Dissing Ideologies

tahmed;

Dont worry about what Advani says. The man is a d1ck.

Al Qaeda was born in Pakistan according to today`s New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/national/09MISS.html

``The organization that eventually evolved into Al Qaeda (the name means ``the base`` in Arabic) began as the Makhtab al Khadimat, the Office of Services, in Peshawar, Pakistan, according to federal prosecutors, trial testimony and terrorism analysts.``

I can sort of understand Pakistani obsession with Kashmir and some of the results of that; but this kind of thing can ruin a civilization. I request, urge, beg Pakistani civilians to reassert their control over the country and to clean house.

An amazingly candid, honest reality based analysis of current confontation -- and how to avoid war -- between India and Pakistan -- by a Pakistani journalist.

What can trigger war

by Anwar Syed

(DAWN)

(excerpts)

War is a terrible business; we don`t know how terrible it is because, excepting those who live right along the border, the people in either India or Pakistan have ever seen war on their city streets.

We must then ask if we can avoid it altogether.

What does India want? Setting aside any long-term objectives that it may have, and speaking of here and now, it has been asking Pakistan to stop militants, based in Azad Kashmir or on its own territory, from crossing into the Indian-held Kashmir to fight the Indian military forces and any local elements of whom they do not approve.

In several of his pronouncements following September 11, General Musharraf gave all concerned the assurance that his government would not allow terrorists to use any territory under Pakistani control for launching their operations anywhere in the world (which was understood to include Indian-controlled Kashmir).

What is then the problem?

The government of Pakistan claims that Musharraf`s promise to the world has been fulfilled, that militants do not have training centres or sanctuaries in Pakistan or Azad Kashmir, and that they are not infiltrating into held Kashmir from places under Pakistani control.

Many observers within Pakistan, and virtually all governments and media people abroad, regard this claim as false.

According to reports in American newspapers, the present level of infiltration from Pakistan into Kashmir is higher than what it was about this time last year.

A recent report in The Washington Post quotes American intelligence agencies as saying that Musharraf has allowed some fifty to sixty guerilla camps in Azad Kashmir, harbouring about 3,000 fighters, to resurface after two months of quiet.

There is no need to multiply assertions challenging our government`s claim.

It should suffice to cite President Bush`s rather strong expression of dissatisfaction with General Musharraf`s performance.

In this connection, it may be recalled that until recently Bush was referring to Musharraf as his ``friend.``

In a press conference on May 29, he said of the general: ``He must stop the incursions across the Line of Control. He must do so. He said he would do so. We and others are making it clear to him that he must live up to his word.``

Why did Bush speak so sternly about his ``friend``?

Needless to say, he believes that the ``friend`` has not kept his covenant.

What have Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, Richard Armitage, the US deputy secretary of state and a host of other foreign dignitaries said to General Musharraf during their recent visits to Islamabad, and what will Donald Rumsfeld (American defence secretary) tell him during his forthcoming visits?

I think Straw said, and the American envoys will say, the same thing that Bush said in the statement cited above.

Why hasn`t the general implemented his promise?The managers of our intelligence agencies may have thought they could set up a smokescreen that the foreign observers` vision would not be able to penetrate.

If so, that was childish scheming.

It is possible also that Musharraf simply cannot control the militants, and he may have privately said so to Bush and others.

But apparently they think he has not tried hard enough, which may be true.

He may not have tried hard enough because he does not want to antagonize the Islamic forces in the country to a point where they would combine to mount a revolt against his rule.

This may be a misunderstanding of their design.

Writing in this space (May 30), Mr. M.P. Bhandara reported that elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda had reassembled as ``Hezbullah Alami,`` and that they had claimed responsibility for the murder of Daniel Pearl, the grenade attack in an Islamabad church, and the suicide bombing of the bus carrying French and Pakistani engineers.

He went on to observe that their top priority now was to topple the Musharraf regime.

These militants believe that if Pakistan does not do their will, it is as deserving of punitive strikes as India. Pakistan is not worth keeping if they cannot control it.

If Mr. Bhandara`s interpretations are correct, and I think they are, General Musharraf has no real option other than that of disbanding and incapacitating (decapitating) these forces.

That they make trouble for India is no compensation for the infinitely greater mischief they make in Pakistan.

We will have to leave it to the Kashmiris themselves to wage the struggle for their self-determination as they deem fit.(Dawn)

FAT GENERALS

We do not know how well the Indian generals

live but we do know that Pakistani generals are fat, flabby and corrupt like any south american and african general. One really doubts whether these generals are capable of a fight anyway. Take the case of Kargil which was orchesterated by the brainless wonder called General Aziz and supported by Musharraf. They have shamelessly tried to cover up the Kargil defeat by throwing out the civilian government and trashing the constitution of Pakistan. In a more civilized country they would have been cashiered and court martialled.

re : jay`s response

You are rarer than a budhist at the laskers meeting in madrike, rarer than a pakistani who will not gladly denonce the ahmadia while getting a pak pass port.

hey jay what is so profound about this article???????????????/ it is just a south asianist rehearsing classic indianist arguments: 1)obsession with islam has been responsible for retarding the progress of Pakistan 2) pakistan is hostage to arabism 3) pakistan and india share cultural unity

does is offer any new insight to the problems of pakistan ? no ....does it have any solutions ? no ....does it do anything other than bash islam? no ...........the problem with south asianism in pakistan is that its a foreign ideology by definition it requires the existence of india......this article tries to show pakistani how similar they are indians and how they can achieve peace with them but it does not promote an understanding between pakistanis on how similar they are(pakistanis) to each other..........

there are many good points about this article but it seems to blame all the problems of the subcontinent on pakistan...india shares a good portion of the blame to

You are the first pakistani on chowk who said what TNT is really is

who cares about TNT no but u indians and ur south asianist cheer leaders bring it up

, who wrote about what really happens at a mosque

i think many pakistanis are critical of masjids look at that hamid guy and ylh and samina

who for the first time wrote about how jihadic pakistan is even in the urban areas.

fine but do u ever talk about the extent of VHP and their ``madrassas`` i cand send u the link to the NYT article on them if u want

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

To borrow words from Veeresh

Even our slums are better than your slums...

