Implications for India
SSS September 15, 2001
#1 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on September 15, 2001 9:58:57 pm
SSS some good reflection here ( I did not know that you did political commentarY!).
Indian strategic thinking has a lot more patience than Pakistan. But to this day it is still trying to determine (like the rest of us) as to the full extent of the current relationship between the Pakistani Generals and the Pentagon.
Pakistan has to look after itself first. The Generals (I hope) have learnt something from 1971, and have to be reminded that there is Bhutto to blame this time if they mess up. How
I wish ZAB was around today?
Ras
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by concerned on September 15, 2001 10:21:46 pm
interview with stephen cohen
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010916/cent1.html
...As regards the events of September 11, Cohen favours a military solution that will obliterate the perpetrators of this crime, and calls for cooperation between the US and India on the issue of fighting the global forces of terrorism. He recognises the link between the Taliban and Pakistan but at the same time emphasises that he wants the two to be seen as distinct entities in the region. Excerpts...
Do you think the attacks on the US lend themselves to a military solution or retaliatory action? What does the US see as a way out of this violent cycle?
Military force is an instrument of policy and politics, although in this case there will be some domestic pleasure from simply going out and killing some bad guys. However, I don`t see any kind of cycle: the people who perpetrated this were anti-American for a variety of reasons. Get them, and much of the problem is reduced.
Would you now subscribe to a Samuel Huntington kind of analysis where the attacks are being seen as a clash of civilizations, the open society versus the fundamentalists?
No, they don`t represent any civilization, they are fringe lunatics, which have been produced by many different cultures and civilizations.
Moving on, India in the past has expressed serious concerns on the issue of terrorism with very little reaction from the US. Do you see that changing now?
This is not true at all. For years, the Indians did not pay much attention to terrorism, and took the usual ``third world`` approach of blaming America for these events. This policy has changed now that India has been hit by foreign and domestic terrorism, but also with an insurgency that is both home grown and supported from abroad (they are different things, by the way). Yet India would not accept an FBI coordinator in Delhi until quite recently. Now, fortunately, we see the issue in the same way and there is active cooperation on counter-terrorism.
Could this form a basis for the US combining forces with India to combat terrorism from this region. Do you think India has a unique role because of its democratic status and geographical location to become a countervailing force in the region?
It has, formed a basis for cooperation already.
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010916/cent1.html
...As regards the events of September 11, Cohen favours a military solution that will obliterate the perpetrators of this crime, and calls for cooperation between the US and India on the issue of fighting the global forces of terrorism. He recognises the link between the Taliban and Pakistan but at the same time emphasises that he wants the two to be seen as distinct entities in the region. Excerpts...
Do you think the attacks on the US lend themselves to a military solution or retaliatory action? What does the US see as a way out of this violent cycle?
Military force is an instrument of policy and politics, although in this case there will be some domestic pleasure from simply going out and killing some bad guys. However, I don`t see any kind of cycle: the people who perpetrated this were anti-American for a variety of reasons. Get them, and much of the problem is reduced.
Would you now subscribe to a Samuel Huntington kind of analysis where the attacks are being seen as a clash of civilizations, the open society versus the fundamentalists?
No, they don`t represent any civilization, they are fringe lunatics, which have been produced by many different cultures and civilizations.
Moving on, India in the past has expressed serious concerns on the issue of terrorism with very little reaction from the US. Do you see that changing now?
This is not true at all. For years, the Indians did not pay much attention to terrorism, and took the usual ``third world`` approach of blaming America for these events. This policy has changed now that India has been hit by foreign and domestic terrorism, but also with an insurgency that is both home grown and supported from abroad (they are different things, by the way). Yet India would not accept an FBI coordinator in Delhi until quite recently. Now, fortunately, we see the issue in the same way and there is active cooperation on counter-terrorism.
Could this form a basis for the US combining forces with India to combat terrorism from this region. Do you think India has a unique role because of its democratic status and geographical location to become a countervailing force in the region?
It has, formed a basis for cooperation already.
#3 Posted by rsaxena on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
This situation has little to do with India which is nothing more than a sympathetic bystander to the US....much like the rest of the civilized world.
The implications are next to none, unless Taliban attacks Pakistan and the fighting gets too close to Indian borders. India will remain a spectator until something crosses into its borders.
