Violent Changes

shima #74

Your observation is on the dot. Not only these three, but a lot more nicks are on the line. At the last count, he uses the following nicks:

Studebaker/AAmir/AeishA/Bapu/Bijli/Shah/Faiza/

Fatimah/Deepika/Bhardwaj/Sadhna/Brad Cruise/

Arrested Development/Lajwanti and so on.

If at any point you feel like being in a house of mirrors and facing the same idiot at every corner is because you actually are.

Tahmed, I think you are right about the identity of Bijli, Bapu, and now this faiza, you may want to add studebaker in that list also. The writing style is very similar, some incoherent sentences, then suddenly something appears in all caps. The unabated India bashing, in fact they are good substitute for Gowardhan and Akash for Pakistan bashing (although, I must say Akash has toned down a bit). Only problem is all these multiple personalities claim to be are Indians!!! Kitni sharm ki bat...

I just saw the interview of Pervaiz Musharaff with Christiana Amanpour on CNN. He was clear, direct and honest in response to excellent questions from the veteran journalist, Ms. Amanpour. I am now convinced more than ever that God is watching out for Pakistan: that is why we have Musharaff with his strong character and concern for Pakistan in charge.

Let us pray that Pakistan comes out of all this back on the road to peace and progress.

The interview will be repeated a few times today on CNN, and chowkies might want to check it out.

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

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

Eklavya #60 krashid has not posted in months. I pray all is well with him. Maybe it is time to resurrect Shirin`s suggestion (at one time on chowk) for each of the chowk regulars to have ``chowk buddy`` who could advise the rest of us of any events in real life that can be shared on chowk.

Arundhati Roy besides being reputed writer ,has been a Social activist in India against a Dam narmada being built for generation of hydro electric by ENRON ,an American Multi Natinal Corporation with close to 5 bn. investmentment .

Pp. like Arundhati Roy who is Keralite married to Bong. is staunchily opPosed to the Dam which has uprootedmany poor villagers on its path & wil many millions more all for benefit of electricity for Cities like Ahmedabad ,Delghi Mumai while they will lose there land ,house & trades.Not to speak unable to even afford the electricity.

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=145702

ESSAY

The Algebra Of Infinite Justice

NOW OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (atleast for muslims sentiments & mine)

So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the `massacre of innocent people` or, if you like, `a clash of civilisations` and `collateral damage`. The sophistry and fastidious algebra of Infinite Justice... Free Speech

[]

ARUNDHATI ROY



In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, an American newscaster said: ``Good and Evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don`t know, massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee.`` Then he broke down and wept. Here`s the rub: America is at war against people it doesn`t know (because they don`t appear much on TV). Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an ``International Coalition Against Terror``, mobilised its army, its airforce, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.



[]

[] []

Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn`t show up in baggage checks.

[] []

[]

[]

The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can`t very well return without having fought one. If it doesn`t find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we`ll lose sight of why it`s being fought in the first place.



What we`re witnessing here is the spectacle of the world`s most powerful country, reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself, America`s streamlined warships, its Cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn`t show up in baggage checks.

Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same day, President George W. Bush said: ``We know exactly who these people are and which governments are supporting them.`` It sounds as though the President knows something that the FBI and the American public don`t.

In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush called the enemies of America ``Enemies of Freedom``.

``Americans are asking why do they hate us?`` he said. ``They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.`` People are being asked to make two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim. And []

[]

[] []

It`s reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America`s economic and military dominance—the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty?

[] []

[]



second, to assume that The Enemy`s motives are what the US government says they are, and there`s nothing to support that either.

For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for the US government to persuade the American public that America`s commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it`s an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were true, it`s reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America`s economic and military dominance—the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government`s record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things—to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)?



(1 of 6)

READ THE REST ,IF YOU WANT OR CARE TO THE URL ABOVE IS GOOD FOR FEW DAYS

#56

saminashah

``7. No Arab state is democratic, so why shouldn`t Israel be run as an apartheid state? (can`t quite follow the logic here)``



sshah

Israel is an IMPLANT ,unlike the prexisting since biblical time Baghdad,Syria,Egypt,Saudi ,.Cant just compare ,like Vajpayee,doing to SIMI ,WHAT BUSH IS DOING IN THE AFTERMATH of 9-11 Tragedy .I cant follow Indian logic either.Not that im dissapointed or anything!

