Beware of Ariel Morons and Protect Your Children!

For an Indian with little or no sense of American history and cultural heritage, it is often very easy to confuse the Ivy League as a formal sports conference with its history and indeed the original sports league - the first college football game was between Princeton and Rutgers (Ivy till formal organization of the sports body in 1954) ...

In any event those who wish to read more about the originb

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0101_Christians_Started_I.html


How Christians Started the Ivy League

..Columbia, William and Mary, Rutgers, Brown & UPenn

The first president of New York`s Columbia University, first known as ``King`s College,`` at one time served as a missionary to America under the English-based ``Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.`` The Church of England established the College of William and Mary, near today`s colonial Williamsburg. Dutch Reformed revivalists founded Queen`s College (later Rutgers University) in New Jersey. Brown University originated with the Baptist churches scattered on the Atlantic seaboard. With the exception of the University of Pennsylvania, every collegiate institution founded in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War was established by some branch of the Christian Church.

Even at UPenn, however, an evangelist played a prominent part. When Philadelphia churches denied revivalist George Whitefield access to their pulpits, forcing him to preach in the open, some of Whitefield`s admirers, among them Benjamin Franklin, decided to erect a building to accommodate the great crowds that wanted to hear him. The structure they built became the first building of what is now the University of Pennsylvania, and a statue of Whitefield stands prominently on that campus today.

Though the Ivy League schools eventually turned secular, they fed into the mainstream of society in those earlier days a great army of graduates who could claim Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord, and who left a strong impact on our nation. Their presidents and their faculties helped to set a high spiritual tone, and at times their campuses in turn felt the impact of revival. The educators of early America understood that the moral climate of its schools, colleges and universities would shape its future generations, and could ultimately decide the course of the nation.

Reprinted from The Rebirth of America, published by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation.


..

From wikipedia...

The Ivies have been competing in sports as long as intercollegiate sports have existed in the United States. Boat clubs from Harvard and Yale met in the first sporting event held between students of two U.S. colleges on Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire, in 1852. As an informal football league, the Ivy League dates from 1900 when Yale took the conference championship with a 5-0 record. For many years Army (the United States Military Academy), Navy (the United States Naval Academy), and to a lesser extent Rutgers were considered members, but dropped out shortly before formal organization. For instance, Army traditionally had a rivalry with Yale, which some assert is set to resume in the next few years, and Rutgers had rivalries with Princeton and Columbia, which continue today in sports other than football

Whatever Udayakumar may be,he is,at least,subtle.This Saxena seems to be a pompous brat with rather petty notions of history and humanity.Gandhi may have been a good man but he was disgraced by Nehru/Patel.Nehru had the attitude of a megalomaniac,being a rich pandit with the pretensions of being the `last british gentleman to govern`the bloody indians,as he confessed to Stanley Walport while Patel was just a lackey.The former was dying to get power as he considered it his birth-right,being a high-caste hindu.So he could tolerate no democratic challange

from a straight-forward /constitutional person like Mr.Jinnah.While Jinnah was hailed as `ambassador of hindu-muslim unity`,Nehru/Gandhi injected the Ramraj to fool the hindu public immediately after the first world war.The Quaid-e-Azam protested to make the congress see reason but hindus under Nehru had a different game plan so even 14 points were an anathema for them.Hence the movement for Pakistan

but in the endgame,the muslims were cheated by Nehru/Mountbetton clique which accounts for the sufferings of the newly-independent Pakistan!

Make no mistake!The hindus made Pakistan possible because of their meanness towards muslims.Individuals die,the ideas do not perish.The flame of independence lit by Jinnah shall live on for 2 reasons.The muslims have tasted freedom and the opportunities it offers despite all the bunglings we may have experinced.Secondly,because of the meanness/parsimony of high-caste hindus of northren India as people belonging to the south are decent/polite.What the Northren hindus are doing in Kashmir would promote irredentist tendencies even within India.I know certain good hindus and I feel sorry for them.

Ariel Sharon is there because the Palestinians are a weak/helpless people whom nobody wants to help practically.If they had the means,they would have blown to pieces Sharon after he personally supervised the disgraceful carnage at sabra/shatilla.Look at the miserable arab dominos only offering verbal sympathy and at times some cash but too scared of US/Israel to arm the palestinians.The rest of the free world is also watching helplessly as a new international law is unfolding whereby helicopter gunships/tanks are allowed to be used against civilians if it pleases the US.So the the right-wing land-grabbing thugs of Israel and their nazi-like army is freely indulging in genocide of palestinians so that they can usurp their lands permanently aided and abetted by the only superpower.

The children will keep on dying till the day the palestiniams can kill about 200 Israeli soldiers in 2/3 days.I bet then there will be peace/co-existence.As yet it is an unequal fight between mortal/helples palestinians and audacious,mighty and immortal Israli army which has become a nazi-like war-machine because of the lack of fight from arab neighbours and continuous doles of money/equipment/strategic support from US.

The biggest Ariel Moron to be watched out for is one loose cannon called S.P.UdayKumar. This man will frazzle out your brains with his bilge and bovine refuse, sitting comfortably at his Univ.of Minnesota office, while we ordinary Morons read his trash and wonder what he is referring to.

fairdinkum #132:

``May be in future, there will be a generation mature enough to revive, understand and practice them. The least we can do is keep these ideals

preserved properly. ``

I disagree. If that generation is mature enough it will create its own ideals and values suiting the times it lives in.

Disclaimer: I aint saying that we should discard all the great ideals that Gandhi and the rest stood for - but these people do not live in our times - they are long GONE, DEAD! And we do not know how they would have acted if they were here - alas, that deprives us of following their ideals blindly!

re RSaxena #130

``I realize that Jinnah and Gandhi are dead and from what we see on the subcontinent, so are their ideals (whatever they may have been).``

“(whatever they may have been)” part needs clarification.

Are you saying that you don’t care about their ideals? Or are you suggesting that, given the present state of affairs in subcontinent, Gandhi’s/Jinnah’s ideals are no longer relevant?

At any rate, should we not pass those ideals on to our present/future generations?

You know, some terminally ill people have themselves frozen so that when medical science, in future, discovers a cure for their incurable disease, they can be revived and cured. Maybe the ideals of Jinnah and Gandhi are just frozen in time and not dead… May be in future, there will be a generation mature enough to revive, understand and practice them. The least we can do is keep these ideals preserved properly.

RSaxena, do you see any hope?

I dont know which Arabian Sheikh you are talking to ... but since you are quoting me I guess you are mistaken about my identity ...

I am a Pakistani ... yes ... that is spelt P A K I S T A N I

Re: Arabian sheikh

``You really are quite out of touch with reality! ``

Maybe so but at least I realize that Jinnah and Gandhi are dead and from what we see on the subcontinent, so are their ideals (whatever they may have been).

Re: Arabian sheikh

``Maybe you dont even understand what the term Ivy League means....``

Maybe I don`t. But I sure come closer than you do considering that I have attended one.

