Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death

tahmed321 #111
Paper jihadis on chowk sitting comfortably in foreign countries or drawing rooms of Pakistan are even more deserving of contempt. Which one of you has sent your sons to jihad in Kashmir ? And you expect Indians to keep dying just so that you and they can be safe.

Those talking of rapes in Kashmir. Firstly, its already been documented that though these happened in serious enough numbers, the miltant organisations would also get women to file false claims. The solution for sorting it out is not more jihad but less or no jihad.

The same folks who support, recruit and fund jihad in Kashmir and those who fight jihad in Kashmir are those who oppose any change in the Hudood Laws in Pakistan and threaten the judges against using their discretion so that in reality thousands of raped women are currently jailed in Pakistan for being raped(currently one is facing death by stoning). Why the heck don`t you fight your battles with them at home? And lets not go into what the Taliban was doing with women while principled Pakistanis were justifying it as `tribal culture`.

It doesnot help to have a Harvard Law degree or great credentials or to expect anyone to take your Pakistani cr-p about self-determination/human rights seriously if finally you choose unprincipled religious bigots and murderers to fight for and represent your so-called `principles`.

[in the same spirit:)]


sam #90

[…Free yoga classes and physical therapy massages before and after work! Weekly mushairas and qawwalis! Dancing three times a week from classical to Bollywood! Lectures and Debates on Philo/Ethical/Political/Social Issues! Universal Voting/ Healthcare/Housing/Education/Maternity-Paternity Leave! Everyone Farms AND participates in experimental art works!…]

…hmmmmm….oh am already leaning towards your utopiapur…but before making any irrevocable commitments…not too worried about the body but have only one wayward soul…would appreciate some clarification…

---would not share my living quarters with anybody but my partner in crime M…and she must agree…don’t do much without her divine blessings…mostly…

---participation in those activities should be voluntary…am very selective about some physical and most non-physical activities;)…

---don’t care much about food…M does…so hopefully you would have veg/non-veg mix on the menus?…and tons of desi snacks…(am batting for you too anNy)…

---drinks and smokes…well …there should be plenty around for all (this should make some folks happy);)…all varieties too…from rooh afza and mango and phalsa squashes for scout…to single malts and blends and rare aged wines to entertain hamidm-esque friends…meershaum pipes…sheeshas…hookahs…Cavendish, Virginia tobaccos…not forgetting Cuban cigars…and sehwan or rajhastani bidis…tamil cheroots…have I left something out?..probably…how about roasted Persian almonds dipped in multani ‘guRR’ and roasted and fresh cashews from kerala and roasted pistachios from Istanbul as snacks…

---Oh!…need I mention a well stocked library…and of course easy net access…

---and a must…what is that gadget the trekkies use to ‘beam’ in?...would like one that can ‘beam’ out folks when am meditating…

---no sulking brats...

---and hopefully there would be no democracy-façade there…just ‘to-each’ should be the prevailing dictum…

---it should be abundantly clear sammi dear that though am past that stage when all i wanted out of life was `one square meal, some sex and a good read’ am still an easy person to get along even though the earlier expectations have undergone a minor revision …if these are do-able count me in…I can pit up with the other minor inconveniences…

lve,

t

ps: sac, ferozk, SR, ferz, HN, and X1-X9 wanna join?

Harpreet 110, 111, 112, 113

I advised you not to write any posts on or before 12 O`clock noon-but you didn`t listen-may be you listened but then its is 12 noon what could you do.

In future try not to write 1 hour plus minus noon time-okay?

Lyman #71 ``if religious parties never win more than 5% or 10% of the vote in Pakistan, why is Musharraf paying so much attention to them and sidelining the two major political parties?``

Good question. The answer is: politics makes strange bedfellows. Think of the coalition governments in India, e.g., where parties with vastly different agendas find a common ground (namely, getting a slice of power). In case of Pakistan, I think there are two reasons: First, it is BECAUSE the mullahs have a weak political constituency that Musharaff thinks they would be amenable to his control. Second, while they dont have the ``silent majority`` behind them, they do represent the ``loudspeaker minority``. The squeaky wheel gets greased. This is reality, unfortunately.

Syed Ahmed #105 You make valid points. But trying to reason with some people on chowk is as pointless as playing music to the deaf.

Stuka #97 you write ``For me the deaths of Faujis outside of open war is as painful as the death of civillians. Hope u don`t get mad at me.`` Like you, I too have relatives in the military (the pakistanis military). And I consider contemptuous the pretensions (as in ``democracy 101...you wouldnt understand``), the mutual ridicules, and the ``chowk courage`` of expatriate posters calling for war.

