The Last Crusade

re: an interesting question

An interesting question is posed by the author of this article (url below)in TOI:

http://www1.timesofindia.com/Articleshow.asp?art_id=10950554

The question is :Has US seized Pak nuclear arms? It would be suicidal for US to let the 2 countries play out nuclear warfare while it looks on. I had believed earlier that US is closely monitoring the nuclear assets of Pak. This article seems to think US has indeed taken hold of Pak`s strategic assets. Mushy is allowed to continue his hold on power for exactly the same reason: he is so co-operative in every aspect.

Sridhar

romair , i was wondering why the hell you as an ex officer give me an insight why the hell do army guys fight wars which we cant win ??????????????????/

Pearls of fragrant wisdom from an Indian sage who calls himself soysauce:

````Vajpayee was clearly willing to overlook the thousands killed since `89 when he promoted the architect of kargil to President and invited him to agra.

That basically set the clock back.

(how true! – an unforgivable betrayal of democracy in Pakistan -- by that bipolar -- Indian `democrat` - hamidm’s Vegepie)

Let`s look at the ``insane logic`` further.

__________________________________________________Thousands were killed in a matter of days and yet the only ones charged are the ones accused of setting fire to the train.

__________________________________________________

Thirty-odd are killed and the entire government goes into a frenzy of war mongering. What`s common between the two instances?

Political expediency!

The best way to protect the jawans is not to use them so readily in situations crying out not for military but imaginative political solutions.````(soysauce)

You`re the conscience of a decent, civilized, confident, mature India -- bless you -- my dear friend, soy.

hasan

Following is a must-see latest report on Kashmir by MSNBC, with pictures:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/ps/020311_kashmir_wires/launch.asp?b=hi

``Over the years, some 80,000 people have died in the conflict, and the border has moved repeatedly. Today, forces face off over the de facto border -- the Line of Control - that runs through Kashmir. For a view of the Kashmir -- its beauty, violence, poverty and agony.....

Photographer Gary Knight began covering the disputed region of Kashmir in the fall of 2001 as the United States began its war on terrorism. After covering the largely Muslim population of Pakistan over the previous two years, he wanted to explore the East-West conflict that was erupting.....

He arrived in Srinigar, in the Indian-held portion of Kashmir, just two days before the United States began its military campaign in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network of militants. There he witnessed not only anger against Indian rule, but rage against Washington, which many Muslims saw as waging a war on Islam.

Knight was struck by what he saw as an unjust and brutal Indian occupation of Kashmir, and what he believed was a deep desire among the people for independence. In this photo essay, he offers his personal view of this beautiful region torn by conflict......`` (www.msnbc.com)

Chowkies - Mubarak!

Let this Eid e Milad, in these terrifying and trying time, serve to remind us that it is FAITH, not Emuluation, that is our true course:

``Islam demands loyalty to God, not to thrones...The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as concieved by Islam is ETERNAL and reveals itself in VARIETY and CHANGE. A society based on such a conception of REALITY, must RECONCILE, in its life, the categories of PERMANCE and CHANGE.`` - Allahmah, Mohammad Igbal Lahori

Esteemed Professor, benevolent scholar, Dr. Khawaja Masud, offers for our consideration:

``The Holy Prophet and Permanent Revolution

Prof Khwaja Masud

The writer is a former principal, Gordon College, Rawalpindi - kmasud@isb.sdnpk.org

And thus he carries his brothers,

His treasures, his children,

All tumultuous with joy

To their waiting Parent`s bosom.

-Goethe

Goethe devotes a magnificent poem to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in which as the very epitome of mankind, he is compared to a mighty river. The rivulets and streams, his children, call on him to help them reach the sea, which is waiting for them. Majestic, triumphant, irresistible, he draws them onwards.

Carlyle puts him among the heroes of mankind, who are blessed with the spark of divinity. Comte de Boulainvilliers, early in the 18th century, hailed him as the creator of a religion of Reason. Revolutionaries claim him for their own. Indeed, his largesse is universal. Everyone partakes of it to his heart`s content.

