The Last Crusade

temporal #443 I checked the link to Feroz`s poem. It is indeed a touching one, about the young men who died in battle at Kargill. I did not realize we had a cemetery where some of the dead were buried. I wonder if Feroz (in case he reads this) would share the circumstances in which he went there, and where the cemetery actually is.

War is in fact a terrible thing, as is obvious when you listen to people who have actually experienced it. All I have seen first hand growing up in military cantonments is news from the front of the death of someone`s father, someone`s husband, a neighbor or a friend (I still remember the chap who we were told was burnt to a crisp in a tank in Sialkot in 1971, when it seemed only a day before that the two of us had gone to watch the war movie Von Ryan`s Express). And that is bad enough. So far, it is the army people in both countries that have experienced war. And the poor people who are getting killed every day on the border. Let us hope that civilians in the millions dont have to experience the carnage for themselves that takes place and learn the hard way. Full fledged war with modern technology is a miracle cure for jingoism (as the Japanese and Germans discovered the hard way). Let us pray we are all spared this cure.

ALL Muslim & Islam lovers must read this.

Non-muslims welcome too!

__________________________________________________

Victims of prejudice

RAFIQ ZAKARIA



INDIAN Muslims suffer from two traumas today: one, the religious prejudice against them which has historical roots, and has been whipped up by the protagonists of Hindutva and two, their campaign against so-called pseudo-secularism, targeting Indian Muslims as the favoured lot, receiving preferential treatment at the hands of the country?s rulers.

Arising out of these two developments, there is a widespread misconception about Islam, which is presented by its detractors as a backward looking faith, refusing to allow its followers to move with the times. This is a hangover of the calumny against Islam started by the Christian clergy within fifty years of the passing away of Prophet Muhammad; it was mounted with a virulence and hate that is unaparalleled in human annals. The reason was simple. Islam spread in the lands which were under Christian domination and it uprooted the hold of Christianity on the people.

No one has put the case about the phenomenon better than H.G. Wells, one of its bitterest critics, who in his Outline of History wrote: ?Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic peoples, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganised and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest and cleanest political idea that had come into actual activity in the world and it offered better terms than any other to the masses of mankind.?

However, to the Christians the shock was too great to bear, both for the rulers and the clerics, as they retreated from the lands they had ruled. They consoled themselves by painting Muhammad as Mahound or the devil and Islam as a false religion. Many eminent Orientalists have now ?exposed the distorted reports of fanatical Christians,? to quote Sir Edward Denis Ross, ?which led to the dissemination of a multitude of gross calumnies.? He pointed out that what was good in Islam ?was entirely ignored? and ?what was not good, in the eyes of Europe, was exaggerated and misinterpreted.?

Until the advent of the British in India, Islam, despite being the dominant power, was free from such distortion or misrepresentation; but during their rule, the same propaganda against it was unleashed among Hindus by both British civilians and clerics. Little has happened even after their departure to change this atmosphere of prejudice against Islam. Indian Muslims continue to be viewed as a drag on India?s progress, an alien community, intolerant, aggressive and uncompromising, ready to break but unwilling to bend, prepared to rot in their ghettos but refusing to adjust to the changing requirements. Is it not strange that a religion which brought about the greatest revolution in the history of the world and changed the shape of mankind, should be condemned as the most retrograde, outlandish and regressive of all religions? Some condescendingly explain that the fault might not lie with Islam but with Muslims. Neither proposition is true.

Islam is fundamentally as progressive or perhaps more than any other religion and Muslims are as good or bad in following its precepts and practices as the followers of other religions. The trouble with Muslims is that they have ceased to be the dominant power and have become the subjugated community; their erstwhile subjects have become the rulers who have no sympathy or consideration for them. The result is that every action of a Muslim is criticised, every move condemned; every reaction misinterpreted, and the whole community is damned for either the fault of a few or the indifference of the many.

The attack against Islam takes a subtle form; it is said that Islam reformed would be no Islam. Better still, that unless Muslims give up their unqualified adherence to the Quran, neither reform nor renewal of their faith is possible. And without these, it is stressed, they are doomed. This, in effect, amounts to asking Muslims to give up Islam. For the Quran is really the basis of Islam; no Muslim can modify or alter it. Those who doubt its divinity cannot remain in the fold.





