India Through Pakistani Eyes

After 60 years, difference between two neighbours could not be more stark. One heading north korea way and the other south korea -way:

"Commonwealth leaders unanimously appointed an Indian as secretary-general on Saturday, two days after the 53-nation federation suspended Pakistan.... "

Full read at-

http://dawn.com/2007/11/25/index.htm

It is so interesting to have a read that Mukesh Ambani's networth is more than twice the fiscal budget of Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pakistan

For Mukesh Ambani's networth, just google, internet is full of results.

A few such individuals can truly run national budgets of other states in south asia...truly amazing!! Soon, Paki generals wouldn't have to beg their American masters, the wealthy Indians can pay them to stop sending terrorists to India and the world.

pervez article is an eye opener, being smug about what we have achieved and not thinking about our negatives is wrong.
this helps get a balnced view of our country.
on the hind sight, had india and pakistan, not been partitioned, muslims would have 30% or more share in population, do you really think hindus would play around then? with that kind of majority? how big would we have been as a nation, even china would have looked puny? reading about pakistan and partition, i feel jinnah took a rather hasty decision, and pakistan became an artificial state. its this artificial nature of pakistan thats leading to trouble be it in politics or religion.

F**K YOU prince leo... its fuckers like u that cause all the trouble that there is. Dont be too over confident about india either because its u who doesnt stand a chance infront of pakistan. Before commenting on Pakistanis please take a good look at urself, the english and grammar was all wrong in that piece of shit u had written. My advice to u is to f**k off before i personally chop off ur balls(it`ll be a shame if ur mother is unable to suck n tea bag u) WATCH IT!!!

you paki Pigshits surely have an inferiority complex.....by readind ur comments mohar...
u r not ready to accept the reality about India`s position in todays world........
i didnt get angry on ur comments on India...instead i pity u. wat pakistan has achieved all these years....don`t talk about Ports ,building,roads...first look at ur condition..does ur economy stands any chance in front of INDIA...nope, wats ur foreign exchange reserves,ur GDP growth rate,ppp....etc etc.
u PIGSHITS don`t stand a chance in front of US...u Damn suckers..always roam here & there begging for money & weapons...
i know tat u fools will not understand anything

Re: # 618

i am not sure what u r worried about take over of israel by muslims or kashmir .............................u confuse us

Dr. Hoodboy`s articles are consistently first rate. He is a distinguished physicist, but being a layperson, I only know him by his articles on broad humanitarian concerns. There is surely no Indian scientist of comparable stature who is so free with political opinions (and that`s a compliment to Dr. Hoodboy)

Some off hand comments...
On National College, Bangalore: This seemingly ``ordinary`` (as he puts it) college has produced many distinguished citizens. It was headed until recently by a true legend, a Gandhian, a rationalist Dr. H Narasimhaiah, who passed away at age 78.

On Indian nationalism and intellectual ``smugness``:
Yes, it is true that Indians are nationalistic, by and large. They trace everything wrong to one or more political parties, rather than the state/nation itself. The dissatisfactions have seldom taken the form of a rage to undo the nation state(stray secessionist movements apart, which have historical causes). This is because the Indian state (since `47) has had a salutary effect on the civil society. Millions have been pulled out of poverty into middle class, though admittedly this may seem pale when compared to neighbouring China. Besides, romantic doubts about the state itself are essentially a preoccupation of the elite, who ironically have benefited most from the status quo.

On Muslim conservativism in Hyderabad, AP:
I`m sure the burqa-clad women would be surprised to know that their counterparts in Pakistan (NWFP, FATA excepted) are less conservative. In fact, the author missed the fact that the burqa is fast becoming the norm now in South India. They`re trying to prove their Muslimness to themselves and to others (perhaps as a gesture of defiance). Once the word gets around that ``good`` muslim girls wear burqa, it requires great courage to resist. This practice has become common particularly among the economically weaker sections of Muslims. The elite seem to be exempt, surprisingly. (Any theories why?)

On Muslim conservativism in general:
To elaborate the point made earlier - Muslims generally tend to assert their muslimness, their distinctness, to themselves and others. A need to be more muslim than other Muslims. The conservative Indian leadership of the community says their faith requires them resist changes to civil law, regardless that Iran, Egypt and also Pakistan have reformed their civil laws. They will follow the Sharia and not Pakistan or Iran.

Sir V S Naipaul, the Nobel Laureate, whom I greatly admire, calls phenomenon ``the neurosis of conversion.`` I have a simpler term for it - competitive religiosity.

I generally agree with most observations. I may, however, comment upon the following observation in the article:



Indian philosophy and thought considers all knowledge as `sacred`. It is in this sense that knowledge deserves and is `worshipped`. However, this does not preclude questioning. A Sanskrit aphorism lays down `reading, writing, observation, questioning and leaning from pundits` as the way to acquire knowledge. It is this questioning, which is inbred in Indian thought, that has led to the myriad systems of Indian philosophy. The Hindu thought does not assign the supreme position to anything or anyone and encourages each seeker to invent his own path.

Nehru`s oft-quoted observation has to be understood in this manner. When he `worships`, he does not stop `questioning`. Indeed, `questioning` is his way of `worshipping` knowledge.

Also - I don`t understand why some Indian posters are being so uncivil and nasty to Mr Hoodboy. Relax, people! Why the paranoia and defensiveness???

About JNU - that`s why I love JNU. I`m also becoming aware of how many right wing desis there are in this world, and its scary. Without ``commie`` ideas like - local control over resources and means of production, driving out British capitalists etc - we would never have got rid of colonial rule. The masses, without whose support elites would not have succeeded in the freedom struggle - were first and foremost fighting for control over means of production, issues of livelihood, *not* some vague and wishy washy idea of ``culture``.

Hi Pervez, Thanks for sharing - I enjoyed reading your piece a lot!

I once asked an Israeli friend of mine why, if Israelis are secular, Israel has to be a Jewish state by its constitution. His reply was that the muslim population in Israel multiplies at a far higher rate than the jewish population, and once the muslims gain majority, they`ll use democratic mechanisms to create an Islamic country under Allah, and impose Sharia laws on everybody. And maybe in this day and age they won`t be able to apply a ``religious tax`` on minorities, but then you never know. He gave the example of Kashmir, which for thousands of years was a Hindu country, the birthplace of great saints and scholars of hinduism, where, since the Muslim population, is beyond the tipping point, muslims all over the world have been demanding that DEMOCRATICALLY it should be an Islamic state, because the Hindu minorities` opinions can be voted out.
When Pakistanis and Kashmiris say that Kashmir should be for Kashmiris, they are actually saying ``Kashmir should be for Muslims``, because the Hindus sure do not agree.
I wonder what the gentle people on Chowk think about this.

Re: # 611
Partition i.e. the division of the erstwhile undivided India, was initiated by the Quaid-i-Azam and his party, the Muslim League and was never supported by the Congress and had to accept it out of compulsion, due to the flaring up of communal riots. The British accepted the Partition only after both the parties had accepted it.
However, as you said the Partition occured and it is a fact. The Muslim Legue`s idea was:
Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Yet some Muslims opted for India, for she had decided that :

India = Secular country, equal rights to all.

