One Afternoon

harimau #82 [``...Not only Josef Stalin and Zia ul-Haq but even Abraham Lincoln would be envious...``]

I`m glad you brought `Uncle Lincum` on the same level as Uncle Joe (Zina-n-Faq really doesn`t count so we can ignore and flush him down the toilet of history). A case can be argued that even though Uncle Joe was a far more evil as a man and as a leader in his immediate impact, but if viewed through the telescope of history the worldwide impact of Old Abe runs deeper and is more destructive in the long run.

Stalin`s net destructive impact to the immediate populations of his time was great indeed. But those effects are fading fast. On the other hand the consequences of Lincoln`s evil deed are only now gathering steam. If Lincoln had lost the election to McClellen, the Civil War would have ended in a `cease-fire` and the Masson-Dixon Line would effectively have become the `Line of Control.` That would have prevented the federal government from becoming omnipotent and the two Americas would have eventually kissed and made up a loose confederation. The cause of individual and local Liberty would have been well served and central governmental authority would not have grown to be the monster that it has become.

As for your comments on the coming record-breaking election fraud through touch screen electronic voting machines is concerned I am 100% in agreement. Love the stalin quote
about who counts the votes that matters.

As far as Kashmir, Nagaland, Tibet, Khalistan, Pakhtoonistan, Tamil Nadu, Palestine, Kurdistan, Zapatistas etc, etc, etc, are concerned, frankly they are all mass tragedies for the local mothers, daughters, wives and sisters and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to bleed any more tears over them. Nothing you or I can say has not already been beaten to death, so I don`t even want to go there. Suffice it to say that in my world view ALL governments, everywhere, are nothing more than legalized mafia organizations that possess means of coersion and aggression. The only difference is one of degree, some are worse than others. There are no good ones. The only ``good`` government is no government. Since that is not possible therefore I have modified my motto to, ``the weaker and smaller a government, the less evil it is.``

Ref SR #76

{harimau #69 [``... a combination of political maneuverings as well as police force, this was quashed and today Tamil Nadu is not trying...``]

[``...same can be said of the Khalistan movement. ...``]


I am sure, Josef Stalin and Zia ul-Haq will both be envious of the achievement.}

Not only Josef Stalin and Zia ul-Haq but even Abraham Lincoln would be envious. After all, the Civil War in the US claimed 600,000 lives and we in India are an order of magnitude lower than that figure. And as a proportion of population, I am sure we would be two orders of magnitude lower than Lincoln.


{[``... the armed conflicts taking place in Kashmir, and a few of the Northeastern states including Nagaland. ... etc., would have remained quiet but for Chinese and Burmese intervention in the form of arms and training and Kashmir but for Pakistani interference. ...``]

Hummm.... So its the Chinese, the Burmese and the Pakis. I see.}

You think that the Kashmiris manufacture RDX, detonators, Claymore mines and Kalashnikovs somewhere in the exurbs of Srinagar? And the Nagas are presumably doing the same in the hills around Kohima?

No matter what the Pak press says, and no matter what the West has to say about India being the only democracy in South Asia and the bulwark against Chinese totalitarianism, one must analyze the question in terms of geopoilitics: would Nagaland or the Kashmir Valley be better off as independent entities or under Indian protection? In the case of Nagaland, we all know what happened to Tibet, about which I haven`t seen one word from any Pakistani. As to the Kashmiris, there is no way India is going to cede the highlands to an independent entity which wil be effectively under the thumb of Pakistan, China, the US or all three.

It is easy to say that Indian democracy is flawed and not as good as those in Canada, Western Europe or the US. But at least, our Prime Minister is not appointed by our Supreme Court on the specious pretext that there is no more time to count the votes when the court itself was the cause of the delay. Nor are our electronic voting machines sold with the promise that the company selling them is committed to the re-election of the sitting president. The fact that these electronic machines deliver different states to different parties is proof that our voting machines reflect the will of the voters. Even Kashmiris and Nagas (at least those who brave the bullets to vote) agree that not only do they have the right to vote but -- even more critically -- their votes are counted right.

PS. I heard Stalin being quoted by Mike Savage when the last US presidential election remained undecided: It is not who votes that counts; it is who counts the votes that counts.

re:#79 by dost-mittar
Thanks for the post. You are right about Telecom. And about Vajpayee`s contribution in creating an infrastructure of highways. India today is where US was in the 30s when Roosevelt started building the highways. Will India reach the same level of prosperity that US did years later? Only time will tell.
Sridhar

dost-mittar #79 [``...success ... in India is ... wouldn`t have happened if the govt. had not gotten out of the people`s way ... The govt. has played its part simply by ending the license-quota-raaj system. ... [In] telecommunication revolution ... govt. played ... role of a facilitator... opened up this sector to private companies ... govt. let them renegotiate their contracts ... even when ... losing potential revenues. That single step let the private telecom companies to become profitable; the ensuing competition has resulted in India having the cheapest mobile telephone rates anywhere in the world...``]

My friend, you speak the truth. This is exactly supporting what I say. All the credit you give government is in doing LESS of what it does. It only because of things government stopped doing that helped. So basically if the governemt did anything good it was only to undo itself. Credit surely goes to top leadership, not to government machinery. It was only by clipping the wings of the government that things got better.

...SR

SR#75, sridhar#78:
SR is both right and wrong. The success we are seeing today in India is largely, if not entirely, due to entrepreneurship of its people. But that success wouldn`t have happened if the govt. had not gotten out of the people`s way in the first place. The govt. has played its part simply by ending the license-quota-raaj system.
But there is more. The current success is due in no small measure to the telecommunication revolution in India. The govt. here has played a very useful role of a facilitator. When they opened up this sector to private companies, they bid themselves too high and were making huge losses. Against strong opposition, the govt. let them renegotiate their contracts on more favourable terms even when it was accused of losing potential revenues. That single step let the private telecom companies to become profitable; the ensuing competition has resulted in India having the cheapest mobile telephone rates anywhere in the world.
And the govt. is finally doing what a govt. is supposed to do - build infrastructure. I suspect Vajpayee might go down in history as the new Sher Shah Suri of India.

re:#75 by SR
``The success we presently witness in Bharat is not because of the central government, but inspite of it. ``
I would largely agree with that statement but with some caveats. For eg in case of IT, it did start as a private enterprise in India and the Govt did hinder progress initially but once it took off, GOI has done everything possible to encourage it. Some newer areas like Biotechnology could not have taken off without the govt support. So, it is kind of a mixed bag.
But, in general it is a good idea for govt to stay away from business. As Margaret Thatcher once put it: Govt has no business of being in ``business``.
Sridhar

Re: Dost-Mittar # 74

Yaar, at one point I would have agreed with you, but since the GOP took over America, some one needs to apply the anti-trust laws on the GOP itself, because it is the single largest monopoly of corporate greed in America.

What India and Pakistan need is not economics helping politics or politics helping economics, but an inspired act of God, which instills some common sense in the chest thumping nationalistically challenged neanderthals. It is hard to realize that there is so much common sense in an average Indian and a Pakistani, but you throw a political bone to them and label it ``Kashmir`` and they fight each and tear each other just to gnaw at that old bone.

In my college fraternity, we had a guy from India and other me, there was another guy from Pakistan. When we would be bored and there were no girls around, we would get drunk and make them face each other and yell ``kashmir`` and step back and watch the curses fly! I kid you not! They would literally go for the jugular! LOL It is almost Pavolvian!

Ciao

harimau #69 [``... a combination of political maneuverings as well as police force, this was quashed and today Tamil Nadu is not trying...``]

[``...same can be said of the Khalistan movement. ...``]


I am sure, Josef Stalin and Zia ul-Haq will both be envious of the achievement.


[``... the armed conflicts taking place in Kashmir, and a few of the Northeastern states including Nagaland. ... etc., would have remained quiet but for Chinese and Burmese intervention in the form of arms and training and Kashmir but for Pakistani interference. ...``]

Hummm.... So its the Chinese, the Burmese and the Pakis. I see.

There was a story in the British paper Guardian about a Kashmiri man who had been arrested because he beat up his daughters. The poor slob very genuinely believed that it was the interference by the Godless sinners of the society outside home that put his daughters up to no good and that there were no problems in his model-of-paradise home. Perhaps he was right also. And if he could have also slapped them silly and shut them up, the girls may not be asking for any independence either.

