On Hate

Alphanell

Many Interesting posts - I found the article about caste interesting as well - What conclusions did you draw from the article? for instance

``Indeed, the otherwise infamous Bihar was the first northern state to illustrate a longstanding southern ``political law``: the higher the intensity of lower-caste politics, the lesser the likelihood of Hindu-Muslim violence. This inverse relationship between caste and communal politics has been true of Tamil Nadu and Kerala for many decades. Kerala is especially significant as Muslims have constituted over 20 per cent of its population for a long time. Due to the clout of their principal party, the Muslim League, Muslims have received many concessions. Yet there has been virtually no Hindu-Muslim rioting in the state. The Malayalis do not generally associate the Muslim League with communally provocative politics, only with community-based politics.``

What is/are ``lower caste politics``? Is the answer of the rest of the Muslims in India to be a vote block for the Muslim League and in this way, win ``concessions`` for themselves? Do the observations made in a particular state or region, apply nationally? Is there really such a strong degree of similarities of issues in these states? if yes, why are provicial or regional parties as strong as they are - for instance, I would have that if there were such a strong number of similaritiesof issues and electorate, national parties would be dominant and coalition politics, diminshed?

``This inverse relationship suggests another important conclusion. As the significance of lower-caste politics continues to rise in Uttar Pradesh, the state`s historical proneness to communal riots should decline. It will, of course, not be entirely eliminated for some time, but will progressively go down.``

So whatever this ``lower caste politics`` is - it is a general good as for as defeating communalism is concerned - Why? how does this ``lower caste politics`` attenuate communalism?

``Hindu-Muslim violence is primarily urban and locally concentrated. The problem of communalism is much wider than the incidence of communal riots. Thankfully, violence never has a statewide or a nationwide spread. State or national politics simply provide the spark that may touch off or exacerbate rioting, but it is the local-level relationships that the Hindus and Muslims have developed that either deflect that spark or allow it to start a conflagration.``

Amazing! on one level, this scholar concludes that ``lower caste politics`` is intensifying and as it intensifies, incidence of violence decreases - and then genralizes that state or national politics sets off riots. Seems to me this scholar is ensuring that the results of observations, confirm theory - lower caste politics ``good`` - but maybe I`m looking at this wrong - is caste more intensely experienced by those among the upper or lower caste? Is caste not part of a religiosity among the lower caste? can you help me understand this? Also, would I be mistaken if I concluded that the author of the article is usually associated with politics of the left?

Zafar Al-Talib

Zafara

``Given the current situation of women in most of the world (and in all Muslim majority countries) that is debatable. Why else do women face gender based discrimination if not for the fact that they are born female?``

This statement does not help us understand caste any better- for instance women do not face discrimination from other women - whereas in caste they would - Do you think it is the word discrimnation itself that may be problem here? for instance, if we formulate a more precise sentence, to include the fact that caste system is feature unique to Hinduism, that it removes the possibility of social mobility or earthly redemption, I`m also having troubling with the equating of the idea of born to serve others who are born to be served and discrimination against women - any ideas? Give me something that is both factual and allows us to distinguish between the way caste operates and discrimination against women operates - or is it that you really do not see any difference? How should one think of or make sense of caste?

“The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.”

From the website: http://www.usconstitution.net/

``The text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Zafar, do note - no language here such as ``separation of church and state`` instead no official religion and freedom of religion - not in this document, the ``sentiment`` of ``freedom from religion``

``Now WHY would the Constitution address this unless it was to forstall any conflict between the Government and religious groups (like those, for example, in Europe during the Wars of Religion)?``

I will ask a favor, an indulgence - look into the history of the Puritan movement in England and US and the relationship between the movement and the state - recall that the English Monarch was/is also the head of Anglican Church.

Now, I will grant you that the question and justification you offer are reasonable, valid - however; after your inquiry, you will see that the sensibility that informs both the question you pose and it`s justification you offer, can into public discourse much later.

``Point being that upholding freedom of conscience is not only a moral issue, it

contributes to political stability by removing religious observance from the purview of Government, (and also limits the direct influence of unelected religious leaders in Government).``

Again, please look into the history, you will see that the framers held a deep distrust of all government, even as they sought to build a strong government - I `m paraphrasing ``Are we angels that we shall concieve of a perfect form of government`` - you will see this realization was held by the framers. Also you make a most interesting point about ``moral issue`` - and this issue is related both to the distrust of government and the freedon of religion/conscience.

