The Future Is Another Country: 2050 And Beyond

Let`s see what happens now:

``Advani on Pakistani list of wanted criminals

FIR says he plotted to kill Quaid-e-Azam in 1947

By Akhgar Anwar Awan

KARACHI: The possible list of wanted criminals, which Pakistan wants India to hand it over, also includes Indian Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani as he is wanted in a case to assassinate Quaid-e-Azam in 1947, sources divulged to The News.

Advani, a hawk on Kashmir and a rabid anti-Pakistani politician, has been a proclaimed offender in the case eversince its registration, the sources said. The case is based on the FIR number 4/47 that was registered on September 10, 1947 by the then SHO PS Jamshed Quarters Inspector Tooti Ram against 18 accused.....

The arrested accused, Khem Chand s/o Gopal Das, Nand Ram s/o Gobind Ram, Gobind s/o Lal Singh, Hargobind s/o Ghando Mal, Santo s/o Ghando Mal and Tayken Das s/o Jairam were sent up for trial and were convicted by the trial court in this case. They were awarded different penalties by the court.

The case against the remaining 12 accused (absconders) was placed on dormant file till the time of their arrest. In the meantime an agreement was reached between India and Pakistan under which the six convicts were extradited to India on September 19, 1948.`` (www.jang.com.pk)

In terms of religious extremism, in my opinion, Advani is actually more extremist than most of Pakistan`s extremists. The only difference being that Pakistan`s extremists don`t have a chance in hell to get elected.

Advani is (was?) already wanted in India in the case of Babri Mosque, in which hundreds, if not thousands, of people were killed. No terrorist action can be worse than that. I am not sure why the Indian court is not prosecuting him.

It turns out that Advani was wanted in Pakistan also. India has stated that it will turn over people Pakistan asks for. Will they agree to hand over Advani? I doubt it.

This just goes to show what happens when someone opens up a ridiculous pandora`s box of declaring war on another country for illogical reasons.

re:Reply #: 88

Romair,

What you have done with Gandhi is called generalisation? Politicians are shrewd (generally true); lawyers are shrewd (also true, in general). Gandhi was both a politician and a lawyer. So, he has to be shrewd. How can some one as shrewd as him be a saint?

Let us take this exercise a little further. Majority of students in Pakistan are educated in madrasas (so i am told by the media, your own not Indian media). So, you my dear Romair, were also trained in a madrasaa (in generalisation, truth is the first casualty).Most terrorists are also trained in madrasaas (a fact). Since you were trained in a madrasaa where most terrorists were also trained, you are a terrorist. Presto! What have we here. Our good friend Romair is a terrorist?

See, where generalisations can lead to. Look at facts however unpalatable to you they might be. Gandhi was a saint. A fact.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 130

sarwari,

25 years ago a dictator named Ayub Khan led Pakistan down a golden path. Look where Pak is today. Musharraf, another dictator, is leading his country down another golden path. It seems to be the right path and his choice, the right choice. Let us wait and see what future unveils. Meanwhile, i can only wish Musharraf good luck.

My interest in all this is: is Pakistan going to be more friendly or more belligerent towards India? Is this only a time saving (and also an A$$ saving)tactics by Mushy or is he really sincere? Again, only time will tell.

Sridhar

Reply Semipreciousme # 106

“Stop sending terrorists over and we might make a movie that shows pakiland in a good light...”

“…gee, wouldja now?…really?…how munificent of you…”

That’s the kind of country we are :-) did you ever see the film Khatta Meetha? Well India is just like that.

“(aside: but how would you attract ppl to the cinema in droves?….”

Well, why do they go the cinema now? Same methods.

“where will all the profits go?…”

Yeh koi poochhne ki baath hai?

“who will the new villains be?….”

I am thinking…Jayalalitha type character….or maybe BB based? What you think? Vaisai tho love interest bhi ho saktha hai, and also redemption via love of decent police officer. Good or what, hain?

“all those who wear polyester (zafarsaab not included), perhaps?”

Audience identification with the protagonist is what we’re aiming for. If the villain dresses like the audience, the audience won’t be back, and we don’t want that, do we? Villain must wear handloom. (Since I wear polyester, I shall of course be the…)

“…or maybe, as someone mentioned here, those ppl who put sugar in their daals…now if that’s not nefarious, i don’t know what is…)”

Um…see…we cannot make fun of many dietary habits….imagine, from where you sit, a film which demonises people who use ghee…or eat parathas…now how long would a cinema which showed films like that last? Burned down inside two days, na? For this reason making fun of ghee, sugar in everything, idli/dosai, roshogullah, etc. is not an option. We can, however, safely make fun of things like bread and butter, and also of pringles.