As the Turkish dervish, Sulayman Chelebi, in his celebrated poem, sings so appropriately about the birth of the Prophet (PBUH):

All things created joyfully acclaimed him,

Sorrow was done, new life the world was flooding

The atoms joined in mighty chorus,

Crying with sweetest voices: welcome, welcome!

O source of knowledge, thou art welcome!

Welcome, to him, who knows the Lord of Pardon,

Welcome, who knowest from truth no deviation,

Welcome, the rebel`s only place of hiding,

Welcome, the poor man`s only sure confiding.

Thus in the compassionate heart of the Prophet are found the persecuted and harassed rebels along with the wretched ones of the world to whom the Qur`aanic verses serve as a clarion call to rise and claim what rightfully belongs to them.

The eternal message of the Holy Prophet proclaims: Islam is a permanent revolution. It destroys all false gods whether they be of power, wealth or pride. Islam is not a closed system, providing set answers to ALL problems which crop up during the onward march of mankind. Islam`s universality abhors final solutions. Rather, Islam is a faith in God, which provides mankind anew the riches whereby it may solve the new problems itself.

The spirit of Islam culture, according to Iqbal, regards the universe as dynamic and evolving. The Qur`aan recognises change as ``a sign of God``. ``Everyday doth some new work employ Him``, says the Qur`aan. To exist in real time, in the words of Iqbal, is not to be bound by serial time, but to create from moment to moment, and to be absolutely free and original in creation.

Thus the true spirit of Islam is irreconcilably opposed to dogmatism and priesthood which regards itself as the only repository of religious knowledge. Islam overflows all definitions, because it is open at one end to the immeasurable greatness of the Divine and it relates itself at the other end to the immeasurable diversity of the humankind. This indeed, is the significance of the Prophet`s title as Rehmat-ul-lil-alamin`` (Blessing for all the worlds). In Islam prophecy reaches perfection; and, therefore, stands abolished. Henceforth man is thrown on his own sources for full consciousness. From this follows the necessity for the abolition of priesthood (as the repository of divine knowledge) as well as the abolition of hereditary kingship and arbitrary dictatorship (as the source of power). This, according to Iqbal, is the meaning of the concept of the finality of prophethood, which implies that all personal authority, claiming supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man.

The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) seems to stand between the ancient and the modern world``, says Iqbal; because, ``insofar as the source of his revelation is concerned, he belongs to the ancient world; insofar as the spirit of the revelation is concerned, he belongs to the modern world.``

The birth of Islam is the birth of inductive intellect, which regards reason and experience as the instrument of knowledge together with nature and history as the source of knowledge. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) ushers in the modern scientific world whose weapons of discovery are observation, experimentation and generalisation. Though the Greeks scaled the sublimest heights of speculative thought, too much dependence on deduction and their aversion to experimentation almost closed the door on any scientific advancement. Induction is a great gift of Islam to humanity.

The foundation of the Islamic society the Prophet established was Tauhid -- unity of ultimate reality. The Prophet (PBUH), as the example for the ummah, showed practically through his life that the belief in Tauhid has its logical extension in the social plane. Therefore, Iqbal emphasises: ``The essence of Tauhid as a working idea is equality, solidarity and freedom.`` The Holy Prophet (PBUH) not only preached equality, solidarity and freedom, but actually practiced them. He is the spark that glows forever inspiring mankind to achieve the great ideals of freedom, equality and solidarity. In the context of modern history these ideals cannot be achieved unless the Muslims forge a united front against imperialism, which is a stumbling block in the realisation of freedom, equality and solidarity. The battle against imperialism cannot be successful unless it is simultaneously waged against the exploitative system, which is responsible for the stagnation and retardation of the ummah.

