Untitled 26

She woke up with that feeling when one wants to vomit after a night of drunken extravaganza. Her feet felt cold as she dragged herself to the bathroom. Slowly lifting herself till she was in line with the pot. Her arms still aching but not even in close contention to her sides, she puked out a cocktail of alcohol, food, blood and a part of her soul.

In a night that had involved meeting this ravishing looking fella, that had led to drinks and debauchery, this moment was nowhere part of the picture. But as she turned to wipe her face, she could not help but notice her hands covered in red. Where did the blood come from, she wondered?

A slight push of strength and now she was on her knees. Another push and she got herself in front of this full-length mirror. Her face looked as if a truck had rammed it. A vision of the previous night flashed by and all she could think about was the list of drinks she had had. Not a single moment that recalled how she got where she was. Bloody and bruised.

She slowly crawled back into the room, dragging her left leg which seemed to be broken. It surprised her how she did not feel the pain a few minutes back, but now it had reached a level beyond imaginable. She used the edge of the bed to lift her self and with all the remaining upper body strength she finally managed to get onto the mattress.

She lay there for what seemed an eternity, still trying to recollect her surroundings. The blood still dripping and a strange sense of calmness blanketed over her mind as she still couldn't recall a single memory of where she was and what had happened to her.

Just then, the phone rang and a man's voice said, "Hope you love your birthday present."

Untitled 25

She could feel the still wet sand between her toes. Strange, cause her bruised body couldn't fell anything else.

She strained to look up. A ray of light hit her face from a gap between the curtains. This time she wished someone peeped inside.

A year ago she had met Paul in one of those bars where single ladies went to be picked up. He was a charmer, aah and that beard.

It wasn't love at first sight, but a few gin and tonics down; they were going at it in the bar's store room.

They met again. This time at the museum. She thought he was trying to impress her. His knowledge about 17th century artists indeed did.

A few more drinks that night and all she could remember was waking up in this tiny room with her hands tied. This was a year ago.

Her body ached every time she took a breath. She wasn't sure what day it was, but presumed it was a Sunday. Her went to church on Sundays.

He even read scriptures to her on Sunday. She knew he would be home soon. She knew what would have to be done.

For a month after she was tied, she screamed and screamed and screamed. He looked to enjoy it. For a month he didn't touch her.

The screaming eventually stopped. Forcefully. He gagged her mouth. This was also the first day tore her clothes into shreds.

Untitled 24

In here, lies the thoughts of a man. A simple man, simple tastes and complex misunderstandings. Oh and a big fat ego

This man is waiting to come out. He's waiting to tell the world what he really thinks. Not what he tells them that he really thinks.

This man does not need your sympathy, he'd love someone who'd listen to his thoughts, disagreed and then had violent sex with him later.

This man needs validation of his existence every single minute. Validation of people he thinks are superior to him,validation of validations

This man will be willing to settle a fight like they did in the olden days, by paying someone to fight for him.

This man will stand in the corner and look at the ugliness surrounding him, he'd curse it, but this man will never let go of the ugliness.

This man has no pride, no values, no honour. He sees you for what you are. He sees himself for what he is. So, he thinks.

This man can no longer be satisfied by false promises.

This man also has a temper, a short fuse and filthy mouth.This man also has an impure heart. This man has no woman.

This man lives a life of intoxication, of hatred, of self denial, this man lives the life of The Mad Hatter.

Untitled 23

It was like another day, just like any another day. She sat beside the window sill, wondering what he was up to. He, he was on the verge of a breakthrough. It had been coming. “No”, he thought to himself. “I can’t be thinking about her right now. I need to first make sure that I am able to fix this,” he said, thinking aloud.

Suddenly, his head moved to the right, he did not know why he did that. He moved his head back again and stared into the laptop. His train of thought had now been derailed. He placed his hands on the keys and started to type. He stopped. He tried to recall what he was trying to type. It just wouldn’t come back to him. He continued to stare into the screen. He closed his eyes, but all he could think about was her.

Her lips have been sealed; she was staring at him, asking him to release her. He saw cut marks on her wrists and on the side of her breasts. It’s like she had surgery. She continued to stare at him. He seemed to be enjoying the image. He wondered if he had seen this girl before. He tried to open his eyes, but he couldn’t. He didn’t want to, lest he couldn’t recall the image.

She looked down; her breath had created a translucent ball image on the window pane. She wanted to make a smiley face. She moved her fingers on the fogged glass; her fingers are imagining a happy face, her mind, not so much. Suddenly, her head moved to the right, she did not know why she did that. She moved her face back towards the window sill. She had no idea why she is staring into a sad smiley face. Her eyes closed, she tried to recall her last thoughts.

His eyes have been sealed. They had been sewn shut. His mouth was wide open, there is blood pouring out, not a lot, just enough, like he had been punched a several times. He was shirtless; there were precision cut marks on his chest. She couldn’t remember who this man was. But he looked familiar. He was trying to say something. His lips were moving, but she was unable to decipher. She leaned forward, as to get a better understanding, but the more she leaned ahead, the more his voice thinned. She opened one eye, she could still see him; she closed her eye, and now he was gone.

She wanted to say something, but words just did not come out. It was like her lips had been sewn shut. The words were all there, just not audible to her. She tried once again, this time she was able to say it out loud. She raised her tone; it got louder and louder and louder. She screamed on the top of her voice. She finally settled down. She was now blind.

