Damn Saddam? Ms Versey may wish to look into the whole episode of Saddam Hussein in July 1990 inviting in April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq (and a top US career diplomat), to seek official American opinion prior to his imminent invasion of Kuwait. Ms Glaspie`s famous reply that the US had no position in that inter-Arab dispute is a classic recorded on videotape. She was evidently transferred fast and ordered not to speak since.

Subroto Roy

Is It A War On Islam? In view of several Chowk commentators` discussion of Godhra and post-Godhra or ``Gujarat`` in the context of the parameters of Indian secularism, the following was posted at India Policy Institute on July 10 2002, in a continuing attempt to understand the precise facts of what happened at Godhra.

``From: ``drsubrotoroy``
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:50 pm
Subject: Godhra & Post-Godhra: my personal asssessment
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy/message/1079

``I have received a few days ago from Ms Desai a set of documents
regarding Gujarat, sent of her own accord. These included the March-
April 2002 issue of ``Communalism Combat`` and a May 2002 publication
of the People`s Union for Democratic Rights titled ``Maaro, Kaapo,
Baalo: State, Society and Communalism in Gujarat``.

In view of our recent discussion of Godhra at IPI, I have now read
through these carefully. As a result I have been able to re-examine
my personal opinion of the whole Gujarat tragedy, and the result
saddens me for what it says of our institutional collapse and dismal
prospects of regeneration.

Sometime in February, I had asked if anyone at IPI could demonstrate
how the faith of the Vedas and the Upanishads (A) had anything
necessarily to do with the Ayodhya movement (B). I have always felt
an adherent to the former and have never comprehended the latter
other than as a political movement. No satisfactory answer emerged
which could link A to B.

Then immediately at the start of post-Godhra, I said at IPI that I
would have liked to see Gujarat ministers to be held accountable for
their failures, and that meant Modi must go, and if any Union
Minister backed him and therefore did not want to hold him
accountable, then he/she must go too. Of course that would have
happened in a civilised polity but did not happen in ours.

(If we want an example of accountability, look at the whole Dutch
Government resigning five years after events in Bosnia in which Dutch
soldiers were held to have been negligent in failing to prevent a
massacre. Or look at the speed with which the Swiss air traffic
controllers have been discovered to be at fault for the mid air
collision in Germany a week ago -- compare it with what happened with
respect to the mid air collision which happened near Delhi a few
years ago.)

Then we got distracted for some time with the prospect of imminent
war with Pakistan. Now that that has again been proven a shadow, we
are back on Gujarat especially with respect to the Forensic Lab`s
findings, and Guruswamy hinting that the kar sevaks lit the fire.
Guruswamy thus placed a red herring on the tracks in his own personal
fight against the BJP. Any opponent of the BJP would find better
friends in Communalism Combat or the PUDR`s reports instead.

But more importantly, both these reports have given reasonable and
objective pictures of the events at Godhra as well -- in particular,
they have treated Hindu victims of the mob violence at Godhra with as
much sympathy as they have the mainly Muslim victims of the later
carnage. I say this as someone who has voted twice for Mr Vajpayee
in the past, and who has tried to defend the freedom of a Hindutvadi
point of view to be expressed at IPI over the years.

On the basis of these two reports, I have to conclude that while the
ISI or its friends might have had the motive and the capacity to
cause Godhra so as to provoke the backlash and demonstrate to the
world what a lousy country India really was -- a hypothesis I myself
have suggested in this forum -- they were not in this case so
diabolical. Events have certainly played into their hands but it
was not something they can take credit for.

