Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days

Reply #: 17

Fuzair

I have heard something similar too. However, what I heard was that Pakistan was going to launch a massive preemptive attack on Kashmir, that India was not ready to retaliate and hence it did something to buy it some time.

That talk about preemptive strikes on Paksitani nuclear installations, began after India did its tests, and before Pakistan initiated its own tests.

I must admit, that these are based heresay, and I am not sure how accurate they are.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

The reason given was China, although for some reason the Indian govt. immediately started threatening Pakistan, and not China. What was the purpose of that?

``

To get you guys to follow up with your own tests, so that India was not isolated in the world community.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

The religious right in Pakistan will not get access to the nuclear button``

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Zia a moderate ?

(And i mean it seriously, I am not sure if he was or was not a moderate person, but i have seen someone refer to him as a person responsible for the Jehadisation of Pakistan) ?

From what I hear, one of the core commanders under General Musharraf is considered to be an extremist, and even the general has trouble controlling him.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

coming out with a tri-platform launch strategy, with a comprehensive nuclear doctrine. Isn`t it bad enough that Pakistan and India can destroy each other with nuclear missiles. Why come out with two new ways to do it?

``

Because unlike India, Pakistan refuses to sign a NO-First Use treaty. That means India must be able to withstand a first strike and then be able to retaliate. Simple answer to a simple question.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

Have you ever thought about the fear Pakistanis must be feeling with a person like Advani actually threatening them, after India exploded its nuclear device. I have the feeling the Indian leadership wanted Pakistan to go nuclear more than the Pakistani leadership.

``

I completely agree with you. Mr. Advani has been known to be a little hawkish when it comes to Pakistan. However consider an alternate explaination :

India knew that if Pakistan did not conduct its own tests, India would face a massive boycott from the result of the world. Whatever good its economy was going through, would be lost. With that in mind, does it really sound unreasonable to you, if Advani or Fernandes or anyone else from India, issues some statements which leads Pakistan into conducting tests of its own ?

From your post it seems that Pakistan started its own nuclear prog. after India did the tests. Pakistan was going to conduct its own tests regardless of India. There was no way it could have conducted the tests so soon after India`s tests, if it were not preparing from before.

The Indian tests simply acted as catalysts to something Pakistan wanted to do anyway. And let me tell you another thing... the prespective amongst common people in India is that Paksitan has a right to conduct Nuclear tests if it wants to do so.

As for as living under nuclear fear from India, I could almost assure you that India would not be the first to strike. It has already said so, unlike Pakistan. Another issue that you need to understand is that India is more mature in its foreign policy than Pakistan.

The Kargil episode, which cost your prime minister his seat is the most recent example of how naive Pakistan can be. And comparing Kargil with Schiachen is incorrect, because on the glacier the line of control was not drawn, while in Kargil it was. (PLease think about this last point objectively and you will see the difference).

AD

Bilal, Farangi_Kush, Umairr and all other Pakistanis.... I need to find out one answer from you all.... I keep on forgetting to ask.

What do people in Pakistan know about Kargil ? Do they believe that :

1) They were freedom fighters who acted alone ?

2) They were freedom fighetrs who got help (food, logistical support) from the army/govt/isi ?

3) They were Pakistani army, dressed in civilian clothes ?

I ask this question sincerely, because I really want to know what you guys were fed through the media as opposed to what we were fed ?

AD

Reply #: 24

harimau

Not sure, if what you advocate is prudent. Nuclear deterence works well when both sides have a lot to loose.

In India and Pakistan`s case, it is obvious who that one has a lot more going for it than the other. There is an imbalance between risk and reward. In fact it is almost tempting to contemplate a ``final solution``. And that is what frightens me the most; to think that some uneducated raving mullah could actually unleah the wrath of Allah, on the non-believers.

Only people who can contemplate what is going to happen to Pakistan after such an attack, will really think twice about such an act. But, an angry, old Mullah, who is looking for Houris in the after life, might not be so reflective in his actions. And think about it; such an act is going to affect you and your family directly. Cause one thing is certain, India will retaliate. And the retribution will be massive. given this scenerio, do you really want to have a nuclear Pakistan/India.

Also think about it another way, India has always followed a policy of pragmatism. We are usually lulled into inaction, beacuse we tend to think too much about our actions....and what repercusions it will have on the future. Given this, its comforting to know that nuclear bombs in the hands of India are less likely to be used than if they were in Paksitan`s hands.

