5 comments about Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War.

1. This was one of the books I used for for my dissertation and it was certainly among the most useful sources I came across. In this book, Schofield gives a succint history of the dispute and then vividly describes how it has evolved over the past half century while presenting a detailed analysis of the many wars fought on both the military and diplomatic fronts.

   As an outsider and a neutral observer, Schofield very successfully presents a balanced viewpoint in describing both the Indian and Pakistani sides of the dispute. This, I felt, was very important because it is not common to come across a book on Kashmir which hasn't in any way been influenced by either side. Among the most important aspects of this book is the fact that Victoria Schofield has carried out a lot of field work research in Kashmir itself and gives a voice to the Kashmiri people, an extremely important source which is often ignored in similar research work carried out on Kashmir.

   I recommend this book highly to anyone who wants to use it for academic research work.




2. The author is a pan-Islamist, and hence is influenced by her friend the disgraced and corrupt Ms. Benazir Bhutto. Incidentally it was Bhutto's regime that supported the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence - a spying organization of Pakistan, that was radicalized by General Zia-ul-Haq) which made terrorism and Islam boil in the same cauldron. I don't believe that Ms. Schofield can be objective.
   
   The reasons are not hard to seek:
   
   1. Pakistan has no identity by itself. It is a failed and garbage state. Pakistan has thrived by its anti-India campaignand nothing else since 1947. If this anti-India (read anti-kafir) agenda vanished, Pakistan would simply collapse. The various parts: Sindh, Punjab and the NWFP are at each other's throats since Pakistan's inception. Islamic fundamentalists parties play a major role in the political process. Thus, how can the author (Ms. Schofield) base an "objective" account of the Kashmir insurgency - which has become a "Islamic problem" ? What Ms. Schofield cannot fathom is that how can a secular democratic republic (India), regardless of how imperfect it may be, can accept the theocratic demands of a separate state, to be governed by the Sharia law?
   
   2. The history of the "majority" (Muslims) in Kashmir is a relatively recent phenomenon. Kashmir has had its roots in the Hindu culture. Recently, the Hindus have been gunned down, killed, raped and brutalized beyond the pale of any sense by the Muslim terrorist groups like Harkat-ul-Mujahadeen, Lashkar-e-Toiba anbd Hizb-ul-Mujahadeen etc. The ethnic cleansing has changed the demographics; under the changed demographics achieved by ethnic cleansing it is possible to claim a "Muslim majority" state. If India allowws Kashmir to walk into Pakistan's lap, the the other Muslim-majority parts of India would be emboldened to engage in ethnic cleansing of non-Muslms and create a "dar-al-Islam" (Land of Islam). (In recent times, thanks to Al-Qaeeda this apparatus is very effective.) I cannot understand what moral obligation the author (Ms. Schofield) may have in propagating such "ethnic cleansing induced secession claims" as legitimate political demands ?
   
   In brief, the political status attached to Kashmir through the works of Ms. Schofield are disingenuous and polemical at best.



3. This book is a good read. It does show some very important highlights about the conflict.
   
   Dont read Kafir's comments. He sounds like a disgruntled hindu radical who only survive because of hating somebody. Kashmir is a part of India and I think should remain so.
   
   Kashmir is not based on any hindu culture. India itself was ruled by muslims for over thousand years. Kashmir was well liked by the emperors and has a deep history of muslims.
   
   The problem with India has been the fact that the first prime minister of India was a pandit himself and during independence he had an agenda of keeping Kashmir being a pandit himself. This has caused problems for over 60 years now.
   
   The Indian government made some wrong decisions as far as kashmir but also some wise ones. Kashmir has the highest concentration of troops per square inch anywhere in the world. The Indian army commits many crimes there as they are ones in power there. Many kashmir women are raped on a regular basis and innocent civilians killed. This happens even more because Indian army has more hindus in it and the kashmiri people are muslims. They see the kashmiri people not as indians but just some muslims. And because of this attitude you cannot blame the kashmiri people for wanting to have a separate state.
   
   I think instead of spending so much manpower and money on India, the Indian government should focus more on the terrorist organizations like RSS, VHP and SS. They are more trouble for our country's future.



4. There are numerous pages missing from this book. Pages 47-81 are missing. Pages 81-112 are repeated.
   
   Please send me a new book or refund my account.
   
