The Place of Debate

Ref shammi #: 48

[Many historians (including Ayesha Jalal) believe that Jinnah used Pakistan as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from the Congress on the issue of the composition of the Constitutent Assembly of a free India. His real intention may have been an autonomous area within a larger federation, with rights for individuals derived on the basis of their religious identities.]

Ayesha Jalal is trying to whitewash Jinnah and his crimes. Hodson has explicitly said that Jinnah had no intention of working together with the Congress -- which according to Jinnah represented only Hindus -- in a Constituent Assembly.

Yasser quoted a speech by Jinnah in which Jinnah said that he could not be the President of a communal organization (the Muslim League) and Governor-General of Pakistan at the same time. It is obvious then that Jinnah knew fully well what kind of organization he was leading. It was this realization that made him demand that the Viceroy recognize the Congress to be a representative of Caste Hindus only so that he could further split the country along the lines of Caste Hindus and Scheduled Castes. No matter that some Scheduled Caste leaders might have taken the bait, the Scheduled Castes themselves have stuck by India. I am yet to hear of a Scheduled Caste person migrating to Pakistan because India discriminates against them.

Nehru, Patel & Company realized that a confederation was nothing but postponing the inevitable Partition. The functioning of the interim Cabinet with participation by both Congress and Muslim League was proof that the Muslim League was not interested in running the country on a harmonious basis. If the proposed confederation had come into effect and if the federating units seceded ten years later as provided for in the plan, then Pakistan today would have the whole of Punjab and Bengal. Jinnah`s acceptance of the confederation plan was just another tactic to see if he can get all the land that he originally demanded. As it is, Pakistan got more than it deserved in terms of land.

Ref AAmir #: 60

[The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: ``Say! Do you know better than Allah?`` (2:140).]

Lookeee! What have we got here?

It looks to me like Allah versus Jinnah.

Ref Romair #: 57

[I think Jinnah felt that a joint India would not be able to implement secularism fairly, but his own country would be able to do so.]

Did Jinnah ever read the history of Islamic countries? Did he know the least bit about even the history of Muslim rule in India? If he did, how could he ever conclude that a united India would not be able to implement secularism fairly, but his own country would be able to do so?

[He was right on the first account (rise of BJP), but wrong on the second account.]

Let us get this right: Jinnah was able to predict that the BJP would rise 45 years later and curtail minority rights -- the latter of which, incidentally, hasn`t happened yet.

But he couldn`t predict what would happen in Pakistan the minute he died.

Now that explains why Jinnah chose to wear a monocle most of his life.

PS. Would you say the US is not secular on account of the fact that the Religious Right voted for Nixon, Reagan and both the Bushes?

Ref wholly-precious-you #: 63

[ylh

“4) Did you know Turkey Banned the Hijab in `SELECT` Public places such as the parliament and that too is not really enforced? Do you know the date it was banned on?”

….wrong….it’s very much enforced in parliament….an elected woman of parliament, who chose to wear it to her swearing in was thrown out, banned for 5 years from politics and later had her citizenship revoked and now lives in exile….it’s also banned in all sectors of the gov’t, in universities and in school….infact, turkey just recently threw a 15-year old girl in jail for questioning some minister about the hijab….]

Please don`t attempt to confuse ylh with facts. If it is not written in Wolpert`s Jinnah or `Greywolf`, it cannot be true. Those two books are the replacements for the Koran in his mind.

PS. A simple search on the web would have unearthed the case of the legislator who was banned for wearing the hijab. But then that means one has to search for the truth.

hamzad,

``spoken like a true muslim``.

Who is a ``true`` muslim? I`m very confused. All this time, my impression of a ``true`` muslim was someone who is proud of his religion, observes the core meaning of the Quran & yet is very balanced & respectful of everybody & fights hatemongers--whoever they maybe.

I see many on Chowk who fit that description.The one person on Chowk who especially fits that description is tahmed. Before him, another great man, Bilal Ahmed. There is something about these ``Ahmeds`` that make me respect & understand the true power of Islam, in a way that I never did, before coming to Chowk.

