Why An Interim Civilian Government will Fail

sigalph235

``Notwithstanding the ideology espoused by the brownshirts represented by Farangikush and Fairdinkum, Pakistan will surely rediscover her place in the comity of civilized nations.``


You haven`t recovered from the grief I caused you by exposing your hypocrisy on Palestinian issue… have you?

Anyways, I think you are young and foolish, but cute :) Your attitude reminds me of my life 20 years ago... chooroon ga nahi.. badla loon ga.. haan :)

I know…. you want sympathy from Ferozk don`t you? :) Ok, go on get it! Had I known how young you were, I would never have been so harsh on you… sorry about that mate!

Btw, I like you now. I think you are a cute boy! :) [I solemnly swear that I am not pathan]

Compared to Pakistan, the internal problems in India are much too insignificant compared to what India can do to solve them. Also do not forget the sheer size of India and geographic position. India`s poverty is sustained by the willing and fatalistic poor people who are exploited by the politicians (the muslim and christian and lower class VOTE BANKS controlled by the respective muslim, christian and lower class LEADERS). There is a healthy growth of middle class in India (in all states -Assam and Kashmir included). Food shortages are unheard of (excluding the much publicized -onion scandals), thanks to fair trade and commerce practices the economy is thriving. Indians have money to spend. While Pakistan has serious credit problems, limiting the choice of ``GOODS`` and the bargaining power. Indians can shop ,enjoying bargains -from latest Nikes to the fighter jets available in the open market.

Pakistanis living abroad do not invest in Pakistan, they have been burnt one too many times, Indian stocks are traded on NYSE and NASDAQ.

While Pakistan is daydreaming of fiscal responsibility, Indian Government guarantees ample opportunities to succeed without monopolizing the trade.

In short only in India the investors are getting a far bigger BANG for their BUCK. Party poopers like Assam and Kashmir are expected, tolerated to a certain extent (makes a good copy for GOVT propaganda!) and finally repriminded quietly (again makes a good copy for the GOVT!).

So please stop dreaming, wake up and smell the reality.

Thanks for your time

Shekhar

I too am surprised by Mr Pervaizs ..implicit backing for the coup ..his mentor Eqbal Ahmad seemed to disagree ..he said so in his last interview in the herald..

Jerry:

You are right. We are off topic from the article. I will make one last comment.

I consider India`s top three interlinked problems: Poverty, Education and Hindu Communalism. Kashmiri separatism is a small problem and residual support for two nation theory among Indian Muslims is also a small problem relative to Hindu communalism. The lack of any action against killers of Sikh in Delhi, Muslims in Bombay and Babri Masjid destroyers is India`s great shame. Unfortunately, it is almost pathetic how stupid this Hindu communalism is, it is intellectually bankrupt - unfortunately it is also very dangerous.

Readers of my posts may find me inconsistent in that I have criticized Kashmiri self-determination and Hindu communalism at the same time but the underlying unity in my thoughts is that we must all get along. That is why I am a bitter critic of the two-nation theory and Hindu communalism.

I request to Rohan and truth to keep their discussion to themslef. It would be wise if people only send their remarks about the article under

discussion. If some one disagrees with others

comments/ideas they ought to keep it to themslef

and thus others should be spared. I suggest that

people include their E-mails if they urge other to

comment on their ideas.

Jerry, USA

Rohan: Although you have dubbed my thesis irrelevant, I will still respond to your points.

The first point is that I never implied that ALL Muslims want to get out of India. So you are not conceding MY point, you are conceding what YOU THINK is my point. You have not understood me. My point is that the secession of Kashmir will demonstrate to Hindus that Muslim separatism is alive and significant and if the desire to secede in Kashmir had 70% support, in other parts of North India it may have the support of 10% of Muslims. Now 10% is not ALL by any means but it is significant enough to spoil the atmosphere.

