An Indian salute for President Musharraf re: ylh

...bleat, bleat, bleat, o great descendent of the prophet.....

Poem Number New Year sadna #122: Pakistan`s political history is marked by errors, excesses and corruption of the ambitious military leaders and the ambitious feudal class. I will be the first to state that. And have stated in regularly.

I have seen the regimes of Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, NS, BB, and now Musharraf. And a few others like Yahya, Junejo etc., who came for short moments. Of these, I was too young to remember anything about Ayub and Yahya (but have read enough about it). The rest I am aware of.

I oppose(d) Bhutto, NS, BB and Zia.

- Having read about Ayub, I support his economic reforms and oppose his political interventions (I am not sure whether to put his govt. in the good or bad category. It made Pakistan the fastest rising economy of South Asia, but introduced too many social and political problems). As a person, I cannot support Ayub, because his family, through him, ended up heavily intertwined into the feudal based politics.

- As for the rest, Bhutto, being the most capable and intelligent and misguidedly ambitious, committed the biggest faults. He encouraged Pakistan into 65 and 71 wars, and then jumped ship right at the end, and started opposing the same regimes that he had supported (like a VP deliberating getting his company into trouble, so he can take the CEO`s position). Most of all, his nationalisation of a fast growing economy (Pakistan at one point, was ahead of Korea, Singapore etc.), was the biggest crime ever committed against Pakistan. He did have some virtues, as well, though. He was not (too) corrupt, from what I have heard. And he introduced Pakistan`s first post-Jinnah massive political movement (unfortunately, he ended up giving more importance to his feudal instincts, than his patriotic political ones).

- Zia was too narrow-minded, and too clever, to become a leader. He was too narrow-minded to lead Pakistan, and too clever to be removed. He would not have become even COAS, had Bhutto not personally picked him through nepotism. I opposed Zia, even though I was in the military. Not too many people in the military like him. I can clearly remember the day he held his referendum. I was on a parade ground in Sargodha, and remember the disgust on the officers` and soldiers` face, when they were told to vote.

Zia brought back economic growth to 6% (through good luck due to UAE expatriate money and US aid). But he destroyed Pakistan`s society. He bifurcated into into two parts, Shariah and non-Shariah, and introduced way too much religion.

Zia did fight the Soviets and kept them out of Pakistan. Which was an achievement. And though some people say he was very corrupt, most people I have talked to say he was personally financially relatively honest (though dishonest in his statements and actions).

But most of all, Zia committed the cardinal sin of Martial Laws, i.e. he introduced Martial Law, thereby stunting the political process, and did not solve any major problems. And his next generation is now also part of Pakistan`s feudal PML.

- BB and NS had absolutely no interest in Pakistan. They were out to make a fast buck; plain and simple. Both of them were representatives of Pakistan`s feudal parties (even though, Sharifs were urbanites). There is no need to go into the details of their massive financial and social corruption. This is well-documented, even in Indian papers.

Uptil the late 80s, Pakistan despite all its problems, had at least been able to support its 6% rate of economic growth. Within the 90s, BB and NS introduced a corruptive free-for-all, that resulted in all the previous problems, plus a growth rate of 3%. No international financial instititution was even willing to give Pakistan a loan.

Unlike Bhutto and Zia and Ayub, I don`t think NS and BB had any virtues, and did not do anything for Pakistan. They were, and are, just robbers.

There have been two points when I thought Pakistan was finished. The first was when the Soviets launched a full fledged assault into Afghanistan, with an intention of going into Pakistan. I was in the military at that time, and have first hand knowledge of the counter-measures Pakistan had to take to handle the Soviet incursions.

The second point was towards the end of NS`s last term, before the recent coup. NS and his cronies had brought Pakistan to a failed state point. By this time, my family was actively involved with Imran Khan`s political party, and I had a rude awakening to Pakistan`s politics and the various thugs and mafia that dominate it, under the garb of, ``Democracy.``

Then the coup occured, and I thanked God. People had tried to paint Musharraf as a religious extremist and a dishonest man. I had worked with enough Generals to know, that he is honest and a liberal progressive minded person. I have supported him for a three year Martial Law.

In that sense, in my whole lifetime, the only Pakistani leader I have supported is Musharraf. I opposed every other, for one reason or another. Primarily, because I felt they were all personally dishonest, either financially or in their intentions. I don`t agree with everything Musharrafs` govt. has done, but I think even his harshest impartial critics agree that he is progressive, honest and patriotic. In essence, he is the better choice out of NS, BB, Altaf Hussain, and Qazi. Ideally, I would like to see someone like a democratically elected Imran Khan, Omar Asghar Khan (now dead) as the heads of Pakistan, i.e. honest, philanthrapic very educated people.

