Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan

Altaf Gauhar and K. M. Arif

In a recent opinion piece, Shaheen Sehbai has called for accountability in journalism (see Reply # 143). Shaheen is a Washington, D. C. based Pakistani journalist. In a list of some opportunists and ambition-hunters who have used the print media for achieving political goals, he includes many ``uniformed generals, air marshals and admirals, retired bureaucrats and technocrats, many of whom were shunted out in disgrace __ sinners of the past, who would just not quit, and continue to impose themselves on the nation in one form or the other. Politicians have also been trying frequently to use the media to stage a come back when they lost the game on their own wicket.`` Shaheen contends that the ``spearheads of this list would be stalwarts like Altaf Gauhar from the bureaucracy and Lt. Gen. K.M. Arif from the khakis.``

Both Altaf Gauhar and General Arif have played an important role in the making and unmaking of Pakistan. We need to discuss the role of these two personalities (important members of the army-bureaucracy power bloc).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I don`t think my intention was to tie myself in knots when I talked about the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay. I was simply trying to point out that inspite of Indira Gandhi`s brash and insolent remark about England, the fact remains that we ( with people like her and the big-mouth Bhutto leading us ) are still stuck in the cesspool of human misery.

However, I must admit that she was brilliant in her planning and execution of the 1971 war. She has put a generation of both Indian and Pakistani politicians and generals to shame - maybe we Pakistanis need a woman with ironpants to show us the way ! ( and it is not Bennzir )

A general observation .... it is obvious from your reply to rajanjua that you blame it all on the Pakistanis - just like us, who blame it all on those living, on what I affectionately call, the wrong side of the border. It is a sad fact that inspite of all the posturing by self-claimed humanists and peaceniks on both sides,we are consumed by hatred for each other which makes real peace impossible, at lest in the forseeable future. Theren lies my rationale for being prepared for the inevitable battles.

hamidm #141

``After fifty years of ``freedom`` citizens of India and Pakistan still prefer the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay.``

You tie yourself into knots. This is precisely the point I was trying to make when I mentioned 30 year mortgages. The reason for this is people who are full of self-loathing and donot think it worthwhile even after fifty years to find ways to have order and harmony in their own countries.

rajanjua #140

This pro-war discussion is getting me all misty-eyed. I think the first task for our war-loving, AK-47 clutching, money-grabbing and peace-hating children of the pure from Pakistan is to convince their disreputable government to reduce their support to armed radical and lawless groups, stop trying to blackmail their neighbours and get on with the job of bringing prosperity to Pakistan. Peace will come automatically in the sub-continent.

Sadhana

Yellow Journalism?

A number of Chowkwallas have been talking about yellow journalism in Pakistan. The following lengthy piece seems to be a critique of the same.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Frontier Post, December 27, 1999

Accountability of the Press

Shaheen Sehbai

Every one in the present morally, intellectually and financially depleted Pakistan __ the print media and its well-entrenched ``gurus`` among the foremost __ is shouting from the roof top for accountability of every one else. Yet no one has seriously demanded, nor does any one appear to be contemplating, any accountability of the media itself.

Accountability of the media should, under ordinary circumstances, be conducted by peers of the profession in terms of its moral, professional and intellectual integrity. But in the lopsided Pakistani context, financial accountability of journalists, columnists, newspaper owners, publishers and editors also needs to be promptly and urgently undertaken and that would require intervention of the state investigative apparatus.

Accountability to determine integrity should not just include professional and financial conduct of journalists but it should also try to understand the reasons why objective journalism and traditional professional journalists are fast becoming an extinct breed and almost all opinion writing, analysis and interpretation work has been taken over by ``lateral entrants`` __ people who had no journalistic training, who never went through the mill, who acquired writing skills doing something else and when they failed in their professions, took refuge in journalism.

These ``lateral entrants`` mostly comprise ambitious generals, politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and opportunists, all masquerading as journalists, opinion makers and columnists of the highest order. Most of them have no reporting or editing skills and some appear to even have been planted by vested interests. It is common knowledge in Islamabad that at least two well-known editors of the now-defunct Daily ``Muslim`` were nominees of the military establishment, including one who became an ambassador and another who graduated to be a federal minister.