There`s bright people everywhere, even Rutgers I am sure. But your inane and pathetic posts claiming Ivy League status for it do 2 things: 1) demonstrate that not all Rutgers students are bright and 2) expose your insecurities about the topic.

Rsaxena

Beta jahaaan tak Turks ki baat hai woh to hua thaa... ab jaaa jal ... aur jall ...

I shouldnt really bother with you ... You really are quite out of touch with reality! You havent been able to argue with evidence... Your satirical attacks amount to nothing if you dont have any evidence to support it.

Yasser Hamdani

Rsaxena

I assure you what I said is true.... but I dont need to convince you. Rutgers was till 1950s part of the IVY LEAGUE ... then it became the state University which automatically disqualified it since Ivy Leagues have to be private... Maybe you dont even understand what the term Ivy League means....

I welcome you to research the issue more.

Maybe you are confusing Rutgers New Brunswick with Rutgers Newark!!!!!!!!!!

Yasser Hamdani

Re: the sheikh from Arabia

``we were offered IVY League status yesterday any comments ... Also IBM announced that its second largest recruiting is done at Rutgers ..``

Hahahahaha....that`s the biggest crock of feces ever thrown around. Ivy League status for Rutgers???

In any case, since when did working at IBM become an indicator of anything? Or for that matter since when did the size of IBM`s recruiting effort become a sign of prestige? Few of the bright engineers I know have drooled about working at IBM.

I think that hot Arabian sun is affecting you. No wonder you had dreams of Turks singing ``jeevay Pakistan`` on the streets of Istanbul and Ankara.

sadna #354 Thanks for the explanation.

It is a long speech and I wish I could find it somewhere on the net .. but I urge you to read the following books ....

Jinnah Speeches and Statements 1947-48

Oxford University press Millenium Series

Compilation by SM Burke Page 25 complete text

Pakistan The Formative Phase 1858-1947

Khaled Bin Sayeed Oxford

The Sole Spokesman

Ayesha Jalaal Oxford

Jinnah of Pakistan

Stanley Wolpert Oxford

Jinnah

Hector Bolitho

RE: YLH

Could you please post Quaid`s August 11 speech, that you often refer too, if you have time. I am dying with anticipation, what is in it.

Layman,

I was pointing out that Past whehter sub continental or Arabian or Iranian or Turkish doesnt matter to us any more..... No it will not do us any good acknowledging our common culture (which mind you Pakistanis already do) ... with anyone ... Instead we have an identity as a sovereign nation ... let us accept it.

Away with dreams and shadows and of past glories..

Yasser

PS Indians have some nerve ... you people are the most heterogenous community in the world and you talk about commonalities and shared past???? Time to get rid of the past (except M A Jinnah`s 11th August speech)

Ylh #111:

``Pakistani: Any inhabitant of the land of Pakistan, a country that lies to the West of the Land of India and the East of the Lands of Iran and Afghanistan!``

Reading Ylh`s post, I somehow feel a twinge of pity for his confused self, still trying to make out a Pakistani identity. I agree however that every nation needs an identity that all of its citizens can identify with, and the sooner this is done the better. Pakistan is a diverse nation and is here to stay, despite all the doom-and-gloom of the pessimists.

I think Pakistanis would do themselves good if they acknowledged their past (ie of mostly being from the sub-continent, not some Arabian desert) and the shared heritage of the sub-continent to which their ancestors themselves have contributed in no small way.

Regards.

Banjaara,

Thankyou for comment.. I am not sure if it was sarcasm or for real.

Tahmed

Thankyou sir... I am sorry that I needed to respond that way ... but YME`s last post wasnt really all that mature either... Post 100 I believe...

Yasser

Actually if you had cared to notice ... pakistanis or Indians for that matter were not beating down on me...

It was a fundoo ... with whom you will get along very nicely (Hindoo-Fundoo Nexus ie Azaad-Gandhi?)

I was asking YME not to Indulge in Pan Islamic Fantasies...

Last time we talked about the Turks you didnt answer me ... maybe because you ran out of argument ... care to answer my questions on ``Hindus of Pakistan``?

Thankyou

Yasser

PS I have had it with your Rutgers Bashing .. we were offered IVY League status yesterday any comments ... Also IBM announced that its second largest recruiting is done at Rutgers .. Interesting... ever been to New Brunswick????

yme #112 you write ``National borders are fast becoming irrelevant.Nationalism ought to be hastened to its grave with a blow to the head.``

Agreed.

However, the issue of shifting populations will not not disappear with the growing irrelevance of nation states and national boundaries.

ylh #113 I can at this stage only condemn your name-calling of other chowk members (I refer to your use of the term ``fundos``). You have no right to engage in personal insults, even if you disagree with the other person`s views.

ylh # 111

``Allah karay zor-e-qalam aur zeyada``

What else can you say after reading his latest

``Shahkaar``.

Regards.

Re: ymh

``The brave new order in this world is the brotherhood/sisterhood of knowledge,power and money, I can go and live anywhere in the world today because i am educated,wealthy and powerful.``

Couldn`t have said it better myself. I wish everyone would realize that.

I strongly suggest you people stop beating up ylh here. Especially Pakistanis. He is arranging for a Turkish sponsored debt relief fund for Pakistan and also arranging for them to form an EU-like union with Pakistan. Just the other day all the Turks were singing ``jeevay Pakistan`` at Rutgers. Furthermore, he has secret messages from Jinnah which are going to save the day for Pakistan and if you keep pissing him off, he won`t tell you. So there.

YME

No it is not working.. you cannot incite people against me... we recognize you for what you are... an ignorant fundoo!!!!! Be a Pakistani first and then a Muslim....

Kant Patel,

I believe that you understand the intricacies of the Partition much better than what your statement betrays. Ref: Your posts on the thread of ``review of Jinnah``.

Yes you have your perspective and I have mine. To me 1940`s Lahore Resolution doesnt matter as much as the 11th August Speech by Quaid-e-Azam. Pakistan was in essence was made for the right of the minorities. Unfortunately by failing to go beyond the Lahore resolution Pakistanis have very sadly tore to pieces the very reason that they exist as a nation today.

The only way Pakistan is going to live upto the reason it was made, is by recognizing the Lahore Resolution as a thing of the past and along with it the day dreams and fantasies of Allama Iqbal.

It is time to recognize the wisdom and truth of those words uttered on 11th August 1947 by Mr Jinnah.

There are two ways of doing this .....

The First Way....... (Ataturkian Method)

I am going to list the Things that need to be done to make Pakistan a distinct and seperate Nation from all Muslim Nations and India as well. Sorry if what I am about to say is not intellectual enough for the Historians and pseudo Intellectuals of Chowk. I have admitted on many occasions that I am a Nationalist not an intellectual for Intellectuals are only close to Defeatism.

Sorry if I borrow too much from the Turk Nationalists.

This is just one way of doing it

1) Urdu needs to purged of its Hindi Verbs. Hence we need to develop new verbs.

