Facts O-level and facts low level

Urstruly:

Sorry, I won`t be able to share my thoughts on this subject in detail (Mainly due to time constraints, falling leaves, sunny days, oudoors, counting the number of times the water rises and falls on the shores of Atlantic, smelling the fresh breeze and etc). In lieu of that, I will like to share an affectionate poem written by a Native American Poet - Canuuk. It talks about a father`s advice to his son - on wisdom. Hope that will give another view.


To My Son

My Son,
you tell me how wise
you see me as being
but
what is wisdom
but knowledge
of lifes many changes.
This too,
you will know someday.

In the meantime,
take some advise
from one who`s lived through lifes valleys
and through lifes mountains.
Be true to Thyself-
depend on no one but you.

People will come
and people will go,
but you
are the only one
twill always be there-
good or bad,
right or wrong.
As long as you believe
your actions are right,
everything
and everyone
will be alright.

When you percieve something
to be worthwhile,
know it in your own heart
and it will be what you want.
Feel it,
with every thought you have,
and it will become so.

The only exception to this rule
is your belief
and faith in the Great Spirit.
For without belief
nothing is-
and without faith
nothing will be.

RE: HN

I have not seen you on any of the post …..but here is the US/Sudan settlement .. well it turns out that the case is still in court (US almost settled but Mr. Idris wants more!) .. well check it out

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid%5F854000/854899.stm

Urstruly:

I will get back to your well written post soon. There are several aspects that require further exploration in your post.

[In terms of subscriptions, I INTENTIONALLY did not put ``Sarcasm Intended - in curly brackets,`` in my past post :-) Good Observation!

Thanks

RE: Rooster-Blue

Very well put, Sir. Sometimes the things ARE as simple as they seem to be.

Regards

Zahra!

You are asking the right questions from the wrong guy. I have more questions than answers. Since both of us are in the same boat lets try to refine our questions.

Your first question was whether wisdom goes along with vision and inspiration. The answer is both yes and no. Hitler had a vision and an inspiration but presence of wisdom can be argued. Probably wisdom is also a relative thing. Probably it is something like the saying , ``one man`s garbage is other man`s gold``. Is vice versa also true? What you know?

However I do believe that vision is always from with in. Take for example, Buddha; I don’t believe that he ever subscribed to TIME, History, or Newsweek. We don’t come across any account that he ever went to a library. He sat under that Banyan tree for years until he was ``blessed`` with a vision. I don’t believe that our Prophet (peace be upon him) ever read ``Seven Pillars of Wisdom``; or he read any of the worldly books because he couldn’t read. But he used to go to the cave named Thor to meditate and contemplate. That is where he was ``blessed`` with that ``vision``.

As far as, ``Perception`` is concerned I believe that it is just an interpretation of our stimuli that we sense through our 5+1 senses; and I mean it in all contexts whether philosophical, physiological, physical, psychological, metaphorical, or literal. This mechanism of ``interpretation`` is one of the most pathetic mechanisms that are working in human beings. The information that we receive filters through our prejudices, past experiences, knowledge base, emotions, and convictions. The resultant varies drastically from person to person. Even a simple observation like looking at a glass of water can have two interpretations-``Half-full`` or ``Half-empty``. Pathetic, ain`t it?

For years I yearned to be a visionary. I started with ``Ainaa Beenee`` (please don’t laugh). For some years I blamed my lack of vision on my Taqdeer. I used to think that I was just another character in Dante`s Divine Comedy. I also blamed A, C, T, and Gs of my genes until I came across what Hazrat Ali said to a man who asked him how much freedom Man has in the Universe. Hazrat Ali asked him to lift his leg. He did. Then he asked him to lift his other leg. The man said that he would fall down. Then Hazrat Ali said that, that was all the freedom Man has in the universe.

