Game Theory and Pakistan

Sameer # 55

Thanks for your response Sameer. You seem to agree with me that Siddiquis, Farooquis and Usmanis are native converts rather than direct decendents of the Sahaba-e-Rasool(PBUH). These folks have fully benefited from conversion and have also been socially accepted by the invading/conquering muslims.

From an economic point of view: they formed the bulk of what Hamza Alavi calls the UP salariat class. In 1857, UP muslims despite being just 13% of the population held 64% of the British colonial service jobs. They also formed the bulk of muslim officers in ICS and later on in Pakistani civil services. (Almost all the 313 CSS officers kicked out by Bhutto were UPites).

Check out the decendents of these converted muslims at any Pakistani engineers or doctors conference in North America. They certainly seem to be in a majority there.

The large number of Pashtuns and Mughals (Conquerors) settled in UP and Bihar freely intermarried with the converted muslims. Every ``Siddiqui`` will tell you of a ``Mirza`` or ``Khan`` aunt or Uncle.

Today, because of continued prosperity and intermarriages, the converted muslims of UP and Bihar are indistinguishable from the Muslim Ashrafia (conqueror) class of those provinces.

The backwardness of lower caste converts in Punjab (whom you call choorah, chammaar etc.) can be partially attributed to the fact that conversion in Punjab was across caste boundaries; the jatts, the gujjars, the rajputs converted alongwith the chooras and chammars. The newly converted high castes presumably didn`t want to break the class barriers. Why blame the conquering muslims? If they were willing to embrace the converts in UP and Bihar, why wouldn`t they do it in Punjab?

Ref SameerJB #: 54

``The conversion was mainly due to momentum and trend; not due to life threatening situation. The momentum and trend is currently non-existent in India even among Shudras (reply to harimau #51).``

What might be the sociological factors from about 900AD to 1700AD that created a momentum and trend of conversion to Islam? How come this trend and momentum did not manifest itself in South India to the same extent as it did in North India even when the South has had Muslim rulers? (I can go look up some history of South India and start listing nawabs and faujdars of every little town in South India to prove that the Muslims ruled the South as viceroys of the Nizam of Hyderabad, or Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan. Let us not forget that the British/French battles in the Carnatic were over who would succeed to some obscure throne and included the Nawab of Arcot, Chanda Sahib, and a host of justly-forgotten Muslim overlords. So let not anyone deny that the South was also under Muslim rule after the fall of the Vijayanagar empire.)

``The benefits of conversion were nowhere to be seen for the majority. The prosperity, role of women, literacy, caste system and everything in between did not even give marginal edge for Muslims in the mixed neighborhoods or villages.``

So why would a Hindu convert at all to Islam? You seem to be contradicting your previous statement about there being momentum and trend toward conversions.

``A large number of untouchables remained Hindus until Christianized during British Raj.``

Even today, the Christian missionaries are active only in the tribal belts of India. The Church of Northern India has its strength in the tribal belts of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh and most increase in Christian population is among the tribals of the Northeastern states. How come there is no momentum or trend towards conversion to Christianity, either under the British or now? (Actually, there are more conversions to Christianity now than under the British, who didn`t want the boat rocked.)

Sameer:#54

Your replies to Ali & others.

You seem to be thoroughly confused,and these passages are a proof of it.It seems that now you are spinning out theories of your own.Could other readers please explain to me what sameer is trying to say?

Are conversions in America taking place to fit your theory? What `momentum` trend is involved here? Is it possible for people to convert where no material benefits are promised,where the creed you are converting being the most vilified & hated by those who hold all the promises of earthly comforts.

That is why it is so important to learn from the Ulema.``Science`` even at its apex is nothing but a handmaiden of learned people from ALL faiths in general & Islam in particular.

This is such an obvious (almost axiomatic) observation that it would be an insult to everyones intelligence(even yours) to even try to explain it them.

__________________________________________________

Ali1,

My posts were more of a tirade against the insensitive, callous, intelectually demented and emotionally bankrupt conceptualisation of wars and invations as a `game theory` candidate.

