The Place of Debate

Notice the language used to describe the problem - notice how ``reason`` is used - And we`re off: Now, the remedy is constitutional - even as we debate not whether secularism, but the nature of the secularism -- Serious Bloodshed will be avoided only if objective secularism is triumphant n the public mind.

Chowk Staff:

``When state officials encourage debate, it appears that Pakistan is well on its way to solving its highly dogmatic foreign policy and other evils of obscurantism``.

First of all it is commie-speak. And I hate commie-speak.

Now that I have registered my dislike, let me welcome you to the planet earth. Now tell me what the hell is this ``encourage debate`` nonesense. Dont you know the constitution has just been raped by despots while the nation is held hostage against US and Indian agression. There are thousands of prisnors of conscience incarcerated in Paksitani jails at the nod of new masters. Political, religious, and religio-political groups are being banned. Dissent is being controlled by the threat of labeling as alqaeda symapathizers, terrorists, and anti-pakistan.

``Chowk has since inception argued that debate and discussion are the only means to solve various social and political problems.``

I dont know from under which rock you have come from, but there is no political forum in pakistan to debate. None, Nada, Zilch. What we have is a machli bazar where each is to his own. Two main political parties are held hostage. Political forums are being banned. ``Obscurantist`` my ass. First of all we should ask ourselves and ``them`` why dont they ban organizations even like IRA, Michigan Militia, Branch Dividians, Nazis, Ruby Ridge, Faggots, and Transvestites in their countries even after what Timothy McVeighs, David Koreshes, and other assorted nuts have done whereas they hold us hostages and ask us to ban our political forums and parties. Obscurantism my ass. THis despot hasn`t even bothered with a friggin` referendum to ``authenticate`` the rape of the constitution. Obscurantism my ass.

The hardest test that the people of any decent, godfearing polity face is to give equal rights even to the people whom you dislike and hate. It is utter shame that the allegedly enlightened species of our country-the english speaking litrary, as Ayaz Air puts it- is so happy that they have finally been able to put their political opponents where they belong. Dont you undersatnd that it is never ever the outside agression that destroys a civilization or a polity or even a democracy. It is not even the injustice that becomes inherent in the society, that destroys it; it is actually the evaporation of the sense of right and wrong that destroys the society. Obscurantism my ass.

lahola wila quwwat.

Chowk staff,

The DG and his ilk are the problem in Pakistan.You yourself have shown your complete lack of maturity by becoming impressed by this article.It seems you(whoever you are)either do not follow the debates on chowk or are deliberately trying to promote an agenda(by using so obvious hate/biased loaded words like /obscurantism --a clear giveaway of an atheist mindset).

This subject has been not just been debated but flogged to death on chowk eversince chowk was launched.Chowk has infact become the most boring site known precisely because of this non-issue.

Pakistans & Indias` problems are corruption,nepotism,neo-feudalism(oligarchy of army,beaurocrats,technocrats),foreign-footholds,protection of looters by United STAKES,

a desire to jump start the genes into 21st century,looking down upon workers(kummees)& glamourising /officers -----and a lot more.

But India is a living example of what should never be emulated by any nation on earth.A hodgepodge Kichhree of ideas which tries to gloss over its majority naked,emaciated,starving(the ultimate metaphor of Poverty incarnate) by showing to to world its naked inglisyphlised women & men kanjars,gaudy ornate movie scenes,&

trying to convince the world that the Indians can out-kanjar most known kanjars.

Just ask anyone who visits Pakistan after they have visited India.To them the place looks relatively of course,clean & safe.I was almost pleasantly shocked to learn that Pakistan does not have foot-path homeless people---and in India almost half the population is homeless(of course to the crazy maataa-mootaa connoiseours such poverty is ``normal`` & they hop step & jump to their own kholis to do their IT stuff).

Seriously folks,my dear dear Pakistanis:

Never let this nefarious propaganda affect you.India is the biggest slum in the world & no talk of ``progress`` is going to change that.I mean,people who try to revere & promote an ET look-alike just cannot be thinking right.The spidery-sparrow with his non-violence mantra was ok with the WW2 backdrop & europe in terror.The socialist,communist,and anti-class,liberal groups were using every straw to break free from the strangle-hold of British Class system(worse than brahminism--even today)

__________________________________________________

When was the last time CHOWK STAFF printed something from the truly learned?--hint:they are not secularists or kanjars.

You know I can fully understand Mr. Alam refering to Jinnah`s speech of Sep 11 (what a coincidence!), 1947. It is a way of relating to the audience, reaching out to them as fellow citizens with a common shared vision. But the problem is also that this is appealing to authority, though an authority different than what the mullas would cite. How about coming up with a cogent argument for why secularism is necessary, what is so great about it, etc.? Secularism would have made sense when there were minority communities to speak of. But with the minorities more or less driven out secularism is, as they say, trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted. Secularism is a lubricant that is necessary in a pluralistic society which pakistan hardly is. A more successful and APPROPRIATE solution for present-day pakistan might be a benign theocracy where religion still takes center-stage but the mullas are defanged.

The Western Concept of separation of State from religion is a concept which I do not and cannot agree with, Islam is to comprehensive way of life for such a separation. Some very basic tenets of human decency and life are derived from Islam, and the absence of a priesthood lays the burden of following what`s right to us and us alone.

After all has secualrism dented religion in India?..The failure to give adequate voice to the religious feelings of the majority hindu community played a major role in the growth of the BJP, similairly in turkey the disenfranchisement of people wishing to express religious beliefs is another issue which is contrary to the Western concept of self defined human rights, ( these International human rights one should remember were only defined after massive mechanised blood shed that occurred in two world wars, unlike 9-11 90 million dead is just a statistic)

You don`t need idealogy to be Muslim or run a Islamic state. Idealogy is often a tool to declare your opponents anti state and deserving extreme punishments.

The problem in political Islam is the use of it as a tool for promoting the self interests of incompetent leaders who fail to see the big picture of the need for a free press, the protection of minorities( religious ethnic and political), and a built in system of transparanecy and accountability, this failure of realisation is an act which is no fault of a religion which has enriched billions of lives.

Nationalism gone berserk

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1903/19031200.htm

The growing hubris-driven, illiberal, intolerant nationalism in India falsifies and glorifies the country`s ``Hindu`` past. It is viscerally hostile to Pakistan, but servile to the United States.

HAVE Indians reached such a point of moral degeneration and self-brutalisation that plotting to assassinate Pakistan`s leaders becomes the ultimate test of ``patriotism`` for the country`s youth? A terrible story from Shivpuri in Madhya Pradesh, not far from Gwalior, suggests that this may be actually happening. This is the story of two boys, Pinku (10) and Rinku (17), who wanted to become the ``heroes of the nation`` by avenging the December 13 attack on Parliament House - by assassinating Pervez Musharraf, no less.

Brought up on a daily diet of Bollywood-style ``patriotism``, and hero-worship of the Knights in Shining Armour who take on the mighty with their macho strength, Pinku and Rinku decided that India must wage war on Pakistan, or else they would become good ``patriotic`` terrorists, buy arms, smuggle themselves into Pakistan, and go and kill Musharraf.

On January 11, they kidnapped Shanu, the eight-year-old son of a businessman, for ransom, with which to procure the weapons for the Great and Holy Deed of killing Musharraf the Monster. Driven as they were by the role-models offered in films such as Gadar and Indian, and Fiza and Mission Kashmir, they hatched a plot to hold the boy, Shanu, hostage and collect the money they needed to execute their plan.

But once they abducted Shanu, they realised they could not really hide him anywhere. Nor could they invent credible alibis, nor even ways of collecting the ransom. They panicked and strangled him to death with a shoelace. According to The Telegraph (January 21), the boys confessed to their crime, but the district authorities believe that their motivation was indeed ``patriotic``.

It is tempting to discount this gory incident as a mere aberration, a rare case of ``juvenile delinquency`` coupled with ``misguided patriotism``, as exposure to ``too much Bollywood``, and so on. But it warrants serious, sober, reflection on the kind of values we are imparting to a whole generation of young people - through textbooks, through extremely competitive merit-ranking at school, through cinema and television, through accepted but aggressive patterns of behaviour in the street, and more generally, through our general social and political discourse.

These values have long glorified maleness, raw power, violence, aggression and war, and ``normalised`` or routinised cruelty. For years, India`s ``popular`` cinema and television have shamelessly promoted negative, hate-driven images of heroes as well as vamps and villains. This phenomenon has recently got even more perverse as the hero and the villain have merged, and the vamp has become the quintessential bride-dancer whom wedding parties emulate, especially in northern India. The cynical depiction of violence and aggressive behaviour has kept pace with sex and sleaze in the mass media.

Take education. Many of our schools, cast in the post-colonial ``nation-building`` tradition, valorise military-style discipline and a stressfully competitive view of ``achievement`` and excellence. The typical child grows up believing that hubris and pride in India`s ``inherent`` greatness and moral-cultural superiority is a ``normal`` characteristic of the good citizen. The tone and tenor of school and college debates has become increasingly raucous under the influence of the same kind of aggressive nationalism.

