A Pakistani-American in India

HAHA..M K Bhadrakumar is a correspondent for the asia times...you know..the asia times you so famously exposed as a front for some secret agencies...the asia times YOU said wasn't credible...

laddu i am not exactly shocked that you'd call me an apologist blah blah blah its a pretty old refrain and at this point the last refuge for a wound up emotional person whose allegations are not borne out by reality.
Anyway i am enclosing articles of the CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN....not my personal "dear diary i wish the world was whatevr". If you chose to be rational you will see that pakistani muslims who will never refute the word of the Quran have agreed its encumbent on them to not destroy idols and make dhimmi's out of their fellow nonmuslim pakistani's. Ofcourse thats a less hysterical way to look at the world and maybe a point of view you cant let yourself accept. I would never deny the injuistices done to minorities in pakistan but your contention that being a believing muslim automatically means muslim leaders/masses are out to prey on nonmuslims and what not is clearly false as evidenced :

Article 2: Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.13
Article 20: Subject to law, public order and morality: (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

Article 21: No person shall be compelled to pay any special tax, the proceeds of which are to be spent on the propagation or maintenance of any religion other than his own.

Article 22 (1): No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relate to a religion other than his own.

(2): In respect of any religious institution, there shall be no discrimination against any community in the granting of exemption or concession in relation to taxation.

(3): Subject to law, (a) no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or denomination; and (b) no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth.

Now I am not into this habit of copy pasting articles from the web but I guess I am under the influence or am just being lazy.

Here is another article from Rediff. Please do read the complete article.
I am posting this here because of the article pasted here post ##626
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/15/op.htm#3
Slippery base of foreign policy By Zubeida Mustafa( and she is reading too much in to the whole saga!)

I would say listen to this one intelligent (finally)Indian who really can figure out what is going on. Incidentally, I had already broached on this subject in some of my posts here. I don’t know why I get the feeling that Mr. Bhadrakumar reads chowk and especially my posts to get ideas for his articles.
Anyway, read it and understand this POV. I will be glad to answer any questions on this article.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/14guest.htm

The US cannot dictate to Pakistan
M K Bhadrakumar

“A besieged military ruler threatens to resort to emergency rule, suspending all residual pretensions of democratic rule, but in the event is forced to 'blink' as the spectre of an eruption of popular disaffection suddenly comes to haunt him. He quickly backtracks. Period.
That's how in common perception, foreign observers, especially in neighbouring India, have portrayed last week's developments in Pakistan.
Such a portrayal may seem appealing in our age of democracy, especially as Pakistan stands poised at the threshold of the 60th anniversary of its independence. But, like with any simplification, it overlooks the complexities of the Pakistan question.
Arguably, President Pervez Musharraf's principal audience was not even the Pakistani vox populi. Three aspects must be noted. First, Musharraf is not operating in a vacuum. He is a representative of the Pakistani establishment. All decisions are taken on behalf of the establishment.
It is entirely conceivable that at some stage if Musharraf finds himself in a cul-de-sac in the coming weeks, he may hand over power to another general.
Second, it wasn't a mere coincidence that in the shadow of the cascading speculation regarding imminent emergency rule, the Pakistan national assembly held a special four-day debate exclusively devoted to the government's foreign policy.”
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/14guest.htm
For more use the link above

:) anil thanks for being such a sane person and interacting on chowk at the same time which almost never happens...

#619 Posted by ANull

“Arabic dhimmi becomes zimmi in the Indian subcontinent, just as dhikr becomes zikr, dharb becomes zarb, Ramadan becomes Ramzan, etc.”

Actually the correct Arabic words are Zimmi, Zarb, Zikr and Ramazan. I am not sure why they became Dhimmi, Ramadhan etc in English. I guess it has something to with where the emphasis is on letter ‘Z’. Like no one would say Adhaan, it is always azaan or the name Zaid. Most Arabs would say Zaid like Shaiklh Zaid bin Sultan Al-Nahyan of Dubai. But for some reason Riaz(SA city) is Riadh.

