Love On The Line Of Control, a Story by Col Dharam Pal

Bad Cruise: When someone says that you are Pakistani-born (which I assume you are, or Indian-born, or wherever the hell you were born) does his jaw drop with awe? Why do you then assume that when calling someone Iranian-born one`s is awed? I also see that the word Iranian-born also trigerred other associations with skin color in your fevered little mind.

Your post tells me a lot about you, my complex-ridden friend. Maybe you need someone to assure you that you are a human like anyone else, regardless of where that person was born, and not one of the lower apes.

Syed Ahmed #49 I had forgotten about the judgement and courage Gen Yakub displayed when he told Yahya that he was not prepared to use the military in then East Pakistan. That is where he really distinguished himself. Later, as Foreign Minister, I think he could have done more to resolve the Kashmir issue, though. But what do I know about the internal pressures that people like him and PM face.

I guess the Pakistan military does produce good generals once in a while - PM being another one who has so shown good judgement and courage (so far).

LOVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LOC

There is a Punjabi joke about a man who once stayed with another man as a guest. On first day of his stay the host served him with spinach curry and told him that spinach has the most iron than any other vegetable. The next day host serves him again with spinach and says the same thing. So the 15 days went by and host continuously kept feeding him with spinach and repeating that spinach has so much iron and that he cares about his (guest`s) health.

On 16th day the guest was fed up and was upto his wits end When the host again brought a plate full of spinach curry. The guest reaches into his pocket and produces a six inch long steal rod and asks his host ``Would you please shove it up my arse``

The host asks baffled and in disbeleif ``why?``

The guest replies ``Just so that I get all my iron once and for all and you start feeding me something else``.

Well time and again we (Pakitanis) are fed with this monotonous goop both by Hindu writers and Paki Hindu collaborators that how much they (Hindus) love us (Paksitanis) despite our dislike. Whereas what is needed is that Hindus must show Kashmiris and not Pakistanis how much they love them. WE are sort of third party. You need to straighten up your act with respect to Kashmiris first. The following is an excerpt from Dr. William Blakes` book ``Kashmir: Happy Valley, Valley of Death`` and describes the inhuman treatment meted out to Kashmiri freedom lovers.

Please be kind to Kashmiris because they are human beings first.

``Information gathered from the statements of those unfortunate persons who have, though maimed, somehow survived and the statements of the doctors, nurses and other such workers, reveal the methods of torture used which are:

* Severe beatings.

* Pulling of nails of hands and feet.

* Application of electric shocks.

* Burning with hot iron and live cigarettes.

* Hanging upside down.

* Putting chilly powder in the eyes, nose and anus.

* Shoving of iron rods down the throat or up the anus.

* Mutilating sensitive body parts.

* Running a roller over the prostrate body. (Heavy wooden log or metal roller across the human body crushing bones, and joints etc from neck down to the feet and vice versa).

* With bound feet and wrists, drowning in a tub, bucket or a spring.

* With bound feet and wrists throwing a person into river Jhelum.

Re:redesikan...

You are absolutely right ... The migration of Muslims from the South to Pakistan was gradual at best with notable exceptions.... THE ICS had very few muslims and Abbas Khaleeli was one of them ( I believe Hashim reza was another)..

... he opted for Pakistan and later became a Federal secretary of Industry in the 50`s .... He was dismissed by Ayub Khan @1958... during the tussle between the `` Hindustani`` ( later to become Mohajir) establishment and the Punjabi establishment....

So were the Isphani`s in Bengal .... MAH Isphani became teh Pakistani ambassador to US ...wheras their tea trading establishment flourished in Calcutta.....

Even Jinnah`s Sister Shireen Bai was married to a gujrati businessman in Bombay and they opted for India... She later migrated to England...

The Indo -Pak incendiary rift started post-1971.. after the second war....

Yes you are correct that most of them were Iranian Shiites.... - but in undivided India the Shia-Sunni rift didnot exist and intermarriage amongst them was quite common.....

It was the latter influence of the idiotic clerics ala Maudoodi and lot that started this schism first in Lahore inthe 50`s and then it spread to the rest of the country - courtesy of the ethnocentric policies of the Pakistani government...

Re: URstruly

``Putting chilly powder in the eyes, nose and anus.``

That explains your rantings on Chowk.

