A Pakistani School’s Visit to India

PM 969

There is some confusion here. You and hobbyty are speaking about completely different things. I am very familiar with objective and subjective sources of knowledge. I spend a lot of time defending the validity of subjective bases of knowing. That is why it is very important that we maintain integrity when we discuss subjectivity.

You are speaking about sources of *knowing. * Hobbyty is focused completely on *governance. * One is the domain of philosophy. The other is the domain of politics. They are related but not identical.

One should be careful about letting everything from one spill onto the other. One is about how one leads ones own life. The other is about placing restrictions on the live`s of others.

Are you comfortable about letting the hunch or spiritual experience of some determine how everybody else is forced to live? Give my post 956 some thought. Is the freedom to wear buqua the same as forcing everyone else to wear burqa? What are the limits of subjective knowledge?

Your example of Nitze is completely inapt. I will deal with it when I can see how you differ from Hobbyty whose primary agenda is justifying Islamic rule, hatred of India and Hindus.

hamidm,

Sophistry is the right word. It is more harmful than anything else because it can desensititize people to extreme dangers that lie in the agendas of some people. Sophistry can be an entertaining excercise for the mind for philosophers. In the hands of demogogues it can turn into a lethal tool.

People are emotional beings. Sophists can write their death warrants by playing emotional games with them. Demogogic history is full of tragic examples. Sharp people who do not hate others have a duty to counter them.

ylh

There are many things you find difficult to believe. You found it difficult to believe that Muslim League could have started the violence on the Direct Action (to nonviolence prayer?) day in Calcutta. Your belief means nothing.

ylh #951:

``I am a fanatic about undoing the negative propaganda and lies that Brahminist (note not Brahmin but Brahminist) Bigots from India like yourself are spreading in the world about Pakistan.``

Ylh, define `Brahminist` please.

PIA affairs

This has reference to Akhlaq Ahmad Ansari`s letter (July 28).

Mr Ansari welcomed rehiring the services of two retired PIA employees. One of them is 70 years old and another is 90. The latter, who got charge of PIA`s first aircraft in 1954, had his age reduced at least five times and this is on record. Mr Ansari is also a former employee of the airline. May I point out that PIA`s condition has hit an all-time low and old and outdated medicines - rehiring old employees - will not do.

ABU IMRAN

Hyderabad

Alia, the technological flag ship of your country is hiring geriatrics, no competant young ones. Study hard, forget about india. That is what I did, never bothered about pakistan, till i found a lot of time in hand to revive an old sport, pakibashing.

PIA affairs

This has reference to Akhlaq Ahmad Ansari`s letter (July 28).

Mr Ansari welcomed rehiring the services of two retired PIA employees. One of them is 70 years old and another is 90. The latter, who got charge of PIA`s first aircraft in 1954, had his age reduced at least five times and this is on record. Mr Ansari is also a former employee of the airline. May I point out that PIA`s condition has hit an all-time low and old and outdated medicines - rehiring old employees - will not do.

ABU IMRAN

Hyderabad

Alia, the technological flag ship of your country is hiring geriatrics, no competant young ones. Study hard, forget about india. That is what I did, never bothered about pakistan, till i found a lot of time in hand to revive an old sport, pakibashing.

Reply Hobbyty #944

``We do not know for certain where the Aryans came from...What we do know about them is that they were tall and fair and strongly-built.”

Are bhai, this sounds like F_K’s description of Pakistanis! The author should have asked him if there were any unresolved questions…

Zafar

PS I am half way through Soroush so far, and maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan if I make it all the way through you had better be ready to answer my questions.

DISCLAIMER:

Some of the text in my post# 973 is a direct translation by me. I am responsible for all errors and exceptions. Please cross refer with other text available on the subject.

BLASPHEMY LAW IN ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

The purpose of following argument is to explore the contention that the Blasphemy Laws in general and death penalty (under this law) in particular, are un-Islamic. In order to reach a certain conclusion we will examine the procedure by which a law is made with the guidelines of Islamic jurisprudence. We will start from a brief introduction to the main aspects of Islamic jurisprudence, how it is similar or different from secular jurisprudence and in the end we will try to reach a conclusion based on this discussion.