...SR

rsridhar #70 [``...Why bring in the whole of South Asian countries here, when the problem is mainly Pakistan? ... India has a responsible democracy... It certainly is not imperialistic, colonial or exploitative... Problems of India are huge and are not going away any time soon. But the fact India has a booming trade with ASEAN, CHINA, Srilanka and even Bangladesh says something. What is missing here? ...``]

The success we presently witness in Bharat is not because of the central government, but inspite of it. The creative genius of the enterprising people in the private sector is the secret, not the bureaucrats in New Delhi. The good fortune was that the central government in New Delhi, relative to the whole country, never got as powerful as the central government in Islamabad did relative to its country. It also did not hurt that Bharat had the good fortune, early on, of having leaders like Pundit Nehru and Lal Bhadur Shastri who actually had a genuine desire to serve the country. Apart from that the nature of the bureaucracy is the same. It fortunate that the Bharati bureaucrat has been contained in that he cannot do as much damage as he might have been able to do.

In short, the credit only goes to the hardworking people and not the government machine.

harimau #69 [``...I don`t think the Indian government is viewed by any Indian as an ``imperialistic, colonial and exploitative`` one, ...``]

You know what, as you`ll obviously also agree, that is exactly how that cervicus rouge, Buba Americanus views his government too.

...SR

Free and Fair Trade:
Free trade becomes fair trade if no one is able to exercise a monopoly power. The monopoly power of some western countries ended with colonialism; indeed, France and for a long time, Britain actually gave preferential treatment to their ex-colonials instead of hurting them.
I cannot think to any country which now has a monopoly or monopsony power in the international market. The closest is the OPEC cartel of oil producing countries but they too have been able to exercise ony limited power because of the tendency of member countries to cheat and exceed their quotas whenever production quotas are lowered.
This is true also on domestic front. The USA may be the most capiatlistic country but it is also the one that most zealously implements its anti-trust regime. Even the most powerful Bell couldn`t escapte its reach and Microsoft too had to make important concessions to avoid a break-up.
For India-Pakistan, the best reason for opening trade is not economics but politics. Once vested trade interests are developed, there will be powerful lobby groups for peace in both countries. It is not surprising therefore that Ambani is most anxious for peace between the two countries, because it is likely to benefit most from any proposed gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan; and now Pakistan is likely to be an important client of Ambani`s Reliance if it succeeds in aquiring Flag company, a carrier of bandwidth across Europe and Asia.

[``...why the shift to England, after so many years in USA? ...``]

After all these years I no longer feel good about being in the USSA. I feel like a jew living in Germany and the year is 1929. It has not happened yet but, with some imagination, one can see the nasty brown stuff heading towards the fan in slow motion. We don`t want our little kids to grow up in this country. The social upheavel that could very likely hit this country over the next decade is nasty enough that I don`t want to stick around to find out whether or not it turns out to be as bad as I fear. If my net worth was over $25 million, I would have been better off staying. For the rest of us who are below that `threshold` and have `terrorist sounding names`, life is only going to get harder and harder. The smug professional who is in the $200-250K bracket will not fare that much better than the $75-100K worker, when (not IF) the poopoo finally touches the spinning blades on the ceiling. That, of course, is just my opinion and we must all live our lives according to our best lights. I put my money where my mouth is. Ultimately, no one really knows the future.

England, though by no means a model of paradise, is a passable compromise. It was at the bottom of the list of five places we had short-listed (Canada: Vancouver/Montreal, Central America: Panama City/San Jose, Dubai, and Thailand: Chang Mai). It was the most expensive and second worse weather wise of the places on our short list, but in the end `family reasons` were the trump factor.

My mother is old and frail and my sister and brother are not getting any younger either. They all live in London along with many more cousins and other relatives, not to mention half a dozen old friends from childhood. So three hours north in rural Derbyshire is where we are going to. Close enough to family yet a comfortable distance to where I don`t need to be rude and refuse every wedding invitation that comes along twice a month.

It was my close call with eternity earlier this year that has made me realize that one should be closer to loved one whenever possible. If there are phones and broad band available, location does not matter to me. Fortunately, I don`t have any career job or a brick and mortar business that ties me to any particular location, so the risk/benefit ratio of making such a huge move is not so terrible. It was for this particular reason that back in April we moved to a rented house and sold the one I`d lived in for 17 years. Now its time to leave town and get a bit further away from the fascists. So there you have it my friend, you asked for it. Just because I am paranoid, doesn`t mean that they will not actually come and get me.

...SR

SR 68: Please check business and tech section in unplugged, if you have time.

Also, this maybe too personal a question, but why the shift to England, after so many years in USA?

re:#68 by SR
``The whole `warefare state` appratus of the South Asian central mafias (a.k.a. : governments) is imperialistic, colonial and exploitative of the populations. The sooner these central mafias weaken and break down the better for the general populations.``
You need to substitute the word ``Paksitan`` where it says ``South Asian central mafias`` and you will be right.
Why bring in the whole of South Asian countries here, when the problem is mainly Pakistan?
India has a responsible democracy (responsible to its people`s aspirations but may not be to the liking of Pakis). It certainly is not imperialistic, colonial or exploitative. YOu seem to live in a different mindset. Problems of India are huge and are not going away any time soon. But the fact India has a booming trade with ASEAN, CHINA, Srilanka and even Bangladesh says something. What is missing here? Only Pakis refuse to place trade before their ``kashimiri obsesstion``. Only in Pakistan has the poverty actually risen in the 90s. You do the calculations.
Sridhar

re:#69 by harimau
Good post.
Sridhar

Ref SR #68

About 15 years after Independence, there were secessionist tendencies in Tamil Nadu which were further exacerbated by the attempt to impose Hindi as the official language. One could consider this either as a grievance articulated as an extreme demand or as an independence movement. Through a combination of political maneuverings as well as police force, this was quashed and today Tamil Nadu is not trying to achieve independence no matter what the Pakistanis wish.

The same can be said of the Khalistan movement.

What causes glee in the hearts of Pakistanis is the armed conflicts taking place in Kashmir, and a few of the Northeastern states including Nagaland. If one looks at the ``civilized`` population of India, there is no attempt at further dividing India. Nagaland, etc., would have remained quiet but for Chinese and Burmese intervention in the form of arms and training and Kashmir but for Pakistani interference.

I don`t think the Indian government is viewed by any Indian as an ``imperialistic, colonial and exploitative`` one, unless that Indian has been schooled in the Naxalite School of Maoism, and I grant you a couple of thousand such persons exist. But the vast majority of the people in India do not consider their government to be an exploitative government; in fact, the first attempt by people in India to redress any perceived wrong is to petition the government to intervene, even if it is a dispute between workers and a private company.

Political maturity has come slowly but steadily to the Indian polity. You can see Sri Lanka struggling not with a tribal minority (as India is doing in its Northeast) but the educated ``cream of society`` in its fight with its Tamil minority because of the government`s inability to correct perceived wrongs. Thus it is not just the literacy rate (Sri Lanka`s is higher than India`s by about 20 percentage points) that determines political maturity. Bangladesh is slowly becoming used to peaceful transitions of governments though its literacy rate is less than that of India, demonstrating that building democratic institutions takes time but they do bear fruit in the subcontinent`s soil.

Regarding your statement about ``a mutually shared monetary unit and unhindered exchange of goods, services and labor throughout South Asia can only work for the betterment of the collective societies and against the narrow interests of the entrenched powers that be``, this is precisely what India is today. Compared to the minuscule number of South Indians you could find in New Delhi or Calcutta in the 1950s, today you find Indians of all stripes and hues in those cities. Similarly, I have run across Gujaratis, Marwaris, Punjabis (including Sikhs) or Maharashtrians living in the South and speaking very good Tamil, something that would have been as rare as a snowflake in Saudi Arabia just a couple of decades back. As to free exchange of goods, I suggest that you wander around Connaught Place in New Delhi where you can see all the hundreds of Indian tribes selling their wares.

As economic circumstances (and US oil companies) force Bangladesh into the recognition that it HAS to sell natural gas to India, you will find better economic integration between India and Bangladesh. India has already offered and put in place a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka that offers Sri Lanka disproportionately greater export of duty free goods to India.

