The Asian Waltz #94: ``I agree Indians think Pakistanis are more violent.``

This is a subjective topic at an individual level. Everyone`s experience will be different. Personally, I have found Pakistanis to be more aggressive (perhaps borderline violent) as compared to Indians. Individual Indians seem quite mild mannered, and don`t seem too aggressive; infact not aggressive at all.

However, at a community and public and national level, my personal experience is that Indians are more attacking, aggressive (and bordeline violent) as compared to Pakistanis.

I think a good example of this would be an analysis of the armed forces` build-up of the two countries. India`s armed forces are offensively inclined, specifically targeting Pakistan. Pakistan`s armed forces are defensively oriented; specifically to defend against an attack from India. India regularly augments its Pakistan-specific offensive weapons. Pakistan always reacts to this with a build-up of defensive weapons to counter the Indian offensive. All of this is well-documented. A look at the current (and previous) increases in the Indian military budget, along with the sizes of the two militaries with respect to external threats, as well as the offensive-defensive ratios of their armament, will prove this.

Another example of Indians being more aggressive at the community level are the attacks on Pakistan from the Indian organizations in the USA. Indian organizations in the USA generally target Pakistan first, and not vice versa. Examples of this are the efforts to stop Clinton from visiting Pakistan, and attempts to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state etc. Pakistani organizations generally come into existence to counter these Indian offensives, and are generally themselves defensive in nature, i.e ensuring that Clinton did visit Pakistan, but not attempting to stop him from visiting India, etc.

A lot of the above has to do with the size of the two countries with respect to each other. Bigger countries are almost always more offensive towards smaller countries, than vice versa. And bigger communities are almost always more offensive towards smaller communities, than vice-versa. On an individual level in a violent scenario, the individuals of smaller communities tend to be more aggresive than individuals of bigger communities; because smaller communities face a larger threat from bigger communities than vice versa.

Delhi Diary The best kababs I have ever had in Pakistan, were on the roadside chappal kabab stand(s) at the intersection of GT road and Mardan road in Nowshera (right outside the Nowshera bus station). The kabab stands are almost on the highway. The whole shop consists of two chairs for the customer(s), a place for the kababwalla to sit, and a giant, ``thing`` to cook the kababs in. Every now and then a stray dog walks by to add to the surroundings. I have never quite figured out why no other city in Pakistan has been able to match the taste of the Nowshera kababs. I think the secret is in the correct amount of dust, off the highway, that gets mixed in with the meat. To get that effect, the stand has to be on the highway.

I have been told that chappal kababs in Landikotal are even better than the Nowshera kababs; and of course the legend of the Takht-e-Bai kababs (close to the Nowshera-Mardan area) is probably still unsurpassed. Haven`t had a chance to try the later two; just heard the legends and stories.

I am not quite sure how they compare with kababs in Dehli.

Chowk@Three: Opening Minds, Winning Hearts Great job!

The Asian Waltz Long, but very interesting. You didn`t comment much on the role Russia would play in this whole scenario. They are currently down, but definitely not out.

India-Pakistan Reconciliation School The discussion seems to have turned from the Reconciliation school to Kashmir.

There are too many anomalies in the Indian contributors` defence of their military`s action in Kashmir. Some of these are as follows:

The Indians claim that the Indian military is not committing any human rights violations in Kashmir. Some even claim that it is the freedom fighters` who are committing most of the human rights` violations. At the same time, India is going out of its way to stop internationally respected and neutral human rights organizations entry into its part of Kashmir, to explain the whole situation to the rest of the world. If India is convinced of its stance, then why is it stopping these HR organizations from entering Kashmir and explaining to the rest of the world the actual situation in Kashmir?

Indian contributors claim that the Kashmiri uprising is completely Pakistani sponsored, and that Kashmiri residents themselves are quite happy with India. If this is the case, then India should be encouraging the UN to carry out its plebescite, to expose to the rest of the world that the uprising is not indigeneous. If the average Kashmiri actually wants to be a part of India, then they will vote to remain with India. Why is India going out of the way to stop any kind of a vote in Kashmir?

