Boundaries or Bridges?

............. same old rubbish........ same old tired arguments, historicl half-truths, accusations, counter-accusations, lame insinuations, faulty inferences, garbage.. garbage... garbage. Beena, as I suspected, must have walked through the booti-patch or else the kids from Amritsar must have smoked their lunch on the train ( you have to be an idiot to take a train across the border anyway - remember `47?).

I always knew that they ( I don`t want my mouth washed out with soap) love to engage in silly arguments so that they can snare the simple-minded, intellectully-impaired and testosterone-deficient Pakis into their infidel traps. What is shocking is how easily some Pakis fall into this infidel pit. What is there to argue about ? If I have heard these arguments one time, I have heard them a million times. Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Edwina, Mountbatten, Hyderabad, Junagadh, blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah-blah...... please stop this nonsense ! Let`s prepare for the battle that must ensue .............. may the better species win. I am hoping that with our more solid Aryan credientials we will prevail over the ancient tribes of Hanuman. That`s it .... get those kids off the bus and into a jihadi training camp where they belong. Let`s jam ZTV and go on a diet of milli-taranas to infuse the suicidal spirit of martyrdom in our youth. Let`s build a few more replicas of Chagai in Islamabad and put up some more tin-can Ghaznis and Ghauris in the Blue Area to scare the odd Indian diplomat (spy).

What are we saving the bombs for ............. let them fly. The common man in both India and Pakistan is probably better off radiated than not .... at least he can light up his jhuggi with a glow. Let loose the dogs of war ... Praise Allah and pass the ammunition ..............

Kids on a train ...peace, love and all that nonsense.... Janice Joplin strummin... John Lennon dreamin .... i thought weed and mandys were not cool any more .... keith richards lives, so do we.

In reply to Harimau (#80) :

http://www.currenthistory.com/archivedec97/harrison.html

is also interesting, and traces the rise of US-Pakistan ties to the influence of a Sir Olaf Caroe.

quote :

In Washington, the Caroe message came at an impressionable moment and had a powerful impact, providing a clear rationale for advocates of a policy ``choosing`` between India and Pakistan.

The divergence between India`s emerging foreign policy of neutralism and Pakistan`s eagerness for an alliance had already become increasingly clear to American leaders with Nehru`s 1949 visit and Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan`s American mission in early 1950. The assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan a year later ended the short-lived Muslim League dynasty, accelerating a shift of power from political leaders to the civil service-army hierarchy that ultimately took the form of overt military rule.

By March 1952, well before the end of the Truman administration, the United States was informally committed to the idea of a grant military assistance program for Karachi; by December 1953, after the advent of the Eisenhower administration, Vice President Richard Nixon returned from a visit to India and Pakistan strongly supportive of the program.

-arun gupta

In reply to Harimau (#80) :

You may be right that Pakistan decided to tilt US-wards in 1948 itself. The US itself was not receptive till around 1950 and later. Anyway, Nehru visited the US in roughly May 1949, and Liaquat Ali Khan visited the US around May 1950.

The following URLs may be of interest :

http://www.ghalib.com/opinion/crucial_aspects_of_moscow_visitb.htm

in which Afzal Mahmood writes :

Despite physical proximity, making them close neighbours, relations between Pakistan and Russia have always left much to be desired. The fifty-year history of Pak-Russian (formerly the Soviet Union) relations has been one of missed opportunities. In June 1949, the Soviet Union extended an invitation to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to visit Moscow. The visit was planned for August 1949. Earlier, in May 1949, the US had extended an invitation to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian prime minister, to pay an official visit to Washington. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan kept Joseph Stalin`s invitation in abeyance, waiting perhaps for an invitation from President Truman to visit Washington, which was ultimately received.

It was a major faux pas of Pakistan`s foreign policy that the visit of its prime minister to the US materialized, although the invitation for it had come much later than the one from Moscow. His visit to Moscow never took place. The rebuff to the Soviet Union was never forgiven or forgotten by Moscow and continued to cast its long shadow on its relations with Islamabad. As a matter of fact, a visit from Pakistan`s head of government did not take place until 1965 when President Ayub Khan visited the Soviet Union to break the ice.

