The Great Turn-On

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

A factual error:

``This is sweet, but no one stopped India from putting those conditions. (It might be prudent to point out here that when Pakistan wanted to send aid during the earthquake in Gujarat, a non-communal calamity, our government refused.) ``

India did accept aid from Pakistan. There were Pakistani planes that landed with supplies. The gesture was appreciated.

As far as the failure of Agra is concerned, the issue is the same now as it was then. Yes, Vajpayee had agreed to a statement which addressed Kkashmir and Cross Border terrorism. It was not Advani (who has been made villain of the peice) but bureaucrats of the Foreign Ministry as well as Jaswant Singh who initially spooted the loop hole. Cross ``border`` terrorism would not legelly be appliacble to terrorism across the line of control as it is not a border. The Indian team wanted to include a reference to Line of Control as well. Tthe Pakistanis were blind sided by this and the rest is history.

As far as talking about Hindus and Sikhs are concerned, or for that matter Muslims, Pakistan does not have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of India. That is an obvious truth. It may suggest as a friendly country, but right now we are not at that stage of being friends.

So, what is the point of the narrative? Kashmir is an issue, India does not deny that. Just because it is an issue does not mean that we will agree to their point of view. We have our own point of view and there is a national consensus on it. The problem is not in talking to Ppakistan about Kashmir. Tthe problem is legitimizing the Jehadi struggle their and the lack of any common ground for a solution. Not one country outside Pakistan has asked India to hold a plebiscite or transfer territory. The solution that Ppakistan wants is what a victorious country imposes to the loser in a war. And we have not lost a war to Pakistan yet.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Since this is going to be the next HOT board:-), excuse me for posting this info.

For those who might be iterested....Tariq Ali is going to be talking on Iraq war at 9:00Pm tonight on NPR radio. KQED in California.

We can run much faster economically if the Pakistan ball was not tied to our feet. Thats the point of this article. However, we also cannot give in to terrorism or nuclear blackmail. That even the Pakistanis will realize. No matter what the cost, people in the subcontinent will go to any insane level to preseve what they perceive as izzat.

But my concern is that since Pakistan is on the losing side, they will choose to escalate terrorism. Today we arent concerned too much because bombs dont go off in say Mumbai or Bangalore. And eventually they will get around to doing just that.

So we must keep talking to them so their leaders can tell the people - look guys we are getting somewhere with this.

And perhaps in the future, achieve economic suzerainty over them. Sounds imperialistic but it is inevitable. That will serve as a deterrent far more than a nuke sitting in some dusty silo in Rajasthan.

You want to compare India Pakistan poverty levels.....Excuse me...sir......Showing some lousy stats won`t help

(Poverty in India decreased from 38% of population in 1991 to 24% in 2002 , in Pakistan >poverty increased from 20% in 1990 to the present level of 36%. All this happened in the >decade in which Pakistan was supposed to bleed India with Kashmir/Kargil/Kaluchak etc.)

I have visited India myself....in 1998.....quite near the dispute i must say....and the poverty i saw alarmed me....did any body tell u my friend that the largest ``Jhoparpaty`` as u guys call it......exists in India......When i travelled from one city to another.....the road was filled with villages and shabby huts.........Poverty in pakistan is no doubt there.....But you will see the apparent difference in the level of poverty in India and Pakistan on paper and in reality once you visit Pakistan and compare India with it

``We can send model-item girl Yana Gupta, a Czech married to an Indian, to dance on a glass top table at the Marriott in Islamabad, lip-synching “Babuji, zaraa dheere chalo…” and shaking her booty``

Could you provide the exact date, time and exact location of this event......

Jhopadpattis have been around for all these years and are not going to disappear overnight. Just because India has reasonable forex reserves, we can`t start handing out cash to everyone in Dharavi tomorrow. Le bhai, ek ghar bana le tu bhi. Similarly Islamabad is not going to become a rubbish heap overnight because of the arms race.


What the country needs to do is create the opportunity for economic growth. In 5 years there will be a huge difference. There is a difference today from 1990.

What those figures also dont tell you is the huge `can do` optimism you see in India today. There is a sense of direction that we are moving forward. Job are getting created, the consumers are getting created. That itself produces demand - but for that to translate into more than a dry macroeconomic statistic to a visible reality takes about 5-10 years. Think about it - FII investment in India has never been higher. Why would so many people be sinking so much money into a place if they didnt see the (obvious) future?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re:#1 by gujjubania
Hey kid.
Good post. Temper your hatred. Give lots of facts and statistics to prove your point. That is the way to go. We are here to interact not to hate or spill blood.
Sridhar

re: this article
First Angana Chatterjee, now Farzana bibi. As they say in Hindi ``soney pe suhaga``.
There is nothing much that stands out in this article. The same old whine. Nothing that impresses you as unique or fresh.
India and Pak discord is as old as the age of these 2 nations. Ms Versey does not offer any solutions. She has only a lot of complaints. She has balanced her criticisms well to please both Paki and Indian interctors. For this, she needs to be complimented.
Sridhar

It was humorous at times. What attracted my attention is:

[External Affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha, who has been finding flaws in every Pakistani statement, was at it again. He found Islamabad’s offer of a scholarship for 100 Kashmiri students offensive. “India has never said, for instance, only 20 children from Baluchistan or Sindh or NWFP will be given free medical treatment. All our measures are applicable to all Pakistanis.” This is sweet, but no one stopped India from putting those conditions. ]

This argument throws some light into the modernist jihadi mindset. Yes we discrimnate and care about Muslims and that too Kashmiris only but no one stops you from doing the same. That is pathetic Farzana.

re:#6 by khotasikka
I am not surprised that the military dictator of Paksitan prefers ``Kashmir talk`` over ``trade talk``. Dictators are not answerable to the public. So, Mushy is not bothered that poverty in Pakistan is actually increasing. By some deft manipulations, he may come up with statistics showing that this is acutally not true. Was it not Sadna who said in one of her posts that Mushy has never bothered to find out the statistics about the poverty level since he took over as the ruler? ``What you do not know will not hurt!`` seems to be the philosophy.

So, Pak will try to compete unsuccessfully economically in its own small sphere. Worse still for Pak is its efforts to compete militarily. Somebody needs to explain to me why Pak needs to compete militarily with India if it believes that nuclear deterrant is sufficient. By a ``theory of compellance`` (meaning: one side is literally compelled to compete with its adversary militarily even though it knows such a competitiion is not in its best interest), Pak has to compete. It is following the path that Soviet Union took many years ago. Only saving grace is: Uncle Sam still casts a benevolent eye on Pak. Pak must fear the day when USA discards it like a used condom.
Is there a solution to all this? You bet there is. Pak can make a policy change (just like it did for Taliban) and say that it is willing to shelve the Kashmir problem until relations between the 2 are on a firmer footing and basic trust is developed. Pak can start trading with India the way Taiwan trades with China and make use of the immense opportunities that a huge market in India offers. All this would have happened if Pak were ruled by politicians and not military dictator. Military dictators do not care about public opinion. Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his job if he goes soft on Kashmir.
Sridhar

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20031117&fname=Column+Anita+Pratap+%28F%29&sid=1
impressions

Bad Faith, Bad Taste

Pakistan`s response to India`s peace offer shows how badly it`s stuck in the old mould

ANITA PRATAP
So often Pakistan behaves as if it is India`s opposition party—criticising for the sake of criticising, rejecting for the sake of rejecting, objecting for the sake of objecting, needling for the sake of needling. Exactly as silly, immature, compulsorily confrontationist opposition parties do.

