Terrorism, Sectarianism and the Military

India`s Kashmir military chief injured, brigadier killed in attack

(Updated at 1945 PST)

NEW DELHI: India`s army commander for Kashmir and another general were injured and a brigadier was killed in an attack Tuesday by Mujahideen in a military garrison, a defence ministry spokesman here said.



Lieutenant General Hari Prasad and Lieutenant General T. P. S. Brar received shrapnel injuries in the attack and Brigadier V.K. Govil of the 16th Corps died, spokesman P.K. Bandhopadhya said.


Prasad was appointed on June 1 as General Officer Commander-in-Chief of the Indian army`s crucial Northern Command, which is responsible for the security of Indian Kashmir and other territory in the region.



The official said the three top top-ranking officers were visiting the garrison where Mujahideen Tuesday staged the daring attack that left dead at least eight army personnel, including Govil and the two raiders.

``Govil was wounded very badly in the attack and succumbed before he could be medically revived,`` a senior defence minister source said, describing as ``stunning`` the attack on the three high-profile officers.

re:#188 by dost-mittar
It is difficult for Pakis like Romair to understand that BJP is only a party but it came into prominence due to decline of Congress, which fell victim to its own idea of authoritarianism, pseudo-secularism. BJP sometimes does benefit from riots as it did in Gujarat but it is not a fundamentalist party. If it were, it would not have hesitated to send its army to Iraq. It is still responsive to muslim needs. It is all about votes and muslims in India form a significant vote block. So, during the BJP rule, haj subsidies actually increased. One muslim got elected as a president. And, as you have pointed out, muslim wing of BJP actively recruits muslims to its party.
If muslims want to change BJP, then they should not only influence it from outside (by casting votes) but from inside (by becoming active members of the party). Party`s ideology can be changed if there are enough muslims withing BJP. That is how the system works in a parliamentary democracy.
That is how Indians in USA have been working. Slowly and steadily, they have been becoming politically active by joining the parties, voting, funding their candidates and lobbying. The same idea can be utilised by muslims in India but they first of all need to change their mindset and not view this as Hindu vs muslim struggle.
Sridhar

Faisal & Romair:

Although I tend to agree with you on your reasoning for success of Azam Tariq and MMA, there are other important points that Fakhr Zaman, PPP stalwart in Punjab brought while debating elections on Indus TV. He attributed the success of Islamists to:

1. A well coordinated and managed campaign that ensured that their supporters register themselves for voting, get out and vote on the day of the elections. ``Moderates on the other hand were busy watching TV``.

2. The students of Madrissas and religious faculties in our colleges ensured that they cast their votes. ``Our moderate children were busy playing cricket out in the grounds and on roads on the day of the elections``, he said.

3. The failure of the previous `Moderate` Governments.

4. Actions of the Coalition in Afghanistan that totally marginalized Pashtoons there.

A point to note that he did not blame the Government on trying to restrain PPP or PML N.

The Indians and some Pakistanis (?) have suggested that absence of Nawaz and BB attributed to the success of Islamists. I do not agree with that. Even BB and Nawaz would not have mattered much in the constituencies where the MMA won.

#177 by stuka

``As long as Jehadis do not cross the LOC we have no problem with your raising the Kashmir issue at whatever fora you want.``

While your ``Jihadis`` are better termed as terrorists, we will provide you any kind of guarantee you want subject to the condition that your and our friends the USA/UK/all the world combined provide a guarantee to us average mortals that there will be no more terrorism in the world. At least ask the USA to provide us a guarantee that terrorists will not strike us again in the USA itself.

``If you don`t want trade with India till Kashmir is solved, no problem, we are okay with that as well.``

Its not Pakistanis dying to want to trade with India. Its India who has to do it. India has accorded MFN status to us, not vice versa. Reason is that with the kind of population India has and ambitious arms acquisition program, it has to provide all the incentives to its exporters to export more and more. There are two benefits: (1) When Indian exports hit the foreign markets, these are lower than their cost back home (I can give you a technical calculation how that works if you want and no, anti-dumping duties wont matter). Foreign markets that are unable to compete, close out. So in essence what happens is that Indian industry (and therefore, its employment at home) displaces industries (and attendant employment) in the foreign lands. (2) India gets foreign reserves that it uses to buy military equipment and other necessities. That is why it gives generous export rebates to its exporters and makes aggressive attempts to find export markets.

