Different Eagles, Same Genus

Ref shammi #: 244

You say, ``I can`t believe the idiotic, childish debate going on this forum -- who can piss higher -- Indian pilots or Pakistani ones?``

Actually, it depends on how high the plane can fly. So, Indians and Pakistanis are trying to see who can piss higher -- the Russians or the Americans. We are merely test pilots engaged in evaluating a different characteristic of the planes involved ;-)

F-16 from Pakistan to China

Apparently, Chinese engineers are trying to develop the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel’s US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was cancelled in 1987.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/j-10.htm

I can`t believe the idiotic, childish debate going on this forum -- who can piss higher -- Indian pilots or Pakistani ones?

All, please grow up and stop talking like Rambo. There are more important things to worry about in the world than to figure out who can fight better.

Save your energies for something more meaningful

Desis in Silicon Valley

FORTUNE magazine has published a series of articles on success of Desis in Silicon Valley. Worth reading.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/05/15/ind2.html

reply to sadna #241

What a strange response from you, sadna.

I have beliefs about Kashmir and the way India has occupied it. I arrived at those beliefs by a lot of reading but mostly through personal experience.

None of those beliefs however can stand in the front of truth, and I believe in truth over anything else. So when I said to you that I would reevaluate my beliefs if you could present me with convincing arguments from your/Indian perspective I meant exactly that. I am not afraid of changing my thoughts if I am wrong.

I am not a believer in intransigence and I do not practice it.

What you have mentioned about the political process in Pakistan is true - we know it better than anybody else.

Holding India to ``higher moral principles`` is the job of Indians themselves. It is the same on an individual level: I am the one who has to hold myself to a moral level that I wish to aspire to.

In all my replies on with my views regarding the BJP I have consistently said that I believe the strength of India lies in her democracy. I have also said that I am all in favor of the good that the BJP is doing for India. You will not find me ``bashing`` the democratic process of India.

My belief that they mean harm to Pakistan is entirely separate from that. And I am open to a change in that belief as well.

This reply is short and does not really go into the `normal` answering of each point you made because you have indicated you do not wish to discuss any of that.

But if you have an interest in bridging the gap between India and Pakistan then discussion must take place and your statements (such as ``The irony in all this is that the Kashmir problem owes a lot to corrupt politicians, too, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Indian...``, the ``injured innocence of the freedom fighters and Pakistan`` etc. could then be responded to.

But you have said you have no interest in discussing it so I will leave it at that and let you be the one to decide whether any talks take place.

In all sincerity and best wishes,

sherdil

sherdil #240

I find myself caught in endless disagreement with the `other` side on some issues, so I have no interest in `convincing` anyone to advocate a pro-Indian stand on Kashmir, let us be clear.

When I cannot get a single Pakistani to agree that their own laws including the 13th Amendment ought to be targetted for action, alongside corrupt politicians currently in hot water, why would I even attempt to convince any Pakistani about Kashmir? The irony in all this is that the Kashmir problem owes a lot to corrupt politicians, too, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Indian but my experience so far tells me Pakistans let themselves off very easily on the very principles they claim to hold India upto. More accountability is demanded and more expectations are fostered from India by Pakistanis than from their own state, their own leaders and politicians. Alongside this, I have heard too many times from Pakistanis that India is not even a country and lastly I am unable to rid myself of my impression of any Pakistani government talk or walk in all these years that all this `principle` is nothing more than a cover for landgrab by the Pakistani Army.

Finally, the attitude that `freedom fighters` are demonstrating pure and unselfish intentions and actions and the Pakistani position in all this is one of injured innocence speaks well for your patriotism but also gives me little hope that we have anything to discuss.

About Pakistani political parties, `Death to India` has long been a slogan, even when Kashmir was quiet. At some juncture or another every politician or intellectual who advocated peace with India is labelled a traitor. You may have also heard the slogan somewhere `Kashmir banega Pakistan`.

Indian political parties and politicians have had to survive by delivering more than slogans, bashing Pakistan doesnot win votes of hungry people out of work. In Pakistan, it seems a similar equation is not allowed to operate, the Army steps in at crucial times. I don`t think political parties and the Army had to really worry about real-politick with respect to India, a blind ideology and a strategic role in US geopolitics has so far made every desire seem possible. This has never been the case with India.

I`m sure it feels very good to latch onto BJP ideology as the newly identified root of all problems. Sorry, if it were so simple, Indians would be much happier people for finding such a simple solution to every problem: getting rid of the party by voting them out of power(we can, you know).

Sadhana

reply # 232 sadna:

All political parties, groups, etc in Pakistan voice their opposition to the Indian occupation of Kashmir. They call for a struggle to rid Kashmir of its occupiers. The voices for freedom include Kashmiris, various freedom fighter groups, the groups which have been labeled as ``terrorists`` by the Indian government and media.

The focus of all is the problem of Kashmir. Not the breakup or annihilation of India, but the freedom for Kashmiris.

The ONLY problem Pakistan has with India is the Indian occupation of Kashmir and its refusal to allow the Kashmiris to determine their own destiny.

Your question about Pakistani civic unrest seems a sideways question, or perhaps I did not follow your line of thought. In any case, the unrest in Pakistan has brought Pakistan to its knees, but Gen. Musharraf may be the man to pull off a miracle.

The statement is true that it is not in India`s interest to foster enmity with neighbours.

And yet the reality is otherwise.

I see a democratic nation like India practicing extremist and undemocratic means to hold Kashmir by force. This speaks volumes.

I will tell you this sadna: IF you can prove me wrong about Kashmir then I will advocate India`s position and will have no problem with truth.

Perhaps others more knowledgable than I can comment on my thoughts below:

Pakistan has just been declared a ``supporter of terrorism`` by the US state department.

It is something that is following a trend: The US has a huge vested (economic) interest in India in the IT industry. China is not the market they seek, it is India that is closer to the US in so many ways. For this reason any instability in the region cannot be allowed.

Thus the lectures to Pakistan, the wagging of the finger.

Any disturbances (military or economic) will hurt the economy of the US that is depending more and more on Indian expertise in the IT field.

I think that even though we have very good friends who are Americans, and that we have formed close friendships with Americans and genuinely respect and like them, Pakistan will get no help from the US. It is only economic value in Pakistan that will make a difference to the US. Therefore the only thing to do is to get the economy of Pakistan on the right track. That is where Gen. Musharraf is heading.

ylh, I think this is where you can be a positive voice: Gen. Musharraf needs all the support and help he can get. Who better than students? That is how we energized Zulifikar Ali Bhutto.

sigalph235 #237

No wish to spurn your generous and kind offer :-), but we must realize that the way things are, there exists a greater possibility of your being Finance Minister of India(as it exists today) if you should ever wish, than my being part of any Bangladeshi dispensation, ever, whether I so desire it or not:-)

Sadhana

Ref sigalph235 #: 233

You say {As anybody, perhaps even you, can see I was talking about principalities that HAD NOT acceded to India. I was not talking about those that had acceded to Pakistan.}

Are you telling me Jodhpur did not accede to India? Spare me a trip to the library but I am perfectly willing to get a copy of a book on Indian history and quote chapter and verse.

As far as Hyderabad is concerned, it was given a deadline to accede to India that was repeatedly extended. In September 1948, India`s patience just ran out. Even then, the Nizam was given the largest privy purse and made the governor of the state in return for formally acceding to India.

You say {As for Goa, you tell me why Pakistan should have rights to it; I mean you`re the one who seems to be in doubt.}

I have no doubt about Goa. Reading history, it seems that Jinnah sent an emissary to talk to the Portuguese in Goa. That gives Pakistan as much right to Goa as talking to Patiala and Bikaner gave it the right to those states.

You say {Let me say the gist of my argument one more time: India gobbled up principalities which, at the time of such annexation, had not acceded to it in terms of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. And that goes for Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim, Jodhpur, Junagadh, Babriawad, Mangrol, Kashmir (are you sure I didn`t miss any?). Whether Pakistan wanted them or they wanted Pakistan or whether some Maharaja wanted to be part of Germany is besides the point. India acted in a manner of naked aggresiveness. And please save me the ``Pakistan did it too`` nonsense; I don`t care and I am not Pakistan`s defense counsel.}

The difference is that the Congress saw independence coming one way or another and Sardar Patel and Nehru realized that British India was too integrated economically with the princely states to be able to survive without them. And just like Britain asserted paramountcy over the princely states, independent India asserted its primacy and completed the process of absorption that had been stopped in its tracks in 1857. You may not like the idea but other than the maharajahs themselves, nobody mourns the passing of these quasi-independent kingdoms. India got the majority of them because they happened to be within the dominion of India. India did not approach Bahawalpur for accesion to India though that was on the border as Jinnah did with Bikaner nor did it contest Baluchistan, Dir, Chitral, etc., the way Pakistan was eyeing Hyderabad as a prize to be bargained for Kashmir.

You say {And yes, since Murshidabad is in such disrepair now, Calcutta will suit fine as the capital of a united Bengal. By the way, Dhaka was never capital of united Bengal.}

In 1971, you guys had the opportunity. You could have petitioned India for admission as a state. You could have quoted the India Independence Act of 1947 as creating only Pakistan and India and that thus Bangladesh has no legal right to exist. Then perhaps there was a chance for a greater Bengal within India and a counterweight to UP and perhaps even a Bengali prime minister of India. But, there would have been no takers in New Delhi for that proposition at that time; Indira Gandhi was not going to learn Bengali for your votes. And right now, Begums Hasina and Khaleda are making too much money ripping off the country to give it away. So forget about a Greater Bengal. Now that India is exhibiting the level of federalism Jinnah wanted, perhaps it is time to consider a confederation of South Asia but that is not going to happen ever. Thus the Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers can have the Indian bogeyman to frighten their children with and make them behave.