``If the Puritans were interested in freedom of conscience for everybody, even those who disagreed with them, can you tell me why they did not allow (just for example) Catholics or Quakers to settle in their colony (Massachussets)? And who was running the Salem Witch Trials, btw, in which many “nonconformist” Christians were burned for “witchcraft”? The Church or the Government? Or was there some overlap there? (As far as I know this happened before the American Revolution.)``

I think it`s very narrow to want to judge the puritan movement and the two great religious revolutions or revicals it brought to the US and it`s political and social impact by Witch trials of Salem. Think what ``freedom`` in freedom of religion means. The trails, if I am not mistaken preceded the declaration and constitution by more than a hundred years. In my opinion, understanding US society is facilitated by studing and understanding the ideas and impact of the Puritan movement.

Exactly right, and no offense taken, that the document with regard to ``indictment`` is the declaration and not the constitution. Do you make a similar connection with regard to natural law as God`s law and rightsof man as part of natural rights and therefore ``God given rights``? - Do you see the connection Soroush is making when he is taking about ``Freedom`` and ``human rights`` as part of Shariah?

“Even in the discourse of it`s time it was recognized that in the US it was the ``freedom of religion`` as opposed to Europe`s ``Freedom from religion.`` it` s worth examining and I encourage you to do so.”

``The one obviates the other, while without one the other remains a potential source of trouble.``

The freedom of religion obviates freedom from religion? -have I understood you correctly? - very interesting idea. A yin/Yang or balance of sorts? on the other hand consider just for a moment, consider, if you have taken into account the notion of ``freedom`` in the freedom of religion - it`s not an official religion - at the time of these ideas blossom and sadly in many places still, the notion of ``freedom`` itself was (IS) revolutionary - freedomof religion is about the plurality of salvation whereas a very different sensibility informs freedom from religion - or is it that freedom from religion should be seen as a Rousseau- ist? idea - already the beginning of a dialogue seeing material or earthly salvation - a pluralism of material or earthly salvation?

Reply Hobbyty # 348

“…Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins – “

I’m sure that Farzana and Nasah will join me in expressing disbelief, amazement and shock at how you saw through our cunning disguises.

Will you give us a hint?

(Hey you all, next time let’s pretend to be Parsis. Phir dekhenge kaun sherelockgiri karega. Bags I Cyrus, Nasah you are Jungoo, and sorry Farzana, but you have to be Hutoxi. We can the be the Katrak Cousins – sab Catering karechh! - Theek chey, no? Eedoo joyechh anybody? Oops, sorry Binifer…ok, we’ll think of something else...)

Hobbyty # 341

Hobbyty, I think you are quite wrong on several points in this post and Zafar is right in # 338. You write:

{``The separation of church and state was adopted in the Constitution to avoid the troubles experienced in Europe because of the overlap between spritual and temporal authorities.``

This is an entirely misinformed statement. The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.}

The first place I would point to is the Bill of Rights (admittedly not a part of the original 1787 constitution, but practically inseparable because of its early adoption in 1789); and specifically, to the First Amendment, namely:

``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.``

Banning an established state religion while permitting the free exercise of religion seems to me the essence of separation of church and state. What more do you want? Free exercise of course includes the freedom to not exercise, to reject all religions, if that is your preference.

You continue:

{You will note that the US constitution reads like an indictment - it is an indictment - ``And he has, And he has`` - each an indictment against the King of his violation of natural law, among which is the notion of the natural rights of man, as bestowed by God -}

I regret to have to inform you that you are referring to the US Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. The Declaration was of course penned by Thomas Jefferson, who was at best a deist (as was John Adams), not a theist, let alone a conventional religious believer.

