The Price

Sour grapes Mr. FerozK?

``Since the article was penned in sarcasm and was reasonably ignored by the other interactors, your time to post a detailed reply was a sheer wastage of time and speaks volumes of your inability to distinguish between humor and insult; though there is a fine distinction between the two.``

I dont think so. Otherwise you wouldn`t have written such a detailed response (#311)(Not to mention the praise that you have extended to Urstruly which is a usual indicator of you know what). Only a sentence ``the article was penned in sarcasm `` would have sufficed.

So again, before I do surgery on #311, tell me was it written seriously, or was that also sarcasm? (Or better yet keep quiet, I am gonna tear it apart anyway while responding to Romair)

Re: Urstruly

Thank you for an indepth analysis of my post. I really appreciate your time and effort, taken, to show the many flaws in that post. I think that you, in your zeal, have proven yourself to be a person, who in my opinion, is so serious and so deeply commited to his own dogma that he is sadly oblivious to the notions of sarcasm.

Since the article was penned in sarcasm and was reasonably ignored by the other interactors, your time to post a detailed reply was a sheer wastage of time and speaks volumes of your inability to distinguish between humor and insult; though there is a fine distinction between the two.

Incidently, dying for a misguided cause does not make the cause legitmate. There is a war for the soul and the mind of Pakistan. The people, whom you admire, would willingly keep Pakistan mired in the seventh century and if Pakistan is to move into the present century, these peole will not be forced to join the new century kicking and screaming, but will be ditched into the nearest hole, because the majority of Pakistanis want to evolve into a better future and not de-evolve chronologically into a state of medieval Torquemada`s Inquistion blessed and ordained within a religious orthodoxy, which is immune to change and suffers from a xenophobia based on an religous ideal.

In this time and the age, the need of the hour is that religious distinctions and ethnic loyalities should be erased and Pakistanis should be Pakistanis and everything else afterwards. If these Pakistanis are so enamoured of their cause, they should renounce their Pakistani nationalities and adopt the Afghan nationalities. If these Pakistanis do not want Pakistan, they should be allowed to go any where in the this world, where they are welcome. There are not many countries in the world that tolerate and would welcome Pakistanis, whose idea of citizenship is to stab their own nation in the back, because of their religious convictions.

These people, who would put the interests of Pakistan second to their own personal inclinations are a disrespect to the dreams of our fore-fathers and not those whose first and foremost loyality is towards Pakistan.

Like the Americans say and to paraphrase them, either you for Pakistan or you are against Pakistan. There should be no more appeasing these religious hordes. These people, as Romair has said, have played their hand and have lost and they should be treated as losers and not as some poor victims of Hindu-Zionist-American-CNN-BBC-ZEE-MOSSAD-CIA-RAW conspiracy.

Secondly, one more question: if you so strongly feel that these Pakistanis were fighting for a valid cause, why were you not with them in Afghanistan fighting the infidel, but instead are to be found in the lair of your enemies - the west? :)

Ciao

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

re: scout # 367

Now, aren`t you grateful I don`t ``lecture`` you like others you know who :)

HAR!HAR!HAR! .............. AA-HA! HA! HA! ..............(pop !!)...................oops............I think I popped a button somewhere ......no - wait...!! It was just the celebratory Rooh Afzha bottle being popped. You know, the ones we unwashed, slavering Pakistanis bring out after a thirsty round of torturing poor Kashmiri Gujjars.

Looking forward to more hilarious fiction, Mr. Poonwala !!

