As the Bald Eagle Tries to Rule

ahmadzai ji

``Pakistanis sneaked in Kargil just like the Indians had in Siachin``

You need to get your facts right Sir. The officially agreed LoC finishes before it reaches Siachin. A cursory reading of any credible document should tell you why Siachin was referred to as ``undemarcated territory``. Indian army moved in after Pakistani army attempted to show it a part of PoK and started sending expeditions to this area. This topic has been discussed in detail on this forum. Kargil, OTOH, was to the Indian side of the LoC and hence it was a clear transgression of the agreed upon LoC. It may be a good idea for you to read more extensively on this issue and brush up your fundamentals.

PS I agree with the rest of your post. A lot has transpired between 1989 and 2003 to merit the hardening of the general Indian attitude.

The Bald Eagle will surely win this war.

It is the grey matter of its leader that one can question.

What exactly will it take to keep the peace?

And before the next adversary, Al Faeda.............


Ras

Ref veeresh #14

[Yes, the Indian Rupee, coin as well as paper, was the currency used in places as far apart as Aden, Kuwait, Burma, probably Brunei till the late `50s and in some parts of the Persian Gulf till the early `60s.]

Paid Rs. 7 in Indian currency for a Coke at the Dubai Airport in 1969. So, make it the late 60`s.

[Matter of fact, melting of Indian coins for higher metal value was part of the success and origin of more than a few very respectable business houses in both Pakistan & India.]

Was it Dhirubhai Ambani who started his business melting Indian silver rupees in Yemen? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Ahmedzai #15
You write
``Pakistanis sneaked in Kargil just like the Indians had in Siachin. However, due to on over-presence in electronic and conventional media, India soon blew the whole thing out of proportion. The subsequent battle followed the war hysteria created by Indians. ``...
If Pakistani were so incensed by Siachin, why didn`t they use diplomatic channels, like India did.
And if they had to take Kargil military action in ritaliation, they should have done that much before and not while Lahore was happening. It was just a case of plain and simple back-stabbing when Vajpayi, with complete India behind him, was trying to write a new chapter of Indo-Pak peace.
Indian really hated Pakistani army for that. And they start hating those Pakistanis too who try to justify this back-stabbing.

i used to think ,our mulla are .extremisit.indian espicallyyounger generation is very much biased.what indian author wrote in wsj about pakistani cricketers.he vent out venom against pakistan not the players.
please grow up,we are the same human being.we have to change the world with new ideas,new concepts.

Veeresh

Give us your take of the different people you met.

For example, I found the Arabs to most nasty and uncomfortable people to deal. Saudi Arabia etc. The poorer the Arab country, better the people. Jordan, Syria etc.

The English were stiff.

The French & German good. Americans the best.

Bigger the city, worst the attitude.

The Far Easterns (except the too commercial Singaporeans) were soft and polite.

Japanese very humble and curious.

Old ladies and young men are easy to converse every where. Old ladies feel no threat and love to talk about their families. And the young men are curious to know about you.

veeresh #14 I think you are much better at telling old seamen`s tales than at discussing politics. So, very quickly, let me disagree with you on the current gulf war.
As should be clear even after a mere three days of the war, the iraqis are voting with their feet: if they really cared for Saddam, they would have put up some fight. Instead, they seem to be following instructions on US leaflets on how to capitulate - i.e. to simply walk away from their positions and go home. Two major cities (Um Qasr and now Basra) have capitulated with hardly a fight. Nor has the bombing been carpet bombing, as you say. Another fact is that in this war the US is free to go to Baghdad, whereas in Vietnam any land offensive on North Vietnam would have brought the Red Chinese into the war. So, I think sir you need to examine the facts first before reaching emotionally satisfying but unrealistic conclusions. As such, I suggest we agree to disagree if you still think that this war is like Vietnam.
Now lets get back to your sailor`s stories. You did not mention, e.g., the hot spot ports in the persian gulf area and in the neigboring islands (e.g. I have heard some interesting stories about Seychelles Islands, which has the worlds most beautiful women). So, lets hear something about that.

Nazar sahab,

``Old ladies and young men are easy to converse every where.``

:) Reminds me of the line in ``Guess Who`s Coming to Dinner?``: what happens to men when they grow up?

I have dealt with the following people, (mostly in the IT field) in various degrees, in quite a bit of detail, at a personal level: Pakistanis, Americans, Canadians, Arabs, Israelis, Chinese, Iranis, Brits, Russians.

Taking a racist attitude - though an unbiased racist one - I would rank them as follows in their personal 1-1 dealings, i.e. friendliness/ease to get along with/fun to be around/politeness/non-violence etc., from best to worst:

Canadians, Indians, Americans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Israelis, Iranis, Russians, Brits....a large gap.....Arabs (the poor Arabs are ok, but the rich ones are idiots).

At a national/community level, i.e. how do these people behave (friendly/non-violently) in groups and in terms of supporting there countries wrongs and rights, being nationally introspective, I would rank them as follows, from top to bottom:

Canadians, Brits, Pakistanis, Iranis, Indians, Americans, Arabs, Israelis (don`t know much about Russians/Chinese in this regard).

reply #24
Ansari sahab

``Old ladies and young men are easy to converse every where.``

The above observation is a fact when one travels around. Getting into conversation with a young woman is invariably difficult. Even when there is nothing on your mind, she is on the defensive and avoids talking to a stranger. The only exception is a young woman with a child. The child-fascination approach works.

There is no problem opening up conversation with older women. They sense no threat.

