The Kashmir Society

The Kashmiri society held its first event yesterday, with a brilliant lecture on the geographic dimensions on the conflict. It was a learning curve for the audience and it an hour well-spent. For instance the Siachen glaciers, the world's highest battlefield, is borne from the 1948 ceasefire between Pakistan and India since in their mutual laziness they failed to delineate the border correctly northward of Baltistan and Kargil. Hence the treaty stated that the LOC (line of control) shall continue "north" and since 1984 Pakistan & India have been disputing the word "north". Incidentally the terrtiory covered in the Pakistani interpretation of "north" provides convenient access to the strategic Karakorum Range.

At any rate I tremendously benefitted from the lecture and was happy to see that even though the society was run by Pakistani\Mirpuris (yours truly is humble treasurer) the audience was predominantly Indian.

However the class idiot had to be Pakistani, who fancied himself a military historian and Kashmir expert par excellence. After the lecture we were called unprofessionals, who had approached the issue from the wrong angle and didn't have a clue on Kashmir. Smarts, as I would call him, thought that the only way to view the conflict was from a military angle, i.e who had the greater chutzpah and the courage to spend on their armies.

Now the problem with this perspective is that it not only plays on the fantasy that in one daring swoop Srinagir can be ours but further dehumanises Kashmiris as pawns in the Great Game between Pakistan and India.

Unfortunately Pakistan can no longer compete with India in South Asia, for sooner or later our natural courage, our essential dignity and admirable nobility we will lose to the tide of a billion. India is the natural hegemon of South Asia, for it alone is neighbour to all other Hindustani nations. The Indus Valley eventually yielded to the Gangetic delta and Pakistanis must understand that sooner or later we will be eclipsed in our own backyard. This struck me yesterday when I saw the map, the figures and the comparative economic data which showed that we can only play second fiddle to India. In the Sub-continent there is only one master and that is India, all other nations are either her vassals or subordinate partners. It is inevitable and the secession of Kashmir in the N.West or the thirteen sisters in the N.East will not negate the historic unity of the Indian nation.

India is a great nation and I accept that Pakistan may merely be a monstrous abberation shattering the ancient unity of the Sub-continent. Pakistan was borne of South Asia but to avoid the fate of subjugation and assimilation we must consciously transcend our origins, by actively cultivating links with kin scattered westbound and northward.

India's Ex-Foreign Minister Assails Powell

Account of Efforts Behind Talks Between Indian and Pakistani Leaders Rejected

India's former foreign minister has denounced Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in unusually strong terms, saying that Powell's account of how he helped facilitate a dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers was "fabricated and baseless."

Here to read more

A funny read and check out the link but I can't resist quoting the Washington's Post witty aside and Jaswant Singh's (Indian ex-foreign minister) spirited reaction.

Powell's comments (on brokering the warming of Indo-Pak relations) were widely reported in India, which views itself as an independent great power.......

"The way he has gone about claiming credit is a total concoction and a matter of imagination, the way he conjured up biological weapons in Iraq," Singh said. "I don't know whether the State Department of U.S.A., in addition to attempting to run U.S. foreign policy as best as it can, is also a telephone exchange and now is acting as a kind of elocution instructor to South Asia."

"The U.S. bureaucracy are world champions in . . . inaction, in finding reason not to do things." He added that the U.S. bureaucracy is three times ahead of its Indian counterpart in "obfuscating, obstructing and ensuring that nothing is done."

America is the babysitter of the Sub-continent and it's only with her watching over will the lil kids not make a mess of things. This story proves it when the Americans in the end had to appease bruised egos by praising "statesmanship initiatives".

I learnt today one of the most well-guarded secrets about a nation and it's something that would change the perception of that state in world affairs...

I was surfing the Urdu newspapers to improve my reading and I read some comments about Bush's victory. Pakistanis have alot to learn and it's no wonder that we teeter on a pariah because we have such an instinctual anti-Western bias, as evidenced by mass support for Kerry. Thank God for General Musharraf, Pakistani's don't deserve democracy especially with these sort of opinions. The only sensible comment (though I don't know what he means by "Islamic democracy"):

The election of John Kerry as US president would be a tragedy for Pakistan. The Democrats have traditionally taken steps whenever they are in power to weaken and isolate Pakistan. Just recently, we have seen, when Clinton who is a Democrat took over the presidency, he instigated measures against Pakistan, which took the nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Bush on the other hand is using Pakistan for his country's interests.

General Musharraf is a sensible man; he knows Pakistan would be finished if U.S. turned against it. He knows the hardships Pakistan faced with sanctions that were imposed on the country by the Americans and the west during the 90s.

Since the sanctions were lifted and Pakistan became an ally of America rather than an "isolated terrorist state" its economy has flourished and is heading towards self-sufficiency.
With the election of Kerry, God forbid, Pakistan will again end up as a scapegoat, as it happened before. Pakistan according to Kerry doctrine will again be blamed for all the ills of the world. Bush may look dumb, but he is a clever man and in a curious way better for Pakistan.

Bush is a person who I detested up to a few months ago. Now I think, he has a point. Muslim nations, especially the Arab States have been dictatorships and it is about time somebody kicked them out and put in real Islamic democracy there. The Muslim ummah is a toothless paper tiger that has been unable in two hundred years to bring democracy to their people. A few despots have the run of the Muslim countries for their own selfish benefits and it is only people like Bush who can do something positive. If he is successful in Afghanistan and Iraq, ironically in an indirect way, he might help the Muslim world to wake up and sort them out before they are trampled by Bush doctrine.

S.Ahmad
Pakistan

We are living in the Golden Years.

The next four years will be the golden years of the Bush presidency.

George W Bush will emerge as one of the best beloved and far-sighted leaders of American in her distinguished history. He is going to change this country to the way it should be, ready to fulfil her role as the first among nations.

Outsourcing...

I'll be outsourcing quite a bit this time when I go to Pakistan for the winter...

I've decided the blog needs to be touched up a bit and am going to hear a web designer from Pakistan.

Outsourcing is win-win for everybody. my website gets a face-lift and in return I remit some of my earnings back to Pakistan. Consumer is king after all and medieval mercantilism shouldn't stop the free flow of trade an global economic interdependence.

On the elections...

I saw this as a staid election because the outcome was predetermined.

It is the natural cycle of politics that the Rep. are now enjoying their stay in power. To me it was intuitive that Bush would win (but I started to doubt toward the end after reading the media and intellectual elites, way too skewed against Bush and extremely out of touch with the pulse of the nation), since there's just too much for him to do as his work is unfinished...

He needs another term for there to be a finality to his policies (esp. foreign policies), which in the long run will hold out. I support Bush as a Pakistani because I know that Islamic civilisation will be immensely strengthened by his astuteness and courage. Islam has a cancer festering within it's borders and the Afghanistan & Iraq liberation campaigns were the phases of chemotherapy needed to excise it. Hopefully there will be more doses to make sure of no remission, a strengthened Bush with an united America will tame Iran, Syria and and Saudi Arabia!

What I don't understand is that if Bush won no states (and lost N.Hampshire) and still won the election then what was everyone going on about the swing states?

Anyway moving on I think the next decade is going to be extremely interesting in US politics, unlike now. The personalities that are going to storm the scene are going to make for riveting vieweing, the high voter turnout is going to be the new trend of the millenium.

The Rep. are moving right (they'll become soft from power) and the Dem will have to move centre. America may be conservative but it's not that conservative and in four years time, after 14yrs (?) of a Republican Congress and 8yrs of the Presidency there will be a change...

I think in twelve years time we will see the first black presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. He's 42 now but in twelve years, with two senate terms under his belt, he'll be a seasoned senator but still young at 54...

Sen. Hillary doesn't seem an unlikely prospect in four years and her popularity isn't all that low as suggested. In four years she'll be an eight year senator and that's a solid record on top of being the first lady of Arkansas and United States as well.

Hey it could be hilarious from 1988 to 2012; Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton all in the family (bit like Kuwait where power is shared btwn two families). And they say America is meritocratic; nepotism is the natural order of things people.

We need a billionaire's husband Kerry preaching to us the social reform of the poor; politics is indeed a rich man's game.

Finally Arnie... Could he be the next Reagan? A matched campaign would be Hillary vs Arnie; equally handicapped by being pioneers (ma'am vs. immigrant). I'm pretty sure they would pass a constitutional amendment for him, but he's a libertarian republican (a true conservative is a liberal at heart) and Hillary will now have to position herself on the far right spectrum of the democrat party, pose as a centrist to regain the heart of middle America.

America's a conservative nation and it's interesting that 23% of voters considered moral issues (religion, abortion, homosexuality) important enough to guide their voting patterns. For instance I would say that I'm conservative morally however what is critical to me is the federal process and the strength of local and state institutions. I'm not a fan of gay marriage, I believe it undermines traditional marriage, however I am deeply against a constitutional ban that takes away the right of states to make this decision on their own. States should not be emasculated socially or emasculated otherwise America's faith will be unprecedented centralisation. Even in abortion and ten commandments the federal government has no business interfering in these matter, leave it to the states to decide.

I believe America remains preeminent because it is the union of 50 states and as such is a nation that can go through the deepest of division but emerge united and stronger. Yes there will be schisms between blue states and red states, it is natural that there will be cultural blocs. Far more preferable for a few truck drivers to have confederate flags on their bumpers and preserve cultural diversity than the frightening trend of a tv homogeneised culturally uniform population that seems the fate of a globalised world.

Ohio is Bush country.

From Bloomberg

U.S. States Ban Gay Marriages, Back Cell Research (Update1)

(Adds results of gambling measures in 12th paragraph.)

By William Selway Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Voters in 11 U.S. states passed banson marriages between same-sex couples and California backedspending $3 billion on stem-cell research, in ballot contestsshaped by the policies of President George W. Bush. Gay-marriage bans passed in every state where they appeared, including Ohio and others identified by Bush's campaign as key to his re-election. Republicans said they expected the issue toincrease turnout in states that could swing the presidential race. Bush supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and is opposed to stem-cell research. ``The presence of those measures on the ballot had theeffect of invigorating and mobilizing the conservative base,'' said Tom Shepard, a Republican political consultant in San Diego.``In an election like this where turnout was playing a significant factor in many of these battleground states, thatmobilization of the base made a big difference.''

I hope that Islam's crusader blazes to victory today.