These Muslims decided to stay where they originally resided and formed Muslim - majority areas in parts of India, without showing any threat to the unity of India and without a desire to form a separate independent `Pakistan` wherever they resided. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, as a result of this. The British had no objection with the decision of these Muslims.

So your Premises #1 and #2 and your proposition that the Partition occurred in a `certain degree` prove false, it got completed in and around 1947. Kashmir, on the other hand, was to be decided on a plebicite, which cannot be possible unless Pakistan stopps its cross - border terrorism and withdraws its troops.

#611 by haroonellahi

[India`s signing of resolutions with U.N.O, along with Mr. Nehrus constant speechs to the world of `free and fair` plebliscite all demand that we go back and analyze the situation.]

Like a one-act clown, every Paki likes to conveniently quote the UN resolutions on Kashmir, of course without mentioning (or not knowing) the fact that these very resolutions stipulated that for a fair plebiscite to happen, Pakistan was to withdraw its troops and the assorted tribal thugs that it had mobilized to annex Kashmir by force. That never happened, but Pakis have an aversion for facts, so they will go on endlessly about how Nehru promised a plebiscite for Kashmir, overlooking their own part of the responsibility.

[Premise 4 was framed by an untouchable Indian. Now, I don`t know whether he is `less` Indian to the Champions of Democracy coming from India, but he`s just as Indian as any other Indian.]

At least the Indian constitution does not discriminate on the basis of caste, even though some Indians may. OTOH, the Paki constitution decrees that Ahmadis are non-Muslims and no non-Muslim can become the President or PM of Pakistan. But here we have Pakis shamelessly having innocent doubts about whether Ambedkar is treated as an equal Indian.

[Afterall, you Indians DO stand for democracy and respecting the will of the majority right? Why not respect the majority of the Kashmiri People?]

Which is why the recent elections in Kashmir were universally acknowledged as free and fair. Which is why Kashmir, like every other Indian state, has its own people ruling it. Pakis, on the other hand, can never aspire for such things. All they have to be content with is a dubious referendum where Mushy wins ‘97%’ of the votes, and then hand picks the PM and his council of ministers, and for the fig leaf, holds an election for them from the safe seats.

Ok, I think the Indians now agree that partition`s main goal was to create a state for Muslims constitutiong Pakistan and for Hindu majority it was India.

Okay, so now we have a premise.

premise 1. Partition aimed at creating Pakistan whereever there was Muslim majority, and India whereever there was Hindu majority.

Now, looking at this from a legal point of view. What exactly had the British decided?

Now, before we continue, I would like us to look at p1 again.

premise 1. Partition aimed at creating Pakistan whereever there was Muslim majority, and India whereever there was Hindu majority.

Now, what had the British decided? Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Therefore, our second premise would be;

premise 2. Muslim majority = Pakistan, Hindu majority= India.

Now, we all were in agreement of Premise 1, and premise 2 coherently flows with premise 2.

So, yes, partitition DID take place, thats a fact. However, based on those two premises, only a certain `degree` of partition took place. Just looking at it from a logical point of view begs that we address the issue again.

India`s signing of resolutions with U.N.O, along with Mr. Nehrus constant speechs to the world of `free and fair` plebliscite all demand that we go back and analyze the situation.

I asked the distingished Indians to tell me what democracy was. I would like to present a dictionary meaning and a quote.

premise 3(the meaning of democracy):

``Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. ``

premise 4: ``The Theory of nationality is embedded in the democratic theory of sovereignty of the will of the people. This means that `the demand for a national state by a nationalisty does not require to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is enough to justify it`. But if grievances must be cited, the Muslims have them in plenty.
- Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Framer of Indian constitution on the demand of Muslims for an Indepedent state in India.

Now, a I proposed that a certain degree of `partition` had taken place(Pakistan), but I feel that a proper partition has not taken place. Premise 4 was framed by an untouchable Indian. Now, I don`t know whether he is `less` Indian to the Champions of Democracy coming from India, but he`s just as Indian as any other Indian. Look at what he has to say! Now, look at premise 3, it tells us what exactly a democracy is.

So, let us give Azad Kashmir and Indian Administered Kashmir regional autonomy. Then allow them to be reunified, and hold a plebliscite whether they would like to go indepedent, join India, or remain with Pakistan. I personally feel that they ought to become indepedent, with my proposals which I had written above. I forgot to mention the Right of Return for the Hindu Pandits.

Afterall, you Indians DO stand for democracy and respecting the will of the majority right? Why not respect the majority of the Kashmiri People?

Sridhar, why would the international community put pressure on India to relinquish Kashmir. Where is the logic in that?

They have not done so all these years when they had nothing to lose. As years go by the international community will be increasingly intertwined with India. Why would they unncecessarily want to upset the applecart?

As far as Kashmiris are concerned what more do they need if they are treated equally as Indian citizens. Even now they have more rights than anybody else.

# various by haroonellahi

India is highly unlikely to relinquish control of Kashmir. Universally acknowledged free and fair elections have already helped mitigate some of the Kashmiri grievances. As the law and order situation improves because of the reduced violence, made possible by the fence on the LoC, the prognostications for peace are there. Tourism is booming and except for the stray violence, Kashmir is beginning to resemble its old self. When things are looking so positive, why would India even think of handing over Kashmir to Pakistan on a platter?

The US is wary of creating another nation in South Asia, already a hotbed of Islamic terrorism, thanks to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Another redrawing of the map is going to be virtual suicide for it.

All attempts by Pakistan to gain control of Kashmir have miserably failed. The only hope for Pakis now lies in accepting the LoC as the International Border and get on with their lives. Or the day is not far off when Pakistan will join the ranks of Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan.

#606 by rsridhar
India is vulnerable to US pressures in ways that most Indians do not understand. Some years ago, US issued a travel advisory saying India was not a safe destination. This was, i think, following Gujarat riots but the issue was something else (i am forgetting what it was).
++++++++++++++++

Because you forgot what the issue was, I think you drew the wrong conclusion. The issue was that India massively mobilized troops on the Pakistani border.

If you look at it, US intervention follows a very logical pattern:

Pakistan threatens India (via Kargil): Clinton humiliates and forces Nawaz Sharif to publicly accept LoC.
India threatens Pakistan (via troop buildup): Bush applies pressure to India.

Strobe Talbott has said in his book (and so have many others) that the main US concern is to prevent escalation to a nuclear war. So, international players don`t care what happens as long as India and Pakistan do not go to war. The way they enforce this is by applying pressure to the country that is perceived to be the aggressor.

Nor are international players very interested in a more autonomous Kashmir, since it could become, like Bangladesh or Afghanistan (or even to some extent Pakistan), a target for subversion by militants, whereas a Kashmir that is part of India is less likely to be subverted.

I agree on your part of Hindu pandits being offered entry again. The Right of Return should be there for the Hindu pandits.


``An Open-Minded Debate for Progressive Chowkies, who by clicking submit are agreeing that they will refrain from all sorts of violent remarks. Join Discussion``. That is the name of the discussion on unplugged.