I just used the conversion as one example of the absurdity the theoretical framework could lead to. Details are not very important.

jay

Ali1(#50): Trying to rationally analyze religious conversions is an area which has fascinated me for few years now. Unfortunately it quickly becomes a shouting match, much like Kashmir issue, because most of us (Indians/ Pakistanis) come to the table with preconcieved and biased notions and both sides can selectively point out the weaknesses of the other side. That is why, I was a bit vague when I said:

``Many Desis hoped to turn their loss into a non-zero sum, win-win situation by converting to the ways of the victors.``

Many Desis niether implies most Desis, nor some Desis. There is no denying that earliest conversions were for beneficial purpose. They were mostly influential people whose areas came under the rule of Arab and later Afghan and Turkic invaders. Before answering your specific questions, let me point out certain facts.

1) There were lot less percent of Shudras in the indus valley than rest of India. The pre-aryan people moved east and south to run for their lives from the successive invading waves. A large number of those left behind were absorbed due to much liberal attitude of vedic aryans in the indus valley. This liberal attitude is repeatedly criticized in Mahabharata.

2) The conversion did not bring equality for the lowest caste and untouchables. They are still called Mussali, Mirasi, Chamaar( Mochi), Bhangi, Dhobi etc. They still socialize within their caste and very few of them have ever achieved even a middle class status.

3) We (Pakistanis) has great deal of romanticism associated with Sufis. In reality, there were many who did not succeed in proselytizing any significant number of people. Even within Punjab, Haryana (so close to Delhi) remained largely Hindus. In west Punjab, many villages had 10-50% non-Muslim population in 1947. The conversion was mainly due to momentum and trend; not due to life threatening situation. The momentum and trend is currently non-existent in India even among Shudras (reply to harimau #51).

4) The benefits of conversion were nowhere to be seen for the majority. The prosperity, role of women, literacy, caste system and everything in between did not even give marginal edge for Muslims in the mixed neighborhoods or villages.

5) Muslims generally were not enthusiastic when it came to converting Shudras. Shudras were actually last to convert, mainly because they were services provider and accepted the religion of their clientele. A large number of untouchables remained Hindus until Christianized during British Raj.

I am not familiar with the background of Usmanis or Ansaris from UP and Bihar and can not comment.I would guess that selecting particular last names must be a trend in UP and Bihar, instead of genetic descendents. It is impossible to have 10 million or more descendents of five people (Mohammad, Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Ali) in 1400 years, in South Asia alone.

shammi #49

A similarly solid post a few months ago on the same topic? Then as now, well put.

Ref ali1 #: 50

``What about the sudras? They were so happy cleaning the Brahmin potties that they took the muslim victory as a loss for themselves!! un-believable!``

Yes, what about the sudras in India today? They are not crowding the local mosques to become Muslims, are they? So, extending your logic, it is obvious that the sudras find it preferable to clean the Brahmin potties than to become Muslims. Rather a sad commentary on Islam, don`t you think?

``I get sick of the false Brahmin claim of rape of Hindu women by the invaders. Dear Jay, don`t you know that high caste Hindus (e.g. Rajputs) were more than willing to give (marry) their women to the invaders, so where is the need for rape?``

The Rajput women of Chitorgarh committed mass suicide by burning themselves when defeat was seen to be inevitable than to be defiled by the invaders. You are taking the cases of Jahangir`s mother being the daughter of the Raja of Amber, Shahjahan`s mother being the daughter of Raja Udai Singh of Marwar, and Jahangir marrying the daughter of Raja Keshav Das Rathor as yet another wife. Other than these three marriages which were entered into so that the relationship between the Mughal emperor and his mansubdars could be strengthened, can you show me documented evidence of marriages willingly entered into by Rajput women, or any other Hindu women, with Muslims? When caste barriers were so high and Muslims were considered mlecchas (lower than Untouchables), why would anyone arrange for his daughter to be married to a Muslim? Even today, it is the few well-known folks like Shah Rukh Khan and Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi who marry Hindu women.

