Hands Across The Border
The religious, ethnic or any other kind of identity of any region of world should not, by law, be the basis for deciding to which country that region should belong. In the context of Kashmir, it should not be independent or be part of Pakistan or India because of religion. The only criteria for where it ends up should be the wishes of its people. If the people base their wishes on religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, or any other factor, then they should be given the right to do so. So all Muslim areas/peoples of Asia should not be part of Pakistan or India (or be independent of Pakistan or India); only the ones whose people voluntarily want to be.
It is unfortunate that this struggle has been misrepresented in the Indian (and to some extent the Pakistani) media.
I agree with anyone who argues that Pakistanis and Indians need to interact more to gain an understanding of each other. The more interaction, the better. At the same time I agree with the people who argue that if someone in India really wants to do a good deed, which will far outweigh any kind of India-Pakistan interaction, they should point out the actions of their govt. in Kashmir. Until an internal objective human rights based approach regarding this issue is developed in India, I doubt the relations between India and Pakistan will improve. Only the Indian people can encourage their govt. to stop its actions (currently fully supported by the average Indian) in Kashmir. I would encourage the Indians to disassociate with their own media (and the Pakistani media), regarding this issue, and follow the international media, and human rights organizations and the UN relatively unbiased views.
At the same time, I do not agree with the people who pass on the blame of the poor India Pakistani relationship onto their respective govts. That is a very easy way to rid one of one`s own responsibilities, and pass the buck. The buck actually stops with the people. The reason there is conflict between the Indians and Pakistanis is because of the people`s views. I have seen it first hand here in the USA. Indians and Pakistanis get along great individually. But the moment they get to the community level organizations, they are at each other`s throat. Indian organizations generally being much larger than Pakistani ones tend to really go on the offensive (I hope TiE doesn`t go down that route).
It is imperative that Indians and Pakistanis meet each other as much as possible, on an individual level (not at an organizational level). There views about each other will definitely change. I went from studying military plans against India in Pakistan, to sharing a room with an Indian in America within a few weeks. And my views definitely changed.
At the same time, I don`t think such interactions are really going to change anything on the national scale. The reason, of course is Kashmir. And this problem will not be solved until people in India develop a human rights based outlook to what their govt. is doing in Kashmir. They need to get away from their Pakistan-centric view; at least on this issue, since this is not only a political problem, it is a human rights problem, in which tens of thousands of people have been killed due to Indian government`s actions.
Unfortunately, I have not noticed any such human rights based view emerging amongst the Indians, in general, and on this site. Most are more than happy to accept what the Indian media and govt. offers them, and are unwilling to think independently on this issue (there are a few human rights organizations in India which do carry a human rights based view on this issue, but they are very tiny minority).
Pakistanis held the same views regarding East Pakistan, during the whole Bangladesh struggle. They justified every action of the Pakistani govt. by pointing to the counter-actions of the Bangladeshis, be it the Mukti Bahni, or anything else. Pakistan has had to pay the price for that for a long time. However, I think Pakistanis have finally, through a lot of introspection, come to terms with the fact that Pakistan was in the wrong, regardless of the counter-actions of the Bangladeshi freedom fighters/terrorists (choose your own word). Better late than never.
Indians need to carry out a similar introspection regarding their support of their govts. actions in Kashmir. Just because India is in a cold war with Pakistan, or because Pakistan supports Kashmir, doesn`t justify India`s desire to subjugate the Kashmiris and keep them under India`s control. The argument that India is at war with Pakistan, Pakistan supports the Kashmiri struggle, hence India is justified in killing Kashmiris may hold water at the nationalistic scale, but not on the scales of human rights.
Once the average Indian comes to terms with India`s actions in Kashmir, and denounces them, instead of trying to find reasons (jehadis casuing all the problems, Pakistan causing the problems, the Kashmiris are asking for it themselves by counter-attacking etc; the historically standard justifications by all subjugators given for genocides) to justify the actions, I think slowly but surely the relations between India and Pakistan, and Indians and Pakistanis will move towards their natural balance, i.e. two friendly neighbors with somewhat different societies but similar problems, with average to good relations on the national level, and very good relations on the individual level.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 18, 2001 09:14 pm
harish #6: ``Why does Kashmir need to be a part of Pakistan or independent just because they have a muslim majority``The religious, ethnic or any other kind of identity of any region of world should not, by law, be the basis for deciding to which country that region should belong. In the context of Kashmir, it should not be independent or be part of Pakistan or India because of religion. The only criteria for where it ends up should be the wishes of its people. If the people base their wishes on religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, or any other factor, then they should be given the right to do so. So all Muslim areas/peoples of Asia should not be part of Pakistan or India (or be independent of Pakistan or India); only the ones whose people voluntarily want to be.
It is unfortunate that this struggle has been misrepresented in the Indian (and to some extent the Pakistani) media.
I agree with anyone who argues that Pakistanis and Indians need to interact more to gain an understanding of each other. The more interaction, the better. At the same time I agree with the people who argue that if someone in India really wants to do a good deed, which will far outweigh any kind of India-Pakistan interaction, they should point out the actions of their govt. in Kashmir. Until an internal objective human rights based approach regarding this issue is developed in India, I doubt the relations between India and Pakistan will improve. Only the Indian people can encourage their govt. to stop its actions (currently fully supported by the average Indian) in Kashmir. I would encourage the Indians to disassociate with their own media (and the Pakistani media), regarding this issue, and follow the international media, and human rights organizations and the UN relatively unbiased views.
At the same time, I do not agree with the people who pass on the blame of the poor India Pakistani relationship onto their respective govts. That is a very easy way to rid one of one`s own responsibilities, and pass the buck. The buck actually stops with the people. The reason there is conflict between the Indians and Pakistanis is because of the people`s views. I have seen it first hand here in the USA. Indians and Pakistanis get along great individually. But the moment they get to the community level organizations, they are at each other`s throat. Indian organizations generally being much larger than Pakistani ones tend to really go on the offensive (I hope TiE doesn`t go down that route).
It is imperative that Indians and Pakistanis meet each other as much as possible, on an individual level (not at an organizational level). There views about each other will definitely change. I went from studying military plans against India in Pakistan, to sharing a room with an Indian in America within a few weeks. And my views definitely changed.
At the same time, I don`t think such interactions are really going to change anything on the national scale. The reason, of course is Kashmir. And this problem will not be solved until people in India develop a human rights based outlook to what their govt. is doing in Kashmir. They need to get away from their Pakistan-centric view; at least on this issue, since this is not only a political problem, it is a human rights problem, in which tens of thousands of people have been killed due to Indian government`s actions.
Unfortunately, I have not noticed any such human rights based view emerging amongst the Indians, in general, and on this site. Most are more than happy to accept what the Indian media and govt. offers them, and are unwilling to think independently on this issue (there are a few human rights organizations in India which do carry a human rights based view on this issue, but they are very tiny minority).
Pakistanis held the same views regarding East Pakistan, during the whole Bangladesh struggle. They justified every action of the Pakistani govt. by pointing to the counter-actions of the Bangladeshis, be it the Mukti Bahni, or anything else. Pakistan has had to pay the price for that for a long time. However, I think Pakistanis have finally, through a lot of introspection, come to terms with the fact that Pakistan was in the wrong, regardless of the counter-actions of the Bangladeshi freedom fighters/terrorists (choose your own word). Better late than never.
Indians need to carry out a similar introspection regarding their support of their govts. actions in Kashmir. Just because India is in a cold war with Pakistan, or because Pakistan supports Kashmir, doesn`t justify India`s desire to subjugate the Kashmiris and keep them under India`s control. The argument that India is at war with Pakistan, Pakistan supports the Kashmiri struggle, hence India is justified in killing Kashmiris may hold water at the nationalistic scale, but not on the scales of human rights.
Once the average Indian comes to terms with India`s actions in Kashmir, and denounces them, instead of trying to find reasons (jehadis casuing all the problems, Pakistan causing the problems, the Kashmiris are asking for it themselves by counter-attacking etc; the historically standard justifications by all subjugators given for genocides) to justify the actions, I think slowly but surely the relations between India and Pakistan, and Indians and Pakistanis will move towards their natural balance, i.e. two friendly neighbors with somewhat different societies but similar problems, with average to good relations on the national level, and very good relations on the individual level.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/
One must feel for the people who have punished for no crime of their own. I hope and pray that someday the people of Kashmir (and of any part of the world for that matter) will be allowed to live their lives in a manner they want to; be it with India, Pakistan or as an independed entity. I hope and pray that the people who achieve sadistic pleasures by justifying the use of force and killings to suppress genuine self-determination struggles are someday exposed for what they are. How someone can cry for victims of earthquakes on the one hand, and find roundabout justifications for supporting the killings of an equal number of people in Kashmir, on the other hand, is beyond my comprehension.
In the end there are only two groups one can belong to, on this issue: those who believe human beings should be allowed to live their lives the way these human beings themselves want to, and those who feel that human beings should be forced to live their lives according to the personal desires of others. One can be in one group or the other. Everything else is just talk, covering the by-products of self-determination, rather than the concept of self-determination itself. And I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logical argument is sufficient to convince the later group to see the cruelty of its beliefs. This group will always find some excuse, illogical as it may be, to support its arguments. They will blame everyone accept themselves for the problem, knowing fully well that the problem will be solved if self-determination is allowed. Unfortunately, they themselves hold all the keys to allowing self-determination.
I hope there are enough humane people in this world who are willing to let the people in any part of the world live how they want to live. These people just want to be left alone. They do not want to bother you, why are you bent upon killing them. In my opinion, anyone who openly or covertly supports military actions against innocent people, wanting self-determination, has more than a few drops of blood on his/her own hands. Perhaps one drop for every human being that has been killed just because he/she wanted to live his/her life according to his/her own wishes. I hope these people can look at themselves in the mirror every morning when they wake up.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 16, 2001 11:57 am
Some unbiased journalism regarding Kashmir. Quite a detailed audio report presented by BBC, titled victims of Kashmir conflict (requires Real Audio)http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/
One must feel for the people who have punished for no crime of their own. I hope and pray that someday the people of Kashmir (and of any part of the world for that matter) will be allowed to live their lives in a manner they want to; be it with India, Pakistan or as an independed entity. I hope and pray that the people who achieve sadistic pleasures by justifying the use of force and killings to suppress genuine self-determination struggles are someday exposed for what they are. How someone can cry for victims of earthquakes on the one hand, and find roundabout justifications for supporting the killings of an equal number of people in Kashmir, on the other hand, is beyond my comprehension.
