Verdict in Pakistan

krashid #193 I too have wondered why Indians and Pakistanis on Chowk tend to be so much more acrimonious towards one another than in real life. I think the reason is that both are victims of the internet, where messages tend to be more harsh than is intended. If the other person reacts angrily to this perceived hostility, we have a chain reaction.

I read somewhere that messages on the internet tend to sound more harsh since the accompanying body language is missing, and since unlike the spoken word they tend to be seem more ``permanent`` to the listener. It is for this reason that ``netiquette`` is emphasized so much, and making the extra effort to not cause unnecessary offense. Also symbols like :-) have become popular since they make up for the missing body language to some extent.

In real life, I doubt if the folks trading these hot exchanges and hardline positions would act the same way.

RSaxena #185 Glad you agree that Kashmir problem can be easily solved if our respective governments sat down and tried to negotiate a solution. This problem reminds me of the struggles over the Alsace-Lorraine province between Germany and France which caused so much bloodshed. Today, the whole issue is irrelevant as bigger changes that the political leaders of France and Germany never envisaged. What the current generation of these countries cares about (environmental issues, economic well-being, social justice, scientific progress) are things that can be traced to the the work of humble scientists, teachers of the time. It is for this reason that I think Indians and Pakistanis on Chowk need to think beyond the current positions of their respective governments. The governments will catch up in due course.

Narain #186 I think you make an excellent point in saying that the current efforts by the Indian government to negotiate with Kashmiris should include Pakistan if they are to bear results. They say the time to buy stock is when it is low, and Pakistan`s stock is low at this time. This is the best time for the Indian government to invest in goodwill with Pakistan.

yahmla jhat ghati

Not only are you ignorant, you don`t seem to read very well either. I write Ummah, you read Ammah. Now then, if you don`t know what Ummah is why don`t you ask? Or I assume you are used to making up meanings when you don`t know something. Well enough. Your posts are exemplary of that.

You have added no value to the points of discussion other than make pathetic and unsuccseful attempts to post witty messages.

Buzz off.

Satyavadi #190

What do you think is the reason.

When I first came here in USA, during my training, few of the Indians told that they had a very different concept of Pakistanis in India.

Also in Pakistan, most people have no time to involve in these kind of discussion. At most they are busy fighting differences among themselves.

Even during my training, I had good relations with Indian friends. Indians are very adoptable and accomodative. And apart from two Old Indians, who would have some attitude, the young Indians were more oriented towards goal and friendly. Not only my senior, but colleague and junior Indians were quiet good. Or I now tend to think that all that was superficial and in heart they had a grudge.

With my interaction on this forum, I was surprised to see the attitude of Indians.

Is it some new form of old ``Maleech`` Musalman or ``Hindu Pani and Muslim Pani`` in new form.

re: sac and its mouthful

What in the world are you responding to? What ugly brother? What bigger paycheck? What prettier girlfriend?

Pardon me if I am a little slow (that hot Indian sun makes our dhotis a little hot and also kills off brain cells), but you seem to be hell bent on demonstrating Pakistan`s inferiority complex.

The part of your post that was comprehensible was something about Nepal, Bhutan etc. ``bowing to wishes``? Educate me. What exactly are these wishes they have bowed to? What are you talking about? Just because India and these countries can coexist peacefully, why the bug up Pakistan`s behind? Are their people not living the way they want to live? Are they not sovereign nations? Is India about to overrun them? Sad part is that you know the answers to these questions, yet you blabber.

Why do you guys come apart so easily and resort to irrelevant blabbering and explode? You, Ummair who ran crying like a baby, that ymlh character and on and on. Maybe you should ask Chowk to ban Indians so that no one throws stones at your lofty glass egos.

I`m disappointed. You too did not answer my questions.

narain #189

I read your post. Did you see #178 by Dua`go?

What do you think of it? You believe that Pakistan never sent its army to suppress a ``rebellion``, and that its hands are not red with the blood of Kashmiris in the Azad Kashmir territory? I feel that counts for something, don`t you?

sw

While people here at India, Indians and their attitude towards Pakistan, let me

also contribute my two cents worth to the discussion.

