The Great Illusion

re: dost-mittar

...the patience you and others display with retards like hobbyty is admirable...let alone reading his garbage, you actually think about it and respond...where does one buy such patience?...i`ll take 2 pounds of it please...

Dost Mittar, Shankar, Prem, Alpha, Roohi, Ralph

Here is how I should have invited the call to ACTION:

``I`m told there is a hadith, a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, that tells Muslims that if they see an evil they should act to remove the evil. If they cannot do that, they should speak against the evil. If not that, then they must condemn the evil in their hearts. The strongest expression, however, is to act against evil.``

``April 19, 2002

The Public Life of Private Struggles

By MARIANE PEARL

PARIS — I first learned about Pakistan`s silent majority at a time when most of the world found itself stunned and speechless at the killing of thousands on Sept. 11.

My husband, Danny, and I had arrived in Pakistan just after the attacks. Pakistan was part of his beat as South Asia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. We had no apprehensions about being in a Muslim country. We had both traveled throughout the Muslim world. Danny had just spent five years covering the Middle East. As a girl, I had spent my holidays with a friend in Algeria, and Islam, the second-largest religion in France, was very much a part of my childhood at home in Paris.

Danny and I both wished we had been visiting Pakistan in a quieter time. But there we were. At our first meeting we heard from a group of women who advised the city of Karachi. They expressed anger at Western reporters for blaming the attacks on Muslim fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden without proof. They asked us to think carefully about our responsibilities as Westerners and as journalists. They said they were lovers of peace and were deeply offended by what they perceived as the West`s attack on Islam.

Next we traveled to Islamabad. At the Marriott hotel, you could find every news outlet, from CNN to Serbian radio. The journalists were there to cover a war they could not, as yet, actually see. They speculated on the possibility of a coup. Members of fundamentalist Muslim groups demonstrated before the Marriott to display their anger. You could take a close shot of the protesters as they shouted against America and tell the public back home that Pakistan was on the verge of a civil war. Or you could hunt for another opinion, that of the moderates who were said to be the democratic majority.

Danny and I were told that most people did not share the opinions of fundamentalists. But this reassuring voice of the moderate majority was nowhere to be seen or heard.

Danny and I kept talking with all sorts of people in Pakistan. These conversations were honest and sincere; our interlocutors talked about what they really felt. Some blamed their country`s troubles on corruption and previous regimes. Others blamed India or the West, and sometimes both. All expressed shame and anger at how terrorists and their supporters had stolen Islam for their own purposes by promoting hatred and violence. I, too, felt this sorrow for Islam, though as a non-Muslim, and so did Danny.

During the months that Danny and I spent in Pakistan, from Peshawar to Islamabad and then Karachi, I became convinced that all of us have to take responsibility for what is happening in the world if we want to eradicate the causes of terrorism, fascism and similar ideologies. Something new has to happen, and everyday people have to be part of the process.

Both Danny and I knew better than to believe what the fundamentalists were telling us about jihad. Jihad is the name of a process that can be undertaken successfully only by a courageous person. A jihadi fights with himself or herself in what I, as a Buddhist, think of as a personal revolution. It doesn`t involve demonstrating in front of TV cameras or murdering innocent people. It is a slow and difficult process in which one seeks to overcome fears, prejudices and limitations to defend justice and do something that we call épanouir in French — allowing our personality to expand and blossom so that we can fully contribute to society at large.

I came to believe that only through such struggle — a true jihad — could Pakistan address the core issues that the fundamentalists use to manipulate people and exploit ignorance. Education, freedom of expression and the alleviation of poverty could no longer be considered a government responsibility alone. Citizens had to find ways to claim and defend their own rights. It was for the people of Pakistan to decide where their country stands in the global arena, and it was for the people of Pakistan to shake off submissiveness and restore their country`s dignity.

Then Danny was kidnapped.

Neighbors shut their windows and front doors to me during this crisis. I cannot really say of what they were afraid. Was it the police? Gossip? Was it some earlier trauma? Was it Pakistan`s intelligence agencies? The terrorists? Themselves?

