Reflections on Pakistan.

The army and the establishment, in Pakistan, are not able to stem discontent in Pakistan. Why is this so? Are those who profess to belong to Islam, and who do so in strong terms, bad for Pakistan? Pakistan was established as a state, when those who were Muslim, left India, and went to create another state for themselves. The significance is that, many Muslims in India, were opposed to the creation of Pakistan, and the Dar Ul Ulum, the most significant Islamic Seminary in South Asia, led this opposition. Those who follow Islam in Pakistan, know about this. So, Pakistan was a creation, when the dar Ul Ulum, and a great number of Muslims, were left in India, and when Pakistan was created as it was created. If I were Pakistani, I would reflect that Pakistan was born of opportunism. The Muslims of Pakistan are not better off than the Muslims of India. The most respected Islamic Seminary did not want partition from India. And the 'establishment', and the army may be branding The 'Islamists' as 'Islamists', because if the Islamists come to power, they may work for reunification with India. The Pakistani Army do not shield the militant Islamists. They do not want these elements to be viewed favorably. The Pakistan Army has legitimate concerns. How does a section of society partion themselves into a separate nation, and then ask for reunification? Will this be viewed as good? I do not view the Muslim of India, as not having a voice. The Muslim in Pakistan, is very much more in need. Many luminaries of the foreign office, like Mr Natwar Singh, must be aware, of this state of affairs. International Relations are not under any strident law. There is lawlessness, on the borders of India and Pakistan. If India and Pakistan agree to agree on peace, they do so on personal initiative, not because of any other accepted norm of international behavior, and law. Pakistan is an international entity as a nation. Both India and Pakistan are civil in diplomatic channels, but the prevalent lawlessness, is not good on the border. I do not believe, India can promote law in a democracy, if the border is not lawful, to consideration. The United States believes what the army wants it to believe, on the 'Islamists' of Pakistan. This may be due, to the experience of the United States, with Iran. The abdication of The Shah of Iran, was a mistake. Would the President of the United States leave The United States, if he were in the shoes of The Shah, and The United States was Iran? To reflect on the 'establishment', in Pakistan, the 'establishment', are the inheritors of those who were the makers of Pakistan. The people who created Pakistan, had left their precedence in India, and had created Pakistan, on what they hoped would be a lasting legacy, for the people of Pakistan. What face would the establishment have, if reunification was considered? Is the position of Pakistan and India, then hopeless? No commentator on International Relations, has been as bold as I have in my expression. Also, the various governments see what they would like to believe, even if the various esteemed scholars at their intellectual disposal, intimate otherwise to their belief.

Identifying Spirituality.

Identifying what one identifies as spirituality in a spiritual person can be very misleading. For example, I may feel that Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is spiritual, but what is it exactly that I find spiritual about the great saint? When I contemplate his sayings, I do not find anything that he said, as out of the ordinary. But I find great joy in his sayings. There was nothing I find as not ordinary, in his personality, when I thnk of him. In other words, for a man like him, living his life was not extraordinary, for him. It would be an injustice to him, to justify his existence, as he lived in human form, on Earth.

Banking in India.

Generally, the regulations in the Indian Banking Sector, have their origins, in practices which have their foundations, on financial principles, which have existed from a long time. But, let me express on the system of overdraft. I know a little, on how one gets an overdraft in India. I was considering the following scenario: What if I took an overdraft of Rs 80, on a fixed deposit of Rs 100. Suppose the interest on overdraft is 12%, and the interest on deposit, which accrues to the depositor, is 10%. Now, if the depositor pays 10% as the interest on the overdraft, and the further 2% which is charged by the bank as an added interest for the surcharge on the overdraft, is used by the bank, to help the overdraft amount to be recovered by the bank, at no cost either to bank, or to the person who has taken the overdraft amount. In other words, if the 2% is not used as interest, but as a means for the bank to recover the amount, which it has given as overdraft, to the person who has taken the overdraft, then how may it be perceived? The bank borrows at a certain rate, from the depositor, and lends money to the depositor at a certain rate. Why can not the lending rate, and the borrowing rate, of the bank be identical? If the borrowing rate and the lending rate, is the same, then there is no question of either the borrower making more profit, or the lender making more profit, while lending and borrowing. Hence, the income made by the person who lends, cannot be seen as interest, because the lending rate is universal, and income is not disproportionate, if one lends. After all, one borrows in a business to make income, so how do the funds which fund business grow, or in other words, if the funds to fund business do not grow, there will be no funds for the business. To come back to the overdraft scenario, if the 2% is used as I intimated, then the customer is helped, to recover the overdraft, and the bank is helped to technically recover the deposit.

