Analysis of Stunning Gains by Religious Parties in Pakistan’s Elections

#59 Prem:

Well said.

To many of the Islamic countries, ``self-determination`` is a vehicle to
impose islmaization or become islamic republics at the EXPENSE of
non-muslim NATIVE population. The same thing applies in kashmir, applied in E/Timor-Indonesia.

Many of the opinion writers would like to argue the same treatment like E Timor to be applied to Kashmir. What they don`t say, is that E Timor with its christian population wanted to become SECULAR to the chagrin of
Islamic Indonesia. The same opinion writers do not say anything about
southern Christian sudanese, non-muslim algerians who get massacred by the thousands everyday by the ``throat-slitting`` variety of Islamists.

Another sweetner put forward by the APHC and its allies are that Kashmir would always remain ``secular``; Please give me a break!
The APHC`s mentor, Pakistan itself is an Islamic country with an islamic dispensation; Even Bangladesh which started as a ``People`s republic`` soon converted to ``Islamic republic`` at the expense of the non-muslim native bangladeshi hindu population.

There are other ``moderate`` islamists who say there should not be an islamic country unless 100% of the population is islamic. So, what is their solution? To drive out the non-muslim population either through coersive, economic measures/political measures. coersive measures can take many forms; like property rights for non-muslims diff from muslims, inheritance rights, etc, including physical assualt as it happened in Bangladesh recently and in 1971 when hordes of Bangladeshi Hindus as well as Muslims just kept coming to West Bengal.(If you don`t believe this, take a picture of a tram crowd circa prior to 1971 and post 1971). Political measures include voting rights, legal rights (like non-muslim witness would mean less, etc)

Prem#59 #64

Incredible! you should be a leader, dude! Prem for prime minister!!!

Prem

Post #59. Jeez man, kick ass....I always thought you were a Candle Holder, Gandhi loving ``Give to the Pakistanis what they want type of guy``

Damn!!!!

Your focusing on the opinion poll regarding the value/wisdom of ``armed resistance`` is just brilliant. This widely-shared ``self-evident`` belief is one of about half a dozen fundamental intellectual and moral flaws in a worldview that will never offer its adherents anything other than permanent war, endless bloodshed, and infinite self-generated hatred of all others.

I am shocked that many of these ideas have been given a totally spurious veneer of religion. When that happens, most people immediately stop thinking, and structures of violence, repression, ignorance, and stagnation repeat themselves in place after place after place, decade after decade after decade.

Pretty sad, really. Completely uncessary. Let`s pray this devilishly violent cycle is broken one day. We can all help by never ever giving in to it.

Romair,
#58

Sigh...whenever Kashmir is discussed, you go on this moral pedestal..& everything else be damned...personally, I think you were a tad too self-righteous in your ``moral`` judgement of Prem. May I HUMBLY suggest that you or I or any MORTAL being DONT have the necessary wisdom to morally judge others. So lets leave these difficult judgements to Allah/Bhagwan/God shall we?!

ESPECIALLY since you are Kashmiri, you are too close to the situation because of your personal bias...to judge ANYONE on this issue

If you quote ``neutral`` experts whose biases match yours (including Gandhi); it wont make an iota of difference to the overwhelming majority of Indians. Gandhi is just as anachronistic in India , as Jinnah is in Pakistan. If you find that sad, hypocritical &/or immoral...so be it.. If every other Pakistani, ESPECIALLY Mushy (IMO, that Pakistani`s view counts...dont matter what other Pakistanis feel), thinks it sad, immoral or hypocritical...so be it!! What do you think the Indian response is?! ``who died & made YOU God?!``...Now if you lament that it goes against universal human values--pray play your violin; as much as your heart desires...wont make a difference..

Havent you been listening to what I`m saying? I`m not expecting you to agree with it; at least reflect upon it...

These are some REALITIES, as I see it..right wrong or indifferent...

1) lets start out with the recent opinion poll....an OVERWHELMING number of Chowkies favor armed resistance...so peaceful resistance is OUT of the question...& a moot issue.. I feel if you poll all the citizens of the Islamic world today...thats the figure it`ll match (I know the Chowk poll was not confined to muslims only)

2)Personally, I think in the ``real`` world, as it stands today...the Islamic world (though it condemns terrorism) believes in ``freedom fights``. The Islamic world appaulds the suicide warriors of Palestine( overwhelmingly) & blames the underlying reason SQUARELY on Israel ...& its sugar daddy..the US. They maynot approve of the suicidal bombing itself...but FULLY support the stand that Palestinians should FIGHT with armed resistance. The religion itself (as interpreted by the mullahs) glorifies & sanctifies these acts as supreme sacrifice in the name of Allah.