Now to your questions:

``Very true, but that hasnot stopped me from expressing myself. ``

Please go ahead and express yourself. That is what this site is for.

``What were those?``

More on this later. It is too detailed to cover here. And you need to realize that the current Pakistani military is different from that in 71. 99.9% of the current soldiers wasn`t in the Army in 71.

``If there is such a consensus against feudals, why didn`t the military institute land reforms in these 3 years?``

This is the million dollar question. And I wish I had the answer. I don`t know why. Musharraf has taken on evey status quo group in Pakistan. That is why they are all united against him (to me, this is a compliment to him).

He has taken on the maulvi brigade (which no one in the history of Pakistan has done, including the most liberal noise-makers on this site, and in Pakistan). Infact, I wouldn`t be surprised if Musharraf is assasinated someday, by one of them.

He has completely defanged Pakistan all-powerful beaurecracy. Their hundred year power, derived from British law, is gone.

He has taken on Pakistan`s powerful business groups. Many of the big ones, with corruption charges, are in jail. And the small non-tax paying ones are now being forced to pay taxes. Even their refusals to invest in local industry, hasn`t stopped his efforts.

He has stood up to India successufully (in my opinion), even though India has larger forces threatening Pakistan, than ever before in its history. Pakistan`s position vis-a-vis India is a lot stronger than it was when he carried out the coup. I had suggested at the time of the coup, that it was the perfect opportunity for India to corner Pakistan, and negotiate some sort of a Kashmir setlement, since Pakistan was at its weakest. India would have had to only give up a little bit, and would have gained a lot. I think India lost a golden oppourtunity.

He has even taken on his own Generals. And has retired some of the ones, who helped him carry out the coup. Nearly, all of Pakistan`s new Lt. Gens. and Maj. Gens. have now been appointed by him. And I have it from my friends in the military, that Pakistan`s military is going back to its British traditions (their was some deviation during Zia`s rules), i.e. gora officers (like Musharraf and Asif Nawaz) are being preferred over maulvi officers (like Zia and Hameed Gul).

But he has not taken on the feudals, as a whole. He has defanged them constituitonally, and has kicked out and jailed and disqualified many of their top members. He has taken away their executive power at the National level, by devolving power to the lowest level.

But no land reforms. I don`t know why. Maybe he will do it through an elected Assembly. Maybe it is just too difficult. I don`t know....

The problem isn`t just land reforms. The feudal lands weren`t even taxed. Can you believe that. An agricultural country, not taxing feudal lands. That is another reason, feudals want to keep the status quo.

``Your argument seems to be that a number of people must be excluded from the political process for the country`s good. Who is most fit to decide who must be left out?``

This is difficult to answer. In a democracy, it should be the voters and the Supreme Court who decide who should be in or out. But what to do in a country, where a person, in feudal lands, can be adbucted and raped, at the whims of a feudal MNA. And a Supreme Court can be stormed by the hooligans of an elected PM, and then be too scared to give a decision against the same hooligans. Instead, the Supreme Court ends up firing its own Chief Justice.

Who should decide, in a country, in which the pre-requisites of democracy haven`t even been established (I think Indian politics has progressed to a point, where the pre-requisites are filled, buy Pakistani politics never will until the feudals are de-feudalized). And the elected feudal MNAs and MPAs want to make sure these pre-requisites don`t get established. That is their sole purpose of being in politics. Otherwise, they would be in agriculture.

Your guess is as good as mine on who should decide. My guess is an honest progressive dictator, or a union of all the urban political parties in Pakistan maybe able to do it. I am hoping Musharraf fits the first bill, and Tehrik, MQM, etc. fit the second bill (nearly all the urban parties, generally support the current govt).

Let`s see what happens. Hope that answers some of your questions.

Muslims and The West After 11th September I cannot believe my eyes that it is the same Zakaria -- who used to write for Blitz -- who wrote this trash about Addul Kalam.

here I must apologize to Farzana Versey for questioning her quote of conversation she had with Dr. Rafique Zakaria who sounded more like a Mullah than an intellectual columnist.

Apparently -- old age has taken a toll of his senses, his intellect and the sense of balance

I cannot believe that Fareed Zakaria is his son.

