Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

So 36 years on we are still getting agitated over who won the 1965 war. Brave soldiers (from both sides) having moved on, but seems like some of us have nothing else to do but claim victory. (phyrric victory bolta pur spellchequer, er checker nahi hai to kya karoon).

Try extending a hand of friendship mates, if you have nothing else to do. Is there any point carrying the burden of the animosities of the past 50 years on our shoulders? Keep calling each other names - ``hindu chutiye``, ``musalman gandu`` and watch how the rest of the world leaves you far behind.

And thanks to all those who in the midst of all this were posting wedding songs - helps in diluting the hatred.

Jai Rochistan!

Reply YLH # 628

“Are RSS, Shiv Sena, and VHP in the coalition Government in India? If yes, can we safely say that Vajpayee has terrorist connections?”

Why, has Vaju been smuggling heroin?

Reply Audio-video-radio # 693

“Vandalisation of Taj Mahal by SIMI is deplorable.”

?????

re. #679

Sridhar,

thanks for the reply. However, I couldn`t help notice, that as much as you criticized American self-interest in foreign policy, you stopped short of characterizing it as criminal. ditto their bombing of Bagdad and now Afghanistan.

`Self Interest` is such an innocuous, even respectable term in today`s world. Encouraging oppressive regimes abroad while touting the values of freedom and democracy at home, in my mind goes waaay beyond even Machivillian self-interest. It is sheer hypocrisy and even tyranny.

As for the current bombimgs, the US first said that the objective was to destroy the Taliban`s air defense system, to make it safe for their choppers to go in and grab Ossama. That was accomplished in three days. But I guess terrorizing thounsands of hapless civilians and killing a few hundreds is an acceptable price to pay for `swift`, safe and infinite `justice`. ``Enduring Freedom``!!. Yeah, right!

re ylh:

``I ask everyone whose analysis would they rather accept:

General Charles Horner or NYT`s staff writer?

General Chuck Yeager or Daniel Lak of BBC?

Jane`s Defence Weekly or Wall Street Journal?

Mj G Donald Shephard or Indian Army`s Chief?``

Yasser, my guess is that IQ would be the chief determitant in choice here. Those with I.Q.`s higher than 80 would posses the requisite attention span to read or listen to anyhting more than a few minutes worth of news (sensationalism), and so would naturally only choose the latter in each case. :) Details to them would be imcomprehensible, and so dismissed as `blah blah blah`.

But what to expect from street vendors who try to play the `fedual mentality` card when you simply excuse their ignorance as not their own fault? Why suffer ye them any longer?

rgds,

PM

P.S. The anti-Indian monster is rearing it`s ugly head just a wee bit again. Almost understanable in the circumstances, but Yasser, remember, it`s times like these that test and build one`s ability to resist stereotyping and generalizing. Don`t stoop. That would be `their` victory.

re. RSaxena

``And Patricia M, feel free to join [ylh].``

You poor, poor thing! No wonder you don`t run to your Mummi like you claim ylh does. Gee she must have been really really nasty with with you in your (early) childhood for you to have an opinion of womanhood that lends itself, in your eyes, to sarcasm.

And another thing... you used to be half funny. What happened?

Oh lordy lordy lordy....who put the fire on ylh`s behind?

7 posts in response to continued humiliation? First, ``no such line exists in WSJ article.`` MaheshG posts it. Sting. Then, ``WSJ is blah blah blah.`` I post CNN link. Sting. Then, to light fire to the stinging feeling comes shrinker with his BBC post.

``He works on the Wall street as a street vendor selling fruit.``

Maybe in the Pakistani feudal culture you come from, that is something to be looked down upon, but in the civilized world there is nothing wrong in earning an honest dollar.

Chandra #86 Thank you, sir.

Shankar,

In the final assessment heroics do matter... ever see `Tin Cup` starring Kevin Costner and Don Johnson?

If heroics didnt matter woud Tipu Sultan be a famous hero... after all, Tipu Sultan didnt win any wars especially by your standards.

-YLH

Rkr372

This was a fun read but became increasingly more difficult to digest. The assertions in this work, the singular ideological thrust of moral superiority, made me uneasy.