3)The moderate muslims (& nobody really knows what their actual numbers are) may say this interpretation of the Holy Quran by the mullahs is flawed. But their voices are NOT heard over the din of religious bigotry..pure & simple...

4)NOBODY in this world gives a rip about Kashmir (other than India & Pakistan). The ONLY time they will intervene (& NOT necessarily on Pakistan`s side) is if it affects THEIR interests.

5) The US is the biggest cheese in the world. What it says emphatically GOES. In fact Bush has said that, if the crunch comes, (& Bush ultimately defines what ``crunch`` is), the US will throw out Sadam, whether the rest of the world (even its allies) support it or not. You & I & everybody else may think its hypocrisy...doesnt mean beans...when core issues are irreconcilabe, might BECOMES right...F*CK universal human values...thats why I say ``basic goodness`` & ``basic badness`` are the two sides of the same coin of human mentality...

6)``morality`` by itself is a very very grey area..it all depends upon your point of view.. if Indians consider IOK their ``land`` & the current residents of that ``land`` should be INDIANS, who the F... is anybody in this world to tell Indians that thats immoral? If the current custodians of that land dont want to be Indians...then by all means..leave!..go to the Paradise called Azad Kashmir! Is anybody holding a gun to your head & preventing you from doing that?!

7)Please understand this...the dominant discourse in the US (the biggest cheese that matters) has set a precedent in this ``New World Order``. Even Russia is applauded today for fighting against Chechen resistance! Did the US criticise them? They may not agree on the type of gas or the tactic used...but the entire world (that has the power to matter) has given solid backing to Russia`s stance.

8)Ergo...other than the muslim world..EVERYBODY has a consensus that armed resistance by SEPARATISTS has to be fought & NOT compromised with...

9) Against that backdrop... do you think that the powers that be in this New World Order will take kindly to guerella tactics used by the Kashmiri separatists?!

10)Get off your Polyannish optimism, Romair, it prevents you from dealing with reality...no matter how evil, unfair & hypocritical reality is...its REALITY..either accept it or live in a dream world...your standing on the pedestal wont get a thunderous applause from the audience...

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

Folks...

Is there nothing expect Kashmir to discuss on these virtual pages...the land of South Asia has a history of over 5000 years and these 5000 years must given us more than just the topic of Kashmir to discuss...right?

It is just a bit ironical that both the Indians and the Pakistanis, who are the self-justified and self appointed moral champions of Kashmirs and are willing to fight over Kashmir to the last Kashmiri, have never bothered to ask, what and how the Kashmiris feel about the situation.

If the Pakistanis hate the Indians and the hate is reciprocated by the Indians towards Pakistanis and each is of the opinion that s/he is better than the other, then who will these poor souls hate, when their hatred has destoryed the very reason for their hate, Pakistan and India, and there is no one left to hate?

It is a lamentable sight, when hatred is the only reason to live; it is understandble that a person must live to hate, but to hate to live, as Indians and Pakistanis are wont towards each other, is a pity.

Ciao

Reply Zeejah #48

“so who won? MMA or God?... :)”

Depends on whom you ask. MMA supporters might even claim that both did.

re: romair # 58


You are confusing issues.

Having given you succinct answers earlier, let me explain my answers to you. Let` consider moral, legal, and pragmatic bases of what we are discussing:

MORAL ARGUMENTS:

``Kashmiri-self-determination advocates``

I believe that it is criminal for some Kashmiris to talk of the right to ``self-determination`` when by self-determination they mean the right to deprive other Kashmiris of the latter`s basic right of legal and constitutional equality. Thieves and bigots aiming to deprive others of property and liberty do not have a right to self-determination.

I believe that when such criminals begin mudering other Kashmiris, it is the duty of the government to hit them so hard that others like them draw lessons from their condition. That is simple governmental duty, as Jinnah recognized. Murderers do not have a right to self-determination.

I believe when these criminals-turned-murderers also begin collaborating with outsiders, they deserve no sympathy. They get none from me. They do not have a right to self-determination.

