The Place of Debate

Ref dost-mittar #: 433

[Back in the 1970s, Statitics Canada, Canada`s centralised statistical agency and considered to be one of the best in the world, would let any graduate of ISI write their ticket to a job in that organization. C.R.Rao is still considered a god-like figure among statisticians.]

He should be. After all, CR Rao is the only Indian scientist in recent times elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Rsaxena,

I see you have managed to jump the topic again eh?

Now it is clearly proved that the bulk of communal killings happened under the Indian government`s nose... My response was merely an answer to yours.

Let me tell you something... whatever we are and whereever we are, we are glad we are not enslaved in a Hindu theocracy posing to be a secular democracy.

End of Discussion.

hobbyt #426
``Pakistanis would be better off training their own.``

Exactly my point. You redeem yourself, but only just.

re bong_dongs #429

Cool! What batch? I am BChE 97.

RE: Reply #: 436 dost-mittar

``sang basanti, ang basanti, rang basanti chhaa gaya

mastaana mausam aa gayaa

Happy Basant/Basant Panchmi to all Panjabis (who needs ``sant`` valentine? all he did was preach the gospel!!)``

Happy Basant to all! Now will someone explain to the unenlightened like me what it`s about :-). Is it a spring festival for Punjabis?

Here is world’s reaction -- to our country bumpkin – Texas’s Don Quixote’s – Jeeehaaad against “Axis of Evil” windmills.

Allies Hear Sour Notes in `Axis of Evil` Chorus

By DAVID E. SANGER

(New York Times)

(Excerpts)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — As a new and glaring rift emerges between the White House and America`s allies over how to pursue the next phase of the war on terrorism, something odd has happened:

President Bush and his top aides now seem to welcome, even to egg on, the sharp differences prompted by Mr. Bush`s determination to expand his battle against what he calls ``evil`` regimes.

In private, his friends and closest aides report, Mr. Bush fumes about weak-kneed ``European elites`` and scared Arab leaders who, in his view, lack the courage to stand up to states that may one day provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons.

Today Mr. Bush departed for Asia saying that the goal of his trip was to strengthen his antiterrorism coalition.

But it was telling that even before Air Force One departed, the South Korean press was filled with denunciations of his inclusion of North Korea as part of the ``axis of evil,`` protesting that Mr. Bush was undercutting years of diplomacy aimed at luring the Stalinist North out of its frightfully armed shell with economic incentives.

In China, where Mr. Bush is making a delayed state visit, the country`s leadership has warned in the past few weeks of ``serious consequences`` if the president takes military action against Iraq. Beijing has voiced worries about a re-emergence of American unilateralism, which it thought had faded in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But in the last two weeks, Mr. Bush`s strident tone has suggested just the opposite. In appearances across the country, he has built on the ``axis of evil`` phraseology of his State of the Union address, knowing full well that each repetition irritates and divides the countries he once hailed as his great coalition partners.

His national security aides — usually more attuned to how Mr. Bush`s words play Poland or Peru than Peoria — have begun to cite evidence that Americans are behind the broader mission of rooting out rogue states seeking weapons of mass destruction, even if the allies are not.

They compare Mr. Bush`s mission to Ronald Reagan`s single-minded goal of ridding the world of Communism.

They describe their boss as a man who emerged from the first phase of the war more convinced than ever that the United States alone has the power to complete its task, with the coalition if possible — and without them if necessary.

It is an America-first position that Vice President Dick Cheney voiced with particular clarity on Friday to the Council on Foreign Relations.

``America has friends and allies in this cause, but only we can lead it,`` he said in a ballroom filled with many of his old friends and former colleagues. ``Only we can rally the world in a task of this complexity against an enemy so elusive and so resourceful.

The United States and only the United States can see this effort through to victory.``

When America`s allies have begged to differ in recent days, they have found themselves engaged in open, public bickering with even with the most diplomatic members of Mr. Bush`s war council.