That most of them had, and still have, political ambitions and hidden agendas has never been concealed by them, as their current or past conduct would show. Many of them have virtually ``used`` journalism as a stepping stone to achieve their political and/or financial goals. Names in this category are numerous and if these big names are removed from the present spectrum of editors, leading op-ed writers, columnists, commentators and leader writers, newspapers would appear to be barren.

The purpose of this piece is not to condemn any one for his or her views and opinion nor does this piece encompass all the problems that journalism faces in Pakistan, specially the ills created by yellow journalism and a ``free-for-all`` attitude to Press freedoms. Yet one specific purpose is to pinpoint those who have been continuously ``using`` or ``abusing`` journalism for their own ends.

Some of these leading lights of present-day journalism in Pakistan are so brazen and unabashed in their pursuit of profit, politics or power, that they seem to have lost their sense and powers of judgement. The exercise their judgement only if their own political interests are served. They never measure their own conduct by the yardstick with which they measure everybody else in their writings.

Since all accountability processes began in the country from the cut-off date of mid-`80s, looking at the media scene in these 15 years brings up a horde of opportunists and power-grabbers, who have been rampaging the newspapers and their columns in one form or the other.

The best way to start such a process would be for the leading stars of the profession to present their own assets and liabilities to the public, like the chief executive and other services chiefs have done. One or two journalists have done that already but generally there is deafening silence. That would set the stage for authorities to go into their financial conduct. Newspaper owners and their families, some very high-profile editors and some upstarts who overnight became millionaires after they turned editors and publishers, would have to answer a lot of messy questions.

The integrity check should simultaneously be launched by the peers of the profession at whatever forum they think would be appropriate. Perhaps this first hurdle may be the only big hurdle and may never be crossed.

The peers, naturally those who come out unscathed and ``clean``, should sit down to formulate lists of those who have been publicly demonstrating a lack of intellectual, moral and professional integrity. Big names like Minhaj Barna, Mushahid Hussain, Maleeha Lodhi, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Nazir Naji, Ataul Haq Qasmi, Ayaz Amir, Hussain Haqqani, Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Najam Sethi, Nasim Zehra, Jamiluddin Aali and many others who sought or accepted political, diplomatic or government jobs, or joined political parties as activists, should be asked to explain why they did not quit journalism to do so and why they continued to use the profession to get, keep or regain lucrative jobs or positions of power. How do they retain, or claim to retain, their objectivity and credibility, once they have demonstrated their political ambitions? In the least they should have apologised to the profession.

Some of them have been going in and out of journalism so frequently as if the profession was a revolving door only to be used when they needed a push to restore their lost position of political, economic or administrative influence and power.

Some others accepted so petty, temporary and at times demeaning jobs that the entire profession could only hang its head in shame. Scenes when stalwarts of the profession were seen waiting outside offices of petty bureaucrats in Islamabad`s corridors of power, to get an extension of their foreign assignment were, to say the least, despicable, bringing no merit to Pakistani journalism.

I would never forget a supposedly well known name in today`s op-ed pages who, in order to ``please`` an ambassador in Washington, turned himself into the ambassador`s private photographer and started taking pictures of the ambassador with all those present at a grand farewell dinner thrown at the official residence. For three hours this newspaper columnist behaved like a personal privately hired professional. He even carried his ``act of sycophancy`` to the next day at the airport where people went to see off the ambassador, clicking rolls and rolls of pictures with the ambassador standing and smiling with every Tom, Dick, Harry and Larry. Even junior embassy staffers started making jokes about this senior journalist and his ``buttering skills``. To his ultimate disgrace, he was never obliged by the slick ambassador, despite his publicly self-demeaning conduct. But later these skills worked with the other political government of the day and he landed a cushy government job in Islamabad. Still he retains his claim to be an ``impartial and objective`` analyst and writer and does not include himself in the long list of trapeze artists that crowd the media circus in Pakistan.

