India and Pakistan

I am an Indian. He's a Pakistani. Should we hate each other?

Maybe yes.

But why?

Because India and Pakistan are at loggerheads.

But he's not at loggerheads with you. His country is at loggerheads with you.

So what?

So why hate him, an innocent man?

Because he's a Pakistani. And since Pakistanis hate Indians too.

Maybe because Pakistanis hate Indians coz they've been told that Indians hate Pakistanis too.

Whatever.

Don't you think that since we consider ourselves more reasonable, we should break out of this chicken and egg situation?

Err .. why should we do it? Why can't they take initiative.

Should we not be more reasonable and responsible?

We are. They are the aggressors all the time.

Alright. But here we know of a situation - should we as responsible people not correct this?

Why?

Because its in our own benefit.

How?

If we are at peace with Pakistan, we can use those money and resources for our well being and growth. Children would not have to go hungry. People would have enough to clothe themselves. They can think of a future beyond mere survival.

Yes but Pakistan's situation is worse.

Why do we need to see ourselves better than Pakistan only? Do we owe this to Pakistan or our own people? Is it not in our own interest?

Alright, but I don't think Pakistan would ever be alright. We've been cheated by them so many times before.

But we still can "Believe in God but lock our car". Can't we? We can be cautious and guarded, and yet try to come to peace with Pakistan. Can't we? Maybe we'd succeed. We owe this to our own people, our future, our prosperity.

Yeah maybe you're right. But you know Pakistan would never mend its ways.

But war never solved any problem. Did it? Look at Iraq. The Iraqis hate Americans still and would go to any length for revenge. Look at Germany after WWI. They were crushed, but the public sentiment was so strong that Nazis, advocating a strong millitary came to power. Look at India and Pakistan. We've had 4 wars. Did we achieve anything?

Well. India Vs Pakistan is about Islam Vs Hinduism.

Yes, we're different religion, and I might go to the extent of admitting that Pakistan is more radical Islam than many other countries. But Islam in itself isn't agressor. Look at Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia. All these countries are at peace with its neighbors. Its the radical islam that's the trouble. So its not really Islam Vs Hinduism but between Radical Islam Vs Hinduism.

Yes that's right. But we don't control whatever religion develops on the other side of the border.

We do. If we adopt hardline posture towards Pakistan, we send the general population the message that they need to wage Jihad because their lives are not safe from a "Hindu" India. If we're a little more tactful, we let the softer voice in Pakistan be heard, and dominate, and change the aggression of Pakistan towards India.

Do you really belive in this crap?

I do. Don't you think terrorism (or "freedom fighters") arise(s) where there's either real or perceived oppression? Like it did in Kashmir (where ppl thought they were not free) or in the case of Naxalites and Maoists (where economic oppression is a reason), or Iraq (a threat to the existance of people and their freedom). If we don't threaten people, and don't give them a chance to feel oppressed or threatened, they no longer need to take the terrorism route, or radical islam's way to save themselves.

You do have a point. But why're you telling me all this.

Because every one can make a difference.

Loss and Grief

One of my good friends lost his mother very recently. His mom was back home in Pune, and he is in Phoenix. Words just can't console enough. I am sad I could not really ask him to just sit with me and cry and let his grief out. I was sitting with him all this while looking he was doing his preparation to go back home to be with his father and brother. I wish I could have been of more help than just being there.

As I write this, he's almost ready to fly back home - to be with his mom's memories and to console his father and brother, who, in turn would console him.

I share his grief and pray for the departed soul.

On Freedom

For long I thought we were free. Or at least I was - and I used to pity the people in parts of Africa. I used to think they were the only people in the world in the need for freedom.

I was wrong.

As a kid I used to think I'd be free from the burdon of un-necessary subjects like Social Studies and Hindi when I move to grades XI and XII. On reaching XI and XII, I realized that though I was studying science and mathematics, I was bound by a very uninteresting syllabus. I thought I'd be free when I go to college - no books to carry and no school dresses to wear. When I reached engineering college, I realized I there were too many expectations and a lot of competition, and so I could not afford to be lax. I willingly allowed my freedom to be taken over in pursuit of that extra marks, those better grades, those extra programming knowledge that would look good on my resume. All in the hope that I'd be truly free when I start to work.I would probably not go to explain what shackled me when I started to work. But yes, first time in my life I was unshackled from economic bonds - I was free.

Recently Kofi Annan mentioned precisely this. The world currently is under shackles, stronger than slavery, and more humiliating than discrimination. Its the economic slavery. The poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. And unless this is checked, the world runs the risk of a backlash by the have-nots.

Something needs to be done - not for them, but for ourselves.

And before its too late.

On Iraqi elections and more

Finally, the 30th Jan passed away, relatively peacefully.

The prophesies of doom had abounded, each predicting bloodbath and low voter turnout. But that was not to be. I must admit, I trusted those doomsday prophesies more than the assurances of the Iraqi interim government and the US Dept of Defense' statements.

Credit must go to where it is due, including the intelligent tactics adopted by the US forces - curfew and vehicular restrictions close to the polling stations. Also, the fact that the locations of polling booths and the information about the candidates was not disclosed till very close to the polling day also helped.

But this raises some very important questions
1. If the elections were that free and fair, why were networks like Al-Jazeera (traditionally critics of the US led invasion and the US supported interim government) banned by the Iraqi interim government from covering the Iraqi elections?
2. When even the candidates' names were not known to the voters till very close to the elections, what kind of "choice" did these elections signify? Was this real democracy? Or were the voters out there to choose whichever names sounded "good"? This zero choice or blind choice is akin to the elections under Saddam Hussain, where only the Baathists won.
3. When only 66% Iraqi expatriates, who were safe from insurgency, are more likely to be better educated and aware, and had a three day window for voting, voted, is it even sane to assume that millions of illiterate, scared voters turned out to vote, knowing it is akin to suicide, to make it 72% voting? Doesn't this mean that the US propaganda machinery was working overtime?

Unfortunately, I don't have answers right now. But I suspect that just like the British did in India-Pakistan and Palestine-Israel, US is going to do the same - going to leave Iraq in ethnic strife, burning, so that it could have more handles to meddle in the Middle East for the years to come.

For oil.

Only time would tell.