Operation Searchlight

: Hallo 99, 99. Markhor. Fetch Chota. Over.
: 99. Wait. Out.
: Send your message. Over.
: Out to you, hallo 26, 26, message from 77, Markhor ko inform kare keh Imam ne kaha hai, first light se pahle pahle jetne yeh dead bodies hai who clear ho jani chahye; aur sab concening ko batah de. Over.
: 26. Roger. Aap apne Imam ko aur Markhor ko yeh khabar de deh. Out to you, hallo 41, hallo correction, hallo 16, hallo 41, hallo 88, did you receive? Over.
: 16. Wilco. Out.
: Out to you, hallo 88, did you receive this message which 41 just now read back? Over.
: 88 . . . disposed off. Over.
: 88. Yes, arrange to dispose them, you can use local labour and dispose them off away from the public places. Over.
: 88. When you can give us an estimate of casualties suffered by other side? Nothing more. Out.
Control : Out . . . necessary detachments for . . . the results of these are awaited. Suggest you can draft your sit. Rep. On the lines of what has occurred since about 01-00 hours this morning. Over.
: 99, hallo 99, since 01-00 hours for about half an hour we were not in contact with you, and after that we had to shuttle in between telephone and this place which is quite some distance. So we missed most of the transmission. Over.
Control : 99, subsequently these were reported to you starting from the from Belal's boys when they "caged the main bird" and subsequently the two telephone exchanges, the Police station at Ramna, People's Daily, the Reserve lines, then the action that is still continuing in area of university, plus the houses in Gulshan, correction, houses in Dhanmandi, the occupants of which had, were not traceable. Over.
: About the last transmission, which are the occupants who were not traceable from Dhanmandi?
: 99, regarding Tajuddin and Bhuiyan, they were not found at their places; similarly this place the Physical Training Institute which was supposed to have arms has not so far revealed any. Over.
: Is it the same Physical Institute in Mohammedpur area? Over.
: 99, yes. So there is nothing at that end yet. We will also take care of the Malkhana and the Lalbagh Fort. But that will follow. So you have most of the gist. Over.
: 99, we have heard everything from call signs 26 and 88, but what about the other call signs? Over.
Control : 99, 16 had very little resistance in which they killed four and wounded about ten, after that they were in full control of the position (Peelkhana of the East Pakistan Rifles, now Bangladesh Rifles) within about half-an-hour of H-hour. As regards 41, their operation to Tajuddin and Bhuiyan and the Training Institute, they captured some other people, but the main targets had packed up and left much earlier. Apparently they have all panicked and started leaving the city from some time yesterday. So they have blocked all the roads and secured the Second Capital Exchange, and have also set up blocks for any people trying to escape from the campus towards the west across the railway lines. Over.
: 99. Roger. Over.
Control : 99. Hope you are comfortable with your hostages. Over.
: 99. I am thinking as to how to feed them now. Over.
Control : 99. It will do them no harm if they don't see food for a while. So they can adopt the same policy that you have been doing for the last so many weeks. Out. (He is referring here to the policy of non-cooperation followed by Bengalis towards the west Pakistani soldiers during the first three weeks of March, 1971 when food etc for them had to be air-lifted from West Pakistan, or taken by force locally).
: Wait kare, oh aadmi bolane kiliye gaya hai. Wait. Out.
: Markhor dur hainm who nehi a sakte, aap message bata de, hum pass kar denge. Over.
: Message. Over.
: 99. Send. Over.
: 99. Romeo India Alpha Zulu, usko wapis kis location par bhejna hain. Jo bhi vehicle available hain abhi jane wali, us se usko wapis bhejna hain. Over.
: 99. Kownsi set ko wapis bhejnahain? Over.
: 99. I say again, Lima November Kilo, Romeo India Alpha Zulu, is ko jobhi kowi vehicle aap ki location se wapis ja rahi hain to use udhar bhej de. Over.
: 99. Ehan se to koyi vehicle janewali nehi hain; bahar haal main confirm karta hun. Agar koyi ho to use bhej denge. Over.
: 99. Nothing more. Out.
: . . . koyi nehi aya. Admi bheja hai, unko bolane kiliye. Jab bhi mil jata hai, bola lete hai. Over.
: 41. Main Imam bol raha hun. Unhe yeh bole keh jo . . . kiya jaye. Over.
: 41. Roger. Over.
: 41. Roger. Out.
: 88. Message. Over.
: 88. Is Imam listening? Over.
: 88, 41 as you know is in position on the west of the Campus area. If you need any support from him you can mutually coordinate because he feels he can come in from behind onto any resistance still there. Of course, you will have to coordinate your fires. Over.
: 88. Roger. How far have you got? How much more to go? Over.
: 88. Quite appreciate your difficulties. How far are you from the railway lines? Can you give me some landmark now that daylight is approaching? Over.

:Control : 88. That is most encouraging. Your Markhor can give us any further progress as it happens. Thank you for now. Out to you, hallo 41, did you receive?
: Wait. Out.
: Hallo 26. Is Markhor listening? Over.
: Hallo 26, 26, 26. Markhor for Markhor. Over.
: 26, 26, 26, 26. Over.
: 77. Can you receive 26? Over.
: Hallo 99. Fetch Chota on set. Over.
: 41 . . . .
: 99 . Wait. Out.
: Imam listening. Send your message. Over.
: 99. Wait. Out.
: 41. Regarding your last transmission about assisting 88 from the west, I have discussed it with him and he feels that he has more or less finished the job and therefore anyone coming in from the west might complicate matters regarding fire control and so on within own troops. So he suggests that for the present you don't come in. Over.
: 41. Roger. Over.
: 41. Out to you, hallo 99, 99. Fetch Chota. Over.
: 99. Wait. Wait. Out.
: Hallo 26, 26, 26, Hallo 26. Over.
: 26, 26, 26, 26, Hallo 26. Over.
: 26. Send. Over.
: 26. Markhor to Markhor. Is your Imam's location at the House? At the Papa House? Over.
: 26. Yes. Over.
: 26 The Bakhtar element should have got to you by now. There has been a mix-up in that you have got a call sign 16's Cheetah with you and your Cheetah is here with us. I am sending your Cheetah in the same transport to come to us at our location here. Is that understood? Over.
: 26. Message not understood. Say again. Over.
: 26. Has the Bakhtar element with the Cheelah escort joined you? Over.
: Yes, Bakhtar has joined us. Over.
: 26. The Cheetah element with this Bakhtar is not yours. Your Cheetah element has by mistake come to us here at our present location. I am sending them in a transport to join you and you can return the Cheetah element of 16 with . . .
: 26. Wilco. Over.
: 26. What is the progress regarding the personalities? Over.
: . . . . Working in this net please don't disturb others. Out.
: 99. Send. Over.
: 99. May I know with whom formation call sign 44 is working? Send it in serial number.
: Seref call sign 41 hai. 44 koi call sign hamara nehi hai. Over.
: 99. Just before Markhor has passed this message to contact with other wire, by other wire call sign 41, 26 and 44 . . . . Over.
: 99. Only 26, 41 and 88. That message was only for 26, 41 and 88. Over.
: 99. Roger. Out.
: . . . . all stations Alpha Kilo, as suggested earlier, please insist that all black flags and all Bangladesh flags are removed immediately, if not already done so. Otherwise give a good dose to those who are still flying them. Out.
: . . . I say again, as already discussed, ensure that no buildings fly black or Bangladesh flags. . .
: . . .. don't allow anybody to fly any flag Bangladesh and black type. That was only. . . Out.
: . . . .and is this, did you take this? Over.
Control (Tikka Khan) : . . . that must be done. Otherwise, you know, it's likely to lead to a lot of complications and implications. Besides, I want specially Dhanmandi to be searched from house to house. You can take your time, you may select if ... (deminished)


ps. i collected the actual tape and converted into the cd version. will upload it shortly in the esnips. the cd willbe attached in my upcoming book on 1971 : jonmojuddho

(continued)
: 88. Wilco. Over.
: 88. Road blocks anywhere will be a criminal offence. Anyone seen indulging in these
must be shot at sight. Houses and buildings on either side will be demolished. This should
also be announced on your public address system by your roving patrols. Over.
: 88. Wilco. Anything else? Over.
: 88. Did your Imam say that you will require approximately three to four hours to complete
the task? Over.
: 88. Yes, approximately three to four hours to thoroughly complete the task. Over. Control
: 88, Imam is now with Imam 26. If you need further assistance in any manner, you can let
him know. Regarding the Bather elements they have started from their safe positions and
will be able to help you immediately after first light to help demolish all obstacles in front
of you. Over.

88. Thank you so much. Nothing more from my side. Everything is going fine. Over. Control : 88, Roger. Out to you, hallo 41, message. Over. Control : 41, regarding the escape routes west of the railway line, escape routes west of the railway line that is in your area, hope that necessary blocks have come into position so that elements that are facing 26 and 88 in the campus do not pull out westwards. Over.
: 41, we are very extensively patrolling the area. Every minute we are passing through and we are on the watch. Over.
Control : 41, Roger. I was certain that you would be in full command. The elements of 26 have also sorted out our friends of the daily people. That should please you. Out. Control : Hallo, 99 for 88. Highest Control wants to know as to what type of fire came from the other side. Over.
: 88 for 99, wait. I call to my Imam and then you will talk to him.
:88 for 99. My Imam listening. Send your message. Over.
: 99 for 88. Highest Control wants to know as to what type of opposition has been faced in areas Jagannath, Iqbal, and Liaquat. Over.
: 88 for 99. Initially lot of fire was received from Jagannath and Iqbal Halls. Roger so far. Over.
: Roger. Over.
: 88, once we opened with Romeo Romeo; after that we ever heard any fire; but we have disposed off a few. Roger so far. Over.
: 99 for 88. Roger. Over.
: 88 for 99. Now I am going to Liaquat because their set is out of order. I do not know their progress. After checking up that then I will let you know. Over.
: 99 for 88. Please let us know as to whether there was any automatic fire from other side and was there any grenade etc. thrown. Over.
: 88 for 99. Lot of 303 fire. We have not heard automatic nor we have heard any grenade. Over.
: 88. Roger. Out.
: 26 for 99. Markhor on set. Send your message. Over.
: 99 for 26. Please let us know as to what all objectives have been captured by now. Over.
: 26 for 99. Two Thousand captured, then Ramna P.S. captured, Kamlapur P. S. captured, TV, Radio under control, Exchange captured. All first phase ya Ali. Over.
: From our position in Commissioner's office we could see a lot of fire in area Purana Paltan. Is it the Head Office, or some other place? Over.
: 26 for 99. The area 2000 is on fire. I say again, area 2000 is on fire. Over.
: 99 for 88. What about People's Daily? Over.
: 26 for 99. Blasted, I say again, blasted. Our two men seriously wounded are being evacuated to CMH, and two minor injuries. Over.
: 99 for 26, any approximation of the other side's casualties? Over.
: 26, no. It's difficult to judge at the moment. Please are at fire or had been completely destroyed. It's not possible at the moment to say anything. Over.
: 99 for 26. Have you done away with Police Lines also? Over.
: 26 for 99. Yes I say, Two Thousand, Police Lines on fire. Over.
: 99 for 26. Good show. Out.
: 55. Loud and clear. Over.
: 55. Markhor listening. Send. Over.
: 55. Send your message. Over.
: 55 Aapne call kiya tha. Message send karen. Markhor listen kar raha hain. 55, send your message. Over.
: 55…..
: 55, Say again. Over.
: 55 ….
: 26 for 88. Send progress. Over.
: 55. Roger. Where exactly have these been contacted? Over.
: 26 for 88. Aapki awaz phat rahi hain aur Jagannath ke bare me progress batayenge. Jagannath ke bare me. Over.
: …. …. To report to you.
: 26 for 88. Roger. Out.
: 55. I say again, on our .. .. front there was a road block and we are removing it, and .. .. .. other elements. Over.
: 55. Jolly good show. Your elements are expected at 26. They will be particularly helpful to 88 who is having some difficulty. Keep coming. Out.
: 55. Re-net. Yeh aapni netting check karen set ki. Samajh nehi ati aap keya kah rahe. 55, 55, 55, 55 .. Netting call. Net now. Netting calls ends.
: 55 , 55. How do you hear me? Over.
: 55, 56 … .. Over.
: 55, abhi tak whistle a rahi hain. Transmitter to do-barah net karo. 55, 55, 55, 55. Here netting call. Net now. Netting call ends.
: 55. How do you hear me? Over.
: 55 … …
: 55. Roger. Mike ko thora dur rakh kar bola karen. 55, nothing more. Out.
: Message. Over.
: 26 for 88, 26 for 88, message. Over.
: 88 for 26. We are moving …

: 26 for 88. Report progress of Jagannath, I say again, Jagannath. Over.
: 88 for 26. My Imam is moving .. ..
: 26 for 88. Roger out.
: Markhor to Markhor. Over.
: 16. Wait. Out.
: What was the casualty suffered by the other side? Over.
: 16 .. .. four killed.
: Roger. Have the wounded been given necessary medical aid?
: .. .. .. EPR hospital. Over.
: 16. Very good. Out to you, hallo 26, hallo 26, hallo 26, message. Over.
: 55. Location. Over.
: 55. Location. Over.
: 55, I am short of Farm Gate and we are now removing the road blocks with explosion and other materials. We are still at the same place. Over.
: 55. Roger. Hope nobody has dared to come out against you. Over.
: 55. We deployed Cheetah all around. Negative so far. Over.
: 55. Roger. The dozer and recovery elements with you? Over.
: 55. Yes. The dozer is now moving forward on to the spot to remove .. .. .. in strength, and they are also helping us. Over.
Control : 55. That's excellent. Keep coming. We are at this original building area. You may try and avoid any unnecessary damage to the roads that can be saved. Out.
: . . . . Over.
: . . . for 77, 16 for 77. Message. Over.
: 16, fetch Markhor. Over.
: 16, fetch Markhor. Over.
: 16 . . .
: 16, as discussed earlier, the Imam of your original force will carry out the necessary drill and sort out the various categories according to which they will reorganise. Suggest until first light or until the Imam of your host appears you stay put. Over.
: 16. Wilco. Out.
: . . . for Imam. Over.
: . . . Wait. Out.
: Imam listening. Send your message. Over.
: 41, Position regarding the Physical Training Institute and the Police stations of your area. Over.
: 41. Physical Training Institute not thoroughly searched, but we have armed troops posted. There is no Police Station in the area. Over.
: 41. Thank you. Out.
: 41. We have a large number of people who have laid a number of road blocks, collected and being used for clearing. Will they be required back to you, or can they be disposed off? Over.
: 41, That is good use of labour. Suggest you use them for the present and retain them until we get it cleared from Imam. Then accordingly you can either let them off or we will take them away. Over.
: 41. Roger. Out.
: 88. Message. Over.
: 88. Send your message. Over.
: 88. Jo aapka ek element Romeo Sierra Uniform ke saath hain uske through puchiye keh aya Romeo Sierra Uniform dariya main patrolling kar raha hain ya nehi. Over.
: 88. Roger. Over.
: 88. Out.
: . . . just wanted to remind you that your element with Romeo Sierra Uniform should ask them to carry out patrolling in the river boats. Patrol the river as discussed by Imam. Over.
: 88. We have already started that, I say again, we have already started that. Over.
: 88 . . . I will extend to him all . . . .
: 88. Very good. Keep it up. Out.
: Hallo 26. Over.
: 26. Send. Over.
: 26. Did you manage to pick up anybody important from the Daily People? Over.
: 26 No, negative. But our troops have gone for some other important persons and we are waiting for their progress. Over.
Control : 26. Roger. Has the office of Alpha Lima been occupied so far? Over.
: 26. No. Target has been left for the early morning. Over.
: 26. Roger. Except that any records and papers might already be burnt or destroyed by the occupants. However, do as you are planning, and you are making excellent progress. Let us know every little thing that happens. Out.

Partial transcript of the tape recording of some conversations between some of the
Pakistani Army units operating in Dacca on the night of March 25, 1971


Recorded by : Dr. M. M. Hussain Atomic Energy Centre, Dacca
Recorded at B-174, Khilgaon Chowdhury Para, Dacca Time of recording: From about
01-30 hours to 09-00 hours To March 26, 1971, with gaps.

Key:
26: located at the Presidents House. Operating in Ramna, University Campus etc
41: West of Campus, Dhanmondi
88: Campus, southern part of the city upto the river
99: Commissioners office (now Foreign Affairs Office)
16: EPR lines, Peelkhana (Now BDR lines)
55: Farmgate area
54: HQ transport section

77/Control : Chief of Ops Maj Gen Mittha

Papa House : The then Presidents house on Baily road
Liaquat : Engineering University (now Buet) male students dormitory
Iqbal: Dhaka university student hall (now sgt. Zohurul Haq hall)
Jagganath : DU hall for non-muslims
2000: Rajarbag Police line
People : Daily People (Bhutto was residing at the hotel opposite)

Highest control : Gen. Tikka Khan
Imam : Commandar
Markhor : Adjutant
Chota: Intelligent Officer
Cheeta : Infantry
Tattoo : Transport Officer
DSAML: Deputy Sector Administrator, Martial law
Big Brother : Tank
Bakhtar element : Tank/Bulldozer
Romeo Romeo : recoilless rifle
Alpha Lima : Awami League
Main Bird : Sheikh Mujibur Rahman


That is with them and getting good result; it will take time because of the nature of the area.
Over.
77, how do you hear me? Over
Readable. Have you anything for me? Over. Correction, 77, wait karen, unko, .. who Khod
call Karenge..
Control : 77, wait. Out to you, hallo 99, suggest you keep tuned in because otherwise 26
and others will have to give situation twice. Just stay tuned in, there is nothing fresh yet;
reserve Line secured and University area still fighting going on. Out.
: Wait for Imam.
: For 77, Imam idhar aye hue hain, aur unke sath who jo mera Imam hain who busy hain, is
liye abhi main kuch nehin bata sakta hun. Over.
: Control information mang rahen hain keh keya progress hain, aap patah karke khodhi pass
kar den. Over.
: wait. Out to you, hallo, 77. Kmam listening, send your message. Over.
: 77, latest from 88 that he is making progress but there are so many buildings that he has to
reduce each one in firing against him. He is using everything that he has got. Over.
: Tell him that his Big Brothers will also be coming shortly, I hope, So these can be utilised
for knocking down the buildings. Now, on the other side I think Liaquat and Iqbal is now
quiet; am I correct? Over.
: 77 have not heard the completion report but they were much happy about those two. Over.
Control : That is jolly good. Now let the boys keep on announcing in the streets about the
curfew, that is number one. Number two, they will keep on saying that all Bangladesh flags
will be brought down, and any house which has the Bangladesh flag, the owner will be
responsible for the consequences. There will be no black flag, and there will be no
Bangladesh flag visible anywhere in the city. And if they are not pulled down then the
consequences will be really, really severe. This must be made clear to everyone. Roger.
Over.
: 77, Roger, Over.
: 77, Secondly it must be announced also about the road blocks. Any person seen putting up
road blocks will be shot on the spot, number one; number two, road blocks put up in any
locality, people from that locality will be prosecuted and will houses left and right, left and
right of that block will be demolished. This must be made clear to all and to the people
themselves, and this must be announced on the speakers throughout the night till the
morning, and also tomorrow morning the whole day. Over.
: 77. Wilco. Out to you, hallo 41, did you receive from Imam? Over.

: 41, is Imam listening? Over.
: 41, from Imam. Number one, all black flags… these flags must be brought down by the
owners of various buildings; anyone seen flying these flags will be prosecuted. This should
be persecuted (sic) and their buildings demolished. This should be announced on your
public address system. Roger so far. Over.
: 41, similarly all roadblocks created anywhere will be a criminal offence. Anybody found
doing so will be shot on sight. Owners of buildings on either side of a road block will be
persecuted (sic) and their buildings demolished. This should also be announced by your
roving patrols. Over.
: 41, out to you, hallo 88. Progress. Over.
: 88, Imam on set. Send your message. Over.
: 88, from Imam regarding all Bangladesh flags of black flags, owners of buildings flying
these must be warned to remove them at once; otherwise they will be persecuted,
correction, prosecuted. Roger so far. Over.

People often say that we did not learn any lesson from the holocaust of East Pakistan-cum-Bangla Desh. The people of west Pakstan did not need to learn any lesson as they never thought of rising against the army take over of the country which was repeted at least four times. Those who were responsible for the holocaust did not learn any lesson either because even after indulging in all those brutalities against the citizens of Pakistan resulting in breaking up of the country and the nation they were never held answerable for anything. Quran says ``Allah does not guide those who are `Zalim```. What should the `Mazloom` do then? To them Allah says ``Fight against the Zulm`` as those who surrender to zulm are themselves doing zulm to themslves.

Test

#237 by tahmed32 on November 29, 2003 1:10pm PT
The continued interest in ``civilian`` matters is what separates the PAki Generals from their Indian counterpart- that is what my point is. This interest goes beyond that of a good involved citizen- it is the interest of the POWER BROKER-
I have a healthy regard for you and those who understand and oppose the continued interest of the PAki Generals in playing with the extremist Islamists in PAkistan- but you have to understand that their interest is inimical to that of the Indian muslims- every terrorist strike by LeT and other groups in PAkistan on the civilian population creates more support for the hindu extremists. Indian muslims have no interest in the TNT, they rathar want to live peacefully with economic prosperity and avail of the opportunities available in India- and the Islamic terrorists have to stop their activities- but the PAki Generals cannot stop- it has become a part of their institution.

ballukhan #235 that is pure speculation on your part and so i dont buy your explanation. nor do i think all of us on chowk are losers with plenty of time to waste. we just find time for chowk ;-)

ballukhan #144 that i will agree with - we dont need people glorifying a military that has caused so much damage to the country through successive martial laws. i think we need someone like Rumsfeld in pakistan who can re-invent the pakistan military (just as Rumsfeld has been trying to re-invent the US military). With nuclear weapons, the kind of military that romair and co. love so much is no more relevant to pakistan`s defense than brass bands and wapda generals.

As regards the absence of ex-army men from India from this chowk- it is too obvious- they consider this chowk as non-consequential and irrelevant to their profession- i.e defending the country from the designs of frustrated Paki Generals- the presence of Pakistani Generals shows their interest in all ``ciivlian`` matters- the favourite PROFESSION.

#230 by tahmed32 on November 28, 2003 10:28am PT

Can`t help it. Just as the word civilian makes Paki General see red- the reverse happens in my case- especially when they start supporting the martial law administration.

Fuzair: No, his name wasn`t Tariq Javed. Though there was a Tariq Javed in another batch. Kind of a skinny guy, who played soccer, and was from a cadet college (Hasan Abdal, Patoro?).

shobyz #231 With the `tauba` on declaring someone a kafir for any reason, you switch from an F to an A. not C. in my humble judgement.

On the difference between pagan and musli, i think you yourself point to the answer to your question when you say: ``as I am not immune to ‘brainwashed syndrome’.`` i.e., you should make yourself immune in that case, and think for yourself.

That is: if you have faith in your God given faculties to distinguish between right and wrong, and therefore you do not need to look towards what someone else has to say about the matter, then you WILL BE immune to the `brainwashed syndrome`. (this aspect of personal responsibility and faith in oneself is of course also stressed in the Quran as you would know, and also for obvious reasons downplayed by those desiring to do the brainwashing). Thus, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the important things in life, right from wrong, and so forth. And by stressing individual responsibility, the Quran actually makes it easy to live one`s life. Thus: no individual is elevated (as we so often do in status conscious pakistan) and no individual is seen less than any other. one can talk with kings and beggers in the same tone. there are no maulvis, no spiritual ``guides``. This respect for the individual - any individual, regardless of religion - is perhaps the most profound message of the Quran, in my view.

I shall take an F on calling you a Jahil and thus take that back since it is clear from your post that you are not one: a jahil would have started arguing on such issues of facts, or ignored them. You simply accepted the facts as they are, and that is certainly the mark of an intelligent person.

alsi anyone who likes, as you do, indian movie songs (although not necessarily the movies) has to be an OK chap :-)

ballukhan #228 we already have more than enough representation from your countrymen who will clutch at every straw to prove that india is better. you seem like a sensible chap, but seems like even you cant resist the temptation.

how does the exchange of general institutional gossip by a couple of retired military officers translate into a lack of professionalism? its not like there are confidential military matters being discussed here.

there are probably some other reasons for the lack of indian military officers on chowk - perhaps they dont migrate as much to the west (and most chowkies are migrants to the west); perhaps it reflects the fact relative more educated pakistanis have a military background compared to indians; perhaps it is just a statistical fluke - after all we are talking of three or four retired army officers here, one of whom (romair) didnt even server for very long but maintains an obvious interest.

please try to stay above some of your other countrymen like arjun and jay. i could speculate why we dont have such cheapsters represented from the pakistan side, but i wont.

#218, #219: Tahmed32,

Shoot!!! Failed again.

You wrote:
“
Because if you knew the ABCs of the Quran, you would know that it says very clearly that issues of religion are not the concern of any man. If Sharuk chooses to bow before a statue in a movie, that is his business and (per the Quran) and it is not for you to judge whether he is a kafir or not.
“
Agreed and ‘tawba’ will I dare to call him or any one a kafir. Please read again.

Now can I get a C!

Since you graded me, thus judged me, hope you can enlighten me your understanding of few ayaat explaining what ‘Iman’ is comparing to ‘paganism’ only, and how it should be practiced comparing to ‘paganism’ only.

What triggered me to write previously was when I read some writing suggesting ‘Sharuks and alike….” Should voice to help the muslim in India of avoiding ‘meat burning carnival’. If some one suggest that guy like ‘sharuks…” should move forward as semi leader for muslims whom my ‘as…. frying’ is dependent, then I have a right to know how deeply he cares about muslim without compromising my faith. Merely mentioning it is only between ‘him and Allah’ may lead me to believe in ‘Alcohol and womanizing is acceptable’ as I am not immune to ‘brainwashed syndrome’.


You wrote:
“
You mean as a practicing JAHIL. Because if you were a muslim, your blood would boil at the corrupt Mullahs. Not at people who point them out.
“

Didn’t you just say that you believe who is what is only between him and the creator? Now you judged me as ‘a practicing JAHIL’. Any grade you may deserve for judging me.

Either I failed to write good enough, thus reader got wrong impression of what my intended expression was, or you picked a sentence and took out of context of a narration and trying to inject your views via distorting of what I wrote.

Cool down!!! I like ‘ Ye kali kali akhi…’. Did you know there is a Spanish song with same music released much earlier then ‘Bazigaar’.

are any army guys from India on the chowk??? -NOPE?

It appears that our guys stick to their jobs and do not discuss un-necessary politics- THIS IS PROFESSIONALISM.

fountainheader #227 right you are sir. Salman Khan is the single-pasli pehalwan that i meant.

ironman #220 i cant place shahrukh, but will check with my resident PhD in Indian movies (who happens to be my wife) and I am sure she will confirm your findings.

hi tahmed

i think the person you intend to punish is Salman Khan, and not Shahrukh, who has rarely if ever bared his chest. the only occasion I remember is for a few minutes in Darr when he carves his girlfriend`s name (kkkkkkkkkiran) on his chest with a knife. Otherwise you can pretty much bet your shirt on Shahrukh to keep his shirt on. :)

Romair, may i ask, please: Would love to know, which G-course do you belong?
Asking because I myself have very close affiliations with PAF in general and G-courses in particular.

Regards

Eid Mubarak everyone.

Feroz: detailed reply to your post to follow; we have tons of friends and family coming and its getting to be quite a madhouse here!

Pakistan needs to start with a formal apology to Bangladesh for 1971 and arrange

for the repatriation of

the ``Biharis`` or Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh.

What are the chances of this happening any time soon?

Ras

I wonder if there are any army guys from India on the chowk- this chowk is full of the Band Brigade of the Martial Law Ruler/s- Can they please provide a counter view about the megalomaniac army personnell form Pakistan who think they know more about civilian administration and polity than any one else???

Romair #221,

Interesting post. In the Army, to go beyond Brig., one has to do the War Course (or at least the National Defense Course). This, ostensibly, gives one an MA degree. Given that its a year long course, some of the people attending it must learn something!

BTW, the person who topped both the PAF and PA Engineering courses wouldn`t happen to be named Tariq Javed would he?

Fuzair/Feroze: There is a distinct difference between the calibre of individuals going into the three different forces of military in Pakistan. There is also a difference within the different branch within each force. As well as a difference between the various generations of individuals in the military.

During my cadet days, there was a huge movement to jointly train all the forces together. The aim was to introduce the officers to each other and to the various branches of the military at a young age. Navy pilots being trained with the PAF. PAF cadets being trained in Kakul. Army cadets in Karachi, etc.

The aim was to set up a common combined first stage college/academy for all branches, before they went to their own academies, like India has. It was a good idea. Even though, the final college never got established. However, the sending of cadets to each others` institutions continues.