A ``kar sevak`` is evidently a volunteer worker involved e.g. in the
temple-building at Ayodhya. According to the police:

``all was not well in coach S-6 of the Ahmedabad-bound Sabarmati
Express on that day. A group of unruly Ram sevaks had boarded the
train at Lucknow without reservations and had put to discomfort the
66 genuine passengers of the coach. Some of the ticket-paying
passengers had to sleep on the floor, so overcrowded had the
compartment become that the ticket collector who came aboard the
train at Ratlam (two stations before Godhra) was not allowed to enter
the coach....``

``on the Dahod-Godhra sector there was an altercation between the kar
sevaks and the (Muslim Ghanchi) chaiwallahs on the train. They
reached Godhra. Tea vendors at Godhra station (also Muslim
Ghanchis) collected, as again there was an exchange of words about
payments. The vendors from the station got onto the train...``

Also at Godhra station,

``a local Muslim woman Jaitunbibi was waiting for the train to
Vadodara scheduled to arrive at around 8 am, with her two young
daughters, Sophiya and Shahidi. On observing the altercations
(between the vendors and the kar sevaks) they tried to flee the
station. Suddenly a kar sevak obstructed their departure, grabbed
Sophiya and tried to drag her inside the compartment (S6?).
He did not succeed in doing so... Sophiya`s kin confirmed that
Sophiya did not get dragged into the train.``

.... as the train left Godkra, within a kilometre, it reached the
main Muslim Ganchi basti called ``Signal Falia``

A mob had gathered, and somebody pulled the chain for it to stop.
According to the police

``tea vendors who got onto the train and at the Signal Falia they were
the ones who pulled the chain. Other Muslims collected from the
basti. Many local Muslims got into the train. They procured diesel
from the garages near the tracks. That diesel was thrown, using
cloth balls dipped in diesel (i.e. Molotov cocktails). Stones were
also pelted.``

``the fire was not intended. It `caught more than they
expected`. ``There was no pre-planning``. ...

59 persons died, including 26 women and 12 children.

``From 8.30 am... until 7.30 pm that evening, repeated statements by
the Godhra district collector Jayanthi Ravi relayed on Doordarshan
and Akashvani radio stated that the `incident was NOT pre-planned, it
was an accident.`` ``It was only after 7-7.30 pm, when CM Narendra
Modi spoke and called it a `pre-planned violent act of terrorism`
that the official version changed.``

As for the Post-Godhra carnage, I saw nothing in the Communalism
Combat or the PUDR reports to disagree with. I am no less a Hindu
than anyone on this planet (and can prove it to anyone interested in
private discussion), and cannot but be scornful of what is being said
or has been done in the name of Hinduism. I have said at IPI that
evil seems to be ubiquitous, and all we may have to counter it with
is ``Satyamevajayathe``.

To say that the Muslims of India should basically either be
subservient or clear out and go to Pakistan is a point of view which
has always seemed to me to be based on a falsehood -- a subtle
falsehood but a falsehood nevertheless -- when all that we Hindus or
Indians or anyone else ultimately has to rely on
is ``Satyamevajayathe``.

The falsehood is that India`s Muslims wanted Partition. The fact is
that the 1937 elections were a rout for Jinnah`s Muslim League in the
areas which are today Pakistan (cf James & Roy (ed.) Foundations of
Pakistan`s Political Economy, chapter by FPR Robinson). It was only
Hitler`s invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 that led the British
on September 4 1939 to treat Jinnah at par with Gandhi.

Yes, in 1940 there was a Jinnah-Gandhi correspondence in which

Jinnah said: ``You start with the theory of the Indian nation that
does no exist``
to which
Gandhi said: ``Your reply dashes to the ground all hope for unity``.

Yes, Pakistan today is rather a dreadful place today filled with
confused people who seem to want to harm India merely because they
cannot have a raison detre for themselves otherwise.

But there was also a Muslim who fought Jinnah and the idea of a
Pakistan as bitterly as did any Hindu nationalist who proudly began
his autobiography with the words:

``My forefathers came to India from Herat in Babar`s days.``

He was as Indian as any member of the Sangh Parivar is today and was
as Muslim as any Pakistani or Afghan or Arab anywhere ever was.

His spirit represents all of India`s Muslims and other religious
minorities today. His name was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.


