Gilbert,
I echo your sentiments. Today, most of the enlisted people in the Indian Army, and for that matter, armies all over the world, come from the economically deprived sections of society. With the exception of a select few, I don't think any of them joined the army to save the country. For them, the Indian Army was just another means to escape the deep poverty that had engulfed them. Since 1971, India and Pakistan have fought two low-intensity conflicts. Siachen and Kargil. In both cases, the battle was over tracts of land that no human can live in, and no human would want to live in. The result - some 5000 "jawans" were killed on both sides, and more die in accidents as a result of manning these positions in the most inhospitable of areas. Personally speaking, I couldn't care two hoots whether the Siachen glacier is a part of India or not. Its not like I am going to visit it in the near future or anytime for that matter. Let us look at the result of the recent Kargil war. With the exception of bragging rights, India did not gain anything and Pakistan, could not even claim that, except by spin-doctoring the whole situation. The politicians got fatter and acquired more land, the arms-dealers lined their purses and the hooligans on the road backed by the right-wing parties, took out demonstrations that celebrated their "might". What about the widows and orphans of those jawans in India? What did their husbands and fathers die for? Nothing! They just died so that someone else could get fatter over their dead bodies. I still remember the war hysteria in India at that time. Sachin Tendulkar refused to play Pakistan. Some Indian film actors and actresses held shows to raise funds. Great sacrifice I should say. Not playing Pakistan and dancing and singing somehow, was supposed to equal the death of soldiers fighting for a barren land. Today, nobody bats an eyelid to the plight of the widows and orphans of India's wars. Sachin Tendulkar meanwhile has gone about playing cricket as usual, while Salman Khan has gone around his usual business of baring his chest at every opportunity. Let me emphasize here that I am not a peacenik, or an opponent of war. I believe war does serve a purpose, especially when there is oppression or agression. But that war should serve a purpose and achieve a goal. A war with Pakistan is not going to solve the Kashmir problem, nor is it going to end the conflict. In fact, we are going to kill more soldiers and civilians merely because the politicians in Delhi still harbor the view that the Kashmiris will just roll over and play dead, and because there are countless more jawans to sacrifice. India and Pakistan have not prepared their citizens for a settlement, making it even difficult to achieve one. However, they have prepared their citizens for war. With war rhetoric and childish complaints to the US, they have only served to accelerate the tension. For too long, India and Pakistan have been looking over their shoulder first to the USSR and USA, and now to the USA only, to bring the other to their knees. By currying friendship with the big bully, they think they can demolish the other. Little do they realize that it is in the best interest of the big bully to keep the status quo. Militarily, both countries have come to the conclusion that they cannot win a war against each other. So isn't it logical to work for a settlement? Yes, if they thought in the best interest of India and Pakistan. Sadly, gone are the days of Nehru, Ayub Khan and Liaqat Ali Khan, who thought about their people and the country. Today, what we have is a crop of leaders who care little for the future of the country. And in this case, I don't necessarily mean the top leadership, but rather the administration. I am quite sure that at this present time, the mode of thought in Delhi is not how to work for peace, but rather, how to impress the US and outfox Pakistan. That being said, a settlement with Pakistan is not going to end the conflicts within India. That requires a will to negotiate and address the grievances of the Kashmiris, the Nagas, the Bodos. In many cases, the people aren't even demanding independence. Surely, we could reorganize the states and give the locals more control over their resources? But why would the Indian politicians do that when they have a steady supply of poor jawans available in the BSF, CRPF etc to do the dirty work and die for them? In my opinion, members of the Indian Armed Forces should start a movement where the sons and daughters of the Indian politicians should first serve in Kashmir, Assam, Tripura and Nagaland, before they go in. Also, before entering the local or national assemblies, the elected representatives should serve atleast one year in Kashmir and the North East. I guarantee we'll have a settlement of all these conflicts within no time. -Tariq On Fri, 24 May 2002, gilbert menezes wrote: > Jorge/Livia, > your story about the rat is perhaps more relevent to the moral "for want of > a nail a kingdom was lost". When successive Govt.s show no political will > to solve the Kashmir problem and the country bleeds economically for 50 > years, it is time to retreat to the benaulim beach. Believe me, I know, > because I took part in 2 wars against Pakistan in 1965 and 1971. Body bags > mean nothing to our politicians. So I may say things in jest, but Ive just > about had it with politicians who think nothing about escalating the > geo-political situation in the subcontinent to the brink of war. > regards--Gilbert -- Tariq Siddiqui [ This Space for Rent ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-W-E-B---S-I-T-E-=-=-= To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet | http://www.goacom.com/goanet =================================================================== For (un)subscribing or for help, Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dont want so many e=mails? Join GoaNet-Digest instead ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Help support non-commercial projects in Goa by advertizing!! * * * * Your ad here !!
