian port of Chabahar on the Arabian Sea to ship aid into southwestern Afghanistan, and an Iranian diplomat in Islamabad said that direct flights would begin ``in the near future`` from Tehran to Kabul.

``They`re not missing a beat,`` said the Western diplomat.

He and other diplomats agreed that the Iranians appear to be a force for stability in Afghanistan, so US officials have so far raised no objection to their growing role.

``It`s obviously something we`re going to keep an eye on, but it`s not causing alarm to the extent that we`re trying to stop it,`` a State Department official said.

Pakistan`s diplomatic retreat from Afghanistan is occurring as the nation is losing ground in other ways.

For example, Washington is not only cooperating more with Iran, but is also diluting its reliance on Pakistan by forging closer ties to nations in the region such as Uzbekistan and, of course, Afghanistan itself. And the United States is reshaping the situation on the ground by increasing its military presence in the region, with Russia`s blessing.

Pakistan is also stinging - and presumably has lost ground in the region, at least for the time being - as a result of its ongoing military confrontation with India.

Although the Bush administration has pressured both sides to avoid war, the most intense efforts have clearly been made in Islamabad, which has reacted with unprecedented crackdowns on the Islamic militants it had been supporting. The result has been to make Pakistan seem less of a force, particularly compared with its archrival, India, which has offered no apparent concessions.

Some analysts say that next to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan has lost the most as a result of the US campaign.

``Everything seems to have boomeranged against Pakistan, both in the east and in the west,`` said Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan`s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

It is hard to overstate the extent of Pakistan`s loss of influence, especially within Afghanistan.

After the Soviet invasion in 1979, Pakistan had treated its neighbor to the west as its strategic backyard, shepherding the US-funded resistance by the mujahideen that eventually led to a Soviet withdrawal a decade later.

But it was under the Taliban that Pakistan enjoyed its greatest influence.

From 1994 on, Pakistani intelligence fostered the Taliban as a military client, providing help in recruitment and training, logistics, money, weapons, and even military intervention on the Taliban`s behalf.

Hundreds of Pakistani volunteers, many fired by religious fervor, populated the Taliban`s ranks. And the religious militia drew on Pakistan`s religious parties, groups that grew in prominence during the 1990s, for financial and ideological backing. In 1997, Pakistan led the way in granting diplomatic recognition to the Taliban.

``If you look at Afghanistan, the Taliban regime was probably the most friendly to Pakistan in the last 100 years,`` said Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, a Pakistani think tank.

That very success with the Taliban, analysts said, is the reason the retreat has been so sweeping: Pakistan invested so much in the Taliban that it was left with virtually nothing to show once the Taliban disintegrated before the American military onslaught.

Diplomats and former officials said Pakistani policy is in shambles, reeling from the loss of influence in Afghanistan and with no realistic prospect of exerting any.

Pakistan has yet to open an embassy in Kabul, though a Foreign Ministry spokesman said that would occur ``sooner rather than later.``

``Where does Pakistan stand after 25 years of making sacrifices for Afghanistan?`` said Gul. ``Pakistan has no relevance as of now. It has completely pulled out.``

Gul, who supported Pakistan`s policy of fostering the Taliban, blames the US government. Washington broke promises to keep the Northern Alliance from taking power, he said. ``Pakistan was used as a pawn, not as a partner by the Americans.``

But other analysts here put the blame squarely on Pakistan, part of an assessment of policy here that some compare to US discussions over the victory of communists in China in 1949.

``Pakistan`s policy toward Afghanistan was one vast failure,`` said Hussain.

``Judge by the results. Ultimately what did it produce? It didn`t produce stability for the region, for Pakistan, or for Afghanistan.``

For now, Pakistani officials say they will support UN efforts to form a government in Kabul that represents Afghanistan`s mosaic of ethnic and religious groups. That in itself is new, said one senior Pakistani official.

``In the past, there were preferences for certain people and certain parties,`` the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``That has proved to be a disaster.``

But given Pakistan`s ties of language, culture, and ethnicity, the official predicted that its influence would once again grow in Afghanistan.

``Whatever government ultimately emerges in Afghanistan will have to deal with Pakistan,`` he said. ``We are not worried about it.``

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 1/8/2002.

I am very happy that Talibans, their supporters, and all the Arab and non-Arab terrorists are getting their a-sses kicked.

I hope and pray that innocent civilians of Afghanistan remain safe.

Mullah Omar and Bin Laden may have survied the attacks, but I am sure they will pay the price for the atrocities they have committed in the name of Islam.

