Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death

Indian mentality and some select phrases

Han Ji, Kar denge.

Phikar na karen.

Kam ho gaya samjho.

Hamne sab kah diya hei.

Koyi baat nahin.

Hum dekh lenge.

This is the limit of casualness and shows lack of seriousness.No wonder, nuclear scenario is not being taken with seriousness. Do Pakistanis behave that way too ?

What will happen to cows if nukes are used

What happens to monkey God

What happens to snakes

What about the Ganesh and his elephant trunk

What about the Brahmans

Commentary The Monitor`s View

from the May 31, 2002 edition

Christian Science Monitor

The Kashmir–Al Qaeda Tangle

The threat of war between nuclear-equipped India and Pakistan doesn`t have the same level of attention from Washington as does the US war on Al Qaeda. But it should. The two conflicts are rapidly becoming linked.





First, the remaining Al Qaeda fighters appear to be supporting terrorist strikes on India from Pakistan, in the name of liberating the largely Muslim Kashmir from Indian rule.

And second, the strong possibility of a Pakistan-India war – one that might easily go atomic – could devastate the US antiterrorist efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In fact, it may be that Al Qaeda`s remaining leadership is trying to further its goal of rallying Muslims into a global jihad by agitating a conflict with largely Hindu India, even to the point of igniting a wider war in South Asia.

Terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament in December, and later on Indian soldiers and their families in Kashmir, have pushed India to threaten the same kind of war on Pakistan that the US did on Afghanistan to root out terrorists.

But while the US may sympathize with India, it needs Pakistan`s military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, to crack down on Al Qaeda forces there. By doing little, so far, to end the Pakistan-India showdown, the Bush administration undermines its own war.

A diplomatic fatalism in the West over resolving the territorial dispute over Kashmir has hindered the US and Europe for decades. Ever since the British partition of its colony into India and Pakistan in 1947, the two nations have been estranged in many ways. Kashmir is just the flashpoint for deeper differences between the two nations, driven by silly stereotypes each side holds of the other.

And as global prosperity largely passes them by, the two remain stuck in the domestic politics of extreme, irrational nationalism, which could lead to hair-trigger fingers on nuclear weapons.

Pulling India and Pakistan back from the brink only temporarily will not be enough for US interests. It`s very possible that Mr. Musharraf lacks total control over the terrorists striking India and can`t be held accountable if those attacks continue. A serious diplomatic intervention by the US is needed to set India and Pakistan on new paths of reconciliation, using various carrots and sticks.

Like the cold war, the war on terrorism may have sideshows that become the main event, à la Vietnam. But the US doesn`t need to have an India-Pakistan conflagration distract it from its primary goal of eliminating Al Qaeda.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p10s02-comv.html

From the CHOWK archives

(February 2000)


Let us Not be Foolish

By Ras H. Siddiqui

This article will cover an array of news items and thoughts, which hopefully will culminate into something substantial regarding the crisis in India-Pakistan relations currently heading into dangerous waters. And if countries and individuals in power can afford to be foolish, I hope that the readers here will forgive this scribe`s attempt at ``Qawwali`` (a repeated gospel) as I add my own few lines to the craziness that seems to have overtaken South Asia recently.

Let us start with an article published in The Hindustan Times on January 14th titled ``Cost of Terrorism`` by Prem Shankar Jha in which the usual labels of ``terrorism``, ``narcotics trade`` and the possibility of a ``failed nuclear state``(Pakistan) are discussed.

But since we as Pakistani-Americans are now used to such tirades from the Indian Press, this name calling is usually taken with much salt and sent off into the mind`s kill file. But not this time. Mr. Jha for the first time does not stop there but clearly states that India`s patience with Pakistan is at exhaustion and warns the US and other countries that a war between India and Pakistan was inevitable and not far away.

M D Nalapat adds to this in Times of India on January 18th ``No More Waffling`` that Pakistan is trapped in a ``hate India`` syndrome. This because General Musharraf has demanded that Kashmir be discussed as the root of the problem between the two countries (can anyone really argue against this fact?). He mentions India`s error in the ``repeated forgiving`` of Pakistan, which will only give up its ``not-so-covert`` war against New Delhi until India ``retaliates in force`` in a ``big way``. I want the readers to note here that this is not just the ``hot pursuit`` that Indians have been threatening against Kashmiri fighters. An open threat is being sent that after many years India finally needs to convince Pakistan as a whole that it means what it says. And now Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has even put the icing on the cake and demanded that Pakistan return to India, the part of Kashmir that it now holds.

