Again, Desperate Times

Interesting article from DAWN, Pakistan:

``Mr Clinton said that out of the 185 different ethnic groups living in the US, in education and incomes, Pakistanis and Indians ranked in the top five. ``They often meet together, work together, do things together in the US.``

``The Indian sub-continent would have a limitless potential for the 21st century if the differences between the two nations could be reconciled. There would be less need to spend vast amounts of money on military expenditures and more funds available for education, for social development, for all kinds of challenges that are out there facing people,`` Clinton said.

``So I look forward to making a real stab at that (Kashmir) next year and I see some hopeful signs there. But many of you can help and we need your help,`` he told the audience.`` (DAWN)

Who knows, maybe something will happen?

macgupta: reply 407: Thanks for the information. It is very helpful.

tvarad: reply 408: You have raised some interesting points. Personally speaking, I oppose any group of people having to live under forced occupation. Whether they are in Pakistan, India or anywhere in the world, is immaterial to me. I think all forced occupations should be stopped, and one should do whatever one can to struggle against them. They are nothing, but a sign of misplaced egos, and have terrible long term consequences. This is a personal belief. Perhaps you do not agree with it. That is your right. Kindly give me my right of agreeing with it. I feel that one should not always look towards the govt. or various organizations for guidance, vision, and decision-making. That is what has kept Pakistan in the dark-ages. In my opinion, one should take some personal initiative, as well.

Being a Pakistani, I have openly stated, that East Pakistanis should have been given a peaceful right of self-determination by West Pakistan, if the East Pakistanis did not want to be a part of Pakistan. So far, for some reason, I have found very few people from India who are willing to make such a statement about Kashmir. I am surprised how lost everyone is into the historical actions of the Mughals, East Pakistan etc. It is about time we concentrated on the present. If the Muslim rulers forced themselves upon Indian Hindus, well that was wrong. If India went out of its way to divide Pakistan, that was wrong as well. But that is water under the bridge. There is no point in using that to justify the actions or inactions of what are now Pakistan and India.

My interests in Kashmir are two-fold. Personal: because half my family lives there; most migrated from Srinigar. And because it is moral issue, which I am not afraid of supporting openly. On a personal level, I do not particularly care what Pakistan`s policy is, and what kind of govt. Pakistan has vis-a-vis Kashmir. The fact that Pakistan is a democracy or a dictatorship does not have any effect on the right of self-determination of anyone. I consider the US to have one of the most democratic and fair domestic systems in the world. I have certainly benefited from it greatly. However, I still oppose some of its foreign policy actions, like launching missiles over Pakistan, which almost hit a village in Balochistan. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

On a national level, I am convinced that Pakistan and India cannot have good relations, until some kind of a solution is reached over Kashmir. As I stated earlier, there are many options regarding this. I have presented one. I would welcome other solutions from people. Criticizing solutions is quite easy, however coming up with an acceptable one is quite difficult. One option for Pakistan is to accept India`s stand. However none of the Pakistani repliers seem willing to accept that. The other is to give and take. People don`t want that either. Another is to shove the whole problem under the carpet. However if this done, it will only continue to pop up with more intensity. The final is to not do anything and to continue fighting, which is what will happen, until there is a solution.

Pakistan (and India) have many many problems. Most of them are domestic. Pakistan should continue to make all efforts to solve its internal problems. However, these problems will take decades to solve, if they ever get solved. The Kashmir problem, given the right type of leadership (whether it is Hindu nationilist, military, Islamic nationlist, secular or any other) willing to make bold decisions, can be solved in a very short time. If Palestinian/Israel, Northern Ireland, Russia/USA etc. can make noticeable efforts to solve problems, regardless of the types of govts., and domestic problems they have, then why not Pakistan and India. I personally don`t care if Pakistan gets anything out of a Kashmir deal. If you look at the solution I have presented, it does not provide anything to Pakistan.

