Uneven Democracy : The Cry from Chhattisgarh anil#: ...can you define a strategic interest that the usa has with india....one hears this a lot.....however, i have yet to find someone who can articulate it.....in your reply, you have talked about a rate of growth, and interview with fareed zakaria etc.......but what is the strategic interest?

.....i think india can gain a lot from usa, economically, in the sense that it can sell there and grow its economy......however, what does the usa gain from india, strategically......the only thing i can see is a market of its goods, in the indian middle class.....however, this is certainly not strategic......it is quite small, in comparison to the usa economy.....

the other strategic aspect is to corner china......however, what does india gain from that.....and i think the usa is too smart to get into a confrontation with china......it will want an economic partnership......

.....there are only three groups with whom i can see the usa having a strategic relationship.......one is israel, because of the huge influence israel has in the usa.........the other is going to be china, since china is an economic powerhouse already, and will be the dual economic and military power with the usa....i.e. a G2.......the third are the middle east oil countries.......which will be providing the enrgy to the world for the coming future.....

......i think even the eu barely fits in strategically for the usa......and i dont think japan fits in strategically.....nor does brazil etc......at best india could offer a market as large as japan at some stage.....but that is not strategic......

in fact, i see the influence of the middle east countries, potentially, growing exponentially.......to put things in perspective, the total foreign exchange reserves for india are equivalent to a single wealth fund's assets in kuwait......half of a single wealth funds assets in saudi arabia, and a third to a fourth of a single wealth fund's assets in abu dhabi.......

the total market cap of the bombay stock exchange, if my info is correct, is $1.8 trillion........the total market cap (calculated) of saudi aramco is about half that....this is one saudi company.......

and all these middle east countries are still oil and gas based.....they have yet to even prick the top of the enormous economic power they have.......they are, now, starting to do this....they are venturing into banking, education, investment funds, infrastructure, tourism etc.....once they start putting their oil wealth into these areas, instead of just selling crude oil, their wealth will multiply........

not to mention the fact that the middle east wealth is hindered by the political situations here......if those settle down, they will prsper further.....

so, i think people tend to feel overly important, when they discuss the usa......i think india has a lot to gain, strategically from the usa, but not vice-versa......usa has some tactical gains.......but that is about it......

the only thing that seems perhaps plausible is that the indian-american community, someday, becomes as influential as the jewish community.....but that is very difficult also......the usa has a huge chinese community, which has been there a lot longer than the indian community......it doesn't have the same influence as the jewish community.....

infact, even in relation to pakistan, i am not sure what india has been able to gain......if anything, i think the usa has been biased in favor of pakistan, considering the size of the two countries......barring a few lines in the kerry-luger bill (which the usa, itself, is now regretting due to the uproar in pakistan), i am not sure what else has happened......

so, do highlight where india will be, strategically, in the usa roadmap.......keeping in mind that even japan and eu are barely strategic......i see usa, china, israel and arab oil states being the strategic countries........

Uneven Democracy : The Cry from Chhattisgarh Dost-mittar/Riaz: ...i think people tend to read too much into what the usa may want from india or from pakistan.....i think there are quite a few bigger issues on the day to day table of obama.....

....what exactly does the usa have to gain from india or pakistan.......in pakistan, usa has two interests......nuclear weapons and war on terror......that is it.......what about india.......the only interest i can see is to ensure that us business has access to india's growing middle class........this middle class is growing, but it is still tiny in comparison to the overall us economic footprint in the world........

perhaps, usa would like to use india to contain china......i doubt it....since us economic interests with china will grow......and i am not sure if it is in india's interest to be used.......

........so while india can gain a lot from usa, i am not sure how much the usa can gain from india.......

......to do a comparison take a look at the interests usa has with the arab world and with israel.......isreal, obviously, has huge influence within the us system.......(i cannot imagine anyone else ever getting close to that)........

as for arabs, saudi aramco has a market cap of around $800 billion (it is unlisted, so this is a calculation)......it dwarfs the largest usa oil company - exxonmobil........it has annual revenues of $200 billion and these peaked a few years ago, at a much higher amount when oil was at $140......

this is just one of the many oil companies in the region.....in addition, the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world sits in abu dhabi....it is largest by a wide margin and has assets that fluctuate between $500 billion to 1 trillion......the equivalent saudi fund touches around $500 billion.......

this is play money through which these entities, can buy usa and worldwide assets.......

qatar has also joined the party recently, by becoming the wealthiest nation - per capita - in the world, passing luxembourg......it is flooded with gas reserves........