Urstruly #297: ``The recent history around the world has proved the point otherwise. Take for example, almost all countries where Ba`ath party has crushed religious dissent over the years, it has come back with a vengeance. Algiers, Iran, Afghanistan, itself, when commies were ruling, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria etc. are examples (not to mention tens of other countries where it is simmering inside); and everybody knows what happened when same approach was adopted in East Pakistan against Bengalis (non-religious fanaticism). I would really appreciate one single example, just one, where fanaticism was crushed by violent means.``

Without getting into the details of who should and should not have been killed in Afghanistan, I would like to comment on your comment, quoted above:

I have pointed out in great detail to Pakistan`s various fanatical and fundamentalist Turks (an identical species to the fundamentalist mullah, except at the other end of the spectrum), calling for the lynching of anyone who doesn`t agree with their secular views, to take a look at what is going on in Iran, Egypt, Algeria and Turkey. The harder these countries attempted to ban religious parties, the more popular these parties became.

Eventually, it reached a stage where the religious parties outright started winning the democratic elections (Algeria and Turkey in national elections resulted in religious parties winning the most seats; Iran also would have had the same results if elections been held under Shah; and Egypt in local elections). Eventually, these govt. banned the democratically elected religious leaders and their parties, thereby forcing them towards militarism (in some of these countries). How exactly does one equate this with democracy? i.e. if you don`t agree with my secular views, you should be banned. How ridiculous!

That is exactly why no Pakistan govt. should ``go after`` the religious parties, just because they are religious. It should only go after them if they break things, and carry out violence (which many of them do). Pakistani govts. should try to defeat them in the elections, while not allowing them to carry out any street violence.

Luckily, Pakistani govts. have adapted the correct approach in dealing with the Pakistani religious parties. They have let them scream and holler, till their throats went dry, while not banning them. It is now a well-accepted fact that Pakistani religious parties are all bark and no bite. They cannot even win 1% of the seats. All 36 of them, united on one platform, with an American assault going on in the neighborhood, could not attract more than a few thousand Pakistanis onto the streets, during their current demonstrations. The only people on the streets were their own hardline supporters. More people than that would gather if there were a, ``mujrah`` going on, in the Pakistani streets (seriously).

So, one cannot compare the failiure of the religious parties in Pakistan with the failiure of similar parties in Turkey, Egypt etc. In the later countries, these parties actually won the support of the common man, and were then forcibly banned, i.e. religious dissent was crushed through force. In Pakistan, no one used force on them. If anything, these parties always use force on everyone else. They have threatened civil society on many occassions. They are violent in Pakistan, not because they are being crushed, but because they are attempting to crush others. However, they have lost fair and square.

I think the religious parties in Pakistan, like most other parties (PPP, PML, MQM; due to completely different reasons, I dislike these parties even more than I dislike Pakistan`s religious parties) need to do some soul-searching, and figure out why 99% of Pakistanis do not respect them. The average Pakistani, including myself, was against American violence in Afghanistan. However, this should not be considered synonymous with support for the religious parties. Less than .01% of the Pakistanis supported the religious parties` stance during this conflict.

The primary reason is the religious party leadership consists of hypocrites (no different from Benazir, Nawaz Sharif etc.). Their own kids study and live in the US, yet they want to attack the US. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Have you ever wondered how their living standards are so high, while their followers are so poor. Where does all the money to run the religious parties come from. Their leaders were not fighting for Afghnis (have Qazi, Fazl, or Sami ever gone anywhere themselves to fight. They just recruit other people`s kids to fight). They were protesting for their own future, because they knew it was a test of their popularity. They completely lost out, in a democratic manner.

In conclusion, the religious parties in Pakistan have not been crushed forcefully. On the contrary, due to their violent street power, they have been given more freedom than Pakistan`s non-religious parties. They have not gained any support at all, despite being given all the opportunities to gain support. This indicates that the average Pakistani has rejected them. They lost, fair and square.

My prediction is that within a few months, Musharraf is going to come out with some laws that will put an end to the political and legal hypocracies prevailing in the Pakistani society, in the name of religion.

If Pakistan were to make the mistake of banning religious parties like Turkey, Algeria etc. did, then you would have a point. But it has wisely not done so. If someone really wants to use religion to help people, instead of joining JUI, they should join the Tableeghi Jamaat or Edhi.

