Different Eagles, Same Genus

Ref shammi #: 244

You say, ``I can`t believe the idiotic, childish debate going on this forum -- who can piss higher -- Indian pilots or Pakistani ones?``

Actually, it depends on how high the plane can fly. So, Indians and Pakistanis are trying to see who can piss higher -- the Russians or the Americans. We are merely test pilots engaged in evaluating a different characteristic of the planes involved ;-)

F-16 from Pakistan to China

Apparently, Chinese engineers are trying to develop the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel’s US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was cancelled in 1987.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/j-10.htm

I can`t believe the idiotic, childish debate going on this forum -- who can piss higher -- Indian pilots or Pakistani ones?

All, please grow up and stop talking like Rambo. There are more important things to worry about in the world than to figure out who can fight better.

Save your energies for something more meaningful

Desis in Silicon Valley

FORTUNE magazine has published a series of articles on success of Desis in Silicon Valley. Worth reading.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/05/15/ind2.html

reply to sadna #241

What a strange response from you, sadna.

I have beliefs about Kashmir and the way India has occupied it. I arrived at those beliefs by a lot of reading but mostly through personal experience.

None of those beliefs however can stand in the front of truth, and I believe in truth over anything else. So when I said to you that I would reevaluate my beliefs if you could present me with convincing arguments from your/Indian perspective I meant exactly that. I am not afraid of changing my thoughts if I am wrong.

I am not a believer in intransigence and I do not practice it.

What you have mentioned about the political process in Pakistan is true - we know it better than anybody else.

Holding India to ``higher moral principles`` is the job of Indians themselves. It is the same on an individual level: I am the one who has to hold myself to a moral level that I wish to aspire to.

In all my replies on with my views regarding the BJP I have consistently said that I believe the strength of India lies in her democracy. I have also said that I am all in favor of the good that the BJP is doing for India. You will not find me ``bashing`` the democratic process of India.

My belief that they mean harm to Pakistan is entirely separate from that. And I am open to a change in that belief as well.

This reply is short and does not really go into the `normal` answering of each point you made because you have indicated you do not wish to discuss any of that.

But if you have an interest in bridging the gap between India and Pakistan then discussion must take place and your statements (such as ``The irony in all this is that the Kashmir problem owes a lot to corrupt politicians, too, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Indian...``, the ``injured innocence of the freedom fighters and Pakistan`` etc. could then be responded to.

But you have said you have no interest in discussing it so I will leave it at that and let you be the one to decide whether any talks take place.

In all sincerity and best wishes,

sherdil

sherdil #240

I find myself caught in endless disagreement with the `other` side on some issues, so I have no interest in `convincing` anyone to advocate a pro-Indian stand on Kashmir, let us be clear.

When I cannot get a single Pakistani to agree that their own laws including the 13th Amendment ought to be targetted for action, alongside corrupt politicians currently in hot water, why would I even attempt to convince any Pakistani about Kashmir? The irony in all this is that the Kashmir problem owes a lot to corrupt politicians, too, Kashmiri, Pakistani and Indian but my experience so far tells me Pakistans let themselves off very easily on the very principles they claim to hold India upto. More accountability is demanded and more expectations are fostered from India by Pakistanis than from their own state, their own leaders and politicians. Alongside this, I have heard too many times from Pakistanis that India is not even a country and lastly I am unable to rid myself of my impression of any Pakistani government talk or walk in all these years that all this `principle` is nothing more than a cover for landgrab by the Pakistani Army.

Finally, the attitude that `freedom fighters` are demonstrating pure and unselfish intentions and actions and the Pakistani position in all this is one of injured innocence speaks well for your patriotism but also gives me little hope that we have anything to discuss.

About Pakistani political parties, `Death to India` has long been a slogan, even when Kashmir was quiet. At some juncture or another every politician or intellectual who advocated peace with India is labelled a traitor. You may have also heard the slogan somewhere `Kashmir banega Pakistan`.

Indian political parties and politicians have had to survive by delivering more than slogans, bashing Pakistan doesnot win votes of hungry people out of work. In Pakistan, it seems a similar equation is not allowed to operate, the Army steps in at crucial times. I don`t think political parties and the Army had to really worry about real-politick with respect to India, a blind ideology and a strategic role in US geopolitics has so far made every desire seem possible. This has never been the case with India.

I`m sure it feels very good to latch onto BJP ideology as the newly identified root of all problems. Sorry, if it were so simple, Indians would be much happier people for finding such a simple solution to every problem: getting rid of the party by voting them out of power(we can, you know).

