Islam in Crisis (Part2)
Rasheed Talib February 19, 2003
#81 Posted by shankar on February 23, 2003 2:07:51 pm
feroz,
#77
Insightful post. I`ve heard a lot of suggestions on Chowk by Pakistanis about what needs to happen in Pakistan, for conditions to improve & become the kind of state Jinnah envisioned.
But let me ask your personal opinion...go out on a limb & predict the future; based on Pakistan`s weaknesses & strenghts. I find your opinions a little more realistic than my friend Romair`s Polyannish predictions:)
#77
Insightful post. I`ve heard a lot of suggestions on Chowk by Pakistanis about what needs to happen in Pakistan, for conditions to improve & become the kind of state Jinnah envisioned.
But let me ask your personal opinion...go out on a limb & predict the future; based on Pakistan`s weaknesses & strenghts. I find your opinions a little more realistic than my friend Romair`s Polyannish predictions:)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by sadna on February 23, 2003 2:07:51 pm
ferozk #78
The common element between the Salem witch hunts, the McCarthy era, the empowerment of Islamic hardliners and Hindootva goondaism is the assumption and presumption of piety by a few SOLELY because they are willing to denounce and punish others.
Willingness to denounce is such a transparently fake and simple device to acquire piety and moral overlordship that I wonder what are the kind of conditions in a society when people allow this fake device to succeed ?
For example send people to die for jihad while you yourself prosper and your children get US- educated? Shut down musical shows in the name of public morality and adherence to scripture and then become a pimp for the out-of-work singers(Taliban/NWFP)? Kill innocent men, women and children and create an atmosphere of fear and hatred, setting back your country`s political development, and economy while putting millions of children in danger of losing their future due to civil unrest and call it `nationalism`(hindootva goons).
The common element between the Salem witch hunts, the McCarthy era, the empowerment of Islamic hardliners and Hindootva goondaism is the assumption and presumption of piety by a few SOLELY because they are willing to denounce and punish others.
Willingness to denounce is such a transparently fake and simple device to acquire piety and moral overlordship that I wonder what are the kind of conditions in a society when people allow this fake device to succeed ?
For example send people to die for jihad while you yourself prosper and your children get US- educated? Shut down musical shows in the name of public morality and adherence to scripture and then become a pimp for the out-of-work singers(Taliban/NWFP)? Kill innocent men, women and children and create an atmosphere of fear and hatred, setting back your country`s political development, and economy while putting millions of children in danger of losing their future due to civil unrest and call it `nationalism`(hindootva goons).
#83 Posted by hamidm2 on February 23, 2003 5:50:15 pm
nasah,
........i think you are on to something - except for commandmant #4 ............ 25% is too steep even if it is tax deductable ............ how about 10% ? ........ jazak allah khair !
........i think you are on to something - except for commandmant #4 ............ 25% is too steep even if it is tax deductable ............ how about 10% ? ........ jazak allah khair !
#84 Posted by harimau on February 23, 2003 5:50:15 pm
Ref Ashit Urshit Dickshit
[#82 by shankar on February 23, 2003 2:07pm PT
feroz, #77
Insightful post.
#67 by shankar on February 22, 2003 9:39am PT
ferozk, #55
Outstanding post!]
What is this? Let-me-kiss-Feroze`s-a$$-week on Chowk?
[#82 by shankar on February 23, 2003 2:07pm PT
feroz, #77
Insightful post.
#67 by shankar on February 22, 2003 9:39am PT
ferozk, #55
Outstanding post!]
What is this? Let-me-kiss-Feroze`s-a$$-week on Chowk?
#85 Posted by nasah on February 23, 2003 6:28:36 pm
``25% is too steep even if it is tax deductable ............ how about 10%``(hamidm)
agreed -- 10% it is -- no science then only Evolution -- that should do it....
agreed -- 10% it is -- no science then only Evolution -- that should do it....
#86 Posted by tahmed32 on February 23, 2003 7:28:51 pm
nasah #80 The early west european monks (around 9th century AD) had similarly improved on the ten commandments by adding the following restrictions for all christians: Thou shalt not have sex during holy days, pregnancy, breast feeding, nor on Monday, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. This met with popular discontent and had to be taken back.
#87 Posted by nasah on February 23, 2003 7:29:41 pm
``25% is too steep even if it is tax deductable ............ how about 10%``(hamidm)
hamidm:
agreed -- 10% it is -- no science then only Evolution -- that should do it....
hamidm:
agreed -- 10% it is -- no science then only Evolution -- that should do it....
#88 Posted by ferozk on February 23, 2003 9:27:53 pm
Re: Shankar # 82
Shankar, that is a very difficult question to answer.