The oldest text of laws, which are available to us are probably from Mesopotamia where King Haemorabi`s decrees were found inscribed on clay tablets (1850BC). We also find some experts of law, some business transactions, a divorce document from the Egyptian heliographic text. The old Hindu documents also give us a valuable detail about the existence of Hindu law that existed even in the pre-dated times. One such famous document is Manu Samiriti. Then we have Greeks, Red Indians, and Romans who had laws. Romans have great contribution towards the development of laws, international law and city-states law, taxes and tariffs, constitution, policing, etc. But all the above mentioned laws are basically decrees issued by some authority figure or an institution. Whereas, it were the Muslims who first time in the history of mankind, introduced the science and philosophy of jurisprudence. That science and philosophy of jurisprudence (science of development of law) is even used today as the guiding light or benchmark in the most secular law making institutions in the world. This is one of the greatest gifts that Muslims have given to the mankind.

The science of jurisprudence is not about archiving the existing laws, it is about making laws. It is about defining the law, how to make a law, what are the origins from where a law is derived; what is the procedure by which a law is repealed, what is the jargon of law; how this jargon is used to avoid confusion etc. Even the most rabid anti-Islamist can’t help but credit this development to the Muslims.

There are three origins of Islamic Law and none other but our Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself has instructed us to formulate law from these three sources. According to one authentic tradition, which is consider authentic by all Muslim schools of thought and the six most authentic books of traditions, when Prophet appointed Muaz Bin Jabal (RAH) as a governor to Yemen he (Prophet) asked him how would he make his judgment and issue orders. (Paraphrasing the dialogue) ``I will issue orders according to the guidelines in Quran`` replied Muaz. ``What if you don’t find answers in the Book`` asked Prophet; ``I will look into your Hadis (tradition)`` replied Muaz; ``What if you don’t find anything in my tradition, then?`` asked Prophet. ``Then I will use my best judgment (the word Ijtehad is used in Arabic text) and make sure that it doesn’t contradict Quran or your Sunnah (tradition)``. The Holy Prophet replied ``I am happy with your reply``; and then prayed for him.

So in conclusion there are three origins of Islamic law:

1. Qurran
2. Hadis-the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh)
3. Ijtehad.

Any Islamic law is, basically, derived from these three sources and in that order. Usually, the anti-Islamists blame Islam that it had restricted the freedom of thought. They laugh at it and say that Islam is not capable of dealing issues in new day and age and basically it is stillborn. Well, the laugh is on them and their ignorance and not Islam as we will see in the following lines.

First we will discuss Qurran and Hadis and see how the laws are formulated. There are basically two kind of laws according to Islamic jurisprudence of criminal code:

1. Hadd
2. Taazeer

Hadd means a definite order, which God has stipulated through Quran. Such laws are not too many. Example of such laws is the punishment of leashes for fornication; Muslim Law of inheritance; and various aspects of Law of Testimony & Evidence etc. Whereas Taazeer are those laws, which are not stipulated specifically in Quran. The sources of such law are Hadis and the Ijtehad. The laws stipulated in Hadis are not Hadd because Prophet has stipulated different punishments for the same crime under different circumstances. That is the reason that there are different schools of thought in Islamic Ummah because each interprets it differently. An example to elaborate this point would be to examine the punishment of fornication. Whereas Quran is very discreet about flogging the perpetrators, we have traditions, however, where Prophet has imparted a punishment of stoning to death for fornication. There is a tradition where a Jewish couple was brought before him who had committed adultery. The Holy Prophet asked a Jew scholar to read what was written in Torah about the punishment. The Jewish scholar started reading Torah and when he reached the sentence where the punishment of stoning was mentioned he hid the line with his finger and made up a sentence that the punishment was to sit both perpetrators on a donkey, blackened their faces, and have them go through the whole city. The Holy Prophet who could not read himself, said that he was hiding something and asked one of his companions to read the hidden lines. When it was made clear that the punishment for fornication was stoning to death in Torah the couple was sentenced to be stoned to death. Now one may question that when there is hadd stipulated in Quran then why stoning. One may also question whether Islamic law is applicable to non-Muslim population or not? So what should we do? Such questions are answered by Ijtehad, which I translate as ``logical reasoning``. That is the origin of the science of Jurisprudence and it has nothing to do with dogma.

