B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Sun Feb 23, 2003 6:31 pm

India has labelled Pakistan as the "epicentre of terrorism" and has ruled out the prospect of any talks to improve relations with its Islamic neighbour state.

This comment was made by the Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha at the NAM Summit in Kuala Lumpur that is also being attended by the Pakistani leader, General Pervez Musharraf.

Sinha expressed a wish that the United States apply more pressure upon Pakistan to "dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism" that exists there.

Sinha also stated that India supports the US position on Iraq to the extent that they recognize that force may be required to disarm Iraq and called upon the UN Security Council to pass a resolution with stronger and clearer conditions to that effect. However, India remains opposed to the stated US policy of regime change in Iraq, maintaining that "it is not for outside forces to decide if Governments should be changed" and that military action must be conducted within the scope of United Nations mandates.

Among other interesting snippets of information, Sinha acknowledged publicly for the first time close links between India and Israel in the fields of "defence co-operation", "intelligence sharing" and counter-terrorism. Ironically, India and Israel did not even have diplomatic relations until the last decade but the relationship has grown by leaps and bound since then. India still maintains very close economic ties with the Arab states as well.

More details in articles here and here.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:11 pm

If a precident of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Te

Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:33 am

If a precident of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.

Oh, I see, that would be the US' fault, now. Gimme a break!

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:34 am

Which country will the UK and US pre-emptively attack then?
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:38 am

India (or Pakistan) could easily say "well, the world's only super-power can invade pre-emptively, why not us?".

Donder10...Iraq has attacked us?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:18 am

If the precedent of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.

The precedent of pre-emptive action was set by the Pakistanis when they invaded Kashmir multiple times in the past. Alas for them, they got their asses kicked.

India has no intention of invading Pakistan. Simply put, India would rather that Pakistan just went away and left us alone. As long as they continue to support cross-border terrorism, that will not be happening however.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:16 am

This is all about getting extra attention for the upp coming World cup match
between the two countries....
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:26 am

all about getting extra attention for the upp coming World cup match

There is absolutely NO WAY that there can be any more attention on that match than already exists! Big grin
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Guest

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:35 am

Incorrect Sean, when other countries strike pre-emptively the UN/US/world have spoken out against it. The US is legitimising pre-emptive strikes with their issue with Iraq (remember, not a single person on this site has explained yet the direct threat Iraq is to the US).

That means that in future when the US bitches about other pre-emptive strikes they will have absolutely zero credibility. I've said before it's a dangerous precedent to set, particularly in light of the fact that with our without WMD Iraq is at the moment no threat to the US.




ADG
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:48 am

The US is legitimising pre-emptive strikes with their issue with Iraq

I don't think "legitimising" is an appropriate word here. That implies widespread acceptance, which is certainly not the case.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:45 am

Hasn't the US opted to stay completely neutral in the India-Pakistan crisis?

Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:55 am

It's another example showing that the pre-emptive war doctrine is a very very dangerous one...
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:29 am

Hasn't the US opted to stay completely neutral in the India-Pakistan crisis?

No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Cyril B
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:03 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:42 am

Another problem is the fact that western countries continues to sell weapons to India and Pakistan, despite the threat to peace these countries could become in the near future.

(France, for example, sells Mirages and aeronautic technology to India, and nuclear submarines to Pakistan... )
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 10:02 am

I was too general in my last comment...I was referring to the Kashmir crisis between India and Pakistan, thats my fault...

Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:51 am

No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.

Rightfully so. The biggest threat to the US until the mid-80's was Russia & Communism. Pakistan was a far more reliable Western ally against Soviet hegemony than India ever was. India was always cosying up to Russia.

Presently, the US and most Western countries are effectively neutral in the India-Pakistan conflict except Israel which is pro-India.

Another problem is the fact that western countries continues to sell weapons to India and Pakistan, despite the threat to peace these countries could become in the near future.

Pakistan & India have the right to buy arms abroad....and Western arms producers have the right to sell them to I & P.....as long as no laws are broken.

If the worst happens with India & Pakistan having a nuclear war, the damage and death (while horrific) will be localized due primarily to their crude outdated weapons. Neighbouring countries have little to fear directly from an India-Pakistan conflict.






I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism&quot

Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:46 pm

India was always cosying up to Russia.