RV: You stated, ``P.S. And please stop the comments regarding Labeling Shnabeling… A ``chowkidar`` needs to have a thicker skin than you have…`` I did not know there were criteria for being a, ``chowkidar.`` A person does not have to, ``have`` anything to comment on an issue. They are who they are. I am not running for political office, or trying to get a favor from anyone. Those jobs may require a thick skin. Perhaps you don`t mind being labelled. I don` like it. I don`t label anyone, and I do not like to be labelled. I consider it immature, and childish, and rude. If someone tries to do it then it is my perrogative to tell them to stop. In any discussion, people should stick to the replies, without worrying about the replier.

CHOICE OF RHETORIC

Our country was created on the principle that muslims cannot live with the hindus, Kashmir being the only muslim majority region bordering our country, we feel that it should be part of our country and we would do anything to achieve this.

OR

OR

We support the right of self determination of the muslims of Kashmir, but in our country we support the military that overthrew elected government. We protest the treatment of muslims in Kashmir by the military, but in our country military is ‘untouchable” and we don’t protest against honour killing, even our elected representatives don’t condemn it. We condemn the militarisation of Kashmir, but in our country autonomous jihadis are armed to the teeth to take a regular army.

Prospect for resolution of Kashmir depend on the rhetoric chosen.

In response to Fauziya Khan (Reply #: 401)

Dear Fauziya:

I have read your post with great interest. I fully agree with the gist of it. To support your position, I would like Chowkwallas to consider the following:

The words loyalty and patriotism have often been misunderstood and misused in Pakistan. For example, the loyalty and patriotism of Mujeeb-ur-Rahman, Ghaffar Khan, G. M. Syed, and many more political leaders was often intensely suspected by the Pakistani army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie alliance of ruling elite. Nobody in Pakistan should doubt the loyalty and patriotism of any Pakistani citizens unless he/she has ample proof to take that person to a just court of law. In the absence of the same, those who blame others for disloyalty and unpatriotic activities be reprimanded by the State of Pakistan for the violation of human and citizenship rights of her citizens.

If the Pakistani state really believes in the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir (who are not the citizens of Pakistan), she must ensure that the human and citizenship rights of all Pakistanis are fully protected, both legally and actually. One way to ensure this is to empower the people of Pakistan in every part of Pakistan through grassroots and participatory form of democracy. This would allow the people of Pakistan to make an effort to deal with the current crisis of Pakistan as it affects them in their everyday lives. Achievement in this respect would raise Pakistan`s stature among the nations of the world. Such an achievement may also provide a strong basis for the people of Kashmir to willingly start a movement for their right of self-determination.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RE: Reply #: 405 Umairr

``You fail to understand the issue. The issue is not the type of govt., Kashmir or Pakistan has. The issue is that no one should live their lives under occupation. Pakistan is not living under occupation of any other country. Kashmir is. Pakistan has its identity as a country. We have a passport, and a place to call our own. Regardless of the type of govt., its still much better than not having anything at all (talk to Kashmiris from India, and Palestenians, and they will tell you how it feels to be identity-less). And Pakistanis aren`t being killed by their own govt. on a daily basis. I think you are trying to compare apples with oranges, in this case. Finally, I think the Kashmiris should get a right to self-determination, not only because that is the moral thing to do, but also because it is the only solution I see to the India-Pakistan problem. Peace must be achieved regardless of the type of govt. in either country. If you have a better solution, kindly take the trouble of stating it.``

If Kashmiris get the right of self-determination then so should the Sindhis, Balochis, Keralites, Punjabis, Bengalis, Pashtuns and everyone else given that none of them got that option at the time of independence. I am sure quite a few of them in both India and Pakistan would be willing to take the chance of going it alone, for better or for worse. The point is that there was never an option for ANY former princely state to go it alone so why is Kashmir so special that it should be given independence? In that case, at least India has the fig-leaf of the instrument of accession to claim Kashmir while Pakistan has nothing to hang even even a fig-leaf on! So understand that when you call for self-determination for Kashmir you are also calling for self-determination for ALL the states of pre-partition India and that includes states in Pakistan too.

