The Tyson Who Didn\'t Fight Lewis Harish_hyd #63: You didn`t answer the question. Which was this: I would love to hear from you in what way I have, in this article (or in fact any article), painted aggressors as victims and vice versa. Also please point me to anything I have written that shows a ``deep hatred for anything Hindu.`` Anything. So go ahead, I`m waiting for something more specific than a meaningless ``many others.``

Veeresh #65: Indeed we are all selective. But that`s not the point. What I`m getting at is, when countries say ``don`t tell us about our crimes because that`s our internal political matter``, that should be ignored. Was the Rwanda massacre an ``internal political matter``? Etc. Yes, you should attempt a series of articles on this.

The Tyson Who Didn\'t Fight Lewis Urstruly #59: Indeed it applies to India too. I am every bit in favour of any country in the world taking India to task, for example, for the horror of Gujarat last year. This was no ``internal political matter``, it was a matter of concern for any human being anywhere.

The Tyson Who Didn\'t Fight Lewis Let`s see if I can do this right...

#2 semipreciousme, #6 veeresh (old chum): The man said he was busy till Mar 16, I think becausee one Togadia has a meeting in Bombay that day. So we`ll meet after that. I`ll keep you posted.

Harish_hyd #11: I would love to hear from you in what way I have, in this articlee, painted aggressors as victims and vice versa. Also please point me to anything I have written that shows a ``deep hatred for anything Hindu.`` Anything. And #36: So who will you take lessons on tolerance from?

saminasha #18: I will do my best to let you know about the meeting. Which D`Souza sahib?


maillart #19: You say: ``might have been note worthy but definately not quite significant``. It would be an education to find out how something is noteworthy but not significant. Please enlighten me.

pmishra2 #23: Thanks, pal. Hey, we missed you at the BITS alumni meet last Sat. Lots of your old friends.


Urstruly #34: When you describe the 1971 birth of Bangladesh as India ``taking advantage of internal political matter of Pakistan``, you lose me. No country can, or will, be allowed to get away with crimes against its own people by saying it`s an ``internal political matter.`` (This applies to India too). I`m no fan of Indira Gandhi and I think India does a lot wrong; but liberating Bangladesh remains something we should be justifiably proud of.

Ras #39: And it`s good to be back, dude! Veeresh keeps prodding me to contribute, but perhaps if you urge him to ply me with more rum, I`ll be on Chowk more often. Yo Veeresh, you listening?

arjun_m #52: Thanks for the news about the Osama screen savers. I take it you find this bizarre and repulsive. How do you feel about screen savers and general adulation of such figures as Thackeray, Togadia and Modi?

All The Way To Maine Aamir (Ansari), #23:
Glad to hear of the interest in future Seeds of Peace camps. I don`t know
for sure if the Indian/Pakistani delegations will be going to camp next
year. (The sessions are held every summer). There is some question. I
suggest you check www.seedsofpeace.org for details. Sorry I don`t have
clearer info for you than that.


arjun_m, #25

> What do you suggest we do? Spend the money on buying
> candles so that liberal bleeding heart leftists such
> as yourself can have a kumbayafest at wagah?

If you want to, please go ahead. But you didn`t answer the question: is
that $1 billion to be spent before we get a ``free`` aircraft carrier a
waste of money or not?

> This is a lame attempt to skirt around the issue.
> Mushy himself said that pakis are nothing like the
> indians.

(This is re: cow comment). But that`s why I said, we have cows in common.
Why are you assuming that Mushy must speak for you? I must presume you have
a mind of your own; therefore, use it to decide what, if anything, we have
in common.


AmericanExpress, #28:

Mere nayane, saawan bhaadon.
My eyes, rainy season.

yours,
dilip d`souza.

All The Way To Maine arjun_m, #2 and adnan_rafiq, #4:
Seems to me if, as you claim Mushy said, ``we eat cows and they worship
cows``, we have cows in common. This is a serious comment.

stuka, #5:
``These things are a waste of money``, you say. Two years ago, Russia
offered us Indians an aircraft carrier (``Admiral Gorshkov``, I think) for
``free`` except we would have to pay $1 billion for ``refurbishing`` it. Is
that a waste of money?

