The Dragon’s Teeth

Correction: It was Jason and Cadmus who sowed the dragon's teeth, not Ulyesses, although the reference is still Greek mythology.

Interesting interacts, as usual. I like Amit`s point in #37, about religion and nationalism. On a slightly different tack, wanted to share an email I got from Israel after my piece was published in The News, Pakistan, and my response to it, below. beena

---

Dear Mr. Sarwar (sic)
I am a daily reader of your excellent newspaper.
Permit me to make some remarks and corrections to your latest article “The dragon’s teeth” – 03-10-2004.
To quote:
In the occupied territories of Palestine, where a father tried in vain to protect his young son from Israeli bullets, and where an American-made bulldozer crushed the life out of young Rachel Corrie, daily indignities continue to feed resistance, contributing to a continuing spiral of violence.
a. If you observe the terrible picture of Mohammad al–Durra before being killed, you will see the father taking cover behind his son (between the wall and the young boy). May I suggest you to read the article published in the June 2003 edition of The Atlantic Monthly “Who shot Mohammad al–Durra (of course that is another Zionist propaganda).
b. Young Rachel Corrie should not be before a bulldozer (not in Israel, not in England, nor in Pakistan). Normally a bulldozer operates with a person “on the ground” directing the bulldozer’s movement, in this particular case this was not possible, since behind Ms. Corrie there were Palestinian gunmen using her as a “living shield” – we are sorry for an unnecessary life taken – but she can blame only herself.
You should not minimize what happened in Sialkot, by saying “a man carrying a briefcase walks into a mosque and blows himself up, killing “several” others in the process – the latest report was - 30 killed.
The so-called ‘war on terror’, a knee-jerk response initiated by the world’s sole superpower to the horrific attack on its soil on September 11, 2001- so was perhaps the Pakistani operation in Wana.
Quote –
The attack and the flawed logic of a ‘preemptive attack’ provided Washington with an excuse to flex its muscles and try out new weaponry, much of which would classify as weapons of mass destruction.
In every war - you try out new weaponry, organization and tactics – how about reading some articles on the Pakistani (and Israel) defence industries published in the Defence Journal (an excellent military monthly) – are the weapons produced for peace?
Quote –
They reflected the multiplicity that is ``‘murca``, they belonged to all faiths - including Judaism (notwithstanding the preposterous and widespread rumour about 4000 Jews not attending work in the twin towers that day).
I agree that we of Jewish fate have some warped minds too (Baruch Goldberg who killed 26 Palestinians at prayers in Hebron) - but nothing like what goes on in Pakistan – Quetta, Sialkot and the list is long.
Thank you for mentioning the widespread rumour – that was another lie from the Arabic (and vitriolic) mind.
Quote –
But it also gave a cue to other governments on how to deal with their own internal demons, from Moscow and New Delhi, to Jerusalem and Islamabad.
How true!
I more than agree with you when you stated -
They did not develop their warped mindsets overnight - nor will they be wiped out overnight by military means. Those who justify such actions sit entrenched in our assemblies.
They will be disarmed only with the rule of law, social justice, education and employment opportunities for all - and when governments themselves stop perpetuating violence.
The problem Sir is that you cannot discuss Shakespeare with a hungry harimao in the jungle – you MUST apply force both to punish and to make them think a second time that crime IS punished.
Otherwise I (and others, I am sure) enjoyed reading your open-minded article. THANK YOU.
David L. YARKONY
A citizen of Israel