Islam is not a bundle of rites, ceremonies and dogmas. Islam is an act of perpetual sacrifice. ``People think it is easy to be a Muslim,`` says Iqbal, and adds, ``It is to bear the cross in love.`` We seek easy way to salvation and forget: ``Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto heaven.``

While we talk vociferously about Islam, our actions belie our proclamations. We tenaciously cling to the form of religion but throw its spirit to the wind. We think that Islam can be imposed by legislation. The Qur`aan declares unequivocally: ``There is no compulsion in religion.`` No diktat can bring about spiritual transformation, nor can moral awakening take place by legislation. The way to spiritual revolution is the Prophet`s way, who was the unique combination of ``iman and amal``. As Iqbal emphasises, ``Iman is not merely a passive belief in one or more propositions of a certain kind. It is creation of divine attributes in man, whose supreme example is the Holy Prophet.``

Islam`s determination to maintain its authenticity is in no way incompatible with its sincere desire to collaborate with all those forces, which are working for peace, progress and social justice. As the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said, ``All creatures form part of the family of God and the most beloved of God is he who best services his family.`` Indeed it is this very determination to maintain its authenticity as the dynamic force for permanent revolution, which enhances Islam`s capacity to enrich humanity by struggling steadfastly for mustazafeen, who were so close to the heart of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).``

Re: soysauce #391

Let us come to an agreement on the facts, if not on our opinions. You say, ``...Thousands were killed in a matter of days and yet the only ones charged are the ones accused of setting fire to the train...``.

Not true. A few arrests and several FIRs have been lodged in cases of rioting and rape. While I agree with your sentiment that more needs to be done, and that a few arrests here and there will not suffice, it is not true that the only ones charged are the train burners. Your main point, though, is one of morality. You ask, can a government that failed to protect thousands be trusted to make a decision to push the entire nation to war for the death of 40?

If the unambiguous truth was that it was only 40 people killed, and that similar past killings have had absolutely no effect on communal harmony in India, then of course, you are right. But is that reality?

It is a mistake to view individual acts of terror in isolation as being the only ones that shape public opinion. That is simply not true. It is a trend sustained over 2 decades (including several heinous acts aimed to test communal harmony in India that is partially responsible for the emergence of the Hindu nationalists) that is testing India`s patience. These include the forced exile of 300,000+ Kashmiri Pandits for over a decade, attacks on pilgrims, etc. Attacks on seats of authority and power (e.g. on Parliament) are highly provocative.

Is the BJP the most suited party to rally the nation, especially after Gujarat? No. Is it still necessary that somebody rally the nation to curb terror after nearly 100,000 dead in two decades (counting Punjab)? Yes. Will communal harmony in India contine to be tested if terror is not checked? Yes.

shammi:

Please outline to me exactly how military action of any kind will prevent the nurturing of infiltartors by the Pakistani state short of a massive landgrab of parts of POK for strategic reasons.

Do you also believe that training camps are sitting there waiting to be bombed by us?

I only ask these questions because the leadership has said that we will be taking ``Decisive`` action. What does decisive mean? Lets get these terms down straight, clear and absolute, so there is no doubt at all. Because I am confused about it.

I can just about understand all this bellicosity if the idea is to force the international community to pressure Pakistan until the pips fly out but it is an extremely high stakes game and I cannot help but be suspicious about the political motivations and dynamics behind it all. One million men facing each other. Now that we have marched them to the top of the hill how are we going to march them back down again (if we have to?)

-h-

http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=3020

Raja Menon in Indian Express

600,000 men, 3,000 tanks should not be sum total of India’s response

The armed forces need to respond to cross border violations without dragging the whole country into an unwanted war



In all honesty, the Chiefs of Staff need to institute a joint services commission to enquire into how the Indian armed forces came to a pass where they were unable to respond clearly to blatant cross border violation without dragging the whole country into an unwanted war. They are most welcome to keep the results in-house. Alternatively, they can simulate India’s counter-attack and discover the reasons it will go out of control and also discover what are the systems that will give India massive escalation dominance. They then need to go to the government and tell them frankly how long it will take to restructure our capabilities to punish Pakistan without ending up not knowing who won and who lost.

#373 stuka

I`m afraid the ``insane logic`` is entirely your creation. The beating of war drums is precisely because of the 3-dozen odd civilians who were murdered. Previously it was the storming of the parliament complex. These are the decisive moments. Vajpayee was clearly willing to overlook the thousands killed since `89 when he promoted the architect of kargil to President and invited him to agra. That basically set the clock back.

Let`s look at the ``insane logic`` further. Thousands were killed in a matter of days and yet the only ones charged are the ones accused of setting fire to the train. Thirty-odd are killed and the entire government goes into a frenzy of war mongering. What`s common between the two instances? Political expediency!

