Kashmir

Until this rant, I only ever thought of Kashmir as a rather good Led Zep song.



So then; India and Pakistan. You can't leave them alone for a minute these days. Even if they both promise to be on their best behaviour, the second you turn your back they're busy threatening each other with mutual annihilation, the naughty little tricksters. Should we be worried about the reports emerging from the sub-continent (that tend to get tucked away behind more important news stories such as Jordan giving birth, or the new series of Big Brother) or is it yet another case where we will see the international equivalent of 2 blokes squaring up to each other on a Saturday night whilst their girlfriends screech "He's not worth it Kev, just leave it!" in the background?

Before attempting to unravel just why these two countries are currently behaving in the same way that England and France wish they still could, it's worth having a look at the history behind the two. In recent history, it all began when England got it's wrist slapped for still having an Empire at the end of WWII. Part of that Empire was the Indian sub-continent. In 1947-8, there were various elections and statutes aimed at dismantling the British Empire. The elections on the subcontinent showed that the majority of people in what is now Pakistan (it was West Pakistan; East Pakistan is now Bangladesh, but as it is a country made up almost entirely of mud, sediment, and poverty, India rarely seems to feel the need to rattle it's sabre to the east) wanted a Muslim state whilst the people of India were predominantly Hindu with a sizeable Sikh minority. So, hence the division of the subcontinent into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan.

This all seems fairly reasonable so far. But, as is clearly stated in the United Nations Charter, paragraph 15; "Every silver lining must have a cloud". In this case, the cloud has turned out to be Kashmir. And it's a pretty substantial cloud too judging by the fact that India and Pakistan have either been at war or threatening to go to war over Kashmir for the last 40 or 50 years. And the reason that they're willing to go to war over it is that, thanks to those elections in 1947-8, it's currently divided between the two, completely owned by neither one country nor the other.

Now you may think that this tells you everything that you need to know about the current situation; 2 countries, both of whom are saying "Mine! Gimme!" about a piece of land on their border where the population are divided by religion. Not entirely dissimilar to Northern Ireland really, correct? Nope, alas not. I've been doing a little background research concerning Kashmir (which was previously best known to me as the title of a rather good Led Zeppelin tune, which was itself ripped off by such luminaries as Puff Daddy for a film about a dinosaur, and by the BBC for their World Cup coverage) and I find that things are not quite that straightforward.

Kashmir was a separate kingdom for many centuries. Although it was divided along religious lines, it's cultural makeup is almost entirely Persian, meaning that they have more in common with Iran than either India or Pakistan. As such, Kashmir wants to be independent from both nations. As to whether they could run the country without it degenerating into either a bloodbath (the fear of Humanitarians) or a haven for terrorists (the fear of Politicians)....well, barring the occasional bout of religious zeal (funny how absolute devotion to religions that are supposed to be about Brotherhood tends to get expressed by a desire to kill as many human beings in as short a space of time as possible...), the Hindu and Moslem populations lived together in relative peace. Now the poor bastards are being used to represent the India-Pakistan antipathy in microcosm. The conflict over Kashmir has, in fact, got almost nothing to do with Kashmir. Like most bad things in the world, it's about national pride and international politics.

For example, India and Pakistan are neighbours and rivals. The issue of Kashmir has been grinding along for some time now. Occasionally, peace talks are mooted and these usually centre round the idea that maybe a place that was independent for most of recorded history should be independent once more. Then, once everyone gets round the table, one side or other finds an excuse for not talking to the other, everyone goes away in a huff, and the people of Kashmir find that their country is once more being used as battlefield practice by the Indian military and Pakistan sponsored Islamic militants.

As to why both nations behave with the maturity of England fan after seeing Germany getting beat 5 – 1... well that would take a lot more time than I currently have to look at. But in short, India doesn't want to give up any territory as it would
A: Be regarded as giving in to Islamic militant terrorists, and
B: Have to give up some land. And it's their land. And no one else can have it. So yah, boo, sucks to you.

Pakistan is also rather reluctant to settle the issue. Their reasons are somewhat different. As we have had demonstrated to us over the last few months, Pakistan has a rich and proud tradition of producing Islamic militants so toe-curlingly insane that they make Fred and Rose West look like Zippy and George. When these happy go lucky types aren't calling for death to anyone who has committed the heinous crime of not being a Moslem, they're generally calling for the overthrow of the government in order to replace it with something like hell on earth. The Pakistani government has previously dealt with this in two way; the first was to encourage said fanatics to go to Afghanistan and fight their ideological battles against other Moslems. The second was to encourage them to go to Kashmir and fight for the liberation of their Moslem brothers and sisters.

As they no longer have the first option open to them (well...not whilst America is looking on), that leaves Kashmir as the only option. Or in other words, it suits Pakistan to leave Kashmir divided as it takes care of a possible domestic problem. It suits India to do so because angry rhetoric over Kashmir is a sure-fire vote winner. The only people who it doesn't suit are the people of Kashmir. And why should anyone care about them when they're not a real country anyway?

And so, because no-one in the world really cared too much about Indians and Pakistanis killing Kashmiri’s and each other with gay abandon, the whole rather shabby mess has been allowed to degenerate further still. And now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention and sweating gently with fear. Why? Good old nuclear weapons, that's why! As it's painfully clear how frightened I am of Nuclear War, I won't restate the point again (although if a nuclear war does break out in the next few weeks, the biggest concentration of journalists from around the world are going to be a stones throw away in Japan for the World Cup. Does anyone else find the idea of John Motson commentating on the apocalypse rather amusing, or is it just me?). But what I will say is that it's funny how the rest of the world only started caring about Kashmir when it became clear that it might be about to be reduced to molten rock along with the Indian subcontinent and most of the southern former Soviet republics. Not to mention the cataclysmic effect on the world's eco-system that even a small scale nuclear war would have. In other words, the second it started looking like it might affect us, then we're all ears.

Happily, the warlike posturing of both nations is beginning to die down a little. Presumably the leaders of both countries recognise that they would like to have countries left to lead. But in a strange sort of way I find myself applauding both of them. After all, it's nice of them to remind the US and Europe that, if we insist on allowing nations we regard as lesser or inferior to try and obliterate each other when in it's our interests to allow them to do so, and if we arm those nations to help them along, then we shouldn't be too surprised when they decide to go the whole hog and develop the most destructive weapons of all. With luck, one day the supposedly civilised West will realise that a peaceful and contented life for all is in everyone's best interests. Until then we can look forward to various 'patriots' continuing to demand that other countries sort their own mess out, whilst burying their heads in the sand as to who is responsible for the mess in the first place.

Women, eh?

This is what happens when a gobshite fails to get laid.




Women: You're all a bunch of fucking arseholes.

Okay, I realise that perhaps that seems a trifle harsh. Misogynistic even. D'you know something? I am now completely past giving even the remotest semblance of a shit whether it is or not. I've been in the vilest mood for the last couple of months and last week I had a sudden moment of clarity as to exactly why this should be. After all, I'm in the (admittedly slow) process of getting together with the woman whom I love, my money problems of the last year are rapidly diminishing, and Newcastle are playing European football next year. What cloud could possibly darken the horizon for me? Let me give you a clue; any man who has ever heard the words "You're like a brother to me" or "You're my best friend" off an achingly gorgeous woman will almost certainly be horribly familiar with the tirade that is about to unfold.

I was, and continue to be, single from November 2000. For any young man, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. And so, remembering the advice given to me by my lady friends, I set about doing my best to attract and woo myself back into a relationship.
Okay, I've read that back and even I can see that it's bollocks. What actually happened was that I asked my friends how I could guarantee myself a shag. Not particularly chivalrous I admit but hey, I'd been in a relationship for 9 years; cut me a little bit of slack here.

Anyway the advice of the ladies was to be a gentleman (or at least appear as if you are one), be friendly (well duh...), don't be afraid to use flattery, and generally portray oneself as a decent bloke. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last year and a bit that they were either;
A - Lying
B - Having a laugh at my expense
C- Kidding themselves, or
D- They have no idea what women want.

And what women want, what they really really want, is a complete and total bastard of a man who will treat them with supreme indifference and, if they're really lucky, utter contempt. Well shit....

Now then; seeing as I've already discussed this with some of my lady friends, and seeing as the reaction has uniformly been "No we don't, women want a nice man who'll make them feel special", I feel that at this point I should offer an example of the truth of this statement by way of an explanation as to why I've come to this conclusion. And it's quite a simple one really. You see, I split from my girlfriend at about the same time as a former friend of mine split from his wife. I have, almost without exception, tried to behave like a gent in that time. I realise that, for those of you who know me and are aware of just how stultifying unpleasant and sarcastic I can be, this may seem difficult to swallow (though not nearly as difficult as it is to persuade a young lady to do so...). Believe me, it wasn't easy for me to keep hidden the bile and rancour that comes so naturally to me! And, being human, I have once drifted over to the realm of bastard-dom myself. But by and large, I've done my best to be a decent human being.

