An Eulogy For The Hawks

``...Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)...``

Malerkotla -- from where Mansur Ali Khan, the Nawab of Pataudi (and India`s youngest ever cricket captain) hails from. There are also nearly 4000 Punjabi muslims who live in Delhi today (http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100501/detCIT15.asp)

``...I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering...``

I recently read a book called the City of Djinns: A Year in Delhi by William Dalrymple, who has chronicled the major disasters that have befallen Delhi in its history (in reverse order). He starts with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, and goes on to talk about the partition of 1947, and the exodus of the Muslim upper/middle classes from Delhi, and how different Delhi used to be then. The tantalizing fragments that remain give signs of hope, and also a deep sense of loss. From the book, I learned that there is a Prof. Yunus Jaffrey, professor of Persian in Zakir Hussain College in Ajmeri Gate, Delhi whose talents were called upon by the Smithsonian Institution to translate ShahJahan`s Badshanamah (now in the royal collection of England`s Queen). Prof. Yunus is one of the few scholars who can translate old Persian. There is another author (last name Ali) who wrote a book describing Delhi in the 1940s (Twilight in Delhi, published 1941) which I have been so far unable to obtain, who now lives in Karachi. I recently heard Musharraf`s Delhi-born octagenerian mother speak in flawless english on TV. These isolated examples provide artefacts of a well-developed culture that suffered from a scattering of its talent in 1947, and India`s loss.

Zafar al Talib

# 208

Maler Kotla

Reply Shammi #204

Many thanks for the compliment. Yes - I grew up in a refugee neighbourhood in Delhi, and I agree with your point that Partition was a defining process for evacuees (and remains one for their children).

I don`t think that India has entirely lost the muslim component of its culture, however. It still exists - it was diminished, but is recovering (despite setbacks such as BM/RJB riots, etc.). The only portion of India which seems to have lost its muslim cultural component is Indian Punjab, and isn`t there a district even there which still has a mixed population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims? I can`t remember the name, but it used to be a Princely State (not Kapurthala, another one.)

Re: Pankaj

``Are you from IITD``

Yes.

Shammi

Are you from IITD.

Just curious.

Re: Romairr #154

``So my (or the average Pakistani Muslim`s) chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim...``

Obtaining an admission to a CS course, much less a degree in CS from IIT is by far a statistical long-shot. My class in IIT had numerous Muslims, including some in CS. One was a daughter of Syed Shahbuddin, a politically active and prominent anti-Hindutva politician. I would think that she would probably disagree with you. The entrace exams for military, civil services and professional colleges require candidates to anonymize their names (probably the same as in Pakistan). Where, then, does the question of religion enter in a merit-based selection?

Re: Zafar Al-Talib

You write well, sir. I can also attest to the fact that alongwith the stress imposed by the Partition on Indian Muslims (much of it misplaced) and those who migrated, enormous stress was placed on the evaucees from Pakistan which saw its minority population reduced from 25% to nearly 1.5% today. Further, the economic deprivation caused by the flight of the Muslim middle class from N. India leaving an entire impoverished community leaderless, the division of the Subcontinents Muslims into 3 equal parts, thus diluting their voice, are also costs that need to be factored in. Perhaps, one day, both countries will come to realize the loss of their minorities, and their forgotten cultures.

Reply Romair #145

Romair

Sorry for not being clear about it. I am Indian.

I agree with your fundamental premise (if I’ve understood it correctly) that discrimination against minority groups in any union is wrong. There are two approaches to solving this problem: secession from this union by a minority group, making it a majority in it “own” smaller union, or ensuring that minorities are not discriminated against in the union.

The first premise is what resulted in Partition and the formation of India and Pakistan (later also Bangladesh) as we know them. The problem with this kind of solution is that it is geographically messy (there are very very few religiously, linguistically and culturally homogenous areas in the subcontinent, or in fact anywhere), and the solution always results in the creation of new minority groups in the new (smaller) unions. That is why I feel that further subdivision of the subcontinent on ethnic/religious/linguistic grounds is not a good idea. All it would do is create new majorities and minorities, and the potential for new theatres for discrimination, because it does not substantively address the core issue: majorities (whoever they are) have a tendency to discriminate against minorities (whomever they are).

This is why there is a growing realisation that civilised democracies have to both (1) uphold each individual citizens’ right to equality and (2) uphold minority interests as well, ensuring that the views of all sections of a society (not just the majority) are reflected in national polity. It is a balancing act, and I admit a little bit counterintuitive.

I do not mean in any way to criticise your family’s choice to move to Pakistan, and you may be right that Partition resulted in greater opportunities for you personally. As some of the other people responding to both of our responses have pointed out, however, it is very difficult to say this with certainty. (Eklavya #?) Partition didn’t just affect subcontinental Muslims by giving them a country in which they were the majority. It also resulted in a country, India, where Muslims were an 11% (?) minority, were identified in some aspects of popular culture with the movement which “split” India, were a community with a decimated middle class due to immigration to Pakistan (this last is changing, albeit slowly), and were also identified to some extent with the “enemy”, especially during the Indo-Pakistan wars.

Of course the success or failure of Partition depends on whom you ask, what their background is, and which side of the border(s) they found themselves in its aftermath. My point is that if Partition’s objective was to improve the lot of all subcontinental Muslims, you’d have to evaluate it in the light of at least one third of these Muslims (the ones in India) having their lives (to this day) negatively affected by it. (For an example close to home I draw your attention to a certain person who regularly contributes to discussions on Chowk, and who shall remain nameless, who IMHO, has been deeply stressed by the results of Partition on Muslims in India.)

I’m not saying that Partition can, or even should, be undone. Our different countries exist today. We love them. All I’m saying is that Partition does not solve all the problems associated with minorities in heterogeneous societies, and may even create some. It doesn’t get rid of diversity. (See Narain’s comment #148 – he puts it really well.) So we should think carefully before advocating Partitions based on whatever differences there are between different people. As I’ve said above, I think that there is a better way to go, one which is fairer, more long lasting and certainly less violent in its implementation and outcomes.

I empathise with your point of view, and hope that you can now see mine as well.

Ref: Tahmed321 #144

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! It cries out for Bollywood dialogue. Please please continue…

Re: Hobbyty

I think that the difference between a threat and actually carrying it out is only of degree, and of operational `efficiency`. Morally, they are both equally repugnant.

All that i asked for was a condemnation of the death threats against the cricketers, which you have still not done.

What `bait and switch` game are you referring to? I have put all my postitions on the table.

Shammi

You are being less than honest when you say I have condoned a crime. Equating the making of threats to real rapes and murders is something you are doing.

My point was that a threat, is just a threat. Equating it to real rape and real murder is obscene.

You are getting proficient at the ``bait and switch`` game. Careful, you can`t hide that kind of thing. Your game is transparent.

Re: Hobbyty #198

``will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris?``

Of course, I will. Why would you think otherwise? I think that we have had a similar discussion on partition murders, where Tahmed321 showed you the light, as he did again this time. Why are you regressing back to your original position of `two wrongs make a right`? Why does your moral compass drift? Since when is killing a cricketer justified on the basis of a rape elsewhere?

BTW, the law DOES sometimes take its course when rape convictions come to light:

``... there is reason still to welcome the sentencing of (Indian Army) Captain Ravinder Singh Tewatia to seven years rigorous imprisonment and his dismissal from service after a court martial. Tewatia was found guilty of raping a 17 year-old girl and her mother in Nawgam in Banihal tehsil, Jammu...``

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20001006/ied06031.html

Committing a crime, and condoning it are two different things. You, Hobbyty, have just condoned one.

anNy #183 I see my name mentioned at the end of the post with regrets being offered for anything wrong you may have said in the post. Please feel free to write what you wish about these people: As I mentioned earlier, I am convinced there is a reason God put these hate mongerers on Chowk: this is to enable one to be mean to them without feeling guilty (and you were not being mean in your post anyway, just letting off steam). Some people are incapable of being mean to anyone, even to the most deserving cases, and I think you are one of them, and that is why you feel guilty. But anyone who has hatreds so deeply ingrained against Pakistanis or Indians or Muslims or Hindus (depending on where the idiot was born - oops, I just got mean again) as some of the folks you mention do not deserve any consideration or respect.