As against this, New Delhi maintained a balance in its relations with both the superpowers and reaped full benefits from its policy of bilateralism. Pandit Nehru`s visit to Washington in 1949 did not prevent him from cultivating close ties with the other superpower. He sent his sister, Mrs Vijay Lakhsmi Pandit, as India`s first ambassador to Moscow.

* * *

http://www.currenthistory.com/archivedec97/harrison.html

is also interesting, and traces the rise of US-Pakistan ties to the influence of Sir Olaf Caroe.

-arun gupta

A simple logic seems to defy a lot of Pakistani Analysts. The world community would never be in favor of Kashmir being a part of Pakistan or even Kashmir being independent. All other reasons aside, the main and increasingly strong reason in today`s global picture is that the underlying reason for Kashmiri independence or accession to Pakistan is WEAK.

In the eyes of the world, Kashmiris want to break away not because they seek economic or political freedom or because of ethno-racial oppression or even deep rooted historic reasons, like slavery - but because Kashmiris want to break away for the lame duck reason of `Religion`. In a world that it is crying out for equality among peoples, celebration of diversity of all things and global unification in terms of trade and economy, here we have a people fighting for self-determination based on an outdated and counter productive reason. Also, the world is not oblivious to the `Rally around the Islamic flag` agenda that is being promoted by some countries, particularly, Pakistan and the central Asian Republics. The world knows it cannot afford to lose Kashmir, lest it should lose its own soul - The soul of diversity, freedom and liberty for all types people, religions, cultures, ideas and ideologies not just one cookie cutter - one size fits all - Islamic UMMA.

Over the next century, the world will see Islam climb down from its high pedestal and become a more universal religion. Muslims will understand that Allah is God for all creatures and not just Muslims. They will understand that all peoples whether they read the Quoran or not, are equal in the eyes of Allah. The Mullahs and Imams will re-tool for the new beginning. This will happen, whether you like it or not.

``WE didn`t find the Pakistan we were looking for``.

Funny! After reading the 380+ mails on Dr. Ahmad`s article, one gets the idea that many Pakistanis are saying exactly the same thing ;)

umairr`s next surveys:

1. had there been no `indian forces occupying kashmir in collusion with mountbatten` there would have been no `tribals` uprising in kashmir`

2. had there been no `indian forces occypying kashmir` there would have been no `operation gibraltar`.

3. had there been no `indian forces in east pakistan`, bangladeshis would still be called pakistanis.

4. had there been no `indo-ussr relations` pakistan would not have gifted away kashmiri land to china

On macgupta #: 78

When I said in my post about Pakistan`s foreign policy and somebody replied ``If Pakistan looked towards the US for assistance in 1948, it was

for several good reasons``, I was referring to the fact that the Pak Prime Minister visited Washington but though he received an invitation from Stalin he never visited Russia. You on the other hand are quoting the date of signing of the CENTO treaty in 1953 as the date the tilt toward Washington began. A tilt does not begin with the signing of the treaty. A lot of legwork has to be done to reach that conclusion.

Hope this clarifies in your mind why I picked 1948 as the year in which Pakistan began to formulate a policy of alignment with the West. The fact that the book you quote does not talk about the Pak visit to Washington and not visiting Moscow does not invalidate my date.

krashid #75

About Mr Ayaz Amir, I agree with you. I am an admirer of his forthright views and concise style of writing, though I sometimes disagree with his opinions. In fact, in the past I have even written to `Dawn` to suggest syndication of their regular columnists to the Urdu press for much wider reach. So his apparent `cop-out` is a real disappointment to me, though I will now go back to his article and see whether I am indeed mistaken.

krashid, I agree with you in part about `real` governments and the damaging effects of misgovernance in the name of democracy. Even in India, in the past and maybe even presently, there was always talk of the benefits of a `benign` dictatorship since nothing ever seemed to move forward(in India). In hindsight, it seems that we would have lost a lot more in the loss of our process/precedents of governance than we would have gained through the actions of firm but unelected leaders. India is a huge and diverse country where chaos is always around the corner and democracy is proving to be the most stable and consistent way to go.