From any attempt at a ``negotiated settlement`` last year, Indians have now come to this stand. They are basically saying that they are prepared to go to war, and prefer the bullet and even the risk of a nuclear war, over negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir. All one can say at this point is ``let us not be foolish``. Kargil may have been a mistake but the invasion and conquest of the former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Indian Army in 1971 was hardly endearing to Pakistanis (even as this writer believes that the fault was ours for not allowing the democratic aspirations of Pakistan`s majority to win, and our attempt to crush it by force). Mistakes, misunderstandings and downright hate have led us too long in India-Pakistan relations. It is time to discuss the root cause of it now and that is Kashmir. So unless one is foolish enough to contemplate a war between India and Pakistan and expect a clear winner, it appears that in spite of the foot-dragging from New Delhi, the only thing that makes sense is the negotiating table (which India fears more than war?). ``India on the Defensive`` Washington Post, Sunday January 16th, 2000 (report by Pamela Constable) is the ground reality in Kashmir. And ``Proxy war in J&K will be defeated: Advani`` by Harih Khare in The Hindu, Tuesday January 18, 2000 talks of a new ``offensive strategy``, one that unfortunately could also produce a disaster and does not recognize this ground reality.

Now to Pakistan and what is going on over there with the trial of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. General Musharraf may not be very aware of how this trial and the resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui (he sure surprised many people), is affecting Pakistan`s image internationally, so let us look at just one example. The Sacramento Bee of California`s Capital City in an editorial ``Pakistan`s worst enemy`` of Tuesday February 1, 2000 has certainly made a very convincing argument that even though the Clinton Administration is trying not to worsen relations with Pakistan, the Pakistani leadership itself was not making things easy. Now the Sacramento Bee is my hometown newspaper and is not the New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Washington Post. If even it can point out something basically wrong with what is going on in Pakistan then there is cause for concern. And since I have not seen too many white crows (Safed Kawway) in my life and am trying to fathom the trial of an elected former Prime Minister on charges of ``hijacking``, ``kidnapping`` and ``attempted murder``, I still find myself looking for that elusive white crow.

This scribe has now come to the conclusion that except for the policy of promoting the just resolution of Kashmir with India, there is little else that I can find agreement with in the policies of the current military regime in Pakistan. Its first 100 days in power have been spent wastefully, while looking for skeletons in a rather bare closet (A friend of mine whom I consider to be a man of integrity has been in jail for over 90 days now. I`d sure like to know what the charges are against him). So lets not be foolish and go to battle against the Nawaz windmill. It is time that the former Prime Minister went on an extended vacation, preferably overseas. What Pakistani-Americans do not do well is take sides when Pakistanis themselves cannot agree on something. But in principle one has to support democracy.

Thus far, one elected Prime Minister in Pakistan has been physically eliminated and two have had their character assassinated (Benazir and Nawaz). How ironic it was recently to have Benazir Bhutto plead with President Clinton on Pakistan`s behalf to make a stopover there on his coming trip to South Asia. No matter what her reasons, and from someone who does not wish to see the owners of Bambino Cinema (Zardaris) running the Pakistani economy once again, one can express thanks to her. So let us as a people not be foolish and jump to the condemnation of our elected leaders because they are now out of power and it is fashionable at that time. This trial of Nawaz Sharif is making Pakistanis look very bad abroad in spite of the popularity of the military takeover in Pakistan.