Pakistan`s so-called free press is on the verge of becoming, or has already become, a beggar`s market where cheap and shoddy journalism is sold to the highest bidder __ whether political or military __ and thus the sellers get unprecedented access to power corridors. Many in Pakistan`s print and news media seem to have forgotten their responsibilities as guardians of the truth. It has therefore to be decided: whether these political aspirants, masquerading as journalists, deserve to be given the status of ``objective commentators``; whether what they dish out every day as ``informed opinion`` or ``dispassionate analysis`` should be presented to the readers as material worthy of credit; and whether the value of transparency is not irreparably compromised by the actions of those who compromise the integrity of journalism as a profession.

Financial accountability of journalists has to take place parallel to what the peers may decide to do and for that the government sleuths have to determine how small-time reporters turned overnight into millionaires, newspaper owners and big-time real estate tycoons.

Tax accountability will demonstrate the fraud Pakistani journalism has evolved into. Tax collectors should go into the records of ``overnight millionaire journalists`` to determine whether, for example, the life style of some of the big names match what they have been paying into the exchequer, whether the properties they have built in short spans of time match the incomes, or losses, of their otherwise unprofitable newspaper organisations.

Cases of open and blatant government cash handouts to favourite journalists, newspapers and news agencies are no secret in Islamabad and Lahore. A deceased news agency owner, a small-time reporter not long ago, was awarded two costly plots of land in Lahore to set up his news agency by the first Nawaz Sharif administration. The agency still claims to be ``independent`` but always dishes out planted stories that suit the rulers of the day. Open and blatant black-mailing tactics by some vernacular newspapers were hated by every political government and party but no one ever tried to curb their activities, fearing an exposure.

While the peers of the profession and the state probers look into the conduct of the mediamen, the editors and publishers should also carry out a simultaneous process of introspection to determine how other outsiders __ opportunists and ambition-hunters __ have used the print media for achieving political goals that would otherwise not be achievable.

This category would include a long list of uniformed generals, air marshals and admirals, retired bureaucrats and technocrats, many of whom were shunted out in disgrace __ sinners of the past, who would just not quit, and continue to impose themselves on the nation in one form or the other. Politicians have also been trying frequently to use the media to stage a come back when they lost the game on their own wicket.

The spearheads of this list would be stalwarts like Altaf Gauhar from the bureaucracy and Lt. Gen. K.M. Arif from the khakis. But in politics, not only Benazir Bhutto has been trying to regularly push her case of innocence through op-ed pieces, even her famous one-time house-maid Naheed Khan got at least a couple of articles published in obliging newspapers to include her name in the list of those who could be seen brandishing the media sword. That was like adding salt to the injury.

I vividly recall my first encounter with Lt. General (Retd) K.M. Arif in Washington D.C. when I saw him at the Carnegie Institute, while he was here with the then opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, US columnist Mansoor Ijaz and Editor Najam Sethi to speak at a conference on nuclear proliferation in South Asia. I had always carried one question for the general which I had wished I could ask him. That day I did. We were standing in a small group of some five or six people including then Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael and then ambassador Maleeha Lodhi during the tea break, when I asked: ``Have you, General, ever thought of apologising to the people of Pakistan for the years and years of rape of democracy and institutions that you committed in collusion with military dictator General Ziaul Haq, virtually as his No 2.``

The General was thunder-struck. Face distorted, he tried to compose himself for a few anxious seconds and then said he would like to take a cup of coffee and moved away from the group. That general is one of the most outspoken authority on democracy and foreign affairs in our newspapers today and has just been named as a member of the think tank on foreign affairs by General Musharraf. His appointment can best be described as the most apt example of insulting the collective intelligence of the people. If he is not punished for what he did to democracy, he should at least have been banished from giving sermons on democracy and good governance in newspaper columns.

The list of foreign and home-based technocrats and experts on economy, sciences and geo-strategic subjects, who pushed their resumes through newspaper columns, would also not be a small one. Some may have achieved their objectives. What they did could probably not be called objectionable, but if they did so in collusion with newspaper editors and owners who now expect to be rewarded because the aspirant expert has assumed political power, it would be patently unethical and against professional integrity.