You say {For those of you Indians and Pakistanis who still think that without Indian intervention the Bengalis would have lost in 1971, think again. Do the words Vietnam and Afghanistan mean much to you? Of course, like the rest of Bangladesh, I am grateful for the assistance received by the Freedom Fighters in India.}

No disrespect to the Mukti Bahini or the brave Bangladeshis, but have you looked at Afghanistan? That country is mountainous. I keep looking at topographic maps of Bangladesh and it is flat as a pancake. In dry season, Bangladesh is perfect tank country. The fact remains that India banned overflights by Pakistan so Pakistan could not airlift supplies and the sea route could have been interdicted. It was logistically difficult for Pakistan to supply its troops in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the Bangladeshis did pay dearly for their freedom.

Ref Be-Nam #: 230

You said {while you are at it, I think we should keep our friend in mind who requested you to put Ferozepur and Gurdaspur, alongwith everything else, on the table. Please do that.}

Yeah, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur. Who can forget Gurdaspur, the land link to Kashmir from India? Perfidious England! Yawn.... Claim Oudh if you want to. Or New Delhi; your tax dollars in 1935 paid for it, you know.

Didn`t I already offer Pondicherry to add to your grievances?

We don`t care; we don`t have to. That is the nice thing about being the biggest bully on the block. There is nothing you can do about it except sawing off your countries and dragging them to some other location on the globe.

Are you guys ever going to get a life or are you guys going to keep going back to 1947 and your list of grievances?

re #231 sadhana

Point well taken. Sadhana, you will be our first pick for finance minister in the first post-1947 united Bengali ministry. Unless, of course, you want the oil and gas portfolio! Cheers

Just as I had finished posting my last statement, I saw this brilliant letter by ylh`s cousin in one of the Pulitzer Prize winning bastions of objective journalism (``The Nation``).

Now the red commie friends are also turning their backs????? tsk tsk tsk.

* * * * * *

``The representatives of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzistan and Tajikistan are reported to have met recently in Doshambe, the Capital of Tajikistan and agreed to cooperate in fighting Islamists whom they term as terrorists.

Firstly, it is absolutely wrong to equate Islamists with terrorists. Secondly, it is highly surprising that China, otherwise a peaceful country, should have actively participated in the formation of a Regional Bloc. Thirdly, it is totally inconceivable that the three Central Asian States cooperating in the matter with sizeable Muslim populations, should have joined such a union. Hence, it is strange to see cooperation emerging despite the stated incongruities. It is, thus, obvious that the Russian President who was formerly the Head of KGB, has used some dubious ploy to bring round the other cooperating countries. In fact, Russia will be grinding its own axe through this move. Not having forgotten its humiliation in its misadventure in Afghanistan, it has been trying frantically to wash it off Russian invasion of Chechnya is also motivated to wreak vengeance by annihilating its physical infrastructure, killing thousands of Chechens as also inflicting untold miseries and perpetrating inhuman brutalities on them.

It is a matter of grave concern for Muslims of the World that conspiracies are being hatched against them in their enemy circles. The judicious course on the part of the Muslim Ummah would, therefore, be to be united meaningfully and thus frustrate the designs of its enemies. OIC should particularly take a serious note of this latest development directed at Muslims.-SIRAJUDDIN AHMAD, Islamabad, April 24``

* * * * * *

Re: Article from Yawn posted in reply #228

What will it take for the delusional (I keep using that word, not just because of my limited vocabulary, but also because it`s so fitting) Pakistani media and populace to do some introspection on their unfounded stand on Kashmir? First it was the US which betrayred Pakistan in its schoolyard fight against India, then it was the EU including France and the UK, and now it`s the Islamic countries in the OIC??? haha

Ever stop and wonder that maybe it`s not *THEM * that`s the problem but *YOU * and your laughable position that no one wants to touch with a 10-foot danda?

re gymnophist

Understandably, you quoted only half of what I said. My entire paragraph was

`Your line of arguments, undestandably, is fallacious. Bikaner, Patiala, Bhopal, and Travancore-Cochin never acceded to Pakistan; never mind whether Jinnah or Jesus talked to them. They had acceded to India while the states I talked about did not accede to India, unless the accession by Kashmir`s maharaja under duress is counted as such (even Pandit Nehru rules out the validity of this accession instrument.`

As anybody, perhaps even you, can see I was talking about principalities that HAD NOT acceded to India. I was not talking about those that had acceded to Pakistan. Difference between the two statements. As for Goa, you tell me why Pakistan should have rights to it; I mean you`re the one who seems to be in doubt.

Let me say the gist of my argument one more time: India gobbled up principalities which, at the time of such annexation, had not acceded to it in terms of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. And that goes for Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim, Jodhpur, Junagadh, Babriawad, Mangrol, Kashmir (are you sure I didn`t miss any?). Whether Pakistan wanted them or they wanted Pakistan or whether some Maharaja wanted to be part of Germany is besides the point. India acted in a manner of naked aggresiveness. And please save me the ``Pakistan did it too`` nonsense; I don`t care and I am not Pakistan`s defense counsel.

I don`t know what you mean by saying that Jinnah sent HS Suwrawardy packin east. Mr Suhrawardy was the last premier of Bengal; Mr Jinnah passed away in 1948; and Mr Suhrawardy became Pakistan`s Prime Minister in 1956.

Don`t worry about our handling the Calcutta (a)bhadroloks. After we ruled them for quite a while until 1757. But seriously, the inference is stupid. I have been a frequent visitor to Calcutta and West Bengal in general; they are good, decent people; perhaps snotty sometimes, but then so are New Yorkers to those of us in the Midwest. Big deal.

And yes, since Murshidabad is in such disrepair now, Calcutta will suit fine as the capital of a united Bengal. By the way, Dhaka was never capital of united Bengal.

For those of you Indians and Pakistanis who still think that without Indian intervention the Bengalis would have lost in 1971, think again. Do the words Vietnam and Afghanistan mean much to you? Of course, like the rest of Bangladesh, I am grateful for the assistance received by the Freedom Fighters in India.

Oh, gymno, I will be happy to take a burqa to Mrs Schlafly but perhaps you could order one from Lucknow. I am told that`s where the best ones are made. And yes, I am proud to be part of the Neanderthal party which Abraham Lincoln and Dinesh D`Souza belong to. Far better than the KKK spawned Democrats.

sherdil #218

I asked a number of other questions, you may notice? (#199)

Sadhana

sigalph235 #214

Its better to first figure out along with various political entities in Bangladesh how to profit from selling India huge amounts of natural gas while simultaneously safeguarding Bangladeshi interests. Ruling from Calcutta is realizable only after those cash registers ring, I feel, unless the stars are shining in those voluminous Saudi/American pockets.

Sadhana

Interesting article from DAWN:

``Chief Executive wants `frank` talks with Indian PM

LONDON, April 29: Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf said on Saturday he wanted to meet Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to discuss the dispute over Kashmir.

``I would certainly like to talk to the Prime Minister...the person who is in charge and who is going to decide,`` Musharraf told CNN in an interview monitored in London.

CNN said Musharraf offered to meet Vajpayee in a neutral Middle Eastern country.

``A meeting that is very open, very frank, very flexible, very practical, very realistic. But it is the Kashmir dispute that we have to address,`` Musharraf told CNN.

It was the first call by Musharraf for a face-to-face meeting with Vajpayee. Previously he has said Pakistan is ready for talks with India any time, anywhere. Vajpayee said on Tuesday that Pakistan must take the initiative to resume peace talks.

Talks between the two countries have been frozen since the Kargil conflict last summer, when Indian forces fought for weeks to oust Kashmiri freedom fighters from the strategic heights close to the Line of Control in Kashmir.``-Reuters

(DAWN, Pakistan)

I think if Pakistan can offer talks to India even though the India`s offensive in Siachen is still going on, and India has openly refused to agree to even a bilateral withdrawl, then India should agree to talks without using Kargil as an excuse. The Indian general (now retired) who actually orchestrated the Indian Siachen offensive was even welcomed to a visit to Pakistan. I think he was even asked to address the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad.

I guess I wasnt the only one who observed that the Islamic world ,in general, seems to have not given Pakistan the kind of support that one expects from friends. Especially, in light of the fact that Pakistan has tirelessly supported & aided every Islamic nation.

I have a hard time understanding why the Arabs never threaten India with an oil embargo. Kashmir is the one foreign policy concern that stands paramount in Pakistan`s history. What kind of friends are these?!

The following was featured in todays Dawn :

(((Did Ummat ever support Pakistan?

By Saeed Malik

The people of this country have been persistently assured that all Islamic countries are bosom friends of Pakistan as ``historic, religious and cultural`` links bind them together. They have also been led to believe that Muslim brothers per se will come to our rescue, whenever we are in trouble.

This fallacious notion has created among the people a false sense of security, and has also spawned an ostrich-like attitude towards their economic woes and Pakistan`s troubled relations with India. This complacent mindset has created a syndrome of self-delusion. Even the festering problem of Jammu and Kashmir, a nuclear flash point between Pakistan and India, has failed to jolt us out of the deep slumber.

An objective look at the role of OIC vis-a-vis Kashmir points to the fact that the Organization of Islamic Conference never threw its entire weight behind the struggle of the Kashmiri people. On paper, the OIC extends its support to their right of self-determination, but in practical terms it does precious little to help the oppressed people of the disputed state.

For about two decades, Pakistan relied entirely on US support, when the issue was debated in the UN Security Council. However, the former Soviet Union did much more for the beleaguered Indian government than the Americans did for their ``most allied ally``. The Soviets vetoed even the mildest resolution against India.