The real problem is only Pakistan. Pakistan is a schizophrenic country: she doesn`t know what she is and what she wants. All she can do is play spoilsport. While Kashmir may be a legitimate grievance in Pakistani eyes, India is not going to budge on it. India`s defense spending as a part of its GDP is far lower than that of Pakistan`s so it is only Pakistan that is suffering from its policy of confrontation. Pakistan needs to put Kashmir not on the back burner but into cold storage and concentrate on developing her economy. No, she doesn`t HAVE to integrate her economy with India`s if she doesn`t want to but she needs to plug into a larger trading bloc and if the Pak economists think that the bedouins of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and Qatar are the right business partners, I have no problem with that.

The tigers of Southeast Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan) put their economy first and political expressions a distant second and they improved their people`s economic circumstances tremendously. China started late but has done the same. In India, political expression has been given the first place and while it might have cost us tremendously in terms of our economy, it has helped us evolve a cohesive country. Pakistan lost out not in the year 2003 but on Aug 14, 1947.

ferozk

Once again, I want to thank you for inviting people to think along positive and constructive lines by writing this piece. I wanted to put just a quick word in so as not to leave the impression that the discussion was not valuable or worthy enough to merit further input after the initial response. The `free` vs `fair` trade debate could have taken a lot more space than it did. As I am attempting to tie up 23 years of loose ends within a few weeks so as to shift to England before Thnaksgiving, my interactivity is intermittent at best. However, I`ve been reading and following this discussion with interest.

The whole `warefare state` appratus of the South Asian central mafias (a.k.a. : governments) is imperialistic, colonial and exploitative of the populations. The sooner these central mafias weaken and break down the better for the general populations. A mutually shared monetary unit and unhindered exchange of goods, services and labor throughout South Asia can only work for the betterment of the collective societies and against the narrow interests of the entrenched powers that be. Their interest is served by preserving the absurd status quo.

The British and the French, after all, battled and killed each other for over seven hundred years before common sense finally prevailed. So there may still be some more time to pass before clearer vision is bestowed upon ignoramus indicus. But still, as John Lennon would have said: ``Imagine.....``....

...SR

ferozk #81 agreed then that the basic hindrance to free trade is national politics, and there is no economic rationale for it. i wouldnt call the resulting trade regime to be `` fair trade`` though. That is simply the politician`s euphemism for government meddling in the trade. ``trade corruption`` would be more accurate I think since it causes populations in both countries to lose the benefits of free trade in order to benefit special interest groups in the importing country.

in third world countries in fact government intervention in trade causes far greater corruption - since for every form you have to fill, there is the outstretched hand of a bureaucrat you need to put some cash on: the bureaucrat may be a customs agent who can delay or even damage an entire shipment (as happened once with someone I know who refused to pay off the customs agent and the next thing he knew his carpet container had been opened for ``inspection`` and the carpets stretched out in the open under a heavy rainfall) and thus cause loss of a valuable foreign customer; or it can be a senior official responsible for authorizing ``export promotion rebates`` and may enter into deals with fake exporters to overvalue the value of the export and split the rebate. The list goes on.

re: veeresh

The offical Pakistani reponse to the Indian proposals will be luke warm and that is due to the nature of the proposals themselves and how India wants to structure the discussions. Pakistan wants a complete discussion, or a composite dialogue, and that does not necessarily means Kashmir in this sense. Pakistan is willing to discuss all the 12 suggestions put forward by India, but it wishes to do in their entirity and not piecemeal as desired by India.

India has put the restoration of the airlinks and over flight rights on the top of the heap and says that once that is agreed to, the discussions will move to the second the item and then so forth down the list. This conditionality is unacceptable to Pakistan, because though it is in agreement with the idea, it wants an Indian gurantee that it will not again unilaterally break the agreement and snap the over flight-air links if the politics demand such an act. India so far has refused to provide that gurantee. Again, there is no gurantee that India will moe to the second item of discussion once there is an agreement on the first item. As to the rest of the proposals, most of them are feasible except for the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; and that too only on the condition of a visa-less travel within the two halves of Kashmir itself.

All in all, it is about trust and these CMBs will not generate the required trust between the nations. It is the nature of these CBMs, and how India wants to discuss them, which is causing Pakistan to be weary of entering into an agreement. On a generic level, there is no disagreement in Pakistan on the Indian proposals, because these terms were offered in Agra 2001 and they were agreed to in their totality. The proposals are acceptable to official Pakistan, but not how India wants to structure the dialogue on them.

re: Shankar # 60

Shankar, the story you narrated about your family and views on Kashmir is identical to what most Pakistanis will say and again, the issue has become too emotional to be rationally discussed. The height of arrogance is who are we or you, for that matter, to decide what is the best interest of the Kashmiris.

As I said and wrote a long time ago, the Kashmir problem is a domestic issue in India and Pakistan, because of its vote bank potential in the key political constitutencies of Indian and Pakistani politics.

Still, the only viable solution left open is the conversion of the LoC into an international border and that means both nations give up the dreams of uniting Kashmir under their indivdual flags.

Ciao

re: tahmed32

Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I suspected so much that the problem would be on the political end. What you said nicely dove tails, with I had observed and in my case, it was the question of agricultural subsidies for the French farmers in the EU. Free trade may be possible in the long run, but in the immediate sense fair trade is all that is likely as long as governments, rich or poor, have protectionist tendencies.

re: Fuzair # 61

Fuzair, the arguments which you have made to tahmed32 about free versus fair trade are valid, but the problem keeps cropping up on the political end and yes; there is a degree of complicity to deny competive trade and manufacturing practices, but generally it is mostly political. In an ideal sense, it would make perfect sense to open up trade across the borders, but given for the national limitations of borders, that option is limited. Still, it is the nature of international trade which will cancel this consideration as we move into era of transnational trade, which is another way to define practices of multinational corporations and their trading interests.

Trade itself and not politics will open the way for free trade, because the tranational trade will be based on the access to cheap, work-oriented and educated labor force and this means, companies will locate where market interests favors their capital investment. Politics will resist this development for a while, but to an extent and not always.

Ciao

fuzair #63 agreed that just export led growth is not enough. but neither is export led growth ``immiserizing`` as Prebisch and others thought in the 50`s and 60`s. The major hindrance to latin american development has been their dysfunctional social system which provided no entrepreneurial incentives to either the wealthy (since the wealthy were basically landlords, and landlords are basically good for nothing other than lording it over the peasants) or the poor (who had no hope of self-improvement). Thus, in the 19th century Argentina had a per capita income at par with the US. The US on the other hand provided strong incentives for entrepreneurship.



Also, Australia provides a good example of a country that is happily exporting raw materials to feed Japanese and other east Asian industries. Of course Australia has a small but well educated population and with the strong egalitarian ethos of the anglo-saxon people everywhere, and so is not dependant on these exports alone for its well-being. But certainly it does not see raw material exports as being immiserizing (otherwise they wouldnt do it).

Prebisch was an Argentinian himself, and I dont think he did his fellow latinos any good by taking the easy route out and blaming external factors (``immiserizing trade``) for what was essentially an internal structural problem for Argentina. This is that same bloody problem that too many third world intellectuals suffer from - the lack of moral fibre to point to shortcomings in their own societies and taking the easy path out of blaming global corporations, the west and so forth. (i see shades of the whinny eddy discussion we had couple of weeks back which got saminasha and others upset :-)

Tahmed,

Thank you. Immiserizing Trade is what led Raul Prebisch to come up with his dependency theory, although to be fair to Prebisch, he did apparently repent and recant much later on in his life. However, I thought that the market power issue and the ability to manipulate the terms of trade argument still had some validity. And there is also strong evidence that most primary product exporters (whether copper or cotton, etc) had had severe economic problems. Just export led growth is not enough, after all, most of the Latin American countries were pretty big exporters of primary products. You have to keep climbing up the higher-value-added product tree AND export this stuff. Perfect examples being the East Asian NICs/tigers.

fuzair #61 ``immiserizing trade`` was a popular issue in development economics in the 1950`s with economists like Bhagwati, Prebisch, Myrdal basically arguing that poor countries would lose out if they sought export-led growth (which they assumed would be in the form of raw materials, minerals etc.). That theory had become an orphan by the 1980`s, since by then it had become clear that in fact the third world countries that sought export led growth with the west had prospered rather than ``immiserized`` as they had predicted. This was true not just of countries into manufacturing exports (like Korea) but also with countries doing raw materials exports (the oil exporters being of course a major case in point).