Invariably, all the PAF cadets sent to JCB (Army) were at the top of their class. However, the Army cadets that ended up with the PAF, had a huge problem. After the first two semesters, a large number of them had flunked out, academically. They had been selected for one branch (Army) and ended up, through coincidence, being kicked out of the other branch`s institution.

However, those who made it, did all get to know each other, and are still close friends. The guy who got the sword of honor from my parallel courses in the Navy, Army, flying course in PAF were all initially trained at some stage by the PAF - with the later two being my roommates at one point. The guy who topped the Engineering course in the Army, was initially trained by PAF also (where he topped the PAF, as well).

There are three areas, that I know of in the military where the academic standards are very high. One is PAF Engineering. The other is Army Medical College. The third is the National University of Science and Tech. PAF Engineering has about the same standard of the US colleges, right below the Ivy League tier (I say this through personal experience). Its top graduates would do well in the Ivy League schools. Quite a few of them have MS and Ph.Ds from abroad. AMC (I am told) was (still is?) ranked behind Aga Khan, alongwith King Edwards, as the second best medical college in Pakistan. NUST is ranked the top university in Pakistan and the twentieth best in Asia. I think PAF Eng. and Army Medical are now part of NUST.

The thing with the Pakistan military is that those in command (combat) branches are not required (nor encouraged) to get any training/education beyond what is needed for fighting a war (Fighter conversion courses, Staff colleges, SSG courses etc.). While those who do get higher education (like Ph.Ds from abroad) are mainly from the non-combat branches. And thus never get to the top General positions. Unlike the USA, where its top Generals of the command branches all have at least a Masters and in many cases Ph.Ds.

Since the Pakistani civilians only interface to the military are the combat branch Generals, they never get to the, ``brains`` that do exist in the military (whom I have seen and worked with first hand).

Obviously, if someone is not willing to be in the front line of combat, he cannot be promoted to the top positions in the military. So the solution is to have the command branch individuals be sent for advanced civlian degrees, to supplement their Staff college degrees. However, having the combination of being, say, a really good fighter pilot, a really good commander and leader of men, a really good administrator, a really good academician, and fearless enough to risk one`s live, is extremely rare.

I have met very very few individuals who have all these qualities. The few who do have these qualities either die carrying out their duty, or leave the military for civilian jobs where they can make ten times their military salary (even inside Pakistan). I think the military seriously needs to raise its salary structure to ensure individuals like these get attracted to the military, and those who are in the military with these qualities, do not leave.

#218 by tahmed32,

``What Sharuk does deserve to be punished for is taking off his shirt in every movie and displaying his chirri sized chest as if he is some kind of a Rambo.``

Never mind chest west...its his cutesy way of talking that gets me every time...grrrrr!

:)

shobuz #217 you write ``My learning of Quran says NO compromise on ‘la ilaha illallah’ and acting of such practice makes any one a kafir, PERIOD. ``

Your learning of the Quran gets an F (for Fail). PERIOD.

Because if you knew the ABCs of the Quran, you would know that it says very clearly that issues of religion are not the concern of any man. If Sharuk chooses to bow before a statue in a movie, that is his business and (per the Quran) and it is not for you to judge whether he is a kafir or not.

What Sharuk does deserve to be punished for is taking off his shirt in every movie and displaying his chirri sized chest as if he is some kind of a Rambo.

shobuz #217 you also write ``Not all Muslims are corrupt Mullah’s, neither I practice judging other peoples via means, but my blood boils occasionally as a practicing MUSLIM``

You mean as a practicing JAHIL. Because if you were a muslim, your blood would boil at the corrupt Mullahs. Not at people who point them out.

Is acting as a ‘pagan’ for the sake of earning acceptable in Islam? Can ‘la-ilaha-illalah’ be on sidetrack due to acting with a ‘bowing scene in front a statue’?

While I am afraid of my own Akhira, I certainly do not have a minuscule capability to judge of what will happen to Sharuks in the day of Akhira. My learning of Quran says NO compromise on ‘la ilaha illallah’ and acting of such practice makes any one a kafir, PERIOD.

I certainly am not for violence and not found of at all of corrupt-Mullah’s, but I for sure not able to cool my blood when I see atrocities in any form. There does exist genuine atrocities towards Muslim of just being Muslim. Simply dig the facts of the very people who are crying wolf and branding Islam with a bad name.

Allah is well aware of our biology, chemical reaction to our body and our psyche. We are declared as imperfect in Quran and asked not to practice man made rule on basic justice of humanity on taking life and equality. These applies to all people, be a muslim or not muslim.

Billions of Billions people can spent all their life of thousand years to formulate the best system to get rid of ‘imperfect or bad things’ from this world. For the believers ‘bad death’, either as a victim or killer is ‘one bad’ thing, but not the end of ‘big picture’. Hence bad things have happened and will happen. Why is it that way? I do not know. But when it comes for justice: you kill one (or hundred) either by direct action or indirect action, or you inflict injustice, then it better be a action of pure accident and face the day of judgment. It all comes down to you and only your gut feelings of, were I motivated of killing him/her not of what he/she individually did grave wrong that needed a death penalty, but because………….. If later is the case, then no religious affiliation, race, skin color, nationality, groups, philosophy, Aristotle, Great Alexander, Washington, Ghandi, Muzib will be counted, and justice will be served promptly. In Islam there is no ‘collateral damage’, no ‘My general said so’, no ‘for the sake of my country’, no ‘my teaching and philosophy said so’, no ‘My Mullah or Pir Shahib said so’, no ‘Jamayeet a Islam said so’, no ‘Nabi said so (Prophets wouldn’t dare to attributes lies to God, as people does using hundreds of false hadits), no ‘every body said/did so’. Knowing, believing, practicing and prophesizing THIS is a grave responsibility that was ordained to every people via Allah via various mean and recently via Quran.

I enjoy Sharuks, Salman,…Dilip’s movies. 1000 Sharuks types people will prophez what??????? Or am I at mercy of life/death, justice issues on hindus or any people, so these actors would advocate them not to kill us. Say what……………………… A Bomb, Submarine, software, fluent english, hi, hello, Scientific achivemnt are the only way........

Not all Muslims are corrupt Mullah’s, neither I practice judging other peoples via means, but my blood boils occasionally as a practicing MUSLIM………..

ferozk #215 I think that for pakistani army officers, even more important than being conversant with the wehrmacht tactics of ``fingerspitzengefulh`` is being conversant with that other tactic practiced by all professional armies that is known as ``behaltenihrer klebrigfingerspitzen``.

This tactic roughly translates into: ``control your sticky fingers``.

If this tactic was followed, the sticky fingers of generals like zia and his friends would not have plots in islamabad and karachi, millions of dollars of kickbacks and so on sticking to them. :-)

eid mubarak and thanksgiving mubarak too.

re: Fuzair

First of all, Eid Mubarak!

Agreed that the period of the early 1950s saw an increase in Pak army manpower, but those increases were made to a large extent as a subsitutes for the departing British officers.

Fuzair, in my opinion Indian and Pakistani armies are only capable of set piece tactics and that too only on a company level. To implement a moving ambush as you suggested needs operational independence and a high degree of battlefield situational awareness. For example, the Wehrmacht trained its senior NCOs for six months and as any one will tell you, in the final analysis the it all boils down to squad and platoon level actions. The only exception might be the special forces and the special forces are highly trained to deal with the ``fluid battlefield``. In terms of command and performance, the USA`s 90 Day Wonders were no match for a German NCO. Say what you will about the Germans, but the German army had an incredible pool of capable soldiers to conduct operations of offensive or defensive nature, at night or day, while being outnumbered or being in numberical strenght.

I have not seen the level of operational flexibility, which was demonstrated by the Wehrmacht and I do not think that I will ever see it performed again.

The heirarchy of command in Pakistan does not allow for commanders to ``sniff`` the battlefield, but simply states that they follow the ``plan``. The mark of the commander is to improvise a new plan, because the original plan never survives its first contact with enemy. That is why Indian and Pakistan military competence was always challegened when they encountered opposition and they were always found wanting.

You have a solid grasp of the German military tactics and you will understand what I mean, when I say that Indian and Pakistani officers seldom know what the term ``fingerspitzengefulh`` meant. They have no instinct for the battlefield and tend to follow a pre-ordained logic, which makes no sense in the fog of war.

The PAF is different, because the nature of air operations requires operational freedom and PAF pilots were trained for that eventuality and that is, why your statement the intelligence level of PAF is superior to the army makes ample sense. The army is told to follow orders; the PAF is taught to fight by thinking. A submarine commander and a submarine crew in Pakistan Navy will be of much higher intellectual calibre than some one of similar rank in the army. Another aspect to consider is that army shares the British tradition of combat experience in the Second World War. The British combat tactics in the Second World, which the majority of our 1965 and 1971 officers learned as junior officers, favored a safe methodology over tactical fluidity. Specically in the Desert War and then in the Italian campaign, the British army moved slowly against the German and did not show any ``streak of brilliance`` in its operations.

Lately, Pakistani army seems to be following and adopting the battle plans of Bundeswehr for battles in the IGB (Inner German Border) and that is, of an ``offensive-defensive`` war. The idea is that the main balance of the army will be used to stop an attack and then, selected units of armor and mechanized infanty will launch local counter-attacks and seek to distrup the gravity of the attacking force. The two strike corps of Pakistan army are designed with this in purpose in mind, but again, the raw material in those corps might be capable, but still its does not suggest that the army as a whole is capable of mounting and sustaining a high level of battlefield manuoverablity.

However, it can be done, but not with the leadership we have and then, we will have to finely hone the raw material we have into a high degree of professionalism, which can think beyond the scope of its ``sector`` and react with full situational awareness. It is the situational awareness, I am concerned about, because frankly, I do not think that we have been able to instill it in our officer corps or lower ranks.

Ciao

Romair#213
Probably a bit of all! The scare part though applies only to potentially affecting his `badshah` status with the masses.

dost-mittar #210: Thanks for the source.

Shahrukh Khan stills seems silent, though, in the interview. Either he is too idealistic to comment. Or too politically correct. Or too scared.

Nearly all the criticism about Gujrat etc., of the govt., I have seen has come from Hindus. Shabana Azmi being the exception.

People like Shahrukh Khan, Azim Premji etc. seem too apprehensive to criticize these issues. I wonder if they are afraid of losing their popularity.

In the USA, Martin Sheen has been openly cricitizing the US invasion of Iraq. There was fear the ratings of his show, West Wing, would go down. But he is still doing it.

I would expect people like Shahrukh Khan to be on the forefront of criticising things like Gujrat. If they, with all the power they have, don`t do it. Then who else will dare to do it.

Romari and Feroz,

I agree with both of your posts.

The PAF has always attracted a much higher calibre applicant (both OR and officers) than has the PA and many PAF ORs transfer to the Army and become officers (latest NH winner being an example). However, the PAF is what, one tenth, the size of the PA, so they can afford to be much choosier about their raw material. Some PAF chaps that I knew a looong time ago used to say that a PAF sargent was the intellectual equivalent of an army captain and there was a certain amount of truth to this. The PA takes whatever it can get and it is no longer a favored career for many.

Feroz:

I think you might have misunderstood my post slightly. I meant all promotions from 1947 to mid1970s were greatly accelerated. The pace being fastest in the period up to the mid 1950s put pretty quick thereafter as well since the Army kept expanding at a very rapid pace all throughout the 1950s to the early 1980s. However, by Zia`s time, the Army career path was pretty clear and the focus was on having the `right` tickets punched (i.e., as careerist as the US armed forces are). The earlier British Indian Army focus on maximizing time spent with troops was no longer there BUT we have never been as bad as the US army was, with its six-month tours of duty in Vietnam!

1988 and 1972 were somewhat anomalous times and the promotions, while certainly there, did not have the same impact as in the 1950s. For example, Lt. Gen. Saeed Qadir became a Lt. Col. with 7 years of service. Now, PA officers barely make Major with only seven years of service and have to wait several years more to go to Staff College and then, one hopes, the next rank!

There is no doubt that professionally the generals post 1977 are much more competent professionally than the generals in the 1965 and 1971 wars (with some notable exceptions like Akhtar Husain Malik and Eftikhar Janjua). Another thing most of our civilian military analysts do not realize is that we are very limited as to what, exactly, we can do with our troops. What I mean by this is that very complicated maneuvers that require a great deal of coordination, initiative, timing, etc, esp. among armored units, are liable to fail. Now, to a certain extent, this holds true for all troops everywhere but goes in spades for S. Asian militaries. Again, this is probably due to our very low quality manpower (both officers and ORs) and their relative lack of technical sophistication.

For example, Brig, Jaffer Khan, Sword of Honor Winner, Chief Instructor at NDC, superb athlete, etc, etc, blotted his copybook irretrievably when he attempted to have his brigade execute a very complicated maneuver. Basically, IIRC, he was trying to carryout a truly `fluid` battlefield maneuver and have one squadron (maybe the whole regiment) retreat at full speed through prepared defenses, draw the opposing forces into a trap, have the retreating tanks swing around, link up with his remaining regiment and take the enemy from the rear. Thus a hammer and anvil approach.

Needless to say, this maneuver was rehearsed several times and, with the GoC and Corp Commander watching, had to be flawlessly executed. I believe he was told that he was going to get himself into huge trouble if he tried anything this fancy and he should just stick with the old tried and true tactics.

Cut a long story short, complete disaster. Tanks milling around all over the place at high speed, no one knows where to go, driving into their positions from the side, etc, etc. So he didn`t get his second star (there were other issues also but this was a major part of it). No matter how much you train and drill them, there is only so much you can do with the basic raw material. So you work on getting them to be able to carry out simple tasks flawlessly... and the simpler the better. Nothing fancy works with us. So we have these frontal assaults and very dull, predictable, sterile tactics. Nothing fluid, nothing fancy. If you are lucky, the troops carry it out reasonably well.

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

Romair: [Tariq Ali: sorry for the digression]

Romair, you asked a few times why actors like Shahrukh Khan are silent about the communal situation in India. Here are some excerpts from an interview Shahrukh Khan gave to Shekhar Gupta on TV. The full excerpt is in today`s Indian Express.

``In the past, people like Dilip Kumar, so many of the big stars, had to change their names...Madhubala...had to change their Muslim names to something that was more religion-neutral. Today, you, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan, you are all carrying your own names... So what has changed so you would feel sort of — I won’t say secure enough — but relaxed enough to retain the Muslim names...
I really don’t know the timings of the people you mentioned, like Dilip saheb. I think that has got to do more with Kumars at the time. The name Kumar attached...it was something done with a lot of actors.

But does anything make you conscious of your Muslim identity?
No. I was never made to feel...I think I am a majority.

Majority in the sense of how many people love you?
Never have I been made to feel...

Or when you see what’s been happening in the country, whether it’s Babri Masjid, whether it be what happened in Gujarat...
It bothers me. Even if it happens to Christians, to Hindus or to Muslims. It’s very very disturbing...because I am married to a Hindu lady. My children will be brought up knowing both the religions... and they can make their choice or they can become Christians if they feel like. I think that’s the kind of secularism and communal feeling we should have.

I’ve read somewhere that you have said if Hindus and Muslims can’t sort out the Babri Masjid issue, give it to the Christians...
Give it to someone else. I don’t even think...actually give it to Indians to sort it out themselves. And don’t think of them as Muslims and Hindus, or as Christians or Sikhs. Think of them as Indians.

And don’t think of them as political beings...
Politicising religion is the easiest way to do it. Religion is the opium of masses...

But do you see more of that happening now in India: politicising of religion?
Not more, I think, since I’ve been able to read newspapers, I have noticed lot of it is politicised. People should realise.

Because you are truly a pan-Indian role model, you don’t see yourself as a Muslim or a Hindu, nor do we. Does it sometimes make you think that maybe people like you have to rise and play a proactive role in stopping this?
I don’t know how to do it. I think I am too much of a yuppie and too greedy to give up my personal selfish life.

You are used to a soft life, is it?
I am too used to...not a soft life, I work very hard. I am used to a life which is just about me and my family and my close friends. I think I am too much in love with myself to give it all up. At least at this age as I talk. Maybe later on...

But you see yourself doing something? Richard Gere, for example, Jane Fonda, they have all become active in either causes or they are trying to make a difference...
I don’t believe in institutions doing the causes. I want to do them myself. I have lot of thoughts in my mind to open orphanages and hospitals, but I want to do it from the money that I earn from films. I don’t want business houses helping me. I don’t want no central force helping me. I want to do it myself.

What are you reading these days?
Right now, I’ve just started a book called Chancers, a fiction about an actor who doesn’t know what to do in his profession because he’s been out of work for the last five years. And I was reading Prophet Mohammed’s biography, an English lady has done a very nice book on Prophet Mohammed.

That’s a new thing I believe. You are reading a lot of books on Islam.
I am reading a lot on Islam. I need to know why is so much happening in the name of Christianity and Islam...I am from an Irish Brothers’ school, so I knew a bit about Christianity. But I wanted to know about the politics of what is happening, because I believe I am Islamic, I am a Muslim. I know the meaning of Quran to a certain extent, I have read it.

Do you pray?
I pray.

Five times a day?
No, not five times a day. The religion part of it I don’t follow so staunchly maybe. But I am a true believer of Allah. And I haven’t read anything anywhere which makes me feel aggressive

So the question you are asking yourself is how is Islam acquiring this aggressive trait? And why such hostility and insecurity about Islam?
Why such hostility, internationally, especially in the West, in America. It should not be so. I don’t think...

Things like Iraq, Palestine do these bother you?
Yes, they bother me. It troubles me to know that they are reading the same book that I’ve read and I am sure that they have the same belief as I have. Then why are some people looking at it with aggression? I think there is a misunderstanding.

That’s very interesting. US has Al-Qaeda suspects from all nationalities but not one Indian. Mr L K Advani made this point on this show that even in our Kashmir, you know there’s terrorism, but we have hardly found any other Indian Muslim caught in terrorism. So there is something about the Indian system, the Constitution or may be our ethos which has given the Indian Muslim the feeling that ‘Look, if I have a problem, I can get justice or redressal in this system’. Do you believe that?
Yes, I believe. I think Indian Muslims are really wonderful. I think, to live in a country dominated not by religion, and to live peacefully, and to be able to have friends. And I am sure all the Hindus also love them.

But, as a Muslim, given what happened in the last few years — Gujarat, Ayodhya — have you felt more secure, less secure or have you felt bothered?
I am bothered. I am not insecure or secure. I don’t think anyone can say anything to me living in this country because I am a true blue Indian and nobody can take that right away from me, or my family on the basis of the religion I follow. And I very strongly believe that. I don’t feel insecure at all...I don’t feel more secure about... But it bothers me to read and see images. It could have been Hindu or Muslim images. But the images that one sees, one does get bothered.

What is it that bothers you in our political discourse right now?
It bothers me that a lot of politicians are using religion as a baton for explaining their right to rule. And I think...

Give me some examples...
All of them, you know, the guys who say when they talk about being pro-Hindu. They should say ‘OK, Hinduism is fantastic, i has the fantastic qualities in the world’. I have read the Ramayan, the Mahabharat — Amar Chitra Katha version — I have acted in Ramleelas. My friends are all Hindus. So I understand their philosophy. But by saying that Hinduism is good, you can’t prove that one religion is better than the other or deride the other. Similarly the Islamic people do it, and they say that ‘Oh! these guys are killing us’. Nobody is killing nobody. It’s just Indians killing Indians, and that’s shameful.

But Shah Rukh, those are nice sentiments, but I think this situation has to improve and communities have to come closer. First of all Hindi cinema has to play a big role. It’s been playing a big role. In fact one of our most secular institutions has been Hindi cinema, barring some films recently. I bet they bothered you as well.
They bothered me a lot. They show our neighbours in bad light. We don’t need to make bad guys of some other countries. We have enough bad guys, enough good guys in this country. We have enough heroes, enough villains in this country. I think we should exhaust that before looking outside for bad guys.``

re: Fuzair # 194

Fuzair, I agree with you. Still, Pakistani army also saw a great deal of rapid promotions after 1947, when the army was short of officers. In many ways, people were promoted beyond their competence. Then was the rush to promote in 1971 and there was rash of promotions after Z. A. Bhutto fired the top leadership of the army. After the death of Zia and his generals in 1988, there was another rush of promotions.

Ciao

Re Ras sahib # 205

You`re too kind sir. Ammi is in teaching Biology to the afternoon shift crowd at St Jo though she has promised us this will be her last year:)

Our house is in Mohammadpur; the new place is on Nazrul Islam Road (the name may have been different before) and the old one is off Zakir Hussain Road (almost by Lalmatia).

When I was there six years ago, Balaka Cinema was still opposite New Market. I suspect it still is.

Re Stuka 204

You`re right. I should have emphasized the hardiness of the earlier generation more. That said, the mix of the so-called citizen-soldier and the hedonistic culture does create rather less-than-hardy soldiers,

stuka #203 there is probably an element of fact in what you write about the pakistan right wing (or more accurately, the religious right wing) being less suave than their indian counterparts. the important thing of course is that both sides stink.

if someone is still a marxist, as you say bidwai is, then that is of course quite dumb. while some things marx wrote make sense (notably his theory that socio-cultural-political structures are a function of nature of technology) the rest (notably his call for socializing means of production) has of course been disproved after the colossal failure of the 70 year experiment aka the soviet union. as i said, i havent read enough of him to be able to pass judgement.

all i can say is that if someone (as in case of bidwai) annoys the religious right wing (suave or neanderthal) in india or in pakistan, then that person must be saying something right.

RE: #167 sigalph235.

Is your house towards Dhanmondi, Mohammadpur or the Old Capital side?

Is Balaka Cinema still there or New Market? Your mother teaches at St Jo?

No wonder you write so well....


RE: Dard #169

Your reply was music to my ears. You are a true Pakistani...


RE; #196 by shobuz

What can I say to you? Your honesty speaks for all of us...


I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone


Ras

Sigalph:

``I personally doubt that this band of warriors would have won the victory over the NAzis as quickly as their much hardier forefathers did. An army ought to reflect the society AROUND it but be thoroughly insular FROM it, so thought the British and they built us those wonderful cantonments. ``

I am surprised by your statement. The American soldiers who fought and died fighting the Nazis were predominantly citizen soldiers. One might argue that the ethos of society itself has changed with the boomers bringing on a whiny, self-centred outlook. But, the professional army pre WW2 was much smaller than the force which actually went to fight in Europe and the Pacific, draftees mostly.

TAhmed:

``i did read an article from bidwai on chowk that did not strike me as being particularly egregious. but again, i didnt read the article too carefully, being more interested in the discussion taking place``

Don`t get me wrong. If you take an individual article as a stand alone, u will find that Bidwai says a lot of reasonable stuff. The problem is that Bidwai writes a lot, and the MORE you read, you realize that his thinking is one track and there is a Marxist ideological bias.

I would concede that Pakistanis take more easly to introspection (a gross generalization, but my opinion nevertheless) as compared to Indians. The reason is that the english media in Pakistan is dominated by lefties who bash Pakistan all the time whereas the media in India is equally divided between lefties and righties therefore lefties bashing India often get bashed by righties in turn. Make sense?

Oh yeah, and Indian righties are more suave then Pakistani righties. The Pakistani rightist will talk of Hindu mentality etc and make a fool of himself thereby exposing himself to be a bigot. The Indian rightie will make all the right noises about secualrism and plurality but then pass on comments equally bigoted but will get away. :)

re: ahmadzai # 162

The level of ignorance is simply staggering...

My dear Ahmadzai ji, rather than taking the route you have chossen to, a wiser strategy for you would be to help lift Pakistan up.

stuka #163/pmishra #175: thanks for your posts describing further your views on certain indian writers like khushwant singh and bidwai. i certainly agree on the benchmark for judging a political commentator that stuka mentioned (i.e. if his reasoning is rational and based on reasonable assumptions). how well this applies to these writers, i leave for you to judge since my knowledge of what they are talking about is certainly limited.

i did read an article from bidwai on chowk that did not strike me as being particularly egregious. but again, i didnt read the article too carefully, being more interested in the discussion taking place (if a writer isnt available to defend his work on chowk, his article becomes quite uninteresting - since chowk is for discussion, and if one wanted to read a serious article albeit without the writer being present to respond to comments, there are enought books, magazines, websites avaialble for that). on khuswant singh, from your posts, it seems there is no controvsey then.

i am not sure how the writers on muslim culture and history that were also mentioned stack up in your view against the same benchmark. i do know that having read one of bernard lewis` books i found it to be quite factual, informative, interesting. it mostly had to do with the fall of the ottoman empire, and the reasons for it, and i thought it was quite insightful and well worth reading by all those who think maybe it is time to bring back a caliph in muslim countries. i see on chowk some pakistanis criticise him bitterly, but when probed for something specific he said i found no specific examples being presented.

someday i might become interested in finding out how sound bidwai, pipes and others are as writers, and that day i shall check out their originals as stuka suggested.

till then, i shall content myself with the thought that there are enough chauvinists in indian as well as pakistani society that a few critics can only help. criticism hurts, but a critic is a society`s best friend whereas a chauvinist is not. imho.

re:#197 by pmishra2
Mishraji,
All that article points out is that BJP seems to be having a very flexible foreign policy geared to the needs of its security intersts, which is how it should be. It may have learnt its lessons from Gujarat carnage but only time will tell. Most of the rest are speculations by the author.
Sridhar

fuzair #194: Your comment about the Generals being promoted quickly, prior to 71, is insightful and accurate. Though, for some reason, it did not affect the PAF. I think Asghar Khan was 36 years old (?) when he became the Chief of Air Staff. I have always been amazed at his far sightedness. He single-handedly set up an Air Force, which gained recongnition outside Pakistan. Even though Air Force is such hi-tech business, and difficult for third world countries to operate.

Nur Khan is also highly thought of. Though he was a very young General also. I wonder why the Army has never been able to produce its Asghar Khans.

``I have a certain amount of first-hand observation experience here and I can safely say that, on average, our (both Indian and Pakistani actually) armies need officers to do what the US Army does with NCOs. You simply cannot rely on our enlisted men to carry out tasks competently and efficiently (with some honorable exceptions, of course)``

This is probably true for the Army. However, it is not true for the Air Force (and probably Navy also). In the Air Force, all enlisted ranks, regardless of country, have to put together and take apart aircraft. The ones taking apart F-16s in Pakistan have to do the same tasks as those in the USA. Many enlisted guys from the PAF become officers in the Army. In fact, I know a few enlisted airmen, who have even become Generals in the PAF.

Though for an Army, I would think loyalty, patience, dedication etc. would be more important than technical skills, for enlisted ranks.

Americans are an exception to the rule of enlisted. In the USA, people join enlisted ranks for a few years, to get an education, make some money and then get into civilian professional careers. I think Chuck Yeager`s son was enlisted. As were probably many successful CEOs, Professors, etc. in the USA. One of my bosses in San Jose, used to be an enlisted policeman in the USAF. He was the director of the company, I worked for, and had lines of MIT and Harvard grads under him.

US military is in a league of its own. One cannot compare it to other countries. It has no weaknesses. $400 billion budget. Extraordinarily good equipment. Hi-tech research. Well-fed and looked after. Excellent benefits. Well-trained. Dedicated. Enlisted guys getting Bachelors degrees. Officers getting Ph.Ds (including command branches, not just engineers). With a solid political leadership, deciding where they should fight and not fight.

The guy commanding the 101st Airborne (?) in Iraq did an interview. He is a Maj. General, and is a Ph.D. from Princeton in economics. Imagine.

Re 193 thru 195

Three years ago a certain Colonel Qayyum wrote some reminiscences and perspectives in Sehgal`s Defense Journal on the ideas and officers of the Pakistan Army. He basically surmised that the strategic outlook of individual Pakistani officers was largely non-existent or, at best, myopic in that they could never think beyond a battalion level. Such narrowness of outlook, the retired colonel further opined, continued as a given officer went from Lt. Colonel all the way to a senior general officer. Of the few exceptions to this phenomenom were Generals Attiqur Rehman, Shaukat Riza, and of course the aristocratic Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan.

With further reference to the Sahibzada as a cardinal example, Colonel Qayyum maintained that it was the cold, calculated, insular persona exemplified by the Anglicized old officer corps that Yaqub Khan personified and the newer breed detested. That fastidious, almost patrician, bearing also helped create a thoughtful, ie broader, strategic outlook. With the `nativization` of the Army and its officer corps, along with the true patrcian-ness the attendant visionary outlook was also discarded in favor of more `awami` type ethos (perhaps symbolized by Gen Musa?). When officers were officers, and men men, the author mused!

