Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

The main difference with Kashmir is that most Pakistanis readily identify with it as part of the nation. Also a great number of people in the most populous Punjab province have Kashmiri blood. The peoples of Punjab and even the Frontier have long interacted and intermarried for as far back as anyone can remember. Wherever you go in the Punjab districts of Gujarat, Gujranwala or Narowal people will refer to the local clans and invariably Kashmiris figure among the biggest. In our district of Sialkot histories interweave with Kashmir- in fact Sialkot was once the Winter capital of Kashmir. My maternal grandmother told me of how her family migrated south to Sialkot two or three generations back. When I did relief work in Azad Kashmir the local dialect wasn`t too far off the Punjabi that we speak at home. I believe when there is peace in South Asia Kashmir will naturally realign itself with Pakistan due to historical religious and cultural links- we don`t a war to do what comes naturally. I agree that the Biharis who are stranded in Bangladesh need to be helped but it`s a different issue altogether. Settling them in Karachi will only add to chaos but now that Pakistan and Bangladesh have good relations, would it not be better to help these Biharis settle within mainstream Bangladeshi society by helping with business and job tranining there.Comparisons with Bihar and Biharis do not resonate with most Pakistanis unless they are Muhajirs in Karachi.

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

re. Sadna #445
Sadna, I don`t miss the irony of your accusing me of reading dishonestly, on the one hand, and then going on misrepresenting my position, which was clarified in #440.

Perhaps a discussion on the desearbility of a public education that encourages globalization, and on isnutitionalized `poverty`, can be kept for another day, when the air is somewhat clearer.

rgds,
PM

PM #444
The literacy rate/education profile of population is a good measure of the education opportunities available to them, and we know S. Asian countries are not overflowing with education opportunities.

There is nothing wrong with being a carpenter, there is something wrong if his education opportunities have limited the development of his potential. Your carpenter, if educated could well have been running a online business selling furniture he built and designed to customers in S. America, or have documented his traditional designs for posterity or linked up with designers to provide him modern designs.

While you seem to link defining poor HDI of a population with `looking down on someone with low HDI`.I donot see the connection between the two things. Thats is the worst possible pseudo liberal argument which goes, let them be poor, because its OK to be poor, lets not `look down` on the poor.

Its OK to be poor and uneducated if its by choice, but its not OK if someone is forced to be poor, uneducated and lacking opportunities because of the force of circumstances in a society/country/economy. A person may be poor or uneducated, but if he is so NOT by his own choice, others addressing the circumstances which forced him remain poor and uneducated are not `looking down` on him.

And as usual you are lecturing without reading the material provided. The ADB report which I quoted at the beginning of this discussion says in Section E part of which I quoted earlier, that education OPPORTUNITY is also a relevant index of human development, as is literacy:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_2.pdf

...ADB`s Povery Reduction Strategy describes poverty as a deprivation of essential assets and opportunities to which every human being is entitled. In this respect, the importance of buiding up human capital assets and enjoying access to basic education and primary health services is a given. The Mahbub-ul-Haq Centre for Human Development(MHCHD) has developed a broad index of poverty in Pakistan which takes into account deprivation in education and health, in addition to income.

.. Poverty, according to all indices, declined throughout the period[ 1970 to 1995] (with the exception of income related poverty in the 1990s which has been on the increase, but the poverty of education opportunity index has always lagged behind the other indices.In 1990, at 62 percent, poverty of education opportunitieswas almost three times the pverty of income opportunities..

..Another measure to evaluate the progress made by a country in achieving human development, as well as to make cross country comparisons, is the UNDP human development index. - (sadna-this too indexes in education- rest of quote in #421)

I donot think you will read this mail honestly either, so lets end this discussion.

re. Sadna #443:
So, your MO is when all else fails, simply ignore, eh? Nice of you to quote my #437 and make no mention of #440 which explained and qualified it.

Or maybe you don`t know the meanings of `context`? Or perhaps you didn`t know that tunnel vision can also be spelled (self) r-i-g-h-t-e-o-u-s. I suspect you`d be huffing and puffing a lot less if the critique of public education were from non-Pakistanis such as Ivan Illich, or say a certain M.K.Gandhi. Or an educationist named, say, Shilpa Jain.

You`re right about one thing though....Indians on the chowk are different from most Paksitanis here. And I share your sense of relief at that.

Earlier, several Indians termed a `terrorist` anyone making or question the `evilness` of the statement ``If members of Class X kill members of Class Y, then it would be jsutified for members of Class Y to do the same to members of Class X.

So, really, given the prevalence this curious Indian `logic` I`m not really surprised that you should interpret the suggestion that factor X not be a necessary component of Class Y as a repudiation of X altogether.

Keep it coming lady. There`s nothing quite like having your foot in your mouth to prove the other`s point!

