Pssst...This is Rest of South Asia speaking

gymnosophist #243

In my opinion rehashing Partition history is a futile exercise. But I suspect the `injured innocence` bit from the other side is a bit overdone.

Before Independance, one of my grandfathers used to make regular trips to the Lyallpur markets to procure grain wholesale for his employers, the government of a princely state. Obviously, after Partition, this was no longer possible. It seems it became very difficult and expensive for him to procure grain anyhwere in India, since the traditional supply sources and mechanisms constituted by those unnamed fertile and well-irrigated regions had mostly gone into Pakistan`s share. Catch any Pakistani acknowledging that fact here.

Sadhana

Ref Fuzair #: 238

You say {My recollection of Indian history is that:

1 the only ``Emergency`` was that Ms. Gandhi was about to be rightly disqualified by an Indian (High? Supreme?) court and would thus no longer be an MP.

2 once she had shown her iron fist, the learned Indian Supreme and High Court Justices fell into line as quickly as our own catamites (I suggest you look at, e.g., Vinod Pavarala`s ``Interpreting Corruption: Elite Perspectives in India,`` if you don`t think the courts obeyed orders).

3 the freedom and democracy loving Indians, with several successful general elections under their belt, cheered Ms. Gandhi on the same way we cheered on Gen. Musharraf in October when he put Nawaz Sharif and his ``Haivy Mundat`` in the rubbish heap of history.

4 the only reason why elections were held after the Emergency was because Ms. Gandhi and Sanjay believed that they would be swept back in with a massive majority. Of course, they weren`t because the IB did not want to give them the real picture since any such messenger of bad news would be promptly shot (figuratively, probably not literally).}

The case against Indira Gandhi was heard by a district court in Uttar Pradesh. The judge (Mr. Sinha but I can`t recall his full name) took a typewriter home and typed the 54-page judgement himself, not trusting a clerk not to leak out the verdict before he could officially announce it. An emergency appeal was made to the UP High Court which heard the case. The UP High Court upheld Judge Sinha`s judgement.

Indira Gandhi briefly toyed with the idea of stepping aside until an appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court. She was influenced by her ``kitchen cabinet`` and her son Sanjay who advised her that if she relinquished power even for a single day, she will never get back the prime ministership. It was people like Pranab Mukherjee (law minister at that time, if I am right) who advised her to use the provisions of the Constitution and declare an Emergency. The President who signed the declaration of Emergency was Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. To this day, any debate in India has not dragged his Islamic faith into the arguments nor has anyone accused Muslims of murdering democracy.

Indira Gandhi immediately passed laws which eliminated all electoral challenges to the Prime Minister. Her rubber-stamp parliament approved these laws. Thus the hands of the honest and fearless judges were tied. Any recalcitrant judges were transferred to remote locations such as Nagaland or Tripura to serve warning to others what could happen to them.

The middle-class cheered Indira Gandhi on. Tired of the constant strikes and hartals, tired of the perennial shortages of goods, they wanted to prove that Indians could do things for themselves. By banning strikes, Indira Gandhi improved factory productivity. The trains ran on time just as in Mussolini`s Italy and government workers showed up for work on time. Opposition state governments were dismissed and opposition politicians were jailed, including Morarji Desai and Jaiprakash Narayan.

The contrast between India and Pakistan begins now. Indian opposition politicians, who were not picked up in the first few days of the Emergency, went underground (including George Fernandes, today`s defence minister). While the press was censored, people managed to get information. The Indian Express fought against every deleted news item and managed to get some of the truth out to the public. Subramaniam Swamy, who was on the most wanted list and who had escaped to the US, dramatically showed up in the Indian Parliament to speak and vote against Indira Gandhi (he was immune from arrest while inside the Parliament`s premises) and escaped again at the end of the session. The fact he surfaced again in the US proved that he had support from police, immigration and airline officials in his escape from India. Students went on strike and a student from my alma mater was tortured to death by the police.

