NWFP Demonstrators Fury against No Response from Army

Re: # 256

``It`s very difficult for many staunch believers to imagine that they can have bad people among them. ``

depends on the definition of bad people. for many muslims jihad is a good purpose. hence OBL is suported by so many.

``He was adamant that those who take lives of others cannot be muslims. ``

he is too detached from the reality. this is the hypocrsiy i was talking about. isn`t he aware of the world affairs or he has shut himself from anything bad in his religion.

people should first accept the problem only then the solution can be searched.
if the spiritual head himself is blind then what is going to happen to the people who follow him?

You are missing a point. Hypocrisy is not the only issue. Religious superiority is a big culprit in this picture. It`s very difficult for many staunch believers to imagine that they can have bad people among them. Sometime back, a learned speaker kept on refuting the concept of bad muslims. He was adamant that those who take lives of others cannot be muslims. Keeping the holy sermon in mind, we are only gifted with good muslims. The bad ones must be sent by a cultured neigbour :)

Re: # 254

ZahraJ:


regarding Karve chauth, it is a custom in north india. I thought gujaratis too celebrate it. But i doubt southerners do that. definitely there are different custinms, languages, culture within hinduism. a punjabi hindu will have more similarity with a lahori than with a tamil hindu. whereas a bengali hindu would understand a bangladeshi better than a keralite hindu. but on religious level they are same. and hinduism will provide certain common traits. for eg. the infamous caste system is associated with hindus whether it be a punjabi or a tamil. similarly, jihad can be seen among muslims irrespective of their cultural upbringing.

you did give me a list of reasons why jihadis are tolerated in pakistani society. my intention wasn`t that. I do understand the muslim mindset as i have lived/studied among them. the question was awaken them to these hypocrisy and to test the validity/rationale behind this practise. i know it will be an up-hill task but the sooner it is done the better fo them and the world.

Re: # 205

Netizen:

I have been thinking about my post to you. I was really concerned that I did not have the answer to your valid question. It made me contemplate for a few days during my drive back from work. That`s my thinking time for any open-ended issue.

I think I have the answer. Before I delve into my answer, I do have to make a point. It`s very impolite and rude to categorize all Pakistanis, Muslims, Hindus or Jews in one category. I was at this salon today where one of the Indian Women said that she had to leave early. The other one said that she can stay late. The one who had to leave early was the owner, a talllllllll punjabi lady. She was quite dressed up with all the mehndi stuff on her hands and jewellery everywhere. The other woman was a gujrati lady who worked for the owner. One of them came to tell me that today was her fasting day, kurva chauth(sp??). The gujrati woman said that we do not fast, only punjabis do. It`s a punjabi custom. This gave me another perspective. This is where India is very unique. Indians are segregated by several castes, sects and stuff. So, one can never generalize anything about the Indians. They will immediately say that they are not part of such and such clan or such and such rite/custom. If that`s the case then why should you (an indian) jump up and down to put everyone else in one bucket.

Despite the concept of equality, muslims have suffered more because of the said concept. Our religion puts a lot of emphasis on equality. The line of demarcation is drawn based on piety and not based on education or monetary status. The most confusing aspect for the muslims is not anything else, it`s their religious leaning and the conviction. Sometimes, they have difficulty seeing anything past the religion - good or bad.

In my view, there are several reasons that people do not resent and critique the existance of jehadis:

a) The concept of Jehad is a very convoluted concept. There is no clear cut meaning of Jehad. Even the positive concept can be bent into a negative shape.

b) In a country like Pakistan, it`s very hard to challenge anything to do with the religion. Since we were forced to follow the rote system in which there was no room to challenge or question anything to do with religion or pakistan studies therefore there is hesitance to raise appropriate concerns in the two subject areas. I would be the first one to admit my dislike for the subject of Pakistan Studies and the torture we had to go through to memorize the issue of Kashmir and all the evil forces. I hate this subject to this day and age.

c) Jehadis use the term to tone down their real name, murderers and killers. Now, if someone hears or reads about a murderer or a killer then obviously a flag gets raised. To many the term Jehadi sounds as if someone is sacrificing on the basis of his/her religion. There are muslims who will have sympathy with their fellow brethren and there are those who will despise the very term of Jehadi.

d) Last but not least, those who truly want to get rid of these Jehadis(fasadis) would need assistance from other countries to clean the Pakistani Soil. To your point, it is a roguish act. Unfortunately, the rogues present themselves as the savior of islam and muslims. The naive ones fall into the well thought out trap. The wise ones try to stay away from the rogues.

That`s the best I could do. If there is something beyond what I wrote then I truly have not cared to delve into any religious material to learn about the concept of Jehad. I am not interested in exploring an area that is not very appealing to me. There are far more basics that need to be implemented and observed than exploring confusing terrains. My knowledge is very limited in the subject of religion. I just write based on my observations, experiences and personal leanings.

Hope I gave some substantive perspectives.

Re: # 244

Yes you are right that it was/is a proxy war.
india initially tried to label pak as terrorist nation but now realises that geopolitical realities are quite different. india has foolishly tried to get help from other nations to dissuade pak but now realises that each own has his own axe to grind.
at the same time pak can`t do much either rather than support jihadis who kill 30-40 poeple every month. kargil demonstrated the world opinion about the sanctity of LoC.
india will contuinue with this route, it will hold on to kashmir and simultanouly encourage peoples participation in decision making in kashmir while concentrating on its own economy and military strength. thats why india wants to engage pak in other spheres of activities like trade, cultural exchange so that it would have an adverse effect on jihadi mindset. but time and again pak comes back to the samw old kashmir issue.

but what wonders me is, recently pakis are talking about jihadis in their midst, especially after 9/11 and british bombings. weren`t these people around since 1990`s? wasn`t that mindset/culture encouraged to liberate kashmir?

pinching india with the jihadi needle and expecting to have a freindly relationship won`t last long. hence i fear that these talks are going to collapse and we will be back at each others throat.

#250 by harish_hyd
“Then why are Pakis complaining when they are singled out for a strip search whenever they land at a western airport? Don`t you think they deserve it?”

Pakistani and Indians both come from the same stock…Whining is part of the culture. They deserve it and I think most of them should be strip searched every time they board a flight especially under their untrimmed beard, and particularly, when I am on that flight.

Re: # 230

Well, your views may be the view of some of the Indians, but others(including me) beg to differ.

We want opening of borders and more importantly opening of hearts and minds. This way the Jihadis on both the times may have good or bad times but humane Indians and poetic Pakistanis will definitely have better times.

#238 by HP

[Everyone gets what they deserve. That’s life. Live with it or find some other pastime.]

Then why are Pakis complaining when they are singled out for a strip search whenever they land at a western airport? Don`t you think they deserve it?

Re: # 241

Arjun:

Why are you so rude? What is up with your way of addressing other interactors? Whenever someone has lame arguments he/she distracts the reader by being funny and rude. That`s how most of your posts are addressed to other interactors. No doubt you have difficulty in interacting with your neigbour and understanding their rationale.

Disappointed!

Friend: bari unFriendly post likhhy hai!! la hola wala!! ha! ha! Did the reference to monkey genes comment hit a tender spot??

#235 by shishapa

``One more suggestion, I think you should change your nick to tahmad64.
Whole world is moving on to 64 bit and you are stuck on 32? ``

Dear Shishpa
One explanation...
64 years is Shri Ahmed Sahib`s actual age. 32 years is what he wants everyone to believe. Why will he change his nick?

