The Panel of Vendettas at UC Berkley

I can vouch for the fact that the Indian viwpoint ruled at this event. And that brings us back to the negligence of the Pakistani-American community in the support of a permanent chair of Pakistan studies at UC Berkely. Thus far all attempts to raise money for such a chair have been unsuccessful.
Let us face it. Our people would much rather raise funds to build another mosque.

Ras

Dear Ms. Sarwari

As always, clear headed thinking. Khalid Ahmed distinguished? as what I guess persons of goodwill can debate? I thought journalism was reporting, commenting, on factual events - but I guess, with ideological committment`` comes the imperative to ``incite`` change - that is, to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and agents of change. The BJP, VHP types cannot change, without changing their message - once that message, the illusion of being muscular, powerful and respected, so long as Indians are willing to accept that ``Hindu pride`` in a ``secular`` sense (of course), requires human blood sacrifices - once this message changes, the psychological need of significant numbers of Indians can be satisfied in more constructive manner.

Aisha,

Tu Shaheen hai Basera Kar Paharon Ki Chatanon Par

Like I have said before we have an uphill task and multiple enemies. Lets overcome ! Lets Overcome!

Long Live Pakistan!

Sad to see that the University of one of PAKISTAN`s greatest Nationalists, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, has been made the hub of Anti-Pakistan activity.

Interesting article.

Mr. Ganguly is a fraud of the highest order. A disgrace to his qualifications. But that is a separate debate. Following is what he stated about Musharraf after the coup. I couldn`t help laughing when I read it, and actually quoted it on Chowk back then:

``Mr. Ganguly goes on to say that Musharraf was ``brought up`` by Gen. Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, who took power through a military coup in 1977. He was a militant and considered by some to be a Muslim fundamentalist. Some experts say that now, in addition to the possibility of increased Pakistani aggression in the disputed Kashmir region, Musharraf`s take-over could strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, and its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.`` http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/199910/14/news.html#0)

Points to note:

- Musharraf was brought up by Zia-ul-Haq (Musharraf was a lowly Major/Colonel during most of Zia`s rule. How and why would Zia bring up a Colonel. Zia and Musharraf are opposites)

- Musharraf is a miliant and a fundamentalist (this one takes the cake)

- Musharraf will strengthen Islamic fundamentalism (apparently, exactly the opposite has happened. Musharraf is the most popular Muslim in America)

Khaled Ahmad is acutally quite original. But, like most Friday Times journalists, he make huge statements, without providing any sources. Someone apparently tells him that such and such happened, but he never points out the someone`s name. But, on the whole, he is not a fraud and the Pakistani press needs more people like him. I just wish he would start providing names for his sources.

One of the points I have been emphasising is introspection. The current correction of Pakistan`s compass is due to introspection. Pakistanis tend to go overboard in self-criticism, to the point of becoming cynical. Indians don`t indulge in self-criticism enough. Both are wrong, however the former is better than the later.

I think Pakistanis need to develop a thicker skin, and learn to take it on the chin. The more Pakistan is criticised, correctly or incorrectly, the more its problems will be highlighted, and the more corrective action Pakistanis will be forced to take. This is actually a blessing, although it may seem like a liability.

People like Mr. Ganguly will prove to be the downfall of India. Once a country starts believing in an unrealistic and false description of situations (like the BJP, Kashmir, etc.), it loses touch with reality. If it can dominate its opponents completely (like the US can), then it can get away with it. But if cannot, like India cannot, then it is setting itself up for disaster. False illusions about one`s own rights and wrongs, lead to regressive results.

So although the event you attended at Berkeley may seem like a negative for Pakistan, it is actually more of a negative for India. India will never be able to solve its internal problems if it does not rely on logic, but relies on propoganda. A country`s future is not decided by its mouthpieces, but by its citizens and its leaders. And most importantly by a clear logical understanding of its problems. Pakistan is now moving ahead of India in these areas (Pakistan used to be way behind).

The more Indians listen to their Ganguly`s, the more they will fall behind. And after 9/11, Musharraf has become such a credible hero in the US, that one statement from him tends to overshadow all the combined statements of the various independent and dependent Indian sources.

The future of Pakistan and India will not be decided by the Gangulies, and the Khaled Ahmads, or by what the Berkely students think about Pakistan and India, but by the progress these two countries make in solving thier internal problems, respectively.

For another report on this event please see:

http://www.pakistanlink.com/community/2002/Feb/22/01.html

When I walked into the hall Z.A. Bhutto was very
much on my mind as he was when I left. Berkeley
and Bhutto go together.

We should have a ``Zulfikar Ali Bhuuto Chair`` of Pakistan Studies at UC Bekeley someday.

Ras

We should have a ``Zulfikar Ali Bhuuto Chair`` of Pakistan Studies at UC Bekeley someday.


Ras

Re:Ras#6

writes ....

`` We should have a ``Zulfikar Ali Bhuuto Chair`` of Pakistan Studies at UC Bekeley someday.``

Not unless the Pakistan studies chair deals with the systematic destruction of industry, education and the criminalization of politics and the eventual partition of a country.....


Even I must admit Bhutto was a partciularly good Foreign Minister .... he should have retired as such ...Then again he had to rise to his level of incompetence.....

History is replete with sychopants whose exaggerated sense of self worth was deterimental to the very cause that they were championing....

Sorry about the typo:

We should have a ``Zulfikar Ali BHUTTO Chair`` of Pakistan Studies at UC Bekeley someday.

Ras

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

Let us NOT assume all Indians are bad!

Kuldip Nayar my favorite writer from Dehli wrote this awesome piece in Dawn a few days ago.



http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/23/op.htm#3

Secularism `door ast`

By Kuldip Nayar

Pakistan is currently in the midst of a healthy and amusing debate on secularism. It is healthy because those who wear Islam on their sleeves are on the defensive. It is amusing because the two-nation theory on which Pakistan is premised does not fit into the accommodation that secularism demands.

It all began over the promise President Pervez Musharraf held out to the world in his January 12 speech: to make Pakistan a moderate and progressive Islamic state. In a subsequent interview to the Newsweek, he went to the extent of describing Pakistan a ``Muslim secular state.`` The interview was tape-recorded. Still the president`s spokesman said three days later that Musharraf never used the word `secular.` US Secretary of State Powell has only heightened the debate by tagging the term `secular` onto Pakistan when Musharraf was recently in Washington.

Indeed, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, expounded the two-nation thesis on the ground that Hindus and Muslims living in the subcontinent were two separate nations. But after winning Pakistan, he changed the concept of nationhood from religion to country. His opening address before the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan confirmed this: ``You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan... You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is a faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.``

Even in an interview a few weeks before the partition plan was announced, Jinnah said, ``The members of the new nation would have equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed.`` What he was conveying to the people of Pakistan was that they, whichever religion they belonged to, were one nation, like Indians or Americans. The state could not be mixed with religion.

For Jinnah, Pakistan and India were two nations, comprising Muslims and Hindus. He never favoured the transfer of population. And the little time he had before his death, he spent on emphasizing that Pakistan was a democratic, secular country. That Jinnah did not want Pakistan to be run ``by priests with a divine mission`` goes without saying. Nor did he want the country to be theocratic. He had made this known even before Pakistan`s formation.

