Strategic Depth at Home

Rsaxena #243 you write ``you`d make a horrible lawyer...`` At least we agree on that (although not for the same reasons, I think).

re:Reply #: 247

audio-video-radio,

Why don`t you reveal your real identity you idiot. Then we can talk. Sridhar is an implant. What kind of nonsensical statement is that? Where did you get education? In some corporation school?

We are 3rd generation Tamilians who made Delhi their home a long time before the immigrants from Pak came. My grandfather and my father were both with Central Govt. My dad ended up getting transferred to Bombay and eventually to Madras where he is settled. So much for your calling me an implant. Go and figure how many Tamilians are living in Karolbagh, R.K Puram and other such places.

Your analysis of the amount spent is all faulty but i will not go into that again. Converting all that into dollars is ludicrous. I was trying to make a point. This has nothing to do with how much it cost my dad. He was also paying for my sister`s B.E course when she was in Pune all by herself in a hostel. So, add that to the amount. If you think you are smart, go and figure how much that would have cost my dad. See, what i am getting at? Of course, you don`t.

Let us know a little more about you and then we can talk. You obviously have no idea about Delhi otherwise you would not be making such ridiculous statements. May be you are a fukcing implant on this society. In which case, we do not have to deal with you at all.

Sridhar

To the interactors on this board:

Perhaps you might wish to take a look at the following two sites. The first one is an article in Mother Jones, hardly a hard right magazine, on contemporary feminist thought. The second is responses to the initial article and the author`s reaction to the responses. Might be enlightening to some of you.

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO93/lehrman.html

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/ND93/backtalk.html


BTW, I came across these articles well after my grad school experiences and after they had been written. My personal experience in two different US research universities fully supports Ms. Lehrman`s contentions.

Regards.

``A second package of proposed Constitutional amendment packages, unfolded by the government for a public debate, recommended that the President will appoint the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee,

Chief of Army Staff, Vice Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff,

Vice Chief of Air Staff,

Chief of Naval Staff,

Vice Chief of Naval Staff,

Chief Election Commissioner,

Auditor General of Pakistan,

Chairman Federal Public Services Commission, Supreme Judicial Council,

and Chairman National Accountability Bureau.``(Nation)

AND -- the President will appoint the NEXT President of Pakistan -- called Musharraf -- who will appoint the NEXT President Pakistan -- called Mushrraf -- who will appoint the NEXT President -- called Musharraf -- who will appoint the next President ALSO called Musharraf -- and Pakistan will live happily everafter under MUSHOCRACY.

Tum slaamat raho hazasr baras/har baras ke hoN din pachaas hazaar .... calculator please.

Zakk #235: `` I would make a comment, in his slection of people, he has not mentioned (with the exception of BB) a single Sindhi, nor a Single pashtun or Baluchi in the list of people competent enough to head a new Govt.``

It is an incomplete cabinet. So you can add the names of your choice. But I have based it on merit, not on provincial or gender preferences. By the way, Musharraf himself belongs to Sindh. If you mean ethnically a Sindhi, then why not include a Saraiki, a Potohari, a Kashmiri, etc. And furthur, why not a Gujarati, someone from UP amongst the urban Sindhis, etc.

Ethnic balance is very important in the representation of the people. However at the cabinet level, only competence should count. The other thing that should count is representation of all political parties. If there are more competent Sindhis, Baluchis etc. than the current names, then they should be included. But not just because they are Sindhis or Baluchis, or women or minorities. But because of their competencies.

The overwhelmingly educated class of Pakistan comes from urban Karachi (because of their high education rates), and urban Punjab (because of their high population, and from men (due to very low literacy and professional opportunities given to women). For example, 80% of Pakistan`s IT companies are in Karachi. And 80% of Pakistan`s IT exports are from Lahore. And nearly all these companies are run by men. So while their maybe many competent Sindhi and Baluchi minority women in IT, an overwhelming amount of Pakistan`s computer scientists are from Karachi, and then from Lahore, and they are men. Ditto in other fields. So most of the people in the cabinet will end up being from these groups. Just like nearly the whole cricket team of Pakistan is always from Karachi and Lahore (with a few from Multan and Pindi). The solution to this problem is to spread cricket in other areas of Pakistan. But players from under represented areas should only be included in the team, if they are the best players, not because they are from a certain ethnicity.