And finally it is the absolute pinnacle of absurdity to describe the Puritan movement as `informing` the freedom of religion, except in the negative sense, as a dreadful example of what to avoid at all costs. The Puritans left England not to establish `freedom of conscience` but to establish a homogeneous community where they could thrust their own odious brand of narrow doctrinaire religious orthodoxy down everybody`s throats. They found easygoing secular Holland much too lax and tolerant of other religious persuasions for their own bigoted tastes. Once ensconced in Massachusetts, they decreed compulsory church attendance, forbade card-playing, made adultery punishable with death, and so on. Sure enough, they generated a steady stream of refugees from their religious persecutions, including dissident Puritans (one of these was Roger Williams, who established a settlement in Rhode Island, genuinely devoted to freedom of worship). In every way they seem like a seventeenth-century version of the Taliban. Several famous east-coast universities have their origins as theological seminaries for Congregationalist orthodoxy, i.e. New World equivalents of the Haqqania madarsa. `Freedom of conscience`, my foot!

Hobbyty, anyone else who might be interested:

Here is a link to an interesting article ``Lumpen Logistics`` by Ashutosh Varshney - someone of impeccable scholarly credentials who -going by his writings - has absolutely no sympathy for communally divisive politics.

http://www.umich.edu/

Hobbyty # 338

{If you would like more information on F7/FC1, please refer to ``Air Forces Monthly`` - April 2002 issue 169 - apparently trials are being run evaluate the matching of the performance of SD-10 BVR missile with the Grifo radar. additionally J10 trials continue and Pakistan is also the primary export market for that aircraft as well.}

Tell me more about the FC-1 when it actually takes to the air. When is it first supposed to do that - June 2003? Still in time for the PAF to acquire theirs in 2-3 years, as you wishfully informed us in January 2002? As for the J-10, it uses the Russian Lyulka AL-31 engine (also used in the Su-27/Su-30 family of aircraft). The Chinese have not been granted a license to build it, let alone pass it along in aircraft destined for the PAF. India, with tens of billions of dollars of business with the Russian defence industry, is going to have veto power over any such proposal. The indigenous Chinese alternative engine is still vapourware at this point.

{Pakistan Airforce has retired F6 aircraft, even as indian forces posture on it`s border (this itself is a reflection of how intimidated Pakistani forces feel) and have introduced F7PG airacrft - in effect it has increaed the size of it`s Air Force, enhanced it`s interceptor and attack capability, and enhanced it`s ground support capablity as well (the ``retired`` F6).}

So you expect the acquisition of 4 dozen F-7PGs to dramatically shift the balance? Take a look at the link below, from April 1998`s Pakistan Defence Journal:

http://www.defencejournal.com/april98/security&defence1.htm

Here you have Air Marshal Ayaz Ahmed Khan fretting that:

``During the last ten years India has invested heavily in air power, and today IAF`s high technology combat and strike capability is more than seven times that of the PAF. The numerical imbalance is three to one.``

And there are oodles of other articles by PAF types plaintively wailing that the yawning combat aircraft gap with the IAF, if not addressed pronto, threatens to become insurmountable.

The net change during the last four years has not improved things much if at all for the PAF. What they`ve done is replace a few dozen ancient F-6s - Chinese knockoffs of the 50`s vintage MiG-19 - with a similar number of F-7PGs - nth generation Chinese copies of an early model MiG-21. They`ve also upgraded the avionics on the Mirage-IIIs/Vs and bought retired Mirages from the Australians and others to cannibalise for spares. Does this indeed represent a quantum jump in the PAF`s capabilities that would intimidate the Indians? Do you realise that the F-7PG acquisition is a stopgap forced by the failure of the FC-1 to materialise? If the F-7PG indeed offers substantial new capabilities, it will take a while - typically a couple of years - for the F-7PG squadrons to be fully operational and integrated into the PAF`s doctrine (at which time India should have 20-30 Su-30 MKIs in hand). I don`t think the F-7PG improves the PAF`s situation much, especially not immediately.

Reply Hobbyty # 341

“Caste discriminates regardless of sex…”

As do nationality, wealth, class, race, religion…

And gender (as opposed to sex) discriminates regardless of all of these.

“In comparing biologically based caste discrimination of Zaat/Jaat we are arguing that some are born in to a particular and unequal station in life that their purpose is to serve those born into a higher station - whereas with discrimination against women we are not positing that they are born into an unequal station or that they must serve others born into a higher station”

Given the current situation of women in most of the world (and in all Muslim majority countries) that is debatable. Why else do women face gender based discrimination if not for the fact that they are born female?

And of course a refusal to discuss the inequality of Muslim women and Muslim men does not mean that you cannot discuss caste based inequality in India.

