The Great Illusion

Layman Ji,

The Revathy Gopal`s of this world are not mad but cheats, crooks and liars. This St Thomas thing has been disproved many times in many distinct fora (google for it).

At the same time to please their Christian/Western overlords they publish tripe like this.

Regards
Sanatani

REF 161 by urstruly:

Make no mistake, Tikka was a patriot. Dont forget Tikka`s role in defending Sialkot in 1965, and in the Rann of Kutch before that. Tikka was also an important part of the initiation of Pakistan`s nuclear program in 1972; much of the early implementation was coordinated by him since the army was responsible for the program, even though the father of the program is Bhutto.

As for East Pakistan, Tikka was not involved in the political negotiations that preceded Operation Searchlight. Searchlight was a modified form of operation Blitz

Do some detailed research as i have done, and you will find out that a united Pakistan was dead long before Searchlight was launched. On 23rd March 1971, Dhaka was deserted, with black flags on almost every house. The argument that the so called genocide after March 25th ignores the fact that Mujeeb and Zia both declared independence very soon on the night of March 25/26. This was before any major fighting. One thing was clear in March 1971; Pakistan as we knew it was dead since Mujeeb`s 6 points went far beyond autonomy. Infact, the sort of capital controls that Mujeeb wanted would not have been acceptable to any country.

Tikka landed in East Pakistan at 3:40PM on March 7th, 1971. He did NOT have any role in the political negotiations with Mujeeb at this time. He requested a meeting with Mujeeb which Mujeeb turned down due to his own political reasons. Tikka`s orders at this time were clear; Take NO action against anyone and keep the army in the barracks, which he implemented. He is often portrayed as the man who favored a military solution to the dispute, which is not true since he supported the begotiations that were going on, even though he was NOT a part of those negotiations. Read Salik`s book, a firsthand account, which makes it clear along with internal army documents that Tikka was not informed of the status of the negotiations. He did not know what was going on; only late on 23rd March was he told by Yahya to launch military operations.

Now for the casualties. No sane observer believes the lie of 3 million dead. Look at some well informed Bengali observers and look at their revised casualty figure, which is far lower though still has a big range. But think, how can 3 million peopel be killed in 280 days? That comes out to about a 11,000 people a day..the poorly armed and overstretched Pakistani army could not have killed peopel at this rate...Pakistan had about 40,000 soldiers at the start and about 50,000 later...the 93,000 included many many civilians as well...Innocent people died in that war..like every war...that is why wars are bad..especially civil wars...dont forget that Biharis and Bengalis also fought with each other and that also increased civilian casualties.

Lastly, let me remind you that Tikka in East Pakistan was firm in the face of adversity and was very honest in his financial dealings...unliike Niazi who broke down on the 3rd day of the war in December after declaring that ``Dhaka would fall over his dead body``, also pointing that tanks would roll over his chest for Dhaka to fall. I can assure you that Tikka would not have surrendered to the Indian forces...the result perhaps would have been the same but we would not have surrendered...nor did Tikka smuggle paans like Niazi was doing. He was transferred out of East Pakistan in early september..this was part of a political strategy. In West Pakistan, Tikka was ready to strike at India...and consistently requested the GHQ to grant his reserve corps to attack strategic parts in India to deflect the pressure on East Pakistan..yet the orders never came on time. Tikka was shocked when Pakistan surrendered..he was ready to fight till the end on the West Pakistan front.

You blame the army for intrusion into politics, and i totally agree that the army should not have any political role to play in Pakistan. That is what Tikka did...he never interfered with Bhutto`s political policies and ensured the army remained under civilian control.