Much more than India, it was Pakistan that had been vociferously clamouring for talks. And when India produces a dozen ideas to strengthen bilateral and people-to-people ties, Pakistan`s response is so childish that it is utterly unbecoming of a sovereign nation. What is bizarre is that qualified and experienced diplomats have crafted their official response. Unfortunately, it would appear that long experience has merely transformed their officials into fossils, incapable of moving beyond the tried, tested and failed rhetoric, the puerile games of petty one-upmanship and downright bad faith that has characterised Indo-Pak relations all through the `60s, `70s, `80s and `90s.

But now we are into the 21st century. Those who don`t respond to the winds of change will be blown away into the dustbins of irrelevance. Nobody has the time or the patience to put up with antiquated ideological fixations and crusty behaviour patterns. Pakistan`s establishment must come to grips with this—9/11 ushered in a new era of international priorities and codes. Nobody supports terrorism. Everybody wants peace. Platitudes bore. Actions impress.

India offered medical service to Pakistani children not because Pakistani medical services are inferior but because of the groundswell of goodwill in both countries triggered by little Noor`s experience. It`s only the weak, the inferior or the paranoid who habitually attribute malafide motives to every action. Still, Pakistan is entitled to feel weak and paranoid vis-a-vis India. Just our size on the map is sufficient to make our neighbours feel understandably small and overwhelmed. If we are truly confident of ourselves, why should we feel small or less to accept Pakistan`s offer to treat Indian children in the Karachi heart institute? The best in Pakistani heartcare may not compare with the best in India, but the best there is better than the mediocre and inadequately equipped heart hospitals that dot the Indian landscape. So why shouldn`t a few Indian children benefit from Pakistan`s offer, even if it stems from a silly sense of one-upmanship. By accepting this offer, India is not only being large-hearted as an elder statesman, but also shoring up Pakistan`s self-esteem. As with human beings, nations with high self-esteem behave in a more responsible and mature fashion. So it is in our interest to boost Pakistan`s self-esteem.

Low self-esteem induces obsessive one-upmanship, which explains to some extent Pakistan`s immature response to India`s peace offer. To India`s suggestion about reviving sporting ties, the response, in a nutshell, is: ``Fine, but hey may we remind you, it is our prime minister`s idea!`` But more than anything else, Pakistan`s response shows how badly their establishment is stuck in the old mould, their perspectives warped by several chips on their shoulder. Scuttling India`s proposal for a direct bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar on the grounds that it must go through UN checkposts reflects Pakistan`s insincerity to the Kashmiri cause—it`s not to better the lives of ordinary Kashmiris but to keep kicking Kashmir as a political football to score points with India. What Pakistan does not realise is that everybody—especially ordinary people—see through these shenanigans. Such misguided responses reflect Pakistani insincerity and not Indian intransigence as they hope.

It`s not a farce but a tragedy that the establishment fails to realise how much like dinosaurs they look in today`s changed world.But there is hope, only if they have the humility to take a cue from India. A few years ago, India`s external affairs ministry also resembled a Jurassic Park. But in what has been a swift but understated turnaround, Indian diplomats are moving with the times. Even Prime Minister Vajpayee is moving on by boldly turning his back on his own hawkish, war-mongering, anti-Pak Hindutva constituency. As he admitted candidly, ``By our recent measures, we have silenced the whispering campaign that the requirements of the forthcoming elections dictate a harsh Pakistan policy. The political leadership of this country is well aware that the constituency for peace is much larger than that which favours hostility.`` If such turnarounds can happen to the seemingly ``impervious-to-change`` Indian establishment, so can it across the border.

But the Pakistani officialdom`s street fighter mindset must change first. To offer free medical treatment to disabled Kashmiris, widows and women raped by Indian soldiers is not provocative. It`s downright cheap. If this is the response to a peace offer, then how can anyone take Pakistan seriously? This response is so utterly lacking in taste, so grossly misplaced in serious bilateral negotiations that if Musharraf had any sense he would fire those responsible for coming up with such ridiculous ideas that not merely are malafide, but more importantly, lower Pakistan`s dignity. Being obstructionist and deliberately stoking the embers of hostility is one thing. But being cheap and damaging your nation`s dignity is another matter. Pakistan`s foreign secretary Riaz Khokar says, ``We want to improve our relations with India, but this is going to be on the basis of dignity and honour.`` But honour and dignity are earned, not granted. If Pakistan wants to be treated with honour and dignity, it must behave with the honour and dignity expected of a sovereign nation and stop acting like a wannabe, foolish, reflexive opposition party.

---

(The author can be reached at post@anitapratap.com.)

FV is by far one of the most entertaining writers on CHOWK.

Sheeda may have said some offensive things in India. But he is good at that.

And for a change I might just agree with #8.....


Ras

I dont understand why is India so nervous about Pakistani offer of treating Kashmiris. We will send Kashmiri Pandits students, Ladakhi children to Pakistan for scholarship. They are all Kashmiris.We will give help to their Ahmadis, Shites, Sikhs, Christians and Off course some die hard MQM activists. They are all Pakistanis. It is a noble idea.

#14
[Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his job if he goes soft on Kashmir.]

Correction: Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his LIFE if he goes soft on Kashmir.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

farzana

A good angle - mixing politics with pleasure

There is certainly a humour to this cocophony of India-Pakistan tussle - mature sober people behaving like little kids with toys. Small jealousies, petty acts of one-up-manship.

Everyone - curious, egoistic, all pumped up.

Sheikh Rasheed is one of the most colorful politicians in Pakistan. He is quite a shrewd guy, and definitely no cukoo. I think he understood very well, what he was saying, in India. And handled the issues quite well. I think his remark about the Agra agreement being cancelled during a change of clothes is accurate. A Pakistani newscaster actually showed a copy of a BJP minister (Shushma something) when she was being interviewed in Pakistan. She refused to take a look at it. The comment about Musharraf changing his clothes, to get a better picture, and the declaration being rejected, is quite catchy.

Also, the Kargil and Siachen comparison is true. Both are similar. And both are unnecessary. One never sees Siachen citicized in the Indian media, for some reason. Siachen has probably been more costly than Kargil, and has been going on for 17 years. I have yet to hear any Indian give any good reason for why India occupied it. Kargil itself was an attempt to get India dislodged from Siachen. Pakistan has not, luckily, made an issue out of Siachen, at the same levels as India has made out of Kargil. In fact the architect of Siachen, Gen. Chibber gets inivited to Pakistan. He is apparently now a dove, and comes on peace missions.

Shiekh Rasheed gets elected from Rawalpindi. He is unbeatable. He won two seats, as an independent, from there this time. He has a very Awami image. He got his degrees while in jail. He was famously caritcatured on TV, as a Sheeda Tulli. A guy who rings bells in a school (tulli) and then, through coincidence becomes a minister. Perhaps he can be considered a three piece suited version Laloo of Pakistani politics, i.e. a very shrewd man, who mingles easily with the awam.

He is extremely funny, even when he is not trying to be. Another one of his famous quotes was as a minister in NS cabinet: ``Amrika to kiya, Amrika ka baap bhi hamara kuch nahin kar sakta.`` I think he may have been the foreign minister at the time.

He is still a bachelor, and his name regularly comes in scandolous affairs with various ladies.

Interestingly, he gave up one of his seats from Rawalpindi, to get his nephew elected, in the re-election. The people rejected his nephew, and I believe voted for the Jamaat-i-Islami guy.

correction #22: ``showed a copy of a BJP minister``

should read,

``showed a copy to a BJP minister``

Romair # 22

After Sheikh Rashid`s unashemed & oppurtunist alignment with the present military government - he may already be a history in politics of Rawalpindi.

He lost the recent bye-election in Rawalpindi.