DRUMZ

Help me understand better your positon:

On Objectivity: If one cites anothers work to support a position or articulates a position with which they agree for see merit in - does that mean they have stopped being objective? Is objective open to degree? for instance: ``Liberalisation is fine for people who already have a head start, our native intelligence and capacity for hard work takes us very far wherever we emigrate.``

The first part of the statement suggests that ``Liberalisation`` may not be ``fine`` for those who do not have ahead start - The statement is not balanced or is plain wrong - how would saying that it is wrong, not be objective? ``Our native intelligence and capacity for hard work takes us very far wherever we emigrate`` - this statement is objectionable on so many levels - factual to begin - to say that it is not factual or is objectionable - how is that not objective? or do mean we do not justify our positions adequately?

rsridhar----152

[Gandhi was that rare breed among politicians. He strayed into politics because he saw British rule as a great evil that impoverished the masses of India.]

......

Strayed--?

Wasn`t he bamboozled out of a train compartment onto a railway platform by a British baboon?Of course from then on he really thought British rule as evil---verrrry evil.....Ouch!

[His war was also against untouchability, exploitation of women so on and so forth. You seem to have formed the idea that all politians have to be shrewd. Perhaps you have not heard of some principled ones. You may start the list with M.K.Gandhi.]

The victories scored by the Hindians are so numerous that one can hardly keep score.Touchability or untouchability---that is the question and nobody has any answer,and the feminazis are very touchy about it.It seems the only untouchable today is the robust old-fashioned male who wants his meat rare & a woman cookswell;)

[My advice to you. Do not talk about things and people you do not know or understand. Your pseudo-intellecutal credentials stand discredited when you do so.]

Now this last paragraph is hilarious especially the last line.Please read it as many times as you want but you yourself will never tire of getting a fresh kick out of it.It is mind bogglingly humorous.

Even Paki Zero(O)-levels cannot write such great composition---no matter how much tuition their corrupt but professional parents fork out.

This will probably help understand the minds of Mohammed Atta and the other terrorists, as well as urstruly, hobbyty, the F--Ker and the ilk.

MY HOLY WAR by JONATHAN RABAN

http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020204fa_FACT

Select excerpts: {it`s better to read the print issue, but if you don`t have access, I suppose the online article will suffice)

Like many homesick people, living outside their language in an abrasive foreign culture, Qutb aggrandized his loneliness into heroic solitude. Walking the streets of Greeley, he was the secret, lone agent of God`s will.In ``Milestones,`` there`s a passage that is unmistakably a portrait of Qutb in America: ``The Believer from his height looks down at the people drowning in dirt and mud. He may be the only one; yet he is not dejected or grieved, nor does his heart desire that he take off his neat and immaculate garments and join the crowd.`` Being able to look down on people drowning in dirt and mud makes you feel taller, the better to ``enjoy`` your faith as you survey the obscene couplings of the little folk who roll in the ordure below.

This is exactly the posture that hardline Islamists who live in the West today are advised to adopt. Web sites and magazines of the radical Muslim diaspora are preoccupied to the point of obsession with the issue of ``living with Kufr.`` Kufr—a simpler notion than jahiliyyah—is disbelief; kuffar are unbelievers or infidels. ``It is a fact of life that we must, to some extent, keep close company with the kuffar. This is almost unavoidable given that we work, study, and unfortunately play with them,`` Amir Abdullah wrote in an article entitled ``Preserving the Islamic Identity in the West: Threats and Solutions,`` published in the magazine Nida`ul Islam, in the spring of 1997. ``The likeness of Islam and kuffar is like that of fresh clear spring water and water brought up from the bottom of a suburban sewer. If even a drop of the filthy water enters the clear water, the clarity diminishes. Likewise it takes only a drop of the filth of disbelief to contaminate Islam in the West.``

Kufr leaks through the TV set into Muslim homes, bringing ``moral bankruptcy`` to the living room, turning children against parents, wives against husbands: ``The news provides us with an insight into the world around us. A world where mujahideen are called `terrorists,` where the Straight Path is called `Islamic Fundamentalism,` and where all Muslims are misogynistic wife-bashers.`` The kuffar lie in wait for tender innocents: ``Muslim families, having lost much of their Islamic values, have sold out to the West. By sending our children to kindergarten and child care centers, we are sending our children to be suckled by the Shaytan.`` Or, as the title of an article on One Ummah (a mainstream Muslim Web site, and no great friend to radical Islamism) puts it, ``Do You Know What Shaytan Is Feeding Your Baby?``