Tikka was honest to the core as a politician and as a General. He was a patriot, who did what he was ordered to do on march 25th. Do not forget that the East Pakistan issue did not start up overnight by Tikka`s landing in Dhaka..do you honestly think that Tikka himself alienated the Bengalis in the days before Searchlight was launched? He refrained from taking any steps that would jeopardize the status of negotiations during those 18 days before march 25th. Remember, your Quaid e Azam also angered the Bengalis by declaring that only Urdu would be their official language. Later, Ayub Khan`s years totally alienated the East Pakistanis due to bad official policies and neglect.. The 1965 war further alienated them since they rightly felt that Kashmir was more important for West Pakistanis...and lastly, we all know the attitude of the West Pakistanis in general to the East Pakistanis.

Tikka was a soldier, and as a soldier his duty was to obey his superiors...he did that. East Pakistan may still have falled had Tikka been in the Eastern command in December..but i can assure you he and his troops would have died fighting the Indians, not surrendered like ``Tiger`` Niazi.

re: hobbyty # 454

I am not at all sanguine about the salutary effects of education. ``Education`` has been and will continue to be a tool with which to indoctrinate and brainwash young people, as much as to liberate them to think for themselves. Let us call education that aims to liberate individuals to think for themselves liberal education. There can be NO liberal education at the public level in societies that seek to preserve old, outdated dogmas. The decision to create a public system of liberating education comes BEFORE such education comes to exist in societies.

I hope you see this obvious and tragic chicken and egg problem: Without liberal (liberating) education, there is no public-level desire to reinterpret old and outdated dogmas. But without reinterpretation of old and outdated dogmas, there is no public-level support for liberating education. The swarming hordes of fanatical young people one sees around the world, propounding their peculiar world-views are ``educated`` in the ways of existing dogma. They are unlikely to create a liberating educational system for the children of tomorrow.

So, hobbyty, the problem remains: What will lead to an educational system that Asma Barlas has in mind. I am not even sure she has liberating education in mind. If she does, how does she propose to create such a system?

Since abstract argumentation has lately become the refuge of scoundrels and obfuscators, let me take up a practical example. You will agree that Islam, properly interpreted, can NOT be expected to teach bigotry, human inequality, violence against people for their beliefs, and ideas of ``free lunch`` to Muslims in dealings with other human beings.

In that light, what, in your opinion, will lead Saudi Arabia to allow the building of churches, temples, Imambaras, and synogogues on its land? What public education will enable a resident of Mecca who seeks to convert to Christianity and construct a Church to act on his or her conscience? How can such a public system of education be established in Saudi Arabia?

I will sincerely be interested in your answer to this powerful conundrum of development that some societies face.

And Nagit, one more thing. I might have been converted in Arabia/Persia by the sword.

How about you?Does it give you satisfaction to say that , you werent?

Soundmeister

``whenever the issue of Islamic terrorism is discussed, normal Muslims start defending Islam, talking about how it`s the language of peace, tolerance, love, how the Koran does not preach violence etc. Which is slightly irritating because it`s as if is the Koran DID preach violence, it would be a-ok to go around bombing planes and skyscrapers. Is is such a big stretch to react as human beings rather than Muslims? I think it`s precisely this kind of defensiveness that has prompted replies like the one asked by that angry young man.``

Islamic terrorism? - Isn`t it exactly this point that Ms. Berlas is trying to get thru - ? But if it is, to you , ``Islamic terrorism``, why the slight irritation, why not validation of your point of view? Quran preach violence? no, but it certainly does not preach turn the other cheek - it has a realistic or worldly view - if you allow violence to be done to you once, it will be done to you repeatedly - Paraphasing Hamlet: to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing, end them. Defensiveness? I agree.

