Enough is Enough

soundmeister,

{{I lost some respect for you when you failed to reply to my last post, but after reading this last monstrosity of yours, I`m more convinced than ever that you`re a wuss, a loser, a pathetic excuse for a human being who will never take any pride in what he does and spend his life with his hands in other people`s sh1t.}}

Sigh...I guess you are relatively new to Chowk. This business about what people think of me--I`ve explained several times in the past; so its getting BORING. But I guess I have to do it time & again--because ALAS; extremist Indian sh *theads like you pop your ugly heads over & over again on Chowk. I thought that maybe if I just smirk & ignore mofos like you, you will disappear--but no; you post over & over again about how much you hate me--like an annoying mosquito, buzzing in my ear.

Besides; now you`ve gone & pissed off anNY & then have the balls to talk to her in a patronising, condescending manner. BIG MISTAKE pal. I pity you now:) Chowk vetrans have learnt this the hard way--NEVER EVER get these Pakistani shernis mad at you! They`ll eat you for lunch! They are more khatarnak than their ``world famous`` military!

My good friend Saxena is too proud to admit it; but he has plenty of scars to show for it. Its a good thing that his balls have the same qualities as shark`s teeth. They`ve been chopped off several times by these shernis. Yes, he sprouts new ones everytime they get lopped off. But I know it hurts him, like crazy. Heck, he scurried into a rathole when one of them blew her stack. He absolutely REFUSES to get into a fight with another, eventhough she baits him . Then he cries that he`s being stalked by her!

So, if anNy is in my corner; a wus like me becomes INVINCIBLE!:)

OK, seriously, (sigh.. this sounds like a frikking broken record).. I feel VERY VERY good when a guy like you loses respect for me. In fact, I`m happy you`ve now lost respect for me COMPLETELY; rather than just a little bit. It proves to me that I`m on the right track when extremists (esp Indian extremists) hate what I say. As far as I`m concerned, guys like you are much more dangerous for India than any of those Paki fundos.

Hey, I got no problem if Indians are angry at Pakistani jehadis for the attack on the parliament or the low intensity war they are conducting in Kashmir. I am too. I also feel that the GoP is responsible (directly or indirectly) for this crap. Personally, I dont feel Mushy knew about this attack. I dont care much for his anti-indian stance--but he`s not an idiot. He`s probably the most astute Pakistani leader that they have produced--in my lifetime, at least.

But that does`nt mean India is this innocent victim of terror & her hands are clean. In that respect, I COMPLETELY agree with Romair--right is right & wrong is wrong. What India has done in Kashmir is something I`m ashamed of--Pakistan or no Pakistan. Just because GoP is wrong, does`nt automatically mean that the GoI is RIGHT! What we disagree, probably, is the WAY each country is going about correcting those wrongs.

That, I feel is the MAIN reason why the rest of the world is assiduously neutral. I think both moderate Indians & Pakistanis agree that India & Pakistan are 2 fleas fighting for the same dog.

What I cant STAND about extremists like you & chandan is that your testesterone has corroded your brain cells. You want to settle this, once & for all, in a war. If I misunderstand you, I apologise, in advance.

Just use whats left in your brain cells for a minute. Romair may disagree with me, but its true India has not lost a conventional war with Pakistan. But their military isnt a pushover. Even in a conventional war, India wont be able to just walk into Pakistan. I`m sure even someone as stupid as you will agree that the Indo-Pak military disparity isnt as great as the US & her allies faced in the Gulf war. Pakistan will give us as good as they can get. Besides an attacking military is always at a disadvantage & generally takes a lot more casualties.

So, what the HELL will India win; even if it ``prevails`` ultimately in a conventional war (not to mention with horrendous casualties)? ``Stamping out the Pakistani fundos`` is just as fuzzy an objective as the US had in Vietnam (stamping out Communist fundos). Even if the Indian army, battered & bloody (though ``victorious``) raises the Indian flag in Islamabad or Azad Kashmir; they will have to continue to fight until almost every Pakistani civilian is murdered by them. Even you cant believe its a realistic objective!

And thats just a conventional war. I dont want to even BEGIN to think of the ramifications of a NUCLEAR war!

The days of Indo-Pak military ``wars`` are OVER; at least rational people on BOTH sides should ACCEPT that its over. There`s got to be a better way to score ``brownie points`` over the other side than mass military mobilisations.

Inshallah, this current crisis seems to be winding down. But, I`m afraid this is going to happen again & again. All it requires a few extremists in either military to ``settle this one way or another``. Once the ball starts rolling, NOBODY will be able to stop it.

If saying ``Enough is Enough`` is being a wus--I`m PROUD to be a wus. I wish you could look at my face; to see if I really CARE what ch---, I mean dickheads, like you think of me..

hobbytv,

{{Yet, none of this means that kashmirs freedom from India is a non issue. Kashmir will be free of India, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then the day after - there is an inevitablity to this process. kashmir will never again a trouble free area for India - while Pakistani failure to highlight kashmir as a moral cause is accepted, what will follow, is the indian and global acceptance of Indian failure in Kashmir; a psychologically event, not without larger consequences.}}

Cant argue with you ,when you put it like that. Go ahead Indian mofos; give me all the gaalis you want--I`ll kiss up to Pakistani statements like that. You got a problem with that?; kiss my butt...

Romair,

{{I have criticised Pakistan far more than I have criticised any other country.}}

Ummm...Ok; maybe except for India..