PM #437
````Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI.``

I don`t know about Pakistan, but in India this would imply that ``its not important that he and his children be provided the OPPORTUNITY for education``

What interacting on chowk has made clear to me is Pakistan and Pakistanis live in a different world that I live in, and speak a different language and have different values. Thank goodness.

Sadna, re. 441:

Here we go again! Can you point out where I said (or implied) that anyone should be deprived of an equal opportunity for an education.

If you can say ``word twistng``, I`ll actually rehash my point. Alternatively, you could try re-reading after taking ten slow breaths. You`re quite intelligent when not hot under the collar.

Ta!

PM#440
I am sure your carpenter wouldnot mind taking any insult from you, if only you gave him your degrees in return. He is sure to know even if you don`t that his life, his livelihood options and earning capacity(also deciding what opportunities his children will have) donot improve because you say you donot look down on him.

As an empowered citizen by saying that its not important that he and his children be provided the OPPORTUNITY for education, you are already giving him the worst put down you could.

Sadna,

Surely you could recognize a tongue in cheek when you see one? The context of my statement was all-important, citing, as I did, the proclivities of the msot educated political class in Pakistan, and noting the underdeveloped reading comprehension skills of many an Indian poster on this very board --something that still astounds me... I mean... just look at the response of that joker arjun_m. You feel you could be discussing the relative strenghts of our cricket teams and he`d throw in the IITs!-- never mind that the fact that educated oversears Indians are the chief donors to the new Hindu Right. Development Indeed!)

Of course I value literacy very highly as a `common` value. (Education-- I`m really not so sure). I would still think that there IS a case (albiet a weak one) to be made for not equating it with development. My reasons have more to do with what I perceive as the cultural arrogance of the `educated`, who IMO, should not have the right to define ideas --and thus create `realities`-- like `poverty`, `development` etc. I was quite shoiced to learn lately that I was brought up in a `poor` family, and that my preliterate grandmother, bless her soul, was an `underdeveloped` human being. (following frm the logic of the HDI). So, I would scarcely feel the need to inform my unschooled carpenter friend of his `deficiency` as a human being.

I do understand the usefulness of Indexes as pointers to where emphasis must lie in social `development`, but I remain very skeptical of parochialism in this regard.

To answer your queries, I have deliberately chosen to live as little as possible off my `literacy` (and am thus in danger of sinking below the poverty line. Shudders!!) ... not because I think it an undesriable element in the leat, but because it does tend, at times, to rob one of the appreciation of the work, ethics and general worldview of those engaged in labour not dependent on their literacy.

rgds,
PM

PM #437
``Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI.``

Really. What portion of your monthly income do you derive from being literate? Are you willing to forgo this portion of your income?

How much of your personal development do you ascribe to being literate? Would it be OK with you if tomorrow you became illiterate along with your family and friends?

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

re. #431
To cry ``sophistry `` is particularly specious when the accusor has not only failed to point out a single instance of the alleged sophistry but also avoided answering questions that would show where the real inconsistencies-in-position lie.

And I see that the eye-for-an-eye ethic has now been made synonomous with terrorism. Shall we put this down to sophistry-by-ignoring-less-than-subtle-details or merely poor comprehension skills?
------------

(Chowkstaff, any idea why my old password hasn`t worked these past few days?)

HE, #various lately
Very informative posts, tank you. Als very balanced for the most part, IMHO.
Cowasjee`s cuurent cloumn (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm) should provide some insight into some of the biggest spanners in the wheel of Pakistan`s progress.

Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI. After all, remember the MQM are as a group the most educated among politcal parties. Also, looking across the border, we see an abundance of highly educated folks without the basic ability to think without being carried away by their emotions (and with awful reading skills to boot!)

Good on ya!

HisExcellency #various

Thanks for your detailed replies. Hope you realise there are alternate explanations given of the dismissals of BB and NS as well as the reason and aftermath of Kargil and the 1965 war( I am not talking of the Indian press), and the pro-Pakistani Army POV on this and Pakistan`s Kashmir policy is not the one universally accepted by any means.

I can understand the shamelessness of corrupt politicians but the bottomline is I think the Pakistani Army beats them all in shamelessness. I feel extremely sorry for civilians of Pakistan whose Army has shamelessly mangled their constitution on multiple occasions and who are told by their Army that their birthright to choose their own leaders has to be curtailed because `civilians got their chance and blew it`.

I donot consider Pakistani politicians pacifist, I just think they are forced to be more realistic about relations with India than the Army because politicians can prosper and rule only till the next election while the Army prospers and rules for perpetuity.

re: sadna

[ You say that Kashmir played no role in militarys dismissal of civilian governments. Well what was the reason for the post Kargil coup? ]

While the Kargil coup was a diplomatic mistake, it is now an established fact that Nawaz Sharif was himself involved in the entire planning and decision-making process. Later when some of the assumptions did not play out as expected, he tried to wash his hands off by scapegoating the Army. This created a rift between Army and Nawaz Sharif. But Nawaz cleverly managed to garner public support for his decision to withdraw the mujahideen and paramilitary forces from Kargil.

The real problem started after Kargil. Nawaz Sharif wanted to get rid of Musharraf and install his own man as Army Chief. This of course is a constitutional right of the Prime Minister. However, Nawaz wanted to bypass the top 15 officers of the Army and appoint a political stooge. To effect this policy, he tried to buy off the corps commanders. When Musharraf realized this, he sacked two corp commanders. Nawaz took this as an insult. Musharraf asked him to consult the Army leadership and pick one of the senior officers. But Nawaz Sharif was adamant, for the wrong reasons. He wanted to politicize the most respected institution in Pakistan. This was resented by both the Army and public. The Army didn`t want to move against Nawaz because all the corps commander feared U.S. sanctions. But Nawaz was too rash in his judgement. He moved first by denying landing permission to a commercial airliner contains 200+ civilians as well as Musharraf. In his lust for power, he was willing to kill an Army officer as well as civilians.

It is only Indian politicians and media that religiously believes in the ``Kargil/Kashmir theory`` of Nawaz`s dismissal. This is because of a political motive. The Kargil/Kashmir theory helps them villify Pak Army. Nobody in Pakistan including the educted elite and intellectuals believe that Nawaz was dismissed because of Kargil.


[ And you tell us what WERE the reasons for the dismissal of civilian governments in he 90s, if you are so knowledgeable let us know? ]

Good question.
In 1990, Benazir was dismissed for massive corruption and poor handling of law/order situation. Her husband Zardari had started treating judges, and bureaucrats as his personal servants. One senior judge was murdered in broad daylight in Karachi. It is alleged that Zardari wanted this judge to rule in favor of a friend on a land-commercialization case. Zardari was a 60% partner in that deal.

In 1993, Nawaz Sharif faced political defections in his party. Half of his party formed another faction (PML-J) headed by Manzoor Wattoo. The breakaway faction was supported by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. This was purely a power struggle with no ideological reasons. Benazir Bhutto supported the breakaway faction. The Army brokered a deal in which both President Ishaq and Prime Minister Nawaz resigned. Fresh elections were held later that year.

