An Eulogy For The Hawks

xxxabbu#101

``And who knows what`ll happen after Vajpayee exits and Advani and clowns like Joshi take centrestage. The BJP needs to be kept on a continuous notice of good behaviour.``

You`re so right.

The civilizing proces of the yesterday`s rabble rousers and mobocrats of BJP into today`s `democrats` -- by the mainstream Indian politics -- is by no means complete -- it`s shallow, only Vajpayee deep.

Vajpayee at his age with so many health problems is not expected to be at the scene for long.

The horrible thought is that the Bamiayani destroyer of Babri Masjid, Advani, despite his ``prashchit`` at the dargah of Khawaja Moinnuddin Chisti -- is still an unreformed criminal -- will be next in line.

Dost-Mittar #131 I dont think anyone ``deserves`` riots of the kind that took place in Gujerat. It is all too easy in a developing country to pull together a mob, given the high number of unemployed or underemployed people. Personally, I think since Babri masjid is gone in any case (and a loss of cultural heritage for future generations regardless of religion, like the Afghanistan Buddhas), logic would say that the muslims in India may as well forget about it - there is no shortage of space on God`s good earth to worship. The problem of course is pride and emotions and so forth. The best solution imho would be to build an ``Interfaith Meditation Hall`` where hindus and muslims and people of other faiths could come and pray together for peace on earth for all people.

I had suggested this before on chowk, but did the Indian government pick up on this idea placed before such an august forum as chowk? Noooooooo :-)

Those who wishfully think that only their religion,their country, and their race would survive and all the rest would vanquish are deluding themselves, IMO. If wishes were horses, the beggars would ride. Indians would do better concentrating on their own welfare instead of nurturing wishes to see the break-up of their rival. Partition was a tragedy; but any act that seeks to reverse it would result in a greater mayhem.

Amit: Apparently, Bhartiya_M does not know much about internal ethnic related and communal realities of Pakistan. His predictions are clear example of it. Anarchy leading to a break up of Pakistan will, in my opinion lead to another Pakistan in any name with a Canada-USA like relationship with India, provided India stays on a path to progress.

None of Pakistani province is as ethnically pure as some people think. Balochistan excuding Pushtu speaking Pathan and joining parts of Balochi tribes from Sindh and Punjab would rather go independent than joining India with not much common history or culture. They have less population and huge mineral and gas reserves and potential for 2-3 seaports to sustain them easily and actually boost more per capita income than either India or Pakistan. NWFP pathans are more prosperous than Afghanistan. Actually parts of Afghanistan will join them than other way around. Part of NWFP (about half the population) would like to join Punjab or Kashmir than living under the hegemony of Pathans. In Sindh, Karachi may be interested in becoming independent city state, liike Singapore because they will be then most prosperous in all of South Asia. In the worst case, being part of India, they will be successful also due to the backing of UP dominant politics of India. No matter what the outcome, Karachi can not lose. In Pakistan, only two district will be joining India happily, Tharparker and Mirpur Khas of Sindh. Land-locked Punjab is not interested in independence because their interests are better served being part of a federation or confederation with access to sea for trade. They also have surplus labor force that can not be absorbed within Punjab, particularly with a smaller military. For sharing water resources, from Indus and Punjab on upstrean, Balochistan/ Sindh alliance have to have good relationship with Punjab. With Punjab being the inheritor of nuclear capabilities, a new three component confederation of Punjab-[part Balochistan-part Sindh]-[part NWFP-part Kashmir] is most likely outcome if current Pakistan breaks apart.

If India falls apart in future for any reason, it will be much more difficult to come up with a federation or confederation again because many Indian states are big enough to survive independently and actually progress at a faster rate than current India.

Jay #103:

[The problem with pakistan is that as many on the chowk agree, is an accidental creation. Pakistan could have pulled through with some cohesive forces, like india has done in the last fifty years. ]

Jay dear, I agree with you about accidental creation of Pakistan as do many others, including Bilal Ahmad (as I recall frm some of his posts). However, accidental creation has no bearing on love for Pakistan by Pakistanis, considering it a temporary state or current economic and political mess we are in. Actually most of the countries of the world, most events in the history of world and social matters of personal life are accidental in begining. Accidents more fittest to survive through natural selection were/ are the engine of evolution. Accidents and being fit to survive have no direct relationship. Marriages, arranged or love-based are absolutely accidental to begin with and most of the children born are also accidental/ unplanned. But once you marry a person or have children, it is present and future that determines the fate. TNT was also an accident and should have been placed in the basement or attic long time ago in Pakistan. Two words that are detrimental to Pakistan are Islam and Kashmir leading to poor prioritizing of spending, i.e., military spending. It is unsustainability of military spending than corruption of politicians or feudalism. With all that spending for 50+ years military failed in defending Pakistan, job they were paid for so handsomely. Pakistan can easily catch up or even surpass Indian growth rate within 5-7 years by accepting Indian Kashmir as part of India unilaterally, decreasing military spending, replacing Islam with secularism through constitutional means. Pakistan, then will be a successful state as India of today, with or without corrupt politicians and feudalism.