It is not a good idea to show how ignorant you are time and time again. Dolt!

Zimmi dari is not an Urdu word or the combination of words and that’s why I think Tolkinin confused that with Zamindari.
The other closest word to Zimmi dari would be zimmahdari which means responsibility.

Be careful next time. Don't venture in to things you have no knowledge which is almost everything!

tahmed sahib, actually opposition from priestly classes has certainly been a factor, but as you can see there is an inbuilt opposition between Islam and polytheism, idol/nature worshipping.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever made an attempt to connect the two., except across bridges of hatred, contempt, and ultimately violence (other than simply ignoring the oppositions, of course).

Don't like hearing the reality from indians? fine..here's reality in the words of a paki...in j-man's newspaper too..

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/15/op.htm#3

Slippery base of foreign policy


By Zubeida Mustafa

WHEN Pakistan’s foreign policy came in the line of fire in the National Assembly last week, one wished that the level of the debate had been more informed and intelligent. But what can one expect from parliamentarians who are too busy with their own pursuits and have no time to even attend Assembly sessions regularly, let aside do their homework?

When Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri rose to wind up the debate, there were barely 40 members in the House. The quorum required is 86 and since the opposition did not point out the lack of quorum, the debate could proceed.

The opposition and surprisingly some members of the ruling Muslim League as well were childishly vociferous in denouncing President Musharraf’s close alliance with the United States in its war on terror that has brought so much humiliation to Pakistan. This made the foreign minister’s job of putting up a spirited defence of his government’s performance quite easy. He promptly listed a series of the foreign office’s ‘foreign policy successes’, as he termed them.

The entire debate was quite superficial. One member, incidentally from the ruling party, a retired major from the army and the parliamentary secretary of defence, did not even attempt to define the policy. He just lashed out in all directions, suggesting that the country should fight a jihad against India and the US, extend recognition to the Taliban – as though one mistake in 1997 were not enough – and dispatch infiltrators into the Kashmir Valley to take revenge.

A closer look at the foreign policy scenario, especially in the context of the developments taking place in the region, leaves one quite stupefied at the lack of understanding among our MNAs of how foreign policy works. Equally baffling is the ad hoc manner in which Pakistan’s policymakers treat this important area of public life.

What emerges from Mr Kasuri’s statement is that our foreign policy focuses primarily on our strategic and security ties with China, the US, the EU and the Muslim world. Obtaining economic assistance and investment from these countries also figures prominently on our foreign policy agenda. What is strange is that the foreign minister chose to brush aside the two most important elements that are actually vital to the shaping of the entire gamut of our foreign relations. These are Pakistan’s equations with India and Afghanistan.

The government appears to be shy about debating the South Asian sector of our foreign relations — notably our ties with India and Afghanistan — and would like to wish it away like an embarrassing dream. But, unfortunately, that is not how diplomacy operates and the government would do better to face squarely some of the facts of life that we have so far refused to recognise. This refusal has cost Islamabad dearly. It has led it to commit blunders of the worst kind while formulating and conducting its foreign and geo-strategic relations. In the process, the country has had to toe the American line with undignified servility.

One of the basic premises on which the foreign office proceeds is that India is our enemy number one. This is not articulated so candidly now as it was a few years ago. But in a subtle way, Islamabad continues to regard New Delhi as its detractor.

For example, take Mr Kasuri’s speech in the National Assembly. While listing his government’s achievements in the field of foreign affairs one item that he mentioned — in fact, the only one in the political context pertaining to India — was his success in blocking India’s ambition to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Kashmir is made out to be the core issue that has blocked friendship between the two countries. But only 48 per cent of the respondents in Pakistan in a survey conducted by Dawn News said that the territory should be a part of their country while 45 per cent believed that friendship with India was possible without the issue being resolved.