Since then, I believe in that one leg of mine that I can lift. It is my choice whether I want to walk or run but I will always have one foot on the ground. I read this couplet written on the back of a truck in Pakistan. Try to understand the depth of meaning in it:

``Rakho Nigah ko Buland keh yehi hay Nazria-e-Hayat
Raho Zameen Par magar baat aasman ki Karo.``

RE: Amit #55

I agree with the spirit of reply… India and Pakistan are not going anywhere they will be better off if they kiss and makeup rather than wasting their resources on claims of being better than the other… the core of the Pak-India relation is EGO … (from a very simple but true point of view) it is only bringing misery to the common man

About the India Arab/Muslim world relation… well your talking about two different scenarios here.. Pakistan is the ‘neighbor’ and former part of India .. with shared history and heritage .. the problem/relationship has grown complex. And it is always more bitter when you break off with some you known for so long as compare to some one who you had a Hello Hi relationship… For other countries (Muslim countries) there is no direct conflict of interest ( there is no Pan-Islamic movement !!!).. and Arabs have a very cold foreign policy .. make no mistake.. Arabs do not mix ideology with the state business … the corner stone of Arab foreign policies (in general) is to protect their own regimes and existence. Turks don’t even consider themselves as part of mainstream Muslim society … they are eager to shed their Asian and Muslim ids and become ‘European’ … (only be haunted centuries later as Bosnia .. remember who were they before being European?) …speaking of Arabs they don’t give a s….t about Kashmir except for ‘fundamentalists’ .. for them it’s a land dispute between two hostile neighbors .. which is not their problem!

Urstruly:

Well, reading your conclusion [a short and succinct - $$$ statement]I have few questions:-)

Ok - Here I go:-

1) Can we assume that the combination of vision and inspiration will result in a *wise human being *?

1a) Or wisdom has different constituents ?

2) In case, they are different then what are they or what should they be ?

3)Is perception part of a wisdom-personified individual? And/Or should it be ?

This question is in my mind for sometime and I`ve never found a clear answer. I detest reading theories on such concepts and prefer insightful interpretations. What`s most annoying - when you ask the question, you are told that you`ll get it with time. And I always question ---- WHEN ?
Ok, I partly know the answer to the ambiguity, but I just want to understand or read an insightful person`s approach.

?

Zahra #54

Well said Zahra. Allow me to add my two pennies here. The vision is always from within; a vision from without is called inspiration.

Regards

Re:Urstruly #53

We hindus are quite aware that we have lost 1150 years of history. The question is how do we go forward from here ? In order to build a decent country, we have to have reconciliation with 120 million muslims. We also need reconciliation with Pakistan since you guys are our neighbors. This requires that we need to establish a new relationship based on mutual respect, dignity and trust. Therefore, we need to focus on our shared heritage, culture and desi roots. We hindus are not trying to change your history. We are trying to find common ground from where we can build a new relationship for the future. The wise people in Pakistan realize that as well. After all, we cannot go on waving nuclear weapons at each other.

As muslims you must take pride in Islamic civilization and history. Don`t tell me that it is all about Ghaznavi and Ghouri. Take pride in the early muslim scientists and astronomers. Take pride in the great civilization at Baghdad and the just Islamic state. Instead of being addicted to Bollywood, why not develop your art, culture, literature, architecture etc. in line with finest Islamic civlizations ? If you admire the Moghuls, create beautiful monuments and gardens all over Pakistan. If you focus on the positive, we hindus will also share in that.

As far as Ghaznavi and Ghouri are concerned, it is despicable to see some Pakistanis celebrate them as heroes. Everyone, including Pakistanis, know that the vast majority of Pakistanis are descendents of desis rather than Turks or Tajiks. Hence, when you celebrate the destruction of hindus, you celebrate the destruction of your own ancestors as well. It is similar to an Indian christian worshipping General Dwyer for Jalianwala Bagh, simply because Dwyer was a christian who killed a lot of hindus and muslims that day. It is a peculiar desi habit of kicking our own people when they are down. During british rule, the westernised desis took special perverted pleasure in looking down on ordinary folks. No one in the world respects that. If you look at the Islamic world, every Islamic country has excellent relations with India and no one shares Pakistan`s animosity towards India. Ghaznavi`s homeland Turkey never talks about Ghaznavi or his exploits. Ghouri`s homeland of Tajikistan has excellent relations with India and would never insult India. Yet, it is the land of Punjabis and Sindhis in Pakistan, that lashes out at India and their fellow desis, in the name of Islam!! It is really a sad reflection on all of us.