Maleeha Lodhi maybe a Baluchi (I am not sure). Amongst governors, Omer Ashgar Khan is from NWFP (does it really make a difference whether he is not a Pushtun). Soomro is a Sindhi. Other positions could be filled by people from other provinces. However, cabinet positions make or break a country, and should never be based on affirmative action, nor on mere political popularity. They should be based on technical comptency, spread over all political parties.

I would however be intereted in your suggestions on whom you would replace in the list I provided.

anNy #234 you write ``nasah sahab,

Your critisism of pakistan would serve a better purpose were it done in a respecful manner. Thus people would read and better themselves. This way, reeking with patronizing and amusement, it does little good. Many like myself would be cursing you mildly inside our sad little jehadi minds and therefore it serves little purpose for we will remain the same bumpkins you feel contempt for and hate so much.

Hoping you will understand and be kinder, kind sir.``

You put it much, much than I did in responding to that post - I essentially let nasah sahab off the hook by responding to his Eid Mubarak and not requesting him to share the ``amusement`` he felt at my post.

nasah: Would you care to explain exactly what it was in my post you found amusing? If I had written a post gloating over India`s loss of image as a result of a murder having taken place there (as you did), I would upon further thought have been ashamed, not amused, of the superficial and callous attitude towards tragic event it represents.

Romair

Wow! That`s an impressive and detailed list - with exception of BB - children are a blessing, ambition can live only if the progeny are atleast alive - BB is a receckless gambler - she needs to retire. Many persons have had very succesful second and third careers. With regard to Mr. Gen. Musharraf, there is only one acceptable way he can be elected - that`s if he resign his commisson. This is a real problem; must have reasonable and responsible team to lead the institutions of the armed forces. I think, if it were to be decided that he should stand for elections - he would win; PML, PPP are not the only organizational players who can deliver. Plus it helps to have friends. Shaukat Aziz as Premier? which party would adopt him? but if Mr. Soomro had given up other avenues earlier, and really makes a good show, as there is concensus that he is making - he would be an acceptable choice.

Your list is really excellent food for thought and I must admit that I was not as focused on the personalities - with the exception of BB - I was more focused on what kinds of constitutional remedies may be offered, so that it will not matter as much as it did in the past, who forms the government. My concerns beyond the constitutional remedies are a public debate to introduce ``prefectures`` and do away with ``provinces`` - the prefectures numbering more than fifty (yes, it`s arbitrary number in a way, but the concern is create a new awareness based on administrative efficiency and service, as opposed to the usual tripe about ``identity`` whether religious, language based or cultural or ethnic). In general a ``system`` for Pakistan, which will absorb the tensions that are generated and used to political advantage.

My other concerns are the restructuring and redirecting of ministeries, so as to redefine governance - ``rulers``, ``traders`` these terms define our present. What kinds of changes must occur for us to see these as ``officials``, ``adminstrators`` and ``business persons`` - the potential scope and scale of restructuring is really breath taking. The direction must be the enabling of citizens and enterprizes, with incentives towards national objectives. Simultaneously, a strong accountablity or feedback loop as part of the mission of government institutions.

At the same time, I am interested in the restructuring of the armed forces and the defence industrial production sector. The armed forces restructured to meet the present and future threat, with the emphasis going to intelligence, air and sea. And defence Institutions producing significant numbers of Masters and Phd level officers and scientists. The defence industrial mechanism devolved to include a large number of local smaller industrial concerns, overall forming a the backbone or foundations of a larger industrialization in the country.

All of this requires a general peace, breathing space, a deal acceptable to the Kashmiri peoples - a deal acceptable to the Afghani - above all it requires Americans to be based in or close to Pakistan, even if, for five years.

re: TAhmed

{{Rsaxena #221 Please dont confuse people by carrying over your outrage at what I wrote from another board, and one that is now on the dreaded ``Next`` page.}}

...you should know by now that i don`t feel `outrage` at anything written on an anonymous message board by anonymous people...you must have me mistaken for ylh....