The key to `real` government, seems to me (with ideas borrowed from a friend who knows a lot about Malaysia and Indonesia) is the `legitimacy` of unelected or elected governments in Pakistan. An unelected government could well win some temporary legitimacy if its worked consistently in furthering Pakistanis interest, either economic or any other. The terrible harm to the evolution of process for representative governance through dictatorship could possibly be offset temporarily by the benefits of clearing up the administrative and policy messes left behind or created by flawed elected governments. (BTW, I may well be paraphrasing ideas from Mr. Ayaz Amir`s articles in these statements).

However, the signs emanating from the present regime donot demonstrate that they are any better than elected but corrupt governments. Does the present regime seem to be moving decisively in Pakistan`s interest in any major internal issues except apparently in the matter of promoting the spirit of military invincibility wrt India? So there is neither the all-important evolution of democratic process nor the benefit of radical corrective actions. It seems to be business as usual. To an external observer a sure sign is that the regime is pursuing very assidiously the prosecution of `sham` cases against NS and his associates with no obvious benefit to anyone except to Gen PM personally, when actually the greater benefit to Pakistan lies in gathering information about and prosecuting, `real` cases of corruption or misappropriation against the same.

Sadhana

If Pakistan looked towards the US for assistance in 1948, it was for several good reasons.

BR>

It is amazing that we disagree on even basic facts like this. My understanding was that Pakistan`s ``looking to the US`` began in 1953, and I confirmed it by this from the Library of Congress appended below. Therefore, Pakistan did not look to the US in 1948.

As a matter of fact, the 1953 treaty with the US led to immediate further deterioration in Indo-Pakistan relations.

-arun gupta

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pk0026)

Pakistan

Early Foreign Policy

Pakistan`s early foreign policy espoused nonalignment. Despite disputes with India, the policies of the two countries were similar: membership in the Commonwealth of Nations; no commitment to either the United States or the Soviet Union; and a role in the UN.

Pakistan`s foreign policy stance shifted significantly in 1953 when it accepted the United States offer of military and economic assistance in return for membership in an alliance system designed to contain international communism. When the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower sought a series of alliances in the ``Northern Tier``--Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey--and in East Asia, Pakistan became a candidate for membership in each. In 1954 Pakistan signed a Mutual Defense Agreement with the United States and became a member of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The following year, Pakistan joined Iran, Iraq, and Turkey in the Baghdad Pact, later converted into the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) after Iraq`s withdrawal in 1959. Pakistan also leased bases to the United States for intelligence-gathering and communications facilities. Pakistan saw these agreements not as bulwarks against Soviet or Chinese aggression, but as a means to bolster itself against India.

Data as of April 1994

Sadna re:74

Well, if simply belonging to the previous gov was a crime then a heckuva lot more people would be in the lockup just now. Presumably there is more to it, but the current gov needs to let us in on just what it is these people are accused of. Since they`re already on the ECL and still not accused, may as well let them go (unless they`re dangers to the state - Mushahid Hussain bereft of portfolio hardly strikes meas such!)?and collect evidence (which could take a while, seeing as how it took years to get a case even against the BB/AAZ group after a leave-no-stone unturned effort). As I`ve said before, while I don`t disagree with the coup, I do disagree with some of the actions the regime has taken..

That said, have some charges been framed that I don`t know of? Umaiir, Bahmed, anyone?

Dear Alireza # 69,

After a very long time I am finding a sensible anti Indian post from a Pakistani, I will hold my sarcasm to the P.S. You mentioned about the non-violent Indians from the land of the mahatma having an aggressive posture to Pakistan and may be the world. For us Gandhi was the product of his time, he did a remarkable job, we are thankful, he put us in the modern history books, a place under the sun. We have built roads after him, in every town, named them M.G.Roads, we have built statues of him on pedestals, well above the eye level so that in day today lives we don’t see him. Hardly few talk about his philosophy in India, the freedom fighters, the ‘khader’ wearing gandhians had their day in power. Now it is the age of the young. There are not many in indian politics today whose claim to power is freedom fight.

