Afghanistan Reflections
Ras Siddiqui October 8, 2001
#120 Posted by shammi on October 15, 2001 2:16:19 am
Re: Romair
In the past, you have often implied that non-Muslims (particulary India) is the `biggest killer of Muslims`. The incendiary charge notwithstanding, it is also factually incorrect. Just read the following:
`Playing with Fire` by Khalid Hasan
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/15/op.htm#3
In the past, you have often implied that non-Muslims (particulary India) is the `biggest killer of Muslims`. The incendiary charge notwithstanding, it is also factually incorrect. Just read the following:
`Playing with Fire` by Khalid Hasan
http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/15/op.htm#3
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#119 Posted by stuka on October 14, 2001 8:38:45 pm
Zafar, a burger, most definitely. Rare and sauce on the side too.
#118 Posted by Eklavya on October 14, 2001 5:45:42 pm
re: Stuka # 123
Stuka,
Oh my friend, you made me laugh so hard. Yes, I know Puppys extremely well. How could I not, I have lived in New Delhi; nore importantly, I have lived in Hauz Khas!
But those Puppys are as non-burger as one gets. The best (worst) part is, they are quite aware of their nonburgerness, their Pearl Jams and sleek ``Mruttis`` notwithstanding :)
But may be Zafar is a blue-blooded burger....what say you, bro Z?
Stuka,
Oh my friend, you made me laugh so hard. Yes, I know Puppys extremely well. How could I not, I have lived in New Delhi; nore importantly, I have lived in Hauz Khas!
But those Puppys are as non-burger as one gets. The best (worst) part is, they are quite aware of their nonburgerness, their Pearl Jams and sleek ``Mruttis`` notwithstanding :)
But may be Zafar is a blue-blooded burger....what say you, bro Z?
#117 Posted by stuka on October 14, 2001 4:31:28 pm
Eklavya:
I was thinking the exact same thing after reading AnNy`s post esp coz I did smoke pot in undergrad, and did listen to Pearl Jam, though not as much as Pink Floyd. I didn`t have a Pajero, just my dad`s mrutti (Punjabi for Maruti).
Well, we may not have burgers, but I think we do have our Puppys. These are the Punjabi versions of Yuppies, and Puppy stands for Punjabi Urbanites. These are the people who listen to loud Punjabi music, while driving around in open top Jeeps, and hang out at Country Club. Quite a common site in Delhi, and they all follow their Daddyjis business in garment export and leather export, while Mummyjis do kitty parties.
So tell me, am I right on the money?
I was thinking the exact same thing after reading AnNy`s post esp coz I did smoke pot in undergrad, and did listen to Pearl Jam, though not as much as Pink Floyd. I didn`t have a Pajero, just my dad`s mrutti (Punjabi for Maruti).
Well, we may not have burgers, but I think we do have our Puppys. These are the Punjabi versions of Yuppies, and Puppy stands for Punjabi Urbanites. These are the people who listen to loud Punjabi music, while driving around in open top Jeeps, and hang out at Country Club. Quite a common site in Delhi, and they all follow their Daddyjis business in garment export and leather export, while Mummyjis do kitty parties.
So tell me, am I right on the money?
#116 Posted by Romair on October 14, 2001 3:09:35 pm
SameerJB #121: I will try to find out whether my info on Mahmood Ahmad being a Muhajir is correct. I generally rely on Ayaz Amir`s article`s on the internals of the Army, as my main source of information. He was in the same seniority level in the Army as the current Generals. Also, he is one of the only writers who understands the military, beuracracy and politics; since he was a part of all three. Most of the other writers are ok on the overall effect of the military on the Pakistani society, but know very little about its internals; due to which they rely on heresay, third party information, and conspiracy theories. I remember Ayaz Amir and Kamran Khan stating that Mahmood Ahmad and a group of the other Generals were Muhajirs. But I could be remembering incorrectly.
