On Hate

Dost-mittar # 470

Thank you sir for your kind consideration and

necessary action.

Your most obediently:))

dost-mittar #465

[Banjaara ji, if you are working for the ISI, India is in deep do-do :-). And if you are not, all Indian Chowkies should petition the Indian govt. to give you an honorary citizenship; if Zafar is aadha Hindu, you are teen-chauthai there!]

Bhai jaan,

Nasha pila ke girana tau sub ko aata hai

maza tau jab hai ke girtoN ko thaam le saqi

Won`t it be better to work for ISI and still get the honorary citizenship with your help :-)

Regards.

PS: Yes it was the same Prithvi Raj Chauhan.

re: shrinker

{Idiot..praising a religion isnt patronising...}

...it is when you know jackshit about it and parrot stuff you hear other people say just to win some lemme-kiss-your-behind points....

{& why`s your dick all tied up in knots if I feel Paki girls are good looking?}

...b.c. you propogate this myth that your filthy behind is representative of indians in general...

...now fcuk off and go think about why you couldn`t hack it as a real doctor...

hobbyt contd
`` Can you please refresh my memory about his comments and specifically, exactly what about the comments?``
Its amazing you donot recall. Read him at :

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/may2002-daily/10-05-2002/oped/o1.htm

He seems to insist that its religiously-sanctioned to look at the world as divided into Muslims and nonMuslims, implicitly as mutual adversaries.

hobbyt #462
`` Yes, in my opinion, Jihad is morally sound - a request, please do not bother to go into what Jihad means - we`ve done that and we are not talking about wars of conquest or conversion but of self defense and freedom.``

Can you tell me examples of where jihad has been a successful method of self defense and attaining freedom?

Also, it seems that you think armed jihad in far-off places is to be waged for self-defense/freedom of Muslims only and then, only against nonMuslims.

The thinking that any Muslim anywhere in the world is justified in waging armed action anywhere else in the world translates in real life into the self-imposed isolation of Muslims.

NonMuslims acquainted with this religiously-sanctioned choice, will respond by preventing the free movement of Muslims into their regions of influence. Perhaps some Muslim countries may do so too. Was it Dubai or Abu Dhabi which was refusing visas to Pakistanis till recently?

Muslims supporting armed jihad cannot justifiably ask for equal just treatment and resolution of political conflicts without undue force until they are willing to recognise the exactly similar claims of others.

Saxena,

{{in your pathetic attempt to appear PC, you become so patronizing it is unbelievable...}}

Idiot..praising a religion isnt patronising...

& why`s your dick all tied up in knots if I feel Paki girls are good looking? Jealous..Raveena?

``appear PC``? huhn?! whats that? speak in english, achoot kid

Prem # 458

``OK, now, Banjaara bhaiyaa, out with the truth....yeh maazra kya hai? :)``

Bhai maajra kuch bhi nahin.One of your countrymen

taunted us Pakistanis that we know nothing about India and Indians and that forced me to tell him

a thing or two about India.

Dost-Mittar # 459

Pa ji (punjabi wala:))

Sher da matlab eh vay:

One who has not experienced pain

Has no knowledge about the hurt

As far as Aalha Udal are concerned,they were two Rajput Brothers serving the last Mahoba Ruler

Raja Piramal in the 12th century AD. Prithvi Raj Chauhan attacked Mahoba in 1182 and these two brothers fought valiantly to safeguard their Raja

and died in the process.The court poet Jagnik Rao wrote an epic comprising 20,000 verses of their valour and it is known as Veer Kavya.Qutbuddin Aibak conquered Mahoba in 1203 and it became a part of Delhi Sultanate.The Aalha Udal is sung

all over UP by the Yadavs and kshatris and reflects more of a martial than musical essence

as is also observed in the Rajzia poetry in Persian and Arabic.

Regards.

Sadna

``If i am not mistaken, you are saying you are not against armed jihad in faroff places in principle( the theology behind armed jihad is sound), its just that you want the citizens of only a future prosperous egalitarian Pakistan to take it up.``

Yes, in my opinion, Jihad is morally sound - a request, please do not bother to go into what Jihad means - we`ve done that and we are not talking about wars of conquest or conversion but of self defense and freedom.

But if it justified, why not act now? because we must first build a consensus and secondly a Pakistan populated by a more educated population, may wish to engage the entire issue differently.

``Does this condition you are adding on have basis in theology or its your personal opinion?``

I can`t speak of theology except to offer an opinion.

``And just how would you decide when the requisite amount of Liberty, equality and education has been reached to make a consensus on armed jihad acceptable?``

society can only do so after discussion, debate, awareness of the implications of action - followed by more debate and discussion - In any society in which Liberty is a value, grows the awareness, that it does not stand alone and that if it can be threatened in one place, it will be threatened in another. A more Egalitarian society, not an ``equal`` society -no communist rubbish, please - we can work to build a more egalitarian society - the day it becomes an ``equal `` society - Liberty will have been extinguished.

