A Muslim Pope?

harish_hid at # 62:

You may take it as a warning, but it is a simple piece of advice.

The elders have said that when you attack others, do it only when you have adequate defences to face the counter attack. As it is, you have left your flanks and rear wide open to a vigorous counter-attack that can leave you speechless.

I hope you understand.

#75, HP & tahmed: you are either not understanding what I am writing in your blind support for the US elite, or maybe I am not making myself as clear as I should talking about context and social structure.

If HP & tahmed hold the premise that you cannot extrapolate, why are they using a distortion of history to present their case. You can’t have it both ways. Either use it or don’t.

The US had been interfering in that area long before the Soviet invasion, whereas the US jumped the ocean to not only provide material, and ideological support to the fanatics that later turned against it, the soviets were directly affected by that neighborhood. Duped by the US, they not only hastened their own demise, they helped the US destroy Afghanistan. Over one million Afghans were killed because the US wanted to bleed the Soviets, after luring them in there according to Zbigniew Brzezinski the national security advisor to President Carter- and then Carter the criminal gets a Nobel Prize.
Unlike you I have given references, and told you exactly where you can go and read them up. Many are first hand quotes from US officials who were direct players in the events.

#92 you write <<< Although I agree with masadi on blaming the USA for creation of Al Qaidah to some extent, I am with HP and you in that we cannot blame the USA for every evil that is now in Pakistan because of extremism.>>>

HP and tahmed support the Mujahideen extremists fighting the ``godless communists`` but they don’t support the same ideological extremists when they turn themselves against the Pakistani society as they did in Afghanistan. These are double standards to say the least. Reveals blind support of America and the American elite and its agenda, the ``freedom fighters`` of old when they support US agenda are turned into extremists when they don`t support that agenda. No, they were extremists before and they are extremists now; religion was merely used to dupe the masses- the damn criminals who were leaders of the Mujahideen were barbarians, they were not Islamic at all.

It is also a fact that the US has been interfering and supporting military governments in Pakistan. The Americans have a symbiotic relationship with the extremists, now this relationship does not have to be based upon direct control or popular rhetoric and orders, but we can see the effects none the less. This ``fake`` threat of extremism helps keep the permanent war economy in the US booming, even as it is isolated from the major effects of this war methodology, while their actions ensure that the threat always remains, it never ends, it keeps going regardless of the people ``over there`` who suffer from it. Just like Bush in a roundabout manner puts it now and then, it is better to fight them ``over there than at home``. Yes he wants to reap the benefits of a new global war, in the form of profits, but not see any effects at home, no matter the poor in the third world live in hell because of it.

Take the case of Iraq, how many suicide bombings were happening in Iraq before the US invasion? How many suicide bombings took place in Pakistan before the Afghan invasion by the US in 2001? The whole atmosphere in which extremism flourished was created during the Afghan `cold war` that the US fought, once created it is not that easy to control, it becomes a vicious cycle that feeds itself, especially within deteriorating economic conditions and a government that cares more about the wishes of the US elite than its own people.

I can guarantee you, if Pakistan quits fighting the farce called the ``US war on terror``, breaks all relationship with the American elite, undertakes economic reforms, sharing the wealth with the masses, not only will religious violence vanish, population growth will stop as well. However that is not going to happen because it does not mesh with the desires of the American elite. Not only Pakistan, whenever someone has tried to help their people and that goes against US interests in the region, the US has stepped in as opposition causing catastrophe in the region. The examples are just too many to ignore.

Public and global issues cannot be solved by private and local solutions, that is just a fact whether you agree or not. All that happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1980s is in the past now. To fix those problems we need to be clear about the cause and the cause was the US Afghan war and the entire social structure created in northern Pakistan to support that war, together with the Madrassa indoctrination in the camps supported by the US using books published in the University of Nebraska, and the whole propaganda of the ``holy war`` that was fed to the world through those extremists using help of people like Zalmay Khalilzad, a major Neo-Con player in the current administration as well.

Re: # 93 shishapaji:

I respect your opinion { I am glad Gandhiji was unlike Mr. Jinnah.} I too am of the same opinion. I admire Jinnah because he was taught by the best. Afterall he was a student of Sir Dadabhoy Novroji, the first champion of the freedom to free India.

Shishapaji, I am not a historian, and will not get involved in the nuances of history. For me it is enough that L.K. Advani, the leader of Hidutuva, praised M.A. Jinnah.

{Gandhiji was uniter and not a divider exploting religion like Mr. Jinnah.} And that is so wrong that you are promoting.

{He died early for his own good otherwise he would have been either shot dead or
somehow killed by Pakistanis.} And how would you know?

{He was a curse to the Indian subcontinent,} You are correct, maybe to the hindu India.

But, at the time millions were saying

But kar rahe ga hindustan
Bun kar rahe ga Pakistan

And that is authenticity of a politician, which unfortunately the misogynist Gandhi could not be.

