The Place of Debate

YLH - the general refused because the idiots of the pak army (regulars) led the tribals to invade kashmir without any legal basis. But then as you say legality is besides the point. I will not argue with you on this - for legality is never the strong point of pakistan.

However, on a more serious note - whilst you are debating like a high school DO, here is something for you to chew on. This is the curent thinking in many think tanks in the US (the new game is Pakistan)

start quote

If he does manage to hold on, Musharraf is likely to become Pakistan`s Gorbachev, presiding over the dissolution of his country`s empire.

For, make no mistake: there is a Pakistani Empire right now. Those Pakistani politicians talking about an empire were just slightly off -- they currently run the Punjabi Sunni Empire, where their subject peoples are Sindhis, Baluchis, Seraikis, Pashtuns, Shias, the Balawaris, and so on. With the emphatic end of their Afghan colony, the dissolution of the rest of the Pakistani empire is increasingly possible.

First to go will be the Pashtun nation, erasing the Durand Line, whose validity expired in 1993, and in any case, most Afghans never accepted it. The Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan will merge to form a Pashtunistan.

end quote

Your thoughts on this dear old chap from Cheltenham.....

YLH,

here is something else for you to chew on. Forget the old man jinnah for a moment - he is the past long dead and should be safe in heaven. In the here and now there are far more important problems.

Daniel Pearl - now that guy omar is fingered for it. He is the great maulana`s man. He is the one who released as a result of the AI hijack. Surely paksitan cannot afford to be a refuge for the scoundrels of the maulana ilk and omar kind.

And you are asking us to take General Musharraff seriously. Man you must be living on another planet.

A better hero for you would be Tariq Ali (rather than wolpert and Jinnah).

Take care dude. Hope that cushy number you have in the US lasts - for remember Pakistan does not have any need for the likes of you. You are better off serving the nation with your cushy number.

Reply Harimau # 67

You know, sometimes I am almost convinced that there is a Swayamsevak under Deep Cover on chowk…there is a pattern here, if you look back on similar posts…I am referring, of course, to the Artist Formerly Known As B...

Reply Shammi # 81

“Are you still planning on being in Delhi later this month (Feb 17-March 4)?”

Sadly my trip has been delayed. Inshallah I shall be there in August, in time for monsoon flooding rather than summer power cuts.

Romair:

``Fifty years have passed, so one cannot assume that Pakistan can be (or should be) exactly what Jinnah wanted it to be fifty years ago. The demographics and social outlook of Pakistan has changed. George Washington may have have wanted a US where slavery was legal, but all whites had equal rights. That isn`t what Americans want today. ``

Basically you have hit the nail on the head. Who cares about Jinnah`s Pakistan? Do what you want, now. I personally would be very mad if someone kept trying to make India a `` Gandhi India`` or a ``Nehru India``

ylh #85: As I stated in my previous reply, you need to develop the ability of talking with people, instead of talking at them. People will stop listening to your logic, even if it is correct, if you don`t become a good listener. The moment someone disagrees with you, you tend to get frustrated, and go berserk. This is exactly the problem I have found with most people on the religious extreme side. They are too sure of themseleves, and will not listen to differing views.

With maturity, hopefully this will change. But even for a person of your young age, you approach to debates is relatively immature. You have a lot of knowledge, but your presentation skills need significant improvement. I hope you take this as constructive criticism.

Now over to your questions:

``Allah ka wasta hai, read what I am writing instead of going on with your own monologues.``

Please see the above paragrph.

``Your question about whether the word `secular` was mentioned ... it sounds like an Ignorant Mullah`s question ... because you keep equating `secularism` with `westernization`.``

I asked a simple question. It doesn`t matter what it sounds like. What is the answer? That is what I am interested in. Just so I can increase my knowledge. So what is the answer?

I have far more exposure to secularism than you have had. I have a pretty good understanding of what it is. But just like religionism, there is no exact definition of it. Everyone will have a different definition. That is why it is very dangerous if one person defines it and starts implementing it, without taking a whole country with him/her. That has been attempted in various countries and has failed, resulting in backlashes towards religionism. The same is true for forced religionism.