In the end there are only two groups one can belong to, on this issue: those who believe human beings should be allowed to live their lives the way these human beings themselves want to, and those who feel that human beings should be forced to live their lives according to the personal desires of others. One can be in one group or the other. Everything else is just talk, covering the by-products of self-determination, rather than the concept of self-determination itself. And I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logical argument is sufficient to convince the later group to see the cruelty of its beliefs. This group will always find some excuse, illogical as it may be, to support its arguments. They will blame everyone accept themselves for the problem, knowing fully well that the problem will be solved if self-determination is allowed. Unfortunately, they themselves hold all the keys to allowing self-determination.
I hope there are enough humane people in this world who are willing to let the people in any part of the world live how they want to live. These people just want to be left alone. They do not want to bother you, why are you bent upon killing them. In my opinion, anyone who openly or covertly supports military actions against innocent people, wanting self-determination, has more than a few drops of blood on his/her own hands. Perhaps one drop for every human being that has been killed just because he/she wanted to live his/her life according to his/her own wishes. I hope these people can look at themselves in the mirror every morning when they wake up.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
``Taming the paper tigers
By Ayaz Amir
MORE than anything else Pakistan`s problem is the paper tigers that infest its towns and cities - distinguished people who have made a cult out of speaking vociferously and out of season.
Of these paper tigers none are more deadly than professors of the cloth - reverend divines whose concept of `jihad` is incomplete without a mike, powerful loudspeakers and an attendant press corps dutifully inscribing their bizarre utterances.
Consider the evidence. There are some organizations engaged in real combat in Kashmir. Like the Hezbollahs of Lebanon they are genuine people. One may disagree with their aims but no armchair rhetorician can scorn their sacrifices. It is their readiness to die for what they believe in which entitles them to public acclaim and attention.
But there are others, constituting the clear majority, who are champions of verbal jihad. Still others are engaged in a holy war against their compatriots - sunnis against shias, shias against sunnis. At their hands Mao`s dictum stands inverted: power flowing not from the barrel of the gun but from concentrated hate and mindless bigotry. Sectarian gunfire is aimed at the capturing of no strategic heights. It is an end in itself.....
Two caveats, however, are in order. Firstly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight cut its links with the Taliban. That would create more problems than it would solve. Geography, not ideological affinity, dictates the necessity of our close links with Afghanistan. True, there is a lot of ideological muddle about Afghanistan in Pakistan`s decision-making circles. But the generals of the Pakistan army are no acolytes of Mulla Umar. (One Holiness, Rafiq Tarar, is enough for Pakistan.).....
Secondly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight disengage itself from Kashmir. Nor would there be tangible profit in such a course. What would we get from India in return? Perhaps a quote or two from Ghalib. Perhaps even a verse from Mr Vajpayee, who is an occasional poet. But nothing even remotely approaching fairness on Kashmir. India is keenly interested in a solution of the Kashmir dispute but strictly on its own terms.
Pakistan`s necessity is altogether different. It is not to buckle under western pressure and cut all links with the Taliban. Nor to carry out a precipitate retreat from Kashmir which would sow the seeds of internal resentment. It is to muzzle the paper tigers who are giving it a bad name. In this case, the medium is indeed the message and in our hands the medium has turned into a dangerous instrument......
Around Kashmir too myths abound. Nothing that Pakistan can do will force India to the negotiating table. The sooner we rid ourselves of this delusion the better. If the Kashmiri people choose to fight against Indian occupation Pakistan has a duty to support them - but surreptitiously and without turning the politics of `jihad` into an international tamasha. If the Kashmiris score successes in this fight the triumph should be theirs. If they weary of it we should be able to live with that too. Proactive adventurism is what we must eschew, the days of this having passed, the costs of this now outweighing any likely benefits...... (DAWN, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm.
It`s a must read for everyone interested in this subject.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 16, 2001 11:57 am
One of the best articles, infact the best article, I have ever read on how Pakistan should handle the odd situation it finds itself in, with regards to extremist religious parties:``Taming the paper tigers
By Ayaz Amir
MORE than anything else Pakistan`s problem is the paper tigers that infest its towns and cities - distinguished people who have made a cult out of speaking vociferously and out of season.
Of these paper tigers none are more deadly than professors of the cloth - reverend divines whose concept of `jihad` is incomplete without a mike, powerful loudspeakers and an attendant press corps dutifully inscribing their bizarre utterances.
Consider the evidence. There are some organizations engaged in real combat in Kashmir. Like the Hezbollahs of Lebanon they are genuine people. One may disagree with their aims but no armchair rhetorician can scorn their sacrifices. It is their readiness to die for what they believe in which entitles them to public acclaim and attention.
But there are others, constituting the clear majority, who are champions of verbal jihad. Still others are engaged in a holy war against their compatriots - sunnis against shias, shias against sunnis. At their hands Mao`s dictum stands inverted: power flowing not from the barrel of the gun but from concentrated hate and mindless bigotry. Sectarian gunfire is aimed at the capturing of no strategic heights. It is an end in itself.....
Two caveats, however, are in order. Firstly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight cut its links with the Taliban. That would create more problems than it would solve. Geography, not ideological affinity, dictates the necessity of our close links with Afghanistan. True, there is a lot of ideological muddle about Afghanistan in Pakistan`s decision-making circles. But the generals of the Pakistan army are no acolytes of Mulla Umar. (One Holiness, Rafiq Tarar, is enough for Pakistan.).....
Secondly, even if Pakistan wanted to, it cannot overnight disengage itself from Kashmir. Nor would there be tangible profit in such a course. What would we get from India in return? Perhaps a quote or two from Ghalib. Perhaps even a verse from Mr Vajpayee, who is an occasional poet. But nothing even remotely approaching fairness on Kashmir. India is keenly interested in a solution of the Kashmir dispute but strictly on its own terms.
Pakistan`s necessity is altogether different. It is not to buckle under western pressure and cut all links with the Taliban. Nor to carry out a precipitate retreat from Kashmir which would sow the seeds of internal resentment. It is to muzzle the paper tigers who are giving it a bad name. In this case, the medium is indeed the message and in our hands the medium has turned into a dangerous instrument......
Around Kashmir too myths abound. Nothing that Pakistan can do will force India to the negotiating table. The sooner we rid ourselves of this delusion the better. If the Kashmiri people choose to fight against Indian occupation Pakistan has a duty to support them - but surreptitiously and without turning the politics of `jihad` into an international tamasha. If the Kashmiris score successes in this fight the triumph should be theirs. If they weary of it we should be able to live with that too. Proactive adventurism is what we must eschew, the days of this having passed, the costs of this now outweighing any likely benefits...... (DAWN, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm.
It`s a must read for everyone interested in this subject.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
``Debt committee supports capping of defence budget
Opposes expensive borrowing from IMF, World Bank, ADB; $21bn needed in four years for debt servicing; rules out default option; cabinet approves strategy
By Nadeem Malik
ISLAMABAD: The federal cabinet has agreed in principle to keep constant non-development current expenditures, including the defence budget, at the current level to come out of the debt trap, said Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. He was briefing newsmen on the debt committee recommendations on Wednesday.
The minister said the cabinet has approved all the recommendations regarding debt. An official debt policy will be announced by March 15, 2001, he added. Dr Pervez Hasan, former chief economist of the World Bank and architect of the debt management report, said the country is supposed to pay $21 billion to foreign creditors during next four years. He said it is a very serious and complex issue, warranting some special efforts to avoid any pitfalls. (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html)
Pakistan`s defence budget has actually been declining for a while, even though many people are unaware of it:
``the annual fund allocation for Pakistan’ defence budget is already on the decline. In 1990-91 the defence budget claimed 24.8 per cent of the total annual expenditure. By the year 1999-2000 the defence expenditure dropped to 20.4 per cent of the total expenditure....
In 1999-2000 Pakistan had allocated 143.4 billion for the defence spending which was equal to 1998-99. As percentage of the GDP, the defence budget declined by 4.9 per cent in 1998-99 to 4.5 per cent in 1999-2000.
In the current year Pakistan has further slashed its defence expenditure to 133 billion rupees.
During the last six years Pakistan’s defence, development and civil administrative expenditure has declined 17.2 per cent to 14.5 per cent.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
However, this is the first time, I am aware of, that the govt. has, as a matter of policy, frozen the defence budget for four years. It seems like the Pakistan govt. has finally decided it will now completely rely on a nuclear deterent to protect Pakistan against an Indian attack. This makes sense.
On the other hand, India has jacked up its defence budget to unprecendented heights. I cannot ever remember Indian moving up its defence budget so quickly. It increased it by around $3 billion dollars last year. It has signed some extremely expensive contracts this year:
``India to buy Russian aircraft carrier, jets
MOSCOW (AFP) - India is set to buy the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and a set of jet fighters in a two billion-dollar deal, defence expert Vladimir Urban of the Russian military news agency AVN said Wednesday.
Long-running negotiations are set to reach a successful conclusion in Bombay during a visit by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, Urban said.
The price includes the vessel built in 1987, the cost of a modernisation programme currently under way in the northern port of Severodvinsk, the training of Indian crew members, the construction of a port in India capable of receiving the Admiral Gorshkov, and the supply of the MiG-29K jets, AVN said.
Last week India paid 120 million dollars for five KA-31 helicopters for use aboard the Admiral Gorshkov.
Russia government sources earlier announced an 800 million dollar arms deal with India for the sale of 124 T-90 tanks and the production under licence of 186 other tanks, due to be signed by Klebanov during his visit to New Delhi beginning Wednesday.
India, along with China, is one of Russia’s leading clients for defence hardware.
The sale followed the announcement last December that Moscow and New Delhi had signed a three billion dollar contract for the production under licence by India of 140 Sukhoi SU-30MKI fighters over a 17-year period, representing one of Moscow’s biggest arms deals since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Separately, the KBM weapons constructor said it had signed a contract for several hundred mobile anti-aircraft missiles to be delivered to India in the first half of this year. The value of the deal was not specified.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
India also signed a $1 billion deal for aircraft with Britain, a few months ago. These aircraft deals, by themselves, are perhaps larger than all the combined military aircraft deals Pakistan has ever signed. I do not remember Pakistan signing any major aircraft deal for the past four or five years (apart from some rebuilt Mirages, and joint production of the K-8 trainer).
Interesting stuff for people interested in the defense scenario of South Asia. Pakistan is cutting down (in inflationary terms) its defence budget in an unprecedented manner, while India is doing exactly the opposite. I think Pakistan realized that it had lost its traditional ability to defend itself against India in a conventional battle, after India`s recent increase in defence budget (an increase equivalent to the total defence budget of Pakistan). It is impossible to fight a long term defensive conventional battle with 1:5 odds.
