The Significant Unit of War

Re ylh #: 186

[You have never quoted anything from any book to shut me up. Dont flatter yourself. As everyone saw, you quoted selectively from the Book `Great divide` while we were talking about Jinnah (on an article about the man)... a man who that book holds in greatest esteem. You started posting irrelevant quotes from the same book, which in no way proved any of your arguments albeit in your own twisted sense of reality. Sadly I lost the book, before I could counter your false claims.]

False claims? What false claims? You lost the book? How did that happen? In that case, why didn`t you go to some public library and get a copy?

The fact is Hodson makes it very clear that Jinnah planted Shah Nawaz Bhutto as the Dewan of Junagadh, and he was going to use Junagadh as a pawn to see which of the two Princely states, Hyderabad or Kashmir, he could get based on how India treated Junagadh: meaning, if Muslim-ruled Hindu state of Junagadh can join Pakistan, so can Hyderabad; if instead it had to join India, then so should Kashmir join Pakistan. If all of you Pakistanis felt that Kashmir was rightfully yours, why the need for this elaborate drama and why the need to send in the Pathan tribesmen to conquer Kashmir?

[The book by H V Hodson in the final analysis is the strongest possible evidence in Pakistan`s case on Kashmir.]

Not at all. That is why you refuse to summarize the three chapters on Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir.

[You and your other alias Harimau have tried to quote him selectively to prove something that is a complete travesty of the facts.]

I don`t need aliases. The other gentleman(?) would have called you a blathering idiot and a few choice maa-ki-gaalis which, if you notice, I refrain from using.

[TEXT of the Plebiscite says:

``When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned``

700, 000 is a minimum?]

Was there 700,000 in 1985? No. Was there 700,000 in 1947? No. Was there 700,000 in 1965? No.

So ask yourself what caused the increase in troop strength.

Since the Security Council resolution says ``the strength needed to maintain public order`` or words to that effect, and since 700,000 is NOT enough to maintain peace, you should have no complaints if India sends 2 million men to police the territory.

Your selective quotes deleted. Here is the complete text of the last Security Council Resolution:

[Begin]

UN Resolution 13 August 1948

*RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the Representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the coercion of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation.

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal

PART I

CEASE-FIRE ORDER

A.The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease- fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

B.The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals ``forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).

C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

D.In its discretions and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

E.The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favorable to the promotion of further negotiations.

PART II

TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A.(l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B.(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.

C.(1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

*The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.

Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

[End]

Part II (A) (1) says Pakistan agrees to withdraw its armed forces. Get Musharraf to do that first before you ask for implementation of other steps.

By the way, you also quote the book ``The Sole Spokesman`` to ``prove`` that Jinnah was using the demand for Pakistan only to get more safeguards for Muslims in a United India and that Partition was forced upon him by the Congress and the Gandhi-Nehru clique. On the other hand, your other major authority on Pakistan and Jinnah, Prof. Stanley Wolpert, said in his speech in Karachi that Jinnah was determined to create a Muslim homeland and the demand for Pakistan was NOT a bargaining chip. (Mahim Maher reported on his speech in last Friday`s `The Friday Times` and somebody posted the article in its entirety on Chowk.) So tell me, my young friend, who is right - Ayesha Jalal or Stanley Wolpert?

No matter how much you attempt to whitewash Jinnah, all his quirkiness is there for everyone to see. That wonderful Lincoln Inn-trained barrister got his arguments for Partition of India turned against him so that he got a partitioned Punjab and Bengal and very little of Assam. The great constitutionalist, as Wolpert called him in his Karachi speech, said that his Prime Minister will take orders from him though he was only the constitutional head of government as Governor General. The man you all claim to be the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity claimed Muslims are a separate nation unable to live with Hindus. And that crap about, “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three.” that you always quote: let me remind you once again that it was done in Mongolia in 1924 by Sukhe Bator. And that country has held together better than Pakistan. So much for Jinnah.

