India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario

Ref Headshrinker #: 286

[when that sambar eating butthead takes a dump while i`m having a conversation, if feel nauseous...unfortunately we brahmins have sensitive noses..]

I suppose that is why you eat fish.

Anyway, who accepts you as a brahmin? Only the fish-eating crowd on the Konkan coast.

By the way, I ate a Konkan meal in an upscale Bombay restaurant.... you call THAT food?

Did you attend Dhirubhai Ambani`s funeral? I remember you claimed you went to school with his kids.

.

O god! the guy with the hot poker up his butt showed up...ok bye dostmittarji..someother time perhaps....when that sambar eating butthead takes a dump while i`m having a conversation, if feel nauseous...unfortunately we brahmins have sensitive noses..

Ref dost-mittar #: 283

We all know that the shrink is a loony. Don`t argue with him; it`s a waste of time.

He is probably trying to drive his Jag on Altamont Road in Bombay.

Since Altamont Road is a figment of his imagination, so must be his Jag.

re: dost-mittar # 277

``You weren`t thinking of romair and ylh by any chance, were you?:-)``

LOL...let me say, dost-mittarji, that I am an unabashed admirer of ylh.

True, often his and my views of history are diametrically opposite, but nobody can accuse ylh of obscurantism, or Pakistan-lastism :) Besides, he and I share almost identical visions of the future of Pakistan and India.

I can not say the same about others.

``I think that although everything said about Zia is true, it is a mistake to view him in isolation; he was very much a product of what happened in Pakistan right from its birth and even earlier. krashid is right on that point.``

True. It is patently unfair to demonize Zia, as some people are wont to do (that is why I said that from India`s point of view Z A Bhutto and Zia were two peas in a pod). But Zia`s reign did act as a watershed in many ways. I wanted to highlight that fact.

dostmittar,

{{Jayprakash Narayan can justifiably be credited to leading the peaceful movement which threatened Indira Gandhi`s gaddi and led to her resorting to the Emergency. So, in a way, JP was responsible for causing, though not ending the Emergecy}}

I`m sorry, I guess I must have missed that comment before.

Indira Gandhi may have ended the Emergency because she thought that she neutralised JP, with her govt sponsored propaganda. It was the only time that I remember when it was a crime to criticise the Govt of India.

One incident I distinctly remember. We were medical students then. As all good students, we bunked a college lecture to see a matinee. The movie theater in Bombay`s Fort area (I think it was Sterling)..it was packed with students from neighboring colleges.

The ``Films Division of India`` always had these annoying propaganda films before the main movie . This particular film`s theme was why the ``Empress of India`` had imprisoned that gaddar JP. The WHOLE theater erupted with boos & whistles. We students were very courageous about expressing our views in the anonymity of a darkened movie theater!

Those elections were indeed the most memorable in the history of India...for me, atleast. That was when the citizens of India REALLY showed the power of democracy. They KICKED out the Empress & her heir apparent Sanjay Gandhi. Even die hard Congress supporters would say ``I dont mind the cow, but I hate her calf``. (The symbol of the Congress(I) party was the ``cow & calf``).

Bombayites, (except the shiv sainik goons) who usually dont give a s hit about elections, were energised like never before. IG`s LAW minister, Gokhale was contesting his seat, in Bombay & Ram Jethmalani was his opponent. Gokhale was TROUNCED! Even Sardar Swaran Singh, her stately Foriegn Minister, was trounced in Punjab. Many Congress (I) stalwarts not only lost, they lost so badly, that they even lost their deposits!

JP was freed from jail before the elections. He was the ``father`` of the Janata Party. Maybe your views are different, but my perception is that he was the ``moral`` voice of the election campaign. Too bad those idiots Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, George Frenandes & the BIGGEST idiot Raj Narain started bickering & blaming each other after they were voted into power. That was what disillusioned JP & he died an unhappy man.