Traditionally, Pakistan had been able to keep around a 1:3 ratio with India militarily, due to Pakistan`s much higher economic growth rate, allainces with the US, and much better selection of equipment. However, none of these factors are now applicable. India`s economic growth rate has crossed Pakistan (although Pakistan should catch up again if Shaukut Aziz and his team are allowed to continue), the US is equally militarily allied with India and Pakistan now, and India`s choice of equipment is getting better (though still below Pakistan`s). India, of course, is six times the size of Pakistan, so there shouldn`t really have been a contest in the first place. Not too many countries, the size of Pakistan, have been able to take on adversaries so much larger than themselves. A feather in Paksitan`s cap.
So something is definitely going on. Pakistan is now officially 100% relying on its nuclear deterent to counter an Indian invasion. India is piling up weapons to threaten Pakistan, as if there were no tomorrow. Hold on to your seats, and thank Abdul-Qadeer (not the cricketer, but the scientist), even if you don`t like him.
This, in my opinion, is exactly the right move, at the right time for Pakistan (assuming Pakistan has the finances to maintain a credible nuclear stock pile). I had suggested it a while back. There is no point in chasing India`s armament build-up once it already has a 5:1 lead. There isn`t too much difference between 5:1 and 5:1.25 ratios. India`s aim is to get Pakistan into an arms race, and keep it there, until Pakistan`s economy crumbles; much like what the USA did with the USSR. India has no other use for the billions of dollars of offensive weaponry it has purchased. It is definitely not going to attack China with it, and it already has more than enough to attack Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet, combined.
By stepping out of the arms race, Pakistan has basically laid to waste the billions India just spent, and is continuing to spend. This, of course, is under the assumption that India isn`t actually going to use those weapons to attack Pakistan. However, very poor countries like India, don`t spend billions to buy offensive military aircraft so much in excess of their own defense needs, just to display them or to spray crops with. What to do if India actually uses these weapons? Nukes seems to be the answer.
Enough of a conventional deterent to fight a short defensive war. During the meanwhile threatening to use Nuclear weapons if the aggressor does not stop the aggression, seems to be the policy Pakistan has adapted. A correct policy, in my opinion.
So for the first time, in my lifetime, Pakistan has subtly yet officially declared that it will not (cannot) maintain a credible conventional deterent against India. This is a watershed point in Pakistan`s history, even though many Pakistanis probably do not realize it. If the nuclear deterent is somehow destroyed/made ineffective, India will have successfully hegonomized the region.
Something is going on. Action against extremist religious parties (something that hasn`t happened for twenty years), multi-year freeze on defence budget (something that has never happened in Pakistan, as far as I know) even though India is going bonkers buying weaponry. What will be next?
Here are my predictions: If the Mullahs are effectively controlled and their bluff is called within Pakistan, the govt. will sign the CTBT. The army will voluntarily leave with the three years time (something unprecedented internationally, what to talk of Pakistan). A Turkish type of system will be set up, under which the army will have a constitutionally defined role in politics (the fans of Turkey and Ataturk should like this). All good decisions in my opinion.
Who would have thought that of all the govts., a military govt. would publish the HamoodUR Commision report, and would freeze the defence budget, as a matter of policy. I will say again, Musharraf is a sincere honest guy, with a pretty good head on his shoulders (for a general). The best choice amongst all the electable dictators currently available to Pakistan; the other options being Nawaz and Co., Benazir and Co. and Altaf and Co.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 15, 2001 06:59 am
There are some interesting developments going on in Pakistan:``Debt committee supports capping of defence budget
Opposes expensive borrowing from IMF, World Bank, ADB; $21bn needed in four years for debt servicing; rules out default option; cabinet approves strategy
By Nadeem Malik
ISLAMABAD: The federal cabinet has agreed in principle to keep constant non-development current expenditures, including the defence budget, at the current level to come out of the debt trap, said Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. He was briefing newsmen on the debt committee recommendations on Wednesday.
The minister said the cabinet has approved all the recommendations regarding debt. An official debt policy will be announced by March 15, 2001, he added. Dr Pervez Hasan, former chief economist of the World Bank and architect of the debt management report, said the country is supposed to pay $21 billion to foreign creditors during next four years. He said it is a very serious and complex issue, warranting some special efforts to avoid any pitfalls. (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html)
Pakistan`s defence budget has actually been declining for a while, even though many people are unaware of it:
``the annual fund allocation for Pakistan’ defence budget is already on the decline. In 1990-91 the defence budget claimed 24.8 per cent of the total annual expenditure. By the year 1999-2000 the defence expenditure dropped to 20.4 per cent of the total expenditure....
In 1999-2000 Pakistan had allocated 143.4 billion for the defence spending which was equal to 1998-99. As percentage of the GDP, the defence budget declined by 4.9 per cent in 1998-99 to 4.5 per cent in 1999-2000.
In the current year Pakistan has further slashed its defence expenditure to 133 billion rupees.
During the last six years Pakistan’s defence, development and civil administrative expenditure has declined 17.2 per cent to 14.5 per cent.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
However, this is the first time, I am aware of, that the govt. has, as a matter of policy, frozen the defence budget for four years. It seems like the Pakistan govt. has finally decided it will now completely rely on a nuclear deterent to protect Pakistan against an Indian attack. This makes sense.
On the other hand, India has jacked up its defence budget to unprecendented heights. I cannot ever remember Indian moving up its defence budget so quickly. It increased it by around $3 billion dollars last year. It has signed some extremely expensive contracts this year:
``India to buy Russian aircraft carrier, jets
MOSCOW (AFP) - India is set to buy the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and a set of jet fighters in a two billion-dollar deal, defence expert Vladimir Urban of the Russian military news agency AVN said Wednesday.
Long-running negotiations are set to reach a successful conclusion in Bombay during a visit by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, Urban said.
The price includes the vessel built in 1987, the cost of a modernisation programme currently under way in the northern port of Severodvinsk, the training of Indian crew members, the construction of a port in India capable of receiving the Admiral Gorshkov, and the supply of the MiG-29K jets, AVN said.
Last week India paid 120 million dollars for five KA-31 helicopters for use aboard the Admiral Gorshkov.
Russia government sources earlier announced an 800 million dollar arms deal with India for the sale of 124 T-90 tanks and the production under licence of 186 other tanks, due to be signed by Klebanov during his visit to New Delhi beginning Wednesday.
India, along with China, is one of Russia’s leading clients for defence hardware.
The sale followed the announcement last December that Moscow and New Delhi had signed a three billion dollar contract for the production under licence by India of 140 Sukhoi SU-30MKI fighters over a 17-year period, representing one of Moscow’s biggest arms deals since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Separately, the KBM weapons constructor said it had signed a contract for several hundred mobile anti-aircraft missiles to be delivered to India in the first half of this year. The value of the deal was not specified.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
India also signed a $1 billion deal for aircraft with Britain, a few months ago. These aircraft deals, by themselves, are perhaps larger than all the combined military aircraft deals Pakistan has ever signed. I do not remember Pakistan signing any major aircraft deal for the past four or five years (apart from some rebuilt Mirages, and joint production of the K-8 trainer).
Interesting stuff for people interested in the defense scenario of South Asia. Pakistan is cutting down (in inflationary terms) its defence budget in an unprecedented manner, while India is doing exactly the opposite. I think Pakistan realized that it had lost its traditional ability to defend itself against India in a conventional battle, after India`s recent increase in defence budget (an increase equivalent to the total defence budget of Pakistan). It is impossible to fight a long term defensive conventional battle with 1:5 odds.
Traditionally, Pakistan had been able to keep around a 1:3 ratio with India militarily, due to Pakistan`s much higher economic growth rate, allainces with the US, and much better selection of equipment. However, none of these factors are now applicable. India`s economic growth rate has crossed Pakistan (although Pakistan should catch up again if Shaukut Aziz and his team are allowed to continue), the US is equally militarily allied with India and Pakistan now, and India`s choice of equipment is getting better (though still below Pakistan`s). India, of course, is six times the size of Pakistan, so there shouldn`t really have been a contest in the first place. Not too many countries, the size of Pakistan, have been able to take on adversaries so much larger than themselves. A feather in Paksitan`s cap.
So something is definitely going on. Pakistan is now officially 100% relying on its nuclear deterent to counter an Indian invasion. India is piling up weapons to threaten Pakistan, as if there were no tomorrow. Hold on to your seats, and thank Abdul-Qadeer (not the cricketer, but the scientist), even if you don`t like him.
This, in my opinion, is exactly the right move, at the right time for Pakistan (assuming Pakistan has the finances to maintain a credible nuclear stock pile). I had suggested it a while back. There is no point in chasing India`s armament build-up once it already has a 5:1 lead. There isn`t too much difference between 5:1 and 5:1.25 ratios. India`s aim is to get Pakistan into an arms race, and keep it there, until Pakistan`s economy crumbles; much like what the USA did with the USSR. India has no other use for the billions of dollars of offensive weaponry it has purchased. It is definitely not going to attack China with it, and it already has more than enough to attack Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet, combined.
By stepping out of the arms race, Pakistan has basically laid to waste the billions India just spent, and is continuing to spend. This, of course, is under the assumption that India isn`t actually going to use those weapons to attack Pakistan. However, very poor countries like India, don`t spend billions to buy offensive military aircraft so much in excess of their own defense needs, just to display them or to spray crops with. What to do if India actually uses these weapons? Nukes seems to be the answer.
Enough of a conventional deterent to fight a short defensive war. During the meanwhile threatening to use Nuclear weapons if the aggressor does not stop the aggression, seems to be the policy Pakistan has adapted. A correct policy, in my opinion.
So for the first time, in my lifetime, Pakistan has subtly yet officially declared that it will not (cannot) maintain a credible conventional deterent against India. This is a watershed point in Pakistan`s history, even though many Pakistanis probably do not realize it. If the nuclear deterent is somehow destroyed/made ineffective, India will have successfully hegonomized the region.
Something is going on. Action against extremist religious parties (something that hasn`t happened for twenty years), multi-year freeze on defence budget (something that has never happened in Pakistan, as far as I know) even though India is going bonkers buying weaponry. What will be next?
Here are my predictions: If the Mullahs are effectively controlled and their bluff is called within Pakistan, the govt. will sign the CTBT. The army will voluntarily leave with the three years time (something unprecedented internationally, what to talk of Pakistan). A Turkish type of system will be set up, under which the army will have a constitutionally defined role in politics (the fans of Turkey and Ataturk should like this). All good decisions in my opinion.
Who would have thought that of all the govts., a military govt. would publish the HamoodUR Commision report, and would freeze the defence budget, as a matter of policy. I will say again, Musharraf is a sincere honest guy, with a pretty good head on his shoulders (for a general). The best choice amongst all the electable dictators currently available to Pakistan; the other options being Nawaz and Co., Benazir and Co. and Altaf and Co.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
You have made some interesting commnents.
