Last Thursday, a large car bomb exploded outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing 17 people and wounding another 76. The attack came just 16 months after another attack on the embassy killed 58 – including the embassy’s defense attaché, a press officer and two Indian guards. Indian and Western intelligence agencies investigating that attack turned up strong evidence that Pakistani intelligence helped plan and carry it out. The Taliban claimed responsibility for Thursday’s bombing and some news accounts reported that suspicion was falling in particular on the militant network run by Jalaluddin Haqqani. Haqqani has been linked to Pakistani intelligence in the past, but it remains to be seen whether investigators will conclude that this bombing also has Islamabad’s fingerprints all over it. The Afghan government wasted no time in blaming Pakistan, but Indian officials seemed to be waiting to see what the investigation would reveal.
The bombing, however, turns a spotlight on India’s role in Afghanistan – and does so at a critical juncture: just as U.S. President Barack Obama is pondering whether to increase troops levels to vanquish the Taliban or to pursue a more modest strategy that focuses only on suppressing Al Qaeda. And behind this dilemma are a host of related but fundamental questions: is the war in Afghanistan winnable? What does winning even mean? Can the war in Afghanistan be separated from problems in neighboring Pakistan? Can a deal be struck with the Taliban? Or can a deal be struck that might enable Pakistan to play a greater role in denying sanctuaries to the Taliban and Al Qaeda? India may have a role to play in answering all of these questions.
India has a long-standing interest in Afghanistan. There are cultural ties going back to the successive waves of Afghan raiders who conquered northern India. In more recent times, India has supported most governments in Kabul, including the regime installed by the Soviets following their 1979 invasion. There are several reasons for this, but an important one is that India sees Afghanistan as a potential friend and ally in its long-standing strategic rivalry with Pakistan. Another is that Afghanistan represents a geopolitically important corridor to energy-rich Central Asia and the Middle East. India supported the Northern Alliance in their war to oust the Taliban and when, after September 11, the Northern Alliance triumphed with NATO help, India became very close to the new government of Hamid Karzai.
India has pledged more than $1.2 billion to help with reconstruction in Afghanistan, making it the country’s fifth-largest donor nation and by far the biggest donor from within the region. The Indian money is mostly tied aid – meaning it has to be spent on Indian companies and contractors. As a result, there are at least 4,000 Indian workers and security personnel in Afghanistan employed on various aid and reconstruction projects. These include everything from erecting Afghanistan’s Parliament building and rigging the power transmission lines that serve Kabul to installing solar-powered street lights in the capital. Indian engineers have also built dams and roads close to the Pakistani border.
India’s involvement in the country is, however, a source of great discomfort in Pakistan, which worries about India trying to encircle it. Islamabad has even accused India and the Karzai government of sponsoring separatists who have been waging a decades-long battle to win greater autonomy for Baluchistan, an oil and gas rich province in southwest Pakistan. Some feel that Pakistan’s paranoia about India’s presence in Afghanistan is a large part of what motivates the Pakistani military and intelligence services to maintain support for the Taliban and resist taking action against them in their safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border. In this view, Islamabad sees the Taliban as a proxy force against India.
What – if anything – should be done about this is a question NATO and US strategists have been wrestling with. The mixed feelings about India’s role in Afghanistan can be seen in a portion of the leaked report that General Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, submitted to President Obama. The one paragraph that mentions India left Indian foreign policy experts scratching their heads:
Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.
The ambivalence expressed here lead some here in India to dub the document “McChrystal Unclear,” according to The Times of India. Did the U.S. believe Indian involvement was positive, helping to prop up the Afghan government, which after all is one of the U.S.’s and NATO’s stated goals? Or did they think Indian assistance was counterproductive because it was giving Pakistan a reason to keep backing the Taliban? And which was more important, in McChrystal’s view, to winning the war – building up Afghan governance and infrastructure, or keeping Islamabad on board? The report doesn’t say.
Of course, the answer probably doesn’t matter. India is likely to do what it feels is in its own strategic interests no matter how the U.S. feels about it. A more interesting question may be what outcome India thinks is achievable in Afghanistan. One would assume, given the zero-sum way in which India tends to view its position vis-à-vis Pakistan, that New Delhi would see the Taliban’s defeat as essential. But Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna provided a surprising assessment to The Wall Street Journal when he was visiting New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly last month:
“India doesn’t believe that war can solve any problem and that applies to Afghanistan also,” Mr. Krishna said. “I think there could be a political settlement. I think we should strive towards that.”