The anti-trade, anti-globalization idiots (they are in fact a mixed bunch - some are ``genuine idiots`` but many are ``crazy-like-a-fox idiots`` labor activists who stand on a pious pedestal of protecting the workers of developing countries from the evil western firms, while in fact all they are doing is protecting their ass from competition from cheap labor in the third world). But ``immesirizing growth`` is certainly no longer a weapon they can use with any credibility, so you are not providing them any ammo by referring to ``immiserazing growth`` or whatever.

Re the Fair Trade vs. Free Trade discussion

Its been a veeeery looooong time since my basic grad Trade Theory course but I seem to recall several papers that showed that countries that followed free trade policies while their trading partners followed fair trade ones benefitted more. That is, free is still better than fair. However, not even neoclassical trade theory (the most extreme form of economic orthodoxy--the straw man antiglobalization idiots always put up) argues that free trade is ALWAYS good. When you have trading partners of severely disparate market power, then you can have the interesting phenomenon known as Immiserating Trade--the bigger/rich country can deliberately manipulate the price of its exports so as to force the smaller/poorer country to export more to pay for now more expensive imports. So, the more you trade/export, the poorer you get.

Darn it, I hate to give ammo to the anti-trade anti-globalization idiots (not you Feroze, I don`t consider you to be in the ``idiot`` category). However, this is a pretty unique case and involves acting price manipulation by the rich guys.

Status of Indian Muslims




By M.H. Askari


Contrary to a perception commonly held in Pakistan, Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Al Faisal, has expressed the view that the Indian Muslims, because of their sheer number, cannot be regarded as a minority.

He made the observation at a press conference in Islamabad which he addressed jointly with his Pakistani counterpart, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri. He further pointed out that the number of the Muslims in India was greater than ``the entire population of my own country.``

from dawn of today

////I wonder how the perception in pakistan is so different from the perception in saudi. may be the k for kafir education has something to do with it. It is the denial of reality by the pakistanis, trying to mask the institutionalised hatred in the popularity of the hindi movies in pakistan, is the root of hopelessness. Pakistanis like indian movies, pakistanis like india. Pakistanis like the US coke, pakistanis like the americans.

Romair,

{{My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.}}

I agree with the nobility of that statement.

I gave that same argument to many of my family & friends, during my recent visit to India. I`m going to give a gist of the almost UNIFORM reply I got from my family & friends

---

(my own ``humanist`` parents included)