Mentally, he is fit for the job of a town councillor only.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Boot licker!! your falsities cannot hide the the fact that Kargil was a covert operation planned by Mush and his cronies (are you part of it??) with a plan to escalate the levels to a level that force ``internationalization`` of the Kashmir issue- some thing which Mush has failed miserably despite personally talking about Kashmir in every possible press event or international forum he could manage to attend.

``...Also, the Kargil and Siachen comparison is true. Both are similar...``

Let us hope you get the boot when the civilian government takes charge in Pakistan again.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Gujju talks sense!!
Agreed!! Let us first catch up with China, then Europe- Kashmir and Paki obsessions cannot be forced by letting loose puny Islamist jehadis on our soil.


#1 by gujjubania on November 14, 2003 10:26am PT
Just don`t understand this seasonal compulsion that our governments have to talk to the Pakistanis - its just not important. I would rather have Vajpayee and Co. spending time on things that really matter - like disinvestment , elimination of the bureacratic red-tape that slows down development , controlling the fiscal deficit .... Ultimately , the best weapon India has against Pakistan is its ECONOMY. Indian economy is at present 12 times bigger than Pak`s ,and with growth rates of 7% (compared to Pak`s 5%) , is expected to totally outshine Pakistan. Also , India produces 2 million graduates every year - 300,000 of them being engineering grads , who have shown themselves to be as capable as their competitors in the first world. Indian companies have taken advantage of reforms and have restructured to meet the demands of the modern world.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair at # 22:

Good post on Shaikh Rasheed.

Just an addition on your culminating paragraph: All opposition parties including PPP and PML N supported the MMA candidate against Rasheed`s nephew. PPP later had the guts to say that Musharraf got the MMA candidate elected as per `Noora Kushi`.

In his constituency, he is known to stand by commoners. He can relate to people easily.

I had one personal experience with him. In 1993 or so, his construction company came up with Shalimar Housing Scheme in a posh locality of Rawalpindi. Like others, my mother also became an investor in the scheme by making a down-payment towards her plot. However, after the elections in which PPP returned to the power, Shaikh Rasheed perosnally returned all the investments along with interest to all the investors. His letter stated that since he expects to be targeted by the Government, he would not like to keep a single paisa with him for he is not sure whether his scheme will be allowed to go ahead.

Personally, I believe that he could have easily held on to the money and blame it on the Government. He chose to do otherwise. It was a nice professional and ethical gesture on his part.

India will never ...I repeat Never accept anything on Kashmir.....UNTILL their objectives in Kashmir are achieved.....

and when they think their objectives have been acheived....they will SURPRISE the world by asserting to the solution according to the UN resolutions....

Mr Nehru himself went to UN for these UN resolution.....but later found out that TIME is not right.....so they have started on a long term convert Kashmir Plan....and when they think this CONVERT Kashmir Plan has successeded.....they will GO for the UN resolution...


But that may be...... say 15 years from Now...

At the moment they think they have succeded for about 70% with a 15% more grey area.....so it leaves a 15% doubt.....and they want to be doubley sure about that...

......AFTER which AGAIN mark my WORDS they themselves will go to the UN to solve the issue according to UN resolution....


...but at the moment for about 15-20 More years things will go on they way they are going on for the past 55 Years...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair # 23

More on Shaikh Rasheed ...

Once Benazir put him in jail because he had to say this about her in a public speech``Eik hafta Zardari, Eik hafta Khoawri, Eik hafta Sarkari, Eik hafta Mahwari``.

Transalation - ``One week for Zardari (husband), one week for roaming around, one week for official work, one week for mensuration``.

NazarHayatKhan #24: ``After Sheikh Rashid`s unashemed & oppurtunist alignment with the present military government - he may already be a history in politics of Rawalpindi.

He lost the recent bye-election in Rawalpindi.

Mentally, he is fit for the job of a town councillor only.``

I only keep in touch with politics in Pakistan, from a distance. Perhaps, being there, you see it better than I. Generally, people who have the mentality of a town councillor can relate to voters, far better, than people who consider themselves intellectuals.

I personally don`t think Sheikh Rashid is history. Quite the contrary. The Daily Times newspaper, which is owned by a PPP man, called him, ``unbeatable.`` That is where I got the word from. He is the most powerful politician in Rawalpindi. Ejaz-ul-Haq, Zia`s son, was the other poweful man from there. Though Ejaz seems to have lost his popularity, somewhat now.

Shiekh Rashid actually fought as a independent candidate, in the last election (if I recall correctly). He dumped NS, but did not join PML(Q). He only joined PML(Q) after he got elected. He won two seats in the same city (extremely difficult to do). I don`t think any other politician, in the whole country, did that in any urban area. And I doubt anyone could do it as an independent.

It was his nephew who lost the re-election.

I personally don`t care one way or the other for Sheikh Rashid. Don`t know enough about him. But I do think this kind of urban politics is good. He is not a feudal. He is educated. Seems to be popular, amongst voters. And wins on his own performance. And when he tries to start a dynasty, by nominating his nephew, the awam rejects him. That is how it should be. Had he been in a feudal area, his nephew would have won also.

Joining with a military govt. has never meant the end of any politician in Pakistan. Quite the contrary. Most have gained by it. Unfortunate, but true. Nawaz Sharif was a nobody, until Gen. Gillani picked him out from obscurity. He is one of the top two politicians in the country. Gohar Ayub is the son of Gen. Ayub, and, along with his extended family is the most powerful politician in NWFP. Javed Hashmi was a minister in Zia`s cabinet, and is now the leader of PML(N). Bhutto was a loyal military ally, and earned his political wings under Ayub Khan. His family is the most powerful in Pakistan, politically. Altaf Hussain was an Army product. He rules Karachi. Qazi Hussain and JI was very loyal to Zia. They had ministers in Zia`s cabinet. They run NWFP, now.

There are only, historically, a handful of politicians in Pakistan, who have voluntarily given up power, when it was in their grasp, as a matter of principle. Imran Khan being one of them. They rest of joined with the Army when it made them more popular. And they have opposed the Army, when that suited them. Zulfiqar Bhutto is the classic example of this. As are NS and Qazi Hussain.

If today the govt. dropped all charges against BB and Zardari, PPP would jump at joining an Army govt. Shiekh Rashid doesn`t seem too much different.

NazarHayatKhan #34: ``More on Shaikh Rasheed ...

Once Benazir put him in jail because he had to say this about her in a public speech``Eik hafta Zardari, Eik hafta Khoawri, Eik hafta Sarkari, Eik hafta Mahwari``.

Transalation - ``One week for Zardari (husband), one week for roaming around, one week for official work, one week for mensuration``.``

That doesn`t surprise me. He is known for this kind of stuff. As are others, by the way. That is how Pakistani politics seems to work - specifically Punjabi politics. Punjabi, is as, you know, one of the most flowerly vulgar languages in the world. I think the Sind assemblies probably have more, ``aayee jayee and aap aur hum,`` due to the MQM Urdu factor.

A friend of mine once told me, he was driving in Rawalpindi and saw Shiekh Rasheed with a dog making a speech. He was refering to the dog as Benazir. And allegedly Benazir used to use the phrase, ``Nawazoo, mein tumhari tind pay jootay maroon gi.``

Amongst other slogans are (were) ``Khul gayee tangain, phans gaya teer, Benazir Benazir.`` Teer = arrow, which was the election symbol of PPP at one time. And, ``Na maan Sharif, na baap Sharif, Nawaz Sharif Nawaz Sharif.``

I don`t know how true the slogan about BB is, but the one about NS maybe true.