In the meantime, my erstwhile former friend behaved like a complete shit; sleeping with his best friends girlfriend, copping off with his step-sister in a nightclub mere months before her wedding (to another friend of his), getting one of his housemates drunk so that he could get her into bed, doing his best to make sure that the blame for any and all of this landed anywhere but on his own head...you know, all the kind of stuff that a woman would say that she can't stand.

And yet, whereas I have found my testicles swelling to the size of a small cottage in Suffolk due an extraordinary lack of amorous activity, that bastard has had to order himself a bigger and shittier stick with which to beat off the colossal number of women who cannot wait to get their oestrogen swollen hands on him! I'VE BEEN LAID 3 TIMES IN 9 MONTHS!! IT'S NOT FUCKING RIGHT!!!

And it gets better; whenever I complain about this (and oh, how I complain...) I am told that I should be grateful! Why should I be grateful? Well, I have acquired a much better and trusting relationship with whichever particular woman I spent my time getting to know, being friendly toward, treating her with respect, etc, whereas every woman he has slept with can't stand the sight of him. Well, that's a massive consolation! I'm sure that the knowledge of how many good looking, sexually active, female friends I have with get me through the night WHEN I'M ON MY BASTARD OWN AGAIN! THAT FUCKING PRICK IS BALLS DEEP WHENEVER HE FUCKING WANTS! D'YOU THINK HE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS AT THE END OF IT?!

(Incidentally, I suppose that in the interests of candour, I should come clean and admit that he is a better-looking man than I am. Even so, I like to think I'm not a hideously disfigured Elephant man lookalike. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken in this belief...)

Yet the ladies still keep saying "No, we don't want a bastard. We want a nice man who...". And it's at that point that I usually lean in towards them and look them in the eye. I look them in the eye so that they know that what I'm about to say is important. And then, in a loud and clear voice, I say "Bollocks". Every single woman who has started this particular line has now met with that particular response. And with one exception, they have a track record with men that would put Eva Braun to shame. They have almost all, with very few exceptions, spent large portions of their time with bastards who treated them like badger poo. Those who have not are lying, gay, or are just too ashamed to admit that they have done. If ANYONE can respond to me and prove me wrong, then I will gladly offer a personal apology to them for implying that they have, at some point in their lives, gone out with a man whom they know in the depths of their soul to be a bad bastard who would bring them nothing but grief.

Still, I suppose that some women don't hanker after a bastard. These are the women whom the bastards consider too ugly to have anything to do with. After all, why should he when he can have his pick of gorgeous women, ALL OF WHOM COME CRYING TO THE LIKES OF ARSEHOLES LIKE ME WHEN IT ALL GOES TO SHIT!! I am SICK to death of this! I've lost count of how many teary and humiliated women I've sat with, reassuring them that no, they're not a vile freak of nature and yes, he obviously doesn't know what he's missing out on. Oh...and you're feeling better now? So...oh, there you go with another piece of shit who manages to both lower your self esteem AND convince you of how much you need him. Can you really blame me for being so pissed off about this?!

Honest to Christ, I'm really starting to think I should just cut the fucking thing off, or turn celibate, or try and convince myself I fancy other men; anything at all rather than go through the torturous routine of yet another woman bleating that "You wouldn't want to go out with me; my life is such a mess". Hm, yes, I'm sure that I'd want nothing to do with your exceptionally tight, pert little mess. Why that would just break my fucking heart...

If it's not that, it's a friend saying "Well, women tend to like a bit of a bastard when they're younger. They grow out of it though..." WHEN?! I'M TWENTY FUCKING SIX; HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO WAIT GODDAMMIT!?!! And now that I come to think about it, I'm not even sure I like that as an explanation; are they trying to say that they want excitement? Fuck me, I spend most days PRAYING for a less eventful life! I have an over-abundance of excitement in my life (except at work of course; how else would I have the time to write these angry little missives?), I dream of a truly dull week, so it can't be that I'm boring (I hope).

Anyway, the point of all of this...well, the point is for me to get this out of my system really, but I do have a point I want to make as well. More of a plea really (although, surprisingly, not for a shag; my former friend was often reduced to pleading and I have such contempt for him that I refuse to drop to his level); ladies, if you're going to be friends with a man then do him one massive favour from the outset; make it very VERY clear that you have no desire whatsoever to sleep with him. Honestly, it'll save a lot of time and heartache, and it will also mean that those men who remain your friends are REALLY your friends, and are not just hanging around in the desperate hope that one day you'll suddenly want to fuck them. That way, people like me with find it less intolerable seeing you walking out of the door, arm in arm with yet another complete fucking wanker.