Superb job here Zia Ahmed but the thing that
you failed to mention is that WHO is threatening war and WHO is not?

Ras

ok this has nothing to do with anything on any nuclear conflict or relevant to the board`s discussion but this REALLY PISSES ME OFF and i was wondering what any of u would think if u care to comment .............................

KARACHI, June 8: Despite the fact that drug therapy is an extremely specialised field(THATS RPHS ARE FOR WHERE ARE PAKI RPHS) as all the drugs are chemical poison and have to be used with utmost caution, the prescription practice of local consultants is irrationally careless.

A study jointly conducted by departments of Pharmacology and Therapeutics(I DONT KNOW BUT DONT ALL HOSP IN PAK HAVE P AND T COMM) and Forensic Medicine, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, the National Institute of Child Health and the CPSP revealed that the average number of drugs per prescription were 4.51 against average daily drug cost of Rs133.41(THE COST OF RX DXS IN THE USA IS HIGH WHAT THE HELL IN PAK THEY MUST BE THRU THE ROOF) incurred by patients.

The study conducted to analyze prescription practices of Karachi-based consultants noticed a general tendency to prescribe latest, expensive, and heavily promoted agents as the first line of therapy rather than older, less expensive and equally- effective drugs. (THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE TOO LETS TAKE CCBS LIKE PROCARDIA WHICH HAVE BEEN shown TO WORK NO BETTER THAN OLDER SAFER BETA BLOCKERS OR DIURETICS WHICH ARE CHEAPER no celebrex which has been touted as a selective cox 2 inhibter has been to shown to be as harmful to the gastric mucosa as other nonselective cox inhibiter NSAIDs)

It was further observed that the use of poly-pharmacy, overuse of antimicrobial and injections were common while fewer drugs were prescribed by generic names. This was despite the fact that generic drugs are usually cheaper than equipotent branded drugs. (same in the usa)

The reason for prescribing drugs mostly by branded names may be the availability of some brand name drugs at the same price as those by generic name, nonavailability of generic equivalents for some newly introduced drugs and the doctors` perception that brand name drugs are more reliable. (this is what happens when u dont have an FDA where is the paki FDA)

The prescribed antimicrobial constituted 13.45 per cent of prescribed drugs received by 45.19 per cent patients, followed by injections constituting 24.96 per cent of all prescriptions.

The number of drugs prescribed from the National Essential Drug List of Pakistan (NEDLP) were 49.81 per cent and only 12 per cent of these were prescribed by their generic names.

my qn for anyone who can answer it are there clinical pharmacists in pakistan ?.........are the MBBSs as hesitant as the MDs here to be advised by PharmDs ? Has the paradigm of pharmaceutical care yet to reach Pak?

Which way now for India?

The Kashmir conflict is not just between two nations, it is a battle for the soul of one of them. The world`s largest democracy is a hi-tech economic power - but it is also a stronghold of zealots and fundamentalism. The secular dream is under threat...

Luke Harding in New Delhi

Sunday June 9, 2002

The Observer

The front cover shows a group of Indian soldiers creeping gingerly through the undergrowth. Two of the troops are advancing with their rifles raised, while another sits on the ground clutching a rocket-launcher. The headline of the newspaper Organiser, published by the rabid ideological wing of India`s ruling Hindu nationalist party, is unequivocal. It reads: `Inching Towards a Decisive War on Terrorism`. India is in a vengeful mood.

Two weeks ago India`s 76-year-old Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee called for a `decisive battle` against the enemy. Pakistan`s military ruler General Pervez Musharraf responded with a bellicose speech of his own, and carried out three tests of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

The world has watched the unfolding nuclear drama on the subcontinent with rising panic. Russia`s President Vladimir Putin, who last week failed to bring both sides together at a gloomy summit in Almaty, has compared the stand off to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Britain and America have told their nationals to get out of India and Pakistan immediately.

In Delhi, meanwhile, the mood is surprisingly laid-back. The bar at Delhi`s only English pub, with its green banquette seats and warm mugs of lager (`Mug beer, Sir?`), is full every night. The Indian papers seem more preoccupied with the World Cup - and a political scandal in the state of Maharashtra - than with the fact that millions of people might soon be vaporised.

How did we get here? What is going on? And why is the world`s largest democracy - which has already fought three wars with Pakistan - about to embark on a fourth?

This was not what India was supposed to be about. India, as envisaged by its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was above all a secular, plural nation. This was one of its proudest boasts. It was a place where India`s minority 150 million Muslims were equal citizens, not, as the Organiser frequently implies, promiscuous Fifth Columnists for Pakistan busy trying to outbreed their Hindu neighbours.

Now, it appears that many Hindus take the greatest pride in having the `Hindu bomb`. In some quarters, the nuclear tests in 1998 were treated with the jubilation normally reserved for a cricketing triumph.

And where do these sentiments fit in with the notion of India as a growing economic power, a commercial success story, distinct from the neighbouring `rogue, failed` state (as many Indians are wont to view Pakistan), a place where the computer is king, and the progressive liberal city of Bangalore has become India`s answer to Silicon Valley? The simple answer is that India is various. And the struggle for Kashmir is as much about competing visions of India itself.

In terms of the Kashmir stand-off, historians will have little trouble identifying the most recent spark - the attack last month by militants on an Indian army camp near the dusty cantonment town of Jammu. The militants almost certainly came from Pakistan - creeping across the no-man`s-land of yellowing grass and dense forest that divides the two countries here. They boarded a bus, bought 60p tickets, and shortly afterwards shot dead the driver and six passengers. They then stormed the Kaluchak army camp, and ran amok inside a residential compound, shooting army personnel, women and children.