Oct 10, 2004
Dear Mr Yarkony
Thank you for your thoughtful and well informed response to my article “The dragon’s teeth”.
You are very correct in pointing out that Pakistan’s knee-jerk military response in Wana is much the same as that of the USA. That is a crucial point that I had meant to include, but which got inadvertently left out due to lack of time, and then space.
Regarding my use of the word ‘several’ instead of giving the number of those killed in Multan, at the time of writing the actual figure of the dead was disputed, with some sources putting it at 30 (official) and some at 49 (unofficial). Rather than get into that dispute, and with the view that even one life is precious, I chose the word several. I can see how that might be seen as minimizing the loss, but that was not the intention.
I disagree with your perception of the al-Durra and Rachel Corrie deaths, although of course you have the right to your opinion, as I have the right to mine.
Regarding your point about the imperative of trying out new organization, tactics and weaponry, I believe that it is wrong to use human beings as guinea pigs. We’ve seen the consequences of this in Vietnam and Japan where exposure to chemicals and nuclear radiation continues to contribute to a high rate of cancers and birth defects even today, when they are not at war. The long-term consequences of such exposure are visible even in countries that develop such weapons to use on other countries – the high rate of birth defects and cancers in areas where uranium is mined and near nuclear test sites, including in China, former USSR, the USA. There is little information on the effects of nuclear radiation near the nuclear test sites in India and Pakistan, but it will emerge.
I appreciate your point about there being warped minds among people of the Jewish faith (and agree that such violence is increasing in Pakistan), but would add that no faith has a monopoly on such minds. That is why I mentioned the absurd rumour about the 4000 Jews being absent from the WTC on Sept 11, which was widely believed around the world. Logic argues that that could not possibly have been the case, but then, logic has a tendency to fly out of the window when people get emotional – as they tend to do when religion is involved. However, to say that that “was another lie from the Arabic (and vitriolic) mind” is to negate and demonise all those Arabs (and Muslims like myself) who did NOT believe it and who have countered it publicly.
Yes, there are many who believe that force must be met with force, but I don’t believe that that method has shown results. On the contrary, there is increasing violence around the world due to the force used by armed states against their own citizens and other populations. You can’t have an intellectual discussion with those who hold innocent people to ransom for their governments’ actions, but if there is a will, there is a way. Dialogue is always preferable to tough-sounding statements which only serve to further reinforce respective positions – those of the militants as well as the states. Also, I believe it is important to apply the rule of law to all citizens equally (which does not happen in most countries around the world). Crime must be punished – but what do you do when the states themselves are committing crimes?
Secondly, it is clear that the policy of cultivating certain elements when they are needed (eg. the mujahideen and jehadis, Saddam Hussain and bin Laden), only to cast them aside later, as the USA & Pakistan have done, doesn’t work. Of course, these elements do need to be contained, and many of us have been arguing this for years – and yes, it’s better late than never. But using military might, bombing entire villages and demolishing homes only creates more militants out for revenge, whether in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Wana (or Balochistan for that matter). See http://www.hrcp-web.org/ for the views especially on the last two areas, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent body.

With best wishes
Sincerely
Beena Sarwar (Ms.)
Karachi, Pakistan
p.s. The dragon’s teeth reference comes from Greek mythology, not Shakespeare

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

no worries, hindvi...keep asking pertinent questions...just like many do...on both sides of the hindu/muslim divide....using pakistani propaganda language isn`t a particularly effective strategy though while talking amongst indians.

I am sorry not 75000 killed by security forces, but in total including militants, i dont know what proportion was by security forces. but you would be incredibly naive to believe the 35000 figure, the govt. in gujarat as in other riots continues to give a few hundred as the total deaths.

But that is not the issue here why should the security forces of an organised govt which is proud of being a democracy indulge in torture, rape and custodial/extra judicial murder on a large scale? whatever be the number? is this right?

the militants are lawless, some are barbarians why must the govt behave so? dont you think this is a pertinent question? even if the morality is discounted is this a wise strategy?

hindvi first writes this...

[...security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir...]

then this...

[...On kashmir the indian govt used to quote 35000, the kashmiris and pakistanis around 90, outside third sources 75000 maybe its less or more...]

very interested in knowing which outside third sources quote 75000 `killled by security forces`...please give us some references. do they quote any number that were killed by `freedom fighters` also?