{{, I just responded to your last post there, and in you will I hope appreaciate that I have taken great pains to make you understand why I consider it fair and proper to take liberties with posts of congenital Pakistan haters like you.}}

...so why don`t you just say you felt a general need, at an arbitrary moment, to lecture to me...we`re all down with that...instead of trying to cloud the issue by connecting it to a post on a totally irrelevant issue...you`d make a horrible lawyer...

Re: Ms. Shah #238

``You have represented and dismissed your female classmates by a slightly blurred version of the same old stereotypes. In addition, you have provided your readers with a your reference points of ssociations: Womyn=feminist=irrational/illogical=anti patriarchal=silly female. Quite disingenious.``

Actually, you are the one being disingenious. I think its absolutely clear from my posts that I was not running down women in general. Far from it. I`ll run the risk of sounding patronizing (to your fine sensibilities) but I can think of many women who have three times the brainpower (and none of the obnoxiousness) of these Shriekers. Incidentally, these women also have twice the brainpower, at least, of most of the male grad student that I knew. However, stupid is as stupid does and the Shreikers are stupid any way you slice them and the normal women are not. If you are interested, not that you are, I also don`t care for snotty pimply-faced New Classical geeks from Chicago who have never worked a day in the real world but thats besides the point here. I merely want to make the point that any school of though with fanatical adherents tends to get itself disliked. Of course, for fellow travellers such as you, the fanatics are merely waging the good fight.

I was running down only one particular type of woman: the hard-core difference feminist. I would argue that these are a very small but very vocal minority of women who have essentially outshouted everyone else (e.g., the NOW harridans--oh look, more sexist language!) and have forced the debate into a very nasty, confrontational, often ludicrous mode that benefits no one other than themselves.

Please tell me that you are not, seriously, trying to make the old cliched argument that women in the US only earn 72 cents (or has it gone up to 80 now?) on the dollar that men do? This is such a stupid argument that no one buys it any more. Every reputable study done for the past decade fixes the ratio at between 95 and 98 cents. OK. So we have between 2 and 5 cents worth of ``discrimination`` in the corporate world against women. Not perfect but nothing to get hysterical about either.

Yes, some, many, women choose the ``mommy track`` because it allows them to live the life they want to, kids and all. The simple fact of whether or not a woman has children explains most of the ``discrimination`` against her. Its not being female that gets discriminated against, its being unwilling to give 110% to your career. Whats wrong with that? You want to have your cake and eat it too? Boo hoo. When you don`t get it you scream, ``Discrimination!`` We`ll pass laws that force firms to pay less productive workers (women who put their children ahead of their firm and career) the same as more productive workers (men AND women who do not CHOOSE to have children). Yes. Thats fair.

So factor in children, length of time in the workforce, type of career path taken, etc, and there is NO institutionalized discrimination against women in the US (OK, 2-5% salary discrepancy that can`t be explained with existing data). Lets declare war over this.

BTW, men who choose the ``Daddy track`` also make much less money and have slower promotion rates than men who don`t choose it. So what? Isn`t that one of the tradeoffs that people have to make? Decide what is important to you and then act on it. A couple of years back I met a man who quit a job at McKinsey (paying well upwards of $150k a year if I remember correctly) for one that paid barely half of that at most (still not chicken feed) because he was tired of working till nine or ten every night when on assignment. The job that he took allowed him to be home by sixish at the latest and he never worked on weekends and he could take all the long weekends and vacations that he was due. See, Daddy track; 50% pay cut; victim of institutionalized discrimination. He said that he was informed by his superiors at McKinsey that his reluctance to travel and put in the necessary time meant that his career there would be very short-lived. So he left before he was asked to leave.

BTW, also, as far as the ``glass ceiling`` nonsense is concerned, the single best predictor, with a lag of approximately 20+ years, for the number of female CEOs, CFOs, COOs, etc., in Fortune 500 companies is the proportion of women in the Harvard Business School class. So, if they just wait long enough for the requisite seniority, the glass ceiling will break itself. Unless of course these women CHOOSE to go the ``Mommy track`` as/when/if they hear their biological clocks ticking. If they are so concerned about getting ahead in life, skip the kids or marry a house husband to look after them. Don`t complain when the consequences of their choices come back to haunt them. Oops, biology still works against them. IF they have two children, they will still be two years, at least, behind their male HBS compatriots. So, hire a surrogate mother and/or sue God or Mother Nature. Just spare me the screams of discrimination and the demand for special treatment. Incidentally, doesn`t the call not to ``discriminate`` against women and men with children really translate into a demand for discrimination against men and women who don`t have children? If Mommy or Daddy takes half the day off to take Junior to the doctor, who picks up the slack? Mommy or Daddy don`t usually volunteer to stay late and return the favor for a childless colleague, do they? I`m sure they would love to BUT they have to get back home to look after the kids.

