Deja Vu

A RAY OF HOPE

JI’s anti-referendum campaign from 21st

Rallies to be held in Faisalabad on April 26 and Peshawar on April 27

By Mohammad Imran

ISLAMABAD: Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed has announced that his party will launch a mass-contact campaign against the referendum from Lahore on April 21.

In a press briefing here on Thursday, the JI chief said a caravan would start its mass-contact drive from Lahore to Rawalpindi and big rallies would be staged in Faisalabad on April 26 and Peshawar on April 27 against the unlawful referendum of President Pervez Musharraf.

Qazi Ahmed said his party would mobilise the masses on referendum day so that they would not vote, adding that his party would chalk out a future strategy after the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of the referendum.

He said the Supreme Court had allowed President Musharraf only three years of power and had bound him to hand over the government to elected representatives in October 2002.

He said the Supreme Court had not allowed the president to make any changes in the basic structure of the constitution and he could not change the Islamic provisions and parliamentary system of the country. “But through the referendum, (President) Musharraf is trying to change the constitution,” Qazi Ahmed said.

He said the resignation of Justice Tariq Mehmood was a ray of hope that there were some judges whose conscience was alive, even though they took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO).

He said President Musharraf was politicising the army by holding the positions of both the chief of army staff and the president, adding that the president was using the government media and resources and also the local bodies members for his referendum.

Home | National





Daily Times - All Rights Reserved

41-N, Industrial Area, Gulberg II, Lahore, Pakistan

Phone: 92-42-5878614-19, Fax: 92-42-5878620, E-Mail: editorial@dailytimes.com.pk

re: Romair # 139

Human rights! HA...I could have fun with that...but let me make another attempt to explain things rationally.

You are upset because -

1. Indians ``hate Jinnah.``

2. Indians don`t ``support the creation of Pakistan.``

3. But, Indians ``support`` (or ``supported?``) the creation of Bangladesh.

4. Indians have the army at the border.

5. Advani said that the whole of Kashmir belongs to India.

6. Indians are not willing to ``let Kashmir be Independent.``

There are a zillion other things more that seem to be troubling you, but let`s focus, at least once more, on these six.

1. Indians hate Jinnah:

Let us just say Indians do not think very highly of Mr. Jinnah. Should we? Must we? Why? What did Mr. Jinnah do for us lately? What principle did he leave behind for humanity that we can all look upto? I have a Christian friend named Tom sitting in the office next to mine. What can I tell him about Jinnah that would convince Tom that a Jinnah should be born among American Muslims? I am willing to learn. So would be Tom. So would be the whole world that entirely forgot appreciating Jinnah`s greatness.

Why does Indians` hating Jinnah bother you so much? Ylh hates Gandhi. Big deal! He might hate me for saying it, but I still like him. Time to get a bit mature, right, romair?

2. Indians don`t support the creation of Pakistan -

Indians support neither the creation nor the destruction of Pakistan (unless it has military issues with India - as it did in 1947, 1965, not really in 1971, and in Kargil).

Indians just don`t support partioning of their country. Not now, not ever.

3. But Indians supported the creation of Bangladesh -

That still bugging you?! Well, romair I commiserate with you. No matter what you say, you surely DONT like the fact that Pakistan was divided. I wouldn`t either if Pakistan was my country. These things don`t bring joy to any body. We at best ACCEPT them. Only, I am honest enough to admit that India`s partition did not bring Indians happiness, while you use sophistry to dance on both sides of the issue. Let`s put things on the table -

a. Indians do not enjoy the thought that India was divided.

b. Pakistanis do not enjoy the fact that Pakistan was divided.

Aha! Says your military mind, but WE accept Bangladesh and YOU don`t accept Pakistan!

Papaji, where did you get the thought that Indians don`t accept Pakistan (I know Pakistani military teaches that to Pakistani boys and girls, but you surely dont believe that, do you?). Indians accept Pakistan just as much as Pakistan accepts Bangladesh. It`s there. It`s as valid a nation as India, we don`t want it back. I am not sure whether you wish Bangladesh could, somehow, be part of Pakistan again, but I assume you don`t. That won`t be fair, no?

And while we accept Pakistan as much as you accept Bangladesh (again, I am relying on your word of honor you don`t EVER wish it was part of Pakistan), we accord the great man Jinnah the same high degree of respect that you accord to the great man Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-rahman.

Now, it is quite likely that Pakistani school text books are full of spirit-lifting odes in honor of Sheikh Mujeeb, but then we never had ``poets`` like Iqbal among us. What do we know of poetry? We simply say Jinnah broke India. Please tell us what respectful adjectives you use for Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-rahman so we can add those adjectives in praise of Jinnah too.

3. Indians have the army on the border!!!!!!!!!!!!

Give me a minute, please. I need to laugh.

How sad, and how bad, of Indians!

Since it is quite possible that you really don`t get it (although even a kid should apprehend this tragically simple situation, but wonders never cease).

Well, ol` boy Musharraf is playing games with India, and Indians are playing games back with him. You may PLEASE recall how ecstatic you were only recently, claiming that you FINALLY had a bania as your President! I hope you meant that positively (I am sure you did - you just can`t be a racist). What you also realize, I am again sure, that we are a whole bloody nation of banias - a billion strong!

