The Panel of Vendettas at UC Berkley

RSaxena # 200

BTW, what gave you the impression that I ever thought you felt an animosity toward the U.S.?

re: RSaxena # 200

That kind of omnibus comparison doesnt tell much. For most people the ``best`` country is either the country of their birth or the country of their dreams.

Instead of adjudicating who is better and who is the best, we ought to focus on specific, potentially verifiable facts and hypotheses. We can evaluate the validity of the statement: the unsatisfactory reputation of country X is merely because of its image problem. But there is no friggin` way we can decide what is ``best`` for others. People have to figure that out by themselves.

re: prem

{{People who for whatever reasons feel animosity toward America focus on these aspects of American life, rather than first confronting huge fires burning in their own backyards. That is precisely what Indians and Pakistanis (and everyone else) do(es). }}

uhh, genius, i feel no animosity towards america...as you seem to now understand, my point was that every country has its faults, but that doesn`t mean some countries aren`t better than others...america, despite its faults, is the best democracy on earth...similarly, india, despite its faults, is a far better country than the banana republic to its West....not perfect, but better...

re: Ali2 # 197

`` India is good, pakistan is good... the whole world is good ``

That is not my position. My position is that ``India is good, Pakistan is good...the whole world is good,`` with a great deal of potential for silliness, and sometimes downright evil. To assert that India is ``just good`` after what has happened recently will require some absurd logical acrobatics. Let`s quit thinking in these black and white terms.

re: Saxena # 193

You do get my point, RSax. You and I will agree that the U.S. is as good a country as one is likely to find. Yet, you will also acknowledge that in America there ARE cases of race riots, discrimination against minorities, sikh gas station owners being killed, and that America does splurge money on NASA when her inner cities keep crumbling.

People who for whatever reasons feel animosity toward America focus on these aspects of American life, rather than first confronting huge fires burning in their own backyards. That is precisely what Indians and Pakistanis (and everyone else) do(es).

The correct response to this situation is not to revel in victimhood, but to focus on solving one`s real problems that give rise to ``adverse image.``

re: hobbyty # 196

``And don`t you agree that significant numbers of Indians see ``hostility`` of Pakistan Army towards India as structural in Pakistan? And don`t you agree that significant numbers of Indians hold Pakistan not being ``secular``, as a major theme.``

You have put your finger on the nub of the problem. I have myself noticed this thinking spread far and wide in India in recent years, far beyond the Hindutva coterie. Indians do not view Pakistan as inheritors of the Mughal tradition (in fact, that will be very offensive to most Indians). But they have begun to feel that Pakistani army itself has a combination of the Mughal ruler and ghazi mentality that views itself as superior to Hindus (whom Pakistani military men rarely describe in flattering terms). And it is very difficult for a non-Muslim to believe that anyone who fancies themselves as being a ghazi will not be determined to harm them.

So you see why Indians see the ``hostility`` of Pakistan Army towards India as structural in Pakistan. And the fact that depite less than spectacular results each time, a relatively smaller Pakistani force has repeatedly fought wars with India (except in 1971 when Pakistan did not want a war) only strengthens this view.

Prem, Sarwari

While Prem may pity and worry - shouldn`t he first acknowledge the problem, after all, you can`t fix a problem if you do not acknowledge it it exist. Examine the themes in this piece in the Editorial section of the ``Hindustan Times`` - see if you can tell how the psychological need for significant numbers of Hindu Indians is satisfied in positing the following: Muslim ``Invader``, Muslim ``Defiler``, Muslim ``freeloader``, Muslim irrational. Hindu ``coward`` - and how vengence in the present must be taken for alleged wrongs in the past - The Hindu ``Victim`` must awaken and avenge is Reason:

``Secularist Be warned

May I make a sincere request to my fellow Hindus to give a respite to the use of the word ‘secular’ for the next five years? The word stinks to high heavens.

It smells of hypocrisy, cowardice, an attitude of holier-than-thou and a singular ignorance of history unparalleled in the annals of our sorry times.

