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.