Hands Across The Border

Pardesi #188

Does Indian secularism and democracy produce only GOI spokesman.

Thank God we are not living in a so called democracy and secularism.

My ear hurt of listening to monologue by Indian Democrats and Secularist.

Indians don`t have a brain of their own or they have none.

Naqshbandi says, thinking that everybody else is fool, in order to understand an Islamic State we have to revert to the ``ottoman state before 1750s``.I wonder if he is aware that the Sultan-Caliphs of Islam were

1) Also the heads of Orthodox Church (a good thing)

2) Promiscous and lasvicious orgy lovers

3) Openly Bisexual

We are well aware that the Sultan Muhammad Fateh, (Mehmet the conqueror) also proclaimed himself the Caesar of Byzantine, converted for a short period of time to Catholicism, and then Shiism, finally reverting to Hanafite theology. He was openly bisexual, indulging the most fabulous orgies in the near east, and the orient. Similarly I am sure Naqshbandi is also aware of the ``Islamic`` life and times of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the law giver...

But most importantly, he misses out a very important part of the Ottoman History, and a positive part at that. The Ottoman Empire, didnot have a religion. It had different ``Millets`` practising different religions, and the rulers of this Monarchial Confederation of ``Millets`` were by faith Muslims. However all Millets were autonomous in their judicial and family lives, living according to their own codes. The Sultanate was completely ``secular`` in its dealing with the subjects whereas the ``Caliphate`` was a fraud to acquire alleigance and alliance of all Sunni Muslim Empires, and Kingdoms all over the world.

In any event, Shadow of God on earth, the Sultan`s title ``Caliph`` was not any more important than his other title ``Head of the Orthodox christian church``... it was after 1750 during the Colonial era that the title of Caliph became the rallying point for Muslims.... which thankfully was done away with the great Gazi of Turkey and the Islamic World, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk!

Pakistan Zindabad

Shammi

I can assure you that if I felt in the least possible way that SAARC would be anything like the EU, then I would agree...We, as Pakistanis have no reason not to, after all Jinnah agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan right? However, my dear shammi, the analogy is not Turkey and the EU, but Turkey coming into a confederation with countries of the former Ottoman Empire...

My dear Sir, you forget that India alone is many times the size of EU in terms of population.

Let us not aim for anything which is not going to be beneficial. Cut in military spending and people to people contact can be achieved without a SAARC

confederation. On the other hand, a complete out and out political union of our countries is going to more detrimental than beneficial for Pakistan atleast. Despite the phenomenal progress and advancement, India has not been able to feed its poor... because from the developmental economist`s perspective India is a nightmare. What you are asking in essence of Pakistan is to share the burden of the Indian Population. I am afraid that argument doesnt sell very well.

If peace is the only objective instead of reversing the creation of Pakistan, then it can definitely be achieved by other means. Surely if the phenomenal statesmanship you talk about can bring about a Confederation of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc, then why cant the same statesmanship achieve a simple goal of Peace in South Asia.

Sir, you pinning your hopes in a hopeless scheme.

I am afraid, over-idealism has clouded your thinking process. We live in a real world, lets have real aspirations.

Re: YLH #182

But the same Ataturk, had he been alive today, would have strongly approved of Turkey`s membership in the EU (where many member countries are former arch enemies of Turkey)!

Interesting article on Pak politics:

Restless Pak army looking for a puppet PM

ISHTIAQ ALI MEHKRI

Karachi, February 24

http://www.thenewspapertoday.com/world/inside.phtml?NEWS_ID=5205

hamidm # 180

You are loosing your well-deserved title as the umpire by being overly critical of horrible hindoos. Balance that with little more criticism of megalomaniac, murderous and moronic Muslim jihadis.

Fully agree with you that all this peace talk between such two different ideologies – no not horrible hindoos vs. muslims, I meant secular democratic Indian system vs. the soft Pakistani Talibanism – is nonsense. Neighbors share common vision and values before opening borders for business and human interactions to realize their dreams about living in perpetual peace. These two systems have nothing in common except low level stuff like language, family values and love for Basant.

From India’s point of view, if we are doomed by our Takdeer to live next door to a Talibanic society, why give up Kashmir and bring border closer?

Sadhna # 184

I am still around-keep that in mind.

Asif Naqshbandi,

I wonder why you put alayrahmat infront of Aurangzeb`s name? Is it because

a) He blinded his own father and put him in jail.

b) Killed all his siblings?

c) Persecuted Hindus and Sikhs

I do admire Aurangzeb in some matters, but he is not in anyway an ideal ruler, let alone a saint.

We dont need such sheriat... keep it to yourself.

Yasser Hamdani

Re: Hamidm #180

You do have a knack for summarily generalizing the vast panorama of the Subcontinent`s history in a nutshell, don`t you? If only, your thesis could be more tenable. You also omitted to mention in your `well-researched` piece that the few rulers (Ashoka, Akbar, humanity`s greatest secular experiment that is India today) who succeeded in consolidating large empires recognized the diversity of India that you so easily deride, and did not summarily shut out others who were different. Your critique would have been funny, had it not stooped to making baseless derisive comments on customs regarding dress, food, etc.

hamidm #180
Donot take this post personally if it doesnot apply to you.