This produced headlines that Krishna had said NATO’s military campaign was futile and that political accommodation should be pursued with the Taliban. In fact, that is what the lead of The Wall Street Journal article said. But the Indian Ministry of External Affairs released a statement saying that Krishna had been misquoted and that, while India favored a political solution, this did not include one with the Taliban. Which is a strange clarification. Since the Taliban – loosely defined – are the ones fighting the government in Afghanistan, who else exactly is this political solution supposed to involve? No, one suspects Krishna has committed a classic gaffe, which, according to the famous Michael Kinsley definition, is what happens when a politician inadvertently speaks the truth.
If India, which has deep knowledge of the region, its culture and its history, thinks the war in Afghanistan is not winnable, the West – which has none of these things — ought to pay attention.
But there is one final big question involving India that continues to vex U.S. strategists as they look at Afghanistan. Should Kashmir be on the table? (Yes, I’ve said it: the dreaded K-word.) There are many who have proposed that the U.S. might be able to help broker a grand bargain that would see settlement of the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in exchange for Islamabad’s guarantee that it would take decisive action against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants who find safe places to operate, sometimes with official sanction, in Pakistan. Even in the absence of an explicit quid-pro-quo, many think that if the India-Pakistan dispute could be solved (and Kashmir is at the heart of that dispute), then Islamabad would feel more secure and would naturally begin to abandon its support for militant groups, since the main reason it supports these groups is to use them as a proxy force against India and or what it sees as Indian influence in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration seemed to be leaning in this direction last year, but New Delhi quickly put the kibosh on the idea. As New Yorker writer George Packer explains in a fascinating recent profile of U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke:
According to several sources, Holbrooke thought that India and Iran, which played essential roles in the regional conflict, should also be part of his portfolio. (Holbrooke denies this.) But…India was taken away by the Indians, who refused to be included in an office set up for fragile states beset with Islamist insurgencies. Obama had mentioned the conflict in Kashmir twice in the weeks after the election, and the government in New Delhi ‘went beserk,’ according to someone familiar with the situation. Holbrooke later turned the setback into a quip: he was going to get through his new job without ever uttering the ‘K-word.’
Later in the piece though it becomes clear that this a major impediment to actually developing a winning strategy for nation-building in Afghanistan and stabilizing Pakistan. As Packer writes, after accompanying Holbrooke to a meeting with Pakistani generals:
..it wasn’t all that clear the generals’ world view had changed. They still allowed the Afghan Taliban to use Pakistan as a sanctuary, apparently in the hope that the insurgents would counteract a growing Indian influence in Afghanistan….In Islamabad, it became clear how few levers Holbrooke had at his disposal. Many of the subjects central to U.S.-Pakistan relations – drones, the Afghan Taliban, Kashmir – were off limits to public discussion…Holbrooke was denied the tools to hammer out a grand bargain for the region: for example, an agreement in which Pakistan stopped offering sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban in exchange for a deal with India over Kashmir. Instead, according to Vali Nasr [one of Holbrooke’s advisors], Holbrooke had to ‘claw his way up by addressing other issues,’ such as the threat to Pakistan from homegrown extremism.
The latest person to espouse a grand bargain on Kashmir as the linchpin to fixing Af-Pak is Turki al-Faisal, a member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family who was the country’s intelligence chief for a quarter century as well as a part ambassador to the U.S. and the U.K. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, he spelled out a seven point action plan for President Obama to achieve progress in Afghanistan. Point five was “fixing Kashmir.”
Of course, all of this assumes that Pakistan actually has an interest in burying the hatchet with India. And that is a big assumption. Some say Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are simply not interested in peace with India, since preparing for war with their neighbor has been their raison d’etre since the birth of Pakistan. And the democratically-elected civilian government in Islamabad simply cannot go against the desires of the military — at least not effectively and not for long. Some even go further and say that Pakistan’s entire national identity is bound up with its opposition to India. Without India as an enemy, this theory goes, Pakistan would cease to exist as a nation.