Debates in the Lok Sabha.

Today, I had the chance to hear two luminaries of the Lok Sabha, give speeches. One of the luminaries was Mr Chidambaram, and the other was Mr L K Advani. What Mr Chidambaram says is very significant, because he is the Minister for Home. Mr Advani is somewhat more significant in his speech, because he heads the opposition. The speeches of luminaries are very engrossing, when the speeches are made in the Lok Sabha. Mr Chidambaram was very specific, when he was discussing the laws pertaining to public peace. Mr Advani was very emotive, and spoke with feeling, but in a more general manner. Mr Chidambaram discussed the finer points of the mentioned law. I seriously feel, that laws should be made redundant in society. The longer the laws exist, the more complex is their interpretation. Why does a person have to be conscious about the laws of society? To take the discussion further, perhaps, when a Judge has seen evidence, and has made a determination, then that evidence cannot be disputed. If any party wants to dispute the evidence, that is not possible. He may have to present different evidence, for the Judge to make a different determination. The reason why court cases pend, is because the people carry this process to the extremes, when presenting their case. Because of this extreme effort by the parties to the lawsuit, the person who does not see himself in any advantage, at the termination of the lawsuit, is suitably mentally disposed to the situation. Hence, how has the Law been perceived by such a person? Mr Advani pointed out that India is perceived as not being agreeable to the Al Qaeda, but not to the extent that the United States is disagreeable. I would like to point out, that Mr Bin Laden was not very well disposed towards the Saudi Sultan either, who is considered to be the custodian of the holy site in Mecca. Perhaps, they are more at peace with each other. But at one time, the disagreement of the viewpoints of the Saudi Sultan, and Mr Bin Laden, must have preoccupied Mr Bin Laden's mind. Mr Bin Laden is the head of the Al Qaeda. But, the people who carried out the physical attacks on the World Trade Center, were of a definite number. The aeroplanes used were four. Hence, those who were responsible for the attacks, should be the only persons booked. There are many people in society, who profess animosity and hate towards other people, and causes. But they may not carry out attacks physically on those people or causes. Many opinions on the net, posted by United States citizens, bear animosity towards the U S President. But what if a lone opinion, causes an attack on the president of the United States, not an action of the Al Qaeda, but of another American citizen? How far is the horizon of the war on 'terror'? If the horizon is unending, then where is the end to be determined? An ordinary citizen of the United States, may be said to hold militant aspirations towards the President of the United States, towards the detriment of the President. If possible, it is better to change the attitude of the perceived aggressor, to the perceived victim. Can not the International States, and their representatives, not be perceived as the rightful targets of those, who may want to target them? In such a situation, if there is an aggression, then is any action of self defence to be justified by any party? Why is an act of self defense, by any party, in a situation, a matter of conjecture, and surmise, by those, who are not a party to the situation? Perhaps, to be fair, these acts, when once determined by the perpetrator, are difficult to determine. Otherwise, the tragedy of 9/11, would not have taken place. Can one surmise, that it is due to the diligence of the United States bureaucracy, alone, which is the cause of another 9/11 not taking place? Laws must be made redundant. I have respect for the Law, but if there is no need for the Law, then the law does not apply in a particular situation. The concerned parties, must act when the act is required. Perhaps, this will cause the situation to better. Let not the verdict of the law be a justification to some, and for others, leave them with a sense of shame, and animosity towards the society. Let the law be not blind, but perceived as dead, when it operates.

Politics and Islam.