In 1996, Benazir was dismissed by President Leghari who was also a former party loyalist. Once again corruption charges were brought against her. Surrey Palace scandal, Pakistan Steel Mills scandal, ARY Gold license, Cotenca Preshipment Inspection scandal and embezzlement of funds in Green Tractor Scheme were brought against Benazir and her husband Zardari. She was accused of amassing assets worth $1.5 billion through illegal means. (Later the Supreme Court convicted her for corruption in 1999 and disqualified her from elected office).

Besides corruption, Benazir government was also accused of extra-judicial killings of MQM workers in Karachi. Her brother Murtaza Bhutto was murdered during September 1996, allegedly on Mr. Zardari`s orders.

If today Pakistan is being ruled by a military dictator, it is because of the selfishness of Pakistani politicians. They had 12 years to run the country. During those 12 years, the Army maintained a dignified distance from politics with only occasional advice/influence to keep the system going.

Nawaz Sharif is the biggest bank defaulter in Pakistan`s history. He used his cronies to get Rs.9 billion of loans that he willfully defaulted on. His land-grabbing mafia dwarfs the meagre land holdings of army officers. No government department was allowed to function unless it created another source of money for Nawaz Sharif.

Benazir was no better either.

All we saw during the 12 years of Nawaz and Benazir`s so-called democratic rule was corruption, kickbacks, land-grabbing and nepotism. Now they are shedding crocodile tears for democracy because they want to lord over the poor masses again. Palatial houses in Surrey, Raiwind, and London bought with corruption money are not enough for them.

Musharraf may be a dictator but atleast he is not corrupt. Under this government, ordinary people can get bank loans. Tax officers do not extort money from businessmen. The press is treated much better than it was under Benazir and Nawaz. Under the present government, ordinary people without polticial connections can become entrepreneurs. Under the previous ``democratic`` regimes, you could only get ahead by paying a 10% to 20% cut for Mr. Nawaz Sharif or Mr. Zardari.

If democracy means the return of Nawaz and Benazir, to hell with democracy. We are better off with a controlled democracy as long as the system works for the ordinary citizen. Who cares if the person in-charge is a general or a civilian? The civilians had their chance and they blew it.

re: sadna

[ An ADB report saying so is not good enough, is that what you are saying? ]

If you read closely, the ADB report does not say that the politicians were doing the opposite. Why rest the blame for lack of social development on military doors, when the politicians did exactly the same thing? This is selective amnesia on your part, not political objectivity. The military is not the source of troubles in Pakistan. Lack of political leadership and credibility is the reason why people in Pakistan are willing to tolerate a soldier as their President.

Refer to the election results of October 2002. If the people felt that military was preventing social development, they would have overwhelmingly voted for anti-military forces. This did not happen. Pro-Army parties won 42% of votes, while anti-government parties won 47%. This does not reflect widespread disgust with the Army or its policies.

No, I am not disputing the ADB report but neither am I taking it as the gospel truth. Only facts are sacred. Opinions and arguments are not.

re:

[ Going even further back, dyou mean to say that the 1965 Ayub Khan initiated war for Kashmir had nothing to do with subsequent political events in Pakistan, including appointment of Yahya Khan, the demand for elections leading to victory of ZA Bhutto and PPP in W Pakistan, and East Pakistani alienation? ]

Dear sadna: Ayub Khan`s pragmatic decision to make peace with India in Tashkent was viewed by Pakistanis as cowardice. General impression was that Ayub has lost a war on the round table that Pakistan had won on the battlefield. Bhutto exploited this resentment to form his Peoples Party.

However, this a minor reason in the anti-Ayub movement. People were already depressed because of income-disparities and repressive Ayub regime. Mujibur Rehman never supported Pakistan`s Kashmir policy yet even he was able to mobilize masses. Except for 22 influential industrial families, the rest of the country was still poor. Economic benefits had not trickled down to the masses.

The anti-Ayub movement was not inspired by Kashmir. It was inspired by income disparities as well as Punjabi-Bengali disparities. In West Pakistan, Bhutto`s Peoples Party won the election on its socialist agenda that promised ``roti, kapra, makan`` for everyone. In East Pak, Mujib`s Awami League won the election on his Six-Point Programme that promised economic parity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan.

None of the major political parties campaigned on Kashmir issue. You can verify this by reading the political speeches of Bhutto and Mujib in 1969 and 1970. Because of luke warm Kashmiri response to Operation Gibraltor in 1965, Pakistan army and politicians had already decided that the issue was not worth an election campaign.

During the last 54 years, few Pakistani politicians (except Mujib) have differed with the Army over Kashmir. This is because the public perceives Kashmir as an issue. The only difference between politicians and Army is over the modus operandi for resolving the issue.

Indians tend to misread the pacifist statements of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. These politicians say one thing in Riyadh/New Delhi/ London/Washington DC, and quite the opposite when they are sitting in the Prime Minister house in Islamabad.

zabed
Sophistry in service of defending terrorism was transparent. So it was better to discontinue this discussion.

chowk staff, please post this.
HisWhichever #426
The thing you donot seem to understand is that the issue of the Pakistan literacy rate is related to Pakistani educational institutions not Indian educational institutions, so there is no point in cursing my education.

You say that Kashmir played no role in militarys dismissal of civilian governments. Well what was the reason for the post Kargil coup?

And you tell us what WERE the reasons for the dismissal of civilian governments in he 90s, if you are so knowledgeable let us know?

Going even further back, dyou mean to say that the 1965 Ayub Khan initiated war for Kashmir had nothing to do with subsequent political events in Pakistan, including appointment of Yahya Khan, the demand for elections leading to victory of ZA Bhutto and PPP in W Pakistan, and East Pakistani alienation?

``[...to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development...]

Another arbitrary prejudiced statement. You cannot substantiate this with facts. ``

An ADB report saying so is not good enough, is that what you are saying?

btw, its ironic that the roots of the Pakistan movement lay in Syed Ahmed Khan`s recognition that Muslims were losing out to Hindus in education and employment, but today you say the state of Pakistan should leave education to the dictates of the private sector.

And to tackle literacy, you need more schools, not more colleges as you seem to be arguing. In India illiteracy is due to lack of schools and illiterates donot benefit from government subsidy of higher education.

In India, its been accepted that the higher education subsidies in a sense deprived primary education. An IITian once quoted me figures to the effect that for the resources that the Indian government spent on his BTech degree education, the government could have given primary education to 1500 children. Thats one reason the IITs are moving towards self financing and higher education subsidies are gradually reducing.

As I said to tackle illiteracy, you need more primary schools and secondary schools not colleges, and the government is the only body which can build up the institutions of the scale required. I donot understand how you donot realise this.

Even if Pakistanis are to take the US as model, well public schooling is an important part of US government policy.

People pay taxes explicitly called school taxes to their township governments to run public schools which most of their children attend, while house property values depend on how good the local public school is.

One of the major issues of debate even in Presidential elections is the quality of and choices available(like vouchers) in public education. George Bush claimed his reform of public school education as Governor of Texas as one of his achievements during his Presidential campaign. China also provides government-run education as do other countries.

As for what is taught in public schools, well here too you havenot applied your mind. In India and I would imagine in Pakistan too, even private schools cannot have their own arbitrary syllabus if they want to be government recognised, they must adhere to common `board-approved` or government-approved standards.

So for the syllabus of Pakistani public schools you must hold the Pakistani education ministry responsible, which I might remind you was headed by a military appointee for three years until recently.