The article you have printed is one of the better ones I have read. In my opinion, it indicates correctly what happened. I think both the Generals who were superseded (I don`t think they were fired), because they probably disagreed with Musharraf`s 180 degree turn on Afghanistan policy. They themselves weren`t personally any kind of fanatics. Clinton supported the Taliban at one point also. One would not consider him a fanatic.
The other point to note is that all the other corps commanders and Generals must have agreed with Musharraf`s policy. Otherwise, they would have been told to pack up also. And if too many of them disagreed, then Musharraf couldn`t have made this decision to change his policy. Military policies, within the Army, are decided in a democratic manner.
The third point is that somebody had to become the CJCS. The moment one person was appointed, all the others senior to him, would have resigned. In that sense, this maybe routine.
In agreement with the article, the only thing I am surprised about is the superseding of Usmani. He is an old friend of Musharraf`s. I was 100% sure that he was being groomed to be the next COAS, when Musharraf became President. This was the second most important position in Pakistan after the Prime Minister. Now, in the new setup, it will become the third most powerful position. More importantly, the Army itself is greatly effected by the orientation of its Chief. Now there is no front-runner for this position. It will be interesting to see who Musharraf will appoint. That will go a long way in deciding the orientation of the Army.
The article you have printed is one of the better ones I have read. In my opinion, it indicates correctly what happened. I think both the Generals who were superseded (I don`t think they were fired), because they probably disagreed with Musharraf`s 180 degree turn on Afghanistan policy. They themselves weren`t personally any kind of fanatics. Clinton supported the Taliban at one point also. One would not consider him a fanatic.
The other point to note is that all the other corps commanders and Generals must have agreed with Musharraf`s policy. Otherwise, they would have been told to pack up also. And if too many of them disagreed, then Musharraf couldn`t have made this decision to change his policy. Military policies, within the Army, are decided in a democratic manner.
The third point is that somebody had to become the CJCS. The moment one person was appointed, all the others senior to him, would have resigned. In that sense, this maybe routine.
In agreement with the article, the only thing I am surprised about is the superseding of Usmani. He is an old friend of Musharraf`s. I was 100% sure that he was being groomed to be the next COAS, when Musharraf became President. This was the second most important position in Pakistan after the Prime Minister. Now, in the new setup, it will become the third most powerful position. More importantly, the Army itself is greatly effected by the orientation of its Chief. Now there is no front-runner for this position. It will be interesting to see who Musharraf will appoint. That will go a long way in deciding the orientation of the Army.
#115 Posted by SameerJB on October 14, 2001 10:55:13 am
Romair: I recall you stating at more than one occasion that both gen Usmani and Mahmud Ahmed were mohajirs. However, following article states otherwise about gen Mahmud Ahmed.
The art of kicking friends upstairs
Anwer Sindhu
HAVING seen half a dozen coups d’etat or the equivalent over the last 25 years, the resident cynics of Islamabad have become particularly difficult to shock. It is as if the hills and forests that ring the capital act as a shield against the reality that the citizens of other cities don’t have the luxury of ignoring. However, the hair-raising events of the last seven days have left even the most seasoned players shaken, if not stirred, to the core. Or should I say corps? After all, the Stalinist style purge of the Army’s hierarchy was breathtaking, if not awe inspiring.
Nobody was particularly surprised that General Mahmood had been relieved of his ISI command. True to his Warraich heritage, ‘M’ had his own ideas and wasn’t afraid to voice a dissenting opinion. His support for the Gujrat Chaudhries, despite the Chief’s clear preference for Mian Azhar, was typical. So was his reluctance to share intelligence on Afghanistan with the Americans. The question is, was his removal a direct consequence of the latter?
Let us, for an instant, ignore the “pro-Taliban generals fired” headlines and suppose that differences over Afghanistan policy were not the decisive factor in the equation. Let’s, instead, take the Chief at his word and believe that the decision to reshuffle the Army cabinet had been taken several months back.
