Pissed Off Paki

To the Indians

2008-05-14T11:46:00.002-04:00

I think it's hilarious that Indians still think of Pakistan as the enemy, when it's clear we don't even stand a chance anymore. This isn't the 60's when we actually had some semblance of military prowesses, we're nothing more than a nuisance factor at this point. Besides, we have better things to worry about, like our own terrorism issues, political struggles and volatile economy being hammered by the high price of oil.

I would argue that Naxalites are probably a more strategic threat, seeing how they've started to go after something very critical to India - infrastructure. The recent attacks on the Essar facilities is a dangerous sign, seeing those type of facilities are crucial to India becoming the economic power that it wants to be.

That's not to discount the tragedy that are these attacks and the recent ones that was have been perpetrated by "Islamofascists" or whatever you would like to call them. I'm not naive to think that the ISI never supported the groups and used them to perpetrate proxy wars in J&K, and even in the heart of India up to the middle of this decade. Let's not however forget that RAW does provide support to Baloch insuregency, and that's completely fair - it's all about realpolitik. However, at this point, Pakistan is reaping the consequences of such a sort-sighted policy (like violence legitimized by religious rhetoric isn't going to end up in your own house, seriously), and frankly, the army might as well deserve the recent attention they've been getting from their estranged offspring.

I don't know why, but I just get pissed when people scream Pakis or muslims at every bit of terrorism, when more Pakis and muslims have been victim to it these last few years. Then again, I love going to muslim forums and try to get them to admit there is a problem in the community where violence against civilians is considered acceptable in some circumstances.

Sometimes I really question the two-nation theory, seeing how the 500 million muslims in the subcontinent might have been a large enough population that would make it difficult to oppress, and then I read about Godhra and see Hindu leaders admit on camera they had free rein, and smack myself on the head. Then I see a Pathwardhan film and think maybe we're just fucked in the head and just need to really stop giving a crap about emotions like pride and take the Marsellus Wallace approach.

I'm just ranting now.

A Letter to the President

2008-02-02T06:51:00.000-05:00

A faint smile came across our faces on that day in October 1999. While this marriage was thrust upon us with the nikah being read over military loudspeakers, we did not protest it. As we learned of your non-feudal and middle class background, growing up with a learned civil servant for a father, and a mother who worked for a global institution, we were filled with a sense of hope that perhaps you would be modern and sane. As you brought in a team of technocrats, with actual and relevant experience to their cabinet portfolios, we accepted that perhaps you would be in fact be better than your abusive civilian and military predecessors. As the honeymoon ended, we expected some of your hidden qualities to emerge, which first reared their head in 2002, undoubtedly resulting in your supposed idol, Ataturk, rolling in his grave. But we ignored it, as you placated us with a larger monthly stipend, and we ran off to buy ourselves something pretty. As you insulted and slandered the victims of our tribal jirgas and justice system to the Western media, we rationalized it as eccentricity and as passionate commitment to defending our family. Last March, we saw a striking example of your jealousy and your possessive side, and we waited for it to die down. Alas, your condition only worsened, and while we attempted counselling with Dr. Rice, we weren't too thrilled at her suggested stop-gap solution of introducing a mistress into the equation. Your jealousy reached new bounds when you refused to let us talk to anyone about your behaviour, and insisted we always believe your side of the story. Then you started locking us in the basement, which you laughably insisted was for own safety, perhaps wishing we would fall victim to Stockholm syndrome. Now, as you let us out to demonstrate to the neighbourhood that you are no tyrant, there are sadly only three words left in this marriage – talaq, talaq, talaq.

And here we go again

2007-08-30T02:30:00.000-04:00

A little primer from a pissed off Pakistani.

Bhutto will get control over domestic affairs, Mush and the military will control defense and foreign policy. The military will never hand control of the nuclear program to a civilian government because it just doesn't trust them - and as a Pakistani I couldn't agree more.

Bhutto is no savior - just another corrupt and power hungry politician. This would be her third term, and she still hasn't completed a full term. Keep in mind it was her father who made Pakistan an Islamic republic (it was always a secular republic until the late 70s - hell we have a deserted casino lying out on the beach in Karachi). He brought it under the guise of Islamic socialism, and nationalized everything, including education (of course my/Benazir's alma mater was excluded), setting us back 20 years economically - I will concede that industry was an oligarchy, but there were better ways of doing it. Plus, I always found a Berkley socialist from a major land owning family to be amusing.

