Confessions of a BJP Supporter

re: Democracy and Pak

Tahmed says India can help foster democracy in Pak. I wish it could. Nothing would be better for India. Politicians may be corrupt but they have a constituency to defend. Note how difficult it is for ABV to start a war. If war does not go the way ruling party wanted, BJP(being the major party in a ruling coalition) will cease to be a political party of any consequence. That is how democracy works. When Pak military infiltrated into Kargil (with help of Mujahideens) and a war was about to break out, Nawaz Sharief backed off. Politicians are in the end also pragmatists. Pakistan`s military dictators of the past and present have been men without any vision or with their own vision of Pak which they force on an unwilling population (eg the recent referendum). They have no constituency to defend. Add to that the intense hatred that many of these have for India (post-1971 syndrome?) and their obsesseion with Kashmir which binds all these dictators (Ayub Khan downwards)together and you get the picture.

I do not see a debate in Pak today of what will happen in case of a war with India or if this is what the majority want. So, it is too late to say India could help Pak become a democracy. Pak did not learn in the last 50 years of its existence any lessons of democracy from India. What lessons can it learn today.

There is clearly a difference in mindset of an average Pakistani and and average Indian. An average Paki seems to somehow relate to a military dictator and even feel kinship with him. He is not bothered that one single person (or a Coterie)is calling all the shots and deciding the fate of 130 million Pakistanis. How can you let one person decide your fate? When the whole world is shouting hoarse about Mushy`s complicity in terrorism in Kashmir, i don`t hear any dissenting voices from an average Paki. So, anything that hurts India seems to be good for an average Paki. Since the Supreme Whore has been successful in hurting India by his terrorist tactics, it jives well with the average Paki.

Pakistan would have been a democracy long ago if it had wanted to. But Pak was not made to be a democratic nation. It is a nation of landlords and warring tribesmen and egoistic Generals and armymen all of who rule over teeming masses of uneducated people. The only thing that unites this disparate group is intense hatred of India. Either the whole leadership should change or this state of conflict will continue. Leadership can be changed by the people of Pak who have so far shown no willingness to do so (note the complete lack of any protests following the massive rigging by Mushy at the referendum). If people cannot do it, then the only way India can change the leadership in Pak is through a bloody war. Latter, alas, seems to be the only option at the moment.

sridhar

Zafar #222
If I recall right, it was BJP`s Vajpayee that went to Lahore to meet a democratic PM Nawaz Sharif and make a speech at Minar-e-Pakistan declaring full acceptance of Pakistan as a sovereign nation.

After the coup, for a long time the BJP government took a lot of abuse from Pakistanis and other sundry peaceniks for refusing to talk to Musharraf because `he had deposed an elected government` and was the `architect of Kargil` and didnot believe in the Lahore process. The argument to berate the BJP government was if India could talk to the dictator Zia then why not Musharraf. When they did finally agree to talk to him in Agra, then they were again questioned, how the hell did he suddenly become acceptable?

In the matter of supporting democracy in Pakistan, it seems to be damned if we do and damned if we don`t.

shammi #217 in response to my comment ``...And the best thing it (India) can do is to promote democracy in Pakistan on every front...`` you write ``How? While simulataneously stopping terror?``

These are some of the ways I India can promote democracy in Pakistan (and these are just some quick thoughts from the top of my head):

1. Work with the international community to encourage Musharaff to hold the October elections on schedule.

2. After October, strengthen the hands of whoever is elected prime minister of Pakistan. There are many ways this can be done starting with a re-opening of diplomatic relations, pulling back the million man army from the border (which is basically costing India a lot of money to India and has not scared anyone in Pakistan anyway in the few months it has been sitting there).

3. Go easy on the knee-jerk anti-Pakistan rhetoric. No point in threatening Pakistan`s existence when this is clearly beyond the capability of the Indian government. All it does is confirm the fears and suspicions of the average Pakistani and perpetuate the air of hostility between the two nations.

