The Place of Debate

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

Nation, Under Vishnu

In the most religiously diverse country in the world, why should God get the only plug?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, June 28, 2002



To hell with the separation of church and state. Forget the Pledge of Allegiance and ``under God`` and all this bipartisan puling about prayer in schools. Maybe we`ve had it wrong all along.

Let`s try this instead: Maybe there should be no such separation at the school level. Maybe God and Vishnu and Kali and Astarte and Dionysus and Allah and Zarathushtra and Lao-Tzu have not only a vital place in the educational system, but also a fervent need to be heard and felt and imbibed, just like cafeteria Coke and meatloaf and badly written textbooks and nonexistent sex-ed and the capitals of all 50 states.

Maybe barring religious practice from our national places of learning is just about as ignorant and small-minded and spiritually degenerative as, say, bombing another country over oil or land or power or ego. Let`s just say.

Ah, but maybe you agree with Dubya that America is Christian country and its ``rights were derived from God.`` Maybe you think the current, adorably hypocritical separation of church and state, with its sanctimonious mentions of a patriarchal Christian God everywhere, is the righteous path, the common wisdom, the properly loving sentiment expressed by many a fervent patriot as we drop our bombs and thump our Bibles and let God sort `em out.

You would be wrong.

Because America is also the most religiously diverse country in the world. America is teeming with saris and yarmulkes and monk`s robes and funky prayer beads and glorious ornate temples of every shape and size. There are more Muslims in the U.S. now, for example, than there are Jews or Episcopalians. America, spiritually speaking, is not what most people think it is.

A quick look inside any apartment building in any major city outside of, say, Vermont or maybe Montana reveals a veritable kaleidoscope of faith and divinity: Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Wiccan, Pagan, Sikh, Atheist and Buddhist, living side by side and borrowing cups of sugar or sticks of Nag Champa from each other, stealing each other`s newspaper and bootlegging each other`s cable TV. It`s a beautiful thing, really.

But nowhere is religious funk and spiritual diversity more prevalent and visible than in the classroom, which since the mid-`60s has seen an explosion of immigrant cultures and beliefs, a dazzling and unprecedented intermixing of faiths and backgrounds and languages and deities and kids with names that give your tongue a workout.

And hence it would seem to require negligible rationale or subtlety of mind to see that ``under God`` is really rather inane and exclusionary and insulting to a vast and increasing chunk of the soon-to-be-voting populace.

Alas, Conservatives still believe little Johnny should be kneeling in school and praising Jesus (and no one else) for the glory that is his math quiz every day, whereas Liberals believe he should keep that sort of thing in the church or risk warping his little mind.

Meanwhile little Daniel and Sunjat and Tenzin and Amir and Uma Das Gupta and Moonstarr and Ling Tso sit idly by, rolling their eyes and sighing sadly and wondering why there`s so much intolerance and misunderstanding in the Land of the Free.

So maybe there should be prayer in schools. A lot of prayer. Say a half hour a day, every religion allowed its rituals and practices, quirks and screams and chants and head-bobbings and blood sacrifices to the great Lord Zorkon.

Immediately followed by a class on religious appreciation and diversity, with each kid talking about his/her beliefs and traditions and occasionally uptight dogmas and beautiful similarities and why the hell they have to wear that funny thing on their head and can`t eat bananas on Tuesdays.

Maybe every major religion gets one week during the school year where the kid and the kid`s family and their rabbi or priest or guru or teacher come in and share stories and teach everyone their traditions, and everyone eats that culture`s food and recites that faith`s prayers and everyone learns to tie a turban and decorate a robe and dances and laughs and learns.

It`s what famed author and Harvard professor Diana Eck, in her book ``New Religious America: How a `Christian Country` Has Become the World`s Most Religiously Diverse Nation,`` termed ``religious pluralism`` -- more than mere tolerance and acceptance of other`s religious beliefs, an active and dynamic engagement in the public sphere, classrooms and workplaces and fetish dungeons, an ongoing dialogue, a spiritual exchange.

It`s messy and complicated and imperfect; we are trained to be suspicious, we resist change, we fear the unknown and erect walls and barriers of all kinds to keep foreigners and strange people out. Anxiety is our cultural modus operandi, and many spiritually uptight believers -- Christians in particular -- are loath to allow their kids to be ``tainted`` by exposure to other beliefs.

But this is the only way it will ever work. People of all religions must intermix and communicate and share ideas and find common ground, and there is no one better to take us there than children, as yet untainted by their parent`s prejudices, their government`s ideologies.

Lack of such integration and communication means cultural stasis, social breakdown, prejudice, ignorance, hatred, violence, zealotry, terrorism, war, increased and inexplicable proliferation of the Bush clan. Not necessarily in that order.

It means situations like the Middle East, full of checkpoints and barriers and razor wire and children being trained in hate, without ever learning the viewpoint of the other side.

It means we continue like we are right now, segregating ourselves and living in relative ignorance of who lives down the hall, looking over our shoulder suspiciously at the guy in the silk gown or the woman in the head wrap, wondering what crazy thing they`re always chanting about.

So yes. Dump the inane ``under God`` provision of the Pledge. And maybe replace it with ``One nation, under whatever noble and/or beautiful belief system you want, or maybe nothing at all, or maybe a little of this and that, just don`t be a freak about it, because this is America and we`re nothing if not about religious freedom, even though that may be difficult to believe right now, but just bear with us, indivisible....``

Sure it`s a little verbose. But it sure beats the religious status quo.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/28/notes062802.DTL

Zafar

Boy, when you give tasks, it`s not just one or two items, you want the dissertation.

Open up any newspaper, review the stories, articles - you will note the primarly player is member of the elite - I don`t mean the so called ``human interest`` story/article, but the news/business articles.

As we were talking about Indus civilization a while ago, lets use it as an illustration of our point about elite interaction being the engine of societal progress - An Indian Phd candidate, from a university in Mumbai/Bombay - my apology but I cannot recall her name - anyway, in pointing out elements of state development in Indus civilization, she points to long distance trade in Lapis Lazuli as providing the impetus for development from tribe to state.

If you enjoy studying MesoAmerican civilizations, as I do, you will no doubt be familiar with the famous Teotehuacan Ambassadors portrayed in Maya works - the relevance here is that it`s again evidence of elite interaction - that is large scale effects on societies of elite interaction.

If we were to make elastic our definition of elite, we can make statements to the effect that artisans and craftsmen who produced the articles which were traded, also enabled long distance trade by their production, we could make statements to the effect that the ordinary Mayan father`s efforts to satisfy the imperative to seek husbands for his daughters similarly created conditions conducive for long distance trade to exist - yes, we would have to make our definition a lot more elastic - however; we were inclined not to stretch our definitions, that is to say if were we inclined not to change facts to fit theory - we will have conclude that elite (a small, privilaged element of society) generally has produced societal results far greater than their size in society would suggest they be able to produce (I know that last sentenced was labored)

Reply Hobbyty # 457

“Elite interaction is the engine of civilizational, societal, cultural interaction. It is the elite who commission the production of intellectual, aesthetic and economic activity. It is they who control the means, ``modes of production`` - An epoch that will see the diminishment of the elite is not one usually associated with civilization, which of course does not preclude this as a possibility.”

Hmmm….I am open to persuasion. Please give itemised (a) logic of position and (b) examples. How would we define civilisation? How would we deine, and then measure the strength (or level of control) of, an elite? What about non-elite interactions? Would one dominate inter-group and the other intra-group? Which is more important to civilisation (vis a vis def you will have given me…)?

Zafar

The interests of Pak army are not served by the present confrontation - quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. The salaries you mention would have to go on regardless of confrontation. No army`s interests are served if it is put in a confrontational posture that it is not prepared to dominate.

Elite interaction is the engine of civilizational, societal, cultural interaction. It is the elite who commission the production of intellectual, aesthetic and economic activity. It is they who control the means, ``modes of production`` - An epoch that will see the diminishment of the elite is not one usually associated with civilization, which of course does not preclude this as a possibility.

Reply Hobbyty # 454

“On Elite interaction - I think you are taking a ideological position. What evidence do you think I need to consider, that I have not.”

Mera logic yeh:

The Armed Forces may benefit from an ongoing posture of confrontation with India wrt how much money is spent on the military, military salaries, etc.

Poor Pakistanis suffer because of dollars spent on guns instead of development.

This is a divergence of the interests of the Faujis and of poor Pakistanis.

If the poor perceive confrontation with India as more important to them than development of Pakistan, this is a victory that the elite has won, in that it reinforces support across society an approach which benefits the elite.

re:Reply #: 435

shankar,

Agree with everything you said in this post except the last sentence. India is not as much fukced up as Pak. If it were, not many of us (including me)would be willing to return to India someday. There is hope still in India. There is little hope for Pak.

I do not have to post comparisons. It has been done adnauseum in chowk in the past.

Sridhar

``YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT TOO.``

Ok, Ok, I take your point, perhaps it`s not easier done than said.

On Elite interaction - I think you are taking a ideological position. What evidence do you think I need to consider, that I have not.

Reply Hobbyty # 449

“Interests converged? When? How? What are those interests?”

Money not spent on jihadis/counter-insurgency can be used for development. India and Pakistan are both full of poor people who would benefit from development. You work it out.

“As a student of Cultural Anthropology, my understanding is that it is elite interaction that shapes interests.”

Rubbish. Elites do their best to define their OWN interests as the interests of the country in popular culture. The two are NOT, however, the same. I stand by my assertion that the interests of ordinary Indians and Pakistanis ARE the same.

“…I agree with you about the Indian attitude towards Pakistan, but it seems to me, it does not bring India any benefit – unless that benefit is described as the inability to accept reality. Psychology and emotion are not substitute for realism and the solving of problems.”

Dude, did you read my post? As I said BEFORE YOU RESPONDED:

We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)

How can I be plainer?

“Agreed Pakistan exists and that`s that. Pakistanis are uncomfortable with the partial or self serving ``Truths`` Indians use to define their nationhood.”

You really didn’t read my post, did you? Let me spell it out: YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT TOO. We exists…now deal with it, not with a fantasy of what you think our reality should be.

“Consider, how many Indians, in private or public, accept responsibility for the demand for and creation of Pakistan?”

How am I responsible for the creation of your country?

But in any case, whatever, ok…SO WHAT? Are you going to hang around waiting for a collective apology before you move you country in a positive direction? Face it…we are never going to apologise, or even agree with you, about the why of Pakistan. (You’ll never admit the TNT was totally bogus either.) Why do you want Pakistan to remain poor and underdeveloped because of that? Where is the logic? (This, btw, is where the divergence between ordinary people and the elite who thrive because of the current set up begins.)

“Kashmir accommodation – Is it your opinion that a recognition that accommodation must be reached exist? If such a will does exist, what is the intellectual foundation of such recognition…”

Self Interest. The foundation of many of the policies our elites have supported in the past.

“…and how can it be turned into a public awareness?”

Don’t know. Probably by being repackaged as something else….for India some “SAARC related free trade funda, and look how nicely George W speaks with Vajuji these days…” scam, for Pakistan a “we had to do it, it was the Americans, look we got heaps of aid in return…” snow job. BOTH currently underway.

“…that the continued state of hostility has much to do with our national inability to better the material lives of our citizenry.”

My first point, about Indian and Pakistani interests being essentially the same, stated by yourself, at the end of your post which starts off questioning this point. Bhai Sahib, using big words does not camouflage confused thinking.

Zafar

Prem

I take your point about starting from we both exist and that the concentration should be on the future. Is it your reading of opinion in India that a recognition exist to begin to talk of doing a deal? What will it take for sucha view to gain momentum?

re: Hobbyty # 449

There is a reason we ought to focus ahead and not keep looking back. It is a simple matter of valence.

Barring some exceptional individuals (I have met some of this rare breed), people simply do not possess the ability to handle the whole truth. Most of us get so comfortable with our floss-candy partial truths that we dedicate our otherwise intelligent lives to confirming and justifying our nationally-venerated lies. When these untruths relate to religion and nationality, boom! People might as well be deaf and dumb. As a capable cultural anthropologist, you would probably agree.

Therefore, you are asking for a lot when you say that we must ``acknowledge`` past views other than the ones that make sense to us given our own current world-views, views about humanity, individual intelligence, upbringing, and personal hopes and desires.

There are some Indians who believe that Hindus and Muslims could never live together and therefore Pakistan had to be created. There are some Pakistanis who do not share this view.

That should be enough for us to start building together toward peace. When we begin to value the future a great deal more, irreconcilable differences about the past will become less important. However, if the focus is on the past, then those differences will impede any progress.

Two or three generations ago, people DEFINED our past in oppositional terms. It is almost impossible to reconcile those oppositions (that can be done but only by the rarest of the rare, and certainly by nobody who still treats those oppositions as central to their vision - hence the repeated talk of thousand year wars).

That is why I suggest we restart, declaring: from THIS point on....

P.S. As you can see, I am avoiding discussing some specifics. That is because I would rather not get trapped in endless ``who is right?`` debates. But my overall point remains the same.

re bong_dongs #447

[BChemE `95, were you a hostelite? ]

No. Were you?

Zafar, Prem

Thank you for the thoughtful responses:

“The interests of the people of India and Pakistan have converged for a long time, if they were ever different at all.

What remains different is how our elite defines each country`s interests. And this does stem from how we define ourselves and hence view and understand our neighbors.

An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)”

Interests converged? When? How? What are those interests? As a student of Cultural Anthropology, my understanding is that it is elite interaction that shapes interests. On Pakistan aspiration for modernity – it is not useful to use this term, “modernity”–I think, effectively defining problems and seeking their solution and also obfuscating and denying solutions to be effected, is what shapes our environment I agree with you about the Indian attitude towards Pakistan, but it seems to me, it does not bring India any benefit – unless that benefit is described as the inability to accept reality. Psychology and emotion are not substitute for realism and the solving of problems. Millat, Diversity, Secularism, the meaning of Modernity – I wonder – if it is not true that majorities in both countries are extremely pleased with the fact that they are overwhelming majorities – Perhaps because of the gypsy life style that characterized my life in childhood and early adulthood, I find notions of ``we`` or ``us`` uncomfortable - one knows what will follow after either word is uttered or used. Secularism: is the scientification, the rationalization of society – the scope of degree of which is a subject of controversy and debate the world over. I wish you had taken the opportunity to read Urstruly’s post and my response – some think the statements in those post are prescriptive, whereas they are describtive. Modernity? What do you think it means in India or for significant numbers of Indians?

“Similarly, some Pakistanis on Chowk (I do not feel able to make a similar generalisation about Pakistan as I do about India, Indians forgive me :-)) seem to find it hard to take the roots of India`s nationhood seriously because of the way you define your own nationality. Again - why does it matter? What`s important to your future is really who we are now, and who we become. (Who you think we should have been is pretty irrelevant, don`t you agree?)”

Agreed Pakistan exists and that`s that. Pakistanis are uncomfortable with the partial or self serving ``Truths`` Indians use to define their nationhood. Consider, how many Indians, in private or public, accept responsibility for the demand for and creation of Pakistan? – This is IMPORTANT, because it helps shape the present and future. Demonizing movements of the past, does work itself back into the present and the future. This I am sure we will both agree on. As long as Indians refuse to accept responsibility for the creation of Pakistan and see it as a “breaking OUR country” – little movement forward is possible. If you should ever get the chance, do visit Pakistan, not to see how “we are the same” or “it smells the same” – but as something by itself – judge for yourself if some of the notions of what Pakistan is (as presented by Pakistanis and Indians on Chowk) is any longer, meaningfully relevant.

Kashmir accommodation – Is it your opinion that a recognition that accommodation must be reached exist? If such a will does exist, what is the intellectual foundation of such recognition and how can it be turned into a public awareness? I think that some “plain talk” from Musharraf has had the effect of focusing Pakistani thinking on Kashmir and the development of Pakistan, among Pakistanis – I don’t mean to say that the passion or the “Kashmir runs in our blood” does not resonate, but rather, a sense that we have run out of options and run the risk of running out of Kashmiris – that we have to come to a compromise – that the continued state of hostility has much to do with our national inability to better the material lives of our citizenry.

``Anyways, even BHU (BENCO) ``became`` an IIT so that makes 8 . . . of which 3 (Kanpur, Roorke and Varanasi) are within Uttar Pradesh .``

Veeresh Unkil,

take it from someone who has ``matha patkofyied`` on the IIT doors!! Admissions at IT-BHU are though the IIT-JEE but it is not a part of the IIT act. U-Roorkee was changed to a IIT recently (2000?) but admissions through IIT-JEE are only from 2001 (Roorkee ran its own exam before that)

#441

BChemE `95, were you a hostelite?

re: Zafar # 430

``An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)``

Perfectly said. Neither for Pakistanis nor for Indians is it EASY to accept each other as friends and as equals without our individually making serious, conscious effort to bury the bitterness and the arguments of the past.

Many of those arguments are so offensive (perhaps for both Pakistanis and Indians) that continuously harping on them does not and can not bring peace. For those arguments were not designed to bring about peace.

What difference does it make how Pakistan was created or how India was partitioned? Pakistan exists. That is its own justification.

Today both India and Pakistan have minorities again (as every nation always will). Both must keep working to ensure that minority members of all shapes, sizes, and hues, have rights equal to the rights available to the majority, and that minorities of all kinds feel part of the larger national communities. Not an easy challenge, but this is what both nations have to do - unless they want to recede into barbarism.

I don`t think we should try to convince each other to LIKE/admire Gandhi/Nehru or Jinnah/Liaquat Ali. That is a futile and foolish aim. That will not happen. Thankfully, that is not even needed. We can create successful joint futures (and avoid the debilitating conflict) if agree from THIS point on: that the only way to move forward is by establishing multicultural and progressive communities, communities in which the measure of a (wo)man is not his or her religion but his/her ability and other virtues.

We don`t have to think terribly highly of even our in-laws.

Ref dost-mittar #: 433

[Back in the 1970s, Statitics Canada, Canada`s centralised statistical agency and considered to be one of the best in the world, would let any graduate of ISI write their ticket to a job in that organization. C.R.Rao is still considered a god-like figure among statisticians.]

He should be. After all, CR Rao is the only Indian scientist in recent times elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Rsaxena,

I see you have managed to jump the topic again eh?

Now it is clearly proved that the bulk of communal killings happened under the Indian government`s nose... My response was merely an answer to yours.

Let me tell you something... whatever we are and whereever we are, we are glad we are not enslaved in a Hindu theocracy posing to be a secular democracy.

End of Discussion.

hobbyt #426
``Pakistanis would be better off training their own.``

Exactly my point. You redeem yourself, but only just.

re bong_dongs #429

Cool! What batch? I am BChE 97.

RE: Reply #: 436 dost-mittar

``sang basanti, ang basanti, rang basanti chhaa gaya

mastaana mausam aa gayaa

Happy Basant/Basant Panchmi to all Panjabis (who needs ``sant`` valentine? all he did was preach the gospel!!)``

Happy Basant to all! Now will someone explain to the unenlightened like me what it`s about :-). Is it a spring festival for Punjabis?

Here is world’s reaction -- to our country bumpkin – Texas’s Don Quixote’s – Jeeehaaad against “Axis of Evil” windmills.

Allies Hear Sour Notes in `Axis of Evil` Chorus

By DAVID E. SANGER

(New York Times)

(Excerpts)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — As a new and glaring rift emerges between the White House and America`s allies over how to pursue the next phase of the war on terrorism, something odd has happened:

President Bush and his top aides now seem to welcome, even to egg on, the sharp differences prompted by Mr. Bush`s determination to expand his battle against what he calls ``evil`` regimes.

In private, his friends and closest aides report, Mr. Bush fumes about weak-kneed ``European elites`` and scared Arab leaders who, in his view, lack the courage to stand up to states that may one day provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons.

Today Mr. Bush departed for Asia saying that the goal of his trip was to strengthen his antiterrorism coalition.

But it was telling that even before Air Force One departed, the South Korean press was filled with denunciations of his inclusion of North Korea as part of the ``axis of evil,`` protesting that Mr. Bush was undercutting years of diplomacy aimed at luring the Stalinist North out of its frightfully armed shell with economic incentives.

In China, where Mr. Bush is making a delayed state visit, the country`s leadership has warned in the past few weeks of ``serious consequences`` if the president takes military action against Iraq. Beijing has voiced worries about a re-emergence of American unilateralism, which it thought had faded in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But in the last two weeks, Mr. Bush`s strident tone has suggested just the opposite. In appearances across the country, he has built on the ``axis of evil`` phraseology of his State of the Union address, knowing full well that each repetition irritates and divides the countries he once hailed as his great coalition partners.

His national security aides — usually more attuned to how Mr. Bush`s words play Poland or Peru than Peoria — have begun to cite evidence that Americans are behind the broader mission of rooting out rogue states seeking weapons of mass destruction, even if the allies are not.

They compare Mr. Bush`s mission to Ronald Reagan`s single-minded goal of ridding the world of Communism.

They describe their boss as a man who emerged from the first phase of the war more convinced than ever that the United States alone has the power to complete its task, with the coalition if possible — and without them if necessary.

It is an America-first position that Vice President Dick Cheney voiced with particular clarity on Friday to the Council on Foreign Relations.

``America has friends and allies in this cause, but only we can lead it,`` he said in a ballroom filled with many of his old friends and former colleagues. ``Only we can rally the world in a task of this complexity against an enemy so elusive and so resourceful.

The United States and only the United States can see this effort through to victory.``

When America`s allies have begged to differ in recent days, they have found themselves engaged in open, public bickering with even with the most diplomatic members of Mr. Bush`s war council.

It started when France`s foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, dismissed Mr. Bush`s approach to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as ``simplistic,`` and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shot back that his French colleague was ``getting the vapors.``

Then, all this week, there has been a far more telling war of words between Mr. Powell and Christopher Patten, the European Union`s foreign affairs minister.

Until a few days ago, he was a favorite of Washington conservatives for the tough line he took against China while serving as Britain`s last governor general to Hong Kong.

When Mr. Patten started off the tiff by accusing Mr. Bush of taking an ``absolutist`` approach to the world, Mr. Powell shot back that his old friend deeply misunderstood and said, ``I shall have a word with him, as they say in Britain.``

_______________________________________________

Before he had a chance, Mr. Patten published a lengthy rebuke of the administration in The Financial Times, saying that American success in Afghanistan had ``reinforced some dangerous instincts,`` including the belief that ``the projection of military power is the only basis of true security,`` that ``the U.S. can rely only on itself,`` and that allies were ``an optional extra.``

_________________________________________________

He is hardly alone in that view. The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said this week that the Bush administration was treating coalition partners like ``satellites,`` a term clearly meant as a comparison to the old Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc.

And then President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Bush`s newest strategic partner, weighed in with the observation that the members of the antiterror coalition signed up to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and ``Iraq is not on this list.``

Even Canada — America`s closest allies save for Britain — warned that any effort by the United States to act unilaterally in the next phase of the war ``will go nowhere.``(NYT)

bong-dongs # 389 (God, what a handle!! I can understand bong-fish or bong-sandesh or even bong-tubdee but bong-dongs, how does this get past the chowk code-catcher?)

Anyways, even BHU (BENCO) ``became`` an IIT so that makes 8 . . . of which 3 (Kanpur, Roorke and Varanasi) are within Uttar Pradesh . . . and UP as we all know is about to catch up with Bihar as a leading light in the ``BIMARU`` grouping of sick states . . . so does that prove something?

ylh,

There`s nothing more pathetic than a third world mind spouting first world morals. Your analogies would have been amusing had they not dealt with the tragic experiences for all the people of the sub-continent be it Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

Anyway, here`s something for you to mull over from the great Islamic emancipator himself on the state of the Muslim world:

``Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race``.

I am starting to admire the man for his honesty. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that it exists and also suggests that there is something more wrong with the Muslim world than it simply being ``oppressed`` by non-Muslims.

ylh,

REALITY CHECK

I seriously wonder if you ever learn anything from your experiences on Chowk..or if your mind is CAPABLE of learning anything from Indo-Pak interactions.

Ofcourse you have learnt how idiotic Indians are, how much youre right in hating Indians & how true your famous belief ``the only good Indian is a dead Indian`` is...Good for you; smarty pants!

Just THINK for a second...does an Indian CARE what a Pakistani thinks of him/her?!! An average Indian KNOWS that India is viscerally hated in Pakistan. Listen dodo..we`ve been hearing what Radio Pakistan has been saying about us since the birth of your country!

Get this into your incredibly thick skull: Pakistan`s opinion of us is just about as significant as a dimple on the pimple on the left ball of an ant! We`ve put up with Pakistan`s anti-(H)indian chest thumping for 50+ yrs & we are perfectly capable of living with it for another million years. In fact, (H)indians wont mind it at all if we are judged differently by Allah Himself--cos we`d rather burn in Hell for an eternity than live with those India/hindu hating Pakistanis in your precious jannat.

Unfortunately, I`m seeing a particularly visceral hate-Pakistan feeling rising in India at a crescendo that I`ve not seen-even in 71! It shocks me that many educated Indians would rather have a full scale nuclear war with Pakistan & let the chips fall where they may! After the attack on the Parliament, the dominant discourse among Indians has become dangerously hawkish. If we keep this up, there wont be much of a Pakistan or India for you to return to & establish ``the ylh doctrine``.

I`ll give you some points to ponder--whether you agree with them or not is immaterial to me:

1) Nobody WINS or LOSES in debates on Chowk.

2)Pakistan`s & India`s versions & perceptions of Partition`s history are irreconcilably different. Your heros are our villans & vice versa. I dont care if you point a zillion references--its not going to change.

So, when you verbally masterbate on Chowk & claim Indians are ``obssessed`` with Pakistan--you are giving too much credit to yourself & Pakistan. Several of us have told you BLUNTLY that you are just being a puppet on a chain--being yanked to perform at will for ENTERTAINMENT value.

Yet your narcicissm prevents you from seeing this reality & continue to be a bakra for our amusement. Keep it up, butthead...I`ll say this for you..youre never boring...

3)The rest of the world ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY, CATEGORICALLY doesnt give a flying fcuk about what happened during Partition. They DONT want to play judge or juror. NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY has taken Indian ``nazis`` or ``slobos`` to task.

4)It just BURNS you & Pakistan that Nehru or Gandhi are figures that are generally respected throughout the world.

It BURNS you that the name ``Gandhi`` is more recognised & respected by the average citizen of the world than ``Jinnah`` will ever be.

It just BURNS Pakistan that India is NOT seen as the villan that Pakistan sees her as.

So keep having those domestic rallies where Pakistani idiots rejoice at thrashing Indians & hindus in front of approving crowds. Keep debating on Pakistani podiums whether 1 Pakistani jawan equalls 5, not 4 Indian jawans (Cawasjee`s latest article--Kashmir--was hilarious!).

Heheh..you guys are legends in your own minds.

5)Pakistan`s WORST enemies are Pakistanis themselves NOT Indians. Everytime Pakistan tries to dig a grave for India; they themselves stumble into it..

take Operation Gibralter, 71, kargil, bleed India with a 1000 cuts.

Heheh..ofcourse you guys are experts at ``spin doctoring``..perhaps to prevent a depression that arises when objectives of a policy are not met. So..call it a ``Strategic U-turn`` if it makes you feel any better.. It`ll get you your ``Halwa from Heaven`` ala Mazdak...that you are so dependant upon. It wont help Pakistan, cos you never learn..the more things change; the more they remain the same..

6) Its one thing to learn history. But if your mind is so obssessed with it, you wont accept the fact that Jinnah & Gandhi are anachronisms in their own country. No matter how many times our leaders extoll their virtues, our countries will NEVER live up to their vision.

7)India is just as fcuked up as Pakistan..

So,keep the entertainment coming...

re: ylh

what`s jinnah`s legacy?

- a nation that has seen most of it`s religious minorities flee, despite jin`s loud hocus pocus about wanting a secular nation (exclusively for Muslims though)

- a nation that has been split into two, at the end of an embarassing loss in battle where a world record 90,000 `brave` paki soldiers surrendered

- a nation that cannot sustain democracy or secularism...with a military dictator who has no shame participating in world forums amongst democratically elected foreign leaders

- a nation that until a terrorist attack took place was an international pariah, mocked and laughed at by the world (still happening behind the scenes anyway)

- a nation constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, living off handouts from western countries

great man that jinnah was...now quote me some chapters of books by tom, dick, and harry which say otherwise....let`s ignore the facts and look at these books....

Reply hobbyty # 415

hobbyty

``If it is true that we debate these issue – why the resistance?``

What resistance? Just because you put an idea forward (without supporting it) doesn`t mean I cannot find it funny. If you think it`s a serious option let me know why. Laughing at an idea is not resisting it.

``Obviously we have more of a need to discuss these issues than before. The last bit of “British” India that became Muslim States are still Muslim states – but why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states?``

Why should the paradigm be restricted to political divisions based on religion? In India (and Pakistan) language is also used. In India new states have recently been formed based not just on language but on perceived development issues (in the case of Uttaranchal) and specific economic issues (in Jharkhand). There are a few other areas where statehood is being discussed. (Vidharba, for eg)

``I think you have not understood my post. The point was that should the debate about what the “ought” of a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot and questions of social justice be resolved in India, it would have consequences in the region – and if it should not be resolved – why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states?``

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes here. I see this debate to be about the forms governance in multicultural, mulitiethnic, polyglot policy ought to take. This is almost constantly discussed - what do you think Shammi/Dost Mittar/Harimau`s ongoing discussion of education (for example) is about? The ever popular debate on a Uniform Civil Code for India? People holding forth about how the Babri Masjid/Ram Janma Bhoomi issue is resolved. All of these are articulations of how Governance in a multicultural polity such as India should take place.

You, on the other hand, seem to be focused on whether such a polity ought to exist at all. The reason I find this a funny point is that (a) such a polity DOES exist, and hence it needs to be dealt with rather than ignored as inconvenient and (b) spatially speaking, there is no area on the subcontinent whose nature is not multicultural, mulitiethnic and polyglot. IMHO governance which refuses to deal with this fact is fundamentally flawed in the way it deals with reality. (But that`s just my opinion.)

``And that this would have repercussions beyond India, in the “region” – are you following? As far as the ideas seeming “a little funny” – hey these are just ideas, neither your or my being or manhood is attached to them, if they are funny, that’s OK too.``

Uff, you said to have a sense of humour, aur abh aap rooth gaye. Unfair. But yes - to some extent India functions as the guinea pig of the subcontinent. From Panchayati Raj onwards.

``Do you envision any conditions and circumstances, in the near and medium term, where the interests of both Pakistan and India will begin to:

1. converge``

I truly believe that India will prosper best with sane, prosperous neighbours - and the situation is the same for Pakistan with regard to India. The interests of the people of India and Pakistan have converged for a long time, if they were ever different at all.

What remains different is how our elites define each country`s interests. And this does stem from how we define ourselves and hence view and understand our neighbours.

An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)

Similarly, some Pakistanis on chowk (I do not feel able to make a similar generalisation about Pakistan as I do about India, Indians forgive me :-)) seem to find it hard to take the roots of India`s nationhood seriously because of the way you define your own nationality. Again - why does it matter? What`s important to your future is really who we are now, and who we become. (Who you think we should have been is pretty irrelevant, don`t you agree?)

``2. Each will seek accommodation in Kashmir – remember accommodation, not capitulation.``

Definitely. Sorry for my cynicism, but this will happen when the rulers of our countries find it more in their interest to not have the Kashmir pot boiling (this may have already happened) and they figure out a way to maneouvre their way out of confrontation and into a mutually acceptable arrangement.

Zafar

MastRam #420

Hey man small world, I`m UD too!!

RE: Reply #: 415 hobbyty

My intent is not to question Pakistan`s nationalism today. That is for Pakistanis to decide. My debate, from an academic point of view, is about the events of 1947 and the years preceding it.

Re: Federalism, you might want to read Anwar Syed`s article in today`s DAWN (NRB`s brainchild, http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/17/op.htm). He echoes many of my views but also points out that your experiment has been tried before and it didn`t work.

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

Sadna

You did not read my response to Zafar as I requested you to do - Recently there has been a call to invite Indians to man technical institutes - from the quality of writing and reading and comprehension skills Indians exhibit on these boards -Pakistanis would be better off training their own.

Not just additional Muslim states - my post was a call to examine social imperatives and conditions that may lead such extremes and to act to correct structural problems. Social injustice, is structural in Pakistan, I think it also the case in India. Thus far Indians seem to think that the paradigm of TNT and language and culture will continue to be the defining paradigm - I would suggest that we do not have a situation that has stopped evolving. Such a situation exists in Pakistan as well - get it? Please don`t reduce the quality of our correspondence to the drawing of pictures.

Please read my post again and comment on urstruly and my post in response to his.

Also please give me a more focused response on circumstances and conditions with regard to possibilities of dialogue on Kashmir.

Akash

How stupid could I be? apparently, plenty. So Indian GDP is $480 Billion and Pakistani is $60 Billion - well lets see how stupid I could be - Indian population is 1.1 Billion? and Pakistani population is 140 Million? - that would mean, wait, wait, 480 divided by 1001 and 60 divided by 140 - can you do the math - don`t tell me, you are an Indian Phd. Well? genius? sorry rich fat cat? that`s how stupid I can be - but I`m ambitious, too.

It`s not about how stupid I am, it`s about how smart you are willing to be - but it seems you are too emotionally involved in the old paradigm to begin considering what a new framework for relations between Pakistan and India may look like.

Shammi

Indians sore winners? or just sore?

I agree with you about ``coersive diplomacy`` - I agree that Indian objectives, as defined by Indians have been met. So what`s the beef now?

If the Indian objectives have been met, the armed forces should be withdrawn, don`t you think? After all, you argue, Indian objectives have been met - so, why maintain forces at the border?

Indian objectives have been met, negotiations or dialogue should begin immediately, shouldn`t they? unless there are some Indian objectives that have yet to materialize? Moving the goal posts, will not go down well in the international community - fish or cut bait!

Let`s get past the ``sore`` business - things have changed and India can congratulate it iself for effecting those changes in Pakistan policy - Now what? where do we go from here? Should a process of dialogue not be started? Should Kashmir issue not be tackled, no, I did not say solved - shouldn`t Pakistan and India now lay the foundation for a process of dialogue?

The Americans: lets get serious, they are OK with us as long as we are OK with them. Should objectives and interests have to be reevaluated, rest assured they will be, if a change is considered to be in the interests of Pakistan, it will come to happen; I have no doubt about it. Yes, I agree an American ``Charm`` offensive is a thing of marvel (as in comics) on the other hand Musharraf did not fall off the turnip truck, yesterday.

If the Indian can declare his onbjectives met and withdraw, this would allow serious debate about the nature and depth of changes the Musharraf regime has in mind, among concerned circles in India - it will also open opportunities to explore in a new paradigm - regardless of results of elections in India, I expect a couple of bold moves to emanate from India

A more interesting question may be to ask what are American compulsions in the Central Asia and Gulf area? I remind you that Historian A. Jalal has repeatedly pointed out that Pakistan`s alliance with the West was based on the Pakistan acting to protect Western interests in the Gulf and Middle East - could that now include Central Asia? The manuvering has just started, and it would be a mistake to assume all positions have been formed.

With regard to Afghanistan - I will make you a prediction: the assasination of the Afghan mister for Aviation and Tourism and the laying for the of blame within the ministeries of Defence and Interior is noteworthy - more to follow. Optimism in certain quarters over the winning of important ministeries by a united? faction, may be analgous to counting one`s chickens before they hatch. Watch the return of Zahir Shah (a double edged sword) and the Loya Jirgha proceedings.

Mediation, facilitation, bi or multi-lateral, back channel or whatever in Kashmir: what does it matter the color of the cat, so long as it catches mice - don`t you agree?

Do you see any circumstance or conditions that will allow for a deal to done bewteen Pakistan, India and the Kashmiri representatives? Do you think this may allow for yet another paradigm shift in the Geo-political interests of Pakistan and India?

A huge story is brewing with the personalities and movement connected to the Kidnapping of journalist, Daniel Pearl - an absolutely marvelous opportunity to do the kind of house cleaning Mr. Najam Sethi had called for in an editorial last week. Lets hope and pray, Pearl is alive and will cooperate with American authorities.

Rsridhar

Please make the effort to think clearly; it doesn`t help if you characterize state interests and compulsions in such emotional terms.

Mr. Musharraf`s mission to Washington failed to achieve it`s objectives - is that your point? If so, why the derogotory, emotional out bursts from you?, were you hoping for the immediate release of advanced fighter aircraft? of billion of Dollars in a resession?. Learn to be a ``not sore`` winner. The stage is big enough for an entire host of players to share the lime light. Indians should EARN the power, the prestige they seem to desire, above all else. Do you know any Powerful and Prestigious whiners? Do people respect whiners? or whiners who also insist on cursing?

Aamir,

Have you seen George Washington`s Statue on Wall Street? Is that `communist` too?

Anyway, `Blitz` the Congress Mouth Piece wrote on Jinnah`s Direct Action Day Move:

`The Worst Enemies of the Muslim League can`t help envying the leadership of Mr.Jinnah... Cataclysmic transformation of the league compels us to express the sneaking National will that a diplomat and a strategist of Jinnah`s proven calibre were at the helm of the Indian National Congress. There is no denying the fact that by his latest master-stroke of Diplomacy, Jinnah had outbid, outwitted and outmaneuvered the British and Congress.`

More on a Morally Bankrupt Indian Argument:



The morally bankrupt argument that 1947 killings happened because Muslim League wanted partition when applied as a logic to Yugoslavia and the Balkans means the following:

1) Bosnians got killed because Bosnians didn`t want to live under Serbian Hegemony when they should have.

2) Croats got killed because Croats didn`t want a United Yugoslavia and hence their killing is justified.

3) Killing of the Kosovars is justified because they wanted a separate state.

4) In the future it is ok to Kill Montenegrans because they voted for an independent state.

After all what else was Slobodan fighting for if not for United Yugoslavia.

For a detailed account of the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Muslims in East Punjab please visit my post 261 which conclusively shows that most of the partition killings happened in East Punjab under the Indian Government`s authority while the Pakistani government is actually praised by none other than Sri Prikasa, the first Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, in his book `Insights into Pakistan`.

Banjaara,

{{Genes of our Hindu forefathers :)}}

heheh...Damn right buddy:) you can take hinduism from the man, but he just can get rid of those godamned genes...no matter how much you try to imiate the goddamned Arabs!

man... those genes are stuck in your cells..whether you take on a new religion or form a new country or define a new identity! May God have mercy on us all!

but wait..before some identity insecure paranoid Paki starts flipping his lid...we DONT want you back!

the only time those genes show their true greatness is when you take the man far far away from both, hindustan & pakistan!

Rsaxena,

`Jinnah wanted partition`.

Indeed... The way you completely walk into every trap I set for your kind is amazing... Slobodan Milosovec is in Hague because of one reason alone:

Kosovars wanted a SEPARATE state a PARTITION of Yugoslavia, (same for Slovenians and Bosnians and Croatians as well), but Milosovec butchered them.

Similarly in the subcontinent Muslims wanted a Separate state, and the Hindus and sikhs butchered them. The only leader to be hanging by his testicles would your Nehru for his role is directly analogous to Mr.Milosovec`s.

I have quoted from the newsreels and newspapers of the time, which clearly show that Indian Government did nothing to prevent the massacre of the Muslims.

As for Jinnah, even Your own first High Commissioner to Pakistan praises his role in the whole effort.

Kitni daffa bezati karao gay Indians?

re Harimau #404

A minor quibble. Actually, VJTI doesn`t have a chemical engineering department. It`s my alma mater UDCT, across the road from VJTI in Matunga which claims to produce all the entrepreneurial chemical engineers.

regards

Dear Hobbyty

``If India did not choose to respond to General Musharraf`s offer of dialogue, the rationale and cost of maintaining the troops at the border would be eroded. In case India withdraws troops from the border without getting a single person it`s 20 man list, how will the govt. explain the withdrawal? what if it gets a couple? The opposition can make political points as well, after how long can such heavy expenditures be tolerated by a poor country? one month, two? three? four? five? six months? and if no suspects are handed over and instead dialogue is offered - what then? Actually India has trapped itself by over playing it`s hand and underestimating Mr. Musharraf, again``

How stupid can you be. True we are spending over mn every month as a cost of deployment but then it would force Pakis to spend 150 mn too( acc to a recent estimate). But our GDP is $480 bn against your puny GDP od $62 bn. So by any calculation, it is Pakis who would loose, not us. Do some reality check- the GDP of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh, two of our states alone exceeds the Paki GDP. This is our baniya India`s answer to your war of attrition and bleeding by thousand cuts. The wargame is now more subtle. It would be fought on every level with the sole aim of bleeding your enemy. And dont worry about that commie newspaper. It is hardly read, much lees agreed upon by anybody in India. You thought taking Kashmir would be easy. No Sir, we will bleed your people and strike a deadly blow after weakening you economically and militarily in the long run. Remember 1971. It is either Kashmir or Pakistan for you. Go and save your Paki fellows first.

hobbyt #415
``It has been and it still is fun, for Pakistanis and Indians to expose each others warts and to compare and contrast them``

hobbyt, I am raising a valid point after at least 2-3 posts from you on new Muslim homelands in the Indian land mass. An authoritative understanding of this issue with respect to social equality and justice cannot be obtained without examining the other Muslim homelands on the Indian land mass and how they are faring. If you took the lead to call for more Muslim homelands, why this resistance to discussing this further ?

`` Do you envision any conditions and circumstances, in the near and medium term, where the interests of both Pakistan and India will begin to:
1. converge
2. Each will seek accommodation in Kashmir – remember accommodation, not capitulation.``

I think the primary interests of Pakistan and India are already almost identical, namely peace and environment for economic growth and leverage abroad for furthering mainly economic interests. Its only that these are not the top items on these countries` priority list at this time. If further Muslim homelands have to be brought into being by concerned Pakistanis and Bangladeshis willing to throw away their own interests for such a worthy cause, I doubt peace will be the top item on either India, Pakistan or Bangladesh`s priority lists for a long time to come.

This is a very significant column written by inimitable Ayaz Amir -- in which he asks apparently three questions.

1)Is Mr. Musharraf safe in his job because of the American Army`s presence in Pakistan.

2)What does the present Pakistan leadership want from US’s “enduring friendship” in the region

3)Can US deliver Kashmir to Pakistan’s Mian Musharraf?

Pakistan`s American fallacy

By Ayaz Amir

(excerpts)



Such is the air of unreality which grips our governing classes that every Pakistani leader who goes to Washington carries with him the hope that from there he will receive the kiss of life or the seal of immortality.

Why this hope should at all be entertained is somewhat hard to understand. The United States has considerable influence in Pakistan, no doubt about it because we have a habit of sucking up to foreigners. Nevertheless, Pakistani leaders have stood or fallen on the strength of their own performances.

The US may have been happy to see Bhutto go and indeed its agents may have speeded his departure. Yet the US was not the author of his misfortunes. Bhutto mishandled the domestic scene and raised enemies all around. It was this which did him in rather than any international conspiracy.

The US did not destroy Yahya Khan. Yahya and his team of generals destroyed themselves. In fact, Nixon`s sympathies were on Pakistan`s side and not India`s. He even sent parts of the Seventh Fleet for an ineffectual display of gunboat diplomacy. But what could he do if the gods themselves had abandoned an incompetent junta?

Benazir Bhutto was the darling of the West and the western media, getting the kind of attention and coverage no Pakistani leader has ever had (not even Musharraf).

On her first trip to Washington, with the honourable Zardari all togged out in Balochi headgear, she got to address the US Congress and made the then famous remark that it was a time for miracles in Pakistan. We know the miracles she and her husband wrought.

When her time was up, and Ishaq and General Beg moved in for the kill, none of her American support could save her. The same was true of Nawaz Sharif. To all appearances Clinton seemed genuinely fond of him. When Sharif`s relations with the army command came under strain after Kargil, the US issued a strong declaration of support for Sharif. But when the army moved on October 12, it sought no American approval for its action.

On his five-hour visit to Pakistan a year later Clinton got his own back by giving a tongue-lashing on TV to Pakistan`s military rulers by pointing out how Pakistan was out of step with the modern world. But his performance did not change the complexion of the government in Islamabad. Nor could it have been of much consolation to the then imprisoned Sharif.

Now the wheel having come full circle it is Musharraf`s turn to seek solace and absolution at American hands. He has earned warm praise from the American president by bending before the wind and being helpful to the US in its war on Afghanistan. But like others before him he too needs to keep things in perspective.

_________________________________________________

The cries from the Pakistani side about enduring friendship and about being abandoned by the Americans in the eighties are misplaced.



The US is ruthless in the pursuit of its interests. We should be the same with ours. The US bent us to its will post-September 11. If we were afraid and settled for peanuts, the only thing to be said is that the Americans were strong enough to pursue a good bargain while we were weak enough to settle for a bad one. There is a strong body of opinion which says we had no choice. Perhaps.



But then a no-choice position is hardly a strong foundation for enduring friendship.

The warmth from Washington is not because of General Musharraf`s outstanding personality (although the president`s admirers would like to believe otherwise) but because of our sepoy status in South-West Asia: our willingness to toe the American line.

Consider regional geography. For the first time in fifty years a cool breeze is blowing between Riyadh and Washington. Iraq and Iran top America`s list of enemies. Up north are the Central Asian states whose hidden oil wealth is the prize in this emerging game.

Alone of all the states in the region, Pakistan, stretching from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea, is eager to turn itself into a permanent tool of American interests.



This then is what we want, not enduring friendship but permanent employment on current wages.

We don`t want to be cast adrift by the US again.

We want our yearly handout to balance our accounts and we want hardware for our military.

And we don`t want to be pressed too hard for past loans.



This is it, this the definition of enduring friendship. Nor is this reason for gloom because client states are in no position to seek anything more.

_________________________________________________

As for Kashmir, we need to stop deluding ourselves over it. The US wouldn`t like India and Pakistan to go to war because this doesn`t serve its interests.

It would like India and Pakistan to talk their differences over, this being the common sense approach to their problems.

But the US is not desperate to press India towards a Kashmir solution.

It will not be a mediator because India will not ask for it.

So why say, as President Musharraf has, that bilateralism is dead?

We may find the Indian attitude cussed and India may think us to be needlessly provocative, but experience tells us that India and Pakistan must themselves find the wisdom to settle their problems.

The US will not go out of its way to bestir itself in this matter.

So whether we like it or not, bilateralism is the only way forward.

This is also the logic of the past. We shouldn`t have started the 1965 war because the only thing it resulted in was an inconclusive end. We shouldn`t have lost the `71 war because it is our defeat in that conflict which condemns us to bilateralism.

The Shimla Accord was no devil`s plot. It merely enshrined in words something that had already happened on the ground.

There is another reason, however, for the strong verbal line we are now taking on Kashmir. When the armed struggle was going strong, we could afford to be soft in our words.

Now that for all practical purposes we have quarantined our warriors and bid a farewell to arms, the only way to salve wounded national pride is to go hard on our rhetoric.

When innocence is lost it is only natural to protest too much.



We must look to the causes of things.

General Musharraf can be feted at the White House every six months and hit Newsweek`s cover again, and Pakistan get three times the amount of money it is now getting from the US, but we will remain a dependent, debt-ridden country unless we learn to mend our ways.



Washington will not discover political stability for us. It has used Pakistani leaders before and will do so again.

It is for us to see the poison and avoid it. It is for us to seek the Holy Grail and create lasting political institutions. No one else will do it for us.

So let us stop the unseemly refrain of the US having abandoned us in the past. We abandoned ourselves because we had no eye for our long-term interests.

Even now all this talk of turning Pakistan into a modern state will remain meaningless unless the army forswears its taste for political intervention and learns to cultivate some respect for DEMOCRACY - the REAL KIND and not the variety being thrust down the nation`s throat by Gen Naqvi.(DAWN)

Shammi # 336

Yes! Check out http://www.censusindia.net

Faruk

dost-mitter # 383

I think India got the cream of the Sindhi’s after partition. The Sindhi’s in India are doing so well while in Pakistan its another story. I think India lucked out as far as the Sindhi’s are concerned.

Regards,

Faruk

Shankar

About getting insulting in my posts, I have learnt from the best: Indians.

Shankar # 392

`` But what is Pakistan`s excuse? ``

Genes of our Hindu forefathers :)

Shankar

Indians do not like to be cursed - so they say things like ``shove em``? Come on now I certainly regret the attitude you think there is refuge in.

Pakistanis are just as screwed up? And? so? Lets go around cursing and abusing one another? –

Islam seems to have little meaningful effect on Pakistanis? All Pakistanis? Islam is the reason you have chosen to resort to abuses and curses? – Either way, instead of acknowledging that you overstepped the bounds – you say “shove em”?

Ok, whatever blows your skirt.

Zafar

If it is true that we debate these issue – why the resistance? Obviously we have more of a need to discuss these issues than before. The last bit of “British” India that became Muslim States are still Muslim states – but why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states? I think you have not understood my post. The point was that should the debate about what the “ought” of a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot and questions of social justice be resolved in India, it would have consequences in the region – and if it should not be resolved – why should the paradigm be restricted to Muslim states? And that this would have repercussions beyond India, in the “region” – are you following? As far as the ideas seeming “a little funny” – hey these are just ideas, neither your or my being or manhood is attached to them, if they are funny, that’s OK too.

Travard

“I have been putting forward my views on why I think the logic for Pakistan was fundamentally flawed…”

Certainly in a framework of an India that has borders in the Northwest to Afghanistan and in the Northeast, to Myanmar, your position makes sense.

“ Indeed, if the creation of Bangladesh proved anything, it is that boundaries in the sub-continent are naturally inclined towards distinct language/culture rather than religion. That is how the boundaries of states within the India as well as Pakistan are drawn.”

I am not disputing this statement, but this statement does not suggest that religion, as a boundary marker, regardless of one’s opinion of it as an “ought”, is a invalid or false one. I think your position emanates from a strong sense of a majority identity – majorities in Pakistan, especially those whom minority ethic groups have identified as antithetical to their interests, hold positions that are similar to the one you suggest. Again it does not make it right or wrong or valid or invalid – it’s just one more element of the debate.

FEDERALISM – yet again, a most interesting subject. I would agree with you that as defined by Indians, certainly FEDERALISM is a more acceptable and more refined within the Indian body politic. I think many Pakistanis, not on the left, find little useful meaning in the kind of FEDERALISM that is practiced in India – that is they would find it difficult to relate it to Pakistan. An example is the Local Government system in Pakistan. Consider, just as an idea or point we may wish to explore in the Pakistani context: doing away with or replacing provinces and provincial government, and assemblies with prefectures, each prefecture comprising a given number of sq. miles – A representative, administrative and service module – with district government directly below it – with guidelines for Health, Education, Communication flowing from Central or Federal government. With representation from each unit of local government. Most importantly with a participatory budgeting process (see “Hindu” Opinion pages Feb. 16 2002). This would mean the numbers of Representatives and Senators in the Majlis will have to be increased significantly. This would bring a more democratic / feedback loop governance to the populace, it would allow citizens to participate with more impact on the affairs that effect them most, it would attenuate the potential for political instability by widening the scope and scale of political action. What are your thoughts?

“Regarding Pakistan as a failed state one need look no further than Musharaff`s statements in his post-coup speech to come to this conclusion. Phrases like ``We have hit rock-bottom`` and ``we have nowhere to go but up`` don`t exactly apply to a successful state, do they?

You are exactly right that it does not suggest a successful state – on the other hand it does not suggest a “failed” state either. It would be useful if we were to be mindful of the complexities involved. Simplistic notions of either/or serve powers that enjoy an overwhelming asymmetry in power and wealth. We need to look at issues with a view to comprehend them in their complexity.

“The reason Pakistan is taken seriously by India is the very same reason why Iraq, or North Korea is taken seriously by the West viz. they can do serious damage due to their unpredictability.”

I disagree. Pakistan remains a “pivotal” state – analogy with North Korea and unpredictability is a highly dubious one. After all, who would have predicted the events of 9/11 and the global response to it – or for that matter the events of 12/13 or Enron and Dhabol. Predictability is closely linked with notion of risk, would you agree? And risk is a general feature of life – the degree of risk, the international community agrees, has been brought down in Pakistan – wouldn’t you agree? Predictability is closely associated with agreement about common goals, interests – is subjective, wouldn’t you agree?

With regard to the Westminster model – yes it has worked reasonably in India – but I think it will not in Pakistan. The power centers in Pakistan find it a “non-useful” instrument. That’s just the way it is going to have to be.



I find it incredible that you should argue against improvements in organization and technology.

“Pakistan is made up of distinct linguistic and cultural provinces with their own aspirations. Unless these forces are accommodated, there is little reason to believe Musharaff`s plans will work.”

Language and culture are only elements of a general and particular Pakistani identity, sensibility and aspiration. Pakistan is not only a territorial state but also an Idea. Takmeel e Pakistan is and in my opinion should remain, a work in progress.

“But above all what Musharaff wants is a pliable civilian system which will allow the military to play geo-political military games far in excess of what its size warrants.”

You test reader’s reason with such statements – “pliable”? To what end? What Musharraf seeks is a civilian system that can play by the rules, that will not jeopardize the predictability and restructuring reintroduced into the body politic. As far as a geo-political role for Pakistan, Indians seem to feel they have a “right” to define the limits of any Pakistani geo-political role – grow up, learn to deal with reality – psychology will only bring a sense of victimization, it breeds on irrationality. Geo-political roles of Pakistan are a function of both its and other states ambitions and compulsions. It is not a conspiracy designed to frustrate Indian ambitions to regional and world power status. Work, Work hard to earn regional power and world power status – don’t go about crying that you are being denied your proper role by Pakistanis, Americans or anyone other than yourself.

Sadna

Since we are on the question of social justice and equality before law and Muslim homelands, I wonder what is the opinion of Pakistani elite about why 70-75% of their countrymen are still illiterate after 54 years of freedom? These people can neither read their holy book as observant Muslims, nor can they fight for their rights and social equality

I don’t think I can speak for Pakistani elite – but I certainly would agree with you that not only is this so but is deliberately so. In the hands of the Elite of Pakistan, Islam is a utility. Social justice, gender equality, literacy, what to speak of education, a decent, dignified and honest livelihood ought to be “rights” for the Pakistani citizen. Please refer to my original post and also my response to Zafar as well.

Sadna, Urstruly has a post here (Values and charachter) and I have a response to that post. I would appreciate very much if you would review and offer your comments; I think it pertinent to this line of inquiry.

It has been and it still is fun, for Pakistanis and Indians to expose each others warts and to compare and contrast them – Please read my post to Shammi about the changed paradigm – Also to you, Zafar, Shammi, Dost, Travard, Harimanu or any India who wishes to respond:

Do you envision any conditions and circumstances, in the near and medium term, where the interests of both Pakistan and India will begin to:

1. converge

2. Each will seek accommodation in Kashmir – remember accommodation, not capitulation.

re:Reply #: 399

hobbyty,

Let me butt in here and say a few things and perhaps burst your bubble. Mushy has let himself and his country be used like a whore. All you guys are interested is how USA thinks about you. Does it really matter? Your country has given free space to US Army, Navy and Airforce. They are twisting Mushy`s arms to behave. He has obliged them in full measure. Of course, US is happy. Who would not be with such a co-operative dictator? One less Islamic country to worry about, right?

What has Mushy gotten out of this recent visit to USA? No assurances for sale of F16. No assurances of a mediation in Kashmir. There were no joint communique or statements between Mushy and Bush. Yes, Mushy got a lot of ``dough`` for being such a good guy but a lot of that money is conditional and requires approval by the Senate. He could not even succeed in getting Bush to tell India to back off from confrontation.

Mushy of late has been going wayward. He lacks diplomatic niceties. Telling Indians that Bhagat Singh was a terrorists and not a freedom fighter is not going to win him friends here (after all Bhagat Singh was born in an undivided India and his struggle benefitted Pak as well as India). Let us not forget that Jinnah had defended some nationalists (who Mushy calls terrorists), people like Azad, in court.

He also made 2 grave errors: one in trying to link the abduction of Pearl to an Indian source and secondly in trying to convince US that India was about to explode a nuclear device. Both statements were rebuffed by US. Washington Post correspondent during an interview actually told Mush not to make irresponsible statements.

You guys can go on defending your dictator. This guy is proving to be a fuc *ing moron. He wants India to talk to him but he has to learn first how to talk. Generals have never made good diplomats. They have been disastrous for Pak. This guy is no exception. Just wait and watch.

Sridhar

RE: Reply #: 400 ylh

``Further on Ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab :``

ylh,

Isn`t it ironic that it was the Punjab that suffered the most due to the actions of a certain Gujarati?

As someone from Bangalore, I shudder to think about the consequences of someone taking a meat cleaver and slicing my state in half for whatever reason.

