The Place of Debate

Aamir,

Have you seen George Washington`s Statue on Wall Street? Is that `communist` too?

Anyway, `Blitz` the Congress Mouth Piece wrote on Jinnah`s Direct Action Day Move:

`The Worst Enemies of the Muslim League can`t help envying the leadership of Mr.Jinnah... Cataclysmic transformation of the league compels us to express the sneaking National will that a diplomat and a strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the helm of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of Diplomacy, Jinnah had outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress.`

More on a Morally Bankrupt Indian Argument:



The morally bankrupt argument that 1947 killings happened because Muslim League wanted partition when applied as a logic to Yugoslavia and the Balkans means the following:

1) Bosnians got killed because Bosnians didn`t want to live under Serbian Hegemony when they should have.

2) Croats got killed because Croats didn`t want a United Yugoslavia and hence their killing is justified.

3) Killing of the Kosovars is justified because they wanted a separate state.

4) In the future it is ok to Kill Montenegrans because they voted for an independent state.

After all what else was Slobodan fighting for if not for United Yugoslavia.

For a detailed account of the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Muslims in East Punjab please visit my post 261 which conclusively shows that most of the partition killings happened in East Punjab under the Indian Government`s authority while the Pakistani government is actually praised by none other than Sri Prikasa, the first Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, in his book `Insights into Pakistan`.

Banjaara,

{{Genes of our Hindu forefathers :)}}

heheh...Damn right buddy:) you can take hinduism from the man, but he just can get rid of those godamned genes...no matter how much you try to imiate the goddamned Arabs!

man... those genes are stuck in your cells..whether you take on a new religion or form a new country or define a new identity! May God have mercy on us all!

but wait..before some identity insecure paranoid Paki starts flipping his lid...we DONT want you back!

the only time those genes show their true greatness is when you take the man far far away from both, hindustan & pakistan!

Rsaxena,

`Jinnah wanted partition`.

Indeed... The way you completely walk into every trap I set for your kind is amazing... Slobodan Milosovec is in Hague because of one reason alone:

Kosovars wanted a SEPARATE state a PARTITION of Yugoslavia, (same for Slovenians and Bosnians and Croatians as well), but Milosovec butchered them.

Similarly in the subcontinent Muslims wanted a Separate state, and the Hindus and sikhs butchered them. The only leader to be hanging by his testicles would your Nehru for his role is directly analogous to Mr.Milosovec`s.

I have quoted from the newsreels and newspapers of the time, which clearly show that Indian Government did nothing to prevent the massacre of the Muslims.

As for Jinnah, even Your own first High Commissioner to Pakistan praises his role in the whole effort.

Kitni daffa bezati karao gay Indians?

re Harimau #404

A minor quibble. Actually, VJTI doesn`t have a chemical engineering department. It`s my alma mater UDCT, across the road from VJTI in Matunga which claims to produce all the entrepreneurial chemical engineers.

regards

Dear Hobbyty

``If India did not choose to respond to General Musharraf`s offer of dialogue, the rationale and cost of maintaining the troops at the border would be eroded. In case India withdraws troops from the border without getting a single person it`s 20 man list, how will the govt. explain the withdrawal? what if it gets a couple? The opposition can make political points as well, after how long can such heavy expenditures be tolerated by a poor country? one month, two? three? four? five? six months? and if no suspects are handed over and instead dialogue is offered - what then? Actually India has trapped itself by over playing it`s hand and underestimating Mr. Musharraf, again``

How stupid can you be. True we are spending over mn every month as a cost of deployment but then it would force Pakis to spend 150 mn too( acc to a recent estimate). But our GDP is $480 bn against your puny GDP od $62 bn. So by any calculation, it is Pakis who would loose, not us. Do some reality check- the GDP of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh, two of our states alone exceeds the Paki GDP. This is our baniya India`s answer to your war of attrition and bleeding by thousand cuts. The wargame is now more subtle. It would be fought on every level with the sole aim of bleeding your enemy. And dont worry about that commie newspaper. It is hardly read, much lees agreed upon by anybody in India. You thought taking Kashmir would be easy. No Sir, we will bleed your people and strike a deadly blow after weakening you economically and militarily in the long run. Remember 1971. It is either Kashmir or Pakistan for you. Go and save your Paki fellows first.