Another explanation
Have you heard about ``Tees maar khan``! Our Ahmek mian is ``buttees maar Khan``, not because he killed buttees flies. Because he got maar buttees time.

#244 HP, RSS talking point of not, as far as you get it, thats great ;-)
Part of `diplomacy` is pressuring the elite thru highlighting their sordid deads at various fora. there seems to be some effect on the elite .. an op-ed in WP gets attention in GHQ. this is low-cost and guess what, no bombs or shahids are needed!

this is the war of thousand paper-cuts LOL

your ``whining`` about bangladesh liberation is duely noted.

#243 by prophet tahmed(peace be unto his self-righteous left butt cheek) on October 19, 2005 1:00pm PT


I thought you were ignoring me...

#240 by Netizen

Neti,
I know what is going on in Kashmir and around it. My post was in response to Jang following on the RSS talking points memo ala Sadna; though ordinarily he is a very reasonable person:)


“also, having armed maoist struggle within india doesn`t give pak license to sponsor jihad across kashmir.” –Netizen

You are not making a reasonable argument here and my response again would be that Pakistan does not need a license from India as there is a de facto conflict already on between India and Pakistan and that’s been going on for the last sixty years. For crying out loud, for a long time they did not even have diplomatic relations. You don’t need a license from the enemy to attack the enemy. It is a matter of opportunity…if India gets the opportunity like it did in Bangladesh, it will act on it. And if Pakistan creates an opportunity like they did in Kashmir, they will act on it. This is a dog fight whether you like it or not.

Now how do you deal with? Really only three ways.

1. You take out the enemy completely, (attack Pakistan)
2. You fight the proxy and war of attrition for as long as you can, (continue with the thousand cuts)or
3. You sit down, take a timeout and discuss the issue with the enemy.( like its being done now)

None of these three options recommend crying and whining. You deal with the situation. You can attack Pakistan, failing that you get ready to talk and that is what is happening now. Whiners are not going to change a thing.

Militant armed struggles in India are common and there are other areas in India where that is happening. So the armed struggle in Kashmir should not surprise anyone. Pakistan support to it is also there you got deal with it.

“if pak still things that jihadis are the way to the future, then good luck to pak.”

If this does bother you, then there are many things India can do here. You find a way to influence Pakistan’s internal politics. There is nothing wrong with that and many countries do that. It is an acceptable international diplomatic course of action.

arjun #242 you forgot to add ``paki! paki! paki! hoooo! hooo! hooo!`` at the end of your message. Trying to get over your monkey genes, i see.

I think the Indian expat community in the US and the Indian diplomats worldwide need to keep following the basic rule...stay on message...

pakistan...terrorism..pakistan..jihad..pakistan...osama..pakistan..A.Q.Khan..

Trust me...it`s working better than you know it...

Diplomatic faux pas?



By Andleeb Abbas



General Pervez Musharraf may come across as a flamboyant
media-savvy person, but at the recent UN summit, Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh won himself more trust in the eyes of the world than his
Pakistani counterpart



Is the honeymoon over? This is the burning question troubling most
minds after the Musharraf-Manmohan Singh meeting at the UN summit. A
meeting which was supposed to make active progress in settling
disputes, ended on a limp note with both parties making the usual
ramblings of more of it next time.



The recent hardline statements and postures by Pakistan and India
have an uncomfortable twist to them. The Indian prime minister’s claims
in his speech that cross border militancy has not stopped, Musharraf’s
attempt to restore relations with Israel ending in Palestinian
retaliation, and of course those disastrous remarks by the president on
women using rape as an excuse for moving to Canada resulting in the
Canadian prime minister’s objections — all these faux pas at the UN
summit have left a sour political taste making many people wondering as
to what is the political future of this country.




This Musharraf-Singh meeting had already been adversely affected by
the sentencing of Sarabjit Singh for carrying out a series of bomb
blasts in 1990 in Pakistan. The case had received wide publicity in
India and the government had come under tremendous political pressure
to intervene. Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh met Pakistan’s high
commissioner in Delhi, and asked for Singh to be pardoned on
humanitarian grounds. However, Pakistan did not relent causing a
hardening of stances at the UN summit.



That is how it goes in this strange world. For some it is a time
for worries, apprehension, and consternation; for others it is a time
for rejoicing, revelling and celebration. In the former category come
Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, while in the latter cadre
come India and many other US blessed countries. Such a contrast in
fortunes of Pakistan and India has rarely been witnessed before. India
already heralded as the second major economic force along with China,
managed to get confirmation from the US for its total support, nuclear
or economic, while Pakistan already suffering from an image of
instability, got a confirmation of being a terrorist hub post-London
blasts. All turns in history are preceded by conflicts all across the
world and the present conflict and its response in the West in the last
few weeks is perhaps an indicator of the new world order to follow.



A WAR OF WORDS: As Manmohan Singh made selected and pointed
remarks on Pakistan’s continuous support to terrorists, Musharraf’s
rather impulsive and elaborate rhetoric on rape victims angered many in
the US and within the country. It seems that unlike India’s clear and
clever foreign moves, Pakistan’s foreign policy is in a shambles.
The president’s meeting with the Iraqi president and the chance meeting
with Ariel Sharon at the UN summit along with his address to the Jewish
lobby, have not won Pakistan many friends in Iraq and Palestine.
Without a clear-cut strategy the president seemed to adopt the
typically chaotic stance of “we did, we said, but we did not really
mean it”, which, actually shows political immaturity. The president
completely lost his cool when at a press conference human right
activists questioned his comments on women exploiting rape to get
visas. Instead of using this meeting to promote Pakistan’s soft image,
it became an ugly bout of confrontations in which the president
actually said “I am a fighter, I will fight you and if you can shout I
will shout louder”. It became so bad that the president had to be led
away and counselled for a while to make him capable of controlling
himself, before being sent back to resume the meeting. Denials never
win you much credibility. After the summit it has been a constant line
of denials, of no trade with Israel, no offence to the NGOs and women,
and no problems with the relationship with India. This continuous
back-tracking of issues has become the hallmark of Pakistan’s foreign
policy and has put the government’s local and international credibility
at stake.



THE FRIENDLY ENEMIES: It all started with the glaring
contradiction in the treatment meted out to Indian and Pakistani prime
ministers on their visit to America a few weeks ago. The Indian Prime
Minister, Manmohan Singh not only got a rousing welcome in the US, but
got a lot more than what India may have hoped for; while the
Pakistani Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz had to call off his scheduled
visit to the US, as he probably would not have got the same protocol
and reception; just as well, as the contrast was striking and
delivering a very important message about the political inclinations of
the White House.



Manmohan Singh was invited to address the joint session of US
congress, an honour given to very few heads of state, and the response
to his speech showed how pro-India US policy-makers are. One must give
credit to Indian think-tanks who helped prepare the speech. It was a
master piece of shrewd diplomacy. All the right topics, phrases and
words were used. Buzzwords and phrases like ‘commitment to democracy’
are guaranteed applause-bait, and they did not disappoint. References
to initiatives jointly agreed on between President George W Bush and
Prime Minister Singh, too, invited and got applause; as did a reference
to the achievements of the Indian American community. References to the
need for a hard line on terrorism, without sacrificing the openness
that characterizes democracies of the US and India, were similarly
guaranteed to go down well with the assembled law-makers of both
houses. They did.




The cleverly worded and articulated part of the speech was the one
referring to the US and India as natural partners. “Partnerships can be
of two kinds,” Manmohan Singh told the eager congress. “There are
partnerships based on principle, and partnerships based on pragmatism.
I believe we are at a juncture where we can embark on a partnership
that can draw both on principle as well as pragmatism.”