Let me point out that the Mughal emperor`s descendants had to marry among the princely classes. Shahryar (son of Jahangir through Nurjahan) married Nurjahan`s daughter by her first marriage to Sherafgan Khan. Hello? Are you listening? This idiot married his half-sister because there wasn`t anybody of suitable rank for him to marry. (Probably giving rise to that common Desi term of abuse behn * * * *). (Information on Mughal dynastic marriages from ``The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India``, translated by Wheeler M. Thackston.) So don`t make the laughable claim that Hindu women voluntarily married Muslim men. And there is no mad rush for nikkahs in India between Hindu women and Muslim men today just like the mosque doors are not being beaten down by the Dalits wanting to become Muslims.

I know it is tough to accept the fact that your ancestors were rapists but face up to the truth for truth liberates you.

Interesting perspective here.
Unfortunately the parasites of Pakistan have
the luxury of moving somewhere else when the
pickings get too slim. It is the common man
who will suffer till the day he can bear no more.
I wait for that day....

Sameer Sahib,

my questions:

``Many Desis hoped to turn their loss into a non-zero sum, win-win situation by converting to the ways of the victors.``

What about the sudras? They were so happy cleaning the Brahmin potties that they took the muslim victory as a loss for themselves!! un-believable!

``The winners expected the converts to completely lose their previous identities and accept the native identities of the victors but the Desis turned out to be too resistant to abandon their past identities completely.``

Do you think that Faruquis, Usmains, Ansaris of UP and Bihar would want to revert back to their sudra/lower caste identities? Think again. Maybe taking on the new identity was the desire of the convertees rather than the victors.

jay # 26

``The heros of pakistan, the Gaznavis, invade india to loot, pillage and rape, the poor hindus to save their lives, convert to islam, this is transforming a zero sum game to a non-zero sum game.``

I get sick of the false Brahmin claim of rape of Hindu women by the invaders. Dear Jay, don`t you know that high caste Hindus (e.g. Rajputs) were more than willing to give (marry) their women to the invaders, so where is the need for rape?

Re: Umairr, Reply # 43

I will take on the MINOR points made by Umairr first:

`` Pakistan has openly stated that it has no territorial ambitions over Kashmir.``

-- Then explain Pakistan`s disgust with the Indian occupation of Siachen. Siachen is part of Kashmir. The Pakistani reaction cannot be explained on the basis of technicalities of the definition of the LoC (as defined in the 1972 Simla Agreement) alone. Is it a territorial dispute or is it not? India certainly feels that it is. That is why both sides have soldiers in Siachen enforcing (or trying to atleast) their will on each other.

`` It (Kashmir) also has, on the average, the most yearly killings of civilians in the world.``

-- Wrong. Even if you accept the AHPC numbre (70,000 civilian and security forces dead over 10 years, ie. 7000/year. Official GOI figures are 25000) this number is much smaller than several current conflicts (e.g. Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, war-induced famine in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Rwanda).

`` It is a well-accepted fact that Kashmir has the highest ratio of soldiers to civilians in the world.``

-- This by itself does not mean much. What would the ratio be in one of the desolate, unpopulated Aleutian Islands where there are perhaps two (2) USAF personnel? Such comparisons are meaningless and are demagogic. The nature of the terrain, acclimatization time needed at high altitude, defensive strategy, etc. are crucial factors. However, these ratios are easy to explain and understand. They make great press copy, too! Perhaps, that is why you quoted it. The ratio changes as threat perceptions change. BTW, the oft-quoted `700,000 security forces` figure in Pakistani media includes the following - Indian Army mountain divisions in Siachen, Kargil sector, Ladakh (towards China), and the entire LoC; Border Roads Organization, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Air Force persoonel, various federal and state outfits. The civilian-facing or counter-insurgency units are likely much fewer than the 700,000 figure.