The post-Jinnah-Liaquat rulers have tried to go back to the two-nation theory, deliberately creating a gulf between Hindus and Muslims. There are several elements in Pakistan which are hell-bent on interpreting Jinnah wrongly. Some quote chapter and verse from the Pakistan Constitution to argue that Article 31 makes it mandatory to follow ``the Islamic way.``

One, the Constitution was adopted in 1973 during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s regime. Two, even if the Constitution is strictly followed, Article 31 enjoins only on the Muslims ``to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam...``

What kind of secular state would it be, if the 95 per cent people were to live in the ``Islamic way?`` The founder of Pakistan was opposed to introducing religion in the affairs of the state. The criterion should be what he said: ``You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state.``

Musharraf has made speeches on building Pakistan into a modern, progressive state. But for such an edifice to be built, secularism is the foundation stone. He does not have to feel embarrassed over the word secularism, which denotes pluralism. He cannot placate religious groups and secular elements at the same time.

True, Musharraf has restored the joint electorate, which another military dictator, General Zia-ul Haq, had dropped from the Constitution. But secularism does not mean joint electorate alone. It is a temperament that has to be cultivated. It is a commitment to tolerance and open society and means rising above one`s own religion. Followers of one belief are not superior to people from other faiths.

Every religion has noble teachings and lofty moral principles. There is a tendency in each of us to mock the unfamiliar in others` faith and worship. Such words as `heathen`, `idolatry` and `superstition` are often used as insults. But in the moment of prayer, every man is at his best. He should command respect.

But how can the seeds of such thoughts be sown when the books and teachers in Pakistan spew hatred against the heritage of Hindus? General Ayub Khan abolished most of history from the school system and introduced what was called ``social sciences.`` General Zia-ul-Haq demolished whatever was left of history. He created a new subject, ``Pakistan Studies,`` which was not history but a treatise on Muslim separatism. In the name of ideology of Pakistan, the books have buried deep Jinnah`s thought of not mixing the state with religion.

In his latest book `Pakistan`s Political Culture,` Prof. K.K. Aziz aptly describes its effect on a Muslim: ``He found himself hanging from a rope stretched over an abyss whose two cliffs were his yesterdays and his todays, and he did not know whether to try to move towards his yesteryear or towards the current times. He could not distinguish between his yesterday and his today. How could he look forward to his tomorrow? His perplexity was complete.``

What Pakistan did in 50 years to disfigure history, India, under the BJP-led government, is trying to do in five years, its term till next parliament elections. At the command of Human Resource Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, history is being rewritten to glorify ``Hindu culture.`` Even otherwise, there is an effort to saffronize the country. It is a pity that the BJP-led government should be busy in polarizing society. It will be counter-productive because the majority in the Hindu community believes in pluralism and open society.

In fact, pluralism and open society are the two recognizable traits of a modern state which Musharraf should be following to change Pakistan. But is he prepared to revise the textbooks, change class instructions and repeal the blasphemy law? The government has already refused to drop the blasphemy law. In the same way, it does not want to change the provision that declared the Ahmedis non-Muslim.

If Musharraf wants Pakistan to turn over a new leaf, his fight against obscurantism has to be relentless. Does he have the commitment - and support - to do so? It is one thing to please the West but another to take steps on the ground to reform a society which has lived and developed with a particular identity in the last 50 years.

And how can Pakistan be a modern, progressive state without democracy? Musharraf says he will continue as President for the next five years. He needs to have the sanction of people through the ballot box. His ratings of popularity, according to the Pakistan press, are above 60 per cent. Fair and transparent elections have to confirm this.

The Pakistan Supreme Court`s directive to conduct the polls by October this year is there. But so far there has been no movement towards implementing the order. Political parties have not been allowed to function. The return of leaders of the two main parties from abroad is not even on the cards.

If Musharraf wants to follow in Jinnah`s footsteps, he will have to completely change himself and his military junta. The next few months will show if he wants to do so. But will the army commanders go with him all the way?

The writer is a free lance columnist based in New Delhi.

Please will Rsaxena, Pmishra, Mahesh G and Akash etc tell me if Kuldip Nayar is also a delusional pakistani?

Ref Ras Siddiqui #: 1

I can vouch for the fact that the Indian viwpoint ruled at this event. And that brings us back to the negligence of the Pakistani-American community in the support of a permanent chair of Pakistan studies at UC Berkely. Thus far all attempts to raise money for such a chair have been unsuccessful.

Let us face it. Our people would much rather raise funds to build another mosque.]

It all depends on where and how you want your children to be educated. Pak money DOES go toward education -- it just happens to be at the hands of the local mullahs.

Ras

Ameen!

The fact is that Bhutto is our very own. Whereas Jinnah has always been a higher ideal which we have been jumping to achieve but never quite getting there... Bhutto is what we are, Greatness interrupted with great Human failings.

Sincerely

Yasser Hamdani

Aisha/Ras,

Since both of you attended this meeting and wrote about it I have a question. Is Saeed Shafqat a Professor at `Quaid e Azam University` Islamabad as Aisha says, or is he the Quaid e Azam Chair Professor of Pakistan Studies at Columbia University New York?

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

[quote]

? Why should Kashmir be made a religious issue and not a human rights issue? Why does India have a veto over International mediation? Why are no journalists spicing the plight of the Kashmiri people?

[end quote]

Good questions. Why don`t you give the Gilani of the Hurriyat and ask him why he describes the Kashmir insurgency as one of religous struggle? This fool even had the cheek to discourse on the civilizational difference between indian and ``islamic civilization``. Why not check in Sabir Shah and find out from him why he gave interviews in the late-80`s explaining how Kashmiri muslims cannot possible live in a country with a hindu majority.

Post 9/11 all of these folks are busy expanding their secular credentials (and so are you). Uncle Sam has shown you the big stick and now you folks will sing a different tune.

There has been excellent reporting on Kashmir. The NYTimes has published more than a dozen articles in the last year. You can search for them in their archives.

The general conclusion is:

everyones hands are extremely dirty. The violence is based on Pakistani funding of extremist murderers and also the brutality of the indian para-militaries. Neither the indians, pakistanis or Kashmiris are interested in a reasonable common-sense solution. Hence the conflict churns on...

Of course, this cannot be the ``truth`` for you, so keep looking for ``unbiased`` sources etc. etc.

Aisha,

``and all Pakistani technocrats do is provide fodder for their claims``

Aisha, you are the embodiment of `Lab pay ati hai Dua ban kar` ... You are a guiding light to all Pakistani Nationalists every where, and you can change the baneful trend.

ylh #5: ``one of PAKISTAN`s greatest Nationalists, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto``

I hope you don`t seriously consider ZAB a Pakistani Nationalist. He did more to harm Pakistan than even his daughter. His legal prosecution of Ahmadis, thus opening the gates for Pakistan`s religious extreme right. His ill-conceived plans for an attack in Kashmir in 65. His ability to use that attack to strengthen his position in politics, by jumping on the other side of Ayub. His support for the 71 war, the subsequent division of Pakistan, and then once again jumping on the other side for political advantage. His nationalization of Pakistan`s fast growing industries (the most harmful decision in the history of Pakistan). His Federal Security Force (a private army). The FSF`s assasination of his political opponent`s father.