Put yourself in General Musharraf’s boots and one thing becomes apparent: it isn’t easy being beholden to a subordinate like M, especially if it feels as if he’s constantly reminding you of the favour he’s owed. Certainly, the Chief has displayed every symptom of being uncomfortable with the erratic behaviour of the splendidly moustached men who ensured his rise to power two years ago. If we compare the circumstances in which both M and his predecessor General Aziz were relieved of command as ISI directors general, a clear pattern emerges: Both openly backed extremist guerrilla outfits, causing serious embarrassment to General Musharraf.
While M has been unceremoniously shown the back door, the prize for audacity belongs to General Aziz. It wasn’t enough for him to have been allegedly reassigned under diplomatic pressure from West. No, he had to continue to play ‘Hameed Gul’ even after becoming Corps Commander Lahore. Readers of this column would recall how General Aziz handed Lashkar-e-Tayyaba control of Gadhafi Stadium for Eidul Fitr prayers last year. Domestically, the story went unnoticed, but it created an almighty stir in the Enclave. One Western ambassador ordered an investigation of the incident and later questioned the Chief at a diplomatic dinner. The incident also caught the attention of the Indian High Commissioner, who embarrassed me by taking along a copy of my column to his first meeting with the Chief.
Despite the diplomatic fall-out, Musharraf has remained loyal to his comrade-at-arms. While defensive on the subject, the Chief’s aides have always insisted: “Aziz is not a fundamentalist!” Either way, he has been honoured with four stars and made CJSC, and will remain in active service long into Musharraf’s first presidency. Unfortunately, the term “kicked upstairs” keeps coming to mind.
Old friends of the Chief aside, the removal of General Usmani from the post of DCOAS easily qualifies as the most shocking move of this turbulent week gone by. The Press had long concluded that ethnic bonds had much to do with the promotion of the former Corps Commander Karachi, and that he was here to stay. Since his removal, I have read stories about Usmani’s alleged opposition to co-operation with the Americans, but remain unconvinced that Afghanistan was the real criteria for his exclusion. That’s because a seasoned local reporter predicted that Usmani’s removal would have repercussions for the publicity-hungry Corps Commander Rawalpindi. “He and Usmani have been having too many long, private conversations,” the observer commented.
Thus, General Musharraf celebrated the beginning of his third year in power by sidelining the old guard. Not since General Ziaul Haq’s 11-year reign of darkness has one individual enjoyed such power. Like Pakistan’s last military dictator, the incumbent Chief has benefited from an ironic twist of fate involving Afghanistan and the US. The greater crisis across the border has also switched the domestic focus away from the mainstream parties and towards peripheral religious groupings. That, in turn, could act to fragment the opposition vote bank at next year’s elections, probably leading to a landslide victory for state-sponsored candidates. In other words, all seems to be going to plan for the Chief. I just hope that absolute power…
The art of kicking friends upstairs
Anwer Sindhu
HAVING seen half a dozen coups d’etat or the equivalent over the last 25 years, the resident cynics of Islamabad have become particularly difficult to shock. It is as if the hills and forests that ring the capital act as a shield against the reality that the citizens of other cities don’t have the luxury of ignoring. However, the hair-raising events of the last seven days have left even the most seasoned players shaken, if not stirred, to the core. Or should I say corps? After all, the Stalinist style purge of the Army’s hierarchy was breathtaking, if not awe inspiring.
Nobody was particularly surprised that General Mahmood had been relieved of his ISI command. True to his Warraich heritage, ‘M’ had his own ideas and wasn’t afraid to voice a dissenting opinion. His support for the Gujrat Chaudhries, despite the Chief’s clear preference for Mian Azhar, was typical. So was his reluctance to share intelligence on Afghanistan with the Americans. The question is, was his removal a direct consequence of the latter?