The Prophet was no more than a transmitter of what is contained in its pages. He does not occupy the same place as does Christ among Christians or Moses among Jews, or Buddha among Buddhists or Krishna among Hindus; Mohammed is neither God nor His incarnation. He is human and has no divinity attached to him; in one of the passages of the Quran he was, in fact, admonished for having frowned upon a beggar. He could falter even though he was the perfect human being. According to a tradition recorded by Imam Muslim, one of the two recorders of the most authentic books of traditions, the Prophet himself had cautioned his co-religionists that though his religious views were, no doubt, binding on them, as these were divinely inspired, but not his worldly opinions which, sometimes, could be erroneous.

The Quran is the pivot around which everything revolves for Muslims. Though revealed in Arabic and addressed to the Arabs, it has a universal message. It is, however, not so much the letter of the Quran but its spirit which is important. Its words have to be construed in their historical perspective. That is why the reasons for the revelations have to be borne in mind; these have, in fact, assumed the nature of a science. There is so much juxtaposition of the local, historical, allegorical and fundamental verses that an uninitiated reader is likely to get confused.





As I have explained in my book Mohammed and the Quran: ?The Quran is a mingling of the spiritual and the material, the divine and the mundane; it covers everything from the sun to the moon. It explains a moral in a verse, which might ordinarily take a whole book; it enunciates a principle from several angles and attacks a wrong from a multitude of directions. And yet its main values are put forth not only unambiguously but in a forceful manner. These are, in a sense its quintessence.?

Maulana Rumi, whose Mathnavi or book of mystical poems has been characterised as ?the Quran in the Persian language? and is held in the highest esteem by the faithful, has expressed this in words which may shock the orthodox:

Out of the Quran I draw the marrow; And throw away the bones to the dogs.

The reference to dogs is to those who quibble unnecessarily on superficial issues; it is not used in a derogatory sense.

The Quran, in its fundamentals, is so broad-based that it has survived the ravages of time and space; even the latest conquests of the sun, the moon and the stars are indicated in it when it says that all these are subject to man and meant for his benefit. Hence, as the great poet-philosopher of modern Islam, Allama Iqbal has observed, in the Quran ?life is a process of progressive creation?; it emphasises change in unequivocal terms:

God does not change the condition of a people; Unless they want to change it by themselves (7:35).





It is wrong, therefore, to blame the Quran for any stagnation of Muslims, and to quote Iqbal again, the Quranic teaching ?necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of their predecessors, should be permitted to solve their problems.? It teaches Muslims to be dynamic and forward-looking; it deprecates status-quoist attitudes and stresses constant struggle. Ijitihad, or independent thinking is a recognised instrument for bringing about the necessary reforms; it was freely exercised by many eminent jurists and theologians in the past. It is based on the Quranic verse: ?And those who exert in Our cause, We show them the right path? (69:29).

There is also the advice given by the Prophet to his newly appointed Governer of Yemen, Ma?az, that where the Quran and the Traditions were silent, he should exercise his own judgment in resolving a dispute. After the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols (1258) and the collapse of the Abbasid Empire, the doors of Ijitihad were closed. Ibn Taiymiya (1263-1328) tried hard to reopen it; so had Ibn Hazm (994-1064) earlier and Suyuti (1445-1505) later, but despite their eminence they could not open the doors of Ijitihad for all time. The orthodox elements went on putting one obstacle after another and insisted on taqlid or imitation.

Iqbal strongly disapproved of this tendency and asked: ?Did the founders of our schools ever claim finality for their reasoning and interpretations?? And replied, ?Never,? adding, ?The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified.? Unfortunately the work of Abduh (1849-1905) in Egypt, Afghani (1838-1897) in Central Asia and Sir Syed Ahmad (1817-1898) in India in the 19th century could not be carried forward; the reformists who followed them lacked the intellectual grip over the Quran and the Traditions and failed to carry their co-religionists with them. However, in early Islam there was free and continuous flow of reforms in every walk of life; that is why its contributions in most fields of human endeavour have been most outstanding.

That was the legacy, which, in fact, Muslims had inherited. In the dark age of the 7th century, when drunkenness was prevalent, the Prophet prohibited the use of alcohol; when work was looked down upon, he taught people to shun lethargy; when indiscipline prevailed, he ordained his followers to pray five times every day; when unity among groups and tribes was non-existent, he told Muslims to congregate every Friday to remember God; when men revelled in feasting, he prescribed a most rigorous, month-long fasting; he gave the right of inheritance to women and restricted men to having only four wives ? against the unlimited number they were used to ? and the Quran declared that this could be done only if each was treated equally in love as well as in every other respect. And that too, with the warning that in effect this was not possible.