The deaths of 31 people - however appalling and gruesome - do not always provoke war. But for India the attack was part of a pattern - the latest in a series of provocative incidents apparently sponsored by Pakistan`s military government and its shadowy intelligence service, the ISI. Over the past 12 years, virtually ignored by the outside world, India has been fighting its own dirty war in the serene valleys and snow-covered mountains of Kashmir. The Muslim Kashmiris had hoped their revolt would bring them independence. Instead it has brought the vast might of the Indian state crashing down on their heads. Some 50,000 people - militants, civilians, and soldiers - have died. Many have perished because of India`s brutal and uncompromising counter-insurgency.

And yet in recent years most of the militants have not come from the Kashmir valley at all. These young bearded jihadis have emerged from a series of covert training camps in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir - the thin slice of territory between the towns of Muzaffarabad and Mirpur. Some have links with the ousted Taliban; others are illiterate youngsters persuaded of the justness of their cause by crude village mullahs. Their mission has been to wreak havoc on India. They have done so spectacularly: blowing up the assembly building in Jammu and Kashmir`s summer capital, Srinagar, last October, in an attack which sent body parts flying over a half-mile area. Last December they staged their most audacious hit yet. A group of three militants stormed India`s acropolis-like parliament building in the centre of New Delhi. They shot dead several policemen before Indian snipers finally picked them off.

It was a deeply symbolic target. Pakistani observers thought they smelt a rat and hinted that the attack had been stage-managed to defame Islamabad. Either way the parliament raid marked a turning point in India`s turbulent relations with Pakistan - and the beginning of the slow march to war. Vajpayee, the ailing leader of a Hindu fundamentalist party, briefly contemplated an immediate attack on Pakistan. In the end, though, he postponed any military decision and appealed to the international community to get tough with Musharraf, comparing India`s plight to that of America after 11 September.

Under pressure Musharraf announced last January that Pakistan would not allow itself to be used as a base for terrorists. He quietly gave orders to the militant groups, via their handlers in the ISI, to lay low. He locked up several thousand Islamist extremists. But for Musharraf to give up on Kashmir completely would have been to invite the same abrupt demise suffered by Pakistan`s last military dictator General Zia ul-Haq, whose plane mysteriously crashed in 1988. In March Musharraf released most of the extremists from jail, before endorsing his illegal rule in a spurious referendum. `Cross-border terrorism` - as India dubs this phenomenon of infiltration - resumed. And someone came up with a malevolent plan to strike at the Indian army`s weakest point: its women and children. Musharraf has now given private assurances to London and Washington that infiltration has stopped. He has also pointed out that many of Pakistan`s militant groups are beyond his control. But India remains sceptical - and is poised to strike unilaterally if it concludes that international diplomacy has failed. Western observers fear that Pakistan could then respond `disproportionately` and - if its conventional army crumbles - nuke Delhi.

This frightening scenario is largely a product of a world turned upside down by the 9/11 attacks and the precedent set by America`s war in Afghanistan. India appears to be planning its own analogous battle. Defence officials have hinted the army wants to carry out `surgical strikes` against `terrorist` training camps deep inside Pakistan Kashmir. Some reports suggest these strikes could happen soon - possibly even this week.

But the origins of this probable conflict also have a lot to do with the demise of India as a secular state - and the decline of its once-mighty Congress Party. Fifteen years ago New Delhi`s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was on the nutty fringes of Indian political life. It was a bit like Britain`s UK Independence Party. It had a handful of seats and little popular support. In less than a decade it had grabbed power, riding into government on a wave of Hindu revivalist sentiment following the demolition of a sixteenth-century mosque by Hindu extremists in the somnolent northern town of Ayodhya. In May 1998 Vajpayee consolidated his patriotic agenda by carrying out five nuclear tests in the white rolling deserts of Rajasthan. Pakistan, which had acquired most of its nuclear technology from its key ally China, as well as North Korea, promptly responded with tests of its own. Suddenly, the region looked very dangerous indeed.

Recently, though, the BJP has suffered a series of election defeats in a number of key Indian states, with strong signs that India`s voters are beginning to tire of its relentlessly chauvinist politics. There are also signs that the wave of patriotic enthusiasm generated by the tests might be evaporating. The ruling coalition is likely to lose India`s next election in 2004, though some think that unity through war could revive the BJP`s fortunes. In February, meanwhile, something hap pened that would convulse the country still further. A Muslim mob in the western town of Godhra set light to a train carrying Hindu activists back from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Some 58 people died, many of them women. In the retaliatory riots that followed Hindu gangs in the state of Gujarat chopped up and burned more than 2,000 Muslims. They raped then killed hundreds of women. The state`s ruling BJP politicians have been accused of encouraging, even organising the pogrom. Gujarat`s chief minister Narendra Modi gave orders to the local police force to do nothing. Muslims surrounded by murdering mobs armed with tridents were told simply: `We have no instructions to save you.`

As in the Hollywood comedy Wag The Dog, where a US president declares war on a previously obscure country to distract from domestic scandal, the threat of a war with Pakistan has banished the embarrassment of Gujarat from the headlines. But the episode remains shameful and depressing. Pakistan, meanwhile, a state devised in the 1930s by a group of Muslim intellectuals at Cambridge, was meant to be a democracy, not a military dictatorship. In time both nations have been subverted by religious fundamentalism. The Hindu zealots in Gujarat and the bearded militants of Muzaffarabad have a lot in common.

But the dangerous mess on the subcontinent is also in part the legacy of British colonialism. If history had turned out a little differently, for example, Dr Karan Singh must sometimes reflect that he might still be the ruler of an extremely large empire. As the only son of the maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, his fate had seemed assured. After his father`s death he would have inherited a sprawling, artificial kingdom created by India`s ingenious British Victorian rulers. His influence would extend to Gilgit, in the shadow of the mighty Karakoram mountain range, through to the fertile Kashmir Valley, and up to the snow-wrapped highlands of Ladakh, and down to Jammu, the home of his Dogra Hindu ancestors. The dispute between India and Pakistan is over Singh`s vanished and divided empire. `Pakistan has pushed out to the brink of a nuclear conflict. We may all get blown up. And all for this fatal attraction - Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir,` Singh told The Observer yesterday from his home in Delhi. `We are really lurching on the brink of total disaster. Is it worth it?` Singh regards the militants who cross into Indian-Kashmir as merely the most recent manifestation of a conflict that goes back to the turbulent period before independence in 1947. Singh`s father, the Hindu ruler of a predominantly Muslim kingdom, had to decide whether to join the newly created states of India or Pakistan.