Let us, for an instant, ignore the “pro-Taliban generals fired” headlines and suppose that differences over Afghanistan policy were not the decisive factor in the equation. Let’s, instead, take the Chief at his word and believe that the decision to reshuffle the Army cabinet had been taken several months back.
Put yourself in General Musharraf’s boots and one thing becomes apparent: it isn’t easy being beholden to a subordinate like M, especially if it feels as if he’s constantly reminding you of the favour he’s owed. Certainly, the Chief has displayed every symptom of being uncomfortable with the erratic behaviour of the splendidly moustached men who ensured his rise to power two years ago. If we compare the circumstances in which both M and his predecessor General Aziz were relieved of command as ISI directors general, a clear pattern emerges: Both openly backed extremist guerrilla outfits, causing serious embarrassment to General Musharraf.
While M has been unceremoniously shown the back door, the prize for audacity belongs to General Aziz. It wasn’t enough for him to have been allegedly reassigned under diplomatic pressure from West. No, he had to continue to play ‘Hameed Gul’ even after becoming Corps Commander Lahore. Readers of this column would recall how General Aziz handed Lashkar-e-Tayyaba control of Gadhafi Stadium for Eidul Fitr prayers last year. Domestically, the story went unnoticed, but it created an almighty stir in the Enclave. One Western ambassador ordered an investigation of the incident and later questioned the Chief at a diplomatic dinner. The incident also caught the attention of the Indian High Commissioner, who embarrassed me by taking along a copy of my column to his first meeting with the Chief.
Despite the diplomatic fall-out, Musharraf has remained loyal to his comrade-at-arms. While defensive on the subject, the Chief’s aides have always insisted: “Aziz is not a fundamentalist!” Either way, he has been honoured with four stars and made CJSC, and will remain in active service long into Musharraf’s first presidency. Unfortunately, the term “kicked upstairs” keeps coming to mind.
Old friends of the Chief aside, the removal of General Usmani from the post of DCOAS easily qualifies as the most shocking move of this turbulent week gone by. The Press had long concluded that ethnic bonds had much to do with the promotion of the former Corps Commander Karachi, and that he was here to stay. Since his removal, I have read stories about Usmani’s alleged opposition to co-operation with the Americans, but remain unconvinced that Afghanistan was the real criteria for his exclusion. That’s because a seasoned local reporter predicted that Usmani’s removal would have repercussions for the publicity-hungry Corps Commander Rawalpindi. “He and Usmani have been having too many long, private conversations,” the observer commented.
Thus, General Musharraf celebrated the beginning of his third year in power by sidelining the old guard. Not since General Ziaul Haq’s 11-year reign of darkness has one individual enjoyed such power. Like Pakistan’s last military dictator, the incumbent Chief has benefited from an ironic twist of fate involving Afghanistan and the US. The greater crisis across the border has also switched the domestic focus away from the mainstream parties and towards peripheral religious groupings. That, in turn, could act to fragment the opposition vote bank at next year’s elections, probably leading to a landslide victory for state-sponsored candidates. In other words, all seems to be going to plan for the Chief. I just hope that absolute power…
#114 Posted by Eklavya on October 14, 2001 10:55:13 am
Darn. I can`t even keep my spellings straight. What better proof of my non-burgerness!
#112 Posted by Eklavya on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
anNy, Kafir,
Thanks for those delicious descriptions of burgers, old and new.
Zafar, stuka, and other Indians,
What about us? Do we Indians have our own classes of burgers and hergers?
My experiences with Indians of all classes, religions, and backgrounds, from the poorest to the richest, tell me that we really don`t. Such classes haven`t stabilized in any meaningful sense because there has been too much mobility (both upwards, and unfortunately, downwards), and too much intermingling of potential bergers with hopeless nonbergers like me. In fact, I didn`t find too many bergers even in the most berger-friendly Indian places.
But what do you `bergers` think? :)
Thanks for those delicious descriptions of burgers, old and new.
Zafar, stuka, and other Indians,
What about us? Do we Indians have our own classes of burgers and hergers?