RE: Reply #: 400 ylh

````The sight of butchered Muslim women and children as well as men on the streets of Delhi, was a ghastly one.``

Dehli under the nose of the Indian Government. Enough for Hague to convict Nehru..``

Sigh! I can trot out some articles and quotes to show how Hindus were mercilessly butchered in Pakistan to prove that Jinnah needed to be strung up (read this week`s Irfan Hussein article on www.dawn.com for an insight). The point of this whole exercise is to ascertain why ANYONE was killed during partition, not why Muslims were killed in India or Hindus were killed in Pakistan. And the blame for this firmly lies in Jinnah`s backyard.

R: Hobbyty

I think that Indians are sore winners (no Indian will admit it on Chowk!) -- the most important issue with Pakistan regarding India was cross-border terrorism, not the list of 20 (which suddenly became an issue two months ago), which was really to see if Musharraf meant what he said (after all, some of the men on the list were accomplices of Omar Sheikh and the-other-guy-who-hijacked the Indian Airlines plane whose presence Pakistan had been denying until they suddenly resurfaced in the most inconvenient manner in the glare of the world`s media). The `cross-border terrorism` refrain had been voiced by the ruling and oppposition parties alike for years. Just like for the US, it was the return of Afghanistan to Afghans from the hands of OBL and the dismantling of the terrorist INFRASTRUCTURE that is most important, and not the fate of OBL himself (although they make no secret of their desire to see him dead). Indians have won verbal assurances from Musharraf in his Jan. 12 speech on his Kashmir jehadi policy, to stop state sponsorship of terror, and effectively dismantle the JeM and the LeT -- they are now waiting to see if this translates into action on the ground when the snows melt. (BTW, have you noticed how the killing in Kashmir has substantially stopped? A tacit linkage of the violence there with cross-border infiltration?)

The steps up the escalatory ladder (in increasing order of difficulty) for India were to apply force to:

a) change policies of Pakistan, failing which:

b) change the regime, failing which:

c) change the state

It appears that (a) has been attained through coercive diplomacy at least in so far as stated intention is concerned -- although proof positive will emerge in the summer. The border firing incidents (under the cover of which infiltration used to occur) are almost gone. Pakistan can revive the JeM and LeT but not without risking its relations with the US. Musharraf is on a very short leash with both India and the US. (Read Ayaz Amir`s column in the Dawn). I think that the US and India worked in tandem to bring about (a) -- India could not have threatened Pakistan -- a US ally with US troops present on the ground there without a wink and a nod from the US. US diplomats, being more sophisticated with words than Indians and possessing far more national power, can `kill with kindness`--you would not even know when they are disapproving of you when suddenly the hammer hits you hard. They have basically bent Musharraf (pulling him by his ears when he acted `independent` (remember no N. Alliance in Kabul` refrain)and reminding him of the looming financial crisis if he misbehaves) while propping him up publicly because he is not only pliant but also believes in changing Pakistan`s direction.

The differences between India and the US are on (b) regime change, not on (a) -- Pakistan has already delivered to India`s and US`s satisfaction on (a). Should Musharraf`s administration fall (for any reason) and be replaced by a hardline general less susceptible to US pressure, the US and India will converge on (b) (regime change) as well, because the US has already identified WMD and state sponsors of terror (axis of evil remarks) as enemies number one. That is why Pakistan`s strategic assets are now referred to as liabilities by people like Najam Sethi and Ayaz Amir. Musharraf knows it too -- that is why he referred to `safeguarding strategic assets and Kashmir cause` when he rallied Pakistan behind him after 9/11.

Having achieved (a) without having to give anything in return (not even a promise of a dialogue), Indians are behaving as sore winners. I would not be surprised if some of those 20 men are either forced out of Pakistan, remain incarcerated, `disappear`, or are handed over to India quitely a few months down the road under the garb of `goodwill measures` to `initiate a dialogue`. Their previous exalted status in Pakistan and the free rein given them to spread venom and hate propaganda have been put down -- and that counts for something.

Re: Dost

``...But they were self-made entrepreneurs who were not given any breaks by any large corporation...``

So, you have shifted the goal-post once again? Do you think that the missileer A. Kalam was not given any breaks (by someone in government, instead of a corporation)? BTW, WIPRO is a 40+ year old company (Western India Pure & Refined Oil?) and Azim turned his father`s business around. Having a distaste for anecdotal evidence, I continue to be alarmed that you rely upon it extensively to base your hypotheses.

re: ylh

{{{``The sight of butchered Muslim women and children as well as men on the streets of Delhi, was a ghastly one.``

Dehli under the nose of the Indian Government. Enough for Hague to convict Nehru.. }}}

here we go again with your revisionist nonsense...who wanted partition? jinnah! and if the Hague had Jinnah alive, they would have hung him by his testicles for the continued persecution of religious minorities in pakistan, in addition to the deaths of hindus in pakistan...

...do a plot of time vs. % of religious minorities in pakistan and tell me if it doesn`t look like the slippery slope your behind is usually sliding down...

Ref shammi #: 382

[You quoted Prof. Hoodbhoy: ``....Institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Madras Institute for Mathematical Sciences, and the five Indian Institutes for Technology, and several others, are simply world-class. They have no counterparts in Pakistan. ``]

As usual, the code coolies coming out of the IITs have brought far more recognition to those institutions than they deserve. Institutions such as Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, and the Life Sciences Department at Madurai Kamaraj University do not get the recognition they deserve amongst the public but is well-known to US academics. There is a very large IISc alumni group in the US. IISc and Saha Institute were among those institutions coming under US sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests and while I could be wrong, I don`t remember seeing a single IIT on the sanctions list. Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute in Bombay (currently renamed Veermata Jeejibai Technical Institute, thus preserving the initials VJTI) has produced not just chemical engineers but those who are imbued with an enterpreneurial spirit who have started several specialty chemicals industries around Bombay. They seem not to need the ``freedom from bureaucratic rules`` that the US-based IITans demand for returning to India to set up industries. IITs are our Agmark-branded, export-oriented institutions who need to be placed in Export Processing Zones. A friend of mine at MicroSoft remarked upon the total lack of research papers coming out of the IITs.

hobbyt #376
Since we are on the question of social justice and equality before law and Muslim homelands, I wonder what is the opinion of Pakistani elite about why 70-75% of their countrymen are still illiterate after 54 years of freedom? These people can neither read their holy book as observant Muslims, nor can they fight for their rights and social equality.

Reply hobbyty # 376

``...if the creation of space for another Muslim or several different states to exist within present day India is not a general good, do you not believe open debate about what a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot ``ought`` to be and how it may seek to respond to questions of social justice, equality before the law, remain a priority?``

Hobbyty, we discuss that almost endlessly bhai. But if people find your premise funny (given the history of the last bit of India that became a homeland for Muslims) then why so ghussa? You said to have a sense of humour.

Reply Dost Mittar

Re: Bangladeshi maid.

OK - if not happy at least substantially mollified. I was aware that there are many illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in India, and knew that they were often found in the cities controlling the rag picking trade and also cleaning houses. Did not know that it was common for them to be working as cooks etc. in people`s houses.

Further on Ethnic cleansing of Muslims in East Punjab :

US Ambassador Grady writes:

``The sight of butchered Muslim women and children as well as men on the streets of Delhi, was a ghastly one.``

Dehli under the nose of the Indian Government. Enough for Hague to convict Nehru..

Shammi

Prior to 9/11 and Pakistan`s response to it, Pakistan was for the most part isolated, it`s economy a wreck - the burden of debt was crushing, the international community unresponsive to it`s call for action in Kashmir and discouraged by Pakistan state linkages to extremism both within and outside Pakistan. India had made a successful diplomatic and media case against Pakistan, after the kargil crisis, it had painted Pakistan into a corner defined by isolation and extremism; sectarian violence inside Pakistan only emphasized the Indian case.

The paradigm that defined the relations between Pakistan and India prior to 9/11 has changed. Pakistan decided to change it`s policy orientation (AKA ``U-turn``) and to allow for this reorientation, it reached certain understandings with the US in regard to Pakistan`s orientation to what is called ``terrorism,`` Pakistan`s relationship with Afghanistan and India. With regard to Afghanistan, the US agreed that future Afghan governments will be ``friendly`` towards Pakistan and with regard to India, a decision to curb elements that have sought to widen the scope of operations and to target civilians inside captive Kashmir and India and a commitment to improving relations with India.

In response to events of December 13, the Indian had sought a replay of the diplomatic and media campaign against Pakistan. Crude and unrealistic arguments were fashioned arguing India could act against Pakistan in the same manner the US did against Afghanistan and Al-Qaida and as israel acted against the Palestinian auuthority. Mr. Musharraf took the winds out of those sails with his speech of Jan. 12, 2002 and renewed his offer for dialogue, calling for de-escalation and the evacuation of Indian forces from Pakistan`s borders. The Indians overplayed their hand and in an atmosphere of local and national elections found the hostile atmosphere useful. The influential Indian paper ``The Hindu,`` for the last week has published calls for withdrawal of forces, arguing that India had made it`s point and that a stage of diminishing returns was at hand. If India did not choose to respond to General Musharraf`s offer of dialogue, the rationale and cost of maintaining the troops at the border would be eroded. In case India withdraws troops from the border without getting a single person it`s 20 man list, how will the govt. explain the withdrawal? what if it gets a couple? The opposition can make political points as well, after how long can such heavy expenditures be tolerated by a poor country? one month, two? three? four? five? six months? and if no suspects are handed over and instead dialogue is offered - what then? Actually India has trapped itself by over playing it`s hand and underestimating Mr. Musharraf, again. Now India needs a face saving device to allow it to withdraw - that`s what the recent conversation between Jaswant Singh and Colin Powell was about. India may withdraw and accept an offer of dialogue - what will have been gained? Unless of course, more terrorism takes place in Pakistan or in India - but with the FBI present, state players will be engaging in a very, very risky game of escalation and the price of failure or suspicion may be strategic in nature.

By way of Illustration:

``Not Enough For India`` - Kuldip Nayar - The Hindu - Feb 16, 2002

The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, can pat himself on the back for the position he has won for his country in the West. Shunned and stymied, Pakistan was functioning in a distasteful environment. Many nations had written it off and even the most optimistic were fearing the worst. Today, both the Senate and the U.S. Congress have commended him by passing a unanimous resolution.``

India needs a way out:

``Gen. Musharraf should hand over at least some of the 20 criminals living in Pakistan. It may provide the much-needed breakthrough. Otherwise, the scene is too dismal for words. There may be more hurt, more pain, more jingoism - which people on both sides have had enough of.`` - ``Not enough for India`` -- Notice the ``at least some...``

Musharraf`s answer - ``Daily Nation`` - Feb 16, 2002:

``They have this list of 20 people now. I am not going to do their bidding. As for the withdrawal of troops from the borders, it is our own deterrence that they had come and they have realised that there is nothing they can do because of our strength.’

“They have to go back. They will have to create their own face-saving: we cannot give it to them. They came of their own accord so they have to find a rationale for going back. “

Colin Powell and President Bush, he said, are doing their best to facilitate their (India’s) withdrawal.``

Yesterday`s paradigm has changed - To keep pace with the new paradigm requires new thinking.

RE: Reply #: 391 hobbyty

``A. Religion not enough justification for a state.

Evidence for and against this premise exist. Bangladesh in the case of Pakistan - Pakistan, in the case of India. And if indeed religion were not a sufficient bond, why not allow for additional states, they don`t have to be Muslim, in the land mass of present day India?``

I have been putting forward my views on why I think the logic for Pakistan was fundamentally flawed which I won`t repeat ad-nauseum. Indeed, if the creation of Bangladesh proved anything, it is that boundaries in the sub-continent are naturally inclined towards distinct language/culture rather than religion. That is how the boundaries of states within the India as well as Pakistan are drawn. The difference between India and Pakistan is that federalism is alive and well in the former and is evolving towards a center which is in charge of just defense, foreign policy and communications whereas in the latter federalism is yet to evolve (with all this experiments on basic democracy, who knows if it will ever do so). Regarding more states, three more were created just recently in India which proves that the Center will not come in the way of people`s aspirations on that count. If you`re talking about states outside the Indian Union, believe me, if there was such a movement, it would have happened (Kashmir doesn`t count due to the ideological dimension given to it by Pakistan). States like Tamilnadu are enormously politically savvy and would have started such a movement if the people felt that the Indian Union was stifling them. Not that people like Prabhakaran of the Tamil Tigers didn`t try; that his ferocious Sri-Lankan movement didn`t catch on in India is a tribute to the strength of federalism in India.

``B. Pakistan is a failed state.``

Regarding Pakistan as a failed state one need look no further than Musharaff`s statements in his post-coup speech to come to this conclusion. Phrases like ``We have hit rock-bottom`` and ``we have nowhere to go but up`` don`t exactly apply to a successful state, do they?

The reason Pakistan is taken seriously by India is the very same reason why Iraq, or North Korea is taken seriously by the West viz. they can do serious damage due to their unpredictability. But by no stretch of the imagination does that translate to any of the three being successful states because of their dismal failures on the social side.

The Westminster model has worked reasonably well in India and has caught on in Bangladesh so I don`t know what your beef is about it. I think it is the only way that both regional aspirations as well as a strong Central Government can be accomodated (compared to the Presidential system). Really, this is the only way for Pakistan to go too if the military rulers are willing to get out of the way.

``Organization and Technology - through out history, no culture, society or civilization has progressed without conceiving and instituting problem solving loop innovation in these two fields -Mr. Musharaff`s restructuring is an attempt to lead Pakistan in to the awareness of this truth; certainly an acknowledgement failures, and the willingness to act upon the failures, which is not something failed states can do.``

The problem is that Pakistan has been trying this very thing for the last 50 years (national governments, partyless elections etc..) with little success. Pakistan is made up of distinct linguistic and cultural provinces with their own aspirations. Unless these forces are accomodated.,there is little reason to believe Musharaff`s plans will work. But above all what Musharaff wants is a pliable civilian system which will allow the military to play geo-political military games far in excess of what it`s size warrants.

Aamir,

What you are touching on as per calcutta riots has been explored in detail already. In any event whereas a weak case can be made against Suhrawardy (though I have proved that wrong too with facts), no responsible author not even La Pierre and Collins the two anti-Pakistan authors have accused Jinnah of it. Jinnah`s statement two days before the event is quite clear as to what he envisaged the day to be. I will quote it later tonight.

There is no denying that the Pakistan demand and its raison de ettre profited a great deal by the huge massacre of Muslims at Calcutta which is documented even in Wavell`s diary in which he says exactly the same thing... double the number of Muslims died. But Jinnah cannot be held accountable for Calcutta as per facts unless you are saying that he was wrong in asking for Pakistan and that caused all the bloodshed. But then you are excusing the intolerance of those who acted on their hatred for the Pakistan demand.

Ref dost-mittar #: 385

[I am not saying that the community does not bear any responsibility for its uplift. But sometimes, you have to give an incentive to ``drag their a$$es over to class``. You are the expert on Tamil Nadu, isn`t this what Jayalalitha did there?]

Most schools in Tamil Nadu were quasi-nationalized, in the sense that private schools were reimbursed for the tuition fees of students by the state but private management of the schools continued, by the Karunanidhi regime in the late 60s/early 70s. Thus essentially education through secondary schools became free. (This did not apply to schools run by religious orders such as convents, only those private schools that were managed by a Trust, or to elite Public Schools like those in various hill stations). Since this was not a sufficient incentive, MGR during his first administration introduced the Nutritious Meals Scheme by which free lunch was provided to indigent students. This enabled poor students to attend school; if nothing else, poor parents sent their kids off to school because they would get at least one meal a day as opposed to starving. But none of this incentives was needed in neighboring Kerala where literacy improved at a far more rapid pace than in Tamil Nadu. Sometimes, the cultural milieu has far greater impact than any number of government programs.

I will agree that rather than store 20 million tons of surplus grains in warehouses and losing them to rats, the government should provide free breakfast and lunch to all students and provide free education through at least the 10th Standard all over India. Even if only 3-5 years of education sticks in the student`s minds, at least they will be able to read, which is a far better situation than today.

There is a reason why any government in India fears an educated population. The first two states to elect Communist governments (Kerala and West Bengal) also had the highest literacy rates. So long as we accept socialism is good, the claim is Communism is the extreme form of socialism and thus is better. You need to completely revamp the economic system into a free market, laissez-faire economy before you attempt complete literacy. After all, West Bengal continues to elect Communists despite the failure of all the East European countries and despite Tienanmen Square. The future is bleak unless you brainwash the kids in the free market system.

PS. As an aside, when MGR broached the subject of US support for his Midday Meals Scheme during his visit to the US, the AID (Agency for International Development) officials were excited. They were prepared to fund the entire scheme and provide high-protein items such as soymeal from the US surplus; their only demand was that all students` physical growth be measured at regular intervals and reports submitted to AID. AID viewed it as a great big scientific experiment. Not fully understanding AID`s stance and fearing a US plot of some sort against Indian children, MGR flat out ruled out the possibility of sharing any data with the US. How do I know this? A participant in the discussions told me.

Ref hobbyty #: 376

[Dost, if the creation of space for another Muslim or several different states to exist within present day India is not a general good, do you not believe open debate about what a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot ``ought`` to be and how it may seek to respond to questions of social justice, equality before the law, remain a priority?]

There already IS a state in India , not just for Muslims, but with a Muslim majority. In case you have forgotten its name, it is Jammu & Kashmir. We all know exactly what that state has been going through because of Pakistani intervention and internal power politics.

I don`t believe that all the Indian Muslims will decide to move to some artificially created state so that they can be in a majority and rule themselves without interference from Hindus. First, they all don`t speak the same language. Second, they own property and businesses where they reside today. Third, the move in India has been toward greater integration among ethnic and linguistic groups, not greater division. Fourth, since the ethnicities of the Muslims vary, they will not form a cohesive state.... you can look at the Pakistan+Bangladesh experiment of 1947-1971. As for any other state with a religious minority of India forming a majority in the state, I think Nagaland is predominantly Christian. States in the Northeast such as Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, etc., maintain their distinct ethnic identities too without serious damage to the Indian polity. So, if there were a natural concentration of Muslims in one part of India and they demanded a separate state, they would get it absent the history of Partition and absent troubles in Kashmir. Since those two cannot be wished away, any demand by anybody, Hindu or Muslim, for a separate Islamistan state inside India is going to go over like a lead balloon.

hobbytv,

{{Incredible! Really, in bad taste; a poor replacement for argument or even humour, disappointing.}}

Sir, I`m not here to conduct myself in what standards of ``manners`` or ``taste`` you expect Chowkies to live by. As far as I`m concerned, you can take your opinions about me & shove `em.

ylh has no qualms about getting downright personally insulting when he starts going into those orgasmic frenzy of posts. He hates it when Indians get dowmnright nasty with him. He likes to dish it out, but hates to take his own medicine. The most pathetic excuse he`s come out with is ``Indians always start it``. Then he starts cursing India & Indians in general.

Maybe cursing India & hindus is so routine & commonplace in Pakistan, that many Pakistanis dont even realise that it pisses Indians off. I`m not saying there are no jerks from the Indian side too. Heck, I have khunnas-ka feuds with some of them too.

As much as many of you Pakistanis hate to admit it lest...gasp,,.it may corrupt your identity; you Pakis mentally are just a chip of the old block. Your country, society, mentality is just as screwed up as India`s.

On a logical basis I would have figured that since Islam is such a ``perfect`` religion, that if a country were 97% muslim--it would conduct itself as a well mannered, cultured, civilised society. Your society is just as divisive, hateful, corrupt, crime-ridden backward society as India!

At least since India has a majority of hindus; its a society that reveres several less-than-perfect-false gods..Maybe thats why we`re decadent. But what is Pakistan`s excuse?

You are surrounded by Islam--but sometimes it seems to me not one drop of Islam has filtered through the social fabric of your country. Well, obviously I`m wrong...

Travard

2 Premises, (polemic) in your post:

A. Religion not enough justification for a state.

Evidence for and against this premise exist. Bangladesh in the case of Pakistan - Pakistan, in the case of India. And if indeed religion were not a sufficient bond, why not allow for additional states, they don`t have to be Muslim, in the land mass of present day India?

B. Pakistan is a failed state.

This is hardly an objective statement. Ethnic rivalry, poverty and social injustice continue to a significant degree in India, as well. The fact, that Pakistan is taken as seriously as it is by India would suggest that it is not a failed state, unless I were to argue that relations between Pakistan and India are a dialogue of the failed. However; an area where Pakistan has not lived up to the expectations is the arena of political competition. The Westminster model and as far as I am concerned, the rubbish about ``Chief`` minister in provinces is equally useless. These are essentially politcal/administrative creations of imperial secret services and fall under funtionalist/structuralist anthrological theories; these are meaningless in the present environment of ambition and expectation of service, of problem solving that are not based on values of blood, kinship or patronage.

Organization and Technology - through out history, no culture, society or civilization has progressed without conceiving and instituting problem solving loop innovation in these two fields -Mr. Musharaff`s restructuring is an attempt to lead Pakistan in to the awareness of this truth; certainly an acknowledgement failures, and the willingness to act upon the failures, which is not something failed states can do.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``…At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have still to see even a modicum of Muslim representation at the senior echelons or board of directors of large corporations…``

Allow me to provide the modicum of Muslim representation - Azim Premji (Chairman, CEO) of Wipro

Re: Harimau

``..If the Hindus condemn a barber to hereditary barberdom because of his caste that is a barbarity but if a Muslim`s descendants follow their parent`s trade that is okay?…``

No, but you presented the issues as if religion (and principally religion) had something to do with social immobility and being perpetually entrapped in a given profession. If that was not your intent, then this is a non-issue.

Re: Hobbyty

``…the paradigm regulating relations between Pakistan and India has already changed…``

How?

#382

``P.S. Hoodbhoy is wrong about the number of IITs (there are six, not five -- one more was built in the 90s in Guwahati)``

Actually there are 7 now, Rourkee has also been designated an IIT. So we have:

Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kharagpur, Kanpur, Guwahati, Rourkee

temporal #72 you write ``If we had free representation my vote would be for pakistan…with or without Kashmir…enough is enough…"

You are displaying symptoms of Kashmir Fatigue. There is a lot of going around, I understand. I look at it this way - with all this bickering over kashmir, we lost all of India. How many tens of thousands of Pakistanis will die without ever visiting Agra, or check out Mumbai, or hang out in Delhi, see the Rajasthan palaces, or rent a boat on Dal (?) Lake.

Hmmmmmmm..........

OK, I admit that did not sound tragic enough. Let me try again:

How many Pakistanis who are illiterate laborers today would have been educated scientists, doctors, lawyers, poets, philosophers if the feud with India had been nipped at the bud in 1947 and Pakistan remained the ``model developing country`` that it was dubbed by the Harvard economics professors back in 1964? How many youth languishing in Afghan jails as taliban would have been globe-trotting executives wearing Armani suits and talking with fake Oxford accents? How many military officers would never have joined the military, and have found a real job rather than spending their lives saluting and returning salutes? How many babies who died in infancy would have survived to become beautiful maidens, breaking hearts of young men (latter also dead in infancy, alas)? We might even have had a team in the football world cup giving the (also non-existent) Indian football team a run for its money in the world cup finals.

Oh the pity! the sorrow, Iago (I think I am getting my tragic characters confused now, and so will end here).

Becharay Indians,

P-mishra is still missing. And then he is going to return and repeat his lies and allegations against me. I have answered him on 5 different occasions. Its not my fault he doesn`t read them. He doesn`t want to read them.

Dost mittar,

You continue to view history from the biased lens of a refugee. I have already quoted from the Journalist Sharma, and the Indian High commissioner Mr.Sri Prikasa`s book `Insights into Pakistan`. Both of them are full of praise for Jinnah`s Government and its role to protect Hindus in Pakistan post 14th August. Are they Pakistani agents? Yet you continue to harp on the same old same old in right royal Indian fashion knowing full well that even the dates you gave are well before Jinnah`s Government even took charge. I wonder if Jinnah didn`t take active measures why ... why then does the Indian High commissioner praise his efforts calling him the `protector general` of the Hindus?

Well so be it. No surprises.. what more can one expect. It is beyond the capacity of an Indian to accept that he may be wrong, so I am ready for an eternal conflict.



Shammi,

Once again you are too late, I have already used Milosovec`s example. Now you can go on twisting words and creating ironies as is your creed, but the fact is that the `Times` London and all the statistics clearly show that the Indian Government in 1947 turned a blind eye to massacres of East Punjab, while the Pakistani Government was praised even by the Indian high commissioner for its swift action.

But like Dost mittar you too have a major disadvantage when it comes to being objective: You are an Indian. You will never accept that you people ethnically cleansed the Muslims from East Punjab to create problems for Pakistan.

Assumptions

To see how Indians make a fool of themselves please observe the interaction between myself and inyourface 344 and 345.

The poor guy assumed that since my friend Prem is an Indian, he has to be studying Medicine or Science, for after all that is the only worthwhile profession. Prem was much more brilliant than that. He was taking courses like Islam, and comparitive religions at Rutgers.. he could have been a great doctor if he wanted but he was much more than that to be confined to a limited exclusive field.

But the assumption was that since I am a Pakistani I have to be dumb... even though I graduated in 3 years instead of 4... and the poor indian also assumed that I had to be a candidate for H1B, when I don`t even plan on staying in the US.

SameerJB:``In that kind of situation an insignificant change in the variable might magnify much quickly than 100,000 days, for example amount spent on waddi eid (bakra eid) compared to saving that money. I doubt everybody looks as analytically as I do before saying what I say. Once the results of analysis are in front of you or in your mind, if by just presenting them honestly seems brutal than be it.

``

How about the amount spent on Basant festivities, that would save a bundle too :) But these peasants don`t understand the workings of your brilliant mind.

Peace.

Sameer, Shankar, all,

Interesting thread; just saw it.

Sameer, what`s your take on Indonesia, East Timor and Acceh?

Also, if you have the time, the implementation of the Sharia in Nigeria.

regards

Re: Dost-Mittar

``...Muslims of Pakistan are better off after Partition...Hindu middle-class was dispensable in West Pakistan...``

Dost, have you read Hoodbhoy`s latest column in TFT:

``...In this country of 150 million people, there are perhaps fewer than 20 computer scientists of sufficient caliber who could possibly get tenure-track positions at some moderately good US university. In physics, even if one roped in every competent physicist in the country, that would be insufficient to staff one single good department of physics. As for mathematics: to say that there are even 5 real mathematicians in Pakistan would be exaggerating their numbers...Where, then, can Pakistani universities – including those yet to be established – hope to draw their faculty from?...This leaves only the science juggernaut on our eastern border...Given the highly asymmetrical Pakistan–India situation, it will be to Pakistan’s advantage if high-level manpower is imported from India...Institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Madras Institute for Mathematical Sciences, and the five Indian Institutes for Technology, and several others, are simply world-class. They have no counterparts in Pakistan. ``

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/news6b.htm

Take a wild guess as to how the ideologues will retort to these rantings of a scientist? Hoodbhoy is cautious enough to ask, ``Shall Pakistan’s policy-makers have the courage to pay the political price and finally create real universities?``

And you still persist in propounding politically correct ideas lest you `upset` someone?

P.S. Hoodbhoy is wrong about the number of IITs (there are six, not five -- one more was built in the 90s in Guwahati)

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

Re: Dost-Mittar

``..But from an equity viewpoint they (Indian private schools) have been a disaster....``

If asked to chose between a garland-maker or a charcoal-maker, you will pick the latter -- reducing everything to the same, mediocre, unappealing, amorphous form.

Re: Dost-Mittar on education

I was alarmed at what I thought were your suggestions of nationalization of education. The government should keep its messy fingers out of private educational institutions, and indeed let them flourish through benign neglect. If you are making the case for greater government funding of education, sure, I am for it -- but remember, it is higher today than at any time during India`s history, and yes (there is greater literacy today than when all three (3) British-run government schools were ostensibly better).

Shankar

``you`ll need that practice when your countrymen dangle you at the end of a rope``

Incredible! Really, in bad taste; a poor replacement for argument or even humour, disappointing.

Zafar al-Talib, Dost Mittar

Gentlemen:

Read the entire post to better understand the post. If you should choose to concentrate on a sentence, you will have only yourself to blame for the misunderstanding. interesting posts with regard to Muslims in India were registered; I found it interesting that a good many Indians made it point ot suggest that if it were true that the lot of the Muslims in India was not better than those in neighboring countries, who ever else may be responsible for this, it was most certainly not the state.

If you will read my post completely, you will note that I suggest such problems go beyond seeking to place blame and that open public debate about this may have repercussions beyond India. I have learned a lot about the varieties of opinion within the Indian Muslim community, especially from Zafar. I understand Indians and Indian Muslims have a different style in their approach to debating issues that may reflect upon Indian state. remember, Zafar, I am conscious of this when I express myself to you.

Dost, if the creation of space for another Muslim or several different states to exist within present day India is not a general good, do you not believe open debate about what a multicultural, multiethnic, polyglot ``ought`` to be and how it may seek to respond to questions of social justice, equality before the law, remain a priority?

In case it has not sunk in it - the paradigm regulating relations between Pakistan and India has already changed - perhaps, we should all reflect on this and think of addressing todays problems; yesterdays problems have changed.

dost-mittar: Sameer is an acceptable Muslim name. It is quite popular in the Turkish speaking world. In addition to Sanskrit, it has its roots in Persian Samar (meaning fruit), sameer meaning fruit bearing or fruitful?. Additionally it can be pronounced without difficulty by most - phonetically speaking.

RE: Reply #: 329 hobbyty

``And why is it that Muslims of India have only the choice of Pakistan as home. From my interaction, and again this is strictly personal, why should this choice be restricted to Pakistan? is there not room for additional states on the Indian land mass?``

I would have thought that the abject failure of just one such experiment called Pakistan would have put this kind of thinking out to pasture. It has conclusively proved that physical boundaries based on religious ideology are no panacea for systemic problems in society. A better idea would be for Pakistan to admit the two nation theory (or three nation theory now) was a big mistake, bury it and start working on true social emancipation based on the real needs of the people. Recent events have shown how dire the need for such thinking is.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``... I won`t give his name because I don`t wish to upset anyone...``

I do not think that `upsetting someone` is more important than speaking the truth and stating the facts.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``...Which fake Muslim will use a sanskritic monikar like sameer?...``

Dostji:

Sameer is actually an Arabic word (cool breeze), not Sanskrit.

Ref shammi #: 357

[I found it hard to swallow statements such as:

``...The WORST thing that has happened to Muslims is learning a trade...``

Unles I have totally misunderstood your intent, that statement reeks of prejudice and condescension. Have you noticed how the Hindu society is organized COMPLETELY on the basis of profession? Need I go into the details?]

Excuuuuuse me. If the Hindus condemn a barber to hereditary barberdom because of his caste that is a barbarity but if a Muslim`s descendants follow their parent`s trade that is okay? It is okay even if it condemns them to remain stone masons and carpet weavers and metalsmiths for the rest of their lives? It is okay if it forces child labor to augment the family`s income and the family is forever trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty?

I repeat: if it is bad for a Hindu barber to remain a barber from Aurangzeb`s time, why is it okay for a Muslim barber to remain the same for the same duration?

If a Hindu barber`s son breaks through and gets a different job and then his son gets a college education and moves off to the greener pastures of USA as a code coolie, why shouldn`t the Muslim be able to do the same? Why should he trust that Allah will provide, have 4 wives and 18 children, and condemn his descendants to poverty?

#360

``You have asked why there was no exodus of Hindus from East Bengal. ``

Sheesh, somebody forgot to tell my whole damm family about this!

Dost-Mittar

``I think you have to make a distinction between those Muslims who are able to separate their religion from their day to day lives and those who look to the Quran or Hadis or the Mullahs for their daily activities.

``

You are very correct. It is not Muslim Vs non-Muslim that matters, but those people who strived for better education, placed greater emphasis on Scince and Maths(also business), fare better than ``religious`` types. Unfortunately the proportion of people who are too religion-minded, thinking that merely faith in God will take care of everything is higher among Muslims as compared to other religions. When such Muslims are unsuccessful in real life , they think it is because they were not ``perfect`` Muslims and they respond by becomming ``truer`` Muslims, whatever their definition be. There is a wide chasm between what Muslims think of themselves and what rest of the world thinks about them. By thinking themselves as ``true believers`` in the only ``true religion`` of the world, they place themselves at a higher pedestal than the rest of the people who in their eyes are heathens. However the condition of Muslims even in the Muslim majority lands is not hidden from anybody. This cognitive dissonance gives rise to frustation and unrest Muslim societies everywhere are witnessing. Muslims need a leader who can make them realize that their salvation doesn`t lie in becomming ``true Muslims`` in the sense of replicating 7th century administration, but in learning modern science and mathematics. What Albiruni said about the decaying Indian civilization at the end of 10th century also applies on Muslims today.

``... folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and Hindus believe that there is no country as theirs, no nation like theirs, no king like thiers, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vail, and self-conceited, and stolid...... If they travelled and mixed with other nations they would soon change their minds, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is ....``

Ref Zafar Al-Talib #: 350

[Aiyoh Da!]

``Aiyoh!`` would be sufficient. I can`t think of the exact equivalent of ``da`` but let me simply say it is a term of familiarity you attempt only face to face and that too with close friends! Sort of like using ``thu`` instead of ``aap``. No offence taken though!

[The choice usually wasn’t between being a clerk and a carpenter – it was between being an unskilled labourer and a carpenter. Maybe not perfect, but certainly one step closer to economically enabling a family’s children to study and better themselves. (Not to mention health and nutrition.)]

But is that what you see as the options? And when does an apprenticeship end and one turns into a full-time carpenter, mason, master weaver or metalworker? Is the apprenticeship voluntary on the part of the children or do they have to take it up to help Dad along to earn more money?

I repeat: Have these guys changed profession since the time of Aurangzeb?

[Bring on the rev dude. You’re talking about distribution systems and share of profits…]

You can talk about the distribution system only in the case of the Muslim weaver selling his Benares saris through a bania. But you can be pretty sure that, with the shortage of copper and tin, Indians will be forced to rely on cheap mass-produced aluminum utensils and your brassworkers will have to find another profession soon. Ah, I miss the silver plate I used to eat off of when I was young. It is all stainless steel now when I visit home in India!

[I’ll admit your point about appreciation of craftsmanship when Indian women stop getting married in Banares/Kanjivaram saris and switch to something churned out by textile mills in Ahmedabad.]

If Indians use handwoven clothes for daily wear, you can support millions of weavers. How many weavers are employed in making Benares/Conjeevaram/Arni/Mysore silk sarees? The Ahmedabad textile mills HAVE taken over, even if we don`t want to accept it, just like the mills in Lancashire did in the 1800s.

[Agreed re: Army. (but swami how to square with your comment above about trades being a dead end]

Difference is electronics repair (TV, radios, etc.) pays more. India hasn`t gotten to the stage of throwaway TVs as the US and Japan have. People will pay to repair high-value items such as TVs, VCRs, etc.

Also, it is nice to be sitting in a building repairing things as opposed to carrying bricks in the hot sun or even crawling under cars to replace the water pump or the timing belt. Maybe even the perspective changes once you are not breaking your back under the hot sun and you start wanting your kids not to carry bricks and mortar.

[aiyaiyappoh!)]

I can`t parse THAT!

YLH #338

``...Yet the shameless creed (Indians) that you and your countrymen have learnt, you will continue to whitewash your crimes against humanity...``

Slobodan Milosevic in the NY Times today:

Slobodan Milosevic returned to The Hague today, accusing his enemies of deliberately causing the 1999 exodus of Albanians from Kosovo and then lying about it to the world. He said NATO pilots had been guilty of ``bestiality``...

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-milosevic-trial.html

QED, ladies and gentlemen

Ref dost-mittar #: 332

[The historical advantage I am referring to is the Muslims in India withdrawing into a shell following the loss of the Mughal empire and the Hindus embracing Western education in a big way (even if it meant taking ganga-jal with them on their voyage to London!).]

Exactly how many Hindus went to England for their studies? Did they go in the millions? In the hundreds of thousands? In the tens of thousands? In the thousands? In the hundreds? I bet it was not even the last.

Let us see what the situation was like before the British arrived. Here were the Brahmin kids showing up early in the morning at the river banks for their daily bath. They gathered under a tree and were taught to memorize the Vedas and the Upanishads and any other shastras the village Pandit could teach them. Since all of this was a strictly oral tradition, even the alphabet was not taught here.

A few of these kids, not all, probably learnt the three R`s under another shade tree in the village. These guys ended up being the ones who kept records because they could read and write.

The rest of the Hindus went about being shopkeepers, barbers, blacksmiths, goldsmiths, sh!tcarriers, or whatever profession they were born into.

The Muslim kids probably went to their madrassahs in the morning to learn the Koran by rote. Since the Muslims don`t have, ahem cough cough, castes one would think that ALL Muslim kids went to the madrassahs but in reality only a handful stayed the entire course, most of the rest being satisfied with learning the absolute minimum requirements for the daily prayers and then going back home to weave carpets. But enough Muslim kids stayed on to learn to read and write in Urdu/Persian so that they could get jobs in the local government which were mostly run by sultans and nawabs.

So tell me, what specific advantages did the Hindus have over the Muslims?