However, if there was a revolution in India, after independance, that was it! Indians, whether they were educated or illiterate gave IG a very pointed message; ``whether you are the defacto Empress of India or not, if you start f cuking with our rights, we`ll kick you out...PEACEFULLY!``

We can disagree, but I think it was JP who insisted that Indians ought to fight for their rights PEACEFULLY...by peaceful, non violent Gandhian satyagraha...& demonstrate their resentment to oppression through the power of the ballot. As far as I`m concerned, Indians rose to that message brilliantly. To me, it was proof that even in a country where more than 50% of the population is illiterate, democracy WORKS!

There was NO TV, worth speaking of, in those days. In the large cities that had access to TV, it was monopolised by govt propaganda. Radio was also essentially controlled by the govt. The Times of India was called ``Times of Indira``. Only the Indian Express was defiant in Bombay & the censors mercilessly blacked out any anti-Indira opinions. She jailed the owner of the Indian Express.

Yet, urban or rural, educated or illiterate Indians alike, rose up & booted her highness out.

As far as I`m concerned, I give two hoots to holier-than-thou Pakistanis who have the balls to say Indians dont have a conscience. If Kashmiris are oppressed, let them fight a moral fight & I`m sure Indians will be sympathetic. But if you kill Indians, dont expect them to have a guilty conscience.

Its a myth that Kashmiris have fought Indians peacefully in the past 40 yrs. Kashmiris have been very quiet. Those that have fought have fought with violence. This business of their fight being wholly indigenous is TOTAL BS!!..no matter what holier-than-thou Romair thinks. Is it a surprise to you that the radio transmissions are in Punjabi?! Ofcourse the Pope is going to say its viscious anti-Pak Indian propaganda lies!

Yasser, dear boy, what with all the discussion on Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad, here is a crying need for you to objectively sum up Hodson. We have been waiting two years (40% of Chowk`s life) for your pearls of wisdom on this issue.

Go ahead, Yasser. We all know it is in you. Just sit in front of the PC and start typing. Now that, being in Pakistan, you have no need to be defensive about Pakistan or Jinnah, you can finally let the bright light of truth shine on the dirty corners of Indo-Pak political history.

PS. As usual, I am not holding my breath. I probably will have to wait till Hell freezes over before you will admit the truth.

fawad,

lets agree to diagree...when Gandhi found that his message led to violence, he launched his ``fast unto death`` campaign to STOP his ``revolution``.

{{i think you are living in fantasy land if you think MLK got the black man his civil rights only it was also Malcolm X and the so called radicals........its ultimately the threat of violence and civil unrest that forces an opressor}}

I completely diagree with you. Malcolm X, though a great man, was assassinated by a split faction of the black Islam mvt. It simply destroyed their own cause. Thats one of the reason that the establishment has NO respect for Farrakhan, & dont listen to his ramblings. Black moslems are treated with suspicion by other blacks themselves, let alone the ``establishment``.

MLK, OTOH, was assassinated by the ``white establishment``..the real killer`s identity is still a matter of debate. However, virtually everybody agrees that it wasnt an ``internal`` job..ie, not by somebody who supported his civil rights cause. It made him a martyr, even in the eyes of the establishment. His civil rights issues have become LAWS today. It WAS a victory. His wife is given great respect, no matter which part of the world she visits. Other than some muslim countries, Farakkhan is essentially ignored.

Gandhi & Jinnah were both towering personalities. The difference is that Jinnah didnt come up with anything UNIQUE...his values were based on proven values of democracy & secularism (not that it makes him a lesser person than Gandhi).

Gandhi was UNIQUE in the sense that he showed a way where a weaker party could overcome a stronger oppressor & win the respect of the oppressor..now THAT is a victory! I`m the first one to say that many of Gandhi`s beliefs (esp concepts of economy, vegeterianism, sexual abstinence etc ) were stupid. However, his concept of satyagraha, on a national & international level are applauded, even to this day. Eventhough Gandhi & Jinnah are essentially anachronisms in their own countries; Indians & Pakistanis are VERY PROUD of them, in their respective countries.

Gandhi`s revolution was duplicated 30 yrs after Indian independance by a man named Jayprakash Narayan, who was the ``moral head`` of the ``revolution`` that PEACEFULLY threw Indira Gandhi out after she imposed the tyrannical ``Emergency`` on India. Alas his ``disciples`` screwed up that ``revolution`` by petty political bickering & he died an unhappy man.

After Gandhi died, Jinnah`s (& Pakistan`s) grief was genuine..eventhough they had fundamental disagreements.

Oppressors are the BIGGEST terrorists (in that respect Romair is right). But if the oppressee`s adopt the same terrorist methods, it makes the oppressors feel that they are JUSTIFIED to oppress. I agree with you that India`s oppression in Kashmir is IMMORAL (Pakistan or no Pakistan)...but I am a small minority of Indians who think that way.

Similarly, the US has slaughtered more innocent civilians post 9/11, in Afghanistan...many more innocents have died there than the few thousands in the WTC. But does the American public shed tears for them?!..no..at the most they regret that it is an unavoidable & necessary evil. So who is the bigger killer, America or Al-Qeeda? But does the ``land of the free`` acknowlege that?

I`m looking at this issue from a ``psychological dimension``...Indo-Pak wars, henceforth, are going to be fought on psychological, diplomatic & economic battlefields. If it is fought on a military battlefield...its the END for both countries. Air combat ``Kill ratios`` & war casualties statistics are going to (or should be)anachronisms.

Pakistan has the benefit of having powerful friends in the Islamic world, China & even the US (which considers Pakistan to be a KEY ally in their fight against terrorism). India`s only ``suggar daddy`` was the Soviet Union...which no longer exists. Logically, if Pakistan has a stronger legal & moral claim on Kashmir..they should be backed to the HILT by these countries re Kashmir. WHY is that NOT happening? Are these countries scared of alienating India? ...I dont think so.

Despite this Pakistan has FAILED to muster international support to twist India`s arm! Sterile comments that ``they should talk`` are a slap on Pakistan`s face! Its like a card game where Pakistan has more aces & trumps in their hand; but India somehow manages to get more ``tricks``. That is something Pakistanis ought to reflect upon. Polynannish ``Romairian`` optimism is wrong.

re: krashid # 275

You raise an interesting issue.

From the point of view of Pakistan itself, ZA Bhutto and Musharraf may be worlds apart.

However, in their anti-India fervor, they are two peas in a pod.

So, by ``Musharraf type`` I did not mean people belonging to the army. I meant a certain group of fraudulent ``secularists`` - people who believe that they can play with `secularism` and religious fanaticism at the same time.

I have earlier called such gentlemen jihadi secularists. Ofcourse, the armed forces - Musharraf`s home ground - are full of such beer-drinking whiskey-guzzling jihadi secularists. But we shouldn`t underestimate their presence in the civilian population either.

Prem #269

To your surprise Islamic character of pakistan Army has its root in Z.A. Bhutto era.

Bhutto thought Islamic Army will fight India. He forgot that our Army conquers only its own people.

It is probably related to drunkard generals who lost half the country in 1971.

Shammi #270

Let me stay with my history.

IRA was peaceful. Ha.

I don`t know you are talking about Chekoslavakia or yogoslavia.

As far as the peaceful Indian movement. You should be grateful to Hitler for that.

If India would have gotten home-rule that would be enough.

It is nothing to the credit of India for your reflection.

And independent movement of Quebec is peaceful because almost equal partners are there who wants unification or seperation. And Quebec is not a colony of Canada.

As far as Tibet is concerned. I will laugh enough later. I have other things to do now.

Shammi 3271

Whatever way you pick the nose it comes to the same conclusion.

So I change it to this. India is at least at par with Pakistan on moral ground in attacking Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Re: Kashmir, Junagadh & Hyderabad

Can anyone explain why the Great Leader encourage

the rulers of Jodhpur and Tripura to join Pakistan? The

Great Leader even reportedly offered the two

Maharajas a ``blank check`` as far as what they wanted

in return from Pakistan. Granted, the rulers of those two

princely states wanted to opt out of India for their selfish

reasons (thwy wanted to retain their princely privileges).

But why would the Great Leader indulge them, if he

wasn`t the opportunistic scumbag Indians always

alleged him to be?

Please remember, the vast majority of the subjects AND

the rulers of those two states were Hindu!