Also,
``I have good friends who are Pakistani, but does not make me wanna give up
Kashmir. I am sure the Pakistanis I know are not so overwhelmed by my
friendship that they wanna give up Kashmir either.``
I wonder, does friendship mean only that one or the other of you have to
give up things? Is that the only way to resolve differences? Or might
there be another way, that you discuss and argue your differences and see
what that does to your friendship? Perhaps that`s what Seeds of Peace was
about.

AmericanExpress, #9, #15:
``I havent seen any less belligerence on part of Sharon`` -- well, maybe he
didn`t attend a Seeds of Peace session? This is a serious comment too.

``I bet no one will come to answer question``. You lost the bet.

arjun_m, #16 and UmerMurtaza, #17, #18:
Thanks for making it clear why we need programmes like Seeds of Peace.


yours,
dilip d`souza.

No Fault Of Mine One last batch of responses; my computer is vanishing for repair and I don`t know what kind of web access I`ll have over the next few days, plus also I`m starting to feel like we`re going over some of the same ground. Anyone who would like to continue any lines of arguments offline, please write to me at dilipd@rediff.co.in, though I may be tardy with replies.

Zafar (175): You ask if the views here have been radically different from elsewhere. Not all that different, though things are far more civil here. I think that has something to with it being a public forum. People are extremely willing to be abusive when they are sending off a bit of mail. Largely the same article was my Rediff column last week; at the end of this week`s column there`s a link to a selection of the responses I got (OK, here`s the URL to the responses: www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/26dilip1.htm). Check them out and see what I mean. (Department of shameless plugs: please also read my rediff column this week anyway:

www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/26dilip.htm)

Scout (176 and 95): Thank you. You`re very kind.

concerned (207): It`s not a good question any more. Read what you like into that.

Syed Ahmed (208): No relation to Sir, I presume? Thank you. There`s food for thought in much of what you say.

RSaxena (213): You ask ``Are you really going to tell us with a straight face that the minorities in Kashmir (buddhists, hindus, and sikhs) wish to do anything other than remain a part of India??? If a referendum were to be held, you really think that Kashmiri pandits are going to vote for a union with Pakistan or for the establishment of an independent Islamic Kashmiri state???``

No, I`m not going to tell you that. But have you talked to Kashmiri Pandits of late? Have you noticed how utterly disillusioned they are with India, with the Indian state`s indifference to their plight? For every political party, the Pandits are only a pawn to score points with, not a people with a heartbreaking problem to be addressed. I hear this from my Pandit friends all the time. One wrote to me after one of my Kashmir articles to say ``Fine words, but does anyone in India really care?``

Now that`s the disillusionment I`m talking about.

dost-mittar (226): Glad you brought up Siachen. As far as I can tell (someone correct me if I`m wrong) Pakistan regards our occupation of Siachen as betrayal just as profound as we see Kargil. That`s something we`ll have to understand in India.

When you say things like ``We belong to a culture where you give in to the enemy only over your dead body``, I am reduced to despair that there will ever be peace. That`s exactly the same culture on the other side of the border, and you`re exactly right, all it`s doing is producing dead bodies. Makes me wonder about such a culture. In some ways, that was the point of this article.

I would dearly love to think I`m big enough to admit that I goofed, but I really cannot see where you mean I goofed in this instance. As I said before, Rsaxena asked me: ``What will happen to the buddhist, hindu, and sikh minorities of Kashmir if the majority chooses to drag them to the jaws of death (aka any Islamic state..whether independent or with Pakistan)?``

That is, what will happen to those minorities if they end up in an Islamic state? I replied to precisely that question: they will have to fight to be heard. (After some years responding to readers, I`m learning this sort of precision).

When you challenged me, asking why I was willing to abandon the minorities to an awful fate, I said I wasn`t implying any such thing. I want India to keep its commitment to those minorities and to all its citizens. I want them, and indeed all of Kashmir, to stay with India because I believe the India we fought to establish in 1947 is their best guarantee of security and welfare. But I am afraid that the India we have 50 years later has left them -- and many other Indians -- feeling insecure about their futures. I still want India to turn that around, and I remain hopeful that it will.

rsidhar (231): Actually, what are we disagreeing about? I generally agree with what you say. You ask ``What perception are you talking about`` -- please see what I wrote to Rsaxena a few lines above, about the Kashmiri Pandits (just one example). Of course some level of ``democracy and legitimacy to the people`` turned things around in TN; that`s what we need in Kashmir.

And finally again, Veeresh (251): Most fine, old chum. Do pass the rum.

cheers,

dilip.