The speech was the classic case of killing two birds with one
stone. He not only marketed India as a model of democracy and economic
progress, but also subtly highlighted Pakistan’s lack of democracy and
inability to handle and curb terrorism. Of course, nothing binds
countries together more than common enemies and shared interests. Thus,
the Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca’s insistence of
complete restoration of democracy in Pakistan on her recent visit is
almost predictable.



MUTUAL REWARDS: The “too close for comfort” US-India relations on
display during last month’s visit to Washington by India’s Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, thus, is a result of a well-planned strategic
statecraft. India is a rising power in Asia, a democracy integrating
into the global economy, a foe of terrorist fanatics, and a potential
counterweight to China. Thus the reward for such multi-benefits was
that Bush agreed to sell to India desperately needed nuclear fuel for
the US-built civilian reactors in Tarapur and to provide components for
such reactors.



Though India agreed on placing its civilian nuclear reactors under
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, prolonging its
moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, accepting guidelines of the
International Nuclear Suppliers’ Group that ban the proliferation of
fissile material, and adhering to the Missile Technology Control
Regime, these compliances are still not enough. India is still not
permitting full-scope IAEA safeguards for its military as well as
civilian facilities, nor has it agreed to curtail development of its
nuclear weapons and delivery systems. By allowing India to have the
advantages of being one of the acknowledged nuclear powers without
signing onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush passed India’s litmus
test — its price for permitting a true strategic partnership with
Washington. The West has hailed this as Bush’s recognition of the value
of such a partnership on the basis that it may be a reassuring sign
that he and his advisers are coming to understand that the United
States cannot move alone in the world. However, the message of Bush’s
nuclear deal with India to other countries that might be pondering a
pursuit of nuclear weapons could hardly be worse. They are being shown
that acquiring those ultimate terror weapons can be a steppingstone to
recognition as a major power and that, after a decent interlude, they
can expect to be pardoned for developing and testing those weapons. Why
are Pakistan, Iran and North Korea not given the same concessions? The
answer is simple. None of them present the economic might and political
advantages India has.



India is a huge market for US businesses and a convenient and capable outsourcing centre for their operational functions. GE
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, one of the most influential businessman in
the US, a contributor to Bush’s presidential campaigns, had a coveted
seat at the president’s table during this announcement. For GE, one
of the largest and the only US-owned company still in the nuclear
business, it marked a possible turning point in a years-long push to
re-enter the Indian nuclear power market, which it was forced to leave
in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test. Immelt — who said
in May that “all conditions are right to invest in India” and predicted
that GE revenues from there could jump to $5 billion by 2010 — was not
the only American executive at the state dinner with a reason to court
Manmohan Singh. Bush also invited Lockheed Martin Corp. chief Bob
Stevens and Boeing Co.’s new chief executive, James McNerney. Bush
cleared the way in March for the two defence contractors to compete for
a potential $9 billion market selling combat planes to India. GE makes
jet engines for Lockheed and Boeing. Thus India is a very important
market for the gigantic defence industry of America.




According to a report, Condoleezza Rice also spoke to President
Musharraf and said that his reaction was “constructive” and “not overly
problematic”. Thus India gets away once again with concessions which
are openly violating the very principles on which the US has based its
peace and security treaties. While Pakistan can just moan and blame its
bad luck.



The Indian prime minister is definitely a smooth opportunist. In
order to cash upon the anti-British and American sentiments in the
Muslim world, and in particular in Pakistan, the Indian prime
minister highlighted two facts in his public speeches. One, that in the
recent survey on American image abroad, India turned out to be the
country with the highest favourable rating for America and its
policies, thus emphasizing that Americans were more popular in India
than in America itself, and secondly, the amazing statement he made
in which he categorically claimed that the British were the best
colonial rulers in the world despite admitting that the economy of the
subcontinent went to ruins under their rule. These statements at a
time, when both the US and the UK are desperate and hungry for support
for their rather tarnished international image, are definitely food
from manna for the two countries.



INBRED FRAGILITY: In times of crisis the true strength of a nation
emerges. For Pakistan it is really a time for taking tough decisions.
To take tough decisions you need tough leaders. The president and the
prime minister are under all sorts of pressures to take steps which may
or may not be in national and international interests. Very clear
commands from the British and American governments have come for a
ruthless hounding and extermination of any madressah, organization or
individual with the slightest of suspicion of being involved in any
form of anti-western intentions. In compliance to these commands, the
government has started the clean-up operation, which in turn, has
created a great deal of resentment and reaction in many national
circles who feel that the legitimate and clean madressahs are also
being hounded unnecessarily in this process. The decision to oust all
foreign students is simply ridiculous, as those who preach hatred, that
is, the teachers, are still there to make the usual mischief.



CONCLUSION: While India steadily plays the role of the peace
loving, purposeful emerging power, Pakistan struggles to establish any
definite international identity, thus the constant insecurity of being
economically abandoned and politically stranded.



At the meeting at the UN, the Indian premier seems to have managed
to win the world by his crafty diplomacy. On the other hand, the belief
in style over substance, as far as saying and doing is concerned, is
the undoing of the present government. President Musharraf may have
developed an impressive rhetoric and may come across as a flamboyant
media-savvy person, he still lacks the ability to put action into
words. His constant chant of enlightened moderation has been quoted
over various media across the world, but his dithering over controlling
immoderate elements, and his indiscreet comments about the NGOs has
decreased his credibility. In contrast the Indian prime minister
comes across as a-man-of-few-words leader, but his belief in action
speaking louder than words has won him more trust than his Pakistani
counterpart. The self-reliance policy of India and a higher focus on
education and skill development has paid off, as today India is
recognized as a power to be. In contrast, relying on external aid, both
political and economic, and the lack of focus on education and skill
development, have led to Pakistan being viewed as a powerless and
vulnerable state, which can be exploited and manipulated for vested and
western interests. As the saying goes: “The fault, dear friend, does not lie within our stars, but within ourselves.”

#238 by HP on October 19, 2005 9:22am PT

Mullah HP...most Indians couldnt` care less about Paki-Kashmir...OTOH, most Pakis really really want Indian Kashmir and it really burns them up that their one-muslim-equals-10-hindus army hasn`t been able to do squat about it...

Re: # 238

HP:

india cannot do much about paks military or democracy. It is up to pakis to sort it out. We are more concerned with what happens within our border. Hence jihadis coming out of pak is a concern for india. Pak has shielded itself with nukes. and hence it thinks that it is prone to any attack from india. it is not worth blowing a part of india even if entire pak is up in flames.
currently things are not fine in kashmir but not all that bad compared to 1990`s. india would continue this policy while concentrating on other issues like development, poverty reduction. india has done this for the past 15 years.
if pak still things that jihadis are the way to the future, then good luck to pak. We have shed a lot of blood defending kashmir, and it would continue.

also, having armed maoist struggle within india doesn`t give pak license to sponsor jihad across kashmir. there is a difference b/t the two. skin to the situation in nepal, can india support/invade nepal simply because maoist are leading a armed struggle?

shishapa: i think even 32-bit is an overkill on chowk. hell, my 16-bit apple computer from the early 80`s could have written smarter posts than the ones seen from indian posters on this board (e.g.).

:-)

#229 by jang

“Mr HP has started his abusive language..normally he reserves it for Sadna, and AlephNull, now arjun had joined the elite company ;)”

“Always start your mornings with a few snarky smoothies...”-Jay Leno

Everyone gets what they deserve. That’s life. Live with it or find some other pastime. President Bush calls Karl Rove turd blossom you think he is abusing him? It is a term of endearment in the US Whitehouse. Live with it and stop complaining.