As for nonstandard proliferating madrassas, well even General Pervez Musharraf found himself unable or unwilling to get them to register with the government, much less allow the modernizing of their syllabus. Well, unregulated madrassas are what you get if you leave education to the private sector as you say.

Of course given that the jihadi/religious organisations running madrassas are able to muster 100s of millions of dollars in donations from the public , while the rest of the education sector has to make do with depleted govt. budgets and whatever the business interest of the private sector dictates, its no surprise why even a military general President could do nothing about the madrassas. IMO, thats part of the skewed national discourse-social priorities.

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

#425 by HisExcellency on April 11, 2003 11:07am PT
``Don`t feel offended if Pakistani chowkies do not idolize India. We have found a better example than India to follow. Why idolize a third-world country like India? ....there are bigger and much more humane civilizations to idolize than India.

So it is more fun licking the bums of US(they use only toilet papers). But `idolizing` you must do. And then you call us Indians `idolaters`.

``It makes more sense to idolize USA than India for Pakistanis. I suggest the Indian chowkies do the same. ``

No thanks. We guys have our own brains to use, our own decision makings and are not puppets in the hands of US.. It has the strength and character to walk alone even if the rest fo the world is against it(not that it is).
In recent Iraq war... how open and quick was India to voice its disapproval, whereas Paksitan hesitated(did not want to annoy `idol` of God Bush). India was not involved in US `chamcha-giri` so as to please it, like many other nations did in the name of `allyship`.
India has never idolised any country, nor will. But we will use the technologies and good points of others to our advantage and betterment ..withour idolising anyone.

re:

[The sooner the Pakistani elite impoverish their people and nation due to their own sense of entitlement to the state`s freebees and their obssession with Kashmir , the better it is for India which can, under any circumstances, expect nothing but enmity anyway. ]

Don`t mistake my disagreement as enmity towards Indians. I agree with your opinions about Pakistan`s flawed Afghan policy. In many ways, this policy was forced upon Pakistan. The Soviet Invasion necessitated a resistance movement. Pakistan was the only place where Afghan refugees could flee. Pakistan was the only country through which USA could funnel weapons to Afghan mujahideen.

Finally when the Soviets were driven out, America packed its bags and left. No effort was made to rebuild Afghanistan. No effort was made to disarm the Afghans. Pakistan was slapped with discriminatory sanctions and left with millions of Afghan refugees to feed.

Therefore, until 1992, Pakistan did not have an Afghan Policy. Pakistan had an Afghan Crisis. The policy began after 1992.

The first major mistake was in 1992, when Pakistan started backing Hekmatyar against Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Masud. From that point onwards, the policy became mired in short-term gains. All this snowballed into a major liability. In 2000, Pakistan`s relation with USA was at the verge of hostility because of Osama and Taliban.

I just don`t agree with arbitrary jingoistic opinion that tries to shift the blame from India to Pakistan for mistakes that India made in Kashmir. I perceive a consistent denial by Indian chowkies of Indian errors in Kashmir.

Before Lahore yatra, Indian chowkies blamed Pakistani politicians for Kashmir. Then they started blaming Pakistan Army and Mullahs. After 9/11, they couldn`t blame the Mullahs so they continued blaming Pakistan Army. To sum it all, Indian chowkies will rather blame somebody, somewhere in Pakistan for Kashmir... instead of being honest enough to admit that it was Nehru followed by various Indian governmentsand security forces that messed up the issue with consistent manipulation and human rights abuses.

re: sadna

++++++++

[...the issue of how the emphasis on Kashmir has allowed the Army to dismiss civilian governments...]

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. And this statement of yours deserves to be in the Hall of Stupidity. This ludicrous assertion exposes the hollowness of Indian educational institutions. Since you are so keen on rewriting history, I suggest you write your own version of false history and self-serving political theories. Let me know if you manage to sell even 10 copies of the book :))

You are absolutely ignorant about Pakistan`s political history. Even a cursory reading of authentic history books (written by non-Indians) will help you in getting rid of your prejudices. Perhaps then we can have a real discussion about the role of military in Pakistan.

++++++++

[...to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development...]

Another arbitrary prejudiced statement. You cannot substantiate this with facts.

++++++++++++

[This is a unique theory of government policy I have never heard anywhere, one which seems rather selfserving if one is part of the ruling elite which expects to be enriched by government handouts while asking the less fortunate others to take care of themselves `in the private sector` . I wonder what the state and its government is for, if not to take the ultimate responsibility for the development of its people. ]

This is neither a unique theory nor self-serving. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge can tell you about Pakistan`s bitter experience of government spending in education. During much of the 1950s and 60s, all the quality educational institutions in Pakistan were privately-owned. As a result, the quality of education was equivalent to most public British universities. The University Grants Commission (or whatever it was called then) has already accreditized these Pakistani colleges.

Then came Bhutto and he nationalized the colleges. He wanted to subsidize education for the lower-income classes. Suddenly, politics entered the college campuses. All political parties formed their student wings. Violence and strikes ensued. Education became cheaper but also suffered enormously from political interference. Soon all the better qualified faculty resigned and joined the few private colleges or migrated to UK/USA.

Government control of educational institutions also introduced corruption and favoritism. Children of government officials would squeeze the arm of college staff for better grades and leaked exam papers.

In the effort to make education affordable for the poor, governments ended up destroying merit, fairness and the sanctity of educational institutions. This contributed to brain drain as the elite preferred US/UK colleges instead.

Government spending in education results in government control of education. This means that if a Mullah government comes to power, it could turn every college into a madrassah by spreading anti-Hindu, anti-Semitic, anti-USA and anti-modernity syllabus.

During the late-1980s, governments realized this mistake. The policy was reversed in favor of private investment in education. As a result, quality institutes sprang up all over Pakistan. World class faculties, modern campuses in a depoliticized environment became available to Pakistanis. To help poor students, private donors and government started a scholarship fund as well as zero-interest loans.

+++++++++

I don`t expect you to change your supercilious opinions because you have been brainwashed by the Indian educational system and media. If you are able to crawl your way out of your myopia, you will realize that sometimes government should be kept as far away from education as possible. This is the only way of preventing politicization (or saffronization, in India`s case) of education. There are other ways of subsidizing education instead of direct government interference.

HisWhichever #423

My opinion of Wharton keeps falling day by day.

Apparently you didnot read even the excerpts posted by me, much less the report itself or else you have incredible comprehension problems.

A simple example of failed comprehension : the report clearly faults the Afghan policy, not for itself, but for the associated effect namely ``the growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons and frequent breakdowns of internal security. The uncertainity created by these frequent changes of government, the associated economic policies and lapses in internal security has had a negative impact on private investment and growth.``

So even though the flawed Afghan policy `is no more`(something contradicted even by Hamid Karzai recently), it doesnot imply any improvement if the associated `growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons, etc` persist due to other policies.