Musharraf has given the savage police of Karachi something to devour. I can`t help fantasize about how each mullah will be scrutinized and interrogated about what his activities are. They should now focus their energy on this maintaining the joke that even donkeys say they are horses at the police station, I wish all mullahs sloganize their disassociation with religiosity.

Why did we wait so long to lay this down? Now that we have I hope our neighbors mind their own business.

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

`Gareeb no koi nahi`

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

There are many unable to discern the difference between true religion and religiosity - a common failing. The jihadis` belief is that to go to war for the misguided version of the religion with which they have been imbued gives them a one-way ticket directly up to paradise.

The Hindus believe `gunah kar, Ganga naha, pavitre ho`, loosely translated as `sin as you will, bathe in the Ganga, and all your sins are washed away`. Faith, and particularly that of the bigot, more often than not combats and defeats common sense.

Take the staged attack upon the Indian parliament on December 13 during which not one furl of one dhoti of one Indian legislator was unfurled, during which not one brick was dislodged from one pillar. As wrote Karachi`s young Kamila Shamsie in The Guardian of January 2, ``. . . . gunmen miraculously got through security checks, in a time of heightened alerts, and attempted to destroy the Indian parliament. In a further miracle, none of the ministers were hurt and the terrorists were killed.

The Indian government refused to show the faces of the terrorists to reporters, insisted that the terrorists were part of two groups fighting for the liberation of Kashmir (though that is not quite how the Indians phrased it), and that the attack was planned in training camps in Pakistan and involved the collusion of Pakistan`s intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistan offered a joint inquiry into the affair, and India refused.``

This odd incident is in the mould of the hijacking of the Indian Airlines Fokker Friendship, the Ganga, named after the famed river. The staged hijacking of 1971 was not that long ago and there are many of us still around who remember it well. Then, as now, India banned the flight of all Pakistani aircraft over its territories.

The sad Chief Justice of Pakistan, Hamoodur Rahman, who hailed from East Bengal, was an even sadder man after hearing all the evidence whilst presiding over his commission investigating the East Pakistan tragedy.

On the Ganga hijacking he wrote in his judicious report of 1972: ``On the 30th of January 1971, the Indian authorities staged the hijacking of one of their planes to Lahore, and its subsequent destruction by the hijackers who have been found to be Indian agents as a result of a judicial inquiry held by a Judge of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court. This incident was seized upon by the Indian government to ban flights of Pakistan`s civil aircraft in order to increase difficulties and tensions between the two wings of Pakistan at a critical juncture in the political and constitutional negotiations between the Pakistan government and the leadership of the Awami League in East Pakistan.``

G.W. Chaudhry, another good man of East Bengal, in his book, The Last Days of United Pakistan` (published 1974), described it thus: ``. . India had banned all flights of Pakistani planes between East and West Pakistan as of February, 1971 because of an alleged hijacking of an Indian plane by `Pakistanis` at Lahore ... A judicial inquiry conducted subsequently by the Pakistan government revealed that the hijackers were Indian agents from the Indian-occupied part of Kashmir. Mujib indirectly endorsed the Indian action by terming it as `a conspiracy by the Pakistan government to postpone the transfer of power`.``

Later, Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose in their book War and Secession had it that ``Bhutto . . . . was able fortuitously to dramatize his policy of confrontation with India and to encourage a perception in the west of Mujib`s untrustworthiness with respect to their neighbour because of the `Ganga incident` in which an Indian Airline flight from Srinagar to Jammu was hijacked by two young Kashmiri `freedom fighters` on 30 January 1971 and forced to land at Lahore. Bhutto visited the hijackers, applauded their heroism, and supported their request for asylum.

``He declared that this heroic action was a sign that no power on earth could stop the Kashmiri struggle and the PPP would contact the Kashmiri National Liberation Front to offer its cooperation and assistance which would also be given to the hijackers. Mujib, in contrast, expressed his abhorrence of the hijacking and urged the government to `take effective measures` to prevent interested quarters from exploiting the situation for their nefarious ends.``

B.M. Sinha in his book The Samba Spy Case has dwelt in detail on the Ganga hijacking by Hashim Qureshi and his cousin Ashraf Qureshi which started a chain of political events leading to the dismemberment of Pakistan. His cloak and dagger tale has it that as a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Liberation Front (JKDLF) Qureshi had been sent to Pakistan by the Indian intelligence agencies to collect information on Maqbool Butt and other top leaders of the front.

