Khuda Hafiz, Kashmir?

Another heroic assault by ``freedom Fighters``

http://rediff.com/news/2001/aug/07jk5.htm

Asif Naqshabandi,

Nothing would make me happier than to see the Muslims of India doing well. As a matter of fact they are doing pretty well for themselves and do not entertain any thoughts of migrating to Pakistan.

When you get the time just look up the census figures and checkm out the proportion of Hindus in present day Pakistan before 1947 vs. the proportion today. You will learn who is being ``xenophobic`` ``fundamental`` etc.

Don`t you think it is a big slap in your face that Muslim Indians generally give you the cold shoulder and Farzana whom you are trying to dish out kindly dollops to calls the cut-throats of Kashmir aka mujahidung ``terrorists``?

That`s the ultimate insult isn`t it?

When you visit UAE the next time visit Tiffany Foods. Ask them how many Pakistanis they employ.

Hi . . . I need to contact Farzana Versey . . . please email me at veeresh@chowk.com thanks

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Amanullah Khan

With the passage of time, the above pledges, instead of being honoured, changed into the question as to who should own the whole of Kashmir, with both India and Pakistan claiming it on different grounds. India claims proprietorship of the whole state on the basis of the Kashmir rulers` defective and conditional accession of the state to India. Pakistan, claims it on the basis of the two-nation theory, ignoring the fact that the theory did not apply to princely states, including Kashmir, as confirmed by her own founding father`s stand. Pakistan had got the Kashmiris` choice limited to choosing only between India and Pakistan (per UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949) to make sure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan as a result of the proposed plebiscite.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2000-daily/31-08-2000/oped/o2.htm

Will Pakistan agree to the concept of Kashmir being an independent state (not being part of India nor Pakistan) that includes both Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir?

Shammi!

You article only reflect who is mightier in power and who will have more destruction. But no one will be safe. Of one will be decapitated, other will have its limb lost.

The key to peace in sub-continent is peace in Kashmir according to the wishes of Kashmiri people.

The resolution of Kashmir problem will remove a big hurdle in hostilities between nations in sub-continent.

Re: Umairr # 68

``However, now I think the war between India and Pakistan would turn nuclear before India gets

anywhere near Rahim Yar Khan. The days of long drawn out conventional warfare between India and Pakistan are over. Pakistan has a solid deterence.``

I think that the Pakistani writer Dr Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has the best response to Umairr`s comments:

``India`s principle of `no-first-use` means that once Pakistan mounts a nuclear attack, New Delhi will respond in the same manner. One Pakistani writer recently presented a highly ambitious targeting agenda, according to which Pakistan would like to drop nuclear weapons on an area ranging from Bombay to New Delhi. This is too wide a territory to be covered by 15-20 nuclear warheads that Pakistan has right now. At best it could strike at least four or five major Indian cities.

A number of Pakistani diplomats perceive nuclear deterrence as the ability to drop at least one weapon on one Indian city to deter New Delhi from any aggressive move. Of course, this will elicit a similar response from India. An Indian defence analyst, Brigadier Nair, claims that India will carry out 17 nuclear strikes against Pakistan: six metropolitan centres, including port facilities; one corps-size offensive formation in its concentration area; three sets of bottlenecks in the strategic communication network; five nuclear-capable military airfields; two hydroelectric water storage dams. New Delhi obviously has a mix of strategic targets and

population centres on its wish-list...The

destruction would be incalculable

Kargil showed that Indian policymakers were fearful of the actual use of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, with technological advancement this fear could be reduced. In fact, such development would increase pressure on Pakistan.

Moreover, such plans depict an India more willing to decapitate Pakistan beyond redemption, and ready to take a few hits itself in this deadly process. India, it must be remembered, has more strategic depth to save it from complete annihilation. It also means that the Indian policymakers will necessarily have to get used to the idea of punishing its adversary at the cost of getting a few million of its own people killed. This makes the nuclear option deadlier.

...The proposed 17 nuclear strikes against Pakistan, carried out through a triad of Indian forces, will be sufficient to destroy the country almost completely. This makes the need for a second-strike capability against Pakistan totally redundant.

Once faced with this situation, Islamabad may consider the option to further develop its nuclear capability. The financial impact of such a development on the nuclear front would increase pressure on the already ailing economy. Although there are no cost estimates available of this type of technological development, one could learn from the American example where about $4.5 trillion

have been spent. Needless to point out, escalation is a two-way street. Unfortunately, there is a slim margin between the Indian and

Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Technological development of the nature mentioned above can reduce Pakistan`s strategic advantage.

...It is very important to stop India from embarking upon the course of technological

proliferation. Hopefully, the three Asian states (India, China & Pakistan) can agree upon a nuclear arms control formula for the region. It is important to stop

this race before it gathers further momentum.

NaqshBandi #238

I have too much respect for people who devote their time for some cause.

Ulema have their thoughts. Their strength and weaknesses.

It is not easy to put a person out of fold of Islam, if a person is saying himself Muslim.

Unless, his belief is out of whack. As Qadiani`s belief of prophet after PBUH is against the basic tenets of Islam.

You have to differentiate between Taqwa, Momin, Muslim, Munafiqeen, Kafir etc.

When Ata-Turk started to fight the Europeans, the Uthmani Caliphate was going to surrender, with humiliating terms.

As Iqbal said meaning (I forget exact wording)

Mullah kah raha hai yeh Waqt-e Duaa Hai,

Momin Ka hey ye Azn ke Hai yeh Waqt-e-Jahad.

Ata-Turk did thought that reason for the decline of Muslims was the culture of Uthmani Caliphate which was labelled as Muslim Culture.

And he went to another extreme, but with time those excesses are coming into light.

Let me tell you another Hadith meaning:

Muslims will follow the christians and jews, and if they had gone in a lizards hole, Muslim will follow this also.

Your following of your Sheikh and belief in him is not supported by Islamic teachings, but following of the same as prophet warned.

You are answerable for your own thoughts deeds and actions and on day of judgement when you will say that my Sheikh has told me such, you will not be absolved.

If you have doubt regarding my understanding, there are many Ayah in Koran, just for this point.

When God has brought Haqq (meaning Koran), why you followed your leaders. You will be punished and leaders will be punished doubly.

I think you will not mind a sinner like me telling you. But that is my understanding.

May God guide me to straight path.

YLH/KRashid...I only said Ataturk was a kafir (for insulting the Holy Prophet alayhi salaam) and I didn`t accuse you two of anything..

Krashid I KNOW what serious thing it is to call anyone a kaafir in Islam who is a Muslim which is why I myself never judge anyone; I merely relate what ulama I trust of Ahle Sunnah or those things on which there is consensus...and regarding Ataturk ask ANY scholar and he will tell you what he thinks of him...

YLH--you are right that you have 100% rights to praise whoever you want and you can carry on praising mr. ataturk all your life as far as i`m concerned...

the sickness is that here is a man who blatantly insulted the Holy Prophet alayhi salaam and yet here you are still singing his praises...as if that doesn`t matter to you.

Well sorry but if a person insults Our Beloved Messenger it DOES matter to me...and you can call me whatever names you want....

And it matters to all the Muslims from the Prophet`s time to now as well....do you know what the fatwa is on ANYONE who insults the Holy Prophet in ALL schools of thought?

But maybe it doesn`t matter to you...

And I wonder about your imaan if it is so sensitive that just because i expose a politician whom you admire that you suddenly want to apostacise (naudhu billah!)?

Asif Naqshbandi# 204

Your Ulema have once told that Allama Iqbal was Kafir.

Quaide-Azam was famously known as Kafir-e-Azam.

Are the Mullah correct.

Or as Iqbal said about them ``Do take ke Imam``

Two penny Mullah.

In one form you may be considered Kafir (because giving the Fatwa of Kufr is so easy for you)

Do you know the Hadith. It is also for you.