It is good that you have a definition of secularism and you support it. I may (or may not) have the same definition. When you go to vote, you should vote with that defintion in mind. And I will vote with my definition in mind. But let everyone else vote with their own definition. The net result will give us what Pakisatan wants. Make the judegements for yourself. That is what I am trying to get across. Just because you think you are correct, doesn`t mean you are correct for everyone.

``now please explain to me what the opposite of `theocratic` is if its not secular``

Pakistan is currently not a theocratic state. It is however not secular either. It is somewhere in between. There is a big grey area in between. This brings me back to my original question. Do you know whether Jinnah used the term secular in any of his speeches? I am just curious. If you don`t know, then just say that you don`t. If you do know, then please point me in that direction. I am just trying to figure out why he did or did not use this term. I think it was because it forced him to face the contradiction in his stand, i.e. demanding a secular nation or non-secular grounds.

shankar #70 Thank you sir for your very nice compliment, and coming from you it is a real pleasure. You mention Bilal Ahmed: I crossed swords with him a few times on certain issues, and have always considered him a very thoughtful and classy chowk poster with whom it is an honor to interact. Last I heard (a few months ago) he was fighting cancer. He no longer posts on chowk. I wonder if any chowkie knows Bilal in real life and can provide an update on his health and pray for his early and full recovery.

harimau #68: ``If he did, how could he ever conclude that a united India would not be able to implement secularism fairly,``

Jinnah was quite convinced that India would not allow Muslims to rise to their potential. Why was he so sure. Let me give you the reasons I think he was sure:

1) He had started off as perhaps the most powerful unifying figure of Muslims, Hindus and British. During his leadership, he felt let down by the Congress, and felt that they would dominate the Muslims and not allow a pluralist society. Please read some of Wolpert`s works to find the exact examples.

2) He then moved to the idea of a dominion, in which India would remain one country, but Muslim states would have pluarlistic representation. Everyone, including Gandhi, British and Jinnah agreed to this. But Nehru did not. This convinced Jinnah that Muslims would be dominated in a united India, if Nehru wasn`t even willing to agree to a pluralistic dominion. It was infact this decision by Nehru that created Pakistan.

The above answers the first part of your query.

``but his own country would be able to do so?``

This is exactly what I am trying to argue. I don`t think Jinnah was sure exactly what would would happen. He was hoping. I think he wanted Pakistan to be secular. But perhaps understood that it was impossible considering the history of the Sub Continent. That is one of the reasons, in my opinion, that he never openly came out with the term secularism. He just kept stating that Pakistan should not be theorecratic. He didn`t want Shariah running Pakistan. But he hoped it would somehow or the other end up secular, but realistically speaking knew it would be somewhere in the grey area, keeping in mind the demographics of the country.

But even more important that that is the whole concept of secularism vs. religionism. These concepts are useless by themselves. They are neither good nor bad. Is a secular person better than a religious person, or vice-versa. No. Neither are secular govts. better than religious ones, nor vice versa. What counts is the content of the character of the person. And the content of the character of the govt. Just making laws and writing constitutions does not make anyone anything.

``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.``

The BJP is only one of the issues (I don`t think Indian Muslims would agree that the BJP has not curtailed minority rights; the first page of their manifesto states they wanted to tear down a mosque, and are proud members of the RSS; perhaps you do not consider that a curtailment of minority rights).

In the context of India, one would have to say that Jinnah has so far been proven correct. One needs to look, not only at the BJP, but at the living and social standard of the Indian Muslims in comparison to the Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims to get the answer.

``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?``

You cannot compare the BJP (no. 1 follower of the RSS) with Nixon or the Christian Coalition. There is absolutely no comparison. The BJP is an extremely Hindu nationalistic party. Please read their manifesto. This furthur proves my point. Secularist consitutions may or may not lead to fair and unopressive govts. Even Indians themselves have gone out of their way to criticize the BJP`s treatment of religious minorities. The most powerful voted man in India (Advani) lead the tearing down of a mosque. Yet Indians solidly support him. If secularism in its text is so great than how did someone like Advani reach such a powerful position.