He uplifted the poor by giving them equality with the rich; he asked them to assemble at least once in a lifetime in Mecca to perform the Hajj to renew their faith in human brotherhood. He abolished tribal warfare, blood feuds, racial inequality and infanticide. These are only a few of the Prophet?s many achievements. Do these not speak of reform and renewal? The pioneer of rationalism in Europe, Winwood Reade, has rightly observed in his classic, The Martyrdom of Man: ?Instead of repining that Muhammad did no more, we have reason to be astonished that he did so much. His career is the best example that can be given of the influence of the individual in human history.?

The question that then arises is: Why, when the early Muslims were so progressive and dynamic, are they so backward now? Before answering it, we must be clear in our mind as to what is meant by backwardness. Is it political, economic, social or religious backwardness that Muslims are charged with? If it is political, economic, or social, then Islam cannot be blamed because it gives ample scope for progress; and history shows that it was achieved in a spectacular manner.





Until the 19th century no one accused Muslims of being backward; it is only after the onslaught of the West, in its varied manifestations, that older civilizations were criticised and even condemned; in this Hinduism has fared no better than Islam. Moreover, it assumes that western civilization is in every respect better than the other civilizations based on religions other than Christianity. That, I am afraid, is the major weakness in the approach to the concept of reform and renewal. Here logical deductions are also not of much help because civilizations arose out of man?s quest for God and God is a matter of faith and not reason. Even the materialistic western civilization will collapse like a house of cards if its Christian base is knocked out as happened in the former Soviet Union; it would, therefore, be suicidal for any people to tamper with faith or a religion?s basic features. Reforms and renewal have to be within the fundamental framework of that religion; to damage it is to invite its disintegration.

Faith has to evolve with man; in this respect, in the last hundred years or so, Islam has undoubtedly lagged behind others, mainly because of political servitude, economic backwardness and lack of education among its adherents. The orthodox mullahs who have thwarted the advance of their co-religionists in these fields by misquoting scriptures and sticking to outmoded forms and practices are not helping their co-religionists.





Professor Zainaddin Sardar of King Abdul Aziz University of Jeddah has graphically described their negative role: ?By emphasizing the precision in the mechanics of prayer and ablution, length of beard and mode of dress, they have lost sight of individual freedom, the dynamic nature of many Islamic injunctions, and the creativity and innovation that Islam fosters within its framework. They have founded intolerant, compulsive and tyrannical orders and have provided political legitimacy to despotic and nepotistic systems of government. They have closed and constricted many enquiring minds by their insistence on unobjective parallels, unending quibbles over semantics. They have divorced themselves from human needs and conditions. No wonder then that the majority of Muslims today pay little attention to them and even foster open hostility towards them.?

Reforms among Muslims have been an ongoing process ? they have never stopped, though sometimes the pace has been slow. The Islamic contribution to arts and science have been both innovative and revolutionary; their impact was felt in every field. Even the Shariah has changed its shape several times and it is certainly not what it was a century ago. In Saudi Arabia, which is a citadel of orthodoxy, there have been significant modification to it to suit the exigencies of the situation. Many Muslim countries have enacted radical reforms. The orthodox, as everywhere, in every religion, have protested loudly but they have failed miserably in stopping them. The old criminal law has been replaced in many countries by new measures; likewise, the code of civil procedure has been greatly altered; even in personal and family matters many amendments have been introduced. These have been quietly accepted by the faithful.





There is much talk these days of a uniform civil code for India and of the opposition of Indian Muslims to it; I am afraid it will need a separate article to explain the politics behind this entire affair. Suffice it to say that the Muslim Personal Law is, in fact, the compilation of some maulvis at the instance of Lord Macaulay; it is based in many respects on the Fatuhat-i-Alamgiri, the judicial pronouncements in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. It bristles with innovations and is known as Muhammadan law which itself is a misnomer. It has been considerably modified by the decisions of the Privy Council during the British Raj and by some of the legislative measures introduced by Muslim members of the pre-partition Central Assembly. Moreover, some sections of Muslims continued to be governed by the Hindu law of succession for several centuries, some others by customary laws. Similarly, usury, which is prohibited by the Shariah, was widely practised by such orthodox, practising Muslims as the Pathans and the Arab immigrants. The theologians connived at these lapses because of worldly compulsions.