We (and by this I genuinely mean MOST Indians) had truly hoped that Musharraf would chart a new course after his oh-so-chweeeeeeet words that were duely reported worldwide. Dammit, I made a fool of myself welcoming his speech. But immediately I cautioned that Musharraf can not try to outsmart himself. But he did. He continued to play games. You don`t blame India for playing games with him back, do you? That he and his tinpot military wheedles and whines about those forces is his part of theatre. That Indians show disdain, is Indians` part of the theatre. Very silly and very dangerous, no doubt, but we are not dealing with very bright people here.

4. Advani, advani :)

I know Advani is a horrible man. But we need a few to deal with Pakistani bania warriors, don`t we (it`s another matter that that a *hole rubs some of our own people the wrong way, but that is another matter).

Just had an idea. Instead of breaking heads over Advani - a man neither you nor I admire, let`s cut a deal. You make sure that during the next one month, there is no comment from Pakistan implying that Kashimir belongs to Pakistan, and I will have my men restrain physically Advani. Tell me, if the deal is on.

5. Indians don`t want Kashmir to be independent.

Actually, I don`t care about other Indians, I personally don`t and won`t ever. That just isn`t our style. I am willing to work toward making sure everyone in India gets equal rights that are their due, but breaking the country isn`t one of those rights I accept. I know I am not as democratic a man as the liveried (now pagdee-wearing) men in Pakistani military, but what to do? We Indians are bad people. Since Pakistanis are quite familiar with individual rights, religious rights, linguistic rights, regional rights, provincial rights, human righs, and all other sorts of rights yet to be invented, you could however make a BRILLIANT move that may shame us. It wont move us, but it will give you a brief propaganda victory that some Pakistanis so desperately hanker after.

You set the Kashmir you have occupied free!! Let it go!! Declare an independent nation of Formerly-Pakistani-Occupied-Kashmir. Pull ISI out. Pull your army out. Act on your conscience. Let your principles mean something. We will act on our principles. We will not let any part of India break away. As you have yourself noted, India is a land of insurgencies. We revel in insurgencies. But we don`t let them succeed. That is NOT the Indian principle. Ofcourse, you follow a different set of principles. You may set Pakistan Occupied Kashmir free. I am quite sure Chinese brothers and all-weather-friends will immediately follow suit, setting the Kashmir you have gifted to them free as well. Good, now. That is settled.

BTW, you shouldn`t pretend to be very hurt. Bangladesh exists ONLY because of Western Pakistani racism. Racism, unadulterated. Racism, shameless and blatant. The same racism that sees the world in terms of Banias and Gauris and martial (marital?) races. I know you couldn`t enjoy the fact that you lost your eastern empire, but honestly, do you (by which I mean Pakistani military) miss Bengalis?

Now that I have respectfully responded to some of your many issues, I will very briefly take up your suggestions -

1) You should encourage a dialogue between India and Pakistan, unconditionally, like I have been doing.

Sure. I encourage dialogue. Like you are doing? You are a military genius - a master at playing games. So I don`t want to play games with you. I encourage dialogue, but not like you.

2) You should accept the division of India, and the subsequent creation of Pakistan was correct.

Jeevo Pakistan! I accept Pakistan. I don`t seek the destruction of or have any ill-will against Pakistan as a whole. I just don`t support the demented, weird and medieval claim that Hindus and Muslims can not live together. If you think that claim is not demented, weird and medieval, please throw out the three percent or whatever miserable number of Hindus there still are in Pakistan. We will be happy to receive them. I hope you will be equally glad to receive those Hindus and Muslims from India who are rapidly learning your ideology. We can ship them by land, air, or sea, all postage paid. Among these sorry people, you may even find Hindus and Muslims who are ardent admirers of Jinnah. I just hope you will be able to find some position of prominence Bal Thackeray. Governor of Punjab?

3) You should accept that Pakistanis and Indians are both wrong, and not just Pakistanis who are wrong.

Wrong about what?? Why should anybody be wrong? You tell me the issue, and then we can discuss who is/was wrong, if anybody. In general (that is, when speaking to Pakistani Generals), I believe Pakistanis are a flawless people (it`s not for nothing that they are Pure of Mind and Body). Ofcourse, being an evil man, I will always tell you that Pakistanis were wrong, but at least we can talk, right?

4) You should accept the intervention of international organizations like AI, UN and ICJ to help solve our problems, like I have suggested.

Next you are going to ask me that I should let them enter my house!! Romair, we Indians can`t match your infinite hospitality for all things phoren, whether it is Daniel Pearl, ICJ, or the American military. Is that Pakistan`s standard way of solving all its problems? May be Shaukat Aziz can clarify. You see, we are not used to foreigners to that extent. You would have an edge over us.

5) You should accept my suggestion of the denuclearization of South Asia.

Why just South Asia? I am willing to discuss the denuclearization of the WHOLE of Asia. Since you have such an ``EQUAL`` and ``HONORABLE`` relationship with your ``ALL-WEATHER FRIEND`` China whom you gifted, out of sense of pure brotherhood, part of Kashmir (which you tell us you didn`t even own), please call them as well. We can all sit and begin discussing the schedule for taking those dangerous bombs out of circulation. Good deeds need not be delayed. Let`s get working.

6) You should accept that India and Pakistan need to both reduce their defence budgets, unconditionally.

Indeed, your (and, by implication, Pakistani military`s) peaceful intentions are very impressive and touching. We can immediately reduce our defence budgets and fatten our military pockets. A few more billionaire brigadiers and generals - all resplendent in their four stars and five swords - never did anybody any harm. In this generous hour, let us widen our circle of love; and get brother Chinese too to cash in on this peace dividend. Let us know the moment they respond.