3. 1. and 2. are what I call ``soft`` actions. The ``hard actions`` are to live up to India`s own ideals of secularism. The destruction of the Babri Masjid should, per this ideal, be punished as a crime, just as the events of Gujrat should be treated as a crime. The Indian government can then more credibly call for reigning in religious extremism in Pakistan, and would no doubt be then seen by the ``silent majority`` of Pakistan as a part of the solution to our problems, rather than an aggravating element.

btw, on the water issue, it is important to remember Newton`s third law (if I remember my physics correctly): to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I dont know what it would be, but clearly Pakistan would not simply standby if this has a significant impact on the economy.

Maybe there are other ways India can change it`s relationship from one of lose-lose (which is the current situation) or win-lose (which is all that the current governments on both sides seem to be aiming for) to win-win (where both countries proactively help one another move forward in terms of political, economic and social progress).

What do you think?

````I talked about laying a long term plan to break up Pakistan````(tvarad)

but -- Why ``break up pakistan`` -- my friend tvarad?

let’s ``talk about laying a long term plan`` for a democratic secular -- politically stable -- non jihadi Pakistan -- in the best interest of -- yes -- India.

and -- let`s also talk about long term plan of keeping India -- from breaking up.

Two or three more state `governments` -- like the Gujarat Government of Goondas -- with their Government sponsored massacres -- and India will be coming apart at the seams -- as well.

re:Reply #: 210

tahmed321,

Like other Pakis, you seem to have no clue how Indians feel about all this. There is a decision making process and going to war by a democratic country is not an easy decision. Your dictator will bring ruin to your country. He lacks political wisdom. His intense hatred of India and his obsesseion with Kashmir makes situation very difficult. He kept insisting to washington post in an interview that there was no infiltration across the LOC when NYTimes had reported that monitoring by US and UK had revealed that Mushy had allowed militants to regroup in POK and infiltration was on.

When India goes to war, it will not be just military. It will be at all levels. It will last until your Army is humbled. Mushy may well choose to push the nuclear button. In that case, not much will be left to discuss about Pak. It is a pity your countrymen could never elect a democratic leader who could speak for the people. What do the people of Pak want today? Do they want war? Do they want to continue what Pak is doing in Kashmir? Do they want to give up everything for the sake of illusory Kashmir which will never be their`s: now or ever? A military dictator has no constituency to defend. What happened to yahya Khan after your county was defeated in 1971? I am sure he is still sitting pretty somewhere. Mushy has gone on a suicidal course. He and his nation will pay the price.

sridhar

re:Reply #: 216

tvarad,

After what happened recently in Jammu and the assasination of Lone, i am of the opinion that continuation of the entity called ``Pakistan`` is no more in India`s interest. There should be a national debate as to how to break up Pak. I agree with you that direct confrontation is the worst way. US won the cold war without firing a shot. The best way would be to bring economic ruin to that country. We can openly start supporting sindhi nationalism and prop up leadership demanding freedom from the Punjabi domination. Scrapping up Indus treaty is another way. This is a puny little county. If there is a national will, Pak will not survive for long. I for one no longer believe in the oft-repeated cliche that a prosperous and strong Pak is good for India. As General Cariappa said way back in 1947: if all Indians decide to urinate all at once on the Indo-Pak border, Pak would be drowned.

We have let this monster grow. There is really nothing common between us. Clearly only one of us can live UNLESS PAK CHANGES ITS STATE POLICY OF STATE TERRORISM.

sridhar

Re: Tahmed321

``...The fact that BJP has not focussed on promoting democracy in Pakistan is because BJP policies are in my view taken off the course of rationality by their hatred for Pakistan...``

It was Vajpayee who went to Lahore and to the Minar-e-Pakistan, not Narasimha Rao or Indira Gandhi. However, I believe that Vajpayee DID undermine democracy by giving a pretext to Musharraf to declare himself President by inviting him to Agra. To this list should be added the leaders of Western democracies who have cast principle aside in favor of expediency.

Reply Tahmed321

``...And the best thing it (India) can do is to promote democracy in Pakistan on every front...``