“The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.”

From the website: http://www.usconstitution.net/

The text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It seems to say that the Government (as per Congressional laws) cannot promote or discriminate against a religion. Now WHY would the Constitution address this unless it was to forstall any conflict between the Government and religious groups (like those, for example, in Europe during the Wars of Religion)? Point being that upholding freedom of conscience is not only a moral issue, it contributes to political stability by removing religious observance from the purview of Government, (and also limits the direct influence of unelected religious leaders in Government).

“As a matter of fact, their position was to ensure the freedom of religion and was informed both by the Puritan movement and the experience in England. The provison that there will be no state religion, is a nod to the notion of freedom of conscience.”

If the Puritans were interested in freedom of conscience for everybody, even those who disagreed with them, can you tell me why they did not allow (just for example) Catholics or Quakers to settle in their colony (Massachussets)? And who was running the Salem Witch Trials, btw, in which many “nonconformist” Christians were burned for “witchcraft”? The Church or the Government? Or was there some overlap there? (As far as I know this happened before the American Revolution.)

“Also you may wish to reconsider your statement to the effect, that Protestantism and within it, the Puritan movement was not the most significant religious and intellectual movement informing the US constitution.”

The Protestant tradition is STILL the most important religious influence in American culture today. (Apologies to NoI and Rev Drumz.) But the fact that it is not the only such influence (and that the Protestant tradition itself is made up of several self-differentiated strands) makes the separation of church and state as relevant and necessary today as it ever was.

“You will note that the US constitution reads like an indictment - it is an indictment - ``And he has, And he has`` - each an indictment against the King of his violation of natural law, among which is the notion of the natural rights of man, as bestowed by God”

Um….I think you are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence…(no offence intended)

“Even in the discourse of it`s time it was recognized that in the US it was the ``freedom of religion`` as opposed to Europe`s ``Freedom from religion.`` it` s worth examining and I encourage you to do so.”

The one obviates the other, while without one the other remains a potential source of trouble.

Regards

Hobbyty # 338

{Sorry - a point I wanted to address - ``cowardly`` support of the Taliban - The decison to support the Taliban as long and in the manner it did, certainly was not a smart move - but given the environment and choices available - Pakistan should have exerted a stronger pressure on the Taliban to move from being a movement based in the Pashtun ethnic group to a more broad, multi-ethnic government. It should have promoted administrative control and cooperation with the US and China. So, I can`t find merit in your characterization of Pakistani efforts in Afghanistan.}

I find your response above unsatisfactory. Pakistan did not merely `support` the Taliban. Pakistani agencies practically created it, `educated` its leadership, armed and provisioned it, stiffened its military operations against the Northern Alliance, had their own personnel fight side-by-side with the Taliban troops, all the way to the bitter end in Kunduz - and tried in short to create a pliant satrapy in Afghanistan. I see in your talk of `administrative control and cooperation with the US and China` the same lack of concern for what the people of Afghanistan - as opposed to a minority of extremists propped up by outsiders - might want to do with their country. OK, perhaps it was not `cowardly`, it was an amoral exercise of state power in support of perceived interests that came badly unstuck. As was the Pakistani army crackdown in East Pakistan on the majority of Pakistan`s own citizens.

{A more apt characterization of cowardly is the behaviour of Pakistani forces against persons who were Pakistani citizens in Bangladesh and the behaviour of Indian forces in Captive Kashmir against persons whom the Indian government describes as Indian citizens. Won`t you agree?}

As far as I`m concerned, armed foreign insurgents found in Indian Kashmir by India`s forces are entitled to a plot of land measuring six feet by two, six feet underground; nothing less, nothing more. I fully support the operations of Indian forces against them. Those Indian citizens - misled or otherwise - who have taken up arms against the state, will have to be satisfied with whatever leniency they can get from the Indian forces. Innocent and law-abiding people should absolutely not be hurt although that often is the regrettable outcome of frequent deliberate tactics by terrorists and occasional heavy-handedness by security forces.

