The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan

hobbytv#340:

``Eklavya, Pakistanis, unlike their cousins, do not suffer from an inferiority complex``

......so you are a comedian as well? :)

Man, coming from a dispossessed Moghul Paki with a chip on his shoulder as big as K2, this is really funny....

pray tell hobbytv, what is this inferiority complex we are supposed to suffer from? Of the basket case that is Pakistan? Hey I am not saying that India is perfect, but come on, get real :) Delineate and outline it with references and examples please....I really want to get stuck into you brother :) One of these pompous cliches every Paki seems to have imbibed since birth and put forward when their brains break down...

really looking forward to hearing from you :)

Re Hobbyty #340 and other posts:

`` Eklavya, I read daily, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Tribune and Times of India. It is my impression that the way stories are written, the editorials and opinion colums and letters, to me, suggest a generally anti Islamic sentiment.``

...in India if you write a wilfully defamatory article against any religion with intent to hurt religious sentiments , you can be taken to court....the Indian govt. if anything is too sensitive to this ( a bit too much some of us believe- witness the ban on Rushdie`s book etc, the recent withdrawal of Daler mehndi`s album etc.)....on the other hand if you mean a journalistically defensible reference (which may be unpleasant- like the taleban, islamic militancy and terrorism), then of course it happens- it happens all over the world...and its more obvious in the NYT and Washington Post here...most Indian writers are coy regarding writing about this.....

..i doubt if you read those papers you mentioned well enough....The Hindu especially is such a harsh critic of political Hindutva that even I - a non Hindu- at times feel that its going a bit too far....as almost a corollary its extremely sensitive to muslim sentiment....I`m not sure about The Pioneer (i believe its a pro Hindutva paper- but that wouldnt mean it supports the conversion of India to a theocratic state...see the limits of religious fundamentalism in India?!) but all others you mention are routinely criticized as anti-Hindu by people who want to make India a Hindu Pakistan...there was a time when Indian express was obviously pro-RSS, under arun shourie, but I have been surprised at how balanced in perspective the paper has become over the last several years...``

..coming to religion vs liberal secularism- i think if your starting point is islam, then obviously India is anti- Islam since its a secular country ...I routinely see my evangelical co-religionists (christians) talk and quote ``The Book``- as if its the final word - that all of the current world`s problems have solutions mentioned there (see the senselesss debate between the Creationists and scientists)....thankfully most Xians have moved beyond that and realize that any scripture revealing divinity would be limited by its authors and the age it was written in (even if they dont openly declare it)...you cannot just extrapolate what was written several thousand years ago into the current context....if most muslims could realize this fact, it would improve things a great deal- or have I already committted blasphemy!

``Your post betrays grudging acknowledgement of Islam as one of the major religions of the world``

...this shows the anti-liberal mentality you come from in which religion can only be competitive....though i disagree with much of whats being done in the name of Islam today (slightly more than things you seem to indicate), I also appreciate its iconoclastic origin in a tribal wasteland, its initial reformist and egalitarian zeal ( this too because I grew up in India- sounds surprising?- in America i would just have been indifferent)

Let me end by saying that growing up in completely secular India (unless you wanted to carry out your own devious motives) has taught me a great deal about the beauty of liberalism and indeed Hinduism...it takes some effort to appreciate the philosophy and inclusiveness in hinduism (which is very different from popular images)...a religion which produced Gandhi- a man so completely religious yet totally secular- which is why limtedly `intelligent` people like Jinnah (even Nehru, i must say) could not understand him...and which is why extremist elements among both hindus and muslims rejected him....of course some of the above is quoted by our version of bigots (though much less in number), but they still remain true....

hobbyt #340
`` Do suicide squads have the sanction of Islam? How can we approach an answer to this question? the answer lies really in the internal dialogue, within Islamia, derived from Islamic sources and references. Once an answer is arrived at, it can be supported and seen as legitimate within the ummah.

That is to say, if approached from a non-Islamic view point, the points of reference are not the same.

Liberal secularist disagree on this approach because they seek to deny that a Islamic frame of reference is even legitimate. Afterall if religious sanction has no room in public discourse, how can it claim to have points of reference that are valid in such an environment.``



Its very sad that the example you choose is an example of violence and death. Does the Islamic point of reference need to deal with death also? Are lost lives not lost lives whatever the reason or religion?

Just a question: when the so-called ``Islamic point of view`` is that nonMuslims should pay jizya and the ``liberal secular`` point of view is that all should be equal under sight of law, which frame of reference would you subscribe to?

``Should we stop trying to be Muslim, if that is what individuals want``

Not everything a Muslim says or does is ``Islamic``. Or all Islamic societies would be perfect with no theft, murder, corruption, abuse of power and embezzlement just like in other societies. In public policy issues like splitting a limited pie among regions, water supply, employment, electricity supply, technical education, proper representation, honest administration and accountability, maintenance of law and order, accessibility to fair and just laws, where is the need to impose divisions between Muslim and nonMuslim?

This happens automatically once you say ``Islamic point of reference is relevant in this situation`` because then its always assumed in advance that what the Muslim says or wants is within the so-called ``Islamic point of reference`` and what the nonMuslim says is not, even if it is the width of the public road being discussed or need for more schools.

In a 98% Muslim country, the number those who get `left out` of the Islamic frame of reference may be neglible enough to gloss over, in more diverse societies, such imposed divisions are considered unacceptable, inhuman and against all reason.

Piety and strength of belief are most effective when shown by right actions and choices according to the tenets of your religion, not when used as leverage in public life by simply SAYING or ASSERTING that you are a believing Muslim/Hindu/Christian/Jew.

Re: Hobbyty #328

``I am suggesting that we move towards a dialogue between the parties to the dispute``

In addition to my previous post, I encourage you to read the last paragraph of my post#314 that I am happy to reproduce here for you (which quoted extensively from the RAND report):

``If such a dialogue is successful, a variety of alterations in the current arrangements might occur ex post, but the demand for radical alterations could not become either a precondition or a presumption were New Delhi to be expected to engage in serious discussions with Islamabad on Kashmir. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT PAKISTAN IS WILLING TO ENGAGE IN A SERIOUS DIALOGUE WITH INDIA UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS``

Regards

Re: Hobbyty #28

``I am suggesting that we move towards a dialogue between the parties to the dispute``

I agree -- but is a serious dialog possible between parties when one of them (ie Pakistan`s support of jehadis/infiltrators/mujahideen) believes that violence is a viable option? I invite you to read my post #9 in Irfan Hussain`s new article (Winds of Change) to see how China and India have been dealing with a problem that is just as intractable as Kashmir. Why can India and Pakistan not deal along the same lines? I have, of course, my opinion on the matter why this will not happen, but I would like to hear yours.

Harking back to Lincoln and the American Civil War, the South could have chosen not to violate the US Constitution and launch what turned out to be a military disaster -- Lincoln would have been happy letting the South decide if and when to end slavery. However, once the choice of war was made by the South, Lincoln refused to negotiate on slavery, and he was determined to carry the war to its logical end -- the complete defeat of the South. Even at the time of his 2nd inaugural (when he made the shortest inaugural speeches ever), so unclear was the war`s outcome that he was hesitant to make any `preditictions in this regard`. Yet, he opined that by renouncing constitutional options, the South had also renounced any protection afforded by it. In other words, Lincoln was now determined to wipe slavery off the face of the United States, and save the Union. This was the price, he decided, that the South should now pay -- the war had turned the whole question of slavery on its head. The same is true of Kashmir, by choosing violence, the Pakistanis are making the case of India stronger in the eyes of the rest of the world and strengthening India`s determination to not yield an inch -- and given the situation in Afghanistan (and to a limited extent in Pakistan), India is being given a long leash by the international community (the Chinese included -- the Chinese have their own fears regarding the precedent that might be set by violent revolutions in their neighborhood. That is why they were so opposed to NATO in Kosovo).

Jinnah, too, realized the value of working within the system -- and that is why he is still respected. It is a delusion to think that violence in Kashmir is weakening India`s resolve -- far from it. The broad reach of the media is educating a billion Indians on what is going on, and you can expect that this determination will only strenghten in time to come. India has not suffered any defeat like Bull Run, Antietam, and is considerably well placed than the Union was in the American Civil War. Indeed, it may convince India that the way to end this may be to seek the destruction of Pakistan (perish the thought -- I do not want to see any nation destroyed). Now, if relations between the two were cordial, it would not be in India`s interest to weaken Pakistan (e.g. would India have gone to war over Bangladesh if India-Pak were on friendly terms?). That may be a high price for both India and Pakistan, but one that India may start giving serious thought to, given the fractious divides that lurk below the surface in any traditional, ethnically diverse 3rd world society.Regards.

Re Eklavya 333

Hey! - why so angry? why so ready to take offense when none was offered.

You have me at an advantage because I don`t understand your post - it is possible you have misunderstood or that I need to clarify:

1. Special dispensation for Islam and islamist?

I have requested no such ``special dispensation``, where are you getting this from?

2. Liberal secularist.

I am no one to say who is or who is not a Muslim. If Liberal secularism means the denial to religions a role in the affairs of organized society, then I do believe it will be difficult to reconcile Liberal secularism with Islam. You will note that the Queen of England is Head of state and Head of the church - defender of the faithful.

I feel after reading your post that you really have no respect as such for Islam or religions in general. It is your right to hold such an opinion, I request that you exhibit ``liberal secularist`` values and allow those who do or wish to explore the subject, a similar courtesey.

3.A generally anti-Islamic sentiment in intellectual circles in India.

Eklavya, I read daily, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Tribune and Times of India. It is my impression that the way stories are written, the editorials and opinion colums and letters, to me, suggest a generally anti Islamic sentiment.

4.Pakistan is not the universe of Islam - Saudi and Turks snicker.

You are right that Pakistan is not the universe of Islam and so much of what goes on in Pakistan and in other places, by no stretch of the imagination, be called islamic or representative of Islam. If your point is that your backsides smell as well, so to speak, most assuredly. Does this mean we should cease the endeavour? Should we stop trying to be Muslim, if that is what individuals want?

5.Identity?

Your post betrays grudging acknowledgement of Islam as one of the major religions of the world.

You say Pakistani ``should`` have no need to paper over their identity with Islam. And which identity would that unpapered over identity be?

``Why can`t you Pakistanis be like us``. Like I said, somewhere in the back of the mind...indians just don`t seem to get it.

Eklavya, Pakistanis, unlike their cousins, do not suffer from an inferiority complex. Islam is a unversalist religion, open to all, all equal. Saudi or Turk or Iranian scholars as just as good as Pakistani scholars. And if they do snicker, well and good. Who would we be if the snickering effected us. Two things no one can stop: people from talking and people from thinking.

6.Intellectual positions that claim to be Islamic can be countered...

You really misundertood this one I think - an example.

Do suicide squads have the sanction of Islam? How can we approach an answer to this question? the answer lies really in the internal dialogue, within Islamia, derived from Islamic sources and references. Once an answer is arrived at, it can be supported and seen as legitimate within the ummah.

That is to say, if approached from a non-Islamic view point, the points of reference are not the same.

Liberal secularist disagree on this approach because they seek to deny that a Islamic frame of reference is even legitimate. Afterall if religious sanction has no room in public discourse, how can it claim to have points of reference that are valid in such an environment.

The thrust of my earlier post was that we need to realize that it is later than we think and that a concensus for a tri-partite Process of dialogue for the creation of an intellectual and emotional space, within which we can deposit hope and change the public discourse to the positive, should begin now, with us.

harimou,

Since I on my ``serious mode`` this morning, let me set the record straight with you. Mind you, I`m not asking you to agree with me or expecting you to change your opinion of me. Doesnt matter to me what you think of me.

1) I dont care if my daughter brings home a white, black, brown ,green or red prospective son in law. I dont care what religion he belongs to; or whether he belongs to any religion at all.I care that he`s a decent, law abiding human being who will love her & treat her well.

Ahem..er, it WOULD help if he`s as good looking & intelligent & as modest as me.

2)When I use the term ``chut``--vulgar as it may sound; I use it the way Bombayites use it. No different than ``moron`` or ``idiot``; albeit with a raunchy flavor. Or would you prefer ``dickhead`` or ``s *it-for-brains``? Obviously, the meaning is metaphorical, not literal.

WHAT a person says is more important than HOW a person says it. I`ve come across a few civil people on Chowk who spew a lot more crap (very civilly & politely) than others who speak in a vulgar way.

3)The conclusion that I`m boasting about my money or my Jag is YOURS, not MINE. If I wanted to make a lot of money I would have chosen some other speciality like cardiology or surgery.

I chose psychiatry because I feel its more important to address the QUALITY of a human being`s life than the QUANTITY. Medicine, esp in the US, has become very proficient in keeping human beings alive endlessly & prolonging suffering needlessly. I`ve seen too many old people kept alive & suffering, with needles stuck into them like animals. Thats not the kind of life I want for myself or my loved ones. Mind you, I`m not a supporter of Kevorkian--thats a different debate.

4)Right, wrong or indifferent,to me you represent a bigotted RSS fundo thug--the kind that will ultimately destroy India. If I vent my anger at you, its that aspect of you I loathe. Now, if I`m wrong about you, I`ll be the first one to apologise.

Farangi_Kush,

This psychiatrist couple youre refering to dont seem to have both oars in the water. I`m not surprised that they landed up in an ``asylum``. Besides, I have to take your story with a grain of salt. Hardly anybody lands up in an ``asylum`` these days. State hospitals are closing down. Only hardcore chronic schizophrenics that are too dangerous to live in the community live there. An average stay in an inpatient mental health hospital is about a week these days.

I sense your opinion of mental illness is quite prejudiced; but then society in general is prejudiced about a lot of things. Prejudice is a human vice--like envy, bigotry, lust etc. Prejudice is nothing but a wrong, distorted opinion held by people & comes out of ignorance, or lack of knowlege. Like ``men are superior to women`` or ``all blacks are lazy criminals`` or ``all brahmins take a bath with an ``achoot`s`` shadow falls upon them. The only ``pill`` for prejudice is knowledge. Having said that, can I say that I am free of prejudice?! Absolutely not! I`m ignorant about a lot of things. So like all people who display prejudice, I fill in the blanks of my ignorance with sweeping generalisations that are inherently wrong.

Just to give you an example; in my last post to you, I called eastern cultures ``gutter cultures``. Obviously I`m prejudiced:) It comes from my lack of knowlege of many of the great contributions that eastern cultures have made to mankind.

Similarly, mental illness is not the same as ``crazy``. Crazy (or psychotic) is only one type of mental illness. 99% of my patients are not ``crazy``--they are ``normal`` human beings who have psychological problems that impede their functioning in daily life.

shankar #310:

``Take a clay pot, put 10 stones in it & shake it vigorously. Thats what your beloved Malayalee sounds like to us non-keralites.``

I`m glad you are no longer Indian. India is better off without bigots like you.

shankar #308:

A neat diversion - you didn`t really respond to RSaxena. Well, you are beginning to unravel, aren`t you?

shankar #310:

``Take a clay pot, put 10 stones in it & shake it vigorously. Thats what your beloved Malayalee sounds like to us non-keralites.``

I`m glad you are no longer Indian. India is better off without bigots like you.

Assad_K #302:

Whats the matter? Cant take the truth? Recognise abit of yourself in that description? I reckon it fits you perfectly. Ouch! I didnt know that you were Farangi_Kush`s chaamcha that you had to defend him, so add ``sad`` to that description.....as for smells, well you started it, child, and I can say, it stinks just typing your name.

:)

Hypocrite Farangi_Kush!

I am still waiting for the poetry by Iqbal about your sucking the golden tit of the West while having wet dreams of the coming :) Islamic hegemony..... please give it to me,I am dying to read it

................................................

wassalaam :)

hobbyty # 328

I don`t understand how you can ask for a special dispensation for Islam and Islamists. If one were to do so for Islamists, why not the same for Shiva Sainiks and RSS? From an Indian point of view, what you are saying makes no sense.

Liberal secularists (whether they are born as Hindus, Muslims, or any other) are not against Islam, or any other particular religion. They are against the officially recognized domination of ANY religion over public life. Devout Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs can all be liberal secularists (Why do I have a feeling you would argue that a Muslim can not be a liberal secularist?).

To suggest that the Indian is anti Islamic is patently absurd and betrays your own prejudices. Even if one allows for the historical baggage that Hindus and Muslims continue to carry in India, there is no reason for Christian, Buddhist, and other Indians to be anti-Islam. Besides, Pakistan is not the totality of Islam. Many Pakistanis feel that Pakistan is not even a good exemplar of Islam. Finally, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, and perhaps fewer of them die unnatural deaths every day.

So quit hiding behind ``these-Indians-are enemies-of-Islam`` nonsense. No doubt Islam is a great religion but Pakistan is a big strong nuclear armed nation. Fifty years after you were supposed to be ``free to go to your mosques and your temples,`` there should be no need to paper over your identity with Islam (howsoever great a religion it may be) or anything else. It is both arrogant and Childish. Imagine how the Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, and the Iranians must snicker everytime you claim to represent the universe of Islam.

As to the following:

``Intellectual positions that claim to be Islamic can only be countered by positing countering positions which are seen as legitimately Islamic.``

That is, only Islamists can argue with Islamists (or using Islamist logic). Hobbyty, this must be some new form of logic. Does it help you see the absurdity of your argument if I put it as follows:

``Intellectual positions that claim to be Hindu can only be countered by positing countering positions which are seen as legitimately Hindu.``

Don`t spoil the good name of Islam to serve your narrow nationalist purposes. Please realize that the Kashmir issue, like all other issues between India and Pakistan, is far more amenable to solution if we all approach it in non-religious terms than in religious terms. As religious automatons we are unlikely to agree on much. As human beings, we may just be able to.

Shankar:

This very well-known Indian couple I met few years ago,both of them psychiatrists recognised & envied by their peers,confided in me thus:

The wife asked me if I ever happened to have a chance to go to or hear of a convention of the North American Psychiatrists.No,I said.

``Oh you wont believe what a riot such an occasion really is`` she said.

``Almost everyone dresses up in his/her wierdest and acts out most abnormally so as to shatter the generally perceived notion of being normal`` she added ``and sometimes so convincingly that one would think that that is the way he/she is``

``For example one guy would say sorry even to a doorknob he accidentally brushes by`` and then she said:

``I said to my husband that it seems that we are the most normal here;hai naa jaanooo?``

He chuckled.

I was speechless!

.

Recently I learned that both of them are in an asylum.They were desperately looking for any psychiatrist whom they did not know,but almost everyone knew them.It seems that they eventually found one who could treat them professionally.

I think after dentistry this got to be the most lonely profession(we can include the undertakers profession in this too).One spends a life-time peering into a yawning foul-smelling cavity and the the other listening to sorry-sordid tales.

You deserve to treat yourself to even better stuff than a Jag.

wassalaam

Eklavya + Sadhana

It`s been hard enough dealing with Sadhana`s sophistication. Now there`s two of you.. I`m sunk!

If India were to turn around tomorrow and say let`s have a plebiscite and divvy up J&K tehsil by tehsil and the area is ``reorganized``, I can see the conflict continuing precisely for the reasons you two mention.

OTOH, if International community were to be involved and the situation is arbitrated, that has to be the final solution. I think militancy will lose its value. Pakistan cannot continue to make mischief or risk International wrath. India, by forcing a solution, will have attained legitimacy for its position. We know Kashmir is special - it is protected like no other state; there is Bihar whose mineral wealth we exploit giving very little in return to the state - except for a PSU factory here & there, and then there`s Assam. Kashmir offers little to the Union, is heavily subsidized and now sucking up a huge amount of defence expenditure. The irony is, thru Article 370, it is not really part of the Union. We have in many ways acknowledged that Kashmir is different and let`s also look for a solution that`s different.

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement as to whether a solution (of any sort) is even desirable. Let`s agree to disagree.

Eklavya,

{{BTW, you guys are duelling over some very important issues. So I hope nobody will give up! Just a teeny-tiny bit of civility will go a long way...}}

Yeah yeah yeah. Civility is for the birds. I`m past civility now. Chowk has been hijacked by bigots who have driven civil posters away . This isnt a forum where people discus problems with civility. These bigots have made it a paan ka dukaan where people meet to spit at each other.

The straw that broke the camel`s back was when the most decent,civil person on Chowk, Bilalji, left in disgust. Besides, all day I come across people who dont think rationally (& many who dont behave civilly). I have to be kind, compassionate, professional, mature & diplomatic with them. So, might as well let out some steam on Chowk. What the heck, its still good entertainment.

People like Tahmed, dostmitter etc fight them with civility & maturity. Dont seem to have made any difference to those bigots. Sometimes I can sense Tahmed banging his head on a brick wall in frustration:) OK Tahmedji, you fight your battles your way & I`ll fight them my way.

My way is go down to their level. Speak in the same uncivil, insulting & vulgar language that they understand. I`m not here to participate in a popularity contest. Not that I`m expecting them to change. But its nice to give them a taste of their own medicine.