Pakistanis on Chowk seem to be flustered by the holier than thou attitude of the

Indians. Some one pointed out, Indians should discard their superiority complex,

another said Indians should be more objective(as compared to patriotic) while participating

in Chowk forums. While the merit of those arguments is not in doubt,

there are reasons why it is difficult for Indians to de precisely that.

I am a non-Hindu (since that seems to matter to a lot of Paki participants- and

because that guarantees me more sympathy than a Hindu could expect)) Indian youth. Here is what

I think, most Indians think about Pakis and Pakistan:

Most Indians:

1. think partition was an act of betrayal though they have grudgingly reconciled to

to it.

2. nevertheless donot want Pakistan`s absorption back in India, since they think

its better not to add 140 million to the Muslim population of India. that

would upset the communal balance and creat a situation like before

partition (controversial remark I know). also they know that the Paki population

would be hostile to such an idea.

3. donot wish well for Pakistan.

4. would want Pakistan to be humilated wherever and whenever possible. a feeling

more than reciprocated by people on the other side of the divide.

5. donot have any spcial good feelings for Pakistanis. the bonhomie frequently

reported in newspapers is at a personal level, and not as a group towards

Pakistanis, since wishing well for Pakistanis would imply wishing well for

Pakistan.

6. think India is superior to Pakistan in every field except cricket( there

is unanmity about Pakistan`s superiority in cricket!)

7. think Pakistan is industrially backward. myths like Pakistan cannot even

manufacture a needle are prevalent and accepted. the missiles and the bomb

are credited to China and North Korea.

8. think Pakistan will never let India live in peace. it will also harass

India no matter what, and so India has to hit Pakistan where it hurts.

they donot want to annex Pakistan, but would rejoice at the prospect of

break up of Pakistan. they think that Pakistan is compulsively hostile to

and hence should be inflicted damage wherever/whenever possible. they would

be more than happy to see Pakistan break up under the assumption that the

pieces will be more manageable than one single Pakistan.

9. think Pakistan is obsessed with India and wants to pull India down.

Pakistan`s opposition to India in all international fora, corroborates

their impresion. so they want to get rid of what they think is a ``menace``..

like Pakistan gaya, chalo bala tali.. kind of thing.

10.think India can defeat Pakistan in any war any time.

11. think Pakistan is behind Kashmir insurgency. had Pakistan not meddled things

wouldnt have gone this bad. so Pakistan should be punished for it.

12 are idignant at Kargil that followed Lahore.

13. think Indian leadership lacks spine in dealing with Pakistan. leadership is

too soft.

14. Musharraf is rabidly hostile to India

15. are overly confident of Pakistan`s eventual economic collapse and think that

will solve most of India`s ``terrorism`` problems.

16. middle and upper classes are equally confident of that the days of India`s

economic glory are not too far away, despite the grinding poverty of 40% of its

population.

17. are very optimstic about India`s future. the scenario is quite a contrast to

the situation in Pakistan.

18. think Pakistan will always try to undermine India, Kashmir issue or not. so

dont give up Kashmir. once you do that, the Pakis will only get worse.

19. are not too concerned about HR violations about security forces in Kashmir

or any part of India that is not very close to their home. they think its a

necessary evil if ``terrorists`` are to be wiped out.

20. think Bangladeshis have been ungrateful to India

21. claim that they wouldnot care about Pakistan and would be indifferent to it

only if it stopped ``needling`` and ``bleeding`` India.

22. think Pakistan gives refuge to anyone who is anti India... one eg. Dawood

Ibrahim, Bombay Don, who was given refuge in Karachi, after the Bombay bomb

blasts which were orchestrated by him.

23. are not going to feel friedly towards Pakistan in the foreseeable future.

Anyone like to comment on these perceptions ?

Satyavadi

re Rsaxena and his mouthfuls:

Since you seem be the resident clown now(since Jay has left the building for good thank God), lets get some points straight. In your infinte wisdom you have pronounced:

1)Pakistan should leave Kashmir alone and concentrate on solving other problems.

