Tilak and Gokhale #203 macgupta

An avowed atheist that I am, my respect for Gandhiji has gone up manifold after reading about his reaction to his son`s coversion. He was a great soul indeed!

Talking to Vajpayee ``post-menopausal excretions``!?

I think chowk has hit new lows by allowing this misogynist go on like this. In an unmoderated newsgroup stuff like this are the norm. Here, where responses are sometimes censored for who knows what reason, allowing this filth (and somehow ali1 seems to be the favored one) can only mean that the editors don`t see anything wrong with this.

I have been reading Chowk mainly looking for understanding of other points of view. I realize that heated debates and verbal assaults are par for the course. BUT, there ought to be limits. That`s just my opinion. I am getting out of the kitchen - I see the roof is on fire.

Talking to Vajpayee #160 cbb

I wouldn`t be surprised if Vajpayee had actually suggested to Mushy to declare himself the President. India couldn`t decide on the protocol since Chief Executive is a novel category. The rumor that Vajpayee called ahead to congratulate Mushy suggests that Vajpayee was in the loop.

The meeting may be to commit to paper what the 2 sides have already agreed to via Track II.

Little White Pills I hope this didn`t really happen but I suspect it did. Desi men tend to be momma`s boys and don`t mind having an affair here that only they know can`t last.

Reforming the Armed Forces #241 Fuzair

We need to distinguish between democracy and civilian rule. That difference is crucial when we have politicians like Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu and Yadav in Bihar. They are not democratic in any sense of the word. What we have had in India is uninterrupted civilian rule.

It would be simply UNTHINKABLE even for Indian jawans that the military could take over the government. In Pakistan, OTOH, for one reason or another military is viewed as simply another arm of the government. This may have to do with the reliance placed on the military in the early days of a defensive nation, we can only speculate. No other country depends so vitally on its military as Israel does but there too, I imagine, a coup-de-etat by the military would be unthinkable.

Musalman: The Moviegoer’s Nightmare #206 mo2000

Dear mo2000,

Science has taught us to question everything - that there are no sacred cows. To those of us, mired in religious politics, this has meant a license to throw mud at everything, except our own pet beliefs. We feel bigger when we throw mud at those whose heights we could never reach. Ideas that are too difficult to comprehend must, by definition, be irrational. We are right and unimpeachable by the mere act of questioning something. Answers we don`t need to seek and comprehension is not ours to obtain. Humility is only for those who are backward - we are modern people thinking modern thoughts. In a way we should be glad that our countries have exported these people because they would only have sown and reaped more hatred there!

Like you, I too wonder, how is it that these physicians and students and other professionals have so much hand on their time to read and respond in kind to all this garbage. Don`t they have lives beyond what they see on their monitors? Don`t they have term papers, kids, patients to attend to? Maybe they have accomplished all they could in their lives and are now attacking the only area left untouched. Sometimes I wonder where have I gone wrong that I am so busy with so many different things to do and having so little time to do them in. The other day I was talking to someone who works in a responsible position for a large company. He said he does all his websurfing at work and I was astounded! That`s the New Economy for you!

The Winds of Change #246 sadna

``So Indians will to continue to die from starvation while Pakistanis

continue to die from exploitation. btw, the first starvation deaths

were reported about 6-7 years ago in the Koraput/Kalahandi

region, Orissa. I personally remember one particular incident when

the media wouldnot even bother to go to the site to verify, they

confined themselves to one small column reporting the politicians

accusations and counter accusations in the Orissa Assembly. I

cannot believe that in the interim just because stories hadnot

appeared in the press, that no more such incidents took place.``

There was also a mini famine in Tamil Nadu some years ago - drought, followed by subsistence farmers reduced to eating wild roots, tree barks, etc. I heard about this from my family there and also remember reading about it in India Today. At any given time, there are starvation deaths somewhere in India. Politicians are beholden only to those that vote for them - the middle class, the organized, etc. Those in the margins have to survive by their wits and the Government is no help to them. I would even go so far as to say that the Government is often the enemy of the poorest because they side with the middle class and the interests of the two classes oftentimes clash vigorously in a poor society. One example of this would be those dispossessed and displaced by the construction of large dams.

The Winds of Change Although I don`t do cut and pastes (and hardly read the ones that are posted here), this one by M.J. Akbar in Dawn was too good to pass up. I`d have preferred to give the URL, but the article may be archived any time soon. Here it is:

A route map for the high road

By M.J. Akbar

The high road to peace seethes with highwaymen. The identity of these highwaymen is hardly a secret;

our prime minister at least does not need any instructions on the dangers of this journey.