To agree with a problem does not mean I support the solution. SO I agree with the Naxalites that social conditions of landless labourers are horrofic and need change - I just dont agree that the right way is armed struggle. I agree with you that Hindu communalism is one of India`s biggest problems - I just dont think that has been relevant in Kashmir and I certainly dont think Muslim secession is an answer to Hindu communalism. Especially in the context of partition, I am unwilling to accept that Nehru and Gandhi were not trustworthy as far as Hindu-Muslim relations are concerned. I will visit the websites you mentioned with regard to discrimination against Muslims. With regard to rancor towards the country, it is one thing to have rancor against the injustices of a country and another to have rancor against the country.

Rohan, India is the Balkans - it is not Quebec or Slovakia. When you talk about solutions, keep that in mind.

Truth:

To illustrate the irrelevance of what you are arguing, let me for the sake of argument concede your point. Let us suppose that yes, all Muslims across north India would like to get out of India if they had the chance (I repeat, I am saying this only for the sake of argument).

Let us then (continuing along like sane and reasonable people) ask why those Muslims might feel this way. Naturally, we could point to the fact that they have been kept out of state employment through quite

overt discrimination. That they are subjected to regular vilification from Hindu parties trying to score points. That there have been regular riots in which they have been the targets practically since

independence. That they are subject to widespread job and housing discrimination.

(See: ``www.shore.net/

Rohan: As a follow-up. If I see suddenly see 10 cases of anti-Christian violence by Hindus in different parts of India, a sane and reasonable person would conclude that there is a group of Hindus, larger than the 10 who committed the crimes, who have anti-Christian tendencies. Only an insane and unreasonable person would say: ``sorry no extrapolation allowed - only 10 cases so only 10 anti-Christians.`` A reasonable would extrapolate. On the other hand, an insane and unreasonable person would go and just pick up an INDIVIDUAL hindu and say: ``You are anti-Christian``.

SO If Kashmir were to separate, I would not go to Studebaker (to randomly pick an Indian Muslim on this forum) and say: ``Studebaker, look what YOU did in Kashmir`` because Studebaker had nothing to do with it. I would say ``Studebaker, looks like the Muslims in Kashmir did not want to be part of India. Is the desire to separate a widespread feeling among non-Kashmiri North Indian Muslims now that we have seen the disappearance of the Sindhi Muslim, Punjabi Muslim, Bengali Muslim, and now the Kashmiri Muslim from the Indian polity?``

I will still remain secular, liberal, sane and reasonable because my beliefs are what they are regardless of the actions of the Kashmiri Muslim.

Rohan: Instead of making the focus of this debate the fanatic Jan Sanghis, let us focus on the Kashmiris, specifically the Kashmiri Muslim. Why does he feel this difference from other Indians - it it because he is Kashmiri or is it because he is Muslim or both? Peple, including Hindus, who are sane and reasonable will see that despite the impossibility of separating ut these factors, the fact remains that Muslim identity had a large part to do with it. The very fact that Buddhist Ladhakhis and Hindu Jammuites have no part in this movement should give sane and reasonable people the idea that Muslim identity is a big part of this issue. This should be as blindingly obvious to sane and reasonable people as the fanaticism of the VHP should be to sane and reasonable people. Even if Kashmir separates, as a matter of my own principles I will continue to believe in a secular India since I am a sane and reasonable person. Anybody who has seen photographs of Delhi and Aligarh of 1947 will see the huge turn-outs for Pakistan rallies. Sane and reasonable people will say they were mad times, a junoon had taken over the people, and 1999 is different from 1947. The sins of the fathers will not be visited on the sons. But the Kashmiris of 1999 are carrying out unfinished business of 1947. Why should sane and reasonable people think that an ideology magically shuts off if you cross the Banihal pass from Kashmir into the rest of India or float up the Padma from Bangladesh into Bengal or cross Wagah from Lahore into Amritsar. Sometimes, Rohan, sane and logical extrapolate. Extrapolation is not insane, wild etrapolation is insane. This is a peculiarly North Indian problem. The heartland of the Pakistan movement was actually UP and Bihar not Punjab and Bengal. It has nothing to do with South Indian Muslims or Lakshwadweep Muslims. We want to believe 1947 was a time of madness. We do not in 1999 want to find out it was not.