.......i am not sure what india (or pakistan) have to offer to counter the above......

i think the usa is preparing for a G2 world, with usa and china dominating the globe........the other major players will be a fractured eu, and the middle east oil states, which will supply this G2......israel will have disproportionately large influence due to its influence in the usa........

everyone else is simply jumping around, like fleas trying to highlight who owns the dog........

Kerry-Lugar Bill – A Pyrrhic Victory shankar#: "What I find hard to understand is if Pakistan gets 5 times that amount from remittances, why should it be so hard for Pakistan to raise 1.5 extra a yr?.....If majority of Pakistanis hate the US, & hate the KL bill; damn it...have the "ghairat" to refuse it!"

....this is a very valid and good question......

....generating or saving $1.5 billion is a piece of cake for pakistan.....a country of 165 million people can do it easily.....pakistan is about to spend $1.4 billion to get fighter jets from china......i am not sure why.....it will never have an army, or economy, huge enough to win a conventional war against india.....and india will never be able to counter pakistan's nuclear deterrent.....so why buy more conventional weaponry....

......if there is peace and quiet in pakistan, the arab nations alone will put in far more than $1.5 billion a year....with oil at 80 dollars, tiny abu dhabi is pumping $1.5 billion of it every ten days......and needs places to invest it......

......this is eventually, what will happen if democracy comes good in pakistan.....the first thing pakistanis will ask for is for the usa to leave and for pakistan to get out of the war in afghanistan, and limit it to waziristan areas......this will result in a significant amount of peace in pakistan, which will result in further revenues.....

.....people are, now, very anti taliban and very anti usa.....you will get a far better reception as an indian, than as an american......

.......however, currently, paksitan govt. is still a dictatorship.....previously, usa was dealing with musharraf, who was dependent on the usa......now it is dealing with zardari, who is dependent on the usa......i am sure, usa has so much filth on him that he will not last a single second if it is released.....

however, he is on his way out also.....becoming the second victim of democracy.....

things will move like this, until public opinion is truly represented in the govt.......which means pakistan will leave gwot.......move against taliban (which it is doing now), and restructure its finances.......to the extent that 80-85% pakistanis don't even want aid, from usa......

so what you say will (may) happen, but it will take a few elections.....maybe ten years or so......but any entity that has sided with the usa, has been totally demolished at the subsequent elections........this is what happened to musharraf and pml-q.......and it is what will happen to ppp.......i doubt the ppp wins more than 20 seats in the next elections.......if that........

the people making usa policy have no idea what is going on in pakistan......this includes senators and other congressmen......they come to the usa embassy, attend a party with a few journalists, etc........and leave and make policy......

a usa hand on someone's political shoulder is a kiss of death......

Vision21: Waziristan Strategy or Pakistan Strategy? ...there are three things pakistan needs to do, to get out of this mess:

1. gain governance and control over its complete geography, including FATA.....this is responsibility no. 1 of every govt.

2. get out of usa's gwot and stop supporting nato in afghanistan......it is not in pakistan's interest to be a frontline state in every (or any) usa war.....

3. once step 2 is implemented, there may be huge reductions in aid, loans and bailouts.....this will require pakistan to restructure its internal finances and spending......it will have a negative impact in the short run, but will be highly positive in the long run.......

.....public opinion is, now, totally, in favor of the above three......what is lacking is the bubbling of this public opinion into govt. policy.....nearly everyone is behind the waziristan operation and wants pakistan to gain governance over its own terrority.....

...in a gallup survey, 85% of pakistanis felt afghan war was a usa war and not a pakistan war......this is the only justification left for ttp carrying out their attacks in pakistan, i.e. pakistan is supporting the usa.....80% of paksitanis polled felt that pakistan should even give up the aid coming in kerry-lugar bill......

