War Now and, Forever?

you have mentioned that the extremists in pakistan and india need to be controlled ,should the hindu extremist be left alone and be given a free hand ,to

do whatever they want?

syed #8 writes

---

Democracy is not a recipe fore moderation - In India ... ``hindU`` fascism is on the rise....the present government has very strong nationalistic and fascist tendencies...._ here you have a democratically elected leaders using a national platform to intimidate minorities all over India....

---

What evidence do you have that ``hindu`` fascism is on the rise? For your information, there is a clear separation between religion and state in India, notwithstanding occasional tomfoolery (such as attempts to introduce Astrology as a university subject). The same, obviously, cannot be said of Pakistan where thousands of `` madrasa schools`` poison minds with anti-hindu, anti-India propaganda. Hopefully your leaders are cleaning up these ``schools``.

Religion, to most Indians, is a private matter and not conflated with public life and government.

Which national party is trying to intimidate minorities (of what kind? India is a land of minorities)? The number of Indian muslims exceeds the population of Pakistan. They are free to practice their religion freely and in a manner granted in few places (no Mosque in Singapore dare use the loudspeaker, for example; apparently their sermons and other activities are carefully monitored).

In the current situation, Vajpayee has the support of his coalition as well as the opposition parties including marxists. The goals are simple:

1. Rein in the jehadi groups

2. Stop Cross border terror

the implicit message/demand is probably to convert the LOC into an international border and have cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of military, return of displaced persons to kashmir and return of free and fair elections.

If meaningful action is not taken, war of some kind may be the instrument to deliver a stronger message.

The average Indian is fed-up and would be willing to support a war if it could bring us towards the above objectives.

I believe, despite American protestations, the US is more closely aligned with Indian objectives. This is the reason why India is considering limited war as an option. Nobody will dare to use nuclear weapons; the fall out will be considerably more impactful than Kargil.

Pakistan made a big mistake in mixing religion with politics and covert warfare. It has now to undo the mess. The writing is on the wall.

Vereesh,

Your lecture on the greatness of India not withstanding, could you let me know where you think your evolved leader Advani is taking all of us? He is the second most evolved person in India, if one follows your arguments. And has been put in that position by the evolving society you have described (Pakistanis can at least make an excuse that their leaders have been thrust upon them, and have not evolved).

Let me give you hint. He has presented a case which would not hold up in any Indian court, if an Indian citizen was involved, due to lack of evidence. Yet he has brought South Asia to the brink of potential nuclear war. For those Indians, who are still jumping up and down (luckily there aren`t too many Pakistanis doing this), here is an outline of what happens in a nuclear war. Just thank your stars that so far the unevolved Pakistanis and their unevolved leader has not adopted the same attitude as India. But I wouldn`t risk it for too long, us fundamentalists do tend to lose our temper, also; more so than you guys can ever imagine:

``Lucky you. You survived a nuclear war! Well, don`t be too glad. What happens after the nuclear war is so gruesome, you`ll wish you had died on the spot.

All hell breaks loose. There`s eye-popping flashes of light everywhere and ear-ripping bangs as the bombs go off. Cities evaporate. Infrastructures crumble. Everywhere, huge mushroom-shaped clouds tower up into the sky. All electricity goes out because of electro-magnetic effects. And of course, many die: according to even the mildest scenario`s, hundreds of millions die instantaneously as the nukes go boom.

But you (my note: and Advani)-- you survive all that. Better take shelter: for the next days, it will rain highly radioactive fall-out particles only. For almost three days and three nights in a row, it will rain radioactivity in a region several hundreds of kilometers around each impact site. And to be honest: it`s best you stayed indoors for a whole year, patiently waiting until radioactivity levels finally begin to drop.

But wait, there`s more trouble. As the mushroom clouds begin to fade, the REAL consequences of nuclear war become apparent. From the explosion sites, huge amounts of evaporated stuff, smoke and soot rise up into the sky. It`s quite different from the usual smoke columns that come from fires. The intense heat from the nuclear impact sites pushes the debris straight into the highest parts of the atmosphere, the so-called stratosphere. There, it slowly starts to disperse, covering ever bigger portions of the world. But what`s worse -- the soot blocks the Sun.

