Iranian Puzzle

Article from Haaretz.


Iranians didn`t `betray` the U.S.

By Zvi Bar`el

A sense of dread befell the world: The new Iranian president is an extremist, a lover of nukes, a Beckham-hater, a believer in the separation of the sexes; to cut a long story short - prepare for war. One could sense the disappointment that crossed the ocean with the news that Hashemi Rafsanjani - the ``liberal`` and ``the champion of human rights`` - failed to get elected.

So how does Iran - which ever since the revolution in 1979 has been seen as an entrenched foundation of the axis of evil, has had sanctions imposed on it by the United States, and in the past two years has come under threat of war from both the United States and Israel - spring a surprise by simply fulfilling expectations?

The answer to this question can be found in the erroneous perception according to which Iran is aligned around two polar opposites - reformists and conservatives. The reformists want Western democracy; the conservatives want the West`s soul. The reformists are opponents of nuclear arms; the conservatives want an atom bomb in every backyard. The reformists support a free economy; the conservatives want the state to control the economy.




Advertisement

And lo and behold, after eight years of rule by a ``reformist`` like Mohammed Khatami, it is difficult to distinguish between the two streams. Khatami, for example, is opposed to a change in the unique Iranian system of government in which the supreme spiritual leader is also the supreme political leader. The man who served as speaker of the parliament, Mehdi Karroubi, is actually a liberal, but neither does he want to change the system; and the same goes for the brother of the spiritual leader, Hadi Khamenei.

Hundreds of thousands of students, who make up the liberals` public infrastructure, voted for the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and not for their ``natural`` candidate, Mustafa Moin, a relative of Khatami. It also turns out that spiritual leader Ali Khamenei is encouraging foreign investments in Iran, while the ``moderate`` candidate, Rafsanjani, is perceived as an economic reactionary due to his vast wealth and involvement in governmental corruption.

The confusion is even greater when one realizes that support for Iran`s nuclear armament crosses party lines, as does the attitude toward the United States. When President George Bush defined Iran as part of the axis of evil, thousands of reformists joined conservatives in demonstrations against the United States. These are the same reformists who lit candles in solidarity with the Americans in the wake of the Al-Qaida terror attacks in September 2001. These are the same Iranian residents who, in a poll conducted in Iran some two and half years ago, declared their support for the renewal of dialogue with Washington.

The Iranian public did not ``betray`` Washington in last week`s elections. It simply remained an Iranian public that first considers its government`s internal policy, its economic situation and its national pride. It did not elect the man who let it down over the past eight years or promised new relations with America, but the man who promised jobs for 30 percent of the unemployed and welfare programs for the poor - just as any public anywhere else in the world does.

Furthermore, the reformists did not have an election promise from Bush that they could wave around and vow that the United States would change its policy toward Iran if the president was elected from among them. In fact, Washington, which is now so frightened by the results of the election, did not do much at all to bolster the reformists over the past eight years, thus allowing Russia, China, India and Pakistan to become stronger allies and wield a greater influence over Iran.

Is Iran more frightening than ever now? Not necessarily. Iran is not an insane state, and its citizens, despite the oppression, know how to rally the street into action when things are bad for them. They were the ones who elected more liberal representatives as a result of their disappointment with the representatives of the revolution; and they are the ones who changed the government now.

Urstuly,

Good points in 38, but who ever worries about sustainability? Even in the west there is a understanding (is it misplaced?) that new markets will emerge, and the workforce will shift as the trends of a new economy dictate.

So in 50 years, manufacturing will definitely move to virgin areas and untapped markets will be opened up. The trick for India and China is not to be one trick wonders.

---

pmishra2,

Perhaps I shouldn`t waste my time commentating on obscure columnists remarks...but...

The article you pointed has hardly a coherent thought in it. The people voted for the person who will cater to their interests (or at least perceived to). The idea that the poor of Iran will benefit from headlong retreat from current policies and a complete opening up to the West is nonsense. It will be the already well-off (by comparison) middle class who will be the prime benefactors of that.

No one voted to ``remain in poverty`` or to keep an economic status quo in the rural areas. In fact, it`s precisely the promise of providing opportunity (through education, and investment) to rural Iranians that played a part in the electoral win of Ahmadinejad.

The appropriate questions are: will a policy of self sufficiency (like India had up till the 90`s) work for Iran, which unlike India has oil wealth to fund it`s experiment? What avenues are available for a transfer of technology and know-how? How will relations with the Europeans, Chinese and Russians change? Is cooperation with America a prerequisite for any kind of growth? Will catering to the lower class disenfranchise the middle class, in effect swapping one source of political instability for another, or run the risk of economic stagnation?