Indian contributors seem to indicate that the Kashmiris were better off before the uprising started. These contributors seem to have given themselves the right to decide when and in which condition the Kashmiris are happy. Most, if not all, of these contributors are not Kashmir themselves. Many have probably never even visited Kashmir. If they are so convinced that the Kashmiris are not supporting the uprising, then (once again) why doesn`t India hold a vote to find out. Shouldn`t the Kashmiris themselves decide whether they are happy or not; or does a person sitting in Banglore have the right to decide this for them.

Indian contributors state that the UN based plebescite has been negated. They point out that the UN has accepted the LOC as a border. Yet none of them can point to any document that was generated by the UN to negate the plebescite. Why does the UN have a monitoring team on the Kashmiri LOC if the UN has accepted it as a border?

Indian contributors state that since the, ``owner`` of Kashmir sold Kahmir to India in 47, India has a right to rule over it, come hell or high water. And the Kahmiris should just accept that. How many Indians would agree to have themselves, their children and their land, ``sold`` to another country against their wishes? I believe that is called slavery.

Indian contributors claim that if Kashmir becomes independent, it will break up the whole Indian confederation. This is the same argument used by the British to justify their rule over India, i.e. if India becomes independent, the British empire will disintegrate. This was a ridiculous argument 100 years ago, and it is equally ridiculous now. Why is Kashmir being used to define the, ``honor`` and integrity of India? If India disintegrates, is it the Kashmiris` fault?

There are many more anamolies in the stance taken by many of the Indian contributors on Kashmir. None of them are willing to address these anamolies. They all try to deflect the whole discussion to other issues, to justify India`s repression in Kashmir. This is generally how people attempt to defend atrocities historically. Indian contributors defending India`s stance, point to the Islamic nature of the uprsing, or to Pakistan`s contribution, or any other borderline issue, instead of answering the questions that define the actual problem (many of them explained above).

The stand taken by the Indian contributors is similar to the stand taken by Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky case. He tried to blame the prosecutor, the Republicans, and anyone else, instead of blaming himself. It is quite true that a portion of his claims about the prosecutor etc. may have been justifiable. However, the actual problem was the fact that he had lied, and committed the crime. He was unwilling to accept that, and tried to deflect everything on other issues. This is exactly what the Indian contributors are doing. They deflect everything from the actual issue to borderline issues, because they know they have no answers for the actual issue.

To all the Indian contributors: if you are genuinely concerned about the Kashmiris, then let them decide their own happiness, instead of trying to decide it for them. They never gave you that right. If you are not willing to do that, then kindly do not pretend to be concerned about the Kashmiris; come out into the open, and state that you support all the killings of innocent Kashmiris, and will be more than happy if the Indian military and govt. goes to any lenght of suppression to keep Kashmir from gaining its indepedence.

I have an immense of a respect for the Indians who confirm the former view, i.e the Indians who believe in human rights, and want the Kashmiris to decide their own future. I even have some respect for Indians who confirm to the later view, i.e the ones who are out in the open (at least they are honest and straighforward). The Indians whom I have absolutely no respect for are the hypocrites who attempt to justify the Indian military`s actions in Kashmir by trying to present it as something in the better interests of the Kashmiris; these people actually have no interest in the well being of the Kashmiris; they are only interested in their own personal interests and in the interests of the Indian govt.

The idiom, ``Baghal mein churi, moonh mein Ram Ram`` describes these people quite well. And many of them have gathered here at Chowk, to act as the prime cheerleaders for enslaving and killing the Kashmiris. In any suppression of innocents or holocaust, the largest blame, in my opinion, doesn`t fall on the soldiers who carry out the killings and suppression. The majority of the blame falls on the individuals who spent a better part of their day trying to justify these killings to the rest of the world. There would have been no holocaust in Germany, if individuals who fit the above description did not exist in Germany. And their would be no killings in Kashmir, if Indians who fit the above description did not exist in India.