There were no secularists around when Ghazni invaded India 13 times, smashed the lingam in the Somnath Temple and took the pieces to be scattered in front of a masjid in his hometown for his kinsmen to merrily trample over. Nor were there any secularists living when, during the long Islamic reign in India, 3,000 temples were demolished. It was considered part of medieval behaviour and so to be taken in one’s stride.

If not Babar it was his general who destroyed a temple in Ayodhya, and despite the hysterical denials of our demented historians, a temple did exist where the Babri masjid once stood and there are enough records — and architectural evidence — to prove the fact. Only the determinedly blind will refuse to accept the testimony of writers like Mirza Jan (1856), Mohammad Asghar (1858), Mirza Rajah Ali Beg Sarur (1787-1867) and Sheikh Md Azmat Ali (1869) who have had no reason to tell a lie.

But even if, for the sake of argument, there was no temple in Ayodhya, it ill-behoved anybody, let alone a murderous marauder like Babar, to build a masjid in what is considered a Hindu holy city any more than a theoretical Hindu invader of Saudi Arabia would have in building a temple in Mecca close to or on the site of the Kaaba. Ram is as much meaningful to Hindus as Allah is to Muslims. The Babri masjid was raised in Ayodhya to tell the Hindus who the rulers were. The VHP does not have to be apologetic to anyone, least of all to the secularists, for wishing to raise a temple to Ram at a site they believe he was born.

The real issue is not Ayodhya as much as it is the secularists’ dogged determination not to face up to history. The attitude of the average secularist is either to bury his head, ostrich-like, in the sands of time in the face of embarrassing facts or to say that the Hindus deserved what they got. By their cowardly behaviour, the secularists have both directly or indirectly encouraged the hardliners among Muslims to refuse to consider any sensible compromise with the VHP, and if anybody is to be blamed for all the disturbances of the past decade, it has to be the secularist with his contempt for Hinduism.

What happened in Ahmedabad is no different from what happened in Delhi when Indira Gandhi was assassinated or what happened in Punjab following Partition. The Gujaratis are as law-abiding as anyone else and don’t deserve to be maligned. Does anyone remember Rajiv Gandhi’s remarks about the killings of Sikhs following Indira Gandhi’s death? Did the Congress pull him up for his thoughtless comment? The Ahmedabad rioting was not pre-planned unlike the Godhra killings by Muslim fanatics or the killings of innocent Kashmiris by ISI-supported jehadis.

The Ayodhya issue is not for the court to decide but for the Muslim community to concede to the VHP what rightfully belongs to the Hindus — graciously. And who will believe this community when it says it will abide by a court verdict? What happened in the Shah Bano case? For the Muslim community, it is a win-win situation. If it wins the case, it can have the last laugh. If it loses the case, it can always say that the BJP government has bought the judges.

Such is the power of blackmail that the secularists, in their blind hatred of the BJP and the VHP, wield. Why should anyone blame the VHP? Hasn’t it shown exemplary patience for 10 long years?

The blame for the VHP’s and the kar sewaks’ militancy lies entirely at the doors of the secularists. It is not the kar sewak who is destabilising the country. The fault is that of the secularist and a weak and indecisive government which is afraid of its own shadow. Ten years is a long time to wait. That is why the kar sewak is blandishing his trishul.

How long are we going to appease the irrational among the Muslim community to show how secular and law-abiding we are as a people? It serves the rabid among the Muslims to see how the BJP is being reduced to a joke. And the secularists’ stand has only served to strengthen the rabid Muslims to hold on to their own and watch the tamasha.

The Babri masjid was of no great architectural wonder. Masjids are routinely levelled to the ground in Muslim countries including in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to make way for development. No Hindu protested when ancient temples had to be submerged in the course of raising dams. The VHP would have happily agreed to build a special masjid for Muslims to pray in peace in Ayodhya — but in some other location, away from the janmabhoomi site.

But that wouldn’t convince the secularists, who would rather see the country reduced to ashes than worship at the altar of reason. For them, bashing the Sangh parivar has become an end in itself. The nation is heading for a major crisis of unprecedented proportions that would make the Ahmedabad riots pale into insignificance. The secularists are warned.