FINALLY

I noticed that you did not include the proviso that Pakistan return the 20 terrorist murderers from India it is hiding in your list of wonderful wishes to shankar....games never cease!!

There seems to be a new English language newspaper in Pakistan. I believe it is by the same group (Sethi and Co.) who produce The Friday Times. It is at www.dailytimes.com.pk.

Here is an interesting analysis of Pakistan from the World Bank

``In a very comprehensive report ``Pakistan Development Policy Review: A New Dawn?`` the World Bank has reviewed Pakistan`s policy agenda, reform strategy and discussed implementation and future challenges. While it appreciates the overall thrust of reforms, it categorically states that recent achievements were not sustainable without aggressively pursuing more painful measures to put the economy back on high growth path and to stabilise the debt burden.....

Until about 1970 Pakistan appeared to be well placed to emerge as one of the second-generation Asian tigers. In the first 20 years after independence in 1947, Pakistan had the highest growth rate in South Asia. In 1965 it exported more manufactures than Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey combined. However, in the early 1970s it abandoned the East Asian path which it had previously been largely following in favour of the then South Asian model of heavy protection, public ownership of what ought to have been the leading sectors of the economy, subsidised credit to the favoured, and neglect of the social sectors. Although good agricultural growth stemming from the spread of the Green Revolution held up GDP growth right through the 1980s, the slowdown in industrial growth that resulted from this policy shift eventually transformed Pakistan from a leader to a laggard in South Asian growth while the largest social and gender gaps in the region emerged.

``Today Pakistan is making a major effort to reverse the mistakes of the early 1970s. Pakistan has adopted a policy stance that in most respects seems well designed to do that, although only time will permit a judgment on whether it is delivering all that is hoped.

``But the main message to Pakistani policymakers is to stay the course, maintaining a balance between the competing priorities of increasing development spending and exiting the debt trap, and restoring democracy while trying to avoid the corruption and populism that so marred its reputation in the past. So long as Pakistan`s policymakers pursue that agenda, the country deserves the continuing support of the international community in its quest for a new dawn,`` the report observes.`` (www.dawn.com)

The World Bank report seems to agree that Bhutto`s nationalization (the biggest tragedy in the history of Pakistan, in my opinion) ruined Pakistan`s economy.

Hi All

-Aisha

In defence of Inter-Services Intelligence

Advertise Here



Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha

says the perception that the ISI is a rogue organisation is incorrect







ince Sept. 11, Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has increasingly been targeted for its activities by foreign and domestic analysts. News reports tend to refer to the ISI as a ‘state within a state’, which has grown too powerful and defies control. The main thrust of this criticism relates not just to the agency’s activities but also the independence with which it conducts its operations. Externally, it is being accused of jumping its official brief; domestically, it has come under scrutiny for disrupting the political process and hounding people. The critics argue that it suffers from lack of central control and is in a state of chaos with some cliques within it pursuing their own agendas. Is this perception correct?

Not entirely. The sweeping criticism misses two essential points: One, the chaos theory seems to suggest that the agency is a rogue, unprofessional and erratic entity. While intelligence agencies tend to stretch the concept of “initiative” and thus run the risk of weak links in the chain of command, to see the ISI as an organisation that may have run amok is wrong. Two, whatever the agency may lack – over-expansion and erratic functioning are just two issues – is owed to weak democratic institutions, the structural imbalance in the country’s power politics and strained civil-military relations. This imbalance naturally translates into the peculiar functioning of the organisation and influences its command and control design. This is where the actual problem lies.

ISI is far from a rogue institution. Being part of the armed forces, its personnel strictly adhere to the hierarchical system and owe allegiance to the army chief. This is because the major component of personnel in the organisation, including its director-general, is drawn from the army. The goals and operational plans of the agency conform to the broader objectives of the largest service that, in turn, are determined by what the top brass considers the right approach to enhancing both external and internal security. Therefore, if the ISI is found dabbling in domestic politics or pursuing ambitious plans in other countries, it is because the Pakistan military’s agenda may be extremely diverse.

Technically speaking, the ISI was created to undertake activities that are carried out by any intelligence organisation: to provide strategic intelligence and undertake counter-intelligence operations. Most of the world’s renowned intelligence agencies such as American CIA, Israel’s Mossad, Britain’s MI6 and India’s RAW perform a similar function. Since superior intelligence capability is likened to winning half the war, militaries around the world depend on intelligence agencies to gather information or to conduct covert operations aimed at thwarting the adversaries’ designs. This objective, broad enough, results in a large variety of activities. Sometimes operations can go wrong and cause major embarrassments for the state. The operations of Mossad in East Europe and the Arab world and the CIA’s activities are cases in point. Both agencies have been involved in assassinations, plotting coups, supporting insurgencies and have had links with drug traffickers and gunrunners.

While most people would condemn such activities, it is important to understand that these tasks are aimed at fulfilling the strategic defense objectives of respective states. What needs to be understood is that an intelligence organisation may be so focused on a particular angle of security that the elements of morality or legality may not present themselves to it as primary considerations. In fact, agencies would normally refer to their actions as being determined by the underlying morality of using every tactic to save the lives of a people threatened by an adversary. Hence, the willingness to sacrifice a few lives for achieving a greater objective.