When the British opened schools on the Western style, the Brahmin kids were probably the first one sent off to those schools by their parents. After all, several Brahmins were engaged as translators by the British and they realized the advantage of dealing with a slightly less arbitrary employer like an Englishman as opposed to the capricious nawabs and their underlings. The richer Vaishyas also sent their kids off to schools . The kshatriyas presumably were still learning how to fight and the shudras and the scheduled castes were firmly kept in their place by the oppressive Brahmins.

What did this education achieve? For the first hundred years, it turned out the vast number of native clerks that the Englishmen needed to run the country. While lots of students went through primary and secondary education, the number going to colleges even within India was very small. How many Indians wrote the ICS examinations and were accepted as District Commissioners and Magistrates before 1900? How many Indian lawyers went to Lincoln`s Inn before 1900? How many Indians went to Sandhurst before 1900? So why are you all making the claim that Hindus had an unfair advantage over Muslims even though it might be because of Muslim withdrawal from society? The truth is that with the British in power, there was no arbitrary exercise of power when the choise was between Hindus and Muslims as used to be the case under Muslim rule and the Muslims found themselves at the losing end when they did not understand or follow the process as instituted by the British. Rather than trying to figure out how to survive in such a society, the Muslims just withdrew in to their palaces and ghettoes depending on whether they were nawabs or laborers.

[I may not be able to persuade you but I have so far not seen a single Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim (I am not sure about SameerJB but then does he consider himself Muslim?:-)) who thinks creation of Pakistan was a mistake. And it is THEIR thinking that matters.]

Turning the tables on you, why should the opinions of uneducated masses be taken into account? They don`t know what is good for them. As for the educated Pakistanis, they are looking at cushy foreign postings in the diplomatic corps so obviously they want a country. Sheesh, I would love to be one of the few educated and wealthy Bhutanese today.

[``I think that before one jumps to quotas, giving preferential treatment in primary and secondary education should be attempted. A good education can open many doors.``

That`s exactly what I meant by affirmative action.]

I think in most states in India elementary education and even secondary education is free. They have to drag their a$$es over to class if they want an education.

Re: Zafar

``...Probably made by him and he got a cut of the profits. Sound probable to you?...``

Wouldn`t surprise me in the least, now that you mention it! Sort of like my vegetarian, teetotalling Hindu friends who let their temptations run wild once beyond the earshot of their families.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``...The test is not whether Pakistan or Bangladesh has developed faster than India, but whether Muslims there are doing better than they would have without the creation of Pakistan...``

Alas, there is no way to test this. The only close surrogate will be if the Muslims in India do `better` than the Muslims in Pakistan/Bangladesh. You also mention that there is a lack of Pakistani/Bangladeshi spokesmen who do not consider Partition to be a `mistake`. Could it be that such dissent is stifled and sent packing into exile, if they do not toe the official line? Allow me to introduce to you Altaf Hussain (of MQM) and the Bangladeshi forgetting-her-name poetess (now in exile in Calcutta). Have you also heard of the Sindhi idealogue who was jailed for 30+ years for his views on TNT?

As regards the MQM, character assasination is the key to discrediting Hussain, but here is a speech he gave to ZeeTV:

``Complete video interview of Mr. Altaf Hussain, telecast in Encounter Programme on Zee TV``

http://www.mqm.org/mqmvideo.htm

Re: Harimau

While I agree with your defence of private education in India, I found it hard to swallow statements such as:

``...The WORST thing that has happened to Muslims is learning a trade...``

Unles I have totally misunderstood your intent, that statement reeks of prejudice and condescension. Have you noticed how the Hindu society is organized COMPLETELY on the basis of profession? Need I go into the details?

ylh,

{{If no one takes me seriously why are 90% of the responses addressed to me, and why are shrinks from your country making psycho analytical profiles of me?}}

Because some shrink thought maybe, just maybe, you`d be a little introspective & stop making an ass of yourself & show some maturity. Only then would people take you seriously.

Remember, you went ballistic not with just Indians (on this thread) but with Pakistanis who did`nt share identical opinions of Jinnah as you. Ofcourse, anyone who doesnt agree with you is then labelled an IDIOT--in bold letters, no less.

Shammi, you were wondering if ylh could change. Let me tell you, I`ve known this butthead ever since he made his grand appearance on Chowk. This guy will NEVER change. He thinks he is the self appointed defender of Pakistan on Chowk. He actually BELIEVES he`s taken seriously.

Sigh..I guess he enjoys playing the role of a bakra. Heheh..more power to him.

Yo ylh...like I`ve said before...stand in front of a mirror...squeeze your neck TIGHT with your hands...& then sing the Pakistani national anthem...you`ll need that practice when your countrymen dangle you at the end of a rope...maybe Pakistanis will be nice & let Indians do that job for them. Heck..we banias are just rubbing our hands with excited anticipation at that prospect..

Dear Yasser . . . everybody at chowk, I think, got the drift of sarcasm and mild humour in context with my multi posts on saffron ties worn by George-ji . . . except you.

To be a great leader you will have to evolve a sense of humour. Unless, of course, your idol is, say, someone like the late dour Jinnah ji?

Alack and yorrick . . . now be a good boy, Yasser, and tuck your tie in before getting after the porridge, your slip is showing.

And once and for all, please, Yasser, do not just assume that chowk is a ``Pakistani`` site, ok? The Internet is all about borderless dialogue and the sooner you twig about that, the better.

Warm regards,

Veeresh

(ps: Zafar, why do you think everybody wants to go to Canada, isn`t Australia better?)

re: dost-mittar

``I may not be able to persuade you but I have so far not seen a single Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim (I am not sure about SameerJB but then does he consider himself Muslim?:-)) who thinks creation of Pakistan was a mistake. And it is THEIR thinking that matters.``

...but their thinking should be confined to their countries, not into India`s issues in Kashmir...

...most indians of the current generation don`t give a $hit about the creation of pakistan or bangladesh...we look at what is happening in pakistan and say: `good riddance, imagine having 150 million people allergic to democracy and modernization in our country, which already has enought to deal with`

re: Zafar

{{ If we have done so well, given the circumstances, why should we be afraid of it being discussed and analysed in an open forum? }}

we are not afraid of doing that ... i just don`t attach much value to comments on this from two-cent pakistanis hailing from a feudalistic, military dictator-ruled, non-secular Islamic country on the verge of bankruptcy ...

Reply Tvarad # 331

“If the voices against discrimination in India were not heard it is one thing, but the Indian Govt. has worked overtime to bring the Dalits (the topic they wanted included) into the maintstream with job reservations, political emporwerment and educational quotas. If they haven`t been able to do so adequately it is because of the enormity of the task and not systematic neglect.”

Our performance varies very widely from State to State on this one. If there was the smallest chance that international discussion of this could motivate the Central Govt to lean on the laggards in this respect, I think it would be worth it. If we have done so well, given the circumstances, why should we be afraid of it being discussed and analysed in an open forum? Personally I think that a lot has been done, but we still have a long way to go – and that short term politics keeps the laggards from facing any kind of institutional consequences for their failure.

Reply Hobbyty # 329

“Show a bit of generosity and humour. And why is it that Muslims of India have only the choice of Pakistan as home. From my interaction, and again this is strictly personal, why should this choice be restricted to Pakistan?”

Agreed – most Indian Muslims would prefer to live in Canada than in Pakistan. Vaisai, most Pakistani Muslims would ALSO prefer to live in Canada than in Pakistan…er, was this your point? Ya aap Sindhudesh ke bare mein baath kar rahe thhe?

Kya haal bhaijaan?

Reply Harimau # 327

“The WORST thing that has happened to Muslims is learning a trade. Once you learn a trade, as economic circumstances make it difficult to make ends meet, these guys force their kids into the trade at an early age and perpetuate the cycle of poverty…Take instead even a clerk`s son. What can the clerk teach his son except to go to school and get a college degree? If the kid is reasonably attentive to his studies, he will get an education and make something of himself..”

Aiyoh Da! The choice usually wasn’t between being a clerk and a carpenter – it was between being an unskilled labourer and a carpenter. Maybe not perfect, but certainly one step closer to economically enabling a family’s children to study and better themselves. (Not to mention health and nutrition.)

“Trade and craftsmanship are not valued in India because you can always find cheap manual labor and of course we have been taught NOT to value excellent craftsmanship but to go for the lowest price. That poor guy making brass utensils in Moradabad is going to lose his livelihood to factories churning out aluminum and stainless steel utensils by the millions. And the truth is, that poor Muslim weaver in Benares is dependent on a Hindu trader to sell his sarees and that damned bania is making more money than the weaver.”

Bring on the rev dude. You’re talking about distribution systems and share of profits…I’ll admit your point about appreciation of craftsmanship when Indian women stop getting married in Banares/Kanjivaram saris and switch to something churned out by textile mills in Ahmedabad.

“The Indian Army is a darn good place for Indian Muslims just like the US Army has been good for American Blacks. Soldiering is an honorable profession and the guys come out with much more self-confidence than they went in with. They could also get into automotive or electronics maintenance, trades that will pay more and will grow in demand.”

Agreed re: Army. (butswamihowtosquarewithyourcommentaboveabouttradesbeingadeadendaiyaiyappoh!)

“Don`t sit on your haunches and bemoan fate.”

Hai – now whyyyyyy are my haunches are coming into this? Lookist! (I blame too many paper dosais, anyway. You must bear some responsibility for this unfortunate situation I find myself sitting on.)

“Get out and get an education. Above all, leave your hometown. That is the way you will be prevented from being sucked into your dad`s trade.”

Wokay, wokay. Done.

Reply ylh # 338

“Pakistan was not created for Indian Muslims.”

Dude, till 1947 we were all Indian Muslims. ??? Aap ka point???

“Pakistan was created on the basis of Muslim Majority areas”

FOR and ON THE BASIS OF are two different concepts. One in no way compromises the other. Jinnah himself was not from a Muslim majority area.

Vaisai, please explain to me, in your own words rather than quotes from somebody else, how Pakistan met the hitherto unmet need of Muslims in Muslim majority areas to live as a majority (which they already were as they lived in Muslim majority areas).

I would further appreciate your comment on the referendum regarding the formation of Pakistan. Which areas (Muslim majority/minority) did Muslims vote FOR it, and where did they vote AGAINST it? Were many of the Muslims who voted FOR it aware that the country was not really being created for them, and that they would not really be welcome there? Actually I’d be interested in hearing what any Pakistanis with muhajir backgrounds think of your view.

“So your entire argument is irrelevant”

The phrase you are looking for is “uncomfortable for Yasser”.

“…but it does prove that two nation theory is not valid any more…”

Never was.

“Secondly, the way you Indians detract from the original argument is amazing. Let me remind you how this started. Mr.Tvarad declared that…”

You will forgive me if I am uninterested in commenting on your entire conversation with TVarad. What I DID want to comment on were some statements, by you, which caught my eye.

“I started with `I am not in the business of justifying killings` ... but I guess you chose to ignore that.”

Actually Yasser, YOU chose to ignore it when you proceded to do just that.

“You are indeed one NATION and not two. There is no difference between you, Pankaj Mishra or Harimau.”

Well, at least you admit that I’m not stupid. Thanks, I guess.

Reply Shammi # 335

“once while passing through Moradabad, I was directed by a muslim brassware shop owner to a Hindu`s shop, in case I wanted to buy idols:)”

Probably made by him and he got a cut of the profits. Sound probable to you?

“Did you mean that religious intermarriages are more common in India than in the West?”

No – I meant that religious intermarriages within India’s Middle Class are far more common than Black/White marriages in the US Middle Class. (As we were comparing the Hindu/Muslim and the Black/White divides. Sorry if I was unclear.)

Shankar and dost-mittar: Yes I do not like to be called a Muslim but all my relatives are Muslims. I do not know how I can prove that I am not indian Hindu masquerading as Pakistani. This has been asked before by Pullu and some other chowkies. I can ask one of my friend, Ron Rodebaugh (who wrote an article at chowk sometimes ago) to confirm it.

My opinions are honest because in my area of work, natural sciences or chemistry, dishonestly is quickly caught due to check and balances and analytical thinking. You just can not survive with cheating, fudging the results and lying. This is the kind of life of mind, I like. No I am not brutal with holding no punches. It is basically analytical in nature and viewing the data from a variety of angles (techniques, scientifically). Once analysis using the known techniques leads me to say something, only dishonesty can stop me which I will not use against friends. It does not make me happy to say all that but I really do not have a choice.

For example my last post looked terribly brutal but it was not brutal in my mind because many of you do not exactly know the analysis I was applying. It is very easy for a naieve to conclude that something must be wrong with believing in one god or muhammad as last prophet or praying every friday and eid days. Not at all. The differences I pointed out look very clear and undeniable. It does not mean if a person converts to Islam tomorrow, day after tomorrow his decline will be visible. It is actually the sum or product of generations or centuries of accumulation. Real world overall and over time is a cutthroat competition. On daily basis you may not even feel the difference. Just one factor, lets assume time spent on rituals, accumulates. It may look very insignificant but its cummulative effect over 100,000 day (250 years?) will look significant even in linear relationship. All extrapolations are not linear and non-linear are chaotic or unpredictable. In that kind of situation an insignificant change in the variable might magnify much quickly than 100,000 days, for example amount spent on waddi eid (bakra eid) compared to saving that money. I doubt everybody looks as analytically as I do before saying what I say. Once the results of analysis are in front of you or in your mind, if by just presenting them honestly seems brutal than be it.

My personal preference of Buddhism over Islam without any heartbreak is also analytical. I found more things overthere to connect analytically than with Islam, though I do not practice any religion. May be I did not do my homework about Islam before rejecting it but so far it has no serious implications except few unhappy relatives.

RE: Reply #: 332 dost-mittar

``I may not be able to persuade you but I have so far not seen a single Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim (I am not sure about SameerJB but then does he consider himself Muslim?:-)) who thinks creation of Pakistan was a mistake. And it is THEIR thinking that matters.``

It`s not so much that Pakistanis or Bangladeshis (Muslim or non-Muslim) think that Pakistan was a mistake (patriotism is very easy to indoctrinate, btw), it is that they (Pakistanis mostly) want Indians to think the same way too. Which is really what the tantrum over Kashmir is about.

Veeresh,

ooooh touchy aren`t we trying to hide your shame?... If no one takes me seriously why are 90% of the responses addressed to me, and why are shrinks from your country making psycho analytical profiles of me? The truth is that anyone who wastes precious cyber space trying to prove that US loves India better because he was wearing an orange tie could hardly be taken seriously.

Your post about the tie relieved me of a heavy burden. Increasingly my initial estimate of Indian

Secularism, intellectualism, and modernity is being reversed. No longer am I in any of awe of your country which I admit I previously was.

Inyourface,

The Indian obsession with YLH continues I see.

My friend Prem went to Bangalore and is currently studying for a Bachelors in Business there (I think he is a sophomore now or the Indian equivalent). I am sure he will be very successful... One day inshallah.

Secondly it would serve you well to stop assuming so much. I have neither applied for H1B nor do I plan on though the company I am with wants me to. I have a year long OPT up till October 15th which I don`t intend to keep since the only reason I am maintaining employment is so that I can attend the graduation ceremony of my friends. See unlike most brilliant Indians at Rutgers, this `sweat-shop` worker graduated in 3 years instead of 4.

For those of you who are interested in my personal life so much please concern yourself with bettering your own lives... besides who wouldn`t wanna work in a `sweatshop` where you can be on the internet all day.

Indian logic just doesn`t make sense.

More on Would you rather live in a secular state with Hindu theocrats in charge or an Islamic republic with secularists in charge?

Atleast we didn`t get harassed on valentines day in Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1820000/1820876.stm



Hindu nationalists disgust at Valentine`s Day

Hindu nationalists across India have been protesting in the streets over people celebrating Valentine`s Day, which they describe as an invasive western festival offensive to Hindu values. Tourists shopping in the capital, Delhi, were surrounded by one group of protestors and prevented from holding hands.

In Bombay, members of the nationalist Shiv Sena party, a part of India`s national coalition government, stood outside card shops warning customers not to buy Valentine`s Day greetings.

Other demonstrators ripped up the cards in a show of protest; some made bonfires out of them.

Police in Bombay said they arrested 600 people on Wednesday, to prevent a repeat of last year`s vandalism at a number of restaurants and shops.

Over the last three years the Shiv Sena group has attempted to ban all Valentine`s Day celebrations in India. From the newsroom of the BBC World Service *

ylh #310:

``... is the hallmark of Indian Intellectual tradition (intellectual for the lack of better word).``

Hey YLH! Whatever happened to your Indian friend, Prem? I am sure he is working hard to make it in the real world as a doctor or a scientist.

Good for him and here you are, answering phone for some H1-B sweatshop in Jersey and fighting cyber battles with Indians. I am sorry for Pakistan because you do represent Pakistani `intelligentsia`.

Tera kya hoga, Kaalia?

re: AAmir

{You cannot tell Muslims in India to go to Pakistan }

...but i can tell you to return to your cage in the zoo ...

Dear YLH No. 310. . .

why are you the only person here who takes YLH seriously?

warm regards,

Veeresh

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

Veeresh Malik,

I was trying my best to ignore your comment but you don`t give up. The tie was Orange not saffron not that it makes a difference, and the carpet was not green but red. But hey such little lapses are expected. You represent the finest in Indian intellectual tradition. That is why last night I was smiling remembering that famous line from the book `Grey Wolf`.

`Kemal was disappointed. The Greek Generals were not upto the mark.`

Ladies and Gentlemen, Once again, Pmishra is completely absent from the board. Now 10 days later he is going to return and accuse me of the same old trumped up charge despite the fact that I have shown him clearly that he was wrong in suggesting that I didn`t respond to you. The fact that a famous writer like Pankaj Mishra has to resort to lies about me to counter my arguments is a testament to the general decadence and academic dishonesty amongst Indians.



Dost Mittar, whatever your story is I am not denying that there was some exodus before 11th August 1947, but much of it happened afterwards. There is a great book by Alan Mcgrath

called `Destruction of Pakistan`s Democracy` Kindly read it. Your logic is completely flawed however whether or not your facts are. Jinnah`s Pakistan also included Bangladesh which had a huge Hindu Population and still does.

In any event, figures pre- and post 14th August 1947 are astounding. The total people massacred on both sides uptill the Independence Day during all the communal rioting of the 3 months leading upto Partition were close to 3000 or so. From 14th August 1947 to Jan 1948 300000+ had been killed by conservative estimates, and a great majority of them were killed in East Punjab as I have already shown.



Furthermore you take umbrage to my accusation of Nehru. Well what about Jinnah? You are accusing Jinnah rather inaccurately of throwing you out of Pakistan in July 1947 when Jinnah didn`t even arrive in Pakistan till 7th August. Whatever Drama Nehru put on the fact is that the Government of India deliberately kept the police and security apparatus from stopping the communal carnage and massacres. Their plan seems to very clear. Send Muslims to Pakistan and choke that country. To me Nehru, Patel and others were Slobadan Milosovec`s of the time. Remember your countrymen like Mahesh G and others including yourself have accused a man like Jinnah, who was more honest than any other politician or mahatma in the subcontinent, and a man of utmost integrity of something he couldn`t have imagined. Infact by every account, his Government was praised by Hindus and others of stopping the communal carnage. There is a reason why the Non Muslims in Pakistan hold Jinnah in such esteem.

On the other hand Nehru`s government was a conspiring government which forced Muslims of India to go to Pakistan, didn`t do anything to stop the horrible carnage that his constituents unleashed, and later to make things worse held Pakistan`s 55 crores when Pakistan needed them and more importantly the refugees needed them. This was Nehru`s masterplan to ruin Pakistan. IRONICALLY It was only after PAKISTAN got a loan from the Nizam of Hyderabad that the great Mahatma, Gandhi ji decided to twist Nehru`s arm. Nehru might have been a pragmatic leader and a statesman, but his record especially his conduct in Kashmir, his expansionist policies and his scheming canniving policies show a very evil side of the man. No wonder J.F.Kennedy having met Nehru in the early 60s, told his ambassador to India how Nehru was hardly a model for morality (for an account of this read Wolpert`s `A tryst with destiny`)

The actions of your government by any account seem to be criminal and inhumane and brutal. And if Slobo Nehru were alive today, he would be in Hague facing a tribunal not being placed on a pedestal. Yet the shameless creed that you and your countrymen have learnt, you will continue to whitewash your crimes against humanity.





Zafar,

Pakistan was not created for Indian Muslims. Never in the history of the Pakistan Movement was it assumed that all Muslims of India would go live in Pakistan. Pakistan was created on the basis of Muslim Majority areas and its aims and objectives were very clear as expressed by Mr.Iqbal in his famous 1930 address. So your entire argument is irrelevant but it does prove that two nation theory is not valid any more atleast for Indians whether Muslim or Hindu twist the facts in exactly the same way. Bravo.

Secondly, the way you Indians detract from the original argument is amazing. Let me remind you how this started. Mr.Tvarad declared that all communal killings happened in Pakistan and nothing happened in India which is a complete travesty of the truth as the majority of the killings happened in India... quite the contrary Pakistani government was actually praised for how it so efficiently handled the issue that was my point.

I started with `I am not in the business of justifying killings` ... but I guess you chose to ignore that. You are indeed one NATION and not two. There is no difference between you, Pankaj Mishra or Harimau.

Sameer #321

By your reasoning, the fact the Jews have excelled, generally in the professions and academics, in the West, means Christians are uncompetative? unable to compete, unwilling to compete? are culturally at a disadvantage?

Your analysis betrays your ideological ``commitment`` - and that`s a loss for you as well.

Minorities, whenever they are allowed to compete, invariably produce successes that are asymetrical in relation to the number of individuals that form that minority community. This is true of Jews in Europe, Armenians in Muslim countries, Asians in the States, etc..

However; If the central point were it to be that Muslims have not excelled in modern times and that this is in general due to the values and atttudes they have formed with regard to the West and towards the dimished position of Islam as a potent world power, would be generally true.

You seem unable to comment on Muslims and Islam without being crude and display little regard to reason or at arriving at a more truthful statements. You ought to reconsider if you wish to be credible.

Re: Faruk

Thanks for the great Web-site for statistics. I wonder if similar statistics exist for India (with breakdowns by religion/regions)

Re: Dost-Mittar

``..abolish all private/religious/army schools and replace them with State schools...``

You must be joking, are you? Consign education to the same level of mediocrity as the government has done to Air India and countless other enterprises (banks being one)?

Re: Gymnosophist

Kerala`s example is not representative of India. Kerala has an even population distribution (1/3 hindus, muslims, christians) and near 100% literacy. Thus, the demographics in a local regional college are hardly going to be mirrored in an All-India institution, where neither the demographics, literacy rates or poverty levels match that of Kerala`s

Re: Zafar

“small karigar types (masons, carpenters, etc.) at least in Delhi are Muslims. (Also brass workers in Muradabad, weavers – and murthi producers!!!! - in Benares...) So there has been a move into micro business already”

Yes, I have noticed that, too -- although once while passing through Moradabad, I was directed by a muslim brassware shop owner to a Hindu`s shop, in case I wanted to buy idols:) My desire to buy the same, being less than urgent, I merely moved on without buying anything.

“…and these servants are not always the same religion as the employer. I bet you can count on one hand, however, the number of Hindu families you know who have hired a Muslim servant. What’s going on here? …”

Nothing else than guttural discrimination comes to mind. Is this true in the South as well?

‘…and far far far more intermarriage…”

Did you mean that religious intermarriages are more common in India than in the West?

RE: Reply #: 315 Zafar Al-Talib

``Not an edge, but a level playing field (once they get the hell out of those damn madrassahs). Vaisai, perhaps you have a point (!!!) because a relatively high proportion of the small karigar types (masons, carpenters, etc.) at least in Delhi are Muslims. (Also brass workers in Muradabad, weavers – and murthi producers!!!! - in Benares...) So there’s been a move into micro-businesses already.``

Actually, this is where the fundamental failure of Indian planning has occured. Instead of coming up with grandiose 5 year plans, if the Govt. had empowered people to set up their own small businesses, we would have seen wonders in terms of employment. Such a move was at least as important as the green revolution for a country as populous as India since it would have generated massive employment with little administrative and capital input compared to the white elephants known as public sector companies.

Indians are naturally entrepeneurally inclined (they don`t have the Confucian work ethic to be housed in dorms and carted off to the nearest factory to mass produce widgets like in China). The small business sector should have been actively encouraged much, much earlier.

RE: Reply #: 317 Zafar Al-Talib

``.... witness the Government’s reaction to the inclusion of untouchability on the agenda of the Durban (?) Conference on racism and discrimination based on descent or occupation.``

Frankly, I have no respect for such conferences. They are very easily hijacked by extremists for their own ends, generate a lot of hot air and accomplish very little.

If the voices against discrimination in India were not heard it is one thing, but the Indian Govt. has worked overtime to bring the Dalits (the topic they wanted included) into the maintstream with job reservations, political emporwerment and educational quotas. If they haven`t been able to do so adequately it is because of the enormity of the task and not systematic neglect.

YLH

Show a bit of generosity and humour. And why is it that Muslims of India have only the choice of Pakistan as home. From my interaction, and again this is strictly personal, why should this choice be restricted to Pakistan? is there not room for additional states on the Indian land mass? I think opportunities for the debate and development of such possiblities should be priorities within Present day India. Such a debate may engender a larger debate on social justice and values that uphold a multiethnic, multicultural, plural, tolerant, objectively secular political economy. It may sociopolitical movements for larger regional consequences.

Ref AAmir #: 319

[I did not accept British designed Partition,nor do i have to live by it .]

I do. Don`t tell me you are a closet Akhand Bharat type. I certainly wouldn`t want those crazies back. (I shall make exceptions for anNy and Semipreciousme.... and a few others such as Hamidm provided he brings cases of Macallen along.)

[You cannot tell Muslims in India to go to Pakistan.... ]

I don`t. In fact, I suggested only Afghanistan as a place of abode for our one and only Farzana Versey. I wouldn`t wish Pakistan on my worst enemy. At least Afghanistan has gone through hell at the hands of Islamist thugs and knows not to let them back into power again. Pakistan hasn`t been through that ordeal yet.

[...nor have they done anything to be less of a citizen than there forefarthers like your forefathers have been for 1000 yrs or even more for some, if you take hindu converted to muslims.]

I would say they have done MORE by simply remaining in India despite all the false propaganda of the Muslim League and Jinnah. It takes a lot more guts to stay on and I have never asked that Indian Muslims prove their loyalty to India.

There is this 12-headed hydra that has used a handle similar to yours who usually labels India the `belly of the beast`. I thought I was responding to him.

Ref Zafar Al-Talib #: 315

[Not an edge, but a level playing field (once they get the hell out of those damn madrassahs). Vaisai, perhaps you have a point (!!!) because a relatively high proportion of the small karigar types (masons, carpenters, etc.) at least in Delhi are Muslims. (Also brass workers in Muradabad, weavers – and murthi producers!!!! - in Benares...) So there’s been a move into micro-businesses already.]

The WORST thing that has happened to Muslims is learning a trade. Once you learn a trade, as economic circumstances make it difficult to make ends meet, these guys force their kids into the trade at an early age and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Thus a mason`s son starts carrying bricks, a metalworker`s son starts beating out metal sheets into utensils, and a weaver`s children start weaving silk sarees or carpets; all at the expense of going to school. Just ask how many GENERATIONS of workers have stayed in the same trades as their parents. I bet these guys haven`t done one thing different in their lives since Aurangzeb`s time.

Take instead even a clerk`s son. What can the clerk teach his son except to go to school and get a college degree? If the kid is reasonably attentive to his studies, he will get an education and make something of himself.

Trade and craftsmanship are not valued in India because you can always find cheap manual labor and of course we have been taught NOT to value excellent craftsmanship but to go for the lowest price. That poor guy making brass utensils in Moradabad is going to lose his livelihood to factories churning out aluminum and stainless steel utensils by the millions. And the truth is, that poor Muslim weaver in Benares is dependent on a Hindu trader to sell his sarees and that damned bania is making more money than the weaver.

The Indian Army is a darn good place for Indian Muslims just like the US Army has been good for American Blacks. Soldiering is an honorable profession and the guys come out with much more self-confidence than they went in with. They could also get into automotive or electronics maintenance, trades that will pay more and will grow in demand.

Don`t sit on your haunches and bemoan fate. Get out and get an education. Above all, leave your hometown. That is the way you will be prevented from being sucked into your dad`s trade.

PS. I remember an ad from IBM some 15 years back. The ad was for computers of course but the text talked about the beauty of creating something that exists only in the imagination and having it come alive on the computer as in a computer simulation. The picture to go with the text was a copper pot commonly used in Gujarat for carring water from the wells and identified as such. Man, what a beauuuutiful shape! There is a LOT to be said for craftsmanship!

Ref dost-mittar #: 308

[The second point is your statement that the exodus did not start until 14th August. I do not have access to the newsfiles of that period, but I will do one better for you; I am going to take you on a personal historical tour of that time and place.]

The First Rule in arguments with YLH: if it is not in Wolpert`s Jinnah, it is not true.

The Second Rule is: Jinnah is above Allah when it comes to secular politics in Pakistan. The realities don`t matter.

Ref dost-mittar #: 311

[BTW if it were up to me (my dream would be most people`s nightmare!), I would abolish quotas and reservations of all types and at the same time abolish all private/religious/army schoos and replace them with State schools, which have been sorely neglected as the middle class parents have taken their children elsewhere.]

It is obvious you haven`t seen how the various state governments have royally fcuked up the education system or you have just chosen to forget it.

Every state government, ever since the linguistic reorganization of the states in 1956, has tripped over its feet in its rush to implement college-level education in the vernacular. Now, imagine the utter stupidity of a state like Tamil Nadu, with very few local employment opportunities within the state except for smuggling from Sri Lanka and tapping toddy from the palm trees, saying that its students will have to learn their lessons in Tamil! If their graduates learnt all their college-level coursework in Tamil, how well will they speak English which was a reasonable common language in India? What is their chance for success in All-India examinations like the IAS, IFS or IPS or entrance exams to IITs, IIMs, and the AIIMS?

The revolt against this was the establishment of private primary and secondary schools where the medium of instruction was English. Initially, primary and secondary education was always in Tamil with English being taught as a second language and English becoming the language of instruction in colleges. But now you had a set of students who did not ever learn a word of Tamil after elementary school, this being an absolute minimum requirement by the government. As usual, the politicians who used to re-name themselves as Anbazhagan, Nedunchezhiyan, etc., (by the way, one called himself Tamilkudimagan; with a short `u`, it meant Tamil Citizen, but with a long `u` and softening of the `d` as in the word `doodh`, it meant Tamil Chut -- I kid you not!) sent their kids in droves to English-medium schools and colleges while condemning the ordinary citizens to Tamil-medium instruction.

The whole thing was compounded by the idiots from UP and Bihar (thank God we got rid of quite a few of them when they migrated to Pakistan but not enough!) who insisted that Hindi would be the sole link language of India. These states that had produced people like Gobind Ballabh Pant and Rajendra Prasad descended into such nadirs of decline in their determination to eliminate English that they are now wondering what the reason for the success of the southern states in IT is and why they are clubbed with Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Of course, they attribute it to the ``smart Madrasi`` forgetting the fact that these guys are just able to read and converse in English.

The one thing that the government has demonstrated is its ability to FUBAR (Fcuk Up Beyond All Recognition) anything it touches. Let education be the commercial marketplace that it has become in India: you have the choice of paying nothing and going to municipal schools of dubious worth, paying good money to get into private English-medium schools and convents, or paying top dollars to go to Lovedale or Mussoorie and come out speaking butler English. You even have the choice of schools following the state curriculum, the Central curriculum, the Cambridge Examination Syndicate, etc. The result is you have the odd dozen students who absolutely ace the SAT tests and come to the US for undergraduate education on a full scholarship. The rest fight it out for IITs, RECs, the better local colleges, etc., with the dregs ending up doing their BA in History in the vernacular.

Keep your cotton-pickin` hands out of the private schools!

re: veeresh

{{b) When did he buy this tie and from where?}}

my guess is Hermes

SameerJB & nasah,

The two of you seem to be brutally ``honest`` in that you dont pull any punches. If your posts were written by hindus, there would be a howls of outrage. You sure youre not hindus posing as muslims on Chowk?:)

I`ve put the word ``honest`` in quotes cos I`m not in a position to judge if those statements are factually correct or not.

Judging from the situation in England, I would venture a guess that there may be some merit to your arguments. The S.Asian immigrants in England started roughly at the same level. Is it true that the hindus & sikhs have achieved a higher economic & educational status, as compared to their S.Asian muslim counterparts? The recent riots by ``Asians`` in England suggest that they were primarily disaffected & unemployed muslim youth.

Also, it seems educated muslims in England (some, at least) have become very enamoured by the preachings of radical mullahs. They are getting that very dangerous ``we are oppressed, we are victims of a world-wide anti-Islamic conspiracy`` mentality. Classic example is that Sheikh Omar.

Another interesting fact is that NONE of the WTC suicide bombers were illiterate peasants. Almost all of them had a college degree (or so I think). OBL has a degree in ``civil`` engineering. Jeeze, what a waste of a degree!

So, just education isnt the answer. I wonder what is? anybody?

re: Zafar # 315

Certainly. I have noted the same pattern in Lucknow.

It is fascinating to watch societies change, even if that change unfolds at a glacial pace.

Wgy should not Muslims be worse off than Hindus or even neanderthals, if they had to be living together? What else is new? Muslims were worse off even before partition. They were even worse off in Punjab in education and business. Muslims were worse off even before British Raj in India. Were Muslim better off or equal during Akbar? who knows? Because there were so few Muslims before Alamgir outside the royal court and military.

Indonesia is 88 percent Muslim and Malatsia is 60 percent Muslim, yet Muslims are backward in education and business compared to Chinese. In Malaysia, top three or five richest businessmen are Chunese with one Indian. In Nigeria, about 50:50 christian Muslim ratio, Muslims are totally absent from the list of Nigerian writers, they are much behind christians in education and business. In Senegal with even 94 percent Muslims, the other 4 percent are running the country because of widespread illiteracy among Muslims. Same is the case all over west Africa, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, you name it. Within former Yugoslavia, Kosovo was the poorest region with highest crime rate and highest birth rate also.

Muslims do well when there is no competition as in almist 100 percent Muslim countries because there is nobody to compare against. The comparison there is against zero baseline.

There may be some truth to discrimination against Muslims in some places but by far their backwardness is of their own making.

Within Muslim communities even those families who do not take religion seriously usually succeed more than families with Islamic inclinations and Islamic tutors for their kids.

In social matters, most religious parents end up marrying their daughters some other beardo or clean shaved musla khota wearing sherwani over 44 inch waist with skinny cigarette like legs rather than aggressively persuing the best mate for their daughters. And the cycle starts all over again. Alhamdolillah!!!

Hamzad Afaqui #296

Sorry about that. A tired attempt at humor. Apologies for having subjected you to it. (Can we risk a smiley here?) :)

Sincerely,

Aamir

Shammi # 297

“The best way would be to break the peasants` dependence on land as a means of production, by moving to either an industrial or a post-industrial, knowledge economy.”

This is a more daunting task than you think. The literacy rate in Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP is less than 40 % . It will take these people a while to march into a knowledge based economy.

Ref :: http://www.accu.or.jp/litdbase/stats/pak/index.htm

Regards,

Faruk

Reply ylh # 268

“No matter how many ways Indians come up to obscure the facts, but facts will be facts. They committed ethnic cleansing of the worst kind of Muslims throwing them out of India and into Pakistan to wreck Pakistan at its inception.”

Yasser if the rulers of Pakistan at that time felt they could not afford to absorb the Muslims of the subcontinent I can only say that it was IMMORAL for a country created in the name of Indian Muslims to try and avoid giving Indian Muslims entrance to it. This frankly looks like the worst kind of opportunism – using the “Muslim minority” issue to grab some real estate where Muslims were already a majority, then turning around and saying that really, this new country would be destroyed if it accepted subcontinental Muslims from areas where they genuinely were a minority. In the words of Ulrike Meinhof: creating a crisis and refusing to honour its price. Dishonest.

Also note: Karachi contributes more than its fair share of money to running Pakistan’s institutions. Immigrants from India didn’t do anything like wreck Pakistan, they made it (and continue to make it) viable.

“That is where all the communal killings business started.”

Yasser, no matter who comitted the first communal killing, the people who committed the second were still criminals. This “they started it so our behaving like animals is ok and understandable” is just not a moral position to take.

“Those killed at partition (and most of them were heading to Pakistan) are the martyrs of Pakistan, those who have spilt their blood to make our great country. Unlike the pseudo intellectuals I have no desire to `heal the common wounds of partition` for the wounds we sustained are deeper and much more serious...”

More accurately, you are unwilling to let them heal. Why is this?

Reply tvarad # 278

“I think you re-inforced my views with the last sentence. We should ensure that the disposessed have access to the corridors of power which is the surest way to reach an equitable distribution of national wealth.”

Yup. I agree with you re: institutions being necessary. My (tangential) point was more that we are comfortable discussing the institutional aspect, because it is essentially sound, and slowly bearing fruit. We all of us (me included) have less to say about the remaining (noninstitutional?) obstacles, and India is shy of discussing them – witness the Government’s reaction to the inclusion of untouchability on the agenda of the Durban (?) Conference on racism and discrimination based on descent or occupation.

Reply Dost Mittar # 281, Nasah #284

Janaabs,

“The first thing is to recognize that the disadvantage exists and then to look for the causes for the disadvantage, not for merely explaining away the disadvantage but to work on removing it.”

Agree. IMHO there are a variety of causes for this disadvantage – some of them can only be substantively addressed by some groups in society, others only by other groups. Sometimes comment is harmful – eg the Sangh Parivar talking about a Uniform Civil Code does NOT promote it among Indian Muslims, in fact quite the opposite.

“The comparison with the blacks in America is valid but not to the same extent as it is for the scheduled castes in India.”

Yes and no. Scheduled castes in India have more of a history of oppression than Indian Muslims (except when Indian Muslims are converts from these castes…as usual, in India the facts are complex :-)). On the other hand, at least in the Metros, SCs do not run up against the wariness that Muslims sometimes do – and I think it is this wariness (a product of ?? Partition?? VHP prop?? Dunno?), although waning, is a definite factor. (All bets are off when we discuss Bihar, however, and some other areas.)