At best India gets more sympathetic ears for its complaints of jehad/terrorism, at worst India is unaffected (other than sharing in the impact on the global economy).
The implications are next to none, unless Taliban attacks Pakistan and the fighting gets too close to Indian borders. India will remain a spectator until something crosses into its borders.
At best India gets more sympathetic ears for its complaints of jehad/terrorism, at worst India is unaffected (other than sharing in the impact on the global economy).
#4 Posted by curious on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
As far as I can tell, India has always been very proactive at protecting ITS OWN INTERESTS. Once again I have full confidence in Indian government to pull through this crisis in most magnificient way. More power to them.
#5 Posted by Molko on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Religion`s misguided missiles
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
#6 Posted by YNC on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
SSS Interesting article. I agree with you that the extent of American action in the region maybe limited and not go as far as the Indian government would like it to go.
If you look at the declaration passed by the congress, it only allows the use of military force against those, responsible for Sept 11 attacks. An analyst on CNN was quick to point out that the language of the draft was very careful and this authorization does not allow the use of force against all kinds of terrorism. This would indicate that americans are not ready to take on other groups like IRA or even Lashkars etc. Therefore I think that India should be careful and try to keep the diplomatic channels with Pakistan open. Trying to exploit the situation in the wrong way could have serious consequences for both countries.
Yassir.
If you look at the declaration passed by the congress, it only allows the use of military force against those, responsible for Sept 11 attacks. An analyst on CNN was quick to point out that the language of the draft was very careful and this authorization does not allow the use of force against all kinds of terrorism. This would indicate that americans are not ready to take on other groups like IRA or even Lashkars etc. Therefore I think that India should be careful and try to keep the diplomatic channels with Pakistan open. Trying to exploit the situation in the wrong way could have serious consequences for both countries.
Yassir.
#7 Posted by veeresh on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Dear Author and others,
a) Why should everything that happens to or in Pakistan be relevant to India?
b) How is India on a tight-rope walk in any way more or less than what it has been on for the past few decades, especially in context with the terrorism in Kashmir?
c) How can the Pakistan Government (presently in a questionable state of legitimacy) in any way be said to be representing the will of the Pakistani people, even if it (the PakGov) puts it full lot behind the Americans?
Yes, one thing is a fact: like it or not, India and Pakistan are about to become the next proxy killing grounds for the American wars on globalisation as they see it.
I usually do not care a fig about religion, but the circus performance by Muslim leaders of all sorts worldwide puts anything our Indian leaders do in the pale. With the Great Arab & Muslim leaders like Yasser Arafat and representatives of the House of Saud quivering while singing ``God Bless America`` from the depths of their putty lipped mouths . . . with every Muslim cleric worth his dollar or pound sterling trying to distance himself from the ``bad Muslims`` . . .
Is or was terrorism solely our problem? That we now have to go and fight amongst ourselves to defend our fear? Is this not as good an occaison as any other to try and tell our leaders that for once, let us close geographical ranks?
No, we will invite Uncle Sam to try to make a Vietnam basket case out of us. Remains to be seen, however, if we on the sub-Continent are better or worse than the Vietnamese . . .
#8 Posted by monasehgal on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
``It is for India to protect its interests ON ITS OWN. ``
Yes,very true. Why should US or any one else be bothered with our interest. We have to protect it on our own.
Mona
Yes,very true. Why should US or any one else be bothered with our interest. We have to protect it on our own.
Mona
#9 Posted by Romair on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Another good article.
Assuming the author is an Indian, I would have to say the two best and most balanced articles related to this incidence, on this site, have been from Indians. Ironically, the Indian replies to articles have been generally childish and directed more towards their Pakistan-hatred than a constructive discussion.
``the promised long-term sustained effort may not automatically translate into buying Indian arguments of Pakistan being a terrorist state,``
This is one part of the Indian psyche and foreign policy I have never understood. It desparately wants to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state by the US. Indian organizations in the US are spending money on this, left and right. I think if I walked into a meeting of Indian grandmothers sharing cooking recipes, they would open their meeting by requesting US to declare Pakistan a terrorist state :-)
This a counterproductive policy for India. The US has never agreed to this, because Pakistan has never been a threat to the US. Infact, it has always assisted the US. Not a single US citizen has ever been harmed by the Pakistani govt. At best, the US may declare an odd organization in Pakistan that it feels maybe anti-US, as a terrorist organization. But it is not going to create an enemy out of Pakistan just to please India. Maybe to please Israel it might do so, but not for India.