While carrying out this exercise of accountability by the peers and by the state apparatus, it should not be forgotten that journalism has always been proud of many who have remained spotless, intellectually and financially, despite the most adverse of conditions in their professional and personal lives. They would definitely emerge as the ``clean peers`` that we desperately need for self-cleansing.

Among those the profession has to remain for ever thankful to late Messrs Mazhar Ali Khan, A.T. Choudhri, Khwaja Asif, Nisar Osmani and Maulana Salahuddin besides living legends like Ahmed Ali Khan and Zamir Niazi and very respectable names like Aziz Siddiqi, I.A. Rehman, S.G.M. Badruddin, A.B.S. Jafri, Salim Asmi, H.K. Burki, Munno Bhai, Hussain Naqi, and the present younger lot of many hardcore professionals who have turned down all inducements and bribes, plots and privileges, to remain honest and upright journalists. These leading lights should do something to clean up journalism or what is left of it as a growing cesspool.

  

In response to hamidm (Reply #: 141)

Dear Hamid:

Other things being equal, if an opportunity is provided to choose between the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay, all sane people would choose the former. Maybe you were trying to say something else? A little explanation of your points would help.

Protest against injustice does not necessarily end injustice. In fact, in many situations, protest leads to an enhanced reproduction of injustice. Does this mean that people should stop resistence? The Vietnam War did not end due to either Bertrand Russel`s mock trials and protests or the efforts of Ho Chi Minh. I think, you are oversimplifying the complex and chaotic nature of human history.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sadhana

``Here you seem to be saying that when others wage war, war is the only alternative. I agree with you 100%, I believe covert wars ought to be included within this principle.`` .... I believe you are referring to the fact that Pakistan is conducting a covert war in Kashmir, which I don`t deny, and of course India has every right to fight back. But, in my view, Pakistan has the moral responsibility to wage this war because, again in my view, India is the agressor in this case. Having said that, I disagree with the way Pakistan is conducting this war, because it seems to be on an ad-hoc basis without a plan for the end-game.

``If ``technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` `` is ``what every general dreams of``, maybe automatic weapons and their overwhelming use is what every sectarian terrorist dreams of``... here again I agree with you and fanatical sectarian groups, whether they are the Lashkar-i- Tayiba, the Shiv Sena, or the Red Brigades are a major threat, but they cannot be equated with professional armies as an instrument of the state. I don`t think any of these groups should be encouraged to take on the trappings of an army.

``Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister`` ... both Indira Ghandi and Z.A. Bhhutto, like Nyrere, Kaunda, Castro, Mugabe, Boumediene, and a slew of other big-mouth leaders of improvished fourth world countries wer ling on rhetoric and short on results. After fifty years of ``freedom`` citizens of India and Pakistan still prefer the row-housing of Manchester and Birmingham to the footpaths of Karachi and Bombay.

Bilal,

I quoted Churchill on Chamberlain because he recognized the reality and dealt with it, whereas the well-meaning Chamberlain, like you and Sadhana, ignored reality because it did not fit his pacifist views.

As for Chomsky, what can I say ... if it were up to him his tribe would still be roaming the desert while he indulged in intellectual debate with Edward Said from the comfort of his Cambridge office ! His advocacy of the ``South`` is the internationsl equivalent of Hayden`s liberal agenda in California. Again, a well meaning ``intellectual`` without a sense of reality. People like him philosophize and write about world events, while people like Churchill Teddy Roosevelt, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir shame them. Remember Betrand Russel (and Tariq Ali) and his mock Vietnam trials ..... did he end that war or was it Ho Chi Minh?

This anti-war discussion is getting me all misty-eyed. I think the first task for our war-hatin`, daisy-clutchin`, tree-huggin`, peace-lovin` flower children from Bharat is to convince their respectable benevolent government to reduce the size of their armed forces and to stop bullying their neighbours-Peace will come automatically in the sub-continent.