   Thank you
   
   Bernadette Kilgore



5. A very detailed and dense account of the origin of the conflict and of the course it has taken up to 2003, when this second edition was published. It suffers from two drawbacks for those readers who are not already quite intimately knowledgeable: the first is the use of Indian words for administrative districts, titles etc. The Glossary lists only the many political organizations mentioned in the text (and that list is incomplete): it needs to be much more extensive and also to include abbreviations. The second is that, although there are nine maps, many places mentioned in the text cannot be found on any of them, and it takes time to look for them on all the nine maps.
   
   Victoria Schofield quotes conflicting statements made by various politicians, observers and in memoirs after the events, generally without committing herself to which is correct. Even so, what surely emerges from this account is that India has no real moral case and must bear the major responsibility for the troubles in Kashmir.
   
   The Sikh dynasty which was ruling Kashmir before 1947 was unpopular with the majority of its people, not only because 80% of the population were Muslim, but also because the dynasty was autocratic. The Maharajah would have liked to remain independent of both India and Pakistan (he naturally refused a plebiscite on the issue), but for the ten weeks following the independence of India and Pakistan, he took a number of steps which enraged his Muslim subjects: he disarmed the Muslim but not the Hindu troops that had served in the army of British India; and the Muslims then purchased arms from the Muslim tribesmen in the North-West Frontier Province. Soon these tribesmen staged incursions into Kashmir and forced the Maharajah to flee from Srinagar to the Hindu and Sikh heartland of Jammu. He appealed to India for help, and accepted the condition that he should first accede to India, so that India could claim to be defending her own territory. Indian troops then occupied two-thirds of the country, whilst the West and the Northern Areas came under Pakistani control, the West becoming known as Azad (Free) Kashmir.
   
   Nehru's family came from Kashmir and he was emotionally attached to it. The case went to the United Nations. Nehru was initially prepared to discuss partitioning the state, but the Pakistanis refused that: they claim that the whole state must be free of India. A UN Commission would side with India: the Maharajah's accession gave India the right to be in Kashmir. Since then India has always refused outside mediation between Indian and Pakistan on the grounds that Kashmir was a purely internal matter; and although occasionally there were meetings between the Prime Ministers of the two countries, they never achieved a solution. Pakistan claimed that a successful and popular revolution had driven the Maharajah from his capital before the accession, which was therefore illegitimate. For some time the Indians claimed to be in favour of a referendum, but the precondition for a fair referendum would have been demilitarization, and this the Indians steadily refused. In 1949 they effectively deposed the Maharajah and installed Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah (`the Lion of Kashmir'), a popular initially pro-Indian Muslim as Chief Minister; but in 1953 when the Sheikh's allegiance to India came under question, Nehru had him deposed, arrested, and replaced with one of the Sheikh's associates, who exercised a corrupt and unpopular dictatorship for the next ten years.
   
   Mrs Gandhi made the Kashmir Accord with the Sheikh in 1971, by which the Sheikh gave up all ideas of seceding from India in return for Kashmir being given a considerable amount of autonomy; and Kashmir entered its happiest and most peaceful decade: the Sheikh was popular with his fellow Muslims but followed a secular policy which did not threaten the Hindu minority. Before he died in 1982, he nominated his son Farooq as his successor; but after his accession Mrs Gandhi wanted to assert more control over Kashmir by trying to force Farooq's party into coalition with her Congress Party. When Farooq resisted she began to undermine him, the more so when Farooq retaliated by forming an alliance with other regional leaders in India who wanted more autonomy. In June 1984 Mrs Gandhi deposed him. She was assassinated in October that year, and Rajiv Gandhi, anxious to mend relations with the regions, reinstated him in November 1986 when Farooq agreed to go into coalition with Congress, which he had refused to do earlier.
   
   But by this time some Muslims had become militant; they now regarded Farooq as a puppet of India and turned to Pakistan, and an armed insurgency began (1987).
   
   From now on it was downhill all the way - a continuing vicious circle of violence as brutalities by the Indian army were countered by brutalities by the militants and vice versa, with civilians being the victims of both. Although Pakistani governments have always denied giving direct aid to the militants, the borders have always been porous, and help was given to the militants by the Pakistani ISI (the army's Inter-Service Intelligence), which has always acted independently of its government). And in the 1996 elections in Azad Kashmir, parties which stood for an independent Kashmir were banned by the Pakistani authorities.
   