``Pakistan is an independent country and we respect its soveriegn will to decide whatever ti wants to do as long as it does not include violence in Indian territory.``

Violence in India occupied Kashmir is being done by ``terrorists``, who are uncontrollable throughout the world and now more and more acts of terrorism are being done by Indian military in Kashmir. Read the news and you will find how Kashmiri youths are being killed daily in fake encounters and in custody. Not a single terrorist has been caught and shown on the media as an evidence that Pakistan is behind the terrorism. For example, at least 1 out of 5 attackers on Parliament could have been shot on the legs and wounded for arrest to provide a hard evidence. This was not done.

Continued.

#177 by stuka

Continued from previous post:

``Also, the lying dog Musharaf himself contradicted Pakistan`s stated policy on the LOC. Hhe said that if India crosses the LOC, Pakistan will respond at any point across the international border. Why? If Indian Kashmir is disputed territory, so is Pakistan occupied Kashmir and we have the right to grab as much territory there as possible.``

I agree with you. You have the right to grab as much as you want. The fact is that your extremist fundamentalist Government under wart-hogs and pie dogs like Advani made a very good cause towards this by raising anti-Pakistani frenzy in India, amassing 1 million troops on Pakistani borders, incurring heavy expenditure, mutinies, mismanagement and logistic problems that e.g. led to water shortage at front lines (reported in Indian media), and above all, provided an opportunity to `lying`` Musharraf to make blistering attack on Indian designs in a speech heard by millions across the globe, since the same was covered by all the international media, including CNN and BBC, live.

`` Bbut thanks to your Iislamic thugs, we are starting to figure out this truth...fight we have to..might as well get some gains out of it.

The ``Islamic thugs`` are terrorists. The word `Islamic` should be redundant here, especially for secular Indians espousing the cause of 150-180 million Indian Muslims. The terrorists have every single dirty trick up their sleeves. Some time they pull 9/11 on innocent civilians and some time Gujrat, some time they pull a Bali bomb blast and some time Babri mosque. The point to note is that a war against terrorism has to be fought jointly by all the humans. The term `Terrorism` should not be exploited to score browny points, as is being done by India against Pakistan. Pakistan OTOH had asked India immediately after 9/11`s surge in Indian propganada against Pakistan to have joint patroling at the border to check ``infiltration``.

Concluded.

#179 by pmishra2

``You are missing the point with folks like ahmadzai. He has no constructive interest in the Sikhs (HOw many sikhs are left in Afghanistan or Pakistan today? Keep in mind that till the 1940`s the whole area was 20% hindu and sikh), the idea is to ``lash`` the indians with the problems and challenges of their democracy``

Seems like our Indian friends are struggling with getting their IQs in positive digits. Let me try to state my position again in `most easiest` of English so that you understand:

Hassan Nassir wrote an article on human right abuses by Musharraf/Gov./Military. I wrote in one post, amongst other things, that Pakistani Punjabis are better off than their Indian cousins. Indian Chowksters attempted to prove me wrong citing economic reasons. I responded giving example of human right abuses against Sikhs.

Now from where did the issue of constructive interest or destructive disinterest pop up?

Btw, why do the Indians get so emotional about conspiracy theories relating to Pakistan or when a weakness of India is pointed out to them? Where are your faculties of reasoning and intelligence? I mean since India has made tremendous gains in I.T., I suggest Indians to make use of Artificial Intelligence to make up for not having the natural one.