However, most of all, to really get Pakistan declared a terrorist state, the matter will have to go to the UN. And India doesn`t want anything related to Pakistan going to the UN, for obvious reasons, i.e. the UN will hold India in non-compliance of UN resolutions on Kashmir.
I think after the Pakistani co-operation with the US on the current WTC incidence, India should now give up on this policy. The money would be better utilized in helping the poor in India.
Assuming the author is an Indian, I would have to say the two best and most balanced articles related to this incidence, on this site, have been from Indians. Ironically, the Indian replies to articles have been generally childish and directed more towards their Pakistan-hatred than a constructive discussion.
``the promised long-term sustained effort may not automatically translate into buying Indian arguments of Pakistan being a terrorist state,``
This is one part of the Indian psyche and foreign policy I have never understood. It desparately wants to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state by the US. Indian organizations in the US are spending money on this, left and right. I think if I walked into a meeting of Indian grandmothers sharing cooking recipes, they would open their meeting by requesting US to declare Pakistan a terrorist state :-)
This a counterproductive policy for India. The US has never agreed to this, because Pakistan has never been a threat to the US. Infact, it has always assisted the US. Not a single US citizen has ever been harmed by the Pakistani govt. At best, the US may declare an odd organization in Pakistan that it feels maybe anti-US, as a terrorist organization. But it is not going to create an enemy out of Pakistan just to please India. Maybe to please Israel it might do so, but not for India.
However, most of all, to really get Pakistan declared a terrorist state, the matter will have to go to the UN. And India doesn`t want anything related to Pakistan going to the UN, for obvious reasons, i.e. the UN will hold India in non-compliance of UN resolutions on Kashmir.
I think after the Pakistani co-operation with the US on the current WTC incidence, India should now give up on this policy. The money would be better utilized in helping the poor in India.
#10 Posted by jay on September 16, 2001 6:32:57 am
SSS,
There appear to be a typo, it should be ISI. Typical pak thinking, everything has to be oriented towards india. Only hope is periferal, when the cruise missiles slammed into afghanistan last time, a few pak jihadists escaped the travails of moving to kashmir, enroute to heaven. Hopwe it would help a few more.
There appear to be a typo, it should be ISI. Typical pak thinking, everything has to be oriented towards india. Only hope is periferal, when the cruise missiles slammed into afghanistan last time, a few pak jihadists escaped the travails of moving to kashmir, enroute to heaven. Hopwe it would help a few more.
#11 Posted by rsaxena on September 16, 2001 10:38:39 am
Re: Mona
``Yes,very true. Why should US or any one else be bothered with our interest. We have to protect it on our own.``
India`s good at shooting itself in the foot when it comes to domestic policies, but pretty damn good in managing external relationships. I think we must have learnt since the British.
I don`t know too many third-world countries who have managed to maintain/develop relationships with the Russians, the French (opposed the 1998 sanctions against us and continued military relationship), the Americans (loudest in 1998 but came around with $ signs in their eyes anyway), the Palestinians (note recent comments from envoy to India), the Israelis (now our secret best friends after Russia), and Saddam (secretly receiving TATA trucks in exchange for cheap oil and token diplomatic posturing on its behalf) at the same time.
``Yes,very true. Why should US or any one else be bothered with our interest. We have to protect it on our own.``
India`s good at shooting itself in the foot when it comes to domestic policies, but pretty damn good in managing external relationships. I think we must have learnt since the British.
I don`t know too many third-world countries who have managed to maintain/develop relationships with the Russians, the French (opposed the 1998 sanctions against us and continued military relationship), the Americans (loudest in 1998 but came around with $ signs in their eyes anyway), the Palestinians (note recent comments from envoy to India), the Israelis (now our secret best friends after Russia), and Saddam (secretly receiving TATA trucks in exchange for cheap oil and token diplomatic posturing on its behalf) at the same time.
#12 Posted by tahmed321 on September 16, 2001 10:38:39 am
monosahgal #9 You ask ``Why should US or any one else be bothered with our interest.``
What are your (i.e. Indian) interests? I think if you think carefully, you will find the answer to your question.