My interest in Kashmir is completely human rights based. I don`t really care what either Pakistan or India get out of the whole deal. So before I get in a discussion with you on Kashmir, I would like to request you to forget for a moment whether you are an Indian (or Pakistani) and answer two questions. The first of these is: Do you think if the Kashmiris were today given a choice to vote for their own future (self-determination), would they vote to stay with India or separate from India?
The reason I am asking this question is because, as much as I like getting the Indian point of view on this issue, it has become quite tiresome for me to continue debating this issue with people who are not concerned with human rights. If a person is only concerned with the Indian (or the Pakistani) point of view, then they will always think they are in the right.
So I await your reply to my simple question. Hopefully a reply of one phrase; they will vote to stay with India/they will vote to separate from India.
Shammi:
You seem convinced that the violence in Kashmir is due to Pakistani, ``terrorists.`` I am assuming the basis of your knowledge is the Indian media. Do you think India should agree to allow human rights organizations like AI, and the international media, into Kashmir to prove the correctness of your argument? Why do you think India disallows these organizations entrance into Indian Kashmir, when they could so easily expose the activities that you accuse Pakistan of?
I would be interested in reading your reply. Since you have made an accusation, I am hoping you would justify it. I had also asked you the same question I asked Eklavya, but you did not answer it (or perhaps I missed your reply). Maybe you could answer this question as well.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 14, 2001 05:48 am
Eklavya #548:You have made some interesting commnents.
My interest in Kashmir is completely human rights based. I don`t really care what either Pakistan or India get out of the whole deal. So before I get in a discussion with you on Kashmir, I would like to request you to forget for a moment whether you are an Indian (or Pakistani) and answer two questions. The first of these is: Do you think if the Kashmiris were today given a choice to vote for their own future (self-determination), would they vote to stay with India or separate from India?
The reason I am asking this question is because, as much as I like getting the Indian point of view on this issue, it has become quite tiresome for me to continue debating this issue with people who are not concerned with human rights. If a person is only concerned with the Indian (or the Pakistani) point of view, then they will always think they are in the right.
So I await your reply to my simple question. Hopefully a reply of one phrase; they will vote to stay with India/they will vote to separate from India.
Shammi:
You seem convinced that the violence in Kashmir is due to Pakistani, ``terrorists.`` I am assuming the basis of your knowledge is the Indian media. Do you think India should agree to allow human rights organizations like AI, and the international media, into Kashmir to prove the correctness of your argument? Why do you think India disallows these organizations entrance into Indian Kashmir, when they could so easily expose the activities that you accuse Pakistan of?
I would be interested in reading your reply. Since you have made an accusation, I am hoping you would justify it. I had also asked you the same question I asked Eklavya, but you did not answer it (or perhaps I missed your reply). Maybe you could answer this question as well.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
When asked about the rise of extremists groups in the country, Gen Musharraf told the magazine: ``Ninety per cent of the people in this country are moderate and tolerant. The extremists only constitute about five or 10 per cent of the population. They are not a serious threat to this government or to stability. They are an irritant.
``Pakistan is a moderate Muslim state. I`m a Muslim. [Gesturing at a general on a nearby couch] He is a Muslim. He may pray five times a day, and I may have a different approach, but the voices of the moderates are not heard. We have to let these voices be heard.
``We haven`t taken on these [extremist] groups head-on. We could have a shoot-out, but that is not our strategy. I do not want to be distracted from our main goals of restructuring Pakistan`s economy.`` (DAWN, Pakistan quoting Newsweek)
Musharraf is actually a gora from the drinking and partying group of the military. He is also a member of the SSG (Commando), the most carefree (and brave) group of people (that I have ever come across). The ideal combination for a liberal. Quite a bit more liberal than the liberals on this site, in my opinion. I am glad he didn`t try to force his liberalism down the throat of Pakistan. There would have been a severe backlash.
However, now I think he is really fed-up with the Mullahs. He was busy trying to get some traction before taking them on, both within Pakistan and in Kashmir. After the IMF tranche(s), Hubco, the flight of Nawaz Sharif, and the pressure on India to talk, I think he feels his govt. is now ready for the showdown.
Musharraf`s statements combined with Moin`s (not the cricketer, but the minister) statements indicate that something`s going down. I made a (correct, if I may indulge in some self-congratulatory remarks) prediction, a month or so before the event, regarding the current peace and counter-peace moves between India and Pakistan. I am going to make another one; the Mullah-Govt. showdown that is about to happen.
Just remember, you heard it first here on Radio UMAIRR :)
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 13, 2001 04:04 am
Interesting lines from Musharraf`s interview with Newsweek. Looks like some major decisions have been made regarding the influence of extremist religious parties within Pakistan. I am waiting to see what the human rights organizations say when the govt. starts going after these organizations in an extra-judicial manner, a la Ataturk. I am also waiting to see what the Chowk contributors, who had been hoping the govt. would take such actions, will say:When asked about the rise of extremists groups in the country, Gen Musharraf told the magazine: ``Ninety per cent of the people in this country are moderate and tolerant. The extremists only constitute about five or 10 per cent of the population. They are not a serious threat to this government or to stability. They are an irritant.
``Pakistan is a moderate Muslim state. I`m a Muslim. [Gesturing at a general on a nearby couch] He is a Muslim. He may pray five times a day, and I may have a different approach, but the voices of the moderates are not heard. We have to let these voices be heard.
``We haven`t taken on these [extremist] groups head-on. We could have a shoot-out, but that is not our strategy. I do not want to be distracted from our main goals of restructuring Pakistan`s economy.`` (DAWN, Pakistan quoting Newsweek)
Musharraf is actually a gora from the drinking and partying group of the military. He is also a member of the SSG (Commando), the most carefree (and brave) group of people (that I have ever come across). The ideal combination for a liberal. Quite a bit more liberal than the liberals on this site, in my opinion. I am glad he didn`t try to force his liberalism down the throat of Pakistan. There would have been a severe backlash.
However, now I think he is really fed-up with the Mullahs. He was busy trying to get some traction before taking them on, both within Pakistan and in Kashmir. After the IMF tranche(s), Hubco, the flight of Nawaz Sharif, and the pressure on India to talk, I think he feels his govt. is now ready for the showdown.
Musharraf`s statements combined with Moin`s (not the cricketer, but the minister) statements indicate that something`s going down. I made a (correct, if I may indulge in some self-congratulatory remarks) prediction, a month or so before the event, regarding the current peace and counter-peace moves between India and Pakistan. I am going to make another one; the Mullah-Govt. showdown that is about to happen.
Just remember, you heard it first here on Radio UMAIRR :)
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 13, 2001 04:04 am
Interesting interview of Hafiz Saeed, the head of Lashkar-i-Tayyaba at http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/. He says he agrees with the govts.` current announcement against the display of weapons. However, he disagrees with the ban on the voluntary contributions of individuals towards religious organizations. He also stated that his organization is only involved in jihad against the Indian military in Kashmir. He is not interested in carrying out any kind of jihad inside Pakistan.
What Constitutes Blasphemy?
``Govt bans fund-raising by Jihadi groups
Moin directs removal of banners about Jihad fund-raising; orders police to shoot people displaying arms; national policy for sectarian harmony being formulated
KARACHI: Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider on Monday announced tough measures against religious extremists, including restrictions on raising funds for Jihad by militant groups.
Moin told reporters he had ordered that banners on display in the city about Jihad fund-raising be removed. He said he was seeking proposals from Islamic parties on sectarian harmony and would soon unveil a firm policy on the activities of radical groups. ``No one will be allowed to display arms whether he belongs to a Jihadi or religious group or force people to give donations for the purchase of weapons in the name of Jihad,`` Moin said.
Hinting at a crackdown against Islamic militants, he said: ``There is no Jihad going on in Karachi or in Pakistan that these organisations be allowed to do whatever they like to do. ``I am giving clear orders to the police that if they see anyone displaying arms, stop them, warn them and if they don`t listen just shoot them,`` he said. ``No one is above the law. Directives have been given to the concerned agencies to apprehend those involved in wall chalking or display of arms,`` he added.... (NEWS, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 12, 2001 09:49 pm
Some interesting news. Talk about tough measures; ````I am giving clear orders to the police that if they see anyone displaying arms, stop them, warn them and if they don`t listen just shoot them,`` (NEWS, Pakistan). This should be interesting.``Govt bans fund-raising by Jihadi groups
Moin directs removal of banners about Jihad fund-raising; orders police to shoot people displaying arms; national policy for sectarian harmony being formulated
KARACHI: Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider on Monday announced tough measures against religious extremists, including restrictions on raising funds for Jihad by militant groups.
Moin told reporters he had ordered that banners on display in the city about Jihad fund-raising be removed. He said he was seeking proposals from Islamic parties on sectarian harmony and would soon unveil a firm policy on the activities of radical groups. ``No one will be allowed to display arms whether he belongs to a Jihadi or religious group or force people to give donations for the purchase of weapons in the name of Jihad,`` Moin said.
Hinting at a crackdown against Islamic militants, he said: ``There is no Jihad going on in Karachi or in Pakistan that these organisations be allowed to do whatever they like to do. ``I am giving clear orders to the police that if they see anyone displaying arms, stop them, warn them and if they don`t listen just shoot them,`` he said. ``No one is above the law. Directives have been given to the concerned agencies to apprehend those involved in wall chalking or display of arms,`` he added.... (NEWS, Pakistan)
Remaining article at http://jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
``Do you know the average billing rate of Infosys- it is $68 per hour.``
InfoSys falls into the category of companies that are on the Nasdaq, and have an international reputation. So it can afford to charge higher than other companies in South Asia. 99.9% of the IT companies in Pakistan and India do not fall into that category. Even then, $68/per hour is still dirt cheap in comparison to the rates in the US.
``the Indian immigrants in USA are not here providing dirt cheap labour.``
Once again, I used the term, ``South Asian,`` and you have, for some reason, narrowed it down to India. Chor ki darhi mein tinka :-) I am very familiar with the lifecycle of the Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrant in the US. I am one myself, and have interviewed and hired way too many of them to not know this.
I never stated that the Indian immigrants in the USA are cheap labor. The ones who come directly from India, without a US education, are cheap labor for about the first two years (when they are with the contracters that initially got them the H-1B visas). Once they are able to get rid of these shackles, they are able to get a salary equivalent to anyone else in the US. I am actually a great admirer of the Indian programmers in the USA. 60% of my current engineering team is Indian, all of whom I hired myself. And believe me, my company has to pay them a fortune. So you are preaching to the choir, regarding the success of Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrants in the USA. However the discussion was regarding investment inside India and Pakistan, and not the salaries of the immigrants who make it to the USA. So you have gone on an unnecessary tangent.
