Subcontinental Chain Reaction

Its downright amusing to see the Indian fascination with democracy,secularism and their much loved constitution. Reminds me somewhat of the Muslim enchantment with the Koran, hadith and jihad. Both fail to see that if their objects of affection do not deliver the goods(which is another topic of discussion altogehter) they are little more than bedtime stories to lull the masses into a permanent state of stupor.

For every hobbyty there is a sadna and for every Veeresh(the poor guy doesn`t really deserve the litrol he is getting but who am I to judge) there is ROmair ready, willing and able to defend what is sacred to them. Fight on.

later

-sac

Tahmed

``You have demonstrated with your posts on chowk during these troubled times what true character is about, and why the future is indeed bright for us and future generations...

``

Please dont put any responsibility on me to act like a good boy that I am not. Let me tell you, I write and do whatever I feel like. Human misery grieves me and I follow my heart in such matters instead of my mind. But reading Urstruly, Ali who constantly denigrate my religion gets my goat. So dont be surprised if one day I start paying them back in their own coin. Of Course, with good people like you, I can not behave nasty, that`s simply not my way. But I also think that taking insults from people lying down is a sign of cowardice.

re: shrinker

{{ Are you a muslim? Did you sit huddled in your flat with your family praying that some deranged hindu mob wont burn them alive? }}

Are you a Hindu? Did you sit in a train helplessly watching flames approaching you and your women and children? Did you scream as your limbs caught figure? If NO, then why are you asking him that question?

{Read that article in Washington Post again. Those VHP thugs were ASKING for it! Their behaviour on the train was reprehensible. }

so let me get this straight...if one of your daughters decides to go become a civil nuisance at some public protest, yelling offensive words at some group, she is ASKING to get burnt alive???

let me quote your maginificent comment to veeresh: I`d like to see you wave this post to creatures like these, while your daughter is torched to death in front of you!

do you get it yet, twit?

re: Akash #103

stop complaining and just do it...i`ve not had too many problems with chowk staff blocking my gems responding to the eunuch and urstooly...although do you really care what some 2 mullahs from a religion founded by a camel dude who married a 9-year-old say about your religion?...

re: Zeemax

{{ In the simulation, Pakistan responds by dropping a nuclear bomb on New Delhi.

The casualties from this exchange vary depending on the exact targets and the winds, but they would be measured in the millions. If Pakistan

drops a relatively primitive nuclear weapon of 20 kilotons, 50 percent of the people living within a one-mile radius of the blast would die immediately. Fires would ignite as far away as two miles, and blast damage would extend to buildings three miles from the point of impact.

People 3 1/2 miles away would suffer skin burns and radiation could extend hundreds of miles, depending on the weather. }}

and when india responds with 5 or 6 nukes spread across pakistan, none of these things will happen to pakistanis b.c. they will be safe in their radiation proof vessels designed by their space agency, and hence will just walkout when the action is over and go about their business....GET REAL, PAKISTAN WILL PERISH FOREVER THE MINUTE IT USES A NUKE.

...despite having lost 3 wars to india, pakistanis still continue to have delusions about their military might and india`s inability to respond...real psychotic...

Shankar # 95:

``Those VHP thugs were ASKING for it! Their behaviour on the train was reprehensible.``

In what way the 17-18 children who were fire bombed in that train were ASKING for it? In what way were the 20 or so women were showing their thuggery?

Apart from opportunistic parasitic people who get free medical education and call it a sh *thole, India`s got people who are trying to BUILD a nation using only the constitution and secularism ... so don`t trash it.

Can you tell me why the BJP couldn`t build a temple at Ayodhya during the last 2-3 years even though they were in power both at state and central level?

Re Zeemax (#108):

I am an Ahmadi-Muslim and take issue with your comments that Ahmadis do not follow Quran. This is baseless and incorrect.

I believe in Quran … each and every word of it. I also believe in all the articles of faith prescribed in Quran. There is no basis for your claim that Ahmadis do not “believe”.