Fawad

Do you think there is a relationship between what you describe and attitudes generally found in Hinduism, about being Hindu? Do you think it has some relationship to caste?

i want to to adress the original topic of this post---this article. I will start by anecdotal evidennce. I was at my mother`s cousin`s house and the topic was partition . I always like asking my nani about pre partition british india and she was telling me stories. Well anyway she told me how white my great grandffather was , he was so white people thought he was a Brit. Funny , well my uncle said that was cuz my family was ``bagdadi`` indicating our iraqi origin. I said with all due respect that is bullshit cuz we were arain and arain were hindu farmers who converted to islam........... Well anyway my grandmother said no we were arain and we only married within arain so our arab blood was in tact....i found this amuzing and sad....Amuzing because my grandmother actually believed this sad cuz we were not proud of coming from the soil of pakistan we were proud of a dubious if even true foreign lineage!!!!!!!! Well i think many pakistanis have an arab perisna turk complex and i think its time to wipe it out most are afraid if they shake their family true a hindu will fall out i say so what.....if my ancestors were hindu then so be it .....it doesnt mean i am one or want to revert its just who i am......

i would really be interested in every pakistani or indians thoughts on this glorification of foreign ancestrty

Reply to Asma`s question...

``Second, the average American puts a billion Muslims, to say nothing of Islam itself, on call for the actions of a few men. By this logic, he should blame all Americans for the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender, all Germans for the Holocaust, the whole right-wing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions, etc. How is it that everyone can claim individualized identities, thus being able to disassociate themselves from people with whose actions they disagree, but not Muslims?``

It`s interesting that you should raise that question, because I think there is an important difference. Something that an American friend called to my attention: the fact that whenever the issue of Islamic terrorism is discussed, normal Muslims start defending Islam, talking about how it`s the language of peace, tolerance, love, how the Koran does not preach violence etc. Which is slightly irritating because it`s as if is the Koran DID preach violence, it would be a-ok to go around bombing planes and skyscrapers. Is is such a big stretch to react as human beings rather than Muslims? I think it`s precisely this kind of defensiveness that has prompted replies like the one asked by that angry young man.

Nagnathweshwar

``Whats going on between you & adha Mussalman Zafar ?Between you & me ,i think he is a recent convereted muslim .Not like you original related to Arabia Persia.``

Nagit: - it`s hard to say, I think Adha Musalma Zafar and I at least want to talk things out - it things clear in our minds - I had invited yu to comment as a way of getting you involved instead you had a curious reaction to an invitation to talk - Oh, well - maybe in the future you will keep your powder dry, till needed?

Clearly Zafar is a recent convert, certainly not like me - how about you?

Prem

To the adherent, his or her religion is and should be ``perfect`` - to the adherent - as I remarked to Shankar, why would anybody want to be an adherent of any religion that is not ``perfect`` (recall the concept of indexicality)

Reinterpretaions (plural) will take time - yes, they will and should - obscuritanists, on this issue stand without support of educated persons; examine it for yourself, wherever mass education is available and compulsory, obscuritanists fail to make a dent - wherever the level and quality of educationis low, obscuritanists flourish and criticism recedes.

Obscuritanists are or have a high profile because of their political activism - not religious activism - others argue that I am mistaken, in error. Witness: Madrassahs flourish and it`s a matter of pride and joy that the light of education and the love of the word of God should find thirsting students - but it`s not ethics of God, nor FAITH that is being built or taught - rather the it is certitude over faith, intolerance over the pluralism of salvation that are making their mark - because these further a political agenda - this political agenda does has wide support in the following sense, if a case is made that many Muslim populations do not find themselves or their heritrage or culture or religious beliefs, valued and seek to regain political freedom and sovergnty - most Muslims anywhere, everywhere will support such a struggle - such a struggle is the tide of history itself - the binding together and dispersion of peoples is itself like the wave of the oceans, played out in history. However; a greater, more powerful intellectual movement, not without it`s own political and social implications, is the infusion of new knowledge to the study of the Quran and it`s guidance for man, for this and the near future age. Asking the question ``what does it mean to be a Muslim`` is itself a glorious consciousness born of criticism and this is itself revolutionary; and as you are aware, Islam is far from exhausted, it is infact bubbling with intllectual and ethical energy and it`s implications for Muslim societies is, by far, more profound that the cultural imperatives emanating from the West - and this coming transition and transformation also has implications for the entire world.

re: hobbyty # 447

``We also must learn to read the Qur’an for its “best meanings,” as the Qur’an itself tells us to do. Such an injunction clearly recognizes that we can read a text in multiple ways but that not all readings of it may be equally appropriate.``

Hobbyty, apparently, Asma Barlas is reiterating the point that Soroush (from what I have learnt of him through you) and many other people from other religious traditions have been making for a very long time: all religion must be constantly reinterpreted/updated in light of changing contexts.