Shammi

Threats are just that threats - will you or other Indians of honour not join in the vocalizing your condemnation of real, not threatened, rapes and murders of Kahmiris? You don`t have to condone or condemn Mujahids, but will you not condemn the rapes of Kashimiri girls at the hands of security forces? And will you not condemn and put an end to the killings of Kashmiri youth in extrajudicial and custodial killings? Will you not condemn the use of torture by Indian forces against suspected Mujahids?

Romair # 195

But Romair, that is NOT a fair comparison to make, for it tells nothing other than the probable fact that the majority has it better than the minority; and if you apply even a bit of statistical reasoning, not even that much.

So, aren`t any conclusions based on this comparison likely to be false and merely self-serving? We would be comparing apples and oranges. What do you think?

From Pakistani newspapers, it seems the chance of an elected Indian Muslim being the Home minister of India has been much higher than the chances of a elected Pakistani Muslim becoming the Interior Affairs minister of Pakistan.

And lets not even talk of the chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Indian states vs chances for elected Muslims to become ministers in Pakistani provinces.

SameerJB #185: ``There is a fatal errot in this argument. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today.``

This is correct. It is impossible to predict the exact situation on pure theoretical scenarios. However, the closest extrapolation one can make is on the facts that are currently available. My argument is based on the current situation, i.e if I were to migrate to India right now, or if I had been born in India.

Had Pakistan not separated, the position of the Muslims could have been much better in India. Then again, it could have been much worse. Or it could have been the same. One can only predict and guess.

What is a fact however, at least according to the various statistics presented by Indian Muslim newspapers, is that the condition of Muslims in Pakistan is better than the condition of Muslims in India. And this direct comparison is really the only comparison one can make (though it has faults), since all other comparisons are, as you have stated, completely theoretical. That was the basis of my argument.

Re: AAmir #184

``...It means Pakistanis & pak,Gov. is not responsible for independent factions L-e-Tauba ``

Sorry, but your explaination is not convincing. A threat to kill/assassinate (including cricketers) is a cognizable offense in most civilized countries (including India/Pakistan). The ruling authorities have the responsibility to check such threats. A similarity is with a child who threatens neighbors, but the parent says that he is not responsible for the behavior of the child even though both live in the same house. One cannot get very far with such reasons. Unfortunately, India has already cancelled several cricket matches with Pakistan citing `security` reasons. This type of unchecked threat only encourages the hawks within India, and leads to cancellation of matches. If Musharraf receives death threats from someone in India, and India refuses to take any action against those groups, then the blame should correctly fall on India.

Is this an original thought or what! I should be awarded the Nobel.

From Dawn 07/08/2001

Advani suggests confederation

NEW DELHI July 7: In a significant remark in the run up to the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani has suggested the formation of a Confederation of South Asian states, including India and Pakistan.

``I am confident that Vajpayee`s initiative will create a conducive atmosphere in the direction of the formation of a Confederation of India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka and Nepal in the days ahead,`` Advani added.

He said the world was witnessing sweeping changes and arch rivals such as the two German republics have now reunited, reports PTI.

The Sangh Parivar, to which the ruling BJP belongs, had originally propounded the concept of `Akhand Bharat` or united India, which comprises the whole of South Asia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Advani, however, said he disagreed with the Western perception of Kashmir as a dispute between India and Pakistan. ``We do not see Kashmir in the context of Pakistan. For us, it is inseparably linked to India`s unity,`` he said.

Advani said the concept of self-determination espoused by separatist groups would prove detrimental more to the interests of Pakistan as it had diverse ethnic and linguistic groups within its boundaries.-NNI

Re: Reply #: 170

upman7626,

``it is however a fact that there is an element of popular discontent in Indian Kashmir...but that is not something that cannot be addressed within the parameters of the Indian constitution...if all violence in Kashmir were to stop (or contained), you will find the much elusive normalcy return to Kashmir in a couple of months, as so famously happened in Punjab...``.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I have argued in the past that Kashmir, like the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu in the 60s, has been a political problem and was turned into religious problem by Jehadists. In this, Pakistan has played a significant role. Had Kashmir been a state without a border with Pakistan, the problem would have been solved within the parameters of the constitution by now. I know i am making a lot of assumptions here.

sridhar

#183 anNy

I like your spunk! I certainly can understand your anguish.

Let me set some things right. The murderous thugs who went on a rampage after BM represent a certain malaise, a certain failure of india`s secularism. That needs to be acknowledged and corrected. I have not said anywhere, nor do i believe it to be true that indians are angels and pakistanis are monsters. I`d say perhaps the best human i have ever met was a fellow graduate student and a pakistani (punjabi). There used to be a pakistani ``mulla`` (he called himself that) on the newsgroup soc.culture.pakistan, by the name of Iftikhar uz-Zaman, a gentle soul and a genuine intellectual. All this by way of saying i don`t believe in stereotypes.

However, there was a discussion here about INSTITUTIONAL changes that can move the society in a direction that it doesn`t necessarily want to go but follows it anyway, lacking other options. Specifically, Jay mentioned how the upper castes of kerala were ``emasculated`` by institutional changes brought about by some of the upper castes themselves. Pakistan to me represents the ugly side, the institutionalizing of prejudice. So long as young people like you who love pakistan but wish its ugly side away as a simple failure like any other (look at the caste system, look at the riots in india, etc.) don`t take up the cudgels, your friend Manoj is doomed. He cannot fight the institutions and win.

Even the good germans couldn`t save that many jews. I`d like to hear your views after you have had a good night`s rest.

All the best.

SIGNS OF HOPE ,

But was this land created for ordinary mortals like me or for the leaders. When you quote Mr Jinnah so frequently that he played a role in the creation of Pakistan, does it necessarily imply that the people of Pakistan do not have the right to choose a system of government for themselves, which might be different to what was earlier envisaged. After all wasn`t this country created to let the people decide about their fate? If we have to follow already prescribed scripts, and the intellectual discourse has to be restricted to arguments and counter-arguments for one or other`s vision, then what role do we (the scum of the earth) have in shaping ``our`` destiny?

///

FROM JUNG OF TODAY. It is time to stop quoting that one speach, and continueing with the TNT tradition.

anNy,

Bilal Ahmed had this notion of internal criticism and external ones. He maintained that when an outsider, especially an indian criticised pakistan, they tend to react negetively. Ok, I accept that as `human`, but the fact is that other than some generic lamenting about the bankruptsy, corruption etc in pakistan there is no identifiable criticism of any pak institution or legal aspects.

Take for example the blasphemy laws. There was a post here that blsphemy laws are not applicable to non-muslims. Is it true. Apparently, it has been alleged that one charged with blasphemy looses all his assets and is used to disposes the person. Is it true, and does the accuser get anything.

What is really shameful about the educated pakistanis is that they are so ashamed of their country that they say little about the legal set up. It is always about islam a tolerant religion, end of TNT, etc.

re: anNy # 183

Applause...

You go, girl! :)

Soysauce 180

Is the creation of Pakistan an expression of hate?

Is the TNT also an expression of hate?

If your answers are yes, then perhaps Indians and Hindus should examine their contributions towards the creation of both.

If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, then, why engage Pakistanis to create normal relations - Won`t Pakistanis still be the expression of hate, that they are, by definition?

Is the caste system an integral part of Hinduism?

Is the caste system an expression of hate? Indians coyly claim that caste system is outlawed, imagining that the rest of the world believes that the caste system was a creation of law. Would Pakistani be wrong in concluding that because of human failings, Hindu Indians hold hate, discrimimation, and degradation of fellow persons and coreligionist, in high esteem as an article of religious faith and social compact? Ofcourse they would. Similarly, very many Indians need to reexamine some of their core understandings about Pakistanis and Muslims. The ``some of my best friends are`` Muslims line needs a refreshing dose of honesty. If it were true, why would there be a Pakistan? Why would hostility persist for so long? Is there really such a thing as a one hand clap?