For my take, I think India’s current presence in Afghanistan ought to be seen as a positive. After all, India is likely to be there long after NATO forces have gone. And I think India has experience in the region that could be useful for both counter-insurgency and nation-building. But — and here is where I part ways with some of my Indian friends — I think that settlement of the Kashmir dispute and a lasting peace between India and Pakistan could be the key to convincing Islamabad to move against the Taliban and other militant groups. And I think it could only help to stabilize Pakistan in the long-term. Pakistan has plenty of other problems, such its feudal structure and lack of land reform, but peace with India would at least eliminate state support for extreme Islamist groups.
I also don’t think India can have it both ways: insist on a presence in Afghanistan because of geopolitics and its rivalry with Pakistan – and yet object when the U.S. sees the exact same thing and wants India included in a regional Indo-Af-Pak strategy.
More on these topics:
Af-Pak, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, General William McChrystal, George Packer, Hamid Karzai, India's role in Afghanistan, India-Pakistan relations, Indian embassy bombing, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Kabul, Kashmir, McChrystal Unclear, Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, S.M. Krishna, Taliban, the Haqqani network, Turki al-Faisal, U.S.-India relations, Vali Nasr
Rajat says:
Sigh! another airhead opinion on India "settling" Kashmir as a panacea to solve all ills.
The reality is that India has been willing to "settle" Kashmir along current territorial lines with maybe a fig leaf to save Pakistani face. But Pakistan's Generals want to win through terror and nuclear blackmail what they could not win on the battleground despite numerous tries.
If Mr. Kahn wants India to give up land, then go pound sand. It will never happen even if Pakistan perpetrates a hundred Mumbai attacks.
Pakistan's "concerns" about India maybe real but civilized nations do not use people who tie up hotel guests and butcher them, as a tool to solve issues.
There will be no grand bargain as long as Pakistan uses terrorist proxies because the moment India makes a concession, it will validate Pakistan's approach and will cause Pakistan's Generals to accelerate the attacks to force more Indian concessions.
Not one inch until Pakistan stops the terror, period.
ksr says:
In the otherwise informative article, Mr Kahn is entitled to his views on Kashmir. Taliban was essentially a problem created by the Americans to counter the Soviets and now they are paying a price for it. No one listened when India was crying hoarse over terror from across the border until 9/11 happened. Now Kahn's specious suggestion to buy peace with Pakistan with an offer on Kashmir, which has a democratically elected government, flies in the face of all logic except self serving opportunism. If the West want to rob Peter to pay Paul, it is fine, but India would say, sorry, period.
Vic G says:
Yes. "Fix" Kashmir and the Taliban problem is solved. This is just laughable because India, quite like the U.S, does not give-in to the intimidation of a few gun-trotting, 7th centruy, barbarians. Too many Indian lives have been lost to these semi-literate muslims and any "deal" to "fix" Kashmir will now be seen as losing to the terrorists. That will embolden the terrorists to launch attacks for newer demands finally leading to the disintegration of India.
The most in-expensive way to maintain the American way of life is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and prevent any Muslim from entering the Western hemisphere. This might sound freakihly uncivilized, but remember that you are dealing with people whose only tryst with civilization involves a Kalashnikov.
Rajat says:
Fully agree with all of the above.
India should talk to Pakistan only until it is clear that Pakistan is taking meaningful action against its terrorist proxies.
Negotiating under the threat of the gun will only encourage terrorism.
Mr. Kahn wants India to pay the price for US lack of spine. That cuts no ice with me nor any sane Indians.
If it takes another 9/11 for the US to see reason with treating Pakistan as it needs to be treated - then so be it.
Janaki says:
Settling Kashmir as per the terms of Pakistan army is out of question. India has been emphasizing on first starting with increased trade and commerce ties between the two nations. Rest of the problems would fall in line accordingly. But everybody knows that Pakistan army wouldn't agree to that. So let it be. How does it matter to India.
I think that the developments over the last few days in Pakistan puts India in a much stronger position in all respects. We also reserve the right to answer the Mumbai attack, if not more! Now, it is for the international community to see if they want to still nurture the rogue elements. Otherwise, suggest Pakistan Army to follow the script written by Kerry-Lugar and facilitate a vibrant democracy in that country, because democracies do not go to war with each other.