Ratcheting up the war talk and then pulling back does more damage than sustained low-key action.

Your apparent concern to the men in uniform is noted but it does sound a little insincere when you are so willing to see them sacrificed in a war that has no stated goal, no purpose, and no apparent chance of succeeding. This war would be nothing more than a collective lashing out and that`s insane! The best way to protect the jawans is not to use them so readily in situations crying out not for military but imaginative political solutions. Sorry guy, we are far apart on this one.

``West negotiating deal in Kashmir standoff``

U.S. and other Western powers are negotiating a deal with India and Pakistan that calls for a massive anti-terrorist operation inside Pakistan and a gradual withdrawal of all Indian troops from the border, official and diplomatic sources told United Press International Friday. According to the proposed deal, Pakistan will close down all religious organizations that have their own militias, are involved in jihad, or holy war, or are propagating jihad as a means for solving political disputes.

Full story at http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/23052002-102332-1616r.htm

Re: Harpreet

``...Precisely. Using politico-diplomatic means. Not war...``

While we agree on giving primacy to politico-diplomatic efforts, the difference in our positions is that you would rule out war apriori, while I would rule nothing out. This, especially so when there is already a proxy war being fought. Your position, taken to its logical conclusion, necessitates a disbanding of India`s Defence Ministry. Does it not, if war is to be precluded as an option?

for full article read

http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=3200

Let’s remember war isn’t diplomacy by other means

Put foot down, watch our step

Gen. V. P. Malik

With the war clouds on account of transborder terrorism getting thicker by the day, I am reminded of the Clausewitz’s quote, “No one starts a war — or no one in his senses ought to do — without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it”.

India has been suffering and combating Pakistan’s ‘policy of terror’ and proxy war since the mid-1980s; first in Punjab and now in J&K. This is not counting the training and material support, which it gave to Naga and Mizo rebels in East Pakistan in the sixties.

After the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998, the military leadership in Pakistan became bold. The ongoing proxy war was given the dimension of a limited war in the form of Kargil conflict. As that proved politically and militarily disastrous, the efforts with Jehadi militants were renewed after August 1999. Since then terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir alone have killed over 4,600 civilians and security personnel.

Since September 11, when Pakistan joined the global war against terrorism, it has been running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Pakistan’s military is unwilling to wind down the Jehadi organisations that have served its strategic interests in Afghanistan in the past and are continuing to do so against India.

Sherdil:

I should have added the following tidbit to my last post as well:

QUOTE: The European Union`s foreign affairs commissioner Chris Patten said the situation was ``on a knife-edge`` and warned Pakistan to give up supporting terrorism… He warned Islamabad that it would be ``the most profound miscalculation if anybody in Pakistan thought that turning on and off the terrorist tap could be used as an adjunct to diplomacy``. (BBC) END QUOTE http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2006000/2006349.stm

So, there you have it. If an EU official is willing to warn ` Pakistan to give up supporting terrorism` and that it was unacceptable that ` the terrorist tap could be used as an adjunct to diplomacy`, can a clearer message be sent through the public media?

Regards

Re: Sherdil

Sher, I have respected your thoughtful posts on Chowk. Like you, I too do not war, and I think that a prosperous Pakistan is in the best interests of the region. However, I hope that you agree that a choice has to be made between seeking regional stability or putting a gun to India`s head through infiltration of armed thugs. Is it possible to have it both ways? You say:

``...Musharraf`s only mistake was the unneccessary referendum ...``

I respectfully disagree. Kargil and trashing the Lahore Declaration were blunders, as is the policy of supporting infiltration.