Surrounded by flunkeys, and insulated from the machinations in New Delhi, Hari Singh dithered. He had managed to fall out with everybody - Nehru`s Congress Party, the Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the British, and Kashmir`s own powerful political leader Sheikh Abdullah. Pakistani tribesmen, meanwhile, began advancing down the mountainous road towards Srinagar. Faced with the enemy on his doorstep, the maharajah threw a party or durbar at his riverside summer palace and ordered his servants to light thousands of candles. `He was blithely unaware of the disaster approaching,` Karan Singh, a former Congress Minister now in the running to be the next President of India, said. `I don`t think Papa really had an adequate grasp of the great historical forces that had been unleashed with the freedom movement in India and Partition. One of the weaknesses of feudalism is that you are cut off from ground realities.`

The maharajah, who had been holding out for independence for Kashmir, reluctantly acceded to India. In the early hours of 26 October, 1947, he fled Srinagar taking several suitcases of jewels with him. His son - then a 16-year-old schoolboy at Doon, India`s equivalent of Eton - was loaded in darkness into a station wagon. `I was in a wheelchair. I had a hip problem,` he recalled. Looking back, could he have done anything to prevent the disaster? `I was only 16 in a feudal household with Papa the undisputed ruler of all he surveyed, or so he thought. I don`t think I could have played any role,` he said. Arriving down in the plains at his palace in Jammu, having eluded the Pakistani tribesmen, Hari Singh famously declared: `We have lost Kashmir.` India, meanwhile, airlifted several battalions of troops into Srinagar and battled the invaders to a halt. There was a ceasefire. The front line - which gave Pakistan control of remote, mountainous northern Kashmir and a western strip including Muzaffarabad and Mirpur - became formalised into a line of control.

Yesterday, more than half a century later, Indian and Pakistani troops were still trying to kill each other across it. As the historian John Keay has noted: `Like a fuse-box, Kashmir was soon discovered to lie at a point where the delicate and internal wiring of two new and complex polities met a number of high-voltage external polarities. Both India and Pakistan regard Kashmir as essential to their concept of themselves - India as a secular state open to people of all faiths, and Pakistan as a homeland for the subcontinent`s Muslims. The K in Pakistan stands for Kashmir; and even small Pakistani children are aware of its struggle. The notion that India has cheated Pakistan out of Kashmir has persisted through long periods of army rule, unstable civilian governments and numerous coups. It has prompted two previous wars between India and Pakistan - in 1947-8 and 1965. And it lies at the heart of their latest, unresolved nuclear confrontation. `Pakistan will have to grow out of this obsession,` Singh says. Intriguingly, he attributes little blame for the imbroglio to the architect of Partition, India`s last viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was a frequent visitor to Srinagar (where he outraged local sensibilities by sunbathing nude.)

`He and Edwina came to visit us. Mountbatten used to call me Tiger. They were friendly with the Nehrus. I don`t think Lord Louis was pro-Pakistan, I think he was pro-India,` he said. `I can`t believe he was colluding with Pakistan. The British interest was to prevent a fully fledged war between India and Pakistan.` But Singh claims that British Army officers stationed in Gilgit - of strategic importance because of its proximity to Russia - encouraged their Muslim officers to mutiny, leading to Kashmir`s Partition.

With India and Pakistan close to war again, there is little sign of fresh thinking over Kashmir, one of colonialism`s most intractable legacies. Singh believes the answer may lie in an EU-style solution. Pakistani tourists could be invited to visit. The valley, with its apple orchards and ghostly ski-resort at Gulmarg, could be transformed into a holiday destination again.

In the meantime, though, the guns boom, turning the border villages on both sides of the line of control into places of terror. From Jammu the Pakistan border is only a 20-minute drive - past a canal full of small boys taking a dip and tractor carts transporting locals to their new refugee camps.

Most villagers have now dug their own bunkers where they retreat when the mortars start to fall. But these flimsy hideouts will not offer much protection in the event of a nuclear war. With an 1,800-mile border, a shared history and a virtually identical language, India and Pakistan cannot avoid each other. At some point they will have to learn the language of tolerance. They will have to start talking. The alternatives are obvious to everybody: death, horror, and destruction.

http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,730182,00.html

[“Who exactly are these morons who claim to lead us? Who put them in charge? And more importantly, how is it that they can threaten to wage war on my behalf? “]

Zia, this outright dishonesty. The Pakistani leadership despite being morons is NOT threatening to wage war. They are just promising to respond if attacked. Is that wrong? Pakistani leadership has been restrained and dignified in its responses to the rabid bellicosity of Bagpipe and co. While Bagpipe has threatened a decisive war against Pakistan, we have just “threatened” do defend ourselves. Would a sovereign state do otherwise?

[“The macho, schoolyard-bully act that is apparent on both sides of the border smacks of the patriarchal pit that is sub-continental society.”]

Do you think that your lies will become truths if repeated enough times? The only schoolyard bully act that is apparent is from the Indian side: Bagpipe, Advani and Fernandes are the shoolyardyard bullies. Pakistani response has been calm and measured.

[“This principled stand comes from a state that can technically stone a woman to death for getting herself raped, or hang people for either proclaiming or deriding some mumbo-jumbo in Arabic. Not to mention our own sordid history of the rape and butchery of countless Bengali innocents.”]

This is a pathetic attempt at obfuscation. So Pakistan should alter its stand on Kashmir because of its internal mess and historical misdeeds? Do we have a bigger mess than Indian Gujurat? Have we committed worse crimes than the Indian state sponsored massacres of Muslims and Sikhs? Hmmm….. lets see how India changes its foreign policy because of its own internal problems and past misdoings.