In my opinion, the BJP is a backlash of forced secularism in India. India was not ready for secularism. Yet it was forced upon them. The BJP website is filled with statements which indicate this.

``When Hindus realized that pseudo-secularism had reduced them to the role of an innocent bystander in the game of politics, they demanded a true secularism where every religious group would be treated the same and a government that would not take Hindu sentiments for granted. Hindutva awakened the Hindus to the new world order`` (www.bjp.org)

``Its position on this issue has all along been: ``Justice for all and appeasement of none``. But it has no doubt that we were and are a Hindu nation; that change of faith cannot mean change of nationality. (www.bjp.org)

``majority of the Muslims of India are converts to that faith from Hinduism through force of circumstances. They are still Hindu in many essential ways and, in a free, prosperous, progressive India, they would find it the most natural thing in the world to revert to their ancient faith and ways of life.`` (www.bjp.org)

According to this statement, all Muslims will revert to Hinduism once they get their marbles straight.

The whole site is filled with statements like this. I cannot imagine anything like this on Nixon`s website.

People need to stop chasing after the facelifts of religionism and secularism, trying to one up each other. Personally speaking, I am a humanist. Any govt. that raises human rights to the highest level is the govt. I will support. I don`t really care whether it is secular or relioginist. Prophet Muhammad ran a religious govt. It broght a revolution in human rights. Canada has a secular govt. It has the best highest human rights records in the world.

Reply Afqqi # 80

You are doing hooshtee nooshtee on chowkwhyen people are writing aginst Islam in UK. Isee this in Spactatre. What you are doing about this, haiN?



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)``.

Your Problems Solved

COVER STORY

Creatures of the cultural cringe

Theodore Dalrymple says the Tipton terrorists were encouraged in their hatred for Britain by the contempt for Western civilisation that is now almost mandatory among many white intellectuals What should they know of Western civilisation who only Tipton know? Tipton is the town in which two of the young Britons of Pakistani descent, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul, who are held in Guantanamo as suspected members of al-Qa’eda, grew up. By common consent, it is the grimmest municipality in the whole of the Black Country, which is itself no aesthete’s paradise, to put it very mildly. In surveys to discover the worst area in Britain to live, Tipton always comes near the top, despite much stiff competition from other places. It is the kind of place that resists all attempts at improvement; indeed, efforts at beautification, such as the placement of large, abstract steel sculptures on the islands of roundabouts, only serve to emphasise the futility of anything but personal escape.

However, we must remember that al-Qa’eda bombed Manhattan, not Tipton. The question remains how two young men from the latter learned to hate not Tipton alone, which would be understandable, but the whole of Western civilisation. What were they avenging, what hoping to bring about?

Let us try to imagine growing up in Tipton — or a thousand other places like it in Britain. What vision would it give us of the world in general, and of Western civilisation in particular?

Tipton is a pimple on the backside of modern British consumer society. By the standards of world history, of course, the people of Tipton are not poor, even if nearly a fifth of them are unemployed. They don’t starve, and their life-expectancy is half as long again as that of the British royal family at the apogee of British power. But the two young men in question would be unlikely to know this; and they would only have seen a society in which the summum bonum was consumerism, but whose members, through lack of money or lack of discrimination, were not even very good at that. They would have seen a white society in which people did not know how to dress with dignity or self-respect, to eat well, or even to enjoy themselves in a sociable fashion without an undercurrent of violence. The whites around them would have been uncouth and uncultured, living in the eternal present moment of popular culture, wearing the new deracinated uniform of the British slums: shell suit, trainers and baseball cap (on a recent visit there, I observed that all the young white men wore baseball caps, as middle-class women in the 1950s wore gloves to go shopping). The days of Francis Brett Young, the Black Country doctor and novelist, in whose works the people of the Black Country, despite their extreme hardships, possessed a sturdy individuality and independence of spirit, are well and truly gone. A way of life has emerged that is utterly charmless and that no sensible person would wish to emulate.

Even the prospect of personal material improvement in Tipton is not all that inviting. Substantial numbers of new houses have been built there, no doubt each conforming to the Parker-Morris standards of physical space per inhabitant and so forth, but utterly without character and incapable of ever developing any. Fitted kitchen cupboards are all very well in their way, but they are no substitute for the social amenities of a proper city. Tipton at its best is a poor suburb without a city.