Musharraf has now taken on the fundamentalist sympathizers within the army head-on. Yesterday he removed some key generals, including the head of the ISI (Mahmud) and replaced them with secularists.

This struggle for Pakistan between the religious fanatics and their sympathizers on the one hand, and those who wish to see Pakistan as a normal country that is dedicated to peace and progress was coming. And now it seems to be here.

This struggle may be quiet, and let us pray bloodless, but it`s outcome is surely even more important than the events now taking place in Afghanistan. Let everyone on chowk who wishes Pakistan well, Pakistanis as well as Indians, or at least wishes to see peace and prosperity in South Asia generally, pray at this time for the success of Gen. Musharaff.

Pervaiz Musharaff is a bold and wise man, and seems to have been sent by God who is surely watching out for the fine people of Pakistan. Let us all unite behind him. Let us pray for the safety of everyone in Pakistan and for a bloodless but clear outcome of this struggle. And let us pray that God protects Musharaff and our beloved Pakistan at this most critical time in our history. May all this lead to a peaceful and progressive South Asia. Amen.

The writing was pretty much on the wall. Chowk Staff woke up a little late. Well, Good Morning!

Personally, I am unable to understand the stupidity of throwing bombs first and then the food. In fact, I abhorred that action. Who is going to get that food? Ants? Ruins? Reptiles? Who? That food should have been given to the relief agencies to feed the refugees. Who is going to touch those boris? This is unbelievable! Would the natives after this bombing trust those food bories and take them for a humanitarian action? This was a very silly step. As I read in the news, apparently, there were very few natives left in the area; therefore the human life did not suffer that much. So, why is the food being wasted in the ruins? I never realized the world has started having a sympathy for the Afghan Terrains, Mountains, Ruins and Keera-Makoras(Little Ants) that much. I am impressed!

War is war - simple! But then, everthing is fair in love and war(as someone said). That slightly weakens the premise of my above argument, but I have concerns and I wanted to voice them.

Newton must be enjoying in his resting place, after learning that he is being quoted right and left all over the world. His 3rd law that comes back again and again in all the discussions, is indeed a very simple but deep eye-opener. Human atrocities do not have a long life. Lawlessness cannot be practiced for an indefinite time. To each atrocity there will be some resistance(+ive or -ive)to curb it. Obviously, what the Talibaans were doing needed to come to an end. And this nightmare, that has started its vicious circle since Sept 11th has woke[an optimist`s view]up many nations, to realize that they are not an isolated entity. What happens in one country has an effect on the other!

In short, war was imminent!

From TFT

Taliban Stand no Chance in the Coming War

Ejaz Haider

The US is set to strike at the Taliban militia in Afghanistan. The questions of what kind of strategy it would use on the ground and whether it would come out successful where other powers before it failed are being hotly debated. Most analysts, not least in Pakistan, think Washington is about to make a mistake. “You can get into Afghanistan, but you can’t get out,” is how the refrain goes. Is that correct? No, I think not.

It is true that Afghanistan has always been a difficult project. It is a rugged country inhabited by hardy, largely nomadic peoples. The writ of the state has never really extended beyond the urban centres and some military garrisons. The state has traditionally interfaced with the tribes in the countryside through chieftains and exercised its power indirectly. Lack of modern infrastructure, the independence of people in the countryside, their nomadic way of life, the rugged topography – all these factors combine to make it difficult for an invader to conquer in the sense of capturing territory and exploiting the gains. The Soviet army found itself besieged in towns and garrisons while the mujahideen roamed the countryside freely, striking at Soviet-Afghan convoys at will.

What would save the US from the same fate? Firstly, the last time round the Afghans fought in a bipolar world order. It was a massive covert operation involving the diplomatic, intelligence and military efforts of a host of state actors, some of them the richest in the world. The Soviet Union, as is now known, wanted to get out even as it had walked into Afghanistan. It was only through the efforts of the United States that it could not do so. Its military presence, therefore, was no match to the firepower and resources that the US plans to bring in and around Afghanistan this time.

Secondly, the PDPA government to which the Soviets extended their support was a hugely unpopular government. The countryside rose in revolt against it and the sentiment was shared by the majority of the population, including the Pushtoon and the other ethnic minorities.

Thirdly, since the PDPA government failed comprehensively to make a political breakthrough, the Soviets soon ran out of military options, remaining content with carrying out a holding operation. This was also owed to the fact that given the topography and the traditional patterns of social behavior, in the absence of any political breakthrough, the Soviet army could hold on to nothing more than the garrisons it was already occupying. The mujahideen relentlessly attacked its convoys and patrols in the countryside. With years passing by and attrition setting in, the morale of the Soviet troops sank so low that hundreds of them began to sell their weapons and equipment to the mujahideen and got involved in a massive smuggling operation.