It started when France`s foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, dismissed Mr. Bush`s approach to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as ``simplistic,`` and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shot back that his French colleague was ``getting the vapors.``

Then, all this week, there has been a far more telling war of words between Mr. Powell and Christopher Patten, the European Union`s foreign affairs minister.

Until a few days ago, he was a favorite of Washington conservatives for the tough line he took against China while serving as Britain`s last governor general to Hong Kong.

When Mr. Patten started off the tiff by accusing Mr. Bush of taking an ``absolutist`` approach to the world, Mr. Powell shot back that his old friend deeply misunderstood and said, ``I shall have a word with him, as they say in Britain.``

_______________________________________________

Before he had a chance, Mr. Patten published a lengthy rebuke of the administration in The Financial Times, saying that American success in Afghanistan had ``reinforced some dangerous instincts,`` including the belief that ``the projection of military power is the only basis of true security,`` that ``the U.S. can rely only on itself,`` and that allies were ``an optional extra.``

_________________________________________________

He is hardly alone in that view. The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said this week that the Bush administration was treating coalition partners like ``satellites,`` a term clearly meant as a comparison to the old Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc.

And then President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Bush`s newest strategic partner, weighed in with the observation that the members of the antiterror coalition signed up to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and ``Iraq is not on this list.``

Even Canada — America`s closest allies save for Britain — warned that any effort by the United States to act unilaterally in the next phase of the war ``will go nowhere.``(NYT)

bong-dongs # 389 (God, what a handle!! I can understand bong-fish or bong-sandesh or even bong-tubdee but bong-dongs, how does this get past the chowk code-catcher?)

Anyways, even BHU (BENCO) ``became`` an IIT so that makes 8 . . . of which 3 (Kanpur, Roorke and Varanasi) are within Uttar Pradesh . . . and UP as we all know is about to catch up with Bihar as a leading light in the ``BIMARU`` grouping of sick states . . . so does that prove something?

ylh,

There`s nothing more pathetic than a third world mind spouting first world morals. Your analogies would have been amusing had they not dealt with the tragic experiences for all the people of the sub-continent be it Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

Anyway, here`s something for you to mull over from the great Islamic emancipator himself on the state of the Muslim world:

``Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race``.

I am starting to admire the man for his honesty. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that it exists and also suggests that there is something more wrong with the Muslim world than it simply being ``oppressed`` by non-Muslims.

ylh,

REALITY CHECK

I seriously wonder if you ever learn anything from your experiences on Chowk..or if your mind is CAPABLE of learning anything from Indo-Pak interactions.

Ofcourse you have learnt how idiotic Indians are, how much youre right in hating Indians & how true your famous belief ``the only good Indian is a dead Indian`` is...Good for you; smarty pants!

Just THINK for a second...does an Indian CARE what a Pakistani thinks of him/her?!! An average Indian KNOWS that India is viscerally hated in Pakistan. Listen dodo..we`ve been hearing what Radio Pakistan has been saying about us since the birth of your country!

Get this into your incredibly thick skull: Pakistan`s opinion of us is just about as significant as a dimple on the pimple on the left ball of an ant! We`ve put up with Pakistan`s anti-(H)indian chest thumping for 50+ yrs & we are perfectly capable of living with it for another million years. In fact, (H)indians wont mind it at all if we are judged differently by Allah Himself--cos we`d rather burn in Hell for an eternity than live with those India/hindu hating Pakistanis in your precious jannat.

Unfortunately, I`m seeing a particularly visceral hate-Pakistan feeling rising in India at a crescendo that I`ve not seen-even in 71! It shocks me that many educated Indians would rather have a full scale nuclear war with Pakistan & let the chips fall where they may! After the attack on the Parliament, the dominant discourse among Indians has become dangerously hawkish. If we keep this up, there wont be much of a Pakistan or India for you to return to & establish ``the ylh doctrine``.

I`ll give you some points to ponder--whether you agree with them or not is immaterial to me:

1) Nobody WINS or LOSES in debates on Chowk.