Parenthetically, the quid pro quo extracted from Pakistan by the US for extending its support at various world fora alienated us from the comity of Afro-Asian countries. By the beginning of the decade of the 1960s, when Pakistan showed signs of independence in its external affairs, the annoyed Americans withdrew even their feeble support as a punishment to Pakistan for its growing friendship with the People`s Republic of China. US President Johnson went to the extent of unilaterally halting the shipment of defence material to Pakistan in September 1965, not caring a fig for the mutual defence treaty the US had signed in 1954 with Pakistan.

Economic and trade relations with other countries provide a strong basis for foreign policy formations of an independent nation. The governments in the past relied more on ``historic, religious and cultural`` links with OIC countries than expanding trade with these countries. Thus we allowed ourselves to be sucked into an emotional maelstrom, which blurred our vision. For long, we refused to be disillusioned of the fantasy that every Muslim country would automatically come to our help in times of need. The ground realities, however, pointed to the opposite direction.Iran did not support a Pakistani resolution, tabled at UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, against human rights violations by India in Kashmir. We were short of one vote, and if Iran had cast its vote in our favour, India would have been in serious trouble. (Iran has, however, mellowed somewhat after the recent visit of General Musharraf to that country, which has resulted in securing Pakistan`s consent for exporting Iranian gas to India through Pakistan).

Turkey, too, seems to have weaned away from Pakistan. The equation of Kurd ``terrorism`` with Kashmiris` struggle for freedom by Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit in New Delhi provides a clue. The Turks also want to expand the volume of their trade with India, and also to start joint ventures with the Indians. Qatar, a tiny but oil rich state, is desirous of selling its surplus gas to India through Pakistani territory. It, too, has preferred its trade ties with India to supporting Pakistan vis-a-vis its dispute with India.

Arab countries` support on Kashmir has never been enough in contrast with Pakistan`s unflinching and persistent support to the Arab cause since 1948. The desired level of reciprocity in Arab response to our gesture always left much to be desired. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Naseer impounded a ship in the Suez Canal because it was carrying the much-needed ammunition for Pakistan Army during its grim struggle in repelling Indian aggression in September 1965. He did not want to displease his friend Nehru.

After the chill in its relations with the United States, Pakistan turned to the Islamic Ummat seeking its support at international fora, and also established strategic relationship with the People`s Republic of China. Excepting a few members of the OIC, with which Pakistan had special military training programmes, OIC members` support on her dispute with India over Kashmir was not at the anticipated level. They did not put any pressure whatsoever on India and instead, continued giving MFN treatment to Pakistan`s arch enemy.

A senior Indian political analyst has claimed that the ambassadors of Muslim countries, after the adoption of any pro-Pakistan resolution by the OIC, visited the Indian foreign office in Delhi the very next day to assure the Indians that lip-service provided to Kashmir would not, in any way, adversely affect ``our friendly ties with India``.

The tongue-in-cheek remarks were not mere bragging, as is evident from the volume of trade between the Islamic world and India. A cursory glance at trade figures (1991 to 1997) indicates that OIC members traded goods with India in the amount of $65,337 million compared to a measly amount with Pakistan in those seven years. Such rich OIC members as UAE, Qatar, Iran and Saudi Arabia did not ever put economic pressure on India compelling her to come to terms with Pakistan.

A country`s foreign policy is linked with the protection of its own national interests. The Indian economy and export would have suffered in the event of a trade embargo by OIC members that would have been possible only if OIC members were serious about helping Pakistan in its dispute with India. If Qatar and Iran are anxious to sell their surplus gas to India, Libya and Saudi Arabia are working on for joint ventures in India with Arab petro-dollars. In this scenario, Indian obduracy in perpetuating its illegal occupation of Kashmir makes better sense.

The foreign policy of a country derives strength from its internal cohesion and political stability. However, if foreign policy is clogged with wishful thinking and emotional inanities, the results cannot but be disappointing.

Political stability in Pakistan will create an economically productive environment in the country. Strong economy will result in rapid industrial progress, which will help Pakistan in attaining autarky in defence production. Self-sufficiency in defence production will enable it to command respect from other countries, Islamic and others.)))

The facts are undeniable. What puzzles me is why has`nt the OIC supported Pakistan in the manner in which she deserves?!

Re:sigalph235 #214

Sigalph Babu, so Calcutta is now your ancient, eternal and undivided capital ? Surely you jest. If I recall history, it was the British who established Calcutta from a bunch of villages a few hundred years back. The capital of Bengal was either at Dhaka or Murshidabad. In any event Bengalis are perfectly happy to be a part of India. In fact, Bengal was the source for Indian nationalism.

The present arrangement in just fine. Bengali hindus in India and muslims in Bangladesh. The border is fairly open and people visit each other, participate in cultural events and trade with each other. This way everyone is happy.

Quite an interesting article from THE NEWS, Pakistan. It will be archived soon, so I am printing all of it here.

Pakistan moves ahead under Musharraf-II

Islam, jihad and the coup

Gregory R Copley

What has developed in Pakistan is a ``two-tier`` approach to Islamism. Pakistan has witnessed a significant schism in fundamentalist Islam: there are now the ``traditional fundamentalists``, who espouse only those teachings which derive from ``the Ninth Century`` and there are ``contemporary fundamentalists`` (fundamentalists without beards), who are educated in the western sense and yet believe that the modern system has failed to work. The ``contemporary fundamentalists`` use all of the technologies and logic of the modern technological society to work for the collapse of the modern state. Sudan`s Hassan al-Turabi is in this category, as is former ISI chief Lt-Gen Hameed Gul in Pakistan. Significantly, Gen Hameed Gul works closely (if not formally) with the major ``contemporary fundamentalist`` think-tank in Pakistan, the Islamabad-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which maintains a major facility and an excellent research library in Islamabad`s prestigious Jinnah Supermarket area. The IPS facility is in a building owned by a Jama`at-i-Islami (JI) senator. JI, which has not bee able to win any National Assembly seats in the recent elections (it does have a couple of senators), is the principal ``contemporary fundamentalist`` legitimate political wing and IPS is its key ``legitimising body``, which conducts frequent, professionally run seminars. It was at one of these that the current government`s foreign minister ill-advisedly chose to state his platform in favour of signing the Comprehensive [nuclear] Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The fact that the Pakistani foreign minister chose in January 2000 to use an IPS forum to deliver his message--so patently at odds with the ``contemporary fundamentalist`` view--shows that there remains (or remained at that time) some real naivete within the new government about the nature of its opponents.

There are a number of moderate Muslim organisations in Pakistan. The Tableeghi Jamaat, for example, is a Sunni mainstream organisation, now some 45 years old, based predominantly in the Raiwind area, near Lahore. It is strenuously non-violent and non-political. The objective of Tableeghi Jamaat is to preach to existing Muslims that they should be better Muslims; it is not involved in proselytisation for converts. It is because of its non-political, non-aggressive approach that the institution has become so influential.

Other groups are, however, avowedly political in their fundamentalism. Lashkar-e-Tayaba, although not specifically Wahabi, does recruit in Wahabi areas, for example around Multan, for its armed insurgent groups (Kashmiri freedom fighters). It should not be put into the same category as the Tableeghi Jamaat. Similarly, the fundamentalist Wahabit group, Markaz ud-Dawah, should not be seen in concert with the non-political Tableeghi Jamaat.

The Musharraf Administration has already committed almost 100,000 troops (including those loaned to the Water and Power Development Authority before the October 12, 1999, coup) to remedying infrastructural problems, particularly in the most poverty-stricken areas. There have already been significant improvements in the water and power areas, and lately there has been a massive improvement in the de-silting of irrigation waterways. This has resulted in what is likely to be an improvement in agricultural productivity of as much as 15 per cent this coming season. Major surpluses in the cotton and potato production areas are expected. What the Musharraf administration intends to do is to bring economic improvements as rapidly as possible to the poorest sectors, along with the educational transformation of the madarissas as quickly as possible. This is expected to help significantly in dampening the impact of the more fundamentalist groups.

An open and very direct confrontation between the military government (and therefore the army itself) and the Islamists would undoubtedly have damaging effects on the army. Most senior and mid-level army officers who were asked the question said that it was ``inconceivable`` that the Pakistan Army should be asked to fire on Pakistani civilians, just as Iranian troops would not (and perhaps could not) be used by the late Shah in 1978-79 to fire on radical mobs of Iranians.

Significantly, while there is a distinct distrust of Indian intentions at a political level, there is no overt hatred of India. The BJP government of India is perceived as radical and unpredictable, in some senses, as evidenced (in the Pakistani perception) by its ``disproportionate`` reaction to the Kargil crisis. What Pakistan Army officers saw as merely another round in the India-Pakistan competition for improved dispositions in Jammu & Kashmir, and indeed one which responded to the three earlier Indian Army offensives which had won Indian advantages over the Pakistan Army in the area, suddenly became ``another major war between India and Pakistan`` in the eyes of the Indian media. It was frequently pointed out that while the Indian media and the BJP government--which was fighting a re-election battle--made a massive and emotional display of the incident, the Pakistani media and public paid little attention to the conflict.