AD

my own feeling is that India acted stupidly, and pakistan acted even stupider. India`s stupidity was not in that it tested nuclear weapons: I think that given India`s ambitions and the way the world is structured, it was inevitable. India`s stupidity was in that it aimed too low. Rather than point out the inequities in the world power structure that forced it to move towards nuclearization and act in a mature and dignified manner to seize the moral high ground, it instead took the opportunity to try and scare our neighbours. Where India should have tried our hardest to convince and reassure Pakistan that we had no ambitions against it, and use the opportunity to seek a new and peaceful relationship with it, we chose to threaten. At that critical juncture, this showed a vital lack of statesmanship that made me lose all respect for Advani and his ilk.

Pakistan`s stupidity was that instead of using the moral high ground it had perforce gained to try and not test and use this as a chip to forge strategic relationships with the existing nuclear powers, it decided to take on the world. If it had not tested, India knew enough to be convinced of its nuclear prowess, but to the world it would have appeared as the leader in the anti-nuclear war. It could have had the best of both the worlds, plus a strong bargaining position against India. And then it went ahead with Kargil, and pushed India into a corner by nullifying the chances for peaceful, if cold relations with it.

Peace in the sub-continent is inevitable. Pakistan is realizing that the costs of confrontation with India are too high, while India is realizing that it cannot push Pakistan around. I will remain an optimist till I am proven wrong.

-narain

bahmad #8:

“Wars could only be avoided by developing an enhanced sense of humanity, justice, and peaceful coexistence.”

and on a related note

fairdinkum #21:

“To question Professor Eqbal`s wisdom on his stance against a nuclear subcontinent is to question the values of humanism (humanism in its broadest possible perspective.)”

You are perhaps both talking about liberal secularism without mentioning it by name.

Here is one of the artciles by that dissident Shia activist and scholar Aghar Ali Engineer.

---t


ISLAM AND SECULARISM

Asghar Ali Engineer


Many people feel that Islam is quite incompatible with secularism. Some even maintain that as long as one is Muslim he cannot be a secularist. This is further reinforced by the propaganda by some Muslim countries like the Saudi Arabia that secularism is haram and that all secular nations are enemies of Islam. Maulana Maududi, the founder chief of Jamat-e-Islami also said while leaving for Pakistan in 1948 that secularism is haram and all those who participate in secular politics in India will be rebels against Islam and enemies of the messenger of Allah.

How far is it true? Are Islam and secularism really incompatible? Is Saudi propaganda against secularism justified? Was Maulana Maududi right? These are important questions and we must search for answers. We must bear in mind that in every religion there are different intellectual trends - both liberal as well as conservative. Both quote scriptures in support of their respective positions. Since a scripture or religious tradition for that matter has to deal with complex social situation, one finds differing or even contradictory statements responding to the differing or contradictory situations.

In scriptural hermeneutics one has to take situation in totality and develop certain keys to deal with the evolving situation. The commentators often deal with the situation as if it is static. Social situations can never be static. It continually evolves and changes. The way scriptural statements were understood by early commentators conformed to their own socio-cultural situation. Their hermeneutics should not be binding on the subsequent generations as it will not conform to the changed situation. For every age there are some keys which help us understand the scripture in our own age. Also, a commentator should have a vision of society and this vision evolves from ones own social situation. Allah`s creative power cannot be treated as static any way. The Qur`an also refers to His dynamism when it states ``....every day He manifests Himself in yet another (wondrous) way. Which, then, of your Sustainer`s powers can you disavow?`` (29:55). This Allah manifests Himself every day in new state (sha`n). And the word yaum literally means day but figuratively it can also mean a whole epoch, a period. Taking the word yaum in this sense, the verse will mean Allah manifests His Glories in new ways from period to period, from epoch to epoch.

The early commentators of the Qur`an, on which depends the conservative view of the `ulama, were product of their own socio-religious and socio-cultural situation. In the early days of Islam, particularly in the period of four caliphs succeeding the Holy Prophet, state was very closely identified with religion of Islam. In the Arabia of those days there did not exist even a state before advent of Islam, let alone any laws associated with the state. But a state came into existence when Islam united people of Arabia transcending tribal bonds.

The state needed laws to deal with fast evolving situation. First they took help of the Qur`an and then Sunnah of the Prophet. Even then if they could not solve the problem they held the assembly of the companions of the prophet and tried to solve the problem in consultation with them. Their collective wisdom was often of great help. But it is quite obvious that they heavily drew from their own experiences in the social milieu they lived in. This social milieu also heavily influenced their understanding of the Qur`anic verses. And some Qur`anic verses were integrally related to the situation obtaining there.

The problem really arose when the subsequent generations treated the understanding of the Qur`anic verses by the companions of the Prophet or the early commentators who drew their own understanding heavily from the pronouncements of these companions and their followers (tabi`in). The companions were thought to be - and rightly so - as great authorities as the Qur`an was revealed during their life time and in their presence and who could understand it better than these companions. Most of the subsequent commentators simply referred to these companions and their followers` pronouncements became the only source of understanding the Qur`anic verses. Until today the commentators of the Qur`an are repeating those very ideas and these ideas have become sacred and any deviation is considered heresy by most of the orthodox commentators of the Qur`an.

The Islamic state which came into existence after the death of the Prophet, as pointed out above, also became a model for the subsequent generation though this model was hardly followed even in early period of Islamic history. The Umayyad and the Abbasid empires which came into existence after what is called khilafat-e-rashidah (i.e. the rightly guided period of khilafat i.e. Islamic state) never followed this religious model. Both the empires were based on personal and authoritarian rule and were Islamic only in name. The Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphs followed their own personal desires rather than the Qur`anic injunctions or the Shari`ah rules. They just symbolically made their obeisance to religion and followed what was in their personal interest. Thus theirs were what we can call a `semi-secular` states.

And the states which came into existence after the Abbasid state were even more secularised except the Fatimid state which was more or less based on the Isma`ili theology. Even the Fatimid Imams had to face serious problems as their Isma`ili followers were very few in their domain and the vast majority belonged to the Sunni faith. Thus they often separated affairs of the state from Isma`ili theological considerations. A separate department of Isma`ili theology (Fatimi Da`wah) had to be established.

Though the Khilafat model was never repeated in the history of Islam, in theory, it remained the objective of all the Islamic theologians to establish the state on the model of early Khilafat and any state which did not follow that model came to be condemned as un-Islamic and it was even more strongly condemned if the state claimed to be secular. Maulana Maududi opposed Jinnah vehemently because his vision of Pakistani state was based on secular concept giving all citizens equal rights irrespective of their religious faith. The Maulana refused to support the Pakistan movement as Jinnah would not agree to set up an Islamic state.

Now the question is whether Islam as a religion is compatible with secularism? Does it aim at setting up an Islamic state and nothing less? Can there be a Muslim country with a secular state? These are some of the crucial questions one has to answer in order to deal with the subject of Islam and secularism. Of course, we should remember that there cannot be uncontested answers. Every answer that we attempt would be, and could be, contested by those with differing viewpoint. Ours is a liberal and inclusive approach and we will, of course, attempt answer from this viewpoint.

Before we deal with the question of Islam and secularism, we would like to throw some light on religion and secularism. Here too there are differing views. There are rationalists and atheists who consider religion and secularism quite contrary to each other. For them the two are quite incompatible. Secularism is a non-religious, if not altogether anti-religious philosophy. A secular political philosophy should have nothing to do with any religious tenets or doctrines. A secular state then would not take any religious beliefs or practices into account while legislating on any issue and in some extreme cases even citizens would not be free to have religious faith and declare it and practice it publicly. Religion, in other words, would be almost a taboo in such a political set up. The former Soviet and Chinese states came close to this model.

Then there is western liberal secular model where religion is not a taboo but is not a basic factor as far as state affairs are concerned. State affairs are conducted quite independently of any religious considerations. In the U.K. too, where Anglican Christianity continues to be state religion and the king or queen of England is considered head of the Anglican Church, religion plays hardly any role in the matters of state. All state legislations are quite independent of the tenets of the Anglican Church. The Church cannot oppose any law passed by the House of Commons and approved by the House of Lords.
In other western countries too positions are more or less similar. The state remains quite independent of the church. In fact church and state have totally independent domains and do not interfere in each others sphere. This western model comes closest to the political philosophy of secularism. The Islamic world has its own features and uniqueness. When we deal with the question of Islam and secularism we have to keep this in mind. It should, however, be kept in mind that the Islamic world is also not homogenised one. One comes across fundamental differences in Islamic countries from Algeria to Indonesia though all of them follow religion of Islam. Commonality of religion does not necessarily mean commonality of social or political traditions. These traditions are as different as their societies and social realities.