History`s hard lessons

By Irfan Husain

If I were to get a dollar for every lesson Muslim leaders had failed to learn over the years, I would be a rich man today.

Time and again in Islamic history, leaders have refused to draw the obvious conclusions from events and their subjects have paid a heavy price for their stupidity. But instead of penalizing their rulers, they have blamed everybody else but those directly responsible for their misfortunes.

This gullibility among the ruled, combined with the cynicism of their rulers, has produced a seemingly unending series of man-made and entirely avoidable disasters spanning centuries that led inexorably to the Gulf War a decade ago, as well as the current situation in Afghanistan.

One problem of course is that Muslim societies have traditionally been ruled by despots who have surrounded themselves with sycophants.

Even today, democracies in the Islamic world can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Under such autocratic rule, decision-making is usually highly personalized and hence whimsical.

This leadership style leads to the selection of unqualified and unsuitable individuals for the top slots in the bureaucracy as well as the defence forces. When nepotism is rampant, talent and intelligence are discounted; officers picked for their family ties and personal loyalty are unlikely to offer independent advice that may be unpopular with their patron.

You do not have to be a management guru to see that this administrative model is a recipe for disaster, and so it has proved to be for centuries.

Although this system also prevailed in the West, it was discarded in favour of democracy and meritocracy which were found to be much more efficient and flexible in running modern societies and economies.

Yet Muslim states have copied only the trappings of democracy, rarely its essence. Arab countries hold farcical one-party elections in which the dictator of the day wins a 99 per cent majority, leaving outsiders wondering about the fate of the dissenting one per cent.

When personal preferences and prejudices rule the destiny of millions, institutions cannot develop and flourish.

Leaders like the Colonel Qadhafi can bankrupt his oil-rich, under-populated nation, subject his people to repression for three decades, and still be admired by Muslims across the world.

Saddam Hussein can invade Iran without provocation and fight a bloody war that bled both nations white over ten years without protest from the Islamic world.

Then the same tyrant can invade Kuwait, triggering the Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions that have devastated his country, and still be regarded a hero from Morocco to Malaysia. Incidentally, he runs one of the most vicious police states in the world, but one doesn`t hear of Muslims demonstrating against him.

Another case in point is the on-going American bombing in Afghanistan. Here is one of the poorest countries in the world, ravaged by years of invasion, civil war and drought , but nonetheless takes on the most powerful state the world has ever seen.

Had the Afghan cause been just, this defiance would have evoked our admiration and sympathy.

However, all this death and destruction has been invited for the sake of Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who did not have the courage to either give himself up or commit suicide to save his hosts from the devastation they are now being subjected to.

At school, it was considered honourable to step forward and accept one`s medicine like a man when the entire class was threatened with collective punishment if the guilty party did not confess to his crime. But in this case, bin Laden too has joined the pantheon of heroes of the Islamic world.

One problem with all three examples given here is that very few of our despots understand the realities of power in the modern world.

In a recent article called ``It`s the daisy-cutter, stupid!``, Kamran Shafi made the point that the Taliban had been routed by the sheer weight of the firepower unleashed on them by the Americans.

While this is obvious to most of us, there are still many Muslims here and elsewhere who feel it is somehow `cowardly` for the Americans not to commit their ground troops to fight the Taliban, relying instead on cruise missiles and B-52s.

Indeed, our ex-spymaster, the (mercifully) retired General Hameed Gul, referred to American troops as ``cream puff soldiers.``

What these latter-day Saladins fail to understand is that military strategy has changed with the induction of the new technologies, and it would be irresponsible for a modern commander to risk his soldiers where he can get the same job done by planes flying at 20,000 feet above the ground.

Both Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar are too ignorant of these realities to comprehend that they simply cannot withstand the storm of steel and fire a modern superpower can unleash.