They are driving a frustrated people to desperation. And when that comes to pass, logic and good sense are stood on their head and the entire nation will suffer. And then let not the kar sewaks be blamed for what is not their fault. There has to be a limit to secular pig-headedness.``

Re: Prem 192

Now that you have won a few friends nad boosted your self esteem, can you give your `` India is good, pakistan is good... the whole world is good `` a little rest?

Prem

I certainly regret the tone and contnent of your post. Your pity and worry should be directed to more deserving peoples who while citizens of India, Indian school children are taught to regard tehm as ``Invaders``, as responsible for ``Hindu Holocaust``, for ``breaking OUR country`` - are the historical ``bad guy`` of India. Charity begins at home, don`t you agree?

Do you agree that relations between Pakistanis and Indians should be viewed primarily thru the lens of the media? I think you agree with me, that while media perceptions are important, what is more important is to see if such attitudes and perceptions reflect reality - don`t you agree?

And don`t you agree that significant numbers of Indians see ``hostility`` of Pakistan Army towards India as structural in Pakistan? And don`t you agree that significant numbers of Indians hold Pakistan not being ``secular``, as a major theme.

If Indians ``discover`` that these perceptions do not reflect reality, SHOULD, they reconsider these perceptions?

Mine is a position rooted in realism, that relations between countries are deeply influenced by the underlying intellectual/ideological constructs that animate players, stake holders. The intellectual constructs that hold Muslim as ``Invader``, as responsible for devastation of Hindus and Hinduism and India, hurts Indians foremost. Intellectual constructs that hold Pakistan army as structurally ``hostile`` and that hold the right of Pakistan to exist as Pakistanis see fit, as anti-thetical to the idea of India - hurts first and foremost, Indians. If it takes time or not, for Indians to admit this, is funadamentally, for Indians to decide and perhaps the basis for arriving at such a conclusion should be whether or not such perceptions actually help or hinder Pakistanis and Indians from finding common ground.

Ref scout #: 191

[achieving anything while smelling like a pakora with coconut grease in your hair is just plain wrong and unhealthy.]

Tell me about it! We got to get these guys out of their green polyester pants and into something nicer and make them wear some deodorant!

re; spout

{achieving anything while smelling like a pakora with coconut grease in your hair is just plain wrong and unhealthy.}

fine, so take a bath and stop using your head as a zero-friction frying pan...what do you want us to do about your problem?

re: prem

you wearing horse blinkers? let`s see...for each of your inane examples, i have a comparable one for america...so let`s use your inane logic and make some general conclusions about america too...shall we?

{Hindu Muslim riots}

black white riots

{Caste-based discrimination}

race-based discrimination

{Christian missionaries under threat}

sikh gas station owners in AZ under threat

{Poor nation burning money on nuclear toys}

nation with homeless people burning money on NASA

The world has become too integrated and information flows too quickly these days for the world to not differentiate between incidents and institutionalized trends. That is the only point I wished to make to you.

re: RSaxena # 190

Poverty and corruption...plus all those good things you cited...plus -

Hindu Muslim riots

Caste-based discrimination

Christian missionaries under threat

Poor nation burning money on nuclear toys

Galloping population

The world has become too integrated and information flows too quickly these days for the world not to find out our ugly side. That is the only point I wished to make to sarwari and hobbyty.

Raveena #190, ``being Indian is a boon...helps your image...similarly, in business circles, being Indian is great..``

achieving anything while smelling like a pakora with coconut grease in your hair is just plain wrong and unhealthy.

Re: prem

{India and Pakistan do not have merely an image problem.}

the image problems are completely different in nature...india`s image problem is in the global media viz-a-viz poverty and corruption...pakistan`s image problem is that too, but also islamic terrorism, dictatorships, bankruptcy, and lack of any redeeming qualities..

india has a favorable image when it comes to academic circles...Stanford, MIT and CalTech professors love Indian graduate students from IIT...being Indian is a boon...helps your image...similarly, in business circles, being Indian is great...go snoop around in America`s top technology, financial, and management consulting firms and you will see them teeming with Indians...people assume you will fit a great, positive stereotype....

re: sarwari # 187 hobbyty 188

As in the case of his long-standing intellectual support to Pakistani ``military involvement`` in Kashmir, Ejaz Haider has got this wrong again.