And if you explain your (i.e. Indian, or in fact Pakistani, or anyone`s) interests to others, I think you will have a more peaceful and progressive world where everyone (not just the US) is for everyone else`s interest. The Truth that everyone forgets all too easily on chowk is that we all - all people on earth - have common interests that are vastly more important than the shallow ego-driven ``interests`` that we focus on.
I hope this doesnt sound mystical. If it does, I think you need to think more about what it is that is in the foremost interest for Indians (or anyone else).
What are your (i.e. Indian) interests? I think if you think carefully, you will find the answer to your question.
And if you explain your (i.e. Indian, or in fact Pakistani, or anyone`s) interests to others, I think you will have a more peaceful and progressive world where everyone (not just the US) is for everyone else`s interest. The Truth that everyone forgets all too easily on chowk is that we all - all people on earth - have common interests that are vastly more important than the shallow ego-driven ``interests`` that we focus on.
I hope this doesnt sound mystical. If it does, I think you need to think more about what it is that is in the foremost interest for Indians (or anyone else).
#13 Posted by soysauce on September 16, 2001 12:28:30 pm
I agree with many of the points you have raised. The third option (of overt resistance, covert support) is a very likely option or perhaps the only option left for pakistan given the conflict between external demands and internal pressures.
Unlike other indians, i see what`s happening as an incredible opportunity for pakistan and a lose-lose proposition for india. Pakistan could bargain for the US to take an (almost) anti-india stance vis-a-vis kashmir. India has virtually no leverage and that may explain a pre-emptive attempt to woo the US by offering its soil and airspace for any operations against afghanistan. To come up with a rather crude analogy, pakistan is playing hard to get while india is acting like a desperate prostitute volunteering to do anything. It is an embarassing spectacle for an indian citizen. Equally embarassing is the sight of myopic indians crowing about pakistan`s ``predicament``.
The last time pakistan had an opportunity like this was immediately after pokhran but of course the army then apparently went against national interests. I say apparently, because in hindsight the possession of nuclear weapons is part of the reason everyone has to tread carefully in their dealings with pakistan. Pakistan cannot be bullied around nor can it be abandoned to anarchy with its bomb. Therefore, in the long run, this has worked in pakistan`s favor.
Unlike other indians, i see what`s happening as an incredible opportunity for pakistan and a lose-lose proposition for india. Pakistan could bargain for the US to take an (almost) anti-india stance vis-a-vis kashmir. India has virtually no leverage and that may explain a pre-emptive attempt to woo the US by offering its soil and airspace for any operations against afghanistan. To come up with a rather crude analogy, pakistan is playing hard to get while india is acting like a desperate prostitute volunteering to do anything. It is an embarassing spectacle for an indian citizen. Equally embarassing is the sight of myopic indians crowing about pakistan`s ``predicament``.
The last time pakistan had an opportunity like this was immediately after pokhran but of course the army then apparently went against national interests. I say apparently, because in hindsight the possession of nuclear weapons is part of the reason everyone has to tread carefully in their dealings with pakistan. Pakistan cannot be bullied around nor can it be abandoned to anarchy with its bomb. Therefore, in the long run, this has worked in pakistan`s favor.
#14 Posted by monasehgal on September 16, 2001 12:28:30 pm
tahmed #11
Yes, you are right that everyone of us has a common interest as that to survive. But alas, at some point or the other our egoes take better of us. Isn`t that the reason why we take retaliatory actions most of the time. And when this time the retaliatory action seems imminent to take place, why shouldn`t we protect our interest as well.
And please think of it, this is also about survival - the common interest, which could at times could get oppposed to that of other.
Mona
Yes, you are right that everyone of us has a common interest as that to survive. But alas, at some point or the other our egoes take better of us. Isn`t that the reason why we take retaliatory actions most of the time. And when this time the retaliatory action seems imminent to take place, why shouldn`t we protect our interest as well.
And please think of it, this is also about survival - the common interest, which could at times could get oppposed to that of other.
Mona
#15 Posted by rsaxena on September 16, 2001 12:28:30 pm
Re: TAhmed
``What are your (i.e. Indian) interests? I think if you think carefully, you will find the answer to your question.
And if you explain your (i.e. Indian, or in fact Pakistani, or anyone`s) interests to others, I think you will have a more peaceful and progressive world where everyone (not just the US) is for everyone else`s interest.``
I`ll tell you India`s interests as they relate to Pakistan. Stop sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. Leave India to solve the political mess in Kashmir which it started and you made worse. Stop trying to reach into India as guardians of Indian Muslims. They are not Pakistanis, they are Indian. Most of them will even tell you that (Farzana probably won`t).