[“And my last exercise in a mosque (Eid prayers 2000) was done in full view of a Kalashinkov wielding gent proclaiming liberation from a poster”]

Zia, I read an NYT article recently which deplored the tendency of some British Pakistanis who presented their moral degeneracy (alcohol, gambling etc.) as a proof of their Westernization and integration into the British society. Whether you pray or not is your own business. Whom are you trying to impress with this disclosure?

[“If saving ``innocent Muslim people`` (Kashmiri or otherwise) is really our intention, consider the following. The infant mortality rate in Pakistan stubbornly clings to the low 80`s (83.3/1,000 births in 2001).”]

Another pathetic attempt at obfuscation. Can you please explain how infant mortality will go down if Pakistan accepts Kashmir as an integral part of India?

[“Ironically enough, this number is remarkably close to the total number of deaths attributed to ``Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir`` over more than a decade.”]

So we should condone Indian brutalities because the number of people killed is the same as Pakistani infants who die at child birth?

[“All this for what, you ask? Something called the two-nation theory which, as every upright schoolchild knows, asserts that ``Muslims are entirely separate people from Hindus in every respect... [they] form an ideological community with divine guidance for every field of human life. Fine and dandy, except that Bhayeea was unable to discover an original source, despite much research.]

Instead of asking your Bhayeea, who seems to be as much of an idiot as other members of your family, maybe you should check with Ehsan Jaffery’s widow, who from the burns ward of Ahmedabad civil hospital might tell you that that atleast Gujurati Hindus and Muslims are entirely separate people.

[“Undefeated by the tragedy of 1971, the theory commands much ideological respect in both elitist and ordinary circles.”]

The tragedy of 1971 strengthened rather than defeat the TNT. See, it proved that Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims are entirely different people who CANNOT co-exist in the Hindu majority India. Zia, maybe the “elitist and ordinary circles” have more brains than you and your family. Think about it.

[“The slums of Bombay are indistinguishable from those of Karachi. In that at least, the two nations stand united.”]

Jhoot again. Orangi Town, the largest slum in Pakistan, thanks to Akhter Hameed Khan has running water, covered sewerage and paved streets. Closer maybe to some upscale localities of Bombay.

[“Bhayeea used to keep a running total of Kashmiri shaheeds as reported by PTV. The precise number eludes me now, but by last year, it sure seemed like a fair percentage of Kashmiris were enjoying the hospitality of either houris or the Indian army.”]

This is pathetic and below the belt. Seems like you, Bhayeea, Ammi and Abby have nothing better to do than making fun of Kashmiri Shaheeds who are fighting to protect their life and honor. Zia, wouldn’t you, your Abby and your Bhayeea prefer to “enjoy the hospitality of houris” if you were a Kashmiri and your Ammi was one of the 15000 Kashmiri women raped by the Indians? Maybe not. Maybe you would ask the Indian NHRC or a Justice Srikrishna commission to help you out.

[“Who exactly are these morons who claim to lead us? Who put them in charge? And more importantly, how is it that they can threaten to wage war on my behalf? “]

Zia, this outright dishonesty. The Pakistani leadership despite being morons is NOT threatening to wage war. They are just promising to respond if attacked. Is that wrong? Pakistani leadership has been restrained and dignified in its responses to the rabid bellicosity of Bagpipe and co. While Bagpipe has threatened a decisive war against Pakistan, we have just “threatened” do defend ourselves. Would a sovereign state do otherwise?

[“The macho, schoolyard-bully act that is apparent on both sides of the border smacks of the patriarchal pit that is sub-continental society.”]

Do you think that your lies will become truths if repeated enough times? The only schoolyard bully act that is apparent is from the Indian side: Bagpipe, Advani and Fernandes are the shoolyardyard bullies. Pakistani response has been calm and measured.

[“This principled stand comes from a state that can technically stone a woman to death for getting herself raped, or hang people for either proclaiming or deriding some mumbo-jumbo in Arabic. Not to mention our own sordid history of the rape and butchery of countless Bengali innocents.”]

This is a pathetic attempt at obfuscation. So Pakistan should alter its stand on Kashmir because of its internal mess and historical misdeeds? Do we have a bigger mess than Indian Gujurat? Have we committed worse crimes than the Indian state sponsored massacres of Muslims and Sikhs? Hmmm….. lets see how India changes its foreign policy because of its own internal problems and past misdoings.

[“And my last exercise in a mosque (Eid prayers 2000) was done in full view of a Kalashinkov wielding gent proclaiming liberation from a poster”]

Zia, I read an NYT article recently which deplored the tendency of some British Pakistanis who presented their moral degeneracy (alcohol, gambling etc.) as a proof of their Westernization and integration into the British society. Whether you pray or not is your own business. Whom are you trying to impress with this disclosure?

[“If saving ``innocent Muslim people`` (Kashmiri or otherwise) is really our intention, consider the following. The infant mortality rate in Pakistan stubbornly clings to the low 80`s (83.3/1,000 births in 2001).”]

Another pathetic attempt at obfuscation. Can you please explain how infant mortality will go down if Pakistan accepts Kashmir as an integral part of India?

[“Ironically enough, this number is remarkably close to the total number of deaths attributed to ``Indian brutalities against the innocent Muslim people of Kashmir`` over more than a decade.”]

So we should condone Indian brutalities because the number of people killed is the same as Pakistani infants who die at child birth?

[“All this for what, you ask? Something called the two-nation theory which, as every upright schoolchild knows, asserts that ``Muslims are entirely separate people from Hindus in every respect... [they] form an ideological community with divine guidance for every field of human life. Fine and dandy, except that Bhayeea was unable to discover an original source, despite much research.]

Instead of asking your Bhayeea, who seems to be as much of an idiot as other members of your family, maybe you should check with Ehsan Jaffery’s widow, who from the burns ward of Ahmedabad civil hospital might tell you that that atleast Gujurati Hindus and Muslims are entirely separate people.

[“Undefeated by the tragedy of 1971, the theory commands much ideological respect in both elitist and ordinary circles.”]

The tragedy of 1971 strengthened rather than defeat the TNT. See, it proved that Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims are entirely different people who CANNOT co-exist in the Hindu majority India. Zia, maybe the “elitist and ordinary circles” have more brains than you and your family. Think about it.