No Fault Of Mine Should I feel flattered or puzzled that the discussion post-my-article has had submissions ranging from foeticide (#115) to excerpts (or were they the whole thing) from human rights bodies` reports?

Maheshg (#107): You ask, ``Should religion-based politics in India be given any sanction?``

My naive answer, of course, is ``No``. It`s naive because I am being ruled by men of a party that rode religion into power (BJP); they count firmly on the support of a party that rode thuggery and religion into power in my state (Shiv Sena). Clearly, I`m behind the times. Are you, too?

concerned (#128): Was the invitation to Musharraf popular or unpopular. Good question. All said and done, I suspect unpopular.

Rsaxena (#134) and dost-mittar (#165): Some concern from you both about my willingness to abandon the minorities to their fates, expressed using such words as ``disgusting thinking`` and ``biggest disappointment``.

Your concern is appreciated. But what was the question Rsaxena asked me? This one (from #90): ``What will happen to the buddhist, hindu, and sikh minorities of Kashmir if the majority chooses to drag them to the jaws of death (aka any Islamic state..whether independent or with Pakistan)?`` That`s the question I answered. No, I am not playing games here. If for whatever reason they are left to themselves in a state in which they are in a minority, they will have to fight their battles to be heard.

This is hardly to say I WANT them to be left to themselves. Of course India has made a commitment to its people, including its minorities, and I want to see that commitment fulfilled. I WANT Kashmir to stay with India, because I believe the India our fathers and mothers fought the British for is the best guarantee of their welfare. But I think that desire I have has very little to do with the reality today. The perception among Kashmiris of every kind - minority or majority - is that India has failed its commitments to its people, and to Kashmiris -- India is substantially different from the dream our parents nurtured half a century ago. That`s the problem we are going to have to address if we want to those people to stay with India.

If all you (Rsaxena) want to do is find traps I set for myself, please find some more in what I have written above. Let me say this: there are far more pressing issues out there. I agree completely with you when you speak of a ``dark, ugly place unbecoming of secular, democratic India``: and that is precisely why I am appalled at the rise of parties like the BJP and Sena.

Finally, since you (dost-mittar) asked, I can claim to know (slightly) at least one Pakistani Hindu: Dalpat Sonavaria, father of Anil Dalpat who kept wickets for Pakistan in the early `80s. (More recently, another Hindu, Danish Kaneria, has turned out for Pak).

anil (#138): I do have a chip on my shoulder.

soysauce (#162): I have never claimed the majority opinion in India does not matter. It`s precisely because it DOES matter that I write what I do: I am trying in my small way to influence that opinion.

To me, patriots are people who care for other people, whether Indian or Pakistani or Mauritanian. That`s it. I have no respect for a patriotism that asks Indians to hate people just because they live on the other side of a line that isn`t visible on the ground anyway.

dost-mittar (#165) again: you say the issues Pakistan must address must be resolved first. You can keep that hope burning as long as you like, but the truth is, it`s not going to happen. The two countries are playing a massive game of who blinks first, and there`s too much they`ve invested in this confrontation for either to go first. I think that`s an absurd shame, but that`s the way it is.

No Fault Of Mine I see I did mess up – got my line spacing kind of screwed last time. Let`s see if I do better here.

Amatya Rakshas: The right to self-determination was reserved for nations and existed in 1950, and doesn`t exist today? Ah. I tell you, you hear something new every day.

Tell me, Rakshas, what happened in East Timor? I am pretty sure it wasn`t back in 1950. What happened in Namibia? That wasn`t in 1950 either. What happened when the USSR broke into tiny pieces each no larger than a cough lozenge (thank you Dave Barry)? No, that wasn`t in 1950 either. What`s going on in the former Yugoslavia? No, not 1950 there either.

I appreciate your pointing out that commitment to the ``high ideal`` of justice, rights, safety [etc] for everyone regardless of religion, caste, language [etc] is what holds us together. I don`t mean at all to imply that it is not possible. But have you looked around you in India of late? Do you believe we have kept that commitment?

So you were intimately familiar with IIT-B`s DD grade?

concerned: Actually, I did count up to line 27. You counted wrong.

You`re as free to dislike the sentences I write as I am to write them. I don`t exclude the possibility of independent thoughts in people, I positively welcome it. Overseas Indians may or may not be in need of the penetrating insight of award-winning journalists, I don`t know. All I do is write.