Respectfully submitted,

re: Gandhi`s relevance in Palestine
I am doing this for the umpteenth time but it is always a pleasure for me to revistit Gandhi`s message and learn something new everytime. If, in doing so, i can bring some Pakis out of their prejudices and hatred, i would have done something useful.
Gandhi continues to be a dominant topic among those who want to see peace in Palestine. India of course has given up the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence and most Indians pay only lip service to that great man but at least some Palestinians, NGOs (from US) are interested in pushing Gandhi`s message throught the movie. Read how the
Gandhi Project seeks to promote peace in the middle east through Gandhiji`s message. AS the website says, the goal is

(to promote peaceful resistance as an alternative strategy of defying injustice. Such opposition seeks to give the struggle of Palestinian individuals and communities a voice to communicate the inhumane conditions they live under.

By applying gandhian principles and appealing to the conscience and humanity of the international community, the Palestinian community hopes to bring about peaceful resolution of its concerncs

The second dimension of the Gandhi Project seeks to establish partnership and relationship between Non-Governmental Organizations and civil society organizations especially those that work in the arena of civil resistance and community development. Through participation in such a network we hope for the net of unity to take shape and thereby cause Palestinian society to empower itself.)
Arun Gandhi, the great grandson of the Mahatma, has been visiting Palestine and Israel, promoting Gandhiji`s message of peace.
the movie of the same name has been effective in spreading the message of peace.

Palestenians face a formidble enemy but have made the mistake of pitting against that enemy by terrorist violence, thereby provoking a more violent retaliation. There is no Palestenian Gandhi in sight but the debate goes on as to how effective his methods would be in the Palestenian context.
The world has neither forgotten the man nor his message.
Sridhar

masadi at # 98:

I don`t know what are you discussing with tahmed and HP, but you addressed my post as well. So, I am going to reply to what I intended to say.

Mujahideens were created by the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It would have been better if they had continued listening to their creators after the fall of communists in Afghanistan for their own benefit. They did not. Instead they started quarelling among themselves. However, their bickering was restricted to Afghanistan. It never spread in Pakistan. It was only after the arrival of Talibans and a bit later by Al Qaidah on the scene that all hell broke loose in Pakistan. During the Afghan war itself, there was no religious tension in Pakistan. Religious extremism spread when Al Qaidah brought its extreme form of Islam in Afghanistan and joined hands with Talibans` own form of extremist Islam.

This fact was not lost on ISI / military, since they had decided much before 9/11 to confront Talibans and Al Qaidah members on some issues like giving refuge to sectarian extremists in Afghanistan. President Musharraf is on record of having moved ahead on this plan in his speech of 14th August 2001.

Re: # 95 ahmadzai:

I am not sure what your question is?

{Just out of curiosity, would you say that the independence of Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia was on the model of Jinnah?}

Jinnah never promoted violence. On the contrary, if muslims of India would have gotten exactly what was promised to them, in upteen meetings, probably some violence could have been avoided. Besides, Jinnah never promoted the social movement of muslims and hindus from their respective places of origins. It is a fact, that it was the Hindus who started the killing of muslims in days immediately after partition.

Respectfully submitted,

re:#89 by shishapa
Since violence has not worked against the Israelis, do u think a non-violent struggle would work?
Gandhiji`s genius was in transforming a concept into ``mass action``. He was successful because he was both saintly and politically shrewd. He practised what he preached or as Americans would say, he ``walked the talk``. He was politically shrewd enough to realize that a violent struggle against British may never succeed. British were well trained to control mobs, and subjugate an insurrection. They, however, did not know how to deal with a peaceful, massive demonstration of force (or ``Satyagraha`` as Gandhiji termed it). There has been a debate as to his methods would work in Palestine.
Author of this article feels Gandhiji`s philosophy may not work in the Palestenian context.
Sridhar

#101, Al Qaeda has a long history in Afghanistan, which predates those labeled ``Taliban``- The US left a country with no institutions, a power vacuum and armed extremists- what else did you expect other than a civil war- same is probably going to happen in US destroyed Iraq.

The military government in Pakistan is part and parcel of the farce of the ``war on terrorism``. They created a monster with the help of the US elite and then in popular rhetoric claimed to be against it even as they benefit from its effects, one enjoys the status of ``house slave in cheif`` the hero of the ``front line state``, while the other gains legitimacy in stealing not only from his own people the Americans but the world~ regardless of human misery that results in the process.

I reject them both, I can never support this barbarism. The US elite are the ``higher terrorists``, they are the ``higher extremists``~ Bin laden and his gang are small fry compared to them. But as always, the US elite presents their imagined foes as bigger than life, like the did with Saddam`s military before Gulf War one.

Re: # 101 ahmadzai:

{Mujahideens were created by the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.} And that only after SA paid for the shoulder stringer missiles.

