The Killing Fields of Karachi

Ref sherdil #: 228

[Stuka: I have no problems talking about the Kashmir issue (!) Cause and effect about Kashmir and the military spending seem clear. Kashmiris desired to be part of Pakistan. Mountbatten, Nehru, almost everyone agreed that this was the most natural choice - the Kashmiris wanted it. Because of Hari Singh signing the Act of Accession, India got a paper excuse. She took what she wanted, never mind what the Kashmiris wanted. Now we have had 54 years in which Pakistan has supported, fought for and tried to regain Kashmir. Because Pakistan supports Kashmir, India playing the neighborhood bully takes a hostile interest in us, which in turn results in the buildup of the Pakistan Armed Forces. If anyone`s doctrine is defensive, it is Pakistan`s, modeled as it is somewhat along Israeli lines which is also primarily defensive. The Kashmiri struggle started at Partition, in 1947. 1989 is when the freedom struggle took on the stepped up pace and things really started getting hot for India. I have to express surprise you were unaware that Kashmiris have resisted India from the very begining. You must have known that Kashmiris did not want to be with India. I am not angry because we have struggled against someone who took by force. What I am angry at is my own so-called leaders first and foremost, for being greedy, useless, power hungry, arrogant and subservient to the wishes of the larger powers, for not providing for their own people. I do agree with you that India is free. Which is why I am puzzled all the more at her inability to conduct herself as a advocate of freedom.]

Let me give you a summary of what HV Hodson (so beloved by YLH, who only refuses to read Hodson on Kashmir) has to say about Kashmir.

There is no question that Hari Singh was a despotic ruler. He was paying back his Muslim subjects for years of Mughal rule. Muslims would not be considered for government jobs and Muslims were discriminated against by the princely Kashmiri state. Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, was arrested and jailed by the government. The returning WWII veterans (mostly Muslims from Mirpur) had enough of this and started fighting the Government of Kashmir. This is the backdrop against which the Indian Independence drama unfolded.

Hari Singh thought that by not acceding to either India or Pakistan, he could remain independent, though he was strongly advised by Mountbatten to cast his lot with either India or Pakistan. Nobody in India, not Nehru, not Patel, thought that Kashmir would join India and they had no problem accepting that the state would join Pakistan. Kashmir signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan ensuring that existing agreements on trade, commerce, interstate transportation of goods, etc., would continue as before.

Pakistan violated the Standstill Agreement causing a shortfall in civil supplies and causing great difficulties to the people of Kashmir whose normal trade routes were through Pakistan. This was done to put pressure on Kashmir so that Kashmir would accede to Pakistan.

When this tactic did not work, Pakistan decided o send in Pathan irregulars to take Kashmir by force. They were armed by the Pak Army and several Pak Army officers obtained leave of absence so they could lead these invaders in an invasion of Kashmir. With the Kashmiri state troops already doing battle in Mirpur, there was no way Kashmir could defend itself and Hari Singh turned to India for assistance. This is how Kashmir came to be part of India... through the sheer idiocy of your Foreign Office and your Army.

Jinnah reportedly offered to have the whole thing called off by starving supplies to the tribal invaders and by harassing their supply lines within Pakistan. This shows that Jinnah was party to the whole deal. So you can blame Jinnah for the mess that created the monster called the Pak Army that is eating you out of hearth and home.

It is well documented that Junagadh was simply a ploy.... if people`s will prevails, then Hari Singh`s accession is invalid and a plebiscite will lead to Kashmir joining Pakistan. If the Maharaja`s signature is final, then Kashmir will go to India but Hyderabad, which had not yet acceded to India, could join Pakistan. Junagadh, where the Muslim nawab acceded to Pakistan but the people voted to join India, thus was simply an issue to be dragged out till Hyderabad and Kashmir were settled. In 1947, India would not have given up Hyderabad to Pakistan (as Patel said, we will not tolerate a cancer growing in the belly of India) but Kashmir was yours if you had waited. Pakistan didn`t wait, India has a piece of paper with the Maharaja`s signature on it, and we have a legal claim to Kashmir.