{{And I make my arguments on the basis of principles. I never change those principles, even it makes Pakistan a culprit.}}

Sorry; I disagree. You have supported Pakistan`s ``low intensity war``; ``war of a 1000 cuts``, ``they are not terrorists; they are freedom fighters``, ``they only target military, not innocent civilians`` & other assorted bs.

Please dont dare me to show which posts you have done that (with righteous indignation, to boot). I dont have the time or the patience to hunt them down. If I have misunderstood you, I apologise.

{{You can doubt my principle, but you cannot doubt my consistency.}}

``Morality`` is NOT consistent with ``pragmatism``. If you are comfortable with BOTH points of view, you are just as hypocritical as the rest of us.

We can judge a human being, country, idea or policy either from a moral/idealistic standpoint or a realistic/pragmatic standpoint.

Eg; The US bombing of Afghanistan is WRONG from a moral/idealistic standpoint; but RIGHT from a realistic/pragmatic standpoint.

Pick either/or--if you pick BOTH when & where it SUITS your spin; its hypoCRISY & INCONSISTENT. IMHO, you have, over the last couple of years--so join my club:)--cos so have I.

Let me tell you some examples of TOTALLY consistent guys---Urstruly & Jay! I can call them a lot of names; but I guess I cant call them hypocrites & inconsistent:)



{{What I have found is that nearly all Indians switch their principle when India is the agressor, from when India is the oppressed. This is unfortunate. Many Pakistanis do the same, and that is wrong also. However, if you look at the comments on this site, and in Pakistan, you will find that nearly all Pakistanis of the currrent generation, accept the existence of India (while many Indians doubt Pakistan`s existence) and they accept Pakistan`s faults in Bangladesh (not at the level many Bangladeshis claim, but Pakistanis do consider Pakistan the guilty party). This is a sign of an evolving society, more so than elections. Indians seem to be completely in a state of denial on Kashmir, however, i.e. Indians and Bangladeshis deserved self-determination, but Pakistanis and Kashmiris do not.}}

Agreed; for the most part. Please do not judge your opinions of Indians based on Chowk India only. India is a vast & heterogenous country. I agree with you that there is no shortage of idiotic Indians on Chowk. I guess its obvious by how they spit at me:)

{{With regard to international issues, specifically Kashmir, I have always stated that I don`t care what Pakistan or India get out of the deal. I have never stated that Pakistan is not at fault. .}}

Fortunately or unfortunately, you are NOT the official voice of the GoP. Personally, I think India & Pakistan would be better friends, if you were. Vajpayee said ``if Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism, India would walk more than half way to meet them``--if you believe him that is..

He did go to Lahore, you know, with the best of intentions. Whatever spin you want to put on Kargil, it was a backstab--pure & simple. Then Pakistanis call Indians bagal-mein-churi!.. So arresting the jehadis is a step in the right direction. But it will, alas, take more time for Indians to trust Pakistanis.

{{I do however, know for a fact, that nearly all Pakistanis sincerely feel for the Kashmiris, and for their lives. This is not a facade. They just want self-determination for Kashmiris. This could result in Kashmir joining India. That would be perfectly acceptable by me}}

I know it would be perfectly acceptable to you. Whether it will be perfectly acceptable to most Pakistanis--is debatable; but I`ll take youre word for it:)

I do know for a fact that Indians dont hate Kashmiris-muslims or otherwise. Nothing would please them more if they agitated their grievences through a democratic process & satyagraha. This is not a facade...Kashmir has a deep & powerful cultural & religious significance for many many Indians. My own ancestors, Saraswat Brahmins originated from Kashmir, before they migrated to Karnatak. My original ancestral temples & some of our holiest shrines are in Kashmir. So losing Kashmir, would be like losing a part of my own identity.

Its a moot issue, though. Kashmir is the ONLY state in India where a non-Kashmiri isnt allowed to buy land or set up permanent residence. And that includes Indians whose ancestors originated from Kashmir. Nobody wants to visit it when there is a guerella war going on. Thousands of Kashmiris, whose livelihoods depended on tourism are now starving. Those who openly support India (there may be about 5-10 of them:)) are too scared of the radicals to open their mouths. Kashmiris shot themselves in the foot by this insurgency & just about committed suicide when the more radical ones looked to Pakistan for support.

Be that as it may, I`d rather see it independant than destroyed like this..

{{Amnesty International is a very powerful organiztion. If it makes one statement against the US, the US govt. takes action. It is an extremely credible organization, also. That is why it is banned in Kashmir. The Indian Law Minister stated himself on CNN that 61,000 civilians have been killed in Kashmir. He blamed the killings on Pakistani terrorists. If that is the case, then Pakistan should is to blame. If they were killed by India, then India should face the blame. However, we need neutral organizations to decide that, like AI.}}

Agreed.

One last thing. Please dont say you are not an EXPERT on China. You dont have to be an ``expert`` to know what China has done in Tibet or what kind of human rights abuses are going on there. I REFUSE to believe that an intelligent guy like you is so ignorant.

Besides ``experts`` are anything BUT neutral. Even your beloved Eric Margolis. Analysts--military, political, foreign policy etc etc are NOT neutral. Each one uses their own bias when making a point. Cos these are not exact sciences like math or physics.

So you RIGHT when you support Pakistan strenghtening relations with China on a pragmatic/realistic basis; & you are WRONG to do so if you want to champion the human right for freedom on a moral/idealistic basis---thats the inconsistency I`m talking about.. If you want to champion the rights of Kashmiris; you`d BETTER criticise Pakistan`s backing of China. Otherwise.. you are a --------.

shankar #95: There seems to be some confusion in your mind, on where I stand on various issues. This confusion could be due to a lack of explanation on my part, or because you are making assumptions. I clarified some of this in my previous reply. Here is my stance on the other issues you have highlighted:

``Ummm...Ok; maybe except for India..``

I have only criticised India on two issues: 1) Its handling of Kashmir (even there I have pointed out that if Kashmir is opened up to human rights organizations, and I am proven wrong, then I would accept that India was correct). 2) The massive arms race which India is a carrying out in South Asia, including the nuclear arms race. The whole world, through the UN, supports the above two points.

On the other hand I have criticised Pakistan and its leaderships on all kinds of issues, i.e. economics, politics, military, Kashmir, education, corruption, feudalism, etc. My criticism of India is only on issues with effect Pakistan. Apart from that, what difference does it make to me what India does inside India. I don`t live there.

``You have supported Pakistan`s ``low intensity war``; ``war of a 1000 cuts``, ``they are not terrorists; they are freedom fighters``, ``they only target military, not innocent civilians`` & other assorted bs.``

You are again making incorrect statements. My stance is as follows:

- AI and other human rights organizations, including the international press, should be allowed into Kashmir (both Indian Kashmir and Pakistani) and present a clear picture of the situation.

- All the freedom fighers and the Indian military should vacate Kashmir, and a UN force should be delpoyed like Afghanistan.

- A plebescite should be held, and results should be accepted by all.

Could you point out exactly where in this is the word, ``violence.`` I only support in Kashmir, what the Kashmiris want. If they want Pakistan`s help, then they should get it. If they don`t, then Pakistan should stay out.

If India is unwilling to allow self-determination for fifty years, then I think people have a right to forcefully get rid of their occupiers, if they want to. If your neighbor occupies your house and family, and won`t leave, then you have a right to fight him. The moment India agrees to a plebescite all violence will automatically stop. After all, there are always many times more freedom fighters that get killed than the occupying soldiers.

In every single freedom struggle in the world, there are terrorist acts (far far more by the occupying forces, by the way). It is inevitable. These acts should definitely be considered terrorism, and the terrorists should be tried. However these acts by themselves do no take away the legtimicy of the freedom struggle. I have a friend whose whole family was killed by Mukti Bahni. Does that mean Bangladesh should not be independent?

I have always stated anyone who targest civilians is a terrorist, while anyone who targets an occupying army is a freedom fighter. This is the defintion given by Amnesty International also (did you know that the founder of Amnesty International, Mr. Sean McBride (the only man ever to win the Noble Peace Prize and the Lenin Peace Prize) was a former chief of staff of the nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA)).

On the other hand, I hope you are not suggesting that India has a right to occupy Kashmir, violate the UN resolutions for fifty years (not to mention, violate the basic human rights of Kashmiris), and then also has the right to tell the local population to not fight back. If China attempted to, or actually did, occupy India, would Indians be in thier right to fight China? If yes, then if India occupies someone, don`t they have a right to fight?

``Please dont dare me to show which posts you have done that (with righteous indignation, to boot). I dont have the time or the patience to hunt them down. ``

If you have time to make an accusation, then you should have time to provide the proof. Otherwise, what is the point of making an accusation? How do you expect me to make a counterpoint? This seems to be what the BJP has done. Accusations, without proof, are about to lead South Asia into a nuclear war. It is not a very productive and practical way to argue a point.

````Morality`` is NOT consistent with ``pragmatism``. This only occurs when vested interests are involved. It is true and unfortunate. The world would be a much better and fairer place, if morality was always consistent with pragmatism. But our efforts should be to bring it as close to pragmatism, as possible. Not to move it furthur away.

``If you are comfortable with BOTH points of view, you are just as hypocritical as the rest of us.``

I am not comofortable with both. But I do hope that pragmatism should be based on moral principles, and I would like to struggle for it. I did state in my reply however that, ``I do so on a morality basis, and then on a practicality basis.`` This means I first look at morality and then at pragmatism.

I maybe as hypocritical as anyone, on many issues. But I lay out everything on the table, and base my views on a constant principle.

``We can judge a human being, country, idea or policy either from a moral/idealistic standpoint or a realistic/pragmatic standpoint.

Eg; The US bombing of Afghanistan is WRONG from a moral/idealistic standpoint; but RIGHT from a realistic/pragmatic standpoint.``

We should always look at everything from a moral view first. And try to base our pragmatic solutions as close to morality, as possible. This is not a zero sum gum. Infact the most successful domestic societies (like USA) are the ones where pragmatism is based on moralism. Unfortunately, very few countries (apart from Canada) follow these principles in foreign policy. Moralism will always lead to a better standard of living, than immoral pragmatism. If one just relies on pragmatism, then why not kill all the poor people in India and Pakistan. Pragmatically speaking, it is the easiest way of getting rid of poverty? Why have Social Security in the US? Just let the old folks die.

It is this sensitivity to moral issues vs. pragmatism which separtes humans from animals. Animals look at everything pragmatically. They eat their young if they can or have to. It is the survival of the fittest. But humans look beyond mere pragmatism, and attempt to look at morality. This is what makes us human, after all. It is only when we give into pragmatism over moralism that we start becoming inhumane. This should never be accpted as the status quo. Is Gandhi famous because of his moralism or his pragmatism? Is Mandela respected because he was pragmatic or moralistic? Is it pragmatic to stay locked up for 21 years. Or to take actions that get one assisinated by the RSS? No. But it is moral.

The US getting rid of the Taliban was moral, in my view. So it was not wrong. Although I do wish the US had exhausted all legal avenues first. However, the military strategy used by the US to get rid of the Taliban, (through massive high altitude bombing) was not moral. To not risk one American pilot`s life, it was willing to let stray bombs (due to high altitude) kill hundreds of innocent non-combatant Afghans.

``Pick either/or--if you pick BOTH when & where it SUITS your spin; its hypoCRISY & INCONSISTENT``

I have already picked, in my last reply. And I picked morality first, and pragmatism second. For example, I feel morally Kashmir should be free. Morally, I hope and feel that all the Indians in my office feel that way also. But I have a feeling that many of them don`t feel this way. It would be pragmatic for me to change my stance, and agree with them (since even though all of them are my subordinates, there are seven or eight of them and one of me). This may make me more popular with them. Who knows, it may even lead to higher productivity in my group. But I will stick with my moral stance. After that, I will be pragmatic, and will continue to work with my Indian colleagues, eat with them, socialize with them, and have a friendship. If they were to attack me, because I am a Kashmiri, then I will fight them back. But apart from that, I should not stop being friendly with them. Nor should I change my moral stance.

``Please do not judge your opinions of Indians based on Chowk India only. India is a vast & heterogenous country.``

I have met far too many Indians. So I do know their are many differnt types of Indians. And many on Chowk are quite balanced also. As I stated, on a day to day basis, it is quite possible I interact with more Indians than you do. And I have regularly stated, I feel India has a more educated and sophisticated population than Pakistan. Infact, the core of the educated Pakistani population are the descendants of Muslims who migrated from India (Muhajirs). India also has a higher intellectual discourse in its society. However, due to perhaps the BJP, and due to the acceptance of the influx of the Indian media, and due to the newborn openness of press, media, and thought in Pakistan (lead by Chief Muhajir Musharraf), Pakistan seems to be moving ahead of India in balanced views and introspection now, in my opinion. India seems to be really moving backwards in this area, by leaps and bounds. It is becoming too self-righteous (like Pakistan used to be). This is going to be the achilles heal of India, vis a vis Pakistan, in my opinion.

``I agree with you that there is no shortage of idiotic Indians on Chowk.``

Being an idiot is a relative term. One person`s idiot is another person`s leader. You only get attacked by Indians, and are respected by Pakistanis on Chowk. Much like SameerJB is respected by Indians and attacked by Pakistanis. I get attacked by both Indians and Pakistanis, on a regular basis. Even little Scout is after me, now :-)

My personal opinion on Chowk Indians is they, like most Indians, are intelligent, and want to learn about Pakistan. Otherwise, why would they waste their time on a Pakistani website (only a small minority are on here to just spread hate). However, when it comes to Kashmir (and Indo-Pak conflicts) most of them discard logic and obvious facts. If these people can convince me logically, then I am more than happy to admit they are right.

``Vajpayee said ``if Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism, India would walk more than half way to meet them``--if you believe him that is..``

I have been openly stating for a long time that I like and respect Vajpayee. You will rarely, if ever, see me making any statements against him. I think he and Musharraf have the Kashmir situation solved between them (seriously). And it is as follows: POK to Pakistan. Ladakh and Jammu to India. Valley (only 2100 sq. miles) independent. Vajpayee is having a tough time selling it to Advani and co. That is what frustrates me. Because, this is the best leadership India and Pakistan will have to solve this issue. Once Vajpayees goes, it is all downhill. Hopefully Musharraf will be around, because BB and NS will back off, if anyone in Pakistan threatens them. If Vajpayee today states that, India is willing to, in some form or manner, allow self-determination in Kashmir, I think all violent freedom struggles in Kashmir should stop. It will, infact, automatically stop.

You also need to keep in mind that the main thrust, by far, of the Kashmiri freedom struggle is indigenous, amongst the millions of Kashmiris. The people who come in from Pakistan only augment the struggle. They cannot the main struggle. Regardles of what the Indian media says, they are only a few hundred in number (if that many), at any one time. After all, it is not easy to get past 500,000+ soldiers gaurding a border. And not all of them are Jehadis. Many of them are technocrat Kashmiris from all over the world. I know professional banker(s), engineer(s) etc. who have gone in and fought in Kashmir. Well-off educated and wealthy Kashmiris want freedom also. There is a Kashmiri in the UK House of Lords. There are American Kashmiri CEO(s) who want freedom for Kashmir.

``Whatever spin you want to put on Kargil, it was a backstab--pure & simple.``

I think you skip through part of my replies :-) Ever since Kargil was started, I have been stating it was a wrong action by Pakistan (even though it was a counter to India`s initial action in Siachen, which is still going on, but gets zero coverage in the Indian press). I have always stated that it is ridiculous for India or Pakistan to launch military attacks against each other. They have never worked for either side. Siachen costs India, I believe, .5 million dollars a day. It should be stopped. The current Indian military buildup should be stopped. Kargil was wrong. Pakistan`s actions in Kashmir in 65 were wrong. India attacking Pakistan in 71 were wrong. Bangladeshis should have been allowed a plebescite based independence (even though it was not required by the UN, and even though East Pakistan was not disputed territory). And Kashmiris should be allowed a plebescite (this is required by the UN, and Kashmir is a disputed territory).

``Whether it will be perfectly acceptable to most Pakistanis``

It makes no difference whether it would be acceptable to most Pakistanis. Pakistanis would have no argument left, after a plebescite.

``do know for a fact that Indians dont hate Kashmiris``

I hope they don`t. The ultimate test of love is to let someone go, if that is their wish. Otherwise it is not love, it is obsession. That is why men stalk women who have divorced them. Here is my suggestion to the Indians,

``If you love Kashmir, set it free. If it comes

back to you, it is yours... If it doesn`t, it was never meant to be.``

``Kashmiris shot themselves in the foot by this insurgency``

This could be right or wrong. But this is a decision to be made by the Kashmiris, not by you. Wouldn`t you agree? The Kashmiris did wait patiently for forty years, before the militarism started. I don`t know of any intellectual movement in India that was willing to allow the Kashmiris a right of self-determination, in those forty years. Is there one in India, now?

``If you want to champion the rights of Kashmiris; you`d BETTER criticise Pakistan`s backing of China.``

I really don`t know much about what China is doing in Tibet. Perhaps I should know. But I don`t. I will make that my next project, after Kashmir. But I will apply my principle to China in a similar fashion as I do to Pakistan in East Pakistan, and to India in Kashmir. As I stated, if I can criticize Pakistan for its actions in 71, then why wouldn`t I criticize China`s actions. And if I criticize Pakistan`s actions itself, then of course I would criticize Pakistan for supporting any countries` human rights violations. It should be obvious.

Shankar

``Mullah Urstruly, of course firmly believes we hindus dont have a conscience. O well, people who worship sticks & stones & penis` cant very well have a conscience, can they?!``

This is character assasination and a balatant lie. Where the hell did I ever said or implied with words or even inuendo that Hindus are bad people or they dont have a conscience because they worship ``sticks & stones & penis```. What the hell do I care what you people worship. Germans were bad because they gassed millions of Jews not because they were white Aryans. Serbs are bad because they condemned thousands of helpless people into death camps and not because they were nationalists and Hindus are bad because they have murdered 80,000 kashmiris, raped thousands of women, and killed their babies and not because they worship......laholwila quwwat. The sin that Hindu has committed is still redeemable-Germans and Serbs are condemned to the history.

Unless you have something positive to say, please dont mention my name in your posts-especially with such poisonous, venomous lies.

Thank you.

Romair,

{{There seems to be some confusion in your mind, on where I stand on various issues. This confusion could be due to a lack of explanation on my part, or because you are making assumptions}}

By & large, I agree with your post. Maybe, my PERCEPTIONS about where you stand on issues were skewed. I appreciate the effort you took in clarifying them.

Youre right, I`ve never interacted with Pakistanis at such a level. Indians & Pakistanis, in my personal experience, tend to give topics like politics & religion a very ``wide berth`` in order to avoid hurt feelings, in ``real life`` :)

After coming to Chowk, I have a much ``healthier`` opinion of Pakistanis---& you have played a large role in it--along with several others.

I think someone like you should play a larger role in Pakistani politics. (Maybe become ylh`s information minister--lord knows that kid needs someone mature to guide him:))

IT has no shortage of S.Asians; but politics in that region have been screwed up by too many idiots. Since the very survival of that region is at stake, your talents are needed there, much more than in IT.

This thread will soon disappear from the front page. For me, personally, it has ended on a positive note--at least a hopeful one.

Peace & Rgds

Urstruly,

Whoah! For a guy who has no problems throwing stones at the other side & hitting people below the belt; youre righteous indignation at ``character assassination`` doesnt cut any ice with me.

I`m amused at the fact that you stomped out of Chowk when you thought that women were being mistreated & then came back with your usual bs flair.

Go ahead & sulk in your own indignation for all I care. Consider this while you stew in your outrage: ``People who live in glass houses should not throw stones``.

On the other hand, maybe youre tantrum was a way of ducking a very uncomfortable question--let me repost it, for your benefit--

````Since you take great pride in not ducking questions--Please explain to me why such a lack of conscience in the Ummah?````

Now, you are more than welcome to reply this with stony silence. I will reserve the right to draw my conclusions.

Thank you.

re: Romair

``...Could you point out exactly where in this is the word, ``violence.`` ...``

This is what you said in post #84:

``What if it (Pakistan) then says, it doesn`t want a Kashmir solution? It could just bleed India.``

So, you used the phrase `bleeding India`, not violence. Big deal. It won`t fool us. That is exactly what Pakistan has been engaged in for 2 decades. It also addresses the point that Shankar made when he said: ````Please dont dare me to show which posts you have done that (with righteous indignation, to boot). I dont have the time or the patience to hunt them down.``

shankar #97: ``Maybe become ylh`s information minister``

Actually my eyes are on becoming the Minster of Science and Technology of an independent Kashmir :-) The house my mother grew up in is in downtown Srinigar, somewhere. My grandparents and my mother left it fully furnished, with all their life`s belongings, when they migrated to the outskirts of Muzzafarabad. So I could probably move back in.

``IT has no shortage of S.Asians; but politics in that region have been screwed up by too many idiots.``

I agree. South Asians in IT get along extremely well. Infact, outstandingly well. I have never had a single problem with any of the Indians in IT, and vice-versa. Organizations like TiE are operating well. Infact, the head of TiE, Kanwal Rekhi, recently personally went to Lahore and Karachi, met with Musharraf, and opened the TiE Pakistani chapters.

``After coming to Chowk, I have a much ``healthier`` opinion of Pakistanis---& you have played a large role in it--along with several others.``

This is quite good. My opinion of Indians was already quite healthy, since I meet more Indians than Pakistanis, on a daily basis. Infact, I meet more Indians than Americans in my professional life. Sometimes I feel like I took the wrong flight, and landed in India, instead of the US.

I do think that Indians have very little understanding of Pakistan. Just like Pakistanis have very little understanding of Hinduism. Pakistanis do understand Indians quite a bit better than vice-versa, however. This is due to the large numbers of Indians one meets outside Pakistan. And primarily due to the gigantic influx of Indian media into Pakistan, and Pakistan`s acceptance of it. I have lived in the extreme remotest parts of Punjab and NWFP. Places where there are barely any roads. However, there are two institutions that have been present in everyone of those places: A mosque, and an Indian video shop.

Every single one of the military bases I was stationed at had an Indian video shop that did booming business. One of Pakistan`s major military aircraft bases (where everyone is probably on alert, right now) has an Indian video shop right next to the mess hall. Officers would eat lunch, rent an Indian video, go back to their rooms, put on Indian music, and review their practice strike plans against Indian targets. I have done that myself. I can make a bet if you go into Musharraf`s house, you will find Indian movies sitting next to his VCR. Zia-ul-Haq was a big fan of Dilip Kumar (gave the guy a Nishan-e-Imtiaz, Pakistan`s highest civilian award, for not particular reason), and Shatughan Sinha. When my class at a military academy had its final graduation party/picnic, one of the entertainments was and Indian movie. Strange but true.

I don`t think anything like the above exists in India. Due to this, Indians extrapolate their views of Pakistan, based on their views of Indian Muslims, and on what the Indian media feeds them. There is nothing to counterbalance that view. Hence Indian`s views of Pakistan are either non-existent, or incorrect. In Pakistan, due to the above described reasons, there is a lot to counterbalance Pakistan`s official view on India.

In any case, my prediction is that if Musharraf and Vajpayee cannot resolve the issues, then things are going to get worse, and not better. Pakistan is slowly getting stronger, and not weaker. With the recent crackdown on the extremist religious groups, Pakistan`s domestic society, and international reputation, is only getting better. If Pakistan`s economy gets to its traditional 6%+ growth rate (which it had for forty years), then Pakistan could start putting up a tougher negotiating stance with India (which would be unfortunate). Similarly, if the BJP does end up doing better in the recent elections, due to the war rhetoric, then that could set a precedent. And it will become difficult for Vajpayee to ignore that. And if the BJP stays in power without Vajpayee, and Advani takes over, then I don`t know what will happen.

The future of South Asia will always be decided by India, and what it does. The other countries are far too small to take a leadership position. So the person running India controls the future of all the SAARC nations, in his/her hands; not only that of India. If India plays a role like the US does with NATO countries, I don`t think the other countries will have any problems accepting it as the leader (I certainly wouldn`t have a problem). Infact, the other countries, including Pakistan, are hoping and waiting for India to do so.

I would actually be much happier if Pakistan were to become India`s Canada, rather than China`s Canada (Cantonese and Mandarin movies don`t do too well in remote parts of Pakistan). But for that to happen, India has to behave like the world`s fairest democracy, and not the world`s biggest democracy. Giving independence to a mere 2100 sq. miles of land, with no oil, natural resources, or strategic value, to better the future of one-fifth of humanity, logically speaking, should be an easy choice to make.

It has been fun interacting with you, as usual. I am hoping that India is drowned by marginalizing policies of BJP (which could split India into two societies), thereby allowing Pakistan to emerge victorious :-) That is why sane Indians like yourself, and my IT colleagues scare me.

Check out `Why terrorism fails, and why insurgencies sometimes succeed` in The Friday Times

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/news2.htm

Re: Romair

``...If they want Pakistan`s help, then they should get it. If they don`t, then Pakistan should stay out...``

And how do you determine what they want? Does Pakistan conduct elections in Kashmir to determine that? These `feel good` shibboleths are what fog your judgment, and allow you to make crass statements like the one above. Did you (or Pakistan) `determine` what the Afghans wanted? Did you `ask` before occupying Afghanistan and turning into a terror factory for the world? Here is a damning indictment from the San Francisco Chronicle:

``...What made Taliban-ruled Afghanistan so useful to Islamabad was that various anti-Indian Kashmiri guerrilla groups could be trained there, under the watchful eye of Pakistani intelligence officials, while giving Pakistan a degree of ``deniability`` about its involvement in anti-India actions. Afghanistan became a safe haven for Kashmiri guerrillas, just as it had for Osama bin Laden`s al Qaeda network...``

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/01/06/MN136052.DTL

Shankar

ahhh you have finally silenced me.

Romair #95:

I have read your post with interest. However, I disagree with what you have said. India screwed up in 1947 by not going after the `tribals` in PoK, when the India-Pak military difference was greatest, IMHO. So, we can pretty much forget about getting back PoK, at least for a long while (unless Pakistan disintegrates on its own and we can reclaim PoK without much cost).

But where we really screwed up was Indira Gandhi and Rajiv`s actions in rigging elections, dismissing Farooq (in early 80s), playing the usual politics that Indira did as in Punjab, AP etc. That led to the uprising in 1989.

Finally, I think Art 370, non Kashmiris not being allowed to settle / buy property there etc is another hindrance. We should have gone for social assimilation (like the Borg), as China is doing in Tibet and Pakistan in PoK by resettling Punjabis and other Pakistanis in PoK.

The alleged HR violations by Indian armed forces are regrettable. But I think some amount of HR violation is inevitable when you have such a long drawn insurgency and the local populace aiding the militants. It is not as if it is Indian state policy to commit HR violations, they are exceptions. That the tortures in custody etc happen is not surprising given that it is resorted to by police everywhere in India (check out the number of custody deaths) - this is something to be handled at a different level. However, they are nothing in magnitude to the terrorist attacks by the militants on civilians in J&K.

So what is the way forward? I dont think India should agree to any sort of autonomy for any part of J&K. If possible, we should get rid of Art 370. What is required is a realisation by Kashmiris that if they give up violence, they can live with dignity and peace in India. If they give up violence, the rest of the Indian people will not tolerate electoral rigging etc, the locals will have the govt they want. With peace comes economic prosperity.

You talked about `if India loved its Kashmiris, it should set them free`. I think what is required is India should woo its Kashmiris back, reduce the alienation, and win their hearts and minds. Till then we can only hunker down and fight it out with the militants.

You mention the independence option for parts of J&K - I totally disagree for many reasons, not least being about India`s unity and soverignity. Kashmir is the source of six rivers, three of whom flow into the granary of India (Punjab). It is a matter of simple food security (leading to other forms of security). A Kashmir not in our control would mean the scruff of our neck would be in others` hands, sorry guys no way. That is surely all the more reason we will be willing to sacrifice more lives to protect Kashmir.

re: Romair # 99

Romair,

I agree with you that most Indians do not know enough about Pakistan or Pakistanis. Unfortunately, the level and quality of dialogue on Chowk provides ample proof that Pakistanis, in general, even highly educated ones, are equally ignorant of India.

Romair, ignorance is certainly dangerous. And we are all suffering the consequences of our ignorance of the other. Much more dangerous, however, is our ignorance of our ignorance.

Regards.

Shankar wrote:

Sigh...I guess you are relatively new to Chowk. This business about what people think of me--I`ve explained several times in the past; so its getting BORING. But I guess I have to do it time & again--because ALAS; extremist Indian sh *theads like you pop your ugly heads over & over again on Chowk. I thought that maybe if I just smirk & ignore mofos like you, you will disappear--but no; you post over & over again about how much you hate me--like an annoying mosquito, buzzing in my ear.

## Yeah well... at least I got your attention.... had to upset poor anNy in the process, but it got your tongue wagging dinnit? (and no, I`m not new to Chowk, just newly found my voice)

Besides; now you`ve gone & pissed off anNY & then have the balls to talk to her in a patronising, condescending manner. BIG MISTAKE pal. I pity you now:) Chowk vetrans have learnt this the hard way--NEVER EVER get these Pakistani shernis mad at you! They`ll eat you for lunch! They are more khatarnak than their ``world famous`` military!

## Bah! I won`t even bother dignifying that. Suffice to say, if you`re scared of a Paki, that too a woman Paki (with all their rights) you got problems buddy.

I used anNy as a bait, to get you to reply. Read my post to her again, her opinion means nothing to me. How on earth can a foreigner comment on Indian notions of patriotism?

OK, seriously, (sigh.. this sounds like a frikking broken record).. I feel VERY VERY good when a guy like you loses respect for me. In fact, I`m happy you`ve now lost respect for me COMPLETELY; rather than just a little bit. It proves to me that I`m on the right track when extremists (esp Indian extremists) hate what I say. As far as I`m concerned, guys like you are much more dangerous for India than any of those Paki fundos.

## You wouldn`t be feeling so smug and self-righteous if you really knew who I was or what I stand for. People like you (excuse MY broken record) think they are superior to the rest of their pathetic compatirots because they have the vision to look beyond national barriers and see the BIG picture. Which means knocking your own country because after all ``right is right and wrong is wrong``. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. Get that into your skull (and maybe ease up on the mofos and dickheads for a while, it`s getting tiresome.)

The problem arises when there is a conflict - not between right and wrong - but between two rights. When the chips are down, I owe my own nation and its Government a lot more than I do General Mushy and Pakistan. So that`s where I will put my money (and my heart).

Hey, I got no problem if Indians are angry at Pakistani jehadis for the attack on the parliament or the low intensity war they are conducting in Kashmir. I am too. I also feel that the GoP is responsible (directly or indirectly) for this crap. Personally, I dont feel Mushy knew about this attack. I dont care much for his anti-indian stance--but he`s not an idiot. He`s probably the most astute Pakistani leader that they have produced--in my lifetime, at least.

## Just because he is astute, doesn`t necessarily mean he is good from India`s point of view. Just remember nations have INTERESTS not friends, and it will make your thinking a lot clearer. If you think I have no Pakistani friends you are seriously mistaken. But in a time of conflict, I will support my own governement to the hilt. trust me: you won`t find me organising protest marches demanding to know how many kids Vajapyeejee has killed today. Which does not again mean I will take any sh1t from the Government, just as I refuse to take any from you or your bunch or pacifist cohorts.

But that does`nt mean India is this innocent victim of terror & her hands are clean. In that respect, I COMPLETELY agree with Romair--right is right & wrong is wrong. What India has done in Kashmir is something I`m ashamed of--Pakistan or no Pakistan. Just because GoP is wrong, does`nt automatically mean that the GoI is RIGHT! What we disagree, probably, is the WAY each country is going about correcting those wrongs.

## What India has done in Kashmir has been what we have done in every other area: ignore the problem, refuse to acknowledge it exists till one day it becomes so big it threatens to swallow you whole. Forget pre-1989, that was one sordid saga of greed and opportunism by everyone involved (Raja Harisingh, the Abdullahs, the Congress). But after 1989, ever since the freedom struggle went militant what HAS the Indian governemnt done? Sent in the Army to protect its sovereign territory? What have the Pakis done: sent in Afghans, Chechens, Saudis and Sudanese who have fukkall to do with the problem , with guns and bombs and a promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife to kill people irrespective of religious background in the most cowardly ways possible? You make the choice Shankar, mine is made.

That, I feel is the MAIN reason why the rest of the world is assiduously neutral. I think both moderate Indians & Pakistanis agree that India & Pakistan are 2 fleas fighting for the same dog.

## The reason the world is assidiously neutral is because that idiot Pandit Nehru took it to a platform it didn`t belong in: the UN. And because Pakistan has been a faithful lackey of the US since the 50s. Now that the cold war is over, America suddenly realises that it has a lot more to lose by pissing off India, a secular, progressive democracy (and never mind those posts ranting about us being babykilling barbarians) than a country so confused it doesn`t even remember if it was meant to be Islamic or democratic or both and has turned to an opportunistic ambitious armyman for guidance, who they will soon realise does little more than blow hot air when cool thinking is the order of the day.

What I cant STAND about extremists like you & chandan is that your testesterone has corroded your brain cells. You want to settle this, once & for all, in a war. If I misunderstand you, I apologise, in advance.

##You do misunderstand, and your apology is completely unnecessary. You have every right to speak your mind, as I do, and this is one of the beautiful things about living in this country. I can even condone the unforgiving manner in which our Oppopsition mauls the Govt over the coals at the slightest opportunity, because frankly that`s their job, and screw the ulterior motives. So peace brother, I hear you. I may not agree with you, sure, but I respect your right to an opinion just as I respect my own.

Just use whats left in your brain cells for a minute. Romair may disagree with me, but its true India has not lost a conventional war with Pakistan. But their military isnt a pushover. Even in a conventional war, India wont be able to just walk into Pakistan. I`m sure even someone as stupid as you will agree that the Indo-Pak military disparity isnt as great as the US & her allies faced in the Gulf war. Pakistan will give us as good as they can get. Besides an attacking military is always at a disadvantage & generally takes a lot more casualties.

## Agreed. We`ve all read Catch 22 here. No need to go over all that again. But there comes a point when going to war is the only logical choice. I have a feeling that time is now. World opinion is firmly for India and anti-Pakistan. Nobody believes General Mushy. It`s Pakistan who`s attcking our legislative houses and bombing our civilians. Even public sentiment for the first time in years is veering towards a war (check out todays` newsitem on the Bravery Award winner kid who wants to go and kill Pakis as soon as he grows up. That`s not healthy- blind hatred like that needs an outlet).

So, what the HELL will India win; even if it ``prevails`` ultimately in a conventional war (not to mention with horrendous casualties)? ``Stamping out the Pakistani fundos`` is just as fuzzy an objective as the US had in Vietnam (stamping out Communist fundos). Even if the Indian army, battered & bloody (though ``victorious``) raises the Indian flag in Islamabad or Azad Kashmir; they will have to continue to fight until almost every Pakistani civilian is murdered by them. Even you cant believe its a realistic objective!

## I don`t think that IS the objective. For me, and many others tha objective is simply to get Pakistan out of our hair and let us lead our boring comfortable lives. Kashmir is the key. Obviously we won`t give it up because that would only mean that the Nagas, Bodos, Gurkhas, khalistanis and god alone knows who else (Tamils? Telugus? Keralites?) with any grouse at all with the Govt. will pop right back up with their demands for secession. So the only logical way out is to engage in a full-fledged war with Pakistan on an issue of principle. Whatever the outcome of such a war, we have to fight it. And there is enough anecdotal evidence to believe that we would emerge victorious from a full-scale war.

Maybe this sh1t can be settled once and for all and at least our kids will learn to grow up without being plagued by that monkey Pakistan on their back (pun unintended, but take it anyway).

And thats just a conventional war. I dont want to even BEGIN to think of the ramifications of a NUCLEAR war!

## There is no deispute over the ramifications of a Nuclear war. Go study Game Theory again. The threat of Mutual Assured destruction is what prevents (or at least is supposed to prevent) the nuclear war. God protect us from mad mullahs who think they can nuke us and survive.

The days of Indo-Pak military ``wars`` are OVER; at least rational people on BOTH sides should ACCEPT that its over. There`s got to be a better way to score ``brownie points`` over the other side than mass military mobilisations.

## The so-called rational ones are in a minority, or at least, confined to this side of the border. Rationality cannot rule when the other side is irrational. It has to work both ways.

Inshallah, this current crisis seems to be winding down. But, I`m afraid this is going to happen again & again. All it requires a few extremists in either military to ``settle this one way or another``. Once the ball starts rolling, NOBODY will be able to stop it.

## Look, Shankar, given a choice nobody wants a war. It`s not an easy decision to take at all. Probably you and I might not even survive it. But the current situation is such that Pakistan preceives our reluctance to engage in conventional warfare as weakness. THIS I CANNOT TOLERATE. If we back off now, it would be cowardice. What use are principles if you are wiling to forsake them just to maintain a fragile peace?

If saying ``Enough is Enough`` is being a wus--I`m PROUD to be a wus. I wish you could look at my face; to see if I really CARE what ch---, I mean dickheads, like you think of me..

## Then fine.... you got your fifteen minutes now blow.... what use is it having opinions if you don`t care to listen to those of others? Just one word of warning: if push comes to shove and there is a war, don`t be looking to your Pakistani friends to shower you with affection and support. Because at the end of teh day, whatever their faults, they are patriots. You, like Arundathi Roy, have chosen to secede. I wish you well, but don`t you dare ``represent`` me our my countrymen again.

Regards,

SM

Exactly how many innocent Kashmiri Muslim civilians have the Indian occupationist forces killed in the past 12 years? Used to be 30,000 then 50,000; stabilised at 70K for a while... now Urstruly has raised the bid to 80,000 (post#96).

Would be nice to have a head-to-head comparison of the civilians killed and women raped by Indian occupationist forces on the one hand and the god-fearing freedom-fighting jehadis on the other. Bids invited.

SM