War Now and, Forever?
Veeresh Malik January 3, 2002
#130 Posted by cutandpaste on January 9, 2001 8:01:40 pm
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002
Cover story
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
Cover story
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html
A state of war
BY TREVOR FISHLOCK
The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?
Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.
Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.
In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.
It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.
Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.
The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.
Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.
Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.
The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.
At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.
Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.
India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.
India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.
Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.
Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.
Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.
Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.
The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.
Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.
In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.
Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.
It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.
It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.
In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.
People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.
Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#129 Posted by harimau on January 8, 2001 7:39:55 pm
Ref hydra-head-Aeisha #: 127
[How is Kashmir good for India so far it has been most expensive MISTAKE!!]
A mistake about which the people of India are totally unconcerned. So it is NOT a mistake. When the people of India think it is a mistake, the policy will change.
[Ask from Joyti Basu C.M.longest reigning Chief Minister in India to Laloo Yadav ( long & Surprisingly proving all PUNDIT BRAHMIN WRONG RUBBING THERE NOSE IN BIHIRI CHILLI)They will say to hell with Kashmir take care of BENGAL & BIHAR which has been neglected for 30 yrs since becoming NON CONGRESS state.]
The usual pea-brained argument of distorting historical truths to bash India. Jyoti Basu and his Communist thugs are responsible for ruining Calcutta and West Bengal. From being the first city in India in manufacturing, Calcutta has regressed so badly under Communist rule, it is probably behind even Patna today. All because of the `gherao`s and `bandh`s that paralyzed Calcutta under Communist rule. After 30 years of this, why do you expect anyone to invest in Calcutta? Every single engineering and manufacturing company was turned into a loss-making entity by repeated strikes and unfair demands on management. They were all taken over by the government and overstaffed with Party sympathizers who didn`t have a clue how to run a company. Jyoti Basu had the nerve last year to come to the US and meet with Indian enterpreneurs begging them to invest in West Bengal. Screw him, I say! Let him and those who elected him pay for his mistakes. There is no reason for the Central government to bail him out. Same stuff goes for the Laloo Prasad Yadav and Rubri Devi duo of Bihar. Bihar, and Biharis like you, are condemned to live subhuman lives until they decide to go to school and use their god-given brain to make something of themselves.
As far as allocation of Central funds to States, the Finance Commission that decided on the allocation in 2000 was headed by one Mr. Ansari. I believe Ansari is a good Muslim name. So why don`t you blame Muslims for the backwardness of Bihar as opposed to the Hindus, RSS, VHP, etc.?
By the way, people like Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister of Andhra, were asking why they should be penalized for the non-performance of West Bengal and Bihar as those states got even more money compared to the proportion of revenues taken in from them.
Why don`t you, with your Magadh University MBBS, just shut up and concentrate on your profession? You know, you will be able to wreak your vengeance on Americans for Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and any other imaginary grievances you Muslims might have by killing more Americans on the home front and Tom Ridge wouldn`t have a clue about what you are doing.
[Of Pakistan reason,they have a moral obligation not only because etnically religously geographically & relation wise .....Kasmiris are inter-twined with Lahoris,Pushtun,NWFP ,PATHANS people etc etc .]
What moral obligation does a frikking Bihari Muslim like you have to defend Pakistan?
No wonder RSS wants loyalty tests for Indian Muslims or deport them to Pakistan. No wonder Bangladesh doesn`t want any of you traitors.
[BUT MOST IMPORTANT IF PAKISTAN IS THE LAST & ONLY CHANCE OF KASHMIRIS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE ,HONESTLY]
Have Azad Kashmir and Northen Areas been constituted into the Independent Democratic Republic of Kashmir? Then you can talk about Pakistan helping Kashmiris achieve independence. It is a fact that Pakistan has made it very clear that the only choices in any Kashmiri plebiscite would be union with India or Pakistan but not independence. No matter what Romair says or what Benazir Bhutto is supposed to have said.
Pardon me for not sharing your pain. If you feel, as a Bihari Muslim, you were treated so badly in India that you could get a professional degree -- what is your complaint, you actually had to go to classes and learn something other than the Koran for a change? -- and move to the US and make big bucks, I assume you want to be a Nawab and people to come and pay you in silver, gold and diamonds just because you happen to have been born a Muslim. Even the Nawab of Bhopal decided in 1947 it was time to give up his throne and become a citizen of India -- and a loyal one at that!
Kwitcherbitchin, you pathetic idiot. People like you bring a bad name to all Indian Muslims. You are a disgrace to the ordinary farmer or coal miner of Bihar who has to drag his sorry a$$ every day to work on his field or in the coal mines in sweltering heat and has precious little to show for his labor. Compared to these honest laborers, you are a goddamn leach on society. Just shut the fcuk up and thank Allah that you have a cushy life. If you want to do anything for the poor and downtrodden in your home state, just go to the Bihar Samaj meetings and ask how you can contribute something so that you can pay a little back for what you have become by being born in a country that didn`t treat you as shabbily as you have claimed here.
You have been here too long to do any good. In the name of God, go. And take your multiple personalities with you.
[How is Kashmir good for India so far it has been most expensive MISTAKE!!]
A mistake about which the people of India are totally unconcerned. So it is NOT a mistake. When the people of India think it is a mistake, the policy will change.
[Ask from Joyti Basu C.M.longest reigning Chief Minister in India to Laloo Yadav ( long & Surprisingly proving all PUNDIT BRAHMIN WRONG RUBBING THERE NOSE IN BIHIRI CHILLI)They will say to hell with Kashmir take care of BENGAL & BIHAR which has been neglected for 30 yrs since becoming NON CONGRESS state.]
The usual pea-brained argument of distorting historical truths to bash India. Jyoti Basu and his Communist thugs are responsible for ruining Calcutta and West Bengal. From being the first city in India in manufacturing, Calcutta has regressed so badly under Communist rule, it is probably behind even Patna today. All because of the `gherao`s and `bandh`s that paralyzed Calcutta under Communist rule. After 30 years of this, why do you expect anyone to invest in Calcutta? Every single engineering and manufacturing company was turned into a loss-making entity by repeated strikes and unfair demands on management. They were all taken over by the government and overstaffed with Party sympathizers who didn`t have a clue how to run a company. Jyoti Basu had the nerve last year to come to the US and meet with Indian enterpreneurs begging them to invest in West Bengal. Screw him, I say! Let him and those who elected him pay for his mistakes. There is no reason for the Central government to bail him out. Same stuff goes for the Laloo Prasad Yadav and Rubri Devi duo of Bihar. Bihar, and Biharis like you, are condemned to live subhuman lives until they decide to go to school and use their god-given brain to make something of themselves.
As far as allocation of Central funds to States, the Finance Commission that decided on the allocation in 2000 was headed by one Mr. Ansari. I believe Ansari is a good Muslim name. So why don`t you blame Muslims for the backwardness of Bihar as opposed to the Hindus, RSS, VHP, etc.?
By the way, people like Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister of Andhra, were asking why they should be penalized for the non-performance of West Bengal and Bihar as those states got even more money compared to the proportion of revenues taken in from them.
Why don`t you, with your Magadh University MBBS, just shut up and concentrate on your profession? You know, you will be able to wreak your vengeance on Americans for Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, and any other imaginary grievances you Muslims might have by killing more Americans on the home front and Tom Ridge wouldn`t have a clue about what you are doing.
[Of Pakistan reason,they have a moral obligation not only because etnically religously geographically & relation wise .....Kasmiris are inter-twined with Lahoris,Pushtun,NWFP ,PATHANS people etc etc .]
What moral obligation does a frikking Bihari Muslim like you have to defend Pakistan?
No wonder RSS wants loyalty tests for Indian Muslims or deport them to Pakistan. No wonder Bangladesh doesn`t want any of you traitors.
[BUT MOST IMPORTANT IF PAKISTAN IS THE LAST & ONLY CHANCE OF KASHMIRIS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE ,HONESTLY]
Have Azad Kashmir and Northen Areas been constituted into the Independent Democratic Republic of Kashmir? Then you can talk about Pakistan helping Kashmiris achieve independence. It is a fact that Pakistan has made it very clear that the only choices in any Kashmiri plebiscite would be union with India or Pakistan but not independence. No matter what Romair says or what Benazir Bhutto is supposed to have said.
Pardon me for not sharing your pain. If you feel, as a Bihari Muslim, you were treated so badly in India that you could get a professional degree -- what is your complaint, you actually had to go to classes and learn something other than the Koran for a change? -- and move to the US and make big bucks, I assume you want to be a Nawab and people to come and pay you in silver, gold and diamonds just because you happen to have been born a Muslim. Even the Nawab of Bhopal decided in 1947 it was time to give up his throne and become a citizen of India -- and a loyal one at that!
Kwitcherbitchin, you pathetic idiot. People like you bring a bad name to all Indian Muslims. You are a disgrace to the ordinary farmer or coal miner of Bihar who has to drag his sorry a$$ every day to work on his field or in the coal mines in sweltering heat and has precious little to show for his labor. Compared to these honest laborers, you are a goddamn leach on society. Just shut the fcuk up and thank Allah that you have a cushy life. If you want to do anything for the poor and downtrodden in your home state, just go to the Bihar Samaj meetings and ask how you can contribute something so that you can pay a little back for what you have become by being born in a country that didn`t treat you as shabbily as you have claimed here.
You have been here too long to do any good. In the name of God, go. And take your multiple personalities with you.
#128 Posted by pmishra2 on January 8, 2001 7:39:55 pm
AeishA #131:
[begin quote]
...Look how far India has come to be more inimical of Indian Muslims than ever Jinnah thaught of Congress!!
[end quote]
And how so? Could you please explain?
All citizens in India have equal rights
(one person, one vote). There is a
muslim middle-class which is growing
larger.
What has ``India``
done that is ``inimical of Indian Muslims``?
Have their rights being legislated away
into separate electorates? Is there a
distinction made between Ahmedias and others?
What exactly did you have in mind?
[begin quote]
...Look how far India has come to be more inimical of Indian Muslims than ever Jinnah thaught of Congress!!
[end quote]
And how so? Could you please explain?
All citizens in India have equal rights
(one person, one vote). There is a
muslim middle-class which is growing
larger.
What has ``India``
done that is ``inimical of Indian Muslims``?
Have their rights being legislated away
into separate electorates? Is there a
distinction made between Ahmedias and others?
What exactly did you have in mind?
#127 Posted by wadera on January 8, 2001 12:24:08 am
rsridhar (#116) ``...Md Ali Jinnah would be a sad man today. All he wanted was a secular, muslim majority county at peace with itself and with India. Look how that country has evolved.``
The evolution has just begun. Come back in five years time and then look at us ...
Jiyaeee Pakistan!
The evolution has just begun. Come back in five years time and then look at us ...
Jiyaeee Pakistan!
#126 Posted by Prem on January 8, 2001 12:24:08 am
Aeisha # 127
Studebaker bhai, here`s a confession strictly between us two Indians. Its breathtaking beauty notwithstanding, Kashmir has consistently been an economic drain on the rest of India. A poor country like India could hardly go on pouring resources into Kashmir, even without our Pakistani brethren poking their fingers into our backs.
So there are many rational reasons to review our Kashmir policy, let alone the very important humanitarian ones. But this I will NEVER EVER confess to a Pakistani who supports sending armed zombies into Indian Kashmir, or whose mouth can`t stop watering at the thought of grabbing some strategic real estate, and/or avenging some stupid defeat.
Bhaijan, you might have heard this ancient saying - ``shathe shathyam samacharet.`` That is, our behavior must match the context of the person we are dealing with. There are some amazing Pakistani people to whom I would happily give away all of India (if I could, ofcourse, except your house! :)) along with the last shirt off my back. Then there are Jihadis and JaisheMohammad types who would invariably find in me an implacable foe, made not of flesh and blood but hard hard steel.
But again, this is only between you and me.
Studebaker bhai, here`s a confession strictly between us two Indians. Its breathtaking beauty notwithstanding, Kashmir has consistently been an economic drain on the rest of India. A poor country like India could hardly go on pouring resources into Kashmir, even without our Pakistani brethren poking their fingers into our backs.
So there are many rational reasons to review our Kashmir policy, let alone the very important humanitarian ones. But this I will NEVER EVER confess to a Pakistani who supports sending armed zombies into Indian Kashmir, or whose mouth can`t stop watering at the thought of grabbing some strategic real estate, and/or avenging some stupid defeat.