As for the ice-cream American soldiers, it may just have a grain of truth to it. I have always felt, in an almost snobbish Commonwealth tradition, that you downgrade the fighting quality of combat personnel as soon as you mix professionals with week-end warriors. UNfortunately, the United States Armed Forces are perhaps the biggest experimentation with this professional-weekender mixing. I personally doubt that this band of warriors would have won the victory over the NAzis as quickly as their much hardier forefathers did. An army ought to reflect the society AROUND it but be thoroughly insular FROM it, so thought the British and they built us those wonderful cantonments.

#192 sridhar

With regret I have to say this article is saying something different. It says that the Arabs and the Chinese don`t give a damn about human rights and episodes like Gujarat. And thats why the BJP finds it easy to talk to these parties. In contrast, we have the ``Christian`` west and hindu liberals who condemn the use of violence repeatedly, and have forced the BJP to restrain its ``lumpen`` foot-soldiers.

Overall, I think this articles arguments are very shallow and unsupported. Real-politik determines the progress India has made in Central, West and East Asia. It is tied to indian modernization, awareness that indians will be a large player in the next 5-10 years etc. It has very little to do with the BJP`s ideological moorings. People like Vajpayee have always had a broad non-ideological foreign policy in mind. This was true 20 years ago. Today the country has the economic heft to back up this vision.

On a different note, I am glad that even the nuts in the BJP (Shri Modi and company) recognize the importance of economic growth and progress. If nothing else, it will ensure that their brand of polarizing politics becomes irrelevant sooner than later. Or will it?

Some writing opens old wound, and some heals wound.

Some of the old hurlings pre 71:
Pakistanis to Benglais:
Bengalis eat fish-smell like fish.
urdu is the only way to advance
Bengalis eat white rice yet they are black.
Bengalis talk funny, smell funny and eat funny food.
Bengalis names are muslim but they are Hindu in their heart.

Bengalis to Pakistanis:
Panjabis are janowar
Pakis are half brained and half are ataa (flour)
..
..
..

Hurling went on between two sides for many years. It was inevitable that they would breakup today or tomorrow.

Any one knows of any of post 71 name callings.....

Some memory flashback of 71: …..A bihary boss killed Bengalis in is house and later EPR killed him and let go women…..A Punjabi guard killed his Bengali Boss, because he hurled him as ‘panjabi janowar’…..My father were constantly harassed by his Pakistani customer in Habib Bank, yet my fathers Bihari colleague helped us every single way by buying us food when we could not go out afraid of army gonna kill us… some ‘Major Manjur’ came (through some friends) to our house and when he saw me, he wanted to hug me so badly and my mother got afraid and was crying till he assured my parent that I only reminded him the son he left home in Rawalpindi. Major Manjur said he was told to come to East Pakistan and to kill ‘kafirs’, but he said he did not see any ‘kafir’……Army from Chittagong cantonment gathered unknown Bengalis near ‘Batali Hill’ and we used to see a light from the top of the mountain used to go out and few seconds later we used to hear the firing. We saw corpses in the big water drain of Bengalis and Biharis as some took the opportunity to settle old scores not related to war. We saw earless several Pakistani soldiers begging for their lives…..saw rikshawala lying dead with bullet hole in his head. We hide an assistant manager of a mill owned by Pakistani when EPR came to kill him………


I love my bengalism, but also liked urdu people. I enjoyed our differences and was bond with a faith of muslim brotherhood. Our common faith, Iman could not help us to see the benefit of brotherhood and peace. People with race-pride …..got their wishes come true.

I do fill a brother is lost though I had to loose him. People should not believe that army can solve the problem as West Pakistanis thought then.

When Pakistan and India played, my support went to Pakistan. When India played with any other nation my support went to India. Now I do not like any of them, as we loose miserably.

But again for the heck of it, I find many reasons to be found of both Indian and Pakistanis as I have friends from both countries.

Oh, and I should also add that our ORs are patient, long-suffering, and don`t complain a tenth as much as the US ice cream soldiers. However, for a mechanized force, they really aren`t that useful.

Re: the debate on Pakistani generals,

One thing that must not be forgotten is that everybody who became a general before 1971 was on the promotion fast track after Partition. They had neither the training nor the experience to adequately prepare them for the positions they held in the Pakistan Army. Ayub Khan, with British and US help, tried to send people for Senior Officer`s Courses and short training visits, etc, but this isn`t going to substitute for years of experience and proper grooming. As a rough rule of thumb, most people got at least two promotions past their level of competence and some (e.g., Musa) managed three (a distorted Peter Principle at work here).

In contrast to this, everybody who got their first star under Zia (the last of the prePartition commissioned officers) had much more formal military training and experience. However, they also served in a much more politicized and corrupt military, so what would have mattered more if there had been a full-scale war in 1986 or 1990? Who knows? Certainly the Pakistani Army would not have made the same stupid blunders then that it did in 1965 or 1971. It would have made new ones, of course.

Finally, lets not go overboard about our JCOs/NCOs/ORs. I have a certain amount of first-hand observation experience here and I can safely say that, on average, our (both Indian and Pakistani actually) armies need officers to do what the US Army does with NCOs. You simply cannot rely on our enlisted men to carry out tasks competently and efficiently (with some honorable exceptions, of course) and so the personality, character, competence and ability of the junior officer assumes a level of importance that has no paralell in Western armies. Whether this is because our men are basically illiterate or the way they are trained (memorize simple mechanical tasks), I don`t know. Both probably. However, to a good officer, they are loyal unto death. Unfortunately, good officers are hard to come by.

Stuka/Feroke/Urstruly #181: Interesting article, Stuka. Becomes even more credible, since it was written by an Indian. It is good to see both sides of the story.

I generally agree with Urstruly’s assessment of the Army-civilian relationship, with a few differences. I think Pakistanis are generally democratic in nature. However, they have very little faith in the democratic leaders of the moment, and are thus equally cynical towards both the Army leadership and the civilian leadership. Now they give economic progress more importance than anything else, amongst the middle-class and lower middle-class groups. And, “fear of mullah,” the biggest importance, amongst the upper-class groups (Chowk crowd).

The event that could act as a catalyst for getting rid of Army in politics, will be one of the following, in my opinion:

- A lower class revolution, combined with a religious ideological revolution, led by the maulvis
- A middle class revolution (if the economy goes down the drain, under the Army), led by an Altaf Hussain type figure, who has appeal across the urban populace of the country, and not just within one ethnicity

For the above to happen, a situation would have to occur, where the economy stays in the doldrums under the Army. Or if the world-wide, “us vs. them” war gains intensity within Pakistan, to uncontrollable levels. Other than that I really cannot see the people rising up in the street to bring back BB or NS type figures any longer. One only gets one chance to get the people to, “rise up.” BB and NS have had their chances and blown it. Perhaps PPP and PML, under completely new leadership, would get that chance. I doubt anyone would support the Army either, if it were the same General coming in, again and again. The Army has a new face at the helm, every time. And I think Pakistanis are willing to give each new face, about three years – be it from the Army or the civilian ranks.

Regarding the rise of Generals from Colonels. The Pakistan Army is very competent up to the level of Colonels. No doubt about it. Specifically at the level of NCOs, JCOs, Airmen, Sailors etc., i.e. enlisted ranks. They are loyal, dedicated, patriotic, and professional and have always performed well. They are also very highly respected in Pakistan, across the spectrum. I say this through personal experience. As well as through international surveys. They, along with Israel, India and USA, were ranked as the highest respected military, by their citizens, in the world. BB, NS, various editors, commentators etc. will never say anything negative about the Pakistani sapahi, jawan, fighter pilot etc. As a Lieutenant, I got nothing but respect, from the taxi drivers, shopkeepers, etc. The only groups that kind of looked down upon my profession, were the wealthy crowd (quite a few on Chowk), who considered the military, a profession below them, since, it is now very middle and lower middle class profession.

The problem starts, at the ranks of Brigadier and above, as FerozeK has correctly pointed out. The issues related to involvement in politics have been discussed. However, there are professional issues within their own profession of arms also, which have nothing to do with politics. The PAF and Navy, who do not get involved in Martial Laws, face these issues of incompetence, as well.

However, I don`t think the problems are because, “levels of intergration into the social and political ethos of the military officer corps and had very little to do with your professional skills.” Quite the contrary. The Pakistan military is actually a big meritocracy. Some of the individuals who have not been promoted may disagree, but statistics support it as a meritocracy.

The individuals, who graduate at the top of their class as cadets, generally become Generals. If you take a look at the previous Chiefs of the PAF, every single one was at the top of his class, in everything, from the age of 20 till 55. The top positions in the PAF are – going abroad as a cadet, flying the top aircraft (F-104, F-16), commanding an F-16 sqn, going abroad for staff courses, commanding PAF base Sargodha or Masroor, becoming head of Operations at the HQ, and then Chief. Basically every single Chief has followed this line. And they generally have a good record, fighting in wars also.

In the other branches, I don’t have all the details. But generally it is the same. All the candidates for Chiefs seem to be at the top in their cadet and staff courses. Ali Quli Khan, Asif Nawaz, Ayub Khan, Musharraf, Jehangir Karamat, etc., topped their local courses and all went abroad for cadet and staff courses.

One can argue that they are the most competent, amongst a group of incompetents, but that is a different debate. Within their groups, people generally rise on merit, up to the rank of Lt. Gen. After that, it is totally a political appt., depending on whom the PM and President like. In fact, any time this tradition has been broken by the politicians, it has harmed the politicians, themselves. Bhutto appointed Zia, against tradition, and look what happened. Nawaz Sharif tried to appoint someone, who was from his bradiri, but wasn’t in line for the position of COAS, and another coup occurred. Not quite democratic, but a good indication that merit counts.

The general trend is that the guys, who graduate at the top of their class as cadets, either rebel early on and leave the military, or they die performing their duties in wars or during peace times. Or they become Generals.

So, it is meritocracy, all the way, till Lt. General (with some politics thrown in, but they are not the deciding factor). The riffraff generally get washed out by the rank of Brigadier. Why do they Generals still show so much incompetence, even if they were at the top of their classes throughout their careers? In civilian affairs, because they don’t know how to run civilian enterprises, since they are not trained for that. In military affairs, due to various reasons (lack of exposure, lack of education of command branches, overconfidence etc.) which can be discussed in a later reply.

never ever let free and fair elections to happen in Pakistan ever again; keep the politicians corrupt and intimidated; and never let civilians take charge of their affairs above union council level; keep bureaucracy corrupt; keep courts corrupt; and let police lose.


Oh! I be damned! Tonight is the night of power! I request all my brothers to pray tonight that the army falls in no time!!! THe angels would listen!! Pray Pray!!!

re: BJP`s evolving political ideology
Time was when it was feared that a HIndu nationalistic party like BJP would be anti-muslim. It looks like BJP`s political brass is evolving a new strategy, where hobnobbing with the Arab world is not a sin. Latest visit of ABV to Syria is a case in point.
Romairs of the Chowk may take note.

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=321523

Excerpts:

1. ``One of the surprises that the Vajpayee administration has thrown at the diplomatic corps in Delhi is its ability to deal with Muslims of all hues and establish strategic ties with them. Be it secular Turkey or fundamentalist Iran, secular Malaysia or moderately Islamic Indonesia, India has not had difficulty in establishing and strengthening close strategic ties. Vajpayee and even Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishan Advani have traveled to a number of Muslim countries promoting India`s traditional ties with them. And so have Sinha and Fernandes, among other senior ministers. ``

The author goes on to pose a question and try to answer it:

``What has happened in the last year to bring about this metamorphosis in BJP leaders` mindset? Until last year they were pursuing a policy dictated by their political philosophy - wary of China and the Muslim world, they were simply kowtowing the West.

I do not presume to know the answer. But I can hazard a guess. What may have apprised them of the reality of the situation and expunged the influence of ideology is the world`s reactions to the events in Gujarat. About 2,000 Muslims were killed and a 100,000 rendered homeless, the whole of central Gujarat cleansed of their presence, following the killing of 59 Hindus in a train compartment that was burned down, presumably by Muslims. From all accounts these anti-Muslim massacres were either organized, or at least encouraged by the BJP government of Gujarat.

This was the first large-scale mass murder in India in the age of electronic media and human rights activists. Word and images wend around and the world came to know of it. A strange thing happened. From the RSS point of view, neither China nor a single Muslim country protested. BJP politicians had to face a lot of flak. But all of it came from the West, either European governments or Western and Third World liberals trained in the West.

This may have shattered in the Hindutva mind the myth of a Muslim ummah, a world Muslim community. This myth had persisted in their mind against all evidence to the contrary presented to them by scholars from around the world. This may have also removed from their minds the fear of a clash between an alliance of Islamic and Chinese civilizations on the one hand ranged against the Hindu and Judeo-Christian civilizations on the other. If this is indeed what has happened, Gujarat may well have served a good purpose. Good can indeed come out of evil too.``

A fascinating article. Totally debunks the myth of BJP as a fascist or anti-muslim party. Politicians finally have to change with evolving times and do what is in national interest.
Contrast this fine tuning of foreign policy by BJP with Musharraf`s tunnel vision policy of not seeing anything beyond Kashmir. I always thought Mushy was the most pathetic human excrement in existence today and he proves that again and again.
Sridhar

re: Stuka # 181

I read that article.

One has to remember that the command structure in the Pakistan army tends to stagnate above the level of colonels. The progression to a general`s star in the Pakistani army was, (is based) based on your levels of intergration into the social and political ethos of the military officer corps and had very little to do with your professional skills. Pakistani army has very able colonels, and Lt.Colonels and a good supply of regimental and company and battlion officers. Niazi was more likely a company commander on the Burma front. There is no doubt on the lower levels, Pakistani army will fight; but it is the upper leadership of the Pakistan army that shows a disdain for fighting.

Overall, it was an interesting article and as more and more people, both Indian and Pakistani veterans, write about the wars, the truth is coming out and that is good. 40 years or 30 years later, it makes no difference who won or lost, but it makes a difference between believing a myth and understanding the truth.

Ciao

LESSONS LEARNED

Stuka # 181

A good article but needs a little record setting. I do not agree with Bose`s contention that Pak Army i.e. POWs were not received very well in Pakistan. It is not true. The POWs were received with open arms by the general public who went to Wagha to welcome them with garlands and all. The nation did not even question for once about their competence and bravery. There is and there was ageneral concensus among the general public at the time and now that the soldiers fought well against all odds and they delivered what is humanly possible. However, nation is not very kind, and rightfully so, towards top military brass of the time and the politicians. Bhutto did a very commendable job by building bridges between the nation and its army but army repaid his kindness by hanging him. Since Army has been controlling media and freedom of expression since begining it has successfully shifted the blame to ``trecherous Bengalis`` and ``corrupt politicians``, and ``Bhutto`` only.

The matter is very simple. Yahya Khan`s biggest mistake was that he held the most fair elections in the history of Pakistan whereas all he wanted was to secure his presidency while finding a Jamali for himself - and he found not one but two Jamalis - Bhutto & Mujib. Whereas Bhutto readily accepted to play his patsy, Mujib did not. Not that Mujib did not want to but he couldn`t because his electorate was already simmering with anti-millitary feelings and wanted to get rid of military even at the cost of separation. I think Yahya could eventually have made a deal with Mujib but Bhutto always got in the way. Bhuttos solution i.e. ``You there, we here`` was not acceptable to Mujib because of the pressures from his electorate and he did not want to appear to be too concedeing to his electorate. So ultimately the talks broke down.

The only entity who has learned any lessons from this whole debacle is the Pak Army contrary to the popular beleif. The army devised its undeclared doctrine since then which goes like this ``never ever let free and fair elections to happen in Pakistan ever again; keep the politicians corrupt and intimidated; and never let civilians take charge of their affairs above union council level; keep bureaucracy corrupt; keep courts corrupt; and let police lose`` . Pak Army has religiously followed this doctrine since they won the political power back from civilians in 1977 after deposing Bhutto and later hanging him. Since then, Zia came into power and he chose his hand picked Jamali who was Jonejo. Army through ISI meddelled in all elections since then. And now Mushsraf has his own Jamali who is the front man of mob behind him. People of Pakistan are democratic by nature otherwise why would dictators bother to play this tamasha of ``front man democracy`` time and again. I don`t know what, but something will trigger and detonate what is simmering in the civilian pressure cooker for so long. And I am pretty sure that it ain`t gonna be a repeat of Georgia.

Thanks ahmadzai.

By the way, moonh khol hi do.

While there are some postings considered as ``punishment`` postings by bureaucrats and judges, like Bihar, Chambal valley etc, what you state is wrong. The bureaucracy works at 2 levels. One is the central bureaucracy for which candidates are selected through the Union Public Service Commission, and the state bureaucracy for which candidates are selected through the state`s Public Service Commission. So someone who got through the state bureaucracy can`t be sent to anopther state. At the central level, people aren`t posted according to their origins.

In fact, my hometown Pune, has not had a local Municipal Commissioner, District Magistrate, Income tax commissioner or even Police commissioner for as long as I can remember. And it is prosperous and peaceful town with no mafia or communal trouble, so it is not a punishment posting either.

Not saying that Indian bureaucracy is a paragon of honesty and efficiency, far from it. The concept of punishment postings and reward postings is there, but it does not have anything to do with your origins. Even a Bihari will consider Bihar as punishment posting

fountainheader:

Pakistan`s economic performance:

This is in response to your query to Romair.

I have produced many websites on Chowk showing improved performance, including once during my discussion with Mantolives.

An honest evaluation of Pakistan`s economy appears here:

http://www.dawn.com/2003/11/23/top6.htm

ballukhan at # 185:

``The guy has no idea about Indian buraucracy!!!! What propaganda? I am amazed? ``

Read my intro. Note that I am a traveler. Maira Moon mutt khulwana.

But for your own information as a beginning, do read the two URLs I have listed in one of my previous posts.

:-)

Maula Jat. Jat in London. Jeera Blade. Mirza, Majnu tay Ranjha. Jat, Gujjar tay Nat.

All classics, by the way.

Haha, OK. :)

Love their names, remind me of Johar-Mehmood or Govinda ``classics``. By the way, are all these movies Punjabi, or some are urdu?

As I stated earlier, Pakistanis are not interested in getting all of Kashmir. I say this as someone who is from Kashmir. Look at any survey in Pakistan. Even the govt. repeatedly says self-determination for Kashmiris. This could result in Kashmir joining Pakistan, India, or independence.

OK, two things. ``Pakistanis`` are not interested in getting all of Kashmir, is what you claim based on opinion polls. Even if we do accept this, it is the wish of the common people, and NOT the army or the government.

And I am pretty sure that the government of Pakistan`s official position is still ``we want a plebiscite, 1947 style``, which means only 2 options - join india or join pakistan. no option of independence. yes, many pakistanis may wish to give kashmir independence from both india and pak, but the official government demand is still ``self determination with 2 options - india or pakistan``. in fact this has been a major cause of factionalism in the hurriyat. the geelani faction is pro-pakistan and the lone-mirwaiz faction is pro-azaadi. abdul ghani lone was gunned down by pakistanis. hiw own son, came on BBC saying ``pakistanis killed my father``. are you telling me that pakistani army has been pumping so much money and manpower into kashmir just to let it be ``azaad``? puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. exactly who here was born yesterday?

another thing is if the pakistani establishment did not want ``all of kashmir`` they would have lapped up the Chenab Formula. as mentioned in an article in Friday times(drat why dont they have archives) a couple of month back by Khalis Hasan, the Chenab Formula is a plan that would give Pakistan 80% of the land of the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, leaving India with only parts of Ladakh and Jammu. The valley would go to Pakistan. As Hasan wrote, the chenab formula itself is a big dream because India simply would not agree to it. Yet, at 80%, it is the best deal that could even be realistically mentioned in negotiations. And yet, Sikandar Hayat Khan was disqualified by the High Court for endorsing this formula.

This is from the daily Jang 16 September 2003

Sikandar’s disqualification reference

MUZAFFARABAD: The AJK High Court has set up a full bench for the preliminary hearing of constitutional writ petition field by opposition leader in AJK Legislative Assembly Barrister Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry regarding disqualification of AJK Prime Minister Sikandar Hayat on his comments about Chenab Formula dealing with Kashmir dispute. Kh. Atta Ullah Chak represented the petitioner while AJK Advocate General presented on behalf of the other side. The AJK Chief Justice Syed Manzoor Husain Gilani after hearing both sides remarked that ``In view of the nature of constitutional points taken up in the petition it should be placed before the full court on September 29, 2003.`` According to the detail earlier the AJK Opposition leader had filed a reference with the AJK Speaker Sardar Siab Khalid for the disqualification of AJK Premier Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan for his statement regarding Chenab Formula about the proposed solution of Kashmir dispute, which the Speaker had rejected. Meanwhile the opposition leader Sultan Mehmood filed a writ petition with AJK High court requesting the Court for disqualification of the Premier Sikandar Hayat Khan pleading that by supporting the Chenab Formula the AJK premier has clearly deviated from our principle stand on Kashmir and violated the AJK constitution under which he (the premier) had taken the oath that as prime minister he would strictly adherent to the ideology of accession to Pakistan.


You said

The ones fighting in Kashmir, are only interested in Kashmir.

This is rich, this is really really rich. The Kashmiri terrorists from J&K might be interested only in that. But you have conveniently ignored the example of Sheikh Omar saeed who was first involved in kidnapping of tourists in kashmir, then was arrested by the Indians, released with Masood Azhar during the kandahar hijacking, transfered money to Moahammad Atta of 9/11 fame, killed Daniel Pearl..... Come on, everyone, even your own papers have accepted the link between Kashmir and Al Qaeda. Let me give you one more example. John Walker Lindh, the American taliban, fought in kashmir. The Virginia Terror network guys, fought in Kashmir.

While someone like Syed Salahuddin and his Hizbul maybe Kashmir-centric, the Jaish, Lashkar, Markaz et al have bigger designs. their own websites say so, for god`s sake. I have some coffee here in case you want to smell it.

You know, in my opinion the biggest problem that Pakistan faces with keeping the terror tap on in kashmir is that those guys are going to want to do more. Because most of them (not all) are driven not by nationalistic sentiments, but religious ones. They are fighting(they think) the cause of Islam and not kashmir. kashmir is just one step. their bigger targets are going to be Israel and America. So America did not mind Pakistan funding Khalistani terrorists, cos they would hurt only India, but it will certainly mind the jehadis in kashmir.

And your surveys show that. the pakistani ``people`` are not obsessed enough with the cause of Kashmir to die for it. But throw in the islamic jehad angle, with promises of jannat, and allah`s mercy, and a lot of people are willing to do it. If pakistan can divorce religion from the roxy war it has launched on india, it will really be more effective. Think about it.

There was an interview on News Night in Pakistan, where the BJP minister was being interviewed. The interviewer showed a copy of the text of the original Agra agreement to the minister, and asked whether she wanted to debate it. She refused. He made the same points, and asked why it had been cancelled after the BJP had agreed to it. She had no answer.

Could you point out why the original agreement was cancelled?


I saw the interview myself, and I dont see how the breakfast meeting reason is justified by it. In fact your comment was the first time I have ever heard anyone mention the breakfast as a reason. Pakistanis have alleged that the hawks like Advani scuttled the talks because vajpayee agreed to drop the issue of ``cross border terrorism``, and they didnt like it. Indians say that it was scuttled because Musharraf agreed to address cross border terrorism in the draft but later changed his mind. I myself am not quite clear about it, but my opinion is that Vajpayee agreed to more concessions than the hawks wanted. Where does the breakfast come into picture?

The reason NS was removed was because he tried to fire Musharraf. Plain and simple. It was not a planned coup. Even the coup makers did not know what to do after the coup.

Are you saying that Nawaz`s fall had nothing to do with Kargil? This is something on which I have heard different versions from Pakistanis themselves. Some say Nawaz didn`t know about Kargil, or else he wouldnt have had the lahore meeting. Some say he knew but couldnt stop it. A very few say nawaz actually ordered Kargil (!!!). you people sort it out amongst yourselves.

The AgrSummit: An Engagement Fouled by Dr. Muni of the JNU. JNU-wallahs are acknowledged by pakistanis to be objective, hence I am pasting a few excerpts from the article.

He frankly confessed to the Indian editors outside the summit negotiations that for his very political survival in Pakistan, he cannot be seen to be diluting his position on Kashmir.

You see romair, Musharraf confessed that himself, on tape. I guess you think he is wrong, and he can dilute his position of Kashmir and still survive?

The Pakistani armed forces see this territorial gain in the valley as a part of avenging its defeat of 1971 and a requirement of its self-created ``national identity`` vis-à-vis India. General Musharraf`s linking of Kargil conflict with 1971 in his breakfast talks with the Indian editors at Agra could be seen in this context. The post-summit statements made by him and his foreign minister in Islamabad indicate that accepting the word ``cross-border`` amounts to Pakistan giving sanctity to LOC that it does not want.

See what I mean? I am sure if we go to some chowk 2001 archives, we will find a hundred views about why the summit failed. I would love to see how many people blame the breakfast for it

#162 by ahmadzai on November 23, 2003 11:05am PT

``Also, remember that in India if a civil servant or a judge has to be penalized, his services are transferred to a state other than his original. This ensures his demise, because outside his own state, he is treated as a pariah....``

The guy has no idea about Indian buraucracy!!!! What propaganda? I am amazed?

SUb: Admiral Ahsan....

There were a number of notable Generals who oopposed West Pakistani Policies in Bangladesh. Vice-Admiral Ahsan was prominent amongst those. He was soon removed from office. Even Lt Gen Saihbzada Yakoob Ali khan - despite his earlier saber-rattling as part of the Insurgency planning came to see things differently once posted GOC - Eastern Command - He was subsequently demoted to Maj-Gen and placed under house arrest in West Pakistan during the duration of the 71 war. It was Zia ul Haq who later rehabilitated him as Foreign minister and restored his rank to Lt-Gen ( post Retirement)......

Of course Gen Tikka Khan a la ``Butcher of Dacca`` was later promoted by Bhutto to Chief of staff ( or Cinc C i am not sure wheteher Cin C was abolished in the 70`s) and later as Governor of Punjab. there were many even in the Lahore gentry that avoided this man like the plague.... - He was a personal and professional digrace - Nothing more than a glorified subaltern....

there were other Graduates of Bangladesh that were later to lead insurgency operations in Baluchistan - Sind and karachi ...

Lt Gen Jehanzeb Arbab ( Later a corrupt Gov of Sind) - is listed is the Hammodur Rehman Report ha shaving been involved in looting and misappropriation of funds......


The infamous Naseerullah Babur ( another Bhutto protege)- who reportedly as a Captain deserted his post in bangladesh ( and later a POW) - was involved in the bloody repression of the MQM in Karachi where thousands of non-political civilians came in the cross fire. He used to proudly boast as being the Father of the Taliban as well. I hope they haul his rotten ass to Guantanomo......



THe HamoodurRehman report is online at
http://www.dawn.com/events/14aug2000/report/report.htm

It describes quite vividly and unrevocably the complete corruption of Command and Control - with all the guilty parties - IT also describes in shocking detail - Dereliction of duty, and in some cases abandonment of positions by two star and one star generals......


As for Adm Mansoor ul Haq - it is alittle known fact that he is a Bhutto too.... His mother was Bhutto Sr`s sister who was married off to a local Clan in SOuthern Punjab.....

IT is also well known that most Zia protege`s from Gen Fazle Haq the drug Baron Gov of NWFP during Zia`s tenure, to GEn AKthar Abdur Rehman ( His son) , Gen Aslam beg, and Gen Zia ( through his son ... were dollar bilionaires exposed by Musharraf during his vaunted anti-corruption drive......

Interesting and Timely article from the Daily Times:



Op-ed: The courageous Pak army stand on the eastern front —Sarmila Bose

There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender.

Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo. The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession. Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998). Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “...mid-October to 20 November... Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support ...and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used...Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November...Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions...launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India...”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ ...despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army...”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “...India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you ...You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose... You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements...” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and court-martials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University

H

Tahmed:

Pmisra says:

``in addition to Khushwant Singh, folks like M. J. Akbar, Shekhar Gupta and Tavleen Singh bring a balanced and experienced viewpoint. Mark Tully is another person with deep background in India and consistent opinions``

I would agree with his list. For socioeconomic issues, I would add Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar. Mind you, none of these are apologists for any sort of right wing orgainzation or apologists for Sangh parivar outfits.

# 169 by dard

++++
It is a matter of utmost shame and disgust for us as a nation that even after 30 years more than 300000 Pakistanis are still stranded in Bangladesh.
++++

Bangladesh had offered Bangladeshi citizenship to the ``Biharis`` in the immediate aftermath of independence. Those that accepted the offer live today as Bangladeshis fully integrated with society of their adopted country.