Dr. Zkaria should put down his senile pen and take up Immamat of his local musjid -- he is right now no better than an illiterate Bukhari.

The Price fawad79: The question is not of putting up a Christian lawyer. The question is of having the maximum effect. Pakistan will not gain or losing anything by putting a Christian as an ambassador to the US (I think it will gain by putting a female however). Whomever can do the best job, and have the maximum effect should be the representative. In a perceived war between Jews and Muslims, an articulate Christian female would be a good choice of leader, for Palestinians.

As for Christians in the Pakistan military: They do quite well. And are very well respected. Far more respected than they are in the Pakistani civilian society. There were six Christian pilots in the PAF in 65. Five of them received Sitar-i-Jurat. Needless to say, Christians command far more respects amongst their unit officers, squadron pilots and sailors than they are accorded in civilian Pakistan.

All the Christian military officers I have met seem to agree with that.

It is now an unwritten (or perhaps written) law that no one except a Shia or a Sunni will go past Lt. General. This was actually imposed on the military by the civilian establishments and civilian society. The military itself, probably wouldn`t have imposed it (unless someone like Zia came into power).

I have worked with Christian/Parsi/Ahmadi etc. F-16 pilots, commandoes, unit commanders, base commanders etc. I had a Christian instructor, a Parsi instructor and an Ahmadi instructor. I didn`t know for a year that the Parsi was a Parsi. No one really cared. There are Christians and other minorities flying F-16s over Kahuta and stationed in Kashmir, facing India.

There was rarely, if ever, any discrimination, at lower ranks, that I can recall. Discrimination starts when they reach the General ranks.

Soldiers who are actually fighting the war, dont care what the religion of their colleague is. They just look at the rank and the courage of the person. It is civilian pressures from politicians and critics (both of whom themselves will never have the courage to risk their lives for their countries) that put up all the hype about religion in the military. Due to this Christain and other minorities will probably not make it past Maj. Gen. in the military now. Quite sad.

When the Lights Hurt the Eyes There is one more silver lining in this escalation (the first being the fact that Indians will finally realize why Pakistanis wanted a separate country): the Kashmir issue has finally deserved the importance it requires to be solved.

It has finally been internationalized, and is now the no. 1 story in international news. If anyone still thinks that their is no international mediation going on in this issue now, then I am afraid they are living in their own world. Infact, the comments of international sources are all over the Indian media.

The BJP is taking India down the drain, in more ways than Indians realize. Indian foreign ministry has (had) done one hell of a job in spinning Kashmir. One has to give them credit for that. Kashmir is an open-shut case in terms of human rights, legalities, UN resolutions etc. India is obviously suppressing and killing the Kashmiris, not Pakistan. Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan, and not with India. Yet India has (had) been able to portray it as a joint Indo-Pak problem, to the point of painting it as a terrorist struggle.

However, the recent sequence of events, initiated by the BJP, are begining to have an after-effect which is only going to weaken India`s stance:

- The BJP piles up its forces on the border to win an election in UP (my guess). It loses the election.

- The BJP is humiliated in India and in the rest of the world for organizing a massacre of its own Muslim population in Ahmadabad. Even Indians who tolerated the Ayodhya riots, start criticizing the BJP.

- The BJP raises the ante on attacking Pakistan, and making it blink, thereby uniting the Indian population behind it, and making it forget the Gujrat massacre. This works like a charm, and all of a sudden, attacking Pakistan becomes much more important than Gujrat in Indian minds.

- But Pakistan does not blink, and piles up its own forces on the border, and even launches a few nuclear- capabable missile tests. Now the BJP is stuck again. It has all of India united in a war mode, and is issuing one threatening statement after another against Pakistan, yet it is not attacking (because it know that could result in a nuclear war). In addition to this, the freedom struggle in Kashmir keeps going strong, as do the cross border infiltrations.

- The BJP comes up with a second proposal and threatens Pakistan with dire consequences, if Pakistan does not return 20 (mostly Sikh and Indian Muslim separatists) individuals on a list to India. Pakistan does not recognize the list, asks for proof, and issues its own list with the name of Advani on it, and asks for him. The BJP threatens Pakistan some more, yet does not attack. At this point, the Indian public is also starting to question the BJP train of thought.

- The BJP starts heavy shelling of Pakistan`s Kashmir (and Sialkot) areas. Pakistan counterattacks with shelling of Indian areas. Yet the BJP still does not attack, while simultaneously continuing its abuse of Pakistan. This abuse, by now, is almost six months old.