Defining terrorist & Terrorism

STRUGGLING AGAiNST THE, the

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

occupiers for the liberation of their homeland

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

and the terrorists wh......

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

- Tuesday, September 25, 2001

Terrorism Should Be Redefined

Massive demonstrations are currently being held in several Islamic

countries against unilateral U.S. military action against Afghanistan,

since these military operations are bound to endanger the lives of

innocent Afghans who have been suffering from wars and bloodshed for the

past few decades.

Ever since the September 11 deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and

the Pentagon, the United States has been saying that the attacks had been

masterminded by Saudi-born dissident Osama Bin Laden, but Washington has

so far not provided any evidence showing bin Laden`s complicity in the

attacks.

Under this pretext, Washington has been planning wide-ranging military

operations against Afghanistan, forcing thousands of innocent Afghans to

flee their homes for fear of their lives and seek shelter in neighboring

countries.

These unilateral military operations have drawn angry reactions from the

Islamic world and even reservations from some U.S. allies for several

reasons. First of all, Washington has not yet provided any strong evidence

implicating bin Laden in attacks on New York and Washington. Secondly,

even if there is concrete evidence to show bin Laden`s complicity,

innocent Afghans should not pay for his wrongdoing. Finally, it is the

responsibility of the United Nations to investigate the case and inflict

punishment on the culprits. Any unilateral punitive action runs counter to

the international law.

While the U.S. is mobilizing all its military forces for a far-flung

military aggression against Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State Colin

Powell said on Monday that Washington would soon release evidence linking

bin Laden to attacks. Furthermore, the visiting British Foreign Secretary

Jack Straw said in Tehran on Tuesday that he was seeking advice from

Iranian leaders on Afghanistan and would share with Tehran evidence of bin

Laden`s role in the attacks.

Supposing there is enough evidence to implicate Bin Laden in the attacks,

it still seems that the U.S. and British officials have not grasped Iran`s

stance on the issue properly. The Iranian officials have often said that

they condemn the massacre of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, and that

the UN should intervene in order to bring the real culprits to justice

without inflicting any harm on the innocent Afghans.

The White House officials have also been saying that their military

campaign is aimed at fighting terrorism in over 60 countries. Although

terrorism is abhorred by the people throughout the world and rooting out

terrorism should be supported by all countries in the world, the drawback

of the U.S. campaign against terrorism is that the U.S. officials have no

clear definition of terrorism. In other words, they tend to equate the

legitimate resistance of some nations against foreign occupation with

terrorism.

The world knows very well that the Zionist regime has been established on

the occupied land of the oppressed Palestinians. Besides, in the years

after its illegitimate inception, the Zionist regime waged several wars

against neighboring Arab countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon,

occupying and even annexing their territories. The United Nations Security

Council has issued several resolutions in the past several decades,

condemning Zionist aggressions and requiring this regime to pull out of

the occupied territories unconditionally. However, enjoying Washington`s

blind support, the Zionist regime has ignored all the UN resolutions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has considered it a religious duty to express

political and moral support for the Palestinians and Lebanese people who

have long suffered from the aggressive and expansionist policies of the

Zionist entity. However, the U.S. officials have often condemned Iran`s

support for the Lebanese and Palestinians whom Washington, under the

influence of the strong Zionist lobby in the United States, views as

terrorists!

As the latest instance of this condemnation, U.S. Secretary of State Colin

Powell said on Monday that Iran has to halt its support for ``terrorism`` if

it wants to be part of a U.S.-led anti-terror coalition.

In a similar move, the new U.S. ambassador to Beirut presented a list of

Palestinian and Lebanese freedom fighters to Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq

Hariri, asking him to hand over those so-called ``terrorists``. However, the

Lebanese prime minister made it clear to the new U.S. ambassador that

Washington should differentiate between those struggling against the

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

occupiers for the liberation of their homeland

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

and the terrorists who

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

target lives of innocent people for certain objectives.

Therefore, if the U.S. officials want to achieve success in their campaign

against terrorism and win the support of other nations in this regard,

first they will have to redefine the concept of

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

terrorism.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.tehrantimes.com/remove.asp?

re: Syed Ahmed # 58

Syed, I am no historian but what you wrote appears to be of a piece with something an old muslim gentlemen living near the Bara Imambara in Lucknow once told me. He claimed that localities such as Nakkhaas, Chowk, SaadatGunj or even Charbagh, HussainGunj, NakaHindola saw less conflict when he was growing up as a boy (which probably must be around 1930s or so) than is the case today.