Rsridhar is one of the few progressive open-minded Chowkies on Chowk. Rest are quite disappointing.

re:#605 by MaheshG2
India would have to start thinking ways to relinquish substantial control over Kashmir before International players come in and compel India to do it. India is vulnerable to US pressures in ways that most Indians do not understand. Some years ago, US issued a travel advisory saying India was not a safe destination. This was, i think, following Gujarat riots but the issue was something else (i am forgetting what it was). Anyway, India lost substantial foreign exchange in tourism in the coming months. Just one eg of how US can pressurise India.
India is doing the right things: going for local body elections, starting bus service across the LOC. Next logical step would be to start moving towards substantial autonomy short of independence.
All this naturally puts a lot of pressure on Pak rulers who have to respond in kind. Eventually, India may have to bite the bullet and let Kashmiris decide their own future but not before Jehad from Pak`s side has completely stopped and some arrangement is made for Pundits to return home.
I just feel Kashmir has bogged down India`s potentials for too long. The question is: is it even worth it? If Kashmiris do no want to be with India, they are the losers. India heavily subsidises development in that state. The same money can be put to better use.
Sridhar

Sridhar, why would you want India to relinquish Kashmir?

re:#595 by haroonellahi
I tried Unplugged but i do not see a forum Progressive Chowkies.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
1. ``How can Pakistan trust that India will allow reunification?``
This will be a natural progression once each side (India and Pak) allows substantial autonomy to their respective parts, allows free interchange of men and materials across LOC and local self-governments to get elected in a free and fair manner.
I am assuming this will happen in the natural course of time because the 2 Kashmirs have been seperated by our 2 countries, torn apart by history. Once the impediments to reunification are lifted, the 2 sides will clamor to unite.
I see Pak having more problems than India in relinquishing power over Pakistani Kashmir. India, as i already said, has an elected govt there. Once the process gains momentum, it will not be easy for either side to stop it.

2. ``.. after the respective regions have merged, will they jointly ruled by India and Pakistan?(Condimonium). Or, will we give them independence? Or will we give them the Right to Refferandum so that the People of Jammu and Kashmir can decide whether they want India, indepedence, or Pakistan.``
This is a tough thing to decide. Once the 2 sides are united and have a large measure of independence, my guess is India and Pak would still be holding on to some powers like currency, communication etc. It will then be entirely upto the Kashmiris to decide where they want to go from this point. Even reaching this stage would be a great achievement for both countries. Once the relationship between India and Pak normalize, each side would not view Kashmir thr` an ideological prism.
One thing i failed to mention. I think it is very important that the Kashmiri Pundits be rehabilitated at some point during the normalization process. Right now, nobody is even talking about them.
Sridhar

Re: # 602
Haroon, We can write a book on democracy and its principles.
Basically, I would say that democracy is the will of the majority, constrained by a disciplined set of principles signifying tolerance, compassion, indiviudal rights, and respect for all.

Kardesh, sir, answer my question before you start making more points. We`re trying to come to some sort of a conclusion here, not continue a 50 years + game of musical chairs.

Haroon,
Why do you insist on using religion as the PRIMARY identification for human beings? I think that is both archaic and inappropriate. I may be a Muslim but the last thing I want is to be represented and governed by people ascribing to various shades of ``my`` religion. I would rather have persons who represent my other facets - liberalism, tolerance, compassion, equality, etc. Let`s all grow up. The Middle Ages are over.

A question directed to Kardesh and arjun_m,

What is a democracy? What are it`s principles?

A question directed towards Netizen.

Why did the partition take place? What did it aim to achieve?

MAhesh, I meant on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

I have heard of this famous Nehru example. I envy the long-term thinking strats of the Indians.

Made their own cars, bought it, and promoted it. Our babus prefer mercs and bmws.

but Mahesh, I think both of them were offered to send students abroad. Thats when Nehru said ke please help us make an institute in India.

Tahmed, Haroon and HP,

From another forum but it is relevant here. Did I hear you guys say Pakistan is more progressive than India?

http://www.peoplesforum.com/cgi-bin/forum?14@196.i7YhaFX7tW1.0@.7a51b4b5/1793

Developments in South Asia


Some ignorant Pakis have claimed that progress made during past 57 years in their land of origin is better than my land of origin. You be the judge from the following quotes taken from two Op-eds in Dawn, Feb. 28.


There is a charming story about the time President Eisenhower, anxious to make as many friends for his country as he could, asked both Pandit Nehru and Ayub Khan to specify in what way America could be of assistance to the two South Asian neighbours.

Nehru, an educated man with strong leftist leanings, and acutely conscious of the need and importance of advanced learning, asked Eisenhower if the United States could help set up an Indian institute of technology similar to MIT.

Ayub Khan, a pragmatist with strong rightist leanings, and acutely aware of the constant need to defend his homeland, preferred to ask the American president for some Patton tanks and help in building a cantonment in Kharian.

In continuing with the laissez-faire system, Ayub Khan established the financial predominance of the ``22 families`` who ended up owning two-thirds of Pakistan`s industry and nearly all assets in the banking and insurance sector.


Let me ....... furnish a few stunning statistics to reinforce the point that we have a lot of catching-up to do to survive and flourish in the new WTO regime. The

World Economic Forum`s Global Competitiveness Report, 2004-2005 shows that with respect to: (i) Technological readiness, India`s rank is 26, Pakistan`s 84; (ii) Firm-level technology absorption, India is listed at 18, Pakistan at 44; and (iii) Quality of scientific research readiness, India is placed at 17, Pakistan at 94. In terms of the availability of scientists and engineers. India tops the list and Pakistan is down at 61.
Nehru asked for and got MITs and Ayub Khan asked for tanks and that has made all the difference as it is evident from the a few stunning statistics.

Rsridhar, join us in the Unplugged. We are having a debate on your proposal and trying to see what would be the most flexible.

It`s called Progressive Chowkies...

This proposed state could be a beacon of prosperity, trade, and human rights. It`s constitution could be based on the Universal Principles of Human Rights. However, the Muslims could have their own personal Law system and Hindus& Sikhs could have theirs as well.

It should be a refferandum state. They should pretty much `refferandum this, refferandum that`. Every thing should be done by the people.

Lebanon, we can model it After Lebanon. If we chose to allow them to manage their own Foreign Affairs, then we can allow the Prime Minister to be Muslim, President to be Hindu, and Speaker of National Assembly Sikh. These positions may alternate, but at no time could there be an imbalance.

Rsridhar, I agree with you 100% I think such a solution gives dignified exits to all parties of the region. Also, Pakistan and India could sign Friendship Treaties, promoting culture, tourism, and trade amongst all Indians and Pakistanis.

Rsridhar, your proposal mirrors one of the three proposals of PResident Pervaiz Musharraf.

However, I have two serious issues. How can Pakistan trust that India will allow reunification? And secondly, after the respective regions have merged, will they jointly ruled by India and Pakistan?(Condimonium). Or, will we give them independence? Or will we give them the Right to Refferandum so that the People of Jammu and Kashmir can decide whether they want India, indepedence, or Pakistan.