That situation does not obtain any more. The United States is planning the operation carefully. Far from using massive force, it is likely to identify its targets and launch focussed strikes for maximum effect. The Soviet troops walked into Afghanistan and rammed right into a national consensus against the dispensation that they had come to support and sustain. Washington is moving in to rid the country of a militia that may not be hugely popular even among the Pushtoon tribes because of its various policies. And all its non-military efforts are geared towards sending out that signal.

There are four categories of actors in today’s Afghanistan: the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, the Afghan Diaspora and the Afghan refugees. The Taliban comprise the original madrassah-based students, the Pushtoon PDPA elements from the Khalq faction, the turncoat field commanders of the groups that retreated in the face of Taliban onslaught and the non-Afghan elements or the guest militants. Within the Taliban the cleavage runs along tribal and moderates/hardliners lines.

The Northern Alliance is a loose conglomeration of former mujahideen commanders and their remnant troops. Primarily Uzbek, Tajik and Hazara, it also has Pushtoon elements from Hezb (Hekmatyar) and Ittehad-e-Islami (Sayyaf) parties. Most of these parties were discredited by 1994 when the Taliban emerged on the scene. The feuding among these parties allowed local commanders to run their fiefdoms. In short, they comprehensively failed to provide an alternative after the departure of the PDPA government. This scenario contributed in no little degree to the initial Taliban successes. However, the civil war since then, the inability of the Taliban to provide a better alternative despite general peace under areas controlled by the militia, the strict enforcement of Shariah laws and the Taliban’s treatment of women and children may have worked in favor of some elements of the Alliance. The civil war has also done much to broaden the Pushtoon-non-Pushtoon divide.

The Afghan diaspora includes varied strands: royalists, intellectuals, technocrats, neutral Afghans and even women groups like the Revolutionary Afghan Women Association (RAWA). Some of them like the royalists have a vested interest in getting back into the driver’s seat but most others have been floating around, settled in Pakistan and other parts of the world, watching the events unfold in their native country with horror but unable to do much more than watch. They could play a crucial role now.

Finally, there are the Afghan refugees. Throughout the war with the Soviet Union, this population provided manpower to mujahideen groups. But it also included a huge majority of non-combatants, including women, old people and children. This is a mixed lot, but the majority wants peace and is sick of the internecine civil war. On the whole they are likely to welcome any effort that could bring back a modicum of peace and normalcy to Afghanistan.

It is in the backdrop of this Afghanistan that the US strikes will take place. The US strategy is already evolving along three identifiable lines. Preparing for the military strikes; putting in place a broad-based government and following it up with efforts to reconstruct that country and depriving the Taliban of any sanctuaries for a long guerilla war by bringing the regional actors, most importantly Pakistan, onboard.

Militarily, the US will keep the strikes focussed by identifying specific targets to avoid collateral damage. Even the Northern Alliance, which has extended support to Washington, has warned against any massive, large-scale use of force. That in any case seems unlikely given the contours of the US strategy. Politically, the US is attempting to isolate the Taliban by trying to get as many Afghans involved in the post-Taliban political process as it can. This strategy is also important in terms of giving greater legitimacy to any post-Taliban dispensation. The 3-day meeting of opposition groups in Rome seems to have resulted in a formula for a transitional set-up through a 120-member supreme council. One Northern Alliance member has been reported as saying that the council would include elements from the Taliban. This is good thinking and would appeal to the moderates within the militia. The signal is also meant to allay Islamabad’s fears that any non-Taliban arrangement might be hostile to Pakistan.

In fact, if the US is serious in its efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan, wean it away from the self-destructive mode in which it has gone, flush out radical elements and reconstruct it, it will need Pakistan. Any attempt therefore to reduce Pakistan’s significance would be detrimental to the long-term US plan. It appears that Washington realises that.

The US strategy will rely on efforts to secure the major urban centres, bring in elements opposed to the Taliban to set up a transitional government, flush out the radical elements from their hideouts and ensure that armed resistance from the Taliban would be short and not result in too many casualties. Washington seems to hope that the cohesion of the Taliban troops will not last long and the moderates and those commanders who have stayed with the Taliban so far for reasons other than conviction would ditch the militia when the crunch comes. The Taliban, of course, will rely on retaining and sustaining their cohesion. However, with states around Afghanistan supporting hostile action against the militia even if not directly participating in combat will make it increasingly difficult for the Taliban to sustain guerilla operations against the invading army.

