Sri Mallur, Newark, California: Cricket, a form of sport, initially was concieved as an activity to keep the army fit and competitive during peace time. We are at war with Pakistan. Our army is busy and so is theirs. We do not need any activity to keep our boys sharp. I say send the army and settle the matter once for all.

Tejas Raje: A strong yes.

Just coz I am a cricket lover. As cricket fans have we ever thought of what we have missed past years ? We have missed great battles. Imagine the Dravids, the Tendulkars facing a raging Wasim Akram at his peak and from the other side a highly pumped up Waqar Younis, bowling those deadly inswinging yorkers. Image such a battle happening 5 years ago. That's what we have missed. Champion batsman facing champion bowler in front of cricket crazy fans.. We have missed quality CRICKET!

I hope before those bowlers retire(Wasim is gonna play another match I heard), they get a crack at the Indian batting line up. I am looking forward to that.

Rajeev Iyer: I fully agree with you. We should cut off all links with Pakistan including trade for sometime and see how the reaction is. That is the only way of protest. May be, not even talk about them. Ignore them. Make them feel frustrated.

The media should take a vow not to publish anything about pakistan irrespective of what happens. The same way media held sway when 9/11 bombings happened. The more publicity given, the more heroic they feel. Best way would be to totally ignore them. Whatever happens up in Kasmir, do not report in newspaper. Show how well the peace is maintained in the valley but at the same time fight the crime.

Whatever said and done, the psychology of the human being is to get recognition. If we cut this off, we could bring them to their knees. The more we show that we are affected by their tactics, they will do more to affect us. The secret word is "IGNORE".

Rajesh: Saw your article on Ganguly.

First, let me put one thing straight. 2-3 years before. When Saurav was not captain, Sachin and Saurav used to open for INDIA.That  was a period when indian cricket team was dependent on these two. I also had a feeling that Saurav was a bit (could be my feeling) jealous about sachin, bcos he recieved more attention from everyone eventho saurav was not too far behind him.

But as a captain, he has changed a lot, over the years. Now the feeling of jealousy is not there. He has moulded himself as a captain rather than a competitor to sachin as the best batsman in the team. that is one refreshing change. Saurav Ganguly has matured.

Now i feel that Saurav is more team man than Sachin.

Regarding indias tour to Pakistan, let it be Under 19 on seniors, I dont like that idea at all. Let people say that we are afraid of playing them. Who cares! Unless this terrorism issue is resolved, no visit shud be mde from india to pak by any sports team.

We Indians should respect the Soldiers who are fighting for our country without caring about there lives. How can these people make tour to Pakisthan when a fellow country men, a soldier, is being killed at the border or a common man is killed by a bomb blast.

NO WAY. i dont agree to that at all.

Sudip Basu: You have said in your last blog, " Shouldn't it be all, or nothing - preferably, all?". This was about whether we should stop everything along with cricket.

I don't think so. Cricket is very popular & sensitive issue in both the countries. So, we should not start that unless the relationship is much improved. That does not mean, we should not start other communications.

Let me give you an example: You have a neighbour with whom you have a bad relation but, let us assume, both of you want to improve the relation. On the first day, I don't think you are going to invite your neighbour for a dinner, neither you should go. It may   start with a 'hello' in the morning, shaking hand on the next day,

having a cup of coffee together next weekend etc. Are you getting my point?

Let us start slowly & cautiously. If both the countries can become friends, it is good for both of us. There are lots of real issues around the world like terrorism, poverty, malnutrition, pollution & to fight them the world needs to be together.

Hoping to create a better world for our children.

Sunil Patnaik: basically i believe that u either have ties with pak or u dont have. But there r exceptions to the story some people who r dependent for their lielyhood itself on relations (trade etc.) cannot be asked to stop with out being compensated.

That being said the same applies to sport not all sport are rich and are unaffected by such a step as not having ties some of the activities are lesser known and actually help both the countries in developing their talent, but cricket at the highest level is where it is noticeble and does send a message. so I dont see any problem with us not making trips in cricket and cricket alone.

Also it is worth mentioning that the impact of this with all the parties concerned is not something that each other cannot bear.

Vishnu Ramachandran: I was just listening to the latest 'Panix station' and I was very amused to hear your take on the Sachin-Ferrari issue. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but one of your lines of arguments went something like '..there are a lot of waivers issues, so why does everyone make a big issue out of Sachin getting a waiver..'

Well, here is your argument taken to the extreme : "..there are a lot of rapes committed in India everyday, why do people make a big issue of 's rape case..."

Agreed, applying for a tax waiver is not the same as committing rape and is not illegal also, but the prev. line was just to demonstrate the flaw in your argument - just because people do not question the waivers (note: I do not say it is illegal) of many others, it does automatically mean people shouldn't question Sachin.

I think people missed the bigger question here - it shouldn't have been 'Why did Sachin ask for the waiver?'; it should've been 'Why didn't Sachin ask Ferrari to pay the duty instead of screwing India?'. After all, Ferrari gave him the car to promote its Fiat cars and they can't do so at the expense of the people of India.