Also you neatly sidestepped the issue of how the emphasis on Kashmir has allowed the Army to dismiss civilian governments, to exercise control on government spending to the detriment of nondefence expenditures and to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development.

``Budgetary allocations for education are low because the government expects private sector to foot the bill. Public schools and universities are a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for raising the literacy levels.
``

This is a unique theory of government policy I have never heard anywhere, one which seems rather selfserving if one is part of the ruling elite which expects to be enriched by government handouts while asking the less fortunate others to take care of themselves `in the private sector` . I wonder what the state and its government is for, if not to take the ultimate responsibility for the development of its people.

And given that the Pakistani government has succeeded in handing over security/defence to the private sector jihadi organisations to organise and fund themselves, to the extent of committing government departments to help AND provide training and arms, including in Afghanistan in the past, I wonder why there is NO government initiative of equal vigor seen in the private sector for education.

You may also like to see the section of the ADB report which talks of nontranparency of resource allocation which is the second most important issue of bad governance.

`politically motivated`

Actually, I suspect it would be a better political choice for Indians like me to watch silently and not point these things out. The sooner the Pakistani elite impoverish their people and nation due to their own sense of entitlement to the state`s freebees and their obssession with Kashmir , the better it is for India which can, under any circumstances, expect nothing but enmity anyway.

re: #422 arjun_m

[I posted a list of top schools in Asia which had 3 Indian IITs in just the top 5 S&T schools..He then tucked his tail between his legs and went away... ]

You are making nationalistic arguments that may appeal to fellow Indians but will bounce off from the Pakistanis chowkies.

The problem with Indian chowkies is that they belong to a poor third-world country that oppresses its minorities and is facing several secessionist movements... yet they want the rest of the world (and especially Pakistan) to cringe in awe/admiration/praise of India. When that doesn`t happen, they feel offended.

Don`t feel offended if Pakistani chowkies do not idolize India. We have found a better example than India to follow. Why idolize a third-world country like India? I acknowledge India`s progress in IT industry, but there are bigger and much more humane civilizations to idolize than India. Look at USA. They have both an excellent human rights record, much better educational institutions than India, genuine democracy and no imperialist designs on other nations. I would prefer Pakistan to emulate that example no matter how much time it takes, than the hyptocritical Indian example that Pakistan can easily emulate in the next 5 years or so.

The difference between Pakistan and India is scale, not quality. India`s strengths and weaknesses are 10 times as large as Pakistan because of its sheer size and population. Fundamentalism, poverty, illiteracy, militarism and intolerance are almost at the same levels in both India and Pakistan. In contrast, USA has neither of these problems. It makes more sense to idolize USA than India for Pakistanis. I suggest the Indian chowkies do the same.

re: sadna

As you yourself admitted in your post, the IMF and ADB believe that Pakistan`s economic problems are due to:

a) Afghan Policy
b) Political Instability
c) Low budgetary allocations in Education sector
d) Erosion of rule of Law
e) High defence spending
f) Debt servicing

The flawed Afghan Policy is no more.

Political instability is bad only when economic policies are changed by successive governments. With the Army`s role institutionalized in politics through LFO, economic policies will not change even if governments do. India also had unstable governments during the mid-1990s but the economic policies were not changed drastically. As a result, the investment climate did not undergo drastic fluctuations. Army`s institutionalized role in politics will prevent coups in future. Basically Pakistan has tailored democracy to suit the needs of its people.

Budgetary allocations for education are low because the government expects private sector to foot the bill. Even if the economy picks up, budgetary allocation for education will remain low for the same reason. Public schools and universities are a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for raising the literacy levels.

As a result of Pakistan`s support in War against Terror, a lot of external debt has been rescheduled with a 15-year grace period. More loans with low interest rate have been given. As a result, Pakistan has been able to substitute high interest debt with low interest debt. This has brought down the debt servicing expenditure significantly.

High defence spending is only a problem when the government needs to ``crowd`` private investment in. This is the old ``Top-Down Economic Development`` paradigm of the 1960s that went out of vogue in the 1980s. Under that paradigm, governments would invest in mega projects, run them profitably and then privatize them. Economic benefits would trickle down to the masses after a lapse of 4-5 years.

This paradigm has been replaced with a ``Bottom-Up Economic Development`` paradigm. Under this paradigm, the government does not compete with private sector in critical sectors. It just encourages investment through tax holidays and good investment environment (law & order). As the microeconomic environment improves, small firms mushroom and later conglomerize. The government does not need to divert spending from defence, law/order, etc to industry.

IMF and World Bank still subscribe to the 1960s paradigm more or less. That is why most countries that follow IMF and WB policies, suffer an increase in poverty and political unrest. Malayasia, for example, shunned IMF and WB policies and still progressed economically through home-grown policies.

Of all the arguments that you made, only the erosion of Law and order is a valid and indisputable one.

The rest of your arguments are debatable and politically motivated.

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

HisWhichever #420

Re the opinion of IMF and ADB, they are not quite free of worries:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-4-2003_pg5_1
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-4-2003_pg5_1

Re causes of poverty and poor human development in Pakistan:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/default.asp
Poverty in Pakistan, Issues, Causes, and Institutional responses
July 2002

Check out Chapter 2 Poverty Profile
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_2.pdf

Section E goes `it is evident [from 1999 figures] that Pakistan`s level of human development is low for its level of income as indicated by the fact that its GDP per capita rank is higher than its HDI rank. In comparison with other South Asian countries, Pakistan did not appear to be worse off in terms of the health(life expectancy) index relative to most countries, but the education index for Pakistan is the lowest in South Asia. The fact that the education index in Nepal and Bangladesh, two countries with significantly lower per capita incomes than Pakistan, was 10 to 20 percent higher than Pakistan is a clear indicator of the low priority accorded to education in Pakistan`s development policies..``


And check out Chapter 3 Causes of Poverty:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_3.pdf

At the top of the list of causes is A. Poor governance

``..Poor governance is the key underlying cause of poverty in Pakistan..``

Under poor governance are listed - political instability and the dominance of the military in politics, the excessive public spending on defense, and erosion of rule of law.

``..During the period of 1988 and 1999, there were four national elections and nine changes of government. In addition, Pakistan`s involvement in the war during the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan was responsible for the growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons and frequent breakdowns of internal security. The uncertainity created by these frequent cahnges of government, the associated economic policies and lapses in internal security has had a negative impact on private investment and growth.

Three of the last four civilian governments were dismissed prematurely by successive presidents on charges of corruption...``

``..In general, political instability and macroeconomic imbalances have been reflected in poor creditworthiness ratings, even compared to otehr countries of similar income levels, with resulting capital flight and lower foreign direct investiment inflows..``


