An Eulogy For The Hawks

Re: AAmir #184

``...It means Pakistanis & pak,Gov. is not responsible for independent factions L-e-Tauba ``

Sorry, but your explaination is not convincing. A threat to kill/assassinate (including cricketers) is a cognizable offense in most civilized countries (including India/Pakistan). The ruling authorities have the responsibility to check such threats. A similarity is with a child who threatens neighbors, but the parent says that he is not responsible for the behavior of the child even though both live in the same house. One cannot get very far with such reasons. Unfortunately, India has already cancelled several cricket matches with Pakistan citing `security` reasons. This type of unchecked threat only encourages the hawks within India, and leads to cancellation of matches. If Musharraf receives death threats from someone in India, and India refuses to take any action against those groups, then the blame should correctly fall on India.

Is this an original thought or what! I should be awarded the Nobel.

From Dawn 07/08/2001

Advani suggests confederation

NEW DELHI July 7: In a significant remark in the run up to the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani has suggested the formation of a Confederation of South Asian states, including India and Pakistan.

``I am confident that Vajpayee`s initiative will create a conducive atmosphere in the direction of the formation of a Confederation of India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka and Nepal in the days ahead,`` Advani added.

He said the world was witnessing sweeping changes and arch rivals such as the two German republics have now reunited, reports PTI.

The Sangh Parivar, to which the ruling BJP belongs, had originally propounded the concept of `Akhand Bharat` or united India, which comprises the whole of South Asia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Advani, however, said he disagreed with the Western perception of Kashmir as a dispute between India and Pakistan. ``We do not see Kashmir in the context of Pakistan. For us, it is inseparably linked to India`s unity,`` he said.

Advani said the concept of self-determination espoused by separatist groups would prove detrimental more to the interests of Pakistan as it had diverse ethnic and linguistic groups within its boundaries.-NNI

Re: Reply #: 170

upman7626,

``it is however a fact that there is an element of popular discontent in Indian Kashmir...but that is not something that cannot be addressed within the parameters of the Indian constitution...if all violence in Kashmir were to stop (or contained), you will find the much elusive normalcy return to Kashmir in a couple of months, as so famously happened in Punjab...``.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. I have argued in the past that Kashmir, like the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu in the 60s, has been a political problem and was turned into religious problem by Jehadists. In this, Pakistan has played a significant role. Had Kashmir been a state without a border with Pakistan, the problem would have been solved within the parameters of the constitution by now. I know i am making a lot of assumptions here.

sridhar

#183 anNy

I like your spunk! I certainly can understand your anguish.

Let me set some things right. The murderous thugs who went on a rampage after BM represent a certain malaise, a certain failure of india`s secularism. That needs to be acknowledged and corrected. I have not said anywhere, nor do i believe it to be true that indians are angels and pakistanis are monsters. I`d say perhaps the best human i have ever met was a fellow graduate student and a pakistani (punjabi). There used to be a pakistani ``mulla`` (he called himself that) on the newsgroup soc.culture.pakistan, by the name of Iftikhar uz-Zaman, a gentle soul and a genuine intellectual. All this by way of saying i don`t believe in stereotypes.

However, there was a discussion here about INSTITUTIONAL changes that can move the society in a direction that it doesn`t necessarily want to go but follows it anyway, lacking other options. Specifically, Jay mentioned how the upper castes of kerala were ``emasculated`` by institutional changes brought about by some of the upper castes themselves. Pakistan to me represents the ugly side, the institutionalizing of prejudice. So long as young people like you who love pakistan but wish its ugly side away as a simple failure like any other (look at the caste system, look at the riots in india, etc.) don`t take up the cudgels, your friend Manoj is doomed. He cannot fight the institutions and win.

Even the good germans couldn`t save that many jews. I`d like to hear your views after you have had a good night`s rest.

All the best.

SIGNS OF HOPE ,

But was this land created for ordinary mortals like me or for the leaders. When you quote Mr Jinnah so frequently that he played a role in the creation of Pakistan, does it necessarily imply that the people of Pakistan do not have the right to choose a system of government for themselves, which might be different to what was earlier envisaged. After all wasn`t this country created to let the people decide about their fate? If we have to follow already prescribed scripts, and the intellectual discourse has to be restricted to arguments and counter-arguments for one or other`s vision, then what role do we (the scum of the earth) have in shaping ``our`` destiny?

///

FROM JUNG OF TODAY. It is time to stop quoting that one speach, and continueing with the TNT tradition.

anNy,

Bilal Ahmed had this notion of internal criticism and external ones. He maintained that when an outsider, especially an indian criticised pakistan, they tend to react negetively. Ok, I accept that as `human`, but the fact is that other than some generic lamenting about the bankruptsy, corruption etc in pakistan there is no identifiable criticism of any pak institution or legal aspects.

Take for example the blasphemy laws. There was a post here that blsphemy laws are not applicable to non-muslims. Is it true. Apparently, it has been alleged that one charged with blasphemy looses all his assets and is used to disposes the person. Is it true, and does the accuser get anything.

What is really shameful about the educated pakistanis is that they are so ashamed of their country that they say little about the legal set up. It is always about islam a tolerant religion, end of TNT, etc.

re: anNy # 183

Applause...

You go, girl! :)

Soysauce 180

Is the creation of Pakistan an expression of hate?

Is the TNT also an expression of hate?

If your answers are yes, then perhaps Indians and Hindus should examine their contributions towards the creation of both.

If your answer is yes to either of the questions above, then, why engage Pakistanis to create normal relations - Won`t Pakistanis still be the expression of hate, that they are, by definition?

Is the caste system an integral part of Hinduism?

Is the caste system an expression of hate? Indians coyly claim that caste system is outlawed, imagining that the rest of the world believes that the caste system was a creation of law. Would Pakistani be wrong in concluding that because of human failings, Hindu Indians hold hate, discrimimation, and degradation of fellow persons and coreligionist, in high esteem as an article of religious faith and social compact? Ofcourse they would. Similarly, very many Indians need to reexamine some of their core understandings about Pakistanis and Muslims. The ``some of my best friends are`` Muslims line needs a refreshing dose of honesty. If it were true, why would there be a Pakistan? Why would hostility persist for so long? Is there really such a thing as a one hand clap?

I request that you not take my post as an attempt at ``one up-ing`` you or in any way personal. The point I want to make is that ordinary Pakistanis face the same kinds of personal demons and challenges that ordinary persons anywhere do. Sanctimonious, self righteous, self congratulatory attitudes based on half truths and out right lies, have for too long prevented us from seeing each other as persons, different and similar.

Kafir K Khan, Romair and Rediskan:

[Yes Romair, you are right. If you were an Indian Muslim, you would not be a civil servant, IT professional or Lawyer. An average Muslim in India is illiterate isnpite of equal opportunity for education. ]

There is a fatal errot in this arguement. Pakistani Muslims can not extrapolate their conditions based on the conditions of Muslims in India today. India today is about 11 percent Muslim and most Muslims belong to areas of Muslim minority except one economically obscure state, Kashmir. Pakistani Muslim have to create a theoretical model of India without partition with around 35 percent Muslim population and 6 Muslim majority states, two of them very large and politically important-Bengal and Punjab. I would go even as far in saying that if Muslims voted just one party, say Muslim league (in this supposed entity of all India) in any of the elections during eighties and nineties, ML could have formed the government with collaboration from Jayalalithas, Laloos and few other smaller parties.

This is just one aspect of being 35 percent and 6 majority states than 11 percent and Kashmir in Indian Union. Other social, economical and political aspects can also be theorized utilizing these facts and figures in calculations.

By now Sangh parivar and Hindu Fundamentalists might be argueing for expulsion of some Muslim majority states, if it had already not taken place.

hello soyasauce

bully for you too..you manage to very nicely put it all on me and my people...we intolerant we ignorant we hating everything hindu…tell me then who were the people who came at my baree nani`s house in the babri masjid debacle in the poshest area of bombay upstairs in their 4th floor apartment having seen a name plate bearing the name mohammad…that they bloody tore down the door and took everything and wrote obsceneties of the world in their living room and broke all the crystals upon finding out they`d managed to leave just 10 minutes before the mob got there…ill tell you...they were hindus...they were indians...another relative living in the not so posh areas of ahmedabad however wasn’t so lucky…the family got away but the 30 something year old man was in the house when these people descended…he got hurt…how dare you say things like ``…A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus…`` when you yourself are quite obviously just as deeply seeped in the very same hatred? What will you say? That these people were an `exception` too? That it was a mob mentality? How about you hindus indians whatever take responsibility too…how about you admit that you guys are as intolerant as us stopid pakistanis and muslims too sometimes? How long are you going to milk the blasphemy laws? And we have no pathological fears of anything hindi neither any hatred do you understand…its just when you people act like you were completely flawless without any faults and so very tolerant all the while saying we`re scum that I get mad and I start hating…and you and jay and the rest of you could be from timbuktoo and budhists for all I care…our ideology is NOT intolerant…we can live peacefully with anyone just as long as both parties will respect the others ethics…that ofcourse is not possible with you and other indians hindus like you and jay constantly throwing snide remarks…youre saying people like jay and me could live together? The man would probably try to poison my food at the first opportunity he got if I didn’t blow his head of with a bazooka before he could…its this very side of you and others like you that causes problems...this goddamned holier than thou attitude…okay so we have problems...didn’t you have 10 times more of those just a decade or so ago? theres no `inbuilt institution` about anything dyou gettit? We are okay with anyone and everyone just as long as they respect our beliefs...we will respect their beliefs…and no im not an `exception` because i `go to india and meet hindus`…manoj in my class is probably a bigger hindu than you all on chowk put together...how have all the jamaati`s in my class taken to him...jamatiis you know...big bearded pulled up shalwar monsters that kill at the touch of a hat…not because heez a complete doll…because he although as staunch a hindu as they come, respects every bodys religion be it me as a muslim or binfer as a parsi…its all about respect…respect and consideration… individuals like you wipe out within two seconds the goodwill that people like shankar harpreet eklavya and vereesh build…go jump in a lake somewhere man… don’t believe I lost my temper to a schmuck like you

sorry tahmed sahab…haven`t slept all night…8 in the morning on a Sunday…idiots like this chap just make me so mad...i don’t think ive sworn…im sorry if I have…

This is interesting. The Pakistani govt s-ks and has done so for the last 54 years so India should join a (con)federation??

Let Pakistanis vote in ONE general election without Pakistani Army stooges as choices supported by ISI genius, THEN think of putting up all this high-falutin stuff up for their approval. Learn to crawl before you run.

Very nicely stated.

``Great expectations

Ikram Sehgal

Having seen as a soldier (as was my late father before me) the consequences of bad Indo-Pak relations, I cannot remember greater expectations than for the Musharraf-Vajpayee talks. Given the track record, one would normally approach any such negotiations with skepticism, but even the most diehard cynic has been caught up in the fervour generated by the impending event. There is much expectation in the air, a genuine belief about resolving our differences amicably, the readiness to go the extra mile.

Before going, Gen Pervez Musharraf did a series of briefings-cum-consultations with a broad spectrum of the intelligentsia, comprising media representatives, politicians, religious leaders, Kashmiris and entrepreneurs. He already had a consensus within the military hierarchy. Attending one such session, one expected at best a one-way monologue of self-justification from the newly anointed President. It was a revelation to find Pervez Musharraf interested in genuine dialogue, open to ideas and suggestions, and without ego problems. The result was, discounting the odd eulogy from the traditional flatterers, a comprehensive debate between very interested participants where a plethora of ideas were mooted and analysed without rancour. The President got in return quite a few converts and a broad consensus. Making believers out of such a disparate group is no mean achievement. As a PR exercise, the consultations were outstanding, the resultant welding of the President`s mandate brilliant. Musharraf goes to India that much stronger. The bottom line was simple: everyone came on board about peace with India but not at the cost of Kashmir, the core issue for all Pakistanis.

What is the consensus of the Pakistani people, among both intelligentsia and masses, on the visit? Do Pakistanis have any aspirations for interaction with the Indian people? I repeatedly cautioned the President to lower expectations so that any disappointment may only be a temporary setback and not lead to an emotional backlash driving the two countries further apart, maybe permanently. Yet one must admit being caught up in the fever of expectations. Pakistanis are emotionally involved with the Kashmiris and their freedom struggle. A great majority believe there can be no Indo-Pak peace while Kashmir stays a bleeding ulcer.

Massive funds now spent on defence can be diverted to social infrastructure such as potable water, roads, hygiene and sanitation, health, education, transport and housing. And the 55 million in Pakistan and the 400 million in India below the poverty line need these basics. Make no mistake, Pakistan was a historical necessity for the Muslims of India, and while the name may no longer be East Pakistan, Bangladesh does constitute the other sovereign entity envisaged in the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League. But given this need to preserve the Islamic identity under separate sovereignty, the bond between the people of India and Pakistan transcends religion and ethnicity. Human interaction has been only sporadic for 50 years. Since the advent of Islam in South Asia, the two religions have lived together till 1947, sometimes in confrontation but mostly in harmony. Islam teaches us to respect other religions, and not become prisoners of fear spread by the ignorant for their own narrow motives. Is the same true for Hindus?

Tracing most problems to economic motives, there will be great benefit in opening of trade. More than the European Community or ASEAN, or even any other grouping, South Asia is the most contiguous economic unit on earth. Pakistanis drink tea by the gallon, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh can provide it at less half the cost of Kenyan. Our wheat, rice and cotton are in demand in the rest of South Asia. If South India can be an IT powerhouse, can Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka be far behind? The roads through Pakistan lead to the vast Central Asian and Middle Eastern markets for all South Asia, while cheap gas vital to develop India`s western states, can be piped across Pakistan. There should be no tariff within South Asia. Rather, there should be a plan for a dual currency, a South Asian rupiah to go along with the national currencies. Goods available in abundance, and economies of scale, will bring down prices. From confrontation we will transit to mutual prosperity.

One cannot discount cultural exchanges, intellectual discourses, the proliferation of print and electronic media, but the people-to-people contact of centuries has been lost over the last 50 years. One has the feeling, despite the misgivings created by years of suspicion, that the logjam has been broken. Only the diehards on both sides can achieve peace. Is it a coincidence that in both countries, those without whom no peace is achievable, the Pakistan Army and the BJP, are in power? The talks initiative has been a giant step forward and we in Pakistan have great expectations that something will materialise, that South Asia may begin to be a better place to live in after July 16. Meanwhile, other than those who cannot see beyond narrow parochial interests, the great mass of Pakistanis want peace with India, but not at the cost of Kashmir. A consensus has silently built up behind Pervez Musharraf. Elections notwithstanding, the President has a mandate from the Pakistani people. Over the past weeks, more Pakistanis have begun to believe that Musharraf must be supported to the hilt. For us the die is cast, it is Musharraf, right or wrong. But does Vajpayee have enough freedom to respond to such a mandate? A resonance has built up that Musharraf will not let us down in Delhi, that if India is really serious, we will have peace in our time. (Nation, Pakistan)

#174 anNy

I think what jay is saying is that the ideology that says muslims and hindus cannot coexist peacefully and that muslims need a separate land naturally leads to the situation you currently have in pakistan. Contrary to what some of you would have us believe the ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan`` is not Islamic in name only - that shows in you blasphemy laws, your anti-ahmadi laws, etc.

An intolerant ideology produces an intolerant civilization. Bully for you that you haven`t succumbed to it.

A vast majority of pakistanis who come in contact with indians are surprised that hindus are decent humans like the ones they know back home. The ignorance can only be because pakistanis are steeped in hatred of hindus. With the internet that may be changing. You are peculiar in that you visit india and get to meet hindus. I admit that indians distrust pakistanis and many may even harbor hatred for them. Notice i said pakistanis, not muslims. Everyone of the indians here, i am sure, has grown up with muslims and have muslim friends. For pakistanis, however, india=hindus and hindus are to be hated (Again, there are exceptions). It probably is not a conscious thing. Even your supposedly secular (as some here have asserted) army, singled out hindu intellectuals in b`desh for murder. If you read the Rahman report it is clear that hindus were targetted simply because they were hindus. What possible reason could there be for that except for a pathological hatred/fear of hindus?

Mind you, i am not talking about individuals. Even Yasser Hamdani baits only indians and not hindus (which i find heartening for the sake of the oppressed minorities of pakistan). However, there is an in-built institutional hatred of hindus which comes from TNT and the civilization that heeded it.

BTW, i don`t care for reunification. If anything i think india should get a better handle on its affairs by decentralizing and federating.

shankar #156: ``Most of your posts make a heck of a lot of sense.``

I thought all (not most) of my posts made a lot of sense :)

shammi #160: I pretty much agree with what you have stated. It seems along the same lines as what I have stated, though the details are a bit different.

I have always wondered about the the partition of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), and what the best case scenario could/would have been, at the times of these partitions. Ironically, I never thought about it much when I was in Pakistan. This bewilderment, interest (and confusion) started after I was introduced to Jinnah (not physically, but through books) a few years ago. I have since then been fascinated by this amazingly stubborn, intelligent, uptight, arrogant and scruplously honest man. Infact, I think Jinnah himself is a bigger event than the creation of Pakistan itself. Had there been no Jinnah, there would have been no Pakistan (at least not in 1947). However, had there been no Pakistan, Jinnah still would have been, to quote Wolpert, ``the best lawyer in the British Empire.``

Looking back, I think the best solution in 1947 would have been something along the line of the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946, that you have pointed to. It was one of the few ideas that the British, Pakistani, and Indian (not including Nehru) agreed to. Following is its gist:

``these proposals stipulated a limited centre, supreme only in foreign affairs, defence and communications and three autonomous groups of provinces. Two of these groups were to have Muslim majorities in the north-west and the north-east of the subcontinent, while the third one, comprising the Indian mainland, was to have a Hindu majority.``

This would have given the Muslims the opportunity, ``to sit on the fence,`` regarding independence. If they could have ended up in some sort of a dominion/federation status within India, it would have given them a chance to see whether survival as a minority within Indian was possible. If after a certain amount of time, they felt it to be so, they could come into a closer federation with India. If it was not possible, they could have peacefully separated. This would have avoided the killings that occurred at the time of partition, as everyone would have had a chance to slowly adjust to the new environment over a decade or two.

I think both Nehru and Gandhi did not want Pakistan to be created. However, I feel Gandhi did not want Pakistan`s independence for mostly the right reasons. He was willing to give in quite a bit to the minority Muslim community in govt., politics in the name of pluralism, within an Indian federation. I feel Nehru did not want Pakistan to gain independence for mostly the wrong reasons. He wanted Muslims to stay within India, yet he was unwilling to give in on certain political and respresentative issues which would have gauranteed Muslims a sense of security, within an Indian federation.

I have always wondered how Nehru and Gandhi would have viewed India`s current actions in Kashmir. I am not an expert on either of these personalities, but from what I have read, I have a feeling they would have had opposing views to each other.

My dear friend Stuka:

It was meant to be a satire without being a Pakistani. Sorry to “confuse” you.

It does look like you are really “confused”. Otherwise keeping up with your vulgar posting, you wouldn’t have posted the tenuous explanation for your vulgar proposition -- that “the Joint Chief should have the rank of Cabinet Minister”. Remember, there is a Defense Minister in the cabinet?

My advice: quit sucking up to the no good Pakistani-Army-in governing-business.

Re: my previous post

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

should read

``Thus, it should come as no surprise that in the 3 decades following Independence, there were very FEW high ranking Muslim officers in the Indian armed forces.``

the difference being the insertion of the word `FEW`

Apologies for the earlier typo