Pakistan has yet to become aware of some basic tenets in conducting external relations. No country opens fronts on every side. Although a dialogue is taking place with New Delhi, the government’s tone is wary and the adversarial undertone in Pakistan’s foreign policy continues to be quite pronounced. The sense of antagonism is so strong that Islamabad’s Afghan policy has been shaped accordingly.

These contradictions have also affected the war efforts against the extremists. As such Pakistan has, at least until recently, resorted to the use of covert methods by its secret agencies to keep the pot boiling in Kashmir and also in Afghanistan.

If the country now finds itself overly dependent on the United States, it is not strange. Sensing Islamabad’s limited manoeuvrability, Washington has exploited the situation to its advantage and put pressure on Pakistan when it deems it necessary, even threatening to use military action against the Taliban safe havens on Pakistani territory. Hence, the outpouring of the anti-American sentiments in the country that we witnessed last week. But swinging to the other end is no answer.

Pakistan has been behaving like a big power in the conduct of its foreign policy. It appears to forget the constraints it suffers from in terms of its resources and its relative size and status as a neighbour of India. Competing with India is not a sensible strategy since it only adds to our contradictions.

Besides it is now time for Pakistan to recognise that its moorings should be firmly rooted in South Asia. A non-adversarial relationship with India will help Pakistan to maintain a dignified distance from the US without making an enemy out of it.

A glaring example of our mishandling of our policy vis-à-vis India is the case of our fateful decision in 1998 to become a nuclear power. This was prompted by our conventional policy of waging an arms race with New Delhi. The danger we now face is that this nuclear capability might prove to be a white elephant as the US and other powers debate the possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Al Qaeda.

The political crisis in the country has intensified this debate and there is now talk of America launching air strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. The Bush administration claims to have knowledge of their location. Can Pakistan resist this onslaught?

What do the "moderate" pakis think about a poor country like pakistan creating, arming, training, sustaining and supporting the taliban to gain strategic depth in Afghanistan...

It's ok to heap miseries on the hapless afghans as long as it serves the purpose of allah's chosen muslims, the pakis.....right?

tahmed32

Instead of non-Muslims in general, the focus should have been on non-semitic, polytheist, idol or nature worshipping people. There are a lot of men and women who are quite proud of these traditions, and there is a need for both sides to understand/appreciate each other.

dost-mittar sahib

My experience is that most people don't sugar-coat or poison-coat. They GENUINELY believe what they say. So outsiders must be open to allowing for a range of possible meanings - just like in the reading of any other text. That is the only way diversity can be understood, anyway. Again, the objective should only be to obtain a better understanding of things as they actually are.

As we meet more and more people, aquisition of this knowledge, at the common-person level, is an urgent task. Right now/Up until now, that explanatory burden has been left to people like Zakir Naik and sundry 'sufis.' The consequence has been that there is too much mutual hatred and contempt between polytheistic idol worshippers and Muslims (in fact anyone who strongly and actively deprecates polytheistic idol/nature worshipping). That is not good.

#621 Posted by Ras on August 14, 2007 8:32:52 pm


According to the logic of Partition, Kashmir should have
been a part of Pakistan. But today the Kashmiris would
prefer Independence.


The majority of Indians want Indian Kashmir to be part of India...IF you're so in love with the Kashmiris, offer them instant citizenship to the land of the pure..they should be happy to come to the promised land, right? they'll even get to celebrate your independence day..that should partly make up for the tribals not doing the same


Kashmir is a problem that is the key to every other India-
Pakistan problem. Enough suffering has been caused to two
very poor countries because of this issue and untold misery has become a part of Kashmiri life.


Fine..give up your support of islamic terrorism and things will go back to the pre-1989 situation...

Poor countries should try to give up changing the status quo when they're clearly poorly equipped to do so..

Do pakis really think anyone is going to fall for this "we're all poor so give us kashmir and everything will be fine" line..



India's future energy source may be coming through both Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is best to be on good terms
with both of them.


why don't you wake up and smell the coffee....India is likely to be a huge economy in the near future and you can only hope to be to india what mexico is to the US..so if you don't want to trade, best of luck with your other neighbors...

maybe you're still hanging on the the pakiland-as-gateway-to-central-asia delusion..