2)Pakistan`s & India`s versions & perceptions of Partition`s history are irreconcilably different. Your heros are our villans & vice versa. I dont care if you point a zillion references--its not going to change.

So, when you verbally masterbate on Chowk & claim Indians are ``obssessed`` with Pakistan--you are giving too much credit to yourself & Pakistan. Several of us have told you BLUNTLY that you are just being a puppet on a chain--being yanked to perform at will for ENTERTAINMENT value.

Yet your narcicissm prevents you from seeing this reality & continue to be a bakra for our amusement. Keep it up, butthead...I`ll say this for you..youre never boring...

3)The rest of the world ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY, CATEGORICALLY doesnt give a flying fcuk about what happened during Partition. They DONT want to play judge or juror. NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY has taken Indian ``nazis`` or ``slobos`` to task.

4)It just BURNS you & Pakistan that Nehru or Gandhi are figures that are generally respected throughout the world.

It BURNS you that the name ``Gandhi`` is more recognised & respected by the average citizen of the world than ``Jinnah`` will ever be.

It just BURNS Pakistan that India is NOT seen as the villan that Pakistan sees her as.

So keep having those domestic rallies where Pakistani idiots rejoice at thrashing Indians & hindus in front of approving crowds. Keep debating on Pakistani podiums whether 1 Pakistani jawan equalls 5, not 4 Indian jawans (Cawasjee`s latest article--Kashmir--was hilarious!).

Heheh..you guys are legends in your own minds.

5)Pakistan`s WORST enemies are Pakistanis themselves NOT Indians. Everytime Pakistan tries to dig a grave for India; they themselves stumble into it..

take Operation Gibralter, 71, kargil, bleed India with a 1000 cuts.

Heheh..ofcourse you guys are experts at ``spin doctoring``..perhaps to prevent a depression that arises when objectives of a policy are not met. So..call it a ``Strategic U-turn`` if it makes you feel any better.. It`ll get you your ``Halwa from Heaven`` ala Mazdak...that you are so dependant upon. It wont help Pakistan, cos you never learn..the more things change; the more they remain the same..

6) Its one thing to learn history. But if your mind is so obssessed with it, you wont accept the fact that Jinnah & Gandhi are anachronisms in their own country. No matter how many times our leaders extoll their virtues, our countries will NEVER live up to their vision.

7)India is just as fcuked up as Pakistan..

So,keep the entertainment coming...

re: ylh

what`s jinnah`s legacy?

- a nation that has seen most of it`s religious minorities flee, despite jin`s loud hocus pocus about wanting a secular nation (exclusively for Muslims though)

- a nation that has been split into two, at the end of an embarassing loss in battle where a world record 90,000 `brave` paki soldiers surrendered

- a nation that cannot sustain democracy or secularism...with a military dictator who has no shame participating in world forums amongst democratically elected foreign leaders

- a nation that until a terrorist attack took place was an international pariah, mocked and laughed at by the world (still happening behind the scenes anyway)

- a nation constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, living off handouts from western countries

great man that jinnah was...now quote me some chapters of books by tom, dick, and harry which say otherwise....let`s ignore the facts and look at these books....

Reply hobbyty # 415

hobbyty

``If it is true that we debate these issue – why the resistance?``

What resistance? Just because you put an idea forward (without supporting it) doesn`t mean I cannot find it funny. If you think it`s a serious option let me know why. Laughing at an idea is not resisting it.

``Obviously we have more of a need to discuss these issues than before. The last bit of “British” India that became Muslim States are still Muslim states – but why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states?``

Why should the paradigm be restricted to political divisions based on religion? In India (and Pakistan) language is also used. In India new states have recently been formed based not just on language but on perceived development issues (in the case of Uttaranchal) and specific economic issues (in Jharkhand). There are a few other areas where statehood is being discussed. (Vidharba, for eg)

``I think you have not understood my post. The point was that should the debate about what the “ought” of a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot and questions of social justice be resolved in India, it would have consequences in the region – and if it should not be resolved – why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states?``

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes here. I see this debate to be about the forms governance in multicultural, mulitiethnic, polyglot policy ought to take. This is almost constantly discussed - what do you think Shammi/Dost Mittar/Harimau`s ongoing discussion of education (for example) is about? The ever popular debate on a Uniform Civil Code for India? People holding forth about how the Babri Masjid/Ram Janma Bhoomi issue is resolved. All of these are articulations of how Governance in a multicultural polity such as India should take place.