You also equate India`s response with the BJP`s domestic agenda. I think that that too is a mistake. BJP is not India, and India is not BJP. For evidence, look at the fact that it was generally believed that India had mobilized for `winning` UP elections. UP elections have come and gone. BJP received a drubbing. The mobilization has not been reversed. Or just look at the carte blanche that the Opposition (which was calling for a vote of no confidence in the BJP over Gujarat a few weeks ago) has given to the ruling NDA on foreign policy. In contrast, the alliance of all political parties in Pakistan has so far been refusing to meet Musharraf. Do we see a difference here? A similar assessment of how much distrust Musharraf evokes even in Washington is given in this article entitled `Misreading Musharraf` at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60415-2002May22.html

It may be true that Musharraf has lost control over some extremists, who are actively engaged in undermining him. That then begs the question - is he on his way towards becoming an unreliable ally for the Americans, and a leader who cannot deliver results for Indians? If so, then why engage him? That is why the seemingly brilliant strategy of using infiltration of armed thugs backfires. Musharraf, as I mentioned earlier, may have lost control over some militants, but as long as he continues to support other militants, he is not going to be taken seriously on his denials of cross border terror.

Alternately, you could also peruse this article in the Economist:

A deadly game May 23rd 2002

From The Economist Global Agenda

Atal Behari Vajpayee, India`s prime minister, has threatened a ``decisive battle`` over Kashmir. As the two nuclear powers reach the edge of war, has Pakistan blinked?

HAS Pakistan blinked again? After a series of particularly ugly attacks, India`s war preparations moved into higher gear this week. The prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, told soldiers near the front line in the disputed state of Jammu and

Kashmir, to prepare for a ``decisive battle``. The first war between nuclear-armed powers looked imminent. Then Pakistan repeated a promise it made in January, the last time India appeared to be on the verge of attacking. ``No organisation in Pakistan will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir,`` the government said. Will India now pull its troops back to peacetime positions? Will the two countries at last begin resolving their dispute over Kashmir, which has poisoned their relations and triggered two wars? Not yet.

Until India is convinced of Pakistan`s intentions, Mr Vajpayee`s threat stands. It reverberates far beyond Pakistan. India has no wish for a full-scale war, but the sort of punitive operation it has in mind could turn into one. That would present the gravest risk yet of a nuclear strike by one nuclear-armed power against another. The United States and other outside powers would not be merely bystanders. The United States (though it refuses to confirm this) is said to have hundreds of troops hunting down remnants of al-Qaeda, including perhaps Osama bin Laden himself, in Pakistan. Pakistan`s army is helping them.

Their mission would be jeopardised by any Indo-Pakistani war. The consequences for the brittle regime of Pakistan`s president, General Pervez Musharraf, whom the United States sees as the most reliable bulwark available against anti-American terrorists in the region, are incalculable.

All this gives the outside world a large stake in heading off war. Its emissaries can make a difference if they persuade Pakistan to end its sponsorship of ``cross-border terrorism`` and persuade India that Pakistan means it. But India`s indignation is so intense, and the attacks against it so dastardly, that the would-be peacemakers may not arrive in time.

The latest outrage was the killing on May 21st of Abdul Gani Lone, the most moderate of the Kashmiri leaders demanding independence from India. No group has taken responsibility for the killing, which Pakistan and India have blamed on each other. To India, though, it is a blow. Many Indians admit that they have misgoverned their only Muslim-majority state, and that the militancy which broke out at the end of the 1980s has its roots in the justifiable grievances of ordinary Kashmiris.

The government has been promising, in effect, to make amends. Mr Vajpayee has said that the state elections due in the autumn will be ``free and fair``, a tacit admission that earlier elections were not. He had hoped that moderate separatists like Mr Lone would participate, or at least use the occasion to open talks with the government about a settlement short of secession. After his slaying, presumably by Islamic militants, who would dare?

The murder occurred a week after terrorists killed more than 30 people, mostly soldiers` wives and children, at an army camp in Jammu. Smaller assaults have filled the intervening days. Such attacks seem to be aimed at disrupting the forthcoming elections. They also indicate that, despite recent splits among some anti-Indian militias, terrorists can operate freely in the state. To India they are appalling proof that its internal affairs are at the mercy of murderous fanatics.

The general and the terrorists

India has no doubt that these attacks originate in Pakistan with at least the tacit consent of General Musharraf. He had promised to crack down on anti-Indian terrorists after they attacked India`s parliament on December 13th, prompting India to mobilise its army and threaten retaliation. Now around a million men from both sides are squared up along the border. The Indians say terrorist camps have reappeared in the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, and the level of violence on India`s side has returned to its former intensity.