Agnivayu says:
Pakistan having an issue with India due to Kashmir is false propaganda. First of all Kashmir itself is a sanskrit (hence "Hindu") word and has been Hindu for 5000+ years, so how can Arabs/Muslims lay claim to it? Most importantly, among themselves Pakistani's say they are a front line Jihad nation and want to convert or kill all infidels in the Indian subcontinent NOT JUST Kashmir. So, this issue won't be resolved at all until radical Islam goes through a reformation process like medieval Christianity.
I think this stalemate will be broken as India's GDP crosses the $10 Trillion mark. At that point, the U.S. (& the West) will basically support the Indian side 100% as history has shown the West never messes with large powerful countries.
Janaki says:
@Agnivayu
Disagree with @Agnivayu because he has some religio-cultural agenda, which is in quite contrast with the official position of a secular country, India.
Nikhil says:
On Kashmir, India never denied talking to Pakistan; in fact, a composite dialog is going on for years which is regularly disrupted by Pakistani terrorist groups. In the short run, India expects Pakistan to fold anti-India groups that operate from Southern Punjab and who responsible for attacking India. That's fair. Let Pakistan uphold its commitment given to India and the dialog on Kashmir will re-start and meet its logical conclusion.
Let's be mindful that Kashmir dispute may take years or decades to be permanently settled. Are you suggesting that Afghanistan will be held hostage to the valley of Kashmir because the Pak army wants it that way? Please tell us you're joking.
NYC Bengali says:
The real question is "Is US part of the problem or the solution?". The US has funded the Pakistani regime with 7.5 billion US dollars and in the last 8 years the Taliban has only grown stronger. Its come to a point where US wants an easy pass out of Pakistan. US wants to have a dialog with the so-called "good Taliban" and bring them into some sort of a settlement inside mainstream Afghan politics. Of course the "good Taliban" is only a figment of their imagination. They have to create one so that Pakistan takes care of Afghanistan as they used to, and Obama can get out of the Afghan mess. Its America who thinks the war is un-winnable unless they come to a settlement with Taliban and Pakistan. US involvement in Afghanistan hasn't benefitted Indian anyway, on the contrary has only made it worse. Even then US wants India to pay the price by giving up Kashmir so that US can bring about that "settlement". And look who the interlocutors are for dialog over Kashmir: US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia! All three of them being the greatest sponsors and supporters of terrorism and have at some point funded Mujahideens in Afghanistan are now questioning India's involvement reconstruction of Afghanistan. India knows all too well where all this is heading. None of these countries (US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are part of the solution, in fact their presence in Afghanistan over the years have only aggravated the problem to a point where its is today unwinnable. India has no choice but to be involved in the region since we are already geographically and culturally part of the region. For her own security India has a far greater stake in Afghanistan then both US and Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan is very much a negative influence in the region and more so the reason for India's involvement. Besides Afghanistan is a strong traditional ally of India and people in Afghanistan welcome India's presence unlike that of US and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a sovereign country and India has every right to help their friend and ally. If US and Pak don't like it, screw them. As for Kashmir settlement, US-Pak-Saudi Arabia can utter the K-word till the cows come home but it will not get them anywhere. They are barking up the wrong tree. India isn't going to give into that kind of terrorist violence and blackmail. If anything India would be more pro-active in overtly and covertly fighting the terrorists in the region, forming regional alliances and tightening her grip over Afghanistan and if that has to come at the cost of US interest, so be it!
NYC Bengali says:
@Janaki
You whole premise of solving Kashmir is fundamentally wrong. There can be no trade between India and Pakistan. For that to happen, Pakistan have to be a stable, functional country to be productive in anything at all. At present Pakistan's only exports are Narcotics and terrorism. It is not even stable enough for India to consider having a gas pipeline across Pak from Iran. Pakistan produces almost nothing that is of any value to India, while India can flood their market with virtually everything. It is the reason why Pakistan is apprehensive about unrestricted free trade with India. Their closest ally China has less then 5 billion dollar worth of trade with Pakistan and for most part the trade is only one way. Pakistan buys arms from China and Chinese government funds construction projects in Pakistan. Practically nothing from Pakistan goes to China. Pakistan will not give up their Kashmir obsession in return for free trade they cant really benefit from.