``You havenot replied about his comments on the Muslim/nonMuslim division``

Can you please refresh my memory about his comments and specifically, exactly what about the comments?

re: fawad

{regardless of what you say economically the pakistanis are better off, the average pakistani is not starving.}

that my friend is no longer true..india`s per capita is now higher than pakistan`s...the average pakistani is poorer than the average indian...stop deluding yourselves...

hey shank i agree with you pakistan aint paradise but neither is india and how dare you say we all bear some collective responsisbility ...............regardless of what you say economically the pakistanis are better off, the average pakistani is not starving............many many muslims moved up when the hindus left....hindusim is ripe in racism castism and violent tendencies as are all systems etc etc but hindus arent responsible i dont hold you respinsible for gujrat so you shouldnt hold me responsible for kashmir ....so spare us the anti muslim diatribe

Akash,

Man, we ought to launch a full-scale investigation - how on earth does Banjaara know so much about India?!

OK, now, Banjaara bhaiyaa, out with the truth....yeh maazra kya hai? :)

Also, Banjaara, that little saying/ditty was among the favorite wisecracks of my grandmother...You reminded me of days long gone by...

hobbyt #455
``Were Pakistan a country that was overwhelmingly egalitarian in the opportunities, the life chances, it enables her citizens to have, were it`s citizens among the most highly educated in the world, were there a consensus that the Liberty and equality of Pakistanis and Muslims better served by accepting the sacrifices in ``far off places`` - such a difference in positions would be meaningless. On this issue, at this time, I tend to agree with the General.``

If i am not mistaken, you are saying you are not against armed jihad in faroff places in principle( the theology behind armed jihad is sound), its just that you want the citizens of only a future prosperous egalitarian Pakistan to take it up. Does this condition you are adding on have basis in theology or its your personal opinion?

And just how would you decide when the requisite amount of Liberty, equality and education has been reached to make a consensus on armed jihad acceptable?

You havenot replied about his comments on the Muslim/nonMuslim division

Banjara

Man, you just reminded me of the blood curdling way the story of valor of Alha-Udal is sung in UP. Alha is sung not only among Yadavas but also Rajputs. I believe these Alha-Udal were Bundelkhandi Rajputs. I dont remember the lyrics of Alha-Udal `coz I moved out of the village when I was young. But I still have faint memories of its recitation. One such scene is etched indelibly into my mind- that wonderful recitation of that person in chaupal that turned the whole crowd crazy. It was indescribable.

Sadna

The author of the article from which you have quoted is one of the great young intellectuals to come out of Pakistan in the recent past. He is a man of wide breadth of learning and intellectual endeavor - learned, young, accomplished, a scientist and a religious scholar and I like to think that I am his friend.

On Shandana`s board, I have posted a piece, actually several pieces, about the ``religiosity of emulation`` - I invite you to read them and comment - also my opinion of where the awakening of women in Muslim/Islamic society stands and what is required to invigorate this awakening.

The author of the article you have posted has taken a position against the kind of analysis and interpretation I find compelling. I am be wrong or perhaps he is wrong or we may be both wrong - however; it is clear to me, that we must be conscious that we are not operating in the framework of a single intellectual concept - and while one may not have the the right to issue religious edicts, it does not necessarily follow that the ideas or opinions one holds or expresses, are by that virtue, invalid, incorrect or just plain ``no damn good.``

In the article you quoted, both the author and the General, are agreed on doing the ``good`` - but choose to describe that ``good`` in different terms, reflecting different priorities. Were Pakistan a country that was overwhelmingly egalitarian in the opportunities, the life chances, it enables her citizens to have, were it`s citizens among the most highly educated in the world, were there a consensus that the Liberty and equality of Pakistanis and Muslims better served by accepting the sacrifices in ``far off places`` - such a difference in positions would be meaningless. On this issue, at this time, I tend to agree with the General.

BTW Sadna, also on Shandana`s board I have posted an article from the ``Hindu`` newspaper, written by an Indian foreign service officer - please comment - I think it is most pertinent, events will soon come to a head and the implications are horrific.

Prem # 447

``(not sure about you - because your knowledge of India and Hinduism is truly impressive).``

Jaa ke goR na jai bewaee

Oo ka jaane peeR paraee

Regards.

Prem

``It`s like this, hobbty: there is no THEORETICAL or PRACTICAL reason to believe that the missing X variable is NOT orthogonal to the included X variables. That means the parameter estimates are UNBIASED.``

Rubbish! You are not being asked to believe anything - you are being encouraged to include pertinent factors in the data to assess your conclusion.

The premise was that Brahmins give up their caste ID quicker than other lower castes - What`s being measured? The rate/speed at which respondents would give up their caste ID as Brahmins? how do we measure that if they become aware of the querry at different times?

Had all the respondents become aware of the question at the same time - we could then say, based on our data - such a premise is unsupportable - however; this was not the case and clearly, the conclusion you have reached is unsupportable by the data.