This nationalism is self-aggrandising. It pits itself against reason, logic and truth. It constructs indefinitely continuous communities (for example, ``Hindus``, from the Vedic period, followed by the rise of Buddhism, through the Brahminical-caste consolidation phase, and the Bhakti movement, to the late medieval period), where none existed. This nationalism validates aggressive and militarist notions of power relations as part of ``human nature``. Thus, India is ``naturally`` great. It has always been. Millions of Indians are being drilled and coached into believing `Mera Bharat Mahan`!

HUMAN Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and his people in the National Council for Educational Research and Training, and numerous other institutions, have added a particularly toxic ingredient to this already foul cocktail of values and prejudices by saffronising education and rewriting history. This enterprise, a veritable cultural counter-revolution in itself, has been subjected to so much incisive criticism that it is unnecessary to recall the factual inaccuracies, the lies and half-truths, the indelible ethnic-religious prejudices, and the sophistry and irrationality that suffuse it.

The larger, central, overwhelming, purpose of Joshi and Co`s project is to ``prove`` that India is the greatest civilisation and culture in world history, that virtually everything valuable in the ``ancient`` world was derived from India. This ``ancient`` periodisation can be arbitrarily stretched to the 10th or even the 13th century, as in the case of the Konark or Lingaraja temples of Orissa or the Nataraja temple of Chidambaram. Joshi claims that it is now ``proved`` that the river Saraswati actually existed. The other day he proudly announced the discovery of a 7,500 year-old ``civilisation`` in the Gulf of Cambay - a strange thing for a Minister to do in the absence of an academic paper, and when the ``finds`` there are still under interpretation and in need of corroboration.

The concept of nationalism involved here is ethnic-religious and cultural. It conceives of India as a quintessentially traditional society. It cannot accommodate modernist notions of universal values, political identity or citizenship. It demands total, blind, loyalty to the woolly concept of an ``Eternal India``, which is further mystified and deified as ``Bharat Mata``.

In this view, respect, or rather reverence, for the nation is based on unquestioning devotion to the abstract notion of India`s ``inherent`` greatness and its unique superiority, its spectacular, unmatched achievements in all fields. These are grossly exaggerated and mystified. (For instance, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan claimed in his last Vijayadashami address that an Indian had built and flown an airplane in Baroda years before the Wright Brothers did so - a ludicrous assertion!)

In this scheme, pride in one`s nation is premised upon disdain for, or hatred of, other nations or identities. Islam and Muslims have functioned as the Other longest of all within this ethnic-nationalist demonology. Everything that is ``Eastern``, but other than Indian, is trivialised, minimised, parodied or reviled. This could be Persian or Chinese, or from Sumer or Sri Lankan. These cultures are considered at best derivative (and unimportant) in relation to India. The ``true``, essential, authentic, subject of the Nation is one particular community. ``Others`` can be accommodated on its fringes. But that is because `We` are tolerant, not because India is plural.

In the contemporary context, this hatred of the Other gets focussed upon Pakistan, which is demonised as a country, society, state and regime which is inherently inimical to India and with which peaceful co-existence is virtually impossible. Pakistan is credited with virtually mystical powers to subvert and destabilise India and create havoc. As in the classical Savarkar formulation, Pakistan is the external manifestation of the eternal ``internal`` threat embodied by Muslims - just as Indian Muslims represent Pakistan`s Fifth Column.

India`s sheer size allows the votaries of this nationalism to look at our other neighbours (barring China) as dwarfs, midgets and non-entities compared to the Indian giant. India is unique, India is exceptional, India is unmatched, India is eternal. This is precisely the kind of nationalism that Rabindranath Tagore described as a ``great menace``. As he put it: ``It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India`s troubles``.

This toxic, aggressive, exclusive, competitive, belligerent nationalism is the very opposite of a relaxed, self-confident, inclusive view of the nation and the world. It binds and encloses. It does not liberate. In fact, it lacks a progressive character. It is not anti-imperialist. At least no longer. It does not question the skewed distribution of power in the world. It accepts the dominant-dominated duality as the ``natural`` order, but wants India to be the co ck of the walk.

This nationalism kowtows to the powerful, the dominant, the hegemonic. In its present form, it is servile to ``the West``, in particular to the United States, just as it is arrogant towards ``the East`` (minus India, of course, which being Aryan, ``really`` belongs to the West). Nothing illustrates this better than the Indian official reception to Musharraf`s landmark address of January 12, and the growing intimacy between the Vajpayee government and President George W. Bush, now leading to dangerous liaisons in intelligence-sharing and even ground-level operations.

MUSHARRAF in his speech set out to do something exceptionally bold: undermine a major part of the foundation of his own state (namely extremist political Islam). This is the sharpest and most comprehensive criticism of ethnic-religious fundamentalism voiced by the head of any South Asian state in the past half-century. Musharraf minced no words in laying out Pakistan`s pathology, marked by its mix of Islam and politics, the military and the mullahs, the Taliban and terrorism. He posed the choice for Pakistan clearly: between a ``theocratic state`` and a modern, moderate, liberal, tolerant society.

Musharraf also told jehadi militants not to mess around with other countries, whatever the offence to Islam there. Implicit here is the view that Pakistan has paid dearly by pandering to pan-Islamic ideas. Musharraf has since cracked down on jehadi militants, arresting 2,500 of them. He may have started cutting the umbilical cord between the Pakistani state and political Islam, and proceeded to dismantle communal electorates.

Musharraf has launched only ``half a revolution``. His reform agenda lacks a ``perspective from below``, one that arises from the struggles of the working people. It has no economic content worth the name. Musharraf`s chosen agency for his reform ``from above`` is none other than the Pakistani state, a thoroughly corrupt, compromised and unreliable entity. He may not succeed. Formidable forces are arrayed against him.

To point this out is one thing, to term his address an exercise in ``deception`` or ``doublespeak`` is quite another. This approach ridicules the very possibility of reform in Pakistan by declaring it irredeemable. Indian leaders have at best been grudging and mean-spirited in acknowledging that Musharraf has done something remarkable. Thus, L.K. Advani called the address ``path-breaking``, but only for its domestic agenda. Vajpayee only saw some ``positive elements`` in it.

This leaves one wondering if this parsimonious response has something to do with the Bharatiya Janata Party`s general fear of secularisation and modernisation - contrasted to its own agenda of turning India into a morass of obscurantism, superstition and communal prejudice.

Contrast this with the Vajpayee government`s kowtowing to the U.S. Never before has any Indian government so pusillanimously colluded with hegemonic U.S. moves in this region or actively invited American interference in its internal affairs. Vajpayee & Co not only uncritically supported the U.S. ``war on terrorism`` with all its excesses and its devious manipulation of the United Nations. They did not let out even a squeak of protest or concern at the U.S.` current construction of four military bases in Pakistan.

It allowed an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to visit Kolkata after the recent ``terrorist`` attack just as it welcomed a whole stream of FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), ``counter-terrorism`` and other officials. According to The Telegraph (January 21 and 22), it is about to launch joint operations along with U.S. agencies to stop possible terrorist infiltration and activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-U.S. Joint Working Group, which met in New Delhi in the third week of January, has announced a broad range of ``cooperative`` activities including ``political, diplomatic, military, intelligence and financial measures``.

India has ``welcomed`` a U.S. ``pilot project`` involving equipment and technology to strengthen ``border management and surveillance``. The two sides reportedly also discussed ``forensic cooperation`` and added aviation security to their agenda, and placed ``special stress`` on ways to beef up intelligence and investigative cooperation, including the possibility of access to each other`s databases on terrorists.

This goes far beyond ``intelligence sharing``, even ``cooperative monitoring`` through agencies such as the Sandia National Laboratories of New Mexico, a well-known U.S. weapons design and production facility. On the cards are ``joint operations`` on the ground, for which the way may have been paved by the visit of DIA chief Admiral Thomas Wilson to the Kashmir Valley, including to ``sensitive`` border areas. This spells serious interference in India`s affairs and erosion of its sovereignty, with potentially dangerous consequences.

The Place of Debate

``Chowk has since inception argued that debate and discussion are the only means to solve various social and political problems.``

Only if the ``debate`` and ``discussion`` could take hold at Chowk. Alas! What I see is a lot of hate-mogering. It is unfortunate that all the participants at Chowk, who are although well-educated and well-read, their prejudices, biases, narrow-mindedness, and historical baggages have rendered them irrelevent and useless, and have reduced them standing at the lower rung of the ladder of civilazation. Such is the characteristic of the South Asians: forever petty, sarcastic, and hateful towards others who are not made in their image. The interactors and their posts at Chowk have been an enlightening experience for me. They tell me why South Asia is the way it is: stuck in the muck up to its mouth. The sad part is that South Asians do not mind them being stuck so long as the ``other`` guy is also stuck in the same muck.

This Place is more like: I hate you because you are not like me.