Nawaz Sharif is no better - he's probably slightly worse because he'd be more willing to work with the Islamic parties if you take his most recent term into consideration. Plus he was big on censorship, though I think (and hope) that the media revolution in Pakistan has gone too far to reverse at this point, but you never know.

You think you Americans have it bad with Democrats and Republicans? Our choices are limited to extremely corrupt and incompetent politicians (Benazir and Nawaz), crazy politicians (Islamic parties) and a military dictator. If you study Pakistan's history, you'll see why we didn't complain for the last 8 years. We love looking at the bottom line, and a half decent dictator who let the media expand and let there be somewhat of a semblance of free speech, assisted by a team of technocrats that has outperformed previous civilian governments of the preceding decade isn't too shabby.

We'd love democracy, but we're not willing to make the sacrifice to our short-term bottom line. I guess a political equivalent of Ricardian equivalence needs to be incorporated into our civil society. But we'll need a civil society before we even get to that point.

Who's to blame for the state of our country?

2006-09-03T03:26:00.000-04:00

This is all our fault. No one elses.

We vote along stupid ethnocentric lines that allow politicians to do as they want. We reject the idea of democracy and allow military dictators. We think the only way to solve the problem is to make everything "Islamic" and that will solve everything. We don't vote at all. We don't expect any accountability because we've never had it. We sit and criticize the system and its corruption, but we happily pay bribes when it benefits us. We sit around and blame the CIA, RAW and the Jews for everything. We say the government doesn't do anything, while we do anything to avoid paying taxes. We refuse to invest money in our people, because we believe India is a bigger threat than illiteracy, poverty and disease. We allow foreign powers to dictate our policies so we can buy weapons. We sit and criticize the West for its immoral ways, yet we would run away there if we had the chance. We are willing to sacrifice long-term change for the sake of short-term stability. We are not willing to make a change, because it might negatively impact ourselves. We are not willing to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of society. Everyone is only worried about either their family, community, sect, job, business, factory, NA seat. Those that try to make changes only do so for the sake of their worldview - whether it be Islamic, liberal, socialist or whatever.

We all say it's the politicians, it's the military, it's the mullahs, it's the feudals, it's the business community, it's the Indians, its the Afghanis, it's Americans or the Jews. It's never us that is the problem. And thats the biggest problem of them all.

The Colour Complex

2006-07-17T03:51:00.000-04:00

I've always been aware of the South Asian fetish for fair skin, growing up watching Fair & Lovely ads, but today it really hit me. While browsing through a random cricket forum, someone linked an article from a semi-popular Indian filmi portal called Glamsham.com. I was shocked. Down in the fifth paragraph Rimi Sen has the audacity to state: "Rohit Shetty is amazing as a director. He can make even a black African look pretty". Its not just the statement that offends me - its also the fact that Glamsham saw it appropriate enough to print, and to my knowledge no retraction has been offered on part of Rimi or Glamsham. Worse, a simple Google search shows that the remark only raised outrage in a handful of media outlets - that too from internet outlets radiosargam.com, but the rest are syndicated from it too, such as the Himalayan Times and Sulekha.com

Its really shouldn't be that surprising - a simple look through various matrimonial sites confirms that fair skin is a considered a superior quality in the South Asian marriage market. I'm sure a fair(sic)number of us have heard the issue come up in our own lives whether through relatives or family friends. The recent arranged marriage lawsuit filed in Massachusetts partly charges that the bride-to-be was assured to be "equally beautiful with fair complexion" and turned out to be "ugly with dark complexion". The sad fact is that that the plaintiff is a retired environmental engineer who has been living in North America for the past 30 years. The same attitude prevails across religious lines, and even the level of education, and its far too common - for my liking atleast.

So where does it come from? At this point I'm just going to throw some wild ideas. One can take a full-blown historical approach and use the controversial (and now debunked?) Aryan Invasion theory to make a hypothesis: The Aryans came to India, and setup the caste system basing it on skin colour to retain their dominance over their Dravidian subjects, with the recent colonial experience reinforcing it. Ketan Mehta alludes to this in Lagaan, if I recall correctly, when Kachra the untouchable is rejected by the team, and Aamir Khan inserts skin colour into the caste argument in his dialogue. Or you could just blame it on the English, but I'm sure it can be documented prior to their arrival - please correct me if I'm wrong. Another theory could be that the various invasions of South Asia have historically come from the fairer-skinned inhabitants from the North and the West, and the feudals had formed a habit of colluding with them, and often adapting their customs and ideologies in the process. Muslims aren't off the hook either - an examination of Pakistani's subjugation of East Pakistan/Bangladesh shows that the West Pakistani elite often rationalized their behaviour on their own particular brand of race theory. In Emma Duncan's brilliant book Breaking the Curfew - A Political Journey through Pakistan (unfortunately no longer in print), she describes how the West Pakistanis saw their darker Bengali Muslim counterparts as contaminated with Indian blood, as opposed to their own fairer Persian and Arab lineages.