The challenge is to lay out (1) a vision of such an interpretation and (2) a path to such reinterpretation? It will also be interesting to know why, in Asma Barlas` view, such reinterpretation has not occurred?

Personally, I believe that with proper interpretation, Islam can indeed claim to be a perfect religion (not the only perfect religion; one of the perfect religions). But, then, it is easier to move mountains than to divert societies from one set of dominant interpretations of religion to a radically different one.

Nagesteshwar

Fiber! - more Fiber in your diet will help and

I will learn to use a spell checker.

Reply Nagnatheshwar # 444

“Simbly arrest every damn big leaders of Vhp RSS on eve of such events.”

Yes, but how and why do they benefit from communal polarisation. That’s the fundamental driver for this kind of violence, and that’s what has to be dealt with.

Shammi, Prem, Dost, Nagateswar, Sadna, Urstruly, Alpha

I ran across this opinion piece in the ``Daily Times`` and it interested me, perhaps it is relevant to this discussion: Opinions welcomed

“Will the ‘Real’ Islam please stand up?”

Asma Barlas

After disavowing any interest in Islam, the “average American” nonetheless fires off seven questions at Muslims, of which I will quote only one. Why, he asks, are Muslims making it “sound like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there Ever since 9/11, Muslims in the US have been under pressure to identify the “real” Islam. Although this demand seems to suggest a genuine interest in Islam, in this essay, I argue that it is often simply an ideological assault on Muslims, albeit disguised as an innocent quest for knowledge. I also consider whether this is an appropriate question and whether Muslims should respond to it.

“Average Americans” and the “real” Islam

In an essay circulated widely on the internet last October, a man calling himself an “average American” demands to know why, in the wake of 9/11, the media has been bombarding him with instructions

on how I should ‘understand’ Islam? Thanks but no thanks. I really don’t give a rat’s —- about Islam...[If it is true that] these terrorist guys who pulled off the 9/11 attacks don’t really represent the actual Islamic faith...why should I be the target audience on what the ‘true’ Islam really is? Shouldn’t the media ...be instructing these ‘wayward’ Muslims and their followers who have ‘hijacked’ Islam about the true meaning of the Koran and Islam?

After disavowing any interest in Islam, the “average American” nonetheless fires off seven questions at Muslims, of which I will quote only one. Why, he asks, are Muslims making it “sound like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there. If so, what is the difference between the Koran that the Terrorists are reading, and the Koran that the rest of the Muslim world is reading?...I need to have the ‘real’ Islam please stand up.” Even as he demands “direct and specific answers” to his questions, however, the “average American” also makes it clear that he’s not prepared to hear history about the Crusades, or the US foreign policy crap, or the rage of Muslims, or the Palestinian claims to the same land as the Israelis, or comparisons to Christianity and Judaism, or stories of poverty or hunger, or the CIA...and ‘blame the victim’ excuses....At this point, the majority of Americans don’t want to hear excuses. We want action.

I can’t do an extensive reading of this essay here, but I want to make some, perhaps obvious, points about it.

First, the average American clearly holds “Islam” rather than Muslims responsible for 9/11; this is evident from the fact that it is the “real” Islam that he wants to stand up in the wake of 9/11 (notice how he speaks of Islam as if it were a person), as well as from the fact that he rules out the possibility that politics or economics or much of anything else could explain the hijackers’ actions.