Nothing I`ve written above harms Pakistani citizens, does it? So why is it so difficult?
If Pakistan delivers this, you and 100 other Pakistanis can come over to my Bigot Manor (not that you ever would) for a 10-course daawat. ABV and Musharraf can do the same.
``What are your (i.e. Indian) interests? I think if you think carefully, you will find the answer to your question.
And if you explain your (i.e. Indian, or in fact Pakistani, or anyone`s) interests to others, I think you will have a more peaceful and progressive world where everyone (not just the US) is for everyone else`s interest.``
I`ll tell you India`s interests as they relate to Pakistan. Stop sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. Leave India to solve the political mess in Kashmir which it started and you made worse. Stop trying to reach into India as guardians of Indian Muslims. They are not Pakistanis, they are Indian. Most of them will even tell you that (Farzana probably won`t).
Nothing I`ve written above harms Pakistani citizens, does it? So why is it so difficult?
If Pakistan delivers this, you and 100 other Pakistanis can come over to my Bigot Manor (not that you ever would) for a 10-course daawat. ABV and Musharraf can do the same.
#16 Posted by sadna on September 16, 2001 1:26:40 pm
`` So, my own feel is that despite the current US pronouncements of going after terrorists and its supporters wherever they exist, the promised long-term sustained effort may not automatically translate into buying Indian arguments of Pakistan being a terrorist state, and seeing a comprehensive purge of the jihadi elements either within Pakistani military or within the Pakistani society.
There would NOT be any major showdown between the US and Pakistan. That is likely to happen only if Pakistan chooses to throw in its lot with the current Afghanistan regime and takes an truly confrontational posture. Pakistan is too smart to do so.``
soysauce #13
``Unlike other indians, i see what`s happening as an incredible opportunity for pakistan and a lose-lose proposition for india. ``
I see this as an incredible opportunity for Pakistan with India as incidental beneficiary, NOT a lose-lose proposition for India. I agree with the author that a `promised long-term sustained effort` doesnot automatically translate into US buying Indian arguments about Pakistan`s sponsoring armed militancy. The US will go after its own enemies, not India`s. It remains to be seen, whom and to what extent the US considers enemies. Will the US confine itself to just eliminating the person of Bin Laden, or commit itself to destroying his organisational base in Afghanistan and elsewhere, or go as far as to replace the Taliban regime itself in addition, or simply Iraqize Afghanistan(actually thats already happened), or go the whole hog and make sure the support structure of the Taliban regime and the jihadi culture and the radical Islam which lies at the root of it all is itself becomes extinct.
How far the US intends to go depends on how much are 5000 Americans and a direct hit on the Pentagon(not far from the White House) worth to the Americans, as threats.
So where do benefits to India come in? IMO, the point being missed here is that the US`s declared enemy Osama bin Laden, his hosts the Taliban, the elements in the Pakistani Army who have close links with the Taliban, cross-border trading/smuggling, the religious scholars and mosques, the Pakistani religious parties who recruit for jihad in Afghanistan and sustain the jihadi culture in the region are all interlinked, either with direct links or as part of the same culture and in this sense mutually supportive.
In a news item some months ago, Pakistanis fighting for Taliban who were taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance were interviewed and many said, they had actually signed up for fighting in Kashmir and had been sent into Afghanistan, some others said they joined up for jihad because the Pakistani religious parties who recruited them told them Russia had invaded Afghanistan again. There are reported to be thousands of Pakistanis fighting alongside the Taliban and the author made a case that many military/tactical victories of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance were clearly engineered by the Pakistani military.
IMO, these are many `interest groups` who have a stake in each others survival. Hence, for example, even if L-e-T is never declared a terrorist organisation by the US, its leaders and cadres know which side their bread is buttered. If their ideological brothers or colleagues or training camps or safe havens are threatened in Afghanistan , well, they know that jihadi organisations and their way of life, their public rhetoric, their sources of funding and their very philosophy is under threat too. How do you explain to those you are trying to recruit for holy war or canvass funds from, why you did or didnot fight to defend bin Laden? Its clear that any attack on bin Laden or the Taliban debilitates the jihadis and their sponsor focussed on India too, and a sustained campaign against bin Laden by the US is bad news for them.