My point (finally, hain?) is: most jobs in the US (they tell us) are generated by small businesses. Most small businesses are owned by White Americans. Many White Americans are wary (because frightened) of African Americans, and do not hire them. (I know, I know, many do – these are GROSS generalisations) This puts a drag on African American participation in the private sector, which is a major engine powering economic advancement. There is a similar situation in India wrt Muslims (in addition to ALL THE THINGS THE INDIAN MUSLIM COMMUNITY MUST DO ITSELF – EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN….I agree with Nasah Mian here, I think that internal change is more effective and far more needed, if one had to rank these things. But actually, internal dynamics and external perception both have to change, and they can change together, or at least follow each other closely.)

Also note: Middle Class Muslims in India do not experience much discrimination, because in India CLASS remains far more important than almost any other defining factor (including, often, gender). My point is to do with the majority: ie the poor.

Btw, to those Indians who would dispute my take on whether poor Indian Muslims face prejudice in finding employment or not, I’m happy to be proved wrong, but here’s a quick test: in India many Middle Class people hire servants, and these servants are not always the same religion as the employer. I bet you can count on one hand, however, the number of Hindu families you know who have hired a Muslim servant. What’s going on here? If the issue is not religion, or even meat eating, per se (the proportion of Middle Class Hindus who have Muslim friends of their own class, with whom the quite happily shop and eat, is quite high) then what is it?

“Tell me if I am wrong but I do not think that the Indian Muslim has the same inferiority complex that the black American does”

I do not think that African Americans’ problems mostly stem from their not liking themselves (anyway, I think that they DO like themselves). I believe that they overwhelmingly stem from a history of oppression/discrimination (that started with slavery but continues in other forms) and a paucity of opportunities for advancement (which leads to some severe social dislocations. For example it is profoundly distorting for young people when many of the people in their community who have any of the goodies associated with success are people who went into *cough * the parallel economy.) I also think this is changing – and having lived in DC, I think I can say from experience that the Af-Am Middle Class is growing (both in numbers and in influence within African American culture), and that it is just not that different (for good and for bad) from the White Middle Class. (I’d say the same about Middle Class Indians of different religions – not much difference in culture, if any, no social segregation, and far far far more intermarriage.)

“…nor does the black American have the proud history of being part of the ruling class in the not-too-distant past”

They do not suffer from the Displaced Mughal thing (AfroCentric Education notwithstanding, and btw I like ebonics :-))…an extreme example of which is: “hamari ladkiyan padhthi nahin…” from some paan vaalaa because of having the same religion as Shah Jahan….(See Nasah Mian’s post for further discussion of this tragic mental condition.) I mean, to be honest, most of us have absolutely nothing to do with the rulers of India (of any religion)…MOST of us are descended from untouchables and low class Persian soldiers (with a bow in the direction of all the Rajput and Brahmin Converts on line, of course, and not that caste matters in Islam anyway, to be sure).

“The Muslims clinging to their own archaic past and ways -- are largely responsible for what they have done to themselves in India -- as a MINORITY – and what they have done to themselves in Pakistan – as a MAJORITY.”

Nasah Mian, beautifully said, if perhaps a little severe.

Best wishes to you both,

Zafar

Reply Prem # 288

“A random thought: With salaried jobs becoming scarce, and small/micro business being the new salvation of India`s lower-middle class, is it possible that the Muslim community might have a small edge?”

Not an edge, but a level playing field (once they get the hell out of those damn madrassahs). Vaisai, perhaps you have a point (!!!) because a relatively high proportion of the small karigar types (masons, carpenters, etc.) at least in Delhi are Muslims. (Also brass workers in Muradabad, weavers – and murthi producers!!!! - in Benares...) So there’s been a move into micro-businesses already.

ylh # 292 . . . ````Indians, So tell me when is your next petition coming up? against the president of the US?````

a) What does this question mean, please?

b) Are you sending reply paid post-cards for all 1-billion Indians to respond to you?

Vaise, if you ask me, the good President Bush-ji of the US is already wearing a saffron tie when he is meeting the equally good President Musharaf-ji of Pakistan, so I personally think that this was a very, very strong statement by the US establishment.

If I were you, Yasser, I would start working on :-

a) How many times in the past has Bush-ji worn a saffron tie.

b) When did he buy this tie and from where?

c) What DID Sophia Loren actually whisper to her husband in the final scenes of ``Sunflower``?

Warm regards,

Veeresh

``Indian``

All of you decrying the dearth of Muslims in IITs, IIMs, etc. When I went to college in Kerala, we had plenty of classmates from all three major religions: Christians, Muslims and Hindus. In fact, when I checked on the faculty during my last visit to the college, there were quite a few Muslim lecturers and assistant professors on the faculty, several with PhDs.

I guess if you don`t have any of the psychosocial babble associated with the Muslim angst, then Muslims do quite well for themselves, thank you very much. The Kerala Muslims are quite proud of the fact that thay are Malayalees, Indians and Muslims, all rolled into one. They don`t learn Urdu, they learn Arabic so that they can read the Koran. All of you dispossessed nawabs of UP can bemoan the loss of primacy of Urdu. The Malayalee and Tamil Muslims had and still have no use for that coarse language of the army camps.

The Kerala Muslims are also proud of the fact some of them have connections to famous personages. The most recent one was a guy in Calicut claiming to be the fourth cousin of Muhammad Aidid, the warlord of Somalia. When you compare that to the fact that most Pakistanis like to claim direct descent from the Prophet or from Taimur Leng, you start appreciating the Malayalee Muslims for keeping their feet on the ground, their nose to the grindstone, and achieving side by side with their Hindu and Christian neighbors.

Veeresh`s enlightening post about George`s Tie is the hallmark of Indian Intellectual tradition (intellectual for the lack of better word).

Chotay Logon Ki Choti Khushian.

Pmishra,

My response unlike your untrue and baseless allegation was printed hours after you posted your

nonsense. The reply is 432 on Farzana Versey`s board.

I want an unconditional apology. You Indians just can`t fight fair can you.

No matter how sophisticated he might sound, its almost always a thin veneer. Indian never loses his fundamental creed: Word twisting for eg Shammi.

Listen dude, you are the one who started the whole sordid business about who visits Pakistan and who doesn`t. Do I need to remind you again of your gloat filled statement about `oh But Ecevet visited us and didn`t visit you`? when I hadn`t so much as mentioned your country`s name in my post. You can`t play fair can you? Admit that you were wrong in trying to rub something like that in my face.

Ref AAmir #: 289

[I think neither the Govt.nor the Majority Non muslims of the subcontinent coherently explained to its constituent WHY MUSLIMS HAVE LEGAL ,POLITICAL & MORAL right just as much as anyone else inside India & it not necessarily b/c of secularism,or hindu ethos just simple fact as EQUAL citizen of a Country .]

Oh yeah? For Muslims in India, it is their RIGHT as a citizen to be treated equal to the majority Hindus but in Pakistan, it is okay to treat non-Muslims as dirt?

What kind of logic is this except the usual: one rule for Muslims and another for the rest?

sigalpha235-----285

[re ali1 280

``...much glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses in Badshahi Masjid!``

Insaan to insaan, bezabaan janwaar ko bhi Hindu-Muslim-Sikh bana diya!

Man, that is a no holds barred communalism.]

__________________________________________________

No I think he really wanted to say ``----scrubbinging the Sikh asses-------``:)----:)

Ref ali1 #: 280

[Motivations!? Simple... dissolution of Pakistan, return of the Khalsa and return to the much glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses in Badshahi Masjid!]

At least you would have reached the level of your incompetence, working as a sanitary engineer in the stables.

Ref dost-mittar #: 277

[But please remember that Muslims in Bangladesh are doing far better relative to Hindus now than they did before partition. The situation there can indeed be compared to what happened between Brahmins and Non-Brahmins in Tamil Nadu after the Brahmins lost political power in that State.]

The percentage of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu is 3%. There is NO way for this community to dominate any spere of activity, particularly when you consider that quite a good portion of these were employed in extremely low-paying jobs such as school teachers (of Sanskrit, Hindi... languages never in great demand in Tamil Nadu) or priests in temples dependent offerings by the pious or priests engaged in performing Hindu rituals in households. The fact is that those of them who had merely a high school education got jobs as clerks in government offices, those with a college degree got slightly more senior positions, those who got professional degrees (law or medicine) made good money. But the last of these were primarily self-made men. The number of mirasdars was rather small and they were primarily in the Cauvery river delta. The myth has been propagated that all Tamil Brahmins lived a life of luxury and ease on the backs of their agricultural workers and is naively believed by people all over India.

The situation in Tamil Nadu is that the politics of envy has taken over, nothing gets done in government offices unless you grease everybody`s palms, the bigger the government contract the more you can be sure that all the ministers including the chief minister are involved, and the way to get ahead is to get a certificate of low-caste birth. With the government opening engineering colleges to compete with neighboring Andhra, you now have code coolies being turned out at an alarming rate; fortunately, with the downturn in US business, these idiots are no longer able to get high-paying jobs or the opportunity to go abroad and so have taken to blaming the Tamil brahmins` exodus to the US on some sort of underground railroad.

As one of my friends who returned to Tamil Nadu to set up his own business after 10 years in the US remarked, ``The MGR government has finally convinced the people of Tamil Nadu not to expect any help from the government for anything. This can only mean progress in the State.`` He has been proved right.

As that old man Thanthai Periyar (Father Big Man, in keeping with the Tamilian`s penchant for calling their leaders by some fancy titles as opposed to their names) EV Ramaswamy Naicker said, ``Sheesh, here we were systematically excluding Brahmins from government jobs and those fellows now have started their own small industries and are turning out to be pretty good enterpreneurs! We should have kept them as clerks!``

By the way, I don`t think the life of a single Pallan or Paraiyan, traditionally the agricultural worker community, has been made easier because of the advent of the DMK government. In fact, working under Thevars and other murderous castes, they are in danger of losing their lives if they oppose their landlords.

YLH, you forgot to mention that Bulen Ecevit`s chaprassi also visits Pakistan more often than he visits India. All Indians should be `ashamed` of this.

PS Just want to let you all know, I don`t have a confirmation of the last Gandhi quote on Jinnah yet, but my source is quite credible given the other quotes that source has provided.

I don`t want to mislead anyone or give anyone any ammunition to discredit my genuine and well researched facts, as Pmishra has tried to do in the past. I will find a proper reference for the mentioned quote.

HOW TRUE:

``The single-mindedness and persistent integrity of Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave him the victory

over all his adversaries,`` Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Re: Nasah #254

``...IT`S TIME FOR US TO STOP BOMBING AFGHANISTAN -- THE-- SOON THERE WILL NO ``TALL MAN`` LEFT IN AFGHANISTAN -- ENOUGH...``

Nasah, check out:

``Strike likely killed top terrorist``

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/default-2002213225013.htm

Re: Romair

``...I don`t see how a rural middle class can emerge, unless political power is forcefully taken out of the hand of the feudals and given to the non-feudals...``

If one assumed (as you do) that plain vanilla democracy in Pakistan will not break the feudals` stranglehold on power, then there remains only one other alternative -- and that is to break the feudals` monopoly on the modes of economic production, not by violent means (as were used in China by Mao) nor by legislative means (as was done by Nehru in India to stamp out the zamindari system since according to you the Pakistan political system is rigged and won`t allow this). The best way would be to break the peasants` dependence on land as a means of production, by moving to either an industrial or a post-industrial, knowledge economy. Either alternative is very daunting and challenging. It requires education (which will empower the masses and allow them to stand up to the feudals), a conducive political-social climate for direct foreign investment, and infrastructure. It is a difficult task, but not an impossible one, especially so given your confidence in the Pakistan human capital.

Ansari--265

[No, I haven`t seen the movie. Not sure how profound simplicity is (what`s profanity got to do with it anyways]

NOTHING whatsoever.But then why did you ask?

But then I have heard some sick(sic) jokes which are equally profane and profound.Sometimes,it is difficult to stifle a laugh and to pretend to get the joke at the same time.

PS:please check out www.dictionary.com

Pmishra,

Its not my fault that you make an outrageously inaccurate claim and then leave for 3 weeks.

Your claim that I didn`t respond is a lie. Kindly go back to Farzana`s Board and see for yourself.

I responded in detail to your post on the other board as Mr.Dost Mittar will testify and not only that I tore to shreds your pathetic argument vis a vis Advani , furthermore I showed you how you were misquoting me. I had put up Bipan Chandra`s post in response to the claim that nobody thought Jinnah was amongst the greatest leaders. Bipan Chandra`s post was not supposed to me the Gospel of truth, but it was to show that he considers Jinnah as one of the 10 greatest leaders in India of the last millenium.

As for positive assessment, in classic Indian style you have once again successfuly obscured my argument by lying. The three books I mentioned, you didn`t even bother read or refute. Those books were

1) Secular and Nationalist Jinnah by Dr Ajeet

2) Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan by Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya

3) Jinnah the Man of destiny by Prakash Almeida.

It seems to me that all Indians when they can`t counter an argument on facts, pick and choose from the evidence. Anyone who read what I had written in detail knows that not once did I say that Bipan Chandra`s article was the end all, but the article does claim Jinnah to be one of the 10 greatest Indians of the millenium.

Seems like not even the most `educated` of Indians are free from the disease.

Zafar #272

``...This raises the issue: why aren’t there more people from poor families gaining entry to the IITs and IIMs, the IAS, etc...``

Based on my experience, the answer lies in access to good education in middle and high school. There is no way anyone is going to make it to an IIT (the exam for which has the youngest applicant pool of the three options you mentioned) without a good education in the basic sciences and mathematics. Thus, the distortion in high school education is magnified several times over when one has to pass through the filter of an entrance exam.

``...Ditto for women...``

The reason that relatively few women go to IIT has less to do with access to high school education, and more with the lack of appeal that an engineering career had for women (this is not true for computer sciences though, where women are present in droves).

I am troubled by these disparities, and I feel that the state has an obligation in removing them.

Thanks for your insight.

Re: Dost-Mittar #277

``... But please remember that Muslims in Bangladesh are doing far better relative to Hindus now than they did before partition...``

What are the underlying reasons for this? Do you have any statistical evidence? Or could it be that the Hindu mercantile class fled Bangladesh, thus creating an illusion that `Muslims are doing far better relative to Hindus now than they did before partition`.

``...Jinnah knew the historical disadvange of Muslims vis-a-vis Hindus and knew that this disadvantage could be overcome only if Muslims were able to exercise political power...``

What `historical disadvantage` are you referring to? Has that `advantage` of political power led Pakistan/Bangladesh to exceed India in any of the various indicators of human development that I mentioned? If not, then would you not agree that `historical disadvantages` have still not been corrected by `political power`?

So, in the end I still have not read a persuasive argument that supports your original assertion that `Partition benefited the Muslims of Pakistan`

``...I do not like quotas, but I do feel some kind of affirmative action is needed to improve the situation of Muslims to overcome systemic disadvanges faced by them...``

I think that before one jumps to quotas, giving preferential treatment in primary and secondary education should be attempted. A good education can open many doors.

Re: Tvarad

``...witness the drastic reduction in communal riots in the last decade in India with the implemenation of economic reforms...``

That has been a truly stunning and satisfying development.

Re: Nasah #284

I used to harbor the same views as you regarding Indians in general, but came around to concluding much later that I was wrong. There is not a whole lot wrong with Indians, but there is a lot wrong with our institutions and our priorities. Could you be, like me, off the mark?

Re: Ali1

``...glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses...``

Horses have religion, too? I see that Sigalph235 #285 has already responded with similar sentiments.

People like tvarad and mahesh g haven`t been able to negate the facts so now they are responding with stupid statements:

``W.r.t. Jinnah, there could be no further repudiation of his actions than being disowned by his own daughter and grandson who have refused to hand over his ancestral house in Bombay for a Pakistani consulate and don`t want anything to do with him.``

Jinnah himself wanted to retire in that house in Bombay, his conception Pakistan and India was very different, and I for one agree his final vision for Pakistan and India was a confederation.

But the Slobos and Adolfs of the Congress Party, intolerant of the `separatists` much in the same fashion as Serbians were off Slovenians, Bosnians and croatians, (and now Montenegrans and Kosovars) created the communal holocaust to damage Pakisan.



Ali1

Bhai no need to thank me. It is our duty as Pakistanis to dispel such propaganda.



Indians,

So tell me when is your next petition coming up? against the president of the US?



Mahesh G

these are the facts ... and they are unchangeable.

1)The Bulk of the communal massacres happened in East Punjab and due to Indian government looking away.

2)Jinnah`s efforts against the communal massacres were lauded by people Sri Prikasa the first Indian High Commissioner in his book `Insights into Pakistan`.

Did you see Pervezji and Georgeji on BBC and CNN earlier? The carpet was green (on which the media was scuffing their shoes) and George Bhai`s tie was saffron in colour!! And Musharafji was all the time looking at George Bhayya`s tie . . . and smiling?

This is really really bad news for Pakistan.

Looks like Musharaf ji is preparing for teerth yatra soon.

RE: Reply #: 277 dost-mittar

``I do not like quotas, but I do feel some kind of affirmative action is needed to improve the situation of Muslims to overcome systemic disadvanges faced by them; otherwise they will continue to be denied the full role that they ought to play in the public life.``

Are there any empirical studies done to determine the distribution of Indian Muslims in the social spectrum which would help to determine if such steps are needed and if so how they should be implemented?

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

Great, great, great discussion on the economic peformance of the Muslim community in India. From AAmir to everyone else, very well thought out posts.

I have noted something that at first appears pardoxical - I found very few Muslims in professional schools I attended, but the ones who were there, were among the very best achievers. Neither of these two observations is difficult to explain, given our socio-economic conditions.

A random thought: With salaried jobs becoming scarce, and small/micro business being the new salvation of India`s lower-middle class, is it possible that the Muslim community might have a small edge?

Romair, YLH, Urstruly

Relevent to the conversation about feudals, secularization/Rationalization and values, notice how blood bond and kinship operate to perpetuate feudalism, a governance of patronage as to primacy of the law and merit. Values are intrinsic to this entire discussion and suggest just the depth we have to access in order to better understand these processes.

From ``Foreign Affairs`` - in a piece entitled, The Pressures on Pakistan``:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document_briefings.asp?i=20020101FAESSAY6560.XML&nb=20

``...Two other causes often cited for Pakistan`s repeated economic failures over the past 20 years are ``feudalism`` and corruption. Neither is an adequate explanation, however, and both are misleading. The prominence of hereditary landowners in Pakistani politics is striking, especially when compared with the way the middle classes and wealthy peasants dominate politics in India and Bangladesh. Pakistan`s ``nobles`` (only some of whom hold formal titles) owe their influence partly to their wealth but also, and more importantly, to their positions as leaders of tribes, clans, families, or hereditary religious organizations. Although this ``feudal`` elite is drawn from a much narrower range of families than are the political classes of northern India, it functions politically in much the same way, protecting followers through physical force or by influencing the civil service, the police, and the judiciary.

Over the past 20 years, the effect of the violent traditions in this society has been intensified by the impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Automatic weapons have become readily available, heroin smuggling has increased, and armed radical Islamist militias have grown drastically. In this environment, political and even business figures have had to provide physical protection to their supporters, encouraging the feudalization of what might otherwise have been a relatively progressive urban capitalist class.

In both Pakistan and much of India, it is the overwhelming supremacy of loyalty to blood over trust in the state or the law that lies at the root of corruption and a host of other social ills. Kinship links are the fundamental building block of society and thus cannot help but dominate politics as well. In such a social and political environment, modernization is devilishly difficult. But without progressive reforms, the power of the Islamists will almost certainly grow in the long term, despite the defeat they have suffered in Afghanistan.``

I thought we were done with this endless nonsense about Jinnah being this really, really great guy.

I had even provided Bipin Chandra`s biographical note to YLH which basically said: good leader and contributor to indian freedom struggle (similar terms used for Nehru) who after 1930 adopted extreme sectarian and communal platform.

This was at a point in the debate where YLH was making all kinds of claims about indian historians positive assessment of Jinnah. Suddenly, i got no response but then no surprises here...

The idea of blaming partition on Nehru and Patel is as crazy as blaming it exclusively on Jinnah. To say that Jinnah ``merely wanted a sectarian state but had no responsibility for the killings that followed`` is deeply nonsensical and an insult to commonsense. All three leaders collaborated in this process and all three are culpable. To pick particularly on East Punjab as more communal or the West Punjab as being worse is foolish and self-serving.

My own sense is that the entry of islam into North-West India (current Pak and Nothern India) was accompanied by complete destruction of the indigenous culture. The local elite either had to convert or was killed. This is in deep contrast to south and east india where islam (for the most part) entered without destroying the indigenous elite. As a result relations between the convert indian muslims and representatives of the indigenous culture are very bad in the region, whether in Pakistan or in indian gujarat or UP. At the same time the microscopic size of the Hindu minority in Pakistan is very significant and deserves more explanation.

There is a need to find a construction or narrative on top of this history which is positive and forward looking. Needless to say the Pakistani political class and their cousins in the RSS have no interest in finding such a narrative.

BTW, I don`t think Gandhi was some kind of demi-god either. In reading his works I was surprised by the lack of emphasis on literacy improvement (elementary schools) in India of the 20`s and 30`s. Maybe I missed his main writings on this subject?

re ali1 280

``...much glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses in Badshahi Masjid!``

Insaan to insaan, bezabaan janwaar ko bhi Hindu-Muslim-Sikh bana diya!

Man, that is a no holds barred communalism.

The” Plight” of Indian Muslims.

Folks there are some erudite explanations being offered by the posters on the state of affairs vis a vis Indian Muslims.

Let me offer some less erudite “explanations” with regard to Muslime in India.

First of all keep in mind in a country like India -- ratio wise -- 70% of the Hindus are still very poor, very illiterate very destitute and in real bad shape – compared to the total numbers of the destitute Muslims.

So it is NOT -- that the Hindus are enjoying -- a blissful paradise called India -- and the Muslims are confined to the Black Hole of Calcutta (sorry -- Kolkota).

Secondly the undoing of the Muslims in India is that they are feudalistic and lazy -- don’t like to go to schools and colleges -- are no good in trade or business – abhor the power of science or math – believe in the power of prayer -- will rather loaf around -- than work for an honest living.

Madrassas are still in their blood -- whenever the going gets tough they run to the masjid rather than to the college.

The biggest undoing of the Muslims in India is --their Muslim Personal Law.

That “privilege” is their self inflicted exile into backwardness -- a perpetual exile from modernity – an albatross that has bent their backs -- but they insist on wearing it proudly.

AND of course -- in politics -- even now – as it WAS -- 55 years ago before Independence – the Muslims of India still love to practice Vulturism.

The FACT is -- it is NOT that the Hindu majority has oppressed the poor Muslim minority in India.

The Muslims clinging to their own archaic past and ways -- are largely responsible for what they have done to themselves in India -- as a MINORITY – and what they have done to themselves in Pakistan – as a MAJORITY.

The difference is only of the miniscule degree.

hasan

YLH,

[Indian CONSPIRACY:

West Pakistan`s Economy was vastly dependant on the Non Muslims of this area. Their Exodus and the exodus of their resources meant further setbacks to Pakistan`s Economy which was already teetering.

Pakistan also faced a dearth in clerical staff and middlemen who were mostly Hindu and Sikh.

The problems created by the exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan were much greater and were part of the same conspiracy of the Indian National Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, Adolf Patel and Slobo Nehru. ]

Is it your priority in life to make a complete fool of yourself?

First you throw out the minorities without thinking of the consequences. And then when it hits you, you blame the minorities. What a farce.

Reply # 266 Romair

[``SameerJB #263: Had Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif stuck around, the Shariat Bill (fifeenth amendment) would have definitely become a part of the Pakistani Constitution. In this sense, I am unable to understand your motivations. One the one hand you detest the maulvis. Yet you support people like the Sharifs who were a hair away from turning Pakistan into a legal theocracy.``]

Motivations!? Simple... dissolution of Pakistan, return of the Khalsa and return to the much glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses in Badshahi Masjid!

Reply # 266 Romair

[``SameerJB #263: Had Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif stuck around, the Shariat Bill (fifeenth amendment) would have definitely become a part of the Pakistani Constitution. In this sense, I am unable to understand your motivations. One the one hand you detest the maulvis. Yet you support people like the Sharifs who were a hair away from turning Pakistan into a legal theocracy.``]

Motivations!? Simple... dissolution of Pakistan, return of the Khalsa and return to the much glorified job of scrubbing Sikh horses in Badshahi Masjid!

RE: Reply #: 271 Zafar Al-Talib

``These political (?) structures are necessary but are not in themselves sufficient (educational capital is another dire need). On a tangent, the deprivation of any group of people is a matter of urgency for a democracy. The fact that it is becoming politically untenable for many groups (witness the rise of the BSP, for eg) is a good thing.``

I think you re-inforced my views with the last sentence. We should ensure that the disposessed have access to the corridors of power which is the surest way to reach an equitable distribution of national wealth.

I didn`t mean to say that the needs of those who are under-represented should not be solved now or should be postponed with my post. It is self-evident that wide economic disparities are the main cause of social unrest, so the sooner they are eliminated the better.

On a side note, for too long we have been in the mode that distributing the national wealth pie equitably will ensure justice. But the point which was missed was that growing the pie fast enough to stay ahead of the population rise and reduce poverty is as important.

And simply giving the people their economic freedom has done wonders; witness the drastic reduction in communal riots in the last decade in India with the implemenation of economic reforms.

ylh:

thank you for your post # 261. I am not surprised that the perpetrators of genocide at the time of partition are now portraying themselves as victims, considering the active help they get in their propaganda from the Pakistani communists and liberals.

Romair 266

``Keep the pot boiling`` - ``If facts do not fit theory, change the facts``

Were communists to operate in the manner of sectarian terrorists - the entire coersive mechanism of the State, Masjid and civic society would come down on them - therefore; a strategy to obfuscate, to hide in plain sight and to set the stage for unstablity and social divisions.

SameerJB #263: Had Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif stuck around, the Shariat Bill (fifeenth amendment) would have definitely become a part of the Pakistani Constitution. It had already passed the National Assembly, and had been rejected by the Senate. However, in the next Senate elections, PML would have had more than enough Senators elected to pass the Shariat Bill.

In this sense, I am unable to understand your motivations. One the one hand you detest the maulvis. Yet you support people like the Sharifs who were a hair away from turning Pakistan into a legal theocracy. On the other hand, you oppose Musharraf, who is trying his best to not move Pakistan away from being a theocratic state. Your stance is quite contradictory (as is Shahbaz Sharif`s stance).

You should take a look at the long list of sectarian violence that occured during the PML rule. And the sectarian criminals NS let out of jail. The Sharifs are hypocrites of the highest order.

Once the Shariat Bill would have passed, Pakistan would have officially, for the first time in its history, become a theocratic state. Following is some of its text:

``1. Short title and commencement (1)

This Act may be called the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1998.

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. Addition of new Article 2B in the Constitution

In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as the said Constitution, after Article 2A, the following new Article shall be inserted, namely:-

``2B.

Supremacy of the Quran and Sunnah

(1) The Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be the supreme law of Pakistan.

Explanation:- In the application of this clause to the personal law of any Muslim sect, the expression ``Quran and Sunnah`` shall mean the Quran and Sunnah as interpreted by that sect.

(2) The Federal Government shall be under an obligation to take steps to enforce the Shariah, to establish salat, to administer zakat, to promote amr bil ma`roof and nahi anil munkar (to prescribe what is right and to forbid what is wrong), to eradicate corruption at all levels and to provide substantial socio-economic justice, in accordance with the principles of Islam, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

(3) Nothing contained in this Article shall affect the personal law, religious freedom, traditions or customs of non-Muslims and their status as citizens.

(4) The provisions of this Article shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, any law or judgement of any Court``.

http://www.karachipage.com/news/15amendment.html

Re: YLH

``...Oh so can anyone explain to me why there are no `Muslim` Punjabis in India?...``

YLH, check out the demographics of the district of Malerkotla in Indian Punjab, before you go off in this direction. Malerkotla has a majority muslim population. There are still more than 4000 Muslim Punjabis in Delhi alone.

Dear YLH, RSuxena, and so many tohers . . . you would do so much better for most of us and especially yourself if you please stop getting charged up about references to the past made by people of any origin/religion . . . and take some of your fairly superb analytical skills to see if you could project possible spreadsheet like scenarios of:-

a) where our countries seem to be headed based on what you observe and know . . .

and then . . .

b) start debate with a potential of trying to change things including perceptions howsoever the truth may hurt on what steps our countries could take to move forward.

Otherwise we are all beginning to sound like poor versions of the Amoco Indo-Pak satire at onion.com . . .

Reply Shammi, Dost Mittar # 243

Re: low Muslim presence in IITs, IIMs, IAS…

Religion is just one way of classifying people – it might give some further insights into the Indian situation if one looked at other ways of grouping people (gender, economic class, whatever) and saw how these different groups fared in a similar breakdown of numbers.

I would tend to agree with Fuzair, that most Indian Muslims fall into the poorer section of the population, and relatively few into the middle class. Once you modify for class, I suspect (and no figures here, gentlemen, just a hunch) that Muslims are represented in proportion to their presence in the population. (The movement of middle class Muslims to Pakistan, and the tendency of economic class to pass down from one generation to the next, does seem to explain why the Indian Muslim middle class is relatively smaller than the Hindu middle class.)

This raises the issue: why aren’t there more people from poor families gaining entry to the IITs and IIMs, the IAS, etc. Ditto for women. Ditto for tribals (Todas, Mundas, etc.) IMO if the first issue was addressed, you’d see a lot more Muslims in IIT. I agree with you that it has to do with education.

Re:the Indian Muslim social indicators thing, I do believe that there are some social reasons to many of us not moving up the economic ladder as fast as we might – and that this is not ALL an internal cultural issue (though some of it definitely is), NOR one of State oppression. In some ways we are in a similar position to African Americans in the US – a very small group of rich people, growing middle class which is still relatively small, and a large pool of poor people. (Especially so in the North.) Like them, we have risen to prominence in the worlds of entertainment (Bollywood etc.) and of crime (Bhai) – which are often linked (?). Are the reasons they fail and succeed as they do totally dissimilar to the reasons we do? (I know the differences in our situtations are many…just wondering if there are any similarities as well.)

Reply tvarad # 252

“For me, the fact that the Muslim community or any other caste/creed/community in India does not have it`s just share of the pie NOW is not as important as to make sure that the structures for obtaining it are in place.”

These political (?) structures are necessary but are not in themselves sufficient (educational capital is another dire need). On a tangent, the deprivation of any group of people is a matter of urgency for a democracy. The fact that it is becoming politically untenable for many groups (witness the rise of the BSP, for eg) is a good thing.

Shammi,

After the defence minister, its the turkish naval chief who is in Pakistan now. And then it will be another official and then another and then another and then another and then the president, and then the PM, and then FM . PM Ecevit`s solitary visit to a certain neighbor of ours 3 years ago is a distant memory. Bet you didn`t even know his name.

RE: Reply #: 257 ylh

``The lies that are taught to the children of India as obvious by Tvarad`s post which is a complete travesty of truth is perhaps the testament to the fact that there shall never be peace between Pakistan and India..``

ylh,

We are arguing apples and oranges so your views are passe. W.r.t your statement, India can only be dented but never stopped if there is no peace in the sub-continent; Pakistan on the other hand will slowly strangle itself with it`s belligerence. The proof is self-evident. So don`t go cutting off your nose to spite your face.

No matter how many ways Indians come up to obscure the facts, but facts will be facts. They committed ethnic cleansing of the worst kind of Muslims throwing them out of India and into Pakistan to wreck Pakistan at its inception. That is where all the communal killings business started.

Those killed at partition (and most of them were heading to Pakistan) are the martyrs of Pakistan, those who have spilt their blood to make our great country. Unlike the pseudo intellectuals I have no desire to `heal the common wounds of partition` for the wounds we sustained are deeper and much more serious...

ylh,

It was not my contention that Jinnah resorted to ethnic cleansing; it was someone else`s; I was refuting his logic. You could have saved yourself a lot of bile with your ranting and raving.

W.r.t. Jinnah, there could be no further repudiation of his actions than being disowned by his own daughter and grandson who have refused to hand over his ancestral house in Bombay for a Pakistani consulate and don`t want anything to do with him. So much for his legacy.

Hamzad Afaqui #229

Thank you for your kind wishes.

No, I haven`t seen the movie. Not sure how profound simplicity is (what`s profanity got to do with it anyways?). Simplicity is it`s own virtue and I think the more people try to dissect, poke and probe it, the further they move from ever discovering its peace. Like peeling onions to find out what they really are. In case I continue not to make sense, please forgive; these are hard times and there is little calm to go by.

Assalamualaikum,

Aamir

shammi #245: Increasing the size of the middle class is the best way to ensure democracy. No doubt about that. Pakistani urban middle class has traditionally been the wealthiest in South Asia, specially after the Dubai boom.

However, rural Pakistan, under the current system does not and cannot have a middle class. This is something the feudals want to avoid at all costs. Why? Because the moment there is a middle class in rural Pakistan, exactly what you have stated will happen. The rural middle class will get rid of their feudal masters, and take control of Pakistani politics. This is the one and only reason that feudals participate in politics so passionately, and do not just enjoy their lands.

If Pakistan was 2/3rd urban and 1/3rd rural, then urbanites would dominate the legislative bodies, and would force the feudals to reform themselves through laws. However, the ratio is the other way (to be percise, in the last elections, 62% feudal, and 38% urban; however even out of those urbanite 38%, some of the seats went to feudals like Zardari in Karachi).

I don`t see how a rural middle class can emerge, unless political power is forcefully taken out of the hand of the feudals and given to the non-feudals. Or the rules of Pakistani politics are changed. More non-feudals need to be given seats in the assembly. Maybe by introducing technocrat seats, maybe by giving twice as many seats to cities than to rural areas, etc. The feudals themselves will never do this.

hobbytv #244: The mindset of the urbanites has always been anti-feudal. All the Pakistani, ``intellectual waves of reform`` occur in Lahore, Pindi, Karachi, Peshawar, etc. If Pakistani politics were limited to urban centers, Pakistan would already be very democratic. Pakistani urbanites of all social levels take an extreme amount of interest in politics.

However, the actual center of power is rural Pakistan. Unfortunately, I don`t know of any wave that is taking place over there, or can take place over there. The only waves I have heard of are individual going and shooting their feudals, and then getting killed themselves. Contradict this with urban poor people. The laborer in a factory rarely if ever shoots the mill owner. The poor sepoy never shoots the General. The poor beggar never shoots the mayor. All urban shootings are due to sectarianism or ethnicities or robberies etc (or people committing suicide). The social lines aren`t as high as rural areas, because it is impossible for someone to control a poor urbanites life to the same level as a poor rural`s life.

I cannot see the feudals educating their population and empowering them. That would be like shooting themselves in the foot. The only way this power can be taken away from the feudals is through force. Someone has to dictatorially change the rules of politics in Pakistan, to make them purely anti-feudal. Ideally, through massive land reforms. Or by not allowing people with a certain amount of land to enter elections. The current Bachelors degree restriction will get rid of 60% of them. But those slots will be occupied by their US educated kids.

I am hoping the devolution plan will kick off the defanging of the feudals. The exectuive power of one feudal MNA is now delegated to hundreds of locally elected people (33% of whom by law are women, and some by law are peasants). These seats will be initially occupied by the feudals` henchmen, but power will have been diluted. Now one MNA will not enjoy massive executive power, he/she will only have massive legislative power. So the feudals will get elected, make sure no law can be passed that forces them to pay tax, but they will not be able to completely dominate the executive affairs of their constituency, i.e. the deputy commissioner will be under the Nazim, who will executively not be under the MNA.

I hope all this works.

In the twisted electioneering system of Pakistan, the best thing Musharraf can do after the elections (which will be dominated by feudals once again) is to push Pakistani power into urban hands. Give all powerful positions to urbanites. So far all urban parties (MQM, PTI, NAPP, ANP (both urban and rural), etc.) have supported him. The only urban parties against him are religious parties. He needs to somehow ally all these parties together, put them in positions of power, and maybe within five years, they can fix the feudals.

IT`S TIME FOR US TO STOP BOMBING AFGHANISTAN -- THE PARAMETERS FOR TARGETTING ARE GETTING RIDICULOUS -- SOON THERE WILL NO ``TALL MAN`` LEFT IN AFGHANISTAN -- ENOUGH.

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

Combating sectarian terrorism

Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif

The year 2002 is likely to be a landmark year in the annals of Pakistan, for the reason that our society as whole has started thinking on the same wave-length on the very important issue of sectarian-terrorism. Previously, we all have been discussing and trying to find ways to curb this menace but unfortunately there was a motley of voices and, above all, the drive against this monster was never joined by our security and intelligence agencies. At long last the present army-led government has read the writing on the wall and taken long over due bold actions.

It was September, 1999, when a sudden spiral wave of sectarian killings began from Dera Ismail Khan in NWFP, hit Punjab and Karachi. Earlier on receipt of information that a fresh batch of killers was being trained in Afghanistan, we took up the matter with Kabul but it paid scant attention to our complaint. But everybody, it seemed, from the Interior Minister to the Foreign Office, was unhappy when I disclosed these facts at a press conference. Now there seems to be a national consensus that had we adopted a `tit for tat` policy with Kabul then, things would have worked out much better.