General Musharraf may not be guilty of all the charges against him. The most vicious attacks look as if they are aimed at provoking a war, which the Pakistani president does not want, as well as derailing Kashmir`s election, which he would presumably welcome. But India is probably right to believe that Pakistan, at least until this week, saw the militants more as assets than as liabilities. The United States, normally eager to cast its staunchest ally in the war on terrorism in as favourable a light as possible, admits in its new annual report on terrorism that questions remain about whether Pakistan will honour fully its pledge to oppose terrorism against India.

Pakistan must now lay those questions to rest. The government`s renewal of its promise to do so shows that it takes India`s threats of reprisal seriously. Pakistani analysts now expect General Musharraf to follow up immediately by shutting down the camps and blocking infiltration into India`s side of Kashmir. This may be something short of an irrevocable break with jihadi militants, who have been the mainstay of Pakistan`s half-century-long campaign to claim all Kashmir for itself. But it might persuade India to withdraw its troops from the border and open negotiations. On the other hand, if India fights, the terrorists could be dispatched by Pakistan into India en masse.

India`s war aims would be, as one military analyst put it, to ``raise the cost`` to Pakistan of supporting ``cross-border terrorism``. The probable means would be an attack aimed directly at the problem: the camps on Pakistan`s side of Kashmir, which harbour the militants who sneak across the mountains-with the help of Pakistan`s army-and into Indian Kashmir. This might take the form of quick raids, either by air or by teams of ground commandos. A more ambitious tactic would be to capture ground on Pakistan`s side of the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir, to interdict terrorists before they get across. Both strategies would have the virtue of confining the hostilities to what Pakistan calls ``Azad (free) Kashmir``, which it regards as disputed ground rather than as an integral part of its own territory.

The risks are great. One is that raids on terrorist camps, which are close to where people live, could end up killing many civilians. Aeroplanes, too, can be shot down. The bigger risk is that one of the combatants will expand the conflict beyond Kashmir. Pakistan`s military chiefs think they have the advantage there. They would hit back with the air force or seize territory somewhere on India`s side of the Line of Control. Faced with defeat in a targeted offensive, India would then be the one to open a new front along the international border. That is where India`s army can hope to beat Pakistan. Pakistan might counter-attack in a key Indian state such as Punjab, hoping to provoke international intervention to stop the war.

In desperation, Pakistan could resort to nuclear weapons. India has said that it will not be the first country in a conflict to use them. Pakistan has made no such promise. Indian planners think they know Pakistan`s threshold of tolerance; India`s war aim would not be to dismember Pakistan as it helped to do in 1971, when Pakistan`s eastern wing broke away to become Bangladesh. But does Pakistan believe that, and how long would it wait to find out? India`s hawkish home minister, L.K. Advani, said in a newspaper this week that India`s government would ``win the proxy war like we did in 1971,`` a reference to Pakistan`s India-assisted break-up. Pakistan`s strategists are likely to have taken note.

shammi:

[Stop infiltration. Period. Preferably without a war (using politico-diplomatic means).]

- Precisely. Using politico-diplomatic means. Not war.

Admiral(Retd) J.G.Nadkarni in Rediff dt. 23rd May.

``Most of the people who are itching for the Indian Army to attack are thinking of our victory in 1971. But there, 14 Indian divisions took on 3 Pakistani divisions, which were without support, miles away from their homes and fighting in a hostile environment.

On the other hand, both in 1965 and 1971, both armies fought to a standstill on the western front, each advancing a few miles here and there.

Proponents of a military reply to the acts of terrorism might do well to keep these facts in mind. Unfortunately, high rhetoric and jingoistic speeches have raised the people`s thirst for revenge to such a fever pitch that sense and pragmatism has gone out of the window. Any call for sanity is today bound to elicit a response asking the speaker to go wear bangles, that standard macho cliché."

I guess he knows a little more than the armchair experts at Chowk.

PS:Quite a few references of Jim Hoagland`s article on Musharraf and his treacherous nature have been posted by morally indignant Indian interactors being unaware of the fact that Mushy is following the teachings of the greatest double crosser of all times... Chanakya.