In short, Pakistan`s future depends on the internal situation within the country and in the immediate sense, on the geo-political realities in the regions of Central Asia, South Asia and West Asia. In the long term, it depends on its relations with India, because Indian-Pakistani relationship is the only constant in this ever changing equation. Pakistan cannot, in a pragmatic sense, compete with India in a power struggle, but it cannot also appease India unconditionally. The best option is then to evolve a modus vivendi type of relationship and this suggests that Pakistan has to redirect the scope and the intent of its foreign policy. Religion has to be brutally removed from its foreign policy and its external relations have to be solidily reinforced on the premise of ``calucalated realism`` and not dictated by shallow emotionalisms to idealistic and utopian causes. Pakistan`s foreign policy has to create ``buffers of insularities`` around Pakistan, which allows Pakistan to disengage from its maximalist foreign policy aims. Pakistan needs to adopt, in a sense, a foreign policy, which allows it a regional stability that enables its domestic politics to reconstruct themselves institutionally by instilling democratic norms in the country.
This ties in with its domestic situation. The domestic politics in Pakistan are in a state of flux; there is a power vacuum in Pakistan and as result, the political situation in the country is chaotic. It is this power vacuum - lack of a viable centralized political authority, which encourages an externalized influence in Pakistani politics. Pakistani polity is fissured and fractured, and its domestic discourse is based on confrontational politics intead of consensual politics. Domestic stability in Pakistan and a steady progression towards domestic democratic prcess is only possible, when there is no external influence in Pakistani politics. The removal of this extenal influence will allow Pakistan ``a window``, which will allow the process to evolve. The problem in Pakistan is that its politics is a Frankenstein of conterdictions and no democracy has evolved in Pakistan, because it has always been sacrificed on the alter of national security interests.
Therein lies lies the problem. Pakistani domestic politics are the extensions of the foreign policies of its chief patron; the United States. The United States has always been willing to short circuit the democratic process in Pakistan in order to attain its strategic aims. The end result of this has been that Pakistan`s political evolution has always sough to balance short term American interests with long term Pakistani interests. In this Pakistan has suffered, because its interests were always suborindated to the American interests and it has only itself to blame for this situation.
Pakistan entered into this relationship on unrealistic expections and sought to use the patronage of United States vis-a-vis India and hence, from the onset it created the impression that this was a relationship of opportunity and not a strategic alliance. Based on this assumption, the United States exploited Pakistan for its own needs. Secondly, Pakistan never diversified its relations and opted to keep all its eggs in the American basket. This made Pakistan a defacto protectorate of the United States and this was made even worse by the fact that Pakistan, instead of developing a sense of political and economic independence, instead became more dependent on the United States for its political survival.
(second part to follow)
Shankar, that is a very difficult question to answer.
In short, Pakistan`s future depends on the internal situation within the country and in the immediate sense, on the geo-political realities in the regions of Central Asia, South Asia and West Asia. In the long term, it depends on its relations with India, because Indian-Pakistani relationship is the only constant in this ever changing equation. Pakistan cannot, in a pragmatic sense, compete with India in a power struggle, but it cannot also appease India unconditionally. The best option is then to evolve a modus vivendi type of relationship and this suggests that Pakistan has to redirect the scope and the intent of its foreign policy. Religion has to be brutally removed from its foreign policy and its external relations have to be solidily reinforced on the premise of ``calucalated realism`` and not dictated by shallow emotionalisms to idealistic and utopian causes. Pakistan`s foreign policy has to create ``buffers of insularities`` around Pakistan, which allows Pakistan to disengage from its maximalist foreign policy aims. Pakistan needs to adopt, in a sense, a foreign policy, which allows it a regional stability that enables its domestic politics to reconstruct themselves institutionally by instilling democratic norms in the country.
This ties in with its domestic situation. The domestic politics in Pakistan are in a state of flux; there is a power vacuum in Pakistan and as result, the political situation in the country is chaotic. It is this power vacuum - lack of a viable centralized political authority, which encourages an externalized influence in Pakistani politics. Pakistani polity is fissured and fractured, and its domestic discourse is based on confrontational politics intead of consensual politics. Domestic stability in Pakistan and a steady progression towards domestic democratic prcess is only possible, when there is no external influence in Pakistani politics. The removal of this extenal influence will allow Pakistan ``a window``, which will allow the process to evolve. The problem in Pakistan is that its politics is a Frankenstein of conterdictions and no democracy has evolved in Pakistan, because it has always been sacrificed on the alter of national security interests.
Therein lies lies the problem. Pakistani domestic politics are the extensions of the foreign policies of its chief patron; the United States. The United States has always been willing to short circuit the democratic process in Pakistan in order to attain its strategic aims. The end result of this has been that Pakistan`s political evolution has always sough to balance short term American interests with long term Pakistani interests. In this Pakistan has suffered, because its interests were always suborindated to the American interests and it has only itself to blame for this situation.
