As the Bald Eagle Tries to Rule

Tahmed32 #88

{{On (a), you seem to indicate that there are in fact ethnic differences … that account for posters who proudly proclaim that they come to chowk not to exchange views or to have a civilized discussion, but to engage in ``paki bashing`` (i.e. posting of insults and putdowns).
Since I step back from the brink, as you say, I would be interested in learning more about what you think that there is something to this conjecture.}}

You thought in (a) that you had observed regional differences among Indians in attitudes and perceptions towards Pakistan, specifically in the more open and relentless derision and hostility of South Indians. IMO you have indeed realised something significant, which if pursued would give some insight. Your attempted explanation – ‘ethnic differences’ alone - however is IMO not the correct one. In (b) you went on to speculate on the nature of anti-Pakistan public opinion in India, and on its roots in, for instance, ‘being stood up through partition in 1947’ and ‘general resentment of Muslims as outsiders’.

What you failed to observe is that your attempted explanations in (b) were not consistent with the regional divergence you noticed in (a).
Speaking *very broadly*, South India is outside the realm of past Persianate/Central Asian rule whose successor is Pakistan. Most parts of South India spent far less time under Persianate rule than the Indo-Gangetic plain; some areas (most of Kerala, for instance) entirely escaped the tender mercies of Central Asian adventurers and their scions. Consequently – despite such events as the destruction of the Vijayanagar Empire - far less damage was done to indigenous pre-Islamic culture than in North India.

Thus on the one hand there is comparatively far less scope for historical resentments or grievances against the Persianate tradition embodied in Pakistan (so for instance the resentful Hindutva represented by the VHP has not taken root in South India). On the other hand South Indians are most unlikely to regard Persianate manners and civilization – the court culture of the Mughals or Avadh or the poetry of Ghalib or the like – as the pinnacle of refinement to be remembered with nostalgia and adopted and imitated.

Further, a strong case can be made that South Indians – and some other identifiable groups - were clear net beneficiaries of the 1947 partition, and were basically untraumatised by what was going on in the North. That makes yet another of your explanations untenable.

To summarise, South Indians in the main do not miss the presence of Pakistanis in their country and for the largest part of independent India’s history were oblivious to Pakistan’s existence.

You can now try to put yourself in the shoes of those you so vocally excoriate and see how the world looks like to them. Or if you want I can spell out my perceptions for you.

{{I will add a third reason now that I missed the first time: namely, the violence in Kashmir that the Indian public sees (largely correctly, I may add) as being the result of Pakistan government policies.}}

Well, of course, that’s the trunk of the elephant in the room that stereotypical Pakistani ideologues simply will not confront. You do realize, don’t you, that you’ve just undermined your position in #39 that:
{{This hatred for pakistanis results from your own psychological shortcomings … So try to look into the mirror for the roots of your hatreds, and dont try to escape this reality by pointing to the policies or actions of the pakistani government.}}

Tahmed #91

{{AlephNull #86 You also refer to my post #39 which you say is self-delusional.}}

The ‘self-delusional’ bit is the denial that policies or actions of the Pakistan government have anything to do with Indian attitudes. If you so deeply resent the term, I am prepared to replace it by ‘consistently and systematically incorrect’. Anything milder would be dishonest.

I might add that this is not the first time you have come across as self-, umm systematically incorrect. Not that I mind. I gain far more insight from observing the systematic errors of those who are trying to be polite and civil and reasonable than from any platitudes they may utter.

I should also warn you that my take is probably not much different, if at all, from those of any number of Indians who you’ve clashed with and complain about. You don’t have to like somebody to learn either from their insights or their systematic errors. I enjoy reading the posts of the other side`s world-champion delusionists, franticallly gyrating spin-doctors and ranting ideologues for precisely this reason. You could perhaps try the same attitude with everybody’s posts, including mine, and worry less about superficialities like politeness.

{{ As for your references to Romair and Ahmedzai: I may not agree with them on everything. At times I may have a bit of fun at Romair`s expense. … Since you seem to have a problem with them, I suggest you address them directly, not to me.}}

Actually I occasionally amuse myself by poking cruel fun at Romair’s colossal delusions (or creative fictions – I suspect it’s mostly the latter). Ahmedzai seems cut from the same cloth. Perhaps I’ll turn my attention to him some time.

Ahmadzai

Unfreezing is necessary for change, but whose mindset has to unfreeze for change to occur? Isn`t it people who just can`t get over Siachin and 1971? Even how real estate should have been allocated in 1947? If India forgets Kargil ever took place, will minds that can`t forget Siachen turn pacifists? Pakistan is involved in Kashmir because some people`s psyches are frozen in 1971. Musharraf justifies backstabbing Vajpayee becaues his military can`t get over Siachin. There are no economic relations between India and Pakistan because Pakistani military remains frozen in the past - how Kashmir should have been decided in 1947.

Wrong diagnosis of the problem and blaming the victim will not be helpful. Pakistan has to make hard choices about whether it should continue its past policies, thus remain frozen in the past, or make a new beginning. Unfreezing of military mind is the first requirement.

AlephNull #86 You also refer to my post #39 which you say is self-delusional. I dont think so. When I talk about Harish_hyd`s bragging about being a ``paki-basher``, it is based on his own words. Jay too has posts on chowk that I have read where he bragged about the same thing. And I do understand human nature enough by now to understand what this indicates: they are trying to be the macho men that they cannot be in real life.
What exactly is self-delusional here???
As for your references to Romair and Ahmedzai: I may not agree with them on everything. At times I may have a bit of fun at Romair`s expense. But let me assure you that neither one of them has ever felt the need to call themselves ``Indian-bashers``. Since you seem to have a problem with them, I suggest you address them directly, not to me.

Ralph @ # 70:

``You seem to carry a great deal of guilt about Kargil. Why? Do you work for Pakistani army? ``

A No fro me to both of your assertions.

I am only attempting to unfreeze Indians from Kargil so that some progress towards peace could be made between the two neighbors.

tahmed32 @ # 78:

``Please reflect upon this, and tell me if I am wrong in thinking this way. And if I am, I would like to know why.``

No, you are not wrong in thinking this way. But your inference of my philosophy is incorrect.

In order to know my personal viewpoint about Kashmir, please refer to an exchange of my messages with Sadna and Saima Shah in the latter`s excellent article on Chowk - `Tunnel Vision` .

The number of my messages on my homepage of this website are: # 79, 77, 76, 73, 72 and finally 48.

Messages on this topic were with a view to unfreezing Indians from Kargil and a hate-Pakistani syndrome.

AlephNull #86 Thanks for your thoughtful comments. On (a), you seem to indicate that there are in fact ethnic differences (the conjecture that I put forward and then reject as being unfounded since it would be a generalization) that account for posters who proudly proclaim that they come to chowk not to exchange views or to have a civilized discussion, but to engage in ``paki bashing`` (i.e. posting of insults and putdowns).
Since I step back from the brink, as you say, I would be interested in learning more about what you think that there is something to this conjecture.
On (b), I did try to put myself in the shoes of an Indian to see why public opinion seems hostile to pakistanis, and presented to reasons that came to my mind. I will add a third reason now that I missed the first time: namely, the violence in Kashmir that the Indian public sees (largely correctly, I may add) as being the result of Pakistan government policies. If you think I missed some other reason, i would appreciate your providing that.

PS: If it is possible to respond in a friendly manner and without accusing me of self-delusions, I would be even more grateful. I am honestly trying to understand this behavior that I see repeated on chowk every day by these ``paki-bashers``, not trying to prove anything.

Here is an editorial from New York Times bursting the Bush`s Bubble of -- ``Legitimating`` -- the unilateral -- UN rejected WAR -- against Iraq.

the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people did NOT exactly -- come running to --the ``American Liberators`` -- for delivering them from Saddam`s MOABs, and Daisy Cutters -- did they?

-- so that fig leaf -- to be exact -- the DIAPER -- from the butt of that Infantile Texas Emperor -- is GONE -- as well.


Diminished Expectations in Iraq

(editorial NYT)
s American forces began skirmishing with Iraq`s Republican Guard troops on the drive toward Baghdad yesterday, Iraq`s best soldiers seemed in no mood to lay down their arms.

Army Apache helicopters attacked and destroyed up to 15 armored vehicles of a Republican Guard division in central Iraq but were driven back by a ferocious hail of small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Virtually all the Apaches were hit, and one went down.

It was the latest evidence that some of the initial hopes — even assumptions — that Iraqi resistance would quickly crumble seemed not to be panning out.

The American and British military are prepared to fight a war against a resistant enemy, and they insisted yesterday that everything was on or ahead of schedule.

But the public had reason to expect something different.

The Bush administration had conveyed the impression that the Iraqi government was shaky, that much of the army was not likely to fight and that the Iraqi people would welcome the invasion force with cheers and flowers.

While some of those things may still occur, so far the people greeting American troops have been much cooler than many had hoped. ((NYT)
_______________________________________

We Americans are SUCH naive, self indulgent, narcisstic BASTARDS!

The funny thing about the selfrighteous types who ponder the presence of Indians on chowk is, they will not admit there are more Pakistanis in India killing Indians than there are Indians in Pakistan killing Pakistanis or that there were more Pakistanis in Afghanistan killing Afghans than there were Afghans in Pakistan killing Pakistanis.

Those whom we have been waging jihad against for more than a decade should be more polite to us, thats their world view. How dare they post their views on our websites, fingerprint us when we visit their countries, refuse to discuss the handover of territory to us.

tahmed32 #62

{{ahmedzai #64 I agree with you that there are far more Indians posting insults to pakistanis on chowk than vice versa. ... I really dont know the reason, although I have some possibilities:

(a) its an ethnic characteristic: that is, some communities (e.g. south indians, and I know that some of the most offensive individuals like jay are south indian, and some really friendly chaps are panjabis) being more querrelsome by nature than others (some indeed even explicitly bragging that they come to chowk for ``paki bashing``). But then we are again in the land of generalities which I have learnt by experience are very misleading. So I reject this explanation.}}

It is sad to see you, for once, on the brink of actual insight, only to lose it by wandering off yet again into the land of mindless generalities (the generality, in this case, ironically being the notion that generalities are misleading).

{{(b) Public opinion in India is generally more anti-pakistan than vice versa: Maybe this is true, and there is a general anti-pakistan public opinion in India, molded perhaps by things that are not paralleled on the pakistani side - like feelings of being stood up through partition in 1947, general resentment against muslims as representing an outside influence on indigenous culture. You seem to think this is the case, and there is some possibility you are right. Although, even if this is true, public opinion does tend to be fickle and if tomorrow the two governments patch up public opinion will go the other way.}}

You apparently fail to notice a very puzzling discrepancy between your conjectures in (a) and (b). You could make the effort to step outside the confines of the standard Pakistani discourse and try to see yourself as others see you - or in this case, as Indians from different parts of that country regard Pakistan and Pakistanis and their behaviour. That could bring you to an alternative explanation that, while not comforting, may be a good deal closer to the truth.

Or you could, of course, find solace in the self-serving delusions of the Romairs and Ahmedzais or of your own #39. The choice is yours.

Bush IS a children`s Monster Moabster -- who Moabs and terrrizes the sleeping Toddlers of Baghdad -- every night.

Bush is -- the AMERIAN BIN LADEN -- doing 9/11 to the INNOCENT men, women and children of Iraq.

#56 by Romair on March 23, 2003 8:32pm PT

Romair, pls do not get annoyed with Tahmed. I`ve just figured out what his problem is.

#66 by tahmed32 on March 24, 2003 7:32am PT

tahmed32:

My deepest sympathies are with you. Here you are, spending some much time and effort to make yourselves heard, and no one`s paying any attention. It`s probably your wife who`s nagging you to the point that you`re losing your sanity, but don`t lose hope yet, you might turn out to be the next Socrates, whose life was beset with much the same problems as yours is. Good luck.

PS: You find my posts funny? I`m happy for you.

Bush is a CRUEL COWARD Draft Dodger -- who used his daddy`s name to protect his ass from Vietnam War -- but is sending someone else`s kid to die for his -- daddy`s fued -- with Saddam Hussein --

-- (he tried to kill my daddy)

squandering billions of -- NOT his Daddy` Money -- but OUR`S -- the hard working American Tax Payers` Money.

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

Bush is a TERRORIST -- TERRORIZING the Iraqi CHILDREN asleep at night --

Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL