Kashmir from the Left
Ras Siddiqui September 27, 2003
#65 Posted by dost_mittar on October 1, 2003 7:46:56 am
ahmedmadani#59:
Even if what you say is true (some is, some not, some maybe!) Pakistan can reverse this situation right away. All it has to do is freeze (not give up, just freeze!) the Kashmir issue and develop normal, friendly relations with India. There is still goodwill in India towards Pakistan and Pakistanis, as was evident from the Baby Noor case and the euphoria in India following Vajpayee`s Lahore visit. Indians (as well as Pakistanis) are a sentimental lot and quite capable of melting their hostility with tears of emotions and joy. If there is no animosity, there wont be any games. Na rahega baans na bajegi baansuri.
India will still continue with its geopolitical ambitions because the hindians believe that, as inheritors of one of the great civilisations (alongwith Pakistan even though it believes it belongs to a different civilization), it is their destiny to be a great power. But, if there is no animosity, Pakistan would not have to worry about India any more than Canada has to worry about the US.
Even if what you say is true (some is, some not, some maybe!) Pakistan can reverse this situation right away. All it has to do is freeze (not give up, just freeze!) the Kashmir issue and develop normal, friendly relations with India. There is still goodwill in India towards Pakistan and Pakistanis, as was evident from the Baby Noor case and the euphoria in India following Vajpayee`s Lahore visit. Indians (as well as Pakistanis) are a sentimental lot and quite capable of melting their hostility with tears of emotions and joy. If there is no animosity, there wont be any games. Na rahega baans na bajegi baansuri.
India will still continue with its geopolitical ambitions because the hindians believe that, as inheritors of one of the great civilisations (alongwith Pakistan even though it believes it belongs to a different civilization), it is their destiny to be a great power. But, if there is no animosity, Pakistan would not have to worry about India any more than Canada has to worry about the US.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#66 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 1, 2003 7:54:49 am
Hi,
Before I touch other issues, let me remind you that Indian military might far out weighs Pakistan`s (refer to old issues of India Today to enlighten yourself). Every one knows who makes misadventures and burns their hands. Weapons procurement and modernization is a continuous process and dont forget, we Indians have another friend, China who is also romantic (though not as much as Pak).
Once in a while pakistan blames all its problems on India. Pak should learn to tackle internal matters in a humane and rational way rather than blaming India. We are least bit interested in your internal affairs.
Wars are not a solution to problems. People suffer during wars and fools glorify them as sacrifices. Hatred makes people blind. Clash should be ideological.
If there is an issue in Kashmir it is one of autonomy and independence and not one of joining Pak. Kashmiris will never fal in the hands of Paki tyranny.
Your low regard for Peace and zeal for the final war will run short of support in Pakistan and I am quite sure about it.
Luv,
Cosmic_Citizen.
Before I touch other issues, let me remind you that Indian military might far out weighs Pakistan`s (refer to old issues of India Today to enlighten yourself). Every one knows who makes misadventures and burns their hands. Weapons procurement and modernization is a continuous process and dont forget, we Indians have another friend, China who is also romantic (though not as much as Pak).
Once in a while pakistan blames all its problems on India. Pak should learn to tackle internal matters in a humane and rational way rather than blaming India. We are least bit interested in your internal affairs.
Wars are not a solution to problems. People suffer during wars and fools glorify them as sacrifices. Hatred makes people blind. Clash should be ideological.
If there is an issue in Kashmir it is one of autonomy and independence and not one of joining Pak. Kashmiris will never fal in the hands of Paki tyranny.
Your low regard for Peace and zeal for the final war will run short of support in Pakistan and I am quite sure about it.
Luv,
Cosmic_Citizen.
#67 Posted by pmishra2 on October 1, 2003 8:39:19 am
Our favorite delusionist ahmedmadani rants:
[quote]
Now they are showing same by naming their submarines `` sindhu Shastra (Arm of sindh), Sindhu beer ( sindi fighter), Sindhu Rakshaka( (protector of Sindh)
[end-quote]
Huh? Which lakshar university did you learn this cr*p from? Needless to say, you will be unable to provide a single factual reference to back it up.
There is a large Sindhi diaspora in India (and abroad) and I am happy to say they remain attached to the Sindhi language. Other than that this nonsense is all part of our troubled mind.
[quote]
Now they are showing same by naming their submarines `` sindhu Shastra (Arm of sindh), Sindhu beer ( sindi fighter), Sindhu Rakshaka( (protector of Sindh)
[end-quote]
Huh? Which lakshar university did you learn this cr*p from? Needless to say, you will be unable to provide a single factual reference to back it up.
There is a large Sindhi diaspora in India (and abroad) and I am happy to say they remain attached to the Sindhi language. Other than that this nonsense is all part of our troubled mind.
#68 Posted by Romair on October 1, 2003 9:27:39 am
NazarHayatKhan #48: “You ask pointed questions. And my replies invariably border on treason. Manto has already scared the hell out me by plonking ``Wanted`` posters all over Chowk ; and I am reluctant to interact so freely as earlier. Anyway.”
Rest assured, I have not intention of putting up wanted posters of you. I am more interested in getting your point of view on the issue. Usually, the correct answers to national problems are a combination of everyone’s point of view.
At the same time, I was expecting a much more detailed answer from you, and a much better analysis. Primarily, since you are probably the only one on Chowk, who has actually fought a war. That, if you ask me, is, in and of itself, a Ph.D. Also, since you are quite critical (perhaps correctly) of the outdated military strategies taught in Pakistan’s defence colleges. I do not know, since I never attended those Colleges. But, if you are critical of them, then as a rule – one that I follow myself – you have to be able to come up with something better then they provide.
So once again, I will ask you the same questions:
a) India is carrying out a massive arms build-up, with offensive weapons specifically targeted at Pakistan. How should Pakistan counter that? Why is India purchasing such weaponry? And how exactly can Pakistan get India on its side, when India is going out of its way to militarily dominate the whole region. For starters, how would you get Pakistan to get India to stop its arms purchases, and its nuclear buildup? If it doesn’t stop then what should Pakistan do?
Your answer was,
“Do we worry about US arms build up or China`s arms build up? India comes No. 3 in that sequence.”
This does not appeal to me. Since the USA and China are not buying weapons specifically to target Pakistan. They have other interests, and other battles. Even Canada and Mexico are not worried about USA’s arms build up, because they know those arms are targeted elsewhere. The USA is not using those arms to dominate the foreign policies of Canada and Mexico. But, if you take a tank by tank analysis of India’s new purchases, they can only be used against Pakistan.
b) India, as a country, has gone thru an ideological change. It is now well on its way to Hinduvta. Hinduvta has a Hindu vision for all of South Asia, with or without Kashmir. It maybe nice to speak Punjabi with Indian Sikhs, but that is only a tiny part of India. In the overall scheme of things, Hinduvta does not have any room for Muslims. Should Pakistan be concerned about that?
Wherever the BJP/RSS has had a chance it has killed/sidelined even Muslims of its own country. And Indian courts have not held them responsible. If the current ideology of India does not ever cater for its own Muslims, how in the world will it cater for Pakistani Muslims? Would it not be interested in running them over, regardless of how friendly Pakistanis try to be? If not, then why is it running over its own Muslims, who are citizens of the country, it is ruling?
So, while it sounds nice to say that Pakistan should try to make friends with India, friendship has to be from both sides. Or not? What do you think?
Some of the biggest wars in the world have occurred when one side was trying to make friends, while the other side was arming itself to the teeth. My study of history has indicated that poor countries, buying massive offensive weaponry, do it under a certain plan. They don’t buy for decoration. They want to dominate a certain portion of the world. Defensive weaponry is a different issue.
India can never dominate anything other than South Asia – if that. It cannot dominate all of Asia, with China, Russia and Japan sitting there. It certainly cannot dominate the world, with the USA and China sitting there. This leaves it with South Asia. Hence its role in the world, is not really much different than that of Pakistan. Both work in the same domain, i.e. South Asia. That is the border of their influence. When countries try to militarily dominate a domain, they only do so if they know they can use their military power, to gain economic benefits, by influencing the policies of other countries, e.g. USA uses its military to influence the foreign and domestic policies of oil-rich states, thereby getting a healthy profit on its investment in offensive military. There is absolutely no other reason for an offensive military, anywhere.
So, a Hinduvta ideology, with BJP in power, buying billions of dollars of offensive weaponry, with a sphere of influence limited only to South Asia, specifically targeted at Pakistan, while simultaneously killing its own Muslims (for no reason) is something that just cannot be ignored.
So I would expect an analysis from your side. To just say, “Actually, we have no choice - so the old fires of shared past can be rekindled and a mutually beneficial co-existance can easily be worked out……We should get India on our side,” is a nice feel-good statement. But it is really no better than the simplicity you accuse the various Defence Colleges of providing. They also think with their hearts and not with their minds. Their hearts, stating that Pakistan should fight it out with India. Yours suggesting that Pakistan should just ignore India’s arms build ups.
Both analyses will lead to a war, in my opinion. One is too aggressive and one is too passive. The main analysis should be, on how we get India to disarm. And if they refuse to disarm, then what should we do.
I certainly do not believe in offensive wars. But I am a strong believer in the fact that the best way to avoid war is to ensure that they do not occur in the first place. That can be done by both countries disarming. If that cannot happen, then it can only be done by ensuring a credible defence and an independent foreign policy. Most major wars occur in areas/countries that have no way to defend themselves, e.g. Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Countries that can defend themselves (both economically and militarily) like the USA etc. never get attacked. If India was powerful enough to dominate the world, and was fighting a cold war with the USA (like China is), and it bought a slew of weaponry, then I could understand. However, it can barely compete with Pakistan, and cannot even think of competing with China (more so now, with the booming Chinese economy), so which country will it try to dominate with all its military purchases? And if it is not buying that equipment to dominate Pakistan, then is it buying it for decoration purposes?
Rest assured, I have not intention of putting up wanted posters of you. I am more interested in getting your point of view on the issue. Usually, the correct answers to national problems are a combination of everyone’s point of view.
At the same time, I was expecting a much more detailed answer from you, and a much better analysis. Primarily, since you are probably the only one on Chowk, who has actually fought a war. That, if you ask me, is, in and of itself, a Ph.D. Also, since you are quite critical (perhaps correctly) of the outdated military strategies taught in Pakistan’s defence colleges. I do not know, since I never attended those Colleges. But, if you are critical of them, then as a rule – one that I follow myself – you have to be able to come up with something better then they provide.
So once again, I will ask you the same questions:
a) India is carrying out a massive arms build-up, with offensive weapons specifically targeted at Pakistan. How should Pakistan counter that? Why is India purchasing such weaponry? And how exactly can Pakistan get India on its side, when India is going out of its way to militarily dominate the whole region. For starters, how would you get Pakistan to get India to stop its arms purchases, and its nuclear buildup? If it doesn’t stop then what should Pakistan do?
Your answer was,
“Do we worry about US arms build up or China`s arms build up? India comes No. 3 in that sequence.”
This does not appeal to me. Since the USA and China are not buying weapons specifically to target Pakistan. They have other interests, and other battles. Even Canada and Mexico are not worried about USA’s arms build up, because they know those arms are targeted elsewhere. The USA is not using those arms to dominate the foreign policies of Canada and Mexico. But, if you take a tank by tank analysis of India’s new purchases, they can only be used against Pakistan.
b) India, as a country, has gone thru an ideological change. It is now well on its way to Hinduvta. Hinduvta has a Hindu vision for all of South Asia, with or without Kashmir. It maybe nice to speak Punjabi with Indian Sikhs, but that is only a tiny part of India. In the overall scheme of things, Hinduvta does not have any room for Muslims. Should Pakistan be concerned about that?
Wherever the BJP/RSS has had a chance it has killed/sidelined even Muslims of its own country. And Indian courts have not held them responsible. If the current ideology of India does not ever cater for its own Muslims, how in the world will it cater for Pakistani Muslims? Would it not be interested in running them over, regardless of how friendly Pakistanis try to be? If not, then why is it running over its own Muslims, who are citizens of the country, it is ruling?