Today, however, it is the protagonists of Hindutva who want the Muslim Personal Law to be replaced lock, stock and barrel by a unified civil code. Why? Not because they are interested in reforming Indian Muslims or helping them out but to force them to give up their identity and to subjugate them to a predominantly Hindu pattern of jurisprudence. These Hindus have little sympathy for the plight of Indian Muslims. Apart from humiliating them what concerns them mainly is the allowance of four wives that Muslims are said to enjoy. They are afraid that soon Muslims might overtake the Hindus in numbers and become the majority in India. However absurd the proposition, which statisticians have exposed convincingly, it seems to have gripped their fertile imagination.

The easiest way to overcome their ill-conceived fear is to bring in legislation making monogamy compulsory for Muslims; eminent jurists like Justice Ameer Ali and noted commentators like Abdullah Yusuf Ali have publicly advocated it. Before Partition, the Indian Legislative Assembly, on the initiative of Jinnah, enacted the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, granting the right of divorce to Muslim women; the measure was universally hailed. Similar reforms can easily be brought forth, provided the Quranic injunctions are not violated. Hence the tirade against the Muslim Personal Law is politically motivated: it aims at denigration and not reformation.

Laws, however, have not reformed societies; child marriages take place despite the Sharda Act and dowries have not stopped in spite of the strict penal provisions. Thus Hindus are as much in need of effective reforms as Muslims; their opposition to any change may not be as articulate but their resistance will be no less real. In the early 1950s, the enactment of the Hindu Code, despite the best efforts of Jawaharlal Nehru for almost five years, had to be ultimately abandoned; its greatest opponent was the first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. So the actual passing of a uniform civil code by our Parliament, if and when it comes about, will not be a smooth affair; it will be bogged down by amendment after amendment by various religious sects and groups.





Unfortunately, Indian Muslims have allowed themselves to be used as a scapegoat; they should play their cards better if they do not wish to be misunderstood and projected as an obstacle to national integration. They cannot deny that their personal law needs to be reformed; even the All-India Personal Law Board has accepted the need for it. Their effort to codify the law has not borne fruit yet; but it will be wrong on their part to delay it or to shut their eyes to realities.

However that may be, I fail to appreciate the hue and cry for the enactment of a uniform civil code; it smacks more of a hypocritical stance than a genuine desire for reform. In a multi-religious, caste-ridden society like ours, there are many more important issues which need to be urgently addressed such as compulsory universal education at the primary level, the right to work and equal pay for equal work ? all these and many more are an essential part of the Directive Principles in our Constitution. Why is there no agitation for their implementation? Is it because some people revel in presenting the Muslim as the only drag on the country?s transformation from a backward to a progressive society?

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

Fuzair and Tahmed:

my friend is stricken with modesty...pls.check out his poem: Gardens of Stone at

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?fkhan_aug2699


rgds,

t


ps: feroz, what was it you once mentioned in the `war games` scenario the target that would wreck the most havoc would be a mountain top...the melting flowing radio-active water would sspread the damage farther away?...

Rsaxena #436 I cant speak for anyone`s intent - maybe BJP wants to see Musharaff stamp out the terrorists as you say, or maybe BJP would stamp out Pakistan. The facts are clear though: India has put an army of one million men on Pakistan`s borders; they have been sitting there for months now. The BJP government has blown hot and cold (e.g. Vajpayee called for a ``decisive victory`` and then two days later went off on vacation). And BJP has a clear ultranationalist indeology. I can only conclude that all that stands between Pakistan and occupation by a hostile force is the not-so-thin red line provided by its military technology and 600,000 man army. It is simple equations, not arrogance (and I hope you are not just tossing the term ``arrogance`` back at me, since I was using it just a few days back with chowk posters who were certain that India was now going to walk all over Pakistan as if it was a doormat).

soysauce #437

You write: ``1) It`s no news to india or anyone else that pak has missiles. If this was a reminder, it was one aimed at reassuring pakistanis. Apparently that has worked judging from your remarks.``