Under same Chapter III, Causes of poverty - C. Social determinants 3. Low level of Human Development

``.. As detailed in Chapter II, Pakistan lags behind other South Asian countries with respect to its socila indicators. The social sectors have been consistently neglected in Pakistan, with the bulk of budgetary expenditure being concentrated in defense and debt servicing..``

----
Now let everyone know, what role did the Pakistani Army play in political instability due to repeated dismissals of the civilian governments during the 90s?What role did Pakistani Army play in deciding Pakistan`s Afghan policy?

And what role does Kashmir play in this predominance of Army interests in national priorities, in Pakistan`s pursuit of Afghan policy, in dismissal of civilian governments? What role does Kashmir policy play in putting social development at a lower priority?

`loose cannon`
I accept apologies from 9 am to 11 am on all weekdays, excepting national holidays. Of course you can call the ADB report a loose cannon too.

re; #418

Whether human/social indicators are equally/less/more/not important viz-a-viz other national interests is a purely subjective matter. Some people feel that Kashmir should be resolved first; trade and human/social indicators can come later. Others may feel the exact opposite. There is yet another strand of public opinion that believes Pakistan can achieve both goals through careful calibration. I don`t believe the Indian chowkies have made a convincing argument that Pakistan will flounder because of Kashmir. Kashmir issue is not a new issue whereas Pakistan`s economic problems are new. There was no recession in Pakistan throughout the 1960s and 1980s. However, Pakistan was still investing in military build up during those decades. Moreover, Pakistan`s economic performance (on per capita basis) was also better than India until 1990.

I am afraid critics of Pakistan`s present Kashmir policy have failed to establish a strong causal relationship between the insurgency and economic problems.

To put it another way, there are too many different explanations for the economic problems of 1990s. The massive corruption, poor cotton crops due to leaf curl virus, increasing debt burden, U.S. sanctions, over-reliance on textile sector and freezing of Foreign Currency accounts by Nawaz Sharif... all these actions impacted the economy. None of these is linked to Kashmir. How can every Tom, Dick and Harry simply claim that Pakistan`s economy is bad because of the Army or because of Kashmir?

Only a loose cannon will make that generalization. An unemotional or unbiased analysis reveals structural and macroeconomic reasons. BTW, most of these causes have already been removed. As the IMF and World Bank suggest, Pakistan`s economy has shown extraordinary resilience during a tumultous 2002. If the reforms continue for another 4 years, the trickle-down effect of economic recovery will also improve the socio-economic indicators (health; education; urbanization; gender, etc).

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

HisExcellency #416
Take a look at Pakistan`s human development and literacy figures sometime.

PM #412
Huh? You and the chochweet Hafiz Saeed are the ones `trying` for something.

re: #413 harish_hyd

We have heard about different scenarios from Indian chowkies in which eventually Pakistan will crumble under the weight of economic problems and cost of Kashmir struggle.

Suppose this doesn`t happen. Suppose the opposite happens.

*India refuses to talk.
*Pakistan continues support for Kashmir insurgency at full throttle.
*Indian security forces continue to take a pounding in Kashmir from Jihadis.
*Whenever India threatens war, Pakistan stands defiant.
*Whenever India conducts a missile test, Pakistan reciprocates.
*Pakistan fails to bring India into talks. India fails to pressurize Pakistan into curbing infiltration.
*Pakistan continues to facilitate US interests against Al-Qaeda
*Pakistani economy continues to recover thanks to debt reduction, exports, remittances
*America continues trade with India but ignores its complaints over Kashmir

In the given scenario, neither will Pakistan collapse nor will it discontinue support for insurgency. What choices does India have except war and talks? Since no sane leader can wage war against another nuclear state, the war option is practically ruled out. That just leaves talks as the remaining option. Since eventually India may have to negotiate, why not do it right away and get the Indo-Pak relationship normalized again?

re: #407

Ranjha is allowed up to four wives. And his present wife and children really love the old flame. They have already started calling her mommy. Ranjha got a new job in ``phoren`` with which he can support both the new wife and old one.

re. #403 by sadna
Nopes!
You have one try left. :)

#402 by HisExcellency on April 8, 2003 4:33pm PT

[Now that you are awake, arjun_m, let me also tell you that because of this problem, the subcontinent is at the verge of nuclear disaster. You can either choose to stay awake or go to sleep again.]

Hahahaha…funny how Pakis resort to the “nuclear disaster” gambit when they realize all other arguments have failed. If HE is so concerned about a nuclear disaster in the subcontinent, how about advising his leadership on the perils of a nuclear disaster and persuading the Paki leadership to rollback its nuclear program? For he can rest assured the Indians wouldn’t use nukes unless in retaliation as enunciated in its no-first-strike policy, but can he say the same about Pakistan, especially after Mush-whore-uff blatantly brandished the nuclear threat last year when India called its troops on to the border? And later, as an afterthought, or perhaps after a telephone call from his mastah Bush, he quickly fell in line, sheepishly saying that he had been misquoted and that no sane man would talk about using nukes. If HE could so cleverly sidestep this blatant threat while trying to express his noble concern for the wellbeing of the subcontinent, it seems he’s either indulging in intellectual dishonesty, or it is he who has been sleeping all this while.

re. Ralph #400:
``There is a lesson here for Indians who get too warm and fuzzy about Pakistan and Pakistanis. Going forward, India must frame policies keeping the thinking of average Pakistani in mind. It is not just a section of the Pakistani body politic that has rotted.``

Funny, Ralph, but I was thinking on the same lines... with nationalities reversed, of course.

Ralph, just in case you didn`t think i was serious in my last post, here`s a pointer:
from #398 by arjun_m:

``I dont give a pakis rear about the wishes of the Kashmiri people...Indian Kashmir is a part of India and the wishes of the 13 million Kashmiris are worth 1.3% of the will of the billion Indians. ``

This, IMHO is only slightly less odious than people suggesting that the Indian army go across the border and kill not just the terrorist (shades of Bushy?) but also their supporters (by whom I imagine the writer was referring to those offering moral support and perhaps those merely perceived to be)

Excellent stuff!

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

Its obvious PM is spinning the Indians here at will....You all are only reacting to his various ``premises``. PM is focused on the sophistry of English language and Sadna et al on emotionalism.......

I`m kinda disappointed that nobody here could refute HisExcellency`s with Data and references which he used cleverly.

AlephNull #405, #406

I think you have put it well. J&K is a side-show in the big indian picture. The real challenge for india is elsewhere, and, inshallah, we have begun to address this challenge.

Politics and relationships between countries is based on the art of the possible. Was there a high moral ground for partition? The murder of a million people so that bickering Congress and Muslim League leaders could have their version of india and Pakistan? I don`t think so.

Yet these events have transpired and we must accept them as facts. A similar situation obtains about J&K. As I have stated on this list repeatedly, india must live up to its democratic ideals and provide transparency. Beyond that respond creatively with force to terror and violence. Mufti sahib is showing the way and we should support him.

States in India have quite distinct identity. A conservative Tamilian can live in Tamil Nadu in a completely tamil-centric world. Similarly for Bengalis in Calcutta wherein I grew up. Not surprisingly Kashmiri is only taught in Jammu and Kashmir University and not in Pakistan, writers using Kashmiri are found only in India. Their cultural and religous rights have always been safeguarded. If the J&K assembly feels it needs a flag or their CM should be called by some urdu name (??Sadar-e-Riyasat??), what is the big deal?

And yes, the pakistanis are welcome to go around the world describing this as oppression, genocide etc. etc. Mostly they will be asked: why don`t you have democracy? Why do you support jihad? Why don`t you have a proper educational system? Why are you so different from these hard-working and achieving indians? Why does your country lack positive goals?