If Pakistan plays a `double game` like many Arab countries do(I suspect), which is pay lip service to the Western concerns while carrying on with support to Taliban/Bin Laden/jihad in a more ubiquitous way, still India benefits in terms of rhetoric. (btw, Powell apparently called upon the Saudis to stop supporting/funding the Taliban).
Thats what is in it for India, these collateral benefits. Thats why India has reportedly been quick to share its information on training camps and intelligence on these groups. Hope India continues to cooperate, but makes sure US doesnot forget that it did.
There would NOT be any major showdown between the US and Pakistan. That is likely to happen only if Pakistan chooses to throw in its lot with the current Afghanistan regime and takes an truly confrontational posture. Pakistan is too smart to do so.``
soysauce #13
``Unlike other indians, i see what`s happening as an incredible opportunity for pakistan and a lose-lose proposition for india. ``
I see this as an incredible opportunity for Pakistan with India as incidental beneficiary, NOT a lose-lose proposition for India. I agree with the author that a `promised long-term sustained effort` doesnot automatically translate into US buying Indian arguments about Pakistan`s sponsoring armed militancy. The US will go after its own enemies, not India`s. It remains to be seen, whom and to what extent the US considers enemies. Will the US confine itself to just eliminating the person of Bin Laden, or commit itself to destroying his organisational base in Afghanistan and elsewhere, or go as far as to replace the Taliban regime itself in addition, or simply Iraqize Afghanistan(actually thats already happened), or go the whole hog and make sure the support structure of the Taliban regime and the jihadi culture and the radical Islam which lies at the root of it all is itself becomes extinct.
How far the US intends to go depends on how much are 5000 Americans and a direct hit on the Pentagon(not far from the White House) worth to the Americans, as threats.
So where do benefits to India come in? IMO, the point being missed here is that the US`s declared enemy Osama bin Laden, his hosts the Taliban, the elements in the Pakistani Army who have close links with the Taliban, cross-border trading/smuggling, the religious scholars and mosques, the Pakistani religious parties who recruit for jihad in Afghanistan and sustain the jihadi culture in the region are all interlinked, either with direct links or as part of the same culture and in this sense mutually supportive.
In a news item some months ago, Pakistanis fighting for Taliban who were taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance were interviewed and many said, they had actually signed up for fighting in Kashmir and had been sent into Afghanistan, some others said they joined up for jihad because the Pakistani religious parties who recruited them told them Russia had invaded Afghanistan again. There are reported to be thousands of Pakistanis fighting alongside the Taliban and the author made a case that many military/tactical victories of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance were clearly engineered by the Pakistani military.
IMO, these are many `interest groups` who have a stake in each others survival. Hence, for example, even if L-e-T is never declared a terrorist organisation by the US, its leaders and cadres know which side their bread is buttered. If their ideological brothers or colleagues or training camps or safe havens are threatened in Afghanistan , well, they know that jihadi organisations and their way of life, their public rhetoric, their sources of funding and their very philosophy is under threat too. How do you explain to those you are trying to recruit for holy war or canvass funds from, why you did or didnot fight to defend bin Laden? Its clear that any attack on bin Laden or the Taliban debilitates the jihadis and their sponsor focussed on India too, and a sustained campaign against bin Laden by the US is bad news for them.
If Pakistan plays a `double game` like many Arab countries do(I suspect), which is pay lip service to the Western concerns while carrying on with support to Taliban/Bin Laden/jihad in a more ubiquitous way, still India benefits in terms of rhetoric. (btw, Powell apparently called upon the Saudis to stop supporting/funding the Taliban).
Thats what is in it for India, these collateral benefits. Thats why India has reportedly been quick to share its information on training camps and intelligence on these groups. Hope India continues to cooperate, but makes sure US doesnot forget that it did.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: Majumdar bhai, I am... Living Gandhi and King
- _arjun29: Pakiland is the father... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Mohar mian, Nice try but... Living Gandhi and King
- dost_mittar: pinku: I have read parts... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- Abee: Re: # 13 This reminds... Salt N Pepper
- Abee: Re: # 10 Thank you.... Salt N Pepper
- tahmed32: #320 I agree with... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- captainjohann: Mr.Geelani, You are sitting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