Apparently, Punjab politics requires a thick skin and a vulgar sense of humor. And Shiekh Rashid seems to be on top in both depts. Maybe that is why he is so successful.

re:#28 by arjun_m
Our captain clueless also does not seem to understand that Siachen was on a no man`s land. The boundary demarcations did not reach upto that area. India upstaged Pak and holds that area. If it were not important, Pak would not have tried a Kargil. Of course, it is all very stupid for 2 impoverished countries to spend so much money on this piece of land on which not one blade of grass grows, but that is besides the point.
Sridhar

Romair:

Man, those slogans are disgusting. There has to be basic decency and respect amongst politicians, even if they belong to different parties.

Stuka #38: Yes, they are disgusting. Punjabi politics is quite disgusting, in Pakistan. Though, in all fairness, the slogans were from the party members and not the leaders.

Some of the more sophisticated slogans from politicians were Abida Hussain, calling Benazir Permanently Pregnant Prime Minister (PPP).

It takes a thick skin to be in Pakistani politics, specially for women. That is probably why the nearly all the women one sees, are relatives of very powerful men.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#29 by aquaris on November 15, 2003 7:47am PT

HA!! Wishful thinking- such dreams have turned Pakiland as the prime breeding ground for its Islamist and TNT idiots.

BK

Romair , Stuka #38 & # 39

Romair - While you are not clearly siding with Shaekh Rashid, your posts give an impression of glorifying him or , at worst, an indifference towards him as a politician.

What Stuka is trying to imply, or I am trying to say, is that educated persons like you should not accept cheap baviour from the politicians. In fact, should condone it.

OK. Some old politicians were a part of the military government - but should we continue to accept this practice on the basis of past precedents. I think, NO.

We continue to curse the Army & its damaging effects. But shouldn`t the present lot of politicians siding with the Army be equally blamed.

An elected parliament of 320 members exists. They can do whatever they like with the Constitution or with the Army. But for the 50% of them who are siding with Musharaf - for selfish reasins, fear, whatever?

So we, at least the educated class, needs to hold these politicians equally responsible for letting the Army make; and continue to make inroads into the Pakistani politics.

That is the least we can do. And, in the next elections, leave our comfortable homes and vote for a liberal secular party.

#2 by stuka:

True, the aid arrived, but there was resistance. And a hundred questions. However, I did not intend to mislead with the comment. I promise.

Re. Agra, if they found a loophole that late in the day, it speaks volumes about how our government rules. I think my statement about being prepared before getting to the table stands.

[As far as talking about Hindus and Sikhs are concerned, or for that matter Muslims, Pakistan does not have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of India. That is an obvious truth. It may suggest as a friendly country, but right now we are not at that stage of being friends.]

I agree that they cannot do so politically, but surely commentators can say what they want? Don’t we write about their honour killings, their hudood ordinance, their sunni-shia riots, their madrassas?

[So, what is the point of the narrative? Kashmir is an issue, India does not deny that. Just because it is an issue does not mean that we will agree to their point of view. We have our own point of view and there is a national consensus on it. The problem is not in talking to Ppakistan about Kashmir. Tthe problem is legitimizing the Jehadi struggle their and the lack of any common ground for a solution.]

The fact is that L.K.Advani has been chosen to talk to the Hurriyat. We are not agreeing to Pakistan’s point of view, but they do have a point of view that they have a right to express. A part of Kashmir is theirs. As for jehadi struggle, Kashmir has been struggling on its own even without a jehad. That is the common voice.

[Not one country outside Pakistan has asked India to hold a plebiscite or transfer territory. The solution that Ppakistan wants is what a victorious country imposes to the loser in a war. And we have not lost a war to Pakistan yet.]

How does any other country come into the picture? Regarding plebiscite, the Kashmiris did want it. The problem is that we have begun to see the Kashmir struggle from the Pakistani perspective and use counter arguments to that, rather than to the core issue.

#6 by khotasikka:

[We can run much faster economically if the Pakistan ball was not tied to our feet. Thats the point of this article. However, we also cannot give in to terrorism or nuclear blackmail. That even the Pakistanis will realize. No matter what the cost, people in the subcontinent will go to any insane level to preseve what they perceive as izzat.]

Lekin maine tau aisa nahin kahaa tha…agree with the latter part though.

[But my concern is that since Pakistan is on the losing side, they will choose to escalate terrorism. Today we arent concerned too much because bombs dont go off in say Mumbai or Bangalore. And eventually they will get around to doing just that.]

Oh, do you know that the Telgi fake stamp paper scam in which our top police officials and politicians have been indicted is a clear case of corruption and misuse of power, but I heard in the news that they are suspecting that the ISI could be behind this! When you do not get evidence and want to save your izzat, blame the enemy.

#8 by Romair and #19 by Ras:
When that event takes place, it will happen zor-shor se…I am touched that you people will rush from the West just for that…and yet you say that Pakistanis are better looking…

And Ras, until then you will have to make do with this sort of “entertaining” ;)

#21 by nazarhayatkhan:
Why is it that I increasingly feel you are the only one who understands the true purpose of my writing?

#26 by cipram:
I did not understand the Abida Hussein reference…what does it have to do with this article? Am I missing something?

The comment about modernist jehadi mindset, all I can say is that if one means a contemporary fight between right and wrong, and wanting to underline the diffused nature of it in today’s society, then I am a jehadi.

Where are the peaceniks and the insaaniyat upholders just when you need them? It is safe to assume that those who have read this article have pretty much liked it. And for some to admit that is a huge problem.

And so we have the mandatory swipes…
[What consensus? Farzana doesn`t agree with the the view of the majority and so there is no national consensus. ..that`s that...now let FV get back to her 80Rs a cup sea lounge coffee..
Pointing out the majority view will only be met with a reference to the babri masjid, 84 riots etc...]

You cannot equate the two. In one we are talking about a people’s right to their land and the circumstances that have made it controversial; in the other the System subjugating a group that is very much a part of it. It is sad that we want to forget these two episodes in recent history and bringing them up is seen as a ‘reaction’. It is a reality.

PS: My coffee is a tad more expensive since I like it with a dash of Irish Bailey’s cream or English toffee…

[First Angana Chatterjee, now Farzana bibi. As they say in Hindi ``soney pe suhaga``.
There is nothing much that stands out in this article. The same old whine. Nothing that impresses you as unique or fresh.
India and Pak discord is as old as the age of these 2 nations. Ms Versey does not offer any solutions. She has only a lot of complaints. She has balanced her criticisms well to please both Paki and Indian interctors. For this, she needs to be complimented.]

Please quote instances of whining and complaints…true, the Indo-Pak discord is old-hat; I have stated it and believe that this is what it will always be…let us remain enemies politically, while the people get on with their lives…this is my solution.
Re. trying to please both Pakistani and Indian interactors, well you have not been pleased. I am sure had anyone else written this, it would have been deemed a fair piece, even an objective one. (Incidentally, I do not write to please anyone, often even not myself.)

A digression:
arjun_m and rsridhar…the problem with the two of you is that even when I write something you agree with (the Pope article and my view on Jogger’s Park, a film), you think of it as unusual and say so. I think it is ridiculous. This is personal animosity, not what I write…I wish you would feel just a bit silly sometimes.

Farzana

Agra episode brought out our greatest weakness - giving in to totally unrealistic expectations.

Anybody could have predicted that Musharraf will never acknowledge Pakistani infiltration of terrorists across the line of control, no matter what concessions Vajpayee was willing to make. It was foolish of Vajpayee to even entertain such a thought.

Musharraf did what he was expected to do - refused to have any mention of terrorist infiltration, and strode back to Pakistan, blaming India once again.