This is a very progressive forward looking proposal by you. I PERSONALLY feel that a condomonium will be very good. The Pakistanis and the Indians will manage the Foreign Policy and defense, whilst all other matters could be managed by the regional government.

33% of the National Assembly for this proposed state should be left alone for Hindus. Many injustices have been done to them in J&k, and this should help the two communities bridge their differences.

Re: # 501
INDIA IS BUILDING HER MILITARY POTENTIAL BECAUSE:
#1 INDIA IS DEVELOPING AS A FORMIDABLE ECNOMIC POWER.

#2 SHE DOES NOT LIMIT HERSELF TO THE SUB-CONTINENT AND WANTS TO BE A KEY GLOBAL POWER.

#3 SHE IS THE SECOND-MOST POPULOUS COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. HER SECURITY CONCERNS SHOULD DEFINETLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HER ENORMOUS POPULATION.

#4 INDIA IS NOT STUCK IN ONLY A PARTICULAR TIME FRAME, UNLIKE PAKISTAN. SHE WANTS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT, DEVELOPED ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL POWER, THUS, MAKING THE WEST SIT UP AND TAKE NOTICE OF THE NEW INDIA.

#5 INDIA HAS A DOCTRINE OF DEFENCE AND NEVER OF OFFENCE.

#5 BEING A DEMOCRATIC AND FREE COUNTRY WITH A PAST HISTORY OF ENSLAVEMENT OF NEARLY 200 YEARS, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY TERRITORIAL AMBITIONS AGAINST ANY COUNTRY.

#6 HER SECURITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED THREE TIMES IN HER HISTORY OF 58 YEARS OF INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE.

#7 SHE HAS BEEN PLAGUED BY TERRORISM AND INSURGENTS FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

AND SAYING SO, I INTERACT FOR THE FIRST TIME. GREETINGS TO ALL.

HP #553

`` Sheesh! Tahmed don’t wake them up from their dreams. The Chaddi brigade really has the illusion that India is as rich as the US.

They forget that only 2.5% Indians have their own car/jeep/vans of all kinds, only 13% owns motorcycles, 43% population is proud of their bicycles, and rest of the population is still happy with Bullock carts as their primary mode of transportation.
70% of the population still lives in villages and a majority in extreme poverty. 50% of poor Asians live in India. ``

India is still poor. But India is advancing on all fronts. They are not begging anyone for handouts.

rsridhar #589,
What a sensible and thoughtful proposal. I think that Pakistan should accept it. I think that you have the interests of Kashmiris at heart. I agree with you and hope that something like this can be implemented soon. Thanks.

re:#574 by haroonellahi
You are too quick to jump to conclusions. Did u read my posts on trade prospects between the 2 countries and how there is no need for confrontation at all? Trade can create a vested interest for peace that one can build upon in future.
The problem is not Pakistanis. The problem is your Army brass. It has huge stakes and it will ensure those are protected before suing for peace with India.
Sridhar

re:#576 by haroonellahi
(I challenge you to create proposal, which is different.....)
I have talked about this in this very forum. Perhaps u did not pay heed.
Here are the propasals.
1. Complete cessatoin of hostilities, jehad, infiltration into Indian Kashmir by Pakistan
2. Gradual withdrawal of Indian troops in a stepwise manner after confirming # 1 is working
3. Substantial autonomy to Pakistani and Indian Kashmir
4. Establishment of train, bus services across the LOC (a bus service has just started; this should be expanded to other modes)
5. Establishment of local governments in respective states (it already exists in India but not in POK)
Final goal:
The 2 kashmirs to be eventually merged as India and Pak slowly give away control to the Kashmiris.
I can see India doing the above in the next 20 years or so. I do not see Pak doing even the first step. Wanna bet?
Sridhar

haroonellahi #535

`` Avenger, you are a disgrace. I thought one day you would allow your political biases to die out and become friendly, but all you do is become more violent each time I interact with you.

I do not have any intention to interact with you any more. Please try not to respond to my posts.``

The internet gives a cloak of anonymity that causes ppl to behave a lot differently.

`` Rsridhar, Kargil is under the bridge. That time era was completely different and the ground realities are quite different now too. Both sides need to be flexible. I realize that a plebliscite would be unrealistic for India, but Pakistan accepting the current situation would be unrealistic for Pakistan.

Based on those grounds, both parties should try to create solutions which offer face-saving dignified solutions.

For some reason, Indians from India`s majority religious community attain some sort of sadistic pleasure by denying Pakistan a dignified exist from the problem.``

Why should India give Pakistan a dignified exit from the problem ? What is Pakistan willing to give in return ?

Pakistani Army initiated the 1965, 1971 and 1999 wars. They are going to have to renounce military methods and back it up with deeds. No Indian leader is going to take any Pakistani general at their word.

I can suggest a few things -
1. end anti-Indian and anti-Hindu propaganda in the media and education system. It can apply to India to some degree.
2. move to a more pluralist form of government - more powers for Sindhis, Baluchis, Pusthuns
3. stop inviting USA and China to meddle in your backyard
4. end support for Taliban stlye political movements. Kick out any remnants of the Al Qaeda.
5. Increase economic co-operation with India, Iran and Central Asia. Transit for Indian goods and gas pipelines are good projects in the long run.

#576 by haroonellahi on February 27, 2005 9:51am PT


I challenge you to create proposal, which is different from India`s stance and Pakistan`s stance.


I challenge you to open your eyes and accept the reality..India isn`t going to accept any change in the status quo..except (maybe) to the extent that it agrees to convert the LoC into an International Border....If you care about the Kashmiris so much, you can offer them asylum...

This isn`t about what any one of us wants....This is about the will of the majority of people in India...hindu and muslim alike....

#582 by haroonellahi on February 27, 2005 11:46am PT


Why do you Indians want conflict?


3 out of 4 conflicts were started by Pakistan...


Pakistan is a MUCH more progressive state as compared with India when it comes to such Issues.


Uh-huh....sure..kill millions of bangladeshis and declare yourself progressive. Create the taliban and force it down the throats of the afghans and declare yourself progressive....

Re: # 583

Thanks for the offer. But I am not a politician, hence my views will be the same, irrespective the of where I air them.

#582 by haroonellahi
``You failed to answer me. You just like to evade everything I saw``

I purposely didn`t answer, because we will be just reinventing the wheel. Please point out where I have evaded you.

``Pakistan is a MUCH more progressive state as compared with India when it comes to such Issues. You guys consider it some sort of sick and sadistic pride for your majority religion which the Muslims of India humbled again and again.``

yeah thats right. So whats the problem in accepting LoC as the IB. Progressive, hence you have no problem relating kashmir with religion. Thats your problem, you have been taught how Islam for several centuries have humbled the hindus and its a pity that the Ghazi warriors have been losing land to the infidels whereas the manipulative hindoos have annexed/invaded other lands too. Kashmir with continue to a bone of contention until pakis think along that line. Its just plain truth.