The ``Biharis`` who have been living in the Geneva camps in Bangladesh for the last three decades are the ones that did not accept the offer - they chose to retain their Pakistani citizenship. And they have been waiting patiently in UN-run Geneva Camps for a third of a century to be repatriated to their home country. They never renounced their citizenship, nor did they lose it. In fact, they fly the Pakistani flag at the UN-run Geneva Camps and continue to be referred to as ``stranded Pakistanis`` in Pakistani/non-Pakistani publications alike.

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

I was not very surprised to be told ruefully by a Mohajir-Pakistani acquaintance that in the post 9/11 era, the funds of that trust have been frozen by the Musharraf government on American orders because they were being misused to promote terrorism. And that, in a nutshell, spells out the real tragedy. Pakistan`s ruling elite has never lacked in funds to promote jihad in Afghanistan or Kashmir. But they had not a penny to spare for the repatriation of the hapless ``Biharis`` !!

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

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

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

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

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

# 172 by Romair

++++
NS had just fired another Chief, who was very highly respected (and still is) everywhere.
++++

This is probably alluding to General Jehangir Karamat who ``resigned`` to make way for General Pervez Musharraf during Nawaz Sharif`s 2nd incarnation as the Prime Minister.

The alleged respectability of General Jehangir Karamat may be somewhat exaggerated.

---

..... Former army chief General Jahangir Karamat took kickbacks of more than US $20 million from a Ukrainian tank company selling tanks to Pakistan through a middleman named Colonel Mahmood, a brother tank corps officer of Karamat. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharief sent the present chief of WAPDA, Major General Zulfiqar, then serving in the Inter-Services Intelligence, to the Ukraine and Azerbaijan to investigate the scandal.

Gen Zulfiqar compiled a report of the transaction and the bribes given. But the army tried to buy him out by rewarding him with the post of WAPDA chairman and promoting him to rank of lieutenant general.

General Karamat was forced to resign. He was threatened that if he did not, he would be charged with corruption. .....

---

#145 tahmed

I have compared Khushwant Singh to Bernard Lewis for a reason. Thet are both extremely learned people with genuine high academic achivement. It is not widely known that Khushwant Singh wrote a definitive (and even today one of the best) history of the sikhs. Yet, not everyone would agree with all of their analysis.

Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai are small-time marxist ideologues. Hence I compared them also to the small-fry Richard Pipes and Ibn Warraq. These are people with a little something to contribute, BUT generally tend to focus on one-sided polemics.

There is a healthy set of commentators available in India. There is no need to focus on one point of view. I would say that in addition to Khushwant Singh, folks like M. J. Akbar, Shekhar Gupta and Tavleen Singh bring a balanced and experienced viewpoint. Mark Tully is another person with deep background in India and consistent opinions. I would say that these folks have much more credibility than the Roys or Bidwai`s or, of course, our very own Comrade Angana.

re: ijaz_gul # 156

What is MAHABHARATA SCHOOL? Thanks.

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

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

just a short reply to one point since i am late for class

Are you suggesting that Vajpayee would still be Prime Minister, had he lost in Kargil? To tell you the truth, I am just basing my view off the stuff I read in the media. i have little knowledge of internal Indian politics, other than the media. But I have a feeling, had India gotten into a stalemate in Kargil (much like Siachen), BJP would have been hurt massively in the polls.

Vajpayee did not make Kargil his poll plank. He got votes because his government was pulled down without any replacement. The main plank was ``See, these people made a country like India spend the extra 5,000 crore for an unnecessary election.`` If Kargil would have been in a stalemate, maybe the margin would have been reduced a bit in the ``too close to call`` constituencies, but he would have won nevertheless.

fountainheader #160: ``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? :)``

Yes. Maula Jat. Jat in London. Jeera Blade. Mirza, Majnu tay Ranjha. Jat, Gujjar tay Nat.

All classics, by the way.

``Though it was mentioned since the Kargil issue was like a month old, the BJP`s election bid was NOT based on it.``

Are you suggesting that Vajpayee would still be Prime Minister, had he lost in Kargil? To tell you the truth, I am just basing my view off the stuff I read in the media. i have little knowledge of internal Indian politics, other than the media. But I have a feeling, had India gotten into a stalemate in Kargil (much like Siachen), BJP would have been hurt massively in the polls.

``However i thought that the Pakistani objective was getting Kashmir. In that sense I don`t think Pakistan is winning.``

I think this is where the biggest misconception occurs in India, regarding Pakistan. As I stated earlier, Pakistanis are not interested in getting all of Kashmir. I say this as someone who is from Kashmir. Look at any survey in Pakistan. Even the govt. repeatedly says self-determination for Kashmiris. This could result in Kashmir joining Pakistan, India, or independence.

``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?``

This is true. I think the overall mullahism has greatly hurt Pakistan. That is obvious. I don`t think it is a good policy. However, the point I was trying to debate was that it has hurt India also. This was in reply to the following statement you had made, ``India, fortunately or unfortunately(whichever way you view it), has not suffered any such failure in this domain.`` I think India has suffered.

And that, if Pakistan can get to 6% growth rates, it would really start to affect India. By the way, the European poll that you showed ranked USA and Israel as the biggest threats to world peace. They seem to be doing better than both India and Pakistan economically.

Kashmir is going on inside India, as is all the BJP violence, yet it has not affected the FIIs in India. One would think India would be affected more than Pakistan. It is because India has been able to disconnect Kashmir from the rest of India, in its marketing to FDIs. This is what Pakistan could do, as well. The internal violence going on in Pakistan is carried out by parties other than those fighting in Kashmir. This is a misconception that many Indians have also. They think they are the same groups. The internal religious violence is based on sectarian parties, who have nothing to do with Kashmir. As well as due to Al-Qaeda type parties, who are targeting Pakistan like they are targeting Turkey, i.e. for supporting USA.

The ones fighting in Kashmir, are only interested in Kashmir.

Once again, I don`t support any violence in Kashmir from either Pakistan`s or India`s side. I am just trying to show that I am just stating that India is quite mistaken if it assumes that Kashmir is under control and not harming India.

``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``

This used to the be the case. However, it has died down quite a bit now. All the incidences you have pointed to, are now jointly investigated by Pakistani and Western intelligence agencies. This is why so many of the criminals have been caught. I would say, since Sep 11, their has been a drastic decrease in blaming India for everything. The joint investigations are a good indication of that. Pakistan would not carry out joint investigations, if they wanted to place the blame on India.

I have yet to see India agree to joint investigations on any terrorist attack, be it in Kashmir or inside India, that is blamed on Pakistan. This includes the attack on the Parliament. All attempts at international monitoring of the LOC are refused also. This makes it easier for India to blame Pakistan.

``some editorial, some article, some op-ed.....kuch bhi chal jayega.``

I will look for one. There was an interview on News Night in Pakistan, where the BJP minister was being interviewed. The interviewer showed a copy of the text of the original Agra agreement to the minister, and asked whether she wanted to debate it. She refused. He made the same points, and asked why it had been cancelled after the BJP had agreed to it. She had no answer.

Could you point out why the original agreement was cancelled?

``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? ``

Good question. I think it was because it has to be distributed evenly. And because their were charges of croynissm. During Ayub`s rule, Pakistan progressed greatly. It was way behind India at independence, and moved ahead, after the 60s. Pakistan was taught at Harvard as a succcesful case study (Burki, Shahid).

However, two things happened. One Pakistan lost a major war. Two, and more importantly, the income distribution was not even. It had not started trickling down to the poorer levels. Specially to Bengalis. I don`t think people were dying for democracy. They just wanted the fruits of the economic growth.

During Zia`s time, the Dubai chalo phenomenon improved people`s lives a lot. However, in case of Zia, it actually was a ``dictatorship.`` He Islamised Pakistan beyond tolerance of the society. In addition, the Afghanistan war had very harsh affects on Pakistan. So in his case, people did want him removed.

I think any govt. in Pakistan, be it civilian or military, cannot last unless it takes growth rates to 6% (even then it may not survive). But it will be removed not for the love of democracy, but for economy. You need to keep in mind that most voters are in feudal lands. They are already under a feudal dictatorship. It is the urban votes that carry out all the movements etc.

``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? ``

You are missing the point. I am just saying that people don`t get put into power for love of democracy. They only get supported back into power (against coups), if the produce high economic rates.

The reason NS was removed was because he tried to fire Musharraf. Plain and simple. It was not a planned coup. Even the coup makers did not know what to do after the coup. The Army refused to accept NS`s appointment as the Chief, since the new candidate was not even in line for the position. And since NS had just fired another Chief, who was very highly respected (and still is) everywhere.

However, the population was fed up with NS anyway, and were glad he was gone - coup or no coup. Had the Supreme Court removed him, before he invaded it, people would have been equaly happy.

However, if people were dying for democracy, they would have come out on the streets for NS, trying to get him re-installed. His followers couldn`t even get a hundred people on the street. They still cannot. Only the maulvi parties can get people on the street.

Based on that, I think Musharraf and his govt. will survive as long as it carries out economic growth. If he can consistently get into the 6% - 8% range, with equal distribution, no one will come out in the streets. However, if he remains stuck between 3 to 5 % range, he will be gone. Not because of any love for democracy or for conquering Kashmir, though. But due to love for high economic growth rates.

``If it pushed the economy so much, where are the signs of this progress?``

You are making the mistake that many interactors on Chowk make, in relation to my replies. I am not defending (or offending) the Army. I don`t think the Army is the solution. Historically, it has been the problem, more than the solution.

I am trying to point out the strategy they use, and why no one comes out into the streets to oppose them. I think they push the economy more than the civilians. You have yourself pointed out that the economic growth rates in Ayub and Zias times were quite high (at least higher than those of Bhuttos and Sharifs). This does not mean they took the country out of poverty. It just points to why the people didn`t come out into the streets in support of the civilians they kicked out, i.e. if NS had high growth rates, people would have been out in droves to get him back.

So if the politicians want to counter the Army, they need to concentrate on the economy, and to do that, they need to minimize their own corruption. That is the only counter, in my opinion, to the Army taking over. I think people are generally equally fed up of the polticians and the Army. And not because of democracy.

If this isn`t the case, then could you point out why PPP and PML cannot get a single guy on the street to get them back in power?

The remaining replies in a later interact.

#235 sigalph

++++
is there some truth to the fact PN officers are more likely to be office&gentlemen than the other two branches(Adm. Masroor is an exception perhaps?)?
++++

If the army had its General Jahangir Karamat (infamous for the Ukranian tank deal) and Generals Aslam Beg and Assad Durrani (infamous for the Mehran Bank deal for rigging the 1990 elections) then the navy had its Admiral Mansoor-ul-Haq (infamous for the French submarine deal). But, yes, the army seems to have been particularly corrupted.

Power tend to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The following book goes into the institutional reasons why Pakistan`s military has become the ultimate arbiter of who gets to steal in Pakistan and how much:

Military, State and Society in Pakistan
by Hasan Askari Rizvi
St.Martin`s Press, New York

Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi is a renowned political and defence analyst. He holds PhD in International Relations and Political Science from the Universityof Pennsylvania, USA. He has taught at Columbia University, New York, Heidelberg University, Germany, and the University of the Punjab,Lahore.

Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi draws the readers special attention to ``military colonisation of all other institutions in Pakistan``. Dr Rizvi has pointed out:

---

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-10-2003_pg3_3

Daily Times, Pakistan
Monday, October 20, 2003

Is there any hope for democracy?
By Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

..... the military, especially the army, has expanded its corporate interests to such an extent that it is now present in all major sectors of state and the society. This is manifested through induction of mostly, but not exclusively, retired military personnel in important state and semi-state institutions. .....

..... The military`s business, commercial and industrial interests have expanded so much that they have stakes in all major domestic state policies. These developments have practically overwhelmed large civilian sectors. As a matter of fact, there is hardly any exclusively civilian sector left. .....

---

The military has good reasons to be concerned about its reputation. Here`s some candid talk by a journalist:

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2003-daily/09-08-2003/oped/o4.htm

The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Saturday August 09, 2003-- Jamadi-us-Sani 10, 1424 A.H

A candid talk
by Mir Jamilur Rahman
mirjrahman@hotmail.com

..... President Musharraf expressed his deep concern over the anti-armed forces propaganda in the national media. He detailed the misperceptions created by the negative reporting. President Musharraf should not get unduly perturbed on this trend. It is the natural and logical outcome of overexposure of the armed forces in the public affairs. Never before in the history of Pakistan the military personnel have occupied so many public offices. Its omnipresence in every sphere of public life and its omniscient attitude has not endeared it to the people. It has replaced the bureaucrat as the perennial target of public scorn. It has forgotten the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt. It is now the armed forces personnel who run the public utilities, supervise the sports, regulate the utility tariffs, and catch the thieves under NAB, head the postal department, the universities and research institutes. With a public exposure of this magnitude the criticism would not only continue to flow but become intense too.

President Musharraf assured his audience of newsmen that every penny of the defence budget is spent with great care and there are several tiers of checks on all spending. True, that defence budget is only 17 percent of the federal budget and yet at the GDP ratio of 6 percent it is nearly the highest in the world. Despite all the checks Admiral Mansoorul Haq could manage a hefty commission on the deal of Augusta submarines. It was a newspaper of Karachi that exposed the Admiral and not some vigilant committee of the government. The defence budget and spending cannot attain full transparency until it was opened to the
public debate. .....

---

#120 by sigalph235

[``they can certainly smell the blood of Mohajirs spilt in Karachi everyday by the agencies since the mid-`80s.``]

First we had Indians from the cow belt and Kerala worrying about Pakistani Punjabis, and now we have Bengladeshis showing concern for Mohajirs, I guess next we`ll have Zulus worried about Pathans and finally Eskimos feeling the pain of Saraikis.

To the ``well`` meaning Keralites and Bangladeshis and Zulus and Eskimos, I`d say take your sympathy and....... y`know.

Tariq Aqil:

Although we, as a nation, are fully competent to do the same, the following still is only a remote possibility in Pakistan:

http://www.hindu.com/2003/11/22/stories/2003112206250100.htm

and

http://www.hindu.com/2003/11/23/stories/2003112306750100.htm

While our Poorkhas may be held accountable before the Creator and the Sustainer for EP episode, we must thank HIM for not letting us follow in some of the formers` mucky footsteps.

Ras Sahib

Quite a coincidence about St Joseph`s. Our old house was ten minute walk from the school and our new one is about fifteen. And my mother is in her last year teaching there.

Ferozek re Admiral SM Ahsan

Absolutely right on the admiral; Tikka Khan was brought in to put the two hats of two people absolutely opposite to him (Yaqub and Ahsan). Does Ahsan`s uprightness have something to do with the fact that he was ADC to the Quaid-e-Azam? On a more general note, with no offence intended to army/PAF wallahs and their progeny, is there some truth to the fact PN officers are more likely to be office&gentlemen than the other two branches(Adm. Masroor is an exception perhaps?)? If so, why?

It is a nice omen that we as a nation have started talking about even the darker days of our chequered history. And by any standard, East Pakistan episode is indeed the gloomiest chapter of our past. Without embroiling myself in blame apportioning game I would like to add a couple of thoughts:

1) Exact number of deaths is of secondary importance. Even few hundred deaths, let alone few million casualties, are few hundred too many. Discussing these digits back and forth is a gross affront to victims (Bengalis and non-Bengalis alike) and their next of kin. My humble suggestion is that it would suffice to say that a huge number of Pakistanis, without précising it further, lost their lives.

2) General public, in the Western wing, at the most, is liable to only a fraction of responsibility. Because, at that time at least 75% were illiterates; 50 % were without electricity; 80 % absolutely lacked access to media, even less independent channels (Pakistan got its first TV station in 1969). Most of them were almost totally ignorant of basic most data of the Eastern wing what to talk about intricate political details. In short, generally no political awareness at all and the whole nation was in a sense thoroughly brainwashed with weird interpretations of historic proceedings. Dear friends, therefore, under the given circumstances, it is grossly unfair to blame ordinary citizens on the street for their indifference and silence.

3) It is a matter of utmost shame and disgust for us as a nation that even after 30 years more than 300000 Pakistanis are still stranded in Bangladesh. Without resolving this issue as per the aspirations of Biharis stuck in Bangladesh, we from Western Pakistan cannot claim to have learned anything at all. The tragedy of East Pakistan will remain an open wound till the resolving of this issue in a decent manner.

A Pakistani from Punjab, who had yet to start walking when East Pakistanis parted their way.

#131 by jay on November 22, 2003 6:31pm PT
ahmadmadani 126,

I completely agree with you, what pakistan lacks is culture

#131 Jay: You are distorting me. I never said we Pakistanis are devoid of Culture.

I was saying about average Punjabi and average Bengali both Muslims as a group. As groupwise bengalis are more cultured people than Punjabis as a group . I consider agriculture as also integral part of culture and Punjab is advanced in agriculture. Please do not pick some thing and distort.
Good luck everybody.

Romair (aka Bull of Chakwal),

Since you decline to provide training camp statistics from POK, here are my ballpark figures.

Indian intelligence estimates around 120 terrorist training camps in POK. If we consider a low figure of 20 jihadis trained per month per camp...that works out to be 2400 jihadis per month.

What did you say...only 100 or so pakistanis in kashmir (hahaha)!


Welcome to chowk...poetry of Bulle Shah...and high-octane gas from Bull `e Chaak!

TAhmed:

``stuka: on ``Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai`` as commentators on indian society and `` Bernard Lewis, Richard Pipes and Ibn Warraq`` on muslim.

i have read a bit of or about all of them, and everything i have read or heard indicates that they deserve to be heard with respect by all (including members of the respective communities of which they write).

i would not pay much attention if it was some moron like jay ridiculing these people. but if even you think negatively of them too (IF you do), then perhaps you could cut and paste (IF it does not take more than a couple of minutes of your time) something they have written that does not make sense``

TAhmed, I would like to eliminate Khushwant Singh from the list. He is a genuine secularist and a reasonable man. The other two, well sure, you and I could cut and paste some thing that sounds reasonable. The problem though is that you have to go the whole hog with them or you are a ``reactionary``. These two are leftists and reflexively Anti-American under the garb of social ``activism``. I don`t want to unduly influence you either way by posting what I think is good or bad. But a random google search on A Roy will give you some of her articles and you can decide for yourself. Other deatils I will give you when I come to your house. I had emailed you but had not heard back. I`ll call you during the week.

Tariq Aqil:

Although Indians seem to be interested in highlighting dark pages from the history of Pakistan, an interactive program viz. GEO TV`s 50 minutes, clearly pointed out that younger generation of Pakistan sympathizes with Bangla Deshies in the civil war of early 70s.

The EP/BD episode was a dark saga of our history and we have resolved that this will not happen in Pakistan ever again. The evidence in this direction is that there has been no mob related ethnic or religious violence in Pakistan in recent years. There have been targeted killings by the terrorists, but no mob violence.

However, have a look at yesterday`s newspapers news on India. You will read news like following (single day):

1. Assamese kill Bihari job seekers.

2. Biharis retaliate in Bihar on trains traveling through the state.

3. Hindu extremists in UP have demanded: ``no jobs for non-Hindus in UP``.

Also, remember that in India if a civil servant or a judge has to be penalized, his services are transferred to a state other than his original. This ensures his demise, because outside his own state, he is treated as a pariah. This does not happen in Pakistan. All ethnicities are represented in the workforce of other provinces and are actually accorded respectable status.

I believe that what we need to do onwards is to learn from all aspects of our history and focusing only and only on economic development, educating our youth, liberating women and getting rid of such banes of our society as honor killing, facing the world confidently and calling, as some one said in an earlier post, ``spade a spade``.

Romair ,various-

I don`t know what Romair is crowing about - Does this trio Roy-Bidwai-Singh really support secession of Kashmir from India ? I have read a little from all these guys - But I haven`t really seen any of them pushing any secessionist agenda. May be I missed it.

They are all leftists, for sure, and very virulent ones - especially this Roy girl. As I far as I know - Roy is more of an anti-nuke fanatic. She comes off as extremely cuckoo in some things she says, but I haven`t seen too much from her on Kashmir. I mean I haven`t seen her asking India to give Kashmir on a platter to Pakis. Did she?

Singh, I think, was dead against Khalistan secessionism. He had heavy secuity protection during those heady days. I can`t imagine he would support Kahmir secessionism. does he really?

Bidwai is more of an anti-BJP fanatic( no matter what the topic he is writing on, he manages to slip in a para or two vilifying BJP:) , which is OK. But I have also seen him giving some of his bull-sh!!t! to Pakis themsleves. Again - on Kashmir, I haven`t seen him supporting secessionism.

If not - then, what is Romair so worked up about? if, hypothetically speaking, India makes Bidwai Prime Minister tomorrow - still Pakis won`t get Kashmir on a platter, will they?

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.

stuka: on ``Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai`` as commentators on indian society and `` Bernard Lewis, Richard Pipes and Ibn Warraq`` on muslim.

i have read a bit of or about all of them, and everything i have read or heard indicates that they deserve to be heard with respect by all (including members of the respective communities of which they write).

i would not pay much attention if it was some moron like jay ridiculing these people. but if even you think negatively of them too (IF you do), then perhaps you could cut and paste (IF it does not take more than a couple of minutes of your time) something they have written that does not make sense.

re: nazarhayatkhan # 138

You forget to mention the name of Admiral Ahsan, who was the governor of East Pakistan and who disagreed with the policies of the government in Islamabad. He is one of the few Pakistanis, in the military from that time period, who is still fondly remembered by the people of Bangladesh.

I remember a conversation with my mother. The topic of the conversation was a discussion my father and a friend of his had in Peshawar. He told my father that it ``was all over``; said they were 24 federal secretaries in all of Pakistan and out of these, only four were Bengali. He was a friend of my father`s from the time when my father was posted in Dacca in the early 1950s.

Ciao

RE: #137 by Mukhlis

You have hit at least a half dozen ``sixers`` (to borrow from Cricket) in your Reply.

The People of Pakistan knew very little of what their Army was doing in Bangladesh.

They were continually informed that ``Indian Agents`` were being sought there.

Bhutto was not an innocent bystander in many events. But he has been used as an excuse

by too many others for their own failures.

Bhutto`s biggest problem was that he had streaks of a genius. In spite of his

many personal failings he was the only true National leader Pakistan has had since the

Quaid.

He is now long gone and did not deserve such a fate. Nor did Sheikh Mujib.

The game was obviously bigger than both of them.

``generally follow Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai as my Indian sources. They seem quite objective
[end-quote]

Here is an equivalent:

I generally follow Bernard Lewis, Richard Pipes and Ibn Warraq as my sources for islam. They seem quite objective. ``

Touche.

Joke of the week from Romair:

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

Here is an equivalent:

I generally follow Bernard Lewis, Richard Pipes and Ibn Warraq as my sources for islam. They seem quite objective.

Nuff said.

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

#118 Fountainheader ``The threat to India on the Eastern theatre was not that Pakistan maintained a huge army presence there........the threat was in the fact that the Eastern neighbour was also Pakistan.

And while the Bangladeshi army may be stronger than what the erstwhile Pakistanis maintained,it is not too much of a threat. A pain in the wrong places at times, perhaps, like a couple of years back when they got into a tiff with the BSF.

Now since what we have there is a small country, we can afford to just station a few companies there and turn our attention westwards. Earlier our doing this would have been conditional to the troop presence in EP.``

What India actually managed to obtain was:

- Create a physically cohesive Pakistan unlike earlier when the two parts were a 1000 miles away and it was a logistical nightmare to re-supply East from the West. In the post- 1971 Pakistan it is also easier to move troops and para forces swiftly from one part to another

- Hastened up the development of Pakistan`s atomic program as Pakistan realised it had to go nuclear if it was to survive in its remaining shape & form. Who knows what some Indian leader would have thought a few years or decades after 1971 (people like Advani come to mind, and also the late K. Sunderji & Rajiv-remember Brasstacks) and start another conventional war in order to break Pakistan into even smaller pieces to ``further reduce the threat`` on its Western borders. The realisation after the break-up was that we probably will never be able to match India in conventional terms. So we have to go nuclear and show India that the price of a similar adventure will be much much heavier next time around.

- Motivated people like A.Q. Khan & other scientists to come to Pakistan and start working wholeheartedly on the nuclear program. I remember reading in a book that A.Q. Khan decided to come to Pakistan after he saw the 16th December surrender ceremony on Dutch T.V.

- Made it very clear to all the governments in Pakistan (both civilian & military- remember Bhutto & Zia both fervently followed up on the nuclear program without let) that without a credible threat to India, there probably will be no country left to govern. So better hurry up with that nuclear program.

- Put Pakistani people`s opinion firmly behind developing a nuclear deterrence. After 1971 it has been much easier to obtain Pakistani public`s support against India by referring to the break-up and India`s role in it.

- And a humiliated Army that seeks to take revenge for the ignominy it had to go through in 1971.

So did India really manage to reduce the threat from Pakistan by breaking it into two?

Now to the brain-washing phenomenon. The Pakistani public may be guilty of ignoring what was going on in East Pakistan and not protresting the killings, but are they guilty in the same league as the bureaucrats, politicians & Army folks who were at the helm of affairs?

Consider this:

-Even now the literacy rate in Pakistan is around 40%. How much was it in 1971? I don`t know.. but much much lesser I can safely assume. How was an illiterate population to find out what was really going on? And how can the Pakistani population of 1971 be compared to the U.S population with 97% literacy rate and all the resources in the world to find out what their Pres. is really up to?

- Both the wings were a 1000 miles away and there was no direct contact between East & West Pakistanis to find out what was going on in the East. Not many West Pakistanis travelled to the West and vice versa.

- Not many people had Television. Even if they did, all that it was probably showing was state propaganda. There was no CNN, BBC or other alternate media for the people to turn to. Even if there had been, how many would have understood English in the first place?

The state propaganda was that some Bengalis have been brainwashed by the Indians, the Hindu teachers in East Pakistan have brainwashed their Muslim students, our army is not fighting a freedom struggle but some miscreants of the Mukti Bahini etc. etc. And this propaganda was doled out day in and day out. Without much alternative news to look at back in 1971, what would the public do?

I believe till 15 December our media was reporting that we are about to win the war & our forces are making great progress. Everyone was dumbstruck when the news of surrender came on the 16th. That was the level of propaganda.

It is also a common practice to put all the blame of 1965 & 1971 wars on Bhutto. I have observed this in many Urdu books & in columns in Urdu newspapers like Jang & Nawa-i-Waqt, and also after talking to Army people. The reasoning basically goes like this:

``Bhutto was the one who started the 65 war. He was the one who actually convinced Ayub that India will not take any action across the international border if Pakistan put pressure on the Kashmir sector``

May be it is true and may be its not. May be it is just another excuse for the army to push all the blame on others for the mess it makes every now and then in Pakistan. And if it is true, how can a Field Marshall President be absolved of his responsibilities. If he were so innocent and gullible to wrong advice what was he doing being the all in all of Pakistan since 1958? Will we accept Bush`s apology if he tomorrow says,``I am so sorry. I was so innocent. It was only Condy Rice, Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld who (mis)led me to the war in Iraq. Blame them because they advised me to do it. Don`t blame me, beacuse I was only following their advice`` Doesn`t work that way.

Bhutto cannot be excused if he gave this type of advice to Ayub. But there are all types of advisers giving all types of advices to leaders. It is up to the leaders to pick the ones they deem to be most reasonable and ultimately the leaders are the ones most responsible for the decisions. They cannot pick the wrong advice and then blame everything on the adviser if things go wrong. The Big Boss is ultimately responsible. This happens in all the big corporations, and in all civilised countries. It`s only in Pakistan that the whole blame is shifted to a civilian by Army`s propaganda machniery whenever there is a failure, be it 1965 (Bhutto convinced Ayub that India will not attack across International borders), 1971 (Bhutto said Idher hum-Udher tum and all hell broke lose. Otherwise we were all lovey dovey with the Bengalis) & Kargil (we were winning-Nawaz sold us out to Clinton). I am amazed why the Army hasn`t so far come up with a spin to blame Siachen fiasco on a civilian too.

Sigleph235 # 121

Mitti Masud was very senior senior to me. I think Sahibzada Yaqub and he are the few sensible faujis who thought otherwise - and did not agree with Govt policies.

Azam Khan was another Fauji who seemed to have done well there as a Governor from the viewpoint of development.

Incidently, we recently had our Sargodha Old Boys 50 years re-union and 70 Bengla Deshi`s with families came to attend it. It included the Pricipal Secretary to the Bagla Desh Prime Minister. MD of Bangla Desh Biman. Some retired generals, doctors, busiessman, politicians - the Bangla Desh Air Chief who is also from the school could not come because of his engagement.

Old Boys Association has completed a school project at Tandio Allayar in Sind - best campus in Pakistan. The Bengla Deshi`s also want to set up a similar school near Dacca, Musharaf who was present at the ceremony said that Pakistan will match the grant given to the school by the Bangla Desh Government. 5 seats have been reserved for students from Bangla Desh.

fountainheader #113: I agree with pretty much what you have stated.