My experiences with Indians of all classes, religions, and backgrounds, from the poorest to the richest, tell me that we really don`t. Such classes haven`t stabilized in any meaningful sense because there has been too much mobility (both upwards, and unfortunately, downwards), and too much intermingling of potential bergers with hopeless nonbergers like me. In fact, I didn`t find too many bergers even in the most berger-friendly Indian places.
But what do you `bergers` think? :)
#111 Posted by nameless on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
The sole remaining diplomat of the Taliban outside Afghanistan, Saeef in Pakistan, has gone back to the bombed out Kandahar (gandhara to old cultural, anthropological buffs) in a rush. He is said to be carrying a special message from the rat who was the board member of Rabita (a banned and poscribbed association/organisation) and CEO of Pakistna Musharraf.
Is the ultimatum about the mushroom clouds and bio-warfare being sent to afghanistan after the antharax outbreaks in US!?
I hope the taliban heed Mushy dudes word. Else there will not be an afghanistan worth living for soon.
Is the ultimatum about the mushroom clouds and bio-warfare being sent to afghanistan after the antharax outbreaks in US!?
I hope the taliban heed Mushy dudes word. Else there will not be an afghanistan worth living for soon.
#110 Posted by harimau on October 13, 2001 1:53:25 pm
Ref kafir k khan #: 109
[It is true that most Burgers are from Punjab and Karachi. In the US mostly around B grade universities like Oklahoma and Jesey area.]
YLH would have you know that Jersey universities are Ivy League grade.
[It is true that most Burgers are from Punjab and Karachi. In the US mostly around B grade universities like Oklahoma and Jesey area.]
YLH would have you know that Jersey universities are Ivy League grade.
#109 Posted by shammi on October 13, 2001 1:53:25 pm
Re: Romairr
``...Either this could bring them (Imam`s followers) closer to Hindus, due to a hatred for Musharraf. Or it could separate them even furthur from Hindus, due to India`s support for the US...``
I think that you do not understand the nuances of the Imam`s position towards Pakistan. Perhaps, Zafar Al-Talib can elucidate. Gone are the days when it would have been relatively easy for a Hindu chauvinist to make the case that the Imam Bukhari (direct descendent of the Mughal chief cleric from Bukhara) is (a) representative of all Muslims, and (b) that the Imam could be considered as a Pakistan (as distinct from Muslim) sympathizer. A vast majority of Indian muslims now believe that the Partition was an unmitigated disaster for their community -- it has divided them into three countries, left them leaderless, and promoted insecurity. Hindus are beginning to understand that Pakistan does not automatically imply nirvana for Indian Muslims. That understanding has signficantly reduced the risk of a Hindu-Muslim clash. That is why, the Imam while taking strong positions on Muslim issues, also takes great care to distance himself from TNT, Pakistan `ideology` and terrorism inspired by Pakistan-based elements (while not giving the Indian authorities a blank cheque on issues affecting Indian Muslims and Kashmir). Notice that his congregation chanted `Pakistan Murdabad`. It is not be understood as a call for the destruction of the people of Pakistan, but that of a regime and ideology that has harmed the cause of Indian muslims. Indeed, the Imam went to Lahore to meet with the LeT chief to get him to tone down the anti-India activities, but was rebuffed by the LeT. The Imam goes out of his way to reiterate that another Partition will not be allowed. In this, he is joined by the Deoband-based institution near Saharanpur. Indeed the chief of the Deobandis in India was invited by the Pakistani fundamentalist parties to a large congregation near Peshawar earlier this year. At that meeting, the Indian Deobandi admonished his hosts for making irresponsible statements about India, and calls for jehad against India. As recently as Musharraf`s last visit to Delhi, the Imam took the unprecedented step of publicly castigating Syed Shah Geelani (the APHC fundamentalist firebrand) for his strong anti-India statements. You imply that Hindus harbor a hatred for Musharraf -- the real issue is larger than the popularity (or lack of it) of Musharraf in any one community in India. The Imam does not hate just Musharraf (indeed it is quite likely that Musharraf`s family would have attended Friday services led by the Imam`s father in undivided India, since Musharraf`s old home is about 500 yards from the Jama Masjid. Some of Musharraf`s relatives in Lucknow broke off ties with his family for having moved to Pakistan). The Imam has come to hate the idea of dividing the subcontinent`s Muslims first into two, then later into three parts. In light of the above, if the Imam preaches public opposition to the US (and indirectly to India`s position without mentioning it), it no