So, while it sounds nice to say that Pakistan should try to make friends with India, friendship has to be from both sides. Or not? What do you think?
Some of the biggest wars in the world have occurred when one side was trying to make friends, while the other side was arming itself to the teeth. My study of history has indicated that poor countries, buying massive offensive weaponry, do it under a certain plan. They don’t buy for decoration. They want to dominate a certain portion of the world. Defensive weaponry is a different issue.
India can never dominate anything other than South Asia – if that. It cannot dominate all of Asia, with China, Russia and Japan sitting there. It certainly cannot dominate the world, with the USA and China sitting there. This leaves it with South Asia. Hence its role in the world, is not really much different than that of Pakistan. Both work in the same domain, i.e. South Asia. That is the border of their influence. When countries try to militarily dominate a domain, they only do so if they know they can use their military power, to gain economic benefits, by influencing the policies of other countries, e.g. USA uses its military to influence the foreign and domestic policies of oil-rich states, thereby getting a healthy profit on its investment in offensive military. There is absolutely no other reason for an offensive military, anywhere.
So, a Hinduvta ideology, with BJP in power, buying billions of dollars of offensive weaponry, with a sphere of influence limited only to South Asia, specifically targeted at Pakistan, while simultaneously killing its own Muslims (for no reason) is something that just cannot be ignored.
So I would expect an analysis from your side. To just say, “Actually, we have no choice - so the old fires of shared past can be rekindled and a mutually beneficial co-existance can easily be worked out……We should get India on our side,” is a nice feel-good statement. But it is really no better than the simplicity you accuse the various Defence Colleges of providing. They also think with their hearts and not with their minds. Their hearts, stating that Pakistan should fight it out with India. Yours suggesting that Pakistan should just ignore India’s arms build ups.
Both analyses will lead to a war, in my opinion. One is too aggressive and one is too passive. The main analysis should be, on how we get India to disarm. And if they refuse to disarm, then what should we do.
I certainly do not believe in offensive wars. But I am a strong believer in the fact that the best way to avoid war is to ensure that they do not occur in the first place. That can be done by both countries disarming. If that cannot happen, then it can only be done by ensuring a credible defence and an independent foreign policy. Most major wars occur in areas/countries that have no way to defend themselves, e.g. Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Countries that can defend themselves (both economically and militarily) like the USA etc. never get attacked. If India was powerful enough to dominate the world, and was fighting a cold war with the USA (like China is), and it bought a slew of weaponry, then I could understand. However, it can barely compete with Pakistan, and cannot even think of competing with China (more so now, with the booming Chinese economy), so which country will it try to dominate with all its military purchases? And if it is not buying that equipment to dominate Pakistan, then is it buying it for decoration purposes?
#69 Posted by AlephNull on October 1, 2003 9:45:47 am
ahmedmadani #59
{{Indian dream is to cut sindh from Pakistan and then for ``sindh`` sake pump water in Ravi, biyas and satlaj and carry down south and portion of ot to sindh entering sindh near under border od Sindh and Punjab. So punjab will be denied water.}}
Sahib, you have correctly divined the diabolical Hindians` true intent. Our plan in fact is to resurrect the dried-up sacred Saraswati by diverting water from the Sindhu.
{{Indian dream is to cut sindh from Pakistan and then for ``sindh`` sake pump water in Ravi, biyas and satlaj and carry down south and portion of ot to sindh entering sindh near under border od Sindh and Punjab. So punjab will be denied water.}}
Sahib, you have correctly divined the diabolical Hindians` true intent. Our plan in fact is to resurrect the dried-up sacred Saraswati by diverting water from the Sindhu.
#70 Posted by stuka on October 1, 2003 10:46:43 am
Interesting letter from Asia Times...