Hooray for ``debate`` and ``discussion``!!!

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20020126.htm

Saying the `S` word

By Irfan Husain

Convoluted thinking often results in muddled policies, unnecessary problems and frequent backtracking. It also prevents continuity and consistency.

Thus, when Zia inflicted his iniquitous system of separate electorates on our hapless minorities twenty years ago, even the malign dictator could not have foreseen the damage he was doing not just to our few million non-Muslims, but to the fabric of Pakistani society. Basically, his intention was to deny the PPP a solid vote bank in those areas where the minority communities were concentrated because the perception of most non-Muslims is that he People`s Party is more sympathetic, or at least less hostile, towards them than other political parties.

An immediate result of this policy was to disenfranchise the minorities for all intents and purposes. Under the separate electorate system, minorities could only vote for candidates of their own faith, no matter how far away they were based. For instance, Parsis in Karachi might have to choose between candidates in their own city, Lahore and Rawalpindi, because their community is small and scattered.

In a society where the state`s resources are limited, the lion`s share will always go to those with the right connections. And since the mainstream parties and their candidates no longer needed to solicit votes from the minorities, they were not indebted to them if they won. Thus, non-Muslim voters were denied access to local MPs and, through them, to government employment, water and power connections, and all the other amenities controlled by the state. But even more importantly, they were deprived of all political power. In this environment of weakness and vulnerability, the controversial Blasphemy Law was like rubbing salt into the wounds suffered by our minorities. Through its blatant misuse, poor, illiterate Christians have been accused of writing blasphemous screeds, and have actually been given the death sentence by lower courts. Only the intervention of the superior courts has halted this travesty.

The plight of the Ahmadis has been particularly poignant. As they consider themselves Muslims, they have refused to vote as a minority community, and have gone unrepresented in all the elections held since they were declared non-Muslims in 1974. Since then, they have been persecuted by a hostile majority, with the state being a silent witness. Dozens of them are languishing in jail for the `crime` of reciting kalma.

I know I have written about our shameful treatment of minorities in the past, but I make no apology for repeating myself. Against this grim backdrop, the government`s decision to do away with separate electorates came as a welcome relief. Combined with the on-going crackdown on jihadis and the proposed monitoring of madressahs, this change in course might take Pakistan back into the mainstream of civilized behaviour towards minorities.

In this context, it was refreshing to read the current issue of Newsweek in which President Musharraf was cited as saying that his ``real role model is Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan`s founder, who envisaged a modern, secular Muslim state.`` This drew immediate flak from the reactionary section of the press which denied Jinnah`s secular vision for Pakistan. So much so that a spokesman for the general denied that he had used the word ``secular.``

Such is the disrepute the word has fallen into over the years that politicians are mortally afraid of having it applied to them. One reason is that it is (mis) translated into Urdu as `ladeenyat` or `irreligiosity` when it actually means a separation of religion from public life. The truth is that anybody who has read Stanley Wolpert`s biography of Jinnah, or studied the great man`s life from other independent sources, cannot but fail to conclude that he was a secularist through and through.

Most Pakistanis erroneously equate western social mores and lifestyle with secularism, not realizing that it is possible to be a firm believer and yet live in a secular society. There is absolutely no contradiction between secularism and piety. Indeed, many Muslim states are secular with millions of believers living exemplary lives in accordance with the teachings of the Quran. Conversely, it is possible to have Islamic states with many of their citizens committing every sin in the book (and more besides).

The contradiction inherent in ideological states of any kind - be they Islamic, communist or Judaic - is that they have a problem with those citizens who do not adhere to the official dogma. Thus, non-Jewish citizens cannot buy property in Israel. Non-communists are denied top government jobs in China. And in Pakistan, non-Muslims are subjected to all kinds of discrimination and worse as we have seen above.

This brings one to the conclusion that democratic rights for every citizen can only be guaranteed in a secular state. In non-secular states where the law is based on religion, non-believers cannot be equal under the law, and this is the first principle of a democratic order.

Apart from the minorities, women have also been marginalized in Pakistan. While increasing their representation in the National Assembly will hopefully raise their profile, it will not do much for half of Pakistan`s population that, because of its gender, has been condemned to intolerable conditions. While much of this is due more to social conditioning rather than state policy, religious edicts certainly play a major role in determining the position of women in society.

Some people often point to Saudi Arabia as an exemplar of perfect religious observance. They feel that the low crime rate and high standard of living is all due to the strict enforcement of the Islamic code. They maintain that if we would only follow the Saudi example, all would be well in Pakistan. Unfortunately, they forget that Saudi society is afloat on oil, and any disruption in the sale of its black gold would result in massive turmoil. The state can afford to give its citizens all kinds of subsidies, so there is little economic incentive to steal. But many crimes take place behind the scenes.

A few months ago, I saw a brilliant play called ``God only knows`` in London in which the most fundamental tenets of Christianity were questioned. No protest demonstrations were held outside the theatre; no editorials condemning the playwright appeared in the press; and no death threats were sent to the director. For me, this is true democracy.

Urstrluy,

Man, for once I agree with your thoughts. I can see the training you have under gone has benefited you - an educated person (not just literate).

You have put it briliantly - I liked the following

begin_quote

Dont you undersatnd that it is never ever the outside agression that destroys a civilization or a polity or even a democracy. It is not even the injustice that becomes inherent in the society, that destroys it; it is actually the evaporation of the sense of right and wrong that destroys the society.

end_quote

Betrayal of Jinnah`s dream

Prafull Goradia

As a follow-up of General Musharraf`s call for turning Pakistan into a secular state, requesting his fellow countrymen to stay committed to the nation rather than the ummah, Dr Rafiq Zakaria`s thesis on who divided India has proved to be ill timed. Some of the references made in course of his argument are particularly unfortunate, especially if one remembers that Indian Muslims are likely to face unprecedented pressure as a corollary of Musharraf`s call for secularism in his January 12 television speech. Some of Zakaria`s observations are incredible. He asserts that the Indian Muslims have been permanently enslaved, two-third of them to the Hindus.

Before discussing Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah`s full vision of a separate homeland, it`s relevant to ask Zakaria about his notion of slavery. Has he forgotten our two important Presidents, Dr Zakir Hussain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who happened to be Muslims? Not to forget, our three Chief Justices, Messrs Beg, Hidayatullah and Ahmadi. The Air Force too has had the privilege of having a Muslim chief. Apparently, influence of Muslim vote bank during elections is proverbial.









The same Muslim League which was responsible for Partition, is still flourishing with several MPs in the Lok Sabha. Though this does not suggest an element of favour in these achievements, it certainly indicates that Muslims are very much a part of our mainstream. Our`s is perhaps one of those few countries where Muslim Personal law is still untempered.

One must note that even in Pakistan it is much more difficult to marry a second time or to divorce the first wife, than in our country. The fact that Zakaria can express such fanciful views itself proves that he is no slave. It is true that Hindus were enslaved by invaders, whether they came via the Hindukush or the Indian ocean. For centuries, many Muslim rulers in fact treated their Hindu subjects with contempt, calling them zimmis, levying jizya. Since the Shariat was in force across large tracts, by and large, the subcontinent was considered Dar-ul-Islam. It was only with the advent of the British and the defeat of the Muslim rulers that there was a growing discontent amongst Hindus.

If Zakaria`s frame of mind is based on this history, it still would not add up to the Muslims being enslaved in India. Zakaria himself has written on page 202 that Muslims of Bombay, UP and Bihar, were the first to respond to the call for Partition, enthusiastically supporting the demand for Pakistan.

The Qaid-e-Azam, a Gujarati speaking Bombay man. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan belonged to UP. According to both of them, the smaller the minority, the more its insecurity. In Hindu majority areas like the Punjab and Sindh, there was no insecurity amongst Muslims, explaining their slow response to the call for Pakistan. The fault, however, lay with the betrayal of Jinnah`s vision of Pakistan. An integral part of the Muslim League`s demand for Partition was an exchange of population between the two dominions. The Hindus were to shift to India and all Muslims living on this side of the border were to migrate to the newly created state of Pakistan. The well-known Karachi daily, Dawn, extensively covered what the League leaders demanded throughout 1946. In turn, Justice GD Khosla has quoted the newspaper repeatedly in his book titled Stern Reckon (New Delhi, 1948). At a press conference on November 25, 1946, at Karachi, Jinnah appealed to the Central as well as the provincial governments to take the question of population exchange. Earlier that year, Sir Feroze Khan Noon, while addressing the Muslim League legislators, had gone to the extent of threatening the re-enactment of the murderous orgies of Chengiz Khan and Halaqu Khan if non-Muslims did not agree to the proposal for population transfer. Khan Iftikhar Hussain of Mamdot had said that the exchange of population offered a practical solution for the problem of Muslims in Dawn (December 3). Pir Ilahi Bur, the Sindh leader, observed that he welcomed an exchange of population for the safety of the minorities, as it would put an end to all communal disturbances. Ismail Chundrigar, who eventually became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, had said that the British had no right to hand over Muslims to a subject people, over whom they had ruled for 500 years.

Mohammad Ismail, a Madras leader, had declared that Muslims of India were in the midst of a jihad. Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of the more famous Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, had threatened, while the British were still present, a rehearsal of what the Muslims would do to the Hindus eventually. The point that comes through clearly is that the transfer of population was an integral part of the demand for Pakistan. Unfortunately, for the Muslims, the Congress leaders, on the one hand, conceded Partition, and on the other stood in the way of its total consummation, that is with regard to hijrat of Muslims. As is well-known, migration is neither novel, nor surprising to the devout Muslims. Prophet Mohammad had undertaken hijrat from Mecca to Medina while founding Islam. Much more recently and in India, hijrat was undertaken by 18,000 Muslims who migrated to Afghanistan in 1920, in wake of their realisation that British would not concede the Sultan of Turkey continuing on his throne and thus remaining the khalifa of all Sunnis. For the Muslim League, Partition, as it turned out, was a dividere interruptus.

It can however, be argued that despite the obstinacy of the Congress leaders, many Muslims, if not most or all of them, could have migrated, but they chose to stay. Surely Zakaria would not like to blame the Hindus for this.

This is a very positive step from Chowk staff. Please keep it up!

Aisha

cutandPaste--10

[For centuries, many Muslim rulers in fact treated their Hindu subjects with contempt, calling them zimmis, levying jizya.]

Mr.Goradia should know:

1.Non-muslims are exempt from zakat.

2.They are zimmis,not out of contempt,but because the word means ``are the responsibility of``(from Zimma---like in urdu/hindi mera zimma) muslims to assure their safety & security in war & peace.protected citizenry.

3.Muslims do not expect those who do not subscribe to a state under Islamic law to be subservient to that law.They are inherently free to live their lives according to their own customs,creeds,& religious laws---& they should.

4.It was for this very reason that the jews of germany took the plea that they are exempt from military service.For centuries in Spain & other muslim empires,from where they migrated to germany,they alongwith other faiths as non-muslims enjoyed this privilege.

It may be an eye opener for Goradia & a lot of ingishsyphilsised lot to know that the West is still way way behind the islamic ``modernity`` & progress.

Our inglissyphlic populace considers somethig worthwile only when the Masters decree that it is right & wrong.If sikhism has ruled against smoking it is obscurantism(or for that matter parsis,or if Maulana Jamaluddin Afghani) but when the goraa-dundaa,with police & fines,is rammed through all the nine orifices of the kanjars only then it is ``scientific``,``modern``,``progressive``.

A fie on kanjars---irrespective of cast & creed.

As an innocent peaceful byestander with no motive at all other than getting my charpoy and hookah back (in Jhang, under the big banyan tree in Uthaad) I simply want to know:-

a) What is the locus standii in Pakistan of ````Pakistan Foreign Policy Academy, Mansoor Alam, while speaking on ``Foreign policy and religion`` at the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs on Saturday.````

b) Are ``they`` going to debate on ``their`` own steam or on government time and dime?

But seriously . . . ma`an . . . if anybody had quoted exceptions from the Quran where pork was permitted, there would have been riots in some parts here . . . so good luck, and fact remains that good pork chops are very very fattening though they taste nice.

From to-days New York Times Op/Ed knowing almost all Pakistani english school educated brown sahib McAuleys Child is a Rashdie wannabe .After all what else can a Language major be not Frcs or Mrcp

America and Anti-Americans

By SALMAN RUSHDIE

LONDON -- They told us it would be a long, ugly struggle, and so it is. America`s war against terror has entered its second phase, a phase characterized by the storm over the status and human rights of the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray and by the frustrating failure of the United States to find Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Additionally, if America now attacks other countries suspected of harboring terrorists it will almost certainly do so alone. In spite of the military successes, America finds itself facing a broader ideological adversary that may turn out to be as hard to defeat as militant Islam: anti-Americanism, which is presently becoming more evident everywhere.

The good news is that these post- Taliban days are bad times for Islamist fanatics. Dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar look like yesterday`s men, unholy warriors who forced martyrdom on others while running for the hills themselves. Also, if the persistent rumors are to be believed, the fall of the terrorist axis in Afghanistan may well have prevented an Islamist coup against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, led by the more Taliban-like elements in the armed forces and intelligence services — people like the terrifying General Hamid Gul. And President Musharraf, no angel himself, has been pushed into arresting the leaders of the Kashmiri terrorist groups he used to encourage.

Around the world, the lessons of the American action in Afghanistan are being learned. Jihad is no longer quite as cool an idea as it was last fall.

States under suspicion of giving succor to terrorism have suddenly been trying to make nice, even going so far as to round up a few bad guys. Iran has accepted the legitimacy of the new Afghan government. Even Britain, a state which has been more tolerant of Islamist fanaticism than most, is beginning to distinguish between resisting ``Islamophobia`` and providing a safe haven for some of the worst people in the world.

America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done, and did it well. The bad news, however, is that these successes have not won new friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may have made some parts of the world hate America more than they did before. Critics of the Afghan campaign in the West are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, American forces weren`t humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn`t massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn`t that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that seems to have broad support among the people.

Meanwhile, those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti- American radicalism feeds off widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and it remains true that nothing would undermine the fanatics` propaganda more completely than an acceptable settlement in the Middle East.

However, even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti- Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations` many defects — their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest- beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self- loathing. (``We hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves.``) What America is accused of — closed- mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance — is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

These days there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it. Anybody who has visited Britain and Europe, or followed the public conversation there during the past five months, will have been struck, even shocked, by the depth of anti-American feeling among large segments of the population. Western anti-Americanism is an altogether more petulant phenomenon than its Islamic counterpart and far more personalized. Muslim countries don`t like America`s power, its ``arrogance,`` its success; but in the non-American West, the main objection seems to be to American people. Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners` diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted. (``Americans only care about their own dead.``) American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centeredness: these are the crucial issues.

It would be easy for America, in the present climate of hostility, to fail to respond to constructive criticism, or worse: to start acting like the overwhelming superpower it is, making decisions and throwing its weight around without regard for the concerns of what it perceives as an already hostile world. The treatment of the Camp X-Ray detainees is a worrying sign. Secretary of State Colin Powell`s reported desire to determine whether, under the Geneva Convention, these persons should be considered prisoners of war was a statesmanlike response to global pressure — but Mr. Powell has apparently failed to persuade President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

The Bush administration has come a long way from its treaty-smashing beginnings. It should not abandon consensus-building now. Great power and great wealth are perhaps never popular, yet, more than ever, we need the United States to exercise its power and economic might responsibly. This is not the time to ignore the rest of the world and decide to go it alone. To do so would be to risk losing after you`ve won.

Salman Rushdie is the author of ``Fury: A Novel`` and the forthcoming essay collection ``Step Across This Line.``

MUSLIMS:Please READ & CIRCULATE.VERY VERY INFORMATIVE & POWERFUL.Most authoritative & must be used in all meetings supporting a Palestinian homeland.

__________________________________________________

The complete text of

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

Published by

Jews for Justice in the Middle East

__________________________________________________

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational ``terrorists`` who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.

This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region`s problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.

Introduction

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs` inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists` intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn`t matter. The Arabs` opposition to Zionism wasn`t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930`s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic ``land without people for a people without land`` was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.



Click on the next chapter

Early History of the Region

The British Mandate Period 1920-1948

The UN Partition of Palestine

Statehood and Expulsion - 1948

The 1967 War and Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

The History of Terrorism in the Region

Jewish Criticism of Zionism

Zionism and the Holocaust

General Considerations

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel

Intifada 2000 And The ``Peace Process``

Views Of The Future

Conclusion I For Jewish Readers

Conclusion II

For free printed copies write to:

Jews for Justice in The Middle East

P.O. Box 14561

Berkeley CA 94712



FOR complete report:

www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/index.html

There can be nothing better than an introspective debate on Pakistan. The more one is willing to accept criticism, internally and externally, the stronger one becomes. The best thing Pakistan can do is to have everyone criticise it. Which is what has been happening for a few months now.

What is important is to ensure that everyone comes to the table with an open mind, and no pre-conceived notions. This is the problem in Pakistan`s secular-religious debate. Each group comes to the table already convinced, and unwilling to change his/her mind. There is absolutely no way to convince the secularists that maybe secularism in public life isn`t the best thing for Pakistan. And their is no way to convince the religionists that maybe religion in public life isn`t the best thing for Pakistan. They are all locked in their views. Yet they want debate, for some reason.

The second point is that solutions have to found keeping in view the society of Pakistan. Unfortunately, each group wants a solution because it works perfectly in some other society. Many even step back a few centuries. What maybe good for the US, may not suit Pakistan. What maybe good for Iran may not suit Pakistan. Logic within a realistic and applicable boundaries of the Pakistani society should be the only guiding light.

