Some Burning Questions

Dear readers:

I am immensely grateful for the positive response this modest attempt of mine has received and the appreciation I got. Thanks a lot for the encouragement.

Being a writer my prime concern and the foremost aim [of this piece] was nevertheless to put across the [bitter] facts without tampering with the truth. I am pleased that none, some ex-officers included, has so far argued about the authenticity of the points I have raised.

I really hope and pray that I have succeeded in conveying the message to at least some of the addressees. I cannot dream of a better reward for my efforts if this letter do lead towards some positive changes.

Finally, an earnest [and humble] request: Please, as long as possible we should avoid Indo-Pak tussle over here. Sometimes, it seems extremely awkward and immature when discussion moves off into totally irrelevant wilderness of mythology, inter-state issues and theology -- miles away from the original topic.

With best regards,

Nighat Yasmeen

#144 by ali87
Ali - we are moving totally off the original topic of discussion here. ( YOu should collect all these thoughts and post in form of separate article ).

But what the heck :) Lemme see if I can respond to some of your questions:

//...are we inciting this back lash by constantly talking about it and expecting it...//

Good question! Well, we all remember the ``back-lash`` that happened just after partition - don`t we? Did anybody ``incite`` that backlash - arguably the bloodiest mayhem in human history. I don`t think so. Infact - none of our esteemed leaders of pre-partitioned India even seriously contemplated the possibilities of a huge ``backlash`` that could be the immediate result of the partition. If they had thought about it and talked about it, that may not have stopped the partition itself but at least some preventive measures would have been taken to control the scale of the disaster.

So - that is where we have come from - that is our historical baggage: a million dead, 5 millions uprooted, the whole subcontinet traumatised beyond its scariest nightmare. For better or for worse, India decided - NEVER AGAIN.

You call it ``Forced Integration`` : Indians say - well, Ali is entitled to his opinion but we don`t think so. Ali might be willing ignore the mayhem of 1947 and take the risk of yet another mayhem for some vague ``Moral Clarity`` - good luck to him. We don`t fancy it.

***********
//...I would say we should reverse course and instead drive people into positons that do not porovoke back lash. Ie though reasoning and educaton...//

You are most welcome to try this. You will succeed, may be after a hundred years.

************
//....But this will never take palce until some Hindus take upon themselves this activity as anything on these lines coming from a muslim is likely to be seen as suspect....//

Right now - anything on these lines coming from ANYBODY will be discarded with contempt.

#143 by mohar11 on January 21, 2003 7:38pm PT
#142 by mohar11 on January 21, 2003 7:21pm PT

Your are right on both counts but why should the kashmiri muslim sacrifice his rights for mine?

Or why should the indian union collaspe in the first place?

Where the nagas and kashmiris would be better off should be decison left to them not for us to force.

What you are saying is that the whole of Indian union is forced into place. This is not true. We have made a fetish about the boundaries of India.

It is clear that what we call Indian culture also exists in Buddhist srilanka as well as Hindu Nepal. We havent collapsed because they are not in the union.

That the kashmiris made the choice on and put forward their terms is usually lost on most indians. That India chooses to dishonour those terms is usually forgetten.

Why should there exist a argument like

``Is it Morally Justified to endanger lives and liberties of a billion+ people just to placate a few million in Nagaland or in Kashmir? I don`t think so.
``

I thought that the Indian Union was not forced but agreed upon.

The same arguments are given to take away the rights agreed upon by India to kashmir and also not accomodate the nagas for 50 years.

The same arguments are used to avoid a settlement with kashmirs even today. The fear of a back lash.

My question why should there be a back lash if as you say that ``The point is - what is that the Nagas or Kashmiris could achieve outside the Union that they cannot achieve being part of the union? nothing at all.``

It is this fact that there will be a back lash is what keeps the pot in the boil in these two places.

Remove that backlash and you have your chance at accomodation.

Then the question comes are we inciting this back lash by constantly talking about it and expecting it. I would say we should reverse course and instead drive people into positons that do not porovoke back lash. Ie though reasoning and educaton.