Subroto Roy``

The March of Folly In regard to ``Romair``s brilliant, authentic reply no. 48, the following has been posted by me at India Policy Institute http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy/message/2573

``It may be interesting to contrast present alliances with the one in
the age of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya and Vivekananda and
Aurobindo Ghose, when it was Hindus who led the opposition to British
rule while Muslims were generally quiescent or collaborationist with
white rule (cf. e.g. Maulana Azad`s remarks about how as a young man
he had to earn the trust of the Hindu revolutionaries because he was
Muslim).

Chowk (www.chowk.com) is a Pakistani/Indian site hosted in the USA
which allows anonymous posts. Some of their discussions of the same
topic as we have been discussing at IPI, namely, the US-Iraq
standoff, have been very vigourous. Here is an example from ``Romair``
replying to ``The March of Folly`` by F. R. Khan. I have no idea
if ``Romair`` is an American citizen but the content might suggest
that. ``

Subroto Roy

The March of Folly From India Policy Institute,
cf. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy/message/2551
From: ``drsubrotoroy ``
Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:36 am
Subject: India`s deafening silence

Perhaps the historical villains of the 20th Century are becoming the
heroes of the 21st and vice versa. The countries which produced
Hitler and his Vichy puppets, the horrific gulags of various sorts,
have now evolved to be on the side of right.

Schroeder of Germany, Chirac of France, the new Russians and the old
Chinese in new bottles are all surely right to say Iraq ought not to
be attacked on a pretext.

Germany, France, Russia, China have all spoken. Where is India?

India was deafeningly silent in world affairs in the 20th Century,
and hence either ignored or patronised. The 21st Century begins and
India remains silent on the first crisis which possibly portends a
world war. And the world knows that so long as Old India (India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh) fights itself, it is not a potent fighting
force.

Subroto Roy

Is It A War On Islam? From India Policy Institutehttp
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy/message/2487
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 5:51 pm
Subject: Is the West`s military supply creating its own demand?

There used to be an old (and fallacious) slogan among 19th Century
economists that ``supply creates its own demand``. It comes to mind
when one sees the obvious excess capacity in the Western military
industrial complex being attempted to be put to use in Iraq: with
Tony Blair apparently ``calling up reservists`` in Britain in case
there is war against Iraq!

The Presidency of the United States of America or the Prime
Ministership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland used to be august offices: they are being diminished by the
decisions of the present incumbents to make Saddam Hussain or Osama
Bin Laden their worthy adversaries in war!

Subroto Roy

A Work In Progress What emerges from Professor FPR Robinson`s essay commissioned in the late 1980s at the University of Hawaii by myself and W. E. James in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s``, is the interesting paradox that, by the 1937 provincial election results, there was practically no demand for Pakistan in the areas which today constitute Pakistan! The demand for Pakistan had arisen mainly in Muslim-minority areas of India which would never become Pakistan, not the Muslim-majority areas which became Pakistan!

Jinnah received from the British parity of treatment with the Congress on September 4 1939, in spite of not having anything like a democratic base to support him. That may have been because the British had panicked after Hitler`s invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 followed by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3 1939.

In the same book mentioned above (the history of which is itself yet to be told) I coined the term ``Paradox of Kashmir``, namely, how is it that Kashmir was never mentioned or predicted to be a contentious issue for 100 years before Partititon, and then, since Partition, it has become the single-point agenda of the subcontinent, and the source of an enormous and unending drain of economic resources by the military/political elites of both India and Pakistan? (There have been 19 divisions of standing armies on each side of the India-Pak border!) The answer I gave has to do with the collapse of the political conversation between the major players under game-theory like conditions.

Azad -- whose Islamic identity and beliefs could hardly be doubted especially as compared to Jinnah -- stood as the most clear-headed and objective of all thinking political men of his time. He almost alone tried to bring all the parties to reason, but clearly failed. Solving the problems of India and Pakistan today, especially that of J&K, requires in my view a return to an understanding of something like his prescient analysis. But there are now very deep vested interests on several sides unprepared to actually solve problems reasonably. It would take genuine statesmanship on both sides, like that of De Gaulle and Adenauer or Reagan and Gorbachev, and that is obviously lacking rather sorely.