[“The slums of Bombay are indistinguishable from those of Karachi. In that at least, the two nations stand united.”]

Jhoot again. Orangi Town, the largest slum in Pakistan, thanks to Akhter Hameed Khan has running water, covered sewerage and paved streets. Closer maybe to some upscale localities of Bombay.

[“Bhayeea used to keep a running total of Kashmiri shaheeds as reported by PTV. The precise number eludes me now, but by last year, it sure seemed like a fair percentage of Kashmiris were enjoying the hospitality of either houris or the Indian army.”]

This is pathetic and below the belt. Seems like you, Bhayeea, Ammi and Abby have nothing better to do than making fun of Kashmiri Shaheeds who are fighting to protect their life and honor. Zia, wouldn’t you, your Abby and your Bhayeea prefer to “enjoy the hospitality of houris” if you were a Kashmiri and your Ammi was one of the 15000 Kashmiri women raped by the Indians? Maybe not. Maybe you would ask the Indian NHRC or a Justice Srikrishna commission to help you out.

fawad79,

What is unique about this articl is that it is coming from a pakistani. What pakistan really lacks is multiplicity of view points, bvariations in opinions.

The steam roller of islam has flattened any budding creativity. Banning kite flying as a hindu ritual is a only a symptom of a deep rooted and nurtured malice.

The significance of this article is simple. I dare to say every, repeat every pakistani on the chowk has interpreted kashmir terrorism as, human right struggle , a cheap military option, legal complications of partition. and never as a global jihadic action. At some level pakistanis have to accept the view, at least eccept public utterences that a large part of pakistan is guided by an extreme form of islam.

After all of the reality of afghanistan there is no acceptance at least on chowk that the main elements of taliban were essentially pakistani, and they have essentially returned home.

Significance of this article is that it will not be published in dawn or any other pak news paper or magazine.

regards

Jay

There is no need for links to articles, look at the reality in the extreme. In india muslims could kill a few hundred hindus, burn a few shops, when did the ahmadias knock of a few sunnis in pakistan. That is freedom, that is democracy and that is tolerance. What happened to the 10 percent hindus of pakistan at the time of partition.

Answer #30

Mr. Shah.... You have been very unkind to say about me. I belong to huge landholding family. My expenses in USA are little change for my dear father. As if you are just `urban` pakistani I want to remind you good looks are extremely important for landholding highranking members.They do not marry for wealth(they have too much) they marry women for beauty. I am considered extremely pretty by all men in world and I have travelled lot. Even older gentle men (70,80 years old) come to talk to me tell that I am one of the prettiest women they come across. I am sure you will say same about me if you come across.I am aware of myself and do not want to be unnecessary humble.

So stop vicious talking about my `sour grappes`.

I have passion for Sindh. Let me tell you recently for 50 years we are under virtual occupation of Punjabis and their side kick of Indian Mohajirs . A urban ganglords gangster who killed Sindhis in Hyderbad and Karachi in Hundreds. Sindhis are are afraid of them for sure and they will not forget and forgive it. Today Karachi , hyderbad and Sukkar are gone. We have problems and they are true social and economical and many others does not mean sindhis should have Punjabi army or Mohajir overlords. Slowly Sindh is evolving and coming to grip how to resist Army-Punjab -Mohajir axis. All sindhis (all groups from PPP to hire for whore Muslim league and Nationalists of Sindh)hate Punjabis and Mohajirs . They may not say openly but sindhis when they meet always say it. Pakistanies (army punjab Mohajir axis) are worst hypocrites. They will cry for Palestine etc. But charity begins at home. What happened to Bengal, B.Stan is repeating in Sindh. It will be in different form as sindhis ae different they are docile. I think `gandhi` model may work in sindh in long term. We have no strength in army so army will not hesitate to shoot sindhis.Sindh is evolving. Sindh is dyeing due to lack of water and general has started Thal project and talks of building dams to please Punjabis. Please take some time travel through lower sindh. Go towards Indian border see abandoned villiges and femine striken landscape. Before 10 years ago Sindh use to be green vegetable garden in Sindhu Daya area. Go and see devasted dry and baked earth. Poor sindhi and balochi were selling their daughters for 3000Rs to have something to eat. Please go beyond Kotri Barrage Mighty Sindhu Darya disappears practically. Lower sindh is killed by punjabis for their greed for water. See mangroves have disappeared. The sea water intrusion has advanced up to 50 miles in Sindh costal area and even some wells in Thatta area are showing saline water. So soon this area will be dead just little note in Karachi. Fisheries are destroyed hundreds of thousands of fishermen are beggers. They have no rights as they are Sindhis ,punjabis and Canal comes first. Sinhis did not invite Indians to come to sindh. They came as invaders of Sindh demolishing, culture, language and Sindhi ethos. Its Lucknow Delhi here. All major cities are taken over like victorious armies and sindhis ran away to save themselves. Stupid urdu indian language is imposed on all of pakistan and shameless Punjabis picked up as mother toungue. Thank god Sindhis did not abandon it. It is said Sindhis are always complaing but what they can do in present situation. Only our auguish can be understood only by Sindhis only as no nationality of Indian subcontinent suffered so much. We will have revenge as we are suffering patient people. One day sindhu will flow. Sindh will be like bangla desh. Part of Sindhu water will be coming through southern Punjab and Rajastan states of india and coming to northern Sindh so Punjab can not control destinty of Sindh. Will India screw us? I do not know , but I can answer. Today we are not afraid of Indian tanks riding over but we are afraid of punjabi mohajir oppression. Indian tank are out of our mind.

I hate mohajir and Punjabis are they destroyed sindh. Nothing more or less.

Lastly I hope you are handsome its not fun to be ugly.Ugly people are discriminated all overworld and nobody has solution. Please be humble and be sympathetic to not good looking people.

Bye.

Zia Ahmed

Why are you and those you agree with you wasting time and money in Pakistan? Get the first bus, train, airplane and get yourself to India - there you will find not two nation theory - you might want to avoid Gujjrat as a whole.