2)Pakistan Army is useless and will lose whatever is left of Pakistan if it continues to talk about about Kashmir.

3)Pakistan should quit talking about UN resolutions on Kashmir since it does not vacate POK......blah blah blah

The points above are completely deviod of any sliver of logical reasoning. However knowing the likes of you, you would insist upon getting an answer and thereby not allowing us to concentrate on more healthy pursuits.

Pause for a minute and think(I know its tough but please bear with me), aren`t all of these pronouncements indicative of an inability to deal with Pakistan as an equal? Imagine having a younger brother who was in your opinion shorter, uglier and weaker than you but always ended up with a prettier girlfriend or a bigger paycheck. Isn`t that hard to swallow? All the other siblings(read Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc.) seem to bow to your wishes. What`s wrong with that guy? Why does he have to hit a six at the last ball in the match? Why doesn`t he just go away and leave me with the ``biggest`` democracy in the whole wide world? Why is Ram so unfair? I am going to squash that guy so bad if that`s the last thing I ever do in my life.

Grow up RSaxena. I nor Kashmir are not going to go away. Being younger, uglier or weaker are only constructs of our imaginations.

-sac

Ref: TAhmed #184

I think it is appropriate to mention in this context that most thinking Indians are deeply ashamed about what is happening in Kashmir. The only twisted thing which allows us to sleep a little easier at night is the conviction that you Pakistanis are no less to blame in this bloodbath than us. You blame us for killing innocent Kashmiris: we blame you for putting guns in their hands in the first case and making it a game of kill or be killed for us. You talk about democracy in Kashmir: we tried it and learned that it is just not possible till Pakistan wants it to happen. The bitterness is mutual and we could blame each other till the universe went cold and still have some grievances left over. The cold truth we both must face however is that we have both treated the Kashmiris horribly in our power plays.

I think that the will existed in India to move towards a solution which was honourable for all concerned, including your nation. The Kargil crisis severely upset that. It signalled to us Indians that Pakistan (or at least the powers that be there) was not ready for a peace which was honourable for India: that they wanted a fight to the finish. That is why the current notion is to compromise with the Kashmiris and leave Pakistan out.

I personally think that that is not going to happen. Any move which leaves Pakistan out of a solution is ultimately going to hurt India bad. If the move fails, then it will hurt India becoz Pakistan will become even more intrasigent and will allow no peace. On the other hand if the move succeeds, then we will hurt Pakistan so bad that it may not be able to recover. And since we are both linked by an umbilical cord, Pakistan`s failure will come back to haunt India.

In the meantime even if India wants to move towards a solution, the presense of Gen PM is a deterrent. On the one hand we see him as the architect of the current hawkish Kashmir policy, and view all his recent overtures with deep suspicion, especially since his actions speak louder than his words. Any solution will require deep confidence building first, something that we do not have have in the General at all. On the other hand, even if by some chance an agreement is reached, what is the legality of his government? How can we trust that the next government will not simply overturn the agreement as being the policy of an illegal government, and therefore itself invalid?

I think this summer will be crucial in helping the Indian government decide what to do. If it is able to control terrorism at this juncture when pakistan is at its weakest, then it will decide to negotiate with the Kashmiris themselves and leave Pakistan out in the cold. On the other hand if it is not able to improve the situation despite its best efforts, it will be forced to the negotiating table.

-narain

SexnaR

Hey fellow, you are more fun than a barrelful of monkeys. No harm in not talking about the ``verdict``, which this board is all about. At least you are here for the manuranjan of the Chowkwalas. More (clownish)power to you. But, tell me, did you come to this board to get murunda?

One thing the significance of which escapes me is, why are you all interested in dhotis and pants (down)? What is this rabidity of mind you have in common with many others?

Then, again, how many times should I assure you that I have neither talked about your Ammah, nor about you commiting incest [or, did you mean something else?] then why do you not let it go?

On the one hand you characterise my post intended for you as irrelevant, and insulting and whatever else not, then why do you respond to it using expressions like ammah and incest.