Everytime Pakistan was harmed, Bhutto gained. Yet the original harm done to Pakistan was based primarily on his decision. It is no coincidence that Ayub was discredited after 65, Yahya after 71, yet Bhutto cannivingly jumped to the other side and used these events to his advantage, after having caused the original harm.

He handpicked Zia-ul-Haq, against all military traditions, superseding too many generals, under the assumption that he wanted a COAS he could suppress.

And the lesser said about his off-spring, the better. At the very least, the guy could have raised decent kids. He didn`t even do that.

A country is in a sad state, if its youth cannot even decide who their heroes should be.

ylh #5 ``one of PAKISTAN`s greatest Nationalists, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`` You must mean ``one of PAKISTAN`s greatest Egotists, one of Pakistan`s best educated and at the same time the one of Pakistan`s most primitive and self-centered minds, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto``

Ras #6: ``We should have a ``Zulfikar Ali Bhuuto Chair`` of Pakistan Studies at UC Bekeley someday.

``

Why are you bent on having Pakistan destroyed. Bhuttos` chairs should not be at Berkeley, they should be in jail. Maybe that is why Pakistanis put their money towards mosques, and not towards Berkeley chairs.

Since all Pakistanis excitedly jump up and down about Wolpert`s words on Jinnah. I hope they take heed of his words on Bhutto.

``STANLEY WOLPERT, ``History`s Hold on Pakistan ,`` New York Times, November 12, 1996----

LOS ANGELES -- Four years before his fall from power in 1977,President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan warned his nation, ``What is built on hypocrisy and deceit must finally crumble.`` But he never took that message to heart. Nor, her opponents say, did his daughter, Benazir.

Just like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto cleverly used populist oratory, inspirational promises and idealistic national platforms to rise to power. If words had the fructifying powers of water, they would have brought bountiful harvests to impoverished Pakistan. Instead, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s quest for power led to charges of corruption, removal from

office and, in 1979, his execution. For the last eight years, her critics contend, Ms. Bhutto has seemed determined to carry on her father`s troubled legacy. When she was ousted

as Prime Minister last week by President Farooq Leghari on accusations of corruption, even some former allies despaired of this family drama.

The parallels are clear. Ms. Bhutto inherited her father`s charisma, passion for politics and insatiable ambition, but also his cruel streak and

willingness to undermine democratic institutions.

As he campaigned for power, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto claimed to be a reformer. Yet despite his Western education, he never rose above his feudal roots, always practicing saisat, vengeance.

Indeed, a Cabinet minister who dared to complain that Bhutto had been late to a dinner reception was beaten unconscious by his men. Many of

his promises for reform were broken. A self-proclaimed socialist, he enacted land reforms that protected landowners.

Benazir Bhutto started her political career with Western credentials, degrees from Radcliffe and Oxford, and a great deal of goodwill.

Returning home in 1986 after a self-imposed exile, she endured imprisonment before the popular movement she led helped end the

military dictatorship. In 1988, she won the country`s first general election

in more than a decade.

It was a brief interlude of hope and pride, especially throughout Sind province, where cries of ``Jiye Bhutto!`` (Bhutto lives!) greeted the Prime Minister.

But that euphoria quickly ended, even among those who worked closely with her in the Pakistan People`s Party. Instead of focusing on efforts to

help develop the economy and trying to provide education and work for tens of millions of poor Pakistanis, Prime Minister Bhutto worried about

how best to immortalize her father, planning costly monuments and hoping to persuade the World Court to exonerate him.

Her term ended after only 20 months, when President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed her for what he said was incompetence and corruption.

After winning back power in the 1993 election, she made sure to hold a firm grip on it.

She staged a bloody crackdown on armed rivals, who conducted a campaign against her in Karachi.

She directed a campaign of harassment against judges and reporters. Meanwhile, her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, has been widely accused of

enriching himself from government contracts.

Her hold on power has split her family. She is estranged from her mother, and in September her brother, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, who had been

involved in a long feud with his sister, was gunned down outside his home in Karachi.

The fall of the Bhuttos is a family tragedy and a national one for Pakistan. The glorious legacy Zulfikar Ali Bhutto hoped to leave his children, tightly held for almost half a decade by his daughter, lies in ashes. Few Pakistanis mourn the dismissal of Benazir Bhutto any more than they now

mourn the fate of her father.

Stanley Wolpert is the author of ``Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan.`` (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/stanley.htm)

Romair,

You don`t know anything about Bhutto. In any event, he is the microcosmic image of our nation. That is something Wolpert said as well. Whatever his faults he was a true Pakistani Patriot. Whoever denies this is denying History. Even our president Musharraf is a closet admirer of Bhutto..

As for this constant tirade against ZAB and BB, that you self proclaimed intellectuals carry out, you can babble all you want...

-YLH

ylh #13

As you lack experience with democracy and all your time is taken up with worshipping at the shrine of Jinnah, you will naturally think that Indians would have an issue with Kuldip Nayar. Far from it.

There is a rich variety of debate and discussion in India, and Kuldip Nayar is one of the more important figures (also a member of Parliament). If you read his article carefully, you will see he is warning indian society that it may be going down the poisonous path taken by Pakistan for pver 50 years. Who can quarrel with such an analysis?

BTW, the curriculum changes introduced by the BJP have been stayed by a indian high court judge. In other words, they will not take be implemented.

I realize that you may not be able to understand concepts like these (after all you presented a hate site like hindunity.org as the voice of all indians!). Good luck in la-la land!

Romair

Sadly on Chowk atleast you have never shown any aptitude for a more cognitive understanding of History and Historical figures. To you, they remain Heroes and villians.

``I hope they take heed of his words on Bhutto.``

Further down from the article:

``The fall of the Bhuttos is a family tragedy and a national one for Pakistan.``

Like I explained before, whereas Jinnah is the ideal we aspire too, Bhutto is what we are `Greatness Interrupted by Great Human Flaws`!

Wolpert says:`` Ms. Bhutto inherited her father`s charisma, passion for politics and insatiable ambition, but also his cruel streak and willingness to undermine democratic institutions.``

And isn`t that true of us? Aren`t we Pakistanis all that and more?

Wolpert goes on: ``Yet despite his Western education, he never rose above his feudal roots, always practicing saisat, vengeance.``

Is that not true of us? Our father taught us constitutionalism, but our mother surely was always deeply feudal. We have remained Feudal despite best of us having been educated in Oxbridge and Harvard.

You declare:

``A country is in a sad state, if its youth cannot even decide who their heroes should be.``

So by suggesting that Zulfi Bhutto was a Pakistani Nationalist, he has become a hero to me? He was a great Pakistani Nationalist who would have gladly died for Pakistan. Whatever his faults, there is no denying this. One reading of `Zulfi Bhutto of PAKISTAN` makes this abundantly clear.

I do not agree with the basic premise of this article. What Sarwari is suggesting here is that why aren`t we as coniving, as deceiving, and as untruthful as the rest, especially like Indians. My question is why cant we be as truthful as we can be. As a `people` I want my government to be honest, transparent, and truthful. We definitely do not want to create an Orwellian world. If third world propaganda had any effect in Western world the west would definitely have acted on Indian propaganda and its psychotic sommersaults to lure the american favors, after 9/11. The West and US are amoral, conscienceless, neocolonial powers who have their own agendas of self-interst on top. What do you think if US wanted to go against Paksitan after 9/11 would it have taken more than a week for CNN to build a case against Paksitan? Would it take more than a week even now? think about it.