Bhaijan, you might have heard this ancient saying - ``shathe shathyam samacharet.`` That is, our behavior must match the context of the person we are dealing with. There are some amazing Pakistani people to whom I would happily give away all of India (if I could, ofcourse, except your house! :)) along with the last shirt off my back. Then there are Jihadis and JaisheMohammad types who would invariably find in me an implacable foe, made not of flesh and blood but hard hard steel.
But again, this is only between you and me.
#125 Posted by tvarad on January 8, 2001 12:24:08 am
Urstruly,
Perhaps your conern for the Kashmiris will be taken more seriously if you don`t append it with your obvious blind hatred for anything Hindu.
Perhaps your conern for the Kashmiris will be taken more seriously if you don`t append it with your obvious blind hatred for anything Hindu.
#120 Posted by rajendra_panwar on January 7, 2001 8:53:52 pm
One of those rare articles that brought tears to my eyes. Hopefully what the author says is true that nothing has changed - only media publicity has increased because of the already shining limelight in the neighborhood (because US interests are involved). But whatever is going on is not good either. If only both governments (that supposedly represnt the majority) could realize that they are not fighting against each other but against a very very small minority of fundamentalists that like to make nuisance because someone has brain-washed them in the name of religion.
#119 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 5:05:44 pm
Urstruly #122
``there is no point in answering your questions``
And I thought you said Pakistan is doing its best..?
``there is no point in answering your questions``
And I thought you said Pakistan is doing its best..?
#118 Posted by shammi on January 7, 2001 5:00:15 pm
Re: Ali1
``...Let me make a guess too, is your family originally from...``
I will answer it, if you first let me know how I fared on my hypothesis. I asked the question first.
``...Let me make a guess too, is your family originally from...``
I will answer it, if you first let me know how I fared on my hypothesis. I asked the question first.
#117 Posted by Prem on January 7, 2001 5:00:15 pm
Urstruly # 117
So long as YOU understand the point you were trying to make ....:)
So long as YOU understand the point you were trying to make ....:)
#116 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 4:39:14 pm
Sadna # 121
By the same standards that you apply to yourself; there is no point in answering your questions since you and I donot have the same standards for the understanding of murder and rape of helpless Kashmiris using state aparatus by Hindus. I can live with that.
By the same standards that you apply to yourself; there is no point in answering your questions since you and I donot have the same standards for the understanding of murder and rape of helpless Kashmiris using state aparatus by Hindus. I can live with that.
#115 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 4:27:38 pm
Urstruly #120
I asked you a number of questions in #104 and got not a single answer. My point is that neither jihadis and jihadi organisations nor their open supporters like you consider yourselves answerable to any question about their actions, apparently even on discussion boards, forget about public accountability.
These organisations were supposed to be covert deniable instruments of state policy and now are confused by people like you as being above the constraints of the state such as natioanl interest, constitutional law and public accountability. What was meant to `help` Kashmiris is killing Kashmiris, and even fervent believers in this policy like you have no method or structure for wielding control on this.
As Tibor pointed out this lack of accountability or control in using violence is inherently part of armed coercive tactics:
http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=asarwari_jan0402&n=40#reply62
``The ugliest side of terrorism is that any fool, thug can become a terrorist. Leadership requires some qualities, terrorism requires only criminal instinct. Terrorists inject authority through fear, and those who oppose are killed. Terrorist are nothing more that criminal gangs``
While stating that you have Kashmiris interests at heart, apparently you think it is only right to expose them to the horrors of these out of control groups who consider themselves above the law even in Pakistan and about which you cannot answer simple questions.
Thats my point and you keep proving it again and again.
PS: There is no point in questioning me where you used `insulting language`, you and I donot have the same standards for these things and I can live with that.
I asked you a number of questions in #104 and got not a single answer. My point is that neither jihadis and jihadi organisations nor their open supporters like you consider yourselves answerable to any question about their actions, apparently even on discussion boards, forget about public accountability.
These organisations were supposed to be covert deniable instruments of state policy and now are confused by people like you as being above the constraints of the state such as natioanl interest, constitutional law and public accountability. What was meant to `help` Kashmiris is killing Kashmiris, and even fervent believers in this policy like you have no method or structure for wielding control on this.
As Tibor pointed out this lack of accountability or control in using violence is inherently part of armed coercive tactics:
http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=asarwari_jan0402&n=40#reply62
``The ugliest side of terrorism is that any fool, thug can become a terrorist. Leadership requires some qualities, terrorism requires only criminal instinct. Terrorists inject authority through fear, and those who oppose are killed. Terrorist are nothing more that criminal gangs``
While stating that you have Kashmiris interests at heart, apparently you think it is only right to expose them to the horrors of these out of control groups who consider themselves above the law even in Pakistan and about which you cannot answer simple questions.
Thats my point and you keep proving it again and again.
PS: There is no point in questioning me where you used `insulting language`, you and I donot have the same standards for these things and I can live with that.
#114 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 3:47:53 pm
Sadna
Please stick to your point and point out to one insulting word that I have used as you have alleged.
``Stick to the point about jihadis.``
Sure. I will show you mine if you show me yours.
Please stick to your point and point out to one insulting word that I have used as you have alleged.
``Stick to the point about jihadis.``
Sure. I will show you mine if you show me yours.
#113 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 3:41:04 pm
Urstruly #118
If you are leaving chowk, wish you all the best!
If not, then are you either a jihadi or a jihadi organisation? No? Then why discuss yourself so much? Stick to the point about jihadis.
Of course the option of leaving chowk is still an alternative to discussing jihadis, in which case, wish you all the best!
If you are leaving chowk, wish you all the best!
If not, then are you either a jihadi or a jihadi organisation? No? Then why discuss yourself so much? Stick to the point about jihadis.
Of course the option of leaving chowk is still an alternative to discussing jihadis, in which case, wish you all the best!
#112 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 2:53:40 pm
Sadna
Please point out to one insulting word and I will quit chowk for good. I have actually given the meaning of each word that I have used in paranthesis-I am especially respectful to women. But again I am also an artist. I jsut happen to know how to turn the switch of insecurity on and off. Why it is my fault?
Please point out to one insulting word and I will quit chowk for good. I have actually given the meaning of each word that I have used in paranthesis-I am especially respectful to women. But again I am also an artist. I jsut happen to know how to turn the switch of insecurity on and off. Why it is my fault?
#111 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 2:48:48 pm
Prem #115
Another pathetic affirmation of being a heartless, conscienceless hindu-the point I was trying to make.
And you ARE saying that white man can be phudooized-again another point I was trying to make.
Another pathetic affirmation of being a heartless, conscienceless hindu-the point I was trying to make.
And you ARE saying that white man can be phudooized-again another point I was trying to make.
#110 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
re:Reply #: 69
hobbyty,
Was it you who labelled me as a hypocrite or was it Romair? Anyway, here is a statement by you that smacks of hypocrisy:
``In the Ayub Khan years, Pakistan experienced a robust economy, it served as a model for developing economies, while in the same time the Indian economy served as a model for all that was percieved as wrong in developing an economy...``.
And yet, look where is Pakistan today. More than 1 million students attend madrasas. This includes students from 40 different countries. Some of these schools teach hatred and how to kill. Your state rulers not only look the other way but actively encourage this hatred. It serves their purpose. Today, Pakistanis are viewed with suspicion outside Pak. Good pakistanis have to pay this heavy price for stupid policies of their rulers.
From a robust economy during Ayub days, Paksitan`s economy is in shambles today. IMF mandarins tell you what to do. USA is sitting in your country, taken over your airspace, monitors airports. In short you have lost your independence in your own country. Yet, your hatred of India overshadows all this. You still cannot give up terrorism in Kashmir even though it has done nothing good to you in your country.
Some evolution of Pakistani society this is. Md Ali Jinnah would be a sad man today. All he wanted was a secular, muslim majority county at peace with itself and with India. Look how that country has evolved.
Sridhar
hobbyty,
Was it you who labelled me as a hypocrite or was it Romair? Anyway, here is a statement by you that smacks of hypocrisy:
``In the Ayub Khan years, Pakistan experienced a robust economy, it served as a model for developing economies, while in the same time the Indian economy served as a model for all that was percieved as wrong in developing an economy...``.
And yet, look where is Pakistan today. More than 1 million students attend madrasas. This includes students from 40 different countries. Some of these schools teach hatred and how to kill. Your state rulers not only look the other way but actively encourage this hatred. It serves their purpose. Today, Pakistanis are viewed with suspicion outside Pak. Good pakistanis have to pay this heavy price for stupid policies of their rulers.
From a robust economy during Ayub days, Paksitan`s economy is in shambles today. IMF mandarins tell you what to do. USA is sitting in your country, taken over your airspace, monitors airports. In short you have lost your independence in your own country. Yet, your hatred of India overshadows all this. You still cannot give up terrorism in Kashmir even though it has done nothing good to you in your country.
Some evolution of Pakistani society this is. Md Ali Jinnah would be a sad man today. All he wanted was a secular, muslim majority county at peace with itself and with India. Look how that country has evolved.
Sridhar
#109 Posted by Prem on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
Urstruly # 103
I freely admit that killing 80,000 (or howsoever many) helpless kashmiris, raping their women, and killing their babies is state terrorism, and sincerely hope that Musharraf will find a way to take Pakistan out of the path of this terrorism.
I do believe that Pakistanis are too intelligent a people to persist on a path that brings nothing but destruction all around.
BTW, white men, yellow men, or green men - none are more intelligent than you and I. Give up this racist kind of thinking, and you may actually find yourself closer to peace.
Regards.
I freely admit that killing 80,000 (or howsoever many) helpless kashmiris, raping their women, and killing their babies is state terrorism, and sincerely hope that Musharraf will find a way to take Pakistan out of the path of this terrorism.
I do believe that Pakistanis are too intelligent a people to persist on a path that brings nothing but destruction all around.
BTW, white men, yellow men, or green men - none are more intelligent than you and I. Give up this racist kind of thinking, and you may actually find yourself closer to peace.
Regards.
#108 Posted by ali1 on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
Reply #: 95 shammi
[Reading your `colourful` language tempts me to make a guess -- is your family originally from eastern UP or Bihar? This is a hypothesis that I would like to test. Thanks]
Dear Shammi, my colorful language is a gift from God to humankind, excluding the rat-monkey-penis-snake worshipping sub-humans in Hindustan, and nothing to do with my ethinicity.
Let me make a guess too, is your family originally from Lahore, from the Badshahi Mosque/Lahore Fort area?
[Reading your `colourful` language tempts me to make a guess -- is your family originally from eastern UP or Bihar? This is a hypothesis that I would like to test. Thanks]
Dear Shammi, my colorful language is a gift from God to humankind, excluding the rat-monkey-penis-snake worshipping sub-humans in Hindustan, and nothing to do with my ethinicity.
Let me make a guess too, is your family originally from Lahore, from the Badshahi Mosque/Lahore Fort area?
#107 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
re:Reply #: 60
M.A.Jinnah,
Churchill is said to have gone on record with his remarks ``i shall not be the one to preside over the liquidation of British Empire`` or something to that effect. He might have been instrumental in giving up his fantasy. He only followed dictates of the times. British Imperialism was a wrong policy. British saw the writing on the wall and gracefully quit.
Now, terrorism is also a wrong policy. Will Mushy boy see the writing on the wall and quit this policy of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.
Sridhar
M.A.Jinnah,
Churchill is said to have gone on record with his remarks ``i shall not be the one to preside over the liquidation of British Empire`` or something to that effect. He might have been instrumental in giving up his fantasy. He only followed dictates of the times. British Imperialism was a wrong policy. British saw the writing on the wall and gracefully quit.
Now, terrorism is also a wrong policy. Will Mushy boy see the writing on the wall and quit this policy of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.
Sridhar
#106 Posted by arjun_m on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#105 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 2:19:35 pm
re:Reply #: 21
ali1,
Elections get rigged even in USA (look into the ballot frauds in Florida and Texas during last presidential elections). Does that mean one turns to militancy? It only calls for more vigilance. Did the parties concerned seek legal redressal? Supreme Court in a landmark judgement had earlier on declared Indira Gandhi`s election from Allahbad null and void. It could have done the same for rigged elections in Kashmir. But then Kashmiris did not seek any legal or constitutional remedies, which was their right as citizens of India. They fell easy prey to fundamentalist slogans, believing freedom was one grasp away.