Gen Pervez Musharraf has been extremely patient and quiet in consolidating his control over key elements of the army, knowing that he has the core power centres under control. In the months before the coup, it had become clear to Gen Musharraf that there was information being leaked to ``the politicians`` (particularly to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) from the monthly meetings of corps commanders. Gen Musharraf and his close confidantes narrowed their assessment down to two possible candidates for the leakages. It should be borne in mind that it is, under Pakistani military regulations, forbidden for officers of the armed forces to have contacts with political or government officials which have not been approved by the COAS or the command structure. So it was clear that whoever was leaking the information was hostile to Gen Musharraf. Within his jurisdiction, Gen Musharraf moved one of the two suspect corps commanders. Following the next corps commanders` monthly meeting, it was clear that the leakage was still occurring. As a result of this, Gen Musharraf told Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that he wanted the suspect corps commander, Lt-Gen Tariq Pervaiz, of XII Corps, Quetta, removed, without stating the reason to Nawaz. The prime minister said that this would be a lengthy process.

This was all in the month preceding the coup.

Gen Musharraf, as COAS, then moved within his jurisdiction to remove Lt-Gen Tariq Pervaiz from his post, and then retired him, without the prime minister`s approval, which legally was not required.

Lt-Gen Tariq Pervaiz is a brother of a cabinet minister in the Nawaz government, and that brother had also been a serving senior officer in the army, and had been removed by (then) Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on the grounds that he had been involved in planning a coup against him.

The army remains the most unified and ``democratic`` institution in Pakistan. Although the Pakistan Army comprises--officer corps and enlisted ranks alike--some 95 per cent Punjabis and Pathans, the question of ethnic origin or religious sect rarely arises; indeed, it is regarded as an offensive basis on which to assess a fellow soldier.

All key appointments under the Musharraf administration have been with unanimous approval of the Corps Commanders Committee. This reflects both the strength and weakness of Gen Musharraf. He does not have ``total control``, and must operate by consensus. This, however, is one of his strong areas: he works easily with his colleagues, although he does know how to quietly marginalise his opponents when necessary. But he does not oppose (indeed, is in no position to oppose) free discussion and ``voting by conscience`` within the Corps Commanders` Committee or the cabinet. The result is that his strengths as a consensus builder, and a good listener, come to the fore in the present system.

The October coup

The events of October 12, 1999, particularly those undertaken by the Armed Forces, were not pre-planned. However, before leaving for Colombo, Sri Lanka, Gen Musharraf told his close colleague and X Corps Commander Lt-Gen Mehmood Ahmed, that he thought ``something was up``, despite the fact that only weeks before the prime minister had elevated the COAS to chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is also clear that, from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif`s perspective, there had been no significant ``pre-planning`` of the events.

What is known is that, on the morning of October 12, 1999, the prime minister was in a rural town near Multan, in the Punjab, where he was to make a routine political speech. During this time, an official came onto the stand and whispered something to the prime minister, who cut short his speech and immediately returned to Islamabad. It is rumoured, but not confirmed, that Lt-Gen Ziauddin, director-general ISI, had begun his own moves to remove Gen Musharraf, and had basically forced the prime minister into acting on Ziauddin`s schedule. Subsequently, Lt-Gen Ziauddin`s arrived at GHQ at about 1400 hrs announcing that he was there to take over as COAS. Chief of the General Staff (CGS) Lt-Gen Muhammad Aziz was away from Rawalpindi at the time, in Murree, and returned immediately to GHQ. Meanwhile, Lt-Gen Ziauddin was advised that it was inappropriate for him to take over while both the COAS and CGS were off-seat. Lt-Gen Ziauddin subsequently proceeded by car toward the prime minister`s residence, accompanied by a brigadier from Military Intelligence within X Corps. The brigadier, in the car, took out a handgun and arrested Lt-Gen Ziauddin.

The Prime Minister`s office was unaware that Lt-Gen Ziauddin had been apprehended, and proceeded to announce the sacking of the COAS. A news-flash appeared on State television at 1600 hrs on October 12, 1999, announcing the dismissal of Gen Musharraf. This took Lt-Gen Mehmood Ahmed by surprise, and he dispatched a X Corps major and 10 armed troops to the state television offices to insist that no further announcement be made until Gen Musharraf could return from Colombo and the matter could be handled properly. The major delivered the message, but, at the same time the military secretary to the prime minister, a brigadier, arrived to make preparations for the prime minister to come to the studios to tape his statement on the dismissal. The brigadier called the security forces at the television station to disarm the troops, who were then locked in a room at the facility. The 1700 hrs broadcast carried the announcement of the dismissal, and the prime minister returned to his official residence, nearby, having taped his address to the nation, and summoned a number of senior generals.

Lt-Gen Mehmood Ahmed saw the 1700 hrs bulletin and immediately set off for the state television facility with a substantial body of troops. The special security force at the station, seeing overwhelming numbers of troops, immediately disarmed, and the brigadier/military secretary to the prime minister was arrested and locked in an office at the station. Lt Gen Mehmood Ahmed and his forces immediately went then to the prime minister`s residence. When other summoned generals came, they ere merely told by the guards from X Corps to ``go home``. The prime minister was then arrested.

Conclusions:

The coup of October 12, 1999, arrested an eight-year, virtually unbroken slide of the Pakistani political and economic entity into anomic, corruption, radicalism, misadventure and collapsing infrastructure. Because of the nature of the army leaders behind the coup, a window of opportunity was created which could bring about an amelioration in the India Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and other issues.

There will, however, be a continuation of political ``hostilities`` at some levels between the two states largely because of domestic political realities in both states. Despite this, a real opportunity exists to improve under lying strategic bilateral relations, particularly if constructive actions were undertaken out of the public gaze.

The Pakistan administration of Gen Pervez Musharraf recognises the centrality to Pakistan`s survival as a viable political and social entity of rapidly reversing the combination of illiteracy, poverty and religious extremism which is destroying the country`s international status, inward investment and security. It has begun taking steps to correct the situation, but is aware that it must do so without creating a national schism. The net result should be, over the coming year, a marked reduction in civilian Pakistani support for the jihad movement in Afghanistan and Kashmir. However, it is likely that it will take at least two years for a major transformation in the strategic situation.

The greater the Indian publicity on the ``success``, effectiveness or outrage of the jehadis in Indian Jammu & Kashmir, the greater the Pakistani grassroots support for, and interest in, supporting Kashmiri insurrection against Indian rule, and the more difficult it will be for the Pakistan government to curtail the jihad movement. The Musharraf administration believes that it has, for the first time in many years, been able to bring the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) organisation under real control, and in so doing it believes that it has minimised the influence of those ISI officers who feel that the jihad movements (in Kashmir and Afghanistan) are the key to Pakistan`s policies.

From our research, it was apparent that Pakistani officials did not believe that anyone could possibly believe that the ISI was behind all, or even most, of the Kashmiri and Afghani jihadist. They point out that the scope of even the Kashmiri jihad operations by the various private groups is patently beyond the financial scope of the ISI and Pakistan Army budgets. (Similarly, to Pakistani officials, it is clear that they do not have the security resources to directly confront the jihadist movements, even if it was politically expedient to do so.)

There are no signs of disunity within the Pakistan armed forces over the role of the armed forces in governing Pakistan during this interim period. There seem no clear, major paths of financing for the Pakistani Islamist groups which control the various jihad operations in Kashmir and Afghanistan. That is to say, there are no outstanding financiers, either state or private. Much of the funding clearly comes through collections at mosques within Pakistan; some is believed to come in via wealthy Saudi businessmen (and possibly some Pakistani businessman). Some has clearly come from the ISI, although this is by no means the preponderance of the funding or support.

It seems certain that some of the military equipment which has gone to aid jihad movements originated with the United States during the Afghan war against the Soviets. Much of this has in the past been sold, or siphoned off, to private individuals who have been trading it over the ensuing decade, not just to the Kashmiri and Afghan movement, but also to Islamist causes elsewhere. This highlights the corruption which has taken place, with the apparent connivance of elected officials during the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments, within ISI and other Pakistani agencies. The Musharraf administration appears to be starting to tackle this problem, and there have been recent raids which have netted some illegal weapons within the country.

RSAXENA

Kashmir is the matter of our survival ... because

a majority of the people in Pakistan believes that if the Kashmir isse is resolved it will mean permanent peace and thus we would be able to concentrate more on Education and Health and other things that are important and are neglected right now!

However I dont believe this to be the case ... atleast untill people like you (Born again Nazis)

are lurking ....

and by the way universities and educational institutions are not referred to as the ``joints``... here in the US atleast and not in Pakistan the last time I was there (Maybe in India though I doubt it)... It will indeed be interesting to investigate how this particular word came into your vocabulary (or lack thereof?)

....... Enuf of your pathetic insults!!!!!!!!!!

You are a disgrace to humanity not just India ...

-Yasser Hamdani!

RSAXENA

Kashmir is the matter of our survival ... because

a majority of the people in Pakistan believes that if the Kashmir isse is resolved it will mean permanent peace and thus we would be able to concentrate more on Education and Health and other things that are important and are neglected right now!

However I dont believe this to be the case ... atleast untill people like you (Born again Nazis)

are lurking ....

and by the way universities and educational institutions are not referred to as the ``joints``... here in the US atleast and not in Pakistan the last time I was there (Maybe in India though I doubt it)... It will indeed be interesting to investigate how this particular word came into your vocabulary (or lack thereof?)

....... Enuf of your pathetic insults!!!!!!!!!!

You are a disgrace to humanity not just India ...

-Yasser Hamdani!

First of R Saxena zabaan ko lagaam do ...

You can attack Rutgers all you want ... but we all know the truth eh !

Why dont you show me how my facts are baseless lies ...

look around you only you are calling facts lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are pathetic!

-Yasser Latif Hamdani

sigalph235 # 214

I have high respect for Bengalis since some of my best engineering professors in India were Bengalis. Also, I understand your passion for Greater Bengal and pride in your own beautiful culture since I am guilty of the same crime. I am very proud of my own Punjabi heritage and culture (specially after reading some very illuminating posts from Sameer sahib about Ghadar party movement and its unappreciated, seldom discussed and yet major contribution to our independence from British).

