Unsettling Precedents for Pakistan

atleast untill mush give blinded support to america,america not harm pakistan by force

re to #37 by ahmadzai
``Saminshah:

If you are a Muslim, then I am amazed to see such blatant ignorance on your part as expressed in your post at # 33. Please note that:

1. Adoption is not prohibited in Islam. ``
``especially you as a female can .............``

now for your kind information first i am male.
second one zaynab is sister of imam hussain not means there could be no other zaynab.
zaynab was wife of mohamad`s adopted son and she had to divorce her husband jaid because mohamad could marry her. and third
Islam prohibits adopting children. This is because in Quran Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children. Muhammad Rushed Ridha states, ``Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zaynab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom (Fatawa al-Imam).`` Al-sabuni states, ``As to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, the Messenger of Allah married for no higher wisdom than to abolish the heresy of adoption (A-sabuni).``

I don`t know, how in the world Allah could dislike such noble deeds. I am not sure what percentage of Muslims actually knows this divine law. I do admit that I never knew this and, I was stunned when I first learnt this from a real Mullah. How and why was this noble custom among human being prohibited?

Pre-Islamic Arab Custom: Adoption of orphan/helpless child was a very popular and moral practice amongst pre-Islamic Arabs. By adopting orphan/helpless child, they used to consider adopted child as their own. And they used to pass onto them the adopter`s genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity.

Post-Islamic Custom: The all-wise legislator of Islam willed to undo the above mentioned Arab practice of adopting children. The divine legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. For that reason a verse was revealed: ``God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God`s word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4).`` It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and vice-versa. Thus Muhammad married Zainab in order to provide a good example of what the All-wise legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard God further said: ``After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God`s commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37).`` Who, among the Arabs, could implement this noble legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord`s command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur`an will not have adopted sons.


Muhammad`s Marriage to Zaynab Bint Jashsh

Muhammad`s marriage to Zaynab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, ``Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid.`` These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: ``We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad.`` Abdullah Ibn Umar said, ``We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse ``Muhammad is not the father of any of your men` was revealed.````

Historical views: There are many conflicting stories about this scandalous happening and all these stories are based on Sahih Hadiths and Muslim biographies and books. It is worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:

Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, ``The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha`s house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, `Where is Zaid?` He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zaynab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, `He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.` The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zaynab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: `Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.` When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, `You asked him to come in, didn`t you?` She replied, `I bade him to, but he refused.` He said, `Have you heard [him say] anything?` She answered, `When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, ``Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.`` ` Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, `O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zaynab. I can leave her. So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, `Who will go to Zaynab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?` The Messenger of God recited; ` `A´isha said, `I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, ``For sure she will boast over this with us.`` ` Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing.``


More help from Allah:

So, this charge that the dissimulators, among others, leveled against Muhammad necessitated the revelation of more Qur`anic verses:

(Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 40): ``Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God`s Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!``

(Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 37): ``We married her off to you so that there would be no objection for believers in respect to their adopted sons` wives once they have accomplished their purpose with them. God`s command must be done!``

In the verse (33:37) there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody (father-in-law) wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. “We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son.” Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. Also, it is a mystery why in the world, any father-in law will need to marry his adopted son`s wife.



Critical (Orientalist) version:

Muhammad fell in love with Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter`s absence, he was met by Zaynab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad`s heart was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, ``Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men`` and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zaynab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zaynab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife. Thereafter, Zaynab was no longer a docile wife and Zayd had to divorce her. Muhammad married Zaynab Bint Jahsh who was his daughter-in-law. That was definitely taboo in pre-Islamic Arabia, and the Prophet of Islam lifted this taboo in order to satisfy his own lust and fulfill his own desire. They also relate that when Muhammad saw her she was half-naked, that her fine black hair was covering half of her body, and that every curve of her body was full of desire and passion. Others relate that when Muhammad opened the door of the house of Zayd the breeze played with the curtains of the room of Zaynab, thus permitting Muhammad to catch a glimpse of her stretched out on her mattress in a nightgown.



Apologetics views:

Muhammad Husain Haikal, for one, in the course of ``refuting`` the claims of V. Vacca in the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding Zaynab, speaks about a ``glorious deed`` of Muhammad, which the orientalists and missionaries have turned into a romance. He says, ``As to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, who has been wrapped up by orientalists and missionaries in an imaginary picture of romance and infatuation, true history judges that [Muhammad`s act with] her was one of the glorious deeds of Muhammad. Being the perfect example of faith, he applied to her the Hadith that says, `Man`s faith is not made perfect till he loves for his brother what he loves for himself`.

Apologists conclude that it is one of the truly great facets of Muhammad`s personality. It proves beyond question that Muhammad was the perfect exemplar of his own legislation, especially of such laws as were intended to replace the tradition and customs of pre-Islamic Arabia. He was the exemplar of the new system that God revealed through him as a mercy and guidance to mankind.

On the other hand, Arab custom and tradition demanded that the adopted son inherit from his adopted father, like the latter`s legitimate children. And since this custom too was the object of Muhammad`s attack, his choice of Zayd as the spear point of the first reform, would actually make of him -- if he were prepared to give up the inheritance to which Arabian custom gave him title -- the spearhead of another Islamic legislation prohibiting inheritance to any but the blood heirs and relatives of the deceased. This indeed furnished the revelation: ``No believer, whether man or woman, has the freedom to choose otherwise than as God and His Prophet have resolved in any given case. To do so is to disobey God and His Prophet, to err and fall into manifest misguidance (Q.33: 37)”

The entire melodrama: Zaid`s divorce of Zaynab, Muhammad`s marriage with Zainab and subsequent revelations of several Qur`anic Ayats from Allah to purify this scandalous happening is something to ponder very seriously. There is more in this strange story. That this action is immoral and this revelation/justification of it self-serving and not fitting for a true word of God is an important aspect, but not a contradiction within the Quran - even though contradicting the true character of God, who is moral purity. Prohibiting adoption is no way a moral action. Prohibitions of alcohol drinking, smoking, gambling, sorceries, killing, etc., could be a moral action. But why was there prohibition of adoption?

to summarize, the logical difficulty is that Allah (?) causes a scandal and then sends Gabriel to officially justify the scandalous action of Muhammad with Qur`anic revelations is morally incorrect and too much of a coincidence.

Some after thoughts: Muhammad cannot get away from the culpability of this salacious behavior of his with Zaynab. If he had this forthrightness in his mind, he would have vigorously fight with his conscience and not allow this marriage to go through. But the reality was quite the opposite. He had surrendered to his passion and thus had marred his ``unblemished`` character. . In more enlightened society if a man does what Mohammad did with Zainab he would be looked up as a lascivious character. Not all the Qur`anic Ayats of this world will be able to change that. To have faith is one thing, but to have a blind faith is another matter, altogether!

apologist may like to think this way

Muhammad married Zainab (or Zaynab), his adopted son’s wife to set an example; it was not a marriage out of love/lust.

This is an absolute nonsense. We can demonstrate from various authentic Islamic sources that Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab was completely based on his desire to have a ‘good time’ with her (I’m borrowing this term to be in tune with modernity!) and nothing else. This truth can never be suppressed no matter how much any Islamic apologist tries to the contrary.

References
1. Holy Qur`an , translated by A,. Yousuf Ali, Amana corp., 1983
2. The life of Muhammad By: M. H. Haykal, 8th ed. 1982
3. Annals of al-Tabari 2:563, 453
4. ibid 4:43
5. Fatawa al- Imam, 5:1910
6. Tabaqat, 8:103
7.Nisa` al-Nabi, 13th ed.

ahmadzai:
`` Adoption is not prohibited in Islam. ``
Are you sure? I believe that they are prohibited under Muslim Personal Law in India. The Canadian Immigration Office in New Delhi routinely rejected adoption applications sponsored by Muslims on that grounds.
`` A good example for a Muslim to give to others for learning and following in their own lives would be Zeynab, sister of Imam Hussain``
Was she the same person mentioned by saminshah?

I think the author is delusional. Pakistani elite is too dependent on the West for survival. 2/3 of your exports goes to the West. 60% of Pakistani exports are textiles - a low margin item. I do not see how Pakistan can withstand combined pressure from USA, Japan and EU.