This confusion of Islam with Muslims is common enough in the West, but it is restricted only to Islam. Certainly, no one asked the “real Judaism” to stand up after Jewish terrorist groups began the practice of bombing civilians in the Middle East in the 1940s and ‘50s. Nor did people ask the “real Christianity” to stand up in the wake of the Crusades, the Conquest, or the slave trade. Nor were there demands for the “real Shintoism” to stand up in the wake of the Japanese kamikaze bombings of World War II.

In fact, we usually explain such events in terms of a mix of political, economic, cultural, historical, and ideological factors. So why ignore history, culture, politics, economics, and ideology where it comes to Muslims? For example, why not interpret 9/11 in terms of a twisted Saudi nationalism, given that bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudis?

Second, the average American puts a billion Muslims, to say nothing of Islam itself, on call for the actions of a few men. By this logic, he should blame all Americans for the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the Japanese had broadcast their terms of surrender, all Germans for the Holocaust, the whole right-wing for Timothy McVeigh’s actions, etc. How is it that everyone can claim individualized identities, thus being able to disassociate themselves from people with whose actions they disagree, but not Muslims?

Third, the “average American” makes it sound as if the problem of interpretive pluralism and extremism are unique to Islam, as if there are no contestary readings of Judaism and Christianity and no extremist Jews or Christians or secular humanists, for that matter! He thus suggests that there is a radical difference between Muslims and everyone else.

Fourth, his disinterest in Islam does not keep the “average American” from grilling Muslim and while his questions pretend to open up some conversational space, he shuts it down by a priori characterizing any sort of response on our parts as an “excuse” and by demanding “action,” not excuses. What this action might entail seems clear from the ever-broadening scope of the “war against terrorism.”

The academic face of Janus

It isn’t just the “average” Americans who is choosing to engage Islam in this way. Consider Bernard Lewis, the noted expert on Islam whose book, What Went Wrong? was reviewed by Paul Kennedy in the New York Times Book Review (January 27, 2002: 9).

On the cover of Book Review the headline is “Islam builds a prison and locks itself inside” (notice how the Review also speaks about Islam as if it were a person). Inside, the headline is “The Real Culture Wars,” and under it: “Bernard Lewis writes on the conflict between the West and Islam that has been centuries in the making.”

On Lewis’s account, this conflict is the result of the fact that whereas in the 18th century, the US and Western Europe “took off to another world, one that was increasingly secular, democratic, industrial and tolerant . . .the Middle East...did not...the Muslim world rested on its laurels—until it was besieged by Western ships, armaments, iron goods and cheap textiles, to all of which it became harder and harder to respond.”

Not only did the Muslim world lag behind, argues Lewis, but it has failed to catch up as is clear from the fact that “Mozart and Shakespeare and Voltaire... Stravinsky, jazz, and George Orwell...stop at the frontiers of the Arab world, which has shown little interest in how others think, write, compose.”

“What, then, is to be done?” asks Kennedy and answers himself by paraphrasing Lewis: they can continue on “a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression,” or, they can “abandon grievance and victim-hood, settle their differences and join their talents, energies and resources in a common creative endeavor...the choice is their own.”

Again, I can’t do an extensive reading of this review, but notice how Lewis also confuses Islam with Muslims and Arabs and, in fact, with the Middle East. The facts that Islam is a religion, Arabs and Muslims a people, and the Middle East a geographic region don’t seem to bother him.

Notice, also, his tendency to speak of Muslim societies in terms not of history or politics or economics or culture, but essentializing psychological essences of “hate and spite, rage and self-pity...grievance and victim-hood.” Is there any single group of people, other than Muslims, about whom anyone could speak in this vein and not be called a racist?

While Lewis wrote his book before 9/11, his view of Muslims also helps to re-present 9/11 in purely religious and psychological terms, like the average American does and, in so doing, lets everyone else off the hook from having to undertake self-critique. In fact, suggesting that we need to rethink policies that may be aiding the political-economy of terrorism immediately evokes the charge of being anti-American.