During a war, a Muslim Commander (I think Khalid bin Waleed) killed a Kafir, who just said Kalma. The matter was brought before Prophet PBUH. He got angry, and asked the commander, if he had seen the heart of killed person. And told him he had done wrong.

Be careful, when labelling someone as Kafir.

The problem with you is that criticism of Ulema, who have a great contribution in taking the Muslims to this stage, where they are killed and tortured and for redress look towards the Kafirs.

You think the criticism of Ulema is criticism of Islam.

One of your brother gave fatwa that printing of Koran on printing press is Haram. Did you made it Halaal for yourself yet. Another one gave fatwa that Azaan on loudspeaker is Haraam. And that Haraam is done five times a day in Haramen-ush-Sharifain. One of your brother gave Fatwa that whoever votes for people`s party will not go to heaven. One of your brother gave fatwa that fight against British is Haram.

So all the freedom fighters, and resistance movement is Haraam.

What is left. Are you going to Bosnia to stop the killing of Muslims. Or Bosnians are also Kafir in some form because they are whites or are helped by Americans. Or was there any Muslim country to protect Kosovans, except the loathed jews and christians.

If you have ability to fast, that is good. But if you have to fast because of lack of food, all your philosophy of putting people out of fold of Islam after a burp will end.

Honestly I have been a Muslim all my life and I love my religion but reading Naqshbandi`s posts makes me wanna apostasize ....

I wonder if Ataturk had his share of Naqshbandis?

He sure did ....

You said what sickness is this? I ll tell you something ... I will praise whoever I want and you cant tell me it is a sickness ...

Why do u have to impose your narrowminded interprettation of Islam on others ....

You make people repulsive to Islam ...

Oh yeh...for your information the great sufi brotherhoods are flourishing in Turkey alhamdulillah despite the efforts of your infidel ``hero`` to crush them....

Jaa al Haq wa zaahiqal baatil....

YLH--you conced he might be a kafir (the ulama have said he is and after insulting the Messenger alayhi salatosalaam how can he NOT be) but still support him and write ``zindabad!`` What sickness is this?

La hawla wa la quwwata ila billah!

Asif Naqshbandi ...

First of all I making every effort to get this book which I am sure you have not read .......

Second the grey Wolf was published for the first time during the time of the Gazi .... and Gazi is known to have rebutted a lot of it ... it was written by a British author who was Kemal because of the services he had rendered to the Turks ....

Now before you start attacking Ataturk as a Kafir ... Only Allah knows what he was ... we are no one to judge him ....

His contribution to the Turks and his inspiration to the Muslims all around the world is awesome... his theory of Kemalism stands out as a beacon of light for the Muslims of this world .....

The fact that he might be a Kafir (which I doubt)

does not over shadow the fact that he was the last truly successful military leader for any Muslim army ... hence the name Gazi ...

Prophet Muhammad`s personality remains beyond any outbursts by anyone ... his is a live revolution ..

Infidel Ataturk maybe but he did in essence purge the Muslim world of Obscuranitist elements that Prophet Muhammad himself had stood up against ...

Muslims can be thankful to Ataturk for crushing the obscuranitist Naqshbandi Brotherhood of Turkey

but I see that he couldnt complete the job .....

Ah ... well maybe someone else will ....

Till then, keep putting up your posts ... they are quite amusing ...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-Quaid e Azam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

Yasser Hamdani

YLH--the full reference for that quote 9in cae you don`t believe me)

* The Grey Wolf, H.C.Armstrong, Capricorn Books, New York, 1961.

YLH (and other admirers of Ataturk) this is a quote from your ``hero`` about Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and Islam: Ataturk--may he burn in hell for ever--said:

[quote]

``For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam-this

theology of an immoral Arab-is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God`s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weaklings. No weaklings should rule!`` *

* The Grey Wolf, pp. 199-200 [endquote]

taken from:http://www.khilafah.org/phase1/history/traitors.html

Notice what the kaafir said about our Beloved Prophet. THAT YLH is why I HATE him.

Is he still your hero?

Hey guys,

here is an article about kargil.. in rediff.com.

what do you say?

Pakistan at the Crossroads: The Fallout of Kargil

Speaking to correspondents at Attock where he has been incarcerated by the Musharraf regime, Nawaz Sharif recently squarely blamed General Pervez Musharraf for Pakistan`s military and diplomatic debacle in Kargil. Revealing that Pakistan had suffered heavier casualties in its Kargil misadventure than in the entire 1965 conflict, Sharif went on to say: ``The fact is that unit after unit of the Northern Light Infantry were wiped out. With every passing day, Pakistan was losing posts.``

While the military regime predictably branded Nawaz as a traitor and liar, his wife Kulsoom, whom many in Pakistan consider to be far more politically savvy than her husband, joined the fray, demanding the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to look into who was responsible for the Kargil debacle.

Influential and highly respected newspapers like The Dawn supported this call. But given the veil of secrecy and absence of public accountability that shrouds every activity of the army, there is no way that General Musharraf is going to oblige those who demand that his actions in Kargil should face the same measure of public ``accountability`` as the actions of those whom he is now seeking to prosecute.

Many Pakistanis now privately acknowledge that it is the lack of transparency and public accountability that has led to their army becoming a virtual state within a state in their country. It is only after a lapse of over three decades that eminent Pakistanis like Air Marshal Nur Khan and Altaf Gauhar now acknowledge that the 1965 conflict instigated by Bhutto and executed by Ayub was a national disaster rather than the great victory it was claimed to be.

With the country unable to meet its international debt repayment obligations and regarded as a breeding ground for sectarian religious extremism by countries in its neighbourhood ranging from Iran and India to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan, there is growing international concern about where Pakistan is headed. This concern is naturally shared by many thinking Pakistanis. But is a regime that sought to present President Clinton`s televised address during his brief stopover in Islamabad as an endorsement of its policies, at all capable of genuine introspection?

The military establishment presents the Kargil debacle to its own people as a great military feat whose gains were bartered away by a blundering Nawaz Sharif. One has, therefore, to really ponder over whether the military establishment in Pakistan has learnt any lessons at all from its recent history.

The military, strategic and diplomatic aims of the Kargil misadventure became evident to the world from the two conversations in May 1999, between General Musharraf who was then in China and his Chief of General Staff Aziz Khan. In diplomatic terms the aim was obviously to get waning international interest refocused on Kashmir. The expectation was that India would not be able to retake the heights astride the Srinagar-Leh road and its communications and supply lines to Siachen and Ladakh were cut off.

So confident was Musharraf that these strategic objectives would be achieved that he directed Aziz on May 29 that Pakistan should not accept any Indian offer of a cease-fire in Kargil. Aziz Khan was also ordered that the Pak government should claim that the Line of Control was not properly defined or demarcated and that all military activities should be attributed to the ``Muhjahideen``.

The tunnel vision of those who planned and executed the Kargil venture soon became apparent. The argument that the LOC was not accurately demarcated was promptly rejected by the USA, the European Union and others who had been provided copies of maps signed by Indian and Pakistani military commanders in 1972. Further, by the end of June, virtually all Pakistan army posts overlooking the vital Srinagar-Leh road were overrun.

When United States CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zini visited Islamabad towards the end of June, Musharaf realised the game was up. Every strategic post except Tiger Hill had been lost. It needs to be remembered that Nawaz Sharif agreed to meet Zini only after Musharraf had agreed that withdrawal from remaining areas of Kargil was the only viable option left, both militarily and diplomatically.

By the time Nawaz left for his fateful trip to Washington on July 4, the Indian flag was flying on top of Tiger Hill and supply convoys were proceeding unhindered to Leh from Srinagar. Pakistani army intruders, drawn predominantly from the Northern Light Infantry, had been forced out of over 95 per cent of the strategically crucial Dras and Batalik sectors and the Indian army was poised for a major attack in Mashkoh where over 50 per cent of the territory had been cleared of the intruders.

But the weekend meeting between Nawaz and Clinton signaled the beginning of a new and deadly rivalry between Nawaz and Musharraf, over who exactly was responsible for the Kargil misadventure that ended ignominiously in military terms and earned Pakistan a reputation for irresponsible behaviour, internationally.

The fallout of the Kargil episode was inevitable. As Musharraf visited cantonment after cantonment seeking to explain the debacle to sceptical audiences, he inevitably had to claim that he had ordered the withdrawal on instructions from Nawaz Sharif. The Punjabi prime minister was obviously not pleased at this explanation of his Mohajir army chief. Matters came to a head over Musharraf`s decision to sack Corps Commander, Quetta, Tariq Parvez for his allegedly unauthorised contacts with the prime minister. The impetuous and rash Nawaz Sharif in turn decided to sack Musharraf. The 111 Brigade in Rawalpindi, on red alert for just such an eventuality struck and Pakistan again slid back to military dictatorship.

One would have hoped that given Musharraf`s credentials as a modern minded Ataturk oriented general, things would change. But the repeated invocation of jihad naturally raises serious doubts about the directions in which Pakistan intends to proceed. Has the Pakistan army learnt any lessons at all from the futile deaths of its soldiers and young officers, many of whom bravely laid down their lives for what was, by any yardstick, a military adventure doomed to failure? Was it necessary to get involved in a situation where a professional army refused to accept back the bodies of its slain comrades ? Would the Army high command have been so callous on this score if the soldiers killed were from Chakwal and Rawalpindi instead of from Gilgit and Baltistan?

Finally, has Bill Clinton`s admonition that the international community does not reward those who seek to change borders in blood at all sunk into the minds of the military establishment ?

Pakistan and its military rulers today stand at the crossroads of their nation`s history. Will they choose the path of their country continuing to be a focal point for jihad in Chechnya, Algeria, Egypt, Central Asia and Kashmir? Will they persist in a sterile and futile quest for ``parity`` with a neighbour several times their size and further bankrupt their crisis-ridden economy? Or will they choose the path laid down in the SAARC Vision for the Year 2000 and beyond and constructively join a collective endeavour for developing a South Asian Community, dedicated to the progress and welfare of its people?

Gopalaswami Parthasarathy retired from the Indian Foreign Service in May 2000 after a long and distinguished career. He served as India`s ambassador/high commissioner to Burma, Australia and finally, Pakistan and at Indian missions in Washington, Moscow, Dar es Salaam and Karachi earlier. In Delhi he served as the spokesman at the ministry of external affairs and as information adviser to then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Currently a visiting professor at the Centre for Policy Research, he will contribute a regular column on foreign policy to rediff.com

Krashid I totally agree ...

Asif Naqshbandi

The link is the same old .....

The same old propaganda by the Khilafatists ...

as long as we are alive there will be no Khilafah and that is an eternal position...

Asif Naqshbandi, did you know that the great Quaid e Azam was opposed to the Khilafa ...

Also please enlighten me on what Kemal said bout the Prophet ... I am yet to read anything of that sort....

Perhaps you have all the more reason to hate him because he outlawed and executed your fanatical sufi order of Naqshbandia??? Naqshbandis have been the most orthodox and the most fanatical of

the sufi orders ... They live in the 15th century not the 21st .... they are a shame to Islam!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

YLH -- you know, you almost have a Kemal fetish! If you had read that article which I posted from www.murabitun.org you would have seen that yes he did some good things for the Caliphate in the beginning miitarily, but then he showed his true colours...anyway, it is obvious we will not agree so just forget it. BTW, do you actually know what kind of filth Ataturk spewed about Our Master Sayyedina Prophet Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam? That is the primary reason I hate him...

Sigalph...is Turkey as powerful as you are making out? It is percieved as the sick man of Europe..and as for its much vaunted Kemalis secularism --well, since when has that meant thatyou prevent people from graduating just becoz they wear a headscarf?? Why was the Refah party prime minister forced quite blatantly to resign by the generals?

And Turkey is not a part of the EU yet. I hope it does become a part of it..as long as it can keep its Islamic credentials...but I bet the deal is that you become like us and then you can join! As for NATO--well, Turks make good fodder you see..rather a few dead Turks than Western Europeans is the thinking behind that. Otherwise, why is the EC so terrified of the Islamic parties coming to power?

Sadhana #97

Sadhna, do you really not eat meat? How about machhi, bhat?

That creates problems. Don`t you think!

Ref Asif #126:

Dear Asif:

thanks for the following link:

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

It was interesting to read the effect of European banking, Oriental express etc. on the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman empire though was brutally repressive throughout the nineteenth century, specially towards the Serb, Montenegro, Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian christians. During Sultan Abdal Hamid`s reign, thousands of Armenians were massacared periodically, as depicted by the gloating letter of a Turk soldier in 1896, where his unit killed 1200 Armenians as `food for dogs`.

These massacres pale into insignificance to what happened during the rule of the so called secular Ittehad rule, where Kemal was one of the leading lights. From 1915 on, under the name of `Turkey for Turks` and `internal enemy` pretense 1.5 million Armenians fell to the first genocide and ethnic cleansing of the last century.

It was this genocide that prompted Hitler later to ask `Who remembers the Armenians?` when the final solution of the Jews was considered.

Ref Asif #126:

Dear Asif:

thanks for the following link:

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

It was interesting to read the effect of European banking, Oriental express etc. on the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman empire though was brutally repressive throughout the nineteenth century, specially towards the Serb, Montenegro, Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian christians. During Sultan Abdal Hamid`s reign, thousands of Armenians were massacared periodically, as depicted by the gloating letter of a Turk soldier in 1896, where his unit killed 1200 Armenians as `food for dogs`.

These massacres pale into insignificance to what happened during the rule of the so called secular Ittehad rule, where Kemal was one of the leading lights. From 1915 on, under the name of `Turkey for Turks` and `internal enemy` pretense 1.5 million Armenians fell to the first genocide and ethnic cleansing of the last century.

It was this genocide that prompted Hitler later to ask `Who remembers the Armenians?` when the final solution of the Jews was considered.

YLH:

Your impassioned defense of Kemal Ataturk and Jinnah is admirable. Funny how the nutcases cannot stand the name of Kemal, calling him all kinds of names, the most benign of which is probably `apostate`. Funny it was these very mullahs who had bestowed the title ``Gazi`` on him.

Kemal saved Turkey and set it on a course which has, today, brought it on the verge of being recognised as a regional econimic and military power. He reclaimed a civilization which was ready to drown in the abyss of Ottoman debauchery.

When the Saudis, SUdanese, and the Afghans gain entry into NATO and the European Union, then we will be happy to listen to the types of Naqshbandi.

In essesnce, the Kashmiri Muslims have a similar choice to make. They can follow the model of Afghanistan and Sudan in their freedom struggle and make the civilised world more and more suspicious of them(and India more gleeful). Or, they can eschew the poisoned chalice offered by the Taleban and Pakistani radicals with a firm ``thanks, but no thanks``. The latter course will make it a tougher go in the long run but most likely be more successful than the alternative. One cannot blame the world or even India itself for being paranoid about the prospect of an Islamic radical state next door. With the fall of communism, Islamic extremism has become the most well organized threat to the idea of a free society.

ylh# on your posts.

My thinking on AtaTurk is that he must have been a great figure in Islamic world during his time as a saviour of Turkey, and much respect in Islamic world. I think Allama Iqbal has written a poem in his praise also.

And since it was Sultan with his allied Mullahs, who were defeated badly and failed to protect Turkish Caliphate. So AtaTurk must have been a hero and Sultan a villian of Turkish people. That is why it must have been easy on AtaTurk to not only put the blame on Sultan and institutions created by him, but also to believe Islamic orthodoxy as the direct cause of decline of Muslims. And it cannot be otherwise, except by full support of people to ban all Islamic identity of Turks, like banning Turkish cap, banning veil for women, changing the character of language from Arabic to Roman etc.

In Pakistan situation is different. Islamic parties have never been in power. They think that Islam will give prosperity to our country. Their work is easy because Pakistan has been ruled by liberals, Socialists and everyone except Islamist.