So long as Vajpayee is in office, India will continue to lurch from one such blunder to another in its dealings with the Pakistani military.

nazarhayatkhan, Romair , Stuka

It seems unfair to blame politicians in general for those filthy slogans. Correct me if I am wrong but neither Benazir nor Wali Khan have ever made such statements against others.

If what I know of Pakistan is right, then both ANP and PPP are less likely to descend to this level than are other parties. For the most part, such statements will come from those who have the strong backing of the Military, the Mullah, or both.

People should avoid giving all politicians a bad name unless you are fully determined to never let democracy return to the country.

Great turn on

``India and Pakistan were about to sign a joint declaration. President Pervez Musharraf got so terribly excited that he broke into a sweat and had to rush in to change his clothes. ``

President Pervez Musharraf???.

FV. So honest...Actually so Muslim.

Every one knows you are biased. Every Muslim is. But even in Ramadan??? Gosh..Eat 20 Kgs of food. And go on lie lie lie. As long as it is for Muslims and against Hindoos.

President. Whose... FV. yours not mine. This thalee main khana usimain thookna. Normal.

The guy, PM, should have been made the wag the dog like he does every day for the Real Pres Bush.

But hey ...Rudalee we pay for you....


Yogiraj

Is Seeing through Indian grand design ..and its REAL modus operandi a wishful dream..

...No the fact is....
indian have taken to a well though out strategy.... where as Pakistanis they have none....they simply react to the indian actions and that too on AD_HOC basis like they are running their country...on AD_HOC basis for the past 55 years...

...Indians have effectively ..let say divided Kashmir problem into three areas of concern...

1 the population on the extreme borders ...which really does not matters in over all context..


2- the HIndu and Kashmiris Pandit population they are 100% pro indians...

3 that leaves the thrid Muslim population....

which at the moment is divided three ways...
1- Pro indian have you ever though why the so called elected personel in Indian Kashmir are always Muslim..???

2- pro Pakistani.....which are diminishing day by day....and except for lip services from APHC in which they state a tripartriate dialouge ....involving Pakistan India and Kashmiris ..... just becuse of their long standing historical stand....
on which indian are really working.. they have invited APHC for a dailogue just recently......and they have feebly objected to the exclusion of Pakistan...

3- the Pro independence group....which want nothing from India and Pakistan at all


it is the 3rd and to some extent the second group which is the real issue in front of Indian stategeists....

and they day they will think that thay have solved this problem.....I again tell you they will be the first to go to the UN again. for a plebiscite...


...As far Pakistan role is concerned.....its has taken a great setup especially after 911

.....and Bush ...had choice in the early stage of either Indiia or Pakistan.....and due to more practical concerns.....he opted for Musharaff Not Pakistan...

and the day Musharaf seems to have completed the JOB he will be eliminated just Like
Liaqat Ali Khan and Zia-ul-Haq for which they even sacrificed their own Ambassador...


....and this is not wishwill thinking...

...the only Person who could have effectivly dealt with Indians was ironically Nawaz Shariff.......he could do the same somersualt as indians..... which were even historically recorded by Mountbatten while dealing with Gandhi....


the gust of which is.......They say Something..... Mean something else....and then Do something different..... a rare quality which only Nawaz Sharif matched...

After All they Are guardian of US(Indian Muslims)


By Samin Shah

During the Agra Summit, India and Pakistan were about to sign a joint declaration. President Pervez Musharraf got so terribly excited that he broke into a sweat and had to rush in to change his clothes. When he returned, it was all over. This is the coitus interrupts version of his minister. With such an errand boy, Pakistan can stake its claim to monarchy – it has its own royal butler with a taste for truth, telling us that he has not lied in the past six or seven years. This silly stance has taken away from the larger accepted truth that it was political pressure from one group within the Indian government that stalled the effort. .how sad. Unfortunately we had democracy so generally democratically elected PM
Had heard to lot of ppl. very good happened if agra declaration was signed. then there is no chance of scrapping this declaration the way simla(winner’s document) and lahor.very sad for peace loving country like Pakistan.
Mr. Ahmed is either terribly canny or just cuckoo. He said at a meeting, “If you talk Kargil, I will talk Siachen.” Is it any wonder that most of the top-ranking militant leaders in Kashmir have either taken ill or left on important business before the iftaar party at the Pakistani High Commission? Does he know that he sounds like a percussionist without drums when he says that Article 370, the Ram Mandir and the uniform civil code affect Pakistan? How? “They have to do with Muslims.
Of course Pakistani foreign minister had every right to speak for we Indian Muslims. he had
Lot of tears, mercy and love for us.After all Pakistan was came to being for homeland of Indian Muslims where we can live peacefully, without any fear and at path to progressed with the mercy of Allah.
. After all it is dream of great Jinnah (very few ppl can change coerce of history. some of them can changes geography of nations. And rare one found new nation and jinnah get all three)
How much Jinnah was true when 2000 Muslims massacred by fanatic Hindus. yes
there is some problems in Pakistan some one argue.
Systematically killing of shiya or ahmediya by our gr8 Pakistani brethrens or our Pakistani bothers had to teach some tough lessons to bad Bengali brothers who where trapped by filthy
,conning Hindus. No matter our Pakistani brothers give them some lesions and jus killed 2.5 millions of them (very wrong figures by Hindu Indian media or bad brothers Bangladeshis or Jews driven foreign media.haaan).
Even our Pakistani brothers are sol guardian of our Kashmiri
Brethrens ,Palestine or Chechen jambaj(title given by PTV).Even our Pakistani brethrens send some 600 brothers to free holiday to geontamo bay Without any investigation (of
course stay and lunch donner included) which cant be happens in India. Of course we Indian Muslims had no problems to kill by other Muslims brothers or blown up in mosque after all they kill us kindly. But shame on us to killed by fanatic, cowardice Hindus. Of course our Pakistan brethrens had every moral right to speak on behalf of Indian or Kashmiri
Muslims. They couldn’t keep east Pakistan just because of Hindu conspiracy and bad Muslim brothers. no problem they don’t give right to vote to our Pakistani brothers after all democracy is anti Islamic thought.. Only mullah and military have divine right to rule.
In diplomacy there is no room for cock-teasing. Pakistani had every right to talk about Kashmir.But this fanatic Indian had no right to talk about Kashmir .haan Kashmir is core issue but ask Hindu pandit(killed by our bothers),ladakhi,congrassi,bjp,leftiest ,armi jawans or 1 billion Indian they simply don’t buy
this arguments. They are simply brainwashed by fanatic rss,bjp.
They simply said if so called “ cross border terrorism “ is stopped they is no Kashmir issue for India. how fanatism penetrated in Indians.
after all Kashmir is jugular vain of our Pakistani brothers. But what chanakya or bismark or disaraily or mechiavaly say only national interest is supreme and there is no room of emotions in foreign affairs. may be this fanatic Hindus stick to this ideas. So this Indians don’t understand demand of our Kashmiri or Pakistani brothers.
If they are confident of their position and their hold over the Valley they had to give right of self determination to kashmiries.And this bjp is try to convert democracy in majoritarian
Democracy. This is only patent of us. If we are under 50% the secularism is best suited for us.
But when we cross magical 50% then we demand right of self-determination. We demand Islamic country because majority had every right to were to lead country in democracy. After all we had every right to do so when we are in majority.how convenient and beautifull.

It is true that many politicians in Pakistan have been in positions of power because of the army`s support or have been elected because of the army`s manipulations. However, this is rather unfortunate for the nation. During Zial ul Haq`s rule, General Rafaqat was made a joint secretary in the Federal government and was put in charge of the election cell to ensure ``positive results``. Most Pakistani`s are aware that in order to come into power, a civilian needs the army`s support.

