The Place of Debate

R: Hobbyty

I think that Indians are sore winners (no Indian will admit it on Chowk!) -- the most important issue with Pakistan regarding India was cross-border terrorism, not the list of 20 (which suddenly became an issue two months ago), which was really to see if Musharraf meant what he said (after all, some of the men on the list were accomplices of Omar Sheikh and the-other-guy-who-hijacked the Indian Airlines plane whose presence Pakistan had been denying until they suddenly resurfaced in the most inconvenient manner in the glare of the world`s media). The `cross-border terrorism` refrain had been voiced by the ruling and oppposition parties alike for years. Just like for the US, it was the return of Afghanistan to Afghans from the hands of OBL and the dismantling of the terrorist INFRASTRUCTURE that is most important, and not the fate of OBL himself (although they make no secret of their desire to see him dead). Indians have won verbal assurances from Musharraf in his Jan. 12 speech on his Kashmir jehadi policy, to stop state sponsorship of terror, and effectively dismantle the JeM and the LeT -- they are now waiting to see if this translates into action on the ground when the snows melt. (BTW, have you noticed how the killing in Kashmir has substantially stopped? A tacit linkage of the violence there with cross-border infiltration?)

The steps up the escalatory ladder (in increasing order of difficulty) for India were to apply force to:

a) change policies of Pakistan, failing which:

b) change the regime, failing which:

c) change the state

It appears that (a) has been attained through coercive diplomacy at least in so far as stated intention is concerned -- although proof positive will emerge in the summer. The border firing incidents (under the cover of which infiltration used to occur) are almost gone. Pakistan can revive the JeM and LeT but not without risking its relations with the US. Musharraf is on a very short leash with both India and the US. (Read Ayaz Amir`s column in the Dawn). I think that the US and India worked in tandem to bring about (a) -- India could not have threatened Pakistan -- a US ally with US troops present on the ground there without a wink and a nod from the US. US diplomats, being more sophisticated with words than Indians and possessing far more national power, can `kill with kindness`--you would not even know when they are disapproving of you when suddenly the hammer hits you hard. They have basically bent Musharraf (pulling him by his ears when he acted `independent` (remember no N. Alliance in Kabul` refrain)and reminding him of the looming financial crisis if he misbehaves) while propping him up publicly because he is not only pliant but also believes in changing Pakistan`s direction.

The differences between India and the US are on (b) regime change, not on (a) -- Pakistan has already delivered to India`s and US`s satisfaction on (a). Should Musharraf`s administration fall (for any reason) and be replaced by a hardline general less susceptible to US pressure, the US and India will converge on (b) (regime change) as well, because the US has already identified WMD and state sponsors of terror (axis of evil remarks) as enemies number one. That is why Pakistan`s strategic assets are now referred to as liabilities by people like Najam Sethi and Ayaz Amir. Musharraf knows it too -- that is why he referred to `safeguarding strategic assets and Kashmir cause` when he rallied Pakistan behind him after 9/11.

Having achieved (a) without having to give anything in return (not even a promise of a dialogue), Indians are behaving as sore winners. I would not be surprised if some of those 20 men are either forced out of Pakistan, remain incarcerated, `disappear`, or are handed over to India quitely a few months down the road under the garb of `goodwill measures` to `initiate a dialogue`. Their previous exalted status in Pakistan and the free rein given them to spread venom and hate propaganda have been put down -- and that counts for something.

Re: Dost

``...But they were self-made entrepreneurs who were not given any breaks by any large corporation...``

So, you have shifted the goal-post once again? Do you think that the missileer A. Kalam was not given any breaks (by someone in government, instead of a corporation)? BTW, WIPRO is a 40+ year old company (Western India Pure & Refined Oil?) and Azim turned his father`s business around. Having a distaste for anecdotal evidence, I continue to be alarmed that you rely upon it extensively to base your hypotheses.

re: 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.. }}}

here we go again with your revisionist nonsense...who wanted partition? jinnah! and if the Hague had Jinnah alive, they would have hung him by his testicles for the continued persecution of religious minorities in pakistan, in addition to the deaths of hindus in pakistan...

...do a plot of time vs. % of religious minorities in pakistan and tell me if it doesn`t look like the slippery slope your behind is usually sliding down...

Ref shammi #: 382

[You quoted Prof. Hoodbhoy: ``....Institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Madras Institute for Mathematical Sciences, and the five Indian Institutes for Technology, and several others, are simply world-class. They have no counterparts in Pakistan. ``]

As usual, the code coolies coming out of the IITs have brought far more recognition to those institutions than they deserve. Institutions such as Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, and the Life Sciences Department at Madurai Kamaraj University do not get the recognition they deserve amongst the public but is well-known to US academics. There is a very large IISc alumni group in the US. IISc and Saha Institute were among those institutions coming under US sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests and while I could be wrong, I don`t remember seeing a single IIT on the sanctions list. Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute in Bombay (currently renamed Veermata Jeejibai Technical Institute, thus preserving the initials VJTI) has produced not just chemical engineers but those who are imbued with an enterpreneurial spirit who have started several specialty chemicals industries around Bombay. They seem not to need the ``freedom from bureaucratic rules`` that the US-based IITans demand for returning to India to set up industries. IITs are our Agmark-branded, export-oriented institutions who need to be placed in Export Processing Zones. A friend of mine at MicroSoft remarked upon the total lack of research papers coming out of the IITs.

hobbyt #376
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.

Reply hobbyty # 376

``...if the creation of space for another Muslim or several different states to exist within present day India is not a general good, do you not believe open debate about what a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot ``ought`` to be and how it may seek to respond to questions of social justice, equality before the law, remain a priority?``

Hobbyty, we discuss that almost endlessly bhai. But if people find your premise funny (given the history of the last bit of India that became a homeland for Muslims) then why so ghussa? You said to have a sense of humour.

Reply Dost Mittar

Re: Bangladeshi maid.

OK - if not happy at least substantially mollified. I was aware that there are many illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in India, and knew that they were often found in the cities controlling the rag picking trade and also cleaning houses. Did not know that it was common for them to be working as cooks etc. in people`s houses.

Further on Ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab :

US Ambassador Grady writes:

``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..

Shammi

Prior to 9/11 and Pakistan`s response to it, Pakistan was for the most part isolated, it`s economy a wreck - the burden of debt was crushing, the international community unresponsive to it`s call for action in Kashmir and discouraged by Pakistan state linkages to extremism both within and outside Pakistan. India had made a successful diplomatic and media case against Pakistan, after the kargil crisis, it had painted Pakistan into a corner defined by isolation and extremism; sectarian violence inside Pakistan only emphasized the Indian case.

The paradigm that defined the relations between Pakistan and India prior to 9/11 has changed. Pakistan decided to change it`s policy orientation (AKA ``U-turn``) and to allow for this reorientation, it reached certain understandings with the US in regard to Pakistan`s orientation to what is called ``terrorism,`` Pakistan`s relationship with Afghanistan and India. With regard to Afghanistan, the US agreed that future Afghan governments will be ``friendly`` towards Pakistan and with regard to India, a decision to curb elements that have sought to widen the scope of operations and to target civilians inside captive Kashmir and India and a commitment to improving relations with India.

In response to events of December 13, the Indian had sought a replay of the diplomatic and media campaign against Pakistan. Crude and unrealistic arguments were fashioned arguing India could act against Pakistan in the same manner the US did against Afghanistan and Al-Qaida and as israel acted against the Palestinian auuthority. Mr. Musharraf took the winds out of those sails with his speech of Jan. 12, 2002 and renewed his offer for dialogue, calling for de-escalation and the evacuation of Indian forces from Pakistan`s borders. The Indians overplayed their hand and in an atmosphere of local and national elections found the hostile atmosphere useful. The influential Indian paper ``The Hindu,`` for the last week has published calls for withdrawal of forces, arguing that India had made it`s point and that a stage of diminishing returns was at hand. 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. Now India needs a face saving device to allow it to withdraw - that`s what the recent conversation between Jaswant Singh and Colin Powell was about. India may withdraw and accept an offer of dialogue - what will have been gained? Unless of course, more terrorism takes place in Pakistan or in India - but with the FBI present, state players will be engaging in a very, very risky game of escalation and the price of failure or suspicion may be strategic in nature.