#572 by haroonellahi

``Netizen, it is not about the money. It is the principle. ``

Its about land, territorial possessions. Does Pakistan think itself as modern-day Robinhood? So what is Pakistan going to do next? Ask China to be ``flexible`` wrt Sinkiang, Tibet and send its navy to defend Taiwan.
Talking about principles, where were you when pakistan in order to escape whipping disowned Taliban. And now is gunning for them.

Netizen, if you use MSN, add me. It is easier to use logic, and be more flexible in closed environments.

youthparliament@hotmail.com

You failed to answer me. You just like to evade everything I saw. Why don`t you answer me? Why do you Indians want conflict? Why can`t you get out of your old mindsets?

Pakistan is a MUCH more progressive state as compared with India when it comes to such Issues. You guys consider it some sort of sick and sadistic pride for your majority religion which the Muslims of India humbled again and again.

Now go build that flying horse, then you can use it as a pretext to attack the stinky Pakistanis.

haroonellahi

You continue to rant and rave, its not going to make any difference. A elephant walking on the street is never bothered by barking dogs. All your posts show your and your compatriots frustation and impotence. India should look beyond Kashmir and Pakistan. Already enough time and energy has been wasted on it. You continue to be a cry baby, it doesn`t affect us. Maybe in another 50 years Pakistan will climb down from ``flexibility`` to ``status quo`` as it has done from ``plebiscite`` to ``flexibililty``.

Vivek, since you Indians are so patriotic, you have always held the views of your government right?

Vivek, apparently you did not read what I said properly. I said please enumerate a different proposal which gives a different solution to the problem.

kardesh #561,
BuffaloWW bar I was refering to is actually in Kentucky, in case you come to this part of USA, I would be happy to meet you.

haroonellahi #576,
We are very happy with the stance of the Govt. of India regarding Kashmir, so any proposal would mirror its stand.

Netizen, Rsridhar, and all other Indians. I challenge you to create proposal, which is different from India`s stance and Pakistan`s stance. A proposal which will offer all sides INCLUDING the people of Jammu and Kashmir a dignified exist from the problem. Your personal integrities in my eyes are on the line here. So please, think wisely.

Advice to Indian Muslims:

While I have relatives from other ethnic backgrounds (Turk, Irani, Hindu Indian, Irish Catholic American, Pakistani Punjabi), I find the position of my Indian Muslim relatives to be the most confusing and in need of sound encouragement. During my visits to India and in correspondence with IMs, I have offered the following points for their serious consideration:
1. You are Indians first and foremost. Your loyalty should be to your country where you live, you raise your children, and where you will live out your lives, hopefully, in prosperity, freedom, and protection.
2. Your ancestors were always proud Indians who gave their blood for India.
3. You should never allow anyone to label you as Paki sympathizers. Pakistan has never been even slightly interested in your safety, your lives, or your future. Pakistan has used your numerous misfortunes and setbacks for propaganda purposes to embarrass India - nothing more, nothing less!
4. You should expose and undermine anyone promoting ulterior Paki interests among IMs. These mischief makers are probably ISI agents and will only hurt you in the end.
5. Learn from the excellent Muslim players on the Indian national cricket team. When it comes to playing against Pakistan, Irfan Pathan bowls just a little bit harder, Mohammed Kaif fields just a little bit better. You should be more Indian than the average Hindu Indian, until there is no more suspicion about your patriotism.
6. Learn from the mistakes of your Mohajir relatives in Pakistan. Muslim unity is a ``myth.`` As proven over and over again, the bottom line is that linguistic and provincial bonds are much stronger than religious ones.
7. You should stress and fight for Kashmir remaining in India. It is the only Muslim-majority state in India. If J&K were to go to Pakistan, you would be the real losers. Your numbers would be decreased by several million and the right-wing Hindus would blame you for losing J&K and then question the rationale for you remaining in India. It happened in `47 and will happen again, unless you wizen up.
8. Participate fully and consistently in the wonderful democratic process of India. It is your right and you are fortunate to be blessed with it. Just look at your relatives across the border, they have no such rights. They can`t even prevail on the Paki government to repatriate Urdu-speaking Paki citizens stranded in BD as a result of the 1971 defeat.
9. Your relatives across the border have bleak futures and many have migrated, once more, to other countries for better lives.
10. Reach out to the right-wing Hindu organizations. Convince them of your loyalty to India. Stop being confrontational (Bombay, Godhra, etc.). You are not the custodians of Mughal and Muslim historical places. Leave that task to the Department of Tourism. There is no need for you to play the role of Islamic warriors. Those days are gone and you live in a different world. Excel in education, healthcare, science and technology. Look at your president - he is a good example of a loyal Indian Muslim. Be confident, be happy, and be counted. Good luck to you.

I`m still convinced that there are Indians out there who will understand our legitimate concerns. I am a strong advocate of Indo-Pakistani peace, security, trade, and perhaps a regional allaince to make this truly a South Asian century. I`m just insulted by the lack of insensitivity by the likes of arjun_m, netizen, and rsridhar.

I fail to understand why Indians have to be so self-obsessed. There were some remarks over here that I`ve been indoctrined by my Pakistan History class. Firstly, I haven`t ever taken a Pakistan History course in my entire life. This is the first semester I have ever taken Pakistan History, and I`ve reading from 3 different text books.

So Netizen? Is India going to be purchasing a Super-Sonic White flying horse to send over the world so that it may send it`s mighty military to take over the world? hahahaa

Netizen, it is not about the money. It is the principle. I thought that the idiotic egocentric Indians were all located in the unplugged, but I have been proven wrong by the likes of people like you and rsidhar.

You can always attack Pakistan and her honor, but one just has to refer to India`s personal integrity and self-evident LIES!

We need to be flexible. After all, Nehru`s speechs regarding Kashmir are available. The 1962 statement by India is also available.

#552 by haroonellahi

``Mexico didn`t complain about the U.S adventures in Texas and California?``

The point i am trying to make is, because of losing significant chunk of its territory to the u.s. after the war, Mexico had a lasting bitterness towards the USA (comparable to the one Pakis have against India because of Hyderabad, kashmir, junagadh, bangladesh). But that was past, people need to move along. Are they still wary of u.s. hegemony or expansionist designs? Are they whining about the lost territories? And want America to be ``flexible`` and give them back their territories? All I know is they want more Ameriacn tourists and companies.

``America later paid Mexico around 18 million dollars. It was an attempt by America, rather pathetic in my opinion, to give Mexico a `DIGNIFIED EXIST`.``

By the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million and to assume the unpaid claims by Americans against Mexico. In return Mexico recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas and ceded New Mexico (including the present states of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada, a small corner of present-day Wyoming, and the western and southern portions of Colorado) and Upper California (the present state of California) to the United States.

If you want the same solution then india can also pay you $15 million for PoK, fine with you?

---

``#550 by tahmed32 on February 26, 2005 7:21pm PT
”rsridhar #549: one minor problem - India is not the US. And Pakistan is not Mexico.” ``

If you had more knowledge about the Mexican-American war may be you would have a different opinion. As you Pakis always allege that india is a ``bully`` and tries to dominate its ``weaker`` neighbours.