Only thing different this time is: the people whose lives are at stake are not just the ones in uniform (Indian or Pakistani, it does not matter), but the decision makers as well who are no longer safe in their comfortable offices in Delhi and Islamabad. While I have no doubt that the men in uniform from both sides will do their duty and fight with courage, and while I have no doubt that the ``chowk warriors`` will keep up their stream of ridicule and calls for war, I also believe the decision makers wont have the guts to go to war either. Since the fallen heroes may well be themselves, rather than some poor man`s son. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the charade. (and pray like hell that no one makes a mistake in the process and triggers a nuclear exchange).

sherdil #87 (and dilawer #104): Always good to see your posts. You write ``I have nothing but contempt for those who are whipping up the war hysteria without understanding what this present danger is going to bring to the subcontinent. `` I fully agree. The fact is that what we have in the subcontinent is a stalemate thanks to nuclearization on both sides.

So, the warmongers in India are left huffing and puffing, and some of the statements I have read are interesting:

1. Indian cinc a few months ago: ``Jolly good, we will give them war.``: Note: Someone please inform cinc ``jolly good`` has not been used by the hip crowd (in the uk of course) in decades, I believe.

1. ``Our forces are on high alert``: for months in a row??

2. And in current crisis ``We are now opening the war book which is only opened if we are going to war. This book has detailed accounts of all past wars.``: Good, good. :-) Hope you stop at 1947 and dont start memorizing the Battles of Panipat.

3. ``We have moved 5 warships from the Eastern Command to the Western Command``: And I suppose from there these ships will use the Indus to reach the Northern Command in Kashmir.

More seriously, the paper warriors on chowk (nearly all of them safely sitting in foreign lands) are indeed deserving of contempt, given their lack of concern for the potential damage of a nuclear war in the subcontinent. Fortunately, as I wrote earlier on chowk, the decision makers are sitting in Delhi and Islamabad and so do not have the luxury of being brave with other people`s lives. Even without nukes, I doubt that even with use of conventional weapons the Indian army has the capacity to overwhelm Pakistan. With nukes, the only danger is one that faces both countries, not Pakistan alone.

Anyway, have a safe war and come back from the front lines safely. The world needs people like you around.

my brother pakistanis here is a bit of news for all of us. See the writings on the wall. Musharuff is gone. He is history. Read what will into this. Your reactions to this bit of news please.

UN delivers a harsh blow to Pak’s Kashmir dreams



CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2002 8:30:32 PM ]



WASHINGTON: The United Nations has dealt a severe blow to Pakistan on Kashmir that could change the dynamics and complexion of the contentious issue.

In statement issued Thursday on the South Asia situation that international experts agreed was a landmark, Secretary General Kofi Annan suggested the bilateral route to resolve the ``differences`` over Kashmir. He also implicitly pointed to Pakistan as the originator of terrorism in the region by asking it to stop such acts across the Line of Control.

The brief two paragraph statement issued by Annan’s office reads as follows:

``The secretary-general is increasingly concerned by the alarming rise in tension between India and Pakistan. He is in close contact with the leaders of both sides, to encourage them to resolve their differences, including over Kashmir, by peaceful means.``

``The secretary-general considers it essential that the logic and language of war be replaced by the logic and language of peace. At the same time, he wishes to reiterate his unconditional condemnation of all acts of terrorism. There can be no tolerance for such acts, especially across the Line of Control in Kashmir. The secretary-general accordingly urges President Musharraf to take vigorous action to ensure full implementation of the policy set out in his speech of 12 January.``

There are several remarkable aspects to the timing and content of the statement. It was issued soon after Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar wrote a lengthy and vituperative letter blaming India for racheting up tensions and seeking UN intervention.

More pertinently, while Annan has indicated before that UN resolutions on the subject of Kashmir may be infructuous given the time lapse and changed ground conditions, the statement clearly suggests a bilateral route now to resolve what the secretary-general calls ``differences``.

Even more stunning is the clarity with which Annan indicts Pakistan for the tensions in the region, implicitly blaming it for acts of terrorism, and the recognition of the Line of Control as the rubicon.

The statement sent ripples of excitement across the diplomatic and think-tank community involved in the region. ``It is certainly an unusual statement,`` Steve Cohen, a long-time South Asia scholar now with the Brookings Institution, said. ``It seems like a departure from the usual UN stand.``

``It is the most categorical assertion of Pakistani complicity in terrorism ever to come from the UN,`` agreed University of Texas` Sumit Ganguly. ``The UN has never been more forthright than this in advising Pakistan to call off its dogs of war.``

Ganguly said it was also very interesting that Annan had made no reference to the Pakistani demand for international observers on the border. ``It was patently a public relations stunt by Pakistan and the UN has ignored it,`` he said.