You seem to be a new interactor. It should be educational, exchanging views with you on this issue. I have lost count of how many Indian interactors have declared me a persona non-grata, everytime I have quoted from international sites, on India`s actions on Kashmir. I was expecting the same from you. Surprisingly you did not :-)

Are we finally starting to see the beginings of some introspection from the Indian side :-)

``This though an admirable sentiment is a very gullible one. The country that has been at the lowest level of introspection in the last 100 years, USA, is the strongest in the world.``

You are probably correct again. Perhaps I am too idealistic. There are actually two ways to success. One is through massive economic progress, with or without introspection. If that does not occur, then introspection. So I should rephrase and state that the country, in South Asia, that is the more introspective and/or carries out the most ecnomic progress will be the most sucessful in the long run. Since, South Asian countries are very weak on economic progress, introspection is all they have left.

Also, I think the USA culture is very introspective. They only lost their introspection in foreign policy, after Israel got a hold of their govt. Most of the battles they are fighting are actually more Israel`s battels, than their own.

``By the way, ``The Lost Revolution(or rebellion)`` by Manoj Joshi is one of the most candid and objective accounts of the Kashmir issue, along with details of all brutalities, Indian, Kashmiri as well as Pakistani.``

I will have to check it out. A French (French-Indian?) guy named Oberio has reported a lot, also. I generally follow Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai as my Indian sources. They seem quite objective. If you want to know my views on the issue, they are basically identical to the views of the above three.

Other than that, I usually try to avoid Indian and Pakistani authors on the subject.

``By the way, what makes it tougher for Indians to accept our faults in kashmir, even as we do that in Sri Lanka and Punjab is the spectre of the Jihadi, which is a reality throughout the world. No Khalistani terrorist ever wanted to capture the red fort. The involvement of the extremist element puts an element of fear and hatred in the minds of most Indians. What this has led to is a feeling of being ``at war`` with the Jihadis and pakistan (both mean the same for most Indians nowadays). In a war like scenario, even the media thinks that exposing our own faults will demoralise us.``

I agree again. Pakistan govt. has its own axe to grind in Kashmir. It is using the Kashmiris also. Pakistan and India are like two fleas, fighting over who owns the dog. Pakistan should stop militancy from its side. In the process, the Kashmiris are getting harmed.

There is one difference though. I think Pakistani people, on the whole, have agreed to disown their ownership of Kashmir. Now they are willing to accept whatever the Kashmiris want, including union with India. This is openly expressed in the media, also. This has been shown in surveys, in Pakistan, carried out by Indian magazine(s). This is why you will see a whole range of views, on Kashmir, from Pakistanis on this site - from completely forgetting about it to fighiting for it.

This is what I see missing from the Indian side. 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.

I think the current overtures by the Indian govt. to the APHC are good. If they can sort out something between themselves, even without the involvement of Pakistan, I would support it.

rozaiba #132: ``The REASON anyone cannot be held responsible is PRECISELY because there are people who support the existence of faujiz in power! As long as there is no fair method of checks and balances politicians will ALWAYS play their cards balancing the accoutability they must show toward the people and FAR more signifcantly, making sure NOT to anger those who are the REAL source of power- ie the Faujiz.``

Unfortunately, you are passing the blame also. Why not just accept it. I accept it. Why do you have problems accepting it.

Your comment is not factual either. There were political parties in West Pakistan that were actually in electoral alliances with Mujib and his Awami Party. Weren`t they afraid of the REAL source of power? Bhutto was not afraid of anyone. He was too powerful after the elections. He just wanted outright power, and to do so he had to get rid of Mujib. Somehow or the other.

Even within the military, there were Generals who opposed the actions. Weren`t they afraid of the REAL power?

Do you think people are slaves of the politicians and need their permission before taking any action. What stops you from acting independently? Do you need permission from BB in Dubai? No one can stop anyone from opposing anything, if their will is strong enough. There are no worldwide checks and balances against US invasions, yet look at the number of people out on the streets, in Europe opposign the Americans. In fact, there are people in Pakistan opposing it in the street.

This is why the maulvis in Pakistan always dominate the non-maulvis, even though the maulvis have fewer numbers. Non-maulvis are too cowardly and too prone to making excuses for not opposing something. Have you ever seen the followers of the maulvis present reasons like yours, when they oppose something? They come out on the streets, regardless of the consequences. It doesn`t matter if the govt. is military or not. Look at how many problems they have caused for Musharraf. If they believe their cause is correct, they are out there. Checks or balances or no checks or balances. Even though they are from a lower social strata than you and I. Why aren`t they afraid of the REAL power?

I did not support Zia in power, even though I was in the military. That was not easy to do, but I did it. You will however, see individuals on this site, who were pro-Zia during those days, and now all of a sudden are his biggest critics. I would not have supported Yahya Khan`s policies, specifically in Bangladesh, had I been old enough to oppose them.

Bhutto had a perfectly good chance of solving the 71 scenario, yet he did not. Why give him a clean chit? No one had a gun to his head. All the Generals of his time, got what they deserved. They were all booted out. Yet their are still West Pakistanis crying out loud for Bhutto`s family. Why not give them a boot over 71, also?

I think the differnce between your thinking and mine is that you equate BB and NS with democracy. And I don`t. They are dictators. And I oppose them. And they have proven to be corrupt failures. They don`t even hold elections in their own party. Between them and the maulvis and Musharraf, I will chose Musharraf. However, give me any other politician who is not a dictator and not massivley corrupt, as a potential head of Pakistan, and I will support him/her. In fact, the party I support, openly, is in opposition to the govt.

Always remeber, it is not that hard to oppose any government, be it fauji or otherwise. If people have the will. If today any Pakistani govt., be it fauji or otherwise, invaded, for example, Sri Lanka, I would oppose it. I would not rely on excuses of, ``Checks and balances,`` and REAL power.

You cannot just write off 71 to a fauji govt. Or to even Bhutto, for that matter. You are just passing the blame. You need to accept the blame yourself, if you were an adult at that time (though I think you are too young at the time, as was I).

Romair saab,

Your modest and unassuming ways are endearing.

I note you are firing off statistic after statistic. But as usual you never give yourself (or pakistan) any credit at all...

I mean...you never give statistics like:


1. number of training camps in POK for kashmir jihadis.

2. number of fresh recruits for kashmir jihad per month

3. amount of funds collected for kashmir jihad per month

4. amount paid to shaheed`s family.

5. average age of entry for recruits.


I`m sure you have first hand (or second hand at least) knowledge about these.

You bemoan the fact that no news is forthcoming from our kashmir except from the indian media. Same is true for POK.

If only you would share these POK statistics...we would be thankful.

- - - - - - -

Now, now...don`t abandon this thread because we ask this small favour.

;)

#128 Romair,

``I can provide you with much more information, if you would like.``

Yes, please. Provide us info about training camps in POK.

ahmadmadani 126,

I completely agree with you, what pakistan lacks is culture. All of the local traditions, as you say the ;ove of language by the bengalis, to the festival of flying kites to watching romantic movies of the laila majnu type have been banned in pakistan.
The question of pakistan ka matlab kya still haunts the people.
The ilks of YLH and and tahmed have tried the line that pakistan exists and that is all what is important. But the fact remanins that pakistan was created for islam and as such has an obligation to go by the book.

Despite the emrgence of benazir bhutto, a female politician in an islamic country, thge country has progressed steadily on the islamic path. One cannot blame zia and afghanistan for the jihadisation of pakistan, no ruler elected or military has made a smallest step to move pakistan from the jihadic path. Each have built on the edifice created by the former rulers. Take the case of mushy, he has taken an un-compromising stand against the so called secular political parties of bhutto and nawaz while all the time supporting the jihadists.

At last there is some emerging concensus in pakistan that mushy is following the path set out by zia, he has at last brought into political dominance a jihadic party while vanquishing the others. For the first time the madrassa products of the pak army has its counterparts in the political system.

By crushing the bengalis to the pure entertainment of flying kites, at last the pakistanis can themselves answer the question, pakistan ka matlab kya, it is an islamic republic, with rules per the book. No mushy will change the blasphemy laws, the legalisation of honour killings, it is these elements from the book that form the answer to the question.

Yes, pakistan lacks a culture, but what is refreshing is the emergence of a new culture per the book. One can see it in the madrassas if faisalabad, now fully funded by the mushy govt as the saudi money dries up, one cann see that in the eyes of the parents who have maned their children `osama`.

sighalph235:

``The human cost of the War was more than the dead, wounded, and missing. It was also the living.``

I am reminded of Faiz`s poem:

us tan kee taraf daikho jo qatl gaeh dil hai,
kya rakha hai maqtal main, aye chashm-e-tamashaee...

perhaps this is a misapplication of the poem. But along with the tragedy of masscares that comes out of the events of 1971, is the loss of the spirit of a nation- the latter is often overlooked in sadness over the blood spilt.

Romair:

The REASON anyone cannot be held responsible is PRECISELY because there are people who support the existence of faujiz in power! As long as there is no fair method of checks and balances politicians will ALWAYS play their cards balancing the accoutability they must show toward the people and FAR more signifcantly, making sure NOT to anger those who are the REAL source of power- ie the Faujiz. The Chamcha League though dispicable knows where the real source of power lies. It is playing what few cards it has to play. ZAB played his cards BECAUSE he also knew the Faujiz are the ultimate arbitrars of power.

Romair writes:

``There is absolutely no way the Army could have taken the Bengali action, withouth the support of the West Pakstani people. ``

Like there was absolutely now way the Faujiz could have deposed ZAB? Or cut the terms of BB and NS short twice?

You support the denial of fair democracy in Pakistan by making the excuse that the feudals will control everything. Or that democracy is too much and causes too much chaos in a society that is uneducated. Then you turn around and say that the people supported the military actions.

People like you want to have it every which way with. And so in the end when things get screwed up, you can spread blame around to keep your conscious clean.

I recommend a good exercise for you. Look yourself in the mirror and verbally say what you are saying here on chowk. See if it makes sense. Be honest.

You are right, Romair, Fernandes was the Minister of Kashmir for 3 months in 1990. It slipped my memory completely.

And yes, we Indians do not know too many details about our own government`s faults. I have always thought my countrymen are overly sanctimonious on the Kashmir issue. Though in general, we are well informed about most the government`s misdeeds. Everyone knows that the main blame for the Punjab issue lies with Indira, not Pakistan. The main blame for IPKF lies with Rajiv, not LTTE. However the awareness about what we have done in Kashmir or even North East is pretty low.

The country in South Asia which reaches the highest level of introspection, in my opinion, will be the strongest in the long run. Not the country that reaches the highest no. of textile exports or IT exports.

This though an admirable sentiment is a very gullible one. The country that has been at the lowest level of introspection in the last 100 years, USA, is the strongest in the world.

By the way, ``The Lost Revolution(or rebellion)`` by Manoj Joshi is one of the most candid and objective accounts of the Kashmir issue, along with details of all brutalities, Indian, Kashmiri as well as Pakistani.

By the way, what makes it tougher for Indians to accept our faults in kashmir, even as we do that in Sri Lanka and Punjab is the spectre of the Jihadi, which is a reality throughout the world. No Khalistani terrorist ever wanted to capture the red fort. The involvement of the extremist element puts an element of fear and hatred in the minds of most Indians. What this has led to is a feeling of being ``at war`` with the Jihadis and pakistan (both mean the same for most Indians nowadays). In a war like scenario, even the media thinks that exposing our own faults will demoralise us.

However let me break this to you - people are selfish all over the world. Until you start suppressing them, they will not revolt for someone else`s suppression. Even when you start suppressing them, you need to start suppressing each and every one of them to reach a critical mass for the revolt.

The examples of France, Britain and America doing so well does not really make a case for selflessness I am afraid. Yes, it is very bad, but that`s the way it is.

I think one of the things that is still present in the Pakistani psyche, about 71, even after accepting the overall blame, is that we still keep passing it around. Talk to a General, he will say it was the politicains fault. Talk to the politicians, they will say, it was what the people wanted. Talk to the people, and they will say it was the Army`s fault.

I think individuals are responsible for their own actions. To say that we were brainwashed, or didn`t know what we were doing, or were mislead by the leaders, is a cop out. This excuse can only be used by kids.

Adults of that time, cannot use this excuse. People cannot just get brainwashed. They do so willingly. They don`t speak out. One only gets brainwashed about something one wants to get brainwashed about (like the Americans about Iraq, or Indians about Kashmir, or Pakistanis about Bangladesh etc.).

Why didn`t the military officers of that time, speak out then? What was stopping them? They were not kids? I can say with 100% certainity, I would have spoken out, even if meant court martial. I would have fought to protect the Pakistan borders, from Indian attacks, but I would have opposed the civilian violence. I believe Sahibzada Yaqub did something similar.

Most of all why didn`t the population of Pakistan speak out? There is absolutely no way the Army could have taken the Bengali action, withouth the support of the West Pakstani people. Were there massive riots and marches going on in Pakistan, opposing the 71 action? Were they being suppressed by the Army? I have not read of any such marches or movements in West Pakistan. There was nothing like the current European marches agaisnt the Iraq War, during those days in Pakistan. It was more like the US populations` aceptance of the war.

Based on this, I think adults of that time, instead of providing excuses, and trying to absolve themselves of the blame, should stand up and accept it as their own individual mistake (unless they belonged to a group that did oppose it publicly).

Why do they keep voting for the exact same Bhutto family, when it was so openly involved in 71? Why do they keep voting the exact same PPP into power? Obviously, they are least bothered. I could understand if the PPP leadership has changed and new leaders were at the helm. But it is the exact same family.

I think the same thing will happen in a few years, in India, when all the actions in Kashmir, come to light. The same Indian civilians who are supporitng and justifying all of India`s brutal actions, will then pass the whole blame onto the leaders or the Army or politicians, trying to keep their hands clean. And the same thing will happen in the USA, if the USA`s Iraq policies are exposed. People will pass all the blame onto Bush, even though he was just following the opinion polls. The Democrat candidates have already started doing that, even though nearly each one of them voted for the war.

Speaking out against something, after the fact, requires very little courage. Truly courageous people speak out when the action is going on, even if they have to face personal losses.

fountainheader # ``romair:

The human rights organizations and international press were banned in early 90s (by George Fernandes).

Ehhhh? To the best of my knowledge, Fernandes became Defence Minister only in 1998. He was the Railway Minister for some months in 1989. Either you are mistaken or the source you quote is mistaken.``

Either there are two George Fernandeses or he was involved in Kashmir. Following is his involvment:

``The government of New Delhi took some remedial steps to control the effects of the repression by appointing George Fernandes as minister for Kashmir who was well known both in India and in the rest of the world for his concern for human rights.`` (Kashmir in Conflict, Victoria Schofield, p. 151).

Following is the origination of the current Kashmiri movement:

``His (Jagmohan) return to full control of events in Kashmiron 19 January 1990 marked the begining of a new intensity both in New Delhi`s dealings with the Kashmiris and their response...His government depended heavily on the extremist BJP whose supporters wanted to abrogate article 370 and integrate Kashmir within the Indian Union. The attempt to find a political solution to Kashmir`s problem was put aside in favour of a policy of repression.

On the night of 19 January an intensive hous-to-house search was carried out in an area where millions of militants were believed to be hiding. Three hundred people were arrested, most of whom were later released...The reaction from the people was unprecendented. ``The whole city was out. I was sleeping - it was midnight. I heard pople on the road shouting pro-Pakistan slogans and Islamic slogans -- ``Allah o Akbar``, ``What do we want? We want freedom!`` recalls Haseeb, a Kashmiri medical student.

The next day, as Jagmohan was sworn in as governor....a large demonstration assembled in the streets of Srinigar to protest against the search the night before. In response, paramalitary troops gathered on either side of the Gawakadal bridge over the Jehlum river. When the unarmed crowd reached the bridge it was fired on from both sides of the river. The shooting has been called the worst massacre in Kashmiri history. over a hundred people died, some from gunshot wounds, others, because, in fear, they jumped into the river and drowned.....

Whereas the Indian press played the incident down, the foreign press reported the massacre and its reprecussion to the world. ``Thousands of Muslims chanting ``Indian dogs go home,`` ``We want freedom`` and ``Long live Islam`` marched through Srinigar and other towns, despite police ``shoot-on-sight`` orders,`` reported the Daily Telegraph. As a result foreign correspondents were banned from the valley......``

However, even as the insurgency was gaining in intensity in Kashmir, Indian television ``went overboard with live coverage of the mass movements against authoritarianism in East Europe and Central Asia, inanely oblivious of the tremendous impact each visual of a woman kissing the Quran and taunting a soldier was having in Kashmir,`` writes M. J. Akbar (Schofield, p. 148).

Pakistan seemed to be taken unawares by events in teh valley. ``Islamabad was as surprised as New Delhi by the sudden, dramatic outburst of sentiment for azadi,`` writes Edward Desmond, the Time magazine correspondent`` (Schofield p. 149)

``At the end of February an estimated 400,000 Kashmiris marched on the offices of the United Nations Military Observors Group to hand in petitions demanding the implementation of the UN resolutions. It was reported as the largest demonstration the Kashmir Valley has seen......

On 1 March more than forty people were killed in police firing when a massive crowd, estimated at one million took to the streets....The hospitals were becoming so full of the victims of the insurgency that the name of the Bone and Joint hospital in Srinigar ws changed to the Hospital for Bullet and Bomb Blast injuries.`` (Schofield, p. 150)

So, in fairness to Fernandes, Jagmohan`s reign is when the problem really got big. Fernandes was handed a mess in the central govt.. He did not do much to solve the mess, and it has only increased since then. Eventually Amnesty International was banned also. This is why we can see all the violence carried out by Israel (since Red Cross, international press etc.) are not banned by Israelis. Yet we only get the Indian govt. info from Kashmir.

I have looked long and hard to find objective info in the Indian media, press etc. on Kashmir. To see if they report on how the insurgency started? What the Indian military and forces have done and are doing. Yet I have found nothing, except propoganda. Day in and day out, channels like Zee TV and Indian newspapers (and now movies) hide the above facts. I assume no Indian school teaches the above information I have provided to its students. Due to this, I think everyone in India, and on this site, is convinced that Kashmir is nothing but terrorism.

There is a big (and correct, in my opinion) complaint made by Indian interactors that Pakistanis are taught false history regarding Ghaznavi etc. However, I have never seen any complaints from Indian interactors on this site, about Indian students being taught incorrect current affairs, about what their own govt. in doing in Kashmir. Current affairs have a lot more impact than things that happened centuries ago.

This is why I am always amazed at how little Indians, themselves, know about their own govts.` history and actions in Kashmir. The only objective resources I have found on Kashmir are internatinal resources.

I think we should all try to search for and accept the truth. We should all try to expose the truth of all repressions in South Asia, be it Bangladesh, Kashmir, Sri Lanka or anywhere else, in an objective manner. At the very least, we should not try to hide them and assist in presenting false propoganda. The country in South Asia which reaches the highest level of introspection, in my opinion, will be the strongest in the long run. Not the country that reaches the highest no. of textile exports or IT exports.

I can provide you with much more information, if you would like.

ali #117 welcome back to chowk. i see you are off to a great start. i beg to differ with both you and NHK - but will say this that you have a great sense of humor and God knows we need more of that on chowk. (please try though not to insult our dearly departed panjabi female ancestors).

as for bengalis cleaning streets - they are a notch above the karachiites who make the mess in the first place; and two notches above the world reknowned car-theives of karachi; and three notches above altaf bhai and his gang of MQM thugs; and four notches above the arab terrorists. after all, they earn an honest living and dont hurt anyone - which is more than can be said for the rest of the hoodlums in karachi.

to be fair, i also dont buy Nazar`s romanticized vision of the gentle bengalis. there are no doubt many very nice and gentle bengalis that i have known. and some very very smart bengalis. but no community is without its rotten apples and i could go into the gory details but i wont.

hope you stick around a while on chowk this time and puncture some hot air balloons we have (present company excepted of course).

The story of east pakistan was possibly the biggest cover up in the history of pakistan. Nazar Hayat Khan spoke about the Brainwashing in the Airforce about the Bengalis being traitors, Kamila Shamsie Novel Kartography was based on a similiar notion of the east pakistanis being traitors. Yet its only now that we are beggning to utter these words or some acceptance. About the role of our Jawans in becoming an Occuping army pillaging its way through the civlian populations of East Pakistan. I recently read about one of the Nishan-e-Haider Martyrs giving up his life to to protect the western front from the advances of the Indian Army. Such duplicity of Values, the Army Leadership was corrupt, it was based on racist conception of the East Pakistanis being somehow inferior. Why has the army played such a negative role throughout the political history of pakistan. What is it that is being bred at the Leadership level in the Pak Army?

Recently Mr. Romair asked me question and gave following response
Bangla desh was worst thing happened to Pakistan but best thing to B. Desh.
It was demoralising to say the least. This demolished all innocence about two nation theory and led to Sindhi ( jiye sindh) and baloach problems. The baloach insurgency which needed to be put down Ruthlessly by Bhutto was direct outcome of bangladesh. This lead to reinforcement of resentment of minorities provinces and hatred of Punjab in general. This was most devastating blow to indian muslins psuche. All hypocracy, bigorty, racial animosity, ruthless killing by army was exposed. Till now Pakistani army was victorious by their own standards and in people mind and imaginations. The total uncompetitant conduct of war exposed myth and nation changed for ever. The last Cherished Institution lost all respect nor for defeat but also for nonfightening and immoral practices .
One othe worst thing happened to pakistan was one of educated, thinking,literary (excuseme to say) MORE CULTURED people and their ethos was gone. Bengalis love poetry, music, literature they are not people just with agriculture as culture, they are soft people with great appreciation. (I am Punjabi nominally but sindhi really as lived all life in Karchi). What Punjabis lack is selfrespect. Language is culture, they stood up to Quaid and did not accept crappy idea of urdu when you have great language as mother tongue. They stood and faught and delivered themselves for better.
It is fashion to say good damn we got rid of bloody bengalies but inside we all know its not true. If bengal was part of Pakistan today we would be doing better.

One of worst thing happened the army learnt bad things to go away with crime. The shameless killers and cowards like tikka, Farman Ali .... were never prosecuted. They learnt once any crime will be done and nothing happens. What army and rangers did to Mohajirs in 80/90s was same as killing of wholesale Bengalies. I do not like mohajirs in general due to aggressive and clanish attitude but there men were brutally murdered by army. Only person who has lived in Krachi through that time can understand anguish of Altaf Bhai.
I honestly feel loss of bangla desh was very bad thing happened to Pakistan.
If you have good friend and gentkleman and you are bad man and he decides to part you company. Is it good for him but bad for you. It is perverse pleasure to celebrate onces bad behavious.
I am aware almost all pakistani feel it was good that we broke, but really differ inthis matter.

#123 by stuka
//...The real battle India lost in 1971 was the Simla conference...//

A lot of people say this - but I think such assertions are not entirely valid. May be India was a little more magnanimous in victory than it had to be. But I don`t think it would have really mattered much in the long run even if Indira would have rode rough-shod over Butto`s sorry-a$!$. I mean - do you think Paki Army wouldn`t send Jihadis across just because Bhutto signed on dotted line declaring the LoC as the border( this is the main gripe of people who assert than we gave away at negotiating table what we won in war - that Indira should have forced Bhutto do declare LoC as the border)?

What would have really mattered - if Indira would have taken the war to West Pak and defeated and defanged Paki Army (Something like what Americans did in Japan). Leaving offensive capabilities of Paki Army in tact was a mistake.

Whether India was capable of doing that is another question and is speculative at this point (even though I personally think it could have been done, probably at a higher cost). Any case American actions ruled out any such adventure. But I think Indira was tempted to do that - she was one bal!sy lady.

Fuzair:

``So, who would have won? Probably, eventually, the Indians but they would have paid a very heavy price for it and Generals like Manekshaw weren`t sure it was possible, even without the US intervening to ``save`` Pakistan. ``

I don`t think so. Like you said, the casualty figures appear to be lopsided on the west because Pakistan was making offensive moves while India was fighting a holding action, concentrating on the east. Besides, in the west, the PA would have fought on homeground with a supportive local populace. Winning west Pakistan is a pipe dream unless one is talking of grabbing portions to be used as bargaining chips. The real battle India lost in 1971 was the Simla conference.

#116 - fuzair

The problem with `neutralizing` the Eastern Threat is that Bangladesh is now far stronger and a far greater military threat to India than East Pakistan ever was.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh????

The threat to India on the Eastern theatre was not that Pakistan maintained a huge army presence there........the threat was in the fact that the Eastern neighbour was also Pakistan.

And while the Bangladeshi army may be stronger than what the erstwhile Pakistanis maintained,it is not too much of a threat. A pain in the wrong places at times, perhaps, like a couple of years back when they got into a tiff with the BSF.

Now since what we have there is a small country, we can afford to just station a few companies there and turn our attention westwards. Earlier our doing this would have been conditional to the troop presence in EP.

Personally I feel Indira Gandhi made a wise move by leaving West Pakistan alone. But I do feel she could have extracted more out of the Shimla Conference than she managed.

#117

Only one word - Disgusting

re ali 117

``They end up mostly sweeping the floors and cleaning the sewers in Karachi. But hey! its their choice. ``

Can`t help it bhai, how else are they going to support the 3 lakh Pakistanis in our refugee camps for 32 years?

``I wonder if they can ``smell`` their ``jute`` when they are down cleaning the gutters beneath MA Jinnah Road, like Mujibur Rehman smelt it while walking besides MA Jinnah Road.``

No, but they can certainly smell the blood of Mohajirs spilt in Karachi everyday by the agencies since the mid-`80s.

Nazar sahib

Your soliloquy in # 107 makes me feel guilty about often forgetting the culture, the heritage, and yes, Tagore. Like Rozaiba # 114 said, I wasn`t born then either but we all lost something. Above all the ease of being with families and friends. I know it all too deeply with a family that is split between, what is now, two countries separated by 1600 miles. The human cost of the War was more than the dead, wounded, and missing. It was also the living.

As an aside, did you know or serve with the late Mitty Masud who just passed away?

Mr Ali, # 117, Saminshah was absolutely correct, till people like NHK are around Pakistan will InshAllah survive. And survive will it InshAllah do.

Exactly like that, Ali, till people like you are around, Pakistan will keep on facing humiliation like 71. And, unfortunately, there are too many like you around to rule out this possibility.

Yours was the most disgusting, pathetic and repugnant reply this thread has generated thus far. Yours parents should be damned proud of the creature they gave birth to.

#107 by nazarhayatkhan

[``I deeply miss them - ``]

You dont have to. The machhli walas are coming in droves, crawling on their stomachs across Thar and lining up outside the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka. They end up mostly sweeping the floors and cleaning the sewers in Karachi. But hey! its their choice.

I wonder if they can ``smell`` their ``jute`` when they are down cleaning the gutters beneath MA Jinnah Road, like Mujibur Rehman smelt it while walking besides MA Jinnah Road.

Re: Mohar11 and Fountainheader,

The problem with `neutralizing` the Eastern Threat is that Bangladesh is now far stronger and a far greater military threat to India than East Pakistan ever was. One of the reasons why the Bengalis were so upset with Pakistan was that the ``defense of the East lies in the West`` attitude of the Pakistani Army. E. Pakistan only had a token military presence until 1971, when it was more than doubled because of the insurgency.

So, unless the Indians were envisaging a client state a la Bhutan, neutralizing E. Pakistan was an incredibly stupid move. Of course, one of the reasons why the Army mutineers killed Mujib was because he was perceived as an Indian puppet and the Indians maintained a substantial military presence in Bangladesh well after 1971. Maybe that was their plan and Col. Farooq Rahman put an end to it?

As far as `neutralizing` West Pakistan goes, that is indeed one of the great `what ifs?` of history. Many Indian armchair strategists bemoan letting Pakistan live in 1971 and cry see what is happening in Punjab/Kashmir now! Would the IA have been able to militarily neutralize W. Pakistan? Maybe, maybe not.

Pros:
Badly demoralized Pakistani Army and badly shaken country.

Cons:
No overwhelming force superiority in the West.
Very difficult to move troops quickly from East to West.
Pakistani strategic reserve (one armour and two infantry divisions) uncommitted.
PAF essentially intact.

So even without the US ``saving`` Pakistan in 1971, the Pakistan Army was still a strong fighting force in the West. In fact, even Manekshaw did not foresee the magnitude of his victory in the East. The campaign was expected to takes weeks longer and cost the Indians much, much more than it did. However, the Eastern Front still cost the Indians about 5,700 casualties. The Pakistani troops in the West were not as badly demoralized, without any air support and with a commander as incompetent as Niazi. So would the West have been the cakewalk that Indian armchair strategists of the Bharat-Rakshak variety think it would have been?