He has been travelling this road since 1977. That summer of 1977 and May 23, 2001, a day on which

Atal Behari Vajpayee changed, dramatically, the chemistry of India-Pakistan relations, are linked by the

arc of a personal vision.

In March 1977 Morarji Desai was sworn in as the head of the first non-Congress government in Delhi.

To general surprise he chose Atal Behari Vajpayee as his external affairs minister. To an extent he was

forced to do so: Chaudhry Charan Singh would consider no portfolio other than home, and Morarji

Desai wanted finance for his own loyalist, H.M. Patel. As one of the major parties in an evolving

coalition, the Jana Sangh (as the BJP was known then) had to be given one of the big four ministries,

plus a significant other. The Jana Sangh, going by the pecking order that still remains in place, allotted

external affairs to Mr Vajpayee and information and broadcasting to Lal Krishna Advani.

Apprehension was the primary response to a Vajpayee in an office nurtured and nourished by the spirit

of Jawaharlal Nehru. The Janata leaders managed to stay in power only a little longer than they stayed in

Indira Gandhi`s jail; they were better martyrs than ministers. But the spirit of Nehru could not have been

served better between March 1977 and the torrid summer of 1979 when Charan Singh toppled his own

government. (Charan Singh, incidentally, was never any good at toppling anyone else`s government.) Mr

Vajpayee`s tenure in the foreign office was one of the major achievements of his government. To general

surprise, and perhaps to the dismay of his own political constituency, foreign minister Vajpayee

developed the best relations that India had ever had with Pakistan. The unilateral relaxation in the visa

regime, frozen by the Bangladesh war, that Vajpayee initiated, as well as the cricket diplomacy, was as

dramatic for its time as the bus ride to Lahore.

There were some objective reasons for Pakistan`s growing trust in Vajpayee and in Morarji Desai.

Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress carried the burden of partition`s complex and contentious history.

Nehru may have been a dove for the rest of the world; for the Muslim League, and later for Pakistan, he

was a hawk in Brahmin colours. With Lal Bahadur Shastri there was war that Pakistan believed it could

have won; with Indira Gandhi there was a war that Pakistan knew it had lost. (Morarji Desai, it is not

widely known, privately believed that the liberation of Bangladesh was a mistake in cold strategic terms;

an undivided Pakistan would have been, paradoxically, more confident about itself but also weaker

politically and economically. Thirty years later that assessment makes more sense.)

General Zia-ul-Haq, ruler (there is no other word) of Pakistan in that phase, was at ease with the

inflexible straight talk of Morarji Desai, and the nuanced sincerity of Atal Behari. Of course semantics

are not sufficient to build a relationship, although, as between individuals, it doesn`t hurt to be polite. In

any case, you have to be polite before you can get affectionate. Atal Behari Vajpayee`s contribution was

not only that he lifted Indian foreign policy with the yeast of goodwill, but that he challenged the culture

of his own political roots in the exercise of his relations with Pakistan. His stature within his party, and his

sincerity of purpose enabled him to get away with an audacious shift of gear.

It takes extraordinary courage to fight a war. It takes even greater courage to fight for peace. The prime

minister`s biggest concern is that he must carry the country with him in any step taken towards Pakistan.

It is easy to find support for a war; peace may live on a higher road, as Mr Vajpayee said in his letter to

General Pervez Musharraf, but that road is crowded not only by highwaymen but also clogged with

doubt.

The prime minister has understood the first principle of this journey: the country will not follow you

unless you lead it. So far there has been nothing to follow, except the news of a ceasefire stalemate that

had putrefied with violence. For five decades now relations between decaying neighbours have been

trapped in that same stagnant circle. Even a phrase has been enough to send any positive effort back

into that festering circle. One instance from the past will serve as an indicator of the cussedness that has

imprisoned the minds of the two countries.

In September 1965 came Ayub Khan`s war; in January 1966 came Kosygin`s peace; in January 1967

Ayub Khan made the suggestion that India and Pakistan should sit down and work out a mutual

reduction of arms. Muhammad Ali Chagla, who had just been made foreign minister by Indira Gandhi,

responded immediately, writing to his counterpart Sharifuddin Pirzada. Pirzada at once upped the ante:

any talks should include Kashmir. This upset Delhi, but Chagla nevertheless formally responded that

India was ready ``to discuss all questions between India and Pakistan, including the Kashmir question, at

anytime and place mutually convenient``. No offer could be more categorical than that.