The hoopla, as you call it, is most definitely a post-Kargil, or relatively recent, phenomenon. I lived in the US through the 1980s, and I don`t recall the kind of breast-beating patriotism that`s on show now, at least judging by the almost comically abusive mail I get in response to what I write.

ylh: It`s good to be praised for what I write. But when it (the praise) comes from a guy who also calls someone with different views ``the stupidest, most delusional, hate monger, bigot on Chowk``, it`s somewhat hard to take anything you say seriously. In fact I`m almost alarmed that you agree with things I write.

anil: I`ll assume you meant ``Dilip`` when you wrote ``Dinesh``. The point about Matt and his Colt was not to make a comparison, but draw an analogy. (There`s a difference, for those who cannot see it). I only wanted the incident to give you something to think about, as it did me.

Rsaxena: I`m only dodging your question if you think I am. What will happen to those minorities if they leave India, whether forced or not? The same thing that happens to minorities anywhere: they will have to fight their own battles to be heard. As many of them do in India today. I don`t believe ``any Islamic state`` is ``the jaws of death``, nor do I believe it helps anyone or anything in any way to make such an equation. You and ylh should pursue a mutual dialogue.

latif chappu: Thank you. I`m a bigwig? Really? Hold on while I go tell my ma.

I do agree with your observation about how peace will come. I was at a meeting in Calcutta last Sept in which Salman Haider, ex-Foreign Secretary, kept trying to convince Sushma Swaraj (she of the bindi the size of her brain) that however much we believed our positions (i.e. in relation to Pak) were right, Pakistanis have diametrically opposite perceptions. Any move towards peace, he said, has to recognize that difference in perceptions. Unfortunately, the bindi preferred not to understand that. She yelled at him: But I hope YOU don`t think the Pakistani views are right! (with all the attendant implications, I`ll leave those to you).

Yes indeed, peace will come only when enough of us are able to recognize – not agree with, just recognize – those perceptions across the border. Of course you get branded ``shameless`` for suggesting as much, but there you are. That`s the game. Nobody said it would be easy.

dost-mittar: It`s true, political leaders have to take political considerations into account. But what`s needed to get past our Kashmir impasse are statesmen, not mere politicians. What I mean by that is, we need someone who will take an unpopular decision and explain to us why it is in our best interests. Instead we have guys who decide what to do based on which way the political winds blow.

It`s not that I link the pursuit of peace with the need to tackle poverty. Of course both can and must go on simultaneously. My belief is, and I have no proof of this but just a hunch, that turning our attention (on both sides of the border) to the massive social problems we have will itself set us on the road to peace.

As for your last para, certainly I agree. India must acknowledge the centrality of Kashmir; Pakistan must not only acknowledge the need to at least speak about other, smaller, issues, but also acknowledge the damage terrorism is inflicting on the people of Kashmir.

upman7626: My feeling is that in India there are people who are persecuted not because they are minorities, but because they do not have a voice. You may want to think about that in terms of your confessed feeling of persecution.

Some answers:

1) A communal partition of Kashmir need not be, but given the climate will be, violent.

2) Nobody should submit to blackmail from a ``small number of people``, or even a large number of people. Having said that, I think you underestimate the depth of feeling of disillusionment with India among Kashmiris, and I do very much also mean the Pandits. I`m concerned about how to reverse that.

3) As far as I`m concerned, India can and should hear lectures on democracy from anyone in the world.

4) I don`t think the Indian state, as an entity, has discriminated against Kashmiri Muslims. But for various reasons, I do think they feel disillusioned. Whether the rest of us think that`s justified or not, we will have to recognize that that`s how they feel.

5) Musharraf can be trusted about as far as Vajpayee can. Choose.

Best to you all,

Dilip.

No Fault Of Mine Some more replies:

hamidm: I actually do agree with you. This talk of common heritages and so

forth is so much bunkum. After all, the same applies between Indians too,

and yet we have no compunction about cheating each other, or slaughtering

each other because of caste or religious feelings, and so forth. What`s

common heritage doing for us within India?