There is an essential difference between Pakistan and India which is more important than the difference between their respective majority religions.

In India, every citizen inspite of his religion has an EQUAL right to influence the events in his country, his vote looks like every other vote.

In Pakistan, people like Ardeshir Cowasjee, or say Leon Menezes of TFT or say our own PM of chowk(sorry, PM) are considered to have an INFERIOR right to influence their country`s destiny compared to any `raah chalta` `Muslim` meeting the states defination of the title. How can anyone even imagine this distinction to be just? SHAME ON YOU!

And allowing your co-religionists to put the spin that such a distinction is `Islamic` and `protection of Pakistani ideology` : shame on you all!

And how hypocritical to talk of `self-determination` of others while denying such an essential equality to those at home. The comment of someone made earlier on chowk seems to ring more and more true for the subcontinent,

`When Muslims are in majority, it is deemed necessary (by some of their successful leaders) to protect the purity of their polity by denying equal rights of participation to minorities. However, when Muslims are in minority, a big fuss is created not just about equal rights but more powers than their share are demanded in the nsame of `minority safeguards` through affirmative action.
And to call this distinction between Muslim minorities/majorities and non Muslim minorities/majorities `Islamic`: shame on you all!

And trying to perpetuate this heinous and hypocritical imbalance(which seems widely accepted as a nobrainer in Pakistan) in Kashmiri society the deeprootedness of whose religious/ethnic diversity is considered unique and distinctively Kashmiri, SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.

Those of you who can run to US or UK courts and legislatures demanding (and receiving protection) and those of you who enjoy all the fruits of an equitable society kept equitable by the efforts of its citizens, shame on you for trying to get others 1000s of miles away to live out your empty ideologies YOU donot have the courage to live out yourselves.

Sadhana

Dionysus #176
I think you ARE illiterate or have inadequate cognitive powers. The article you refer to was entitled ``Kashmir ceasefire: Little support on the ground``

Excerpts:
``... The Indian Government has extended its unilateral ceasefire in Indian Kashmir. But some say the violence in the Indian-administered region is worse now than ever.

Since the ceasefire was implemented last November, Indian forces have stopped search raids and offensive operations against militants.

But opposition to the ceasefire is intense.
Hurling rocks
Many on the ground say the killings and human rights abuses have got worse and that has sparked the biggest wave of street violence for many years. For several days now, there has been open violence on the streets of Srinagar with angry groups of youths hurling rocks at security forces.

Police respond with teargas and baton charges. Many of the clashes started as protests against alleged police heavy-handedness and custodial killings.
As 14-year-old Javad Ahmed Nath was buried, a crowd of hundreds gathered at the grave chanting defiantly.

He was shot dead by Indian soldiers just a few hours earlier when they opened fire on protesters. One mourner said the boy`s death was only one of many extra-judicial killings - something the Indian Government strongly denies.

``It`s very tense because nobody knows what`s going on,`` said one mourner. ``They kill, every day they kill dozens of people for reasons best known to the government of India. Anybody can be killed.``

The anger turned to mourning as final prayers were said. Many people here have little faith in the current ceasefire.
They say the Line of Control may be less violent but killings in the valley have not decreased.

Parvez Imroz is a lawyer in Srinagar documenting human rights abuses. He says this unilateral ceasefire has made no difference.

`` It has not made any difference,`` he said. ``People are jokingly saying here sometimes that the ceasefire should be withdrawn so the human rights violations should get minimised here.

``On the ground, militants have not agreed [to take part in the ceasefire.] So on the ground, the violence has escalated.

Streets tense
The security forces have their own problems - they are now on heightened alert.

Militants opposed to the ceasefire have carried out a series of dramatic suicide attacks against them. Groups like the paramilitary police feel more vulnerable than ever...``

I have mentioned ALL the points raised in this news report : unfair killings, militancy, the (possible) disenchantment of ordinary Kashmiris about the ceasefire in my post #148. Do the best you can to understand it and move the discussion forward with counterpoints, you are embarrassing yourself with such a display of mulish refusal to use your head otherwise.

Sadhana

Shammi,

Let me say in the words of great Ataturk...

``Away with dreams and shadows, they have cost us dear in the past``.

-Yasser Hamdani

135 tvarad,

Hi! The difference between islam and communism is that communism proved a disaster and collapsed after less than 50 years when implemented. When the total islamic system [islam is a holistic whole] was implemented it lasted in some form or another-admittedly corrupted towards the end--for 1300 years. On its way it created some of the most enlightened civilisations ever--The Madinan State, The Abbasid Caliphate, Muslim Spain [the pinnacle of civilisation], the early centuries of the Ottomans, and the early periods of Mughal rule esp. Babar, Humayon, the first half of Akbar`s rule, the latter half of jehangir and the whole of hazrat aurangzeb`s reign. All these had the Shar`iah as their basis of governance (though the Mughals not as much as the others except Aurangzeb Alamgir alayhirahmat.)

You see, we just want a return to an islamic political way of living and doing things. Why should that automatically be assumed to be a threat to anyone?

One point I would like to make is that I know people keep on pointing to s.arabia, iran and afghanistan as `models` of what an islamic state would become but all three are false analogies. S. Arabia is a monarchy with only islamic penal system; iran is a republic based on the french model again with the Ja`fari judicial system attached. Afghanistan has been devastated by 20 years of war...

Basically please don`t think that just by adding the words ``Islamic REpublic`` to your country`s name makes it islamic or by having your entire infrastructure and government systems copied from modern european models and then adding the islamic penal system makes it an islamic system. such chimeras only produce disasters. These are not representative of what life under a real shariat system would be like. The truth is no such system exists now and the last one, was a very much corrupted ottoman state which ended in 1924. For a real islamic state we`d prob. have to go back to the ottoman state before about 1750.

In summation, Islam is holistic and should be examined as such not one system in isolation (e.g the penal code).

.....all this talk about indian secularism and therefore its ramgiven right to hang on to kashmir is putrid propaganda and doggy-doo drivel ... india, as implied by its real name, is a nation based on hindooism and the sinister saffron brigades, although masters of deception and eyewash, cannot fool us into believing their foolish procalmations ......... the only thing that a coconut eating dravidian from kerala has in common with the more evolved dal-roti eating punjabi is hindooism ........if it hadn`t been for the empire-building instincts of the marauding muslims from central asia and the colonial ambitions of the fatuous farangis, india would have remained a hodgepodge of inconsequential little principalities with comical half-naked jungle-boy rajas pretending to be maharajas ..........so in order to lend legitimacy to their claims of nationhood and establish the only kingdom of ram on earth, india cannot let go of kashmir

.......... and really, pakistan is no better - the only thing that a srawny dhoti-wearing sindhi has in common with a six-yard shalwar-wearing naswar-spitting pathan is islam and the promise of eternal salvatioin if they can dispatch a few of the horrible hindoos to hell ....... so in order to keep the pathan and the sindhi and allah happy, pakistan cannot let go of kashmir

........... so notwithstanding the sophistry of the sophisted interlocuters like sadna the warrior prncess and shammi the shyster and urstruly the jilted jihad, we should call a spade a spade and get on with the business of solving this silly argument like real men .... and may the best man or dravidian win !

Re: Dionysus

Dionysus, I think that you should read the article that Wisecomments has pointed us to. It is not `anti-Pakistani` propoganda. It is a rather sober assessment analysis of what lies beneath the India-Pakistan conflict. Is it, or is it not, Kashmir? is the question that is asked in the article. The article argues that it is not, and presents fairly compelling evidence for this. As such, it attempts to provide guidance to leaders on both sides on how to attempt to resolve this conflict. You may disagree with the article, but your disagreement will be many times reinforced, if you substantiate it with some evidence, rather than just rejecting it out of hand.

Re: Dionysus #167

Since you dismiss my writings as `Indian propoganda` (after, I might say, you run out of logical, legal arguments), and have also dismissed Sadna`s writings, as `propaganda` by Indian newspapers that cannot be believed, how about if you try some quotes from Pakistani newspapers?

Recently, an attempt was made on the life of APHC chief Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat. Fortunately, the attempt did not succeed. Pakistan immediately jumped on India and pointed the finger at India(http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/24/top3.htm) by releasing the following statement ``...clearly part of Indian machination to weaken the freedom struggle by eliminating its leaders and to spread terror among the people of occupied Kashmir``. You would have hoped that Pakistani spokesmen would have held their horses for a while, because in the same issue that that statement was issued, The Dawn also carried the following story (http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/24/top2.htm) which stated that ``The ``plot`` to kill APHC chief Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat is more of a grey area that needs to be investigated, and certainly not a straightforward open-and-shut case of any Indian attempt to kill Kashmir`s freedom fighter, friends of the Hurriyat leader said privately on Friday. They were responding to remarks by Pakistan`s foreign ministry that said the grenade found latched to Prof Bhat`s car on Thursday pointed to an Indian plot to kill the amiable mystic...``

Now tell me, Dionysus, since the source is The Dawn (Pakistani, not Indian), whose credibility is in question here?

Going further, and not to be outdone, the pro-Pakistani and Islamist(as opposed to pro-Azadi, and secular) Mr. Geelani of the APHC lashes out at the secular Mr. Lone, and issues the following statement close on the heels of the failed assasination attempt: ``A conspiracy is going on in the Hurriyat and it is you who have to distinguish and choose between the so-called secular leaders and those toeing the Islamic line...The time has come when people of Kashmir have to decide whether to support secular politics or politics based on Islamic principles,`` (http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/feb/24jk.htm). The significance of Mr. Geelani`s attack on Mr. Lone, coming so close on the heels of the failed assasination attempt, and The Dawn story that Indian forces cannot be blamed for it, does point a finger of suspicion at Mr. Geelani or his cohorts. Pakistan may or may not have been involved in the assasination attempt, but wasted no time accusing India (only to be rebutted by The Dawn story)!

If you are still not persuaded (although I hope that you are) that I am not an `Indian propogandist`, then I think that you need to take a class called Fundamentals of Deductive Logic and Impassioned Reasoning.