No matter how and why Indira Gandhi decided to hold elections, the fact remains that she did so. Whether this is proof of her democratic inclinations is hard to say and for cynics like me to accept. In fact, the explanation has been advanced that the Intellience Bureau wanted Sanjay out and deliberately kept information out of Indira Gandhi`s hands about her unpopularity. Press censorship was lifted, most opposition politicians were released from jail (but not George Fernandes, who had been arrested after his family was tortured to reveal his whereabouts) and a free election was held. Indira Gandhi`s party won from today`s progressive states such as Karnataka and lost heavily in the Cow-Belt states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, etc., proving once again that it is easier to fool the city slickers and the educated than the illiterate peasants of India.

The Emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution remain on the books. No politician has dared to evoke it again and it will not happen again except in the case of external aggression against India.

Just as the Emergency (and the Indian middle-class`s response to it) was the black mark in the history of India, the magnificent resistance against it by committed political leaders and students is an inspiration for generations to come.

Ref Sheesh Naag #: 237

You said {When Pakistan came into existence there were no typewriters in the Federal Government offices.}

Are you telling us that as the hated Hindus left Karachi for New Delhi or Bombay, they stole the office typewriters? Particularly when most of them left with just the clothes on their backs? Impartial history says that all assets of the Government of India were divided on a 5:1 basis between India and Pakistan and the division of assets was overseen by a commission of 2 Muslim and 2 Hindu civil servants of very high ranks and that the division of assets proceeded without rancor.

You say {The only INDUSTRY in Pakistan was J.B. Mangha Ram`s Buiscuit Factory in Sukhhar.}

That may be the only Indian-owned industry in Pakistan at that time. But there was a Standard Oil refinery in Karachi. My friend remembers leaving Karachi at age 6 (not in the most congenial of circumstances, considering there was a howling mob that was chasing them out of their home. It is a surprise she is as well adjusted as she has turned out to be.) as her father was an employee at the refinery. So keep propagating the myth that the hated Hindus did not put a single factory in Pakistan. Add Parsis to the list too; after all, Tata put their steel mill in Bihar. The fact that it had to be close to coal and iron ore deposits is probably irrelevant in your mind.

You say {We had run out of blades.}

Why do you need blades? Does the good President RAT have any use for blades? Does General (Rtd) Gul have any use for blades? Aren`t you REQUIRED to grow beards?

Ignore the fact that India too was importing blades at that time. So, why didn`t you guys import them through the port at Karachi? Don`t tell me we took away all the English-speaking people from Pakistan so you couldn`t write to Wilkinson`s in England except in Urdu.

It IS nice to hear from guys like you so we know exactly what world you live in.

SheeshNaag:# 237

Thank you for a refresher course for all of us about the zeal & spirit of Pakistanis during the earliest years.Also the `history` not being taught in India about the typical mentality with which it acted,never surprise many of us.

As I have said earlier a nation can shine in adversity if the zeal & passion is there.As a corollary,it perishes with amid all the prosperity

when the `purpose` is lost.We gained a country when we had nothing & we lost more than half of it during the decade of decadence.

Pakistan is the crucible in the great experiment for the renaissance of Islam.The greatest asset it has is that it is flanked by India.We cannot find a better testing ground and no one else can keep on our toes as ``efficiently`` as Indoos do.Our strength lies more in our resolve & less on the resources.

``Soorat e shamsheer hai dusst e qaza mein voh quom

krtee hai jo hr lmhaa upnay amul ka hisaab``

Like a sword in the hands of Destiny is the Nation which audits its deeds on an on-going basis.

A L L A M A Iqbal.





As an aside,but in jest,to you:

``Aye Naag kaheen jaa basyo ray,meray piya ko na dasyo ray``



wassalam

PM #141

Why? A question long-forgotten and irrelevent I`m sure but here is a partial answer:

Last year a photograph appeared on the BBC World site(and a few other places), a weird almost debasing picture of 4 men crawling on the ground captioned ``Voters near the border with Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir crawl on their way to the polling station to avoid nearby gunfire``

I showed it to a friend. He said, you have to realise they do this on a daily basis, to plough their fields, to go to the store, to visit friends, they have to always avoid the firing. I said, yes but they have to do all that for their very survival, they cannot sit at home in perpetuity and starve just because there is firing outside.

But about voting, they could have thought, what are one or two votes, why not be safe at home for once. I don`t know if I would put my own life at risk just to cast a vote. But they chose to do just that. Thats also an ideology worth honoring, though it doesnot come out of a Great Book of antiquity.

Fuzair #238

About the Emergency, I have always wondered what made Mrs G hold elections, because reportedly, Sanjay Gandhi was against holding them for at least 20 years (I heard this last figure in a PBS documentary).

I was inclined to think she thought of herself as a `world-class` statesman(woman) and didnot want to stoop to the level of a dictator. But what I heard was that it was the Indian Army top brass who told her, we cannot obey your orders much longer unless you legitimise yourself with elections. Now thats food for thought...

And the fact remains, she was comprehensively thrown out in that election. You also maynot know of the personal hardships that many opposition leaders and public figures underwent to resist the Emergency. They didnot sit around cutting deals with the autocrat.

Sadhana

Re: Observer #206, etc.

Aah, the word ``catamite`` I know. At the risk of having this degenerate into an India-Pakistan tu-tu mein-mein, may I respectfully point out that while our national catamism (catamitism?) is proverbial, the Indian claims of ``the world`s largest democracy`` repeated ad nauseum always gloss over Ms. Gandhi`s 1975-77 period of Emergency Rule. My recollection of Indian history is that:

1 the only ``Emergency`` was that Ms. Gandhi was about to be rightly disqualified by an Indian (High? Supreme?) court and would thus no longer be an MP.

2 once she had shown her iron fist, the learned Indian Supreme and High Court Justices fell into line as quickly as our own catamites (I suggest you look at, e.g., Vinod Pavarala`s ``Interpreting Corruption: Elite Perspectives in India,`` if you don`t think the courts obeyed orders).

3 the freedom and democracy loving Indians, with several successful general elections under their belt, cheered Ms. Gandhi on the same way we cheered on Gen. Musharraf in October when he put Nawaz Sharif and his ``Haivy Mundat`` in the rubbish heap of history.

4 the only reason why elections were held after the Emergency was because Ms. Gandhi and Sanjay believed that they would be swept back in with a massive majority. Of course, they weren`t because the IB did not want to give them the real picture since any such messenger of bad news would be promptly shot (figuratively, probably not literally).

So, to answer your question, what I was going to do about it was to cheer on the good General and the Army. I was one of those idiots that cheered on Benazir in 1988 but I soon repented of my folly. I would have preferred to vote for Moeen Qureishi but he wasn`t running for anything (was there actually any substance to the rumours of financial irregularities? Or was it just the usual Pakistani gossip?).

In answer to to all those who say that a flawed democracy is better than a good dictatorship, I say you`ve never lived in Pakistan have you? I agree that Nawaz Sharif was probably better than Gen. Zia, his patron, but I would prefer a Gen. Musharraf to a Nawaz Sharif or a Benazir Bhutto.

If somebody trots out Winston Churchill`s quotation on ``Democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest,`` let me point out that old Winnie, being the good Tory that he was (although did he start life as a Liberal?) was all in favor of a limited franchise and his idea of ``democracy`` probably would be closer to the Athenian version than Nawaz Sharif`s or Mahatir Mohammed`s illiberal authoritarianism.

As I`ve pointed out several times on Chowk, it was an Indian, Fareed Zakaria, who wrote that there is nothing intrinsically desirable about democracy as such; it is only liberal democracy that is desirable. So if the choice is Nawaz Sharif`s illiberal corrupt authoritarianism or Pervez Musharraf`s (I hope) reforming and honest authoritarianism, guess which one I opt for?

Alas for my poor country, the Man on Horseback has yet to wield his mighty sword and destroy the dragons.