I used to have about a hundred things on which I disagreed with Indians. After meeting hundreds of Indians now, this number has reduced to two (Kashmir and the Indian arms build up). Not ideal but a lot better than a hundred. If the secularists and the religionists get together and communicate with each other, they will find some common bond. Only then can Pakistan move forward. As long as each group settles for nothing but the complete elimination of the other, no progress will be made. The ultimate solution, in my opinion, will be something in the middle. Forced secularism and forced religionism need to be avoided at all costs. They divide societies and result in extreme backlash.

If the Pakistani society can be educated and fed, it will automatically find its happy medium, with no interference from its, ``intellectuals`` from the left or right. Till that time, let the debates begin. Just drop your rank and pre-conceived notions at the door.

P.S. contrary to what people state, Jinnah himself wasn`t convinced on exactly what he wanted Pakistan to be, at least in my opinion. Or he was convinced, but didn`t know how to articulate it, the closer the date for independence reached.

Following is what Wolpert interleaves in his comments on the famous, ``You are free to go to your temples,`` speech:

``He seemed unable to move his mind from that awesome question. For the first time openly challenging his own judgement.....All the same he continued in this uncharasteristic troubled monologue of reflection.....

What a remarkable reversal it was, as though he had been transformed overnight once again into the old, ``Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity``.....His mind was racing too swiftly for logical coherence, almost freely associating as he rambled extemporaneously (Jinnah, Wolpert, p. 348-349).

So basically Wolpert calls his speech extempraneous rambling, indicating that Jinnah himself was confused. This is actually quite true if one reads the whole speech, and not just parts of it. In the begining Jinnah starts out by advocating the division of Bengal, Punjab and India. Towards the end he talks about Hindus and Muslims seizing to be Hindus and Muslims. It is quite clear, he was speaking impromptu and unable to give a logical decision about these issues; at least in this speech. The initial part is non-secular and the end is secular.

Reply Afqqui # 3

[Never let this nefarious propaganda affect you.India is the biggest slum in the world & no talk of ``progress`` is going to change that.I mean,people who try to revere & promote an ET look-alike just cannot be thinking right.The spidery-sparrow with his non-violence mantra was ok with the WW2 backdrop & europe in terror.The socialist,communist,and anti-class,liberal groups were using every straw to break free from the strangle-hold of British Class system(worse than brahminism--even today)]

But article is NOT aboutHindia. It is about Paksitan. Whyyou think Paksitanis should not discus? HaiN? Wherey our head isat? Why youshould decide what Paksitani think about?

Fist convert all UK then cometalk.

[When was the last time CHOWK STAFF printed something from the truly learned?--hint:they are not secularists or kanjars.]

Chowkstaff, why you do not give Afqqi Saab a chance to write aticle on chowk? Then allside of question will be present, andit will be fair. I think this is what he want when he write this.

Please give hi m;chance. He did not mean whenh e was rudeto you. Afqqi you;sh ould apolgise, and thenth ey may pubish your article. Say you did not mean they were kanjar.

[He said prolonged ignorance and failure of the Muslim societies to seek knowledge, to reason, investigate and explore, which had been their hallmark, was responsible for such a misplaced perception. ]

Excuse me, but when did Muslim societies as a whole seeked knowledge, investigate and explore? It was the hallmark of a few - better call them non-conformists. It looked good because rest of the world was even worse in the areas of seeking knowledge, reason, investigating and exploring. By the way, how many inventions useful currently have been credited to Muslim societies compared to Chinese inventions. Muslim societies were never a match to Greek thought, Egyptian organization, classification and management skills and Chinese innovations.

We need to stop this past perfection obsession and delusion of grandeur.

Biggest Muslim success was the success of Arabic language and, of course, military successes.

The purpose of Pakistan Ideology and creation was to create a nation of Muslim majority - period!

Prafull Goradia



This individual is intahai bawakouf!!! Cut and paste you need to get a life!