Let there be peace in South Asia so that it can reach
its full potential.


yes..no islamic terrorism backed by the paki government means peace...

Pakis keep telling us India needs pakiland to grow...they've been telling us this for the past how many years now? Guess what, India has grown at more than 9% for the past 3 years...

Ras:

Only Cliftonbridge, Zeena and Scout can play hardball with Arjun.

RE: #576 Posted by arjun2 "The pakis want to be friends with India as long as India hands them over Indian Kashmir on a platter.."

Bhai arjun2, you have become a broken record.

Would you kindly explain to us who are reading and writing

challenged, as to which "Platter" you are referring to?

Kashmir's platter has already been filled by death and

destruction. It is already a bloody dish as the toll mounts.

What people like myself wish for is an end to the madness.

According to the logic of Partition, Kashmir should have

been a part of Pakistan. But today the Kashmiris would

prefer Independence.

If Pakistan was India's only problem in Kashmir, it would

be a lot simpler.

Kashmiris are not a "platter" just contents who can be

given to Pakistan.

Kashmir is a problem that is the key to every other India-

Pakistan problem. Enough suffering has been caused to two

very poor countries because of this issue and untold misery

has become a part of Kashmiri life.

Before we regret our animosity even further, let us try

and close this chapter with some sacrifice and creativity.

Both India and Pakistan can do a lot better without this

issue between them.

I know that Indians are quick to say "Who needs Pakistan?"

India's future energy source may be coming through both

Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is best to be on good terms

with both of them.

Let us wake up and smell the coffee shall we?

Let there be peace in South Asia so that it can reach

its full potential. The only thing that has been offered

to its people "on a platter" is misery and poverty. And it

does not need to be that way.

Happy Independence Day!

Ras

kaal#616:

"Well, one thing that is happening now is that more and more people who consciously choose to lead unIslamic lives (polytheists and idol worshippers and such) are beginning to look into the Quran themselves."

...and finding it difficult to swallow the sugarcoating by the moderates.

Tolkinin #611

{{Its not Zimmi -dari but Zamin Dari which has nothing to do with Hindu or Muslim }}

No he means zimmi, perhaps more familiar as dhimmi, i.e. “disenfranchised non-Muslim subject, forced to pay per-head protection money (jizyah), and subjected to various compulsory civic disabilities such as prohibition from bearing arms and disqualification from testifying against momins”. Arabic dhimmi becomes zimmi in the Indian subcontinent, just as dhikr becomes zikr, dharb becomes zarb, Ramadan becomes Ramzan, etc.

kaal: When you say non-muslims, be specific and say "non-muslims from India".

Because, the best known non-muslims scholars from the west who have studied the Quran (Karen Armstrong, Joe Esposito) actually have a very positive things to say not only of its teachings but also about muslim history.

And dont say "objective" when it comes to talking about Indian hindus - you people have shown amply on chowk how much you hate islam, so how can you be objective.

What is this hatred based on? a thousand years of muslim rule? I dont think that alone is sufficient. You wont like my saying this - but a lot of this hatred would very well stem from opposition from the priestly class in hinduism that made easy living on the basis of religion, and the egalitarianism of Islam (which in effect freed the lower castes from brahmin domination) would be anathema to it.

#603 krishnaabcd: I am worse than wily, as far as you are concerned.

You asked me to compare Cuban GNP with Pakistan GNP, and being "wily" (to use your words), you ignored the fact that Delusional Indian No. 9182 on chowk had compared US-Cuba equation to India-Pakistan. So, there is nothing "wily" in my reminding you what you ignored (i.e. the US vs India per capita income).

So, now I see you are being wilier by...(drum roll)...changing the topic to something else.

The only thing worse than a dud is a "wily" dud. Try being honest instead. Then you will be really "wily". (PS: this may go against your teachings, and I fully expect you to ignore this good advice).