Elections are regularly rigged in many parts of Bihar. Democracy can function only if people are vigilant. Let there be a rigged election in places like Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra or Delhi and see what happens. There will be hell to pay for the party who rigged.
The reality is, the disillusionment of the Kashmiris with the political process has been exploited by the extremists with support from Pakistan. It has been given a religious justification (jehad). Some Kashmiris like Farooq Abdullah who have sold their conscience to the Center are also to blame. They should have stood for Kashmir`s rights rather than pander to the wishes of congress in order to grab power.
Sridhar
ali1,
Elections get rigged even in USA (look into the ballot frauds in Florida and Texas during last presidential elections). Does that mean one turns to militancy? It only calls for more vigilance. Did the parties concerned seek legal redressal? Supreme Court in a landmark judgement had earlier on declared Indira Gandhi`s election from Allahbad null and void. It could have done the same for rigged elections in Kashmir. But then Kashmiris did not seek any legal or constitutional remedies, which was their right as citizens of India. They fell easy prey to fundamentalist slogans, believing freedom was one grasp away.
Elections are regularly rigged in many parts of Bihar. Democracy can function only if people are vigilant. Let there be a rigged election in places like Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra or Delhi and see what happens. There will be hell to pay for the party who rigged.
The reality is, the disillusionment of the Kashmiris with the political process has been exploited by the extremists with support from Pakistan. It has been given a religious justification (jehad). Some Kashmiris like Farooq Abdullah who have sold their conscience to the Center are also to blame. They should have stood for Kashmir`s rights rather than pander to the wishes of congress in order to grab power.
Sridhar
#104 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 1:59:59 pm
Urstruly #107
PS: Ofcourse the easier way out for jihadis(not available to you)than providing answers, would be to go to heaven. India is most willing to cooperate here.
PS: Ofcourse the easier way out for jihadis(not available to you)than providing answers, would be to go to heaven. India is most willing to cooperate here.
#103 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 1:50:32 pm
Urstruly #107
Any amount of insulting words cannot hide your lack of answers to my questions.
Even your jihadis will have to provide answers someday which their pimps like you donot care to provide.
Any amount of insulting words cannot hide your lack of answers to my questions.
Even your jihadis will have to provide answers someday which their pimps like you donot care to provide.
#102 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 12:01:59 pm
re:Reply #: 16
manna
If the war is about Kashmir alone, there should have been no attack on the Indian parliament. Terrorists are attacking our way of life. They also selectively kill the hindus in Jammu in order to provoke a wider backlash against muslims in rest of India. It is to India`s credit that no such thing has happened.
It is Pakistan which needs to wake up. Terrorism especially state sponsered has not and will not work. The world today is different after Sept 11 and will not see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.
The best that Musharraf can do is to crack down on terrorists, hand over power to an elected govt and retire peacefully.The elected govts of the 2 countries can talk about all outstanding problems including Kashmir.
Sridhar
manna
If the war is about Kashmir alone, there should have been no attack on the Indian parliament. Terrorists are attacking our way of life. They also selectively kill the hindus in Jammu in order to provoke a wider backlash against muslims in rest of India. It is to India`s credit that no such thing has happened.
It is Pakistan which needs to wake up. Terrorism especially state sponsered has not and will not work. The world today is different after Sept 11 and will not see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.
The best that Musharraf can do is to crack down on terrorists, hand over power to an elected govt and retire peacefully.The elected govts of the 2 countries can talk about all outstanding problems including Kashmir.
Sridhar
#101 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 11:51:17 am
Sadna
I almost felt like a Hindu today when I realized that no one in the world beleives Indian claims that Paksitan`s moral sponsorship of freedom fighters in Kashmir is equal to sponsoring terrorists. BBC openly calls this mahabharati drama to be just another election ploy. The line that ``Its an attack on democracy`` has become a joke around the world.
You see, problem is that the Hindus have convinced themselves that the white man is actually a phuddoo (``moron``, in case minister of vice and virtue is reading this)or he can be actually be phuddooized by them. Fatal mistake my friend hindus. Let me tell you a little secret here: white man has fish eyes, and you know fish never shuts its eyes even if it wants to. (Its a metaphor, in case anNY is reading it).
I almost felt like a Hindu today when I realized that no one in the world beleives Indian claims that Paksitan`s moral sponsorship of freedom fighters in Kashmir is equal to sponsoring terrorists. BBC openly calls this mahabharati drama to be just another election ploy. The line that ``Its an attack on democracy`` has become a joke around the world.
You see, problem is that the Hindus have convinced themselves that the white man is actually a phuddoo (``moron``, in case minister of vice and virtue is reading this)or he can be actually be phuddooized by them. Fatal mistake my friend hindus. Let me tell you a little secret here: white man has fish eyes, and you know fish never shuts its eyes even if it wants to. (Its a metaphor, in case anNY is reading it).
#100 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 11:50:43 am
re:Reply #: 1
concerned,
Ayub Khan was elected? By whom? God, the Almighty perhaps.
Sridhar
concerned,
Ayub Khan was elected? By whom? God, the Almighty perhaps.
Sridhar
#99 Posted by rsridhar on January 7, 2001 11:50:43 am
Veeresh,
A very well written article.
``We want, we cherish and thus have democracy in India. We want to continue to have the right to, for better or for worse, be able to bring in or throw out our rulers. We place great value to it. The system we have may or may not be perfect, we realise that, our leaders have been assasinated, our democracy suffers from the effects of caste and religion based number crunching, but it is constantly fine-tuning itself and, hurdles and hiccups notwithstanding, we do wish to continue as Indians to have as the people of India an opportunity every four or five years, to exercise our franchise. Do Pakistanis even understand that, in their vehement support of military regime after military regime in Pakistan?``.
I believe many Pakistanis do understand that but seem to prefer military dictators who promise the moon. Pakstan`s tryst with democracy has been disappointing as everyone of the elected representatives have proven to be corrupt. So, they seem to prefer a military dictator to a P.M. Dictators seem to create an illusion of doing things with speed and efficiency. The reality is, they are answerable to noone and do everything in their own self interest (eg. Mushy boy`s volte-face on Taliban policy and giving away the idea of strategic depth only to save his A$$).
Democracy has not taken roots in Pak. Military rulers have not allowed that to happen. India can help Pak in this respect. For this, the military has to be shown the door by Pakistanis themselves. Are they ready to do so? I do not think so. Hey, if Mushy boy is so popular, why can he not contest election and get elected as P.M of Pakistan. That will certainly enhance his reputation.
I, like you, believe India is a great expt that needs to be continued. Our scars are there for all to see. Our strong institutions and a huge middle class committed to democracy will ensure our survival. Unlike China, we do not need to be janus-faced, showing our best face to the world but hiding all our scars. That is the strength of democracy. Therein lies our hope.
Sridhar
A very well written article.
``We want, we cherish and thus have democracy in India. We want to continue to have the right to, for better or for worse, be able to bring in or throw out our rulers. We place great value to it. The system we have may or may not be perfect, we realise that, our leaders have been assasinated, our democracy suffers from the effects of caste and religion based number crunching, but it is constantly fine-tuning itself and, hurdles and hiccups notwithstanding, we do wish to continue as Indians to have as the people of India an opportunity every four or five years, to exercise our franchise. Do Pakistanis even understand that, in their vehement support of military regime after military regime in Pakistan?``.
I believe many Pakistanis do understand that but seem to prefer military dictators who promise the moon. Pakstan`s tryst with democracy has been disappointing as everyone of the elected representatives have proven to be corrupt. So, they seem to prefer a military dictator to a P.M. Dictators seem to create an illusion of doing things with speed and efficiency. The reality is, they are answerable to noone and do everything in their own self interest (eg. Mushy boy`s volte-face on Taliban policy and giving away the idea of strategic depth only to save his A$$).
Democracy has not taken roots in Pak. Military rulers have not allowed that to happen. India can help Pak in this respect. For this, the military has to be shown the door by Pakistanis themselves. Are they ready to do so? I do not think so. Hey, if Mushy boy is so popular, why can he not contest election and get elected as P.M of Pakistan. That will certainly enhance his reputation.
I, like you, believe India is a great expt that needs to be continued. Our scars are there for all to see. Our strong institutions and a huge middle class committed to democracy will ensure our survival. Unlike China, we do not need to be janus-faced, showing our best face to the world but hiding all our scars. That is the strength of democracy. Therein lies our hope.
Sridhar
#98 Posted by sadna on January 7, 2001 11:28:08 am
Urstruly #103
``Paksitan is doing whatever it can to save human lives from conscienceless murderers, rapists, and baby killers like yourself.``
Pakistan THINKS its doing whatever it can, but in reality its shooting itself in the foot and Kashmiris too.
The Pakistani Army thinks the best it can do is Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar and sundry other indoctrinated infidel-killers. Why have these Pakistanis killed so many Kashmiris, Muslims too? Why is it so difficult for you to admit what is reported?
Please name the body publically accountable to Pakistanis which oversees recruitment, issuing of weapons, funds, arms training, accountability of these jihadis and their organisations?
Is their military activity within Indian Kashmir and the rest of India in accordance with any Pakistani law or formal resolution on paper?
By what process of consultation and public consensus in Pakistan do you Pakistanis decide whom and when these jihadis should attack, or when Kashmiris should be allowed to talk to Indian authorities and about what?
What steps have Pakistanis taken to ensure minorities in J&K have representation in the freedom struggle?
And why is Musharraf ARRESTING jihadis, now? Why didnot he just pass a government order to ask them to keep low?
``Paksitan is doing whatever it can to save human lives from conscienceless murderers, rapists, and baby killers like yourself.``
Pakistan THINKS its doing whatever it can, but in reality its shooting itself in the foot and Kashmiris too.
The Pakistani Army thinks the best it can do is Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar and sundry other indoctrinated infidel-killers. Why have these Pakistanis killed so many Kashmiris, Muslims too? Why is it so difficult for you to admit what is reported?
Please name the body publically accountable to Pakistanis which oversees recruitment, issuing of weapons, funds, arms training, accountability of these jihadis and their organisations?
Is their military activity within Indian Kashmir and the rest of India in accordance with any Pakistani law or formal resolution on paper?
By what process of consultation and public consensus in Pakistan do you Pakistanis decide whom and when these jihadis should attack, or when Kashmiris should be allowed to talk to Indian authorities and about what?
What steps have Pakistanis taken to ensure minorities in J&K have representation in the freedom struggle?
And why is Musharraf ARRESTING jihadis, now? Why didnot he just pass a government order to ask them to keep low?
#97 Posted by Urstruly on January 7, 2001 11:01:39 am
Prem # 101
Unless you admit that killing 80,000 helpless kashmiris, raping their women, and killing their babies through such draconian laws as Disturbed Area Act of 1990 is state terrorism, please spare me from your lectures of Paksitan`s ``terrorsist`` policies. Paksitan is doing whatever it can to save human lives from conscienceless murderers, rapists, and baby killers like yourself.
Unless you admit that killing 80,000 helpless kashmiris, raping their women, and killing their babies through such draconian laws as Disturbed Area Act of 1990 is state terrorism, please spare me from your lectures of Paksitan`s ``terrorsist`` policies. Paksitan is doing whatever it can to save human lives from conscienceless murderers, rapists, and baby killers like yourself.
#96 Posted by ai on January 7, 2001 9:41:38 am
40% CUT IN INDIAN AND PAKISTANI DEFENSE BUDGETS:
- The Western powers should use their economic clout to force both the countries to cut their expenditures on defense and armaments.
- The people of both the countries should also rise up and demand reduction in defense expenditures. There appears to be powerful self perpetuating interest groups in both countries that do not want peace for reasons that are obvious.
- In Pakistan there are too many fat Generals leaching off the land who contrive to create crisis whenever there is talk of peace with India or concerns about the unsustainability of defense expenditures.
#95 Posted by Prem on January 7, 2001 9:41:38 am
Urstruly and ali1,
You guys (and others like you) make me laugh (momentarily, for there is nothing funny about the tragedy in which you exult). If you believe that Pakistan has been ``correct`` in its terrorist policies, I can only pray that you develop real love for Pakistan and Pakistani people, beyond your egos.
FYI, India cares two hoots about what Pakistanis think on matters of war and peace. Neither should Pakistan care about what Indians think on such important matters. Both India and Pakistan ought to focus on what is good for their people. If they do that, they will find that wisdom lies in living in peace internally and externally.
But wisdom?...hah...why did I use that word?