Untitled 22

Critique of ‘Is it rational to vote?’ by Keith Dowding

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.

-- Charles Bukowski.

Is it rational to vote? Keith Dowding in his article “Is it rational to vote? Five answers and a suggestion,” tries to bring out the very reasons that one would vote. According to Dowding, one votes as sense of duty. But this claim is invalid as duty is not necessarily a rational choice and thus it does not make it a utility- maximizing act.

Dowding argues that this solution is compatible with the assumption that ‘individuals maximize their utility by definition’ (Dowding 2005, 454). However, the ‘problem’ raised through attempting to incorporate ‘duty’ is not alleviated through relaxing the self-interested assumption. The problem is rather that an individual who votes out of a sense of duty is not ‘maximising their utility by definition’. Dowding’s proposed ‘solution’ is incompatible with the axioms of rational choice theory (Stephen Parsons 2006. “The Rationality of Voting: A Response to Dowding,” British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 295)

Voting may not be a sense of duty as Dowding claims, but there is rational choice behind why one does vote. According to Dowding, there are three main reasons for an individual to go to the polls-

1. People vote in order to express their preference for their preferred candidate

2. Increase his or her chances of winning and 3. Because they feel they ought to. (Dowding 2005, 442)

Dowding here minimizes the reasons, which is saying that, the above three reasons are the only reasons to why someone would cast a vote and if there are more, they would come back to these ones. Now this presumption is not faulty, but has some flaws. He missed out on people voting because they are forced to vote. This may be in terms of anti-social-pro-social groups that either by force or bribe, make people vote for their candidates.

In the 2008, Zimbabwean Elections, Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai accused President Robert Mugabe of forcing Zimbabweans to vote in an election in which the 84-year-old leader is the only candidate.

Tsvangirai said voters were being ordered to record the serial numbers of their ballot papers to identify how they cast their ballots. Pro-Mugabe militias had threatened to kill anybody abstaining or voting for the opposition, he said. (Chris Chinaka, Reuters, Jun 27, 2008).

People are forced to vote in many countries including the likes of India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Then there are countries where voting is compulsory.

A few countries have compulsory voting, where by which you can be fined if you do not vote. This by far is a very undemocratic thing and absolutely disregards any democratic value.

In Australia, Belgium, and Venezuela a citizen who does not vote is in violation of the law and subject to fines and other penalties unless excused by illness. The potential sanctions in Venezuela are particularly harsh. Such penalties have also existed in Costa Rica since 1960 and were in effect in the Netherlands until the 1971 election. Similar penalties and requirements also existed in Chile before its democracy was overthrown, and apparently in Greece before the 1967 military coup as well as at present. (Bingham Powell, Jr., 1982, 113).

The arguments in place for compulsory voting are that it is the duty for everyone to vote. We often get these remarks if you haven’t voted, “You cannot criticize the government if you have not cast your vote.” This is not only a remark that falls short but one that is rationally irrational in nature. Not voting in itself is a democratic choice. Even if you do vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing an evil.

It is well known that people have a poor understanding of probabilities (Kahneman et al. 1974). Some writers suggest that voters may simply misunderstand the probability that their vote is decisive (Riker and Ordeshook 1968; Barzel and Silberberg 1973, 53), partly subject to propaganda put out by parties and the state (Brunk 1980). Blais (2000) provides stated preference evidence that individuals massively overestimate the probability of their decisiveness. But, even on these estimates the probability of being decisive is small and, whilst it may provide the basis for a Margolis B-term solution, other stated preference evidence suggests otherwise. When asked why they vote few people cite the probability that their vote will be decisive. Indeed, they are rarely questioned in this manner but rather asked if they are more likely to vote when the election is close (Dennis 1991) and I suspect would query the sanity of the interviewer if they were directly asked the question. Decisiveness does not enter into individuals’ decision framework when deciding to vote. (Dowding 2005, 448).

Is it possible that every vote counts? Anthony Downs assumes efficient government will occur when every voter expresses the views they would have if they were the decisive voter: But in fact his vote is not decisive: it is lost in a sea of other votes. Hence whether he himself is well-informed has no perceptible impact on the benefits he gets. If all others express their true views, he gets the benefits of a well-informed electorate no matter how ill-informed he is: if they are badly informed, he cannot produce these benefits himself. Therefore, as in all cases of indivisible benefits, the individual is motivated to shirk his share of the costs: he refuses to get enough information to discover his true views. Since all men do this, the election does not reflect the true consent of the governed (Downs 1957, 246).

According to Dowding, For Downs it is about information costs and not benefit costs. So the predicament is not of non-voting but ignorant voting. But what really is ignorant voting. Is it ignorant for someone whose family is Democratic to vote Democratic, without actually knowing the policies of his candidate? It is a rational choice for the man in question as he has been born and brought up on Democratic Party philosophies, so he votes for the Democrats.

This is the same across a majority of voters, for whom information benefits are not a vital or necessarily vote changing choice. But if we informed them of both candidates’ policies, would it change their vote?

My vote will not cause people like me to vote, nor will my voting because I think people like me will vote cause people like me to vote. Indeed, such thinking is used by causal decision theorists to suggest the irrationality of non-causal evidential decision theory. (Dowding 2005, 450).