About Mirza Sahib … he did not die in the toilet. Such hateful rumors are spread by mullahs to revile Ahmadis. They also claim that Ahmadis are a sect planted by the British, that they are agents of Israel, they are involved with international drug cartels … etc. etc. These mullahs later resorted to violence against Ahmadis … destroying their mosques and murdering them in broad daylight … merely for their beliefs … all in the name of Islam.

Is this what Islam has been reduced to? … persecuting the weak and the innocent?

Your baseless comments only perpetuate the cycle of ignorance, which the “ummah” has been stuck in for ages now.

Asad

Dear Shankar,

Who is denying the issues of Godhra/Gujarat? Have you seen even one Indian pointing out, say, the mess created by pilgrims on the road to Ajmer? Has even one Indian objected to the loud shouts of ``Allah oh Akbar`` when busloads of Muslims go on pilgrimage all over the country? It is part of this country`s ethos, for people to go on pilgrimage and make loud noises whilst about it, as well as misbehave so what was so extra special about a few bogeys full of VHP types?

The root of your agony is, apparently, my claim that Muslims are better off in India than in Pakistan. In a relative sort of way, no pun intended, yes I do know that they are. As are other people too. Better off in India.

Aberrations like Godhra apart, for which correctives will be applied, what is so wrong or sad about India that you get upset?

At the end of the day, as a relative of mine who was involved in the Partition riots and subsequently had the most amazing life-story on both sides of the border told me, there were no religious riots. It was all about ``steel trunk and fair women``.

And that is the real tragedy and that is why I choose to raise a point.

That we are all fools if we think this, Gujarat, is or was about religion.

Roohi wrote:

Bina #34

If Pakistan had a significant enough minority of hindus today, and they burnt down a train load of muslims, no matter what the provocation -

do you honestly believe the same events (or worse) would not have taken place in Pakistan ....?



As a Pakistani, I don`t doubt that the same thing would have happened here. There`s a song by Sting called `History will teach us nothing.` Our history has taught us nothing. (And I`m referring to both the histories of India and Pakistan here). Possibly because our history lessons have included inculcating hate for each other, or the `other`. A hate I never learned, a hate that quite a number of Pakistani bhais and behens haven`t learned.

Minority or majority..whether it is 500 plus, or just one individual, the taking of a life is wrong. Last year in Pakistan, members of an Islamic extremist group massacred 16 Christians on a Sunday, when they were worshipping in church. About four years ago, houses in my mother`s village were razed to the ground and churches were burned down by an angry mob of Muslims who decided to attack first and ask questions later. Both of these attacks were totally senseless, just as what has happened in Gujarat in the past few days, or what happened when the Babri Masjid was burned down, or the events after the Golden Temple was stormed. I`m not comparing these events, nor am I minimizing ANY of them. I`m just saying that events like these have been taking place throughout both our histories, and what lessons if any have we learned? If we`ve learned to spew out hate, and think one group is good and the best, and one group is evil, then I`m afraid we haven`t learned anything.

Pakistan is by no means a perfect country. It is a country however that does have citizens who anguish over events not just happening within their own borders, and it does have citizens who don`t just anguish over the deaths of Sunni Muslims. It also has citizens who are bloody babbling bumbling buggering idiots at best and don`t know any better. There it is. Any Pakistani who claims superiority over anyone else, is merely talking out of his/her arse. But why single out my fellow Pakistanis...any person who claims superiority over anyone else is talking out of his/her arse, and that includes Indians of any hue, religion, sex and sexual preference.

So in these harrowing times..when we`ve lost friends, loved ones, members of the human race, fellow Chowkwallahs, can we stop the vomiting forth of hate, of declaring an entire faith as evil? Can we stop the gross generalizations that people even as intelligent as Veeresh ji seem to crank out? Can we stop this ridiculous nonsense of claiming Indian superiority over Pakistanis and vice versa. Bina`s point..badly as it was presented..was valid. As a Pakistani, who has always been critical of the faults and the mistakes of the Pakistani state and society, and who has been considered by many Pakistanis not to be a ``Pakistani``...reading posts by Indians who constantly put down Pakistanis even makes me sick to my stomach (as well as posts by ignorant Pakistanis). Stop the violence! Stop the madness! All Muslims are not evil, all Hindus are not evil, all Christians are not evil.