I dont want Paksitani government lying to me. I think Paksitan`s Kashmir case is solid on moral and legal grounds. I dont want Paksitani government con me into beleiving that we have a GDP of 5% when we beg for more debt from neocolonial powers. I do not want Paksitani government lie to me that we have a 40% literacy rate when the maximum number of copies any newspaper prints is no more than 100,000; when no book is published in numbers more than 5000 per edition; when there hasn`t been a single high school opened in Paksitan since 1992. I dont want thugs to rule my country; I dont want thugs telling me what to do; I dont want thugs telling me what truth is.

In the end let me paraphrase what Jesus Christ (pbuh) said ``A person dishonest in little things is also dishonest in big things``. So I want my government to be truthful in all things; big as well as little.

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

YLH.

He is also a visiting professor at Columbia University from what I understand.

Romair.

I understand and agree that healthy critisism is great and the more it ouchs the truer it is, however it was one bad combination of words and the time and the place. It left a very bitter taste for me. After Mr. Pradeep I was clapping perhaps the loudest to welcome Mr Khalid and my face dropped to the floor after he was done. Still I survived, what cracked me was when Sumit Sahab took Mr. Khalid`s words and used it to vindicate Indian agression on our borders today. Khalid Ahmed`s writing is still great, he still continues to screem down the fundoos in the government and for that respect is due.

You are right what it all boils down to is who makes the greater strides on the ground. Kites do raise in oposing winds and I`m sure this has propelled me to get the mess out before I am out of here.

Hobbyty,

Radical=distinguished nowadays. :(

Ras,

Thanks for your support that day.

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

Indians are truly amazing people. I quoted a famous Indian Journalist to prove a point I have been making many times, and which Indians like P-Mishra have made a point to contest. So I quoted Kuldip Nayar and asked rhetorically `Is Kuldip Nayar a delusional Pakistani too?` meaning that is obviously a well known fact that Kuldip Nayar is a well respected Indian journalist and politician. Instead once again I got a barrage of abuse, insults and taunts from the likes of P-Mishra who claim to be `Moderates` in India. This time they claimed that I was suggesting Indians would have trouble with Kuldip Nayar. Perhaps bigots like P-Mishra should read the first line of my post 13 ``Let us NOT assume all Indians are bad!``

I will repeat this story again: This Pmishra is the same person with whom at one point I was the most respectful I have been to anyone on these boards. Yes he proceeded to twist my words about my post about Bipan Chandra, in which I had merely mentioned that Bipan Chandra considers Jinnah as one of the 10 greatest Indians of all time which he did. That was the only reason I mentioned Bipan Chandra. I never said I agreed with his `Jinnah Hypothesis` and yet P-Mishra used Bipan Chandra`s article to somehow claim that all my points were ill founded, without even reading the crux of my argument which rested on authors like Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya, Dr Ajeet and Prakash Almaieda and their books about Jinnah, all three of them Indian Nationalists, the first two of whom defend Jinnah against the charge of communalism rather brilliantly.

I replied to him within hours and with the utmost respect even praising him for his work on Mohandas Gandhi. But two weeks later this reptile re appeared on chowk to accuse me and lie about me declaring that I had never responded. This is the best of Indian `intellectuals` ... You can go see for your Pankaj Mishra`s name on Google. The best amongst you are dishonest liars. Pankaj Mishra`s only problem with me is that I challenge his narrow minded views, I challenge his `Good vs Evil` hypothesis on which he has built the tale of Indian moral superiority in his mind. I challenge his basic belief system, and clearly I have read more than this scion of Indian Intellectualism ... so I have to discredited and my character has to be assassinated.. Why? Because I fight P-Mishra`s misplaced emotionalism with true facts, something which P-Mishra has made a career out of avoiding.

Look at my responses to P-Mishra which are full of respect and are in a spirit of intellectual debate:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=fversey_jan2002&n=100#reply432

Instead of debating with me on the facts. Mr. P-Mishra the great intellectual took the easy way out. He decided to character assassinate me like many of his countrymen. Does this individual deserve my respect? This individual who has repeatedly lied about me and adopted a degrading and humiliating tone with me?

And then people like anNy ask me why I call these fools what I call them!



PMishra,

``As you lack experience with democracy``

Typical arrogance from a typical Hindu Nationalist bigot. Goes to show that the difference between BJP and Congress is only slight: Congress is full of Hypocrites, BJP is not! Ideology is all the same. Bigotry exemplified!



Having been passionately involved as a party member with the Democrat Campaign for 2000 I think I have seen true Democracy a little more closely than you Indians have. Granted that now I classify myself as a Moderate Republican but that too shows true democracy. My post was in response to your shameless assertion a few weeks ago, the after math of which exposed your bigoted and dishonest character, enshrined undoubtedly in your creed as a Congressite Hypocrite.

Amazing isn`t it, if I quote some Indian, I don`t have experience in Democracy, and if I don`t well then I am without any `objective` sources. You are such a shameless little P.O.S... I can`t believe at one point I respected you. With people like you, India will surely dig its own grave.

The conduct of the self proclaimed liberal Congressites like P-mishra have made me realize that Urstruly was right about the Indians all along!

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

Ref ylh #: 13

[Let us NOT assume all Indians are bad!]

Why, thank you so very much! My cheeks are burning as I blush!

[Kuldip Nayar my favorite writer from Dehli wrote this awesome piece in Dawn a few days ago.

.....What Pakistan did in 50 years to disfigure history, India, under the BJP-led government, is trying to do in five years, its term till next parliament elections. At the command of Human Resource Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, history is being rewritten to glorify ``Hindu culture.`` Even otherwise, there is an effort to saffronize the country. It is a pity that the BJP-led government should be busy in polarizing society. It will be counter-productive because the majority in the Hindu community believes in pluralism and open society.]

I am waiting to see if the new textbooks will stop at saying that Akbar married a Hindu wife or will go to the next step and point out that his son through that Hindu wife was raised as the rabid Hindu-hating Jahangir.

I am waiting to see if the textbooks will say Akbar made peace with several Rajput princes or will point out the wanton slaughter of every man, woman and child in Chitorgarh.

I am waiting to see if the textbooks will say Akbar was beloved by his Hindu subjects or will continue and state the fact that his bones were dragged out of his mausoleum in Agra while his dynasty was still in power.

You see, I had to re-learn all the history I was taught by reading books by Western historians.

If on the other hand, Kuldip Nayar objects to a few more pages on Chandragupta Maurya (his rule was described in my history books as `the Golden Age`) or the flowering of arts under King Vikramaditya, I really don`t understand what his beef is.

Ref ylh #: 23

[Like I explained before, whereas Jinnah is the ideal we aspire too, Bhutto is what we are `Greatness Interrupted by Great Human Flaws`!]

Why do you consider Jinnah to be merely an ideal that you aspire to?