While in Azad Kashmir he betrayed the Indians and defected to the Pakistani intelligence. Whilst crossing back over the LoC from Azad Kashmir he was arrested by the Indians, and during his interrogation disclosed that he had been trained in Pakistan to hijack an Indian plane piloted by Rajiv Gandhi. He was won over by the Indians, given a bogus official appointment as a sub-inspector of the Border Security Force and groomed for an Indian-planned hijacking. The aim was to check General Yahya Khan`s attempts to assemble troops in East Pakistan. A landing in Lahore would provoke Pakistan and give India the excuse to ban all overflight facilities by Pakistan planes.

Qureshi`s story to the Pakistanis, as instructed, was to be that he was a member of Maqbool Bhat`s JKDLF, and had hijacked the plane to secure the release of 36 `freedom fighters` held in Indian jails. He was told not to hand over the Ganga to the Pakistanis unless Bhutto came to see him, as Bhutto`s involvement would lend credence to the propaganda that the hijacking had been planned by Pakistan. After meeting him, he would then blow up the plane. All went according to plan.

Hashim Qureshi surrendered to the Pakistan authorities and was held in jail here, tried, and acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan after being hailed as a courageous `freedom fighter` and released in 1982. He subsequently denied Sinha`s account. He claims that he has always worked for Shaheed Mohammed Maqbool Butt (executed at Tihar jail in New Delhi) and for an independent Jammu and Kashmir, and that until his dying day he will work for an independent Kashmir. He has also claimed that the charges brought against him in the Pakistani courts were part of a conspiracy by the Pakistan government against the movement for an independent Kashmir.

Now to Ground Zero, 9/11. Fortunately for us, though there are too many who think otherwise, we have a steady hand at our helm, the hand of a man with sound reflexes. President General Pervez Musharraf is not a politician by profession. He is so far clean. Time Magazine (January 14) has this to say of the two leaders of India and Pakistan: ``On the surface, a long list of differences separate Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. One is devoted to Hindu nationalism, the other to a strong Muslim nation. One governs the world`s most populous democracy, the other rules by dictat. India`s leader is 20 years older and the frail veteran of 47 years in politics; Pakistan`s is a fit career soldier whose political life began just two years ago in a military coup. Vajpayee is a master orator given to flights of poetry; Musharraf is a plain spoken man with a blunt forthright style. The first has succeeded adroitly sidestepping conflict and finessing confrontation, the second by cutting straight to the core of the problem.``

So, an excuse has to be sought by the Indians. They opened the usual book and contrived December 13. The Tehelka website on January 11 carried an article by Shahid Scheik. In a paragraph headed `Change of government in Pakistan` he writes: ``This is India`s top priority. Pakistan`s favourably changed international circumstances are due not to established institutional policy but only to the direction taken by the General President Pervez Musharraf, who has done more in two years than all his predecessors in two decades to take Pakistani society on the path to moderation. India has now set impossible conditions to make it difficult for General Musharraf to continue with what he is already doing, i.e. taking action against internal militant groups.

``A change of government would suit India because Pakistani political governments need and use the armed militants as balancing factors in internal politics and, if they did not have unstinted backing from the army, would be unable to act against extremists. Ideologically different governments would of course attempt to protect the extremist groups. Neither would have the support of the international coalition, opening the country to a new set of security and economic vulnerabilities.``

Warlike noises escalate from India. If India forces a war, the sufferers will be the vast majority of the hopelessly poor of the two countries. As the saying goes, `Gareeb no koi nahi`.

Romair

The fighters you refer to are part of a package that includes a variety of missiles, including cruise and several radar systems designed to counter low and mid level infilration. A american analyst has suggested that both have suprises up there sleeves, more so Pakistan.