2) Research should be undertaken to prove that civilization began in what is now Pakistan. Harrapa Valley Civilization should be portrayed as the World`s first civilization, and Vedic Dharam originating from what is now Pakistan to be the world`s oldest religion.

3) Harappa Valley to my knowledge (and Historical inquiry in the US) doesnot extend too far into India and whatever part of it is in India(If any)

should be vehemently denied.

4) Pakistanization of Islam should be undertaken giving the Pakistani Islam a distinct character.

5) Efforts should be made Historically to prove that Prophet Muhammad and his ancestors had actually migrated from what is now Pakistan.

6) It is proven Historically proven that for most of its 5000 year History what is now Pakistan was under different sovereignty than the rest of India. An effort should now be made to prove that Pakistan was never ever part of India.

We could do this OR

The second way (Jinnahian Method)

We could simply say that whatever our past is ...

is in our Past ... WE ARE PAKISTANIS TODAY AND PAKISTANIS FOREVER... though we might have been

Indians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc in the Past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modern Definition of Pakistani

Pakistani: Any inhabitant of the land of Pakistan, a country that lies to the West of the Land of India and the East of the Lands of Iran and Afghanistan!

Pakistan Zindabad!!!!

ylh #104 I think you have a point, and I am sorry to have put you down unfairy. You do make a good point concerning the need to avoid having every Tom, Dick and Harry - from the sub-continent, Afghanistan, middle east, Africa or wherever - act as if Pakistan owes them anything simply because they have a muslim name. Too many such people have abused the natural hospitality of our poor people, too many have instigated violence and crime in our country, for me to reluctantly come to this conclusion. However, yme did say one thing which I think was correct criticism - your have more than once asked Indian contributors to shoo-off the chowk. I object to that since no one has a right to tell someone else to get off a discussion group, and indeed the presence of people with other perspectives adds to the richness of the discussion. And many of the Indian contributors are among the best we have on chowk. I will go over your earlier posts in a couple of days, and may get back to you with more on this. (This is a bit hurriedly written, so hope I have not sent any unintended messages!!)

YLH #107

So, that resolution was conditional upon getting the whole of Bengal and Punjab!

``NOW (my emphasis) we don`t need Muslimness to define Pakistan``.

Meaning Jinnah, Liaquat Ali, et al, were opportunist! Does that logic applies to the Mohajirs too, now! Please go over your post several times and ponder what it implies.

Kant.....sans slogans:-)

SameerJB

Your statement,``I personally like to side with India in the matters not relating to Pakistan and thus my assessment might be subjective``



In fact I have seen such kind of love-hate relationship for Pakistan especially prominent among older generation. Most of the people of my Grandfather`s age remember partition and its agony but also say in the same vein that afterall we lived together for centuries like brothers. They fondly remember Mushayaras, Urdu Ghazals( which interestingly has its origin in Indo-Gangetic plains). My grandfather used to respect many of his Muslim friends for their ``Iman``. He told me that a true Muslim is one who has ``Iman``. They tell stories of Lahore when it was at its zeneith during British age and the friendliness between Hindus and Muslims.

Sadly enough, the people of my generation are increasingly becomming anti Muslim and anti Pakistani. Many of them are intolerent, inflexible and prejudiced. Part of this may be because of the 11 years of terrorism in Kashmir and part may be Kargil. India media also has not been completely fair. If the older generation phases out without teaching younger generation the values of tolerence and friendship, perhaps we might loose the last vestiges of goodwill amongst us.

Sincerely

That resolution also presupposed that the whole of Punjab and whole Bengal would be a part of Pakistan. Plus I reckon the whole Muslim issue was means to an end.... now we dont need Muslimness to define Pakistan...

Re: Tahmed #977

Of course he bit! Now watch how hard he bites the next time around. And as for you, you did second my motion for this article to break the 1189 mark but you have disappointed me by your meager contribution. Come on now where`s the 110%?

ylh # 104

I wish you would read the Pakistan Resolution passed at Lahore in 1940,wherein it is stated amongst other points that, Pakistan will be the home of ALL the Muslims of India.

Regards.

Tahmed

Surely, you have to be kidding. A person who suggests that ``Ummat e Muhammadia unite`` ... or

suggests opening Pakistan`s borders from filth from all over the Islamic World and India needs to graduate to manhood first. Maybe you should read the rather mature post #76 by YME.

People like you are the ones who drive me over the edge. Had you read my posts you would see the wisdom of my words.. but no you would rather follow stereotype all my posts. Fine its your loss!

YME ... I ask you what is this Ummat e Muhammadia you talk about? I dont know of any such entity. To me the Ummat e Muhammadia is an abstract concept preached in mosques for which I care little.

True that My ancestors came from Iran 7 centuries ago BUT I am not Iranian... I am a PAKISTANI!! and a human being but nothing else.. and I tell you Pakistan is for Pakistanis alone ... those who wish to love it .. and serve it... and be loyal to it before anything else... be it their own self .. or the misinterpretted religion that you scounderels turn to.

I will not let Muslim filth from Arabia, Afghanistan, India or the so called Islamic Iran ruin Pakistan ... they have already done enough damage in the last 20 years!!!!!!!

Away with the dreams and Shadows!

Pakistan FOR the Pakistanis!!!!!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

PS Its time you Indian Muslims started being loyal to India!!!!!

YLH: Instead of getting mad and coming back with a fiery response, I hope you will take the time to reflect upon the feedback provided by Yme #100. I also hope you will then attempt to change some of the things he mentions. If not today, one day you will thank him/her for it since that will mark your graduation to manhood.

This is my earlier post in entirety ... which was written in reply to YME .....

YME #76

Spoken like a true ``INDIAN`` Muslim. Pakistan is for Pakistanis alone ... no matter

strongly Pan Islamic we are.

The sentiments that you have exhibited are what stop you from being accepted in

India. Pakistan was made for a concrete reason and not for Muslims around the world to

crowd it!

Let me say to you what Mr. Jinnah had said to some Nawab in 1920 ``Every Indian

Musulman should be an Indian first and then a Musulman``.Be loyal to your country

(India) and let us be loyal to ours.

And by the same token dont condone any violence on any side... by any side ... be it in

Bangladesh, Palestine or Kashmir!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

SameerJB #92
``Is there any preference for Indian Americans, between GW and Al Gore?``

I don`t know enough to venture a guess, really. Ferozk and your analyses make a lot of sense regarding Indian/US policy on matters of common interest, including the ME. The mutual backscratching equation in international relations where India is concerned is getting more complicated, I would humbly agree. ``Benign neglect`` was simpler to handle.

Sadhana

t#88
Weighing in against all inclination. I can understand your extreme disgust, having myself felt disgust at many posts on chowk. Some posts are personally insulting, some are generally insulting, sometimes its the abstract ideas expressed which are offensive. I`m sure this is a common and mutual feeling among chowkwallahs :-) which willnot go away. The so-called synergy of a board brings out the best and worst in us.