Zeynab Ali

First my appreciation for a very good article with an imaginative threat perception. You could not have expressed Pakistan`s ``Shot in the Foot Strategy`` in simpler words. Somehow the policy makers have romanticied more and been less current with the trends of time and tide. You wrote:
``Prominent American scholars like Stephen P. Cohen, Michael Krepon and Robert G. Wirsing have recently indicated in different statements that the volatile situation in South Asia, is ‘pushing the Bush Doctrine to disproportionate and dangerous lengths’ and ‘could force the unwilling involvement of the United States’. These analysts have circumspectly conjured possible scenarios of the US saving the world from ‘the horrors of a nuclear war by taking out Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and assets’ in case it ever decides to use it against India``.

I for one, have had many a tete a tete with Stephen Cohen, Ashley Tellis, Peter Levoy, Chris Smith and Michel Kreppon. They have been persistently trying to pass this message to Pakistan for many years. RAND has war gamed scenarios of intervention in Pakistan. No doubt now that Pakistan finds no supporters of its Kashmir Policy mainly because the instruments projecting it find no relevence in Post Cold War era and is a forbidden fruit in post 9/11 scenario.

I agree with you regarding Pakistan being vulnerable for the reasons you cited. Three years ago it would have been incomprehensible but now is a reality that USA Troops are conducting joint high altitude exercises with Indian army in Kashmir albeit a disputed territory. Soon like the West Bank and Jerushalem, there will be opening of consulates and cricket matches etc.

I have theorised earlier and reiterate that USA`s `War on Terrorism` and `WMDs in Iraq` will ultimately become a war of hate between the high tech and the minimalists, who unfortunately happen to be Muslims. The Muslim world is in dire need of a good leader. The seeds of misery implanted in Afghanistan,Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir will unfortunately germinate into a wave of high tech and primordial violence. What we do not know is whether it will be a total burnout or not.

Saminshah:

If you are a Muslim, then I am amazed to see such blatant ignorance on your part as expressed in your post at # 33. Please note that:

1. Adoption is not prohibited in Islam.

2. A good example for a Muslim to give to others for learning and following in their own lives would be Zeynab, sister of Imam Hussain, who after the martyrdom of the House of Mohammad, took the leadership of the remaining ones and made an impressive series of speeches both in front of Yazid and the public that won the supporters back to Islam. What we (Muslims and non-Muslims) and especially you as a female can learn from this example is that we should never give in to tyranny no matter how strong the opponent. This is also a good example to learn about the leadership qualities for Muslim women.

Iraq is becoming for the Bushy`s Anacondas a porcupine too prickly to swallow and too thorny to spit out -- that preemptive bavado has surely leaked out of its leaky begging bowl -

87 billion more? -- for a WAR??? -- what happened to that 70 Billion that we taxpayers shelled out THREE months ago?

the MORON el presidente is getting alarmed that playing the same 9/11 card over and over and over adnauseum -- is having just the opposite effect -- Bush`s days are getting numbered now.....the fun will begin when POST FALL accounting (no pun intended) begins


Exploiting the Atrocity
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Is the public - and the news media - finally prepared to cry foul when cynicism comes wrapped in the flag? America`s political future may rest on the answer.

The press has become a lot less shy about pointing out the administration`s exploitation of 9/11, partly because that exploitation has become so crushingly obvious.

As The Washington Post pointed out yesterday, in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked 9/11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance.

Meanwhile, the crudity of the administration`s recent propaganda efforts, from dressing the president up in a flight suit to orchestrating the ludicrously glamorized TV movie about Mr. Bush on 9/11, have set even supporters` teeth on edge.

And some stunts no longer seem feasible........

.....Mr. Bush`s advisers were greedy; they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get everything they wanted, from another round of tax cuts, to a major weakening of the Clean Air Act, to an invasion of Iraq. And so they wrapped as much as they could in the flag.

Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush`s poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels.

Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that`s not how they operate.

Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.``(NYT)

In November 2004 this corrupt dishonest Goebbelsian presidency will experience its own ONE TERM Preemptive Strike -- out of nowhere -- like his father did --

_digit,

(1)
``Benazir has a vested interest in making the army look bad.``

And you, a mojahir, has no vested interest in making `mojahir musharaff` look good, off course.


(2)
``3000? I doubt it...``

What makes you doubt it...you failed to say?
Perhaps you know the exact number killed and can share it with us? Did she miss by a couple dozen? These sindhis will do anything to make us mojahirs look bad, No? But we stand firm behind our mojahir general.


