Pakistan and India - Lets Compromise

The US Embassy in Pakistan: fortress against terror threats
Protective measures include daily car searches and ramparts reinforced with steel.

By Gretchen Peters | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - Standing in the leafy courtyard of the US Embassy here, it is hard to imagine this country may be the most dangerous posting in the world for American diplomats.

The government compound looks more like a country club. Lush gardens surround an Olympic-sized swimming pool, tennis courts, a restaurant, and a softball field. Then a siren rings, and embassy staff pour out of the building. ``Secure all classified materials. Close all windows,`` blares the voice of a Marine guard over the loudspeaker. ``At this time you are advised to evacuate.``

Staff pile into armored vans, guided by agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the State Department agency that oversees America`s embassies and diplomats. ``Squeeze in! Squeeze in!`` shouts one agent.

The cars prepare to drive off, when another bell sounds. The drill is over. Regional Security Officer Michael Evanoff checks his watch: It took less than six minutes to empty the compound.

The US-led war in Afghanistan may have toppled the Taliban and ousted Al Qaeda terrorists from their long-time sanctuary. But it also flushed the problem into neighboring Pakistan, where homegrown extremist groups are now working alongside Al Qaeda, putting US installations and the small American community here under constant threat of attack.

``This is now the epicenter of terrorism,`` says Mr. Evanoff, who oversees security for the embassy and its consulates here. ``It really is. This is the only country I know in the world that has so many groups that are against the US or Western ideals.``

Last year alone, these groups pulled off seven strikes against the US community here, including a March church bombing in Islamabad that killed five - among them an American woman from the embassy and her daughter - and a June truck bomb at the Karachi consulate that killed 14 Pakistanis.

Last month, the Karachi outpost avoided another major attack when local police arrested Yemeni national Waleed bin Attash and five other alleged Al Qaeda members with 300 pounds of explosives. It`s believed that Mr. Attash, suspected of playing a leading role in the USS Cole attack, planned to bomb the consulate.

The routine attacks and constant threats - intelligence officials and diplomatic security staff often analyze as many as five a day - have turned the US installations here into virtual fortresses. The sprawling compound in Islamabad is surrounded by thick brick ramparts, topped with razor wire, and reinforced by steel pillars to keep a vehicle from smashing through.

Staff members have been trained to check their cars for bombs and their residences for suspicious behavior. In 2001, two diplomats found small explosive devices had been attached to their cars using magnets.

The embassy staff here drills routinely, practicing scenarios that range from car bombs to a sudden attack by an angry mob. In 1979, Pakistani students, enraged by a false radio report which claimed the US had bombed Islam`s holy site at Mecca, stormed the embassy and burned much of it to the ground, endangering dozens of diplomats holed up in a reinforced area. Hence, explains Evanoff, the current plan to evacuate.

Ambassador Nancy Powell travels through town in an armored car, with two diplomatic security agents always at her side. When she visits consulates in Peshawar, Lahore, and Karachi, she is trailed by pickup trucks packed with elite, US-trained Pakistani forces. To deter would-be attackers, few of her movements are ever announced in advance. ``I do a lot of things at the last minute,`` says Ambassador Powell. ``My official events have not been hampered by this. I go where I need to go.``

Yet employees here say the overall stress of the environment, coupled with daily practices like checking one`s car for bombs, do take a toll. ``It`s always in the back of your mind,`` says Angie Bryan, the embassy`s refugee coordinator. ``You don`t go out in town and feel overt hostility, but you know that the ... people here who don`t like us are willing to do something about it.``

Diplomatic security agents do more than just guard diplomatic staff - they also review a daily flood of threats. And they`ve had some success averting tragedy. A bomb attack planned for another Protestant church on Christmas Eve never took place, after Evanoff and his staff got wind of the scheme and contacted local officials.

``It was the best Christmas present we could have had,`` Evanoff says. Yet the constant threats have affected the US Embassy`s effectiveness in other ways.

The State Department has dramatically reduced staff in Pakistan, even though President Pervez Musharraf has became a valued ally in the US war on terror. That means temporary personnel often make up the bulk of the staff. More than 7,000 temporary staffers have come through Pakistan since Sept. 11, a State Department record.

US Ambassador Nancy Powell admits the constant turnover puts a strain on contacts in a country where personal relationships with local officials are crucial. ``For those working on economic assistance, or on our law-enforcement programs, making the contacts and getting up to speed on the political situation in Pakistan is absolutely key,`` she says. ``And [turnover] is a detriment.``

Employees also grumble about the fact that Pakistan has been a singles-only posting since Sept. 11, meaning partners and children must stay home. Coping with loneliness is a common theme at the American Club bar, though most diplomats say they would make the same decision to come if they had it to do over.

``I think it is a question virtually everyone asks themselves,`` says Deputy Chief of Mission William Monroe, who left his family behind when he came to work in Pakistan. ``You feel you are doing something so important that it is hard to say, gee, I wish I hadn`t done this.``

Were Pakistanis even aware that a ban existed

---

Kuwait lifts ban on work visa for Pakistanis

By Asim Yasin

ISLAMABAD: Kuwait has lifted ban on work visa from Pakistani workforce after seven years. Minister for Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis Abdul Sattar Lalika told a press conference here on Monday that ``Kuwait government officially informed the Pakistan government about its decision to remove all kind of visa restriction on Pakistani workforce``.

He said the Kuwaiti team would arrive here during the month of July for recruitment of workforce. Giving the details of his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, he said he had pledged the case for Pakistan and also remained successful in recognising the FCPS degree from Kuwaiti authorities.

``Earlier this post graduate degree was not recognised by the Kuwaiti authorities that proved to be a major hindrance on way to Pakistani doctors getting jobs there,`` he added.

During his visit to Saudi Arabia, he said the Saudi government agreed to extend the tenure of Pakistani cab drivers to 26 months from six months. ``These 20,000 cab drivers, had to leave Saudi Arabia within next six months, but now it has been agreed to extend their tenure of stay for another 20 months,`` he added.

He said the Saudi government has also promised to provide five x-ray machines to control drug smuggling. ``These machines would be fixed on five Pakistani airports for screening and checking drug smuggling,`` he added.

He said during his meeting with the authorities of Saudi Arab, Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi they hailed the role of President General Pervez Musharraf against terrorism. ``They also praised the policies of Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali for the continuation of economic policies for strengthen the economic condition of Pakistan,`` he added.

He said the government would ensure that no foreigner could avail visa on Pakistani passport in these countries. He asked Pakistanis working in these countries not to indulge any kind of political activities. ``If any complaints received in this regard the government will call back those Pakistan who were found involved in political activities in violation of laws of these countries,`` he added.

Tipu #194

`` Not all indians EXPOSED to Brutish language and cuklturebecame victim to there design of turning us into thee unamed AGENTS ...

When they dismiss Arabic & Sanskrit (so this you cant deny yourself) as equivalent to self of his private book collection against british ...``

I am not dissing out any language. Do you have any idea how much knowledge is created in the English language. Even advanced societies like France, Germany, Japan have trouble keeping with English publications and translating them into native languages.