However, are you not being a bit naïve in believing that your people won independence from Pakistan on their own? Do you seriously believe that without Indian intervention and training of your Bahini, you had any chance against a proud, professional and determined Pakistani army? While it’s true that in the long run, if your people had continued your struggle, it would have ruined Pakistan’s economy and they probably would have left you alone. On the other hand, I can see an equally plausible scenario in which with China and USA’s support, Pakistan could have continued to brutally suppress your people and the world would have sympathized and yet just forgotten and ignored you. As you know, that has happened to quite a few ``freedom movements``.

So, please stop talking about kicking rear ends of Indian or Pakistani armies. Be grateful that India, for its own selfish reasons, liberated you.

Nothing wrong about dreaming about united independent Bengal though. Make your country a great prosperous country so that Indian Bengalis line up to get in Bangladesh legally or illegally. Last time I checked, situation was the other way around.

Ref sigalph235 #: 214

You say {Your line of arguments, undestandably, is fallacious. Bikaner, Patiala, Bhopal, and Travancore-Cochin never acceded to Pakistan; never mind whether Jinnah or Jesus talked to them.}

So, in your original list of Kashmir, Hyderabad, Jodhpur, Goa, Junagadh, Babriawad, Mangrol, when exactly did Jodhpur accede to Pakistan?

Or, for that matter, Mangrol and Babriawad?

Or, Hyderabad?

Or, even, Kashmir?

And how about the fact that Junagadh revoked its accession to Pakistan?

What is Pakistan`s claim to Goa, which is 50% Hindu and 50% Catholic? I didn`t know that Pakistan was created as the country for ALL the minorities of the subcontinent. I am sure there is a speech by Jinnah on that, how Pakistan was meant for Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians, Sikhs, and above all, Bengalis. Perhaps, even Hindus. If you would refresh my memory with statistics on the percentage of minorities in Pakistan (particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims), it would clarify matters for us poor benighted Hindus.

Regarding the fantasy about Greater Bangladesh, that died in 1947 when the Bengal Legislature voted to partition Bengal. And when Jinnah sent Suhrawardy packing back to the east. He didn`t even go to Dacca, he went to Calcutta.

Just remember: if you guys join West Bengal in a Greater Bangladesh, the bhadralok of Calcutta are singing:

Bangal manushya noi

Oode ek jantu....

(The East Bengali is not human

The Oriya is an animal...)

Along with George Nathaniel Curzon, the Calcuttans are most superior persons. You guys don`t stand a chance against their withering sarcasm.

Let us see. The Army of Bengal gets its ass kicked in the First Afghan War (with one person escaping alive from Kabul), so the Afghans are better than Bengalis. The Pakistanis kicked Bangladeshi butt so that the Pakis are better than the Bengalis. The Bengalis kicked Indian butt. Thus, the totem pole looks like Afghan, Paki, Bengali, Indian, with the Indians at the bottom. Hey, and you all wonder why India needs its nukes. Man, we live in a dangerous environment.

Go back to that association of Neanderthals called the Republican Party. And while you are there, try selling a few burqas to Phyllis Schlafly. You would be doing us all a favor if you manage to cover her face.

Sorry for the late reply sadna, but I was out of town.

You asked how I infer that the BJP means harm to Pakistan.

Through their own words.

``We will break up Pakistan`` (Jaswant Singh)

``We are going to teach Pakistan a lesson`` (Advani, right after the Babri Mosque destruction)

``We will drive Pakistan`s economy into the ground. We will destroy Pakistan economically and militarily.`` (George Fernandes)

And Vajpayee has gems of statements as well.

All well and good.

Pakistan`s concern should be one of awareness. Her focus should be on her economy and how to get it going.

The statements quoted above are just bullying statements, which can lead to action if Pakistan succumbs to bullying tactics. That misdirection is not in Pakistan`s interest.

Neither is cowardice.

The following appeared in my mail a few days ago. I didn`t know what to do with it. Then I thought what better place than Chowk. So, here it is. Comment away:

*The violence against Christians in India must stop by Pritam K. Rohila, Ph.D.

As human beings, the crown of God`s creation, we may have lost our tail, but we have not yet lost some characteristics of our evolutionary forefathers. We may have learnt to walk

straight, but some of us are so affected by the rhetoric of hate that we are unable to think straight.

Yugoslavs against Albanians in Kosovo, Catholics against Protestants in some parts of Mexico, Christian Coalition against Blacks and gays in some parts of USA, Sunnis against Shias

in Pakistani Punjab, Muslims vs. Christians in eastern Indonesia, and in India upper castes Hindus against the lower castes in Bihar, Muslims against Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir - ately, lines have been drawn between neighbors on account of religion, caste, ethnicity, sexual orientation or some other similar excuse. Human beings are

wreaking their anger on other human beings.

Now, in India, some insecure Hindus have made Christians the targets of their wrath. In Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and now in Orissa Christians have been singled out for persecution by them. As

a policy we do not comment in ACHA Bulletin on such incidents. Instead, we carry a column on Peace and Communal Harmony News. But our outrage at some of the recent incidents in India forces us to register our protest against this systematic persecution of a minority. Also, we want the world to know that these self-appointed defenders of Hindu faith do not speak or act for our Hindu members.

Some people say, only a few Christians have been hurt and that most Christians are not affected by what is happening. We ask them, ``Rapes of how many women, burning alive of how many missionaries and their children, destruction of how many houses of worship, infliction of fear in how many hearts, will be enough before the

persecution of a minority should be stopped?``

If providing literacy, health services, or better treatment to our outcastes and down trodden can be called ``inducement to conversion`` or ``forcible conversion,`` then why the members of the majority who have access to more means don`t use the same ways to induce them away from the

missionaries? Why do we have to resort to violence and threats of violence instead?

It boils to the matter of how we go about resolving our disagreements with others. To win the argument civilized and cultured people use dialog, not violence. Rape, murder, and destruction of property, initiated either by the

majority or the minority, is just not acceptable.

It is true a minority, in any country, should be aware of the cultural heritage of the majority. They should appreciate those aspects of the majority culture that do not conflict with their own faith. They should not deliberately offend

the sensibilities of the majority community. But, the majority also must do the same towards the minority. It should appreciate the insecurities experienced by the minority, and go an extra mile to assuage their fears and to respects the basic human right of the minority to practice, preserve and propagate its own culture and religion.

Just like sexual ``advances`` by a girl-child is not acceptable in any court of law as a defense by an adult male, initiation of conflict by a minority is not an adequate excuse by the majority`s attempt tp subjugate the former by

force.



OPINION

*A case for conversion by Vir Sanghvi (From Rediff on the NeT ... .)

Why have those of us who pride ourselves on our secular instincts been so slow to react to the violence against the Christian community? Christians have been complaining of attacks for four months now. And yet, it is only recently

that we have paid any attention to their complaints.

There are two answers to this question. The first is the pat response. The attacks struck us as being isolated instances and it wasn`t till sections of the extended Sangh Parivar stepped up

the pace of assaults in the aftermath of the assembly election that we realized that there was a pattern or a conspiracy behind the attacks.

But there is also a second, deeper answer to the question. To see the attacks as part of a campaign against Christians would be to miss the point. Of course, Indian Christians are the

ultimate target but as of now, the campaign has been packaged not so much as an anti-Christian movement but as a campaign against foreign missionaries who engaged in conversions.

This is why it has failed to generate the kind of secular outrage that it should have. Because the truth is that most Hindus, no matter how secular, are ambivalent about missionaries and hostile to the concept of conversions.

Our relationship with Christian missionaries is the most complex. Many of us have been educated at convent and Jesuit schools and continue to send our children to such schools. But, at some

subliminal level, we resent the fact that such schools require children to sing Christian hymns, say Christian prayers and - at least in the case of the Jesus school I attended as a child - make the sign of the cross every morning.

We resent also that many such schools (again judging by my own experience) refuse to seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus Christ`s way is not the only one or to confer Indian faiths

with any respect. Some even require children to spend their lunch breaks raising money for missionary activities.

For many years, the Indian middle class - both Hindu and Muslim - has coped uneasily with the more Christian aspects of education such schools provide. A friend of mine, the daughter of a prominent (and entirely secular) Bharatiya Janata Party leader recalls going to a temple when she was a child. ``Beti, prarthana karo (daughter, say your prayers),`` said the pujari . At this, the poor girl launched into the only prayer she knew: ``Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name...`` Needless to say, there were embarrassed

faces all around.

But even those Hindus who have minded the overtly Christian nature of education have not dared withdraw their children because they know that, whatever their drawbacks, such schools

provide an education that is generally superior to that offered elsewhere. And once you choose to let your children remain in a Jesuit or a convent school, then you lose the right to complain. (In my own case, my father withdrew me after two years when he wearied of my making the sign of the cross each time I was upset and objected to my saying ``Amen`` at the end of every sentence).

Nevertheless, though Hindus accept that those who voluntarily choose to send their kids to such schools must accept the whole package (hymns and all), they remain resentful. This is why Kalyan Singh touched a chord in the heart of a many parents when he asked whether Muslims who objected to Vande Mataram would now withdraw their children from Catholic schools as well.

When it comes to conversions, Hindus are even more resentful. Try arguing with any secular Hindu about conversions and after five minutes of political correctness, you end up against a stone wall. Try explaining that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that this must include the right to preach your faith as well as the right to change your religion, and you will get nowhere. Point out that most liberal democracies - including Christian countries - allow conversions, and you will be met with disbelief. Explain that nobody in England penalized the mullahs who converted Cat Stevens to Islam or that the US allows the Hari Krishna movement to convert hristians at will, and these examples will be dismissed as being of no consequence.