However, this is a complex topic, and there are also unanswered questions from my side - Is this just a North Indian phenomenon, or is skin colour a commodity in South India as well? Is it prevalent or practised in minority communities like Christians, Sikhs and Parsis as well? Has the problem been exacerbated by skin lightening creams and the media's propensity to prop up fair-skinned beauties, or is just a reflection of public demand and perception? How is the preference for fair skin in South Asia related to similar issues in other societies like Arabia, Africa and Latin America - are they all the products of different historical legacies, or essentially borne of Eurocentric standards from the colonial era? Additionally, I'd love if someone could point to some academic research in this area, so the discussion can proceed on concrete ground, rather than my own whacky hypotheses.

All I have to say is that I'll take Nandita Das over most (if not all) fair-skinned Bollywood actresses any day.

The Canadian plot - in defense of multiculturalism

2006-06-06T19:52:00.000-04:00

Its not multiculturalism.

There are 750,000 Muslims in Canada. Yet, this is the first indication of a real threat and plot. Why didn't their siblings and family members also become influenced by their jihadist mentality? They obviously maintained the culture too and did not assimilate. Hell, I would argue the older generation is probably less assimilated, than their kids who are atleast exposed to Canadian society for 15 years on a daily basis when they went to school. The suspects played basketball, went fishing - alleged mastermind even married a white woman. Even looking at the London bombing, Jermain Lindsay was freakin Jamaican. In this case you have a Hindu who converted, so its not like he brought the jihadist culture with him. Richard Reid is another example. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims kids who might disagree with all they see around them, but yet don't make that leap to violence and jihadism.

I blame the wahabis. See the post below.

Its the Wahabis, stupid - A Treatsie on Islamic Terrorism

2006-06-04T23:15:00.000-04:00

Look, its not about religion - its about an intepretation of religion.

All the terrorists bent on attacking global western targets come from or are highly influenced by the Salafi/Wahabi schools of thought. It all stems from Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where Afghanistan became a dumping ground for Islamic extremists. They were sent by their pro-American governments to support American interests. While there they obviously came in contacts with each other - JI, Abu Sayyaf etc all met with the highly Wahabi/Salafist Arabs who were fighting and establish philosophical common grounds when it came to how to engage Islamic revolutions in their respective countries. Thats why Algeria became such a shiathole in 90's even though everyone is Maliki - because those whackos got new ideas from the Wahabis that its ok to kill civilians and even Muslim civilians because they have been "corrupted".

To say its the whole religion is retarded. Traditional South Asian Islam is very different from Arab Islam - it has a lot of Sufi mysticism mixed in it, and Muslims and Hindus would cohabit shrines of several mystics. The history of Islam in South Asia was different because in most cases the Mughal rulers were quite tolerant (except for a few, especially Aurangzeb who was unquestionably a zealot who forced conversions). Southeast Asian Islam comes from Arab sailors and wasn't brought by force, and it mixes elements of animism and even Hinduism, sort of even producing IslamLite in a way. Its all comes from those farking Wahabis who farked everything up. Pakistan was not an Islamic state prior to the 70's. Alcohol and gambling were legal, cabarets and casinos operated freely and openly. It all really changed in the late 70's and 80's, with the entire Afghan operations. The Saudis (rich off all the oil money coming from the oil crisis)along with the CIA and ISI, funded the growth and of madressas all over throughout the country. Zia in turn supported the Islamisation of society for his own personal power and his beliefs. The curriculum was heavily Wahabi, which is the most rigid and retarded interpretation of the religion that I have ever come across. People don't realize that madressas have been the primary source of education in the subcontinent for Muslims for over 300 years, yet they only started producing terrorists in the last 20 years - the connection is obvious. Even Kashmir - it was hardly as violent in the 30 years following independance, but as soon the Afghan war end trouble begins. There were obviously a multitude of factors at play there (demographics, india not investing enough money in the economy, pakistan exploiting the situation), but the main jihadi component comes into play after this entire Afghanistan situation. Majority of global "Islamic" terrorists suscribe to the Wahabist ideologies. And the influx of this ideology affected not only regular people, but also religious groups who started becoming far more rigid, and even took upon an Arabization of Urdu (even when the language is much closer to Farsi in reality).