   In 1999 local militants, supported by elements of the Pakistani army, seized a mountainous area around Kargil, just on the Indian side of the Line of Control. For nearly three months there was heavy fighting on land and in the air, and India and Pakistan, both now nuclear powers, were on the verge of a fourth war since independence before Nawaz Sharif, under international pressure, called on the militants to withdraw.
   
   The book is very topical: as I write this review, the people of Kashmir are involved in a sustained non-violent mass protests on an unprecedented scale.

No comments about Nuclear Weapons and Conflict Transformation: The Case of India-Pakistan.

No comments about The Story of the Malakand Field Force.

1 comments about Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age.

1. Robert Wirsing's latest book on the Kashmir conflict explores sensitive issues such as whether Pakistan is a frontline ally in America's war on terrorism or whether it is the linchpin of the axis of an Islamic Jihad. His book makes unsettling reading for those who like to think the war against "The Axis of Evil" is over and won. Although Saddam Hussein and the Taliban might both be spent forces, there are bigger and more dangerous forces now coming into focus. Chief among those are Pakistan, India and the People's Republic of China. All three of these are nuclear powers and all three are involved with the United States and other regional Asian powers in a delicate balance of power play.
   
   Although the Korean peninsula and Taiwan are the most immediate strategic places of consequence for Japan, because Kashmir, Wirsing's area of expertise, has been a major flashpoint since 1949, Japan, like the world at large, ignores it at its peril. The difference between past conflicts over Kashmir and any future one is that both India and Pakistan now have the capacity to give us a fully fledged nuclear war and China, which always keeps a weather eye on India, might join in as well. The result, needless to say, would be apocalyptic.
   
   The low intensity alternative - whereby units of Pakistani Intelligence fund and run Islamic terror groups - which Wirsing also explores at some length, does not seem any better. Although India is a fractious country, it seems to be infinitely more stable than Pakistan, which tends to have too many military officers who, when they are not engineering coups, believe in robust responses on issues like Kashmir. These same generals promoted the Taliban takeover of neighboring Afghanistan and now that their Afghan allies are gone into the garbage can of history, Wirsing explains that they have to face the prospect of India gaining the upper hand diplomatically and economically in Afghanistan and all of Central Asia. Kashmir, he explains, is the joker in their deck of cards; it allows them to keep India wrong footed and on the defensive. Given that India has an overwhelming military capability and that Pakistan's only trump card is a nuclear first strike, the stakes are obviously sky high.
   
   The author points out that the defeat of their Taliban allies has caused Kashmir insurgents dearly. The Pakistani generals have been forced to back peddle not only on Afghanistan but on Kashmir as well. As a string of arrests of Islamic militants show, Pakistan has, however belatedly, joined America's crusade against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, their former allies. However, Pakistan's renunciation of terror groups makes it politically difficult for them to continue to support armed insurrection in Kashmir.
   
   Wirsing points out that, as long as the two belligerents can confine hostilities to Kashmir, the rest of the world would prefer to ignore the problem. However, he also points out that the United States' war on terrorism means that the problem will not be ignored. Although it will not be ignored, it probably will not be solved without a major conflict. Interesting read!

3 comments about Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir.

1. Easy to read and understand. Very bold and brave. Deep insights and revealing information about Pakistani Army, ISI and terror organizations.



2. This Book only talks about Pakistani involvement in Kashmir with India being mentioned on the passing; there are very little details provided in regards to involvement from India in this major conflict. There should be a balanced coverage of all the involved parties while trying to describe such a complicated conflict - that will certainly complete this book.
   
   - The characters are introduced without building up on them or providing any background.
   
   - The book is very hardly to follow unless someone has been really plugged in this conflict.
   
   - The dates are questionable. i.e., the armed conflict in East Pakistan started in March 1971, instead of 1970 as mentioned in the book. Political unrest due to inequality started there in February 1952.



3. A very good summary of how Pakistan became jihad central. Arif says that the army has managed to train about half a million terrorists. I see no reason to doubt his figures, so buckle up for a rough ride...

4 comments about War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh.