Peace Man!!

In response to hamidm (Reply # 133):

I wonder if you have quoted Churchill to show your ``worldview`` or it was just a random choice. Churchill was great statesman of the past, when Britain was a great world power. Compare Churchill`s views with people like Julius Caeser or Alexander the Great you may find some remarkable commonalities. During the past one-half century, a lot of changes have occurred (and a lot more have yet to occur) that make our today and future different from our past (at least intellectually). For your reference, I want to share a few quotes from Noam Chomsky (Chomsky, N. 19994. World Orders: Old and New. New York: Columbia University Press; pp-4-5). I suggest everyone to read this book.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

A Question of Discourses and Worldviews

``The Cold War has had a certain functional utility for state and doctrinal managers, offering ritual patterns of apologetics for any horror or injustice. The serviceability of the conventional picture for dominant elements offers some reason for caution about its accuracy. The historical record reveals that such skepticism is warranted.``

Calls for a New World Order

``With the Cold War at an end, there were calls for a New World Order. These came in several varieties. The earliest was published by the nongovernmental South Commission, chaired by Julius Nyerere and consisting of leading Third World economists, government planners, religious leaders, and others. In a 1990 study, the Commission reviewed the recent record of North-South relations culminating in the catastrophe of capitalism that swept through traditional colonial domains in the 1980s, apart from the Japanese sphere in East Asia, where states are powerful enough to control not only labor, as is the norm, but also capital, so that economies were somewhat insulated from the ravages of the market. To mention one aspect, capital flight from Latin America approximated the crushing debt, not a problem in East Asia, where the hemorrhage was stanched by tight controls.``

The South Commission on Neocolonialism

``The South Commission observes that there were some gestures toward Third World concerns in the 1970s, ``undoubtedly spurred`` by concern over ``the newly found assertiveness of the South after the rise in oil prices in 1973.`` As this problem abated and the terms of trade resumed their long-term shift in favor of the industrial societies, the core industrial powers lost interest and turned to ``a new form of neo-colonialism,`` monopolizing control over the world economy, undermining the more democratic elements of the United Nations, and in general proceeding to institutionalize ``the South`s second-class status``--the natural course of events, given the relations of power and the cynicism with which it is exercised.``

Churchill`s Vision and The South Commission`s Call for a New World Order

``Reviewing the miserable state of the traditional Western domains, the Commission called for a ``new world order`` that will respond to``the South`s plea for justice, equity, and democracy in the global society,`` though its analysis offers little basis for hope.

The prospects for this call are revealed by the attention accorded to it, or to the report generally, which also passed silently into oblivion. The West is guided by a different vision, one outlined forthrightly by Winston Churchill as an earlier New World Order was being constructed after World War II:``

``The government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations, who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations, there would always be danger. But none of us had any reason to seek for anything more. The peace would be kept by peoples who lived in their own way and were not ambitious. Our power placed us above the rest. We were like rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations?``

Chomsky on The Rich People`s Right to Rule

``To rule is the right and duty of the rich men dwelling in deserved peace. It is only necessary to add two footnotes. First, the rich men are far from lacking ambition; there are always new ways to enrich oneself and dominate others, and the economic system virtually requires that they be pursued, or the laggard falls out of the game. Second, the fantasy that nations are the actors in the international arena is the standard doctrinal camouflage for the fact that within the rich nations, as within the hungry ones, there are radical differences in privilege and power. Removing the remaining veil of delusion from Churchill`s prescription, we derive the guidelines of world order: the rich men of the rich societies are to rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of wealth and power and mercilessly suppressing those who stand in their way, assisted by the rich men of the hungry nations who do their bidding. The others serve, and suffer.``

hamidm

Let me back up a few steps, it seems warranted.

hamidm#130

``Are you suggesting that Pakistan should abandon the Kashmiris, accept the Indian army occupation, accept Indian hegemony in the region, become a vassal state like Bhutan, and essentially roll over and play dead?``

Its pitiful to see human intellect reach such a dead end that it recognizes only two choices, war or ignominy. Thats what is meant by failure of intellect.