What are the decisions based upon one to vote? Do individuals care by how much and what margin do their candidates actually win an election? Voters do not care about margins; they only care about the victory. According to the paradox on nonvoting - the idea that a single vote has no effect on the outcome, seems to imply that the individual act of voting is instrumentally irrational, or is at best merely an expression of preference, and at that undisciplined by proper constraints. (Gerry Mackie, 2008).

Dowding ignores the social benefit of voting, a point that he completely misses out. Andrewe Gelman wrote people often vote strategically when they can (in multicandidate races, not wanting to "waste" their votes on candidates who don't seem to have a chance of winning). Not everyone votes strategically, but the fact that many people do is evidence that they are voting to make a difference, not just to scratch an itch or satisfy a civic duty.

Knowing that one had helped to secure one or more victories (or helped stop such a bad loss) is simply to claim that one gains utility from contributing to a collective effort (Hinich 1981). That is okay as an empirical claim, but not as a defense of the rational choice approach. So, let us leave decisiveness. It has always been a red herring. (Dowding 2005, 452).

Isn’t it to say that one gains utility from contributing to a collective effort actually indicates that every vote counts? Cause the collective utility can only be brought upon, if those individuals, who voted, voted in the same manner.

Dowding claims that if real costs deter people from voting, those deterred will tend to come from the less educated, poorer social classes and those with disabilities.

He further goes on to say is that, “Some people have claimed that richer people will vote less since the opportunity costs of voting are lower. But, this assumes that richer people are less likely to take leisure time since they can earn more in their leisure hours than poorer people. This is simply false. Often wage-earners can earn overtime whereas the salaried do not receive more money for putting in longer hours, especially later in their careers (earlier it may lead to promotion). Furthermore, as Downs points out, if time must be taken off work to vote, wage-earners may lose money, but the salaried not.”

The issue with the above mentioned quote is that he takes a very Anglo-American approach to his finding. It is quite the reversal in a developing country like India. Turnout percentages of poor and rural voters are significantly higher than the average Indian turnout. The poorer-social classes and the poor will come out to vote more because they need a representative to voice them. There is more rationality for a person of poor means to vote, than one that has a better source of income.

Spending patterns and outcomes that are particularly skewed towards special interests and are particularly incompatible with the interests of the poor are puzzling, since the poor in India tend to vote more than the middle class or the rich, villages more than cities, and lower castes more than upper castes [Yadav, 2000].

Hence, the failure of democratically elected governments to provide adequate services to the poor cannot be explained by lack of participation of the poor in the political process. It must hinge on the nature of that participation.

But as we have early mentioned about cost benefits, is the poor vote creating certain instability as they may not vote wisely cause of a possible lack of education? Although, what really is a wise vote? The mere fact that a person votes, depending upon different factors, cannot indicate if the vote is wrong or right. It is only a vote. So for one to claim that another voted wrong, is an invalid argument as they may differ in their ideologies, but in turn it was a rational thing for that person to vote in such a way.

There is a deeper reason for one to vote and the manner in which they vote. According to Dowding, “People do feel an obligation to vote. They enjoy expressing their preferences, especially when ideologically committed. They are aware that their vote is not likely to be decisive, but do want to try to help their side, especially when they think the election is important.” (Dowding 2005, 453).

There is no obligation to vote. Dowding continues to play the role of voting as a duty. It is not the duty of a citizen to vote. The very fact that one does not vote, whatever be the reason, makes it democratic in nature.

Critics of rational choice theory, of course, have had a field day arguing that rational explanations of human behavior are invalidated by the obvious fact that millions of people do vote, despite its being irrational to do so. The critics are, quite rightly, not swayed by arguments that voting is rational because people feel they have a "duty" to go to the polls. After all, why would it be rational believe you have a duty to do something that makes no difference? Duty-based explanations don't rescue rational choice theories of voting; they just add another layer of irrationality to the mix. (Ilya Somin, 2005).

If we can consider for a moment, that it is irrational to vote, can the same be said, that it is rational not to vote? The very argument that the probability of your single vote to count is negligible makes it perhaps a paradox in its own right. A single vote may not count, but a collection of these votes make up for the elections. So, even though the margin of victory is not by a single vote, the probability of the person you elect into office has a higher chance of winning, if you do vote.

Richard Tuck argues that individual voters can cause an electoral outcome, even when their votes were not necessary to cause the outcome, because their votes have a chance of belonging to the “causally efficacious set of votes.” The causally efficacious set of votes is the subset of votes needed to win the election. Suppose that 10,000 people vote for A and 3,999 people vote for B. If so, 4,000 votes for A were necessary for A’s victory; the other 6,000 votes were superfluous. Four thousand votes is the causally efficacious set of votes – these are the votes that won the election. The probability that a random voters’ vote formed part of the causally efficacious set is 40%. (Jason Brennan, 2009)

A person will vote only if the rewards depending on their vote are greater than the costs of their voting: pB > C, where p is the probability of someone’s vote being decisive, B is the benefit gained through the voter’s favoured party winning, and C the cost of voting. But p is minuscule. (Dowding 2005, 442).

Dowding mentions that one of the ways that to change the nature of calculation is to change the p-term or get rid of it completely. He says there are six general approaches to this.