Ignorance is at the root of Muslim weakness and decline today. There exists a fundamental contradiction between the dictates of despotism and those of modernism: Muslim rulers risk being unseated if their subjects are educated in the modern sense of the word. Hence they are willing to accept and even encourage the setting up of madressahs where only the scriptures are taught.

However, even where modern institutions have been established, students are not encouraged to question and criticize the status quo. although some of them have been the centres of protest, they are not centres of creative research: for this, students have to go to western universities.

Thus, the Muslim world has lost some of its finest minds as it cannot furnish them with the tools or the intellectual environment they need. This brain-drain in turn feeds into the stagnation and torpor that characterize the Muslim world today.

Even in a country like Pakistan where, thanks to its colonial heritage, there is a constant demand for democracy despite its repeated bouts of military rule, there is a sizable section of the population that is out of touch with reality.

Even educated people (or specially educated people) view modernity and secularism with grave suspicion. They seek to make a clear distinction between their faith and what they see as western values. For them, reason and rationality are in conflict with the fundamentals of religion.

Indeed, if they take the scriptures literally, they may well be right. But even in secular Muslim countries like Iraq and Libya, despotism has marginalized and isolated them to the point where, despite their vast oil wealth, they are totally irrelevant to world affairs.

Until Muslim societies can resolve all their many contradictions and learn the lessons they have ignored for centuries, they will deserve to be left behind as they rail against the injustice of history and the march of progress.(DAWN)

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

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

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

I am new to this forum and find it meaningful. I recently met with a group of Kashmiri Gujjar farmers. I work for a NGO concerned with human rights in India. These farmers had been tortured by Pakistani based terrorists acting in the name of Islam. They believe that some of the terrorists were Pathans, others Punjabi Pakistani soldiers masquerading as so called Kashmiri mujahedeen. The Gujjar tribesmen were lured across the border with promises of money. Once across they came face to face with a fundamentalist and stark Islam that they could not understand. They were forced to smuggle arms back into India and told that if they betrayed the ``kashmiri cause`` they would face death and their wives would be raped. The Gujjars of Kashmir, and many other Kashmiris I have met, are mortally afraid of joining up with Pakistan. They are slowly realizing that the best thing about India is the rule of Law which though imperfect, is far better than our neighbor. I also presented many Kashmiris with an Urdu translation of Thomas Friedman`s recent NY Times article in which he speaks of India and Bangladesh Muslims being much better off than Pakistanis (this article was available before its publication in expanded form). While the Indian Army is guilty of brutality in Kashmir, much more so the Pakistan Army and its so called Mujahedeen (who in any case are not Kashmiri). We must work hard to expose the misdeeds of the Pakistan Army, for there is a human rights tragedy occuring there. The Govt of India must lodge a strong protest with Islamabad. The Pakistan Army is destroying lives of Kashmiris.

Ali Akbar Poonawala.

Ref Romair #: 290

[After the pipeline, Gwadar will be the party town of Asia.....]

Absolutely! You can expect to see a modern-day Salome dancing the Dance of the Seven Burqas at your neighborhood bar.

#282

Fuzair, my man, you who has such a sharp sense of history is oblivious to current goings on! Did you read the NYT article (i posted the link and excerpts here a few days ago) where it said pakistani AGENTS and SOLDIERS not just the riff raff were holed up in kunduz? Rumors were flying about that pak airforce planes were evacuating some of these men presumably with a nod from uncle sam...

Feroze # 281

It is a good argument but since it is based on fallacious premises it voids itself. Let us see how:

1. (Reply to your first para) Assuming that American assertion that this war is a war against terrorism is correct – the recent events have proven only one thing – that there are no holds barred on either side (US & OBL). And that is the point OBL has always maintained while he justifies attacking American interests anywhere including the citizens. According to him this is the law of Reciprocity. So by committing and supporting the war crimes against Talibans US has only validated OBL`s point.