The ONLY moral obligation that any civilized country owes to any individual within its domain is to make sure that he or she has the same legal/constitutional rights as any other individual, and that efforts are consistently made to remove unofficial inequities that exist in any society. This obligation itself REQUIRES the Indian government that it allow no part of Indian Kashmir to ever join Pakistan-where such principles of equality are NOT currently recognized- or separate from the nation-when protections of a central authority will be lost. No country has the right to adopt the official policy of throwing any of its citizens to howling wolves.


``Outsider-self-determination-advocates``

I believe it is absurd for outsiders to talk of the right of ``self-determination`` for Kashmiris on the basis of religion without giving exactly the same right to their minorities. Hypocrites carry no credibility.

When these outsiders not only talk of the these spurious rights, but actively engage themselves in criminal activities promoting the same, they cross a line that no Indian should ever accept. India should reserve the right to respond to these outsiders in the manner it deems most effective. Obsessively inimical states quickly lose sympathy.


``Indian-advocates of the kashmiri ``right`` to self-determination``:

Any democratic country can cohere and ensure everyone`s safety and respect only if its inhabitants agree on a basic principle of coexistence - that no group appears to completely threaten the existence of others, or that of the nation itself. Otherwise, we can look forward to much trouble. Nobody has a right to advocate that a nation of a billion people take such risks. We should not cut off our noses to spite our faces.


``Nehru said so bewailers``

Nehru said lots of things, as did Jinnah. Let`s leave the two happily burnt and buried.



LEGAL ISSUES:

I do not believe that either Nehru or Jinnah were playing fair with respect to Kashmir in 1947.

Even since then, neither India nor Pakistan have kept their hands clean of dirty shenanigans, unbecoming of the nations.

Consequently, the only thing that makes sense is to let Pakistan keep the Kashmir it has, let China keep the Kashmir it was gifted, and let India keep the Kashmir it has.

Trying to change the status-quo on the basis of fiftyfive year-old ``legal`` arguments at this time is not worth the cost of making such changes.


PRAGMATIC ISSUES:

1. Unlike free and regular elections, one-time referenda are an extremely flawed way of deciding things. People change their minds. Referenda of the sort being discussed here enslave people to one-time decisions. If Sindhi leaders who promoted the idea of merging their nation with Pakistan five decades ago were asked the same question today, they are unlikely to make the same decision in hindsight as they did when religious madness was at its peak and religious fears of each other were being sowed by vested interests. We can not let these elements play their dirty game again.

2. When one-time referenda are held, forces of religious fanaticism can and do whip up religious madness. Thus, referenda do not necessarily reflect the considered opinion of people. Nor are the people likely to stand by these opinions over the next hundred years. We have no right to use a fatally defective method to make momentous decisions affecting the lives of millions.

3. Everyday in India, a new separtist movement is born, and an old one cools off. Indian policy is/and should be to make sure that the benefits of a democratic set up gradually reach everybody. It can not be to let groups of people create their personal empires of bigotry. That is not the ideal any Indian should support.

========================

Do I believe in self-determination of the Indians from the British?

I would NOT belive in ``self-determination`` of Indians from the British under the following conditions: If

1. every britisher and every Indian had exactly the same legal/constitutional right in every sphere, including the right to occupy the throne.

2. Indians took part in British elections as equal members, deciding who would enter or not enter the parliament.

3. Indians could make sure that their languges/cultures would dominate in London, given their numerical superiority.

4. India had made its intention clear through its deeds and words that it would deprive its Christian population of their equal rights. That Pakistan was still granted freedom is a matter that does not seem right to me in a moral sense.

5. Britishers working in India had recognized India as their home, and did not look upon/ consider their stay in India as a bureautratic, if cushy, duty.

6. Given that Indians formed the overwhelming majority of the population, the courts, the parliament, even the palace for the Indian king/queen was shifted to India.

Under these circumsntance, I would not support Indian ``self-determination.``

And since Indians are a decent people, we would not even ask for ``self-determination.``

Self-determination is no absolute good. Pakistanis agree. As they proved in NWFP and Balochistan.

=======================

Do I believe in self-determination for Bangladeshis from Pakistanis?

I would NOT believe in Bangladeshi self-determination if

Each Bangladeshi was considered an equal citizens of Pakistan as any West Pakistani citizen.

Given that Bangladeshis were the largest numerical group, all central institutions were based in Dhaka or nearby, all major decisions were made in Dhaka in consultation with West Pakistanis.