Algeria, for example, is a modern westernised state and hence it is undergoing a great religious turmoil as a section of citizens want it to be an `Islamic state` of their vision. Then there are countries like Malaysia and Indonesia with mixed populations though with Muslim majority and they too have secular states. The movements for setting up Islamic states in these countries by the Islamic groups did not succeed. Both these countries have adopted models of polity suited more to a pluralist society. So is the case with Malaysia. Though it is a Muslim majority country it is also pluralist in character and hence has chosen to be secular in character.

Turkey is overwhelmingly a Muslim country and yet it chose to be a secular country since Kamal Pasha`s revolution in 1924 and it has stayed secular ever since. Though there have been attempts at religious revival they did not register much success. Turkey has gone to the extent of abolishing Islamic personal laws and have replaced them with secular Swiss Code. Perhaps Turkey is the only country to do so.
Among Arab countries besides Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco also have brought about considerable modern reforms though technically they are not secular states. Their state religion continues to be Islam. Jordan is another moderate country with 10 per cent Christian population. Iraq, on the other hand, is ruled by the Baath Party which is socialistic in character. Iraq, until the Gulf war in 1990, was quite secular in character. However, the compulsions of the Gulf war and earlier war with Iran in eighties brought about some changes in its character and Saddam Husain, in order to win a degree of legitimacy, started mild measures of Islamisation. Some of the gulf countries like Bahrain, the Yemen, are also Islamic in character but with liberal dispensation unlike the Saudi Arab and Kuwait. In fact the fast process of modernisation is also affecting hard Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Thus it will be seen that all Islamic countries are not same in political and even religious character. There are great deal of differences. We find the whole range of political shades - from rigid Islamic character of Saudis to liberal Islamic character of the countries like Iraq to secular country like the Turkey. There is not, and there cannot be, any homogeneity. As far as orthodoxy or liberalism or secularism is concerned, much depends on the proclivities of the ruling classes in a particular country. It also depends on the interests of the ruling classes and their political alliances.

Now the important question is can Islam and secularism go together? We have already said above that religion and secularism can go together or not depends on the interpretation of both religion as well as secularism. If religion is interpreted in keeping with very conservative traditions, it may be difficult for it to go along with secularism which demands more liberal disposition and not only tolerance but also promotion of pluralism. On the other hand, if secularism is interpreted too rigidly i.e. if it is equated with atheism, as many rationalists do, then also the two (i.e. religion and secularism) will find it difficult to go together.

Islam too, as pointed out above, can be interpreted rigidly, or liberally. If both Islam and secularism are interpreted liberally there should not be any problem with Islam in a secular set up. In fact if one studies the Qur`an holistically one can find strong support for `liberal or non-atheistic secularism`. No religion will support atheistic secularism for that matter. If we talk of liberal secularism what do we mean by it? We must clearly define it. Liberal secularism does not insist on belief in atheism. Secondly, it promotes pluralism and respect for all faiths and thirdly it guarantees full freedom of religion for all citizens. Also, secularism guarantees equal rights for all citizens irrespective of ones caste, creed, race, language or faith.

Islam can hardly clash with this liberal secularism. The Qur`an, in fact, directly encourages pluralism vide its verse 5:48. This verse clearly states that every people have their own law and a way i.e. every nation is unique in its way of life, its rules etc. It also says that if Allah had pleased He would have created all human beings a single people but He did not do so in order to test them (whether they can live in harmony with each other despite their differences in laws and way of life). Thus it is clear assertion of pluralism. One must respect the others faith and live in harmony with him/her.

The Qur`an also asserts that every people have their own way of worshiping God (see 2:148). One should not quarrel about this. Instead one should try to excel each other in good deeds. In the verses 60: 7-8 we find that Allah will bring about friendship between Muslims and those whom you hold as enemies. And Allah does not forbid you from respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes and deal with them justly. Allah loves doers of justice.

The above verse is a good example of secular ethos. If others do not fight you in matters of your faith and allow you to profess, practice and propagate your faith you should respect them and deal with them justly. This is precisely what our own secular constitution says and this what secular constitutions world over emphasise. Also, in 6:109 the Qur`an prohibits Muslims from abusing people of other faiths or their gods as in turn they will abuse Allah. This verse also makes much more significant statement that Allah has made every for every people their deeds fair-seeming i.e. every community thinks its beliefs and deeds are fair and good and social harmony lies in accepting this situation rather than quarreling about each others beliefs and practices.

The Qur`an also states in 22:40 that no religious place should be demolished as in all religious places be it synagogue, or church or monastery, name of Allah is remembered and hence all these places should be protected. This is another tenet of liberal secularism which is upheld by the Qur`an.

The Islamic tenets, it will be seen, do not disapprove of composite or pluralistic way of life. Even the Covenant of Madina (called Mithaq-i-Madina) clearly approves of pluralistic set up. When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Madina owing to persecution in Mecca at the hands of Meccan tribal leaders, he found Madinese society a pluralistic society. There were Jews, pagans and Muslims and also Jews and pagans were divided into several tribes, each tribe having its own customs and traditions. The Prophet drew up a covenant with these tribes guaranteeing them full freedom of their faith and also creating a common community in the city of Medina with an obligation to defend it, if attacked from outside.

This was in a way a precursor of modern secular nation, every citizen free to follow his/her own faith and tribal customs and their own personal laws but having an obligation towards the city to maintain peace within and defend it from without. The Prophet clearly set an example that people of different faith and traditions can live together in peace and harmony creating a common bond and respecting a common obligation towards the city/country.

It is interesting to note that the Muslim theologians belonging to the Jam`at al-`Ulama-i-Hind (i.e. the Association of the `Ulama of India) drew the inspiration for creating a composite secular nation in India from the Prophet`s Covenant of Madina. These `Ulama opposed two nation theory and maintained that Islam is not against composite secular nationalism. Different religious communities can exist together in a country. The only condition for this is that all should be guaranteed to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion. Since the Indian Constitution allows this, the `Ulama happily accepted the liberal secular political disposition in India and did not find any justification for a separate state for Muslims of the sub-continent.

Yet another question which remains to be answered is about equal rights to all citizens in a country with Muslim majority. It is often argued that Muslims are reluctant to accord equal citizenship rights to religious minorities. No doubt there is some truth in this assertion but not the whole truth. Some Muslim majority countries certainly do not allow non-Muslims equal rights but many other countries do. We have already given examples of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Both countries, though have Muslim majorities, do allow all their citizens, including the non-Muslims, equal political rights. In Pakistan too, until Zia-ul-Haq`s time, enjoyed equal citizenship rights and joint electorate. It was Zia who created separate electorate for non-Muslims.

In Qur`an, as pointed out elsewhere, there is no concept of state, nor of territorial nationalism. In fact religious scriptures are hardly supposed to deal with such questions. It no where states that it is obligatory for Muslims to set up a religious or a theocratic state. Qur`an does not refer, not even indirectly, to any concept of state. Its whole emphasis is on truth, justice, benevolence, compassion, tolerance and wisdom as far as life in this world is concerned. As long as people conform to these values, it does not matter what religious faith they belong to. They can coexist in peace and harmony. Thus the concept of a purely Islamic state is a historical construct attempted by Muslim jurists over a period of time. It is these jurists who laid down detailed rules of Shari`ah and also drew up a configuration of an Islamic state defining the rights of non-Muslims in such state. Moreover it was very different historical situation and the Qur`anic verses were interpreted under the influence of their own social and religious ethos.

The rights of non-Muslims, in other words, will have to be rethought and reformulated. The Qur`an nowhere states that religion can be the basis of political rights of the people. This was the opinion of Muslim jurists of the medieval period when religion of the ruler determined the status of the ruled. Such a formulation cannot be considered a necessary part of the political theory of Islam. The only model for this purpose can be the Mithaq-i-Madina and this Covenant, as pointed out above, did not make any distinction between people of one religion and the other in matters of political rights. This Covenant, at least in spirit, if not in form, provides a valuable guidance for according political rights to citizens of modern state irrespective of ones religion. It is unfortunate that the later political theorists of Islam almost wholly neglected this significant political document drawn up by the Prophet of Islam. In fact he was far ahead of his time in according non-Muslims equal religious and political rights. The theory of political rights in the modern Islamic state should be based on this document.

There is great deal of emphasis on freedom of conscience and human rights in the modern civil society. It is highly regrettable that most of the Muslim countries do not have good record in this field. Freedom of conscience, human rights and democracy are quite integral to each other. In most of the Muslim majority countries today which have declared themselves as ``Islamic countries`` even the democratic discourse is banished, let alone human rights discourse. It is not right to maintain that an Islamic society cannot admit of human rights. The lack of democracy and human rights is not because of Islam or Islamic teachings but due to authoritarian and corrupt regimes which totally lack transparency in governance. Again, if we go by the sunnah of the Prophet and record of governance of the rightly guided caliphs, we see that the principle of accountability and transparency in governance was quite fundamental. The people who had experienced the conduct of the Prophet were so sensitive to the doctrine of accountability that there was great uprising when the regime of the third Caliph deviated from this doctrine for various reasons not to be discussed here. The Prophet of Islam and his companions had sensitised the Muslims to such an extent in respect of accountability and transparency in governance that any deviation from it was strongly protested. But when authoritarian regimes came into existence and khilafat turned into monarchy beginning with the first Umayyad monarch Yazid, this doctrine vanished into thin air.

Those who respect the doctrine of accountability would never maintain that Islam is against democracy and human rights. In fact almost all Islamic countries - with few exceptions - signed the U.N. Human Rights Declaration of 1948. Some countries who refused to sign had objection only on one clause on freedom of conscience and right to convert to any religion of ones choice. They felt it was against the tenets of Islam and one who renounces Islam should be punished with death. This is of course not the place to discuss this controversial question of the right to convert but suffice it to say that the Muslim jurists had instituted this punishment more for political than religious reasons. In the modern nation states the punishment for irtidad (i.e. renouncing Islam) cannot be death and the individual must be given right to belie what he/she desires. One cannot be made to follow any religion under the threat of death. A religion is certainly a serious matter and a matter of conscience and commitment.

From all this will be seen that Islamic teachings as embodied in the Qur`an and sunnah of the Prophet (and not opinions of the jurists) are not against the concept of human rights and individual freedom (freedom of conscience). It is authoritarian rulers of some Muslim countries who denounce the concept of human rights as alien to Islam. Islam, in fact, is the first religion which legally recognised other religions and gave them dignified status and also accepted the concept of dignity of all children of Adam (17:70) irrespective of their faith, race, tribe, nationality or language (49:13)

The verse 2:213 is also quite significant on the unity of all human beings which is what is the intention of Allah. All differences are human and not divine and these differences should be resolved in democratic and goodly manner (29:46). These are the norms laid down by the Qur`an but the rulers of Muslim countries deviate from these norms to protect their hold on power and blame it on Islam.

Islam upholds pluralism, freedom of conscience and human and democratic rights and thus does not clash with the concept of secularism. It is also interesting to note that in a secular set up like India the `ulama accepted secular principles of governance and never objected to it. In fact, the `Ulama in India stress secularism and urge upon Muslim masses to vote for secular parties. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani had taken lead in this respect by legitimising composite nationalism (Muttahida Qaumiyyat) and rejecting two nation theory. Of late the Jama`at-e-Islami-i-Hind has also accepted secular democracy and has even set up a secular democratic front of its own, particularly after demolition of Babri Masjid and the riots that followed it. Thus it will be seen that the Indian `Ulama have shown a way in this respect by accepting secularism. Islam and secularism can and should go together in the modern world.

A few private musings:

So Eqbal Ahmad fought in the 1948 liberation of Kashmir.

---------But he was not a jihadi---------HMMMMM

So he fought French imperialism in Algeria.

But he was not a socialist/communist-----HMMMMMM.

So he roused students on American campuses.

But he was not a hippie/troublemaker-------HMMMMM.

So he was charged(trumped up???) by Nixon for attempting to kidnap Kissinger by breaking into white house through the air-conditioning duct system.

---------But he was not a terrorist------HMMMMMMM

So he fought on the side of Palestinians.

---------But he was not an anti-zionist.--HMMMMMM



It is not proper for anyone to remember him in derogatory terms like liberal,humanist,socialist,communist,secularist,

free-thinker,free-mason type,scientologist type.He should also not be percieved as a stooge of the Democrats who was sowing na-paak seeds in a Paak soil.He should never be seen as a trained monkey,who was asked to perform by the farangi bunder-wallas & was in the mid-process of evolving at least to the level of the missing link.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

The mule & the lion

Lion:

Sakinaan e dsht mein subb say alag rehtaa hai thoo

Kaun hain tairay ubbojudd kis qabelay say hai thoo

Mule:

Meray mamoon ko naheen pehchaantay shaaid huzooor

Voh saba raftaar! shahee astabal kee aabroo.

(tr:

L:You look different than others,which tribe you belong to?

M:Maybe your honour has not heard of my mammoon(UNCLE SAM?),that zephyr-hoofed steed from the royal stable!!!

A L L A M A Iqbal.

__________________________________________________

wassalam

AD #20: ``For all fellow Indians who might disagree with me, are you sure you want to sleep at night within reach of the Pakistani nuclear tipped missiles with a psychotic, Jehadi mullah at the trigger ?``

Have you ever thought about the fear Pakistanis must be feeling with a person like Advani actually threatening them, after India exploded its nuclear device. I have the feeling the Indian leadership wanted Pakistan to go nuclear more than the Pakistani leadership.

People seem to be equally blaming Pakistan and India for the nuclear arms race in South Asia. By equally distributing the blame, they are actually accelerating the problem. The nuclear race in South Asia was started by India, and even now it is India that has its foot on the accelerator. Everything Pakistan has done is reactionary. So perhaps people in India need to first look at what their own leadership is and has been doing to enhance the nuclear threat in South Asia, before they start accusing Pakistan in any manner.

India was the first to initiate a nuclear arms program. Pakistan had no choice but to follow. Any military strategist with half a brain can tell you that the only deterence against nuclear weapons is nuclear weapons. Either neither side should have them, or both have to have them. India actually exploded a nulcear device for, ``peaceful purposes`` (I have yet to figure out the peaceful purpose). India continued with its nuclear program. Pakistan could have exploded a nuclear device years ago, in reaction to India`s 74 blast, but it did not.

India then made the final move and exploded the recent nuclear device. The reason given was China, although for some reason the Indian govt. immediately started threatening Pakistan, and not China. What was the purpose of that? Whether Pakistan should have come out with an explosion, or whether Pakistan should have reamined in the closet is debatable. However, Pakistan had to definitely continue with its program.

Now, India is coming out with a tri-platform launch strategy, with a comprehensive nuclear doctrine. Isn`t it bad enough that Pakistan and India can destroy each other with nuclear missiles. Why come out with two new ways to do it? If India does implement this doctrine, Pakistan will again have to react, or completely find itself at the mercy of an Indian aggression.

By equally blaming both countries for the nuclear race, people are able to justify India`s actions and plans for acceleration of nuclear programs. The fact is Pakistan`s actions have always been reactionary to India`s.

Indians need to objectively look at the actions of their own govt. vis-a-vis the nuclear race. The religious right in Pakistan will not get access to the nuclear button. However AD, if I were you I would worry more about the policies of the current Indian govt., (and the enthusiastic reaction of the Indian public to these policies accelerating chances of nuclear war), and less worried about Pakistan launching a missile at you. If India, like Pakistan, also become reactive and not proactive in its nuclear pursuits, the nuclear race in South Asia will freeze at its current point. However, India has

clearly indicated it will continue proactively in its nuclear pursuits.

These proactive actions of India are the biggest, and only cause of the current nuclear race in South Asia.

Ref AD #: 20

When you say ``Within half an hour Delhi could become a nuclear wasteland. I feel that despite all the ranting and raving about the bomb from both sides, we should seriously consider getting rid of these weapons. For all fellow Indians who might disagree with me, are you sure you want to sleep at night within reach of the Pakistani nuclear tipped missiles with a psychotic, Jehadi mullah at the trigger ?`` the answer is to give Taiwan a couple of nukes just like China gave blueprints and enough enriched Uranium for two bombs to Pakistan so that the folks in Beijing can finally stop dreaming about taking over Taiwan and start worrying about how it would feel in the million degree temperature of a nuclear explosion.

As far as nukes are concerned, the more the merrier. Now, if only Pakistan would give a couple to the Muslim Ummah of Sinkiang, that would also be helpful in checking Beijing`s execution of Muslims there (about 11 a couple of weeks back). They can deliver it by truck to Beijing.

Dr. Strangelove

Re: Tibor #18

So why the initial hesitation on our part? Pakistan`s nuclear weapons research program has been at a fairly advanced stage for a long time but there was still some doubt as to whether or not we could (a) carry out a test, or (b) had enough fissile material for more than one or at the most two bombs.

Its very rare that Pakistan has the moral high ground vis a vis anyone and we were quite savoring it for a few days. However, we are also quite afraid of the Indians and there is no, repeat no, Pakistani Army officer that thinks that Operation Brasstacks was simply a large-scale exercise that got a little bit out of hand. I think that there was a genuine fear on GHQ`s part that the Indians were getting ready to attack under their new nuclear umbrella. I know for a fact that the Pakistani Army (barring the odd fanatical jihadi type) has no illusions about its ability to stand up to the Indians in toe-to-toe slugging match and we were desperately looking for a strategic equalizer. And we found it, albeit at a great cost.

I recall reading somewhere that the Japanese offered to transfer the entire Indian aid budget (i.e., what they had earmarked for India) to Pakistan if we would not test. While the Indians can afford to sneer at that kind of money, for us, it represented a real sacrifice to give that up.

While the Indians sneer at Gen. Musharraf for being a dullard, no one has ever accused Gen. Karamat of not being able to add two and two together. He was certainly, ceteris paribus, not in favor of testing. To the best of my knowledge, neither were the Corp Commanders or the PSOs. And, it is still these men who run the Army, not the jihadis, no matter what the Indians may prefer to believe. They really thought that Pakistan was in danger from the Indians and they acted accordingly.

I had the pleasure of meeting Prof. Eqbal Ahmad in Gilgit in 1994. If I remember correctly, he was one of the team members evaluating/studying the Aga Khan Education Services in the Northern Areas. Our paths crossed for a few days, although I had nothing to do with the AKES, and we had several discussions on different topics--mainly colonialism, education and economic development. I daresay Dr. Ahmad, were he still alive today, would not remember me from that chance encounter but I still recall him.

At the risk of alienating his countless admirers on Chowk, let me say that it soon became clear to me that Dr. Ahmad was irrevocably locked into a 1960s mindset that saw markets/capitalism/the West as being the enemies of the Third World. In his own way, well educated, refined and immpecably well-mannered, Dr. Ahmad was as single mindedly dogmatic as any mullah. For him, no Third World Socialist could do any evil, colonialism never did any good at all whatsoever, and neo-Imperialism still held sway. All of the self-inflicted disasters of the Third World--Nyerere`s Ujaama or Nkrumah`s megalomania or whatever--were still traceable to the original sin of colonialism and could only be redeemed by pouring billions of fresh aid dollars into the corrupt cesspool that is the ``Majority World,`` to use the latest bit of left-wing twaddle to come out of academia. As far as I know, he was the last defender of the New International Economic Order left. Socialism would yet save us all.

If you read the first paragraph of this article, it becomes clear what were the majority of the causes that Dr. Ahmad supported. If you read what I have written here, it is also clear that our views would be diametrically opposed. So I chose discretion rather than valor and steered the discussion to the new university that he was trying to set up in Pakistan, to the beauty of the Northern Areas and the history of Hunza and Central Asia.

My disagreements with Dr. Ahmad notwithstanding, I agree with Dr. Hoodbhoy that Pakistan, all of us, are diminished by Dr. Ahmad`s death. For you see, his was a principled stand and, unlike so many of us, he was always true to his beliefs. And, unlike so many others who are armed by their faith, he never wanted to hurt anyone else.

To question Professor Eqbal`s wisdom on his stance against a nuclear subcontinent is to question the values of humanism (humanism in its broadest possible perspective.)

This article is quite soul stirring. As a person who was born and brought up in Delhi, I feel threathend with the fact that some crazy person in Pakistan might actually use the bomb, against INdia.

Within half an hour Delhi could become a nuclear wasteland. I feel that despite all the ranting and raving about the bomb from both sides, we should seriously consider getting rid of these weapons. For all fellow Indians who might disagree with me, are you sure you want to sleep at night within reach of the Pakistani nuclear tipped missiles with a psychotic, Jehadi mullah at the trigger ?

AD