hobbyt #415
``It has been and it still is fun, for Pakistanis and Indians to expose each others warts and to compare and contrast them``

hobbyt, I am raising a valid point after at least 2-3 posts from you on new Muslim homelands in the Indian land mass. An authoritative understanding of this issue with respect to social equality and justice cannot be obtained without examining the other Muslim homelands on the Indian land mass and how they are faring. If you took the lead to call for more Muslim homelands, why this resistance to discussing this further ?

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

I think the primary interests of Pakistan and India are already almost identical, namely peace and environment for economic growth and leverage abroad for furthering mainly economic interests. Its only that these are not the top items on these countries` priority list at this time. If further Muslim homelands have to be brought into being by concerned Pakistanis and Bangladeshis willing to throw away their own interests for such a worthy cause, I doubt peace will be the top item on either India, Pakistan or Bangladesh`s priority lists for a long time to come.

This is a very significant column written by inimitable Ayaz Amir -- in which he asks apparently three questions.

1)Is Mr. Musharraf safe in his job because of the American Army`s presence in Pakistan.

2)What does the present Pakistan leadership want from US’s “enduring friendship” in the region

3)Can US deliver Kashmir to Pakistan’s Mian Musharraf?

Pakistan`s American fallacy

By Ayaz Amir

(excerpts)



Such is the air of unreality which grips our governing classes that every Pakistani leader who goes to Washington carries with him the hope that from there he will receive the kiss of life or the seal of immortality.

Why this hope should at all be entertained is somewhat hard to understand. The United States has considerable influence in Pakistan, no doubt about it because we have a habit of sucking up to foreigners. Nevertheless, Pakistani leaders have stood or fallen on the strength of their own performances.

The US may have been happy to see Bhutto go and indeed its agents may have speeded his departure. Yet the US was not the author of his misfortunes. Bhutto mishandled the domestic scene and raised enemies all around. It was this which did him in rather than any international conspiracy.

The US did not destroy Yahya Khan. Yahya and his team of generals destroyed themselves. In fact, Nixon`s sympathies were on Pakistan`s side and not India`s. He even sent parts of the Seventh Fleet for an ineffectual display of gunboat diplomacy. But what could he do if the gods themselves had abandoned an incompetent junta?

Benazir Bhutto was the darling of the West and the western media, getting the kind of attention and coverage no Pakistani leader has ever had (not even Musharraf).

On her first trip to Washington, with the honourable Zardari all togged out in Balochi headgear, she got to address the US Congress and made the then famous remark that it was a time for miracles in Pakistan. We know the miracles she and her husband wrought.

When her time was up, and Ishaq and General Beg moved in for the kill, none of her American support could save her. The same was true of Nawaz Sharif. To all appearances Clinton seemed genuinely fond of him. When Sharif`s relations with the army command came under strain after Kargil, the US issued a strong declaration of support for Sharif. But when the army moved on October 12, it sought no American approval for its action.

On his five-hour visit to Pakistan a year later Clinton got his own back by giving a tongue-lashing on TV to Pakistan`s military rulers by pointing out how Pakistan was out of step with the modern world. But his performance did not change the complexion of the government in Islamabad. Nor could it have been of much consolation to the then imprisoned Sharif.

Now the wheel having come full circle it is Musharraf`s turn to seek solace and absolution at American hands. He has earned warm praise from the American president by bending before the wind and being helpful to the US in its war on Afghanistan. But like others before him he too needs to keep things in perspective.

_________________________________________________

The cries from the Pakistani side about enduring friendship and about being abandoned by the Americans in the eighties are misplaced.



The US is ruthless in the pursuit of its interests. We should be the same with ours. The US bent us to its will post-September 11. If we were afraid and settled for peanuts, the only thing to be said is that the Americans were strong enough to pursue a good bargain while we were weak enough to settle for a bad one. There is a strong body of opinion which says we had no choice. Perhaps.