Another view on the puzzle:

Islamist Regime in Total Control

---

by Amir Taheri

The Australian

June 27, 2005

ZAMINLARZEH! The word, that means earthquake in Persian, is on every mouth in Iran as the nation tries to absorb the shock of Friday`s election that catapulted a little-known figure into the position of President of the Islamic Republic.

That figure is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who became mayor of Tehran less than two years ago. He won the presidency in a landslide, crushing the mullah-cum business tycoon Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the pillars of the regime since its inception in 1979.

Ahmadinejad holds a PhD in engineering from Iran `s most elite university, and is far better educated than all of his five predecessors as president.

A reservist colonel of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, he is the first president of the Islamic Republic with a military background. The son of a blacksmith, he is the first president of the Islamic Republic to come from a poor family and one of few senior figures in the regime not to have amassed a personal fortune in recent years.

But Ahmadinejad`s chief asset, and the main if not sole reason for his victory is his relationship with and fierce loyalty to the Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenehi, the true and almost absolute ruler of the country. The two met in 1979 when Khamenehi served as deputy defence minister and have been close ever since.

Some analysts have dismissed Ahmadinejad`s emergence as a front-line player in Iranian politics as irrelevant because the electoral process that produced his win was manifestly flawed.

Nevertheless, his election is an important development. After all, this is the first time in the 26-year history of the Islamic Republic that a mullah has been beaten by a non-mullah in a high-profile electoral contest. His win is all the more significant because his rival was not only Iran `s richest man but also the best-known figure of the Khomeinist regime.

Ahmadinejad`s victory means that Khamenehi, who has established himself as head of the most radical faction within the Khomeinist establishment, now controls all levers of power for the first time. He will now be able to put his own men in charge of all key government departments. Any idea of Western-style reforms to please the restive middle classes will be abandoned.

The concentration of power in the hands of the radical faction will end more than two decades of divided government that has put many aspects of policy on autopilot as it were. Two years ago when King Abdullah II of Jordan telephoned Khatami to complain about Iran setting up terrorist cells in Amman, the Iranian president was able to claim that he knew nothing of it because he did not control all organs of government.

The Europeans who have been negotiating with Tehran over the nuclear issue have also heard similar claims from Iranian counterparts. With Ahmadinejad in charge, however, such claims will no longer be credible because the camarilla headed by Khamenehi is now in complete control. Rafsanjani had promised the Chinese model - meaning the combination of a despotic political regime with capitalist economic policies. Ahmadinejad promises a North Korean model - that is to say a totalitarian system and a command economy.

Ahmadinejad`s election shows that the Khomeinist regime cannot be reformed from within. It also shows that there is still a strong constituency in Iran for the populist message of the ayatollah. True, far fewer people voted than the regime claims. But those who did vote preferred Ahmadinejad`s ``pure Islam`` to Rafsanjani`s attempt at perpetuating the myth that Iran today is, in the words of the former US president Bill Clinton, ``a progressist democracy``.

Ahmadinejad describes himself as a fundamentalist, has no qualms about asserting that there can be no democracy in Islam, rejects free-market economics, and insists on ``religious duties`` rather than human rights. This clarity will, in the medium term, help the people of Iran understand the choices involved. They will learn that they cannot have an Islamist system together with the goodies that the modern world offers in both material and spiritual terms.

Unlike Khatami, who was trying to hoodwink the Europeans over the Iranian nuclear project, Ahmadinejad openly says Iran does have such a program, is proud of it, and that no one has the right to question Iran`s right to develop whatever weapons it wants.

Should the outside world be frightened? Not necessarily. Paradoxically, the clarity created by this election may prove useful. Khatami went around the world speaking about Hegel and Nietzsche to ruling elites and creating the illusion that the Islamic Republic was part of the global system symbolised by the World Trade Organisation, the Davos forum, and the Western non-governmental organisations of do-gooders.

Ahmadinejad`s victory reveals the true face of the Islamic Republic as a regional power with its own world vision that challenges the so-called ``global consensus``. It reminds the world that the mini-Cold War that started between the Islamic Republic and the West, notably the US, is far from over.

---

Iranian author Amir Taheri was editor-in-chief of Kayhan, the most important Iranian daily under the Shah. He is a member of Benador Associates.