I request that you not take my post as an attempt at ``one up-ing`` you or in any way personal. The point I want to make is that ordinary Pakistanis face the same kinds of personal demons and challenges that ordinary persons anywhere do. Sanctimonious, self righteous, self congratulatory attitudes based on half truths and out right lies, have for too long prevented us from seeing each other as persons, different and similar.

Kafir K Khan, Romair and Rediskan:

[Yes Romair, you are right. If you were an Indian Muslim, you would not be a civil servant, IT professional or Lawyer. An average Muslim in India is illiterate isnpite of equal opportunity for education. ]

There is a fatal errot in this arguement. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today. India today is about 11 percent Muslim and most Muslims belong to areas of Muslim minority except one economically obscure state, Kashmir. Pakistani Muslim have to create a theoretical model of India without partition with around 35 percent Muslim population and 6 Muslim majority states, two of them very large and politically important-Bengal and Punjab. I would go even as far in saying that if Muslims voted just one party, say Muslim league (in this supposed entity of all India) in any of the elections during eighties and nineties, ML could have formed the government with collaboration from Jayalalithas, Laloos and few other smaller parties.

This is just one aspect of being 35 percent and 6 majority states than 11 percent and Kashmir in Indian Union. Other social, economical and political aspects can also be theorized utilizing these facts and figures in calculations.

By now Sangh parivar and Hindu Fundamentalists might be argueing for expulsion of some Muslim majority states, if it had already not taken place.

hello soyasauce

bully for you too..you manage to very nicely put it all on me and my people...we intolerant we ignorant we hating everything hindu…tell me then who were the people who came at my baree nani`s house in the babri masjid debacle in the poshest area of bombay upstairs in their 4th floor apartment having seen a name plate bearing the name mohammad…that they bloody tore down the door and took everything and wrote obsceneties of the world in their living room and broke all the crystals upon finding out they`d managed to leave just 10 minutes before the mob got there…ill tell you...they were hindus...they were indians...another relative living in the not so posh areas of ahmedabad however wasn’t so lucky…the family got away but the 30 something year old man was in the house when these people descended…he got hurt…how dare you say things like ``…A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus…`` when you yourself are quite obviously just as deeply seeped in the very same hatred? What will you say? That these people were an `exception` too? That it was a mob mentality? How about you hindus indians whatever take responsibility too…how about you admit that you guys are as intolerant as us stopid pakistanis and muslims too sometimes? How long are you going to milk the blasphemy laws? And we have no pathological fears of anything hindi neither any hatred do you understand…its just when you people act like you were completely flawless without any faults and so very tolerant all the while saying we`re scum that I get mad and I start hating…and you and jay and the rest of you could be from timbuktoo and budhists for all I care…our ideology is NOT intolerant…we can live peacefully with anyone just as long as both parties will respect the others ethics…that ofcourse is not possible with you and other indians hindus like you and jay constantly throwing snide remarks…youre saying people like jay and me could live together? The man would probably try to poison my food at the first opportunity he got if I didn’t blow his head of with a bazooka before he could…its this very side of you and others like you that causes problems...this goddamned holier than thou attitude…okay so we have problems...didn’t you have 10 times more of those just a decade or so ago? theres no `inbuilt institution` about anything dyou gettit? We are okay with anyone and everyone just as long as they respect our beliefs...we will respect their beliefs…and no im not an `exception` because i `go to india and meet hindus`…manoj in my class is probably a bigger hindu than you all on chowk put together...how have all the jamaati`s in my class taken to him...jamatiis you know...big bearded pulled up shalwar monsters that kill at the touch of a hat…not because heez a complete doll…because he although as staunch a hindu as they come, respects every bodys religion be it me as a muslim or binfer as a parsi…its all about respect…respect and consideration… individuals like you wipe out within two seconds the goodwill that people like shankar harpreet eklavya and vereesh build…go jump in a lake somewhere man… don’t believe I lost my temper to a schmuck like you

sorry tahmed sahab…haven`t slept all night…8 in the morning on a Sunday…idiots like this chap just make me so mad...i don’t think ive sworn…im sorry if I have…

This is interesting. The Pakistani govt s-ks and has done so for the last 54 years so India should join a (con)federation??

Let Pakistanis vote in ONE general election without Pakistani Army stooges as choices supported by ISI genius, THEN think of putting up all this high-falutin stuff up for their approval. Learn to crawl before you run.

Very nicely stated.

``Great expectations

Ikram Sehgal

Having seen as a soldier (as was my late father before me) the consequences of bad Indo-Pak relations, I cannot remember greater expectations than for the Musharraf-Vajpayee talks. Given the track record, one would normally approach any such negotiations with skepticism, but even the most diehard cynic has been caught up in the fervour generated by the impending event. There is much expectation in the air, a genuine belief about resolving our differences amicably, the readiness to go the extra mile.

Before going, Gen Pervez Musharraf did a series of briefings-cum-consultations with a broad spectrum of the intelligentsia, comprising media representatives, politicians, religious leaders, Kashmiris and entrepreneurs. He already had a consensus within the military hierarchy. Attending one such session, one expected at best a one-way monologue of self-justification from the newly anointed President. It was a revelation to find Pervez Musharraf interested in genuine dialogue, open to ideas and suggestions, and without ego problems. The result was, discounting the odd eulogy from the traditional flatterers, a comprehensive debate between very interested participants where a plethora of ideas were mooted and analysed without rancour. The President got in return quite a few converts and a broad consensus. Making believers out of such a disparate group is no mean achievement. As a PR exercise, the consultations were outstanding, the resultant welding of the President`s mandate brilliant. Musharraf goes to India that much stronger. The bottom line was simple: everyone came on board about peace with India but not at the cost of Kashmir, the core issue for all Pakistanis.

What is the consensus of the Pakistani people, among both intelligentsia and masses, on the visit? Do Pakistanis have any aspirations for interaction with the Indian people? I repeatedly cautioned the President to lower expectations so that any disappointment may only be a temporary setback and not lead to an emotional backlash driving the two countries further apart, maybe permanently. Yet one must admit being caught up in the fever of expectations. Pakistanis are emotionally involved with the Kashmiris and their freedom struggle. A great majority believe there can be no Indo-Pak peace while Kashmir stays a bleeding ulcer.

Massive funds now spent on defence can be diverted to social infrastructure such as potable water, roads, hygiene and sanitation, health, education, transport and housing. And the 55 million in Pakistan and the 400 million in India below the poverty line need these basics. Make no mistake, Pakistan was a historical necessity for the Muslims of India, and while the name may no longer be East Pakistan, Bangladesh does constitute the other sovereign entity envisaged in the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League. But given this need to preserve the Islamic identity under separate sovereignty, the bond between the people of India and Pakistan transcends religion and ethnicity. Human interaction has been only sporadic for 50 years. Since the advent of Islam in South Asia, the two religions have lived together till 1947, sometimes in confrontation but mostly in harmony. Islam teaches us to respect other religions, and not become prisoners of fear spread by the ignorant for their own narrow motives. Is the same true for Hindus?

Tracing most problems to economic motives, there will be great benefit in opening of trade. More than the European Community or ASEAN, or even any other grouping, South Asia is the most contiguous economic unit on earth. Pakistanis drink tea by the gallon, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can provide it at less half the cost of Kenyan. Our wheat, rice and cotton are in demand in the rest of South Asia. If South India can be an IT powerhouse, can Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka be far behind? The roads through Pakistan lead to the vast Central Asian and Middle Eastern markets for all South Asia, while cheap gas vital to develop India`s western states, can be piped across Pakistan. There should be no tariff within South Asia. Rather, there should be a plan for a dual currency, a South Asian rupiah to go along with the national currencies. Goods available in abundance, and economies of scale, will bring down prices. From confrontation we will transit to mutual prosperity.