By way of Illustration:

``Not Enough For India`` - Kuldip Nayar - The Hindu - Feb 16, 2002

The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, can pat himself on the back for the position he has won for his country in the West. Shunned and stymied, Pakistan was functioning in a distasteful environment. Many nations had written it off and even the most optimistic were fearing the worst. Today, both the Senate and the U.S. Congress have commended him by passing a unanimous resolution.``

India needs a way out:

``Gen. Musharraf should hand over at least some of the 20 criminals living in Pakistan. It may provide the much-needed breakthrough. Otherwise, the scene is too dismal for words. There may be more hurt, more pain, more jingoism - which people on both sides have had enough of.`` - ``Not enough for India`` -- Notice the ``at least some...``

Musharraf`s answer - ``Daily Nation`` - Feb 16, 2002:

``They have this list of 20 people now. I am not going to do their bidding. As for the withdrawal of troops from the borders, it is our own deterrence that they had come and they have realised that there is nothing they can do because of our strength.’

“They have to go back. They will have to create their own face-saving: we cannot give it to them. They came of their own accord so they have to find a rationale for going back. “

Colin Powell and President Bush, he said, are doing their best to facilitate their (India’s) withdrawal.``

Yesterday`s paradigm has changed - To keep pace with the new paradigm requires new thinking.

RE: Reply #: 391 hobbyty

``A. Religion not enough justification for a state.

Evidence for and against this premise exist. Bangladesh in the case of Pakistan - Pakistan, in the case of India. And if indeed religion were not a sufficient bond, why not allow for additional states, they don`t have to be Muslim, in the land mass of present day India?``

I have been putting forward my views on why I think the logic for Pakistan was fundamentally flawed which I won`t repeat ad-nauseum. 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. The difference between India and Pakistan is that federalism is alive and well in the former and is evolving towards a center which is in charge of just defense, foreign policy and communications whereas in the latter federalism is yet to evolve (with all this experiments on basic democracy, who knows if it will ever do so). Regarding more states, three more were created just recently in India which proves that the Center will not come in the way of people`s aspirations on that count. If you`re talking about states outside the Indian Union, believe me, if there was such a movement, it would have happened (Kashmir doesn`t count due to the ideological dimension given to it by Pakistan). States like Tamilnadu are enormously politically savvy and would have started such a movement if the people felt that the Indian Union was stifling them. Not that people like Prabhakaran of the Tamil Tigers didn`t try; that his ferocious Sri-Lankan movement didn`t catch on in India is a tribute to the strength of federalism in India.

``B. Pakistan is a failed state.``

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?

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. But by no stretch of the imagination does that translate to any of the three being successful states because of their dismal failures on the social side.

The Westminster model has worked reasonably well in India and has caught on in Bangladesh so I don`t know what your beef is about it. I think it is the only way that both regional aspirations as well as a strong Central Government can be accomodated (compared to the Presidential system). Really, this is the only way for Pakistan to go too if the military rulers are willing to get out of the way.

``Organization and Technology - through out history, no culture, society or civilization has progressed without conceiving and instituting problem solving loop innovation in these two fields -Mr. Musharaff`s restructuring is an attempt to lead Pakistan in to the awareness of this truth; certainly an acknowledgement failures, and the willingness to act upon the failures, which is not something failed states can do.``

The problem is that Pakistan has been trying this very thing for the last 50 years (national governments, partyless elections etc..) with little success. Pakistan is made up of distinct linguistic and cultural provinces with their own aspirations. Unless these forces are accomodated.,there is little reason to believe Musharaff`s plans will work. 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 it`s size warrants.

Aamir,

What you are touching on as per calcutta riots has been explored in detail already. In any event whereas a weak case can be made against Suhrawardy (though I have proved that wrong too with facts), no responsible author not even La Pierre and Collins the two anti-Pakistan authors have accused Jinnah of it. Jinnah`s statement two days before the event is quite clear as to what he envisaged the day to be. I will quote it later tonight.