In that sense Pakistan is very different. It is reasonable to assume that like in India, freedom fighters in Pakistan were people of remarkable integrity, but the military coup of Ayub Khan denied them an opportunity to mould their country. ( It would be educative if Bilal or Zeemax could illuminate on this aspect of the Pak history. What happened to Pak freedom fighters). In Pakistan strangely even today people are concerned about Jinnah eating pork, concerned about his first speech to the parliament and above all doubting whether he really wanted Pakistan. Not many in India are worried about the personal aspects of Gandhi. We have consigned him to history. We like his quips “ what you think of western civilization: that would be a good idea”. With his ideas of rural industry and production by the masses instead of mass production, Marxists have accused him of trying to turn the wheels of history backwards, and actually doing it.

The new generation hardly know about him, not much in the text books, I look forward to the day when children will ask what M.G. stand for in the names of roads, when the independence struggle is consigned to the history books, the day when India becomes truly free. Then India will be united by the hopes and aspirations of the people, united in a common belief about the future.

It is very hard for a Pakistani to take such a flippant attitude towards history when the ideal ‘heaven’ really existed on earth in Madina and the path way to that is so clear. I was pained to see a pakistani stretching the bows of time 5000 years back to launch pakistan into the future.

Let me tell you of an infidel, monkey worshipping hindu concept.” Sambhvami yugae yugae”. When ever there is evil on this earth, god will manifest to solve it. We don’t have to hold on to one Gandhi, if the time requires it, more will come. Sorry you chaps, you have only one prophet, one Jinnah and one God. Kamala Das has recently converted one Hindu God, Krishna to Islam, I have named him Mohammed Krishna, and if remember correctly Sameer has named another one Ganesh Ali, would you like to take one of these. Both are now muslims.

With best wishes from gods.

Jay

P.S. It is such a relief to know that there is no concept of fatwa in the cow urine drinking hinduism. I am working on an inflammatory concept “ Fatwafobia” that afflicts most Pakistanis..

Sadhna#

It is in reference to another thread where you quoted Ayaz Amir as against democracy.

Ayaz Amir if I remember correctly used to write in Herald and was very progressive in approach.

You have to realize this that nobody was happy with sham democracy of Nawaz Sharif where parliament was MADE into a rubber stamp, newspapers were threatened to extreme to tow Government line, and institution of judiciary was subjugated.

That is why even though Pakistanis have a great democratic struggle in their country, they don`t want a sham democracy.

Also if you read statements of Pervez Musharraf and co you will see they are playing democracy to appease the people, whether truly or not. Like with the introduction of democracy at the level of Zila to GIVE REAL POWER to the people.

The situation in Pakistan is very complicated, and is much different from your perception.

To give a small glimpse, the same people who after the second stint in power of Nawaz Sharif with sham democracy wholeheartedly accepted his ouster from Government. While, when Nawaz Sharif was sacked by then president after his first stint in power, people rallied behind him.

Pakistan is a complex country, with many trends. They don`t love democracy, they want their own Government.

sac #58

I think you havenot read the article I referred to. Its worthwhile to read it in the original, it gives a good perspective of a Government of India department soldiering away for the last 34 years at the mammoth problem of corruption( its very much present in India, too) along with the courts and other govt agencies.

Central and State Vigilance Commissions are not taken lightly in India, nor do these Commissions have the reputation of publishing reports on corrupt officials arbitrarily. According to the article, they do thorough investigations, prepare the cases for the legal procedure of prosecution and recommend the same, but since it is up to other, not-as-honest bureacrats to initiate anti-corruption legal proceedings, many big cases get stuck on file.

What the web site did was to make documents already in public domain(but in paper files on shelves in Govt buildings) available to the public on the web site. Noone is being denied due process of law and according to the article, the Government department is prepared to back up the published lists with legal documentation.