The government will have to devise a comprehensive and consistent strategy to root out sectarian terrorism. In the recent past, the only government that took this monster by the horns was the Muslim League government in Punjab during 1997-1999. The present government need not reinvent the wheel, it merely needs to consult the Home Department and Punjab Police archives. The key implementers of that are still around. Someone has to provide the required leadership and vision to the very capable public servants that we have.

Our government during 1997-1999 was under an unprecedented attack by sectarian terrorists. More than 300 people were killed in about 150 incidents, which tarnished the country`s image before the world and scared away private investors.

We took a conscious decision to fight the curse, considering it a national and religious duty. My government was inducted into office in the backdrop of Shantinagar, Masjid Al-Khair and Iranian Consulate massacres. From that day on, there was no looking back. We took a host of vital steps to meet the challenge.

Punjab Police was neither equipped nor trained to fight terrorism. To begin with we appointed best available officers on key positions; the only criteria were honesty, effectiveness and hard work, invoking comments from objective analysts that the quality of appointments in Punjab was the best in the country`s history. My government put to an end the practice, till then in vogue, of letting politicians in power, feudals and senior government functionaries make recruitment in police of their choice.

We recruited 8000 young educated persons as policemen through a most transparent and fair process. All district Superintendents of Police were given full autonomy and stringent guidelines to ensure merit based recruitment. Except for one district, where the head of police was brother-in-law of a Federal Minister, there were no complaints of nepotism and violation of rules. The officer was taken to task.

Thana Culture: Unfortunately, over the years our police stations have become dens of coercion and corruption where the poor and the hapless are treated most inhumanely. The result is extreme frustration and hatred against this institution. To revamp police stations, we took the landmark decision to recruit 300 police inspectors through the Punjab Public Service Commission to ensure merit based selection. Law graduates, Masters degree holders, doctors and engineers were selected through a very transparent process. No relaxation in the stringent educational and physical standards was given to anyone.

Training for Police: These new recruits went through a rigorous training at the hands of capable officers from the Police Service of Pakistan. Training modules on modern lines were prepared with the assistance of British experts. Leading luminaries from judiciary, police, civil service, media, academia and bar were involved in the training. Islamic scholars regularly addressed them.

Prior to this, training was never a priority in police as it was manned by disinterested non-professional officers under whom training schools taught outdated syllabi. Hardly any resources were allocated to training institutes. Rather they were used as ``parking lots`` for incompetent and undesirable officers. The officers` posting to field assignments was now linked to satisfactory completion of training.

Elite Police Force (Anti-terrorism strike force): The police force in Punjab was no match to the well trained, armed to the teeth, battle hardy terrorist. Our police force was equipped with rifles of the colonial era. There were constables who had never fired a shot in their entire career. To overcome this shortcoming, an anti-terrorist strike force, under the rubric of Elite Force, was raised in a record time of one year.

Instructors from Pakistan Army`s Special Services Group trained about 5000 police personnel. Specially-trained platoons of Elite Force were deployed in every district of Punjab. Latest weaponry, telecommunication equipment and transport were provided. More than Rs. 400 million were allocated for raising this force. The Government of Punjab from 1997-1999 did not purchase a single vehicle for any politician or a bureaucrat but vehicles were purchased for the anti-terrorist force and police.

Incentives for High Achievers and Police force: Despite our efforts to introduce the finest stuff, there was a genuine concern that once in service these officials would get influenced by their surroundings. We, therefore, decided to sufficiently increase their salaries so that they were not easily sucked into the pool of corruption. Just imagine how a poor policeman, who could not make his both ends meet with his meagre salary of Rs 2600, can he be expected to protect the life and property of the ordinary citizen.

About 70,000 constables were given a raise of Rs 1300. Out-of-turn promotions through an objective assessment were given for outstanding performances against terrorism. Over 150 officers and men of Punjab police met martyrdom in the crusade against terrorism from 1997-1999. Their families were given special grants and their children provided jobs. Officers with bad reputation were purged. After a thorough investigation, 64 Deputy Superintendents of Police were put off duty.

Improved intelligence gathering: Effective intelligence plays a pivotal role in anti-terrorism operations. Sufficient resources were provided to the Special Branch and CID in order to enhance their effectiveness, enabling them to penetrate headquarters of terrorist in Kabul, and locations/sanctuaries of wanted terrorists were identified in Afghanistan.

Effective use of media, rewards for arrests, etc., led to the arrests of more than half of 60 wanted criminals. In an effort to reduce hatred and tension and persuade the sectarian warring groups to agree to a peaceful co-existence, we would convene separate and joint meetings of these groups.

These efforts led them to have better understanding of each other`s point of view. At joint public meetings a message of peace and harmony would be conveyed. An Ulema Board comprising highly respected scholars from all sects was formed. This board did a very fine job by unanimously proscribing some 70 odd extremely controversial books which were a great source of fuelling sectarian hatred. Our attempts were helped by the fact that a vast majority of people are averse to killings preached by sham mullahs.

Prosecution of sectarian terrorists has been the weakest point. There were instances of very senior judges refusing to hear cases of desperate terrorists. Judges of courage and integrity were appointed to anti-terrorist courts. Exceptionally high rates of conviction were achieved. Security of judges and witnesses was the prime concern of the government,

In upholding commitment to the rule of law, we demonstrated zero-tolerance for anyone found on the wrong side of law. A Parliamentary Secretary/MPA from Sargodha was arrested on charges of harbouring a wanted criminal, and was behind bars for months. A serving DIG was punished for illegally getting his friend released from Police custody and SSP Gujranwala district was suspended and proceeded against on corruption charges. A judge of anti-terrorist court belonging to Chief Minister`s constituency and supported by a very influential political group, was recommended for removal on poor performance.

All this was achieved at a very high cost and at peril to personal safety. SSP Ashraf Marth, one of the finest police officers, laid down his life in line of duty. Ministers, Chief Secretary and Inspector General of Police were on the hit list of terrorists. An attempt was made to eliminate the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister through Raiwind bomb blast. But terrorists could not defeat the will and determination of our team.

I do realize, however, that our efforts to combat sectarian terrorism were far from sufficient, but we worked with good intention and sincerity of purpose. This madness has affected immensely, and in order to succeed we will have to launch a resolute, and comprehensive crusade which demands sweat, toil and blood.

We would not have been able to achieve half of what we did had it not been for the unflinching support of my elder brother, then Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif.

I don`t wish to be misinterpreted:

The following statement:

2) Slobo Nehru and Adolf Patel for trying to wreck Pakistan by sending all the refugees to Pakistan (this they tried along with blocking our 55 crores).

Should read:

2) Slobo Nehru and Adolf Patel for trying to wreck Pakistan by scaring the Muslims to Pakistan (this they tried along with blocking our 55 crores).

Oh by the way, please don`t come back with : oh but Our education minister was Azad. ... Cuz our law Minister was a Hindu too... we are not counting token Muslims or Hindus or show boys.

COMMUNAL KILLINGS OF 1947 :

Being a decent people we have chosen not to emphasize or appropriate the blame of the communal killings of the partition. Add to that, some of our `South Asian` wannabes like Samina Shah are too busy `healing the common wounds of partition`. All these situations have been taken advantage in the most dastardly fashion by the Indians, who have assumed that we are naive and we don`t know history.

The descendants of the communal murderers now deny their crimes, and are accusing us of committing them. Nothing can be sadder or farthest from the truth. Wanna talk facts.. let us talk facts.



ETHNIC CLEANSING of Muslims from East Punjab:

Through a well orchestrated plan, the Indian Government led by Nehru and Patel took advantage of the Hindu Mahasabha propaganda by looking away from communal frenzy and at times expediting the exodus of 7 Million Muslims to Pakistan. The plan was simple. Send so many refugees to Pakistan that the state collapses.

Remember that famous Caravan which has become so characteristic of the partition exodus, the one which stretched for miles after miles after miles. Well guess what ? It was a Muslim caravan heading West and not a Hindu caravan heading East.

THE TIMES (LONDON) September 4th 1947:

A Column of Muslim Refugees 20 Miles long and estimated 200 000 most of them on foot have been straggling into the Border town of Kasur, some 55 miles South of Lahore.

THE TIMES (LONDON) SEPTEMBER 5TH 1947

``The Slaughter in East Punjab was worse than in West, the sikhs were better armed and better organized``

(I wonder who organized them: Yes you are right. the congress Party through the efforts of Slobolal Nehru and Adolf Patel)

The TIMES (London) January 20th 1947:

West Punjab received 5.5 Million Refugees compared to 3.5 Million refugees of East Punjab.



Indian CONSPIRACY:

West Pakistan`s Economy was vastly dependant on the Non Muslims of this area. Their Exodus and the exodus of their resources meant further setbacks to Pakistan`s Economy which was already teetering.

Pakistan also faced a dearth in clerical staff and middlemen who were mostly Hindu and Sikh.

The problems created by the exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan were much greater and were part of the same conspiracy of the Indian National Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, Adolf Patel and Slobo Nehru.



JINNAH`S EFFORTS TO STEM THE MADNESS:

Whereas I have already quoted many of Jinnah`s speeches which are all emphatic in their message so I will refrain from re quoting all 50 of them.

There are good works by Sharma, a Hindu Journalist based in Pakistan at the time of the partition, and `Insights into Pakistan` by Sri Prikasa the first Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan which outline Jinnah`s role against the communal murderers, his police and his crack down on those going after the Hindus and the sikhs. Infact Sri Prikasa called Jinnah the `Protector-General` of the Hindus in Pakistan.



Tvarad in his ignorant post claims that no ethnic cleansing happened in India... placing it on two naive premises: 1) since there are Muslims in India there was no ethnic cleansing in India. 2) there are no Non Muslims in Pakistan.

The fact is that Ethnic cleansing happened mostly in Punjab, and mostly of Muslims in East Punjab according to the figures. The retatliation led to the ethnic cleansing of West Punjab. The Hindu Populations of Sindh, though harmed to some extent, and Hindu Populations of Bengal remained intact. Infact Bangladesh has 20% Hindu Population and in Sindh there are close to 1.5 Million Hindus.

Jinnah`s complicity in the so called `Ethnic cleansing` was only as much as Gandhi`s complicity in the `Moplah Killings` in the aftermath of the Khilafat Movement in 1920s or as much Gandhi is to blame for say the Jallianwalla Massacre.

Jinnah and his Government, especially the able sophisticated Sir Francis Mudie overcame all odds and manage to restore order in Punjab way before it occured to Slobo Nehru to send his police to East Punjab to protect the Muslims.



All in all the blame for Communal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Punjab on both sides lies with

1) Hindu and Sikh Intolerance to Partition demand and the creation of PAKISTAN which was an accepted legal fact.

2) Slobo Nehru and Adolf Patel for trying to wreck Pakistan by sending all the refugees to Pakistan (this they tried along with blocking our 55 crores). <

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

The lies that are taught to the children of India as obvious by Tvarad`s post which is a complete travesty of truth is perhaps the testament to the fact that there shall never be peace between Pakistan and India..

Tvarad,

I have never seen more revisionism and more lies. This following statement is tantamount to saying that Holocaust in Germany never happened despite temptation provided by the fact that jews were killing the germans.

``resort to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from India(which must have been very tempting given what was happening across the border).``

Let us face the facts ladies and gentlemen. By all proper accounts anywhere, the massacres , atleast a bulk of them happened in East Not West Punjab. I am not in this business to justify any killings but when some one is so utterly going to lie about the truth behind Partition killings one is left with no choice but to appropriate the killings. I am shocked that instead of facing the facts Indians are so hell bent on changing history that they claim that their crimes against their Muslim populace was the result of Pakistan`s supposed `ethnic` cleansing of Hindus and sikhs, and their inherent intolerance of the Pakistan demand.

Mr. Tvarad is now claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing of Muslims whatsoever. Oh so can anyone explain to me why there are no `Muslim` Punjabis in India? So yes there are Indian Muslims, but hold on .. there were 35 Million Muslims at inception of India within India. 7 Million (this is not a made up number, I will quote the bibliography once I get home) of them were forced into Pakistan, more than 300 000 were butchered.

Just like India, it was Punjab in Pakistan where Hindus were forced out, mostly in reaction and not as a voluntary action. Furthermore the situation in Gurdaspur which was in late August also created a major communal blood bath.

In any event, the partition of Punjab and Bengal was not part of the Pakistan plan but was imposed on us by the Congress and the British and we had no choice but to accept. The original Pakistan plan envisaged a Muslim Majority State with significant minorities.

Dost Mittar,

Your post was much more balanced if not totally accurate. In any event you say: ``knowing fully well that as far as Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were concerned the process of ethnic cleansing was already irreversible.``

Jinnah`s famous 11th August Speech was made on 11th August 1947 and except for the Rawalpindi Riots and some minor rioting in East Punjab no major `rioting` or communal massacres had taken place as of yet. I don`t think your argument is plausible.

You are right when you say, Jinnah was faced with a grim possibility, the exodus of Muslims into Pakistan. That was a deep laden conspiracy by the Congress Party against the very roots of Pakistan.

A part of this conspiracy hatched by the `innocent` and `pure` leaders like Nehru and Patel was to hold off Pakistan`s 55 crores of Rupees. Second part of this conspiracy was to scare, terrorize and send Muslims of Punjab into Pakistan. The result the far sighted leaders of Congress, now acting without the advice of that old man with some sense who had been sidelined by Nehru and Patel, hoped would be that Pakistan would crumble and become part of India once again.

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

Tvarad,

I challenge you to show me one Historical proof that Jinnah encouraged any ethnic cleansing. This absolutely the biggest lie I have ever heard by anyone because this is in total contradiction to the facts. When I put up facts to show that Jinnah did nothing of the sort, you call that hagiography. I have been researching this business of population exchange and `ethnic` cleansing which you are now accusing Jinnah of. If you can`t then shut the hell up and stop making up lies about the man.

Ethnic cleansing started when Hindu Mahasabha pushed Indian Muslims into Pakistan and Nehru and others didn`t do anything to stop it. Infact Patel encouraged it by open statements. The reason: Pakistan will be choked at birth and will be forced to return to the Indian Union.

The figures that I have come up with, and I will quote the sources tonight and you will see that they will all be valid sources:

7 (and this is a factual number) Million + Muslims were sent packing to Pakistan.

Close to 3.2 Million Hindus left Pakistan.

On the contrary I have shown that far from what you are trying to say, Jinnah`s every effort was utilized in

1) Stopping the Hindu Exodus to India

2) Providing Shelter for the Muslim refugees.

I have already quoted several well respected authors and historians to prove this fact.

Perhaps the saddest facts of history is that the worst perpetrators of the worst Human rights abuses today are now claiming the opposite and are now claiming to be the victims.

For me, the fact that the Muslim community or any other caste/creed/community in India does not have it`s just share of the pie NOW is not as important as to make sure that the structures for obtaining it are in place. Democratic India is still a young country by world standards. As long as India doesn`t waver on it`s commitment to equal rights through just laws based on it`s constitution, it is only a matter of time that grievances will be redressed. After all, it took African Americans more than a century after the Emancipation declaration to get their rights and their struggle was not based on exceptions to but the implementation of the spirit of the Constitution.

Contrast this to Pakistan which is yet to make up it`s mind what kind of a country it wants to be and who`s Constitution has been monkeyed with for so long that it isn`t worth the paper it`s written on.

dost-mitter , Layman,

I would like to mention that you should take into account the fact that the Muslim middle class is a very small fraction of the Muslim population in India. There is a historical reason for this. The bulk of the population that migrated from India during the partition was the Muslim middle class. The Muslim population in India is either rich or poor and the apple does not fall very far from the tree. The rich don?t struggle to get into IIT?s or the IIM?s, the poor cant, they just don?t have the means.

We do have a large number of small businesses owned by Muslims and some corporate houses. But the number of Muslims vying for IAS/IFS posts or entry into institutions of higher learning in the country remains small. I hope that will change in the years to come.

Regards,

Faruk

Layman # 237,

Most of the IFS/IAS officers come from the states you mentioned. In fact a disproportionate number come from Bihar despite the poor literacy rate. Here is a website with state wise literacy rate.

http://www.expert-eyes.org/crj/cenlit0.html

Regards,

Faruk

Layman # 236,

?I am from an IIM and remember being shocked that the number of muslims was less than 1% in my batch. OTOH, the number of Sikhs was far more than their %age of population ;-)

Then again, the CAT entrance tests are supposed to be among the toughest in the world.?

I, my sister and 11 of our cousins went to Stanford. So did my father, his brother, sister and two of their cousins. All of us are Indian Muslims and I am not sure that all of us were trying to avoid ?the CAT entrance tests the toughest in the world.? :-)

Regards,

Faruk

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

RE: Reply #: 238 dost-mittar

``In this assessment, Jinnah was not evil or devilish, nor did he hate Hindus and Sikhs. Instead, I view him simply as a political leader dedicated solely and pragmatically to doing what he thought was in the best interests of his consituents, namely, the Muslims of the new country of Pakistan as well as of the old country, India. If he had lived longer, he would have continued to be pragmatic and non-ideological in the interest of the same people.``

Let me see, you say he acquiesced and even encouraged ethnic cleansing in Pakistan but he was not evil? This is what I call the crisis of credibility in the Muslim world.

Your post points out the banktrupcy of his exclusive ideas and the strength of the inclusive freedom struggle as envisaged by Gandhi. It is a testament to the greatness of Gandhi and other leaders that they did not succumb to the parochialism of Jinnah and resort to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from India(which must have been very tempting given what was happening across the border). Jinnah speaking through both sides of his mouth didn`t have anything to do with it.

There is more than anecdotal evidence that Muslim Indians are not doing

as well as a community as the Hindus. They constitute 13% of the

population but account for only about 2% of the IAS/IFS; their proportion

of admissions in IITs. IIMs and medical institutions is not much higher;

and their proportion in the baords of directors in private corporations is

still lower. And if Pakistanis are by and large doing as well as the

Indians, then the Indian Muslims can be deemed to be worse off than

Pakistani Muslims.

There is, however, one area where Indian Muslims seem to better

off...based on the readings of both Pakistani and Indian newspapers, it

would seem that there are more Indian Muslim women in executive and

professional positions in both public and private sectors than their

Pakistani counterparts.

``…The horrors of the partition on both sides of the border and its consequences for Pakistan were by now evident to everyone, including Jinnah… I also believe that Jinnah was not too unhappy with this process… Now I come to my reasoning for thinking that Jinnah essentially acquiesced in the exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan… Why couldn`t he do what a defeated, humiliated and discredited Nehru and Gandhi could do in India? The answer, to me, is that he didn`t really want to… IN THIS ASSESSMENT, JINNAH WAS NOT EVIL OR DEVILISH…``

Dost-Mittar, after having written at least five (5) sentences that do not paint Jinnah in a favorable light, did you make the last statement merely to be politically correct?

Re: Romair

I think that `urbanites` (do you really mean middle-class instead?) can grow in numbers and thereby reduce the power of the `feudals`. A strong middle class is the best bet for a stable democracy, and if Musharraf wants to promote `true` democracy, he should do everything possible that brings about economic growth like the countries of the Far East achieved for about 30+ years.

``...Who will solve this problem? I am hoping that Musharraf will...``

A key test will be how Musharraf responds to the Lahore High Court`s recent decision of rejecting his decree of seating military officers next to civil judges in courts. If he circumvent`s the court`s will, it will be another loss for Pakistan`s civil society, and another step backwards away from democracy.

Romair

I could not agree with you more about feudals of Pakistan. indeed my own appreciation of the meaning of elections in rural Pakistan is identical to yours - and was gained by what to me was an apprenticeship - Pakistani feudals are more than happy to demostrate to any person outside their particular group or class, how they can flaunt and make rules of conduct for themselves, regardless of the law.

I also agree with you that the only way to break the hold of the feudal is with education, especially of rural women and with labor intensive industrialization. The entire bit about jumping over, leap frogging over the social effedcts and implications of the industrial revolution, is just so much tripe.

A restructuring of this kind is possible now, primarily because I think the intellectual climate in Pakistan has changed considerably. More people understand the changes in the value system that are required to usher in such a restructuring. But of course it cannot happen overnight, therefore the constitutional and parliamentary remedy I mentioned. I noted with interest, your exchanges with YLH on the subject of secularizing and rationalizing of society. These processes have been thus far, inevitable - yet our discussion of them has been generally shallow, what with dictionary definitions sufficing for the transformation of spiritual, intellectual, psychological, industrial and social values they entail. The case of lower income and rural Pakistani women factory workers is a powerful, fascinating and instructive case.

Like all ``innocence`` lost, Pakistani will miss much about their feudal system, once the serving values of adjusts to the demands of a new way of life.

Generals or Feudals - like I said this decision has already been made - no Western government is willing to accomodate any third world government that will not perform. Nor are middle class persons ready to accept feudals and may I add communists. Communists are serious threat to Pakistan; their strategy is to continue to keep the pot of petty rivalry boiling. You will notice the repeated calls to intenational players to allow for local political play in the debate and formulation of policy A recent examle is Mr. A. Shah`s piece in ``The Friday Times``.

Re: Dost Mittar

This discussion thread was initiated by your assertion that Partition benefited the Muslims of Pakistan. I will attempt to chip away at that hypothesis, while not getting dragged into what I consider to be peripheral subjects.

``… And if Pakistanis are by and large doing as well as the Indians…``

Are they really? What performance measures have you used? Literacy (male and female, primary and university level)? GDP/capita? Economic growth rates? External debt/capita? UN`s Human Development Index? Average life expectancy? Levels of poverty? Infant mortality? Crime rate? Political freedomWhat happens to the same if you throw Bangladesh into the mix? Would the results still corroborate your initial assertion?

``… the Indian Muslims can be deemed to be worse off than Pakistani Muslims…``

So basically, what you are suggesting is that even if one were to accept your initial assertion at face value, all the gains in Pakistan have been whittled away by the `losses` of the Muslims in India - as a result, the S. Asian Muslim community has not been delivered by `Partition` as one might have thought, contrary to your initial assertion.

You also mentioned the IAS, IITs, IIM in passing, without dwelling on some of the underlying factors. Here, I agree with Layman that the numbers need to be analyzed a bit more. Being a graduate of IIT, I accept your observation that Muslim representation is not good (say less than 2%) in the undergraduate class. Layman has corroborated the same for the IIMs. Of the three, IITs do not conduct any personal interviews of candidates, so any religious bias can be ruled out in the admissions process (the test answer sheets are anonymized). So, then the ONLY factor that influences admissions is higher secondary education. Are you suggesting that there is state bias against educating Muslims? Could the (apparent) lack of education have to do with social-cultural factors over which the Muslim community itself has significant leverage? Or, conversely, has Pakistan produced institutions of higher learning on par with the IITs/IIMs, etc.? BTW, the representation of women in the IITs is also quite bad (about 2%). This, I think that this has a lot to do with the fact that engineering is not profession that attracts women in India (as in the West) - would you use this as sufficient evidence to prove that women are very poorly off in these countries? Would you not be missing the big picture (ie. higher secondary education)? How does this result pan out in the UK where there is a growing disparity between Muslim and non-Muslim South Asians - most of which is attributable to differences in education? Ditto for South Asian immigrants to N. America.

Let us look at some of the other professions in India in which education is not a differentiator (music, sports, and popular culture). In all of these, there is no evidence to suggest that Muslims are any worse off in India than their non-Muslim compatriots. Classical music and popular films are dominated by Muslims (the three Khans of Bollywood come to mind). In sports, too, Muslims are well represented.

None of the above takes into account the fact that North India lost the cream of Muslim society in Partition and the two generations since then are not quite adequate to make up the loss (I agree with Tvarad here).

In short, it appears that education is critical factor - and one needs to understand why there may be, if at all, any disparity. Social reasons perhaps? (I would like to test the hypothesis that the gender disparity in educational levels is higher amongst Muslims than amongst non-Muslims (i.e. Muslim women tend to get a more raw deal than their non-Muslim sisters) thus rendering half the population as being less participative in the mainstream)).

In the meantime, what must NOT be done is to propound hypotheses with little basis in fact.

hobbytv #227: I do not see how any kind of political institutions can develop in Pakistan, as long as the feudals hold the country hostage.

I used to be the most idealistic of idealistic, ``elections under all circumstances`` lovers. That was until I actually received an introduction to the insides of the Pakistani electioneering system in the last election. People tend to incorrectly assume that elections in Pakistan have anything to do with democracy. They only have two functions: 1)Primarily for the big and small feudals to protect their land holdings and keep their tax benefits 2) Businessmen to come into power to enhance their businesses.

They have absolutely nothing to do with the people. Infact, the profession of most Pakistani feudals is politics. They get a degree from the US as twentysomethings, write a few enlightening articles on Chowk etc., join a couple of NGOs, and then immediately join politics. Their first paying job in their life is usually as an MPA or MNA. Nice guys and girls, all of them, but their moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction. Does every single feudal enter politics because he/she is concerned about public service? I doubt it. They enter politics because it is their family business, and they need to keep a grip on their land holdings.

People continue to point towards the Army`s involvement in politics and the influence of the religious right as the two things holding back Pakistani democracy. It is true that the Army`s involvement has held back political development. But most of the political development has been in the negative direction to begin with. And the maulvis have never had any power, and hence are usually just scapegoats.

Pakistan is faced with a Catch-22: take the generals or take the feudals (the two most powerful institutions in Pakistan). Both are the two groups that completely hold back democracy. Power will always revolve between these two groups, until a rural revolution occurs in Pakistan. The urban intellegensia writes all the articles, and carries out the debates, but has zero power in Pakistan, because it constitutes only 35% of the elected seats.

In any country, including the USA, generals dislike politicians, and have the power to take over anytime they want. There must have been at least one American and Indian general who wanted to take over, at some stage. I am sure with the recent tehelka scandals, there must be a couple in India, who wouldn`t mind kicking the govt. out. The reason they don`t is because they know they will face the wrath of a public, which has faith in its politicians.

The problem in Pakistan is not with the corruption of the politicians. The problem is that there is absolutely no way to get rid of them. The Supreme Court can be stormed anytime. And the peasants on feudal lands can never dare to vote out their feudal masters. Benazir will win an election in Larkana, even if she nominated her pet dog.

This means that nearly 2/3rd of Pakistani politicians are unaccountable. The only person who will defeat them in an election, is the opposing feudal, if there is one. The interests of the feudals are in contradiction with those of Pakistan, i.e. they cannot allow their peasants to get educated, become empowered, etc. If they do so, the first thing that will happen is the peasants will get rid of the feudals.

In the elections that were held in the 90s, the same feudals (PML or PPP) were elected again and again. How elections after elections, under the above system, will bring in democracy, is beyond me.

Democracy in Pakistan will not work until the voting peasant is empowered. He/she constitutes over 60% of Pakistan. The empowerment I am refering to is not giving him/her the opportunity to cast a vote (he/she already has that). Unfortunately, this is what all our naive democracy-lovers keep concentrating on. It means giving him his own land, giving him protection from the local policewallah (who has been appointed by the feudal) etc., giving him access to a court system where at least he can challenge his feudal master. In brief, giving him a system under which he can cast his vote without any fear (or at least very little fear).

The Pakistani urbanites, even the poor ones, have all of this. Due to this, people like Nawaz Sharif and even MQM can be voted out. But the people in the rural areas do not have this, due to which hardly any feudal in the history of Pakistani politics has ever been defeated by a normal working citizen of that area. And it is the life mission of the feudals as a group, to ensure the voting peasant is never freed. To accomplish this mission, they need to ensure that the current system of Pakistani politics and basketcase democracy is never changed. Hence, the feudals huge desire to get back into the National Assembly through, ``democracy.``

Who will solve this problem? I am hoping that Musharraf will. I hope he can keep the feudals away from all important positions (Prime Minister, chairman Senate, chief minister, cabinet, etc.) and let the urbanites occupy those positions, after the elections. At that stage, maybe the urban Pakistanis can perhaps take Pakistan`s politics out of the hands of the feudals. People like Aitezaz Ahsan need to replace people like Zardari and Bhutto, within their own parties. People like Imran Khan need to replace people like Leghari, etc.

The first phase of Pakistan`s political development needs to ensure that national political power is taken out of the hands of the feudal and into the hands of the urbanites. The second phase will then automatically (but slowly) occur with powerful politicians being held accountable and voted out of power. India, I believe, has achieved the first phase. And is into the begining stages of the second. Pakistan, being a much more rural society than India, at independence is still stuck in the first phase.

If the above can happen, then I doubt any General will have enough courage (or public support) to carry out a coup.

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

RE: Reply #: 232 dost-mittar

``And if Pakistanis are by and large doing as well as the Indians, then the Indian Muslims can be deemed to be worse off than Pakistani Muslims.``

This statement is disingenous, considering how partition skewed such demographic comparisions in a wholesale manner. It is like skimming the fat from a can of milk and then pointing out it`s wateriness. I suspect Pakistanis keep pointing out such statistics to reinforce their nationalism which, after all, is based on being the inverse of India.

India continues to struggle with creating a identity synonomous with the majority faith and with inculcating this unique version of history among its innocent young.

Hindustan Times Feb. 12, 2002

“The archaeology of faith

RS Sharma

The archaeological evidence doubting the historicity of Ayodhya in 2000 BC has been deleted by the NCERT (Ch.3, pp.20-21). Although the Puranic genealogy is not the same in different Puranas, sometimes it is argued on this basis that Rama Dasarathi ruled around 2000 or 1800 BC.

H.C. Raychaudhuri, great political historian, states that Rama is not mentioned in the Rig Veda (Political History of India, 1972, pp.71-72). The latest archaeological evidence shows that Ayodhya was not settled on any scale until 500 BC (Sharma, The State and Varna Formation in the Middle Ganga Plains, 1996, pp.85-6). Valmiki’s Ramayana, which contained 6,000 verses in the beginning, came to have 24,000 verses by the 12th century AD. Hence the historical existence of Rama seems to be doubtful.

Similarly, my discussion of the idea of an epic age and the existence of Krishna has been removed from my book (Ch.6, p.21). It is well- known that the Mahabharata consisted of 8,800 verses in the beginning, and the text was known as Jaya. These rose to 24,000 later, and the text came to be known as Bharata. The final number rose to 100,000, and the text came to be known as Mahabharata.

According to tradition, Krishna was actively associated with Mathura, but this place was not settled until the 7th century BC (M.C. Joshi in An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, II, ed. A. Ghosh, pp. 283-86). I personally visited the Mathura Museum to look for Krishna’s representation in any image or piece of sculpture, but I did not find it in that museum which contains numerous antiquities of pre-Kushana and Kushana times.

It would be wrong to think that the presentation of archaeological findings on Ayodhya and Mathura will hurt religious feelings. People worship gods because of faith and belief, not because of archaeological finds. Why are Durga, Ganesha, Shiva and Vishnu being worshipped almost all over the country without any historical appendage being attached to them? It is necessary to cultivate faith and not to distort history for worshipping a divinity.

On the advice of some Jains of Digambara sect, I included the name of Rishabhadeva as a founder of Jainism. In my book published in January 2001, I wrote that the Jains strongly believe that Rishabhadeva was the first tirthankara and the founder of Jainism. I retained the original passage according to which eastern UP and Bihar, in which traditionally many tirthankaras were born and carried on their activities, were hardly settled by the sixth century BC. I wrote that the historicity of the earliest tirthankaras is doubtful and their existence seems to be mythological (Ch.10 p.92).

The activities of Rishabhadeva are traditionally associated with Prayag and Ayodhya. But archaeologically none of the two sites was even fairly settled until 500 BC. Traditional chronology would place Rishabhadeva around the ninth century BC. Ajit Jain, a Jain scholar, questions the historicity of the first tirthankara in a Jain research journal Shodhadarsha (Nov, 1998) because in his view Ayodhya was uninhabited until the 8th century BC.

The books of R.C. Majumdar, K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and H.C. Raychaudhuri are read as textbooks all over the country. Majumdar states that the “first 22 tirthankaras are unknown to history”. According to Raychaudhuri, only Parshva out of 23 pre-Mahavira tirthankaras seems to have been a historical figure (An Advanced History of India, Part I Ancient India). Therefore, my doubts about the historicity of the pre-Parshva tirthankaras are not based on my ‘convictions’ but on the writings of three great historians of ancient India. I cannot think of any greater authority on the history of ancient India. If these great historians do not adopt the concept of history propounded by the NCERT, it is not my fault.

Moreover, the specialists who have examined Jain Prakrit sources do not support the historicity of Rishabha. Chamanlal J. Shah mentions Rishabha but considers only the last two tirthankaras to be historical personages in his Jainism in North India 800 BC-AD 546, Delhi 1989. Similarly, G.C. Chaudhary, former professor at the Research Institute of Prakrit and Jainology in Bihar, does not recognise the historicity of the pre-Parshva tirthankaras in his Political History of Northern India from Jain Sources, Amritsar, 1954. A.N. Upadhye, former professor of Jainology and Prakrit in Mysore University, mentions Rishabha but does not consider him a historical person (A Culture History of India, ed. A.L. Basham, OUP, London, 1975).

Although the mention of Rishabha’s name in my account of Jainism satisfied the Jain complainants, in the 2001 January edition of Ancient India, my sentences relating to archaeology and mytho-logy were expunged by the NCERT. A copy of this newly-printed book has neither been made available to me nor is found in the market.

This is an utter breach of the agreement of 1980. According to this agreement, adaptation or modification in the text can be made only with the approval of the author. I was never consulted about this deletion. Subsequently, six other deletions relating to different themes have been made without informing me. The school teachers have been asked not to refer to these deletions while teaching Ancient India, which (1999 edition) contains this deleted matter in print.

Nevertheless, the concerned Jains of Digambar sect should feel free to believe in the supernatural abilities of Rishabhadeva and revere him like Rama and Krishna. For the benefit of school students I have underlined the valuable contribution of Jainism to society, economy, language, literature, art and architecture (p 94, 1999 edition.)

The NCERT has deleted the passage regarding the Brahmanical reaction against Ashoka and have asked the teachers to discard it in teaching. What I have stated in this passage is based on the findings of great indologist M.M.P. Harprasad Shastri (Journal and Proceeding of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1910, pp.259) who edited many Buddhist manuscripts brought from Nepal. My generalisations are supported by Ashokan inscriptions.

Ashoka undoubtedly asked the people to respect both sramanas (Buddhist monks) and Brahmanas (D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions, I, Calcutta, 1965, no.14). But the Brahmanas considered themselves superior to all the other sections in society and hence resented their placing in the sramanas category. Ashoka prohibited the killing of birds and animals and derided superfluous rituals performed by women ( Ibid. No.6).

All this was the result of the anti-sacrifice attitude of Buddhism which Ashoka had adopted. Such a policy naturally caused losses to the Brahmanas who lived on the gifts made to them in various rites and sacrifices.

More importantly, Ashoka introduced the policy of equality in civil law (vyavahara-samata) and also in criminal law (danda-samata) for all sections of society. The rajukas were asked to implement this policy (Ibid., No.27). This adversely affected the legal position and privileges of the Brahmanas which are sanctioned by the Dharmashastras (for lesser punishments for Brahmanas in criminal laws see P.V. Kane, History of Dharmashastra, II, Pt. 2, pp.141, 152; for the privileged status of the Brahmanas see Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, Delhi 2001, pp.161, 243-44).

Since the Ashokan policy hit the existing interests and privileges of the Brahmanas, they became hostile to the Maurya empire. The last Maurya ruler, Brihadratha, was killed by his Brahmana minister Pushyamitra Shunga.``

dost-mittar,

I think we need to analyse the IAS/IFS numbers a bit more. If I am not mistaken, majority of muslims are in the BIMARU states (Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, UP) where literacy rates and development of the entire population (not just muslims) is not too great anyway.

I think it would also be instructive to see the region and caste-wise break-up of the IAS/IFS officers.

dost-mittar,

I am from an IIM and remember being shocked that the number of muslims was less than 1% in my batch. OTOH, the number of Sikhs was far more than their %age of population ;-)

Then again, the CAT entrance tests are supposed to be among the toughest in the world.

dost-mittar,

I am from an IIM and remember being shocked that the number of muslims was less than 1% in my batch. OTOH, the number of Sikhs was far more than their %age of population ;-)

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

All passengers from flights originating from Pakistan and all passengers holding Pakistani passports would be subject to extra security.After the shoe-bomber incident, the security of passengers, particularly from high-risk countries like Pakistan, has been tightened.

Pakistani official entourage coming with President Musharraf also had to pass through the extra security grill at New York`s JF Kennedy airport. Pakistani Commerce Minister Razzaq Dawood was asked to remove his shoes so that security officials could be sure he was not carrying any bomb in his heels.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service is also looking for illegal Pakistanis staying in US. All illegal Pakistanis maybe deported if found guilty.

Sameerjb,

Well put, though I hope you clarify that the quote you put up is what you think Jinnah would have said and not what he said.

On a side note: For plain historical curiousity, does anyone have an estimate of exactly how many people died at Partition because to the best of my knowledge through the reading of `Freedom at Midnight` the estimate was 565 000, but incident reports especially even when you include the major ones pre-August 1947 like Rawalpindi Killings of Hindus and Sikhs, and Amritsar killings, and Calcutta killings... don`t seem to add up.

PREM #215

how do those who refuse to drink the cup of exclusivist bigotry from their religious books energize themselves? Specifically, for us Indians, as the legacy of Gandhi/Nehru recedes in time, how do we maintain the force of religious universalism, as against religous exclusivism, alive and strong?

True, the force resides embedded deep in Indian psyche. But can we take things for granted when Hindutva vadis and Islamists (and all other religious advocates) make blantatly religious appeals, pulling people - young and old - in opposite camps?

Anybody got any practical ideas?``



Prem,EK..

Were you gone to India?