Heck, Jinnah & his disciple ylh are ``truer`` muslims than Urstruly & you. But then, what do I know? I`m just an idol worshipping pagan. I guess being born in a muslim family gives you better credentials about deciding who is a ``true`` or ``false`` muslim. Please enlighten us about the criteria of a ``true`` muslim.

Re: YLH

``...Jinnah was in favor of reversing the separate electorates when the communities were ready...``

Come on YLH, do you think that these things are decided by `communities when they are ready?`. How easy is it to roll back the blasphemy law, or the reservation system in India? I don`t know about the former, but the latter will never happen.

``...Let us remember that separate electorates had existed since 1906, when Jinnah had actually opposed them tooth and nail...``

The British introduced separate electorates as part of their `divide and rule` policy (along with the religion-based Partition of Bengal which was later rolled back on popular demand). That is why the Congress (and Jinnah) was steadfastly oppposed to it throughout -- it was a blatant attempt at manipulating public opinion. If Pakistan does not grow economically and put its citizens above the average Indian on a social/economic footing, then the whole idea behind Partition (subjugation of minority rights) would be moot because then two things would have become clear (i) minorities in India would have done better than the average Pakistani despite joint electorates, (ii) dividing people on the basis of religion does not automatically mean social/economic nirvana. Not to mention, that joint electorates in an open democracy may yet bridge the suspicions that divide religious communities once and for all time to come.

Did 1.5 million people have to die, 15 millions migrate from their homes, 4 wars, and 54 years of hostility, 2 civil wars, have to take place to prove a point? No, but then not everyone reads the Wall Street Journal or the Economist.

Re: Romair

``...I think Jinnah felt that a joint India would not be able to implementsecularism fairly...He was right on the first account (rise of BJP)...``

While the BJP has not endeared itself to the Muslims of India, the rise of the BJP does not automatically mean the decline of secularism in India. One does not imply the other. This is where the institutions of the Parliament and the courts are asserting themselves. Your assessment is very simplistic.

The BJP has watered down its idealogy a lot since its days as the Jan Sangh (`70s). It has also been forced into adopting the secular, non-divisive electoral agenda of the National Democratic Alliance and give up its pet Hindutva projects in government. It seems set to lose the crucial UP elections, and it has just recently (last week) broken ranks with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid issue -- the BJP has agreed to subordinate its will to that of the Supreme Court (exactly the same position as that of the Babri Masjid Action Committee - main Muslim body representing the minority rights on the issue), while the VHP holds the court in contempt.

Lastly, the Hindu-Muslim violence/communal riots are at record lows (touch wood) since Independence. Nothing of the sort was achieved in 40+ years of Congress rule.

So, BJP popular with Muslims? No. India becoming a theocratic state? No.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p09s01-coop.html

A chameleon ally in Pakistan

By Benazir Bhutto

The Sept. 11 assault upon America changed the contours of the world. It also gave Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf an avenue to respectability.

The Pakistani general, who seized power in a coup d`état in 1999, was a principal architect of policies that empowered Osama bin Ladin and strengthened the Taliban regime harboring Al Qaeda. General Musharraf failed to close the militant Islamic schools in Pakistan that filled youngsters with hatred toward the West and were the prime recruiting grounds for Mr. bin Ladin`s war on civilization.



Twice during Musharraf`s tenure as Army chief, a position he still holds, two confrontations have taken place with India that have brought South Asia to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. By marginalizing democratic forces, Musharraf has permitted a political vacuum for the religious parties to fill.

Musharraf has a record of disingenuous manipulation of world public opinion at the expense of basic human and democratic rights. Although he now denounces the contours of a theocratic state in Pakistan, he and his establishment supporters have yet to dismantle the governmental structure on which it rests. Though he now claims containment of terrorists and militants, for years he turned a blind eye to the Islamic groups Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which many believe were involved in the Dec. 13 attack on the Indian Parliament.

Musharraf now denounces Pakistan`s ``state within a state`` - the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI - while he and his military predecessors tasked the ISI to destabilize democratic government in Pakistan and manipulate the electoral process. He denounces the Islamicization of Pakistan, while for years the exploitation of Islam has been the military`s way of stifling the Pakistani people.