Your guess is as good as mine concerning the audience the general was aiming for. From all indications, though, it has had a salutary effect on the Indian decision makers and general public too: I am certain that the million man army sitting on our borders for several months now, would have attacked if the BJP government was not afraid of the Pakistani response. As I mentioned earlier, wars often take place through miscalculation (as I mentioned, Hitler miscalculated UK/French response to Polish invasion given prior policy of appeasement; Given confusing signals from US, communists assumed US would not respond in case of attack on South Korea; closer home, Ayub Khan miscalculated Indian response to attack by Pakistani forces in Kashmir in 1965; and so on). All I am saying is that by firing warning shots, Musharaff is making clear Pakistan`s capacity and intentions to the Indian decision makers as well as the Indian public (the latter, from all indications I have seen, does not really believe Pakistan has the capacity to hit back hard and where it hurts (not on the front trenches, but in big cities and other such targets). Musharaff`s actions wont endear him to the Indian public, but it may save their lives. (``may``, not ``will``, since we may still have to learn our lessons the hard way in Pakistan and in India). That is all I am saying.

You write: ``(2) ...Either you believe that indians were unwilling to use the missiles for some special reasons or that pak would be more willing if india were attempt raids into pak...Is this what you`re saying or am i missing something?``

This is what I am saying: For India, the nukes and missiles are militarily redundant and therefore useless. For Pakistan, they are a strategic defense. While in the worst case, both India and Pakistan would suffer terrible losses and long-term effects, for Pakistan an equally bad scenario is occupation by a hostile foreign army. So what we have is an asynchronous situation.

I have discussed a bit more the last part above:

(a) In case of an Indian conventional attack, Pakistan would use missiles as tactical battlefield weapons (thereby neutralizing the threat of massed armored formations that India would need to achieve a breakthrough). The value of this weapon against a defensive force is limited. (This is accepted military doctrine as I understand it, and used by NATO during the cold war in Europe, e.g.). Advantage: Pakistan.

(b) At some point, Pakistan could deliver nukes on Indian cities. India could do the same. Advantage: Neither (Death wins over both).

(c) Fallout from nukes would be ``blownback`` and blownaround the subcontinent. Pakistan has less territory, India has more. So more of the fallout would end up on Indian soil. In addition, this time of the year, the winds are blowing west to east. Advantage: Pakistan.

The above is purely a layman`s understanding of the military situation. I am not condoning or condemning anyone. I am praying that we come through this crisis without any of the doomsday scenarios above coming true. And I agree fully with you that Musharaff needs to clamp down on the armed bands of religious fanatics in Pakistan, and that he should hand over the 20 thugs sitting in Pakistan that India wants. I have always said that. But at this time, it is the defense of Pakistan that must come first.

Roohi #438 ``Wish they could go back to talking people to people contacts, cultural exchanges, trade links etc.``

Amen! Such things had started to take place. How much of a setback the current crisis has given to the normalization of relations(in months, years, or decades), God only knows. In fact, God only knows how the current crisis will end.

We already have victims - poor people with houses destroyed, children killed, due to cross-border shelling. And the less obvious victims: the children of poor people who wont go to schools now since money for schools has gone to make guns. Houses can be rebuilt, but there is only one life. And even rebuilding houses is easier said than done. Particularly for people who have to build their own houses.

tahmed321 #434

``The only way to get rid of Pakistan as an enemy is to make it a friend``

YES INDEED :-)!!!

Could I add - The only way to get rid of India as an enemy is to make it a friend ?

Am I wrong or do many Pakistanis subscribe to the Nuke It and/or Dismember It options ? Also how do you make friends with someone who is permanantly teed off with you ?

Wish they could go back to talking people to people contacts, cultural exchanges, trade links etc. - one Janoon is worth a trainload of diplomats IMHO.

rsridhar

``re: ``We do not need your sympathies`` say minorities from India``

What did you expect them to say? Anything else and

a couple of thousand would be taught the``Gujarat`` doctrine.

PS: Mubarik ho!!! Gujarat Government has arrested

``Three`` alledged rioters, one each belonging to VHP, Bajrang dal and BJP.Victory for democracy and

secularism.

PPS: They have arrested only SIXTY muslim rioters

involved in Godhara Train Burning.