But then a no-choice position is hardly a strong foundation for enduring friendship.

The warmth from Washington is not because of General Musharraf`s outstanding personality (although the president`s admirers would like to believe otherwise) but because of our sepoy status in South-West Asia: our willingness to toe the American line.

Consider regional geography. For the first time in fifty years a cool breeze is blowing between Riyadh and Washington. Iraq and Iran top America`s list of enemies. Up north are the Central Asian states whose hidden oil wealth is the prize in this emerging game.

Alone of all the states in the region, Pakistan, stretching from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea, is eager to turn itself into a permanent tool of American interests.



This then is what we want, not enduring friendship but permanent employment on current wages.

We don`t want to be cast adrift by the US again.

We want our yearly handout to balance our accounts and we want hardware for our military.

And we don`t want to be pressed too hard for past loans.



This is it, this the definition of enduring friendship. Nor is this reason for gloom because client states are in no position to seek anything more.

_________________________________________________

As for Kashmir, we need to stop deluding ourselves over it. The US wouldn`t like India and Pakistan to go to war because this doesn`t serve its interests.

It would like India and Pakistan to talk their differences over, this being the common sense approach to their problems.

But the US is not desperate to press India towards a Kashmir solution.

It will not be a mediator because India will not ask for it.

So why say, as President Musharraf has, that bilateralism is dead?

We may find the Indian attitude cussed and India may think us to be needlessly provocative, but experience tells us that India and Pakistan must themselves find the wisdom to settle their problems.

The US will not go out of its way to bestir itself in this matter.

So whether we like it or not, bilateralism is the only way forward.

This is also the logic of the past. We shouldn`t have started the 1965 war because the only thing it resulted in was an inconclusive end. We shouldn`t have lost the `71 war because it is our defeat in that conflict which condemns us to bilateralism.

The Shimla Accord was no devil`s plot. It merely enshrined in words something that had already happened on the ground.

There is another reason, however, for the strong verbal line we are now taking on Kashmir. When the armed struggle was going strong, we could afford to be soft in our words.

Now that for all practical purposes we have quarantined our warriors and bid a farewell to arms, the only way to salve wounded national pride is to go hard on our rhetoric.

When innocence is lost it is only natural to protest too much.



We must look to the causes of things.

General Musharraf can be feted at the White House every six months and hit Newsweek`s cover again, and Pakistan get three times the amount of money it is now getting from the US, but we will remain a dependent, debt-ridden country unless we learn to mend our ways.



Washington will not discover political stability for us. It has used Pakistani leaders before and will do so again.

It is for us to see the poison and avoid it. It is for us to seek the Holy Grail and create lasting political institutions. No one else will do it for us.

So let us stop the unseemly refrain of the US having abandoned us in the past. We abandoned ourselves because we had no eye for our long-term interests.

Even now all this talk of turning Pakistan into a modern state will remain meaningless unless the army forswears its taste for political intervention and learns to cultivate some respect for DEMOCRACY - the REAL KIND and not the variety being thrust down the nation`s throat by Gen Naqvi.(DAWN)

Shammi # 336

Yes! Check out http://www.censusindia.net

Faruk

dost-mitter # 383

I think India got the cream of the Sindhi’s after partition. The Sindhi’s in India are doing so well while in Pakistan its another story. I think India lucked out as far as the Sindhi’s are concerned.

Regards,

Faruk

Shankar

About getting insulting in my posts, I have learnt from the best: Indians.

Shankar # 392

`` But what is Pakistan`s excuse? ``

Genes of our Hindu forefathers :)

Shankar

Indians do not like to be cursed - so they say things like ``shove em``? Come on now I certainly regret the attitude you think there is refuge in.

Pakistanis are just as screwed up? And? so? Lets go around cursing and abusing one another? –

Islam seems to have little meaningful effect on Pakistanis? All Pakistanis? Islam is the reason you have chosen to resort to abuses and curses? – Either way, instead of acknowledging that you overstepped the bounds – you say “shove em”?

Ok, whatever blows your skirt.