Re: krashid

``...But will you agree that India attacked Junagadh...So Pakistan is at least at par with India on moral ground in attacking Kashmir...``

That would make perfect sense if India had indeed attacked Junagadh BEFORE Pak attacked Kashmir through NWFP based tribals. However, if you look at the dates, you will see that Pakistan pre-empted India in Kashmir, which hardened Indian attitudes on Junagadh and Hyderabad. The tribal invasion of J&K began on Oct. 22, 1947. It was only after this happened that India entered a standstill agreement with the Nizam of Hyderabad on Nov. 29, `47. Even at this time (i.e. Nov. 29) India was willing to accept the Nizam`s decision to NOT join either India or Pakistan. `Police action` in Hyderabad did not take place until `49 by when the Kashmir war was over.

Also, the plebiscite in Junagadh was not organized until February 24, `48 (formal incorporation came in India `49). So, you see -- had Pakistan not sent in tribals in Oct. `47, maybe all of Kashmir (including Jammu & Ladakh would have been with Pakistan today).

...dang, romair`s getting a serious whipping here...listen buddy, whatever you do, don`t become a negotiator...you won`t go very far, despite your delusions that you are ``fact-based``...

Re: Krashid

``...There is no such thing as non violent independence movement...``

How about the Indian freedom movement? Or, the renunciation of arms (last year) by the Irish Republican Army, after 130 years of violent struggle led them nowhere? How about Tibetan struggle against the Chinese (even though the movement does not call for independence, just more autonomy)? How about the separation of Czechoslovakia into separate states? How about the peaceful breakdown of the USSR? How about the struggle of French Quebec for independence? Need I go on?

``Clever Pakistanis like Romair have learnt political correctness and therefore couch their demands in the politically correct terms of self-determination, Kashmiri struggle, while not calling the movement for what it is, a Muslim separatist movement under the old TNT.``

There appear to be two main types of people in Pakistan pushing Kashmiri ``self-determination.`` One is what I would call the Musharraf type. Aged mostly 25 and older, this group is following what they, in their brilliance, see as a master strategy. Having promoted three wars with India, they have learnt to their chagrin that their dream of planting their flag on the Red Fort is nothing but mere pipedream. They have also learnt that the story of `join Pakistan` carries no credibility. So the trick, according to these brilliant men is - generate as much hatred between Kashmiris and other Indians as possible, and sing the song of `right to self determination.`

This type has the notion that the world was born yesterday, that nobody can see through their silly ``strategies.`` These are the people who have brought Pakistan - a fairly prosperous and progressive nation once, and one with great potential even today - to its current not very prosperous and progressive state. Even though these people wear modern clothes, speak modern languages, may drink beer and whiskey in high-class parties, these men (mostly) are deeply fundamentalist at heart. They instinctively divide the world into ``Muslim`` and ``non-Muslim`` camps. TNT and other such theories remain valid for them even to this day. Despite the foreign dogs these people carry in their cars, you and I have nothing in common with these people.

Then there is a completely different group. This is a younger group, born mostly after or just before Zia began his chicanery. The first instinct of this group is very noble - support your country, a nationalistic ideal. Unless individuals have made an extra effort to learn uncomfortable facts for themselves - this group has been for the most part too young to know how deeply post-Zia Pakistani military has pushed their country into the impossible trap of international terrorism and general thuggery of all kinds.

Since India is no Afghanistan, India`s response to this thuggery and terrorism in Kashmir has been brutal. The younger Pakistani group does not like this development (who can like it?). Unlike the various Musharraf wannabes who know facts having created them, this group genuinely believes that the trouble in Kashmir is `indigenous.` This group does really want to settle the ``Kashmir issue.`` Self-determination appears to be a reasonable and respectable way out. Except for our differing perceptions on Kashmir, this group is very much like us.

Then there are Pakistani people who are like our Shankar da here - genuinely good people who love their countries but are not blindly nationalistic. They see Kashmiris in pain, but are unwilling to fight `for them` to the last Kashmiri, and therefore support self-determination. They have no interest in grabbing Kashmir for Pakistan, either now or after ``self-determination.`` As in India, this is a relatively small group. This group deserves our respect even though we may not always agree with them.