Another of Jinnah`s brilliant tactics that worked to Pakistan`s advantage! After using arguments that guaranteed he will get a ``moth-eaten`` Pakistan, Jinnah`s genius ensured that you got half of Kashmir instead of all.

I like this guy Jinnah already. He was always settling for less than he wanted, and in some cases, less than even what he deserved.

It is a pity Jinnah didn`t live till 1972. He would have ensured that the constitutional mechanisms that did not allow for secession of Bangladesh worked fully and he might have killed 30 million Bengalis to try and keep Pakistan united.

Part II

Sherdil:

I found your ``phrase`` a little strange because you did not use that for any male on board and you were constantly telling me that. I guess I am born and bred with the right to speak, participate in a discussion, attack and defend an argument, rip an argument apart whenever I want to - your constant emphasis was burdening my finer senses as if it was some ehsaan on me :) Sorry, if I mistook you. But I had to state my discomfort.

Thanks for being so understanding.

PS: You must, must and must read that article before you respond to anyone`s post. It will tell you about the psyche of many you are interacting with on this board. Ironic, but true. It`s hardly a three page article. Again, a must read.

Zahra Khanoom, I will read the Dawn article in depth and will reply back as soon as I can. Your postscript about my phrase took me unawares - I meant it in the spirit of: ``I am interested in your thoughts ...``. But it is enough that my phrase causes some discomfort - I stand properly chastised! My apologies to you.(And some consultations with the Wren book of proper converse is in order for me, I think!)

Sherdil

Thanks for that thoughful response.

No, I was not suggesting a divison based on ethncity or language -but rather to secure a more efficient administration given the smaller numbers and attenuate the pressure on the federal government and to break the influence of the feudals.

I feel one of the major reasons for the continual political instability in Pakistan is the venue for political competition and the reward for which the political parties compete (control of the State mechanism to gain access to public treasury).

Seems the only way to break the influence of the feudal is fundamentally alter the economy by getting it more and more out of government control. Mr. Musharraf and his team have taken some initiative and transforming the economy from based on licences and customs duties to one that is more enabling of business and leaves governement revenues to be generated by the collection of taxes from the larger society.

Layman

Six months military training in a national service scheme will result in reduced costs, because one is not supporting a service person and his/her family for 20 years but 3 years. This will benefit Pakistan and India.

`` I`m afraid training everyone militarily is only going to make them more agressive in nature and call for either agression against India or lead to violence internally within Pakistan. Three, there is no NEED for mandatory training for all in Pak/India. A country like Israel is in a hostile environment and has a very small population - hence it may require a larger proportion of its population to be militarily able. Not so Pakistan/India, where the environment is much less hostile and limited.``

Military training is not designed to make a person hostile or agressive, just as corporate training is not designed to make a person a wage slave. Military training is about the cultivation of an ethic of responsibility and disciple along with basic proficiency in the uses of weapons and familiarity with military organization. It`s not about fear or hostility or agression, but rather about controlling and channeling energies.

Military power is not so much about the numbers as much as it is about fire power,the capablity to deliver it to the enemy and the capablity to deny the enemy the opportunity to leverage.

If Israel is in a hostile environment, so is Pakistan - A giant neighbor, with a history of hostilty to towards us, one that does not even acknowledge that we are seperate but rather feels that we are living on it`s ``Akhand`` territory - A neighbor to the West that is embroiled in civil war, a freedom struggle to our North East, A Russia that seeks to reassert itself in Central Asia and Hostile powers that seek to deny us free passage in the seas and oceans. So yes, we don`t have a good security situation and need national service and we are surrounded by hostile intent.

A ``secular`` education? What`s that mean? that we stop teaching the ethical and moral codes derived from religious faith? - All education attempts to build and affirm qualities and values that a particular community values. Clearly when we are teaching for example, a welding course, or a auto maintenance course, or electronics there is no Islamic or Hindu or Christian or martian technique, that we can impart - is there? I`m not sure what you had in mind with this statement - can you clarify?