But, either way, Thank God, the opportunity for their deployment may not arise.

Re: Tvarad

``...I have actually hard the Maleeha Lodi say on a talk show that Pakistan cannot pursue development because India is occupying Kashmir...``

Nah -- you didn`t hear her say that, did you?

Dost Mittar

Patience Dost - One sees only what one is looking at. The questions of Reason and Revelation and ideas to represent reality do not require brevity - they require interest and intellectual honesty. We can`t all be interested in the same thing at the same time, but a time will come.

If Pres. Musharraf is sincere in his intentions of stopping the cycle of violence in Kashmir and is capable of following through on them, it is only the start of the long road to peace in Kashmir. If the violence does indeed recede, India will have to come through on its part of the implicit deal. First of all, to give the Kashmiris the peace, security and political freedoms which are their right. For a long time we have justified the suppression of the Kashmiris on the grounds that our hand was forced by the covert war launched against us. If the violence stops, this must stop too. WE have to face the situation, good or bad as it may be. We cannot hide from the truth anymore, whatever that might be. I look forward to a statement from the Indian govt. outlining what its plans are for the future regarding bettering the lot of our brethren there.

Secondly we have to talk to Pakistan. The reality remains that they are our neighbours, and however much we dispute it, they think they have a claim on Kashmir. Common sense demands that we work things out between us. None of us can afford the permanent hatred of the other, nor should we remain satisfied with it even if we could afford it. The cycle of distrust and anger has to be ended, and India being the stronger party in this case, it has to be generous and make the first move. There is lots to forgive and hopefully forget on both sides, but I sincerely pray that actions taken today might put all of South Asia on the road to peace and prosperity.

-narain

narain,

[...Musharraf has clearly outlined his intentions of stopping support to the violence in Kashmir...]

er...narain saheb, where exactly did he use the word `violence` in relation to kashmir? i believe he said `pakistani soil` would not be used for `terrorism`. but then pakistan has never supported `terrorism` ever anyway. has it? in fact, pakistan itself has been a victim of terrorism for the past 50 years. right? further, what is going on in kashmir is not `terrorism` but `freedom struggle`. no? and is pok considered `pakistani soil` in rhetorics? i believe it is `azad kashmir` and other such fancy names.

so kashmir will continue to run in the bloods of pakistanis...diplomatic, political and moral support would continue...

where does that leave us? the only positive thing for india, if musharraf`s internal policies come to fruition, could be that the bottomless jehad factories may slowly reduce production. this would be the only `long term` benefit to india.

the more things change the more they stay the same...

Now that Pres. Musharraf has clearly outlined his intentions of stopping support to the violence in Kashmir, and assuming that he is sincere about them and is capable of following them through, it is India`s turn to come through on its implicit part of the bargain. For years we have justified suppression in Kashmir on the basis that it was an overt war thrust on us. Now hopefully that argument will be rendered infeasible. I sincerely pray that our govt. uses this opportunity to highlight its plans on improving the situation in Kashmir: on giving the people there the peace which we owe them, and all the rights and political discussions which are their dues. May this herald the return of peace and sanity to the subcontinent!

-narain

Prem:

``I loved Musharraf`s speach. It was wonderful. ``

I hate to put a dampner on your enthusiasm, but what exactly changed that the ``Freedom Fighters`` of LAST WEEK`S SAARC summit became ``terrorists`` last night?

I agree that Mussharaf is the best thing that happened to Pakistan since sliced bread, but, um, where does that leave us.

Don`t get me wrong, as a secular person, I am happy for secular Pakistanis because I assume they like the direction in which their country is being led. I don`t expeect the Urstruly types to be delirious with joy, and that`s fine by me.

What about India though? Couldn`t the same things be said in Agra or Kathmandu? Did it have to take the ammasing of the Indian Army and the pure, unadulterated threat of war to breathe sense into Mussharaf? If yes, what lessons are we supposed to draw from this?