{Instead they started quarelling among themselves.} Yes, and then they were the Northern Alliance and the Tally bachaos in Peshawar.

Then, in 1996, Madaleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, brought Tally Bachoas to power. This was done because the Northern Alliance was considered pro-Iranian.

Respectfully submitted,

Tahmed, HP and I, we have the same end in mind, which is to benefit the masses in America, as far as I can gather. In my opinion, poverty is a much bigger issue than extremism in Pakistan. Get rid of the first and you`ll fix the other. The way to get rid of it is to break the relationship that perpetuates it and that is our relationship with the US elite, fighting their wars rather than caring about our own people. If you continue with the same relationship, as Military governments supported wholehartedly by the US have done all through our history, then these problems will keep on rising, they will never get fixed and time is running out. Pakistan will have a population of over 300 million in 2050. You think we can survive with the status quo? I think not. The time to break away from the US system is now, just as it is time to totally dissolve the Pakistan military and structure it anew.

#106 should read benefit the masses in Pakistan, not America though I have nothing against that

Re: # 106 masadi:

{The time to break away from the US system is now, just as it is time to totally dissolve the Pakistan military and structure it anew.} Yeah right!

What are you smoking?

Re: # 100

I have no problems with all that contained in your post.

After having read books and seen documentries on Jinnah, what I have problems with is that Gandhi is credited with non-violence because he used those terms and that Jinnah initiated independence movement of India, attempted to resist the hijacking of Congress by Gandhi, led to the independence of Pakistan, all through non-violence, yet he is ignored as if his philosophy was exact opposite of Gandhi.

Re: # 102

Behram:

I was trying to ask whether the independence of Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia can be termed as similar to that of Pakistan. All of these three countries had their populations living in Serbia`s territory. They had problems with the dominance of Serbs. They wanted to remain with Yogoslavia provided that the latter did not over-assert its dominance on them. All of them had a very strong ethnic (and even religious identity). All of these 3 won their independence not by non-violence of Gandhi. They wanted to have their independence non-violently, but violence was imposed on them by Serbia military.

rsridhar #103 {``They, however, did not know how to deal with a peaceful, massive demonstration of force (or ``Satyagraha`` as Gandhiji termed it). There has been a debate as to his methods would work in Palestine.``}

Sridhar Bhai,
While I have the greatest respect for Gandhiji and his non-violent movement that led to India`s independence, I think that he judged the British quite correctly when he did. The same tactics would not have worked against the British in 1857 or against the Japanese in 1940s, had the latter succeeded in conquering India. Wasn`t it Ho Chi Minh who said that if the French had been more like the British, he would have been a lot more like Gandhi?

Around the time of WWI, the British had learned civilization to some degree, not all of them, considering the tragedy of Jillianwala Bagh and Gen. Dwyer.

Much has been debated about the greatness of Mr. Jinnah, especially in comparison to Gandhiji. When one looks at the two, it is not fair to use the ``my mom`s better than your mom`` logic. As a lawyer, as a westernized Indian, and even as a secular individual, I would state that Mr. Jinnah was an exemplary person for desis of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Gandhiji, self-admittedly, was miserable in England, did not do well in being assimilated into the western environment, unlike Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Nehru, and used religion in almost every aspect of his social and political life after returning to India. So, if we compare the two as individuals, Mr. Jinnah would come across quite favorably as a modern, secular, and successfuly person - he would be up there in the ``Who`s who`` of Bombay notables.

Now, when it comes to history or accomplishment as a leader, there is no doubt in my mind as to who was greater. Just like in Bollywood awards, leading negative roles rarely bag a ``Best Actor`` award. Instead they have reserved a special category for that role. History considers those who unify nations, or cause their independence, as positive and those who divide them as negative. It`s a simple fact. Greatness has very little to do with that. Mr. Jinnah may have succeeded in obtaining a partition of India, illogical as it was, and had to console himself by saying that he got a ``moth-eaten`` Pakistan. History proved him right although it was too late. His greatness, if he had any as a leader, was lost when he accepted the deal from Lord Mountbatten. Other than his age, his failing health, and his utmost and almost desperate desire to get Pakistan, regardless of cost, showed his shortcoming as a leader. His inability to negotiate with either the Nizam of Hyderabad or the Maharaja of Kashmir showed his arrogance, his sheer stupidity, and lack of vision.

Gandhiji united a nation in its demand for independence. Gandhiji`s early appeal among both Hindus and Muslims was his greatness. His lack of ambition for power or position was his proof as the greatest leader that India or perhaps Asia had seen. This sort of greatness does not impress people who see conquest and victory on the battlefield as the only measurement of a great leader. Is it any wonder that they don`t even understand their own Holy Prophet (PBUH), who was effective as a preacher and not as a general.

Jinnah was a more accomplished and modern individual and Gandhihi was a much greater and more deserving leader. Just my two objective cents on the topic.