The Shaytan stalks the suburbs, trying to catch believers off guard. A Christmas card arrives in the mail. Someone from the office invites you to have a drink with him after work. Your daughter begs to be allowed to go to the prom. You find your own eyes straying to the window of the adultlingerie store. You had better remember your Sayyid Qutb: There is only one place on earth which can be called the house of Islam, and it is that place where an Islamic state is established and the Shari`ah is the authority and God`s laws are observed. . . . The rest of the world is the house of war.

Collaboration with the enemy will result in punishment in the hereafter. If, for instance, you cast your vote in a kufr election, you commit the mortal sin of shirk—which is to associate other gods or rulers with Allah. Last June, when the rest of the British press were busy endorsing Tony Blair or William Hague, the monthly Khilafah Magazine published a special election issue in which it endorsed God. As Qutb said, ``A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.``

Islamism—which by no means signifies Islam at large—needs oppression. A powerful sense of kufr helps the believer to live in Western exile in the necessary state of chronic persecution, from which his theology was born, and on which its survival depends.

It also confers a heroic glamour on the everyday alienation felt by the immigrant—especially the male immigrant—who struggles to keep his head up in a foreign culture. The American who condescends to you because she doesn`t understand your funny accent is not simply being bad-mannered; she`s evil—an agent of the Shaytan. Your corrosive solitude is the measure of your invincible superiority to the kuffar, in their hellbound ignorance and corruption. You are not as they are. You make a point of not shaking hands with the female examiner of your thesis. When the next-door neighbors toss a ball that happens to roll across your path, you walk on without looking up. At Shuckum`s Raw Bar and Grill, you loudly put down the barmaid in a row over the forty-eight-dollar tab. At Huffman Aviation, you grab the seat cushion belonging to another student, and refuse to give it back. These are not displays of sullen adolescent aggression; they`re moral gestures, designed to put the kuffar in their rightful place. It`s what certain angry, frustrated young men have always secretly dreamed of—a theology of rebellion, rooted in hostility and contempt.

And this one, a hoot...

The Gardens of Bliss resemble nothing so much as the great Playboy Mansion in the sky, watered by underground springs (all sorts of delightful wetness abound in Paradise), and furnished with cushions and carpets designed for life on the horizontal. Male entrants are greeted by ``companions``— ``maidens, chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or jinn before them has touched.``

RE hobbyty 151

Ha ha ha. And on that same vein, I suppose the indians can now ask for el mush as he was the prime culprit behind the kargil fiasco and as the sponsor of the ISI, responsible for countless attacks.

Reply Sadna # 472

“Even as a layman admiring spectator though, I felt she showed her years while dancing.(but I havenot forgotten her smile).”

Her years are a part of who she is – how could she dance truly and not show them, for good and for bad? Age does not decrease our appreciation of singers (eg MS Subbulakshmi) – it’s a pity that it often does so for dancers, whose art also changes rather than diminishes as grow older.

Anyway…

Here’s an article I ran across in sulekha which I think you would enjoy. It is very un-PC, a bit long, but also extremely funny (all, please note, no offence intended):

Underdog India

Mukund Kher

http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=167344

In the beginning there was no Pakistan. Then in 1947 Indian leaders practically accepted the `two nation theory` and gave away part of India to create Pakistan. It was only a fraction of India geographically and economically, but poor India knew that Pakistan was powerful. Maybe that was why our political leaders did not take any chances in 1948. Instead of using our superior military power to throw out Pakistan from the entire Jammu & Kashmir, India courageously referred the matter to the trustworthy and friendly United Nations. What was the point taking chances with Pakistan`s military power?

India`s defeat in 1962 was but natural. A weaker, smaller and poorer nation always ends up the loser in war. Regrettably, freedom and democracy went to its head, for India forgot the reality of a powerful Pakistan in 1965. Shamefully and dangerously, its armies almost reached the outskirts of Lahore! This horrible trend peaked in 1971 when India, under the unthinking and careless leadership of a woman, threw all caution to the wind and split the powerful Pakistan into two. Horror, horror! What chutzpah! How reckless! Worse, that woman displayed a tremendous lack of restraint and foresight by opening the nuclear door for India.