Pakistan entered into this relationship on unrealistic expections and sought to use the patronage of United States vis-a-vis India and hence, from the onset it created the impression that this was a relationship of opportunity and not a strategic alliance. Based on this assumption, the United States exploited Pakistan for its own needs. Secondly, Pakistan never diversified its relations and opted to keep all its eggs in the American basket. This made Pakistan a defacto protectorate of the United States and this was made even worse by the fact that Pakistan, instead of developing a sense of political and economic independence, instead became more dependent on the United States for its political survival.
(second part to follow)
#89 Posted by nasah on February 23, 2003 9:27:53 pm
tahmed:
do you think this -- take it easy Islam -- will fly or meet with popular discontent?
do you think this -- take it easy Islam -- will fly or meet with popular discontent?
#90 Posted by arjun_m on February 24, 2003 7:09:39 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#91 Posted by tahmed32 on February 24, 2003 7:09:39 am
nasah #88 I assume by ``take it easy Islam`` you mean one which says ``Thou shalt have a good laugh once a day``, ``Thou shalt watch a good movie twice a month``, and ``Thou shalt go with thine woman to the beach, or to the hills, once a year``. I dont think anyone shall complain (particularly if we add ``Thou shalt eat more than thine potbelly can hold`` and that will keep the maulvis happy).
#92 Posted by ferozk on February 24, 2003 7:09:47 am
Re: Shankar # 82 (part II)
Hence, Pakistan`s future depends on its ability to carve an independent role for itself outside the gambit of United States` interests. As long as Pakistan maintains its dependency on the United States, it will never progress economically or politically into a viable nation state. Pakistan has to realize that its future lies not in parroting the intentions of the United States, but in ending its confrontational politics with India and building a strategic economic alliance with India first, then translating that alliance into a mutually benefitting political cooperation with India.
In all fairness, Pervez Musharraf seems to have realized this fact; that Pakistan`s future lies in creating a workable, durable relationship with India and using its ties and influence with the Arab/Muslim world to open South Asia as a potential world market, which intergrates the economies of Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and to an extent, Sri Lanka into a common market. The failure of Kargil convinced the Pakistani military that a military solution to Kashmir is not an option and secondly, since 1990s Pakistan military`s threat perception has focused internally rather than externally on India.
Pakistan`s future then lies in its ability to develop its interests in this sphere, but to achieve this, it has to undertake the following policies. These policies are feasible, but improbable given the dynamics of Pakistani politics. First, Pakistan must give India the Most Favored Nation Status in trade and remove all barriers and subsidies in its bilateral trade with India. India has to recipocate by showing a willingness to settle the issue of Kashmir and both counties have to remove the cul-de-sac of pre-conditions in dealing with one another.
Second, Pakistan has to move away from its tacit and overt, some times covert, support of the militancy in Kashmir. In this sense, Pakistan is not as guility as India might assume, because the militancy is flamed to a significant degree by excesses of the Indian security forces in Kashmir and again, India must move beyond the rhetoric of its domestic politics and deal with Kashmir. India can more effectively deal with the problem and end the militancy by removing the cause for its raison d` etre - lack of political representation. India has admited that it cannot stop cross border movement of militants, and neither can Pakistan realistically given the terrain in Kashmir. India, if it gives political representation to the Kashmiris will thus remove all support to the militancy and therefore, checkmate Pakistan in the region and thus force Pakistan to actively seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
The irony is that Pakistan`s future depends on India`s ability to realistically grasp the gravity of the situation in Kashmir, because the solution to Kashmiri problem lies with India and not Pakistan. So far, India seems to be banking on Pakistan to end the militancy, but Pakistan once having created the monster of militancy, is now dealing with a bitter consequence that it is no longer capble of controlling it.
Third, Pakistani military, economic and political elite have to marginalize the American influence within Pakistan. The foremost concern is the Pakistani armed forces and in this regard, the Pakistan Air Force is moving towards closer military intergration with the China, while Pakistan Navy is moving towards China and France for its needs. Pakistan Army so far has been slow to shed its pro-American bias, but there seems to be definate movement in the army towards limiting the religious influence of the Zia years and re-instituting the concept of secularism in the military. The end result of this is still 20 to 40 years away, but a start has been made. Without much fanfare or notice, an order from GHO in Rawalpindi stated the cadets at the Pakistani military academy at Kakul will no longer have time off from their training for prayers.
Pakistani army is creating, or in the process of creating, an officer corps that is loyal to Pakistan and its interests, but this process in order to be successful must have a resolution of the Kashmiri problem, which removes the influence of Pakistani army from domestic politics.