So, let me answer your question: I intend to do nothing at all. Sometimes the murder victim is worse than the perpetrator. Justifiable homicide may involve more than just self-defense.

why is the involvement of Clinton so important for the problems involved india and pakistan? is it because economical advantages or just politics?

i think UN`s intervention might be useful although there are defects.

is the use of arm force between India and Pakistan lawful in the eyes of international law?

when this going to stop?

Ferozk,

It is after such a long time that I am reading a non-provocative lengthy post from a pakistani. If people start agreeing with one another chowk will become a failure, it will reduce to a gossip column. The eternal flames of quest, the process of dialectics will be quenched for ever.

I do believe that pakistan has missed the boat. The boat was that of education, it is a tragedy that all provinces of pakistan appear to have missed. At one time Bihar, UP and Punjab were the progressive states, the regions of old economy, ststes rich in natural resources. Now the south where the emphasis was on education is in the forefront of the new economy. Now with the military govt, islamic banking and the perception of pakistan as a basket case, there is no medium term turnaround.

Apparently there has been no capital raising in the past one year in pakistan. The so called debt non-repayment and the accountability trials could be the consequence of capital shortage. The accountability trials have finished off the industrialists.

Before CE took over, military was the only `non-corrupt` institution, now military is the only institution. It has taken over all aspects of the society and in that process will erode all of the entrepreneurial spirit of the country. Education, govt departments and even cricket appear to be manned by the men in boots. The way in which the CE is dancing to the dictates of the WB is pathetic, all because he and the generals want their little imported luxuries. The country is on a decline. The hope is there is a nadir below which it cannot go, after which the change can only be for the better.



So for the bright future of Pakistan, let us accelerate the decline, let us reach the low point faster so that the improvement comes sooner.

regards

jay

Jay #229; Rachna #230

I should like to recommend a new category, namely, dishonest in intentions, or simply, ``Dishonest``. I nominate Jay for inclusion in that category.

The reason I say this is because without knowing the following of Ms. Jehangir he has already relegated her to a de-pedastalised [`dishonoured`?] figure. I think he knows her following well, and the following of the ideology she represents in and outside of Pakistan. Yet, since he can`t stay away from his sh`r mongering he writes #229.

Many of the readers must have noticed by now that whereas the Pakistanis disagree amongst themselves violently, criticise their country`s policies, and governments vociferously and mercilessly, no Indian even says that there is a speck of dust on Chanakyia Marg in Delhi. A Pakistani, of course, can`t point this out without getting verbally torn to pieces.

Did you see how they treated y2k, Jas Dhillon, and Bansi, from among their own? Rather than looking inward, and reflecting on it, they attacked them without a single voice of agreement and reason. Well, not really, I think Pardesi answered McGupta[?] on one of his objections to y2k on ``Pakistan in the Year 3000`` board. I mean, does one have to be the proverbial brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to admit that sleeping on the footpaths is quite common in Calcutta, Mumbai and Delhi

I have noticed that some Pakistanis have said on these boards to other Pakistanis that they have a responsibility to themselves and to the nation to discuss their own problems and not to start answering inane questions of the naysayers from the South.

Remember, they have been, on the boards concerning Pakistan, playing the role of Shiva, as the destroyer. And the Pakistanis have fallen in their trap; wasting time. One cannot win an argument in which the intellectual level of the bullys is to assert that their father`s `pee nus` is larger than your father`s.

An end should be brought to this. And only Pakistanis can put an end to this skullduggery.

If any Pakistani thinks that by winning an argument with the Indians (as if they would allow it) in the Chowk he/she can solve the Indo-Pakistan or Kashmir problem, then let me know the way to his/her paradise. Remember, Indians, like the proverbial mathematician, will understand the theorem but will keep on saying that they haven`t. So, what will the Pakistanis accomplish? Give up on them. If the Indians were a reasonable quom, the problems would not have emerged to begin with, or, persisted.

For the edification of all, a glimpse into the micro-history of early Pakistan:

When Pakistan came into existence there were no typewriters in the Federal Government offices. My father was in the income tax Department and he brought home a ``circular`` issued to the Department that since stationery was not available they had to make do with re-circulating paper (use half sheet, left blank on a letter!), use ``blue`` pencils to write letters in longhand, and use keekar-tree thorns (Ghalib`s ``Khar-e-mugheelaN``) for common pins which they didn`t have. That`s what they used for two years, at least. We had an old Remington typewriter which my father gave to the office of the Secretary of Finance of Pakistan, and we, as high school students, ``donated`` half [right down the middle!] of our notebooks to offices; notebooks were made of paper from the Jagadhry paper mills, in India, not available after August 1947.

We had run out of blades. Couldn`t import any either since Pundit jee and Patel, Valabh Bhaii Jee, had stopped payment of monies to Pakistan of its share. Pakistan didn`t get it till Gandhi threatened a M`rn B`rt if the dues didn`t go to Pakistan. [Just occurred to me: What was the cuckolded bat doing all this time?]

Not only we didn`t have blades, we didn`t have matches either. Our mothers kept dee`a sillais as precious as their dowrys. It was not untill 1951 that Pakistan had its first home produced blade: Treet! And I danced.

Prior to that, you see, we would buy a Gillette blade, shave five or six times with it and then rub it over a glass gizmo so that the edges of the blade would get sharpened; or so we thought. In any case, before each shave we would spend half an hour sharpening the blade and we would get four or more shaves out of it. Remember, it was the 1940s and the new fangled alloys and coats had not appeared on the market yet. One day I mentioned to my older brother if we should not send our blades to the Gillette company to place in their museum for having given fourteen to sixteen shaves to us whereas the average for them [in England] was three.

He being older and wiser advised me that if I did that, they will put me in the museum instead of the blade. I saw the wisdom of his observation. So, I gave up my generous plan of donating my blades to the Company, alongwith the burial of my not-so-innocent, nascent hope that the Company might have sent me a whole packet of ten as a gesture of goodwill!

The only INDUSTRY in Pakistan was J.B. Mangha Ram`s Buiscuit Factory in Sukhhar. Mangha Ram, according to some reports, had taken his machinery with him to India, although I never believed it because I heard that he was in pretty bad shape in India.

That became the Yaqoob buiscuit factory, and later produced ``Nice`` buiscuits under licence from Peak Freens, I think, in [the city of] what is now back to Sahiwal, but was Montgomery in those days.

And these abn-e-Iblees ask the Pakistanis about their industrial capacity? The nutfa-e-na-tehqiqs?

But enough. I am mad at the Pakistanis who themselves do not know the history of their own country and waste their time on ``answering`` the Indians. Constructive thinking needs time. Spend it in creation of solutions to your own problems. I am confident, you know that it takes large chunks of time to develop theories, policies, recommendations and solutions. Spend your time in that activity. The Jays will come with their dunce`s cap on and keep you busy retorting his insanities for the next three days. Don`t delude yourselves with the high sounding call for ``interaction`` among the Indo-Pakistanis. The time for interaction will come when you have solved your own problems. This call for ``interaction`` is a ploy to waste the time and energy of the Pakistanis. Didn`t somebody on the Chowk say sometime ago that ``interaction`` among Indians and Pakistanis is not a virtue in and of itself, particularly when the //cost// of this Indo-Pak interaction is so high for Pakistanis and Pakistan? Think about it.

Tibor#234

How do you judge me regarding forced conversion.

Does struggle in Chechneya, Bosnia, Kashmir etc a struggle for independence or a struggle for forced conversion.

Was struggle in China, Vietnam, even in America was a forced conversion or struggle of indepedence.

ZZ and Tibor.

What is Mecca. A desert.

Non Muslims are not allowed and it is a religious injunction about which even a Saudi Government cannot do anything. Whether you are interested in Islam or not, it does not matter.