Now let me address the Pakistani & Indian-American communities in the US. Isn`t it time we resolved Kashmir and moved on? How long will we wait for the Americans to come and help Pakistan? And will Indian-Americans wait the same length of time for the US to help them? The situation in Kashmir is a dangerous stalemate. Would it not be best, if the three parties (let us not forget the Kashmiris, including the Hindu Pandits) to this conflict are locked up in a room till they can come up with an agreement? The situation is indeed complicated. This is not just a ``Proxy War`` as the Indian establishment would have us believe. India`s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had made a documented commitment to include the will of the Kashmiri people in the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. That is where the Indians perceive their defeat. Shaikh Abdullah the ``Kashmiri Lion`` also messed up the future of his people and complicated an early resolution in favor of Pakistan. That is where we lost. The Kashmiris themselves have been suffering ever since and have resorted to an armed struggle since 1989 which has the support of their majority and Pakistan. But what can and should we do now?

We as Pakistani and as Indian-Americans have been interacting with each other here in the United States for years. As a Pakistan Link Editorial recently pointed , it is not in the interest of Indians as a whole to have Pakistan labeled by the United States as a state that is a sponsor of terrorism. I hope that some Indian-Americans read that very carefully. In the United States, we as people of South Asian origin are fully entitled to support our respective countries. But let us not be foolish. America can support or drop any country at any time in its own interest. Are we forgetting Iran and Iraq? To the world and ourselves we will always collectively be South Asian ``desis``. We cannot promote a war in South Asia. After the introduction of the nuclear dimension, a war between India and Pakistan will have TWO losers. And we as ``desis`` must resist the temptation to promote such an occurrence at any costs.

What we have to collectively find out at this time is, what solution were Nawaz Sharif`s special envoy Niaz Naik and PM Vajpayee`s special envoy R.K. Mishra working on for Kashmir last year? Would it even be realistic to divide the land of the state 50/50 (a suggestion I can support)? A Track II diplomacy continuation may be the only safe way left to go. Unfortunately, thus far the only good reference I have found on this subject is from The Statesman (Calcutta) Saturday 16 October 1999 ``Special Article: Niaz Naik III`` by veteran writer A.G. Noorani. What one has to find out is whether this interaction between Naik and Mishra was a non-starter like the Siachen Accord in 1989 when an agreement on the glacier was ``agreed upon`` and then revoked by India as a misunderstanding?

Now to continue along the lines of foolishness let us enter into the American mainstream. Since Indian and Pakistani-Americans do not hate each other and have learnt to coexist quite well here in the United States (several Pakistanis have married into the Indian-Muslim Community), they continue to lobby for their countries of origin in Washington and in the letters to the editor and opinion pages of American newspapers. But have we seriously ever thought of what America wants out of the Kashmir problem? (That will be a topic of another writing since this one is already too long).

The currently trend in American newspapers is that of demonizing of Pakistan, something that Indian readers can feel elated about but question. Jim Hoagland in ``Turn-the-other-Cheek Diplomacy`` in the Washington Post of Thursday, January 27 has been especially unkind towards Pakistan. One can even go as far as to say that this is the kind of Viagra that India can unfortunately get carried away with and become encouraged to the pursue a military solution (while Pakistan is being put on the mat). But let us not be foolish. America has its own interests in keeping the Kashmiri ball in the air.

South Asian ``expert`` Selig Harrison does not do justice to Kashmiris who cry for ``Azadi`` (freedom). In an article ``Use Leverage on Pakistan While We Can`` (Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2000) he dissects the Pakistani Military`s top individuals and it`s intentions of suppressing the Kashmiri pursuit of ``autonomy``. Concern for ``Islamic extremism`` in Pakistan today rules the print media in the US. Little is said of who left this mess for the Pakistanis to deal with in the first place.

The Kashmiri pursuit of ``autonomy`` also makes an appearance in another article in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, February 2, 2000 by ``Pakistan Analyst`` Mansoor Ijaz. Maybe this is a coincidence but here again in this article ``Azadi``(freedom) seems to mean autonomy (a Washington inspired translation?).

In conclusion and one last time, let us not be foolish. The cards being dealt are going against Pakistan at the moment. And if one is allowed to suggest something to Pakistan`s Military today it is ``be very attentive towards what the world is saying``. It is time to be very suspicious of all ``released`` or ``escaped`` militants or ``hijackers`` tied to Kashmir or Afghanistan. It is time to be flexible in diplomacy and inflexible on the issue of jump starting the economy. And one hopes that Pakistan will have a plan for an interim civilian government ready just in case President Clinton wants to drop in for a social call. It is always good to remember ``the ides of March``.

shammi #236 Nukes and missiles may prove to be a saving grace for Pakistan in the current crisis (or they may not, and we may have a nuclear war and God help everyone in that part of the world then). However, I do not wish to leave the impression that this is something good for Pakistan. In a broader context, we should never have reached a situation where we are firing warning missiles to keep the Indian army at bay. We should never have had to invest a dime in ``defense`` (let alone billions in modern weaponry) when we have children going hungry to bed and individuals going illiterate through life.