Let them spend all their time on these pursuits. We cannot choose our neighbors and clearly we have a deranged neighbor next door.

#397 by HisExcellency on April 8, 2003 1:33pm PT

[Pakistan never aske India to ``give away Kashmir``. Pakistan only asked for a plebiscite or self-determination for Kashmiris. By asking the question above, you have admitted that whenever Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination, India will lose Kashmir.]

Oh really? If Pakis are so sincere about self-determination for Kashmiris, will you please answer why a few years ago when local elections were being held in ``Azad`` Kashmir authorities refused to allow JKLF leaders, prominent among them Amanullah Khan, to participate because they refused to sign a declaration in the nomination form that explicitly stated that they overwhelmingly supported Kashmir`s integration into Pakistan? Even today, any Kashmiri talking of an independent Kashmir falls out of favor with the establishment in Islamabad, with the result that the premier pro-independence movement the JKLF has paled into insignificance.

Right from the 1947-48 invasion, when it tried to hoodwink the world by claiming that it was the tribals of NWFP who had attacked J&K to liberate Kashmiris, when it was as clear as daylight that they were Army regulars, to 1999 in Kargil, when it tried to pass of its own Army personnel from the Northern Light Infantry as Mujahideen, we have been witness to Pakistan`s double dealings.

As regards the claim that India has consistently violated UN resolutions on holding a plebiscite, please go back to school. The UN resolutions clearly specified that Pakistan must first create the conditions in which a fair plebiscite could be held by withdrawing the ``tribal`` invaders. Far from it, Pakistan has instead resettled hordes of Pathans and Punjabis in PoK and completely altered the demographic character of that part of Kashmir so much so that Kashmiris are now a minority in ``Azad`` Kashmir. So much for Pakistan`s sincere intentions!!!! That is why the whole world no more regards plebiscite as a practical solution. Instead, they believe the best solution would be to accept the LoC as the de jure border.

While the Kashmir problem hasn`t prevented India from emerging as a potential world power, it has transformed Pakistan from the fastest growing economy in Asia under Ayub in the 60s to a basket case in the 90s.

AlephNull #405
Ranjha is actually a married man, who lets his children starve and appropriates his wife`s earnings to provide himself with comforts while he woos his old flame.

HisExcellency #404

{{But then Heer did wake up one day in 1989 to proclaim her love for Ranjha. Ever since Kaido has been beating her up. And tell the rest of the village, not to heed her sobs.

…

Basically Kaido is a moron, studying hard to become a rascal some day.}

I have little knowledge of and even less interest in rustic Punjabi folklore; I probably missed some of the intended connotations. I nevertheless gather that you’ve made some pathetically self-serving associations between the characters in that silly story and intrastate relations in the Indian subcontinent. You have fallen into the trap of being carried away by your own inappropriate metaphors.

I note that your parable leaves out any mention of 1971, where the self-proclaimed Ranjha received a tremendous battering and associated public humiliation that left him permanently psychically scarred and embittered, obsessed with dreams of revenge but with no constructive plans for the future.

I would also mention that women are notorious for reserving the right to change their minds. If the wannabe Ranjha/Romeo is down-and-out, neck-deep in debt and living on the dole, basically trying to hire himself out as a neighbourhood tough to whoever will pay him a pittance, instead of earning an honest livelihood, while his own home falls into disrepair, disorder and decay, he may not remain desirable for very long, even assuming he was at one time. He is unlikely ever to be a success at any worthwhile endeavour, let alone in love. Nor is he likely to prevail in a conflict with a more powerful and law-abiding neighbour. If in addition he harbours delusions of grandeur he becomes a public laughing-stock.

To spell it out, what you fail to take into account is that Pakistan as a country is going nowhere while it allows this obsession India and with capturing Kashmir to monopolise public discourse. Indians on the other hand regard the problems in Jammu and Kashmir as something to be resolved on their own terms, in good time. It might be nice if they would go away tomorrow, but if they don’t, we can wait this one out, for decades if need be. In the meanwhile the Indian economy is still growing at a healthy rate, and Indians are working on constructive things that will make them richer, stronger, with more friends, altogether more formidable in the years to come. Having to deal with Pakistani terrorism in Kashmir has not weakened us in any significant degree. The large disproportion in strength and resources between India and Pakistan is such that what is basically a sideshow and minor drag for us is crippling you. This ‘imbalance’ is growing with no end in sight.

Your chances of forcing a resolution to Kashmir that is acceptable to your rapacious elite will be even poorer in the future than they are now. Nobody of any consequence has the desire let alone the capability to force India into any deal that does not suit us. Indians know all this, which is precisely why they’re in absolutely no hurry for talks. You are stuck fighting a war of attrition with a country five to ten times your size with no face-saving exit and only calamity looming ahead. Good luck to you. You’ll need it.

HisExcellency #404

I note that you did not reply to my pointed questions in #399. Let me repeat:

{{Pakistan is prepared to talk about Kashmir at any time, any place and at any level.}}

I am continually amazed by this ceaseless repetition of the ``talk about Kashmir at any time, any place and at any level`` refrain by the Pakistani establishment and its lackeys. What do you think this is buying you? Do you suppose that the so-called ``international community`` has been watching these developments with bated breath and regards these frantic pleas for dialogue as evidence of Pakistani good faith? Do you regard it as good PR for Pakistan`s Kashmir cause? Do you believe that you are embarrassing India? Do you imagine that India is under the slightest pressure to respond or even take more than perfunctory notice of these farcical calls for dialogue? If Indians for their own reasons don`t think their purpose is served by talks, how exactly do you plan to impose your will on them?

re: AlephNull

I concede that the Kashmiri Heer did not love the Pakistani Ranjha in 1965. The Pakistani Ranjha ended up fighting with the Indian Kaido without the Heer`s blessings. For the same reason, Ranjha and Kaido made peace at Tashkent and confined the Heer-Ranjha romance to rusting file covers.

But then Heer did wake up one day in 1989 to proclaim her love for Ranjha. Ever since Kaido has been beating her up. And tell the rest of the village, not to heed her sobs.

Unfortunately, the Ranjha and Kaido possess a nuclear danda that can not only vaporize each other, but also half the village and the crops. Fearing such a flare up, the village panchayat (elders) are advising to mediate between Ranjha and Kaido but Kaido takes that as an offense. Ranjha offers to negotiate with Kaido but Kaido refuses that as well. In the meantime, Ranjha is slipping in weapons and money to Heer through cracks in the window.. so that she may fight for her freedom herself. Kaido calls this terrorism.

Basically Kaido is a moron, studying hard to become a rascal some day.

PM #394
Perhaps what you meant was that Kofi Annan and the UN organisation donot endorse theaverage abdul jihadi`s murder lust, Kofi Annan and the UN organisation endorse only Hafiz Saeed and his call to kill Hindus.

re: arjun_m

[Indian Kashmir is a part of India and the wishes of the 13 million Kashmiris are worth 1.3% of the will of the billion Indians. ]
******************************************************

This just confirms my suspicions. You have indeed been hibernating in some cave in the Deccan for the last 60 years! Welcome to the world, arjun_m. The British have left, the Raj is no more. And 2/3rds of Kashmir has been usurped by India without asking the Kashmiris whether they want to be a part of India or not. Pakistan has ceded some virtually uninhabited territory to China. However, not one Kashmiri voice protested this action. To the contrary, thousands of Kashmiris have been protesting against Indian invasion of their land since 1947, and especially since 1989.

Now that you are awake, arjun_m, let me also tell you that because of this problem, the subcontinent is at the verge of nuclear disaster. You can either choose to stay awake or go to sleep again.