``and pls dont put Indians in the same league as Pakistanis at least in IT.``
The last time I checked, Indians and Pakistanis had two arms, two legs and one brain, each. So unless Indians have grown an extra brain, I am not quite sure how they can be superior or inferior to Pakistanis in IT. There are stupid Indians and intelligent Indians, just as their are stupid Pakistanis and intelligent Pakistanis, and stupid Bulgarians and intelligent Bulgarians. Are you suggesting, like Hitler, that Indians have all of a sudden become a superior race? I don`t buy that argument. Intelligence is an individual-based phenomenon, and not a race or nationality-based phenomenon (although some scientists may not agree with this; perhaps you fall into their category). Otherwise one could argue that Hindu Indians from Banglore are superior to Sikh Indians from Amritsar, or Muslim Indians from Dehli, since nearly all the Indian IT people seem to come from South India.
Your remarks about achieving critical mass are accurate. However, I do not know of any country that has achieved critical mass, without first educating and feeding its poor. Otherwise, only one group in the societly achieves critical mass, while the rich-poor divide increases. This can actually be counterproductive. Pakistan was in a similar sitaution to present-day India, in the 60s, i.e. potential critical mass with unequal distribution based on ethnicity. The result was the country being divided into two. If India does achieve critical mass, in my opinion, it will be critical mass, with unequal distribution also, based along religious (Muslim/Hindu) and geographical (North/South) lines. In any case, you have attempted to predict the future, while I was discussing the current situation. So another unnecessary tangent.
I still think that nearly all of the IT business currently (important word) going to South Asia from the US (hence the references to John Chambers, Bill Gates etc.) is because of the much lower human resource costs (I will not use the term cheap labor, since it seems to offend you) available in South Asia, in comparison to the US.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 10, 2001 11:08 am
Pankaj #81: ``Whom are you fooling. Cheap labour!`` I have always found it interesting that whenever the term, ``Cheap labor`` is mentioned, reference to IT, Indians seem to take it personally :-) I used this term equally for both Pakistan and India; while none of the Pakistanis seem to have taken it personally, you have.``Do you know the average billing rate of Infosys- it is $68 per hour.``
InfoSys falls into the category of companies that are on the Nasdaq, and have an international reputation. So it can afford to charge higher than other companies in South Asia. 99.9% of the IT companies in Pakistan and India do not fall into that category. Even then, $68/per hour is still dirt cheap in comparison to the rates in the US.
``the Indian immigrants in USA are not here providing dirt cheap labour.``
Once again, I used the term, ``South Asian,`` and you have, for some reason, narrowed it down to India. Chor ki darhi mein tinka :-) I am very familiar with the lifecycle of the Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrant in the US. I am one myself, and have interviewed and hired way too many of them to not know this.
I never stated that the Indian immigrants in the USA are cheap labor. The ones who come directly from India, without a US education, are cheap labor for about the first two years (when they are with the contracters that initially got them the H-1B visas). Once they are able to get rid of these shackles, they are able to get a salary equivalent to anyone else in the US. I am actually a great admirer of the Indian programmers in the USA. 60% of my current engineering team is Indian, all of whom I hired myself. And believe me, my company has to pay them a fortune. So you are preaching to the choir, regarding the success of Indian (and Pakistani) IT immigrants in the USA. However the discussion was regarding investment inside India and Pakistan, and not the salaries of the immigrants who make it to the USA. So you have gone on an unnecessary tangent.
``and pls dont put Indians in the same league as Pakistanis at least in IT.``
The last time I checked, Indians and Pakistanis had two arms, two legs and one brain, each. So unless Indians have grown an extra brain, I am not quite sure how they can be superior or inferior to Pakistanis in IT. There are stupid Indians and intelligent Indians, just as their are stupid Pakistanis and intelligent Pakistanis, and stupid Bulgarians and intelligent Bulgarians. Are you suggesting, like Hitler, that Indians have all of a sudden become a superior race? I don`t buy that argument. Intelligence is an individual-based phenomenon, and not a race or nationality-based phenomenon (although some scientists may not agree with this; perhaps you fall into their category). Otherwise one could argue that Hindu Indians from Banglore are superior to Sikh Indians from Amritsar, or Muslim Indians from Dehli, since nearly all the Indian IT people seem to come from South India.
Your remarks about achieving critical mass are accurate. However, I do not know of any country that has achieved critical mass, without first educating and feeding its poor. Otherwise, only one group in the societly achieves critical mass, while the rich-poor divide increases. This can actually be counterproductive. Pakistan was in a similar sitaution to present-day India, in the 60s, i.e. potential critical mass with unequal distribution based on ethnicity. The result was the country being divided into two. If India does achieve critical mass, in my opinion, it will be critical mass, with unequal distribution also, based along religious (Muslim/Hindu) and geographical (North/South) lines. In any case, you have attempted to predict the future, while I was discussing the current situation. So another unnecessary tangent.
I still think that nearly all of the IT business currently (important word) going to South Asia from the US (hence the references to John Chambers, Bill Gates etc.) is because of the much lower human resource costs (I will not use the term cheap labor, since it seems to offend you) available in South Asia, in comparison to the US.
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
You have touched on all three of these issues in your post. I am not sure whether you are Indian or Pakistani. I also do not know whether your knowledge exceeds mine on these subjects. But since I appreciate objectivity, your national origin or knowledge is not important. I will concentrate on the text of your reply, and the person you have quoted.
First of all, I would encourage you to read up on Assef Ali. He was a foreign minister in one of the most corrupt governments in the history of mankind. So I am not sure where his loyalties are vis-à-vis Pakistan. Ditto on Nawaz Sharif. It is now proven beyond a doubt that he was a corrupt, incompetent and insincere leader, who was only interested in himself, and was ready to sell Pakistan to any buyer. And believe me, he supported and ordered every Pakistani military offensive (almost every single one of which, has been a counter-offensive to offensives carried out by India).
In any case, Assef Ali has made some very good and accurate points. I do not deny that most of the problems he has mentioned do exist in Pakistan. And they do need to be solved.
However, one could have written the same article, and changed the name of Pakistan to any other third world country (including India) and it would apply equally well. So, if your point is that third world countries, including Pakistan, have a lot of difficulties, then point well taken. But please do not limit this list of countries to Pakistan. The last time I checked all of South Asia was in terrible shape. Pakistanis just make more noise about what is going on in their country, since they have generally been used to a higher living standard than the rest of South Asia, and because they face a threat from a much larger neighbor.
Apart from that, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. The biggest economic problem in South Asia is the arms race between two equally (yes, equally) poor countries. What is the core cause of this arms race? It is not Kashmir, as you seem to be hinting. Nor is it extremism of any sort in Pakistan (or India). It is the massive military purchases that India has been making; far in excess to its defense needs. Plain and simple.
If you follow the build-up of the Pakistan defense forces, you will notice that every military purchase has been directly in response to, and 1/3rd of, the purchase made by India. India tested the bomb, Pakistan followed. India is buying Su-30 aircraft, in a $3 billion dollar deal. What do you think Pakistan should do? These aircraft have nothing to do with Kashmir. Why is Indian purchasing them? So even when Kashmir is solved, the arms race will not end until India takes it foot off the pedal.
As far as a solution to the Kashmir problem, it`s plain and simple. Let international human rights organizations into Kashmir, and let them report on what is going on, and expose it to the rest of the world. It will become quite clear whether it is India or Pakistan or BSF or the jehadis that are causing the problem. Unfortunately, India goes out of its way to stop human rights organizations from entering Kashmir. Why does it do so if it is convinced it is in the right? What do you expect Pakistanis to do? Stand there and watch, as the Indian forces, with civilian support, massacre tens of thousands of people, who historically have wanted to join Pakistan (at the very least, leave India). If what I am saying is incorrect, then I would like to find out why India refuses to ask the Kashmiris what they want to do with their own lives? No one seems to answer this direct question. Anyone who knows what the Kashmiris would do, if given self-determination, already understands the solution to the Kashmir problem.
How you have related all of this to IT is something I fail to understand. Pakistan`s economic problems will not be solved unless corruption and insincere leadership is tackled, even after Kashmir is solved. Pakistan will not be able to lower its defense budget until India stops pointing billions of dollars of guns towards Pakistan. Bangladesh and Nepal and Bhutan and Tibet and Sri Lanka do not have any major external conflicts with anyone. Why are they still in the third world? And why do they have so many internal conflicts, if they do not have a Kashmir problem?
There are a few well-documented statistics you need to keep in mind, in regard to South Asia. You may or may not like them, but they are facts: Currently, by a huge margin (in the hundred-folds), the largest group of people, based on religion, being killed in South Asia are Muslims being killed by Hindus. The second highest group of people being killed is Christians being killed by Hindus. The only country in South Asia with a religious extremist govt. (by account of Indian citizens themselves, as well as the govts.` own literature) is India. By a gigantic margin, the most poor people in South Asia are in India (in 1990, there were 17 million Pakistanis below the poverty level, there were around 400 million Indians). The most separatists’ movements in South Asia are in India. The greatest economic difference amongst religious groups in South Asia is between the Hindus and Muslims of India, etc. etc.. However, India is still producing computer scientists by the tens of thousands. And these computer scientists are running the IT shops of the whole world.
Basically I have presented these statistics, not to denounce India, but to point out that all of South Asia has problems that need to be solved. All these countries are in the third world. So it is unfair to limit your arguments just to Pakistan. Also, the arms race in South Asia is not controlled by Kashmir, but by the Indian offensive arms purchases (just in the past year, India augmented its military budget by an amount equal to Pakistan`s whole military budget; in addition, it bought $1 billion worth of military aircraft from England; signed a deal for $3 billion dollars worth of offensive fighter aircraft and equipment with Russia; rolled out a series of nuclear missiles; began development on a tri-platform nuclear strategy by deploying nukes on submarines; bought hundred of millions of dollars worth of T-90 tanks, etc. etc.) This is just in the past year. For what purpose, when it already enjoys a 4.5 to 1 superiority over Pakistan in military equipment and budget? India itself has declared that these purchases have nothing to do with Kashmir. Can you name a few major military aircraft purchase, submarine purchase or tank purchase in the past year made by Pakistan?
So please look at all of South Asia when you attempt to figure out what ails Pakistan. And please realize that every country in South Asia, on a per person basis, is equally or more ailed. And that despite all the statistics I provided, above, India is still doing well in IT. So why cannot Pakistan do the same.