In September 2001 he addressed the Pakistani nation to announce that he was joining the ``lesser evil`` (the United States) in the war against terror, suggesting it was necessary to avoid more international support for a greater evil, India. These words were out of touch with the emerging world realities. Both of these ``evil`` forces coalesced to press him to act against the militias and militants that his regime patronized for years.

His administration stood by as Pakistani Taliban supporters printed posters, hired trucks, established camps, and exhorted young Pakistanis to ``join the jihad`` led by Al Qaeda after the war against terror began. Thousands of young Pakistanis crossed over into Afghanistan. Their dead bodies are a monument to the pre-Sept. 11 policies of Pakistan`s dictatorship.

Tragically, there is indifference around the world to the human and political price paid by Pakistanis for the fatally flawed policies of this regime. The West accepts Musharraf for his post-Sept. 11 turnabout on the Taliban and the January 2002 turnabout on terrorism against India. But these strategic somersaults are tarred by unreliability. It is only a matter of time before circumstances change, new opportunistic alliances are created, and Musharraf and his men surely will morph back into their previous incarnation.

Just as we must recall Western miscalculation in abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat, let us remember the lessons of Iran. The Shah was the West`s surrogate regional policeman for decades. His policies of choking and victimizing democratic forces led to the fundamentalist revolution from which the world has yet to recover.

Musharraf plans to continue his military dictatorship through a manufactured political party in elections next October almost certain to be fraudulent, shutting out from the contest the legitimate political parties and leaders of Pakistan. This will play into the long-term goals of Pakistani Islamic fundamentalism.

Only an internationally monitored, free and fair, party-based election open to all political parties - including the Pakistan People`s Party, which I chair - can create the legitimacy that would derail the fundamentalists` dream of a theocratic state.

The Musharraf military dictatorship, like that of Zia ul Haq`s two decades ago, is an assault on the fundamental human and democratic rights of the Pakistani people. The regime`s confrontation with the values of peace, democracy, human rights, rule of law, and justice erodes civil society.

Unless Musharraf revamps his administration and reaches out to democratic forces in agreeing on the modalities of a fair election and transfer of power, the domestic situation in the country will remain dangerous. In a democratic Pakistan, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl would not have been kidnapped by a fundamentalist cabal.

Remember that just as democracies do not start wars, democracies do not sustain state-sponsored terrorism. The modus operandi of dictatorship is war, fundamentalism, and terrorism. To contain terror, we must promote democracy.

For the moment, some might find Musharraf`s dictatorship useful. But the United States must proceed with great caution and wisdom. In the words of John F. Kennedy, ``foreign policy requires the long view.`` Ultimately, the West`s blind eye to democracy and human rights can have unintended, unforeseen, and deadly consequences, not just in Pakistan, but for regional and world peace.

• Benazir Bhutto was prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996. She is the chairperson of the Pakistan People`s Party, and is based in the United Arab Emirates.

Pakistan Links Militants to Reporter`s Kidnap

Wed Feb 6, 4:17 AM ET

By Andy Soloman

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani investigators on Wednesday said they had narrowed the search for kidnapped U.S. reporter Daniel Pearl to a banned Islamic militant group suspected of having ties to Osama bin Laden.

Police said they had detained at least six more people since the weekend as they hunted Pearl`s kidnappers, and said they were chasing a senior leader of Jaish-e-Mohammad (Army of Mohammad), which is also blamed for a string of violent attacks in India.

``There is a connection to Jaish in Pearl`s kidnapping. This lead we got from the two persons detained last night in Karachi,`` a senior police official told Reuters.

The organization, which is fighting for an end to Indian rule in the disputed Kashmir region and is listed as a terrorist group by the United States, is one of two Pakistani groups blamed by India for a bloody attack on its parliament in December.

Jaish was subsequently banned by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Pakistani police detained two men in Karachi late on Tuesday on suspicion of sending e-mails containing photographs of Pearl. They said the trail quickly led to British-born Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, also known as Sheikh Omar, a senior leader of Jaish.