Sincerely

Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM,
IIT Kharagpur, India 721302.

A Work In Progress Participants in this current discussion at Chowk may find relevant ``Maulana Azad: Free India`s Tragic Hero``, at India Policy Institute http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy Message 1174, July 16 2002, reproduced below. Azad was the polar opposite of Jinnah.

``On Maulana Azad: Free India`s Tragic Hero

Subroto Roy, © July 16 2002

I believe that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had the right political
analysis and solution for the problems of the subcontinent -- more so
than Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Golwalkar, Savarkar, Shyama
Prasad, Ambedkar or any other Indian of his time, let aside any of
the British.

Jinnah is today Pakistan`s solitary and rather improbable hero;
Golwalkar, Savarkar and Shyama Prasad are heroes of the Sangh Parivar as is Patel to an extent; Ambedkar`s name is taken by Dalit
politicians; Gandhi and Nehru are faintly remembered in today`s
Congress Party, and Bose is extolled in Bengal.

But I believe Azad`s words and actions were less part of the problem
and more part of the solution than the words and actions of any of
them.

I have personally typed in a statement of his issued on April 15
1946, which he endorsed again ten years later in his biographical
narrative India Wins Freedom.

The initial version of this book was published in 1959 by Orient
Longmans in New Delhi. Certain pages were kept confidential at
Azad`s request for a period of thirty years. In 1988, the complete
version was published, again by Orient Longmans, New Delhi.

I urge Azad`s April 15 1946 statement to be widely read and freely
distributed on the Internet today, to Indians of all faiths, to
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, to any and all citizens and well-wishers
of the subcontinent.

The reason I urge this is not out of any piety towards a neglected
great man. Rather, I am being extremely practical.

If I am right to think Azad had the most profound analytical insight
and prescience of any political man of his time, then the resolution
of key problems on the subcontinent which have persisted since then,
e.g. that of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, may also depend on an
understanding and application of his analysis today.

Azad`s stated (India Wins Freedom p. 197):
``It must be placed on record that the man in India who first fell for
Lord Mountbatten`s idea (of Partition) was Sardar Patel. Till
perhaps the very end Pakistan was for Jinnah a bargaining counter,
but in fighting for Pakistan, he had over-reached himself. His
action had so annoyed and irritated Sardar Patel that the Sardar was
now a believer in Partition.``

This statement formed a basis for my suggesting a game-theoretic
explanation of the roots of the current and continuing Kashmir
problem in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an
Agenda for the 1990s``, edited by W. E. James and Subroto Roy, Sage
1992, Karachi OUP 1993. Recognising the problem to have game-
theoretic roots, itself is a first and necessary step towards a
solution. Jai Hind.``

Excerpt from India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, released
after 30 years, complete version, 1988, initial version 1959 ed. by
Humayun Kabir, pp. 150-152.

``I have considered from every possible point of view the scheme of
Pakistan as formulated by the Muslim League., As an Indian, I have
examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a
Muslim, I have examined its likely effects upon the fortunes of
Muslims of India.

Considering the scheme in all its aspects, I have come to the
conclusion that it is harmful not only for India as a whole but for
Muslims in particular. And in fact it creates more problems than it
solves.

I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It
suggests that some portions of the world are pure while others are
impure. Such a division of territories into pure and impure is un-
Islamic and is more in keeping with orthodox Brahmanism which divides
men and countries into holy and unholy -- a division which is a
repudiation of the very spirit of Islam. Islam recognizes no such
division and the prophet says ``God made the whole world a mosque for
me``.

Further, it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol of
defeatism, and has been built on the analogy of the Jewish demand for
a national home. It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold
their own in India as a whole, and would be content to withdraw to a
corner specially reserved for them.

One can sympathise with the aspiration of the Jews for such a
national home, as they are scattered all over the world and cannot in
any region have any effective voice in the administration.. The
conditions of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise. Over 90 million in
number, they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important
element in Indian life to influence decisively all questions of
administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by
concentrating them in certain areas.