Damn the politicians, military men and jingoists on both sides over the past 50 years for creating this situation we are in.

#236 shammi

``What if Pakistan does

use a nuke or two, and India does NOT respond in kind? Where

will it leave a trigger-happy military dictatorship diplomatically?``

Interesting, but implausible scenario. You don`t assemble nukes so as NOT to use them even in extreme situations. I don`t think either side would be looking for brownie points when its cities are incinerated and millions dead..

Iran being close to both India and Pakistan will stay nuetral in Indo-Pak conflict

Concerned by the mounting tension between the two nuclear neighbors, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Monday that Tehran ``welcomes talks`` between the two nuclear-armed powers to defuse tension. He didn`t elaborate, but Iranian lawmakers and political analysts say Iran should remain neutral if war breaks out.

``Iran`s national interests require it to adopt a position of active neutrality in case a war breaks out. Iran`s strategy will be to launch an all-out diplomatic drive to prevent (any) spread and continuation of a war,`` said Mohsen Torkashvand, a lawmaker and member of the Iranian parliament`s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.

``Considering Iran`s good relations with both Pakistan and India, it will be totally against Iran`s national interests to side with any of the warring parties,`` he said.

Mostafa Kavakebian, leader of a reformist party, said neutrality would be the best strategy for Iran, but said the situation ultimately could require limited supporting measures if Pakistan`s Muslim population were to be subjected to serious danger.

Re: Tahmed321

``... I think that foreign power would have to be utterly mad to take over the headache of 1 billion plus 100 million poverty stricken people plus another 200 million plus 20 million rude, chauvinistic...``

Despite the wretchedness of S. Asia, and despite the rest of the world`s desire to `occupy`, this time around it may be bring peace and control over vast areas that may become breeding grounds for more terror and instability.

Re: Tahmed321

``...The military situation in subcontinent is totally different from what it was without nukes. And missiles simply make sure it stays that way...``

True. And as the saying goes, `with power comes responsibility`. If the purpose of possessing nukes is to deter India from an unprovoked invasion, then that might achieve its purpose, and both sides may be better off for it. But, if the purpose is to push infiltators or pull a Kargil operation AND deter an invasion, then all bets are off. I heard Colin Powell make a veiled, but serious threat to `any country` that might use nuclear weapons -- `most severe diplomatic repurcussions are sure to follow`. What if Pakistan does use a nuke or two, and India does NOT respond in kind? Where will it leave a trigger-happy military dictatorship diplomatically? How will the great powers react when a dictator uses nuclear weapons and sets a dangerous precedent for other would-be dictators (Sadaam, N. Korea`s Kim)? This is especially so, if the real purpose of nuclear weapons is to be able to sustain an aggressive foreign/military policy (ie. infiltration/Kargil) (the unsustainability of which is being increasingly pointed out to Musharraf) -- in that case the reported $17bn Pak investment in the nuclear weapons program would have been in vain (ditto for Indian nukes but for different reasons) -- could winding down infiltration have achieved the same purpose?

babu #232 you write ``If the Pakistani Air Force is so good why is Pakistan relying on ballistic missiles. I did not see any demos of F-16s dropping bombs last week.``

Picky! Picky! Also, forget 1971. Last week I was reminding some Indian posters that the Indian army could not just walk into Pakistan as they thought. This week, I will do something different - I will recommend you see articles in the Indian press (Rediff, Hindustan Times for example) or the western press (FT, NYT for example) and you will see you are the last man on earth who does not now realize what I said an year ago and was hooted down by my Indian chowk buddies: I had said that the policy of nuclearization by successive Indian governments would go down as one of History`s Greatest Blunders. Today, they are beginning to say that in the Indian press.