1. Sisson and Rose present a highly informative account of the events leading to the independence of Bangladesh. As a Pakistani, it proved depressing reading as one sees how events unfolded in what would almost be a comedy of errors had the human cost not been so high. The actions of key protaganists leave one disgusted at their short-sightedness and venality. Much as we may like to think that it was 'all India's fault', the authors make it quite clear that while India acted to take full opportunity of the chances it had, its role in precipitating the Crisis was negligible (if at all). Similarly, while Yahya Khan and the Army must take the blame for the ultimate decision of the Army action, the behaviour of the prominent Pakistani political leaders, especially Bhutto (who, from the events narrated in the book, seems to come away with the most blame), beggars belief. A must read for anyone interested in the events of 1971 free of the baggage that subcontinental writers bring to the subject.



2. The authors provide a well-balanced, unbiased historical account of the accounts leading to the war of 1971. The book is very well researched with numerous notes on various sources of information.

   The book describes the genesis of the problems in East Pakistan, beginning with the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan's two wings. Carefully collected economic data demonstrates the lop-sided distribution of wealth in Pakistan with more government spending and foreign aid going to the West than to the East, despite the latter having a greater population and suffering from severe natural disasters. Also cited are the differences between East and West Pakistan over confronting India over Kashmir. The East did not share a penchant for confronting India over Kashmir - a territory that lay over a 1000 miles away. There were more pressing problems at home then (circumstances that are eerily similar to those today in Pakistan!).

   These differences came to a height in a war fought over Kashmir in 1965 (instigated upon Bhutto's advice to Ayub Khan) when East Pakistan was left virtually undefended against any potential Indian military advances. This further contributed to its sense of insecurity.

   The politicians of West Pakistan, most notably Z. A. Bhutto and Yahya Khan, are blamed unambiguously for their role in canceling a session of the first democratically elected national assembly in Pakistan that precipitated in a crisis in March 1971. India's role in contributing to the crisis until March 1971 was minimal, if any, but was to assume greater importance in the months to follow. The failure of all political processes to placate the demands of Z. A. Bhutto led to the suspension of the National Assembly, and subsequent events.

   However, once the crisis resulted in millions of refugees flowing into India that threatened to upset the delicate demographic balance in the affected states, the problem also became one of India's. The authors fault Indira Gandhi for not trying harder to achieve a political settlement of the problem. It is highly unlikely that India could have mediated a problem between West and East Pakistan. After Indira Gandhi concluded that the problem could not be resolved politically by Pakistan's leaders, India began to play an increasingly larger political-military role, beginning in the summer of 1971 and concluding with a lightning military campaign in December, 1971.




3. Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose put all of their many interviews to good use in War and Secession (Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh). They present all sides of the various complex relationships of this region, as well as presenting the fascinating international views of the situation, predominantly China, USSR, and the US. They are careful to remain unbiased (perhaps sometimes a little too unbiased in the case of Bhutto, in my opinion) and present the misperceptions that all sides were using to base their decisions upon. This book will also be a joy for the general reader as they make all the issues understandable and unravel all the tangles between the various personalities. The authors provide a defintive account of the creation of Bangladesh that will both entertain and inform.



4. Sisson and Rose present a thorough analysis of the policy decisions of the involved governments that led to the creation of Bangladesh as an independent country. The authors describe the issues and events that faced the leaders of the respective governments and their actions. Of note, the book does not describe the events that occurred to the people of Bangaldesh during the war.

5 comments about Fidali's Way: A Novel.

1. I have been immersed in "Fidali's Way," the debut novel of George Mastras, for almost a week because of the strong sense of place that Mastras gives his story of an American inadvertently caught up in the present-day conflict between Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists. Mastras very successfully places a human face on those involved in a tragic struggle (on both sides) that is little more than headline news to most of the rest of the world.
   
   Nick Sunder, an attorney who became disillusioned by the dark impact of some of his courtroom victories, has been backpacking in Central Asia for a while before he joins up with a beautiful French girl and her British boyfriend. When the young woman is found murdered, Nick is arrested and tortured by the Pakistani police who want him to confess to the murder. Nick makes a narrow escape from the police, implicating himself in another crime in the process, and makes a run for India.
   
   On the run and near death from exposure, Nick chances upon two of his former cellmates who, despite knowing nothing about Nick, offer to lead him to the relative safety of Indian-occupied Kashmir - a danger-filled walk of several days he barely survives.
   