The bureaucracy has to become Pakistan specfic and the selections to it, have to be made on merit. This process was started last year, but the end result is still 30 years away. It will take 30 years for the batch of 2002 to attain cabinet level grades, when they can influence policy decisions. It is too early to predict Pakistan`s future, because the reforms under Musharraf will not show their results, that is if they are not side tracked, until the next 30 plus years. The economic reforms of the military government of Musharraf, implemented in 1999, have only now in 2003 began to show glimmers of a good result and those results are encouraging.
Thus, to answer your question, the future will become self-evident by the latter half the 21st century and it is still too early to predict Pakistan`s future. However, if ``trends `n` intents`` are discussed, then Musharraf and his reformist agenda is the last best hope for Pakistan. Those who hope for a Pakistani future in the image of Jinnah`s dream will be sorely disappointed, because too much proverbial water has flown under the bridge for Pakistan to revert to the innocence of 1947.
Pakistan and Pakistanis have to realize this one fact, before Pakistan has even a hope a better future. This is; Pakistan, as it exists today, was created in 1971 and not 1947. Pakistan, which was created in 1947 ended with seperatation of East Pakistan in 1971 and in its place a new nation was created in 1971. This new nation of Pakistan must not repeat the mistakes of the old Pakistan, otherwise the results will be the same and that, the politicans and the provinces in Pakistan have to learn to accomodate dissent and not seek to silence dissent by the use of force. Pakistan and its political leadership, both military and civilian, has to learn to respect and not fear the opinion of its population.
This is a must, because the Pakistani political elite, military and civilian, has always sacrificed public opinion in order to safe guard its own power. Pakistani elite must learn to tolerate the opinion of the people and not presume paternalistically, what is best for the country. This implies the earth shattering realization that the political elite of Pakistan must follow judgement of the people of Pakistan and not the interests of the United States. The cruel irony is that the majority of the Pakistanis are of the opinion that future of Pakistan lies in the region, but the majority of the elite opines that the future of Pakistan lies with the United States, because they have become so dependent on the United States that they identify their future, with the United States. This ideal is not shared by the majority, because they have never historically benefited from this relationship of unequals, between Pakistan and the United States.
Not to put a too fine a point, the ultimate future of Pakistan depends on who wins this agrument. Basically, the future of Pakistan does not lie with the United States; it lies with India and sooner the Pakistani people and the Indian government realize this, the region will prosper! To deny this will only cause problems and this can be attributed towards the last 55 years` uneasy peace. The tragedy is that the Indians seemed to have, once, realize this, but the Pakistanis were resistant to this idea. When the Pakistanis accepted the envitability of this idea, the Indian government had a change of heart! LOL
Ciao
Hence, Pakistan`s future depends on its ability to carve an independent role for itself outside the gambit of United States` interests. As long as Pakistan maintains its dependency on the United States, it will never progress economically or politically into a viable nation state. Pakistan has to realize that its future lies not in parroting the intentions of the United States, but in ending its confrontational politics with India and building a strategic economic alliance with India first, then translating that alliance into a mutually benefitting political cooperation with India.
In all fairness, Pervez Musharraf seems to have realized this fact; that Pakistan`s future lies in creating a workable, durable relationship with India and using its ties and influence with the Arab/Muslim world to open South Asia as a potential world market, which intergrates the economies of Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and to an extent, Sri Lanka into a common market. The failure of Kargil convinced the Pakistani military that a military solution to Kashmir is not an option and secondly, since 1990s Pakistan military`s threat perception has focused internally rather than externally on India.
Pakistan`s future then lies in its ability to develop its interests in this sphere, but to achieve this, it has to undertake the following policies. These policies are feasible, but improbable given the dynamics of Pakistani politics. First, Pakistan must give India the Most Favored Nation Status in trade and remove all barriers and subsidies in its bilateral trade with India. India has to recipocate by showing a willingness to settle the issue of Kashmir and both counties have to remove the cul-de-sac of pre-conditions in dealing with one another.
Second, Pakistan has to move away from its tacit and overt, some times covert, support of the militancy in Kashmir. In this sense, Pakistan is not as guility as India might assume, because the militancy is flamed to a significant degree by excesses of the Indian security forces in Kashmir and again, India must move beyond the rhetoric of its domestic politics and deal with Kashmir. India can more effectively deal with the problem and end the militancy by removing the cause for its raison d` etre - lack of political representation. India has admited that it cannot stop cross border movement of militants, and neither can Pakistan realistically given the terrain in Kashmir. India, if it gives political representation to the Kashmiris will thus remove all support to the militancy and therefore, checkmate Pakistan in the region and thus force Pakistan to actively seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
The irony is that Pakistan`s future depends on India`s ability to realistically grasp the gravity of the situation in Kashmir, because the solution to Kashmiri problem lies with India and not Pakistan. So far, India seems to be banking on Pakistan to end the militancy, but Pakistan once having created the monster of militancy, is now dealing with a bitter consequence that it is no longer capble of controlling it.