There is no denying that the Pakistan demand and its raison de ettre profited a great deal by the huge massacre of Muslims at Calcutta which is documented even in Wavell`s diary in which he says exactly the same thing... double the number of Muslims died. But Jinnah cannot be held accountable for Calcutta as per facts unless you are saying that he was wrong in asking for Pakistan and that caused all the bloodshed. But then you are excusing the intolerance of those who acted on their hatred for the Pakistan demand.

Ref dost-mittar #: 385

[I am not saying that the community does not bear any responsibility for its uplift. But sometimes, you have to give an incentive to ``drag their a$$es over to class``. You are the expert on Tamil Nadu, isn`t this what Jayalalitha did there?]

Most schools in Tamil Nadu were quasi-nationalized, in the sense that private schools were reimbursed for the tuition fees of students by the state but private management of the schools continued, by the Karunanidhi regime in the late 60s/early 70s. Thus essentially education through secondary schools became free. (This did not apply to schools run by religious orders such as convents, only those private schools that were managed by a Trust, or to elite Public Schools like those in various hill stations). Since this was not a sufficient incentive, MGR during his first administration introduced the Nutritious Meals Scheme by which free lunch was provided to indigent students. This enabled poor students to attend school; if nothing else, poor parents sent their kids off to school because they would get at least one meal a day as opposed to starving. But none of this incentives was needed in neighboring Kerala where literacy improved at a far more rapid pace than in Tamil Nadu. Sometimes, the cultural milieu has far greater impact than any number of government programs.

I will agree that rather than store 20 million tons of surplus grains in warehouses and losing them to rats, the government should provide free breakfast and lunch to all students and provide free education through at least the 10th Standard all over India. Even if only 3-5 years of education sticks in the student`s minds, at least they will be able to read, which is a far better situation than today.

There is a reason why any government in India fears an educated population. The first two states to elect Communist governments (Kerala and West Bengal) also had the highest literacy rates. So long as we accept socialism is good, the claim is Communism is the extreme form of socialism and thus is better. You need to completely revamp the economic system into a free market, laissez-faire economy before you attempt complete literacy. After all, West Bengal continues to elect Communists despite the failure of all the East European countries and despite Tienanmen Square. The future is bleak unless you brainwash the kids in the free market system.

PS. As an aside, when MGR broached the subject of US support for his Midday Meals Scheme during his visit to the US, the AID (Agency for International Development) officials were excited. They were prepared to fund the entire scheme and provide high-protein items such as soymeal from the US surplus; their only demand was that all students` physical growth be measured at regular intervals and reports submitted to AID. AID viewed it as a great big scientific experiment. Not fully understanding AID`s stance and fearing a US plot of some sort against Indian children, MGR flat out ruled out the possibility of sharing any data with the US. How do I know this? A participant in the discussions told me.

Ref hobbyty #: 376

[Dost, if the creation of space for another Muslim or several different states to exist within present day India is not a general good, do you not believe open debate about what a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot ``ought`` to be and how it may seek to respond to questions of social justice, equality before the law, remain a priority?]

There already IS a state in India , not just for Muslims, but with a Muslim majority. In case you have forgotten its name, it is Jammu & Kashmir. We all know exactly what that state has been going through because of Pakistani intervention and internal power politics.

I don`t believe that all the Indian Muslims will decide to move to some artificially created state so that they can be in a majority and rule themselves without interference from Hindus. First, they all don`t speak the same language. Second, they own property and businesses where they reside today. Third, the move in India has been toward greater integration among ethnic and linguistic groups, not greater division. Fourth, since the ethnicities of the Muslims vary, they will not form a cohesive state.... you can look at the Pakistan+Bangladesh experiment of 1947-1971. As for any other state with a religious minority of India forming a majority in the state, I think Nagaland is predominantly Christian. States in the Northeast such as Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, etc., maintain their distinct ethnic identities too without serious damage to the Indian polity. So, if there were a natural concentration of Muslims in one part of India and they demanded a separate state, they would get it absent the history of Partition and absent troubles in Kashmir. Since those two cannot be wished away, any demand by anybody, Hindu or Muslim, for a separate Islamistan state inside India is going to go over like a lead balloon.