Agnivayu says:
@Janaki,
Hinduism is naturally secular, so I am not sure what you mean by Religious agenda? Pseudo-secularism in the Indian context means appeasement of Non-secular religions with Non-secular policies like the Haj subsidy or having a separate Sharia law for some of it's citizens. That's secularism?
Disagree with everything you said.
"vibrant democracy in that country, because democracies do not go to war with each other."
This is a false myth. Besides, the throat cutter considers democracy as anti-Islamic. The democratic government is weak in Pakistan with only loose control. Also most of them overwhemingly are still firmly commited to Jihad. The best way to deal with the Islamists is to not fight them directly. With their blind hatred and rage, they will eventually kill each other. Look at the terrorist attacks happening in Pakistan which is 98% Muslim, when they can't find an infidel to kill, they turn on each other.
Indian Muslim says:
Pakistan doesn't care about Kashmir Muslims or any other Muslims. Previously they killed millions of Muslims in Bangladesh (1971) & now they are doing the same in Baluchistan.
I am surprised still people fall for the Kashmir Trap.
About Pakistani Taliban --- It does not come to India for Jihad. How many people here knew about that ?
NYC Bengali says:
By the way Jeremy Kahn is just another liberal tool. People like him in US administration are the perfect reason why India should not ally with the US, especially with the current Obama administration which is Pakistan's bitch. It is Obama who in reality is the "Senetor of Punjab" (Pakistan's Punjab). US wants "improve its image" and be the "nice guy" among Muslim countries while India and Israel get to pick up the bill. No deal Uncle Sammy, you are on your own. Bedside US is a spent force in today's world. They lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing they say or do would impact India anyways. They can keep barking about Kashmir. Few countries in the world takes US seriously anymore. Insignificant countries like Norway patronizes American Presidents by handing out Nobel Prizes like candies. Tools like these are no good as allies while combating terrorism, and India faces some real terrorism challenge.
Nik says:
Jeremy,
I may be a minority but I agree with your views. If India proactively resolves Kashmir it'll emerge stronger on global stage. And, what better time to resolve Kashmir than now? Pakistan has been kicked in the balls by the Taliban & the US has learnt, once again, that its ambitions do not match its capabilities. It cannot get better than this guys.
But, there is a glitch. In case of a peace agreement, can the US or NATO give guarantee to India that Pakistan will hold its end of that deal? Pakistan has a history of signing peace deals with India and later violating them when it finds suitable. In short, only if the US is willing to be the collateral to ease the burden on its non-NATO ally, Pakistan, India should not hesitate to resolve Kashmir.
Aman says:
While I agree with the author that India's presence in Afghanistan has had a positive influence, saying "resolving Kashmir" is going to be the magical solution to the region's ill's is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. In addition, to reduce India-Pakistan conflicts to "solving Kashmir" reveals an utter lack of understanding of the dynamics of the many issues that frame the India-Pakistan relationship. Plus, as another commentator has rightly pointed out, India-Pakistan resolution of all outstanding issues will likely take years, so why does Afghanistan need to be held hostage to that process? The reality is that the US has caused the mess in Afghanistan due to their support of crazed fanatic militants and their proxies. Even if Kashmir were magically resolved, what, do you think the Talibs will lay down their arms and just start driving taxis?
Sanjay says:
By the same token, why not include the "grand bargain" a resolution of Washington-Moscow differences? After all, it was ColdWar America's massive military-economic assistance to Pakistan during the 1980s which allowed it to go nuclear while the US turned a blind eye (remember the Presslder Amendment?), thus enabling Pakistan to pursue its jihadi terror strategy from behind a nuclear shield.
Nah, I don't think that anybody who midwifed the creation of jihad as a weapon against communism, and which has consistently propped up military regimes in Pakistan over the decades, has the requisite credibility to be pursuing a "grand bargain" with India by putting its territory on the chopping block.
India is willing to participate in the rehabilitation of the Afghan people, but Pakistan is going to have to firmly compelled to keep its spastic clawing hands to itself. It is Pakistan which is the odd man out in the region, as all of its other neighbors will attest to.
It is Pakistan's subjugation of Pashtun lands which led to the Kashmir dispute, and not vice-versa. It's no small coincidence that Pakistan despatched Pashtun tribals to attack Kashmir in 1948. Why? Because Pakistan was afraid that if Kashmir didn't join it, then the Pashtuns would get similar ideas, thus causing Pakistan to collapse.