One cannot discount cultural exchanges, intellectual discourses, the proliferation of print and electronic media, but the people-to-people contact of centuries has been lost over the last 50 years. One has the feeling, despite the misgivings created by years of suspicion, that the logjam has been broken. Only the diehards on both sides can achieve peace. Is it a coincidence that in both countries, those without whom no peace is achievable, the Pakistan Army and the BJP, are in power? The talks initiative has been a giant step forward and we in Pakistan have great expectations that something will materialise, that South Asia may begin to be a better place to live in after July 16. Meanwhile, other than those who cannot see beyond narrow parochial interests, the great mass of Pakistanis want peace with India, but not at the cost of Kashmir. A consensus has silently built up behind Pervez Musharraf. Elections notwithstanding, the President has a mandate from the Pakistani people. Over the past weeks, more Pakistanis have begun to believe that Musharraf must be supported to the hilt. For us the die is cast, it is Musharraf, right or wrong. But does Vajpayee have enough freedom to respond to such a mandate? A resonance has built up that Musharraf will not let us down in Delhi, that if India is really serious, we will have peace in our time. (Nation, Pakistan)

#174 anNy

I think what jay is saying is that the ideology that says muslims and hindus cannot coexist peacefully and that muslims need a separate land naturally leads to the situation you currently have in pakistan. Contrary to what some of you would have us believe the ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` is not Islamic in name only - that shows in you blasphemy laws, your anti-ahmadi laws, etc.

An intolerant ideology produces an intolerant civilization. Bully for you that you haven`t succumbed to it.

A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus. With the internet that may be changing. You are peculiar in that you visit india and get to meet hindus. I admit that indians distrust pakistanis and many may even harbor hatred for them. Notice i said pakistanis, not muslims. Everyone of the indians here, i am sure, has grown up with muslims and have muslim friends. For pakistanis, however, india=hindus and hindus are to be hated (Again, there are exceptions). It probably is not a conscious thing. Even your supposedly secular (as some here have asserted) army, singled out hindu intellectuals in b`desh for murder. If you read the Rahman report it is clear that hindus were targetted simply because they were hindus. What possible reason could there be for that except for a pathological hatred/fear of hindus?

Mind you, i am not talking about individuals. Even Yasser Hamdani baits only indians and not hindus (which i find heartening for the sake of the oppressed minorities of pakistan). However, there is an in-built institutional hatred of hindus which comes from TNT and the civilization that heeded it.

BTW, i don`t care for reunification. If anything i think india should get a better handle on its affairs by decentralizing and federating.

shankar #156: ``Most of your posts make a heck of a lot of sense.``

I thought all (not most) of my posts made a lot of sense :)

shammi #160: I pretty much agree with what you have stated. It seems along the same lines as what I have stated, though the details are a bit different.

I have always wondered about the the partition of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), and what the best case scenario could/would have been, at the times of these partitions. Ironically, I never thought about it much when I was in Pakistan. This bewilderment, interest (and confusion) started after I was introduced to Jinnah (not physically, but through books) a few years ago. I have since then been fascinated by this amazingly stubborn, intelligent, uptight, arrogant and scruplously honest man. Infact, I think Jinnah himself is a bigger event than the creation of Pakistan itself. Had there been no Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan (at least not in 1947). However, had there been no Pakistan, Jinnah still would have been, to quote Wolpert, ``the best lawyer in the British Empire.``

Looking back, I think the best solution in 1947 would have been something along the line of the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946, that you have pointed to. It was one of the few ideas that the British, Pakistani, and Indian (not including Nehru) agreed to. Following is its gist:

``these proposals stipulated a limited centre, supreme only in foreign affairs, defence and communications and three autonomous groups of provinces. Two of these groups were to have Muslim majorities in the north-west and the north-east of the subcontinent, while the third one, comprising the Indian mainland, was to have a Hindu majority.``

This would have given the Muslims the opportunity, ``to sit on the fence,`` regarding independence. If they could have ended up in some sort of a dominion/federation status within India, it would have given them a chance to see whether survival as a minority within Indian was possible. If after a certain amount of time, they felt it to be so, they could come into a closer federation with India. If it was not possible, they could have peacefully separated. This would have avoided the killings that occurred at the time of partition, as everyone would have had a chance to slowly adjust to the new environment over a decade or two.

I think both Nehru and Gandhi did not want Pakistan to be created. However, I feel Gandhi did not want Pakistan`s independence for mostly the right reasons. He was willing to give in quite a bit to the minority Muslim community in govt., politics in the name of pluralism, within an Indian federation. I feel Nehru did not want Pakistan to gain independence for mostly the wrong reasons. He wanted Muslims to stay within India, yet he was unwilling to give in on certain political and respresentative issues which would have gauranteed Muslims a sense of security, within an Indian federation.

I have always wondered how Nehru and Gandhi would have viewed India`s current actions in Kashmir. I am not an expert on either of these personalities, but from what I have read, I have a feeling they would have had opposing views to each other.

My dear friend Stuka:

It was meant to be a satire without being a Pakistani. Sorry to “confuse” you.

It does look like you are really “confused”. Otherwise keeping up with your vulgar posting, you wouldn’t have posted the tenuous explanation for your vulgar proposition -- that “the Joint Chief should have the rank of Cabinet Minister”. Remember, there is a Defense Minister in the cabinet?

My advice: quit sucking up to the no good Pakistani-Army-in governing-business.

Re: my previous post

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

should read

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very FEW high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

the difference being the insertion of the word `FEW`

Apologies for the earlier typo

Re: Romair #145

``But I feel I am better off living in Pakistan as a Muslim, that I would have been living in India as a Muslim. I have had a chance to pursue a career in the military. Had I decided to continue, the highest positions of the Pakistan miltiary were open to me. This is the not the case in India for Muslims, according to India`s largest English Muslim newspaper (www.milligazzette.com)``

I do not know if milligazzette substantiated their claims with any facts, or is it mere heresay? I compiled statistics on all Indian Chiefs (Army, Navy, Airforce) since Independence. It turns out that that fully 11% of Army Chiefs, 21% of Navy Chiefs, and 33% of Air Force Chiefs were non-Hindus (in a country where 85% of the population is Hindu). This should settle any doubts that minorities are not welcome at the top positions of the Indian force structure.

Here are the details on non-Hindu chiefs:

Indian Army Chiefs

Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, 1969-72; General Sunith F. Rodrigues, 1990-93, ie. 2 out of 19 `Indian` Chiefs of the Army (i.e 11%) since Independence

Indian Navy Chiefs

Admiral J. Cursetji, 1976-79, Admiral R.L. Pereira, 1979-1982, Admiral O.S. Dawson, 1982-84, ie. 3 out of 14 Indian Navy Chiefs (ie. 21%)

Indian Air Force

Air Marshal Aspy Merwan Engineer, 1960-64; Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh, 1964-69; Air Chief Marshal Idris Hasan Latif, 1978-81; Air Chief Marshal Dilbagh Singh, 1981-84; Air Chief Marshal D A La Fontaine, 1985-88, ie. 5 out of 15 Indian Air Force Chiefs (ie. 33%)

You also need to factor in the fact that at Independence all officers were given the option to opt for either India or Pakistan. Most Muslim officers opted for the latter with a few notable exceptions. It was not until the late 70s or early 80s that you had an entire officer class that had not had to make the decision to opt for either India or Pakistan. Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces. That situation changed with the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Idris Hasan Latif, 1978-81

So, my request to you is -- before making half-baked allegations, please check your facts.

Re: Tahmed321 #167

Thank you very much. This just confirms that the LeT are a fringe group with little support from the civilized Pakistanis.

Re: AAmir #169

I failed to understand your point, sir.