That's not particularly accurate. India chose to remain non-aligned, though we had rather blinkered economic and foreign-policy agendas, the former motivated by Fabian socialism, and the latter by 'righteousness', rather than any sense of geo-political reality. On the other hand, Pakistan firmly joined the American side, as a member of SEATO and CENTO. India did not start 'cozying up to the Soviets' until:
1. Pakistan used its American arms in wars against us, despite oft-quoted 'assurances', especially the pathetic one from Eisenhower, that those arms were meant to be used only for the purpose of holding the USSR at bay.
2. The American action of sending in the U.S.S. Enterprise to browbeat India into going easy during the 1971 war. Not that it helped; Pakistan lost half its territory and had about 100000 of its soldiers taken as POW / LJPZ), Slovenia">POW.

If the worst happens with India & Pakistan having a nuclear war, the damage and death (while horrific) will be localized due primarily to their crude outdated weapons.

Interesting. Can you provide references to back up your comments on the design of the weapons ? How does the 'crudeness' of the design localize its lethality ? How does a 'crude' 45kT thermonuclear weapon like the one tested in 1998 differ from say, a 'refined' U.S. version of the same destructive power ?

[Edited 2003-02-24 04:56:37]
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:01 pm

..No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.

Rightfully so. The biggest threat to the US until the mid-80's was Russia & Communism...

..and the overall geopolitical stupidity that went with a viewpoint dictated strictly by coldwar politics. Funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Pakistan with Saudi and US funds and then pretending they would just miraculously all go away.

As far as Pakistan goes, India has to walk a very careful path. Musharraf may be a scoundrel, but as far as Pakistani scoundrels go, he is a damn sight better than any Islamo-fascist anti-US thug who may take his place. Someone of that ilk may not think twice before launching into a more agressive provocation of India. And we all know that the short-sighted right wing Hindu nationalists are just itching for a crossborder exchange of heavy arms.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
cicadajet
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:47 pm

ADG... the "direct" (indirect? - what difference would that distinction make?) threat supposedly posed by Iraq to the US is that it will provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda. At least that is what has been said/explained...whether and whoever believes this is a credible threat is another story..but its a simple postulation.

Beyond that, I suppose the US effort is an effort to head off future problems that could be caused by a dangerous Sadam & co. Iraq. and to stabilze the region to the liking and security of the US...in regard to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether any of that results, I could not tell you.

The first strike option and execution *is* a very destabilizing policy on the surface and could perhaps be a grave error, no doubt. Time will tell.

On the other hand, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction changes the equation... Many countries may be in a position of damned if they do..and damned if they don't. Certainly that appears to be the situation in which the USA finds itself.

We're living in interesting times...unfortunately.

Tom
 
Guest

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:22 pm

I don't think "legitimising" is an appropriate word here. That implies widespread acceptance, which is certainly not the case.

*IF* they attack Iraq without the UN mandate then they are doing exactly as I suggest. Acceptance is irrelevant because the next time anyone else wants to do similar they simply have to say "The US did it".

By the way, this will most likely occur even if the UN mandate it as many feel the UN is simply bowing to the cash cow.

ADG... the "direct" (indirect? - what difference would that distinction make?)

It makes a HUGE difference. A country has every right to defend itself from a direct threat and no right to defend from an indirect (implied) threat. After all, america is an indirect threat to all of us so would you say a pre-emptive strike on the US is appropriate? (i'd say not).

threat supposedly posed by Iraq to the US is that it will provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda.

What rot. That's never been an issue. Indeed, Al Quaeda have more chance of getting hold of one of the 11 missing US nukes than weapons from Iraq. Again, should we pre-emptively strike the US?

At least that is what has been said/explained...whether and whoever believes this is a credible threat is another story..but its a simple postulation.

It's nothing but rubbish, I can find nothing on this subject anywhere but in the US. Other countries aren't suggesting it, which really points towards more US Government dishonesty.

Beyond that, I suppose the US effort is an effort to head off future problems that could be caused by a dangerous Sadam & co. Iraq. and to stabilze the region to the liking and security of the US...in regard to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether any of that results, I could not tell you.

The US has NO RIGHT to interfere with the internal politics of other countries and indeed other regions, that's my point. When there is a DIRECT THREAT against the US then, and only then, do they have the right to pre-emptive strikes. This is why there is such huge anti-war sentiment out there.