“One gets a feeling that pre 9/11 the elites were having a sense of satisfaction at the war of thousand cuts.”

The sense of entitlement just keeps growing in India (puking). Pakistan and India are at each other for the last 60 years, it is not the Pakistan elite alone, the Indian political elite like it that way too. You expect Pakistan to worship India at the altar of the Birla Mandir in Delhi? If Pakistan has an aggressive policy you respond to it instead of crying all over the place. Attack Pakistan. What stops you?

At different times one sees 3 or 4 armed struggles in India from Maoist to the people in AP. Who is supporting them? Are they Hindu Jihadi? A country, as big and as dirt poor as India, needs to live with the reality that there are going to be some militant groups. Kashmir is unique. India has a dispute over it with another country and that country supports militants.

Either you deal with it internally or duke it out with another country. But the Indian approach seems to be crying all over the place. Cry, cry and cry baby cry. If you can’t deal with Pakistan physically, you talk to them and that’s what India is doing now.

India is not the only country that is being poked by a neighboring country.
Holy cow! Wasn’t India supporting Tibet before India got shown by China? Why can’t you do the same to Pakistan… but no… you just have to cry! Losers... Numbnuts!
Stand up and deal with the problem!

Turd Blossom, You don`t deserve more than one post...

#223 by HP on October 18, 2005 9:18pm PT



Impressions of an American visit

Hamid Alvi

With this backdrop we switch over to the image of Pakistan as it prevails in the United States. In one sentence, we dare say, that the prestige of Pakistan was never so low as it is today in the United States. The reason is simple: Pakistan is widely dubbed as a terrorist State, a place where terrorists are trained and launched from. For most Pakistanis whose source of information is US media, it is mind-boggling and downright stupefying. Here, Mr Bush is never tired of telling the world that General Pervez Musharraf is his ally in the war against terrorism, then how come his people regard Musharraf’s countrymen as terrorists? This indeed is the paradox and Bush holds the key to it. He turns the key half way and not all the way. His administration knows everything Pakistan is doing — the details, but the people of America do not. They are suppored to be content with one liner, “Pakistan is our ally against terrorism,” and be quiet about it. But they are not, and go on drawing wrong conclusion from every happening related to terrorism. Many characters have contributed, each his own bit, in conferring the epithet of terrorism on the fair demeanour of Pakistan.

#223 by HP on October 18, 2005 9:18pm PT

Aww....touched a raw nerve did I..what`s the matter? Had a rough ``experience`` at the airport...singled out for being a paki...

Truth hurts, doesn`t it...Which is why everytime there is a anonymous call about a PAKI planning something, the terror level changes color...everybody knows it by now...

Re: # 233

Tahmadji,

One more suggestion, I think you should change your nick to tahmad64.
Whole world is moving on to 64 bit and you are stuck on 32?

Anyway, last post on this Pakistani website after jumping the wall or fence.
Need to get back to work.

Re: # 233

Tahmadji,

It does not have to be wall, fence bhi chalegi. Wall ko jiyad paisa lagata hai, mery
khyal se fence thodi sasti hoti hai.

shishapa #232 i thought it was you who wanted to build the wall, shishapa bhai!! :-)

Re: # 231

Oh, I have no doubt about your effectiveness. You will make sure I will not do that.
I think you have amply demonstrated those abilities before and after August 47.
Kya majal hai hamari?

shishapa: ``I really would like to see a wall or fence built on the border. ``

how do we know you wont jump over that too? like you jumped to a pakistani website just to tell us month after month that you dont really want to have to do anything with us? i swear you chowk indians are more unintentionally funny than any bollywood movie could ever be!! :-)

Re: # 226

I really see no need to either love or hate Pakistanis. They made their decision to
part the way because they did not trust Indians (read Hindus), did not not want to
live with ``Hindu animosity`` and many similar reasons.
So now that has happened, why should not Indians be oblivious to Pakistanis?
I really would like to see a wall or fence built on the border.
Let Pakistanis be happy whichever way they want and prosper whichever way they want,
Indians should not want any of it, no bitterness, nothing, just moving on, making sure
such spiteful leaders and leagues and hurriyats do never suceed again in dividing India,
ever.

{#223 by HP on October 18, 2005 9:18pm PT

#219
Okay Turd blossom,
}

Mr HP has started his abusive language..normally he reserves it for Sadna, and AlephNull, now arjun had joined the elite company ;)

Much more needs to be done, demonstrated by the Pakistani elite before indian can believe that they are really in on right side of this ``war on terror``. Currently its at best a mixed-message, at worst an eyewash. One gets a feeling that pre 9/11 the elites were having a sense of satisfaction at the war of thousand cuts. Post 9/11, some of the costs like increase in local jihad and visa restrictions have become higher, but are perhaps still more or less tolerable. Indians have stated in no unclear terms that it will not let kashmir go, something they have demostrated the will to fight for as a nation, in kragil, or through the war of thousand-cuts. Pakistan army, which forms backbone of the elite of pakistan, is supporting kashmir jihad (and a wider pan-indian jihad), and has used it as a threat and blackmail time and again no uncertain terms. Given this, its hard to drink the cool-aid from pakistani elite that they are not for jihad.

Re: # 226

Good one!

Re: # 224

By the way, the NY Times Report did not mention where those 16000 or so surplus Tents are lying which India is refusing to take.

It is very clear that the need of Tents is more in Pakistan than in India. The Tents available are limited in number at present. If India takes 30,000 Tents, they will be at the cost of Pakistan. The other way is India tries to meet its requirement internally and let all other Tents go to Pakistan.

What else do you expect from India to do??

The love-hate or hate-hate or hate-love relationship between Indians and Pakistanis is on account of the misunderstandings created by the establishments and the medias of the two countries. While Indians appear to be Ten-headed Ravanas to the Pakistanis, the typical image of Pakistani is that sword-weilding beared Musalmaan riding on a horse with Jihad as his sole goal. And somehow these images have been so crystallised by now that only these are considered to be true. You go to any web-forum where Indians and Pakistanis are meeting, you will find that these two images which are clashing with each other furiously with each other. The rest will be applauding either the Ravana or the Jihadi.

Unfortunately this is the trend which is being seen all over the world. Nationalism means spewing venom against the (assumed) enemy country. Religous means spewing venom against other religions. Deadlier is the venom greater is one`s nationalism or Religous beliefs.

As far as Indians and Pakistanis are concerned a deep trench filled with human blood separates the two peoples. Crossing this trench is not an easy task. But a begining can always be made by opening the borders between the two countries and enabling peoples to move atleast on Tourist Visas. Even then not all would be able to cross this Trench but some would definiely do.

# 224 That is just pathetic. Only 13000 of the total of 30000 tents needed have been sent so far!

We should put pride aside if we can`t manage a disaster.

Will the Indians please request their government to allow any foreign aid? not necessarily from Pakistan but any at all?


NY Times

October 19, 2005
Letter From Asia
Pride and Politics: India Rejects Quake Aid
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
NEW DELHI, Oct. 18 - Calamities of nature do not just test the capacity of a state. They can also offer unexpected opportunities for political craftsmanship.

Take India. The government has announced that it needs no international aid to recover from the Oct. 8 earthquake that leveled villages in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, killed an estimated 1,300 people there and displaced roughly 30,000 families.

