Operation Searchlight

Can you name a single Pakistani movie on Siachen?

No. But then, I can not name a single Pakistani movie ``not`` on Siachen either. Can you name 5 Pakistani movies, regardless of the subject? :)

Pakistan inavded Kargil. It went on for a few weeks. The battle is over. Yet look at all the media, political attention on it in India. Vajpayee`s election bid was based on it.

Dude, please. I was an adult of voting age during that election. Though it was mentioned since the Kargil issue was like a month old, the BJP`s election bid was NOT based on it. The election bid was ``the congress and left pulled the rug from under our feet without any alternatives. now give us a majority so that we can run a government without blackmail``. and the country sympathetic with him and angry with sonia/mulayam/jaylalitha voted for him.


In the present violence, Pakistan receives barely any casualities in Kashmir. All the violence is in India`s side. You could thus argue that in this conflict, Pakistan is actually winning for the simple reason, that the battle is in India`s Kashmir.

If the objective is to inflict violence and casualties on the Indian army and the Kashmiri Indians, then yes you may argue Pakistan is winning. However i thought that the Pakistani objective was getting Kashmir. In that sense I don`t think Pakistan is winning.

Another thing is don`t you think the repercussions of this are being felt in Pakistan? Are you saying that the daniel pearl incident did no harm to pakistan? the guy who killed daniel pearl, sheikh omar saeed was involved in the kashmir terrorism till a few years back. the blast that made the new zealand cricket team run away.....the al qaeda elements that carried it out....are you saying they have no connections with the terrorists in kashmir? in fact the blast a few days back that almost made the south africans cancel their trip had dawood`s hand as was stated by a minister of sindh. you think it is only india that suffers due to dawood hiding in Karachi?

And you think your economy can consistently grow at 6% plus without any foreign investment? And you think FII`s are going to pour money into Pakistan when a recent poll showed that 48% Europeans said that Pakistan is the biggest threat to world peace?

Yet, in an Indian Outlook survey, an overwhielming amount of Pakistanis wanted a negotiated solution to Kashmir. This part, in my opinion, is introspection without defeat.

I have read a range of Pakistani writers and journalists recommending that the government should let go of Kashmir. ``Pakistan First`` is a slogan i have read only in the letters and editorials of pakistani newspapers. None of their articles express a tone of magnanimous introspection. They all seem to indicate that the inordinate importance given to Kashmir is harming Pakistan.

When terrorism occurs inside Pakistan, Pakistani political leaders are not forced by compulsion to blame it on India. Every now and then they do. But not always. When the Indian Parliament was attacked, the BJP govt. was forced to take a stance against Pakistan, without agreeing to any investigation, and without any proof.

puhleeeeeeeeeez!!! i admit that we tend to blame even mosquito bites on ISI, but you are no different. Since 9/11 everything from killings in churches to the blasts in Karachi to daniel pearl has been blamed on India. the statement has always been ``we suspect either al qaeda or our eastern neighbour``. in fact when there were violent demonstrations outside the pakistani embassy/consulate in kabul a few weeks back, RAW was blamed for it.

During Agra, an accord of sorts had been agreed to. It was sidelined after Musharraf had a breakfast meeting with Indian journalists, in which he apparently, ``outperformed`` the Indian politicians. The political affects of one meeting with journalists was considered enough to discard the whole document.

Well that is a new one!!!! this is so funny......could you please give me the link from which you quote this piece of information?...some editorial, some article, some op-ed.....kuch bhi chal jayega. i have read tens of Pakistanis blaming India for the collapse of Agra in various capacities but the breakfast meeting is being mentioned for the first time.

I don`t think the Army needs it to stay in power. The Army stays in power, because no one in the civilian populaiton opposes it - at least not openly. Look at what is happening in Georgia, or what happened in Valenzuela. And they don`t oppose it because they are equally fed up with politicians on domestic issues - not on Kashmir. It has more to do with domestic economic growth rates, than Kashmir.

Throughout the 60s, pakistan grew at 6% under military rule. Why then did people want to go back to democracy? The economic condition of Pakistan in 80s under Zia and thanks to American and saudi dollars was quite decent. So why did Pakistanis revert to democracy in 88?