longer raises hackles in India like it would have some years ago. By the same token, if the Imam asks for a destruction of those who support the US, it is understood that he is referring to the BJP and the Sangh-Parivar, not to India. This reflects upon a growing political maturity of both the Imam, and his political opponents in India. There was no violence in the streets after the Imam`s speech, and no chauvinist Hindu party has given a knee-jerk reaction to the Imam`s calls. There is room for dissent with the BJP`s political positions in India, as there is for expressions of Muslim solidarity. The Imam recognizes that the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh dealt a blow to that solidarity. These changes have occurred in the last 20-30 years, and do not polarize Indians one way or the other, like they could have earlier. And while you are `concerned` about how much more trouble it could spell for India than Pakistan (it is very hard for me to accept your protestations of concern at face value, given your long-stated position of supporting anti-India terrorism), the Imam and his flock are unlikely to seek your shoulder to seek relief. This is a result of a sober assessment by all responsible people that there is no alternative to peaceful coexistence.
Having said all of the above, the Imam (despite what he may like to think) is hardly a representative of all Indian Muslims. Not even Jinnah was that.
``...Either this could bring them (Imam`s followers) closer to Hindus, due to a hatred for Musharraf. Or it could separate them even furthur from Hindus, due to India`s support for the US...``
I think that you do not understand the nuances of the Imam`s position towards Pakistan. Perhaps, Zafar Al-Talib can elucidate. Gone are the days when it would have been relatively easy for a Hindu chauvinist to make the case that the Imam Bukhari (direct descendent of the Mughal chief cleric from Bukhara) is (a) representative of all Muslims, and (b) that the Imam could be considered as a Pakistan (as distinct from Muslim) sympathizer. A vast majority of Indian muslims now believe that the Partition was an unmitigated disaster for their community -- it has divided them into three countries, left them leaderless, and promoted insecurity. Hindus are beginning to understand that Pakistan does not automatically imply nirvana for Indian Muslims. That understanding has signficantly reduced the risk of a Hindu-Muslim clash. That is why, the Imam while taking strong positions on Muslim issues, also takes great care to distance himself from TNT, Pakistan `ideology` and terrorism inspired by Pakistan-based elements (while not giving the Indian authorities a blank cheque on issues affecting Indian Muslims and Kashmir). Notice that his congregation chanted `Pakistan Murdabad`. It is not be understood as a call for the destruction of the people of Pakistan, but that of a regime and ideology that has harmed the cause of Indian muslims. Indeed, the Imam went to Lahore to meet with the LeT chief to get him to tone down the anti-India activities, but was rebuffed by the LeT. The Imam goes out of his way to reiterate that another Partition will not be allowed. In this, he is joined by the Deoband-based institution near Saharanpur. Indeed the chief of the Deobandis in India was invited by the Pakistani fundamentalist parties to a large congregation near Peshawar earlier this year. At that meeting, the Indian Deobandi admonished his hosts for making irresponsible statements about India, and calls for jehad against India. As recently as Musharraf`s last visit to Delhi, the Imam took the unprecedented step of publicly castigating Syed Shah Geelani (the APHC fundamentalist firebrand) for his strong anti-India statements. You imply that Hindus harbor a hatred for Musharraf -- the real issue is larger than the popularity (or lack of it) of Musharraf in any one community in India. The Imam does not hate just Musharraf (indeed it is quite likely that Musharraf`s family would have attended Friday services led by the Imam`s father in undivided India, since Musharraf`s old home is about 500 yards from the Jama Masjid. Some of Musharraf`s relatives in Lucknow broke off ties with his family for having moved to Pakistan). The Imam has come to hate the idea of dividing the subcontinent`s Muslims first into two, then later into three parts. In light of the above, if the Imam preaches public opposition to the US (and indirectly to India`s position without mentioning it), it no longer raises hackles in India like it would have some years ago. By the same token, if the Imam asks for a destruction of those who support the US, it is understood that he is referring to the BJP and the Sangh-Parivar, not to India. This reflects upon a growing political maturity of both the Imam, and his political opponents in India. There was no violence in the streets after the Imam`s speech, and no chauvinist Hindu party has given a knee-jerk reaction to the Imam`s calls. There is