Then the only argument left is the happenings in Kashmir since partition and the defense of each country`s actions has been repeated ad-nauseum so I won`t parrot the party line here. Suffice to say that Kashmiris have a passport and that is the Indian passport just like a Bengali or a Madrasi or a Hindu or Christian or Muslim in India.

Which brings us to Pakistani claim as a spokesman for Kashmir. It is a very legitimate question to ask how a country that has never accepted moral responsibility for killing 3 million Bangladeshis, is seeing ethnic killings on a horrific scale on a day-to-day basis all around the country, which systematically discriminates against it`s minorities on the basis that it is an Islamic state, which has foisted war after war upon the sub-continent and has never had a meaningful representative government, can claim to be a moral spokesman for the rights of the Kashmiris. also, why is it that Bangladesh which has a comparable Muslim population as well as Muslims from India itself don`t raise such a hue and cry, even though they have every right to do so?

Regarding your statement that Pakistan has an identity as a country, this is only true physically. But the events of the last 50+ years have shown that it is a country at war with itself over what it should be about and it is still nowhere near the answer.

Re Umairr : How can India call itself secular when it keeps electing the BJP ?

1. The meaning of ``Hindutva`` depends on who is speaking about it.

``Hindu`` at one time meant everyone in India. ``Hindu`` also has the modern meaning of a some one of a particular religion (or set of religious beliefs).

The BJP uses ``Hindutva`` in both senses. A Vajpayee uses ``Hindutva`` in the inclusive sense of meaning everyone in India. Indian Muslims and Indian Christians share with the Hindus (in the religious sense) a lot of common culture. For a similar phenomenon in a non-Indian context, take a look at Indonesia where maulvis study Sanskrit, Ramayana is part of the common culture, airlines is named ``Garuda``, etc. A Vajpayee would say that we want to preserve and enliven this culture.

(BTW, the existence of this shared culture is strongly denied in the Two Nation Theory).

An Advani uses ``Hindutva`` in the sense of Hindus (in the religious sense) versus Muslims, Christians, etc.

So, depending on who you believe, Hindutva does not or does contradict secularism.

2. BJP supposedly wants to fix some legitimate problems with the Indian system.

While the Indian system is supposedly secular, minority institutions enjoy protections from government interference that Hindu institutions do not. This needs to be fixed.

Another issue is that of common personal law. Common citizenship should mean common laws, such is also the directive principle of the Constitution. This means reforms in the Muslim Personal Law, which is essentially unchanged from British times. The urgency of this issue, however, is highly debatable.

3. Non-secular ways of the Congress party.

The Congress is overtly secular. Yet their modus operandi, especially during the Indira Gandhi era, was to allow communal riots to take place and then pose as ``protectors of the minorities``, in particular, Muslims. BJP state governments have a shorter record, but so far it is cleaner.

4. BJP has actually never won a majority on its own. You will see that the NDA manifesto for the 1999 elections is significantly toned-down from the BJP manifesto. People generally expect that the realities of coalition politics will make BJP`s bark be much worse than its bite.

Please also note that India has a variety of political parties and political movements that are based on religious identity. What would keep India secular is impartial operation of the law, protection of the rights of all people, etc., etc., and not the existence or non-existence of particular parties.

-arun gupta

Ref # 405 / Umairr

I think you missed Fauziya`s point altogether. No where she tried to defend NS or ``his`` brand of democracy. All she is saying that before Pakistan demands right of self determination for Kashmiris, it should provide a ``real democratic`` system for its own people. It has to set a shining example of a system where people are exercising their right of self-determination (not a CE kind of referendum) without fear. And then it should get on its high horse of preaching value of democracy/plebiscite etc.