After all, you guys took Jinnah`s statement that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and carried it to the logical next step: Punjabis and Bengalis cannot live together. In fact, ZA Bhutto had a very big hand in demonstrating that. ZA Bhutto then proved that Ahmadiyas and Muslims cannot live together.

re: the article

Ms Sarwari,

Sorry to say buy in my books, you are a whiner. You did not like what was being said. I did not find anything grossly wrong.

1. Do you deny that Pakistan has been a haven for terrorists? Do you deny the link between one terrorist connected with the IA hijacking and Md Atta to whom he remitted a certain amount of money?

You ask:

``Why then is our existence questioned till today?``

Who is questioning your existence? You Pakistanis seem to suffer from some kind of identity crisis. I do not see Bangladeshis posing the same question to Indians.



``Why does Mr. L. K Advani of India propose that we should reunify?``

For the same reason stated above. He knows the best way to get a Pakistani throw a fit is to question his identity. Best response would be not notice him at all.

``Why should Kashmir be made a religious issue and not a human rights issue?``

Pakistan`s claim over Kashmir is purely based on the fact that Kashmir valley has muslim majority. It has been training and infiltrating the valley and has been responsible for much of the suffering. No doubt Indian Army has also contributed to that suffering but the Indian army has come there in response to terrorism and is defending its turf. The world knows this but Pakistanis keep deluding themselves. This also answers your next question:`` Why does India have a veto over International mediation?``. India does not have a veto but the world does not see India as the culprit. Paksitan`s dabbling with terrorism and being a safe haven for many of the world terrorists has been taken note of. How can you claim any moral standing on the Kashmir issue when the terrorists that have been training in your madrasaas have been going around killing people all around the world.

``Why did the spiritual guru of the Modern world, Mr. Deepak Chopra, add a chapter of fundamentalism in Pakistan when his book was aimed to heal the world after September 11th?``.

Go, ask him. Part of healing is to understand the cause of misery. Pakistan`s ISI, terrorists that it harbors are a part of the misery. To understand Pak is to understand the root of terrorism.

``Significant evidence of the December attack on the Indian Parliament to the Pakistan-based terrorist groups. (Evidence that is sealed behind the four walls of the Indian Government, but he seems to be taking the governments word for it, and people call him a critic.``

Come on, now. Ms Sarwari, Even you should have known by now the link between the terrorist who killed Mr Pearl and the attack on the Indian parliament. I just finished watching hardball on MSNBC. The editor of ``The News`` who has fled to the US for fear of his life, has revealed how the ISI was unhappy with some of the editors of that newspaper and wanted them sacked for revealing the link that i am talking about. This guy refused and had to flee the country.

Hope next time you whine less. Whining kind of takes away objectivity.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 2

hobbyty,

All i heard from this lady is whine, whine and more whine. There is no clear headed thinking, as far as i am concerned.

Sridhar

Omar Shaikh not to be extradited (March 5)

http://www.dawn.com/2002/03/05/top4.htm

Why am I not a bit surprised? :)

Omar Shaikh himself has all along been ``supremely confident`` that he would not be extradited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58168-2002Feb23?language=printer

Peter Baker and Kamran Khan (February 24).

There is a world of difference between asking some people to stay put in rest houses and handing them over to another country for investigation. Pakistani military knows that.

re:Reply #: 3

Romair,

Do me a favor. Take a break from Chowk. You are full of Bull. And all you say passes of as rational.

``People like Mr. Ganguly will prove to be the downfall of India. Once a country starts believing in an unrealistic and false description of situations (like the BJP, Kashmir, etc.), it loses touch with reality.``

Most people in India have not even heard of this guy Ganguli. He may shape the opinion of some in US but has no influence whatsoever with the policy makers in India. How can he fall India`s downfall. His belief is personal.

What does India believe about BJP that will cause its downfall? Did you see the latest assembly election results? India voters are mature enough to know what is going on with BJP. They, and not Mr Ganguli, will decide the fate of BJP.

``So although the event you attended at Berkeley may seem like a negative for Pakistan, it is actually more of a negative for India. India will never be able to solve its internal problems if it does not rely on logic, but relies on propoganda.``

Phew, i have not read anything that is a greater balloney in my life. The first sentence is wishful thinking. What is bad is actually good for Pakistan! Pakistan screwed up big time but you know what? It is not so bad after all. I will say, keep dreaming or smoking that stuff which i am sure is now a household item.

``Pakistan is now moving ahead of India in these areas (Pakistan used to be way behind).``

Which areas are you talking about, dude? The editor of ``The news`` (who has fled Pak to US) was asked in ``Hardball`` in MSNBC if Mushy was sincere in his efforts against the terrorists and if he thought US should send in troops in Pakistan like it did in Afghanistan to flush out the terrorists. The implication is very clear. Mushy has been given a long rope. He can either extricate himself and his country from the present mess or he can hang himself with that rope. We need to wait and see what he does. The editor of ``The News`` also said in Hardball that Mushy boy does not have complete control over all the terrorist elements. This is a scary situation, then. Musharraf has no doubt cracked down on a lot of jehadi elements. But Pearl`s killing has been very bad for him. He will be forced to do more.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 30

harimau,

I am surprised at the way many pinko journalists and academicians in India are crying hoarse about BJP rewriting the Indian history. I really need to look at the new history book and see what is so bad about it.

If rewriting history means knowing more about Hindu culture, about sages and saints, i am all for it. History can be written in many ways. It is only a question of changing the emphasis. If BJP writes history highlighting the much neglected ancient culture of India (based on objective evidence),i am all for it. On the other hand, if there is an attempt to create a particular mindset and create a kind of rift between hindus and the minorities, i will be opposed to such a change. History, as has been taught in schools nowadays, definitely needs to be rewritten for the simple fact that it has always been so boring!

Sridhar

sarwari #26: Your feelings are understandable, and probably correct. However, you need to look at the broader context, and not just at what happened at Berkeley. The more Pakistan gets kicked around verbally, the better it is for Pakistan, at the moment. Indians have a very tough task on their hands in defending their indefensible Kashmir position. That is why they always turn on the heat. However, one report from Amnesty International is enough to expose the Ganguly`s of the world.

Pakistan`s intellectual community has spent so much of its time concentrating on the Mullahs, that they haven`t spared the time to look at Pakistan`s other`s problems, as well as looking at Pakistan`s strengths.

Based on this argument, these intellectuals became anti-anything that had even slight religion in it. This combined with Pakistanis` inherent desire to criticize any leadership (good or bad) actually brought them to a point where they started agreeing with many of the stances India had. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are agreeing with Indian stances based on human rights etc. However, in many cases, they agreed with Indian stances because they disagreed with anything in Pakistan which had religion or the Army in it (even if meant defending thier own land). You will find people like that on this site also.

I feel these guys overdid the religious angles. There were talks of Pakistan turning into Talibanland etc., in a few years or so. I always stated, when push came to shove, the Taliban of Pakistan would crumble. Which is what happened.

I think there will be a shakeup of the thought processes of the Pakistani English speaking intellectuals now. They are begining to realize that there are good people in the Army also. They are begining to realize that Pakistan was never as close to Talibanization as they predicted. And they are starting to understand that maybe they don`t have all the answers either. And they should understand that Pakistan`s solutions should be according to the wishes of the common man, not according to the wishes of the intellectuals.

Now that they don`t have the extreme religious parties and the Army as their punching bags any longer, they will have to take on and discuss the real problems of Pakistan, i.e. feudalism, social lack of cohesion, etc. They will soon have to come to terms with the fact that they cannot run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

Also, now that Pakistan is getting world attention, these guys will have to face and debate at the world level with international intellectuals. They will realize that they are not the only ones who can speak English, and have elitist education. I don`t think they are ready for this, and they are now begining to realize this. Hence their poor show at international forums, like the one you mentioned.

Based on this, what Musharraf has been able to accomplish is incredible. He is now the symbol of Pakistan in the Western media. Just like when the West pictures Iraq, they think Saddam (= bad guy), when it pictures Pakistan, it thinks Musharraf (= good guy). This is now the image of Pakistan in the average American grandmother`s mind, and all the Ganguly`s of the world will not be able change it, provided we play our cards correctly.

I have seen very very few serving Generals, of any country, in my life who are so apt at dealing with the press, in such a straightforward manner (perhaps Colin Powell is another). Just take a look at how tongue-tied the US Generals get when they talk to the US media. I don`t know where Musharraf picked this up, because it certainly isn`t taught in any military I know of.

So based on that, all this kicking around is actually good for Pakistan. It is good for Pakistani intellectuals also. They are begining to realize what it takes to play in the big leagues. A Friday Times article may make one an intellectual in the eyes of the 1.5% English speaking public of Pakistan, but it takes a lot more to make an impact at the Berkeleys of the world.

So a lot of what you may have heard from Khaled Ahmad may not have had anything to do with his views. It may have been that he is still stuck in the, ``mullahs and army are 90% of the problem`` mindset. Hence his views coincided with the Indians` views, even though Pakistan has moved beyond this stage, while India (and perhaps Khaled Ahmad also) are still stuck there, and haven`t changed their views about Pakistan yet. And he was probably completely out of his league in front of experienced people like Sumit Ganguly.

He`ll get better as time passes. He should take a few lessons from Musharraf. One of the best debators I have heard is Tariq Ali. Many people don`t like his socialist tendencies, but the guy is a master when it comes to discussions.

Re ylh #28

``The conduct of the self proclaimed liberal Congressites like P-mishra have made me realize that Urstruly was right about the Indians all along``

Just because you do not agree with someone`s views, it does not give you the right to tar their nationality. I enjoy reading the posts of a number of Pakistanis, even the one which are critical of India. On the other hand there are those which I would rather avoid - what does it make me think about the Pakistanis? The same as about everyone on this planet - there are good and bad people everywhere....humm words of the Paul McCartney/Stevie Wonder song come to mind ``Ebony & Ivory..``

Oh well back to the salt mines

Subroto

Urstruly,

``What Sarwari is suggesting here is that why aren`t we as coniving, as deceiving, and as untruthful as the rest, especially like Indians.``

You weren`t there, you don`t know what it was like. The thought of being a helpless spectator of facade was not something I aspire to or even tolerate. Khalid Ahmed should have added to his talk 1. A context of the cold war, 2. the fall out on Pakistan, Just today the Baluchistan governor was talking of how every attempt to eradicate preventable diseases went useless because of the floods of Afghan refugees. This is just one of the many chains to our progress. Hundreds of these factors come to play on the decisions we took, on the helplessness of the fundamentalist ideals. Having said that, no we shouldn`t be any easy on ourselves than we should be happy about our achievements. I am all for a dissection of our blunders, but not to people who use it against you, to enforce a self-fulfilling prophecy of failures and fanatics. But to people who care to make a difference, that audience is easily got by the print media within the geography of the target area.

I am just sick of the put-downs each opportunity these Indians get. After a while they become looking glass self for our people. And I think there must be some opposition to it.

Aisha

Who should have been there at UC Berkeley to represent Pakistan? Maleeha Lodhi speaks for Pakistani government and must be pitted against Indian government envoys. Retired Military officers turned specialists are more specialized in militaristic angle of Pakistan than all of what Pakistan represents. The people who claim to represent Pakistan most represent Pakistan as secondary to (or a factor of) Islam and ummah. You can not make claim about Kashmir without bringing Islam in between. Otherwise it is a human rights issue.

Pakistani point of view according to ideology is best represented with no opposition as in TNT, separate electorate for Muslims, separate family laws for Muslims, separate dietary laws for Muslims and within Pakistani madrassahs.

Debating on non-Islamic ground is open to questioning of secular nature for which Pakistani side responding on the basis of religion will fall on deaf ears.

Just uttering two sentences repeatedly do not need a specialist or even a participant. The two non-religious sentences representing Pakistani pomit of view are: 1. Kashmir must be solved according to UN resolution number ??? and 2. Military takeover was a necessity because elected Prime minister was corrupt who happened to have honestly appointed the ``smartest`` general as COAS. Hahaha

Obaid Ullah Jan will be more interested in criticizing US actions in Afghanistan and Shireen Mazari would be more interested in defending Musharraf. Who speaks for Pakistan? Pervez Hoodbhoy? He would have said samethings as Khaled Ahmed.

Why not accept the weaknesses of your mistaken stands and learn to improve them by not repeating them.

By the way, another doctor, a kidney specialist was gunned down yesterday in Karachi and guess what Moin Uddin Haider said. Same statement he has been repeating since he was governor of Sindh, appointed corruptly by the corrupt prime minister upon the advice of smartest, honest and fiercely nationalistic general.

Mr. Harimau #31

[After all, you guys took Jinnah`s statement that Hindus and Muslims cannot … ]

Just like you guys took Gandhi’s statements about “Ram Rajya” to it’s logical next step ……

Rsridhar,

``Whining kind of takes away objectivity.`` You know precious little about being objective when you say Advani is only doing what makes Pakistanis twitch, if you think the issue of an identity is laughing matter, turn to one single story of a victim of communal violence in your sacred land today. The most scary thing about giving an opinion is the fact that you get involved with people like you, who lecture on objectivity and Kashmir.

pmishra2

Actually I understood the high ethics of secularism about this time last year. It was not post Sep 11th as you assume. Gilani is perhaps reacting to the freedom of his people that your government suppressed for over 2 decades before the insurgency occurred. Now I agree that everyone`s hands are dirty but that doesn`t give you the license to dispense everything on the assumption that we are communal and you secular. That is a problem I have with the Kashmir issue. Stuff all the lies both our governments tell. What does amnesty international have to say about the people who are tortured, raped and murdered? Can`t we make a change in our thinking for them? And it goes for Pakistan too. But If 90% of these human rights abuses happened in the hands of your army, you have the gall to say so, atlast acknowledge it. Give us a sign you`re human?

Aisha

Ms. Sarwari

Congratulation, a well written article. I totally agree with you that we Pakistani’s are too self critical. For some reason we think that our problems are unique to us. A little more optomism in our future would not hurt. I for one am sure that our future as a nation is secured and bright.

Hinduism is awake today...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/international/asia/05INDI.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38276-2002Mar4.html

and I am a Hindu no more.

...this $hit`s getting old and boring fast...

re: ylh

{{ my mother is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and her family tree has been authenticated by a few dozen authorities in this regard. }}

dude, thanks for the laugh, i needed it...

Harimau 31,

And they in turn took it from you, as in, Dalits cannot live with Shudras, who must not live with Vashiyas who will not live with shatriyas who, in no condition, must marry the brahmins etc etc etc

U get the point, don`t you?