I prayed that the majority would not remain silent or paralyzed by fears. I prayed that people would come out and defend their faith and country — and defend their own dignity by voicing their rejection of criminals determined to destroy the future of Pakistan and the hope of its citizens to live in peace.

My prayers were realized in part. During this ordeal, I was surrounded by Pakistani and Muslim people as courageous and beautiful as those terrorists appeared ugly and without souls. I can never be grateful enough for their graciousness, a ray of hope in the midst of darkness.

In the five weeks when I waited in Karachi for Danny to come back to me and our unborn son, the Pakistani police reported at least 11 killings of Shiite Muslims in Karachi alone. Those slain were mostly doctors and professionals. Sectarian terrorists were pursuing their work of destruction. They were planting even deeper the seeds of fear in the hearts of people, making the silence of the majority even more painful to hear. Such fear and terror can destroy a society.

When I finally had to acknowledge Danny`s bloody murder, I decided not to leave Pakistan right away. I wanted to show defiance against fear. In those days, absorbing the murder of my husband, I received the most heartfelt letters of support from all over the world. And finally I heard from the majority in Pakistan as it abandoned silence.

Pakistani people wrote to me about their feelings. ``May God give you strength. Danny`s murderers are not Muslim and should be brought to justice.`` They shared their shame with me: ``I am really saddened by the news and astonished that a Pakistani brother can do this.`` There were beautiful letters printed in Karachi`s English-language weekly, the Friday Times. ``Danny Pearl is not just a dead American journalist,`` a writer stated. ``His suffering in our midst has made him a martyr to the Pakistani people. He died because Pakistan`s enemies could not bear to see the country retake the course of tolerance and moderation that its founding father envisaged.``

Then I heard about a Web site in which Pakistanis bravely signed their names to a letter of condolence. They wrote: ``We unequivocally condemn the perpetrators of this enormity: they are a plague to Pakistan, and the majority of her citizens would prefer to see their kind destroyed.`` At last count, the signatories numbered 3,767.

Pakistani letter writers had left aside prejudices and appreciated my husband as an individual. One writer commented, ``Your husband had a great smile — a happy mixture of Pope Paul and Dean Martin.``

Most captured the sentiments of a writer who called Danny`s murder ``a crime against the people of Pakistan.`` These voices give me the strength to believe that the hope of a modern, strong Pakistan still lives and that the people of Pakistan will help me see that justice is done. I`m told there is a hadith, a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, that tells Muslims that if they see an evil they should act to remove the evil. If they cannot do that, they should speak against the evil. If not that, then they must condemn the evil in their hearts.

The strongest expression, however, is to act against evil.

In memory of Danny and for the future of our son, who is almost here, I also want to ask the people of Pakistan to act upon the sentiments they have expressed and build a memorial for Danny in Karachi. I will bring our son to this memorial and tell him this is the land where his father died, but that the people here stood by us so that his death would not be in vain.

Mariane Pearl, a freelance journalist, is writing a book about her husband, Daniel Pearl.``

Reply Roohi # 402

“For those Indians on Chowk who care it is far more useful to chat with Indians on other sites and try and do something constructive for Gujrat (or amongst your own friends, family, uni or work mates) than waste time here.”

Completely right. There is any amount of vileness currently passing for informed opinion on Indian websites and people MUST come out and counter it, otherwise it forms the centre of gravity for discussion rather than the extreme. We need you.

To those of you who already are, thank you, keep it up, don’t be defeated by hate just because it is loud and aggressive.

“and Jai Hind!”

I’m glad somebody finally said that. Jai Hind!

Hobbyty

``Eat my shorts``

Yuck! What was that? And I thought you are an otherwise decent person who can talk decently.

Hamidm as always is right about you. You need aRefresher course in Manners in case you have done Foundational course in this subject.

Regards and have a great day living in your cocoon.