Pakistan kept the covert war going and it helped again to sustain the Taliban. That situation has changed now. The Central Asian Republics, notably Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, have been anti-Taliban for a long time. Special forces from the US and the UK are already present in the two states and these military contacts are neither sudden nor new. The CARs made their first military contacts with the US in 1994-95 under NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. Under PfP, the CARs with the exception of Turkmenistan set up the Central Asian battalion (Centrasbat). This battalion has been exercising with the US troops since 1995 every year with breaks in 1996 and 1999. Information from the US reveals that in September 1997, 800 participants from Centrasbat, US, Turkey and Russia, including 500 US paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division flew directly from the US to drop-sites in Uzbekistan in what has been described as the “longest non-stop aerial deployment in U.S. history”.

Information indicates that the US military increased its outreach to the area this year and the new CentCom commander, General Tommy Franks, arrived in the area for an extensive trip that included Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Washington has also made efforts to engage Turkmenistan, which has a tendency of remaining neutral and is the only Central Asian Republic with an unguarded border with Afghanistan. Clearly, the US troops are not likely to face problems of inter-operability, know the militaries in the area and the topography and have been using the area to also do physical reconnaissance — through contacts with the Northern Alliance — and gather human and signal intelligence. Information has also come out on previous attempts by the US to capture or kill bin Ladin, including through use of Pakistan army commandos.

Given these facts it seems that the Taliban will have a very limited ability to sustain operations against the US troops. This is especially so, since their only bet is guerilla warfare. However, difficulties could arise for the US in other areas, like making the next dispensation work, besides the issue of Washington’s military presence. But that is a different story.

Tahmed,#2

why did Musharraf have to wait till now? He could have, if he wanted to do so, have done it in 1998,1999,2000 or others before that. No, it is inconvinient to have these people around now - that is why it is being done. There is some milage to be gained in doing so and this imilage is not that the interests of nation of pakistan are paramount, but the interests of the elite that are paramount. If the nations interests were/are paramount than this would have been done long time back.

The heeng-oozers (thats to sarwari for this term)

are suffering from the actions of these people, so why put them out int the cold, now! Or is it that the heeng-oozers have also got to Musharraf.

I wish for a peaceful south asia, a south asia where we can solve our problems without the intervention of the europeans or their descendents. But some how, whistling in the wind, *issing in the wind etc come to mind when I think of south asian.

The monster let loose since the 80s has become to big, and is autonomous, and will continue its current course. Only time will cool it down, so till then all one can do in hunker down and face it teh consequences.

tahmed321,

Dear tahmed,

Amen.

nameless, your concerns are not without merit. There is clear evidence that after grabbing power Musharraf dramtically ratcheted up Pakistan`s traditional (certainly since early 1980s) actions in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. Thus for all his personal liberalism, he was rapidly dragging Pakistan into a tunnel at the end of which there was no light.

However, he now has an unprecedented opportunity, even if this opportunity was forced upon him, to transform Pakistan, and by implication, the entire South Asian region. Despite my deep distrust of Musharraf as a person, I have a small hope that he might genuinely take this historic opportunity. Why might he do so now when he had no such intentions, other than at the silliest of rhetoricals level, until September 10th? Because now such a policy may have far greater nett positive payoffs for both him and Pakistan than was the case until September 10th. Musharraf is a smart man. I am sure he sees his options very clearly.

Pro-Taliban demonstrations took place in Quetta, Pewhawar, and Karachi... A small crowd also gathered in Islamabad.. They were mostly kids from the madarssahs. They attacked public and private property.

Leaders of JUI and JI are openly calling for the destruction of Pakistan.

CNBC/Heraldo Rivera.

I watched the newsconference that Mr.Musharraf put on. He did farely well. I only wish Pakistan had allowed Indian journalists to cover the event.

Because there were some lines thrown by people from arabic and pakistani press that touched the Kashmir issue. However, there were no indian reporters to ask or rebut questions or feedback.

Having said that, Jeraldo Rivera came on Oct 5 on CNBC and he had two experts on intelligence. They were talking about trusting Pakistani intelligence etc. At this point, one of the experts mentioned that when US was about to blacklist some of the NGO charities suspected of funnlling money to OBL and other groups, they had withdraw one NGO because at the last minute they found out that the charity`s chairman was none other than Mr.Musharraf.

So there is more than that meets the eye. At one point, there was a question from a reporter(dawn,i think) who said if new financial aid would be distributed to the population vs spent only on generals. Musharraf was visibly upset but he seems to suggest that in the past everyone had benefited from money scams.

Thanks.