Aisha

An appeal to the rank & file of Pakistani people . . . responses can be sent to pow@hindustantimes.com also . . .

```` On January 26, Hindustan Times launched a six-week-long people`s campaign to lobby for the release of the 1971 Indian Prisoners of War in Pakistan.

During a meeting at our Delhi office recently, we had the opportunity to talk to the relatives of the missing soldiers. After hearing them, we could only wonder at the insensitivity of successive governments in deserting these soldiers, and leaving their dependents to continue the fight to free their kin from the enemy!

Mr BS Suri talked of his father RS Suri`s struggle to find his missing son: ``For 30 years my father climbed the steps of the Defence Ministry and the MEA to meet and press officials to take up his son Major AK Suri`s case. Many times he knocked on the doors of political leaders. He even made countless trips to the Indo-Pak border to meet the soldiers serving there... No avail. Last year, he died at the age of 85...hoping to the last for his son`s freedom.``

Mrs Damayanti Tambay - She had been married just over a year when her husband Flt Lt Vijay Vasant Tambay went to war. He never returned. Later, she read in a Pakistani newspaper that the enemy had taken him prisoner. Since then it has been an unrelenting fight to find and free her husband. She told one of our scribes: ``Tees saal se bas intezaar ki ladai lad rahin hun...! Kuch aasan nahi tha. Bhook mitane ke liye kaam bhi karna tha; swabhiman aur izzat se rehna tha...Sarkar ex-gratia dekar case band karana chahti thi...Mein nahin mani.`` (I have waited for 30 years! It`s not been easy... The government wanted to give an ex-gratia and close the case... I refused to give in.)

When we heard of her we realized what it is to be an Indian woman. Had it been any country other than India, a woman in a similar situation would have waited a year, found herself another man and set up a home with him. But there is Damayanti Tambay...a brave wife of an Indian soldier. (Indeed, when she came for the meeting, we had the honour of introducing her as an Indian woman.)

These and other such stories of fortitude fly in the face of a nation whose governments let down its soldiers. Indeed, these are the stories that give us reasons to be optimistic for this country, whose proud citizens we all are...

Dear surfer, as we set out on this campaign, we hope and trust that among the hundreds of hands that will join with us, and the thousands of voices that will speak with us, a strong hand and a firm voice will be your own. ````

Editor (News)

HindustanTimes.com

``What is loosely called the Muslim world has given its inhabitants ample experience of oppression; of constant surveillance by the secret police and their informers; of kail and torture, summary executions performed as fete champetre in the market square. In 1978, I saw-or, rather, heard-two men shot like this in front of a large and eager crowd in Sanaa, Yemen; Polaroid pictures of their exploding heads were hawked minutes later as valuable souvenirs.) Many of the key texts of Islamic revolution were written in exile, in hiding, or in a prison cell. A consciousness is forced in conditions of tyranny is likely to find tyranny wherever in the world it settles-in Haldon St., London, Lakemba or in Gloucester Road. Islamicism-which by no means signifies Islam at large-needs oppression. A powerful sense of kufr helps the believer tp live in Western exile in the neccessary state of chronic persecution, from which his theology was born, and which its survival depends....``

-Jonathan Raban

The Roots of Jihad

Re: Romair

``...It is quite clear, he (Jinnah) was speaking impromptu and unable to give a logical decision about these issues; at least in this speech...``

And that is the tragedy of the Subcontinent. Due to a lack of any civil institutions (much less in `47), there was an enormous dependence on personalities (not just Jinnah alone, but also Nehru, Gandhi, Patel etc). No individual can be a substitute for a well-run institution -- and that is why the fate of millions in the subcontinent has come to be decided by the whims of a few.

I would like to ask the advocates of secularism two questions.

1. Is secularism the only way different religions can live in peace and equality?

2. If religion is to be removed from the affairs of state, what principles will be used instead?

Wouldn`t these principles be a de-facto religion?

http://atimes.com/ind-pak/DB06Df01.html

Pakistan shifts proxy war to India`s east

By Sultan Shahin

Map

NEW DELHI - The Indian government is gradually coming round to the view that the attack on policemen guarding the American Center in Kolkata on January 22 marks the shifting of the theater of Pakistan`s proxy war.

Though official spokespeople continue to claim that militant infiltration in Kashmir is continuing on the previous scale, a feeling is growing that the focus of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist activities is now moving to India`s east and northeast, as Pakistan may not be able to defy strong international pressure to close shop in Kashmir.

A realization is gradually dawning upon India`s security officials that Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has been preparing for such an eventuality for a long time. As well-informed analyst Hiranmay Karlekar writes in his column in the Pioneer newspaper (January 25): ``The ISI, in collaboration with sections of Bangladesh`s intelligence outfits and fundamentalist Islamic organizations, has been training and supporting northeast Indian insurgent outfits like the United Liberation Front of Asom [Assam] (ULFA), both Khaplang and the Isaac Swu-Thuingaleng Muivah groups of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), Bodo rebels in Assam and tribal insurgents in Tripura for years.

``Its plans include the separation of the whole of northeastern India from the rest of the country and the creation of an autonomous Islamic state in the northeast comprising parts of Assam, Nagaland and Myanmar. Should it ever come close to success in implementing its plans, trouble in the Siliguri-Islampur corridor, hampering movement of troops and supplies to the northeastern states, would be of critical advantage to it.``

According to Indian government sources, the basic objective of the ISI in Bangladesh is intelligence encirclement of India. It uses the strategy of supporting and fomenting insurgency in India`s northeast and encouraging militants of various shades in different parts of India. It makes direct use of Bangladesh territory to infiltrate its agents and saboteurs across the border.

Of particular advantage to the ISI is the long and porous India-Bangladesh border which makes crossings either way easy, particularly when there are elements all along it to facilitate the process. According to reports in the Pakistani media, India has recently moved more forces to the India-Bangladesh border. This may be part of an effort to stop or at least reduce infiltration of militants from this border.

The recent incident in Kolkata is not the first of its kind in West Bengal. On December 22, 1994, two boys in Domkal in West Bengal`s Murshidabad district discovered several bombs very near a temporary dais from which Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, now chief minister of West Bengal and then an important minister, was to address a public meeting on December 24 along with other functionaries of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M).

This may explain why Bhattacharjee has gone out of his way in condemning and acting against the latest terrorist outrage, though his colleagues in the party were not inclined initially to implicate Pakistan or the ISI. CPI-M politburo member Sitaram Yechury had indeed accused Home Minister Lal Krishan Advani as having ``jumped the gun`` in pointing fingers at the ISI without adequate information.

Having investigated the Domkal incident, reports Karlekar, India`s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concluded that an organization called Ahl-e-Hadith (AeH) was involved. The same organization, it further believed, was behind five explosions that occurred on trains in different parts of India on December 6, 1993, the first anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Mosque, and 42 others - not including the serial bomb blasts in Bombay on March 12, 1993 - in various parts of the country from 1988 to 1993.

One reason for this conclusion was that the explosives used in the Domkal bombs were the same as in the five train and 42 other blasts. The Domkal bombs also had the same kind of timers the five railway bombs had. Besides, the other 42 blasts had occurred in areas marked by acute communal tension where they could have triggered riots. Murshidabad district had been such an area for quite some time then. The CBI also believed that three of the five people sought for questioning in connection with the blasts were hiding in West Bengal.

The CBI was convinced that the ISI was behind the bombs. The conculsion is corroborated by Yossef Bodansky in his book Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America. ``The ISI actively assists bin Laden in the establishment of an Islamic infrastructure in India ... The primary venues for the distribution of Islamic literature and incitement material are the institutions run by the Ahl-i-Hadith religious charity which is associated with Lashkar-i-Toiba, an Islamist Kashmiri organization.`` Under the command of Abdul Karim Tunda, the Lashkar-i-Toiba is already responsible ``for several bomb explosions``.

Thus by the end of 1994, according to Karlekar`s information, the ISI, which had started operating with the utmost freedom in Bangladesh after Begum Khaleda Zia became prime minister in 1991, had already established a significant presence in West Bengal and was even in a position to shelter wanted persons from other parts of India in the state. Using Bangladesh as its springboard and aided by West Bengal state government`s complacency, it extended its network far and wide in the state in the next few years, using it as a staging area for its agents entering from Bangladesh to carry out terrorist acts in other parts of India and for sending people from different parts of India to Bangladesh for onward journey to Pakistan and Afghanistan for training as agents. It established ``safe houses``, planted ``sleepers`` - agents who merged with the local people and remained dormant for long periods before acting - and centers for recruiting agents.

The ISI built up a substantial presence in several areas of Kolkata and almost all districts of the state bordering Bangladesh - with the Siliguri subdivision of Darjeeling district in the north receiving particular attention. All this was dramatically brought to light in January 1999, when Delhi police arrested Syed Abu Nasir, a Bangladeshi who had crossed over from Bangladesh to bomb the US Embassy in Delhi and the US Consulate General in Chennai. He reportedly revealed during interrogation that he and his team of nine had gathered in Kolkata in December 1998. From there, the three Indian members had been sent to Siliguri to establish a support base in collaboration with ISI agents stationed there, while the six ``Afghans`` - a generic term used to signify Afghans as well as various Arab and other terrorists trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaeda - went to Chennai. The three Indians who went to Siliguri were subsequently arrested while the six ``Afghans`` managed to disappear.

The ISI`s activities in the area attracted further attention during the Kargil war when a blast in a train in North Jalpaiguri station on June 24, 1999, directed at a group of soldiers traveling to Kashmir, killed two of them and injured 16. There were several other attempts to sabotage the movement of troops and equipment from northeastern to northwestern India. These incidents clearly underlined the reason for the ISI`s activities in Siliguri. Northeastern India`s sole direct land link with the rest of the country passes through the subdivision, particularly the narrow Siliguri-Islampur corridor.

Indeed, according to Indian intelligence sources, the ISI has long been providing assistance to insurgents in the northeast in a variety of ways, including helping them run their training camps in Bangladesh. After the installation of the Awami League government in Bangladesh in 1996, the Indian insurgent groups were asked to leave Bangladeshi soil. But dominant groups such as the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isaac Swu/Muivah (NSCN-I/M), ULFA, All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF) and National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) continued to function in that country in a more covert manner by forging local-level links with Bangladeshi security forces.

Initially, in March/April 1997, Indian intelligence sources perceived some decline in insurgent activities and the militants, mainly belonging to ULFA and NSCN-I/M, had started winding up their overt activities and shifting their camps temporarily to Myanmar. But through support from such parties as the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and Freedom Party (FP), the militants started reorganizing themselves and re-established their camps in Bangladesh.

