11 November 2005
Pakistan's complaints of double standards
I choked over my curry when Pakistani president Musharraf complained recently that the world showed double standards by not donating as much towards the Kashmir earthquake relief, as in the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. His claims that the Kashmir earthquake was much worse than the Asian tsunami, left me quite confused.
By his own estimates, some 70,000 to 80,000 Kashmiris are estimated to have died. As at 31 January 2005, the tsunami death toll estimates were reported to be 233,000 (Indonesia), 31,000 (Sri Lanka), 16,400 (India), 5,400 (Thailand) and 520 (Others) for a total of 286,200. So either my arithmetic is wrong about 286,200 being greater than 70,000 to 80,000, or Musharraf's arithmetic applies a significant non-Pakistani discount to the Asian tsunami death toll!
Nonetheless, Musharraf may well be right that donations aren't as forthcoming as for other disasters. But he should ask why this may be the case. I think the reasons for less than generous donations may be due to what we know about Pakistan.
For example, the much hated Taleban were strongly supported by Pakistan's secret intelligence service, the ISI, for many years. Not doing things by half, the ISI also provides funding, training and weapons to militant Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. These are the same terrorists who conduct bombing campaigns in Indian controlled Kashmir and elsewhere in India, including the Indian parliament.
Pakistani religious schools called madrassas, are home to extremist Islamic imams preaching violent Jihad against non-believers. Indeed, most if not all of the London suicide bombers spent time in these schools. It seems Musharraf believes one can be half-pregnant when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
Then there are the hundreds of millions of dollars Pakistan lavishes on its nuclear weapons program. Would his country be short of cash for earthquake relief today, if not for the money spent on building nuclear weapons?
While it may well be understandable for Pakistan to feel the need to field such weapons due to India's similar arsenal, it's a bit rich to then turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being reluctant to cover shortfalls caused by such weapons expenditure!
By his own estimates, some 70,000 to 80,000 Kashmiris are estimated to have died. As at 31 January 2005, the tsunami death toll estimates were reported to be 233,000 (Indonesia), 31,000 (Sri Lanka), 16,400 (India), 5,400 (Thailand) and 520 (Others) for a total of 286,200. So either my arithmetic is wrong about 286,200 being greater than 70,000 to 80,000, or Musharraf's arithmetic applies a significant non-Pakistani discount to the Asian tsunami death toll!
Nonetheless, Musharraf may well be right that donations aren't as forthcoming as for other disasters. But he should ask why this may be the case. I think the reasons for less than generous donations may be due to what we know about Pakistan.
For example, the much hated Taleban were strongly supported by Pakistan's secret intelligence service, the ISI, for many years. Not doing things by half, the ISI also provides funding, training and weapons to militant Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. These are the same terrorists who conduct bombing campaigns in Indian controlled Kashmir and elsewhere in India, including the Indian parliament.
Pakistani religious schools called madrassas, are home to extremist Islamic imams preaching violent Jihad against non-believers. Indeed, most if not all of the London suicide bombers spent time in these schools. It seems Musharraf believes one can be half-pregnant when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
Then there are the hundreds of millions of dollars Pakistan lavishes on its nuclear weapons program. Would his country be short of cash for earthquake relief today, if not for the money spent on building nuclear weapons?
While it may well be understandable for Pakistan to feel the need to field such weapons due to India's similar arsenal, it's a bit rich to then turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being reluctant to cover shortfalls caused by such weapons expenditure!