.......the recent unexpected reaction to the nro, indicates that pakistani public pressure is being recognized by the legislature.......ppp has been forced to withdraw the nro.....this is a historical step and step 1, perhaps, in the restructuring of the govt/public contract......the assemblies have, finally, supported the accountability of their own ilk........zardari is in big trouble......as are various ppp ministers etc......all the cases against them will be re-openend now......

......1 and 3 are happening......2 is not happening......eventually, the govt. will have no choice but to implement 2 also.....the only question is how long it will take........and during this time, how much will pakistan be destabilized.......

Islam and Modern Times: Is There a Case For Reinterpretation? sattar#...setting aside the debate on whether ahmedis can or should be declared non-muslims or whether they should be allowed to preach (two issues on which i have already expressed my views), i think it will be important for you to engage in an academic debate, on the general teaching of mirza ghulam ahmed, to make your point(s)......

at the very least, we should know, what he preached and did not preach, and how he justified his stance as being a prophet.....this is, obviously, not a small claim......something, which, at least in my opinion, impacts the very foundation of islam......this will also allow people to get their facts straight.......

i have four questions/disagreements:

1. you tend to relate mirza ghulam ahmad's preaching of his ideas to be similar to those of muhammad, i.e. someone trying to reform a system/religion, as a minority.......however, i see one distinct difference......while muhammad wanted to reform the society around him, he seemed to have no intentions of reforming the religion around him......he brought in a completely new religion, and totally discarded the current one as false.......wouldn't this make his teachings very different from mirza ghulam ahmed.....muhammad did not declare himself a prophet of the current religion.......

2. in your opinion, the quran does not say that muhammad was the final prophet......this forms the basis of your argument that mirza ghulam ahmed was a prophet.....let's assume your argument, regarding the quran not stating that muhammad being the last prophet to be correct.......

how does this, however, prove that mirza ghulam ahmed was a prophet.......all it proves is that there can be prophets after muhammad.....it does not prove that, specifically, the prophet after muhammad would be mirza ghulam ahmed.......billions of people have come and gone after muhammad.......couldn't anyone of them have claimed they were a prophet?.....

3. if my understanding is correct, mirza ghulam ahmed claimed to be the rebirth of christ.......mehdi......there are other people in the world (christians and muslims) who have made similar claims......assuming there is going to be only one rebirth of christ, why would it be mirza ghulam ahmed?...what makes his claim more superior?

4. this point is not based on two much research......but from what i have read, mirza ghulam ahmed claimed that jesus did not die at the cross......he went on to live a full life....and then came to kashmir and died........this is described in his treatise titled, "Jesus in India" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_India_(book)"

...would this not contradict christian and muslim beliefs that Jesus did not live a full life after crucification and, thus, never went to kashmir.......

hence, if it turns out that Jesus never lived a full life after crucification and never went to kashmir, would that, then make mirza ghulam ahmed's claims of being mehdi controversial..........

**again, my interests are purely academic.....i want to see what information about mirza ghulam ahmed is accurate and what is not...and whether my contention that there is a distinct defining difference between what ahmedis believe and what i believe is correct or incorrect.......

Waziristan Operation anil#: Wow, some video you have posted. I am speechless and thoughtless to comment on what is this girl saying."

...i am surprised that you are suprised.....you have spent years on this site.....and must have read similar wordage, thoughts from so many of our indian interactors here - both against pakistan and against islam - i would say a majority of our indian interactors here are along this line......

.......one would have to say that they didn't just end up on this line all of a sudden......at the age of this girl, they must have been at the same stage as her.......

....this is, infact, the common rhetoric on indian tv channels, every time a terrorist attack occurs in india, as well.....i would say much of the thinking of hindutva philosophy - the basis of bjp and rss - philosophically along this line......i have read quite a bit of it.......

......the girl is just articulating it in a more enthusiastic manner.....i dont think she is a modi in the making though.......she is not threatening muslims in india.......she keeps saying kashmir to ho ga......she is a hindu nationalist in the making........

modi is at a different level......he is at a level well beyond baitullah mehsud........

Waziristan Operation dost-mittar#: "Did you see the interview on....."

....actually, i consider CNN and CBS amongst the least credible channels when it comes to GWOT.....they have thrown out nothing but US propoganda.....i saw the interview on a pakistani private channel......much like indians see their interviews on indian private channels......i have never seen you have any issue with any information gathered from indian private channels.....much of your info is identical to that on indian channels......why an issue with a pakistani private channel?

