Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

Let us all cheer for the Muslim Ummah! This is what we can expect our brothers in Islam from Saudi Arabia!

Former child bride regrets rescue from marriage

Hyderabad, June 30 - Nine years ago, as a child bride, she was rescued from a marriage to an elderly Arab. Today, a mature, if somewhat saddened Ameena, feels she shouldn`t have been rescued. ``Maybe I would be living a better life,`` she says.

There is annoyance in her responses. ``Yes, I would get married again. But who would marry me after so much of bad publicity for me and my parents,`` a report in the Deccan Chronicle newspaper quotes her as saying.

She was a 12-year-old when her father married her off in 1991 to a visiting Arab from the Gulf. Her husband was 65. A couple of days after the marriage, she was on an Indian Airlines flight bound for New Delhi. Airhostess Amrita Ahluwalia noticed Ameena`s inconsolable weeping, made inquiries and discovered why.

On landing at New Delhi, the Arab was arrested and Ameena handed over to a women`s home. An outcry from women`s groups, social activists and intense media coverage turned Ameena into a symbol of exploitation.

An angry Ameena refused to go back to her parents. But after about a month-and-a-half, a mellowed Ameena returned to Hyderabad. Going by the overwhelming response her story had generated one would have thought that she must be living a

reasonable, if not comfortable life. Not so.

Neither Ameena nor her mother know how much money they received. Her father`s friend, Saber Ali, reportedly handled all accounts. But she does know that a new scooter-taxi was bought for her father. No one knows where the vehicle is. She also

remembers that she was allotted a public phone so that the family could earn some money. Since her father could not handle that, the phone also was given away to Saber Ali, the newspaper report says.

In 1996, the government gave Ameena Rs. 50,000 ($1,136 at Rs. 44 to a dollar) as a grant to run a vocational training centre for women. But most of this money was spent in fighting the case that had been filed against her father, Badruddin, in Delhi.

Each of his trips to Delhi cost about Rs. 2,500. The case went on for seven years. Finally, Badruddin and his wife were convicted and fined Rs. 3,000 each. In the meantime, the Arab had managed to escape from India.

Badruddin contracted tuberculosis and was admitted to hospital. He died about 11 months ago.

Things became worse after the death of her father. These days, Ameena, who was trained in embroidery work after her aborted marriage, slogs, along with three sisters, to earn about Rs. 200 every two to three days. Her 16-year-old brother works as a labourer.

The family could not pay rent for the last about four months is about to move out of their cramped accommodation.

A newly formed Minority Development Forum has come forward to help the girl. On its recommendation, the State Minority Finance Corporation has sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,500 so that Ameena can independently carry out her embroidery work.

The Forum also wants Ameena to get married. But, she isn`t too sure. ``I am the cause of trouble for the family. If I had not cried (on the aircraft), maybe I would not have caused so much of pain to my father and mother. May be I would have lived

happily with that Arab,`` the newspaper quotes her as saying.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please note the name of the stewardess who rescued Ameena: Amrita Ahluwalia. From her name, I would guess she is a Punjabi Hindu or a Sikh. The fact that she belongs to a different religion than Ameena did not prevent her from rescueing Ameena from the life of a sex slave.

And why did the father sell his own 12-year-old daughter to a 65-year old Arab? Because neither he nor his family had any education and this was the only way he could lessen the burden on his family.

And look at Ameena`s own statement that perhaps she should have stayed with that old goat. This is what happens when you raise your daughters without education or a skill: resigned acceptance of a dull life.

Asif N:

Whats a Zandeeq? And why does Ataturk qualify for this title? How is it possible for a muslim, even a fundo like yourself, to judge and put labels on other muslims?

no regards

First of all Mr Naqshbandi ... It will help if you seperated your religious views from the argument ... whereas let me assure you that I prescribe to all the beliefs of Islam that you seemmto believe in ... afterlife etc ... I dont feel that it is necessary for Muslims to involve religion into politics which inevitably leads to

its exploitation ....having said that I fully prescribed to the concept of religion being a major factor in ethnicity ...and hence I believe that the Pakistan Movement was a south asian Muslim nationalist movement.... and not a movement for Islam ... Muslim unity as a great mobilizer cannot be denied ....however this unity is a thin fabric which is destroyed as soon as

somebody like you imposes his own version of Islam ... on others ... it is also important to note that I believe that Islam is the most rational and Modern of all religions and hence is totally compatible with Modern secular democratic institutions .....and Jinnah seemed to believe this too .....

Whereas you can rightfuly accuse Ataturk of going to far on the path of secularism ... you cannot accuse him of being a traitor to the Muslims and Turkey ... his struggle the Turkish War of independence was one of the greatest victories of Islamic World achieved against the Greeks and british .... the Turk Nationalism that he espoused atleast was based on the definition of ethnicity according to Religion ... hence the treaty between Greece and Turkey on 30th January 1923 .... you can accuse him of turning against the religion per say but you cannot accuse him of being against the interests of Muslims ....He was during that time widely hailed as a great hero amongst Indian Muslims .... infact there had been appeals from the likes of you to become the Khalifah ...

So let me come to the August institution of Khilafah that you seem to cherish .... let me remind you of a few basic things ...

a) Khilafa is temporal power and not spiritual ..

b) Abu Bakr was the Khalifa tul rasool ALLAH ... BY THE TOKEN uMER SHOULD HAVE BEEN kHALIFAH TUL KHALIFAH TUL RASool allah ... and Usman should have been Khalifah tul Khalifah tul Khalifah tul rasool allah ... Ali khalifah tul Khalifah tul Khalifah tulKhalifah tul rasool Allah ....

but the earlier sahaba used the title ameer ul Momineen ... the Lord of the faithful ... .and not Khalifah ....

In any event the original Khilafah was democratic inessence ... once the Khilafah became monarchial .... it was not the true Khilafah any more ... not to mention that the word Khilafah is wrong in essence and there is no historic or religious justification for having kept it ...

The morals of the Ottomans were questionable ... so they can hardly be described as holy or sacred .....

Usmani Khilafah that you have taken a liking to was near its end ... turkey was destroyed and near ruin .... Ataturk saved Turkey ....

and just to respond to your allegation that he was a british agent ... the British actually supported the ottoman regime and tried to arrest and stop Ataturk`s nationalist followers many time ... Maybe you forget that the Khalifah was a prisoner of the British in Istanbul ....

Till the eventual military victory of Ataturk against the greeks in the battle of Dalmunpur ...

the British refused to even acknowledge his government let alone support him ....

to suggest that he was a british agent is as absurd of an attempt as Indians who try to claim the same for Jinnah and the Pakistan movement ..

However he did go a step too far in his cultural reform ... Ataturk`s blunder is perhaps best described Imran Khan in his book All round view ...

``Ataturk, the great Turk Nationalist made one big blunder ... he thought that by aping the western civilization he could progress.... overnight Turkey shunned its magnificent culture ``

Nobody doubts however that ATATURK WAS Turkey`s saviour ... the Khhilafah had to go ... its an old ancient institution ... which can only help to obscure the future of Muslims even more....

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

First of all Mr Naqshbandi ... It will help if you seperated your religious views from the argument ... whereas let me assure you that I prescribe to all the beliefs of Islam that you seemmto believe in ... afterlife etc ... I dont feel that it is necessary for Muslims to involve religion into politics which inevitably leads to

its exploitation ....having said that I fully prescribed to the concept of religion being a major factor in ethnicity ...and hence I believe that the Pakistan Movement was a south asian Muslim nationalist movement.... and not a movement for Islam ... Muslim unity as a great mobilizer cannot be denied ....however this unity is a thin fabric which is destroyed as soon as

somebody like you imposes his own version of Islam ... on others ... it is also important to note that I believe that Islam is the most rational and Modern of all religions and hence is totally compatible with Modern secular democratic institutions .....and Jinnah seemed to believe this too .....

Whereas you can rightfuly accuse Ataturk of going to far on the path of secularism ... you cannot accuse him of being a traitor to the Muslims and Turkey ... his struggle the Turkish War of independence was one of the greatest victories of Islamic World achieved against the G

Kabuli #98, Sadna # 97

..... Kabuli ... if the name is significant, then you must be aware of the other-worldly pleasure of Kabuli Tikkas - salt, a little pepper, and every third boti a piece of artery-clogging lamb-lard...... and what about the exquisite karahi and chappal kebabs of Landi Kotal and Dera Adam Khel - deep fried in lard with an egg or two thrown in ............. food to die for ! ...... who wants to live the constipated miserable existence of a vegetarian - a peaked, miserable, woe-begone, wretched, clinging-to-life and kind of menopausal existence sustained by dal and sambar..... Have you ever seen a vegetarian laugh ?................ bring on the cholestrol - it is better to live fast, die young, and leave a beutiful looking corpse - clogged arteries, shot liver and all........

.... and what`s with Shankar - accusing me for begetting two daughters ..... doesn`t he know that in that paradise known as India it is never the man`s fault....... this side of me is a genetic trait handed down by some dhoti-wearing Hindu ancestor .... hopefully a long, long time ago ...... although, most present day members of my clan claim to be direct descendents of Muhammad Bin Qasim ......

sadna # 97

For all of KSA`s inadequacies, I can vouch for the fact that no one is `forced` into an all-meat diet there. It hasn`t degenerated to that level yet. But as an aside, surely if available, people would opt for something as delicious as meat instead of eating lentils and bread, no? Come on now, though I agree that meat is unhealthy compared to vegetarian food and all that, vegetarians in India are not any healthier. Many vegetarians either look like twigs or are grossly obese. And moreover, vegetarians are a minority in India. You will not disagree with me that the low-castes are the majority and they along with Kshatriyas and even some Brahmins (Bengali type) have no qualms about indulging in meat. And it is mostly these meat-eating low-castes and Kshatriyas that do any sort of hard-work. I guess eating meat along with strenous physical exercise is the right combination. hamidm has issues, but when you attacked meat eaters, I felt I had to take a stand. Meat is an issue too close to my heart (which is in fine shape, thank you).

regards,

Kabuli

hamidm #87 #89

On second thought, I feel you could have been totally at home in the Kingdom of SA where I hear those sorry subcontinentals forced into all-meat diets develop premature heart-disease and cataracts in their forties. Alas the sins of your forefathers and muddying of the gene-pool! :-)

Sadhana

Re: Umairr # 68

Umairr:

You have chosen to widen the argument over issues that were not really germaine to the original discussion. (e.g. have I swallowed the Indian government`s position hook, line and sinker, etc.)

Anyway, if it gives you any consolation: Yes, it is true that Indians are not proud of the innocents being killed in Kashmir or anywhere else in India. Anytime, an unarmed Kashmiri is killed either by militants for being an informant, or in cross-fire with security forces, or for any other reason, it is a day that India cannot be proud of. However, I might add, the reality is a lot more complex than simply the loss of innocent life. To be sure, there are many times more innocent Dalits in India who are killed and subject to more humiliating behavior in India than Kashmiris. Much of this goes on in small villages and is thus unreported in the national media, unless something like the killing of 36 people occurs in a single night. That is much a problem of much greater scale than the Kashmiri situation. Therefore, this particular issue goes only this far, and no further.

Second, why do Indians swallow the GOI`s line on Kashmir `hook, line and sinker`? India being a democracy, has a GOVERNMENT THAT REFLECTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. On national security issues, (e.g. Kashmir) there is national consensus much like there is a Republican-Demorcats consensus on Cuba, Iraq and N. Korea in the USA. Further, India has had numerous governments of every political shade in the last 15 years -- yet the policy on Kashmir has not wavered. The killing of innocents in Kashmir (as elsewhere in India) has and will always be inexcusable. No Indian government is proud of that fact.

In contrast, there is enough evidence (e.g. anecdotal opinions expressed by Pakistani friends of mine, or books such as War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose. Paperback (August 1991, or the discord between the Pakistani army and civilian government last year) to suggest that the Kashmiri policy in Pakistan has been hijacked by the military. Indeed, civilian governments in Pakistan have attempted to reach political agreements in Kashmir only to be rebuffed by the military`s hardline position. It would, for example, have been extremely unlikely had Sheikh Mujibur Rehman been allowed to become PM of Pakistan, that Pakistan would have continued to place Kashmir as its highest foreign policy agenda item. Kashmir would naturally have been diluted as an issue by the Awami league. Today, Bangladesh has little or nothing to say on Kashmir -- they have other fish to fry and they are DEMOCRATIC.

This is a reality that Indians (and the rest of the world after Kargil) understand, and in the larger scheme of things, perforce, require the Indian government to formulate a policy that is based primarily on THAT consideration, not simply on HR violations. Again, HR violations are disgusting to many Indians, but the uniqueness of what is going on in Kashmir (and the hijacking of the Pakistani foreing policy by its military) have given the Indian government more room to maneouvre than it ordinarily would have had. In the larger scheme of things, tolerating HR violations may be a necessary evil to thwart a much larger evil -- the turmoil caused in a one billion plus democracy by a clique of generals in a dictatorship. In none of your writing have I seen any analysis of the consequences of Kashmiri secession by violent means on India`s minorities, especially the 100 million plus muslims, and their relationship to the majority community. Surely, you have to consider that. Even if you do not, or need not, then the State department and the EU certainly do.

``There will never be peace in South Asia, as long as Indians fail to challenge their govt`s. views on South Asia. ``

Read above. DEMOCRACIES DO NOT GO TO WAR. Unfortunately, in Pakistan the people DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT to challenge their govt.`s views/policies through the ballot. If at all, this applies more to Pakistan than to India.

``There is a reason that India has strictly banned human rights organizations and the international press from entering Kashmir. ``

May I remind you that India`s defence minister, George Fernandes, is a long-time member of Amnesty International (AI)? AI could expel him if they thought that his security forces are doing exactly what AI was formed to highlight. But they have not. More importantly, from the perspective of the rest of the democratic world (not Kashmiri, Indian or Pakistani) there are several places that HR organizations should go in the neighborhood of Kashmir (e.g. Tibet, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) before they should hound the government of India.

You might do well to consider the following from the BBC, ``In its World Report 1999, the Washington-based group Human Rights Watch describes the massacres of Hindu civilians by what it says are Pakistan-backed militant groups as ``a deadly new development``. Clearly, these issues cut both ways. Pakistan government is answerable just as answerable as is India`s

``...the Indian govt. has 500,000 - 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir. This is by far the highest concentration of military forces per square feet, anywhere in the world...``

Sir, you have raised this countless times before. Each time, I have provided you analytical details as to why this is irrelevant and wrong. The Koreas (landmass N. Korea 46,000 sq. miles) have 2.5 MILLION soldiers on their border with S. Korea. How does that number compare with Kashmir? Further, substantial Indian troops in Kashmir are also stationed in Ladakh on the Chinese border. These have to be permanently stationed, because the roads are closed by snows 8 months in year.

Enough said about this.

``I would be interested in knowing your views on India`s action in Siachen. Wasn`t that a gross violation of the Simla Agreement?``

India`s occupation of Siachen was pre-emptory. The Simla agreement defined the limit of the LOC till NJ9842 -- well short of Siachen. So, India is not in violation of the Simla agreement.

``More often than not, the deciding factor in who carries out aggression is not the authoritarian or democratic nature of countries, but on which country is larger in size. ``

Aha! That is why Nazi germany invaded Soviet Union in 1941! Or why Japan attacked the US! Or why Pakistan attacked India in 1965!

The bottom line is that a war has to be fought (and won) to attain POLITICAL objectives (not just military ones). Pakistan`s gameplan in Kargil had no winnable political objectives (e.g altering the LoC unilaterally by military means). You cannot disassociate yourself from the military conflict (as Paksitan still does today) while jeopardizing your own well-being (as Pakistan certainly did by risking a wider war). Only a crazed commander would order a mission like that because the downside is so high. The political objectives have to mesh very neatly with military objectives. von Clauzewitz would have strongly disapproved of Musharraf`s gameplan in Kargil -- and not necessarily for the sense of timing alone! Would Pakistan have continued to supply its soldiers occupying the heights in the winter? That requires helicopter and advanced technology support beyond the means of the mujahideen. If so, its cover would have been completely blown. If not, the military position would have become untenable in the merciless cold and snows. Indian military planning has to be seen in this light -- that only a crazy commander would embark on such a mission -- much like Japan`s attempt to destroy the US Pacific fleet in 1941. From the Indian perspective, the military/diplomatic response spectra to such a scenario is very diverse, as I have alluded to briefly in my previous post.

``In any given year, the US is carrying out military offensives in multiple places in the world.``

But never unilaterally or single-handedly. All such missions (NATO-led Kosovo or UN-led Iraq, etc.) have gone through lengthy consensus-building exercises lasting several months or years. That is the crucial difference that separates democracies from dictatorships.

``E. Pakistan was invaded by an Indian democracy. India is much larger in size than Pakistan, and has always been on the forefront of aggression in South Asia. Pakistan has only invaded disputed and occupied area, ...``

Even, Mrs. Gandhi`s invasion of East Pakistan was conducted only after consulting all important world leaders (e.g. US and European) in the summer of 1971. They all had an inkling of what was coming in the months ahead. The IPKF entered Sri Lanka only after an Indo-Lanka treaty had been signed requesting such help. Lanka is doing the exact same thing again this year -- asking for Indian intervention. Pakistan, however, has never done any such thing -- all its military operations have come as a complete surprise to everyone (including its own people!). War by stealth can no longer be fought on an industrial scale. Do it against an adversary with the full support of its people and the results can only be one-sided. Further, Pakistan has attempted to change international agreements by military force -- you won`t get any support from anyone there!

``Yet has still not even been able to get past Lahore, much less to Rahim Yar Khan. This is somewhat unprecedented in modern warfare, i.e a country 7 times the size of its adversary, having such little success... ``

India has never tried this, except in 1965 -- which quickly brought Pakistan to its senses and the negotiating table. In 1971, Mrs. Gandhi studiously avoided widening the conflict in the west to keep world opinion focused on the east. There has never been any such attempt on such a scale in the past, so the question of success (or lack of it) does not arise. May I suggest that you read ``Betrayal of East Pakistan`` by Gen. M. A. Niazi in which he describes how quickly and how much territory Pakistan lost in Sindh and Kashmir in 1971?

``However, now I think the war between India and Pakistan would turn nuclear before India gets anywhere near Rahim Yar Khan``

If Pakistan remains a dictatorship, then maybe so. But to what end? Another Kargil on a larger scale? Pakistan will be destroyed in the process. India will still survive. So what will be the point? There will be no Pakistan left. If Paksitan has a normal democracy then the chances of war itself will significantly diminish. I am sure Pakistan has many more fish to fry than belabor Kashmir over and over again.

hamidm

The only saving grace in your sorry misanthropic existence is your wife. Incidentally, you did her a favor by giving her 2 daughters. After all, its the man`s sperm that determines the sex of the baby.

It seems to me that Pakistani women, if given half a chance, are more broad minded, less rabidly fanatical & much more enterprising than their male counterparts. Hope your daughters take after their mother.

Mrs hamidm has my heartfelt sympathy for putting up with a jerk like you. I admire her attempts (however fruitless) of broadening your mind by dragging you to meet other humans.. Wonder if she doesnt kick out your chauvinistic butt because then she`ll have to pay you alimony.

Do her, and the rest of the world, a favor by shacking up with an eskimo in an igloo, in the north pole, where you belong.

Fuzair #90:

``So, unless we think that the Pakistani Army can do an E. Pakistan on the Indians, we should shoot the Mujahideen, accept the LOC as the permanent border, tell the Kashmiris to be loyal Indian citizens and get on with trying to rebuild Pakistan. This last would be a better excercise in futility than trying to liberate Kashmir.``

I couldn`t agree more. If only the powers-that-be recognized this simple fact, life would be much better in the sub-continent.

YLH wrote:

...



``But all this Islam transcends nationalities ... is

meaningless to me and let me tell you that you Mr.Naqshbandi are

extremely damaging to the cause of Pakistan ...``

Well with all due respect Mr. YLH, whether something is meaningless to you or not is not a criterion for it being right or wrong! If you cannot accept the Islamic ideology and concept that Islamic identity and brotherhood does indeed transcend all idea of nationality (notice I did not say remove nationality though) you are mistaken and need to read more about classical Islamic ideology. Even Iqbal sings often of the greatness of Islam as Ummah! ``Cheen, o Arab humaara…`` When the Muslims set out from Madina in the 7th century CE to spread Allah`s rule over the Earth, they did not go as Arabs but as Muslims…remember that. Read Iqbal`s nazms like ``wataniyyat`` and you will see his not very appreciative views on modern `nationalism`. And pray tell me why I am damaging to Pakistan`s cause?

``One cannot but feel sorry for Talha (May Allah rest his soul in

peace) .... the rioting is indeed a bad thing .... India should provide

more security for Indian Muslims who are NOT Pakistani but Indian

... they are their own !``

I never said they were Pakistani! But I said they were Muslims--and that is more important! When you die the angels do not ask you in the grave, ``Are you Pakistani?!`` or ``Which country are you from?!`` They ask you ``Who is your Rabb (Lord-Sustanair)?`` ``What is your deen?`` ``Who is this person (referring to Sayyedna wa Mawlana Rasool Allah alayhi salaato salaam)?`` So you see it is good to be Pakistani and you should be proud (just as you should be proud of being Indian or any other nationality) but remember that you are a Muslim first and foremost!



``But we too need to curb fanaticism and religious fundamentalism

which Jinnah had spoken against, and which an antithesis to

Pakistan`s ideology which is fairplay and shielding minorities from

the tyranny of the Majority ...``

Indeed, but what is fundamentalism? Fanaticism? If a person prays 5 times a day, has a beard and wears a turban, is a law abiding citizen but would like shariah law in Pakistan, is he a fundamentalist?! And Islam doesn`t provide fairplay and protection for minorities? Why then did the persecuted Jews of Christiandome and Western Europe flee to the Uthmani Calipate for protection? (which your ``hero`` Ataturk conspired with the Brits and others to break up). YLH, comments like ``the tyranny of the majority`` show you are heavily influenced by modern European modes of thinking. Why does a majority have to be tyrannical?

``We too need to finish the sectarian killing ....

and eventhough it is on a much smaller scale the Shia Sunni

conflict is no less dangerous ...

The solution is what Ataturk did ... and what I think Quaid e Azam

would have done had he lived ..

outlawing all religious parties and placing religion under state

control... Only then can we lay the foundations for fairplay ... After

all Turk nationalism was rooted in common religious beliefs also ...

if they can be secular .. we can be too ....

Pakistan Zindabad!``

I agree sectarian violence should stop. But it is a minority of troublemakers who and can be dealt with effectively with an Islamic government. The solution is NOT to copy what that traitor zindeeq Ataturk did! Indeed not! He sold his soul to the devil for a few gold coins and destroyed the the last seat of the divinely ordained Caliphate which is the system of political government advocated by Islam. He was an out and out enemy of Islam--which is why to this day the PEOPLE of Turkey (who are a great people and great Muslims) cannot freely practise Islam without being persecuted! You talk of secularism right? Why in turkey was my friend kicked out of medical school simply becoz she wanted to wear her headscarf?! This is tolerance and religious freedom? It seems the only goal of Ataturk was to weaken Islam in Turkey. The fact that now Islam is stronger than any time since the foundation of modern Turkey shows that he was not able to wean Islam from the hearts and minds of the great Turkish people despite banning all outward forms of islam and the arabic script and banning the sufi orders…

Pakistan Zindabad! BTW, don`t take this personally and it is not meant to be offensive and may be it is the enthusiasm of youth but you seem to almost worship Ataturk and Qaud e Azam as if they were infallible gods or something! Nauzubillah! Remember both were humans and one of them was a zindeeq! Even the Quaid was not a Prophet that he is considered almost infallible!

To gymnosophist

Ref Asif Naqshbandi #: 74

You said {Your article showed that indeed the Muslim voice in

India which demands the same rights for Muslims as for anyone

else is not yet dead and that is a good sign. But is your voice the

voice of a minority or a voiceless majority?}

If the Muslims of India would spend their time learning something

other than Arabic and Urdu, they would realize what their rights are

under the Constitution and exercise them, as Farzana has done. If

they think that reading the Qur`an in the original is the best way to

get Allah to provide for them, THEY have a serious problem; not

the rest of the Indians.

You are suggesting wrongly that Islamic and scientific/secular education are mutually exclusive! Why cant a Muslim doctor know Arabic, Urdu and be a hafiz of the Qur`an as well. Or is success in India contingent on one losing one`s Islamic heritage and identity? ;-)

You said {Certainly, Pakistan has a moral and religious duty to

help the Kashmiris to this goal but i do not think it is morally right

for Pakistan to claim the land of Kashmir as its own and neither do

I think India can make that claim. Kashmir for the Kashmiris.}

In that case, the APHC can hold talks with Pakistan to liberate

Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas and then demand talks with

India on independence for the Kashmir Valley. There is no reason

for the APHC to imitate its masters and demand that the talks be

tri-partite between, India, Pakistan and Kashmiris. And the APHC

has chosen not to contest a single seat in the Kashmir Assembly

so far, because of the threat of getting a bullet in the head.

If Pakistan was to give up Azad Kashmir too--and I don`t see why not if the Kashmiri people wanted it--then it must be a party to all talks.

You said {If the Muslims of India can be united and put pressure

on their government to work towards Kashmiri autonomy it will be

a good step forward and Pakistan should encourage it.}

The last time this was done (and not even by popular Muslim vote

but by megalomaniac politicians), we ended up with half a million

dead and 10 million transplanted. Anytime Indian Muslims are

seen advocating the disintegration of India, they can expect some

strong reaction. Even the tolerant United States asks the question

on its visa form: Have you ever advocated the overthrow of the

government of the United States by subversion or violence?

Anyone attempting to speak on behalf of ceding territory to another

government would be a fifth-columnist. You really don`t want the

Muslims of India, who are already trying hard to wipe out the sins

of Jinnah and Liaquat Ali and Suhrawardy, to start paying on the

next set of blood debt.

So basically the Muslims will not be allowed to ask for the rights of the Indian Kashmir Muslims under the pretext of disitegration of India!! Who said disintegration? What happened to the power of the people, democracy and all that?

You said {One person has hinted strongly that you should go to

the Land of the Pure! So much for the much-vaunted Hindu

tolerance! Let us hope such voices are in a minority...}

Farzana does not belong to the Fourth Estate but to the fifth

column. That is the problem. I am glad to see you are not trotting

out examples of Qur`anic tolerance such as shown in Afghanistan

and, more recently, in the Philippines.

It seems if a Muslim is aware of and exposes Hindu crimes in India against the minorities s/he suddenly is a member of the fifth column. Why can`t you tolerate views against you ? After all that is one of the cornerstones of a real democracy? If you`re a `good` Muslim boy you can stay but if you demand rights for Kashmiris--hey, go to Pakistan! As for tolerance, you cannot say anything--after all the looting, killing and raping and the burning of Christians! And for examples of Muslim tolerance read about Muslim spain…(no real Isalmic state exists now. The last one was destroyed in 1924.)

``That was during his Muslim-baiting days``.

And now Advani suddenly loves Muslims?!!

The list is of a few people who have made it out of the 150 million..and though I do not know their private lives--from the magazine columns etc hardly model muslims are they? All these people are very secularised and from the rich classes of India. Good luck to them, but what are the stats for the common Muslim man/woman? (I`m not saying it is all due to institutionalised racism --indeed Muslims too are to blame--but you cannot deny that, just as in the US against blacks, it exists.)

What percentage of the Army is Muslim? I bet it s less than the 15% of Muslims in the population!

``Those Muslims who had the self-confidence to feel that they could

beat the Hindus at their game stayed back in India and are proving

their point every day. The rest demanded their own country or

moved there.``

A gross simplification!!

Sadna ji J

Aren`t Hindus

allowed to dissent with views of Muslims, does it always have to

come down to religion?

Of course they are, but why is it only when the Muslims speak out about the oppressio of their co-religionists in Kashmir? Religious differences are the most fundamental differences so of course it matters….I`m not saying that you cannot live together despite the differences peacefully BUT to dent that massive differences exist which make INTEGRATION and for example intermarriages impossible would be to be naïve. (Unless-or until?-- all Indians become atheists in practise like much of the English who are nominally Christians).

Zara tabbassum to farmaaiye, huzoor ;-)

Someone, the shalwar wearing and onion dome worshipping hamidm I think it was, drew an interesting analogy between blacks in America and Muslims in India. The history has no similarities but present day reality might have some noteworthy similarities. Freedom, role models, equal protection under the law, liberty to practice some measure of reverse racism, and access to everything else that every other citizen has.

But nevertheless, the most important point is that while there is some racism in America, the blacks there have more than in other places. And they`d rather not go anywhere else but America, especially not Africa. Case closed. I don`t see any Indian muslims packing their bags and leaving. If India was so damn horrible for them, they`d run to Umairr`s open arms across the border. At least in India their daughters can run around wearing jeans if they choose to and not be chased by a crowd of mullahs intent on stoning them while the villagers watch.

Whole lot of fighting going on here. I think that in this case I would have to side with Gymnosophist here (although I do not wholly agree with him on many aspects). But still, I would rather be a Muslim in India than a Christian in Pakistan. And heaven help me if I am a Hindu in Pakistan.

Point One: There was no Pakistani freedom movement worth talking about. The only anti-British Muslims were Congressites. Don`t forget, Mr. Jinnah fully backed the Viceroy`s declaration of war on behalf of India, unlike the traitorous Congress Party. Its another matter entirely that the subsequent British Labor government preferred to deal with Congress traitors rather than loyalist Muslims. If Churchill had been elected in 1945, history would indeed have been different. But it wasn`t and no amount of PTV propaganda is going to change the fact. Incidentally, the Muslims as a group (with one or two notable exceptions) were the most resistant to the INA and Subash Chander Bose.

Point Two: The future of Kashmir does not belong to the Kashmiris. That is just stupid. Kashmir, for better or worse, is a part of India the same way that E. Pakistan was a part of Pakistan (until the Indians invaded) or the NWFP or Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan. Kashmir is only going to have a say in its own destiny if the Indian government gets tired of the continual low-level insurgency going on there. And since, unlike E. Timor, there are large sections of the original population that fully back Indian rule, and given the strategic importance of Kashmir to India, that is not going to happen.

Since I agreed with the Pakistani Army`s crushing of the Baluch People`s Liberation Front or the Mukhti Bahini (note: I distinguish between the Awami League and the Mukhti Bahini), I cannot criticize the Indian Government`s decision to refuse to accept Kashmir`s right to self-determination.

The original history of the matter is different in so far as Kashmir belongs to India because they had a better organized Army than we did in 1948-49. If those stupid Pathans had managed to keep the naras of their stupid shalwars tied, history might have been different. Unlike Gymnosophist, I cannot agree that India has some sort of a ``moral`` claim. Their claim is simply might makes right. Since they have more might than we or the Muhahideen, they have more right.

However, I do agree with Gymnosophist that Kashmir has been vilely misruled by the Sheikh Abdullah clan. I would only point out that the Indian central government cerainly aided and abetted in this misrule while, at the same time, according Kashmir intermittently more subsidies than the average non-Kashmiri gets. I don`t think that Gymnosophist would disagree with me on this.

So, unless we think that the Pakistani Army can do an E. Pakistan on the Indians, we should shoot the Mujahideen, accept the LOC as the permanent border, tell the Kashmiris to be loyal Indian citizens and get on with trying to rebuild Pakistan. This last would be a better excercise in futility than trying to liberate Kashmir.

hamidm #87

I suspect I ought to be telling you off, though not quite sure why. Anyway, I now know why they aren`t on chowk :-).

There are some good points raised by Umair. I do agree that kashmiris should have the right the decide their fate.But Pakistan has no real business there.The premise that Kashmiris being muslims and hence the Pakistanis having morally superior rights on their fate is nonsense.

The valley has all kinds fanatic zealots coming in from all the madrasas in Pakistan.(There is an excellent article on these in the new York times).

Umair writes ``However, Indians should at least support international HR organizations` access to Indian Kashmir, so that a correct picture can be portrayed.`` I do agree on that.In a war zone there is always going to be excesses from both sides.The HR organizations should be able to see that.The ones that are fighting the so called ``jihad`` are mostly foreign mercenaries than native Kashmiris. I definitely would like to see Kashmiris given a free opportunity to choose what they want ,but not while Pakistan is terror mongering & fomenting a fundamentalist idiocy.

Umair also writes ``please try to figure out why the Indian govt. has 500,000 - 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir. ``

Because Pakistan is pouring all its resources(from an already impoverished supply!) into the Kashmir cause.It hasn`t done anything for its own people or the Kashmiris,but yet it wants to fund the extremists who also kill Kashmiris. For the Pakistani govt. the Kashmir cause is the only one that the govt. can use to fool its people into an imaginary ``Holy war``, and continue exploiting them.

sadna # 85

................ my Indian friends ? ...... there has been a rash of them lately, they are crawling out of the woodworks...... and it is not my doing - it is my wife and I am seriously considering disowning her - first she bears me two daughters and then proceeds to fraternize with Indian Muslims - Hyderabadis, Punjabis and other indeterminate sub-species .... but then her family migrated from the wrong side of Punjab .... if I have to look one more time at Bhikary Baingan, that horrid pea-soup dal, or taste another rice-cake-gone-bad dosa, or look at another Hyderabadi ball up rice and lick his palm I am going to join the Lashkar-i-Tayyiba ...... Indian Muslims, specially the Hyderabadis are kind of pathetic creatures ....... whiney and Shylockian...... I never know when to slap them or console them .... miserable beings, most of them ....... to be honest, give me a meat eating Pathan or a Punjabi-Pathan hybrid or a Sardar Ji who is working on destroying his liver ..... of all the people in that miserable place called India I, as much as I hate to admit it, feel a certain affinity for the Sardars .......as for the rest of them, Indian Muslims and all - you can keep them ....... unfortunately I am stuck with dozens of these unearthly creatures from Hyderabad and Kanpur and Ahmedabad who haunt my home on a regular basis thanks to my wife`s idiosyncracies .... but nobody said it was easy being married......... if it was up to me I`d steer clear of anything that drifts from across the border ..... it is an ill wind .....but before you jump to conclusions - I still want our Kashmiri brothers to be part of the family - they are close enough to being Punjabis - I guess wearing a shalwar could qualify you to join the club ..... but then again it is the six-yard shalwar wearing wild-eyed lunatics from across the Durand Line who are being a pain in our posterior ........ this love-hate thing can get confusing ......... I certainly haven`t met an eskimo I didn`t like !