Hobbyty # 338

{If there are person among Indians on Chowk who see merit in the caste system of India or that it has relevance to life today, please educate us. For those Indians who agree that caste serves to distribute inequality, brutality and violence in Indian society - do we not owe it to each other to discuss it openly? I will say it again, ther is no reason to feel that a stick is being used against India - none of the indians on Chowk is the entirety of India and I am confused by the refusal to engage. If you or other Indians think caste does not serve to distribute inequality, that such brutal inequality in turn leads to persons externalizing the brutality they experience and that this may help us to understand the events of Gujrat - Please, explain.}

What do you want me to do - provide you with a straw man by pronouncing myself a hidebound reactionary who insists that `lower` castes be kept firmly in their appointed place? Claim that caste today is anything but a vestigial social organ with nuisance value? I dont think you have any appreciation for the variety of ways in which caste might traditionally have operated in different parts of India, or the difference between secular and religious status, or the extent and rapidity of social change in all strata of Indian society today.

I have observed you - unsuccessfully, IMO - attempt for a while to connect the bloody reprisals against innocent Muslims in Gujarat, and the climate that made this possible, with caste. I have tried my best to see how such a case can be made, and come up empty-handed. If anything, caste seems to be complementary to the current Gujarat mess. It was my impression that significant Muslim minorities in states where caste polarisation is significant, often strike deals with one or other caste-aligned grouping in order to get their share of the spoils. For instance, this has probably been the usual case in Bihar, which has seen probably the worst and most chronic caste violence in recent years - massacres perpetrated by the Ranvir Sena and Dalit Sena on each others` groups - but not much recent communal violence. Are you suggesting that caste groupings in Gujarat - `lower`, `backward` whatever - have externalised their supposed rage against the inequities decreed by caste, and the way it has allegedly brutalised them, and turned this rage against Muslims? Or contrariwise do you claim that `upper` caste groups have funneled their supposed resentment at being denied the privileges traditionally decreed by caste, against Muslims? Can you describe in greater detail the mechanisms - political, social, psychological, whatever - that you posit to explain this phenomenon? Do you have any evidence at all in support of your contentions?

Hobbyty # 338

{reasonable persons will agree, India`s internal problems cannot be attenuated by focusing attention to the creation of external problems. Caste, the inequality and brutality it distributes in Indian society must be tackled by all persons of conscience. I am sure you condemn the odious caste system of India - but it is not enough to merely condemn it - the only way to defeat the evil of India`s caste sytem is to discuss it honestly, to shine the light of reason on the manner in which caste functions to justify biologically and religious ordained inequality - Indians are capable of doing of this, but some how Indians on Chowk, think that democracy and secularism require a sensiblity of denial and defensive group think, instead of the free exercise of conscience, free and honest discussion.}

There you go again. Isolated from any context, your first sentence is a truism. I agree that external and internal problems ought to be dealt with separately, and that on no account should they be allowed to become intertwined, as Pakistan has foolishly managed to do by making their dispute with India over Kashmir a key part of national self-image and subject of perennial public discourse.

I flatly disagree with the implicit premise of your remarks, namely that India has `created` an external problem, with Pakistan, particularly with regard to Kashmir and the massive army deployment, to distract attention from internal problems, such as religious strife and polarisation, instead of attenuating them. The two problems have quite separate dynamics and have so far not been strongly coupled. It is this kind of disconnect from reality (I hope it is not intentional intellectual dishonesty) that has earned you such an unenviable reputation with Indian interactors. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, and you are in all sincerity projecting your knowledge of the experience of Pakistan [where Kashmir, a territorial dispute, has been kept alive by Pakistani armed intervention, intentionally injected into the national consciousness, and the Hindu is demonised in school textbooks and public discourse, thereby creating external problems and enemies to keep the public terrorised and docile under the army jackboot] onto India, in an unsuccessful attempt to understand the Indian domestic scene. The first thing you need to understand is that Pakistan and even more so Kashmir have for the longest time not been a subject of obsessive public concern in India at large, in the way that India and Kashmir are in Pakistan.

India`s problem with Pakistan has its roots in Pakistani irredentism in Kashmir, and even more so in the Pakistani establishment`s radical discontent with the lopsided current - and natural - distribution of power in the subcontinent. It has been driven by Pakistani armed support for insurgency, with the aim of bleeding India at low cost to itself. There are no causal arrows pointing from Babri Masjid/RJB in 1992 or 2002, or Godhra, or the Ahmedabad riots, to the ongoing low-intensity war in Kashmir or the current standoff with Pakistan. The degree of causation in the other direction is debatable. It is at best an open question whether Pakistani agencies had any hand in the Godhra incident, though they did in Bombay in January 1993; they certainly didn`t orchestrate the fallout in Ahmedabad. And while the NDA government, being politicians, would definitely have considered how the deployment would play with the public, they most certainly did not order it for that reason.