2. ``The death of the misguided Pakistanis who went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban and the cause of Islam, was the best thing that could have happened to expose the hollow rhetoric of the religious groups in Pakistan.``

Again the argument negates itself. If the rhetoric of religious groups in Pakistan was hollow, no Pakistani would have gone and died in Afghanistan. The fact that Pakistanis have died in Afghanistan means that they mean business.

3. ``Pakistanis who thought they would die for the cause of Islam, should have taken the time to ponder as to which Islamic nation has given it more than a tepid diplomatic support, when it comes to its caus celebre of Kashmir.``

Again the argument is based on false assumption that the governments in the Islamic world are representative of the people. If they are, take for example, Musharaf in Paksitan, then what is the measure of this? A democratic institution? A referrendum? In Pakistan alone people from all walks of life have spoken against war in Afghanistan, this includes bar associations, writers, poets, teachers associations, workers, students, mosques and all. If violent protests are the measure then there was no dearth of them either. And if the measure is that the protestors were not able to topple the Army regime then your argument is valid. You can extrapolate this point to each and every Muslim ( and some European countries as well) country. As far as Kashmir is concerned please look at several OIC resolutions. And this is despite the fact that all governments in Muslim world with a possible exception of one or two are unrepresentative of the people. What else do you want, they should declare war on India?

4. ``The Taliban have done a great service to Pakistan. The manner in which they have capitulated and the manner in which they have forsaken Pakistanis, and other foreign fighters to save their own miserable necks, has opened many eyes in Pakistan to the lies being preached by the religious groups in Pakistan about Muslim unity and brotherhood.``

Again the argument is based on wrong premise that Taliban had forsaken Pakistanis. No. The Talibans only laid down their weapons in Kunduz (and Mizar-e-Sharif) when Northern Alliance & UN promised an amnesty (sparing lives) to all fighters – domestic & foreign. It is NA who didn’t follow through its promises (twice).

5. ``The complete rout of the Taliban has done more to demoralize the religious fanatics in Pakistan than any other concentrated action,``

Wrong inference again. Such events actually feed new blood into religious or any kind of fanaticism. You may interpret it as a ``tactical set back`` but it is a great plus ideologically and strategically for them. The main motivation for such movements is usually based on the concept of ``sacrifice``. And this is no joke if you know what has been happening in the world for the past 3 months.

6. ``The greater the number of these religious Pakistanis fanatics get killed, the better it will be for Pakistan in the long run and each patriotic Pakistan should be cheering their deaths.``

The recent history around the world has proved the point otherwise. Take for example, almost all countries where Ba`ath party has crushed religious dissent over the years, it has come back with a vengeance. Algiers, Iran, Afghanistan, itself, when commies were ruling, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria etc. are examples (not to mention tens of other countries where it is simmering inside); and everybody knows what happened when same approach was adopted in East Pakistan against Bengalis (non-religious fanaticism). I would really appreciate one single example, just one, where fanaticism was crushed by violent means. If you cant find the example then try pondering the meaning of the word ``fanaticism``. The same argument can be extrapolated to include Kashmir in the context of non-fanatic ``ideological quest for self-determination``; the violence in the form of calculated genocide and targeted rape by Indian government with its 700,000 strong army cannot extinguish the fire in the hearts of Kashmiris. And irony of the irony is that India thinks what Kashmiris are doing is fanaticism. The people in Hinduland do not even want to think for just one minute that it is nothing but the Deja vu of Bangladesh and 99.9% fault lies with them as it was with mainly West Paksitani regime during `71.

7. `` One should bear in mind that religious so-called leaders were against the creation of Pakistan and they are still against its existence and they should be treated with utter contempt.``

Again a fact is misinterpreted self-servingly. The religious parties opposed the creation of Pakistan on two basis:

A) The division will divide Muslim power in sub-continent (as it did).