Kinda evens out.. Three Hindus for sixty muslims!

tahmed321

I can fully understand you taking comfort in the fact that pak possesses missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

I just wish to make 2 points: (1) It`s no news to india or anyone else that pak has missiles. If this was a reminder, it was one aimed at reassuring pakistanis. Apparently that has worked judging from your remarks. (2) Since india & pak exploded the bomb and carried out various missile tests, kargil happened. Either you believe that indians were unwilling to use the missiles for some special reasons or that pak would be more willing if india were attempt raids into pak. In either case, you seem to be saying that pak is more irrational than india. India has it but won`t use for fear of retaliation even tho india herself did not retaliate. Is this what you`re saying or am i missing something?

re: TAHmed #433

you are rather arrogantly and foolishly assuming that india`s strategy is indeed to attack but it is afraid of pakistan...what if india gets what it wants without attacking?...what if india knows that?...why should it waste its money and lives?...last i checked every major foreign leader was squeezing musfarraf`s neck to control your rats....how long can musharraf hold back?...what are the consequences of ignoring the entire international community?...

Re: Fuzair # 411

Fuzair, the poetry of World War I was about the futility of the war and the need to question its usefulness. Yes; Owen was killed on the Sambre sector, leading a patrol. Still, despite the fact that he was in the Manchester Rifles, he questioned war. Sasson and Graves, both in the Welch Fusiliers, served in the Ypres sector and in the Somme sector. Graves was so disgusted by England`s role in the war, that he wrote in his autobiography, A Goodbye To All That`` that ``I have lost all interest in my race and England to me is a hopless place``.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to equate their poetry as a reflcction of their patriotism, because they were combat soldiers. Questioning the utility of war; what one is fighting for, does not lessen one`s sense of patriotism.

I know alot of Americans, who questioned the effacy of the Vietnam war, but still served multiple tours of duty there. The German soldiers, whom you admire, served brilliantly on the Eastern Front, but still questioned the purpose of German strategy in that war.

The world has changed in many ways since Tennyson`s immortal line, ``our is not to reason why, ours but to do and die``. I had written an article for Chowk on the topic of war poetry of World War I and our perceptions of war, but Chowk in its infinate wisdom decided not to publish it! In hindsight, it was a good decision, because it would be wasted on the average Chowkster, filled with hate and thristing for blood.

Ciao

AlephNull #422

you write ``And BTW, the rest of the world - from the UN to the US to the EU - seems to be echoing the Indian demands about Pakistan needing to put a complete stop to cross-border terrorism, NOW.``

I am not denying that. I would add that most people within Pakistan would like to see the last of the terrorists too. No issue here.

you write ``In that context, it is impossible to regard Pakistan`s behaviour of the moment as `mature`. Would you regard Saddam`s behaviour the week before Desert Storm as `mature`?``

In the broader context, I agree that the derailment of the Lahore Process via Kargill put India-Pakistan relations on the wrong road. All I am saying is that in the context of the immediate situation, I think Musharaff is handling the system as best as could be expected given the belligerent talk from the Indian leaders. Musharaff is no Saddam - the latter did not have the brains to realize that he could not stand up to the US and so suffered the ``mother of all defeats`` (one which has left Iraq in a limbo for years). Musharaff has the brains to realize that and is now seen as an important ally by the west, while Saddam is in the doghouse.

you write ``It would also be utter delusional foolishness on your part or that of any Pakistani to regard the Indian government`s moves as motivated by domestic political considerations and not supported by the populace. If anything, the NDA government is way behind Indian public opinion in hawkishness.``

I know that (reading posts from Indian chowkies tells me that too). I have no delusions about this. It just means that both the Indian public and the leadership needs to be more of the reality - which is that taking on Pakistan today is very different from taking on Niazi and his men in 1971 who were isolated in a hostile population, with an airforce of six F-86 planes. Behind the missiles there is a large conventional army, behind that is a population that will never surrender to India. The only way to get rid of Pakistan as an enemy is to make it a friend. When the Indian public and politicians realize that, the military in Pakistan will lose it`s sole claim to political power in Pakistan.

you write ``It`s a moot point, BTW, whether any missiles were actually launched in the last week. Why would Pakistan do this and deplete their stock of imported Chinese M-9s and North Korean Nodongs?``

Again and again I must remind you (as I have to remind other friends from India) to make an effort to see reality: Face reality. Those missiles did get launched last weekend. They were made in Pakistan, and there are plenty more rest assured. While it is emotionally satisfying to denigrate Pakistan in various ways, the fact is that Pakistan is more than a match for India. Perhaps the only way people will find this out is the hard way - with tragic loss of life on both sides, and incalculable economic damage.

you wtite ``My own guess is that one missile of each type, suitably spray-painted in Pakistani colours, was tested at some time in the past, with the launches filmed from multiple angles, and the various images are produced at different times whenever a test of a `new` `indigenously developed` Pakistani missile needs to be announced.``

Heh! Heh! I suggest you inform Mr. Vajpayee of this, so he can come back from his sudden vacation (which I assume is at a safe distance from any major Indian city).