Ulysses S. Grant declared the Mexican-American war to be ``one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation`` and one of the causes of the American Civil War: ``The occupation, separation and annexation [of Texas] were ... a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.`` Many of the generals of the latter war had fought in the former, including Grant and Robert E. Lee. General Porfirio Díaz, president of Mexico from 1877–1911) would later lament: ``¡Pobre México! Tan lejos de Dios, y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos.`` (``Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.``)

re:#550 by tahmed32 on February 26, 2005 7:21pm PT
(rsridhar #549: one minor problem - India is not the US. And Pakistan is not Mexico.)
Tahmed Sahib,
Agreed with your comment.
I am not using the analogy in a critical fashion. Mexico is actually in a good shape and has a booming economy. Perhaps Mexicans have forgotten the bitter past and look to future with greater hope. Remember the old adage? future is in our hands. Past is past.
Sridhar

re:#552 by haroonellahi
Dude,
Read my post again.
I am saying: Mexicans are not complaining. That they went to war with US over land in the past is history. Today, they are at peace with USA and have a flourishing trade.
You are right in saying that they could not have been in perpetual enmity with USA if they were to survive. They did not start a jehad against USA because they lost their land in the past. They probably realized that it is better to be in peace and prosper with a giant next door.
Pak rulers can probably take a leaf out of this and sue for peace with India and prosper.
Sridhar
P.S: If ignorance is a proof that somebody is on drug, then i guess whole of Pakistan is just smoking away to glory!

re: a Pakistani perspective
This is from the horse`s mouth. A Pakistani herself saying what is obvious to many Indians.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-weekly/nos-27-02-2005/foo.htm#2
Excerpt:
(But such differences are simply superficial. No more than the contrasts between Karachi and Peshawar, or between the Swat Valley and Tharparkar. Deep down, there is a deeper divide; a divide based on issues of confidence and certainty of identity, and greater hope for the future. For all the poverty visible on the streets of India, for all the beggars that swarm cars, there can be no doubt that the country is poised to emerge as a major player on the world stage, with analysts in broad agreement that within years, India and China will be two of the world`s most powerful countries.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC), linked to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in its latest report, titled `Mapping the Global Future`, which attempts to predict world events over the next 15 years, sees India emerging as a huge political and industrial power, and indeed, by the year 2020, matching the US and Europe in its level of influence on international affairs.

This then is a reality Pakistan must live with. While it may not yet be readily visible, the fact remains that India`s solid core of industry, its steady democracy and, perhaps most crucially of all, the sheer size of its population and its potential for this reason as a giant market, will certainly elevate the country rapidly into the list of world powers.)
HP, are u listening, man.
Sridhar

re: India: an economic giant in the making?
It is not the past but the present and the future i am talking about.
My comparison of Indo-Pak situation to US-Mexico was about the trade. I was pointing out that while Mexico has a booming trade with USA, Pak has ideological issues so that much of the trade is routed through third country denying Pak hard currency (much of money generated is black money).
From what i have read about the happenings in India, it seems like the economy is taking off.
Manufacturing had been the bane of India. china is the unrivalled king here. But even in this sector, highend manufacturing is taking off. This report is from a redirect from Newsweek:
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416555 (high tech manufacturing)
Excerpts:
(Even by the late `90s, as India began to emerge as a global power in information-technology services, the country remained a laggard in manufacturing. But lately India`s manufactured exports have risen, from about $37 billion in 2002 to about $54 billion in 2004, and they could reach $300 billion by 2015, analysts say, as multinationals invest more heavily in India as a manufacturing base. Something similar happened in China, of course. But in India the early players are interested in the talent pool of chemists, designers and engineers, not low-skilled labor.

Look at headlines from the past 12 months: Nokia and LG Electronics unveiled plans to begin handset production in India. Hyundai, which has already exported about 50,000 cars from India, said it plans to make India its export hub for auto components. Toyota opened a factory that will make manual transmissions for vans, SUVs and small trucks produced in Thailand, the Philippines, South Africa and Latin America. Last month, Siemens announced plans to invest more than $500 million by 2009 in new and expanded factories in India.

Even picky German engineers are coming to associate India with quality.)

Another area in which India is finding its place under the sun is medical outsourcing. India is fast becoming a center for Drug research by MNCs as it is cheap to do drug trials here and there is plenty of local talents in the form of PhDs, Chemists to assist in the trial. Here is an article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24offshore.html?ex=1109912400&en=ae5a35aa828360bf&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVERNEWS

(Clinical trials of new drugs, for instance, are already moving to countries in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America, because the costs of conducting the trials are lower and human subjects can be recruited more easily.

Drug manufacturing is another area that can move. India already has a thriving generic drug manufacturing sector and is moving into biotechnology. One biotechnology company, Biocon, went public in India last year. Its founder and chief executive, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, has been described in the news media as the richest woman in India.

With revenues of more than $100 million last year, Biocon is a leading producer of generic cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins. It has designs to become a major producer of insulin and monoclonal antibodies. It also has divisions that do contract research and run clinical trials for large American and European pharmaceutical companies.

Fueling the outsourcing trend are Indian and Chinese scientists who obtained graduate degrees and work experience in the United States and Europe and are now returning to their native countries. )

India can rival US in competitiveness? That should be news, right?

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416458

Excerpt:
(Approximately 63 percent of U.S. executives surveyed said their competition would come primarily from the United States, while 59 percent said it would come from China, and 45 percent said it would come from India. Nine out of 10 executives polled said the competitive threat posed by Chinese and Indian companies would likely intensify in the next two years.)
More Indian engineers like Thiagarajan are opting to stay at home — an early indication that India is making good on its long-term economic vision: With global trade shifting to Asia, India is proclaiming itself a knowledge economy to compete on a different track from China, the world`s manufacturing giant.

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416394 (redirect from LA times)

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416404

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416457 (redirect from Christian Science Monitor)
Excerpts:

(``Five to 10 years ago, most of the opportunities were in the U.S.,`` says Thiagarajan, who plans to return to India to work if he does attend MIT. ``There are lots of opportunities here now. Naturally, who wouldn`t prefer jobs at home?``
This from another report in a US newspaper:

(More Indian engineers like Thiagarajan are opting to stay at home — an early indication that India is making good on its long-term economic vision: With global trade shifting to Asia, India is proclaiming itself a knowledge economy to compete on a different track from China, the world`s manufacturing giant.

``Clearly, it`s a success story. India has established new industries — software services, back offices — and it`s bringing in a sizable amount of foreign currency and using that to create jobs,`` says John Daly, a technology consultant based in Maryland who worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development for 20 years. ``It seems quite clear that India will continue to grow.``

``Brain drain`` used to represent a $2 billion annual loss to India, but a 2002 study by the Public Policy Institute of California suggests that the combined effect of the slowdown in the U.S. economy and the growth of the tech industry in India will help bring home as many as 45% of the Indian high-technology workers abroad. Such engineering schools as IIT are also claiming a 50% decline in the number of students leaving the country.