Amit

what I am saying is that all human beings are the same they all need to believe in something and identify with it. with those who are religous it is their religion, with others its their nation. How can one ask muslims to question their religion when we are not ready to question the other religion: that of nationalism, after all it should be easier considering that the former is holy and sacred while the latter is temporal and secular, but if you look at chowk that is not so. i love my land, but i have to acknowledge where it has gone wrong, India has had a centralisation problem which the people at India`s periphery resent. This has been their since independence and before. Bitta might be a terrorist, but are all the points he has raised to be just dismissed out of hand. how different is this atitude from those of muslims who refuse to acknowledge anything wrong with islam?

Why cant provinces be given autonomy and still be part of the Indian Union? why does one have to number ones identities? why cant one be an indian and a muslim at the same time, or a bodo/naga and an indian at the same time, or a punjabi and an indian at the same time? why does one have to say i am an indian first and then a muslim/christian naga/animist bodo? why cant I be both simultaneously without having to denigrate the other? is this not the definition of liberalism, all identities are allowed to exist without being questioned, for ex in the UK one can be a britisher and a scot at the same time, or a muslim and a britisher simultaneously. after all we all have multiple identities and emotionally we might be attached to each one more/less than the other.

This has been a central problem of the congress, indira gandhi was paranoid about anybody coming to power other than the congress or any demand for autonomy, she feared the akalis for that, she always suspected the kashmiris and north easterners (may be it was her bangladesh complex, or it was Partition i dont know) she fueled tamils in sri lanka.
But this problem isnt restricted to her it was common to nehru and is common to the indian establishment as such, (just observe Chowk).

At Independence India had a chance to survive as a united country with the cabinet mission plan the british had put forward. It would have meant one centre with three groups of provinces, block A would be pakistan of today with east punjab, block B would have been India of today (without east Punjab and west bengal), and block C would have been Assam and Bengal. there would have been a common center with defence, communications and foreign affairs. The province if they wished could give other powers to there group centers or the all india center. the congress objected saying the provinces should have option to choose their region, the british agreed they said in the first general election after the constituion is formed, the provinces will have the option to choose their group, i.e parties can campaign on the basis of which group they want to go to. jinnah agreed to this plan.

But gandhi did not he kept insisting on the right of provinces to choose right away, before the legislature sat to make the constitution, but as Stafford Cripps pointed out there has to be some common understanding between the League and the congress before the members go into the legislature or the league will not agree because it will be simply outvoted in the house since it had 73 seats to the congress` 2 hundred odd. Gandhi told the assam members to walk away from the bengal group when the assembly sits and since the muslim league had 37 seats to the congresses 34 it could not have ensured otherwise. maybe he also thought that the Ghaffar Khan govt in NWFP would also opt out of group A. jinnah understood all this and hence feared it.

nehru himself was unhappy with this compromise, he was for a strong center from which he wanted to launch 5 year plans for centralised development, having been impressed by the achievements of Bukanin, Lenin and Stalin. and was also for land reforms. On being asked by the press whether he had agreed to the plan after he had signed it as the congress president, he said it doesnt matter we will go into parliament unconstrained. Of these it was patel who was ready to compromise the most. he was a realist. even within this scheme the 5 year plans could have been implemnented but only in part B, which is almost the india of today, since provinces could devolve their powers to the center, just as they eventually did anyway because they all had congress ministries.

i am not saying jinnah was right, or for that matter nehru or gandhi, what matters is what power they wield in parliament. as dost mittar said in a different context, a Nader can take idealist positions he doesnt have to govern but a Kerry cant because a politician who has to govern has to make compromises. balance of power is a fundamental tenet of domestic and international politics. nehru showed an incapacity for this, as did Jinnah and to some extent gandhi.