Well, the IA took about 5,800 casualties in the West and claimed to have inflicted about 15,000 on the Pakistanis. Quite lopsided but possible if the Indians were defending prepared positions and the Pakistanis were charging headlong onto them. However, the acknowledged Indian casualties still indicate that the PA was not that badly demoralized and could still fight.

So, who would have won? Probably, eventually, the Indians but they would have paid a very heavy price for it and Generals like Manekshaw weren`t sure it was possible, even without the US intervening to ``save`` Pakistan.

to : #107 by nazarhayatkhan on November 22, 2003 6:08am PT

you desplay very high moral which i never think any pakistani may likely to contend.till ppl like u in pakistan,pakistan will survive.

NazarHayatKhan:

``I deeply miss them - I think Pakistan lost its softer side by losing them. ``

That was touching. You speak my heart! Though I wasn`t even born then, I say Pakistan lost it`s soul in 1971.

#109 by fountainheader

You hit the nail on the head.

//...India saw this as an excellent opportunity to neutralise one of those 3 frontiers...//

I think the plan was also to ``neutralize`` the western frontier. But for the Americans, that would have been done, and the region would have been much more peaceful by now. Pakistanis, like Bangladeshis, would have had a working democracy by now (with possible imperfections) and would have been trying to improve their economy rather wasting resources on a debilitating fight with much more powerful neighbor.

Actually, the considering the standard of Paki economy at that point time( 6% growth as compared 3% ``Hindu rate of growth`` in India ) - pakis would have been way ahead of India by now. Instead of exporting Talibans to all over the world, Pakis would have been exporting software.

One of those ``if only`` questions of history.

#107 by nazarhayatkhan on November 22, 2003 6:08am PT

I admire you for your honesty! You are a noble and pure soul!!

fountainheader #110 This is perhaps the best presentation of the situation i have seen on chowk from anyone, pakistani or indian. the only qualifier i would add is that 1965 was a different time than today: kashmir was very much a disputed territory, and pakistanis felt quite rightly that the will of the people of kashmir was being unfairly suppressed by the indian government that seemed to set aside all laws and principles in order to hang on to a piece of turf. but as i said, that was 1965 and today after 35 more years have passed, it just does not make sense to keep harping on kashmir. We need to get on with more important things.

the fact that pakistan was the aggressor in 1965 in kashmir (and indeed my own late and beloved uncle led the tank regiment that spearheaded the attack on chhamb-jaurian), does not mean that we should shy away from the facts. only thing i would add is that this attack was the brainchild not of the pakistan military but of the ambitious foreign minister bhutto.

and thus bhutto derailed pakistan from the path of economic development and into the path of instability, confrontations, violence.

I stayed in a hostel with my Benglai friends for years. They were great people - they were much more cultured, refined and artistic than us. They were also proud of their culture, language and Tagore - as it should be. They were politically far more sensitive and aware of their rights.

I deeply miss them - I think Pakistan lost its softer side by losing them.

There are no excuses. The West Pakistani Governments - read bureacrats/Army - did not treat them fairly. Even the political leader of time - Bhutto- refused to accept the Bengali Majority in the Assembly.

It goes to their credit and tolerance that they stuck for 24 long years with Pakistan - even in the end, Mujib was willing to compromise - and stay togather.

1971 was only the culminating point - the grounds for separation had been laid much earlier.

Only we, the Pakistanis are to blamed - and we do not have even the decency to apologize for the atrocities that we committed.

1971 was a complete political & military failure by Pakistan - the greater tragedy is that we have yet not dispassionately discussed the causes of 1971 - and found its underlying root causes.

That is why we continue to harp on the two nation theory when it clearly failed in 1971 - and we did not evolve a new more logical contract between the people of the rest of Pakistan.

A contract based on the four distinct nationalities of Pakistan voluntarily joining to form a federation of Pakistan on a mutually acceptable and a beneficial basis.

For some people, it may be harsh post but I needed to get it out of my system. I saw the 1971 & I was in the armed forces - a junior officer who got the same brainwashing about the Bengalis being a traitor.

#82 by Romair on November 21, 2003 11:46am PT


romairbhai if we accept you statastices that mean if indian kills kashmiri they it is justified to kill bengali.right
what we expect from millitery men.millitery dont understand indivisual`s tragedies.
sad.

India`s role in the Bangladesh issue is neither that of a white knight on a stallion, nor the dark villain, but probably somewhere in between.

What I say is on the universally accepted premise that Pakistan started the 1965 war. If enlightened individuals like urstruly, romair etc are going to dispute this, don`t read my comment any further.

In 1962, there was the Indo-China war, and in 1965, Pakistan attacked India. Though the fighting did not really spill on to the eastern theatre in 65, imagine India`s situation at that time. On the north, you had a hostile china, on the west you has a hostile pakistan, and on the east, you had a hostile Pakistan as well. three frontiers to defend for a country that was an economic midget then. When the whole bengali issue started gaining strength in the late 60s, India saw this as an excellent opportunity to neutralise one of those 3 frontiers. It provided support to the Bengalis which is similar to what Pakistan provided in Punjab in the 80s.

The army in Pakistan had already done a wonderful job of botching up the issue. India merely took what was offered to it on a platter, i. e a chance to cut Pakistan into two.

To offer a cricket analogy, suppose a batsman slips while taking a run and falls in mid-pitch. A gentleman bowler would not run him out. However a smart bowler would. India was that bowler. Not noble perhaps, but acting in self interest. As long as the fielding side does not actually trip the batsman and makes him fall, they are just taking what has been offered to them by a stroke of good luck.

What has happened in Punjab and Kashmir is this. The other inning has now started and the batsman who was run out is now the bowler, and the bowler who earlier affected the run out is the batsman and has tripped, finding himself in an identical position. In the case of Punjab, despite tripping, the batsman managed to scramble home, and though the bowler dislodged the bails, he did not get a wicket.

In Kashmir, the third umpire is yet to give a decision. I personally feel India will scamper home and will not be run out.

There is no moral high ground for any country in the dirty politics of South Asia. there is only a victorious high ground.

romair:

The human rights organizations and international press were banned in early 90s (by George Fernandes).

Ehhhh? To the best of my knowledge, Fernandes became Defence Minister only in 1998. He was the Railway Minister for some months in 1989. Either you are mistaken or the source you quote is mistaken.

#105 by stuka on November 21, 2003 8:11pm PT

Dude. The context is Bangladesh- and the same 9/11 deniers are spreading propoganda and lies about the genocide- by saying ``it never occured`` or ``What could army officers have done! It was done by some renegade soldiers.`` or at best `` It did not happen the way it has been made out to be by the Indian propogandist.`` So the strategy is only one- obfuscation- dispute the facts- denounce those against whom there is evidence- and save the rest by citing lack of evidence. The fact remains that guys have been directly or indirectly participated in the slaughter- and they have got away with it . The criminals now feign ignorance and try to evoke sympathy by propoganda that 1971 was ``humiliation`` of the ENTIRE PAkistan!!!- when infact it was the entire bengali community that was humiliated with the genocide- I know of some Islamist who consider that genocide as HONOUR KILLING.- this is sickening!!!
Can some of the guys like Romair throw light on their role in 1971????

Ballu Khan:

Dude, you are getting hysterical. The funny thing is that Pakistanis bring up Kashmir when they talk of Indian Army atrocities. From what knowledge I have, Kashmir is a football match compared to what the Army has done in the North East in the 60s and 70s. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Sigalph:

You make a political delineation between the Bangladeshis and Kashmiri examples. My running comparisons was limited to the military realm alone.

``If Bangladesh was contiguous to Pakistan, u guys still would have managed to control it.``

And

``If it had not been language, it would have been the price of fish, but sooner or later the two countries would have gone their different ways.``

Which statement do you endorse actually? :)

LOL!! Both.

The first would apply if East and West Pakistan were contiguous. Regardless of the underlying factors, the insurgency/freedom struggle would not have reached the critical mass required to secede. The Army would have quelled it.

The second statement points towards the biggest factor that led to the seperation in the first place, the lack of geographic contiguity. My point, that you bring out in the contrasting statement s, was that flaw was structural to begin with. Language just happened to be an issue that first ignited political unrest. In that sense, I disagree with your view that there could have been a federal Pakistan if Mujib and Bhutto had compromised. At most, a compromise would have delayed the inevitable independence of Bangladesh.

I demand an answer from all the ex-army men on this board!! I just want their account without any explanation as to what were they doing during those 256 days!!!!


I would like to know how many Bangladeshis Musharaff KILLED?? I demand to know how many Bengalis did he RAPE??? I demand to know what this rascal was doing at the time of 1971- was he providing logistic support to the Butchers or was he Looting the houses of Bengalis?????

A number of interesting points have been brought forward here
thus far. But let us not forget that Bangladesh was an idea whose
time had come mainly due to the arrogance and racism of W. Pakistanis.
India only sealed the fate of the Pakistani occupation (because that is
what it had become after March 25th 1971).

My only debate with Nakhok has been about the numbers killed.
That in no way diminishes the brutality and killing of thousands
of innocent people (Bengalis) by people in uniform who are
supposed to know about discipline. But let us also not forget the
merciless killing of West Pakistanis and “Biharis” by Bengalis
before March 25 and after the surrender.

I do not agree with Urstruly’s comments about Hindus. Whether
it is Bangladesh or Kashmir, Hindus or Muslims, Buddhists or Atheists,
it is saddening to see how quickly South Asians lose their Humanity.
It was shocking to read and hear about Gujarat. We are all still in deep
trouble.

After having spent what is now 30 years in the United States I have
still not discovered what I should hate about Hindus. What I have
come to dislike though is this new found arrogance amongst some Indians,
as if they are superior to those around them (remind you of anybody?) .
The recent new-found (and well deserved) affluence amongst some Indians
needs to be put to better use then trying to put Pakistanis down.
It does not help to keep bringing up 1971 because certain segments of Pakistani
society are already quite irrational. Revenge clouds their judgment.

Indians, Pakistanis, Bagladeshis and Kashmiris need to sit down and do
a peaceful rethink. After each war, only the outside world has won.
It is time to apologize, forgive and move on. It is time to tell people the truth.

The South Asian record on human rights STINKS collectively.
Let us learn from the 1971 Bengalis. You cannot treat people badly for too
long and not expect a reaction.

So pick what suits you from

Jai Hind
Pakistan Zindabad
Joi Bangla &
Azadi

But do not dehumanize your competition in such a volatile environment.
Let us not play with matches around gunpowder.
Or the next genocide
in South Asia will be much larger than 1971.

Re Stuka 84

``If Bangladesh was contiguous to Pakistan, u guys still would have managed to control it.``

And

``If it had not been language, it would have been the price of fish, but sooner or later the two countries would have gone their different ways.``

Which statement do you endorse actually? :)

Kashmir and Bangladesh

The analogy of the two, often engaged in by unreconstructed apologists of Yahya-Tikka-Niazi clique, is somewhat less clear-cut than we would be led to believe. And we have had this discussion previously here.

I am and always have been a strong supporter of the right of self-determination for the people of ALL of Jammu and Kashmir as envisaged under a UN plebiscite that was pledged by Liaquat Ali Khan, Pandit Nehru, and Sheikh Abdullah. That right devolves on the Kashmiris in the spirit of the lapse of Crown Paramountcy in 1947.

Bangladesh is not a case like Kashmir. The right of self-determination vis-a-vis the Raj was already exercised in 1946-47 when Bengal became one of the only two provinces to return pro-Pakistan legislatures in the polls. What happened in 1970-71 was different than mere self-determination by an ethnic minority. For starters it was NOT a minority or even a plurality, but a majority of Pakistan. Secondly, a majority of the representatives duly elected by the Pakistani electorate decided, after trying hard to avoid it, to create a new state. Thirdly, given the fact that the assembly elected in 1970 was not only a legislative but also a CONSTITUENT body (i.e. empowered to write a constitution etc), just like the 1787 Philly Convention, it could really do as it pleased-such powers are inherent in duly elected constituent assemblies. And they did by a majority, not just a plurality, of these members deciding to do so. So, there is a compelling case for Bangladesh being not a separated part of but rather a successor state to, Pakistan. (It is not just for fun and giggles that a thorough Pakistani patriot like YLH has suggested that Bangladesh as it stands today may be closer to the Pakistani ideal that the Quaid-e-Azam envisioned).

The theory that `you are doing in Kashmir and we did it in Bangladesh` is rather juvenile. Kashmir is a small part administered by India; Bangladesh was more than half of Pakistan. Flawed and often fretful, India is a democracy; Pakistan was not and is not. At the end of the day India`s armed forces are responsible to their civilian superiors, the courts, and ultimately, the people of India, a responsibilty that their Pakistani counterparts did not have in 1971.

Does it make India`s actions in Kashmir any less outrageous? No. But for good or bad, India`s public opinion counts and that opinion has generally supported the clinging on to Kashmir. And yes, whether so many well-intentioned Pakistanis like it or not, India will always have a little more than ordinary indulgence regarding Kashmir because it is a democracy, Gujarat and Ayodhya notwithstanding. If you really want a plebiscite in Kashmir, get into the culture of holding meaningful elections in Pakistan first.

re: 21 urstruly

thanks for the post!

Bangladeshi and West Pakistani thinking is poles apart. If one are French, the other are Germans.

The war and loss was inevitable. West Pakistani (WP) arrogance and uncouth ways and racial biases would ultimately clash with Bengalis way of thinking. WPs underestimated the Bengali nationalism and resistance. They didn`t predict India`s reaction. Ultimately they paid the price with humilation. Had India played a game and handed the 90,000 POWs to Bengalis and their officers for war crimes, it would`ve been something. Like the fox of ``angoor khatey hain`` fame, Pakistanis utter `we are better off without Bengalis; they were a liability.``

On the other hand, 3 decades later, India expecting Bengalis to be forever in gratitude is experiencing a rude awakening. Bangladeshis have not only forgotten, but are inflicting same kind of atrocities on Hindus as they received at the WPs. Bangladeshis are swarming to NE and rest of India for better economy. Biharis are another unresolved issue. Bangladesh is a new nesting ground for international and anti-India terror. For India, Bangladesh is a new nightmare.

WPs who fared better in the previous 2 wars are always silenced with 1971 reminder. It irks and needles them. Separation of Kashmir would provide some solace. They don`t realize that it is easier to dissect Pakistan (Sindhi, Baluchistan, NWFP, and Mohajjir issues)than India.

Neither India nor Pakistan has learned any lessons from this war. They will repeat the same mistakes and create more grave problems in future.

#91 Urstruly
80000/30000 ... on one cares in india.

my folks visited j&k in 1980, with Raja travels. they had nothing to say regarding religion.
all they said was folks are nice but poor.. no mention of politics.

do you really care?

Pakistan`s ruling elite had persistently propounded the myth of ``martial races`` to ensure its grip on power. Soon after independence, it coined the slogan, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan.`` Pakistanis were encouraged to dream that it is only a matter of time that the Pakistani flag will be flying atop the Red Fort in Delhi. Pakistanis were encouraged to think of themselves as the new Mughals with the demise of the British Raj.

Generals like ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan never made any secret of their racist disdain for not only the ``Hindu`` soldiers of India but even of the ``non-martial`` East Pakistanis. In their perspective, ``martial races`` were the Prussians of the subcontinent. It was deemed to be the manifest destiny for the military officers from ``martial races`` to eventually rule over the entire subcontinent. Ordinary Pakistani soldiers were brainwashed into believing that one Pakistani soldier equalled ten ``Hindu`` soldiers.

The tradition continues. Ardeshir Cowasjee is a venerable figure in Pakistani journalism. Here is an excerpt from his article ``End Game?`` published in DAWN of 18th July, 1999:

---

..... As for our war-mongers and zealots, the uneducated and ignorant majority, they should be informed by the government in power that India makes a formidable foe. Its armed forces are twice the size of ours, making it impossible for us to sustain a military conflict. Economically, if reserves are anything to go by, India is forty times our size. It is of no use us propagating the myth that one Pakistani soldier is equal in strength and courage to five Indian soldiers. Our retired generals, colonels, air marshals, wing-commanders, admirals and commodores do us a disservice when they air their views on the national media and relate how, whenever Muslims have gone to war, it has been against a foe far superior in number but their spirit of sacrifice and their valour have always made them victors. Wars now cannot be won without global sympathy and support. Propaganda must have credibility behind it. .....

---

Pakistan`s ruling elite should cease to see itself as the Prussians of the subcontinent. There can be no military solution to differences between Pakistan and India. General Pervez Musharraf did a disservice to the subcontinent by plotting a military solution via Kargil even as his civilian boss Nawaz Sharif sought a peaceful solution in Lahore. It was as wrong as it was imprudent.

It is the height of irresponsibility to seek a military solution when you know that your opponent too has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are deterrents, at best. They can never be used either by Pakistan or India to browbeat the other.

Urstruly:

Waisey, for all the gaalis I give you otherwise, let me also remind that you that I also recognized the validity of most of the points you had put up as your perspective on what India should do. Sometimes humanity does leak through from you.

Uurstruly:

The only courtesy I demand of you is the same that you give to your own army in East Pakistan. The question is not of numbers. While you do not defend the killing of innocents in East Pakistan, you are careful to provide contaxt. Why do you then refuse to accept that same context in Kashmir? Don`t be true to Hhindus. At least be true to yourself. It is not a question of numberrs but of perception, Black/White Versus Grey.

You say:

``The fact however, remains that everyday innocent Kashmiris are being killed as well as the Indian soldiers. `` Yes, and so are millitants being killed. Those who are from Karachi, as well as Pakistani Kashmir. And also, the innocent Kashmiris are also being killed through militant attacks. Read the headlines yourselves. Who is responsible if a bomb is thrown and 30 people killed in a bazaar? The intended target?

Arrey yaar, sitting in America if Ii can meet a Pakistani whose cousin was injured in Indian Kashmir, I am sure you know the truth better then I do.

I can see that our friend, Romair (aka jihad-lite) is back with his silly mis-attributions about the suffering kashmiris. His transparent mistatements, larded with references to Victoria Schofield and Peter Jennings, would be quite funny if they did not refer to such a serious matter.

I have read the book by Victoria Schofield. It basically describes the problem as a very difficult one and blames all the parties involved quite equally. THIS INCLUDES THE SO-CALLED LEADERSHIP OF THE KASHMIRI SUNNI MUSLIMS FROM THE VALLEY. It describes them as naive and living in a fantasy land with no real interest in finding a solution. It is also very clear about explaining who is responsible for the killings of civilians in the recent past.

Here are some of the atrocities of Romair`s beloved freedom fighters. I have not included a single attack against the Indian military on this list.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07EEDC1630F937A2575BC0A9659C8B63
Two civilians and a policeman were killed and 39 people, mostly civilians, were wounded when Islamic separatists detonated a bomb in a crowded market in Indian-controlled Kashmir. A little-known militant group, Al Mansoorin, took responsibility for the explosion, in the town of Bandipore, 20 north of Srinagar. The blast came as security was being tightened for India`s Independence Day celebrations on Friday. David Rohde (NYT)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DA143FF930A15754C0A9659C8B63
After a lull that had raised hopes for peace in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, Islamic separatists struck twice in spectacular raids at an Indian army base and an annual Hindu pilgrimage, killing a total of 14 people

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E3DF173FF931A15754C0A9659C8B63
Seven pilgrims were killed and 38 were wounded in twin bomb blasts by suspected militants in state of Jammu and Kashmir, the police said. Pilgrims were on the way to a revered Hindu temple. Officials fear that the casualty figure may rise. P.J. Anthony (NYT)


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E11FC39590C748EDDAD0894DB404482


FOREIGN DESK | April 27, 2003, Sunday
5 Dead and 10 Wounded in Attacks in Kashmir

---

This is a freedom struggle? Excuse me while I throw up....

Stuka

I dont know what sort of courtesy you are demanding from me. Should I start saying that its not 80,000 (a number that is stuck at it for the past four years) Kashmiris that have been killed by Indians and instead start saying that its 35000 (a number that is also stuck at it for the past four years, inspite of almost daily carnage)? Would that make any difference? Unless India lets human rights orgs in Kashmir, the numbers mean nothing. The fact however, remains that everyday innocent Kashmiris are being killed as well as the Indian soldiers. This is reported by your own media. If your media is making this up then there cannot be any insurgency or foreign interference in Kashmir, logically; it is propaganda and horse-shit. But if your media is telling the truth then fact on the ground is that your government is killing its own people at the cost of its own soldiers. The bottomline is that the human beings are being killed - and they are being killed for the past 12 years. Someone has to stop this carnage and this madness. This carnage and this madness would not stop by being courteous but by forcefully demanding the truth and transparency - not by others but by you as well. You have responsibility towrds your fellow human beings and fellow countrymen - your atoot ang, that is.

PS. It is this transparency that I am asking for in the case of Bangladesh - the truth - by putting the claims of very people to scrutiny. The facts however, will remain guestimates at best unless an independent human right org goes into Bangladesh and looks into it.

87 & 89 are not by me.

#10 by durman.tk on November 21, 2003 0:52am PT

++
Further More the TV operas on majority shows extra maritial affairs, illegitimate children, fighting over fathers estates......``bhabis`` fighting each other.....getting each others children killed......Now its not only Pakistan...but also the Indians who should avoid development of tolerance to such culture
++

Maybe they should show kids joining madrassahs, learning the koran by rote, learning to hate non-muslims and going off to fight a jihad against the infidell...

Now that would be fiction tailored to Pakistani society.

Oh, and with my previous post, I do not meant to take anything away from Temporal`s article whcih was wriiten on a different plane altogether. Temporal`s perspective is humane, which is usually the last priority given in statecraft but the first priority given by ordinary people in their personal capacity.

#10 by durman.tk on November 21, 2003 0:52am PT

++
Further More the TV operas on majority shows extra maritial affairs, illegitimate children, fighting over fathers estates......``bhabis`` fighting each other.....getting each others children killed......Now its not only Pakistan...but also the Indians who should avoid development of tolerance to such culture
++

Maybe they should show kids joining madrassahs, learning the koran by rote, learning to hate non-muslims and going off to fight a jihad against the infidell...

Now that would be fiction tailored to Pakistani society.

#81 by AlephNull

++++
Am I to understood that Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is motivated by a desire for revenge for the alleged 1971 “defeat”, rather than a pure and unalloyed concern for the human rights and welfare of Kashmiris? Who would have guessed.
++++

Yes, indeed! Who would have guessed!!

Pakistan`s military has always been very very ``professional`` whenever it came to protecting its vested interests. Kashmir has been very useful to Pakistan`s military. In fact, it has been so useful that the military will simply have to invent another Kashmir if and when Pakistan annexes Kashmir.

``Kashmir Banega Pakistan`` is not a Kashmiri slogan. It is a slogan from the cantonments in Sialkot, Lahore and Rawalpindi. But, no, revenge is not the motive anymore than it was the motive when Papa Bhutto stood atop the gallows or when the Generals sent Junejo, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif packing time and again.

However, there is a real danger that the army can become victim of its own lies and myths and of its own propaganda. Altaf Gauhar (editor of DAWN and information secretary in the regime under ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan) wrote a very insightful article, ````Four Wars, one Assumption`` in the aftermath of the Kargil war. Writing of the four wars in 1948, 1975, 1971 and 1999, Altaf Gauhar wrote:

``..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to Pakistan.``

That was a natural corollary to the philosophy that had the top brass in Pakistan clamoring, ``Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan`` on the very morrow of independence. It was a natural corollary to the philosophy that had led the top brass into brainwashing the ordinary soldiers in Pakistan into believing that one Pakistani soldier was more than ten ``Hindu`` soldier.

In the aftermath of Kargil and the American ultimatum after 9/11, General Pervez Musharraf may have belatedly realized the folly of nurturing the martial-races theory. He may have realized that worse fate awaits if Pakistan`s army cannot cure itself of its Prussian complex which it has brought upon itself by its own propaganda. Hence his admonition to those that dream of unfurling the Pakistani flag atop the Red Fort.

Unfortunately, the martial-races theory had been nurtured among Pakistani soldiers (rank and file) for so long, that General Pervez Musharraf cannot force a change overnight. But he must keep on trying because such foolhardiness can accidentally trigger a nuclear war where no tactical finesse will prevail to prevent a catastrophe for Pakistan and India alike.

#78 stuka

++++
Actually, Hindi is the national language of India. English is also given ``official status`` but is not the national language.
++++

The following website gives a pretty good insight into the concepts of national language and official language in India:

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/india/hohenthal/5.1.html

Currently 18 languages are listed in eighth schedule of India`s Constitution (Articles 344 (1) and 351). These are India`s national languages. A currency note in India carries the denomination in all national languages. And most of these national languges have official language status in one or more of the 29 states of the Indian Union.

Hindi is the official language (and English the associate official language) of the Union government and of the Parliament. But English is not a national language.

English will remain an Associate Official Language of the Union and of the Parliament till the Parliament and every state legislature in unison decide otherwise. Hence, the insistence of even a single small state like Nagaland or Mizoram is enough to preserve the Associate official language status of English.

Following
(a) are all facts.
(b) are not mutually exclusive.

---

(1) Punjabi is a national language of India.

(2) Punjabi is the official language of Punjab.

(3) Punjabi is the second official language of the state of Delhi.

(4) Hindi is a national language of India.

(6) Hindi is the official language in states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattishgarh, Uttarachal etc.

(7) Hindi is the official language of the Union Government in New Delhi.

(8) English is not a national language of India.

(9) English is the official language of Nagaland.

(10) English is the associate office language of the Union Government in New Delhi.

(11) Bengali is a national language of India.

(12) Bengali is the official language of West Bengal and Tripura.

(13) Nepali is a second official language in West Bengal.

(14) Bengali, itself, is a second official language in Assam.

---

Romair:

``I agree with Fuzair that all of us – Indians, Pakistanis, (and even Bangladeshis) - have blood on our hands. Different groups at different times. In 71, it was primarily Pakistanis. Now it is primarily Indians. ``

I agree with Fuzair but draw a different conclusion. Pakistan today regrets Bangladesh because it lost, the enemy action boomernaged on it. Had it succeeded, it would have joined the ranks of Sindh and Baluchistan as Army successes. Tthe Pak Army`s fault was not in launching a crackdown but in using a hammer when it needed a needle.

You mention the bridge incident? Yes, a few dozen were killed. Bij Behara, 45 people were killed. Iin Punjab, North East or Kashmir, I cannot think of any incident that approaches the scale of Op Searchlight. Tthe closest is maybe Bluestar. Even that was smaller, but the result of it we had to see for 10+ years. If Bangladesh was contiguous to Pakistan, u guys still would have managed to control it. And regardless of casualties, I would not see any hand wringing by the establishment.

The only thing that differentiates the Bangladesh phenomenon is not language or east-west majority, it is the lack of geographic contiguity between two states which had religion as the ONLY common bond. Pakistan and Bangladesh as one country make lesser sense then Pakistan and Afghanistan or Pakistan and Oman as one country. If it had not been language, it would have been the price of fish, but sooner or later the two countries would have gone their different ways.

Romair:

The number killed includes Security Forces as well as innocent victims of militant groups. Please read the papers. Grenade thrown at picket kills 12 cilvillians. Car bomb explodes and kills 4 security forces and 10 civillians. All these are included.

The number killed by Counter Indsurgency operations forms a fraction of the numbers.

As far as troops are concerned, the lowest figure is quoted by the Indians at roughly 300, 000 troops. This number includes troops stationed in all of Kashmir, including Ladakh. Therefore, this number includes all tropps on regular defensive deployment in Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh areas. It includes all administrative and support personnel. And it is a number spread out over an area more then ten times the size of the valley. The number also includes Police and BSF. Why don`t you check how many Pakistani troops are deployed under normal circumstances in POK, Gilgit, NAs and look at the differential.

The ridiculousness of Pakistani estimates is exposed by the fact that our total strength (even as it is recognized by Pakistan) is 1.1 million troops approx. Since India has not deployed reserves, by Pakistani estimates, we have 80% of our troops in Kashmir (just the valley btw if you look at Pakistani propaganda) and the rest 30% scattered over China border, rest of Pakistan border and the 19 other insurgencies we are currently fighting along with admin staff, HQs etc.

Well, by that low level of defense, your Army should have just walked into Delhi by now.

Stuka #76: “Excellent point. I am sure you would extend the same courtesy to the Indian Army in Kashmir?”

I think in civilian repression, it should always be a question of less or more blame. Never a question of courtesy.

Following is a rough estimation:

The numbers of dead given for Kashmir, a few years ago (around Y2K time), at the lower end, was around 33,000 provided by the BBC. At the higher end, 70,000 provided by Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders. And 61,000 provided by a BJP minister on CNN (though he blamed them all on Pakistan terrorism).

The Kashmiri rebellion in its militant form of freedom struggle, started around 1989, after the Jehlum river killings carried out by the Indian security forces, in which protesting Kashmiris were killed on a bridge. The human rights organizations and international press were banned in early 90s (by George Fernandes). Please read Victoria Schofield’s book to get more details.