Truth: You believe that Hindus will distrust Muslims if Kashmir breaks away from India. As a Hindu I do not believe that this is generally true; but let us admit that it is true of many Hindus.

Who are the Hindus of whom this is true? Clearly, they are largely the ones who distrust Muslims anyway. So contrary to your argument, the secession will not make much difference. Those bloody Jan Sanghis will keep hating Muslims no matter what happens in Kashmir or Kanyakumari. This sentiment was drilled into them by their Guru Golwalkar; what happens in Kashmir will not change that.

Conversely, nothing will change for those Hindus who recognise that every human being has a right to their individual opinions, and that the opinions, actions and situation of a Muslim in Srinagar cannot be imputed to a Muslim in Bangalore, anymore than a Hindu in Bangalore can be blamed for the actions of a Hindu Shiv Sainik who killed people during the Bombay riots.

Sane and reasonable people recognise this principle (that you cannot attribute one person`s actions to a completely different person or people). Apparently you believe that most Hindus are not sane and reasonable. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, I prefer to hope that this is not true.

Sincerely,

Rohan Oberoi.

UR: I have to admit that your position on Kashmir is more different from the Pakistan national consensus than mine is from the Indian national consensus. So I give you credit for being creative and courageous. The difference between all the Quebec (Canada), Bangladesh (Pak) and India (Britiain) cases and the Kashmir (India) case is significant. In all the other cases, there is no residual problem left after the main issue is solved. So once East and West Pak separate, matter over. Similarly India gets independence from Britain matter over. This is simply not the case in Kashmir.

The blindingly obvious thing about Kashmir is that it is a Hindu-Muslim issue despite the efforts to dress it up as a regional issue. If Kashmir separates out, this will reinforce Hindu suspicions that Indian Muslims are Indian citizens only by virtue of being trapped by geography, and every time they control an area, they want to break with the Hindu community. It is Kashmir`s bad luck that the Kashmiris have a historical burden to bear - they have been positioned by India as the symbol of Muslims being active and willing citizens of India and they have been positioned by Pakistan as unfinished business of the two nation theory. In the meantime it seems that the average Kashmiri does not want any part of these ideological struggles but on the other hand there is absolutely no doubt that the Muslim demographics have a major role in the Kashmiri struggle and therefore Kashmiri independence has profound implications for Hindu-Muslim relations in the rest of India. That is why the Kashmir struggle is qualitatively different from all the others. Since I detest the two nation theory, I come out in favor of India`s position. I am sorry if I am not showing the imagination that you are but these are my strongly held beliefs.

fidel,

Yes, when the banks are `re-capitalised`, an IMF term for selling at throw away prices, there wont be any talk of corruption, because it would go to the whites free of corruption, and the chowkies will have a sigh of relief. The citi bank executive who is expected to head the reforms, who has seen only carpets and bitumin will have to be shown the land, the land reforms a few mentioned, will remaian incomprehensible to him.

It is unfortunate that politicians are so totally excluded in the new govt. Politica should guide economics, the patriotic thais are trying their best to keep the banks, with out much success.

Truth #24: You stated, ``I have always said that India`s first step is bilateral: Indian Govt talking to the Kashmiri people via APHC and ignoring Pakistan.`` If you look at the earlier long discussions you and I had on Kashmir, on a separate thread, you will notice that from the start I have stated that the Kashmir issue has to be solved between the Kashmiris and Indians. So on the whole, I must agree with your comments above. Infact, in the solution I presented in a different thread, I stated that the Kashmiris in the valley should be given two options in a vote, i.e. remain with India, or become independent. I highly doubt India would ever agree to Indian Kashmir joining Pakistan. So that option, in my opinion is impractical.