- The BJP, by this time, is completely stuck. It is in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t scenario. It cannot attack due to a nuclear war threat, and it cannot retreat because it will lose face and popularity in India. So the BJP looks for an out. It tries to get the international community to put pressure on Pakistan to give it an out. Pakistan refuses to give the BJP a face-saving out, and says the BJP will have to pull its troops back on its own.

- The BJP now threatens all out war. The Kashmir issue, by this time, is compeletely internationalized, and everyone in the world is talking about it. By doing this, the BJP has undone the decades of spin work the Indian foreign ministry had very successfully done on Kashmir. This spin work was highly beneficial to India, and had kept Kashmir under the covers. No one knew about Kashmir, until the BJP initiated its troops build-up. Now the whole world knows.

- The rest of the world finally jumps in, and starts putting pressure on Musharraf to completely stop cross-border infiltrations. While Pakistan can stand up to India, it cannot stand up to the rest of the world, so it clamps down hard on cross-border infiltration.

- However, the world needs to be in the good books of Pakistan, at the moment also (and it wants to end this Kashmir issue once and for all, to avoid future nuclear war scenarios), so it puts a great deal of pressure on India to talk and resolve this issue, as well. Now the BJP is furthur stuck. It has to discuss Kashmir and maybe even solve it.

- Pakistan still refuses to give India a face-saving out, while simultaneously bowing to international pressure, while standing up to Indian pressure.

So, due to the BJP antics, India now is being forced to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan (which it didn`t have to do before). The whole world is aware of the Kashmir issue (which was unknown to anyone before). India has been forced to accept the fact that Pakistan (finally) has an effective deterence against India (which it did not have in the non-nuclear days). India will, at some stage have to withdraw its forces, without having been able to make Pakistan accept any of its threats or complains (this will be the first time that India has piled up offensive forces on Punjab and Sind and not attacked).

The cat is now out of the bag. India has accepted third-party mediation (what the hell else would one call Armitage, Powell, Straw, Putin, Karzai, Khatami etc.). The BJP, through its ridiculous war rhetoric, has done what no Pakistani leadership has been able to do for decades; it has completely internationalized the well kept Indian secret of Kashmir. India will now have to talk to Pakistan on Kashmir. And (hopefully) the whole world will continue to keep this problem on its screen. This should lead to human rights organzitions and the international media getting some access to Kashmir. Which should lead to the Kashmiri voices being heard. And we all know what the Kashmiri voices are saying.....

I have a piece of advice for Pakistanis: They need to sit back and just solve their own problems for the next ten years. During these ten years, the BJP will do (and has already done) what no Pakistani has ever been able to (and may never be able to) do to India. As follows:

1) The BJP has split the well-maintained (by third world standards) social fabric of India, to the point, where Hindus are chasing after Muslims with swords.

2) It has turned a secular country, with well-protected minorities (by third world standards) into a religiously fanatic country.

3) It has forced (is about to force) a much larger India, for the first time in its history, to back off unconditionally from Pakistan in a military conflict.

4) It has internationalized the Kashmiri issue by itself; something Pakistan had been unsuccesfully trying to do for ages.

I would encourage all Indians to continue to vote for the BJP. I would encourage all Pakistanis to say a few extra prayers for the BJP remaining in power in India. As long as the BJP is in power in India, or is the main opposition party (which will make it even more dangerous), India is doomed. India will self-destruct under the BJP`s misguided Hinduvta baggage. I am becoming more and more sure of it, as time passes. The BJP thinks even more illogically than us illogical and ignorant Pakistanis.

Now, if the BJP is voted out of power, and voted out completely (even as an opposition party), then I will have to state that Indians have progressed far beyond Pakistanis. And that Pakistanis are doomed.....



-

The Food Monster pmishra #103 I am not sure what your point is. I am not saying that we should not stamp out terrorists. They are enemies not just of the Indian people but of the Pakistani people as well. They target not just innocent people in Kashmir, but also innocent people in Pakistan (including about 60 doctors they have killed so far within Pakistan) and of course one another as well. Not that it makes any difference to me whether the innocent person killed is the wife of a poor soldier in India travelling by bus or a Pakistani doctor or a French engineer. All these lives are precious, and by not showing respect for these lives, these people are the enemies of all humanity.