Constantly talking about ``endanger lives and liberties of a billion+ people just to placate a few million in Nagaland or in Kashmir?`` is not going to help.

Hence my attempt to provoke thinking on these lines..

But this will never take palce until some Hindus take upon themselves this activity as anything on these lines coming from a muslim is likely to be seen as suspect.

#141 by ali87
//...Why bring my being muslim into it...//

I think the point is that if Kashmir secedes then in a much-weakened Indian Union, muslim minority community will be the most disadvantaged party. So it is assumed that you, being a muslim, would better understand the difficulties that would arise as the consequence of such secession.

#141 by ali87
//...Will the Union collapse without these areas? ..///

The Indian union may or may not collapse - but rest assured, it will be weakened to considerable extent. There is a very real possibility that such an event(secession of Nagaland or Kashmir) would lead to much larger civil unrest and hence would endanger the whole subcontinent. If you want to use the argument of ``Moral Clarity`` then also think about this: Is it Morally Justified to endanger lives and liberties of a billion+ people just to placate a few million in Nagaland or in Kashmir? I don`t think so.

The point is - what is that the Nagas or Kashmiris could achieve outside the Union that they cannot achieve being part of the union? nothing at all. Indian federation is decentaralised to a great extent and will be more so down the road. Hence your allegation of ``forced integration`` is baseless.

If Punjabis, Tamils , Bengalis and a plethora other ``nationalities`` can thrive in the union so can Nagas and Kashmiris. Sure, they have their own separate circumstances and hence a different set of issues. These issues could definitely be addressed satisfactorily within the Union.

#111 by rsridhar on January 18, 2003 7:02am PT

A good way to judge whether your thinking or actions are morally right is to put yourself in the place of the recipient of your actions and ask yourselves if you would accept what you are inflicting/proposing on others.

My questions are designed to be disturbing. Without worrying your self about my Loyalites you can go about getting the answers to those questions.

Most stalemates arise out of the lack of Moral Clarity on part of the parties. Most accomodations come about when a moral stand is taken by both sides.

This is not a new concept Gandhi followed it and many others before and later him followed it. Mohammed(PUBH) (Some dispute this though.)followed it, So did Buddha, Mandela.

If you like many Indians on this board belive that Muslim kings forcibly imposed a culture/religon. If the present day muslims say that they dont give a damm about the relegion of their ancestors and it bothers you.

Then you have to answer those questions to yourselves.

Will the Naga whose independence is taken for granted sees it in the way you want.

Is it right to forcibly integrate people? I have seen Integration take place in many areas of India I have nothing against it. So If I were not a muslim but a Hindu from say Andhra what would your answers be? Why bring my being muslim into it.

If a stand is right (morally and practically) it should have its own reasons to back it up. Why is the condition of a Union more sacroscant than that of the life of a man in Nagaland or Kashmir?

Will the Union collapse without these areas? If you contention is that it will collapse it just shows how small and petty your Idea of the India is.

All said and done given the choice of full freedom and economic and other Integration benifits Most in those areas would not mind to negoitate a terms of Union. Like the kashmiris did earlier and Indian establishment (with active suppourt of most Indians) aborgated the agreements.

However the stand of most Indians is not moral. It is justfies all wrong for the maintance of Union of India.

My being muslim does not answers the questions raised. Ask yourselves another question. If you were a Sri Lankan would you welcome India taking over the country for the same reasons as are being put across for 50 years for forcing a few people into the Union on the terms of the majority.

It is because most Indians have not come to grips with these questions and have not formulated the answers that India continues to in conflict with itself for more than 50 years.

If a dozen soldiers are killed in Nagaland or a hundred in Kahsmir or if thousands of civillians are killed there then before we debate the actions of all the actors in the areas let us ask ourselves how are is our actions/reasonsing/Idea of India is contributing to those deaths.

Put yourselves in the place of the families of those killed and you will realise that how criticaly our thinking has affected them.

If you explore these questions you will surely come up with morally right answers and if you are convinced that the Idea of India is right then you will go about making it as attractive as possible and as logical to all. Out of this thinking will arise more accomodation.