``Students are finding interesting and challenging jobs in India,`` says V. Kalyanaraman, dean of the center for industrial consultancy and sponsored research at IIT in Madras. ``The pay is also better than it used to be, and they find that they can have a good quality of life.``

The higher pay comes from foreign investment, which leaped 78%, to $5 billion last year, up from $2.8 billion in 2003. Software and services exports contributed $12.5 billion in 2004, jumping 30.5% from the previous year.)

On the military front, this is what US intelligent agency (NIC) has to say:
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=416404

(India will emerge as an “unrivalled” regional power with large military capabilities in the next 15 years but its “rising ambition” would further strain its relations with China besides complicating ties with Russia and Japan, America’s National Intelligence Council has said in a report.

“India will be the unrivalled regional power with a large military — including naval and nuclear capabilities — and a dynamic and growing economy,” the NIC, which represents 15 spy agencies of the US including the CIA, has said in its global trends forecast for 15 years.)

The future trend is clear. Pak will be next door to an economic and military giant is next 20 years or so just like Mexico is next door to US today. The question is: are Pakis upto it? In other words, is Pak geared up for this change?
Sridhar
H.P: surely you can come up with something better than that!
Sridhar

``A High-Risk Nuclear Stakeout``
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-khan27feb27,0,2403259.story?coll=la-home-headlines

``The two nuclear weapons specialists who examined the top-secret plans said the Libyans had handed them over in two plastic shopping bags. They said identifying marks had been removed but the designs were clearly for a warhead tested by China in 1966 and later provided to Pakistan.``

``The notes, written in English by at least four people, were numbered sequentially and appeared to be the detailed records of a year-long seminar given long ago by Chinese experts to Pakistanis on how to build the warhead, the experts said.``

``A High-Risk Nuclear Stakeout``
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-khan27feb27,0,2403259.story?coll=la-home-headlines

``The two nuclear weapons specialists who examined the top-secret plans said the Libyans had handed them over in two plastic shopping bags. They said identifying marks had been removed but the designs were clearly for a warhead tested by China in 1966 and later provided to Pakistan.``

#514 by yahyajamil

[Pakistan fears India because Pakistan has fought two major wars (1965 and 1971) and two limited conflicts (Kashmir 1948 and 1999) with India. In 1971, India actively intervened in a civil war like situation in former East Pakistan and helped dismember Pakistan.]

If Pakistan feared India, do you think it would have tried to take over Kashmir in 1948, 1965, and 1999?

Only Pakis believe the myth that India threatens Pakistan`s very existence. This myth has been peddled continuously by Paki rulers (read Army) for over 50 years now, so much so that Pakis have become paranoid of India.

Paranoia has become a national disease in Pakistan, never mind the fact that the only time India attacked Pakistan was in 1971, when the flood of refugees from East Pakistan became unbearable, especially at a time when India itself was recovering from a devastating famine, and it could not afford to feed millions of them.

And if India hadn`t intervened at that time of crisis, India would have faced a civil war itself. So who do you think India should have cared for more at that time, itself or Pakistan? Especially when the civil war in East Pakistan was one that was engineered by the Paki Army itself.

#552 by haroonellahi on February 27, 2005 0:25am PT


Arjun_m, how old are you?


Old enough to see through your lame reasoning....and old enough to know that India isn`t going to change boundaries, if that`s what you mean by a dignified exist.......

Re: # 558 Closet-Mullah32

Nah - I slap you only when step out of the line. But in this case - you are well inside the line.

Like I have said - India is nation of impotent fools, ruled by commies and eunuchs. They can`t build roads, ports, modern cities - and yet they talk about being ``superpower``. SO if anybody compared US to india - that`s just a big delusion. So you can throw all the cold water you have over them - no questions will be asked.

How are things between HP and you?. Seems like things have cooled of a bit after I slapped you silly last time?

Re: # 551
Vivek,
You got me on this. I have driven through Buffalo. Please provide some details. I am always interested in upgrading.

Haroon,
To you this is just a sophomoric exercise in ``my mom`s better than your mom`` rhetoric. That is why you are so upset at having a Mohajir Paki tell you the truth. It must sting and I can understand your reaction. Start looking at matters from a humanitarian perspective and your ardent jingoism may undergo a change for the better. The raison d`etre for Pakistan has been redefined over and over, following every major setback, so that now it is reduced to merely Punjabi hegemony over the rest of the country. When Punjabi Rangers ransacked Karachi, brutallized and killed people, raped girls, and unleashed a regin of terror on the city, the formerly docile Mohajirs learned to hate and fight back. We are not interested in fighting Indians or taking Kashmir by force, only to increase the number of our own tormentors. Do you understand?

Haroon #552,
{``I am flabbergasted by the lack of reasoning capabilities being shown by most of you people. ...Arjun_m, how old are you? Kardesh, drop dead. ``}

In light of the above dichotomy, I think you have demonstrated a lack of reasoning capabilities. Grow up, boy!

HP: and now, no doubt, my camp follower mohar will pop his head up to let loose a shower of abuse at mullah tahmed for throwing cold water on their delusional little heads. ha! ha!

HP #553 indeed! it is not just the material poverty. it is the cultural attitudes - primitive in many ways not just compared to the US but compared to Pakistan and indeed some practices found ``only in india`` - the brutalization of minorities by mobs of cowardly men as in gujerat; the abuse of medical technology to abort female fetuses (there is a ``bridal deficit`` of 25 million in the delhi/haryana area alone, according to an article last year in the WP), the burning of brides by dowry-hungry husbands, the case system, and the general attitude of arrogance and hatred for muslims that is evident on chowk. The damned list goes on.

Of course we in Pakistan have our own primitive practices under the guise of religion. But pakistanis themselves are the first to recognize and criticize that. These people live in a dream world.

haroon: please dont confuse our indian friends with facts. ;-)

MaheshG #554 And you need to get your heads checked. That is all WE are saying. ha! ha!

#553 HP,

India is a US when compared to Pakistan. That`s all we are saying.

#550 by tahmed32 on February 26, 2005 7:21pm PT
”rsridhar #549: one minor problem - India is not the US. And Pakistan is not Mexico.”

Sheesh! Tahmed don’t wake them up from their dreams. The Chaddi brigade really has the illusion that India is as rich as the US.

They forget that only 2.5% Indians have their own car/jeep/vans of all kinds, only 13% owns motorcycles, 43% population is proud of their bicycles, and rest of the population is still happy with Bullock carts as their primary mode of transportation.
70% of the population still lives in villages and a majority in extreme poverty. 50% of poor Asians live in India.

http://www.censusindia.net/results/2001census_data_index.html
Indian Housing:
Material of wall made of: mostly Grass 24,737,121 9.9%
Mud, Unburnt Brick 73,799,162 30%
Material of roof: Grass, Thatch, Bamboo, Wood, Mud, etc. 53,386,004 21.4 %

In other words 40% of the population barely has roof over their heads.