Kannan says:
Pakistan's main issue with India is not Kashmir..main issue is identity.Pak cannot justify its existence when more Muslims are comfortably living in a secular Hindu majority India.They also have the obsession for capturing the Red Fort to revive Mugal Empire fantasies.If you look at discourse of LeT and Pak Army generals, you can see that they want to some how dominate and capture India..which nonetheless is a bizarre idea.About Kashmir for co-operation, why dont US get out of all "the holy land"(Including evacuating Israelis from their country to EU/US) and plead with Osama Bin Laden. He might pardon you for the sins you have committed. Isnt that a better idea? Why all the preaching and gospels for India. Pak funded(ISI gave to ringleader Muhmmed Atta) terrorists who did 9/11 and trains and resupplies guys killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan. You are giving billions of dollars in aid to Pak unchecked who divert all this money to terror and madrassas. Dont you guys just get it? You guys are being fu'ked by pakis.
Latha says:
If Kashmir is to be "settled" on the basis of religion, setting aside the ethnic cleansing of Jammu's Hindus that has already taken place or the similar fate that is in stow for Ladakh's Buddhists, then Muslims from the rest of India should also be a part of the mix to be transferred to Pakistan along with Jammu & Kashmir. We know how well Pakistan integrated their Mohajirs (Indian Muslims who set out for the "land-of-the-pure" in 1947), and look forward to Kashmiri Muslims getting exactly what they deserve. The issue of Pakistan seeking to add to its failed state is quite laughable considering how little control they have of the territory that they already possess. Adding Indian Kashmir into that morass is to provide Al Qaeda even more space to roam freely. It is a foolish and short-sighted proposal in so many ways, and all the worse because it rewards terrorism and blackmail and uncivilized barbaric behavior.
Sam says:
Would giving Jerusalem to the Arabs solve the mideast problem? Would allowing return of Arabs solve the problem? Be real and get some perspective. The root cause is not Kashmir, it is Islam itself.
It is the I-word you need to use, not the K-word.
Subhash says:
Jermy your stories/facts are always half-cooked...India-Afghan ties go back to days when Afghan was part of india...When Mauryan Empire ruled Afghan area.... Before that When Kandahar was Gandhara!
Subhash says:
- "There are cultural ties going back to the successive waves of Afghan raiders who conquered northern India." -
Jermy your stories/facts are always half-cooked...India-Afghan ties go back to days when Afghan was part of india...When Mauryan Empire ruled Afghan area.... Before that When Kandahar was Gandhara!
Sunil says:
Once upon a time when a policeman was home, his 4 year old tyrant son got hold of his pistol from the holster and started pointing it in all directions. After a lot of persuation, the small child was not willing to give away the pistol and pointed it to anyone who tried to take it by force. The small child demanded that his father go to the neighbours house and get the beautiful knife which the neighbours son had found in the river while they all played. The son asserted to his father that although the neighbours son had, in all fairness, found the knife first in the river but its very beautiful and he wanted it anyway. If the father got that knife (by force or by persuation)for the child, he will then give up the pistol. Now the question is:
Who of these three are to blame:
1. the careless policeman father who should have taken care of his pistol
2. the stubborn illogical son who is playing with the dangerous pistol which can hurt anyone including himself badly
3. the neighbour playing in the river or for finding the knife.