`` AT LEAST MUSLIM WHO PRESVED EVERYHING FROMMEDICINE TOMATHEMATICS ..Like an honest return back to the rennaisence ..1400 which arrogant British start calleng WEST ?????????????????``

Please save this crap for yourself. Name one major disease Muslims found a cure for.

Arab, Chinese, Maya, Indian knowledge of science and medicine is extremely primitive compared to even 19th century Western science and medicine.

Get over it. The West has created a highly advanced system (it has a lot of flaws). Beat them at their own game. Otherwise shut up.

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

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

Tipu #190

`` Blacks (afro Americans ) BUIT America
THEY are 30 millins over i usa ``

I wonder why they could not build Haiti, Brazil, Domincian Republic and Africa.

`` Ahmedis are Macauleys child like English infected Rabies ``

Huh ??

Most of Pakistani elite study under Maculay system of education. So do most of the Indian elite and code coolies.

#185 by ahmadzai on May 17, 2003 8:23am PT

[I hope that you will now let go of this issue, otherwise the discussion may unintentionally take a turn on other religions and may injure lot of feelings due to nastiness that may come along with it. ]

This is a discussion forum, and when we talk, we try to put forward constructive opinions that may not change the world, but can at least change the way we think. I don`t think letting go of an issue that points to the nadir of human depravity is going to solve it. I understand that my own country/religion has quite a few faults, and I`m willing to discuss them without getting hurt, so what`s the problem?

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

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

Could nt help but agree whole heartedly with this article.
Lets hope we get rid ( economically, socially, and if possible, physically ) of the warp-headed muslim fanatics quickly.
That, is the only way forwards.

I got a chuckle at this

------------
White Lies
It is generally believed that when Washington wants things done, it sends in the remorseless Richard Armitage, a daily 200-benchpresser to deliver its wish list. Last week the barrelchested wrestler, who can bloody anybody`s nose, was in Islamabad for another bout, this time on Kashmir.
A story has it that after an audience with the top brass, Armitage had, what he thought would be a freestyle encounter with prominent parliamentarians from all parties to gauge any resistance. He need not have practised his moves because the match was a walkover. The parliamentarians that gathered had but one request. Could Armitage assist in solving problems faced by their sons and daughters, working or studying in the US.

Reportedly the meeting developed into an INS helpline with people seeking his intervention. Parliamentarians slipped him their telephone, fax and e-mail details and the US heavyweight flew out of Islamabad feeling he knew who would receive his calls, should the occasion so demand.

ahmadzai #185

``Ahmedism is a religious issue. I don`t want to get into this, because it may hurt some feelings on this site. ``

I am sure the treatment of Blacks was a sensitive issue in Southern USA in the 1960`s. I hope you get the drift.

Reply ahmadzai #185

ahmadzai, of course you can believe what you want about whether ahmadias are muslims or not, but what does this personal belief of yours logically have to do with the gop handing out passports to its citizens, and what does any belief about islam have to do with passport applications?

harish_hyd at # 183:

Ahmedism is a religious issue. I don`t want to get into this, because it may hurt some feelings on this site.

Suffice is to say that in all the religions there are certain injunctions that cannot be challenged from human rights point of view. I can give you examples from Hinduism and Christianity if the participants on this site allow me do so.

But let me assure you that in Pakistan, Ahmedis are enjoying very good positions in for example in the bureaucracy, education and army (not in for example, sports, airforce and navy though).

I hope that you will now let go of this issue, otherwise the discussion may unintentionally take a turn on other religions and may injure lot of feelings due to nastiness that may come along with it.

I sincerely hope you understand.

#171 by rsridhar on May 14, 2003 6:34am PT
Let Pakistani’s give it any name. We are just talking about elected representatives of the people of Kashmir. The extremist know they have a very small electoral base at best. That is why they look for an excuse not to fight elections.
AGP in assam also made tall claims. Made a deal with the central govt. fought an election and actually won. But soon realized that it was easier pointing fingers. They lost the next election.

Regards,

Faruk

#181 by HisExcellency on May 14, 2003 2:32pm PT

Thank you for your post. You given an elaborate explanation why Pakistanis have sacrificed politicall freedom for economic benefits. I have nothing against this choice, its for Pakistanis
to decide what’s in their best interest. The Chinese have done something similar.

My question to you is still the same. Why don’t you wish the same thing for the Kashmir’s. Were they not better of economically in the pre insurgency days ? They even had more political freedom than Pakistani’s have today.


Regards,

Faruk

#173 by ahmadzai on May 14, 2003 6:34am PT

[However, please do note that when Indians on this board are quoting articles written by Pakistani journalists from Pakistani newspapers, they are actually doing so of Ahmadi writers most of the time. So to that extent, our Ahmadis are enjoying freedom of speech. Or else, do you think that persecution of Ahmedis is being covered by international media every day, that there is an organized pogrom against them, that when BBC, CNN and Euro News castigate Indian Government on its involvement in Gujrat or Nagaland, the program is routinely followed by one killings and rapes of Ahmedis in Pakistan also?]

Oh, so allowing Ahmadiyas to write articles in Pakistani newspapers is freedom of speech? That`s great. You just won the award for the stupidest definition of freedom of speech.

Persecution of Ahmadiyas is a fact well documented by the international media. Is it not a fact that in order to obtain a passport, every Pakistani is required to sign the following declaration that goes:

``I consider Mirza Ghulam Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group to be non-Muslim.``

Since you say you`ve traveled abroad, you must be holding a passport. Can you refute the evidence cited above? I can produce the document from which I gathered this information.

The only Pakistani Nobel winner Professor Abdus Salam was discriminated for being an Ahmadi. He wanted to establish an international institution in Pakistan for the promotion of Physics, but Gen. Zia refused permission saying that it would raise the hackles of the Maulvis. The great scientist had to finally set up a world-renowned center at Trieste, Italy. He remained unacknowledged in his own country till his end.

General Musharraf tried to get this sentence removed from the passport application, but faced furious resistance from the Islamist parties and had to back down.

The riots in Gujarat were a shame, but the very fact that they were localized and didn`t spread to other parts of India is an achievement of sorts. No one is denying the fact that the administration may have played a part in the riots, but if you go to the relief camps in Gujarat today, you`ll see a lot of Hindus working side by side with Muslim volunteers helping out the affected. At least discrimination against Muslims doesn`t go to the extent that it is institutionalized like in Pakistan.

And why do you have to cite BBC, CNN, and other western sources? Didn`t you read the Indian news sites which came up with the most scathing indictment of the Modi government?

re: #170 by Faruk

++
Could you explain why the “entire population of Kashmir” is suppressed and the entire population of Pakistan is not ?
++

Outsiders often get the wrong impression that Pakistanis are living in oppression under military rule. After all, military rule is supposed to be cruel, despotic and repressive, right?

Not in present-day Pakistan. Elsewhere people would protest a military coup. In Pakistan, people danced on the streets of Lahore and Karachi to celebrate the ouster of Nawaz Sharif by the army in October 1999. No protests were launched, no mass demonstrations.

Today in Pakistan, jobs attract more enthusiasm than democracy. Musharraf government has done a tremendous job of macro-economic reform. As a result, inflation has been contained and basic amenities of life are affordable. Although the microeconomic environment is still rough, the economic recovery is on its way albiet very slowly.