Twelve years of telling Pakistan, 12 years of pretending that a proxy war was not being fought, we were taught the difference between ``jehadis`` and ``terrorists``, between ``freedom fighters`` and ``terrorists``, and last night our friends across the border said that ``terrorism`` that never really did exist in the first place, will now no longer be tolerated? Can you explain the contradictions I see.

I have an open and enquiring mind, but I am finding it hard to reconcile last night`s speech with the ground reality as well as the contradictions in the speech itself.

Just received some interesting news from an ex-military colleague. Don`t know if it is true or not. There have been rumors and articles in the Pakistani press, that China just made a gigantic shipment of fighter aircraft to Pakistan. The writer who broke open this information stated the shipment to be so huge that it adjusted the aircraf balance of power in this conflict. I found that hard to believe. Pakistan originally denied it, and then I think both China and Pakistan stated it was part of a routine shipment.

Currenly, Pakistan has 340 combat aircraft, and India has around 750. My friend informed me that China sent 100 F-7 (newest versions of Mig-21s with western avionics) aircraft in this recent shipment. They came in assembly kits in ships to Karachi and some were flown over. If this is true, then one has to say the balance has been greatly readjusted. 440 to 750 (out of these 750, more than 1/3rd are old Mig-21s) now. This is a safe ratio to defend Pakistan`s airspace. The only advantage India has now is that it possesses BVR (beyond visual range) missiles, which Pakistan doesn`t. But Pakistan has certain other advantages, primarily the fact that Pakistan is only interested in defending, and not attacking.

If the number of 100 is accurate, then Pakistan has already benefited from the current Indian threats.

Indians have shown a lot of concern about religious extremism in Pakistan. This is appreciated, assuming the concern is genuine. I think Pakistan is close to getting it licked. Another year or two. As I had stated many times earliers, religious extremist groups in Pakistan are more bark than bite, and they would crumble when their bluff was called. No one came out on the streets to support them.

Now I think Indians should worry about India, and what is happening there. To ensure I am not accused of being anti-India, I will just quote from Indian websites. Following is the first line on the BJP official website at www.bjp.org:

``Bharatiya Janata Party is today the most prominent member of the family of organisations known as the ``Sangh Parivar``.`` (K.R. Malkani (Vice-President of BJP)

Following is from the first page of the RSS website at www.rss.org:

``The mission of the R.S.S. is to unite and rejuvenate our nation on the sound foundation of Dharma. This mission can be achieved by a strong and united Hindu society. Therefore the R.S.S. has undertaken the task of uniting the Hindus. Rejuvenation of the Hindu nation is in the interest of the whole humanity.``

And the following is from an interesting group called the Saffron Tigers at http://www.hinduunity.org/saffrontigers/

``Saffron Tigers is a Hindu organization of Young, educated, fearless and robust Hindu students who are dedicated to the cause of the Hindu- Rashtra.We have pledged to die for the cause of Hindu-Rashtra and to liberate our mother from the clutches of dirty Muslims and Indian politicians.``

But even more interesting is that at the bottom of the Saffron Tigers` homepage, under the heading of, ``Great Hinduvta Sites`` is www.rss.org.

So the BJP and the Saffron Tigers are part and parcel of the same RSS, according to their own admission. The three above mentioned groups and their leaderships have placed South Asia one click away from a nuclear war. I would suggest Indians start worrying about these groups more than they are concerned about Pakistan.

Amit/Prem: Glad you liked Musharaff`s speech. Let`s hope the folks in Delhi see it the same way and we avoid a potentially ``Doomsday War`` as would surely happen given the nuclear arsenals. I think the rest of the world deserves credit for pushing Musharaff into doing what should have been done a long time ago - banning these criminal Lashkars.

as an aside to all the tu-tu-main-main (but what would chowk be w/o it?:)), a really nice article...

From the fridaytimes.com

Apple pie and chai

Tom Brown

After a decade in Pakistan, an American couple bids a

fond farewell

In the summer of 1983, a professor

at Kansas State University looked kindly on me, a mediocre student of Cultural Anthropology. He pulled some strings and got me a scholarship to study Urdu in Lahore for a school year.