If the dominant institution of Pakistan, the military, was largely a Bangladeshi outfit.

If a Bangladeshi who won the majority vote in Pakistani elections was allowed to become the Prime Minister, instead of being jailed.

If a completely alien culture and language was not brutally imposed on unsuspecting Bangladeshis, a group larger than any other group in Pakistan.

If Pakistanis did not treat Bangladeshis with utter racist and bigotted contempt. If in a country that didn`t take very kindly to Hindus, bangladeshis were not called aadha Hindu.

If West Pakistani military did not drag out Dhaka university professors and students from their dormitaries and kill them openly, along with millions of other Bangladeshis who perished only because they sided with Pakistanis in 1947.

If records did not exist proving that Pakistani army officers issued commands to murder Bangladeshis whose only crime was that they happened to be non-Muslims.

Under these circumsntance, I would not support bangladeshi ``self-determination.``

And since Bangladeshis are a decent people, they would not even ask for ``self-determination.``

Self-determination is no absolute good. Pakistanis agree. As they proved in NWFP and in Balochistan.

========================

What`s the point in holding hands and singing Kumbhaya?

None whatsoever, if our life is to begin and end with Kashmir. If that is going to be the basis of all our interactions, we should quit all efforts to reduce tension, dedicate all our efforts to making war, fight it out, until one of us is utterly and completely destroyed.

Holding hands and singing kumbhaya has meaning for only those who are willing to consider and work towards building an alternative mutual reality of peaceful coexistence.

I think that is a worth-while effort, a worthy enterprize, despite the heartbreaks it involves. Certainly, I don`t expect that everybody else will join me in this work. Many others are busy preparging for war. That`s their privilege.

Prem #55: Now we know where you stand. I would like to thank you for answering the questions directly. At least you are not a hypocrite now. You do not want peace and you are willing to state that openly.

You do not believe in peaceful self-determination for Kashmiris. Hence you support all the human rights violations being carried out against them by India. Nor do you support open journalism and freedom of press, since you don`t believe in allowing journalists access to Kashmir.

Do you believe in the self-determination of the Indians from the British and the Bangladeshis from Pakistan?

And how can a person who is supporting the killing of tens of thousands of individuals by his govt. talk about khumbaya and holding hands?

re: romair # 55

I hope, never in my life, do I have to avoid answering any question in a straightforward manner. Straightforward answers are always succinct. So, here they are:

A) ``could you state in one sentence whether you believe in peaceful self-determination for Kashmiris``

I do not believe in peaceful self-determination for Kashmiris.

B)

1) Given the opportunity, do you think a majority of the Kashmiris would vote to stay with India or separate? (Yes/No)

Yes. (longer version: I believe that given an opportunity, a majority of people in Kashmir valley (I think that is what you meant to ask, right?) will vote to separate.)

2) Was Gandhi`s stance on Kashmir based on self-determination for Kashmiris? (Yes/No).

I haven`t studied Gandhi`s writings on this, but perhaps yes.

3) Should the situation in Kashmir be exposed to the rest of the world through allowing the world press and HR organizations open access to it, thereby justifying India`s stance? (Yes/No)

No.

Prem #54: I am still unclear on your stance on Indo-Pak conflict. Barring your attempts at khumbaya, while simultaneously thwarting any peaceful solutions, could you state in one sentence whether you believe in peaceful self-determination for Kashmiris:

``If the people of Kashmir are in favor of opting for Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so. They should feel free to decide for themselves.```` (Mahatma Gandhi).

My stance on Kashmir is 100% identical to Gandhi`s, i.e. peaceful self-determination, and the fact that no force can stop Kashmiris from getting this self-determination. This is directly from one of Gandhi`s quotes. Gandhi was in the military as well. What are you theories on him giving such an opinion? Was it due to the structured environment, he was exposed to at one stage of his life?

Unfortunately, people like yourself, will not only try to stop this, they will even try to discredit the people who want to view this optimistically. I think you missed the following line in my previous reply:

``All these people are basically good people. .......I think the only problem is Kashmir. And in that, the main problem is misinformation...... That will end the, ``He said, she said,`` scenario. After that, I think a lot of opinions will change.``

The fact that you based your own argument on the following lines, which is exactly what I stated, indicates that you deliberately ignored what I sated,

``Individual psychological optimism is entirely different. It springs from one`s belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, the belief that residents of any nation are ultimately intelligent, capable, independent human beings; that these intelligent capable people will one day see what is good for them; and will assert themselves. ``

If you cannot even accept my optimism (specifically on Indo-Pak conflicts), and need to come up with a conspiracy theory to discredit this belief in me, then all I can say is may Bhagwan open up your mind and free it from hatred. People who are jealous of other people`s optimism have issues of their own. Maybe they want India and Pakistan to stay in a perpetual state of war.