Third, Pakistani military, economic and political elite have to marginalize the American influence within Pakistan. The foremost concern is the Pakistani armed forces and in this regard, the Pakistan Air Force is moving towards closer military intergration with the China, while Pakistan Navy is moving towards China and France for its needs. Pakistan Army so far has been slow to shed its pro-American bias, but there seems to be definate movement in the army towards limiting the religious influence of the Zia years and re-instituting the concept of secularism in the military. The end result of this is still 20 to 40 years away, but a start has been made. Without much fanfare or notice, an order from GHO in Rawalpindi stated the cadets at the Pakistani military academy at Kakul will no longer have time off from their training for prayers.
Pakistani army is creating, or in the process of creating, an officer corps that is loyal to Pakistan and its interests, but this process in order to be successful must have a resolution of the Kashmiri problem, which removes the influence of Pakistani army from domestic politics.
The bureaucracy has to become Pakistan specfic and the selections to it, have to be made on merit. This process was started last year, but the end result is still 30 years away. It will take 30 years for the batch of 2002 to attain cabinet level grades, when they can influence policy decisions. It is too early to predict Pakistan`s future, because the reforms under Musharraf will not show their results, that is if they are not side tracked, until the next 30 plus years. The economic reforms of the military government of Musharraf, implemented in 1999, have only now in 2003 began to show glimmers of a good result and those results are encouraging.
Thus, to answer your question, the future will become self-evident by the latter half the 21st century and it is still too early to predict Pakistan`s future. However, if ``trends `n` intents`` are discussed, then Musharraf and his reformist agenda is the last best hope for Pakistan. Those who hope for a Pakistani future in the image of Jinnah`s dream will be sorely disappointed, because too much proverbial water has flown under the bridge for Pakistan to revert to the innocence of 1947.
Pakistan and Pakistanis have to realize this one fact, before Pakistan has even a hope a better future. This is; Pakistan, as it exists today, was created in 1971 and not 1947. Pakistan, which was created in 1947 ended with seperatation of East Pakistan in 1971 and in its place a new nation was created in 1971. This new nation of Pakistan must not repeat the mistakes of the old Pakistan, otherwise the results will be the same and that, the politicans and the provinces in Pakistan have to learn to accomodate dissent and not seek to silence dissent by the use of force. Pakistan and its political leadership, both military and civilian, has to learn to respect and not fear the opinion of its population.
This is a must, because the Pakistani political elite, military and civilian, has always sacrificed public opinion in order to safe guard its own power. Pakistani elite must learn to tolerate the opinion of the people and not presume paternalistically, what is best for the country. This implies the earth shattering realization that the political elite of Pakistan must follow judgement of the people of Pakistan and not the interests of the United States. The cruel irony is that the majority of the Pakistanis are of the opinion that future of Pakistan lies in the region, but the majority of the elite opines that the future of Pakistan lies with the United States, because they have become so dependent on the United States that they identify their future, with the United States. This ideal is not shared by the majority, because they have never historically benefited from this relationship of unequals, between Pakistan and the United States.
Not to put a too fine a point, the ultimate future of Pakistan depends on who wins this agrument. Basically, the future of Pakistan does not lie with the United States; it lies with India and sooner the Pakistani people and the Indian government realize this, the region will prosper! To deny this will only cause problems and this can be attributed towards the last 55 years` uneasy peace. The tragedy is that the Indians seemed to have, once, realize this, but the Pakistanis were resistant to this idea. When the Pakistanis accepted the envitability of this idea, the Indian government had a change of heart! LOL
Ciao
#93 Posted by shankar on February 24, 2003 7:09:47 am
feroz,
Lemme focus on one important aspect of your analysis.
If Pakistan`s development is highly contingent on its relationship to India, then the onus is on Pakistan to give in on Kashmir. If it grudgingly acknowledges that it cannot compete with India head to head--not with the state of affairs its in; it has ZERO hopes to see Kashmir ``liberated``.
At the VERY BEST, Pakistan can get an agreement that the LoC is the permanent border & get on with more important things like feeding & educating her people. But the LoC as the permanent border will be NEVER accepted by Pakistan`s military; so Pakistan is SCREWED.
Mushy himself summed it up in an interview. He was asked ``Why cant the LoC be accepted as an international border?`` His reply was (or something to the effect of); ``then it would mean that the lives of all our brave military & ``Kashmiri freedom fighters``, who died fighting, would have been in vain!`` He`s right! Thats EXACTLY how a military mind THINKS. If ANY Pakistani leader DARES to say otherwise, will be booted out . If Mushy EVER agreed to such a ``strategic U-turn`` on Kashmir; he`d be courtmartialled by his own military--or better yet; they would make the ``this-e-thats`` hang him from the nearest flagpole!