You, on the other hand, seem to be focused on whether such a polity ought to exist at all. The reason I find this a funny point is that (a) such a polity DOES exist, and hence it needs to be dealt with rather than ignored as inconvenient and (b) spatially speaking, there is no area on the subcontinent whose nature is not multicultural, mulitiethnic and polyglot. IMHO governance which refuses to deal with this fact is fundamentally flawed in the way it deals with reality. (But that`s just my opinion.)

``And that this would have repercussions beyond India, in the “region” – are you following? As far as the ideas seeming “a little funny” – hey these are just ideas, neither your or my being or manhood is attached to them, if they are funny, that’s OK too.``

Uff, you said to have a sense of humour, aur abh aap rooth gaye. Unfair. But yes - to some extent India functions as the guinea pig of the subcontinent. From Panchayati Raj onwards.

``Do you envision any conditions and circumstances, in the near and medium term, where the interests of both Pakistan and India will begin to:

1. converge``

I truly believe that India will prosper best with sane, prosperous neighbours - and the situation is the same for Pakistan with regard to India. The interests of the people of India and Pakistan have converged for a long time, if they were ever different at all.

What remains different is how our elites define each country`s interests. And this does stem from how we define ourselves and hence view and understand our neighbours.

An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)

Similarly, some Pakistanis on chowk (I do not feel able to make a similar generalisation about Pakistan as I do about India, Indians forgive me :-)) seem to find it hard to take the roots of India`s nationhood seriously because of the way you define your own nationality. Again - why does it matter? What`s important to your future is really who we are now, and who we become. (Who you think we should have been is pretty irrelevant, don`t you agree?)

``2. Each will seek accommodation in Kashmir – remember accommodation, not capitulation.``

Definitely. Sorry for my cynicism, but this will happen when the rulers of our countries find it more in their interest to not have the Kashmir pot boiling (this may have already happened) and they figure out a way to maneouvre their way out of confrontation and into a mutually acceptable arrangement.

Zafar

MastRam #420

Hey man small world, I`m UD too!!

RE: Reply #: 415 hobbyty

My intent is not to question Pakistan`s nationalism today. That is for Pakistanis to decide. My debate, from an academic point of view, is about the events of 1947 and the years preceding it.

Re: Federalism, you might want to read Anwar Syed`s article in today`s DAWN (NRB`s brainchild, http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/17/op.htm). He echoes many of my views but also points out that your experiment has been tried before and it didn`t work.

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

Sadna

You did not read my response to Zafar as I requested you to do - Recently there has been a call to invite Indians to man technical institutes - from the quality of writing and reading and comprehension skills Indians exhibit on these boards -Pakistanis would be better off training their own.

Not just additional Muslim states - my post was a call to examine social imperatives and conditions that may lead such extremes and to act to correct structural problems. Social injustice, is structural in Pakistan, I think it also the case in India. Thus far Indians seem to think that the paradigm of TNT and language and culture will continue to be the defining paradigm - I would suggest that we do not have a situation that has stopped evolving. Such a situation exists in Pakistan as well - get it? Please don`t reduce the quality of our correspondence to the drawing of pictures.

Please read my post again and comment on urstruly and my post in response to his.

Also please give me a more focused response on circumstances and conditions with regard to possibilities of dialogue on Kashmir.