Such are the arguments of individuals who want to avoid direct debates on issues and want to go off on tangents, where they feel more secure.

I have never once stated that Pakistan can militarily take Kashmir from India, nor have I ever stated that Pakistan should try to take any military action. I have always stated exactly the opposite, i.e. Pakistan should only fight purely defensive battles against India, and that there is no military solution to Indo-Pak problems. You can check my replies from three years back to today, with Chowk`s new feature.

So the moment I see anyone trying to reference me with a military solution to the Indo-Pak problem, it becomes very clear that they have an in-built bias. That they are trying to take the argument to a direction where they can make some justifications for India`s actions, rather than a direction where they have no argument. I have seen it so many times. I say India should allow human rights organizations into Kashmir to let the world see what is going on and I quote Gandhi and Wolpert.

All of a sudden, individuals like yourself and others, go on a tirade on military, Musharraf, how I want to occupy Pakistan through the military (for heaven`s sake, I am a private citizen, and a card carrying member of a civilian political party. What in the world do I gain from occupying Pakistan through the military. And how could I do so, anyways? And if that were my intention, don`t you think a more practical course for me would have been to stay in the military, rather than leave? I would appreciate it if you could explain in detail. If not, then why make statements like this. Is it allows the discussion to move away from the real topic.), and God knows what else, and how evil you think Pakistan maybe.

One has to form a basis to start a debate. Since we are on the subject, could I request and challenge you to answer the following direct questions. These are neutral questions, with no anamosity and only yes/no answers. I am still waiting for you and others to answer them directly, rather than giving theories on my past:

1) Given the opportunity, do you think a majority of the Kashmiris would vote to stay with India or separate? (Yes/No)
2) Was Gandhi`s stance on Kashmir based on self-determination for Kashmiris? (Yes/No)
3) Should the situation in Kashmir be exposed to the rest of the world through allowing the world press and HR organizations open access to it, thereby justifying India`s stance? (Yes/No)

shankar #51-53: ``If the people of Kashmir are in favor of opting for Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so. They should feel free to decide for themselves.```` (Mahatma Gandhi).``

The first question every Indian and Pakistani needs to be asked is whether they agree with the above. This separates the hypocrites from the honest people. I respect the Indian who says that they just want to fight Pakistan and will not have any self-determination in Kashmir, regardless of how many people get killed. They are honest. The people whom I don`t respect are the one`s who keep talking about peace and holdilng hands verbally, while completely the suppression of human rights. I would put Prem in this group. Their hypocricy is indicated by the unwillingness to answer direct questions.

Everyone has good and bad in him/her. It just depends on whether the good dominates the bad or vice-versa. The easiest way to check someone`s motivations is to see what kind of argument they present to a problem or a person.

Why do people want to discredit other people`s optimism.

Because they want to avoid the true argument. They will never anwser the question I ask, because deep down inside they know that what is being presented is a false picture and that what India is doing in Kashmir is wrong and that their own stance is in direct cotradiction with Gandhi`s (lets forget about Wolpert, for a while). You, at least, admit it. While most other Indians will not even agree to an open disclosure. If Kashmiris are wrong, well then disclose them to the rest of the world. What is the point of trying to analyze my background? Maybe I made up my whole background.

This is the misinformation I am talking about. People have been brainwashed. They will refuse to answer even obvious questions. They will start analyzing the person asking the question, when they have never even met him/her, in an attempt to avoid the question. What if I had said that I am actually a Hindu living in Karachi, and get prosecuted by Muslims, yet still presented the same arguments on Kashmir. At that point, Prem would have come up with a completely different theory on why I am optimistic. But he still would not have answered the straight forward questions, i.e:

I am actually in a position to give false theories, yet I don`t. The easiest thing for me to say would be that I work with Indians on a minute to minute basis and I think they are all morons and war-mongers and hate Pakistanis. You will never hear me say that, if anything, you will hear me say the opposite. Yet one sees so many people, including unfortunately you, who have never spent a day in the Pakistan military (or even Indian military) but have all kinds of conflict-based theories.