And romair, this fellow nawaz sharif. he had a 75% majority in parliament did he not? Are you telling me he was removed because of the economy? Then what is this I keep hearing about the ``betrayal`` and ``abject surrender to clinton`` that is mentioned as the reason for his departure. It is universally accepted on both sides of the Radcliffe line that Sharif lost his crown because of Kargil. A PM with 75% majority loses power over a small operation. And you still say kashmir is not important in pakistani politics?

This is where the Army outsmarts the civilian politicians, I think . The politicians push ideals of democracy, Constitutions, etc. The Army, if you notice, always pushes economy.

How smart of the army. Since the last 44 years, the army has been in power for 30 years. If it pushed the economy so much, where are the signs of this progress? According to your own newspapers, poverty has increased. You blame corruption. If the army was in power for 2/3rd of the past 44 years, guess who is responsible for the corruption? On what grounds did Ayub, Zia and Musharraf seize power? Economy? Gimme a break!!

There are no takers for a thousand-year war with India. ``Crush India`` is a slogan of the hoary past.

Then where do the jaish, markaz etc get funds from? dont they have collection boxes all over pakistan?

I think when something related to foreign policy starts appearing in popular movies and songs, then it is a good indication that the public is really hooked on it.

our people are obsessed with ajay devgan, sunny deol, aamir khan who play the roles of people kicking pakistan`s butt. in pakistan, the heroes are osama and masood azhar who are real life killers. you tell me which country is obsessed more?

and i will repeat what i said to you on the other thread. every year literally hundreds of movies are made in india. barely 2-3 of them are about Pakistan. Except for Gadar, none of them has done very well.

and even these movies were made after pakistani terrorists started killing people in India. there were no such movies made right up to the 90s. until pakistan didnt indulge in terrorism, NO movie was made about it. in fact we had pakistani actresses and singers. now whatever little ``obsession`` you say is not with Pakistan, but with terrorism inflicted by pakistan. And believe it or not, when countries are victimised by terrorism, the people are obsessed with the idea of cursing this terrorism/

Pakistan, however, seems to be a necessary ingredient of the domestic Indian scene, a bogey to whip up patriotism or nationalist hysteria. Does anyone in Pakistani politics or the press caricature Vajpayee?

just last week your foreign minister said ``i didnt know vajpayee was a deaf man``. A few weeks back I read a letter in a Pakistani paper that said ``Indian PM and President are both bachelors. Now i know why the Indians rape women in Kashmir``. there are numerous criticisms of bal thackeray and lal krishna advani that i myself have read.

Also, I think this whole rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India, domestically, has Kashmir and Pakistan as one of its main propoganda items.

this you got perfectly right. the RSS and VHP have no agenda other than pakistan and kashmir. however if you look at the success of the BJP in forming the government, it was more to do with abandoning these issues. pakistan or ram temple will get you publicity, but not power. to get power, they had to put issues like article 370 and babri masjid on backburner. and they will remain on the backburner during next year`s elections too.

Another one is General Azam Khan. There is a college still named after him!!!

RE: arjun-m

It appears that it should be you that has cause for worry too. Please read one of your

own at : http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/05ariban.htm

This certainly is a mysterious world.


RE: #147 sigalph235

It was probably just a fluke that something interesting got written.

Dhaka is my ``other city of birth`` after Karachi.

This trail of tears is very long my friend. Have forgotten much Urdu and even more

Bengali over the years. But next year ``inshallah`` I plan to visit BOTH my home

countries. St. Josephs, Dhaka I certainly want to visit.

Ras

From the link provided by arjun_m(usharraf/mohatir) at # 152:

Some carried the slogan: ``We know who the killers are`` and pictures of the US President, George Bush, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Mr Erdogan and NATO`s four-pointed star symbol.

Many ordinary Turkish citizens believe their rulers have exposed the country to Islamic terrorism through their close ties to Israel, the US and Britain. Some believe the attacks are part of an Israeli or American conspiracy to overcome Turkey`s reluctance to send troops to Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq is as unpopular in Turkey as in the European Union, which Turkey aspires to join.

Romair, all that you mention in introspection is NEGATIVE NATION BULIDING, a strategem adopted by Nehru at the cost of Pakistan long ago. Pakistan bashing goes well with the rise of the MAHABHARATA SCHOOL which aptly reflects the Indian military mind. I agree with you despite your long interacts that make it labourious, but I appreciate that it is important to elucidate the explanation for clarity`s sake.

fountainheader #146/148: I would still have to stick with Roy, Bidwai and Singh on the Kashmir issue. There isn`t anyone else in India, that I have found (other than the few human rights organizations) that is writing anything objective on the issue. They maybe fed-up leftists on local Indian issues, but they are objective on Kashmir. Perhaps because they are fed-up. Perhaps for other reasons.

