Doomed If They Do, Doomed If They Dont

Yo Udayakumar.

What is your problem with the Bomb-Iyers?

I will tell you what it is. It is that, despite 55+ years of quotas for the mentally-retarded (aka Dalits, SC/ST. BC, MBC, OBC, etc.) in India, a few brahmins still manage to get an education in a subject that you don`t want (you guys grab the medicine and engineering seats in colleges, leaving the brahmins with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics) and the brahmins then manage to do something that you CANNOT and HAVE NOT done with your education. They build nuclear weapons, which is the world`s most-guarded secret. You guys cannot build a bicycle without foreign collaboration.

Aren`t you the least bit ashamed of yourself?

Why don`t you go back to your caste`s (I know who you are, you are a frikking Shaanaan) traditional occupation, tapping toddy from the palmyra palm trees? Drink enough of it and you wouldn`t bother the rest of the Indians who are trying to accomplish something.

These interacts are soooo GAY-FUL, i am speechless.Time to kill dis board!.

#62 by Romair

[As I said, give me about a year or two..........By that time, I will either be bankrupt or will have the most efficient IT company in Pakistan, and a role model for Indo-Pak IT cooperation........If it doesn`t work out, then you and I can go into the Victoria Secret`s business together. ]

It is not in India`s interest to cooperate with Pakistan in IT Or in anything else, for that matter. What is it that India stands to gain? A strengthened enemy.

People like this Romair guy are the ``decent`` face that Islamic terrorism in Kashmir shows to the world. He is part of the quasi-civilian network that nurtures and perpetuates terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. It is his stated goal to get all of J&K under Paki rule. These people have robbed thousands of Indian lives, created thoudands of widows and grieving parents. Strengthening his hand is like strengthening the hand of the enemy.

I hope anil you will not join hands with this character.

All replies that include personal attacks will be filtered across articles. Interactors are requested to focus on the message and content of the article. Misuse of the Interact process will result in removal of that reply. Repeated misuse will result in removal of the interactor.

Anil #58: Thanks for the detailed reply.

You and I have not been interacting on this site, long enough, so I think you maybe somewhat unclear on my views. It is difficult to put my views into any of the, ``Black and White`` categories on this site. they tend to be different from nearly everyone`s here.

``I may be wrong, but you seem to pay more attention from military perspective.``

Quite the opposite. I am a strong supporter of demilitarization of South Asia. I have written against it many times. I have strongly supported Pakistan`s freeze on its defence budget. My concern is India`s gigantic increases in its defence budget. And the widespread support that seems to exist for such increases in amongst the Indian public.......

``You are ready to concede an active role for Church (= Mosque in case of Pakistan) of Pakistan.``

Once again, ``No.`` I was opposed to the BJP, when it was impossible to criticize the BJP on this site. I have always opposed anything, including the current Iraq war and Bush, that has been thrown up by the USA Religious Right. Within Pakistan, I have always opposed the MMA.

At the same time, I don`t immediately support secular parties in Pakistan, either. I think most of them, are dominated by regressive feudals, who have robbed the country completely. This is something most Indians do not understand about secularism in Pakistan.

What I do support is good governance, based on some sort of sound policy and human rights. That to me, preceeds religion and secularism, and is far more important than both. For Pakistan, I value that more than democracy, even, at the moment. Unfortunately, too many people in Pakistan, set aside human rights when maulvis are being targeted by the state, or when secularists are being targeted by the state.......

At the moment, my family actively supports Imran Khan`s party, which is non-secular, by the way. I would support it equally, if were secular...........

As for the future of South Asia, I think our views on the economic side are quite similar. I have been arguing for free trade in South Asia for ages. Way before it became the fashion on this site. As you know, I am myself trying to get into that arena, between India and Pakistan. Hence my views do not need any justification in that area. Since I am actually putting my money (or at least my time) where my mouth is.

So on the whole, I think you and I agree on most issues (I think, though not sure). Perhaps there is one area where we disagree. To me trade, economics, etc. are a means to a solution. They are not the solution, in itself. Long-lasting solutions have to be based on a human rights of the people involved. It is that component that I see missing in long term solutions for South Asia.........Perhaps, and hopefully, I am wrong..........

Anil #58: ``I have a feeling you have spent too much time sifting thru statistics, and not enough in sharpening your vision, before articulating it and presenting it to others. Who knows you could the entreprenuer who would take 38% of somone like Victoria Secrets business. Personally I would go with you to Farooq Kathwari to get Ethen Allen`s IT business. Do you think he would ever refuse? I don`t think so. I hope you do not mind my post sound pedantic or preaching.``

I don`t consider this preaching, at all. In fact, I welcome such advice. This is why I started interacting with you in the first place. I am all ears, when it comes to learning from people, who know more than I do in certain areas.

You need to keep something in mind. My experience in the business area, though larger than most people on Chowk, is far less than yours. I thus, cannot evaluate and see ideas as easily and clearly as you can. It will take me some time (perhpas five to ten years) to get to that stage. Though on the technology side, I am quite experienced, on the business side, I am, at the moment, just a beginner.

Give me some time to put these ideas into place. I am still working on it. Pakistan`s IT environment is very immature, in comparison to India`s. It may be hard for you to visualize how immature it is, at the moment. Hardly anyone can understand the ideas I am pitching to them (inlcuding what you have mentioned). People just want to be in land, stocks, textiles, and manufacturing business (all of which are booming). On the technology side, they will only look at telecommuncations.

My family is actually very influential in Pakistan`s Kashmir. Everyone from the Prime Minister of Kashmir down are known very well to us, and visit us regularly. I have followed Farooq Kathwari`s career quite closely. I think he actually lost a son in Kashmir (though he says Afghanistan). Quite an entrpreneur. Do you know him?

As I said, give me about a year or two..........By that time, I will either be bankrupt or will have the most efficient IT company in Pakistan, and a role model for Indo-Pak IT cooperation........If it doesn`t work out, then you and I can go into the Victoria Secret`s business together. I am surprised that out of all the possible businesses, you picked this one as an example. Was that a Freudian Slip (no pun intended) on your part :-)

Re: #58 by anil

Pssssssst!

hey anil!

Pssssssst!…..Who do you think you are arguing with?

The wheel’s spinning, but the hamster’s dead….

Give it up! It’s too late…..

Re: # 58 ,

So Captain Clueless now has a career counsellor ...funny ;)

Re: # 50

Romair:

The long list that I provided were the series of bi-lateral trade agreements signed in 60s - 80s between the governments of Canada and the U.S. which eventually became the basis of NAFTA, and were ratified as such. It would not really hurt to read these developments. I can tell you more about the precursor of EU - ECM European Common Market as well. I was student in England in those days when the debate to join or not to join was very hot. Labor in England was most aggressively againt ECM and then turned around to become the most vigorous supporter and held first ever referandum in Britain.

I may be wrong, but you seem to pay more attention from military perspective. Anyway I do not. The military must only a chowkidar and cannot be the Lord of the house. You are ready to allow Chowkidar to be the Lord. You are ready to concede an active role for Church (= Mosque in case of Pakistan) of Pakistan. To me the role of mosque (= religion) is ZERO beyond the mindspace. These are basic and ideological differences between us, as I see it.

In my vision, the modern nation-states (Canada, U.S. from the richey rich, and yes India from the poorest of the poor), and union of nation-states (EU) came into existence and continue to evolve for greater economic reasons.

Not for armed reason, and certainly not for religious reasons. I have a great book written in early 90s by the head of McKinsey & Co., Japan, who later became the Prime Minister of Japan. He titled this book ``End of Nation-State``. I would suggest a reading for you to see how my thought processes have evolved. I have been ready to adopt a village in Kashmir and try these, if ever I can. I have successfully started, grown and managed bigger enterprises than the GDP of a village.

Now to your question, what is fair and just solution? The question itself is so subjective that answers too controversial that it is not even worth wasting the time. Socialist would have said, Roti, Kapda aur Makan to be fair, TNTist would have said religion. These are old and be over with slogans.

Modern slogan is level the playing field - flatten the earth - and then play your unfair advantage over the competition. Let me ask you when Wasim Akram and Imran Khan roughened one side of the bowl and bowled reverse swing to win on otherwise level playing field to gain unfair advantage over the competition, what was it? Would you call it fair and just? Even Imran accepted doing it. That is what I was talking about ``win without trusting`` rule.

Your question about South Asia. A couple of years back, one of my essays on South Asia was published on Chowk. One day I was googling something, and came across it being discussed by a group of students in Asam in the class of great autonomy for states. Completely unknow to me.