Hobbyty #338

{Seems some Indians on Chowk want to discuss anything and everything under the sky as long as it is not the inequality, brutality and violence of Hindu caste system - so let me afford a measure of escape from the reality you find so oppressive you would rather engage in threats of imposing war upon neighbors.}

I gather that you are itching for another ride on your favourite hobbyty-horse, namely caste. Don`t let me stop you, go right ahead, indulge yourself. Oh wait, I see that you`re already off at a gallop again. See a subsequent response below.

{I think Mr. Musharraf, now with a confident 5 more years, will extract a price for allowing Indian forces to withdraw. This price will include a commitment from India to proceed along the lines of a negotiated settlement in captive Kashmir, not an immediate solution, but a process of negotiation, this process will alter those aspects of the freedom struggle that international opinion finds objectionable, that is one in which armed action lead the political dimension, to it`s reverse. I think, Mr. Musharraf will definitely tone down a Pakistani role in the freedom struggle of the captive Kashmiri, but this struggle itself is about to undergo a significant change. While Mr. Musharraf will wait for the monsoon season to cause greater hardship on Indian infantry and armour strike formations - his relationship with the US - based on the Pakistan armed forces and Foreign minstry`s view that the Americans are in Central Asia to stay, that Central Asia will be a substitute for the energy reserves of the Middle East and the economic vision that in order to secure this strategic vision, the US will not want to see another issue - like the Palestine-Israel issue in the middle East, remain festering in Captive Kashmir, and realization that support for militant religious obscuritanist has ceased to pay dividends - continues to afford him latitude and leverage.}

I fear you`re making a virtue out of Musharraf`s dire necessity. Shorn of the euphemisms, you appear to be saying that General Musharraf - fresh from a glorious victory in a farcically rigged `general` election - will plead with the Indians for a face-saving formula for himself and his army. This will presumably enable him to disengage from the armed ``freedom struggle`` in ``captive Kashmir`` without appearing to have capitulated and gotten nothing at all for Pakistan out of all those lost years mortgaged to the sacred Kashmir cause. Sounds like an ambitious plan to me; I`m not sure how he intends to sell it, either domestically or with India. The Indians are certainly not going to gift Pakistan any land that Pakistan doesn`t already control - they may at best agree to LOC=IB, perhaps with minor local realignments for defense purposes, which was on offer from Simla onwards. Even so, it is going to be patently obvious to Pakistanis that their `bloved army` folded after all those years of huffing and puffing and chest-thumping talk, and the Indians could rub it in with taunts from Advani and his ilk. Nor is it clear why Indians should commit to a `negotiated settlement` that includes any role or voice for Pakistan - as opposed to a settlement with elected or electable local J&K politicians, on the lines of Punjab, Assam or a host of other Indian states, which has been the Indian government`s goal all along.

Cross-border terrorism by Pakistan-trained `freedom-fighters` was really Pakistan`s only leverage with India. India just raised the direct costs to Pakistan of the `low-cost option` a thousandfold with the massive deployment of the army. I feel it should be continued long enough - say through the end of the year, and with the imminent threat of future re-deployment - to impose on the Pakistan Army costs and pain severe enough to serve as a salutary lesson. That is the minimum needed to ensure their future good behaviour. It is a pity to have to use Pavlovian conditioning instead of sweet reason, but fools won`t learn any other way. And if it were up to me, I would go out of my way to deny the Pakistan Army and the usurping Great Dictator anything at all that they can display to the populace as a concession. That is the least that India owes to the people of Pakistan and to real democratic rule there.

As for the US - they have Musharraf by the short and curly; they may prefer him for now precisely because he can be pressured quite easily. Haven`t you noticed that they seem less than distraught about the Indian army deployment? Thay have no intention of giving any leverage or latitude to Musharraf and his strategic visionaries to pursue a Central Asian agenda not in line with US interests. Central Asian oil will remains a pipedream unless the US can ensure that all regional players - Russia, Iran, Turkey, India, China etc. - are placated and have their interests protected; otherwise any of them could play spoiler. A very long shot, if you ask me. And while the US might well prefer a Kashmir settlement, they will certainly not jeopardise their burgeoning relations with India by forcing terms not to the liking of the Indians.