You say ``The issue is that no one should live their lives under occupation. Pakistan is not living under occupation of any other country.``

I ask why is it better to live under the occupation of one`s own Army than another country`s army? Occupation is occupation and not pardonable in any situation. But being an ex-military guy, your instinctive reactions to defend ``jernaille`` is understandable. (Namak halali is a good trait. Alas, CE doesn`t have a bit of it)

History is replete with instances where foreign armies treated people with more respect than their own. And if you believe that everyone in Pakistan is happy about the ``occupation`` then please take time to go through what PONAM have to say

From Dawn : ref. PONAM

``The council of the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement, at its two -day meeting which concluded here on Tuesday, described the military takeover as unconstitutional and ``naked usurpation`` of power, Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal, convener of the PONAM, told a press conference. He called upon the armed forces to hand over power to the Supreme Court and return to the barracks. The council`s meeting was attended by 12 nationalist parties from Sindh, Balochistan,and Punjab. ``

P.S. And please stop the comments regarding Labeling Shnabeling… A ``chowkidar`` needs to have a thicker skin than you have…

Fauziya Khan: First of all, demanding a right for self-determination for someone, does not make one a super patriot. I am not saying that Pakistan should take over Kashmir. So please use your words carefully, and don`t label me again. I don`t have the time to get into childish name calling. Stick to the replies, and don`t worry about the replier.

You stated, ``when our own ``democratic`` governments have been replaced by military ones again and again, when we have, de facto, admitted that we are not capable, as a nation, of giving ourselves a proper democratic leadership ---- then in this scenario, to vociferously demand the right of self determination for the Kashmiris and not an iota less - is not only incongruent and contradictory --- but also appears down right RIDICULOUS.`` Again, please speak for yourself, and do not include me. Why do you think that just because you have a certain opinion, so does everyone else. I personally am quite glad that NS`s so called, ``democratic`` govt. is gone. An overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan wanted him out. This has been reported by every major newspaper of the world. They want a govt. which is concerned about their interests. Who would not want that? Sooner or later they will get one. Is it their fault that whoever gets into power, completely starts using the system to enrich himself/herself. This is true basically for all third-world countries. The common man/woman in every third world country, including India, is extremely deprived, and hasn`t benefited from the government, regardless of its type.

You fail to understand the issue. The issue is not the type of govt., Kashmir or Pakistan has. The issue is that no one should live their lives under occupation. Pakistan is not living under occupation of any other country. Kashmir is. Pakistan has its identity as a country. We have a passport, and a place to call our own. Regardless of the type of govt., its still much better than not having anything at all (talk to Kashmiris from India, and Palestenians, and they will tell you how it feels to be identity-less). And Pakistanis aren`t being killed by their own govt. on a daily basis. I think you are trying to compare apples with oranges, in this case. Finally, I think the Kashmiris should get a right to self-determination, not only because that is the moral thing to do, but also because it is the only solution I see to the India-Pakistan problem. Peace must be achieved regardless of the type of govt. in either country. If you have a better solution, kindly take the trouble of stating it.

rajanjua

You are any how the first person to admit that on the chowk, the premise that Pakistani criticism of india is not from a norm that they practice or have experienced, but is from a norm that india has set for herself.

What i cannot comprehend is the crocodile tears for the kashmiri muslims from a human rights view point and the jihadic support to further it.

I have no disagreement what so ever for pakistani claim for kashmir based on TNT and the support for jihadic forces and kargill based on pakistan, as you say, as an islamic country.

As I see it it is the refusal of pakistanis to accept the reality that is preventing the resolution of kashmir, and all the alleged great ideas on chowk skirt this fundamental identity question of pakistan. Once this position, as you say, pakistan is an islamic republic and are governed by the consequent dictates, is accepted by the pakistanis, then the direction and priorities will fall into place.

Many on the chowk are refusing to accept this. They talk of the `secular` speach by jinnah, democracy, human rights and all of the other crap and get themselves confused.

To cap it all they say that islam is `secular` and the eighth amendment is non islamic. Tell them about the operational islam in pakistan, tell them that eighth amendment is held valid by the sheria court and is islamic. Tell them that defranchsing of hindus in pakistan is islamic. Give them a reality check.

Shammi: It is good to see you, as well as Amit, back on this discussion board. I have found both of your analyses to be quite objective and accurate.