Nothing as arbitrary as locking someone up. You may find the anecdote about Custom agents also interesting(if you choose to look the article up).

`Universal notions of democratic discourse and civilised conduct` and universal justice will always be universal, thank God. Don`t knock it if you havenot seen it. Many Indians and myself have benefited in many ways from the applications of these principles. One example is that among millions of other students, I was one of those who benefited from the state entrance exam system in India for admission to professional colleges. The entrance exam system came about in most states because some citizens and some public servants decided not to settle for corruption in college admissions. Thank God noone took a pinch of salt at that time, or confined their efforts to merely pulling the right strings for themselves!

About arbitrary incarceration of prominent political figures, one ought to realise a few things. Firstly, that the public denigration of the rule of law always tarnishes the public image and undermines the moral authority of the state and its current leaders.

Secondly, that any political figure or functionary represents a political constituency of citizen supporters and arbitrary or unlawful behaviour by the government towards him/her is equivalent to disenfranchising that constituency.

Thirdly, that, if arbitrariness or mere disaffection is the rule, then next time it could be someone YOU support or are allied to, and then you might have no moral argument or legal precedent against the injustice or lack of proper procedure.

Fourthly, if the system(or lack of it) didnot force all politicians to plan their eventual escape routes starting from their first day in office, they might be more effective while in office. Its in the best longterm interest to hold them accountable than to threaten them with unknown horrors to be decided by the mood of the moment.

Lastly, how many intellects, opinions and energies are being lost to the Pakistani political scene because politics has turned into such a dangerous business? Maybe such scenarios have played out many times over in Pakistani politics, maybe its time to bring it to an end.

Sadhana

PS: Assad_K: I am speaking from general principle, you tell me the specifics. Has being in any previous government become a crime in Pakistan, or is there more to it? I feel sure there is more to it, but the point is, tell me what it is?

PPS: On second thoughts, in deference :-) to JSD, don`t tell me anything which is not publicly known and which can be faxed back to my Home Office :-)

mannyd #72: ``Is that a yes or no? Can You please rephrase the question for us dim-witted?`` Thanks for the response. After reading all the intelligent responses on various issues at Chowk, I am the one who is begining to feel dim-witted. Even some of the sarcastic and abusive responses are quite educational :)

To clarify things, a yes implies had there been no Siachen, there would be no Kargil. And a no implies that even if India would not have carried out Siachen, Pakistan still would have carried out Kargil.

FANTASY AND REALITY

At last it is safe to come to this thread. Children crossing the borders and have washed away years of adult animosity in a deluge of childhood innocence, the jihadic war cries have drowned in the chorus of ba ba black sheep, the sound of the marching boots is lulled to silence by the rhythms of hop-scotch, the clicks of the time bomb is replaced by keyboard clicks. At last Akhand Bharat is only a generation away.

I talked to the children, they were excited about the general uncle across the border, the wonderful things he has explained to them, how tanks are used to take water to the desert borders of Rajestan, how the mines along the LOC yield gold and diamonds, how Pakistani soldiers are using the mortars lobed in by the Indians to build houses and how the Pak soldiers look forward to the sight of mirages send by the Indians across the hot desert sands.

Ever since I was hit on the head by a meteor, I had been a killjoy. I showed the children the latest India Today, an article on the Pak visitors to India, perfectly timed to meet the children after their Pak visits. Nearly 200,000 Pakistanis visit India, most of them adults, most of them visiting their relatives and friends. This had been going on for so many years, may be the present hostility is because of this, I pointed out to the children. May be as the children grow up something changes, what could that be I asked in a challenging tone? The smart one replied, may be our attitudes, may be Pakistani’s image about the Indians.

I can still remember the face of that Indian child, he knew the answer, he had a book in his hand, given to him by his friend across the border, History.Pak.Org.

By the way I just realized who Temporal is ....

does ``Seminar in Islamic Ethics`` ring a bell

Yasser Latif Hamdani