One of my favorite anecdotes has to do with the great jazz trumpeteer, Miles Davis. For those of you, who like me, are Miles aficionados..he went through a massive change in his style..from be-bop to fusion. This was not pleasing to his older fans. One of them walked up to him and said, `Miles, man, what`s going on? How come you don`t play the way you used to anymore?` Miles looked at him, and in his incredibly raspy voice responded, ``Open up your f---ing ears!``

We need to open our ears and our eyes and realize that while it may be fashionable and preferable for some of us to live off of ignorance and hate, it`s not going to get us very far in this world. When we blindly listen to our leaders, and not question them (as even George W. doesn`t want us to do in this so-called democratic society), when we blindly follow the demagogues..the promoters of hate, when we don`t self-check ourselves, before vomiting on someone else..what makes us less culpable of what happened in Gujarat, what is happening in Kashmir, and what is happening in Pakistan..then those who are `actually` perpetrating such bloody attacks? `Zara socho, zara samjho, zara sambhal ke raiyo ji!`

Not all of us `behens` hear simply what we want to hear! :)

re fairdinkum

Thanks for your response. I was not referring to equality/liberty in an Indian context. We are quite far away from either of the two aims in India.

The historical socio-economic inequities of Indian society will obviously not disappear anytime soon. Our democracy, flawed though it is, is making some dent in the alienation that you mention. I am familiar with villages of the poorest parts of India and have seen that the historically most dispossesed people are beginning to get a voice against their erstwhile lords and masters. It`s their vote which gives them this voice. Of course, democracy alone can not bring economic equality and I have no clue if there is any way to get that (short of having a North Korea like system where almost everyone is equally poor).

Regards

Zeemax(108)``They`re `Zaalimoon` as Qura`an has said. They never believed. Mirza Ghulam Mohammed was not a Prophet. He died in the toilet. Muhammad was the last Messenger of God and Qura`an His last book after Torah and the Bible. Qura`an says if people didn`t believe Torah and the Bible which were also sent by Him, why would they believe Qura`an ? And that`s how it goes. Qura`an is the last book sent by God and it`s basically either you believe or you don`t. Period.``

What does that have to do with the price of porn in peshawar ?

Akash #103

Why bother with Urstruly`s disgusting characterizations of Hinduism? Don`t you see that his abuse and malignant hatred makes clear his character? Is your faith in Hinduism so weak that you have respond to abuse with abuse? How will it change anything?



This is a public forum of educated people. We are able to distiguish malice from information sharing, hate speech from genuine indignation.

Reply #: 100 Romair

[This leaves the Ahmedis. They are the most educated group in Pakistan. They even had a military Chief.]

They`re `Zaalimoon` as Qura`an has said. They never believed. Mirza Ghulam Mohammed was not a Prophet. He died in the toilet. Muhammad was the last Messenger of God and Qura`an His last book after Torah and the Bible. Qura`an says if people didn`t believe Torah and the Bible which were also sent by Him, why would they believe Qura`an ? And that`s how it goes. Qura`an is the last book sent by God and it`s basically either you believe or you don`t. Period.

Zeemax

MastRam # 76

I wouldn’t want to get involved in conservatives vs. liberals argument here… I would also like to stay away from discussion of liberal democracies vs. illiberal democracies… These matters have been discussed to death on this site with very little progress towards identifying the real problems that we face in South Asia. Coming back to the questions you pose in your letter, let us not just talk about an economically “just” society… Let us move on and talk about an egalitarian society.

I believe that an in-egalitarian democracy is vulnerable to the alienation which arises from deep inequalities, and the sense of neglect and indifference that easily arises among abandoned minorities. This, I believe, is what is happening to Indian democracy right now. And that is why democratic societies cannot be and should not be too in-egalitarian.

In societies like the USA where a considerable chunk of the society is made up of people who, as you point out, regard equality and liberty as contradictory terms / aims, a balance is achieved by adopting egalitarian policies with redistributive effect (and to some extent also with redistributive intent). Yes, some turn out like Bill Gates and, and yet, some like the homeless guy on the pavement. But the opportunities are there for everybody to turn out like Bill Gates.

jntuece99 #78

[But I am afraid you have generalized a little too much about India.]

