Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

In further reply to Anil (#47) : some people would say that ``efficient government spending`` is an oxymoron. But you still have to measure by some yardstick, commonly, the achieved effect versus the desired effect. At a microeconomic level, it is whether the teacher whose salary you paid turned up in the class room. At a macroeconomic level, you can find similar measures. I have the general impression that the states have been very poor at meeting their targets. The State Electricity Boards are a good example of the lack of quality of administration at the state level. Are there Central programs that are so obviously f---ed up ?

-arun gupta

In reply to krashid (#42) :

Misrule of Kashmir by Kashmiris would no more be an excuse for India to take over than misrule of India by Indians would be an excuse for the British to take over.

However, the misrule of Kashmir does not justify the jihad unleashed upon it; if you think it does, pray for Pakistan.

-arun gupta

In reply to Anil (#47) :

I am for decentralization and for free-market oriented economics. The current debate on autonomy and revenues in India has nothing to do with that.

To give you a comparison, in the US, in 1997, the last year for which I could find complete figures, the Federal Government raised $1722 billion in revenues, the State governments raised $865 billion in revenues.

(http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part3.html#government)

The point is that the US Federal government outraises in revenues the components states of the US by a factor of 2:1. I don`t think that the Indian situation is that lopsided; if you have statistics readily available, I will be glad to learn. Meanwhile I`m still looking for statistics from India.

Is the amount of federalism in the US too little, adequate, or too much for India ? Can you judge based on the revenue statistics that I have posted ?

I think not.

Going to specific points -- the A.P. state government may be more efficient than the Center but this is also probably a pretty recent phenomenon.

As to control of generation of GDP, the figure I have is that 73% of GDP in India is generated by non-public-sector, so I`m not sure how to contrast the Center versus state control over generation of GDP.

-arun gupta

ylh ............

you poor pathetic miserable soul ...... I feel sorry for you - you just keep on coming back for more punishment at the hands of the trecherous infidels..... you, and other simple-minded young Paki pups, are no match for the treacherous, scheming and perfidious rascals like gymnosophist who are churi-sharp and will scar your young soul for life ..... why don`t you take the fact, that these guys are evil incarnate, at face value ? Don`t you trust your grand-parents and parents judgement that we, the Muslims of that miserable god-forsaken hell-on-earth, could never live with the saffron brigade who haven`t forgiven us for what we did to the progeny of the Vikram and Ashoka ....? so quit torturing yourself ...... Avoid them like the plague - it says so in the Koran ........here, I will give you an easy out:

`` Verily Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala) says: {Truly, the polytheists are unclean}, [Soorah at-Towbah, Aayah 28]. And He said about the hypocrites: {so leave them alone, for they are an abomination}, [Soorah at-Towbah, Aayah 95].``

..... do you need another excuse..... so leave them alone.......I hate to throw the Book at anyone .... but anything to save a youngster from wasting the summer arguing with old fogeys who have nothing better to do ...... go out, have a couple of beers, and watch the babes walk around campus in shorts that rejuvenate a Momin`s faith ....

So it seems that the Hurriyet has also agreed to talks with the Indian Government. Now who will the ``moral supporters`` send to keep the fires of insurgency burning in the valley?....employment opportunities for the Afghans and Sudanese?

-narain

I see you mention the cricketer Azhar in the article. What is it with you guys?

I remember in his heydays, at the Calcutta Eden Gardens stadium, there were huge posters mentioning ``Hazar Azhar``... I am sure more than 90% of the people were not Muslims... And I believe he was a hro to all people... So was he being discriminated against or what??? Or you bring this bogey everytime you are at the wrong end or when you commit a murder (like that Nadeem)???

So now there is a possibility he is doing wront stuff and when the law is catching up suddenly he is being targetted...

They say you are a respected columnist but I don`t see any logic or rationale... I only see ``cry baby``..

Re: YLH #124

I think it is pretty clear from studying Jinnah`s life and politics that his original position was that as loyal subjects of the Crown, Indians (whether Muslim or Hindu or whatever) deserved the same legal rights and home-rule priviliges as the white settler colonies (Canada, Australia, S. Africa, etc). What he was opposed to was not George VI being Emperor of India but the refusal of the Crown to grant full constitutional rights to Indians--at least to educated tax-paying Indians. Even later, Jinnah never demanded that the British ``Quit India`` but that they safeguard Muslim rights.

Jinnah was never a nationalist in the anti-British sense, he was a nationalist only in the anti-colonial sense. Most of our so-called South Asian ``freedom fighters`` were more anti-British than anything else.

BTW, I do not consider the term ``loyalist`` to be an insult. It is simply a description. My entire family, on both sides but with one notable exception, was ``loyalist`` till the bitter end. They served the Raj loyally and were rewarded, in a minor fashion, for it. Before that, some of them served the Sikhs, some the Mughals, and some the Afghans.

PS: Thanks for the clarification on the treaties.

Since when going to jail has become a qualification to be a ‘Freedom Fighter’ .. the reason that so many congress-wala Leader did go to jail .. could very well be that these guys were criminals .. this is going by the Indian logic.. only in India a bandit can be a Queen of the congress! .. I am pretty sure that Gahndi The Bapo Ji snatched that goat from some Gora officer and that’s why he was thrown into the slammer

Ref ylh #: 119

You say {Your prejudiced view of History never ceases to amaze me ... I am glad that you are not certain of your facts because if you were u would live in the ``haathi kaa kaan`` forever ....

I dont wish to change your distorted view of History which still fails to see how 1946 elections were pivotal for partition.... or your lack of ability to find neutral authors ...}

This exchange started when I replied to Umairr. So far, it is obvious that we can forget about any ``Pakistani struggle for independence`` or ``Pakistan being the highest form of self-determination for the Muslims of the subcontinent``. The second, if true at all, is an after-Partition afterthought. The former is a figment of Pak historians` imaginations.

I haven`t quoted by name any historian; I have only stated facts documented not just in history books written by prejudiced authors but verifiable through news reports contemporaneous with events, if one chooses to go to a newspaper morgue and read the older issues.

I asked you to read Hodson only with the view to understanding that self-rule was debated much before WWII, contrary to your assertion that only because of WWII independence came about.

Now it is getting clearer what the Pakistani angst is all about. You aren`t sure why you got a country of your own because there seems to be no progress; when you dig deep into history, you realize the country`s paternity and maternity are at variance with history according to Pakistan Education Ministry; and on top of that, one`s personal lineage is questionable (are you Indians, are you converted Hindus?) and that is why you guys keep searching for Middle Eastern and Central Asian roots. Talk about schizophrenia on a massive scale!

The Iranians solved their problems (caused by association with the Ayatollah Khomeini) by calling themselves Persians instead of Iranians. I guess you could call yourselves Scythians except that the image of Allah-crazed (what is that about religion being the opiate of the masses?) bearded fundos running around with scythes (I am just making a joke here) in hand does not necessarily inspire less fear than guys with kalashnikovs or fertilizer bombs. Huns doesn`t cut it either by virtue of association with Attila and later with the Germans of WWII. You guys need to search for a more neutral word to call yourself.

Give up, YLH. There has been a great big myth built about Pakistan and you need that myth to sustain some belief in Pakistan. As you grow older, you learn to separate fact from fiction and form your own informed conclusions regardless of what the slanted history books say. By the way, Pakistan doesn`t need to justify its existence to anybody; it is there and that fact cannot be altered.

PS. I know fully well you haven`t studied in Pak schools that is why I said what you write is worse than the crap from the Pak School of History.

PPS. One other potential myth that needs exploding is this business of Hindu domination over Muslims. It would be interesting if someone would get to some reputable statistics (perhaps the Cambridge Economic History of India might be helpful here) to conclusively prove or disprove the thesis that Hindus would economically dominate the Muslims in a united India. If that theory is disproved, all the legs would be cut from underneath the arguments for Pakistan. (That wouldn`t mean I would want the madrassah boys to be running around Bombay or Madras; so you guys still get to keep Pakistan, thank you very much.)

YLH, and others. Here is a link to an excellent and eye-opening article about Ataturk:

http://www.murabitun.org/programme/khalifate/kha5.html

re: Sadna # 109

I thought you were from the Maneka Gandhi bandwagon and wanted to poke fun at their lot at your expense, sorry. I too was talking from experience. I lived in Dammam, Gizan and Darb, the descending order of urbanity. Darb is as remote as remote can be. And we were supplied with everything there. I`d be thrilled though if we had an all-meat diet. Can never have enough of that stuff :)

Regards,

Kabuli

And Fuzair let me clarify a few things to you to...

the Congress Party also declared in 1940s its repudiation of Hitler`s Nazi Germany and the rightful cause of the British ....

It was Chanderbose who was against the British war effort ...

The World War 2 was not about the Raj ... it was Humanity against inhumanity ... simple!Every human being should have supported the Allies in that war ...

Jinnah supported the British war effort because he knew that it would be favorable to his Nation the Indian Muslims ....

Jinnah`s credentials as being anti British and anti imperialist are beyond a shadow of doubt ...his stance right from his entry into politics was anti imperialist and called for self rule ..he used the word swaraj ....

It was later on when he realized that even with the british gone his people would still be in chains that he decided to become Muslim Nationalist instead of Indian Nationalist ...

To suggest that Jinnah was loyal to the British Government is a distortion of history

Maybe the book by a Congressite Hindu freedom fighter...

Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan

by Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhya will change your mind

Fuzair!

Pakistan Zindabad

And Gymnophist how many times have you read the

INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE history in a Pakistani school...

I know I get the beating for this everytime but do I need to remind you that I went to British and then An American school

Maybe you should read some objective History and not what you learnt it your Maharashtra High ...

-Yasser

Fuzair I think you are confusing the treaty of Lausanne in 1923 with treaty of sevres on 1919 ..

1923`s treaty was when Turkey had defeated the greeks and the treaty was itself seen as a great victory ....

The treaty of Lausanne it is my suspicion what later inspired the two nation theory in IndoPak for it was this theory that affirmed the status of religion as the basis of ethnicity bringing forth a precedent ... on which Jinnah played later on ..

As gymnophist ... man you like just taking things out of context and using them to your advantage ..

Your childish argument that muslim league leaders didnt go to jail is beginning to annoy me ...

Age is no gurantee of sagacity Gymnophist...

Gymnophist ..

Hasrat Mohani amongst others went to jail a few times ....

Did you know Sadna that Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was bitterly opposed to the Khilafat Movement and the Ottoman Caliphate??

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sangat/khilafat.htm