Jackass Journalism says:
For the readers benefit, Jeremy is actually a visiting reporter in china. The chinese authorities have issued him with a visa to report on the free and democratic conditions that the chinese enjoy, with some 'minor' conditions: u must not say anything about the killings in tibet, the fight for the independence of tibet, the beggars turned away from shanghai, the closing down of hundreds of factories due to recession, loss of millions of jobs cos of export slowdown, the rebellion by muslims in a part of china province; "Jeremy please focus on the gleaming superficial buildings, skyscapers, airports, not on the millions of rural chinese poor, who have been brutalised, their homes seized to make way for this gleamy infrastructure." Jeremy looks puzzled for a moment, but his eyes are taken in by all the superficial shine and and gleam of shanghai. "And of course Jeremy", the chinese authorities continue "u must realize that china is a free and fair country and has more democracy and freedom of press than neighboring india, and as an example of our freedom of press, u r free to report on the shortcomings and poverty and problems of the other giant asian economy, which is as u know a backward, socialistic, disease driven and rotting society with no infrastructure, corrupt society, fake democracy and brown ugly people. Dont look at the fact that they have the biggest muslim population in the world, the only sikh people, the largest hindu congregation, huge christian population besides, buddhist, jews and so much so that this massive country of varied linguistic, religious gathering of people, live harmoniously and elect a new leader by successfully conducting elections every few years. Jeremy dont look at the fact, that this so called ancient indian civilization is a country that is littered with magnificent temples, glorious churches, ancient mosques, massive sikh temples and buddhist heritage sites. Jeremy dont pay attention to the fact that somehow, this 'inferior' country of varied religions, thousand languages, loosely held federation of states is also slowly but surely building up its infrastructure, new airports, metros, motorways etc. Dont look at the fact that india is now the 4th largest economy from a PPP perspective. Dont look at the fact that they have the largest middle class in the world and the largest number of companies after the USA. Focus on their poverty, their backwardness, their creaky roads." But the increasingly gullible Jeremy points out that in a democracy every decision is queried, debated and argued , things take time to implement, and comes up with the rather poor example of NASA in the US which has been debating on how to best use the funds of billions of dollars: on pouring those billions into the space station or building a new shuttle? While NASA is debating other nations are catching up in the space and technological race...such as China and India, he points out. The chinese authorities look shocked. They look sternly at him and order him not to compare india with china! "How dare you? There is simply no comparison. (Even though it looks like in the near future india and not america or japan is the real competitor) And, America? Its a bygone power of yesteryears!", the chinese look smug with this comment. "We chinese are able to merge the benefits of democracy with efficient communist governance. Look Jeremy its simple. For instance, when we wanted to erect an 8 lane motor way in shanghai we razed to the ground a 100 houses, trampled on the objections of the residents and completed the project in a matter of 18 months. Look on the other hand at india, if they want to widen the road in downtown mumbai, there are a thousand civil rights organisations who would fight for the rights of the residents, the vigilant press creates obstacles, and it takes 3 years of tedious negotiations before the project is completed! They are Jeremy a backward jealous society in awe of the great chinese civilization!" Jeremy looks to object, but the chinese continue..."We Jeremy, are a very tolerant and fair democratic society with a fair and open press. However these are our rules for press reporters and for those who publish articles that contravene these 'minor' rules, they could have their permits suspended, their visas cancelled, prosecuted, jailed and in some extreme cases they have been known to have disappeared of the face of this earth..." Jeremy nearly chokes while downing his cup of pale green tea. Then smiles awkwardly (stuffs his mouth with more cockroach fried noodles), nods )his rickety puppety head) vigorously and jabs in the air with his chop sticks and says "u wait and see what stories i come up with, on those ignorant, illiterate, proud indians!"
"I shall do my little bit to help in the balkanization of this great nation! Lets first start with Kashmir. My strong opinion is it rightly belongs to Pakistan, arunachal pradesh is china's, bengal is bangladesh's tamil nadu is sri lanka's blah blah, blah........."
And his gracious pygmy hosts smile in satisfaction and offer him more of the noodles....
Rajesh says:
Jeremy Kahn,
I was laughing through my rear when I read about you "grand bargain" that deals with the "dreaded K-word".
Ha Ha Ha...
Sara says:
Oh "strong evidence" by Indian and Western agencies? How about being a bit more specific? Well, India are masters in finding "evidence" against Pakistan, be it on the moon or on Mars, no surprises there, it just loves maligning Pakistan and still hasn't accepted Pakistan on the world map. Oh, and don't forget, that dog which died in India, that too had Islamabad's "fingerprints" all over it...not to mention the Swine flu case..but you get what I mean. So which mysterious "western" agencies do you mean?
And as you're mentioning the Pakistan int agencies, why don't you mention India's intelligence agencies as well, namely RAW? Which leaves no stone unturned to destroy Pakistan. So how many fake terrorist attacks has RAW planned against Pakistan? Let's see now....The one which they got caught red handed, The Samjhota Express!! India got caught with her hands in the cookie jar, so what did she do? Ah yes, Mr Karkare, the one who exposed India's military involvement in this attack to frame Pakistan, gets shot in the back during the Mumbai attacks! Well, well, well, how convenient indeed for India.
India has always managed to deceive the world into believing her side of the story. Why did you not mention INdia's dozens of so called embassies on the border with Pakistan, in Afghanistan, which are just a front for INdia's RAW agency, who finance and train terrorists to infiltrate into Pakistan and kill our soldiers? Why did you not mention the high tech weapons used by the terrorists in Pakistan's mountain region, which are even more advanced than the Pakistan's army weapons. Where do you think the terrorists are getting these weapons? Are they growing on trees? As one report said, the terrorists are "rolling in dollars". Who is giving these terrorists dollars to work against Pakistan?
Terrorists from Balochistan are sitting pretty in Afghanistan, training and financing the anti Pakistan movement from there, supported by India. Now the INdian RAW agency has helped create RAAM, the Afghanistan agency, which is also anti Pakistan. So Indian activities in Afghanistan may "benefit the Afghan people', but guess what? India's activities in Afghanistan are NOT benefiting Pakistan, and that's putting it mildly. But the world doesn't care, does it? No, who cares if India is supporting terrorism against Pakistan, using Afghanistan as a base?
And I think the assumption should be if India is really interested in burying the hatchet with Pakistan. Every single statement from India is anti Pakistan. So who doesn't want peace with whom? Name one time India has been nice to Pakistan in these 60 years? Never! India hires PR firms in the US to lobby against Pakistan, the Indian cricket board works against Pakistan, the INdian media is a absolutely anti Pakistan and is constantly spewing hatred against us. Whereas the Pakistani media has done a marvellous job not to strike back and stoop as low as the hate filled Indian media.
The RSS chief in India threatened us with nuclear war. THe SHiv Sena in India has an oath in which they say "We will break Pakistan into 40
pieces" The Bajrang Dal and other Indian terrorist groups hate Pakistan. INdia is obsessed with Pakistan, and the biggest e.g. of this was when the INdian media manipulated Pakistan's first e-rally on FAcebook, by Faisal Qureshi.
No matter how many Pakistani soldiers die, we are still the bad guys. No matter how many Pakistani civilians pay the price of America's mess up, we are still the bad guys. No matter how hard INdia is trying to hurt Pakistan, no one cares. India blames Pakistan for the Samjhota Express blast, and when it is proved that the blast was carried out by India herself, to frame Pakistan, the media is silent. It only comes alive to malign Pakistan.
Ask yourself, why the heck should Pakistan be responsible for the blast near the Indian embassy in Afghanistan? HOw exactly would that benefit Pak? We know that India would accuse Pakistan immediately, so why would the ISI be dumb enough to do such a thing?
India still hasn't gotten over the fact taht Pakistan managed to divide INdia in half. India loves it when it can use any blast to malign and attack Pakistan, and has a history of setting up Pakistan for fake terrorist attacks, just like it left to stone unturned to blame Pakistan for the Samjhota Express blast. So maybe next time you journalists can be a bit clever and not be taken for a ride by India's antics and do some
investigating and talk to people from Pakistan, newscasters like Mubashir Lucman from Express News or Faisal Rehman from News One, and get our side of the story, instead of blindly believing India all the time.
You may find India's role in Afghanistan "positive" but we don't, quite simply because India is launching terrorist attacks in Pakistan from there. Not to mention India's close ties with her best buddy, Karzai, Mr Drug Lord. With the death of every Pakistani soldier and civilian, the Indian RAW agents click their champagne glasses in glee.
I'm really sorry if i sound a bit harsh, but honestly, you have no idea how desperate we are over here, to hear just ONCE, someone say something nice about us. No matter how many Pakistani soldiers or civilians die, no one cares. And that really hurts. And the worst is being wrongly portrayed by biased, anti Pakistan journalists in the media. And don't hold your breath when it comes to Kashmir, INdia will do everything in her power to brush this under the rug for another 60 years. Be it with more fake terrorist attacks maligning Pakistan or something else. Maybe one day journalists will stop falling for India's trap to divert the world's attention from Kashmir, but, again, i wouldn't hold my breath. India has killed, raped and tortured thousands of Kashmiris to destroy the freedom struggle there, but it lives on till this day. Though kudos to Arhundhati Roy, she spoke the truth on Kashmir, when she said how INdia has ocuppied it for 60 years. I salute that Indian!