Deja Vu

Fuzair,

I was able to find a letter penned by Gandhi to Hitler. Here is a Weblink:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1389/36387.html

Re: Fuzair

I am hardly a Gandhian in the sense that I have not read (and even less practice) much of his work. I do however remember coming across an open letter that he wrote to the Czech people during the 1938 crisis asking Czechs to face Germany using non-violence and civil disobedience. It should be easy to find it in any book on Gandhi`s letters (perhaps YLH can point us to an appropriate source given his voluminous knowledge of all-things-Gandhi). A Web search produced the following Q&A:

Mr. Gandhi, I understand the concept of non-violence and civil dis-obedience. Do you really think it would work in all situations? For example, against a monster like Hitler ?``

Non-violence does not mean making peace. On the other hand, it means fighting bravely and sincerely for truth and doing what is just. Like all fights, there will be a terrible loss and pain. But a satyagrahi (soldier of civil disobedience) must go on.

My success with civil disobedience in South Africa and in India has not come easy. A large number of people sacrificed a great deal, including their lives while fighting for truth and justice.

The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize

the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. I warn you however, that the victory will not come easy- just like it will not come easy with violent methods such as fighting with weaponry.

Question for Shammi, Shankar and any other Gandhian out there:

I recall reading somewhere that Gandhi is supposed to have said that non-violence would work against the British (but not the Germans or the Japanese) because the British could be shamed into doing the right thing.

Any idea if Gandhi actually said this?

Thanks in advance.

re: Romair

``...However, it is a proven fact that peaceful struggles have not gotten the Palestinians anything. The world has sat around, while the Palestinians have become refugees in their own lands...``

Are you forgetting the UN Partition Plan of 1948, which the Israelis accepted but the Arab states rejected? The `48 plan would have given the Palestinians more than half of what is Israel today along with the W. Bank/Gaza.

Also, I wonder if you are considering the `48 war by neighboring Arab states, shelling from the Golan Heights by Syria in the `50s and the `60s, and the `67 war by the same states to be `peaceful`. It was not until the `67 `peaceful struggle` that Israel came to occupy the W. Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights, and E. Jerusalem (including the Al Aqsa mosque) as a result of a victory in the Six-Day War. Sadat of Egypt got the Sinai back (by far the largest of all the territories that the Israelis seized) because he signed a peace treaty with Israel. The delusional dynasty of Syria is still funding Hezbollah and will continue to rue the loss of the Golan. There is not a chance in the world that Syria will ever get the Golan back unless it guarantees no cross-border shelling or incursions from the Golan, much like Sadat did.

6 years later there was another `peaceful struggle` launched in the form of the Yom Kippur war which took the Israelis completely by surprise. And the next year, there was a `peaceful` attack by the nascent PLO in the Munich Olympics that killed Israeli atheletes (the PLO could not have chosen a more politically maladroit location than Germany to kill Jews -- it was guaranteed to raise bad press).

So, Romair, please do not get caught up in your own propaganda -- you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. Shankar is right -- had the Palestinians struggled peacefully, they would have had a Palestinian state by now. The Europeans, even today, are not very supportive of Israel -- can you imagine how much the Palestinians would have been able to leverage European support had their struggle remained peaceful and politically acceptable in today`s, civilized parts of the world?

So, that brings us to the question, why do these groups still pursue strategies that are clearly self-defeating? Two simple reasons come to mind: (a) dictatorial leadership, and (b) overt influence of neighboring states. (a) ensures that leaders remain firmly in the saddle, and that objective overrides principles of fair play in leadership successions. Arafat gets a lot more global attention as the leader of the Palestinian Authority than he ever will as the President of a Palestinian State (where he will head a tinpot dictatorship and have to spend more time debating local building codes than hobnobbing with global leaders). The dictator decides that building codes are less important than being a world figure. (b) ensures that neighboring states keep meddling in Palestinian affairs often to the detriment of the Palestinians themselves. Having failed to deliver anything through war (`48, `67 and `73) these states (Syria and Iraq are the worst examples -- do you really believe that Saddam cares about the Palestinians any more than he cared for the Kurds in Halabjah?) seek their own security objectives by setting up proxy wars. And since these states are also dictatorships, nobody can question their policy.

Re: Romair

``...And, on the whole, even though there was Mukti Bhani terrorism, that Pakistan was at fault, in 71 vis-a-vis East Pakistan. ...``

The above statement is consistent with many others that you have made on previous occassions recognizing the right of Bangladesh to secede, and how much this is `accepted` by most in Pakistan. I would like to add one more twist:

The relative acceptance of the creation of Bangladesh in Pakistan is facilitated by the fact that it is a reality and a fait accompli. Had Bangladesh still been trying to secede, chances are that your position would have been quite the opposite.

When the American Civil War ended, all the losers (Confederates) recreated history in the 1870s by claiming that they had not fought the war to `protect slavery` but rather to `protect states` rights`. This was, of course, 180 degrees from the truth -- in the early 1860s the same leaders had argued that the South should go to war and secede over slavery. This turnaround not only helped in the rehabilitation of Southern leaders and politicans, but was also entirely consistent with the fact that the rest of world (principally Europe) had begun to frown upon slavery and it would have been politically incorrect to continue to suggest that going to war to protect slavery was a good thing.

Some of that logic is certainly at work regarding Bangladesh as well. Otherwise, how do you explain the brutal quelling of the Baluchi rebellion in the mid `70s and the rebellion of the Shias in the Northern Areas in the `80s by Paksitan?

Romair,

#236,

Jeeze bro, you stood on the moral soapbox a bit about how the Pakistani attitude about this is much more mature or ``moral``...I vehemently disagree! In fact, I felt like playing the violin at some parts of your posts!!:)

Now I dont which point I should argue first....lets see...Why I think Gandhi was a great man? the Pakistani attitude re Bangladesh is? the Indian viewpoint about why we got independance?...sounds very different from the Pakistani version, indeed..

But damnnit I dont have much time to do it on weekdays, I`ll try. Gee I wish sigalph is following this thread, cos I`d like to argue Bangladesh first..then I`ll be able to see whether this Indian`s perspective is closer to a Bangladeshi`s?!

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

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

shankar #234: ``I believe most Indians` main reason for holding on to Kashmir is ``false`` pride...not giving Pakistanis or Kashmiris the ``satisfaction`` of rejoicing in the streets (I`m expecting a few rotten tomatoes coming my way, having said that:)).``

I think, this, in a nutshell, highlights the whole difference in attitudes between Indians and Pakistanis.

I will not get rotten tomatoes thrown at me by Pakistanis, if I state that Pakistan should have allowed Bangladesh independence peacefully. And, even though I don`t agree with every Bangladeshi stance, I do respect their wishes for separating from Pakistan. And, on the whole, even though there was Mukti Bhani terrorism, that Pakistan was at fault, in 71 vis-a-vis East Pakistan.

No rotten tomatoes from Pakistanis. Infact, most Pakistanis will agree with me.

I also think that Pakistanis will wholeheartedly accept and respect a Kashmiri vote, even if Kashmiris want to join India, and not Pakistan.

Indians will however throw rotten tomatoes at you, if you take a similar stance on Kashmir, which is disputed territory, and a much smaller piece of India, then East Pakistan was of West Pakistan.

Why can`t Indians get over this hump of justifying occupation against the will of the people, while it is obvious that Pakistanis have gotten over it? And why are Pakistanis happy to respect the wishes of the Kashmiris, while Indians aren`t.

Nearly every argument made by Pakistanis on this site, regarding Kashmir, states that Kashmiris should get a chance for self-determination, not that Kashmir has to be a part of Pakistan. While every Indian argument, states that Kashmir has to be a part of India.

Once again, why such a difference in attitudes?

My discussions with you over Kashmir, are more in regard to the general topic, as viewed by everyone. I understand that your stance and my stance are about identical.

``NO!!! all freedom struggles are NOT brutal. The ONLY thing I respect about Gandhi is that he showed another way (& a better way) of gaining freedom...by continuous non-violent civil disobedience.``

This is the ideal manner of a freedom struggle. And this is what should be the first option. And this is what is always the first option. The people wanting freedom will always want it peacefully, since in violent struggles, the freedom fighters are killed in much higher numbers than the occupying forces.

However, what happens when a peaceful struggle does not work? Which it rarely does. What if people have trying peacefully for ages, and nothing is happening?

Gandhi`s peaceful struggle actually did not work. The British did not leave because of Gandhi. They left because they realized that had they stayed any longer things would get violent. Very violent. I wish all other occupiers were that far-sighted.

After all, there were peaceful struggles against the British for a long time. They did not bother to leave, before. Had every South Asian struggled non-violently against the British in the 1800s, do you think they would have left. I doubt it. They only left, because the wanted to avoid the violence that was going to occur, if they didn`t leave. Why would an occupying exploiting force be worried about non-violence? Specially, when the rest of the world has tolerated the occupation for so long.

It is true that Gandhi is very well respected in the world. I have myself written very positively about him on this site. However, I don`t think he is well-respected because of any political achievements. He is well-respected because of his personal achievements, and his personal values,

etc. His political ideals, unfortunately, proved to be impractical (primarily because they didn`t work; I wish they would have worked).

If Gandhi had been active in 1840, rather than 1940, do you think the British would have left India, due to his non-violent movements?

``If the Palestinians truely want to fill Isrealis with TERROR, let them stop the ``suicide`` bombing & other terrorist acts.``

You seem to be equating violence with terrorism. When I say that violence is legitimate in freedom struggle, I do not mean terrorism. I refer to voilence against the occupying forces. I also mean that violence should be the last resort. In case of occupations like Kashmir etc. it is very easy to target it towards the opposing forces, because nearly all the civilians in the valley are allies.

Specifically to Palestine, I think all terrorism should stop. However, it is a proven fact that peaceful struggles have not gotten the Palestinians anything. The world has sat around, while the Palestinians have become refugees in their own lands. If peaceful struggles were to get them somewhere, I doubt they would be willing to die. Unfortunately, I don`t think the violent struggles (even of the non-terrorist variety will get them much either). They have been exploited beyond a point of no return.

Peaceful struggles do work in areas like Canada however. The Quebec struggle is extremely peaceful, and it will remain peaceful. Because the Quebecans know that they can demand their views within the peaceful struggle, i.e. the rest of Canada has no intention of militarily occupying Quebec. However, what should they do if the rest of Canada sends in its whole military to occupy Quebec, even if Quebecan separatist parties win a referendum? How long do you think the struggle would remain peaceful?

If the rights of a suppressed people can be heard peacefully, then the blame of violence goes on the freedom fighters. However, if the occupying force cannot be removed peacefully, then violence (not terrorism) is allowed, and the blame goes on the occupying force. This is the Amnesty International line.

After all, the largest amount of terrorism in any struggle is always committed by the occupying force. It is always the occupying force that disallows the international press and HR orgs., not the occupied.

``Thats why I believe that the Kahmiris will achieve NOTHING by this freedom struggle. After 10yrs of ``war``, there are not an inch closer to independance. It has only helped India convince the world (esp. the US) that the Kashmiri militants are nothing but an extension of the Al-Qeeda network.``

The Kashmiris have been trying peaceful efforts for 40 years, and nothing worked. India is not interested in leaving peacefully. Wouldn`t you agree? Could you tell me, under what kind of peaceful struggle would India allow Kashmiris their right of self-determination? If someone took over your home, how long would you work peacefully to get him/her out? What would you do if you were sure that the guy was never going to leave peacefully, even after forty years?

It is the Indian forces that are committing an overwhelming amount of the civilian killings, and terrorism. That is why India has banned any international organizations from Kashmir. And that is primarily why all Kashmiris want the HR organizations to get access to Kashmir.

Even the fighters coiming in from Pakistan, primarily (though not always) target the Indian military, or the Indian govt. The Kashmiri civilians are all on the side of the independence movement. So the only one interested in targeting them would the occupying forces.