#182 by arjun_m
``Your frustration is showing.``

;-)

re:#173 by ahmadzai
I said it is a non-issue because it is. India had to go thr` the trauma of Sikh militancy in the past. There were excesses committed on both sides (Sikh militants and the Punjab police). But the militancy was fought by the sikhs themselves. C.M of Punjab at the time (i am forgetting his name) was himself a sikh. He was assasinated by the militants. Punjab police chief at that time (K.P.S Gill) is a sikh. Eventually, it was the sikhs themselves who controlled and defeated the militancy. This was never between the Hindus and Sikhs. May be in Pak you have been brainwashed into believing it was. Sikhs continue to form an important part of Indian Army and contribute economically to India`s progress.
We know Pak can never be our friend because Pakis tried to take advantage of that situation. It is fresh in our minds, even 20 years later. I know for sure that Pakis are kidding when they say this is all about Kashmir. It is not. The hatred from Paki side is much deeper. It is institutional and ideological hatred that you guys suffer from.
You need to know a little bit about how closely related sikhs and hindus are. I used to have a Punjabi friend during my hostel days in Delhi. He was a hindu with last name as Saluja. His dad was a sikh. One day i wondered how this could be. He explained to me that this was not uncommon. Apparently his grandma did not have any son and prayed that she will make the first son a sikh. So, my hindu friend came to have a Sikh father. Pretty Cool i thought. Hindus and Sikhs share blood relatives. They even share dads and moms. They cannot seperate even if they want to!
So, Punjab militancy was an aberration. It was all about power politics and Indira Gandhi`s (i always call her ``that bitch``) follies. Yes, Harmandir Sahib was desecrated. None other than a P.M apologised to the Sikhs for it. Indira Gandhi paid the price with her life. Gandhi family is still paying the price when it has been ousted out of power (i hope for ever).
But saying that the Golden Temple was destroyed is utter stupidity. It was desecrated but not destroyed. If you do not understand the difference, you need to ask what happened to a temple that used to exist in Ayodhya where a mosque now stands. Now, that temple was destroyed. It does not exist anymore. Get the drift?
Sridhar
P.S: About the economic differences between the 2 Punjabs, i have already posted the relevant articles. I have nothing more to add. The truth is that Indian Punjab, despite going thr` a militancy that destroyed it economically in the 80s, has bounced back and is more prosperous today than the Paki Punjab which inherited the more fertile part of the state in 1947. If you believe in something else, that is your choice. You can either choose to be stupid or pragmatic not both.

re:#174 by ahmadzai
Did you not know? The Kashmiris have already decided. In the last assembly election where the electorate braved the bullets to elect a popular govt. If you guys do not think that election counts, that is your problem. We are not here in the business of pleasing the Pakis. Kashmiris seem to like their now C.M. Mufti Sayeed is not only popular but he is also doing a good job during a difficult time.
Now, go back to your old tune which is fast becoming unpopular and irrelevant.
Sridhar

re:#137 by sameerJB
India has created some niche areas. One such area is Healthcare. While most Govt hospitals in India are not better than their Pakistani counterparts, India does have some world class medical centers. Patients in the weighting list for cardiac surgery in U.K are coming to such centers in India for surgery. Recently, the case of Pakistani toddler Noor became news all over India. Pakistan obviously does not yet have the kind of medical care needed to do a cardiac surgery on newborn babies and infants and doctors there have been referring such cases to India. It is a lot cheaper than to go to Europe or USA where medical care is astronomical (i am a doctor in USA and i should know).
So, do not say that Pakistanis do not miss anything about India. If Indo-Pak relations were to improve tremendously and visa restrictions eased, you may find young Pakis (especially IT professionals) taking up jobs in Banglore. Economy and opportunities dictates where people go. I would not have come to USA if it was not lucrative for doctors.

I will not comment on the reasons for partition and what not. I am not well versed with the politics of the 30s and 40s and what went on behind the scenes. But i think partition was a good idea. If India were united today, it would be wasting a lot of energy trying to control the jehadis. The bad name that Pak has earned today would have been India`s. India and Pak took 2 divergent paths in 1947, thinking each was right. India boldy went for a ``one person- one vote democracy`` and secularism. Secularism has been a difficult concept but India has by and large done well despite Modis and Togadias spoiling the fun now and then.
India` s institutions have stood the test of time. India`s minorities have continued to repose confidence in its institution of timely elections, legal system and so on.
Bangladesh may be a democracy but its secular credentials are doubtful. Have you not read the systematic ethnic cleansing of its minorities?
If not, go to the following Url and educate yourself:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb17_23_03/opinion_bertil.htm
Excerpts:
1. ``Bangladesh has been a fertile ground for bigoted Islamic idealism for a long time. Especially, since 1975 with the assassination of the country`s founding father and altering of the constitution, the Islamic Radicalism has been thrust into the political landscape of the country. With enormous financial help from branded terrorists, outlawed regimes, and proponents of Wahabism such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Iran and other renegade terrorist networks``