Now on to the MAJOR points:

`` If you think that Pakistan is the main cause of the problem, then why not hold a vote of only the local Kashmiris, and get the whole problem over with… The whole Indian stand on Kashmir is self-contradictory and illogical``

-- Actually not. The Indian stand on Kashmir is based upon realpolitik and legal arguments. True, a plebiscite in the Valley will probably not go India`s way today - it may lean towards independence! But as many Pakistani politicians have so eloquently demonstrated - merely holding elections (or plebiscite) is no guarantor of democracy or results to everybody`s satisfaction - in this case to India`s satisfaction. My friend, politics is the art of the impossible - contradictions in positions are an inescapable reality and a necessary ingredient. The Indian concern is as follows -- (i) hold a plebiscite, (ii) the Valley votes for independence, (iii) other disaffected religious/ethnic groups in India want their pound of flesh, (iv) in a few years you have opened a can of worms, and India becomes ungovernable - not a pleasant outcome for India, its neighbors or the rest of the world; just as the disintegration of Pakistan is a nightmare for India. It is possible that Kashmir could be independent and the rest of the nightmarish/alarmist scenario may never materialize. However, the risk and cost/benefit analysis dictates that India oppose the plebiscite. This is also the reason why that China opposes it. Note: Both India and China were jointly opposed to NATO intervention in Kosovo, UN intervention in East Timor (for realpolitik reasons).

Further, what is to prevent Pakistan from `Talibanizing` an independent Kashmir? Who can guarantee that that won`t happen? No elected government in India could rationalize that as a positive outcome to the Indian people. You will probably respond with theoretical safeguards and guarantees, but I doubt that they could be sold to a majority in India.

Also, the current trajectories (economic and political) of Pakistan and India are diverging --- with India emerging as a rising power and Pakistan sinking towards anarchy. This belief (which has been long-held in India since Independence) is finally coming to fruition. In that context, it would seem foolish to `let Kashmir go` when India can negotiate from a position of strength. Even Mansoor Ijaz thinks that Kashmiris will come around to rally behind India, albeit reluctantly, due to the economic disparity between India and Pakistan. It would be certainly foolish to risk a plebiscite at this stage.

Further, due to brazen `mujahideen`/`terrorist` attacks on civil authority, Pakistan`s reneging on commitments during Lahore `yatra` by Vajpayee, Musharraf coup, and last year`s Kargil invasion have severely weakened Pakistan`s moral standing in the world over Kashmir affairs in a relative quick order. This reality has not escaped the attention of Indian planners and the public. The world is rightly disgusted by alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir (as are many in India), but it is also very alive to the `Talibanization` of Afghanistan and the situation in Paksitan. There is no incentive at this point to give total independence to Kashmir.

Also, the Constitution of India does not allow plebiscites or secession of states. That is not a trifling matter. A plebiscite will require a constitutional amendment - an unlikely prospect. Then there is the matter of a Parliament resolution that calls for the integration of POK with India`s J&K. Note: UN resolutions carry less weight in India than Parliamentary resolutions. The Simla Agreement has also ruled out the role of UN or any third parties in J&K.

You might still ask: What about morality and principles, leaving aside realpolitik and legal hurdles? Here the Kashmiri is on stronger ground, and India (principally the Congress governments in the Center in cahoots with Farooq Abdullah) on the weaker. However, the appropriate thing to do here is to strengthen democracy and local self-governance in Kashmir, rather than to uproot it and invite the `Taliban-style` forces of jehad. (I have no illusions regarding the fate of Kashmir, if India were to pull out.) There is tremendous scope of improvement for strengthening democracy and local self-governance, before `dangerous` (from India`s perspective) ideas of independence can be entertained. I think that India`s actions in the past have roiled the waters in Kashmir, and Pakistan has found it convenient to fish in troubled waters. There is a tremendous, powerful wave of federalism and states-rights sweeping Indian politics currently. Most of this has occurred since 1990 - the year the `trouble` in Kashmir began. The unusual situation in Kashmir has caused it to miss out on most of these benefits impacting the rest of India. With normalcy restored, I think that the chances of Kashmir exacting its special privileges under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution will improve, not diminsh. If and when that fails, independence remains an option.