No doubt Asif and Shafiq would have heard many passionate disquisitions from their fathers and uncles about the degeneracy of the white culture around them, of the disastrous anarchy of family relationships among the whites, and about how superior to all this moral squalor their own traditions were. When they received the racist taunts of their white contemporaries, they would have harboured a sense of their own superiority at the same time.

And yet they could not simply reproduce their fathers’ mental world. They were part modern British too, with many of the same debased tastes as their white contemporaries. They would listen to the same music, eat the same fast food, play the same games. (One sign of the acculturation of Asian youth is the adoption of body-piercing and tattooing, the latter despite the natural unsuitability of Asian skin for it.) They would be attracted by the same baubles, such as mobile phones and designer trainers; but they would feel guilty about their lack of cultural purity. From guilty desire and surreptitious identification it is but a short step to insensate hatred and rage; and perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that the three most rabidly anti-Yankee Latin American countries — Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — are those in which the most baseball is played.

Moreover, the mixture of material inferiority — such as is experienced by many young men of Pakistani origin — and a feeling of spiritual or cultural superiority is a highly combustible one. The Russian Slavophiles felt this paradoxical superiority in the presence of material backwardness with regard to the Western Europeans; the Japanese for a time to the Europeans and Americans, with horrible consequences; the Latin Americans to the North Americans. The Muslim world is acutely aware of its own technical weakness and impotence: to catch up economically with the West it must adopt the West’s methods, and a large part of its culture. Even armed resistance to the encroachment of Western culture has to be carried out with Western weapons — scimitars won’t do. It is a humiliating thought for members of a proud culture that if that culture had ceased to exist three centuries ago, the world would not have had to go without any of the inventions that have shaped modern life.

No attempt is ever made to explain the West’s overwhelming superiority (such that even life in Tipton seems materially abundant by comparison with that in the vast majority of the Muslim world), except by reference to injustice, exploitation and colonial depredation. That the phenomenal and unique inventiveness of the West might be connected in some way with its long philosophical and cultural development, going back to Ancient Greece, is a thought that is never for a moment entertained. In the mental world from which Asif and Shafiq emerged, the difference in the wealth of nations is the result of plunder, not invention and innovation, to be redressed by more effective plunder in the opposite direction. It goes without saying that very few if any attempts would have been made during Asif’s and Shafiq’s schooling to induct them into the glorious tradition of Western civilisation, for fear of offending their parents’ cultural sensibilities; though in all probability no more efforts in that direction would have been made on behalf of the white youth of Tipton, either. From the point of view of Western civilisation, they would be hardly any better informed than their Asian contemporaries. Both whites and Asians, therefore, enjoy the fruit without ever knowing the tree. They are like the East End boys of old, who thought that milk came in bottles because they had never seen or heard of cows.

So all Asif and Shafiq ever knew of Western civilisation was Tipton and its discontents. And they were deliberately kept from any deeper knowledge of our civilisation by the kind of ideological self-hatred that has been so strong a current of British (and Western) intellectual life for the last three or more decades, that precludes any pedagogic affirmation of the Western tradition. This self-hatred explains in part the kind of hatred (and contempt) that the Asifs and Shafiqs of Britain, of whom I suspect there are uncomfortably many, must feel. Not only does the ideological self-hatred of Western intellectuals prevent the likes of Asif and Shafiq from learning anything of the Western tradition, other than Radio One and McDonald’s, but it actually supplies them with the tropes with which to justify their pre-existing anger and violence.

Needless to say, the self-hatred of Western intellectuals is not genuine or sincere: they do not really want to beat our supermarkets into souks, as swords into ploughshares (though I must say that, from the human point of view, I personally do prefer souks to supermarkets). Rather, the intellectual’s expression of self-hatred is directed at other Western intellectuals, to prove the self-hater’s broadness of mind, moral superiority and lack of prejudice, and thus earn the approval of his peers. It isn’t only rebellious youth who experience peer pressure; and anyone who pointed out, for example, that for a very long time now the Western medical tradition has been incomparably superior to all other medical traditions in the world combined and multiplied a thousandfold, would forfeit approval, even though what he said was true, and obviously so.