The statement, combined with relentless pressure from the world community, including strong messages from the United States and salutary advice from European powers, not to speak of unmistakable notice of war from India, has compelled Gen Musharraf to stand down from his forward policy on Kashmir.

There is now a sense in the western community that Musharraf’s renewed pledge to forsake terrorism has pushed back the war clock and provided some space for a diplomatic dialogue. But the Pakistani general will be under even greater scrutiny now to deliver on his promises, now that it has been established that he played fast and loose with his earlier pledges.

The situation and atmosphere is somewhat reminiscent of July 1999 when Pakisan was forced to retreat from Kargil and recant its forward policy in Kashmir. But that retreat, agreed to by the country’s political establishment, turned out to be just tactical, as the country’s military dispensation retained it as a strategic objective.

Whether Musharraf will permanently forsake the same aggressive forward policy in Kashmir is the question worth billions.

If he does, western countries may lavish Pakistan with even greater aid, but the fear is that he is likely to be consumed by fundamentalists within the country. Some observers though feel that this is a bogey he invokes to keep stoking the fires in Kashmir.

However, there is now a sense that Musharraf may have to go even if he does not resile from the aggressive Kashmir policy.

New Delhi has made it clear that it does not trust him and will not do business with him even in the unlikely event of his having a change of heart about his Kashmir policy. He also also lost credibility with the rest of the world, save perhaps China.

``I don`t think the US cares too much about him now. The Pentagon`s primary interest now is not Pakistan or Musharraf but anyone who can help US continue the war against terrorism,`` says Cohen, pointing out that Pakistani dictator is even losing domestic support.

Country Afghan. Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Argen. Armenia Austral. Austria Azerb. B. Faso Bahamas Bahrain Bangla. Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burundi C. Verde C.A.R. Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa R. Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech R. D.R.C. Denmark Djibouti Do. Rep. Dominica E. Timor Ecuador Egypt El Sal. Eq. Gui. Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France G. Biss. Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatem. Guinea Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary I. Coast Iceland India Indones. Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakh. Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyz. Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liecht. Lithuan. Luxem. Macedo. Madagas. Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marsh. I. Maurita. Mauriti. Mexico Micron. Moldova Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozamb. Myanmar N. Korea N. Zeal. Namibia Nauru Nepal Nether. Nicarag. Niger Nigeria Norway Oman P.N.A. Pakistan Palau Panama Papua Paraguay Peru Philip. Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda S. Afri. S. Arab. S. Korea S. Leone Samoa San Mar. Sao Tome Senegal Seychel. Singa. Slovakia Slovenia Sol. Is. Somalia Spain Sri Lan. St. Kit. St. Lucia St. Vin. Sudan Suriname Swazi. Sweden Switz. Syria Taiwan Tajik. Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad Tunisia Tur. Rep. Turkey Turkmen. Tuvalu U.A.E. U.K. U.S. Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbek. Vanuatu Venez. Vietnam W. Saha. Yemen Yugo. Zambia Zimbab.





















India Weighs Military Response

23 May 2002

As tensions rise along the India-Pakistan border, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has said there is no chance he will engage in talks with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Artillery exchanges have increased, and India has diverted at least five ships from its East fleet to the Arabian Sea -- a move similar to actions during the 1999 Kargil conflict. Meanwhile, Pakistan is pulling troops off the Afghan border and redeploying them to the border with India.

Tensions between the South Asian rivals have been high since a December 2001 attack on the Parliament building in New Delhi, which India said was carried out by Pakistani-backed militants. Washington`s continued intervention through coercion, pressure and promises has kept tensions from boiling over into full-scale war.

New Delhi`s patience, however, is reaching a limit, and the government is sending signals that it is serious about launching retaliatory attacks against Pakistan -- whether that means strikes against militant camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir or full war against its nuclear neighbor. This is triggering another crisis, this one in Washington -- which is precisely what India wants.

New Delhi has been dissatisfied with Washington`s apparently lax attitude in dealing with Islamabad, citing Musharraf`s inability -- or unwillingness -- to crack down on militants operating through Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Washington, however, has understood that Musharraf must maintain a balance between his assistance to the United States and his need to refocus the energy and attention of Islamic militants away from Kabul and Islamabad.

The current situation is very different from the 1999 Kargil conflict, which ended after then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recalled the militants from the border after a visit to Washington. In 1999, Pakistan`s military, the Inter Service Intelligence agency and Kashmiri militants were all operating on a relatively similar wavelength; when Sharif called for a withdrawal, all three factions obeyed. Musharraf, however, has only limited control over the ISI and even less influence with the militants.