...dont shoot the messenger:)

````Kashmir is as much OUR land as its current residents. Our ancestors came from there & it is part of INDIA`S heritage. If the current residents dont like to be Indians, they can very well pack their bags & move to ``Azad`` Kashmir.````

I know you will ascribe various adjectives as ``bigotted``, ``misinformed`` falana falana...
But right, wrong or indifferent THAT is the dominant discourse.

The most sarcastic comment was, ``if we give up on Kashmir, what happens if the current residents of Mohammed Ali Road, Bombay want independance?!``
My Lt Gen(Rtd) uncle said ``too many of my comrades have sacrificed their lives...its either LoC or NOTHING``...funny how soldier boys (irrespective of countries) think alike.

My family & friends may not be in the top positions of power in India. However, in a democracy (however imperfect) their opinions carry a very strong influence. Incidentally NONE of them are supportive of RSS & Hindutva ideology.I`ve come to believe the absolute CORE sentiment of Indians is similarly blunt. Yes, in that respect, Indians have become more hawkish.

Whether Pakistanis think its a freedom fight or not is immaterial....Indians see it as terrorism ...pure & simple..

The natural response of humans (as a nation) to terrorism is one of obstinacy & hawkishness. Otherwise its ``giving in to blackmail``.

Your ``proposal`` to open Pakistan to Indians unilaterally is very ingenious. The only pill for prejudice is knowledge. We may not agree with each other; but I guess Indians & Pakistanis are ``doomed`` to be neighbors.

Somehow, I doubt if any of the brave Corps Commanders of Pakistan will have the guts to OK your proposal.

But then....I`m just a misinformed, transplated Indian American!:)

&...&.. could you please use your influence & tell the ISI in Chowk to cease & desist from drawing lines in my posts??!!!

Correction:
``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation`` should have read ``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Pakistan equation; ``stan`` got erased by mistake.

Romair#54
Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation, especially in relation to North India. Instead of denying it, those who want to bring in peace and understanding should leverage positive emotions just as those who want to create and sustain hostility exploit negative emotions. The dichotomy is that the while an average Indian might hate `Pakistani` as an abstraction, he does not have any such feelings towards a Pakistani known to him. Witness the spontaneous love for baby Noor. I myself witnessed this strange phenomenon 15 years ago. We were at a New Year`s Eve party at the newly inaugurated Hotel Meridien in New Delhi. The function included a draw and the winner of the first prize, a fully paid vacation, I believe, to Nepal, happened to be a visiting couple from Pakistan. The entire crowd stood up on their feet and gave a resounding applause to the winning couple. Delhi is a citadel of BJP and I am certain that more than half of the people there were regular supporters/voters of that party. During the last year`s New Year`s Eve party hosted by the NOIDA army servicemen`s club, the star performers were the Sabri Bothers (qawaals) from Pakistan.

Re. the curriculum, no, it was not a cut-and-paste from a book, but the prescribed syallabus to be used in Pakistan reproduced from an article in a learned journal by two Pakistani academics. And I have read Pakistani media enough to know its pervasive influence. Some Pakistani chowkies have also acknowledged this aspect.

My views on Kashmir are not very different from Khushwant Singh`s. As I have said before, my strictly personal opinion (not shared by most of Indians) is that any solution is okay as long as it does not involve a plebiscite. To repeat my reasons, there is a strong revival of the two nation theory among many Indians and a plebiscite will almost certainly feed this revival even further.

1) Has anybody from Pakistan got any idea on what the official responses / initiatives are in connection with the recent announcements from India? Does this sort of thing set off a spate of letters to MPs, newspapers, discussions in mosques (today being Friday), maybe even enter the ground level psyche? Is the valid true response going to come from the mullahs or the generals or the media or what?

2) On free trade - I think many of us from the educated middle class are living in a bit of a dis-connected world. Ground level realities along the existing land and sea border (LOC or IB) suggest that there is already enough trade ongoing, legal and otherwise. In fact, the illegal trade inertia may simply prevent further growth of the legal trade. In booze, movies and stolen motor vehicles alone, it seems India supports a large part of the Pakistani economy.

+++

Good luck to all of us.

ferozk: while i am not an expert in anything (other than ranting on chowk), i think your question is nevertheless interesting: how will free trade come about? i think the short answer is that it will result from the erosion of national boundries currently underway due to technological change (aka globalization).

WTO (its predecessor GATT) provided useful forum for this purpose, but they have hardly been successful. Even the US, arguably among the most free trading nations in the world, has been unable to withstand domestic pressures (steel, agriculture) that stand in the way of free trade. But get rid of national boundries, and trade will flow.

The next question then is: how does one get rid of national boundries: first, i think, this is happening as the nature of goods and services being traded changes. thus, it has so far proved almost impossible for export-import bureaucracies to control the flow services provided over voice or data networks of all kinds including the internet (transcription, programming, service centers, financial intermediation services that result in hundreds of billions of dollars going around the world in a single day, and even the porno ``industry``). second, i think it happens as societies mature and start moving out of the ``warlike`` stage that every society has gone through. Thus we have the ever-expanding EU.

So, with all these changes taking place, trade that is subject to national controls is becoming increasingly the exception and not the rule. To take one example, at the start of the 20th century, 50 percent of the US labor force was in agriculture - now it is only 1 percent. However, the problem of course is that for poor countries like Pakistan agriculture is the elephant in the GNP. Thus, protection of a tiny minority of the work force in rich countries gains very little for the rich countries, but costs the poor countries heavily indeed. And if poor countries dont become wealthy in the next couple of generations, the whole world (rich and poor) are bound to find the consequences. I dont know why this simple point doesnt get through the heads of the politicians.

Dost-mittar #50: “I do not believe that Pakistanis hate Indians all the time or Indians do the same wrt Pakistanis.”

Hate is a very strong word. I don’t think either hates the other, at an individual level. In fact, they get along quite well. At least, I get along quite well with the hundreds of Indians I have worked with, talked to, studied with etc. And vice-versa. And that is the general trend I have noticed amongst nearly all Pakistanis and Indians.

“Those peaceniks on either side who blame politicians alone for the coninuing hostility between the two countries are mistaken, the politicians are merely following and not leading the people.”

This is partially correct, in my opinion. I think it is a circle. Politicians create propoganda, which is read by the public, which then supports the politicians, which then requires the politicians to create more propoganda. This is why I think the biggest problem is lack of knowledge about each other. Once you meet someone, then it becomes easier to separate the truth from the propoganda. This is why I think, Pakistan should open up all visas to Indians.

“And yet, the potential of tapping the positive emotions is there. It is especially true in India...I must say that I have never seen such groundswell in Pakistan towards Indians, notwithstanding the very positive experience of individuals and groups of Indians who have visited Pakistan.”

As I stated earlier, please do not reach conclusions before knowing quite a bit about someone or some place. This is a common problem I have seen with Indians, vis-à-vis Pakistanis. I think Pakistanis have accepted far more from India, than vice-versa. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know so much more about India, than vice-versa (note: this does not mean I am saying Indians are evil).

So one needs to look at both sides’ issues. And one needs to know the people and places before reaching conclusions.

“The curriculuums have been reproduced on this website and nobody has denied that they were not genuine or that they are no longer in force.”

The only thing people have done is cut and paste small pieces from certain books. That does not constitute a curriculum. I could paste ten things, pointing in the opposite direction. That would not prove anything either. And I am sure I could find similar arguments in Indian sources. Pakistanis are given Pakistan’s version of Sub-Continent history in school. This is done in all countries including USA, and I am sure in India, as well. But I certainly don’t remember being taught to hate Hindus or Indians.

Infact, if you take a look at the remarks on this site, you will notice that a lot of Indians are quite hateful towards Pakistan. If one were to only look at such Indians, one would reach some incorrect conclusions about India. As an example, take a look at the replies from various Indians, the name calling, hate-speech, etc. specifically against me, in various replies, and on various threads. Take a look at replies of individuals like RationalFaith, Jay, Arjun_M, Cosmic_Citizen, Harimou, etc. These are people I have never even (or very rarely) interacted with. Have you ever, even once, seen me respond, in kind? Infact, if I ever do respond, I only do so to non-Indians (mostly Pakistanis). Never to Indians. Have you ever wondered why such hate-speech never bothers me. Because I have met enough Indians now to know that they are generally not like that. But if I had met none, I would assume they were all like that.

So, I would once again encourage you to go, meet, and socialize yourself with Pakistan and then reach any conclusions. If you go to Pakistani schools and see kids being indoctrinated, then you have a point. You will only find this in various madrassahs (and not even in all of them).

“But your reading of Indian journalists is rather restricted, you only seem to be reading those who support your views.”

My reading of Indian journalists is actually quite broad. I regularly visit many Indian newspaper sites. Gandhi, Roy, Bidwai are internationally recognized for human rights efforts, e.g. Bidwai is a Lenin Peace Prize winner. The organizations I follow, like AI, are internationally recognized also. So I am in pretty good company. I follow them because they give human rights more importance than nationalism. This is the ultimate criteria for me. And this is why their views and mine are the same.

“Nice to know that you agree with Khushwant Singh`s solution for Kashmir. As far as I know, he wants to give greater autonomy to Kashmir but not complete independence.”

My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.

As for Khushwant Singh’s solution, it is as follows:

“He thought that the Kashmir Valley should be turned into an autonomous entity, supported by both India and Pakistan and supervised by a neutral organization such as the United Nations.

``Ladakh and Jammu should remain with India,`` he said. ``The Pakistani Kashmir should remain with Pakistan. This leaves us with the bone of contention, the Kashmir Valley, which is 70 miles long and 30 miles wide.

``This territory should be turned into an autonomous entity because it cannot be viable as an independent state.`` This would end the tensions between India and Pakistan, he said.” (http://www.punjabilok.com/news_files/sikhs_kashmir/khushwant.htm)