So in a period of ten years, the range of dead is between 35k to 70k killed. This difference is not a ten fold difference (300k to 3 million), but a two-fold difference. The population of Jammu and Indian Kashmir is around 7 million. The population of East Pakistan, in 71, was around 65 million(?). The main violence is in the Kashmir valley, which is obviously smaller than all of Indian Kashmir. I don’t know what the exact population of this area is, but lets say between 3 to 5 million.

The number of Indian troops (Army and Security forces) is 500,000+, as given by Peter Jennings of ABC. And 700,000, as given by Pakistan and Kashmiri estimates. So 500k to 700k. The area of the Valley is smaller than 150 km by 50 km. I am not sure how the troops are spread out throughout Kashmir, but I assume nearly all of them are in the Valley or surrounding areas, with smaller amounts in support areas in Ladakh and Jammu – which seem to be generally pro-India.

The general ratio of troops to civilians is taken to be 1 to 7, i.e. 3 to 5 million people and 500k to 700k troops. Thus Indian Kashmir has the highest troops per square feet of any area in the world. Many times higher than that of Pakistanis in East Pakistan. In fact, the economy of the Valley is probably dependent on the troops present there.

If we take the lowest estimates, i.e. 35k dead, out of 3.5 million people, by 500k troops in a ten year time period (89 – 99), we get the ratio of 1% of the population being killed every ten years.

In addition, after every n number of days, the Indian security forces kill a few militants. None of the militants are ever captured alive (for some reason). And after their death, every single one of them is declared to be a Pakistani. None are identified as Indian Kashmiris (primarily to indicate that the Kashmiri struggle is not indigenous). The actual truth is that they are probably a mixture of Pakistani and Kashmiri militants. I talked to a Pakistani guy who went into Kashmir twice, and he told me at any one time there are only a hundreds (not thousands) of active militant inside Kashmir. They are surviving because they have support of the local population. However, to tackle each militant requires hundreds of troops.

If you take all the numbers of militants killed, and reported by India, their combined figure per year, would be in the low hundreds. This number over ten years would not exceed a thousand to three thousand. The number of Indian soldiers killed is even much smaller. If you subtract this figure from the BBC figure of 35 k (or the BJP figure of 61 k, or Pakistani figure of 70k), it still leaves 30k to 60k deaths unaccounted for. These are the Kashmiri civilians killed by the Indian security forces, both deliberately and in the crossfire between militants and security forces.

So, using the complete range (35 to 70 k), roughly .8 to 1.8% of the Kashmiri population in the Valley is being killed every decade. That would be equivalent to 1.3 million Bengalis being killed every ten years today. Or 10 million Indians being killed every decade, in proportional terms.

I agree with Fuzair that all of us – Indians, Pakistanis, (and even Bangladeshis) - have blood on our hands. Different groups at different times. In 71, it was primarily Pakistanis. Now it is primarily Indians. Those of us who are willing to blame everyone, without national biases, are part of the solution for peace in South Asia. I can even see the point of view of the ones who oppose both self-determinations – Kashmir and Bangladesh - as a matter of principle. But those who support Kashmiri self-determination and do not support Bengali self-determination, or vice-versa, are the ones who are responsible for the violence and deaths. This last group should never get anyone’s respect.

On the whole, I think Pakistanis have now (grudgingly) accepted their faults. Perhaps due to time. Or perhaps due to introspection. Pakistanis, from all ranges of views, on this board, have criticized Pakistan for 71. However, had this been an equivalent article written by an Indian about Kashmir, I wonder what the reaction of our Indian colleagues would have been? Hopefully, an acceptance of faults.

One has to believe in self-determination, as a principle, for all South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Baharis (?), Kashmiris etc.), or for none. And one has to first accept one`s own faults, before blaming others. One cannot have it both ways.

# 60 by ras

++++
We can exaggerate the numbers (3 Million) or diminish them (300,000) but the fact
remains that many people on ALL sides were outright murdered.
++++

Even one murder is one too many. So it is indeed puerile to quibble that 300,000 rather than 3 million were murdered.

And what is truly despicable is that a professional army (rank & file) behaved no better than a mob in order to protect its vested interests.

# 69 by ras

++++
My American source who served the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh for over 30 years & spent ALL of 1971 in Dhaka and the surrounding area put in his estimate at 100,000 to 150,00 peple killed by ALL sides (not 1.5 million). I asked him about the millions killed in these reports in the western press and he just smiled.
++++

That ras doesn`t consider the verbal report from the ``American source`` as the final word is brought out by ras himself in #60 when he gave his own bounds, ``We can exaggerate the numbers (3 Million) or diminish them (300,000)``.

In #55, I have given numbers from numerous published reports in USA and around the world. Among my references was one by Prof. R.J.Rummel from school of law in Unversity of Virginia. In my opinion, Prof. Rummel`s scholarly study published in 1997 is about as close as we will ever get to the actual number of people who died in the 1971 genocide.

Prof. Rummel`s bottom line is:

``I give a final estimate of Pakistan`s democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000.``

As far as I am concerned, Prof. R.J.Rummel`s published research is more authentic than what ras`s ``American source`` might have verbally communicated to him with a knowing smile.

#69 Ras

{{On India and Indians, it always amazes me how a small number always bring up 1971 as a shining example of the ``defeat`` inflicted on Pakistan.}}

Very well. 1971 was not a “defeat” inflicted on Pakistan, or the Pakistan Army, or the Pakistani establishment. It was at best a stalemate if not an actual victory. Happy now?
{{I hope that most others realize that the reason why India has been bleeding in Kashmir for 13 years now is that ``defeat``. Revenge unfortunately can be a great motivator.}}

Amazing. Am I to understood that Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is motivated by a desire for revenge for the alleged 1971 “defeat”, rather than a pure and unalloyed concern for the human rights and welfare of Kashmiris? Who would have guessed.

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

sigalph:

Actually, Hindi is the national language of India. English is also given ``official status`` but is not the national language.

Re goonga

English would have been just perfect. Look the wonders it did in India. The language statement by the QUaid-e-Azam was probably the biggest mistake he made as the Gov-Gen of the new Dominion.

Urstruly:

``The guestimates you provide are ridiculous at best. These estimates range from 300K to 3million. This range of guestimate is not only mind numbing not only for a elementary level statistician but also mind boggling for an ordinary man. The margin of error in this guestimate is 90% statistically speeking. I think in the name of fairness and justice the benefit of doubt should go to the accused, since these estimates with 90% margin of error are horrenduous. ``

Excellent point. I am sure you would extend the same courtesy to the Indian Army in Kashmir?

OH:

#53

``I am accusing them of harboring bigotted views about India in general and Hindus in particular. I base these accusations on the actual words of and statements made by the two. ``

And I am arguing that case was not one of bigotry but of executing national interest. I would like to see the actual comments you attribute to them if you have access to them.

``If the opinions of such people ran so contrary to the opinions of almost everyone else reporting on the events (not just of the state department), one needs to consider whether Kissinger was not deliberately distorting history to paper over the sins of his friend, Yahya Khan. ``

That is the other thing. Whereas interpersonal relations may smoothen or derail poicy, it rarely is the factor to initiate it. Kissinger clearly states their policy objective (relations with China) and the vehicle towards obtaining that goal (Yahya`s Pakistan) and the obstacle (India). If India had good relations with China, then Pakistan would have been a non issue. But all that is hindsight.

#72 Tahmed32

{{Dr. strangelove was modelled after Dr. Teller (father of the atom bomb),}}

Sahib, you are not quite right. Kissinger was indeed a relatively obscure Harvard professor in 1964 when Kubrick’s movie was made.

However, Edward Teller was the mother of the hydrogen bomb, not the father of the atom bomb, as you erroneously claimed. And the best guess for Dr. Strangelove is that he is a composite of several public figures, among them Teller, Werner von Braun, Herman Kahn, and John von Neumann, all of whom had connections of some sort with nuclear weapons or thermonuclear war or missiles. The most interesting figure is von Neumann, whose connections with the nuclear weapons establishment went back to the Manhattan Project days. Like Teller and von Braun (and Dr. Strangelove in the movie), von Neumann spoke English with a German/Central European accent. Most significantly of all, von Neumann became wheelchair-bound during his last fatal illness (cancer) but continued to work and testify in public – shades of Dr. Strangelove again.

Harimau:

``In that case, you should find yet another alternate perspective on Kissinger equally interesting. In the movie ``Dr. Strangelove or How I learned To Stop Worrying and Start Loving The Bomb``, Kissinger was the model for the mad scientist Dr. Strangelove, brilliantly portrayed by Peter Sellers. ``

Yes, I find it about as illuminating as Ii do the Hollywood liberal perception of Bush being as bad as Saddam.


``at that moment, our incipient China policy was more important than India`s goodwill. We judged that it would be easier to restore our relations with India than to remain inactive toward a challenge that might be viewed in Beijing as a rehearsal for pressure against China. I am not trying to refight the substantive argument; the issue was discipline and coherence.``

I actually find myself in agreement with Kissinger`s perspective. This was not ``anti-India`` feeling but a realistic analysis of their priorities at the time. From an American perspective, the Indo-Pak war was at best a sideshow with the main theatre being the cold war. In such a case, making common cause with China was very much more important then making good with India and an as yet unexisting nation called Bangladesh.

Besides, Pakistan was key to the China policy. All the Americans had recieved from India were hypocritical lectures on morality which seemed to somehow vanish when the Soviets were in the wrong.

``By the way, State did seem to have suggested before the Shrub`s intervention in Iraq that post-war Iraq would not be easy to govern. They seem to be right.... once again. ``

Very convenient. State was not in favor of the Iraq war. Thier job is not to decide foreign policy objectives but to execute them.

#59 Urstruly

{{Your contention is nothing but argumentative.}}

And yours of course are not.

{{The facts like Hitler`s ideology of ``the Final Solution``, the presence of death camps, Nuremburg Trials in open courts of law, and thousands of survivors of those death camps are undeniable historical facts which attest irrevocably that Nazis had only one objective i.e. to exterminate as many Jews as possible not only in Germany but throughout Europe.}}

Dude, whatever. It is a known fact that not everybody who arrived at a death camp went straight from the cattle trucks to the gas chambers, as those thousands of survivors will attest. Lots of people survived in Auschwitz for months and months. The late Italian writer Primo Levi is a good example. Victor Frankl spent 3 years in a succession of concentration camps and survived to tell the tale, living to a ripe old age. Storage and ‘economic’ activity contradict the supposed goal of maximizing rate of killing which was your contention in choosing the Nazis as a benchmark.

I also find your professed passion for truth and reconciliation somewhat contradicted by the slipshod manner in which you carry out elementary calculations, omitting a factor of 60 without so much as an apology. Time for remedial arithmetic, perhaps?

But in any case I am merely adducing facts for your kind consideration. Feel free to weave them into your preferred narrative in any way you please or discard them entirely should you find them inconvenient to your desired conclusion. It’s all the same to me.

harimau #64 Dr. strangelove was modelled after Dr. Teller (father of the atom bomb), and one of the generals in that movie was modelled after Gen Curtis le May. when the movie was made in 1964, dr. kissinger was a relative unknown, being a university professor at the time.

Kindly contribute the 50 cent i charge for error corrections to the Chennai Welfare Society for Retired RSS Warriors where your uncle jay has now been transferred.

It is very rare that Urstruly and I are even in partial agreement about something but maybe its a blue moon tonight? The Germans had severe problems with disposing off the corpses of all the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc, that they slaughtered. They finally came up with the incinerators at Auschwitz, Dachau and the other camps. These took months to design and build and even then they did not completely destroy the bodies. So, at the risk of being truly macabre, where are the three million bodies? Even if we take Rummel`s conservative estimate, that still leaves us with 1.5 million. Where are all the mass graves since no one has said that the Pakistani Army was actually incinerators.

The answer to Punjabizulu`s question is to read Sisson`s and Rose`s book, ``War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh.`` Here they quote unnamed (for obvious reasons) high Indian officials who give their estimate of total deaths from all causes in E. Pakistan of 300,000. After getting incredibly filthy looks from his fellows there, the official hastily revises it to 500,000 deaths. Presumably, the Indians are in a better position to know what actually happened than random newspaper reporters and Western academics AND they have no reason to downplay the actual numbers (as the Paksitanis do). So, even after subtracting the number of dead Biharis and West Pakistanis from the 500,000 upper estimate, this gives us a number much closer to the 300,000 low estimate contemptously dismissed by people like Rummel. Privately, Pakistani officers who were there acknowledge that this is probably close to the correct estimate (i.e., somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000), although some diehards insist that it was actually closer to 30,000. By any reckoning, these are indications of an incredibly brutal civil war that made no effort to spare civilians.

I believe the number killed in Vietnam are generally believed to be in the 1 to 1.6 million range, mainly by the US forces there. Now, let me ask you, how many Kashmiris have been killed by Indian security forces? How many Punjabis? Assamese? Mizos? Nagas? How many Biharis killed by the Bengalis? How many Chakmas by the Bengalis?

And before you ask, I think the figure is about 35,000 Baluchis in the insurgency and probably 12,000 Sindhis but am not sure about these figures.

See, as I say, there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone. We are all guilty of something.

Urstruly & Nakhok,

the truth needs to be told but is a double edged sword. My American source

who served the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh for over 30 years & spent ALL of 1971

in Dhaka and the surrounding area put in his estimate at 100,000 to 150,00 peple killed by

ALL sides (not 1.5 million). I asked him about the millions killed in

these reports in the western press and he just smiled.

But what if someone in Ballu Khan`s or Nakhok`s immediate family was murdered?

Does the 150,000 or 3 Million make a difference to them?

On India and Indians, it always amazes me how a small number always bring up 1971

as a shining example of the ``defeat`` inflicted on Pakistan. I hope that most others

realize that the reason why India has been bleeding in Kashmir for 13 years now

is that ``defeat``. Revenge unfortunately can be a great motivator.

The Pakistan Army was fighting the Indians AND the Bangladesh people in 1971.

Defeat was inevitable. So the question remains; WHY was this operation started?

We the people of a once United Pakistan who accepted ZAB and Mujib as our

leaders would like to know why they were forced apart at such a great human expense?

Ras

Stuka,

``Going by the rest of your post, I think you have the need to read Kissinger`s memoirs. He and Nixon did what they percieved was right by American foreign policy.``

If the foreign policy of US is/was to overhtrow democratically elected governments and install dictators, then they followed it well. Chile comes to my mind, whenever someone talks of kissinger and Nixon. Victims of dead and disappeared in chile are trying to use legal methods to net in kissinger for his role in the atrocities. But perhaps, they are not very popular as yet for not using terrorism and suicide bombing to gather attention.

Adios

Ras

Mere apology would not do any good. As a matter of fact it would be like pouring salt on the old wounds. For reconcilliation truth must be told first. Truth must be investigated first. And only then we would be able to learn from our mistakes. And that goes for both countries and both people. Hindus may also learn a good lesson from this whole mess who still have time to make things right but they just are complaining and whining while reaping the seeds they sowed in Kashmir. Payback is a bitch - isn`t it?

The insistence of Hindus and nationalist bengalis on the exagerated extent of carnage is indictive of the guilty conscience for the sins they have committed against their fellow human beings. It is a deliberate effort to exagerate on the crime of other so that their own crimes would look smaller. But history has a nasty way of getting back at the people who do not learn from it. The point in case is the Hindu excess in Kashmir.

Three million Bengalis killed. What an absolute tripe. But this tripe is being indoctrinated very cleverly and with exerted effort in the minds of Bengali nationalists and Hindus in India through academia and intelligentia. People are gullible. They buy prejudices wholesale without bothering to putting it to test. This indoctrinated hate expresses itself as remorseless carnage of Muslims in Kashmir, in Gujrat and in countless other places in India everyday. Someone has to stop this madness before more human beings get hurt.

Dont these people realize that in order to accomodate 3 million deads over 9 months averaging 12000 murders per day 270 mass graves are required; each mass grave containing 12000 corpses. Such a mass grave dug everyday for nine months would require immense number of human resources, equipment, and land. The task becaomes even more difficult and impossible if these smaller graves have to be dug at various places everyday. My estimate is that in order to accomodate so many killings everyday a mass grave of the size of two football fields are required dug approx. 5 feet deep. Where are those 270 mass graves? Where are those incinerators if corpses were incinerated. Why haven`t Bengalis dug those 270 mass graves and gave an honorable burial to the ``war dead`` of a freedom fight?

No one who exagerates this number can answer these question - not bengalis not Hindus. yet they would feed this hatered in the minds of their young with religious fervor and a murderous conviction. As a result what it has turned us - the people of whole subcontinent -into? The blood thirsty neighbors. Isn`t our descent from humanity so obvious.

If we want to live in peace and prosper, truth must be told. The truth must be told.

He said Urdu and Urdu alone shall be the National Language of Pakistan. That was the seed for the creation of Bangladesh.
Just thinking to ask you if not Urdu then what language could be the NL of Pak? And could this mess be avoided if Quaid had announced ‘English’ as NL of Pak. I think English would be fine. There would be no question of roots and love for Bengalis such as basic elements of language, culture and literature with English! Hey na?

I think Urdu was the only right choice for East and West Pakistan at that time.

I also beleive that the Hindu propaganda of 3 million bengalis dead is absolute tripe and non-sense.

Hindu propaganda??????

Don`t you mean Indian propaganda. Or do Indian and Hindu mean the same to you? If so, you are just like the RSS.

Urstruly

Thanks for the response.

Could anybody please point me in the direction of resources that can establish the true number of Bengalis killed by the Pakistan army in 1971, reputable and objective sources?

I suspect some sinister scheme against Pak Afwaj is underway over here at chowk. Only the other day there was a hard-hitting article by Nighat Yasmeen convincingly arguing that Pakistanis had much more to fear from the internal threat in form of their predatory army than to be afraid of hegemonic designs of external foes. Now, immediately after that chowk has put up an eyewitness account validating her painful assertions.

I have been brought up in an atmosphere with very strong anti-Bhutto currents. Unsurprisingly, I too used to deeply hate Z A B. With the passage of time, I have however revised my opinion --to some extent. In fact, he can be held liable for everything but his share of culpability for the East Pakistan tragedy is peripheral.

Please observe: 1958 – 1969 under the jackboots of one uniformed messiah, after that yet another military saviour for two more years. And, in the process the very foundations for inter-wing harmony and co-existence were destroyed. What marvels me most is that still there are people who naively think that post-election events of 1971 could have some decisive effect on the outcome of the hatred that had been left brewing for so long and/or Z A B could miraculously undone the mistakes of the past decade and half.

It is preposterous that we have people around, sadly in abundance, who have the intellectual dishonesty of the scale that they have no qualms equating few months (if not weeks) of manoeuvring by politicians to 13 years of blunders by faujis. I mean, how the hell one can blame politicians for more than a fraction of the guilt when it was military who was firmly and squarely at the helm of the affairs all the times with no breathing space for ordinary citizens.

Saminsha, rest assured, today, if not before, there are a lot of Pakistanis who are deeply ashamed of what was done in their name in and to East Pakistan by their army. Even on chowk, at least I, without going into semantic wrangling hereby extend my heartfelt sympathies and unconditional apologies to our erstwhile East Pakistani brethren.

Romair, Ijaz Gul, strange, strange, you have yet to declare this piece one more conspiracy (at best).

Hassan Nasir
Gujranwala

Ref stuka #51

[I don`t take Kissinger`s opinions as Gospel Truth because it is but an opinion. I did however find it interesting to read an alternative perspective.]

In that case, you should find yet another alternate perspective on Kissinger equally interesting. In the movie ``Dr. Strangelove or How I learned To Stop Worrying and Start Loving The Bomb``, Kissinger was the model for the mad scientist Dr. Strangelove, brilliantly portrayed by Peter Sellers.

[Going by the rest of your post, I think you have the need to read Kissinger`s memoirs. He and Nixon did what they percieved was right by American foreign policy.]

Kissinger writes his memoirs, like Nixon did his, to whitewash his ugly sins. In his book ``The Years of Renewal`` Kissinger says:

``State Department opposition took an acute form during the India-Pakistan crisis of 1971 when the State Department, which was a full participant in all discussions, in effect sabotaged Nixon`s decision to demonstrate to China that we supported our strategic partners in times of crisis. It was three months since my visit to Beijing arranged by Pakistan. India, determined to humiliate Pakistan over Bangladesh, had made a de facto alliance with the Soviet Union and was now using force to achieve Bangladesh`s independence in full knowledge that we had already conceded the principle and were working on implementing it.

.....at that moment, our incipient China policy was more important than India`s goodwill. We judged that it would be easier to restore our relations with India than to remain inactive toward a challenge that might be viewed in Beijing as a rehearsal for pressure against China. I am not trying to refight the substantive argument; the issue was discipline and coherence.``

[As far as the minions of State are concerned, there have been clashes of career diplos with politicians before and there will be again.]

By the way, State did seem to have suggested before the Shrub`s intervention in Iraq that post-war Iraq would not be easy to govern. They seem to be right.... once again.

To : #56 by ballukhan on November 20, 2003 9:52pm PT

as well as my knowladge musharaff retreated in panjab from indian army with tail in leg and get nisane-pakistan (or what ever) for that gr8 bravery.he destroyed all paki weapons before retreat so
they didn`t got in hand of indian army.but i dont sure.

Hello Tariq Aqil,

I`m glad that you liked that poetic trip down memory lane especially since CHOWK editors have ``lost`` it somewhere in their archives.

THE most important line in your article is:

``This operation was a cleverly crafted blueprint for destroying the unity of the nation.``

I have been convinced of this for a long time, even though the less said on that subject the better.

But some parting shots...

A)It almost seems that Bangladesh was created by the Yahya Regime/Establishment...

B) The Genocide was an attempt at ideological cleansing before parting...

C) This ideological cleansing might have had the full backing of a superpower...


In any case I will not try to open too many old wounds except:

1) People like us who believed in Pakistan got screwed.

2) There has been much lying on ALL sides to make their case.

3) The Bangladesh War is not yet over. Almost 250,000 ``Biharis`` can testify to that.


And a last point for Urstruly:

``Nakhok`` and I have already dueled on this subject for years on the newsgroups.
We can exaggerate the numbers (3 Million) or diminish them (300,000) but the fact
remains that many people on ALL sides were outright murdered. It was a filthy mess that could have been avoided by a much more peaceful parting of ways.

We cannot remake history but only learn from it. An official apology from Pakistan
would be a nice beginning. And for those in Pakistan, please try and take better care of what is left of that country.

Ras

Alephnull # 47

The ostensible goal expressed in the second sentence contradicts the reality described in the first (storage).

Your contention is nothing but argumentative. The facts like Hitler`s ideology of ``the Final Solution``, the presence of death camps, Nuremburg Trials in open courts of law, and thousands of survivors of those death camps are undeniable historical facts which attest irrevocably that Nazis had only one objective i.e. to exterminate as many Jews as possible not only in Germany but throughout Europe. The easiest way to do it was to simply round up the Jews at one location and shoot them through firing squads. And that is exactly what they initially did in Poland. But the German Generals than objected to this method not only because their soldiers of professional German Army were showing reluctance to shoot helpless civilians in this way but it was also causing a decay in the morale of the German soldiers and German citizens. So fearing a backlash not only from German Army but also from the German public on this inhuman carnage, they had to adpot a slightly less efficient, expensive, and elaborate method to exterminate Jews and that resulted in gas chambers and death camps. The bottom line is that the Nazis had one expressed goal i.e. extermination of Jews.

While considering various options as to how to accomplish their goals more efficiently and secretively (because of the above reason) various proposals were putforth in a committee formed for this purpose. This committee was headed by Eichman. One such ``humane`` proposal was to force Jews in germany and in occupied territories to register themselves. And during that registration, it was proposed that they should be passed through a corridor which would be so fitted with radiation equipment that whoever (man or women) passed through that corridor would lose his ability to re-produce and victim would not even know what had happened to him. Not only victims, but the personnel manning those registration centers would not know what they were doing. This proposal was putforth by the german Health Minister (forgetting his name) but it was shot down in the committee meeting because as a result of this method they still had to accomodate Jews and wait till they died of natural causes. Nazis did not want to wait that long.

Nakhok # 55

The guestimates you provide are ridiculous at best. These estimates range from 300K to 3million. This range of guestimate is not only mind numbing not only for a elementary level statistician but also mind boggling for an ordinary man. The margin of error in this guestimate is 90% statistically speeking. I think in the name of fairness and justice the benefit of doubt should go to the accused, since these estimates with 90% margin of error are horrenduous.

#36 by Romair on November 20, 2003 10:09am PT
Where were you when the rest of yuor gang was raping and looting in 1971 bootlicker??

# 43 urstruly

++++
Hindu propaganda of 3 million bengalis dead is absolute tripe and non-sense.
++++

Talks of ``Hindu-propaganda`` is more spite than fact. 3 million is the number mentioned by Bangladeshi writers most of whom are Muslims.

It is also the number reported in National Geographic (Sept. 1972).

In a tragedy like this, it was impossible to arrive at a precise number for the dead. Number of refugees were easier to document and was reported to be well over ten million (more than the 1971 population of the entire erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir). Incidentally, Ginsburg`s ``On Jessore Road`` was an expression of the poet`s anguish on his direct encounter with these refugees. Dylan composed the music for this piece.

3 million as the number of deaths is quite in keeping with what was reported in newspapers of the time and even in scholarly books written in retrospection years after the genocide. And, yes, that is a staggering number - more than the 1971 Muslim population of the Kashmir Valley!

---

Here is a progressive list of guess-estimates for deaths (in millions) as reported in newspapers in USA and around the world during the nine months of genocide in East Pakistan:

The Baltimore Sun (5/14/71) 0.5 million
The Momento, Caracas (6/13/71) 0.5 - 1.0
Washington Daily News (6/30/71) 0.2
World Bank Report (June, 71) 0.2 (upto June 11, 1971)
Die Zeit, Bonn (7/9/71) 0.5
New York Times (7/14/71) 0.20 - 0.25
Wall Street Journal (7/23/71) 0.2 - 1.0
The Christian Sci. Mon. (7/31/71) 0.25 - 1.00
Newsweek (8/2/71) 0.25
Time (9/2/71) 0.2 - 1.0
Newsweek (3/27/72) 1.5
National Geographic (Sept. 1972) 3.0

---

For a scholarly study on the number of deaths, I would draw the chowkies` attention to the following book:

STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:
Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
By R.J. Rummel
Charlottesville, Virginia:
Center for National Security Law,
School of Law, University of Virginia, 1997; and Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University

---

Chapter 8 of Prof. Rummel`s book is titled:
Statistics Of Pakistan`s Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources

Prof. Rummel acknowledges the difficulty of arriving at a precise number for the dead. His bottom line is:

``I give a final estimate of Pakistan`s democide to be 300,000 to 3,000,000, or a prudent 1,500,000.``

And in describing the 267 days ordeal of East Pakistan, Prof. Rummel writes:

``No more than 267 days later [self-appointed President of Pakistan and Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals] had succeeded in killing perhaps 1,500,000 people, created 10,000,000 refugees who had fled to India, provoked a war with India, incited a counter-genocide of 150,000 non-Bengalis, and lost East Pakistan.``

---

I would like to know how many Bangladeshis Musharaff KILLED?? I demand to know how many Bengalis did he RAPE??? I demand to know what this rascal was doing at the time of 1971- was he providing logistic support to the Butchers or was he Looting the houses of Bengalis?????

re: stuka # 51

Nobody is accusing Nixon-Kissinger of corruption. I am accusing them of harboring bigotted views about India in general and Hindus in particular. I base these accusations on the actual words of and statements made by the two.

If the opinions of such people ran so contrary to the opinions of almost everyone else reporting on the events (not just of the state department), one needs to consider whether Kissinger was not deliberately distorting history to paper over the sins of his friend, Yahya Khan.

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

``To give you a comparison, in about 11 years of fighting in S. Vietnam, the US suffered about 58,000 battle deaths in 11 years, or averaging just over 5,000/year. The worst year for the US in Vietnam was 1968, with about 16,869 battle deaths.``

WOW!! Puts Iraq in perspective doesn`t it. All those calling it a repeat of Vietnam should get a clue.

Ordinary Hindu:

Well, all I did was suggest that Fuzair read that link if HE provides it. I don`t take Kissinger`s opinions as Gospel Truth because it is but an opinion. I did however find it interesting to read an alternative perspective.

Going by the rest of your post, I think you have the need to read Kissinger`s memoirs. He and Nixon did what they percieved was right by American foreign policy. As far as the minions of State are concerned, there have been clashes of career diplos with politicians before and there will be again.

BTW, I also disagree with your chracterization of Yahya as an ``Islamic`` dictator. He was no more ``Islamic`` then Indira was Durga as our present PM had waxed poetic.