Having said that, peace is not going to come because of, or if and when,

more Indians whose attire you and the missus approve of start attending

your weddings and all is lovey-dovey bhai-bhai. Peace is going to come when

enough people realize: well, I may have my ideas about those other guys, I

may think they are polyester-clad dodos with ill-fitting blouses, but the

fact is, we`ve got to live next to each other. If I want to live, he`s got

to live, or we`ll both turn into nuclear channa masala.

upman7626: I don`t find much to recommend unanimous resolutions in

Parliament. In this case, it just tells me the MPs were falling over each

other to show their patriotism. What do you think would have happened to a

MP who stuck up her hand and said, when this resolution came to the vote,

``No, I don`t think the Indian govt. should do everything in its power to

reclaim the whole of J&K``?

Enjoyed your crack about my quest for awards.

sadna: Whatever game it is you think I`m playing, let me spell this out.

I cannot claim to know what is in the best interests of the residents of

J&K. I can claim to know what is in MY best interests. I am genuinely

fearful of my future in my country because of what our conflict in Kashmir

is doing. That`s why I write the things I do.

You are welcome to label my points of view in any fashion you like. The

only thing I ask is, read what I write.

dost-mittar: ``... enough of this praise``? Why? I love praise! Ain`t never

enough.

But, as you say, to the business at hand. You use a word I positively

detest -- realpolitik. It`s always used to paint some picture of some

reality that the supposed mushy-headed dudes have not come to grips with.

Fine. How come nobody talks, then, of the real realpolitik in India: the

sorry way so many Indians live? If realpolitik is the way to solve

problems, why is it never applied to India`s myriad problems? How come

these hard-headed realpolitik-wallas don`t ever get to grips with the shame

that in 2001, 7 of every 10 Indians don`t have access to sanitation?

No, if you ask me, realpolitik is just another word for being blind to

reality.

I do see the point you are making about Vajpayee`s flexibility. I`ll admit,

I find it very hard to see anything positive in Vajpayee and his gang, but

it`s true, in talking to Musharraf alone he has moved since the time he

refused to talk.

Still, what use are these various measures anyway, without moving on

Kashmir? Without even discussing Kashmir? It baffles me: it`s not the ``core

issue``, but it is at the ``core of Indian nationhood``. Is this entire

tragedy just a matter of silly semantics?

RSaxena: I`m suggesting, get used to the idea that at some point, we will

have to ask the Kashmiris what they want. All of them. Not decide for them.

What do you think happened in East Timor? Namibia? the states of the USSR?

I`m also suggesting, let`s concentrate on building an India Kashmir will

want to be part of. That`s the way to keep the state.

Truth: Thank you for the pointer to the list of soldiers killed in Kargil.

I would like to see that list, regularly updated (i.e. with the soldiers

who die there even as I write this), published regularly in Indian papers.

I am willing to contribute towards buying ad space for such an effort. I

would also like to see a similar list of Pakistani soldiers killed in the

war regularly published in our Indian papers. I will contribute to that

space too.

The rest of what you say, I respect and admire. I want the vision of our

founding fathers, the spirit of our struggle for freedom, to endure. The

sad thing is, I think we are betraying it, and not just in Kashmir. In

fact, there are ways in which I think it`s because we have betrayed it

elsewhere that we are betraying it in Kashmir. As I said above, the way to

hold on to Kashmir is to build an India we are all proud of. I don`t

believe the Vajpayees of this world are interested in, let alone up to,

that task.

soysauce: My SCI days! Boy, that`s a while. What`s it like these days?

If you see me as taking extreme positions, well, so be it. I suppose all of

us like to think we have moderate, centrist views, and the other guys are

the extremists! I do believe I take stands because I think they are the

right things to do, because they are in my interests. One thing I do find

repulsive is what passes for patriotism. It`s anything but, in my opinion.

So if that`s extreme, again, so be it!

shankar: While I`m not sure I agree fully with what you say, it`s something

to think about. But there is one thing your mention of Gandhi put in mind.

We have forgotten just how powerful a weapon nonviolent struggle was, in

Gandhi`s hands. It`s a pity we have allowed our memories of that to be

warped to the extent that we see him as a coward today. He first showed us

that it is the guys with the sticks, the guys who puff their chests, who

are the cowards.

Pankaj: I actually agree with much of what you say. Forging a functioning,

vibrant democracy, and a guarantee of rights and justice to all citizens,

is the best way to keep Kashmir with us. But that`s just the point, isn`t

it? What have the people of Kashmir got instead? They must be, putting it

mildly, utterly disillusioned by the way we have contrived to rig, and

ham-handedly rig, every election in the state. They look elsewhere in the

country and the picture`s not a whole lot better anyway. Consider Bal

Thackeray, who periodically advocates that Maharashtra must keep

``outsiders`` out. Why should Kashmiris -- or anyone else, for that matter --

want to belong to a country where they will need a permit to go to another

state? Why should they want to belong to a country where a man who says

this is not reviled and shunned, but hailed as a patriot?