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

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

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

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

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

Check this link out. The Pakis did squat as the Americans have now realized. (That didn`t stop Mushy from coming to Washington with a begging bowl in hand)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

Hey Prem reply 37,

While I suppose many Indians and Pakistanis on Chowk like pointing the finger on the morality of our respective states and societies -- your inference that Sheikh Omar is not being extradited to America becuase he is a being supported by the Pak government is quite incorrect.

(Yes in the past he was (ISI) but the tide has changed.)

On the contrary Pakistan has behaved very much like its big neighbour India would.

Firstly from a legal perspective Pakistan has no extradition treaty with the US. Pakistan would like to act like a democracy sometimes and we have our own rules and laws that will hopefully put Sheikh Omar away.

Secondly the backlash effect of the fundos in Pakistan on sending Omar to America would probably have severe violent repercussions in the region.

Thirdly your snide comment of arresting people in their houses has no effect -- once again denounces the democratic principles that India stands so strongly for. (In Pakistan for a military dictatorship to still act democratically and within the confines of the law is a big step)

I would love to be a fascist and put away any mullah with a beard who talks of jihad and fighting america the satan away -- but that in the long run deters democracy when you have no credible proof or a case against the suspects.

Hence a house arrest without proof -- though against the law and against the tenets of democracy is a means of keeping the troublemakers off the street without prosecuting them on some false charges.

I don`t understand why Indians are so anti-pakistan in the light of Mushrraf`s new vision. While not neccessarily giving up on Kashmir, he has come a long away and is fighting terrorism at home and abroad.

For the progress of our people let our generations come together for peace.

We can start by stopping verbal attacks on each other and limiting it to constructive dialogue.

Last time I check India and Pakistan were both in the coalition against terrorism.

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

``Before the context of the talk, may I explain that peace is a glorious aim that Pakistanis have.``

Good God ! Excuse you !!! Never mind the skewed panel - what about you - being selective, are we not, in looking at problems and their roots objectively on the subcontinent ? To quote you ``Where is impartiality?``

Good luck with that ``Glorious Aim`` though - if you are reading the mind of 140 million people correctly - though how any Indian can trust Mushyrat I do not know - he has blood on his hands with that ``bagal meiN choori`` Kargil farce ....

BTW kaha suna maaf kareiN - I am not usually so harsh - but you hit a nerve

Sarwari #43

On one hand I can`t help but appreciate your passion but on the other hand I do think that your approach is negetive. The point I was trying to make was that this world would be a better place if we had less of Goebles. And this is only possible when governments are more open and more transparent; there is rule of law at all levels; and the interests and rights of the populace have precedence over all ``national`` or ``militaristic`` intersts. In order to do that we need to clean our closets first. There should not be any compromises as far as rights of individulas vs. state are concerned. That is the only way when we wont be afraid and annoyed of anyone`s harmful and false propaganda. We cannot change everyone else, but we can change ourselves. And why should we have to follow Indian example. The hindu canabalism and carnage that they are wreaking upon Muslim minority is not cause, it is the effect of years of anti-Muslim hate being spewed by their government and intelligentia against, Muslims, Islam, and Paksitan, examples of which you see everyday at Chowk, door darshan, and ztv news.

Paksitan is ten times better off if we dont have dishonest people like Khalid Ahmad and his ilk. These people are pygmies who are short in their own eyes. One can still stand tall, no matter how short, if he beleives in himself. Beleif in self comes with honesty. Honesty teaches you to know the things that you can change and those you can`t and beleif in self gives you the serenity to know the differnce. Please re-read Romairs post addresed to you, in this regard.

There is one advantage when one lives away from his country-i.e. you dont have to take sides. So you can only side with the best of what is right. You can be as objective as you can be. I hope Romair can also understand this point.

Arjun,

2 out of 3 people have an unfavorable opinion of pakiland.

2 out of 3 people also have a favourable opinion about India.``

Is this from the same research that says 2 out of 3 dentists use Crest? Gosh you are insecure.

Aisha

inna lillah e wa inna elaih e raje-oon


http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

roohi.

When I talked about Pakistanis having an aim of peace, the idea was to explain why it is inevitable that we ask questions over the sincerity of Indians. Nothing glorious about that, and feel free to be harsh.

And just as a side note, itni mirchey que lagti hain about Kargil? Haven`t you the courage to hear about the Indian plots. I suggest you read, ``The muslims of India`` I forgot the author, it has rather interesting details and research of the Mukhti Bahini etc.

Arjun,

Also if we gave China what runs in our blood, what`s it to you, at least we didn`t drink Kashmiri Blood like your army does.

Aisha F Sarwari

RE 57

Here is what the CSM has to say about you.



Commentary The Monitor`s View

from the March 04, 2002 edition

Hindu-Muslim Violence

Hindu zealots are on the verge of fanning a religious civil war against India`s 130 million Muslims. The world`s largest democracy can hardly afford it.









The last time Hindu militants unleashed violence against Muslims was in 1992, when they tore down a mosque in Ayodhya to make way for a temple to the Hindu god Ram. Over 2,000 people were killed then. The attacks of last week, however, occurred while the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) holds power. See story.)

The party`s weak response to the killings - more than 500 so far - should awaken Indians to the danger of letting ardent advocates of one religion claim any authority over secular government.

Muslim-Hindu clashes, of course, are nothing new to India. The 1947 partition of the subcontinent into India and two Muslim states led to immense violence, later wars, and now a nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India.

But this latest violence, centered in the state of Gujarat, provides a warning that India`s democracy still needs strong defenders against the nativist tendencies of the dominant religion. India need only look to Iran to see how a nation`s progress can be held back by letting religious radicals rule.

Fortunately, democracy itself has a way of reducing communal tensions. Muslims have found respected places in India`s government and other centers of power, while the BJP itself has been backpedaling on its pro-Hindu stance in order just to stay in power. Voters are demanding faster economic progress. Hindu-Muslim violence only weakens the nation`s ability to win foreign investment.

How well the BJP stands up to Hindu radicals in coming days will set India`s course for the near future.

Defeatist Par excellence: Sameerjb!

Your self defeating babble is just the kind of nonsense we needed on this board. God save Pakistan from people like you.

With that said, even someone like you with views like yours should have an opportunity make a fool of himself in Pakistan. So I will fight for your right to be foolish as much as you want.

Rsaxena,

You have indeed been true to your Indian creed .. by misquoting a post of another board, for topic that you unnecessarily started. You know why you have the psychological urge to assassinate my character like this: Because you and your Indian buddies know you can`t beat me at facts.

My original post that was twisted by this sad and stupid fool is for all to see:

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=rsiddiqui_feb2202&n=00#reply289

1) I didn`t bring this topic up.

2) I could care less.

3) I will not deny something true to sound `intellectual` and `acceptable` to the Indians.

4) Traditions of Shajra nasb and oral traditions are rather well known and authenticated in the middle eastern tradition.

Grow up Rsaxena. The way you pathetically try to derail every possible discussion is not only sad but shows how evil and thoroughly bigoted you Indians are...

Let me be clear about something : I do not appreciate people like Rsaxena bringing up my lineage. I want to make an appeal once again to all chowkies to leave my family out of this.