2. ``The government not only shamelessly failed to provide the country`s 15 million ethno-religious minorities any protection against these attacks, but also showed its utter indifference to human life by cowardly aiding in the history`s worst savagery. Since then, hundreds of thousands of young girls and women have been abducted and raped, tens of thousands of minority owned homes and businesses have been looted and razed, hundreds of places of worship have been burnt down all across Bangladesh. Women as old as seventy and girls as young seven have not even been spared of their brunt of rape and terror. Abduction of young girls from homes at gunpoint, gang rape, and forced conversions to Islam have been endemic in Bangladesh.``

3. ``It may recall the massacre that took place back in April 1992. The then Prime Minister of the country, Begum Khaleda Zia used her army to systematically murder 600 tribal residents of Logang in Chittagong Hill Tracts, and burned the entire village to the ground. Seven months later, she orchestrated another wave of minority persecution in which 15 minorities were killed, 2,600 women raped, 10,000 injured, 40,000 dwelling houses destroyed, 3, 600 temples damaged/razed and 200,000 rendered homeless. Begum Zia, like her Islamic fundamentalist predecessors has been a mortal danger to pluralistic democracy and the rule of law.``

So, do me a favor and not place Bangladesh in the same category as India. Yes, Bangladesh has done better than Pakistan is some respects. Some of its economic indicators are better. But its heart is in the wrong place. It is no different from Pak when it comes to jehad, militancy and harassment of minorities.
There is something in the muslim psyche that intrigues me. When in a minority, they seem to want secularism (look at the Indian muslims). When in a majority, they drift towards militancy and jehad (look at the muslims in Pak and Bangladesh). May be you, living in foreign shores, have formed some theories to explain this. I am eagerly awaiting your reply.
Sridhar

Romair:
``His party Sipah-Sahaba is the BJP of Pakistan.``

You have outdone yourself with your hyperbole this time.
-Does SSP allow Hindus, Ahmediyas, even Shias as its members?
-Does SSP actually have a Shia wing which goes out to actively recruit shias, like the BJP has a Muslim wing which seeks the support and membership of Muslims?
-Would SSP subsidise religious activities of Kafirs, like the BJP govt. has increased the subsidiy for haj and built a special terminal for the haajis at the Delhi airport?
-Is its first secretary and spokesman a Kafir?
-Would it have two Kafirs in its cabinet?
-Would it seek to appoint a Kafir as the head of the state for Pakistan, as the BJP did in the case of APJ Kalam?
.....I could go on.



Your comparing BJP to SSP is like comparing neocon republicans with Ku Klux Klan. In fact, the BJP is very much like the neocon republicans - whcih is formally non-racial, with the token representation of blacks.

SameerJB:
I think your various posts suggest that you underestimate the sense of nationhood achieved by Indians, especially Hindians. I think this is probably the lasting positive legacy of Nehru. Whether the sense of nationhood would have developed without him at the helm is difficult to analyse. This feeling is the strongest among the educated elite who tend to be the opinion leaders.
India went through a turbulent period in the 50s and 60s when there were separatist tendencies in many parts of the country. The favourite jargon in India of that time to describe this phenomenon was ``fissiparous tendencies``. I think that the Indian constitution, democracy and democratic institutions have helped Indians to survive these tendencies. The greatest challenge to the Indian nationhood came from the Khalistani movement in Panjab, which grew out of a mishandling, first, of the desire among the Sikhs to estalish Gurmukhi as the language of Panjab. I am choosing the word gurmukhi instead of Panjabi; although the fight always purported to be about Panjabi but it was mostly about Gurmukhi. The problem was compounded by the way Indira Gandhi, misguided by Giani Zail Singh, used devious means to dethrone Akalis and then to attack the Golden Temple when the Frankenstein created by her began to devour her. India seems to have weathered that storm now but it is premature to say that Sikh separatism has been permanently buried.
I think that Indian political union has been strengthened by replacement of the monolithic Congress by the regional parties. As long as the Congress had an overwhelming majority at the Centre, it could, and did, dismiss State governments at will. Because of the coalition nature of the NDA govt., as well as the democratic disposition of Vajpayee himself, there now seems to be a healthy respect for the federal character of the union. I dont think that even a single State govt. has been dismissed by the Vajpayee govt., which is a record of some sort.