Moreover, Musharraf has not been involved in any corruption scandals unlike Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. This is quite commendable since he has been in power for almost 4 years now. Notwithstanding the ludicrous land-grabbing accusations against the Army, Musharraf enjoys a clean reputation in Pakistan.

That may change of course. But until then, it would be incorrect to assume that entire population of Pakistan is suppressed. Despite the pre-poll rigging in 2002 elections, anti-Musharraf parties are not in a position to launch any mass demonstrations because of their tarnished image and lack of emotive issues.

Regards

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

re:#175 by ZafarA
Thanks for your post.
I agree. The election was not a referendum. That is why i said `` a kind of referendum``. I am not sure whether a referendum ( i mean, a real one) can ever take place, given the political and geographical realities.
Sridhar

rsridhar at # 177:

I have absolutely no problem in accepting democracy over dictatorship any time. And I have absolutely no disagreement with what you said in the post.

However, for Pakistanis, Musharraf has been different. He delivered whatever he promised, elections in 3 years, economic stability, respect for the country abroad (relative), bringing the country`s name down from 2nd most corrupt to now 29th or so, etc. All socio-economic indicators shed positive light on his performance.

People like me want him in the Government for at least 5 more years for the purpose of continuity of policy, for protection against rising extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and for fight against terrorism. Any other current day leader in Pakistan will fail on at least 2 of these 3 areas.

If his Government is not able to deliver economically alongside Karzai`s Government in Afghanistan, extremist forces will have a breeze in next elections solely on the basis of religious emotionalism. As it is, Talibans are gaining again in Afghanistan and in Pakistan Islamists have gained some ground too. In the days to come, Pakistan`s politics would be polarised between extreme right (Islamists) and right (current Jamali led Government). All other parties will be marginalised, as can be seen the fast braking-up of much touted Imran Khan`s TI (with due apologies to some chowksters). In case, Jamali`s Government fails, Islamists will gain ground. Similarly, if Karzai fails, Talibans will gain momentum there.

The best course of action for Pakistan is to let General Musharraf lead economic revival and give moderates a competitive edge against Islamists along with Karzai`s Afghanistan. Thus Musharraf and Karzai are an absolute minimum requirement for both the countries to Keep extremists at bay, at least till such time that highly emotional people of these two countries are able to make intelligent decisions for themselves in the light of improved standards of living.

re:#173 by ahmadzai
If i have offended you in my last post addressed to you, i apologise. My posts (though addressed to a person) are never pesonal. A common theme in my posts have always been: it is better to have a democracy, however bad it is (than a dictatorship) simply because the gains of democracy are longer lasting than the gains of a dictatorship. Latter has the stamp of autority of a single person and fade away when that person is gone.
What happens if this dictator is ovethrown and the next one comes along? Will he not do away with all the good things (if any) that Musharraf has done during his rule? Is what Musharraf doing any different from what General Ayub Khan did during his rule, which BTW is considered the golden age for Pak`s economy as Pak was developing much more rapidly than India at that time? Are any of the institutions that remained during Ayub`s time still standing?
It is my humble contention that institutions are longer lasting than rulers and personalties. You Sir, who have lived outside in places like US, Malaysia etc should know better.
Sridhar

I was just forwarded this petition, which may interest Chowk dwellers.

Isa Daudpota
9:20 pm, 14 May 2003.


Petition to the citizens of the South Asian subcontinent
and peace loving citizens or the world
7th May 2003

This petition is intended to seek the civil society`s
support in encouraging the governments of India and
Pakistan towards finding a permanent peace. Both
governments have taken some steps in the right direction;
with support from the civil society, they will find it
easier to move forward by shedding the baggage of the
past and bringing peace and prosperity to over 1.3
billion citizens of the subcontinent.

It was about one year ago when the standoff between India
and Pakistan was threatening us with a nuclear holocaust.
Thousands of ordinary people of the world then endorsed a
petition demanding of the governments of India and
Pakistan to find a peaceful solution. Most signatories of
the petition were from Indian and Pakistan. The gist of
the comments made were that people of the subcontinent
had a lot in common and wished to live in peace with
economic well-being as the primary concern. The petition
was put up on the Internet on 27th May 2002 and may be
viewed at:


http://www.petitiononline.com/bawabeg/petition.html



As a follow up of the sentiments expressed by the
thousands of persons signing the earlier petition, this
petition is addressed to the civil society and urges
ordinary citizens to endorse a ``Friendship Treaty``
between India and Pakistan, which proposes a road map for
peaceful co-existence.

You are requested to add any suggestions in the comments
column and very importantly, after signing the petition,
select ``Send this to a friend`` at that bottom of the page
and send the petition to as many contacts as you can. You
are also requested to propagate this petition in any
other manner you can; you could run signature campaigns;
draw in local citizens groups; involve the local press
and the electronic media and find support from NGOs etc
where you live. The idea is to get the civil society
involved in a dialogue towards an ultimate solution that
governments can adopt once they are aware of public
support for the solution.

Friendship Treaty - The Proposed Declaration

1. Peaceful co-existence - Both countries
hereby declare that they wish to live in peaceful
co-existence, respecting each other`s sovereignty, with
the principle of non-interference in each other`s
internal affairs;

2. Economic co-operation - both countries
shall work towards economic co-operation with a view
towards gradually removing trade barriers and ultimately
creating a common market under the auspices of SAARC.
Both countries recognise that it is imperative to
allocate the maximum resources towards human and economic
development and that this can only be achieved through
curtailment of military expenditure.

3. Arms reduction and nuclear disarmament - In order to
avoid any future threat of a nuclear conflict and in
order to divert resources towards economic development,
both countries agree to work towards reduction of both
conventional and nuclear forces. Both countries also
agree to co-operate in working towards an ultimate
elimination of nuclear arms from the region and the
world.

4. Protection of the environment and sharing
of natural resources - Both countries wish to co-operate
towards protecting the environment in the subcontinent,
including the oceans around it and towards equitable
sharing of natural resources and this regard reiterate
their commitment towards sincere implementation of water
sharing treaties.

5. Enhanced role for SAARC - Both countries
wish to see an enhanced role for SAARC, including the
development of an ultimate common market in the SAARC
region, which will protect, compliment and enhance the
existing economic activity in the respective member
countries; a move towards an open-borders policy
facilitating travel and human contact and interaction
within the region; a supervisory role for developing and
implementing an environment protection policy for the
region; and a role in developing minimum standards for
human rights within the region.

6. Conflict resolution - both countries commit
themselves to:

a. Using peaceful means, with maximum public
participation, in resolving any current or future
disputes;

b. Co-operation in working towards elimination of
religious, sectarian, ethnic and all other forms of
communal extremism;

c. Resolving the Kashmir dispute through sincere
dialogue, with public involvement and with the following
simultaneous steps to be implemented immediately:

i. Recognition that both countries are in disagreement
as to the de-jure sovereignty over Kashmir and that
pending resolution of this issue through dialogue, both
countries recognise the de-facto sovereignty each country
has over the territories under their respective control -
such territories are separated by the Line-of Control
(LoC).

ii. Urgent steps towards a complete de-militarisation
and de-weaponisation of both sides of Kashmir. With joint
policing of the LoC.

iii. Formation of a Common Market
of Kashmir, with free trade between the two parts;
economic co-operation between the two sides including
promotion of tourism, Kashmiri culture arts and crafts;
and freedom of travel between the two territories for
persons domiciled in either part of Kashmir.

iv. Dialogue to commence between
the two governments, with meetings every three to four
months. However, an essential principle of all dialogue
between governments shall be on the basis of ``public
participation``. This would be achieved through a process
of public disclosure of the discussion after each meeting
followed by public debate. Both governments would
disclose the position taken by each, with the arguments
and counter arguments on both sides and also the
disclosure of any fears and apprehensions if the position
of the other side were accepted. The public would have an
opportunity to debate the matter in the media and through
their representatives in the parliament. Cycles of
meetings and feedback will follow with the benefit of
public participation, which will remove the fear of
agreeing to something not acceptable to the public at
large.

v. Encourage continuation of dialogue on ``Track-2`` and
also possibly on a new ``Track-3`` between Kashmiris on
both sides of the LoC.

Reply rsridhar #171

``You gave an interesting reply in that post. But consider this. Why a referendum? Is a free election in Kashmir not a kind of referendum? ``

To be fair, rsridhar, it actually wasn`t a referendum on whether Kashmir stays with India, accedes to Pakistan or gains Independence.

It WAS, however, a free and fair election, and as such something of an achievement. (It`s also undercut APHC`s standing to speak for Kashmiris - whatever Geelani et al might say, Kashmiri`s elected representatives are the one`s who have the greatest claim to that.)

``Pakis keep repeating the word ``referendum`` ad nauseum without understanding its true meaning.``

Vaisai we can do a Musharraf style referendum in Kashmir if people insist, but uss se kya fayedah?

(sorry, sorry, couldn`t resist...yaaron, mujhe muaf karo...)



Reply Ahmedzai #173

``However, you need to tell this to posters like arjun, jay and m-souza, who happen to be exceptionally critical of Islamic parties elected in the NWFP.``

Free speech yaar. Being freely elected doesn`t mean people are not going to be virulently criticised. Check any Indian magazine and read what Indians have to say about Vajpayee, LK Advani, Jayalalitha, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mayawati, Antony...heck, any politician in India. Being elected means that you now exist to be maligned and blamed for everything from Bollywood flops to rains failing.

rsridhar at # 120

I hope that you and other Indian friends are able to read this:

Your passage:
``Welcome to democracy. I need to give you a little pep talk on what democracy is all about. You Pakis have little idea how democracy functions....... I did not hear any such thing happening. ``

My response:
Even though I have lived in the USA, Spain and Malaysia and have played a prominent student level role in organizing NYC Campaign for Regan/Bush in 1984, I agree with you.

However, you need to tell this to posters like arjun, jay and m-souza, who happen to be exceptionally critical of Islamic parties elected in the NWFP. Democracy applies there too, doesn`t it?

You wrote
``Now, what is happening in that benighted nation called Pakistan? What rights do the Ahmediayas have?``

My response:

I partially agree.

However, please do note that when Indians on this board are quoting articles written by Pakistani journalists from Pakistani newspapers, they are actually doing so of Ahmadi writers most of the time. So to that extent, our Ahmadis are enjoying freedom of speech. Or else, do you think that persecution of Ahmedis is being covered by international media every day, that there is an organized pogrom against them, that when BBC, CNN and Euro News castigate Indian Government on its involvement in Gujrat or Nagaland, the program is routinely followed by one killings and rapes of Ahmedis in Pakistan also?

You wrote:
``Why are sunnis killing shias in Karachi? Was not Pakistan made for muslims like you, so that you can breath freely without hindus breathing on your neck? Why are you guys killing each other now?``

My response:

I don`t agree with you at all. Note the following:

1. Killings of both Shias and Sunnis has been highly targeted by the terrorists. The attacks have a stamp of classical hit and run element. After Talibans, there has been a drastic reduction in the killings.

2. Have you noted that the two people (Sunnis and Shias) have not clashed enmass. The scholars and leaders of both the communities have condemned the killings.

3. Have you noticed that neither community has ever blamed the other or the involvement of the Government in the killings. Yes, both of them have blamed the Government for its failure to provide security.

You wrote:
``Right now, enlightened people in Pak must concentrate on how to get rid of this Whore who is ruling your country. But, then i believe he is still popular and will continue to bleed your country until it is beyond redemption. You may continue to blame India for all your ills until then.``

My response:

1. Indians should note that this ``whore`` is most supported by Muslim minority sects like Shias, Agha Khanis, and other minorities like Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis on taking a U-turn on our self-destructive Talibani policy. This intensity of support is followed by moderate Muslims (PML Q, GNA, MQM, etc.). Only the extremist Muslims are dead set against him. Muslims of PPP show a proverbial fight of the head and heart and Muslims of PML Nawaz have their axe to grind and have decided to side with extremist Islamists. So to this extent, there is a dilemma for you. Indians tend to sympathize with our Shias and other minorities, who are the biggest supporters of Musharraf, who in turn is hated the most by Indians. Conversely, it is the Indians and our extremist Muslims who hate Musharraf the most. What do we infer from this?

2. Its Musharraf`s policies that have brought the respect back to Pakistan and have helped it achieve some stability. All improving socio-economic indicators are reflective of his good policies. Pakistan is on the way to revival, except for some hurdles being put in place by extremist Islamists at home and by hawks in Indian Government outside of our home.

arjun_m at # 150:

``The question should be...Now who is more dangerous according to your self-deluded reasoning... If Dr Germ was educated in India, thats just a fraction of the number of people educated in the US. Mohammad Atta got his flight training in the US...that doesnt mean doodly squat... ``

Now always remember to post this prophetic answer of your goodself whenever you or your buddies like jay, pmishra2 or m_souza post some thing about some terrorist activity some where that is done by a Tom, Dick or Harry that you trace to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

;-)

Reply Ali87

``so muslims are not suppourting this method [terrorism] of settling political issues...Trying logic as per your suggestion I would say spare the muslims the lectures and calls for soul searching(since there is no suppourt by your admission ).``

Not so fast my wily one.

Since Muslims do not support Al-Qaida terrorists (do you agree?), whom are Al-Qaida representing apart from themselves?

And if the Al-Qaida terrorists represent nobody but themselves, what is the political issue which can be settled politically and which will then remove the terrorists motivation?

Is it something the Ummah (on whose behalf Al-Qaida blows up buildings) wants for itself?

#154 by HisExcellency on May 13, 2003 10:44am PT

Thank you for your reply. Its good to know that you believe in democratic rights for the Pakistani people and are affiliated with a political party. You said

“Social and political reform are a normal ongoing process.Suppression of an entire population and killing of 80,000 civilians is not.”

The Indian govt. says 30,000 the Pakistani govt. says 70,000 and you say 80,000 people have lost their lives in the last 13 yrs in Kashmir. I don’t know the exact figure but a lot of people have died there. The Indian govt’s handling of the situation there is terrible. But I believe things are improving there. I cant even imagine how we will compensate the people for the loss of their loved ones. I think Panjab can be used as a model. You are right about the fact that India has failed to protect the lives and property of her citizens in Kashmir. But I don’t remember this happening before 1989. So I do believe that a acceptable solution is possible there.

Could you explain why the “entire population of Kashmir” is suppressed and the entire population of Pakistan is not ?. The last I heard there was a free and fair election in Kashmir. That is more than what can be said about Pakistan. You appear to wish the world for Kashmir but are not fighting for it in your homeland, why ?


I also agree that communal riots still take place in various parts of India and at least in two cases 1984 Delhi and recently in Gujrat the political party in power has been involved or at least facilitated the riots. But I look at this as a need for what you call social and political reform and I may add judicial reform. Even today nearly 20 yrs after the 1984 riots people are fighting cases and have yet to get justice.


“What is your point in quoting India`s defence potential ($40Bn)? Are you saying that it is okay for India to occupy another people`s land, just because India has a bigger army and more weapons. You are simply espousing the doctrine of ``Might is Right``. “

I am not espousing the doctrine of “might is right” just stating it’s a fact. If you have watched the recent world events you will realize that it’s the new world order.


Regards,

Faruk

re:#146 by Faruk
You gave an interesting reply in that post. But consider this. Why a referendum? Is a free election in Kashmir not a kind of referendum? Pakis keep repeating the word ``referendum`` ad nauseum without understanding its true meaning. Referendum by definition is `` a legislative act referred for final approval to a popular vote by the electorate``. Popular vote has already been cast in J and K. Mufti Md is the new leader approved by the electorate after a popular vote was cast. If Hurriyat did not participate, tough luck. It has only itself to blame.
Sridhar

re:#154 by HisExcellency
`` It is a pity that even educated Indian chowkies have no sympathy for the thousands of Muslim civilians who were simply tortured, raped and killed for demanding a right that was promised to them by India itself in the UN``
What came first? The egg or the chicken. Tough to answer, eh?
Now, the easy question: What came first? Terrorism or the State repression? Read your history and you will know that it was only after the terrorists started violence in the valley that the state repression started. No state,especially a powerful state like India, will sit and watch guns taking control of the valley. Violence will be met by violence. That is the only way. Why did your muslim brothers, who took to violence, not think of a Gandhian way of protesting. Did not Gandhi win independence for an entire nation by peaceful means? Did not the British grudgingly accept Gandhi as a leader of importance? Why did the terrorists killing innocent civilians not think of Gandhi before they took to guns? What were they thinking? That the Indians are sissies and will not be able to fight back, used as they are to Gandhian way of resistance?
Well, you have seen the will of a nation that does not want to succumb to terrorism. What the so called freedom fighters are doing is terrorism. Make no mistake. It is so even when Tamilians in Sri Lanka were fighting for their rights. I am a Tamilian and i know fully well what i am saying. I have no sympathies for these LTTE cadres even though i believe Tamilians have been a lot more repressed in Sri Lanka than Kashmiris in India. Kashmiris have their own land, they have special rights by which no outsider can buy property in Kashmir. And on top of that, they enjoy all rights that rest of the Indians enjoy. No such thing exists for the hapless Tamilians in Srilanka. Yet, i say that their cause, however right it is, was addressed by wrong means. Violence never pays in the long run. LTTE is learning it the hard way now. Perhaps, those who believe terrorists in Kashmir are doing a good job will learn it the hard way too.
Sridhar

re:#153 by dionysus
``ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ``
What the heck is that? Don`t tell me. Let me guess.
Rolling on the Floor Loaded with Marijuana, Amphetamine and Other drugs. Right?
Sridhar

re: 154
``I am afraid if Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine continue to suffer, liberal Muslims like myself will not be able to prevent a complete Jihadization of Muslim world.``
If you are really liberal, you should have no problem in condemning violence. I, for one, condemn violence in any form: whether by terrorists or security forces. All i am saying is that as long as terrrorists are there, security forces are justified in using violence to defend their turf.
Now, let me see you condemn the violence of terrorists (aka freedom fighters by Pakis).
Sridhar

re:#160 by HisExcellency
I do not see any hindus from Pakistan in Chowk, nor any Ahmeddiyas. That is not to say these people are not repressed. We did find some sindhis in Chowk vent their anger in Chowk many months ago. If you have been around as long as i have been, you would have heard their sorrow and plight and sympathised with their cause.
Sridhar

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

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

ali87 # 143

``If you say that terrorism stands alone and is result of just fractured minds then on what basis are the negotiations whit IRA and LTTE are taking place?``

LTTE has confined their war primarily to Sri Lanka. IRA has limited their operations against British targets. LTTE and IRA have near universal support among Sri Lankan Tamils (10-15% are Christian, a few Muslims).
IRA has strong support among Irish who happen to be Catholic.

US govt has dealt with PLO/Arafat. They have dealt with Kurdish rebels in Iraq. They are dealing with Iranian Mujahdeen.

USA has dealt with Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan. Check out the number of visits to USA by the leaders of Pakistani Islamic parties.

USA has not tolerated violence by Khalistani community. After 1985 Kaniska bombing there has not been a major act of violence by Sikhs in the West.

What is there to talk with Osama ?

re: #159 by pmishra2

Stop making a fool of yourself, your country and your religion by justifying human rights abuses in the name of democracy & secularism. Godhra, Gujrat, Golden Temple, Baramullah, Babri Masjid and Bombay riots have exposed the so-called democratic credentials of Hindulands. Nobody is buying your self-righteous banter. Read the Amnesty Internationa, UNHRC and State Department special reports on Human rights abuses in Kashmir.

++
And this clown thinks that by threatening us with jihad, he will get us to pay attention
++

Who gives a damn about your paying attention!! If you don`t like the comments posted on this channel, switch to another one. You will find many likeminded morons of your ilk at http://www.shivsena.org.. Now shoo!

++
The day you stand outside Muridke with a poster saying ``No to violence`` is the day we will listen to you
++

Hehehe.. Fortunately, Mr.Vajpayee doesn`t want to wait till then. Perhaps you should vent your frustrations in an angry letter to the Prime Minister Office for ignoring your ``preconditions`` for talks :))

#160 by HisExcellency on May 13, 2003 1:53pm PT
#156 by arjun_m

India would have had to fight for the rights of the oppressed Hindus in Pakistani area..if there had been any left..
But Hindus of pureland` have been slaughtered by pakis in genocides, have been driven out of the `pure land` or finally even after eradicating them..whatever were left..have been converted already..
Very very few left..who can`t even dare to say that they are opressed

#154 oh!Great!Flatulence

[quote]
I am afraid if Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine continue to suffer, liberal Muslims like myself will not be able to prevent a complete Jihadization of Muslim world.
[end-quote]

Go ahead and become a jihadi, you silly fellow. YOu think you can get someplace by threatening us? You think we are stupid enough to think that the only human right problems in the world are in Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine?

Every country between India and Israel is ruled by an Ayatollah, a General, a Sheikh or a dictator. But there are no problems there !!! There is a paradise of human rights in these countries !! What a joke !

And this clown thinks that by threatening us with jihad, he will get us to pay attention. And the best part is, (this must be something to do with the pakistani world-view), he thinks he is a human rights supporter !!! What a laugh ! A person who spends his time threatening the rest of us with violence is a human rights advocate?

Go back to your narrow minded hole man. The day you publically work to bring human rights to your country or your culture is the day we will respect you. The day you stand outside Muridke with a poster saying ``No to violence`` is the day we will listen to you. Till then we recognize you for the sectarian propagandist that you are...

Beat it !

re: #156 by arjun_m

++
How would you like it if India and Pakistan were on the verge of war because Indians were fighting for the rights of the opressed Sindhis..
++

Having wet dreams??
Hahaha!! Where are these oppressed Sindhis? I don`t see them in Sindh at least. You must be refering to some nonentites like G.M.Syed who were rejected by the people of Sindh in favour of the Bhuttos.

#155

India has comitted many wrongs in handling the Kahsmir issue but Pakistan`s persistent interference has transformed it from an issue into a problem. Indian leadership, particularly Nehru and Indira, could have solved it at initially stages but they were more interested in their vote bank.

As for as its comparison to 1971, Bangla Desh population formed more than 50% of Pakistan while Kashmir(including non-muslim population) is less than 1% of India. India`s state heavy handedness on Kashmiris is self evident and undeniable but to equate it with 1971, India will have to first kill 3 million Kashmiris(which is more than the total Sunni muslim population of the Kashmir Vale). There is no parallel, at least not yet.

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

#148 by ZafarA on May 13, 2003 4:24am PT

Thanks..

by your own admission.....

``Because, whatever they claim, “Muslim terrorists” (doesn’t this strike you as an oxymoron?) do NOT have enduring support among the people they claim to speak for ``

so muslims are not suppourting this method of settling political issues while the Catholics of Ireland(supourted for long by US) and the Hindus of Sri Lanka are.

Trying logic as per your suggestion I would say spare the muslims the lectures and calls for soul searching(since there is no suppourt by your admission ). YOu could instead direct them at the Hindus of Sri Lanka, and the Catholics of N Ireland

IMHO, peace requires that both India and Pakistan pursue their national agenda without trampling on universal human rights. In 1971, Pakistan took the high-and-mighty demeanour to crush an entire population. Now India is doing the same. In 1971, Pakistan was on the wrong side of history and paid for it. Today India is on the wrong side of history. Sane Indians should step forward and correct a wrong done to the Kashmiris, instead of pompously boasting of military might and whatever.

Weapons and large economies cannot suppress a nation that is hell-bent on its self-determination. Despite its military might and economic boom, America failed to crush the Vietnamese and had to retreat in shame. USSR suffered the same fate in Afghanistan. At the end of the day, it is simply a contest of will power. If the Kashmiri`s will to freedom is stronger than the Indian`s will to subjugate, the Kashmiri will win.

(Even a cursory look at history will reveal that the will to freedom IS stronger the will to subjugate.)

Ciao!

Faruk #146

``I for one believe that we should hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and we will win.``


ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

re: #146 by Faruk

++
[ have a question for you, are you just as passionate about the rights of Pakistani people. Right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, right to be masters of their destiny in every sense of the word.]
++

As a PPP supporter, I passionately espouse all forms of freedom that are enshrined in Islam and Pakistan`s Constitution. The Pakistani Constitution already provides for religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association and economic freedoms. Some of these provisions have been implemented, others have been ignored or deliberately violated.

Social and political reform are a normal ongoing process.Suppression of an entire population and killing of 80,000 civilians is not.

It is a pity that even educated Indian chowkies have no sympathy for the thousands of Muslim civilians who were simply tortured, raped and killed for demanding a right that was promised to them by India itself in the UN. If 50 Hindus die in Godhra (BTW, I condemn that massacre), they go up in arms calling Muslims ``terrorists`` and ``evil``. But when 2000 innocent Muslims are killed in broad daylight with the collusion of Police, Indians call it ``equal and opposite reaction``.

What kind of message are you sending to the Muslim world? Are Hindu lives more precious than Muslim ones? Are Hindu freedom struggles more noble than Muslim ones? If Gandhi takes out a peaceful procession, he is a hero. When thousands of Kashmiris took out a peaceful procession in Srinagar in January 1990, they were massacred and portrayed as ``villains``. Why such double standards in vocabulary and political ideals??

I am afraid if Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine continue to suffer, liberal Muslims like myself will not be able to prevent a complete Jihadization of Muslim world.

What is your point in quoting India`s defence potential ($40Bn)? Are you saying that it is okay for India to occupy another people`s land, just because India has a bigger army and more weapons. You are simply espousing the doctrine of ``Might is Right``.

Basically you are telling the Muslims that unless they militarize themselves using their enormous oil wealth, they can forget about independence in Kashmir, Palestine and elsewhere.

Listen to yourself before posting such jingoistic remarks on this forum.

Ciao.

For those willing to look at the issue of Kashmir seriously, may I recommend:

FRAMEWORKS FOR PEACE
a symposium on efforts to broker
peace in Kashmir

http://www.india-seminar.com/semframe%20kashmir.htm

I have only just come across this excellent mag on the net that is produced in New Delhi.

Isa Daudpota
5:15 pm, 13 May 2003

ahmedzai #134 have been told that the religous parties, now that they are in power, are focussing more on community problems rather than their islamist ideology and this may be a smart move on their part to consolidate the foothold they gained in recent elections. Thus, in Karachi the civil adminsitration of the jamaat i islami nazim naematullah seems (from what I hear from people) to be doing a good job of introducing law and order, cleaning up streets and so forth. This is certainly a far cry from the brutal regime of the secular but ethnic MQM, as well as the other secular parties. In the frontier they seem to be doing the same thing.
What you write seems to indicate that despite these attempts of the mullahs to downplay their islamist ideology and to do something useful instead, people in NWFP remain sceptical of them.

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

HisExcellency:

Actually Salahuddin of HM stated yesterday that the War against Indian occupation forces in Indian held Kashmir will continue even after the softness of Pakistani stance. Also, Pakistani PM and IM have both categorically stated yesterday that there is no compromise from Pakistani side on the issue of Kashmir. The softness is only to begin dialogue.

I agree with you that if India does not grasp this opportunity for a permanent solution then it will suffer in the years to come. If it does, then there are following benefits for it:

1. With no conflict in the neighborhood it can strengthen its claim to permanent place in the security council and realize its dream of becoming a global power.

2. With an agreement of peace with Pakistan, it can then provide an effective pretext to the big powers to force Pakistan to give up its `Islamic` nuclear capability, since that was built only against India.

3. Of comparatively less importance to it, with it accorded MFN status in Pakistan, its products will fill Pakistani markets, at least as long as it does not bring some protective barriers down against imports of certain items.

Given the above, I am not sure why would Pakistan like to soften its stance on Kashmir. Otoh, I think once the people to people contact, traders contacts, and the dialogue starts, Pakistani stance on Kashmiri resolution will become stronger and harder for India to agree on. It will be a lose-lose situation for India. How?

If it does not accept, it loses the hope of realizing the 3 above-mentioned benefits of immense importance to it to become a global power.

If it accepts, it faces a domino effect with several other states demanding separation.

Re:#128 by HisExcellency
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``

This is an interesting point. I for one believe that we should hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and we will win. The botched elections of 1987 were a big blow for Indian democracy. The recent elections and say a couple more should reestablish the tradition. Another Herculean task is to rebuild the state economically. That has already begun and it will take a few years.

I have a question for you, are you just as passionate about the rights of Pakistani people. Right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, right to be masters of their destiny in every sense of the word. You and other Pakistanis talk a lot about the rights of Kashmir’s but what about the same rights for Pakistanis. What about persecution of Pakistanis by Pakistanis in Pakistan. I don’t believe that you have had democracy in your country from April 17 th 1953 if you know the significance of that date in the history of your country. It does not appear to be honest that people of Pakistan want something for Kashmir’s but not for themselves. Can you explain?

Regards,

Faruk

pmishra2 @ # 124:

I have no interest of interacting with you or any other Indian posting similar messages, reason not being that I hate you or anything, but because the whole pessage offers contradictions to the points you want to drive home. For example:

1. What Drove 2 Britons to Bomb a Club in Tel Aviv?

2. DERBY, England, May 8 — Something changed Omar Khan Sharif, sent him in a new direction, and Derby`s older Pakistani population cannot begin to fathom what it was.

3. But the radicalization of the well-educated, thoroughly Westernized Mr. Sharif, 27.

4. ``In a way, I sympathize,`` said Mohammed Zahid, 23, an automobile-plant inspector with a broad Midlands accent

5. 2nd generation Pakistani

6. Of Kashmiri descent.

Also note that the person on the Most Wanted List at # 45 Dr. Germ has been arrested in Iraq. She was educated in India. This makes 50% of the people caught todate on the list educated in India.

Now what is more dangerous?

1. Second generation Pakistanis with strong British accents, educated in Britain, the link with Pakistan being that parents once lived in Kashmir.

or.

2. Arabs living in Iraq being accused of weapons of mass destruction, having invaded two neighboring countries, found to have connections with Indian chemical manufacturing companies and educated in Indian educational instututions.

100 points for a correct answer.

Hint to solving this problem: Indians on this site routinely claim that Pakistanis come from Indian race.

;)

Reply ali87 #143

Why is the UK Govt negotiating (finally) with the IRA? Why is Sri Lanka negotiating with the LTTE?

Because they HAVE to. Both groups have shown that they have enough enduring support among the populations they claim to represent AND they have proven to be entrenched in their home ground (UK and Sri Lanka have been unable to beat them). Sri Lanka, btw, is not a Western country.

“why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity?”

Because, whatever they claim, “Muslim terrorists” (doesn’t this strike you as an oxymoron?) do NOT have enduring support among the people they claim to speak for (what happened to the remnants of the Taliban when ordinary Afghans caught up with them?) – and this makes them structurally weak enough that the US does not HAVE to negotiate with Al-Qaida etc.

“…why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?”

Spare me the truisms. Terrorism always arises for political reasons. Primary among them being that a group cannot get what it wants by any other means so it decides to try and blow up a few civilians just to see if that works – in the case of Muslim terrorists that usually means that people will not vote for them, and importantly, that they do not see their legitimacy as coming from the people’s will (expressed, for eg, through the vote) but from the belief that they are ‘right’ and everybody else is ‘wrong’ and in fact ‘cursed’ for opposing them. (Try negotiating with that. Though the Philippines IS actually currently negotiating with Abu Sayaf.)

”I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.”

Your invective is lame. Try logic.

Regards

Re : #136 by HisExcellency on May 12, 2003 1:09pm PT

“My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.

Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.”

Let me try your logic…..
India spends Rs. 100,000 cr on keeping the public sector companies afloat. That’s the motivation for disinvestment in this sector by the Indian govt. If the disinvestment continues and we move this entire expenditure to defense we will have a defense budget of around Rs 200,0000 cr or $40 billion by the end of this decade, without increasing our govt. expenditure. That is two third the size of your economy. By the end of this decade we will be so far ahead of Pakistan that Pakistan cant compete. We have already taken all Pakistan has got for the last two decades why should India compromise now ?

Regards,

Faruk

#115 by Paigham on May 11, 2003 6:42am PT


#117 by ZafarA on May 11, 2003 6:42am PT

jerks just dont put words in my mouth... read the post again and the context too.

you see ghosts that you dream of.

While malginging the Muslims for forstering terrorism I asked you to also spare a thought about other terrorists too and see every thing in proper prospective.

If you say that terrorism stands alone and is result of just fractured minds then on what basis are the negotiations whit IRA and LTTE are taking place?

You dont have any answers because your western masters havent given you the cue.

instead of answering/analysing the query I raised you talk rubbish rethoric.

why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity? When the west and the rest of the world can negotiate with IRA, LTTE, tolerate the Khalisthani terrorists for two decades in US and Canada, Negotiate with Anti-Iranian group labeled terrorist for a long time then why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?

I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.

#123 by tahmed32 on May 11, 2003 7:30pm PT

I posted this in another discussion . ...

so much for your hopes read on...

The only long-term means to minimize risks of recidivism in Baghdad are to maintain a strong deterrent force in the region and to ensure large numbers of Iraq`s secular and clerical leaders have a stake in the system. It is not a matter of winning hearts and minds -- something Americans aren`t good at. It is a matter of buying them off, putting them on the payroll, or cutting them in on a piece of the action -- things Americans are very good at.

The favored Iraqis, in turn, must be counted on to go forth and do likewise, granting their own domestic factions a piece of the action so people throughout the social pyramid have a stake in the system. That, too, echoes an Ottoman precedent: the mukta`a, or administrative unit in which every office is associated with a source of revenue.

.........

this is from.......

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030512-125304-2704r

Walter A. McDougall, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Alloy-Ansin Professor of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, is a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.


Im eagerly awaiting your apologia , explanation, side stepping from issue in response.

#109 by jay on May 10, 2003 8:33pm PT

conclude all you wish...

re:#128 by HisExcellency
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``
The world does not appreciate any state flaunting terrorism as a policy. Pak has no choice. It has been using Mujahideens to unleash terror on hapless people and on Indian security forces. Such a policy finds no favor in the new dispensation post-9/11. Wake up, guys.

Besides, what Kashmiri rights are you talking about. See my post in another forum about the rights Paki govt has given to the so called ``Azad Kashmir``. Compare that to the free and fair election and a populist govt in place in Srinagar today.
Do you guys enjoy any rights under a dictator? What rights would you like Kashmiris in India to enjoy that you yourselves do not? I am awaiting your reply.
Sridhar

re:#122 by pmishra2
Thanx for your comments. What you say is so true!
Sridhar

re:#119 by dialogue
Nothing will change between India and Pakistan until 2 things happen:
1. There is a policy change at the highest level (with the concurrence of military and jehadi leadership) that stops treating India as an enemy country
2. Army dictator paves way for a true democracy and returns Army to the barracks.
The above 2 are closely interlinked. Pause for a moment. See how Army has literally invaded every space in Pakistan in the name of providing security. Security against whom? India no doubt. But, why take over civil administration, cricket board, go on land grabbing, slash away huge money in foreign banks. All in the name of providing security against Indians.
Ordinary Pakistanis do not understand what is going on. I have interacted with them in US and they are naieve and patriotic. I was amazed when one of them i was talking to hoped (soon after Mushy took over in a coup) that Musharraf Sahib will do something good. Why do Pakistanis want to believe that a non-elected military dictator will ever be good? Why do they not repose faith on an elected representative? Beats me.
Sridhar

His!Great!Flatulence

[quote]
My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.

Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them
[end-quote]

No better example may be found of thuggishness and extortion of the pakistani establishment. No different than a mafia don or neighborhood thief: if you dont give what I want, I will attack you and hurt you.

Paki economy will catch up with India? Heh, Heh, Heh..... It must be nice to be so ignorant. Maybe you mean the jihadi ecomony? Certainly, few countries can match that aspect....

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

re: #134 by ahmadzai

I agree with you on the reasons for Pakistan`s soft line on Kashmir. Economic instability, corruption and lack of social development has indeed impaced Pakistan`s GDP per capita. To affect these indicators, Pakistan will need to abandon the hardline on Kashmir.

However, if India exploits the soft line and does not make painful concessions, the thaw will be temporary like the Indo-Pak thaw of 1980s.
General Zia-ul-Haq warmed towards India just to keep the eastern border peaceful while a brutal war was being waged in Afghanistan. During this period of bonhomie, Pakistani economy improved. Indian high school students studied at Islamabad schools and Pakistani students enrolled in New Delhi during mid-1980s. Zia-ul-Haq used to call Shatrughan Sinha his ``beta`` and what not. Regular cricket tours took place.

The same Zia-ul-Haq prepared the Kargil Plan in 1987 after the Geneva Accord. Since the Soviets were retreating from Afghanistan and the Pakistani economy was going sound, Zia was readying for the Kashmir operation.

My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.

Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.

Reply Ferozk

Right now it`s seems that it is dawning on Vajpayee & Co. that signing off on some faltu peace document is only as useful as the person/institution that signs off opposite you is authoritative. Hence the generally gloomy and unexcited air with which they are approaching the whole exercise.

I don`t think that it has yet occured to them that others might, given the right circumstances, soon be thinking these thoughts about them. They might realise in time - I hope so. But the first issue remains. Any free advice?

his Excellency @ # 128:

About Kashmir, there is a realization on part of Pakistan itself that under the present geo-strategic situation that has emerged subsequent to 9/11, our policy needs a total revamping. In general, our principled stand on Kashmir has been acknowledged since we have not been given a shut-up call.

1. We would have been given a total snub by the world if Indian stand were principled. Since they have economic returns to offer the world, the weight would have fallen decidedly in their favor. Pakistan would have been made a total outcast. This has not happened.

2. If Pakistan had more economic interests to offer than India, then Kashmir would have been decided in its favor.

3. That the USA and the West are soft on both India and Pakistan proves that one of them had a moral advantage (Pakistan) and the other had economic advantage (India. That could not be Pakistan).

What I am trying to say here is that Pakistan might have decided to put Kashmir on the back-burner to concentrate on economic development first. Remember that we can always revisit the issue at an opportune time ;)

The current Government is striving for economic stability and development, for strengthening democracy under a controlled environment to begin with to give continuity of policy and for social development of the masses, which I believe should have been there from the very beginning.

The 90s, generally known as the lost decade for Pakistan, are the ones that gave a huge advantage to India over Pakistan, because the latter erred on all the three above-mentioned areas.

Tahmed 32 at # 123:

In addition to my comments to His Excellency in the previous post, I believe that the Government is on the right track, except for Islamic parties, basically Jamaat-e-Islami, who are bent upon destroying every thing.

In tribal areas, there is a proverbial fight between the brain and the heart that is going on. People generally feel that what General Pervaiz Musharraf has done is right. But then their emotional self takes over, under the mis-guidance of our Islamic parties, over issues like Nizam-e-Mustafa and Islamization / Talibanization. I think that in tribal areas, Pushtoon belt of Balochistan and in the NWFP we need Jihad against illiteracy. The Government should be devoted 7x24 basis to educate the public on the Change in geo-strategic situation and the need for changing our response to it.

Talking to independent economists, I believe that in another 5 year Pakistan`s economy will really take-off. Positive signs are already there in terms of macro-economic improvement. How these will be realized at public level remains to be seen.

In the meantime, I suggest that you and Pakistanis settled in the USA remain tuned in to Geo TV of Pakistan (Jang Group of newspapers) for their programs on Pakistan`s economy and budget 2003 that will start soon. The Geo programs are re-telecast in the USA and the transmission quality some times is poor, but you will be able to get a good picture of overall situation.

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

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

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

HisExcellency #128
This robber baron mentality is foolish - its never a good long term solution for anyone to offer quid pro quo to career extortionists.

Meanwhile Kashmiri MUSLIMS who are PDP (ruling political party) members continue to be killed by Pakistan-funded and trained terrorists- as reported by yesterday`s Dawn.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/05/10/welcome.htm

Its evident the thickheaded Pakistani establishment still thinks that it can make J&K into another Afghanistan, - ie, decimate all civic institutions including political parties, killing political party members so that Pakistan`s own chosen fundamentalists can then rule.


The problem with this plan is, India is not Afghanistan, neither is India - Soviet Union - as the ISI and Pakistani Army and their paaltu fundamentalists will continue to discover.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_12-5-2003_pg8_2

‘Only Jihad can guarantee world peace’

``...LAHORE: Leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami said here on Sunday only jihad could guarantee world peace and the Kashmir issue was still alive only because of jihad. They also urged the government not to compromise on Kashmir. Qazi Hussein Ahmad, Ameer JI addressing a seerat conference at Nishter Town said the people in Indian-administered Kashmir were fighting for their right of self-determination. He said the JI would not allow the closure of jihadi camps. He said the real issue between India and Pakistan is Kashmir, not trade. JI General Secretary Syed Munawar Hassan said at a training workshop of party workers that the fall of Communism was a result of jihad and now through jihad an Islamic system should be established throughout the world. “Only then can there be peace,” he added. ..``

Even when Pakistan had democratic governments (1988-1999), India refused to talk about Kashmir, free political prisoners or open up Kashmir to the rest of the world. Therefore, the Indian argument that ``we will not talk to Pakistan because Pakistan is not a democracy`` is quite a non-starter. Armitage`s recent declaration that infiltration is down from a year ago, is enough to indicate the American mood on India`s stance.

This brings us to the bottomline: Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?
India must offer Pakistan a quid pro quo in comparable terms for the process to proceed to its next logical level. Neither Paksitani politicians nor the Army is foolish enough to reverse its support for Kashmiri struggle permanently, without third-party guarantees of Indian concessions. As the events of 2001/2 demonstrate, even Americans have limited leverage with Pakistan on Kashmir Policy.

I do not believe that the present communalized Indian leadership has the courage and commitment to offer such a quid pro quo. Therefore, the present thaw (IMHO) is tactical, not strategic. History proves that each round of bilateral talks is followed by a round of violence.

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