In India, I can tell you, 50% of the contribution to GDP already comes from individual states, and the center has no control over it whatsoever. Thus Bihar cannot get it if it did not create it. This devolution is real, and you can witness it today, just visit Bangalore and Patna.

The first alliance of regional parties ruled the full five year term under BJP. In this process evolved a framework of Common Minimum Program (CMP or somthig). This framework became a vehicle to use Indian democractic system to bargain and get benefit for party`s regions.

The present coalition has follwed the same vehicle. Thus there are atleast six or seven years of experience in the devolution process that is going on in India. Without a whimper, or without a shot being fired.

Another interesting phenomenon, as I see, the latest terrorist attack on Ayodhya did not start the violence against the muslims. Instead resulted in warning to Pakistan that the such attack would derail the peace process. In it I see a good sign that nations economic interests takes precedence over raw emotions. Although you could take a view that India is back to the old tricks of blaming Pakistan. The choices are available to the individuals. We don`t have to agree, neither do our choices must be the same. In plural and democratic set this is acceptable.

This lead to the point of my statement on India`s neighbors. Recenlty I concluded my interactions and exprienced dealing with CEOs of two of the finest companies from South Asia. None of them is Indian. One privides 38% of all intimate apparels manufactured and sold by Victoria`s Secrets, the other grew to dominate that country`s stock market and is very diversified.

The first is obviously very entreprenuerial and at the first opportunity penetrated India without a flutter or noise to set up probably the best technology intensive manufacturing operations in non-technology sector anywhere. They realized the Indian market is so huge that it is only a matter of time, if they don`t do it then some Indian company will do it, and take away 38% of the Victoria`s Secret business.

The other proudly and openly touts itself and the city it operates as the third best option to Bangalore, and Chennai. Not a single word about LTTE - or SHATTA as a Punjabi would say, no nonsense just and fair would call?

These examples are all about regional block that ex-McKinsey ex-Prime Minister of Japan predicted in his book about 10 years ago.

I guess you missed my posting for you in another board that you might consider setting up an IT operation in Srinagar with the help of Kashmir University faculty staff to handle Pakistani contracts. Can you imagine the support and media publicity you would get?

It is again creating unfair advantage over competition after leveling the playing field. I have a feeling you have spent too much time sifting thru statistics, and not enough in sharpening your vision, before articulating it and presenting it to others. Who knows you could the entreprenuer who would take 38% of somone like Victoria Secrets business. Personally I would go with you to Farooq Kathwari to get Ethen Allen`s IT business. Do you think he would ever refuse? I don`t think so. I hope you do not mind my post sound pedantic or preaching.

You believe in God, so let me say this way that God has given 24 hours in a day to everyone from a pauper to the president. It is how we use is what we become. How do you use your 24 hours?

Anil Kapuria

Just to conclude.
Discovery of India is explicit on Nehru`s vision. I agree.

As for armed forces, Nehru well understood Praetorianism, and tendency on part of post colonial armies in such indulgence. There is a school of thought that Nehru deliberately reduced the prestige of the armed forces to deter then from intervention.Yet to put the defence policy on right lines, he hired a British expert in operational research and system analysis, Mr. Blackett whose report was the basis of the Indian Force Structure. Even in modern countries, Civil experts over rule military recommendations. It was not that he had a likewarm attitude towards defence.

Perhaps one day we would be fortunae to exchange views tete a tete.

Cheerios

Ijaz:

I was thinking of ending this conversation but then thought otherwise because we still do have some differences. I agree that defence and foreign policies are linked but in Nehru`s case it was his international vision that drove his defence policies rather than the other way round. Close cooperation with China was the key to his international vision. India was the first country to recognize China and sponsored its acceptance by the U.N. Nehru is reported to have rejected Western offers for India to replace China in the Security Council. When China absorbed Tibet in 1949 (?), the Indian army perhaps was more disciplined and better armed than China`s PLA. Many Indians at that time wanted Nehru to oppose China`s action to remove Tibet as a valuable buffer state between India and China but he instead accepted Chinese suzereignty over Tibet without protest. In addition to this Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai slant, Nehru was perhaps also not too favourably disposed to the Tibetan Lamadom, which to him was a combinaion of the two things he hated most - feudalism and religious obscurantism. Even when the Dalai Lama was given asylum, he was told that he would be given full support for providing modern education to Tibetan youth but none for his political aspirations.

His defence policy was basically what Romair is advising to Indians - namely, he thought only in terms of a credible deterrence against Pakistan and anything more than that was a foolish waste of precious resources. He relegated the defence to the babus - even today, a lowly deputy secretary in the Defence Ministry can totally ignore an army general at the army headquarters. He preferred the advice of a military nincompooph like Krishna Menon over that of the most admired Indian soldier, General Thimaya, and when General Thimaya complained, he was given a dressing down.

Nehru was driven by an idealist vision, not by Kautalya or realpolitik.

Ijaz_Gul #51: ``Romair, I do not want to get into a nuclear debate.``

Hmm....I was actually looking forward to such a debate with you. I am quite interested in the subject, and I think Pakistan should use it as the core of its defence and foreign policy, thereby moving away from conventional policies, and freeing up that capital for economic development..........

Romair

Look, we went over this before once. We are speaking here of highly motivational but `completely irrational goals.`

Pakistan`s irrational goal from day 1 has been to the leader of the Unmah. India`s irrational goal is to be one of the many great players in this world.

Just because these goals are irrational, they don`t stop being real.

Re: # 50

Romair

Go get a life.Be grateful you live somewhere in the west and make sure you save some till they come and get you and your kind.You will then be in our backyard.We have no time for petty little pissers and their peeves.You guys had your chance.We are moving on and the whole world is our theater of operation.India has gone global.We are well on our way.

#43 by Romair

[I think it is quite ridiculous for any country in South Asia to start thinking of itself as a, “Player” in the Great Game of superpowers. We need to open our eyes and realize that South Asia is the second-worst area to live in the world. We are dirt-poor. The average South Asian is around 80 places below Russia, Cuba and Libya on the Human Development Index. We are even lower than the PLO areas………….If India wants to get involved in this Great Game, best of luck. I would certainly suggest Pakistan just keep a bare minimum deterrence and concentrate on economic development………. ]

Per capita income might be low, but middle class India is potentially the second biggest consumer market in the world, and will be biggest in the not-so-distant future.

We inherited a huge uneducated population from the British govt, with not even the capability of making salt in our own country. And add to that the ball and chain of the accursed country, Pakistan.

With all these impediments, India is one of the few countries that can put a satellite in polar orbit, can manufacture a supersonic jet from scratch, has a far greater number of trained and skilled man and brainpower than the USA, for example, and manufactures almost everything under the sun indigenously. Indians power the American economy to an enormous extent. India is increasingly indispensable to the world economy.

The general population in India has started moving. It is a huge ball, and has started rolling, and will not stop easily.

It will be slow, but within your own lifetime, you will be horrified to see India emerge as a prosperous nation, where the benefits of prosperity reach even the lowest economic strata and with a permanent seat in the UN council. Just wait a few years. And keep memorizing the Koran. Allah will do all that for you guys too, magically. Maybe if you can tax the infidels in the prescribed manner, you can make a buck.



[Not a single country in South Asia is willing to voluntarily accept India as a leader. Not only that, nearly all of them feel very threatened by India, and will do everything in their power to ensure India does not become the leader….This includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. ]

Pakiland – muslims.
Bangladesh – ungrateful muslims (sorry for repeating the same word in one sentence).
Sri Lanka – Of course they’ll resent us. Our PM died at the hands of the terrorists there for helping the Sri Lankan Govt. No wonder they will dislike us.
Nepal – Yes, China-inspired Maoist guerilla-induced propaganda has harmed our image there. But they can resent us ALL they want to.

[It would be good, if our Indian colleagues asked themselves, why? Why is the USA (not including the current George Bush phase) accepted as the leader of North America (and of the Western world, to a great extent), while India is not accepted as a leader in South Asia?]

Because of the above countries, and the increasing islamification of nations like Malayasia, Indonesia etc.

[A country that is not accepted as a leader in its local geography can never attain leadership position in the world arena. It is impossible. ]

Don’t you wish. Heh heh heh. Just wait a few years.

[However, leadership requires behaving like an elder brother, not like a, “big brother.” Being an elder brother requires sacrificing and compromising, usually in favour of the younger brothers. It requires giving the younger brothers a feeling of security. Not a feeling of insecurity. It demands initiating genuine peace. Not attempting to force peace on one’s own terms. It demands buying defensive weaponry to defend itself against external threats. Not piling up offensive weaponry, which can only be used against its younger brothers. It demands a secured maturity against the younger brothers’ insecure immaturity. ]

India is piling up offensive weaponry for potential use against countries like China. Pakistan is insignificant as far as conventional warfare is concerned.