You guys (and others like you) make me laugh (momentarily, for there is nothing funny about the tragedy in which you exult). If you believe that Pakistan has been ``correct`` in its terrorist policies, I can only pray that you develop real love for Pakistan and Pakistani people, beyond your egos.
FYI, India cares two hoots about what Pakistanis think on matters of war and peace. Neither should Pakistan care about what Indians think on such important matters. Both India and Pakistan ought to focus on what is good for their people. If they do that, they will find that wisdom lies in living in peace internally and externally.
But wisdom?...hah...why did I use that word?
#94 Posted by Prem on January 7, 2001 9:41:38 am
re: AeishA # 99
Arey bhaijan, aise nahi kahte. I am from UP, and I have always known that ali1 is a humwatan. If he is not, then I must start believing in re-incarnation - something the rationalist in me has been resisting.
BTW, it was not the language that drew my attention first, it was our friend`s ``ideas.`` I am intimately familiar with that kind of thinking :)
Arey bhaijan, aise nahi kahte. I am from UP, and I have always known that ali1 is a humwatan. If he is not, then I must start believing in re-incarnation - something the rationalist in me has been resisting.
BTW, it was not the language that drew my attention first, it was our friend`s ``ideas.`` I am intimately familiar with that kind of thinking :)
#93 Posted by nasah on January 6, 2001 9:01:15 pm
````I also would like to further add to this and request that CHOWK become a part of regular reading for both the Pakistani ``ISI`` and the Indian ``RAW`` Intelligence Agencies so that they can hear our message loud and clear.
That is: Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus and Muslims etc.do not want to hate each other or want to remain at each other`s throats for the rest of eternity.````(Ras)
Bless you Ras. One day the TWAIN SHALL meet -- inshaallah
That is: Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus and Muslims etc.do not want to hate each other or want to remain at each other`s throats for the rest of eternity.````(Ras)
Bless you Ras. One day the TWAIN SHALL meet -- inshaallah
#92 Posted by Urstruly on January 6, 2001 8:00:11 pm
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING
Tony the poodle is here. You know what I am saying. Sure he is gonna teach some face saving tricks to the wannabe poodle. You know what I am saying. And the wannabe poodles will be back in the rat holes where they belong. You know what I am saying. Wannabe poodles are begging the poodle god to save them from the mess they have gotten themselves into. You know what I am saying. There is a great lesson for us Pakis in all this poodle game. You know what I am saying. The message is:
1. It is our nuclear prowess that has saved our ass. You know what I am saying.
2. Which means we have to develope more precision guided stuff. You know what I am saying.
3. There is still no substitute for manpower in the army-despite nuclear prowess.You know what I am saying.
4. Paksitan`s support for freedom fighter policy is correct. As long as India`s back is vulnerable they wont dare to attack us. You know what I am saying.
5. The greatest lesson is that neither poodle nor poodle god can (or want to) solve the Kashmir problem. So Pakistan`s current policy is in right direction. You know what I am saying.
Tony the poodle is here. You know what I am saying. Sure he is gonna teach some face saving tricks to the wannabe poodle. You know what I am saying. And the wannabe poodles will be back in the rat holes where they belong. You know what I am saying. Wannabe poodles are begging the poodle god to save them from the mess they have gotten themselves into. You know what I am saying. There is a great lesson for us Pakis in all this poodle game. You know what I am saying. The message is:
1. It is our nuclear prowess that has saved our ass. You know what I am saying.
2. Which means we have to develope more precision guided stuff. You know what I am saying.
3. There is still no substitute for manpower in the army-despite nuclear prowess.You know what I am saying.
4. Paksitan`s support for freedom fighter policy is correct. As long as India`s back is vulnerable they wont dare to attack us. You know what I am saying.
5. The greatest lesson is that neither poodle nor poodle god can (or want to) solve the Kashmir problem. So Pakistan`s current policy is in right direction. You know what I am saying.
#91 Posted by tahmed321 on January 6, 2001 3:35:31 pm
Headline from NYT ``Afghan City, Free of Taliban, Returns to Rule of the Thieves``
Between the Scylla of Mullahism and the Charybdis of Thieves (small-time like the ones in Afghanistan, and big time as in Pakistan), what the hell are the ordinary folks supposed to do!!
Between the Scylla of Mullahism and the Charybdis of Thieves (small-time like the ones in Afghanistan, and big time as in Pakistan), what the hell are the ordinary folks supposed to do!!
#90 Posted by shammi on January 6, 2001 3:35:31 pm
Ali1:
Reading your `colourful` language tempts me to make a guess -- is your family originally from eastern UP or Bihar? This is a hypothesis that I would like to test. Thanks
Reading your `colourful` language tempts me to make a guess -- is your family originally from eastern UP or Bihar? This is a hypothesis that I would like to test. Thanks
#89 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on January 6, 2001 12:39:17 pm
RE: In Reply # 82 nasah wrote
``dear tahmed and Ras:
Do you get the feeling both Musharraf and Vajpayee are reading the Chowk????``
Dear nasah,
one can certainly hope so. CHOWK
does have its hawks on both sides but there are
a bunch of very reasonable people here too. I also would like to further add to this and request that CHOWK become a part of regular reading for both the Pakistani ``ISI`` and the Indian ``RAW`` Intelligence Agencies so that they can hear our message loud and clear. That is:
Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus and Muslims etc.
do not want to hate each other or want to remain
at each other`s throats for the rest of eternity.
Ras
``dear tahmed and Ras:
Do you get the feeling both Musharraf and Vajpayee are reading the Chowk????``
Dear nasah,
one can certainly hope so. CHOWK
does have its hawks on both sides but there are
a bunch of very reasonable people here too. I also would like to further add to this and request that CHOWK become a part of regular reading for both the Pakistani ``ISI`` and the Indian ``RAW`` Intelligence Agencies so that they can hear our message loud and clear. That is:
Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus and Muslims etc.
do not want to hate each other or want to remain
at each other`s throats for the rest of eternity.
Ras
#88 Posted by tahmed321 on January 6, 2001 12:34:50 pm
ali1 #89 I recall sometime back you had observed that the rear end of the mullahs was throbbing in anticipation of being penetrated by a tomahawk missile...and presumably the last few weeks these rear ends have finally found peace and satisfaction. Why should our own Pakistani mullahs be denied the same pleasure? The Indians want the mullahs, let us hand them not 20 but 20,000 of them (This will also improve the food situation in Pakistan immediately).
#87 Posted by semipreciousme on January 6, 2001 12:34:50 pm
Urstruly:
“Iam not sure but we can do something to protect Paksitan that Serbs did-especially now when all Pakistanis are so scared that they have to go to bathroom several times at night.”
….if war and its horrors don’t scare you, you’re more foolish then i thought….if the notion of war is so alluring, the local JeM and LeT centers await…they’re desperate for recruits to fight the infidels in kashmir….i’m sure you’ll be more than welcome…
“Iam not sure but we can do something to protect Paksitan that Serbs did-especially now when all Pakistanis are so scared that they have to go to bathroom several times at night.”
….if war and its horrors don’t scare you, you’re more foolish then i thought….if the notion of war is so alluring, the local JeM and LeT centers await…they’re desperate for recruits to fight the infidels in kashmir….i’m sure you’ll be more than welcome…
#86 Posted by Urstruly on January 6, 2001 2:05:43 am
THE COW SHIELDS
I am sick and tired of reading this (written mostly by Pakis)``India is no USA, and Pakistan is no Afghanistan``. Well there must be some kind of comparison. US vs. Serbs? May be. I am not sure but we can do something to protect Paksitan that Serbs did-especially now when all Pakistanis are so scared that they have to go to bathroom several times at night. Serbs tied down Western journalists and diplomats to the telephone poles at their amunition dumps, and other strategic asstes and used them as human shields. Similarly I would strongly recommend Paksitani government to tie die cows at their nuclear assets, ammunition dumps, and other strategic installations.
I am sick and tired of reading this (written mostly by Pakis)``India is no USA, and Pakistan is no Afghanistan``. Well there must be some kind of comparison. US vs. Serbs? May be. I am not sure but we can do something to protect Paksitan that Serbs did-especially now when all Pakistanis are so scared that they have to go to bathroom several times at night. Serbs tied down Western journalists and diplomats to the telephone poles at their amunition dumps, and other strategic asstes and used them as human shields. Similarly I would strongly recommend Paksitani government to tie die cows at their nuclear assets, ammunition dumps, and other strategic installations.
#85 Posted by tahmed321 on January 6, 2001 1:12:45 am
nasah #82 Hopefully they dont need chowk to understand the importance of India and Pakistan becoming friendly neighbors. Incidentally, Musharaff`s son I recall did write an article on chowk when Musharaff took over, to defend his father saying ``He had no choice (except to take over)``.
#84 Posted by ali1 on January 6, 2001 1:12:45 am
Reply # 76 tahmed321
[``agreed that war between two nuclear-armed countries would be a disaster``]
tahamed sahib, let me reassure you once again; There will be NO war. Banya sookhi phoosiaN maar raha hai.
There position of ``abki maar ke dekh, mamoon (US) ko bula loonga`` is not tenable in the medium term. Niether can they attract the attention of the international community again and again with similar brinkmanship. This whore has run out of tricks, tahmed sahib!
It would be interesting to see how India reacts if the terrorists pull some dramatic stunt right now. For example a high profile kidnapping and then some fun with the hostage; like castrating Bhadwant Singh or sealing Advani`s rectum after stuffing it with Habaneros peppers. This would expose India`s hollow war threats.
[``agreed that war between two nuclear-armed countries would be a disaster``]
tahamed sahib, let me reassure you once again; There will be NO war. Banya sookhi phoosiaN maar raha hai.
There position of ``abki maar ke dekh, mamoon (US) ko bula loonga`` is not tenable in the medium term. Niether can they attract the attention of the international community again and again with similar brinkmanship. This whore has run out of tricks, tahmed sahib!
It would be interesting to see how India reacts if the terrorists pull some dramatic stunt right now. For example a high profile kidnapping and then some fun with the hostage; like castrating Bhadwant Singh or sealing Advani`s rectum after stuffing it with Habaneros peppers. This would expose India`s hollow war threats.
#83 Posted by shailender on January 6, 2001 1:12:45 am
After reading some posts in response to Viresh Malik`s article, I get the feeling that it will take us (I am talking about a majority here), the people from India and Pakistan, about 50 more years to get out of our prehistoric ways of thinking (and this is only if we keep on improving on our education levels). Our way of rationalizing is very strange and we rarely put ourselves in each others shoes. We just assume that we are right and other party is wrong on most contentious issues.
About the most contentious issue of Kashmir,
All that we know about Kashmir is what our respective goverments have wanted us to know.
This is very true for Pakistanis where everything is controlled by goverment and the govt. has been mostly military (or greatly influenced by it) and this is true for Indians also who think they are ``free``. Free we might be to vote and choose the government (and we know what we get after that..Laloo/Mulayam etc) but we are not free from the shackles of bureaucracy or age old sucking customs.
Live a life of a common man in Srinagar or worst still in Baramulla or other small Kashmir town and you`ll see how free you are.
Why don`t I see a word here from an Indian saying ``Militants are doing bad by creating terror but military should also try to behave properly and should not harass people unnecessarily``. The reason is they don`t know what military is doing and they don`t want to know either.
One can live a good life in J&K and in ``democratic and free`` India only if:
- One have good amount of money to bribe
- One thinks bribing is okay where it gets work done.
- One can get harassed (i am not talking of regular security checks here) by police on checkposts and do not mind it thinking of it as a way of life.
- One has no problem begging/buttering/requesting corrupt goverment officals to get things done like getting widow pension.
- One does not have guts to take a stand against the above things and think of them as part of life.
I am very sure that life in Pakistan is worse but I am not much concerned about it as Pakistanis can and will take care of their country.
Lets fix our home first and don`t blame everything on militancy and Pakistan. Better nations are made of better men. So be a little ethical, report anyone asking for a bribe and do not pay it, be a little more disciplined and professional in life and be a little more gutsy.
We are a great nation and we can be the greatest nation (not just the powerful nation) if we fix ourselves. Critisize our own bad things as much as we do Pakistan on militancy as once we realize whats wrong we try to fix it.
About the most contentious issue of Kashmir,
All that we know about Kashmir is what our respective goverments have wanted us to know.
This is very true for Pakistanis where everything is controlled by goverment and the govt. has been mostly military (or greatly influenced by it) and this is true for Indians also who think they are ``free``. Free we might be to vote and choose the government (and we know what we get after that..Laloo/Mulayam etc) but we are not free from the shackles of bureaucracy or age old sucking customs.