Alpha, Dost, Akash, Shankar, Roohi

These series of post were in the context of trying to make sense of the events in Gujrat - You are correct in pointing out my take with regard to caste. I will not compromise on the issue of caste. It is, in my judgment, pure evil, unredeemable. Yes, that is part of my ideological bias, my sense of morality, of right and wrong.

As to claims of scientific or legal proof - I make no claims of enjoining science or jurisprudence to arrive at my assertions. I did however; claim to make the assertion about caste and it`s ``neutering`` effect, on the my understanding of equality of persons, indeed my ``ideological biases.`` Persons who do not consider other persons their equals, are in my judgment, Ideological biases, intellectually and morally ``neutered.`` I assert that inequality is the bedrock of caste and those who do abide by it, are intellectually and morally ``neutered.``

As to your statement that ``I hope you are not planning to play prosecuting attorney, judge and jury all rolled in one`` - depends, on all issues of my sense of morality, I reserve to myself, the right of prosecutor, judge and jury - and to consider both object and subject when it comes to questioning my ``ideological biases`` and those of others.

As for the statement to Akash and to Dost and to Shankar and now to you: each one of you has responded with defensiveness and indignation. Shankar denies, Akash accuses, Dost rationalizes, you seek correct form, scientific and legal proof. My assertion is born out of an attempt to understand the events in Gujrat. I examined the claims of Democracy, Constitution, Secularism and find that none of these can be said to account for the events and for the fact that these events continue. What can?

In my opinion, caste and muscular Hinduism can. Caste, because it provides the ``ideological biases`` for inequality and muscular Hinduism because it not only supports a violent assertive presence, actually promotes it. If you agree or disagree, it follows that you are making a choice of ``ideological biases`` - Inequality, servitude based on Zaat/Jaat is the line that separates the ideological biases, or sense of morality here. I have made my position clear - of yours Akash`s, Shankars and Dost`s - I was unclear - to what exactly are you objecting? to the ideological biases, a sense of morality that views caste as an evil or the lack of action as a moral failure? Or in your case the lack of scientific and legal proof - is caste a theory of science or a legal theory, did I posit that it was either of these?

These objections and accusations of my displaying religious bigotry confused me and I sought advice to allow someone outside my formal religious and moral sensibility to examine the issue. Their point of view was that I was being too judgmental, given the cultural context of both the events and of Indians themselves. Can one be a little judgmental? Can there be degrees of judgment, degrees of right and wrong, with regard to caste? Does this issue not call for the exercise of judgment?

Others had pointed that the assertion, caste had intellectually and morally ``neutered`` Hindus, is much too broad, what about Hindus who did not hold to caste? Such a statement would not leave any room for those Hindus who do not subscribe to notions of caste but will nevertheless be under attack as Hindus - If the assertion was to induce action, specifically what action could these larger ``Hindus`` take? After all, those responsible for taking action were a small group of politicians - that the response of posters was to what was being perceived as an attack on the religion itself. That the harshness of the language and the call to action has lost in the perception of an attack on Hindusm itself - and therefore counter productive.

I will concede these latter points and retract the broad statement of Hindus being intellectually and morally neutered by caste - and offer an apology for the perception I have left, of an attack on the religion. I cannot, in conscience, retract my judgment about caste, I cannot be true to my conviction without being critical of caste and it`s influence and mode of operation in society. And similarly, I will standby my statement of color consciousness and it`s relationship to caste.

Yet this still leaves me with trying to make some sense of these events in Gujrat - What accounts for it? Why do they continue? Can such events continue without approval? Is it not a disservice to examine the religious basis for these events? if it is, which elements of religion? If it is a sense of nationalism, is it not connected with a religious sensibility? in posing and examining these question, it is undeniable that there is a religious and nationalistic ethos to these events and that it is connected with muscular Hinduism and inequality, that is to say, caste. If you have a more informed take, apprise me. Again, this is not an attack on the religion - I invite honest and sincere examination of the connection between caste, Muscular Hinduism and the events in Gujrat. And again, I acknowledge my assertion was too broad, it`s language harsh and injurious, I regret the injury and offer an apology.

re: Urstooly

{{The only decent Hindus I ever meet are Amway salespersons.}}

in amway or in your cab?