Sameer JB #137,

My bad luck for missing action this weekend on chowk. Hope it is not too late though.
An impassioned article and a good one, but i would beg to differ on some issues.
Let me air my opinion point by point,

``The astral and astounding achievements often mentioned by fellow Indians here are not benchmarks for Pakistanis to be sweating about``

I sincrely wish pakistanis HAD looked at the astral achievemnets of india. It would have greatly encouraged them in a friendly spirit. I could best sum up just one of them by quoting from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51401-2003Jul13.html?nav=hptoc_w

``By most accounts, the concept of affirmative action as it is understood in the West began in India, whose founding fathers viewed caste prejudice as a major impediment to their goal of secular democracy. The country`s 1950 constitution, written three years after independence from Britain, established quotas for members of indigenous tribes and so-called untouchables, or dalits, because they do not even register in the caste hierarchy and consequently have suffered the greatest discrimination.``
Excuse me for saying this, but your benchmark coutry like US opposes affirmative action to erstwhile slaves. There is no denying that they are underprivilged, living in the richest nation, and yet victims of poor humanity practiced in their own country. They won civil rights after hundereds of years of bloody struggle(Although there constittution guaranteed equal rights for all). Indian founding fathers created affirmative action for a section of society which never could protest. Could you please show me examples in world where, without protests or demands a suppressed group has been helped by a government socially on such a scale?
A nation beset by dictatorship on one side, communism on the other, with exploding population and diversity and languages has maintained its belief in a democratic society and governance. Your benchmark USA too had its era of Mac Carthyism with the ``purging`` of hundreds of communist sympathisers. It too had elected representatives from republican party belonging to KKK up until the sixties. It had Edgar Hoover to show as the founder of FBI. Has justice ever been served to the thousands of victims of the above mentioned buffoons? You know the answer.

The most astounding acievement of india has been a belief in the capacity of indian nationhood to solve problems. Be it the original method of gandhi, never before practiced or the affirmative action policies, or social rehab of dacoits by jayprakash and vinoba bhave in the seventies and eighties, subsidising education by nehru to name a few. Before the tech boom, you forget that pakistan considered itself to be economically strong by artificial pumping of money from US. It takes a solid foundation built over decades to make a strong homegrown economy a possibility.

``I am of the opinion that India should have been divided ethnically as it was proposed none other than British much before independece movement. They proposed dividing India into five separate British colonies for more efficient rule but Queen Victoria vetoed it mainly because she had already given herself title of ``Queen of India`` and ``India as the jewel in her crown``. ``

Countries in europe are moving towards greater integration after realising its benefits. You are propsing the opposite for india/pakistan. I do not agree. And who are the british to tell us how we should live? Its we the people of India and pakistan who decided to live the way we are today. We should only hope for a better economic partnership in future.But i do believe that more decision making powers should be granted to various states/ provinces. Despite nehru`s often criticism of imposing central rule, he demarcated the states in india on the basis of languages. Thereby giving there respective cultures a sense of respect and worth they deserved. Maybe in pakistan it was different coz of jinnah`s imposition of urdu on all and sundry (one of the reasons i believe, which caused great resentment in bengal).


Adios

Pathan Versus Mohajir:

This article was supposed to be about internal issues between Fauj and civil society in Pakistan. The supporters of the Faujis turned this into a Indo Pak thing because that is the only way they can justify the size and power of the army.

Having said that, I would like the Indians to compare and contrast the posts of two interactors. Both are Pakistanis. One is a Mojair and the other is a Pathan. Please go through the posts of these two interacters and assesss them using the following criteria.

1. Wit

2. Original thought

3. Connection with reality / Logical deduction.

Am I the only one who sees such a difference? No wonder these two communities killed each other in Karachi.