The Zia era, they say is utilization of Islam for his own end and was not Islam.

They are providing education (of whatever sort) to people who would otherwise were not able to get education. Moreover that education is religious, taking to heaven. (Sone pe Suhaga). They also do community services. They take credit of downfall of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. You can judge from the fact, that Pervez Musharraf, who first said that he is impressed with AtaTurk, is now talking about Islamic system of everything and kind and has to budge under pressure of Islamic parties.

I have to do a lot of reading, but one thing which I am realizing is that education should be our second priority after economic self sufficiency.

krashid, the last time the ``dust settled`` bangladesh had disappeared from Pakistani paws. And so far the dust from Kashmir has clouded Pakistan`s eyes...50 years and Kashmir is still in India. Another 50 will be no different.

It gives me great pleasure to hear you reassure us that Pakistan should continue to support muslim terrorism all over the world. Now I can be assured that your path to bankruptcy and international isolation will continue.

And genius, the OIC conference was ``held`` in Malaysia. Regardless of what was said or not said, the outcomes don`t necessarily represent Malaysia`s views. And if I remember correctly, Malaysia was recently considering banning Paki students to prevent terrorism and unrest.

Pardesi thanks for your elaborate response. Jinnah`s vision had one dissimilarity with Ataturk`s vision. Jinnah believed that a secular Democracy is perfectly compatible with the Islamic ideal of polity. Ataturk, though started out that way, didnot believe that Islam was compatible with his secular vision. Kemalism as you said was a gift of God for the Turks. However Kemalism in its

crude form was perhaps only implementable in Post World War 1 Turkey. Earlier on I quoted Bobby S Sayyid`s book in which he described Pakistan as a Kemalist state. However we need to work on it. Islam doesnt need to be ridiculed the way it was in Turkey. Therefore the reformed Kemalism will have scorn for obscuranitism and bigotry and not the rational religion of Islam itself. Ofcourse the state will be completely secular but in this secular state no religion will be suppressed but left alone. This is the vision of Jinnah. Laicism is just a part of Kemalism. As Bobby S Sayyid says that in the Modern Islamic World Kemalism was introduced with various strategies, the Pahlvist strategy, the Quasi Caliphate strategy, etc. I think Pakistan has the necessary composition to become a true Kemalist state without the aid of these strategies. Kemalist ideology, as you can discern, is only applicable to Muslim states and in essence is Muslim discourse in secularism... remember Ataturk`s nationalism also has a lot to do with the fact that Turks were all Muslims.

With that said, let me say Pakistan is loosely structured as a Kemalist state. Sure the influence of Bigotry and fanaticism is strong and thats what we have to work at. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had an excellent opportunity but at the time he was busy bringing the Muslim World close together.

The fact remains that you are correct that the Kemalism in its true form will never be successful in Pakistan but Neo Kemalism will, Kemalism which will be purged of all undemocratic and draconian practised that Kemalism became known for. There will be no more repression and measured terror though obscurantists and fanatics will be dealt with severely.

Personally, and it might sound cruel to Indians but charity begins at home, the sure shot way of getting rid of fanatics will be to send them with even more religious zeal into India/Kashmir. Hopeful they will be wiped out and India will be weakened to resolve the Kashmir issue. Once resolved the Moderately Muslim Moderately Kemalist state of Pakistan will move to reclaim its destiny.

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Ylh:

Turkey became secular (Kemalist) only when it suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of Allies in WWI. Kemal (my hero too) was a gift of God to Turkey at the time since - #1 Turkey was in “soul searching mood” after loss of their empire, #2 Kemal was a secular visionary who understood value of science and technology and #3 he had his patriotic credentials in place by defeating Greek troops in last couple of battles. With all these stars aligned, he could take the monumental task of reshaping a conservative Muslim state into a 20th century modern state. In fact, he also placed stringent laws in place so that the patient does not lapse into its old familiar religious ways again. Some of these constitutional measures were: armed forces keeping a close eye on the political affairs, no officer in army with any personal or familial links with religious organization etc.

Now whatever vision Mr. Jinnah had, does not matter here since the poor guy died too soon. Real issue is how any one is going to be able to transform Pakistan into a Kemalist state. Let us compare Pakistani conditions with those of Turkey after 1918.

1. Credibility with people - I would venture to guess that the only ones, who have some credibility with public at this time on emotional level, are the Jihadis since they are the ones who shed their blood in Kashmir for what they believe in. Regular army has not achieved any victories over last 50 years. Elite and their US educated children have not done much for masses in terms of nation’s education levels or material progress. I personally may hate these Jihadis as an Indian, and you may dislike these guys since they threaten well being of your kind in Pakistan, but they have credibility with ordinary Pakistani people since they are doing some thing for your national passion/objective # 1, Kashmir, rather than just talk.

2. A General with vision - You do not seem to have any visionary general (secular with love for science and technology) and most importantly, who also has credibility with the nation. All the generals have done is hide behind Jihadis and hope to somehow grab Kashmir so that they can get credit while others spill their blood. If there are indeed such people with iron resolve and great vision, they are not visible to the outside world.

3. Right circumstances - Last, but not least, Pakistan has not suffered any humiliating defeat that readies it for radical steps of this magnitude. The last time this kind of situation existed was in 1971 and the generals practically begged Mr. Bhutto to take over the government. That was perhaps as close to perfect time as Pakistan is going to get to implement blue print for Kemalist Pakistan.

Asif Naqshbandi

I donot suffer fools gladly!

Your analysis of the history and of the rational religion of Islam ..... is indeed messed up.

In any event I donot wish to defend Ataturk, everyone on this forum will view your post with scorn.

I am going to say one thing... if you read about Ataturk closely you will see that he himself wanted to enlist Islam as an influence for he believed that Islam was the most natural and rational of all religions... but then he probably ran into people like you who made him hate religion.

I leave you the choice ... you can go on claiming

that Islam and Democracy are incompatible... in the case of which we will have to do away with Islam completely (because people like you have corrupted it) or you can expound upon the rational true Islam and state Democracy and Islam go hand in hand ... saving both Islam and Pakistan.

If people like you dont change your views, and consider me fascist if you may, we will be forced to choose Democracy over the medieval philosophy that you choose to claim exclusively as Islam...

My Islam is not irrational....

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

In reply to ZZ, RSaxena, etc., : why I termed the analysis posted by Mohajir to be junk.

I do not know whether US-Pakistan relations have thawed or not. However, that is irrelevant to India. India-US relations will be, as far as is possible, independent of Pakistan-US relations, each relationship following its own trajectory.

There are many issues in India-US relations, for example, CTBT and non-proliferation, and the embargo on high-tech. exports to certain sectors in India. Moreover, the US has tried (and succeeded) in several instances, in keeping Russia from honoring signed contracts with India, for civilian programs. India is concerned about the US`s proposed missile defense system, because it might trigger an arms race in Asia. These are issues that would exist even if Pakistan did not exist.

In any case, if the US is going to rely on India as a guarantor of security in India`s corner of the world, then it can have no objection to India acquiring the necessary military strength from Russia, especially when the US itself is not willing to sell to India.

As to not trusting those Hindus because of Pakistani newspapers, I see more and more of these being hired by American firms to do work in IT, the very core of intelligence in the company.

So, what is wrong with the analysis is :

1. Viewing US foreign relations as a zero-sum game -- any pro-India move is necessarily anti-Pakistan, and any pro-Pakistan move is necessarily anti-India.

A more accurate view is that the US moves are pro-US, and India and Pakistan eat the fall-out.

2. Misunderstanding what a thaw is -- let the US resume pumping investment into Pakistan, buying more from Pakistan, lifting embargoes, and you can interpret it as a thaw in relations. Ambassadors singing you sweet words but doing nothing is not a thaw.

3. Buying of Russian weapons by India being perceived as anti-US : for all you know, the US might be happy to raise no objections in return for less Russian objections to US anti-missile defence plans. In any case, India is also shopping from France and Britain.

4. Viewing American foreign policy as being based on religion -- the US is happy to do business with countries as fundamentalist as Saudi Arabia. I think the US would not mind constant anti-US slogans being raised by the public in Islamic count ries, as long as business continued, and business was not threatened by bombs or guns.

Nor does the US foreign policy view India (or China) for that matter, as Hindu or non-Christian or Communist countries. These are places to do business and these are expected to comply with US wishes. As long as they do this (or at least, do not rock the boat violently) they are friends, strategic partners, etc., irrespective of ideology. As soon as they make trouble, they are threats, enemies, and whatever ideology they follow will be anathema, and painted to be a threat to the world as a whole.

Rantings in Pakistani newspapers are irrelevant to this.

-arun gupta

Re: RSaxena

Isn`t it true that Hanuman, the god-king of all monkeys, lives in India with his pack and those monkeys, as you correctly say, do not separate from the pack?

ylh, how would you, or other Pakis for that matter, feel about this hypothetical idea:

Make all India-Pakistan borders impermeable, cut off diplomatic relations, ban flights, ban whatever trade there might be, ban cross-border media proliferation, and completely isolate the two countries from each other. Ignore Kashmir for a second if you can, for this purpose.

Would you be as delighted as I?

ylh,

Why are we changing topics here? I thought you were trying to prove Turkey`s love for a fellow Kemalist state? Nevermind.

You said:

``Do you even know that Islamic parties dont even win more that 5 seats in every election????``

ylh, the last time I checked Pakistan is out of the business of having elections to choose its leaders. Stop making irrelevant points. Furthermore, you have empirical proof of the role of fundoos in Pakistan. Wasn`t it precisely them who the Chief Mullah Musharraf was afraid of when he backed down on curbing that absurd blashphemy law? Come on, you know who controls his, and effectively your government`s, puppet strings.

ZZ, if you want to delude yourself over foreign relations, then go right ahead. US and India are more economic partners than anything else...there never was a military alliance and rarely has India ever bought arms from the US. What`s important here is that the US is in no mood to jeopardize future and current trade with India over Kashmir. Remember Mr. Billy`s statements on the ABC interview vis-a-vis ``sections of Paki government supporting terrorism in Kashmir``? That`s all India has wanted all along and got it! Not arms or bear hugs! We have and will continue to get those from Russia, now France and increasingly Israel (our partners in the ``Hindu-Jewish conspiracy to destroy Islamists``).

You, not I, my friend are the one who cannot ``see the writing on the wall.`` Just last week there was a big hooplah in Washington about punishing China for missiles sales to Pakistan. Now if it was India instead of Pakistan, your deluded thinking would lead you to a celebration.

And we won`t talk about the embarassment Pakistan suffered at the hands of India at the ICJ. tsk tsk

Re: Gymnosophist #164

I think some clarification is needed here. I was referring to the exact timing of Partition/independence in 1947. I do not mean to imply that the Indian independence movement did not play any role at all. Certainly it did. However, the movement was not the key factor in WHEN independence was granted. The determining factor then was the post-war exhaustion of the British and the Labor government`s unwillingness/inability to hold the Empire together by force.

Even Churchill, when pressed, agreed that a phased transition to full dominion status was feasible by 1960 or so. However, this was entirely in keeping with the original mission of the British Crown in India in so far as the ostensible justification for the Empire was to hold it in trust for the natives until they could rule themselves according to more enlightened norms. I agree that the Indian national movement was instrumental in convincing the British that some concessions to home rule, if not full independence, would have to be made but my point is that the exact timing of the actual events was the result of British not Indian actions and priorities.

The African colonies had national movements far behind the Indian, and as you point out, had to wait longer for independence. But not all that much longer, Ghana gained it in (if memory serves) 1957 and Nigeria in 1960.

ylh #160

I would recommend you to read a brief history pre and post ottoman Muslim Empire and countries.

Arab revolt against ottoman, division of Arab world into different countries, creation of Israel etc.

Why the kurds have to be divided into three countries, with artificial boundaries.

You should realize, that these boundaries are created with WW1 and WW2.

That is why, there is as yet no consensus in the relationship between Islamic Ummah concept, which is as old as Islamic rule and Nationalism which is a product of this century (for Muslim world)

The best thing we can do is to work for the betterment of people of our country and to support Muslims struggle in other parts of world.

As a reminder, Turkey is one of the largest donor of aid to Pakistan in recent drought.

And in Malaysia (which supposedly snubbed Pakistan.) the organization of Islamic Conference has accepted the proposition for self determination of Kashmiris (which India believes is interference in its internal affairs, but for Muslims all over the world it is a problem of Muslims in Kashmir).

We have a saying, lets see which side the camel sits. Let the dust settle and then see where everybody stands.

For now things does not look as bad for Pakistan, Internationally as it has been 6 months ago.

As far as investment in India by foreign countries. I think the foreigners will try to make sure that their investment is safe. I don`t think they will embark on this proposal unless there is a strong surety and will from India.

If India looses this opportunity, I think it will be doing a great disservece to its poor people. (Rich already have no problem).

Re: ZZ #177

You said:

``Analysis may be junk. But there is indeed a thaw between Pak-US relations. India`s testing Pritvi and current talks with Putin shows that things are not entirely cosy in Indo-US context.``

What you wrote above is junk and illogical! What does India`s ongoing missile program have to do with US relations? Russia and India are historic allies, why in the world would India jeopardize that irrespective of the US? And no one ever said India & US were now allies..there is wide disagreement over CTBT for example. But the two agreed to disagree and not hold other aspects of the relationship hostage to this. That`s what democracies do...a concept alien to Pakistan.

BVong dong ...

freedom fighting is not terrorism!

Pakistan Zindabad

Rsaxena...

Pakistan has been described as a Moderately Kemalist state by many authors ...

You never cease to amaze me ... Pakistan has never been a fundoo state .... Do you even know that Islamic parties dont even win more that 5 seats in every election????

Pakistanis are moderates ... you really need to go to Pakistan to decide ... you wont see burkah clad women and bearded men but something else..

Atleast in the name of fairness ... dont make judgements on something you dont know anything about ...

Pakistan was never a Fundoo state and will never be ... people like you will keep sleepin in haathi kaaa kaaan... ignorance ignorance ...

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Re: 169

It is amazing how delusional and pathetic Pakistan has become. Yes, you are right, America does love you. So do the French. So do the Russians. They feel an ideological connection with you and are in awe of the vast potential your country holds as a center of technology, model for personal freedom, liberation of women, and debt reservicing.

Fools. Even Malaysia smacked that CEO character around last time he went around with a begging bowl.

Re: gymno # 163

Do monkeys ever separate from the pack? Stop expecting one of them to speak out against the imbecile behavior of another.

In other thoughts, Pakistanis are absolutely right in lamenting why muslims in India do not have the same rights as they do in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Namely, the right to trample other religions and impose Shariat law on others. Same for the US. Same for Israel too. What horrible treatment these people are getting. tsk tsk.

RE: ylh #167

Stop living in the past and fantasizing about what doesn`t exist and never will (kemalist Pakistan).

The fact of the matter is that just a few weeks ago the Turkish PM snubbed Pakistan`s invitation and sent a rude message to you clowns and you want me to dig out history books. Get real and read a newspaper for a change.

As for your dreamy fantasies about Kemalist Pakistan, take another reality check. Pakistan ain`t nothing more than a banana republic gone fundamentalist and broke.

mohajir #169,

``...Clinton`s distrust of India must have been further reinforced by the Pakistani print media which has been constantly warning America about the proverbial unreliable behaviour of Hindus, both as individuals and as a nation.... ``

http://www.jang.com.pk, Friday July 7 `00

India fomenting `war hysteria`: Tarar



``...He said India was turning its back on peace by refusing Pakistan`s repeated offer of negotiations to resolve both countries` claims to the Himalayan region....``

Whats the world coming to? `Offer negotiations` with those same Indians?

Sadhana

hamidm #155

Bile? Now THAT certainly has something to do with diet.

Sadhana

Anil,

We are talking at cross purposes. Going back to your original post :

Interestingly, Indian states already control the generation of more than 50% of the GDP, and the center controls less than 50%. Still the State governments are distributed less than 50% of the collected revenues. Thus state governments are far more efficient, while the center simply spends more money for its GDP contribution. That explains why there is too much pork-barrel (borrowing an American term) to go around at the center. The Southern states would rightly demand a fix for such anamolies. And devolution of power is the only answer for many problems.

I disagree with virtually every statement in the paragraph you wrote, that is quoted above.

Let us be clear about what devolution means : devolution means a transference of power from a central government to local units.

With that under our belt, let`s see --

1. The public sector controls only about 27% of the Indian GDP (1995-96 figure). So neither the Center nor the states directly control more than 50% of the GDP. If states control more GDP than the center, it means that the Center has been better at divesting than the states.

Divesting is what you want if you want to move to a free-market oriented economy.

2. Yes, onerous government regulations do hamper economic activity. Both Central and State regulations are implicated. However, this is indirect control of the GDP, not direct control.

Devolution of power -- i.e., replicating this control in the states and removing it from the Center will not fix anything. Only removing of the government controls will solve the problem,

and this is not what is commonly meant by ``devolution of power``. Rather, it is ``abolition of power``.

3. How much revenue the Center and the states get relative each other has nothing to do with anything. The example of the US makes that clear.

4. ``Control of GDP`` versus revenue collected is hardly a measure of government efficiency (again, consider the US as an example). A better measure of government efficiency is results achieved for the money spent. Ideally, government limits itself to services that are essential but do not produce GDP. Anything that is profitable like that should be left to the private sector. Anything else the private sector is going to shun, and so falls into the province of government (e.g, defence).

In any case, to move towards a free-market oriented economy, we want governments, state and central, to divest ( lose direct control ) and deregulate ( lose indirect control ).

We do not want the government to contribute to the GDP in any significant measure.

We do want the govts. to be efficient collectors of revenue so that overall tax rates are low and so that essential services can be provided.

Again, none of this has to do with devolution of powers.

I don`t think I can make it any clearer, so it is my last word on this.

-arun gupta

Harpeet, Gymnophist, Fuzair etc

For the forum here I will like to quote from Bobby S Sayyid, lecturer of Sociology at the University of Manchester and a director of the center of globalization, Eurocentrism and Marginality from his book ``A Fundamental fear: Eurocentrism and the emergence of Islamism``

refer to page 89

``The formation of Pakistan was very quickly reconfigured as a Kemalist state``

Following up as a footnote the book reads

``The debate about the creation of Pakistan and Partition of India is far from resolved.The case of Pakistan was based on the need for a muslim homeland. This homeland however was to be realized in the form of a Kemalist republic rather than an Islamist state. Thus the politicization of Muslim identity which was necessary for the Muslim homeland became incompatible with the Kemalist state that was institutionalized in 1947. As a consequence the formation of Pakistan also meant the depoliticization of a Muslim subjectivity....

it is only with the emergence of the Islamism in the Ummah that the first post colonial state founded upon the Idea of the Muslim identity began its rather stuttering attempts at Islamization.``

Page 121

This is what I have been saying all along.. however Bobby S Sayyid lacks a l in his understanding of Turkish History and the History of the Pakistan movement!

Pakistan Zindabad

ylh said:

``As for Terrorism ... I am the first one to say that fight terrorism by all means...``

So do you condem Pakistani state sponsored terrorism of the LET kind?

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2000-daily/07-07-2000/oped/o3.htm

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS !!!!

America sees reason

Masud Akhtar Shaikh

Of late there have been strong indications to the effect that our friends, the Americans, are no longer as annoyed with Pakistan as they were when some mysterious power forced Mian Nawaz Sharif to show his guts as the heavily mandated Prime Minister of Pakistan and pull the trigger for a few big bangs in spite of the US President`s repeated use of carrots and sticks over the telephone to dissuade him from taking that momentous decision. That was about two years ago.

Despite his extreme displeasure as a result of the Pakistani nuclear detonations, Bill Clinton must have been highly impressed by the admirable courage displayed by the man who held the destiny of this nation in his hands at that time. Alas, that image was to be demolished pretty soon when, haunted by the ghost of Kargil and daunted by the snow-clad spirits of Atal Behari Vajpaee`s dead soldiers lying unburied atop that famous mountain peak, MNS was to dash to the very threshold of the White House with knocking knees and a perspiring forehead, ready to obey whatever orders the US President had drafted for him.

That was a great fall, not only for Humpty Dumpty but also for the whole country. The nation was humiliated beyond repair. America must have felt reassured that the Pakistani partridge was still in her bag, in spite of having become a de facto nuclear power. Nevertheless, the US government took a number of steps against Pakistan to teach that country a lesson so as to deter it from behaving as audaciously as it had done in May 1998.

Come October 12, 1999, and the armed forces of Pakistan emerged on the political horizon, showing an offensively wide red rag to the American bull. On the face of it, what infuriated the US government and her western allies was the sad demise of our so-called democracy, but in fact the real reason for their indignant chorus against Pakistan`s new rulers was the unanticipated manner in which the latter had swept their country`s political stage clear of MNS and his stooges, all loyal friends of the US. Clinton could no longer be sure of the new leadership`s loyalty to the American cause. The only way to ensure that the military regime comes to its senses without causing much damage to US interests was to gather the support of all the American allies and tighten the noose around the new Pakistani rulers` neck as much as possible.

With that intention, a number of steps were taken against Pakistan. One such step was the revival of US flirtation with India for a full bloomed honeymoon, promising to make that `biggest democracy in the world` a cornerstone in the American global policies. Our economic strangulation was another link in the American chain of actions against the defiant new regime. It was as a cumulative result of America`s anti-Pakistan diplomacy that a widespread impression was created among our people that our country stood totally isolated at the global level and that all our economic problems were due to the arbitrary removal of the American prop on which our economy had been leaning for decades.

Somehow, within less than a year down the line, American fury against Pakistan seems to be gradually subsiding. Of all the people, it was the rugged Madeleine Albright who provided the lead in this connection by saying a few kind words about Pakistan in spite of her usually snobbish attitude towards the under-developed countries of the Third World. That was not very long ago. She acknowledged the difficulties facing the military regime while appreciating the various steps it was taking for the restoration of democracy in the country.

The softening of attitude has been travelling down the line. The latest in the chain is the recent statement of the US ambassador to Pakistan, William B Milam, who has gone to the extent of dispelling the widely held impression that Pakistan had been totally isolated at the international level. He has gone a step farther by saying that Pakistan is an important country not only for the region but also for the United States. ``We realise that Pakistan is an important country and we cannot ignore it``, he is reported to have said. He also assured that Washington wanted to see Pakistan economically strong and stable.

What could be the reasons for this pleasantly surprising change in the tone of the American administration? Strangely enough, our foreign office has not yet claimed the entire credit for successfully pacifying a disturbingly antagonised Uncle in whose service we have been made to spend almost the whole of our independent life as a nation, trying to keep him in good humour all the time. Maybe they have been rather too busy trying to meet the deadline given by the chief executive for the overhaul of their ministry so as to make it more efficient than it has ever been before. But to be fair to the worthy foreign minister, some credit for this change in the US attitude must be given to his setup.

However, it would be more logical to try and look for an answer to this riddle somewhere else. For example, the reason for American re-appraisal of the importance of Pakistan, not only for this region but also for the global interests of the US itself, could be the probable miscarriage of the love affair between America and India. It would be natural for any Romeo to feel jealous if his Juliet started flirting with a third person. This is exactly what seems to have happened right at the start of the exciting romance between Clinton and Vajpayee. The villain in this case could be none other than the stubby but smart Putin.

The newly-inducted Russian President has been going about, quite proudly exhibiting a highly impressive shopping list worth billions of dollars. The list gives details of Russian tanks, aircraft, and other important military hardware which India has agreed to buy from Russia in the immediate future. What other evidence did Bill Clinton need to be convinced about the treacherous nature of his new-found love? Could he place any reliance on such an unfaithful ally and assign him the important role of containing a mighty China, an over-ambitious Russia, or a threatening block of Islamic states of Central Asia getting inspiration from the Taliban of Afghanistan? Certainly not.



Clinton`s distrust of India must have been further reinforced by the Pakistani print media which has been constantly warning America about the proverbial unreliable behaviour of Hindus, both as individuals and as a nation. In the meantime, some insider might have whispered into Clinton`s ears that the famous Urdu proverb ``Baghal mein chhury munh mein Ram Ram`` (professing godliness with a knife concealed in the sleeve) is a true reflection of the Hindu mind and that he better be careful while embracing his Indian friends! Clinton`s conscience must have pricked him for having unjustifiably caused distress to an old ally like Pakistan. Hence a directive to Albright et al to mind their words while talking about Pakistan.

ali1 # 157

...... good catch, but as you must have figured out by now, what is good for this gander is not good for the goose ...... methinks it is okay for the secular-muslim to eat off the smorgass-board because he does not force the Mullah and the self-proclaimed Momina to partake of the forbidden fruit that he/she might sneak in from that other table ..... however, it is not okay for the Mullah and the fire-and-brimstone Koran-thumping Muslim to treat religion as a smorgass-board because they will never admit the concept of the smorgass-board ..... there is a mjor difference ...... like I said you can`t have your halwa and have it too ...... secular Muslims, or ``the hypocrites``, as the Koran is wont to call them, don`t really have much of a desire to keep the halwa - they just want to eat it now and then between the fois-gras and patte .....

Rsaxena

No matter what you like to believe but the fact is that over the last 50 years Pakistan and Turkey have been the closest of Muslim countries. Both countries were in RCD and also in the SEATO ...

Turkey has openly upheld the cause of Kashmir many times ... and in the 1965 war Turkey supplied Pakistan with jet fuel and revenue ...

As a matter of fact if you read a few books on Turkey`s post World War 2 History you will see that Pakistan Turkey friendship has been exemplary ...

As for Terrorism ... I am the first one to say that fight terrorism by all means...I am the most anti terrorist person there is ... especially state terrorism unleashed against Kashmiris by the Indian Unition ...

I dont support Ossama bin Laden and I definitely dont support Taliban ... I do support the Kashmiris right to self determination and yes I am

for the freedom struggle and against Indian state terrorism in Kashmir...

so you see Terrorism SHOULD be condemned ... in all ways and forms and means ..

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser

Naqshbandi

Please stop giving Muslims and Islam a bad name ... we are a rational people and ours is a rational religion ...secular democracy is to be our polity not theocracy or rather the perverted word theodemocracy of Maudoodi ..

Kemalism is the answer to the plight of the Muslim World ....

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Re: Sheesh Naag:

I wasn`t aware this forum was a beauty contest...

Incidently, could you please tell me what was ``so silly`` about that post? :)

My friend, I have never taken myself too seriously and I have no intentions about starting right now.

Ciao!

Ref Fuzair #: 156

You say {Gandhi`s call for civil disobedience, etc, were completely irrelevant in that the British left because they were exhausted after WWII and the new Labour government was much more concerned with building its version of a modern welfare state in England. The British Empire, at least the metropole component of it, was completely exhausted and virtually bankrupt.}

You seem to forget the fact that only South Asia (India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka) got its independence from Britain in the aftermath of WWII. All the African colonies waited till the 1960s to gain independence and little Hong Kong until 1997.

Of all the colonies Britain possessed, India was the richest in terms of the purchasing power its large population possessed for the manufactured goods of industrial Britain. With Japan`s economy devastated after WWII, there was no way Japan could export even the textiles that it used to send to India. With only ordnance factories established in the subcontinent during WWII, there was still a lack of ordinary daily-use goods that Britain could have supplied India. And India would have to pay for this either through export of raw materials or through expenditure of Britain`s war debt to India which had left India with the fifth largest reserves in the world.

The American economy boomed after WWII because its factories were intact and it was sending a lot of goods to Europe under the Marshall Plan which kept its factories busy. If Britain had retained India, British exports would have created a somewhat similar post-war boom in Britain.

I agree that post-war Britain had no stomach for colonies but that condition was created by years of civil disobedience and, as I pointed out earlier, applied only to South Asia. Gandhi`s call for non-participation in the war was no doubt ignored by millions of Indians who joined the Indian Army but the country was ungovernable after WWII and Britain had to leave.

Britain could have ruled India through its army after WWII but that would have meant massive bad publicity for Britain. You also seem to ignore the work of the India Independence League in Britain with its connections to the Labor Party at the highest levels that had been lobbying for years and had its friends come to power after WWII.

The cause of Indian independence had many reasons for its success but success would not have come about in 1947 just because of the factor of British fatigue. That would be a one-sided view that is amply refuted by the facts.

Regards.

Ref Rooster-Blues #: 129

You asked {Since when going to jail has become a qualification to be a ‘Freedom Fighter’ ..}

Other than white, Protestant colonies of Great Britain, no colony has received self-rule, Dominion status or Independence without the colonized people fighting for it one way or another. The only countries to which Dominion status (and virtual independence) were granted without a fight were Canada and Australia. Even white Ireland lost several thousands of people (and this continued even today in Northern Ireland) to its freedom struggle. Thus, if you fight for freedom, whether through civil disobedience in India or through violence as in Ireland, you end up in jail.

You said {only in India a bandit can be a Queen of the congress! ..}

I believe Phoolan Devi the Bandit Queen was arrested and convicted for her crimes and she was elected to the Parliament after she had paid her debt to society.

You said {the reason that so many congress-wala Leader did go to jail .. could very well be that these guys were criminals .... 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}

You have exposed your lack of knowledge about freedom struggles in general and the struggle in India by these comments. Your hatred of India is so blind that you make these statements which have no basis in fact. If this is an attempt at humor by you, I fail to find anything to laugh at. I waited 36 hours before I posted a reply to see if any Pakistani would come out and ask you not to make an ass of yourself; I am disappointed no one chose to do so.

The thousands of Muslims who went to jail in Sindh, NWFP and Punjab did so under the banner of the Congress Party. These people had a vision for an independent India. By marginalizing them and excluding them from any participation in the political process, the Pakistan Muslim League essentially sealed the fate of the average Pakistani. Jinnah could have lived another 15 years and that would not have made a whit of difference to Pakistan: if his followers` hearts were not in political and social reforms, there is no way they would have been carried out in Pakistan no matter how much Jinnah asked for them. You would have the laws on paper, as you do now, and they would have no effect in real life.

hamidm

{{as far as I am concerned anyone who consorts with the enemy is a traitor, plain and simple - }}

---And you married a traitor!! tauba tauba!!

But then , your parents chose her for you, youre excused.

Alas, another bad tradition from your Hindu ancestors. Damn those hindus--

haha. It`s funny to see the ylh kid shouting Turkey Zindabad so soon after the PM snubbed Pakistan and made suggestive statements about ``condemning and fighting foreign terrorism jointly with India`` during his trip there. We all know what India is talking about when it says that and so did the PM.

You Pakis will get slapped around and keep harboring dreamy visions of the Islamic Ummah which seems to not care about Pakistan.

Harpeet...

I will reply in detail later because I am sleepy right now ...

but I think no two countries have been more alike in History ...

both countried presupposed religion as ehnicity at the time of its conception... and the lives and personalities of both countries founders are strikingly similar.... both were allied with the US during the cold war ... and Turkey supported Pakistan most generously in the 65 war ....

The issue of the Kurdistan is similar to the problems Pakistan has faced in NWFP in the name of Pakhtunistan and also in Baluchistan ....

So for the most part ... Pakistan and Turkey have strikingly similar features both in religious and ethnic components, language and even founders ...

Pakistan Zindabad

Turkey Zindabad

macgupta #152 & #151

``By the way, today`s Economic Times reports that collection of direct taxes jumped 66% in 1Q2000 over 1Q1999 and indirect taxes collection jumped 13.5%.``

You are continually confusing collection of revenue with the control of generation of GDP. I hope it suits your arguments, whatever those are.

``The number of income tax assessees is slated to jump from 22 million to 26.5 million which is also a healthy jump.``

I am very bullish about India, but I am not blind to the challenge it faces. I certainly do not believe shuting eyes make the problems disappear. So now it is about 2.7% of Indian entities (people and companies) that pays income taxes. Please benchmark it with the countries India may want to emulate.

``I am not, and I don`t think anyone here is against decentralization, liberation of the economy from the government and so on.``

You are missing the point, that ``it is economy, stupid.`` It is naive to believe that economy and politics fall in different and unrelated boxes and are not related. You may need to rethink.

``However, Central versus State revenue is not an indicator of autonomy, e.g., the case of the US where the Federal Government raises twice the revenue than all the state governments put together.``

You are cofusingly stuck on this issue. Whereas my point had been control of generation of GDP. Let me illustrate it through example. A state-owned enterprise when it generates and sells electricity in India, and when a state-owned enterprise operates Road Transport are very different than state government collecting revenue. In above-mentioned cases these state-owned enterprises control the generation of GDP, and may never collect revenue as per your example. Similarly, when a central government owned enterprise, like SAIL runs steel-mills, then it once again control the generation of GDP, and not the collection of revenue. Please rethink your reasoning.

May I suggest that you look at Delhi`s phone directory and strike out the departments, state corporations etc. would become redundant if privatization is seriously is followed; and devolution of power to state is carried out. You would be surprised.

``Nor is it how much the Central government levies by way of taxes. The US Federal Government gets about 34% of GDP as taxes. And that is low -- France and Germany for instance take 50% of their GDP as taxes. (In India the Central Government takes about 20% of GDP as taxes. )``

Arun, you`re missing the point, I hope my examples of controlling the generation of GDP gives you an idea of my point.

``There definitely is a problem with having to take permission from the Indian Government to do anything (the license-permit raj). However, the cure is not to move the license-permit function from the Center to the States, it is to do away with it where possible and streamline it when it must absolutely be retained in the public interest.``

Here you are rightly pointing, and if the licensing etc. is gone then what is centralized. Please think, and you may also discover a U.S. like model for Federal - State relationship emerges, which is not centralized like it is in Indian democratic set up.

``Again, fixing these problems have very little to do with autonomy.``

Fixing these problems at a smaller level is always easier. Even in the U.S. the education is dealt at local (city / county government level). Your house-tax pays for your kids education at the public schools.

``Your Harvard Business School people may be very acquainted with the economics of India, but I`m not so sure about their knowledge of Indian politics.``

Politics is never divorced from economics. Politics is accumulation, control and distribution of power. The motivation to acquire power is always economic. History is full of examples.

``To put it bluntly, the Indian politicians are using the ``lack of autonomy`` to be the reason for their failures in performance.``

Please do not put it bluntly, realize the real issue is to evolve an efficient political system. The present system worked in dynastic period of Indian democracy.

``Somehow, removing from the State politicians the shackles of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, and the danger that if they screw up, their governments might be dismissed by the Center is going to enable them to deliver paradise to their constituents.``

The U.S. model of Federal-State relationship does not put any shackles for Supreme Court to ensure not removal. It is the same U.S. Supreme Court which once ruled slavery to be legal, and later in different times ruled the slavery to be unconstitutional. The moral of the story is that to remain dynamic and vibrant the system must change with time and society, otherwise they die. The judiciary becomes nothing more than a watchman of shackles, rather than address real issues.

I have said enough, and please excuse me if I do not respond any further on this matter.

Good luck

Anil Kapuria

Anil@Kapuria.COM

Gymnosophist #148

You might be mistaken.

Iran is a country, which consists of Turks, Kurds, Baluchs and Farsi or Persian people.

Iran and Persian are not synonymous.

Persian or Farsi people are proud of their ancesstory which dates back to thousands of years.

Most of the people who emigrated at the time of revolution, I expect them to be Persian, to which Shah of Iran was very much a fan. If you remember his 5000 years celebration of Iranian Empire, I think in late 60`s or early 70,s.

It is possible as you are suggesting that naming Iran is not good in America.

And in such a secular country (I can laugh at all the secular BS being poured from all orfices of people), I was targeted for working in Iran during interviews.

RE hamidm # 155

``religion is like a smorgass-board, you pick what you like and leave the rest to the Mullah and Sadhu ``

thunderous applause.........Hamid Sahib, I remember you scolded some muslim woman (Sobia?)who wanted to pick what she liked (hijab I think) from the smorgrass-board. You reminded her, rather sternly, about the other ``good stuff`` that tags along with the choice picks.

``You can`t have your halwa and eat it too...`` was a well written piece I think, so please re-read it!

Re: AD #104

Gandhi`s call for civil disobedience, etc, were completely irrelevant in that the British left because they were exhausted after WWII and the new Labour government was much more concerned with building its version of a modern welfare state in England. The British Empire, at least the metropole component of it, was completely exhausted and virtually bankrupt.

The entire gold reserves had been transferred to the US during WWII and the home country owed the US and the white dominions a massive war debt. Between the casualties of WWII, its cost, the debt burden, and the general exhaustion, India simply was not worth the bother. Don`t forget, basic rationing of food items continued all through the end of the 1940s in the UK and some items were rationed as late as the early 1950s. As late as the end of the 1950s, large-scale bomb damage was still visible in large parts of London: that is, the capital of the greatest empire history has ever known was still not fully repaired ten years after the war was over.

As far as Churchill is concerned, he was not PM when India was given its independence. Perhaps if he was still PM, i.e., Labour had not won in 1945, in 1947, then things might have been different. But don`t forget, there were mutinies among the BRITISH troops in India (the RAF, I believe) when their transfer back to the UK was delayed by a few weeks. The British had simply, for a time, lost the will to keep their empire. All they wanted was to be shed of the British Indian Empire as fast as they could. It is less than edifying to our colective self-esteem but our, and your, ``Freedom Fighters`` did not win our Independence from the British. The group of Britishers then in power decided that it was not worth the trouble.

If the British had decided to stay on in power and rule by force, I have no doubt that they could have managed. The key to the situation was the Army and the Army, being Punjabi, was loyal as long as the Punjab was loyal. During WWII, out of 2.5 million men in the Army, the largest all-volunteer force in history, about 2/3 were, I believe, Punjabi (Sikh, PM and Hindus). Things only got bad once the British made it clear to all and sundry that they were indeed going to leave. Then, loyalty to the Raj became pointless.

I once asked some uncles of mine who were in the Army in WWII what the Army would have done if the British had decided to use it to put down rebellions/civil-disobedience in India. Their unanimous response was that as long as it wasn`t used in the Punjab, the loyalty of the Army would not have wavered.

So sorry to disillusion you old boy, but no go. The freedom movement was not the key factor in Indian independence.

gymnosophist

..... you are right - when it comes to India, you won`t find too many Pakistanis who are ``liberal``.... as far as I am concerned anyone who consorts with the enemy is a traitor, plain and simple - and really it has nothing to do with religion .... even someone like me who does not let religion interfere with his life, has no use for India or its irritating inhabitants ...... we simply wish you would leave us alone .... we apologize for having foisted the indignity of minority rule on your ancestors for a thousand years .... but let bygones be bygones ... go back and pick up where Ashoka left off, but not at our expense ..... India, like all other nations, has delusions of grandeur and wants to throw its weight around as a regional power, but please, go knock up Nepal or Bangla Desh or Bhutan ......