Neither Pakistani press nor the Indian press likes the ``enemy country.`` Both highlight issues that are ``uncomfortable`` for the other country. In some cases, they are not even professionally honest, but Indians and Pakistanis both invariably believe that the other country`s press suffers from that failing more.

India and Pakistan do not have merely an image problem. When passionate young patriots articulate such views of self-righteous victimhood, one is charmed and affectionately amused. For, what is youth without passion? But when supposedly older and wiser people hold such views, one pities them, and worries for our countries.

Sarwari

That itt took Ejaz Haidar and TFT this long to catch on to something most Pakistanis visiting on Chowk become aware of rather quickly. Mr. Haidar and TFT types should visit Chowk more often.

Recall When Mr. Musharraf first took over, ther was an article on these boards by a Indian Hindu writer who had married a Muslim Pakistani girl - This writer while calling for greater understanding between school children from both Pakistan and India, also identified the Pakistan Army as the manin cause for tensions between the two countries.

And of course the ``secular`` thing - does anyone need anymore evidence about just how ``secular`` India is??

India winning the image war? Pakistan losing the image war? Possibly, but is that the best way to think about getting across to Indians who we as Pakistanis are? Are we to nothing more than a media image? I`m not suggesting that media perceptions are not important, but are they that important that we should be focusing on media over substance. I say by all means lets engage Indians, but in a clear headed, sober, manner. We don`t need the Indians to like us or think of us as ``just like us``. We need to concentrate more on ourselves, not what Indians think of us or TFT.

``Praise Whor//es`` is a term used by a section of sociologists who study behaviour in organizations, this term refers to individuals who are best motivated with doses of praise - in my opinion, TFT has lost is edge, it has become identified not with a number of intellectual or ideological positions, but a single ideological position - and now of course the praise from the Indian, well, it`s one more reason you will rarely read genuine or harsh criticism of Indian intellectual trends in the TFT.

Let the Indian come to their own conclusions, whatever these may be, about the nature of and validity of, their attitudes about Muslims and Pakistanis.

India’s carefully crafted myths about Pakistan

Ejaz Haider

says India is winning the image-war

here is nothing jocular or light-hearted about the statement that war is too serious a matter to be left to generals. This is a truism and applies especially and disturbingly to prolonged adversarial relations. In such cases, the conflicting sides, after alternating between hot and cold war, may even settle down to an understanding that aggression can be committed without actually coming to blows. In fact, possession of nuclear weapons can play a major part in pushing adversaries into such restive calm. And if it is presumed that militarily the adversaries have acquired a certain equality of destructive power, then conflict will have a natural tendency to move to less violent, though not necessarily less destructive, means and battlefronts.

The multiplicity of battlefronts, which also adds to the complexity of conflict, is what the above-mentioned truism seeks to highlight. A good example of such conflict is the India-Pakistan adversarial dyad. One of the battlefronts in this conflict that Pakistan has ignored to its peril is mythmaking and image projection. A perusal of Indian opinion (just the letters received by TFT from its Indian readers would make a great study), the Indian media and official statements will highlight to a discerning Pakistani the near unanimity of views emanating from India.

These views present an image of Pakistan and then offer a stark contrast by presenting an image of India. Two myths particularly stand out in this regard (we will eschew discussion of how many more myths they spawn). The first relates to the fact that the conflict between India and Pakistan is perpetrated and perpetuated by the Pakistan Army. The second holds that Pakistan’s obscurantism (read, Islamist extremism) is a necessary corollary of the communal politics of the Muslim League which led to India’s partition. If Pakistan were to become pluralistic, democratic and secular, it would lose its rationale because then it would come to resemble India, they imply.

Clearly, these myths do not exist separately but are part of a package meant to present a certain image of Pakistan. Resultantly, they share the same premise and serve to complement each other. But let us begin with the first.