Live a life of a common man in Srinagar or worst still in Baramulla or other small Kashmir town and you`ll see how free you are.
Why don`t I see a word here from an Indian saying ``Militants are doing bad by creating terror but military should also try to behave properly and should not harass people unnecessarily``. The reason is they don`t know what military is doing and they don`t want to know either.
One can live a good life in J&K and in ``democratic and free`` India only if:
- One have good amount of money to bribe
- One thinks bribing is okay where it gets work done.
- One can get harassed (i am not talking of regular security checks here) by police on checkposts and do not mind it thinking of it as a way of life.
- One has no problem begging/buttering/requesting corrupt goverment officals to get things done like getting widow pension.
- One does not have guts to take a stand against the above things and think of them as part of life.
I am very sure that life in Pakistan is worse but I am not much concerned about it as Pakistanis can and will take care of their country.
Lets fix our home first and don`t blame everything on militancy and Pakistan. Better nations are made of better men. So be a little ethical, report anyone asking for a bribe and do not pay it, be a little more disciplined and professional in life and be a little more gutsy.
We are a great nation and we can be the greatest nation (not just the powerful nation) if we fix ourselves. Critisize our own bad things as much as we do Pakistan on militancy as once we realize whats wrong we try to fix it.
#82 Posted by nasah on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
dear tahmed and Ras:
Do you get the feeling both Musharraf and Vajpayee are readig the Chowk????
Do you get the feeling both Musharraf and Vajpayee are readig the Chowk????
#81 Posted by arjun_m on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#80 Posted by arjun_m on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#79 Posted by arjun_m on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#78 Posted by rsaxena on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
re: 12-head retard aamir
{More power to common man for thats what i am.}
...better check in your undies first if you`re really even a man or not...then worry about what kind of man you are...
{More power to common man for thats what i am.}
...better check in your undies first if you`re really even a man or not...then worry about what kind of man you are...
#77 Posted by rsaxena on January 5, 2001 1:59:13 pm
From #74
{To say that these buses and trains are conduits for terrorists is a canard no one should believe.}
....right, because khushwant uncle has the omnipresent roving eye that knows all this for a fact...
{To say that these buses and trains are conduits for terrorists is a canard no one should believe.}
....right, because khushwant uncle has the omnipresent roving eye that knows all this for a fact...
#76 Posted by tahmed321 on January 5, 2001 12:48:36 am
Ras Siddiqui #74 While agreed that war between two nuclear-armed countries would be a disaster, so far the results of brinkmanship have been positive - the military has rounded up mullahs by the score.
If all this - 9/11, 12/13 - had not happened, Pakistan was heading for a civil war, with the mullahs trying to take over by force. No question. And with men like Hamid Gul in charge, we could have kissed goodbye any chances of Pakistan emerging from the mess Zia put it in.
Some people get ahead by being smart, others by being lucky. We got lucky.
If all this - 9/11, 12/13 - had not happened, Pakistan was heading for a civil war, with the mullahs trying to take over by force. No question. And with men like Hamid Gul in charge, we could have kissed goodbye any chances of Pakistan emerging from the mess Zia put it in.
Some people get ahead by being smart, others by being lucky. We got lucky.
#75 Posted by Sadhna on January 5, 2001 12:48:36 am
INDIA HAS FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING ,WHICH SOME OTHER COUNTRIES CANT B/C THEY DONT HAVE FREEDOM----pearls of wisdom SUX SENA
Http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html
jan5th 2002
Harijan child beaten to death for failing to
do `mujra`
Sanjay Sharma in Bhopal A five-year-old harijan girl was brutally kicked and beaten to death at Ramgadh village in MP`s Shivpuri district on Thursday evening. The child`s crime? Not bowing her head when two Thakur brothers passed by her hut. Veer Singh and his brother Halka were out for a stroll when they passed by the house of Kallu Jatav, a harijan. His son Atma Singh who was playing with his five-year-old sister Savita in the courtyard failed to notice the arrival of the Thakurs and did not do Mujra, an age-old practice of paying respect to the ruling class by bowing the head in their presence. Thakurs still insist on it in some parts of Madhya Pradesh. The brothers felt insulted and were incensed. They kicked and rained blows on the children till both of them collapsed. Savita succumbed to her internal injuries. The villagers, it is learnt, did not inform the police about the incident till Friday morning fearing the wrath of the Thakurs. In fact, those who had gathered at Kallu Jatav`s hut on hearing the cries of the children remained mute spectators. Ramgadh village is a part of the erstwhile Gwalior estate of the Scindias.
#74 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on January 4, 2001 10:02:14 pm
The foolishness of war
By Khushwant Singh
There are millions of my countrymen who agree with me that we must never ever go to war against Pakistan again — or for that matter, against any nation. Sabre-rattling is not patriotism; it is a foolish person’s show of bravado.
Persons who have not seen the havoc modern-day weaponry can cause to both, those on battlefields and civilians, who have not seen once-flourishing cities in Poland and Germany reduced to rubble and the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have little idea of what war is.
I have. The vast majority of those who perished in World War II were not soldiers but civilians — men, women and children. I never want to see that happen in India, Pakistan or any other country.
Are our responses to the attack on our Parliament the best we could do to fight terrorism? I do not think so. Pakistan condemned it as soon as it occurred, as it did after the attack on the Kashmir assembly. Accusing President Musharraf and his government of being behind these attacks is unwarranted. So is recalling our high commissioner from Islamabad.
Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jaish-e-Moha-mmed and the Taliban are not creations of Musharraf’s regime. They were created by his predecessors and came to him as unwanted inheritance. They have strong presence in Pakistan’s armed forces and have gained popularity among the common people of Pakistan.
Musharraf has an unenviable task of getting rid of them. He did a right about-turn by disowning the Taliban in Afghanistan under American pressure. Under the same pressure, he is doing his best to disown other Islamic militant organisations. It is not in our interests to add to his troubles but to help him in the task he has been compelled to undertake.
His hold on Pakistan is very tenuous. There are many in Pakistan’s defence services who would like to see him out of power. They will be more extremist and anti-Indian than Musharraf. Would helping subvert Musharraf’s regime at this juncture be in India’s interest? Our government seems to think so. I think it is a grave error.
Stopping train and bus services to Lahore is also a retrograde step. The need of the hour is more people-to-people contact between Indians and Pakistanis, not making it almost impossible. To say that these buses and trains are conduits for terrorists is a canard no one should believe.
By Khushwant Singh
There are millions of my countrymen who agree with me that we must never ever go to war against Pakistan again — or for that matter, against any nation. Sabre-rattling is not patriotism; it is a foolish person’s show of bravado.
Persons who have not seen the havoc modern-day weaponry can cause to both, those on battlefields and civilians, who have not seen once-flourishing cities in Poland and Germany reduced to rubble and the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have little idea of what war is.
I have. The vast majority of those who perished in World War II were not soldiers but civilians — men, women and children. I never want to see that happen in India, Pakistan or any other country.
Are our responses to the attack on our Parliament the best we could do to fight terrorism? I do not think so. Pakistan condemned it as soon as it occurred, as it did after the attack on the Kashmir assembly. Accusing President Musharraf and his government of being behind these attacks is unwarranted. So is recalling our high commissioner from Islamabad.
Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jaish-e-Moha-mmed and the Taliban are not creations of Musharraf’s regime. They were created by his predecessors and came to him as unwanted inheritance. They have strong presence in Pakistan’s armed forces and have gained popularity among the common people of Pakistan.
Musharraf has an unenviable task of getting rid of them. He did a right about-turn by disowning the Taliban in Afghanistan under American pressure. Under the same pressure, he is doing his best to disown other Islamic militant organisations. It is not in our interests to add to his troubles but to help him in the task he has been compelled to undertake.
His hold on Pakistan is very tenuous. There are many in Pakistan’s defence services who would like to see him out of power. They will be more extremist and anti-Indian than Musharraf. Would helping subvert Musharraf’s regime at this juncture be in India’s interest? Our government seems to think so. I think it is a grave error.
Stopping train and bus services to Lahore is also a retrograde step. The need of the hour is more people-to-people contact between Indians and Pakistanis, not making it almost impossible. To say that these buses and trains are conduits for terrorists is a canard no one should believe.
#73 Posted by ram-rahim on January 4, 2001 9:52:21 pm
``After all, General Musharaf can arrest Muslim fundamentalist leaders in Pakistan but we can`t lock up the equally venomous and dangerous Imam Bukhari in Delhi, so maybe there is something here that needs further elucidation?``
Imam Bukari is just nuisance; Bal Thakare is more venomous and dangerous to secular India.
#72 Posted by M.A.Jinnah on January 4, 2001 9:52:21 pm
hARAMI..OU #71
HOWEVER despite his dislike he (churchill)like a STATESMAN which neither ADVANI nor Atal ji is ,He carried out the promise(BY THE G.B)]
Repeat, Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister.
[Dont ever accuse without proof ....ill eat you alive]
Go eat yourself.
NOT SO FAST NOR EVER
Who would say Atlee had any part in Indias freedom history.CHURCHILL IS STILL THE MOST TOWERING FIGURE AMONG ALL BRITAINS P.M.
Atlees existence is like Nanda & Desai being P.M. of India ...insignificant
EVEN IN & OUT AS P.M. AS A MEMBER OF HIS PARTY HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL TO SEE & MAKE SURE THAT INDIA INDEPENDENCE BILL GOT PASSED.
You are just nit picking from the central important characters & theme.Like sux sena pick on Shankars spelling of hypocricy
HOWEVER despite his dislike he (churchill)like a STATESMAN which neither ADVANI nor Atal ji is ,He carried out the promise(BY THE G.B)]
Repeat, Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister.
[Dont ever accuse without proof ....ill eat you alive]
Go eat yourself.
NOT SO FAST NOR EVER
Who would say Atlee had any part in Indias freedom history.CHURCHILL IS STILL THE MOST TOWERING FIGURE AMONG ALL BRITAINS P.M.
Atlees existence is like Nanda & Desai being P.M. of India ...insignificant
EVEN IN & OUT AS P.M. AS A MEMBER OF HIS PARTY HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL TO SEE & MAKE SURE THAT INDIA INDEPENDENCE BILL GOT PASSED.
You are just nit picking from the central important characters & theme.Like sux sena pick on Shankars spelling of hypocricy
#71 Posted by harimau on January 4, 2001 7:05:04 pm
Ref M.A.Jinnah #: 60
[1/Who was the P.M. when Mt.Batten was sent to hand over the power.]
Clement Attlee of the Labour Party.
[3/ ww2 was over 6 yrs in duraion & various brit represented british over that period.ONE OF THE REASON OF CHURCHILLS UNPOPULARITY WAS THAT HE FORESAW THE BEGINNING OF DOWN FALL OF EMPIRE OVER WHICH SUN NEVER SET.]
Churchill lost the post-war election on economic circumstances. The British public did NOT want the burden of an Empire after WWII.
[HOWEVER despite his dislike he (churchill)like a STATESMAN which neither ADVANI nor Atal ji is ,He carried out the promise(BY THE G.B)]
Repeat, Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister.
[Dont ever accuse without proof ....ill eat you alive]
Go eat yourself.
[1/Who was the P.M. when Mt.Batten was sent to hand over the power.]
Clement Attlee of the Labour Party.
[3/ ww2 was over 6 yrs in duraion & various brit represented british over that period.ONE OF THE REASON OF CHURCHILLS UNPOPULARITY WAS THAT HE FORESAW THE BEGINNING OF DOWN FALL OF EMPIRE OVER WHICH SUN NEVER SET.]
Churchill lost the post-war election on economic circumstances. The British public did NOT want the burden of an Empire after WWII.
[HOWEVER despite his dislike he (churchill)like a STATESMAN which neither ADVANI nor Atal ji is ,He carried out the promise(BY THE G.B)]
Repeat, Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister.
[Dont ever accuse without proof ....ill eat you alive]
Go eat yourself.
#70 Posted by cutandpaste on January 4, 2001 7:05:04 pm
SOUTH ASIA`S ENDURING CONFLICT
India united in distrust
Billion-strong democracy agrees on little except enmity for Pakistan
Marisa Handler, Chronicle Foreign Service Friday, January 4, 2002
Bombay -- Halfway through its sixth decade of independence, India stands at the forefront of the developing world.
It has gained international recognition for technological innovation in areas ranging from biochemicals to electrical engineering. It has successfully maintained a democracy and has waged largely effective crusades against destructive social practices as ingrained as caste discrimination, female infanticide and suttee, in which a widow is forced to immolate herself on her husband`s funeral pyre.
But when it comes to acceptance of Pakistan, there has been no significant progress since the 1947 partition that formed the two nations. Despite India`s vast cultural, economic and social diversity, the nation of over a billion people stands united in contempt for its neighbor.
``There is a hatred for Pakistan here,`` said Simran Singh, an artist living in Bombay. ``It`s a simple fact. If India beats Pakistan in a cricket match, the entire country goes insane celebrating. When Pakistan wins, the Indian players get stones thrown at them.``
Politics is a more hazardous game, and the events following the Dec. 13 attack on India`s Parliament by separatist Kashmiri Muslim militants illustrates the volatility of relations between the two nations.
Terrorist attacks are nothing new for India, but the action three weeks ago struck at the heart of its government and has effectively pushed the two nuclear-armed nations to the brink of war.
Hostility and distrust among Indians is still running deep, despite a slight easing of bilateral tensions this week.
``Pakistan always breaks its promises,`` said Sandeep Koltharkar, a telecommunications marketing executive in Bombay. ``I`ve heard it and seen it on the news since childhood. I can`t trust Pakistan.``
Anita Goel, a teacher in this sprawling city of 15 million, agreed, saying, ``You can`t believe these people, can`t rely on them or say what they`ll do next.``
Goel does not believe Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, who vowed this week to discontinue military support of Kashmiri terrorist groups and require them to purge any non-Kashmiris from their ranks. She was not surprised when Pakistan rejected India`s demand that it hand over a list of 20 people, most of them Indians, who are suspected of acts of terrorism.
``We want peace, but the Pakistani mentality is different,`` said Goel. ``You can`t trust them.``
This is an oft-expressed sentiment in India: We don`t want a war, but we keep being pushed into responding aggressively.
Many Indians are irritated by the restraint shown by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s government in the wake of the attack on Parliament. They say it is viewed in Pakistan as weakness, especially when compared with the U.S. response to terrorism in Afghanistan.
``Remember, India is under attack,`` reads an editorial published in this week`s issue of the newsmagazine India Today. ``India has to defend itself. The nation is not negotiable.``
Still, there is a general recognition that military aggression will not resolve the Kashmir conflict. And no one is mentioning the nuclear option.
``War is not the solution,`` said Shirshankar Swami, an engineer from Bombay. ``We have had three wars with Pakistan; did we get anything from that? It is good they are talking.``
But even ardent doves are pessimistic about finding a way out of the Kashmir morass.
Priya Ahluwalia, a Bombay writer-director, is one of a small minority who believe Indian Kashmir, which is the nation`s only Muslim majority state, should be allowed to vote on its future.
``A consensus has to be reached, and both sides have to agree to back out of Kashmir,`` she said. ``But that won`t happen. There are too many fanatics in both countries.``
H.F. Shaikh is a Muslim living in the city of Ahmedabad; he qualifies himself as Indian first, and is adamant that Kashmir remain a part of India. However, in contrast to most Hindus, he questions the Indian assumption that Pakistan is to blame for the attack on Parliament.
``We don`t have proof that it was ordered by Pakistan,`` he said. ``We don`t know that Pakistan was directly involved.``
Hindu Indians rarely consider this line of thinking, mirroring the profound religious tension that is part of India`s permanent makeup.
``India is fighting the Pakistani government, but (that) isn`t the problem,`` said Singh, the artist.
``Kashmir is an excuse to let out frustration,`` he said. ``Hindus and Muslims have been fighting since partition. The seeds of this hatred were sown long ago. There is no solution; it`s a no-win situation.``
The decades of distrust have created such a profound rift between the two nations that no one speaks of solutions, only of calming the situation.
``They should sit at the table,`` said Shaikh. ``They should talk.``
But there are few suggestions as to where to go from there.
At a meeting yesterday of the Indian Science Congress, Vajpayee named Pakistan as the primary source of international terrorism and described Musharraf`s steps thus far as unsatisfactory.
With the cycle of heated rhetoric nowhere near an end, Swami says the answer lies in mediation by a neutral party.
``A third party will give new options -- an unbiased party, like the United Nations, but India is rejecting mediation,`` he said, with a shrug of discouragement.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/01/04/MN197222.DTL
India united in distrust
Billion-strong democracy agrees on little except enmity for Pakistan
Marisa Handler, Chronicle Foreign Service Friday, January 4, 2002
Bombay -- Halfway through its sixth decade of independence, India stands at the forefront of the developing world.
It has gained international recognition for technological innovation in areas ranging from biochemicals to electrical engineering. It has successfully maintained a democracy and has waged largely effective crusades against destructive social practices as ingrained as caste discrimination, female infanticide and suttee, in which a widow is forced to immolate herself on her husband`s funeral pyre.
But when it comes to acceptance of Pakistan, there has been no significant progress since the 1947 partition that formed the two nations. Despite India`s vast cultural, economic and social diversity, the nation of over a billion people stands united in contempt for its neighbor.
``There is a hatred for Pakistan here,`` said Simran Singh, an artist living in Bombay. ``It`s a simple fact. If India beats Pakistan in a cricket match, the entire country goes insane celebrating. When Pakistan wins, the Indian players get stones thrown at them.``
Politics is a more hazardous game, and the events following the Dec. 13 attack on India`s Parliament by separatist Kashmiri Muslim militants illustrates the volatility of relations between the two nations.
Terrorist attacks are nothing new for India, but the action three weeks ago struck at the heart of its government and has effectively pushed the two nuclear-armed nations to the brink of war.
Hostility and distrust among Indians is still running deep, despite a slight easing of bilateral tensions this week.
``Pakistan always breaks its promises,`` said Sandeep Koltharkar, a telecommunications marketing executive in Bombay. ``I`ve heard it and seen it on the news since childhood. I can`t trust Pakistan.``
Anita Goel, a teacher in this sprawling city of 15 million, agreed, saying, ``You can`t believe these people, can`t rely on them or say what they`ll do next.``
Goel does not believe Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, who vowed this week to discontinue military support of Kashmiri terrorist groups and require them to purge any non-Kashmiris from their ranks. She was not surprised when Pakistan rejected India`s demand that it hand over a list of 20 people, most of them Indians, who are suspected of acts of terrorism.
``We want peace, but the Pakistani mentality is different,`` said Goel. ``You can`t trust them.``
This is an oft-expressed sentiment in India: We don`t want a war, but we keep being pushed into responding aggressively.
Many Indians are irritated by the restraint shown by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s government in the wake of the attack on Parliament. They say it is viewed in Pakistan as weakness, especially when compared with the U.S. response to terrorism in Afghanistan.
``Remember, India is under attack,`` reads an editorial published in this week`s issue of the newsmagazine India Today. ``India has to defend itself. The nation is not negotiable.``
Still, there is a general recognition that military aggression will not resolve the Kashmir conflict. And no one is mentioning the nuclear option.
``War is not the solution,`` said Shirshankar Swami, an engineer from Bombay. ``We have had three wars with Pakistan; did we get anything from that? It is good they are talking.``
But even ardent doves are pessimistic about finding a way out of the Kashmir morass.
Priya Ahluwalia, a Bombay writer-director, is one of a small minority who believe Indian Kashmir, which is the nation`s only Muslim majority state, should be allowed to vote on its future.
``A consensus has to be reached, and both sides have to agree to back out of Kashmir,`` she said. ``But that won`t happen. There are too many fanatics in both countries.``
H.F. Shaikh is a Muslim living in the city of Ahmedabad; he qualifies himself as Indian first, and is adamant that Kashmir remain a part of India. However, in contrast to most Hindus, he questions the Indian assumption that Pakistan is to blame for the attack on Parliament.
``We don`t have proof that it was ordered by Pakistan,`` he said. ``We don`t know that Pakistan was directly involved.``
Hindu Indians rarely consider this line of thinking, mirroring the profound religious tension that is part of India`s permanent makeup.
``India is fighting the Pakistani government, but (that) isn`t the problem,`` said Singh, the artist.
``Kashmir is an excuse to let out frustration,`` he said. ``Hindus and Muslims have been fighting since partition. The seeds of this hatred were sown long ago. There is no solution; it`s a no-win situation.``
The decades of distrust have created such a profound rift between the two nations that no one speaks of solutions, only of calming the situation.
``They should sit at the table,`` said Shaikh. ``They should talk.``
But there are few suggestions as to where to go from there.
At a meeting yesterday of the Indian Science Congress, Vajpayee named Pakistan as the primary source of international terrorism and described Musharraf`s steps thus far as unsatisfactory.
With the cycle of heated rhetoric nowhere near an end, Swami says the answer lies in mediation by a neutral party.
``A third party will give new options -- an unbiased party, like the United Nations, but India is rejecting mediation,`` he said, with a shrug of discouragement.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/01/04/MN197222.DTL
#69 Posted by hobbyty on January 4, 2001 7:05:04 pm
Veeresh Malik
``Dolce Et Decorum Est`` - por patria mori... Zigfried Sassoon - is that Owen`s non de plume? You may be mistaken about him (Sassoon) dying in WWI - So are there priciples and lives worth defending, at the cost of one`s life? Are you sure you understand what is ``Dolce`` and what is ``Decorum`` about defending ``principles and lives`` at the risk of losing your own?
Such a waste this self congratulatory tripe, you and the editors at Chowk ``feel`` is work (fits in with the theme of ``Dolce Et Decorum Est) - No there is no point in throwing Kashmir or Babri at people who do not acknowledge these as problems - nor is there any point in acknowledging that ``rights`` of and for women are a problem within much of Islamia (as presumably they are not in India - at least they can be seen in the streets, and this is a measure of ``liberation``).
``And so we in India do have to worry about this lack of evolution in Pakistan.``
``Sorry, we do have to worry. We have to try to get you to set your house in order``
YOU pass for a ``GIFTED`` writer on Chowk - ``GIFTED`` with what remains debatable - So Pakistani society is unevolved? Can such a statement be made by any thinking person? ``Contemporary sciences`` do not act as agents of assimilation in the same measure as does a growing economy. In the Ayub Khan years, Pakistan experienced a robust economy, it served as a model for developing economies, while in the same time the Indian economy served as a model for all that was percieved as wrong in developing an economy and how it did not serve to lift up peoples to lives of dignity. Can Pakistanis prevent you from worrying? apparently life in India is so free of stife, that significant numbers of Indians worry not about the hundreds of millions of Indians who do not share the indulgences (worrying about Pakistan) but then knowing whats best for the Pakistani is less a strain on the ``easy going``.
The mindset you represent in this work is precisely the problem between us - The Indian knows whats good for Pakistan? perhaps, I wonder where all those Indians are who so vigourously reject such notions when similar prisciptions are offered by Pakistanis to what they percieve as social and moral failures in the Indian political economy.
Here is whats missing from this piece - we are different, not in a biological sense or even in a moral sense - but because of different visions and experiences, not only was and is, evolution present in Pakistani society, it is present in all, by definition it has to be, it is the pace and direction of the evolution that can be open to examination - here again, we are confronted with differences - if evolution is directed, that is is to say, we know the desired outcome and can effect the pace, is it evolution? ``normal science`` ? yes, we are similar in that we do not want to be evaporated in a war and want lives of meaning, dignity, and joy.
Do we also seek ``easy going`` way of life? what`s that mean? ``easy going`` as in ``unexamined``, ``uncritical``, ``self-congratulatory``?
``just look at the women on Indian streets, even Delhi which was supposed to be unsafe a few years ago has changed in this context. Give it time, our version of democracy and an emerging middle class should improve matters. Will improve matters. Is improving matters. And if in evolution we lose some of our best, well, tribes and herds from whom we descended do the same, so does nature.``
More of the mind set (or the lack of one). Will looking at women in the streets of New Dehli tell us that these women are poor? unemployed? look unwashed? - I would suggest that we can infer that it is none of the above and that their visibility is a function of a robust economy. A robust economy is not necessarily a function of a democratic dispensation (Argentina?) - now, for main point - human society is not a mirror of nature, it is the struggle to animate the ``OUGHT`` and not the ``IS`` - If ``tribes and herds from which we desend do the same``, why the need to evolve? had you concentrated on this distinction while congratulating your Indian selves and promoting ``principle and lives worth defending`` it would have added ``reason`` and ``values`` and brought cogency and relevance to Pakistanis, to this piece. You ``ought`` to read ``Dolce Et... over and over again - it is the waste and meaninglessness of war - that is to say there are no principles and lives worth defending or risking one`s own life for. Are you asserting that this is so???