On the other hand, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction changes the equation... Many countries may be in a position of damned if they do..and damned if they don't. Certainly that appears to be the situation in which the USA finds itself.

Well as the holder of more WMD than any other country they are being hugely hypocritical, particularly in light of the fact that they really are currently protecting nobody.

We're living in interesting times...unfortunately.

Yes, and it is reminiscent of the 1970's and the USSR behaviour .. unfortunately, guess nothing is learnt.





ADG
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:36 pm

Musharraf may be a scoundrel, but as far as Pakistani scoundrels go, he is a damn sight better than any Islamo-fascist anti-US thug who may take his place.

I agree. He seems rather moderate (by the belicose standards of the Indian subcontinent) & has done a good job of supporting the West while containing his irrational religious factions. He may prove to be a far more long lasting Western ally than India. India likes to wrap itself up in its so-called moral democratic blanket.....but let's face it, India is a corrupt semi-democracy. The West should choose between India and Pakistan (if it has to) based on security & regional stability, not wobbly democracy. This may mean supporting Pakistan diplomatically over India if their Kashmir shenanigans threaten to go nuclear.






I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:11 pm

Neil, if you can say with a straight face that Pakistan wins out over India on the basis of "security and regional stability", then you are either EXTREMELY clueless or simply trying to push buttons!  Smile
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:20 pm

Well, you can't deny that Musharraf has done a good job of keeping the lid on his Muslim religious factions. Yes he has been outspoken to India but really no more than India has in return. In terms of political positioning, he's a good leader for Pakistan.

If nothing else, both India and Pakistan can be praised for not letting their border issues get out of hand, despite frequent skirmishes. A war could easily be started by a random event on either side.

Regarding India, the Hindu/Sikh and Hindu/Muslim tension could easily rise up at any time (although they seem quiet now) which would reduce perceived Indian stability.

Am I trying to push buttons? Well, honestly a little, but not unreasonably so.  Big grin

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:01 am

I have to agree with -437B on this one. Pakistan is a disaster in terms of stability and security. I think the best evidence of this is foreign direct investment (FDI). India attracts far more FDI than Pakistan because of it relative stability, less corruption, and decent legal system. Despite corruption in India, it has had a democracy that has been pretty much functional for the past 50 years. The transfer of power is usually peaceful in India. Pakistan seems prone to coups and military dictators. I guess the bottom line to my post is "follow the money."
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:58 am

He may prove to be a far more long lasting Western ally than India.

Musharraf is more concerned about his own survival than being allied with the West. There's nothing wrong with that, except that to survive he works directly against Western interests, such as in the case of the Kunduz airlift and the killing of Daniel Pearl. It is this duplicity that makes him dangerous; short-sighted 'band-aid' fixes will hurt more in the long run, the way the darling mujahideen who were the apple of Zbigniew Brzezinski's eye later became the taliban and Al-Qaeda. Check out this excellent PBS interview of Seymour Hersh: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

India likes to wrap itself up in its so-called moral democratic blanket.....but let's face it, India is a corrupt semi-democracy. The West should choose between India and Pakistan (if it has to) based on security & regional stability, not wobbly democracy.

Unless you can back up how Indian democracy is 'wobbly' (and I've argued against precisely that assertion on your part, in the thread about the IAF forcing down the US jet, which you never responded to), you merely come across as someone with a monotonous anti-Indian agenda.

As far as India and Pakistan goes, the West has more to lose by supporting a nation under a dictator who makes a show of being their ally, as compared to a nation that actually works according on the same democratic ideals as them, BUT choses to put its own interests above Western ones.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 1:10 am

back up how Indian democracy is 'wobbly'

Any country where 1/3 of the population is illiterate, where there is widespread corruption, where there is on-going religious strife, severe poverty, enfranchised discrimination against women & lower castes......is simply not democratic in the same league as Western nations.

Musharraf is more concerned about his own survival than being allied with the West.

That's what politicians do! Sounds just like the Indian govt anyway.

the West has more to lose by supporting a nation under a dictator who makes a show of being their ally

Not necessarily. It's a very thin line between a pragmatic dictator and a corrupt democrat. Pakistan has been a very good ally to the US since 9-11.