re: arjun_m

[Any person, Kashmiri or otherwise, is free to go to Pakistan(or China) is he so chooses]
******************************************************

That`s like a land-grabber snatching somebody`s house and telling him that he is free to go to the neighbour`s house... Hey arjun_m, the people from your cave just called. They want their idiot back!

re: arjun_m

I am waiting eagerly for Indian chowkies to respond to the plebiscite channel. It seems they have all disappeared. As Oscar Wilde said, some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.

HisExcellency #397

{The Kashmiri Heer in IoK has been in love with her Pakistani Ranjha for decades now.}

That is an amusing fantasy. It does not square with the historical fact that Pakistani infiltrators sent into Indian Kashmir in the course of Operation Gibraltar were turned in to the police and the Indian Army by the locals.

It is a sad error to confuse your obsessive fascination for a woman with her requited love. I am afraid that that is just what you delusional self-styled Pakistani Ranjhas have done with your fatal obsession for Kashmir. Such a situation while replete with pathos does also possess its comic aspects for unsympathetic and unhelpful observers such as us Indians. We can expect this undignified spectacle to continue for quite a while.

{Pakistan is prepared to talk about Kashmir at any time, any place and at any level.}

I am continually amazed by this ceaseless repetition of the ``talk about Kashmir at any time, any place and at any level`` refrain by the Pakistani establishment and its lackeys. What do you think this is buying you? Do you suppose that the so-called ``international community`` has been watching these developments with bated breath and regards these frantic pleas for dialogue as evidence of Pakistani good faith? Do you regard it as good PR for Pakistan`s Kashmir cause? Do you believe that you are embarrassing India? Do you imagine that India is under the slightest pressure to respond or even take more than perfunctory notice of these farcical calls for dialogue? If Indians for their own reasons don`t think their purpose is served by talks, how exactly do you plan to impose your will on them?

There is a lesson here for Indians who get too warm and fuzzy about Pakistan and Pakistanis. Going forward, India must frame policies keeping the thinking of average Pakistani in mind. It is not just a section of the Pakistani body politic that has rotted.

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

#380 by pmishra2
``However, indians like Sabir Shah and others do have a strong point that autonomy was promised to the Maharaja of J&K but not properly worked through...``

You know, I really (look, no facetiousness here) am impressed by your honesty with regard to the history of the issue, and on India`s need to `work through` a solution as per the Maharaja`s promise, as I expressed earlier too.

If I`ve learnt anything during these past two days here, it`s that Indians habour as intense distrust for Pakistanis (or those Paksitanis perceived as even remotely toeing the GOP`s line on Kashmir)

I started out simply asking what was so `evil` in a man propagating revenge killing (which in case you haven`t noticed, you`ve also done, and in fact, bested, in your #390.) On learning of the reputation of the man through your post, I immediately responded saying that I could understand your bitterness, but that I was merely interested in debating the issue on an academic level. (Truth be told, I was itching to see exactly how crazy Indians got when anyone was seen as defending a jihadi).

Of course, I moved beyond that and tried to show that the issue was much simpler than that of crazed jihadi wanting Indian/Hindu blood to demonstrate their moral superiority (which is what I have come to believe is exactly the image most Indians here have of just about anyone who dares suggest that Indian artocities in Kashmir had to but breed at least part of the sort of violence you see today).

In the end, it was quite disappointing to that it came to veiled threats agaisnt ``supporters of terrorists`` etc. In my very humble opinion, you have unwittingly RE-humanized the jehadis you so revile (assuming you consider yourself more human than they). Give it a think. Perhaps when your are capable of thinking more clearly.

(now, go ahead.. . call me a self-obsessed person too. Wouldn`t really matter, given what other names your compariots have already thrown my way) :)

re. arjun_m 387

``In case your are questioning the will of the Indians to defend Kashmir, think Kargil.... ``

Is it an Indian talent to read too much into statements, or is it just us Pakistani who make you do that? :)

Hey, for what it was worth, I thought India was good in Kargill, and the Pak army deserved the humiliation for the deviousness they displayed ... esp. coming right on the heels of Lahore. My only regret was that innocent jawan lives were lost (on both sides) while the generals (on one side) who planned the misadventure still live off the `Kashmir issue`

re: #392 by arjun_m

[What about you pakis giving away part of Kashmir? Don`t want to talk about that, do we? ]

Pakistan never aske India to ``give away Kashmir``. Pakistan only asked for a plebiscite or self-determination for Kashmiris. By asking the question above, you have admitted that whenever Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination, India will lose Kashmir. Indirectly you have admitted that Indian occupation of Kashmir is ``by force`` and not ``by the consent of Kashmiris``.

Pakistan is prepared to talk about Kashmir at any time, any place and at any level.

If Indian chowkis believes that people in Azad Kashmir (or PoK) are eagerly awaiting the arrival of Indian troops in Muzaffarabad, they are in for a rude shock. There are no PoK Juliets waiting for their Indian Romeos. No pro-India processions in Muzaffarabad, no burning of Pakistan flag in PoK. Kashmiris in PoK see Pakistan army as the liberation force.

On the other hand, Kashmiris in IoK are perhaps the biggest buyers of Indian flag because no political rally is complete without the ceremonial burning of Indian flag. The Kashmiri Heer in IoK has been in love with her Pakistani Ranjha for decades now. Kashmiris in IoK see India as an occupation force.

In fact, Pakistan is even prepared to take the challenge straight to the people of PoK PROVIDED India does the same. We are prepared to hold a referendum/plebiscite in PoK at any time under any third-party administration. Are you?

Let us know if India are up to the challenge.

#379 by sadna
Sadna, surely even you could do better than put ridiculous words into your opponent`s mouth.
Try some other tactic.

``This is the surest sign that we have a demented idiot blabbering here who needs some serious psychotherapy. Kashmir was, is and shall always remain inalienable part of India. Last time when terrorists and their advocates like you tried their trick in kargil, we shoved it in their a$$. Hey kid, go and lick the wounds of your jihadis and try again. Kashmir is our motherland as is Rajasthan or Maharashtra and we will defend it to the last man. The jihadi murderer thugs and their devilish supporters can never comprehend the depth and tenacity of our nationalism.``

Funny... Thought I heard the same statement w.r.t Kashmir from some idiotic jihadi some time ago. He too suffered from a peculiar type of dementia that threw history out the window.

So.. pyschotherapy has a cure for (perceived) ideological differences (or, just for arguments sake , say lack of historical knowedge. Very Interesting! The logic of the Indian intelligensia has ceased to amaze me these past few days. And I used to think it was the Pakistanis who lost all their sense when the K-issue was brought up!

Learn something new everday!

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

I think it is clear from these comments that the violence and mass killings are going to continue unabated in J&K. I hope that the indian security forces will soon begin to strike forcefully at the camps across the border. Another approach would be to set a price on the heads of thugs like Hafiz Saeed or murderers like Masood Azhar. A policy of killing those who support and participate in murder would also be a step forward.

In the meantime we should work with Mufti and indians in J&K to advance things forward.

PM

``Err.. will that include defending Kashmir too? ``

This is the surest sign that we have a demented idiot blabbering here who needs some serious psychotherapy. Kashmir was, is and shall always remain inalienable part of India. Last time when terrorists and their advocates like you tried their trick in kargil, we shoved it in their a$$. Hey kid, go and lick the wounds of your jihadis and try again. Kashmir is our motherland as is Rajasthan or Maharashtra and we will defend it to the last man. The jihadi murderer thugs and their devilish supporters can never comprehend the depth and tenacity of our nationalism.