Sadhana

reply # 232 sadna:

All political parties, groups, etc in Pakistan voice their opposition to the Indian occupation of Kashmir. They call for a struggle to rid Kashmir of its occupiers. The voices for freedom include Kashmiris, various freedom fighter groups, the groups which have been labeled as ``terrorists`` by the Indian government and media.

The focus of all is the problem of Kashmir. Not the breakup or annihilation of India, but the freedom for Kashmiris.

The ONLY problem Pakistan has with India is the Indian occupation of Kashmir and its refusal to allow the Kashmiris to determine their own destiny.

Your question about Pakistani civic unrest seems a sideways question, or perhaps I did not follow your line of thought. In any case, the unrest in Pakistan has brought Pakistan to its knees, but Gen. Musharraf may be the man to pull off a miracle.

The statement is true that it is not in India`s interest to foster enmity with neighbours.

And yet the reality is otherwise.

I see a democratic nation like India practicing extremist and undemocratic means to hold Kashmir by force. This speaks volumes.

I will tell you this sadna: IF you can prove me wrong about Kashmir then I will advocate India`s position and will have no problem with truth.

Perhaps others more knowledgable than I can comment on my thoughts below:

Pakistan has just been declared a ``supporter of terrorism`` by the US state department.

It is something that is following a trend: The US has a huge vested (economic) interest in India in the IT industry. China is not the market they seek, it is India that is closer to the US in so many ways. For this reason any instability in the region cannot be allowed.

Thus the lectures to Pakistan, the wagging of the finger.

Any disturbances (military or economic) will hurt the economy of the US that is depending more and more on Indian expertise in the IT field.

I think that even though we have very good friends who are Americans, and that we have formed close friendships with Americans and genuinely respect and like them, Pakistan will get no help from the US. It is only economic value in Pakistan that will make a difference to the US. Therefore the only thing to do is to get the economy of Pakistan on the right track. That is where Gen. Musharraf is heading.

ylh, I think this is where you can be a positive voice: Gen. Musharraf needs all the support and help he can get. Who better than students? That is how we energized Zulifikar Ali Bhutto.

sigalph235 #237

No wish to spurn your generous and kind offer :-), but we must realize that the way things are, there exists a greater possibility of your being Finance Minister of India(as it exists today) if you should ever wish, than my being part of any Bangladeshi dispensation, ever, whether I so desire it or not:-)

Sadhana

Ref sigalph235 #: 233

You say {As anybody, perhaps even you, can see I was talking about principalities that HAD NOT acceded to India. I was not talking about those that had acceded to Pakistan.}

Are you telling me Jodhpur did not accede to India? Spare me a trip to the library but I am perfectly willing to get a copy of a book on Indian history and quote chapter and verse.

As far as Hyderabad is concerned, it was given a deadline to accede to India that was repeatedly extended. In September 1948, India`s patience just ran out. Even then, the Nizam was given the largest privy purse and made the governor of the state in return for formally acceding to India.

You say {As for Goa, you tell me why Pakistan should have rights to it; I mean you`re the one who seems to be in doubt.}

I have no doubt about Goa. Reading history, it seems that Jinnah sent an emissary to talk to the Portuguese in Goa. That gives Pakistan as much right to Goa as talking to Patiala and Bikaner gave it the right to those states.

You say {Let me say the gist of my argument one more time: India gobbled up principalities which, at the time of such annexation, had not acceded to it in terms of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. And that goes for Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim, Jodhpur, Junagadh, Babriawad, Mangrol, Kashmir (are you sure I didn`t miss any?). Whether Pakistan wanted them or they wanted Pakistan or whether some Maharaja wanted to be part of Germany is besides the point. India acted in a manner of naked aggresiveness. And please save me the ``Pakistan did it too`` nonsense; I don`t care and I am not Pakistan`s defense counsel.}

The difference is that the Congress saw independence coming one way or another and Sardar Patel and Nehru realized that British India was too integrated economically with the princely states to be able to survive without them. And just like Britain asserted paramountcy over the princely states, independent India asserted its primacy and completed the process of absorption that had been stopped in its tracks in 1857. You may not like the idea but other than the maharajahs themselves, nobody mourns the passing of these quasi-independent kingdoms. India got the majority of them because they happened to be within the dominion of India. India did not approach Bahawalpur for accesion to India though that was on the border as Jinnah did with Bikaner nor did it contest Baluchistan, Dir, Chitral, etc., the way Pakistan was eyeing Hyderabad as a prize to be bargained for Kashmir.