`` You asked if war had solved any problems in Africa and Southeast Asia.``

Well, you have only confirmed my suspicions that it didnot and that war was the result of the world powers refusal to recognise political solutions. The lack of popular voice may have had something to do with it. Who mourns the 1-2 million Indians(Indian/Pakistani) who were killed in WWI, noone in the West who initiated the War, I am sure. Here you seem to be saying that when others wage war, war is the only alternative. I agree with you 100%, I believe covert wars ought to be included within this principle.

``the bombs did end the war, which should be the objective of any blue-blood pacifist``

The bombs worked because the other side didnot have them. Have you heard of the Cold War?

hamid #124

``True, but on the flip side of the coin, the objective was to kill as many Serbs as possible - and that is generally the objective in any war. The US has the technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` to do what every general dreams of. ``

Use of boardgame or videogame terminology again? The reason for this situation was that Serb leaders had less regard for the lives of their people than the Americans. Also, the use of overwhelming force without regard to political implications is what is making terrorism the first headline in the US consistently in this holiday period of faith, love and prosperity.

Look at these headlines from Dawn. 27th Dec:

`` 13 killed, six injured in attack on funeral in Haripur

ISLAMABAD, Dec 27: Thirteen people were killed and six injured when gunmen opened fire on a funeral procession, an official news agency reported today. The massacre occurred in the village of Sikandarpur near Haripur, a town in North West Frontier Province. Three people opened fire on a funeral procession. It is said that the attack was linked to a dispute over the construction of a Shiite mosque in the village. The attackers, believed to be Shiites, attacked the funeral procession, which was taking the body of a deceased Sunni Muslim for burial. (AFP) (Posted @ 22:15 PST)

``

If ``technology and the ability to depoly ``overwhelming force`` `` is ``what every general dreams of``, maybe automatic weapons and their overwhelming use is what every sectarian terrorist dreams of. Try your hand at convincing these people of a need for political solutions. Oh, you are likely to be situated too far away to feel any need to do so.

Sadhana

hamidm

``Hope you are not disappointed``

I am disappointed since being introduced to chowk.com to see a large number of Pakistanis(yes Pakistanis) who donot live the principles they espouse. Emma Duncan in her book says something like ``hypocrisy has become a fine art in Pakistan.`` It seems almost a compulsion to mouth one thing and do another. Frankly, I have great respect for most posters here and the sincerity of their intentions, whether anti-Indian or not. Each person of integrity lives the principles they profess and in these days of almost hand-to-hand combat, it is up to Indians and Pakistanis to get their hands dirty and get to work on what they believe. I don`t see the relevance of outdated colonials and their sayings in this situation.

Its wonderful to sum up human history by trite sayings such as

``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars.``

Those are not statements of `do-ers`, they are statements of those who are content to passively let history make itself and then be wise in retrospect.

I would rather sum up Indo-Pak history(the scope I am presently interested in) and say ``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.. nation-states and politicians belonging to progressive countries(many of which were members of the erstwhile Third World) have now learned to advance their interests and those of their citizens by trying to reach just solutions without war``. For such a thing to happen, there are many prerequisites, firstly, citizens have to assume responsibility for actions and consequences and

secondly, specifically for you, they have to transport themselves to the present and not be utterly lost in admiration of `40s Europe.

Sadhana

PS: Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister?

hamidm

``Hope you are not disappointed``

I am disappointed since being introduced to chowk.com to see a large number of Pakistanis(yes Pakistanis) who donot live the principles they espouse. Emma Duncan in her book says something like ``hypocrisy has become a fine art in Pakistan.`` It seems almost a compulsion to mouth one thing and do another. Frankly, I have great respect for most posters here and the sincerity of their intentions, whether anti-Indian or not. Each person of integrity lives the principles they profess and in these days of almost hand-to-hand combat, it is up to Indians and Pakistanis to get their hands dirty and get to work on what they believe. I don`t see the relevance of outdated colonials and their sayings in this situation.