#58

``STUKA

The logic is why make a special case out of Israel. What does Israel owe to the rest of the world? The Palestenians said that they made a major concession by conceding Israel`s right to exist. Big deal. Israel is out there, exisitng and progressive. Do you how insulting it would be for India to say after 50 years of Pakistani independance, oh right, we acknowledge your right to exist.``..



All your neumerically arranged ,comes from a nonmuslim point of views.Regardless of whether the Muslim is in your Backyard in Old Delhi near Hause Khase or Up & coming enterpfreneuer with land & big building in Ghaziabad,all of them will understand the Palestenians position better than you.

I am not saying worse days are not ahead for Palestenian,but if you think small things in context of bigger design of scheme of the world as it stands in the hand of racsist,prejuduced Judeo -Christian collusion .Palestenian & any intelligent muslim is RESIGNED to the fact that there future does not lie in there hands.Its another thing ,they take the most bleak prognosis of this & there fore like hopeless deperate &`NOTHING TO LOSE `

but there own life ,which in there opinion isnt much wiothout being able to control it or be ``free`` to live according to there will.

Israel CAN NEVER BE SYRIA,EGYPT or any of the ancient historical countries.Israsel is AN IMPLANT.Transplant is when somthing is taken from other place & expected to good to the local ppl. THIS CERTAINLY IS NOT ONLY HARMFUL FOR PALESTENIAN BUT OF NO USE TO PLESTENIANS.All the rest garbage about other Arabs being non democratic,etc is none of the business .WE DONT THINK DEMOCRATIC SECULARISM is the 2nd best thing to sliced bread ,You have right to think so ,but evenArabs allow there subjects to be hindu ,jew ,Christian except dont do certain stipulated things & whats so horrible to honour other religous sensibilities which Islam even recognizes need to respect ,``there is no compulsuion in religion``Its common sense religuion can never be Coerced ,never has been & never will be .

New essay by India`s leading polemic, Arundhati Roy on the events of Sep 11 and their aftermath. A well-written (as expected) anti-American, anti-globalization, anti-multinational tirade (as expected too).

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?sid=1&fname=Roy+%28F%29&fodname=20011008&secname=

Most Italians think Berlusconi comments on Islam ``insulting``

ROME, Sept 28 (AFP) - A majority of Italians -- 53 percent -- think comments by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that Western religions were superior to Islam are insulting, according to an opinion poll which appeared on Friday.

Nearly a third -- 30 percent -- of the 1,000 people questioned by the CIRM polling institute said that Berlusconi was right in his comments, while 17 per cent said they had no opinion, in the poll published in La Repubblica on Friday.

Briefing Italian journalists during a visit to Berlin on Wednesday, Berlusconi said the West ``should be confident of the superiority of our civilization`` and he urged Europe to ``reconstitute itself on the basis of its Christian roots.``

His comments sparked a storm of controversy, coming amid US and European efforts to build support among Muslim nations for a global fight against Osama bin Laden`s fundamentalist extremist network in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Rome has so far declined to apologise for the remarks, although the doyen of Arab ambassadors in Rome, Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, will along with other Arab diplomats by received by the foreign ministry next Tuesday, giving an opportunity for a possible move to redress the situation.

On Thursday Berlusconi`s spokesman brushed off the criticism, saying he did not understand how one could accuse ``of insulting Islam, the head of a European government who is fighting for the participation of moderate Arab countries in the alliance against terrorism.``

Italy has one million Muslims but this community is not recognised by the state.

Stuka,

Well, you gave it the old college try...can`t say I agree with your points, vasai, you`re entitled to them. I think generally many of the criticisms brought up are pretty discredited at this point;

re: leadership for example. What on earth allows people outside of any occupied region to think that the politics and various sub groups can be easily organized under a state of siege? It is difficult under the best of circumstances. It is common knowledge that Arafat has no control over groups like the pathological idiots Hamas, and yet everytime an Israeli is murdered or a suicide bomber walks into a group of people, the responsibility is neatly laid at Arafat`s door, as if, let me reiterate, he has any control over the lunatic fringe.The media clamors for reassurance, he says he can`t control Hamas, and the cycle starts all over again. Utterly disingenuous.

The desperation and chaos is never acknowledged, the evil Palestinians are blamed, and nothing changes. I am beggining to suspect this is all in the plan.