Shankar

Indeed, as Muslims, especially in Pakistan, we have failed ourselves - but a tremendous silver lining in included in this soul searching - success or failure is not the ultimate in the quest to seek meaning as a Muslim, in my opinion, it is being conscious of striving, struggling, to continue to seek meaning as a Muslim.

When it comes to the question of caste or any question of conscience - one`s failure, regardless of religion - must never infuse a paraylsis, or abandonment of conscience. Because one has been unable to live or create a more egalitarian, as opposed to less egalitarian society - does not mean that one shall cease to confront the evil of caste.

The response of so many Hindus and Indians has been to say ``well, what about you in Pakistan or what about you as Muslims`` - I think such a response misses the point of the discussion, which was caste, and it is an attempt to avoid the discussion by shifting attention elsewhere -Whenever such an attempt is made by persons who begin to feel insecure or defensive - if one`s interlocutor(s) had a malevolent intent, they would indeed be gratified - it ensures that the opposition remains, at it`s core, weak and empty. You decide whether that is to be the course of your choosing.

re: prem

...your efforts to make a point to hobbyty the religious retard are noble, but going around asking people sick caste questions is well, sick...there are enough small-minded indian pigs living in america and england who are still choking on regionalism and casteism...don`t encourage it...never in india was i asked about caste or whether i was gujju, punjabi, sindhi, etc...

re: shrinker #48

...in your pathetic attempt to appear PC, you become so patronizing it is unbelievable...

hobbyt, anyone

Since we are talking caste divisions being evil, and also been talking of a world view divided by religions being evil, can anyone explain whether the views of this person are theologically/religiously authentic:


http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/may2002-daily/10-05-2002/oped/o1.htm

Re Muslim/nonMuslim division:

``...I asked the reader to tell me what he meant by this label. He said that you see the world consisting of Muslims and non-Muslims and that my writings smack of a phobia and bias against the West. I reminded him of a recent incarnation of West`s own attitude toward Islam and Muslims -- this time expressed by none other than the President of the United States of America: ``You are either with us or against us.`` I also mentioned a number of Qur`aanic verses that clearly state that there are people, nations and tribes who are adherents of Truth (al-Haqq) and those who are against the Truth. In fact, the Qur`aan also mentions a party of Allah and a party against Allah. I quoted several ahadith of the Prophet of Islam in which he has mentioned that those who follow the non-believers in their ways are, in fact, among them.

This was too much for him. He retorted by stating: ``here you go again. You are un-curable.`` My next question to him was: ``Do you believe in the two prime sources of Islam from which I derive my worldview?`` He said, ``as a Muslim, I do believe in the Qur`aan and Sunnah but not in your interpretation.`` I told him that I was not even interpreting these sources; I was just quoting them. This brought us to a dead end...``


Re armed jihad :


``..According to my knowledge, our military academies do not teach any of these subjects. But what is worse, while expressing his complete adherence to the teachings of Islam, the [Punjab] governor said, ``it wouldn`t be a wise idea to wage jihad in far off places. It is not the right thing to send our youth to Chechnya or Eritrea for participating in jihad. We have a lot of frontiers to defend back home. Instead, the youth should be educated and engaged in more constructive and rewarding jobs, which, in turn, contribute to the progress of the country.``

Here we have a retired general, negating all Islamic teachings and history, issuing a religious decree without any qualifications, preaching things totally foreign to Islam. The Prophet of Islam had waged a relentless jihad against the Arab tribes who lived far away from Madinah. Just a day after the death of the Prophet of Islam, Abu Bakr (RA) sent out the Muslim army under the command of Usama bin Zayd to a place that was far away from Madina and he did this at a time when several false prophets were emerging and there was a great danger of tribal revolt against the nascent Islamic state. But a retired army general negates all of this and wishes to turn the ``youth toward more rewarding jobs``. And all of this in a state that still claims to be the ``Islamic Republic of Pakistan``!..``

``.. But the retired general, who issued the decree, ignores all of this. The youth of Pakistan, he says, should be employed in more rewarding jobs while their brethren in faith are being killed and their dead bodies are being savagely treated next door.

These new muftis are the victims of self-delusion. They have become prey to an engineered version of Islam that is being relentlessly forced on the Muslim world. In this new construction, most of the basic truths of Islam have been inverted. Along with this corruption, there has emerged a fabricated social reality, equally skewed....``


Who is more theologically sound, the author or the Punjab governor(who is the author says is unqualified to issue religious edicts?)?

An interview with Pakistani intellectual and leftist Tariq Ali

www.asiapacificforum.org

hobbyty,

{{``is it fair for me to proclaim that ``Islam is morally neutered by sect?!``

I think that`s a personal judgement - If you think that what it means - who amn I to object.}}

Thankyou for the short reply. For once, I could understand you.

No, I dont believe Islam is ``morally neutered``. That would be a very very unfair conclusion to make. I believe Islam is a great religion & the Prophet was one of the greatest men who walked on this earth, in the past millenium.

It is many of his overzealous followers who have betrayed him & Islam. The irony is that the ones who have spat on his face are the same guys who thump the Koran on their chests & wear Islam on their sleeves.

There has always been a great debate among muslims about ``who is a TRUE muslim?!`` It is my personal opinion that those who have interpreted Allah`s word in the Koran in an extremely narrow way, without giving any leeway to changing societal attitudes towards ``morality``, the passage of time, the ``shrinking`` of the world (where people of different faiths interact more closely than ever) have hijacked Islam & are destroying the good name of the religion.

Islam is a truely egalitarian religion which emphasises love, respect, tolerence & peace above anything else. Alas, take a look at Islamic countries, in general, today. For the sake of proving my point, take a look at Islamic Republic of Pakistan (other countries with Islamic majorities are, more or less, similar).

Is Pakistan:

1)egalitarian?: NO! There are ``classes`` & ``sects`` (you may not call them castes)..but for all practical purposes they are no different. The rich feudals & powerful military exploit the poor.

How many feudals will marry their children to their nauker`s children?! For that matter, how many middle class Pakistanis arrange a nikkah between their children & their servant`s children?!

2)Respectful of others?: NO! Sunnis & Shias kill each other..even places of worship are targetted in killing! Ofcourse, its easier to blame a ``foreign hand`` than taking personal responsibility.

3)Tolerant?: NO! Any group that DARES interpret Islam in their own way are EXCOMMUNICATED! Case in point, Ahmedias! Anybody who DARES criticise the Prophet is sentenced to death for blasphemy!

4) Peaceful?: NO! Murders, rapes, robberies, dacoiteries, terrorism are JUST as prevelant in Pakistan as in idol-worshipping Hindu majority India! In fact, internal Pakistani law & order situation is a JOKE!

Sometimes I wonder what GOOD has the PEFRECT word of God done for muslims...as a society?! Maybe, as individuals, it has enriched your spirituality..I cant argue with that. But dont you think, as a society, you ALL bear some COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY?!

I`ll be the first one to admit that we hindus are just as bad...maybe worse.. But, you see, we HAVENT had the benefit of recieving the PERFECT word of god!

Whats YOUR excuse, O pious muslims of this world?!

Seems to me, Allah gave you all the answers, before hand, then HE gave an ``open book`` exam. YOU STILL FAILED HIM, as a society!!! What the HELL good has all the wisdom of the PERFECT word of God done for Pakistan as a country, or society?!

You are surrounded by Islam, but you still argue what a TRUE muslim is! The same Islam has produced very decent people like tahmed & scout & absolute criminals like OBL. So, as a society, dont you think Islam has ever entered your souls? Sometimes I think Allah will look at us kafirs more kindly on Judgement Day. At least, we dont know any better! But you MUSLIM societies...fail an exam even after knowing the answers!!..

yaar..kuch to sharam karo!

shankar, dost-mittarji, sridhar

Thanks guys. Not sure if all this is water off a duck`s back, but one tries...One likes the pond; so one`s gotta deal with the occasional oily duck sometimes.

Zafar Mian

he he...my apologies! Aur bhi mauqe milenge iss haseen daur mein...:)

arjun_m

Hear ye, hear ye! Included you in that sorry list of brahmins in a bekaar attempt to bolster hobbyty`s hokey hypotheses. Ofcourse his delusions found no legs even then. But will my bending over backwards to do him this gentle favor keep hobbyty from complaining? Noooooo....isse kahte hain chori aur phir seena zori.

Hobbyty

I am sorry but your objections do not have any validity.

OBJECTION 1: Different people could have read my call at different times. Because I did not include this variable, my results are not valid.

Hmmm...someone clearly hasn`t analyzed much real data, certainly not very competently. Where should I begin to explain the basics of data analysis?...It`s like this, hobbty: there is no THEORETICAL or PRACTICAL reason to believe that the missing X variable is NOT orthogonal to the included X variables. That means the parameter estimates are UNBIASED.

sumjhe bade bhai?

OBJECTION 2: ``Was the encouragement I offered Prem less than or greater than or equal to what prem offered other Hindu Indians? how do we gauge it - lets agree that it was equal.``

Agreement is good, but not so soon, hobbytyji. And although this is not critical to our conclusions, let`s take at our respective ``encouragements:``

Your ``encouragement`` to me -

* * * * * * * * * *BEGIN * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply Scout # 429

“how dare you question my identity?”

I wouldn’t dare…

(Btw, have I mentioned that I’m a Sunni Falasha of Chitpawan Brahmin/Syed background? Not that these things matter to me, of course…)

re: shankar # 438

I hear you. I have witnessed the suffering caused by the system of caste from close quarters, and from both pro- and anti- brahmin persepectives.

I once wrote a post for chowk describing how some older people in my own family discriminated against a dalit friend of mine (it was partly in homage to this friend that I had earlier picked the nick eklavya). That memory still rankles deep inside me.

Although not nearly as much as in South, things are changing in the North as well. Mayawati is our Chief Minister for the third time. This is all for the good, although it does cause a great deal of unhappiness sometimes.

Once my father had a dalit IAS officer boss. For reasons best known to himself (I have my suspicions. My father must have made some thoughtless comments - he is no better than me, in that respect), he turned my father`s life upside down for years. How many times our family invited this officer home just to placate him! The basta *d would come, eat to his heart`s content, and still not change his behavior :)

Now I can smile about it, but in those days, I used to feel a deep black rage at the very thought of this guy. I didn`t mind serving him food, I just detested his smirk. I even sent him an anonymous death threat once! LOL...not sure if it ever reached him.

These personal experiences apart, on balance, I would still prefer not to be a dalit, at least in UP. UP has got MILES to go before it can be counted among the civilized places on earth-free from discrimination of man against man.

re: sadna # 441

Thanks for that link. I noticed they sell a CD too, which I will try to get.

The funny thing is that I have heard Aallha sung ONLY ONCE in my entire life; and that too, when I was very very young. That one experience has left an idelible impression on my mind. There is nothing quite like Aallha in any other form of music I ever heard.

``is it fair for me to proclaim that ``Islam is morally neutered by sect?!``

I think that`s a personal judgement - If you think that what it means - who amn I to object.

``You shameless SOB, when you point one finger at us, there are 3 more pointing back at you!!``

GROUP THINK - you decide how healthy, appealing or convincing that is

re: shanka `s diatribe

Shanka in pakistan there are reserved seats for underrepresented classes too namely afghanis , hindus kashmiris too.....i guess the reserved seats for the dalits are a form of affirmative action...in america a black american or a spanish person needs a 2.5 and a 24 on his MCATs and he`ll get into medical school does this mean that blacks and spanish people are set????? hardly....look at %age of dalit med grads nationwide id still say it would be absymall....are there abuses of affirmative action? yes.....i knew a blond haired egyptian guy who applied to Howard Med on an african american basis if that isnt abuse i dont know what is..............as per the killing of shia doctors this is because of the terrorism of SSP which the govt has condemned and most mainstream parties have condemned ...................but no province in pakistan colludes with extremist groups in the genocide of minorities as in india..........the murder of shias in pakistan is done by hardline extremist groups it is not wholescale and there are no such thing as shia sunni riots......whereas in india this is not the case............well lets leave hinduism and islam out of this

Prem #436
`they only see what they want to see`. The whole 3/4D space needs to be distorted to accomodate a single point extrapolation..

`` Being an optimist is sometimes a tough job.``

Needless to say, the patience and optimism of Zafar, dost-mittar, shammi, yourself and others in imparting cartesian geometry is awe-inspiring. I must say hobbyt is generally patient too :)

Banjaara#419, Prem #426
Singing ballads of Alha Udal seem to be rather widespread in UP/MP. Where my family comes from (Agra/Gwalior) its apparently a wellknown tradition. Here is one link to a Bundelkhandi Aalha tradition which is quite different in singing style and perhaps words too:

http://www.beatofindia.com/forms/aalha.htm

The original website seems to have quite a collection of folk songs from many regions:
http://www.beatofindia.com/mainpages/forms.htm

Banjaara, I can only add two lines randomly remembered in my family from it:

Alha Udal bade ladaaiya
Unki maar sahi na jaaye
..
shagun vichare baaman baniya
jo sir-dhar-mohar vivahan jaa`nye
shagun vichare hum ka kshatri
jo raN chaDhke loh chabaa`nye
..

Prem

Amusing post but flawed study:

How do you justify the conclusions, when you do not account for the fact that the respondents did not become aware of the querry at the same time?

on the other hand we have one bit of data that we can rely on, when asked your caste, you responded immediately.

Prem,

I came to this ``referendum`` late...heheh, seems like I missed out on some fun. BTW, are you trying to prove a point to Prof Hobbs? Dont bother, the man is TOTALLY prejudiced. No matter what you say, he`ll stick to his guns. If you try & debate with him, he ``accuses`` you of being ``defensive``. Evidently, he thinks he`s God & he`s always right & he wonders why we get annoyed by him?!.

Personally, I wish I WAS``NT brahmin. I cursed my fate that I was born into a brahmin household & wrote an article on Chowk re the reverse discrimination I`ve personally experienced in India. Ofcourse, many sanctimonious Indians dissed me for complaining. They felt that because of the ``sins of my ancestors``, I should happily accept my lot in life.

Let me stick my neck out & make an assumption. If Shridhar lived in Tamil Nadu all his life, he would have faced the brunt of ``reverse discrimination`` there. Shridhar, I`d be very interested in knowing if my assumption is correct.

One of my uncles works for a Govt agency in India (the equivalent to the FDA in the US). One day, he & a few of his coworkers were in the office cafeteria having lunch. He cracked a joke about dalits. What he did`nt realise was that one of his coworkers was a dalit. This man lodged an official complaint.

This was about 10 years ago. My uncle said it was the WORST mistake in his life! He had to go through several ``official`` inquisitions. He has`nt been given a promotion because it is now an official part of his personnel record. What he found, in retrospect, was that this coworker was competing for the same promotion as he was. All the other coworkers who were present were officially subpoened for the inquiries & had to testify under oath! Even when they all testified that my uncle just said it jokingly, it was considered politically incorrect, because there is a ``zero tolerence`` policy in govt.

So, if you work in a govt job in India, you have to be VERY CAREFUL what you say, even in jest, otherwise you`re TOAST! Thats how much power the dalits have today. If you apply to any college run by the govt (most are)...fully 25-33% of seats are reserved for ``backward classes``. This policy has been going on for several decades. I graduated from medical college about 25 yrs ago & the reservation system was in full force even then...not just in getting admission in medical college...EVEN after you get your MBBS degree, 1/3rd of the post-graduate houseposts (residency)-are reserved for dalits!

So, atLEAST for the past 30 yrs or so, dalits have been given an unprecedented opportunity to advance themselves...not on merit, but because they had the GOOD fortune to be born in a ``lower`` caste household. All these guys now are prominent physicians & specialist consultants in Bombay. All they had to do was SCRAPE through their exams!

Prominent shia doctors are being ASSASINATED in Karachi & their murderers are hardly ever caught! Jesus Christ!! If dalit doctors ever got assassinated like that in Bombay(or ANYWHERE in India), there will be such a HUGE hue & cry, that it could bring ANY govt down!!

Ofcourse if that EVER happened, the good Prof Hobbs will jump up & down and sanctimoniously proclaim how ``Hinduism is morally neutered by caste!``

Hey professor sahib?! If shia doctors are murdered in COLD BLOOD in Pakistan , is it fair for me to proclaim that ``Islam is morally neutered by sect?!`` You shameless SOB, when you point one finger at us, there are 3 more pointing back at you!!

A GREAT STEP TOWARDS A MORE EQUITABLE HINDU SOCIETY

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/080502/detnat01.asp

Dalits eye new rites in UP...

Tarannum Manjul

(Lucknow, May 7)





In a few days from now, another - the last and most decisive - bastion of the Hindu upper castes is set to fall in Uttar Pradesh. With the graduation of the first batch of curriculum-trained priests in the state, several Dalit pundits will be ready to offer their services for the entire range of traditional Hindu rites.

The class of 2002 in the UP Sanskrit Sansthan`s paurohitya (priesthood) course includes several Dalit and other non-Brahmin students. The three-month course that was started in February, aimed at training students in the range of karmakand rites from mundan and vivah sanskar (marriage) to vrats (fasts) and tyohar (festivals).

The students have been trained by priests who were picked from a large pool of Sanskrit scholars in the state.

The scholars were given extensive training before being asked to fan out in the districts to impart their knowledge to priesthood-hopefuls. With the course now nearing completion almost everywhere, lists of successful trainees have begun to come in - they will receive certificates, and will be recognised as `registered pundits` qualified to perform karmakand rites.

re: sadna # 424

All of us see the world around us in our idiosyncratic ways. In Hobbyty`s worldview, caste is India and India is caste; forever the twain shall remain one. It is fixed view, frozen in time, subject to no known laws of nature.

You, I, dost-mitar, shammi (zafarbhai is a particularly favorite victim) have all been through the mind-breaking logical merry-go-round with him, all to no avail. Faced with this worldview, what can one do?

I am hoping that an analysis of the raw objectivity (or the lack thereof) of his statements might make a tiny dent. This is a time-consuming excercise, one I would normally avoid. Yet, the unrelenting Niagara of hobbyty`s opaque words (not to mention their utter unreality and often brazen immorality) drives one to make one last attempt...

Being an optimist is sometimes a tough job.

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

re:Reply #: 422

Zafar,

Time was when one could spot a TamBram by his/her name. Names like Shanbhgambal or Pushpavalli were typically brahmin names. These names were usually highly sanskritised. Then in the 60s onwards (i think), a lot of these names were inspired by the north indian names. We have now Manoj, Harish, Ritika, Shreya etc as names of TamBrams. The issue is further complicated by the fact that even non-brahmins have sanskritised names now. It is difficult to make an intelligent guess as to the caste of a person from his/her name alone.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 420

Prem,

Excellent analysis. Of course some confounding factors would be: how soon the respondent read your request to identify his/her caste. Also, it is a fact that numerically, brahmins are a minority. The results reflect as such. Still, a great analysis. I hope hobbyty is careful in future.

Sridhar

Chacha Hobby

``As for me, I think caste is - not bad, but evil! and it shames me that persons still find caste affiliation relevent.

``

Dont worry Chacha Hobby. We dont take no nonsense from anybody, be it Brahmin, Rajput or Vaishya/bania. Brahmins love to talk and eat. The village pundits will put even Texans to shame with their obesity(Prem may be an exception). Some of the brahmins are truly intellectual while most of the others try to pass themselves as intellectuals. Aheers( yadavas, gurjars etc) dont make a pretense of intellectualism. There is a simple but effective philosophy that we follow. Aheer talks to his opponent patiently for the first time, next time he lets his ``laathee`` do all the talking. A laathee blow is just enough to bring the adversary to his senses and yet not fatal. A lathee is a very effective weapon to resist injustice, while still being relatively ``peaceful and non-violent``. May be if you guys replace your Kalashnikov culture by our laathee culture, Pakistan may become paradise.

PS Sorry if I hurt the sentiments of anyone by generalisation.

Zafar #421,

how dare you question my identity?

Zafar Al-Talib

get real - you are not accountiung for govt regs against discrimination - these regs have to be broad but while they are broad, they do not account for the kinds of problems I referred to.

Women soldiers - rape as a weapon of war and terror - generally is used against women.

Can just please be real for second - for how many male soldiers is rape a concern - whereas it is most definitely a concern for women soldiers.

What is ``lower caste politics``? how does it work? how is different from other types? I`m not trying to irritate you - I don`t know and want to know what it is.

Seems we are stuck on is caste unique or not and disagree - OK -

Prem

An amusing but poorly constructed study - I request you restructure the study and reorganize the data correctly and then reevaluate the validity of your conclusions:

Item 1) if we were to assert that your conclusions are correct - how will we account for the fact that different posters became aware of the querry at different times - if they had all become aware of the querry at the same time and then decided to out their caste affiliation, we could say that given equal encouragements at the same time, Brahmins do not demonstrate an ease with giving up their caste affiliation. Yet the the exact opposite has been show with data available - If one were to divide the data by querrys - that is one for me and one for you -

you, Brahmin, responded immediately to my querry -Seems to me that data do not suggest your conclusion. I think that even as some brahmin poo poo the notion of caste consciousness, they do so with realization that they are on the top of the pecking order.

item 2 ``Did Brahmins reveal their caste because they faced less encouragement``

Was the encouragement I offered Prem less than or greater than or equal to what prem offered other Hindu Indians? how do we gauge it - lets agree that it was equal - how do again account for the possibility that the Hindu indian posters became aware of this querry, this encouragement at the same time?

And make up your minds - you want to be referred to as Hindus or Indians?

re: banjaara # 419

Jesus, banjaara bhaiyaa!

I have been searching for words to that Aallha myself. I checked around to see if anybody brought out any CD or something....NO success.

Anybody knows? Please help.

Prem #420
(Shrimati Lajwanti, zara do minute udhar moonh pher lijiye, aur khabardaar rona shuru kiya tho)

`` Part 2: The level/kind of ``encouragement`` required by different Hindus to reveal their caste affliations.``

Prem, I have had an extended discussion on caste with hobbyt on at least 2-3 occasions in the past. For this reason, I skipped reading hobbyt`s original assertion #348, and didnot reply even when Stuka brought it up.

Kindly take this `wassa point?` factor into account for not mentioning my caste origins until you asked, in your praiseworthy and painstakingly exact analysis. At this time, I think this makes hobbyt`s hypothesis more wrong, but you are the boss.

Contrary to others experiences, I didnot know `my` caste until I was in the first/second year of college(I had to check with my mom when I was asked by someone what it was).

hobbyt #416
``As for me, I think caste is - not bad, but evil! and it shames me that persons still find caste affiliation relevent.``

Hatred of Hindus and hypocrisy strikes again(hhh syndrome). What the heck were self-righteous types like hobbyt doing when Pakistani Army was pitting Pashtuns against Tajiks and Uzbeks for the last 20+ years?

Why do people still claim allegiance to clans like Afridi and Yusufzai and have surnames such as Shah, etc? Why were tribal allegiances so relevant to Pakistanis? Do Pakistani Muslims like hobbyt not have a conscience that says divisions and wars based on tribes and ethnicities are evil?

I am very curious, why was Musharraf declared a Syed before the referendum, even on chowk?

Reply Hobbyty # 413

“Zafar, I regret your unwillingness to tackle the issue”

Hobbyty, did you go to school to learn how to be this irritating or is a gift from God? If school, please share the address with us so we can all go and learn. If a gift from Duniya Ke Maalik…I don’t know whether to congratulate you or commiserate.

“The position is not that men and women should not have or do not have rights as human beings - human rights - the issue is how do we understand this given obvious differences between them - eg. A position is open, it requires a physical strength - the employer does not think a woman can handle it - but hires the woman anyway (govt reg.) then it turn out that it is too physical for the woman”

Alright, let’s go through this example logically.

What the job requires: physical strength.

What the applicants can be objectively tested for: physical strength.

The criterion which decides which applican gets the job: physical strength.

Now do you see ANY reference to ovaries and related secondary sexual characteristics here? Was any such reference necessary?

Granted, some women are physically weaker than you. On the other hand, there are some women who can kill a horse with one hand. (OK, I’m assuming that, like me, you can’t do this.) Isn’t it ridiculous to assume a single condition is valid for all women and another condition valid for all men, unless we are actually talking about XY chromosomes?