I would like to start my discussion, by making observations. The two people who are identified to have introduced the creed of Islam to the Indian Subcontinent. They are Mahmud of Ghori, and Mahmud of Ghazni. These two entities, entered India proper on the pretext of spreading Islam, and it is said, that they made back to Ghori and Ghazni, with a huge bounty. These two entities, after spreading Islam in the spaces they occupied in the Indian sub continent, left those people in penury. If one visits those areas in Pakistan, those areas are in as much abject poverty, as is the rest of Pakistan. Is the territory of what was Ghori and Ghazni, then, any better, now, in wealth, or prosperity? The two entities, who invaded India, on the pretext of spreading Islam, saw their political ambitions separate from other considerations. Was the wealth that was accumulated by these entities, of any help to their people back in their territories? So, can we call these people opportunists, who did not help those whom they needed to help? In India, in the state of Gujarat, innocent individuals lost their lives, because the parties who committed the atrocities, identified themselves as members of a certain religion. These people were using their religion in politics, as Mahmud of Ghazni and Ghori did. The British taught India the game of cricket, and India exceeded the abilities of the English in that game. Have the people who profess Islam, spread the creed of Mohammad, or their own brand of Islam? In Pakistan, today, what is the state of the nation? Is Pakistan better being Pakistan? What have the people who guide Pakistan, done for Pakistan? More importantly, what does Islam have to do with the abject civil conditions in Pakistan? Why does the world look at Pakistan with trepidation? Because of Islam, or because of Pakistan? I learnt to respect The great Prophet of Islam, because I was aquainted with a Hindu Saint, who had followed the tenets of Islam, and who knew the truth about the Prophet, not because of some opportunistic person. Do I believe, that Pakistan is where she stands, because she is an Islamic state? Then can I respect the people who call themselves Pakistani's? Who is representing Islam today? Why should the Indian Muslim be associated with the chaos in Pakistan? There is no religion called Hinduism. In India, the Muslims live as brothers with others who believe in God, apart from those who follow the other religions. What does Pakistan want the Pakistani to identify positively in his nation? How does the Islam which Pakistan professes, make her respectable? Is she the equal of any Muslim state, or does she fall short, in the measure? How does she fall short in the measure, if she does? What is positive about pakistan's existence to her neighbors, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and China? Why does Pakistan give Ghori and Ghazni the honor, and name ballistic missiles after the individuals? Because of the great service, which they rendered unto Pakistan? Or because they render a great service to Pakistan, because their leaders serve Pakistan, as did Ghori and Ghazni, their own provinces?

The American automakers of Detroit.

I believe, the companies like General Motors, and Ford, to be among the best in the world. The companies run themselves impressively. It is a fact, and not to be lamented, or seen negatively, that the companies cannot be competitive, inspite of their operations, to be seen as prosperous. One does not estimate the working of a corporation, solely, on profit making. The corporations like General Motors, perhaps technically were in the red, but other businesses were technically in the green, perhaps, because of the big corporations. I cannot see how the corporations run badly. Why should corporations look bad to themselves, if they do not make a perceived profit? They should stop worring about profit, and start working out, how people will consider wanting to purchase their cars. To be fair, a Cadillac is not very different from a Mercedes. A man who purchases a Cadillac, does so because he wants to purchase a Cadillac, and not a Mercedes. How can the American automakers make what they think is appealing in their cars, more of a consideration to themselves, and to their buyers? At the moment, the buyer considers the positives of a Mercedes, more than he considers the positives of a Cadillac. How is the positive seen in the Mercedes, more than the positive seen in the Cadillac? I do not think Mr Wagoner is an indifferent CEO of General Motors. How many Americans are aware, of Mr Wagoner being the CEO of General Motors? Many, but not very many. The policy of the lay off on jobs, would not be unacceptable, if it it was seen as not needed, though it exists as a policy. Perhaps, the giant automakers should stop worring about each other, as competitors, and just make the best cars that they can. If this had been done earlier, then perhaps, the world economy would not be in recession. In America, the recession is due, because great companies like General Motors, were not optimistic always, in the running of their business, but tried to keep up with the others. General Motors does not lack in anything, in any resource.

The Global Financial Situation.

The current global financial situation, which seems to be a crisis, may be a corrective situation. I may be stating, what is obvious to many. I do not infer that the situation before the crisis was either good, or bad, because the financial practices were accepted by the concerned parties in the financial transaction. It may not be inferred, that the first great depression of the industrial era, was the cause of a faulty industrial effect. It was just that the perception of the industrial effect, was seen to be in the need of changes. I have heard, that the citizens of the United States, use credit cards, as a very natural act of existence. Perhaps, when they use credit cards, they are not sure of the payment, as I am not sure that I may not expire tomorrow. The financial status quo, was seen by the great financial institutions to be maintained at any cost, which was perceived as could be forseen. Just as a person does not stand still, all the time, this status quo, also came to pass. In the United States, the perception of wealth is very stark. When people perceive the trappings of wealth, they perceive, only what their senses are content perceiving. The more the senses perceive, the more the senses justify sight, sound, taste, smell, and all the other trappings of perception, at a very stark level. How can good living be made more accessible to all? Why does prosperity need to be perceived and measured? Can not a person be prosperous, and not identify himself as either prosperous, or very otherwise? Would a person be less prosperous, if he was content, with prosperity, and did not consciously want prosperity, when he was prosperous? How can prosperity be measured, as marginally prosperous, substantially prosperous, largely prosperous, etc? How can those, who are still very substantially wealthy, worry about when they will be reduced to penury? Perhaps, this mindset needs to see perspective in a different light.