As temperatures fall to near freezing in the hilltop hamlets of Kashmir, the most liberal estimates suggest that fewer than half of the surviving families have tents to sleep in. Yet a full nine days and nights after the quake, Indian officials say they have no need for the United Nations, nor foreign aid agencies, to bring tents from abroad.

Indian officials say that they are able to care for their own, and that tents are coming from private producers and the Indian military. What is more, India has sent aid, including 620 tents, to its neighbor and archrival, Pakistan. ``We ourselves are taking care of our victims,`` said Navtej Sarna, the Foreign Ministry spokesman. ``When there are offers by friendly countries and anything is needed, these offers are considered.``

It is too early to tell whether India, which seeks a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, can go it alone. Certainly there is anger in Indian-administered Kashmir among people who have been forced to build their own tents out of the wooden beams and tin sheets retrieved from the rubble of their homes. Even so, India`s posture says a great deal about the politics of disaster aid, and about India`s own ambitions to assert itself as a world power.

India also refused international aid in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, though it later allowed United Nations and private agencies to help. Three years ago, it rebuffed development aid from a number of foreign donors, saying it was no longer necessary. In short, India has been anxious to portray itself as a giver, rather than a receiver. ``What we can manage on our own, we do,`` said Hamid Ansari, a retired Indian diplomat. ``There`s a certain sense of self-confidence that we can manage it and, let me say, a desire to signal that you are capable of managing things on your own.``

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the director of a private research group here called the Center for Policy Research, saw reflected in India`s rejection of foreign aid so far a desire to be seen as an emerging global power, or one of what he called ``the big boys.``

``The risk really is that in our refusal to accept aid I don`t think we are keeping people to whom aid might go as central,`` Mr. Mehta said. ``We are playing politics with aid, using aid to make a statement.``

Pakistan`s approach has been exactly the opposite. Hit a whole lot harder by the Oct. 8 quake - its official death toll stood at 42,000 on Tuesday- Pakistan has appealed for worldwide help and allowed foreigners to travel to its side of Kashmir and to the traditionally well-guarded pockets of North-West Frontier Province, the two areas that suffered the greatest damage.

Pakistan is the world`s largest manufacturer of tents, but still cannot produce nearly enough. The United Nations said Tuesday that 350,000 additional tents were urgently needed and that 500,000 earthquake survivors had still not received any medical care, food or other assistance.

There is no agreement on whether India has sufficient tents to care for its own. The Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Indian Army would be able to help make up the shortfall. The army spokesman in Kashmir, Lt. Col. S. K. Batra, cautioned that the military, itself badly hit in the earthquake, could not entirely deplete its own stock. The government`s joint secretary of disaster management, Aseem Khurana, vowed that enough tents would be sent within a week. So far, roughly 13,000 of the 30,000 tents required have been distributed, he said, slightly less than half sent by the Indian Army.

State government officials in Kashmir said they were puzzled about the dearth of tents. ``It is really eye-opening for us, that in this country with such a large population base, more than a million-strong army, and so many paramilitary forces we just do not have enough tents,`` said Muzaffar Baig, the Kashmir state finance and planning minister. ``Every day we are getting only 300 to 400 tents from the central government.``

R. K. Pachauri, director of the Energy Research Institute in Delhi, a private research group, insisted that if India had enough tents, they should have been distributed much more quickly. If it did not, it should have accepted them from overseas right away. ``We should really have been able to organize ourselves a little better,`` he said. That the quake struck the province of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been at the center of a long territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, makes the politics of aid particularly prickly. The Indian government has never been keen on outside intervention in Kashmir, so the subject of foreign aid to the quake victims is a touchy matter.

``New Delhi has adopted an enlightened approach to helping Pakistan during this tragedy, and a backward approach to accepting foreign humanitarian assistance on its side of the Kashmir divide,`` said Michael Krepon, president of the Washington-based Henry L. Stimson Center, which studies security issues. ``Part of this has to do with national pride, which is compounded by sensitivity to foreign governments making landfall in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.``

Kashmiri leaders have pressed New Delhi to embrace international aid as a humanitarian gesture. ``Allow international organizations to come in and help the Kashmiri people,`` said Yasin Malik, leader of a separatist group called Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. ``India will gain. They will not lose with this kind of gesture.``

In the back and forth between India and Pakistan, neighborly solidarity is difficult to distinguish from political gamesmanship. On Monday, Pakistan accepted India`s longstanding offer of helicopters to help with relief work, but said it would not take Indian military pilots or crews. On Tuesday afternoon, India announced that it would open a number of telephone lines to enable Kashmiris in its territory to communicate with their relatives on the Pakistani side.

By Tuesday evening, the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, called on India to allow Kashmiris to cross the disputed Line of Control to assist in relief efforts. Later in the evening, India said it welcomed General Musharraf`s suggestion. ``This is in line with India`s advocacy of greater movement across the line for relief work and closer people-to-people contacts,`` a Foreign Ministry statement said. ``India is willing to facilitate such movements, but we await word from Pakistan about the practical details of implementing this intention.``

Hari Kumar contributed reporting for this article.

#219
Okay Turd blossom,

That’s all you got! Poll numbers to prove your fantasy!
If people don’t like Jews, they are Jihadi…what a uniquely Indian logic! touch bases with your buddies in the Neo-Nazis too. They would love you for saying that!

Next thing you are going to tell us that since 60% American disapprove of Bush so they are all Jihadi supporter or since 70% Gujarati support Modi, so all Gujarati are murderers and Baby killers?

Weren’t you once caught giving a Rusty Trombone to an Aardvark?

shishapa:
It was destined to be that way since the state was carved on hatred, bigotry, and sickening
manipulation of religion and got rid of its minorities who could have contributed so much
because they were thought to be impure.
It was going to be slippery slope downhill since then and it has been proven right.

you have a point, i guess a better way to see current Pakistan is from the day in December 1971 when it was born alongside Bangladesh. In this way, lethal religous nationhood arguments of 1947 and those personalities that employ them as bargaining chips ( to further their own agendas ) would simply become irrelevant. Pakistan (minus the current occupiers, which is a stretch to imagine) would then become a federation comprised of all ethnicities that choose to live in it. (i am just wondering here.)

Re: # 220

It was destined to be that way since the state was carved on hatred, bigotry, and sickening
manipulation of religion and got rid of its minorities who could have contributed so much
because they were thought to be impure.
It was going to be slippery slope downhill since then and it has been proven right.

arjun_m:
there is no civil society in pakistan, State coopts implicitly everyone into the sickening games of jihad, kargil, massacre `71... People`s minds are beholden to a medieval mythology of Last Day and heaven and hell and all this makes an explosive mix where noone`s permission is asked when GOP executes a ``foreign policy`` with the view of GOP stakeholders getting the maximum mileage out of each adventure (invariably millions lose their lives as history shows us).

The only problem is that pakistanis who have the luxury to think and understand are having difficulties in what they see is the historical ``retreats`` from each and every frontline for ``Pakistan`` and kashmiri jihad frontline is still in play. Reasons: look at the pakistani textbooks that has reared one new generation which is the most vocal and in its 20s. (you prolly know all that)

The sad part is GOP, the occupiers, has masterfully convinced most of these educated characters to confuse enslaved pakistani people`s collective interest with the interest of the establishment.

#214 by HP on October 18, 2005 1:48pm PT


How so? Why is it a fertile breeding ground for global Jihadi, Any evidence to prove this?


Hmm..let`s see..more than a 3rd think suicide bombing is justified



80% of Pakiland, a country that has almost ZERO % jews, doesn`t like jews



And then there`s this...