Within days, a weird and unprecedented climate shift sets in. Total darkness covers everything. Temperatures drop rapidly. And chances are the soot blanket that prevents the Sun from shining spreads across the globe, transforming even the Latin Americas, Asia and Africa into chilly shadow worlds. There you have it: the infamous, dreaded Nuclear Winter.

Within weeks, it`s minus 23 to 30 degrees Celsius everywhere. Do you live near the shore? Consider yourself lucky: since oceans cool only slowly, temperatures near the sea will drop `only` some five to ten degrees. But there is a downside, too: because of the big temperature differences between the sea and the inland, unimaginable storms and hurricanes will harass the coastal areas.....

Meanwhile, you`re not the only one having a hard time. Plants, living on sunlight and warmth, will die within weeks. Animals, relying on both plants and warmth, die too. Other animals perish because all water is frozen. After a couple of months, there won`t be any birds anymore. And what`s worse, the animals with the biggest chance to survive are not exactly what you call good company in the pitch-black darkness: insects, rats, flies and cockroaches. They have a great time, having all those dead bodies to eat and no birds to hunt them down.`` (complete details at http://www.xs4all.nl/

Vereesh: One should not be too self-righteous. This is proving to be India`s achilles heel. It is seeing all the problems in Pakistan, which Pakistan is actively trying to correct, but is not seeing the problems in India.

But if India is such a great country, then good for you. I hope someday Pakistan can become an equally great country.

Personally speaking, I wish all Indians the best of luck. Just leave the Pakistanis alone, and leave the Kashmiris alone. I am nationally the former and ethnically the later. Regardless of the correctness and incorrectness of TNTs, these two people(s) don`t want to live with you. So please don`t force them to. Most of them were able to break free. The remaining will do so, as soon as you let them. They maybe idiots for wanting to break free, but well, that is what they want to do. Sometimes, the best looking and evolved guy, doesn`t always get the girl.

Go ahead and float your peacocks, but please don`t do so in their blood and in their homes. You evolution process will only accelerate if you take such measures. Let everyone else evolve at their own pace. Don`t force them to evolve as an integral part of you. And don`t worry about them. They will do fine, if you leave them alone. They have not asked you to show them the way.

And while Advani maybe a product of your evolving democratic process (Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Advani; I hope it is evolving in the right direction, and not undoing itself), I certainly feel uncomfortable with him deciding the future of South Asia. Nuclear missiles launched by democratically elected Indians do as much damage as nuclear missiles launched by non-democratic Indians.

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

Kuldip is much hated Indian by Hindians,he is derogatorily called`Cool-Dip`,Punjabi gutter ,sleeping with the enemy(pakistan)

Who are there favourite? Rajiv Srinivasan & Vasrsha Bhosle

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/03nayar.htm

Kuldip Nayar

India`s blind spot

There is glee in our response to Pakistan`s travails. We were happy when it was described as a failed state. In order not to sound prejudiced, we did argue that it was not our assessment but that of the West, as if anything coming from it was the gospel truth. Our bias was clear and we waited for the collapse of Pakistan under the weight of its economic difficulties.



More recently, after the September 11 carnage, we enjoyed Pakistan`s chagrin as they had to stand behind America and jettison the Taliban, their own creation. That Islamabad lost face was apparent. It is proved beyond doubt that the ISI trained, armed and guided the Taliban and that Pakistani troops and officers fought alongside them till the last minute. But we failed to recognise the change in Islamabad`s policy.

It is clear that Pakistan took a U-turn when it found it had no option but to support America. All that Islamabad had built collapsed like a house of cards in a few days. It realised that its policy on Afghanistan was flawed. The policy-makers who saw Afghanistan giving Pakistan a much-needed ``strategic depth`` were found to be ambitious and unrealistic. General Pervez Musharraf justified the new policy ``in the best national interest which was motivated by concerns of security.`` He may sound opportunistic but he has to stay in the good books of mighty Washington.