The Indian, and The Indian Civil Entity.

The Union Cabinet of The Indian Government, consists of not a large number of people. The same can be said of the State Governing Cabinets. The civil servants, as well as the civilians, and the military, assist the cabinet to govern. The cabinet assists the civilians, and the civil servants, and the military, but in a different perception of service. Governors and the government of various entities, are mainly the patrons of the functioning of the various institutions. When the government is perceived to be in discomfort, it is for a different reason than the reason of the discomfort of the entities under the patronage of the government. Why do we not assist the government, in the functioning of the government? We may vote out the government, but later, rather than sooner, we vote them back. Why should we vote in a government, whom we see as deserving when we vote, and whom we see as undeserving when we vote them out? I see a division of the nation, which is very marked, in India, because those who are in the opposition, and those those who are in the ruling coalition, are hostile to each other, when they are perceived as politicians. If I may cite an example, and if I may be pardoned, Mr Omar Abdullah is married to the sister of a prominent politician, whose name I cannot recall, but they do not see the same point of view as politicians, and the parties which they represent, are antagonistic towards each other. The business of government functions very well as it does, but it can perhaps function very much better. The ruling party blames the opposition, and the opposition blames the ruling party. Hence, the ruling party is not accountable, and nor is the opposition. All the matters of governance are discussed, but this matter is not discussed. What is the most pressing need, it seems, will sort itself out, by itself, is what the collective opinion of the politicians hold. This is a fact, but why does it take such a duration of time, and the time is yet to come to a conclusion, on this matter. What will lead to the issues in the nation to resolve itself? The question is not to be asked by the politicians, but by the persons, whom the politicians represent.

A discussion on the ISI.

In my opinion, the ISI is an organisation under the titular authority of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistan Army was not involved directly, in the war between the Mujahedin and The Soviet union. The ISI was the channel of exchange between the United States, and The Mujahedin, during the last Afghan War. How exactly does the ISI operate? In the past, the Indian Army was a source of concern to the Pakistan establishment, for many reasons. The intelligence required by the Pakistan establishment, including the Pakistan Army, was of a defense oriented nature. Hence, the ISI was established. The ISI has no military role, perhaps. I mean, that they have no military function, except to act in a way, which may aid the military of Pakistan, in a vaguely indirect way. Now, the units of the Pakistan Army, may be expected to give support to the ISI. The question to be asked is, how is the ISI accountable to the Pakistan Army? The Pakistan Army and the Government of Pakistan, are not very happy with international awareness of the ISI. But the ISI cannot help this state of awareness, nor can the Army, and the Government. How does one act appropriately, with a certain divestment of passion, in such a scenario? Why are the actions of the ISI, affecting the civilian diaspora of India? The ISI would never, in my opinion, target the Indian Army directly with indirect aggression. That would be an undeclared act of hostility. It seems that the ISI is acting on it's own, but to what end? A destabilized India, would be very dangerous to Pakistan. Pakistan is aware that it is faced with a difficult situation at the domestic level. If India did not survive, how would Pakistan survive? Many entities in Pakistan are considered as embarrassing in Pakistan. Is it that the administration feels that it will be left without the faith of those who are the supporters of the cause of Pakistan? I am sure, that Pakistan is aware of no immediate danger emanating out of India. Does the government of Pakistan trust her people, and do the people of Pakistan trust her government? Does the administration of Pakistan, function as a government? Is the Government of Pakistan the representative of all state institutions? Perhaps, the bureaucracy has no real power in Pakistan, because there is no power above the bureaucracy. How can India help Pakistan from being a cannibal towards itself? India and Pakistan must make one another more accountable to each other. If the national borders between the two nations were opened, then Indian state institutions would need to function better than they are now. I am not an ill wisher of Pakistan, as many Pakistani's are not ill wishers of India. The points that I have expressed, are known to the Indian Government, and Indian Army. Their powers of perception perhaps surpass that of the common man. The Indian Muslim is identical in some ways to his Pakistani counterpart, in a cultural aspect. At least, this is true of the Muslims who share the border with Pakistan. How is it not beneficial, if we did not have such strong individual national identities, when we contemplate each other as nations? Let us stop differentiating between us and them. Unfortunately, or otherwise, the militants say, that their guide in Islam, is the Islamic Seminary at Deoband. Even in the North West Frontier Province, the Deoband Seminary is well regarded, or perhaps it is regarded as paramount. It is very evident, that the nation of Pakistan needs help. In such a situation, let India be positively proactive. The only way that borders may not be contemplated within Pakistan, is when India does not contemplate a border with pakistan, as a principal of apparent perception.