The body language of a young woman who may wish to converse could be this. She would be sitting relaxed with her legs open and he back fully back with the chair rest. She would occasionally throw her hair back and look around. She would be wearing a liberal dress with deep V-cut, may be with some exposure. Or dupatta fully thrown back. Possibly with a mild smile and a fleeting stationary eye contact with you. In this case, you could attempt to open conversation.

Older men are tired, worried or simply fed up. They do not want to waste time conversing with a stranger. Students or young men are much easier to open a conversation.

nazarhayatkhan #26 you write ``Even when there is nothing on your mind, she is on the defensive and avoids talking to a stranger. ``
Are you sure there is nothing on your mind when you approach strange young women? You did write elsewhere on chowk about the joys of extra-marital sex. Maybe that gleam in your eye, the increased beating of the heart, and the shine of sweat on your face provides some instinctive clues to these young women that even you are not conscious of. Then instinct takes over, and they run away from you. But never fear. You should run after them.
And hey! if they outrun you, you can always go after the older women who cant run as fast as you. And if all else fails, there is always good old Mrs. nazarhayatkhan at home (although I suspect even she runs off when you come near, and that is why you have these lustful cravings).

Pankaj and Friend:

LOC or no LOC, the whole of Kashmir is a disputed territory. Its fate can only be decided by the Kashmiris only as per the promise given to them by various UN resolutions. This is principled and straight-forward approach. You simply cannot give any excuse for wrong-doing by India in Siachin. India has to give a justification for sneaking into this area and starting a bloody conflict there just the way it wants Pakistan to do on Kargil.

As regards to back-stabbing, why stop at Kargil? Let us go back in history - how about Indian back-stabbing in East Pakistan?

So if India has any reason to hate Pakistanis for Kargil, Pakistanis have much stronger reason to hate Indians due to Siachin and EP. But we don`t do that goes to prove that its Indians who are hate-mongers and fanatics.

Its time for introspection by Indians also. Whereas in Pakistan extremist parties have polled 11 % of votes (despite anti-Americanism sweeping in Pakistan due to `War on Islam`), the moderates of PPP, PML Q and the rest have polled over 60%.

Can you say the same about India, where the destroyers of the symbols of secularism are ruling since ages now?

No hard feelings, but introspection is the key word here.

Romair #25 Please spare us the agony of such generalizations. I have worked with Canadians (the ones you have on the top of your list) who were absolute jerks, and Canadians who were OK dokey. I know a Russian fellow (whom you put at the bottom of the list in terms of friendliness etc.) who worked many years ago with me and, upon leaving the job, assured me I was the finest boss he ever had, and thus has remained close to my heart ever since (hey, the man knew what he was talking about!). And how dare you put the Brits at the bottom of the list of friendliness!! And I once worked with a rich Arab - a Saudi Arabian at that - who was sharp as your razor blade, and worked his butt off.
So please never, ever, make such generalizations. You will only be demonstrating your own personal prejudices and lack of depth.
Now repeat after me: ``I, Rumair, do hereby swear never to make generalizations`` Say this 100 times until you get it.

Nazar sahab,

LOL. Will keep that in mind next time I`m stuck in some departure lounge, counting my change in a foreign language only to find that all those coins add up to is a stick of gum.
But yes, it is a pleasure to find new people opening up to you, strangers revealing shades of familiarity. There is something indescribably human about the friendship, nebulous though it may be, that travellers sometimes share. A spark of potential that maybe it is possible to transcend boundaries through humor and laughter and the wealth of common experience that all people, no matter who they may be, carry with them.

#5 by ahmadzai
//..I have not been able to figure out what happened in the 90s that really made me an anti-Indian, if I am one that is....//

Which hole did you crawl out of?

Let`s see what all happened in the 90`s: Jihad `happened` in Kashmir. Nuke tests `happened` in India and then in Pakistan. Peace `happened` in Lahore quickly followed by War in Kargil. Peace again `happened` in Agra as quickly followed by attacks on Assembly in Srinagar and Parliament in Delhi .... so on and so forth...

All these catastrophic events happened, one after another, within a very short period of 10-12 years. Are these enough to make you anti-Indian? I don`t know. But it sure made a lot of Indians anti-pakistan.

ahmedzai #28 The characterization of Kashmir as ``disputed territory`` as you put it (and as also characterized by governments on both sides for 50 years now), deserves some reflection: Territorial wars are like land feuds on a smaller scale. And land feuds bring only violence, killings, hatreds that are passed through the generations to the families concerned. Both lose out. Wiser people in the meanwhile focus on something that is far more important than land: education and increased income earning capacity, so that ultimately they can if they want buy ten times the land in question.,
Land feuds at the family level provide important lessons on the Kashmir dispute: no one can deny that this feud has cost both countries increased violence, killings and hatreds that have been passed through generations of governments. It is time to end this dispute, let the status quo rest where it is, and let us hold our respective governments responsible for what they should be doing: trying to improve the economic well-being and social and cultural progress in their respective countries.
This brings me to the other aspect of the Kashmir dispute: the right of self-determination for the average Kashmiri. Neither the Pakistan government nor the Indian government is willing to give them this right - otherwise they would hold a referendum on their part of Kashmir to let them decide their future.
So, there are no great moral issues at stake in Kashmir. Only two small minded governments who are more interested in retaining control over this piece of land than they are in the high moral principles (``self-determination`` in case of the Pakistani government, and ``integral part of India`` in case of the Indian government) that they both have talking about for 50 years.