As long as the army continues to hold the reigns of power directly or in the background, this state of affairs will continue.

Ordinary is right. I guess the it must be cultural. The commonality between the PML Nawaz and the army is that the leadership of both these ``political parties`` hails from the Punjab province. Like Romair mentioned that one of the factors in Punjab politics is that vulgarity appeals to the masses.

``That doesn`t surprise me. He is known for this kind of stuff. As are others, by the way. That is how Pakistani politics seems to work - specifically Punjabi politics. Punjabi, is as, you know, one of the most flowerly vulgar languages in the world.``

The other factor of course is that the top leadership of the ANP and the PP is more educated and comes from more established families with long political histories.

...all i know is poverty levels in india are decreasing while those in pakistan are increasing...on a net basis, who has their priorities screwed up?...

Ref Romair on #36

[Once Benazir put him in jail because he had to say this about her in a public speech``Eik hafta Zardari, Eik hafta Khoawri, Eik hafta Sarkari, Eik hafta Mahwari``.

Transalation - ``One week for Zardari (husband), one week for roaming around, one week for official work, one week for mensuration``.`` ]

I have heard that Benazir Bhutto owns thousands of acres of land in Sindh and so one week a month may in fact be necessary for mensuration.

From Merriam-Webster:

men·su·ra·tion
Pronunciation: ``men(t)-s&-`rA-sh&n, -sh&-
Function: noun
Date: 1571
1 : the act of measuring : MEASUREMENT
2 : geometry applied to the computation of lengths, areas, or volumes from given dimensions or angles

Yours in the interest of correct English usage,

Harimau
Chowk`s Self-appointed Linguist

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

nazarhayatkhan #42: ``While you are not clearly siding with Shaekh Rashid, your posts give an impression of glorifying him or , at worst, an indifference towards him as a politician.``

I am not siding with Shiekh Rashid. I don`t even know what he stands for. I am just presenting the information I have on him, since he was the topic under discussion, in this article. And I am quoting a major Pakistani PPP owned newspaper, describing him as unbeatable. As long as the information I have presented is factual, it should not be considered glorification.

``What Stuka is trying to imply, or I am trying to say, is that educated persons like you should not accept cheap baviour from the politicians. In fact, should condone it.``

Cheapness is the behavior of Pakistani politics - specifically Punjabi politics. Politicians abuse each other. Just the other day, I read there was a fist fight in the Punjab Assembly. Someone told me that during the days of Benazir, Zardari, and Murtaza Bhutto feuds, Murtaza`s men abducted Zardari, shaved his head and shaved half his mustache (a form of Sindhi insult).

One can either reject politics, completely, or one can point out what everyone does; not just what one person does. Anyone rejecting this kind of, ``cheap`` behavior, should then reject most of the major politicians of major political parties of Pakistan, including Benazir, Nawaz Sharif etc.

I think as long as people keep their attacks to verbal abuse, as wrong as it is, it is still more tolerable than other physical attacks. Benazir locked up NS father. She tried to bring down his whole foundries business. Both her and NS would not allow Imran Khan to show ads for his Cancer hospital. NS put Zardari in jail. NS locked up Najam Sethi and attacked the Supreme Court. So on and so forth.

Compared to this, making a cheap vulgar Punjabi comment about someone is chicken feed. Once again I am not defending such comments; just pointing out that this is Pakistani politics. And I would much rather prefer them abusing each other in Punjabi, now and then, then attacking Supreme Courts. The former is a much smaller and excusable crime. The later is not.

``OK. Some old politicians were a part of the military government - but should we continue to accept this practice on the basis of past precedents. I think, NO.``

Not, ``some old politicians.`` Nearly every political party has sided with the Army or with maulvis, i.e the two groups that are disliked by many on this site. You are correct that we should not accept this on a basis of precedent. But we should agree and point out that it isn`t limited to one politician. And we should point out that politicians who have sided with the military, haven`t been history. They have actually, rightly or wrongly, prospored. This is the point I was highlighting, i.e. your claim about S Rashid being history is not correct. Maybe he should be history, but he is not.

``We continue to curse the Army & its damaging effects. But shouldn`t the present lot of politicians siding with the Army be equally blamed.``

Maybe. Maybe not.

Politics is grabbing opportunities, when they come up. I do blame people in siding with the military, but I blame them with siding with a lot of other groups also. I blame them for siding with the feudals. I blame them for siding with the maulvis. I blame them for siding with the beaurecrats. I blame them for siding with opportunistic ethnic groups. I blame for siding with corrupt secular forces, etc.

Once you apply this criteria of blame, you will discover that there will not be a single politician left, in Pakistani politics, who is not guilty of any of the above. The only person whom I can think of, who has deliberately given up such opportunities, is Imran Khan. Including a chance of become a PM, had he remained with Musharraf`s coalition. And a chance for 30 seats under Nawaz Sharif govt. And a chance to be a Senator under Zia ul Haq.

We should reject Bhutto family, for siding with Ayub. We should reject Benazir for siding with JUI, appointing Fazl ur Rahman the head of foreign affairs, and their jointly forming the Taliban (read Ahmad Rashid`s book). We should reject all of PML, including Sharif family, Javed Hashmi etc., for siding with Zia. Nawaz Sharif considers him his political mentor. We should reject all of MMA for siding with Zia. They were ministers in Zia`s cabinet. We should reject MQM for siding with Musharraf.

Who will be left in politics? No one, except the party I support PTI. Which is one of the reasons I support it.

The other option is to let all the parties side with whomever they want. And let the people decide whom they want, and how happy they are with the party (assuming the people have a right to vote independently, which they do in urban Pakistan).

``An elected parliament of 320 members exists. They can do whatever they like with the Constitution or with the Army. But for the 50% of them who are siding with Musharaf - for selfish reasins, fear, whatever?

``So we, at least the educated class, needs to hold these politicians equally responsible for letting the Army make; and continue to make inroads into the Pakistani politics.``

Once again, if you use this criteria (which is a good criteria, and one of the ones I agree with) there will only be one or two parties left. PPP, PML, MMA, MQM etc. will fail in this criteria. All of these parties were founded by opportunistic leaders who sided heavily with the military, and were/are ministers in military govts.

``That is the least we can do. And, in the next elections, leave our comfortable homes and vote for a liberal secular party.``

I don`t use, ``liberal and secular`` as my criteria for voting. Religion and Secularism is way down on my list. I look for honesty, integrity, human rights, economic progress, patriotism, lack of feudal backing, candidates who have genuine support in their own constituency (and not supported because they are the local pir or makhdoom, or tribal chief or feudal), people who have advanced their own constituencies (Benazir and Jamali fail on this account, Shahbaz Sharif gets high marks), etc.

If we just look for secularism, then all our votes should go to PPP or ANP or MQM. They are the most secular big parties. However, the constituency base of PPP leaders (rural Sind) is amongst the most backwards in the world, with the lowest literacy rates for women, and the least human rights. Even though the feudals of those areas are very secular. Jamaat-i-Islami`s Mansoora`s have higher literacy rates for women than Benazir`s Larkanas and Amin Fahim`s Halas and Jamali`s Baluchistan.

Based on all of this, people like Sheikh Rashid (again I do not support him, I am just looking at his politics) are far more democratic than the Jamalis and the Bhuttos. They have to earn their vote in an urban constituency. And as indicated by the rejection of his nephew, their voters hold them accountable. Do you think if Benazir or Jamali had nominated their nephews in their feudal consituencies, they would lost? No. They could nominate their pet dog and it would win.

This is why I prefer urban style of politics (even with its Punjabi vulgarities) over the normal feudal politics of Pakistan. And while I agree with your point of rejecting people who side with Army, but yI feel ou should apply that rule to every party and every leader.

You will then be left with Imran Khan`s party, and a few others. And Imran Khan`s party, openly declares itself to be non-secular. So he would get rejected by your criteria of voting for secular parties only. There would, thus, be no one left in Pakistani politics.

FarzanaVarsey #43: ``When that event takes place, it will happen zor-shor se…I am touched that you people will rush from the West just for that…and yet you say that Pakistanis are better looking…"

Yes, I will have to book my flight. Pakistani general awam is probably better looking, but Indian entertainers, models, actresses/actors are quite a bit better looking than their Pakistani counterparts.......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: yogiraji ji # 45

``Every Muslim is``

This seems to reflect your anger at the blame being passed on to Indian negotiators at Agra. Yet we must be fair. There is absolutely no way Saminshah, Ballukhan, and Nasah can be included in the category of people you have in mind.

I have learnt that the greatest challenge Indians face is to separate the issue of Indian Muslims from that of Pakistan. Pakistanis have an inbuilt incentive to keep reminding Indians that Muslims in India are Pakistanis waiting for a chance to break up their country once again.

At least I have been very impressed that while some Indian Muslims may follow Pakistani line, more and more are forthrightly telling Pakistanis that Muslim Indians are not Pakistani moles. And that their interests lie with other Indians in India.

I respectfully request all Indians not to hold Mr. Fosa as the model for all Muslim Indians. True, Mr. Fosa tends to be far more vocal and very visible, which makes it hard to be patient with the lies and innuendos told repeatedly ad nauseum. Still patriotic and honest Muslim Indians who respect Hindus and thus actively speak out against those lies from across the border are our greatest strength. Hindus too must overcome their resentments and give these Muslim Indians all the respect they so richly deserve.

No effort is costless. The effort that Saminshah, Ballukhan, and Nasah have been making to refute Pakistani claims of Muslim Indians being Pakistani agents is most significant and most laudable. We too need to protect these stellar Indians from Pakistsani insinuations and our own doubts. That is the cost of living next to a country that has, until now at least, been more concerned with the `welfare` of Muslim Indians than the welfare of its own citizens.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Farzana:

``True, the aid arrived, but there was resistance. And a hundred questions. However, I did not intend to mislead with the comment. I promise. ``

That is fine. Just wanted to point it out.

``Re. Agra, if they found a loophole that late in the day, it speaks volumes about how our government rules. I think my statement about being prepared before getting to the table stands. ``

Well, to be fair to the Indians, they had repeatedly asked Pakistan for papers before the conference. The Pakistani bureaucrats too had wanted to prepare papers but Musharraf was adamant that he would talk man to man with Vajpayee and not let bureaucrats get involved. This is not ``Indian POV`` but commonly known fact, and that is a reason they had a 2 hour meeting. But, whereas the outcome of a successful meeting and personal chemistry can do wonders, the chance of failure too is high. Also, in India, the decision making process is institutionalized whereas in Pakistan it is a 1 man show. Necessarily, though we may look like bad guys doing so, our decision making is slower but more deliberate.

``I agree that they cannot do so politically, but surely commentators can say what they want? Don’t we write about their honour killings, their hudood ordinance, their sunni-shia riots, their madrassas? ``

Oh yes. I misunderstood your statement. I agree.



``The fact is that L.K.Advani has been chosen to talk to the Hurriyat. We are not agreeing to Pakistan’s point of view, but they do have a point of view that they have a right to express. A part of Kashmir is theirs. As for jehadi struggle, Kashmir has been struggling on its own even without a jehad. That is the common voice. ``

Agreed.

``How does any other country come into the picture? Regarding plebiscite, the Kashmiris did want it. The problem is that we have begun to see the Kashmir struggle from the Pakistani perspective and use counter arguments to that, rather than to the core issue. ``

Hmm, interesting point. Maybe you can expand on that? I am not sure if I agree with you, but I do see some validity in your perspective. How can any initiative intra-Kashmir be successful if Pakistan kills it thru its proxies. Recent split in Hurriyat is an example. I tend to go with conventional view that we have to outlast Pakistan in fighting the insurgency before any meaningful accords can be made. I would be interested in hearing an alternative point of view. Whereas you have criticized the government in the past, you have not really provided an alternative vision. If you have one, I would be interested in reading about it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#48 by saminshah on November 16, 2003 5:06am PT
After All they Are guardian of US(Indian Muslims)

These Romairs and their Ba$tards are manipulators and perverts par excellence who have only one agenda- fatten their egos by using Islam and then subjugate the illiterate ummah with their cleverly woven discourses of LIBERATION. Innumerable dictators have become the self appointed saviours of the masses by using Islam the world over- military men with specialization in killing have used it to cloak their SATANIC intentions.
And their KHURAFAAT can only stop when Pakistani AWAAM gets out of its stupor and overthrows the army rule in their country.

Pakistani general awam is probably better looking......


Wake up guys...are you in your right mind???
Have you been to Mumbai or Delhi University- I just ask the guys who have been to the universities in Karachi or Lahore and DElhi and Mumbai and ask them to compare the crowds. The Indian universities have the best chicks and the most gorgeous looking guys and gals.
Perhaps you woud find the hijabs of Karachi university better laced!!!!!

#47 by AnOrdinaryHindu:
[Musharraf did what he was expected to do - refused to have any mention of terrorist infiltration, and strode back to Pakistan, blaming India once again.
So long as Vajpayee is in office, India will continue to lurch from one such blunder to another in its dealings with the Pakistani military.]

You mean to say he declared that at the last minute? It has always been Pakistan’s stand (no terrorist infiltration). He blamed India for scuttling things at the last minute. Honestly, we conducted the proceedings shabbily. Please do talk to a few reasonable Hindus and they will agree.

The problem is not just with Vajpayee, but with the manner in which the government in power manages to have two streams of thought and action running parallel. It is like Mama pampering the baby and then saying, “Papa will scold you”. Important events in the country are not children in a nuclear family waiting for the two parents to work out their little roles.

#56 by arjun_m:
[Nobody wants to forget those shameful incidents....but bringing them up during completely unrelated discussions in an attempt to bludgeon with guilt anyone who disagree with you is simple disingenous....]

My argument had enough substance in it. These events were not brought in to act as a crutch. I will have to quote that part of the test in full to repeat the context to you…
***
“Just how pugnacious we are will be evident from a letter in ‘The Asian Age’ against an article – “Hindus and Muslims: Home Truths” -- by Pakistani writer Hafizur Rahman. We were told that a Pakistani has no moral right to write about what Indian Hindus think. Mr. Rahman had talked about North and South India as ethnic entities. No, screeched the respondent, they are not, the differences are cultural. Profound. But the letter writer was not through yet. He stated, “I will humbly suggest that after the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus and the Sikhs from the land of their forefathers in present Pakistan, Mr. Rahman and his compatriots should forget the Hindus of India, and allow them to live in peace.”

Amnesia is a great weapon. Who wants to remember 1984? That was Indian Sikhs. But I would humbly request Pakistan to leave the Hindus alone lest the minorities are saddled with them suffering from a persecution complex and then if someone comes to their rescue we might want to call them traitors, just as Indian Muslims are whenever some Pakistani talks about minority persecution in India.

The majority community being left in peace is the need of the hour. Not peace with an enemy.”
***
[In any case: pray tell..if you think a joint declaration was going to be signed in Agra, the one some people without evidence say advani scuttled, what was going to be in the joint declaration? Was India going to give Indian Kashmir away on a platter?]