(3)
``Funny (and sad) that not one of you has the guts to speak about this...and we don`t blame you, off course ...you want to continue living, right?...to write more big stuff at chowk...after still more of your soldiers are sacrificed for nothing next time. ``

``LOL! What big stuff are you talking about? Touchy-touchy...``

Skirted around the main issue (as expected)! No kargil speaky-speaky! Oh, never mind, I understand. I don`t want you getting picked up in the middle of the night either!

And what the heck, it was the NLI (kashmiris and punjabis) who died. Fuuk them...punjabis especially...2000 or 3000. Who cares, right bro?! I`m with you.



(4)
``Difference is, though, I don`t consider the Indians I meet as ``the enemy``.

Amazing! Can this be true?! Millions killed in partition. Four bloody wars, country split into two...and yet, we hear only gentle splashing of the milk of human kindness!

Nehru said during partition: ``they`ll be begging to crawl back in 6 months``. Its almost sixty years...what happenned.

In a nutshell, after 3 generations, instead of minding their own life and nation, Pakistanis are completely (I mean completely) obsessed with India and Indians. This is as close as it gets to ``begging to crawl back``...elementary psychology.

Nehru was right!

(But off course, we shall not forget...you only want to crawl back with dignity and honour!)

Kashmir has dictated Pakistan`s world view right from day one of its existence. To be honest, it is Pakistan`s military that has found it useful to let Kashmir dictate Pakistan`s world view. Kashmir has worked wonders in the military`s schemes to divert a disproportionately large share of the national pie for the faujis who are predominantly from the recruitment area between the Indus and the Jhelum.

But, really, how important is Kashmir for Pakistan? And if it is indeed that important, is there way to do the needful without pampering the faujis?

If there is any truth to the military`s (and General Pervez Musharraf`s) contention that ``Pakistan is in our blood, `` then there is a way to force India`s hand. Pakistan should hand over ``Azad`` Kashmir to UN with a request to hold a UN-supervised referendum with the options to join Pakistan or India or even to be an independent state.

India, then, will be forced to emulate Pakistan in the Kashmir that is under Indian administration.

But I doubt Pakistan will ever dare to take this step. Self-determination for Kashmiris was never high on the agenda of Pakistan`s ruling elite.

Pakistan has refused to take in the ``Biharis`` who opted for Pakistan after the partition of Pakistan in 1971. The option was expressed very explicitly. ``Biharis`` who opted for Bangladesh were promptly offered Bangladeshi citizenship. The ``Biharis`` who opted for Pakistan were temporarily housed in refugee camps run by the UN. That was nearly a third of a century ago. They have been waiting to be repatriated to Pakistan ever since!

If Pakistan cannot accomodate the ``Biharis`` who had unequivocallyly opted for Pakistan, how can it carry conviction that it cares for the cause of Kashmiris who are yet to opt for Pakistan?

Yes, the ``Biharis`` won`t come with any real estate. Is that the reason for Pakistan`s apathy regarding them? But, in that case, it would be only fair to wonder if Pakistan`s ruling elite cares more for the Kashmiris or for Kashmir.

Funds were set up in Pakistan, and even in Saudi Arabia, to finance the repatriation of these hapless ``Biharis``. The Rabita trust was one such fund. And General Pervez Musharraf was himself on its board. I don`t know how much fund was collected by the Rabita trust for the purpose over the years. But I was not very surprised to be told ruefully by a knowledgeable Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen on orders from the American government because they were being misused to promote terrorism.

And that, in a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` !!

If Pakistan`s ruling elite (primarily its military) can let a quarter million stranded ``Biharis`` (who consider themselves Pakistanis) to rot in refugee camps for decades, it cannot possibly care for Kashmiris who don`t even call themselves Pakistanis. The ``Biharis`` will not come with any real estate - naturally Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t want to touch them even with a 10 ft pole.

Pakistan`s ruling elite has been using ``lack of funds`` as an excuse for their indifference toward these ``Biharis.`` Curiously, the same ruling elite is never lacking in funds for promoting Jihad beyond Pakistan`s borders in places like Kashmir and Afghanistan! Rabita Trust had explicitly collected money to fund the repatriation of the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh. General Pervez Musharraf himself was on its board of directors. And, needless to say, the funds got diverted to finance jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

``Biharis`` are Pakistanis. Pakistan`s ruling elite has allowed the quarter million ``Biharis`` to rot in refugee camps in distant Bangladesh for well over a generation. In contrast, the Kashmiris haven`t declared themselves to be Pakistanis. Yet, Pakistan`s ruling elite remains determined to spill as much blood as it takes to fulfill its slogan of ``Kashmir Banega Pakistan``. ``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a Kashmiri slogan. It is a slogan
engendered and nurtured in the cantonments at Lahore, Rawalpindi and Sialkot.

The ``Biharis`` won`t come with any real estate. But the Kashmiris will. Naturally, Pakistan`s ruling elite gives priority to ``liberating`` Jammu & Kashmir to repatriating the ``Biharis`` because they care for the real estate in Jammu & Kashmir and not a bit for the ``Biharis`` or even for the Kashmiris.

Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy is quite ready to fight to the last Kashmiri - for this is what allows it to usurp a disproportionate share of Pakistan`s wealth for the military which forms the linchpin of Pakistan`s ruling class.

There is absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan to indicate that its military cares any more for the rights of Kashmiris on the Indian side of the LoC than it does for the rights of ordinary Pakistanis living within Pakistan`s international borders. It would rather divert the funds of the Rabita Trust to fund jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir than bring bring home the stranded Pakistanis who have been rotting in Geneva Camps in Pakistan for the third of a century.

General Musharraf says he has Kashmir in his blood. But a Mohajir as he is, the General is yet to discover ``Biharis`` in his blood. Apparently blood isn`t always thicker than water!!

#14 to stuka

Zeynab is Mohammad’s adopted son`s wife`s name. She had to divorce from her husband to marry mohamad.And then adoption is prohibited in Islam

In responst to ironman, #27:

``In the short term, yes, pakistan is spelt CHINA. Not because of any great strategic reason, but simply because there`s no telling what your tin-pot generals will do next with the life of your young men in the army...just to get their jollies...while you write big stuff on chowk.``

What big stuff did I write? Anyhow, not my tin-pot generals...who in my opinion have been acting quite reasonably comparision to *your* facist war mongering leaders.

``Benazir said for the second time recently about 3000 pak soldiers being killed in kargil...which is huge compared to initial Indian estimates of only 650 pak soldiers killed. ``

Benazir has a vested interest in making the army look bad. Kargil is in particular a touchy issue, since Mush was the officer in charge of that ``operation``. 3000? I doubt it...

``Funny (and sad) that not one of you has the guts to speak about this...and we don`t blame you, off course ...you want to continue living, right?...to write more big stuff at chowk...after still more of your soldiers are sacrificed for nothing next time. ``

LOL! What big stuff are you talking about? Touchy-touchy...

``However, if you think we don`t look beyond you...perhaps you`re overestimating yourself. ``

Oh no doubt India has long term ambitions...membership to the security council, a powerful world-class military, a moon base, you name it. However, for now, enemy number 1 is Pakistan, and there is no doubt that the current arms spree is to surpass Pakistan conventionally. One could think otherwise, however the belligerence of India’s leadership and seeming insistence on starting a war with Pakistan seems to support my position. India is itching for a fight.

Anyhow, in the long run it`s not like I don`t see the wisdom in a military build up. Realistically, this is where international clout comes from. However, the speed at which India is building up their military does not correlate to any immanent threat other than Pakistan.

``(If you don`t mind my getting personal, I must say its been a great disappointment meeting the enemy in north america. I don`t see any big, powerful warriors that we were brought to believe...just 5-and-half foot punjabis with an attitude). Sorry if that offended you. ``

I`m not Punjabi...ancestry is from somewhere in U.P. Quite frankly, I haven`t met an intimidating Indian either, from north, south, east or west. Difference is, though, I don`t consider the Indians I meet as ``the enemy``.

In fact the more I read your post, the more you come across as an anti army minority loving beysharam liberal. :)

Romair: You yourself are a secular fanatic. Why call others that? Your points are good, very good, and will have you labelled as a secular fanatic by the Mullas.

digit at # 24:

On War on Terrorism being turned into War on Islam, please read my views expressed in a post in another topic - `Fading Exclamations`.