People keep asking, and rightly, that those who criticise what`s happening

in Kashmir should also attempt to spell out solutions. I believe a solution

has to begin with a determination to build a better country all around.

Concentrate on the fundamentals: health, education, justice, rights,

opportunity for all. Do that, and Kashmir will itself want to remain in

India.

Rdesikan: Yes, I was in Austin 1984-92. Some of the time at UT. Send me

mail at dilipd@rediff.co.in.

MaheshG: What I said was that in my experience, it`s guys who have left

India are the most fervently patriotic about it. No disrespect meant to the

many Indians I know abroad who don`t suffer this half-baked patriotism.

jay: No doubt I write trash. Got to make a living, you know.

You bemoan the laws of Pakistan that are supported by their educated and

elite and the people on Chowk. Let me run one little thing by you. In

Bombay, every few months, the municipality/police/railways (take your pick)

demolish the homes of some of India`s poorest people. To justify this, they

say these people are living illegally. The middle class, the educated, the

elite, they are overwhelmingly supportive of these demolitions, and I am

not talking about corruption either. Why?

I hardly mean to say that shitty things in Pakistan are justified because

we do shitty things in India. I do mean to say, let`s look at ourselves.

If you ask, ``Is [peace with Pak] ever possible [if] the above is the way

the country treats its minorities?``, would it be justified for a Pakistani

to ask ``Is peace with India ever possible if that country treats its most

vulnerable citizens this way?`` Why or why not?

cheers,

dilip.

No Fault Of Mine OK, being my first time doing this, please forgive me if I`m not doing it right. I`m going to attempt a few replies here.

Concerned: You asked what the world is coming to, re: the awards my writing has brought. Believe me, I ask the same question. As for calling it mumbai, what`s that? As for handing over Kashmir to Pakistan, you want to read that in what I write, you will. So go ahead. For what it`s worth, I think all the people of Kashmir (residents, refugees alike) need to be asked what *they * want to do with their state. Not what concerned or moi or Atal or Pervez want to do with it.

Ras: Thank you, thank you. It`s taken me a while because I haven`t been sure I can really spend the time to interact as Chowk deserves, and that would not be fair. But gentle persuasion from a certain rum-guzzling pal in Delhi, you know who you are and perhaps many others do too, got me to send in this. I hope there will be more.

sundarcs: You mention the famous domino theory, that if Kashmir goes we have a ``deep fear`` that the rest of India will as well. Actually, why? Do we have so little faith in the Indian nation? What a curious thing: the very people who claim to be the greatest patriots express the deepest fear of such a dismembering of India. Are they really insecure inside?

Ekalavya: Thank you for your kind words. I do have some kind of solution in mind, that I have written about elsewhere. I will write about it again. Meantime, I think just recognizing what we are doing both to Kashmir and to ourselves is an essential ingredient of any solution. So is your focus on your children. Don`t be hopeless.

sadna: What do I want Indians to do? One thing of many: give up this notion that Kashmir is at the core of our nationhood. For if it is, why isn`t Manipur at the core of our nationhood? Why not Kerala? Why not Cherrapunji? What makes us Indians? The fact that we lay claim to Kashmir? Why not think about what does in fact make us Indian?

rsridhar: ``Let us not talk of plebiscite`` -- why not?

diva: Fine name! Thank you. There are ways in which what I write about Kashmir is indeed close to my heart. More of that another time.

jay: if peace-mongering is crap, I am happy to be a crapper. Here`s what I`m really mongering: let`s recognize the awful toll Kashmir is taking on us all.

And finally, Veeresh: There is something in what you say about Rutgers. There is also something in what you ask about dead Pakistani soldiers. I think there`s call for publicising the names of every single soldier who dies, on either side of the border, with an account of just how he died, with some explanation of his family situation. Let`s at least be aware of the names of the men we are sending to their deaths. I would like to be wrong, but I have never seen such a list of the 500+ Indian soldiers who died in the Kargil war; nor have I seen a list of the Pakistani soldiers who died there. Let`s compile a list, spend the money to put it out regularly.

Thanks for your comments, everyone!

cheers,

dilip.