But highwaymen on the high road to peace come in more than one uniform. Pakistan would not accept

the Indian formulation for the scope of the talks, a paragraph that could still have its uses in the

paperwork that is building at this very moment: ``Talks would be earnest and meaningful and on a

confidential and continuing basis. A sincere effort would be made by both sides in a friendly spirit and in

conformity with the Tashkent Declaration to seek solutions of various problems existing between the two

countries including Jammu and Kashmir which Pakistan regards as a basic dispute between the two

countries.`` One can see Chagla`s elegant mind in the draft, particularly in the opening sentence. But

Pakistan insisted that Kashmir was not a ``problem`` but a ``dispute`` and sent back a version whose

perverse syntax seemed to reflect its intentions: ``Talks would be earnest and meaningful and on a

confidential basis. A sincere effort would be made by both sides to seek a solution of various disputes

and problems existing between India and Pakistan including the basic dispute regarding Jammu and

Kashmir, in a friendly spirit.``

That was the mangled end of that.

Was Pakistan ever offered such a deal? Certainly Pakistan`s case was weakened by a contradiction:

Jinnah wanted the rulers of the princely states to determine which country they wanted to join in the

hope of luring Hyderabad or even Bhopal into Pakistan. How could then the principle be altered for

Kashmir, whose ruler Maharaja Hari Singh, first sought independence and then signed for accession to

India?

Prime Minister Vajpayee has offered a glimpse into a new strategic culture with a letter to General

Musharraf whose simplicity disguises its innovative stresses. The Vajpayee formulation follows a clear

internal logic. What is the problem? War is not the real problem. The confrontation between India and

Pakistan is unlikely now to lead to full, all-out war; even Kargil could not provoke that. But the

unbelievable cost of confrontation is certain to condemn both nations into that black hole of poverty.

Hence the effective second sentence in the letter: ``Our common enemy is poverty.`` What is the solution,

not to war, but to poverty? ``For the welfare of our people, there is no other course but a pursuit of the

path of reconciliation, of engaging in productive dialogue and by building trust and confidence.`` From

here emerges the real answer: ``I invite you to walk this high road with us.``

This new strategic culture emerged out of a thesis implemented by both India and Pakistan: peace is best

built on strength. The nuclear relationship has created the guarantees that never existed before; it has

cleared mental blocks on both sides. India is now certain that Pakistan cannot seize the Kashmir Valley

through war. And Pakistan is now confident that India cannot destroy or overwhelm Pakistan. This

strategic model must be bolstered by a new model of civility, one that breeds rapport and takes a

complicated process forward through a stable structure of co-operation.

It is not as if options have never been discussed. The confusions of the past could even be an asset.

Pakistan will not be able to give a clear answer if asked whether it wants integration of Kashmir into

Pakistan or an independent Kashmir. On our side, we are not certain how flexible Article 370 can

become in the search for a solution. We can stretch its meaning on that high road. Once the

non-negotiables are understood, and kept aside, a dialogue is all about open minds and sensible options.

And there can be no dialogue better than one between the leader of the BJP and the chief of the

Pakistan Army: they are Menachem Begin and the Anwar Sadat of the subcontinent.

But when the two walk that high road, they must remember: one horizon at a time. There is an old Sufi

story that bears repetition. A child who had come to the seminary at five was told by the Sufi master

when he turned fifteen that the moment had come to leave for the world outside. The child began to

tremble in fear. What shall I do, master? he asked. Go out of the door, stand still, and look, said the

master. The child did so. He saw nothing.

The master told him to keep looking. At last, after two days, the answer dawned on the child. Yes, he

told the master, he had seen something. He had seen the horizon. But what should he do next? ``Walk up

to that horizon``, replied the master. ``When you reach the horizon, stand still again and look. You will see

another horizon. Walk again...`` It is a good route map for a high road.

Musalman: The Moviegoer’s Nightmare You say muslims are bad guys in Indian movies. You must mean ``some muslims`` as there are ``some hindus``. I sat thru much of ``Hey Ram``, except for the really violent parts and the song-and-dance sequences. Believe me there was still enough tripe left over. Were muslims the bad guys. Some were. When you have a movie about Hindu-Muslim conflict(s) (Partition, Kashmir, etc.), that`s natural. Indian movies cannot afford to portray muslims in bad light because a large fraction of the movie industry and movie-goers are muslims. In Pakistan there is no such restriction. You can damn the Hindus all you want and the audience cheers!

In Memory of R.K. Narayan #16 Rdesikan

Lookie here, we have a regular comic :)

As for RKN, his story telling is similar to some of the Tamil writers (writing in Tamil) I know. Do you get that impression too? Did RKN not live in Bombay? When did he move to Madras?

The Winds of Change #76 aNNy

That made fascinating reading. Thanks.

I have read that getting a visa is a terrible problem and that you have to wait for days at the consulate. How do you manage it? Are the beauracrats hostile or are they professional? As we all know, immigration and customs people all over the world seem to come from the same ornery stock so they don`t count. Have you had to bribe the Indian Customs? As an expat Indian, I have had to. But that was a while ago when there were unrealistic limits on how much you could bring in.