If India had settled its border conflicts with its smaller neighbours (including Pakistan) decades ago; even if it had to be done in favour of the smaller neighbours; if it had not interfered in the internal affairs of its neighbours (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan)]

Lies, as usual.


[I don’t know what South Asia will gain by India trying to become a pawn in the Great Game, which is about to occur between USA and China. I think Indians are greatly over-estimating their importance in that game. India can only be a player in that game; if it’s close geographic neighbours support it. China will be defining its area of influence in the world soon. And it will want it to stretch from Japan to Australia to South Asia to the Middle East. And, like any superpower, it will not tolerate any competition. ]

Chini bhai is your only hope at some satisfaction regarding India.

But increasingly, trade between India and China is taking off (now it has grown to $1 billion a month) and your dreams will remain dreams.



[Unfortunately, South Asia will be screwed in this scenario, with India supporting USA and Pakistan supporting China.]

Hmmmm…Let’s look at the parity here:

USA :: China (big brothers – almost equivalent)

India:: Pakistan (little brothers – yup, equivalent too)

Yeah, I see your point.

Heh heh heh….



[Both pawns to somebody else, much at the expense of their own citizens. And specifically because, India – a country that should be the natural leader of South Asia – is unwilling to act like an elder brother and is hell-bent on acting like the Big Brother…]

Yup. We’re unwilling.

Dost,thanks for agreeing with me. I will add that defence and foreign policy are instrincally linked on the same spectrun of policy, cooperation-conflict.

Yea I agree on Kargil. Pakistan`s timings were wrong and the nuclear factor and the Mujahideen card proved diplomatic liabilities. In fact Pakistan was under sanctions and isolated even before the conflict took place.However, there was nothing immoral about it, as politics are never built on morals. Remember, that the crop of senior officers were the people who as very young men had seen the humilation of East Pakistan.

Romair, I do not want to get into a nuclear debate. The very essence of deterrance is to prevent War and ensure peace. Escalation was long time ago discarded and gave way to other nuclear strategies including SDI. SALT and START had a major component of Nuclear Defence as negotiating points.
Cheerios

Anil #43: You have provided a long list of economic deals that Indian companies have signed. My knowledge of that is limited in comparison to yours. So I am not sure what kind of comment I can pass on that. And I am not sure how such economic deals affect any kind of peace in South Asia........Peace is not based on how wealthy or poor a country is.

``Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.``

I cannot agree with this. Canadians envy and grudge with the USA is quite different. Canadians accept the USA as a leader (not counting the George Bush phase). They do not feel threatened at all by the USA. There are no border skirmishes with the USA. Canada barely has an Army. And there is no intereference in the internal affairs of Canada by the USA. And vice-versa..........

How can you compare this to South Asia? A little introspection is needed here, perhaps. One needs to deal with these issues honestly, if one wants to establish true peace. One cannot simply gloss over them..............Unless they are dealt with honestly, in a just manner, I don`t think the situation in the area is going to improve much.........

My aim here is not to critique India only. But I think a lot of Indian colleagues tend to get carried away in criticizing others, and praising India. I am not sure why. And I feel they ignore any issues that other regional countries may have with India. Or they simply avoid or gloss over the issues.......Or they simply start highlighting the economic accomplishments of India. I am not sure how these problems can be solved by trying to prove one country has signed more economic deals than the other. They have to be addressed honestly and logicially and in a humane manner..........Otherwise any peace will be artificial............

I would be interested in your comments on a just solution to South Asia`s problems. Not one that is based on economics or realpolitik, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that India is only willing to have peace in South Asia on its own terms. Or no peace. And one gets the feeling that a lot of Indians think it is their right to demand only such a peace.......And I think they are unwilling to look at anything India has done wrong.......I think the only peace that will work, and that anyone will agree to, is one based on justice and fairplay and human rights..............

Re: # 43

I would love to discuss with you issues, as long as I am not dragged into discussions with religious or political slant. I no longer have interest in any of these two.

I do not know where did you form the idea about my position and the U.S. foreign policy. I probably have lived in Canada longer than you have lived and worked there, and I have lived, worked and studied in England probably longer than you have lived outside Pakistan. My business interests and investments allow me to travel world-wide, except for Latin America and Africa. Among muslim countries I have visited Turkey and had business dealings there too. As a result I have met and made life long friends all over the world, if anything I would say that I have a very wide perspective to be wise enough not to get involved with religion and politics.

Allow me to add a few more things here.

Canadian society is not as glorified as it looks to you, neither is the British. The glass ceilings there are much lower for people like you and I. The managers, professionals and investors there are quite visibly backward toward ethnic minorities.

Please conduct this test, and see what percentage, as a ratio of ethnic to total population, the student body in top Canadian and British schools and universities is South Asian, and then do the same for the ivy league U.S. universities. You will find that upward mobility of asians (East and South alike) is much higher in the U.S. Check out the student body population in ivy league and Stanford and compare it with Oxford, Cambridge, McGill and McMaster you will see the point I am making. Indeed I have discussed this point my alma-mater in England and in the U.S. and they agree and concede about upward mobility. The English alma-mater feel that they missed out on at least two generation to derive benefits that their multi-cultural society presented.

The success of South Asian and East Asian entreprenuers in Canada and Britain is despite the hurdles and not with the help of openess there. Whereas, the success in silicon valley, and wall street of Asians is because of openess.

Regarding policy making, I am neither student nor an expert. However I do believe that the west (including the U.S., Canada, and EU) is a club. It is driven by common interest and tries to forge a common interest among its members. Please study the history of the west`s involvement in Middle East, Africa and Asia, and Latin America. Colonial expansion was driven by expansion of their economic needs. Both religion, and force were freely and interchangeably used whenever and whichever suited the most.

England, Spain and France - European powers played the same role but with different style, whether they were fighting Tipu Sultan in India, or Custer`s last stand, the Alama, or spanish armada etc.

Wherever this club has interest they have found reasons to share and defend. Internally they have fought too, once internal fight was settled they tried to restore the external colonies whenever it was possible, Indian independence and Ho-Chi Minh distrubed the cart. Monroe Doctrine came out in America only when enough europeans had consolidated their positions.

DeGaulle had famously said ``Nations have interests, while people have friends.``

The economic interest of oil is so common and so strong that they will never fight among themselves, few will come in first, and others will come in later, but all will come in, incluidng, the east will join. It is delusional to think otherwise.

Arabs recognize this and accept it. The oil is world`s commodity and life which happens to come from the land beneath their part of the world. The West, the East (China and Japan, and soon India too) rely on it.

This is nothing more than the case of your life line. You too will protect it, if it passes through an enemy territory, the alternative is too ghastly to imagine. You too will put your stooges and despots to defend it for you. Mughals in India, and Ottomans elsewhere did exactly the same to defend and expand their interests. Otherwise, rich and powerful fuedals in India and Paksitan would not be muslim. Only difference is that the tables are turned, and Ottomans and Mughals and therefore by default the muslims lost their advantage. This has nothing to do with clash of civilization or religion.

Now coming to India and South Asia.

Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.

In my days in Canada, I had seen this envy among Canadians. I had seen it being translated into Canadian pride rather than war too. Automobile agreement, lumber / pulp agreement, beef agreement, mining agreement, etc. are so one sided that they look like being negoitated for the U.S. by East India company.

Dost-Mitter can probably throw more light on these than I can. Canadians used these to gain market access and improve their life and quality and standard of life. The shaft they got in these agreement ensures higher prices of automobile and lower wages than the U.S. but still allows them to create superior quality of life and without having to send forces overseas. This is Canadian way of getting even. As they used to remind that it is better to get even than mad. I thought it was wonderful and admired it after I moved to the U.S.

I also know about Pakistan and India one-upmanship, and Pakistan`s constant struggle to maintain parity. India is no longer interested in maintaining any such parity with Pakistan. This is a new reality that Pakistan privately acknowledges, and will eventually accept too, so that it can move foward to take its sweet revenge elsewhere.

India loves the importance that it will get playing with China, Japan and the U.S. in Asia. No doubt India will spend certain percentage of its GDP on defense, but not for parity with Paksitan in mind.

The U.S. will want India to do it, India will want in return something too. Remember a lot pressure was put by the U.S. for refuelling rights and to provide soldiers during Iraq war. Pakistan had to succumb, but India did not. That is the advantage of being democratic, Pakistan still has to learn this, otherwise Mushraff will not boast that Kashmir problem can be solved in one day.

