1971 in 2000
Salman Akhtar August 20, 2000
#120 Posted by Asim on August 25, 2000 7:44:35 pm
Secularism , India and Pakistan:
The ideals of secularism have always been important, though precarious, in South Asia. Because of its diverse population, the region has long been a theatre of conflict between religious communities. Even when the threat of conflict has been centred around ethnicity or caste, political parties and governments have sometimes appealed to religious considerations to distract attention from these other forms of conflict. In all such circumstances it is secularism that has been eroded.
In 1993 conflict between Hindus and Muslims in northern India came to a head with the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya and took on a scale and significance not witnessed since the communal troubles during the partition period that culminated in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The partition left India with a sizable Muslim population (10-12% of the whole) who did not become citizens of the new state of Pakistan, and this population has recently come under an attack from a Hindu nationalist majoritarian movement known as Hindutva. The parliamentary party explicitly committed to a policy of opposition to the Muslim minorities is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), but it has important extraparliamentary support from bodies that propagandize for Hindu dominance. This group of organizations, known as the sangh parivar, has a distinctive ideology that claims India is a Hindu nation and that minorities in it, particularly the Muslims, may live in India only if they acknowledge these claims. This means, among other things, that Muslims would not be allowed to live as they do now, under their own code of personal laws. (India, though a secular state, allows Muslims and Hindus to live according to a code of personal laws based on their religion.) This has made the Muslim community particularly defensive on the matter of this code, which many Muslims now believe is the only thing that can preserve their cultural identity. This attitude gives popular currency to the Hindutva claim that Muslims were pampered during the years of British rule and by the ``pseudosecular`` state of postindependence India.
Perhaps the most significant event relevant to secularism in the past year was the election of the BJP to power in India`s most prosperous state, Maharashtra, in alliance with a militant regional party called Shiv Sena. This newly elected government has already proposed legislation to abolish a separate civil code for Muslims, a move that Muslims resist on the grounds that this federal matter is not subject to state legislation. At the federal level, however, the Supreme Court ruled earlier that conversion by Hindu men to Islam as a means of marrying more than one women was prohibited.
In Uttar Pradesh, the state with the largest Muslim population after Kashmir, the government led by Mulyalam Singh Yadav fell when a party of the Untouchable community called the Bahujan Samaj Party withdrew its support and formed an alliance with the BJP. This shows how the condition of secularism in India is influenced by the question of caste. Singh`s government had assumed that Hindutva was a movement of upper-caste Hindus with no support among the Untouchables, but the defection of the BSP indicates that some groups will put aside economic concerns when jockeying for immediate political power.
Secularism in Pakistan is an issue of the extent to which the official religion, Islam, will be allowed to dominate the state, and the chief problem in Pakistan at present is threats to the government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from an increasingly Islamic and conservative army.
In Bangladesh there was an Islamist outcry against Taslima Nasrin`s feminist novel Lajja, which expressed sympathy for the plight of the Hindu minority in the country. A similar situation surfaced in India with the publication of Salman Rushdie`s new novel, The Moor`s Last Sigh, which satirizes a leader of the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.
The ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese majority, mostly Buddhist, and the Hindu Tamil separatists in the north seems no closer to resolution, but in Nepal most people prefer making the new multiparty democracy work, and there are few who wish for a return to the absolutist Hindu monarchy.
In spite of such groups as the ``guru busters`` of Calcutta, which agitate against religious influence in India, and groups that want to preserve a multireligious state, the secular commitment to free expression of religious dissent will no doubt continue to be under some attack and strain in the countries of southern Asia in the near future.
Akeel BILGRAMI
Akeel Bilgrami is professor of philosophy at Columbia University, New York City and the author of the forthcoming Postcolonial Politics and Cultural Identit
The ideals of secularism have always been important, though precarious, in South Asia. Because of its diverse population, the region has long been a theatre of conflict between religious communities. Even when the threat of conflict has been centred around ethnicity or caste, political parties and governments have sometimes appealed to religious considerations to distract attention from these other forms of conflict. In all such circumstances it is secularism that has been eroded.
In 1993 conflict between Hindus and Muslims in northern India came to a head with the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya and took on a scale and significance not witnessed since the communal troubles during the partition period that culminated in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The partition left India with a sizable Muslim population (10-12% of the whole) who did not become citizens of the new state of Pakistan, and this population has recently come under an attack from a Hindu nationalist majoritarian movement known as Hindutva. The parliamentary party explicitly committed to a policy of opposition to the Muslim minorities is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), but it has important extraparliamentary support from bodies that propagandize for Hindu dominance. This group of organizations, known as the sangh parivar, has a distinctive ideology that claims India is a Hindu nation and that minorities in it, particularly the Muslims, may live in India only if they acknowledge these claims. This means, among other things, that Muslims would not be allowed to live as they do now, under their own code of personal laws. (India, though a secular state, allows Muslims and Hindus to live according to a code of personal laws based on their religion.) This has made the Muslim community particularly defensive on the matter of this code, which many Muslims now believe is the only thing that can preserve their cultural identity. This attitude gives popular currency to the Hindutva claim that Muslims were pampered during the years of British rule and by the ``pseudosecular`` state of postindependence India.
Perhaps the most significant event relevant to secularism in the past year was the election of the BJP to power in India`s most prosperous state, Maharashtra, in alliance with a militant regional party called Shiv Sena. This newly elected government has already proposed legislation to abolish a separate civil code for Muslims, a move that Muslims resist on the grounds that this federal matter is not subject to state legislation. At the federal level, however, the Supreme Court ruled earlier that conversion by Hindu men to Islam as a means of marrying more than one women was prohibited.
In Uttar Pradesh, the state with the largest Muslim population after Kashmir, the government led by Mulyalam Singh Yadav fell when a party of the Untouchable community called the Bahujan Samaj Party withdrew its support and formed an alliance with the BJP. This shows how the condition of secularism in India is influenced by the question of caste. Singh`s government had assumed that Hindutva was a movement of upper-caste Hindus with no support among the Untouchables, but the defection of the BSP indicates that some groups will put aside economic concerns when jockeying for immediate political power.