We refused to see how crestfallen Islamabad was. Nor did we gauge the disillusionment of the people of Pakistan. We were on our ego trip: not to give an inch to Islamabad. There is no doubt that Pakistan`s president accepted the facts. He did it despite knowing that the public opinion in his country was anti-America. It was a personal risk he took. It has paid off so far.

Our efforts, on the other hand, were concentrated on creating bad blood between America and Pakistan. We could not accept the position of not being asked to help even after we had offered all our support within an hour of the September 11 tragedy. How could Washington woo Islamabad, whose complicity with the Taliban was beyond doubt? We went on telling the world that a dictatorship was being preferred to a democratic state. Probably, it was not that black or white. Probably America had no choice. Probably it chose Pakistan because it has a long border with Afghanistan. Pakistan, a frontline state, was also an ideal place to launch any action against Afghanistan. Islamabad opened airports and other places to help American and British soldiers enter Afghanistan.

America could conduct bombardment from naval ships as it did. But it needed a land base for ground operations. India is not the ideal geographical location for that kind of access. Thank God for that, because it would have been difficult for an open, democratic country to allow foreign soldiers to operate from its soil. Still we sulk because Washington wants to build equally strong relations with Islamabad. Must it always be them or us?

Kabul has a friendly government, one that is not under the influence of Islamabad or the ISI. The Musharraf junta has unwittingly helped us. Another welcome point is that Islamabad is waging war against Islamic fundamentalists and obscurantists. They are the Taliban within.

We should feel elated that Afghanistan, which was a breeding ground for terrorists, is no more a vortex of militancy. Terrorism will no longer be exported to Kashmir from there. There was a time when Musharraf was thick with the terrorists. He was unsure of his ground even when he took action against them initially. In Sind, he arrested some terrorists but released them quickly. He was probably testing the waters.

Subsequently, however, he joined issue with them. He has detained many terrorists and has had to face demonstrations in support of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Musharraf has also dismissed the ISI chief, transferred the two top army commanders and demoted some middle-rank officers who were baptised during General Zia-ul Haq`s regime. The military -- one-third of it bigoted -- may well have been cleaned up.

This mopping up job must have emboldened Musharraf. He has enunciated harsh measures to discipline thousands of madrassas which have been training nearly 500,000 students in fundamentalism every year for the last two decades. The madrassas now need to register themselves, submit their accounts for audit and introduce science and other subjects to modernise their curriculum. This is something even we have not dared do about the madrassa-like institutions in India.

For the first time in many years, the Pakistan intelligentsia is happy that the wave of Talibanisation, which was taking over the society, is receding. Some leading journalists and academics who were in Delhi last month were amazed to find India indifferent and uninformed about this development. We have never given the impression that we favour it despite the fact that any step against fundamentalists in Pakistan strengthens our secular society.

It is possible that Musharraf may also come to realise that the minorities in Pakistan should have a better deal. The present system which advocates separate electorates is a millstone which the Christians and Hindus have been wearing around their necks since the inception of Pakistan`s constitution. Although the two communities do not exceed five to seven per cent of Pakistan`s total population, their say is nil. Musharraf may well prove to be the first head of state to give them their voice back.

Musharraf`s Achilles heel is that he lacks the electoral backing every ruler cherishes. The test will come next year when Pakistan has to return to democracy under the orders of the Supreme Court.

Pakistan may not turn into a democratic polity because the army has too much at stake in the country`s policies. Even otherwise, the army in a third world country seldom returns to the barracks once it tastes power. It is worse in Pakistan because authoritarianism is woven deeply in the warp and woof of its society, which is organised on the basis of Bonapartism and feudalism.

The extent to which Pakistan becomes a modern liberal state will be significant for us. It is unfortunate that it still believes that the terrorists it sends across the border are jehadis. This has only communalised the society. The supply of arms, training or money in the name of religion is equally divisive. Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto saw the point during her visit to New Delhi and said she would stop cross-border terrorism if she returned to power.

