Desicritics Author: Desh

Peace is the Business of the Fearless

Desh — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:46:50 EST

"Pakistan's Image" is a strange animal.

If one were to believe the rhetoric that goes in the media is Pakistan and fanned by some ministers (like Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, minister of state for shipping) [1], one would come to believe that India's sole obsession is with sullying Pakistan's Image. Because of this one reason it conducted:

- Mumbai Attacks on ITSELF, killing its own citizens and hurting its tourism and other industries.
- Lahore Attack on Pakistan, killing Pakistani citizens hurting Pakistan's cricket now.

So, no matter who gets killed and where he or she gets killed, the sole and the greatest motivator for such killing remains - Pakistan's Image.

One would assume that this elusive thing that India is after, namely "Pakistan's Image", must be really a spectacularly shining and exquisite commodity that everyone wants to own... and if one cannot own, as ostensibly India may not, then it is a strong enough reason for us to go ahead and dent it. Such is the clamour for image like that Pakistan has been able to build for itself in the 60 years of its existence through a series of failed democracies, junta rule, and export of terrorism and Nukes.

Victimization Plea

Now, lets look at the Islamic world as a whole and you will see a similar pattern... the constant blaming on the "other" and rejoicing in the magnanimity of one's own "victim status".

The furthering of Victimization plea in the Islamic world is so prevalent that no matter where an upheaval occurs, somehow the culprit is someone else. Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan - wherever there is a fight, its always the "other" side which is guilty, and after the Muslim blood. The Muslim fighter obviously by most of the Islamic scholars' (who matter and affect the common perception) analysis is just "defending" himself or herself.

Different Upbringing?

In fact if one were to seriously take the extent and regularity of the Islamic rhetoric, then it would almost seem that whenever any child is born in the world, the mother repeatedly suggests to the child "Well, the milk can wait my kid, first let's start plotting on how to kill or hurt a Muslim.. and if you cannot hurt "them".. let us try and see how we can kill ourselves... so at the very least their "Image" gets sullied!!". followed by Smirks... and evil smiles of violent satisfaction..

The situation on the "other" side is obviously as pious as pious gets. The kids from the villages of Sudan to the poor neighborhoods in Pakistan to the mountains of Afghanistan, are taught on how everyone is so nice.. and no matter which religion a person believes in, their Gods and beliefs are as pious as our own and so we must love all. Of course if anyone hits us.. we will take the hit and throw stones at them, NOT because we have not been educated enough to create anything sophisticated enough, but because we are peaceloving and born VICTIMS incarnate!

Give Moderates some "Space" Plea

There is another line of argument by the moderates. That they need to be "strengthened" to bring about a change in the Muslim world and so one should not challenge the Islamic hardliners or hit them, because then they "lose the ground" on which to argue for "peace".

This was also the argument that I saw repeated ad nauseum on Fareed Zakaria's program last Sunday. And, in my view, it is the most nonsensical argument I have ever heard! It shows an utter lack of understanding of sociological history and lessons from peaceful revolutions. Whenever there has been a revolution or societal change in the history of mankind - in modern times, by Dr. Martin Luther King, or by Gandhi and by moderates in India in general during the Independence Struggle - it has been brought about by people who had ZERO help from outside.. and more importantly had ONE common factor - FEARLESSNESS.

Peace is the business of the FEARLESS!

Timid, dependent and the needy of external props and doles cannot, have not, and will never be able to bring about any change! Worse, they keep strengthening the apetite of the Violent and the Gory and extend their might. We saw that under Hitler, we saw that under Saddam and we are seeing that now.

And there is a reason why the FEARLESSNESS is central to Peaceful initiatives. The Violent and the Gory live and govern by FEAR. Fear is the central tenet to all those who want to bring about violence to bear upon a situation. And they back it up with a strong ideology. The Violent of Islam have used the tenets of Quran and Hadiths for that. Hitler had his own ideology based on hatred for Jews and Aryan superiority. So, every Violent group has two main things to perpetuate violence and bloodbath:

- Fear-based rhetoric
- Firm "commitment" to an Ideology

The only way to fight such a mad group is to challenge BOTH: FEAR and Ideology. You cannot ask for "concessions" in any of these two. The fight has to be ruthlessly honest and comprehensive in its depth and breadth. Anything short will be only a failure. No one can teach anyone on how to challenge a defunct and inherently counterproductive ideology, only one's own intellect and honesty brings one to that point. Fearlessness is the ONLY partner on that journey.

Reference Links:

1. Pakistan minister blames India for Sri Lanka team attack

Love: A Short Story

Desh — Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:45:04 EST

"Now, drink your milk Sonu!" shouted Reema. Sonu didn't quite like milk so he was pushing it away. Angry at his stubborn-ness she slapped Sonu loud and hard. Uma was standing near the door - she had come to ask for some sugar as usual - and was aghast. "Reema, he is handicapped and still you don't spare him?"

"But that is why he needs the milk!" Reema said in tears. "This milk is not cheap... you know that! It is only for him... He needs the strength in his legs.."

"Haan... that's true.. What does the doctor say?" Uma inquired.

"What will he say.. Its polio.. Its for life now.. " Reema said matter-of-factly. "but Guruji is coming next Sunday. I will make sure we meet him after his Satsang, so he can bless Sonu. His love is very healing. I am sure he will heal Sonu also." Hope was the eternal medicine known to mankind... and it often found its most potent culmination in the faith in divinity, irrespective of its deliverance.

"What is it about the Guruji that takes you all there?" Uma enquired. She was a Tamilian who had been living in Mumbai for a long time. The Chawl complexes make for interesting neighbors. Reema was from UP.

"Our love for him, what else? We love him as he is enlightened and divine." Reema said with a sense of reverence on her face.

"Hmm... I can understand that...." Uma replied and wandered off to her room.

Sunday was a morning of a lot of hustle-bustle. Everyone was on his/her toes. Pandeji, Reema's husband was at the receiving end, as he seemed to be the delaying factor for everything. He did not really believe in Gurus but could not really tell Reema much. Reema got Sonu ready. Put on the tilak and was ready for the journey.

Somehow, they reached the vast pandal (tent). Reema wanted the front seat. She wanted to have the darshan (viewing) of her Master from up close. His beautiful face full of aura and light was a sight to behold! She believed her love for her Guru was from the day she was first initiated by Him. But would she have felt that same love if she had met him before the "initiation" into the congregation? Or if she had not ever known him as a Guru? If not, then was this love for "Him" or "His power"? We only love divinity, as we describe it. Or in other words, we love our own divinities. Others' divinities are not worth that love. After all our love is not for free! Our love is not the love of the Sun - equal and same for all - but our love has a "Purpose". Purpose is euphemism for selfish love. When our love and passion is directed towards someone or something, it is also directed away from someone or something. It is purposeful and has a direction.

She pushed her way as much as she could - given the obvious discomfort that Sonu was facing ploughing through the crowd. Somehow, pleading about Sonu's condition and handicap she got to reach the front row.. From here, her Guruji was the closest and she could easily have his "darshan".

Guruji walked in on time, clean shaven, with a cap and white robe. As he sat down to give his lecture on Gita, he looked at the people in the front, and God knows how he looked at Sonu and Reema. "Kaisi ho Maayi?" (How are you, Mother?) Reema was pleased beyond words... she was shivering at the stroke of her luck! She knew that this was her moment to ask her Guru for the blessing. "Guruji," she started off with tears rolling down "My son has polio... please give him your blessings". "That is always there, Maayi", the Guru replied with unusual calm... "We just need your kripa (blessings), Sir. And thank you for visiting us .... We love you so much but we didn't get this opportunity for last 3 years." The Guruji started laughing very uncharacteristically. "What do you mean you love me?", he asked.

Reema blushed and was taken aback.. What kind of question was that? "Well... we can do anything for you Sir.. You are God incarnate.. Our love for you is as deep as anything. Since you are our Guru, we all have to love you, Sir!", she added without much thought.. almost naturally.

"Oh, you have to love me?" Repeated Guruji with special emphasis on the word "have". "Don't you love your kid more?"

"Yes, but.... ". Reema was embarrassed, and could not finish her sentence.

'Thank you, Maayi, I am blessed. Let's start the Gita paath."

Today's lecture on Bhagwad Gita was good, but Reema's mind was constantly on that question from her Guruji and it would keep going back to her husband. "What was he doing? " Hope he had gone to get the wheat flour.. Or there wouldn't be any tonight to make the food. In the middle of the lecture, Reema's cell rang and embarrassed again, she saw it was Pandeji, so she obediently took it and ran outside the pandal. As far as she could go so she would not disturb the others.

Pandeji was lost and couldn't find the flour shop. The usual one they used to go to was closed today and now she was explaining to him the other one. "Ohfo.. Pandeji... the lecture is going on.. And you are making me late.. " But Pandeji was undeterred. Suddenly there was some noise and she couldn't hear Pandeji properly.. So she moved further. Somehow, she was able to explain to him and as she turned back. A body came and hit her from behind!

She fell down with a thud. As she looked in that direction, she grew pale! The pandal was on fire.. And people were running out. "The stage caught fire...." someone shouted. "the lamp.." She didn't have time to think.. "SONU!!!" she shouted and ran inside. Against the tide. The stage was in flames and smoke..

She could barely make out the white silhouette of her Guruji behind it. Sonu had fallen down, but was still OK. She quickly grabbed him and pulled him as hard as she could. He was all of 13 and young now, but somehow, the urge to take him out of the fire, gave her strength she had never known. By the time she realized that she was in pain as well. She and Sonu were out and safe.

People were pouring water on the stage. Panting volunteers had brought in the fire extinguishers but the blaze was strong.

She suddenly realized her Guruji was probably engulfed in that flame! "Oh" she cried... "GURUJI!!"... she started crying inconsolably.

Guruji was no more. Everyone who loved Him was safe though. The "need to love" is not the same as love. Nobody had taught Reema to love Sonu. No instruction was ever given to her by any scripture.. No Prophet ever extolled its virtue... not even her Guruji ever mention it to her.. She was never asked to repeat her own son's name so many times so her love for him could be so much. It still was. She could have died while she attempted to pull Sonu out, as her Guruji looked on engulfed in flames.

Love cannot be taught, but every faith still tries. And fails. And people kill each other over the proprietorship of their unique brand of love - the love that always "has" to be taught, but never has been.

Mumbai Attacks: What Was, is and Should Be

Desh — Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:37:25 EST

William Webster, who had come from the FBI to become the new CIA director after Bill Casey's death in May 1987, vowed to straighten out an agency tarnished by its reputation for deceit. Webster turned up the temperature on Pakistan by showing Bhutto exactly what the US knew about Islamabad's nuclear program, including a mock up bomb. Bhutto recalled: "It was daunting. Half of this stuff I did not know. Missiles, Jets. Shopping for components to deploy our bombs. What could one say? So much had been withheld from me but I could not use that as an excuse. I was prime minister. The message took away was the need to wrestle back control of Khan and the program."

["Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons" by Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark]

On 29th December 1993, when Benazir Bhutto flew into Pyongyang, with a series of CDs with Nuclear warhead designs in her overcoat to give to Kim-Il-sung, the wind had changed direction. The answer to the question of Pakistan's perfidy with respect to the Nuclear Weapons had not - Benazir was still to say "No Pakistan does not".

Politicians in Pakistan learn to toe the line of Pakistan Army and ISI. So, when a politician in Pakistan says "No, Pakistan does not" - it means two things:

- He/she does not know because the Pakistan Army and/or ISI has kept it in dark (and away from the politician), or
- He cannot say because that is the ONLY way for him/her to survive.

To the outside world, it essentially means nothing!

As India handed over the 3 bodies of Pakistani Army soldiers who had infiltrated in Kargil . Pakistan denied any link to Kargil infiltration and Information Minister, Mushahid Hussain, told the BBC that the three men were on a routine patrol on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control when they were ambushed by Indian forces.

The Pakistani denial went on throughout the conflict. Later on, pressure from Bill Clinton and Pakistani Army's capitulation on the ground, and loss of face for Pakistan, the hitherto called infiltrators were called back. The coup and the bickering between Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf into who sent the Pakistani Army to Kargil is now well known.

This was and would not be the first time that Pakistan, its establishment and its Army point blank denied any claims or involvement in any act of war on India. They follow a template created in 1948 by the founders of the nation, when the Pakistani regular soldiers dressed as tribals started attacking the THEN independent Kingdom of Kashmir.

Pakistan and its establishment has done an encore on the Mumbai attacks.

How do you define "Pakistan"

To really understand the complete import of the words "PAKISTAN IS NOT INVOLVED" after every act of terror and aggression, one needs to understand "Who" or "What" is Pakistan?? Is Pakistan the leader of the country who stands up to make statements? Well, from experience of Benazir Bhutto and that of Nawaz Sharif it surely doesn't seem so.

Then is it the Army and its related establishments? Given the point blank denial and the subsequent obvious proof of those lies, it is quite clear that only a fool would believe the Army or ISI Chiefs or their representative on face value.

Zia ul Haq and his Army Chief, Mirza Aslam Beg were the architects of what was to be called the approach of "Strategic Depth" against India:

Beyond those common interests, Islamabad had its own separate reason for supporting the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan: Pakistan's traditional national interest in maintaining a supportive regime in Kabul to provide Pakistan with strategic depth in its conflict with India. That interest was buttressed by the resentment of Zia's Islamic supporters at home and in other Muslim countries (led by the Saudis) at the fact that the atheist Soviets had seized control of a neighboring Muslim state.

["Pakistan in America’s War against Terrorism Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client?" by Leon Haldar; CATO Institute]

The remnants of Afghan fighters who had lost their gory livelihoods, were to be used against India and Kashmir to bleed a "thousand cuts" until India broke up. Thus started a long journey of terrorism in South Asia that involved Khalistan and Kashmir and then the entire India.

ISI and its "achievements"

The Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan has been the key protagonist in creating, sustaining and maintaining the very broad and ambitious policy of "Strategic Depth". Some key examples and reminders of what they have been upto in the past so many years and how they have used various terrorist groups to spread mayhem and hit other countries with undeclared wars!

- ISI link to 9-11: An Indian Airlines plane was hijacked from Kathmandu to Kandahar. India had to release two terrorists in return for the passengers - Maulana Mazood Azhar and Ahmed Umar Syed Sheikh. ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed had Syed Sheikh wire $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers on 9-11. Later Syed Sheikh was to become infamous as the killer of Daniel Pearl. So how was he "punished"? He "...turned himself in to an ISI brigadier on Feb. 5, 2002, a full week before his "arrest" was announced to the world by Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president. ".

- ISI's link to terrorism in Britain (7/11 et al): A UK Ministry of Defense think tank research paper was leaked in September of 2006, said: "Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq" and "The US/UK cannot begin to turn the tide until they identify the real enemies from attacking ideas tactically - and seek to put in place a more just vision. This will require Pakistan to move away from Army rule and for the ISI to be dismantled and more significantly something to be put in its place. "

- ISI support for Taleban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: In May of 2006, a major commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan stated categorically that the headquarters of the Taliban forces was in Quetta, Pakistan.

Colonel Chris Vernon, chief of staff for southern Afghanistan, said the Taliban leadership was coordinating its campaign from the western Pakistani city of Quetta, near the Afghan border. "The thinking piece of the Taliban is out of Quetta in Pakistan. It's the major headquarters," he told the Guardian. "They use it to run a series of networks in Afghanistan."

As recently as this month, unprecedented level of attacks on NATO convoys of arms and ammunition have blocked supplies of NATO forces. 13 containers full of arms and ammunition, military vehicles and food were looted by the Taliban, forcing an entire NATO convoy from the southern port city of Karachi to stop in Peshawar. Asia Online reports that:

530 containers loaded with armored personnel vehicles, military trucks, Humvees, arms and ammunition have not yet been delivered. They were sent four months ago from Jabal-i-Ali in the United Arab Emirates to Karachi. Clearly, if this continues, NATO's war effort will be severely compromised.

Taliban have expanded their influence and are now active in Peshawar and have been killing pro-government tribal chiefs in Bajaur and Mohamand Agencies. The pro-Taliban officers and people within the current and erstwhile ISI set up are supposed to be the main culprits:

High-level meetings between US intelligence and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have already been held at different levels to devise plans to cripple the support systems of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Two prominent names came under discussion at these meetings: retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul and a former ISI official, retired Squadron Leader Khalid Khawaja. Gul, a former head of the ISI, is suspected of providing political and moral support to the Taliban-led resistance in Afghanistan. Last year, former premier Benazir Bhutto named him as a suspect for the October 18 attack on her life in Karachi. She was subsequently assassinated in December.

Mafia, Terrorist organizations and ISI

1. The first indication and case of an end-to-end collaboration of Terrorists, Taliban, ISI and Pakistan Government became visible during the Indian Airlines hijacking. In April of 2001, Pakistani diplomat Mohammed Arshad Cheema, - first secretary at the embassy in Kathmandu - was arrested on Thursday with 16 kg of RDX in Kathmandu. He was also the guy who met the IA 814 hijackers just before they boarded the plane from Kathmandu.

The first secretary carried a briefcase into the departure concourse. The briefcase went unchecked because Cheema and company used their diplomatic immunity to avoid frisking or rummaging by airport officials. One of the Pakistani officials handed over the briefcase to a person who, it was later ascertained, was one of the hijackers of IC 814. It is presumed that the briefcase contained arms and ammunition the hijackers used to commandeer the flight. Intelligence sources here say that Cheema is one of the ISI's men in the Pakistan embassy in Kathmandu.

Here is a detailed video on the workings and training of Lashkar-e-Toiba.2. In March, 2008, a strategic decision was taken by ISI - to merge Lashkar e Toiba with Dawood Ibrahim's gang. This merger, not unlike corporate types, was for increased depth and wider reach. The Dawood gang members were being trained in the use of weapons in the Bahawalpur centre of the LeT near Lahore. The financing was done via real estate projects:

Funds are being raised by investments in real estate and SRA projects in Mumbai and through smuggling of diesel and other essential commodities through the western coast spanning from Raigad to Mangalore along the Arabian Sea.

Why was it so important and what would it have done that Lashkar and ISI's other associations and surrogate organizations could not do?

"The underworld's penetration in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and parts of Kerala and Tamil Nadu is very deep. By synergizing the D-gang with the LeT, the ISI's reach has increased manifold. An outfit like the Students' Islamic Movement of India could not have provided the kind of reach which Dawood's gang can provide."

"Pakistan" is?

It depends on who you talk to? For a citizen, it is their motherland - the "promised country". For a politician its the tool to make money by keeping the ISI and Army off the back.

For the outsiders, who bear the brunt of a sick and twisted mentality, it is the country as a whole.

The Great Game of Obfuscation

So, while everyone in the political establishment and the media knows the power and the perfidy of the ISI, the terrorist Jihadi organizations, and the Pakistan Army, they deflect the issue by taking a stand that is patently false and hypocritic to begin with.

In all this, by citing their own society as a victim of terrorism, they forget to mention the common element... and why it is such a force.

By denying any responsibility, the average Pakistani, in my view is complicit in that terror and the murder as well. It is not that the common Pakistani does not realize or know who was behind the Parliament attack in India or who was responsible for Kargil even during the war, but none came forward to say categorically what the world knew.

No physical evidence has been enough for the common man of conscience in Pakistan to come out and say, "I live in a society that has created a monster. A monster that does not distinguish between human and animals, own or others, good or bad... but it wants power at any cost!".

At some level the monster is not these organizations - ISI, LeT, Dawood Ibarahim - but the basic intolerance itself. What started on a June afternoon in 1946 as the intolerance for Hindus after the call for "Direct Action Day" by Jinnah, has ultimately engulfed every level of distinction in its wake - Bengalis, Mohajirs, Shias, Ahmediyas...

.. as the intolerance increases its circle of "own" shrinks! For example, the same person who helped these minds and people to smuggle Nukes to North Korea, when it was necessary, was killed in broad daylight and no one was ever caught.

No wonder that the terror that was once exported outside the borders has now found a permanent target within the borders of the originating country as well.

But this game of obfuscation is being played at all levels in today's Islamic world throughout the world.

Also watch this subsequent episodeIntolerants and Moderates in Islamic world

The intolerance in any religion starts with the distinction between believers and non-believers and special powers for believers and/or terrible consequences for non-believers. In my own analysis I have not found another religion that places such a strong emphasis on this distinction and the special treatment both ways.

The game being played in the world is of Aggression-by-Extremists-PLUS-Victim-playing-by-Moderates. This video on the right is a very good example of how this is played. While this extremist Anjum Choudhary spews venom on BBC, the moderates have NOTHING to say about such people but rather they go on talk ad nauseum about "how others behave towards the community".

Serious Questioning Required

It is time that the moderates take on the Extremists. The world is getting tired now of the moderates going on to the world media to tell the world how the religion is of peace and most of the community is peaceful.

But how does that stop the Extremist? If the guys around a suicide bomber believe that Islam is the most peaceful religion and that person with the explosive belt - being part of the unknown majority - is also one of THOSE "peaceful majority"; does that save that soon-to-be-victim?

If not, then everyone needs to ask this question! Is that soon-to-be-victim responsible for the worldwide belief now that Islamic society is full of extremist UNTIL proven as harmless OR is it that suicide bomber who is allowed into a cafe despite him being a Muslim who is driven to kill JUST BECAUSE he is a Muslim!

These are serious questions. By pointing to other religions as people like this speaker in the video tries to do with the aim at obfuscation of the issue is what is NOT required! He goes on talking of Mussolini, Hitler et al. It is not what the name of the perpetrator of the terror was or his/her professed religion.. but the critical piece is WHAT DROVE HIM/HER TO VIOLENCE? In case of Islamic terrorists, the PRIMARY and SINGULAR motivating force is "Victory of Islam". None else.

To understand this point, if 4 people kill others and profess their motivation as upholding the, say, values of "Harvard College", then it is reasonable to believe that the "Value System" of that college is a DEFINING contributor to violence and terror irrespective if they all like different genres of movies, music and are of different religions! It is NOT The "peripheral" associations of a person as HE/SHE defines that centrality or otherwise.. but what is the DEFINING and the PRIMARY motivating force that is of essence!

So, the violence and terror mentality in Islam requires very serious and honest questioning. Until then, it is not only unreasonable but downright CRUEL to expect the non-Muslims to bear the cross of proving that religious ideology to be one of peace!!

Therefore, the Aggression-by-Extremists-PLUS-Victim-playing-by-Moderates policy has to be revisited and reviewed VERY VERY seriously by ALL - the non-believers and the believers!

Mumbai Attacks Reviewed

Here is a review of the attacks.. to unearth its reality.

1. The attacks were committed by Punjabi speaking - with accent from areas close to Lahore - people, who were seeking British, Americans and, as clearly shown later, the Israelis. Primarily the group of these killers did NOT start with the aim of killing the Hindus or Hindu leaders. In fact, the planning to kill the Israelis was so thorough that the killers were able to identify and isolate Jews from a center, that even some of the local Jews were not aware of!

What does that mean?
Any talk of the "atrocities" on Muslims and how Muslims are "underprivileged" in India is no more than a smokescreen! If they were indeed after those who broke the Babri Masjid, then they certainly had the wrong address - they certainly were not hiding in Nariman House or Oberois or Taj!! So, the ACTION and the RHETORIC of the killers bears no relation.

2. They came via sea using a ship that brought them to the Indian waters where they made the shift to a ship that brought them to the shore. They had huge cache of arms. The journey started in Rawalpindi and ended in Mumbai via Karachi and Gujarat waters.

What does that mean?

That journey links the two protagonists - Lashkar-e-Toiba (Punjab) and Dawood ibrahim gang (Karachi). It also justifies the actions and statements from Narendra Singh Modi - since his state was brought into picture. Specifically so because none of the national leaders was willing to make any kind of statement anyways!!

3. Killers had no demands, no ransom, no negotiations. They just got hostages and killed a lot of them.

What does that mean?

Generally hostages are held for two reasons - Social demands or Money demands. No other. In this case, although the rhetoric was always about the mistreatment of the Muslims but there was no ready list of demands. If this was an indigenous group, then they would know exactly what they wanted out of this! Intriguingly, when the killer (recording 1) was asked about his demands.. he fumbled... did not answer.... and then turned to his friend and asked "Kee Demanda haigiyan hai jee?" ("What are our demands." in Punjabi - again despite the fact that he kept on asserting that he was from Hyderabad, AP). (Recording 1: Shahadullah Khan from Oberoi Hotel . Recording 2: Imran Babar from Nariman House)

It is clear that sans any demands or money needs, the hostages were taken for instilling fear and for targeted shooting and killing!

4. Killings were mafia style executions. Shootings were used as the primary means and not bomb blasts (the car with bomb was also used as well - but the main means was shootings).

What does that mean?

Every eye witness has said that the killers came in and sprayed bullets all over without any care of who they were killing. That is NOT how a person who is going in to an area with a major grievance against a certain system does it. Shootings as a means of terror and killing is most often used by the mafia. Al Qaeda terrorists use bombings - that cause large scale killings by one person.

The difference in tactics was what also took the Indian forces by surprise. This is a clear indication that this was a joint collaboration of Dawood Ibrahim gang and LeT.

What was the GOAL of this Attack?

This was NOT terrorism. It was an attack. When we term it as Terrorism, then we get into the debate of minorities and insecurities and other related issues. Given that none of these killers were actually from India and had no experience of any insecurity that may be prevalent in the minorities, killings BECAUSE of such "imagined atrocities" of others seems like an ingenuous claim.

How we term and define what happened will also fashion our response and future policy. We are very tolerant of terrorism against us. Even the Western experts now take it as a given. Raymond Tanter was speaking on MSNBC (he was part of the National Security Council in Reagan administration) and replying to a question on if India's retaliation will jeopardize US "War on Terror".. and he replied "No. India has a history of absorbing a lot of terror attacks, I am sure this will be absorbed as well if we can manage them." That clearly showed how Indian policy on terrorism is viewed by Western experts. Of course, our own politicians also vindicate their analysis very effectively (read RR Patil's statement (he is the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra) after the attacks).

We are programmed as such in face of terrorism. Let us break the pattern by defining it differently and as it really is!

From the Pakistani Perspective

CLASSIC TERROR situation where the terrorist goes amongst the innocent civilians and carries out the activities/hits from there. So, if you target that terrorist, then you kill the innocent as well. The terrorists use the common perceptions and / or the Human Rights organizations to drum support against the attacks on terrorists.As I have said, Pakistan should be viewed as TWO distinct constituencies: Common man and Extremist minds. Now the situation on the Western border with Afghanistan is such where US and the Pakistani forces (of course forced by US diplomacy) are bombing Al Qaeda and Taliban forces and others fighting along side. Now, this leads to situations where not only the extremists and terrorists but also innocent people.

While in this situation where those areas are being bombed, the Extremists and terror-masters within ISI and PAkistan Army are MORE concerned about their own "constituencies" (Taliban and Al Qaeda); the common citizen is angry at bombing on their own soil. The Terror-Masters use the concern of the citizen of their own country to try and turn away the US bombings. It was however, not working. As the Asia online link above shows, ISI and groups within Pakistan Army (specifically people with close contacts with Hamid Gul etc.) have started targetting the US and NATO shipments of arms openly!

As I had predicted a month back, Pakistani Terror-Masters would be itching to start a war against India, as that would be the ONLY way to stop the US campaign in its tracks! And the news that Pakistan has unilaterally announced that it is going to move 100,000 soliders to the Indian border to "anticipate" Indian war, is as strange as it is predictable! This statement from a top Army officer illustrates that very effectively:

"If something happens on that front, the war on terror won't be our priority," the senior security officer told journalists at a briefing. "We'll take out everything from the western border. We won't leave anything there."

If US wants to have any chance of a sustained and useful engagement to end the War on Terror, then this is one BLUFF that it will have to call!

What should India do now?

I think action and work is required on two ends: Internal and External. Since this was an attack from outside, let us deal with the External side first:

EXTERNAL

1. Full Fledged War is NOT an option at this moment: Under normal circumstances, a War would have been what India should have gone for. However, given that the Terror-Masters in Pakistan are itching to use the Nukes, attacking them without adequately taking care of them would be suicidal.

So, first and foremost, India HAS to neutralize Pakistan's Nukes. India should work with Israel and US and find ways to do that. It is ABSOLUTELY imperative for the long term peace of the world that every Nuke is accounted for and every equipment is neutralized.

Only THEN, should India plan a war. But the preparation for Nuke Neutralization SHOULD start now!

2. Call the Pakistani Bluff: Pakistan has been repeating ad nauseum that it is willing to help India and also willing to work with India on reducing the terrorism and that it is also a victim of terror. Sure, India should empathize with Pakistan and then present with these demands, short of preparation for war should be started. The XX point demand:

(i) Hand over Dawood Ibrahim and his gang members
(ii) Hand over Jaish-e-Mohammad cadre members that WE identify and name
(iii) Hand over Lashkar e Toiba cadre members that WE identify and name
(iv) Present evidence of involvement of people like Hamid Gul and other extremist elements and ask them to be handed over as well.

It should be announced that no Trial would occur for these guys. Simply neutralize them.

If Pakistan is indeed serious this is what will stop the war.

3. Engage the world on India's strategic place: As the spectre of recession, indeed a Depression, enhances, centrality of India as the place which still houses the strategic and tactical IT infrastructure of the world and the ONLY way that businesses around the world can even hope to survive the next 5-10 years economically cannot be underscored enough! If India suffers, business world and economies around the world will suffer even more.

It is in the interest of the world - Western and other - to back India's strength and stability and back up a long term strategy to end terror attacks on it, least because of the fact that in this attack, Israelis, Britons and Americans were also killed.

INTERNAL

1. Engage Muslims: Indian Muslims have been at the mercy of corrupt Muslim sympathizers. This sympathy has not helped them getting any education. These sympathizers of course, want everyone to believe that more reservations is the way to go, but the truth is that marginalization of any demographic group has a DIRECT relation to the level of and emphasis on SECULAR education!

2. Close Madrasas and make secular schooling mandatory: This is a corrollary to the first point. Madrasas in general and those linked to Deoband and other large institutions, do not impart secular and useful education. They lead to a large population of youth that is illiterate and not fit for the employment market. Some will argue about the exceptions, but I am convinced that such exceptions should NOT be used as an excuse to move to a more meaningful education for the masses.

3. Give State encouragement to Sufism and other Spiritual practices and put down Wahabism: Sufism is used as a pop belief. Everyone loves to listen to Nusrat and others but when it comes to religious beliefs, the tide turns towards extremist Wahabi and Deoband led Islamic practices and beliefs. Situation in Islamic world is now such that Sufism is a spiritual COVER that is usurped to hide the EXTREMIST Wahabi practices. Government should sponsor programs, research, discussions and papers on Sufism and encourage its spread.

It is no longer useful to praise Akbar and his Din-e-Illahi or Dara Shikoh but give encouragement or be coy to Extremism of Aurangzeb! We have to put our actions on the right track. I know many Muslim celebrities keep talking of peaceful nature of Islam and keep praising Sufi singers and traditions to the hilt.. let them lead by example!! If one looks enough, one can still find Sufi Masters who follow the Spiritual schools of Sultan Bahu, Bulleh Shah, Rumi, or Hafiz. Let Kahlil Gibran come alive again!

Let the world take a different path this time!

Pakistan's "Macabre" Economics vs. Micawber's Economics

Desh — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:25:42 EDT

Ali Khan recalled: "General Beg called me for a cup of tea. He said, 'Don't you realize we are on the brink of economic collapse? I can change that by selling what we are good at. I can offer this country a lot. Six, eight, ten billion dollars.' I laughed. I said, 'You can't be serious.' The general said, 'I am very serious.' He then mentioned selling our bombs to Iran. He said, 'Nisar you can argue with me but that's not your job. You tell Nawaz Sharif that this is a good idea. It's the prime minister's position to decide.'
[ Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons by Adrian Levy]

It was 1988. The US was leaving Afghanistan and dollars were drying up quickly. Pakistan had almost completed the Nuclear acquisition and perfected the technology. With nothing much to export, General Aslam Beg now had set his sights on what was Pakistan's greatest achievement hitherto - the Nukes.

Iran did not however get the Nukes directly though - because it was after all a radical Shia regime (it did get the P1 and P2 class reactor technology subsequently).

The beneficiary and the payer became Saudi Arabia. It could not bother with the technology, so to arm their Chinese CSS-II missiles, Pakistan gave them what was required and saved the country from economic collapse.

Aid was Pakistan's "monetary and fiscal policy". When it was absent, then it was Nuke and military sales.

THAT is the reason why the Army has never let a democratic government last in that country.

2008 - twenty years since Beg decided to sell nukes to escape the begging - now the situation has turned full circle! But in the last few years, Iran and North Korea have become hot places and in full glare. For the last few years, the US was feeding the Pakistani coffers so the market saturation of countries who wanted Nukes on the sly did not matter. Now even the US doesn't have enough to give. Afghanistan's poppy sales is also no longer feeding the coffer of the Army. The breakdown is virtually total!

Such is the economic turmoil in Pakistan that it’s inflation has shot up to 25 per cent, and forex reserves are plunging to an all time low. With a total of $8.1 billion forex by September, the real reserves are estimated to be just $3 billion after accounting future liabilities.

Reports suggest that it is barely enough for Pakistan’s one-month imports, and if assistance is not provided immediately, the situation would turn for worse. There is a huge gap of $7 billion to cover in a projected current account deficit of $14 billion for the financial year ending June 30, 2009.

The rating agency Standard & Poor has cut the rating on Pakistan’s sovereign debt rating to CCC+, which is barely above the default level.

Now, barring these "Sources of Income" - Pakistani leaders and Army had never planned for other sectors to become any replacements! But even these are now under strain and almost non-existent.

The worst nightmare of the world is now unfolding - a nuclear state is going down and the extremists who planned and executed the most spectacular terrorist act in the history of modern world are bold and unflinching in their mission - to prevail. US is on the border and executing more and more missions in to the territory of Pakistan and bombing as well.

At such a distance and lacking any knowledge it is difficult to predict or even say for certain - but my instinct says clearly that at this very moment a fight is going on in stealth-mode and it is for identifying and "securing" the Nukes of Pakistan.

Pakistani leaders meanwhile are back to their old game - asking for aid. Obviously the question before US and others is - is another round of aid the best way to deal with this situation. Should more money be given - knowing it will be wasted on the generals and on infrastructure that is and was planning the next move. Or should the world buy time?? Until nukes can be secured.

In the coming months, the world will deal with many difficult variables - financial collapse of the world's economic system will be just one part of the entire deal. International warfare - military and economic - will be FAR more significant a misery to face our generation.

Meanwhile, in South Asia, Pakistan's masses will pay for the private passions and hatreds of their leaders. As the economic misery unfolds, many new reasons and villains will be created by the current lot of Pakistani political, religious and social leaders - but none would even look at the most obvious - to ask a simple question:

For all that I consume, what do I sell to the world?

Mr. Micawber says in the classic David Copperfield on economic wisdom:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The next world war (or its variation - "Clash of Civilizations") will not be won with bombs but by sheer economic expertise. Economics is not rocket science. Then why put it in the hands of your rocket scientists?

Why I am a Hindu?

Desh — Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:16:06 EDT

The other day a friend, an American, asked me what faith I followed? Or was I just spiritual. I reluctantly replied to him Hindu faith. I know at my intellectual level that is somewhat true and those following my thoughts here on this blog would have expected me to have said "Spiritual". But I did not. I have been wondering why?

Why was I reluctant to take off the label and go out in the open as alone.. without label? Or was it that there is something that has been "labelled" as Hindu that I do consciously relate to and get attracted to. I probably would have explained myself better if I had sometime but I did not. So, I wanted to spend sometime to understand my own mind for myself. And maybe in that process share my thoughts so my kids could understand what I thought of this question when they grow up and in this multi-colored world start looking for and searching for their identity.

The plane had reached the magical 10,000 feet so everyone could take out their stuff and start listening, working etc. He took out his Bible and started reading. The first class is a great help in the mornings when you travel every week and the breakfast that one gets there is worth it. After the breakfast, he opened his book again. I looked on interested. He introduced that he was a pastor. "Do you know about Jesus" he probed. "Yes", I said, "infact I love him. I think he was a revolutionary soul, as great as Buddha was in his time". "Hmm interesting", he avered "have you ever gone to a Church?" I smiled and said "No". "Maybe you would want to think of coming to the Jesus, the Savior" he said nicely. "You mean converting?". With practiced hesitation he said "yeeahh.. well ... you could learn more and then if you feel.. " he left it off with a certain mystery.

"You know, Sir, I don't need to convert my religion to love Jesus. I can love Jesus as much as I love the concept of Buddha or Osho or Krishna. You are stuck because you can't see beyond Jesus. Your love for one makes you necessarily demote others' importance or greatness. That is why you have one whom you have given pre-eminence. I have no such restrictions". The conversation ended abruptly.

So, for one, I love my freedom. Since there was and is no such thing as "Hindu way", I am free. This freedom is difficult to explain. Other people have called this Island I dwell upon as Hinduism so let it be so. But to me it leaves me independent of any one influence. A friend was worried that Hindus should have "a" way of life that the kids can follow, so they would not convert. That is the least of my concerns. If I can relate the freedom of thought - of being able to listen to a Sufi, to praying to Buddha, to going to a Gurudwara to bow my head infront of Krishna and meditating on his consciousness - then I would have set them free. At least it is easier for me to relate to the other person without tom-toming the primacy of my "God" or "Savior"! If ONLY I could teach my kids to be free then they would never want to jump into another box. There is an ethos which has come through the open-ness of my "faith" that is difficult to explain. It is not the Hinduism of Shiv Sena or any political institution. It is the freedom of thought of Swami Vivekananda. I want to pass on that freedom.

******** ***********

He was emphatic that Vedas were THE only word that was complete. With its ritual and the more profound word (within the Upanishads), Vedas are undoubtedly very exhaustive. But for the life of me, I would not admit its the ONLY complete text possible! Surely, if you could combine the wisdom of Nanak, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavir, and many Sufis, you would get a similarly profound text, I argued to myself. So Vedas greatness can't be that.

In fact, the greatness of Vedas was that all such thoughts CAME together. That all those enlightened and wise Masters I just mentioned could not dissolve their ego to pour their words into one cauldron to amalgamate to create more Vedas was their biggest failure. The Vedas reflect the cauldron where many....probably hundreds of enlightened minds simply poured their wisdom without any tag or name attached. Today, it is impossible to say who wrote the Vedas. One can clearly say they were written over a period of hundreds of years, but there is NO evidence of the writer/s! Is that bewildering? Something that was so profound could have been contributed by someone without any urge for credit? How incredible would those teachers be? In modern world, anybody and his brother, who thought that God talked to him in his sleep, or a cave, or on a hill came rushing to proclaim to the world about his distinction and why that was THE only way! And to think so many folks would simply throw stuff in that which is by far one of the most profound text is mind-boggling to me!!

It is difficult to explain this selflessness. Even the most charitable can give away their belongings, but even the most enlightened have had the urge to "uplift" and to preach. Even those high souls could not get past the lure of their last vestige of mind. That last "mile" of ego did them and their ideas in.

Over the years, I have lost all loyalty/allegiance to any messenger. So, I can see the contradictions in the concept (that's how I now look at the Spiritual Masters - they are merely concepts) of Nanak, of Jesus, of Osho, of Krishnamurti, or Krishna himself. Maybe I am judging but the flaws in each concept and their greatness are very apparent. And it is the flaw of human existence.

Swami Vivekananda once said that Krishna did not make Gita great. On the contrary, the greatness of the message of Gita added weight to Krishna's name. Message is more important. Messenger has limited or no use at all. That irrelevance of messengers and saviors is what I find very refreshing. I do not have to owe my learning to any ONE entity. I can clearly see the thread of a concept all through the different messengers. Although different philosophers gave their own twists and their interpretation and, unfortunately, quite often cloaked in their own "brand name", but I can disregard such megalomaniacs and just learn from their interpretations. The irrelevance of messenger also underscores one thing... you are not concerned with the hierarchy of the messenger. He could have been a cobbler like Kabir or one with thousands of followers and numerous Rolls Royces like Osho. I let the messages seep my soul and enrich it. It helps.

Quite often one concept is articulated by one philosopher and is not so clear but when you are free to go through words of numerous messengers - suddenly the questions that plagued your mind and dis-satisfactorily answered by others gets clarified and you move forward to the next question. This has helped my quest and exploration tremendously. I can throw my questions to the Universe and somehow the Consciousness works to provide some answer to me through different people.

********* ***********

Now, all that goes on in the name of Hinduism is far from perfect or even basically good. Like, Swami Vivekananda, rued how Adi Shankara lost the opportunity to dissolve the menace of caste system and combine his unparalleled intellect with the compassion of say, a Buddha. But alas, he was limited by his ego. And this caste question is one that brings the imperfection and the mess created by the urge to formalize teachings/analysis so clearly to the fore. Vedantic Rishis were fond of making analytical inferences. The greatest of the minds of Vedic pantheon rarely ever gave prescriptive statements. They were, as a rule, not normative in construction. They were analytical. How is it different? Let me give you an example of how it can be different:

One philosopher says that the people living in the world comprise of four Varnas - those pursuing Learning, those pursuing statecraft, those indulging in commerce, those doing maintenance work. All this is correlated to what role one finds himself/herself in. This is an analytical view.

Another teacher says - Everyone HAS to fall in one of the four Varnas and it is dependent upon and decided by one's roles.

What was an inference - a correlation statement - is suddenly converted into an edict - a solid cause and effect statement.

The lesser minds were never able to fathom that the analytical statements of the earlier philosophers were not pronouncements on how the world should be, but were merely analytical inferences as to how the world seems to be. You may come up with another inference quite contrary to the earlier one, and there would be no fight over it. So, while the entire tradition of what is now known as Hinduism is not above this curse of "Prescriptive Preachers", the history does betray a tradition that was very different to start with. That urge to analyze and doing one's own homework to understand the world is what baffles me and excites me most.

*********** **************

Karma theory is very misunderstood paradigm. Most of the world is messed up in Moralistic pronoucements where if you do "good" you could reach salvation (whatever that means). Now, when you look at this urge to "do good" a little deeply you realize the nonsense of it all. What does mean by "doing good"? That I am going to take an Action that will yield a result that will be "good". So, is "Good" an adjective of the Action or the Result? Does the Action in itself have any qualification (or adjective)? If you look carefully, the answer is obviously.. NO! So, what am I saying by claiming I want to "do good". That I precisely and unequivocally know the Actionsthat will necessarily and definitely lead to good result! Now, this playing "God" flies in the face of the claims that most of us make of our "Gods" - creator, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient etc. Little do we realize that Morals are simply useless pegs that, on the one side, strengthen one's ego and on the other hand, they are relative based on context/space/time combinations.

What Karma theory does is to set one free one from the quagmire of arbitrary morals and codes of conduct. You can be a Bhishma who fights Krishna himself and YET be the hightest Karma-yogi of the century. You could be a butcher who kills animals everyday for meat honestly and without any ego and yet be celebrated by a Vyadha-Gita. All ways to tellingly bring forth the message that ACTION has NO COLOR! Action, in itself, has no qualificaton! So, if you just do your action honestly as a duty that you have to discharge without any judgments as to what is right or wrong, then things will take care of themself.

The letting go of playing "God" is what seems intriguing. That dissolution of the highest aspirations can give one actual shot at being "God" is what I find most ironic.

*********** *************

"God and Guru is irrelevant, only self effort (purusharth) can lead you to enlightenment" said Vasistha to Ram in Yoga Vasistha. And then he went onto explain Prahlad's enlightenment "By Vishnu's grace, Prahlad achieved enlightenment". Ram was obviously bewildered, just as I was and probed his teacher "Sir, but you said Guru and God is irrelevant and now you are extolling Vishnu's grace?" At that time, Vasistha gives the most potent explanation and one that left me just wondering at the profoundness of the thought. "Vishnu" Vasistha says "is just semantics. Prahlad is no different from Vishnu at that level of consciousness. There was no entity called Vishnu. There was just consciousness. You and I can call it Prahlad or Vishnu". Consciousness and what we call "divinity" is just a label! It is an orbit where one moves from one to another. There is no entity or God sitting who will promote or demote you by his grace or otherwise! It is you and you only! That I am God consciousness with a shot of reaching the highest levels of consciousness is very empowering.

Is the moon blue or red? asked a physicist and explained through Quantum Mechanics in a celebrated paper of theoretical physics that moon is BOTH, blue and red if I am not observing. It takes on one color when I observe it and inquire for the answer. Manifestation of the world, is therefore, a play of my mind. The quietening of my mind should therefore, lead me to experiencing the infinite.. or in this case, moon as both, blue and red!

It is consciousness at the end of the day. This power of defining "myself" through dissolution of "myself" is the most powerful message I have come across. And although many philosophers tried to explain this, they fell short constantly, and it takes accessing the minds and teachings of many to get it clarified.

************ *************

But then if what I seeking is freedom and irrelevance of any pegs, then is it really a religion? And that is precisely my question. If a tradition inherently promotes freedom of thought in its most profound form then why should it have a label? Can someone "convert" to be a "Hindu"? I don't think so. It is a state of being.. a state of consciousness. You cannot say that today I "became" a Hindu!

When you abandon all labels and can be open to access the wisdom of all and also have the freedom to question everything relentlessly, then you can say you are a Hindu. Almost all the scriptures of the world are simply instructions. But the Vedantic traditions promoted questioning. Vasistha was grilled by Ram no end.. as was Krishna by Arjun. There was no insistence on "just believe what I say". The teacher was as much part of that learning process as the student was. And just as the teacher could choose a student.. the student could also choose a teacher. Such a scenario obviates any belief system. It was only when lesser minds took over the reigns of learning in Vedic society that such practices were replaced by supertstition and one sided traffic in schools.

Truth is an experience and a journey that one has to take individually. The conditioning of every mind is unique and so its dissolution will also be unique. The traditional learning enforced by a belief system can only take you so far. After a certain distance you have to let it go. And that is where most belief systems of the world fail. Leaving the confines of a belief system is considered blasphemous and damning.. when the reverse should be true!

So to leave the "Hindu" belief system while looking afresh at the world with the inquisitiveness of a child is what it means to be a "Hindu" for me.

It is abandoning the blind belief in Vishnu to be Vishnu consciousness myself!

And that is the journey I see for my kids when they grow up. A personal journey for self realization reliving the experiences of the Highest minds that gave up ego even when they were contributing the most profound thoughts to the world.

Why is Kashmir Important?

Desh — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:26:39 EDT

Disclaimer: I am writing this purely with statecraft as the basis. I have deliberately left out the influence of value systems and principles, as in prevalent in most discussions

Kashmir is a major problem between India and Pakistan. Most often the cloak on every issue and problem between state is sewn from the thread of emotions and principles in public opinion. Actually and in hard reality it is rarely so.

At the expense of sounding nonchalant, let me state that never have I ever believed, notwithstanding the public emotion, that Pakistan's establishment had ever coveted Kashmir because of its Muslim residents and India because of its secular credentials.

If there was ever any secularism worth the name in that land of Kashmir, then conversions and Islamic invasion had long destroyed it. What was being dragged on for last few centuries was the coffin of that secularism.

Secondly, if Islamic brotherhood was the concern of the Pakistanis then they should have had a better track record at home to convince even a weak critic.

Of course, my eternal question o Pakistan always strikes at the root of this "Islamic Brotherhood" claim:

Which "Muslim" and "Islam" are we talking about?

The truth about Pakistan's Islamic brotherhood is that its boundaries extend to only Punjabi Sunnis and then it abruptly stops. It assumes vicious forms as soon as it crosses over into the territory of those who believe in Prophet-hood beyond Mohammad. It is then that the love and acceptance that are the hallmark of any brotherhood should - ideally - be exemplified. And that is where it has failed and failed miserably!

Actually, and honestly, the frail "love" fails at the boundary of language itself. Bengalis, Mohajirs are living exhibits of that failure. So, to say that Kashmiri Muslim is any more important than Bengali Muslim.. .or that a Kashmiri Shia will have any more luck than a Punjabi or Sindhi Shia is a tough sell to anyone not unlucky enough to have been brainwashed!

Now, if the interests of Kashmiris and their land was any concern then the quid pro quo, where a third of Jammu & Kashmir (5800 sq.km) - Trans-Karakoram Tract (1963 agreement and 1987 ratification of Chinese ownership) - was bartered to China by Pakistan would not have occurred.

There is a reason why I or you cannot sell the Taj Mahal. Because we do not own it! It is the same case with the land that we hold in "good trust". A trustee does not have absolute rights on the property of the original owner. Trustee of a property cannot therefore sell a property held under trusteeship any more than you or I cannot sell Taj Mahal. That is how a logical law works. But it becomes a completely different matter if the trustee assumes the absolute rights and without any ratification from the original owner goes about wheeling-dealing in the property!

So, two tthe hings are very clear to me - for Pakistan, Kashmir is NOT about Islamic brotherhood and it is also NOT about love and care for Kashmiri interests.

What about India? If indeed Kashmir was the benchmark for secularism, without which the practice of this blessed principle would utterly fail and devastate India, then Kashmiri Pandits would not have been a casualty and that too in such a terrible way. The day the first Pandit was threatened and harmed and the Indian Government turned its eyes away, that pretense of Kashmir's importance for holding together our secular culture collapsed an unsung death! It has never been resurrected since. It never will.

True "Secularism" - if one insists on extolling this word, in my view, and since it has been a point of so much debate in one of my earlier post, resides in people's hearts. It is none other than love - pure love.

When the narrow minded look at Love being expressed to a person who swears by another "God", they call that territory as "Secularism". And Tolerance is basic building block of its definition by such a narrow mind. What they really mean is that Love was not a "natural" state when it saw a "different" opinion, yet this person exhibited it! It is quite obviously an unflattering characterization of "Love" to begin with, but to hide their own short-coming of terming Tolerance as a virtue, such people put Secularism on a high pedestal!

Acceptance of all is a virtue. And acceptance is not despite the differences, but irrespective and beyond the narrow boundaries of similarities and differences.

Love of Heer, of Shirin, of Juliet could not even dwell on such boundaries or mind-blocks. It was just love.

In my view, THAT can be the ONLY true "Secularism" - if you still want to use that semantics. Love and Secularism are, therefore, the same. Anything less than that is just a pretense and hypocrisy! Just as Jesus' unbounded and unconditioned love cannot be characterized and defined in narrow terms... similarly Love of One's own "God" - if it is really a God and not its cheap surrogate - has to and should include everyone's "God"! So where is the reason or need for uncomfortably pretended "love" famously called "Tolerance" and its derivative "Secularism"!!

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote something for Sherlock Holmes that remains - in my book - an excellent benchmark for getting to any truth - "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth!"

So, now, if the public stances of India and Pakistan were never honest or even plausible ones to begin with, then why has so much of blood been shed over it? And its corollary - Is Kashmir even important and if yes, Why?

I am sure, there are many who will keep arguing on the above negated "principles" and "virtues" no end as the major issues in Kashmir, but it is quite obvious, given the actions and track record on the ground that they are akin to fleeting flirtings of schizophrenic administrations. No more defensible or believe-able than promises of love and faithfulness from a playboy Casanova, who pretends love and screws women because...well.. he can!!

The women who believe such playboys and jump into bed with them, usually keep bearing bastards and crying over their "bad fortune". I have little sympathy or serious concern for such blind idealists. That is why I want to move on to the real (as opposed to pretended) reasons for so much importance of Kashmir and let the lovers of political Cassanovas cry over bastardization of the most coveted principles and blame the "bad fortune" and villainous world for all that. Too bad.

Blood and money is generally spilled by "intelligent", though bluffing regimes, always because and if, that land provides "Net Benefits". When "Revenue" over a long time period is higher than the costs to sustain and hold that land. When the Net Return turned below the accepted "Investment threshold" for British, they quietly handed over the sub-continent to its impoverished residents and made it look as an act of greatness. That was political stage-craft... and victory of independence for the romantics!

A Nigerian friend recently made an interesting - and telling - remark (Nigeria was freed in 1960) "If the oil had been discovered in Nigeria before the Brits decided to leave our country, we would have been forever colonized. Our luck was their mis-fortune".

That is why Darfur is not as important as Iraq or two small provinces of Georgia are to the big powers of the world. Benefits outweigh the costs and the risks in those ventures, and Darfur, by contrast, is a net-net loss.

Kashmir has no oil. But it is a gateway. Yes, to Central Asia. But more importantly to the Himalayas - the ONLY consistent and bountiful source of water to the sub continent. For centuries, sub continent has seen its civilization been decided by that one element. While Saraswati enabled a flourishing civilization, its vanishing destroyed it. Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to lose that source.

While Pakistan's hurry is that before India assumes un-beatable dominance in the region, to cut its life-force itself. India has the same aim. It also has a large population that any semi-honest political administration would want to plan for.

Narendra Modi for Prime Minister

Desh — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:44:04 EDT

Since 2002, when the Gujarat riots broke up a lot of things have happened. The Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was a villain in my eyes as for others at that time. But over the years, pragmatism and realism have taken over.

I have had this firm realization now that words like Secularism and Communalism have NO meaning. They are bastardized words which people AGAIN use for their self interest...nothing more.

Here is why:

The Massacres

In the Gujarat riots, the break up of the killed was: Muslims - 790; Hindus: 254. 2548 people were injured and 223 are missing. This is as per figures given by the Union Minister of State for Home Shriprakash Jaiswal (Congress Party) in Parliament on 11 May 2005. Some NGOs put the figure close to 2000 but I have as much faith in Indian activist NGOs as I have in the used car salesmen in my city.

The figures in Delhi massacres in 1984 were: Sikhs: 2733 killed in Delhi alone. as per Ahuja Committee, which submitted the report in August 1987.

The barbarity that one saw in both the areas was the same in the ways people killed each other. So, I am taking a common factor to understand the scale and spread of the madness.

It is quite obvious, that the 1984 killings were the biggest in scale and intensity that one has seen in a long time. Mind you, the numbers given were ONLY from Delhi!

Dr. Manmohan Singh who found a new whipping boy in L K Advani in his last speech to the Indian Parliament, had installed JD Tytler, one of the masterminds of the Delhi massacre, as a Cabinet Minister. It finally took protests after the Nanavati Commission had pointed fingers at him to ease him out of the Government.

Of course there is Nandigram, where Muslims and lower caste people were specifically targetted and killed in a genocide as well. There is no number of how many were killed but the killings continue in trickles EVEN today!

Questions

So, obviously one wants to ask a question - How do you define "Religious Fundamentalism" and Secularism?

Is religious genocide when any ONE section of the society is targetted? Or is it when ONLY minorities are targetted?

Or is it when ONLY one minority is targetted? Or is it when THAT ONE minority is targetted by ONLY one party??

When does violence enter the realm of a religious fundamentalism??

These are important questions. But they have been rendered useless. The very Congress which targets BJP was the culprit in the worst killings of any minority! The CPM which points fingers at any one they can find in the 20 mile radius have been even worse at Nandigram!! So, WHO should throw the stones? And WHY?

When Best Bakery case victims change their statements it is a BIG deal. At the SAME time when the 1984 victims change their statements in Delhi, no one even cares for them!

When Rajiv Gandhi justifies the Sikh killings (Jab bada per girta hai.. ), that is a person laden with sorrow and a case of miscommunication. But when anyone who is remotely related to a particular party talks about the Godhra incident ALONG with the Gujarat killings, he is termed a saffronite and a fundamentalist!

Political Currency - Self Interest

So, I am sick and tired of this utter hypocrisy. I find anyone mouthing words like Secularism and Communalism a Hypocrite and a Scoundrel!

So, let's get these useless terms like Secularism, Communalism, Fundamentalism, Tolerance OUT OF THE WAY! Politics only works on Self Interest and I want to treat that as the only major currency of political interaction. Those who want to pretend otherwise, I dont want to join them in their "wonderland"... they are more than welcome to dance away the rest of their lives with Alice and her friends!

NOW, knowing there is only self interest - what would be the best way to choose the bad among the worse?

Terrorism and Economy

I believe those who at the very least take care of their administrative duties in the best possible manner, should be pushed up.

Today, India's biggest threat is Terrorism. Even bigger than the economy! And no, I am not a mere "Nationalist". I am more interested in economic development than anything else. But if anyone has cared to look, the terrorists have made it their goal to target India's economy and science & Technology strength!

If you remember the December 2005 attack in Indian Institute of Science - where in a failed attack, one died and 4 got injured. It was an attack calibrated against the scientific establishment of India.

In the recent attacks, techies were used very effectively. These techies not only distributed the material and helped planned, but also used the computer of a US employee of a MNC to hack and then send emails through it to the Indian agencies!!

Hence, even if the economy is one's PRIMARY concern, it will be torn by terrorists. So, to preserve the economy, taking care of terrorism is the first task!

Gujarat Case

In the last two years, many bomb blasts have occurred in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Jaipur. None of the cases were solved. Why? because there was NO political will to do so. The Chief Ministers were either busy in horse trading or filling up their coffers. They were not concerned of their state.

The only case that was solved is that of Gujarat. Why? Because Modi and his establishment took it up as a major endeavor and a challenge. They made sure no riots occured, and even if they would have, the order to the 11 investigation teams was to ignore it and keep working. He gave the the investigating teams complete authority and full support - they had money, resources, people and also a chartered plane to pursue whatever they wanted.

For almost 3 weeks the team members did not sleep. They worked round the clock to get to the bottom of the case.

More than 11 teams were formed within the first few hours of the blasts. One team was asked to handle the investigations into the material used in the bombs. Another team was asked to investigate the use of bicycles. Another team was formed to thoroughly check all the phone calls made in Ahmedabad from certain areas just before and after the blasts. Another team was set up to reach out to all the police informers and gather their opinions on and information of the blasts. One team followed the cyber crime aspect of the case. The overall investigation of the case was assigned to the crime branch of Ahmedabad where more than 100 people started following whatever little leads that were available, from the midnight of July 26

What has happened and what was uncovered is nothing short of amazing given those three weeks.

Yes, the administration failed the residents in not preventing the attacks, but thankfully this administration did not wallow and start finger-pointing in its aftermath. It went into action from get go. Also, and importantly, it prevented any reactions and went about their work professionally.

My Vote

In my view, this is what I expect from my country's administration!

Leaving the hypocrisy of such lofty words and "principles" as secularism and communalism aside and not indulging in make-believe.. let me state what I would NOT have some years back. My candidate for the Prime Minister of India would be Narendra Singh Modi.

There are many people in India who say with an air of self constructed self-righteousness that "I am ashamed" of Modi.

Well, I am at a point where I am ashamed of the shamelessness of those have made a career in being ashamed!!

And it's not that they are any better than these politicians - they THEMSELVES function ONLY on self interest!

Interview: Michael Levin - The Next Great Clash

Desh — Mon, 5 May 2008 09:38:50 EDT

I very rarely find a book that I cannot keep down, specially when it comes to politics. The Next Great Clash: China and Russia vs. The United States by Michael Levin is a revelation. Not many analysts really do serious research before writing. Levin is different. He is a serious analyst who has had long stints in Soviet Union/Russia and China and he is currently Executive-in-Residence at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

The introduction to the book starts in the most thoughtful manner. It is so gripping that you start believing in the power of book introductions once again - an art that had long vanished! He discusses his tough childhood and fight with disease as well as his struggle to learn about Russia and his success after some aimless times.

I love Levin's expression as it is profound, although it talks of some mundane things like global politics. Like he says:

"Reading is the collecting of intellectual income, writing is the spreading of it."

He uses a lot of research and the models of other researchers to test his conclusions that are based on his experience and knowledge.

Overall, a great book to read! Here is my interview with Michael Levin, the author.

1. You have talked of "One Radical Imbalance (American Debt) sustains another (Asian Surplus)". Just as the "rich" in the US are betting, foolishly, on a never ending stream of debt; aren't the Chinese, again foolishly, betting on unending stream of export wealth? And while talking of the aging US (and Western) population, we forget the same trend for China as well. So two questions:

(a) Is this a game of "who blinks first?" between the US and China and - in that sense - a repeat of the Star Wars tactic to destroy Soviet Union under its own weight?
(b) Is the Chinese "surplus" a notional surplus since it's invested in an instrument that it can best see ride down as the clash with the US increases?

LEVIN: Two things to keep in mind: if there is an economic break between the US and China, China has an ace in the hole: it can divert its attention to satisfying the demand of its domestic consumers as a replacement for export-led growth. The US seems to be at a disadvantage - it does not have an ace in the hole.

Second: You are right - both countries face demographic imbalances that will pose challenges in the future. It seems that America's advantage is its ability to absorb immigrants - recent protectionist sentiments aside. China also has some advantages: its social structure dictates that children take care of parents; it is a private, family matter - so the state is not, thus far, burdened with pension plans.

Imagine the additional wealth that China will have at its disposal as it implements pension schemes.

2. For the clash to tangibly occur as a military confrontation, a complete decoupling between China and US economies needs to occur. What will be that mechanism? Is it possible for either to voluntarily decouple from each other?

If there is outright war, the decoupling will be a byproduct. The whole global economy will go haywire.

But China is developing asymmetric capabilities that exploit US weaknesses. If China is able to prevent the US from protecting Taiwan during a military confrontation - it has won.

By the way - I would like to emphasize: I hope I am all wrong about the next great clash. As you see though, the evidence is quite compelling.

3. Like you said very well, Europe learnt to use the "Human Rights Imperialism" with telling effect. It is very true that all the major powers use a Utopian ideal to create surrogates and followers. Again, as you have very rightly said - the US has considerably weakened two major alliances (UN and NATO) in recent years (probably the worst foreign affairs folly of the last 8 years despite Iraq). So, the US has lost that romantic "Moral Imperialistic Ideal" that inspired other people in its "mission". China, on the other hand, has embraced capitalism and has also weakened its position in its strongest "base" - the Communists and Marxists! Predictably, China has also lost its "Moral Imperialistic Ideal". How will these two powers gather vassals and followers?

Not really. The Chinese have demonstrated that they are successful communists - unlike their Soviet brethren. The Beijing consensus of economic development seems to have more adherents than the current Washington consensus. And the Chinese have very skillfully honed their image (although the recent disturbances in Tibet have upset China's "charm offensive") in the Muslim world, in Africa, and in Latin America.

4. India's "fascination" for the USSR and Russia is mainly because of a consistent and uninterrupted arms flow as opposed to wavering US positions. In the last one and a half decades, India has sent more professional immigrants to the US than all the other countries put together (every year, Indians get 40-50% of all H1B visas). That creates an intellectual ripple effect over two generations that moves out to influence minds as opposed to lobbyists. At the same time, with the highest percentage of younger population in the major economies, English education, and an education system that is privately owned so it can adjust to the demand rapidly, India is positioned to become the provider of world's management and executive talent over the next few years. How does that change the dynamics of the world's economies in the coming centuries? (PS: Rajat Gupta, the CEO of McKinsey, for example was instrumental in opening a world class business school in India - ISB - and also has expanded McKinsey's presence in India. Same goes for the PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi).

You know way more about India than I ever will.

5. Does India's business elite have a great deal of influence within the corridors of political power, or are they simply one more lobby to contend with? It seems that India's leaders rise through political parties/families - they do not come from business circles. Also, the Indian business community in Russia is highly organized and very wealthy. I would imagine that they are very involved with the Congress party, whereas Indian business elites in the U.S. might identify more with the BJP. What do you think?

Undoubtedly India has a great competitive advantage in its English-language capability - but the Chinese are very determined and hard-working. And they seem to be much better organized politically and so could easily launch a national English-language campaign (Incidentally, there is a fascinating article about this in the most recent New Yorker).

6. Despite its earlier start and higher percentage rise in GDP over last 3 decades, China has less than half the number of billionaires (official wealth counted) than India. Does that tell a tale? Is China's economy a government-sponsored musical chairs of using money where it sees the best returns and forcing its decisions into enterprise-led initiatives? With rising paper surpluses and a challenge from the US and a private-government combine of Indian economy* apart from a slowly awaking Japanese military power, does the Chinese economy appear to you as a "House of Cards"?

(PS: the Kazakhastan deal for oil was greatly influenced by the Lakshmi Mittal - who owns large steel plants in that country and has a JV with ONGC - in India's favor against the Chinese bids.)

China's economy does have many weak points - chief amongst them, its high percentage of non-performing bank loans (which you point out elsewhere). But China also has many strengths that are not captured by statistics and economic data - such as its ability to mobilize the population and a fervent belief that their time has come. The Chinese are also used to deprivation and sacrifice - something that most westerners are not familiar with.

Regarding the number of billionaires - some thoughts: Do these statistics take into account the number of overseas Chinese who are billionaires?

Also, in China, political connections are more important than wealth (although that may start to change). It would seem that the massive levels of corruption also distort the wealth statistics.

In a sense, all of the members of the central committee (approximately 300) are billionaires of power. And they are not wanting for material comforts.

7. In World War II, the US was an Aaly of Western Europe for the most part. It did not START any war until the end, which many believe it ended in an immoral way. Since then, there have been very few, if any, wars which the US has started and won. Does the US have the ability to attract allies that can forge its position? China has created its vassal states like Pakistan and North Korea to fight its wars that it does not want to fight itself. It has chosen to use the poverty of these vassal states while arming them and providing them with a sense of self-esteem in the absence of actual wealth (a policy very fruitfully used by the British with Indian kings during colonial rule) to create a vast strong set of "allies". How do these two strategies (or otherwise) of the US and China in the recent decades affect the future dynamics?

No one likes a bully - all the kids gang up on the bully as soon as he is down. George Bush/the US is perceived as the bully, and China is skillfully exploiting this, but recent events in Tibet are a great threat to China's strategy of seeking a more "multipolar" world.

8. Finally, a rather small detail: You said that you would sell expensive editions of the Koran in Russia - where your contacts were "refuseniks" (Jews refused immigration to Israel) to earn money. Why were these Jews buying the Koran, and not the Torah?

Please note: i did not sell the Korans - i gave them to the refuseniks, who in turn sold them on the black market to muslims. Access to the Torah was not a problem.

Memories of Lahore Breezes

Desh — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:20:17 EST

She must have walked on the same streets that were once walked by my father. Maybe the fruits that had falled from the trees that had once fed my grandfather had also been tasted by her. Now, she was standing right in our house bringing the air of Lahore with her. Rubab Saleem (blogs at Pakistan Times) was visiting us in Houston and I could not miss being mesmerized by the situation. It was ridden with quiet nostalgia in my mind.

Both my parents and their forefathers came from Lahore. While my father's family was from Lahore proper, my mother's family came from Sheikhupura, near Lahore. While my father and his parents migrated in 1920's due to my grandfather's Government job, my mother's side came during partition. I would sit down with my Nanaji for hours discussing his childhood and youth. I still remember him picking up the Hindustan Times with a story on the terrorist training camps for the Khalistanis in 1980's with a map of the various places where those camps were and pointing those places to me. "Here I played my first hockey match"... and "Here I went to college".. etc. He had travelled wide and well in that land and was fluent in Farsi and Urdu (oral and written).

After all these decades, the Internet had accomplished me to do another thing. Sort of close the loop that had been left open - a young girl from Lahore finally brought that whiff of that city - which has a special place in Punjabiyat of South Asia - to our home.

She, unbeknownest, returned something to my family that we had left "back there". Lahore's persona.

Internet is a great equalizer. It can bring two completely different people with different histories together. They may not agree but the platform's "maryada" or the value system, provides you with a certain serenity to accept divergence that you may not have accepted otherwise. I have disagreed with many and yet learned from them. The process goes on.

A close friend once told me that he does not judge people, for he may lose out on another's perspective on the same issue and maybe he could learn from it! I cannot say I am as good as he is, but I am learning. I am quite sure that I might see the world differently than many but the important thing is that despite that we still look at each other. As friends.

Rubab has furthered my education in that process of such acceptance. She may not agree with my views always but she accepts me as another perspective. And in the end, I believe, that is what Lahore was really about. It brought passionate people of all hues who were tied to each other through one thread - of acceptance and love born out of that acceptance. I am not using the word "Tolerance" for it is negative and a compromise. Acceptance is not a compromise. It is a positive way to open your arms and bring people into your world as one. In accepting you become complete. This young lady from Lahore made me complete.

YouTube, Idol Worship and Fanaticism

Desh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:32:13 EST

Pakistan's government does not want its people to watch Youtube. Why? Because it has some videos on the Prophet cartoon story. So, they think their youngsters shouldn't be seeing anything on thevideo site including some of the most wonderful videos that can be informative.

The madness in closing your mind seems empowering in immediate term but is debilitating thereafter.

I am not sure why the Muslims over the centuries do not want to see an image of their Prophet or their God, but I assume its genesis would have been in the negatives of idol worship. And that, in turn, would be in the principle that if you start "capturing" a God in an idol you are basically negating the boundless-ness of God-consciousness.

However, who ever came up with this Islamic formulation did not understand another side of the idol worship story: form and name are immaterial - characteristics that you associate with the form or name are more important.

Another way to look at it: Name and Form are NOT different either. If you have a name for something.. you have already created a form in your mind. Description preceeds a name. Description is the verbal FORM of a physical representation. So if someone has a name for God and asserts that he does not want to have a "physical form" is, politely putting, hallucinating!

Then, does form - idol, painting or just a name or description matter? Our thoughts have already restricted the "God" in any case.

In fact, a person who creates an Idol and worships the deity by nevertheless saying that notwithstanding the restrictions of my small mind - You are boundless and Infinite - is probably more honest in his acceptance of an Infinite God than a person who tries his best to restrict that Infinite Entity by ascribing motives to "His" actions and extrapolating to "Him" the weaknesses of a human mind and still seeking to destroy the idols with a vengeance!

At least the Idol Worshipper who - mindfully - interacts with his God by ascribing Infiniteness is pointing to the obvious problem that human existence brings along - we cannot possibly "imagine" Infinity" in the real sense. He is admitting it to start off with but has found a "workaround".

Of course, the issue occurs when this workaround becomes the sine qua non of holiness and God realization.

But this is the problem with religion, priests, prophets and saints. They come up with "Philosophies for Dummies" series by trying to come up with simplified stuff and that simplification, instead of being "cues" becomes THE reality for the followers. So, while the beginnings of "not recommending" Idol Worship were probably more spiritual in intent, banning it and being fanatic about such a ban took on a decidedly superstitious route.

Similarly on the other hand, using an idol for a concentrated session of meditation may be extremely helpful, while you chant - knowingfully - verses describing the infiniteness of the entity's reality; but restricting the same entity to just that idol can be very debilitating and another route to superstition.

Therefore, in my book, both are superstitions - unmindful Idol Worship and Fanatical opposition to it.

A fanatical and a restless mind can never be at peace with itself or be one with the infinite. A mind that has an ideal or a belief to live upto has to constantly measure itself against the pole of an arbitrary prescription as opposed to the boundless-ness of the Infinite. That noise of constant, restrictive and useless evaluation creates fanaticism and restlessness taking the person FAR away from where the Truth really lies.