In such a context, the demand for Pakistan loses all force. As a
Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to
treat the whole of India as my domain and to shape in the shaping of
its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of
cowardice to give up what is my patrimony and content myself with a
mere fragment of it.

As is well known, Mr. Jinnah`s Pakistan scheme is based on his two
nation theory. His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences, Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations have separate States, When Dr Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr. Jinnah that Hindus and Muslims live side by side in thousands of Indian towns, villages and hamlets, Mr. Jinnah replied that this is no way affected their separate nationality. Two nations, according to M Jinnah, confront one another in every hamlet, village and town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two States.

I am prepared to overlook all other aspects of the problem and judge
it from the point of view of Muslim interest alone. I shall go
still further and say that if it can be shown that the scheme of
Pakistan can in any way benefit Muslims I would be prepared to accept
it myself and also to work for its acceptance by others. But the
truth is that even if I examine the scheme from the point of view of
the communal interests of the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the
conclusion that it can in no way benefit them or allay their
legitimate fears.

Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if
we give effect to the Pakistan scheme. India will be divided into
two States, one with a majority of Muslims and the other of Hindus.
In the Hindustan State there will remain 35 million Muslims scattered
in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in UP, 12
percent in Bihar and 9 percent in Madras, they will be weaker than
they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their
homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up
well known centres of Muslim culture and civilization there.

They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become alien
and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and
economically, they will be left to the mercies to what would become
an unadulterated Hindu raj.

On the other hand, their position within the Pakistan State will be
vulnerable and weak. Nowhere in Pakistan will their majority be
comparable to the Hindu majority in the Hindustan States. ( NB Azad
could hardly imagine even at this point the actual British
Partition of Punjab and Bengal, let aside the later separation of
Bangladesh from West Pakistan, SR. )

In fact, their majority will be so slight that will be offset by the
economical, educational and political lead enjoyed by non-Muslims in
these areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were
overwhelmingly Muslim in population, it still could hardly solve the
problem of Muslims in Hindustan.

Two States confronting one another, offer no solution of the problem
of one another`s minorities, but only lead to retribution and
reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages. The scheme of
Pakistan therefore solves no problems for the Muslims. It cannot
safeguard their rights where they are in minority nor as citizens of
Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs which they
would enjoy as citizens of a major State like the Indian Union.

It may be argued that if Pakistan is so much against the interest if
the Muslims themselves, then why should such a large section of
Muslims be swept away by its lure? The answer is to be found in the
attitude of certain communal extremists among the Hindus. When the
Muslim League began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a
sinister pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it out of fear
that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslim and trans-Indian
Muslim States.

The opposition acted as an incentive to the adherents of the League.
With simple though untenable logic they argued that if Hindus were so
opposed to Pakistan, surely it must be of benefit to Muslims. An
atmosphere of emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable
appraisement impossible and swept away especially the younger and
more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt
that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be
considered dispassionately, those who now support Pakistan will
themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim interests.

The formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept
secures whatever merits the Pakistan scheme contains while all its
defects and drawbacks are avoided. The basis of Pakistan is the
fear of interference by the Centre in Muslim majority areas as the
Hindus will be in a majority in the Centre. The Congress meets this
fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial units and vesting
all residuary power in the provinces. It also has provided for two
lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that
if any provincial unit so wants, it can administer all subjects
itself except a minimum delegated to the Centre. The Congress
scheme threescore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are
internally free to develop as they will, but can at the same time
influence the Centre on all issues which affect India as a whole.

The situation in India is such that all attempts to establish a
centralized and unitary government are bound to fail. Equally,
doomed to failure is the attempt to divide India into two States.
After considering all aspects of the question, I have come to the
conclusion that the only solution can be on the lines embodied in the
Congress formula which allows room for development both to the
provinces and to India as a whole. The Congress formula meets the
fear of the Muslim majority areas to allay which the scheme of
Pakistan was formed. On the other hand, it avoids the defects of the
Pakistan scheme which would bring the Muslims where they are in a
minority under a purely Hindu government.