WOW ....what a coincidence that these strikes on Afghanistan have coincided with Pakistans ``freedom struggle`` against the oppressive army regime and puppet govt of Kafiristan (Rest of the Kafir world) . hmmmmm.....all these protests everywhere and Pakistani cops and army cracking down (committing attrocities and not letting them ``self determine``) on them forcefully. Is this NOT a Freedom struggle. Jihad I say.

Also ``where is the proof`` that the US attacked Afghanistan. All the planes came from Pakistani air-space......
``where is the proof`` that US or any other Kafir state has attacked. US is so far away. Is it not ?

You know after many many thoughts I have realised this Parvez Musharraf is TRUE enemy of Islam.

He is to this day supporting my fellow Jihadis to ``self-determinate`` anywhere in India. But I, a Pakistani jihadi, cannot ``self-determinate`` in Pakistan. They have imprisoned our leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman and are shooting at our demonstrations. Hai Allah, my fellow Jihadis in Kashmir tell me at least Indian police and army let us hold demonstrations. But this guy is working straight for CIA (not local RAW) and won`t let us ``self-determinate`` even in our own homes. He is trying to forcefully stop our ``freedom struggle``. We have to ``liberate`` Pakistan and Islam from the cluthes of the Satan US. Musharraf and his regime are nothing but puppet govt for US, India and Israel.

Mr. Musharraf was masterful in his press conference. May Allah keep him and make his hand strong, and may he have mercy upon the Pakistani nation and Afghan brethren. Allah took mercy upon us by sending us Mr. Musharraf. His detractors call him, ``Dictator`` - When did Pakistan see more openness? When did Pakistan see a more concerted attack on corruption? When did Pakistan ever be more honest about the ills that ravage her? When did Pakistan have a leader, more courageous? more open to the world, more caring for the long term interest of Pakistan? Who can say that they do not see God`s mercy upon us?

If only Pakistan would absorb the Afghan refugee and to have the political will to grant them Pakistani citizenship.

I hope very much that leaders and peoples will recognize the truth in Mr. Musharraf`s description of the problem of terrorism and his presciption.

fairdinkum: Watching demonstrations on CNN or MSNBC here, it seems quite obvious that most of the participants are Pushtoons. For many of them, it may be religious but for many others it is ethnic brotherhood. They see it as squeeze upon Pashtuns. There may be some truth to it because the future of Afghanistan will not be so lopsided in favor of Pushtoons in future. Pakistan is also trying to side with Pashtun now more than Islamic brotherhood of the past.

What many are stating as smart moves by Musharraf is not true. This was the only option, albeit delayed one. Pakistan should have been more vigorous against Taliban and terrorism because it was the backbone of several years of drug, gun and sectarian culture.

It is hardly noticed that most vocal fundamentalist mullahs actually practice their mullocracy in non-ethnic environment. Mullah Shamzai is Pushtoon and Maulana Azhar, an east Punjabi mohajir from Bahawalpur but both are practicing mullocracy in Karachi. Similarly Haq Nawaz Jhangvi and Maulana Azam Tariq of SSP are east Punjabi mohajirs in Jhang. Similarly many other famous mullahs in Karachi are Punjabis and mohajirs in Punjabi cities. These mullahs are no match for MQM in Karachi and PPP or PML in Punjab who are of same ethnic group as most people.

In Islamabad, a dead sufi, Bari Imam and hamidm`s favorite drink brings out lot more people than the current anti-America chanting, mostly Pushtoon crowd. In many ways, it looks a Pushtoon versus non-Pushtoon thing right now. Adding Kashmir to Afghan poutpouri does bring out Punjabi and mohajir islamists in addition to usual Pushtoons. Sindhis and Balochis are generally not much interested in either of these two issues. Unlike bazaaris, Pushtoons can not survive daily demonstrations because most of them have to work hard daily to make ends meet.

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

RE: RanaRansher

It is a typical abominable practice that a spineless looser, who happens to be an Indian in this case, pretends as a Pakistani/Muslim by taking on a Muslim name and utter anti-pakistani/anti-Muslim gibberish.

Fortunately, I do have many close Indian/Hindu friends who yearn for peace and friendship among Indians as Pakistanis just like many others. Therefore, I am sure that you don’t represent a vast majority of people from India. Luckily, I can comprehend that there exist a few rotten apples among many good ones, just like there are a few a bad ones among us such as those who committed recent atrocities in the US.

I hope therefore that you take advantage of this technology that enables you to share your thoughts and come forth with something educated and useful, rather than trying to land cheap blows below the belt. Be bold and smart, for otherwise, you are only giving a bad name to those who are not like you!