Spare us the they only dislike XYZ policy apologia...the french dislike American policies too..it`s only the jihadis who like OBL....

#203
`` I do think that a common/not so common harworking man and woman would not like to associate himself/herself with any maniac Jehadi``

---

What ``common people`` believe is so impossible to divine, if we did an opinion survey in Pakistan which asks people:

``Should Pakistan support the liberation struggle in Kashmir by whatever means necessary`` I am willing to bet my last set of chaddies that 80%+ of responses will be ``yes``.

At the same time it we ask ``Should Pakistan have better relations with India`` again I bet a majority will say ``yes``.

so what the heck can we conclude from this?

Re: # 214 HP
//.... It[jihad] is not my problem and I don’t care. (snark)...//

That`s fine - just take it easy, don`t fly off your handle.... You say that jihad is not a problem for you[pakis] and that you don`t care .....Well, Other pakis disagree - zahra, bolta_aina are saying the opposite - that jihad is a big problem for pakistan itself....

Regardless - we know that it`s a big problem for India and the world.... You are asking india to attack pakistan to solve jihad issue .... well, that`s a good option, but not feasible at this point, otherwise we would have done it already.....

#203

ZahraJ,

Some of the major Pakistani organizations that sponsor terror in India are non-sectarian. For example the Hizbul Mujhaideen is sponsored by the mainstream Jamait-E-Islami, which is stridently non-sectarian.

Following the recent earthquake, news keeps surfacing of rescue work carried out by ``volunteers`` of the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, the parent organization of the Lashkar-e-Toiba. LeT to my knowledge has not been involved in sectarian violence in Pakistan. Its ``members`` have been involved in incidents, but as a whole the organization tries to stay out of Pakistani sectarian issues. The LeT also has been the most prominent in spreading its activities outside Kashmir to the rest of India. The opposite of these groups are the one`s like Anjuman Sipaha Saheba Pakistan (SSP) which participated in the Afghan war but is primarily involved in domestic sectarian violence.

That in essence is Musharaff`s plan, i.e to maintain his capabilities in India via organizations like LeT but to stike hard on the SSP like organizations. Looking from the outside it may be do-able. Pakistan will remain a source of terrorist organizations focussed and controlled by the Pakistan Army which will limit activities of such groups within Pakistan.

btw, note I say Army not ISI, because the ISI is the Army.

Generalities like what ``most Pakistani`s`` desire are nice to know but not of much use to anyone.

#203

ZahraJ,

Some of the major Pakistani organizations that sponsor terror in India are non-sectarian. For example the Hizbul Mujhaideen is sponsored by the mainstream Jamait-E-Islami. Following the recent earthquake news a lot of rescue work seems to be done by the Jamaat-ud-Dawah the parent organization of the Lashkar-e-Toiba which to my knowledge not been involved in sectarian violence in Pakistan. Its ``members`` have been involved i incidents but as a whole the organization tries to stay out of Pakistani sectarian issues. The LeT also has been the most prominent in spreading its activities outside Kashmir to the rest of India. The opposite of these groups are the one`s like Anjuman Sipaha Saheba Pakistan (SSP) which participated in the Afghan war but is primaryly involved in domestic sectarian violence.

That in essence is Musharaff`s plan, i.e to maintain his capabilities in India via organizations like LeT but to stike hard on the SSP like organizations. Looking from the outside it may be do-able. Pakistan will remain a source of terrorist organizations focussed and controlled by the Pakistan Army which will limit activities of such groups within Pakistan.

btw, note I say Army not ISI, because the ISI is the Army.

Generalities like what ``most Pakistani`s`` desire are nice to know but not of much use to anyone.

#213 by mohar11

“The fact is - pakistan is a fertile breeding ground of global jihad and would remain so for any foreseeable future unless something drastic is done there ....”

How so? Why is it a fertile breeding ground for global Jihadi, Any evidence to prove this? …Beyond some inherently ridiculous rhetoric. It is like saying India is a fertile breeding ground for communalist and baby killers.

Before 1982 there were no Jihadi in Pakistan, what is to say that there may not be any jihadi in 2015?

“It`s time for pakis to get over the semantics and get down to address the real issues here”

Pray tell me what is the real issue here? Let say, I don’t consider Jihadi as a real problem. I think establishing democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan is a real problem. Convince me.

Jihadi may be a problem for India and you people why can’t you deal with it? Don’t have enough Army, don’t have the political will, or just don’ have the capacity to deal with a few thousand sparingly trained non educated people.

Just what is it? If you think Pakistan is behind it, attack Pakistan. That’s what the US did. It is whacko like you who don’t understand the problem and start crying and ranting. If Jihad is an issue for you people, why you don’t deal with? Make some suggestions to Indian government. Why are yelling and screaming on a web site?

It is not my problem and I don’t care. (snark)

Re: # 210 HP
//....calling every Pakistani as a Jihadi or Jihadi supporter would not help....//

My be not... But when pakis are generating a billion dollar a year to finance jihad - it doesn`t really matter what anybody says....

I mean - let`s say every paki is a saint - so what? Does that change anything on ground? We still have unhindered jihad...... we still have a billion dollars sitting there to finance the jihad ...... we still have a million[minus whatever number were killed in the quake] trained jihadis waiting in the wings ...... we still have paki gov`t/army/society supporting them all the way... we still have infrastructure to churn-out more jihadis as needed....

That`s the real problem.... calling paki good/bad names doesn`t matter - that is just semantics..... It`s time for pakis to get over the semantics and get down to address the real issues here..... The fact is - pakistan is a fertile breeding ground of global jihad and would remain so for any foreseeable future unless something drastic is done there ....

No more excuses.... no more bullsh!t .... time to act is Now....

re: Pak sponsored terror
Those who think Kashmir is not an issue anymore between India and Pak must read the following article:
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=56805
Sridhar

#210 by HP on October 18, 2005 9:39am PT


Kashmir is on its way out as being the main issue between Pakistan and India


Captain Clueless would beg to differ......take it away CC...

#205 by Netizen

“sometimes i felt that pakistan itself is hostage to jihadi/ISI elements. in such a case may be both the countries should join forces to combat it. But there is a feeling that mushy also has some influence on them as he threatened to increase the flow of insurgents if india doesn`t start peace talks.”

Neti, I think you make a fair assessment. If your interest is looking at the problem the way it is rather than the arjun approach, then you will have much more success in figuring out the problem of Jihadi in Pakistan.

India may have a crippled and corrupt democracy but it does allow different elements to compete in open and they know that there will be an accountability time. They may go around it by several means but they have to face it. Despite the democractic process, some militant goups show up in India with or without Pakistan support.

In Pakistan, that democratic accountability does not exist and that is the reason that adventurism and fringe groups often are able to manipulate the system in their favor.
The army itself has to rely on these groups for support as it lacks the ability to be in sync with a majority of population.

The relations with India in this context are important and that is why the democratic elements in Pakistan and now the US are pushing for better relations with India. There is no doubt that when the element of military confrontation between the two countries is removed/subsided, the militarist elements in Pakistan would lose steam too.

This is not an easy process and anybody saying that Pakistanis should come out on the streets to confront the army is obviously a non political person who is just showing his ignorance with how people work. People everywhere worry about their family and food at the table first. Any issue afterwards is rated based on how much it is going to impact people in their ability to feed their family. The Jihadi issue in Pakistan has never reached a point where people’s food is threatened by it. So chances are that opposition to the Jihadi would grow slowly and not overnite.