Therefore, the shape and form the U.S., India relationship will take only time will tell. It is not determinable for now. Neither is the future. I have interesting discussions with influential persons on this subject. Two of them (one Indian and one U.S.) independently and in different places remarked that India handled the U.S.S.R. better than the U.S. There is a truth in this statement. Even Nixon alluded in recently publshed tapes how Indians played and how Pakistani leadership played.

Indians want to ensure that the U.S. + Western Europe take care of Pakistan. Short giving up Kashmir India would anything to keep the west`s arms length involvement. Sadly, Musharaff has boxed himself in the corner to keep this involvement alive for many years to come. Therefore, Pakistan itself is playing the card that India wants it to play then why should India interfere and demand and change the rules. Terrorism as a bogey works great for India in this equation, until Pakistan can cut out the cancerous cells and deliver OBL. Neither can happen in the short term. Musharaff is not that strong, and democratic institutions are not there as the alternative either. Therefore, quite conveniently for India, there is common interest for all parties to remain on the poker table and continue to play the game without trusting anyone.

On the eastern side, India will play diplomacy - Kautilya / Chankya type with the U.S., China and Japan to get maximum economic benefit. There is no need to fight, it is very clear that China will not go to war with India, and neither would India want to go to war with China. Nixon could not get China to fight, Pakistan could not get China to fight with India. Both India and China see an opportunity of peace dividend.

None of these countries, India included, trust each other. This is precisely the rule of the game - ``win without trusting.``

Arms race with China is certainly not the game for India. Carving out and defining interest is called for now. This falls in diplomacy. It remains to be seen, if Kautilya / Chankya Niti will deliver or Sun-Tzu`s Art of War will deliver. These societies have history of playing in timeless way so there is no rush, if the winner is not known in Manmohan Singh`s life time, or even never known and the game contiues. Their driving philosophies are derived from conclusive wars etc.

With China, Japan or the U.S., India would want a fair share of movements of jobs, and capital as a result of globalization of world economy. No one will deliver these to India on a silver platter. India must create environment for it to happen, and continue to flatten the earth - as Tom Friedmann put it -- and then use skill surplus as the advantage to both service the west and the east and increase purchasing power and affluence of its consumers.

Where is the foreign policy? Where is the nuclear policy? Where is the oil policy?, Where is the trade policy? etc. etc.

The guiding principle is Indian market, Indian skill-surplus and growing middle class and increasing consumer base with surplus and measurable purchasing power.

The U.S., and Europe controlled jobs when they opened the market.

Korea and Japan took iron ore from India. Only now Koreans want to set up their largest steel plant in India. Only now Japan wants to set their largest steel plant in India. What is making them change thier mind?

The steel player, Mittal and his interests. He and ONGC - an Indian company announced their plans to set up plants that will create jobs, suddenly picture changed. This is NRI factor. India will play this NRI factor to the maximum advantage.

Please study these dynamics, rather than armed race dynamics of cold war days. The answer does not belong there any longer. This is where tomorrows dawn is, I wish you can see through the old cold war glasses, otherwise please discard them.

This is how I see, the world from my window.

Anil Kapuria

Romair

If India is able to establish an unambiguous and overwhelming second nuclear-strike capability (I don`t know whether it currently does or not), then Pakistan`s nuclear abilities are, IMO, rendered quite useless. Remember, it is Pakistan, not India that is interested in first nuclear-strike option against each other.

Ijaz_Gul #44: “Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.”

I think the second-strike capability that the USA and USSR had (have) against each other, was completely based on multiple domains from which missiles could be offensively launched. It was not, nor is it currently, based on missile defence. Missile defence is completely unproven technology. In fact, it does not exist. For it to be useful, it would have to be 100% reliable………It isn’t even close to that…..

For India to have second-strike capability, it would have to move to submarine launched missiles. And to things like mobile systems that can be moved around inside India. I don’t think the USA will be too interested in India getting into that domain. If it does, then Pakistan would have to do the same. In which case, both countries will have moved up, unnecessarily, one notch on the nuclear ladder.

Even with submarine launched missiles, the only successful attack that India can carry out now against Pakistan (or vice-versa) is to launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear missiles. Destroy them completely and then attack Pakistan conventionally. However, there is no way for India to successfully target Pakistan’s nuclear missiles with conventional weapons. It would have to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Pakistan, and hope that it destroyed all the missiles.

If it were unable to destroy all of Pakistan’s delivery systems (aircraft, missiles), then Pakistan would launch a retaliatory nuclear attack. And we will all be dead……..There is no point in having a second strike capability, of submarines, if one’s whole country is destroyed…….

I cannot see any scenario of military conflict between India and Pakistan, in which eventually both countries do not end up destroying each other nuclearly. I think our future conflicts will be, at most, things like Siachen etc. If you can highlight any such scenario in which one country destroys the other, without being destroyed itself, I would be very interested in discussing it………

Re: # 38

Kaalchakra: You can email me at: anilkapuria@yahoo.com

Thank you
Anil

Ijaz#29:

I fully agree that Nehru was central to India`s foreign and defense policies. And when I said that his foreign policy was not Pakistan centric, I did not imply the same thing about India`s Defence policy, which has continued to be largely Pakistan-centric although it has recently acquired larger ambitions of great power projection with a blue water navy and all that. I also think that there was an element of emotion in his Kashmir Policy; its vital importance for India`s secular credential is a somewhat later addition, as is its linkage with the security of Indian Muslims, which should not be there in ideal circumstances.

I believe that there is no counterpart to Muslim personal law in Hindu religion. British wanted to have a Hindu law to complement Muslim and Christian personal laws and some English researcher dug up Manu Smriti.

I am not surprised by your observation regarding kholis of Sindh. I observed that the fate of low caste Hindus in Bangladesh, too, is worse than that of their counterparts in India. If their fate has improved somewhat in India, it is because of the consistent efforts of the State and their empowerment through democratic politics.

I also agree with your observations regarding hatred. My own observation is that there was a complete change after Kargil. Before Kargil, Indians generally talked of friendship with Pakistanis whereas Pakistanis had a generally belligerent attitude; post-Kargil the situation has reversed, although one sees fairly favourable coverage of people-to-people contacts in the Indian media.

Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.
Cheerios

Anil #23: I will attempt to reply to your reply. However, I will have to request you to keep an open mind to comments that I make that may not agree with your definition of right and wrong, your views, or how you see the world, and on your definition of ethical and unethical. I have noticed that you, perhaps, tend to get somewhat emotional towards comments that tend to portray US foreign policy negatively. My view of the world, - of what is ethical and unethical etc.- is quite different from how the USA views it in its foreign policy, and perhaps how you may view it (in certain specific areas)……….

I will answer the detailed parts of your reply in a subsequent reply. However, here are the broad outlines:

- I think it is quite ridiculous for any country in South Asia to start thinking of itself as a, “Player” in the Great Game of superpowers. We need to open our eyes and realize that South Asia is the second-worst area to live in the world. We are dirt-poor. The average South Asian is around 80 places below Russia, Cuba and Libya on the Human Development Index. We are even lower than the PLO areas………….If India wants to get involved in this Great Game, best of luck. I would certainly suggest Pakistan just keep a bare minimum deterrence and concentrate on economic development……….

- There are two, “views of the world” in the Western society. One is the USA view. And the other is the EU (plus Canada) view. After living in both environments, I am convinced that the way to go is the EU way. The USA way is only going to result in long-term violence and under-development for third world countries.

Specifically, within South Asia, it is only the EU view that is going to work. The USA view will be disastrous. South Asia is more like EU. Amongst other things, there are only two areas in the world that have enough money to implement the USA view of large military alliances, utilizing military power as a deciding factor in foreign relations. One is the USA and the other is EU. EU has rejected that view. In the next century, China will be the only other country that can implement it. All other countries, (like the USSR did), will go bankrupt trying to implement it. USSR actually broke up, trying to pursue that view.

- Under any and all factors, India should have been the natural leader of South Asia. It is more influential in all factors - geography, population, history, demographics, location, etc. – in comparison to all other countries in the region. India should have been leading South Asia much like USA leads North America. However, India has not been able to achieve that status. Not a single country in South Asia is willing to voluntarily accept India as a leader. Not only that, nearly all of them feel very threatened by India, and will do everything in their power to ensure India does not become the leader….This includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.