I knew that my engagement might not last for what looked to be an exciting year and so I immediately got married and my new wife and I came to Lahore. There, I was taught Urdu by some wonderful Pakistanis and my young and very innocent wife got to be alone (and preyed upon) in super libidinal Lahore. We learned a lot, struggled with reconciling our western naivete with what can be a pretty earthy culture; we grew to really like it in Pakistan.

It took us six years to return, but we never forgot piquant old Pakistan. A year in Africa did not hold a candle and when a chance arose, I came back and eventually we (by 1992 with 2 kids) came to Quetta to work with an NGO doing relief and rehabilitation work in Afghanistan. We loved the desert and the people and stayed in Quetta till 1997. We would take back roads around police checkposts and then out into the desert mountains for picnics and to visit people on their farms and orchards.

We worked and travelled in Afghanistan through the 1990s doing a variety of things of which the most entertaining was arguing with opium farmers about adopting alternative crops. One spring at poppy flowering, I took my youngest son and my wife on what we now remember as the Brown’s poppy tour of 1997, all over north Helmand province, spreading the word among farmers that there are other things they can grow that can make them more money, or at least match opium. What a blast!

The mercantile nature of the opium farmers was contagious. My ideas for agricultural development became too enterprising to be contained by the agendas that govern the behaviour and strategies of international NGOs. So I approached the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme in Gilgit to see if they would like to experiment with something a little more drastic than the tired old routine of training farmers and trying to establish linkages with the shark tank that passes for a market in this country.

They did and so we started a vegetable seed company. AKRSP’s North Seeds now produces vegetable seed with farmers in the Northern Areas and Chitral and sells the seed from outlets in Gujranwala and Hyderabad. It is a struggle and no doubt the responsibility for its many flaws lies at my feet. But it has been so tremendously exciting to give Pakistanis a chance to excel in what is essentially a trust-based business (if you want to be successful for the long term, that is).

And, my goodness, they have excelled. In this country of broken promises, corruption and misrepresentation, my Pakistani colleagues have been excellent stewards of the resources that were entrusted to them and have really owned the idea of our little seed company. They have learned to produce a high quality product with reliable performance and deliver it to their customers for a fair price. They have accomplished much, with more to come.

There will be a day within the next five years when the best vegetable seed available in Pakistan will have been grown by seed farmers in this country, using genetic material developed in this country. And it will hold market shares that the multinational companies cannot capture until they too deeply involve themselves in Pakistani vegetable production as we have done.

Several months before September 11th we had decided that it was time for us to return to the US and see if life would be possible there. Our parents had grown old while our children were here in Pakistan and we needed to be living near them. It says something about Pakistanis that my parents’ dotage was a universally sufficient justification for leaving a good job with a prestigious organisation.

The tragedy of September 11th accelerated our departure. My family has already left. Our beloved house in Gilgit is now empty and our household goods have been turned over to an extortionist moving specialist in Islamabad. We have already bought a house in the US and my wife and children are there, trying to adjust to the chilly, insular lives we Americans lead. I am in Gilgit, getting rid of the last of my things and working through the transition from my management of the seed company to that of my replacement.

And why am I telling Najam Sethi my little story? I think because he seems to be a man who also lives in this country by choice, not economic compulsion. He is fired by the desire to see something improve for the people here. I guess I have grown to regard The Friday Times as trying to speak for the Pakistan that my wife and I have grown to love so deeply. In fact, our closest relationships here have not been with articulate intellectuals fluent in English (we would not have lasted 10 years here had that been the case!). I think that TFT represents — whether they know it or not — all those regular Pakistanis with whom we have connected over the years; moderate, kind people who are hospitable, respectful and ready to help and be helped.