B) In their view, what Muslim League was offering as incentive ( a country where Muslims will lead their lives according to their faith) for the support of division, could still be achieved with in the union (I disagree though)-Muslim personal law already existed, continued to exist after the division, and if division was not done, a constitutional parity would have been achieved, which means a constitutional autonomy with in the state. The notion that Nehru-Azad and company did not follow through their promises or Muslim vision of non-division did not come through because of the division, is another story and discussing it now is wisdom after the fact. It is a delicate point to understand. But on the other hand if Muslim religious parties now ask for Islamization of the country, they do not go out of they way, it was actually promised to the Muslims. If this argument is correct then it is easier to draw the conclusion that Muslim League did play religious card and not the religious parties.

In corrollory those who oppose the Islamization of Paksitan now, do in fact oppose the ideological framework on which partition and hence creation of Paksitan was based. Which means it is not the religious parties who are anti-Paksitan but those who oppose its very purpose, its ideological framework, are. Could someone please explain to me that if a secular pakistan was the objective of Paksitan movement then why it couldn`t be achieved within Indian union?

So the people who should be treated with contempt, according to your formula, are those who show contempt towards the dreams and promises of our forefathers.

Feroze # 281

It is a good argument but since it is based on fallacious premises it voids itself. Let us see how:

1. (Reply to your first para) Assuming that American assertion that this war is a war against terrorism is correct – the recent events have proven only one thing – that there are no holds barred on either side (US & OBL). And that is the point OBL has always maintained while he justifies attacking American interests anywhere including the citizens. According to him this is the law of Reciprocity. So by committing and supporting the war crimes against Talibans US has only validated OBL`s point.

2. ``The death of the misguided Pakistanis who went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban and the cause of Islam, was the best thing that could have happened to expose the hollow rhetoric of the religious groups in Pakistan.``

Again the argument negates itself. If the rhetoric of religious groups in Pakistan was hollow, no Pakistani would have gone and died in Afghanistan. The fact that Pakistanis have died in Afghanistan means that they mean business.

3. ``Pakistanis who thought they would die for the cause of Islam, should have taken the time to ponder as to which Islamic nation has given it more than a tepid diplomatic support, when it comes to its caus celebre of Kashmir.``

Again the argument is based on false assumption that the governments in the Islamic world are representative of the people. If they are, take for example, Musharaf in Paksitan, then what is the measure of this? A democratic institution? A referrendum? In Pakistan alone people from all walks of life have spoken against war in Afghanistan, this includes bar associations, writers, poets, teachers associations, workers, students, mosques and all. If violent protests are the measure then there was no dearth of them either. And if the measure is that the protestors were not able to topple the Army regime then your argument is valid. You can extrapolate this point to each and every Muslim ( and some European countries as well) country. As far as Kashmir is concerned please look at several OIC resolutions. And this is despite the fact that all governments in Muslim world with a possible exception of one or two are unrepresentative of the people. What else do you want, they should declare war on India?

4. ``The Taliban have done a great service to Pakistan. The manner in which they have capitulated and the manner in which they have forsaken Pakistanis, and other foreign fighters to save their own miserable necks, has opened many eyes in Pakistan to the lies being preached by the religious groups in Pakistan about Muslim unity and brotherhood.``

Again the argument is based on wrong premise that Taliban had forsaken Pakistanis. No. The Talibans only laid down their weapons in Kunduz (and Mizar-e-Sharif) when Northern Alliance & UN promised an amnesty (sparing lives) to all fighters – domestic & foreign. It is NA who didn’t follow through its promises (twice).

5. ``The complete rout of the Taliban has done more to demoralize the religious fanatics in Pakistan than any other concentrated action,``

Wrong inference again. Such events actually feed new blood into religious or any kind of fanaticism. You may interpret it as a ``tactical set back`` but it is a great plus ideologically and strategically for them. The main motivation for such movements is usually based on the concept of ``sacrifice``. And this is no joke if you know what has been happening in the world for the past 3 months.