Omar, a graduate of the London School of Economics, is a close associate of Jaish founder Maulana Azhar Masood, one of India`s most wanted men.

``We are hunting Sheikh Omar, who is directly involved in the kidnapping of the U.S. journalist, and we hope to arrest him soon,`` another senior official said. ``It`s a major breakthrough for us and we are confident that we will be able to reach Pearl soon.``

Omar, the son of a clothes merchant from Wanstead in east London, was first arrested by Indian police in 1994, accused of kidnapping three Britons and an American in India.

He was freed from an Indian jail in 1999 -- along with Masood -- in exchange for 155 hostages on an Indian airliner hijacked to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

Masood, now in detention in Pakistan, has also visited Afghanistan where he met Saudi-born militant bin Laden and the leader of Afghanistan`s vanquished Taliban movement, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

MORE DETENTIONS

Nasir Durrani, senior superintendent of police in Islamabad, told Reuters police had in the last few days also detained four men in the capital in connection with the Pearl kidnapping, but were still seeking another suspect.

Police raided Omar`s house in the eastern city of Lahore early on Wednesday, but the wanted man was not at home.

Police and officials say they believe Omar has been going under the name Imtiaz Siddiqui, one of three people named on Tuesday as key suspects in the case.

Pearl, a 38-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter, went missing in Karachi on January 23 as he attempted to make contact with radical Islamic groups.

Before disappearing, he had been working on a story about alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid and possible links that he might have to bin Laden`s al Qaeda network and the Taliban.

Police have named Siddiqui, Hashim Qadir and Bashir (eds: one name) as key suspects in the case, accusing them of helping Pearl arrange meetings at the time of his disappearance.

A previously unknown group calling itself The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty claimed to have kidnapped Pearl.

The kidnap group has called for the United States to release Pakistani and Afghan prisoners from the Afghan war, as well as the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, demands Washington has ruled out meeting.

Oh boy! Mr. Alam has truly put his arm into the tiger`s mouth. But this question of secularism needed to be faced one day; sooner is better than later. I believe that a cool and sensible discussion (debate) of this issue can take place only when the people are informed as to what secularism is. To many, secularism is equivalent to atheism. While, secularism indeed is `religiously neutral`. A secular government allows people to practice whatever religion they want to practice, without fear of persecution from any quarter.

I look at this issue from a practical point of view. If I have to choose a form of government for myself and my family, for instance, would I choose a Taliban style Islamic government or the secular government of the type that is in enforcement here in the U.S.? My personal preference is clear; I would prefer to live in the American style secular government.

There are some people whom I know, who support Taliban type Islamic government or its somewhat diluted form, as long as they themselves do not have to live under that government. They prefer an Islamic government for Pakistan, for instance, but would like to continue living in the U.S. This is hypocrisy.

Now I come to the question of the objectives for creating Pakistan. I do not remember if it was ever suggested that an Islamic government would necessarily be established in Pakistan after it was created. Had the formation of an Islamic government been the raison d`etre of the creation of Pakistan, why would Maulana Maudoodi and other ulema have opposed the creation of Pakistan? I believe the objective was to have a soverign country for the Indian Muslims where they could practice their religion without interference from the Hindu majority in India. Otherwise, the Qaid`s speech in which he said ``You are free to go to your churches, or temples`` does not seem to make much sense. Although an Islamic government wouldn`t have prevented people to go to their own respective places of worship, Qaid`s speech has deeper significance within the perspective of a secular government.

Regarding Mr. Alam`s belief ``..that the people have to take the risk of raising fundamental questions about the Quran``, I believe that the people should have a right to examine critically as to what they are believing or are called upon to believe. People should not be forced to believe blindly and uncritically in the Holy Quran. The impending `sword of apostasy`, which frightens people to raise any critical question, should be sheathed and put away. We usually use force to defend something which cannot be rationally defended.

With regards and wishing all the Chowk readers well.

correction #57: ``He did clearly indicate that he did want Pakistan to be a theocratic state.``

should read

He did clearly indicate that he did not want Pakistan to be a theocratic state.