1. By suggesting that people do not understand the true p figure and so overestimate their decisiveness.

Now according to Dowding, Decisiveness does not enter into individuals’ decision framework when deciding to vote. This is true, we do not go into an election to vote, thinking whether are cote will be the decisive one. We although do go in to vote, hoping that our cast will help in the victory of our candidate. There could be a sense of overestimation here.

2. By using a minimax-regret criterion rather than expected utility calculation.

If the result in one’s constituency was tied, or lost by one’s side by one vote, then one would really regret not having voted. Given the low costs of voting, one votes. (Dowding 2005, 449). But if the claim, that every vote is not decisive, then is there a chance for regret? How many times will this even be the case as it has been mentioned that the chances of a single vote victory or loss is less probable than being hit by a bus on your way to the polling booth.

3. By using game theory to change the calculation of p

If no one votes, p will not be very small so it may be rational to vote. But, if everyone works out that they should vote then p will be very small (first noted by Downs 1957, 267). Models in which p is endogenously determined by the interaction of strategically minded voters can generate equilibria with high turnout rates (Palfrey and Rosenthal 1983), but once the assumptions of complete information about the preferences and voting costs of others are relaxed the high turnout falls (Palfrey and Rosenthal 1985)

If you wanted make your vote stronger, that could happen if you vote for the third-party. e. In U.S. races, people say vote splitting “spoils” elections because it can result in the second-most popular candidate getting elected. (If enough votes to the most-popular candidate were split or “stolen” by a third-party candidate). The phenomenon is documented in William Poundstone’s book Gaming the Vote. (Talwalkar)

4. By replacing expected utility theory with evidential or conditional expected utility calculations.

Dowding asks why Grafstein should want to defend CEU as ‘rational’. More generally, why should we want to try and defend the voting act as a rational one? And, it is not just rational choice writers who wish to do that. The question here is, why not? Why shouldn’t we consider voting a rational choice? Why shouldn’t it be a question of rationality? Dowding takes Grafstein’s analogy -- I wish to meet a colleague before he reaches work and know that he has only two possible routes by which he may walk. I know that my colleague has very similar tastes to myself, and therefore it seems sensible to wait on the route that I would walk myself if I were faced with the same journey. Dowding says that this analogy fails. Well, yes the probability is only 50 per cent here. The probability cannot be increased by walking in the path which you think your colleague may or may not take, but there is as said a 50 per cent chance of walking into him. This a 100 per cent more chance than not taking any of the routes at all. In the same manner, it could be indentified that it would be rational to vote than not to vote.

5. By using adaptive behaviour models

Dowding concludes on adaptive behaviour models that we may see conditional expected utility models, or adaptive behaviour models, not as rational explanations of human behaviour, but rather as unthinking rules that organisms use because they are successful strategies for their genes. Actions that correlated with ‘success’ last time are reinforced, but success is just happenstance and is not caused by most actions. (Dowding 2005, 451). Dowding boils down success to chance, but the question is how much is the chance. In a closed election, one may have a feeling his vote will be a successful one as his candidate has a very high chance of winning. But another question that can be raised is that, if he knew his choice had a very strong chance, would he then take the effort to vote? And so could his vote be decisive if others like him thought the same.

6. By claiming no one cares if they are decisive.

Patrick Dunleavy has suggested in various unpublished writings, people want to ‘have a useful effect’. The problem for this answer is that the useful effect is one vote, and one vote does not a safe seat make. Wheresoever one puts the margin of victory, at one vote, or a large majority, the one vote that each voter makes is only one. (Dowding 2005, 452). Why do most political scientists take such an individualistic approach? Yes, one man, one vote and that is all you get. But what about collective action? Collectively people will have a useful effect. Dowding of course take the analogy of piles of stones and if we remove one stone, it will not stop being a pile of stone. In the same way we can talk about votes. So perhaps your vote is not decisive if taken away and nor does it become a decisive one. But collectively it becomes an important instrument.

We may not be able to answer in complete universal satisfaction to why people vote and why people vote in one manner and the other in another. We can also not answer if it is a rational or irrational act as it is duly said by Leo Ornstein is that, “the point between rationality and what we would call the irrational is a very difficult point to establish. There's no specific line, as you know.”

Dowding concludes his paper aptly with this quote: The lesson to be learned is that when examining human motivation—which is what the ‘why vote?’ question is about—we need to delve properly into human psychology and not simply try to make it fit with some predetermined modeling techniques, no matter how useful those techniques are at answering other questions. For that reason, the ‘why vote’ question may not be properly a part of political science—unless it is a branch of political psychology. (Dowding, 2005, 455)

Dowding may push out the question of pre determined modeling technique by saying that the question to why vote is not part of political science. Perhaps this is true, but the question is an important aspect to the political school as a whole and thus important to political science as well.

People vote because it gives them a positive utility and this acts like a social welfare and not an individual one. Voting is not an individual phenomenon; it is in fact a social benefit. There may be selfish wants and desires for a particular candidate to win but all in all, there have to be others voting the same way, for one’s desires to be fulfilled.

Untitled 21

“No one ever lacks a good reason for suicide.”

-- Cesare Pavese

Before we look into the psychology of a suicide bomber and why an individual or a group will take such drastic step. It would be better understanding if such mission is cowardice or an act of bravado? Here is a question that cannot be answered.