I agree with something close to this being the only practical solution, with another variation that if the Valley portion can survive as an independent state, than it should be allowed to. I believe this is what the voting patterns of the area. Similar solutions are presented on the site of the Kashmiri CEO of Ethan Allen, Farooq Kathiawari. His solutions have the support of many distinguished international academicians, diplomats etc.

Following are some more of Khushwant Singh’s writings, answering a question from an Indian. Notice he is saying exactly what I am saying. Because he has interacted with a lot of Pakistanis and I have with a lot of Indians:

“Q. ….but still we talk about exercising restrain when an upstart neighbour employs underhand techniques to bully us. I am sure we have given Pakistan a really long rope, and they have only tried to knot it around our necks. Don`t you think it is time to pull that rope before it hangs us? I think a billion voices (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and others) will have but one answer: yes.
Shreyas

I share your patriotic sentiments and am also emotionally moved by the tricolour and the national anthem. But I think it is wrong to pass moral judgements without first examining the point of view of the adversary - in this case, Pakistan. You obviously have not been to Pakistan. I have; many times. I was born there and lived there till Partition. Despite the division, I have close friends who stay with me in Delhi, as I stay with them in Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. We are the same people, divided by religion, and now nationality. My suggestion to you is to cultivate at least one educated Pakistani as a friend, have a heart-to-heart dialogue with him on all aspects of Indo-Pak relationship, including Kashmir. You might modify your views from belligerence to accommodation.

NHK:

Post Kargil, your observation is correct. All I can say that situation was very different when I used to live in India. I think the pendulum is swinging in opposite direction in both countries.

Jay # 45

(Every street in pakistan, in major cities has jihadic posters, calling for kashmir jihad)

I do not know when you visited Pakistan. But your above statement is not correct. You may find more anti-American posters than on Kashmir. No one in the villages, where the majority lives, talks about Kashmir or India. They are busy with their own lives.

The posters, if any, are the handy work of a very small fundo religious-minority. I do not remember any major Pakistani politician in the recent times ever giving a statement about Kashmir Jihad. War or Jihad has become out of fashion for an average Pakistani. Women, in particular, are for normal relations with India.

Even Jamali talks about Kashmir in muted soft terms. Presently, Musharraf is the only loud mouth on Kashmir issue - and probably his top military constituency.

Situation was quite different 20-30 years back. An average Pakistani was indeed hawkish.

Seeing the ``Question Time - India`` on BBC, now I find that an average Indian is more hawkish - more than an average Pakistani with a desirel for ``teach Pakistan a lesson once for all - and get it over with``.

Dost-Mittar #50

It`s a little bit more complicated that even that.

To blame Pakistani people, rather than Pakistani rulers, for hating India first, and the other following the lead, isn`t quite accurate. If you bring up entire generations of people on a diet of anti-India hate and propaganda in the name of Pakistan studies and Pakistani ideology, both through school system and through various forms of media, they will almost certainly end up sharing the hatred.

But you are right in that there is a love-relationship. Therefore much depends upon what kind of buttons are pushed. It boils down to the intentions and ideologies of button pushers.

Romair:
I do not believe that Pakistanis hate Indians all the time or Indians do the same wrt Pakistanis. The situation is more complex. I believe that because of the history of the partition and also the long history of interaction between Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent, there are strong bonds between the two peoples - these bonds include both love and hate. One has to press the right button to evoke one kind of emotion or another. Those peaceniks on either side who blame politicians alone for the coninuing hostility between the two countries are mistaken, the politicians are merely following and not leading the people. There have been numerous changes in the governments of the two countries over the last half century but the essentials of their policies towards each other has hardly changed. Indeed, the policy could not change even when the certified Wagah candle-holder, I.K.Gujral, himself became the Prime Minister of India and despite the personal halwa-poori bonhomie between him and Nawaz Sharif. This is because people will not let their politicians ``sell-out`` what they regard to be their national interests. In this, Musharraf was not too far off the mark when he said in India that if he were to forget Kashmir, he might as well stay back in his ancestral haveli in Darya Ganj.
And yet, the potential of tapping the positive emotions is there. It is especially true in India. On more than one occasion, Indians have shown an almost maudlin sentimentality towards Pakistan. I think Vajpayee tapped these emotions best when he went to Lahore. One cannot forget how the whole nation was brimming with a groundswell of amity and full of optimism, even Bal Thakray fell in line. I must say that I have never seen such groundswell in Pakistan towards Indians, notwithstanding the very positive experience of individuals and groups of Indians who have visited Pakistan.
You have asked me to go and see what children are taught in the kindergartens of Pakistan. I was perhaps wrong earlier but only in using the word `kindergarten`. I doubt if history is taught in kindergartens. The curriculuums have been reproduced on this website and nobody has denied that they were not genuine or that they are no longer in force. Yes, Pakistanis do like Indian films and would love to see the ``Saas-Bahu`` TV serials too and one would like to think that they provide some kind of antidotes to the biased teachings in schools. But do not forget how popular Hollywood films and TV are in the Arab and Muslim world and yet it does not stop them from hating America and even condemning the culture those films/TV represent.
Regarding RSF, I really should not comment any further until I know what their methodology/criteria are for measuring press freedom. But they fail the test of commonsense.
I also like the Pakistani and Indian journalists you like. But your reading of Indian journalists is rather restricted, you only seem to be reading those who support your views. I rely on Sulekha.com Neeshopper for my backgrond on India; it gives the articles of all these people but also those who challenge their opinions. Nice to know that you agree with Khushwant Singh`s solution for Kashmir. As far as I know, he wants to give greater autonomy to Kashmir but not complete independence.
...and finally, you better start learning about Ottawa if you want to pass your citizenship test!

re: tahamed32 # 35

I agree with you. The point is that the idea of free trade is meaningless as long as resistrictions are imposed on trade by nations. My argument is that ``fair trade``, which removes these tariffs and subsidies will eventually lead to free trade. In the end, I support free trade, because it greatly benefits the customer and that should be final judgement - what benefits the customer.

This is not my field; you are the expert in this field. Hence, the question is how do we get to free trade? Does the way lie through fair trade or else where? Any comments will be welcomed.

Ciao

re: Jay# 45

Thank you for your support.

Ciao

Tears,

When I see this india pak oneness and sameness stuff, tears roll down my eyes. In the last 50 years there has been a significant change in the social values of the two countries. For me all this is simple crap, may be a better word is romanticism.
Every street in pakistan, in major cities has jihadic posters calling for kashmir jihad. Every mosque, including the one that mushy attends, calls for jihad and collects money.
Every shop has collection boxes for jihad.
From laskers to you name it jihadic organisations banned by mushy has come back the next day in another name.
Every issue of dawn or jung has at least one article/opinion letter of anti india content.

This did not happen overnight, it happened slowly as the children of TNT grew up in the k for kafi education. There was an article on chowk by hoodboy on the pak curriculum, every one, I repeat every one on chowk refused to add to it. For YLH, hoodboy was exgerating, for romair hoodboy is a liar.

What ever was the common heritage has been slowly witteled away, has been eroded by the abdul bin ferzoks al urstrulies of faisalabad.

#42

``Any guesses?``

Yes, near certainty. But this is a hopeful moment. Better to stay hopeful.

I sometimes do scratch my head about this old man Vajpayee.

+++From the archives of The Guardian+++


The English in India

---

A hundred years of rule

(Extracts are here given from a letter written by Rabindranath Tagore to a friend in England on the present state of India under British rule.)

Rabindranath Tagore
Friday October 2, 1936

You know, and I have never tried to keep it secret from anyone, that of all the Western peoples who have direct dealings with alien races I respect most the British people. Many things have recently happened in our country to wound us to the quick, in the doing of which British agents were concerned, but of which it is forbidden to speak. These have embittered the hearts of our countrymen at large, though the punishment has fallen only on our youths. In spite of it all, I still say that it will not do to isolate such events when coming to our own judgment of the British people. There are other great nations in Europe who exercise dominion over foreign peoples. And we cannot but heave a sigh of relief whenever we recall that it is not they who are our rulers. What I am writing to you now, and the freedom with which our representatives in the Legislatures expatiate on the shortcomings of the Government, would not have been possible under the domination of any other European nation which holds subject races under its autocratic grip. We admire the United States from a distance, because we have no relations with her. But, apart from her inhuman treatment of the Negroes, the instances of rank injustice, perpetrated by her highest courts of law are such as do not fortunately belong to our normal experience in India.
I have seen many great Englishmen. They never hesitate to stand up against wrong, whether done by others or by their own countrymen. These may not be statesmen, for statesmen are not usually to be reckoned as the true representatives of the nation. If the persons wielding political power in England had been able to ignore the silent judgment of the great minds in their country, they might have succeeded in levelling to the dust all the best canons of humanity - as has been done in Germany and Italy, and as might have been done in England if the new-fledged Fascists there had their way. In that case the Andamans would have been fully populated and the key of the speeches in our Legislatures pitched several tones lower - as in the case of Germany and Italy.

I admit that my admiration of British character, in so far as that character is reflected in the governing of India, with its penal system, whipping, the solitary cell, does not come to much more than a comparative statement. It is inhuman enough for us, as you must have found from the narrative of Jawaharlal`s prison experiences and also from numerous instances of political prisoners, in the prime of their youth, coming out to die after a few years of gaol, miserably broken down in health and spirit. And it is but meagre consolation to us to think that it could even have been worse according to the present standard of civilisation that prevails in a large part of the West.

The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail in our villages after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence. It is almost a crime to talk of Soviet Russia in this country, and yet I cannot but refer to the contrast it presents. I must confess to the envy with which my admiration was mixed to see the extraordinary enthusiasm and skill with which the measures for producing food, providing education, fighting against disease were being pushed forward in their vast territories. There is no separating line of mistrust or insulting distinction between Soviet Europe and Soviet Asia. I am only comparing the state of things obtaining there and here as I have actually seen them. And I state my conclusion that what is responsible for our condition in the so-called British Empire is the yawning gulf between its dominant and subjugated sections.