Unfortunately, insincere ideas can become official orthodoxies, with very real consequences. The Muslims of this country are hardly to blame if they do not realise that the posturings of our intellectuals are just that, posturings, not intended to be taken literally. When the intellectuals of this country express no admiration for or appreciation of the cultural achievements of their civilisation’s past, when only denigration and iconoclasm appear to advance an intellectual’s career, when moral stature is measured by the vehemence of denunciation of past or present abuses, real or imagined, it is hardly surprising that Muslims conclude that the West is eminently hateful; it must be, because it hates itself. They haven’t heard of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess.

Ref 12-head AAmir #: 67

[If you call your self Hindu & claim majority in India why do you not live like HINDU together with enjoying 30 days off for Pujas]

A couple of those thirty days off are for days like Eid, Buddha Purnima, Good Friday, Christmas, Guru Nanak Day, Mahaveer Jayanthi, etc. Just wait till our politicians hear about Rosh Hashana, Passover and Yom Kippur! We will have 400 days of holidays every year!

[Why in secular India cow Slaughter is banned,]

Does it mean you can`t get beef anywhere? Be real.

[Puja performed at opening ceremonies presided by ministers,]

The US Congress opens with a prayer. Why, some time back they had a mullah come and say the prayers. You liked that very much, didn`t you? And how about those prayer-breakfast meetings that the President and various governors attend?

[Why brahmin cook employed in railways & other govt under takings .]

I ought to tell this to my mom. It would convince her not to take her home-cooked food along. By the way, does the Air-India flight kitchen use Brahmin cooks? I suppose they make the chicken dishes too!

[ITS BETTER TO BE NON SECULAR THAN LYING IMPERFECT FRAUD SECULARISM OF INDIA]

What`s your problem? You have lived in the belly of the beast and have been excreted.

Ref ylh #: 99

[... anyway, currently, Harimau has succeeded in jumping another argument and is currently on Turkey Bashing now.]

No, it is the continuation of turkey bashing, if you get my drift.

That article about Turkey was posted to straighten out your pathetic little lie about how hijab is NOT banned in Turkey. It IS banned for government employees and in schools and universities.

RE: EST Reply #: 108 Romair

``Jinnah was quite convinced that India would not allow Muslims to rise to their potential. Why was he so sure. Let me give you the reasons I think he was sure:``

I think this is the first time in history that someone started a ``freedom`` movement for a people even before they were discriminated against.

Another first: it was the first time that part of the ruling class claimed that they were being discriminated against. I can understand if the Dalits started a freedom movement, but the Muslims of pre-partition India?

Ironic, isnt` it?

Re: Romair

``...there is no exact definition of it (secularism). Everyone will have a different definition...``

Yes, you are correct. Secularism needs to be adapted to the particular country in which it is to be applied. I, personally, have no objection to the Western interpretation, and wish that it be practiced in India as well, with no exceptions. The dictionary.com definition is:

``1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2.The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.``

That is how secularism is interpreted in the West (especially the United States). In India, the defintion is slightly modified. The state tries to be officially indifferent to religion, but it also recognizes religious personal laws (a holdover from the British era). These laws will prove exceedingly difficult to roll back even though the Constitution directs the state to strive towards introducing a uniform civil code (although no time frame is prescribed for this)

``...the BJP is a backlash of forced secularism in India...``

It is a bigger backlash to Congress misrule, corruption scandals, erosion of state rights, rise of coterie politics (e.g. installation of Rajiv as PM after Indira`s assassination), and the growth of terrorism in India over the last two decades. The BJP has quite simply occupied a vaccum created by the Congress.

``...Yet Indians solidly support him (Advani)...If secularism in its text is so great than how did someone like Advani reach such a powerful position.``

His public popularity as a PM was 2% in a recent MARG-India Today poll. Advani is less powerful as a home minister than some of his predecessors were who did not have to depend on coalition partners. Have you noticed how the Hindutva-breathing Advani started throwing Iftaar parties last year, and how the BJP has openly disagreed with the VHP before the crucial UP elections? His rise to power is matched by a moderation of his agenda -- the more extreme it is, the more likely that his coalition partners will withdraw support. The BJP lost 4 state elections last year.