As a Kashmiri myself, who is actively involved with Amnesty International, I would like to say the following to the hypocrites of the third category that I described above:

If you are genuinely unaware of what is going on in Kashmir, then kindly visit the place, and contact international human rights organizations to get more some more information. Don`t believe anything in the Indian media (or the Pakistani media, for that matter). If you know what is going on in Kashmir, and are bent upon giving an incorrect picture to the rest of the world, then I am afraid you are part and parcel of the killings of tens of thousands of civilians in Kashmir; you have blood on your hands, and I hope sooner or later Allah, Bhagwan (or whomever you believe in) holds you accountable.

India-Pakistan Reconciliation School Hum Log 105: Would you support allowing human rights organizations like Amnesty International entering Kashmir and deciding whether what you are saying is correct? So far India has gone out of its way to ensure that no international neutral human rights organizations is allowed into Kashmir. While Pakistan has allowed any and all international HR organizations access to its part of Kashmir, and asked India to do the same. If what you say is correct, then India should be begging these HR organizations to enter Kashmir and expose the true story to the world. Why is India keeping these organizations away?

Please keep in mind that there are innocent people in Kashmir being killed. Remarks like yours only encourage the Indian military to kill even more.

An Accent in Kashmir BREAKING NEWS: Hizb calls off ceasefire in Kashmir

(Updated at 1655 PST)

ISLAMABAD: The Hizbul Mujahideen group on Tuesday called off its ceasefire and directed its field commanders to resume fighting against Indian forces, well-placed sources said.

The announcement was made by Hizb`s Supreme Commander SyedSalahuddin at a press conference after the expiry of the deadline of 5 p.m. set by the Kashmiri group for India to respond positively to its goodwill gesture.

``We direct all the Commanders and the Mujahideen (freedom fighjters) in the field to break the cease-fire and go ahead along-with target oriented missions,`` he declared.

Hizbul Mujahideen has announced unilateral cease-fire on July 24 and invited India for unconditional talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Hizb leadership urged India to open three way talks between Islamabad, New Delhi and Kashmiris for this purpose.

New Delhi refused to involve Pakistan in the dialogue process. Salahuddin said, ``Indian leadership has failed to respond to our ice-breaking move, which could have become productive and meaningful if India (had) accepted unconditional tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris.`` (The News, Pakistan)

The freedom fighers, Pakistan and even the rest of the world have bent over backwards to accomodate India`s wishes on Kashmir. However India still clings to its stubborn stand (which will eventually prove very harmful to Indians). It must have taken a lot of effort from Pakistan, USA and the Hizb to coordinate this peace move. The Pakistan govt. received a lot of flak from most of the religious parties for influencing the Hizb to call a truce. But India has blown the opportunity again. Is India interested in peace at all?

No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever Why did the Americans drop nuclear bombs on two cities; why didn`t they drop nuclear bombs on remote parts of Japan first to threaten the Japanese first?

As long as the US has nukes, nuclear weapons will not disappear from the rest of the world. This is a fact. And so far, the US has absolutely no intention of getting rid of its nuclear weapons; regardless of what any other country does. The US has committed every major nuclear crime in the world. It has developed and tested nuclear weapons thousands of times more powerful than anything Pakistan and India can ever come up with. It continues this testing to this day. As soon as it was able to carry out simulated supercomputer tests, it attempted to stop any other country from testing also. It has exported its nuclear weapons to NATO countries, and provided them a nuclear umbrella. The reason Japan, Germany, Holland etc. do not have nukes is not because they are overly peaceful nations. It is because they are under the US nuclear umbrella. I believe Pakistan requested the US for a nuclear umbrella after the Indian tests, however the US refused. And most of all, the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite all the arguments presented on thread, I do not think it was justifiable for the US to use nukes against Japan.