On the other hand, it has to be recognised that there is an inevitableness in the fate that has overtaken Hindu India. We have divided and subdivided ourselves into mincemeat, not fit to live but only to be swallowed. Never up to now has our disjointed society been able to ward off any threatening evil. We are a suicidal race, ourselves keeping wide open for ages, with marvellous ingenuity, gaps that we are forbidden to cross under penalty and cracks that are considered to be too sacred to be repaired because of their antiquity.

+++

Gandhi`s march to the sea

Peaceful first day`s journey

Thursday March 13, 1930
The Guardian

At 6.30 yesterday morning ``Mahatma`` Gandhi left Ahmedabad on foot at the head of a band of civil resistance volunteers on a 100-mile march to the sea at Jalalpur, on the Gulf of Cambay.
He thus signalled the beginning of civil disobedience or non-violent defiance of the British administration, and brought into action the new Congress policy of Purna Swaraj, or complete independence.

For a fortnight Gandhi`s march is intended to be only a demonstration. Then, when he expects to be at the sea, he will begin to produce salt from brine, and so infringe the Government salt monopoly, defying the Government to arrest and punish him. At the same time his supporters everywhere have been incited by him to refuse to pay local taxes.

There were sympathetic demonstrations yesterday in various parts of India, but apparently little excitement, and no reported incident of serious disorder. Gandhi, of course, represents a section of India only. His campaign has found no support in the National Assembly, while the Moslems are definitely opposed to it.



+++


Now we buy our guns and war machines from them.

Very good
This is great spiritual distillation and combination of emotions and construction.
I need help to edit. write me at aminapk@yahoo.com. I can send a written article for suggestion and correction; thanks ahmadmadani

1) Well, much of the ``programme`` at Wagah/Attari by the BSF/Rangers is precision stuff which requires a lot of coordination and practice by both sides. The glares, the stomping, the slamming of gates, everything is synchronised. As rightly observed, the show is put on with the specific purpose of exciting the viewers, onsite or over television. What is the logic? I have never rcvd a satisfactory answer.

2) Seems the Indian External Affairs Ministry has answered many questions on this board. Now frankly let us see how the Pakistani establishment will react? Any guesses? From what we can make out here in India, the response seems to be very cool and kind of like nit-picking.

+++

Ansari Sahib, well I used to live/work in Sharjah once upon a time (1980-81!!) and have been in transit Dubai a couple of times since, but with all respect for your invitation which I shall accept some day Insha Allah . . . what I really want to do is to have a cup of tea in Lahore, a cup of coffee in Karachi, drive on roads in Pakistan with a Delhi number plate car (I have saved up an old Austin-7 vintage and a Ford Woody for just this purpose . . .), ride a train 2nd/3rd Class unreserved across the country, follow the route of the old GT/Frontier as far North as I can go . . . and maybe visit the fields my grandfather tilled?

Don`t get me wrong, I am perfectly happy and contented (as far as that is possible) in and as an Indian. My mother`s cooking is the same, whether we lived ``here or there``. But there is something, beyond idle nostalgia, which lingers not just in my bones but also in the bones of my children who are half South Indian.

+++

Let us hope for wisdom from the rulers of Pakistan, and an ego-free response. There is, obviously, something that has happened over the last few days or been done by the Pakistani establishment that has caused these movements from India, so one can only be very hopeful.

Happy Diwali.

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

tahmed32 # 36 . . .

``India to provide tahmed32 with free access to bollywood actresses.``

+++

I tell you one thing, tahmed32 (other than the prevailing other one thing about how Indians including Muslims are better off in India than in Saudia, Kuwait, Pakistan and USA = Guantanamo) once you really SEE any of these Bollywood actresses up front, you will withdraw your conditions and clauses. In fact, in the case of some of them, you may even agree to withdrawing from Pakistan`s stand on Kashmir and Upper Bronx.

+++

But hey, seriously, it seems that Pakistanis may be able to visit Andamans without visa very soon, which brings me to the next quetion - the importance of Andamans/Kala Pani in our freedom efforts, is it brought out vividly in Pakistani history books, deportation, cellular jails and all?

Dost-mittar #33: Now that is better. So here is my reply.

``especially when I am in agreement with the substance of your original post``

That is good to know. I have come to those conclusions after a lot of thinking, and a lot of interactions with Indian colleagues. I think the sentence that you may have found offensive was, ``The average Indian view, and even the above average Indian view, of Pakistan is so different from the real Pakistan, that it is not even funny.`` Perhaps I should have used different phrases. My apologies if I offended anyone. This was a mere statement suggesting that Indians don`t know much about Pakistan. Nothing more nothing less. Just my opinion. Just like Pakistanis don`t know much about Bangladesh, or Iran. It is not a crime to not know about something. For example, I know very little about Ottawa.

``Any organization which says that the Iraqi press, where a mere word against Saddam could cost a person his life and where practically no one dared to vote against him in an election, is freer than the Press in India or even Pakistan, does raise doubts about its credibility.``

Actually, I found the RSF stats interesting. You have to admit the organization has a lot of credibility. They fight for the rights of every Pakistani journalist whom the govt. touches. Journalists that I have not even heard of. Check out http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=2504

I think one has to keep an open mind about other countries. And be willing to accept the results of independent reputable organizations. We are all greatly influenced by the Western media. To the extent that we don`t realize it, ourselves. They can paint anyone to be anything. Many countries may be much better or much worse than CNN tells us, they are.

The only portion of their report that surprised me, was how low Pakistan and India ranked. Everything else, I had been stating on this site, sometimes with great opposition from many overly strong US supporters, for a while; even before seeing the RSF rankings i.e.

- Indian media used to be freer than Pakistan, but now they are equally free. Turns out according to RSF, they are identically free
- The USA greatly distorts international news to justify its wars and occupations. It turns out it is ranked in almost the bottom 10% on free press issues on international issues
- Iraq had no press freedom under Saddam. This is true
- The USA is distorting information on Iraq, as much as Saddam did. RSF agrees. Infact RSF states that USA distorts it more (this is something very few Americans accept)

``My remark about ``poison`` (treacherous Hindoo!) is based on the extracts from the Pakistani school curriculum posted more than once on this website``

I know an Indian or two who probably hate Pakistan. I know twenty-five who don`t. So that one is the exception, not the rule. If Pakistani textbooks preached so much hatred, then how in the world would Indian movies and songs do such huge business - even amongst little Pakistani kids. To the point that it is one industry that is officially banned in Pakistan, yet the govt. itself unofficially recognizes it. Go randomly to any Pakistani kindergarten, and check out their books. That is the best test.

``The media in both counries, I agree, tend to be quite chauvanistic``

This is true. This is why I rely on AI, HR Watch, TI, RSF and other such independent international organizations, for info on India and Pakistan. Amongst Indian authors/writers/media people, the ones I follow are Arundhati Roy, Khushwant Singh, and Praful Bidwai. Not to mention, Gandhi, of course. I pretty much agree with everything they say on Pakistan, India and Kashmir. If you want to see my views and solutions for all Indo-Pak issues, just read what they say. Khushwant Singh`s solution for Kashmir, or some variation of it, is about the only one that will work, in my opinion. Amongst Pakistani writers, Sethi, Cowasjee, and Ayaz Amir are quite honest and straightforward.

``I have dealt with your BJP/SSP comments already at other boards. If needed, we can take it up again sometime at another thread.``

No need. Lets agree to disagree. Anyways BJP is India`s problem and SSP is Pakistan`s. Maybe I don`t know enough BJP, or you don`t know enough about MMA or SSP.

tahmed32

You get to pick one of them.

:)

Feroz,

Sorry for taking up your space.

To those interested: Please go to the `publish and discuss articles on social and cultural issues` board for further details on Hudood Laws.

Thank you.
Umer M.

The latest step in the India-Pakistan belly dance festival:

India Announces Proposals for Pakistan
Wednesday October 22, 2003 5:01 PM
By The Associated Press

India announced plans Wednesday for normalizing relations with longtime rival and neighbor Pakistan, proposing the following steps:
-Resume talks to restore civil aviation links, including overflight rights.
-Discuss resuming rail links.
-Resume matches between sports teams.
-Make it easier for people to obtain visas.
-Allow individuals 65 and older to cross into India by foot. Younger people, considered more likely to be possible attackers, must still ride on buses. Before, only groups could walk across.
-Run more buses on main route between two countries.
-Establish links between coast guards.
-Stop arresting each other`s fishermen within a certain area on the sea.
-Provide free treatment for 20 Pakistani children awaiting surgery in India.
-Increase embassy staff.
-Consider starting ferry service between Bombay and Pakistan`s Karachi city.
-Start new bus services, including one in disputed Kashmir.
-India to provide tahmed32 with free access to bollywood actresses

PS: I added the last one myself, as a necessary condition for Pakistan to accept the deal.

ferozk #29 the distinction you make between free trade and fair trade simply gives cover to what is clearly dysfunctional practice in the long run from the point of view of all countries, rich or poor. politicians can use euphemisms to hide the fact that they are sacrificing long term interests of the country to gain short term brownie points from special interest lobbies. you and i dont need to do that on chowk, since we are a discussion group and not politicians.

the fact that the germans, french, japanese, US protect their farmers does not make restrictions on agricultural exports from developing countries right. the fact is that free trade ultimately benefits rich and poor countries alike, and the logic behind the theory of comparitive advantage in economics hold true as much today as when it was first put forward a couple of hundred years ago.

#10 by Romair on October 21, 2003 6:19pm PT
++
It is the fact that Indians know next to nothing about Pakistan, and thus get heavily influenced by anti-Pakistan sources, within their own country.
++
...i wonder if you could get another human to back up this theory....

...aah! shucks.... forgot to mention.. except Ahmadzai ofcourse!!!...

++
The average Indian view, and even the above average Indian view, of Pakistan is so different from the real Pakistan, that it is not even funny.
++

... could some one explain what was on romair ji`s mind!!!
++
this is the gist of my ten years of working, studying, eating, talking, evaluating, reading with and about Indians, on a daily basis
++
.. another one of captain clueless`s conclusions!!!

{{
Pakistanis can count tens of Indians amongst their friends, while Indians seem to have very few Pakistani friends whom they socialize with regularly.