Re Shammi/Sadna: I had typed a very detailed answer to the interesting scenarios and points raised by the both of you, respectively. However, that particular reply never showed up in the replies section. It has been a long night, my eyes are getting heavy, and the bed beckons me, so I do not have the stamina to retype the long reply again. I promise to reply to your posts tomorrow.

rjanjua: reply 400: Your statements seem correct to me.

Some people seem to be taking offense to the fact that I am describing the BJP as a Hindu nationalist party. Firstly, I am not doing so. They have done it themselves in their own manifesto, and website. I am just quoting directly from their own manifesto, and philosophy, and hoping that someone can explain how they can be viewed as secular. Secondly, my only intention is to get a better understanding of India, and Indian politics. My intention is not to put anyone down. Since I have never been to India, I will the first to declare my lack of knowledge about India, outside Kashmir (I would hope that the people who are quick to declare Pakistanis as, ``fanatics`` without having first hand knowledge of the country and its election results, also are willing to admit their lack of understanding of Pakistan). Thirdly I don`t have anything against religious parties, as long as they look after the interests of the minorities, and are good for their respective countries. I don`t particularly consider non-secularism superior to secularism or secularism superior to non-secularism. If the Jamaat-e-Islami, PML and PPP were the only three parties left in Pakistan, I would have definitely voted for Jamaat-e-Islami (if there were a fourth, I would probably vote for the fourth).

So my only interest in the BJP is educational. I want to find out how can India, a declared secular state, elect a Hindu nationalist party again and again? Is there a social change going on in India? How do the non-Hindu minorities in India view the BJP? How can a third world country with limited resources, and very large religious minorities, and a religious govt., remain a secular state? I have spent most of my time answering questions, so now it is my turn to ask questions :)

Ref Umairr #: 389

You ask {I am trying to figure out how India can claim to be secular, when it votes again and again for the BJP. The more I read into the BJP manifesto, and philosophy, the more I conclude that the BJP is as extremist as some of the very extreme religious parties in Pakistan (none of whom ever win a seat).}

In Pakistan you don`t have to elect the extremists because your so-called moderates do their dirty work for them. The ever-so-moderate PML brought in the Constitution Amendment 15 bill which would have made the Sharia the law of the land.

In contrast, the only request with regard to religion that BJP makes is the elimination of Muslim Personal Law in India. I suggest that you moderate Pakistanis, if you want Muslim Personal Law to remain in force in India (which it still does), demand at least the Hudood Ordinances if not the entire Sharia be made the law for Indian Muslims. After all, what is sauce for the Pakistani goose is sauce for the Indian gander.

As for the Hindu fundamentalist BJP being elected, I think you need to look at election results that are posted at rediff.com. You will find that the BJP had to form electoral coalitions in the four Southern states to be able to eke out a few wins. And that, in UP, the home of Ayodhya, the BJP actually lost a sizeable number of parliamentary seats compared to the last election, proving that even in the fundamentalist Cow-Belt, the illiterate peasants vote their stomachs and not their religion. It is this constant underestimating and denigration of the voters by political pundits that has led to the degeneration of democracy in Pakistan. That illiterate peasant, be he in UP or in Sindh, has more common sense than most of us who claim to be well-informed. At least, he doesn`t attempt spurious analysis.

(Thank you, The Happy One, for your more detailed rebuttal. However, I will never vote for the BJP. One can always vote for the regional parties and still prevent Sonia from getting the prime ministership. Sat Sri Akal! Joi Bangla!)

Re: Amit

Dear Amit Sahib,

I pretty much agree with what Umair had to say about the official stance/efforts of the Pak Govt. on Kashmir. It has been a bit disapointing, so far.I would like to add (and Umair, correct me if I am wrong) that there are different guerilla factions fighting in Kashmir and not all of them are jehadis. And many of these groups are fighting/surviving on their own.If I remember correctly, JKLF is a very nationalistic organization. Supporting jehadi type of people is playing with fire in my opinion-and should be avoided. In Afghanistan, e.g., Pakistan should have supported Ahmad Shah Masoud in the Panjsher Valley rather than Gulbadin Hekmatyar.