Allowing India to carry out the killings in Kashmir without saying a word, is not going to turn Pakistan into an IT power. These two issues are relatively unrelated. In my opinion, Pakistan should continue to support the human rights of Kashmiris, and continue to solve its IT problems simultaneously.
This of course does not mean that Pakistanis should not attempt to solve the Kashmir issue, in line with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This, however, requires that the Indian govt. realize that the Kashmiri people have wishes, and they should not be killed by the tens of thousands, for having wishes that don`t fall in line with people sitting in Banglore or Dehli.
There are country(ies) in South Asia where people cry for the victims of the recent earthquake, and simultaneously support the presence of the Indian army in Kashmir (and thereby the killings carried out by the Indian army in Kashmir). As long as Pakistanis simultaneously feel bad for the people who died in the earthquake and the people being killed by the Indian army in Kashmir, then I would have to say that Pakistan is far less radicalized than many other countries, regardless of what the CIA, Assef Ali, or the Indian press says.
On a personal level, I have actively raised money for the earthquake victims in India, I strongly support the self-determination of Kashmiris; by peaceful means at first and by militant actions if India does not accept their peaceful requests, and I am simultaneously trying to run an IT business. I consider all three of the above activities to be genuine and moral, and do not see one conflicting with the other. All three should be pursued simultaneously, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Because all three are noble. I hope all of Pakistan does the same.
Suppose you were going to a market, that was about to be close, to sell a computer. Suppose you saw someone trying to kill an innocent person. Would you try to save the innocent person, or would you try to sell the computer, or would you attempt to do both? Would you worry about what the rest of the world was thinking about your actions, at that time?
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 10, 2001 11:08 am
Shammi #84: There aren`t too many things that I know too much about, but I do know something about the following three: An immigrant`s perspective of the US IT industry, the defense policies, equipment, arms race between India and Pakistan, and Kashmir. The first two because it was/is part of my profession. The third because I trace my heritage back to Srinagar, and have followed everything going on there through Amnesty International, and hope to go there someday, myself.You have touched on all three of these issues in your post. I am not sure whether you are Indian or Pakistani. I also do not know whether your knowledge exceeds mine on these subjects. But since I appreciate objectivity, your national origin or knowledge is not important. I will concentrate on the text of your reply, and the person you have quoted.
First of all, I would encourage you to read up on Assef Ali. He was a foreign minister in one of the most corrupt governments in the history of mankind. So I am not sure where his loyalties are vis-à-vis Pakistan. Ditto on Nawaz Sharif. It is now proven beyond a doubt that he was a corrupt, incompetent and insincere leader, who was only interested in himself, and was ready to sell Pakistan to any buyer. And believe me, he supported and ordered every Pakistani military offensive (almost every single one of which, has been a counter-offensive to offensives carried out by India).
In any case, Assef Ali has made some very good and accurate points. I do not deny that most of the problems he has mentioned do exist in Pakistan. And they do need to be solved.
However, one could have written the same article, and changed the name of Pakistan to any other third world country (including India) and it would apply equally well. So, if your point is that third world countries, including Pakistan, have a lot of difficulties, then point well taken. But please do not limit this list of countries to Pakistan. The last time I checked all of South Asia was in terrible shape. Pakistanis just make more noise about what is going on in their country, since they have generally been used to a higher living standard than the rest of South Asia, and because they face a threat from a much larger neighbor.
Apart from that, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. The biggest economic problem in South Asia is the arms race between two equally (yes, equally) poor countries. What is the core cause of this arms race? It is not Kashmir, as you seem to be hinting. Nor is it extremism of any sort in Pakistan (or India). It is the massive military purchases that India has been making; far in excess to its defense needs. Plain and simple.
If you follow the build-up of the Pakistan defense forces, you will notice that every military purchase has been directly in response to, and 1/3rd of, the purchase made by India. India tested the bomb, Pakistan followed. India is buying Su-30 aircraft, in a $3 billion dollar deal. What do you think Pakistan should do? These aircraft have nothing to do with Kashmir. Why is Indian purchasing them? So even when Kashmir is solved, the arms race will not end until India takes it foot off the pedal.
As far as a solution to the Kashmir problem, it`s plain and simple. Let international human rights organizations into Kashmir, and let them report on what is going on, and expose it to the rest of the world. It will become quite clear whether it is India or Pakistan or BSF or the jehadis that are causing the problem. Unfortunately, India goes out of its way to stop human rights organizations from entering Kashmir. Why does it do so if it is convinced it is in the right? What do you expect Pakistanis to do? Stand there and watch, as the Indian forces, with civilian support, massacre tens of thousands of people, who historically have wanted to join Pakistan (at the very least, leave India). If what I am saying is incorrect, then I would like to find out why India refuses to ask the Kashmiris what they want to do with their own lives? No one seems to answer this direct question. Anyone who knows what the Kashmiris would do, if given self-determination, already understands the solution to the Kashmir problem.
How you have related all of this to IT is something I fail to understand. Pakistan`s economic problems will not be solved unless corruption and insincere leadership is tackled, even after Kashmir is solved. Pakistan will not be able to lower its defense budget until India stops pointing billions of dollars of guns towards Pakistan. Bangladesh and Nepal and Bhutan and Tibet and Sri Lanka do not have any major external conflicts with anyone. Why are they still in the third world? And why do they have so many internal conflicts, if they do not have a Kashmir problem?
There are a few well-documented statistics you need to keep in mind, in regard to South Asia. You may or may not like them, but they are facts: Currently, by a huge margin (in the hundred-folds), the largest group of people, based on religion, being killed in South Asia are Muslims being killed by Hindus. The second highest group of people being killed is Christians being killed by Hindus. The only country in South Asia with a religious extremist govt. (by account of Indian citizens themselves, as well as the govts.` own literature) is India. By a gigantic margin, the most poor people in South Asia are in India (in 1990, there were 17 million Pakistanis below the poverty level, there were around 400 million Indians). The most separatists’ movements in South Asia are in India. The greatest economic difference amongst religious groups in South Asia is between the Hindus and Muslims of India, etc. etc.. However, India is still producing computer scientists by the tens of thousands. And these computer scientists are running the IT shops of the whole world.
Basically I have presented these statistics, not to denounce India, but to point out that all of South Asia has problems that need to be solved. All these countries are in the third world. So it is unfair to limit your arguments just to Pakistan. Also, the arms race in South Asia is not controlled by Kashmir, but by the Indian offensive arms purchases (just in the past year, India augmented its military budget by an amount equal to Pakistan`s whole military budget; in addition, it bought $1 billion worth of military aircraft from England; signed a deal for $3 billion dollars worth of offensive fighter aircraft and equipment with Russia; rolled out a series of nuclear missiles; began development on a tri-platform nuclear strategy by deploying nukes on submarines; bought hundred of millions of dollars worth of T-90 tanks, etc. etc.) This is just in the past year. For what purpose, when it already enjoys a 4.5 to 1 superiority over Pakistan in military equipment and budget? India itself has declared that these purchases have nothing to do with Kashmir. Can you name a few major military aircraft purchase, submarine purchase or tank purchase in the past year made by Pakistan?
So please look at all of South Asia when you attempt to figure out what ails Pakistan. And please realize that every country in South Asia, on a per person basis, is equally or more ailed. And that despite all the statistics I provided, above, India is still doing well in IT. So why cannot Pakistan do the same.
Allowing India to carry out the killings in Kashmir without saying a word, is not going to turn Pakistan into an IT power. These two issues are relatively unrelated. In my opinion, Pakistan should continue to support the human rights of Kashmiris, and continue to solve its IT problems simultaneously.
This of course does not mean that Pakistanis should not attempt to solve the Kashmir issue, in line with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This, however, requires that the Indian govt. realize that the Kashmiri people have wishes, and they should not be killed by the tens of thousands, for having wishes that don`t fall in line with people sitting in Banglore or Dehli.
There are country(ies) in South Asia where people cry for the victims of the recent earthquake, and simultaneously support the presence of the Indian army in Kashmir (and thereby the killings carried out by the Indian army in Kashmir). As long as Pakistanis simultaneously feel bad for the people who died in the earthquake and the people being killed by the Indian army in Kashmir, then I would have to say that Pakistan is far less radicalized than many other countries, regardless of what the CIA, Assef Ali, or the Indian press says.
On a personal level, I have actively raised money for the earthquake victims in India, I strongly support the self-determination of Kashmiris; by peaceful means at first and by militant actions if India does not accept their peaceful requests, and I am simultaneously trying to run an IT business. I consider all three of the above activities to be genuine and moral, and do not see one conflicting with the other. All three should be pursued simultaneously, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Because all three are noble. I hope all of Pakistan does the same.
Suppose you were going to a market, that was about to be close, to sell a computer. Suppose you saw someone trying to kill an innocent person. Would you try to save the innocent person, or would you try to sell the computer, or would you attempt to do both? Would you worry about what the rest of the world was thinking about your actions, at that time?
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
There is only one thing that Bill Gates et al are looking for in regard to IT in South Asia. And that is cheap labor. As long as the cheap labor, both in the form of immigrant IT people (like us) and off-shore development, is going along fine, they are not going to be too worried about political conditions. South Asia still constitues a very minute percentage of the IT hardware and software sales for these companies. Most of their off-shore manufacturing is done in more advanced countries like Malaysia, Taiwan etc. Cheap labor is the name of the game as far as Pakistan (and India) are concerned. Neither India, nor Pakistan have come up with any big-selling software or hardware programs/equipment.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, it is a major problem. Unfortunately, Pakistan cannot solve it by itself. India has to cooperate also. I don`t see how anything can be done, if India doesn`t talk to anyone about it.
Kashmir actually unites Pakistanis more than it divides it. It is one of the issues on which every Pakistani agrees. I don`t think it is the main hinderance to Pakistan`s economic progress. Pakistan actually makes very little direct investment in the Kashmir conflict. The Indian investment is hundreds, if not thousands of time, more, since the conflict is occuring in India`s part of Kashmir. Almost all of Pakistan`s military budget is spent on defending an Indian attack in Sind and Punjab, and counter-balancing the massive military spending of the Indian military (which I think will continue, even if Kashmir is solved).
The main problems for Pakistan are the problems that all third world countries face, i.e corruption, incompetent leadership. A solution of Kashmir will certainly assist Pakistan`s economy, but until the above problems are solved, nothing is going to change drastically. There are many countries in the third world that are not in conflict with their neighbors, however they still remain in the third world.
So, I don`t think the economic situation in Pakistan is going to improve dramatically even if Kashmir is solved for two reasons: India will continue with its arms build-up, so Pakistan will have to continue its arms build-up to defend itself. Also, a solution of Kashmir will not effect the corruption and insincerity of leadership in Pakistan.