Krashid

Are you defending forced conversions? Were is the love and tolorence in Islam that you so often speak of. Was that the only person capble of doing the job? Couldn`t a muslim be found? Instead of vociferously opposing such acts (Infact this is something Islam has been accused of, forcefully converting people by threatening the lives) you are defending it. The question isn`t should non-muslims be allowed to go to Mecca or should people of other religions be allosed to bring in items of their faith, that is Saudi`s decision, the question is should anyone be forced into a religion against their will. If the same thing happened to a Muslim, there would have been dozen of organization declaring Jehad and issuing Fataw`s.

By the way, not letting people worship who or as they choose is a sign of weakness.

Harimau#228.

The point you have raised, I will try to answer.

It is correct that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. And even Saudi Government cannot do anything about it. It is religious injunction in Koran. You are free to travel anywhere in Saudi except Mecca (and probably Medina which I am not sure). Nobody can do anything about it except what your friend did. As a Muslim.

As far as blaming Farangi-Kush. I think secularism is not fascism. Everybody has a right to have his opinion. Since, I know very well different trends in Politics of Pakistan, from extreme right to extreme left, I have to respect their opinions. Respecting an opinion and accepting an opinion is a different thing.

As far as taking the hostage in Phillipines by Muslims. I don`t know much about struggle in Phillipines. But this is my belief from history that any struggle in this century is a Nationalistic struggle (desire of people with common heritage to gain independence) whether it is symbolized by Islam as in Iran and Chechneya. Or in Racism as in Yugoslavia. Or in the name of Communism as in China, Russia or Vietnam or Anti-racist as in South Africa. They have similar methods and tactics. Guirrela warfare, hostage taking etc. Whether it is justified to support a people`s struggle in the name of Communism and not in the name of Islam, is anybody`s choice.

As far as veil is concerned. For one thing, I think it is a non issue. My wife takes veil on her own, my sister does not take it. It does not matter to me. Because these non issues are made into issues to divert the attention from real issues of women`s emncipation by education, economic opportunities and home building.

harimau #228

You have to understand, there is a `jehadi`(in the currently prevelant S.Asian defination) sense of entitlement that one must, in these modern days acquaint oneself with(and be prepared to emulate if the need arises).

This deep-rooted sense of entitlement goes like this: ``As for you, infidels, Keep off my concerns and observe boundaries and international laws, even on websites, as for Me, I have this God-granted right to go anywhere and do anything even kill others anywhere from Bosnia to the Philippines``

Reminds me of high-school history and the `divine right to rule` or `white mans burden` claimed by kings over colonies. Nothing but a ruse to get ones hands into the cash register, nothing to do with the Divine.

Sadhana

_______

|___|/

([@|@])

=/

-

I think there is room for other categories, e.g., Most ``rude, crude and uncouth`` (sounds like a geet!). Suggestions are invited here or at[Rachna@myself.com]. Strict, absolute!, anonymity guaranteed.

Assad_K, RSexana and ZZ: I have read your reaction. Of course, you realize that it is only a draft copy and is open to changes. Secondly, the categories are not mutually exclusive.

So, Assad_K, if we introduce a category of ``Erudite, learned``, you shall be in it, and so will I!

ASMA JAHANGIR AND INDO-PAK RELATIONS,

Many a peace lovers on the chowk appear to be happy with the visit of Asma Jahangir to India, the so called people to people contacts, the track-n diplomacy, where n tends to infinity.

Last year a woman seeking divorce was killed in the office of Asma Jahangir. Asma has been charged with the offence of abetting dishonour. The killers have not been charged, it was declared a `honour killing`. The pak legislature at that time refused to pass a resolution condmning the killing. Now we understand that the killer has been honoured by the CE with a photo shoot with him.

Obviously the military doesnt want to know about Asma. The religious ones are against her. The top politicians, including Mumtaz Bhuto has come out in support of Honour killing.

So where is Asma Jahangir, she is worse than a pariah. She has no stature, nor support in pakistan. She is a hated person by all sections of the pak society, the indians unaware of the pak events are caring to meet her, making it a harginger of peace. Asma was sent as an insult to the indians, in the great islamic traditions.