....india has a disproportionately high presence in afghanistan.......does it not?......why?......it would like pakistan having such a huge presence in nepal or bhutan.......two countries with which pakistan has little in common......culturally, ideologically etc. indians have nothing in common with afghanistan.....in fact, indians seem to hate everything that afghanistan and afghanis believe in ideologically and historically.......

why is a dirt poor country like india, spending so much money in afghanistan building up such a huge presence.......i could understand if it were trying to assist nepal or sri lanka........but why afghanistan?

.......where is the ttp getting all its money from?......all its armament from?......who is funding them?......what is their source of income?.......where are the baluchis getting all their money and armament from?........and the easiest way to do this would be to fund ttp and other similar organizations......

unless all of a sudden, india has fallen in love with afghanistan, its presence there needs to be justified and analysed along other lines also.....the only thing i can see is that india wants to crunch pakistan from both sides.....

india has a recorded track record of doing the same in bangladesh.....via the mukti bahani......do you agree that india funded and trained the mukti bahani in terrorism to break off east pakistan.......or do you not agree with that either?.....if it did it then, and sent them across an international border, where they did things similar to what happened in recent mumbai attacks, then why would india not do it again?

lets see what pavo says, since he is in afghanistan, and would be seeing it first hand......

Waziristan Operation pavocavalry#:" am based in afghanistan since 2004."

do you feel india is assisting the ttp (or baluch organizations) in committing terrorist acts in pakistan......the current presence of india in afghanistan is way beyond what it would be normally.........it would be the equivalent of pakistan going full blast in nepal or bhutan....

...i saw the interview of a suicide bomber who had been captured.......he explained how india funded the organizations.........

Waziristan Operation dost-mittar#: "Some of us are old enough to be reading news at that time. There was no opposition to the Pakistani participation in the Afghanistan Jihad, except from ANP."

......i was old enough to read news also....there was little or no opposition to it, after it had been sold as a jihad against the infidel russians.......however, had bhutto been in power, and zia and jamaat had no influence, i am not sure if the initial stage of selling it as a jihad would have occurred.......maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have.....

i saw it along the jihad lines also.....because that is how it was packaged.......it was only later that i realized the actual dynamics behind it.......

"Heck, even hamidm saheb supports this policy of making a distinction between good and bad taleban and tahmed saheb does not even acknowledge that this distinction exists in Pakistani minds."

...once again, it depends on how it is sold......i don't think there is much support for the taliban in pakistan, now......at the same, if the taliban are packaged and seen as a force that is trying to kick the americans out of afghanistan, then there will be support for the afghan taliban....i.e. lesser evil vs. bigger evil.......

similarly, if the afghan taliban is packaged as an entity which will be needed to fight off indian in afghanistan, as india is unnecessarily getting involved in afghanistan, way beyond its traditional presence, then they will have support......i.e. india will create problems in pakistan via pakistan, through support of terrorism, and through blocking pakistan's waters etc........then people will support the afghan taliban in a lesser evil vs. bigger evil scenario......

this is different from supporting taliban ideologically or as an entity......

Waziristan Operation shankar#: "My point then is if you do that, then Pakistan will "own" the war,from then on...by cutting the supply lines. Right now, the US owns it & is spending & wasting a huge amount of human & economic resources. The bulk of the resources are borne by the US."

....i dont think the usa has any intention of leaving afghainstan.......if pakistan cuts off the supply lines, they will open them up from central asia......and they will take their supplies through the air routes as well......

what may and i think probably will result is that the only justification left for the taliban in attacking pakistan, i.e. pakistan is an ally of usa in this war, will go away......it will become more difficult for the taliban in justifying their stance in attacking pakistan........and i think violence in pakistan will stop to a great degree......

any country that had suffered over 120 suicide attacks in two years, would have cut off the supply lines by now.......canada would have, as would have india.....

afghanistan will be a mess, regardless of what the usa does.......pakistan should not own it.......it should stay out of the mess.....however, i don't know if it will.......i think the general consensus in the pakistan govt. is that it doesn't make any sense for india to excercise so much influence in afghanistan........why is india there.......it is like pakistan being in nepal, for no rhyme or reason........

so pakistan will back some pathan entity in afghanistan........while india and iran will back the northern alliance.........and afghanistan will be back to square one........the violence will move back into afghanistan........

however, ethically speaking, usa created the mess, or most of it, and it is responsible for fixing it......through economic means and not through military means though.......