---

URL: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/16225

From www.ait.com:

Iran: The living fossils` vengeance

Traditional society persists long past its best-used-by-date in the Middle East due to subsidies from the oilfields or, in the case of Palestine, from the United Nations. Rural folk who long since would have left the land and its rigid habits of mind remain suspended in time like living fossils, watching as the world leaves them behind. Rural Persia voted with one voice to hold the world at bay, and elected Mahmud Ahmadinejad as the country`s next president. It is pointless to complain about vote fraud and intimidation; there is no doubt that Adhmadinejad won the votes of Iran`s rural poor.

``Almost no one in Washington expected the landslide victory of the conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, as Iran`s next president,`` wrote David Sanger in the New York Times on June 26. Yet the surge of support for the ultra-Islamist mayor of Tehran should be no surprise.

From an economic standpoint, Iran is a changeling monster, an oil well attached to an iron lung, as it were, maintaining with subsidies a rural population that is no longer viable. Oil and natural gas earn US$1,300 a year for each Iranian, roughly a fifth of per-capita GDP. The Islamic republic dispenses this wealth to keep alive a moribund economy. Government spending has risen by four-and-a-half times during the past four years, financed via
the central bank`s printing press, pushing inflation up to 15% per annum, while unemployment remains at 11%.

Iran`s government spending, money creation and inflation (annual rates of change)
Government
spending
Liquidity (M2)
Inflation

2001
22%
29%
11%

2002
43%
30%
16%

2003
99%
26%
16%

2004
29%
30%
15%

Note: Years are Persian equivalents, beginning in March
Source: Bank of Iran

Iran`s poor want more of the same policies, albeit with less skim for the elites, and that is what Adhmadinejad promised them. Rural Iran will support the Islamists, because the Islamists will support them for ideological reasons. The young people of Tehran may look to the West with hope, but their cousins in the countryside see only the ruin of their way of life. If the traditional economy disappears, will Iranians produce better manufactures than China, or program computers like the Indians? Their fate would be economic emigration, like their neighbors the Turks.

Poverty is not the issue. The 17 million Iranians who cast their ballots for Ahmadinejad voted to remain in poverty, with a bare minimum of security provided by the Islamic state. On the contrary, they cannot imagine their lives outside of traditional society, in which Islam regulates every facet of existence. Fewer than three-quarters of Iranian women can read, that is, fewer than half of rural women are literate. The country has only one phone line for every five people, a fifth as many as France. Most of the country remains sunk in misery, but the humblest Iranian farmer still has the pride of a conqueror in his heart.

That is the great gift of Islam, which offers much more to the faithful than the ordering of traditional life. It promises to impose the system of traditional life upon the world. Islam is the vengeance of tribal society upon the cosmopolitan empires, first against the Sassanids and Byzantines, then against the Holy Roman Empire, and now against the West. The Muslim does not cower in his village waiting for the inevitable encroachment of a hostile world, but seeks to impose his will on the world. As I wrote elsewhere (Does Islam have a prayer? May 18, 2004),

[quote]
Islam acknowledges no ethnicity (whether or not one believes that it favors Arabs). The Muslim submits - to what particular people? Not the old Israel of the Jews, nor the ``New Israel`` of the Christians, but to precisely what? Pagans fight for their own group`s survival and care not at all whom their neighbor worships. A universalized paganism is a contradiction in terms; it could only exist by externalizing the defensive posture of the pagan, that is, as a conquering movement that marches across the world crushing out the pagan practices of the nations and subjugating them to a single discipline. If the individual Muslim does not submit to traditional society as it surrounds him in its present circumstances, he submits to the expansionist movement.
[end-quote]

That is why Adhmadinejad`s belligerent attitude towards Iranian nuclear weapons cannot be separated from his charitable stance towards the country`s rural poor. Islam promises not only protection against the threatening world, but the opportunity to force it to submit to Islam`s own standards.

Ahmadinejad`s victory leaves American policy in an untenable position. To the extent that the United States enhances the military prowess of Iraq`s Shi`ites to the level required to suppress Sunni insurgents, Iran may harvest the political benefits. Iraq is now led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari`s Da`wa party, which operated in exile out of Tehran during the Iran-Iraq War. At a Baghdad news conference with Iran`s foreign minister on May 18, al-Jafaari said in English, referring to the 138,000 American troops in Iraq, ``Let me add that the party that will leave Iraq is the United States, because it will eventually withdraw. But the party that will live with the Iraqis is Iran, because it is a neighbor to Iraq.``

In their provincial smugness, President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice understand none of this. The more the Middle East opens its political process to the will of the people, the worse things will be for Washington.