I watched a debate (not really) between BJP ,Congress & Samajwadi from La Mateniers College lucknow on Star T.V. few days back.I think the audience were far smarter than the leaders out of which the ? Singh Samajwadi was the most inarticulate ,Though the BJP guy was most fluent articulate he was bigot like his party ,The congress ..Tiwari was too slik to be trusted

All in all India in my opinion has a signifuicant number of people who UNDERSTAND ,the dynamics of manipulation both by right wing fanatcs like bjp but also dalit caste passion playing by yadav etc. as in Bihar.

So what is the constituency of ppl. who dont believe in schism,its the professional ,who run the country hospitals ,institutions & dont delve in party politics directly .

Ansaari--217

I wish you brilliant success in your upcoming exams.

As you can see that after thinking hard I did ``err`` on the right side ;). (trying to be funny here).

I checked your poem again(about people & poetry). That also has a similar refrain.Please develop it.It`ll turn out real good, because of the intensity you feel about the subject. I fact, one day it might be born & surprise you. That is how it works, isn`t so ?

About the profoundness of simplicity;have you watched the movie, ``Being There`` ?

Re: Romair

``...Its a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. Take the feudals or the Generals...``

Would it be fair to suggest that a continuation of British rule and greater self-rule under their watchful eyes would have been a better alternative?

BTW, here is a good summary of the history of the Iranian revolution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1814000/1814141.stm

Romair 222

The choice has in essence been already made - barring the election of radical Liberals (leftists) in the US or Europe - it is the policy of the West to encourage a hybrid state to evolve in third world countries. And the primary reason most populations of the third world will have to accept this, is the failure of their politicians to agree to the rules of the game. Business and the armed forces (more and more the armed forces are becoming agents of the middle class, of the scientification of society) will no longer tolerate the politicians patronage state.

As Indian interlocutors keep telling us about their inability to comprehend our obession with ``corruption`` - afterall corruption exist in India as well, they remind us, but the armed forces do not sieze control of the state - On the other hand the politicians do not engage in corruption that makes $$ billionaires of them either, the Indians need to be reminded - the Indians need to be made aware as to who are the people who hold the majority of the domestic public debt in Pakistan? Does one imagine they do not want an explanation of they will be repaid? or are we to believe they will not resort to coersion if they sense betrayal?

How does one explain to the ordinary Pakistani, how is it that the figures (poverty) you quoted apply in Pakistan, whereas elsewhere the exact opposite was true - how does one explain the state of affairs where young doctors write on Chowk to explain why they are choosing to leave.

Explain to the ordinary pakistani that Singapore has a GDP greater than Pakistan`s - how does that make any sense? Does the ordinary Pakistani eat unearned bread? Does he or she desire less in life for their children?.

To illustrate my point about hybrids, Mr. Tony Blair has been visiting west African nations - his message to the militaries in these countries has been that we (the West) will support you in your effort to maintain stability in your countries. In the US, the call for ``Democracy`` in Pakistani is notable, primarily by its` silence.

On a slightly different note, I invite your attention to the Jan. issue of ``Defense Journal`` and the interviews with Mr. Musharraf. It seems clear that the establishment means to deal harsly with any politicians unwilling to play by the rules. While the Pirs and Gujratis battle it out, Ms. Bhutto/Mrs. Zardari and her alliance with the religious parties will come to naught. the establishment wants a Majlis that can legislate the social and economic restructuring agenda it has directed. While ordinaces are sufficing for now, the more dramatic changes require constitutional and parliamentary remedy - and these they will have.

Prem 215

I only feel sorrow to questions such as you posed - even Atlas will recognize Sissyphus in your question.

It is a mistake to lump peoples and ideologies that may seem similar, together. Hinduism is not a universal religion - it is for the most part confined to India, whereas the Abrahamic religions are truly universal in both their message and distribution. yet Hinduism and Islam are ideal tests for one another.

Hindus should be defended by other Hindus and non-Hindus, if they suffer persecution. And Muslims will be.

It is with pain and confusion, that I see the endless unease you express, to see Muslims and Hindus as different ideas, different ways of looking at or organizing life - Why?

As you live and work in the States, most people you run across are neither Hindus nor Muslims, do you feel a similar need to convert them into a single or one?

Hindus, and any Hindu that denys this, is a liar, as they grow more conscious of their histories feel an injury done to them by Muslims - Muslims also claim an injury done to them by Hindus, but also I think the Muslim case is a more complicated, multifacteted case (nameless and cutandpaste). Please do not give yourself injury, time has to take its course and animating personal consciousness, is a difficult humility teaching course.

I am sure all you terrorists will enjoy this (sic! ultee aa gayee)....
It is in this weeks Time magazine. Can the Islamic scholars please explain...In the war against indidels .....is this what Mal-e-ganimat is ? explanations with verses and stuff only need be submitted

Monday, Feb. 18, 2002
Widow Shah Jan sits in an icy room with mud walls in a snowfield on the edge of Kabul. She wipes her tears with the edge of her grimy sweater as she recalls the day in August 1999 when the Taliban set fire to her home in the vineyards of the Shomali Plain and kidnapped her best friend, Nafiza. ``The Taliban burst in with their guns and torches,`` says Shah Jan. ``None of us even had time to put on our veils.``

With the women stripped of their burkas, it was a simple task for the Taliban invaders to cull the young beauties. Nafiza was one of them. Green-eyed, with raven-black hair that grazed her waist, Nafiza had rushed to help Shah Jan get her three kids out of the burning house. A Taliban fighter spotted the woman with the emerald eyes. She was his prize. With the butt of his AK-47 rifle, he slammed Nafiza into the dust and dragged her, crying and pleading, to the highway. There, Arabs and Pakistanis of al-Qaeda joined the Taliban to sort out the young women from the other villagers. One girl preferred suicide to slavery; she threw herself down a well. Nafiza and women from surrounding villages, numbering in the hundreds, were herded into trucks and buses. They were never seen again.


Only now, two months after the Taliban`s fall, are the dirtiest secrets of their persecution of Afghan women coming to light. The Taliban often argued that the brutal restrictions they placed on women were actually a way of revering and protecting the opposite sex. The behavior of the Taliban during the six years they expanded their rule in Afghanistan made a mockery of that claim. The United Nations and relief agencies picked up warning signals of these abuses from women refugees fleeing the conquering Taliban. Now it is clear from the testimony of witnesses and officials of the new government that the ruling clerics systematically abducted women from the Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other ethnic minorities they defeated. Stolen women were a reward for victorious battle. And in the cities of Kabul, Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad and Khost, women victims tell of being forced to wed Taliban soldiers and Pakistani and Arab fighters of Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda network, who later abandoned them. These marriages were tantamount to legalized rape. ``They sold these girls,`` says Ahmad Jan, the Kabul police chief. ``The girls were dishonored and then discarded.``

In the mud-fortress villages above the Shomali vineyards, more than 600 women vanished in the 1999 Taliban offensive. Yet these abductions are considered such a great dishonor that the victims` families almost never mention them. Says Qadria Yasdon Parast, leader of Freedom Messengers, a Kabul women`s rights group: ``If you ask about the missing, they`ll say, `Our daughter`s dead,` or that she`s off married in Pakistan.`` Many of the women probably did end up in Pakistan--but were sold to brothels or kept as virtual slaves inside homes, say officials from relief agencies. None have come back. Even if they could escape, these women would probably calculate that their families would no longer welcome them.

The trail of the missing Shomali women leads to Jalalabad, not far from the Pakistan border. There, according to eyewitnesses, the women were penned up inside Sar Shahi camp in the desert. The more desirable among them were selected and taken away. Some were trucked to Peshawar with the apparent complicity of Pakistani border guards. Others were taken to Khost, where bin Laden had several training camps. The al-Qaeda Arabs had a hard time finding voluntary brides among the Afghan women, but they did have money. One Arab in Khost spent $10,000 on a teenage Afghan beauty, says Ahmad Jan, but abandoned her a week later, when the U.S. air strikes began.

Orders to abduct women came from the Taliban leaders, say the Kabul police, but not all commanders obeyed. In the Shomali Plain, Taliban commander Nuruludah says, he saw women being forced onto trucks by Pakistani members of al-Qaeda, so he gathered 10 men, ambushed the trucks and released the women. In Jalalabad too, a few local Taliban eventually stormed the camp and freed the women who remained there. These were the heroic exceptions. For others, apparently, the profound degradation of women seemed perfectly tolerable.

Stuka #212: ``My question is (and no I don`t have an answer) that if the Army keeps taking power, then how are other institutions ever going to emerge?``

You have hit the Catch-22 of Pakistan`s politics, i.e. for strong political institutions to emerge, the Army has to stay out of politics. However, whenever the Army is out of politics, politics is dominated by the feudals. The feudals themselves ensure that no strong political institutions are allowed to emerge. This can be seen from the fact that PML and PPP (the two dominant parties in Pakistan) never hold internal elections, and rarely if ever, hold local bodies elections. NS and BB are the lifetime presidents of these parties. They approved a Constitutional amendment, under which, anyone who votes against their leader in the NA, can lose his/her seat.

Its a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. Take the feudals or the Generals.

That is why people actually celebrate every coup. And then hate the General who carried out the coup, when he doesn`t leave. And more importantly, the opposition parties actually call for a coup, when they are out of power.

The essence of democracy is that election after election will eventually get rid of bad rulers. This is based on the premise that people have the option to vote freely, and that there are fair elections. However 2/3rd of Pakistan is led by feudals. And in their lands, the people do not have the option to vote freely. They have to vote for the plantation owner, lest they lose their livelihood. That is why despite living in pathetic conditions, the peasants keep electing the same feudals again and again. The only areas where elections have led to some filtering are the cities. But urbanites only elect around 35% of the politicians. And even those 35% of the seats and votes are divided amongst many different parties, including feudal parties (MQM, PPP, PML, ANP, Tehrik Isaaf, Jamaat Islami etc.)

This is a vicious circle, and will not be broken until the backs of the feudals are broken. Once that happens, democracy will emerge automatically. However, the feudals will themselves never break their own backs. They will obviously never pass laws that will limit their own power.

Unfortunately, none of Pakistan`s military leaders solved Pakistan`s political problems. Had they done so, the Martial Laws would have been worth it. Ayub Khan led an industrial revolution in Pakistan, taking it from being a backwards country in South Asia, to the wealthiest in South Asia. Apart from that the military dictators did more harm than good. In essence, it was the worst of both worlds. There was no politics, and there was no reform. If a country is going to be destroyed politically, it might as well be done by elected feudal dictators than by unelected military dictators.

The 90s could have been a turning point. Pakistan had more elections in the 90s than 95% of the world. Yet each election led to an even more corrupt govt. The corruption of the 90s was unprecendented even for a corrupt society like Pakistan`s. Through a lot of hard work and good luck, Pakistan despite all its other problems, in 1990 was at its lowest level of poverty in its history at 18% (Shahid Javed Burki, Dawn). By the last days of NS around 2000, it was at its historically highest level of poverty of 40%, and getting poorer. Imagine where it would have been had BB and NS continued on. Since their parties had dominated the previous elections, due to the feudal nature of Pakistani politics, they would have dominated all future elections also.

So perhaps the solution is that an honest, enlightened and patriotic and dictatorially powerful feudal comes into power and takes out his own powerbase, i.e. introduces land reforms, and restructures Pakistani politics, handing the power over to non-feudals. Fat chance of this happening (Bhuttos are the most sophisticated versions of feudals available, and look what they have done). The second solution is for one party to dominate all urban centers of Pakistan, and take on the feudals. This will not happen since the urban vote is divided amongst too many different partes, two of whom (PPP and PML) are feudal. NS is after all an urbanite, but his powerbase is completely feudal.

The final solution is that a General comes into power and does the above. So far that hasn`t happened. The second generation of Generals has actually joined the feudal parties (Gohar Ayub and Ejaz-ul-Haq). Musharraf is the first one who is trying to do so (and hopefully his son will remain in Boston). Pakistan`s whole social, beaurecratic, political, religious, and military structure is being overhauled. More importantly, Musharraf will set an unheard of precedence of leaving the powerful position of CMLA volutarily in October. Hopefully, all of this will happen successfully, in which case this maybe the first Martial Law which was actually worth it.

In regard to Shahbaz Sharif, he was quite efficient. However, he was part and parcel and part owner of Ittefaq Industries, which is considered by many to be the most corrupt business house in Pakistan. His companies were massive tax evaders. Corrupt efficient people should also be prosecuted, alongwith with corrupt inefficient people.

Check out the following site. It is quite funny and has an MQM bias against Ittefaq house (the Sharif`s family business). But it makes interesting reading:

http://www.karachipage.com/nawazsharif/nawaz.html

``Nawaz and Shahbaz pay no tax

ISLAMABAD: The billionaire club of the Pakistani politicians, including the deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, does not pay any tax.

Despite having declared assets of Rs 676.8 million of the Sharif family, both the brothers filed a zero income tax and deficit wealth tax returns, last year. This very fact motivated donors to force the authorities to publish tax records of all the parliamentarians and senior bureaucrats, which is due now shortly.....

According to the tax statements of June 30, 1998, total income tax paid by the 11-member Sharif family was just Rs 0.25 million. The family also paid Rs 0.55 million as wealth tax and 0.13 million as agriculture tax raising the total tax payment of the family to Rs 0.94 million. This amount is just a peanut, keeping in view their business empire that actually runs into many billions.

The tax statements declared majority of the industrial concerns in losses and the income tax was computed largely on the salary paid to the directors of the group or on the dividend paid by Chaudhry Sugar Mills. The total income tax, wealth tax and agriculture tax paid by the family, with a gross worth of Rs 676.8 million, was just Rs 0.94 million or a little above 0.1 per cent of the total declared asset value of the family.

The 11-member family includes Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mrs Shamim Akhtar, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Mrs Nusrat Shahbaz, Hamza Shahbaz, Mian Abbas Sharif and Mrs Sabiha Abbas. Majority of the assets were in the name of elders, minors and wives of the Sharifs.`` (Jang-Group Oct-17 1999)

All 11 (except Hamza, I believe) are sitting comfortably in Saudi Arabia. Good riddance!!!!!

Re: Had Jinnah lived longer

Ali1, Syed Ahmed and Romair: Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. I hope the topic is still worth discussing. Based on the amount of information Syed Ahmed presented, he wins the argument because of his insightful post and everybody else who based their assumptions on Jinnah’s secular mind is also right. Nonetheless, we are still extrapolating his past in predicting future because of its high degree of probability. Predicting what would have been the case on non-linear basis can not be said with higher degree of confidence. It also opens the door to wild guessing. Was I wild guessing when I said that he would have use Islam to win election?

First of all it must be agreed upon that he would have opted for election rather than hanging on to the results of 1946 elections. Secondly, it is even more important the way he would have introduced Islam into politics - if he did - as I suggested. Before getting into discussing the very smart mind of Jinnah and the possible innovative ways, he could have introduced Islam (as Ali1 quoted from his speeches) into politics without diluting his secular credentials, let me respond to couple of possibilities, Syed Ahmed presented. The suggestion of him being assassinated could not be said with any reasonable degree of certainty. It comes under wild guessing arena because it defies the logic of extrapolation with respect to time as well as contrary to any discussion on the topic, “Had Jinnah lived longer”. Secondly, about him being sidelined would have only been possible through Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy. No other leader was capable and popular enough to challenge him. The parochial issues in Punjab (only 25 percent of then Pakistan) were in the hand of inept leadership following the death of Sardar Sikander Hayat Khan in early forties and in NWFP, the Pashtun were not in great majority as it is the case today, in comparison to Hindo speaking belt who was solidly behind Jinnah. Even the combined victories of Ghaffar Khan and old unionists in Punjab, grabbing half the seats could not have unseat Jinnah unless he lad lost in East Pakistan. Bengal and Suharwardy are the key in any discussion of Jinnah losing or being sidelined. Now back to Islam.

It is almost given for the last 20 or so years that any talk of introducing Islam means Islamization. This, Jinnah would have never done. In a 97 percent Muslim country of the third world, going against Islam wins nothing. Jinnah’s secularism in Pakistan would have been “secularism with local flavor”. Introducing Islam in politics does not mean exclusively to make and amend laws according to Sharia or Quran. Running the nation according to Quran, Sunnah and Shariah was and still is the stand of religious parties. A promise to run the country according to Islam and a promise not to make any laws that are contradictory to Islam appear to be same suggestion due to affirmation in the first case and double negative in the second; but they are quite different in practice. Pakistan can not make laws that are contradictory to Islam is the stand dost-mittar has taken, somewhere on chowk, due to the make up of Pakistan as overwhelmingly Muslim country. A promise and follow up to protect the interests of Muslims in Pakistan by Islamization of Pakistan is dumb and stupid half whereas a promise and follow up to protect the interests of Muslims of Pakistan by not making any law contradictory to the basic tenets of Islam is the smart and intelligent half of the whole. Pakistan, in essence ran according to the second half until ZAB switched to fist half by relegating non-Muslim Status to some Pakistanis, banning alcohol, horse racing and changing to Friday as official holiday. Zia followed with his Huddod, Sharia,…………..Rest is history. There is no need to ban alcohol, decide about the definition of a Muslim, Hudood or Sharia according to “no laws contradictory to Islam” because state is indifferent to such issues. A contradiction to Islam would be to allow duty-free alcohol import or give tax break to alcohol consumers. When there is no law on either side, it is not a contradiction to Islam. If there is no law about polygamy and second marriage for men is made difficult through legal maneuvering, it is not against Islam. I can go on and on to distinguish between Islamization and not making any law contradictory to Islam. One can be perfectly secular with the promise of not making any law contradictory to Islam and present it as a protection, reason and meaning of the creation of Pakistan.

Jinnah would have followed the later path in the elections and in practice. I can even image him speaking in any political rally, passionately using Islam without a word about Sharia, Islamization, Islamic banking, etc etc.

“Pakistan was created to protect the interests of the Muslims of sub-continent, presently in the geographical boundaries of Pakistan. Any law contradictory to Islam will only be enacted over my dead body. ……….”.

Why introduce Islamiat as compulsory subject in schools when not introducing is not contradictory to Islam. Were we not Muslim before Islamiat was made compulsory? What have we gained from it?

Jinnah was a practical man and wouldn’t have wasted time and money in enacting laws that make no difference than not enacting them.

This is what secularism with local flavor means. Lot more rhetoric about protecting Islam by not supporting any law, which is contradictory to the basic tenets of Islam and, in practice, lot more effort in remaining indifferent to Islamic injunctions that open the door to Islamization.

#198 nasah

Hasanji, either Musharraf is an idiot who thinks the world will buy into his crazy idea that Sheik Omar is an indian agent (who was released when a set of rogue RAW agents hijacked the IA plane), or is totally clueless about what`s going on behind his back. What is he basing his suspicion on? That calls were made to india. Of course, what with the extensive jihadi network it is perfectly normal that calls were made to india.

If Mushy is indeed clueless, he won`t last more than a few months and india should start thinking about how to deal with whoever shows him the door (to the prison)..

My lost country

Muzamil Jaleel grew up in the meadows and mountains of Kashmir. Then he saw friends and family die in its pursuit of independence. His country has become a battlefield - and he knows it can never be the same.

Online debate: what hope is there for Kashmir?.

Observer Worldview

Sunday February 10, 2002

The Observer

Not long ago, somebody asked me what kind of stories I wrote. Obituaries came to mind. As a reporter in Kashmir I have been literally writing obituaries for the past 10 years; only the characters and places change, the stories are always the same, full of misery and tears.

And when in October last year I got a chance to leave Kashmir, I hoped for a change. Every human being has a threshold for pain and agony. I felt mine had been reached. I wanted to escape. But within days, Kashmir was in the headlines and although I was thousands of miles away, I found myself in the middle of it all again.

I was born in Kashmir. I grew up in its apple orchards and lush green meadows, dreamed on the banks of its freshwater streams. I went to school there, sitting on straw mats and memorising tables by heart. After school my friends and I would rush half-way home, tear off our uniforms and dive into the cold water. Then we would quickly dry our hair, so our parents would not find out what we had done. Sometimes, when we felt especially daring, we would skip an entire day of school to play cricket.

My village lies in the foothills of the Himalayas. During summer breaks, we would trek to the meadows high in the mountains carrying salt slates for the family cattle, sit around a campfire and play the flute for hours. The chilling winter would turn the boys and girls of our small village into one huge family - huddled together in a big room, we would listen to stories till late into the night. Sipping hot cups of the traditional salt tea, the village elder who had inherited the art of storytelling would transport us to the era of his tales. He had never been to school but he remembered hundreds of beautiful stories by heart. Kashmir was like a big party, full of love and life. Today death and fear dominate everything.

I was in Kashmir too when the first bomb exploded in 1988. People first thought it was the outcome of a small political feud, although everybody knew the pot was boiling after years of political discontent. Then that September a young man, Ajaz Dar, died in a violent encounter with the police. Disgruntled by the farce of decades of ostensible democracy under Indian rule, a group of Kashmiri young men had decided to fight. They had dreamt of an independent Kashmir free from both India and Pakistan. Although this young man was not the first Kashmiri to die fighting for this cause, his death was the beginning of an era of tragedy.

Separatist sentiment had been dominant among Kashmiris since 1947, when Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan during partition, and the two countries fought over it. But it was not until 40 years later that most of the youngsters opted for guns against Indian rule, in reaction to the government-sponsored rigging of the assembly polls, aimed at crushing dissent.

It is not a surprise that India`s most wanted Kashmiri militant leader, Syed Salahudin, contested that assembly election from Srinagar, nor that, unofficially, he was winning by a good margin. When the elections were rigged, he lost not only the election but faith in the process as well. His polling agents and supporters were arrested and tortured; most of them later became militants.

Neighbouring Pakistan, which occupies a third of Kashmir, also smelled the changing mood in Kashmir and offered a helping hand by providing arms training and AK-47 rifles. Violence was introduced amid growing dissent against India and hundreds of young people joined the armed movement. Kashmir was changing.

I had just completed secondary school then and was enrolled in a college - a perfect potential recruit: the entire militant movement belonged to my generation. The movement was the only topic of discussion on the street, in the classroom and at home. Soon people started coming out onto the streets, thousands would march to the famous Sufi shrines or to the United Nations office, shouting slogans in favour of ` Azadi !` (freedom). These mass protests became an everyday affair, frustrating the authorities, who began to use force to counter them. Dozens of protesters were killed by police fire.

Many of my close friends and classmates began to join. One day, half of our class was missing. They never returned to school again, and nobody even looked for them, because it was understood.

Although the reasons for joining the militant movement varied from person to person, the majority of Kashmiris never felt that they belonged to India. What had been a relatively dormant separatist sentiment was finally exploding into a fully-fledged separatist uprising.

I too wanted to join, though I didn`t know exactly why or what it would lead to. Most of us were teenagers and had not seriously thought about the consequences. Perhaps the rebel image was subconsciously attracting us all.

I also prepared for the dangerous journey from our village in north Kashmir to Pakistan-controlled Kashmir where all the training camps were. One didn`t just have to avoid being sighted by the Indian soldiers who guarded the border round the clock, but also defeat the fierce cold and the difficulties of hiking over the snow-clad Himalayan peaks that stood in the way. I acquired the standard militant`s gear: I bought the Wellington boots, prepared a polythene jacket and trousers to wear over my warm clothes, and found some woollen cloth to wrap around my calves as protection from frostbite.

Fortunately, I failed. Three times a group of us returned from the border. Each time something happened that forced our guide to take us back. The third time, 23 of us had started our journey on foot from Malangam, not far away from my village, only to be abandoned in a dense jungle. It was night, and the group had scattered after hearing gunshots nearby, sensing the presence of Indian army men. In the morning, when we gathered again, our guide was missing. Most of the others decided to continue on their own, but a few of us turned back. We had nothing to eat but leaves for three days. We followed the flight of crows, hoping to reach a human settlement. I was lucky. I reached home and survived.

As the days and months passed, and as the routes the militants took to cross the border became known to Indian security forces, the bodies began to arrive. Lines of young men would disappear on a ridge as they tried to cross over or return home. The stadiums where we had played cricket and football, the beautiful green parks where we had gone on school excursions as children, were turned into martyrs` graveyards. One after another, those who had played in those places were buried there, with huge marble epitaphs detailing their sacrifice. Many had never fired a single bullet from their Kalashnikovs.

One day, I counted my friends and classmates in the martyrs` graveyards near our village. There were 21 of them. I could feel the smiling face of Mushtaq, whom I had known since our schooldays. He would have been 31 this January, but the ninth anniversary of his death is just two months away. He was killed in April 1993. His mother could not bear the pain and lost her mental balance. For all these years, she has been wandering around the villages carrying the shirt he wore on the day of his death.

Another friend, Javaid, was his parents` only son. Extremely handsome, he was obsessed with seeing change in Kashmir. The day he died, he was wearing my clothes. He had come to our house in the morning and changed there. He was 23, and even six hours after his death, when they took him for burial, blood still oozed out of his bullet wounds. I will never forget the moment when I lifted the coffin lid away from his face: there was that usual grin. For a moment, he seemed alive to me.

Javaid`s sister was to have been married 15 days later but the shock of his death gave her a heart attack. She died a few days before what would have been her wedding day.

Today, there are more than 500 martyrs` graveyards dotting Kashmir, and every epitaph standing on a grave tells a story - a tragic story of my generation. Engraving epitaphs has become a lucrative business.

As the death toll of Kashmiris mounted, the world saw the violent movement only as the outcome of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan which had its roots in the 1947 partition. India always called the rebellion a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist movement, while Pakistan projected it as a jihad - a Kashmiri struggle to join Pakistan just because they shared a common faith.

For India, the future of Kashmir is non-negotiable - it is an `integral part` of the country, the only Muslim majority state in the union and thus a cornerstone of its democracy and secular credentials. For Pakistan, Kashmir is also important because the majority of its population is Muslim - it is Pakistan`s `jugular vein`, and an unfinished task from the subcontinent`s partition in which Pakistan was born as a home for Indian Muslims.

With these claims on Kashmir, both countries have choked the voice of Kashmiris. The Indian government has reacted with an iron fist, deployed large numbers of security men and turned Kashmir into one massive jail.

Pakistan`s hands are not clean either. When hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris came out in support of the separatist movement in 1990, Pakistan`s lust for Kashmir`s land was exposed. It hijacked the separatist movement, painted it with religious fundamentalism and introduced pro-Pakistan, and later jihadi groups to ensure it enjoyed absolute control.

Within years, Kashmir turned into yet another battlefield in the pan-Islamic jihad and its warriors as well as its leaders were now made up of non-Kashmiris whose agendas transcend the demand for self-determination. In the process, the genuine political struggle for the unification of Kashmir and the demand of the people that they should be allowed to decide their own future was forgotten.

Whatever attention Kashmir was given was because it was a flashpoint between two nuclear neighbours and not because Kashmiris were suffering. India and Pakistan seem to share one common policy on Kashmir - to force Kashmiris to toe their respective lines. In fact, it seems that both countries want to fight to the last Kashmiri.

The Indian government held state elections in 1996 apparently aimed at ensuring a representative government in Kashmir. But actually it was nothing more than a farce. The security forces herded people to polling stations and even conducted `nail parades` to check - by the indelible ink pasted on the nail of the forefinger - that people had voted.

The man who represents Kashmir - not only in New Delhi, but across the world as India`s junior Foreign Minister - is Omar Abdullah, the son of Kashmir`s Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah. He received just 5 per cent of votes in his constituency - after coercion by the police and the security forces - and he won the elections. Who he does actually represent, nobody knows.

I have been a witness to all this. I have seen Kashmir change. I still remember my grandmother worrying whenever the sky turned red. `Murder has been committed somewhere,` she would say. Now that suspicion can no longer be reserved for red skies: the daily death toll is 20.

Kashmir used to be known as a crime-free state. One of my neighbours was a senior police officer in the mid-Eighties; he once told me that the average yearly murder rate in Kashmir was three or four. Today, if three people perish in a day, itis considered peaceful.

I have been fortunate enough to be safe, but my family and relatives have not been that lucky. My younger brother Mudabir was picked up in 1994 on suspicion of militancy, and it took us a month just to trace his whereabouts. We divided up the entire Kashmir valley among our family members. Every morning, each one of us would do the rounds of the security force camps to look for him.

My mother had never been to a police station in her entire life, but by the time she finally located my brother, she knew almost every military camp around Srinagar.

And by the time the security forces were convinced of his innocence and released him, he had already been tortured so much that he spent the next two months in bed.

It is now seven years since his release, but he still has nightmares and the mere sight of a soldier sends shivers down his spine. A late-night knock at the door still gives him goose pimples, and sends his heart rate soaring. But this is not exceptional any more in Kashmir.

A cousin`s husband bled to death after he was caught in the crossfire while coming out of mosque one evening. He could have been saved had he reached the hospital in time. But the security forces did not allow the family to come out of their house and take him to the hospital, and there was no other way to seek medical help. He bled to death crying for help, and his wife, mother and younger brother could do nothing but watch their own helplessness. A boy was born in the family four months after his death.

By 1992, there were hardly any young men left in the few villages in north Kashmir around my home. Many had joined the militant movement. Some had died, while others had gone underground; some had surrendered and become counter-insurgents and were part of the pro-government militias. Many had migrated to the urban area of Srinagar city, which was then deemed comparatively safe.

The complexion of the separatist movement was changing fast, and it no longer represented the genuine political aspirations of the people. The pro-Pakistan jihadi groups who dominated the movement tried to impose their radical religious, social and cultural agendas, ignoring the fact that their extremism was alien to the very ethos of Kashmir.

Kashmir has a history of composite culture and religious tolerance. In fact, Islam did not arrive in Kashmir through the clatter of the sword. It was introduced by mystics and Sufis who conquered the hearts of the people. In the centuries that followed, Kashmir turned into a melting pot of ideas and a meeting ground for Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam; there was no place for religious extremism.

Now, as fanaticism started to dominate, using the power of the gun, the militant movement was rendered a mere tool in Pakistan`s plan to bleed its arch-rival India with a thousand cuts.

I decided to leave my village to move to Srinagar and join Kashmir University. I was so desperate to leave that I applied to almost all the departments. It was mere chance that I got into journalism. And when I started writing about the war later that year, I felt that I had been part of this tragic story from the beginning. I knew the militants and the mukhbirs (the police informers); those who surrendered and those who did not; those who faced death because they had a dream and those who were sacrificed by mere chance, neither knowing nor understanding the issues at stake; those who believed they were fighting a holy war and those who joined for unholy reasons. But, as it turned out, there was more to the story.

My first assignment as a reporter was to visit a city police station and collect information regarding some corpses lying there. I accompanied a few local photographers, who began taking pictures as I stared at the six bullet-riddled bodies. They were in terrible condition: blood-soaked clothes, entrails exposed, faces unrecognisable.

That evening, I was haunted by the picture of bodies lying in a pool of blood - even a drink of water reminded me of blood. I couldn`t sleep for days; corpses haunted my dreams.

A few months later I arrived at the site of a massacre to find wailing women and unshaven men sitting in huddles. Bodies lay scattered, like rag dolls discarded by careless children. I felt a lump growing in my throat, my legs felt heavy. I felt incredibly tired and wanted to throw down my notebook and sit silently with the mourners. The noise of the camera shutters invaded my private thoughts, forcing me to think about the story I had to write.

Over the years, writing obituaries became a routine. When violence rules the day, there is nothing but tears to jerk out of the reader`s soul. If I avoided writing about the gory details of death, I would end up writing about orphans or widows. In the process, my reactions to such incidents also began to change. I could no longer relate to these tragedies. Now killings meant stories and bylines, and there was satisfaction to be found in penning them, even if I knew the victims personally.

The continuous interaction with death and destruction was providing a necessary thrill, and the killing fields of Kashmir were becoming nothing but news pastures for me. Every evening, I would wait for the police bulletin that provides the statistics of the daily deaths. Much as a shopkeeper counts his cash before calling it a day, I would count the dead before leaving the office. I once used a calculator to count the 105 men and women dead across the 12 districts in 24 hours. My newspaper wanted a breakdown and I found myself lost in numbers.

I belong to Kashmir`s cursed generation - the youth of the Nineties. I have lived all these troubled years in Kashmir and am still well and alive. But in the process my tears have dried up. I have lost normal human feelings to the adventures of reporting day-to-day violence in my country. I am immune to the death of my own people; I have developed an inability to mourn.

And it seems that the outside world too is unable to feel the pain of Kashmir. After more than 50,000 deaths, there still appears to be no headway towards peace. The international community needs to resolve issues between India and Pakistan. It is not only important in order to avoid a nuclear conflict: it is imperative to end the suffering of the Kashmiri people.

muzamiljaleel@yahoo.com

Prose poem by Agha Shahid Ali

Dear Shahid, I am writing to you from your far-off country. Far even from us who live here. Where you no longer are. Everyone carries his address in his pocket so that at least his body will reach home.

Rumours break on their way to us in the city. But word still reaches us from border towns: Men are forced to stand barefoot in snow waters all night. The women are alone inside. Soldiers smash radios and televisions. With bare hands they tear our houses to pieces.

You must have heard Rizwan was killed. Rizwan: Guardian of the Gates of Paradise. Only eighteen years old. Yesterday at Hideout Café (everyone there asks about you), a doctor - who had just treated a sixteen-year-old boy released from an interrogation centre - said: I want to ask the fortune-tellers: Did anything in his line of Fate reveal that the webs of his hands would be cut with a knife?

This letter, insh`Allah, will reach you for my brother goes south tomorrow where he shall post it. Here one can`t even manage postage stamps. Today I went to the post office. Across the river. Bags and bags - hundreds of canvas bags - all undelivered mail. By chance I looked down and there on the floor I saw this letter addressed to you. So I am enclosing it. I hope it`s from someone you are longing for news of.

Things here are as usual though we always talk about you. Will you come home soon? Waiting for you is like waiting for spring. We are waiting for the almond blossoms. And, if God wills, O! those days of peace when we all were in love and the rain was in our hands wherever we went.

A prose poem taken from The Country Without a Post Office by Agha Shahid Ali (WW Norton, £8.50). Ali was an award-winning Kashmiri poet praised by, amongst others, John Ashbery and Edward Said. He died last December.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,647840,00.html

Here is another pice from Dawn (mag). It is an excerpt of Prof Aziz`s book. It is interesting and makes similar points to the previous peice I posted.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/books1.htm

EXCERPTS: Crisis of identity

By Prof K.K. Aziz

The ordinary citizens ask agonizing questions. Prof K.K. Aziz explains the reasons behind the contradictions in Pakistani society.

A section of the Pakistani intelligentsia began to talk about a thing it called ``the crisis of identity`` in the late 1950s, that is within a decade of attaining freedom. Seminars on it were held under official auspices at which historians, ulema, politicians and generals expounded their views on the phenomenon. The proceedings were then issued as booklets. Since then there has been a spate of references to the malady in the hundreds of articles carried by the Urdu and English press. However, no one has addressed the issue seriously....

Those who raise the topic in their writings or in private conversations always consider it a problem which appeared with or after the creation of Pakistan. That is a grave mistake. The discussion begins on the wrong note, because they disregard history and literature as the determinants of the social framework, and concentrate on the existing political situation. The debate is aborted by the falsity and irrelevance of the first premiss.

The problem of self-identity began when Muslim imperial rule ended. Till 1857 the Indian Muslim who was capable of thinking seriously looked upon himself as a ``ruler``, a member of the elite, a part (even a cog is a part) of the imperial machine. This feeling was indefinable, vaguely comprehended, imperfectly conceived, and not commonly expressed in writing or speech. But it formed a major dimension of his psyche. It also had great advantages. It brought self-confidence. It offered a sense of superiority. It gave stability to the society and a poise to the individual. It sustained an interest in Muslim, particularly Persian, tradition and literature. It acted as a shield against the fear of the Hindus. It was a source of self-satisfaction. It served as a balancing force in the welter of the complexities, character, nature, variety and tendencies of human relationships. It defined Islam in uncontroversial terms and thus retained it as the central pillar of the empire and the unifying element of the society.

The failure of the Mutiny destroyed for all times to come this comfortable, comforting, cosy, pleasurable, safe, exhilarant world (though, strictly speaking, the work of destruction had begun with Aurungzeb`s death a century and a half earlier; but illusions do not die a quick death). A new cycle of history began. Every old value, public and private, became either a problem or a burden. Standards of behaviour altered. The language of ``national`` discourse changed, literally and philosophically: Urdu and English replacing Persian, and politics supplanting imperial despotism. The unfamiliar British became the arbiters of our fate. The grandeur of Muslim sovereignty, which the Muslim had taken to be an eternal factor of his existence, was swept away and thrown into the dustbin of historical refuse (the inevitable end of empires throughout the length of time). The British had arrived. The Hindus had arisen. The Muslims had been dispossessed. The world had changed.

With this loss of the illusion of permanence came the search for new bearings. The crisis of identity was born. The Muslim lost his self-respect. That was a tragedy, but not a disaster. He did not know how to go about regaining it. That was the disaster. He was surrounded by a horde of advisers and teachers and leaders, each of them pointing to a different direction, each prescribing his own patent medicine which could cure all ailments (the Muslim amritdhara), each claiming to be the standard-bearer of true Islam, each asserting that he was the voice of the time, each presenting himself as the saviour, the good old Khizr leading to the elixir of eternal life. The poor Muslim was confused. He walked through a tunnel, narrow and long and unlit, the end of which he could not see. The Muslim Pakistani still walks the tunnel.