The whole world was also convinced that the British were civilizing India. The, ``rest of the world`` only puts pressure on occupying countries, when it suits their political interests. One cannot use that as a justification for occupying others. One has to use the moral argument. If the Indians will leave Kashmir peacefully, then the struggle should never get violent. But what should be done, if India never leaves peacefully?

Romair # 223

I have visited Chowk after a long time, nice to see that you still actively participate at this site.

?If Indians cannot accept the creation of Pakistan as right, then I am afraid they will always have a negative attitude towards Pakistan.?

Indian?s believe that they are the torch bearers of an ancient civilization. We inherited it from our forefathers and will pass it along to our children. We have many languages, religions and a lot of differences but a common value system that binds us together. This value system manifests itself in our constitution, our nationhood. This is radically different from the way Pakistanis define their nationhood. We believe that people of different faiths, languages, traditions and a host of other differences can live together. Most Indians look at Pakistan as a nation that does not share these values and hence the attitude.

Romair its very unfair of you to deprive your former employer of their fair share of credit in the creation of Bangladesh. I think India can at best take credit for just 10% of the work rest was done by the Pakistani army. As far as why we did it, it made perfect sense. We now have the enemy on just one border. Apart from that it pretty much buried the two nation theory.

I don?t think Indians covet Pakistan or any part of it. If we did we would have annexed east Pakistan which makes a lot more sense. I do however agree that a lot of people in the India think that breaking up Pakistan again would stop Pakistan from sponsoring terrorism in India.

?In regard to splitting up India, Paksitanis just want the UN resolutions on Kashmir honored. And I strongly believe that if the Kashmiris voted to join India, Pakistanis would accept the decision, wholeheartedly. However, if the Kashmiris voted to join Pakistan, I don`t think Indians would accept. Once again, this is a difference in attitude, that I fail to understand.?

I agree that there is a fundamental difference in the way we look at the Kashmir problem. You look at as an unfinished business of !947. We look at as unfinished business of 1971. Many nations have fought for their territorial integrity including the US in its civil war. If the AHPC believes that they represent the majority of the Kashmiri people why don?t they fight the elections. They know they don?t have the support and are hiding behind lame excuses. All the arguments you have mentioned about the Kashmir were also mentioned about Punjab a decade ago. But post KPS Gill that is history.

``Did the build up do India any good?``

I think the build up has been very good for India. It has reduced the terrorist attacks in India and forced Pakistan to change its course regarding terrorism in India. It has made sponsoring terrorism very expensive for Pakistan. Our troops are there to ensure that you don?t reach a growth rate of 6% and can?t sponsor terrorism for decades. A war would be very expensive and India is trying to avoid it.

There is another big reason for the build up. The Indian Govt. plans to suspend/Abort the Indus Water treaty this May. We need our troops there to handle any reaction from Pakistan.

Regards,

Faruk

HE IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND CHEAT

He is liar. He has lied about Kargil. He was responsible for the Kargil misadventure and subsequent defeat. He lied about his overthrow of the elected civilian government. He schemed and dishonestly planned the overthrow of the civilian regime. Tomorrow morning the newspapers are going to be full of his lies about a mandate that does not exist.

Having experienced the glory of studying Pakistan studies and Pakistan Culture as a subject (I`m only 24;) )

To answer the question as far as the books are concerned..the break up of Pakistan never happened! The cruelty of Hindus is highlighted more then the British. Basically the books are idealogically driven.

Romair,

#223

You have asked a series of very interesting & pertinant questions that require long answers. I`ll try to answer them as best as I can. I can only do so in parts, & over several posts, because on weekdays I`m very hard pressed by time.

Also, I`m NOT an expert in history--I can only tell you my personal experiences mixed in with the limited history I know. One thing is certain..the Indian ``version`` of history is very different from the Pakistani ``version``. Thats why ylh & the rest of the Indians have these long, emotional verbal fests that I am TOTALLY fed up with. I recall Mushy saying in an interview ``our heros are their villans & vice versa``--he`s very right.

Another thing. PLEASE let us NOT go on & on about the morality & legality of the Kashmir issue. We have done that many times, ad nauseaum. I realise that issue is very close to your heart. We may disagree about many aspects re Kashmir. However, you & I do agree with the bottom line. I believe that India has grieviously wronged the Kashmiris & that India & Kashmiris will be MUCH BETTER OFF if they part (hopefully as friends..if not today, then tomorrow, at least). Alas I`m a minority opinion. I believe most Indians` main reason for holding on to Kashmir is ``false`` pride...not giving Pakistanis or Kashmiris the ``satisfaction`` of rejoicing in the streets (I`m expecting a few rotten tomatoes coming my way, having said that:)).

You said:

{{{Yes, I would consider the deaths a tragedy. I wish they could have been avoided. But all freedom struggles are brutal. That does not make them wrong. There are a lot of deaths.}}}

NO!!! all freedom struggles are NOT brutal. The ONLY thing I respect about Gandhi is that he showed another way (& a better way) of gaining freedom...by continuous non-violent civil disobedience. That ,IMO, is the ONLY way that a weaker party can prevail over a stronger party. If the weaker party uses violence towards the stronger party..their cause (however noble & justified) is bastardised & they go down the same immoral gutter of the stronger party. It could have resulted in many million more deaths, if it had`nt been for Gandhi.

Thats one of the main reasons the British respect Gandhi more than Jinnah (though, thanks to ylh, I know Jinnah was a much more rational & ``normal`` person than Gandhi). You can say the British are biased towards the Congress etc etc. But thats exactly the point. You not only win your cause, you win the respect & admiration of your opponent. Indians & Pakistanis will disagree on this: Indians truely believe that it was the satyagraha that ultimately won us independance. Lets just agree to disagree on this.

At least you should agree on this fact: eventhough Jinnah had a lot of outstanding qualities, (perhaps much more than Gandhi); Gandhi has overshadowed him in international prestige & fame (much to ylh`s shigrin).

That principle is more relevant today, as it was yesterday. It was what inspired people like Martin Luther King & made him respected & admired all over the world, as Gandhi is.

If the Palestinians truely want to fill Isrealis with TERROR, let them stop the ``suicide`` bombing & other terrorist acts. If they CONTINUOUSLY agitate non-violently, by peaceful demonstrations, refusal to cooperate & hunger strikes..what the HELL can the Israelis do?! ESPECIALLY in this day & age? The international press will have a FIELD DAY! America, even American Jews, will be supportive of the Palestinians. Yes, some Palestinians will die...TRUE courage is NOT hitting back..let the Isreali army comit ALL the violent, murderous acts. Just how many Palestinians can the Israelis kill? How many Palestinians can they imprison forever?! The world will carry Palestinians on their shoulders!

You know what the SYMBOL of ``Tiannamen Square`` was? It was that lone, brave Chinese man standing in front of a tank..preventing the tank from moving. THAT is REAL courage, IMO..not throwing stones & firing at soldiers or blowing yourself up in a crowd of civilians. That does NOT endear the Palestinians to the rest of the world. It only makes the world believe that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, but a vindictive, violent religion that GLORIFIES violence.

Its no wonder that the Palestinians have achieved a big ZERO in the 50+ yrs of freedom struggle. Do you think the non-Islamic world REALLY supports the Palestinians? When you think of Palestinians, the first thing that comes to mind is--TERRORIST! Thats why I believe that the Kahmiris will achieve NOTHING by this freedom struggle. After 10yrs of ``war``, there are not an inch closer to independance. It has only helped India convince the world (esp. the US) that the Kashmiri militants are nothing but an extension of the Al-Qeeda network.

I`ll attempt to answer the rest of your questions in other posts, in following days, as time permits...

romair # 223

``The troop deployment was initially done to pump up the populace for the Uttar Pradesh elections, by the BJP.``

This belief, when I heard it articulated first months ago, astonished me, and it astonishes me equally now. Clearly many intelligent people in Pakistan continue to believe in this theory. What such belief shows is how dangerously little many Pakistanis know about current India. They appear to be almost as clueless about the changing face and nature of India as are certain voices on Indian`s own extreme left.

In India politicians are badly dressed, venal, half-witted, casteist, communalist, nincompoops; they will even make money off of defense contracts - but they do not take military steps on such scales to ``win elections.`` Those Indians who mad(k)e such claims were/are as clueless as Pakistanis.

That is why it is so important for the safety and security of our lands that we understand each other better. The amount of ignorance, perhaps, on both sides, is staggering. We need to go back to kindergarten.

Perhaps we need to go back to kindergarten anyways, to see the difference between 1947 when Mr. Jinnah threatened civil war and bloodbath unless India was broken into two, and 1971 when West Pakistanis awarded the majority of their nation`s population - Bengalis - with an all-too-real bloodbath - a genocide of almost unmatched proportions for the crime of winning an election.

Unless you are honest with history, you will learn nothing from it. The rest are mere words.

ylh # 224, any other Pakistani based in Pakistan

I am looking for some good Pakistani who is currently based in Pakistan, and who can do me the following favor:

1. Purchase the currently prescribed English medium and Urdu medium text books in history and Pakistan Studies for grades 8th, 10th, and 12th. If there are multiple books, just pick ones that are most popular (or better, buy them all, so long as these are officially prescribed texts).

2. For Urdu medium text books, search for any references to Mujeeb. Highlight these references in the textbooks, and note the page numbers on a separate sheet of paper. A separate sheet for each textbook will be very helpful.

3. Translate the material beginning an entire page BEFORE and upto an entire page AFTER each each reference to Mujeeb. Please stay as true to the letter and the spirit of the text as possible. I don`t expect the number of such references to be large.

4. Ship the books, the references, and the translations to me.

If translation is too cumbersome, I can easily get that job done elsewhere. Just buy the books and send them to me.

Nothing could be simpler or easier.

Should any generous person help me out (or, perhaps you know a young kid can do with some extra pocket money), I will not only be grateful, I will definitely make compensation quite attractive. I will prepay the cost of the books as well as anticipated expenses for local transportation and shipping, so you don`t have to incur any expenses out of your own pocket.

email me: eklavya786@hotmail.com

Thanks a lot.

re: stuka # 227

``Now, ofcourse you will rightly think of Gujarat. I am in a bind here.``

Stuka, my dear friend, for the first time you appear to be on unsure ground. There is absolutely no need to be.

The way to justify or not justify, to accept or not accept, ANYTHING affecting public life is to base such decisions on solid MUTUALLY-ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES.

Both ``mutual acceptance`` and ``universal principles`` are key if communication between two people (or the structure of ANY society at large) is not to completely break down.

Person X can not ask person Y to accept act Z as ``right`` without pronouncing clearly the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE behind Z. Therefore, we can only accept or reject the rationale behind the creation of Pakistan once romair tells us WHAT that universal principle is.

Person X can also not expect person Y to accept some principle as valid if X himself refuses to acknowledge and act upon the same universal principle (let me keep this gender bias here).

That means, romair can expect us to agree to his logic, IF and only IF he is willing to apply the same logic to Pakistan and every other country in deciding the form these countries should take.

Stuka, intellectual shoddiness and moral timidity has led to huge problems. All that CREATES far far more problems than it solves. No more free rides can be given to anybody. We can move forward peacefully ONLY if ALL of us agree on some fundamental common principles of living.

Can/should human beings belonging to different faiths live together? If yes, then what should be the structure of relationships between them? What ideals should the state strive for?

I do not think Indians and Pakistanis can communicate if they subscribe to completely different basic principles, or adopt completely opportunistic morality (where principles become valid today and invalid tomorrow, depending entirely on the convenience of the person making moral decisions).

Gujarat is India`s greatest failure and nightmare. Amongst ourselves - Hindus, Muslims, and others - we must all acknowledge our errors and learn lessons. We should go after Mody. We should do all that needs to be done.

But people who are trying to live in pluralistic societies MUST NOT be shocked, ashamed, or whatever before anyone else who is not at least intellectually and morally willing to do the same.