Thankfully, these twin disasters rectified India`s approach to national security. Since the late 1980s, India was led by men. They are supposed to understand the concepts of honor, dignity and security better. India started displaying commendable caution and restraint in dealing with Pakistani terrorism in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, and other regions. Naturally, because powerful Pakistan was now known to have nuclear weapons!

The situation was dangerous. On the one hand was India, a bigger, richer and stronger nation. On the other was Pakistan, a nuclear power. So what if Pakistan was smaller, poorer and conventionally weaker? So what if India also had nuclear weapons, and more of them? Which sane nation would hope to succeed against such odds?

Luckily India was blessed with a leadership that was calculating, shrewd and patient. The Home Minister`s daughter was kidnapped by Pakistan-supported terrorists who demanded release of their jailed colleagues. Other nations would have been tempted to act intemperately, but not India. What was the point inviting Pakistan`s nuclear attack for a few criminals?

The stage was set. Leader after Indian leader took his cue from that brave decision. Be it a kidnapped oil executive or surrounded terrorists demanding biryani, India accepted all their demands. Correctly so, because our conventional and nuclear military superiority could not have withstood the power of nuclear Pakistan! Pakistan was now openly declaring that it gave diplomatic and moral support to the terrorists who were regularly killing Indians. This was not how a friend would act, but India had lots of patience. After all, only a few people were dying every day. Why bother doing something that could always be left for next year? Taking a stand against Pakistan was risking the annihilation of entire India!

Vajpayee`s nuclear tests falsely exposed him to the charges of being a hardline nationalist and a warmonger. Falsely, because he is a poet and a pragmatist. He is not a fickle or reckless person. He thinks over a matter, rethinks it, and thinks it all over again. Then, before taking any action, he discusses and chews the matter over a few more times. Since he has tons of patience, he never acts in a hurry. In fact, he rarely acts!

These qualities were exemplified during Kargil. True, the Pakistanis had infiltrated and occupied Indian territory. True, the terrain was well-suited for defensive -- not offensive -- operations. True, many people alleged that the enemy could have been fought at a place of India`s choosing. But was it necessary? After all, Indian territory was being occupied not for the first time! How unthinking were those who argued that India cross the LoC. Didn`t they know that Pakistan had nuclear weapons? Poor Vajpayee was left with nothing but a superior military and a bigger nuclear force to fend off the aggressor -- Pakistan. Thank God, Vajpayee acted with restraint. He sent waves of our soldiers climbing up mountain tops to defeat the entrenched enemy. Obviously, hundreds of our soldiers died. Why did some impatient people object to that?

In the larger national interest, India`s leaders have faithfully followed this policy of restraint, patience and what some ignoramuses call “succumbing to the enemy.” But the doubters don`t know what they are talking about. Don`t our leaders regularly claim to be prepared for terrorist attacks? Don`t they vow to defeat and eliminate terrorists and their sponsors? Can`t people realize that this is not an easy task? How can India defeat and eliminate terrorist states if it does not survive at all? So what if Pakistan`s nuclear threat is not credible? So what if it ain`t easy even for a superpower to nuke another nation? So what if India has the means to survive a nuclear attack and retaliate? Wouldn`t any sane leader believe the Pakistani threat that its handful of nukes implies utter Indian helplessness forever and ever? It is good that friendly nations regularly remind us of our non-violent tradition and the need for restraint. But they are being redundant. India does not need others to tell it not to hit back at its mortal enemies.

Hence our leaders regularly suppress their burning desire to punish India`s enemies. Instead, in order to save a nuclear-armed, bigger and more powerful India from tiny but nuclear Pakistan, they make necessary compromises. That is the reason why they declare a `no first use` policy to counter Pakistan`s `first use` policy! That is the reason why Masood Azhar and other terrorists were released at Kandahar -- for the long-term good of India. That is why Vajpayee bravely tried a unilateral surren… oops, a ceasefire, timed to start with Ramzan 2000. That is why the October 1 Srinagar assembly blast was not retaliated against. That is why, even today, days after the December 13 attack on Parliament, our leaders are still discussing, mulling over and weighing the options available to us. Why act in haste? Remember, with every terrorist attack, the enemy is trying to provoke us into acting! Why fall in their trap?

India is fortunate that this time around even the military leadership and sundry defense analysts are said to be standing firm with our government on its courageous path of patience. The opposition may be supporting a more aggressive action against India`s mortal enemy Pakistan. The people of India may be demanding a fitting response to terrorism. The entire nation may be crying out for dignity and security. Even the United States may be hinting an acceptance of Indian retaliation if there is one. But our leaders will not be budged from their patience and tolerance.