Even in 1937 when the congress ministries had come to power in 11 out of 13 provinces including UP, nehru and the congress rejected the muslim leagues`s desire for a coalition govt. since they had a comfortable majority. that was allright but then they started implementing many of the congress`s right agenda, ban on cow slaughter, imposition of hindi, the muslim salariat felt it would loose out to hindu middle class in govt jobs in which they were any way behind. again I am not saying these feelings are right or wrong, justified or unjustified, but in politics as long as a demand does not violate human rights it comes withing the ambit of the negotiable. these fears were picked on and played up by the league, since every one knew the days of empire were limited and then the congress would come to power in the center.

Similarly with gandhi`s overt religousity and symbolism it scared the muslims, (just imagine it the other way round) was it right or wrong no one knows, this was the way he thought of involving the masses. Jinnah to build up a quick base took on the twin roles of a fearful minority representative and a spokesman for non congress provinces which feared the erosion of their powers in a centralising congress which was led by a socialist Nehru intent on Land reforms.

Same with Jinnah, infact he is to be blamed more squarely since he harmed the interests of his own constituents in the end game (which the others were probably not betting on), he could have compromised too but did not. he could have agreed to a modified plan or proposed some modifications of his own, but did not.

So with gandhi or Nehru the plan kept lying on the table till june of 47, but in the end they preffered seperation to sharing power. the british felt from the early 40s that there was enough nationalist sentiment in India to leave a single entity behind and continued to do so until they sent mounbatten in may of 47, because of which they sent the missions.

there was a chance at compromise, why it was not taken i dont know enough to say either way. But this trend has continued. Kashmir came to india willingly the Kashmiris despite the anti muslim genocide in jammu by the dogra forces and local hindus and sikh along with Refugees, did not rise in support of pathan invaders in 47. the autonomy under which it came was progressively reduced by the center with the approval of rigged state legislatures.

India could have kept its peripheral countries and its present perephiry peaceful had more autonomy been delegated without the right to secede. this is important because the periphery was distinct from the center, even in the north east the states are Christian and animist, leave aside the north west.

As a result of partition all suffered, as ayesha jalal says worst than partition was the rivalry that followed, pakistan being smaller had to seek outside help and this was harmful for india as well since the superpowers entered the region and so did Wahabi money. can one imagine the soviet union invading afghanistan with one Indian Union or the US supplying arms to the mujahideen? or an indian union (hindus and muslims) allowing Saudi money to flow in freely radicalising the muslim population? or for that matter the rise of the RSS in a joint electorate democracy?


harish
i got the 50,000 figure from the NY times article as a total since the 50s/60s. On kashmir the indian govt used to quote 35000, the kashmiris and pakistanis around 90, outside third sources 75000 maybe its less or more i dont know, in any case its a significant no.

#30 by hindvi

[you have a problem with sikhs who take up arms but not against the security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir and over 50,000 in the north east.]

Man, I respect you for your insightful analyses as also for your faith in India. However, this has to rank as the mother of all exaggerations. Where did you arrive at the figure of 80,000 and 50,000 from? I have heard the figure 80 K mentioned only in Paki newspapers or in statements by J&K terrorist leaders like Syed Salahuddin. The other figure I haven`t heard of at all.

hindvi,

[...dude look inward first...]

you are a funny guy, i have to say... countless posts you have written on various boards blaming hindus, indian govt, indian army, india, etc, but not a single one which `looks inward first` at your own community within india, and what negative roles it plays.

Amit

If you look at the bigger picture, the attack on sunni gathering only strenghens my thesis and not weakens it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re:hindvi#30

What are you talking about? I have participated in chowk off and on for many years and commented on many different boards. I have always spoken out against religious fundamentalism of all types and I am certainly no fan of the BJP by any stretch. In fact, I wanted the Congress and other secular parties to kick out Sonia and bring in a stronger leader so that it could take on the BJP. At least in India, the people can boot out governments which is exactly what happened in the past elections.