Yes, we Indians were cowards and full of caste and superstition. That is why we lost. However, every civilization has its ups and downs. A thousand years back, muslims were on top and europeans were in the dark ages. Today europeans are on the top and the muslim world is lagging behind. It is all a matter of time. Just because hindus were decadent and disunited, does not mean that it will always remain that way. So instead of beating down on us, focus on your positives, and let us all try to be better human beings.

YLH (Post # 25):

I am amazed to read your interpretation of vision! I suggest `Business Week`/`Time`/`National Geographic`/`Psychology Today` for 6 months, before you pass your next random corollaries.
[Please let me know if you have any trouble finding them, I will be more than glad to assist]

Just to add some personal perspective to thy visionary mind -

Vision comes with experience, though the experience must entail enlightenment, illumination and education. As they say - Each experience is a teacher. Personally, I disagree with the word *each * here. I believe if an experience leaves a lasting, educating and enlightening impact, only then it is conducive to vision development and is worth respecting - as a teacher. In short, it has nothing to do with Matriculation/O-A Levels/Senior Cambridge/H.Sc.

It is all buried in an individual`s approach towards life - hard-work; persistence; ambitiousness; defined goals; passion to fulfil or work towards achieving ones aspirations; perseverance; faith in oneself; pragmatic approach; belief and prayers that lead to a visionary approach towards life not the much talked about elementary stuff. That *stuff * is only one of the initial milestones (be it matriculation or O-Levels) in the long run of life and not the ultimate. [I intentionally did not mention intelligence. I feel it is an inherent characteristic – I may be wrong in saying that or the % may differ from person to person]

Just to share a personal experience: - Out of my sheer love for Applied Calculus, as a fresh engineering graduate, I happened to teach the subject for a semester to A-Levels (in Lahore). My discoveries about `your visionaries` were very disappointing, though I would not generalize that for all.

Applying Newton’s 3rd law of motion: To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, to each intelligent investment in life [please consult the attributes addressed above] there is an equal and rewarding return. It`s just the matter of availing the opportunity.

Good Luck!

RE: CHEEMA

The nature of your response was anticipated-the tone and the content both. Most of your post echoes the same arguments that you presented earlier with a persistent insistence that your perception of the historical events are correct whereas everyone else is wrong. That only proves the point that history is dogmatic in nature and whenever there is a contest between dogma and reason, the dogma always wins. Establishing the fact that whose version of history is ``dogmatic`` and whose is ``reason`` is a never-ending discussion.

You presented two quotes from Quaid-e-Azam, without presenting the proper context. All this to prove your case that TNT elaborates the communal prejudices between the ``two nations``. If one takes the face value of those quotes then sure you can prove your case, but the fact is that the case can be proved in either way. So the quotes presented without proper context are like a knife, you can use this knife to kill another human being or you can use the same knife to help you in your kitchen. The following quote is from Quaid`s address on March 23, 1940, at Lahore when Pakistan Resolution was passed. This quote positively negates the ``communal`` nature of TNT.

``It has always been taken mistakenly that the Muslmans are a minority. The Musalmans are not a minority. The Muslmans are a nation by any definition……What the unitary government of India for 150 years has failed to achieve can not be realized by the imposition of a central federal government….except by means of armed force….The problem of India is NOT OF AN INTERCOMMUNAL character but manifestly of an INTERNATIONAL one, and it must be treated as such……The Muslims and Hindus belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly of on conflicting ideas and conceptions…..``
(``The Emergence of Pakistan``, Chaudri Muhammad Ali, P-39, and also quoted in ``Some Recent Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah``, by Jamil-ud-din-Ahmad p173-78)

Now you can take above quote and you can make a case in either way-can`t you?

Most of your post is a classic example of the tactic called ``overwhelm with information tactic``. For example I did not understand your argument about ``that sect`` in the Chakwal which professes ``that idea``. I failed to make a connection with our on-going discussion. Similarly I did not understand the example of Moulana Modoudi. Your reference of Qurat-ul-Ain Haider is also incorrect and seems to be based on the ``popular myth``. I recommend that you read the preface of her book ``Aag ka Darya``. There she explains the reasons of not accepting the Aadamji Award. She clearly states in her own words that everybody including herself were thoroughly convinced that she would win the award; and everybody kept on telling her that. But as a protest against Ayub`s Martial Law she volunteered her name as a Judge, instead, and that automatically disqualified her from the contest to win the award. Mr. Cheema! I give you a benefit of doubt here and refrain from the quote that, ``honesty is the best policy``, since nobody is perfect.

I was kind of hoping that the argument of Sufis and Tasawaf would come from AD first, but it was anticipated that you would use it too. I really doubt that your Hindu friends share the same perception with you. If they accept that Islam was spread in sub-continent due to these Sufis and Saints I promise that I will re-consider my stand on Ghaznavi. How is that bargain, AD? Cheema?

Have you ever wondered why Hindus insist on changing our History, Cheema? Let me be very blunt here. The history of subcontinent is not just a story of two civilizations but it is a story of conqueror and the conquered. One civilization did dominate the other for 1000 years. Everywhere else in the world, it is fine with everyone. Even our masters the British were once dominated by Romans- they got over it, Muslims in subcontinent were subjugated for 150 years they got over it. But the problem with Hindus is different. They have a caste system where there is a class that has a birthright to be elite. They mostly form the aristocracy. If they accept the history as it is then they will have to explain their compliance with invaders and their cowardice for 1000 years to their fellow hindus of the lower castes. That is the reason they present invaders as monsters so that they can hide their face and still maintain their social status as a superior class. That explains their contention about forced conversions and denial of any role on part of Sufis.

On a side note I would recommend my Hindu friends to reconsider their insistence on changing the history. You lost 1150 years from your history, you have to come to terms with this fact. We lost 150, Malaysians lost 700 years. That is the world we live in. Times have changed. You can still be proud of a lot of things. Consider yourselves as pioneers in a new land where you started living in 1947. Take pride in your achievements-your democracy, sastaining a system that feeds one billion people, your recent advances in IT and most of all you got rid of the religion that got you in that mess in the first place. Remeber, your demons of the past will be as big as you let them be.

The TNT was not a divine doctrine based on religious injunctions. That is the reason a good number of Muslims disagreed with it. They did believe the Congress version that it is possible to live with Hindus. They even chose to live in India after partition. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the greatest support for Pakistan came from the provinces and states where Muslims were a minority and that those provinces did not have any chance to be included in Pakistan. What does it tell you? Anyway the proponents of TNT won in 1947 and they got a new homeland. They have every god-given-right to justify and support their version of history. It is an accepted standard throughout the world.

As for your argument on Globalists and apologists I invite you to go through my article ``Chowk-e-Bay Roz Garan and Globalization`` (currently on the main forum) where I have explained the reasons why certain ``groups`` aka NGOs in Pakistan are insisting on re-writing history. I will really appreciate your objective analysis of the article.

At least we agree on one thing that is we have correctly identified the people who are denying the Pakistan its dream of being a socially just state.

PS. For rest of your post I agree with KRashid`s response except the part where he presents the Chinioti and Memon Interests in Pakistan. That may be considered a subset of the whole and not the superset per se.

Cheema #50

First of all your article is excellent, although I might not agree to it.

If you had given the original in Punjabi, Urdu, Sindhi of your translation, it would make it more interesting.

The struggle for Pakistan, is a very short struggle. In 1928 or 1930 when Allama Iqbal first presented the idea of state comprising of Muslim majority area in North West of India or when Rahmat Ali presented his theory and name Pakistan in 1930 or so, nobody took it serious enough to start a struggle. In fact Pakistan was basically nowhere, till the Congress rule between 1937- 39. Which was an eye opener for Muslims, regarding their treatment in a predominantly Hindu rule. Muslims wanted to safeguard their interest whether in United or divided India.

In that background around 1939 the real movement for Pakistan started.

If you see the economics of that period, where in Punjab, and Sind most of the Capital was concentrated in non-Muslim hands.

And according to Dr. Feroz, the newly accumulated Chinioti and Bombay Muslim capital, find in Pakistan a great opportunity.

The same can be said regarding people who were living in current part of India. So it was basically an opportunity, for the people living in current Pakistan, the people who migrated and people with capital. Now the only common ground between all these different people was that they were Muslims. With such a good opportunity and with real or perceived threat of Hindu domination, it became a movement of Muslims of sub-continent or Two Nation theory.

But basically it was the economics which was rolling this movement and not the religion. It can be judged by the fact that almost all the leaders of Muslim League were secular in approach, and some like Jogander Nath Mandal were non-Muslims. It is also substantiated by fact that most of the religious parties including Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and religious scholars were very much anti Pakistan. Because they did not think that it is a religious movement. Due to the short tenure of Pakistan movement, there was not a grass root leadership (compared to Congress).

And after partition, the government was quickly snached by Beaureaucracy cum Army.

That is in short is the Pakistan movement. We are still in the process of realizing that dream of Pakistan movement.

I can remember, from 1970 onwards. And I think, that politically we have advanced much in last 30 years.

There is more consciousness regarding provincial rights, more consciousness regarding establishment etc. Most important of which is routing of religious parties from big cities (meaning people at least in big cities look beyond religion on politics)

The drawback in all these years, has been that middle class has failed to provide an effective leadership. Although People`s Party and Awami League started the trend in 1970, but it was snatched right away by establishment in 1977.

Now the middle class leadership is where.

1- Mohajir Qaumi movement: As you should be knowing, that whatever people will think about MQM, they will again vote for it.

2- Religious parties like Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan Awami tehrik etc.

So our politics is dominated by not only feudals, but feudal and industrialist alliance, in the form of Muslim League, and People`s Party.

To cut it short, we still have a long way to go. But the target should be a prosperous people of Pakistan.

All these like Ghaznavi hero or villian etc are diversions.

Like why is holocaust, so terrible that even pope has to apologize. While jews have been persecuted, in Spain, Jerusalem etc with almost as much ferocity as holocaust in this century.

My dear, don`t look anything beyond economics. If economics determine, a Hindu will be your friend, and a Muslim enemy and vice versa.

EST Reply #: 50

cheema

--Your post, brings out all the points that I wanted to say, beautifully. As I have been trying to explain, History teaches us mistakes of our past, that should not be repeated. If we start feeling proud of every aspect of our history, how do stop ourselves, from imitating those that we felt proud of.

Sati, dowry etc are traditional problems in Hinduism. They have been responsible for many deaths and suffering. Probably when they were devised there was some valid reason for that, but today, they do not server any purpose. Consequently, as a rational human, I denounce such a practise.

If I were to start glorifying it, how would we stop uneducated people from practicing such customers. When Urstruly glorifies Ghaznavi, he indirectly encourages uneducated muslims to ape Ghaznavi.

AD

Dear Urstruly (and Krashid),

You believe that TNT is not so limited in its approach as to differentiate the Muslims and Hindus on the basis of such petty differences as calender, hero or life style; and that whoever says so is an apologist, globalist,... etc.

Well you are in for a big surprise, on the first page of Pakisyan studies book of class 9th and 10th ( Urdu language, published by Punjab Text Bookboard) is a quote from Quaid e Azam M A Jinnah saying that we Muslims (compared to Hindus) have a distinct culture, civilization, language and art, naming system, moral and legal system, customs and rites, calendars, history and traditions, natural abilities ans objectives.

On page 179 of the same book, in an interview to a British `Nicholas` M A Jinnah talks about the role of religion in shaping Muslim nationalism, ``our history, heroes, art, music, style of architecture, laws are completely different from Hindus. WE AND HINDUS HAVE INFACT NOTHING IN COMMON. Our names, dress, food, economic system, humane attitude with the animals, etc. evertything is different from theirs. For example Hindus worship the cow and we eat its meat.``

This is the idealogy of Pakistan written quite prominently at the start and end of our matric Pakistan Studies textbooks. Now look who`s being apologetic, eh? How can you buy all that stuff and talk about secularism, social justice and dispelling the prejudices in the same breath.

The parallel history passing by word of mouth from one generation to another, well you have striked the nail on its head. If you care to listen to that parallel history you are in for another surprise. Tassauf and Sufi saints for centuries are the biggest influence on the minds of our people, they lived among the common people, spoke their language and bore the same sufferings and hardships as common people. Tassauf is at 180

degrees opposite to the concept of distinction between humanity on the basis of colour, creed and religion. One of the basic philosophies of Tassauf is ``unity in diversity``. The kind of relgious equality between common folks in old times can be discerned by a sufi verse you commonly hear in our villages (my own translation):

``Tear down the mosque, tear down the temple, tear down whatever you can

But don`t tear down the people`s hearts as my God lives in people`s hearts``

Their concept of religion is of devotion and love to the humanity, regardless of difference of colour, creed, religion. Tassauf in our part of world is in fact a mixture of Indian soil and culture with Islamic traditions. Urs, millad are not derived from Arab`s Islam, concept of Wahdat ul Wujud goes as far back as nirvana of Mahatama Buddh. Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussein, Waris Shah, Baba Farid, Shah Abdul Latif Bhatai all taught the people to rise above the petty religious differences and spread the message of love.

Bulleh Shah said in a poem:

``If you know the truth then why do you quarrel

Ram, Rahim and Mola are all but the same thing``

Shah Hussein spent all his life making sacrifices and devotion for his Hindu friend Maddhu Lal.

These sufi saints and their poetry is read by our people with a religious devotion. Baba Farid and Bulleh Shah are revered on both sides of the border.

Compare this all with the language of TNT, just because of different calendars, heroes, dresses, foods and naming system we cant live together. ``Hindus and Muslims have not a single thing in common``, yar do some justice, it seems Hindus are not even humans. Our classic poetry is rich in tassauf, wisdom can be found in our part of the world too, we unnecessarily take every observation and ideaosyncracy of white folk as sacred revelation.

When you say that a select German population or KKK doesn`t believe in holocaust, well your own contention about the history being a relative thing and being a party in a clash between two nations/ religions you are bound to defend your side by hook or crook ( I don`t completely agree with you) entitles them to do so. For your information, there is a certain militant Sunni sect established in Chakwal, I happened to read some of their literature ad it said that battle between Hazrat Imam Hussein and Yazid has no historical background and Shias have devised this story to gain sympathy from muslim brethren. I am certain you don`t have this in mind but your (or West`s) logic can lead to this end. So more impotaant than defending your side, country, religion, nation at all cost, give preferance to whether justice is being done to the issue at hand, otherwise there will be no criteria for morality or reasoning. If you justify Ghaznavi`s deeds by saying that he was just meeting the challenges of time, then you don`t have the right to object to Serbians` barbarity with Bosnians, Israeli`s usuruption of Palestinians` rights or human rights` abuses by Indian BSFs in Kashmir. Parameters of right and wrong are true for every human being and belonging to a certain religion or community doesn`t absolve us of this. The most difficult thing is to accept your fault. We as Muslims have the habit to glorify our past, exaggerate our achievements and not mention the failures. This sense of false conceit has ruined Muslim Ummah, when Maulana Maudidi wrote the book ``Khilafat aur Mulukiat`` he was branded as Jewish agent because he criticised some of the doings of Khulufa e Rashideen, (Maudidi also critized Ghaznavi`s adventures as not part of a Jihad but called them looting and pludering, now please don`t accuse him of being apologist too). Same is the case with TNT it is a considered a threat to national interest when somebody talks against TNT, Pakistan`s most critically accliamed novelists Qurratul Ain Haider and Abdullah Hussein have never received official award or appreciation because of their refernces to Muslim League`s politics of religious hatred and elitism hidden beneath it. Yes sir, beneath the Hindu bashing is a hidden motive of our ruling class to divert people`s attention from real issues. The concept of a common rival helps in acheiving unity (although temporary) within the country. Our Armed forces have felt positively threatened whenever there are signs of normalising of ties with India, because this would change the status quo of our Army too! No wonder our armed forces have taken the responsibility to defend geographical as well was idealogical borders. Salvation of whole country lies in conquering Kashmir they say, not a word have they have uttered agaist scourge of fundamentalism. Gen (retd) Hamid Gul in a recent article in Daily Jang has said that the people of southern Punjab and rural Sind have suffered too much under feudalicm for last 50 years, now its enough, they should join Jihad in Kashmir and thus raise their social and economic status (HA!).

There arer quite a few columnists in our English dailies who are hell bent to prove that all the hype about feudalism is a myth as practiacally there are no feudals left in the country. Their information is only paryially correct, despite being very few in number, in our assemblies there can be seen 80 percent feudals and according to ADBP`s press release 85 per cent of its loan meant for agricultural development has been eaten up by big feudal lords. In fact feudalicm has been the root cause in hindering spread of education, democracy and industrialization in the country.

My friend one of the mishaps with this country has been dishonest and corrupt intellectuals, in order to defend their class, status quo or any other vested interest, they shamelessly distort the facts and create their own history. It reminds one of Orwell`s ``1984``. So please rethink your contention about history as a totally relativistic business and keep faith in truth and justice.

Reply #: 46

Urstruly

--I guess, we should agree to disagree. I believe that History is an interpertation of the past. By changing how we look at the past, does not mean we are changing the past.

The reason why I mentioned Germany is because the govt is legally bound to accept that Germany commited crimes against humanity. Can you imagine, the kind of will it takes for a nation, to accept such a fact ? To counter this you cited the examples of the Neo-Nazis/skinheads etc, who believed in Hitler and the 3rd Reich. HOwever, I find these examples to be trival. Because there is a HUGE difference between the beliefs of some fringe groups, and the belief of the govt. If the govt of Germany, were to revoke the law, then I could accept your argument that people invent a parallel history.

In India, there are some incidents of bride burining, and its all over the papers. Then people from across the border, form an opinion about Hinduism, the Indian govt, the people of India etc, by just one isolated incident. (The fact is that the govt. has banned this practice. It is illegal.)

However, in Pakistan, the state itself promotes or at least condones actions that are openly anti-human rights. Blasphemy is a good example. So is infidelity. People in Pakistan are becoming intolerant of others, simply because they choose to interpret Ghaznavis actions as something to be proud of.

Like you said... its not fair to judge Ghaznavi, by our present values.... is it fair to implemt values prevelant in his time, today ?

AD

Ad #44

In refuting, two nation theory, you are giving example of Bengali Nationalism, Punjabi, Sindhi, and Baluch Nationalism.

Don`t you think that these sub-nationalities not only strengthens the concept of two nation theory, but effectively refutes One nation theory.

Do you think I need to elaborate.