On one side, a suicide mission may look as an act of cowardice. An individual or group killing several other innocent people so as to gain some sort of moksha. On the other hand, in some cultures, it is a sign of bravery. Palestinian mothers send their sons to ‘freedom fighter’ camps and feel proud that their child will be dying for a cause.

Now if we draw back to the question or questions, why would someone take such drastic step as to commit a suicide bombing? What exactly does the signaling? Is it the dying, the killing, or both? ‘Propaganda by deed’ has traditionally been achieved by killing, so is the killer's death in a SM aimed at conveying a message just a cost incurred to carry out more efficient killing, as in SMM, or does it add something to the communicative efficacy of the mission? Would 9/11 have had the same impact had it been a non-suicidal mission? These are questions asked by David Gambetta in Making Sense of Suicide Missions.

With Jihad becoming as popular as the terms Coke, Pepsi and candy, suicide missions have become highly signified in propagandizing a clandestine organization’s mission. But I fail to understand if it really is the idea of 72 virgins, hell why would someone want to teach 72 of them is beyond me, and achieving heaven that actually motivates one to take such action.

It probably is more a mental whitewash that creates these individuals. The number of suicide bombers is quite low as compared to other methods of terrorism activities. The religious and ideological affiliations of the SM groups are also far from uniform. While no religion apart from Islam is directly involved in SM groups, Islam-inspired missions account for only 34.6 per cent. (David Gambetta, Making Sense of Suicide Missions).

Why people do things to do may not be rational or logic to us all, but there is enough rationality and logic to them to do these acts. A. B. Yehoshua concludes it aptly, saying, “The weapon of suicide bombing is so desperate that you aren't even left with the possibility of taking revenge or punishing anyone; the terrorist is killed along with his victims, his blood mixing with theirs.”

Untitled 20

Becoming a terrorist? What would one describe as to how an individual would be lead to joining a clandestine outfit? Is every case individual in nature or are there possible similarities between those who become the face and body of terror.

Some of the most bizarre findings have been those of Lombroso’s attributions of explanations in terms of vitamin deficiencies to explain bomb throwing; psychiatrist David Hubbard who proposed faulty ear functioning as a common among terrorists (I had a hearty chuckle on this one.); and most impressively of all: Paul Mandel, a biochemist …having studied inhibitory effects of gamma amino butyric acid and serotonin on violence in rats, extrapolated his findings on terrorism. (Andrew Silke, Terrorists, Victims and Society: 10)

The first and foremost argument is psychological. But could a psychopath have enough mental balance to work out some of the most ruthless, and if I might say, at times the most intelligent operations. One thing is for sure, these terrorists and not psychopaths.

The 92 Bombay Riots and the 93 Bombay Blasts were a terrible ordeal on a personal level. I was only six years old back then but I clearly remember a few standout incidents and how they will forever remain in my memory.

The movie Black Friday by Anurag Kashyap is based on these blasts and how the Bombay police worked towards catching those involved. One incident shows of a restaurant owner who was taken into custody cause some of the terrorism plots were etched in his restaurant. The police hassled him and tortured him for a few days before letting him go. He was so scared that once he reached home he took his wife and two kids and told them they were going to the temple.

Once he got there, he parked his car and shot his wife and two kids and then himself. The youngest daughter, who was perhaps only six years old as well back then, did not die immediately. She suffered and died in the hospital a few hours later. I knew this man and my father and him were good acquaintances.

Now till date, no one knows whether he was involved or not. But one must wonder what his state of mind would have been to wipe out his family. How would have another person reacted. Would it be possible to say that if he was not involved, he would have gotten involved after the atrocities he faced from the hands of the authorities?

The choice you make is not the easiest thing. Some parts of the world will have rejoiced if their sons join a terrorist outfit or rather freedom struggle in their terms. While other places, boys will be forced to join an organization against his will. Whatever be the reason, us as society will never understand them but will continue to comment as we do on things we don’t understand.

Untitled 19

For Richa...

This was far beyond my compassion
As I ambled across with gentle steps
To a world filled with controlled emotion
This had been like any other daybreak
A day that had come by and gone by
Leaving me a little bruised and bitter
But at dusk I was just another happy soul
Waiting for your words to set my tone
It was a long time ago, like yesterday
That you told me to go out and find love
Alas, it was not what I was looking for
But love did come, for a second more
Then it left as soon as I loved back
I am though still standing here
Hoping for love to return my call

Untitled 18

Abstract

The main object of the essay was to find out what modern day Pakistanis think about the everlasting Kashmir issue and the rest of the world. The idea was to understand their thought process on how they looked at an issue as compared to people from across the border in India. The purpose of this was to document whether the youth of Pakistan had a differing view from those of the past. It was also important for understanding their viewpoint, so that it can be related to those from India and how similar or different to both countries’, the observations were.

I interviewed two Pakistanis currently living in Pakistan via an email-based interview. This was perhaps a draw back as a one on one would have been more appropriate. But, as that was not a possibility, this was the second best option. I also did not want to have any gender discrimination, so interview one from each sex. This was to help determine whether they thought differently. The interview was set up via the help of a social networking site. The interview format was in question and answers but there has also been a chat as that provides a better understanding of the interviewee’s viewpoint. To have a counter view though, I got reactions from Indians on their views and thus created a dialogue for me to evaluate and comprehend the similarity and difference of the people across both borders.