}}

++
Also, Pakistan should completely open trade with India (other than in areas, where Pakistani businesses will get decimated), without worrying about whether India opens it or not.
++
...mmm...

...I would be the happiest man on earth if I could buy Ahmed Mango Pickle made in Karachi should India reciprocate...

luv,
CC
ps:- Romair!!! air for Air Marshall!!! but Rom??? read only memory???

Romair:
Itni lambi post?
This is an India-Pakistan friendship thread, so I`ll try not to digress too much (especially when I am in agreement with the substance of your original post) and respond only briefly:
-Any organization which says that the Iraqi press, where a mere word against Saddam could cost a person his life and where practically no one dared to vote against him in an election, is freer than the Press in India or even Pakistan, does raise doubts about its credibility.
-My remark about ``poison`` (treacherous Hindoo!) is based on the extracts from the Pakistani school curriculum posted more than once on this website.
-The media in both counries, I agree, tend to be quite chauvanistic . I see some positive signs in both countries in this respect. The private Indian TV channels frequently have Pakistani commentators when discussing India-Pakistan issues. Pakistan`s new Geo TV has gone one further and I think is even using Indian hosts for some of its programs. All this is to be applauded!
-I have dealt with your BJP/SSP comments already at other boards. If needed, we can take it up again sometime at another thread.

Dost-mittar #28: “Even when you say something that is hard to disagree with, you put in a somewhat harsh spin on it. You must have repeated a hundred times that Indians are ignorant about Pakistan, and you are right.”

You keep suggesting I put spin on things. Is it because you find the comments harsh, or is it because they are not facts. If they are not facts, then you have a point. If they are facts, then I don’t think you have a point. I am just giving my opinion that I have found Indians to know very little about Pakistan. This is what I have experienced, and this is what one sees on this site. I didn’t say Indians were evil. Quite the contrary. My main argument is that if they are able to meet Pakistanis, they will soften their stances. This implies that they are actually not the evil that some Pakistanis think them to be.

“You claim that Pakistanis are well informed about India, and you are wrong “

I have never stated that Pakistanis are, “well-informed” about India. In fact I think they (and I) don’t know a lot about India. All I have stated is that they know quite a bit more about India, than vice-versa. This is again, what I have experienced, in meeting with Indian colleagues daily. Invariably, we discuss India, because they know so little about Pakistan. Not because they are evil, but because they just don’t know. This can be seen by the knowledge Pakistanis have about India, on this site. It is definitely not great, but it is definitely more than what Indians know about Pakistan.

Maybe Pakistan should improve its film industry exports to India. There is little chance of that happening. The only other option is to let Indians visit Pakistan, as and when they want.

“You have said more than once that you hardly knew anything about India before you came to the US and that your views about Indians changed completely after you came in contact with them in the US.”

Yes, this is true. The only access I had to India, before USA, was through Indian movies. So I knew very little. Now, after meeting so many of them, I know quite a bit more. So now I know significantly more than what I knew back in Pakistan. And know even more about Indians than they know about Pakistan. Since Indians don’t get a chance to meet too many expatriate Pakistanis. But I still think I know little about India. So I am planning to visit it next year. After which I will know more.

“Pakistanis were worse than ignorant, they had swallowed the poison dished out to them from the kindergarten about the treacherous bania-brahmin hindoos.”

I don’t think this is true. Pakistanis are not fed poison from kindergarten about anything. I have nieces and nephews in kindergarten and never once have they come to me about any poison about India, nor have I seen it in any of their textbooks. They do know a lot of Indian movie songs, though.

You can find history books than present things differently than the Indian argument; but that is true for all countries. The main area where countries spread, “poison” is through their media and through their govt. statements. And both countries are guilty. I pointed this out in the Reporters without Borders reply, where I stated, “Similarly, if the Indian and Pakistani press is rated so low, then much of the information being fed to each other, about each other, is wrong also.”

I think both the Indian and Pakistani media indulge in poisining, as do their govts. The problem is that Indians do not have anything to counter that poison with, since they have no access to Pakistan. Not because they are evil. But because they have little access to anything Pakistani. Pakistanis do have some knowledge to counter the poison with.

“Reporters without Borders, when someone puts out something as absurd as the one posted by you, one should seriously question the credibility of the agency rather than accepting their ``findings`` at face value.”

I am not quite sure how familiar you are with Reporters Without Borders (RSF). If you do not have any familiarity with RSF, then I have to assume your comment is misplaced. It has a wide following and is recognized for protecting press freedom, around the world. It is the only organization that I know of that,

“The association defends journalists and other media contributors and professionals who have been imprisoned or persecuted for doing their work. It speaks out against the abusive treatment and torture that is still common practice in many countries.”

One cannot just disregard the opinion of such organizations, just because one disagrees with it. That is exactly what free press is not about. The BBC has a reputation to keep, and I am sure it does not just start quoting discredited organizations. Please take sometime to visit their site www.rsf.fr. The details in which they present information about Pakistan is pretty good. They have names of reporters who were beaten up, banned etc.

If you do have some factual information about RSF, which doubts their integrity, then please present it. I follow organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Wathc, Transparency International, RSF, etc. quite a bit. And base my opinion of world events on such organizations. Because I think govts. of countries have vested interests and always feed their citizens with information that serves their own causes. I believe one should never form an opinion about a peoples and societies, until one physically interacts with them. Since I cannot go to every country in the world, I rely on non-govt. international organizations, with credibility to form my opinion, rather than on national medias.

So I will have to take the RSF opinion. Unless you can provide credible information to discredit them.

“You are falsely accusing Romair of comparing the BJP with MMA. He equates BJP only with the terrorist SSP which specialises in murdering shias and other non-sunnis.”

I am not sure what this has to do with the current thread. But since you have brought it up. Yes, I do not equate BJP with MMA. All religious parties are not the same, just because they are religious. I am sure there are religious parties in India, that do not advocate killing minorities. MMA, to the best of my knowledge, has never killed anyone. Nor have any of their leaders adovocated killing anyone. They discriminate against non-Muslims, but they don’t kill them, in an organized fashion. There is thus a big difference.

SSP and BJP have directly killed people. And their top leaders have directly led killing individuals of different sects or faiths. SSP and BJP are both democratically popular in certain areas. The only difference is that the SSP does not have power in Pakistan. So they carry out their killings through underground terrorist branches. If they were to gain elected power in Pakistan, I think they would also kill through mob violence with state approval.

I, thus, see no difference with an SSP leader killing a Shia in a drive-by shooting, and a BJP leader killing a Muslim in mob violence, in areas where they are elected. However, if you would like to think that a Pakistani political organization, with elected individuals, which kills minorities in an organized fashion, is worse than an Indian political organizations, which does the same, then that is your opinion. And you have a right to it. However, I think both to be equally bad.

Do keep in mind that the SSP does win democratic elections and is a democratic party. Adn they may actually do more to improve the economy of Jhang, than the feudals who have been running the area. Just like the BJP may improve the economy of India, moreso than Congress. But the deciding factor in this comparison is to see what is done to the leaders of political parties, who advocated or participated in the killings of minorities, by their parties disciplinary committees. In both BBP and SSP, their parties never took away they memberships of such leaders. In fact, they defended them, and in some cases, even promoted them furthur.

On a sidenote, I would like to suggest that you try to argue my points. Rather than just getting defensive or offensive. If you notice, I try to make it a point to include a Pakistani reference with every Indian reference, just to ensure Indians do not get offended. My references are from well-recognized websites, run by the organizations themselves. This includes www.bbc.co.uk, www.bjp.org, www.rsf.fr etc.

Please keep in mind that I find many of your comments about Pakistan and Islam etc., and other things I am associated with to be quite harsh, also. But I attempt to debate them. For example, in your reply, you have stated,

“put in a somewhat harsh spin on it” – this implies I am spinning the truth and not actually telling what I think to be factual.

“Pakistanis were worse than ignorant,” – This is a personal attack on all Pakistanis. I have only stated that Indians don’t have knowledge of Pakistan (just like I think Pakistanis have very little knowledge of Bangladesh). I have not stated that Indians are ignorant. In fact I find them to be very knowledgeable on many issues.

“they had swallowed the poison dished out to them from the kindergarten about the treacherous bania-brahmin hindoos.” – This is another personal attack. I have never stated anything like this about Indians, much less about little Indian kids in kindergarten. My main argument is that Indians just don’t know about Pakistan. Not that they have swallowed a poison. You have gone on to attack little Pakistani kids, who are in kindergarten.

Similarly, I find some of your name-calling and attacks, and those of many other Indian (and Pakistani) interactors to be unreasonable. But never once, have I attacked you, nor any Indian interactor. I generally ignore the individuals whom I considered unreasonble. And address the ones, like yourself, whom I consider to be reasonable. I only attack someone when someone doubts my integrity. Not when they doubt my argument. I would encourage you, and others to do the same.

So once again, if you find incorrectness with my info, or don’t agree with it, please provide a counter argument, as you did about Allah Ditta. I interact on this site, to learn from others, and update my info. If you look at everything I state, as an attack on India, then please view everything I say about Pakistan as an attack on Pakistan. You will realize them to be neither. And you will notice, that many Pakistanis think I disagree with them, far more intensely, than I disagree with Indians.

As for the harshness of my comments: I am, perhaps, an opinionated person, with strong beliefs. That is not a crime. But I am more than willing to change those beliefs, provided someone provides facts.

I do have one rule though: The moment someone starts reducing themselves to personal attacks or national attacks, is the moment when, in my opinion, they have lost the argument, since it is an indication that they have run out of facts. At that point, I move on to the next p