Worse still, such is the arrogance of most Hindus that we seem to actually believe that no Hindu ever converts of his own volition. The conversions, we decide, are either forcible or achieved through inducements. The reality is that there are many people at the margins of Hindu society - dalits, tribals, lower castes and so on - who have no reason to cling to a faith that oppresses them. But even when such persons

convert, this is seen as a conspiracy by fiendish foreign missionaries.

(One measure of the resentment was available when dalit Christians asked for reservations. Almost to a man Hindu society jumped up and blew a raspberry in their direction. ``Now that you`ve

converted, why should you get the benefits we give our dalits?`` was the refrain. When the hapless Christian pointed out that there was caste prejudice within the Christian community, the Hindu delight was palpable: ``Serves you right! Serves you right! And you thought you`d be better off! Ha!``)

The brilliance of the Sangh Parivar`s campaign is that it taps into these Hindu

resentments. If the Parivar said that it wanted to beat up poor Mr Gomes down the road because he was a Christian, most Hindus would be outraged.

Instead it says: we are targeting Father Fat Cat and the foreign funds he uses for conversion. And while Hindus do not exactly cheer the Parivar along, they are less outraged.

The modus operandi is familiar. The Parivar pulled exactly the same routine during the Ayodhya agitation. The attack was directed at the Muslim eadership which refused to abandon a discussed mosque even though it marked the birthplace of Lord Rama. Why, asked the likes of L K Advani, should Muslims bother to compromise when they have been so pampered by the secular establishment? The Shahi Imam wants the Shah Bano judgment reversed; he gets his way. Syed Shahbuddin wants The Satanic Verses banned; he gets his way.

If the attack had been framed in terms of ordinary Muslim, it would have been less attractive. Had the Parivar said it was targeting Ali, the peon in your office, Hindus would have had nothing to get agitated about. But once the

attack tapped into existing resentments and targeted Shahbuddin and the Shahi Imam, it found many supporters.

Of course, as the Ayodhya agitation demonstrated, once the movement gets under way, it is never the ostensible targets who get hurt. The Shahi Imam is as well off today as he was 10 years

ago. It is poor Ali the peon whose house has been burnt. And with relations between the communities set back 20 years, Hindus have suffered nearly

as much as Muslims.

The anti-Christian agitation will probably go the same way. Father Fat Cat will take a plane out. Poor Mr Gomes will get stabbed. If we are to avoid a repetition of the trauma of the Ram

movement, then three things are necessary.

One: Hindus must recognize that their resentments against missionaries and conversions are basically irrational.

Two: Indian Christians should not be carried away into making common cause with foreign missionaries. And three: the State must act to nip the violence in the bud.

Otherwise, we can expect more Toyota raths, more madness, more mayhem and more murder.

*Figure this out: The truth about Hindus and Christians by Amberish K Diwanji (The Rediff Special... .)

There are three kinds of untruths: lies, damned lies and statistics!

Statistics is the primary weapon employed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to buttress its version on the conversions controversy - the faster growth rate of the Christian (and Muslim,

though the focus at present is not on them) population as opposed to that of the Hindus.

The VHP points to the census undertaken in 1991 as its reference, and the growth in the period between 1981 and 1991 (the next census is due only in 2001).

There is no denying that some of the figures are incredible. In Arunachal Pradesh, the Christian population in the decade in question registered a growth of 225.98 per cent! The Muslim growth rate was at 135.01 per cent, while the Hindu growth rate was 73.34 per cent.

The VHP says it is in the North-East that the maximum conversion has taken place and that is the region where missionaries are the most active. To back its statement, it cites the 1991 census.

But John Dayal, convenor of the United Christian Forum for Human Rights, accuses the VHP of quoting figures out of context. ``Statistics are the Devil`s instrument,`` he says. ``At the time of

Independence, the Christian population in the Dangs district [in Gujarat] was slightly less than 500 and today it is around 7,500. Is an increase of 7,000 people in 50 years really too much?``

Dayal also points out that Christianity in India has grown much slower than in

the rest of the world. The 1991 census states that there were 7,824 Christians in the Dangs, up from 1,514 in 1981. This works out to a percentage increase of almost 500. In the same period, the state of Gujarat registered a population growth of

21.19 per cent. While the Hindu population grew by 21.12, Christians grew by 36.96 and Muslims by 24.05.

But statistics tell just half a story. Perhaps this is why the VHP depends wholly

on percentages (it gave absolute numbers only when Rediff On The NeT asked for them specifically) while the Christian groups prefer to highlight

numbers rather than percentages.

Explains Dr Ashish Bose, a leading demographer: ``As any statistician will tell you, when the figures are small, percentages appear huge; and when the figures are huge, the percentages appear small.`` An example: Adding 2 to

10 is a 20 per cent increase, adding 2 to 100 is just a 2 per cent increase. Thus, for Uttar Pradesh today to register a 10 per cent growth in population needs 10 million people, more than the

population of the entire North-East excluding Assam!

Yet, is this five-fold increase in the Christian population in the Dangs possible? Says Bose, ``Growth is caused by births, deaths and migration. In the Dangs, and in other tribal areas, the birth rate is going down. The death rate remains high and hence these two cannot explain the high growth. Regarding migration, Dangs is a poor and backward district that few would want to migrate to. In these circumstances,

the only possible explanation left for the five-fold increase will be conversion.``

But he hastens to add that the conversions are just a drop in the ocean. ``Even in the Dangs, Christians comprise only 5.4 per cent of the total population of about 150,000 and hence the recent

controversy is totally uncalled for.

Such a small figure should really not be a reason for the national ripples it is causing.``

It may be pointed out here that the VHP claims that of a total population of 250,000 today, there are 60,000 Christians, or almost 25 per cent, in the Dangs. But these figures are not

backed by any independent studies.

Actually, the North-East is the only area where the Christian population has grown. The states of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland have a Christian majority while Arunachal Pradesh has

a Buddhist majority. The only other states in the Union where Hindus are in a minority are Punjab (where Sikhs are in a majority) and Jammu &

Kashmir (where Muslims are in a majority).

Nevertheless, despite the figures in the table above that the VHP has been highlighting, here are some more. The 1991 census for India reveals the following growth rates: country -- 23.79; Hindus -- 22.78; Christians -- 16.89;

Muslims -- 32.76.

Thus, throughout India, the growth rate of the Christian population was lower than that of Hindus. And as Christian groups never tire of pointing out, the total percentage of Christians in India has actually gone down from 2.36 to

2.24 per cent during 1981-91.

Another fact is that the provinces where the population bomb is exploding - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan - are states where Christians have negligible presence.

And most of the growth here is of Hindus, not Christians.

It is these factors that sociologists and demographers seek to highlight to interpret the statistics ``Christians, except for those from among the tribals, are really middle-class, educated people. Hence, they tend to have small families with one or two children. This applies even to Catholics who many mistakenly believe have large families. On the other hand, Muslims are among the poor and backward class and hence have

larger families,`` says Bose, adding, ``All growth rates right now are coming down.``

It must also be noted that the population growth rate in the North-East has been much higher than the all-India average, a major reason being immigration. For instance, Nagaland`s growth rate is 56.1 per cent. Ditto for the other states in the region as well as Sikkim. ``There has been massive migration to the North-East from the other

parts of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma and Bhutan. These are people of all faiths - Hindus, Christians and Muslims, and this is part of the reason for the high growth.``

Well-known sociologist Ashis Nandy believes religious denomination is often used as a political tool: ``Sometimes tribes split up and often the split group will embrace a particular faith as a part of the bargaining involved. Similarly, many Naga tribals today claim Christianity as part of the Naga national identity.``

Also, being Christian-dominated, the North-East could be a magnet for Christians in other parts of the country. ``It is very likely that many Christians from other parts of India have migrated to the North-East in search of better prospects, and many Hindus may have moved out. At least one group known to have moved in huge numbers to the North-East are the Kerala Christians,`` says Bose.

In fact, the Malayalis are one of the largest, non-native ethnic groups in the

North-East today, though exact figures are not available. (The Nepalis are the other large non-native ethnic group in the region.) And interestingly, the Christian population in Kerala, around 20 per cent, has decreased.

Nandy also believes the massive growth in terms of percentages could be a problem of classification. ``Often during periods of strife, people don`t give their correct religious denominations. In the 1980s, many peace accords were signed in the North-East and after that people would have openly stated their faith in the 1991 census. So the increase really is a question of statement,`` he says.

Not just statement but the insistence of seeing religions in the singular. ``You will never hear of riots between Shintos and Buddhists in Japan, because most people there are Shintos AND

Buddhists,`` points out Nandy. ``Similarly, in the North-East, in earlier years, people often quoted two or more faiths during the census enumeration.

Unfortunately, this practice has stopped in recent years.``

According to the Anthropological Survey of India 1994, 15 communities in the North-East were stated to be practising more than one faith. ``But most Indians elsewhere simply do not

understand this,`` says Nandy.

*To convert or not is an individual`s right by Saisuresh Sivaswamy (Rediff on the NeT 1/12/99)

There`s an old saying in Tamil, that translates loosely as: even brothers are not

as effective as a round of thrashing.

The Bharatiya Janata Party, for long identified as a north Indian party with pro-Hindi leanings, has made some gains in the south in the recent past, and possibly its exposure to Dravidian culture has led it to imbibe this particular idiom well.

Its brutal tactic in dealing with the Christian community, with brute force right up

front, has helped it in one respect, in a way its earlier, comparatively pacifist demands could not: that is to bring the whole issue of religious

conversions to the center stage of Indian politics. With the national agenda for governance imposing on the BJP government at the Center a code of do`s and don`ts, which has clearly miffed

the traditional vote bank of the Sangh Parivar, pressure was on the saffron brigade to demonstrate clearly that it had not bid goodbye to its core agenda.