I am from Kashmir, I go there all the time and know the people. My grandparents spent their whole lives there, and left their life`s belonging there. Yet you will not see me say that Pakistan and India should have a military battle over it. I always try to give an argument based on UN, ICJ, human rights, self-determination, negotiations, open press freedom etc. But you will see people from as far off as Banglore, who have nothing to do with Kashmir, say that India and Pakistan should fight it out, if necessary, but India should never allow self-determination. This is bad enough, but then they will try to state that I am the one who believes in conflict.

This is all due to fears and false egos based on misinformation. Why can I say openly and honestly that Pakistan was wrong in East Pakistan and that Bangladeshis were correct in forming their own state, without coming up with theories about India`s involvement, yet people like Prem get tongue-tied and avoid the topic by pointing towards, ``evil`` Pakistan, and cannot make a similar claim about Kashmir?

If my argument on Indo-Pak conflicts was Pakistan-centric or Pakistan military-centric, shouldn`t I be supporting West Pakistan`s stance on East Pakistan? My argument is human rights centric, and that is why I think people like Prem are too scared to discuss it with me in the domain of human rights, and try to drag it into the domain of military conflict (where two countries can be blamed evenly). Why don`t I drag the 71 war into the domain of military conflict?

I still believe in the basic goodness of human beings. If that is a crime, well then shoot me. Maybe it is because I have had positive experiences with human beings of all colors and creed and nationalities. Why should I let negative people change my thought process?

I don`t think India can stay in a state of perpetual occupation in Kashmir, while not allowing anyone to see what is going on there. You seem to think that they shouldn`t, but they will and can. Prem seems to think that not only that they can but they should also. That is easier said than done. Soldiers are human beings. They are not machines. If you want to talk about pschological pressures etc., I cannot think of anything tougher than a soldier being in a lose-lose scenario of civilian occupation. Have you had a chance to talk to any Vietnam vets as your patients? (if you have, then you probably have more knowledge of this than me). They end up killing innocent civilians (which all professional soldiers hate doing, despite the propoganda) or they end up being killed by civilians whom they assumed to be innocent. And for what? No soldier was ever considered a hero for occupying civilians. No soldier wants to leave warfare against gurreillas as his legacy. They are trained to fight other armies, not civilians within their own boundaries.

Politicians have a lot of stamina for such wars, since they are sitting in the comforts of palaces, but the situation is different for the soldiers. Professinal oldiers, in any country, have a much stronger conscious than politicians and even than civilians (may sound odd, but I have found this to be true).

Pakistan and India have played all their cards on Kashmir. The last one was the deployment of the Indian forces. According to the emails I have received from friends in the military, India just about attacked Pakistan, when Pakistan tested the missiles. My friends told me they were working non-stop for four days, day and night to lauch a counter attack. Ask yourself a question.......do you REALLY think, India is willing to live with the type of situation in Kashmir and its after-effects in India, for the next hundred years? You seem to think it is willing to do so, but what is your analysis based on? If you were a soldier, would you like to spend ten years in Kashmir fighting a guerrilla enemy? Probably not. What makes you think any other human being would. How long can human rights organizaitons stay banned from an area, without at least someone noticing? I go to a lot of trade fairs and I know from experts that countries think ten times before investing in India and Pakistan due to nuclear war threats. How long before India (and Pakistan) have to take that into account?

All these things, and a belief that there is some goodness in human beings (even the one`s like Prem who try to discredit the optimism in others (sign of a sick mind, if you ask me)) is what forms the basis of my argument. The main force in Kashmir are its people. Musharraf, Vajpayee, Prem, shankar, Romair etc. are external powerless factors against such a powerful force.

Sooner or later, people will have to start giving yes/no answers to the questions, rather than avoiding them by giving long theses on optimism or politics or Musharraf. I think that time has just about come. The problem may not be solved soon, but things can only get better and not worse.

If that is too optimistic a scenario for some people, or if they cannot stand my optimism, then I can only feel sorry for them.

re: shankar # 52

To expect that anything good can come out of the mind of mushy is to expect that spring blossoms will burst out of a lunar rock.