{Additionally, while Indian thinking was/is that space exist for successfully enagaing in ``limited war``, several factors have changed. Pakistan Airforce has retired F6 aircraft, even as indian forces posture on it`s border (this itself is a reflection of how intimidated Pakistani forces feel) and have introduced F7PG airacrft - in effect it has increaed the size of it`s Air Force, enhanced it`s interceptor and attack capability, and enhanced it`s ground support capablity as well (the ``retired`` F6). .... So, while any threat and any mobilsation and deployement is expensive and punishes the resources available to the state, resources that could be better spent - and ceratinly Pakistan has a smaller economy and wants to avoid such a cost - the capability that existed on the Indian side is one that incurs diminishing returns - whereas the capablity on the Pakistani side has continued to improve.}

A most questionable conclusion - in the last three years it is India that has been going on a buying spree and upgrading militarily capabilities over and above substantial existing capabilities, to the point that they can inflict disproportionate losses. To mention the F-7PG as indicating comparative improvement in Pakistani relative capability is most risible. See the separate post about aircraft for more.

{Above all, Indian forces will not dare attack Pakistan, knowing, as the incident of an adventurous Indian general who moved strike forces closer to Pakistan border and when India was presented with evidence that it`s movements are being monitored by the Americans, was sent into oblivion - a message heard loud and clear among the sober. In the present situation, the Pakistani armed forces are deployed in a defensive mode and a minimum numerical superiority of 3 to 1 has to be employed by the attacker, in this case, India.}

Whether or not the Indians can successfully carry out offensive operations against Pakistan is not the immediate point. If it comes to a shooting war, it may anyway be far more cost-effective for India to damage infrastructure than grab territory. The point is that Pakistan will find the immediate costs of the buildup ruinous, that the economic climate will remain uncertain and deter foreign investment, and that as a consequence Pakistan`s economy will fall further behind India`s. Growing economic disparity will curtail your ability to compete militarily with the Indians or wield any clout internationally. It will put paid to all grandiose ambitions to go toe-to-toe with India and will sooner or later disastrously affect public morale. All this poses severe difficulties to a Pakistani regime committed to eternal strategic competition with India, never mind Musharraf`s `leverage` and `latitude`.

arjun_m # 330

{you should have read the Nation`s editorial last week. It was hilarious. They claimed that the deployment of paki forces was actually good for the economy.}

I didn`t see that edit in the Nation, though I did idly speculate along those lines. I suppose that the local service economy of otherwise god-forsaken areas where the Pakistan Army gets stationed may see a boost. For instance, the army probably buys meat and some other food items locally. But there has to be an overall negative direct effect of the mobilization on the economy of Pakistan, and the indirect economic effect of political uncertainty has to be factored in as well and may be even worse.

Prem #331

{For the last fifty years Pakistani army has consistently followed the strategy of ``claimed madness.`` The argument has been - we are irrational people, so allow yourself to be blackmailed by us, or else, you know, we are irrational, we will do anything.

This is also the strategy that romair has tried to use on Chowk. Ok, we are crazy people, but YOU must not be crazy.

Deliberately crazy people can only be dealt with in even crazier ways. Indians have figured that out. So, here we have, old outdated warriors totally out of their depths.}

Intentionally feigned irrationality has been advocated by others as well. Henry Kissinger is reported to have advocated that the US deliberately cultivate an image of violent unpredictability (he used the Yiddish word ``meshuggah``, crazy) to strike fear into potential adversaries. Apparently paradoxical behaviour of this nature seem to occur quite frequently in international relations when one attempts to use risky methods such as brinkmanship to reinforce ones credibility.

However, I`m not sure if this accurately describes the behaviour of the Pakistan Army in relation to India. It may very well have been a strategy used by the pre-Independence Muslim League to wrest ever-increasing concessions for themselves, that backfired when Nehru and Patel called their bluff in 1947. I believe that short-sighted opportunism - often without anticipating wider consequences, hence misjudged - is a better characterisation of the Pakistan Army`s typical behaviour than cold-blooded brinkmanship.