So, I have chosen Mr. Sethi and TFT to represent the Pakistan and Afghanistan to whom I want to say goodbye after 10 years of life with them. There have been so many things that have endeared us to Pakistan: Kaka Masi rescued us, dazed and wounded, from a terrible and deadly bus accident in Mandra on the GT road many years ago, Baksh the cook with sparkling eyes, secretly taught me galis when I was supposed to be learning Urdu poetry, Zara Mumtaz, the gracious Lahori hostess who forgave us our Western boorishness; a chowkidar who swallowed his terror and went into my lurching house during the 1997 Quetta earthquake to rescue my children, the Afghan friends who have stood before punk Taliban gunmen and professed their friendship with me, “that kafir”. I remember the hard pain of a van-load of men as we were going to pray at the death of one of the men’s sons. When I asked how many of them had lost children, they smiled stoically and said that they had all lost children to trivial illnesses; what could they, poor people, do? A woman in Kandahar’s covered bazaar, flouting the watchful gaze of the Taliban’s virtue police, raised her chador with a huge smile, embraced my wife, and greeted her — a complete stranger — like a cherished friend.

So many people have made room for us in crowded places, acknowledged but excused the rudeness of our children (“ Bus! Vo bucche hain, na?!”) , given us tea and fed us and refused payment, treated us with respect, shed tears at our parting — all of these people and the memories that flood around them are now rooted in our lives. We will certainly never be the same, and I think, we are better people because of them.

Certainly our time in this country has not been all sweetness and light. We have been robbed, wrecked, earthquaked, sickened, lost, cheated, slandered, exploited, broken down, aggrieved, burned out and overwhelmed in this country. I have learned through frustration the paradoxical necessity of trusting liars and being ready for everything and nothing. I am not so sure that I am quite as ‘American’ as I used to be and there will doubtless be consequences and maybe some reward to that.

But heavens it has been a good run!

I want only one thing more from Pakistanis; that they would choose to courageously and unconditionally love and respect themselves and their countrymen; as Pakistanis and as individuals. An awful lot of things would fall into place if they did. Instead of self respect prevailing, we now see self-conceit. And instead of love and respect for others we see its perversion in client-patron mutualism. These simple problems ultimately lead to few Pakistanis really believing in their country as a viable nation.

But I believe in this country. I have experienced here the courage, the respect and love and selflessness that can make a nation great. I know that it is possible and I will always pray that it will be so.

re: musharraf`s speech

...like somebody said, it was a really good speech...i just wish he`d left out the ``kashmir is running in our blood`` part...

Stuka:

“I was staying at an Air Force Base in Amritsar, one of the 2 SUs(Signals Units also responsible for Fighter Control) in North West India. These people are on 7 days a week, 24 hrs a day schedule and because of the current crisis, all weekend leave is cancelled, and duty extended to 12 hours a day. Everyone seemed to be in a general mood of bitterness or rather edginess(officers, didn`t get to interact with other ranks)”

….my cousin had his whole eid break canceled, and i think has had only a couple of weekends off since this whole thing started...needless to say, my khala`s been praying non-stop since then...

“So, driving there itself, my mood became sombre. Anyway, reached the border, they have stadium style seating now. There was a crowd of 150-200 people on our side, and from what I could see around the same on the Pakistani side. Basicaly, what I expected was bonhomie, but because of the recent tensions the atmosphere was rather ugly. Full throated slogan shouting, culminating in minor insults.”

….the one time i went, before all this started, it wasn’t like this…it was more of a mutual curiousness to see what ppl on the ‘other’ side looked like (and to make sure they really didn’t have two horns and a tail;))…

“Ofcourse, the moment the actual ceremony starts, the louts were swept up by the dignity of the ceremony and they shut up. I was talking to the BSF chaps, in the old days, there was some interaction between the Rangers and BSF, but in the past few months, none, except on official matters.”

…yeah, before they even used to have tea with each other…

“There were some really good looking women on the Pakistani side, and some real mirror crackers on the Indian side, which just goes to show that in some cases, the grass IS greener on the other side;)”

….no arguments there…: )

ps…btw, what does “Boley So Nihaal” mean?…(and NO hydra, i don’t need your ‘explanation’)…