Hullo mr.jay,

thank you for writing in slightly easier language…your posts normally go whooosh over my underdeveloped pakistani brain…

``the patriotism leads him to sher sha suri.. his dilapilated tomb, that is the identification of the pak problem, make the muslims of pakistan aware of the actions of the BJP, stinking hindus, that is the problem definition, that is patriotism.``

you use ylh as an example…shouldn’t you know better by now? All the sane people here have tried to knock some sense into the kid (temporal, PM, shankar etc) but he still persists…someone who thinks slapping a man because he is waving an indian flag in a concert where pakistanis are performing and form the majority of the audience is right and worthy of announcing on a forum quite obviously has a problem…a big and very sad problem…his heart might be in the right place since he obviously loves our country but he doesn’t realize what a great disservice he is doing the country by his constant uttering of crap that have made him the butt of all jokes …don`t use him as an example next time or I`ll use pakistanloving mr.veresh as an example for all things india stands for and we both know how much pain that will cause you…and for the record all I knew about sher shah suri was that he was a saint of some sort and this was due to a play I had seen on t.v some years ago…doctor abdus salaam`s work I on the other hand have done 2 projects on in college and then university in a political science and physics workshop conducted partly in karachi and islamabad…and please note that contrary to what you people here think we do not think of our country with love in terms of hate for india as you claim above…the average pakistani youngster couldn’t give a flying walnut…now if someone disses us, indian or nepali or chinese we will obviously diss right back…but whats really funny is that theres no chinese or nepalese here saying bad things...only you indians

my country holds that anyone with pakistani origin irrespective of his religion will be as much a pakistani as anyone else…so weather its dr.abdus salaam or the christian lady on top of kfc saddar who makes kikazz chocolate cake; they will be as much pakistani to me as my maulana sahab who has been making me pray quran for 11 years now and the next door neighbors…the people condemning abdus salaam are the rot that pakistan is infested with...it is these very same people who enforce islam forcefully in complete disaccordance of its spirit for their own means giving hate infested people like you more material to pick on us…so mr.jay whats happening in pakistan right now is not in my hands or scouts or even ylh`s…yet we take responsibility…the political system is in shambles…you think we like the idea of musharaf as president or even CE and nawaz sharif partying in saudia after all he did? The fact that we look like idiots most of the times in front of the world is not lost to us…especially with mean people like you rubbing it in every second day…but like scouty said we know whats wrong…and we will with everything that we have do everything that we can to make things better…things are bad but they wont be for very long now…we`re young with minds of our own (and dynamic minds at that), charm:], solid educations and a lot of time on our sides…another 10 years down the road you wont find any corrupt officials named urstruly, scouty, ali, ylh, hobbyty or anNy…we`ll be in key positions doing whatever we can for our country and we`ll do just fine thank you very much…and my dad says barae bole nahin boltae…aap kee constant harpings about Great Big Huge Powerful India aap ko aik din bharee par jain gae

Re: bharatiya musalman, #139

``the Gujarati Bania convert (Jinnah...yes, I will call him this for his grandfather was a Hindu Gujju Bania).``

By making that statement, you have insulted many decent people you call ``Bania``. You are many things. What you are not is a decent human being.

shammi #166 ``Can any honorable Pakistani please stand up and roundly criticize this latest threat by the Lashkar-e-Toiba?``

Even without the incentive of being ``honorable``, and even if they did not threaten to kidnap the cricketers, I am pleased to say that if I had my way these people would be breaking rocks in Baluchistan with prison guards keeping an eye on them.

Colour of patriotism

scout, anNy and other young pakistanis

You all at some time or other make the claim that we are aware of the problems of pakistan, poverty, corruption, dictatorship, mullaism, blah blah....No this type of identification of problems doesnot help, even when like scout and YLH say that they are going back to help the nation.

Let me give one example, YLH wrote about Sher Sha Suri, how his tomb is not maintained by the hindus. This article is in line with the TNT thinking, the musharaff thinking, the jihadic thinking.

As an educated person, if he is really patriotic to the extend that he wants to inculcate a culture of education to the pakistanis, if he has been influenced by what he has seen and learned in the US despite it being in Rutgers, he would have found the idea of talking about a sher sha suri repugnant. Is it more relevant to create a hero out of abdus salam, write at least a good post about him ... the patriotism leads him to sher sha suri.. his dilapilated tomb, that is the identification of the pak problem, make the muslims of pakistan aware of the actions of the BJP, stinking hindus, that is the problem definition, that is patriotism.

When I talked about the love of country I meant something specific distilled out of ones experience, not the generic ones, the type that propels the jihadists. The love that YLH shows in the article for pakistan betrys his education. May be it is the wrong word, may be for the pakistanis, the children of TNT, striking a path of modernity in education, making a hero out of abdus salam could be a haraam. Sher sha suri is great. abuds who...

Romair # 145

`` Anytime one group separates from a union, the separation is always based on a feeling of exploitation.``

..so sir, everytime such a `feeling` develops, a separation is warranted? ..maybe Sindh- as i gather from several of GM Syed`s impassioned arguments...or now that Altaf Hussein is openly saying that Partition was the biggest blunder in history and singing `sare jahan se accha hindustan hamara` on Indian TV, such a feeling must exist and be valid.....or maybe you have details to argue why these particular feelings may not qualify (of course, post-facto of such an event you may still use the example of a separate Sindh nation to ask for Kashmir`s secession from India- like all pakistanis try to do giving the example of bangladesh now)...

..you also seem to insinuate that muslims/minorities in India may be getting a raw deal...let me assure you, as a minority growing up in India, that the GOI has always bent over backwards to give the muslim/minority more than his fair share, not an easy task with the shining example of Pakistan always in front of us..and as you must be aware, this is something that has not escaped the attention of the hindu bigots too....and its patently false that there are very few indian muslim IT professionals in the US...indian muslims man the middle and upper echelons in several indian IT cos, and we are not just taliking about the richest Indian here..your anecdotal evidence is a convenient one..it may still be true that muslim representation in the defence is only around 3%- but the reasons would definitely not be discrimination... had you been in the Indian Army, nothing would have stopped you from rising to the very top...i can offhand think of several minority Chief-of-staffs in the defence estb, including the current Chief of Naval Staff...if you follow the newspaper you mention, you will note that- with rare instances of getting carried away- they speak of India`s institutions like courts, government, most of the polity- with respect...their main target is a certain segment of india`s political spectrum, and which they should rightly attack...

..in contrast, when one compares the life of Pakistan as a nation- its utter lack of representative politics, the legal discrimination against its minorities, the favour and bias for several sectarian and ethnic groups in its power politics, and then this country turns around and lectures India about how it should fulfil the people`s wishes in Kashmir, that becomes something hard to digest..

..btw, your ``Azad`` kashmir has clauses like this- Part 2 of Section 7 of the POK Constitution : ``No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan``.

and the plight of the ``Northern Areas``,land-jacked by Zia from Kashmir is worse...i quote from a recent report:

``The Northern Areas are a story of deprivation of a people and their land devoid of any development and denial of basic fundamental rights. There is no adult franchise, no assembly and the people have never participated in an election or sent representatives to the National Assembly. The prestigious Pakistani magazine the ‘Herald’ has termed the Northern Areas ``The Last Colony``.

The literacy rate is 14 per cent for males and 3.5 per cent for women! There is just one doctor for 6,000 people. Piped water supply is non-existent. So is electricity for more than two thirds of the population of the area. Except for some brick kilns there is no ‘industry’ in the area. An area of 72,495 sq. kms. had in 1993, according to the Pakistan daily, ‘Muslim’, (December 13, 1993), metalled roads extending merely to 162 kms.

There are only two colleges in the area. There is not a single polytechnic in this seventy thousand square kilometer land. The only paper K2 carries on its mast head the legend ``Voice of a constitutionless land``. There is no radio or TV station.``

..and of course, none of the bleeding Pakistani hearts have anything to say about the 2700 sq. miles of Kashmir gifted by your govt. to China in `63...

..it is however a fact that there is an element of popular discontent in Indian Kashmir...but that is not something that cannot be addressed within the parameters of the Indian constitution...if all violence in Kashmir were to stop (or contained), you will find the much elusive normalcy return to Kashmir in a couple of months, as so famously happened in Punjab...

..pakistan has always indulged in such brinkmanship with no awareness of its own mortality, and this is something that happens from a prolonged lack of democrarcy....when a whole population`s real aspirations are sidelined or confused into an elitist cartel`s egotism....and till your country adopts democracy as its governing ethic and continues with it for a very long time inspite of all its faults, no procession of feel-good generals or their shortcut policies will get you out of your rut..

..and meanwhile you guys can continue getting your kicks by proclaiming how badly India compares with China!

TIMES OF INDIA

Atal`s Burden

Pushed by Vision, Dogged by Betrayal

By MANOJ JOSHI

THE forthcoming Vajpayee-Musharraf summit in Agra is neither the most important nor the most eventful one held between India and Pakistan. But it could be the most portentous, if only because of the personalities involved, particularly prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Given General Musharraf`s commitment to dialogue anytime, anywhere, it should be clear that the primary credit for the Agra summit rests with Mr Vajpayee who undertook what was a minor U-turn in India`s policy of not talking till Pakistan ended ``cross-border terrorism.``

People have seen Nehruvian echoes in Mr Vajpayee`s policies and argued that constancy and consensus have been the hallmark of India`s foreign policy under him. But even a cursory look at Mr Vajpayee`s career, as political leader and parliamentarian since the mid-1950s and minister of external affairs (1977-1979), will show that his has been a substantive but dissenting presence in India`s political history.