Part I

Sherdil:

Something is in the air I guess; I don`t read Pakistani Newspapers at all till I am asked to look into certain article or so. Lately, I have been coming across quite a few great thoughts in Dawn that I have decide to start reading it again. Today, while having nice ``payaas`` lunch after quite a long time, in NY City with some Pakistani friends, I came across some copies of Dawn(08/17) - Opinion Section. The article`s heading was, ``Urban decay and Middle Class Apathy.`` It was an excellent portray of the mentality that constantly dwells on talking about politics and religious parties. That`s the scope of their mindset. They do not talk about civic problems. Why? Please read it and find that for yourself. I think they have their aql in their gittas(little ankles)[Pun Intended]that`s why; but Dawn reveals something else.


PS: This is the 2nd or 3rd time that you have used an expression that I find strange: ``what you have to say...`` I guess you do not realize that it can be taken in an offensive manner. Next time, please choose...share your views, express your opinion or something in the same category. Hope you got my drift.

Just saw a blip of news item in rediff.com

that a doctor has been sentenced to death for

blasphemy!!

Poor doctors! they either get slammed by mullahs, mullah-fearing judges, or mullah-fearing military.

God help Pakistan`s doctors!

hobbyty #226:

``You object to national service? You don`t think this will help reduce the force structure?

You don`t believe an education corp is desirable? In the case of India, it`s armed forces can be restructured and an education corp can bring education and national integration - or is education a bad thing - I am confused what your position is? If it is a good for israel and South Korea, why is it an evil for Pakistan or India?``

Let me explain. I guess the trend these days is to have leaner, meaner forces, not large number of semi-trained louts. Thus, the force structure should be reduced in order to achieve efficiency (I think we are on the same page here), but there is no need for mandatory military training for everyone. Why? One, it is expensive (population of Pak is n times that of Israel for example) which contradicts the goal of reducing the cost of maintaining a large ill-trained army. Two, I`m afraid training everyone militarily is only going to make them more agressive in nature and call for either agression against India or lead to violence internally within Pakistan. Three, there is no NEED for mandatory training for all in Pak/India. A country like Israel is in a hostile environment and has a very small population - hence it may require a larger proportion of its population to be militarily able. Not so Pakistan/India, where the environment is much less hostile and limited.

You will note that I supported mandatory education of the secular kind. This will improve literacy rates, emancipate women, enable them to access information (key to democracy) etc etc.

``Layman Jehadi factories are the polcies of India in Kashmir.``

I dont hope to change your opinion on that one. My take is that the struggle in Kashmir, as long as it was indigenous, was a POLITICAL one, caused by political misgovernance and resolvable by political means. Pakistan took over and made it a religious cause. It is Pakistan that is giving Islam a bad name by justifying the killing of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims there as jihad. You have already seen its impact in terms of the increased street power that `jihadis` have in your country, the sectarian killings etc. The street power of Hindu extremists in India has also increased but they have not adopted the gun yet (thankfully). We can at least hope to defeat them through a political process.

Hobbyty: I am assuming you were proposing the provinces based on tribal/ethnic/language lines. 20 or so such new provinces give rise to opportunities both positive and negative. The positive is that the individuals running for legislature government are going to be better known by their constituents. The negative is that they are going to be better known by their constituents! What I am trying to say is that it may turn out to be what we have now: a feudal system, where the powerful rule the oppressed. It boils down to the freedom of the ordinary person to be able to choose the best person for the job. What I like about the proposal is that there will be chances of autonomous entreprenuership in each province. The larger problem may be in the transactions that would take place under this kind of autonomy - the feudals would have an easier time of control in this scenario, I suspect. Your suggestion of army training has a lot of merit. We cannot become a healthy nation by stagnating. There is a phrase in Latin: ``mens sana in corpore sano`` (a healthy mind in a healthy body). That benefits us in ways that are far reaching, in mind, spirit, confidence and emotion. The US has a program of recruitment in which young men and women join the forces in return for training, education and a chance to travel. I have found these individuals have benefited enormously from their training, and it shows when they enter the work force. The education is work related as opposed to theory related. Britain has a long tradition of sports (which is very closely related to military training in its origins). Israel`s training programs are familiar to many - these men and women are fit, trained and well equipped to handle a wide variety of tasks. These training skills transfer well to civilian life in the business and entreprenuer world. We had a two-year National Service program in the 70`s in Pakistan. I was too young for it then, but I remember some neighborhood boys who went into it with some reluctance then. When they came back during leave, their transformation was palpable. Everthing about them spoke of maturity, discipline and confidence. A large number of men in the forces works to our advantage economically because these men now are working in the forces and the civilian sector is freed up for more jobs.