So, what is exactly wrong with the ISI? Or what makes it different from its counterparts in other places? Here, two factors are worth mentioning. First, most other intelligence organisations are strictly under the control of the political leadership. Heads of governments are aware of the strategic and contingency plans made by the military and the agencies. This situation may not obtain in Pakistan because of the nature of civil-military relations. Second, in such countries there is little friction within the government hierarchy (that is headed by the president/prime minister with the defense sector at the bottom) on the issues of national security or the selection of the right strategy for the fulfillment of these plans.

Any deviation from the norms set by the civilian government by military personnel will not go un-reprimanded. For instance, when Mossad’s head, Isser Harel, poked his nose in domestic politics, the agency was immediately disciplined and brought to heel. Isser Harel, who was a hard-liner, had done this to force a reversal in Ben-Gurion’s policy of building relations with West Germany. Harel did not support Gurion’s policy because of his personal historical bias. For the Israeli prime minister, on the other hand, it was vital to reformulate foreign relations in order to develop links with a financially rich country of West Europe. Although Harel had different plans, he had to resign because his tactical plans were at variance with the strategic planning of the head of the government.

Not only this, Ben-Gurion replaced him with a man whose primary task was to discipline Mossad and cleanse it of the negative environment created by the earlier boss. Under Harel, Mossad had become less responsive to the government’s strategic objectives. Furthermore, the intelligence agency’s command and control is structured in a manner as to allow greater decision space and influence to the elected head of the government. It is the Israeli prime minister who heads the committee supervising activities of the two main intelligence organisations: Mossad and Aman. All strategic plans of these organisations are presented to and approved by the prime minister with tactical details left to the organisational heads.

One wonders how much control does the Pakistani prime minister, under whose command the ISI is placed, have on deciding the course of strategic planning of the agency? As Khaled Ahmed pointed out in his TFT article (28 March-04 April), the prime minister and her handpicked man, General Shamsurrehman Kallu did not enjoy complete control of the organisation. Since the prime minister tries to control the working of the agency through a man in uniform (the DG), a ploy that does not work, it creates an impression that the middle- and lower-management are errant and possibly running the organisation on the basis of some ideological belief. In the long run, this reinforces the image of an errant, rogue organisation.

Now, that the government is seriously considering changing the image of the agency, restricting it to its strategic goal alone may not be the only solution. It would have to undertake certain amount of restructuring such as re-tailoring the command and control and the basic structure of the ISI. For instance, it would help to turn the agency into an independent cadre that would still draw its personnel from the armed forces, but these people would serve for a longer duration and retire from the agency rather than returning to the parent service.

Military personnel, not part of the promotional fast track or those inclined to become spies, could be offered induction into this separate cadre. Moreover, civilian experts/ analysts could be used to sharpen the analytical capabilities of the organisation. Moreover, the ISI could be given its own resources to make it independent of the armed forces budget. Also, it must work independently of the intelligence setups of the three services. While this may not bar these four organisations from sharing information or cooperating, such sharing could take place on need-to-know basis.

There are four advantages of re-structuring. First, this would be a good tool in re-organising the agency to respond to strategic objectives rather than mere tactical aims. Second, the organisation’s tactical plans would respond to national strategic objectives in a better fashion. Third, this would help the agency re-focus on its core objective and improve the existing level of professionalism. Finally, a separation would make the agency more professional since it would be less inclined to interfere in domestic politics. It is only fair to a strategic organisation to allow it to improve its working and image.

Re: Romair

``.... Why cannot Indians accept that India should have been broken? ...why continue to debate that point, 50 years after the partition``

OK - now you have me confused. You ask a question, only to wonder as to why to debate it. Do you want an answer, or not? The short answer is that the conditions that led to Partition and the accompanying violence still exist in India -- that is why it is still relevant to debate such issues. Multiple partitions will take India right back to the mid 1700s when there were many statelets with no stability after the collapse of the Mughal empire. Is that lucid enough?

``...I have presented my theories. I would be glad if any Indian could explain them...``

Only if the make sense, right? Your principal theory is that `Indian Muslims will get the wrong idea`. It is wrong. Are they getting the `wrong idea` from Bangladesh -- a stabler, more populous, less indebted country?

``...Also, my analysis of Indians wanting Pakistan to merge...``

Who advocated that?

Re: Fuzair #127

After I had written my last post, an afterthought occur to me. Therefore, this post should be read in the light of the previous one.

I am, as I said, respectful of your decision on the limited pool of candidates (actually only one) available.

There was a time in the early `90s when after Bofors scandal and the instability of the post-Congress governments, the BJP appeared to be an increasingly acceptable alternative to the Left/Center parties in India. As a result, the Indian middle class voted them to power (over 4 elections, `91, `96`, `98, `99) while conveniently ignoring the fascist BJP agenda, perhaps wishing it away naively like a bad dream. Having deluded themselves, it is the same middle class that finds its way of life threatened. Now, the chickens have come to roost in Gujarat, and that naivette is costing India dear.

There is a similarity between this and the ascension of Gen. Musharraf to the Presidency. What are the chickens that will come to roost as a result of this referendum? Every previous general who came to power through indirect means exacted a price. What price will this one exact?

Shankar #128: ``Aw, spare me your personal comment about my behavior``

I only comment on people`s behavior when they comment on mine. But if you want me to spare you, then I agree to spare you.

``but I dont play the ``counsellor`` here.``

So far, if I remember correctly, you have given detailed analysis of ylh`s personality, multiple times (or his multiple personalities, a single time). You have given one of mine, also. And probably a few others. But this would indicate that you do play counsellor, every now and then. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a skill you have, why not practice it here. I just think it should be done in a mature manner. If you don`t agree with that, then continue doing it in a childish manner. It`s upto you. I usually ignore that aspect of your arguments.