This reassurance was essential, since even the die-hard Sanghi does not expect the alliance government to complete its term. Actually, with Prime Minister A B Vajpayee taking on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the party organization and emerging victor at the recent Bangalore conclave, the die-hard Sanghi, who has been put in his place in Nagpur, will not want this government to go anywhere near completing its five-year term, since he believes that the longer Vajpayee and Co continue in office, the more difficult it will be for the RSS to ensure a BJP

victory in the next election.

So, he needed to send a clear message to the rank and file, that the NAG notwithstanding, the organization was mindful of its core agenda, and that there has been no abandonment of the same. This is where the Christian tribals in the countryside came in as cannon-fodder. Conversions, however few, always have the potential to inflame

passions, and it is probably true that relations between tribals and neo-converts in hamlets to Christianity may have soured. What the RSS`s agents have done is to take up the same and blow it up as a national issue, which it clearly

is not.

Even the prime minister, ever a stickler for discipline otherwise, has been unable to counter this onslaught. He knows that the right thing to do would be to send the Keshubhai Patel in

Gujarat packing, and not have a party bigwig come on television and waffle about not one person being killed, just some makeshift churches were

destroyed, but that would have ensured a head-on collision with the gerontocrats in Nagpur, something he is not keen on at the moment, at least not so soon after he has pushed them to the

wall over the issue of the government`s primacy over the party.

What this has resulted in, is that the issue of conversions, on which the national agenda for governance is ominously silent, has been raised, and is being debated, even if the main Opposition party, the Congress, is not all that keen on doing so, for reasons of its own.

The BJP`s strange bedfellows, ever willing to swear by the NAG otherwise, have also been caught in two minds over this issue, with even Chandrababu Naidu, who has always maintained that

his support to the government is issue-based, saying that conversions should be discussed, so presumably in his eyes this is a valid issue.

Which is all fine. Conversions are not a modern phenomenon, they have been around since the day of Gautama Buddha, if not earlier, and I daresay they will be around well into the next

millennium as well, so the government needs to lay it on the table what its intentions are on this issue. Does it want a constitutional ban on conversions, is the first point that the government needs to clarify, and if yes, how it intends going about converting this into

legislation, given that even comparatively innocuous legislations tabled by the BJP have floundered on the rocks of its parliamentary inadequacy.

A constitutional ban on conversions sounds fine, but where does it fit in, especially since the Constitution of India is categorical about the right to religious freedom? Inherent in this right, is the individual`s right to choose his faith, so does this government believe that this is a suspendable right?

I believe that the issue of conversions cannot be discussed logically, rationally and sensibly so long as it is the BJP government that is initiating the dialogue, Vajpayee or no Vajpayee. For, this party, and its parent organization, have succeeded in creating the impression among a large number of Hindus that

their numbers are under threat because of religious conversions. Thus, 50 years after Independence, even with Hindus numbering more than 80 per cent of the population, the impression is growing that the community is dwindling. In fact, this must be the only community which, despite such large numbers, believes that its days are

numbered. Talk of paranoid millions!

To revert to the issue of conversions, the debate, such as it is, needs to consider not only who is converting to which religion, but also why. Since the Sangh Parivar has grown phenomenally

in the countryside in the last decade, it must have found out the reasons why tribals are becoming Christians. I use the phrase `becoming Christians` and not `converting`, since the communities that are in the pale of civilizations, do not conform to what you and I consider Hinduism. For the Sangh Parivar, it becomes convenient to brand them as Hindus, since the whole issue is about numbers, votes, but ask the tribals if they consider themselves to be Hindus, and the answer should be illuminating.

I come from an urban centre, from an upper caste background, and I know the realities of caste, the extent of its hold, and how it skews perceptions. I have seen families treat human beings as chattel, and worse, only because they come from a lower stratum. Attitudes have not changed much, despite progress, despite urbanization. If anything, the estrangement that results from social advancement, push in the

roots of orthodoxy deeper, rather like how the NRI is more gung-ho about India than the poor desi who has to put up with the national drudgery.

So, even conceding the Sangh Parivar`s basic premise that the native population, including the tribals and other dispossessed, of this land was, is Hindu, the key question still remains unanswered: why are the numbers leaving the Hindu fold? The answer is not difficult to divine: it is that the Hindu superstructure is highly discriminatory, terribly iniquitous on the underdog, and has become fossilized into customs and rituals. The core of the faith may be

splendid, but the ugly exterior, which is all the underprivileged get to see, does nothing for them. The imagery is rather like the rath of Lord Jagannath. The chariot with the idol on top may be

glorious, but what if those pulling it have decided that there is no glory for them in throwing themselves under the giant wheels so that the gods may continue their perambulations?

Since the Sangh Parivar claims that it is a Hindu revivalist organization, that it stands for defending the Hindu faith, let me offer a piece of advice, as a Hindu Indian. I too believe that the faith is under enormous threat today, but unlike

the Sanghis, I don`t believe that my faith is being challenged by Semitic or other faiths. Hinduism`s biggest danger today is from its practitioners, its refusal to adapt to a changing

environment, its steadfastness in believing

that rituals and superstitions constitute the central message of the faith, its reluctance to accept that the caste system is iniquitous in the extreme, that it condemns millions to a fate worse than anything imaginable for no other reason than that they were not born as forward castes.

Even Gandhiji, with his affection for the Harijan, could not cleanse the Hindu psyche of the evil of caste, but then he did not have the overt dedication to the Hindu cause that the Sangh Parivar does. Let these self-styled defenders of

the faith usher in a genuine renaissance and not focus on breaking masjids and chapels, and they will find that there is no need to ban conversions. Nobody will want to convert from a faith that treats them as equal human beings,

regardless of caste, community, creed or color. If the Parivar is unable to do this, its motives in hyping Hindu causes will always remain suspect.

Re: Sigalph

Yes; I would concur with your assessment of this November, but my biggest fear is that the moderates who were supporting McCain will split their votes and that might hurt the more moderate/liberal GOPs in the Congress. I am not worried about the conservative states, but the states where the GOP majority is slim might be problematic. In all, I still think that the GOP will retain both the houses.

Also, I agree with you that the GOP is for small businessmen/women, but the RNC is more interested in the corporate milchcows. Yes, the Dems are no saints either, but unfortuneatly the GOP is fast catching up to those Dems!!! :)

Thanks, for the compliments on Utah!!! Leavitt is a great guy and has White House ambitions. He held his hand this time, so that Hatch could have a go at 1600 Penn Ave, but I think that he will be a serious contender in 2004 for the GOP nomination (atleast a cabinet job), because he is going for a third term in Utah and if he wins, he will be the first gov since the late 1960s to achieve that feat!!!!

Sorry pal, but I have to beg to disagree on the GOP/GWBush policy on Pakistan. I honestly think that the American policy will seek to improve ties with India, because India`s IT is more important to the American economy than Pakistan`s allied/strategic status!!!!!

Go Kansas!!! I am a great fan of Ike and Bob, because I am a World War II buff and these guys, in my books, are heros who really stood up when the world needed men like them to save it. Being a WWII buff, I personally owe a debt of gratitute to the ``Greatest Generation``. Again, Go Kansas!!!

Ciao Feroz

Interesting article from Pakistan NEWS:

Pak envoy to Turkey in US with formula on Kashmir

By Nayyar Zaidi

WASHINGTON: Was Pakistan on the verge of proposing a ``settlement of Kashmir`` that would allow ``territory for India`` and ``people for Pakistan``?

Albrecht Muth, Executive Director of the Washington-based Eminent Persons` Council claims that Pakistan`s Ambassador to Turkey Karamatuallah Ghori was to publicly launch the proposal through a speech at the World Affairs Council on April 26.

Muth had also visited Turkey where he met a Pakistani delegation. The council is co-chaired by former Indian prime minister Narsimha Rao and its members also include Tehrik-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan. The council is holding a meeting in Washington from May 2 to May 4.

According to Muth, the plan included accepting the Line of Control (LoC) as a starting point. Then there would be a massive immigration of Muslims from held Kashmir to Pakistan. Finally, the LoC would be pushed eastwards (towards Indian side) to give more ``space`` to Pakistan.

Pakistan`s Deputy Chief of Mission Zameer Akram told The News that Ghori is on a private visit to the US. Zameer said he (Ghori) is currently with his sister somewhere in New York where he could not be reached. He said he did not have Ghori`s telephone member, but added he expected a call from him (Ghori).

However, no call was received at the time of filing of this report. If Muth has concocted this whole thing, he is a fascinating story-teller because during his hour-long telephone interview with The News, he gave an incredible amount of details that at least make interesting reading and deserve attention. (THE NEWS, Pakistan)

In respose to AI # 205

Here is something you might like about IT in Pakistan. A faster ISP than faster ``Eagles``.