Zafar

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

Travard

“I have been putting forward my views on why I think the logic for Pakistan was fundamentally flawed…”

Certainly in a framework of an India that has borders in the Northwest to Afghanistan and in the Northeast, to Myanmar, your position makes sense.

“ Indeed, if the creation of Bangladesh proved anything, it is that boundaries in the sub-continent are naturally inclined towards distinct language/culture rather than religion. That is how the boundaries of states within the India as well as Pakistan are drawn.”

I am not disputing this statement, but this statement does not suggest that religion, as a boundary marker, regardless of one’s opinion of it as an “ought”, is a invalid or false one. I think your position emanates from a strong sense of a majority identity – majorities in Pakistan, especially those whom minority ethic groups have identified as antithetical to their interests, hold positions that are similar to the one you suggest. Again it does not make it right or wrong or valid or invalid – it’s just one more element of the debate.

FEDERALISM – yet again, a most interesting subject. I would agree with you that as defined by Indians, certainly FEDERALISM is a more acceptable and more refined within the Indian body politic. I think many Pakistanis, not on the left, find little useful meaning in the kind of FEDERALISM that is practiced in India – that is they would find it difficult to relate it to Pakistan. An example is the Local Government system in Pakistan. Consider, just as an idea or point we may wish to explore in the Pakistani context: doing away with or replacing provinces and provincial government, and assemblies with prefectures, each prefecture comprising a given number of sq. miles – A representative, administrative and service module – with district government directly below it – with guidelines for Health, Education, Communication flowing from Central or Federal government. With representation from each unit of local government. Most importantly with a participatory budgeting process (see “Hindu” Opinion pages Feb. 16 2002). This would mean the numbers of Representatives and Senators in the Majlis will have to be increased significantly. This would bring a more democratic / feedback loop governance to the populace, it would allow citizens to participate with more impact on the affairs that effect them most, it would attenuate the potential for political instability by widening the scope and scale of political action. What are your thoughts?

“Regarding Pakistan as a failed state one need look no further than Musharaff`s statements in his post-coup speech to come to this conclusion. Phrases like ``We have hit rock-bottom`` and ``we have nowhere to go but up`` don`t exactly apply to a successful state, do they?

You are exactly right that it does not suggest a successful state – on the other hand it does not suggest a “failed” state either. It would be useful if we were to be mindful of the complexities involved. Simplistic notions of either/or serve powers that enjoy an overwhelming asymmetry in power and wealth. We need to look at issues with a view to comprehend them in their complexity.

“The reason Pakistan is taken seriously by India is the very same reason why Iraq, or North Korea is taken seriously by the West viz. they can do serious damage due to their unpredictability.”

I disagree. Pakistan remains a “pivotal” state – analogy with North Korea and unpredictability is a highly dubious one. After all, who would have predicted the events of 9/11 and the global response to it – or for that matter the events of 12/13 or Enron and Dhabol. Predictability is closely linked with notion of risk, would you agree? And risk is a general feature of life – the degree of risk, the international community agrees, has been brought down in Pakistan – wouldn’t you agree? Predictability is closely associated with agreement about common goals, interests – is subjective, wouldn’t you agree?

With regard to the Westminster model – yes it has worked reasonably in India – but I think it will not in Pakistan. The power centers in Pakistan find it a “non-useful” instrument. That’s just the way it is going to have to be.



I find it incredible that you should argue against improvements in organization and technology.

“Pakistan is made up of distinct linguistic and cultural provinces with their own aspirations. Unless these forces are accommodated, there is little reason to believe Musharaff`s plans will work.”

Language and culture are only elements of a general and particular Pakistani identity, sensibility and aspiration. Pakistan is not only a territorial state but also an Idea. Takmeel e Pakistan is and in my opinion should remain, a work in progress.

“But above all what Musharaff wants is a pliable civilian system which will allow the military to play geo-political military games far in excess of what its size warrants.”