``I`m currently VERY pissed (not HURT, but PISSED) at the viscious attacks made by him & his cohorts about hinduism & India. Seems to me Pakistanis absolutely HATE getting a taste of their own medicine...esp when sarcasm is thrown in the mix.``

If this is the case, then why are you trying to take it out on me. Take it out on the person who has pissed you off. I have never attacked Hinduism. I have attacked Indian policies that I feel are wrong. And I have attacked Pakistani policies that are wrong. So that is what my medicine consists of. If you want to join me in criticizing India and Pakistan, they be my guest. But please don`t let other people`s frustrations out on me. Unless, this is a new psychiatric technique that I am unaware of. In that case, go ahead.

``In the end, it doesnt make any difference what YOU think about India. The sad fact is that your fauji-bhais that have the same mindset about India as you have.``

This is getting too old. You need to get out of the, ``fauji-bhai`` paralysis. It is an illogical argument. Just argue against or for my points. Forget about whether I am a fauji-bhai or waladbhai. When I discuss anything with you, I just look at your argument. I don`t care whether you are a psychiatrist or a cabaret dancer.

I don`t have too much time to think about India. i don`t live there. I do want to learn about it however. For that to occur, it requires a mature debate. Not personal attacks. I am trying to point out inconsistencies in Indain arguments, and the reply I get from you is, ``Evidently, when it comes to Pakistan, the attitude of the military is that ``military knows best--whats good for Pakistan``. And they make sure they back their assertions with a barrel of a gun. Then they hold phony ``referendums`` to delude themselves that ``the people of Pakistan are with them!`` Even the most pro-military Pakistani knows full well, before hand, what the outcome of this referendum will be!``

What the hell does the referedum have to do with what we were discussing? You need to stop jumping around. Stick to the discussion. We are trying to figure out, why (and if) Indians consider the partition and subsequent creation of Pakistan, to be wrong. And whether India has hegenomistic designs in South Asia.

And forget about what is good for Pakistan. If we need your help, we will definitely ask. If you are really concerned about Pakistan, then solve the Kashmir problem, and withdraw your troops. Otherwise let us be. As I suggested we are inferior to Indians. Maybe when we reach the level of India, we will starting thinking straight. Let us worry about our referendums, and elections. Your concern, though appreciated, is not required.

``So your kind of insecure, paranoid mindset will continue to dominate Pakistan. They will point out to statements, cite the ``experts`` who tell them what they want to hear & continue to spin the facts. The grandiosity about your world famous military, insecurity & paranoia about India will go on. India & Pakistan will continue to be at loggerheads for the next millenium.``

You are misquoting again. I have only suggested the following:

- India and Pakistan withdraw all forces from their borders.

- The discontinue all active conflicts like Siachen.

- They freeze their respective defence budgets.

- The denuclearize South Asia.

- They allow human rights organizations and international press, into areas of conflicts, like Kashmir.

- The accept the reporting done by these organizations as the truth and not that done by their own press.

- The allow the ICJ to prosecute all criminals from both sides in this conflict.

- They allow the Kashmiris to decide what they want to do with their land.

- At that point they drastically cut down their defense expenditure, and spend it on public welfare.

- They open up their borders to trade etc.

Could you point out what part of this points to ``India & Pakistan will continue to be at loggerheads for the next millenium.``

If you cannot, which you will not be able to do, then could I suggest that you realize that Pakistan is not the only country at fault in South Asia. Perhaps you should accept my argument, that India and Pakistan both have faults. If you are not going to accept this argument, then don`t try to put the blame on me.

The remaining part of your reply, contains derogatory remarks against Pakistan, and is quite childish.

It also contains efforts to associate my thoughts with those of the Pakistan military. This is a sign of someone who cannot argue a point, and is thus trying to just right off the argument, by attempting to find defects in some other non-related issue, i.e my arguments are incorrect, because Musharraf is holding a referendum, and because Pakistan is under military rule. And because, the moon is made of cheese. I would request you to just argue my reply. Don`t try to come up with theories on why I wrote it. You are good shrink, but even the best shrinks cannot guess the cause and motive of replies, over the Internet, withouth meeting the person.

And please get out of your obsession with my being in the military. I am not obsessed with your being a psychiatrist. Now if you were a cabaret dancer, that would be a different story.

Prem #126: ``Indians not being delighted with the partition``

I am not stating that Indians should be delighted with the partition. I am just stating that they should accept it now. And I am stating that they should apply the same principle, if they do not support partitions, and not try to partition other countries. Or they should support the partition of India, and only then support the partition other countries. One way or the other.

Also, my analysis of Indians wanting Pakistan to merge back is totally based on discussions I have had on this site with various Indians. I was quite surprised when I was introduced to this concept. It is however a truth that many Indians (at least on this site), and the Indian ruling party are not happy with the partition. And the reason for this is not that so many people died. These are the grandkids of that generation. There reasons are different. I have presented my theories. I would be glad if any Indian could explain them. But one cannot deny that such Indians do exist. Just look at all the hatred spouted against Jinnah, on this site. There have been so many discussions on this issue.