The points of similarity between Lewis and the average American suggest that they constitute the academic and popular sides of the same coin; in fact, one authorizes and legitimizes the other. After all, would the phrase the “Real Culture Wars” have any resonance if there wasn’t a demand to have the “real” Islam “stand up?”

So, on the one hand, Muslims are being badgered to define the “real” Islam and, on the other, we’re being told what the “real” Islam is and that too by people who aren’t even Muslims! Aren’t such people as guilty as the terrorists were of hijacking Islam to serve their own ends? And are they really invested in our speaking meaningfully about Islam?

Islam’s reality for Muslims

Even though the public discourse is not conducive for any kind of soul searching on the part of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, and even though it is silencing Muslims, I believe we have a great deal at stake in continuing to talk about Islam.

I believe, however, that we need to approach the issue of what Islam “really” teaches from a different perspective. For instance, in my work (Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), I attempt to show that oppressive readings of the Qur’an are a function of who has read it, how, and in what contexts. To be specific, they are the result of the interpretive strategies that Muslims have/have not used to read the Qur’an, as well as of how religious authority has been structured in Muslim patriarchal societies.

Of course, to say that meanings are always contingent—in other words, that knowledge is never independent of the contexts and processes of its own production—is not to say anything new. But, once we recognize the role of human agency and social structures in interpretive processes, the question becomes not “will the real Islam stand up?” but how and why did Muslim identities, consciousnesses, and histories intertwine in specific ways to produce certain readings of Islam rather than others?

This way of framing the question allows us to distinguish between the Qur’an and its exegesis on the one hand, and between religious texts, cultures, and histories on the other, both of which we must learn to do in order to challenge oppressive readings of Islam.

We also must learn to read the Qur’an for its “best meanings,” as the Qur’an itself tells us to do. Such an injunction clearly recognizes that we can read a text in multiple ways but that not all readings of it may be equally appropriate. And, indeed, the Qur’an specifies some criteria for judging between the contextual legitimacy of different readings.

So, our own religion obliges us to define its reality in ever better ways and also to contest militaristic, misogynistic, and oppressive readings of it. (I’m assuming that such readings can’t possibly be the best, unless, of course, we are willing to embrace a completely depraved view of God as oppressive and misogynistic.)

Although I reject the view that all Muslims are responsible for the events of 9/11, I do feel that we all need to challenge interpretive extremism rather than ignoring it or trying to wash our hands off it. I know some Muslims believe that such problems will disappear if we personalize religion, as in the West. I feel this is just an excuse for evading communal responsibility in the name of an enlightened secularism. As we’ve learned from history, personalizing religion has not done away with extremism. It has merely sanctified the myth that what I do with my religious beliefs does not concern others.

I believe a dialogue among Muslims is long overdue, and not just because of 9/11. That is something we owe ourselves, not average Americans.

This is an edited version of a talk Dr Barlas gave at Yale

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics and director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity, Ithaca College, New York

Shankar,

The richness of rules in such a diverse systems consisting of mullahs and qazis, as opposed to theoretical democracy,essentially lead to its downfall. There seems to be a critical mass. Below the critical point mullahism/islamism is able to acheive a crude functionality but above that critical point the system gains self-referential characteristics and develops chronic incompleteness. Either the religion has facilities below the critical point and thus is so poor in what it can express that no self-referential expressions are possible (and the notion of truth is not definable within that context) or the religion is powerful enough to talk about itself incurring self-referentialism and thus paradoxes and undecidable rules.

#429 Shammi

I read that some gujratis in great britain are suing the gujrat govt. Hope they`ll succeed in at least preventing Modi from leaving india. Vajpayee should be too if possible.

The more i think about it tho, faulting Modi & Vajpayee may not be a wise thing in the long run. What we have is a sickness that afflicts hindus as a whole - that of covert/overt sympathy to thugs, the self-serving feeling that we are a tolerant people and therfore if we act inhumanely it must be the fault of the other guy - that will not be cured by removing a person or two. OTOH, it may lull us into thinking that the problem has been solved. Hindu society needs a major clean up as it did 200 years ago when sati was legally banned.