And wiping out these terrorists should be job 1 for Musharaff (who incidentally is himself under great fear for his safety). I agree there too. But this is not the point I am addressing.

All I am saying is this: The Indian government has failed on the diplomatic front to do get Pakistan tarred as a terrorist nation after several years of trying. The rest of the world is simply not blinded by hatred towards Pakistan as the Indian government obviously is after Kargill. On the military front, the military might of India has been effectively checkmated by investments in missiles, nukes, and a large army (and if war does break out, the Indian people will soon find out that this is no longer 1971). The only way for India to get rid of Pakistan as an enemy is to make it a friend, as I have said before. Rather than reaching for a win-lose solution (i.e. trying unsuccessfully to get pakistan declared a pariah nation, or to bully pakistan by military force), the Indian government needs to get real. And the way to get real is to aim for a win-win solution, namely, promote democracy within Pakistan. This is the only realistic option, and this is the policy that the US and EU are following by pressuring musharaff to stick to the stated path back to handing political power to elected officials. The challenge is not an intellectual one - what I have said above is quite obvious when one looks at the realities - but an emotional one.

The Food Monster Face of the ``enemy``

Indian Army

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020525/168/1lmfi.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020525/161/1lnhm.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020522/170/1kzjy.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020521/170/1ks1j.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020518/168/1kcmr.html

Pakistani Army

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020524/168/1lirw.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020521/170/1ktzl.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020527/168/1lw2n.html

The Food Monster Romair - May I suggest some sources for Kashmir reading ...

INDIACLUB

http://www.indiaclub.com/shop/summsearchresults.asp?choice=Title&Selection=kashmir

some I liked were

Speaking Peace - Women`s Voices from Kashmir

by Urvashi Butalia

Kashmir - A Tragedy of Errors

by Tavleen Singh

Faultline Kashmir

by Christopher Thomas

Slender was the Thread: Kashmir Confrontation, 1947-48

by Lt Gen L P Sen

AMAZON

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-3445663-6480803

Total matches

? Nonfiction (52)

? History (27)

? Religion & Spirituality (22)

Many to choose from ...

Most Popular

India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute : On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution

by Robert G. Wirsing

The Food Monster Romair #105

In the interest of learning more about the Kashmir situation I went looking for the book you recommended ``Kashmir - Happy Valley to Valley of Death``. I cannot find it at Barnes and Nobel, Amazon or anywhere else - so maybe you have to loan us your copy. I did find this rather interesting write up about William Baker the author. Perhaps you are already acquainted with his credentials?

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/02/24/cover-brin.php

``During the same period, Baker wrote and published Theft of a Nation, a 1982 book whose salient feature is its unrelenting pro-Arab, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish politics. Writing on contemporary Middle East politics, Baker stated that ``true justice and real conciliation`` requires that ``all Jews who entered Palestine during the British Mandate from 1917 to 1948 and after the establishment of the state of Israel should return to the various countries of their origin`` and that the ``Zionist state of Israel . . . should be dismantled and eventually eliminated.``

``Baker does indeed appear to know his Christian theology and the Koran, but mainly in the service of his apparent goal: the creation of a united Christian-Muslim front against Jews and other groups. (Baker?s book Kashmir: Happy Valley, Valley of Death does for Hindus what Theft of a Nation does for Jews.) ``

The Food Monster Romair #105

FYI - Breaking news about William Baker

Das Boot!

Crystal Cathedral evicts preacher with neo-Nazi ties

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/02/37/news-brin.php

?The Reverend Robert Schuller has quietly told self-styled ``interfaith leader`` William Baker to vacate his Crystal Cathedral office. The order came after an investigation published in OC Weekly revealed that Baker, who runs Christians and Muslims for Peace (CAMP), has a long history of anti-Semitic politics and held a leadership position in neo-Nazi organizations. The investigation also revealed that Baker had manufactured much of his alleged academic qualifications.

``We have separated ourselves from the CAMP ministry, and Mr. Baker will be off the campus as of May 31,`` a Crystal Cathedral spokesman said. ?

We, The Fake soundmeister #239 you write ``when a dude in a threepiece suit and an Eton accent who purports to his country`s ambassador to the UN says those same things, it scares the living daylights out of one.``

Heh! Heh! That`s the idea, isnt it.

We, The Fake Akash #252 you write ``Indian nuke arsenal dwarfs Pak`s: Jane`s``

All sizes work fine...in love and in (nuclear) war. If you know what I mean.