Introsepection definitely does come after defeat. However, for more intelligent groups, it comes well before defeat, thereby resulting in avoidance of defeat. It is the second group that is successful. Those who wait for defeat, before being introspective, wait way too long. Had the USA been introspective before defeat in Iraq, they would have been much better off. Ditto for Kashmir.

My comment on India not being introspective, was not related to domestic issues. It was specifically on issues related to Pakistan and to Kashmir. On all other issues, I would agree that India has been introspective.

I would have to disagree with you assessment of Pakistanis` reaction to Kashmir, as an election issue and within its internal politics. In every survey, Kashmir is about no. 6 or 7 in the list of priorities. Jobs and personal security are always no. 1 and 2. Kashmir is only no. 1, on the list of priorities of dealing with India.

Though from whatever I have read and seen, Kashmir alongwith Pakistan, seems a lot more important on the Indian side. Consider the following:

- India invaded Siachen seventeen years ago. The battle is still going on. It has never been hyped up in the Pakistani press, in the Pakistani media, in Pakistani movies etc. Can you name a single Pakistani movie on Siachen? The Pakistani politicians do not go around painting it on their jeeps on election campaigns. Pakistan does not base its decisions with India on that.

Pakistan inavded Kargil. It went on for a few weeks. The battle is over. Yet look at all the media, political attention on it in India. Vajpayee`s election bid was based on it. It is even in Indian movies. Every Indian seems to have been conviced that it was a plan to take over Kashmir. When it was something completely different. Even on this site, Kargil is mentioned again and again.

- In the present violence, Pakistan receives barely any casualities in Kashmir. All the violence is in India`s side. You could thus argue that in this conflict, Pakistan is actually winning for the simple reason, that the battle is in India`s Kashmir. Pakistan Kashmir is easily the most peaceful part of all of Pakistan. Much more peaceful than say Punjab or Sind.

So if Pakistan`s economy gets to its traditional 6% growth rates, it could theoretically fight in Indian Kashmir, forever, in a realpolitik sense. All Pakistan would have to do is to isolate Kashmir, from its domestic ecnomy, like India has done. It is costing Pakistan barely nothing in terms of armament. To the point that Pakistan has frozen its military budget over the past few years. The economic downfall of Pakistan, in 90s, had more to do with corruption, than with Kashmir. While India is spending hundreds of millions in stationing so many troops there. And is losing more troops there, than USA is losing in Iraq.

Yet, in an Indian Outlook survey, an overwhielming amount of Pakistanis wanted a negotiated solution to Kashmir. This part, in my opinion, is introspection without defeat.

- When terrorism occurs inside Pakistan, Pakistani political leaders are not forced by compulsion to blame it on India. Every now and then they do. But not always. When the Indian Parliament was attacked, the BJP govt. was forced to take a stance against Pakistan, without agreeing to any investigation, and without any proof. This was done either to increase its political clout, or to ensure that it did not decrease.

- During Agra, an accord of sorts had been agreed to. It was sidelined after Musharraf had a breakfast meeting with Indian journalists, in which he apparently, ``outperformed`` the Indian politicians. The political affects of one meeting with journalists was considered enough to discard the whole document.

So, one does get the picture that Kashmir, and Pakistan, does have a lot of political affect in India. Perhaps much more so, than in Pakistan.

Vis-a-vis the Army, Kashmir is not nearly the political issue in Indians that most Pakistanis think it is. I don`t think the Army needs it to stay in power. The Army stays in power, because no one in the civilian populaiton opposes it - at least not openly. Look at what is happening in Georgia, or what happened in Valenzuela. And they don`t oppose it because they are equally fed up with politicians on domestic issues - not on Kashmir. It has more to do with domestic economic growth rates, than Kashmir. If the domestic growth rate were to stay at 3%, people would then be out on the streets against the Army. Most people in Pakistan are poor. And poor people are rarely bothered by Constitutional issues. They are more concered about food and jobs.