Certainly not. But don’t you think there would have been something in there that might have paved the way for a better understanding? About giving away Indian Kashmir on a platter, last night I saw the BJP”s S.S. Ahluwalia on TV saying that Mahatma Gandhi gave away some land to make Pakistan! We still cannot accept the existence of a country that was created for ideological reasons, and it shows in your platter theory.

[do you seriously believe that? And if you don`t, do you think the pakis were going to settle for anything less than that?]

The question is not about what the Pakistanis would settle for, but what we think the Kashmir’s want.
__

As for another comment like, “Every one knows you are biased. Every Muslim is. But even in Ramadan???”…as a Hindu you are not doing much better. To tell me, “This thalee main khana usimain thookna. Normal” may give you a big high, but a part of that food on the thalee is mine, I have helped sow the seeds, watch it grow and harvested and even cooked it. The thalee is not yours alone. And by I, I mean every citizen of my country.

“But hey ...Rudalee we pay for you....”
Yeah? Then show me the money… and yes take away that goddamn spittoon. Isn’t that what you guys use when you cannot digest the meal…chup-chaap thookna where no one can see…and then get into hysterical delusions about others spitting in the thalee.

#63 by stuka:
``How does any other country come into the picture? Regarding plebiscite, the Kashmiris did want it. The problem is that we have begun to see the Kashmir struggle from the Pakistani perspective and use counter arguments to that, rather than to the core issue. ``

Hmm, interesting point. Maybe you can expand on that? I am not sure if I agree with you, but I do see some validity in your perspective. How can any initiative intra-Kashmir be successful if Pakistan kills it thru its proxies. Recent split in Hurriyat is an example. I tend to go with conventional view that we have to outlast Pakistan in fighting the insurgency before any meaningful accords can be made. I would be interested in hearing an alternative point of view. Whereas you have criticized the government in the past, you have not really provided an alternative vision. If you have one, I would be interested in reading about it.]

Had India gone ahead with the limited autonomy plan with the sadar-e-riyasat idea, Kashmiris would have had more sense of security and confidence in the Indian government. The groups that are aligned to Pakistan have got legitimised through a process of osmosis. May I say somewhat like the British East India Company did here…yes, I have criticised the government, because it has been the failure of successive establishments (not just the BJP) and my solution has always been: let Kashmiris decide…which is not easy. I have often reiterated that there will not ever be a complete governmental solution because it helps both countries. And this article too merely pointed out that -- why search for a futile peace at the political level?

#64 by gujjubania:
[What Indian Muslims like Farzana Versey and Co. who talk about or wish for `Self-determination of Kashmir` and `Kashmir is for Kashmiris` don`t realise is that if ever India loses Kashmir on the virtue of Kashmir being a Muslim majority - there will then be no reason for the Hindus of India to restrain themselves from kicking the muslims left in the Indian mainland out of India.]

Say that again? Certain provisions were made for the Kashmiris in the Indian Constitution. I did not whisper in Dr. Ambedkar’s ears…if Kashmir is ever lost, it will not be due it its Muslim majority position. Go to Nagaland and find out how many Muslims are there…

As for Hindus of India not being able to restrain themselves from kicking the Muslims out, first India will have to change its Constitution and declare that it is a Hindu country. Then it will have to face a backlash from the Muslim citizens who are a part of this nation and want to be a part of it always.

[Even the majority of Hindus who are basically tolerant ,moderate and decent sort will turn against muslims.]

I doubt that. As for the wonderful adjectives, have you looked in the mirror lately?

[Is it not so typical of these characters to preach Secularism when in a minority and practise Fundamentalsm when in majority?]

We have majoritarain fundamentalism in our country. Who are these characters you speak of? If it is Muslims, then this is precious…you are saying that we preach secularism when in a minority, which would mean that we are essentially a peace-loving group in India. Then why would the Hindus want to kick us out? The point is not about secularism, but egalitarianism and justice. These concepts do not enter thick heads. Take care. You will need to polish the soles of your feet too…

Dear Farzana:
The Indo-Pak negotiations has been an on-again, off-again tamasha for as long as one can remember. The mandarins on both sides have a knee-jerk reaction. I think that Vajpayee is sincere in seeking a rapproachment with Pakistan and wants to go down in history as the person who ended the enmity between the two countries. In his own way, probably Musharraf does want peace, too but his thinking, accurately reflected in our roamir, is that what Pakistan has, it keeps because the ``Kashmiris`` there are happy even though they have obliterated any sign of Kashmiriyat in their part and, unlike Indians, have turned it into an overwhelmingly Panjabi enclave. I think that the Pakistanis committed a himalayan blunder by neotiating a treaty with the Chinese on the areas of Kashmir occupied by them; they could only do so if they had sovereignty over POK, and if they have sovereignty, so did the Indians on the part held by them.
The problem with Musharraf is that he always thinks like a commando he is, concerned only with tactical victories. As I had said at that time, Musharraf`s performance at Agra could be considered brilliant except for the fact that he forgot that a summit has to result in a befuddled win-win situation. He made Vajpayee look bad and started making statements in Agra which made the old man look like a puppet in the hands of Advani, and foreclosed the possibility of another summit in the near future.
The 12-point proposal made by India incorporated mostly the points which the Pakistanis had themselves wanted. The inclusion of 20 children`s treatment appeared as an insult to Pakistanis and this should have been anticipated as such by the Indians. However, I think it was a response to the genuine goodwill in India by the Noor phenomenon and, if I recalll, had been initially made at that time.
I am not blaming the Pakistani bureaucrats but the bureaucratic mentality per se. Somehow, I think that if the proposal had come from Pakistanis, the Indians probably would have also offered something ridiculous such as the Pakistani counter proposal of assisting Kashmiri victims of Indian counter-insurgency.
On the future of Kashmir to be determined by Kashmiris, I beg to differ. Kashmiris have to be part of the equation but so do Indians and Pakistanis. And the views of Kashmiris would have to be determined in some other way than through a plebiscite. Any plebiscite would inevitably turn into for-or-against-islam, which would undoubtedly strengthen the born-again TNTites in India.
And finally, I think that the peace process in India has suffered a setback from an unlikely source, the misfortunes of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Bush shock-and-awe had succeeded, we would have seen the Americans exerting some real pressures on the leadership of the two countries to ``facilitate`` a meaningful dialogue.

FarzanaVersey # 67
“About giving away Indian Kashmir on a platter, last night I saw the BJP”s S.S. Ahluwalia on TV saying that Mahatma Gandhi gave away some land to make Pakistan! We still cannot accept the existence of a country that was created for ideological reasons, and it shows in your platter theory.”

If you think Indians don’t accept the creation of Pakistan just ask any Indians if they want them back. You will get only one answer “Hell No!” That convinces me that we have accepted the creation of Pakistan.

Regards,

Faruk

FarzanaVersay # 68
“Had India gone ahead with the limited autonomy plan with the sadar-e-riyasat idea, Kashmiris would have had more sense of security and confidence in the Indian government. The groups that are aligned to Pakistan have got legitimised through a process of osmosis. May I say somewhat like the British East India Company did here…yes, I have criticised the government, because it has been the failure of successive establishments (not just the BJP) and my solution has always been: let Kashmiris decide…which is not easy. I have often reiterated that there will not ever be a complete governmental solution because it helps both countries. And this article too merely pointed out that -- why search for a futile peace at the political level?”

I don’t think Kashmiri’s will be better off with more autonomy. In fact in my opinion we should remove Article 370 and let every one invest in Kashmir and that will have a positive effect on the local economy and lives of the people.


Regards,

Faruk