Secularism in Pakistan is an issue of the extent to which the official religion, Islam, will be allowed to dominate the state, and the chief problem in Pakistan at present is threats to the government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from an increasingly Islamic and conservative army.
In Bangladesh there was an Islamist outcry against Taslima Nasrin`s feminist novel Lajja, which expressed sympathy for the plight of the Hindu minority in the country. A similar situation surfaced in India with the publication of Salman Rushdie`s new novel, The Moor`s Last Sigh, which satirizes a leader of the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.
The ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese majority, mostly Buddhist, and the Hindu Tamil separatists in the north seems no closer to resolution, but in Nepal most people prefer making the new multiparty democracy work, and there are few who wish for a return to the absolutist Hindu monarchy.
In spite of such groups as the ``guru busters`` of Calcutta, which agitate against religious influence in India, and groups that want to preserve a multireligious state, the secular commitment to free expression of religious dissent will no doubt continue to be under some attack and strain in the countries of southern Asia in the near future.
Akeel BILGRAMI
Akeel Bilgrami is professor of philosophy at Columbia University, New York City and the author of the forthcoming Postcolonial Politics and Cultural Identit
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#119 Posted by shammi on August 25, 2000 6:55:57 pm
To obtain a truly unbiased account (devoid of Indo-Pakstani biases) of the events leading to Bangladesh`s creation, one MUST read the following book available from Amazon.com:
War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose
Paperback - 350 pages Reprint edition (August 1991) Univ California Press; ISBN: 0520076656
War and Secession : Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose
Paperback - 350 pages Reprint edition (August 1991) Univ California Press; ISBN: 0520076656
#118 Posted by bd on August 25, 2000 6:55:57 pm
Ferozk #108
You are absolutely correct, Feroz Saheb in pointing out my rather incoherent post. What I actually wanted to say was that, the situation in 1971, where the country was actually two NON-contiguous areas, East and West Pakistan, did not really help in maintaining cohesiveness. It was bad enough with political and sociological differences between the 2 wings without the actual geographical difference with a huge hostile neighbour slam in the middle of the country. My point about cohesiveness was oriented more from the geographical angle than internal provincial based cohesiveness. I do agree your point that an imploding Pakistan is more likely than explosion.
Sincerely
bd
You are absolutely correct, Feroz Saheb in pointing out my rather incoherent post. What I actually wanted to say was that, the situation in 1971, where the country was actually two NON-contiguous areas, East and West Pakistan, did not really help in maintaining cohesiveness. It was bad enough with political and sociological differences between the 2 wings without the actual geographical difference with a huge hostile neighbour slam in the middle of the country. My point about cohesiveness was oriented more from the geographical angle than internal provincial based cohesiveness. I do agree your point that an imploding Pakistan is more likely than explosion.
Sincerely
bd
#117 Posted by shammi on August 25, 2000 6:55:57 pm
Re: Umairr # 55 and # 85
``Luckily, Pakistan has at least reached the level of maturity where a majority of Pakistanis are now willing to accept the fact that West Pakistan was at fault in
1971.``
Do you really believe this? In a country with only 30% literacy, and 60% population below the age of 20, do you think that the majority really knows or cares what the Hamoodur Rehman Report is about?
``Hopefully, Pakistanis have accepted the existence of Bangladesh, and have recognized their struggles for self-determination as a legitimate struggle. All of this is evident from the comments of the various Pakistanis on this site.``
That is surely a hope, and not a fact! The government of Pakistan had no choice BUT to accept the existence of Bangladesh - a relationship that took at least two years to officially consummate by exchanging ambassadors. Recall that Pakistan left the Commonwealth of Nations to protest the Commonwealth`s recognition of Bangladesh. It is still suspended from it but for entirely different reasons - the coup of 1999. Besides, the Pakistani commentators on this site are hardly representative of the rank and file Pakistani.
``However self-criticism, and acceptance of legitimate criticism from external sources on human rights issues, is a sign of a healthy society; not a weak society.``
What external sources? The Hamoodur Rehman Report is an internal source, and is still suppressed officially! Officials in Pakistan are having a tough time coming to grips with the leak - what to talk about external sources? Care to rethink your treatise on a `healthy society`. The Pakistani ISPR`s first reaction to the publication in India Today was `this leak needs to be investigated` - not a healthy sign of a healthy society! I recall that at a press conference when a Bangladeshi journalist asked Musharraf if he would express an official apology or compensation to Bangladesh, Musharraf lost his temper. That was the only time during the press conference that he lost his temper.
``However, no military can enter a conflict if it is not ordered to do so by the political or executive leadership of the country it represents``
May I add the word `democratic` before `leadership`? At least two Pakistani wars have been fought by illegitimate, military dictatorships (Ayub, 1965; Yahya, 1971). So much for civilian executive control over the military. Perhaps the proclivity for the word `executive` rather than `democratic` led to Musharraf anointing himself with the title `Chief Executive`!
Re: Umairr #85
``But I hope you are not implying that the Indian textbooks and media give an accurate picture of the history and affairs of South Asia. ``
I can only quote the eminent Pakistanic physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy from his article `What are they Teaching in Pakistani Schools Today?` that appeared on University Ave of Chowk a few months ago:
A school curriculum is the basic road-map of education, and it is here where the most fundamental problem lies (in Pakistan). Pakistan has yet to decide whether it wishes to live in the 21st century of modern education or return to the days of Nizam-ul-Mulk and the madrassa system of the 11th century. In trying to seek the happy mean it has ended up with something near to 16th century pre-Renaissance and pre-Frobelian education. Public school education today is
premised on a belief that repeated sermonizing, and strict regimentation of the school environment, will produce moral and patriotic Pakistanis. This should be evident from the following excerpts from the currently enforced official curriculum, duly authorized by the Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education,
Government of Pakistan. According to this document, at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to:
``Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan.`` [pg154]
``Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan.``[pg 154]
``Demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah.`` [pg154]
``India`s evil designs against Pakistan.`` [pg154]
``Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat`` [pg154]
``Be safe from rumour mongers who spread false news`` [pg158]
``Learn the national anthem by heart and recite it in class`` [pg158]
``Visit police stations`` [pg158]
``Collect pictures of policemen, soldiers, and National Guards`` [pg158]
``Demonstrate respect for the leaders of Pakistan`` [pg153]
One presumes that on the morning of 12 October 1999, a model student had to present evidence of respect for Nawaz Sharif, and in the evening for Pervez Musharraf.