Sorry about hijacking the thread.

The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan Eklavya + Sadhana

It`s been hard enough dealing with Sadhana`s sophistication. Now there`s two of you.. I`m sunk!

If India were to turn around tomorrow and say let`s have a plebiscite and divvy up J&K tehsil by tehsil and the area is ``reorganized``, I can see the conflict continuing precisely for the reasons you two mention.

OTOH, if International community were to be involved and the situation is arbitrated, that has to be the final solution. I think militancy will lose its value. Pakistan cannot continue to make mischief or risk International wrath. India, by forcing a solution, will have attained legitimacy for its position. We know Kashmir is special - it is protected like no other state; there is Bihar whose mineral wealth we exploit giving very little in return to the state - except for a PSU factory here & there, and then there`s Assam. Kashmir offers little to the Union, is heavily subsidized and now sucking up a huge amount of defence expenditure. The irony is, thru Article 370, it is not really part of the Union. We have in many ways acknowledged that Kashmir is different and let`s also look for a solution that`s different.

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement as to whether a solution (of any sort) is even desirable. Let`s agree to disagree.

The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan #273 sadna

Sadhana, you are a very passionate writer indeed! When you say a quarter million dead, are you refering to Punjab or the Partition? My understanding is that the latter caused a few million deaths. I think much of the bloodshed during the Partition was because it came so quickly and the 2 sides were completely unprepared to protect the peaceful citizens from the marauders. I think India should much better prepared this time. As for international involvement, I keep going back to the situation in Kosova, where the West seems to be waking up to reality - that balkanization is not in the benefit of the larger world. Kashmir WILL NOT BE independent, will not be a handmaiden of outside powers. If need be, India can stipulate that any outside involvement must also guarantee the presence of UN forces there. I agree that it may seem like India is giving into the ugly idea of TNT but we have to recognize reality - there are so many secessionist, cetrifugal forces acting on India that it is time we learned to defuse the tensions by whatever means.

The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan #252 Fuzair

I am mightily impressed by how much you know.

Article 370 does forbid non-Kashmiris from buying property in Kashmir. For the exact provisions, you have to dig up the Indian Constitution, which I`m sure is available on the web. Unlike you I believe that were it not for Article 370, India`s hold on Kashmir would have become stronger. Nobody is giving out brownie points for what India does or does not do. Look, Israel is practically waging a conventional war on the Palestinians, and no one, including the Arabs, is doing anything more than offer weak remonstrations.

Sadhana, various interacts:

I think except for Lone, the Hurriyat gang is not what you call humanistic or democratic. IMHO, there has to be an (Internationally supervised) elections in Kashmir based on the existing electoral roles (ie no Afghani or Sudanese ``Kashmiris`` would be allowed a vote), and the militants will have to put up or shut up. As to the ``domino effect`` of (parts of) Kashmir separating, I believe there is a certain wariness in the Indian public and Kashmir will not drastically change anything. Good leadership at the top can pull the citizens along. India can only keep itself together by decentralizing and not with the might of the Indian Army.

I previously gave the example of a bad divorce and going for arbitration. It is easy to let anger get in the way of wisdom much like in a divorce. Yet, I have heard that divorces can actually improve the situation if done right - thru compromise and negotiation.

What does the resident shrink have to say, I wonder.

The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan #225 urstruly

`Remember “HUMANS FIRST” `

Here`s what you left unsaid: ``and Hindoos last.``

The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan #204 sadna

Sadhana, seems like I didn`t make myself very clear. Re: ``dispute between Indians``, a vocal section of Kashmiris disagrees they are Indian. I hope you`ll agree that the comparison between ``Veerappan types`` and Kashmir is far-fetched. Kosova is a more perfect analogy. I disagreed with the one-sidedness of the Western governments` action there. Now, they themselves seem to have concluded that the misbehaving Albanians should take it in the chin. KFOR is pressuring the guerillas to give up their arms and slowly allowing back the Serbian army into the buffer zone. My reason for favoring arbitration is that Kashmir will not be made independent; neither will it be handed over whole to Pakistan. The independent-minded Kashmiris living in the valley will have to make a choice between India which has guaranteed the preservation of Kashmir`s identity (thru article 370, with which I disagree, but that`s another matter) or an opportunistic Pakistan where more and more the sunni extremists run the show. I am assuming that Jammu and Ladakh will elect to stay in India. Once the matter is arbitrated, Pakistan will have very little leverage in the internal matters of India. I like to see an India where the army defends the country from external aggressors and not internal dissenters. Kashmir is a murky issue and a solution imposed from the outside can only clarify it.