``Just because India should not have been broken up in 1947 does not mean that Pakistan should be absorbed into India (or the other way round) in 2002.``

Why should India not have been broken? Perhaps it should have been broken (I think it should have gone into the dominion status that Jinnah suggested. Then everyone could have peacefully decided whether it should have been broken. Nehru unfortunately rejected it). This is my main point. Why cannot Indians accept that India should have been broken? That is another way of suggesting that Pakistan should not have been created? Why not respect the views of the Pakistanis, and agree that it should have been broken? Just like most Pakistanis on this site agree and respect the views of Bangladeshis. That lead to a lot of deaths, as well. Infact, India was bent upon breaking up Pakistan. Didn`t India think about the loss of life in that breakup.

Furthermore, why continue to debate that point, 50 years after the partition. Which is what many, if not most, Indians on this site do.

``Don`t rely on just Chowk.``

This is the only place where I can interact with Indians on this topic. Or where Indians interact on this topic. It is quite possible that the Indians here are more emotional.

``Read Pakistani newspapers for the last one month. How many news articles happily predict the imminent demise and break up of India?``

This is true. And I think it should be avoided also. Two wrongs don`t make a right. Why not accept the creation of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (and any other area that wants independence) as a legitimate will of the people in that area? Why not respect the views of people who don`t want to live with you (or me)?

I don`t want India to break up (and I don`t think it will). I don`t want Pakistan to break up either (and I don`t think it will). At the same time, I want India and Pakistan to respect the desires of people who want to be independent, and not crush them. You have stated that India should not have broken up in 47. Why not? Perhaps a better argument would be that India should have broken up, while at the same time the deaths should have been avoided. To state that India should not have broken up, you are undermining the whole creation of Pakistan. For example, I will never state that Pakistan should not have broken up. I wish it wouldn`t have, but I respect the views of the East Pakistanis, and don`t want to make a judgement call on thier desires. This is what I find lacking in Indians, regarding the creation of Pakistan, i.e. so many say, ``well we don`t think you should have been born, but we are willing to live with you now.`` At least that is what one sees on this site.

``You obsess because in your mind some Indian said something about Pakistan to someone`s uncle who then told somebody else about what his friend is supposed to have said sometime. That is not a healthy state of mind, romair.``

Your concern about my state of health is appreciated, but not required. One should just worry about one`s own state of mind. I am not obsesssing, I am just curious about why so many Indians hate Jinnah, and do not agree with the creation of Pakistan. I find it funny and odd. This is not from somenone`s uncle, it is on this site all the time. I can quote you a lot of Indian replies on their hatred against Jinnah. I assume they don`t hate him because of his looks, his dress or his legal career. They hate him because he created Pakistan. It is not due to the deaths in partition. So many Indians who weren`t even born in 47 hate him. A very small percentage of the total Indian population migrated from Pakistan, and even a smaller percentage lost a relative.

``You say you are happy Pakistan was split in two. Good for you.``

I am not happy that Pakistan was partitioned into two. This is what I stated in my previous reply, ``I personally support the creation of Bangladesh, on a human rights perspective, and a political perspective.`` Could you point out where I used the word, ``happy.`` If you cannot, then I hope you will show more integrity next time, and not put words in my mouth, or attempt to twist my words

I think the whole world should be one country, like in Star Trek. However, if someone does not want to live with me, I respect their views. I don`t feel I have the right to kill them, enslave them, or suppress them. They should be allowed to do what they want. You obviously do not agree with this.

``But, that doesn`t mean Indians should be happy that India was partitioned. We all differ in what we value as individuals.``

You are contradicting yourself here. First, if you have different values, then why do you support India assisting in breaking up Pakistan into two pieces? What happened to values at that point?

Secondly, you have stated that Indians do not obsess about Pakistan being created, yet you have yourself stated multiple times that it should not have been created.

``Because Pakistanis like you themselves claim to rejoice in the division of Pakistan. Bengal just did not mean Pakistan for you.``

This is a ridiculous and very offensive commment. It is also a very desparate argument from someone whose logic is falling apart, since he is trying to apply two contradicting principles on two similar issues (i.e. breaking up of India, and India`s assistance in breaking up Pakistan). When I state that I respect the views of East Pakistanis, you are trying to twist it into my stating that I think Bengalis are below Pakistanis. I never stated that. So please refrain from indulging in such useless nonsense. Stick to the facts.

If someone respects someone else`s rights, it is because they believe in human rights. According to your argument, supporting someone`s independence means that one thinks the other to be inferior. While suppressing someone`s independence (like India is doing in Kashmir) means that one thinks the other to be equivalent to one`s self, i.e. I kill you = I consider you to be my equivalent, I respect your views for freedom = I think you are inferior to me.

You are putting words and concepts into my mouth to justify the duplicate stance India has on the creation of Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Kashmir situation.

``India covets something of Pakistan because India lays claim to the whole of Kashmir? This is rich, romair,``

I am not stating this. This has been stated by your own leaders:

``New Delhi: Union Home Minister L K Advani said that India had often failed to present the point that Jammu and Kashmir was constitutionally wedded to India and that the geographical contours had been altered by Pakistani aggression. Terming the Jammu and Kashmir issue as ``a case of missed opportunities,`` Mr Advani said there was a wide gulf in perceptions of Pakistan and India regarding Kashmir. Delivering the keynote address ``My India: Vision for the future,`` on the concluding day of three-day India Today conclave, the Home Minister said the representative political party in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference, also favoured going with India in 1947. ``Jammu and Kashmir belonged to India and the situation changed due to the act of aggression in 1947. It is our biggest failure to project that it was the act of aggression that changed a constitutional and legally acceded J &K to India,`` he said. Mr Advani admitted this lack of projection led to the world believe that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir belongs to Pakistan and ``we are only emphasizing on Kashmir Valley`` he said. Mr Advani admitted this lack of projection led to the world believe that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir belongs to Pakistan and ``we are only emphasizing on Kashmir Valley.`` (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2002/kashmir20020122c.html)

I personally think Kashmir belongs to neither Pakistan, nor to India. It belongs to the Kashmiris. Do you have the courage to make such a statement.