Waziristan Operation majumdar#: "By and large I agree that both Afghan Wars were not started by the Pakis, Russians started the first war, the US the second. But Pakis did participate enthusiastically in both (although one can argue that the decision to enter both were taken by non-representative military govt) and no one can deny that the Talibs were created in the first place by Pakis during BB's second regime."

...yes, this is the correct analysis......with one disagrement......one can debate that pakistanis got into the first one enthusiastically......i think had there been a political govt. the anp would have opposed it in nwfp, making it very difficult for pakistan to participate......i don't know what zulfiqar bhutto's (assuming he would have been prime minister, had zia not carried out the coup) govt. would have done in the center.....

pakistanis started following it once it was sold as a jihad by zia and religious parties, with usa's help.....

regarding this afghan war.....there is no debate.....pakistanis have overwhelmingly opposed it......85% opposition.....80% of the ppp voters opposed it....this is why the usa was so keen to keep musharraf in power, and do a deal with bb to get her and musharraf in power........now it is keen to seen zardari in power.....although it can control nawaz through saudis, as well.......

the public opinion will take time to translate into political policy......but the fact that 85% of the population opposes even an aid bill, shows that pakistanis are starting to think for themselves.......

Waziristan Operation ....i spent about a month with a team from afghanistan, which was in the middle east......i had detailed discussions with one of the afghan members of the team.....according to him, the americans are in afghanistan for the long run......he said the structures they are putting up, cannot be just for this occupation........

if this is the case, then the complete dynamics of all the information regarding this war, becomes propoganda......it would be an indication that there is, really, not mcuh interest in stabilizing afghanistan......it just needs to be stable enough so that the americans can keep their structures and carry out whatever policies they want to from there......

however, americans are amongst the worst planners when it comes to dealing with insurgencies.......even if we assume the american plan was to get cheap oil from iraq......and even if we assume, after having retreated, they have achieved some part of this plan; the consequences of their retreat in iraq and afghanistan, will have significant affects........this is not to say they shouldn't have retreated, as they had no option.......

i had a discussion with a young palestinian/jordanian guy also.....he said, the public opinion in the arab world, all is in line with hamas......however, he felt their govts. were impotent......(interestingly, he felt pakistan was one country, which had quite a bit of defiance)......

.......both these guys are educated young professionals.......from the look of it, very westernized......

usa has some interesting times ahead......it could learn from china.......china is buidling long term alliances, in the southeast of asia, without firing a single shot........the populace of the middle east, starting from pakistan westwards is pro-china, also......it could (will) eventually increase its sphere of influence in this direction towards the oil rich states........(i am surprised it hasn't done so, already)......pakistanis like chinese.......i believe iranis do also........

and as china becomes richer and richer, more and more people will go there......

....i think the usa is dropping the ball on more than one category.......its economy, foreign relations, public opinion, etc........george bush through two invasions, has done more damage to the usa and to the world, than most american presidents could have done in decades........

and now obama is stuck also......doesn't know what to do......he knows the war in afghanistan is lost.......and cannot be won......however, he knows if he gets out, the reprecussions would be huge....unfortunately, every american president has to own one war, otherwise the american voter will not elect him......so he took over this one......i.e. iraq was the wrong war, and afghanistan is the right one......

now he has no idea on how to fight this war.....he could end up in the same hole as bush was in iraq......an unwinnable war tied around his neck because he owned it......with the added negative that his own party voters, unlike bush's, do not support it.......

afghanistan is a disaster already, and is a disaster waiting to happen also......it is a damned if you do and damned if you dont scnenario.....the usa nato allies are going to start dropping off one by one.....they aren't doing much of the fighting anways........american public opinion is 51% against it now......with democratics far higher.......and pakistan public opinion has been 85% against it.......

the underlying cause of such war-envy in the usa is two-fold.......the usa populace knows it will never be hit.....two the us populace has become so war-hungry that it will never elect a pacifist candidate......every candidate - including a flaming liberal like obama - has to carry a bible in one hand (to get the christian conservative vote) a gun in the other (to get the nra vote) and own a war (to get the general public's vote)......

then, of course, people naively ask, "why do they hate us"......maybe the answer is, they hate you because you keep attacking them (middle easterners, south americans etc.) and keep destabilizing their regions, cities, countries and their neighbors......


having said that, i saw some news, that the usa is carrying out joint excercises with israel as practice for invading iran.......!!!....i wouldnt be surprised if the usa attacked iran at some point.......