The article [Machiavellian US policy towards Pakistan, Sep 23] by Hussain Khan was really heart-rending. He has got a long list of grievances against the USA. But if the US is Machiavellian, isn`t Pakistan quixotic? Does Khan not know, or [does he want] us to believe otherwise, that Pakistan got nothing in return for its services and help? The USA is known to be a good paymaster for all the services rendered throughout the world and that is the main reason nations fall head over heels to help and serve. Has Pakistan not received billions of dollars in donations, debt writeoffs, free Saber jets, Patton Tanks, F-16s, C-130s, and the list goes on? Even the F-16s which Pakistan is claimed to have paid for were from the money the USA gave to Pakistan. How can Hussain, an economist, ask the USA to be indebted forever by whatever Pakistan did and was paid for? How can the USA espouse Pakistan`s wish to match India`s purchases, which India pays for by cash, by providing Pakistan free, paid by US taxpayers? That is on top of Pakistan being the third-largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Egypt. Wouldn`t Afghanistan demand from the USA to bring it at par with Pakistan so it can stand up to and escape from its ravages? And also some other nations in the neighborhood who also contributed to the ``war against terrorism``. Surely then, the USA`s economic demise will be hastened, as predicted by the same Hussain Khan.
An Avid ATol Reader (Sep 24, `03)
The article [Machiavellian US policy towards Pakistan, Sep 23] by Hussain Khan was really heart-rending. He has got a long list of grievances against the USA. But if the US is Machiavellian, isn`t Pakistan quixotic? Does Khan not know, or [does he want] us to believe otherwise, that Pakistan got nothing in return for its services and help? The USA is known to be a good paymaster for all the services rendered throughout the world and that is the main reason nations fall head over heels to help and serve. Has Pakistan not received billions of dollars in donations, debt writeoffs, free Saber jets, Patton Tanks, F-16s, C-130s, and the list goes on? Even the F-16s which Pakistan is claimed to have paid for were from the money the USA gave to Pakistan. How can Hussain, an economist, ask the USA to be indebted forever by whatever Pakistan did and was paid for? How can the USA espouse Pakistan`s wish to match India`s purchases, which India pays for by cash, by providing Pakistan free, paid by US taxpayers? That is on top of Pakistan being the third-largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Egypt. Wouldn`t Afghanistan demand from the USA to bring it at par with Pakistan so it can stand up to and escape from its ravages? And also some other nations in the neighborhood who also contributed to the ``war against terrorism``. Surely then, the USA`s economic demise will be hastened, as predicted by the same Hussain Khan.
An Avid ATol Reader (Sep 24, `03)
#71 Posted by AlephNull on October 1, 2003 10:59:25 am
pmisra2 #67
{{[quote]
Now they are showing same by naming their submarines `` sindhu Shastra (Arm of sindh), Sindhu beer ( sindi fighter), Sindhu Rakshaka( (protector of Sindh)
[end-quote]
... Needless to say, you will be unable to provide a single factual reference to back it up.}}
Actually Ahmed Madani is right about the submarine names, at least. The Indian Navy has 10 Sindhughosh class (Kilo Type 877 EKM) submarines, which are among its most modern. Their names are Sindhughosh, Sindhuvaj, Sindhuraj, Sindhuvir, Sindhukesari, ... Sindhurakshak, Sindhushastra.
And Madani Sahib may or may not be a factotum in a hotel on Ziauddin Road Karachi (I strongly suspect his persona is a brilliant impersonation), but he is one of the most insightful Pakistanis posting on Chowk. At least according to my mental thinking ...
{{[quote]
Now they are showing same by naming their submarines `` sindhu Shastra (Arm of sindh), Sindhu beer ( sindi fighter), Sindhu Rakshaka( (protector of Sindh)
[end-quote]
... Needless to say, you will be unable to provide a single factual reference to back it up.}}
Actually Ahmed Madani is right about the submarine names, at least. The Indian Navy has 10 Sindhughosh class (Kilo Type 877 EKM) submarines, which are among its most modern. Their names are Sindhughosh, Sindhuvaj, Sindhuraj, Sindhuvir, Sindhukesari, ... Sindhurakshak, Sindhushastra.