I am a big believer in the entreprenuership abilities of individuals - so the idea of private firms competing for military production is an appealing one. But to make it work we must have a system in place that makes it difficult for shoddy workmanship or bribery to take place. The Japanese model and the Israeli model works very well because the firms show a great deal of responsibility and quality control. Before we embark on this path however, we need to start on the path of good manufacturing practices and honest (well, we have to start!) awarding of contracts.

Syed Ahmad: Your details about the money grabbing were ones that I remember a little of through conversations. The real question is: what about now? My feeling is that we cannot wait 5 years to see if Musharraf has been good or not for Pakistan. The critiquing process of President Musharraf going on now is a good thing. It needs to be balanced with two other things: We need to support Musharraf in what he is trying to do by actively participating and helping. and we need to be careful we don`t keep criticizing just for the sake of criticizing. If a criticism needs to be made, it must be for a valid point and we had better have a possible solution to propose as well. This is where I am afraid I have to take on SameerJB, who has listed criticisms, but has not suggested alternatives.

Sameer, I don`t know if you are of our ``buzurg`` generation, or if you are from the younger crowd - but if you are older than I am, then please forgive me for saying what I am about to say - I do not mean to be rude. Sameer, you have said: ``Islam is as much a failure in Pakistan as feudalism, with military always pulling the strings of these two groups whenever needed. The problems are too deep rooted. It needs to be shaken up inside-out ... We need a jehad against Islam to carry out jehad for education, birth control or any other common sense solutioin``.

We need to be blunt here: it is WE who are the failure. Let`s not try to place blame where it does not belong. If we practice dogmatic, prejudicial beliefs, the blame lies squarely upon us. There are many problems, as you have

catalogued: Feudalism, education, birth control, joblessness - these are just some. You make the assertion that nobody is there to tackle the problem head-on. Last I heard, the present government had proposals and implementations of them addressing each of the above issues and then some. I see an unwillingness from your post to

acknowledge the sincerety or the chances of any success in President Musharraf`s policies. I doubt the belief is based on real results because I don`t see enough time having been given to see returns on what is being done. Your suggestion is to ``wage a jihad against Islam``. While this will certainly win you points with our Indian friends, I have to wonder about your reasons for saying this. To an Indian or a westerner making such a statement I would give reasons for my point of view. But in your case I need to ask: Do you make this statement because you have personal experience of Islam, or in spite of it? Please note the distinction, and please note that I asked ``experience of Islam``, not what someone subjected you to.

Stuka and harimau: I guess I`m still not sure on the ``book`` issue! Maybe Jay can enlighten ...

Stuka: I have no problems talking about the Kashmir issue (!) Cause and effect about Kashmir and the military spending seem clear. Kashmiris desired to be part of Pakistan. Mountbatten, Nehru, almost everyone agreed that this was the most natural choice - the Kashmiris wanted it. Because of Hari Singh signing the Act of Accession, India got a paper excuse. She took what she wanted, never mind what the Kashmiris wanted. Now we have had 54 years in which Pakistan has supported, fought for and tried to regain Kashmir. Because Pakistan supports Kashmir, India playing the neighborhood bully takes a hostile interest in us, which in turn results in the buildup of the Pakistan Armed Forces. If anyone`s doctrine is defensive, it is Pakistan`s, modeled as it is somewhat along Israeli lines which is also primarily defensive. The Kashmiri struggle started at Partition, in 1947. 1989 is when the freedom struggle took on the stepped up pace and things really started getting hot for India. I have to express surprise you were unaware that Kashmiris have resisted India from the very begining. You must have known that Kashmiris did not want to be with India. I am not angry because we have struggled against someone who took by force. What I am angry at is my own so-called leaders first and foremost, for being greedy, useless, power hungry, arrogant and subservient to the wishes of the larger powers, for not providing for their own people. I do agree with you that India is free. Which is why I am puzzled all the more at her inability to conduct herself as a advocate of freedom.

By the way, Kerala was picked at random, by way of illustration.

Zahra Khanoom, looking forward to what you have to say. I also have some questions to ask of you regarding some interesting social commentary you had made on another post!

Jay, there is something inherently present in some individuals (genes, DNA, psychological temperament, heart or whatever) - this something is immeasureable. Great men can and are influenced by their environment and circumstance - and they react to their circumstance based on their inner force. In other words, circumstance may be what is responsible for bringing out greatness already within them. I have seen this quality from an early age in some people I knew - long before environment had a chance to act upon them. As to President Musharraf, we must judge the man by his deeds and actions. As I have often said, my wish (and I hope that of other Pakistanis) is to be of help to him. He has incredible obstacles in front of him. But I am curious: why did you wish me to leave Chowk? Was I that offensive? ... :)

SameerBJ

I hold that General Akhtar was a patriot. You hold he was corrupt and no patriot - I point toio his role in the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan - Have you any evidence that he was corrupt?

Layman

Jehadi factories are the polcies of India in Kashmir.

You object to national service? You don`t think this will help reduce the force structure?

You don`t believe an education corp is desirable? In the case of India, it`s armed forces can be restructured and an education corp can bring education and national integration - or is education a bad thing - I am confused what your position is? If it is a good for israel and South Korea, why is it an evil for Pakistan or India?

sigalph235 wrote:

`Civil servants in Pakistan (like most other countries) do not make themselves `available`. They are posted to different ministries as the govt deems fit. If I was not an easy-going guy, I`d have taken that comment as a deliberate, lowly insult which is simply uncalled for. `

You are right- it was exactly that. I apologize for the comment I made about your uncle.

What did you think about the Mohajir elite comments i put forward? Do you think that assessment was valid?

hobbyty #221:

``What is your opinion on the these 4 proposals:

2. To create or introduce mandatory national service for a period of 30 months for all Pakistanis, regardless of gender and confession to begin at age 18 or after graduation from Secondary School. The Service is to consist of 6 months of basic military training followed 3 to 12 months training in any particular field in which a manpower need is identified and/or for which the candidate shows aptitude.``

Aren`t the jihadi factories doing that already?!

I can see the need for mandatory military training in a small nation like Israel or S Korea, not a large, populous one like Pakistan. Mandatory education (and secular education at that) would be much better.

re rozaiba 214

``Apologies for responding so late. Recovering from Independence day hangover. ``

If your knee-jerk response is any indication, you probably still are in hangover recovery.

``I do not know what your point is when you make claims about having a Bengali background``

Point is pretty simple. I am Bengali, no regrets. You must be the only active one on this board who hasn`t noticed that.

..`` going way back or having an uncle who made himself available to both the PPP and PML.``

Civil servants in Pakistan (like most other countries) do not make themselves `available`. They are posted to different ministries as the govt deems fit. If I was not an easy-going guy, I`d have taken that comment as a deliberate, lowly insult which is simply uncalled for.

..`` I did not know you had a Bengali background. Now I do.``

I am glad I could be of help.

`` I don`t see HOW I am now supposed to accept the parallel comparison you make between what happened in East Pakistan to the Bengalis and what happenened to Mohajirs in Pakistan.``

I have never made a comparison. The killing of 3 million doesn`t compare to the plight of Mohajirs, as bad as it is, today. My point earlier was simply to point out that if Mohajirs are pushed further and further, their resentment might reach 1971 like proportions.

`` Having Bangladeshi friends and having read books by Bengladeshis(despite the tone of bias), I have not been able to see how the Mohajir community has been persecuted with the extent that Bengalis were.``

Your observations are correct.

Syed Ahmed: Your facts and figures are quite accurate. The money spent on military during the past 54 years comes out to be roughly 35 percent of the total budgets. In the earlier years it was less but since 1958 its share of annula budget has been rising and in the nineties it is constant although debt servicing has sky-rocketed cutting deeply into all other expenses, except for the military.

During eighties and nineties, most of the money was made by kickbacks from foreign loans, drug smuggling and siphoning off money from Afghan slush fund during Zia regime (remember Ojhri camp exploding in Rawalpindi destroying all evidence of corruption) in addition to loan defaulting. There is just not enough money left for corruption to become billionaire anymore since most of it goes to debt servicing (53 percent) and military (officially 27 percent but additional funds for special projects like nuclear one add up to 35 percent).