Its wonderful to sum up human history by trite sayings such as

``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars.``

Those are not statements of `do-ers`, they are statements of those who are content to passively let history make itself and then be wise in retrospect.

I would rather sum up Indo-Pak history(the scope I am presently interested in) and say ``No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.. nation-states and politicians belonging to progressive countries(many of which were members of the erstwhile Third World) have now learned to advance their interests and those of their citizens by trying to reach just solutions without war``. For such a thing to happen, there are many prerequisites, firstly, citizens have to assume responsibility for actions and consequences and

secondly, specifically for you, they have to transport themselves to the present and not be utterly lost in admiration of `40s Europe.

Sadhana

PS: Any ideas on why Great Britain was called a `fourth rate power` by an Indian Prime Minister?

sac,

Since you mentioned Machiavelli, please note that he insisted that war should be conducted by the state and not weekend or holy warriors led by bony-kneed scout-masters or bearded mullahs :

``Every well governed commonwealth should take care that the art of war is practiced in peacetime only as an exercise and in time of war only out of necessity and for the acquisition of glory, and practiced by the state alone.``

You suggest a low-intensity war in Kashmir - I agree with that in principle (as part of the battle-plan), but there is a great danger that these crazed lashkars can get out of hand and harm Pakistan more than India. I believe it is already happening with the proliferation of groups that are not controlled by the Pakistani government.

As for Lalu Khet - never been there, and have no desire to either. I have spent some time in Shakar Parian, although I did prefer Daman-e-Koh -that was when only the brave dared to go up there; before they ruined it with roads and bad resaurants and frightened off the barking deer, snow-leopard and the paharia.

hamidm:

I must admit I enjoyed the intellectual gymnastics you went thru to explain your point of view regarding war as a ``noble`` human endeavour. What I found irksome was your prescription for a military solution to Kashmir. Do you really believe that the Pakistani army(and the navy and the airforce!!) has the guts and the resources to wage a serious war with India for more than 2 weeks? Pakistan has no choice but to wage a low-intensity war with India hoping that India would never have the audacity to risk a full-out war. Maybe you read your Clausewitz too diligently and forgot about Machiavilli. BTW which contonment have you been spending time in? Lalu Khet or Shakar Parian :)

Regards

-sac

Sadhana and Bilal

No sane person would disagree that war is a terrible thing.... but, as long as nation-states, politicians, princes and generals exist, we will be have to fight wars. I admire your personal convictions and hope that you are not disappointed. You may take heart from Churchill`s gracious eulogy to a well-meaning person whose sincerity and love of peace was responsible for the death of millions of innocent people :

``It fell to Neville chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man.

But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart -- the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity and clamour.

Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged.``

hamidm

Ask the Vietnamese and the Kampuchians. Ask the Rwandans, Somalis, Sudanese and the children of Sierra Leone. Those are the proud traditions of war which are most likely to be perpetuated.

(though a nuclear attack that ends the war in a moral victory for soldiers of God seems to be what you actually have in mind). What are you doing in a measly discussion board exhanging words with an Indian female? Get on with it.

Sadhana

In response to hamidm (Reply #: 130)

Dear Hamid:

First, I am not sure which part of your post is addressed to me. Second, we need to understand why some people support or oppose any war. In my case, I oppose all wars based upon my personal convictions. I, therefore, believe in a no-war policy. This does not mean that such a belief by some, like me or Sadhana, would automatically (and ever) wipe out the incidence of war from the face of the earth.

My example of the atomic bomb was simply to show how people justify their actions. Based upon my understanding and interpretation of human history (and thus my personal convictions), I find their viewpoint as unacceptable. If you do not like this example, permit me to ask: What was the justification of using Napalm bombs in Vietnam? During the Vietnam War, the whole world was against the US (including a lot of the Americans).

As far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, I support the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir (based upon the assumption that Kashmiris want to use this right). As far as India-Pakistan relations are concerned, we need to develop both competitive and cooperative strategies such that the people of both countries are able to live in peace and prosperity.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad