1971 in 2000
Salman Akhtar August 20, 2000
#200 Posted by Vicky on August 29, 2000 2:55:27 am
fairdinkum #199
``
I have a few questions Bilal. I would appreciate if you could answer them for me:
...
2) Was India ever a nation-state prior to or during Muslim/Mogul rule? ``
.. ``
Are you making a case FOR India being one of the oldest nation states in the world - since the advent of muslim rule? Are were you implying something else and chose a bad example?
``
I have a few questions Bilal. I would appreciate if you could answer them for me:
...
2) Was India ever a nation-state prior to or during Muslim/Mogul rule? ``
.. ``
Are you making a case FOR India being one of the oldest nation states in the world - since the advent of muslim rule? Are were you implying something else and chose a bad example?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#199 Posted by sigalph235 on August 29, 2000 2:55:27 am
Re Pravin Satsangi
I have no idea who Pravin Satsangi is nor his/her basis for being a Kashmir expert. But the article posted by Khokan is rather quite biased. Only a perfect idiot would equate Abraham Lincoln`s quest for American unity with India`s lust for Kashmir.
Lest we forget history, every state of the USA that seceded in 1861 had initially entered the USA of its own free will as determined by respective state conventions elected by voters during 1788-1789. In doing so, each state had acceded to a Union that was `perpetual` according to the US Constitution.
That background is in sharp contrast to an unelected Dogra tyrant signing away Kashmir, under duress and schirzophrenia, to Nehru and Mountbatten. This was done in flagrant contravention of the Indian Independence Act of 1947; the Independence Act is being mentioned because as that time it WAS the Constitution of India.
I knew Abe Lincoln; he was a friend of mine; and Mr Nehru was no Abe Lincoln.
I have no idea who Pravin Satsangi is nor his/her basis for being a Kashmir expert. But the article posted by Khokan is rather quite biased. Only a perfect idiot would equate Abraham Lincoln`s quest for American unity with India`s lust for Kashmir.
Lest we forget history, every state of the USA that seceded in 1861 had initially entered the USA of its own free will as determined by respective state conventions elected by voters during 1788-1789. In doing so, each state had acceded to a Union that was `perpetual` according to the US Constitution.
That background is in sharp contrast to an unelected Dogra tyrant signing away Kashmir, under duress and schirzophrenia, to Nehru and Mountbatten. This was done in flagrant contravention of the Indian Independence Act of 1947; the Independence Act is being mentioned because as that time it WAS the Constitution of India.
I knew Abe Lincoln; he was a friend of mine; and Mr Nehru was no Abe Lincoln.
#198 Posted by fairdinkum on August 29, 2000 2:23:12 am
Re: bahmad #195
It is obvious from Pravin Satsangi’s piece that his/her vision is clouded by his/her grief for the events of 1947. I concur that it is simplistic, one-dimensional and biased. It is more a propaganda type material - useful for those wishing to further inflame the already deteriorating human rights situation in Kashmir. It is interesting how the author conveniently fails to mention Nehru’s role in partition of India. As for ethnic cleansing, unruly mobs of Muslims attacking Hindus or vice versa while emotions were running high is not the same as ethnic cleansing. Perhaps, the author needs to understand the difference between rioting and ethnic cleansing. More Muslims lost their lives during the painful process of partition than Hindus and Sikhs (who died as a direct result of partition) put together. And in the last decade or so, more Muslims have died in Kashmir than all the Hindus in the whole of India put together. And although I may not agree with the tactics of Kashmiri “freedom fighters”, it would be unwise to regard Kashmir as just a terrorist problem. One must look at the history first… This not a “self determination” or secessionist movement which has popped up out of the blue. UN resolutions in this matter are enough to understand that people of Kashmir were never happy under Indian rule.
I have a few questions Bilal. I would appreciate if you could answer them for me:
1) What is the definition of a nation-state?
2) Was India ever a nation-state prior to or during Muslim/Mogul rule?
3) Was India a nation-state when British decided to leave?
It is obvious from Pravin Satsangi’s piece that his/her vision is clouded by his/her grief for the events of 1947. I concur that it is simplistic, one-dimensional and biased. It is more a propaganda type material - useful for those wishing to further inflame the already deteriorating human rights situation in Kashmir. It is interesting how the author conveniently fails to mention Nehru’s role in partition of India. As for ethnic cleansing, unruly mobs of Muslims attacking Hindus or vice versa while emotions were running high is not the same as ethnic cleansing. Perhaps, the author needs to understand the difference between rioting and ethnic cleansing. More Muslims lost their lives during the painful process of partition than Hindus and Sikhs (who died as a direct result of partition) put together. And in the last decade or so, more Muslims have died in Kashmir than all the Hindus in the whole of India put together. And although I may not agree with the tactics of Kashmiri “freedom fighters”, it would be unwise to regard Kashmir as just a terrorist problem. One must look at the history first… This not a “self determination” or secessionist movement which has popped up out of the blue. UN resolutions in this matter are enough to understand that people of Kashmir were never happy under Indian rule.
I have a few questions Bilal. I would appreciate if you could answer them for me:
1) What is the definition of a nation-state?
2) Was India ever a nation-state prior to or during Muslim/Mogul rule?
3) Was India a nation-state when British decided to leave?
#197 Posted by SameerJB on August 29, 2000 12:18:37 am
satyawadi: The most common last name since the 1970 elections in Pakistan`s National Assembly has been ``Shah``. In the last National Assembly, there were 26-27 Shahs out of 212 members followed by Khans 15-16, although in general population Khan definitely outnumber Shahs. Most of the Shahs were from Sindh but also from Punjab and NWFP. The most common first name other than Muhammad was Chaudhary, all from Punjab.
#196 Posted by sadna on August 29, 2000 12:08:24 am
satyavadi, shammi, tahmed321
Robert Kaplan wrote on India, too, recently, available in NYT archives:
A Nation`s High Price For Success
By Robert D. Kaplan
March 19, 2000, Sunday
The article closes on this note :
``...What we cannot live with are large failed states with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the last thing we should want are weak populist regimes -- democratic or not -- that may act on impulse to legitimize themselves.``
Sadhana
Robert Kaplan wrote on India, too, recently, available in NYT archives:
A Nation`s High Price For Success
By Robert D. Kaplan
March 19, 2000, Sunday
The article closes on this note :
``...What we cannot live with are large failed states with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the last thing we should want are weak populist regimes -- democratic or not -- that may act on impulse to legitimize themselves.``
Sadhana
#195 Posted by bahmad on August 29, 2000 12:05:24 am
In response to khokan (Reply # 195)
Dear khokan:
Here is my critique of Pravin Satsangi’s piece “Self-determination Isn’t Always Sacred” (published in The Horizon, 30th October, 1998. I maintain that:
Satsangi’s piece is both simplistic and one-sided. It is simplistic because if fails to take into account the unfortunate, sad, and complex social relations associated with the Partition of India. It is one-sided because it puts the entire blame of the Partition upon Jinnah (and the Muslims).
The event of Kashmir during the past 53 years cannot be seen without reference to the Partition of India. And, the bloody event in Kashmir, during the past 11 years, cannot be seen as a product of the role of the so-called freedom fighter or the so-called terrorists. Satsangi’s piece is both simplistic and one-sided in this respect too.
Self-determination is a basic human right, regardless of the class, gender, race, ethno-linguistic background, religion, and other bases of identity of a person or a group. Unfortunately, the issue of self-determination gives birth to conflict when contending individuals or groups try to interpret this right in their own ways only. Indeed the rights of human beings (be they Kashmiris) are violated when we fail to resolve any conflict in a peaceful manner. The rights of Kashmiris (Hindus, Muslims, or otherwise) have been violated in the Indian occupied Kashmir. It is not the demand for self-determination but our lack of desire for an honest and peaceful resolution in Kashmir that is violating the human rights of the people of Kashmir.
The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali was right in his view that ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.`` Ideally, people need to learn to live peacefully and resolve their conflicts amicably within existing state boundaries. In this sense, India should not have been Partitioned. But, it did. It became a reality when our political leaders, given the circumstances, failed to resolve India’s internal difficulties. Did Jinnah really give birth to the so-called evil ideology of religious apartheid? Was Jinnah really an evil person or was he trying to reduce the bases of India’s internal evilness? The answers of these question need careful and serious attention.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear khokan:
Here is my critique of Pravin Satsangi’s piece “Self-determination Isn’t Always Sacred” (published in The Horizon, 30th October, 1998. I maintain that:
Satsangi’s piece is both simplistic and one-sided. It is simplistic because if fails to take into account the unfortunate, sad, and complex social relations associated with the Partition of India. It is one-sided because it puts the entire blame of the Partition upon Jinnah (and the Muslims).
The event of Kashmir during the past 53 years cannot be seen without reference to the Partition of India. And, the bloody event in Kashmir, during the past 11 years, cannot be seen as a product of the role of the so-called freedom fighter or the so-called terrorists. Satsangi’s piece is both simplistic and one-sided in this respect too.
Self-determination is a basic human right, regardless of the class, gender, race, ethno-linguistic background, religion, and other bases of identity of a person or a group. Unfortunately, the issue of self-determination gives birth to conflict when contending individuals or groups try to interpret this right in their own ways only. Indeed the rights of human beings (be they Kashmiris) are violated when we fail to resolve any conflict in a peaceful manner. The rights of Kashmiris (Hindus, Muslims, or otherwise) have been violated in the Indian occupied Kashmir. It is not the demand for self-determination but our lack of desire for an honest and peaceful resolution in Kashmir that is violating the human rights of the people of Kashmir.
The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali was right in his view that ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.`` Ideally, people need to learn to live peacefully and resolve their conflicts amicably within existing state boundaries. In this sense, India should not have been Partitioned. But, it did. It became a reality when our political leaders, given the circumstances, failed to resolve India’s internal difficulties. Did Jinnah really give birth to the so-called evil ideology of religious apartheid? Was Jinnah really an evil person or was he trying to reduce the bases of India’s internal evilness? The answers of these question need careful and serious attention.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#194 Posted by khokan on August 28, 2000 9:41:25 pm
narain (reply #191)
The Horizon
30th October, 1998
Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi
Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.
The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self-determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal
of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.
Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of ``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.
Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``
Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for
whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.
Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.
The Horizon
30th October, 1998
Self-determination Isn`t Always Sacred
by Pravin Satsangi
Self-determination is fast becoming the most abused concept of our times. When Woodrow Wilson coined the word, it was to verbalize his compassion and concern for fellow human beings. But the political arm of terrorists,like those in Kashmir, use the word in a way that is a travesty of the lofty principles that had animated President Wilson and is a cruel mockery of human rights. No one can possibly be left in doubt about this once he witnesses the plight of the quarter million Kashmiri Hindus who have had to flee their ancestral home in the face of fanatical terrorists from abroad seeking self-determination for the Muslims in Kashmir.
The political representatives of the terrorists in Kashmir weave the word ``self-determination`` into their righteous chants in a clever public relations effort to glean support for their goal
of turning Jammu and Kashmir in the mold of ethnically cleansed Pakistan. The world needs to be informed that self-determination of ``their`` people is ruthlessly violating the human rights of others.
Self-determination is indeed a basic human right. But it loses its sanctity when self-determination of a group implies marching orders for the rest. Ofcourse, people don`t leave their homes voluntarily. They have to be persuaded. That means killing them untill everybody gets the idea.The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah`s Pakistan is an example of self-determaination of this evil variety. Pakistan lived upto its name by becoming a ``cleansed land`` within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah`s book. Self-righteous chanters of ``self-determination`` with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir.
Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: ``If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.``
Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for
whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person`s self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour`s extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical terrorists from abroad who have turned the land into a living hell.
Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted ``secession`` to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must summon the courage to confront those that chant ``self-determination`` in heedless pursuit of Jinnah`s evil ideology of religious apartheid.
#193 Posted by tahmed321 on August 28, 2000 4:57:38 pm
satyavadi #156 I read the Atlantic article you mentioned. The picture it paints of Pakistan is indeed quite depressing. Any solutions?
#192 Posted by satyavadi on August 28, 2000 4:57:38 pm
RSaxena #157:
``Now you`re bringing me back to my element. It goes beyond the hypocrisy you point out using the impossibility of a temple near kaaba. Where else in the world do you have two sets of laws for citizens of one country???? In India the leftist-do-nothing-arses have gladly provided them all along for vote banks.``
I agree that multiple civil codes, and thus different laws for different people, doesnot go well with the concept of equality of all citizens. But I dont know how much the govt should go to impose an uniform code on all the communities. Under such an uniform code, I think Muslims will lose the triple talaq divorce, and 4 wives max `priviliges`, while Hindus will have to let go Hindu-Undivided-Family tax bnefits and inheritance laws that go against the females. I dont think there is any movement from within any of these communities to change the discrimnatory marriage (in case of Muslims) and inheritance laws (in case of Hindus). Specially the Muslim special law is such a touchy subject among the Muslims, that any talk of changing it would stir the hornet`s nest. But then that is not a good enough excuse for discriminating against Muslim women, 75 million Indians. So I dont know how the got should tackle this. Uniform civil code is a a nice and necessary ideal, but what`s the best way of achieving it? Imposing it or by convincing the respective commnunities that its in their best interests?
Satyavadi
``Now you`re bringing me back to my element. It goes beyond the hypocrisy you point out using the impossibility of a temple near kaaba. Where else in the world do you have two sets of laws for citizens of one country???? In India the leftist-do-nothing-arses have gladly provided them all along for vote banks.``
I agree that multiple civil codes, and thus different laws for different people, doesnot go well with the concept of equality of all citizens. But I dont know how much the govt should go to impose an uniform code on all the communities. Under such an uniform code, I think Muslims will lose the triple talaq divorce, and 4 wives max `priviliges`, while Hindus will have to let go Hindu-Undivided-Family tax bnefits and inheritance laws that go against the females. I dont think there is any movement from within any of these communities to change the discrimnatory marriage (in case of Muslims) and inheritance laws (in case of Hindus). Specially the Muslim special law is such a touchy subject among the Muslims, that any talk of changing it would stir the hornet`s nest. But then that is not a good enough excuse for discriminating against Muslim women, 75 million Indians. So I dont know how the got should tackle this. Uniform civil code is a a nice and necessary ideal, but what`s the best way of achieving it? Imposing it or by convincing the respective commnunities that its in their best interests?
Satyavadi
#191 Posted by satyavadi on August 28, 2000 4:57:38 pm
Happy One #77:
``Can you also find out the percentage of dhoti clad banias in the Indian Parliament?``
Akhil Bharat DhotiDhari Baniya Samaj has informed me that they have between 6 and 78 members in the Loksabha. The fluctuating muber is attributed to the fact that except for 6 Baniya MPs, others are known to sport at times, costumes other than the venerable dhoti. Hope this helps.
``Apparently the % of brahmins in the parliament is a good indicator of how badly a government is doing. Below you will find a list of some salient countries with their respective GBCP (Governmental Bhrahminical Contamination Percentage):
Russia - 0%
United States - 0%
India - 14%
Burkina Faso - 0%
Djibouti - 0%
Liechtenstein - 0%
Sao Tome and Principe - 0%
As is evident from the above study, the Indians have a long way to go!``
I am a bit confused. Which way? Burkiano Faso way or the US way? Or better still Russian way? :)
``Can you also find out the percentage of dhoti clad banias in the Indian Parliament?``
Akhil Bharat DhotiDhari Baniya Samaj has informed me that they have between 6 and 78 members in the Loksabha. The fluctuating muber is attributed to the fact that except for 6 Baniya MPs, others are known to sport at times, costumes other than the venerable dhoti. Hope this helps.
``Apparently the % of brahmins in the parliament is a good indicator of how badly a government is doing. Below you will find a list of some salient countries with their respective GBCP (Governmental Bhrahminical Contamination Percentage):
Russia - 0%
United States - 0%
India - 14%
Burkina Faso - 0%
Djibouti - 0%
Liechtenstein - 0%
Sao Tome and Principe - 0%
As is evident from the above study, the Indians have a long way to go!``
I am a bit confused. Which way? Burkiano Faso way or the US way? Or better still Russian way? :)
#190 Posted by narain on August 28, 2000 4:57:38 pm
There are close analogies between how Indians think about Pakistan and how Pakistan thinks about Bangladesh:
1. We both think that our country`s partition was based on the wrong principles and feel sad about it, while at the same time appreciating (albeit grudgingly) its inevitability.
2. We have both accepted our broken parts as separate, independent and sovereign nations, but look with regret at ``what might have been``.
People at this forum have tried to make analogies between the Bangladeshi war of independence and the movement in Kashmir. I disagree. As far as I can make out, the Bangadeshis wanted to have a separate homeland to safeguard their language and culture, which they thought was threatened within the federation, and also because they thought they were getting economically expoloited by West Pakistan. Both these situtations do not apply to Kashmir.
India presents no threat to the Kashmiri way of life, to the extent that no non-Kashmiri Indian is even allowed to buy land in that state. This though, according to our government, ``Kashmir is an integral part of India``. It is also true that in the net more funds have flowed into Kashmir from the rest of India than have flowed out of it, even after excluding defense expenditures. Kashmir has definately not been exploited. If anything it has been pampered economically. What has however, been denied to the Kashmiris is the genuine political freedom that is theirs by right according to our constitution. And I believe that this can and should be restored to them as soon as possible.
Clearly, there is a divergence between how our neighbours view the situation (``a historic struggle``) and how Indians view the situation (genuine anger fanned into a wildfire by prevailing winds from the west). The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
To the proponents of ``Self-determination``, I ask this question: Will you allow a drug peddler to carry on his trade because stopping it is a violation of his freedom of choice? I would assume that the answer is no. This is because his choice inflicts unacceptable costs on others, and therefore his right to freedom of choice cannot be absolute. In the same way, self-determination by the Kashmiris inflicts costs on the rest of India and therefore it cannot be their birthright. If there is a conflict of interest, we have to negotiate a compromise, not kill and destroy till we force others to accept our point of view.
And even if no compromise can be attained, surely there are some things worth fighting for! If Lincoln had accepted the South`s right to self-determination and stopped at that, slavery may still be acceptable today. If the world had accepted the genocide of the Jews as the right of self-determination by Germany, where would humanity be today? In the same way, India too has to fight for what it believes in: secularism and the rule of law. It cannot simply lay down and accept the obscurantist and regressive ``one land, one religion`` agenda of the militants who may or may not represent the true wishes of the common Kashmiri.
-narain
1. We both think that our country`s partition was based on the wrong principles and feel sad about it, while at the same time appreciating (albeit grudgingly) its inevitability.
2. We have both accepted our broken parts as separate, independent and sovereign nations, but look with regret at ``what might have been``.
People at this forum have tried to make analogies between the Bangladeshi war of independence and the movement in Kashmir. I disagree. As far as I can make out, the Bangadeshis wanted to have a separate homeland to safeguard their language and culture, which they thought was threatened within the federation, and also because they thought they were getting economically expoloited by West Pakistan. Both these situtations do not apply to Kashmir.
India presents no threat to the Kashmiri way of life, to the extent that no non-Kashmiri Indian is even allowed to buy land in that state. This though, according to our government, ``Kashmir is an integral part of India``. It is also true that in the net more funds have flowed into Kashmir from the rest of India than have flowed out of it, even after excluding defense expenditures. Kashmir has definately not been exploited. If anything it has been pampered economically. What has however, been denied to the Kashmiris is the genuine political freedom that is theirs by right according to our constitution. And I believe that this can and should be restored to them as soon as possible.
Clearly, there is a divergence between how our neighbours view the situation (``a historic struggle``) and how Indians view the situation (genuine anger fanned into a wildfire by prevailing winds from the west). The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
To the proponents of ``Self-determination``, I ask this question: Will you allow a drug peddler to carry on his trade because stopping it is a violation of his freedom of choice? I would assume that the answer is no. This is because his choice inflicts unacceptable costs on others, and therefore his right to freedom of choice cannot be absolute. In the same way, self-determination by the Kashmiris inflicts costs on the rest of India and therefore it cannot be their birthright. If there is a conflict of interest, we have to negotiate a compromise, not kill and destroy till we force others to accept our point of view.
And even if no compromise can be attained, surely there are some things worth fighting for! If Lincoln had accepted the South`s right to self-determination and stopped at that, slavery may still be acceptable today. If the world had accepted the genocide of the Jews as the right of self-determination by Germany, where would humanity be today? In the same way, India too has to fight for what it believes in: secularism and the rule of law. It cannot simply lay down and accept the obscurantist and regressive ``one land, one religion`` agenda of the militants who may or may not represent the true wishes of the common Kashmiri.
-narain
#189 Posted by khokan on August 28, 2000 4:57:38 pm
Plus ca change, plus cest la meme chose!!!
New York Times
28 August, 2000
Editorial
Military Misrule in Pakistan
Last October, Gen. Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistan`s democracy, promising to eradicate corruption, revive the economy and open the way for ``true democracy.`` He pledged to restrain nuclear weapons development and pursue peaceful diplomacy with India. Ten months later, he has made little progress with the economy or corruption and has put off the return of democracy until at least 2003. Pakistan still has not signed the nuclear test ban treaty and tensions with India over Kashmir are as dangerous as ever. Now General Musharraf has announced plans for a new political system designed to buttress his own power by excluding the country`s top politicians. That would compound Pakistan`s problems. A speedier timetable for restoring democracy is urgently needed.
Pakistan`s democratic governments have been flawed. But its military dictatorships have blighted its economic and political development and gravely damaged its international reputation. General Musharraf`s administration has proved no different. Military rulers claim they can push through reforms because they do not have to make deals with entrenched political interests. But they are beholden to Pakistan`s single most powerful interest group, the military and its related intelligence services. Military spending absorbs more than a quarter of Pakistan`s yearly budget, diverting resources needed for education and development.
When President Clinton visited Pakistan in February, he made clear America`s unhappiness with military rule and with General Musharraf`s refusal to cut ties with terrorist groups in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Over the weekend, Don McKinnon, secretary general of the Commonwealth, delivered a similar message. The International Monetary Fund is also unhappy with the slow pace of promised economic reforms. General Musharraf should acknowledge that he is worsening Pakistan`s problems and accelerate the return to democratic rule.
New York Times
28 August, 2000
Editorial
Military Misrule in Pakistan
Last October, Gen. Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistan`s democracy, promising to eradicate corruption, revive the economy and open the way for ``true democracy.`` He pledged to restrain nuclear weapons development and pursue peaceful diplomacy with India. Ten months later, he has made little progress with the economy or corruption and has put off the return of democracy until at least 2003. Pakistan still has not signed the nuclear test ban treaty and tensions with India over Kashmir are as dangerous as ever. Now General Musharraf has announced plans for a new political system designed to buttress his own power by excluding the country`s top politicians. That would compound Pakistan`s problems. A speedier timetable for restoring democracy is urgently needed.
Pakistan`s democratic governments have been flawed. But its military dictatorships have blighted its economic and political development and gravely damaged its international reputation. General Musharraf`s administration has proved no different. Military rulers claim they can push through reforms because they do not have to make deals with entrenched political interests. But they are beholden to Pakistan`s single most powerful interest group, the military and its related intelligence services. Military spending absorbs more than a quarter of Pakistan`s yearly budget, diverting resources needed for education and development.
When President Clinton visited Pakistan in February, he made clear America`s unhappiness with military rule and with General Musharraf`s refusal to cut ties with terrorist groups in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Over the weekend, Don McKinnon, secretary general of the Commonwealth, delivered a similar message. The International Monetary Fund is also unhappy with the slow pace of promised economic reforms. General Musharraf should acknowledge that he is worsening Pakistan`s problems and accelerate the return to democratic rule.
#188 Posted by ferozk on August 28, 2000 1:02:53 pm
Re: Jay # 188
Jay, your points are well taken!
The best way to deal with them would be marginalize and isolate them! They are a vocal presense in Pakistani polity with a serious negative implications for our future! No one is denying that!
You have to admit that you have your own groups of numbnuts and they are just a mirror image of our groups - I am not taking about political ideology or anything like that - I am only saying that hate breeds hate and we have to stop this cycle of hate! You can hate Pakistan; that is your right and privilege and there will be a Pakistan who will hate India for the very same reasons! Hence, it will go on and on...
Peace will come to South Asia, but not in my life time. If it takes two to fight, I always have the option not to fight and I am opting for that option and if you reciprocate, then there is a possibility!
Here is to a better future! May we live to see it!
Ciao!
Jay, your points are well taken!
The best way to deal with them would be marginalize and isolate them! They are a vocal presense in Pakistani polity with a serious negative implications for our future! No one is denying that!
You have to admit that you have your own groups of numbnuts and they are just a mirror image of our groups - I am not taking about political ideology or anything like that - I am only saying that hate breeds hate and we have to stop this cycle of hate! You can hate Pakistan; that is your right and privilege and there will be a Pakistan who will hate India for the very same reasons! Hence, it will go on and on...
Peace will come to South Asia, but not in my life time. If it takes two to fight, I always have the option not to fight and I am opting for that option and if you reciprocate, then there is a possibility!
Here is to a better future! May we live to see it!
Ciao!
#187 Posted by jay on August 28, 2000 10:07:33 am
To ferzok and krashid,
May be it is time that you touch base with the events in pakistan, a land violence where the high priests of Islam travel with body guards, sheathed in a romantic mantle of time and space. From nation,
Govt wants to end jehad: Kulsoom
NEELABAT-Begum Kulsoom Nawaz, the wife of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Sunday said that the sacrifices of 70,000 martyrs have brought the Kashmiri Mujahideen closer to the liberation of Kashmir. She alleged that the military government of General Pervez Musharraf is conspiring to bargain the sacrifices of Kashmiris with the enemy.
`The day is not far when the blood of 70,000 martyrs will bear fruit in the shape of liberation, when the shackles of occupation will be broken,` Kulsoom said while addressing a big rally at Neelabat (Dheerkot) organised by Muslim Conference (Qayyum) to commemorate the beginning of the fight against Dogra rule from the same place, 60 kilometres south-east of Muzaffarabad. Kulsoom said, the place where she is renewing the resolve for freedom of Kashmir is the same where Kashmir liberation movement had originated and where jailed Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif as opposition leader had stunned the world by announcing nuclear capability of Pakistan.
////////
Wake up, it is jihad, kashmir is only a symptom. To a great extent kashmir is of tremendous help to pakistan in chanalising the jihadic instincts to a politically weak state like india. If it were not for the quick action, Russian bombs would have rained on Islamabad. Think positive, jihadist killed by the indian troops are in instant heaven, dead hindus any how go through the rebirth cycles. You may have to read the books, may be Asif can help, what happens to non jihadic muslims.
May be it is time that you touch base with the events in pakistan, a land violence where the high priests of Islam travel with body guards, sheathed in a romantic mantle of time and space. From nation,
Govt wants to end jehad: Kulsoom
NEELABAT-Begum Kulsoom Nawaz, the wife of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Sunday said that the sacrifices of 70,000 martyrs have brought the Kashmiri Mujahideen closer to the liberation of Kashmir. She alleged that the military government of General Pervez Musharraf is conspiring to bargain the sacrifices of Kashmiris with the enemy.
`The day is not far when the blood of 70,000 martyrs will bear fruit in the shape of liberation, when the shackles of occupation will be broken,` Kulsoom said while addressing a big rally at Neelabat (Dheerkot) organised by Muslim Conference (Qayyum) to commemorate the beginning of the fight against Dogra rule from the same place, 60 kilometres south-east of Muzaffarabad. Kulsoom said, the place where she is renewing the resolve for freedom of Kashmir is the same where Kashmir liberation movement had originated and where jailed Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif as opposition leader had stunned the world by announcing nuclear capability of Pakistan.
////////
Wake up, it is jihad, kashmir is only a symptom. To a great extent kashmir is of tremendous help to pakistan in chanalising the jihadic instincts to a politically weak state like india. If it were not for the quick action, Russian bombs would have rained on Islamabad. Think positive, jihadist killed by the indian troops are in instant heaven, dead hindus any how go through the rebirth cycles. You may have to read the books, may be Asif can help, what happens to non jihadic muslims.
#186 Posted by jay on August 28, 2000 5:20:40 am
KASHMIR IS A SYMPTOM, NOT CAUSE
Peace makers seem to have invaded the chowk. A few months ago, russia threatened to bomb the jihadic sites in pakistan, ten of them in which thousands of chechnians were trained. The leader of the chechnian jihad was quickly expelled by pakistan and their organisation banned. Did any one hear of UN resolution, hindu muslim, no, nothing at all, it was the ultimate blooming of the TNT, muslims cannot coexist with others, jihad of the children of TNT.
Pakistan is home to 20,000 arabs fomenting violence in theoir own country, but harboured by pakistan. Did any one hear of UN resolution, the hindu king and his treachery. No. It is the children of TNT supporting the jihadists.
There is no solution to kashmir, it is only a symptom, a symptom of the mind set created by the last fifty years of education in pakistan. There can be peace only if the root cause is addressed, and the cure applied, Iraquisation.
Peace makers seem to have invaded the chowk. A few months ago, russia threatened to bomb the jihadic sites in pakistan, ten of them in which thousands of chechnians were trained. The leader of the chechnian jihad was quickly expelled by pakistan and their organisation banned. Did any one hear of UN resolution, hindu muslim, no, nothing at all, it was the ultimate blooming of the TNT, muslims cannot coexist with others, jihad of the children of TNT.
Pakistan is home to 20,000 arabs fomenting violence in theoir own country, but harboured by pakistan. Did any one hear of UN resolution, the hindu king and his treachery. No. It is the children of TNT supporting the jihadists.
There is no solution to kashmir, it is only a symptom, a symptom of the mind set created by the last fifty years of education in pakistan. There can be peace only if the root cause is addressed, and the cure applied, Iraquisation.
#185 Posted by sigalph235 on August 28, 2000 5:20:40 am
re Contemplative`s
``India also chose to invest a large amount in training and arming the Mukhti Bahini to undertake terrorism within East Pakistan. (one man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter)``
The last sentence in parentheses is a cliche type afterthought that really does little to mitigate the sheer imbecility of the first one. Actually, the more accurate rendering of the second sentence should have been ``Yahya Khan`s terrorist is everybody else`s freedom fighter``.
Pal, it was a war and a war of Independence at that. Mukti Bahini`s atrocities were glaring but pale in significance to what a Pakistani journalist was to term ``the ugliest genocide``. The freedom fighters were fighting in their own country against an Occupation army which was bent on killing, looting, raping, and pillaging. That is not terrorism. Terrorism is when you get a bunch of high-flyers who blow up the Vienna airport killing two dozen kids because Israel was doing something in the West Bank.
History is witness that the Bangladeshi freedom movement never attacked anyone beyond the borders of Bangladesh. No PIA flights were hijacked and no power stations blown up in Karachi.
The only major mistake Bangladesh made vis-a-vis the War of Independence was its subsequent, ill-advised, magnanimity. I don`t know what deal Mujib struck with his pal Bhutto, but there was something rotten in letting go of all the POWs without bringing any of them to justice. Till the end of time, Mujib, Bhutto, and Indira Gandhi must bear the blame for letting go scott-free many individuals who probably (I still believe in the innocent till proven otherwise concept) were guilty of some the most heinous crimes aganist humanity.
``India also chose to invest a large amount in training and arming the Mukhti Bahini to undertake terrorism within East Pakistan. (one man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter)``
The last sentence in parentheses is a cliche type afterthought that really does little to mitigate the sheer imbecility of the first one. Actually, the more accurate rendering of the second sentence should have been ``Yahya Khan`s terrorist is everybody else`s freedom fighter``.
Pal, it was a war and a war of Independence at that. Mukti Bahini`s atrocities were glaring but pale in significance to what a Pakistani journalist was to term ``the ugliest genocide``. The freedom fighters were fighting in their own country against an Occupation army which was bent on killing, looting, raping, and pillaging. That is not terrorism. Terrorism is when you get a bunch of high-flyers who blow up the Vienna airport killing two dozen kids because Israel was doing something in the West Bank.
History is witness that the Bangladeshi freedom movement never attacked anyone beyond the borders of Bangladesh. No PIA flights were hijacked and no power stations blown up in Karachi.
The only major mistake Bangladesh made vis-a-vis the War of Independence was its subsequent, ill-advised, magnanimity. I don`t know what deal Mujib struck with his pal Bhutto, but there was something rotten in letting go of all the POWs without bringing any of them to justice. Till the end of time, Mujib, Bhutto, and Indira Gandhi must bear the blame for letting go scott-free many individuals who probably (I still believe in the innocent till proven otherwise concept) were guilty of some the most heinous crimes aganist humanity.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- harish_hyd: #74 by tahmed32 first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- BJ2: Beena, A cool-headed piece, like... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- om_prakash: In this entire episode,... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: #72 harish_hyd: first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 69 dm... yeh, you... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #71 by tahmed32 If a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 1 kcs... when you... Karachi Riots! Who is
- tahmed32: DM#69 "Before any meaningful... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