   But Nick Sunder is only part of the story. In alternating sections of the book, Mastras tells of a very special woman who grew up in the very village toward which Nick is headed and of the little boy who grew up there to become a ruthless muhajideen leader fighting the Indian army for possession of his part of Kashmir. Aysha, even as a child, was considered to be the village healer, and she grew up to become one of the few female medical doctors in her part of the world. Her fiancé, Kazim went a different way, choosing radical jihad over marriage to the beautiful Aysha, a decision both would continue to regret.
   
   Their paths were destined to cross, and what happens when Nick, Aysha, and Kazim come together is at the heart of this beautiful and brutal story. The climax of the book, when personal grudges, religious fanaticism and rabid nationalism clash at the clinic run by Aysha to the benefit of Indians and Pakistanis, alike, illustrates the ultimate futility and folly of religious warfare in a way that readers will long remember.
   
   George Mastras is a good storyteller and his knowledge of the remote part of the world in which he sets "Fidali's Way" is impressive. His characters are complex enough that their motivations, decisions and regrets are believable, and readers will find themselves thinking about Nick, Aysha, Kazim, and Nick's two guides long after they have finished the book. I did, however, find the book's final resolution (during which Nick discusses the French girl's murder with her British boyfriend) to be rushed, leaving me with the sense that it was tacked on simply as an attempt to tie up any of the story's remaining loose ends. The unlikelihood of the two meeting under the circumstances described, reminded me that I was reading fiction just when I wanted to forget that.
   
   Overall, this is a very fine thriller, especially for an author's first time out of the gate.



2. Mr. Mastras certainly knows his territory. It is a pleasure to read a novelist who seems to have such intimate knowledge of the locations he writes about. His prose, while often verbose, is intelligent and full of feeling.
   
   On the down side, too many details in the book can exhaust one's ability to keep events straight especially when the details have nothing to do with the action taking place. Uncertainty and terror are well represented but I had a problem with Nick's lack of common sense and occasionally unbelievable naivete. Nick's personality is too stilted for one to love him, and so there goes some of the glue holding my interest.



3. Everything is exaggerated in the rarified air, impossible terrain and endless cultural variations of Pakistan and the surrounding territories. This uncertain environment precludes most outsiders from even visiting the area, much less to understand it.
   
   Luckily for us, author George Mastras has the experience and skill to weave an exciting tale into this complex fabric of lands and cultures.
   
   Many novels set in exotic locals start out with long descriptions and explanations, setting the scene for the story part. This can be very interesting, but the reader has to study it, almost like assigned reading for a book report. Mastras' successful approach is to integrate the explanations and environment of the scene into the telling of the story.
   
   This makes for more interesting and fun reading and indeed Fidali's Way starts out strong and keeps on going. It is consistently exciting and hard to put down.
   
   Fidali's Way is also a cautionary tale for all of us outsiders who might venture to these lands. This is a different world ruled by unquestioning custom, tenuous relationships and drifting loyalties, all to survive. Outcomes are not always predictable or pretty, and neither is the conclusion of this novel.
   
   Highly recommended. The reader will not take interruptions kindly!



4. This book combines drama with action and adventure, mixed in with some mystery. This book will keep you guessing until the very end as it takes numerous twists and turns in the plot. NOT what I would call "chick lit" by any means. I think this book will appeal slightly more to male readers.
   
   It is easy to imagine this book someday becoming a PG-13 movie.



5. Just finished reading it! Absolutely shocked and loved it. I thought you did an excellent job of bringing together Nick, Yvette and Simon's whole saga w/ what was going on elsewhere in the Kashmir w/ Aysha and the whole Gilkamosh and Muhjadeen conflict. I couldn't figure out the separate stories, and then, to my surprise, it all just came together beautifully. Sometimes authors try to do that and I think they miss the timing.

5 comments about War Talk.

1. Whether or not you agree with Ms. Roy, reading her book will provoke you, and thus, to me, it is worth-while. It is particularly incendiary if you a regular American living a regular life. Ms. Roy spares few in allotting responsibility for the troubles of the world's poor and war-stricken. I did find her somewhat anti-American, but then, I'm biased.
   
   Definitely take a look. Ms. Roy is extremely readable. I loved God of Small Things, and though I normally don't read political non-fiction, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.



2. "War Talk" is an urgent message to the world from one of the great activists of our time, India's Arundhati Roy. In this powerful collection of essays, Roy reflects on the state of the world in the "War On Terror" era and on the disastrous measures undertaken by the Indian government in regards to Muslims and other minorities. This book is a journey through the world as Roy sees it, experiences it. She is of course famous for her novel "The God Of Small Things," and here she achieves the same kind of poetry and cultural insight, she forms images with words, feelings with phrases. Roy chronicles with chilling detail massacres carried out in India against Muslims by radical right-wing government forces and forces us to confront our own government's hijacking by radical religious elements. The great piece in the book is "Come September," a powerful speech Roy delivered in 2002 that is a perfect expression of the post-9/11 world. She reminds us that we are not alone in the world when it comes to being attacked by terrorists, and that we have exported violence ourselves. Roy points out that September 11 is also the anniversary of the U.S.-backed coup in Chile against the elected government of Salvador Allende. Allende was killed and the fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet took power and opened concentration camps and torture chambers through-out Chile. There is a beautiful style to the way Roy deconstructs language and terms, making us exam official doctrine for what it is. She writes a wonderful essay on Noam Chomsky which praises Chomsky's efforts and in a broader sense covers our need to analyze and question media. "War Talk" is a warning on a world being abused by neo-liberalism and radical capitalism which Roy believes will collapse in the same style as Soviet communism. In striking passages she imagines a world consumed in nuclear war, imagining a radioactive landscape where her loved ones and her favorite things have perished under a mushroom cloud, a warning to us all. One finds a sense of cultural unity here, when Roy describes the problems India faces we realize many are not so different from our own, human beings must fight the same evils wherever they surface. Those who want to read something with more depth and meaning should read Roy, her comments are well-researched and constructed, it's almost like the alternative to the kind of radical dribble we get from figures like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Concerned citizens should read Roy and know the history of our world.



3. I first want to start off this review by saying that "I love America." I don't love, or condone the malicious acts that iniquitous individuals in our government have committed in the past and are still committing today, but I love my country. I think sometimes individuals such as Arundhati seem to forget the good that has come out of America's struggle. Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." And there are many Americans that are vigilant today. Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Milton William Cooper have died for the cause of vigilant libertarianism, which I think many of us forget from time to time.
   What gets me in angst is that individuals such as Arundhati pontificate about the evils in our government, but fail to separate the people from the government, and this failure has a tendency to lead people into contemplating the wrong conclusions.
   A case in point: Arundhati wrote an introduction to Noam Chomsky's book "For Reason of State"(which is reprinted in this book) and in it she says, "How has the United States survived its terrible past and emerged smelling so sweet? Not by owning up to it [in reference to the American Indian Wars], not by making reparations, not by apologizing to black Americans or native Americans, and certainly not by changing its ways. Like most other countries, the United States has rewritten its history. But what sets the United States apart from other countries, and puts it way ahead in the race, is that it has enlisted the services of the most powerful, most successful publicity firm in the world: Hollywood."
   Now here's where her diatribe suffers a syllogistic dilemma; the United States is a country not a political institution. Governments are political institutions entrusted to run a country and (so-called) qualified individuals are placed in-charge of running these institutions in the interest of the people.
   But we must remember that sometimes-corrupt individuals egregiously take advantage of governments. This is known as Machiavellianism.
   So, to put it in layman's terms, the inquiry is, who are the people running the government? And what are their individual crimes? When making arguments such as this, one has to identify the perpetrators of the crimes in question.
   Perpetrators: meaning the people who committed the criminal acts!
   Arundhati Roy (like many others) commits a dubious deed. Which is, she doesn't name names. Accusations without naming the accused are vapid complaints.
   
   {{{GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE PERPATRATORS IN QUESTION!}}}
   That's all I'm trying to say.
   
   Furthermore, insofar as her remark about the U.S. rewriting history, the U.S. has not rewritten history. U.S. history is in abundance; it's just based on a litany of interpretations and opinions that cause one to resort to syllogisms to delineate the axiomatic conclusions. There are no absolute truths in history, that's just a fact considering the world governments' conspiracies that are hidden from public scrutiny. But we can come to some semblance of the truth by going to the library and reading books or researching on-line.
   Now, if she wanted to point out that the U.S. educational system is mendacious with its ad hominems she'd be totally correct. So, then why doesn't she identify the individuals who own and control the educational institutions in question? Always ask yourself these questions when reading books like this. Don't ever take anything anyone says at face value.
   And about her Hollywood comment: institutionalized-Hollywood is part of the governmental conspiracy, not part of the American people. The people that control, abuse and manipulate the government are the ones who own Hollywood. So the government never enlisted Hollywood because institutionalized-Hollywood has always been apart of the conspiracy.
   
   Here's another remark she makes without thinking it through. "Wars are never fought for altruistic reasons. They're usually fought for hegemony, for business. And of course, there's the business of war." If you read her entire account you'll see where she's going with this particular argument since she is referring to U.S. oil/war profiteering, but to say that wars are never fought altruistically is absurd, it depends on whose side you're on. There are noble causes, remember Nat Turner's "Great Slave Rebellion," Osceola and "the Seminole Wars", or "Shay's Rebellion." Yes, there are antagonist then there's the opposition who'll stand recalcitrant to antagonistic hegemony, (in other words, heroes who are ready to stand up against the opposition.)
   
   Also, on page-50 she said, "To call someone anti-American, indeed to be anti-American (or for the matter anti-Indian, or anti-Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie, you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good, you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorist." She then said, "I too made the mistake of scoffing at this post-September 11th rhetoric, dismissing it as foolish and arrogant. I've realized that it's not foolish at all. It's actually a canny recruitment drive for a misconceived, dangerous war." Her statement rings so true, but if she really believes that then why does she speak in absolutes and generality instead of naming the accused.
   This book has a lot of faults, which is why what I'm going to say is in incongruity. I enjoyed this book. Arundhati Roy is an extremely articulate speaker and writer who I think is sincere about being the voice of the downtrodden. I just think she should be more mindful of what she says and start charging individual perpetrators with war crimes instead of marginalizing an entire nation when discussing world affairs. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to more of her writing in the future because I believe she has a good heart and means well.



4. Normally I never read books like this and by that I mean books from the Moore/Franken-Hannity-Coulter crowd. You get nothing insightful out of them but this one is pretty short and I wasn't doing anything else for the afternoon. Obviously then I knew what I was getting into before I read this book. I knew Arundhati Roy was but a socialist caricature. I knew she was involved with important and eminently serious groups like 'Queers Against Israel.' I knew she deeply hated the idea of the United States using its glorious military might to brutally smash Islamic terrorism. None of this seemed to matter much at the time since I find Arundhati to be a captivatingly beautiful woman (at times) and that level of attraction has a way of sort of momentarily evaporating my repugnance for these types of people.
   
   The thing is I've built up an immunity of sorts to some of the aforementioned flaws. What I simply cannot stand however are folks who try to mask their American hatred as patriotism and that is precisely what Roy does with this book of hers. This is just another tract on how citizenship, good and productive citizenship, is mostly a passive activity, how nobody should be responsible to anyone else, and how pacifism and dissent are the highest forms of patriotism. In typical hippy/idealist fashion citizenship for Arundhati is more of a state of mind than anything else; it certainly doesn't place any demands on the individual. I mean, I love Jim Morrisson...doesn't that make me American ENOUGH?
   
   NO! I hate the way folks like her try to pass off inaction as something noble. Citizenship is about sharing an intimate sense of responsibility to your community, passing something greater onto future generations, and, GASP!, occassionally having to bite the bullet (no pun) and storm a beach head or advance on a hill. I don't know where this idea came from that America, that the American idea, is just this right to do whatever you want. I really have no idea. I really have no clue how someone could tell you she owns a Doors album and then seriously expect you to consider her a decent citizen, a real American. Many of us have deep roots in this country, respect for its ideals, family who made supreme sacrifices so that we could live safely and freely. Books that make light of all this (especially when written by folks that have been here for like MAYBE 5, 10 years) is to heavy a burden to bear. This is just another diatribe that attempts to crush that patriotic spirit and convince us that wallowing around on the couch writing poetry would be a much better way to live ones life.
   