It is not that the people of Iran are wrong about Admadinejad, like the people of Lebanon about Hezbollah, or the people of Gaza about Hamas. Rather, they are the wrong people to begin with, in that their lives as presently organized are not viable in the modern economic world. Iraq`s Sunnis, I observed recently, commit suicide bombings at a rate not observed since Japan`s kamikaze, because the present state of affairs offers them nothing but misery and humiliation (Why Sunnis blow themselves up, June 13, 2005). For the peoples of the Middle East, extremism, terrorism, and even suicide attacks represent an asymmetrical bet. What the United States offers by way of democracy and modernization is an abyss with no bottom; fighting one`s way out offers at least a slim chance of success, particularly if one builds nuclear weapons.

urstruly #38 I dont know about other countries, but Turkey is already getting a bonanza - grew by 8% last year, and factories from Spain etc. are being re-located in Turkey. Despite having trouble becoming part of the EU, the positive attitude shown by the Turks (e.g. introduction of democratic reforms as pre-condition for joining EU) has made it attractive to investors.

Here is the story in today`s WP about it

article

Turkey`s Evolving Economy
Country Ties Its Fortunes Closer to Global Trade, Putting Pressure on Western Europe

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page D01

ISTANBUL -- Only six months ago, the European Union agreed to hold talks aimed at bringing this poor and overwhelmingly Muslim country into its ranks, offering what seemed a sign of Western Europe`s grudging acceptance of globalization. Turkey then pressed ahead with reforms aimed at making itself more like the Europe it hoped to join.

Today, however, Turkey`s hopes of joining the E.U. are all but dead. In the European conversation, Turkey has devolved from a symbol of the continent`s aspirations for a wider community to the primary culprit threatening its livelihood -- a nation stealing manufacturing work while delivering an influx of indigent job-seekers.

Yet Turkey`s pursuit of a place in the E.U. has set in motion a process of change that has made this country of 70 million a more market-oriented economy. This process is putting new pressures on Western Europe while revealing Turkey`s own precarious position, as it ties its fortunes closer to global trade.

Re: # 38

``With rapidly expanding industrial base and only automation as an answer to growing demand what would the countries like India and China do with their immensely large populations. In western world, a negative population growth has kept the sanity of society intact when workforce faced the challenges of automation. I think in next 50 years the production will move to smaller, sparsely populated countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, nepal etc. What do you think.``

I think automation was used as a productive tool, not as an answer to reduction in population. Innovation has mostly lead to increase in productivity and hence growth of economy. Automation in america was seen since the days of 1900 when the population was increasing with an ever increasing input of immigrants.
For developing world, in order to be competitive would require them to be productive i.e. leaner and meaner just like when China/British reducing its army personnel but becoming more lethal. The growth in economy or the wealth generated in one industry can be used to develop/invest in newer technologies and industries. hence you see the state undertaking doing poorly because their motto is not productivity/generating wealth but providing jobs to the people.
Investments/industries would go to any low cost-efficient country, but i don`t think Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, nepal will be ready in another 50 years.

charlie writes ``About Dark ages, I meant Europe is on its way to it. I find no progressive thought left here. ``

Charlie, while I agree with your posts to a large extent, I am not sure about your above comment. At a personal level, my exposure to europe and europeans have shown that they seem to be a lot more knowledgeable about the affairs of the world. Not just that, unlike americans, they also tend to have a far deeper understandings of the ``context`` of various conflicts around the world. They seem to be a lot more well travelled than Americans. Only 10% of americans hold passports, compared to more than 50% of europeans. And the ``culture of knowledge`` is far more seeped into europeans than amongst any other people. Yes, chinese are picking up steam, but still they have a long way to go. Its the europeans anthropologists, and scientists you see working in africa and far flungs of South America.

On the other hand, America under Bush has taken a giant step towards dark age. Theory of evolution is being banned in schools. The climate of free thought and free expressions in being stiffled. Because of ``global war on terrorism`` american academia has lost the best and the brightest students to other countries. A somewhat objective Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) was recently given a slap by an increasingly evangelised congress to ``balance`` its coverage or else lose funding. There is not a SINGLE mainstream newspaper in the entire US which dares to have a coverage of the Iranian elections that differs from the official US policy.

As for there being no progressive thoughts left in europe, European Union is a pretty progressive thought. Yes, it has encountered some hurdles lately, but no one believes that it will be stopped. Europe needs to bring its economics to the demands of 21st century - and solve the stagnations resulting from welfare entitlements and labor unions etc.