What we're seeing now in the London bombings and this plot is the exportation of this Wahabi/Salafist ideology through the internet. However, the problem also lies in the fact that the Saudis have been funding mosques worldwide ever since the oil crisis, and like IMF funding, it comes with conditions as to how the mosque leans in terms of its religious and political slant. Its this ideology that has permeated the young minds of a few Muslims, and it causing the most grief to people everywhere.

Now my understanding is that even if Saudi Arabia has stopped funding everything after 9/11, those informal institutions and networks it created that spread Wahabi thought, are very much alive. All the alliances created between fellow mujahadeen are very much alive. And thanks to the internet, they have an even larger audience, attracting confused, disconnected and generally crazy people to become foot soldiers in the war that they want to rage. Its not reforming Islam that has be done - its the weeding out of this backward, anti-modernist and highly dogmatic and rigid interpretation - hell I think perversion is a better term - of Islam.

Disclaimer:

I'm not blaming the US for creating this mess - they pursued a policy, and unfortunately it had side-effects and blowback, but thats how realpolitik is. But to simply say "Its the religion, stupid" is beyond retarded. Like any pheonomenon, Islamic terrorism is complex and its origins cannot be reduced to something as general as religion or culture, but must be examined through a historical lens.

Illegal Immigration

2006-05-23T19:58:00.000-04:00

Here's the draft for my immigration bill

Deporting the 12 million illegal immigrants is stupid because it will cost 100-200 billion dollars. Are you ok with tax increases and/or a larger fiscal deficit? I thought so.

Making illegal immigration a felony? Retarded, as that would triple the prison population to 18 million. Next please.

The only logical option is to have earned citizenship/amnesty/whatever you want to call it. If you have any criminal record - bye bye. If you've been in the country for > 5 years, just pay back taxes and a fine, get temporary worker status and go back to the end of the line waiting for your green card. If for less than 5 years, but > 2, then you have to go back to your country of origin, apply for a temp work permit, and your green card simulataneously. Been here less than 2 years - deported no questions asked. However - no temporary work permits to be issued to new people - only for those that have resided in the US for more than 2 years and have no criminal record + other background checks of course.

That being said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't secure the borders - yes build the wall and increase border patrol, and initiate deportation proceedings on a fast-track basis.

The next thing would be to target companies that hire illegal aliens, and impose loss of licenses, fines etc.

Next thing - eliminate country based quotas for immigration, and establish a simple points system like Canada and Australia. If you're educated, speak English, have work experience you get in. If there seems to be lack of unskilled manual labour, just lower standards, and adjust accordingly in the future - treat it as a steam valve for relieving pressure from time to time.

I think I should be a Senator.

On Racism and Superiority - a very short piece

2006-05-17T21:30:00.000-04:00

Every group feels superior deep down, whether they admit it or not. Its just human nature to see the world in 'us' and 'them' terms, down to the tiniest sub-groups possible, and to feel pride and to be defensive. We brown people are just as guilty as white people of prejudice (white people can't dance, are corny, have no culture, are clueless, have no morality) - its just that we haven't gotten to the point in history where we become the oppressor as opposed to the victim (due to geographical determinism ala Jared Diamond in my view). Its my opinion we all have the potential to be just as bad, when given the power to be, because after all, we're all humans.

Oh no! The Arabs are taking over our ports!

2006-02-24T01:27:00.000-05:00

This is just xenophobia at its best.

Dubai Ports will just be inheriting the contracts that P&O have had. Nothing will really be changed - the security protocols remain the same. Ultimately security rests with the Coast Guard and Customs, and the corporations comply with their requests. The company is managed by a amalgamation of Americans, UAE nationals and Indians. Nobody pays 6.8 billion dollars to let a couple of terrorists in - they're more concerned with rivaling Hutchinson Whampoa as the largest port operators. The Americans consider Dubai's ports safe enough to be the most frequently visited by US Navy ships, so its not about security. Foreign Operation of the port isn't particularly unusual - 80% of LA's port is managed by foreign companies - including China.

