The Real Jehad

NOTE TO DELUDED YOUNG BRATS

For information of deluded &under the wrong impression of feeling worthwhile just on there ability of `key board skills` you have no idea how much more is needed in life besides `hand eye cordination `that you assume is the ultimate .Besides younger you are the better your REFLEXES are .

So those who criticize my spelling ,its not that you know BETTER english its just that we wrote with pens most of our lives & then dictated to our dictaphones.

Re:Reply #: 228

Gowardhan,

I have never denied Pakistan`s complicity in all this but Pakistan did not succeed from 1947 till early 80s. Unfortunately, our politicians screwed up big time. The rot should have been arrested much earlier. That is what democracy is all about but we have treated Kashmir with a kid glove. It has been given special previleges and that`s it. Unfortunately for us and Kashmiris, Kashmir shares a border with Pakistan. And Pakistan has been eyeing Kashmir like a teenager with raging hormones eyes a pretty woman next door. The only thing India can do is to keep fighting the Jehadis and try and win over the local population. This is, needless to say, a tough call.

Sridhar

Reply #: 244

Gowardhan

Fatimah 187

I didnt know Jehad was about sex. Is that why Pakistani terrorists rape Kashmiri women?

Want to do Jehad together? I do it very good.``]

Gowardhan

,you can do Jehad just by ABSTINENCE ,DOING NOTHING!!

I know you are not good in English ,& even your own countrys NATIONAL language Hindi/urdu ,to the extent that 1/2 of you can be justifiably called ANTINATIONAL INDIAN

Tehlka in urdu/hindi means sensational EVENT.yes,jehad is Tehlka causing thing too.

YOU REMIND ME OF THE JOKE WHEN A GUY LIKE YOU ASK HIS DAUGHTER TO `SCREW AROUND` ,WHEN HE WANTED HER TO DO ``TWIST`` ,

rotfl.... you silly G.D.

Gohwardan

I read a response from you in readers corner and you mentioned that your Children were born in America -

You have children? And you behave like this with a lady? You know I thought you were a young kid - does your wife know about the proposition you made to Fatima? Does your wife know that you ``do it very good``?? do your Kids know? - Do you hate us much that you would shame your wife, your poor innocent children - just so you could get to someone, you think is Pakistani -

You owe Fatima an apology, you owe your wife an apology, you owe your children an apology, owe all Chowk an apology - and you need to seriously chill out - and you really need to pray, you don`t run into me person.

I am having so difficult a time with this - I just can`t believe this and I cannot believe Chowk allows sexual threats - I`m disgusted by you.

Want to do Jehad together? I do it very good.

Gohwardan

You have lost your mind - you are way out of line with Fatima. That is unmanly thing to say.

If you really do have what you claim to have between your legs - You know I support Jihad

You really have gone beyond decency.

Re: Shammi

I thought it was pretty clear that Sheikh Abdullah was in favor of an independent Kashmir (minus the Maharajah) as his first choice and only supported the Indian annexation as an interim measure to prevent the Pakistani annexation (I believe Abdullah truly loathed Jinnah). Wasn`t one of the reasons for Abdullah`s removal from office and arrest in 1953 his refusal to swear alliegance to India? Later on, the 1975 Kashmir Accord, he reconciled himself to a Kashmir within India but that was one of those ``when faced by the inevitable...`` type of situations.

While there was certainly a ratification by the J&K Legislature of the Maharajah`s accession, Kashmiri politics have always been very heavily manipulated/controlled by the Indian govt (wasn`t this why the current insurgency started in the first place?) so the ratification is open to some questions, especially given Sheikh Abdullah`s treatment by the Indian government. In any case, I agree with you that its ancient history and both sides should move on. You oppress your Kashmiris and we`ll oppress ours. Deal, ;-)?

RE: Harimau #233

You can blame a lot of things on the Pakistani Army but you can`t blame them for the Baluch insurgency. The 1973-77 insurgency was all the work of that lovely democrat, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. You might possibly argue that the Army and Air Force used extremely brutal tactics but they didn`t start the mess, that was caused by Bhutto`s dismissal of the elected provincial government. It was the Pakistan Army, i.e., Gen. Zia, who ended it by stopping Army operations and declaring an amnesty for all Baluchi insurgents.

So lets not get carried away with our hatred for the PakArmy.

Re: Romair #232

``...Pakistan, which have been living in one of the toughest political and social neighborhoods of the world...``

Now, I wonder who is to blame for all this? The Bangladeshis, who were the original supporters of the 1940 Lahore Resolution, seem to get along fairly well with India even though they are completely engulfed by it, are a source of much illegal immigration and a destination of many cheap Indian brands, and ought to be branded as eternal enemies due to perceived Indian abhorence of TNT. Perhaps, an over-reaching GHQ-led foreign policy vis a vis towards India also has a role to play in it. Do you think not? The Soviets, certainly did their part to create a tough neighborhood for Pakistan, but then should India & Pakistan not have been natural allies to keep a foreign power out of S. Asia?

(In one of Indira`s biographies it is stated that she gave a wink and a nod to Zia to move Pakistani divisions from the East to the Afghan border to stall any Soviet designs, since she did not want to give the Americans any excuse to set up bases in S. Asia -- what with Diego Garcia being a bone of contention. I do not know how far this is true, but it is quite plausible. Though she did criticize the Soviets in private, the only reason that kept her from doing so publicly was the `special relationship` with them)

Fatimah 187

I didnt know Jehad was about sex. Is that why Pakistani terrorists rape Kashmiri women?

Want to do Jehad together? I do it very good.

Re: Romair #232

``...there are no solutions, and Pakistan will turn into Sudan or Lebanon...``

I certainly hope NOT. BUT, it very well may, if individuals such as you continue to soft-pedal and pooh-pooh the `volunteers`. (I know many in India who are concerned about the negative fallout of such an outcome. If you think that Afghanistan with 17m people can cause a burdensom outflow of refugees, think what 140m Pakistanis can do.) Actually, Sudan and Lebanon will appear to be beach parties, what with the Lashkar-e-this or the Jaish-e-that brandishing nuclear weapons. This has happened to other, far more homogenous societies before (though bereft of nukes). China`s leaders` fanatic obsession today of ensuring stability over anything else (human rights, political freedom, etc.) is rooted in China`s descent into lawlessness and warlordism of the 1930s.

Re: RSaxena #235

``...Kashmiris can still be a part of Pakistan if they want...``

There is a small matter regarding the decision of the Govt. of Pakistan taken back in 1951 to not allow any more migration of oppressed Muslims from India. Sorry, Pakistan does not want the people only anymore. But people with land?...that is an idea!

Re: Romair #227

``...in India, there is absolutely no concern for the people of Kashmir, which is apparent from the enthusiasm with which Indians support the killings in Kashmir...``

You have a twisted perception, buddy. Most Indians (including the govt.) want the not-so-small matter of `cross-border terrorism` to cease, and peace/normalcy to return so that the shikarawala on Dal Lake can go back to ferrying tourists who can then spend their money on Kashmiri gushtava in local restaurants and enjoy a late night Bollywood thriller shot in Gulmarg instead of Gottingen. Don`t forget the bakkerwals who herd their animals to remote pastures and would want to continue doing so in perpetuity, if only the small matter of them belonged to the `wrong` religion could be addressed.

As Lincoln said, in his 2nd inaugural, ``Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came``. It would be outright foolish of anyone to say that Lincoln was enthusiastic about war, welcomed it and looked forward to it. The truth is that he accepted it reluctantly, and was not the one to declare it. This is precisely where most Indians find themselves. If you really had any concern for the Kashmiris, then you may want to do your part by exerting your otherwise excellent faculties in restraining those `volunteers` who go about perpetrating random acts of killing and for good measure throwing an occassional jar of acid on the faces of innocent unveiled women.

``...For Pakistanis, the reason this concern is more than that for Afghanis is because they feel Kashmiris themselves actually wanted to be part of their country...It is these perceptions that break countries apart as much as the real facts``

You contradicted yourself -- holding a wrong perception in the first place, and then admitting that they can break countries. When did Kashmiris indicate that they wanted to be a part of Pakistan? In 1947 when Abdullah was appointed Sadr-e-Riyasat by the Maharajah, and was busy welcoming the tribal raiders? In 1965, when the locals turned in Pakistani regulars to authorities? Heard of the JKLF -- the guys who started it all? Disgruntlement with India does not automatically translate into wanting to be part of Pakistan.

Bong Dong

Don`t sweat it. No offence taken.

Re: Fuzair #222

``...Didn`t Sheikh Abdullah also want independence for Kashmir? ...``

I think that he supported the Maharaja`s accession subject to India maintaining control of a limited jurisdiction only (currency, communications, defence, foreign affairs). In exchange for this support of the Maharaja`s decision, Abdullah was appointed PM of J&K by the former. It was only when the Maharaja`s official position was abolished and J&K ceased to be monarchy, and by when Abdullah had become the numero uno in J&K, that he is alleged (quite debatable, and hard to prove) to have tried to create political space for himself by playing India against Pakistan, and talking about the independence option. The historical record, though indicates that he never favored independece, but did support implementing the Instrument of Accession to the letter and keeping India`s role limited in J&K. Petty minds in Delhi could not live with that. The inevitable followed. Nehru went against his own personal preference and deferred to his home minister, who was recommending Abdullah`s arrest. Thus, began Abdullah`s long home arrest. I believe that he was in Pakistan still negotiating with Ayub when Nehru died, and wept openly at his funeral.

SameerJB: Just for the sake of argument, I would like to get your views on the following:

You have stated, ``must be decided by the will of the people of Punjab not to please Musharraf or ANP or MQM......Believe me, a division of Punjab by non-Punjabi military dictator and his close associates solves nothing for Pakistani people``

The main reason I have suggested for the division of Punjab (and any other province) is because it will benefit Pakistan as a whole, because most non-Punjabis, rightly or wrongly, view a giant Punjab as a problem. You have stated that a non-Punjabi CMLA dividing Punjab would be opposed by the Punjabis. I agree.

On a philosophical level however, how is your argument any different from the argument used by the various religious parties in Pakistan. They state that if a non-religious CMLA takes them on and divides them, he will be opposed heavily by the religious right and extreme right.

In my opinion, both the above actions (dividing Punjab and neutralizing many, though not all, of the religious parties) would be beneficial for Pakistan. However, an attempt by Musharraf to do so against both groups forcefully would be disastrous, since he neither is a part of Punjab nor the religious right. So he should not attempt either forcefully, as it could result in a civil war situation.

One could argue that their is a big difference between Punjabis and the religious wackos, and the later are a much bigger problem. However, there are many non-Punjabis who consider big Punjab a bigger problem for Pakistan and the small extremist religious parties, a smaller problem.

In both arguments, i.e. yours and that of the religious leaders, don`t you think a better line of thinking would be to think in the terms of the people who feel prosecuted by a big Punjab and by the religious right, rather than in the context of the Punjabis themselves and the members of the religious parties themselves.

hamidm: #209 and other posts: ``and who is going to do it?``

As idealistic and corny as this may sound, the only people who can do it are you and I, and other Pakistanis. Countries are only as progressive, as suppressive, as successful and unsuccessful as their populace allow them to be. It is easy to blame leaderships, but the complete blame lies on the whole nation, including you and I.

There are no shortcuts to solutions. Problems created over decades take a long time to solve. Specially for countries like Pakistan, which have been living in one of the toughest political and social neighborhoods of the world.

Perhaps there are no solutions, and Pakistan will turn into Sudan or Lebanon, as you have suggested. Countries have disappeared from the map of the world many times before. Survival of the fittest is the name of the game.

You are quite a perceptive person. Perhaps more perceptive than me, and thus may have a better understanding of the problems. All I can say is that the current govt. and its policies, as slow as they may seem, is currently Pakistan`s best option. They may not be great, but they are better than anything else available. The only thing worse than having a average CEO is not having one at all.

I happen to agree with most of what Musharraf is doing, under extremely difficult circumstances. He hardly has any cards or resources to play at the moment. And needs to be judged within those limitations.

Slow and steady, with minimal attacking action is the way to go at the moment. Things will only be solved slowly. There are no quick solutions. Pakistan needs a healer of wounds within all groups (even if it means slow progress, in the short term). It does not need a creater of new wounds (even if means quick progress, in the short term).