Also, does this mean that I now think lowly of Kashmiris also (in the lines of your Bangladeshi thesis), and thus do not want them to be a part of Pakistan. I am myself a Kashmiri.

``Indian army at the border is there to destroy/take over Pakistan? We have gone over it a number of times.``

I don`t know what the hell the Indian army is on the border for. I cannot read their minds, like you can. I can only go by the statements of Indian generals. You need to keep in mind that India is fighting Pakistan on Siachen, and has been doing so for 16 years. If India piles up its troops on the border, what the hell do Indians expect Pakistan to do. Just sit there? Instead of criticizing the Indian troop buildup, you are criticizing Pakistan`s reaction to it.

``So, if, after all this, you still get the jitters everytime someone in India says something, you do not prove yourself to be the fearless warrior you have been telling us you are.``

Why are Indians so prone to emotionalism? I never said I was a fearless warrior. I am actually scared of cockroaches, and do not walk alone at night (Shankar is bent upon suggesting that I think I am a General, and then proving that I am not. You are now bent upon suggesting that I think I am a fearless warrior, and then proving I am not. There is nothing much I can do about such useless debates, but if you want to continue wasting your time in such debates, be my guest; personally, I have neither the knowledge of any General, nor am I fearless; both of you however need to get a life :)).

``You do not know India. Your claims to know India are just that, claims.``

I never claimed I know India. I always point out that I have never even visited the place. All I have claimed is that I know India and Indians better than most Indians know Pakistan. This is a fact, because I work with Indians on a minute to minute basis. While Indians rarely come across Pakistanis.

``Some Pakistanis doubt you know even know Pakistan``

Could you point to any such quote. There are Pakistanis who think I do not know Pakistan the way they know it. Which is correct. However, if a person spends his whole youth in a country, they do get to know it.

``Romair, let your country breathe. Give it freedom.``

Where did this come from. What the hell am I doing to not let Pakistan breath. I am only trying to find out why Indians don`t accept the partition. Why they consider it wrong, while simultaneously telling me to let my country breath. That is hypocricy. If you are really interested in letting Pakistan breath:

1) Then perhaps you should encourage a dialogue between India and Pakistan, unconditionally, like I have been doing.

2) You should accept the division of India, and the subsequent creation of Pakistan was correct.

3) You should accept that Pakistanis and Indians are both wrong, and not just Pakistanis who are wrong.

4) You should accept the intervention of international organizations like AI, UN and ICJ to help solve our problems, like I have suggested.

5) You should accept my suggestion of the denuclearization of South Asia.

6) You should accept that India and Pakistan need to both reduce their defence budgets, unconditionally.

``but you have been oppressing your entire nation for the last fifty years. Isn`t Pakistani nation a higher ideal for you than just Pakistani military``

Bhai Sahib, you have gone nuts. I am a civilian, who now spends most of his time trying to figure out how to set up a software startup in Pakistan, thereby employing Pakistanis (if you are such a well wisher of Pakistan, I would appreicate it, if you could make a monthly donation into this effort. Otherwise, dont make a moral judgement to the patriotism of Pakistanis, or lack thereof.). Can you point out whom I am oppressing in Pakistan, sitting twelve time zones away? I could not oppress anyone in Pakistan, even if I wanted to. Please don`t give me a lecture on Pakistani ideals. It sounds hypocritical coming from someone who doubts Pakistan`s creation, supports Pakistan`s breakup, supports India piling up its forces on the border, supports India`s oppression in Kashmir, and then has the audacity to tell me that I should let Pakistan breath.

To paraphrase a famous book title, please ``Don`t piss on my leg, and tell me it`s raining.``

Let`s keep the discussion on the original topic of, ``Why so many Indians doubt the creation of Pakistan, and wish it to be a part of India?``

re fuzair et al:

It is a sad day indeed where one is left with supporting dictators simply because the alternatives(NS and Benazir) are inpalatable. How about this as a better solution:

Lets elect a huge stone as a president. I assure you that it will be honest and cause no one any harm. Would not require any massive funds to maintain and would never retaliate if attacked. That would suit our guardians of middle class morality just fine.

Khalid Ahmed is normally ridiculed by the likes of Field Marshal(Hon.) ROmair(notice he hasn`t mentioned Ayaz Amir since he saw the light) but give the poor guy a chance to make a slip once in a while and he becomes their hero. His article is based on the premise that Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest danger facing Pakistan and PM is somehow our best bet against it. Khalid is underestimating the importance of religion in an ordinary Pakistani`s life. Sure he hasn`t voted the religious parties into power but that doesn`t mean he`ll stand idly by allowing the modern day Ataturk to destroy the `jihadis`. A genuine electoral process is the ONLY way that Pakistani society can combat religious fundamentalism. And if the native population wants a heady mix of religion and politics to dictate their everyday life, so be it. The rest of the `civilized` world is more than capable of dealing with the fundamentalists. Societies who beguile themselves into believing that messiahs are the only way out keep setting themselves up for disappointment till outside forces decide to intervene and seal their fate.



later

-sac

Fuzair #127 During Zia`s referendum, my father said he was going to participate since this was his opportunity to cast a ``No`` vote on Zia. I went along, and we were welcomed like visiting heads of state by the police and staff at the polling booth (in Islamabad) since there was no other voter to be seen. On returning, we saw a crowd of government paid street sweepers coming in to vote, upon instructions no doubt.