Rsaxena #413 As I mentioned earlier to rsridhar, these ``north korean firecrackers`` as you call them have so far proved sufficent to keep at bay a million man army taking orders from politicians who have made no secret of their desire to destroy Pakistan. Nice firecrackers to have. (not to mention the conventional military and paramilitaries that are there to defend Pakistan).

These are the kinds of realities that I see Indian decision makers ignoring when they talk about ``decisive victories``, and then backing off two days later when it becomes impossible to avoid reality. The reality is that neither India nor Pakistan has so far proved capable of any original invention (the Indian missile and nuclear technology is no more indigenous than the Pakistani technology, I hope you realize, even though it is quite irrelevant who invented missile technology - you could trace it from north koreans to russians to germans to ancient chinese if you wanted to, and it would be still irrelevant). And the reality is that it does not matter one bit.

Missile technology and nukes have fundametally changed the military equation in South Asia, and while the Indian rulers (and some chowk posters) seem to realize that intellectually they seem unable to accept it emotionally. (A few months ago I was calling the decision to go nuclear one of the biggest blunders in history - brought about by arrogance and dreams of becoming a ``Great Power``, not by realities - and I was roundly criticized by many posters from India. I hope you will agree that the passage of time is increasingly proving my point).

Fuzair #411 Wilfred Owen`s generation of European men was wiped out in the millions in WWII. Given the undoubted contributions to science and technology of Europeans in the 20th century, one can only guess at what might have been if these millions of young men, many highly educated and talented, had had the chance to live productive lives. What I find incredible is that it took two world wars, not one, to teach Europeans to live in peace.

Will we learn the same lesson the hard way too, with 15 million dead in the first few minutes of a nuclear exchange? Let us hope to God no. Life is miserable enough as it is for the poor in both countries. And the jingoism never stops on the Indian side, nor the fixation with Kashmir on the Pakistan side.

To me the poem that comes to mind in the current situation is the one that has the lines ``Who`s in charge of the clattering train`` which I have posted a couple of times on chowk, so apologies if you have read it enough already:

``Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

And Sleep has deadened the driver`s ear;

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For Death is in charge of the clattering train.``

Churchill is said to have referred to this back in 1935 before the House of Commons.

Another interesting poem I remember is from schooldays is The Battle of Blenheim (by Robert Southey). It talks about the death and destruction in this battle in the middle ages between the French and the British, with an old man relating this to a child. It ends this way:

``And everybody praised the Duke

Who this great fight did win.``

``But what good came of it at last?``

Quoth little Peterkin.

``Why that I cannot tell,`` said he,

``But `twas a famous victory.``

We need fewer dukes, and more dull politicians.

Fuzair #411 Wilfred Owen`s generation of European men was wiped out in the millions in WWII. Given the undoubted contributions to science and technology of Europeans in the 20th century, one can only guess at what might have been if these millions of young men, many highly educated and talented, had had the chance to live productive lives. What I find incredible is that it took two world wars, not one, to teach Europeans to live in peace.

Will we learn the same lesson the hard way too, with 15 million dead in the first few minutes of a nuclear exchange? Let us hope to God no. Life is miserable enough as it is for the poor in both countries. And the jingoism never stops on the Indian side, nor the fixation with Kashmir on the Pakistan side.

To me the poem that comes to mind in the current situation is the one that has the lines ``Who`s in charge of the clattering train`` which I have posted a couple of times on chowk, so apologies if you have read it enough already:

``Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

And Sleep has deadened the driver`s ear;

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For Death is in charge of the clattering train.``

Churchill is said to have referred to this back in 1935 before the House of Commons.

Another interesting poem I remember is from schooldays is The Battle of Blenheim (by Robert Southey). It talks about the death and destruction in this battle in the middle ages between the French and the British, with an old man relating this to a child. It ends this way:

``And everybody praised the Duke

Who this great fight did win.``

``But what good came of it at last?``

Quoth little Peterkin.

``Why that I cannot tell,`` said he,

``But `twas a famous victory.``

We need fewer dukes, and more dull politicians.

is about a famous battle in the