In my opinion, the 1947-1948 military action by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir ought to be viewed as opportunistic behaviour that met with considerable success, though not the total success that they wanted. Operation Gibraltar in 1965 seems to be miscalculated opportunism by Pakistan that failed and led to an unwanted wider war. 1971 was a completely different case - Pakistan attacked in desperation in the West a week or two after Indian forces had started full-fledged conventional operations in the East to liberate Bangladesh. Kargil 1999 was once again miscalculated opportunism by the Pakistan Army which backfired badly. The army acted quite rationally once India threatened to widen the conflict, even contriving to make Nawaz Sharif the scapegoat for defeat and withdrawal.

My speculation/hypothesis in this connection is that feigned irrationality if ever a viable strategy, is so only for democracies or at any rate regimes with institutionalised decision-making and a wide distribution of power and responsibility. Because of the distribution of power, the nature of a democratic regime itself is not threatened by a failure to get its way or by the costs of a lost conventional war (though some individuals may lose their jobs). A democracy`s actions when it takes them are seen as well-considered, hence likely to be followed through and and therefore credible. Dictators and juntas preside over far more brittle regimes and are far more vulnerable to the fallout of unsuccessful brinkmanship; are therefore less credible when they try brinkmanship because their adversaries know of their vulnerabilities. It may therefore be the case that dictatorships and regimes with ad hoc decision-making may try to get away with opportunistic moves but cannot credibly use brinkmanship.

I think that Ayub Khan`s military of 1965, egged on by Bhutto, attempting Operation Gibraltar; the Argentine junta`s 1982 attempt to seize the Falklands; and Saddam`s attempt to seize the Shatt-el-Arab from Iran and later to grab Kuwait, all fall under the heading of opportunistic moves by dictatorships that backfired. The one war that India unequivocally lost, against China in 1962, was characterized by ad hoc impromptu decision-making by Nehru and a severe disruption of proper civil-military relations, although within the larger backdrop of democracy. Kargil probably occurred, at least in part, because an inattentive Nawaz Sharif and civilian establishment was effectively kept out of the loop by the Pakistan Army, who failed to consider larger context and miscalculated grievously. I think that Musharraf in the future will continue to opportunistically seek tactical advantage - as in Kargil or Agra - but will try his best to avoid a wider conflict that will almost certainly unseat him and his cabal.

Dost Mittar

You make have the rudiments of Canadian history, especially the recent past - Were you to examine the Puritan movement, from England to the original colonies - you would note that preceding and following the declaration of independence, many ``tory`` left the US for Canada - Remember, the fact that the recent past you cite is not what I was referring to - I had a much earlier history - coterminus with US history prior to the declartion of indepencdence and immediately after it in mind. Please do make an effort to study to study this and you have arrive at a different conclusion than you have.

Arjunm

India will ``talk and talk`` - This would be a hopeful development and I look forward to it. Indians on Chowk may even get around to talking about caste - Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins - are you a Brahmin as well? Do you think caste has a relationship with the brutality and violence in Gujrat? Do you think it`s possible for the kind of pogroms in Gujrat to spread to other areas in India?

Rsaxsena

Alphanell has pointed out and editor Najam Sethi agrees that the change of policy - support for militant obscuritanism - should be carried to it`s logical conclusion - that is support for a negotiated settlement in Captive Kashmir. Clearly this makes sense and most all, on both sides of the border support this - however; soverign nations do not behave as persons, they balance multiple interests and attempt to ensure long term stability, they even introduce calibrated measures, designed to obviate the desirability of stability and normal relations.With this in mind, it`s only realistic and is percieved as responsibile, to extract from India a price to allow it to withdraw - in Kargil, it was forces supported by Pakistan or as charged, Pakistani forces themselves, that had to withdraw, as they were initiators in the perception of the world - in the present scenario - Indians are threatening nuclear war and they must be made and be seen to be made to pay a price for the callous and reckless threats. Don`t you agree, that if allowed to withdraw without paying a price, Indian political parties may see threatening foreign adventures as legitimate venues of diverting attention from domestic failures? Thinking Indians ought to be supportive of any price Pakistan may extract, so that any future threats by India to imposing nuclear war may be balanced with political costs in India.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts