President Pervez Musharaff’s Views

I reckon that Soma must be some sort of an influential person or an academician to have got an audience with President Pervez Mussharaf on his just concluded tour to USA.I would like to put the history staight and the issue of Kashmir in its correct perspective.

I agree with the President that all Indo Pakistan conflicts have taken place in the context of Kashmir. According to the partition plan, the people of Kashmir had to exercise the right of vote which was reiterated in the UN Security Council Resolution. Much before the partition, Nehru had drawn a strategy to annex Kashmir in which he had the support of Lord Mounty. Hence the lopsided award of Radcliffe. Then there was also the Raja of Bikaner who had declared that he would accede to the country that controlled the irrigation system of East Punjab. So if the Radcliffe award was fair, Bikaner would have become part of Pakistan. So the award gave India control of Rivers as well as secure a life line to Kashmir which was also Nehru`s ancesterol bias.

We also have to go back to the days of Hind- Chini Bhai Bhai. It is now a fact of history that Nehru palacated Tibet to India in return for her occupation of Kashmir. What has happened now during the recnt visit of Vajpaee to China over Tibet and Sikkim is a mere continuation of the same policy. Tibetians and the Dlai Lama have been given a very long and cantekerous joyride by the Indian policy.

Now come to think of Nehru`s initial declaration that he would allow a plebescite in Kashmir and his famous words ``you go your way and we go ours``. Why did he rescind on his commitment on the plebescite? Well Nehru`s ersthwhile opinion was that Pakistan would not survive beyond the fiftees and by logic not only Kashmir but all of Pakistan would also be theirs. When he reaised that Pakistan would survive, he ate back his words.

In the 70s his daughter saw a chance. The entire international perception was rallied against Pakistan. White house years by Henry Kessinger explain why West Pakistan could not be cut across.

Vajpaee`s Yatra to Lahore moreso to Minar-ePakistan was an indication that India no more covetd Pakistan. It was also a message that if Pakistan compromised on Kashmir, there would be no further exploitations of instabilities within Pakistan.

The litmus test of India`s flexibility on Kashmir will be her willingness to amnd the constitutional status of IHK and allow negotiations on it. Till such time this basic point is not addressed no conclusive diplomacy on Kashmir is possible. So Kashmir diplomacy remains akin to looking for a needle in a haystack with no magnets.

In the ultimate analysis no diplomacy on Pakistan`s side would succeed. It is the Kashmiri people who have to set the candlke of freedom alight. Sooon they will also be joined by the Buddists who have been let down due to India`s recognition of Tibet. So the stage is set for graeter Russo-sino-Indo collaboration on the blue print of the Shanghai-5 but also put Pakistan`s relations with China in sharp focus. Truly, India`s foreign policy experts have made the move in great Kautylian fashion.

re: Looters and plunderers of Pakistan
Further to my post # 169 (in reply to post # 153), here is an article from SAtribune:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/jul06_12_03/opinion_amin.htm

1. ``A dispassionate glance at Pakistan’s history proves that this country has been looted or plundered by both soldiers and civilians. It is another thing that soldiers got away with the crime because they had guns in hand while politicians were penalized because they did not have coercive military power or because they committed the crime of appointing army chiefs who overthrew them.``

2. ``The vast bulk of corruption in this country was committed in the Ayub and Zia eras because it was in these two periods when phenomenal doses of foreign aid came to this country. Thus the 21 families of the Ayub era. This is a reference to the families who, thanks to President Ayub’s patronage, rose from little or nothing to become among the richest in Pakistan. These included sons and grandsons of Risaldar Majors of Hodsons Horse and sons and grandsons of Assistant Political Agents (In both cases, the ranks are humble). I know many sons and grandsons of Risaldar Majors but none became a billionaire unless he was one part of the Ayub regime.``
Read about other scams that bedevil Pakistan.
Sridhar

Naqshbandi #172

`` I am glad that the PAF procurement guys have finally decided to shop around and not just pine after US F-16s (which are 20 years old technology anyway) -- pakistan should get the weapons it requires for its defence from wherever it can. And given the pre-eminence of air power in any conflict nowadays having an air force with modern planes is vitally important. The nukes are meant as a deterrent and not really to be used except in exceptional circumstances I`d imagine...``

F-16 is still a potent fighter aircraft. The PAF does not have the latest avionics, guided weapons, AWACS and electronic warfare equipment the USAF normally has. F-16 costs $30 million an aircraft which is a bargain compared to what France charges.

`` Therefore whether they get Swedish, French or Russian (etc) planes it doesn`t matter. I don`t know too much about military aircraft but I have heard the Su-37 (?) is an excellent 5th gen fighter and so is the Griffen and also the French Raphaele...``

Swedish aircraft is based on US jet engines. USA would deny Pakistan the jet engines. It is not a given Sweden would sell Pakistan the combat aircraft these days. Maybe 10 years ago. Russia is not going to sell Su-30 or Su-37 aircraft to Pakistan maybe Su-27. Su-37 does not even exist. India and Russia are supposed to work on it. France has denied India Rafale. The odds are slim for Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan have been negotiating with France for close to 10 years for Mirage-2000-5 strike aircraft. It costs 50-80 million a plane. The French do not seem to be in a mood to reduce prices !!!

`` Personally I think we should have a joint defence pact with the Saudis as they have got all the latest weapons and we have excellent soldiers/pilots etc so it will be a perfect match...``

Saudis buy weapons to prop up US defense industry. I doubt they let anyone use their equipment.

`` I wonder if we could buy some Blackjack (?) bombers of the Russians? ;-) and throw in a Typhoon Class sub too!! (if only!!)``

The best bomber in the Russian air force is Tu-22M Backfire four of which has been leased to India. China has been denied the aircraft. Odds of Pakistan getting it are zero.

Why would Pakistan want a nuclear powered submarine ? They cost too much to even operate.

sridar,

I am glad that the PAF procurement guys have finally decided to shop around and not just pine after US F-16s (which are 20 years old technology anyway) -- pakistan should get the weapons it requires for its defence from wherever it can. And given the pre-eminence of air power in any conflict nowadays having an air force with modern planes is vitally important. The nukes are meant as a deterrent and not really to be used except in exceptional circumstances I`d imagine...

Therefore whether they get Swedish, French or Russian (etc) planes it doesn`t matter. I don`t know too much about military aircraft but I have heard the Su-37 (?) is an excellent 5th gen fighter and so is the Griffen and also the French Raphaele...

**

Personally I think we should have a joint defence pact with the Saudis as they have got all the latest weapons and we have excellent soldiers/pilots etc so it will be a perfect match...

**

I wonder if we could buy some Blackjack (?) bombers of the Russians? ;-) and throw in a Typhoon Class sub too!! (if only!!)

To all Pakis:

All talks about Gujarat by pakis claiming high moral ground has been invalidated by the recent suicide bombing in Pak itself. Who did it? The same jihad which they claim to free them are now being used by themselves, on themselves and what will be the result?. Isnt this enough to shut your loud mouths and do some rehabilitation to Islam. Nobody, i emphasis, nobody should justify their acts as a response to acts by other communities.
I say both India and pak forget about kashmir and consentrate on rehabilitation. No other alternative other than to accept the loc as border, atleast temporarily, and do good to themselves.

re: Pak`s drive towards bankrupcy
India is setting up Pak for a ``soviet-style`` bankrupcy. It has increased its own military expenditure but its expenses are well within its budget and commensurate with its size and security threats. But Pak seems to be following the classic pattern of rivalry which lead Soviet union, a closed economy with limited resources at the time, towards bankrupcy. Read the following Url:
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13187938&vsv=94

``With all hopes of netting F-16`s from the US having dissipated into thin air, Pakistan is reportedly urgently looking for alternatives from Britain, France and Russia.
According to sources, the government plans to spend anything between 12 and 15 billion dollars over the next five years to modernise the PAF, perceived by the defence authorities as a neglected sector.``
Where is the money ($ 12-15 billion in the next 5 years) to come from? No doubt from foreign aid and foreign exchange. Precious money meant for development will be diverted towards purchase of military hardware. All in the name of security threat from India. So, what happened to the much touted military doctrine that Pak does not have to compete with India since it has nuclear weapons as a deterrant. Either Pak rulers do not consider nuclear weapons as deterrant or they are on an ego-trip. Or, worse still, Pak`s nuclear capabilites may have been neutralised by USA.
Military expenditure is what economists call as ``locked up capital``. It is not economically viable for Pak to try to compete with India. But who can argue with megalomaniacal military rulers.
Sridhar

re:#153 by HisExcellency
I am only amazed when you guys keep defending dictators. Yes, Ayub era brought prosperity but much of it is borrowed ``prosperity``. It was not as if Pak suddenly became a manufacturing giant. Read the following Url to know what the Ayub era really meant:
http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/26/ebr6.htm

1. ``The fact is, it was the era of dole not gold. It was the era during which we became addicted to foreign aid and destroyed our agriculture and also allowed our pretentious security needs to dictate our economic policies rather than making policies aimed at reducing our dependence on dole.

Here are some details of the era. US economic aid to Pakistan in the shape of technical assistance and PL480 had begun in 1952. But a strategic meaning to this relationship was accorded by the Mutual Defence Agreement signed between the two countries in 1954. This opened the way for large-scale military and economic assistance. During the first three years, (1955-58), economic assistance had totalled $500 million or 2.8 per cent of GDP. The real value of the US military assistance in the late 1950s probably approached that of the economic assistance, which greatly relieved the pressure on Pakistan`s own fiscal resources.``

2. ``In the second half of the 1950s, the bulk of imports of food grains were financed by the concessional PL480 assistance from the United States. This reduced the urgency of increasing domestic food grain production and compounded the neglect of agriculture. And it was between 1958 and 1965 that the country experienced what in the words of USAID were, its `takeoff`` years but which actually was the time when Pakistan truly became addicted to external aid. A USAID document making an assessment of these years had tried to explain this away in this manner:

``The size of the programme, its administrative instability, the paucity of US knowledge about Pakistan and about the role of foreign aid in development, the equivocating and uncertain commitment within the US to foreign aid programme, in combination with political instability and the lack of an orderly approach to development within Pakistan, all worked to minimize the effectiveness of aid utilization.``

Anyway, if Pakis think they make great economic progress during Ayub era, so be it. It is true that GDP grew impressively but much of that growth was secondary to massive inflow of aid from USA.
Ayub Khan also was instrumental in tying Pak`s future with US assistance. Militarily, Pak became a US ally. I have read many articles from Pak newspapers as to how unreliable US military assistance has been for Pak. Today it is unable to get F16 from US while during Ayub era Pak was flooded with military hardware. What is different between then and now? The cold war. It is over today and Pak is not needed as a miltary ally anymore. It is however needed for a different role, to flush out the terrorists from its own country. What a climb down!
If Ayub`s achievements were permanent, Pak would have been Singapore of South Asia today. But his achievements, being dependent on foreign loan, was not sustainable. He did not build any institutions in Pak while during much of 50s and 60s, India was busy building and nourishing such institutions as IITs, IIS, BARC etc all of which proved to be immensely helpful much later. Much of the IT boom in India today has to do with the success of IITans in US silicon valley.
Need i recount the constitutional amendments brought about by him that eventually lead to alienation of Bengalis in East Pak? His Operational Gibraltor was a fiasco and lead to 1965 war and eventually set the stage for 1971 war and secession of East Pak as Bangladesh.
The less said about Zia the better. This guy islamised the Pak society as nobody else. The results are for all to see.
As far as ideologies go, you seem to forget that China has indeed shed it communist ideology in a big way when it went for free market economy 20 years ago. Free market is a capitalistic concept and yet China was the first communist country to embrace it. It has however retained strict control over its citizens and allows little freedom. Labor laws, freedom of dissent etc are unknown. It will have to slowly usher in these changes. Its continued economic success will depend on if the fruits of economic miracle can permeate to all sections of the society. Yet, by giving its citizenry a share in the economic pie, it has avoided taking the path of Soviet Union.
You are right to say that China does not consider India a threat (at least officially but it is a little different after India became an overt nuclear power). But India definitely considers China a threat. Yet, India has recently signed a number of trade agreements and signalled to China that it is ready to do business. China, in its turn, has signalled its readiness to eventually address the border problems but for now trade is big on the agenda. India has much to gain from trade with China.
Pak has not shed its ideology. You say that it need not shed it. Ponder for a moment. Has islamic extremism, jehad in Kashmir (to name a few) done any good for Pak? Would you say that military rule has been good for Pak? If you say so, then you have to explain why Pak is in such a mess today. May be you will even deny it is in any mess at all! Then there is no argument.
Taiwan does not send terrorists inside mainland china to destabilse it even though there is a political and ideological difference between the two. But Pak`s rulers have continued to harm India by various means. That is why it is not possible for India to do business with Pak unless Pakis throw away their generals and elect a popular democracy or Pak rulers change their ideology and do not view India as an enemy meant to be destroyed.
Sridhar

re:#156 by HisExcellency
You can wax eloquence on all the good that Ayub or Zia did but as the saying goes: the proof of pudding is in the eating. Where are all those gains? what happened to all the great industrial strides that you claim were made during Ayub`s time?
We are revisiting the changes that happened during Ayub`s time now during Mushy`s rule. Constitutional amendment, promise of great democratic changes shorn of corruption, giving himself (Mushy) greater power with a promise that only he can deliver the goods- all this must be deja vu for Pakis. It has happened before and it will happen again. Gains (real or perceived) during a military rule are never permanent. Next dictator will undo everything that Mushy has done and then Pak has to start all over again. Two steps forward, 3 backwards.
Sridhar

HisExcellency #163

`` According to Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan will pay off 90% of bilateral debt owed to US by 2007.
Foreign aid comes attached with conditionalities. It cannot be spent to create more jobs in PIA, Railways or WAPDA. IMF has already advised Pakistan not to use these government departments as recruitment agencies.``

It depends on why the foreign aid is provided.

If foreign aid is for military equipment, the military might no be able to purchase the equipment without foreign funds. The Pakistani air force lacks adequate number of modern combat aircraft. They could purchase 50 Mirage-2000-5. But it costs $4 billion.

If foreign aid is for school and hospitals I am sure Pakistani labor and materials are used to construct the facilities. The teachers, doctors and hospital staff are paid with foreign funds.

`` As part of SAP, the government usually spends this money on health, education and electrification of villages. Such services improve the basic indicators such as life expectancy, # of infant deaths per 1000 births, number of basic health units in rural areas. Although these services are important, these services do not significantly increase GDP per capita or national income. These basic services are either delivered free or at highly subsidized rates.``

Foreign aid is used to pay the salaries of personnel who deliver these services. If not Pakistani govt has to use its internal resources which is meagre.

`` On the other hand, investment results in job creation and production/consumption of goods & services. Since these benefits are quantifiable and direct, only these benefits are considered in national income statistics.``

You cannot invest in disease infested mal-nourished illiterate countries.

``So clearly your impression that Pakistan`s GDP per capita was high in 1960s because of foreign aid... is absolutely incorrect.``

It was higher than what India received. Also bulk of the aid was siphoned to West Pakistan. Bangladesh was called a fourth world country back in the early 1970s.

HisExcellency, O great one, one who never sees the sun set

can you asnwer me this:

from todays Nation
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/July-2003/4/EDITOR/op4.asp
start_quote

Recent IMF and World Bank surveys and reports have revealed that we never kept a proper accounting of over $50 billion of foreign assistance that we played with during the Cold War heyday. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg.

end_quote

re: #162 by bharatvaasi on July 3, 2003 1:07pm PT

Dear bharatvaasi, I don`t know the answers to your questions. I am just repeating what I learnt from my study of Pakistan`s economic history and the Bhutto years. If the impact of Hindu money/property ending up in Pakistani hands was significant, the World Dev reports would certainly have discussed it as one of the factors in Pakistan`s economic boom.

BTW, the economic boom wasn`t that early. It actually began in late 1950s. There was considerable poverty and unemployment from 1947 till 1958 (with an occasional bumper year in 1951 Korean War because of increased jute exports).

If you have any research material that suggests that the evacuee property and wealth left by Hindus in Pakistan was the major source of boom... please feel free to post it. I would still like to study it.

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

re: bbabu

++
If foreign aid does not affect anything please pay back the few billions back to Uncle Sam.
Ever heard of free money ???
++

According to Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan will pay off 90% of bilateral debt owed to US by 2007.
Foreign aid comes attached with conditionalities. It cannot be spent to create more jobs in PIA, Railways or WAPDA. IMF has already advised Pakistan not to use these government departments as recruitment agencies.

You perhaps don`t understand how foreign aid works, especially in Pakistan. Pakistan government usually ties the foreign aid to Social Action Program (SAP) which is part of annual budget.

As part of SAP, the government usually spends this money on health, education and electrification of villages. Such services improve the basic indicators such as life expectancy, # of infant deaths per 1000 births, number of basic health units in rural areas. Although these services are important, these services do not significantly increase GDP per capita or national income. These basic services are either delivered free or at highly subsidized rates.

Only income-generating investment contributes to increase in GDP per capita and national income. For national accounting purposes, non-quantifiables such as `life expectancy` and `family planning` are not considered.

On the other hand, investment results in job creation and production/consumption of goods & services. Since these benefits are quantifiable and direct, only these benefits are considered in national income statistics.

So clearly your impression that Pakistan`s GDP per capita was high in 1960s because of foreign aid... is absolutely incorrect.

HisExcellency saar, O all knowing one

could the reason for the early economic boom in pakistan be

(a) - majority of the creditors were hindu`s who got the boot during partition and hence the debtors suddenly had money they did not have the previous day literally. Indeed it is said that in many cases this was the reason for the riots and the mass killings. Indeed it is this reason that most of us pakistanis consider Indians to be banias!

AND

(b) the property vacated by these hindus was given to the people who did not have to earn it.

Suddenly on both counts people for a generation or more had more maney then sense and in typical paindoo fashion decided it was the genius of the muslim that generated this wealth.

Indeed this short to wealth is also the current flavour in pakistan - witrness the contortions mush-e-ruff and all of us go through with regard to the pipelines oil and gas and ll that. If India and iran decides a sub-sea line there goes our economic models. There is more to this shortsighted nature of us pakistanis.

So for once get of that high horse and smell the shot as it is......

re: #141 by rsridhar on July 2, 2003 6:26pm PT

Depends what you call an extreme point of view.

Almost 90% of Pakistanis support self-determination for Kashmiris. However, 60-70% want to support the Kashmir movement through peaceful means. The remaining 30-40% want a violent insurgency (which they describe as `Jihad`) to liberate Kashmir. I define extremists as the latter group only. These are the people who would perhaps contribute financially or physically to the JeM, LeT, HM, etc.

Using this definition, I would say that the mainstream Urdu press (Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt) are largely not extremist. Although the reporting is extremist/sensational, the opinion pages and editorials are not. For every extremist op-ed piece, about 2 are not.

Extremist organizations have their own publications. e.g. Hafiz Saeed`s organization (Markaz-ul-Dawa, i think) publishes a series of biweekly & monthly journals that are rabidly extremist. Similarly, Jamaat-e-Islami and other MMA parties take out dailies such as Jasarat and monthly publications such as Takbeer, etc. As the names suggest, these publications serve as recruitment pamphlets for Mujahideen. The content is very well researched but highly inflammatory against India. These publications have limited circulation compared to the (relatively) moderate Jang and Nawa-i-Waqt.

If you refer to arjun_m`s post, you will realize that circulation of newspapers (both English and Urdu) in Pakistan is quite limited, like India. The primary source of extremist views are loudspeakers installed in thousands of mosques across the country.

HisExcellency #155

`` You make an interesting point about the correlation between Oil Embargo and rise of fundamentalism. However, your knowledge is a little deficient about the latter. The fundamentalist wave engulfed Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia at roughly the same time. It may have been spurred by the Oil crisis of 1974... but the oil crisis died with the assassination of King Faisal. He was replaced with an American stooge, King Fahad who was not a fundamentalist.``

I would guess it is greater than correlation.

`` As this masterpiece elaborates, Islamic fundamentalism precedes the Oil Embargo and OPEC crisis of 1974. Both editors trace its roots to early 1900s.``

Petrodollars gives muscle. Where does the $$$ for the madrassas come for ? Without those $$$ your young student is out in the farm earning a few pennies for survival.