I am a staunch nationalist who is proud of India and want it to become one of the great nations in this world that is secular to the core and has a dynamic world-beating economy. In general, my belief is that the subcontinent has people with amazing potential if only they will pull together, share power and move away from destructive impulses. The separatist movements in Punjab and north-east were destructive in nature because they would have destroyed India as we know it. You bet, I support their elimination. That does not mean I don`t want to share power with Sikhs or anyone else. Heck, I want Sikhs to be in the forefront of everything in India.

You also bring up partition, which has already happened and is futile to argue about. Some muslims thought they would be better off outside India. Good for them. I actually want muslims in India today to become so successful and prosperous that their per capita income becomes higher than the per capita income of Pakistan. Then no one from Pakistan can ever point fingers at our society and capability to create a country that belongs to everyone. You just wait and see. We will do that in India. We have already got rid of all the religious BS and our economy is on a roll. Nothing can stop us now.

amit

i am impressed that mejority sunnis have not gone raping and plundering minority shia homes (unless i speak too soon) inspite of this bombing.

amit

since this board is less busy, i want to give you some advice, first pay attention to your own failings then point fingers at others other wise you are not going to be credible. the only people you find problems with are the sikhs and muslims there is not a peep out of you on the gujarat board or the rapes, extra judicial murders and torture tha Indian army is conducting in the north east and kashmir and has been conducting for the last 45 and 15 years respectively.

You like most ignore the repressive nature of your state aside from the fact that a fascist party like the BJP operates in Gujarat and until recently in the center. you have a problem with sikhs who take up arms but not against the security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir and over 50,000 in the north east.

State rights have been suppresed in India for the past 50 years and were in part the cause of partition, and all you can see is Sikh terrorism.

On top of that you buy the propoganda that palestinians were being given a full and complete state, this is US-Israeli propoganda, what they were giving were permanently partitioned islands with no defence forces.

dude look inward first.

Re:urstruly

Sirjee, did you see the latest CIA/RAW/ISI act? This time it is 39 sunni muslims dead in Multan from car bomb/motor cycle bomb blast. How long are you going to keep blaming everyone else, when your social fabric is tearing apart due to sectrian hatred?

arjunm

Since then GOP has changed its position several times. I think at that time they put the blame on JeM etc. to please Americans and Indians hinting that they were actually doing something against the Jihadi orgs and hence the backlash. Everytime GOP announces that they have apprehended someone they publicize that the person under apprehension is ``the mastermind`` or ``the number one`` of something. The most interesting thing was the capture of ``Al-Qaida`s computer expert`` a couple of months ago. It was announced immediately after by US government that they have found footage of important places in NY city on his computer where the record was kept as to the traffic conditions around those buildings etc. The NY City was put under high alert immediately with machine gun totting police officers searching every worker enetering the offices of world bank etc. Meanwhile, using this scare tactic they got the legislation passed in haste which sanctions the appointment of one single intelligence czar. As soon as it was done, US governemnt changed its position and said that Pakistani government has informed them that the footage is a year older than the 9/11; that was done in order to prevent critics from questioning that if government (of US) is spending so much effort and money on fighting `terra` then how come terrorists are living in NY city shooting footages of important places. That would have made US government look stupid and incompetent. So the story was changed. Sometimes Americans look like a sad joke to me. Even the story on who actually killed Danial Perle changes everyday even though the perpetrators of the act have been sentenced to die at the time when even the dead body hadn`t been discovered. At that time the Briton (forgetting his name) was the mastermind and the number one. Either way it indicates one of the two things i.e. people in GOP are either idoits and incompetent or they are charlatans, trying to play everyone. In either case they are bad for Pakistan. Well I understand that it is important that we skim as much money from Americans as we can, because it is our money anyway but there are relatively honourable ways to do that too. What current regime is doing actually makes Pakistan lose any credibility in the world community. And inspite of all that, Musharaf`s nomination for the Noble prize only indicate that how desperate the West is; and how low they can go, which means that we do not have to go that low. We have a choice.