You are a moron - Mr. Mushraffar has expressed that the armed forces are prepared to shed their last drop of blood in the defense of Pakistan - as for scum such as yourself - you need not worry about anybody`s blood other than your own - you getting my drift?

Kashmir may not run in your blood - you died and said you could speak for the rest of Pakistan?

And slums in Bombay look like those in Karachi, but they also look like the ones in Colombia and Brazil - Slums look alike? Is this the sum of your wisdom? IDIOT!

No examination of the problems, no discussion of possible solutions - no new paradigm - but you morons don`t need these complexities - they are boring and make your head hurt - easier to bad moouth Musharraf and the armed forces you ensure you continue to have the right to mouth off -Your Indians in Gujjrat and in captive Kashmir are paying for that right with their blood - I know, I know, their blood does not run in yours either.

Zia Ahmed??

OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME ISRAELIS(JEWS) JUST AS THERE ARE SOME HINDIANS WHO ARE UNBIASED OPEN MINDED & UNPREJUDICED BUT ZIA AHMED IS TOO NAIVE TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

BY MOST CERTAINITY MAJORITY OF JEW (KAPLAN) & HINDIAN (LIKE KAK,WALLIA,SRINIVASAN,VARSHA..)ARE RABIDLY 24/7 ANTI- MUSLIM, ANTI -ISLAM & ANTI- PAKISTAN

Subject: INDO-PAK: TNR on ``The Bushies Bungle South Asia``

F

From D.A.M.N. - Dissecting American Media Now

Below is a cover story from The New Republic, a Washington policy weekly

about the US and India-Pakistan. Excerpt: ``The Bush administration has

been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan

explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.``

Reax?

The CASI paper mentioned by Bruce Riedel below about US diplomacy

during the Kargil crisis is available at

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm and linked off

The New Republic

June 17, 2002

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020617&s=kaplan061702

THE BUSHIES BUNGLE SOUTH ASIA

Silent Partner

The Bush administration has been coddling Pakistan to prosecute its war on

terrorism. Lawrence Kaplan explains why it`s proving such a terrible idea.

By Lawrence F. Kaplan

Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at TNR.

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, it`s not true that September 11

changed everything. In the case of America`s relationship with its cold

war client Pakistan, it actually restored the status quo. In the months

before September 11, relations between Washington and Islamabad rapidly

soured as the Bush team became enthralled with India--a country that,

unlike Pakistan, offered a valuable market, a democracy, and a potential

strategic partner against China. Last summer Deputy Secretary of State

Richard Armitage lumped Pakistan in with other ``rogue states``; announced

that our cold war friendship with the country was a ``false relationship``;

and worried about its nuclear program, while expressing no similar concern

about India`s. But September 11, and the need for Pakistani cooperation in

Afghanistan, moved the clock back to the cold war. Since then, President

George W. Bush has lauded Pakistani autocrat Pervez Musharraf as a ``leader

with great courage and vision``; Secretary of State Colin Powell has

praised his ``courage and foresight``; and State Department officials have

likened him to Ataturk.

They were closer to the truth the first time: In their rush to reembrace

Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for months American

policymakers willfully disregarded evidence that Musharraf has been a

less-thanreliable partner. Hence, the Bush administration has greeted with

silence Musharraf`s rejection of its demand that he impose order along

Afghanistan`s lawless border. Pressed to account for that refusal last

month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lamely explained that Pakistan is

``a sovereign nation.`` Silence, too, has followed Musharraf`s refusal to

hand over the central suspect in the murder of Wall Street Journal

reporter Daniel Pearl and to provide American investigators full access to

Pakistani nuclear scientists believed to have had contacts with Al Qaeda.

And the Bush team barely uttered a peep when Musharraf rigged a referendum

extending his rule two months ago. But when it comes to Musharraf`s

refusal to stanch the flow of terrorists into Kashmir--a refusal that

explains why South Asia now teeters on the brink of war--the Bush

administration has been worse than mute. It has responded with

ostentatious praise.

You have to give him credit,`` Powell said of Musharraf`s effort to halt

Kashmiri terrorism in January; and in New Delhi one week later Powell

asked his Indian hosts to give the general a ``chance.`` Bush, too, has

pressed India to ``let Musharraf bring terrorists to justice,`` adding that

the Pakistani leader has been ``responding forcefully and actively to bring

those who would harm others to justice`` and ``cracking down hard`` on

terrorists. Or as a Pentagon official put it to The New York Times in

January, ``The United States thinks that Musharraf is for real and has

undertaken fundamental changes. We have been trying to persuade the

Indians to take `yes` for an answer.`` But ``yes`` was never Musharraf`s

answer at all. And by pretending for so many months that it was, the Bush

administration may have brought the two countries closer to war.

The claim that Musharraf has been ``cracking down hard`` on cross-border

terrorism was always a questionable proposition. After Pakistani

terrorists attacked the Indian parliament last December, prompting India

to mass troops along the Pakistani border in response, Musharraf heeded

the Bush team`s demands by arresting extremists at home and by condemning

terrorism in a nationally televised speech. But no sooner had the crisis

passed--and the parade of administration officials shuttling back and

forth between New Delhi and Islamabad came to a halt, as the Bush team

turned its attention to the Middle East--when the Pakistani dictator

reverted to type. The general has since released almost all the militants

he rounded up in January. He has refused to hand over to India 20

terrorists linked to the attack on its parliament, and he still touts his

support for ``the Kashmiri struggle for liberation.`` Most important,

administration officials concede that the flow of militants--which had

subsided when snow blocked infiltration routes from Pakistan during the

winter--has resumed with the spring thaw. In fact, just three weeks ago,

Pakistani-backed militants murdered 34 Indians at an army base in Kashmir.