It sounds so hopeless.Is it the end of the road?

Please read:

http://rediff.com/news/2002/apr/18spec.htm

kaali maata

PS. those Hindus who are dying with dysentry of love for Afganis should remember that for ten years they had been on USSR side, they supported USSR invasion, they gave moral supprt to USSR invaders and thus were arm in arm with murderers. Name one neighboring country of India which is not sick and tired of Indians. Your aiding and abetting of genocides in sri lanka, east pakistan, nepal, kashmir, are all on record. In short Hindus are despecable indecent people who devoid self respect and have no sense of honor and fairness. The only decent Hindus I ever meet are Amway salespersons.

PS:
Its the same Paki hypocrisy which has ensured that thousands of innocent Muslims (lets not mention Hindus, who cares about those?)were killed by Pakis or Paki-trained jihadis in Kashmir. Where the hell is the action taken on reexamination of that ideology?

The leaders and so-called elite of Pakistan have made the Pakistani word and stances worth absolutely nothing.

The only value you can attach to Pakistani stances whether Kashmir,. Afghanistan, Central Asia, India is the value of destruction, namely the violence they threaten to /actually perpetuate on you, as in Afghanistan(as in shelter for Al Qaeda, the return of the Taliban and assassination attempts in Kabul), as in settlement of Kashmir and violent attacks in the rest of India).

Or their stances are those of duress, dictated by what they are arm-twisted into, as withdrawal of support to the Taliban, in surrender of sheltered Al Qaeda terrorists to the US or ceasing of support to others both in Afghanistan and India.

Their words and stances are not formed by considered inner conviction arising out of their society and polity, not even pragmatism on their own behalf for themselves or any general principle, the only unchanging principle or common factor or touchstone is the hatred of Hindus. Even genocides like Bangladesh and reducing capital cities to rubble like Kabul through their support by Hekmatyar and others, reducing a society to stone age and oppression of women in Afghanistan, sectarian violence in their own cities, army takeovers, all these are justified to the Paki mind by that unchanging principle, namely hatred of Hindus, which is more important to their well being even than their own national interest/.convictions/religion/humanity whatever.

And there are absolutely no signs that the results of any `re-examinations` are taking shape as in may the hatred of Hindus triumph though we may go under.

Hobbyty #389

Here is what I read in your response to Akash:

``Have I not proved that when when Hindus are exposed to themselves, they only get angrier?

Have I not proved that Hindus are intellectually and morally neutered by caste? After all yur response is to say I hate you, you do no accept resposnibility for the savagery - for which YOU and other Hindus are responsible. Are you not ``neutered`` when you respond with anger instead of responsibility?``

Now those are INTERESTING CLAIMS. I gather that you have a - PROOF - for the above two statements. I am especially interested in that juicy remark about Hindus being `intellectually and morally neutered by caste`. It comprises TWO sub-assertions; firstly that `Hindus` (no qualifiers or quantifiers), are `intellectually or morally neutered` (whatever that may be - precise definitions most welcome); and secondly that this `neutering` has been CAUSED by caste.

So I went back in great curiosity to Hobbyty #371, which appears to be the mother lode of your remarks. Here I found the following:

``Generally speaking, The majority of Hindu indians are intellectually and morally neutered by the curse of caste and as they become more aware of it - they become angrier. Their only recourse has been to turn to the left; imagining that the self hatred can be washed away in a ``clean canvas.`` Other Hindus have embraced a ``Muscular`` Hinduism. who can fail to understanding the self loathing in that ``muscular`` arrival.``

This is certainly a somewhat more cautious statement in some respects - note the quantifying `generally` and the `majority` - while going even further in other respects. Nevertheless, what this amounts to is a bald assertion, a statement perhaps of your SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS, but nothing that could even remotely qualify as a PROOF.