It would be good, if our Indian colleagues asked themselves, why? Why is the USA (not including the current George Bush phase) accepted as the leader of North America (and of the Western world, to a great extent), while India is not accepted as a leader in South Asia? In fact, the rest of the Western countries (including Canada) actually consider the USA their protector………

A country that is not accepted as a leader in its local geography can never attain leadership position in the world arena. It is impossible. However, leadership requires behaving like an elder brother, not like a, “big brother.” Being an elder brother requires sacrificing and compromising, usually in favour of the younger brothers. It requires giving the younger brothers a feeling of security. Not a feeling of insecurity. It demands initiating genuine peace. Not attempting to force peace on one’s own terms. It demands buying defensive weaponry to defend itself against external threats. Not piling up offensive weaponry, which can only be used against its younger brothers. It demands a secured maturity against the younger brothers’ insecure immaturity.

This is, in my opinion, the main problem with India, i.e. it is a large country that thinks too much like a small country (while Pakistan has the opposite problem, i.e. it is a small country that thinks too much like a large country).

If India had settled its border conflicts with its smaller neighbours (including Pakistan) decades ago; even if it had to be done in favour of the smaller neighbours;, if it had not interfered in the internal affairs of its neighbours (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan), it would have been the voluntarily accepted leader of South Asia today. South Asia would have been like EU, with India as the undisputed leader……….

I don’t know what South Asia will gain by India trying to become a pawn in the Great Game, which is about to occur between USA and China. I think Indians are greatly over-estimating their importance in that game. India can only be a player in that game; if it’s close geographic neighbours support it. China will be defining its area of influence in the world soon. And it will want it to stretch from Japan to Australia to South Asia to the Middle East. And, like any superpower, it will not tolerate any competition.

Unfortunately, South Asia will be screwed in this scenario, with India supporting USA and Pakistan supporting China. Both pawns to somebody else, much at the expense of their own citizens. And specifically because, India – a country that should be the natural leader of South Asia – is unwilling to act like an elder brother and is hell-bent on acting like the Big Brother……….

Romair : ``I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….``

It doesn`t matter what you think.

Ijaz_Gul/Anil # various: This is turning into an interesting discussion. I will post a detailed reply to Anil’s point in a subsequent reply…….

“Perhaps Pakistan has decided to take the economic route and it is the political economy that shall lead the way till the balance of power model changes.”

The thought process of the Pakistan military is to arm itself at the same ratios as India. They want to remain at 1/3rd of India in military power. They genuinely feel India will some day attack Pakistan, if it can. India’s massive Pakistan-specific purchases tend to add to this feeling. However, I think Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent has had a calming and securing affect on the military and on the population of Pakistan. And I do think that the country is now, correctly, moving towards the economic route.

Pakistan should match all strategic developments that India makes on the nuclear side, while de-scaling the conventional side. The recent pile-up of troops and then their eventual withdrawal by India was a clear indication that the two countries, for the first time, are in a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Hence Pakistan does not need to arm itself any more………….Regardless of what India does…….Pakistan should now put everything into economic development and aim for a 7% or so growth rate for the next ten years……..It should, in fact, turn its current Defences skills into an export-oriented industry, specifically for Middle Eastern countries……….

“Just consider that if India gets a percentage of the anti Missile Defence capability like USA/Israel, Pakistan`s deterrence gets degraded.”

No country in the world has credible missile defence capability. Nor does any exist. Even the USA isn’t close to developing any such capability. It has had all kinds of massive problems with its Star Wars plan because it was not feasible. And even that required a high available detection time of minutes. In addition, it is order of magnitude easier to develop an offensive counter to any missile defence capability than to develop a new missile defence system.

There is absolutely no defence against sub-minute missile launches, below space – the type that will occur between India and Pakistan. Patriot missile defence systems cannot protect against that. They do not have even close to 100% reliability. And they are designed to protect buildings and localities. Not to protect cities.

Hence, no sensible country will risk a nuclear strike, based on such equipment, even if it is 90% reliable. In addition, the close geographical proximity of Pakistan and India will result in radioactive affects travelling to the other country, after nuclear strikes.

Pakistan and India, now, will completely destroy each other in a war. No one should have any kind of doubts about that………

“So latest friendly overtures nothwithstanding, covertly both Pakistan and China emerge as challengers and enemies in the political calculas.”

To some extent, I agree.

However, I don’t think India can make policy based on emotions only. I don’t see any advantage India can gain from military growth. It is much larger in that area than all South Asian countries already. It can influence the policies of all of them, through military advantages, already. Other than Pakistan. And due to the nuclear deterrent, I don’t think India can influence Pakistan. At the same time, I don’t think India can ever catch up with China, militarily. In fact, the gap is growing……….Hence any growth in India’s military capability is not going to change the already established balance in the area. India would have to develop the world’s most sophisticated Nuclear Missile Defence system, without any counters, to be able to change the balance in the area. Which is why I think much of the military purchases on the Indian side, nearly all of which are Pakistan-specific, are based more on emotions than anything else……..Or perhaps to get Pakistan into an arms race........

I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….

ijaz

Almost. The India that was did begin in Pakistan. Much of our hatred lies in the history and politics of appropriation and rejection.

With relations that close, one cannot be unconcerned. We could have been either the greatest of friends or the greatest of enemies. We chose to play the latter.

kaalchakra,
Both are to blame. Both have become nationalists. Its a tit for tat and both play each other.Yes we too have an attitude like all aspiring nationalists.

We Pakistanis too have a sense of history. The ``Wonder that was India`` In fact comprised most parts of what is now Pakistan. South India was never part of that INDIA. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THIS ATTITUDE OF INDIANS ALSO MAKE PAKISTANIS WARY WHO RELATE IT TO AKHAND BHARAT.

The Great Mauryan empire had its centre in Taxila, next to Islamabad.
The Nara Civilisation, what you call Saraswati was perhaps centred around Harrapa.
There is lots of Sindhi folklore that found its way to europe thousands of years ago.
Some Biblical Scholars believe that River Pishon of Eden was in fact NARA
Cheerios

re: anil # 35

I want to privately share with you a very old idea. Could I do so?

Thanks in anticipation.

ijaz_gul

When I said that there is something wrong with Indians, I wasn`t kidding. Like the Chinese, we see ourselves as an ancient, great people who, despite all our challenges, must be, and will be, a great future power. Many people inside and outside of India understandably decry that ambition, but that ambition is a fact, nevertheless.

Now, specific to Pakistan, Indians have a particular attitude. It is for Pakistani intellectuals to help explain to Pakistani people whether Pakistani state has played any part in shaping that Indian attitude.

i`m curious. what do most pakistanis we come across on the net behave like? sheep? downtrodden? angels? behaving as wannabe fill-in-the-blank -ists? comparing india to nazi germany et al.?

i should have posted this thought in yodaesque. perhaps next time

Re: # 28 & #29:

Ijaz & Dost-Mitter:

Law of society in modern India will not come from Hindu Code Bill or Sharda Act of 1950s.

It will evolve out of the new knowledge base society that is forming in front of our very eyes through revolutions in IT and telecommunication, and soon through affordable air-travel revolution too.

While Indians have Manu-Smriti, as a reminder - I have commented on it a few time here on Chowk a few times. More importantly, Indians have even stronger and longer tradition coming from vedic tradition of challenging Hindu Thoughts. This knowledge worker of India is challenging each aspect of Indian social tradition, and will continue to do so and form anew, rather than reform the old. If you study the social aspect of this revolution, be in Bangalore, Chennai, Hydrabad, Pune, Gurgaon or NOIDA - it becomes very clear that this group of people have transcended regional (therefore linguistic), and religious boundaries. More are crossing at faster rate than ever before. They have a new thinking, which is certainly more influenced by not the U.S., but silicon valley (only a small corner of the U.S.). They are extremely proud and confident as a knowledge worker (closer to brahmins and banias of older times). Certainly not all are brahmins in the older framework of caste.

Emancipation and empowerment among women is greater than even in Silicon Valley. Caste and regionalism plays little role in their thinking. I can go on more but will save it for now.

Ijaz, you saw Pakistani-hindu kholis who probably are boxed in older ways by external perceived threats from non-hindus, and acceptance of their submissive position to fuedals and upper caste. They are numb from living in seize mentality for generations, much like the African-Americans of the South. Essential part, not necessarily the whole.

You would not find any such thing among this group of knowledge workers in India. They have their own language, and are amassing wealth and knowledge in India faster and wider than any other generation ever generated. When you will apply all other tests of social phenomenon in making, this group will yield surprising results for you. Give a few more generations to this seed to evolve.

It will have its own symbols and icons as well. I have indeed seen people IIT and the U.S. trained of this group, starting their day by actually folding hands, closing their eyes and bowing thier head to the computer screen before starting their work day. I call this a ``computer jee ka mandir`` phenomenon.

Hindu society has been a very layered society. This is the drawback of the natural law of what I call distributive society, as against centralized society where the laws are codified in a single book. Some layers will never change because they do not feel the need to change. Some layers will resist and reject the change. Even Amish in the U.S. have resisted and rejeted changes. However, the beauty of the distributive society is that every layer and sometime sections within a layer have their own rules and laws which allow them to co-exist, like a microcosm. India is such a microcosm.