With improved relations with India, we see the difference already. There are going to be many hurdles in it as there are groups on both sides of the border that will attempt to cripple the process. That’s part of the political struggle that continues everywhere.

Kashmir is on its way out as being the main issue between Pakistan and India but it will take its time and both parties will have to patiently work on it. In the meantime, the Jihadi would attempt to derail it as much as possible.

Creating hype and calling every Pakistani as a Jihadi or Jihadi supporter would not help. Like Pakistan, some groups in India like the RSS and its supporters on this site would continue their game as better Pak-India relations destroy their base and political philosophy of communalism.

Bolta_Aina

The distinction between the common man (Pakistani, in this case) and the members/associates of various power groups was appropriate. But by the second paragraph, you began to employ one word (Pakistan) to embrace everyone (even the ISI).

If you re-do your analysis maintaining the distinctions between various actors, you will reach very different, and more accurate, conclusions.

#207 by mohar11 on October 18, 2005 6:30am PT

After the fall of the berlin, the allies found no nazis among the surviving Germans...after paris fell to the allies, every frenchie they found was a member of the french resistance..amazing isn`t it? that`s sooo like the pakis...after jihad has become unkewl, you won`t find a single pakis who`ll openly admit to have supported jihad....

Re: # 203 zahra
//.... I do think that a common/not so common harworking man and woman would not like to associate himself/herself with any maniac Jehadi....//

Then why don`t the common/not so common people of pakistan come out in the street and march against jihadis..... why don`t unite and campaign against the maniac jihadis?.... why don;t they force their army to stop support the jiahdis?.....

And for a start.... why don`t they stop stuffing money into those jihad collection boxes?..... According WSJ estimate - the domestic donation for jihad generates 1 Billion [with a B] dollars a year in pakistan .... that`s probably more than pakistan`s FDI inflow....

++++

You can feign ignorance, but the truth is - jihadis are bred, fed, trained with active support from pakistani state, nation and the civil society for last 15 years.... the ultimate goal is to get kashmir via jihad.....the sectarian ``local killings`` is explained away as an unfortunate side effect and people of pakistan have been prepared to pay that price ....

So please - enough already, no more excuses ..... You pakis should start taking responsibility for your actions - the ``global-jihad`` starts from your backyard..... The time to act is now....

Re: # 204

bolta-aina

``My personal opinion is that Indians should not blame Pakistan only for jihadi actions in kashmir. Pakistan has no control over it. India is suffering from the wider world-wide Jihad. As long as the world-wide Jihad remains, India will continue to suffer. ``


in that case it should open its door for india so that it can tackle these problem at its root. india has no desire to stay in PoK or pak, it just wants to deal with the terrorists who come pouring in. and if pak controls them than its even better. but i think pak uses teh terrorists as pawns in its kashmir game.

In NY mushy was threatening india by warning that if india didn`t remove troops from border areas, he could increase the flow of insurgents.

even during the time india-pak had come very close to a war, the reason was the terrorist training camps. rather than acknowledging their presence and its inability to close them, pak was saying that no camps exists in its territory.

i think pak is playing a very dangerous game which may one day engulf itself.

Re: # 203

Zahra:

thanks for your reply.

``For a few seconds, let`s put that thought aside that these mad jehadis are killing anyone outside Pakistan. These are the same people, if not different, who have been killing the locals on the basis of their religious sects. How can you expect a Jehadi to have any sympathy and compassion for an Indian when he cares less for the Pakistanis? Again, this is an excellent example of lawlessness. There is a jungle rule. There is no sense of obligation towards the system in which this ``supposed character`` resides. ``

we also have goonda raj in some of our states like bihar, but if it spills over to another country thatn it is our responsibility to contain it. Similarly pakistan should also take care of it, otherwise we will have situations like 2001 (?) when the indian parliament was attacked.

the problem i see is not pakistans incapability to contain the jihadis but not to even acknowledge their presence. sometimes i felt that pakistan itself is hostage to jihadi/ISI elements. in such a case may be both the countries should join forces to combat it. But there is a feeling that mushy also has some influence on them as he threatened to increase the flow of insurgents if india doesn`t start peace talks.

normally if such questions are raised in front of pakis then its the usual cycle of blame game. they will say why don`t you remove your army from the valley and self-determination of the kashmiris. so there is not much coming out of the discussion.

It would be wrong on the part of Indians to think that common Pakistani people can anyway control Jihad.

Due to fragile nature of Political establishment of Pakistan since its creation, many powerful groups have emerged within which are no less than ``states within the state``. Powerful Landlords and Tribal Leaders are one such group. The other Powerful State-within-the-state is ISI. ISI is immune to the political authority of Pakistan whether it is a military or a civilian ruler. The Indo-Pak relations are totally controlled by the ISI. The Head of Pakistan cannot make any change in the relations -for better or for worse. The strategy of ISI vis-a-vis India has been to keep Kashmir smouldering. It does not add too much fuel to the fire that India becomes restless. It is also not interested in tkaing the so-called Jihad deep down in the Indian mainland. It wants only Kashmir to remain in international focus so that India is always on the defensive at the international forums and does not try to fly too high.

The other state-within-the-state that has emerged in Pakistan is the Jihad Factory. The Jihadists of Pakistan do not have Kashmir in their agenda. They have international ambitions. The want to take on the mighty western world and america and frankly speaking Kashmir/India would not fit into their status. But they do supply Jihadists for Kashmir as a token of rent( you can say) to Pakistan/ISI for using the territory.

There is a wide spread speculation that Pakistan refused Indian aid in PAK because of the fear that ther Terrorist Training camps there would be exposed. If the things were in Pakistani control, they would have immediately ``cleaned`` those camps for the Indian aid to follow. The problem appears is that ,the Pakistani establishment itself did not know where exactly those camps are functioning and too what degree, since the Jihadists are not in control of Pakistan.

My personal opinion is that Indians should not blame Pakistan only for jihadi actions in kashmir. Pakistan has no control over it. India is suffering from the wider world-wide Jihad. As long as the world-wide Jihad remains, India will continue to suffer.

Not to say, Pakistanis also claim they they too suffer from the Jihad. Its true .Just as Indians co not have any control over Jihad factory in Pakistan, Pakistan also does not have any control over it. Somebody may ask if both the countries are sufferers then why both the countries do not undertake a joint combing operation?? Good question but what if the Indian Forces(which are stronger) do not leave the Pak territory??

Re: # 199

Netizen: I knew that`s where you were headed. You have a valid concern.
There are Pakistanis who raise voice on the prevalent injustice, corruption and lawlessness within the Pakistani System. Unfortunately, there are NOT enough of those voices. There is a difference between raising a concern repeatedly and then carrying it through till the end to make a difference. Sometimes, an editorial can create a spark and wake up the right authorities. On other occasions, someone may write about an issue 100,000 times and there is no one to pay any heed.

Despite my ignorance on the prevalent politics in Pakistan, I do think that a common/not so common harworking man and woman would not like to associate himself/herself with any maniac Jehadi. There are exceptions. People have their likes and dislikes. Some people have nothing better to do than while away their time.

For a few seconds, let`s put that thought aside that these mad jehadis are killing anyone outside Pakistan. These are the same people, if not different, who have been killing the locals on the basis of their religious sects. How can you expect a Jehadi to have any sympathy and compassion for an Indian when he cares less for the Pakistanis? Again, this is an excellent example of lawlessness. There is a jungle rule. There is no sense of obligation towards the system in which this ``supposed character`` resides.