BB/NS are bogeymen used by Musharraf - he knows he can put them behind bars as soon as they enter the country, and there would be not one tear shed on their behalf by anyone in Pakistan, not one street demonstration.

All my life I have been disenfranchised by men on white horses (or pink elephants, in case of Yahya), and I am getting very uneasy when I see one more of these saviors.

tahme321,

Certainly. It is silly but I have come to develop a great deal of affection for Pakistan as a nation - although my assessment of some of its institutions (as my opinions of some of our own institutions) is quite bleak...and I express my thoughts as honestly as I can.

There is simply no way Pakistan is going to disappear unless Pakistanis themselves mess things up beyond hope. Of course, I FULLY share your hope that one day soon all these boundaries will become meaningless. These boundaries bug the hell out of me! But until then we can be as friendly as we can (unless, unlike you, I lose patience with someone for a while :))

Regards.

Shankar

You couldn`t give it away. Why are Indians forever comparing themselves with Pakistanis? Why is it that you are so insecure that you cannot discuss rationally, the social ills that effect Indian society? That have the potential to tear the fabric of indian society to shreds - yes it is an alarming, if not an immediate possibility, but that`s hardly reason to do a ``sky is falling`` routine. You are angry? Pissed off? Do you not have control over yourself? Do you not have responsibility for your ownself, for how you feel?If you do not care about these, who will care?

You are no professional, you are just a insecure, defensive little boy! Your world view is built on a vocabulary of cuss words refering to genitals and an intense inferiority complex with regard to Pakistan and Pakistanis. The fact that you remain unable to respond in a civilized manner to valid criticism, the fact that you seem unable to respond with anything but with the rage you do, suggests an unstable psyche and personality; it`s unseemly and certainly not approved of.

Ref: Romair

1. The Indian military presense is a ``hool`` and cannot therefore pressurise the Pakistani military``: Not being a military guy, I am not aware of what hool means, but I can assure you that the Indian military presense does pressurise your country. To the extent that Pakistan can never completely rule out the possiblity of an Indian attack, it can respond to Indian actions only by mobilizing its army and putting them in their forward positions. This is both nerve-wracking and costly. This is clearly a war of attrition, with India hoping that it has the stamina to last longer.

2. ``One can support all wars of self-determination or reject all of them, all else is hypocrisy``: Patently not true. This is like saying that one has to decide a priori whether in every date rape case it is always the man or the woman who is to blame. Clearly a univeral answer is not possible, and the facts of each case have to be taken into account, and then a decision made. My position is that any self-determination movement which uses military means when a political option is available to it is wrong. Based on that I have no issues with supporting the right of self-determination for Quebec in Canada. But I reject the Kashmiri self-determination movement because it tries to use military means to ride roughshod over the opinions of not only the other Indians in the union, but also of their own silent and/or battered opposition. I can see why some Kashmiris may think that their opinion on the issue counts more than that of any other person, but I cannot morally support them in this assertion.

3. ``Indian attitudes on Partition``: I think that almost everyone will agree that both India and Pakistan reaped some benefits from Partition. The regions in Pakistan becoz they got more political freedoms than they would have gotten being part of the Indian union, and India becoz they were able to get a society less riven with life-threatening rifts, and one therefore that was more governable. The issue is whether the costs of partition justified these benefits. To you they apparently do, to most Indians they do not, hence our dispute over whether partion was good or bad. But this dispute is not the same as a dispute over whether Pakistan should exist or not. That question was settled in 1947, and now Pakistan exists separately from India for better or for worse.

-narain

Re: Tahmed321

``...In 50 years, all these political boundries will become meaningless anyway due to underlying changes sweeping the world today, and all the bloodshed of civilians and soldiers from 1947 till that time in both India and Pakistan would, sadly, have been for nothing...``

That is exactly right -- hard though it may be for us imagine, but circumstances will literally force us by a pull of the ears to drop our hostilities (or redirect them elsewhere). Events will move so fast (in unpredictable ways) that one will wonder -- what was all that about? We will either get wiser, and focus energies on social development and reconstruction, or we will continue to slip further behind the world due to unending hostility. In the latter case, we may become basketcase economies and the burden of the UN (a la Afghanistan today).

Re: Fuzair

OK - I respect your choice from the limited option set available. But, when you ask, `Even if he (NS) had been replaced, who would it have been?` is not the right question. When FDR died, Truman was a non-entity. When Nehru died, Shastri was a non-entity, as were the host of Indian PMs in the `80s and `90s (Gujral, Gowda, Chandra Shekhar, VP Singh, Rao). Who would lead India if Vajpayee lost an election or died? I don`t worrty about it--as long as a process is followed. On the flip side, if Hamid Gul had been COAS at the time of the coup, how would it have been for Pakistan? He would have rallied against the US-led coalition and would have been merrily leading Pakistan towards a disaster.

#: 112

anNy

news alert (and what a sad one)

AnNy

What r you ,if not a MOHAJIR ....