That post also contained some dubious assertions about the motives of the majority of Indian Muslims who write on these boards. But since you have not claimed a PROOF, I will let that pass as merely your subjective evaluation, highly influenced by what I perceive as your ingrained ideological biases.

So back to the claimed PROOF of `intellectual and moral neutering`. I went and read Hobbyty #371, #380, #382, #394, #395, #401 with interest. I found in these posts a great deal of reiteration of your familiar view of the world and the place therein of Hindus, Indians, India`s `democracy`, `secularism` and `enshrined constitution`, `Captive Kashmir`, `Hindu Indians congenitally hostile towards Muslims`, etc. etc. ad nauseam. I also found some significant remarks on caste: ``Caste is a curse because it arrests society, it imprisons minds and souls, it promotes bigotry - it is bigotry!`` [BTW, caste appears to be an idee fixe of yours, does it not - this is far from the first time that you`ve mentioned it in these many months that you`ve posted on Chowk.] But alas, I found neither hide nor hair nor horn of your PROOF.

Now it is perfectly possible that your PROOF lurks in abbreviated form somewhere in these posts - perhaps on the lines of the `proof sketch` that mathematicians use to convey the central ideas to fellow professionals who are assumed to be competent enough to fill in the blanks and work through routine and tedious details. If that is the case, I think you need to be more explicit - remember that many of those who you address on Chowk are intellectual pygmies on Chowk, not towering minds on a par with yours. Please let us know what your premises are, show us all the steps, dot the i`s and cross the t`s.

It is also possible that your PROOF relies on SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS performed under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. In which case, of course, what you really have is a not a PROOF but a subjectively conceived HYPOTHESIS with a greater or lesser degree of experimental validation. If so, I wonder if you could part with the details here. If you want to refer to a weighty scholarly tome or a journal article by another researcher, by all means do so. If such a publication is forthcoming, that`s OK - I understand that these scientific projects take a while to fructify. Just let me know where I can obtain a prepublication copy of the manuscript.

Or perhaps you mean a proof in the legal sense - `beyond reasonable doubt`; or perhaps

`according to the preponderance of the evidence`. If that is the case, I would still like to see the details of your case, the evidence you present, in systematic fashion. I trust that your witnesses, if any, ar more reliable that Asghar Butt - I doubt that his fantasies in The Nation would be admissible as evidence. And I hope you are not planning to play prosecuting attorney, judge and jury all rolled in one.

Whatever the case, I most humbly implore you to part with the details of your PROOF, so that mere mental midgets like me may partake of your wisdom, and thereby banish the - unworthy suspicion - that your claimed proof is merely a BIASED and SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL IMPRESSION, or worse still, pure HUMBUG.

Your response is eagerly awaited.

``DHIMMIS``: THE PROTECTED MINORITY

by Shirley W. Madany

It was in 1953, in the seaport city of Latakia, Syria that I gradually became aware of how it felt to belong to a minority in a Muslim country. I had married a ``dhimmi,`` the Arabic name given to a member of the ``protected minority.`` This minority included Christians and Jews. (The word ``dhimmi`` is pronounced as if the ``dh`` was the ``th`` in this and that.)

Oh, yes, Christians had certain defined privileges which allowed them to continue to worship in their own church buildings, and have ordained ministers and priests in the Eastern Orthodox churches. They were allowed to look after certain civil affairs in their own courts, etc. But they had grown up accepting restricted freedoms. They must keep their faith to themselves. Most importantly they should never try to share Christ,as Savior,with a Muslim friend. This was against the law. Survival meant compliance. Life was relatively okay if you minded your own business. Conversion was a one-way street for the Muslim. Anyone was welcome to convert to Islam but the reverse was considered a crime punishable by death under the Law of Apostasy.

As a Christian brought up in Canada, my spirit rebelled against such laws. How could one even begin to be a Christian if you could not speak boldly about the faith within you? How could you obey God`s commands if this was the law of the land? It was a contradiction. ``If you confess with your mouth, ``Jesus is Lord,`` and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.`` Romans 10:9. Similar conditions were faced by Peter and John as they stood before the Jewish authorities. They were told not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, `Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God`s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.``` Acts 4: 19,20

It is not difficult to see how this kind of ``protection`` would ultimately change the very personality of an entire group of people. ``The dhimmi`s consciousness--like that of the hostage--moves in a context of vulnerability which annuls the notion of rights and condemns him to exude gratitude for being tolerated. The dhimma is incompatible with the modern principles of inalienable and equal human rights.``

``Dhimmitude`` is a ``historical, political, social and geographical fact.`` And she makes a point to single out that the Islamization of so many nations could not have taken place without the simultaneous working of two factors: ``a conquering militarist minority`` and the betrayals and active cooperation of ambitious renegades.

From time to time one is amazed to hear of some Muslims. They flatly deny reality. One of the Muslim speakers at a Christian-Muslim discussion forum, Dr. Walid Saif of the University of Jordan, had the nerve to make this comment: ``To my mind, even to discuss the subject under the label of `rights of non-Muslims` is misleading and probably counterproductive, because it may imply that non-Muslims` in an Islamic state are signaled out as being a special category with a somehow different status.``

How many Christians on tour in the Holy Land and Egypt have discovered first hand the difficulties faced by the Egyptian Christian when he wants to make some repairs to his church building and finds he does not have permission for the most needy of improvements! Live in a Christian community in any Muslim country and see the truth.

In the early days of their conquest, which the Arabs euphemistically called a ``liberation,`` conversion to Islam was the only sure way to escape the humiliation, and the unjust taxation forced upon them by the application of shari`a law. Later on during the Ottoman occupation of Eastern Europe, the Christian population of these areas, experienced the ruthless snatching of their sons for lifetime service in that special army called the ``janissaries.`` As the author of the book puts it: ``Young Christian children abducted during ``razzias``(raids), allocated within the quint of war booty, or by the ``devshirme`` (recruiting of Christian children), were reduced to slavery and converted to Islam. Subjected to an intense military and religious education, they constituted the Muslim power`s elite troops. Blind and fanatical tools of the sultan, they became the cruelest persecutors of Christians. The janissary incarnates the quintessence of dhimmitude, brought to its perfection.``

Non-Muslims throughout the world hope that as Muslims are exposed to intellectual freedom, they will acknowledge this dark part of their history? While the past cannot be erased, yet recognizing the terrible nature of ``dhimmitude`` should be the basis for building a genuine peaceful co-existence between peoples and nations in a world filled with six billion people. To blindly deny the past is a receipe for disaster and will invite resentment against Muslims.

Hobbyty

``Muslims are Kaka! Now, what about Hindus, is it OK for them to be Kaka as well??``

Not all Muslims are kaka. Some of them definitely are. Similarly, there are, for certain, some kaka Hindus.

We need to take care of our kakas and stop them from behaving like religious bigots feeding on the hatred of others. The days for that kind of thinking - for both Hindus and Muslims - are long gone. This is not just Indian thinking. Many Pakistanis too share in that thought.

The trouble you run into with Hindus and Indians is that it is difficult to know what principles you really stand for. You advance one logic for Hindus, another one Muslims; one system for India, another for Pakistan. You want all Muslims to unite and turn into Islamists. But you don`t want all Hindus to unite and turn into Hindutva vadis. You propagate theories of ``Islam in danger`` and ``Muslims being presecuted.`` But you don`t like some Hindus propagating theories of ``Hinduism in danger`` and ``Hindus being persecuted.`` You want Pakistan to have a centrally strong political system, for Pakistanis to forget their differences. But you don`t want India to have a strong central sytem, and Indians to forget their differences. You asked what Zafar`s ``agenda`` was for his view of history, but you were unwilling to discuss what your agenda was your view of history (surprising, you had such strong views on history even though you acknowledged that Pakistan has destroyed the study of history - so, unless you went out and studied it independently, you couldn`t possibly know history very well). Like all good Islamists and Hindutva vadis you believe that there is a difference between the two, and that while your cause is genuine, theirs is not.