How a Chowk Interactor addresses such issues is his or her prerogative. I cannot speak for anyone since I hardly know any of the said interactors you have brought up in your post. I would recommend that you address the issue directly with them. I am sure you cannot speak for anyone on Chowk except for yourself.

Unfortunately, mockery, sarcasm, abrasiveness and back stabbing are not the best way of learning the philosophy behind crooked idealogues or understanding a neigbour`s true intent.

My prophetic finding did not have anything to do with your post. You have raised a valid concern. I am sorry I do not have a concrete answer.

Re: # 197

Arjun:

Bad example. Sun rise is a natural phenomenon. Your witnessing it does not make any difference. Nature will take its due action. Killing a human being in a wild manner is not a natural act. So, you need to be a witness to that before crying wolf.

We are even now!

re:#200 by shishapa
Almost every Paki (with a few exceptions here and there) likes to see Kashmir join Pakistan. He knows that, given India`s army strength (proven again and again in the 3 wars), Jehad is the only way. Most Pakis do not give a damn about the innocent lives lost in this jehad.

I am, however, surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among Pakis on chowk about Indo-Pak joint rescue operations during this disaster. I sincerely believe that this might create such tremendous goodwill that Kashmir problem can be tackled with a new hope and trust. I am disappointed not one Chowkee has come out to say this was a good idea. Their silence on this is, to use an old cliche, deafening.
Sridhar

Re: # 199

Exactly. I have not heard anywhere, on chowk, on electronic print media, Pakistanis
condemning/asking_for_resignation_of terrorist cabinet ministers like Sheikh Rashid, let alone prosecuting him for his crimes. That man is responsible for deaths of so many
Kashmiris. Who knows how many such high-up creatures are walking and talking in and
around Pakistan withouth any fear of any kind of reprimands and reprisals!

Re: # 194

ZahraJ

``Just because some mad jehadis happen to be muslims and dwell on the soil of Pakistan does not mean that they are a representative of Pakistan in any way or shape.``

Zahra,

the mad jehadis can be muslims and dwell on pakistani soil, indians are fine with that. The problem arises when they sneak into india. Reports indicate death of thousands of them and damage to their infrastucture. Why pak and its people tolerate this? why tahmeds, mantos, hamidms of pak don`t ask their gov. to dismantle this jihadi factories? on one hand they are cursing ranjit for his gloating over the death of innocent lives whereas they remain tight-lipped about slaughter of indians by these jihadis.

re:#192 by ZahraJ
Indian Govt would probably refuse Pak Army`s help in a situation where earthquake were to happen in India and India needed massive outside help. It would be both a political and image building issue with the GOI. There is, however, no way India can refuse NGOs from Pak coming in and helping the victims. This is what happened in Pak during the present disaster. Pak dictator ruled out even the NGOs (read Kuldip Nayyar`s article in dawn that i posted in this forum). In Pak, one man calls the shots. Not so in India.
Sridhar

#194 by ZahraJ on October 16, 2005 8:02pm PT


Were you a witness to that?


Huh? I didn`t witness the sun rise today either...doesn`t mean it doesn`t happen...


Just because some mad jehadis happen to be muslims and dwell on the soil of Pakistan does not mean that they are a representative of Pakistan in any way or shape.


Yes they are..especially when they are indoctrinated, funded and armed by the Pakistani government/military with the full support of the paki people...

It`s not an earthquake that just happened to have an epicenter in Pakistan....

Post No.139-Mr.tahmed32-- You wrote :-

``bolta-aina #138: i see that even at this time you are unable to give up your spiteful habits and need to belittle others with making up false claims. i have been following the news, and contrary to your claims in fact outside observers (like the bbc) have noted the great personal efforts being made by pakistanis, military and civilian, in the rescue effort. e.g. i heard the bbc note that pakistani helicopter pilots have been flying beyond the number of hours considered safe to drop urgently needed help and so forth, and i have seen on US tv pakistani c-130`s flying at dangerously low levels in order to drop supplies in remote areas. ``


Apart from what the Tv News channels have been telling about the relief measures, we have heard a lot from the victims themselves. Even for three days when the army did not reach them, there were angry protests as to where is the army??

There is no doubt that the mobilisation by the people of Pakistan was exemplary, the actions of Civil & Military administration left much to be desired. We can exempt civil administration to some extent because they are generally inefficient and slow in response everywhere. But the army is supposed to act very fast and the Pakistani army did not act with the speed with which it was expected.

Now it may be said that Pakistani Army is also inefficient and not prepared for such type of eventualities. This does not seem so. Pakistani Army is efficient , disciplined and it acts as a coherent unit.

The other explanation being given is that army could not act because the roads were blocked by the landslides. The argument also cannot be bought at its face value. The armies, particularly in border areas do not depend on conventional channels for their movement, particularly the foot soldiers. The reason is what if the conventional channels like roads, railway lines etc are destroyed by the enemy in a pre-emptive strike.

We have also seen and also has been reported in the media that in some places army soldiers were there but they were just loitering here and there for want of ``orders``.

All these reasons tend to give the impression that there was much more in the slow mobilisation of the army.

HamidM:

``“there are a few shrines to sheridan as well in pakistan, particularly in sindh and baluchistan”

You do Lahore an injustice by not mentioning the one opposite Data Sahib. I remember paying my respects there but did not mention it in my write up for fear of further offending the Indians. They were quite riled up over my visit to Dunkin Donuts in any case :)

Re: # 193

Were you a witness to that? This kind of rubbish is heard on both sides. Throughout our childhood I have heard stories of Indian spies at different railway stations in Lahore and its vicinity. Doing what? Spying. I guess at that time the offshoring was not on the horizon therefore ``spying`` was the popular vocation (pun intended). We can go on and on and pick stories that I have heard long time ago and you have come across. What`s the purpose of even discussing those stories? I did not realize that we were on a board to discuss ``South Asian Nights (Taken from the concept of Arabian Nights).``

Just because some mad jehadis happen to be muslims and dwell on the soil of Pakistan does not mean that they are a representative of Pakistan in any way or shape. Despite having many barristers and other legal representatives in Pakistani politics and institutions, unfortuantely none of them have been able to assist the government in implementing any concrete measures against the law and order situation in Pakistan. That is Pakistan`s key issue.

Ref ZahraJ #181

[What`s the big deal about India helping its neigbour? Any cultured nation would do that.]

So what do you call a neighbor that sends in armed terrorists to cut the throats of innocent civilians?

Re: # 190

You are very right in your guilt trip.

I did not mean it literally. I was just giving an example.

You need to understand the sensitivity involved in the relationship between both governments. BBC covered a write-up on that issue. If the tables are turned around then India would have reacted the same way as Pakistan has. BBC`s correspondents confirmed that by interviewing some Indian Authorities.

Let`s not forget that America also asked India to take a step forward in helping out its neigbor. This is not to say that Indian assistance was totally driven by that.

#186 ZahraJ
Ditto everything you said..

Chowk has served at least one good purpose. It has kept all cyber warriors engaged and captivated for last 5 years. Has chowk not been here, only god knows what mess these mantos, hamids and romairs would have created in real world.

#186 by ZahraJ on October 16, 2005 2:39pm PT


I am not sure if one can count the number of victims who would have made it, had they received the aid from the Indian helicopters.


Easy for you to say if those people weren`t your loved ones....in any case, we`ll never know how many could have been saved....

RE# 188

I don`t know if I got it right in my last post; but I think its a saying in the Mallu language; some Mallus, if there are any here, can correct me if I am wrong; I think it goes like-


Its wiser to maintain good relations with a ``shatru`