hobbytv,

{{Incredible! Really, in bad taste; a poor replacement for argument or even humour, disappointing.}}

Sir, I`m not here to conduct myself in what standards of ``manners`` or ``taste`` you expect Chowkies to live by. As far as I`m concerned, you can take your opinions about me & shove `em.

ylh has no qualms about getting downright personally insulting when he starts going into those orgasmic frenzy of posts. He hates it when Indians get dowmnright nasty with him. He likes to dish it out, but hates to take his own medicine. The most pathetic excuse he`s come out with is ``Indians always start it``. Then he starts cursing India & Indians in general.

Maybe cursing India & hindus is so routine & commonplace in Pakistan, that many Pakistanis dont even realise that it pisses Indians off. I`m not saying there are no jerks from the Indian side too. Heck, I have khunnas-ka feuds with some of them too.

As much as many of you Pakistanis hate to admit it lest...gasp,,.it may corrupt your identity; you Pakis mentally are just a chip of the old block. Your country, society, mentality is just as screwed up as India`s.

On a logical basis I would have figured that since Islam is such a ``perfect`` religion, that if a country were 97% muslim--it would conduct itself as a well mannered, cultured, civilised society. Your society is just as divisive, hateful, corrupt, crime-ridden backward society as India!

At least since India has a majority of hindus; its a society that reveres several less-than-perfect-false gods..Maybe thats why we`re decadent. But what is Pakistan`s excuse?

You are surrounded by Islam--but sometimes it seems to me not one drop of Islam has filtered through the social fabric of your country. Well, obviously I`m wrong...

Travard

2 Premises, (polemic) in your post:

A. Religion not enough justification for a state.

Evidence for and against this premise exist. Bangladesh in the case of Pakistan - Pakistan, in the case of India. And if indeed religion were not a sufficient bond, why not allow for additional states, they don`t have to be Muslim, in the land mass of present day India?

B. Pakistan is a failed state.

This is hardly an objective statement. Ethnic rivalry, poverty and social injustice continue to a significant degree in India, as well. The fact, that Pakistan is taken as seriously as it is by India would suggest that it is not a failed state, unless I were to argue that relations between Pakistan and India are a dialogue of the failed. However; an area where Pakistan has not lived up to the expectations is the arena of political competition. The Westminster model and as far as I am concerned, the rubbish about ``Chief`` minister in provinces is equally useless. These are essentially politcal/administrative creations of imperial secret services and fall under funtionalist/structuralist anthrological theories; these are meaningless in the present environment of ambition and expectation of service, of problem solving that are not based on values of blood, kinship or patronage.

Organization and Technology - through out history, no culture, society or civilization has progressed without conceiving and instituting problem solving loop innovation in these two fields -Mr. Musharaff`s restructuring is an attempt to lead Pakistan in to the awareness of this truth; certainly an acknowledgement failures, and the willingness to act upon the failures, which is not something failed states can do.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``…At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have still to see even a modicum of Muslim representation at the senior echelons or board of directors of large corporations…``

Allow me to provide the modicum of Muslim representation - Azim Premji (Chairman, CEO) of Wipro

Re: Harimau

``..If the Hindus condemn a barber to hereditary barberdom because of his caste that is a barbarity but if a Muslim`s descendants follow their parent`s trade that is okay?…``

No, but you presented the issues as if religion (and principally religion) had something to do with social immobility and being perpetually entrapped in a given profession. If that was not your intent, then this is a non-issue.

Re: Hobbyty

``…the paradigm regulating relations between Pakistan and India has already changed…``

How?

#382

``P.S. Hoodbhoy is wrong about the number of IITs (there are six, not five -- one more was built in the 90s in Guwahati)``

Actually there are 7 now, Rourkee has also been designated an IIT. So we have:

Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kharagpur, Kanpur, Guwahati, Rourkee