It is vehemently blamed that the Ijtehad had stopped after 8th century. Such accusations are made by not only non-Muslims scholars but also the Muslim scholars. Well, Ijtehad has never stopped. One must first understand what Ijtehad is and then accuse Islamic law to be static, dogmatic, unrealistic, unjustifiable………etc. But the fact remains that it is the ignorance of the accusers and nothing else. Lets see:

Now lets examine what Ijtehad is. Ijtehad is not just that some Mullah are sitting on a Persian rug, discussing a predicament while devouring Halva, sifting through Quran and Hadis and before going to bed decide that from now on such and such would be the law. Ijtehad i.e. ``logical reasoning`` is a scientific procedure which qualifies any guidelines set by any jurisprudence in any part of the world. Ijtehad has following components and a law is formulated using one or more of these components and then it is scrutinized by the edicts in Qurran and Hadis before it is enacted.

1. Referendum and Consensus (Ijmaa)
2. Postulation and Hypothesis- (Qiyas)
3. Reciprocity- (Mumasilat)
4. Logical Equivalence - Estehsan
5. Societal Customs - Urf
6. Public Interest – Massalayh
7. Agreements – Moaahidaat
8. Precedence - Missal

There are many more components but time and space does not permit to enumerate and elaborate on each. Following is a brief introduction to each components so that a layman will understand the judicial proceedings and finally see whether the Blasphemy law was made according to Islamic Law or not:

1. Referendum & Consensus –

Usually it is considered that it is the only component of Ijtehad. It is accused that since no school of thought will ever agree to one thing, therefore, Ijtehad has stopped for good. But this is a naïve approach based on ignorance only. R&C are nothing but a democratic procedure through which a law is legislated. This legislated body may be a parliament, a counsel, a Municipal Committee or any group of people with qualifications to legislate who consence on an issue which is not contradictory to Quran and Hadis. So if a Parliament in Islamic republic of Pakistan passes a law, when the constitution of Pakistan stipulates the sovereignty of Allah over state, the Ijtehad is taking place. When a Municipal Committee passes a law in an Islamic country that forbids the use of sprinklers on Wednesdays, an Ijtehad takes place.

3. Postulation & Hypothesis:

Is a standard procedure in jurisprudence where the legislative body is faced with a new predicament. There is no precedence and no ethical guidelines. In this case the legislature hypothesizes various scenarios and then through Referendum and Consensus reach an agreement on how to deal with the predicament. The example of such predicaments is human cloning, crimes over the internet, and rampant acts of blasphemy ;) etc.

4. Reciprocity –

Reciprocity is a universally accepted procedure in jurisprudence where laws are enacted in reciprocating the laws of another sovereign entity. The instructions on such predicaments may not exist in Quran, or Hadis but an Islamic polity may find it necessary to have such laws to interact between two sovereign entities. The example is the laws of tariff and trade between countries.

5. Logical Equivalence:

I am sending some money to a friend. I pay money for the money order, my money is deposited in a central depository, and the post office in the vicinity of my friend is sent a notice-that post office take the money out of their depository and delivers it to my friend. Looks like a fair transaction but my friend did not get the same dollars with the same serial numbers which I deposited in the post office so the question arises that whether the post office is being dishonest? Such predicaments are dealt with the procedure of Logical Equivalence.

6. Societal Customs:

Islam doesn’t prevent anyone from acting on societal customs as long as they are not in direct contradiction of Islamic injunctions. Customs are unwritten laws, which are in practice since the times unknown. Customs change all the time. Sometimes society feels to legislate a custom and it is considered its right throughout the world. In the context of Pakistan, the laws which restrict spending in marriages, enacted by Nawaz Sharif, is a good example.

7. Public Interest:

Sometimes need arises to formulate laws which are in the interest of general public. An example would be a law, which makes it mandatory for a business to have access for the handicapped. Or traffic laws that are enacted basically for the public safety.

8. Agreements-

Islamic law provides protection to the person to person and business to business agreements even though the agreements are totally non-religious in nature. Examples are countless.

9. Precedence

Precedence is a well known procedure in any jurisprudence. Islam even permits taking precedence from the bible and Torah if it is not specifically stipulated in Quran and there is no Hadis. The precedence may also be taken from the societal customs. An example is the Omar Bin Khattab`s (RAH) enacting a law to establish a minimum amount of Mehr. Mehr is a pre-determined amount, which is like a pre-nuptial agreement between a man and a woman. Unless woman forgives Mehr, a man has to pay mehr to his wife. I wife may refuse to sleep with him unless he pays his Mehr. The Muslim Family Law of 1962 protects this right of the woman.

So except the two origins i.e. Quran and Hadis, which are also used to scrutinize a law, the ``Islamic Law`` is like any other law around the world. It can be as secular as it can be and it can still be Islamic. The Islamic jurisprudence is thus not static, it is evolving all the time like any other jurisprudence.

Now that we have a good understanding, at a layman level, of how the Islamic jurisprudence works we can analyze the Blasphemy Law. We must see that whether it stands the scrutiny of Quranic Injunctions, and traditional edicts according to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Asool-e-fiqah) or not. We can see that even when the Blasphemy and its punishment are not stipulated specifically in the Quran and Hadis it is Islamic because it has qualified the formula of Ijtehad. It was established by the Ijmaa (Referendum & Consensus) of a legislature i.e. Pakistani Parliament; its punishment (i.e. Capital punishment) was stipulated using the procedure of Qiyas (Postulation & Hypothesis) and it was enacted for Massalayh (Public Interest and Safety). So in the Islamic context law is not un-Islamic and any such contention is thus based on ignorance of the Islamic jurisprudence.

So the Blasphemy Law is not a word of God, neither it is a tradition of Holy Prophet. It is the Ijmaa (Referendum & Consensus) of a legislative body. According to the asool-e-fiqah i.e. Islamic jurisprudence a new Ijmaa (Referendum & Consensus) cancels the old Ijmaa. So in time when a time will come when government of Pakistan will feel that such law is not needed any more because people become more educated, more tolerant and are not a threat for the security of any member of the society, it may repeal it through new Ijmaa (Referendum & Consensus).

So My Dear Sattar, even though I do not approve of Death Penalty under this law or any law I do think that law qualifies all the requirements of jurisprudence. Therefore, the law is correct, valid, and Islamic. I personally think that we as Muslims must exercise compassion and social boycott of the Blasphemers instead of Capital punishment. And I find my position as Islamic as it can get. Islam gives me a right to dissent and differ. It does not put restrictions on my freedom of thought and opinion. It also doubles the responsibility on my shoulders, as a member of Islamic society, who can think and express his opinion, to devise ingenuous solutions which may help save human lives. And trust me, I can only do it with your cooperation and your help and not with the animosity and contempt.

References:

1. Khutbaat-e-Bahaalpur by Dr. Ahmad Hamid Ulaah
2. Imam Abu Hanifa ki Tadveen-e-Qanoon-e-Islami
3. Muslim Conduct of State

saminashah #965

Thanks for your post. As I said in #706 I have nothing against immigrants getting involved in family responsibilities and MOST `social activism`, I am vary of Indian immigrants getting involved in religious or political activism in their native countries.

Sorry, I`ll have to take India as reference point. For overseas Indians to be involved in Indian social/progressive causes, I think they should mostly confine themselves to the scope approved and debated by Indian organisations and the Indian government.

Advocating perspectives outside this scope(like terming caste distinctions as racism) is meaningful and useful to provoke internal debate and moves for change, but the last word should be with the `locals`, I believe.

I say this wrt India, because I believe an environment already exists in India for free debate and `just` resolution of contentious social issues, and in which expatriates can participate without unduely dominating it. Such an environment maynot exist in other countries, so the question of what role immigrants can `best` play there can have different answers.

I think in India, there is a widely accepted list of social evils( eg illiteracy, lack of health care, rural unemployment, dowry, discrimination based on caste, or gender, unhealthy habits leading to spread of HIV, population control). I think those involved in activism against these evils are doing good work and should be supported. Sponsoring education or educational institutions which are certified by the local boards is also meaningful. And as you say, where infrastructure is lacking, to make up the deficiency is also meaningful.

But the issue is still not so simple. I have heard about Norplant implants? Those were less benign social interventions from abroad. And I approve of the stance taken by the Kerala government for example, wrt some `aborginal` tribal communities which other Indians are not allowed to come into contact without approval from the authorities. This is meant to protect these communities from disease and the liquor habit, to protect their environs, and their distinctive identity.

Of course, there are pitfalls in this approach(unscruplous government employees taking advantage), but I think its more benign than a Christian organisation sitting in the US talking of these tribals as `devil worshippers` living pagan lifestyles in the wild and the pressing need to convert them and bring them into civilised ways, which often means ending up in an urban slum.

Where is upman when you need him(or anyone else :))?
Anyway, my point is, in India, it finally boils down to a REALLY difficult question:

`what is the sustainable solution to improve the lives of indigent Indians, without risking ruinous loss of their identity and culture, namely to keep a continuity of social tradition to prevent social breakdown but while weeding out the `unacceptable`, a solution which is economically viable and self-sustaining and which is scalable to the India`s proportions without being environmentally disastrous`?


Finding solutions to the above question requires tough calls to be made in a million different situations you come across in India. I believe these calls can be safely made only when allied with a measure of local accountability.

I say this because, see, even trying to be merely socially `progressive` according to our defination of `progress`, we are now straying into political/economic ideology/philosophy, because they are all interlinked issues.

And to decide on this, we need access to all viewpoints and information, which expatriates often donot have.

Moreover, to be effective and to defend our viewpoint about `progress` against all others, there are practical things like organisations and playing the power/contention game, which means we should be accountable where we wield this organisational and other power, surely, which expatriates are not ?

So I say for most part Indian expatriates should stick to sponsoring causes where the pros-and-cons debate has been more or less settled locally(like the removal of social evils listed above)

Re religion: religious ideas and customs are potent mobilizers of people, and I think here too, expatriate activism needs to be circumspect.

Expatriates involvement in economically productive activity: Again, the right/wrong depends on the scale and type of involvement. If expatriates used their economic power to set up (say) huge industrial complexes or power plants or something else which was socially and environmentally unsustainable or plain unviable in the long run, their POV would need to be challenged. Right now, that situation is far far away, I think the Indian government is grateful for anything expats can do to stir things up economically, if it ever manages stop pussyfooting and lets them.

How does this relate to other countries and their immigrant communities? I donot know enough to say. Hispanic/Caribbean communities such as you describe may be doing the right thing by helping improve basic lifestyles and staying away from contentious issues. They are doing more good, perhaps, than Cuban immigrants who have managed to isolate their former countrymen from the rest of the world for many years.


Sorry for a long post.

Sattar2

Okay have it your way. You dont want to structure the argument. Fine. We will conduct an unstructured argument then. It means that I have to lead this dance again.

I see that the needle is stuck repeating ``Muslim Psyche`` thing again and again. All I hear is that I am dishonest, desperate, stepping away from the argument and all that. What I want to hear from you is an argument supported by facts that

1. Either the Muslim Psyche (as under scrutiny) does not exist.

or

2. it exists but it has not played any role or very little role in the formulation of the Blasphemy Law.

Instead what I hear is, that I am dishonest, I change my arguments, I downplay other arguments, I change my line of argument and many more. Let me say that except being dishonest I agree to all your ``accusations``. But you have to ask yourself a question if isnt this the way an argument is carried out? I have to downplay your arguments. I have to prove that your arguments are wrong. I have to present a new angle to not only present my argument but counter yours as well. But isnt that what you do too. I dont understand the dishonest part then. You dont see me whining.

Anyway, enough bakwaas. I am writing another post to see if Blasphemy law and death penalty merit the Islamic Law or not since you have not presented even one argument to say that it doesnt qualify standards set by either Secular Laws or Islamic law. You havnt listed any list of universal human rights either which are violated by this law, whereas you have vhemently and repeatedly claimed it. You have not presented any argument which proves that the law does not merit Islamic injunctions except making such statements and not arguments. Now dont be surprised if I draw parallels between Islamic law and secular law again. I am warning you in advance because you dont seem to handle the shock very well.

Sattar2: (940)

I really have to hand it you for the patient and meticulous replies regarding Blasphemy laws with Urstruly. I was following the argument for some time but could not phrase or explain how the arguments were getting so mucked up (my ignorance and lack of time). You really did a great job in showing how Urstruly gets slippery (a first class baysharam IMHO).

My views on the laws and how to handle them are entirely different, but thats another story.

Peace.

AAmir,

Reply #: 924

``RSaxena

Isn`t it haram for Chowk to be flashing that casino net ad and tempting all its Muslim visitors to gamble



You are Not a muslim even to know that!

How do you know that is not planted on pupose to do you IN with your own viceses.As long as many of you flock here more than the muslims ,i think its an excellent strategy of self destruct self sustaining non depleting & eternal without cost .``

...um, i think he was being sarcastic.......now this is just a guess, mind you

Gowardhan: #941

``The traditional dichotomy has not between faith and belief but between faith and reason. A person can be very active and irrational. As a matter of fact, irrationality energizes people into foolish activity. From Taliban to Bajrang Dal, destructive activity of the active faithful can boggle the mind.``

Gowardhan, faith, IMO may be non-rational, but not IRrational. The difference is not merely one of sematics. Being `forced` into accepting irrationalities, or any beliefs, without their being self-evident does indeed cause devotees to act foolishy, to put it mildly. But then, neither is rationality exempt from such outcomes. Hitler, for example based his theory of aryan supremacy on the solid, rational, work of Neiztche (sp?). He interpreted some premises and conclusions, in a quite rational manner, to suit his own prejudices. Rationality, after all, hardly dictates what the ``right`` thing to do is, at the axiomatic level anyway.

But I digress. My point is that the `activity of the active faithful` is not the activity of faith hobbyty and others are referring too. The `active faithful` in this case do not pass the test of faith as being presently described, in which `discovery` (as opposed to hand me down conviction) is a vital characteristic, and with which words like doubt, humility, submission etc. are also assoiciated.

``So the real question is are we talking about anything new here as far as rationality is concerned or is it the same old junk in new words. The real test is whether a person considers the basis of his beliefs to be sacred which he will not question or discard under any circumstances.``

I hope that has answered your question. Faith, IMO is about `seeing` things in a certain way, not so much about holding steadfast against all evidence ot the contrary. Obviously, a certain persepection, or vision brings certain convictions in its train. But these are not so cast-iron as to ``not be questioned or discarded under any circumstances.``

`` Anybody who has read even one page about the nature of science will know that the belief in the sacredness is the antithesis of the ideal of science.``

So? When did Science become God?!? (Actually, the answer to that question is probably about 300 years ago. For those willing to take a somewhat longer perspective on the matter of ultimate and valid streams of knowledge, the study of Axiology can be quite enlightening! Consider the question: Need we take for granted that Science, reliable as it may be, is the ONLY source of truth? How, indeed, do we define truth? Is it only tha which can be measured by instruments or fit some theories that are, by definition, mere models of reality? )

`` I know faithful people can be energized to do good work, but belief in the sacredness of opinions is also at the root of all tyranny.``

True. No one said that ascribing to subjective `truths` is not without its downfall; not without its slippery slopes into irrationality and potential for abuse. I guess that`s the price to be paid, as humans, for having a relatively free will, and the potential to be more that mere creatures of habit and instict. (Did someone say `be like Gods`? :)

``Blaming Christianity or Catholicism is silly. I see much worse situations elsewhere.``

I didn`t blame Christainty. I stated what I believe was it`s philospohical positon of faith.

``So what progress have people rooting for faith made other than conjuring up new more acceptable (active more attractive than passive)words? Blind faith has become a bad word. So faith rooters want to talk about active faith. Is it any less blind if it wont allow the possiblity of questioning and eventual discarding of core sources of beliefs?``

Perhaps you have not read the posts of Soroush and Hobbyty well enough to see that there is EVERY possibility of questioning and doubt in this really-not-new-at-all take on faith. Since antiquity, sages, have been propounding the idea of a faith that has little do do with dogma or static conviction. This has admittedly encountered opoosition, notably in the Church, by the dogmaticists , and in Islam too, from the literalists.

I get the feeling that you have not bothered to ask yourself whether there was/is any baby in the bathwater to begin with. Been there myslef.

...could be wrong about you, of course :)

rgds,

PM

Sameer JB # 915

....sounds like an angel reincarnate.....but, seriously, living in lahore, i can truly say that lahore got a scrubbed clean due to him.....anyone remeber the dump near kalima chowk? this eyesore was built into St.Mary`s Park under him....and boy what a nice place it is now....mini golf and everything:).....

``A disabled kid loves him because he got a lifetime opportunity along with hundreds of others to see an international cricket match in the CM’s enclosure``

......this practice still continues today, although now it`s the Special Children`s enclosure

Indian caste system figures at Durban meet

Chandra Bhan Prasad & Vivek Kumar/Durban

The south African President, Mr Thabo Mbeki, declared the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Other Related Intolerances open here at the Natal Cricket ground Kingsmead Stadium on Tuesday morning. In his opening address, while calling for and end to all forms of discrimination, Mr Mbeki mentioned India`s caste system as well.

The conference is being attended by over 7,000 delegates from all over world. A 160- strong Indian dalit contingent, led by Martin Makwan and Pal Divakar, is participating in the conference. The Government of India, however, is not represented in the meet. The NGO meet will conclude on August 31 followed by inter-governmental conferences.

The opening session was also addressed by Mary Robinson, Commissioner, United Nation`s Commission on Human rights. In her address, Ms Robinson emphatically mentioned India`s caste system while listing out forms of discrimination to be discussed during the four-day conference. The issue of caste discrimination was also raised by Mercia Andrews, president of the South African NGO Conference.

The opening ceremony was marked with a good amount of cultural symbolism when Zulu schoolchildren presented IMPEPA, a traditional dance form of Zulu tribe, which aims to drive out evils and establish peace and amity in the society.

A Danish choir group consisting of school girls presented a cultural program titled People Who Don`t Care For Anyone, which argued how love, and not discrimination, must be the human goal.

The Dalit delegates, participating in four plenary sessions on Tuesday here, are arguing their case before NGOs of rest of the world.

Stuka,

#925

{{Kaun bheek mangta hai. Look at Indian track record and compare to Pakistan.}}

Bravo! Bravo!! Somebody has to tell that mF_King emperor that he`s not wearing any clothes.

Pakistan`s economic ``miracles`` have come primarily from AID! In the 50s, 60s & 80s they got billions from the US because they licked America`s butt. After the nuclear tests when the US imposed sanctions on both India & Pakistan; who teethered from the verge of bankrupcy? Pakistan!; a country whose economy is TOTALLY dependant on the largesse of ``sugar daddys``.

Dont cry because America has turned its back on their ``most allied of all allies``. When a country behaves like a condom, it will be used & thrown away like one.

The second ``sugar daddy``--notably S Arabia & other oil rich Arab states. Pakistan`s nose is ten times browner than the rest of her complexion; fair price to pay for all the Arab billions of outright aid & forgiven loans.

A nameless Saudi prince can fly to Islamabad, make backroom deals with ``Honest Abe`` Musharraf & out flies NS & family in luxurious exile! A man who is charged with hijacking --a charge that in Pakistan is comparable to homicide & blasphemy--cos the punishment could be death. A Saudi prince can bypass the ENTIRE justice system of Pakistan. The CEO of Pakistan cant say ``no`` to a Saudi; thanks to their money!

The Chinese occupation of Tibet is as brutal as the Indian ``occupation`` of Kashmir--as per the beloved Amnesty International that Pakistanis looove to quote here. Chinese abuses against religion, including & especially Chinese muslims are horrific. Is there ONE peep of protest from Pakistan?! Why--money & realpolitick!

Even Chowk`s self appointed ``guardian of human decency``, URstruly is strangely reserved about human rights abuses of muslims in China. Sure the 10 million Chinese muslims are not as close to him as his Kashmiri brothers.

As far as the most ``enlightened`` F_K? The guy hates the West; but lives in the West? Why?--money, money, money! A guy like that would sell his own mother for money. A beggar sifting through a garbage dump has more self respect than him.

Now get ready for a million urdu shairis! They might as well be urdu gaalis cos they all sound like greek to me. Heck, even his english sounds like greek:)