You say {And yes, since Murshidabad is in such disrepair now, Calcutta will suit fine as the capital of a united Bengal. By the way, Dhaka was never capital of united Bengal.}

In 1971, you guys had the opportunity. You could have petitioned India for admission as a state. You could have quoted the India Independence Act of 1947 as creating only Pakistan and India and that thus Bangladesh has no legal right to exist. Then perhaps there was a chance for a greater Bengal within India and a counterweight to UP and perhaps even a Bengali prime minister of India. But, there would have been no takers in New Delhi for that proposition at that time; Indira Gandhi was not going to learn Bengali for your votes. And right now, Begums Hasina and Khaleda are making too much money ripping off the country to give it away. So forget about a Greater Bengal. Now that India is exhibiting the level of federalism Jinnah wanted, perhaps it is time to consider a confederation of South Asia but that is not going to happen ever. Thus the Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers can have the Indian bogeyman to frighten their children with and make them behave.

You say {For those of you Indians and Pakistanis who still think that without Indian intervention the Bengalis would have lost in 1971, think again. Do the words Vietnam and Afghanistan mean much to you? Of course, like the rest of Bangladesh, I am grateful for the assistance received by the Freedom Fighters in India.}

No disrespect to the Mukti Bahini or the brave Bangladeshis, but have you looked at Afghanistan? That country is mountainous. I keep looking at topographic maps of Bangladesh and it is flat as a pancake. In dry season, Bangladesh is perfect tank country. The fact remains that India banned overflights by Pakistan so Pakistan could not airlift supplies and the sea route could have been interdicted. It was logistically difficult for Pakistan to supply its troops in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the Bangladeshis did pay dearly for their freedom.

Ref Be-Nam #: 230

You said {while you are at it, I think we should keep our friend in mind who requested you to put Ferozepur and Gurdaspur, alongwith everything else, on the table. Please do that.}

Yeah, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur. Who can forget Gurdaspur, the land link to Kashmir from India? Perfidious England! Yawn.... Claim Oudh if you want to. Or New Delhi; your tax dollars in 1935 paid for it, you know.

Didn`t I already offer Pondicherry to add to your grievances?

We don`t care; we don`t have to. That is the nice thing about being the biggest bully on the block. There is nothing you can do about it except sawing off your countries and dragging them to some other location on the globe.

Are you guys ever going to get a life or are you guys going to keep going back to 1947 and your list of grievances?

re #231 sadhana

Point well taken. Sadhana, you will be our first pick for finance minister in the first post-1947 united Bengali ministry. Unless, of course, you want the oil and gas portfolio! Cheers

Just as I had finished posting my last statement, I saw this brilliant letter by ylh`s cousin in one of the Pulitzer Prize winning bastions of objective journalism (``The Nation``).

Now the red commie friends are also turning their backs????? tsk tsk tsk.

* * * * * *

``The representatives of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzistan and Tajikistan are reported to have met recently in Doshambe, the Capital of Tajikistan and agreed to cooperate in fighting Islamists whom they term as terrorists.

Firstly, it is absolutely wrong to equate Islamists with terrorists. Secondly, it is highly surprising that China, otherwise a peaceful country, should have actively participated in the formation of a Regional Bloc. Thirdly, it is totally inconceivable that the three Central Asian States cooperating in the matter with sizeable Muslim populations, should have joined such a union. Hence, it is strange to see cooperation emerging despite the stated incongruities. It is, thus, obvious that the Russian President who was formerly the Head of KGB, has used some dubious ploy to bring round the other cooperating countries. In fact, Russia will be grinding its own axe through this move. Not having forgotten its humiliation in its misadventure in Afghanistan, it has been trying frantically to wash it off Russian invasion of Chechnya is also motivated to wreak vengeance by annihilating its physical infrastructure, killing thousands of Chechens as also inflicting untold miseries and perpetrating inhuman brutalities on them.

It is a matter of grave concern for Muslims of the World that conspiracies are being hatched against them in their enemy circles. The judicious course on the part of the Muslim Ummah would, therefore, be to be united meaningfully and thus frustrate the designs of its enemies. OIC should particularly take a serious note of this latest development directed at Muslims.-SIRAJUDDIN AHMAD, Islamabad, April 24``

* * * * * *

Re: Article from Yawn posted in reply #228

What will it take for the delusional (I keep using that word, not just because of my limited vocabulary, but also because it`s so fitting) Pakistani media and populace to do some introspection on their unfounded stand on Kashmir? First it was the US which betrayred Pakistan in its schoolyard fight against India, then it was the EU including France and the UK, and now it`s the Islamic countries in the OIC??? haha