I have recenlty submitted an essay to Chowk on ``what binds us into ..... respective national identities?`` I hope it is published here, as I would love to get the reaction.

Anil Kapuria

Most Indians that we come across are on the net. Read their comments and make judgements.
As for my opinion, they of late seem to behave like the citizens of an imperialist super power.Comparing Pakistan to Cuba et al.
Cheerios

LOL

yeah sounding we are like yoda every now and then. :)

wrong very - that is wrong.... :)

ijaz_gul

Do you feel there is any reason for the cynicism of Indians (other than the obvious fact that there is something wrong very with us as a nation)?

Dost,
I respect your views and have many linkages with East Punjab and Sikhs in many ways. Well that is another story.

On Indian politic body, Nehru occupies a central position because he framed India`s defence and foreign policy and that Congress remained in power that long to give it consistancy. Kashmir was essential to prove secularism right. There was an interplay of kasmir with Tibet. India soured realations both with China and Pakistan because of Kashmir. All wars that India fought with China and Pakistan has Kashmir equationed. So it remains central. Yes the present internatinal sensitivities link it to a floating threat of terrorism and this is where India gets better mileage and a chance to frisk it and put it on the back burner. India is riding the high and this remains of concern to every Pakistani.

As regards emotional rootes, yes they are there but in a paradox. The mechnics of Partition and events thereadter put India and Pakistan on the extremes of an ideological divide with proliferation of mistrust and hate. I feel that though many Pakistanis want to correct course, most Indians riding a high are becoming cynical as ever. I am a member at satribune, SAIF, orkut, zorpia and chowk. Everywhere I have found Indians to be very slanty, full of hate against Pakistanis. After the London and Egypt bombings, I conducted a survey on the net. Indian media spewed maximum poison against Pakistan. This does not help.

As for Manu Smitri. There was a debate on it at chowk and SAT. I was recently on a desert trek in the Nara Desert. It was my first opportunity to interact with Pakistani Hindus.It was depressing to see the social injustice within a religion, something I never saw in other parts of Pakistan. I also inquired from the Kholis about the recent murder of a low cast kholi engineer by the upper class hindus in cahoots with some muslim fuedals.Unfortunately, it is all so true. Fellow Hindus discriminate Kholis more than other people in Pakistan. I had a long discussion with a gentleman from the upper class and he justified everything in the name of religious code. My feeling was that religion was being exploited to meet the ends of fuedalism. Phe modernity that has caught up with Hindus in some parts of India is something alien to those in Pakistan. Inter commualy, at Nagarparker, I saw a Pakistani Kholi Hindu supervising the construction of a mosque.

Respects and Cheerios

Like many, I do not abhor Kautilya. I have read Arthashastra many times and carried out a comparative analysis iwth Machiavelli, Pluto, Clausewitz and Balance of Power Model of Kaplan. I have rated him above all of them and had to defend my Thesis for months before they were approved with outstanding rating. Hopefully someday it will appear as a book. Realpolitik is Kautilianism.

By the way, my father was the only non Sikh teacher in Khalsa High School Sargodha. He taught persian and drawing. Do find out if some of his students are still alive.

Ijaz#26:

As you probably know by now, I am no great fan of Nehru. But it would be unfair to say that his China policy was strongly linked to Kashmir. Nehru`s foreign policy was less Pak-centred than those of the other Indian leaders who followed him. Nehru`s vision was grander than that; I think that he was a believer in a strong Asian destiny anchored by the two old civilizational countries - India and China.

I had not fully understood the meaning of your ``degradation`` of Pak nuclear deterrent. Yes, the possibility of India acquiring a Patriot-type shield is quite strong. However, the earlier version of these anti-ballistic missiles were not what they were made out to be; I do not know how effective are the newer versions.

You made reference to Manu Smriti and Kautalya. I believe Manu Smriti has served whatever useful purpose or damage it had for the Hindu Indian society and is now completely irrelevant. It is mentioned more at chowk, Pakistani media, some dalit and anti-Indian websites than in the mainstream Indian media. In my whole life -and I am called the chowk baba by some- I have NEVER heard anyone in my family, friends and at social parties even once mentioned Manu Smriti. I believe that the only Smriti that holds good for Hindus now is the Hindu Code Bill, for which the Hindu society should be grateful to Nehru.

Kautalya/Chankya on the other hand is routinely cited by Indian politicians in a positive manner and by Pakistani commentators as an indication of the cunning/deceitful brahmin/bania mind. But as far as diplomacy is concerned, Kautalya basically means pragmatism in ensuring state`s interests. In that sense, China already is ``Kautalyan`` (wasn`t a famous Chinese pilgrim in India during Kautalya`s times?), as are most countries, except Pakistan, which sometimes subordinates its interests to that of the Ummah and India during Nehruvian times when ideology sometimes superceded national interests.

I think that the most interesting scenario to watch in the future will be the development of the Sino-Indian-Pak triangle. There is a strong emotional content in the Indo-Pak relations than in the other two sides of the triangle; this emotional content has played negatively thus far but, in theory, at least, it can also play a positive role. Chowk has become an arena of Indo-Pak mud-wrestling and still, I can bet that each one of us ex-pats here has more and closer contacts with fellow South Asians than with the Chinese. In the long run, as Nehru correctly envisaged, there is a stronger religious/cultural underpinnings to the Sino-Indian relationship than the Indo-American relationship. I have interacted with quite a few Chinese at a personal level and India is the only country that they admit China to have been influenced by in history. Pakistan could claim to have the same cultural/religious links but the Pakistani state has chosen to ignore the pre-islamic aspect of its history.

Sorry, this post has turned out to be longer than I had planned.

The best parts of this write-up are the quotes – everything else is this “writer’s” spin and fluff!

People like this author live in a world of their own, in which – Uncle Sam is BIG and Uncle Sam is BAD – and all material needs of life get met for everybody – and the electricity for meeting those needs comes from – yes, you got it – vacuum! Vacuum, you know what it is – like this author’s mind!

Nuclear energy is the way of the future, whether we like it or not! It’s not even a matter of choice. The need for energy can only go UP with population – the only time energy consumption falls is when people DIE!

The author will probably have better luck riding bullock carts and writing with fountain pens (instead of typing on a computer terminal), which would be only too logical – following his line of reasoning. Except that, like all hypocrites, he is NEVER going to practice (the logical conclusion of) what he preaches!

Making fun of individuals or countries using play in names, on a topic this moron is trying to portray as serious, exposes this pseudo-liberal for who he is – a representative of the significant population of gutless cowards who have not found any meaningful work or purpose in life (being a janitor, for example), and keeps repeatedly and desperately trying to carve out a niche in the mode of the hippy community of the U.S. from the 1960’s. His path would be easy indeed except for a couple of simple facts of life of which this individual is absolutely ignorant: (1) this isn’t the sixties, and (2) India isn’t the U.S. A country’s foreign policy – especially a superpower’s foreign policy – is always dictated by the geopolitical interests of the country and is (except perhaps for a certain country in the South Asian context) non-negotiable.

Nuclear proliferation is a bogus issue, and has always been (Sorry, Dr. Gill, the janitor tells it like he sees it!). This bogey was created and raised for certain very specific reasons – to suit the needs of countries that already HAD such power. Most of what it intended to accomplish has already been accomplished. Virtually all nuclear powers are responsible countries – North Korea and Pakistan being the only exceptions – and they present minor irritants and will be dealt with properly when the time is right! In case of one, this issue may have already been handled behind the scenes!

Dost/Romair,
I read ``discovery of India`` many a times to undesrstand Nehru`s mind. More, I read through many archives on the mainsprings of Indian Policy framed in the early years of the Cold War. It is my assessment that Panchsheel, Non alignmant, Fabian Socialism and Secularism were all linked with one another and also Kashmir. The days when this policy was framed were the days of Hind Chini Bhai Bhai and Tibet was placated to China for Kashmir. It never worked so after the border dispute. I would request you to read my ineracts on the subject.

1. Perhaps Pakistan has decided to take the economic route and it is the political economy that shall lead the way till the balance of power model changes.

2. Just consider that if India gets a percentage of the anti Missile Defence capability like USA/Israel, Pakistan`s detterance gets degraded. So nuclear capability is as much as making a device with delivery systems as it is a defensive capability against nuclear attack.Efcourse, a good submarine fleet, high altitude bombers and Nicobar etc are also part of the reckoning.