Akash

How stupid could I be? apparently, plenty. So Indian GDP is $480 Billion and Pakistani is $60 Billion - well lets see how stupid I could be - Indian population is 1.1 Billion? and Pakistani population is 140 Million? - that would mean, wait, wait, 480 divided by 1001 and 60 divided by 140 - can you do the math - don`t tell me, you are an Indian Phd. Well? genius? sorry rich fat cat? that`s how stupid I can be - but I`m ambitious, too.

It`s not about how stupid I am, it`s about how smart you are willing to be - but it seems you are too emotionally involved in the old paradigm to begin considering what a new framework for relations between Pakistan and India may look like.

Shammi

Indians sore winners? or just sore?

I agree with you about ``coersive diplomacy`` - I agree that Indian objectives, as defined by Indians have been met. So what`s the beef now?

If the Indian objectives have been met, the armed forces should be withdrawn, don`t you think? After all, you argue, Indian objectives have been met - so, why maintain forces at the border?

Indian objectives have been met, negotiations or dialogue should begin immediately, shouldn`t they? unless there are some Indian objectives that have yet to materialize? Moving the goal posts, will not go down well in the international community - fish or cut bait!

Let`s get past the ``sore`` business - things have changed and India can congratulate it iself for effecting those changes in Pakistan policy - Now what? where do we go from here? Should a process of dialogue not be started? Should Kashmir issue not be tackled, no, I did not say solved - shouldn`t Pakistan and India now lay the foundation for a process of dialogue?

The Americans: lets get serious, they are OK with us as long as we are OK with them. Should objectives and interests have to be reevaluated, rest assured they will be, if a change is considered to be in the interests of Pakistan, it will come to happen; I have no doubt about it. Yes, I agree an American ``Charm`` offensive is a thing of marvel (as in comics) on the other hand Musharraf did not fall off the turnip truck, yesterday.

If the Indian can declare his onbjectives met and withdraw, this would allow serious debate about the nature and depth of changes the Musharraf regime has in mind, among concerned circles in India - it will also open opportunities to explore in a new paradigm - regardless of results of elections in India, I expect a couple of bold moves to emanate from India

A more interesting question may be to ask what are American compulsions in the Central Asia and Gulf area? I remind you that Historian A. Jalal has repeatedly pointed out that Pakistan`s alliance with the West was based on the Pakistan acting to protect Western interests in the Gulf and Middle East - could that now include Central Asia? The manuvering has just started, and it would be a mistake to assume all positions have been formed.

With regard to Afghanistan - I will make you a prediction: the assasination of the Afghan mister for Aviation and Tourism and the laying for the of blame within the ministeries of Defence and Interior is noteworthy - more to follow. Optimism in certain quarters over the winning of important ministeries by a united? faction, may be analgous to counting one`s chickens before they hatch. Watch the return of Zahir Shah (a double edged sword) and the Loya Jirgha proceedings.

Mediation, facilitation, bi or multi-lateral, back channel or whatever in Kashmir: what does it matter the color of the cat, so long as it catches mice - don`t you agree?

Do you see any circumstance or conditions that will allow for a deal to done bewteen Pakistan, India and the Kashmiri representatives? Do you think this may allow for yet another paradigm shift in the Geo-political interests of Pakistan and India?

A huge story is brewing with the personalities and movement connected to the Kidnapping of journalist, Daniel Pearl - an absolutely marvelous opportunity to do the kind of house cleaning Mr. Najam Sethi had called for in an editorial last week. Lets hope and pray, Pearl is alive and will cooperate with American authorities.

Rsridhar

Please make the effort to think clearly; it doesn`t help if you characterize state interests and compulsions in such emotional terms.

Mr. Musharraf`s mission to Washington failed to achieve it`s objectives - is that your point? If so, why the derogotory, emotional out bursts from you?, were you hoping for the immediate release of advanced fighter aircraft? of billion of Dollars in a resession?. Learn to be a ``not sore`` winner. The stage is big enough for an entire host of players to share the lime light. Indians should EARN the power, the prestige they seem to desire, above all else. Do you know any Powerful and Prestigious whiners? Do people respect whiners? or whiners who also insist on cursing?