Being a student of the public education system of independent India, I can attest to the fact that the officially prescribed syllabus and what is taught in Indian schools is considerably forward looking than what is described above. There is no emphasis on religion, no emphasis on hindu-muslim differences, no character assassination of Jinnah or Muslim League leaders (you will not find glowing praise either, but no vitriolic language), no indoctrination on Jehad or Shahadat (laughable if not for the young impressionable minds being lost), no call to visit police stations, no call to respect Indian leaders, no requirement to be safe from rumor mongers, no instruction on Pakistans evil designs on India!
You can be sure that if this was being taught, my kids wont be studying there!
``Luckily, Pakistan has at least reached the level of maturity where a majority of Pakistanis are now willing to accept the fact that West Pakistan was at fault in
1971.``
Do you really believe this? In a country with only 30% literacy, and 60% population below the age of 20, do you think that the majority really knows or cares what the Hamoodur Rehman Report is about?
``Hopefully, Pakistanis have accepted the existence of Bangladesh, and have recognized their struggles for self-determination as a legitimate struggle. All of this is evident from the comments of the various Pakistanis on this site.``
That is surely a hope, and not a fact! The government of Pakistan had no choice BUT to accept the existence of Bangladesh - a relationship that took at least two years to officially consummate by exchanging ambassadors. Recall that Pakistan left the Commonwealth of Nations to protest the Commonwealth`s recognition of Bangladesh. It is still suspended from it but for entirely different reasons - the coup of 1999. Besides, the Pakistani commentators on this site are hardly representative of the rank and file Pakistani.
``However self-criticism, and acceptance of legitimate criticism from external sources on human rights issues, is a sign of a healthy society; not a weak society.``
What external sources? The Hamoodur Rehman Report is an internal source, and is still suppressed officially! Officials in Pakistan are having a tough time coming to grips with the leak - what to talk about external sources? Care to rethink your treatise on a `healthy society`. The Pakistani ISPR`s first reaction to the publication in India Today was `this leak needs to be investigated` - not a healthy sign of a healthy society! I recall that at a press conference when a Bangladeshi journalist asked Musharraf if he would express an official apology or compensation to Bangladesh, Musharraf lost his temper. That was the only time during the press conference that he lost his temper.
``However, no military can enter a conflict if it is not ordered to do so by the political or executive leadership of the country it represents``
May I add the word `democratic` before `leadership`? At least two Pakistani wars have been fought by illegitimate, military dictatorships (Ayub, 1965; Yahya, 1971). So much for civilian executive control over the military. Perhaps the proclivity for the word `executive` rather than `democratic` led to Musharraf anointing himself with the title `Chief Executive`!
Re: Umairr #85
``But I hope you are not implying that the Indian textbooks and media give an accurate picture of the history and affairs of South Asia. ``
I can only quote the eminent Pakistanic physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy from his article `What are they Teaching in Pakistani Schools Today?` that appeared on University Ave of Chowk a few months ago:
A school curriculum is the basic road-map of education, and it is here where the most fundamental problem lies (in Pakistan). Pakistan has yet to decide whether it wishes to live in the 21st century of modern education or return to the days of Nizam-ul-Mulk and the madrassa system of the 11th century. In trying to seek the happy mean it has ended up with something near to 16th century pre-Renaissance and pre-Frobelian education. Public school education today is
premised on a belief that repeated sermonizing, and strict regimentation of the school environment, will produce moral and patriotic Pakistanis. This should be evident from the following excerpts from the currently enforced official curriculum, duly authorized by the Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education,
Government of Pakistan. According to this document, at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to:
``Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan.`` [pg154]
``Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan.``[pg 154]
``Demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah.`` [pg154]
``India`s evil designs against Pakistan.`` [pg154]
``Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat`` [pg154]
``Be safe from rumour mongers who spread false news`` [pg158]
``Learn the national anthem by heart and recite it in class`` [pg158]
``Visit police stations`` [pg158]
``Collect pictures of policemen, soldiers, and National Guards`` [pg158]
``Demonstrate respect for the leaders of Pakistan`` [pg153]
One presumes that on the morning of 12 October 1999, a model student had to present evidence of respect for Nawaz Sharif, and in the evening for Pervez Musharraf.
Being a student of the public education system of independent India, I can attest to the fact that the officially prescribed syllabus and what is taught in Indian schools is considerably forward looking than what is described above. There is no emphasis on religion, no emphasis on hindu-muslim differences, no character assassination of Jinnah or Muslim League leaders (you will not find glowing praise either, but no vitriolic language), no indoctrination on Jehad or Shahadat (laughable if not for the young impressionable minds being lost), no call to visit police stations, no call to respect Indian leaders, no requirement to be safe from rumor mongers, no instruction on Pakistans evil designs on India!
You can be sure that if this was being taught, my kids wont be studying there!
#116 Posted by narain on August 25, 2000 6:06:28 pm
ref: Ferozk #108
I think you are ascribing too much ability to nuclear weapons. They did not prevent the Soviet Union from disintegrating, and I can see little reason why the Pakistani case might be any different.
You are also correct in saying that it is India that has the most to lose from a disintegrating Pakistan. But this is true only if the collapse is as sudden and complete as in Afghanistan. On the other hand if Baluchistan or Sind were to break away from the union, yet a truncated Pakistani state still survived, diminished but mostly intact, I am not so sure that India would be any worse off than it is today.
As regards geographical continuity, I recently read an article on Pakistan where the author maintained that within that nation there are two distinct zones tied in an uncomfortable bond with each other. On one side of the Indus are the Punjab, Sind and Kashmir which are largely similar to the Sub-continent in their culture and outlook. On the other are Baluchistan and the NWFP which are more central than South asian. Any comments?
Sorry for the digression to the discussion,
-narain
I think you are ascribing too much ability to nuclear weapons. They did not prevent the Soviet Union from disintegrating, and I can see little reason why the Pakistani case might be any different.