3. Well the International balance of power will change. Already in central asia, US presence is viewed with concern by both Russia and China. There is a Russian base just 2 minutes flight from a US base in CARs. Recent unrests in CARs have much to do with the Russian and Chinese sympathy. This is just one likelyhood and a possibility.

I feel that india under the BJP have finally broken away from the Nehru paradigm and so has Congress but not the communists, who in any case are romantics. However, the Grand design remains the same. Laws of the fishes, Katulianism and Manu Smitri will remian and India will continue to work towards maximisation. So latest friendly overtures nothwithstanding, covertly both Pakistan and China emerge as challengers and enemies in the political calculas.

Respects and Cheerios

The last days of `Londonistan`

By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website


Massari`s case highlights difficulties the UK government faces
The London bombings have spurred the British government into proposing a series of new laws designed to put an end to the reputation of the capital as ``Londonistan``, a centre for militant Islam.
It wants to create offences such as ``indirect incitement to terrorism``, ``acts preparatory to terrorism`` and using the internet for terrorist recruitment and training.

It also wants to make it easier to deport foreign nationals who openly preach jihad and violence.

However, one attempted deportation shows how human rights legislation and its interpretation by the judiciary can prevent the executive in a Western democracy from simply exercising its will.

At a time when al-Qaeda and its associates are showing a resilience and ability to strike at widespread targets in London and Egypt - let alone Iraq - the government feels such legal protections must be looked at again.

The al-Massari case

The case in point is that of Muhammad al-Massari, an exile from Saudi Arabia, who runs a website that shows videos of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, including one in which three British soldiers were killed.

An extended interview with Mr al-Massari was shown in a BBC television documentary about how the internet is an integral part of the far-flung al-Qaeda network, of which the Iraqi insurgents led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are part.

In the 1990s, Mr al-Massari ran a group in London called the Committee for the Defence of Legal Rights. At that time, he specialised in sending faxes into Saudi Arabia to promote his cause.

According to a British official who has tracked the case, the Saudi government told the British authorities at the time that he was more Islamic militant than human rights activist.

``He opposed the Saudi royal family from an Islamist point of view. He thought, and probably still does, that it was not Islamic enough, that it was corrupt and decadent,`` the official said.

``The royal family was not greatly amused.``

Attempt to deport

During the Conservative government of John Major, a high-level assurance was given to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that Britain would send Mr al-Massari back.

That is when the legal problems began.

Mr Blair says tackling the ideology behind the attacks is key

The case was handed to an unusually senior British official, a sign of how important it was deemed.

For the next 18 months, this official spoke to almost every lawyer in the government but was blocked at every turn.

The issue was that of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which says in Article 32: ``The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.``

Government lawyers said that British national security was not sufficiently engaged, even though the then-Home Secretary Michael Howard argued that British interests in the Gulf were at risk from Mr al-Massari`s activities.

The Dominica solution

Eventually, another route was explored.

``We looked at whether another country might take him,`` said the British official. ``We narrowed it down to about 10. They all said that they would like to help but always added that their relations with Saudi Arabia might be jeopardised. Finally it came down to one - Dominica.``

Dominica, a former British colony, is a volcanic dot in the Caribbean, one of the lushest of the West Indian islands and about as far away from the Middle East as you can get.

It had been run for 15 years by a tough prime minister named Eugenia Charles, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Dominica agreed to take the Saudi exile.

``Massari appealed and the court upheld his appeal,`` said the official.

`` It held that although Dominica had signed the 1951 Convention, this was not incorporated into its domestic law, so there was a chance he would be sent on somewhere else. We could not get rid of him.``

The promise to the Crown Prince could not be fulfilled. The Saudis were not pleased.

European Convention

Mr al-Massari was eventually allowed to stay in Britain and is now protected even more because of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act of 1998.

It prevents anyone from being deported if there is a risk of them being tortured, which is against Article 3 of the Convention.

``The Saudis have offered assurances that he would not be tortured,`` said the British official, ``but the lawyers said this was not enough.``

Whether the government tries to deport Muhammad al-Massari again, especially after the considerable satisfaction he appeared to show in displaying his video of the deaths of the three British soldiers, remains to be seen.

Government frustration


The government`s frustration showed when Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a news conference on Tuesday that judges had been ``blocking`` deportations.

``Other countries have managed perfectly well, consistent with human rights, to expel people who are inciting in other countries.

``We have tried to get rid of them and been blocked. I think there has been too great a caution in saying: `Sorry this is unacceptable.```

Some favour more radical solutions than hoping for a more compliant judiciary.

Sir Andrew Green, a former senior British diplomat who now runs campaign group Migration Watch UK, says there needs to be ``fundamental review of the whole system``.

``We should withdraw from the 1951 Convention and have a national convention for asylum which would cut out the abuse. We should also withdraw from Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention and re-enter with a new provision,`` he said.

But a warning against such an approach has come from none other than Mr Blair`s wife, Cherie Booth, a lawyer.

She told a conference in Malaysia that Britain should not take measures that would ``cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised country``.

European experience

Other European countries are facing the same dilemma.

France`s Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has said recently that he will deport more Muslim clerics preaching violence.

In October last year, after a case which went right up to the highest administrative body, the Council of State, France sent an imam back to Algeria.

Germany has sometimes also been accused of harbouring militant Islamist preachers and in January this year it, too, acquired new powers of deportation.

The Social Democratic Interior Minister Otto Schily called the new law a ``historic breakthrough`` and a ``blessing for Germany``.

Re: #184 by Romair


Here’s an EDITED version of this liar’s post:

Inquirer/Ferozek: Are both of you against letting the MUSLIM Kashmiris decide what they should do with their future? Do you believe that MUSLIM human beings should be allowed to make decisions about their future, or do you think such decisions should be dictated to them? And what is the ethical and moral authority under which such decisions should be dictated. (Answer: Look at a previous post of mine on THIS SAME SUBJECT ON ANOTHER BOARD THAT I AM CUTTING AND PASTING HERE:)

[The reason I say that people like Romair and Farzana Varsey are intellectually dishonest is because of posts like these.

Why?

Because they KNOW that they are using false arguments. But after I refute them, they’ll continue to use this argument WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE MY ARGUMENT.

Here’s how.

Romair, Farzana etc. have the following argument:

“This is a KASHMIRI movement. Let Kashmiris decide their own fate”.

On the surface, this sounds eminently reasonable. Sensible. Very democratic. Even a CHILD can understand it. In fact, a lot of consciencous Hindus have been, and still are fooled by this argument, and consequently, feel guilty about it.

But this argument IS FULL OF HOLES:

HOLE NUMBER 1:

It is NOT a Kashmiri movement.

It is a MUSLIM Kashmiri movement. HINDU Kashmiris are NOT part of the movement.

So then what about the majority issue? If Muslims ARE the majority, why cannot they decide and overrule the minority? Isn’t THAT what democracy is all about? Majority wins etc.?

Nope.


Look at the US constitution (it is a good example, since most people, like tahmed32, ONLY listen to the west). The majority CANNOT pass laws that represent ``tyranny of the majority over the minority”. One religious group CANNOT pass a law unilaterally, that the minority DOES NOT WANT, if that is precisely divisive along religious lines.


HOLE NUMBER 2:

Even if Hole Number 1 was not there, and the majority COULD vote along religious lines to create a separate state, other questions have to be answered:

a) Is it okay for Jammu, which is Hindu Majority, to become a separate entity?
How about Ladakh?
b) Is it okay for a Hindu-majority area in Sindh to ask for it’s independence?

What is the size criteria for a geographical area to declare independence? Who decides it?

HOLE NUMBER 3:

If tomorrow, Tripura becomes Muslim majority, do they have a right to secede and join Pakistan?

At what point in a geographical area’s history is secession allowable?

What if West Bengal is going that way? If the current majority Hindus in West Bengal do not want to live under the Sharia, or secede, should they start expelling Muslims from the state? Should they flee the state themselves?



Of course, you would expect Romair or Farzana to dissect my arguments point-by-point. Like farzana tried to answer Ajay Raina’s post point-by point.

But they won’t.

Because they can’t.

But they’ll keep on repeating the same garbage over and over.]


As I predicted, this liar is continuing to repeat the same garbage over and over. This is also known as propaganda.

To continue with this liar’s article:


To me the biggest source of violence in the world, is the desire of one human being to dominate another, just to satisfy the former`s ego and beliefs(BEHOLD THE WAY MUSLIMS DOMINATE OVER MINORITIES IN EVERY MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRY UNDER THE SUN). This is the core problem in everything from a husband beating his wife (OR WIVES), to one country occupying another.......