But holding hands and singing khumbaya is important because we must put faith in common, average, every-day people. We must hold to be misguided the theories that the common Pakistani (or Indian) man or woman is utterly dumb, undeserving of respect, undeserving of an honest vote, or will remain, forever, an impotent cog.

After all, we are optimists! If change will not come from the top, we must hope it will come from the bottom.

Romair,

{{I remember reading or hearing somewhere that optimism is a sign of high self-esteem.}}

.....i think the WHOLE sentence should read....``...optimism is a sign of high self-esteem..OR Polyannish naievity``..

I`ve been a shrink for 20yrs now & in pvt practice for more than half of those yrs. I`ve come across 1000s of minds, from every culture...
In the US, psychiatrists in pvt practice see very very few ``crazy`` (ie psychotic) patients. ``Psychotic Disorders`` are only a few chapters in the vast field of Psychiatry. Most of the patients we see are ``Neurotics``...like you & I & everybody else on Chowk & beyond, who suffer from Mood Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, Personality Disorders etc etc...

Yes there is ``basic goodness`` in human minds...but there is ``basic badness`` in our minds too. Its ``universal``..not confined to hindu/muslim Indian/Pakistani...

Let me tell you that in this ``real`` world of ours...the Indian guy that you find very nice & professional & personable may just turn out to be a Jay...if you dig into his mind too deep. He may just be showing his ``basic goodness`` to you. At the same time, I`ve known a couple of real nice Pakistanis who are ``real Urstrulys`` behind my back. Heck..why ``personalise`` this to Chowk characters?...even the Pope knew that Hitler was butchering the Jews & didnt say a peep about it... I guess what I`m saying is that ALL human beings have their prejudices (even...gasp!.. `` neutral experts``)

When human beings feel VERY strongly about an issue...they will be willing to die for it. If jehadis are willing to kill themselves over their righteous cause...so will militant hindus. I hope you Pakis are still not buying that crap are hindus are inherent cowards. ...Just look at the sample of opinions of Indians here..vis a vis Kashmir..& these are the educated elite. I`m NOT judging their opinions as ``right`` or ``wrong``. I`m saying that India will not let go of Kashmir without a bloodbath. This aint India`s Vietnam...the overwhelming Indians strongly feel that Kashmir belongs to India...nothing short of a holocaust will make them give it up.


The heck with what ``ordinary people`` in Pakistan think..Mushy calls the shots. Mushy very frankly said recently in an interview..i think it was in Time...either Kashmir joins Pakistan or India,..the issue of independance is not an option.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a ``miracle`` happens & Kashmir is somehow ``solved``. Are you going to tell us that you think the army in Pakistan will just ``dissolve`` itself?! You think these generals will simply give up their perks for the greater ``good`` of the country?..Heck even the US govt has found a ``villan`` to justify bolstering their defence budgets! They are going to invent another reason to believe why India is a boogeyman. The same goes for India too.

Hey I got a PERFECT solution!!...Introspect on this O` ye introspective Pakistanis....Indians are ``beyond help`` when it comes to fixing their attitude about Kashmir. I mean c`maan...Maybe Pakistan should just accept that Kashmir is a lost cause...make LoC a permanent border...let all the Kashmiris in IoK who want to be Pakistani citizens pack their kit & cabbootle & move to PoK. I`ll bet you India will even reimburse their..er ``moving expenses``....Maybe a few dozen Kashmiri muslims will live in IoK..who knows, I mean at least Abdullah clan may stay behind....

I`m sure a reasonable guy like you, Romair, will agree to that solution. Yeah yeah...``but what about the opinion of the Kashmiris themselves; dont they have first dibbs to have their wishes & dreams met....u may ask``?!! Weeeelll, i guess they will have to compromise...at least 50% of their desires will be met...
A) they will become citizens of Pakistan..& all the rich benefits that go along with it
B) they can lead life of pure joy in Azaaaad Kashmir

I know you are NOT finding this funny..but I am..there aint no solution to this; pal...might as well nuke the whole place:)

Prem,
#50

Man...that was deeeep!..& wonderfully put..
I like optimists..no doubt about it...btw, where the heck is tahmed, these days? i hope he didnt take that haranguing on that ``bhayankar`` thread too personally:)

Pray tell me how all you optimists holding hands & singing khumbaya are going to change Mushy`s mind?! The guy`s a weasel .....I dont care how well Romair ``spins`` him to be the knight in shinning armor for Pakistan...he`s a weasel...pure & simple..& the buck stops with him.