The military situation in subcontinent is totally different from what it was without nukes. And missiles simply make sure it stays that way.

So solly, as they say in Japan.

Alphanell

Alpha, I was very disappointed with your post - it seems, you have missed the forests for the trees. What is pertinent is that neither side will have what can be equated with a ``cake walk``.

What`s even more important is that a military conflagration involving regular forces is simply unthinkable - or at least I wish to assure you that I think it is unthinkable, a terrible, horrifing, eventuality - and it is my hope that thinking Indians will think along similar lines.

A line of thinking as gained credence among some in India, that Pakistan is a militarily inconsequential power - such persons have reveal an ignorance of the variables any war or conflict or battle, come built in with. It could be weather, a small or what is judged as inconsequenial on the battlefield or in the theatre, may have larger consequences - either way, the point is that this subject does not lend itself to determinate eventuality, other than a indeterminate eventuality, that is, regardless of winners and losers, terrible.

Any proposal to defuse this situation ought to contain the following provisions in my opinion: 1.Post small mobile teams to check infiltration on both sides of the lineof control.

2. Evacuation of Indian occupation forces from captive Kashmir.

3. Joint statement, as a prelude to offical process of negotiation between Pakistan, India and Hurriyet, calling for a cessation of all hostile activity against remaining Indian policemen.

4. A joint security commission to include Pakistan, India, Hurriyet and UNO to monitor events, pending the final status of modalities to arrive at a comprehensive, mutually agreed upon solution.

It is clear that as time goes on pressure will increase to bring a complete halt to rebellion in captive Kashmir, however; it is equally clear that Indians will be pressured to ensure that the cative Kashmiri are no longer under the yoke of indian occupation. Before international powers impose on either Pakistan, India or Hurriyet, conditions which may bring a temporary cessation of hostility, in my opinion, it`s important for a process of dialogue or a process of negotiation bewteenthe three parties be initiated.

I have throughly enjoyed The Ruined Breakfast`` by aNNy. April 26, 2002

In fact I have asked many of my friends, colleagues and even acquaintances remotely connected with Pakistan to read it once , twice and many times.

I feel it is a wwonderful depiction of a young students feelings of frustration about our national characterstic - condoning individfuals, condemning institutions and hope quic fixes will bring lasting economic and polkitical stability to the country. Wwill we ever learn.

Congratulations aNNy. I would like to read more from you. Please write about wwhat you see as coming on the political scene in Pakistan.

aNNy and her likes are our ray of hope for the future of Pakistan.

Sincerely

Athar Javaid

Herndon VA

atharj@aol.com

PS

Please publish a profile of aNNY.

Regarding Jeff Babbin article

I don`t India needs an aircraft carrier against Pakistan. Indian aircraft can take off from Indian soil.

Most of India`s tanks are T-72. Most of Pakistan`s tank force are T-59 (Chinese model of T-55).

India had no problems with logistics in Bangladesh in 1971. If anything the logistics has improved.

The author is correct that India lacks the special forces and intelligence assets.

The Pakistani air force cannot stop Indian ground forces using conventional weapons.

The best outcome for Pakistani Air Force is a draw with the Indian Air Force. Most of the F-16s are grounded for the lack of spare parts. The French Mirage III in the PAF are not as good as the Mirage-2000 in the IAF.

If the Pakistani Air Force is so good why is Pakistan relying on ballistic missiles. I did not see any demos of F-16s dropping bombs last week.

I found his statement that ``If their (Taleban/Al Qaida) presence can be confirmed, we and our allies should ask Mr. Musharraf`s permission to attack, and make clear that we will not take ``no`` for an answer.`` amusing. My question is why ask Musharraf`s permission ?

hobbyty #226, khamkhwa#229

This extract from Jed Babbin`s article gives some insight into his degree of knowledge

{India`s air force is no match for Pakistan`s. About one-third of India`s combat aircraft are barely flyable. Maintenance is poor. Pilots are in short supply. India`s air force is simply not combat-ready or sustainable. Pakistan`s air force is better trained and equipped. It flies American F-16 and French Mirage multi-role fighter-bombers that can penetrate Indian air defenses and deliver weapons up to 800 miles into Indian territory within 25 minutes of the beginning of the war. They could be carrying nuclear weapons.}

Let`s ignore the garbage about ``not combat-ready or sustainable``, or ``better-trained and equipped``, which is arguably subjective, and concentrate on this savant`s numbers.