NetSol International Launching ISP in Pakistan

NetSolCONNECT Poised to Offer Fastest Pakistani ISP & Internet Services Nationwide

CALABASAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 25, 2000--NetSol International, Inc. (Nasdaq:NTWK - news), a leading global information technology consultant and software developer, today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary NetSol eR Inc. (eReady) will launch NetSolCONNECT, a nationwide ISP in Pakistan.

eReady plans to commence NetSolCONNECT`s operation in Pakistan`s largest city, Karachi, in June 2000 and expects to deploy the same ISP infrastructure in another seven other cities. The NetSolCONNECT service will be marketed under the brand name iReady.

eReady`s chief executive officer, Naeem Ghauri, stated, ``We believe NetSolCONNECT will offer Pakistan superior technology and Internet services. Using an aggregate connection close to 6 megabytes and scaling to 48 megabytes, iReady`s first phase will provide a network that we believe will be almost 20 times faster than the competition. The network is expected to maintain the highest level of reliability with redundant and diverse paths to avoid single points of failure and provide optimal traffic flow.``

Najeeb Ghauri, president of NetSol International, stated, ``Pakistan has a compelling Internet opportunity. Market research indicates that the number of Internet users could expand ten-fold by 2004. NetSolCONNECT has the vision to make iReady the largest ISP in Pakistan. We believe our infrastructure and technology will enable us to capture the majority of a market that is growing exponentially.``

Pakistan Telecom Communications Limited (PTCL), has announced major tariff reductions up to 53% of current rates effective May 1, 2000. PTCL has a network of 3.2 million telecom connections nationwide and only 130,000 subscribers are Internet users. Market research predicts that the number of Internet users will rise to 1.5 million by 2004. Currently, there are about 2.5 million household computers equipped with modems that are not using an ISP. In addition, 25% of Internet users have multiple connections to counter poor performance and slow connections. Current Internet connection options are limited by not providing nationwide access and by using weaker infrastructure based on older technology.

Naeem Ghauri added, ``NetSolCONNECT expects to be introducing a variety of Internet services including virtual hosting services, multiple Point of Presence (PoPs), an Application Service Provider (ASP) and Virtual Private Networks (VPN). The PoPs would provide local call costing with a ratio of 1:9 for modem access. The VPN is intended to deliver the benefits of a Wide Area Network (WAN) for companies for additional secure communications between different locations. Since VPN sends data encrypted over the Internet network, it can deliver the benefits at much lower cost, with greater reach and scalability than a conventional WAN.``

iReady will be available through the nation`s first flat-rate subscription plan and multiple PoPs. iReady will provide high quality Internet access, ranging from switched access to dial-up and remote access including ISDN to high bandwidth dedicated Internet connections and eventually DSL and Frame-Relay, backed by 100% service availability. NetSolCONNECT has acquired the necessary license for nationwide Internet service deployment. By the time of ISP launch NetSolCONNECT will have procured the ISP technical resources, assembled a 24 hours a day and 7 days a week help desk and developed a nationwide marketing campaign.

re #208 gymnophist

Your line of arguments, undestandably, is fallacious. Bikaner, Patiala, Bhopal, and Travancore-Cochin never acceded to Pakistan; never mind whether Jinnah or Jesus talked to them. They had acceded to India while the states I talked about did not accede to India, unless the accession by Kashmir`s maharaja under duress is counted as such (even Pandit Nehru rules out the validity of this accession instrument.

Chandernagore and Pondicherry were never invaded by India in the manner of Goa; France and India reached a treaty agreement on those settlements. So it is juvenile to compare the French settlements to Goa. Obviosuly your comment on Pondicherry`s Muslim CM has no relevance to the point a hand. You asked whether it belongs to Bangladesh or Pakistan? Well, my friend, ALL of so called West Bengal, including, therefore, Chandernagore, belongs to the Benagli people in the shape of their independent homeland,Bangladesh. We will be happy to negotiate Chandernagore with the French after the union, in our ancient, eternal, and undivided capital of Calcutta.

So Indians intervened and broke up Paksitan, eh? On that score you Indians and Pakistanis at least agree. Indians out of delusion and Paksitanis out of disillusion. Look around gentlemen: The only troops in Bangladesh are the Bangladesh Armed Forces. We kicked the Pakis out in nine months and Indians in ten.

You people in the grandeur of numbers forget a key fact: the Bangladesh Army kicked some serious rear end of both Indians (1965, it was the Bengal Regiment then) and Pakistan (1971, War of Independence).

Good for us. You guys can fight it out while we prepare for the eventual union with our brethren in across the Radcliffe line in W Bengal. Any ides where the first All Bangladesh parliament can meet in Calcutta for its maiden session?

re gop and ferozk

I am from Eisenhower and Dole country where Republicanism is not liberal, not radical, not conservative, but simply traditional. Granted, until 1998 our all GOP congressional delegation was the MOST (98%) Repuplican voting of all.

Utah eh? Great and beautiful state; my friend Dr Butler is the international trade advisor to Gov Levitt. Well, you have a point: you don`t get much more conservative than Utah (sans Salt Lake City).

Indeed, we need to rebuild the RR coalition where liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, and vegetarian (here is a quip from McCain) are welcome and united to throw the socialists out. Yes the Big Money is with Bush and gives to the GOP a lot; but the Dems take in almost similarly obscene amounts. Infact FEC stats show that a higher percentage of House donations to Dem than GOPs is from $ 1000.00 checks. Remember that advocate of the small man and frugal living Dan Rostenkowski? After all, as Pres Coolidge said the business of America is business. Personally, I think the GOP is more the party of small business than big business; after all the big boys give to everybody. My own company (America`s fifth in Fortune 500 rankings) gave almost equal amounts, until March 15, to GW and Bradley! Plus Big Business is more likely to support the grandiose governmenal regulation nonsense if for no other reason than to drive out the small fish competition.

On a sidebar, to another gentleman, I do think that Gov Bush would be a little more sympathetic to having a more even handed foreign policy in S. Asia. If for no other reason than the fact that there are more GOP legislators who are sympathetic to Pakistan (Dan Burton of Indiana) than Dems. Not to mention that the Governor`s foreign policy team has members who generally value the US-Pak alliance (Dr Rice, Sec Cheney, and Gen Haig).

Well off to flying planes now. By the way Ferozk, I am thinking we pick up 15 seats in the lower and 3 in the upper chamber. Your take?

I doubt that the GOP will lean hard on India, because US-India share an economic interest that transends anything Pakistan has to offer and the new emerging American interests are going to revolve around economic interests, and not Cold War criterias.

Hope that answers your question!

To my fellow GOP:

Great to learn that news.....which state do you hail from?

My GOP experience was in Utah, which is far too conservative for my taste, but if your state was a wee bit moderate, then I can understand the differences in your posts vis a vis the GOP state conventions. I agree with you that GOP is a God fearing party, but there is a certain trend towards the corporate sector and towards the vested interest groups. All in all, it is still better than those damn dems!!!!

As far Republicans go, I would say that I belong to the moderate/liberal wing, McCain, more than that gun toting, Bible swearing GWBush!!!! This would, I hope, help explain to you my ``dismay``, where I think the Party is going, because the 2K election is being bought by Big Money and they have finally ended up owning the ``People`s House``.

Would love to hear your comments on this!

Ciao Feroz!

#: 204

Ferozk

QUESTION FOR FEROZK

Some Pakistanis are inclined to believe that a republican victory in the November election would mean a shift in policy towards Pakistan. Could you comment ? Well we are clear that the Republicans in the White House would not support roguish behavior beyond a point but at the same time lean hard on India to come to some kind of settlement on Kashmir...

Re: Hamidm

Your knickers seem to get tighter as the Nasdaq goes down further. All your tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic language peppered with mentions of dal and biryani and falaana dhimaki colony in Lahore is entertaining but quickly becoming jaded by now.

But no worries yaar (if I may call you that). I get the same way. At least you entertain me. Genuine and witty hatred of Indians. haha

Ref sigalph235 #: 176

You said {My take on India`s expansionism is well known to most regular chowkwallas. Kashmir is, but only the most prominent, in a list that includes Junagadh, Jodhpur, Babriawad, Mangrol, Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim (did I miss any?).}

Yep, you did. Bikaner and Patiala. Jinnah talked to them too just like he talked to Jodhpur. The fact that he couldn`t convince a single Hindu/Sikh Maharaja to join Pakistan puts paid to any claim any of you can make about Pakistan being a society where all religions would be treated equally. Hey, but Jinnah did talk to them and that establishes a valid claim.

Perhaps Bhopal too. After all, the Nawab of Bhopal realized the impossibility of his landlocked state joining Pakistan and reluctantly acceded to India. His daughter, who succeeded him, abdicated shortly thereafter and moved to Pakistan. So, I think you should add Bhopal to the list.

How about Travancore-Cochin? The Maharaja there wanted independence too.

And who could forget Bangladesh? After all, it is Indian perfidy that caused Bangladesh to secede from Pakistan.

Man, whenever you guys raise Goa, I wonder why you forget the French possessions in India which came to India only in 1955. So, add Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe, Yenam, and Chandernagore to the list. You can further point out the legitimacy of the claim to Pondicherry/Karaikal which elected a Muslim chief minister despite having a negligible Muslim population.

By the way, should Chandernagore go to Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Time to invade Bangladesh. After all, we have already intervened (covertly or overtly) in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Sikkim, Bhutan, Tibet, and Burma.

Oops, my mistake. We already intervened in Bangladesh in 1971. Excuse me.

Re: Yoni Latto Hamid (ylh)

Haven`t you done enough damage to your credibility? Keeping posting in caps and using ``Indians are neo-nazis`` and ``jehad-e-kashmir`` liberally through your posts. Just how fine your curriculum at Rutgers is is quite apparent now.

Why get all worked up and frazzled if you have been posting nothing but ``facts`` and can easily defend them? Becasue you have posted no facts! Just utter lies and nonsense.

And stop boasting about getting into NYU. Who said that joint was any better. Regardless, no university can help you. Even at 19 you`ve displayed that you`re too old for hope. Which is true for many many youngsters who are hauled off to the Madrassahs even before they can spell human rights.

Re: the BJP discussion.

The ``neo-Nazi`` BJP (as you Pakis keep calling it)has done more for India than your Generals have done for Pakistan. Isn`t that what you should be concerned with??