Oh, thats right, the firm should hire a temp to fill in for the absent parent or, better yet, should be 20% overstaffed so that the slack can be picked up effortlessly. I mean, after all, it works so well in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, etc., doesn`t it?

Now, if I was to argue that women in Pakistan have absolute equality, etc, etc, etc, then you would have a point. I`m not arguing that. I think I know, having lived and worked in Pakistan (both in the corporate and NGO sectors) for several years, about some of the obstacles facing women there. I respect and admire Asma Jehangir and her sister, who certainly have more guts than I ever would, but they are comparable to the old school of feminists in the US: women who want equal rights with men, not ones who want all sorts of special treatment and quotas and free day-care at work paid for by the firm.

I don`t think that firms should pay for health or country club membership for any workers--as a shareholder I want better returns on my investment, not perks for management--but if they deny them to female executives while giving them to males of the same rank/seniority, then go ahead and sue. Now that is a case of rank discrimination!

The feminists of 60, 50, even 25 or so years ago were fighting for a just cause. The ones now, like the present generation of black leaders, are fighting for special rights and privileges. That makes them just another parasitical special interest group, not leaders of the ``Freedom Struggle.`` There is a difference, you know. But, since you are in grad school now and if you still haven`t figured it out, its too late for you.

Regards.

PS: To all the Chowk readers who don`t have a sense of humour or recognize sarcasm when they hear it. Get a sense of humour. It makes life so much more fun.

Sac,

This whole reactionary ``pc police`` thing has been discredited, so let it go. Yes, you are accountable for taking ahistorical viewpoints in terms of gender issues. Yes, you must admit that there is inequity at many levels, including the personal, even at Chowk. Yes, it is your responsibility to not speak for people who are unrepresented at political levels; its really not that complicated. Tough luck, get over it, stop your collective whining and either get with it or be prepared for extinction.

Gloves off enough for you?

BEHIND EVERY ``SUCCESSFUL`` WOMAN......

It is almost a proverb now that behind every successful man there is a woman. Lets see what is behind every successful women.

Benazir Bhutto
Qualificatios: A dead father

Haseena Wajid
Qualificatios: A dead father

Khalida zia
Qualificatios: A dead Husband

Amelda Marcus
Qualificatios: A dead husband

Aquino
Qualificatios: A dead husband

Indra Gandhi
Qualificatios: A dead father

So is it safe to assume that behind every suucessful woman there is a dead man? No wonder sometimes I feel so dead.

re saminashah:

My point has been admirably explained by fuzair. We already have monitor in chief tAhmed321 sahib in striking form on these boards, the last thing we need is PC speak turn these unregulated boards(as they ought to be) into boring chatterboxes.

With all due respect.

-sac

nasah: Eid Mubarak to you and yours as well. And to others on Chowk. Sorry if I come across less friendly on chowk than I mean to be.

Rsaxena #221 Please dont confuse people by carrying over your outrage at what I wrote from another board, and one that is now on the dreaded ``Next`` page. Incidentally, I just responded to your last post there, and in you will I hope appreaciate that I have taken great pains to make you understand why I consider it fair and proper to take liberties with posts of congenital Pakistan haters like you. I dont expect to grow senile for many, many years to come, and so am glad to report that I will be at your service to point to the error of your ways on chowk (unless good sense takes over and I stop wasting so much time posting my bs on chowk).

What did I say about the amendments, folks.

Here is -- direct from -- the horse`s mouth -- the brazenly shameless -- master plan -- to perpetuate

army control of Pakistan civilian life -- for ever.

The cynical XCUSE -- ``the whole idea behind introducing amendments to the constitution was to block future intervention in the smooth running of the federal democracy``.