If the Pakistan Army is indeed responsible for perpetrating and perpetuating the conflict, then one can conclude that: There are no structural reasons for India-Pakistan conflict; by getting rid of the Pakistan Army, India-Pakistan conflict will come to an end; the issues that hang fire between the two countries are part of the Pakistan Army’s agenda to keep the conflict alive; there is a chasm between the perception of the Pakistan Army and the rest of Pakistan; the Pakistan Army would not allow the civil society in Pakistan to get in the driving seat because it wants to keep the conflict with India going on and therefore it is not in its interest to do so.

None of this is true, of course. But much of it sticks because the Pakistan Army is all too eager to take decisions internally that serve to reinforce this carefully constructed myth. India-Pakistan conflict is owed to structural reasons and it is ridiculous to think that a civilian ruler, with or without the army breathing down his neck, would be more amenable to making friends with India. The umbilical chord of history, the geographic contiguity, India’s perception of itself and its place in the world, its mercantilist nationalism (born of a coercive, majoritarian consensus and channeled through democratic means), the processes through which India has tried to convert a state-nation into a nation-state, the reaction to all this in Pakistan, Pakistan’s own quest for a place on the map of the world and a host of other factors are the structural constraints that serve to keep the conflict going on. The Pakistan Army itself is born of that conflict. To blame it for being the perpetrator of it may be great mythmaking but it is not a fact.

To a large extent, of course, the Pakistan army has no one but itself to blame for this image. Its constant interventions into the system, its desire to become the makers of policy rather than its implementers and its passion for intervening in, and influencing, national security decisions is what has kept the myth alive. Yet, some of the most important security decisions in Pakistan have been taken by civilian leaders rather than military generals. For instance, after the Soviet invasion, General Ziaul Haq basically followed the contours of a policy that was begun by Mr Bhutto. Of course, later events inflated the process much beyond anything that Mr Bhutto could possibly have visualised.

Similarly, the Taliban policy, a shift from the earlier policy, was formally effected by a civilian government, not the army. The decision to test the nuclear weapons was also formally taken by a civilian prime minister rather than by the army chief. The then chief of the army staff, General Jehangir Karamat, simply gave the military’s assessment of the situation and left the decision to the government. So too, in 1958, it was Mr Bhutto who tried to convince a military dictator of the necessity of Pakistan acquiring a nuclear-weapon capability. The idea was dismissed by Ayub Khan, who absurdly said that Pakistan could buy a weapon off the shelf if it so wanted. Again, it was Mr Bhutto who initiated Pakistan’s nuclear programme in 1972. In all these cases, however, the penchant of the army to appropriate national security polices led it to become their guardian after they were kicked off. The best example of this is the Taliban phenomenon after Ms Bhutto was removed from power.

The second myth is worse. It deliberately ignores the context in which the Muslim demand for a separate homeland was made. Not only that, this myth by implication absolves the Indian Congress party of all blame for the exclusionary discourse that created the communal divide and which continued to deepen in the run-up to the creation of Pakistan. The myth therefore thrives on a complete ignorance of the history of Partition and cannot even be extenuated on grounds of a simplistic reading of it. What is dangerous is that it is perpetuated by Indian secularists, many of whom are also part of the peace movement. This fact creates a major problem for the Pakistani intelligentsia. Who does one talk to in India? The BJP and the Sangh Parivar, or the secular-liberals?

Clearly, the correlation between Partition and Pakistan’s obscurantism is part of the effort to present an image and contrast it with India’s. Again, the image sticks not because India does not have its extremists (Gujarat is just a recent example), or the Sangh Parivar is not trying to turn Hinduism into a dogmatic, political religion, or there is any less corruption among the politicians or the army-wallahs, it is because the Indian propagandists are more savvy, understand the market better, can sell a democracy even with the Sangh Parivar and Jay Lalitas, and the Indian Army does not consider itself the repository of all wisdom.

The point of all this is neither to absolve Pakistan of its follies nor to run India down – which is doing what it has to given the conflict — but to put the record straight and to point to policymakers in Pakistan the imperative of fighting the war on the image front more effectively. It’s laughable for anyone to think that the image-war can be fought by PTV on the basis of the poppycock it generates in the name of carefully scripted interviews and strategic evaluations.