1) My mention of my `Lineage` 2 years ago was in context of a discussion of how Muslims in South Asia claim to have heritage from Arabia and Turkey. I had merely mentioned that I was the only in my high school in Pakistan with such a claim. Everyone in my high school had local rajput and jat surnames.

2) The pathetic attempt by Rsaxena including the one under his alias `ali2` to detrack the discussion should be condemned by all chowkies.

3) I am not Sameerjb. I will not deny the truth just to please the Indians. Like I said, I could care less if I was the descendant of Muhammad, or the descendant of an untouchable Hindu. My education, my training, my faith and my family have taught me to respect humanity regardless of lineages.. but does that mean I should deny the facts? The debate on lineages is stupid ... but by the same token it is a fact that Middle Eastern especially classical Islamic scholarship was obsessed family Lineages to trace the accuracy of the transmission of Islamic Law. So if I have said something like that, it is because its a fact and not because I am unnecessarily proud of my relation to a man who claimed to receive divine revelation rightly or wrongly.



Sameerjb,

How shamelessly without self-respect are you? Can you explain when and how and what Islamic dietary laws are the part of the ideology of Pakistan? Were we not created by a pork eating whisky drinking lawyer who dined more often with Hindus, parsis and christians than muslims? On the other hand is not Gandhiji`s collective works full of exhortations against `intercommunal dining`? Is it not known of the Brahmins that even their food had to be cooked by orthodox hindus?

Pakistan was NOT supposed to have an ideology. It was an alternative solution. How can a people fighting the fear of exclusivity than turn around and embrace the exclusivity? The fact is that Pakistan was an inevitable fact not some ideology, and that fact has been made abundantly clear by the recent events in Gujarat!

-YLH

Sarwari

``Radical=distinguished nowadays. :(``

This true if one is open/like minded. Seems to me that open minded it self has ben hijacked, it`s come to mean like minded. I saddened when I run across otherwise bright young Pakistanis so taken with the ideology and language of the radical left. Not only does such idology and language skew, distort reality, it makes arriving at solutions to problems, nonsensical. If the history of intellectualism can be described or can be said to be characterized by the supremacy of equations whereby we can a general statement can be derived from a particular and a particular statement from a general - perhaps it is now time to consider that as accuracy on one side of the equation increases, generality on the other side of the equation decrases.

Sarwari

For some reasons, ppl think that balanced debate is one in which all parties in the conflict r blamed. And this is against the very essense of debate. Read Manto to get the idea about it, when he discusses hindu-muslim fracticide in 47.

I am from pakistan, but i do not see one reason how one can support pakistan`s activities in Afghnaistan from 1979. How the GHQ pimped this country to Saudis and Americans to pit Afghans against Afghans in the name of freedom, islam, and other damned $hits.

Come mid 1980s, when Russians were pleading Americans to let them pull out, and Americans and Pakistanis were pulling them in because GHQ wants money and Americans want ebd of Soivit Union.

Come one puppet govt of Afghanistan, which under Burhan Uddin, rebelled and got out of Pakistan control, and GHQ started funnelling in money and arms (courtesy Saudis) to again cause more bloodshed.

Come Talibans, and all sort of butchery and savagery with it.

And then in kashmir, where continued arms and amunitions were supplied and pakistanis trained and dispatched to imitate what happend in Afghanistan.

Yes, some biased Indians may grunt and exaggerate more. Some might say kashmiris have always been happy and other BS. But it does not mean that one can forget pakistan past, and give GHQ a clean chit.

9/11`s responsibility is shared by Saudis, Pakistanis and Americans. I will hold USA more responsible as it was the prime motivator for all the fanatic movements beginning in 1979. But pimping pakistan to USA with som much willingness, was Pakistan`s main crime.

How can we ignore it?

...ironic how useless pakis talk about rights for kashmiris when they themselves don`t even have the right to elect their own leader...

...pakis lecturing india on gujarat riots is like apartheid era south africa lecturing the US on rodney king riots...one is incident based, the other is institutionalized...

re: gfm

{{ I don`t understand why Indians are so anti-pakistan in the light of Mushrraf`s new vision. While not neccessarily giving up on Kashmir, he has come a long away and is fighting terrorism at home and abroad. }}

pakistan`s very character - dictatorships, non-secular tradition, and curbs on individual liberties - gives most indians allergic rashes...that is why indians will continue to be anti-pakistan...as for mooshraf, he hasn`t done jackshit other than talk...and his story on kashmir hasn`t changed one bit....

{ We can start by stopping verbal attacks on each other and limiting it to constructive dialogue. }

the only thing mooshraf wants to talk about is when india will meet his demands on kashmir...until he finds a new topic, there is nothing to talk about...

{{ Last time I check India and Pakistan were both in the coalition against terrorism }}

so are israelis and palestinians..and we know how much they all love each other....

I completely support Ras Siddiqui`s call for a Paki Chair at Berkeley. Before the Pakis go out with a begging bowl asking for funding, let us outline some of the areas of exertise the Paki Chair ought to have:

1) How to quickly reduce the numbers of minority populations to below 0.1% levels. For this he or she could easily draw upon the post-Partition history of that shining beacon of pluralism: The Land of Pure, Pakistan.

2) How to brutalise, rape and murder over a million fellow Muslims with a kill-rate better than even Hitler. Again, the expert need look no further than that paragon of tolerance and gentleness: Pakistan. (ask the Bangladeshis, for an endorsement).

3) How to sprout fundamentalist and terrorist gangs of thugs: for this, the expert will have to hire some TAs from the Taliban stable. A position for a Paki mullah from the Balochistan area could be favorably considered for hands-on input and design of the coursework.

We can add to this list of activities as we think of more.

tantralogician

SameerJB #41: ``By the way, another doctor, a kidney specialist was gunned down yesterday in Karachi and guess what Moin Uddin Haider said.``

Moinuddin Haider is the one who is actually taking on the extremist right. He is at great risk. His brother was recently assasinated. One would have to assume Moinuddin and Musharraf are doing a lot more at a much greater risk,than most Pakistanis. They are the two most likely people to be assasinated in the world.

I think we should appreciate their efforts. I would rate their work at a much much higher level than Khaled Ahmad, Pervez Hoodbhoy, etc.. The later are higlighting Pakistan`s faults (although they need to get out of their high concentration on religion, and look at other faults also). People like Musharraf and Moin are actually trying to solve these problems. The later task is much much much harder and more thankless than just pointing out the problems. Both groups should be appreciated. However you always tend to appreciate the Khaled Ahmads and are very critical of the Moin Hadiers. I think if these guys were not in the Army, you would be greatly appreciative of them.

I think Moinuddin is a Shia, himself. Which puts him at even a greater risk. He is doing a lot more to solve the problems of Pakistan, than you or I. Him and Musharraf need and deserve everyone`s support.

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

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

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

re: ylh

{{ by misquoting a post of another board, }}

misquote?? you wrote those words, not me; there`s no room for misquoting there.

{{ I do not appreciate people like Rsaxena bringing up my lineage. }}

dude, you brought it up, not me.

I DID NOT WRITE THOSE WORDS, YOU DID.

Bringing together the `stans`

By Shahid Javed Burki

In last week`s