You seek time for the Indian vision, but are rather impatient with that of the ``Islamic fundamentalist`` - All ``Islamic fundamentalist``? such ridiculous broad brushes - but then, hey, you are ``gifted`` - no effort required to seperate the wheat from the chaff - preaching to the converted are you?
``...it seems that we in India are under attack from Islamic fundamentalists because we are trying to make our principles and our lives worth defending. This is apparently not acceptable to the Islamic fundamentalist because it threatens, by visible display, to undermine their religious and traditional feudal basis of authority and in identifying that, we have an ongoing request for formalisation of war supported, increasingly, by the Indian middle class who has the most to lose otherwise``
So ``Islamic funadmentalists`` are trying to formulate principles so as to make those principles and their lives indefensible? or is it your argument that because their visionis different from yours that it makes their lives unworthy and indefensible? Sounds a lot like Mr. Bush`s argument and Mr. Advani`s aping of it, that we are hated because of our freedom and success - but you are gifted and no one will see through your ``brilliance``.
``Humanity does not want fundamentalism as portrayed by the hardcore Islamists, and in that war, against it, we the majority of people in India and Pakistan are together.``
Speaking in the name of ``humanity``? Secular humanism strikes again - ``Hardcore islamist``? What are these? Why these broad brushes? what are you hiding behind these broad brushes strokes? are there ``softcore Islamists``?
You could have done much in this work, instead you opted for the lazy, unexamined, uncritcal. ideological approach. So not only Not only are Indian and Pakistani readers too ``stupid`` - but you, in this work, have helped them distinguish that this piece certainly is,``stupid``.
#68 Posted by AAmir on January 4, 2001 7:05:04 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#67 Posted by arjun_m on January 4, 2001 7:05:04 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#66 Posted by arjun_m on January 4, 2001 5:23:13 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#65 Posted by ylh on January 4, 2001 5:23:13 pm
PS: Kuti kay bachay 12 headed monster... stop associating Jinnah`s pristine name with your rather sad personality.
#64 Posted by ylh on January 4, 2001 5:23:13 pm
Harimau,
Granted that you are a Pakistan hating fanatic. And granted that you dont like Jinnah, but to make a statement like : `twisting of facts comes with the name` shows your unwillingness ever to accept facts...like Jinnah`s honesty and integrity are unquestionable.
After all, your christ, your mahatma, the gospel of truth, the one and only, the most honest creation of earth, the walking talking God in flesh called Jinnah `Honest man of Integrity, brave and incorruptible`.
Is the gospel of truth not enough for you?
Now go to hell.
Granted that you are a Pakistan hating fanatic. And granted that you dont like Jinnah, but to make a statement like : `twisting of facts comes with the name` shows your unwillingness ever to accept facts...like Jinnah`s honesty and integrity are unquestionable.
After all, your christ, your mahatma, the gospel of truth, the one and only, the most honest creation of earth, the walking talking God in flesh called Jinnah `Honest man of Integrity, brave and incorruptible`.
Is the gospel of truth not enough for you?
Now go to hell.
#63 Posted by warpster on January 4, 2001 4:02:49 pm
trojan #52
I would agree with you that SOME of the people associated with the Jana Sangh, RSS etc. do have a very rabid and unreasonable anti-muslim viewpoint. But you will not find the rhetoric repeated in the BJP partyline. They are not that different from Congress, unfortunately (basic politicians with self interest). But the complicity of huge sections of the Pak establishment in nurturing jehadis with *extremely * anti-Indian views is responsible for the real mess we are in. Students in India are *not * fed with anti-pakistan or anti-muslim viewpoints; if anything all these are toned down at the cost of distorting the bitter truth of the past. So consequently there is no systematic ``kill or convert muslims/pakistanis`` kind of theme existing in any section of youth in India.
More than the current leaders of LeT etc. what is
alarming are the kids who will be the leaders
I would agree with you that SOME of the people associated with the Jana Sangh, RSS etc. do have a very rabid and unreasonable anti-muslim viewpoint. But you will not find the rhetoric repeated in the BJP partyline. They are not that different from Congress, unfortunately (basic politicians with self interest). But the complicity of huge sections of the Pak establishment in nurturing jehadis with *extremely * anti-Indian views is responsible for the real mess we are in. Students in India are *not * fed with anti-pakistan or anti-muslim viewpoints; if anything all these are toned down at the cost of distorting the bitter truth of the past. So consequently there is no systematic ``kill or convert muslims/pakistanis`` kind of theme existing in any section of youth in India.
More than the current leaders of LeT etc. what is
alarming are the kids who will be the leaders
#62 Posted by tahmed321 on January 4, 2001 4:02:49 pm
cutandpaste #50 Welcome to chowk. I agree wholeheartedly with your letter - it is time we started appreciating India as a wonderful neighbor with a rich culture, and start appreciating the many talented individuals this country of 1 billion produces. There will always be Pakistan haters in India, but let us not let them decide our attitude to India - and there are many fine people in India (as you indicate from the examples you provide).
#61 Posted by Prem on January 4, 2001 4:02:49 pm
tahmed321 # 40
Some of the truest words on Kashmir. Except that the malady is better characterized as the Partition Obsession rather than Partition Hangover.
There is an unwillingness to recognize each other as equal human beings. An unbelievably pathological mindset urges us to continue separating people in a world that is becoming more and more intertwined.
The handiest trick in this game is to denounce the other as the rapist, killer, murderer, unclean, lier so on and so forth. We the gullible are willing to believe the half-truths and outright lies of our ``ideologically committed`` opinion-makers because those lies and half-truths make us feel good; they confirm to us that ``we`` are good and ``they`` are not.
Kashmir`s misery is that it has become a tool in this sordid game. If Kashmiris die, if their future, the future of their children becomes bleak, who cares? After all, we get to paint each other as evil.
All this is rather sickening. And since I have lived in Kashmir - not just in Srinagar but in parts of Kashmir currently most ``infested`` with insurgency - it is also rather heartbreaking.
Some of the truest words on Kashmir. Except that the malady is better characterized as the Partition Obsession rather than Partition Hangover.
There is an unwillingness to recognize each other as equal human beings. An unbelievably pathological mindset urges us to continue separating people in a world that is becoming more and more intertwined.
The handiest trick in this game is to denounce the other as the rapist, killer, murderer, unclean, lier so on and so forth. We the gullible are willing to believe the half-truths and outright lies of our ``ideologically committed`` opinion-makers because those lies and half-truths make us feel good; they confirm to us that ``we`` are good and ``they`` are not.
Kashmir`s misery is that it has become a tool in this sordid game. If Kashmiris die, if their future, the future of their children becomes bleak, who cares? After all, we get to paint each other as evil.
All this is rather sickening. And since I have lived in Kashmir - not just in Srinagar but in parts of Kashmir currently most ``infested`` with insurgency - it is also rather heartbreaking.
#60 Posted by cutandpaste on January 4, 2001 4:02:49 pm
Tariq Ali: Do we have to wait for a war to bring these politicians to their senses?
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=112671
`On one level, it would suit both sides to have a small war. But who could guarantee a small war?`
04 January 2002
Despite pleas of the new pro-Western regime, Afghanistan is still being bombed. Innocent people die every day. Osama bin Laden is still at large, but attention has already shifted to Pakistan. The destabilising effects of the war in Afghanistan were always likely to be felt here first. The reasons are obvious.
The Pashtun population in Pakistan`s North-Western Frontier Province shares linguistic and ethnic ties with the region that formed the principal base of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The same brand of Deobandi Islam is strong on both sides of the border. It is worth stressing that there was less actual fighting on the ground in the last three months than there has been over the last quarter century. The bearded ones chose not to fight. A sizeable section of the Taliban forces simply came back home to Pakistan. Some of them are undoubtedly demoralised and happy to be alive, but there is probably a large minority that is angered by Islamabad`s betrayal and is eager to link up with the armed fundamentalist groups already in the country.
The leaders of the most virulent jihadi sects have been arrested, but who will disarm their militants? Until late last year some of the Islamist leaders were boasting that they had chosen 20 cities on which Islamic laws would be imposed. The unstated threat was clear. If any authority attempted to interfere, they would unleash a civil war. When the latest Afghan war began, Washington made no secret of its fear that a massive Western intervention in Afghanistan that overtly used Pakistan as a launching-pad might trigger major unrest or even a coup against a collaborationist regime. The US did everything to maintain decorous appearances for General Musharraf, Pakistan`s ruler, while making sure of the practical compliance of Islamabad. In return for this, sanctions were lifted and money and the latest weaponry began to flow into Pakistan once again.
But now that the Taliban have been defeated, can anyone be sure that the various fig-leaves will really insulate Pakistan from the indignation of the faithful? Everything depends on the unity of the officer corps. To some degree, if one difficult to gauge, Sunni fundamentalism has also penetrated the ranks of the armed forces. Across the country, radical Islamism of one kind or another is a vocal, if minority, force. General Musharraf`s military regime itself is, moreover, a very recent and none-too-strong creation, with little positive civilian support.
The abandonment of its own creation in Afghanistan will be a bitter pill for many in the army, especially at junior levels of command, where religious influence is strongest. However, even more secular-minded officers are not pleased at the outcome. The Taliban takeover in Kabul was the Pakistan army`s only victory. Privately the ruling elite – officers, bureaucrats and politicians – congratulated each other for having gained a new province. It almost made up for the 1971 defection of Bangladesh. As if to rub salt into the wounds, the Northern Alliance and its Washington-selected Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai, have just declared their intention of forging close relations with India, as was the case from 1947-89. This has further weakened the position of the general ruling Pakistan.
It is true that, at more senior levels, the American crusade against the Taliban has been seen as a godsend. For at a stroke it has allowed the Pakistani generals to recover their traditional regional priority for Washington, assured them of credits they desperately need and lifted opposition to their nuclear arsenal. Unlike its Arab counterparts, the Pakistani army has never seen a coup mounted by captains, majors or colonels – when it has seized power, as so often, it has always done so without splits, at the initiative and under the control of its generals (a tradition of discipline inherited from the Raj).
At all events, short of a break in this long-established pattern, it seems unlikely that the top-brass of the Pakistani regime will suffer much from the pieces of silver with which they have been showered. However, the scale of the Pakistani defeat is such that, once the flow of money and weapons ceases, General Musharraf might well be toppled from within. Power-hungry generals have never been a rare commodity in Pakistan.
This is what makes the tension with India potentially dangerous. The irony is that Pakistan is led by a secular general and India by a fundamentalist Hindu politician: an ideal combination to make peace. Yet on one level it would suit both sides to have a small war. General Musharraf could prove that he was not a total pawn. And Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India`s Prime Minster, could win an election. The Kashmiris would continue to suffer. But who could guarantee a small war?
The fact is that Pakistan`s infiltration of jihadi groups, such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, into Indian-occupied Kashmir has created an alternative military apparatus that Islamabad funds and supplies but can`t fully control – just like the Taliban. It`s obvious that the attack on the Indian Parliament was carried out by one of these groups to provoke a more serious conflict. Some of the jihadis don`t much care for Pakistan as an entity. Their aim is to restore Muslim rule in India. Crazy? Yes, but armed and capable of wreaking havoc in both countries. If General Musharraf won`t deal with the menace, Mr Vajpayee will.
If Washington can wage its ``war on terrorism``, why can`t Delhi? Just because it can`t get retrospective sanction from the UN? But as any Second World politician will tell you, for UN read US. The threat of an Indo-Pak war has concentrated minds in Washington: how to give the Indians their pound of flesh without destabilising Pakistan? Perhaps the time is coming when General Musharraf can be sacrificed in the name of a return to democracy in Pakistan. The problem is that no civilian politician in Pakistan is strong enough to challenge the army, which has ruled the country longer than any political party.
The real solution lies in Kashmir, the cause of a dispute that could lead to nuclear conflict. Kashmiris have suffered long enough. The brutality of the Indian occupation made many of them turn to Pakistan, but the behaviour of the jihadi infiltrators has shocked most Kashmiris. The very thought of Talibanisation has led many educated professionals, male and female, to flee. They would like to be rid of both sides.
An autonomous Kashmir, which shares sovereignty with both India and Pakistan, and even China, could become a haven of peace in the region. Sooner or later the situation will require some such solution, but do we have to wait for a war to bring politicians to their senses?