Besides, isn't the idea to reward moderate Arab states and increase ties with them? No, lets just act like all of them are terrorists, stop them from advancing their commercial interests, and then expect them to give their full co-operation in the War on Terror. Both parties, democrats and republicans need to be shot over this reaction, as this could a larger public relations disaster for Americans in the Middle Eats than Gitmo.

And to say that "Oh 2 of the hijackers were from the UAE (Abu Dhabi not Dubai) and money was wired through there" is a poor excuse. For that matter, P&O contracts should have been canceled right after 7/7, since the UK is a much larger base of terrorism and fundamentalism in general and all German purchases should be scrutinized since a lot of the 9/11 hijackers were based in Hamburg.

I'm particularly disgusted by the media. If you were watching CNN, you'd think that Hamas was being handed control.

About this cartoon business

2006-02-18T23:21:00.000-05:00

My take on all this: They're all hypocrites and stupid.

- Jyllands-Posten had issues with a cartoon with Jesus in it and did not publish it

- Anti-semitism is considered hate speech in France, but not Islamophobia

- Nowhere in the Quran does it say that depictions of the prophet aren't allowed. Its a tradition.

- Even if it did, this is not blasphemy, as Sharia only applies to Muslims

- The Prophet was insulted numerous times in his lifetime, but he didn't retaliate.

- The irony of it all is that the reason the prophet's depictions are not allowed by tradition is because of the fear of idolatry, but protesting so vehmently does just that.

- Peaceful protest is fair, but boycotting all Danish products is retarded. If anything they should boycott products that are advertised in that newspaper, so all the companies would then be forced to pull those ads, hurting the newspaper, not ordinary Danish citizens.

My Feelings on Religion

2006-02-18T23:09:00.000-05:00

Firstly, I must state that I am an agnost. I must say I am disenchanted by the idea of belief and faith - I'm an empiricist by nature, so no religion can really be "true" in my eyes. Its not just that too - I have issues with Islam itself. Perhaps my thinking is highly influenced by the western individualistic model, but I can' t accept that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's, especially when the rationale supplied by clerics is that women lose their sense of judgement when they menstruate, or have psychological problems (yet we let them peform something so demanding such as surgery). Nor can I accept that a non-Muslim is worth half in terms of testimony and blood money. And lets not even get into the certain portions concerning the conduct of war - how the winners may make slaves of the women, and are even allowed to copulate with them. Such things don't fit the morality of current times, and if religion and the Quran is for all times and ages, then its not for me.

Plus there's the issue of religious doctrine superseeding actions. I have a policy when it comes to this:

A God that judges you on your beliefs rather than your action, is a God not worth believing in.

Some Random Bullshit

2006-01-29T21:02:00.000-05:00

Please ignore.

Who the hell am I? Sometimes I just feel I'm an enigma. Am I really born with the hunger of material wealth in blood, or was my clean slate just polluted with dollar signs? Am I supposed to be the intellectual who postulates about issues larger than this infested planet of ours? WHy the hell do I think so much in the first place? Why do I find my self analyzing the behaviour of elevators and how to improve the embedded software when I'm just waiting for my bloody turn to come? Why did I even sit down and try to make sense of everything by writing it out? I should be unpacking my suitcases and get my shit in order while I wait for my groceries to be delivered, but no I must write a whole bunch of bullshit to satisfy my "soul". Whatever that means.

I have no training in writing, other than the advice dispensed from my English teachers which I long discarded. I attempt to write freely and just let it flow. I can't seem to get out of first-person; before I write from another's perspective I must understand and master my own. Most people don't do that in their lifetimes, so that will atleast save the public from my rudimentary musings hypothesizing about what it being someone else is like.

1:45 am

Im sipping a box of fruit punch that looks like it belongs in an elementary school cafteria, rather than a grown man's apartment. Its a testament to my legendary laziness, since I can't be bothered to get a half-gallon carton which I would have to actually pour into a glass. Thievery Corporation plays in the background as I wait for the sandman to come and put me out of my misery. Problem is that before the he usually comes, Mary Jane comes clears the path for him, and tonight it seems he'll have do all the work himself.

Thom Yorke comes on. Is there any voice more depressing than his? Don't get me wrong, I love Radiohead, but sometimes its makes me want to turn into one of those housewives who lock themselves into their room and disappear under the covers when their husband of 15 years forgets her birthday (inspired by Lois from Malcolm in the Middle). Its a live recording, so the applause at the song's conclusion only furthers my hunch that the crowd is comprised of those very same housewives - only the highly depressed could have been lifted by that reprisal.