The introduction of your paper is suggests a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the points you seek to make. While the advent of democracies was and remains important, the event of fundamental import was the slow development of a capitalist class and the capitulation of the mercantilist. It is this chain of events that is the practical foundation of democracies. Examine any authoritarian system, and you will see that significant numbers of the subject population do not enjoy any manner of ownership. Would Democracies have any advent to speak of were it not for the defeat of mercantilism? The development of truly global markets, plundered resources and labor?

In overlooking this aspect of analysis and historicity, you are not convincing in some of the other assertions that follow:



1. To assert or deny the idealism that was the constant companion of American founders is not at issue. What were the practical foundations of that idealism? are persons struggling for mere survival, good candidates as intellectual engines socio-economic-political change? The issue is economics. Founders and their financial backers raised the slogan of “No taxation…” While liberty was certainly important, more telling of the nature of the American revolutionary movement, is the emphasis on the crush of taxation and the continued importance of the international molasses trade, of the crown wanted a greater share. Slavery, within its context, was a significant economy in itself and as for the abolition of Slavery being cause of the civil war, well, that’s plain self-serving. None can deny that the abolitionist movement was primarily inspired by religious and moral ethic. Yet the industrialization of the North and the dramatic global demand for cotton and textiles, and invention of mechanization and industrialization of agricultural processes, posed a tremendous challenge to the economy of the South and in particular to it’s elite. This elite, conscious of the challenge, yet unwilling to incur the loss of cheap labor and the cost of investment, choose an obstinate and vindictive course. To view this conflict as struggle between the global sweep of the power of markets and the economy of industrialization and between an elite and a culture unwilling to cultivate it’s interest in this coming change. Jack Weatherford, in his work, “Indian Givers” argues convincingly that by the time of the Civil war, Slavery had become a net loss maker for the South.

Thus, from the beginning, the American freedom struggle was as much about liberty to pursue the economic interests without the crush of taxation and unreasonable mercantile policies of the Crown. Liberty as an economic, social and political, even religious value was poised to deliver and mercantilism was in retreat in the face of new economic class, arguing the cause of a Liberal orientation in the corridor of English power. To posit a naïve and innocent coat for the American polity is to invite unreason. Recall that the ideals of America are deeply entwined with notions of trade, markets, prosperity, and the liberty to purse these interests.

“To what extent should the foreign policy of a Democracy reflect its ideals as opposed to its hard headed practical interests?”

Too broad! after all “a Democracy” is bound in time and space and the limits of compulsion and coercive power it can exercise. However, Ok – withdrawn for a general argument’s sake. Yet, is human nature different in a Democracy? Are national interests different in a Democracy, from an authoritarian state? But I suspect your argument is not one of determining or pursuing practical national interests, but is more in line of an ideological discourse, as your choices of historical facts you present and those you chose not to call upon, suggests a discussion of exactly what structures and functions of a Democracy are similar and dissimilar and what we have chosen to call a “Democracy”, actually refers to. Certainly, the size and distribution of the elite cannot serve to distinguish between a “Democracy” and “societies governed by a small groups of elite”, a small elite or a larger elite may both be representative, perhaps we may seek succor in differentiating between the degrees of choice and representation. But, OK lets examine how the formation and execution of foreign policy may differ amongst these. Now the unexamined assertions of an unexamined ideology:

Democracies do not go to war with each other, owing to the fact that a brad based polity understands that it`’ sons and daughters will do the fighting and suffering. Prompting: Democracies go to war with authoritarian societies, because broad based polities understand that it’s son and daughters will do the fighting and suffering or better still, broad based polities (read democracies) go to war with authoritarian societies because the fathers, mothers, son and daughters, in those societies do not understand that they will do the fighting and the suffering.

But for a conscience…

“Consider the question of injustice. For the elite at the top of an authoritarian society, almost by definition: it’s not their problem. Often it is, in fact, their doing.” Indeed! Shall be then expect to see the undersecretary, congressman and the rich, in fatigues, headed tot he front?

“ …separation and isolation that characterize the lives of these elite does what separation and isolation often are seen to do – open the door to evil. In a broad polity the experience has been that our human ability to empathize with others is not suppressed. It remains active.”