New Delhi is quite aware of the problems Musharraf faces, but it sees this time as the near-perfect opportunity to finally strike out at Kashmiri militants and teach its unruly neighbor a lesson. Washington needs Pakistan`s cooperation to continue the hunt for al Qaeda and, more importantly, to keep al Qaeda from finding a sympathetic area in which to regroup and plan new operations. New Delhi can use the threat of a major conflict -- perhaps even of nuclear war -- to leave Washington no room to assuage Musharraf`s sensitivities. India reasons that if Musharraf cannot handle the militants, than Washington must.

Yet the United States, despite its influence, cannot give Musharraf the strength to crack down without risking a serious backlash from within Pakistan. The result would be chaos in Islamabad, with competing factions of the military, ISI and Islamic militants trying to seize control of the country. Under normal circumstances, a chaotic Pakistan run by Islamic militants is worse for India than one run by a military secularist like Musharraf, no matter what his domestic political problems.

But these are hardly normal circumstances. Washington cannot allow Pakistan to degrade into another Afghanistan -- but if it is incapable of stemming the descent, it will have few options but to carry out military action against Pakistan. The U.S. government is desperate to avoid such a course of action, since it could undermine all of Washington`s currently tenuous relations with Islamic nations. But for India, there will rarely be a better opportunity to ensure that the United States will take its side in a conflict against Pakistan.

All India needs is a good enough reason to justify an attack on Pakistan. Given Islamabad`s limited ability to control Kashmiri militants, that may not be far off.





http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=204570

samina:

”Semi gets to decide, (being I have a soft spot for her)”

….i wanna be on unkal j’s team….

...perhaps india`s war rhetoric and posturing is not just vajpayee being an imbecile again...maybe, just maybe, it`s a clever strategy to alarm the international community into squeezing musharraf`s neck till he is forced to act, while reaping a diplomatic bonanza by demonstrating restraint (by not actually attacking)...both seem to be happening right now, with america, the EU foreign commissioner, germany, england, and kofi annan all publicly demanding pakistan reign in the terrorists, and talk of america giving india sophisticated equipment to monitor the line of control and seal prevent infiltration of jehadis...

...think so?...

...the japan times sayin` it like it is...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?ed20020523a1.htm

{Despite explicit warnings by Mr. Musharraf that Pakistan would consider a nuclear response if it felt its strategic interests were threatened, strategic thinkers dismiss the possibility of such a response, claiming that the U.S. would strike first to ensure that Islamic extremists did not gain control of Pakistan`s weapons.

Pakistan, meanwhile, reportedly continues to support terrorists. Senior officials in Islamabad argue that the government cannot abandon the Kashmiri rebel groups before elections scheduled for the fall.}

Suxena #85,

is an Indian life more precious to you than a Kashmiri life?

why don`t you mention the rapes and murders of innocent Kashmiris and their leaders by the Indian army and it`s supporters?

it`s easy to take sides, difficult to digest the truth and call a spade a spade.

no side is innocent in this conflict and it`s naive of you to say that Indians have done nothing wrong in Kashmir.

Correction:

[They are about to massively hit British embassy so strongly that almost all the diplomatic staff have been evacuated shaming Pakistan and leaving thousands of British citizens with relatives in the UK unable to get travel visas, once again the target is Musharraf.]

- Should have read ``thousands of PAKISTANI citizens with relatives in the UK....``

I think what is being played out at the moment is the endgame of the current BJP stint in power. They are a vexed animal unable to comprehend why their philosophy has not succeeded to seduce the Indian masses, why its rancid laboratory Gujarat has become a byword for genocide in the eyes of the world, why it has heightened the situation in Kashmir to such an unneccessary pitch of rhetoric that is uncommensurate with the needs of the day. The scale of mobilisation is on a par with WWI formations in Europe.

I also think that the Jihadis have a more achievable target in their eyes: Musharraf. If there is a conventional war and Pakistan is defeated Musharraf is dead meat and Pakistan may be get a more heardline leadership. If there is nuclear war then hey-ho, we are going to heaven anyway. Karachi bomb of French engineers was directed at him. They are about to massively hit British embassy so strongly that almost all the diplomatic staff have been evacuated shaming Pakistan and leaving thousands of British citizens with relatives in the UK unable to get travel visas, once again the target is Musharraf.

All they need to do is kill andother 34 women and children in Jammu and they reckon they will provoke a full scale war. Like I said, the Indian leadership is clueless. I have no faith or belief in them at all, none whatsoever. They can start a war with Pakistan but if it is over this, and now, then not in my name. Not in my name.

-h-