Dre's "The Roach" comes on and taunts me. I can't take it anymore. Time to stare at the ceiling until it blends into oblivion.

Dubai Part I

2005-11-10T13:49:00.000-05:00

So I just got back from Dubai (hence the plethora of posts), and I am just bewildered at the fact that brown people can actually follow laws en masse, even when they form greater than 70% of the population. My theory until now had been that they only did in North America and the UK to be accepted by the majority goras (a term of endearment for white people) we love to bow down to, ever so subtly, but I guess rich Arabs fall under that pile as well. Yes I know that they actually enforce laws which are why they are followed, but then I wouldn't get to make retarded theories.

Dubai was a glimmer of hope, a small sign that coloured people can get it right in the 21st century - we just need to have the foresight to occupy a strategically placed port, make it a duty free zone, and finance development through our brotherly oil rich emirate and then open it up to anyone who is willing to work and invest. I say its still not too late to simply invade Dubai - both Pakistan and India have enough people already there to just overrun the locals in a matter of hours.

Dubai doesn't have just positives - what irked me was how "unproductive" the locals really are. Take this into consideration - when a local Dubai Emirati marries another local, the couple gets 70,000 dirhams as a marriage gift, a piece of prime real estate to build their house on and a 50,000 interest free loan (all that without ever paying a single dirham in taxes). But wait thats just the tip of the iceberg - every trading business requires a local sponsor and investor which basically means that you have to pay a local around 20,000 to 40,000 dirhams a year under whose name you can conduct your business. So all they have to really do is sign on the dotted line, and take care of small legal matters like business registration and they get paid - naturally any "enterprising" local could easily sponsor 10 - 15 businesses at a time, thus making a killing every year by virtually just lifting a finger.

If you know of any identity theft specialists and Arab language tutors who offer decent rates (I am desi after all) please let me know.

2005-10-29T13:22:00.000-04:00

Delhi markets rocked by blasts

So I decide to finally sit down and create a blog, and something to piss me off just lands straight on my lap. Delhi has just been victim to 3 blasts, in major markets on a Saturday evening just days before Diwali and Eid - easily the busiest time of the year. I have a couple of friends in Delhi and I hope they weren't affected by this tragedy. So far 48 people have been confirmed dead, and you can expect that to rise like in most disasters and attacks.

What makes it out of the ordinary is this wasn't the usual government target that has been typical of militants, both North Eastern and Kashmiri in the recent past(such as the Parliament attack of 2001 - which some insist was a RAW operation, but to them usually anything affecting Pakistan or Muslims negatively is a RAW or Mossad, or a RAW-Mossad operation - edit - I added the link after I had published the above line, since I read it on Pakistani forum, and it just proved my point), but directed at causing panic and fear among regular Indians. However, such a strategy is known to be the current domain of Islamic militant attacks, whether be it in London, Karachi or Bali.

So the inevitable question remains - if it is Islamic militants - how will this impact the current rapprochement between India and Pakistan, which had gained greater impetus since the quake? If this is traced directly back to Kashmiri militants from the Pakistani side (which I expect it to - whether it is a genuine connection or not probably won't matter), then will India insist they had clandestine Pakistani support as they have done so in past? Then what will happen to the proposed LOC border crossings and joint relief efforts?

My gut feeling says that the Pakistan army is too busy with relief operations, and the ISI probably have had orders to terminate any operations for the last couple of years, and these days Musharraf is too busy being pragmatic and conducting diplomacy to open up LOC crossings for the quake efforts. I hope the Indian establishment does not use this as an excuse to take the peace talks off track like what happened in 2001, because lets face it - I don't think even a Pakistani sporting a Talibanesque beard who prays for the Death of America before sleeping at night would condone this - and the ISI are better than that - I think (well I certainly hope so).

However, what this might do is give more credence to Saffronists in India - making life more difficult for Muslims there - which is probably counterproductive to the aims of the culprits of this attack, but I doubt they stopped to even consider that, let alone think in the first place.

And more importantly how will affect my maiden visit to India? I finally got my visa, but I'm restricted to Mumbai, and I have to report to a police station within 24 hours of arriving - all that even though I have the written recommendation from the co-Chair of India-Pakistan CEO's Business Forum! Here's to hoping I don't get thrown into the special jail for Pakis ! (oh I'm sure you guys have one - we certainly have one for you!)