Mera Bharat Mahaan!

Reply Dost-Mittar # 467

“I am less of a coinnoisseur than Zafar and would prefer to go to an Angetram than to appreciate the fine art of a veteran BN dancer squatting and showing mudras and bhavs with her hands and facial expressions.”

You flatter me. Sadly I am not educated enough to understand mudras properly, so I would probably also find an arangetram easier to enjoy – BUT, I also think that when you are in the presence of really fine dancing, you feel something magical, and this is not always present at performances– even at the most enthusiastic or innocent arangetram.

Reply macgupta # 465

“Did you read a reply to the Outlook article in the Indian Express ?”

Excellent! Especially the last two sentences.

Harimau 101,

Thanks for weaving a thread of continuity through my various posts. A minor error, I am from a ``backward caste``, may be a proof of what is good about india, six children of of almost illiterate parents, four are doctors and two boys are engineers, of which five have masters degrees.

That is what annoys the hell out of me, young educated like the YLH and AnNy can ignore the disregard for Abdus Salam and write about Sher Sha suri. What ever me and several of my class mates have today is the outcome of that undying belief in education, the only thing that can change oneself.

I can never stop quoting about my class mate, we walked one hour to go to a primary school in kerala, we ``encountered`` electricity for the first time in the hostels of REC, and today is he is one of the three Vice presidents running the ten billion dollar Reliance Refinary. My corresponding generation of pakistan have betrayed that country, yes, the parents of YLH and others, and I can never stop telling them that home truth.

regards

Jayaprakash

Dost Mittar

Dost

exactly which part is ``creative`` - the FIR that names him as an accused or the whole FIR and attempt at the Qaid`s life? The article does not say VHP existed at that time - but perhaps you are right, and that the incident of the FIR is ``creative`` - Do you think it will play as a fiction in diplomacy? or among Pakistanis? I wonder of this thing has legs, if one sees more of this incident in papers, then maybe it does - What if Advani actually decides to take this seriously and gives himself up to the police and wants a trial? Think how embarassing it would be for the Pakistanis to not have any further evidence of his possible guilt.

shammi #114:

I am not sure an EU type union will work for us at all. We should probably try for something on a lower scale.

For one, the EU nations have a high degree of internal stability and few inter-country disputes. India and other S Asian countries have high internal instability, high internal disparities, social inequalities and of course inter-national disputes.

Disputes such as Kashmir will not go away through a EU type union, rather a EU type union can come about only AFTER Kashmir type disputes are resolved.

Single currency - am not sure of the economics but I think this will not work. A simpler alternative could be to allow Indian currency as legal tender in S Asia (as it already is in Nepal).

Free movement of people: Let`s face it - the whole of South Asia is a labour surplus area. Unlike US and Europe where there is a demand for S Asian labour (skilled and otherwise), I cannot imagine India needing labour from neighbouring countries. Also, given the low importance given to social development, a South Asian country is not going to say `so we need 20,000 nurses. Lets get them from India or wherever`, like England and US are importing teachers. More likely, they will say, `so we lack nurses, so what?`. Large scale immigration will cause linguistic and religious imbalances, leading to social tensions. Heck, even inter-state migration is leading to imbalance and resentment within India. I fear what foreign immigration can cause.

If free movement of people is for tourism, education etc I think that is ok and does not need a EU type union. S Asians would be welcome to study in Indian universities and vice-versa. But no free movement of labour, unless you can convince me.

So what am I saying? An EU type union in S Asia will not lead to peace, lower defence outlays etc. Rather, peace and stability are a pre-requisite for an economic union. Each country (esp India) has a lot of work to do internally to achieve peace and stability. Secondly, for optimal benefits to accrue from economic co-operation, we may not have to go to the extent of a EU type union with single currency, a political confederation etc. Some treaties and agreements should suffice.

rsridhar #148:

``If true, this is unfortunate. Time was when only local issues cropped up during State (assembly)elections. National (and international)issues usually dominated during parliamentary elections. It is hard to imagine that an average farmer in U.P would be more interested in a war with Pakistan than the price that his potatoes will fetch him in an open market.``

While I agree that ideally only local issues should dominate state elections, I have a question. Would one not expect the same farmer in UP to be agitated by national issues during general elections and local issues during state elections?

Reply Afqqi