As member of the Jana Sangh, his view was coloured by muscular and even strident nationalism. Moderated by a spell as foreign minister, he emerged in the early 1990s as a senior statesman and a pillar of Indian foreign policy. But, his insistence on holding the nuclear tests in May 1998 revealed that beliefs shaped in the crucible of opposition politics in the 1950s and 1960s continue to colour his worldview.

Going by this record, there are two summits that Mr Vajpayee will not want to emulate - the ones at Tashkent in 1966 after the 1965 Indo-Pak war and the Shimla meeting following the Pakistani surrender in Dhaka. At the latter, India returned a captured 93,000-strong army, 17,000 sq kms of territory in exchange for Bhutto`s verbal assurances that he would gradually convert the Line of Control into an international border. Bhutto told Indira that an open commitment to that effect could jeopardise the existence of the fledgling democratic government in Pakistan. Indira Gandhi conceded.

One result of this was that the new line dividing the Indian and Pakistani forces in Kashmir was not called a ``ceasefire line`` connoting a military division, and neither was it a Line of Actual Control which implies more or less the same thing. But the term adopted - Line of Control - indicated acquiescence of sorts. But then, having got back his prisoners, and re-established links with Bangladesh, Bhutto failed to fulfil his part of the bargain.

The Tashkent declaration was the outcome of the 1965 war where Pakistan lost some 1,920 sq kms of territory and India 540 sq kms. But the Pakistani losses were strategic, they lost some 650 sq kms in the Haji Pir salient and in the area opposite Muzaffarabad and, worse, another 830 sq kms near Lahore and other parts of its Punjabi heartland. Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri agreed to return all this without any commitment from Pakistan on Kashmir or any other matter.

Within Parliament and elsewhere, Mr Vajpayee was a stringent critic of both the agreements. Indeed, in 1972, he opposed the return of territory arguing in a debate on the Simla agreement: ``We have conquered that territory. Territory can be acquired by conquest. We have established civil administration and unfurled the tricolour there.``

However, later in that decade, he set aside these misgivings and as foreign minister in the Janata government, he took the lead in re-opening relations with Pakistan, frozen since the Simla talks. Mr Vajpayee visited Pakistan when it was headed by Zia-ul-Haq, then chief martial law administrator, but he established a rapport that is still remembered today.

So it is not surprising in some ways that 21 years later, this was the same man, who, having taken India over the nuclear threshold, decided to visit the Minar-e-Pakistan, a monument built to commemorate the founding of Pakistan. Speaking at the civic reception at Lahore, after his visit to Minar-e-Pakistan, Mr Vajpayee said that the wounds of partition had healed and the scar that remained was a reminder of the need for reconciliation. ``Aap dost badal saktey hain,`` he noted, ``padosee nahin badal saktey, to achey padosee ke natey rahen.`` (you can change friends, but you can`t change neighbours, so why not live as good neighbours). Cliched though it may sound, it reflected deep personal views. But to his chagrin, Lahore died on the snowy heights of Kargil.

For a year thereafter, even as he nursed his bruised ego, the prime minister`s goal remained unchanged - a desire to cap his public life with an achievement that will go down in India`s history - the grand reconciliation with Pakistan. Towards this end, he tried to work around the problem by trying to deal with the Kashmiri militants and, when that failed, he contemplated dialogue with the Hurriyat. When that seemed difficult, he decided to engage Mr Musharraf directly, albeit with some behind-the-scenes help from the US.

So, when Mr Vajpayee goes to Agra next week it will be with a backward half-glance at the troubled 50-year-old history of Indo-Pakistan relations and his personal views. The lesson he will have drawn is that good intentions or one-sided concessions are not enough to untangle the complicated Indo-Pak tangle, and neither is brute strength.

In this perspective, it would be foolhardy to expect that the two leaders will be able to resolve the Kashmir question, or even set it on the road to resolution in Agra. The best possible outcome would be one where India would agree to place the subject on a special agenda, and appoint a senior interlocutor, to negotiate with a Pakistani counterpart. But the price India will certainly demand is a reduction, if not elimination, of violence in the Kashmir valley.

Not surprisingly, the issue of trust will be foremost in Mr Vajpayee`s mind considering that he, the victim, is meeting the author of Kargil. To give Kashmir a reasonable chance of a solution, both sides would be well advised to take measures to build trust even as the talks are undertaken. Among these would be implementing the 1989 Siachen disengagement agreement, demarcating the Sir Creek border, fleshing out confidence-building measures on nuclear weapons agreed to in Lahore and opening trade and people-to-people contacts. Several small steps which Mr Vajpayee could well write about in some future poem.

Can any honorable Pakistani please stand up and roundly criticize this latest threat by the Lashkar-e-Toiba?

``Ganguly, Tendulkar face Lashkar threat``

MUMBAI, JULY 6.The cricket captain, Saurav Ganguly, and star batsman, Sachin Tendulkar, are among those who have been threatened by the militant outfit, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

It has threatened to kidnap and hold them hostages, DCP (Crime), Mr. Pradeep Sawant, said here today...

http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01070006.htm

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref Shankar #156

Okay we cant hold India accountable by Paki standards so which standard should we aspire to, maybe American standards? Oh no, wait we have all that mess related to Central America. So whom then, whom...?

ref: Romairr #145

There is much that is true in what you write, and of course it sounds very good. But I think you are guilty of oversimplifying the issue. For eg; consider that the drug barons in Colombia consider themselves an oppressed people and want to break away from the ``cruel`` majority which does not allow them to carry on their means of livlihood. Would you support such a claim? After all their claim meets all of your criterion. What about the white supremists in the US? they are a minority too. Would you support their demands for partition?

The reality is that we live in a world where we are all different, but we have to live together. Where do we draw the line between a minority getting ``oppressed`` by a majority, and a minority demanding more than is its just due? I confess I do not know, but I do know that just because people are in a minority does not automatically mean that they are right.

The line I draw is that when a minority is part of a representative democracy, has access to political institutions to voice its concerns and a constitution which protects its rights from being unduly crushed by the majority, then the validity of its secession claims are suspect. And violence being used in the above case is a sure sign of a weak case. Can I then support the Palestinians in their struggle, and the Bangladeshis in theirs and not support the Kashmiris? Yes, I can.

-narain

Ref ROmair,

``My prediction: India (after 17 years) will agree to Pakistan`s offer of a bilateral withdrawl from Siachen (Thank God!!).

India will agree to Pakistan`s offer of the Iran-India pipeline through Pakistan``

I think its too early for both to happen:

my predictions:

1) atmost there will be some kind of ``comittee`` to study a withdrawal from Siachen (since there are a thousand complex details details involved)

2)the Iran pipeline thing should be related to other trade issues (an ``in principle`` understanding may be reached)

Bharatiya Musalman

Mr. Imran,

While it will be suffering, you owe it to yourself to visit Pakistan for a period of three to six months. Your assertions (exertions) about Pakistan would be more credible if you can also say that you have visited there and have traveled the length and breadth, and have spoken with ordinary Pakistanis and therefore feel a measure of confidence that your opinions are formulated, not by heresay, but by experience.

To better gauge the thinking of ordinary Pakistanis, you may consider making common cause with them, break bread with them and such, so that you may formulate an opinion backed up by facts of experience and not just heresay.

Do you believe that most Muslims in India, hold opinions about Pakistan, such as yours?

Before Pakistan disentegrates you owe it to yourself to discover for yourself, what evil Pakistan is. No harm can come from such an exercise. Perhaps your experience will confirm your opinions and in that case you can make assertions with confidence, having the benefit of experience.