What New Delhi and Islamabad should be worrying about is that America looks like it will continue to stay in the region. It may have a base in Afghanistan and also ``protect`` oil and gas in the country. America would like to ``overlook`` China, Russia, India and Pakistan. It would also like to ``influence`` events in the region. This is the greatest danger to both India and Pakistan. Individually, the two will be helpless. They must jointly act to keep America from the region, even if they do not see eye to eye on many points.

Kuldip Nayar

..pardon me for being simple minded - but what does democracy have to do with the conflict between india and pakistan ? ..... the conflict was there even during the time of z.a. bhutto, his daughter and nawaz sharif ..... of course, this curse of islamism and the suicidal and homicidal lashkars is a relatively new phenomenon, but the basic conflict has been there for ever ........

...... as much as i hate the idea of military rule, i don`t think the conflict will be resolved if we install imran khan or omar khan in the prime minister`s house ( which will probably happen in october ) ......somehow, and i don`t have any idea how, this kashmir thing has to be decided ...... if it was up to me i`d let india keep it and also throw in the protectorate of mansoora and akora khattak - but it is not up to me ...... it is quite hopeless, really

Furthermore those who sincerely feel that Kashmir is legitimate integral part of India ,yes they have right to feel the way you feel

What about ppl. both hindu & muslims who feel that Kashmir is unsettled dispute no matter what Hindu Mahasabha thinks.

Those who want Kashmir to be given its Riyasate Kashmir status due to it GIVEN BY THE BRITISH the same authority by which India & Pakistan are sovereign countries.

Do you see the inconsistencies.?

You have to take full reality of British residual empire ,not pick & choose.

Kashmir was never part of INDIAN UNION which became Independent India (bharat ) on 15 aug mid night .

It doesnt matter what Hari singh did later after the statutary time limts in 48 .And when would desire of `ONE STINKY HARI SINGH ka bucha` in this `no monarchy` world of to day decide 10 million ppls fate.

IT DIDNT STOP INDIA TO OVERIDE NIZAM OF HYDERABADS WISHES?

I fail to understand the cowardness shown by indian leaders in the name of democracy to fear anatgonizing there constituencies.If that is the case then India should not be a democratic country when the leaders will only pander to his constituency AND HAS NO RIGHT TO BE P.M. OR MINISTER for the WHOLE wide country.

Churchill took the unpopular discision of promising independence to India in 40s ,for the promise of help in ww2 by india .

He lived to his end of the bargain & LOST HIS ELECTION.

Do we have leaders of that much courage to lose election but do the right thing in Kashmir or we are talking of `hijra` too weak to do nothing for 54 yrs & keep crying `pakistan is doing this & america has not supported us or china is our enemy `Those are just weak leaders wails not respectfull or mahan sabhyata ke pehchan..

Washington Times

January 3, 2002

Nourishing the tensions

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Pakistan will remain a state that spawns future transnational jihadis (holy warriors for Islam against the West) so long as its madrassas (religious schools) are allowed to continue to churn them out with impunity.

Some 30,000 foreign students are now in Pakistan`s seminaries from all over the world, including 40 plus Muslim states, European countries, the U.S., Canada and Australia. There are a number of John Walkers in madrassas, young self-hating Americans who have espoused the extremist Islamist creed against the Western demons that populate their brainwashed thoughts.

About 1 million young Pakistanis between the ages of 6 and 18 are currently attending some 15,000 madrassas. Some 4 million have graduated in the past 10 years. The two most important madrassas — Darul Uloom Haqqania, or University for the Education of Truth, in Khattak, and Jamia Binoria, the largest in Asia, in Karachi — graduated nine out of Taliban`s top 10 leaders and 80 percent of the Taliban`s cadres, along with the principal leaders of the terrorist organizations operating in Kashmir.

Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), which functions as state within a state, recruited many of its young agents from these same madrassas. Frequently religious fanatics, terrorist operatives and ISI agents are one and the same people. One of the top Deobandi madrassa clerics in Pakistan, Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, runs the Pakistani-Afghan Defense Council, which has declared ``holy war`` against the United States. A friend of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the former Taliban chieftain who has now vanished, Mufti Shamzai was handpicked by ISI as part of a religious delegation sent by Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf to Kandahar just before the bombing started to urge Mullah Omar to rethink his decision not to hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. Shamzai violated his official mandate and advised Omar to hang tough.

Mufti Shamzai was also the ``ustad`` (teacher) of Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed (Army of the Prophet) terrorist organization that almost certainly staged the attack against the Indian Parliament Dec. 13. He was arrested last week. Until this past weekend, when Mr. Musharraf ordered the arrest of some 50 extremist leaders of the two principal terrorist organizations responsible for the Dec. 13 suicide attack in New Delhi, Mufti Shamzai, the most prominent jihadi ideologue in Pakistan, was still free despite his vow to continue holy war against the U.S.

Belatedly, three months after September 11, Mr. Musharraf has asked Interior Minister Retired Gen. Moinuddin Haider to investigate the madrassas` connection with the now-extinct Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Gen. Haider has been instructed to conduct the inquiry without ruffling too many religious feathers. ``We don`t want this to be coercive,`` said a Musharraf confidant privately, ``but neither are we prepared to back down. We have a right to know what goes on in these madrassas that we must now bring into the orbit of normal education.``

Madrassas have long been part of the Muslim culture in South Asia. Popular with the poor — 140 million Pakistanis have a per capita income of $450 and 70 percent of them are illiterate — they provide free ``education`` and daily sustenance. But the education, to the exclusion of all other disciplines, consists of learning the Koran by heart and the cult of jihad against the infidel powers — specifically America, Israel, Russia and India — as life`s highest calling.

Some 5,000 madrassas are categorized as Deobandi and Wahhabi seminaries, underwritten for the most part by Saudi Arabia`s clergy that benefits from the House of Saud`s multibillion-dollar annual largess. Iraq, Iran and Libya have also sponsored some Pakistani madrassas.

For years, the Saudi royal family has bought peace on the home front by coddling its extremist clergy and, in effect, exporting its potential terrorists to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. Thousands of Saudis were trained in al Qaeda`s terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The strategy backfired as the main post-Taliban target of Saudi terrorists is now none other than the House of Saud itself.

Most of the foreigners currently in Pakistani madrassas are illegals. Mr. Musharraf`s government is now readying plans to expel them to their native countries. Next will be a costly plan to nationalize the nationwide network of madrassas. How Mr. Musharraf plans to get the ISI fox out of the madrassa henhouse is a conundrum he is yet to face.

The U.S. is expected to kick in $100 million in counterterrorist funds to computerize the network and keep tabs on the activities of the extremist clergy and their jihadi-prone students, including pamphlets and publications. A new national curricula — a nationwide, on-line educational system is under consideration — would be implemented through teachers who are willing to be retrained for government-licensed schools. Those who decline would be banned from teaching.

Meanwhile, rooting out former Taliban officials and al Qaeda leaders and foreign legionnaires who have crossed the border from Afghanistan and found refuge in Pakistani madrassas is a more important priority. Next, Mr. Musharraf will have to rid ISI-supported terrorist groups in Kashmir of foreign fighters and then place them under strict military control. This will be a high-wire balancing act for Mr. Musharraf as Kashmir is the Pakistani army`s sacred cause — and principal raison d`etre.

Mr. Musharraf says he wants to eradicate ``intolerance and violence from this society`` and ``spread the image of a tolerant, forgiving Islam.`` He has taken on a formidable challenge. India should now back off and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Prior to September 11, Pakistan was being rapidly Talibanized. It was ripe for the plucking. Mr. Musharraf bucked the trend, siding with the global coalition against Osama bin Laden. The clergy, key segments of ISI, three top fundamentalist generals and several prominent nuclear weapons scientists, all aligned with Talibanization, plotted to overthrow Mr. Musharraf.

So far, the president/general has prevailed. He has also begun turning around two decades of a modus vivendi with Islamist groups dedicated to holy war that used Pakistan as a springboard for terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Kashmir and other parts of the world.