Ergo, Pakistan is in a Catch-22 situation; its trapped & CANT & WONT be free from that trap.
Right, wrong or indifferent, India has made it VERY CLEAR that they will NOT give in to the war of a 1000 cuts. India is too large a country with a huge economy to be bled in such a way. Despite that ``war of a 1000 cuts`` & US sanctions & a drought, her economy has/had been doing reasonably well. The Indians know that. Its an open secret that India can & is willing to ride this jehadi war out; cos India knows Pakistan is bleeding as well with this ``war`` & Pakistan CANT afford to bleed like that! And our favourite Field Marshall thinks that wars are fought only on a military battlefield! Maybe he should have listened to Churchill who said, ``war is too important an enterprise to be left in the hands of the military``. If theres anything the Pakistani military is ``world famous`` for, its LOSING wars! ....but damnit! theyre too proud to even ADMIT it!:)
Whats equally important is that the ENTIRE world (including the traditional friends of Pakistan) are REFUSING to twist India`s arm on Kashmir. Heck, recently, Pakistan had to threaten to resign from the OIC if they didnt continue to discus Kashmir. Even China & India are strenghtening relationships--even while border disputes are going on! Now when in the world will some Pakistani leader become a little more ``mature`` & see the handwriting on the wall?!---too bad; if he becomes a little more ``mature``, he`ll probably be killed!
Even the ``captive`` Kashmiris are resigned to that fact. What Pakistan doesnt have the guts to acknowledge is that Indian Kashmiris detest the ``freedom fighters`` almost as much as the Indian army. Have they been following the political developments in IOK?...NO! Mushy is so much in denial that the brushed off the Kashmiri elections as a ``farce``...haha! I think he really really believes that only HE knows how to run a ``proper`` election in S.Asia!!
So---whats it going to be; Pakistan?
1)Keep with the status quo & sink into a pile of goo & say ``at least we have kept our honor!``
Lemme tell you that India is no Asian Tiger, but she`s definitely on much firmer ground than Pakistan...mainly cos of her size; a better educated public & much more solid institutions. She is far more optimistic about her future than Pakistan is. Spin it any way you want; but facts are facts...
Lemme also tell you that Indian muslims arent feeling secure---BUT they are not lining up in front of the Pakistani embassy to immigrate. If anything, Indian muslims feel Pakistan is hurting, not helping their sense of security.
OR
2) Get your thumb out of your butt, Pakistan & change your ziddi re Kashmir; its better for your country, in the long run....
Get a grip on reality & realise that those brahmins in Delhi have outclassed you. When you say Kashmir is the CORE issue; Indians are LAUGHING at you! The rest of the world is just being polite to you. Your ummah gives you murmurs of sympathy & they come to India & snicker behind your back! Its not JUST the shia mullahs from Iran...its secular Turkey, & sunni Arabs too! If Yasser Arafat hasnt denounced Kashmir or Godhra, what HOPE do you have?
Please wake up to REALITY, Pakistan....your Muslim friends LIKE you, but they dont RESPECT you! So much for Mushy`s claim of ``living with honor!``. The sad part is that, subconciously, he KNOWS it....thats why he goes to Putin to open a ``historic`` doorway, which is met with much allocades in the Pakistani press. Nevermind that Putin called Vaju the day before & said ``dont worry Vaju, I`ll just humor this guy while he`s here!``
Guess what, Pakistan?!....the ONLY power that unconditionally supports your stand in Kashmir is...GASP..AL-QEEDA!!!!
Is it any surprise that you find yourself so isolated today?!
Ooooh...I wish Field Marshall reads this post...I just enjoy turning his face purple...maybe he`ll come out with some nice poems from Ghalib!!:ROLF
Lemme focus on one important aspect of your analysis.
If Pakistan`s development is highly contingent on its relationship to India, then the onus is on Pakistan to give in on Kashmir. If it grudgingly acknowledges that it cannot compete with India head to head--not with the state of affairs its in; it has ZERO hopes to see Kashmir ``liberated``.
At the VERY BEST, Pakistan can get an agreement that the LoC is the permanent border & get on with more important things like feeding & educating her people. But the LoC as the permanent border will be NEVER accepted by Pakistan`s military; so Pakistan is SCREWED.
Mushy himself summed it up in an interview. He was asked ``Why cant the LoC be accepted as an international border?`` His reply was (or something to the effect of); ``then it would mean that the lives of all our brave military & ``Kashmiri freedom fighters``, who died fighting, would have been in vain!`` He`s right! Thats EXACTLY how a military mind THINKS. If ANY Pakistani leader DARES to say otherwise, will be booted out . If Mushy EVER agreed to such a ``strategic U-turn`` on Kashmir; he`d be courtmartialled by his own military--or better yet; they would make the ``this-e-thats`` hang him from the nearest flagpole!