Stuka, I hear a lot of excuses. I dare the various Chowkies as an exercise in humanity, to say, come up with at least 10 reasons, without excuse, why we should care about people who are the same or different from us, who suffer the abuse of their human rights. Can it be done? Unfortunately, I can`t say it can. Mores the pity.

What makes Israel so interesting is the reality/historical subtext of the Holocaust; surely the irony has not escaped you. Of course, irony doesn`t pay the bills, and it sure doesn`t lead to justice.It calls itself a democracy, when it clearly is for Israelis.

re: change;We all talk about the violence attributed to the Palestinians, (not the state terrorism of Israel, of course), but don`t give any creedence to peaceful struggle...Oh, Gandhi did it? Indeed he did, but no-one wants to talk about him anymore, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh...We talk about the unsupportable Palestinians who held militant stances in the past and say nothing about the Israeli hardliners.

Maybe y`all should check out Dilip Hiro`s book on this matter; he`s a South Asian writer who approached this matter, quite nicely, if I recall.

regards

Incredible Article from Dawn (Karachi) today..



Be proud, not apologetic


By Dr Humayun Khan


To say that Pakistan has rejoined the American camp is a half-truth. What we have done is rejoined the international community. We should now have the courage to admit that previous policies, which took us more and more out of the mainstream of international thinking, were faulty. We should also have the courage to say that the abandonment of such policies was, on merit, the wisest course and we are proud to have taken it.

It is a pity that President Musharraf, whose decisions in the past days have been praiseworthy, should feel that he must justify those decisions on grounds of compulsion. But such are the realities of politics and power. In his address to the nation on the Sept. 19, he seemed to be saying that, in order to save our skin, we must be prepared to sup with the devil. He need not have been so defensive. He has done the right thing by any standard and he should feel confident in justifying his decision on its intrinsic merit.

Pakistan has not entered any anti-Afghan or anti-Islamic camp. It has joined the anti-terrorist camp. In this it finds itself in good company because virtually every country in the world is in that camp. Moreover, Pakistan has stronger reason than many for doing this. For many years now, terrorists have roamed our streets, often in the garb of religion, killing innocent people. Is it not a frightening statistic that in the last 20 years, more Muslims have been killed in sectarian clashes in Pakistan than in anti-Muslim riots in India?

Is it not alarming that doctors, lawyers, and bankers have been murdered in Karachi for no reason other than their sect and that distinguished professionals are now fleeing that city. The fact of the matter is that the good name of Islam has been polluted and sullied by merchants of hate, both within our borders and beyond. It is to our eternal shame that suspicion should ever have existed that they were tolerated, even encouraged, by official agencies and by government policies.

Our problem has been that we have far more people who profess Islam than those who act according to its tenets. We have too many ``public`` Muslims and too few ``private`` Muslims. We all know the venal politicians, bureaucrats, military officers and religious leaders who make a great exhibition of their observance of Islamic rituals. In private, much of their time is spent like the nursery rhyme king in his counting house counting all his money.

The vast majority of Pakistanis must welcome the change of direction, which the actions of Gen Musharraf promise. Unfortunately, the vast majority is usually a silent majority. As long as terror does not strike them personally, most people are content to be left alone and to live their lives quietly. They fall into a torpor of complacency and thereby yield the stage to violent minorities whose main weapon is the vocalization of religion. It would be tragic if the welfare of this silent majority is ignored while the clamour of the militant minority is heeded.

The challenge now for General Musharraf is to stand firm. He can only do this if he genuinely believes (and indications are that he does) that this is the right course for Pakistan`s future. Nobody is asking him to support the killing of innocent Afghans. Clearly this is not something which any country, including the US, wants. Nobody is asking him to contribute to anti-Islamic actions. What he is required to do is to stand against those who preach violence, be it in the name of religion or otherwise. Admittedly, the risk in doing this is great. But it pales into insignificance against the risk of not doing it.

So, whether President Musharraf was pushed onto the right path or not is an issue that should be put behind us together with all sane elements in this country must now exhibit a full commitment to continuing along that path.

Fortunately, America has heeded the voice of the world community and of its own conscience. It has not acted violently or in haste. To this day, it is struggling to avoid punishing innocent Afghans for the follies of their leaders and the crimes of their unwanted guests. It is seeking a coalition with Islamic countries and is complying with the world`s call for balance and restraint; up to the time of this writing no military action has been taken.