That, dear sir, would be good for India, but bad for the BJP (and the Sangh Parivar). Iss liye...

Pankaj #213
``Conserving one`s power instead of wasting it on a lost cause was a more ``rational`` option than the suicidal attacks of jihadis. As they say, live to fight another day ;)``

You mean live to claim to be equal to 5 Indians or was it 10 :).

Pakistan army pays scant regard to Musharraf`s talk: Captured militant

A captured militant on Saturday indicated that the Pakistani army pays scant regard to Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf`s promise not to allow his country or its border to be used for any kind of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir and continues to train and push militants into the state.

``We were kept by Pak troops in a launching pad and then pushed into this side for carrying out terrorist activities and subversive actions,`` Anjum, captured by security forces at Chawa on Friday night, told a group of reporters in Rajouri on Saturday afternoon.

Codenamed Mehrul Islam, Anjum said the `Pakistani army organised and directed our infiltration into Indian territory and also assigned us to undertake several subversive missions in J&K`.

Anjum, who lost three of his Pakistani militant colleagues in the encounter with the army at Chawa village, revealed that Pakistani intelligence agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was still training militants at various launching pads.

``We were organised by Pak troops and pushed through Nallah post and tasked to target the Doodhadaray temple in Rajouri town to create communal violence on the eve of Eid,`` Anjum, whose five other militant colleagues managed to escape, said.

The ISI has directed all militant outfits, including the Al-Badr, Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Lashkar-e-Tayiba (LeT), Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islami (HUJI) and Tehreek-e-Jahid Islami (Teji) to fight under a joint platform, he added.

Anjum, who has been active in Kashmir for over three years, said that the Pakistani army does not pay heed to the statements of Musharraf and that it is committed to the militancy in Kashmir.

Over 1000 trained militants are ready to be pushed into J&K from their launching pads-cum-Pak posts along the Line of Control (LoC), he said.

Later, Brigadier Rohit Kalia told mediapersons, ``Pakistan army is involved in militancy in J&K at all levels.``

Pankaj #213 you write ``Pakistani military stands to loose from any such arrangement. Then they would neither be able to justify their coups in the ``national interests`` nor the disproportionate share that they demand of the economic pie. `` That is right. As they say, war is too important to be left to the generals. I agree that the LoC should be made a permanent boundary, and the cause for friction would then disappear. And this is some friction :-)

I doubt if there will actually be ever be another major war (except through a big miscalculation) between the two countries, given nuclearization. And even the conventional balance of power alone is not too bad (from a Pakistani perspective). However, the real cost is the cost of preparing for such confrontations.

Given this situation, I think the most rational policy for the Indian government from all perspectives (Indian, Pakistani, world at large) is to vigorously promote the cause of democracy in Pakistan. The India-Pakistan dispute will then disappear faster than the morning fog (remember that leaders of the two mainstream political parties in Pakistan have opted for peace with India).

The fact that BJP has not focussed on promoting democracy in Pakistan is because BJP policies are in my view taken off the course of rationality by their hatred for Pakistan. So all I see from the BJP leadership is bellicose talk that is rendered meaningless by the military stalemate.

Re: Tahmed321

``...And the best thing it (India) can do is to promote democracy in Pakistan on every front...``

How? While simulataneously stopping terror? I am all ears. Please note that it is not the BJP alone taking decisions -- it is the NDA (Fernandes in not from the BJP) and the Congress has effectively given a carte blanche to the govt, and elected officials have to show results or be shown the door before the 5 yr. term is up.

Even this dove has begun to advocate reneging on the Indus Waters Treaty albeit temporarily - a thought that never crossed an Indians mind in `65, `71, and `99.

RE: Reply #: 210 tahmed321

``tvarad #209 you write ``it is time to put Pakistan out of it`s misery.``

When the latest charade is over, I assume you will print out these words and eat them. Along with the dozen other brave ``chowk warriors`` from India who think the Indian army can walk into pakistan.``

Did you read through what I wrote? What I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Indian intelligence predicted the breakup of Pakistan two years before 1971. If India lays out a long term plan to exploit the internal weaknesses of Pakistan to effect another breakup to it`s advantage, then it`s better for the region as a whole. It`s time to neutralize the nuclear blackmail that India is being subjected to.

``Do you people have a clue about the relative strengths of the two armies (and I am not even talking nuclear weapons), and why the Advanis and Fernandes can huff and puff all they want but dont dare to mess with Pakistan? Maybe they know something you people do not.``

Again, a knee-jerk reaction to what I posted. Who said anything about taking on the Pakistani army headon? I talked about laying a long term plan to break up Pakistan by bypassing the army altogether. Pakistan is much more vulnerable to breakup than India is. India can spend just 20% of it`s defense budget ($3 billion) to raise rebel forces which is the total budget of the Pakistani army and we`ll have a rebellion in our hands in no time.

Pakistani planners know that this is their Achilles heel, which is why they are so busy trying to keep India boiling. India was more worried about what would happen if Pakistan`s nukes fell into the wrong hands so they`ve tried to contain it. Well, everything changed post Sept. 11 and so India`s time to act has come.

Before Pakistanis start crying foul, let me say that that is what your army has been doing to India almost since it`s inception. It`s time to pay back in the same coin.

Advani and Fernandes are a bunch of jokers and Vajpayee should be sent to a old home asap. There is plenty of new thinking waiting in the wings in India that will deal with Pakistan from a modern perspective rather than this WWI type of mentality.

tvarad #209 you write ``it is time to put Pakistan out of it`s misery.``

When the latest charade is over, I assume you will print out these words and eat them. Along with the dozen other brave ``chowk warriors`` from India who think the Indian army can walk into pakistan. When the Indian politicians are beginning to realize their bellicose talk of the past few days is basically hot air. I am amazed at the arrogance and chauvinism of so many Indian posters on chowk at this time. Do you people have a clue about the relative strengths of the two armies (and I am not even talking nuclear weapons), and why the Advanis and Fernandes can huff and puff all they want but dont dare to mess with Pakistan? Maybe they know something you people do not.

Saxena,

{{...i wish i`d descended from aliens...}}

Yo! Mofo!! you have!! jeeze..you havent figured that out?!!

maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror ocassionally, huhn, you farangi ka bacha..now go sharpen your teeth or stroke your lobes..:)

Tahmed

I always advocated what I think is the ideal solution of all the Indo-Pak issues. Declare LoC as the IB. After that we can busy ourselves in setting our own house in order. Some other Pakistanis on this site such as Fuzair and Sameer, to note a few, have also advocated this option. I very much doubt the confrontational policies of Paksitani military junta(and their Indian counterparts) will serve any purpose. But perhaps, Pakistani military stands to loose from any such arrangement. Then they would neither be able to justify their coups in the ``national interests`` nor the disproportionate share that they demand of the economic pie. So there are a lot of parties inside Pakistan that would not find peace in their best interests and this is excluding jihadis.

Sadhana

Actually I should have qualified my previous statement. Gen Zia pushed Pak into Afghan war because of some ``short term`` rational reasons

1. To strengthen his own rule by cleverly using the ``Islam`` card. You may want to read the wordings of his referendum that promised to usher in ``more Islam`` in peole`s lives as a justification for his rule.

2. Extract dollars from USA.

3. (perceived) Strategic depth that a virtual rule over Afghanistan furnished.

4. He thought that the Islamic warriors can later be used against India in Kashmir. He also reasoned that having USA in Pak`s favor would give him reasonable leverage over India with respect to Kashmir.

The after affects or the long term effects of any action are much harder to calculate and hence are often neglected while making decisions. Let me just give you an example of why I think Pak army is ``rational``, in the sense of saving its own skin. After defeat was certain in 1971, Pak army chose to surrender instead of fighting to death like jihadis. Conserving one`s power instead of wasting it on a lost cause was a more ``rational`` option than the suicidal attacks of jihadis. As they say, live to fight another day ;)