This is where the Army outsmarts the civilian politicians, I think . The politicians push ideals of democracy, Constitutions, etc. The Army, if you notice, always pushes economy. This is why, I think Ayub, Zia and Musharraf has been able to stay in power, without much problem. The Generals seem to have figured out that if the local economy is seen to be improving, people will not bother about much else they may be doing.

A Pakistani journalist I follow, is Ayaz Amir. He wrote for Tehelka.com also. He is usually very critical of Pakistan. But this is how he describes, the situation. You can point out the accuracies and inaccuracies:

``Pakistan may have a million problems but in a crucial respect it has moved on while India is regressing. India is no longer an issue which plays domestically in Pakistan. There are no takers for a thousand-year war with India. ``Crush India`` is a slogan of the hoary past.

Pakistan, however, seems to be a necessary ingredient of the domestic Indian scene, a bogey to whip up patriotism or nationalist hysteria. Does anyone in Pakistani politics or the press caricature Vajpayee? Among India`s political class ``Mian Musharraf`` is a theme invoking a thousand variations. What`s the Bollywood flick I saw on the Delhi-Lahore bus? Rani Mukerjee says her beau is talking like Musharraf at Agra. If Pakistan did not exist India would have to invent it.`` (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20031031.htm)

I think when something related to foreign policy starts appearing in popular movies and songs, then it is a good indication that the public is really hooked on it.

Also, I think this whole rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India, domestically, has Kashmir and Pakistan as one of its main propoganda items.

Would be interested in your views.

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

# 142 Ras,

I totally agree with you.

I remember being told that there were strange scenes among common people when they heard the news of the surrender as no one was expecting that to happen. Just the other day they had heard Yahya vow to fight on for a 1000 years. There were cases of people getting heart attacks and college girls banging their heads against the walls of Governor House in Lahore after the news of surrender came in. This was the level of ignorance of the general public about the progress of affairs during the war.

Bhutto was no saint and neither were the others involved. Bhutto alone should not get the flak. Let everyone have their ``proportionate`` share of blame.

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

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

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

I generally follow Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai as my Indian sources. They seem quite objective.

Hahahahahahaha, when was the last time that Communists were objective? Yes, these people criticise the Indian positions on each and every thing, but the purpose or motive is not introspection or anything that you are looking for. It is out of malafide intent. These are the very people who become deaf and dumb if it comes to criticising anything/anyone that is even minutely to the left. Roy and Bidwai both write tripe.....Bidwai at least disguises his tripe as well researched and well worded tripe. Roy`s tripe is purely air headed tripe. I like God of Small Things though, it was fun reading it. However the skill set required to write fiction is totally different.

The views of the Indian govt., the Indian media, and the India populace (and nearly all Indian interactors on this site) are in one line. Atut Ang. This is where introspection needs to come in.

Introspection is not a result of large heartedness or profound intelligence. The biggest, and probably the only driver for introspection is failure. Right from your personal life to the action by states, introspection occurs only after a massive failure. When did the Yanks get introspective? After they failed in Vietnam. Similarly Pakistan got introspective only after repeated failures over 5 decades to get Kashmir.

India, fortunately or unfortunately(whichever way you view it), has not suffered any such failure in this domain. Punjab flared up, but then it quietened down and is now one of the fastest growing markets for MNCs. Things in North East are pretty much under control.

We are capable of introspection. In 1990 we suffered a massive failure in the economic sector. As a paupered country, we introspected and realised that the socialist policies were wrong (of course a firm nudge from the IMF helped too). Now India is opening up, not just in terms of the way the government makes policy, but also in terms of the way people think. The newfound economic momentum is because of intrsopection.

It may sound arrogant, but I don`t see Pakistan having the capability to inflict on us a failure strong enough for us to introspect on the Kashmir issue, not until you people are economically powerful too. My opinion is the exact opposite of what most pakistanis would think. I think that the 1973 constitution is counterproductive and any attempt to stick to it, even in spirit, or rather, especially in spirit will always keep Pakistan behind India. Your pre-71 scenario with 6% growth and a comparatively open society will serve you better.

One difference between Indian and Pakistani governments vis-a-vis Kashmir or even each other is this. In pakistan the issue can win or lose elections, cause heads to topple, and more importantly influences the army`s hold over the country. In India it is not so. yes, if we gave away Kashmir, heads would roll. But if we let LoC become the border, except for a few chaddis, no one would protest much.