Now coming to the South Asian scenario; specifically to Pakistan. Pakistan had absolutely no other option but to have a nuclear deterence, once India came out of its nuclear closet. India has turned South Asia into a nuclear zone, for absolutely no reason. The only way for Pakistan to counter and even out the balance of power was to develop its own deterence. Anyone who has studied military strategy as a profession, and not merely as a hobby, will understand this.

So regardless of how many peace movements against nuclear weapons are carried out in Pakistan, nothing is going to happen until India de-nuclearizes. And India has absolutely no intention of doing so. Infact, India has pushed the nuclear accelerator to the floor. It has come up with a tri-platform nuclear strategy, as well as its own nuclear doctrine (a phrase commonly reserved for superpowers). This means India is planning on launching nuclear weapons from land, air, and the sea. Why? And against whom? It is also testing new missiles one after the other.

This seems more to satisfy the general Indian public, than anything else. It is not achieving any other purpose. India will never be powerful enough to challenge the US in the open seas(hence the capability of obtaining nuclear tipped submarines is something I cannot figure out). It will never be powerful enough to take China on in land and air warfare, either. It can already target Pakistan from the air and land, so being able to target Pakistan from the sea is not going to change anything. So why doesn`t India just freeze its nuclear program where it is, when it has nothing to gain from accelerating it? The only reason I can think of is the Indian political parties gain a lot of internal support amongst the common Indians by pursuing nuclear options. So despite what the author is pointing out, the general Indian public seems quite happy with the nuclear policies India is adapting.

This puts Pakistan in a very odd situation. The biggest mistake Pakistan could make right now is to unilaterally deactivate its nuclear program. This would be suicide. The second biggest mistake Pakistan could make would be to accelerate its nuclear program if India decides on a nuclear freeze. Pakistan currently is following a correct policy. It is only reacting to India`s nuclear pursuits, and not accelerating the race itself. This is generally what smaller countries do, when they are in a conflict with larger countries.

As with the conventional arms race in the Sub-Continent, the controls of the South Asian nuclear arms race are in India`s hands. And so far, India is bent upon raising the stakes in both areas (the current Indian miltary budget increase is one example; the tri-platform nuclear policy is another; not to mention nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers). India could argue that due to its large geographical size, it can justify a requirement for a large defensive military. However what are its justifications for the gigantic offensive military machine it is trying to construct. Where is the invisible enemy that can only be destroyed by submarine launched nuclear weapons? And is the threat to India from Pakistan so large, that it required a nuclear capability to defend itself (even when Pakistan was non-nuclear)?

I don`t see any chance of an end to the nuclear race in South Asia until the average Indian attempts to stop its own govt. from its nuclear ambitions. And apart from the examples given by the author, the average Indian seems quite content with the nuclear and conventional arms race that India has started. All this at the expense of the massive poverty in South Asia.

And why the hell don`t the Japanese and the Dutch and the other goody-two-shoes of the world ever try to stop the US from its nuclear ambitions? The day the US de-nuclearizes, the rest of the world will be forced to automatically get rid of its nukes.

Should Pakistan start a Virtual University? correction reply 54:

``what the Indian contributors are trying to defend Indian programmers when no one is attacking them.``

should read

why the Indian contributors are trying to defend Indian programmers when no one is attacking them.

Should Pakistan start a Virtual University? For some strange reason, some Indians on this thread seem to be trying to explain to everyone that Indian programmers are not cheap labor. I am not quite sure how this came into this discussion. I personally do not think Indian programmers are cheap. I also do not think they are expensive. They cost about as much programmers of any other origin. A very good IT consultant of Indian origin living in the US will charge as much as good IT consultant of American origin (or Bulgarian origin, etc.), i.e. between $200 - $350 per hour. Similarly a very good IT consultant of Indian origin living in India or Pakistan or any other third world country will charge the same as an American or Pakistani IT consultant living in a third world country, i.e. perhaps between $30 - $100 per hour.

This does not mean that the Indian (or Pakistani) consultant is cheap labor. It just means that the IT market in a third world country is much cheaper than in a first world country. It has nothing to do with the individual. My own salary increased four fold when I took a flight from Karachi to the USA. I was doing the exact same IT work in Pakistan that I was doing in the US, but got paid a hell of a lot more here. So I do not understand what all the fuss is about, and what the Indian contributors are trying to defend Indian programmers when no one is attacking them.

Should Pakistan start a Virtual University? egalatarian_brahmin #45: You seem to be seeing things in my reply that I never stated. I am not quite sure why. You seemed to have used the word, ``cheap`` a lot. I never used this word. I do not think Indian programmers are cheap. I do not know why you are trying to state that they are, ``not cheap.``

I still believe that Indian programmers are no better or worse than programmers from any other country. In my opinion, intelligence is distributed evenly throughout the world. The phrase, ``better or worse`` means as good as any one else, but no better. It does not mean, ``cheap.`` I think there are good and bad programmers in America, Pakistan, India, Europe, Timbuktu etc. No country has a monopoly on intelligence.

You are trying to defend Indian programmers against an attack that does not exist. Perhaps you feel in your own sub-conscious that you need to defend Indian programmers for some reason, even if no one attacks them.

I still stand by the fact that the main strength of the Indian IT industry is the number of professionals it is producing. You have pointed it out yourself by giving details on the number of certified Indian IT professionals in India. I have discussed this with a lot of Indians, and most seem to agree. I also stand by the fact that currently the Indian IT industry (this means the IT industry inside India, and not the Indian IT professionals in the US) is still based on off-shore contracts from the Western world. I believe this is where companies like InfoSys make their money. This again points to the number of IT professionals produced by India. There is nothing wrong with this. I don`t know why you feel there is something wrong with it.

``Well said Umairr! First get that forced satisfied and smug look off your face. ``

I do not get any satisfaction or dis-satisfaction from commenting on the situation of the Indian IT industry. Basically, because I do not live in India. And because there are plenty of other things I can rely on for, ``satisfaction and smugness.`` Please refrain from assuming that others have a pre-set agenda for their replies. That leads to a paranoic discussion, which is useless to everyone.

Chowking the North South Divide RSexana: Kashmir is an Indian issue, about as much as India was a British issue. Occupying an area by force, and claiming it as one`s own against the will of its people is extremely unethical.

Chowking the North South Divide Interesting article from the Washington post:

Kashmir Tension Knows No Season

By Pamela Constable

Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, July 10, 2000; Page A12

SRINAGAR, India –– This is the prettiest time of the year in Kashmir. The lakes are bursting with lotuses and lily pads, the orchards are ripening with apples and plums, and the air is an intoxicating mixture of alpine tang and damp summer mist.

But Kashmir`s dirty war knows no season, takes no breath. Ten days ago, a terrorist bomb hidden in a fruit cart exploded on the banks of legendary Dal Lake, shattering all the windows in the Welcome Hotel and rocking wooden gondolas with names like ``Paradise`` and ``Serenity`` that waited in vain for customers at the water`s edge.

The week before, counterinsurgency forces picked up 21-year-old Aijaz Bazaz as he drove to a wedding. His body was delivered to a police station; his back had been burned and his fingernails pulled out. His parents said Bazaz was an engineering student home for a visit; police said he was a senior operative for a separatist insurgent group, killed in an armed clash.

The violence that has plagued Kashmir for a decade, leaving 50,000 dead, appears to be intensifying again. A variety of factors--the hardening of religious tension between Hindus and Muslims, a surge in ``custodial killings`` by Indian security forces, and the curt rejection by New Delhi of the Kashmiri legislature`s request for political autonomy--are rapidly narrowing the room for peaceful compromise.

Remaining article at: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/asia/A11699-2000Jul9.html

Why I’m proud to be a Pakistani Vereesh #108: I agree wholeheartedly. Everytime I travel internationally, I make it a point to avoid Saudia Arabia. My one hajj experience there was enough to understand their views about Pakistanis.

Should Pakistan start a Virtual University? The Pakistan govt. needs to do the following:

- Set up two or three very high standard IT universities; perhaps one in Karachi, one in Lahore, and one somewhere in between Pindi and Peshawar. This is not that hard to do. Pakistan has quite a few institutions that are of international standards in several areas. A few that come to mind are the college of aeronautical engg. of the PAF; set up in the mid-60s with the help of Princeton. Agha Khan medical college is another.

Infact the whole network of medical colleges, though not ideal, is good enough to produce a significant number of doctors. A similar network of IT institutions needs to be set up. These should give out BS and MS degrees.

A big portion of the graduates of these institutions will end up abroad, which is fine. They will eventually payback ten times as much as they would have had they stayed in Pakistan. These institutions do not need to be spectacular (it is almost impossible for third world institutions to compete with first world institutions; even the IITs compete more due to the quality of students that go there, and not due to the facilities provided by them, in comparison with American colleges). They only need to attract the best and brightest, and give them some sort of a recognized degree to enter into the international arena of IT.

Along with the above, Pakistan needs to set up technical schools for F.Sc., F.A, B.A., B.Sc. level people. The schools should train a very large no. of students, and give them enough knowledge to get certifications like MCSE, Oracle etc. Even below average students with one skill (html, java, oracle etc.) are in very high demand in the IT industry. These students will more than likely stay in Pakistan, because they will not have 4 year degrees. However, they will be qualified enough to do simple off-shore development

The education standards for the above institutions need to be strictly monitored and controlled by the a govt. IT task force. This should not be left to the private industry, otherwise mom and pop schools offering worthless degrees will start coming up.

- Along with the above, the govt. needs to set up the basic network infrastructure for IT; basically enough bandwidth for any company to access other companies or individuals and the Internet at a reasonable price.

- At that point, the govt. needs to step out of the whole business of IT. It should not regulate anything else apart from the standards of the educational institutions. PTCL should be privatized, and anyone from anywhere in the world who wants to enter into the Pakistan IT market should be allowed to do so to utilize the large number of IT professionals Pakistan would be producing.

The only success that India has had in IT is the number of professionals it produces. No major software application comes out of India. Israel by the end of 1999 had nearly 100 companies on the Nasdaq, while India had only 2. India is making money by contracting its labor. This is really the only way third world countries can enter into the international IT arena. They will never be able to match the infrastructure that first world countries have in any industry, including IT. Added to this, their best and brightest will nearly always leave the country brigher pastures; specially in IT.

Indian IT professionals are no better or worse in ability than the professionals coming out of other countries. It is just that they are coming out in such large quantities that sooner or later their combined number all over the world is bound to effect India positively. The Pakistan govt. needs to do the same. Produce a large quantity of IT professionals (something India has been very successful at), provide the basic networking infrastructure (something India has not been successful at), and then open up the IT market (something India is trying to do now).

All of the above is not that hard to do. The first requires two or three excellent institutions and a large number of mediocre ones. Pakistan has been able to set these up in areas like medicine and engg. The second is quite straighforward also; the aviation infrastructure in Pakistan was far more difficult to set up than the IT infrastructure will be. The third step just requires the govt. to stay out of the business arena.

Why I’m proud to be a Pakistani nameless: #31: ``Has the GOP recognised the deeds of the dead in Kargil. It has not even acknowledged the dead there. They have not even accepted the bodies of the dead.``

All the deaths in Kargil were officially recognized and honored. There was a long list of medals awarded, including two Nishan-i-Haiders (the highest Pakistani military awards). All the dead were all given official buriels.

#42: ``its eagerness to accord all military honours to the bodies of the Punjabi soldiers``

The Nishan-i-Haider was given to a Pathan officer, I believe.

Could you let me know the source of your incorrect information. I would be interested in checking it out.

Also, it would be a good idea to stick to the points that this article has highlighted. Your comments, in all their grand incorrectness, belong on a separate thread.