But still, economic prosperity follows a free society. And america is becoming increasingly less free.

Re: # 32

``Re: # 31
Mr. Netzen.... You have clearly shown India will not mount to any thing. Its population is going to high``

Population is fine as long as the country can manage it i.e. not have to spend its hard currency on food imports.

But what matters is what the people are doing. whether the majority of people are just peasants/farmers toiling hard everyday to make their ends meet or are technological/scientific hand helping the country to become an industrial base with wide economy and talened human resource.
This can happen only if the country can provide basic education to everyone.

#32

Bravo Madani-saheb! if only more of your countrymen shared the clarity of your vision!!

Re: # 37 Netizen

With rapidly expanding industrial base and only automation as an answer to growing demand what would the countries like India and China do with their immensely large populations. In western world, a negative population growth has kept the sanity of society intact when workforce faced the challenges of automation. I think in next 50 years the production will move to smaller, sparsely populated countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, nepal etc. What do you think.

Re: # 21 Charlie

``US have realized that it can`t keep the first spot for much longer time. With their growth rate, Chinese economy is going to be the biggest economy in the world within a decade. India is almost equal to the size of Japanese economy and now is going to be the third economy in the world. With the growth rate as that of India, economy of US + India will always remain larger than chinese economy. So for Americans, India is a suitable ally to save the system on which US infrastructure is based. Indians never feel it difficult to adopt them withj changing time (that`s what I declared submission), so they have adopted well in this situation.``

As I have said in earlier posts, very large economies of China and india will be because of their huge population. Definitely it is better than what it was earlier but you need to look at GNP/capita which I think will still be lower than the western world (but higher compared to decades back).

``We need to realize the value of human resources. Human resources if developed well are the biggest asset of a nation. Specially in 21st century, it will make or break he nations. Europeans have not enough human resources. Their baby boom generation is old enough. New generation is not willing to produce more people. They are afraid of skilled migrants entering Europe. They are afraid of opening themselves in front of the world. India and China have already a lot of human resources and they have positively started exploiting these resources.``

Thats true. But if you look at the growth rates, its falling in a region/country which is getting industrialized. india is still growing but at a lower level than previously. Infact china has its own problem of ageing, because of 1 child policy. but they are in a better shape than the europeans with regard to that.

``I am sometimes afraid of these chinese. Their ``remaining low and advancing silently`` makes me worried. While west has some set of ethical value in the name of democracy, freedom etc (althouygh being misused now), nobody knows what these chinese are upto. The brutal way they have started capturing world markets, will they be same if they starting colonizing? ``

The same thing happened during jap invasion of corporate america in 80`s. people thought that the japs were going to buy off the entire country. THey entered the memory business and dominated it. But the U.S. companies moved to upscale industries and the japs got competition from koreans. THe chinese are also riding high on mafg but there are a few chink in their armor, like the currency rate. With a few chinese companies bidding/buying u.s. companies it would be interesting to see what happens next.

Re: # 32 ahmedmadani:

I am sorry to disappoint you, I am a hindu (by culture) and indian by nationality. My post #31 was more towards the ground reality than to debase/ridicule anyone. What I was trying to say is that even though india has the potential and is moving in the right direction (at varying pace) it is still not there yet. It will take decades of diligent work from all sections of society.

VanGogh,

Wish it were that easy. Our `vulgar` movies are really such a huge hit in Pakistan and people like Ahmedmadani who just cant have enough of it. And whatever their religion Arabs have a keen sense of history and they credit the entire subcontinental history and its civilisational baggage to India only. And with good reason too since Pakis dont seem to want it. Iran and Iraq for instance, have had traditional ties with India for over a millenia and their people, particularly shiite community, have great appreciation and respect for India and her people. India would have been an full OIC member long back if not for repeated objections from Pakistan. Last time was in `98 and it was Saudi Arabia -yes, thats correct- who tabled it in OIC but yet again shot down by Pakistan.

And you still have Ahmendmadanis who wonder why his muslim brethren in Arab and elsewhere dont respect Pakis and their passports.

TheoVanGogh: you write ``This should be a matter for Indians living in the diaspora to shun all Pakistanis ``

Great. Why dont you put your money where your mouth is try to stay away from chowk?? (of course you cant stay away from chowk. Because there is nothing you crave more than attention from Pakistanis). ha! ha!

Ahmedmadani make a good point and it is something Indians should encourage.