You are also correct in saying that it is India that has the most to lose from a disintegrating Pakistan. But this is true only if the collapse is as sudden and complete as in Afghanistan. On the other hand if Baluchistan or Sind were to break away from the union, yet a truncated Pakistani state still survived, diminished but mostly intact, I am not so sure that India would be any worse off than it is today.
As regards geographical continuity, I recently read an article on Pakistan where the author maintained that within that nation there are two distinct zones tied in an uncomfortable bond with each other. On one side of the Indus are the Punjab, Sind and Kashmir which are largely similar to the Sub-continent in their culture and outlook. On the other are Baluchistan and the NWFP which are more central than South asian. Any comments?
Sorry for the digression to the discussion,
-narain
#115 Posted by shankar on August 25, 2000 6:06:28 pm
Urstruely,
Sure India is ultimately responsible for the break up of Pakistan --duh!
Why the heck should`nt have India done it!? From India`s standpoint ,we`d rather have one hostile neighbor, than 2 hostile neighbors on either side of the country.
Its bad enough you butcher Bengalis--but you saddle India with the burden of taking care of millions of refugees. Hey, if you have a family fight, dont throw dirt in your neighbor`s yard!
To add insult to injury, to this day many Pakistanis actually believe that most ``refugees`` in the camps were Indian poor looking for free food!
Bilal is right--it is the army-beaucracy-bourgeoisie that had & has been destroying Pakistan. However, that is too hard for many Pakistanis to stomach. India is a convenient scapegoat.
If Pakistan farts, India is responsible for giving her gas...
Keep it up..
Sure India is ultimately responsible for the break up of Pakistan --duh!
Why the heck should`nt have India done it!? From India`s standpoint ,we`d rather have one hostile neighbor, than 2 hostile neighbors on either side of the country.
Its bad enough you butcher Bengalis--but you saddle India with the burden of taking care of millions of refugees. Hey, if you have a family fight, dont throw dirt in your neighbor`s yard!
To add insult to injury, to this day many Pakistanis actually believe that most ``refugees`` in the camps were Indian poor looking for free food!
Bilal is right--it is the army-beaucracy-bourgeoisie that had & has been destroying Pakistan. However, that is too hard for many Pakistanis to stomach. India is a convenient scapegoat.
If Pakistan farts, India is responsible for giving her gas...
Keep it up..
#114 Posted by satyavadi on August 25, 2000 6:06:28 pm
Anamika:
``krashid #61 & other posts:
I am sorry to see an otherwise balanced person succomb to hatred.``
You seem to be new to the place I guess. Because otherwise you wouldnt have called krashid ``an otherwise balanced person``.
Taling about krashid, I am almost tempted to announce his cyber-diagnosis. But not being an expert in the field, I will leave it to temporal. Will u bother, Mr. temporal?
SAC::
Most likely, Anamika is a Ma`am.
And your definition of saffron brigade seems to be very inclusive - anyone who counters your Pakistani chauvinist position belongs to the brigade. To each his own.
Rajanjua:
You are not serious about your last post to me. Are you?
If you are, then I am afraid, temporal has another patient to cyber-diagnose.
``krashid #61 & other posts:
I am sorry to see an otherwise balanced person succomb to hatred.``
You seem to be new to the place I guess. Because otherwise you wouldnt have called krashid ``an otherwise balanced person``.
Taling about krashid, I am almost tempted to announce his cyber-diagnosis. But not being an expert in the field, I will leave it to temporal. Will u bother, Mr. temporal?
SAC::
Most likely, Anamika is a Ma`am.
And your definition of saffron brigade seems to be very inclusive - anyone who counters your Pakistani chauvinist position belongs to the brigade. To each his own.
Rajanjua:
You are not serious about your last post to me. Are you?
If you are, then I am afraid, temporal has another patient to cyber-diagnose.
#113 Posted by bahmad on August 25, 2000 4:10:48 pm
In response to Ferozk (Reply # 111)
Dear Feroz:
Thank you for a quick response. The difficulties of Pakistan are both internal and external. I argue that the causes are more internal than external. This a position that you also seem to take since you maintain that “Pakistan`s greatest threat is internally based; political fragmentation, weak economy, no law and order etc. and it is these factors which are problematic in the long run and not an Indian encouraged Jewish conspiracy financed by the CIA!” I agree with you, but I suspect that you somehow find it difficult to identify the main culprits clearly. Are they the common people of Pakistan? Are they the ruling elite? If both, what proportion of blame should go to the ruling elite or the common people? In Pakistan, there is a tendency to blame the victim. The common people have long been oppressed by the corrupt and unresponsive state functionaries and their allies. Although you talk about myopic policies, your position would remain somewhat ambiguous unless you identify the policies, their makers, and the process of their implementation.
Feroz, you maintain that the “fear of the west about the proliferation of N-weapons will save Pakistan!” Is Pakistan capable of systematic nuclear proliferation? Probably not, because it would impose heavy costs upon Pakistan (or some part of it). Is Pakistan capable of offsetting these costs?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Feroz:
Thank you for a quick response. The difficulties of Pakistan are both internal and external. I argue that the causes are more internal than external. This a position that you also seem to take since you maintain that “Pakistan`s greatest threat is internally based; political fragmentation, weak economy, no law and order etc. and it is these factors which are problematic in the long run and not an Indian encouraged Jewish conspiracy financed by the CIA!” I agree with you, but I suspect that you somehow find it difficult to identify the main culprits clearly. Are they the common people of Pakistan? Are they the ruling elite? If both, what proportion of blame should go to the ruling elite or the common people? In Pakistan, there is a tendency to blame the victim. The common people have long been oppressed by the corrupt and unresponsive state functionaries and their allies. Although you talk about myopic policies, your position would remain somewhat ambiguous unless you identify the policies, their makers, and the process of their implementation.
Feroz, you maintain that the “fear of the west about the proliferation of N-weapons will save Pakistan!” Is Pakistan capable of systematic nuclear proliferation? Probably not, because it would impose heavy costs upon Pakistan (or some part of it). Is Pakistan capable of offsetting these costs?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#112 Posted by Urstruly on August 25, 2000 3:23:14 pm
RE: MISCELLENEOUS INDIANS AND SOME TREE-HUGGING PAKISTANIS
PART-II Role of India
Following is a brief description of the role played by India in the creation of Bangladesh. These accounts have been taken from Indian and International press, circa 1971. There is certainly more to the following but only those accounts are being mentioned that are verifiable with a little effort:
The Indian Express correspondent reports from Calcutta- March 29, 1971
``A commander of Sheikh Mujib`s Mukti Bahni, who did not want to disclose his identity told me, in Calcutta, that his group had destroyed two (Pak) Army units at Kashtia. He also reported this to Mr. Ajay Mukerji who will hold the office of the Chief Minister of Bengal from next week.``
Deputy Chief Minister of (West) Bengal, March 30, 1971, The Indian Express:
``We the people of West Bengal recognize the state of Bangladesh even if Central Government has not done it so far.``
March 30, 1971, Ms. Indra Gandhi signed a resolution passed by both houses of the Parliament assuring full support to East Bengali separatists.
The following Provincial Assemblies passed resolutions to fully support the secessionist cause in East Bengal: Tamil Nado, Bihar, West Bengal, Aasam, Kerala, Rajisthan, Utter Pardesh, Gujrat, and Tri-Pura.
April 14, 1971, All India Congress Committee (AICC) formally approved the Parliament`s Resolution of March 30. At that event, the Secretary General of AICC, Mr. K. Shukla commented, ``Sheikh Mujib is fighting a war for India``.
After passing the resolution of March 30, Ms. Indra Gandhi appealed the nation to help collect donations for the separatists. All over the country Committees were established to collect donations. The Chief Minister of Bihar, Mr. K. Thakur commented, ``My government will donate Rs. 25 Lakh (2.5 Mil) to this effect``.
April 16, 1971, The Indian Nation (Bombay)
The Chief Minister of Bihar, Mr. K. Thakur, ``We are committed to supply weapons and ammunition to the Independence Army (Mukti Bahni), We don’t care what will be the outcome of this, we will stand by our commitment``.
April 15, 1971, ``The Statesman`` (India) and various other newspapers reported:
``When Prime Minister of India was asked, what arrangements were made to supply those weapons (should be read in conjunction with the establishment of donation committees), she replied, ``I can not comment on this openly since this is a very serious matter``.
June 15, 1971 Reuter Correspondent
``In West Bengal there are approximately 100 training camps. The recruiting offices are established in buildings that apparently look like Refugee Registration offices. The people who come here are warned that once they are recruited in Mukti Army they wont be allowed to quit. If they ever quit they will be shot``.
April 28, 1971, AFP, New Delhi,
``At least 10,000 Bengali men from previous Pak Army are being trained and re-organized.``
The daily ``Culcatta``, June 29, 1971
`` Indian instructors are training at least 30,000 recruits in 30 training camps near the border. The Independent Bangla Radio Station is also established on the Indian side of the territory``.
April 20, 1971 Le Monde, Paris
``The announcement and establishment of Interim Bangladesh Government was made on Indian side of the border but as a matter of fact this government had already been established in Calcutta``.
PART-II Role of India
Following is a brief description of the role played by India in the creation of Bangladesh. These accounts have been taken from Indian and International press, circa 1971. There is certainly more to the following but only those accounts are being mentioned that are verifiable with a little effort:
The Indian Express correspondent reports from Calcutta- March 29, 1971
``A commander of Sheikh Mujib`s Mukti Bahni, who did not want to disclose his identity told me, in Calcutta, that his group had destroyed two (Pak) Army units at Kashtia. He also reported this to Mr. Ajay Mukerji who will hold the office of the Chief Minister of Bengal from next week.``
Deputy Chief Minister of (West) Bengal, March 30, 1971, The Indian Express:
``We the people of West Bengal recognize the state of Bangladesh even if Central Government has not done it so far.``
March 30, 1971, Ms. Indra Gandhi signed a resolution passed by both houses of the Parliament assuring full support to East Bengali separatists.
The following Provincial Assemblies passed resolutions to fully support the secessionist cause in East Bengal: Tamil Nado, Bihar, West Bengal, Aasam, Kerala, Rajisthan, Utter Pardesh, Gujrat, and Tri-Pura.
April 14, 1971, All India Congress Committee (AICC) formally approved the Parliament`s Resolution of March 30. At that event, the Secretary General of AICC, Mr. K. Shukla commented, ``Sheikh Mujib is fighting a war for India``.
After passing the resolution of March 30, Ms. Indra Gandhi appealed the nation to help collect donations for the separatists. All over the country Committees were established to collect donations. The Chief Minister of Bihar, Mr. K. Thakur commented, ``My government will donate Rs. 25 Lakh (2.5 Mil) to this effect``.
April 16, 1971, The Indian Nation (Bombay)
The Chief Minister of Bihar, Mr. K. Thakur, ``We are committed to supply weapons and ammunition to the Independence Army (Mukti Bahni), We don’t care what will be the outcome of this, we will stand by our commitment``.
April 15, 1971, ``The Statesman`` (India) and various other newspapers reported:
``When Prime Minister of India was asked, what arrangements were made to supply those weapons (should be read in conjunction with the establishment of donation committees), she replied, ``I can not comment on this openly since this is a very serious matter``.
June 15, 1971 Reuter Correspondent
``In West Bengal there are approximately 100 training camps. The recruiting offices are established in buildings that apparently look like Refugee Registration offices. The people who come here are warned that once they are recruited in Mukti Army they wont be allowed to quit. If they ever quit they will be shot``.
April 28, 1971, AFP, New Delhi,
``At least 10,000 Bengali men from previous Pak Army are being trained and re-organized.``
The daily ``Culcatta``, June 29, 1971
`` Indian instructors are training at least 30,000 recruits in 30 training camps near the border. The Independent Bangla Radio Station is also established on the Indian side of the territory``.
April 20, 1971 Le Monde, Paris
``The announcement and establishment of Interim Bangladesh Government was made on Indian side of the border but as a matter of fact this government had already been established in Calcutta``.
#111 Posted by ferozk on August 25, 2000 2:36:00 pm
Re:bahmad # 109
There is a latent risk that if Pakistan collapses politically, who will control its nuclear arsenal. The west does not care if Pakistan goes the way of the Dodo bird, but it cares about the country`s N-weapons!
Pakistan`s greatest threat is internally based; political fragmentation, weak economy, no law and order etc. and it is these factors which are problematic in the long run and not an Indian encouraged Jewish conspiracy financed by the CIA! It was for this reason that the suggestion advocated that Pakistan, if it happens, will cease to be a political entity because of domestic reasons!
What does Pakistan have to offer the world, other than nuclear weapons, to make it care about its future?
In Realpolitik and economic terms, it is better to keep Pakistan on the hook of insupportable debt than to risk its N-weapons ending up in the open market!
IR has nothing to do with reality and it has everything to do with perception and by acting on that perception, the perception becomes a reality!
Perception: India is an IT power house and is on the road to success and will be a major power.
Perception: Pakistan is a economically failed state with a potential for a political failure also.
Now tell me, which perception the world will be attracted to due to its own interests? India has something to offer, what do we have to offer?
What will save Pakistan? The fear of the west about the proliferation of N-weapons will save Pakistan!
Pakistanis need to take a hard look within and then decide what they need to do! If the country can think and rationalize its policies, it may have the option to move ahead, but if it acts on pure emotionalism, as it always has, it will be ruined, because we can no longer afford ``tilting at windmills`` and have to reexamine where we are heading and why and how we can reverse our slide into oblivion!
Pakistan has reached a point when the time for talking is over and it needs to translate its utopian dreams into reality. Frankin Delano Roosevelt said, ``we have nothing to fear but fear itself``. In case of Pakistan, we have nothing to fear but our selves and our own myopic policies!
Ciao!
There is a latent risk that if Pakistan collapses politically, who will control its nuclear arsenal. The west does not care if Pakistan goes the way of the Dodo bird, but it cares about the country`s N-weapons!
Pakistan`s greatest threat is internally based; political fragmentation, weak economy, no law and order etc. and it is these factors which are problematic in the long run and not an Indian encouraged Jewish conspiracy financed by the CIA! It was for this reason that the suggestion advocated that Pakistan, if it happens, will cease to be a political entity because of domestic reasons!
What does Pakistan have to offer the world, other than nuclear weapons, to make it care about its future?
In Realpolitik and economic terms, it is better to keep Pakistan on the hook of insupportable debt than to risk its N-weapons ending up in the open market!
IR has nothing to do with reality and it has everything to do with perception and by acting on that perception, the perception becomes a reality!
Perception: India is an IT power house and is on the road to success and will be a major power.
Perception: Pakistan is a economically failed state with a potential for a political failure also.
Now tell me, which perception the world will be attracted to due to its own interests? India has something to offer, what do we have to offer?
What will save Pakistan? The fear of the west about the proliferation of N-weapons will save Pakistan!
Pakistanis need to take a hard look within and then decide what they need to do! If the country can think and rationalize its policies, it may have the option to move ahead, but if it acts on pure emotionalism, as it always has, it will be ruined, because we can no longer afford ``tilting at windmills`` and have to reexamine where we are heading and why and how we can reverse our slide into oblivion!
Pakistan has reached a point when the time for talking is over and it needs to translate its utopian dreams into reality. Frankin Delano Roosevelt said, ``we have nothing to fear but fear itself``. In case of Pakistan, we have nothing to fear but our selves and our own myopic policies!
Ciao!
#110 Posted by viper on August 25, 2000 1:58:48 pm
``There were verbal instructions to eliminate Hindus``
This is the TRUE character of PAKISTAN. It has always been this way and always will be. In India, when anti-Muslim activities occur; many Hindus are the first to ask for restraint against their Muslim brothers. This is NOT the mentality of Pakistan. Pakistan has forever been about intolerance and bigotry- people are taught by the state to hate others. India has its problems, but it recognizes them and attempts to fix them. It is clear that Muslims in India will always be better off than Hindus in any current or former part of Pakistan. This is because seething hate dominates the psyche of Pakistan- nothing more and nothing less.
Facts don`t lie. One Babri Masjid is shameful, but the purposeful extermination of an entire peoples in Bangladesh and now in Kashmir (referring to the Pandits) is the legacy of Pakistan. At least the Germans of today show shame and earnest remorse. Pakistanis instead bathe gleefully in the blood they have spilt- and ask for even more!
The truth shall set you free.
This is the TRUE character of PAKISTAN. It has always been this way and always will be. In India, when anti-Muslim activities occur; many Hindus are the first to ask for restraint against their Muslim brothers. This is NOT the mentality of Pakistan. Pakistan has forever been about intolerance and bigotry- people are taught by the state to hate others. India has its problems, but it recognizes them and attempts to fix them. It is clear that Muslims in India will always be better off than Hindus in any current or former part of Pakistan. This is because seething hate dominates the psyche of Pakistan- nothing more and nothing less.
Facts don`t lie. One Babri Masjid is shameful, but the purposeful extermination of an entire peoples in Bangladesh and now in Kashmir (referring to the Pandits) is the legacy of Pakistan. At least the Germans of today show shame and earnest remorse. Pakistanis instead bathe gleefully in the blood they have spilt- and ask for even more!
The truth shall set you free.
#109 Posted by bahmad on August 25, 2000 1:49:33 pm
In response to FerozK (Reply # 108)
Dear Feroz:
Your statement: ``It is N-weapons that is Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintegration [sic]! . . . Pakistan will implode before it explodes!``
Comment: Is disintegration a process of implosion or explosion or both. Please explain how N-weapons are Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintegration.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Feroz:
Your statement: ``It is N-weapons that is Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintegration [sic]! . . . Pakistan will implode before it explodes!``
Comment: Is disintegration a process of implosion or explosion or both. Please explain how N-weapons are Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintegration.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#108 Posted by ferozk on August 25, 2000 1:08:55 pm
Re: bd # 96
First of all, Pakistan is not cohesive geographic unit; it is province-state. IR is fluid and it is hard to predict, but a break up of Pakistan will not be good for the status quo ante in the region and has to be avoided!
Who has the most to lose from Pakistan breaking up? Who is our neighbor to the east and the north-east! Shankar is right! It is N-weapons that is Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintergration! Indian threat to Pakistan in no way minimizes the threat to Pakistan which stems from its own internal sources! Pakistan will implode before it explodes!
Ciao!
First of all, Pakistan is not cohesive geographic unit; it is province-state. IR is fluid and it is hard to predict, but a break up of Pakistan will not be good for the status quo ante in the region and has to be avoided!
Who has the most to lose from Pakistan breaking up? Who is our neighbor to the east and the north-east! Shankar is right! It is N-weapons that is Pakistan`s best bet against a possible disintergration! Indian threat to Pakistan in no way minimizes the threat to Pakistan which stems from its own internal sources! Pakistan will implode before it explodes!
Ciao!
#107 Posted by bahmad on August 25, 2000 1:04:45 pm
In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 96): Part I
Dear Fairinkum:
The questions raised by both of us need to be addressed discursively.
I view Pakistan’s creation as a historical accident. This conceptualization is at odds with the conventional wisdom of our mainstream scholars, historians, and political scientists (such as Dr. Ishtiaq H. Qureshi, former education minister and Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University). Ayesha Jalal, on the other hand, is one of the leading contemporary revisionist scholar of Pakistani historiography, and Hamza Alavi stands out as the most learned first-generation Pakistani scholar who provided a theoretically-informed understanding of the social relations of the Pakistani state, civil society, and economy.
There is a dearth of critical scholarship in Pakistan. We have not learned from scholars like Hamza Alavi. Why? Because, we failed to recognize the education and welfare of our younger generations as our first priority.
For a good overview of Pakistani politics (until 1980), see Khalid Bin Sayeed’s “Politics in Pakistan: The Nature and Direction of Change.” To understand the backdrop of the crisis of 1971, see: Rounaq Jahan’s “Pakistan: Failure in National Integration”. Tariq Ali’s “Can Pakistan Survive: The Death of a State” is a reminder that we learned little from the East Pakistan debacle (Verso, 1983). Who is responsible for the plight of Pakistan? In my view, it is the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie troika (in a wider sense).
In my teens and early twenties, I had many Bengali friends in Karachi. Bengali people (my friends included) were generally very conscious of the unevenness between East and West Pakistan. They were particularly concerned about the imposition of an external (i.e. West Pakistani) language and culture upon their own language and culture. The Pakistani power elite had learned to use danda shahi from their former masters and teachers (both British and domestic). They, however, undermined the existence and consciousness level of the so-called “hungry” Bengali. Like me, there were many others who believed that Mujeebur Rahman’s Six Point Manifesto was the only viable option for maintaining the long-term solidarity between the two-wing of Pakistan. West Pakistani ruling elite, and their East Pakistani collaborators, doubted the loyalty of Mujeebur Rahman to Pakistan as if East Pakistan was not a part of Pakistan. The ruling elite wanted to impose their version of dominant national discourse on every Pakistani, and anybody who resisted was simply unpatriotic. I wonder if this discourse was really dominant and accepted willingly by the people of both wings of Pakistan.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Fairinkum:
The questions raised by both of us need to be addressed discursively.
I view Pakistan’s creation as a historical accident. This conceptualization is at odds with the conventional wisdom of our mainstream scholars, historians, and political scientists (such as Dr. Ishtiaq H. Qureshi, former education minister and Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University). Ayesha Jalal, on the other hand, is one of the leading contemporary revisionist scholar of Pakistani historiography, and Hamza Alavi stands out as the most learned first-generation Pakistani scholar who provided a theoretically-informed understanding of the social relations of the Pakistani state, civil society, and economy.
There is a dearth of critical scholarship in Pakistan. We have not learned from scholars like Hamza Alavi. Why? Because, we failed to recognize the education and welfare of our younger generations as our first priority.
For a good overview of Pakistani politics (until 1980), see Khalid Bin Sayeed’s “Politics in Pakistan: The Nature and Direction of Change.” To understand the backdrop of the crisis of 1971, see: Rounaq Jahan’s “Pakistan: Failure in National Integration”. Tariq Ali’s “Can Pakistan Survive: The Death of a State” is a reminder that we learned little from the East Pakistan debacle (Verso, 1983). Who is responsible for the plight of Pakistan? In my view, it is the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie troika (in a wider sense).
In my teens and early twenties, I had many Bengali friends in Karachi. Bengali people (my friends included) were generally very conscious of the unevenness between East and West Pakistan. They were particularly concerned about the imposition of an external (i.e. West Pakistani) language and culture upon their own language and culture. The Pakistani power elite had learned to use danda shahi from their former masters and teachers (both British and domestic). They, however, undermined the existence and consciousness level of the so-called “hungry” Bengali. Like me, there were many others who believed that Mujeebur Rahman’s Six Point Manifesto was the only viable option for maintaining the long-term solidarity between the two-wing of Pakistan. West Pakistani ruling elite, and their East Pakistani collaborators, doubted the loyalty of Mujeebur Rahman to Pakistan as if East Pakistan was not a part of Pakistan. The ruling elite wanted to impose their version of dominant national discourse on every Pakistani, and anybody who resisted was simply unpatriotic. I wonder if this discourse was really dominant and accepted willingly by the people of both wings of Pakistan.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#106 Posted by sadna on August 25, 2000 12:47:12 pm
Now halt the `maatam` for just a minute:
a. The Rosser article was on a Pakistani site, apparently. Many of Rosser`s inputs were from Pakistanis and books written by them.
b. Don`t forget this: ``Many of the social activists and progressives with whom I spoke expressed this same helplessness while at the same time they counteract their feelings of loss by publishing journals, holding seminars and discussion groups-many work with NGOs to develop educational opportunities for girls in rural areas or contribute their time to other altruistic and progressive endeavors. They remain active-their work belies the futility which they expressed to me. They continue working, pouring their efforts and souls into positive activity aimed at improving the social and intellectual climate of their country,``
This is extremely impressive and highly admirable, I happen to think.
c. This article was about school curriculum and histiography. The literary and cultural traditions, which would be closer to reflecting reality and collective psyche are not discussed at all.
d. In the matter of beliefs, I think on the subcontinent, all of us have no alternative but to say mutually `we shall overcome`
e. wrt the original thread of discussion, can anyone please OBJECTIVELY describe India`s role in the matter (when appropriate)?
Sadhana
a. The Rosser article was on a Pakistani site, apparently. Many of Rosser`s inputs were from Pakistanis and books written by them.
b. Don`t forget this: ``Many of the social activists and progressives with whom I spoke expressed this same helplessness while at the same time they counteract their feelings of loss by publishing journals, holding seminars and discussion groups-many work with NGOs to develop educational opportunities for girls in rural areas or contribute their time to other altruistic and progressive endeavors. They remain active-their work belies the futility which they expressed to me. They continue working, pouring their efforts and souls into positive activity aimed at improving the social and intellectual climate of their country,``
This is extremely impressive and highly admirable, I happen to think.
c. This article was about school curriculum and histiography. The literary and cultural traditions, which would be closer to reflecting reality and collective psyche are not discussed at all.
d. In the matter of beliefs, I think on the subcontinent, all of us have no alternative but to say mutually `we shall overcome`
e. wrt the original thread of discussion, can anyone please OBJECTIVELY describe India`s role in the matter (when appropriate)?
Sadhana
#105 Posted by Urstruly on August 25, 2000 12:36:13 pm
RE: MISCELLENEOUS INDIANS AND SOME TREE-HUGGING PAKISTANIS
Following are some of the excerpts from International and Indian Media, circa 1971.
Editorial, Yorkshire Post, April 1, 1971
``The reason, why India is so actively taking part in the destruction of Pakistan and the way it is recruiting agents in East Pakistan, has its roots in history. It all started the day when Pakistan came into being; from that day on, India has never accepted its (Pakistan`s) independent existence and spares no effort to destroy it``
David L`Shack of Daily Telegraph (London) May 6, 1971
``India realizes that it is in its best interest that its opponent (Pakistan) is either destroyed completely or rendered crippled. It (India) has no interest in the safety and well being of Bengalis; it is only running its propaganda campaign to achieve its goals``
Michael Edwards, an expert on the South Asian affairs, in a discussion on BBC`s ``The World Today``, on April 14, 1971, said,
``The statements that are being made by the political parties of West Bengal (India), and the way they are conducting their political rallies in support of East Bengalis should be understood in the right perspective. The general attitude in West Bengal towards re-unification has its roots in prevailing politics and economical necessities. West Bengali leaders believe that if they will be able to assert their domination over East Pakistan, if it secedes, and they will also be able to obtain cheaper raw material for their industry``.
The Free Press Journal (India) writes in its editorial of April 2, 1971
``We (India) should work very carefully on our plan to disintegrate Pakistan. It is possible that East Bengal returns our favor by accepting our right on Kashmir``
Daily Indian Express, writes in its editorial of March 30, 1971.
``We have come across a historical opportunity to intervene militarily. The time is now.``
The Director of Institute of Defense Studies, Mr. Subramanaim, writes in Indian Express on April 7, 1971.
``We (India) must realize that the disintegration of Pakistan will only benefit India. We are offered with a historical opportunity and we must avail it.``
Mr. Subramaniam Swami wrote in daily ``Motherland`` (India) on June 15, 1971.
``Pakistan`s geographic integrity is not our problem. It is their (Pakistan) headache. We should look for answers to our two main questions i.e whether the disintegration of Pakistan benefits India and if it does then what can we do about it………….the disintegration of Pakistan will benefit India by strengthening its internal as well as external security. It is our mission to be a great international power. In order to achieve this goal we should promote national unity and work towards eliminating Pakistan.``
Ms. Indira Gandhi, as reported by the Daily Telegraph on June 15, 1971
``India will not accept any political solution that does not result in the creation of Bangladesh``.
Following are some of the excerpts from International and Indian Media, circa 1971.
Editorial, Yorkshire Post, April 1, 1971
``The reason, why India is so actively taking part in the destruction of Pakistan and the way it is recruiting agents in East Pakistan, has its roots in history. It all started the day when Pakistan came into being; from that day on, India has never accepted its (Pakistan`s) independent existence and spares no effort to destroy it``
David L`Shack of Daily Telegraph (London) May 6, 1971
``India realizes that it is in its best interest that its opponent (Pakistan) is either destroyed completely or rendered crippled. It (India) has no interest in the safety and well being of Bengalis; it is only running its propaganda campaign to achieve its goals``
Michael Edwards, an expert on the South Asian affairs, in a discussion on BBC`s ``The World Today``, on April 14, 1971, said,
``The statements that are being made by the political parties of West Bengal (India), and the way they are conducting their political rallies in support of East Bengalis should be understood in the right perspective. The general attitude in West Bengal towards re-unification has its roots in prevailing politics and economical necessities. West Bengali leaders believe that if they will be able to assert their domination over East Pakistan, if it secedes, and they will also be able to obtain cheaper raw material for their industry``.
The Free Press Journal (India) writes in its editorial of April 2, 1971
``We (India) should work very carefully on our plan to disintegrate Pakistan. It is possible that East Bengal returns our favor by accepting our right on Kashmir``
Daily Indian Express, writes in its editorial of March 30, 1971.
``We have come across a historical opportunity to intervene militarily. The time is now.``
The Director of Institute of Defense Studies, Mr. Subramanaim, writes in Indian Express on April 7, 1971.
``We (India) must realize that the disintegration of Pakistan will only benefit India. We are offered with a historical opportunity and we must avail it.``
Mr. Subramaniam Swami wrote in daily ``Motherland`` (India) on June 15, 1971.
``Pakistan`s geographic integrity is not our problem. It is their (Pakistan) headache. We should look for answers to our two main questions i.e whether the disintegration of Pakistan benefits India and if it does then what can we do about it………….the disintegration of Pakistan will benefit India by strengthening its internal as well as external security. It is our mission to be a great international power. In order to achieve this goal we should promote national unity and work towards eliminating Pakistan.``
Ms. Indira Gandhi, as reported by the Daily Telegraph on June 15, 1971
``India will not accept any political solution that does not result in the creation of Bangladesh``.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58; parthaab... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- stuka: And yes, I do... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- stuka: Zeejah yaar, tu tau... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- BJ2: Re: # 313 Pinku, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #312 Posted by tahmed32... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #304 "You can... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #303 er...well..ok.
... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal - tahmed32: masadi #308 thanks for... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