The results observed indicated that although they were fed up with the hatred between India and Pakistan and hoped for a better and peaceful existence, none of the four interviewees would want their country to lose on the issue of Kashmir. The findings could though reflect that the people from both countries do not want to continue fighting and blaming each other for what happened 62 years ago. It was time to move on and move forward. The limitation of the findings was that this was the views were of people from a more financially substantial background than those of middle or lower class person. This limits the findings as it does not give an all round perspective of the questions that were asked. Social class plays an important role on how one thinks.

The conclusions drawn were that although there was a similar understanding of the problem from both sides, there was still a hint of banter that would never cease to exist.

A Pakistani viewpoint via an Indian.

“You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of the individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

-- Mohammed Ali Jinnah, his first address to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi on 11th August, 1947.

Now this speech has been criticized albeit in private, since Jinnah was above criticism by religious divines, confessional sects and right-wing political parties because of its opposition to the creation of an ‘Islamic State.’ (Tariq Ali 1983, Can Pakistan Survive? New York: Verso Editions)

These criticisms were not unwarranted. Pakistan was the culmination of the struggle for a Muslim Nation. If this was the case, then an Islamic State would have been an appropriate and perhaps a valid choice for Pakistan’s constitution. Jinnah fought for a separate Muslim state, but if his speech was anything to go by, then it could have been in the same context for a United India as well.

But why would Jinnah consider the secularism of the new State of Pakistan? Jinnah was more British in his outlook than a katar Muslim. When he spoke about the future shape of Pakistan's constitution he envisaged a democratic system based on social justice and fair play as taught by Islam: "I do not know what the ultimate shape of our constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state -- to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." (Radio talk in February 1948, Speeches of Mr. Jinnah)

Both India and Pakistan have been plagued by a common phenomenon. A phenomenon that is perhaps never going to go away. Neither from the memories nor from the very hearts of the people.

We all know the history between the two countries and it has been united or rather disunited by the Kashmir Valley. But these 62 years of hatred, how long does one think it may go on?

The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union formally signed by Maharaja Hari Singh and supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the acknowledged leader of Kashmir, though constitutionally and politically valid, did not end the uncertainty over the final status of the State mainly for three reasons. First, the accession was subject to a reference to the people of the State. Second, the issue of the future of the State was internationalized as it was referred to the United Nations Security Council for a peaceful settlement. Third, a war had to be waged to clear the State of invaders. (Balraj Puri, Kashmir Towards Insurgency, Orient Longman)

Since 1947, there have been three major wars, one minor war and thousands of skirmishes between India and Pakistan, the first one being in 1947, second in 1965 after Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar was retaliated by India. The five-week war came to an end after UN mandate and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration. The 1971 war was the only one that was not about Kashmir but East Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh. The last conflict came in 1999, which was also known as the Kargil War.

Now, if we look at this from an Indian perspective, the simple scenario goes like this: Pakistan infiltrated into India and in response India, to defend its sovereignty, retaliated. Pakistan on the other hand will have a different response, but facts cannot be altered. Wrong, fact can be altered according to the whims and fancies of leaders and nations.

It is all about perspective and how one sees the issue. Kashmir is looked at from both India and Pakistan from different angles. When, a young Pakistani girl was asked about Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, her response to that was, “I’ve never heard of such a place. There is Kashmir and Indian Occupied Kashmir.” It is quite strange to see how different the perspectives are across the border. There is an understanding that history is taught by those in power and it is a wonderful phenomenon on how different people see the same thing, differently.

Farrukh Shafiq, a Pakistani national, in his early 20s, was asked what the best possible solution for Kashmir was. His answer was, “Kashmiris be granted their fundamental right to self-determination. As long as India keeps denying the Kashmiri people this right, there cannot be lasting peace in the Subcontinent.”

Rabia Zaid, also from Pakistan, has similar understanding and shares the sentiments of Farrukh. She think the best possible solution with Kashmir can be to make it an independent country or a state with complete autonomy, with a Muslim majority the people should be allowed to live according to their own will. But at same time believes that this may not be possible and the Kashmiris should be allowed to choose between India and Pakistan.

Now put this same question to an Indian. Harish Prabhakaran’s response to the answer was, “Kashmir is part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which in turn is part of India. The only solution is that Pakistan stops funding terrorists and start worrying about protecting their borders from the Taliban.”

A more nationalistic, if you could say, Indian, Vimal Anand responded, “Kashmir is India’s and that is how it should remain. Hell, we should even go and get back the part that they stole from us.”

Both look at the same question in absolute opposite ways. There is so much as a blame game being played here by all four individuals, some just more subtly than others. When people in India today want to talk about the recent past, they say, ‘Since Independence….’ Referring to the same period, Pakistanis invariably say, ‘Since partition…’ (Hugh Tinker 1967, India and Pakistan, A Political Analysis, Pall Mall Press.)

When asked about Partition and whether they think Pakistan would have been in a better state if it had been part of India, Farrukh replies, “Absolutely not, on a personal level, without partition I would have always been a minority, an untouchable, a second class citizen in India. The greatest gift my grandparents gave me was that of migrating to Pakistan. I feel stronger as a person from the inside knowing that those who are ruling this country are members of the same faith as me. Had I been living in India, I would have always felt as if the country didn’t truly belong to me, that I was only a foreign guest, a guest in my own country.”

Strange, in all his responses to this question, the one that talks about the ruler as one of same faith. How is that a justified argument? Yes, that of same ideas and thinking may be one, but how does one feel stronger in being ruled by someone of same faith. If that be the case, then how is Jinnah called the Quad-i-Azam (Great Leader). Jinnah was more British than Muslim.

Jinnah’s untimely death in 1948 was perhaps not untimely at all. He suffered from tuberculosis and this was known to very few people. It has also been mentioned in many books that Jinnah consumed alcohol, which is forbidden in Islam.

But what would Jinnah have said, to see his country, the way it presently is. Would he wanted have partition to be overturned. Well, 62 years hence, this is perhaps one of the most unlikely scenarios. Both Rabia Zaid and Farrukh Shafiq are against partition being overturned, just like a majority of those in Pakistan. They think that India has yet to come in terms with creation of Pakistan and that they have their own identity. Farrukh says, “What is disturbing for me is that Pakistanis have moved past the issue of Partition, my generation is not bound to it, for us Pakistan's identity has nothing to do with that of India's, and yet questions such as these which are often asked by Indians shows that Indians have yet to move past the Partition and recognize Pakistan is an independent country whose existence has nothing to do with India's. Questions such as these suggest (and that might not even be the intention) make us feel as if Indians have not been able to accept our existence and this alarms Pakistanis and leads to bitter sentiments.”

The same questions were put to Indians. They had similar responses when it came to overturning of partition. Vimal said, “Why would I want partition to be overturned. Those in Pakistan wanted to leave and they have. Now what they suffer is their own problem. I think the only thing I would have loved to see if partition was overturned, to watch Sachin Tendulkar and Wasim Akram in the same side (cricket).”

All said and done, can there ever be amicable relationships between the two countries? Countries that have been known to hate each other, or is this just a creation of a few bad men? So what do our interviewee’s think is the best possible solution to improve relationships between both the countries? According to Farrukh Shafiq, “There can be amicable relations between Pakistan and India provided India commits itself to treating Kashmir as a serious problem whose solution must be found on an urgent basis and Pakistan on the other hand commits itself to reciprocate by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure which has emerged as a result of the Kashmiri conflict. Unless there is sincerity on the parts of both countries (India being sincere to not just talk about Kashmir but to actually finalize a peace settlement and Pakistan being sincere to not deny the terrorist infrastructure but to actually go about implementing it), there will not be peace in our part of the world.”

It is a very simple and just view but one that unfortunately both States would agree with behind closed doors but never in the open. Rabia Zaid has perhaps more detailed views of the situation being an International Relations student herself and presently working with Daily Times in Lahore. “I definitely think so, although both the countries are based upon different ideologies, Pakistan and Israel are the only two countries in the world which were made for the reason of religion. But it is upon the people of both countries, if they want a healthy prosperous relationship with each other. Reason being we speak the same language, have the same culture and so many other things. As Pakistan treats Bangladesh as a separate country and does not want it back, India should do the same. The purpose for which Pakistan was created holds a very key value for the future of this world, and so much more. The corrupt politicians on both sides of the border should not be allowed to manipulate the will of people which is that we want peace between the two neighbors. We want free borders where Indians come into Pakistan and vice versa. The reason this traveling back and forth is so important is because it can remove so many biases we have towards each others. For instance a lot of Indians think Pakistan is Afghanistan or Iran, well Pakistan is not either of these. Pakistan has a high literacy rate; women are not subjugated as the west believes, although variations do exist, Pakistan does not have a cast system, and so many other things.”

On the lighter front she says, “Pakistanis love Indian movies. We girls in Pakistan love John Abraham (Indian Film actor), the same way an Indian does or maybe better. But one thing which saddens me is that the Indian media is not as free as the Pakistani media, there are shows on Pakistani television after the media revival of 2007, where Indians are represented as educated, liberated and a nation which wants change, but somehow Pakistanis are not represented as that in India. Well I am sure there are streaks of illiteracy, cruelty, terrorism in Pakistan but well that's not the majority. The majority is a bunch of people who are known for their hospitality, their strong fondness for learning what is happening in the world, they want peace.”

Would it be right to simply put it this way- Pakistan does not hate India and vice versa? Unfortunately, it is not as simple as this. There is hatred for each other and there is also love for one another. Vimal Anand, an Indian student studying in Manchester, says, “Personally, I don’t hate Pakistan or its people, but I don’t like their government. The problem is that Pakistan is too unstable, and this is a threat for India. I had a friend who went to Pakistan to watch the Cricket when they hosted India. And he said the Pakistani people were kind and warm and it felt just like home away from home.”

They do of course have a major ally in America. One may see this partnership - as any -as one of mutual understanding of one’s self interest. Farrukh admires America for its values. Unfortunately, he says, America has been failing to live up to those same values which made it a great nation and were its trademark. As a result of its imperialist wars, America might have won military victories lately but has been losing morally. The Obama administration came into office promising change. Hillary's efforts in engaging the civil society of Pakistan on her last visit here makes me believe things will change for better.

Rabia, on the other hand sees it as a platonic relationship. “America only does what is good for them. The only reason I see them allying with us is cause of the strategic location of Pakistan.”

At present, probably the most vital and perhaps the major problem for Pakistan is Islamization of their country by the Taliban. According to an Associated Press article, a top Pakistani Taliban commander said that he has sent thousands of fighters to neighboring Afghanistan to counter the influx of new American troops.

"Since Obama is also sending additional forces to Afghanistan, we sent thousands of our men there to fight NATO and American forces," Wailur Rehman told AP in a face-to-face interview in Shaktoi, South Waziristan, part of Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal area near the Afghan border. (Associated Press, 23rd December, 2009)

What does Pakistan’s youth think about the Afghanistan situation? What comes across is a natural bonding between the two people. Farrukh looks at the situation with a positivist attitude He says that the Afghanistan situation has been a blessing in disguise for left-wing liberals such as himself. “For years, we had watched worryingly the growth of madrassahs all across our country and especially in the northern areas. These Saudi-sponsored schools of hatred and the brutal legacy of Zia-ul-Hal had Islamized our society and led to intolerance, hatred, etc. The mess in Afghanistan led to conflict within Pakistan including a civil war with the militants. But this was something we left-wing liberals had been praying for a very long time. Right now there are dark times in Pakistan, but as they say the night is always darker before the day,” says Farrukh.

The real challenge he says is how the Pakistani Army eliminates the militants from the northern areas who want to Islamize their society but at the same time keep secretly supporting the freedom fighters in Kashmir, because if Pakistan abandons its support to the freedom fighters and takes off that pressure, India will never be serious about working with Pakistan to find a just settlement to Kashmir which is in the benefit of all concerned and which ends the abuses of the Indian army and the human rights violations that occur daily in occupied Kashmir.

Vimal was quite outraged by Farrukh’s last comments. He goes on to say, “Pakistan needs to check their priorities and first trying to solve their own internal problems, before going on about Kashmir. They face more danger from the Afghanistan side and this is a grave problem for not only them, but India and the rest of the world as well.”

Rabia Zaid believes that Pakistan has shot themselves in the foot with the Afghanistan situation. According to her, Pakistan was kind enough to help the Afghan refugees, but believes that conquering the Afghans is just not possible. “The Afghans are bitter fighters; they have no education, no freedom, and no infrastructure. All they know is War and Fight. On the other hand, Pakistan knows about the costs of war, human rights and the luxury that comes when not fighting. We don’t want to lose our lives but the Afghans can risk anything because they have none.”

On July 7, 2008, the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan was attack by suicide bombers. There are intelligence claims that there was an involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) being involved in these bombings.

India has been heavily investing in Afghanistan, building dams and roads. In an article in The Hindu on July 9, 2008, just two days after the Kabul Bombings that killed 58 people and injured 141, there is a quote from a sermon given at the Jamia Masjid al-Qudsia in Lahore, by Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. He charged India with following a plan of destroying Pakistan. “India,” Saeed continued, “is building dams on rivers flowing into the country. On the other hand, it is establishing training centres in Afghanistan where it is teaching its agents how to carry out terrorist acts in Pakistan. While our rulers insist that we should have good relations with the Afghan government, India is imposing wars upon us. Still, our rulers, pursuing a policy of unilateral friendship under foreign pressure, have promised the world we will not fight with India.” (Praveen Swami, July 9, 2008, The Hindu).

This is a much skewed way of looking at a scenario and how interpretations can vary. Our two interviewees were asked about India and what were their views on their neighbour – the people and the government. Rabia Zaid said that the Pakistanis were not fond of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and other such Hindutva parties like the Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). “We are although fond of the congress (Indian National Congress). I think it is best if the congress are in power in India. I think it is high time, actions be taken from both sides,” she adds.

As for the people, Rabia sees Indians as fun loving people. “They love dancing, arts, and movies and are intelligent. Also Pakistanis think that Indians are simple people and don’t spend crazy money over bling like the Arabs or the Pakistani's.”

Farrukh Shafiq has similar views when it comes to Indians. He says, “The general and my personal belief is that countries and not people go to war. The war between Indian and Pakistan is between the states and not between the people. Everyone in Pakistan wants a just settlement of Kashmir and doesn’t want to keep waiting for it. At the same time, there is a lot of love for the Indian people, for Bollywood, for Indian cricket, etc. On the level of the masses, there is far greater love for Indians in Pakistan than there is love for Americans.”

Lastly, more than understanding the outside world, how do they see Pakistan? This perhaps was a difficult question but both the interviewee’s look at the present situation with perhaps not positive eyes, but surely a positive look into the future.

Farrukh Shafiq puts it quite nicely, “Pakistan is a survivor! In our short history, we have survived three wars with an enemy country ten times our size, we have survived Bhutto's nationalization, Zia's Islamization, the 90s nuclearization, we have battled and fought with dictator after dictator in our history, we made the last one return back to the barracks just last year, we have survived one corrupt civilian leader after another, we have survived an earthquake which shook us to the core, have survived the aftermath of 9/11, I mean you name anything which could have happened to us and chances are that it did, but through it all, we have always survived and prospered as a nation, so if anyone thinks that we will let Pakistan fail as a state after all that we have endured for it, just needs to take a look at what all we have already fought along the way.”

India and Pakistan may not see eye to eye on many a thing and have fought several wars against each other, but the people of both countries, are well, fed up with a skirmish that started over 60 years ago. It is about time, we forgot the past, and looked into a brighter future. The doxa has to change, and change for the better.