I am one of those who considers the present chapter of communal
bitterness and differences as a transient phase in Indian life. I
firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the
responsibility of her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of
Mr. Gladstone that the best cure for a man`s fear of the water was to
throw him into it. Similarly, India must assume responsibilities
and administer her own affairs before fears and suspicious can be
fully allayed.

When India attains her destiny, she will forget the chapter of
communal suspicion and conflict and face the problems of modern life
from a modern point of view. Differences will no doubt persist, but
they will be economic, not communal. Opposition among political p
[arties will continue, but it will based, not on religion, but one
economic and political issues. Class and not community will be the
basis oaf future alignments, and policies will be shaped
accordingly. If it be argued that this is only a faith which events
may not justify, I would say that in any case the 90 million Muslims
constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the
circumstances, they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.``




Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM, IIT Kharagpur
Kharagpur, India 721302.

A Work In Progress The author may wish to consult the work of Ayesha Jalal titled ``The Sole Spokesman`` (CUP 1985), which may well be definitive, as well as the chapter by FPR Robinson in ``Foundations of Pakistan`s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s``, edited by W. E. James and myself (Hawaii MS 1989, Sage 1993, Karachi OUP 1993). If the author happens to know of these or similar works already, I would be interested in hsi response to them.

Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM, IIT Kharagpur,
India 721302.

Midnight\'s Knights? I have flattered myself to think that ``deconstruction`` of ``The Satanic Verses`` Ms Versey referred to as ``thorough`` in her first sentence was the one I did, published for the first time at Chowk on December 23. Ms Versey has very kindly confirmed to me that is the case. I assume ``deconstruction`` is synonymous with (or Derrida-speak for) ``analysis``.

Rushdie and I met for (I think) dinner about November 1973 when I was a freshman at the LSE and a volunteer for the London University student-newspaper, and he was, as I recall, a young (and rather angry) journalist. It was around the time of the Greek military dictatorship which led to the ``November 17`` group, only recently apprehended (I recall some of them, or people like them, visiting the newspaper`s office.) I recall being unhappy at India having held the 90,000 Pakistani POWS from the 1971 conflict for longer than we should have done (which I think has contributed to a lot of bitterness and desire for revenge in the higher echelons of the Pakistani military). I recall Rushdie telling me then of how, though he was Pakistani, he felt himself Indian, and also of his love for Bombay. I seem to recall him sharing my scorn for the Pakistani political regime in that era. I recall him being happy enough to have met me (a youngster at 18) and gave me his phone number and told me to call if I needed his help. We may have talked on the phone once after that but have never met again -- except in cybersapce via my critique of his book at Chowk now. Coincidentally, my own work came to be attacked in the United States on the same day, February 14 1989, as Rushdie received the Iranian fatwa, but that story is yet to be told.

This is my first experience at this marvellous site called Chowk, though I have admired it since 1999. Chowk members may be interested to know of India Policy Institute which also began at the same time, and is now at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaPolicy. We have
a somewhat different approach; while members may be anonymous, no one may post without a real name, affiliation, etc. To protect privacy, this information remains with the moderators (unless a member wishes to make it public), and in exchange the moderators` data are in the public database. We have thus managed to stop a lot of ``flaming``, invective and irrelevancy; nor do we provide ouselves as a place for therapy or for venting anger or pettiness. IPI members have been informed of Chowk, and equivalently, Chowk members are most welcome to consider joining IPI, or viewing the archives which are public. Interesting posts may be found on technology, the economy, secularism, Hindutva, Godhra and Post-Godhra, India-Pakistan relations and other matters. My own pie-in-the-sky solution for India-Pakistan has, for a decade now, been the formula ``Common Defence, Common Market, Common J&K`` achieved sequentially within, say, 2, 5 and 7 years respectively.

Sincerely

Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.)
Professor, VGSOM, IIT Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, India 721302.