Do me and yourself a favour:

1. Don`t assume anybody you do not like, a Pakistani, and a muslim.

2. What is a maddarasshs?

3. What is a banayas; sounds like bunbas, the meanings of which I know, but I see people using expressions e.g., banaya on the Chowk. And I have no clue to its meaning.

4. By all means write mooslem if you like. I am not one, but if you use it, you only would be considered silly and boorish.

5. In S. Africa, `Hindoo` (also, in Canadaian West Coast literature) and `Naidoo` are accepted as ok. spellings. What are you tummy aching for?

SexnaR: I suggest you show the presence of at least an atom of the graymatter (it is brains), and refrain from being nasty to people of different religions, nationalities, and opinions from yours --even if it means people of an entirely different Weltanscauung; quite alien to you, even.

Hilarious article on Pakistan in the Times of India today. A must read at:

http://www.timesofindia.com/today/15edit6.htm

Ras Siddiqui

TAhmed.

Enjoy reading your posts. Very refreshing to say the least. You actually seem to want a solution to Kashmir rather than a ``give it to Pakistan or else...``

Be careful buddy, very soon your Pakistani brothers here will accuse you of being an imposter and really an Indian.

But I do agree with some of your solutions and as an Indian would be very open to them.

vicky 181: You say that the assumptions I make are ``to put it mildly, optimistic.`` You then question the first assumption to the extent ``that reasonable people have any say in Pakistan?``, although you agree that the ``average Indian IS very reasonable``. So you agree with at least with one half of my assumption (the part related to the average Indian voter) and also part of the remainder (since you agree that there are reasonable people in Pakistan, only that they ``do not have any say``). So you in fact largely agree that my first assumption is realistic. On the part about the influence of reasonable Pakistanis, look the very good judgement the Pakistani voter has always shown in elections. NS may have been overthrown as a result of his peace overtures, but the military would not have dared to overthrow him if NS had not become increasingly unpopular with Pakistanis for a different reason - he was trying to become a dictator and steadily removing all constitutional checks and balances to his power. So, have faith in the good judgement of the Pakistani people.

The second assumption (on the possibility of a ``win-win`` situation that satisfies both Indian and Pakistani, and above all, the Kashmiri) people) thus holds easily: You have provided the answer, as follows. First you write that th average Indian ``believes that the Kashmiris are getting a bad break & should be well treated with all the benefits of democracy, but WITHIN India.`` The first two parts (bad break, democracy) hardly any Pakistani would disagree with. On the third thing (within India), I personally have no problem.

You write: ``We like the way our country is run by vote, Pakistan celebrated when democracy is given the boot.`` Please see comments above on why Pakistanis celebrated NS ouster.

You then provide something clost to a ``win-win`` solution: ``The only solution is to keep Kashmir aside, have lasting peace agreements, promote trade.`` and conclude: ``Keep Kashmir aside, make progress where there is scope.`` I agree fully (as would most Pakistanis I think if there was a referendum) on all but one part ``Keep Kashmir aside``. I suggest you replace this with: ``In the democratic spirit, give the Kashmiri people a lot of local self-government, with defense, foreign affairs staying with the nation state``.

Gotta run to work now, but I would be interested in this variation to your proposal: Promote trade, greater cultural appreciation, while promoting local self-government in Kashmir.

Yahmla Jat:

Thanks for corroborating my post. Go back and read what I wrote and your response to it and you`ll see why you are now standing at the chowk madrassah with your pants down.

And all your brothers of the Ummah are watching. Rather incestuous no? What don`t you understand?

Anyway, what`s the point exchanging tongue-in-cheek insults? Why don`t you answer some of the questions that most Pakistanis would rather not answer? Like why they scream for implementation of the UN resolution when they themselves don`t want to implement it by first vacating PoK as it requires? Why the roof is collapsing on Pakistan and yet they are worried about the leaky faucet in Kashmir? Why that glorious Pakistani Army couldn`t keep half the country from being sliced away like a piece of ghosh from bakra sacrifice on Eid?