Ever stop and wonder that maybe it`s not *THEM * that`s the problem but *YOU * and your laughable position that no one wants to touch with a 10-foot danda?

re gymnophist

Understandably, you quoted only half of what I said. My entire paragraph was

`Your line of arguments, undestandably, is fallacious. Bikaner, Patiala, Bhopal, and Travancore-Cochin never acceded to Pakistan; never mind whether Jinnah or Jesus talked to them. They had acceded to India while the states I talked about did not accede to India, unless the accession by Kashmir`s maharaja under duress is counted as such (even Pandit Nehru rules out the validity of this accession instrument.`

As anybody, perhaps even you, can see I was talking about principalities that HAD NOT acceded to India. I was not talking about those that had acceded to Pakistan. Difference between the two statements. As for Goa, you tell me why Pakistan should have rights to it; I mean you`re the one who seems to be in doubt.

Let me say the gist of my argument one more time: India gobbled up principalities which, at the time of such annexation, had not acceded to it in terms of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. And that goes for Hyderabad, Goa, Sikkim, Jodhpur, Junagadh, Babriawad, Mangrol, Kashmir (are you sure I didn`t miss any?). Whether Pakistan wanted them or they wanted Pakistan or whether some Maharaja wanted to be part of Germany is besides the point. India acted in a manner of naked aggresiveness. And please save me the ``Pakistan did it too`` nonsense; I don`t care and I am not Pakistan`s defense counsel.

I don`t know what you mean by saying that Jinnah sent HS Suwrawardy packin east. Mr Suhrawardy was the last premier of Bengal; Mr Jinnah passed away in 1948; and Mr Suhrawardy became Pakistan`s Prime Minister in 1956.

Don`t worry about our handling the Calcutta (a)bhadroloks. After we ruled them for quite a while until 1757. But seriously, the inference is stupid. I have been a frequent visitor to Calcutta and West Bengal in general; they are good, decent people; perhaps snotty sometimes, but then so are New Yorkers to those of us in the Midwest. Big deal.

And yes, since Murshidabad is in such disrepair now, Calcutta will suit fine as the capital of a united Bengal. By the way, Dhaka was never capital of united Bengal.

For those of you Indians and Pakistanis who still think that without Indian intervention the Bengalis would have lost in 1971, think again. Do the words Vietnam and Afghanistan mean much to you? Of course, like the rest of Bangladesh, I am grateful for the assistance received by the Freedom Fighters in India.

Oh, gymno, I will be happy to take a burqa to Mrs Schlafly but perhaps you could order one from Lucknow. I am told that`s where the best ones are made. And yes, I am proud to be part of the Neanderthal party which Abraham Lincoln and Dinesh D`Souza belong to. Far better than the KKK spawned Democrats.

sherdil #218

I asked a number of other questions, you may notice? (#199)

Sadhana

sigalph235 #214

Its better to first figure out along with various political entities in Bangladesh how to profit from selling India huge amounts of natural gas while simultaneously safeguarding Bangladeshi interests. Ruling from Calcutta is realizable only after those cash registers ring, I feel, unless the stars are shining in those voluminous Saudi/American pockets.

Sadhana

Interesting article from DAWN:

``Chief Executive wants `frank` talks with Indian PM

LONDON, April 29: Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf said on Saturday he wanted to meet Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to discuss the dispute over Kashmir.

``I would certainly like to talk to the Prime Minister...the person who is in charge and who is going to decide,`` Musharraf told CNN in an interview monitored in London.

CNN said Musharraf offered to meet Vajpayee in a neutral Middle Eastern country.

``A meeting that is very open, very frank, very flexible, very practical, very realistic. But it is the Kashmir dispute that we have to address,`` Musharraf told CNN.

It was the first call by Musharraf for a face-to-face meeting with Vajpayee. Previously he has said Pakistan is ready for talks with India any time, anywhere. Vajpayee said on Tuesday that Pakistan must take the initiative to resume peace talks.

Talks between the two countries have been frozen since the Kargil conflict last summer, when Indian forces fought for weeks to oust Kashmiri freedom fighters from the strategic heights close to the Line of Control in Kashmir.``-Reuters

(DAWN, Pakistan)

I think if Pakistan can offer talks to India even though the India`s offensive in Siachen is still going on, and India has openly refused to agree to even a bilateral withdrawl, then India should agree to talks without using Kargil as an excuse. The Indian general (now retired) who actually orchestrated the Indian Siachen offensive was even welcomed to a visit to Pakistan. I think he was even asked to address the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad.