Following is my reply to the editor or editors, owners of Hindustan.net.

My dear Editor,

Thanks to your suggestion. I can read English as good as you can. You have an open forum in which anyone who has an internet access can and does do both or one of the activity you allow, viz. read someone else's opinions, critiques, news and editorial as well as post to his choice of topics or subjects.

I have no objection to anyone maligning this or that olitical, social or religious ideology or bring in new topics for discussions. A matter as important as moral depravity, spiritual shenanigans and political mess that India finds herself in, I have no choice other than vehemently expose the situation.

If my language or attitude bothers you, so does yours. Keep the shop closed, perhaps use a moderated and restricted e-mail kind of group. That is your privilege. Otherwise in an open forum such as yours you keep your hands off of people's choices.

As far as external URLs are concerned, they are references conducive to my main or subsidiary themes. Why kind of medieval world you guys live in that you cannot understand the difference between a reference and an advertisement? The references are all from reputed magazines, newspapers and public sites where all kinds of information is available for anyone who cares. Are you saying that I own them all? How stupid you want to be?

Son of a bitch, I am quoting you:

By Editor (Admin) on Wednesday, April 28, 1999 - 09:10 PM:

Child Labour in South Asia : Info Views Fresh Ideas

Dear Readers

Mr. Asim Hayat posted some very vital articles on Child labour in India and Pakistan and all over South Asia. We open this important issue on above link and please kindly give your honest views on improving the situation realistically.

By Editor on Saturday, November 13, 1999 - 02:42 P.M.:

Think, Read and write on following topics at

Conversions? Truths? Religion as Business Political Weapon Is Conversion A Geo-Political Strategy ? Logic Purpose & Objective ? Southern Baptists New Offensive Against India & Pope's India Visit Conversion Politics : The Marketing Techniques of Conversion Zealots Is Christianity Selling Buying Converts Immoral ? Pope's Visit, Missionaries Breaking Fabric of India Politics of Conversion ? What is the Plot ? Indian Pluralism : Religious Politics vs. Political Religions

Another instance of an outside URL being part of the post:

Thanking you very much for publishing this letter

Sincerely, ED VIS arvind-4@msn.com

please write to me ABSOLUTELY FREE EDUCATIONAL FLOW CHARTS ON HINDU CULTURE...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1879904063/u/002-9144287-3121453

The third instance of outside URL pointer:

By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13, 1999 - 05:06 am:

Who is the General taking over the nation

Read an in-depth report on this man's extra curricular activities and a profile

------------------------------------------------------

General Pervaiz Musharraf

------------------------------------------------------

Fourth instance of outside URL reference:

By Viv on Friday, October 15, 1999 - 01:17 am:

Check out foll. news item on Rediff.

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/oct/14kargil.htm

Add to that a copyright violation by the poster and sanctioned by the editors, owners or company:

By sahastrabhuja on Friday, October 15, 1999 - 11:37 am: Why no one's crying blue murder on Pakistan's streets by Shekhar Gupta

Indian Express

OCTOBER 14: If, like me, you too sat up till three on Wednesday morning to witness the turn-of-the-millennium incongruity of General Pervez Musharraf, in full military livery, condemning his country's constitutionally elected government, some of these questions may have crossed your mind:

How easy it seemed to be for the general to overturn a government with two-thirds majority?

Why did the coup not bring pro-democracy protestors out on the streets? Not even the lone protestor waving a placard at the tank as at Tiananmen Square?

Why, on the other hand, it seems as if it has found a degree of welcome not merely among the ordinary people but also from the Pakistani intelligentsia and opinion leaders?

Why did Musharraf take such a big risk while his predecessor, Jehangir Karamat, had given in without a whimper?

Why even the supposedly almighty Americans failed to prevent the coup?

Why, after the coup, Musharraf has dilly-dallied for so long instead of imposing martial law right away? For answers to these seemingly elementary questions, you have to go as far back as the summer of 1990.

This was when Benazir Bhutto, the then prime minister, was in her rabble-rousing elements. Like a megaphone with no volume control, she was egging the Kashmiri rebels on to chop Governor Jagmohan into pieces (usko jag-jag, mo-mo, han-han kar denge). This was winning her brownie points with the army. Until, she made one over-confident error.

In a speech at the National Defense College, she advised her army to give up the old, ``outdated'' notion that it was the guardian not merely of the territorial but also the ideological frontiers of Pakistan. If armies could protect ideologies, she argued, the Eastern Bloc would not have unraveled so quickly. This is it, said Islamabad's resident conspiracy theorists. Sure enough, she was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan backed by Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg.

The lesson: in Pakistan, democracy or no democracy, the army has a special,central place in the ideology of nation-building. To question that is risky. The corollary is the army is the big brother, the elected government survives at its sufferance, its performance constantly watched and evaluated by the GHQ.

Benazir had lost her job for questioning it rhetorically. Nawaz, on the other hand, has been frontally challenging this special position, getting rid of two naval chiefs, one brilliant army chief and then not only forcing his army into a humiliating withdrawal from Kargil but for also letting everyone know that it, and not his government, was to blame for the debacle.

He therefore questioned the classical underpinning of the ideology of Pakistani nationalism where you do not question the army. Least of all making it out to be the loser in yet another war with India. The supposed invincibility of the Pakistani army is a myth that has survived a full-fledged defeat (1971), two partial ones (1965 and 1999) and the ignominious end of three military dictators -- Ayub, Yahya and Zia. That the soldier is the most honorable member of our society and the politician the most contemptible is not a sentiment confined to Pakistan. Most of us Indians also share the same view. But the fundamental difference is, India, with all its weaknesses and failings has acquired a strong sense of constitutional nationalism. Across the border, it is still defined very much in terms of the Great Pakistani Patriotism (read anti-Indianism) represented by the army.

In a very complex sort of way -- which for elaboration needs a sociologist's intellect rather than a hack's instinct -- this militaristic anti-Indian patriotism has come to dominate Pakistani nationalism more than even Islam. That is why no one dares to question the army. Except when it has been in power for some time, directly, under a dictator, and the common people begin to feel the pinch.

Islam always mattered, now matters more

It is not as if that Islam doesn't matter. Khaled Ahmed, one of Pakistan's most perceptive and incisive analysts, has made a persuasive case in a series of articles in The Friday Times as to why Karamat accepted his humiliation so easily. Khaled's case is that whenever the Pakistani army has had a relatively secular, professional and modern chief, his political clout has weakened. Karamat was certainly one in that category. Khaled backed his argument by quoting from a series of unsigned editorials in Hilaal, the Pakistani army's mouthpiece during the weeks the Karamat end-game was playing out, generally lambasting the idea of the pro-western, India-friendly and allegedly modern generals leading the army. The ideological establishment of the army did not trust Karamat. So he quit and went out to play golf and joined the Track-II diplomacy circuit.

But why did the same establishment respond differently to Musharraf who is by no means a fundamentalist? At least, not yet. He is known to enjoy his drink. His family leads a modern lifestyle. He is by no means an Islamic warrior. He is also a mohajir and, therefore, in the normal course, seen as less martial than the Punjabis or the Pathans. But within the right-wing, ideological establishment, he has won extraordinary legitimacy with something none of his predecessors have dared to do since 1971: put the Indian army on the defensive. Even if briefly.

His action in Kargil was pro-active. The US South Asian security guru Stephen P. Cohen calls it tactically as brilliant as Pearl Harbor but strategically just as suicidal. But when you are caught up in a blood feud, as many Pakistanis still seem to be, you tend not to look at the big picture. That's why Nawaz Sharif found himself so isolated at home on the Kargil issue.

The US still has clout over the Pakistani army and it did manage to contain Musharraf when Nawaz signed the agreement with Clinton in Washington. It may still prevail upon him to restore some sort of a civilian rule rather than impose martial law. But it is a diminishing influence.

Sharif misread Washington's waning clout

In the '60s, Washington more or less had a direct say in the appointment of top generals. In fact, documents declassified by the US State Department include a delightful 1958 note from their counsel-general in Lahore saying how thrilled he is to have spotted a talented, westernized officer called Ayub Khan who could be groomed to take over power in years to come. In the '70s, it found a modus vivendi, facilitated by the Afghan joint venture. Pakistani officers went to its training establishments, their sons and daughters liberally cornered green cards and scholarships at its universities. Washington was in control.

But the end of the western interest in Afghanistan and the strengthening of sanctions have led to a dwindling number of Pakistani officers training in the US. So that clout is greatly reduced now.

Even Nawaz apparently failed to understand this. It is not a coincidence that ISI chief Ziauddin, whom he attempted to appoint in Musharraf's place, was sent to the US along with his brother ShahbazSharif last month to canvass for support against his own army chief. It is likely that Nawaz was merely resenting Ziauddin to the Americans to get them to bless his appointment. He failed to see how his rapidly Islamising army holds the US in less awe than in the past.

Glacial shift in troika's power equation

Irrespective of who wins this round, both Nawaz and Musharraf would also wonder whether they did not err crucially in failing to understand the fundamental shift in the power equation since the end of the old troika (president, army chief and the prime minister). Nawaz more or less finished the presidency by abrogating the eighth amendment that gave it sweeping powers, and appointed a rubber stamp president. Since the previous two coups were constitutional in nature (his and Benazir's dismissal by President Ishaq) he probably thought he was secure now that he had destroyed the presidency.

Little did he realize that Ishaq had only acted in concert with the army and now that the presidencywas out of the troika, its powers had not automatically reverted to the elected government. At least not when there was an army chief waiting to lay claim to these. And this was an army chief sanctified, in the popular view, by the alleged near-success in Kargil.

Similarly, Musharraf erred in assessing the post-eighth amendment situation by presuming that all of the presidency's old powers would vest in him anyway. He now has to contend with a president, a parliament, and worst of all a constitutional system where nobody really has the powers to dismiss an elected government unless he bites the bullet, and imposes martial law.

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Example of Hindu hate campaign with filthy language, unsubstantiated allegations, racial slurs, violent attitude allowed by you:

By Amit on Sunday, October 24, 1999 - 06:37 am:

Fellow Hindustanis..this is what these vile Muslim animals are doing to our Kin in Kashmir. It is time Shiva's third eye opens and incinerates these filthy products of Arab/Iranians rape, and their filthy Koran, Kayaba et al.

A typical reply to one of my article in a normal Hindu moral tone, no insults, no vulgarity, no fuckwords, worse.

By er on Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 03:09 am:

Sid Harth,

Kamala Das has changed her religion to Islam not because of Hindu bigotry. She is in love with a Muslim guy. She has no values. She has been accused of having numerous affairs. The reason she gave for conversion was that Hinduism is too open. She wanted to embrace a religion which limits the freedom of an individual. She said she feels safe in a Burkha. Agreed Kamala Das is a popular writer, but she is screwed in her brains. Don't bring down the standard of this argument by mentioning people who have no morals and standards.

Also You said,

Sid Harth..."Hindu nuts have destroyed the free speech, freedom of religion and in general the freedom of association to all those who do not tow their Brahminic, Demonic dogma of superiority by birth."

If Hindu nuts have destroyed freedom of religion how come she changed her religion. Looks like you too are screwed in you brains.

Hindu nuts are any day better than Muslim and Christian Nuts period.

You must be one sick puppy. Thank your stars for you live with Hindu Nuts and could say what you want to. Otherwise a fatwah would have been issued for your head by now.

Chill have a beer.

Finally are you on Congress Party's Payroll.

I do not know where you are located, if you are anywhere on the US territory and refusing my free speech rights to me with phony baloney rules made just for me, you are looking at a law suit. Think about it before you take drastic action.

I shall see that your anti American attitude is amply exposed and punished.

Take care

Sid Harth

On Tue, 21 December 1999, Hindustan wrote:

Hello Mr. Sidharth

1. We have received dozens of emails protesting on your language posted on the site.

2. Being a family oriented site, we can not permit abusive, uncivilized language. We request you to immediately stop using this kind of language.

3. We must advise you that these are discussion boards and not dumping ground for hate articles and repertoire of other sites materials.

4. We don't allow the hyper links to other sites unless providing very useful info for a great variety of users occasionally.

5. We have no objections if you participate and post thought provoking articles but without engaging in political propaganda. We have nothing to do with any political party and your very strong language for a cross section of Indian society is not very encouraging. Most people are not interested in such articles.

6. One cant post irrelevant or unrelated articles in threads.

7. If you cant follow the above we cant allow you to post.

We request you to please take this into your consideration

Best regards

Editor