Of course you`re not going to answer any of this. Why do I even ask. I`ll wait for another irrelevant post from you with drivel and snide comments. Maybe this time too you will spell Hindu as Hindoo and then you can wait for me to respond to a Mooslim.

tahmed321

`` In doing so, I propose the following ``rules``: (a) we assume that the average Indian or Pakistani is basically reasonable, and not a dumb fanatic or jingoist; and (b) we come up with a ``win-win solution`` that would satisfy people in Kashimir, in Pakistan, in India; (c) in thinking of solutions we, as you say, ``think outside the box``. ``

There is no problem in having a sensible discussion. But the assumptions you make are, to put it mildly, optimistic.

Since when can we assume that reasonable people have any say in Pakistan? And I honestly don`t mean that personally to any Pakistani, but this is history. Nawaz Sharif was a crook but he tried to get peace, look what happened to him (finally coming to the topic!). The fanatics in India are not such a problem for policy but for riot potential.

In fact the average Indian IS very reasonable, and believes that the Kashmiris are getting a bad break & should be well treated with all the benefits of democracy, but WITHIN India. This sort of makes the Indian view point unreasonable to you.

Fact is that Indians can`t believe that the ruler`s religion has anything to do with his abilities. We beleive there is no reason why Kashmiris should not select a good government and be happy. Pakistanis are fundamentally opposed to ``Hindu`` rule. These are diameterically opposite views and there can`t be a win-win.

We like the way our country is run by vote, Pakistan celebrated when democracy is given the boot. How WILL you understand our point of view?

As for me I am proud of my country`s character that a christian, is responsible for the defence of the country. And I shall be prouder still if a muslim or a christian becomes the Prime Minister of India. I speak for myself mostly, but I think most of my circle wouldn`t give a rat`s ass about a person`s religion if his abilities to rule are being decided.

The only solution is to keep Kashmir aside, have lasting peace agreements, promote trade.

India will be the biggest foriegn investor in Pakistan if genuine peace is worked out. India offers a vast market for Pakistan, a lot of day to day stuff Pakistan badly requires is made in India - Pharma, tires ..etc.

Conclusion: Keep Kashmir aside, make progress where there is scope. Even the Kashmiris will benefit.

Vicky

Re bd # 158 and other

Sir/Madam BD (whichever you are!)

Your post is fir enough to be answered in detail by a seasoned philosopher or social scientist in a book format. I am just a humble banker who hasn`t lived in my `old country` in over a decade. SO please excuse my rather simplistic observations.

Firstly, I recommend www.bangladesh-web.com/news/ for a good site which has news and features and does not dwell excessively on 1971.

Secondly, you`re right about Bangladeshi perceptions of India and Pakistn. India is a big brother and Pakistan a naughty one. From India there is fear and from Pakistan regret. Every India-Pakistan cricket/hockey match I`ve been to in Dhaka, the Pak side has gotten basically `home turf` advantage. WHy? Too complex for me.

Thirdly, indeed there is a elite/commonman thinking divide. The intellectuals are generally pretty left leaning (talk scoialist non-sense) and right living (live cushily) while the reverse is true of the ordinary masses.

Fourthly, my best guess on the mildness of religion is that both religions were spread in Bengal by more enlightened of people. In Hinduism`s case, the Sen rulers were pretty tolearnt(and not of the Brahman variety) while Islam`s spread was due to Sufis rather than jehadis.

Fifthly, the armed forces are well respected if only because they form the only cohesive institution in Bangladesh. The last budget allocated about 5 % to defence. There is a slight conservative tilt in the officer corps, something this regime is trying hard to control both by out of turn promotions and hardware purchase. The prestige of the forces is at an all time high now because of their prominent peacekeeping missions around the world.

Your inference is right. At the end of the day, South Asian economy and politics will take off or bust off together. Either India/Bangladesh/Pakistan will all be societies with true liberal pluralist democracies with vibrant open economies or none of them will be. One can be sure that Nawaz Sharif`s trial and eventual fate will have a lot of keen observers in Delhi and Dhaka who will take copious notes about to-do and not-to-do stuff.

As I said, wish us luck!