6. ``The greater the number of these religious Pakistanis fanatics get killed, the better it will be for Pakistan in the long run and each patriotic Pakistan should be cheering their deaths.``

The recent history around the world has proved the point otherwise. Take for example, almost all countries where Ba`ath party has crushed religious dissent over the years, it has come back with a vengeance. Algiers, Iran, Afghanistan, itself, when commies were ruling, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria etc. are examples (not to mention tens of other countries where it is simmering inside); and everybody knows what happened when same approach was adopted in East Pakistan against Bengalis (non-religious fanaticism). I would really appreciate one single example, just one, where fanaticism was crushed by violent means. If you cant find the example then try pondering the meaning of the word ``fanaticism``. The same argument can be extrapolated to include Kashmir in the context of non-fanatic ``ideological quest for self-determination``; the violence in the form of calculated genocide and targeted rape by Indian government with its 700,000 strong army cannot extinguish the fire in the hearts of Kashmiris. And irony of the irony is that India thinks what Kashmiris are doing is fanaticism. The people in Hinduland do not even want to think for just one minute that it is nothing but the Deja vu of Bangladesh and 99.9% fault lies with them as it was with mainly West Paksitani regime during `71.

7. `` One should bear in mind that religious so-called leaders were against the creation of Pakistan and they are still against its existence and they should be treated with utter contempt.``

Again a fact is misinterpreted self-servingly. The religious parties opposed the creation of Pakistan on two basis:

A) The division will divide Muslim power in sub-continent (as it did).

B) In their view, what Muslim League was offering as incentive ( a country where Muslims will lead their lives according to their faith) for the support of division, could still be achieved with in the union (I disagree though)-Muslim personal law already existed, continued to exist after the division, and if division was not done, a constitutional parity would have been achieved, which means a constitutional autonomy with in the state. The notion that Nehru-Azad and company did not follow through their promises or Muslim vision of non-division did not come through because of the division, is another story and discussing it now is wisdom after the fact. It is a delicate point to understand. But on the other hand if Muslim religious parties now ask for Islamization of the country, they do not go out of they way, it was actually promised to the Muslims. If this argument is correct then it is easier to draw the conclusion that Muslim League did play religious card and not the religious parties.

In corrollory those who oppose the Islamization of Paksitan now, do in fact oppose the ideological framework on which partition and hence creation of Paksitan was based. Which means it is not the religious parties who are anti-Paksitan but those who oppose its very purpose, its ideological framework, are. Could someone please explain to me that if a secular pakistan was the objective of Paksitan movement then why it couldn`t be achieved within Indian union?

So the people who should be treated with contempt, according to your formula, are those who show contempt towards the dreams and promises of our forefathers.

This is getting really really interesting:

``No Test if Sehwag plays, says ECB Chairman

CricInfo - 28 November 2001

The Chairman of the England & Wales Cricket Board, Lord MacLaurin, says England will not play against India if they choose banned batsman Virender Sehwag for the first Test in Mohali.``

I believe the Indian board has included Sehwag. So it is an all out war. Interestingly, the only country whose board and commentators have openly supported India is Pakistan.

``Zaheer Abbas:ICC`s decision `comical`

Former Pakistan stalwart Zaheer Abbas has come out in support of the Indian cricketers and the BCCI`s truculence. Speaking to newspersons, Abbas criticised the ICC for a ``grave problem`` in its administration and having a bias against Asian cricketers, reports Faizan Lakhani`` (www.tehelka.com)

Pakistan could have gone for the kill, considering the attitude the Indian govt. and board have had against Pakistani cricket. Not only has Pakistan not gone against India, or even remained neutral, it has supported India. Now if the India board and govt. could get their heads out of their respective asses, they would realize that Pakistan has tolerated their behavior quite elegantly, and they should drop their anti-Pakistan rhetoric now. Specially at a time, where the Indian board needs Pakistan, while the Pakistan board does not need India.