Interesting article... dharmayudh seems to be on the way...

[Guest guest]

from www.rediff.com - Srila Prabhupada's prediction of an India Pakistan war

may soon come true...

 

> Varsha Bhosle

>

> Too little, too late

>

> First of all, I'd like to apologise to readers who did not receive a reply

> to the mail drawn by my last column: the amount was unprecedented and I

> couldn't possibly have replied to all without shutting down the rest of my

> life. Also, I want to especially thank those who wrote "God bless you".

> Your goodwill -- apart from dumbfounding me by its appearance in message

> after message -- touched me very deeply and more than makes up for the

> Islamist/pinko hate mail. I feel rich, richer, richest; thank you.

> However, one aspect of the mail can't not trouble me: nearly all readers

> offered me their matches, too, and some even gas and kerosene... This,

> then, is the state of our morale.

>

> Astonishingly, the Government of India has taken some steps against

> Pakistan, one of which is the closure of the Jaali-Note Express and the

> Sada-e-Jihadi bus service. Next, the administration is readying itself to

> target the over 13,000 Pakis illegally staying in the country, of whom

> about 2,000 have gone underground and aren't traceable. Nearly two years

> ago, officials in Attari had disclosed that more than 50,000 Pakis who had

> entered India by the Jaali-Note Express never went back. Even then, their

> whereabouts were unknown, and many were thought to be "engaged in spying

> and other subversive activities on behalf of the ISI". And yet, this

> transportation of jihadis has been halted only after the lives of the

> honourable MPs -- who need a "code of conduct" to sustain a day's work --

> were threatened.

>

> India kept urging the US to declare Pakistan a terrorist State, and at the

> same time, it maintained a bus service between its capital and Lahore -- a

> samjhauta with the country's security in an express way. Not even during

> Pakistan's invasion of Kargil were these services halted. So why blame

> others for not taking us seriously? That under a proxy war -- a phrase

> much bandied by this government -- the borders of the country should be

> sealed, is not a rationale that can stir the minds of the Yellow Chaddis.

>

> To augment this dazzling show of strength and iron will, ie, halting

> services it shouldn't have sustained in the first place, the government

> has recalled its ambassador to Pakistan. Great! That should really show

> 'em who's boss!!

>

> Let me relay to you the thoughts of K Shankar Bajpai, former Indian

> ambassador to the Netherlands in 1975; Pakistan, from 1976 to 1980; China,

> from 1980 to 1982; and the US, from 1984 to 1986. This is from a

> television interview of December 21, where STAR News asked Mr Bajpai to

> comment on the diplomatic offensives. Unlike Benazir's self-serving air

> waves, these went unreported by newspapers:

>

> "I'd like to urge this point: it is not a very tough message to Pakistan.

> It may be a message to the world that we really are running out of

> options. But as far as Pakistan is concerned, they couldn't care less

> whether you halt the Samjhauta Express or the bus service. The truth of

> the matter is that unless our envoy in Pakistan can enjoy the same access

> to the public that the Pakistan high commissioner has here, our mission in

> Pakistan is virtually non-existent."

>

> At this, the face of the little-boy-anchor perceptibly fell. One could see

> the waves of uncertainty wafting down his forehead till realisation dawned

> that he now had to deal with a plain-speaking person who was also an

> experienced and much feted diplomat, whom he couldn't rudely dismiss in

> the way that Indian anchors shelve the Hindu right-wing. After some

> stumbling and mumbling, he managed to ask if Mr Bajpai would have liked to

> see a snapping of diplomatic ties.

>

> Answer: "I would say, that would be a better message in terms of what we

> need to do with Pakistan because that would have involved closing down

> their mission here. But in this case, as the high commissioner [Pakistan's

> Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, who was also being interviewed] has himself told

> you, he's perfectly free to remain here. And I don't see that harms

> Pakistan's interests in doing us down. Whereas our interests in Pakistan

> weren't being served in any way!"

>

> Now, this is simply too much for our ultra-pacific national press, leave

> alone the choirboys of Rupert Murdoch, to swallow. With barely concealed

> indignation, Little-Boy-Anchor questioned the logic of shutting down

> "things" that build "people-to-people contact".

>

> Reply: "You can't build people-to-people relations when only one people

> wants to build it. Where is the response from Pakistan? Our people there

> can't have access to the people there. Let's be very candid about this."

>

> Shock writ stark on their mugs as the anchors asked if our ambassador

> really didn't have freedom in Pakistan. Mr Bajpai's response: "I don't see

> him getting the television coverage that you are giving the Pakistan high

> commissioner here. But more than that, people who have contacts with him

> are harassed. I've been there myself. I know."

>

> By now, the anchors had resigned themselves to a highly politically

> incorrect discussion. The better of the two asked if Musharraf's asking

> India to provide evidence of Jaish-Lashkar's involvement in the Parliament

> strike was a "disingenuous argument". Mr Bajpai's reply: "You are putting

> it very mildly and politely. It's more than that -- it is dishonest. They

> know *exactly* what they are doing. If they don't want to recognise it,

> that is also a deliberate act of policy."

>

> Is there a chance that Pakistan will ditch its Kashmir policy like it

> ditched its Afghanistan policy? "It will never happen. The power structure

> in Pakistan is such that it relies on animosity towards India. They

> countered the Taliban because it was in their interest. They will not

> counter the terrorists in Kashmir because it is their main instrument in

> prising away Kashmir from India."

>

> Exactly right. We have done too little, too late. Worse, we're only

> posturing to get America's attention. If we really meant business, we'd

> have shut down the Pakistan high commission -- which, incidentally, has

> more personnel than any other embassy -- and booted out the "culture

> secretary" et al, under which designations operate the station chiefs of

> secret services like the ISI. In short, we would have snapped diplomatic

> ties and prepared for the "W" word.

>

> But hold on! Do you think Indians unanimously want to retaliate? From

> where do you think Little-Boy-Anchor got his pacific cues? Here's

> Khushwant Singh in rediff.com: "I think the steps taken by the Indian

> government are foolish... By suspending the train and bus service you are

> stopping people-to-people contact... By withdrawing the high commissioner

> from Pakistan you are taking one step towards further hostilities between

> India and Pakistan." I'm sure that elsewhere there are similar puke-bytes

> from the Wagah candle-holders led by Kuldip Nayar, and their acolytes are

> slurping it all up.

>

> In the past, all attempts by the Punjab-Haryana-Delhi Chamber of Commerce

> and Industry to establish liaison with its counterpart in Lahore were

> blocked by Islamabad. The plan to set up an Indo-Pak chamber of commerce

> was turned down by Ishaq Dar, who said that there could be no free trade

> with India, nor would it be given MFN status till the Kashmir issue was

> resolved. India's efforts to send artistes to the golden jubilee

> celebrations of Pakistan were rebuffed. Meanwhile, India's been hosting an

> unending stream of Pakistani qawwali, ghazal and pop singers and film

> stars -- while Indian artistes are banned from Radio Pakistan and PTV.

> Even in 1997, India had relaxed visa restrictions, allowing some

> categories longer stays and exemption from reporting to the police. This

> July, India announced that it would open check points along the LoC and IB

> and *unilaterally* ease visa restrictions. Pakis would be able to come by

> road and obtain visas at check-posts in Attari, Munabao in Rajasthan, and

> Uri and Sialkot sectors in J&K -- despite severe opposition from the

> Indian Army.

>

> And how did Pakistan react? It simply dismissed these CBMs as issues

> "peripheral" and irrelevant to the "core problem" of Kashmir.

>

> This is not about Musharraf or Nawaz Sharief (who, speaking on the 50th

> independence day, said that Pakistan's independence would be complete only

> on the day "all Kashmiri brethren joined the country") or any other

> leader. It is about the people of Pakistan. Right from the

> whiskey-swilling elite, through the Marxism-nurturing intellectuals, to

> the Quran-waving Beards, each and every Paki wants Kashmir -- and there is

> NO exception to the rule. The only way they differ is in the way they put

> forward their case. But the case remains the same: the "core" issue of

> Kashmir.

>

> The ordinary Paki is a generous host and "just like us" and all that kind

> of stuff -- but just bring up Kashmir and see the change. I've tested this

> sooo many times that I have to literally stop myself from tightly slapping

> any acquaintance who tells me that the ordinary Paki isn't

> Kashmir-centric. The bottom line is, the people of Pakistan will never

> give up their dream of attaining Kashmir, and the people of India -- all

> save the Leftists -- will die before giving it up. Therefore, Pakistan and

> India are destined to live in a state of perpetual hostility. Therefore,

> this "people-to-people contact" bullshit is just that: bullshit.

>

> What's happened since India cried "foul" and went running to Uncle Sam?

> All the Pakistani terrorist groups have sworn to continue, nay, double the

> efforts against India. "We cannot make any compromise on our goal -- to

> wrest Kashmir from India," said Harkat commander Ubeidullah Assad. "Now we

> will attack with more vigour the Indian paramilitary and military camps

> and inflict maximum casualties on them," said Jaish commander Abu Hijrat.

> As for Lashkar, its ideology goes beyond J&K: in a pamphlet titled 'Why

> Are We Waging Jihad', it defines its agenda as the restoration of Islamic

> rule over all of India. As for Pakistan, it has been continuously shelling

> and firing all along the LoC and the IB since 12-13.

>

> Yesterday [Friday], Islamic terrorists opened indiscriminate gunfire in a

> Sikh locality in Anantnag district, killing three girls, one of whom was

> 12 years old. Another group opened fire at homes of Kashmiri Pandits,

> killing one woman on the spot, while another died in hospital...

>

> Sooner or later, and for the first time since its inception as a republic,

> India MUST declare war on the terrorist State of Pakistan. There is no

> option! I spoke to several serving colonels, and none reflected the doubts

> being put forward by various think tanks. Rahul Bedi, a defence

> correspondent of repute, reports in The Telegraph: "An army officer...

> said: 'We are waiting for the green light from Vajpayee to operationalise

> existing plans to strike targets in PoK like militant training camps and

> other strategic objectives that provide logistic support to insurgents

> fighting Kashmir's civil war.' He said senior officers had told the

> government that any hesitation to hit Pakistan 'hard' after last week's

> suicide attack on Parliament would be 'expensive' for India. Not

> retaliating would also demoralise the armed forces." Keep waiting...

>

> A recent book by former soldier Pravin Sawhney avers that the military

> leadership had advised in October that "it was not enough for the

> government to give evidence of the Jaish-Osama-Taliban nexus to the US"

> and that while the US bombed Afghanistan, India should hit terrorist bases

> in PoK. But nearly every defense expert -- even generals and commodores --

> has cautioned against the strikes. For, it would inevitably lead to war.

> What has changed so radically between October and now...? Why is there a

> schism in the opinions of serving officers and retired ones...? I don't

> like the answer that leaps to mind. Let me put it very gently: Soft

> cushions impede hard choices.