Regards,

Amir Janjua

Re: #393 jay

Gauranteeing the status of non-muslims and some muslims as second class citizens in the Pak Constitution is something to be ashamed of for Pakistanis. I think that this sort of nonsense should be eliminated. But you must also remember that Pakistan is a declared theocracy-By its very definition the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is anti-secularism. It makes no pretense of treating its religious minorities properly. India on the other hand claims to be a secular nation. What`s your excuse?

Check out the following website for a detailed description of the corruption of NS:

http://www.best.com/

Dear Umairr # 389,

At the outset let me clarify my position. I am in opposition to the view that a big huge Ram Mandir should be constructed on the site of the Babri Demolition. Furthermore I am in opposition to the view that the structure should be reconstructed and no Hindu place of worship should be allowed there. I am also in opposition to status quo, something needs to be done. I am in favor of a multi religious place of worship (with a majority portion dedicated to Ram but every single major religion in the world represented) in a non-specific contemporary/futuristic architectural style combined with a monument dedicated to secular principals and a museum/library dedicated to the issue itself and the events that defined it. Something creative along those lines... you get the picture.

Now about your questions regarding the `BhaJaPaa`. Before I give you a point by point answer, allow me to ask you to reconsider the analogy I made in my last post viz. the GOP. I`ll be frank with you, had I voted in the last gen. elections it would have been for the BJP. But I would still hold on to my secular, pluralistic & democratic ideals for dear life.

Heres my top 10 reasons for voting for the BJP:

1. Scared to death of having Soniyaji as the PM.

2. Scared to death of having one of the colorful Yadavs as the PM.

3. Even more scared of 30 parties ganging up to prop up a PM that I had never heard of.

4. I thought BJP and allies would provide the most stable government.

5. The nature of the alliance and the parties involved (and their manifesto) suggested a very moderate & centrist agenda

6. I perceive the BJP leadership as generally the most upright & principled.

7. I perceive the BJP leadership to be the least corruptible.

8. I believe that the BJP stands the best chance of solving the Foreign Affairs problems.

9. I believe that BJP pursues the Hindu Nationalist agenda partly to pander to the lowest common denominator. When the majority of your electorate is poor & illiterate and has been played by the other parties for ever, one day you wake up, smell the dung, and play realpolitique like everyone else. BJP woke up & played realpolitique better than anybody and now they are in power and can actually implement some real important reforms. Constitutional & otherwise.

10. I believe that Indians in general do not want ethnic or religious unrest. And if BJP did get out of hand, there are plenty of mechanisms in the constitution to dump their asses. This is precisely why unless they affect a quick & miraculous economic turnaround, they will never ever get a complete majority to pursue the temple even if they wanted to. This democracy... `tis a wonderful thing my friend!

So as you can see, although I would vote for the BJP... that does not exactly make me a rabid saffron clad Hindu Fundie.

Now on to your comments:

{ I am trying to figure out how India can claim to be secular, when it votes again and again for the BJP }

Please see above. Furthermore, India claims and prides itself on its secular bearings due to its constitution & various civil & penal codes. I think most Indians will own up to the fact that India is far from an ideal society in terms of how much equality of opportunity exists for the people. But that problem arises out of the shoddy implementation (or complete lack thereof) of the laws of the land. The laws themselves are pretty sturdy, its just that as poor & uneducated as the country is, it is tough to put the laws into practice. Over time, the idea is to increase the prosperity & education so that everything fits together. When Indians compare themselves to say for example, the US... they will concede every time that they just don`t have the freedom that Americans do. The solution? Simple, get as prosperous as they are and you are there!

The problem arises when Indians compare themselves to Pakistanis or vice versa. It is extremely tough for an Indian to understand why the Pakistani Constitution preaches freedom & equality for all and stipulates no discrimination based on amongst other things religion, and in the same breath requires pretty much any body in a powerful position to be a Muslim. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. By Constitution! India is secular. By Constitution!