Look at the predicament of the post-1857 Indian Muslim standing amidst the plethora of guide posts and direction-finders, each promising the sure path to salvation. He was asked to learn English and adopt the British ways to enter the modern age. He was told to cooperate with the new rulers so that loyalty to the throne could protect him against the Hindu majority. He was warned that Westernization led to heresy, and a knowledge of the English language to Christianity. He was ordered to fight against the foreign imperial occupation in the interest of an Indian nationalism. He was instructed to follow the medieval Islamic curriculum and the classical religious decisions and precedents. He was directed to study science and European literature to reinterpret the Quran, and to reconcile the past and the present.

He was asked to live in the past, for that was the country of his glory. He was asked to live in the present, for that was the demand of dire necessity. He was asked to live both in the past and the present, for his religion was immutable and valid for all ages. He was told so many things that he learnt nothing. He found himself hanging from a rope stretched over an abyss whose two cliffs were his yesterdays and his todays, and he did not know whether to try to move towards his yesteryears or towards the current times. He could not distinguish between his yesterday and his today. How could he look forward to his tomorrow? His perplexity was complete.

The confusion created by the variety and divergence of the counsels offered was compounded by the diversities of his surroundings. He spoke many languages (notwithstanding, and refuting, the claim of Urdu as the language of Muslim India), belonged to many races, and lived in many provinces. He was the descendant of an Arab, Afghan, Central Asia, Iranian or some other Muslim migrant. He was the progeny of a local convert to Islam. He was a foreigner from distant lands. He was a native of long standing. He was a venerable member of the ashraf, the old aristocracy of a ruling and conquering race. He was a despicable timeserver, a low caste Hindu who had embraced Islam out of fear or lack of principle. He was so many things at the same time that he did not know what he was.

The wind which fanned the flame of these uncertainties and bafflements was ignorance. The Muslim had lost his way because he did not know his history, and because he did not know what his literature was. Without these two foundations he could not stand as an entity, a distinctive group, a people, or a nation. He was like a pile of bricks heaped on the roadside. The mortar to bond them and make a wall was not available. He could not identify himself because he had neither read his history (what he had done in the past) nor studied his traditions (what he had thought and written).

The coming of independence in 1947 made this confusion more confounded by adding a new depth to the mystery - politics. And the road travelled by this politics took the people into ravines and gullies and valleys covered with thick mists of doubt and incertitude. The nation (if that it ever was or now is) which had been innocent on the social level before 1947 was now made into a political simpleton.

The search for identity became even more pressing, more urgent, more desperate. A long line of episodes marking the post-Independence history made the task maddening. The failure of the politicians, long spells of military supremacy (even when there was a civilian government in office), many constitutions, political violence, three wars with India, governmental instability, sectarian bloodshed, and the secession of East Pakistan, raised so many issues that it was difficult to see where the nation and the State were going.

The quest was made more difficult by the ways in which individuals interacted with the society, and the state regimented the society. The mind of the ordinary citizens was crowded with searching and agonizing questions...

* * * * *

General Ayub Khan abolished history from the school system, and got official textbooks prepared for history students at the university level. Between 1960 and 1980 the students read no history at all for the first 12 years of their studies. Instead, they were taught a newly invented subject called ``Social Studies``, which was an uneven and coarse amalgam of bits of civics, geography, religion, economics and history. During the 13th and 14th years (undergraduate period) they read a history book prepared by the government. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s regime did not make any change in this scheme.

General Ziaul Haq promoted the destruction of history with unswerving determination. In the name of a debatable patriotism and a supposititious ideology he made his control over history writing and teaching complete, arbitrary, coercive and totalitarian. He (1) subjected all textbooks of Social Studies to the scrutiny and approval of the Federal Ministry of Education, i.e., a group of civil servants, (2) created a new subject of ``Pakistan Studies``; made it compulsory for all undergraduates in arts, sciences, medicine and engineering, and all graduates in law; and got a special textbook prepared for it by several committees and panels of experts working in close collaboration (the result was not even bad history), and (3) dictated that all these books must meet the requirements of an ideology (he did not call it Islam), of which he was the sole definer, judge and perpetrator.

Official history, whether prepared by the German Nazis or the Italian Fascists or the Soviet Communists, or Zia`s professors, is by definition a distortion of facts and a vehicle of brainwashing. Political propaganda abuses the mind of one generation. State-dictated history perverts many generations on all levels. It is a salutary thought to remember that State-defined history was one of the major causes of the ruin of the Soviet Union. Honest history writing is discouraged, sometimes punished. As the professors who write this rubbish also supervise and guide the work of research students, the Pakistani degree of the doctor of philosophy has lost all value.

There are similar distortions in the teaching of literature. The Pathan or the Punjabi school student is asked to study Ghalib and Iqbal, though he was born in the tradition of Khushhal Khan Khattak and Sayyid Waris Shah, and in his folk culture has heard of Yusuf Zulaikha and Saif-ul-Muluk. How can he relate what he is taught with his birthright and culture? While the political leaders of the Muslim community were encouraging their followers to treat the Hindus as their enemies or reacting to the Hindu hatred for the Muslim, Iqbal, in his Javidnama, was praising Hindu thinkers like Bhartari Hari, presenting Buddhism as a noble religion, and admiring the Babi ``heretic`` Qurrat-ul-`Ain Tahira. The student is once again torn between his literature and his history.

The bulk of Punjabi poetry is a message of Sufi tolerance, universal humanism, and social protest against all exploitation and inequalities. In the village the Punjabi boy and girl grow up with Sultan Bahu and Bulleh Shah and Shah Husain ringing in their ears. In their schools they are told to view the invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Afghan spoliation of the Punjab as victories of Islam. In the land of the Pathans children who have heard their parents and elders reciting Khushhal Khan Khattak with energy and devotion are taught in the school that the poet was a rebel against the Mughal Empire.

By compelling the young students to swallow these contradictions as their daily intellectual diet, we are forcing them to view their literature and history as two different sources of information which refute and rebut each other.

With the disappearance of the Persian language from our educational and cultural scene, a vital and humanistic element of our literature and culture and an important source of our history have been rubbed off our life. Here, literature and history suffer equally.

K.K. Aziz (born 1927) has taught politics, history, Islam and Asian Studies for 50 years at various institutions in Pakistan and abroad. He has also served as the deputy official historian to the federal government and chairman of the national commission on historical and cultural research.

A very long article. But worth reading in its entirity. Please read it fully and completely before hitting that reply/respond button. And please donot jump up and down burning your calories (do it in the gym). It has a long list of references at the end. It is well nuanced - and for one it shows the mind of the Indian as ooposed to the lalaji image many pakistanis have. Unfortunately such a nuanced piece of work is a raity amongst our intelligentia (Romair and few others are coming to it), but generally it is all bluster like that of YLH. Anyway read the article.

The Root of India-Pakistan Conflict



It is commonly accepted as an article of faith that Kashmir is the root cause of all problems between India and Pakistan. I disagree with this premise, and wish to demonstrate that the `Kashmir issue` is itself the result of a deeper root cause, which is a clash of two worldviews: pluralism versus exclusivism.

(It must be clarified that neither pluralism nor exclusivism is the same as secularism, because secularism denies the legitimacy of religion, seeing it at best as exotic culture, and at worst, as a scourge. On the other hand, pluralism and exclusivism both recognize and celebrate religion, but in entirely different ways.)

Most people fail to recognize that this clash between pluralism and exclusivism does indeed exist. This exposes an intellectual failing and lack of preparation in getting to the root cause of the India-Pakistan conflict. This has repressed the real problem, pushing it into the intellectual basement of the global subconscious, and turning it into the shadow side of humanity.

Any genuine attempt to address geopolitical problems must look deeper than examining merely the symptoms of conflict. This essay calls for a paradigm shift in the understanding of the root cause, without which attempts to resolve the `Kashmir issue` shall fail, or at best bring temporary relief. It concludes by defining the `hard question` that must be tackled by the world community.

Religion and Conflict

All religions have two dimensions: theological beliefs that pertain to one`s relationship with a Supreme Reality of whatever kind; and sociological beliefs that pertain to dealings with human society. Often, people compare only the theologies, finding common ground across many diverse religions, and declare them all be the `same` or `equivalent`. Hence, they naively conclude that the present global problems are not about religion.

However, one must pay special attention to the second dimension of religions, namely, the social theories mandated by different religions. It is here where the root of much conflict is to be located.

Christianity`s onerous social demands became the subject of intense fighting after 1500 C.E., leading to the Reformation of Christianity. Both sides -- orthodoxy and the reformers -- agreed that the social space should allow critical thinking, independent inquiry, and separation of church and state. This clipped the wings of Christianity from its control over the public space. Consequently, contemporary Western religion is largely a private affair and focuses less on control over society.

While Christianity does remain very active socially today, and has strong positions on abortion, euthanasia, and many other ethical matters, it is not the final legal authority to resolve sociological disputes. It has a position on these, but this is only `a` position and does not automatically become `the` position in Western society.

The situation in Islam is entirely different. A comparable Reformation has never been accomplished successfully, and those who have tried such amendments have been killed as heretics. Hence, in many ways, the sociological dictates of orthodox Islam today are comparable to those of pre-Reformation Christianity. For instance, during the Middle Ages, Catholic bishops had fatwa-like powers to give death sentences. They had police powers, and controlled the definition and enforcement of public law. (The greatest gift that the West could give to Muslims is guidance in bringing about such a Reformation, as that watershed event was the beginning of the rise of the West. The only losers would be the Islamic clergy.)

Furthermore, sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within a particular religion; and external ones, such as the requirement to proselytize or to kill or ill-treat outsiders, that impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.

In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not the primary causes of global conflict. Rather, the external, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global conflict.

It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion`s doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.

In other words, a given religion`s right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon its responsibility to leave outsiders alone.

Islam`s socio-political strategies in dealing with the non-Muslim world are now at the crossroads and under the world`s microscope. The positions adopted by Islamic leaders will have long-term consequences for the entire world, including both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Pakistan`s Islamic Foundations

The three important social demands that dominate the Islamic orthodoxy as adopted by Pakistan`s government and many other Islamic States (as opposed to alternative liberal interpretations that are subverted) are: (1) the 2-nation theory, (2) global loyalty to Islam superceding sovereignty of man-made countries, and (3) Islamic triumphalism. These are summarized below:

1. The 2-nation theory: Pakistan was carved out of India based on the theory that Muslims require their own separate nation in order to live in compliance with Islamic Law. This theory is equivalent to: (a) segregation (neo-apartheid) by demanding a separation of socio-political jurisdiction for Muslims; and (b) Islamic exclusiveness and imposition of Islamic “Law” upon the public sphere. This is the exact opposite of both pluralism and secularism. The traumatic event that resulted from this, in India, is commonly called “The Partition.” Once the population of Muslims in a given region crosses a threshold in numbers and/or assertiveness, such demands begin. Once this ball is set in motion, the euphoria builds up into a frenzy, and galvanizes the Pan-Islamic “global loyalty” discussed in #2 below. The temperature is made to boil until Muslims worldwide see the expansion of their territory as God`s work. The US will have this experience at some point during the next few decades.

2. Pan-Islamic loyalty superceding local sovereignty: Islamic doctrine divides humanity into two nations that transcend all boundaries of man-made countries: All Muslims in the world are deemed to be part of one single nation called dar-ul-islam (Nation-of-Islam). All non-Muslims are deemed to belong to dar-ul-harb (the enemy, or Nation-of-War). This bi-polar definition cuts across all sovereignty, because sovereignty is man-made and hence inferior and subservient to God`s political and social bifurcation. Islamic doctrine demands loyalty only to Islamic Law and not to the man-made laws of nations and states, such as USA, India, etc. Among the consequences of this doctrine is that a Muslim is required to fight on the side of a Muslim brother against any non-Muslim. This has often been invoked by Muslims to supercede the merits of a given dispute at hand. Orthodox Islam calls for a worldwide “network” of economic, political, social, and other alliances amongst the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world. Pakistan invokes this doctrine to claim Indian Muslims as part of dar-ul-islam, with Pakistan designated as caretaker of their interests. The Al Qaeda global network of terror is simply the extreme case of such a “network” mentality turning violent against the dar-ul-harb.

3. Islamic Triumphalism: A central tenet of Islam is that God`s “nation” -- i.e. the dar-ul-islam -- must sooner or later take over the world. Others, especially those who are in the crosshairs, as prey at a given moment, see this as religious imperialism. Pakistan`s official account of history honors Aurungzeb because he plundered and oppressed the infidels, i.e. Hindus and Buddhists. Likewise, many other conquerors, such as Mohammed of Ghazni, are portrayed as great heroes of Islamic triumphalism. (Even Pakistan`s missile is named after an Islamic conqueror of India in the Medieval Period.) Given this divine mandate, the ethos of aggressiveness and predatory behavior is promoted and celebrated in social life, which non-Muslims see as Islamic chauvinism. September 11 was a misjudgment of timing and dar-ul-islam`s ability to take over. But any orthodox Mullah or Imam would confirm God`s edict that eventually Islam absolutely must take over the world.

Socio-Political Consequences

Once ingrained, these ideological essences become the contexts that define all thinking concerning society, politics, ethics, and even militancy. A sort of closed universe develops and rigidifies, and assumes a life of its own, with its internal logic and legitimacy.

An intense identity is often programmed from childhood. For instance, history gets rewritten to fit the requirement that anything pre-Islamic is to be seen as inferior and false. In India, this legitimized the destruction of Hindu-Buddhist institutions. The past is still a threat, because it is too obviously Hindu-Buddhist. In Arabia, it caused the virtual erasure of rich pre-Islamic cultures. Indigenous art got re-branded as `Islamic art`, even though it was done by non-Muslims who were employed by the conquerors.

Indian contributions in math, science, medicine, art, literature, etc. were translated by Arab and Persian scholars in the Middle Ages with explicit acknowledgment and great respect for the Indian sources, and were later re-transmitted to Europe. However, since Islam now no longer has exclusive control over India, it now claims these as “Islamic” sciences. This version of a triumphant Islamic history is promoted heavily by Arab sponsored television shows, and even on public television in the US.

The education system of such societies brainwashes and hypnotizes young boys into dogma that either includes hatred, or can easily be turned into hatred, by pushing a few buttons. It denies them job skills for the modern era, thereby expanding the available pool of jihad mercenaries for hire.

When Islam is in a minority and brute force power is not advisable, the Al-taqiyah doctrine legitimizes deception, if done for the larger cause of dar-ul-islam.

All this has built a neurosis and hatred for others. There is also hatred for modernity, seeing it as evil. When the infidels start to win economically or politically, the orthodoxy preaches that Islamic people are not doing a good enough job on behalf of Allah, and must get re-energized to fight the dar-ul-harb. Such a powder keg blows up under the right conditions of stress.

This thinking led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

History of the Two-Nation Theory

Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938), the leading Muslim philosopher of his time, was an Indian nationalist in his early writings. But by 1930, in his poem, The Millat, his thoughts had crystallized on Muslim separatism. He explained the concept of partition in his presidential address to the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930: that a unitary form of government was inconceivable, and that religious community had to be the basis for identification. His argument was that communalism in its highest sense brought harmony.

Iqbal demanded the establishment of a confederated India to include a Muslim state consisting of Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh, and Baluchistan. In subsequent speeches and writings, Iqbal reiterated the Muslim claim to nationhood “based on unity of language, race, history, religion, and identity of economic interests.”

The name `Pakistan` originated in 1933, when some Muslim students in Cambridge (UK) issued a pamphlet titled Now or Never. The pamphlet denied that India was a single country, and demanded partition. It explained the term `Pakistan` as follows: “Pakistan… is… composed of letters taken from the names of our homelands: that is, Punjab, Afghania [North-West Frontier Province], Kashmir, Iran, Sindh, Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Balochistan. It means the land of the Paks, the spiritually pure and clean.”

In the 1937 elections to the provincial legislative assemblies, the Indian Congress party gained majorities in seven of the eleven provinces. Congress refused to form coalition governments with the Muslim League, even in Uttar Pradesh, which had a substantial Muslim minority, and vigorously denied the Muslim League`s claim to be the only true representative of Indian Muslims. This permanently alienated the Muslim League from the Congress.

By 1939, the Aligarh Muslim group`s resolution reflected the hardening of the Muslim leadership`s thinking: “Neither the fear of the British bayonets nor the prospects of a bloody civil war can discourage (the Muslims) in their will to achieve free Muslim states in those parts of India where they are in majority.”

To rally political support, Jinnah used `Pakistan` as the unifying cause. His famous 1940 Presidential address to the Muslim League`s annual convention in Lahore was a watershed event to segregate dar-ul-islam in the Indian subcontinent. He said:

“It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders. It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single State, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a State.”

(Americans should visualize a future American Jinnah substituting “Christianity” in place of “Hinduism” and adopting similar positions.)

Jinnah`s theory was partially rationalized by his understanding of history according to which segregation was normal and natural across the world. In his above speech, Jinnah went on to say:

“History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the Subcontinent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. The Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign States. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula.”

This was a false theory of history on Jinnah`s part. Recent events demonstrate the trend towards European unification as opposed to subdivision, because the common interests greatly outweigh what divides the various diverse peoples of Europe.

However, having once made up his mind, Jinnah politicized his two-nation theory successfully, using fear tactics with the British:

“The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet; but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty`s Government, will be the herald of an entire break up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule, nor would the Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.”

At the 1940 Lahore convention, the Muslim League resolved that the areas of Muslim majority in northwestern and eastern India should be grouped together to constitute independent states - autonomous and sovereign - and that any independence plan without this provision was unacceptable to Muslims. The Lahore Resolution was often referred to as the `Pakistan Resolution`.

Without any concrete `dispute` between Hindus and Muslims, the logic that prevailed was that Muslims require segregation of political and social life in order to be in compliance with the demands of sharia. The Two-Nation Theory was a manifestation of the doctrine of dar-ul-islam versus dar-ul-harb.

Divergent Post-Independence Directions

India was built on an entirely different worldview, inspired by the same ideals as the United States, as is evident from the Preamble to its Constitution:

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

* JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

* LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

* EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

* and to promote among them all

* FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the [unity and integrity of the Nation]; …”

In sharp contrast, the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has the following Preamble:

“Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; …”

After Jinnah, Pakistan became increasingly radicalized and Islamicized, in many ways more extreme than the founder`s vision. For instance, the Ninth Amendment in 1985 caused Article 227 to read:

“All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, …”

The Ninth Amendment explains that the “objects and reasons” for this Islamicization are “so as to provide that the Injunctions of Islam shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation and policy making and to empower the Federal Shariat Court to make recommendations for bringing the fiscal laws and laws relating to the levy and collection of taxes in conformity with the said injunctions.”

Once there is a State religion that has a strong orthodoxy, the State must also interpret the religion. For example, the Ahmadiyya sect of Muslims is considered heretical, because it recognizes a 19th century man born in India to be the new Prophet of Islam. In order to preserve the purity of the interpretation of Islam, the Pakistan Federal Government has constitutionally prohibited the group from calling themselves Muslim, even in the use of everyday Islamic greetings. This was implemented in the Second Amendment of Pakistan`s Constitution in 1974, which reads:

“A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever , after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”

This Constitutional provision is now enforced in various application forms of the Pakistani government, such as the following passport form on the home page of its embassy in Washington, DC. In item 14, the form asks for the following Declaration:

a. “I am a Muslim and believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.

b. `I do not recognize any person who claims to he prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognize such a claimant as prophet or a religious reformer as a Muslim.

c. “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an impostor nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Quadiani group, to be NON-MUSLIM.”

As further examples of Islamization, the Law of Pakistan calls for amputation of hands or feet for many property crimes. Consumption of alcohol by Muslims in any quantity whatsoever is punishable by flogging.

Under Pakistan`s Islamic laws, adultery and fornication are punishable by stoning to death. The law on rape (zina-bil-jabr) has a very chilling effect on women who are raped because: The crime is rarely proven because it requires that four adult Muslim males of `good reputation` must appear as witnesses to the act. (One is left wondering why four men `of good reputation` would be watching a rape.) If the charge fails, then the woman who has brought it can be punished for false accusation (qazf) or, more commonly, for adultery (zina) herself because through her charge she has admitted her own involvement in an illicit sexual act. For instance, in 1991, around two-thirds of the 3,000 women imprisoned in Pakistan were being held on such charges -- the victims of rape prosecuted for illicit sex!

Islamic texts are being introduced into Pakistani military training. Middle ranking officers must take courses and examinations on Islam. There are even serious attempts under way to define an Islamic military doctrine, as distinct from the international military doctrines, so as to fight in accordance with the Koran.

An eminent Pakistani writer, Mubarak Ali, explains the chronology of Islamization:

“The tragedy of 1971 [when Bangladesh separated] brought a shock to the people and also a heavy blow to the ideology of Pakistan… More or less convinced of their Islamic heritage and identity, Pakistan`s government and intelligentsia consciously attempted to Islamize the country… The history of Islamization can be traced to the Bhutto era…”

“General Zia-ul-Haq [another great friend and ally of the US] furthered the process to buy legitimacy for his military regime. The element of communal and sectarian hatred in today`s society are a direct consequence of the laws that the dictator had put in place… He made all secular and liberal-minded people enemies of the country. They were warned again and again of severe consequences in case of any violation of the [Islamic] Ideology of Pakistan.”

“Nawaz Sharif added his own bit, like mandating death penalty to the Blasphemy Law… With the failure of the ruling classes to deliver the goods to the people, religion was exploited to cover up corruption and bad governance… The process of Islamization not only supports but protects the fundamentalists in their attempts to terrorize and harass society in the name of religion. There are published accounts of the kind of menace that is spread by religious schools run by these fundamentalists…”

Khaled Ahmed describes how this radicalization of Pakistan is continuing even today:

“In Pakistan… every time it is felt that the ideology is not delivering there are prescriptions for further strengthening of the shariah… Needless to say, anyone recommending that the ideological state be undone is committing heresy and could be punished under law… The Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) is busy on a daily basis to put forth its proposals for the conversion of the Pakistani state into a utopia of Islamic dreams. The Ministry for Religious Affairs has already sent to the cabinet of General Musharraf a full-fledged programme for converting Pakistan into an ideal state… We have reached this stage in a gradual fashion, where these state institutions have become directly responsible for encouraging extremism…”

This hole is so deep that General Musharraf, while promising to de-radicalize Pakistan, must reassure his people not to fear the `threat` of secularism. He recently clarified it as follows:

``No-one should even think this is a secular state. It was founded as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan…”

While America still has enormous racial inequality 150 years after the abolishing of slavery, the important point is that it is committed to racial equality. Similarly, despite many flaws in India`s pluralism, the State is committed to it. What counts is a commitment to steady improvement. India has had one of the most aggressive and ambitious affirmative action programs in the world. The results, while far from perfect, have produced many top level Muslim leaders in various capacities in India, and a growth of Muslims as a percentage of total population. But in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Hindu population has decreased from 11% in 1947 to around 1% today, as a result of ethnic cleansing.

Pakistan`s Identity Crisis

The problem for an educated Pakistani is to figure out when and where his history started. If it is to be 1947 in the geographical area that is now Pakistan, then there is very little past for him to build an identity. If it is to be from the time of Mohammed, then his history is outside his land. If it is prior to that, then his history is largely a Hindu-Buddhist history, a past he wants to deny.

He must invent history to answer the question: Why was Pakistan created? Mubarak Ali, a prominent Pakistani scholar, explains the predicament:

“Since its inception Pakistan has faced the monumental task of formulating its national identity separate from India. Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world. The overshadowing image of the Indian civilization also haunted the founders of Pakistan, who channeled their efforts in making the differences between India and Pakistan more tangible and obvious.

“The fundamental difference between India and Pakistan was based on the Two Nation theory, strengthening Pakistan`s Islamic identity.

“…The University Grants Commission of Pakistan made Islamic Studies and Pakistan Study compulsory subjects at all levels of the education system, even for the professional students. … This gave the government an opportunity to teach the students its own version of history, especially the Pakistan ideology, which is described as something like this: ``The struggle was for the establishment of a new Islamic state and for the attainment of independence. It was the outcome of the sincere desire of the Muslims of the subcontinent who wanted Islam to be accepted as the ideal pattern for an individual`s life, and also as the law to bind the Muslims into a single community.

“In asserting this identity, Pakistan is in a state of dilemma…”

If Pakistanis were seen merely as Indians who converted to Islam, then they would seem no different than the Indian Muslims, who are equal in number to Pakistan`s total population, who are better educated and economically placed, and who enjoy greater social freedom than their counterparts in Pakistan. Hence, the very existence of Pakistan as a separate nation rests upon constructing an identity for itself that is radically different from India`s. But you cannot build a nation on a negative identity.

One might say that a birth defect of Pakistan was its lack of a self-sufficient positive identity. Such a positive identity would neither be a negation of India, nor be an imperialistic claim of authority over all dar-ul-islam of the subcontinent. Kamal Azfar, a Pakistani writer, explains the dilemma:

“There are two concepts of Pakistan: the first empirical and the second utopian. The empirical concept is based on solid foundations of history and geography while the utopian concept is based on shifting sands. Utopia is not an oasis but a mirage… Samarqand and Bukhara and the splendors of the Arab world are closely related to us but we do not possess them. Our possessions are Moenjodaro and Sehwan Sharif, Taxila and Lahore, Multan and the Khyber. We should own up to all that is present here in the Indus Valley and cease to long for realities not our own for that is false-consciousness.”

This obsession to be seen as neo-Arabs has reached ridiculous extremes, such as Pakistani scholars` attempts to show that Sanskrit was derived from Arabic. Even Persian influence on Indian culture is considered impure as compared to Arabic.

Pakistan`s un-Indian identity easily gets turned into anti-Indian rhetoric. In short, hatred for India has been required to keep Pakistan together, because Allah has not done so. Pakistan is largely a garrison state, created and sustained using the Hindu-Muslim divide.

A secure Hindu seems to be incompatible with what the Pakistani thinks a Hindu should be. Especially any `Hindu` success feeds its Hindu-phobia.

Pakistan`s positive identity building projects are using multiple strategies. The following are three of the major historical myths being spun by Pakistan, to secure legitimacy for its separate existence.

Myth 1: Pakistanis = Descendents of the Indus Valley Civilization

The most aggressive identity engineering project is the theory of Pakistanis depicted as the 8,000-year-old people of the Indus Valley. This civilization is presented as different from the Ganges Valley civilization. The Indus and Ganges are depicted as the ancestral homelands of Pakistanis and Indians, respectively. Hence, they have always been separate people. Given this model, Pakistan`s Indus Valley researchers are encouraged to show the links to the Middle East civilizations of Mesopotamia, so as to bring Pakistan and the Arab-Persian worlds into a single continuous historical-geographical identity since the beginnings of recorded history.

The following article titled, Separating Urdu from Sanskrit, published in the Urdu newspaper Jang, explains the construction of this theory of an 8,000-year-old Pakistan:

“Pakistani intellectuals have been looking for the roots of their separate identity in the remote past for the last two decades. They are not satisfied with the two-nation theory propounded by Iqbal, according to which religion was the basis of nationhood… They want to show that… the Indus and the Gangetic valleys have always been home to separate civilizations. Being the heir to the Indus valley civilization, Pakistan is a geographic entity whose roots go back to time immemorial…

“Hitherto, the generally held belief has been that Urdu came into being as a result of social contacts between the Muslims who came to India during the middle ages and the native population. So the language was taken to be a crossbreed of Turko-Persian-Arabic vocables with the local dialects. This is, in a nutshell, the view held by such eminent linguists as G.A. Griesson and Sir Charles Lyall, to mention only two. This theory presupposed that these dialects themselves were based upon, or rather were a by-product of Sanskrit.

“Khalid Hasan Qadiri [a new identity developer]… reaches the conclusion that Urdu has its roots in the languages of the Munda tribes who were the inhabitants of the Indus Valley in pre-Dravidian periods…. In this way we are led to believe that the Urdu language has a very well-defined and clear-cut grammar, absolutely different from Sanskrit in every respect. The very basic philosophy governing the grammatical structure of these two languages is totally different. And by any stretch of imagination one cannot state Urdu to have emanated from the sacred language of the Hindus. Grammatically speaking Urdu owes nothing to Sanskrit. Hence it cannot be grouped with the Aryan language either. It clearly belongs to some non-Aryan group of languages. And this view is supposed to give us some solace.”

Myth 2: Pakistanis = West Asian Races

Using a more recent beginning point, there is a popular construction of Pakistanis as Arab-Persian-Turk `immigrants` (with a few occasional `jihads` against the infidels). Here, Pakistanis get racially differentiated from the `native` Indian Muslims. (A different version of this scenario says that Pakistanis are Aryans originally from lands around Turkey.)

These theories encourage rampant Arabization of Pakistani culture. Arabization is to Pakistanis what Macaulayism is to many Indians. The difference is that Macaulayism has afflicted only the top tier of Indian elitists, whereas Arabization of Pakistan pervades all strata of Pakistani identity. For instance:

* Girls are discouraged from wearing mehndi, because it is seen as a Hindu tradition, even though it has nothing to do with one`s religion per se.

* The kite flying tradition during the festival of Baisakhi, celebrated for centuries in Punjab as the harvest season, is now under the microscope of Pakistan`s identity engineers for being too Sikh and Hindu in character, and not Arab enough.

* Emphasis is placed on being un-Indian so as to assert this new identity wherever possible.

Pakistan has these internal conflicts between its Middle Eastern religious values on the one hand, and its Indian cultural values on the other. In this internal struggle, the Islamic values based on Middle East culture are conquering the indigenous values of the people. Much of the neurosis is about this destruction of one`s past identity.

Myth 3: Pakistan = Successor to Mughal Empire

This is the most ominous model of all from Indians` perspective: Pakistan is depicted as the successor to the Mughal Empire. The post-Mughal two-century British rule is seen as a dark period of interruption that is now to be reversed by returning to the glory of the Mughals. Under this return of the Mughals, Hindus would be second-class citizens, in the same manner as they were under the Mughals.

Many Pakistanis would like Mughal Emperor Akbar`s model, under which Hindus were tolerated and even respected, although Muslims enjoyed higher status.

But most Pakistanis are said to prefer Emperor Aurungzeb`s model, under which Hindus were oppressed and forced to convert, and Islam was asserted in ways that were not different from the Taliban`s policies. This glorifies aggressiveness and Islamic chauvinism. Such an imperialistic identity has also led to a leadership claim over India`s Muslims, even though they outnumber Pakistan`s entire population and enjoy greater prosperity, freedom and culture.

Neurosis

This schizophrenia makes Pakistanis very insecure. To avoid this quandary, they quickly slip into talk of a pan-Islamic identity, hoping to escape the irrational construct with which they find themselves burdened.

It is relevant to point out that Muslims are required to point towards Mecca five times daily in prayer. Psychologists would call this “creative visualization,” a form of subconscious programming. Are loyalties taking shape deep within one`s psyche, towards the Arabs, the owners of Mecca?

What is the effect of being told since childhood, in chauvinistic and triumphant terms, of Islam`s heroic plunder of infidels, and its inevitable conquest of the entire world? What is the consequence of glorifying Ghazni and Aurungzeb as is done in Pakistan`s public school textbooks?

Khaled Ahmed explains the neurosis resulting from such dogma:

“The difficulty lies in the inability of the Muslims to mould their original revealed message to modern times by applying logic and rationality to the ancient case law. There was a time when this was done but the era of taqleed (imitation) has been upon us since the medieval period. Under colonial rule, many Muslims thought of introducing reason in the science of understanding the Holy Writ, but today no one in the Islamic world tolerates any deviation from taqleed even when this taqleed varies in practice from state to state. All Muslim states are unstable either because they have enforced the shariah and are unhappy with it, like Pakistan, or have not enforced it and are unhappy that it has not been enforced. For Muslims the question, `What kind of state do we want?` is a rhetorical one, because for them it has already been answered.”

Most shocking is the prevalent Hindu-bashing on Pakistani state television and in state school textbooks. A common theme is to depict Brahmins as cunning and wicked, and to mock at Hindu beliefs. By contrast, the state run media in India is extra careful to be sensitive. Private Bollywood has many Muslims in dominant positions and a pluralistic ethos is very much projected.

One of the most popular songs sung by Hindus is Ishvar, Allah tere nam, meaning Ishvar and Allah are God`s names. I have not come across Hindus being concerned or even conscious that they are giving Allah recognition as equal to Ishvar. But most Muslim friends refuse to participate in any such song, as it would violate the injunction against respecting other deities.

A friend recently told me that in her corporate office on Wall Street, she has been a close friend of a Pakistani woman executive for many years. They bring lunch from home, and have shared each other`s food regularly. But one day, my friend casually remarked that the lunch she brings is after doing puja and offering some as prasadam. The Pakistani woman refused to accept her food ever since. She had no qualms about saying that eating such a meal would be a violation of her Islamic faith.

Pakistan, assuming the leadership of dar-ul-islam, is trying to expand the territory of Islam. Militancy is a relatively recent export of Pakistan, a sort of last resort out of desperation. The `Kashmir issue` is Pakistan`s identity crisis externalized towards an outside enemy, so as to find a meaning for itself. The citizens of Pakistan have been galvanized into a neurosis to Islamize Kashmir on behalf of Allah.

The Need to Decouple

The economic directions of India and Pakistan are entirely different: the technology education emphasis in India, as compared to the madrassas in Pakistan where Islamic identity is the primary curriculum.

India is one-sixth of all humanity. It deserves its own space in the world`s mind, and should not be reduced to one of eight countries lumped into a single `South Asian region` just for simplicity and convenience. Pakistan should be let loose to discover who it wants to be, without being bothered about India.

The Garland Making Worldview

“Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata, XII.72.20

This famous statement from the Mahabharata contrasts two worldviews. It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.

Garland making and charcoal burning represent two divergent worldviews in terms of socio-political ideology. The former leads to pluralism and diversity of thought, whereas the latter strives for a homogenized and fossilized society in which dogma runs supreme.

India represents a long and continuous history of experimentation with garland making. A central tenet of dharma is that one`s social duty is individualistic and dependent upon the context:

* To illustrate the context-sensitive nature of dharma, a text by Baudhayana lists practices that would be normal in one region of India but not appropriate in another, and advises that learned men of the traditions should follow the customs of their respective districts.

* Furthermore, the ethical views applicable also depend upon one`s stage in life (asramadharma).

* One`s particular position in society determines one`s personal dharma (svadharma).

* The dharma has to be based upon one`s personal inner nature (svabhava).

* There is even special dharma that is appropriate in times of distress or emergency (apaddharma).

Hence, anything resembling a universal or absolute social law (sadharama) is characterized as a last resort and not as a first resort - a fallback if no context can be found applicable.

Combine this with the fact that social theories (called Smritis) were not divine revelations as was the case in the Abrahamic religions, but were constructed by human lawmakers who were analogous to today`s public officials. Hence, all Smritis are amendable, and indeed are intended to be modified for each era and by each society. This is a very progressive social mandate, and to freeze Indian social norms is, in fact, a travesty based on ignorance.

This pluralistic social theory is deeply rooted in indigenous religions. In the Bhagavadagita (IX. 23-25), Krishna proclaims that the devotees who worship other deities are in fact worshipping Him; and that those who offer worship to various other deities or natural powers also reach the goals they desire.

Dr. P. V. Kane has researched ancient India`s pluralism, and concluded emphatically that there was no state sponsored religious exclusivism. In particular, Kashmir`s history of garland making spans several millennia. Its identity was not based on any religion. Kashmiris of all religions lived in harmony, and Kashmir was the incubator of Kashmir Shaivism, much of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, and Suf