On Men in Khaki running the country and the economic result, please read the post of romair at # 26 below.

On your Indian military build-up and Pakistan getting into arms race, I would again say that Pakistan should concentrate on developing its nuclear capabilties, on developing economy and social sector and on building our image based on reality, not on Jewish and Hindu (what romair calls Nehruites and BJP) oriented journalism. Thats about it. This will keep Pakistan heading for sky. India inevitably will be increasingly divided religiously and ethnically and more so if we leave them on their own.

Digit #24

{{I agree, both countries have loads of problems that need to be dealt with. Rather then spend so many billions on 1970`s era military hardware, both would be better to invest in infrastructure and industry.}}

In case you haven’t noticed, India has been investing billions in public infrastructure. The most visible initiative is the Golden Quadrilateral project to link the four major metros via 5500 km of four-lane highways. This project is running ahead of the original schedule. You can expect new privately run airports next. There has also been discussion of schemes for linking rivers to alleviate problems of seasonal water shortage.

This has been going side-by-side with investment in military hardware, which in India’s case is mostly not 1970’s era materiel.

{{However, Pakistan`s arms build up to counter India`s, and India`s to ensure superiority over Pakistan`s, (...funny how Indians insist on spelling Pakistan C-H-I-N-A when rationalizing their massive arms build up...),}}

Does India really need 190 Su-30 MKIs – among the most capable long-range strike aircraft now in existence – to counter Pakistan? How about half-a-dozen air-to-air refuellers? How about 3 Phalcons? Is a potent blue-water navy necessary if the only foreseeable opponent is Pakistan? Why on earth has India been developing extensive naval and military facilities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which are as far as one can get from Pakistan while still being on Indian territory? What is the point of a 5000 km-range Agni-III BRBM in development? Is it meant to be based in the Andamans to hit Pakistan from long-range?

For any one with eyes to look, the answer should be obvious. India intends to be – next to the US, with whom a cooperative relationship is envisaged - the dominant power in its neighbourhood, on land, sea and air. It is intent on protecting its expanding trade links and its commercial interests overseas. The nature and range of some of India’s arms can only be to deal with China or with emerging threats or contingencies far more distant than Pakistan.

{{is a trend that I think will continue for some time so long as this Kashmir issue is around.}}

The scope of India’s arms build-up will provide it with absolutely overwhelming conventional superiority over Pakistan, well beyond the point of overkill. Since it is not primarily driven by the need to prevail over Pakistan, it will continue, keeping pace with the steady growth of the Indian economy, even in the unlikely issue that the Kashmir issue is resolved with Pakistan (rather than being resolved internally). All that might happen in the event of a lasting settlement with Pakistan is a reorientation of Indian capabilities in other directions or bypassing Pakistan.

So if Pakistan hopes to impose any restraints on Indian arms buildup – say as one of the ‘conditions’ for a Kashmir settlement – it hopes in vain. The sooner Pakistanis get used to the idea that they’re not the biggest kid in the neighbourhood and that India`s trajectory is independent from theirs, the better for them and the resolution of their internal problems.

_digit,

``...and India`s to ensure superiority over Pakistan`s, (...funny how Indians insist on spelling Pakistan C-H-I-N-A when rationalizing their massive arms build up...)

In the short term, yes, pakistan is spelt CHINA. Not because of any great strategic reason, but simply because there`s no telling what your tin-pot generals will do next with the life of your young men in the army...just to get their jollies...while you write big stuff on chowk.

Benazir said for the second time recently about 3000 pak soldiers being killed in kargil...which is huge compared to initial Indian estimates of only 650 pak soldiers killed.

Funny (and sad) that not one of you has the guts to speak about this...and we don`t blame you, off course ...you want to continue living, right?...to write more big stuff at chowk...after still more of your soldiers are sacrificed for nothing next time.

So, yes...in the short term, we have only pakistan in sight.

However, if you think we don`t look beyond you...perhaps you`re overestimating yourself.

(If you don`t mind my getting personal, I must say its been a great disappointment meeting the enemy in north america. I don`t see any big, powerful warriors that we were brought to believe...just 5-and-half foot punjabis with an attitude). Sorry if that offended you.

regards,