Prem

Pakistanis as inheritors of Brahmanical racism? I think Pakistanis should remain open to this charge - and view it as something negative. I`m not suggesting pleading guilty, but lets be open to it, lets examine it - it can only help us. I certainly will agree that racism and caste remain operational on many levels of Pakistani society. I join you or any other persons(s) in sensitizing Pakistani society to attitudes that devalue persons based on social or religious values attributed to skin color or complexion. A case in point is this skin lightening creams - I can`t think of a more demeaning and objectionable value to allow in a society - even under the guise of a cosmetic. In Pakistan, especially, first and always, the idea of the equality of persons, as a religious value, as an ethical value, as a civic value, a component of any individual`s moral sense - must be a given. And it is true that this is not the case. One person has said Pakistani attitudes towards Hindus are condesending - I must admit I don`t like that word because of how subjective and elastic it can be - but I remain open to examining if racism or bigotry can be said to characterize Pakistani society, or better still, to what degree? Any way one looks at the question of racism based on skin color - one must be clear about one`s own values, as a matter of conscience and the kinds of values institutions promote in society (to the degree that they do) and as long as one holds on to values operational in some other culture and does not critically examine these values, one cannot make free choices of conscience.

1 Pakistani soldier equals 10 Indians - is this not racism? This notion is not based on racism but on the concept of Quality Vs Quantity. It was then and it is now, Pakistan`s experence that she is and will be, out numbered, that the only way to counter this, is superior quality of training and equipment - American training and equipment helped - this is basically the rational of American alliances - With the Russsians you got big numbers of men in arms and lots of equipment - with the Americans you get superior training resulting in less numbers of men under arms, less but more capable equipment - characterizing this as rascism is a stretch even elasticity cannot pardon - it is more clearly a case of responding to superior numbers of men and arms and I think if one is honest, one has to acknowledge that Pakistan has been very conscious of Quality vs Quantity - making a virtue out of necessity, when possible.

Questions about varna? I hope you will make the effort to answer these questions and ask other questions along this line - and I encourage you to drop the argument that varna, caste, color consciousness is a Dalit thing - it isn`t. It`s a difficult case to make, if one accepts the Aryan stuff, that varna as color was meaningless? Did it evolve into other things or did it`s meaning evolve? is ther such a thing as hermenutics in Hinduism?

Back to Gujrat - I hope you and others will not allow Gujrat to be eclipsed but will seek to explore the connection between those events and the ideas operational in society - have you been able to make any sense of what`s happening there? Zafar finds it unreasoning and or irrational and I`ve been reading at least 5 Indian papers including the editorial and opinion features - and am still clueless - The ``pilgrims`` gained a reputation on the trip back - provocations at the train stations - attacks on the train - What happened afterwards? some reports point that retaliation came 24 hours laters - but how did it become statewide, how did it come to involve state organs in just 24 hours? Police and intelligence services must have picked up on the organizational activity required to get people into the streets? What mechanisms was used to bring state machinery on the side of the retaliators? Why didn`t or why wasn`t the opposition in the state in any condition to galvanize any kind of resistance? When did the central government come to know about the magnitude of the riots? Who responded how? By which laws? Why was there no state of emergency or curfew or shoot on sight? who is responsible for what? Which law, what laws? It`s all too curious, the armed forces are massed on the border, there is a potential for not just war but things going south in a big way - and an entire state, as big as a country is up in flames, not just for a day or two but weeks - while everyone is pointing fingers at one another, two hundred thousand troops are defacating in the open in the desert, while an additional seven hundred thousand face a professional army on the other side and an internal freedom movement - and the racist enemy is supposed to be impressed? It`s all so surreal? Can someone please make any sense of this?