A vote swing in favor of the BJP does not even come near endangering the ethos of a billion people and the constitution of India!

{The more I read into the BJP manifesto, and philosophy, the more I conclude that the BJP is as extremist as some of the very extreme religious parties in Pakistan (none of whom ever win a seat).}

You have got to be kidding me! Which BJP manifesto are you reading brother? Which philosophy are you reading? How would you describe a `very extreme religious party`? If I were to, here are some of the traits that I would list:

1. Fundamental belief that your religion is the only true and righteous one and all the people in the world who don`t follow yours are misled and need some convincing.

2. Methods used for the aforementioned `convincing` can include but are not limited to forcible conversions & death.

3. Refusal to recognize any system of education, civil structure, political structure, judiciary that falls outside the purview of their religious scope.

I have seen many a video tape speeches by many a crackpot on either side, read many sermons by many whackos of many religions that subscribe to just the kind of views listed above.

Two things:

1. I have never ever seen, read or heard a Hindu religious, spiritual or political leader espouse the above mentioned views.

2. If you find any official document of the BJP that subscribes to views even vaguely similar to above. I promise you I will personally crusade for BJP`s abolition and never vote for them again.

{ I only want to understand why Indians continue to label Pakistanis as, ``jehadis`` when they themselves vote for a Hindu nationalist party }

Here is my understanding of the term `Jehadi`. A Muslim that is at war with other religions and their followers. Most of my Pakistani friends do not think like that at all! So my impression of Pakistanis is that they are anything but Jehadis. My experience on Chowk reinforces that. But! But we must remember that all of us here with our graduate degrees and internet access are a very select group of people. If you want to boil it down to the lowest common denominator, then I would agree with you that Indians probably do perceive Pakistanis as Jehadis. But then by the same token the poor illiterate Pakistanis think of Indians as Evil Scheming Bania Kafir Parasites. No?

The recent perception of Islam as an aggressive and fundamentalist religion is a worldwide problem. I am sure you have to deal with some discrimination on the net due to this fact. That however, is whole another can o` worms. What I am saying is that Islam gets a bum rap period! So dont expect the Indians to cut you much slack!

{Your select excerpt from the BJP manifesto regarding the Ramjanmabhoomi Temple}

Why is it so revolting to you that they profess to ``explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.`` Note the terms `consensual, legal and constitutional`. This look like some extreme right wing whack job to you? The BJP`s position always was to legally relocate the Babri stone by stone to 500 freaking yards away and build a big temple around the original sanctum sactotum. But that was never allowed (lest the Muslims got upset and decided not to vote en masse for the congress for a change). The Hindu fundamentalist forces were boiling up for quite some time with the accumulated disquiet generated by the asinine policies of the congress and one day the kettle boiled over.

The intent of the BJP that day was to have a peaceful rally but the right wing faction completely took over (with help from some within the BJP) and what happened after the crowd got out of control and the policemen refused to open fire is now history.

Well now that the Babri is down, do you expect the BJP to retract the demand for a temple? I don`t!

Personally, I couldn`t give a rat`s ass for the temple. The way I see it, if rebuilding the Babri wins over the trust of the Muslims, go for it. But I am certain there are millions who would vehemently disagree with me and thousands who would be ready to kick my butt for saying that. Simply because a temple dedicated to their most important god on his actual birth place is of paramount importance to them. Do you blame them for having that sentiment? I don`t!

So BJP wants to build a temple there... big freaking deal. How does that make them a fascist or extreme right wing or non secular party?

On a parting note, a lot of people in Islamic & Western countries apply this tag of `Hindu Nationalist Party`

on the BJP and then look at it with great suspicion. If the impression is that somehow India will become a Hindu nation out of bounds to other religions, that is an insult to Hindus, Hinduism & Hindutva. I guess it must be really tough for the people who follow the monotheistic religions to understand and recognize the tolerance that is built into a polytheistic religion like Hinduism.

Please don`t worry about India going `Hindu only` my friend. It will never happen, ironically because Hinduism disagrees with the concept of `Hindu only`.