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.