In any case, I don`t think John Chambers and company will be too worried about that, as long as they have access to cheap labor, and can ftp solutions back and forth.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 8, 2001 06:03 pm
Shammi #77: Are you refering to the same CIA that predicted that India would not test a nuclear weapon (a weeek before India tested it), or that there was no chance of the Shah or Iran losing power (a day before he was overthrown), or that the more moderate Khatami had no chance of winning elections in Iran (a few days before he swept the elections). There is only one thing that Bill Gates et al are looking for in regard to IT in South Asia. And that is cheap labor. As long as the cheap labor, both in the form of immigrant IT people (like us) and off-shore development, is going along fine, they are not going to be too worried about political conditions. South Asia still constitues a very minute percentage of the IT hardware and software sales for these companies. Most of their off-shore manufacturing is done in more advanced countries like Malaysia, Taiwan etc. Cheap labor is the name of the game as far as Pakistan (and India) are concerned. Neither India, nor Pakistan have come up with any big-selling software or hardware programs/equipment.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, it is a major problem. Unfortunately, Pakistan cannot solve it by itself. India has to cooperate also. I don`t see how anything can be done, if India doesn`t talk to anyone about it.
Kashmir actually unites Pakistanis more than it divides it. It is one of the issues on which every Pakistani agrees. I don`t think it is the main hinderance to Pakistan`s economic progress. Pakistan actually makes very little direct investment in the Kashmir conflict. The Indian investment is hundreds, if not thousands of time, more, since the conflict is occuring in India`s part of Kashmir. Almost all of Pakistan`s military budget is spent on defending an Indian attack in Sind and Punjab, and counter-balancing the massive military spending of the Indian military (which I think will continue, even if Kashmir is solved).
The main problems for Pakistan are the problems that all third world countries face, i.e corruption, incompetent leadership. A solution of Kashmir will certainly assist Pakistan`s economy, but until the above problems are solved, nothing is going to change drastically. There are many countries in the third world that are not in conflict with their neighbors, however they still remain in the third world.
So, I don`t think the economic situation in Pakistan is going to improve dramatically even if Kashmir is solved for two reasons: India will continue with its arms build-up, so Pakistan will have to continue its arms build-up to defend itself. Also, a solution of Kashmir will not effect the corruption and insincerity of leadership in Pakistan.
In any case, I don`t think John Chambers and company will be too worried about that, as long as they have access to cheap labor, and can ftp solutions back and forth.
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
``Sun Microsystems, Inc., Palo Alto, today announced the appointment of Masood Jabbar to President of Sun Microsystems Computer Company, Sun`s business unit that develops, manufactures, and markets desktop and server computer systems. Jabbar is replacing Edward J. Zander who was recently promoted to the position of Chief Operating Officer for Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Prior to his promotion, Jabbar spent three-and-a-half years as the Chief Financial Officer of Sun Computers. In addition to his responsibilities as CFO, he managed business development, strategic relationships, and the operating company`s acquisitions of key technologies and businesses.``
http://www.svtoday.com/svt/feb98/022798.htm
I just checked again, and Sun I believe has recently reorganized, and seem to now be following the traditional Vice President, Executive Vice President model that most companies follow (with only one President/COO). So Masood Jabbar is now the Executive Vice President for Global Sales.
He was CFO of Sun, President of the Server Computer Systems, and apparently recently became the Executive Vice President for Global Sales.
Hope that answers your question.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 8, 2001 03:24 pm
Shammi #71: Sun has (recently had) a CEO, and I believe seven Presidents. Each President heads a large business unit. ``Sun Microsystems, Inc., Palo Alto, today announced the appointment of Masood Jabbar to President of Sun Microsystems Computer Company, Sun`s business unit that develops, manufactures, and markets desktop and server computer systems. Jabbar is replacing Edward J. Zander who was recently promoted to the position of Chief Operating Officer for Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Prior to his promotion, Jabbar spent three-and-a-half years as the Chief Financial Officer of Sun Computers. In addition to his responsibilities as CFO, he managed business development, strategic relationships, and the operating company`s acquisitions of key technologies and businesses.``
http://www.svtoday.com/svt/feb98/022798.htm
I just checked again, and Sun I believe has recently reorganized, and seem to now be following the traditional Vice President, Executive Vice President model that most companies follow (with only one President/COO). So Masood Jabbar is now the Executive Vice President for Global Sales.
He was CFO of Sun, President of the Server Computer Systems, and apparently recently became the Executive Vice President for Global Sales.
Hope that answers your question.
Eathquake Hits India And Pakistan
``Mr Putin’s visit heralded an altogether new era in Indo-Russian defence ties. It took him finally to sew up the long protracted negotiations on a $ 3 bn (Rs 13,800 crore) multifaceted defence deal. Russian intransigence in sticking to their terms was proving hard. Though the SU-30 development project was already in progress, negotiations pertaining to the Admiral Gorshkov carrier and T-90 tanks were faultering here and there.``
India just signed a $3 billion deal with Russia to buy fighter aircraft. It also recently signed a $1 billion deal with England to buy military training aircraft. These are just some of the military deals India has signed recently. There are two points that need to be noted here:
India already has 5 times the aircraft it needs to protect itself against Pakistan, and any other country in South Asia. So all this armament is being purchased to threaten, and perhaps at someday attack its neighbors (countries do not spend this kind of money on weapons just to use them for display purposes). Pakistan spends a lot on military equipment also, but it is only the bare minimum to protect itself against an India threat. It does not (and cannot) spend extra to threaten India, or any of its other neighbors.
Regardless of how much money India spends on offensive military weapons, in excess of its genuine self-defence needs, it will never become an international superpower, or even a regional superpower. To do that, it first has to be able to feed its people, and be able to efficiently handle catastrophes like the current one.
This earthquake has shown that the general population in India is extremely vulnerable to natrual catastrophes. After the catastrophes, there is very little money available to handle the after-effects (not to mention the general poverty that is prevalent in India, and the rest of South Asia).
I will be the first one to advocate the purchase of weapons by a country to protect itself. However, I am extremely opposed to buying weapons to threaten other countries. One dollar spent extra, after achieving self-defence, is wastage.
Based on the above two facts, why in the world is India bent upon spending billions of dollars to buy armament to threaten and attack its neighbors, when it cannot even take care of its own people. There are tens of thousands of people dying in natural catastrophes, yet making billion dollar deals with every country in the world to buy aircraft, tanks and submarines, not to protect its borders (for which it already has more than enough weaponry) but to attack its neighbors, seems more important.
This is the main cause of the arms race in South Asia. This will also keep all the countries in South Asia poor, and unable to cope with disasters like the current one. Buying defensive weapons to protect ones self is fair; buying offensive weapons to attack others makes no sense. Buying offensive weapons to attack others, when one alredy has 5 times the required amount, and an extremely poor population, is something beyond my comprehension.
I am surprised more Indians do not speak up about the completely unnecessary arms build up India is carrying out, to threaten its neighbors, at the expense of providing food and shelter for its people. Thereby keeping all of South Asia poor.
Since India has 5 times the armament it needs to protect itself from Pakistan, perhaps the $3 billion dollars it is giving to Russia for offensive weaponry would be much better spent on the victims of this earthquake.
Unless such gigantic arms spending, not directed towards self-defence, are stopped by India, I am afraid all of South Asia is going to be unable to handle catastrophes like this for a long long time.
Based on past experience (unfortunately) any criticism regarding these types of issues, by anyone outside India (specifically a Pakistani), is generally not looked at objectively by Indians on this website. So I am hoping that Indians themselves realize the mistake their govt. is making by dishing out billions of dollars to purchase offensive weaponry, and criticize it themselves. Such a realization will make it a lot easier for all South Asians to cope with disasters like this in the future.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 2, 2001 09:29 pm
There is something I have never quite been able to figure out on the allocation of budgets in India. Please read the following from www.tribuneindia.com/20001113/edit.htm#3:``Mr Putin’s visit heralded an altogether new era in Indo-Russian defence ties. It took him finally to sew up the long protracted negotiations on a $ 3 bn (Rs 13,800 crore) multifaceted defence deal. Russian intransigence in sticking to their terms was proving hard. Though the SU-30 development project was already in progress, negotiations pertaining to the Admiral Gorshkov carrier and T-90 tanks were faultering here and there.``
India just signed a $3 billion deal with Russia to buy fighter aircraft. It also recently signed a $1 billion deal with England to buy military training aircraft. These are just some of the military deals India has signed recently. There are two points that need to be noted here:
India already has 5 times the aircraft it needs to protect itself against Pakistan, and any other country in South Asia. So all this armament is being purchased to threaten, and perhaps at someday attack its neighbors (countries do not spend this kind of money on weapons just to use them for display purposes). Pakistan spends a lot on military equipment also, but it is only the bare minimum to protect itself against an India threat. It does not (and cannot) spend extra to threaten India, or any of its other neighbors.
Regardless of how much money India spends on offensive military weapons, in excess of its genuine self-defence needs, it will never become an international superpower, or even a regional superpower. To do that, it first has to be able to feed its people, and be able to efficiently handle catastrophes like the current one.
This earthquake has shown that the general population in India is extremely vulnerable to natrual catastrophes. After the catastrophes, there is very little money available to handle the after-effects (not to mention the general poverty that is prevalent in India, and the rest of South Asia).
I will be the first one to advocate the purchase of weapons by a country to protect itself. However, I am extremely opposed to buying weapons to threaten other countries. One dollar spent extra, after achieving self-defence, is wastage.
Based on the above two facts, why in the world is India bent upon spending billions of dollars to buy armament to threaten and attack its neighbors, when it cannot even take care of its own people. There are tens of thousands of people dying in natural catastrophes, yet making billion dollar deals with every country in the world to buy aircraft, tanks and submarines, not to protect its borders (for which it already has more than enough weaponry) but to attack its neighbors, seems more important.
This is the main cause of the arms race in South Asia. This will also keep all the countries in South Asia poor, and unable to cope with disasters like the current one. Buying defensive weapons to protect ones self is fair; buying offensive weapons to attack others makes no sense. Buying offensive weapons to attack others, when one alredy has 5 times the required amount, and an extremely poor population, is something beyond my comprehension.
I am surprised more Indians do not speak up about the completely unnecessary arms build up India is carrying out, to threaten its neighbors, at the expense of providing food and shelter for its people. Thereby keeping all of South Asia poor.
Since India has 5 times the armament it needs to protect itself from Pakistan, perhaps the $3 billion dollars it is giving to Russia for offensive weaponry would be much better spent on the victims of this earthquake.
Unless such gigantic arms spending, not directed towards self-defence, are stopped by India, I am afraid all of South Asia is going to be unable to handle catastrophes like this for a long long time.