India should now see that Mr. Musharraf is at long last attempting to rehabilitate Pakistan in the eyes of moderate Islamic countries that are fighting their Islamist extremists.

If India insists on concessions that could embarrass Mr. Musharraf, such as the extradition to India of 20 leaders of Kashmiri terrorist groups — known in Pakistan as ``heroic freedom fighters`` — he would have to reverse his present crackdown on extremists lest he face accusations of treason and renewed countrywide violence. Last week`s assassination of Interior Minister Haider`s brother came a day after Gen. Haider had said religious groups would be barred from collecting funds for holy war In Kashmir. It was an ominous warning to the anti-extremist reformers.

If India overplays its hand, Mr. Musharraf would also have to abandon plans to reform ISI and the madrassa breeding grounds of transnational terrorism. A fourth Indo-Pakistani war between two nuclear powers could only play into the hands of Islamist extremists the world over.

[Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large for The Washington Times, a position he also holds with United Press International]

Malik

[``Last words . . . it seems that we in India are under attack from Islamic fundamentalists because we are trying to make our principles and our lives worth defending.``]

Shove your principles come down to earth will ya! People who have armed and abetted Mukti Bahini and LTTE cannot claim moral high ground.

sadna # 7

[``Why doesnot APHC stand for elections? ``]

They did that in the 80`s. Both Yusuf Shah (Syed Salahuddin) and Geelani contested elections that were rigged in favor of National Conference. They took to the guns AFTER getting frustrated with your rigged democratic process. Kashmiris have suffered the most during the 12 years of insurgency and I am sure they had exhausted all conceivable peaceful means before launching an armed struggle for their independence.

Veeresh,

Did you catch the ``they hate us becuase we are so good`` bug that is going around here?

Pakistan and India have a territotial dispute.

This is not a clash of civilizations.

Pakistanis have no problems with Indian lifestyle or Indian democracy or Indian secularism .

Even if Pakistanis disagree with Indians, they have no desire to impose any change on India.

All the violence has been in the context of the Kashmir issue. Both sides are at fault in this case. Both sides need to make concessions and come to a compromise.

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

Another controversy brewing ... Related to Fake Indian currency

India Wages Fake Currency Claim

Jan 3, 2002

By NEELESH MISRA, Associated Press Writer

KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) - An employee of the Pakistani embassy in Nepal was detained Thursday for allegedly possessing counterfeit rupees and dollars - a racket India claims is run by Pakistan`s spy agency.

It was not clear whether the staffer, Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui, had been arrested. Officials would not talk openly of the case, coming a day before Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was to arrive for a regional summit.

An officer who identified himself as Deputy Superintendent of Police Sikdel at the office of Nepal`s police chief said only that the detainment ``may be about cash transactions.``

India says Pakistan`s Inter Services Intelligence agency has an operation in Nepal that prints fake money and assembles weapons for Islamic guerrillas opposed to India`s control over part of Kashmir (news - web sites), the Himalayan region divided between India and Pakistan.

Pakistan denies the allegations.

Police sources said Siddiqui was taken into custody from the busy Thamel shopping district in the capital, Katmandu, on Thursday evening, and that he was found with fake U.S. and Indian currency of an unspecified value. Police then searched his house, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

Pakistan Embassy officials were unavailable for comment late Thursday.

The leaders of seven South Asian nations, including archrivals India and Pakistan, will meet in Katmandu starting Friday for a three-day summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.

Fresh border tensions between India and Pakistan have overshadowed the regional summit.

``...Or ignoring the position of women in the hard-core Islamic world. Why don`t my Pakistani friends ask 50% of their population, the women, if they want to follow the much vaunted hard core Islamic model which reduces them to drudgery?``]]--

--------Vereesh

Tails you lose head i win

The price for this stubborn stand of India (over Kashmir)should have been no less than what Americans paid in Vietnam or Russians in Afghanistan.