All this is very confusing for even someone like me who admires your intelligence. Certainly, Indians and Hindus will solve their problems. But if you want to be part of the game, you have to establish yourself as a man of integrity and goodwill. Otherwise, it will be irrational for Indians to take your advice seriously. Therefore, when Indians dismiss your protestations it is NOT because they want to rationalize any of their faults and shortcomings, but because they do not see you bringing anything genuine to the table.

This need not be the case. You are an intelligent person. But so long as you keep seeing yourself as a warrior of Islam, you are unlikely to be fair, and unlikely to find acceptance.

PS: BTW you have, a number of times now, equated color consciousness with racism and varna. That is just false. I know there are a lot of websites making that claim, but that still doesn`t make it right.

Roohi,

Yes we all know because we read anguished persons asking all sorts of questions about what these events in India mean.

Is it asking too bloody much to put an end to them? Is it asking too much to get answers as why these events continue?

Responding with childish pride to these is just silly and it`s an abdication of your responsibility. You may not imagine that I or any other sane persons is deriving any benefit form this, the call to Hindus to respond to this is meaningful - you point to many who seek to make it better but are willing to disregard evidence to the contrary - even the premier is on record in Goa - The ruling party itself resists making required changes in Gujrat - Is it because he feels there is a lack of support for him and his party where it counts? Reap as you sow.

Shankar

What is malfunction, Mr.? Can`t deal with facts and can`t deal with opinions? Everything has got to be sugar coated for you to be able to absorb it? It is my opinion that caste is about color and color consicousness related to caste is fact. Every time there is a slight chance that you may make a break through, you allow emotion to pull you back. All right, I`m a bad person. When will you give yourself a chance to ``think`` about the meaning of these events and if Hinduism as it is today, may be related to these events - yes, these events continue. When you and others tire, can no longer hide, you will end up asking the questions I have.

Humsab

Eat my shorts! Democracy, secularism, process! does smoke exist without fire? There is a a major problems brewing that risks enveloping all kinds of persons - something that could effect peoples across borders, as the opoulation to cause trouble was small inside India - all you have to offer is defensiveness? What plantet are you people on?

Kaali Maa Sadna

The genocide of 1-2 Million Afghanis was not due to Paksitan or its policies; it was due to the naked agression of your former pita ji USSR. Paksitan did what it could not only to help them free their country from this shameless agression but in the process protected itself too-both from USSR and Hindus. Plz wipe the bile of your lenses and you might be able to see better.

dost-mittar #400
In hobbyt and other hypocritical Pakis, you are speaking to those who didnot question for 20 years the `ideology` which led to the deaths of 1-2 million Afghan MUSLIMS and brutalization of their own society, and an ideology which these civilised folks would still be endorsing with state patronage if it hadnot been for the stern ultimatum issued to them by the US post-Sept 11.

And don`t anyone fool yourselves these people want to speak to you as equals. The liberality of the most `liberal` Pakistani doesnot extend to thinking of Hindus as equals. People like hobbyt treat their disdain toward Hindus as axiomatic and use opportunities like Gujarat only to affirm it to themselves.

Dost_Mitter

``What the hell do you want people at Chowk to do? ``

As a start they should start accepting the responsibility that they were more than willing party in the campaign of hate against Muslims, Islam, and Paksitan - the result of which is Muslim genocide in Gujrat. The campaign which started right after Kargil, and reached to its Zenith immediately after 9/11. And the result of that campaign is genocide in Gujrat, nonsensical amasing of troops at the borders for the past 4 months, and slow genocide of people of Kashmir. All of you, especially the so-called secular Hindus, should bear this responsibility and should stop lying the whole blame on langoors of bajrang dal, bjp, and other assorted homo erectus. And more blame goes to the secular because they knew better and are no less hesitant to claim that they are homo sapiens.

And as a second step they should stop what they have been doing for the past three years.

Thank you.