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.