The Food Monster shankar #99: Please read the book, Kashmir, Happy Valley to Valley of Death, by Mr. William Baker.

It has a review by ex-Vice President Al Gore. Once you have read this book, only then comment about what is going on Kashmir, and why the people there need to be protected from India. Kindly do not buy into any propoganda, from Indian sources (or Pakistani sources), nor on any political statements from anyone.

He sneaked into Kashmir. He talks about Kashmiri women who were raped and made pregnant by the Indian forces. He talks about Kashmiris who appear dead in the Jehlum river. He talks about torcher, beatings, burnings etc.

If you are unwilling to read reports on Kashmir by third-party sources and by human rights organizations, then at least I feel (though you may disagree) that you have no right to comment on issues in which the death of human beings is involved. One would hope that at least Indian doctors have some belief in saving lives (even if they are lives of Muslim Kashmiris).

The Food Monster Whatever happened to the list of 20 people? That`s what I want to know.

I thought that is why India had declared war on Pakistan, somewhere along the line. Are we now back to cross-border stuff, or are we still concentrating on the list?

First it was the cross-border stuff across an actual border into Delhi. Then it was the list. Then it was the cross border, across not a border, but an LOC. Then it was the list again. Now, I believe we are back to the cross-LOC stuff again. This is starting to get confusing. Are we fighting over the list, or are we fighting over the cross-border, or are we fighting over the cross-LOC?

If we will nuke each other, then it would be good to know what we nuked each other over; the list or the cross-LOC. This could be the first major war started over a list.

Also, it should be clear to everyone that everytime an American shows up in South Asia, some major terrorist act occurs (at least a major one that is reported by the Indian govt). Wouldn`t it make more sense for the Pakistani and Indian reps to go meet the American rep in the USA. They would get a free trip to Washington (a better place to visit than Delhi and Islamabad), and meet their kids who study in US universities. And major terrorist attack would be avoided. But then again, that would make it seem like the Americans are mediating to solve our problems. And of course, no one wants that to happen. Problems should be solved bilaterally, even if we nuke each other. Whoever thought of this, ``solve problems bilaterlly only`` stuff in India, deserves the Vir Chakra.

I always used to wonder when Pakistani Generals would get enough brains to realize that it does not make sense to attack India, and put Pakistan into a vulnerable situation. I always wondered how strong Pakistan could be if it just concentrated on defence, and let India do all the shouting and screaming and threatening. Well, it turns out, this is a pretty good policy.

Pakistan staff officers need to put this into every training course and make it official Pakistani military policy, i.e. never attack India, regardless of how correct you feel your stand maybe. Always defend yourself strongly against any Indian threat without backing off one inch.

After going thru this excercise, hopefully without a war, I think India will not threaten Pakistan by piling of troops along the border, again. At that time, we can sit down like gentlemen and gentlewomen over a table, and figure out a solution to our problems, hopefully with third-party mediation.

P.S. on a ligher note: Laloo Yadav has some really good-looking daughters. Just saw them for the first time. They look nothing like him.

A Journey Into Afghanistan shammi #223 you write ``It was Vajpayee who went to Lahore and to the Minar-e-Pakistan, not Narasimha Rao or Indira Gandhi. `` Point well taken. And no doubt Kargil brought that peace effort to an end. However, after that the BJP government was content to paint Pakistan as an enemy country etc. and things have gone downhill from there. What it should have done I think, and should now be doing, is encourage steps being taken for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan (among other things, as I mentioned in my previous post to you below).

This, I may add, is basically what the US and EU are doing in dealing with Musharaff. It is, I think is a much more sensible approach than simply trying to get Pakistan labelled a terrorist state as the BJP government has been unsuccessfully trying to do ever since the military government took over. This is an incredibly small-minded way to look at things for democratic government of a huge country like India. All the BJP has accomplished (aside from whatever personal satisfaction they get from calling Pakistan names) is strengthen the voice of those who view India as Pakistan`s sworn enemy, and weaken the voice of those who seek peace and friendship with India.

A Decision to Regret Dost-mitter to Prem:

````Prem, I simply believe in looking at what works best to achieve certain objectives````

Hold it there -- my dear friend dost-mitter saheb -- that`s a litte slippery ground.

Are you implying MEANS are not THAT important -- as long GOALS are achievable.

Don`t you think -- in a democracy with the RULE of LAW -- MEANS should be/are as important as the OBJECTIVES?

Should pragmatism allow breaking the law?