The internal desire for any human being (including HINDU KASHMIRIS) to be free, and to live on his own wishes, as opposed to the convenience of individuals many cities and oceans away, is an uncontrollable and unextinguishable desire. It is extremely difficult to kill that desire. This is why even after 1000 years of being ruled, Hindus in India wanted to be free......

If such a desire did not exist, the world would be nothing but a society based on 100% survivial of the fittest, with the weak totally occupied and crushed by the powerful. As someone who is assoicated with the area of Kashmir, I certainly disagree with Feroze`s suggestions. I am surprised he feels he has the right to even make such a suggestion. In fact, the whole problem is that too many people in our societies feel they have the right to make suggestions about others, rather than letting the others make suggestions about themselves.......

Let every human being live in freedom, based on his/her own wishes. That is a goal we should all be aiming for. Our aim should not be to impose our solutions onto others.........

The solution to the MUSLIM Kashmir problem is right in front of everyone. Let them MUSLIMS decide what they want to do. It is under this same basis that India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), themselves, were formed. Why not give other MUSLIMS this right also. Rest assured if this right were given to the MUSLIM Kashmiris, your personal lives would not be affected at all (UNLESS YOU ARE A HINDU KASHMIRI). If anything, they would get much better.......After a few decades or a generation, no one would even remember that Kashmir, at one time, was occupied or an area of conflict............

So, at best, Feroze has a right to suggest that Pakistan should not support the MUSLIM Kashmiri`s freedom struggle. But I don`t think he has the moral right to decide their (MUSLIM KASHMIRIS’) fate...........

#22

Hi Romair:

``I don`t think India can do that. That will require a military budget of $200 billion or so. India would go bankrupt just trying to compete militarily with China, much less the USA. I think India will be in two minds, i.e. it will not be sure whether it should go for outright strategic competition or remain at a local level in South Asia. It is too small to do the former, and too big to settle for the later......... ``

India`s strategic plan is very simple. Seprate Pakistan from its China equation completely. With Pakistan, it will tow the U.S. and U.K. as it gives the mxaimum leverage and the least cost route. While India will play Japan, China and the U.S. cards to get maximum advantage. According to Indian sources, the last war with Pakistan was stopped more by WIPRO / General Electric rather than by General Powell. You can probably judge from Manmohan Singh`s tone, and especially when Yasin Malik said Pakistan`s minister of Info. and Broadcasting sheltered kashmiri terrorist ( = jihadi`s given the perspective and sentiments you want to support).

India is committed to play hardball with Pakistan, until the U..K. and the U.S. do differently and India must do differetnly. Surprising ``HP`` was the most accurate in predicting this scenario being played out.

Japan-China-U.S. need India more than they Pakistan at this stage to ensure their powerplay is not destroyed. India can tip the balance, at least in their mind, in that part of the world. There are more companies opened in Singapore by Indians over the last five years than by Chinese or Singaporeans. India has its domain of influence, however small it is, yet that looks eastward as long as Pakistan at India`s rear is watched by the U.S. This is the worst case scenario, if something happens to Musharaff, whether is runs a foul with the west, or he is killed by the right wing extremists and a right wing regime is established. Interestingly, the west now is beginning to realize that Pakistan is playing game and will neve deliver OBL. If this is converted into cofirmed belief, that would be tragic for Pakistan and South Asia.

It may be hard for sincere and loyal Pakistanis, like yourself and YLH. Both the U.S. and India have given enough indications through recent annnouncements on F16 to Pakistan, prodution of F18 in India, Nuclear energy for India thru accepting India in the nuclear club.

My friends in Indian, Pakistani, and the U.S. are quite clear that the key to Pakistan`s nuclear assets are no longer in Pakistani command control. These are firmly in the U.S. lock and key. This bargain was struck when Pakistan was made non-NATO major ally, despite AQ Khan fiasco.

The best game for Pakistan, in my view, is to play with India and the U.S. In the long term it will bring the most economic benefits to not only Pakistan but also to all of South Asia. South Asia without Pakistan, for now at least will not be strong, and with Pakistan it can be stable in ten years. This is something, a fairly good friend in senior Indian strategix studies told me that privately even Pakistani army now concedes it, and that Pakistan military establishment is committed to give more concessions on Kashmir leading to the acceptance of LOC as the software border between India and Pakistan.

On another note, I think you should seriously consider IT projects with India thru Srinagar. Get some Kashmir University students on the ground working on your projects. You would surprised the traction you will get.

Anil

Ijaz_gul #5: ``Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.``

I don`t think Pakistan is going to get into an arms race. It has, in fact, already opted out of it. Pakistan`s miltiary budget for a while has been stuck at the $3 billion level. It is now less than 1/5th of India`s. Pakistan has a nuclear deterent and that is all it needs.

The only reason for increasing armament now, in the area is to become a world power, i.e. take on the USA. The only country that can do that is China. That requires moving out of the tatical domain, and into the strategic arms domain (blue water navy, ICBMs, Strategic bombers etc.). It will take China a long time to do so.

I don`t think India can do that. That will require a military budget of $200 billion or so. India would go bankrupt just trying to compete militarily with China, much less the USA. I think India will be in two minds, i.e. it will not be sure whether it should go for outright strategic competition or remain at a local level in South Asia. It is too small to do the former, and too big to settle for the later.........

``2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.``

The only country that can do this is the USA. If it ever felt like it had to do it, there isn`t much anyone could do to stop it. It could, in fact, do that to any country if it wanted to(including India), other than China and Russia.

Legend has it that in 1983, Israel tried it unsuccessfully. We were in Sargodha and saw literally the whole PAF take-off in the middle of the night. NazarHayatKhan may have the inside story.....

``3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.``

USA-EU-Israel-India-Australia-Japan is a more likely alliance. USA`s aim is to neutralize China. It will need India on its side to do so. I am not sure whom China will ally itself with. It could attempt an alliance with all the countries, which seem disgruntled with USA, which would be the Middle Eastern oil states (and Russia)........

In the end, there can be only one. One superpower, which is currently USA and it would like to keep it that way. And one Asian power, which currently does not exist. That is where China, India and Russia will compete. I think China has pretty much already won......The best ally that India could have in that race would actually be Pakistan. Pakistanis have far more in common with India than with China. But that possibility was lost due to wars, with Pakistan. I think Pakistan is moving fully towards China, as India moves towards the USA..........

The joker in this whole pack is Russia. The Russian bear only hibernates, it never permanently to sleep............

As for Pakistan, it needs to get completely out of any arms race with anyone. Strengthen its nuclear deterent in proportion to any move made by India. And then throw its lot fully with China. I am surprised Pakistan isn`t already teaching Mandarin and Cantonese in its schools..........

Ijaz#18:

I do not think that non-alignment was linked to the Kashmir issue. Nehru had developed this policy even before India got its freedom and India would have had a much easier time in the UN on this issue if it was an ally of the West.

It is difficult to predict the future alignments because we are in such unchartered territory and there are so many unknowns. In any case, here are my views on your three scenarios:

``1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.``

I do not think it is too wishful and I do not think that it would retard the Chinese fast track development. I believe that Pakistan has really decided that it cannot afford to have an arms race with India and for this scenario to develop, China would have to help Pakistan even more than it has until now. The problem with this scenario is that China may not want to help Pakistan beyond a point until Islamic militancy is brought under control because it poses potential problem for China, too.

``2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.``

As you know, there are all kind of scenarios and games being played in American Think Tanks along this line. The possibility of this happening is however remote as long as army remains in command and the army command is in the pro-American hands. However, all bets are off if pro-jihadi elements come to power.

``3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.``

To me this is the least likely scenario. India values its relationship with Russia and Iran too much to join any alliance directed against these counrtries. And while Indian and US interests converge vis-a-vis China, there really is no longer any real hositility between the two, especially if the border dispute is resolved. India would like to be a regional rival to China without being hostile. China also understands India`s position. In a recent editorial in China`s People`s Daily, India was favourably compared to Japan because, unlike Japan, it was perceived unlikely to toe the US line on every issue. I have a hunch that if China has to choose between India and Japan for the UN Security Council seat, it will choose India. And as you are aware, India does not favour a unipolar world and has indeed been talking to Russians and the Chinese for developing an alternate force.

My dream scenario would be one in which India and Pakistan start thinking of themselves as a South Asian block and maximise their leverage in dealing with outsiders. The chances of that happening are not bright but are greater than zero if the people to people contact is not reversed for one reason or another. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill and warmth that exists between the two peoples, despite the inflexiblility of the two governments on various issues, Kashmir in the short run and water-sharing in the long run.

besharam:

There have been many thoughtful objections to the Singh-Bush agreement in the Indian media, besides knee-jerk regurgitations of the same old, same old by leftists.