Material of floor:
Mud 136,779,853 54.9% . 70% of the rural population has mud floor. 124,855,981 70.3 %
56% of the population has no electricity and a full 64% population has no bathroom in their houses.

India does look like the US!
Please don’t wake them up from the wet dreams! They are seriously delusional!

I am flabbergasted by the lack of reasoning capabilities being shown by most of you people.

Mexico didn`t complain about the U.S adventures in Texas and California? Dude! Are you on DRUGS?

They fought two wars over it! Santa Anna ka nam kabhi suna hai? Which world do you people live in? Heck, If the Mexicans did not surrender, all of Mexico could have been anexxed. 1/3 of Mexico was, and the Americans were at the gates of Mexico City, where a treaty was signed. America later paid Mexico around 18 million dollars. It was an attempt by America, rather pathetic in my opinion, to give Mexico a `DIGNIFIED EXIST`.

Arjun_m, how old are you?

Kardesh, drop dead.

kardesh #547,
Good deal, but no Ind-Pak girl even come close to the waitresses at the nearest BuffaloWW bar.

rsridhar #549: one minor problem - India is not the US. And Pakistan is not Mexico.

But never mind...please continue your discussion and sorry for the interruption. I just checked in to see if there was anything interesting going on on this board.

re: 541 by Netizen
Texas and California i believe belonged to Mexico in the past. Still, i do not see Mexicans complaining! I guess they are busy counting their dollars!
Or else, they are just pragmatic about the new historical realities and know that nothing much can be done about the past but the future is in one`s hands. Can the Pakistanis learn some useful tips from here? I hope so.
Sridhar

Re: # 541

``Mexico has never complained that its northern neighbour is big and a bully. It has no reasons to. It has found ways to prosper with USA.``

didn`t texas and california belong to mexico earlier?

Re: # 532
Vivek,
Don`t knock her thick lips. She is a goddess! You can have Meera. Just let us have Priyanka and BTW, keep J&K.

re: trading with India
A relevant article on trade.
http://us.rediff.com/money/2005/feb/19guest2.htm
Note how Srilanka is finding trade with India very beneficial.
Sridhar

haroonellahi

Do you know that Balochistan was forcibly incorporated into Pakistan? Isn`t that the largest province of Pakistan?

funny how you want freedom for the Kashmiris when you`ve denied it to the baloch...and were denying it to the bengalis until India stepped in....

Historical events explaining the Balochistan imbroglio in the past and present

Balochistan has `plagued` many governments in Pakistan since 1947 when it was forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. At the time of Partition, besides British Balochistan, there were four princely states in what is now Balochistan: Kalat (the largest and most powerful), Makran, Kharan and Las Bela. The Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, wanted a Nepal-like status for Kalat, that unlike other princely states in undivided India had a treaty with Whitehall. Within twenty-four hours of Pakistan`s creation, he declared Kalat`s independence. The Khan of Kalat was not the only head of a princely state yearning for independence. The Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir and Nizam of Hyderabad had similar ambitions. But Pakistan and India frustrated all three in the same way: militarily.

The showdown between Kalat and Pakistan came on April 1, 1948. The army marched on Kalat. The Khan capitulated. But his younger brother, Prince Abdul Karim, declared a revolt against Pakistan. Prince Karim`s band of 700 guerrillas (Baloch National Liberation Committee) took to the hills to fight the Pakistan army. The rebellion was soon crushed. Karim was trapped and arrested, but later granted amnesty.

In ten years time, Balochistan was in revolt again. Fearing that West Pakistan`s three minority provinces might ally with East Pakistan and in an attempt to counter the numerically larger East Pakistanis, the West Pakistani ruling establishment merged the four West Pakistan provinces into One Unit in 1954. The move was greatly resented by the three smaller provinces in the western part of the country.

To crush the growing anti-One Unit movement in Balochistan, the army marched on the province a day before the first military rule was imposed. The Khan of Kalat was arrested. Large-scale arrests and house-to-house searches were conducted across Balochistan. The Baloch responded with armed resistance. A 1000-man militia under the command of Nauroz Khan launched a struggle against One Unit and for the release of the Khan of Kalat. The militia engaged the Pakistan army in pitched battles for over a year, until on May 19, 1959, both sides agreed upon parleys -- actually a trap for Nauroz Khan who was arrested. In July same year, five of Nauroz`s relatives including his son were sent to the gallows. He himself died in prison in 1964 and became a symbol of Baloch resistance.

The Baloch resistance continued until 28 January 1967 when the Pakistan government announced a general amnesty. The decade old armed struggle ended, only to start in a few years again when Bhutto at the behest of the Shah of Iran started an ill-fated operation in Balochistan.

The first general elections in Balochistan in 1970 had helped Baloch nationalists secure the legitimacy they needed. Overwhelmingly voted in, the Baloch nationalists formed the province`s first ever-elected government with the support of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI).

In 1973, Bhutto visited Iran where the Shah, concerned about the oil-rich Iranian side of Balochistan, warned him against any nationalist movement on his border and promised economic and military aid worth 200 million dollars. On his return, Bhutto dismissed the elected government of Balochistan, on the pretext that a cache of 350 Soviet submachine guns and 100,000 rounds of ammunition had been found in the Iraqi political attache`s house in Islamabad. Bhutto claimed that the weapons were destined for either Pakistani or Iranian Balochistan.

Soon the Pakistan Air Force`s French Mirage fighters and Iran`s American Cobra helicopters (manned by Iranian pilots) were bombing Balochistan. The Mirage and Cobra squadrons were joined by 80,000 ground troops. The reaction against it was widespread too, with an estimated 80,000 rebels having joined the Balochistan Peoples` Liberation Front.

Though the insurgency remained isolated, mainly due to press censorship, it attracted some upper middle class radical youth from Lahore, who had been schooled in London. Some from Sindh also joined in. Bhutto was indeed annoyed when two Talpur boys joined the Baloch guerrillas.

The Bhuttoist misadventure in Balochistan cost the lives of 3,300 Pakistani troops and 5,300 guerrillas. Above all, Bhutto dug his own grave by involving the Pakistan army in civilian affairs and setting a precedent for its later behaviour. In July 1977, the army `secured` Pakistan, the new military dictator declared a victory in Balochistan and the troops withdrew. The resistance eventually died down, only to re-emerge in present times, since for the Balochs, nothing had changed. Their province remains the country`s economically the most backward, despite possessing rich mineral resources. Major Baloch grievances continue to revolve around the issue of natural gas royalties and use.

Discovered in 1952 at Sui, natural gas was not available even in Quetta until 1980s -- and that too when an army cantonment needed it -- although Sui gas had reached far-flung towns in Punjab. Gas from Balochistan meets 38 per cent of the national needs yet only six per cent of Balochistan`s 6.5 million people have access to it. Adding insult to injury, Balochistan is not paid proper royalties.

Re: # 537

What the indians are saying is keep PoK stay out of IOK. Both of us have many headaches at home. With regard to water, India should honor the Indus-water treaty, but if Pakistan continues ``bleed by a thousand cuts`` policy then India should embark on ``starve by thousand dams`` policy.