Unfortunately, these days Moharrum becomes a sorrowful time for Lucknowites for reasons that are not merely historical; and Tazia processsions - the very highlight of my own childhood audio-visual sensory recollections - can no more be taken out peacefully.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re tahmed 321

Thank you for shedding more light on Gen Yakub Khan and his wife. Or else, I`d have thought it was only my youthful imagination that the gentleman was a class act. I guess class comes from upbringing, not money, ethnicity, or position.

His role in pre-Independence Dhaka is well remembered. Even the most nationalistic Freedom Fighters turned out to accord a civic reception to him when he came `back` to Dhaka for the 1988 SAARC FM conference. The only other Pakistani military names which invoke such fondness are of Admiral Ahsan and Gen Azam Khan.

ON SAHIBZADA

sigalph:

(this from memory)

...william safire is a friend of sahibzada...and once mentioned what a pleasure it is for him... everytime sahibzada passes through new york...the sahibzada visits or calls him with a new word to add to his burgeoning vocabulary...

...have heard he is a scholar and linguist as well...

(...and you must have read henry kissinger praised his intellect also in one of his books...)

(damn memory: what is that shair---sub kuch kahan lala-o-gul main numayaaN hogaeeN...)

...I also vaguely recall there were efforts underway to courtmartial him for ‘deserting’ his post in dacca...fuzair, any recollections?

rgds,

t

Urstruly #55

Coyote,

I read your post with great interest, hoping that you will finally invite us ``indoos`` to shove it up your .. I would have loved to do that. Giving you all the iron in one go.

Re:Eklavya:

The shiite-Sunni Schism is more of a political schism than a doctrinal schism between the sects.... It deals mainly with the sunnah and the succession of the caliphate to Muhammad... Consequently during the Mughal period - where ther was a considerable Persian ( hence Shiite influence in art culture and calligraphy) ... Humayun wife was a persian princess... so was Nur Jehan - Jehangir`s favourite wife - Consequently Shiism thrived in the Mughal period along with the Sunni schools of thought....

Many of the later fiefdows of Owadh had Shiite rulers... so did the Bahmani kingdoms in the South...

The rise of puritanical Wahabism in the late eighteenth century in Saudi Arabia - came more as a reformation movement against an engendered and corrupt priestly class that had devloped over the centuries under Turkish patronage... of SUnni Islam ... which was its origial intent.. unfortunately along the way it also became virulently monolithic.. with no toleration for variation... Around the 1940`s when the orthodox Sunni ulema reasserted their power they ( incl Maudoodi) borrowed heavily from the Wahabi concepts including the anti-Shite stance...

Ironically - initially promoted as a unifying factor in multi-ethnic Pakistan it was shrudely manipulated by the feudal aristocracy to be a repressive force....

Consequently.... you saw

50`s - it was used as Muslims vs Non-Muslims.....
( against a substantial non-Muslim minority in Bengal)

60`s - it was mainstream Islam against the Ahmediyya ( there were doctrinal differences) - but it was also used as a tool for persecution ....

late 60`s/70 - it became West Pakistanis vs East Pakistanis.....

70/80`s - it was `` sons of soil`` vs the Muhajirs...

90`s it the Sunnis vs the Shiites....


The fact that more Muslims were killed by Muslim Pakistan ( the reason the nation was created) than India akilled the two nation theory...

NOw virtually bankcrupt both financially and morally - it can neither claim to represent Jinnah nor Islam ....

It is thus a society in regression.... much like its neigbour to the North..

I also feel that morality and decency in India have also regressed...maybe tempered by the more pleuralistic Indian society... Certainly my Indian friends are very different from the ideologues being imported on the H-1B`s as the next generation technical coolies...( I think well represented on the chowk)

Ferozk, thanks for your detailed reply. I have some more queries or points etc.

One aspect which is missing from all the discussions here on chowk is why is it that in the last two decades there has been an increase in intolerance amongst muslims for muslims? Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, have been extremely tolerant, amongst themselves as well as with others. This has developed over hundreds of years. Yes there have been the occasional blood baths, but it does not explain the virulency of the current trends. Where does this virulency come from? What is the basis for this sudden spurt in the ultra-extra-puritanical streak? Why are intelligent muslims silent? Why is it that muslims from pakistan, bangladesh, india when they come to the west, and attend mosques are suddenly portrayed as lesser muslims (though they follow the quran) than certain otehrs and the people who run these mosques?

The next point I would like to make or ask is this. There is a preamble here. Long time back in History, the Rulers from delhi (sultanate or the mughals) had to seek permission from the Caliph, and later on only homage by way of some dues were paid. Even this later on was discontinued. (you can check this out by reading any history book). TOday, the modern day rulers in Pakistan have to pay homage to the modern day caliphs. (just see where all the good leaders of pakistan have visited first after they have taken power, and visited it in times of problems). WHo are these caliphs? And what do they have that holds the pakistani establishement by the proverbials? (this is in a sense a follow up to my questions and your answers).

The third point is, the Hanafi traditions in Afghanistan were pretty tolerant. They the afghanis, staunch muslims, were men who were tolerant. But get on their wrong side and you were dead meat. And ferocius fighters to the last.

How is it that these people suddenly took up a very extreme form of Islam? What has driven them to do it? Who is driving them to do it? For surely, it cannot have been the russians (or soviets), it cannot have been a dislike for the infedels - this surge of ultr-extreme-islam is a recent development in Afghanistan and indeed Pakistan.

What is your take on these questions? Anyone on the board willing to go the extra mile and go beyond the usual stuf that is doled out.

Rufi #5

I was deeply touched by your letter. I too am a great admirer of Faiz Saheb. For persons like me

(and perhaps you) it is still

Chale chalo ki woh manzil abhi nahi aayi

dost-mittar #67:

...shukria...begum akhtar ka tou jawab nahin...laikin ab woh nahiN rahiN humaray darmyan maiN...am not sure if earlier I mentioned rekha surya one of begum sahiba’s shaagird to you or sameer...rekha’s voice and diction reminds me of begum akhtar...she is back from d.c...tou baat yeh hay janaab key agar is saneechur ki shub aap T.O. ki taraf aarahay rahaiN tou humaiN ittilah kijiaye...hum rekha say aap ko yeh ghazal sunwa daiNgay...warna phir aap ko aglay summer tuk ka intezar karna paRRay ga...

rgds

t

nameless #68 You have a couple of good questions, and let me try and go the extra mile that you invite:

FIRST POINT: ``why is it that in the last two decades there has been an increase in intolerance amongst muslims for muslims?``

Due to the mixing of politics with Islam. Islamic fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon - promoted in the subcontinent by Maudoodi after the formation of Pakistan as a way to gain political power; in Egypt by ?? (I have his name in a book which I dont have near me) in reaction to the excesses of Nasser; in Iran in recent years in reaction to the excesses of the Shah (and once before in the 16th century I think, after hundreds of years of shunning of politics as being beneath the dignity of religion by the mullahs in that country); and so on. Violence in the name of religion is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. This is true even in other religions - Zionism was promoted by secular Jews, while Jewish conservatives actually shunned the concept of a religious state right upto around 1967 when they finally changed thinking when they saw the possibilities of combining political power to further their views. In her book, ``the battle for God``, Karen Armstrong provides an interesting historical background to the rise of fundamentalism in Islam, Judaism and Christinaity.

In Pakistan at least, the lure of political power (and the wealth and other perks with it) is the driving force that drives religious groups to such great lengths. Among muslims, fundamentalism represents a complete ignorance of Islam: the Quran (as I have mentioned several times on chowk) specifically calls upon muslims not to form sects among themselves, e.g., and to also live in a peaceful manner with other people. Ingnorance of religions is mixed with a complex of factors none of which have anything to do with religion: pressures created by the rapid pace of change from traditional life, hatred for the blitheful manner in which the West seems to flourish, and so forth. Add up all this, and you have the mess created by mullahs and their followers in Pakistan.

``Why are intelligent muslims silent?`` Like others, they are too busy trying to make a life for themselves. For every one madrassah, there must by two IT schools that have opened up in Pakistan.

SECOND POINT: Sorry - I dont understand what you are saying here.

THIRD POINT: ``How is it that these people suddenly took up a very extreme form of Islam? What has driven them to do it? Who is driving them to do it?``

Same reason as discussed above. The taliban provide a good example of what happens when you pervert Islam for political ends. Hopefully, the we are watching nowadays the Twilight of the Talibans.