`` Once again you are misinformed about the 1945 Elections. Most of the UP and Bihar Muslim Leaguers were educated people with government jobs, small businesses and property. They suffered enormously under Congress rule from 1937 to 1939. As a result, the educated middle and upper class Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP migrated to Pakistan. These so-called Mohajirs were educated and became the backbone of bureaucracy in newly-formed Pakistan. Only the uneducated lower-middle class stayed behind. Only the uneducated Muslims of UP/Bihar/MP could be swayed by the vain `secularism` slogans of Congress. Educated Muslims with political IQ could see through the farce and voted for Pakistan instead. Socialist writers like Saadat Manto and Faiz wrotes volumes about this class divide among UP/Bihar/MP Muslims...``

Literacy rate in 1947-India was 10%. Literacy among Muslims was lower. It is true the Urdu elite in Central Provinces wanted Pakistan. The elite was a small percentage of population. But why would a landless Muslim worker vote for Pakistan especially if he cannot afford to move. Some people were way above their heads.

```Forced secularism` is when Muslim women are forbidden to wear head scarves in school or parliament in France and Turkey. `Forced secularism` is when the state starts interfering with the peoples` religious beliefs and lifestyles.``

What is the connection between head scarves and Islam ? It is a cultural thing.
France may decide its culture is best served by uniformity. They have the right to decide their national ethos. Why do Muslims go to France and expect their cultural practises to be tolerated ? Would Pakistan tolerate homosexuality the way France does ?

Singapore banned chewing gum. It looks like a arbitrary decision. it is govt way of telling its citizens to clean up.

`` a) It fails to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities. Suppose there is a law that is vehemently opposed by all Muslims, but vehemently favored by all Hindus. By virtue of their perpetual majority, Hindus can easily pass that law. Jinnah had suggested some safeguards in his Fourteen Points in 1920s.

Muslims need constitutional guarantees, not verbal promises or dogmatic ideals.``

The solution to your problem is that all Muslims live in Muslim majority states. If that is so important why are Pakistanis running all around the world asking for entry into any Westernized society.

What are there in the Indian constitution that would infringe upon freedom of religion ?

The failings of India with respect to secularism are much lower than Pakistani failings as a Islamic state or Saudi failure to be an ideal Islamic state.

`` b) An overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose secularism for ideological reasons. Under Islamic concept of state, the state must enshrine the precepts of Quran in its constitution and penal code. Of course, this means that contentious issues must be postponed. But atleast, in principle, an Islamic state cannot enact laws that violate the basic tenets of Islam. However, Muslim states are also required to guarantee the freedom of religion for non-Muslim citizens.``

All this whining about Islamic system is pure cultural chauvunism. The West has developed statecraft and political science in theory and practise to a higher level. It is hard for some folks to accept them.

Explain clearly the differences between variants of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and Islamic law.

``precepts of Quran`` and ``basic tenets of Islam`` - nice terms to throw around when you can agree with co-religionists on what they mean.

How do you reconicle the belief of some dodos that money has no time value (zero interest) with the modern workings of capitialist system ?

`` c) Even if the state professes to be religion-blind, its citizens are not. Even in America, the words ``In God We Trust`` on bank notes declare that America is a Christian/monotheistic nation. In theory, it may be possible for a Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Muslim nation to act secular. But in practise, this is very difficult to do. You need a long time, education and media effort to remove religious prejudices ingrained into people since childhood.``

Has the state in America ever mistreated you prior to Sep-11. After Sep-11 they had to round up people because they had no clue who the bad guys were.

`` Even after 57 years, India has not been able to rid itself of religious movements like Hindutva, RSS, etc. In fact, with the passage of time, these movements are growing stronger. Secular forces are considerably weaker today than they were in 1947.``

There will be powerful Hindu movements in areas bordering Pakistan - Maharastra, Gujurat, Delhi, Western UP. MP, Punjab, Jammu as long as Islamic movements exist to their West.

`` Secular forces must be judged by their actions, not their words. The definition of secularism means nothing. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in its eating. The entire world has witnessed events in Kashmir, Golden Temple and Gujrat. Sadly, these catastrophes belie all claims made by Indian nationalists about their secular democracy.``

Even with Kashmir, Gujurat, Golden Temple are people running to Pakistan ?