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=112671
`On one level, it would suit both sides to have a small war. But who could guarantee a small war?`
04 January 2002
Despite pleas of the new pro-Western regime, Afghanistan is still being bombed. Innocent people die every day. Osama bin Laden is still at large, but attention has already shifted to Pakistan. The destabilising effects of the war in Afghanistan were always likely to be felt here first. The reasons are obvious.
The Pashtun population in Pakistan`s North-Western Frontier Province shares linguistic and ethnic ties with the region that formed the principal base of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The same brand of Deobandi Islam is strong on both sides of the border. It is worth stressing that there was less actual fighting on the ground in the last three months than there has been over the last quarter century. The bearded ones chose not to fight. A sizeable section of the Taliban forces simply came back home to Pakistan. Some of them are undoubtedly demoralised and happy to be alive, but there is probably a large minority that is angered by Islamabad`s betrayal and is eager to link up with the armed fundamentalist groups already in the country.
The leaders of the most virulent jihadi sects have been arrested, but who will disarm their militants? Until late last year some of the Islamist leaders were boasting that they had chosen 20 cities on which Islamic laws would be imposed. The unstated threat was clear. If any authority attempted to interfere, they would unleash a civil war. When the latest Afghan war began, Washington made no secret of its fear that a massive Western intervention in Afghanistan that overtly used Pakistan as a launching-pad might trigger major unrest or even a coup against a collaborationist regime. The US did everything to maintain decorous appearances for General Musharraf, Pakistan`s ruler, while making sure of the practical compliance of Islamabad. In return for this, sanctions were lifted and money and the latest weaponry began to flow into Pakistan once again.
But now that the Taliban have been defeated, can anyone be sure that the various fig-leaves will really insulate Pakistan from the indignation of the faithful? Everything depends on the unity of the officer corps. To some degree, if one difficult to gauge, Sunni fundamentalism has also penetrated the ranks of the armed forces. Across the country, radical Islamism of one kind or another is a vocal, if minority, force. General Musharraf`s military regime itself is, moreover, a very recent and none-too-strong creation, with little positive civilian support.
The abandonment of its own creation in Afghanistan will be a bitter pill for many in the army, especially at junior levels of command, where religious influence is strongest. However, even more secular-minded officers are not pleased at the outcome. The Taliban takeover in Kabul was the Pakistan army`s only victory. Privately the ruling elite – officers, bureaucrats and politicians – congratulated each other for having gained a new province. It almost made up for the 1971 defection of Bangladesh. As if to rub salt into the wounds, the Northern Alliance and its Washington-selected Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai, have just declared their intention of forging close relations with India, as was the case from 1947-89. This has further weakened the position of the general ruling Pakistan.
It is true that, at more senior levels, the American crusade against the Taliban has been seen as a godsend. For at a stroke it has allowed the Pakistani generals to recover their traditional regional priority for Washington, assured them of credits they desperately need and lifted opposition to their nuclear arsenal. Unlike its Arab counterparts, the Pakistani army has never seen a coup mounted by captains, majors or colonels – when it has seized power, as so often, it has always done so without splits, at the initiative and under the control of its generals (a tradition of discipline inherited from the Raj).
At all events, short of a break in this long-established pattern, it seems unlikely that the top-brass of the Pakistani regime will suffer much from the pieces of silver with which they have been showered. However, the scale of the Pakistani defeat is such that, once the flow of money and weapons ceases, General Musharraf might well be toppled from within. Power-hungry generals have never been a rare commodity in Pakistan.
This is what makes the tension with India potentially dangerous. The irony is that Pakistan is led by a secular general and India by a fundamentalist Hindu politician: an ideal combination to make peace. Yet on one level it would suit both sides to have a small war. General Musharraf could prove that he was not a total pawn. And Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India`s Prime Minster, could win an election. The Kashmiris would continue to suffer. But who could guarantee a small war?
The fact is that Pakistan`s infiltration of jihadi groups, such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, into Indian-occupied Kashmir has created an alternative military apparatus that Islamabad funds and supplies but can`t fully control – just like the Taliban. It`s obvious that the attack on the Indian Parliament was carried out by one of these groups to provoke a more serious conflict. Some of the jihadis don`t much care for Pakistan as an entity. Their aim is to restore Muslim rule in India. Crazy? Yes, but armed and capable of wreaking havoc in both countries. If General Musharraf won`t deal with the menace, Mr Vajpayee will.
If Washington can wage its ``war on terrorism``, why can`t Delhi? Just because it can`t get retrospective sanction from the UN? But as any Second World politician will tell you, for UN read US. The threat of an Indo-Pak war has concentrated minds in Washington: how to give the Indians their pound of flesh without destabilising Pakistan? Perhaps the time is coming when General Musharraf can be sacrificed in the name of a return to democracy in Pakistan. The problem is that no civilian politician in Pakistan is strong enough to challenge the army, which has ruled the country longer than any political party.
The real solution lies in Kashmir, the cause of a dispute that could lead to nuclear conflict. Kashmiris have suffered long enough. The brutality of the Indian occupation made many of them turn to Pakistan, but the behaviour of the jihadi infiltrators has shocked most Kashmiris. The very thought of Talibanisation has led many educated professionals, male and female, to flee. They would like to be rid of both sides.
An autonomous Kashmir, which shares sovereignty with both India and Pakistan, and even China, could become a haven of peace in the region. Sooner or later the situation will require some such solution, but do we have to wait for a war to bring politicians to their senses?
#59 Posted by cutandpaste on January 4, 2001 4:02:49 pm
Autonomy for Kashmir is the answer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,627302,00.html
The stakes are now so high that India, as well as Pakistan, must see sense
Martin Woollacott
Friday January 4, 2002
The Guardian
The attack on the Indian parliament which has led to military confrontation between India and Pakistan in Kashmir was, some Indians say, probably aimed at killing their prime minister and other leading politicians. But in the political rather than the physical sense, the attack was aimed much more at the leadership of Pakistan than it was at that of India. That is why the Indian reaction needs critical examination. It has included demands that the leaders of the covert groups responsible be arrested and in some cases handed over to India, a claim of dissatisfaction with the detentions that have followed and a rushing of troops and missiles to the front line.
General Pervez Musharraf is engaged upon an extraordinary reversal of Pakistani strategic policy, forced upon him initially by events in Afghanistan, but which cannot be confined to that country. A changed approach to Afghanistan, a changed approach to Kashmir, a changed approach to India, and a changed approach to Islamist parties and movements in Pakistan itself are all part of the broader shift which is in prospect, although far from assured.
Pakistani policy in Afghanistan was aimed at closing off that country to India, which once enjoyed influence there, and at using its remote places and Islamist militants to help in a deniable covert war in Kashmir. The supposed purpose was to detach the Indian part of Kashmir, or at least keep India in a state of constant discomfort until the balance of advantage changed, as with Pakistani covert aid for other rebels in the Indian union. Beyond that, for some zealots, perhaps danced the hope that the huge Muslim community in India would be radicalised.
It was less a realistic scheme to win Kashmir than a wrecker`s project and a rationale for the dominance of the armed forces and the intelligence services within Pakistan. Even though they had failed in the wars with India, lost East Bengal and proved inept when they seized political control, they still claimed they had a cunning long-term plan to come out even against India. Musharraf was part of this culture, benefited from it, and is indebted to some of the more Islamist elements within the officer corps.
He is in power today because he was able to represent the Kargil disaster in 1999, when the Pakistanis were forced to withdraw from positions that they and Kashmiri militants had seized in Indian Kashmir, as entirely the fault of Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister. In reality it was the joint responsibility of both the political and the military leadership, very much including Musharraf himself. But he is an opportunist and by Pakistani standards a realist, and it seems that he recognises that times have changed.
He is now faced with a sharp divergence between his interests and those of what is probably still the greater part of the Pakistani establishment on the one hand and those of the militants that Pakistan has long encouraged and used on the other. The raid on the Delhi parliament, like the earlier attack on the Kashmir assembly, were surely aimed either at embroiling him in a new confrontation with India or at producing an upheaval in Pakistan in which he and his new policies would be discarded.
If India humiliates Musharraf by forcing the pace of the repudiation of extreme Islamists on which he may now be riskily embarked, it could come to regret it. As the journalist and analyst Nayan Chanda has pointed out, to demand a complete end to support for armed struggle in Kashmir, including support for genuinely local and religiously moderate groups, is something ``no Pakistani ruler can risk without a demonstrable quid pro quo from India``.
Indian policy ought to be bent toward producing that quid pro quo rather than bullying Pakistan into concession after concession. Perhaps, beneath the military show, some rethinking is going on and perhaps the Americans, and Tony Blair during his visit, may be able to encourage it. But there is an Indian irrationality over Kashmir as dismaying in some ways as that of Pakistan. It is not too much to say that India, by its cavalier and in the end brutal approach in Kashmir, over the years extinguished what was initially probably a slight majority in favour of the New Delhi connection.
Perhaps the desire now of most of the inhabi
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,627302,00.html
The stakes are now so high that India, as well as Pakistan, must see sense
Martin Woollacott
Friday January 4, 2002
The Guardian
The attack on the Indian parliament which has led to military confrontation between India and Pakistan in Kashmir was, some Indians say, probably aimed at killing their prime minister and other leading politicians. But in the political rather than the physical sense, the attack was aimed much more at the leadership of Pakistan than it was at that of India. That is why the Indian reaction needs critical examination. It has included demands that the leaders of the covert groups responsible be arrested and in some cases handed over to India, a claim of dissatisfaction with the detentions that have followed and a rushing of troops and missiles to the front line.
General Pervez Musharraf is engaged upon an extraordinary reversal of Pakistani strategic policy, forced upon him initially by events in Afghanistan, but which cannot be confined to that country. A changed approach to Afghanistan, a changed approach to Kashmir, a changed approach to India, and a changed approach to Islamist parties and movements in Pakistan itself are all part of the broader shift which is in prospect, although far from assured.
Pakistani policy in Afghanistan was aimed at closing off that country to India, which once enjoyed influence there, and at using its remote places and Islamist militants to help in a deniable covert war in Kashmir. The supposed purpose was to detach the Indian part of Kashmir, or at least keep India in a state of constant discomfort until the balance of advantage changed, as with Pakistani covert aid for other rebels in the Indian union. Beyond that, for some zealots, perhaps danced the hope that the huge Muslim community in India would be radicalised.
It was less a realistic scheme to win Kashmir than a wrecker`s project and a rationale for the dominance of the armed forces and the intelligence services within Pakistan. Even though they had failed in the wars with India, lost East Bengal and proved inept when they seized political control, they still claimed they had a cunning long-term plan to come out even against India. Musharraf was part of this culture, benefited from it, and is indebted to some of the more Islamist elements within the officer corps.
He is in power today because he was able to represent the Kargil disaster in 1999, when the Pakistanis were forced to withdraw from positions that they and Kashmiri militants had seized in Indian Kashmir, as entirely the fault of Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister. In reality it was the joint responsibility of both the political and the military leadership, very much including Musharraf himself. But he is an opportunist and by Pakistani standards a realist, and it seems that he recognises that times have changed.
He is now faced with a sharp divergence between his interests and those of what is probably still the greater part of the Pakistani establishment on the one hand and those of the militants that Pakistan has long encouraged and used on the other. The raid on the Delhi parliament, like the earlier attack on the Kashmir assembly, were surely aimed either at embroiling him in a new confrontation with India or at producing an upheaval in Pakistan in which he and his new policies would be discarded.
If India humiliates Musharraf by forcing the pace of the repudiation of extreme Islamists on which he may now be riskily embarked, it could come to regret it. As the journalist and analyst Nayan Chanda has pointed out, to demand a complete end to support for armed struggle in Kashmir, including support for genuinely local and religiously moderate groups, is something ``no Pakistani ruler can risk without a demonstrable quid pro quo from India``.
Indian policy ought to be bent toward producing that quid pro quo rather than bullying Pakistan into concession after concession. Perhaps, beneath the military show, some rethinking is going on and perhaps the Americans, and Tony Blair during his visit, may be able to encourage it. But there is an Indian irrationality over Kashmir as dismaying in some ways as that of Pakistan. It is not too much to say that India, by its cavalier and in the end brutal approach in Kashmir, over the years extinguished what was initially probably a slight majority in favour of the New Delhi connection.
Perhaps the desire now of most of the inhabi