``...India was not ready for secularism. Yet it was forced upon them...``

Forced by whom? How? This is a very important issue. Most Indians believe that a freely elected Constituent Assembly comprising of Indians drafted the Constitution. Besides, it is always possible to amend it, and make it non-secular. Has the BJP even tried to introduce a motion in Parliament to do this? It (secularism) has now become the third rail in Indian politics -- touch it at your own peril.

The BJP is free to tout its Hindutva idealogy, but that alone will never be sufficient to bring it to power. Indeed, too great an insistence on it will weaken it. Today, it gets no votes from Muslims, and this is a big drawback for any aspirant to national power on its own merits. Gradually, the BJP is morphing itself to the role that the Congress used to play.

``...According to this statement, all Muslims will revert to Hinduism once they get their marbles straight...``

Yes, these patronizing statements do not endear the BJP to Muslims, and I can understand why it offends the sensibilities of many. Will it ever be able to convert such statements into public policy? I don`t think so.

How can one not agree with this article?

Ras

Harimau,

Unlike you I don`t lie.

1) Ataturk didn`t ban the Hijab. It was banned in `select` public places in 1960. Ofcourse you wouldn`t know because you are seldom aware of the facts.

2) Hijab in Turkey is NOT banned, except for select places like the parliament and other public institutions. Infact the dichotomy of the Turkish society was captured beautifuly in the New York times a few weeks ago, when they showed complete burqah clad ninjas standing next to a poster of a Bikini model in Ankara.



Zafar,

Sir, you apologized for `unintentional` offense on the other board, yet you seem to be doing that again. If you read the whole thing instead of picking up fragments you will that I have not condoned any of Ataturk`s ``crazy`` tendencies nor am I supportive of the role of Turkish Army in Turkish politics, nor do I think wholesale westernization is the answer. Infact I was trying to distinguish between what steps of Ataturk were actually `secular` and what were just `westernization`.

But it is an undeniable fact that Kemal Ataturk introduced the concept of `republicanism` and `sovereignty belonging to the people`... was his `one party` rule indicative of that process? I don`t think so. Was Ataturk a dictator ? Certainly. But did he save the Sick man of Europe from annihilation.. most certainly. Did he resuscitate the Turkish nation... indeed he did. Did he do away with excess baggage and put the welfare of his people infront of us? Yes indeed he did... did he think his autocratic rule was necessary to do this? Yes. was he right? Who knows. An alternative model appeared in the form of Jinnah who did not institute a one-party rule and did not impose his own will on the people. Could Jinnah have created a more democratic society than Turkey through his constitutional democratic method... he didn`t live long enough to show us.

dost-mittar---112

[By destroying the temples of Lat and Manat?]

__________________________________________________

Kaaba was built by the Patriarch prophet Hazrat Ibrahim(Aws).It was built precisely as a revolution against idol-worship.

The Laat,Manaat,Uzza and even an idol of Allah were few of the 360 idols which had crept into kaaba over so many centuries.Our Nabee(sws) simply returned the precincts of kaaba to its original purpose & glory.

Hinduism or rather Vedanta is a monotheistic faith.As we witness idol-worship has now almost become synonymous with this great religion.In fact,if you really reflect there are very few societies in the world today who have retained idol-worship & accompanaying superstitions to such instituitionalised level.

In fact Iqbal has written that the world heard about monotheism for the very first time from the heartland of Hind:(vahdat al vujood as opposed to vahdat al shahood)

``Vahdat kee lai sunee thhee,dunyaa ney jis makaan sey

Meer e arab ko aayee,thhandee havaa jahaan sey

----meraa vatan vohee hai,meraa vataan vohee hey``

The second line is in reference to the hadith attributed to my beloved Nabee(sws) when he said that he really enjoys the cool monsoon breeze from Hind.Meer e arab means the Leader of Arabs.