This perhaps explains the obscenity of dropping food to the starving, while bombing the @#$% out of them. Who says compassion does not move mountains? Who dare argue the morality and the sanity of the richest in the world asking their children to donate a Dollar for their victims, even as the richest in world spend #30 million Dollars an hour, justifying the notion that to smoke out some rats from your house, “Dolce et Decorum EST” to cause you to be dispossessed and your home destroyed. Who would dare, whom amongst us? Would question political motivations or economic compulsions? Who questions the righteousness of the broad based, the rich and above all, the militarily powerful?

For broad based polities did deliberate much, argued the merits of evidence much, argued amongst each much as to who was first to offer support in a war, the culprit having been identified within the first few hours of the atrocity, by the investigative agencies of the state, indeed media have a point of view and the broad based polity was a right to embrace the passions in which sons of and daughters must sacrifice, who will deny “Democracies, in both domestic and foreign matters, will tend to move slowly and with deliberation (barring the obvious exigencies of crisis.)” Obviously! Reason has become a crisis.

“ Foreign policy for Democracies.

To sum up.

1 – Despite presenting volatile, brilliant surfaces (highlighted by their media), democracies tend to move relatively slowly, with deliberation. Consensus takes time. “ Do you mean consensus among the elite?

“2 – European and American societies have used Real Politik as their “default option” for a long while. Besides its inevitable appeal to hardheaded common sense, it possesses a cachet of success in our experience that provides a momentum in favor of its continued use. [I would be inclined to observe, however, that anything that broke down so spectacularly with WWI and followed it up with WWII might not deserve an uncritical acceptance.] “ Cachet of success”, to what specifically are you referring? Riots and demonstrations from Africa to South East Asia?

“3 – Democracies, governed from a broad base, tend to retain a deep bias in favor of societal arrangements in harmony with our instincts for a principled and just society, although one to be approached pragmatically”. Listen carefully, “Principled and just society” is not an instinct. An instinct is a biological imperative to further survival. “Principled and just society” is a moral and legal construct. I love where your heart is, but where your head is, I’m not too sure.

More unexamined ideology: “First it must reflect such standards and values as those societies hold dear internally. Second, it should not envision any rapid instantaneous implementation, but rather a slow, deliberate, incremental one. Consensus everywhere takes time. Third, what emerges should be seen as a general direction to be followed, a pole star, not as a rigid recipe to be implemented in lockstep. Fourth, the recourse to violence must be seen as a last resort – we cannot escape the very hard reality that there is now a capacity to do far too much damage with far too little effort. In the modern world, the recourse to violence takes on the aspects of striking matches in a dynamite factory” So what again is the essential difference between your prescription and “workers of the world unite!” or Taliban arguing that they reflect their tribal understanding? “Consensus takes time”, again – just how much time did it take to launch this “broad based polity” in to war, against persons who do not possess the ability to fight back or vaporize this nation? If the evidence on which this war is justified, is so strong, how come none of the “broad”, in the broad-based polity, have yet to see any of it? I know, secrets – but then what happened to broad….?

“We must approach this not confrontational, but collegially, working with, and not against, one another” And if our interest should conflict?

“And yes, in the end, we must be prepared to employ violence (there remain the Hitlers, the Milosovichs, the Sadaam Husseins, and the tribal furies of Rwanda), but it must be the last option; and it should rarely, if ever, be the fiat of a single power, but rather the considered action of a cooperativity”. State Terrorism is a mechanism employed by states after reason has failed and “be the fiat of a single power”, well I’m glad not all hard head headed common sense, has opted for vacancy.

“It would have been interesting indeed to have seen what would have happened if the Palestinian response to Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount had been a campaign of massive non-violent protest”. Would it not be useful to examine why Sharon chose this provocation? And would it not be interesting to examine Mr. Barak’s motives, in not preventing or delaying Sharon’s trip, but also assigning him 1000-armed policemen? Playing with cheap lives may well be interesting. ”Remember that Barak had put on the table far more than any Israeli government had ever dared before..” look at this statement, tell me if it is untrue: “Remember that Arafat went further with Barak, than any Palestinian, ever (and was being excoriated in highly vocal Palestinian circles)

Listen, I just can’t bear any more and feel I must set you straight. I sincerely say to you that I appreciate your heart. And equally sincerely tell you that is work has some major holes in it. The challenge before the foreign policy of “broadly based polities” is as follows:

Foreign policy and it’s intellectual basis, other than those defined as naked self interests, are a reflection of the intellectual trends that occupy the minds of the concerned and the active There is no tripe such as a broadly based polity anymore. The scopes of interest are of such proportions and complexity, that the name of the game is interest group based politics. Who has more say about the kind of health insure and care you may receive? You or a bunch of lobbyist for HMO’s? Who has more influence in forming Mideast policy, the well-established Zionist or Palestinian or Arab Americans? What does the evidence tell you? Is it a fair statement that out of a adult population of 70 to 90 million, their conscience is not moved seeing peoples mistreated and under military occupation? The answer is that it does not by and large interest them and those who are interested, largely, know the Palestinians as the Philistines. Face that if you can. There is a hardheaded quality to it, but it also happens to be reality.

Besides the role of interest group politics, the prevalent ideology of civilizational order (the understanding and elucidation of which you had such a hash) is premised not on any idealism but an ideology that seeks confrontation and enmity. It seeks confrontation and enmity by a self-righteous promotion of its values, it’s standards, it’s ideology, and it’s vision of how the world should be ordered. It does this because it is convinced that it is better than any other is. As if other cultures, societies and civilization did not have an equal right to the promotion of their values, their standards, their ideology and vision. This arrogance of military and economic power is reflected in the intolerant, pluralism negating, disrespect American public opinion hold for any structure that does not reflect it’s values and standards. Until Americans do not begin to question the morality of their ideology of rejection of that which does not reflect it, count on trouble.

See, morality is not the ambition of a concert of Democracies; their agenda is the integration of economies and the differentiation of markets. It is the modern day equivalent of the pope dividing the world between the Spanish and the Portuguese.

If you seek to incorporate morality in foreign policy and to ensure it is a universally accepted conception of morality, I suggest a start may be in domestic policies. And if, like me, you are the romantic, that I suspect you are, I am sure you would agree that policy’s appeal in the same manner as the addressing of conflicting interests are restructured as shared benefits. After all, do beautiful flowers not reflect strong roots and a conscientious and judicious gardener? If policies can be compared to beautiful flowers and a conscietnous and judicious gardener to intellectual principles, can it be said that the philosophy of projecting values unacceptable to others has been a success?

PS :

Rsidhar ji

The figures that I stated were not my own , they were stated by Joey Chan of CNN. By the way your assertion `India will never let the world know the number of its nukes` just goes to show that you are completely unaware of Military affairs.

A deterrent is only an efficient deterrent if the enemy knows about it. While you can claim that India is hiding the number of its conventional weapons (which are already 2 to 1 to that of Pakistan), the Nuclear weapons are a different story.

If India had more than 10 nukes, India would be jumping up and down and telling Pakistan that. Unless ofcourse India considers the Nuclear weapons more than a `deterrent` and plans on using them on Pakistan ... but even then one would imagine that a deterrent would be necessary to counter China. If that is the case it goes to show what kind of Nazi inhumane mentality the Indian State operates on!

In response to Rdesikan`s nonsense and Shankar`s ultimate proof the BBC link...

I ask everyone whose analysis would they rather accept:

General Charles Horner or NYT`s staff writer?

General Chuck Yeager or Daniel Lak of BBC?

Jane`s Defence Weekly or Wall Street Journal?

Mj G Donald Shephard or Indian Army`s Chief?

Whatever you wish to believe, believe.. the truth will remain the truth, no matter how many one liners a Dehli Based correspondent operating in an entirely Indian frame of reference might come up with.

One can admit 1971 to be a loss for Pakistan. Undoubtedly we lost since we were fighting against an oppressed people and were outnumbered against an enemy taking advantage of our own mistakes. But

instead of quoting Daniel Lak of BBC, or Tom Dick Harry of Wall Street Journal, can we atleast talk on facts and figures for the 1965 war?

Pakistan doesnot claim victory for the 1965 war. We claim that we defended and repulsed an Indian Attack much greater in number. Furthermore it is an accepted fact (read John Fricker`s Battle for Pakistan) that our Air Force blew the Indian Air Force out of the sky. Pakistan also skillfully demonstrated Ground-Air coordination especially in the matters of Air Support. We also wiped out the Indian Tank brigade.

22 days and a numerically superior Indian army moved 4 miles on the Lahore front, and 3 miles on Sialkot front losing as many as 5000 personnel while Pakistanis lost 3200.

I can only talk on facts and figures ... I acknowledge that the greater numerical advantage of Indians given 10 to 1, journals and articles probably will be tainted with Pro-Indian Bias... but facts shall be facts!

-YLH

` ``Win`` in a war means achieving the objectives in the war. Glorifying heroics in battle means squat, if the objectives are not met.`

Ofcourse if `objectives` include killing civilians and goats... then Indian Army is the best army in the World. Bravo.

{PM: re. RSuxena Reply #: 645

[Re: PM ....You were definitely more interesting writing about homosexuality. Stick with topics you know well.]

I`d ask you to follow your principle of post-only-when-in-the-know,but then, we`d all miss you too much on chowk. :)}

Well said sir. Seems like a Pakistani is only a good Pakistani until he tolerating Rsaxena`s Bakwas. When he strays from that, regardless of religion caste or creed, He becomes an Islamic fundamentalist. So how are you enjoying yourself in our exclusive fraternity of `Islamic fundamentalists`?

As for Rsaxena, it is quite clear that he is not very well read, or possesses any extraordinary intelligence... he cracks rather long and unfunny jokes mistaking them for satire ... Hopeless as he is, he is perhaps reflective of the vast Indian Education system which is creating diligent drudges of mediocre intelligence fit only to ruttafy computer programmes, and a country which uses Pakistan as a convenient scapegoat for all the domestic problems that they face. According to unconfirmed reports, Mr Saxena isnt even that. He works on the Wall street as a street vendor selling fruit.

Shammi,

I attended to UCL (Bloomfield Hall Project) upto 8th grade. In 7th grade Rubina Saigol taught us History ... it was some 2 part Longman Book .... very nice illustrations.... I think I still have my Summer Project on Julius Caesar which I did for that class (We had Jan-Dec year).

She was a strict disciplinarian though. Very strict. So I think we attempted on more than one occasion to puncture the tires of her car... though I think we aborted the mission because some stupid girl squeeled.

-YLH

Case in point:

`Dude, you keep getting your behind whacked on this board, again and again and again....

... `

Is there no cure for the `Saddam Hussain Syndrome`?

This disease seems common place in India especially when it comes to certain freaks currently residing in New York City.

Rsaxena,

Where the hell in your delusional little bhoosa bhara mind did you get the idea that I dont like Wall Street Journal? If I didnt like the wall street journal, why the hell would I be subscribing to it? Have you got no other argument except twisting my words and lying about me? When did WSJ become the Gospel of truth on Military Matters?



Unlike naive little minds like Rsaxena, Akash, Gowardhan etc with their simplistic `Oscam`s Razor` theories , I know what to take with a pinch of salt ... Isnt it ironic that one article or newsreport (and remember Articles and newsreports are always indicative of the reporter`s understanding of the issue, and not the reflection of the truth) has suddenly become the Gospel of the truth.

Generals after Generals of US armed forces, military analysts and historians of Jane`s Defence weekly can go on for years about the Pakistani Armed forces and its skill, but when it comes to Mr Rsaxena, if an opinionated writer writes a piece in a Newspaper without going into the semantics of this claim, Rsaxena will have you know that Indian Army is the greatest army in the World.

Well I agree... if killing innocent civilians, especially harmless women, and killing cute little goats and shelling Villages across the LOC is VICTORY, then India has not won 3 victories but millions! I shudder to think that if 1965 War was a victory for the Indian Army, what defeat will look like.

Let us face the ugly truth. There are enough bigoted Indians rampant in the Media in the West to color the judgement of these otherwise sane writers... after all Pakistanis are outnumbered 10 to 1... the recent poll about Pakistan in the WSJ is a clear example of this, when Indians marched on to the poll to lie shamelessly about Pakistan.

Honestly if I was a neutral uninformed visitor, I would probably think Pakistan is hell on earth reading the Indians lies and bigotry.

But fact remains... somewhere despite the attempts of Indians to place curtains on it, the truth shines brilliantly and beautifuly... and hatemongers and liars are blinded by its glory....

In the meantime, Pakistan-obsessed Indians like Rsaxena, Gowardhan, Harimau, Jay, Sadna, etc can go and shove something up their rearsides...