Interesting -- it’s like a fox plundering the chicken coop -- to ``block future intervention`` of the chicken coop by other foxes?

Here is Dawn interview with -- that clumsy sophist -- the voluble NRB chief, General Naqvi:

Army`s role in politics being formalized: Naqvi

By Ihtasham ul Haq & Rafaqat Ali

ISLAMABAD, June 29: Gen Tanvir Naqvi, Chairman, National Reconstruction Bureau, on Saturday said the role of the armed forces in politics was being formalized through National Security Council, as it was an open secret that the armed forces played a part in politics and their de facto role was recognized by the politicians as well.

He said the whole idea behind introducing amendments to the constitution was to block future intervention in the smooth running of the federal democracy.

In a panel interview with Dawn, the NRB chief said:

``The army has an unspecified, unwritten and informal role in the political affairs of the country.`` The politicians have recognized and accepted the role of the army in political affairs and turned to the army in matters of dispute even between the president and the prime minister, he said.

The politicians had been inviting the army chiefs to intervene for defusing crisis situations, he added.

The NRB chief was told that there was a perception that an attempt was being made to give the military a permanent partnership role in the government through some of the proposed amendments.

He was then asked why shouldn`t the army be reformed which had formed political cells in its institutions, he said the role of the army in politics was not because of political cells, but such cells were formed because of the army`s political role.

The NSC idea was to bring all those wielders of power on a discussion table. ``It is a reality, let us recognize it and bring it to a forum,`` he said. The NSC, he said, was a consultative body and not designed to supersede the parliament. ``Its role will be consultative, not (one of) executive.``

When asked why the leader of the opposition, who also becomes a power broker at times, had not been included in the NSC, he said then it would have led to the demand for inclusion of the provincial leaders of the opposition as well which, he thought, would have expanded the membership to an unnecessary extent.

When it was pointed out that some of the proposed amendments were being thought of as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif specific, the NRB chief said these amendments were not motivated except by one consideration that Pakistan should have a better qualified legislature.....(DAWN)

If the Army thinks that by becoming the HUNTING HOUNDS of al Qaida HUNTERS -- they have the license to HUNT and TEAR APART -- the civilian political system of their country -- any which way they want to -- and the West –AND the people of Pakistan -- will look the other way – Mushy MiaN is in for some rude awakening.

The US MAY -- but the PEOPLE of Pakistan -- MAY NOT.

After the debacle of REFERENDUM -- Mr. Musharraf should have learnt ONE lesson –- DO NOT take the PEOPLE of Pakistan -- for GRANTED.

If any lesson is to be learnt from the fiasco called the ‘ referendum’ – it is – that Pakistan VOTING public is politically as sophisticated – as their counterparts in India – and they are -- almost fed up with Mr. Musharraf and his army -- treating them as CATTLE.

In fact -- the West is NOT going to look the other way – the Europeans the British and even the USA is keeping Mr. Musharraf under the microscope plus a tight leash for -- any DEVIANT behavior.

Mr. Musharraf and his army are under commitment to RESTORE DEMOCRACY – in FULL and in its NORMAL form -- – not in its BAZTERDIZED version – in Pakistan.

Pakistanis deserve the SAME version of PARTICIPITAORY democracy and EMPOWERMENT -- that its neighbors enjoy -- ALL OVER THE SUBCONTINENT.

and ……………………WHY NOT?

re:Reply #: 219

audio-video-radio,

You call yourself by a funny name. No one seem to hear you. You are invisible. So your name is just that, funny.

Since when has medical education been free in India? May be in the place you grew up. Yes, the tuition fee is small (i got into a medical college in Delhi through an entrance exam. My dad did not shell out any capitation fee, not that he could afford to). But the books, the hostel fee. Over 5 years, these add up.

My intention was to note the difference is attitudes. I like this country but as i said earlier, i am here for the opportunities.

YOur post reveals what kind of person i am dealing with. Someone who did not imbibe the value system in the country you were born in (be it India or Pak). I will not fall to your level. Learn from people like Tahmed in this chowk how to interact. You may differ in your views but you have no right to be nasty. With no regards and may you burn in hell or whereever you are.

Sridhar