I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Te

Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:37 am

Any country where 1/3 of the population is illiterate, where there is widespread corruption, where there is on-going religious strife, severe poverty,

I disagree that socio-economic indicators and form of government are one and the same. There are rich authoritarian states and poor democracies. One does not beget the other.

enfranchised discrimination against women & lower castes......is simply not democratic in the same league as Western nations.

You've got to be kidding. India has offered universal adult franchise to its population since its Independence, which is more than can be said for a lot of Western nations. And once again, you confuse socio-economic failings with a lack of democracy. The same poor, illiterate, oppresed people that you flog have the power to throw out the incompetent, corrupt leaders whom they elected, and no one can challenge that.

Its absolutely hilarious that on one hand you argue India cannot be much of an ally because its not much of a democracy, and on the other hand support Musharraf precisely because he stands in the way of democratic procedure bring the Islamists to power in Pakistan Big grin

That's what politicians do! Sounds just like the Indian govt anyway.

I'm afraid you're ignoring the second part of my statement. You merely echoed what I stated; but you ignored my argument that when Musharraf acts against the very interests he claims to be allied to, in an effort to survive, he's not much of an ally.

The Indian government's position on Afghanistan/Iraq is clear - we don't want the U.S. action to be affecting India's economic ties (especially oil-related) to the Persian Gulf and are therefore opposed to any wholesale escalation of conflict, but at the same time have no problem allowing U.S. warships and jets to come to India for fuel and R&R.

We're not in any way forced to act against the U.S. in order to pander to a domestic constituency, which is exactly what differentiates Musharraf from India. There's a huge difference between refusing to agree based on a conflict of interest, and claiming to agree but acting against.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:51 am

...Pakistan has been a very good ally to the US since 9-11...

Thats a real stretch. Pakistan has hardly been a good ally. It had no choice whatsoever post 9-11 - if Musharaff decided to challenge the US, he would have been an instant pariah overnight with no US aid coming in to prop up his government. Its a quid pro quo of the worst and wobbliest kind. Musharaff has been a good ally under fear of being assasinated or overthrown by Islamic factions either within or outside the ISA. Or the military. And that could turn in a second given the volatile nature of Pakistani politics. Musharaff's expediency doesn't make PAkistan a good ally - it just makes it a necessary client state. And we all know that the US is playing out a waiting game with Pakistan because of the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

As far as India goes, the old cold war psycho-babble that prevailed under its laugheable "non-aligned" stance right through the 80s is over and done with. All that phony high falutin "leader of the non-aligned beggars club" went out the door when in 1991 India found itself with a few trinkets in its foreign exchange reserves and scant respect in the world. Twelve years of capitalist manoevres have improved the Indian economy considerably, such that it has everything to gain by being a US ally. Can you imagine joint Indo-US military exercises 15 years ago? Never. The truth is that Pakistan really can't say much right now about the cosier Indo-US relationship. They pretty much have to put up and shut up. Better the US dictate that rule than have some bogus cold war rhetoric about what a wonderful ally Pakistan has been in the past dictate future US policies.

And as far as India's poverty and the wretchedness of nearly 800 million (or more !) of its citizenry is concerned, its apparent that poverty and illiteracy don't dictate political participation: the turnout in the past elections was nearly 70% with rogues from both major parties being routinely booted out of power. The day we in the US see a 70% turnout, we can all bring out the bubbly and celebrate.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:49 am

You can't expect illiterate people to make an informed choice when voting. They'll vote for who they're told to vote for, whether from the village elders, religious leaders, or the family patriarch. While it's better than no vote, it's not true or honest democracy in a Western tradition (yet).

India has offered universal adult franchise to its population since its Independence

Illiteracy still is common, with far more women illiterate than men.



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:09 am

Yyz717,

You make good points about the connection between literarcy and effective democracy. However, despite massive and grotesque economic failings, India has nonetheless produced a decent and functional democracy.

I would argue that Pakistan has substantially the same problem with literacy, a worse problem when it comes gender issues, and it has been plagued by dictatorships. I think India's imperfect democracy is preferable to Pakistan's turbulent history of dictatorships and short-lived democrats.

While Pakistan is letting us use their country as a base for our operations in Afghanistan, they have also had to placate Islamic extremists in their midst. The current love-in with Pakistan will not last. The US placed lots of restrictions and checks on Pakistanis arriving in this country and the anti-US sentiment in Pakistan is well known.

I think US security interests in the region will be best assured if the US allies with relatively stable India rather than chronically unstable Pakistan in the long term. Like I said, follow the money. US, European, and Korean investors are pouring money into India and not Pakistan largely in part to the former's stability.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Te

Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:11 am

You can't expect illiterate people to make an informed choice when voting. They'll vote for who they're told to vote for, whether from the village elders, religious leaders, or the family patriarch.

That's a ridiculously ignorant statement. Illiteracy does not equate to an inability to form one's opinions on their own. Your statement merely betrays a stereotypical view of how you imagine people might form their opinion, and would be extremely offensive to the average Indian voter, whether or nor he's literate.

Besides you give way too much weightage to the ability to read/write when it comes to making 'informed decisions'. Do you have anything to back it up when it comes to 'Western' nations , to prove that Western people largely make decisions based upon what they *read*, as opposed to what they see on TV ? You don't have to be literate to follow news on radio or TVs, and though nowhere near as much as in the west, they are a very popular source of news and information, far more than you might imagine.

Illiteracy still is common, with far more women illiterate than men.

Universal adult franchise grants an adult person (i.e. over 18) the right to vote. How does the comparative literacy level of men and women have anything at all to do with it ?
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 6:41 am

Illiteracy does not equate to an inability to form one's opinions on their own.

Yes, it does. when someone is illiterate, they are cut off from reading. They are also likely poor which also limits their access to radios & TV. Hence, their primary source of political influence is the alpha male in their family or village.

despite massive and grotesque economic failings, India has nonetheless produced a decent and functional democracy.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it's produced a more stable or accountable government than that in Pakistan.

India & Pakistan really have far more similarities than differences. Although India is probably positioned to improve economically more than Pakistan due to its free-market reforms.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"

Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:06 am

Indian growth would be a lot higher if they lowered their tariff barriers-estimates for UK trade (currently 5BN pounds per annum)say it could double if they were removed.

I agree some what with your comment,YYZ717,that India and Pakistan still have a lot in common.
Technically,isn't Musharaf(sp?)democratically elected after that very fudged election last year?Pakistan is still more volatile than India though.I would not like Musharaf to be deposed and the nukes fall into the wrong hands to say the least!He may he be a quasi-dictator at the least, but he has helped to somewhat stablise Pakistan.Hopefully,economic reform will follow.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Te

Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:09 am

Yes, it does. when someone is illiterate, they are cut off from reading. They are also likely poor which also limits their access to radios & TV.

Not really. While I certainly agree that illiteracy cuts off one important media of information, it does not close the door, and I disagree that it prevents someone entirely from making informed decisions. Radio's are very prevalent, and owned by individuals or families, but many villages have community TVs running on solar power or normalelectricity feeds, installed with government money. This was something I got to see personally, during one of the student volunteer trips to villages in Tamil Nadu during my undergraduate days, which happened to co-incide with the runup to election time.

The average Indian voter is much more individualistic and well-informed than you choose to give him credit for. He may not often have much of an option (in qualitative terms) when it comes to choosing whom to vote for, but to look at the stereotypical TV images of crowded lines of thin, weatherbeaten old men and women standing expressionlessly in front of polling booths, and assume they're just voting for whoever their village honcho told them to, is rather far off the mark. Indians take their politics very seriously, even if with a large dose of cynicism.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Te

Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:18 am

Indian growth would be a lot higher if they lowered their tariff barriers-estimates for UK trade (currently 5BN pounds per annum)say it could double if they were removed.

Barriers exist both ways. In the UK, for example, there is a lot of opposition to call center jobs moving to India, because it would lead to unemployment. Ditto for the recent proposed NJ bill to prevent IT work for the state govt from being outsourced to India. Ideally, according to WTO rules, both sides should permit free movement of capital and labor.

Technically,isn't Musharaf(sp?)democratically elected after that very fudged election last year?

He's not an elected leader, by any means. He overthrew the elected PM and seized power. the event last year was a 'referendum', like the one that Saddam conducts to show how 99.99% (just 97% in Musharraf's case) of the population supports him.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: luckyone and 17 guests