Prem: I love when things segue into these abstruse issues. (*g*)

I'll leave this whole Sachin-Ferrari issue alone, since it in any case has been resolved; plus, way too much time has been spent on it.

But about the example itself? Simple – as you say, rape and tax waiver is apple orchards and orange pips. As it turns out, your suggestion – that Fiat foot the bill for what is essentially a promotional exercise – is what finally happened. Don't you find it funny, taking off from that, that commonsense seems to be the most uncommon commodity there is?

Ajay Saini: I agree with you that it should be all, or nothing and preferably, all. Actually, the whole approach of Indian govt. confuses me not just as far as cricket is concerned but also regarding the core Kashmir issue. Maybe this is not relevant or I should say that this article was on on cricket, but I would love to know what you think about this Kashmir problem. I agree that peace efforts of our government will most likely produce same results as before. But what you think is the solution or what should India do? The problem as I see is:

Pakistan says that Indian governed Kashmir has been occupied illegally by India and she is supporting the freedom fighters. India says PoK should be given back to India as it is ours. I see the following possiblities, at least theoretically:

1. Same status, i.e, Pak sponsoring terrorism and India fighting or shouting at Pak.

2. LoC be made international border officially and both the neighbors start living in peace.

3. India gets PoK through war or charity from Pak.

4. Pakistan gets Indian governed Kashmir through war or charity from India.

5. After plebiscite Kashmir is made independent state or merged officially with India or Pakistan.

6. Negotiation where both parties sign a give and take deal to get rid of this mess.

Now, I am not sure what our great government of India is looking for and what kinda policy they are having...I simply love your articles and would be very happy if you can respond to me (no urgency, I can wait) and give your opinion what our government should do.

Prem: Maybe, as you say, this is not the appropriate forum for this, but hey, what the hell, who's to say what is right and what is wrong on what, after all, is just a dressed up discussion forum?

I don't know about you guys, but I tend to favor simple solutions, if I can find them. In this case, I would say the solution -- or at least, the first step – is very simple.

What, when you get down to it, is the real, immediate, problem?

It is not the LoC, not plebiscite in Kashmir, not the displaced Pandits, not any of these things. These are all related issues -- but you cannot solve a single one of them until you solve the key issue, which to my mind is this: Every day, at least one Indian is being killed in the Valley, and that is one Indian too many.

That has to stop -- no ifs, buts, maybes.

How?

The deaths are being caused by terrorists bearing arms in contravention of the laws of this land. That, according to all laws known to man, translates into an act of war.

So what do you do when you are at war? You call out the army. So hell, just do it.

We gave the democratic process a good try. The elections were internationally acknowledged as the free-est, and fairest, there have been; there is a democratic government in place, and the only visible outcome is that terrorists and their atrocities have proliferated.

So enough already -- human life is worth a whole lot more than abstruse concepts of governance. Democracy, for now, is not solving the problem, that is apparent. The people there may want it, but it is equally apparent that there are 100s of terrorists in their rat holes in the Valley, who are hell bent on disrupting life.

So, put the government in abeyance for now, and hand the state over to the Armed Forces. This is not a denial of democracy -- merely a fact of life, that when the country is at war, the Army takes the responsibility of defending it and doing whatever is necessary to repel the invaders.

So here, the Army seals the borders (and remember it has the Air Force to help), then puts out a proclamation that any one with any kind of arms, ammunition, ordnance, explosive, or any other lethal weapon whatsoever, has a fortnight to surrender it, no questions asked, at any on a list of designated military posts.

Once that deadline passes, the Army will sweep through the Valley, treating it as it would the frontlines of a war zone. Anyone caught in possession of weapons will be treated as a combatant in war -- in other words, shot dead.

Never mind the human rights commissions -- if their hearts must bleed, there are 70-plus thousand dead Indians to bleed for.

In that fashion, clean up the Valley of all terrorist presence. Then mine the border, end to end, so there is no further infiltration. In this connection, I don't understand what the human rights types are complaining of -- no one said mine the city center; this is the border we are talking about, legitimate people have legitimate points of entry and egress to use; if you are crossing the border at points other than those designated it is obviously for no good, so if you get blown to bits by a mine, tough -- but far rather you, than some innocent man, woman or child in the Valley.

Once you have the Valley cleaned up -- disinfected, if you will -- you can think of returning it to democracy; you can think of inviting the displaced people to return, secure in the knowledge that they are not going to be blown up by a bunch of anonymous cowards.

And once that is done, once the Valley is cleaned of vermin and safeguards are put in place to ensure there is no repeat, then -- and only then -- reopen dialogue with Pakistan, on the clear understanding that the first death in the Valley of anything other than natural causes will mean that all bets are off; and India will take whatever steps it needs to, to safeguard its interests.

Hell, when 9/11 happened, the US decimated a country thousands of miles away. We are not talking of invading someone else, merely of ensuring the integrity of our own territory -- if anyone has any objections, what's to stop us telling them to go fish?

Your Responses: Part Two

Previous Blog: Gentlemen, Play? Not!

Mail Prem Panicker