And even the government, for all its maximalist postures saying ``the only issue is PoK``, or the parliamentary resolution of 1994, will gladly accept a solution which converts the LoC into a border. In other words, if the Kashmir issue goes away, the Indian politicians don`t lose anything. they have caste, religion, babri masjid et al to quibble over. However you take Kashmir away and what do you have left in Pakistani politics? Or more specifically, what role does the army have in politics? Zilch. So there is more at stake for Pakistani establishment to keep people in line with its agenda.

You know what India really needs to get introspective about? Fundamentalism, both Hindu as well as Muslim. We need to keep the chaddis and beards in control, or we will end up screwing the country so bad, that we will be Balkanised. My only fear is that the failure which will warrant this introspection will be too massive. Bombay got introspective after the 1993 blasts. I thought the 2002 riot would have caused Gujarat to get so too. Sadly, it does not seem to have happened.

Re # 142

Ras sahib, you are patently unfair! After every few dozen interacts by the rest of us intellectual-wannabes, you say something profound which makes us look like abject juveniles at best. As you are surely aware there is that old Bengali saying that ``kamarer tuk-tak, loharer ek gha`` (the potter knicks and knacks while the ironmonger hits his blow). You`re obviously the lohar here.

I have heard these lines on many forums -

1. Bhutto was to blame for both 65 and 71 war.
2. Pakistan lost out in the Eastern theatre because A K Niazi was an incompetent general
3. Pakistan just gave up on East Pakistan , and so India won it in just 15 days.
4. Pakistan was winning in Kargil, but Nawaz`s promise to Clinton converted it from a military win to a political defeat.
5. Pakistan did not lose the 1965 war, there was a stalemate.
6. If pakistan did lose the 1965 war, it was because the officers at that time were incompetent. The ``bravery`` of Pakistani soldiers was still much superior to the Hindus(not Indians mind well, Hindus), who ``stabbed us in the back`` in 1971

*sniff sniff*

I smell a propaganda rat. The simple rules seem to be

a. The Pakistani army never makes mistakes, only civilian leaders do
b. If the Pakistani army does make mistakes, those are made by a handful of errants like Niazi, but by and large the army is a concoction made of the cat`s whiskers and the bee`s knees.

Re Rozaiba 132

No, it is a rather very appropriate reminiscence of the couplet and I thank you for it. The lost spirit, whatever it was, I feel too personally and deeply. Imagine a Bangladeshi nationalist who calls Karachi `his` city and tries his desparate best to fathom the fancies of Urdu poetry, a language he cannot even read properly. Interpretations will vary for ages to come, but the War of 1971 (we call it the War of Independence, you call it the Fall of Dhaka) killed a lot more than the statistics. Silently somehow someone somewhere finished off something before the first shot was fired. As another poet said,

``Larte hain haat mein talwaar bhi nahin/Aise qaatil ka kya kare koi``

Arjum_m wrote at 140:

``The Indian people are in tune with their government policy because the government policy is, for the most part, driven by the wishes of the people. Unlike pakis who are brainwashed into believing the paki army wasn`t involved in Kargil, the Indian government view actually reflects the views of the Indian people...and that`s why India isn`t going to give up an inch of Indian Karhmir, or try to get back Paki Kashmir...``

This is excellent piece. My observations:

1. Muslims were killed by elected Gujrat Government of Modi and Christians were killed by other extremists of Sangh Parivar, who are supported by the extremists like Vajpais and Advanis in the Government. Therefore, actually the killings of Muslims and Christians is as per the wishes of Indians. Exactly my point that I have been trying to prove on Chowk.

2. Adavani and Joshi, who had led a march on Babri Mosque, brought it down and fuelled the bloody riots that resulted in killings of thousands of innocent Hindus and Muslims. Both of them were elected to power by Indians and now hold the most coveted posts in the Government. The killers and destroyers of the symbol of religious unity in India have been elevated to the highest positions. Truly, they represent the views of the entire Indians. (By comparison in Pakistan, the extremist religious parties got 11 % of the votes and are now confined to desk thumping in the parliament. People refer to them as Band Masters. Who is ruling Pakistan? Surely, the Government is in the hand of elected moderates.)

Finally, if India is not going to give up an inch of Indian Kashmir, then it is not an uncommon event. Throughout the history, occupation forces have never willingly freed the subjugated people.