Just do a experiment and ask these questions to a group of Indians. Analyse the answers you will be surprised what you find. Try it. Not many are likely to call you a traitor (at the most they may call you a communist or a appeaser).

Ref: #138 by faisaluno #139 by tahmed32

If you are in the kitchen - you should be prepared to take the heat. If you are going to lie and spin facts in a public forum then you should be prepared to face the rebuffs. Pretending not to read the opposing arugments is not going to impress any one.

As I see it, Mr Ahmed doesn`t have the courage to read the posts that expose his lies and ignorance. He prefers to run away, sometimes throws a few hyberboles or calls the other guy a ``fool``. But it doesn`t matter - this is a public message board and others would read the exchanges.

To be sure - atleast one guy(faisaluno) did. He probably realised how Mr Ahmed`s arguments have been thoroughly junked. Apparently, being a fellow Pakistani, he didn`t like it and urged Mr Ahmed to be give a ``Muh Tor Jawab``.

Unfortuantely, Mr Ahmed is NOT in a position to give a ``jawab`` - ``muh tor`` or otherwise.

faisaluno #138 I see what happens :-)
Our dear Mr. Mohar11 has now written his third post to me, which (as I had promised him earlier) remains unread. He is getting practice with his writing skills, and impressing himself with whatever he writes. I find it flattering to have such a dedicated fan like Mr. Mohar11 who keeps on writing and writing and writing in hopes that I will read what he wrote and perhaps even respond.
Mr. Mohar11 is happy. I am happy. No need for a muN tor Jawab. (As the saying goes, give a fool a long enough rope and he will hang himself. Not that I consider our esteemed Mr. Mohar11 to be smart as to be a fool.

tahmed32 sahib:

see what happens when you dont give ``mu tor jawab``.

#135,136 by tahmed32
//.............I am not trying to draw any moral comparisons between BJP and Musharaff................India has the means to provide its own distinct leadership in an area the world badly needs today - that of non-violence.................I just mention this in passing as my own view on what a great nation is truly all about...//

Well, well - Look who is talking about ``non-violence``, ``moral equivalence`` and best of all ``how to make great nations``. Now Ahmed Mian thinks BJP is ``morally`` superior to Musharaf. ( Even the most ardent supporter of BJP couldn`t come up with this gem ). He is also so full of wisdom on how to make a ``great nation``. The most hilarious of all is his sudden awakening about India and non-violence: it seems the world today needs India`s leadership to promote non-violence. Wow !!

This guy started with stating how bad India is, how Indians ``stimulated`` innocent pakis to get nukes and how BJP is the evil that nuclearised the subcontinet. when confronted with facts - look how he back-tracks without so much of an apology for the lies he spouted earlier.

Like Mushy - Ahmed Mian is master of tactical U-turns. By no means he is convinced of what he said here. He will be back in some other board again spouting the same old lies until he is confronted again.

Shammi #132 Good to hear from you. I see you are wiser than me in terms of not spending so much time on chowk trying to fix the world, but it does provide a nice break. :-)
I am not trying to draw any moral comparisons between BJP and Musharaff. The former came to power through due process, the latter did not. To compare the two would be to compare apples and oranges. However, that does not mean that Indian governments, and particularly BJP, have done as much as they could have in providing leadership and promoting peace in the subcontinent. I think you are more familiar with subcontinent politics than I am, and can think of many examples to support this point. That is all I am saying. Hope this makes sense.

AlephNull #126 I think it is a fine goal to make India ``developed, wealthy, productive, secure``, and as a Pakistani I think that would certainly improve the entire neighborhood in the subcontinent. All I am saying is, that a similarly ``developed, wealthy, productive, secure`` Pakistan is in India`s interest as well, and for the same reason and that the Indian government could do more to this end. My concern is that hatreds and emotions, coupled with narrow political interests of the governments in power, prevents them from seeing things in the same light.
And again, I am not drawing any moral equivalence between the two governments, as I mentioned to Shammi in the response I just sent. But such irrational hatreds and vengeful thinking and suspicions (justified or not) exists as much among elected officials in India (I think) as it does among self-appointed folks in Pakistan and (as I think you will agree) it exists among many chowk interactors from both sides.
Also, let us be clear that the above goals, while realistic, are not sufficient to make a nation a great nation (as opposed to a mere great power). A great nation contributes something to the rest of humanity. The US is a great nation for having contributed so much to democratic ideals, science and economic progress across the world. Other nations benefit from this, but remain followers and not leaders. India has the means to provide its own distinct leadership in an area the world badly needs today - that of non-violence. I am not saying how this would translate into internal and external policies of India. I just mention this in passing as my own view on what a great nation is truly all about.