Re` the particular issue of a particular poster I think both may actually have a lot more commonality in fundamentals than you think and maybe the issue is prejudice or style. So all I can suggest is take a vacation from mutual disdain, though its a lot easier said than done. And sorry if I just added to the glorious tradition of offensive posts :-).

Sadhana

Ylh 91 Re:yme 76

dear ylh either you have stopped taking your anti-psychotics or they are becoming refractory, because it is quite evident your delusional thinking is getting worse.

case in point calling yme an ``Indian muslim``.....

OEY PAGAL DEYA PUTRA,OEY TUN MERI SULTAN RAHI WALLEY GHAIRAT NOON LALKARIA EY,OEY TILYER.

I could use such language but i think i will refrain as this will only plunge you deeper into your delirium.

what makes you the sole arbiter of pakistaniness.people have been very very kind to you,but you seem to have the small heart.people of pakistan have a big heart they have accomodated refugees from India,Bangladesh,Afghanistan,Iran and many other lands.

Your pettiness is demeaning to the people of Pakistan,same people who gave refuge to your ancestors if they `really came from Iran`.if you have a problem with pakistanis go back to your Iran.

`this is a pakistani site leave us alone`.HA HA.

what kind of khudra talk is that.

You want to be a liberal then learn to accept and respect other`s points of view.You want to be a Pakistani then learn some adabe meezbani.

WE have given our blood and sweat to the the arabs

time is fast approaching when we will claim our due and that will be done with right thinking arabs and afghanis and pakistanis.

Re: SameerJB

Yes; India is looking to southeast Asia more than the middle east, but my intention/observation was more to the point that India, if it wants to play a bigger role, will have to start articulating a well defined stance on most issues and it cannot no longer remain aloof from the issues.

Where ever India looks will be determined by India and Indian perceptions may be influenced by others, but India has start ``playing the game``.

The simple point is that India, if it wants to enter the majors, has to realize that the ticket of admission to the Great Power Club is going to be costly. As far as India is concerned, the attainment of great/regional power status is not the problem; the real problem and challenge is sustaining it! India will have to compromise on certain issues and the question is, can it afford a compromise, which is not in its interests.

Ciao!

Re: Yawaah Latifay Hamdani # 962

1. You are projecting that soon Gandhi`s legacy will be discarded as irrelevant and Jinnah`s will be celebrated the world over. Listen Pappu, that may be your wish but to start trumpeting your wish as a forgone eventuality supports a perception that many have come to hold... that you my friend are a little cuckoo in the head. I may wish that I win the next powerball and that Cameron Diaz & Elizabeth Shue will orally pleasure each of my big toes but if I go around proclaiming the inevitability of such a scenario with a lot of passion I am bound to end up in a strait jacket. Talking of forgone eventualities... you might want to consider some padded cells & straitjackets in your future.

2. My friend you have claimed the `secular nature of Islam` on many occasions. I am regrettably unable to provide you with a proof of when you said that since you have the tendency to post 500 times a day and I have absolutely no desire to look for your piece of turd comment in the sea of crap that you fart up on this forum every day.

3. You are claiming that Pakistan is a more moderate state than India. Sure... and I am a blue monkey`s momma. Of course every sane person on the planet who claims that an exclusionary system is less desirable than an inclusive one is a complete raving lunatic and you are the smart one. I often wonder what your remedy might be. Tell me... have you tried whacking off? Maybe that will help!

4. You say Musharraf is a secular leader. Now go run to the nearest Barnes & Noble and buy a dictionary because it`s fairly evident you don`t have one. How can the leader of an Islamic Republic be secular? The man who is supposed to uphold nay administer and enforce the laws of the land which are the exact antitheses of the world secular turns out to be secular?!! The oath swore by the constitutional leader of Pakistan begins as follows:

In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful. I, ____________, do swear solemnly that l am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the Prophets and that there can be no Prophet after him, the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

And he is secular. Hmmm I see!

5. You claim that I am devoid of any proper and unbiased knowledge.

Dear Yawaah,

O wise one, O bearer of unbiased and objective opinions, O possessor of verily proper knowledge, please guide me from darkness to enlightenment. I pledge henceforth to follow your shining example to pursue objective knowledge & pronounce unbiased opinion. Over the years you have shone the path towards this goal that is most unattainable to mere mortals but has been imperiously conquered by your erudite self. You have lead the way by untiringly propagating the following unbiased opinions:

Jinnah good Gandhi bad.

Jinnah truly respected world over, Gandhi ridiculed the world over.

Pakistan moderate, India Fundamentalist.

Pakistan`s Islamic governance secular, India`s secular governance religious.

It is plain as day to see why such intellectual gems as above has brought you much credibility and utter respect on this forum.

If any man, woman or child is distraught in their inability to make objective analysis; let them be told of the great Yawaah Latifay Hamdani who treads the hallowed halls of chowk.com handing out very very frequent objective analysis.

Yours in awe

Latif Chappu.

FerozK: Just browsed through www.startfor.com. Some very interesting and worth reading stuff. If GW is more influenced by Pentagon and CIA, then Musharraf and company would love to see him winning. In my poor judgement, the order of political priorites for GW would be in the order of white, hispanic, asian and black countries whereas democrats were sort of prioritizing as white, (asian=hispanic), black countries. In my opinion, Asian-Americans have nothing to worry about with the outcome of election because they are no longer vulnerable, due to their demography, valueable contributions and economic potential at this stage. It would be intersting for people to know that the second or third richest Texan is a Sikh guy, named Sanjiv Sindhu, owner of ITWO. He ranks behind Michael Dell. I do not know if he is politically active or not.

I liked your assessment of Indo-Israel relations. You must also consider, strong support for Palestinians within India, not just among Muslim population but among the left-of-center political parties as well. Yasser Arafat has always been well recieved in India and a fact largely ignored in the western media of significant, educated, well respected and affluent Christian population of Palestinians. To the best of my knowledge, Palestinians are least likely to fall for Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, a good relations with Palestinian, helps India in its relationship with rest of the Arab world. I believe the current warm-up of Indo-Israeli relations are in part economic, in part BJP not being pro-Arabs and largely due to a side-effect of Indo-US relations.

India is really looking forward to playing much larger geo-strategic role than overly involved in a conflict between four million Israelis versus four million Palestinians. There are more Indians that both of these groups within 10 square miles of any Indian urban center. Psychologically, large Asian countries are not obsessed with tiny hot spots around the world, particularly when they are not racial or religious kin with no envy or guilt feelings towards these people. At present, India eyes Indian ocean and south-east asia lot more than middle east. I personally like to side with India in the matters not relating to Pakistan and thus my assessment might be subjective.

Re: SameerJb et

www.stratfor.com/asia/commentary/0007052350.htm

Remember what I was saying about Pakistan`s military and the Pentagon; read this!

FYI, I always make sure that I know what I am taking about! :)

Ciao!

Re: SameerJB

If I have to guess, I would think that the Indians would prefer Al Gore, because since he is a Democrat, and the Democrats are close with the State Department, his presidency would encourage the present diplomatic rapprochement with India.

The Republicans, on the other hand, closely identify with national security issues - Pentagon and CIA and thus, would favor traditional American policy options.

India wants the United States to see its utility, as an ally, in more than just a security context, vis a vis the realpolitik in Asia, and thus, would favor mutually beneficial relations based on a diplomatic tete-a-tete.

Demographically, the Pakistanis being conservative would generally support the GOP. Democrats have traditionally favored India, because of their close ties with the State Department and the Republicans have favored Pakistan due to their ties with the Pentagon!

Remember, it was Zinni Musharraf first called...! Pentagon has close ties in the Pakistani military due to the extensive UN peacekeeping functions Pak Army has undertaken and there are still ``active informal contacts`` between the two!

State and Pentagon do not always read from the same page and so, if the American foreign policy changes, in the next 12-18 months, it will be a result of a ``turf fight`` between State and Pentagon, with other clusters acting as a fulcrum to tilt the balance one way or the other!

Also; Karl Inderfuth is the protege of Brezenski (sp), who was a protege of Kissenger! Kissenger has a soft spot in his heart for Pakistan, because of Pakistan`s role in Sino-American detente. Brezenski was the author of the NSC memo which started the CIA covert operation in Afghanistan agaisnt the Soviets and lately has been saying that America needs to separte the Islam as a religion from Islam as it is being used for political aims! In other words, he is suggesting that the United States cannot and should not demonize the entire religion just because a few people have a twisted interpretion of Islam.

Soon after he had said this, Inderfuth came out with his interviews saying that India and Pakistan need to re-start the talks on Kashmir and stressed Clinton`s ``Four R`s``, which are applicable to both India and Pakistan!

In other words, the emerging United States options on Kashmir are leaning towards a status quo and that would favor India. However, this also means that the American pressure on India will increase to talk with Pakistan, because the Americans realize that Kashmir has a slim chance of going to India short of a war.

India is presently having a hard time in its foreign policy, because the it is quite undecided how to rationalize its stand on the present Middle East sitution. If it supports Israel, it irks the Arabs and if it favors Palestinians, it will anger Tel Aviv. India cannot afford neutrality, because since the IR is about perceptions and not reality, the other side will see India`s silence as a tacit endorsement of the other side and remember the insult for a long time to come!

The problem is that India, having broken out of Nehru`s non-alignment, a brilliant strategic arrangement, now cannot afford to sit on the fence, because if it wants closer ties with Washington, it will have to support the United States on key issues and in this case, that runs the risk of alientating the Arabs and the Muslim nations. If the Arabs were shying away from Pakistan, because of its fundlementalist tendencies, the Indian support of the United States, seen as supporting Israel, will once again bring the Arabs closer to Pakistan.

The Indians have their work cut out, because in this particular case, they will not be able to have their cake and eat it too! India, if it wants to a be power in Asia, will have to spell out its intentions publically and that is some thing the Indians might not like to do. Pakistan may be isolated internationally, but India if it continues to hedge its bets, will soon find itself being marginalized as a major player in IR, because the sine quo non of major IR players is their intentions and not their ability to please all of the world all of the time!

The price for Pakistan of being an American ally was too high, in hindsight, and the question is; is India willing to pay that price by publically identifying its interests with the United States? India cannot be non-aligned and still be America`s ``natural ally``. India has to opt for a decision and soon!

Ciao!

temporal: SILENCE OF THE INDIANS a la SILENCE OF THE WIMPS

WARY OR CONDONING? - it could be neither - try a fundamental difference in the p.o.v./world-view between the two sides (since you are calling for one side`s reaction) - `one` Indian responded to the post that Jay`s mail `SILENCE OF THE WIMPS` referred to. No one bothered to ask for the Pakistanis` protest.

Some treat writing on this forum as a pastime, others show off their linguistic and other talents, some approach the arguments seriously, and some others consistently and fervently give any issue a religious/nationalistic twist.

You talk about dementia - rationalizing and rationally arguing the merits of a line that says it is proper to kill the `non-believers` is dementia to some, here and now in the 21st century. There`s posts one wants to write about, want to respond to, but doesnt bother to sometimes, even if they mean much to him/her. Sometime ago a couple Indians chided Jay for his posts - would you be happy if they keep doing it everytime he posts a politically incorrect msg?

Somebody mentioned the censoring policies of the board - if your temperate bosom is heaving with resentment from Jay`s irksome posts, regulate all the posts.

PS: I still dont find the Pakistani silence about the mail that `SILENCE OF THE WIMPS` referred to, defeaning - but then thats my p.o.v.

Please read ``wouldn`t`` instead of would in the first line of my last post. What a terrible mistake, delivering exactly the opposite message than what I meant. I do too many mistakes while using my laptop, may be due to the compact Keyboard. My apologies, FerozK.

FerozK: What can I say? I am sure you would like me thanking you over and over. But this last post was such a sysyematic and in-depth analysis that I wish to thank you again for taking the time out to write about the overlapping and counter interests of the five pillars of US foreign policy. Never looked at it that way before. From now on, I will always keep this information in mind when thinking about US foreign policy.

Sadhana: I watched both of the debates also. I did notice GW mentioning Arab-Americans and immediately thought about Michigan with large Arab-American population is currently a toss-up and very important for GW to win. He is not expected to win NY or CA and has to make up the losses in large states with victories in Southern and Western States. Moreover, one rich Arab-American Lawyer from Texas, named Joe Jamail, has contributed well during his compaigns for Governorship in Texas. However, once President, he will have to consider all the competing and collaborating forces of five pillars. I do not expect any major shift in US foreign policy, not at least in his first year in office. Is there any preference for Indian Americans, between GW and Al Gore?

YME #76

Spoken like a true ``INDIAN`` Muslim. Pakistan is for Pakistanis alone ... no matter strongly Pan Islamic we are.

The sentiments that you have exhibited are what stop you from being accepted in India. Pakistan was made for a concrete reason and not for Muslims around the world to crowd it!

Let me say to you what Mr. Jinnah had said to some Nawab in 1920 ``Every Indian Musulman should be an Indian first and then a Musulman``.Be loyal to your country (India) and let us be loyal to ours.

And by the same token dont condone any violence on any side... by any side ... be it in Bangladesh, Palestine or Kashmir!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

Ataturk Zindabad

Jiye Bhutto

Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Temporal

Sir you are right. It just shows the amount of hatred this man Jay has for Pakistan. Interestingly enough it is this same person who poses as ``Mohajir``. There seems to be systematic campaign by this individual against us. Ofcourse only an Indian would be so obsessed as to go on wasting his/her time like he does.

The difference between my interaction and his is that I am interacting as a Pakistani on a site discussing Pakistani issues. As you can see I have seldom replied to an article dealing with Indian issues because like my great friend Prem from India I realize that we have our own problems in our respective countries and we should not concern ourselves with others` problems.

Yasser Hamdani

Temporal :

Since you asked -- I do not address Jay because I think it is hopeless and an utter waste of time. Obviously his glee over the four Pakistanis who died in Kuwait are the emotions of a monster. One should not be gleeful over the death of anyone, even one who was justly convicted of murder and executed.

So, yes, I could condemn him. But all my previous experience on electronic forums is that certain people are best ignored, because communication with them is impossible. Even the attention of condemnation is too much. So take this to be past, present and future of my disavowal of all such people.

I hope it is also evident that despite noisy and vehement disagreement that I have with other folks, we still believe we are communicating (at least, I do).

-arun gupta

SILENCE OF THE INDIANS --- WARY OR CONDONING?


My nomination for Ariel-Chowk ---JAY THACKERAY!


Here is his recent post in entirety:
________________________________________

A data point -- Rabindranath Tagore`s letter to the Viceroy renouncing his knighthood was dated May 31, 1919.

``The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I, for my part, wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings….``

(Tagore’s Protest letter to the Viceroy on May 31,1919, renouncing Knighthood).

(taken from http://www.gagan.1freespace.com/jallianwala_bagh.htm )

-arun gupta

Ferozk #83
It is noteworthy that GW took care to mention the Arab-Americans of Michigan during the second debate, with seeming deliberation, though not in the ME context.

Sadhana

Re:macgupta#79

Arun,

Israel has made a major mess of the peace process by keeping it only at the political level. A better approach would have been to provide economic help to the palestinians along with the political track. Israel and US have the means to invest money in West Bank and Gaza. They could have done that easily. Moreover, they could have encouraged Palestinians to access Israeli educational institutions and jobs in the Israeli economy on a much larger scale than what is allowed today. These moves would have created an economic vested interest for the Palestinians.

The reason you see so much violence is because Palestinians are totally frustrated that the peace process has provided no benefits to them while at the same time the political track is so slow. There is really no good solution left. There is already a de facto Palestinian state. One option is to simply make it a de jure Palestinian state without a standing army and without Jerusalem. In other words, Israel can simply declare that a Palestinian state now exists without any army. Arafat will be forced to take up the responsibility without Jerusalem.

Excuse me for getting confused, SameerJB.

Earlier in the same book Payne writes that ``Two days after the massacre at the Jallianwalla Bagh he [Dyer] proclaimed martial law. A strict censorship was imposed; it was so strict that many weeks passed before the news reached the rest of India.``

Your theory that the administration would want at least the political leaders to know what happened is viable; but Dyer and O`Dwyer thought that they were facing the equivalent of 1857 and would want to keep it from spreading.

-arun gupta

Re: SameerJB # 81

Thanks!

As to the Bush administation`s policies on South Asia and Middle East, it hard to predict them at this stage, because in the pre-election days, the candidates usually generalize their responses. They do this in order not be pegged by the media in spelling out their real intentions and with GW Bush being no exception to the rule, his policies will be determined by the foreign policy team he picks; its interactions with State Department diplomats and the scores of think-tanks, which dot the American landscape.

There are five foreign policy clusters in the United States, which to varying degrees influence the creation and, to a greater extent, the implementation of foreign policy objectives. They are: the White House; the State Department; the media; CIA/Pentagon and the think-tanks. Each of them have their own internal dynamics and it is the compromise of their internal dynamics and the issue perceptions of all four, which articulates a foreign policy decision in the United States.

In the case of South Asia, at the present time the White House and the State Department are pro-India, because the State had always favored diplomatic with India, but due to the rationales of the Cold War, its interests were superceded by the CIA/Pentagon`s strategic complusions.

The American media has a strong dislike of the military regime in Pakistan, because in a strange sense it sees itself as the guardian of the Wilsonian ideals of foreign policy; democracy and consequently, sees the present situation in Pakistan as a threat to its own set of ideals, which it wants to pursue globally.

The CIA/Pentagon relationship is divided, because though the Pentagon favors Pakistan, CIA wants closer ties with India due to its own insitutional threat perceptions, which sees terrorism replacing the Soviet era cold war threats to the American security interests.

The role of the think-tanks/research insitutes in all of this is a bit unclear. This is because each research insitute is, to a degree, closely identified with one of the major clusters and since their executives were the former officials in one of the clusters, they tend to mirror their parent insitutes internal logic/perceptions.

Bush will have to navigate all these clusters and pick a team, which will be a consensus team satisfying the interests of the major clusters. In this regard, James Baker is a good candidate, but if you remember, his name was closely associated in the ``arms for Iran`` scandal, and hence, his candidacy would create more friction than harmonize a consensus. Bush needs his ``honeymoon`` and he will not wish to start off the wrong foot when, and if, he enters the White House.

As to the Middle East, his policies will be determined by what the liberal Jewish community thinks and since the Jewish vote is critical in states with huge electoral votes, the pre-campaign rhetoric will favor Israel. Afterwards, there maybe a distancing of the new administration from Israel, but that would depend on what compromises Bush manages to get out of the American Jewish community, because it is their money, which is supporting Israel`s economy. It was the American liberal Jewish pressure on Israel, which convinced Tel Aviv to proced with the Oslo Accords and it wa their pressure, with (George) Bush`s strong stand, which forced the Israelis to the diplomatic table.

If the American Jews and the new administration see a commonality of ideas, there will a new peace offer in Middle East, but if they see Arafat as being problem, they will support the government in Israel and that would mean hardening of positions in the Middle East and more strife.

The way the media handles the situation will determine how this issue will revolve.

This is just a basic hypothesis and I could be wrong!

Ciao!

Actually I have time and again asked people not to look at movies.

All the objectives that I had in mind when I posted that reply, have been achieved.

:)

Yasser Hamdani

FerozK (#58): Your posts have been very informative, very balanced and represent your skills in the area of international relations. Would you please comment on the policies expected from a Bush administration, now that it seems almost certain to me that he will be the winner in the presidential election? What should we expect, in terms of middle east and Indo-Pak arena? Do you think, if he will bring James Baker (former Secy. of State) back in some capacity?

Ahmad B: Thanks for the clarification about Jullianwala Bagh. I did not expect Arun Gupta to write, ``Gandhi not knowing it till June``. I suppose the purpose of gen. Dyer`s action was to spread fear among any future independent seeking movement through force. It would not have been in the interest of administration to black-out the event to a such an extent that even the top leadership of the major political party would not know it. There were many grass-root organization working in and around that area with direct or indirect connection to the Congress party and they knew the extent of carnage quite well.

fairdinkhum,

I hope I spelt your name right ...

No hard feelings... thanks for the compliments :)

Yasser

Re : Israel-Palestine -- many commentators here in the US newspapers say that PM Barak offered unprecedented concessions to Arafat, including sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem in the recent failed peace talks, and that Arafat did not respond in any meaningful way.

These commentators interpret this as that Barak`s yielding on long-held Israeli stances was taken as weakness, and that the more Arafat is appeased, the more he will demand; and that is the root of the current violence.

Supposedly the Palestinians still call for the total destruction of Israel, deny the Holocaust in their textbooks and so on -- they have not done anything to prepare themselves for peace.

What do analytic chowkers think about this ? Given that no one is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, what is the basis of a durable peace in Israel and Palestine ? Who should give up what ?

-arun gupta

Dear fairdinkum :

I do not think that the people at Jallianwala Bagh were given a choice in the matter; I hope they died with dignity. We know that Dyer ordered the wounded not be attended to and they be left where they had fallen.

At least in the current Israeli-Palestinian madness, we see ambulances.

-arun gupta

Dear Bilal Ahmed :

You are absolutely correct; Gandhi did not know of the full extent of the massacre by June, but heard of the incident earlier. I apologize for the error.

Dear YLH :

Very few movies are historically accurate. Whether it be ``Cleopatra`` or ``Amadeus`` or ``Elizabeth`` or ``Gandhi``, the producers take liberty with history in order to tell a story. It is no different from William Shakespeare`s historical plays. It is a form of historical fiction, i.e., a story set around real events and real people, but not meant to be accurate. Even if the work strives to be accurate, a work for the screen or the stage cannot really portray all the complexity of real life; it is of necessity a simplification.

The best you can hope for is that such works capture the spirit of the times they portray.

If you learn your history from movies or other such works then you are bound to be mislead and disappointed. If you understand these works to be no more than they claim to be, and as a way of awakening your interest in history, then you will get good value out of them.

-arun gupta

ps i apologize if i offended you...it was inadvertant...

Re: YLH

``fARINDA whatever your name is``

:) LOL ... Just realized that your post was addressed to me... so,you don`t like my name? accha yar! :)

Yasser, I was commenting on arun`s post...didn`t realize he was referring to your posts.. Had I known, I would have told him off. Your argument is sound and brilliantly reasoned...apart from a few posts that you probably wrote in an emotional state of mind, I find your posts interesting and informative....especially the ones related to Pak history / Jinnah....even your emotions are ok, they represent the genuineness of your personality....but I don`t like it when you get relellious and start writing disrespectful posts.....overall, I like you and I enjoy your company in cyber space...

take care...

FerozK

Thanks for the insight.

Is war in Middle East imminent?

Israeli PM Ehud Barak is to form an emergency government, which will include the right wing Likud party whose leader, Ariel Sharon, has been blamed for triggering the recent wave of violent demonstrations when he visited the second holiest shrine of Muslims in Jerusalem. Yesterday, Israeli forces attacked several “security” targets inside Palestinian administered territories. The attacks were to punish the Palestinian “authorities” for the murders of two Israeli soldiers who were killed by an angry mob inside a police station (under Palestinian control) in Ramla. Israelis allege that Palestinian police “probably” collaborated with the mob, and hence the missile attacks on several key targets including the headquarters of Palestinian authority, the seat of Mr. Yasser Arafat. Several targets in West bank and Gaza strip were also hit. Palestinians could only throw stones or fire from Ak-47 assault rifles, but they are not match to the sophisticated weaponry used by Israel. Mr. Arafat called these attacks by Israel an act of war.
Israelis say that Palestinians have been attacking them (Israelis) for the past two weeks. As one Israeli Major puts it, “we are under terrorist attacks from Palestinians, the only language these people (Palestinians) understand is the language of force.”

Bill Clinton condemned the killings of two Israeli solders, but did not mention Israeli revenge attacks. George W Bush, and Algore both asked Palestinians to stop the violence against Israel immediately.

A small boat packed with explosives rammed a US naval destroyer in Yemen killing at least four US personnel on board. Clinton said that it was a cowardly act designed to deter US from promoting “peace” and “stability” in Middle East.

Oil prices hit an all time high as a result of deteriorating situation in Middle East.

Jordan and Egypt (two key US allies in the region) refused to cooperate with US until a joint Arab strategy for the current Middle East crisis is arrived at.

Are we heading for another war in the Middle East?

Will US get involved (directly or Indirectly)?

Was the whole crisis carefully planned by Israeli right wing?

Or was it Mr. Arafat who out of sheer frustration decided to mobilize Palestinians to get what he wants – an independent Palestinian state?

What repercussions a war in Middle East, involving all Arab/Muslim nations, and possibly US is likely to have on the new world order?

fARINDA whatever your name is

Did you read my post... instead of alluding to how stupid I am ... will you assess whether or not I held Gandhi responsible for Jallianwallah ...

The truth is that I made it clear that I in my personal opinion dont hold Gandhi responsible. I said that it can be argued like this ... as it has been in the very Movie that was made to portray Gandhi as God ...

Now before you jump to conclusions .. try reading my post first!!!!!!

Making strawman fallacies and then destroying them does not help anyone!

In response to mcgupta (Reply # 66)

Dear Arun:

With reference to Robert Payne, you wrote: ``The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was on April 13, 1919. Because of British censorship, the news leaked to the country only much later; e.g., Gandhi learned about it only in June.”

In his “The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi,” Payne (1969) wrote: “So tight was the censorship imposed on Amritsar that even Gandhi did not know the “full extent” of the massacre until June” (emphasis added). I

I am sure that you have unintendedly misrepresented Payne`s statement.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I agree with Fairdinkum’s post (Reply # 67), and I have no doubt in my mind that General Dyer was a Moron par excellence.

Macgupta

So you admit that the Movie Gandhi is full of C-R-A-P and Historically inaccurate?

Yasser Hamdani

Re: Krashid

No; there is no casual link between the Turkish flight and the price of oil. The Turks flew into Baghdad to give a hint to the Americans not to pass a legislation labelling the killing of the the Armenians (sp?) by the Turks in World War I as an act of genocide!

The Americans are lifting their sanctions against Iraq, because they are sensing that they might be isolated if the French and the Russians manage to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iraq and since France is the president of the European Union at the present time, EU`s diplomatic rapproachement with Iraq would be a serious blow to the American post Gulf War Iraq containment policy.

Remember, France has always followed an independent foreign policy from the Americans. I think, in a strategic sense, you will see a detente between France and Russia against American interests in Europe. Despite what the American foreign policy might hope for, it cannot alter the reality of European histro-chronology, which suggests that Europe has always been dominated by balance of power arrangements. In this sense, European power will be diffused and it will graviate to those nations, who carve an independent niche for themselves exclusive of American interests in Europe.

In this sense, Turkey assumes a critical importance, because it politically straddles Europe and the Middle East and the way Turkey tilts will determine how the next, post Cold War, European balance of power arrangement will be shaped and what will the the political interests, or the fulcrum, upon which it will rest.

Therefore, the dice are rolling and American interests need to be redefined and it is because of this, that the American sanctions regime against Iraq in in a state of flux; that is, it is being reconsidered!

Hope this helps!

Ciao!

arun #66

I have read several accounts of Jallianwala Bagh. However, I have never read an account, not even from historians sympathetic to British, who blame Gandhi, or the people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh for the massacre. Even if people held their ground (and I like to believe that they did and defied the oppressors with their valor), it was their right to do so in their own country. Irrespective of what Gandhi said or did or stood for, innocent men, women, children, and elderly who laid down their lives at Jallianwala Bagh are a constant source of inspiration for the people of subcontinent. I find it distasteful and disturbing to hear nonsense about such events. If people can’t appreciate what Jallianwala Bagh stands for, they should at least refrain from making foolish comments.

[If you are not interested in Jallianwala Bagh, please skip.]

It is being written that some students of history might argue that :

``The people at Jallianwallah massacre stood their ground and did not cooperate because they were the part of the non cooperation Movement.``

Going primarily by historian Robert Payne`s account of events and several accounts available on the Web :

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was on April 13, 1919. Because of British censorship, the news leaked to the country only much later; e.g., Gandhi learned about it only in June. The British began investigating the incident only in August, and in October 1919 started a formal inquiry. So, many details have been lost.

1. Accounts differ in details of why people had assembled at the Bagh. It was at least in part because it was Baisakhi day, and many of the people are believed to have been villagers visiting Amritsar. The British had issued an order on April 12 banning assemblies, but it was not publicized, and few people knew about it.

2. The crowd was given no warning before Dyer ordered his soldiers to open fire. Indeed, according to Payne, Dyer repeatedly told the British Commission of Inquiry that he had intended to fire on the crowd long before he arrived on the scene.

3. Even if the crowd had been asked to disperse, it could not have. Jallianwala Bagh was an open space in the middle of constructed area with only a few narrow lanes leading into it. Dyer had come with two armored cars, the entrances were too narrow for the cars to enter the Bagh and were left outside. Moreover, Dyer and his soldiers occupied the main entrance -- so where was the crowd to go ? When the firing started there was no place for people to go. Some tried to scale the surrounding walls but were picked off by the sharp shooting soldiers.

So, to put it politely, the assertion that the massacred people had stood their ground because they were part of the non-cooperation movement is a bunch of baloney. No student of history would suggest such C-R-A-P.

-arun gupta

Dear YLH,

I apologise for this appendage to my previous reply. After re-reading your initial posts, I just want to re-emphasise and correct you on something. The gathering at Jallianwallabagh was because of Vasakhi, the Sikh holy day. It was not a political meeting or part of any non-cooperation movement. Dyer subsequently said he had wanted to ``teach the Indians a lesson``. If it hadnt been there he would have done it at another gathering in Punjab.....my own suspicion is that he planned it knowing that at Vasakhi people would congregate there.

I accept though that the major thrust of your initial post was mis-interpreted. I just wanted to correct you on that point.

regards,

Harpreet

YLH#,

re: Jallianwallahbagh:

The Sikhs were at the Golden Temple at the time of Vasakhi. Jallianwallabagh is an enclosed space, the only entrance/exit was blocked off by the Gunmen. They did not ``stand their ground``, they had nowhere to go. If you visit the memorial you can still see the scratch marks on the walls where women,children and men had desperately tried to scramble out before having a bullet put through them.

It is a very emotional and thought-provoking place to visit, right next to the Golden Temple Harimandir Sahib, the first stone of which was laid by a Muslim.....I think you are a good person who is easily provoked and i dont think it is your natural inclination to think of people as ``scum``, and I would urge you to go to Amritsar one day to see it for yourself.

regards,

Harpreet

Ayelash

I personally think people like Ossama Bin Laden should be put on a leash.

But then hate mongers like you shouldnt be treated any differently either!

Yasser

Macgupta

Had you read my post you would know all the answers. I dont think any of my reasoning ogf the type you have described. The people at Jallianwallah massacre stood their ground and didnot cooperate because they were the part of the non cooperation Movement. Now seriously if you ask MY OPINION... MY OPINION IS THE FOLLOWING...

``The only person to blame in a murder/massacre is the one who commits it or orders it``

So personally I dont think Gandhi is responsible...

When I talked about the blame being on Gandhi I was actually using a very Indian logic... go figure...

Pakistan Zindabad!

aylesh #60,

Whether you like it or not, most of the present day ``Ariel Morons`` are NOT Muslims (with the exception of Saddam Hussein). I know it`s a hard fact to digest but the picture`s pretty clear.

By the way, could you tell me where ``thousands`` of people have been killed by Muslim terrorists?

Don`t say Kashmir, because that`s a war with casualties on both sides.

Thousands of Muslims were killed in Bosnia by the Serbs (remember Milosovic?), hundreds (if not thousands) by the Israeli army.

what do u say about Osama Bin laden......isnt he not an ariel moron per your defination. As long as the person is Islamic, it doesnt matter to you whether he is a terrorist or not.

You just have to see that a twelve year old muslim guy died in Palestine. What about thousands of innocent people killed by islamic terrorists everywhere in the world.

Bloody hypocrate

In reply to ylh --

If you want to believe that Gandhi had a craving for popularity and control, was self-centered and selfish, had an obsession with holiness, history and religion, thrived on other people`s misery, was blood-thirsty, had no heart or brain, did not think of the repercussions of his actions, got innocent people killed for selfish reasons -- each is a matter of analyzing a personality and coming up with motivations. As you pointed out,

``This opens an another argument... how can we so confidently make judgements about someone`s personality.``

So, at least at this level of discourse, these are purely matters of opinion. Frankly, your opinion doesn`t bother me.

However, cause and effect is very much a matter of fact. ``Jallianwallah massacre can be argued to be one such incident`` where Gandhi caused the deaths of innocents -- is not an issue of opinion, and I chose to contest it. How Gandhi caused Dyer to fire on an unarmed assembly of people is a mystery that you will have to explain. Your explanations so far are of the nature ``Hamid woke up at sunrise morning; therefore Hamid must have caused the sun to rise``.

-arun gupta

ylh #43

How did you get the idea. I also think the same way as you regarding Jinnah. Secular, pragmatic, fighting for interest of Muslims of South Asia (and not for Islam)

sb#47

Sorry quick reading by me.

Feroz#

Thanks for the detailed reply. Another question?

:-). Turkey has also flown its flight to Iraq (I think). Is there some connection with rise in oil price and face saving lifting of sanction by America on Iraq. Or the French, Russian, etc are finding it an opportunity to put their feet in the region. (As I believe that conscience of West wakes up with the rise in Oil price).

RE: Syed Ahmad

Thank you Syed for the clarification. I concur with all your points now.

RE: Urstruly


you misunderstand me, - I donot condone the savagery and the barbarity of the Mukthi Bahini atrocities, - they should be brought to justice
as well- but here are some interesting observations,....

1. The Mukthi Bahini were armed brigands, - supported by an external power, - to compare their conduct to that of a professional army ( that too under the banner of Islam) legitimized by the power of a state, does not hold water.

2. Prior to the clampdown in Dhaka, the inserruction was mainly between the Mukti Bahini and the Pakistani army - they were few collateral casualties, - After Tikka khan`s infamous orders of butchering all political opposition did the whole situation get out of hand, by proptional retalition on unarmed civilians by both parties...

3. The irony of the situation is that after the fall - the army, aware of the animosit