B.musalman,

I am happy to find one more person who supports the view of dissolution of pakistan. The problem with pakistan is that as many on the chowk agree, is an accidental creation. Pakistan could have pulled through with some cohesive forces, like india has done in the last fifty years. Some kind of an identity has been created, the country has collectively achieved something, or to put it more accurately, most of the indians believe that.

May be the IT, may be the bomb, may be slow improvement in the well being of a large number of people, has forged an identity of `indian`, which was not there fifty years ago.

In the case of pakistan, nothing has been delivered, only the fragmentation. Other than TNT there has been no ideological binding agent of pakistan. Now in the eyes of the world and that of the educated, pakistan is a synonym for corruption, jihad and dictatorship.

It is not the question of india dissolving pakistan, it is the corrosive effects of the image of pakistan among its own people that will disolve it from with in. A nation just to fight another has been the only basis so far for pak existence. Now, other than the jihadists many are wondering, is it worth it.

The missing element are only the detail of the last gasp.

Godot,

I do believe that pakistan could have become a progressive modern islamic state. Now the chances are very remote. Pakistan has moved in the direction of intolerance, the young of pakistan, YLH, aisha, scout and others do not fill me with optimism. Waht I see is only denial that the events have moved, no assuming of responsibility, it is all slogans, flippant remarks, no love for the country. I can look back at the changes in kerala, the chief minister of kerala today, A.K Antony was our hero during the `liberation` struggle against the marxists, it was stupid, but we were ready to agitate.

Well, that reminds me of Jinnah, sipping sherry and watching the agitation, a value imbibed by the YLhs of pakistan. Antony went to prison several times, YLH will never, the generation of Antony changed the political landscape, YLH will never.

The rules of creation, may remain with us for ever, till it is disolved.

regards

jay.

Re:bharatiya_m

A breakup of Pakistan will be a serious problem for India, even if it proceeds along the lines that you suggest. The Afghans will be the big winners because they will be able to unify with NWFP. That will result in a larger Afghanistan, which can be a much bigger problem for India in the long run. Traditionally, all invasions on India have used Afghanistan as the stepping stone and the Afghans themselves have attacked South Asia for centuries. A larger, resurgent Afghanistan would be a much more belligerent and dangerous enemy than Pakistan. Of course, they would start out by attacking the Sindh/Baluchi nation and the Punjabi nation that you suggest. Ultimately they would arrive at India`s doorsteps, and history would repeat itself.

If we take a step back, we can see that Pakistan actually insulates us from any invasions from the Northwest. Any invader would have to take on the Pakistani state before reaching India. Pakistan has also completely neutralized Afghanistan as a potential problem. That place is now so backward and poor, that it is at best a satellite of Pakistan. Also the ordinary people of Pakistan are not consumed with hatred against India. The people like Hamid Gul and Javed Nasir, spew rhetoric but cannot do much harm either. The reality is that after 50 years, Pakistanis are simply tired of the conflict with India. They too want a better economy and improve their standard of living. They want a honorable, face saving solution to Kashmir and move on with life.

Vajpayee is well aware of the general mood in Pakistan. He knows that Kashmir will require a compromise solution and this is the best time to negotiate a compromise. If Pakistan becomes very weak or collapses, India has to deal with a severe distraction on its borders instead of focusing on the economy. If Pakistan becomes strong and prosperous without a Kashmir solution (an unlikely scenario), India will not be able to negotiate a good solution in the future. Therefore, the trick is to come up with a reasonable framework for a Kashmir solution, stabilize relations with Pakistan and hope that it spurs economic growth in both countries to the extent that there is a vested interest in maintaining peace.

Ref SaadPAslam #94

“We, India, are based on the solitary founding principle that religious sensibilities has nothing to do with nationhood”

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between your statement and the ground reality in India at present, i.e. the government itself comprises of a right wing religious party. ``

Yes, you are right. The right-wingers constantly undermine the basis of the Indian Union - unity in diversity - by their very presence. Which is why I think they are the gravest threat India faces today. Insurgencies, rebellions, regional disparity - these can all be fought, removed incrementally. But once Indians lose faith in this raison de etat which binds them together, there can be no hope, not just for Muslims or other minorities, but for India herself.

However, do not think that this is about to happen, or that we are going to let it happen just like that. There are enough thinking Indians, and enough institutional mechanisms, to stop it. Do not presume that everyone, or even a significant portion of people who voted for BJP are communally-minded. Apart from their first ``break``, the BJP has not been able to sustain a communal agenda in elections. Like every other party, they have had to contest on local or national issues affecting peoples` lives. If they have attained a measure of public endorsement, it is because of their performance and superior leadership provided by Vajpayee. Sad as it is, even those who detest their ideology find them more palatable than the fossilised Congress. Hence their continued electoral success is despite, NOT due to their dodgy communal agenda. The day the BJP lets their parivar friends get out of control, people will desert them in droves.

It is my feeling that BJP (and Parivar clowns) are tolerated by the public due to an innate faith in the norming influence of our national institutions. That this faith is not unwarranted has been proven by the record of the BJP-led coalition in power.

What caused the rise of the Parivar in the first place? I believe that the Parivar addressed a definite need for many hindus in the early nineties. Rightly or wrongly, there was a widespread feeling that the Congress in its quest for power had subverted the idea of secularism to the disadvantage of many hindus. Many people hankered after cultural renaissance and pride in their roots which they thought was denied them by asinine leftism of the Congress. In the early years, the BJP capitalized fully on this account. But soon, other people not interested in the ideological baggage started to notice that the BJP might provide a centrist alternative to the hypocritical socialism that Congress offered. This has indeed turned out to be the case. Today, the BJP govt is generally seen as competent, with many redeeming features. It has a dynamic leader, is reformist, forward-looking, internally democratic, and has a generally better sense of federal and constitutional propriety than Congress.

While this is all good, Indians need to watch out for danger signs. While they have ignored certain unpleasant associations kept by BJP for now, theres sth quite unsatisfactory about continuing with this state of affairs indefinitely. And who knows what`ll happen after Vajpayee exits and Advani and clowns like Joshi take centrestage. The BJP needs to be kept on a continuous notice of good behaviour.

Regards.

``However, since Mutual Assured Destruction is not really possible due to the proximity, the scary reality is that whoever strikes first would wipe the other side off the map before there was a chance to counter. This is why both sides are quite wary.``

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation should tell you that MAD is a reality exactly because of the proximity. It should`nt matter who strikes first.

``It was a brilliant move by Sadat to avenge the 1967 disaster.``

Correct me if I am wrong but if my memory serves me right, Egypt has lost Sinai (three times), Syria the Golan Heights and Jordan the West Bank. Israelis still hold the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The last brilliant Arab generals were probably Umar ibn al-Khitab and Khalid b. Walid. The word ``brilliant`` does`nt fit well with Nasser, Sadat or that other joker- Hussain of Jordan.



``As for Sharon, he`s about to be called in on War Crimes in Belgium so he better watch his next foreign trip :)``

I am no fan of Mr. Sharon, but as far as his long-overdue-appearance in a War Crimes Tribunal is concerned, I can only say - forget about it.

Ref Hobbyty #85

What exactly did you find so outrageous about the article? Apart from its generally condescending tone and some selective quoting , I thought the article was actually pretty accurate factually. Its as decent an attempt to get to the puzzle of non-democracy in Pakistan, as any I have seen. Of course, its conclusion could be wrong, but its plausible, no? Do you have a better explanation? Er, other than the ``hangover theory`` doing the rounds on another board...

Please do not equate the Indians` rejection of TNT with hate for Pakistan, let alone Islam. You are entitled to expect us to accept the existence of your country, even to show a brotherly solidarity in times of travail, but pls do not ask us to accept your rationale for the creation of Pakistan. Most Indians will continue to see you guys as ``our own``, no matter how much it pisses you off.

Dont get me wrong - I consider your desire to forge a distinct national identity as a valid, even admirable, enterprise. However, rejecting your historical and civilizational roots chasing an imaginary Ummah bird is a pretty pathetic way of doing it, IMHO. Your identity problem is not new - many nations have gone through this phase.

To give an example of a successful case, take the USA. As a young nation, the founders could have chosen to impose a national identity based on not-english, or whatever. Instead they chose one based on the idea of freedom of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Americans of all hues and backgrounds continue to believe as one in this identity, so awesome is its resilience and tenacity. Why dont you try sth like this. You might be more successful.

(Hopefully) without sounding offensively smug Sadna-like, I note that sth similar to the US has happened in India. It is my firm belief that a US-like broad-minded national ethos has been the only cement that has held together this nation, and will continue to do so. Long after those nations have come and gone that straight-jacket their people within an ideology based essentially on difference rather than similarity.

Regards.

``I don`t know what honor are you talking about. The Israelis have kicked the Egyptian ass thoroughly on more than one occasion. They are so whuped that I bet they duck when Sharon sneezes.``

Rajanjua, while I agree that war is not the most enviable option on either side, I must make a few comments:

Nuclear war is of course not an option, as it will bring international condemnation and probably result in mass destruction the likes of which neither side really wants. That is why conventional war is much more feasible. However, since Mutual Assured Destruction is not really possible due to the proximity, the scary reality is that whoever strikes first would wipe the other side off the map before there was a chance to counter. This is why both sides are quite wary.

Also, I posted the first bit that you said because it shows that you have a misconception about the October War. The Egyptians did get their heads handed to them in 1967, but in 1973 the Egyptians crossed the Suez (which, incidentally, the Soviets Americans and Israelis all wrote off as impossible) and inflicted heavy casualties on the Israelis before digging in and waiting out international intervention. It was a brilliant move by Sadat to avenge the 1967 disaster. By the way, Sadat also lost his son during the war (an Egyptian Air Force pilot) so he had personal sacrifice and wasn`t just sitting back ordering men around as so many do; he knew what war would bring but felt it was the only choice. Also, right now Egypt is slowly building up offensive weaponry (there was a Zionist Org of America petition to get them to stop this) and Egypt could probably hold her own against Israel in the event of another war. As for Sharon, he`s about to be called in on War Crimes in Belgium so he better watch his next foreign trip :)

``The result was that Sadat realised that Israel was trying to bankrupt and bury Egypt, so he figured a war was the only thing to bring international attention and aid to the region. It was, in retrospect, a wise decision for Egypt since they gained honour back (for domestic purposes) and got international aid.``

I don`t know what honor are you talking about. The Israelis have kicked the Egyptian ass thoroughly on more than one occasion. They are so whuped that I bet they duck when Sharon sneezes.

``If India tries to cripple Pak as you suggest, it will be in Pakistan`s best interest to go to war, and if they attack first there is a very good chance that it will be a disaster for India.``

It is neither in Pakistan or India`s interest to go to war. War has never been and never can be good, especially now that both countries are armed with nuclear weapons. This guy bharitiya_m is a bonafide idiot. He needs to understand that the Subramanyam doctrine of bankrupting Pakistan through an arms race is valid only if Pakistan decides to continue stockpiling nuclear weapons. Which I doubt it will. Compare the number of warheads China has against the U.S. and Russia. Why did`nt China increase its stockpile? Because it does`nt have to. In an event of a nuclear war both Pakistan & India will lose miserably-and the number of warheads won`t matter and neither the number of armoured divisions or jet fighters or freakin` frigates. bharatiya_m`s staff-college-flunked-out brothers have been filling his head with all sorts of nonsense.

re: bharatiya_m

We get your point brother. You are a true Indian patriot. You have proven it beyond any doubt. You hate Pakistan and Pakistanis in general (& especially, for some unknown reasons, the Punjabi Musalmans), you have a Kashmiri Pandit-Rajput descent, brothers wearing the uniform to preserve the honor of bharat-mata, an avid reader/admirer of ancient Indian epics and the list goes on and on. Your credentials have been duly noted by Sri Jay & Her Holiness Sadna and a seat next to Sri L. K. Advani has been reserved for you in the next meeting of the saffron-clads. Ask Sadna to take you with her to Sai Baba`s ashram on her next vaccation.

re: Bhartiya # 90

Oh bhartiya, please dont suggest the break up of any country. There are absolutely wonderful people in Pakistan who love their country just like you and I love ours. I know that when some one suggests anything that involves any break up of my country, I dismiss that suggestion out of hand. So why say things that are not only NOT possible, but also are likely to cause emotional anguish to many good people.

Let us accept the political entities of India and Pakistan as they are, warts and all; and try to bring the two good communities together. You with your unique and proud background and knowledge can play a key role in such efforts. If you can find time, please write to me at eklavya786@hotmail.com.

Thank you.

“We, India, are based on the solitary founding principle that religious sensibilities has nothing to do with nationhood”

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between your statement and the ground reality in India at present, i.e. the government itself comprises of a right wing religious party.

Re: Jay, #80

``I too believe in that. Let us drink to that along with hamidm, the single malt variety, the pure, unmixed, the real halal stuff.``

I did not try to read too much into what you wrote (you are as subtle as you are smart.) However, since none of your sentences end in an exclamation mark, I am assuming that you are being sincere. If that is the case, I`ll drink to that, kosher or not.

You can also tell hamidm (him and me are not on speaking terms, mind you) that I`ve had sex with whores (but no syphilis) and have tasted meat that, it may smell fishy, tastes a lot better than pork.