BTW, Both are patriotic so this is not a Pro versus Anti India phenomenon.

`` An Indian poster SameerJB highlighted in one of his posts ``

AH HAHAHAHA!!! Welcome Home Sameer!!

pmishra2:

I personally know Professor Ahmed Hasan Dani very well. He is most distinguished anthropologist of Pakistan and I will not challenge his research findings. You have to agree to some extent to my poistion of people nominally Hindus and not in the sense we see them today, if you believe in constantly evolving Hinduism. My understanding of Hinduism is that it hat it is a series of traditions from Rig Veda to Upanishads and Puranas to Epic traditions to Temple traditions to Vedanta and to Tantra traditions. When you go back in history, Temple, Vedanta and Tantric did not exist some 1000-1200 years ago. So Hinduism has to be Vedic and Epic. Then you try to date Epics Mahabharata and Ramayana and any Hindus existing before have to be Vedic alone. However, Veda is very open to accomodate local myths and traditions and neither requires strict dogmatic regular community rituals. The basic ritual that humanity has been practicing longest is sacrifice to gods or dieties at certain time (like after reaping the harvest or just after planting the seeds for better harvest) and parshad (offerings) is continuation of this ritual. It is like saying that a Muslim can not be a deobandi or wahabi before 18th century becuse wahabism and deobandism were developed later. That is what I am contending: People were nominal religious and different than current understanding and practices of Hinduism, else I would need to consider Hinduism non-evolving - fixed. That is one of the reasons, they converted to other religions with ease. Now, even Hindus in mostly Muslim Pakistan are not at all interested in conversion when same coercive methods of the past applied and in fact many mullahs and sufis have tried it in Sindh.

harimau:

What did not happen can only be discussed in would have been and could have been terms. I made it clear that MNT (multi-nation theory) was better than TNT which in my opinion was better than ONT because it gave the opportunity to Indus people to be free which they always were unless forced. I never denied the dark-side of using religion and in my previous post, I clearly stated my disgust with using religion card. Now for me it is an opportunity to be independent as Indus people though achieved through wrong way. Once people realize the absurdities of religion card in politics, they can always transform a nation away from absurdities on post-independent basis. Bangladesh did it and Pakistan should have done it or should do it as soon as possible.

As to whether a united India would have killed any chance of military takover is a moot point when measured against ethno-centric independence. You could hava also argued for united Europe as avoiding two world wars and holocaust as well as united Spanish speaking and Catholic America (much more common ethnically and religiously than India except not producing a Latin National Congress Party fighting for Independence) as a justification against military takeovers.

To the second point of jihadis and fundamentalist tendencies as reason for religious based partition, I have already given the example of Bangladesh in the region. Moreover, in my opinion, in United India it would have raised its ugly head as easily as in Pakistan. With 35 percent Muslim vote, all political parties would have appeased Muslim vote and it would have produced more Shahab Uddin and Imam Bukharis hand in hand with Fazloo diesel. BJP like parties could have easily raised Hindu-Muslim bhai bhai slogans appeasing Muslims as they do in Panjab in allaince with Akali Dal against Congress. There would have been more Shahbanos cases, blasphemy laws and hudood ordinances for Muslims. I believe there are some inherent orthodox tendencies among Muslims and it is better to keep close to 400 million Muslims of subcontinent divided and worrying about ethnicity and improving living standards than a united votebank susceptible to the vagaries of orthodoxy.

Of couse, no option is without benefits. The biggest benefit of united India would have been lower per capita military spending unless they were challenging China with military build-up. The biggest losers would have been South Indian with practically no chance of political power at the center. The united votebank of northerners would have increased their current stake in power. A union of UP, Bihar, Panjab and Bengal would have been permanent ruling alliance of India. The Muslim votebank in the north would have been close to 50 percent, addding current Pakistanis and Bengalis. Just look around and see Malaysia with 55 percent Muslims and Sudan with 60 percent Muslims and see how irritating orthodox tendencies in both places are. The partition is nothing short of blessing for India but Indians tend not to appreciate it. It might have figured in Congress approach to independence without saying it loud either due to respect for Gandhi or not giving ML option to devise different strategy.