   This isn't even authentic pacifism either, which I don't even have a problem with if it is indeed genuine. Roy detests the notion of the United States using its glorious military might to brutally smash Islamic warmongers though not suprisingly her pacifism seems to dissapear when it comes to these Islamic fanatics themselves. If HAMAS wants to blow up Pizza Huts and run into elementary schools with guns blazing then that's legitimate retaliation. If a United States Marine shoots a civilian who provides moral support to the folks planting IED's all over the neighborhood then he should be Court Marshaled, convicted, and slapped with a life sentence. Nothing new here folks.
   
   This woman is in outer space. Anyone who mentions what a great tragedy a nuclear attack would be for the squirrel and butterfly populations (she really says this!) needs to reexamine their view of what exactly is important in this world.
   
   We aren't going to change human nature anytime soon folks. War is something we're going to have to learn to live with.



5. As a citizen of India, Ms. Roy is well situated to comment upon the religious extremism and indeed terrorist violence protected and too often generated by her own government. She explains how this extremism keeps poor Hindus from organizing against their real enemies--the corrupt government that serves corporate interests before human need.
   
   Ms. Roy speaks in a direct, unvarnished way about what the global ambitions and violence of (primarily) the United States has forced upon the common people in the killing field called "The Third World." To most Americans, there *is* only one country that matters, and the rest is a distraction from snacks and entertainment. Ms. Roy tells of a different reality, of governments and corporations in collusion to starve the already desperate subsistence farmers who constitute most of India's people--but she does not limit her concerns to India.
   
   Her comments about the US aggression against the Iraqi people, their blank check to ongoing land grabs by Zionists, and her abiding hope that the common people of the world can still reclaim our earth before corporate necrophilia dooms us all, are delivered with passion and eloquence. Ms. Roy is an outstanding world citizen; we need more like her.

4 comments about Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within (Oxford Pakistan Paperbacks).

1. Anyone with a true desire to understand our essential, yet phlegmatic, ally in the Mideast should take the time to read and reflect on this comprehensive history of the complicated relationship between the Pakistan Army and the governments of Pakistan and the US. It is a true insiders view carefully researched and presented. It is not light reading but important in it's insights as we continue to define the US role in this area of the world. I wish it had been available to our leaders in 2002.



2. I just heard part of an interview with the author on NPR (I think) The author did research for many years. His brother, who was in the army, and died mysteriously in January 1993 when he was army chief, encouraged him very much in this research and paid for most of the books that he read on this subject. In addition, the author also had access to archives and conducted numerous interviews.
   
   I am not sure how well he understands the subject. Right now, he seems to want to limit the responsibility of the ISI for the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul - most likely that was merely the tip of the iceberg and it is merely the acknowledged proof that is limited.
   
   Still anything like this should fill in a lot of the pieces of the puzzle, and the history of Pakistan since 1947 really is a riddle wrapped in amystery inside an enigma.
   
   If the author really knew everything he would also know or strongly suspect how exactly his brother died. It probably was murder. Numerous diffeernt stories were told to his family giving all kinds of different motives..This story is recounted in detail in the book.
   
   Still, this *must* contain lots of details even if he didn't get to the full truth. It must, of course, be read with a warning - almost anything here might turn out to be wrong because maybe it is part of some coverup of something that took place years ago, but it may be a better first read than any other thing.



3. 
   This book presets an excellent review of the role of the Pakistan Army in pakistani society from it's creation sixty years ago to the present.



4. This book is not suitable for light reading due to the amount of detail, but it is an excellent reference. I have found that when the name of a politician or military leader appears in the papers I can look him up in this book and get a rough bio. It is a thorough Who's Who of Pakistan since its inception.

1 comments about Waging War in Waziristan: The British Struggle in the Land of Bin Laden, 1849-1947 (Modern War Studies).

1. [Roe] "explains how they sought to counter Russian expansionism in Central Asia, which was seen as a threat to tribal autonomy in India's North-West Frontier;"
   
   Ah, that's what it was, the British sought to counter Russian expansionism in Central Asia, the Russians' backyard, because the British were so concerned about the wellbeing of the natives they took over.
   
   Perfidious Albion, of course, was interested in tribal autonomy. There was no self interested expansionism involved when the British left their dirty island to take over larges swathes of the world where people were too weak to resist.
   
   The Christian missionaries on the other hand, like William Carey, did care about the well being of natives, especially their eternal well being. That aspect of British imperialism, colonialism and expansionism has to be commended, though from what I've read, missionaries were a fly in the ointment for British imperialists.