room for dissent with the BJP`s political positions in India, as there is for expressions of Muslim solidarity. The Imam recognizes that the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh dealt a blow to that solidarity. These changes have occurred in the last 20-30 years, and do not polarize Indians one way or the other, like they could have earlier. And while you are `concerned` about how much more trouble it could spell for India than Pakistan (it is very hard for me to accept your protestations of concern at face value, given your long-stated position of supporting anti-India terrorism), the Imam and his flock are unlikely to seek your shoulder to seek relief. This is a result of a sober assessment by all responsible people that there is no alternative to peaceful coexistence.
Having said all of the above, the Imam (despite what he may like to think) is hardly a representative of all Indian Muslims. Not even Jinnah was that.
#108 Posted by Banjaara on October 13, 2001 1:53:25 pm
Shah # 111
``but it is sickening to see minorities in India encouraged to be a ``parrot`` reciting govt line for safety & survival.``
What would you say about nasah and Zafar in view of your contention.And how about yourself.You are
an indian but that doesn`t stop you from criticizing india/indians(assuming you are a muslim).
Regards.
``but it is sickening to see minorities in India encouraged to be a ``parrot`` reciting govt line for safety & survival.``
What would you say about nasah and Zafar in view of your contention.And how about yourself.You are
an indian but that doesn`t stop you from criticizing india/indians(assuming you are a muslim).
Regards.
#107 Posted by anNy on October 13, 2001 12:23:39 pm
stuka:
``Why are some Pakis called Burgers anyway? Could someone elucidate?``
romair and sac have pretty much described it but ill take a shot at it too
a burger is a very obvious act at trying to make yourself pass off as an upper class, dope smoking, pearl jam listening, marks n spencer undies wearing, zouk frequenting individual while youre really just a new money kid trying really hard to be something ure not, wont ever be and whats not worth the effort
then there are a different class that doesnt have a name yet...these are the old moneyed, eton and oxford kae parhae hoae characterized by clear skin, beautiful feet, soft voices and a permanently stoned expression on their face that doesnt register anything around them in attempts at sophistication...you will only see this group in respectable very expensive white cars..no pajeros for them..class is the key word here..these individuals are deeply seeped within a sense of superiority while the burger class is what it is because of an inherent inferiority complex which drives them to what distorted being they become
p.s: burgerism is a passing phase...the other class is very dangerous...there you take yourself very seriously and will in most probabaility never wrangle yourself out of the cesspool
``Why are some Pakis called Burgers anyway? Could someone elucidate?``
romair and sac have pretty much described it but ill take a shot at it too
a burger is a very obvious act at trying to make yourself pass off as an upper class, dope smoking, pearl jam listening, marks n spencer undies wearing, zouk frequenting individual while youre really just a new money kid trying really hard to be something ure not, wont ever be and whats not worth the effort
then there are a different class that doesnt have a name yet...these are the old moneyed, eton and oxford kae parhae hoae characterized by clear skin, beautiful feet, soft voices and a permanently stoned expression on their face that doesnt register anything around them in attempts at sophistication...you will only see this group in respectable very expensive white cars..no pajeros for them..class is the key word here..these individuals are deeply seeped within a sense of superiority while the burger class is what it is because of an inherent inferiority complex which drives them to what distorted being they become
p.s: burgerism is a passing phase...the other class is very dangerous...there you take yourself very seriously and will in most probabaility never wrangle yourself out of the cesspool
#106 Posted by taqil17 on October 13, 2001 12:23:39 pm
I could not agree more with your analyses.Pakistan today is again in the frontline facing destruction and doom. Pervez Musharaf iis the last hope for this country.If he fails Pakistan will slide into anarchy and then the MULLAHS will have a field day. These illiterate MULLAHS and their henchmen the so callded religious students of the MADRISSAS are a curse for this country. If the present Govt. Falls Pakistan will be at the mercy of the obscurantists and the religious fundamentalists. This country can implode and become another failed state to be discarded on the dust heap of history. God save Pakistan from the MULLAHS and their narrow minded followers who cannot see beyond the tip of their dirty noses.