If the Bush administration has averted its gaze to Pakistani malfeasance,

it hasn`t been for lack of warning by Indian officials. As early as last

December, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee complained bitterly

about being subjected to American ``sermons about restraint`` while

Washington turned a blind eye to Musharraf`s antics. On a trip to New

Delhi three weeks ago, Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was

ambushed by officials from India`s foreign ministry, who told her they

were exasperated by U.S. admonitions for restraint and were tired of

Washington`s ``double standards.`` One week later Indian Defense Secretary

Yogendra Narain conveyed the same message to Armitage and Rumsfeld. ``We

told them that our patience [had] almost come to an end, and what

Musharraf had promised in his January twelfth speech, he has not lived up

to it,`` Narain said after meeting with his American counterparts. ``We also

felt that the U.S. had not done enough to control or advise Pakistan on

this issue.`` And last week Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh went so far as

to declare that the presence of U.S. forces at Pakistani bases would not

be ``an inhibiting factor in [India`s] policy determinations.``

Brahma Chellaney, an Indian strategist with close ties to the government,

believes the present crisis might not have arisen had the Bush

administration responded more forcefully to ample evidence of Pakistani

misconduct. ``So eager has the Bush team been to win Musharraf`s

cooperation,`` says Chellaney, ``that until last week they did not press him

on the issue of cross-border terrorism against India.`` Hence, officials in

New Delhi reacted furiously when Rocca repeated Washington`s praise for

Musharraf last month. In fact, it was only after Rocca conveyed their

anger by telephone to Powell, who in turn informed the White House, that

the crisis received Cabinet-level attention--with Bush placing a call to

Vajpayee, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice phoning her

Indian counterpart, Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra.

The Indians particularly distrust Powell, who even members of the Bush

team admit has established a kinship of ``fellow generals`` with Musharraf.

The chumminess has been noticed in Delhi, too, particularly since Powell

has repeated Musharraf`s contention that Kashmir is the core issue in

Indo-Pakistani relations--something India denies. ``The Bush administration

and particularly Secretary of State Powell [have made] Musharraf feel that

they go to great lengths to please him,`` complains Gopalaswami

Parthasarathy, India`s former high commissioner to Pakistan. ``General

Musharraf was so sure of United States support that he blatantly rigged a

referendum and has continued to aid terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir.`` One

of the reasons the White House dispatched Rumsfeld to South Asia this week

rather than Powell was precisely, as one senior administration official

puts it, ``to show that we take this very seriously.``

The perception of American bias has been made worse by the reality of

American ineptitude. ``The administration doesn`t have a plan, just a

crisis management policy,`` says The Brookings Institution`s Stephen Cohen,

author of India: Emerging Power. ``They haven`t been engaged at all.`` After

meeting with Musharraf in February, Bush said, ``I hope we can facilitate

serious and meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan``--this, despite

the fact that India loudly opposes third-party intervention. The next day,

however, Rice said, ``[W]e don`t believe this is something that mediation

or facilitation is going to help.`` In a similar vein, the National

Security Council`s director for Asian affairs, Harry Thomas, announced in

March that Pakistan should either try suspected terrorists or hand them

over to India. A week later the State Department said that was a matter

for the countries themselves to decide.

Adding to the disarray, relations between the American Embassies in India

and Pakistan have become almost as tense as relations between the two

countries themselves. Wendy Chamberlain, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan,

and Robert Blackwill, the U.S. ambassador to India, have spent the last

few months bombarding Washington with cables--arguing, in Chamberlain`s

case, that Musharraf has done everything in his power to halt incursions

into Kashmir and, in Blackwill`s case, that he has done nothing of the

sort. According to one official, ``Their reporting completely distorts our

picture of what`s happening on the ground.`` And if the presence of

Chamberlain and Blackwill has confused administration policy, their sudden

absence could muddle the picture further: Chamberlain has just vacated her

post to join her children in the United States, and Blackwill--the subject

of a State Department inspector-general review for what an official called

in The Washington Post ``treat[ing] his staff like furniture``--may soon be

departing the region as well.

But this much is clear: The Bush team needs a new road map for South Asia.

U.S. officials readily concede that if war breaks out on the subcontinent

it will be because India invades to counter Pakistani provocations in

Kashmir. The obvious administration strategy, then, would simply be to

address the source of India`s complaint. After all, the Bush team knows

the charge has merit: ``Musharraf,`` says an official directly involved in

managing U.S.-Pakistani relations, ``could clamp down on infiltration in a

minute if he wanted to. He`s certainly done so before.`` Even the Clinton

team, which generally made a hash of South Asia policy, understood the

proximate cause of Kashmir`s woes. In a recent paper published by the

Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania,

Bruce Riedel, a special assistant to the president, recounts Bill

Clinton`s response when faced with the possibility of a nuclear exchange

over Kashmir in 1999. Reasoning that to do otherwise would reward

Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Clinton placed the blame squarely where

it belonged--publicly demanding a Pakistani withdrawal from

Indian-controlled Kashmir; assuring Vajpayee that he was ``holding firm on

demanding the withdrawal [of Pakistani troops] to the [line of control]``;

and turning down repeated pleas to intercede with India on Islamabad`s

behalf. The Pakistanis backed down.

Today, of course, there is a new ingredient in the mix: America`s need for

Pakistan`s assistance in flushing out Al Qaeda forces. But that imperative

hardly justified the Bush team`s boundless solicitude for Musharraf.

Having created and sponsored the very government that harbored bin Laden,

Pakistan had little choice last fall but to cooperate with the United

States in the war on terror or face its wrath--a message Armitage bluntly

conveyed to Pakistan`s intelligence chief last September. To do otherwise

would have led to Pakistan`s international isolation, wrecked its already

spiraling economy, and--as Musharraf himself argued--drawn Washington and

New Delhi closer than ever. The logic still holds true. Rather than coddle

Pakistan, then, the administration might take New Delhi`s warnings a bit

more seriously. Alas, even today many in the administration suspect that

India`s current buildup is aimed merely at frightening them into applying

pressure on Pakistan. ``This is really a case of the boy who cried wolf,``

says a senior State Department official. ``[India`s] strategy ever since

September eleventh has been to prevent us from getting too cozy with

Pakistan, and so they`re always complaining about Musharraf and

threatening to take action if we don`t.`` But it really shouldn`t take a

war to get Washington`s attention.

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