Re: Jang #26

``The full scale war started in December (with some aggressive shelling in November) according to Rose and Sisson. Why do you say that ``Between April to November 1971, the Army suffered about 4,000 battle deaths. This indicates pretty heavy fighting, not a series of one-sided executions````

I think ``battle deaths`` might be the confusing point here. I simply meant `combat fatalities,` the number of Pakistani soldiers killed in actual fighting with the Bengali insurgents. The actual figure from the Indian Official History of the 1971 War is 5,409 killed (both regular Army and paramiltary, but doesn`t say who is included in this category) but only 4,674 wounded between 27 March to 3 December. This is very strange since I would expec there to be about 2-3x as many wounded as killed but I`ll assume the Indians aren`t making up these numbers. Its possible, given the abysmal medical facilities available in E. Pakistan in the middle of a civil war, many of the wounded could have died. But this is a very surprising figure. Alternatively, the insurgents could have killed all prisoners or the very high number of deaths came from W. Pakistanis murdered by mutinying Bengali troops in the early stages of the insurgency.

In contrast, between 4-16 December, the Pakistani Army and paramilitary units suffered 2,980 killed and 4,314 wounded. This should give you some idea of the scale of the fighting involved and the intensity of the insurgency. To give you a comparison, in about 11 years of fighting in S. Vietnam, the US suffered about 58,000 battle deaths in 11 years, or averaging just over 5,000/year. The worst year for the US in Vietnam was 1968, with about 16,869 battle deaths. Annualizing the Pakistani insurgency experience gives us 8,114 deaths, just about half of the worst year for the US and much higher than the average. Please note, however, that in 1968 the US had about 550,000 troops in Vietnam and the total Pakistani troop strength in E. Pakistan never exceeded 75,000 (again, Indian figures). So you can compare the intensity of the fighting considering that (proportionately), for Pakistan, about 14% of US troop strength incurred almost 50% of the US casualty numbers.

The official war began on Dec. 3rd but Pakistan was fighting both insurgents and Indian commandos from the very beginning (end March 1971). The Indian Official History, in noting the invaluable contribution of the BSF to the victory, commends the special BSF Commando Force operating in E. Pakistan from end-March onwards. Brigade level actions were being fought between Indian and Pakistani troops by November 1971.

Just because the ``official`` fighting did not start until December doesn`t mean that Pakistan Army wasn`t fighting hard for the eight months before that. The presence of upwards of a hundred thousand Mukhti Bahini (plus BSF troops) meant that the enemy was well trained, well equipped and clearly not a ``civilian`` population being buthchered by the Army.

re: Stuka # 29

I am amazed you would take Henry Kissinger`s views about India or Mrs. Gandhi as gospel truth. Please read up on Kissinger`s pathological approach to India, and specifically his views regarding Hindus in general. Remeber, this was at a time when Muslims had not yet become identified in the West with terrorism, and tinpot Islamic dictators were high on the list of American friends, particularly in the eyes of Nixon and Kissinger.

The Nixon and Kissinger pair exhibited a morbid dislike toward India. In their strong anti-India stance, the two swam against the better judgement of almost everybody else in the West, from the State department to the journalists who were covering the unfolding tragedy in Bangladesh. These two- who as you would know have been seriously accused of committing war crimes - considered Pakistani dictator their close friends. If you read the views of these two gentlemen, you would know that they shared many of Pakistani dictator`s views regarding both India and Hindus.

In the eyes of Nixon and Kissinger, the entire Bangladesh episode was engineered by India - a view echoed by the Pakistani dictator at the time.

saminsha #45:

you give new meaning to tunnel vision...simple!

A genuine question (maybe Sigalph can answer)

I have met a few Bengali(hindu) families who came over to India from Pakistan in 69-70. They stories they have are similar to those of `47. What is the story behind the anti-Hindu violence of 69-70?

#43 Urstruly

{{we take 3 million figure to be true then between end of March 1971 and middle of December 1971, in 9 months Pak Army must have:

- Killed 333,333 Bengalis per month

- which means 11,111 bengalis killed per day on every day of the nine months.

- which means 460 bengalis must die per minute

- which means 7 bengalis were being killed every second of the hour for 9 months.}}

Sahib, a day has 24 hrs, not minutes. The 3 million in 9 months figure works out to 463 per hour, 7.7 per minute, or one every 7.778 seconds.

{{Now keep in mind that Germans had established an elaborate system of logistics, storage, extermination, and disposal of Jews. Their expressed goal was to exterminate as many jews as possible in the shortest possible time. It is confirmed by the Eichman`s testimony and paper trail, who was the master mind behind the implementation of Hitler`s ``Final Solution``. Germans established a lean and mean machine to accomplish their object and even then their performance was 1/3rd that of Pak Army.}}

The ostensible goal expressed in the second sentence contradicts the reality described in the first (storage). If the Nazi goal was simply to exterminate the largest number of people in the shortest possible time, less emphasis would have been placed on storage and more on the machinery of extermination (gas chambers, ovens). Extracting labour out of weakened concentration camp inmates, making lampshades and soap out of their bodies, etc., would have been useless distractions from the rational goal of maximizing efficiency. It is hard to escape the suspicion that something else was going on. An insane experiment or laboratory expressing a particular world-view is the best description I can come up with.

To #36 by Romair on November 20, 2003 10:09am PT

“However, 71 war could have been avoided. In terms of leadership, I blame the Army leadership, Bhutto and Mujib. All could have negotiated a non-violent solution. Unfortunately, all had certain advantages in conflict. As a…………..”

As a Indian I can’t understand why the hell mujib had to negotiate. after all he get a majority and he had right to be prime minister and form cabinet and lad country. In India or elsewhere when any party get majority ruling party or who ever rules transfer power to
Winner party. Simple!

Even after 32 years not a single paki on chowk admit that their army or their country doing wrong and non arguable and non forgivable to Bangladeshi.every one had their own theory to prove that that was not only Pakistan’s fault.I think that`s called sleeping generations or brain washed one.

Punjabizulu

Since you put it that way.

The genocide of bengalis by Pak Army did happen along with other attrocities such as rapes and destruction of property etc. However, it is also true that the genocide and ethnic cleansing of non-Bengali i.e. Biharis and West Paksitani civilians living in East Paksitan also happened by Bengalis. Now keep in mind that attrocity of one does not justify others but in the name of fairness and justice and in order to come to terms with our loss and grief we must not hide one for the other. Only truth will set us free.

I also beleive that among the people who ran away to India to save their lives, almost half of them were Biharis who ran away from the unjustifiable wrath of Bengalis.

I also beleive that the Hindu propaganda of 3 million bengalis dead is absolute tripe and non-sense. Though I do not have any estimate of my own except an uneducated guess that somewhere between 100K to 150k bengalis died. But 3 mil figure does not fit the common sense. For example if we take 3 million figure to be true then between end of March 1971 and middle of December 1971, in 9 months Pak Army must have:

- Killed 333,333 Bengalis per month

- which means 11,111 bengalis killed per day on every day of the nine months.

- which means 460 bengalis must die per minute

- which means 7 bengalis were being killed every second of the hour for 9 months.

This does not appeal to the common sense since the primary objective of Pak Army was not to exterminate as many bengalis as they could in shortest possible time but their primary mission was to calm a violent situtaion down. So they did use violence as a tool of intimidation but not that of total extermination.


Now if we compare this number with 5,978,000 jews that died during the holocaust in four years of war the numebr of jews killed

- per month is 124,541

- per day is 4151

- per hour is 172

- and per second is 2

Now keep in mind that Germans had established an elaborate system of logistics, storage, extermination, and disposal of Jews. Their expressed goal was to exterminate as many jews as possible in the shortest possible time. It is confirmed by the Eichman`s testimony and paper trail, who was the master mind behind the implementation of Hitler`s ``Final Solution``. Germans established a lean and mean machine to accomplish their object and even then their performance was 1/3rd that of Pak Army. Therefore, I think Hindu propaganda is pure non-sense.

Leaving 1971 behind?

There is no question that as time passes and new generations come to fore, relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh will improve further, as they should. If the UK and USA, from a rather eerily similar history. can become best buddies within a two generations of their war, why not us? What will change is the personal dimension of the equation, not the history as some revisionists hope.

These revisionists try to muddy the issue by desperately trying to find moral equivalency between the horrible actions of the Muktibahini elements and the episode that Pakistan`s own top journalist called ``the ugliest genocide in history``. Kind of like equating the vengeful executions and atrocities of Occupied Western Europe`s partisans and the Nazis. No doubt that murder is murder is murder, however, the respective COLLECTIVE guilt is hardly comparable.

Same with assigning blanket equal blame to Bhutto and Mujib. I`ve incredible respect for the late ZAB and rather little for Mujibur Rahman. But Mr. Bhutto was clearly far more responsible for the breakdown of talks in 1971. His insistence of `two majorities` and `grand coalition` and similar assorted nonsense was simply egregious in a lawyer trained at Berkeley. The Awami League had won a majority, not just a plurality, in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly; to deny the Assembly the right to convene for just that reason was pretty stupid. Would the Bengali majority have overrreached? May be but then Yahya Khan and the Punjabi dominated military were right there to provide safeguards, weren`t they?

Were I a betting man, I`d have wagered money that had the Assembly convened in 1971, there would have been no Bangladesh as we know it. Perhaps a looser Federation or even a United States of Pakistan but no Bangladesh.

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

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

Re # 8 Temporal

Point well taken.

You are very kind, thank you. Haven`t returned in five years now but I suspect that I am not too popular there with the Islamists. Quislings of 1971 sit in the government of the country today--what a sight!

The atrocities committed by the Bengali hooligans between 1st and 25th March 1971were mainly concentrated on Chittagong which saw the destruction of Ferozshah and Shershah Colonies built in 1958-59 for the poorer section of migrants. The other place under attack was Railway Colonies of Chittagong, namely Aam Bagan, Wireless and PahaR Tali. Looting, and Raping was carried out generally and over a thousand people were tortured and killed.
This was not an organised effort, it was a spontaneous reaction to the years of ill treatment at the hands of the non Bengali administrators- both civil and military.
There were many attacks in the rest of the province after the army action on 25th March. This time the mobs were led by Mukti Bahini to create chaos and confusion for the civilian Government. The total killings of non-Bengalis was considered to be around 35000, but no official figures are obviously available. While the looting and killing was going on, there were many many acts of saving the lives of the non-Bengalis by the bengalis, which have not been reported in the papers for some reason. The most notable family that was saved from the rampaging mob was in Pabna, where the entire family of Jamiluddin, the manufacturers of Ramna Cigarettes and many other industries, were safely transported to Dhaka by their neighbours and local Awami League Leaders. Five Punjabi army officers, the CO and four lieutenants of 1st East Bengal Regiment posted at Jessore were captured by the Bengali Junior Officers and soldiers for execution. They were saved by the bravery of the Second-in-Command, a young Bengali Lieutenant who took control of the prisoners and walked them nearly 30 miles in the night to hand them over to a Pakistani Platoon on a reconnaissance mission. That young lieutenant is a federal minister in the current Bangladesh Governement.
Many of the non-Bengali Railway employees were saved in Chittagong by another friend, whose father was the Industries Minister of Pakistan in Ayub Khan`s cabimet, and he himself is in the present cabinet of Khaleda Zia.There was a Bengali Doctor who was the Medical Officer of M.V. Al-Shams, which used to ferry between Karachi and Chittagong. During these dark days, escaping from East Pakistan to the safety of West Pakistan was not an easy task.This Bengali Doctor in three trips between Karachi and Chittagong, smuggled in over seventy non-Bengalis to his ship and brought them over to Karachi. Ironically his 18 year old brother in Mymensingh was shot down by Pakistan Army for trying to save the life of a Bengali woman who was running away from a group of pakistani soldiers in civvies.
There have been many unknown heroes and villians in this piece of sad history. Nothing can justify the killings on both sides. It was total madness.

Urstruly

So let me get this straight. Was there, or was there not, a genocide perpetrated against the Bengalis?

I wish to know because already we have had the veracity of this account called into question. I am not an Indian nationalist making mischief....I genuinely wish to know.

Unfortunately, in South Asia, countries behave differently, and use opposing principles, when they are in a weak position, trying to gain independence, and when they are in a strong position, trying to suppress someone else’s rights and independence.

71 is an issue that Pakistani keep passing the blame onto others, internally. It is very convenient to pass the blame to the Army or to the politicians. It absolves the common citizen of the crime. However, in my opinion, the blame for all civilian suppressions, ultimately, goes to the citizens of the country carrying out the suppression. Soldiers do not volunteer to go into civil wars. They hate them. They are in a lose-lose situation. Either they end up killing civilians or the civilians kill them. Even the hardest of psyches cannot handle this. This can be seen by the behavior of Americans in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, Indians in Kashmir and Pakistanis in Bangladesh.

Soldiers are sent into civil wars, by the State, with the support of its population.

I have always felt that Bangladesh and Pakistan should have been two separate states from the get-go. History has proven this to be correct. Bangladesh would have separated, eventually - if not in 71, then 81 or 2071 - unless a massive transformation of the political structure took place on the West Pakistan side.

However, 71 war could have been avoided. In terms of leadership, I blame the Army leadership, Bhutto and Mujib. All could have negotiated a non-violent solution. Unfortunately, all had certain advantages in conflict. As a matter of principle though, Mujib had the most correct stance. Mujib should have been allowed to form the national govt. of Pakistan. Bhutto should have accepted him as the leader. If West Pakistan was unwilling to accept Mujib’s six points (which were quite independence-oriented), then West Pakistan should have just let Bangladesh separate peacefully. With a free trade agreement and free movements of people, two politically separate countries are practically one, anyway.

It is interesting to see that in both Pakistani wars, 65 and 71, the faces of an Army leadership and Bhutto are prominent. Both were actively involved in starting the wars. The Army Generals got what they deserved and were eventually ousted. However, Bhutto benefited, personally and politically, immensely from both wars. Had 65 and 71 not occurred, Bhutto may have been just another mid-sized politician, unknown in Pakistani history, like many ex-foreign ministers. He successfully used the results of 65 and 71 to catapult his political career. This would indicate that he was interested in the wars occurring – first as federal minister planning the war. And then, in 71, as the main political leader.

Bhutto was like the opportunist and cunning VP who deliberately assists in taking his company into a loss. He then blames everything on the CEO, in front of the shareholders. And launches a successful campaign to become the next CEO.

I generally agree with Fuzair’s assessment that terrorism from the Bengali side occurred also. I had a colleague whose whole family was killed, in front of him, by the Mukti Bahani. Once a civil war starts, terrorism invariably enters. However, terrorism is always more from the occupying State (since it has all the armament) than from the occupied people. Which was the case in 71 also.

So, in the end, all West Pakistani citizens of that time, need to take the final responsibility for 71. That is where the main blame lies. All other parties, i.e. Mukti Bahani, India, Mujib, Bengali soldiers in the Pakistan Army etc. deserve individual blame in certain specific situations, but they were not the overall cause.

At the same time, I think the new generation of Pakistanis has accepted blame. One sees it openly in the national press. On this site, hardly any, if any, Pakistani blames Bengalis for it. They view it, correctly, as a freedom struggle and not a terrorist struggle (despite the Mukti Bahani terrorism). I think this indicates quite a bit of introspection on the part of Pakistanis. And I think Bangladeshis should appreciate that about the new generation of Pakistanis, who were too young to have comprehended 71, when it was occurring. And I think Bangladeshis do appreciate it. The relations between Pakistan and Bangladesh, amongst the new generation, are far better than what normally exist between two countries that have fought a civil war.

Within the context of South Asia, I think Pakistani introspection is even more impressive. Especially since, most freedom struggles in South Asia, are still labelled terrorist struggles by the populations of the countries whose State armies are actually carrying out the suppression. I think Pakistan has evolved beyond that and it can be seen by the difference in interactions on this site, on similar issues, between Pakistanis and those from some other countries.

arjunm

I would like to know, how it is done - cut n paste from a book, that is, especially from a book in urdu.

Temporal`s article is titled ``Sadia Afroze Ali``; there was quite an interesting discussion on this subject on that thread.

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

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

It was march 1948, venue: Dhaka University Convocation Hall, the chief speaker Qaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah,Governor General of the newly born country - Pakistan.
He said Urdu and Urdu alone shall be the National Language of Pakistan. That was the seed for the creation of Bangladesh. The Bengalis constituted 54% of Pakistan population and their language Bangla was as rich as Urdu. Here is an article which gives an overview of this movement, the cause and the effect. UNESCO declared 21st February as the `` International Mother Language Day`` in 1999.


Mother Language Day.
Professor Kabir Chowdhury

BANGLADESH QUARTERLY, MARCH 2000

UNESCO`s declaration of 21st February as the International Mother Language Day has brought fresh glory and prestige to Bangladesh which is making significant strides towards peace, progress and prosperity at home and discharging international obligations abroad. After 1952, the people of Bangladesh have been observing every year the 21st day of February as their glorious and unforgettable Language Martyrs Day. What happened on 21st February 1952 is widely known. Still let me very briefly recount the fateful happenings of that day and the circumstances that led to and followed them.

In August 1947, a new state called Pakistan, comprising two far-flung wings in the west and east, separated by 1600 kilometers of foreign territory, emerged on the world map. The ideological basis of that strange phenomenon was the absurd and pernicious two nation theory of Mr. Jinnah that ignored such basic elements as language and culture and considered religion as a bond strong and sufficient enough to transform a people into a nation.

The language of the people of eastern wing of Pakistan, and they were the majority, was Bangla. It had a rich tradition of literature of over a thousand years. The Bangalees also had a highly developed culture that had little in common with the culture of the people of western wing of Pakistan. The Bangalees` love for and attachment to their language and culture were great and when in 1952 the neo-colonial, power-hungry, arrogant rulers of Pakistan declared that `Urdu and Urdu alone would be the state language of Pakistan, they sowed the seed of its future disintegration.

The people of the then East Pakistan, particularly the students, rose in angry protest against the vicious undemocratic designs of the government. Those designs really amounted to the destruction of Bangla language and culture and imposition of the language and culture of the people of western wing on the people of eastern wing. The reaction was strong and spontaneous.

The government decided to quell protests by brute force. The police opened fire on 21st February 1952 on unarmed peaceful protesters, most of whom were students, resulting in the death, among others, of Rafiq, Barkat, Jabbar and Salam. As the news of those deaths spread, the entire people of the eastern wing felt greatly involved emotionally. Those who lost their lives to uphold the prestige defend the rights of their mother-language became hallowed martyrs.

Their sacrifice at once tragic glorious and the indignation of the people against an autocratic government had far reaching effect. 21st February became a symbol and attained mythic properties, it nourished the concepts of democracy and secularism. It also contributed significantly to the flowering of Bangalee nationalism. It led to the dawning of the realization in the minds of the Bangalees that they constituted a separate nation and their destiny lay not with Pakistan but elsewhere as an independent country. The subsequent democratic mass movements of the late fifties, throughout the sixties and the seventies, and finally the struggle for independence and the war of liberation owed a great deal to 21st February.

From 1953 onwards, starting from 21st February 1953, the immortal 21st February has been observed as a great national event all over Bangladesh, and also beyond the frontiers of Bangladesh: in several places of India, UK, USA, Canada and elsewhere, wherever there is a sizeable concentration of Bangla speaking people. Yet so long, it has been mainly a national event of Bangladesh. But with the declaration of 21st February as the International Mother Language Day, it has transcended the national borders of Bangladesh and acquired an international significance and a global dimension.

At the initiative of the United Nations and its various organs, a number of specific days have been declared over the years as international days for observance by the people of the whole world. All these days highlight some values, events and issues and are intended to generate a healthy awareness in the people of the world about them with the ultimate aim of making this world a better place to live in for the entire human population. Thus we have the international literacy day, international women`s day. international children`s day, the international day for eradication of racial discrimination, international day for ensuring pure drinking water, international habitat day, international day for preservation of environment and many others.

Some of these international days are linked with certain specific events that took place in some specific countries. While observing these days, the people of the world recall those events and those countries as a matter of course. The world is thus brought closer providing peoples of the world with the chance to get out of their insularity.

International Mother Language Day is particularly significant in the sense that it has a cultural importance. From now on, 21st February — so long observed in Bangladesh as the Bangla Language Martyrs` Day — will be observed here simultaneously as the Bangla Language Martyrs` Day and the International Mother Language Day. And in nearly 200 countries of the world, various peoples speaking various languages and belonging to various national cultures will observe 21st February as the International Mother Language Day. They will naturally celebrate their own mother languages, but while doing so, it is more than likely that they will refer to Bangladesh and the Language Movement launched by her people that reached a climactic point on 21st February 1952.

The declaration made by the UNESCO in November 1999 designating 21st February as the International Mother Language Day has placed Bangladesh on the cultural map of the world with a highly positive image. We, people of Bangladesh, should now do all that we can to further develop our mother language Bangla in all branches of knowledge so that it can play a worthy role in the community of world languages. We shall love, cherish and promote Bangla, our own mother language, but we shall not indulged in any kind of chauvinism.

While devotedly serving our own language, we shall respect the languages of all the peoples of the world make 21st February - The International Mother Language Day - a great day, to be observed worldwide in the new century and the millennium that we have recently stepped into. Long live 21st February the International Mother Language Day!

Arjun:

Yes, there were a lot of atrocities against non Bengalis. Like Fuzair said, it was not exactly a one sided affair. However, my point about Urstruly`s rantings was that he so easily recognizes the grey area in East Pakistan while doing a complete white wash in Kashmir about his side. Contrast that with Fuzair`s nuanced approach at various times.

Insuregency Operations as well as counter insurgency ops in any part of the world are dirty affairs. Fuzair mentions South Asia specifically, but what the Russians do in Chechnya today, or the Brits did in Malaysia, the French in Vietnam, all were equally bloody more or less. Hence, if the Pakistanis are pulling propganda tricks on us in Kashmir, it is understandable but the Urstruly types genuinely believe one thing when it suits them and another when it does not. That is naive at best and hypocritical at worst.

The reason the Pakistan Army`s actions stand out are:

1. The scale of the INITIAL crackdown. This is what Fuzair refer`s to as well. The difference is in the scale and not the action itself. Similar crackdowns have happened in Baluchistan and Karachi, East Punjab by Indian Army (Ops Bluestar and Woodrose) In fact it would be interesting to compare tactics of Bluestar/Woodrose with Op Searchlight.

2. It took place in an urban area thereby magnifying its effect on the populace as well as the observers. This is the key. The same crackdown, had it been in rural areas, dispersed over a large area, would not have attracted attention. There are parallels. The Bijbehara incident, in which the CRPF (or maybe BSF) killed 45 people still reverbates in history of Kashmir. Yet, many more die in villages and the incidents remain anonymous.

Arjun_m

The links are quoted in the parantheses along with each news item. However, I have not searched for a hyperlink since news are 32 years old. I took these excerpts from Salim Ahmad`s, who is a well known ivestigative journalist, book titled ``Hamud-ur-rehman Commission Report - Jurnail aur Siasatdaan``; the book is in Urdu and includes a lot of phtocopied excerpts. I do not remember if these excerpts were a photocopied reference or not because I quoted these excerpts at one of temporals article three years ago and i do not have possession of the book any more.

Fuzair:

Yes, if you look at the entire time frame then the narrative is more nuanced. I think the Pakistani Army shot itself in the foot by the initial Dacca Univ crackdown and then found themselves pretty much on the defensive subsequent to that. His Excellency had posted an excellent link to Kissinger`s Memoirs of the time. You might find it extremely rewarding a read. More then the Indian Amry, it was the civillian government that managed to manipulate the situation to extract gains.

I don`t know if you know this but Morarji Desai was the only Indian politician to come out against Indira Gandhi`s policy of splitting Pakistan. He advocated keeping EP on a slow boil and use it as a weapon against Pakistani designs on Kashmir, while never actually allowing a seperation to take place.

Could anyone throw light on what Musharaff was doing on the day of surrender??? Did he also lay his arms? What was his rank at that time? Was he fighting or in logistic unit??? please enlighten.

Fuzair.. can you elaborate a littlemore ? The full scale war started in December (with some aggressive shelling in November) according to Rose and Sisson. Why do you say that ``Between April to November 1971, the Army suffered about 4,000 battle deaths. This indicates pretty heavy fighting, not a series of one-sided executions``

``I curse today those devils of hell

who compelled me to run up the stairs

with my feet deep in the blood

of my parents,

float on rivers,

and make my bed in wild forests.

I curse them :

let them forever wander

with rotting bodies

hung around their emaciated necks.

I curse them :

when at the close of each day

they beg on their knees

for a piece of dry bread,

it will always stay ten feet away

from their outstretched palms.

their cup for quenching thirst

will always fill to the brim

with blood,

the blood with which they flooded

the soil of Bangla.

I curse them !``

I Curse Them: Shamsur Rahman



.

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

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

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

Stuka #20,

You`re correct, of course, about the brutality of the initial crackdown and that was certainly not a shining moment for any Pakistani to be proud of. I was referring to the overall picture of the insurgency. If the entire period April-November 1971 was as bloody as the initial action, then we have an actual picture similar to the propaganda one. Certainly intellectuals, esp. Hindu ones, were targetted and dealt with very brutally but my point was not to deny this (can`t be denied) but to say that the truth is a bit more complicated than the propaganda picture and there is enough blame to go around. I am not trying to excuse the attack on Dacca University but simply trying to say that the overall Indian/Awami Leagu propaganda about three million dead is nonsense.

What the Pakistanis did in Dacca in March 1971 is no worse (and no better) than what somebody accused the Indian Army of doing in Sri Lanka in 1971 (I don`t know much about the details of the Indian involvement but http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000619 has a discussion of this; somebody, probably the Sri Lankan Army itself, killed upwards of several thousand JVP supporters in putting down the uprising) and is actually doing in Kashmir now.

Incredible brutality in putting down insurgents seems to be the hallmark of all S. Asian armies, whether they belong to a dictatorship or to a democracy.

Fuzair

You write Why is there such silence? Because many Pakistanis (read: Punjabis and Muhajirs but a few Pathans also) think that the Army did nothing wrong. The only thing they did that was ``wrong`` was that the Army lost.

and then you write:

BUT what about the killings on the other side? What about the pogroms against the Biharis? Why pick on just one side

I am also of the opinion that the main cause of the attrocities that Pak Army committed against Bengalis was because Bengalis instigated it. The operation Searchlight started on the night of March 25 whereas what happened between March 1 when Awami League stepped on to the point of no return and March 25 when operation started is never brought to light as reported by international media quoted below. I am of the opinion that, had Bengalis contained themselves to mass murder of only Beharis and West Paksitani civilians the Army would have remained indifferent. But killing the non-Bengali Army personnel along with raping and killing their wives and children when Bengalis of EPR and BR mutinied, was an unforgivable sin.

Here is what happened between March 1 and March 25:




“15,000 non-Bengalis were killed in Bogra, District Santahar in three days. Women were forced to march naked on the roads and mothers were forced to drink blood of their own babies.”

“Over 10,000 non-Bengalis were killed in Chatagong. Well over 250 women and children were killed with bayonets.”

“In Siraj Ganj near Pabna, nearly 350 non-Bengali women and children were locked in a hall and were incinerated alive.”

“In the region of Sankoo Para near Maymon Singh a non Bengali residential colony of 2000 families, was razed to ground. Men were taken out and shot whereas women were raped and forced to dig their own graves, later killed”.

(Times London, 16 April, 1971)

“When East Pakistan Rifles (EPR) committed mutiny, their first reaction was to kill all non-Bengali colleagues. Among 15,000 personnel strong EPR, 40% were non-Bengalis, mostly officers. EPR filled a train with the corpses of their colleagues and their families and buried them near an Indian border town of Hari Das Pur”

(Far Eastern Economic Review, Hong Kong, 24 April 1971, By T.S. George)

“It is evident from the eye-witness accounts that when Bengalis felt that Awaami League will come in power, they killed Biharis at several places and looted their property”.

(New York Times, 10 May, 1972, Malcolm W. Brown)

“There is a strong evidence present, which suggests that mutineers attacked non Bengalis, chopped them and set their property on fire. According to eye-witness accounts about 1500 widows and children were seen taking refuge in a mosque in Maymon Singh after their men were killed by Bengalis.”

(Ceylon Daily News, Colombo, 15 May ’71, Marcos Quates)

“The news reporters who visited this important port (Chetagong) yesterday reported that firing and shelling have caused heavy damage. Mutineers massacred the city dwellers. News reporters saw a mass grave, in a jute mill owned by prominent Isfehani family, that contained 152 corpses of non-Bengali women and children who were shot in the club of that mill. The locals also showed them a burnt down building where Bengalis incinerated 350 Pathaans alive”

(Washington Post, May 22, 1971, Associated Press News)