You test reader’s reason with such statements – “pliable”? To what end? What Musharraf seeks is a civilian system that can play by the rules, that will not jeopardize the predictability and restructuring reintroduced into the body politic. As far as a geo-political role for Pakistan, Indians seem to feel they have a “right” to define the limits of any Pakistani geo-political role – grow up, learn to deal with reality – psychology will only bring a sense of victimization, it breeds on irrationality. Geo-political roles of Pakistan are a function of both its and other states ambitions and compulsions. It is not a conspiracy designed to frustrate Indian ambitions to regional and world power status. Work, Work hard to earn regional power and world power status – don’t go about crying that you are being denied your proper role by Pakistanis, Americans or anyone other than yourself.

Sadna

Since we are on the question of social justice and equality before law and Muslim homelands, I wonder what is the opinion of Pakistani elite about why 70-75% of their countrymen are still illiterate after 54 years of freedom? These people can neither read their holy book as observant Muslims, nor can they fight for their rights and social equality

I don’t think I can speak for Pakistani elite – but I certainly would agree with you that not only is this so but is deliberately so. In the hands of the Elite of Pakistan, Islam is a utility. Social justice, gender equality, literacy, what to speak of education, a decent, dignified and honest livelihood ought to be “rights” for the Pakistani citizen. Please refer to my original post and also my response to Zafar as well.

Sadna, Urstruly has a post here (Values and charachter) and I have a response to that post. I would appreciate very much if you would review and offer your comments; I think it pertinent to this line of inquiry.

It has been and it still is fun, for Pakistanis and Indians to expose each others warts and to compare and contrast them – Please read my post to Shammi about the changed paradigm – Also to you, Zafar, Shammi, Dost, Travard, Harimanu or any India who wishes to respond:

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

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

re:Reply #: 399

hobbyty,

Let me butt in here and say a few things and perhaps burst your bubble. Mushy has let himself and his country be used like a whore. All you guys are interested is how USA thinks about you. Does it really matter? Your country has given free space to US Army, Navy and Airforce. They are twisting Mushy`s arms to behave. He has obliged them in full measure. Of course, US is happy. Who would not be with such a co-operative dictator? One less Islamic country to worry about, right?

What has Mushy gotten out of this recent visit to USA? No assurances for sale of F16. No assurances of a mediation in Kashmir. There were no joint communique or statements between Mushy and Bush. Yes, Mushy got a lot of ``dough`` for being such a good guy but a lot of that money is conditional and requires approval by the Senate. He could not even succeed in getting Bush to tell India to back off from confrontation.

Mushy of late has been going wayward. He lacks diplomatic niceties. Telling Indians that Bhagat Singh was a terrorists and not a freedom fighter is not going to win him friends here (after all Bhagat Singh was born in an undivided India and his struggle benefitted Pak as well as India). Let us not forget that Jinnah had defended some nationalists (who Mushy calls terrorists), people like Azad, in court.

He also made 2 grave errors: one in trying to link the abduction of Pearl to an Indian source and secondly in trying to convince US that India was about to explode a nuclear device. Both statements were rebuffed by US. Washington Post correspondent during an interview actually told Mush not to make irresponsible statements.

You guys can go on defending your dictator. This guy is proving to be a fuc *ing moron. He wants India to talk to him but he has to learn first how to talk. Generals have never made good diplomats. They have been disastrous for Pak. This guy is no exception. Just wait and watch.

Sridhar

RE: Reply #: 400 ylh

``Further on Ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab :``

ylh,

Isn`t it ironic that it was the Punjab that suffered the most due to the actions of a certain Gujarati?

As someone from Bangalore, I shudder to think about the consequences of someone taking a meat cleaver and slicing my state in half for whatever reason.

RE: Reply #: 400 ylh

````The sight of butchered Muslim women and children as well as men on the streets of Delhi, was a ghastly one.``

Dehli under the nose of the Indian Government. Enough for Hague to convict Nehru..``

Sigh! I can trot out some articles and quotes to show how Hindus were mercilessly butchered in Pakistan to prove that Jinnah needed to be strung up (read this week`s Irfan Hussein article on www.dawn.com for an insight). The point of this whole exercise is to ascertain why ANYONE was killed during partition, not why Muslims were killed in India or Hindus were killed in Pakistan. And the blame for this firmly lies in Jinnah`s backyard.