I have no interest in Pakistan gaining any kind of, ``victory`` over India, by having Indian Kashmir join Pakistan. Indian Kashmir joining Pakistan, may even destabalize the region even more. Kashmir does not contain oil, gold or anything else over which the two countries need to fight. Since my mother`s side of my family migrated from Srinigar, I would like to visit Srinigar freely. Apart from that, at least personally, I do not have a wish for it to become a part of Pakistan. One way or the other, it is not going to effect my lifestyle in any way.

The only interest I have is humanitarian. In my opinion, people need to be able to given a right to decide their own future. Their pwn interests need to be given the highest amount of importance; more importance than the interests of the country occupying them. In my opinion, this thought formed the basis of the Indian struggle of independence from the British. Whether they are Kashmiris under India, Bangladeshis under Pakistan, Indians under the British, Quebecans under Canada, should not make a difference. The desires and decisions made by the people needs to be respected. I think the only point you and I disagree on is on how the future of Indian Kashmir should be decided. I really cannot see anything, apart from a vote, that would be acceptable to the Kashmiris. Even if Pakistan were to accept the LOC as the border, I doubt it would change the struggle of the Kashmiris.

I think one of two things will happen. Either the Kashmiris will get so suppressed, that they will give up their freedom struggle. Or Kashmir will become such a big headache for the Indian government, that the Indian government will attempt to find some kind of a solution. If the later occurs, then I think Pakistan needs to stay completely out of the process, and let the Indians and Kashmiris decide the matter amongst themselves. But for this to happen, some Indian government is going to have to make a very bold decision, and take into account the aspirations of the Indian Kashmiris directly.

For the record, I will state again, that in my opinion, Pakistan does not have any right over Indian Kashmir.

To all Pakistani`s on chowk

What do you think the impact of the new regime will be on any chances of a peaceful settlement with India ? There have been reports in the media that Sharif & Vajpayee had begun unofficially discussing the substantive issues, although whether this would have resulted in Peace in spite of Kargil is open to debate.

In any case, neither side seems willing to compromise on its position on Kashmir, which seems destined to remain insoluable. Do you think that any solution could be found which would be accepatable to all parties?

Chowk is probably the only Pakistani site which is not constantly abusing Hindus ! hence I tried to even read it.Why do Pakistanis think that they can ever achieve parity with India.Let us compare some statistics.

India Pakistan.

Economy 10 times

literacy 62 %+ 32 % will reach 755 by 2000

nuclear weapons 100 + 15 Indian weapons are much bigger

Scientific manpower 2nd largest in the world !

Only when Pakistanis` acknowledge that India is far ahead,is a secular,democratic country compared to their state will there be peace.Why do you suppose that we will continue to be tolerant of your terrorist activities,in a nuclear war with over 100 + weapons and a population of one billion verses 15 and a population of 150 million

well first of all, HELLO to everyone in here.

First time posting here so please bear with me as i might not know the exact whereabouts of the conversation.

just to start, first of of all, I must congradulate Gen. Pervaz Musharraf for the most peacefull and badly needed coup in Pakistan.

since the subject here is the interim govt. let me add that the army itself cannnot and will not run the country. The purpose of the army is to secure the nation`s sovernity and integrity which it has done very succesfully thus far. as far as interim govt. is concerned, I believe Pakistan would be in better shape if, an interim govt. of technocrats/civil officers/and polititions is installed,over looked by the NSC, presided by Gen. Mussharaf for atleast 2 years. after the period of 2 fresh elections should be held, where the corrupt(convicted and tried by that time) politians must be provibited from participating. limitations must be set as so that the interim govt. does it`s duty of accountability and economic reforms rather then consntrating on the elections 2 years from now. all the members of the interim govt. must submit the list of their current assets as well as liabilities, and after the period of 2 years must submit once again such a list, to show how the two have changed, and hold them accountable for such changes.

this would in a democratic way enforce them to do their duty and not be on a personal venture of achieving cheap(wealth).