....Z. A. Bhutto was not beyond corruption although all the money he made was in one shot-making around 20-25 million dollars from Saudi aid for earthquake victims. That money never came to Pakistan and went directly to Switzerland banks and later created rift between both of his sons over the control of it. [I am not an insider to know such things with certainty but I remember reading few articles about it]

......Akhter Abdul Rehman is no hero in the wasteland or hinterland. Only one book by a fellow retd. military officer can not make him a hero. Brig (retd) Yusuf or Usman Khalid have a pro-Islamist mindset and they are bent on turning Afghan war into a feather in the cap of Pakistan military and Pakistan, a revolution and a service to Islam. Akhter Abdul Rehman owned Tandlianwala Sugar Mills in Lyallpur district before his death and other liquid assets. Humayun Akhter Khan as well as Ijazul Haq were actually not very close to Nawaz Sharif to have made all that money during Nawaz Sharif`s two terms. The people who most benefited during NS regimes were his own family, Chaudhries of Gujrat, NS friends from Lahore and some Chanioti sheikhs. He also kept military generals happy by........

Feudal provide backbone to every government in Pakistan yet they have never ruled in practical terms except for Bhuuto famiily. The largest group in Pakistan who wins election are those who have combined their feudalism with providing spirituality. These are pirs (sufis)-cum--feudal. Their last name is usually Shah. Their were 26 MNA`s in the last national assembly with Shah last name, more than Khan or any other last name. However, when it comes to whipping, it is often feudal mindset and not Islamic. We have seen pirism (Pakistani Sufism) inside the assemblies and jehadis-mullah-deobandi-wahabi outside assemblies. Islam is as much a failure in Pakistan as feudalism, with military always pulling the strings of these two groups whenever needed.

Musharraf whether honest or not, can not change the system as I described above. He power rests with upper echelons of the society and elite. He rules the country but not the hearts and minds of the public. By just changing the engine does not guaretee that trains will start running at time. The problems are too deep rooted. It needs to be shaken up inside-out before any sense of rationality could returns to Pakistan.

This is perhaps the reason for me taking extreme positions on a variety of issues. I do not believe that little patch here little patch there makes any difference for a population exploding at very fast speed, going downhill yet nobody is ready to face the problems head on and identify the root causes of the ills. We need a jehad against Islam to carry out jehad for education, birth control or any other common sense solutioin. Those ideas who survive by the sword should die by the sword.

Sherdil

What is your opinion on the these 4 proposals:

1. To to create 15 to 20 new provinces from the existing provinces? It is argued that administration will be more efficient as the numbers served will be reduced. It will also serve to attenuate criticism that any one province is absorbing a greater share of national resources. It will also have the effect of introducing Government services more broadly and regularly to most all citizens. It will also have the effect of incorporating within the government a genuine spectrum of talent and opinion and interests. Do you think that a concensus can be created for such an action? if not now, then under which set of circumstances?

2. To create or introduce mandatory national service for a period of 30 months for all Pakistanis, regardless of gender and confession to begin at age 18 or after graduation from Secondary School. The Service is to consist of 6 months of basic military training followed 3 to 12 months training in any particular field in which a manpower need is identified and/or for which the candidate shows aptitude. All must serve within a national education corps which will be designed to impart basic literacy in every corner of the country.

The economy will benefit from the technical training imparted. Also, given the large numbers that will require employment will be attenuated, giving the economy greater space for creating the larger number of jobs.

Majority of the citizenry will benefit from the education imparted.

The size of active armed forces can be reduced, as reserves and number of trained personnel will increase. This will enable the armed for to restructure themselves in a leaner, more lethal force.

3. The privatization in full or in part, of military production.

4. Continued disassociation of the governments from involvement in economic production, such that a research and regulatory role characterizes government interaction with the local, state/proivincial and national economy. So as to create a economy that is owned, in a majority, by private individuals and not government.

Sherdil:

Sorry, could not get back to your post earlier. Inshallah will do so over the weekend.

Take Care.