Harimau#68

``Let us get this right: Jinnah was able to predict that the BJP would rise 45 years later and curtail minority rights -- the latter of which, incidentally, hasn`t happened yet.

But he couldn`t predict what would happen in Pakistan the minute he died.

Now that explains why Jinnah chose to wear a monocle most of his life.

PS. Would you say the US is not secular on account of the fact that the Religious Right voted for Nixon, Reagan and both the Bushes?

``

Your arguments are impressive. No matter how much one tries to obscure the fact, it clearly stands out that Jinnah wanted a separate country for ``Himself`` where his writ rules. And he started opposing Mullas when he got Pakistan because he felt that they were the direct challenge to his authority. It is the classical Frankstein case in which the person who came to power on a communal agenda, later starts opposing the children of his own policy to save his position. Very well said.

``Please don`t attempt to confuse ylh with facts. If it is not written in Wolpert`s Jinnah or `Greywolf`, it cannot be true. Those two books are the replacements for the Koran in his mind.

``

This is the rela problem with ylh. Whenever one goes to the original source to find the truthfullness of ylh`s comments, what one finds is a ``little different`` version of the story and in a ``little different`` context that significantly alters the meaning of the lines. However ylh can easily take a unsuspecting fellow to a ride if he does not do do his homework.

Re: Shankar to Hamzad

``...Please enlighten us about the criteria of a ``true`` muslim...``

And, Hamzad, please make your point in four or five bullet points (no more than 200 words total). That way, you will be able to say first things first, and state only what is most important. Maybe less is more in this case, and more people may actually read it. Thanks

Debate?what debate?---First determine the grand achievements of a paragon of secularism(``In God we trust``) & ``All power rests with the Almighty``(preamble).

One should always remember that life under feudallords & mafiosis is great for those who continue to bolster the fiefdom.The families of the Godfathers,Landfeudals,Bankfeudals,UniformedFeudals,& BureauFeudals are very happy to see the loyal-servant bringing home the haraam earnings.

Most of those who have become ``different`` than workers & toilers happen to write on CHOWK(myself included)...are a product of such cultural aparthie-ism.(With profuse apologies to the odd halaalee here).

Trite & Cliched as it might sound but it never loses the punch whenver uttered because it shakes the foundation below the ground of his/her feet.

``I`ve met the enemy and it is me(us)``.

_________________________________________________

IS THERE A US COMMITMENT TO INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION?

Rogue Nation - Richard Du Boff

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for

on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that ``the protocol

is dead,`` at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

4. April 2001, the US was not reelected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost

access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the

US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying

the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. [In fact advocating use of force to ``rescue`` Americans charged with war crimes - RR]

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea`s overwhelming military advantage.`` He stated that the US would ``eventually`` comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared ``dead`` by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US ``Echelon`` program).

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001.

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly

passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN

Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for ``unlawful use of force`` in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court`s jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court`s decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO`s budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to

lessen world media dependence on the ``big four`` wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with ``curtailment of press freedom,`` as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton

administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN`s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi

Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several ``reservations`` to the effect that the US Constitution and the ``advice and consent`` of the Senate are required to judge whether any ``acts in the course of armed conflict`` constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

22. Is the status of ``we`re number one!`` Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all

0.26).

rbd / 19 Dec 01

Re; Harimau

``... If the proposed confederation had come into effect and if the federating units seceded ten years later as provided for in the plan, then Pakistan today would have the whole of Punjab and Bengal...``

Maybe, maybe not. No way to prove it one way or the other. Ultimately, there have been tremendous suspicions between communities, and the way bridge them remains an enormous challenge. Partition certainly occurred because politicians played upon those suspicions which became deeper still and remain to this day. One political tactic that has been used successfully, is to first scare people, and then play upon their fears. This tactic was used to promote the Partition Plan and also to promote the denial of the Cabinet Mission Plan with equal effect.

Re: Zafar Al Talib

Masterful analysis and rejoinder to (Prince?) Khurram. Are you still planning on being in Delhi later this month (Feb 17-March 4)?