May be.

[But we are moving ahead. You might have noticed that there are only some pockets in India where this happens. Many other volatile places in India remained peaceful.]

I don’t disagree with you there. But in a truly democratic, secular society which India claims to be, incidents such as Gujrat massacre are totally unacceptable... The least Indian Government can do is sack Mr. L.K. Advani (we know he doesn’t have the decency to resign) for his involvement with Hindu extremists. That would be a good start if India really wants to move ahead.



shammi #104

[Fairdinkum, have you ever visited India?]

Yes, on more than one occasion… my last visit to India was relatively recently… about a year ago…



Romair #73
[Just wondering if you could give an update in what is going on in Pakistan. How has working in Pakistan been? Any changes from before.....]

Romair: Hi.

Well, prior to my current experience, I had never worked in Pakistan before… So, it was a bit shocking… but now I am beginning to get the hang of things i.e. work ethics, and work culture etc. Things are not as bad as they might appear to many of us in the west or even in the middle east. I wouldn’t advise anybody to invest their life savings in a tech. based business in Pakistan though.

The changes I have noticed:
- McDonalds, KFC, Subway, Pizza Hut everywhere… revolting stuff.
- generally speaking people don’t follow politics and power play with much enthusiasm…
- women in the cities wear sleeveless.
- They go out on dates.
- Every now and then, we have musical concerts in all major cities…
- women dance and so do men…it is shown on ptv and its no big deal for anybody.

What is more frequent than musical concerts, is massacre of people in mosques and targeted and random killings of shias… and that is no big deal either.

Urstruly,

I have run out of time and energy :(
Will write to u tomorrow.

Reply #: 92 Ferozk

Dear Feroz,

It`s a misunderstanding if you call Islam complex. I would suggest you study Qura`an. We have all read Qura`an at one time or another, but the Maulvis our Moms hired for us as kids out of their sense of duty taught us to read in Arabic without translation and to swing back & forth while reading the Arabic script.

After gaining so much experience and insight into stuff, do study Qura`an again. It will mean so much more now that you can relate experiences with what it says.

Islam is actually very simple. For beginners, just read Surat`ul Baqra. That`s the first Ayat after the introduction and is mostly about ancient History, and how people never understood.

Regards

Zeemax

Reply #: 82 harimau

[Do you mean to say that with less powewrful weapons Pakistan has no choice but to use them first and thus invite annihilation?]

No it`s not like that.

Surprising as it may seem, Pakistan`s nuclear doctrine appears to be the first-use of extremely low-yield tactical nukes in defence on it`s own soil...

The GHQ calls it ``the trip-wire defense``. In other words, if you `trip` the wire, we will fire`. This is no novel strategy. It comes right out of the US military textbooks. NATO`s stated policy for 30 years was also the same. Warsaw Pact forces enjoyed at least a 5-to-1 numerical superiority in Western Europe. The stated policy was that if the Soviet invasion came in force, NATO could not possibly hold back the thrust of conventional forces. So if and when the Warsaw Pact entered the Rhine Valley, NATO would deploy tactical nukes over troop formations `on NATO soil`.

The Soviets may have been evil, but they were not stupid. Being a nation of chess players they could see where such a move could lead to. Their attack never came.

This doctrine is corroborated by the fact that while India carried out 4 tests of high-yield mass destruction nuclear weapons, including a Hydrogen Bomb, Pakistan`s 2 out of five tests were of low-yield tactical weapons of less than 5 kiloton yield, which were not even picked up by the satellites (remember the controversy whether Pakistan had only successfully tested three but was claiming five because two had failed ?)

I quote below an extract from an ex-War Analyst at the Pentagon.

[It Doesn`t Start in Kashmir, and It Never Ends Well.

By Sam Gardiner

``If we have to go to war, jolly good.`` Those were the words India`s

army chief, Gen. Padmanabhan, used at a news conference on Jan. 11 to describe the prospect of war with Pakistan.