For self esteem reasons Pakistanis should be encouraged by India and Indians to embrace their heritage to the West and align themselves with Arabs, Afghans, Kurds, Persians, and work towards global Islamic Caliphate or at the very least Islamic trading block and a turn to Sharia law along the lines of Saudi Arabia. This should be a matter for Indians living in the diaspora to shun all Pakistanis as friends and by doing so encourage Pakistani assimilation into the global Ummah.

Re: # 31
Mr. Netzen.... You have clearly shown India will not mount to any thing. Its population is going to high.

I will request you to not give ANY attention to India. I have began to feel Chowk has become place for rowdy indians to have time of life to say bad words and criticise govt of pakistan, Pakistan army and Pakistanies. I will like people to given attent to other real countries with whom were are related by culture, thinking, education , standards and of all RELIGION. We need to concentrate on United Muslim States of Asia,Africa and Europe. You should write about brotherly muslim countries and we are failing totally and is reflected by response of Muslim countries for support to us in Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek. They are now days not even supporting by words. The reason is clear when a Muslim brother look at Pakistani newspapers its full of INDIA. Our culture uis comtaminated with all cross culture and vulgar movies and books and TV shows pouring from India.

Also no Point is saying India is not doing good as what you got out of it nothing except little morbid comfort. But what is use to Pakistani of that comfort as we are though far ahead than India still we are not considered very worthy, our passport is not respected by brother muslim countries. They feel what is point in helping us if we are all obssed with India. We need to move our eyes to Arab, Iran and central asia and africa. Why we are not getting not even one letter from Brothers from 57 Muslim countries as they feel we are almost same as bunch of Indian Hindus. No arab bothers about pakistan and muslim struggles. There is repression in asia against Muslims of Burhma,Thiland and even China but we are all worried and interest in India.
Also no point in saying China is better than India, It is but what is of use to us ? Chinese laugh at us. They send all smuggled goods and not we can say much even though they are demolishing industries one after another. We can not make fun of India when our prime minister hopes to Import goods from India like sugar, potatos, onions, garlick wheat to control inflation. You are educated than me and you are in foreign country so understand better than me. What is point in saying India is not good when they produce and market bag of cement at 150 rs while our producers market at 350 rs. These producers are getting very cheap gas compared to Indian producers who use coal with great amount of ash. You check price of sugar in Karachi and India. Why sucrose content in Sugarcane in India is 11.5% on average while ours hovers around less than 10%. There are 12 companies listed on American markets they are Indian made and there is giant as Mittal steel 45 Milliom Metric Tonne/ per year largest producers of steel in private co./ headquarterd in UK ? India may be stupid what is use if we are not any better? I have never understood what is this complex its disease. It diverts our energy from work and constructive criticism to redicule others and leads us no where. We were the Largest Muslim Country prior to 1971 war. The largest Hindu country but stupid poorest ( It was really poor india of those years) stood against and China and USA used its strength and weaknesses and sacraficed and cut to size the egos of generals and in short time of 1year largest muslim counrty was deafeated. That is fact then what is point in making fun of India ? Indians took on usa and China in that struggle and stupid indians sacraficed to break Pakistan willingly. Talk is very cheap . What our govt has done for liberation of Kashmir precisely again talk and talk. Our army has declaed no struggle. Let army tax for Kashimir exclusively like India did and see how many people are ready to pay willingly for few years as Indians did. Indian are poor but have arrogance to lecture with begging bowl in hands. Have we that arrogance even to say anything. Thershold of Pian taking of Indians is very high ours is big talk but braeks very fast.Wehave no self criticism but hate of India has made us blind we look at Indian success and achievements with reversed telescope. All picture gets distorted. India produces High speed Disel at world prices we are more near to sources of crude than India we used to get 1 Billion dollars Saudi OIL facilities/ free oil. We import high speed disel. Why we can not make and export high speed disel ? I have spent life in Hospitality business. Why Indian companies in this sector are invited in Muslim countries to make establishments and make profits while we are not invited to party. Our brother countries all cry with us but then they party with Indian hindus. They are not all stupid muslin brothers.
Again its easy to criticise and redicule others and say some body is better than them. Finally it boils down to what we are than what they are. China is incresing trade with India its already in 10 billion per years at advantage to India. Chinese premier appreciates the work in IT etc. I feel we are more loyals ahan royals.

I request Owners to limit Indian Participation and invite contributors from Muslim brother countries. That way this dangerous and morbid attraction from indians and of India will be replaced by Muslim countries. No indian movies or writers so other can contribute. Leave India obsession must stop.