#105 Posted by Romair on October 13, 2001 1:37:03 am
This is an interesting article:
``Bukhari`s faithful shout Pakistan murdabad
NEW DELHI
THE head priest of India`s largest mosque Friday denounced Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for backing the US in its war against Afghanistan and warned of a popular upsurge against him.
In an emotive hour-long speech just before the afternoon prayers at the 17th-century Jama Masjid mosque here, Shahi Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari said Musharraf was doomed because he had let down Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia.
Speaking in Urdu, Bukhari made no mention of India but asserted that all those who support the US would be destroyed.`` (remaining article at http://www.economictimes.com/today/13poli03.htm)
This could be a unique situation for India. I was wondering how the Muslims in India were going to react. They reacted quite violently to Salman Rushdie`s novel. Either this could bring them closer to Hindus, due to a hatred for Musharraf. Or it could separate them even furthur from Hindus, due to India`s support for the US. Or it could have no effect. If riots do start up in India however, their implications would be much worse than those in Pakistan (which have now lost steam and are past their prime).
Any objective comments from Indians will be appreciated.
``Bukhari`s faithful shout Pakistan murdabad
NEW DELHI
THE head priest of India`s largest mosque Friday denounced Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for backing the US in its war against Afghanistan and warned of a popular upsurge against him.
In an emotive hour-long speech just before the afternoon prayers at the 17th-century Jama Masjid mosque here, Shahi Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari said Musharraf was doomed because he had let down Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia.
Speaking in Urdu, Bukhari made no mention of India but asserted that all those who support the US would be destroyed.`` (remaining article at http://www.economictimes.com/today/13poli03.htm)
This could be a unique situation for India. I was wondering how the Muslims in India were going to react. They reacted quite violently to Salman Rushdie`s novel. Either this could bring them closer to Hindus, due to a hatred for Musharraf. Or it could separate them even furthur from Hindus, due to India`s support for the US. Or it could have no effect. If riots do start up in India however, their implications would be much worse than those in Pakistan (which have now lost steam and are past their prime).
Any objective comments from Indians will be appreciated.
#104 Posted by hobbyty on October 13, 2001 1:37:03 am
All Pakistani and Indian Fishing and Hunting enthusiasts are invite to view the pictures of a recent ``Steelhead`` trip - interest person can contact Bilal if they want him to arrange or accompy you on Fishing or hunting trips:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/fishpics/
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- VRV: The emergence of regional... How real is your
- VRV: #97 Posted by nkg... How real is your
- nkg: Re: # 96 VRV... Within dramatism,... How real is your
- VRV: 72, Anil, Democracy has arrived... How real is your
- shandana: oops, multiple posts my... How real is your
- shandana: HP, the move from (relative)... How real is your
- shandana: HP, the move from (relative)... How real is your
- shandana: HP, the move from (relative)... How real is your
