Letter from Pakistan

maula jatt writes <<< I must admit that living in USA for the past 30 years has dumbed me down considerably >


Yes your post shows it, it is quite dumb. The people of Pakistan did not ``prop up`` Musharraf, the institution he was in command of, which is firmly in the grip of the Americans ensured that he came to power and stayed ``propped up`` till such time as he is needed no more. The other institutions, like the political, that have been carpet bombed by the Army and are in what remains are quite moth-eaten, will default to dancing to whatever tune the Army plays...Now go back and finish eating your big mac and fries because Uncle Sam`s elite need you to sweat some more to fill their coffers even as they break up your families and destroy your values....whatever values you have left in your moth eaten soul...

#31 by no-nick fool,

No.

#33 by Mantolives on June 27, 2007 6:21am PT


but the point where that Islamic law infringes upon the rights of minorities, it ceases to be a democracy and becomes tyranny of the majority.


rights of the minorities to do what?

The US government has every right to make sure the somali islamofascists cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport are required to follow the terms of their medallion and take passengers even if they are carrying bottles of alcohol. the islamofascists might whine about how they think allah forbids alcohol but then they are free to NOT drive a cab...

p.s. declaring ahmedis non-muslims would be a good example of infringement but if that law is consistent with your constitution, and I don`t know that it is, it`s still democratic...

Re: # 32

``Pakistanis are actually negating the very fundamental basic principle on which they got the country i``

It is old hat and 60 years have flown under the bridge - time to move on.
The principle you are outlining is essentially proportional electorate (this is a positive only if the minorities are at a level where they can sway matters - eg. minorities are 20%, and the majority are split two ways with 40% each - then depending on who gives in most the minorites will go that way). - this is assuming that all votes have the same weight - unless you are suggesting that each vote of the minority has more weight than that of the majority. In pakistan proportional does not make sense - because any which way you want it the minorities will always lose out - since it is almost 95% Muslim (unless you tell me otherwise - and count the ahmedis, aga khanis etc as minorities)


And BTW, if you meet IM in real life (like I did in the windies) you will be surprised mantolives. You are elevating me (intellectually and by way of accomplishments as well) by calling me IM!

shishapa,

With all due respect only bigotry that is manifest is yours on this board behind the thin veneer of stupidity and ignorance.

I am not going to say ``khoon mein hai`` like you did. Instead I am going to say it is the environmental conditions.

There was never such an intent ever, it was just a whitewash_on/excuse_for the bigotry.
It did not take very long to manifest itself and has been manifesting ever since.
Khoon hi mein hai.

Dear Arjunm,

I agree that if the majority decides to incorporate Islamic law in its constitution ... it is still democracy... but the point where that Islamic law infringes upon the rights of minorities, it ceases to be a democracy and becomes tyranny of the majority.

-YLH

Dear iron mask,

I have absolutely no qualms with agreeing an Islamic constitutions provided the rules of the game are followed fair and square... and the principle of citizenship is not breached.

For example... the Constitution of 1973 guaranteed fundamental rights and complete equality of citizenship... it also provided for interpretation of Islam according to each established sect... And yet we`ve seen a complete negation of all the fundamental principles of that constitution ...


All I am saying is that by applying the principle of ``majority is authority`` to the constitution, Pakistanis are actually negating the very fundamental basic principle on which they got the country i.e. ``no permanent majority can by its sheer number dictate to a permanent minority``... had we paid heed to this principle instead of burying it... there would be no objectives resolution, islam in the constitution blah blah... I am referring to actual voting patterns in this case and not hoping and wishing.

Re: # 24
zeemax why are you getting jealous? Are you not shifting crap in England by being on the dole and other state handouts?

Re: # 26
Manto, for any of this to happen, you need to first decide underwhich framework the constitution or laws would work. In the current situation in Pakistan it has to be Islamic - nothing else will work. The reason nothitng else will work is that the opposing camp does not have people of a great calibre who can convince and move people in their direction - in the way perhaps Ambedkar or Nehru were able to do it in India.

The example, nearest one, is to have a framework of the sort the US had in 1776 - very christian (liberationist/refromist/protestant kind) - and the constitution reflected the claims of the time - and allow it to evolve with time. (that the words have been reinterpreted to suit todays ideas and views is what allows the yanks to claim ``that their constituion was ahead of its time``) Thus anti-slavery etc. This could have worked if it was implemented in 1947. But now the expectation are greater, and pace of change is expected to be even more rapid.

Your kite will not fly far given today`s situation. So settle for a constituion based on an Islamic Framework, and make it work for you. Allow time to heal and change interpretations.

arjun #28 ``how would I get from LA Guardia to downtown ``

Ride on the broomstick I saw this shrivelled little Indian janitor (who probably also talks big like you when writing home) using to clean up La Guardia?

#24 by zeemax on June 27, 2007 4:35am PT

pakis run america too....without pakis, how would I get from LA Guardia to downtown like I have to next week...

#26 by Mantolives on June 27, 2007 5:29am PT



agreeing on the fundamentals requires assent of all contending groups


Sorry..the fundamentals of a democracy are it`s constitution...the supreme law of the land..a constitution is usually voted upon by the majority of the people or some version of a majority..A majority doesn`t always mean absolute majority.......If the majority, in whatever form, want Islamic law to be an integral part of the constitution, then it`s still a democracy...the land of the pure can ban alchohol and pork and still be a democracy...

face it...there`ll always be some minority that doesn`t want some law...what if a minority of chaddis wanted sati to be legal? tough luck...

arjunm,

The ordinary functioning of the government, the making of the government and transition from one form of government to another.. this is all done by majority principle. However this comes after the agreement on fundamentals which has to take into account all groups and then the democratic principle applies vis a vis each group within itself.

However... agreeing on the fundamentals requires assent of all contending groups... and that agreement cannot be on the basis of majority and minority but rather the agreement of each affected group.

Since I am not concerned with Britain etc... but only Pakistan... in Pakistan it should mean that logically before undertaking any Islamisation that may affect the rights of any minority group whether religious or sectarian, the general will of that group must be first ascertained. It is a good principle and safeguard against tyranny of the majority... it is also in my view true democracy.

Dear Imran,
I hope this letter finds you in the best of health, hope family is doing well? My apologies that I havent written lately, you know how it is in Amrikka, we get busy with work and tend to forget the rest of the world. As a matter of fact since we work so hard, are the most productive nation in the world, God has blessed us ( god bless america), we have a god given right to determine whats world series and whats not (BTW do you know of any other country beside Canada, Japan and Cuba that plays baseball, and how many countries play american football).

Forget USA for a second, can you please explain why a democratically chosen dictator (Musharraf) of Pakistan captures Al Qaeda agents when CNN and FOX cameras are flashing, however he supports the same agents when Al-Jazeera shows up?

I must admit that living in USA for the past 30 years has dumbed me down considerably and I have embraced naivity with open arms. The statement above in the form of a question displays duplicity by Pakistani government. I can safely state that 160 million people of pakistan are not terrorists, however when the same 160 million people pick a government that is devious in nature that explains the honesty and dedication of people that propped him up in the first place.

Warmest Regards
Your Pakistani Brother

#10 by Urstruly,

So, only people who are left to run America are of only two kinds - Christian religious nuts and godless capitalists. So here we are..between devil and deep sea.

You forgot the trailer-park hindoos who type code and shake out bed bugs from the mattresses in motels.