Based on past experience (unfortunately) any criticism regarding these types of issues, by anyone outside India (specifically a Pakistani), is generally not looked at objectively by Indians on this website. So I am hoping that Indians themselves realize the mistake their govt. is making by dishing out billions of dollars to purchase offensive weaponry, and criticize it themselves. Such a realization will make it a lot easier for all South Asians to cope with disasters like this in the future.
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
``Pak IT firm on New York bourse
By Javad M Goraya
ISLAMABAD: A $647 million Pakistani company has launched itself on the prestigious New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, despite the fact that IT stocks are not doing so good in the market.
The US-based health sector company, Align Technologies, with its back-up IT development centre in Lahore, has done a successful initial public offering (IPO) and was valued at over $647 million last week.
Align Technologies was co-founded by a 29-year-old Lahore origin ex-investment banker Zia Chisti in 1997 and he is the company`s chairman & CEO since then. Zia Chishti worked for Morgan Stanley`s investment banking division from 1992-95 before this venture.``
``Align Technologies employs nearly 700 people at the Lahore IT centre which not only does the graphic design of the Align Technology main product but also attends the queries of Aligns customers in the US through a call centre. The call centre uses a 2 MB bandwidth link and is manned by 100 members.`` (NEWS, Pakistan)
An interesting statistic: 85% of Pakistan`s software businesses are in Karchi, but 80% of the software export revenues are generated from Lahore based businesses.
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 2, 2001 08:56 pm
I am not sure whether this company counts as a pure Pakistani company, but it is the second Pakistani company on the Nasdaq (with 137 million dollars of funding.)``Pak IT firm on New York bourse
By Javad M Goraya
ISLAMABAD: A $647 million Pakistani company has launched itself on the prestigious New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, despite the fact that IT stocks are not doing so good in the market.
The US-based health sector company, Align Technologies, with its back-up IT development centre in Lahore, has done a successful initial public offering (IPO) and was valued at over $647 million last week.
Align Technologies was co-founded by a 29-year-old Lahore origin ex-investment banker Zia Chisti in 1997 and he is the company`s chairman & CEO since then. Zia Chishti worked for Morgan Stanley`s investment banking division from 1992-95 before this venture.``
``Align Technologies employs nearly 700 people at the Lahore IT centre which not only does the graphic design of the Align Technology main product but also attends the queries of Aligns customers in the US through a call centre. The call centre uses a 2 MB bandwidth link and is manned by 100 members.`` (NEWS, Pakistan)
An interesting statistic: 85% of Pakistan`s software businesses are in Karchi, but 80% of the software export revenues are generated from Lahore based businesses.
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
``Govt considering 10-year tax holiday for software cos: Ata
ISLAMABAD (APP)-The government is seriously considering to extend tax holiday to 10 years for software companies to promote investment in IT sector, Minister for Science and Technology Dr. Ataur Rehman said here on Friday.
``We have already given 5-year tax holiday and now seriously thinking to extend it to 10 years to attract more investment in the IT sector,`` he said while launching the IT Commerce and Network (ITCN) Exhibition and Conference.
The mega event - ITCN Asia 2001, jointly organised by Ministry of Science (Pakistan), CommerceNet Singapore, Ecommerce Gateway and US Publishers, will be held in Karachi from March 24-26.
The government, he said, intends to make Pakistan the Export Processing Zone for the IT and has offered a number of incentives to attract the foreign investors.
The duty has been reduced on computers and its spare parts and the Internet bandwidth rates have been drastically reduced to $3000 per megabyte per month from $15,000. This rate stood at more than $100,000 last year, he added.
The Minister described a comprehensive infrastructure as indispensable for the growth of Information Technology (IT).
He said that several teams from China, France and other countries are carrying out studies for a high-speed internet access in the country.
The internet facility is now available to some 350 towns and cities which were restricted to only 29 cities 10 months ago, he said. ``Now 80 per cent population have access to the Internet``.
The internet Kiosks are being installed at 118 petrol stations, as part of the policy of universality of internet, and by March 21, some 71 such Kiosks will be set up at the airports, he added.
Dr. Ata also informed the delegates that three Software Technological parks have been set up in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi and there were a couple of similar parks being established in Karachi and Lahore.
The Minister underlined the importance of quality education and said, Pakistan cannot be a serious player of IT without having the requisite number of IT professionals. ``We have therefore allocated 70 per cent of the available funds towards education,`` he added.
He said seven IT universities are in the process of being established. Two universities, FAST and COMSTECH, have already been granted.
Dr. Ata said, we are making efforts to bring the IT professionals, working abroad back, to Pakistan to help us develop the required number of skilled manpower.
He said, some 200 Ph.Ds and Masters in IT are expected to return during the next two months.
Three channels are coming up for distance learning of computer education. PTV-2 is already airing IT-related programmes while PTV-Shaheen will start airing 6-hour programmes on IT from March 23, he said and added a full-fledged TV channel for IT education will be put in place later this year.
Dr. Ata said, the efforts to make Pakistan a hub of IT in this regions has started bearing fruits and multi-companies are committing huge investment.
These include Motorola, IBB, Cisco, Oracle, Nortel and Akhter Computers.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
If Pakistan can get five to six good IT universities going, I think we are in business. Pakistan is already fourth on the list of sending IT professionals to the USA, behind India, China and Canada (these professionals will payback big time in around ten years. That is about how long it will take them to get to same positions that Indians and Chinese IT professionals, who have a ten year lead, are at in Silicon Valley).
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 2, 2001 08:56 pm
Another article from, ``Nation,`` Pakistan. As I stated earlier, all the right moves. It is refreshing to see that for the first time, in as far back as I can remember, multiple articles regarding S&T are appearing on a daily basis in all the Pakistani newspapers. There seem to be two to three in every newspaper, everyday. Dr. Ata is probably the most widely followed and covered Federal Minister in the Pakistani press, now. Who would have thought, two years ago, that an S&T minister would ever get so much attention in Pakistan:``Govt considering 10-year tax holiday for software cos: Ata
ISLAMABAD (APP)-The government is seriously considering to extend tax holiday to 10 years for software companies to promote investment in IT sector, Minister for Science and Technology Dr. Ataur Rehman said here on Friday.
``We have already given 5-year tax holiday and now seriously thinking to extend it to 10 years to attract more investment in the IT sector,`` he said while launching the IT Commerce and Network (ITCN) Exhibition and Conference.
The mega event - ITCN Asia 2001, jointly organised by Ministry of Science (Pakistan), CommerceNet Singapore, Ecommerce Gateway and US Publishers, will be held in Karachi from March 24-26.
The government, he said, intends to make Pakistan the Export Processing Zone for the IT and has offered a number of incentives to attract the foreign investors.
The duty has been reduced on computers and its spare parts and the Internet bandwidth rates have been drastically reduced to $3000 per megabyte per month from $15,000. This rate stood at more than $100,000 last year, he added.
The Minister described a comprehensive infrastructure as indispensable for the growth of Information Technology (IT).
He said that several teams from China, France and other countries are carrying out studies for a high-speed internet access in the country.
The internet facility is now available to some 350 towns and cities which were restricted to only 29 cities 10 months ago, he said. ``Now 80 per cent population have access to the Internet``.
The internet Kiosks are being installed at 118 petrol stations, as part of the policy of universality of internet, and by March 21, some 71 such Kiosks will be set up at the airports, he added.
Dr. Ata also informed the delegates that three Software Technological parks have been set up in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi and there were a couple of similar parks being established in Karachi and Lahore.
The Minister underlined the importance of quality education and said, Pakistan cannot be a serious player of IT without having the requisite number of IT professionals. ``We have therefore allocated 70 per cent of the available funds towards education,`` he added.
He said seven IT universities are in the process of being established. Two universities, FAST and COMSTECH, have already been granted.
Dr. Ata said, we are making efforts to bring the IT professionals, working abroad back, to Pakistan to help us develop the required number of skilled manpower.
He said, some 200 Ph.Ds and Masters in IT are expected to return during the next two months.
Three channels are coming up for distance learning of computer education. PTV-2 is already airing IT-related programmes while PTV-Shaheen will start airing 6-hour programmes on IT from March 23, he said and added a full-fledged TV channel for IT education will be put in place later this year.
Dr. Ata said, the efforts to make Pakistan a hub of IT in this regions has started bearing fruits and multi-companies are committing huge investment.
These include Motorola, IBB, Cisco, Oracle, Nortel and Akhter Computers.`` (Nation, Pakistan)
If Pakistan can get five to six good IT universities going, I think we are in business. Pakistan is already fourth on the list of sending IT professionals to the USA, behind India, China and Canada (these professionals will payback big time in around ten years. That is about how long it will take them to get to same positions that Indians and Chinese IT professionals, who have a ten year lead, are at in Silicon Valley).
IT Is Not A Magic Wand
ACADEMIC CAREER DEGREE YEAR UNIVERSITY DIVISION
Overseas School Certificate 1958 Cambridge 1st division (Ist position)
Overseas Higher School Certificate 1960 Cambridge ``A`` Level (Ist position)
B.Sc. (Hons.) (Chemistry) 1963 Karachi 1st Division (2nd position)
M.Sc. (Organic Chemistry) 1964 Karachi 1st Division (Ist position)
Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry) 1968 Cambridge
Sc.D. 1987 Cambridge
``RESUME
Prof. Atta-ur-Rahman has over 467 publications in leading international journals in several fields of organic chemistry including 9 patents and 53 books published by major U.S. and European presses, as well as 59 chapters in books .``
Remaining details available at: http://www.most.gov.pk/minister.htm
Posted by
Umairr
Feb 2, 2001 08:56 pm
Sameer #21: I believe Dr. Ata received his Ph.D. from Cambridge in Organic Chemistry. For a chemist, his knowledge of IT is really impressive. The following is his academic career:ACADEMIC CAREER DEGREE YEAR UNIVERSITY DIVISION
Overseas School Certificate 1958 Cambridge 1st division (Ist position)
Overseas Higher School Certificate 1960 Cambridge ``A`` Level (Ist position)
B.Sc. (Hons.) (Chemistry) 1963 Karachi 1st Division (2nd position)
M.Sc. (Organic Chemistry) 1964 Karachi 1st Division (Ist position)
Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry) 1968 Cambridge
Sc.D. 1987 Cambridge
``RESUME
Prof. Atta-ur-Rahman has over 467 publications in leading international journals in several fields of organic chemistry including 9 patents and 53 books published by major U.S. and European presses, as well as 59 chapters in books .``
Remaining details available at: http://www.most.gov.pk/minister.htm
- Umairr
- Interacts: 550
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 340
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Nov 22 1999
- Last signin: Oct 11 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