800 miles within 25 minutes works out to a speed of 1920 mph, i.e. Mach 2.5+ at low level, Mach 2.8+ at more reasonable altitudes. No manned aircraft has been built to do Mach 2.5+ at low-level or anything even close. The only extant aircraft designed to sustain Mach 2.8+ at high altitude for any length of time are the US SR-71 and the Russian MiG-25/MiG-31. Neither the F-16 nor the Mirage 3/5 can do much more than Mach 2.2 at altitude, i.e. between 30,000 and 40,000 feet. Flying at low level, the maximum speed of an F-16 or Mirage 3 is closer to 900 mph. Of course low level is necessary for a strike mission to avoid being seen by Indian radar all the way to the target and repeatedly harried by the IAF`s interceptors.

Moreover these maximum speeds require full afterburner, which doubles or triples specific fuel consumption, drastically curtailing range, and therefore is viable only in short bursts. Furthermore, these speeds are only attainable when the aircraft is in clean configuration, i.e. lacks externally carried munitions and drop tanks and the like. An F-16 configured for a deep strike mission, carrying external drop tanks, one bomb (nuclear, lets assume), and a brace of Sidewinders, is likely to be limited to the subsonic regime. These remarks would be even more true for the PAFs ancient Mirages. Some more investigation will unearth the fact that the maximum one-way range of a PAF F-16 or Mirage 3/5 on a suicidal nuclear strike mission into India, with no prospect of ever getting back to Pakistan, is perhaps 500 miles, at a sedate subsonic speed. The only way to extend the range is mid-air refuelling, not an available option. [If you believe that the PAF operates KC-135 tankers, you`ll also believe that the Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Shaheen etc are indigenously developed by Pakistan, and that FC-1 variants are due to enter squadron service by 2005 at the latest.]

All of the above is well-known even to a minimally informed air force enthusiast. But it is not evident to Mr. Babbin - so much for his expertise. Nor is it a concern for Hobbyty and Khamkhwa, who appear to have uncritically endorsed the article. Such is the nature of true believers.

{Both nations have nuclear arsenals, but Pakistan has a greater ability to deliver them. This was demonstrated last weekend when the Pakistanis conducted three days of successful tests of long and short-range missiles. Pakistan claims to be able to hit 11 of India`s 12 largest cities — and 65 million people — with nuclear weapons.}

What reason is there to believe that Pakistan`s purported long-range missiles can attain the claimed ranges, let alone with the necessary accuracy? They have never been tested at even half the advertised range, unlike India`s Agni series. That business about hitting 11 of India`s 12 largest cities - which much surely include Calcutta, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Madras - is a hollow boast. I don`t think that Indians in the know are losing much sleep over this risible Pakistani chest-thumping.

Rsaxsena

Nuance is lost on you - reread the first part of the post. This period if not handled with a care and with the consciousness of the implications of American presence - is, in my opinion, going to be a rerun of the British and the Moghuls. Several days ago, i had posted an article by Indian foreign service officer, who quoted an English Diplomatic paper on post modern states. The English identified China, India and Pakistan as Modern states. Post Modern States, the English diplomatic paper, argue must (for the good of both the populations of the post moden states and the modern, ensure that the paradigm in modern ststes, will be one of restriction of action. Richard Haas and Dr. Kennedy have argued for a new colonialism: to keep a lid on the ambitions of modern states. If after reading this you should like to continue to take a immature attitude, certainly that will be regretable.

Washington Times of 30th May.

``India`s air force is no match for Pakistan`s. About one-third of India`s combat aircraft are barely flyable. Maintenance is poor. Pilots are in short supply. India`s air force is simply not combat-ready or sustainable. Pakistan`s air force is better trained and equipped. It flies American F-16 and French Mirage multi-role fighter-bombers that can penetrate Indian air defenses and deliver weapons up to 800 miles into Indian territory within 25 minutes of the beginning of the war. They could be carrying nuclear weapons.``

All lies.It must be a misprint.Hai Ram!