(pakistan needs to get control of waziristan and then tell the usa to leave pakistan and pakistan should disengage from gwot......i am not sure how long zardari can resist the 85% public opinion......for the americans.......my guess is the usa probably has a lot of personal dirt on him and could blackmail him......however, according to gallup even 80% of ppp voters don't support usa's war in afghanistan)........

Waziristan Operation fuzair#: "The simple truth of the matter is that Pakistan willingly participated in the Afghan War and not just that, it took a very active role in ensuring that the worst elements won."

no one is saying that pakistan did not participate.....no one is saying that pakistan is not responsible.......what i am arguing is who started the wars....pakistan did not start them.....staring means invading a country, or overthrowing their govt. etc. in an attempt to take over the country......

did pakistan invade afghanistan and/or overthrow the govt. in either of the wars? ........ did pakistan invade afghanistan in either case to start the war?

simple questions........pls answer them........

ussr initiated the first afghan war, america initiated the second one........pakistan became a party to both......it has responsibilities in both cases......for some portion of the mess........but did pakistan start both wars?........and if it didn't, then shouldn't the countries that started the wars take some responsibilities......

or per shankar's views, they can just create a mess wherever they want, and then leave a vaccuum......and claim they have no responsibility......

Waziristan Operation dost-mittar#: "Pakistan not only picked up the bag, it owned it and ran with it. It created a special force,"

if you want to participate in a discussion, please read it from the begining......the point i was making was around the current war.....the original comment had been that usa had no responsibility in cleaning up the mess it had now created.....i said it has a responsibility because it created it.....

"One could argue that even the soviets did not start the war."

only a naive fool would make such an argument.......if a country overthrows a regime, installs its own leader there, who then asks that same country to, "help" via an invasion, it is the invading country that started the fight........

"But when the americans decided to support the mujhaideen, Pakistanis accepted as a godsend. The war not imposed on Pakistanis, they took it as a hungry man takes to halwa offered on a platter."

...i would argue this also......there was a military govt. and the actual political opinion is, thus, not visible......if anp would have been in power, in nwfp, they would have projected it in a totally different manner......this war was sold via zia, america and the religious parties.......there was no political consensus on it......it was never voted on......

having said, even if we take what you say to be true......does it mean that pakistan started the afghan war?.........does fuzair's statement that pakistan started the war become true?

obviously not......pakistan has been party to both wars.....it is responsible for a lot of the mess in afghanistan.......(as are india, iran etc.)........but pakistan did not start either of the fights..........

even if this war, all of a sudden, becomes hugely popular in pakistan, it still does not mean pakistan started it........does it........

Waziristan Operation shankar#: "What do you think is going to happen IF the US leaves Afghanistan?"

.....i dont know.....i cannot predict the future.....at least not as well as indian psychiatrists, who live in michigan.......perhaps it is time that americans stopped predicting the future, and started letting other countries move on.......

.......what i do know is what is happening now......and it is not good.......

the problem with us policy is that everything is centered around military actions......nato has created the mess there and it is responsible to clean it up.......the only option of interacting with a country is not the military option........

nato needs to get its military out.......usa is doing that in iraq......it has basically accepted defeat and is backing off.......iraq has become less violent.......

afghanistan needs to be engaged economically........not militarily.......instead of spending all that money on soldiers, it should be spent on the people......

a fool is a person who does the same thing twice, expecting different results.........

Waziristan Operation interesting comments from the head of gallup pakistan, on tv:

- 15% - of pakistanis support the kerry lugar bill
- 15% - of pakistanis support remaining a part of the us war in afghanistan
- 20% - of pakistanis support military leading the country politically