Re: Romair#146 - follow up to Saad P. Aslam

``since WWII, Western European has gone away from the idea of forced geographic unions and the corresponding terrible economic consequences, to the idea of voluntary geographic unions with a common economic base (EU)...This is what needs to happen in South Asia, and is the only thing that will work...``

I had posted a similiar idea a long time ago, but YLH was completely opposed to it. Disillusioned, I gave up pursuing it further.

Now that Saad P. Aslam and Romair have expressed interest, here is what I propose, and why:

a) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the other SAARC states that want to, should seriously consider unifying their foreign and defense policies under unified, common leadership, while maintaining the status quo in internal affairs -- i.e. separate legislatures, laws, police, constitutions, the works. Kashmir should be reunited, and invited to join as a separate state. This also fits in well with the fact that the foreign and defence policies of each state are severly impacted by the other states. The foreign and defense policies should be conducted by a directly elected leader from all member states subject to confirmation by an elected body that has equal representation from all member states (thereby neutralizing India`s larger numerical superiority, while also ensuring that the directly elected leader will have to work hard to win Indian votes). It could also be required to have the leadership rotate through the member states. A 2/3 or greater vote will be necessary before forces under this unified commander can be committed to any member state (thus preventing India from deploying forces in Kashmir, and Pakistan in erstwhile East Pakistan -- These ideas are still crude, but could be refined further).

Also, to give real executive `teeth` to this new directly elected leader (call him President-General, or whatever) all militaries in the member states will be directly answerable to him/her and swear allegiance to him/her. (thereby preventing dissension, etc.). Likewise for all the foreign ministries.

I support this because it will (a) remove current sources of discord between the beligerents in the Subcontinent and yield a peace dividend which everyone should be able to benefit from (b) preserve Jinnah`s and Nehru`s visions (TNT and joint electorates, respectively), (c) enable greater people-to-people contact and promote commerce, (d) revert the situation back to where the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 (accepted by both the Muslim League and Congress, but rejected by Nehru) left off -- with fully sovereign states in a federation, except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs. If it makes sense to one day have a common currency, then maybe that could be pursued, too.

All of the above arrangements should be fully voluntary.

romair, perhaps you should ask that human rights organizations be given access to pok.

read the following and go into hiding for a couple of weeks. then you can come back and start writing your garbage once again.

from the outlook magazine -

It would seem that the people of the erstwhile undivided Jammu and Kasmir, across the line of control, are beginning to get aware of the double-speak inherent in Pakistan`s right of self-determination rhetoric that is aimed at India and the J&K under it.

In their latest joint communication to the UNCHR, the Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation (JKNSF), Jammu Kashmir National Awami Party (JKNAP) & Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) have condemned ``the terrible, unethical and non-democratic situation in Pakistani occupied Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) brought about by the Government of Pakistan with the help of Pakistan Army, secret agencies and the local police against the nationalist candidates and their supporters in the deliberate genocide of basic human rights of Kashmiri people.``

According to them, ``more than a hundred nationalist Kashmiris have been arrested, tortured and dishonored in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir. This is the second time that the candidates of pro-independence Kashmiri organizations submitted their nomination papers for forth coming election in Azad Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly, but the office of the Election Commissioner has rejected all the nomination papers, just because the nationalist candidates has refused the black Azad Kashmir Constitution Act 1974, par 7 (2) imposed by the Government of Pakistan in 1974.``

Their letter to the President of UNCHR adds:

``It is the gross violation of Kashmiri`s human & political rights. We believe in the complete independence of Jammu Kashmir and it`s our real national emancipation.

``This black act has limited our right of freedom even right of vote. The act is ``No person or political party in Azad Jammu Kashmir shell be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the Ideology of the State`s Accession to Pakistan``.

``While, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article No. 19. ``Every one has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.``

``And the UDHR Article No.21: ``Every one has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.``

``Your Excellency, Are these Articles not applicable and valid for the people of Azad Jammu Kashmir? Are Kashmiri people not living in this Universe? Are Kashmiries not Human beings?

``According to a news agency ``ONLINE`` Pakistan has decided to appoint one hundred thousand Army in Azad Kashmir at the occasion of so called Assembly Election. Beside this other paramilitary troops will be present there at the name of security.

``We appeal to you to persuade Pakistan and so called Azad Jammu Kashmir Governments to omit this act, release the arrested people and accept the nomination papers.

Question: Why were JKLF candidates disqualified from standing in recently-conducted PoK elections? Amanullah and his supporters took out a protest rally and courted arrest to protest.

Answer: They werenot allowed to stand for PoK elections because they refused to give in writing that they accepted that Kashmir as part of Pakistan.

Question: Who claims to support Kashmiri freedom?

Answer : Pakistanis.

Question: So is that called hypocritical, perhaps?

Answer : No they call it the Pakistani principled stand which is totally pureminded, and has nothing to do with strategic concerns nor territory nor religion, mind you.

Lets hear about these cultured Lahoris too, from the secular republic of Pakistan:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/06jk2.htm
Another ambush on Amarnath route

Mukhtar Ahmad in Srinagar

Militants on Friday yet again ambushed an army convoy near Chamalvas, 128 kms from Srinagar on the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway, killing two soldiers on the spot while five others were critically wounded.

Police sources told rediff.com that militants hurled grenades and fired from automatic weapons on the heavily armed convoy.

The five seriously wounded soldiers were air-lifted to the hospital in Srinagar.

Sources said soldiers escorting the convoy had engaged the militants in a fierce encounter, which was on when reports last came in.

The highway is being used by thousands of pilgrims bound for the Amarnath yatra base camp at Pahalgam.
Traffic on the highway was disrupted and senior officers had rushed to the spot.

On Wednesday, Lashkar-e-Tayiba militants had ambushed an army convoy near Qazigund.

Meanwhile, police sources said that 4,236 Amarnath bound pilgrims had left Jammu early on Friday morning in 195 vehicles escorted by security forces.


http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01070006.htm


Ganguly, Tendulkar face Lashkar threat


MUMBAI, JULY 6.The cricket captain, Saurav Ganguly, and star batsman, Sachin Tendulkar, are among those who have been threatened by the militant outfit, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

It has threatened to kidnap and hold them hostages, DCP (Crime), Mr. Pradeep Sawant, said here today.

The threats came to light when some members of the militant outfit were apprehended by Thane police some months ago, he said.

Interrogations revealed that the group had prepared a list of persons who would be kidnapped to secure certain political benefits.

The former hockey captain, Dhanraj Pillay, had yesterday approached Mumbai police seeking protection after receiving threats from the same outfit.

correction #145: ``So my chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim.``

should read

``So my (or the average Pakistani Muslim`s) chances of entering, much less making it to the top of the military, civil services or IT circles would have been next to nill, had I been an Indian Muslim.``

Romair,

#145

Well said, sir. Most of your posts make a heck of a lot of sense.

Let me be very blunt about India. Even though my bias is pro-India; I feel India has been nothing but a megalomaniacal BULLY of S.Asia, since independance. OK, call it a more politically correct name--India is a HEGEMON--pure & simple. Indians can conveniently cloak themselves under the garb of ``secularism`` & ``democracy``. Puncture that cloak a bit & the truth comes out--we`re a bunch of goddamned hypocrites. Just because we`re better (or think we`re better) than Pakistan in those respects is no frikking excuse.

Lets keep Pakistan out of the picture, for a minute (because pointing to Pakistan`s conduct is the biggest excuse). Why are the Kashmiri muslims unhappy? Why are they protesting? Have India`s leadership ever sat down with them & empathised with their views? Theyre feeling oppressed---pure & simple. People who are oppressed should be given a chance to be heard & differences ironed out like any democracy. If the Central govt plays ``big daddy`` & essentially tells them to go to hell because they have Farouk Abdullah types as puppets, they are not going to endear themselves with Kashmiri muslims. What the heck do you think Kashmiri muslims would do when they`re desparate?--turn to Pakistan, of course!

Dont go blaming Pakistan. Its India`s bullying attitude that disillusioned Kashmiri muslims. Heck even Bengali muslims turned to India when W.Pakistanis were oppressing them. Oh yeah! At that time we were more than happy to aid the Mukti Bahini with men & material. Payback stinks, dont it?!