If and when it comes, a primary aim will and must be to avoid killing or hurting innocent people. In the light of this, anti-American protests at this stage are both premature and misplaced - unless, of course, the motives behind these protests are merely to assert and impose the will of extremists on the people of Pakistan. This is the real danger that now confronts us. To meet it, courage and determination on the part of our government and of the vast majority of our people will be necessary.

We must not underestimate the havoc that extremists can create but, at the same time, we must not cower before their threats. Naturally, the first option must be to talk to them and bring them round to a common perception of the national interest. Special attention has to be paid to the problem in the border provinces of the NWFP and Balochistan where pro-Taliban elements abound. Our tribal areas are particularly inflammable. History has shown that in circumstances like these, tribal passions are easily roused. All this calls for exceptional skill on the part of the political administration of these areas.

Finally we must make clear our rejection of, and our revulsion at the statements made by some former military officers who are known to have plunged this country into many disasters in the past and who continue to advocate that it should keep going downhill. These men are dangerous because they have influence with those still serving in the army many of whom have worked as their juniors in the past.

At this very testing time our resolve in the face of immediate dangers must be accompanied by farsightedness about the implications for our future. The present policy undoubtedly holds promise but it also entails some basic rethinking if that promise is to be fully realized. Once the problem of Bin Laden and the Taliban is resolved, world attention will inevitably turn to the control of terrorism in wider sense. One consequence of this will be that the dividing line between freedom fighters and terrorists will become indistinguishable. Violence as a means to achieve political ends, which in themselves may be noble, will be less and less condoned.

For Pakistan this will necessitate a hard second look at our Kashmir policies. We will need to objectively reassess whether a militant jihad has helped us towards a solution of that problem or has hindered it. We shall certainly have to be cognizant of the negative impact of such activities on a possible settlement in the future. In doing this, we can draw some strength from the hope that, while violence will not be condoned, international interest in peacefully solving issues like Kashmir and Palestine will undoubtedly increase.

On the general conduct of foreign policy we will have to drastically review some of our past practices. For more than 20 years now, ``deniability`` has been a dominant theme in our conduct of foreign relations. We have consistently had to deny what we were, rightly or wrongly, accused of doing in the two most crucial areas of concern - Afghanistan and Kashmir. ``Deniability`` is essentially a tool of Intelligence; it is not an ingredient of statesmanship. We have to lift our foreign policy out of the murky levels of Intelligence to the high plane of statesmanship. We must begin to be open and proud , not furtive and cagey about our actions.

We haven`t seen Krashid for a very long time now. I hope he is doing well. A bit worrying...

shammi #47

......... you are right - the palestinians had many chances to get what they wanted but they blew it because they were obsessed with the idea of driving the jews into the sea ....... since this appears to be a genetic disorder, i just hope pakistan doesn`t make the same mistake with kashmir ....

shahgul: You are probably right on each of these indictments, or close enough. However, what is the answer? I present to you the following options:

a. The ``standard`` solution: Continue to equate Jews or Zionists with evil, and to provide examples of their misdeeds. Mullahs in Pakistan have been doing it for ages, whenever they are in the mood of polluting prayer time with politics. This is also the response of many middle class people in Pakistan, and the Pakistan government still refuses to have anything to do with Israel (decades after Egypt and Jordan recognized it, and Turkey too).

b. Seek to destroy Israel: This option is not going to happen, certainly not in the foreseeable future. And if it did it would be a very bad solution anyway. Reason I say this: Arabs have been their, done that. Even if they were to succeed and push all Israelis out to sea, remember that most Israelis are as decent a people as most muslims or other people - and two wrongs never make a right. The Quran repeats over and over again for people to be merciful and forgiving to one another, and this is not just morally the right thing to do, it is also good, practical advice to which we muslims should pay heed.

c. Seek to ``destroy`` an enemy by making that enemy a friend: This is the purpose of the peace process. Arafat may have already missed the boat on this by not making peace work with the Israelis doves, leading to the return to power of the hardliners. Sometimes it is more important to have peace than to have full justice. I have made the case elsewhere on chowk on this point (how land is no longer a factor of production anyway, knowledge is - and that is where there is no conflict of interest between different peoples of the world.