And Madani Sahib may or may not be a factotum in a hotel on Ziauddin Road Karachi (I strongly suspect his persona is a brilliant impersonation), but he is one of the most insightful Pakistanis posting on Chowk. At least according to my mental thinking ...
#72 Posted by mumbaikar on October 1, 2003 12:10:59 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#73 Posted by Ahmadzai on October 1, 2003 12:36:28 pm
Rsridhar at # 56:
``America, of late, has been monitoring the LOC thr` high resolution satellite imagery and has come to the same conclusion independently.``
This is one reason I keep saying that Indians have lost all their faculties to think logically.
Americans can monitor through satellite imagery and find that people (who I have already called terrorists and Pakistani Government calls extremists acting on their own) are crossing into India, but they cannot report that they were doing so under Pakistani patronage, unless these infiltrators were being dropped off at Pakistan side of border by Pakistani military vehicles, or were carrying metal shields over their heads like umbrellas showing Pakistani symbols engraved on them, etc.
I hope you get my message :-)
As regards American confirmations, please recall that they confirmed Saddam`s WMD program too.
A more prudent course of action for our erstwhile Indian friends would be to at least once question their Government as to why not a single terrorist has been arrested alive todate since the enactment of POTO in the Valley or even before it? At least question once why can`t we make at least one ``terrorist`` arrested alive say after starving them in their holed up bunkers in a mosque or through tear gasing.
``America, of late, has been monitoring the LOC thr` high resolution satellite imagery and has come to the same conclusion independently.``
This is one reason I keep saying that Indians have lost all their faculties to think logically.
Americans can monitor through satellite imagery and find that people (who I have already called terrorists and Pakistani Government calls extremists acting on their own) are crossing into India, but they cannot report that they were doing so under Pakistani patronage, unless these infiltrators were being dropped off at Pakistan side of border by Pakistani military vehicles, or were carrying metal shields over their heads like umbrellas showing Pakistani symbols engraved on them, etc.
I hope you get my message :-)
As regards American confirmations, please recall that they confirmed Saddam`s WMD program too.
A more prudent course of action for our erstwhile Indian friends would be to at least once question their Government as to why not a single terrorist has been arrested alive todate since the enactment of POTO in the Valley or even before it? At least question once why can`t we make at least one ``terrorist`` arrested alive say after starving them in their holed up bunkers in a mosque or through tear gasing.
#74 Posted by Ahmadzai on October 1, 2003 12:40:17 pm
Ironman at # 57:
I have always been claiming that majority of Indians on Chowk struggle with their IQ levels getting into positive digits. You provided yet another evidence of that.
Read my message again. Its not me reporting 25%, but your Government.
I have always been claiming that majority of Indians on Chowk struggle with their IQ levels getting into positive digits. You provided yet another evidence of that.
Read my message again. Its not me reporting 25%, but your Government.
#75 Posted by arjun_m on October 1, 2003 1:10:02 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#76 Posted by Ahmadzai on October 1, 2003 1:10:02 pm
Nazarhayatkhan Saheb,
I am also interested in your response to Romair at # 68.
My conviction: Indian is waging a declared war (previously, I was of the view that it was an undeclared war) on Pakistan and on Muslims.
I am also interested in your response to Romair at # 68.
My conviction: Indian is waging a declared war (previously, I was of the view that it was an undeclared war) on Pakistan and on Muslims.
#77 Posted by arjun_m on October 1, 2003 1:13:50 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#78 Posted by arjun_m on October 1, 2003 3:03:53 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#79 Posted by arjun_m on October 1, 2003 3:03:53 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#80 Posted by arjun_m on October 1, 2003 3:03:53 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- om_prakash: Jang Rico would work... Pleas For Sanity as
- jang: OM P, are you... Pleas For Sanity as
- Aha_Snark: HP: let me clarify. 1.... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: Jang, in that case. Yes... Pleas For Sanity as
- Aha_Snark: The criminal justice system... Pleas For Sanity as
- jang: OM P, borivli has... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: tahmed32, you drama queen,... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: GT sahib #190 Please... Pleas For Sanity as