God knows what is hard core Islamic world ,the girls/ladies in North America are more observent than you are complaining Pakistanis of.Are you sure you are not confusing the poverty ,illiteracy & unhygienic environment with being muslim as in the ghettoes of old delhi .Md.Ali street(mumbai) or Park Circus of Calcutta.

My BODY is MY Own Business

By Naheed Mustafa, The Globe and Mail Tuesday, June 29, 1993 Facts and Arguments Page (A26)

MULTICULTURAL VOICES: A Canadian-born Muslim woman has taken to wearing the traditional hijab scarf. It tends to make people see her as either a terrorist or a symbol of oppressed womanhood, but she finds the experience LIBERATING.

I OFTEN wonder whether people see me as a radical, fundamentalist Muslim terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket. Or may be they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere. I`m not sure which it is.

I get the whole gamut of strange looks, stares, and covert glances. You see, I wear the hijab, a scarf that covers my head, neck, and throat. I do this because I am a Muslim woman who believes her body is her own private concern.

Young Muslim women are reclaiming the hijab, reinterpreting it in light of its original purpose to give back to women ultimate control of their own bodies.

The Qur`an teaches us that men and women are equal, that individuals should not be judged according to gender, beauty, wealth, or privilege. The only thing that makes one person better than another is her or his character.

Nonetheless, people have a difficult time relating to me. After all, I`m young, Canadian born and raised, university educated why would I do this to myself, they ask.

Strangers speak to me in loud, slow English and often appear to be playing charades. They politely inquire how I like living in Canada and whether or not the cold bothers me. If I`m in the right mood, it can be very amusing.

But, why would I, a woman with all the advantages of a North American upbringing, suddenly, at 21, want to cover myself so that with the hijab and the other clothes I choose to wear, only my face and hands show?

Because it gives me freedom.

WOMEN are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. We feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile.

When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it`s women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them.

In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it`s neither. It is simply a woman`s assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction.

Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed.

No one knows whether my hair looks as if I just stepped out of a salon, whether or not I can pinch an inch, or even if I have unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares.

Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating. I should know, I spent my entire teenage years trying to do it. I was a borderline bulimic and spent a lot of money I didn`t have on potions and lotions in hopes of becoming the next Cindy Crawford.

The definition of beauty is ever-changing; waifish is good, waifish is bad, athletic is good -- sorry, athletic is bad. Narrow hips? Great. Narrow hips? Too bad.

Women are not going to achieve equality with the right to bear their breasts in public, as some people would like to have you believe. That would only make us party to our own objectification. True equality will be had only when women don`t need to display themselves to get attention and won`t need to defend their decision to keep their bodies to themselves.

Naheed Mustafa graduated from the University of Toronto in 1992 with an honours degree in political and history. She is currently studying journalism.

Your article title and content are entirely different. Please try again to explain ``Why the war in Kashmir needs to be formalised``, because you didn`t say anything about it, and wandered into war against indian way of living. Don`t acuse Pakistanis for throwing Kashmir at you as you selected the title yourself. It is the guilty conscience that brings it out. And then you are not ready to call it the ``core`` or ``central`` issue between India and Pakistan.

Please wake-up! Pakistan is not challenging the way of life in India. I agree that there are fundamentalists in Pakistan who would like to change the way even we Pakistanis live, atleast the frequently quoted silent majority, and those same fundus may also want to change the way of indian living. They are a common problem, and you should thank Musharraf that he is acting against them as it would benefit both our countries. We are not fighting over this, or are we? Because if we are then only the fundamenatlists would win eventually after we destroy each other.

This war is about Kashmir, and mind you, issue of Kashmir would not be resolved even with this war, because Kashmiris would not be a direct part of it. If we can`t resolve the Kashmir issue with talks without making Kashmiris a party to it, similarly, fighting a war without making them a party would not resolve the issue.

Democracy in Pakistan might cool things down but the politicians would still pursue the talks on Kashmir. So you can`t hide behind that either. Wake up and face it, its been always Kashmir, and be my guest to formalise it as Musharraf already asked for it in Agra.