Ergo, Pakistan is in a Catch-22 situation; its trapped & CANT & WONT be free from that trap.
Right, wrong or indifferent, India has made it VERY CLEAR that they will NOT give in to the war of a 1000 cuts. India is too large a country with a huge economy to be bled in such a way. Despite that ``war of a 1000 cuts`` & US sanctions & a drought, her economy has/had been doing reasonably well. The Indians know that. Its an open secret that India can & is willing to ride this jehadi war out; cos India knows Pakistan is bleeding as well with this ``war`` & Pakistan CANT afford to bleed like that! And our favourite Field Marshall thinks that wars are fought only on a military battlefield! Maybe he should have listened to Churchill who said, ``war is too important an enterprise to be left in the hands of the military``. If theres anything the Pakistani military is ``world famous`` for, its LOSING wars! ....but damnit! theyre too proud to even ADMIT it!:)
Whats equally important is that the ENTIRE world (including the traditional friends of Pakistan) are REFUSING to twist India`s arm on Kashmir. Heck, recently, Pakistan had to threaten to resign from the OIC if they didnt continue to discus Kashmir. Even China & India are strenghtening relationships--even while border disputes are going on! Now when in the world will some Pakistani leader become a little more ``mature`` & see the handwriting on the wall?!---too bad; if he becomes a little more ``mature``, he`ll probably be killed!
Even the ``captive`` Kashmiris are resigned to that fact. What Pakistan doesnt have the guts to acknowledge is that Indian Kashmiris detest the ``freedom fighters`` almost as much as the Indian army. Have they been following the political developments in IOK?...NO! Mushy is so much in denial that the brushed off the Kashmiri elections as a ``farce``...haha! I think he really really believes that only HE knows how to run a ``proper`` election in S.Asia!!
So---whats it going to be; Pakistan?
1)Keep with the status quo & sink into a pile of goo & say ``at least we have kept our honor!``
Lemme tell you that India is no Asian Tiger, but she`s definitely on much firmer ground than Pakistan...mainly cos of her size; a better educated public & much more solid institutions. She is far more optimistic about her future than Pakistan is. Spin it any way you want; but facts are facts...
Lemme also tell you that Indian muslims arent feeling secure---BUT they are not lining up in front of the Pakistani embassy to immigrate. If anything, Indian muslims feel Pakistan is hurting, not helping their sense of security.
OR
2) Get your thumb out of your butt, Pakistan & change your ziddi re Kashmir; its better for your country, in the long run....
Get a grip on reality & realise that those brahmins in Delhi have outclassed you. When you say Kashmir is the CORE issue; Indians are LAUGHING at you! The rest of the world is just being polite to you. Your ummah gives you murmurs of sympathy & they come to India & snicker behind your back! Its not JUST the shia mullahs from Iran...its secular Turkey, & sunni Arabs too! If Yasser Arafat hasnt denounced Kashmir or Godhra, what HOPE do you have?
Please wake up to REALITY, Pakistan....your Muslim friends LIKE you, but they dont RESPECT you! So much for Mushy`s claim of ``living with honor!``. The sad part is that, subconciously, he KNOWS it....thats why he goes to Putin to open a ``historic`` doorway, which is met with much allocades in the Pakistani press. Nevermind that Putin called Vaju the day before & said ``dont worry Vaju, I`ll just humor this guy while he`s here!``
Guess what, Pakistan?!....the ONLY power that unconditionally supports your stand in Kashmir is...GASP..AL-QEEDA!!!!
Is it any surprise that you find yourself so isolated today?!
Ooooh...I wish Field Marshall reads this post...I just enjoy turning his face purple...maybe he`ll come out with some nice poems from Ghalib!!:ROLF
#94 Posted by tahmed32 on February 24, 2003 10:34:02 am
ferozk #93 Your point about freer trade etc. with India and other neighboring countries may yield some benefits, but not much. The fact is that economic integration between paupers (and with all due respect, both India and Pakistan are among the poorest nations in the world today and will remain so in the foreseeable future, IT or no IT) has proved meaningless. Poor countries simply have nothing much to trade. That is why post-colonial attempts by third world nations at forming economic unions or free trade zones (e.g. in Africa, in Latin America, and even in case of the RCD pact between Pakistan, Iran and Turkey in th 1960`s). That is why Turkey is knocking at Europe`s doors asking to be let in, not at Iran or Syria of Armenia`s door.
The US is the best thing that could have happened to India, creating a huge and prosperous expatriate community and waking them up to new ideas that their traditional culture could never have provided. What is the sense therefore in your denying Pakistan the same benefits of association with a rich and dynamic economy like the US?
The US is the best thing that could have happened to India, creating a huge and prosperous expatriate community and waking them up to new ideas that their traditional culture could never have provided. What is the sense therefore in your denying Pakistan the same benefits of association with a rich and dynamic economy like the US?