Mushy & Vaju have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make peace in Kashmir. Like the man said, no Indo-Pak agreement will hold unless the Pak military & BJP signs their name to it. If Indians & Pakistanis dont support them, the whole subcontinent is screwed.

I`m hoping to God some sort of compromise will be reached. I hope those poor Kashmiris had some peace in their sad history. Nothing will be make me more happy if the whole of Kashmir (Indian & Pakistani) secede into a ``non aligned`` ,secular independant country.

As an Indian, I had the pleasure of visiting that blighted Valley many years ago. Words cannot describe its beauty. Its almost as if God has specially made this Shangrila for the blessed few. However, its beauty has become its greatest curse, because everybody covets it. IMHO, nobody except Kashmiris deserve to own it.

Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when all of us Indian & Pakistani moderates on Chowk can have a reunion on a houseboat on Dal Lake & sip Darjeeling tea:) I`d love to meet guys like Romair, Tahmed..etc etc (there are far too many Pakistanis here who have earned my respect; to list..). But we should pray for that meeting ONLY IF KASHMIRIS ARE FREE....

Peace

RE Romair #145

You said: ``They only separate when they feel they are being exploited by the majority. The exploitation can be based on religious differences, ethnic difference, linguistic differences, geographical differences, or any other kind of difference.``

Counterpoint: If at all, the Muslims have been on top of the pyramid for nearly a thousand years. They came as looters/invaders, settled down and established dynasties. They were the dominant ruling class till the brits packed away the last of the mughals. So who`s exploiting who?

You said: ``However, people will never separate from a union just because they have a different religion or ethnicity (otherwise Muslims would demand a separate homeland in the USA). They only separate if they feel that due to their religion, ethncity etc. they are being exploited economically and physically by the majority.``

Again--the british were the rulers for the last 200 odd years and they called the shots. If at all, the muslims were not as quick to take advantage of the educational and professional opportunities offered under the british systems and instead cocooned themselves in their known professions and their neighborhoods.

If you feel you were better off in Pakistan, good for you. What happened at partition was that a lot of the educated, professional middle class muslims migrated leaving the very rich and the very poor of your community behind. With the latter being the majority of the muslim population and given the overall rejection of western education in that community, what can you expect? And if muslims were in power in India for the longest time, why were these poor muslims so behind the curve in terms of education and affluence? In comparison, that can be said of any community with a lot of poor including the backward castes and tribes.

They were way behind and are slowly catching up. It`s a factor of economic backwardness, not bigotry or intentional government discrimination. If you haven`t seen that many Indian muslims in your line of work, that`s again a factor of sampling and perhaps economics. More muslims take to the trade--either as craftsmen or businessmen. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the socioeconomcs of muslims or any other indian community, but let someone like Nasah or B_M pick up from here.

A 3% rate of muslims in the Indian Army is a lot better than close to zero in your armed forces and bureaucracy for the minorities, right? At least those who remained weren`t chased out or forced to convert. Despite all the flaws inherent in India and her systems, Indian muslims are as Indian as the other person and it is a right they know and thankfully are starting to assert.

tahmed321 # 144

Bhai Saheb, main aapka badaa fan ho gaya hoon.

Theory ho tau asiee :)

ref: Ferozek #109

You asked if India has the political will to sustain any course of action which will bring about the dissolution of Pakistan. The answer to that is that it does not-for the present.

Right now India is going through a phase of elation: after a very long time, some things seem to be going right for us. But most Indians are well grounded in reality, and take our supposed superpower, economic tiger future with a healthy pinch of salt. At this stage most of us are more concerned with keeping the current upturn going than planning for our supposed future status. That means getting along as best we can with whatever we have.

It is however also true that in its present avatar Pakistan would pose some problems for us IF we ever became superpowers, and IF the world continued to work the way it has done in the past. It is small enough to resent India, and yet big enought to be used as a means of containing India. China has already been doing that very successfully for the past 5 decades. For this reason it would definitely be preferable for India to have smaller states around us than Pakistan.

So the score card is: yes, India would like smaller buffer states around it. But NO, India is unlikely to do anything to bring this about.

and yet it is do-able! My personal opinion counts for nothing, but I`ll inflict you with it in any case. For a long time I was convinced that breaking up Pakistan further would not be in india`s interests because of the resultant anarchy that this would bring about. However now I am coming round to the view that this may indeed be doable, if Sindh can somehow be induced to break away from the Pakistani federation, preferably with as little violence as possible. This is not that impossible a task. That would leave a paranoid Punjab facing a restive Baluchistan and NWFP, with enough problems of its own to leave India alone. With a relatively strong military government in control in Islamabad, the rest of Pakistan should survive the transition without descending into anarchy. Sindh can then be independent, and hopefully only passively hostile to India.

Of course these are purely academic exercises right now, ``khayali pulav`` really. But if the Kashmir problem continues for another year or two, I have a feeling that the Indian government will probably also start thinking along the very same lines and come to similar conclusions. One must not forget, that this is after all a hardline government of a resurgent India.

-narain

shammi #142
Its better to have 30 professions instead of two?

stuka #147
Sorry, I donot share your opinion that we have seen `enough` elections. We had `stability` for 40+ years under the Nehru-Gandhi family with oneman rule with its good and bad consequences, its time for new leaders, new groups and new ideas to emerge and and the only opportunity is with regular elections and the accompanying airing of issues.

There was a time when Mrs Gandhi(in the early `80s) wouldnot answer more than one question per reporter in press conferences, which would be held how often, can anyone remember? I think we have come a long way from those days of imperiousness, and donot need to return, thank goodness.

And its only the last 6-7 years we have seen governments changing so fast, Narasimha Rao`s minority government lasted 5 years until `95, I think. We may be currently into a semi-stable mode with coalition governments instead of one-party rule. Basically I would rather trust a collective who remain in power only because they are accountable to a diverse set of constituents, than a single person who is accountable to none once he is in power. At least US Presidents care about `legacy`, not many executive-head Presidents from elsewhere in the world do(btw, where else in the world?).

btw, there is already an anti-defection law in place to prevent at least representatives of large parties from jumping ship due to being bought retail instead of wholesale. And I am sure the law has flaws but I`ve seen it in operation even in my local panchayat.

Saad P. Aslam #129: I think you have presented an excellent idea. I have thought along those lines, as well. And I feel it to be the best solution for South Asia.

Volunteer unification of states, like in the USA, is the best and most productive solution. Ideally, the whole world should be one big country, and a member of a federation of planets, like in Star Trek. However, that would be wishing for utopia. This only works in areas with short histories like the USA, or in areas where the local population, as well as the populations of the conquered areas, was at some stage completely wiped out on enslaved (like by the US govt. of the 18th and 19th century).

In regions like South Asia and Europe, due to long rooted ethnic, religious etc. differences, forced unions have not, and will never work. Europe has fought, by far, the bloodiest battles of modern times. All of these were based on one group forcing itself on the other. Whichever state was the strongest at that point in history, would attempt to bring everyone under its borders.

However, since WWII, Western European has gone away from the idea of forced geographic unions and the corresponding terrible economic consequences, to the idea of voluntary geographic unions with a common economic base (EU).

This is what needs to happen in South Asia, and is the only thing that will work. Geographic unions should be voluntary. If Sindh, Punjab, NWFP, and Baluchistan want to voluntarily be part of a larger entity called Pakistan, they should go ahead and do so. However, none of the provinces should force the others to do so. Similar ideas should be applied to other South Asian states.

As long as alll the states are part of a joint economic union (which, most if not all of them will voluntarily want to join), geographic borders will become immaterial. Their will be no visas and free borders for trade and people, much like the EU. The whole group will act as a joint economic entity, but the people in each state will be secure within their own identity and elected political govt. It will infact be easier and more productive for an Indian (or Pakistani) to visit Kashmir in such a voluntary economic union, than in the current forced geographic union.

All the violence and freedom struggles will end and South Asians will actually become closer, even though there maybe two or three new states that are created in the process.

It took Western Europe centuries and millions of lives to figure this out (countries like Yugoslavia have still not figured it out). I don`t know how long it will take South Asia to figure this out.

Forced geographic unions are a failed concept and the source of most of the wars in the world. They are always based on the egos of the majority, and rarely based on practical issues.