re:#122 by tahmed32
Thanks for your input.
Sridhar

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

Re: Tahmed321
How are you? My participation on Chowk has been steadily in decline because I find the same old tired rhetoric going back and forth, and rarely do I find anything new (or `out of the box`) as you put it. Your comment (coming from a thoughtful person) caught my attention, `One can blame pakistani generals for sabotaging the lahore peace process and thereby giving rise to extremists in BJP. But one can also blame successive Indian governments for painting all of pakistan with the same brush, and not making any real efforts to strengthen the case of those who wish to see peace and democracy prevail in Pakistan. That would be true statesmanship on the part of the Indian rulers, and ultimately to the benefit of India itself.`
While there is much to be criticized in the BJP over matters of damaging India`s secular polity and for polarizing public opinion, it would be incorrect to draw moral equivalence between Pakistani generals and `successive Indian governments` over the matter of provoking Indo-Pak spats, especially in the last decade. On this, I hope that you will agree. Even Republican think tanks are beginning to appreciate Indian restraint in the face of frequent Pakistani provocations (http://www.aei.org/nso/nso14664.htm). If nuclear war breaks out in the subcontinent, it will likely be triggered by another outrageous terror attack at an Indian target (e.g. Parliament) or the hypothetical assasination of George Fernandes by Lashkar-e-Toiba (as BBC4 recently simulated http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/situation-room/index.shtml). These are provocative acts that Pakistani generals have shown callous disregard towards curbing, and the Western world`s thought leaders seems to be agreeing with the Indian position. I recall that you once stated after the Parliament attack that India should work `like the US with Pakistani generals to restore democracy`. It seems that the US, too, is beginning to get tired of this fiction (as the recent exchange of fire on the Durand line between US-Pak forces seemed to indicate, and by the stringent new INS procedures). If the US, a vastly greater power than India, finds it difficult to work with Musharraf, what then to say about Indian `statesmen`? Musharraf made a statement today that he thinks that Pakistan will find itself in Western cross-hairs in the future. That, to me, is indicative of the fact that rather than fully cooperate, he seems to be entertaining the possibility of confrontation with the West. In the current environment, that is an outrightly foolish thing to say. Not even the looniest minister in Vajpayee`s Cabinet will say a thing like that publicly.
Do you think that if the BBC4 scenario pans out (in which the actors were former senior Administration officials), India would have been `deterred` or that rather than make war unthinkable, nuclear weapons only made it deadlier? All this is happening when it is patently clear what Pakistani generals have to do: shut down the jehadis for good, and introduce democracy, and cooperate with everyone concerned in doing so. Yet, Musharraf is entertaining hairy schemes of `confronting the West`. I also know that you have in the past pleaded helplessness in exerting influence over Musharraf. We understand that. But, what is inexplicable is `but, Indian governments are equally unresponsible` line. I do not for a minute condone BJP`s positions on domestic politics and their role in Gujarat, but it would be a travesty if anyone were to think that (a) the Opposition (barring Communists) would have reacted any differently to Pakistani provocations (remember: BJP had the full support of the Opposition in Kargil, and in last year`s buildup -- there was not a single dissenting voice), and (b) as the frequent provocateurs, Pakistani generals are as morally culpable as Indian leaders. (Note: I am not saying that Indian leaders are saints, but on one score they have acted responsibly: i.e, of not provoking a neighbor through actions at Lahore, Kargil, Agra, releasing murderous thugs, giving them run scot-free, not charging them with serious crimes, etc.).
If tomorrow, Indian restraint gives way to adventurism, what do you think would have been India`s response to Kargil, Parliament attack, etc.?

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