I`m sorry, general. Maybe you were trying to show resolve, or prove that you`re tough. But I can tell you from experience, war between India and Pakistan would not be jolly good. It would be very bad.

I`ve fought in more than 20 ``wars`` between India and Pakistan. I`ve seen skirmishes turn into conflagrations. I`ve seen ferocious attacks across

the border, and defending divisions worn down. I`ve seen Pakistani commanders turn to nuclear weapons to fend off advancing Indian divisions. I`ve seen New Delhi -- a city of more than 11 million -- destroyed and hundreds of thousands of its residents killed in a flash.

I`m sorry, Gen. Sunderajan Padmanabhan, I`ve seen nothing that came close to jolly good.

How have I seen these things? In ``wars`` that took the form of games played out by American war colleges and military services over the past

decade -- ever since the United States began to seriously worry about the consequences of a clash between India and Pakistan. These are not fanciful intellectual exercises, but serious, two-week-long simulations used to educate American officers, choose weapons systems they will

need for the future and better prepare the United States to respond to complex international conflicts. In the past, these ``games`` have proven

to be extraordinarily good prognosticators of events. In the case of India and Pakistan, the outcome was nearly always catastrophic. And

even after the carnage, the fundamental problems dividing the two nations remained unresolved.

In each of the simulated conflicts in South Asia, some incident provoked the two countries into putting their forces into a high state of readiness along their border. Sound familiar? A recall by Pakistan of its troops participating in peacekeeping operations throughout the

world was on our list of actions that would indicate a conflict was near. My own sense of the gravity of the current situation was sharpened when Pakistan recently took this action.

On the balance sheet, India has a stronger military force. India can field more than a million soldiers; Pakistan around 650,000. For both countries, most of these troops are infantry. But in a major attack, the decisive forces are the armor and mechanized divisions, which have large concentrations of tanks. Although the balance still favors India, in this area the gap is not as great and Pakistan could overcome some of the disadvantage by the wise

use of its units. That means striking quickly, and striking first. To wait is to be at a

disadvantage. When it became apparent in the simulations that conflict was inevitable, one of the sides -- usually Pakistan -- always initiated combat. That`s why face-offs such as the current one make me extremely nervous.

The historical root and most visible cause of tension between India and Pakistan has been Kashmir, the region controlled by India but claimed by Pakistan as part of its territory. But in previous real-life wars and in the ``wars`` I`ve

seen, the important fighting doesn`t take place

in that contested area. The mountains there just don`t offer a good place to fight a decisive battle. Both sides look to other parts of the

2,000-mile border that divides them.

The critical terrain for both sides is the Punjab valley, where key north-south roads lie. On the Indian side of the border, these roads are the link to Kashmir. On the Pakistani side, they link the southern part of that country with Lahore and Islamabad. These are strategic lifelines for both nations.

In the earliest games I took part in, before we thought Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, the conflict tended to move in a relatively benign pattern, based in part on the Arab-Israeli War of October 1973. I recall a discussion with a colonel on the faculty of the Pakistani defense college who told me that he had his students study that war. I assumed he was interested in how the Israeli army surrounded the Egyptian forces toward the end of the fighting. To my surprise, he said they were interested in Egypt`s strategy. They thought it the best example of a weaker country that was defeated in war but achieved its policy objectives.

The lessons of Egypt in 1973 were not lost on Americans playing the role of Pakistani leaders in past years` games. They would engage in

some direct fighting, but would also carry out cross-border attacks in areas where Indian forces were not present in strength. It was a take-territory-and-go-to-the-U.N. strategy. It was a pattern repeated from the earlier wars between the two countries.

But war games try to imagine the future, and the U.S. military`s view of South Asia`s future changed around 1993, when we began to assume

that Pakistan would eventually acquire nuclear weapons. (Pakistan did not test a nuclear weapon until spring 1998.) That changed the strategy

of the Pakistani leadership. Conventional forces were used differently, and the wars certainly ended differently.

Since then, these war games have unfolded in much more lethal ways. An initial attack by Pakistan generally cuts the Indian link to Kashmir.

India responds against the Pakistani units in India, but rushes its main forces toward Lahore --Pakistan`s second-largest city, and the country`s cultural and intellectual center. The Indian teams assume, probably correctly, that, as they advance, Pakistan would be forced to withdraw from its forward positions.

As Indian units advance toward Lahore, which lies just 18 miles from the border post, Pakistan realizes the war is reaching a critical point. If the Indians take the city, they will split Pakistan in two and the Pakistani nuclear weapons will be of little or no use. The Indians must be stopped and must be stopped quickly. In our scenarios, the only way for Pakistan to do that is by using nuclear weapons on India`s forces inside Pakistan. Strange as that sounds, using nuclear weapons on your own territory has some political advantages, and bears some similarities to NATO strategic options in place during the Cold War. The world would see it as a defensive

measure. India would be seen as the aggressor.

It takes three or four nuclear weapons to stop the massive Indian attack. Pakistani forces also suffer heavy casualties from the blasts and radiation, but the Indian advance is halted.

India is left with a dilemma. Does it retaliate against Pakistan with nuclear weapons? Should it hit Pakistan`s cities in its initial strike?

That would only further cede the moral high ground to Pakistan. India picks four or five Pakistani military targets for its first use of

nuclear weapons, but the attacks also cause significant civilian casualties. In the simulation, Pakistan responds by dropping a nuclear bomb on New Delhi.

The casualties from this exchange vary depending on the exact targets and the winds, but they would be measured in the millions. If Pakistan

drops a relatively primitive nuclear weapon of 20 kilotons, 50 percent of the people living within a one-mile radius of the blast would die

immediately. Fires would ignite as far away as two miles, and blast damage would extend to buildings three miles from the point of impact.

People 3 1/2 miles away would suffer skin burns and radiation could extend hundreds of miles, depending on the weather.

The participants in these games took no pleasure in unleashing their weapons of mass destruction. To them, it represented failure. In 1998, when India and Pakistan first tested nuclear weapons openly, many strategists said Cold War-style deterrence might prevent war. Yet the danger is that Indian and Pakistani leaders still believe it possible to have a small conventional conflict. Soviet and American leaders didn`t think that way during the Cold War.

As a result, Soviet and American forces never traded shots across the Iron Curtain the way India and Pakistan have exchanged fire across the

Line of Control in Kashmir. NATO and the Warsaw Pact never went to the level of mobilization in Europe that has emerged between India and Pakistan over the past month.

What can the United States do? One of the objectives of the war games is to understand how the United States might make a difference, even if

it means using our own combat capabilities. After my 20 wars, I still don`t know how to do that once hostilities begin. Any use of U.S. forces would mean taking sides; three-sided wars are not possible. The United States would have to side with the weaker party, meaning Pakistan. But that still might not prevent a cataclysmic outcome.

A far better strategy would be for the United States to insert itself strongly before armed conflict begins, and get India and Pakistan to

realize what they must do. We`re not going to quickly solve the underlying problem of Kashmir, but we can press the two sides to stand down, start talking and recognize how easily they can stumble forward to disaster. In the war games, we did not call a timeout and allow the two countries to negotiate. India and Pakistan xchanged messages through their actions. The current cycle might be broken if the United States can bring about a pause for talks.

A few years ago, I ran a war game with my sophomore class at George Mason University. With a little instruction on doctrine and weapons,

the two teams managed to fight their way to the all-too-typical results. After the Pakistani team used nuclear weapons on Indian combat formations, I stopped the game and asked them to reflect on the experience.

I heard standard answers. ``If we would have moved more divisions to the point of attack, we would have been able to hold out,`` said one student. ``A heavy airstrike as the first move would have changed things,`` said another. Toward the end of our discussion, one young woman in the class asked a question I`ve never been able to answer:

``Why don`t they do this kind of game with the leaders of the countries so they won`t let it happen?``

Now that, my dear general, would be a jolly good idea.

+_+_+_+_+_+

Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, is a visiting professor at the Air War College and the National Defense University. His opinions do not necessarily reflect U.S. government policy.]

Regards

Zeemax