Ref sadna #: 47

Why talk about elections? The latest news is that the census is in trouble because the ``Kashmiri Nationalists`` have declared that any government official taking part in the census is a traitor and will meet with severe consequences. Of course, we remember the ban on cinemas and threats to women in Srinagar who dared to wear jeans.

Why is it that if some Indian Army soldiers rape Kashmiri women that is a human rights violation but if pious Islamic men rape their womenfolk it is because the ``woman was asking for it`` by dressing provocatively?

Umairr #43

``. It is a well-accpeted fact that Kashmir has the highest ratio of soldiers to civilians in the world.``

Let it be well-accepted that Kashmir has one of the highest ratio of foreign-infiltrated and armed militants in the world, then we can talk.

What I remember of the last `local elections`, the Kashmiris who stood for election were deemed traitors and many political activists were killed. Advertisements were brought out in local newspapers threatening death to those who dared to vote. I respect election boycotts by a beleagured populace, I donot respect armed threats and their sponsors.

Sadhana

BTW, I never did get an answer about JKLF and the Pakistani Army`s role in quashing it. Was it because it was pro-independence and not pro-Pakistani?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Similarity between India and Pak situation

Atal Behari Vajpayee of India and Gen Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan both came to power at the same time in October last year.

Vajpayee is the head of a diverse coalition of over a dozen parties, most of whom have little in common with each other and most of whom do not identify with the BJP`s agenda. Yet Vajpayee has been able to hold the coalition together with his `moderate` image - otherwise `secular` parties like the DMK, TMC and TDP would have nothing to do with the BJP... the only thing common to them is that all were opposed to the Congress last year in their respective states.

My question is: What are the implications if something `happens` to either Vajpayee or Musharraf, if one or both players are no longer around.

Consider Pakistan first. Is there a clear line of succession after Musharraf in the army? PM has some credibility in the Pak army (despite having superseded senior generals), some credibility with the Pak intelligentsia and the people (despite not being elected) and the international community has also grudgingly accepted the coup (though they may not say so in public). Would PM`s successor, if from the army, have the same level of credibility with all sections of Pak society and the international community? Would the political parties sense blood and become rejuvenated? What is the likely outcome? Will there be an increase in instability?

Similarly for India, the regional parties support the BJP only because of Vajpayee`s `moderate` face. Would LK Advani or anyone else command the same degree of support (esp for difficult decisions, like subsidy cuts and Sri Lanka)? Would the coalition currently held together by Vajpayee stick together? Or would there likely be a period of instability and fall of the govt. Would there be any change of policy, esp w.r.t Pakistan?

Vajpayee being older than PM, the Indian scenario is more likely, (morbid thought), though neither may happen. Either scenario in my opinion would lead to change of govt and increased instability in the sub-continent. Interesting how our fates are so dependent upon one individual in each country...

Any comments?

On the Question of, Los Angeles Times, Mohajir, Mansoor Ijaz and the problem of Descent: A short essay on `now`

Now, not even the Amnesty International has been allowed to get to Kashmir. Now, then, this Mansoor fellow gets there from New York.

Now, the New York Times rejected the writeup.

Now that, he failed his Nuclear Physics to get into investments, I mean he is not Solomon....!

Now, therefore, that Los Angeles Times has a special relationship with India to get this

fellow to saunter around the Srinagar`s Boulevard.

Now, this takes us to the question of his descent. Now and then Mohajir is sure about

things. Ijaz is sure.

Now, I am not. I will accept it when I see it. Now, before I close, and incidentally, ``descent`` is a biological relation, not a domicile or birth place referent, now one should be careful how to use it. Not to be continued...

Dear Sameer,

Though you did not mention it, the zero-sum mindset has been the bane of GOI too since Nehru. A new paradigm is needed by both India and Pakistan. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dear Sameer,

Though you did not mention it, the zero-sum mindset has been the bane of GOI too since Nehru. A new paradigm is needed by both India and Pakistan. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.