The ISI has managed to establish a rather intricate network in Bangladesh, thanks to the presence of the residue of pro-Pakistan sympathizers after 1971 and the influence it wielded between 1975 and 1996 when the Awami League was out of power. The period from 1991 to 1996, when Khaleda Zia was prime minister of the BNP government, proved particularly fruitful. During this period the ISI was not only able to subvert various local agencies, including the army, but also ran training camps for northeast Indian insurgents with the consent of the government.

After the Awami League government took power in June 1996, there was a review of government policy and official patronage of such anti-India activities was withdrawn. However, on account of loyalties built up over the years, and religious indoctrination and rampant corruption in the ranks of both Indian and Bangladeshi security forces, networks continued to facilitate movement of Indian insurgent leaders and also supply these groups with arms.

The ISI obviously realizes the importance of mobilizing anti-India and pro-Pakistan political elements in Bangladesh and bringing them to power with a view to securing state patronage. It has therefore nurtured the BNP while in and out of power, shoring it up up politically and financially. It has done the same with various rightist parties such as the FP and JEI. More recently the ISI has been playing a leading role in patching together an alliance between these rightist parties and assisting them in devising and launching a strategy to dislodge the Awami League from power.

After June 1996, on account of an unfriendly party being in power in Bagladesh, the ISI has had to give up its earlier brazenness and work covertly through various channels. While some operations are still controlled from the local Pakistani mission - where the ISI unit was said to be headed by A H Qureshi, a minister-rank official - a larger part of anti-Indian activities are conducted through various mosques, madrasas (seminaries) and attached training camps across the country, and through Pakistani agents and facilitators placed in various private organizations and political parties. There has also been liberal use of the country`s press for anti-India propaganda with communal overtones. The aim is to keep anti-India feelings high so that no government is ever in a position to accede to Indian requests for information about northeastern militants, and to stalemate Indian influence in Bangladesh.

The ISI makes use of prominent Bangladeshi names and institutions for its purposes. Indian officials cite the example of the Beximco Group - which employs about 600 Pakistanis and whose owners, Sohel and Solman Rahman, are alleged to have pro-Pakistan sympathies. Beximco Group has been allegedly used as conduit for funds to the BNP. Prominent local politicians Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Syed Iskander (brother of Khaleda Zia) and Anwar Zahed, who are ensconced in the BNP, are alleged to have a well-documented history of indulging in arms trafficking into India`s northeast.

A number of other commercial establishments, namely Ibnesina, Islami Bank, Habib Bank, Pak Land and Lever Brothers, with known Pakistani links, and front organizations of fundamentalist parties like the JEI, Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaat-e-Tulaba and Jamaat-ul-Mudarreseen, allegedly serve the interests of the ISI. Moreover, Pakistan sympathizers within the army, various intelligence agencies and the bureaucracy continue to aid the ISI.

Indian officials allege that apart from intelligence operations conducted by Pakistan`s mission in Dhaka, agents are being sent directly from Pakistan for specific tasks such as training, briefing, supervising, providing funds, and meeting with militants. Some people collaborate with the ISI for political and religious reasons. Salahuddin Qader Choudhary and his brother Giasuddin Choudhary - both BNP leaders and alleged arms smugglers - are actively involved in abetting fundamentalists, militant groups such as Harkat-ul-Jihad, and rightist political parties such as JEI and IOJ. Notorious terrorist Abdul Karim Tunda from Chittagong, and Pakistan-trained alleged terrorist Asif Khan, who visited India to foment trouble during the last general elections, fall into this category.

The ISI is also said to have connections with non-governmental organizations such as Islamic Relief Organization and Junudul Muqawat Al Islamiya, as well as with madrasas such as Rabeta in Ramu, Cox`s Bazaar. The latter is a nerve center of all ISI operations in Greater Chittagong. Pakistani agents regularly visit and hold meetings there with Indian outfits like ULFA, NSCN-I/M, NLFT, and All Tripura Tiger Force.

The ISI`s intelligence operations include provision of funds to political parties - Gholam Azam of JEI and Salahuddin Qader Choudhary of BNP are allegedly to have received huge amounts for fomenting agitations - and militant outfits on Bangladesh, India and Myanmar. It also organizes recruitment and dispatch of potential mujahideen from madrasas and the youth wings of JEI, Shibir, IOJ etc, for induction into Indian territory to create disturbances.

If Indian apprehensions are correct, the east and northeast may present even greater challenges for Indian security agencies than does insurgency in Kashmir. If reports of India having increased its strength along the border with Bangladesh are correct, it may mean that India is already conscious of the dangers represented by ISI networks and its ambitions in the area. Since Pakistan does not have a border with India in the east, India may not even be able to denounce this in the familiar terminology of cross-border terrorism.

A reminder to those who suggest that religion and especially Islam can have no concord with objective secularism:

I offer you examples hwere it was not political power of religion or Islam in particular - but the moral power of religion, it moral authority in culture and conscience that inhibited, even brought down totalitarianism:

1. Poland - the role of the Church in the effort to free Poland from Communists.

2. Iran - The Iranian revolution was brought about only because of the moral authority of Ulema of Qom and karbala - No Mulla held political office, infact did not need political office to challenge the ``King of kings``.

Urstruly is, in my opinion, absolutely correct when he says political economies disintegrate internally over discerning right and wrong. The moral authority of religion should reside in the most powerful position possibile, in culture and in conscience - however; the danger that religion will be separated from culture and conscience is clear and present, witness the ravages of Communism. An ``ought`` can never be derived from an ``is`` - and therefore it is essential for us to discern that which is eternal and that which is subject to change. Have we not the work the of Mohammed Iqbal lahori to guide our thinking in this matter: ``...Islam demands loyalty to God, not to thrones...The Ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as concieved by Islam is eternal an reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality must reconcile, in it`s life, the categories of permanence and change.``

All this is foolishness, Pakistan is the way it is because God wills so.

`Tis not I, but President and CEO Musharraf who says so. He occupies a high position because God wills it so, and any one who disagrees, is contradicting God.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020205/64/1fn8z.html

MUZAFFARABAD, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, who has vowed to turn Pakistan into a moderate Islamic state, invoked a verse from the Koran on Tuesday to claim divine authority for his rule.

His remarks appeared aimed at countering criticism of a crackdown on radical Islamic groups launched last month.

``I tell these people, who have become the custodians of Islam or who think that they understand Islam better, that it is Almighty God who gives honour or authority to anybody,`` Musharraf said in an address to the state parliament of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

``This is our faith that God almighty gives honour to whoever He wants and snatches honour from whoever He wants. If this is our faith then God Almighty has brought me to this position.``

The president, who seized power in a bloodless coup in October 1999, appealed to the Pakistani people to have trust in him and his government and vowed not to let them down.

``This position, this authority has been bestowed by God and as long as I hold this authority, and whatever work I am doing with full responsibility, all Pakistanis should have confidence in that because this is our faith,`` Musharraf said.

-Arun Gupta

In Pakistan, it is and always will be Jinnah versus Allah and we all know who will win when it is couched in those terms. No matter how many times you guys dredge up Jinnah`s speech of Aug 14, 1947, there will be mullahs quoting from an earlier speech by Allah as transcribed by Prophet Muhammad dating to the 7th century. How long do you think that ``You are free to go to your trmples, to your mosques`` will stand up against ``Kill the kaffirs``?

#26

Saxena, careful what you say man, he may be the ``Mahdi``

Hey mac gupta #26:

Fate is what Mushrraf is talking about. When he talks to the fundos in Pakistan he has to talk their langauage just like Vajpayee does when he talks to his RSS and VHP colleagues.

You see in Islam there is a belief that everything is pre-ordained by God. (The western concept is fate, a concept stemming from Christianity and Judaism. What many people (fundos) forget in Islam is that while everything is pre-ordained by God - God also allows and expects mankind to make his own destiny and choose his or her`s own life. Hell or heaven.

So in a way Musharraf is trying to create his own destiny for the people of Pakistan. He (like the speaker in this article and as do most chowkwallas) believe that Islam is not contrary to secularism but supports it.

Unfortunately like Judaism and Christianity - Islam has not gone through a reformation or a revision. A lot of our laws are based on Islamic interpretations made by Islamic jurists hundreds of years ago.

It is not that Islam should be changed - but it should re-interpreted. However that is easier said than done as the fundo right will always go nuts with their strict ``our way or the jihad way`` interpretation.

Harimau,

``In Pakistan, it is and always will be Jinnah versus Allah and we all know who will win when it is couched in those terms. No matter how many times you guys dredge up Jinnah`s speech of Aug 14, 1947, there will be mullahs quoting from an earlier speech by Allah as transcribed by Prophet Muhammad dating to the 7th century. How long do you think that ``You are free to go to your trmples, to your mosques`` will stand up against ``Kill the kaffirs``?``

Uh...but thats what you want don`t you. And we are going to prove you wrong.



Is `secularism` ie separation of church and state acceptable in Islam? I think the Turkish experiment makes it quite apparent that it is.

For those who have carefuly analyzed `Mesaq-e-Medina` have to conclude that equal rights for everyone is an acceptable principle of Islam...

For example:

F.E.PETERS suggests in his book `Muhammad and the Origins of Islam` in the chapter `Medina Agreement`:

It seems that Muhammad`s initial concept of Ummah was a secular one with jews and muslims living in one state.

Now frankly I am not that great of a scholar of Islamic History to commen on this one way or the other, but the document `Mesaq e Medina` seems to suggest that F E Peters is correct in his estimate.

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

By the way, Harimau, the famous speech `You are free` was 11th August, though the 14th August speech also mentions a lot on the same lines.



From Dawn this week

Back to Jinnah

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

When, on that rare occasion, we have heading this country a liberal man who preaches tolerance and who tells us that Pakistan was envisioned by its founder as a modern, free-thinking, liberal, secular state, in jump the mulla-maulvi faction, the obscurantists, the thesis writers, the great thinkers, some of whom were not even a gleam in their mother`s eye when Jinnah was around, who flail their arms and shriek `treason` at the word secular, and who with their narrow-minded thinking, intolerance and bigotry claim falsely that they are `Islamic`.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Musharraf spelt out his vision of what Pakistan`s founder had in mind for his country, a vision he intended to bring to material form. Naturally, editorials were written expressing horror, protests poured in from all sides, and then entered his obsequious spokespeople with the inevitable `clarification`. And so it will continue, for much time to come, for as long as this nation is kept illiterate and uneducated and unable to reason, think, look around at the world it inhabits, and comprehend what it must do to fit into it. But we must never give up; we must continue to press home the points pressed by the man who gave this nation a homeland.

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: ``The new state will be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.`` He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: ``You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.`` He could not have been more explicit.

Our learned men have it that the first steps taken in the Republic of Pakistan towards the framing of a constitution was the moving of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949, by the prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan. The view is that this Resolution was intended to be a mish-mash of the general principles of an `Islamic` state and the accepted concepts of a modern `democratic` state. What the mish-mash has resulted in is a variety of conflicting interpretations, the orthodox and the obscurantists claiming that the Islamic tenets dominate and the more progressive, forward-looking plumbing for the democratic parliamentary way of governance.

When it was moved, the non-Muslim members of the Assembly expressed their fears that were the Resolution to be passed maulanas would gain the upper hand, and some questioned the phrase stipulating that the ``state will exercise authority within the limits provided by Him.`` What are the limits proscribed by God, they asked, and who will define those limits? Will it be the mullas or the gentlemen of a more liberal bent of mind? Could a non-Muslim become the head of state, for example? Liaquat Ali Khan`s response was rather ambivalent--in an Islamic state, he said, it would be ``absolutely wrong to say that a non-Muslim cannot be the head of administration under a constitutional government.`` Maulanas held differently and firmly : ``The Islamic state means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam [and it] can be run only by those who believe in those principles....``.

Dispute and divergence of view, disagreement and differences from day one. Yet, the honourable gentlemen of the Assembly, most of whom must have been present on August 11, 1947, when Mohammad Ali Jinnah laid down for them the principles which he wished to be embodied in the constitution of his country, took it upon themselves that day to repudiate the man responsible for putting them where they were.

Hasan Zaheer, of the erstwhile all-powerful CSP, in his book `The Separation of East Pakistan`, writing on constitution making, has this to say on the contentious Resolution: ``Liaquat Ali Khan, while moving the Objectives Resolution, claimed that since it provided for the exercise of power and authority of the state `through the chosen representatives of the people`, the Resolution naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.

Little did he realize the opening that the Resolution was giving to the obscurantists and what the Munir Report called `political brigands and adventurers, even nonentities` to exploit the name of Islam in mundane political affairs and jolt the foundations of the state from time to time. None of the three covenants of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which spelled out the unanimous demand for a separate Muslim homeland, or homelands--the Lahore Resolution of 1940, the Madras Resolution of 1941, and the Pakistan Resolution of the Legislators` Convention of 1946--or the debates leading to these resolutions had mentioned anything about an Islamic state. Over the years, the Resolution proved a perennially divisive point of reference in the polity of Pakistan.``

It is this Resolution which forms the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, and it is this Resolution which, as Article 2A, is a substantive part of the Constitution, and which has more than proven that it is indeed not only highly divisive but also destructive. And, to boot, our great makers, breakers and amenders cannot even get it right. In the preamble, in one sentence, the original resolution has been adhered to: ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;`` whereas in Article 2A which forms the Annex to the Constitution in the very same sentence the word ``freely`` has been omitted. Whether this was done wittingly or unwittingly is not known, but the question is that after the passage of 16 years since 2A was inserted by PO No.14 of 1985 why has it not been corrected? Is there a motive behind the omission of the highly pertinent and important word? Were our amenders plain sloppy, or were they wicked?

Musharraf rode in on horseback, and now is riding high. So far he is on the right track. His reflexes are sound. He has not yet heard messages from on high. But he does need to shun the oleaginous perennial sycophants who equate being with him as being in the presence of greatness, or who praise him fulsomely for his penetrating mind, his iron resolve, his calm demeanour. He does not need to be glorified or exalted. He needs to be supported.

Hey cutandpaste #24,

sorry to resort to your username tactics but here is some Pakistan (US?) propaganda in a response to the Indian propaganda:

From today`s dawn front cover article:

``There are misgivings in the Indian media about comments by the American Consul-General in Kolkata Christopher Sandrolini who reportedly said that ISI was not sponsoring insurgents in India`s northeastern states, a comment that questions New Delhi`s wisdom on the issue. Mr Blackwill declined to comment on the question saying: ``If that happens, if the Indian government approaches me, I will respond to it appropriately.``

Regarding the recent attack on the American Center in Kolkata, Mr Blackwill said: ``We are working with the Indian government and not investigating. There are some questions regarding the Kolkata attack that remain unanswered, like whether it was an attack on the police or the American facility, or whether it was an attack by criminals or those associated with terrorism.``

Vereesh #20: I know quite a few Pakistani soldiers and pilots who were declared missing in action in the wars. They have now been presumed dead. The other angle would be to presume they are still being held in Indian jails. I cannot see how that would make any sense.

Based on that, under what assumptions, apart from the appeals of the Indian individuals you have mentioned, are you concluding that these Indian soldiers are still in Pakistan? And most of all what would Pakistan (or India) gain from keeping each other`s soldiers for 30 years? What would be the motive for such a crime.

Generally, every battle fought between professional armies in Pakistan and India has been fought at very high levels of chivalry. I have talked to Pakistani pilots who attacked India, and they openly state that both sides were very conscious to avoid civilian casualties. If you look at the books they have written it will be obvious that they put themselves under great risk on many occassions to avoid opposition casualties.

Indians need to stop accusing Pakistan of this and that. The new wave is this prisoners of war theme. Doesn`t anyone in India believe in proof before accusations? Should Pakistan now state that Pakistani POWs are still sitting in Indian prisons?

Have a heart. Pakistanis are human beings like you. They are not sadists.

Shammi #20: Your point is quite accurate.

On the other hand, perhaps the main reason the Sub-Continent received independence was, that by coincidence, a large group of powerful local leaders emerged at the same time, who could challenge the British. So there were some advantages also. Had they not emerged, there may have been no institutions and no independence (which may in the long run have been a good thing, if we look at how Hong Kong has progressed).

Setting up powerful institutions can take centuries. On the whole, I think Pakistan was far more dependent on Jinnah than India on its leaders. India had a group of leaders, while Pakistan had one or two. And India had a much more educated population.

harimau #27: If you objectively look at which country in the Sub-Continent has killed the most number of people of minority faith, you will discover it is not Pakistan. Infact, hardly any religious minorities have ever been killed in Pakistan. The biggest such incidence in its history was the recent attack in Bahalwalpur on the Church. Even that was an attack from individuals.

Nearly all the religious killings in Pakistan are between various Muslim sects, and in some cases Muslim ethnicities. Can you recall any major incidences to justify your, ``kill the kafirs`` claim, in regard to Pakistan. For every one religious minority killed in Pakistan, there are literally hundreds killed in other parts of South Asia. Just ask Amnesty International.

Pakistan does not treat its minorities well, but niether the Pakistani govt. nor Pakistanis have ever killed them (barring the odd acts of individuals).

Ref Romair #: 14

Your postscript is going to give a fit to ylh and his cohorts who are absolute in their belief that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan. Moreover, your quotes from Wolpert on Jinnah will be tarred as ``selective quotes`` to make a point.

Welcome to a debate with Yasser Latif Hamdani!

CHARACTER AND VALUES

Hobbyty:

I think you have understood the message perfectly. But recently I have been thinking differently about the values that are known as Western Values like pluralism, democracy, secularism, freedom and liberty etc.

I think it is time that we start scrutinizing the western system of values very closely before we make a case for our people. Never before, the two worlds, West and rest, have been exposed so nakedly to each other as is after 9/11. We see that slow genocide of Iraqi and North Koreans through embargoes is still going on as we speak. Palestinian homes, businesses, and lives are still being razed to ground; settlements, the main bone of contention are still being built. Dissent is being controlled all around the globe. Despots, and dictators are still being supported against their own people, who in turn are using state apparatus to suppress dissent, political entities, and opponents. I have used the word ``still`` several times in my last sentences, for a reason. The reason being that the PEOPLE of West in general and United States in particular were always given the benefit of doubt that they do not know what their governments are doing around the world. But now they do. What is excuse now?

Now lets see. The invasion and capture of Iraq (Arab lands); all done by countries who were secular, democratic, and plural. The attack on Egypt on Suez canal issue; all countries were secular and democratic. The South Africa-was democratic/secular yet apartheid. Israel- democratic/secular yet apartheid. The countries who supported and still help to maitain status quo in Palestine all secular/democratic. Two nuclear explosions which inihilated 100s of thousands-done by a country which is/was democratic/secular. Suppressing dissent by force in Ireland; by a country which is secular/democratic. India; murder of 80,000 people of its minority; secular/democratic. India:secular/democratic yet apartheid. The cause of misery of almost whole South America; secular and democratic countries of West and North America. The cause of misery of whole continent of Africa; the secular/democratic countries of West; Neocolonialism through globalization; by the countries that are secular and democratic. . ……… and the list just goes on and on……Now the question is, should we give the people of West the benefit of doubt now.

Now remember that, character is an expression of values. We should ruthlessly scrutinize those values, which brings about this character. We must question how Western leaders utter the words like ``freedom``, ``democracy``, ``liberties`` while their one hand is on the shoulders of some despot (democratic despot in case of India) from the third world at the rostrum. The people of West now know. Why they look the other way. Is it because of the character, their values have given to them?

So we must also question the pygmies, the salesmen, the pimps of their value system, among us, why the dichotomy now. Now when their people know. Do these people (salesmen) really want to uplift the dignity and the state of our women or they just want to strip their clothes off to establish a culture of khullay khao tay nangay nahao as they did in India. Do these people really want to establish the rule of law or they are just facilitating the establishment of global neocolonialism by siding with the despots. Character is an expression of values. And we must question the values and not the character.

When someone takes a multiple choice/true-false question/answer test, any advisor or coach would advise the test-taker to rule out those statements that include, ``always``, ``never``.

Now fast forward to Pearl story still unfolding. From Imran Khan to Louis Farrakhan and to various spokesperson(s) from diff organizations within Pakistan have come out with statements like, ``

islam never preaches violence``, ``islam never seeks kidnapping``, ``islam always means peace``.

Well, What did I say about the multiple choice questions and what to avoid?

One important thing to remember as we go forward is a need for self-introspection. It is not ``because Islam never preaches kidnapping``!

What if Islam indeed preaches kidnapping, then would it be OK to kidnap? The bottom line is people have to take responsibility for their OWN action, and not blame Islam, like ``according to islam this, according to islam that..``. An added bonus from this accepting individual responsibility is because people are forced to look at their own action and not look at Quran or Islam to rationalize what they did or did not do.

Part of the dialogue then would be that religion needs to be put in a personal perspective. Let us not let religion dictate when a person prays, dictate what length a beard would have to be or what length a burqa has to be. These are best when left to individual to follow or NOT follow.

It is kind of ironic that the taliban nut-case types were forcing people to pray and the rationale given was they can go to heaven only if they pray. But if they don`t oblige by praying then the taliban would beat people to death and they still would die. Who are these mullah types who can dictate where someone has to go after they die?