#95 Posted by tahmed32 on February 24, 2003 11:29:55 am
shankar #92 While Churchill may have said that war is too important to be left to the generals, our Pakistani generals take care not only of war, but also of foreign policy, domestic policy, water and power infrastructure, manufacturing of corn flakes, and indeed the Pakistan Constitution itself.
Obviously Churchill never met such clever generals as ours, and knew only the stupid British generals who could not even tell the difference between a plot in a posh area in Islamabad vs. a plot in rural Baluchistan. Ha! Ha! (see, i am laughing at how stupid those British generals were).
I understand the stupid British admirals were no better either. They could never have figured out how to make millions by purchasing submarines from the French and asking the frogs to toss in ten percent at a Swiss bank account, like our brave Admiral did.
No wonder Churchill we disillusioned. He never met generals and admirals of the martial race of Pakistan.
Obviously Churchill never met such clever generals as ours, and knew only the stupid British generals who could not even tell the difference between a plot in a posh area in Islamabad vs. a plot in rural Baluchistan. Ha! Ha! (see, i am laughing at how stupid those British generals were).
I understand the stupid British admirals were no better either. They could never have figured out how to make millions by purchasing submarines from the French and asking the frogs to toss in ten percent at a Swiss bank account, like our brave Admiral did.
No wonder Churchill we disillusioned. He never met generals and admirals of the martial race of Pakistan.
#96 Posted by SameerJB on February 24, 2003 2:08:43 pm
Many things need to be changed in Pakistan for it to become a nation from a country. Islam and military establishment are top of the list. Both are inter-related and related to other problems such as imaginary identity, two-nation-theory, Islamic republic, Kashmir, military spending running Pakistan dry of its monetary resources, monopolizing every aspect of life in Pakistan and destruction repeatedly of civilian institutions.
To begin with Pakistanis should get rid of Islam from their underwears. Religions have no business sneaking into underwears. We live in the age of precise measurement in decimals and not the length of the grain of Pari brand basmati rice before cooking. The underwear is too private business to let Islam enter into it. If Pakistanis can`t get rid of Islam from underwears, reforming and limiting role of Islam in politics are just wild and dry dreams. Even if one like to live in the dream world, wet dreams are better than dry Islamic dreams.
If unmarried Pakistanis can not even have erection without worrying about sin, how can they erect civility and justice. Do justice to yourself before worrying about creating a just society. How can Pakistanis be progressive without letting some muscles to progress naturally? How can they look inside the hearts, minds, knowledge and wisdom of others when they are not supposed to even look at their own body behind the underwear?
That is why, Islam`s golden age occured during the underwear-free era. The golden age of Islam can not come back in the age of underwears and bikinis. At least, Hindusim does not enter Indians underwears, thanks in part to vegetarianism making underwears irrelevant.
The key to the future and future generations lies in the underwears. Therefore Islam is too dangerous to enter Pakistanis` underwears, no matter what Quran and Sunnah say about it.
haif uss designer underwear ki ehmia`at ghalib
jis say wabasta ho Pakistan ka mustaqbil hona
To begin with Pakistanis should get rid of Islam from their underwears. Religions have no business sneaking into underwears. We live in the age of precise measurement in decimals and not the length of the grain of Pari brand basmati rice before cooking. The underwear is too private business to let Islam enter into it. If Pakistanis can`t get rid of Islam from underwears, reforming and limiting role of Islam in politics are just wild and dry dreams. Even if one like to live in the dream world, wet dreams are better than dry Islamic dreams.
If unmarried Pakistanis can not even have erection without worrying about sin, how can they erect civility and justice. Do justice to yourself before worrying about creating a just society. How can Pakistanis be progressive without letting some muscles to progress naturally? How can they look inside the hearts, minds, knowledge and wisdom of others when they are not supposed to even look at their own body behind the underwear?
That is why, Islam`s golden age occured during the underwear-free era. The golden age of Islam can not come back in the age of underwears and bikinis. At least, Hindusim does not enter Indians underwears, thanks in part to vegetarianism making underwears irrelevant.
The key to the future and future generations lies in the underwears. Therefore Islam is too dangerous to enter Pakistanis` underwears, no matter what Quran and Sunnah say about it.
haif uss designer underwear ki ehmia`at ghalib
jis say wabasta ho Pakistan ka mustaqbil hona
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Saleem_Chauhan: the whole world is... The Future of Indo
- laddu: Re: # 40. it is... The Future of Indo
- tahmed32: and as for this... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #173 GT: In other... Pleas For Sanity as
- GT: tahmed: You are simply a... Pleas For Sanity as
- Pew_Research: Following a visit to... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #170 is to GT... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #164 "Indian chowkies offering... Pleas For Sanity as