“Women soldier and the issue of rape.”

Tell me how this differs fundamentally from Male soldiers and the issue of death. Include discussion, where relevant, of risk, choice and social obligations and rights.

“And whatever happened to our discussion of caste?”

I won!!!!! Congratulate me?

No? Ok, see Shandana Minhas’ board – responding to your caste related post there.

(Sheesh, so aggro yaar…)

Regards

Zafar

PS Re: the identification of Brahmins, etc., let me tell you a secret – just as you can probably identify Hindus and Muslims from their names, people who are interested in these things can usually tell the caste of an individual’s family (at least paternal side) from their last names (and often where they are from in India as well). While this does leave these things mysteries for those with random handles, RSaxena’s Northie – UP? - bania antecedents (I think) are no surprise (unless he’s a TamBram, in which case I am obviously the wrong guy to ask :-) Anyway, my point is, if somebody is concerned with these things, he or she usually doesn’t have to baldly ask. Why have Brahmins been brought up? Which other caste group has such a high profile uss paar, I mean your iss paar…mathlab, did it even occur to you to demand if anybody was a Yadav?

Reply Scout # 408

“i am Kshatriya”

Um…we don’t have the caste system, last I checked…not that I am saying you shouldn`t be who you are...

scout

A scout is a scout is a very good scout. No need to be anything else.

Everyone else who participated in my little survey:

Thank you all. I am truly grateful. We can meet utter ignorance only with the light of knowledge.

Hobbyty,

I hope you see that your earlier hypothesis that all Hindus on Chowk are brahmins was not true. Now, you have advanced a second thesis.

ASSERTION 2:

``A Brahmin Hindu on Chowk is more willing/requires less encouragement to reveal his/her caste than does a non-Brahmin Hindu.``

We can test that hypothesis as well. The hypothesis implies that on chowk -

(1) Given equal levels of encouragement, Brahmin Hindus will be quicker to share information about their caste than other Hindus.

(2) For both Brahmin Hindus and non-Brahmin Hindus to be equally willing to reveal their caste affliations, brahmin Hindus will require less ``encouragement.``

I will analyze chowk data in two parts, taking the above-mentioned two implications in turn.

Part 1: Order of Revelations of Caste Affiliations by Hindus on Chowk

(1) As of May-5-02 20:49:44 , the order in which Hindus revealed their caste affiliations on Chowk was as follows -

Rank * Person Caste Affiliation

1. Prem: Brahmin (B)

2. Stuka: Non-Brahmin (NB)

3. Dost Mittar: Non-brahmin (NB)

4. Sadhna: Non-Brahmin (NB)

5. Humsab: Non-Brahmin (NB)

6. Jay: Non-Brahmin (NB) (Did I get that right, Jay?)

7. Arjun_M: Brahmin (B) (not that it is an honor :))

8. RSridhar: Brahmin (B)

9. Akash: Non-Brahmin (NB)

* Rank 1 assigned to the individual making the first revelation, rank 9 to the last.

Thus, out of a total of 9 `revelations,`

----- the rank order for brahmins was 1, 7, 8.

-----the rank order for nonbrahmins was 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9.

Were brahmins were quicker to reveal their caste affiliations than non-brhamins? The data support just the opposite conclusion.

Part 2: The level/kind of ``encouragement`` required by different Hindus to reveal their caste affliations.

If Hobbyty`s thesis is correct then Prem, Sridhar, and Arjun-M will require less ``encouragement`` than others to reveal their caste affiliation. The actual data are as follows:

Rank Person Nature/Amount of Encouragement

1. Prem # 294 Hobbyty # 293

2. Stuka # 386 Hobbyty # 348

3. RSaxena # various No encouragement. His declares his nonbrahminhood in his name.

4. Rest # various Prem # 394

Prem (#294) answered a direct personalized question posed to him by Hobbyty (#293): ``What caste are you? Please explain.`` If Prem did not honestly answer this question, he could be legitimately accused of hiding a fact that could otherwise prove Hobbyty`s contention. The ``encouragement`` to Prem was very large, personal, and moral.

Stuka responded to Hobbyty (#348) statement that all Indians (he meant all Hindus but we will overlook that) on Chowk are brahmins. If stuka did not reveal his caste ``status`` he would be accepting a false statement about himself and his family. The ``encouragement`` to Stuka was also large, but it was generalized, not personalized.

RSaxena never needed an encouragement to ``tell`` or reveal his caste. His name tells anybody who knows ANYTHING about India that he is not a brahmin, and/or does not wish to be thought of as one.

All others shared a common form of encouragement. They responded to a call to establish the objective truth. Neither confronting direct personal questions nor countering falsehoods about their individual families, they did not face ``encouragement`` anywhere as large as in the case of #348 and # 293. Non brahmins revealed their castes quickest in response to this common call sent out to brahmins and nonbrahmins alike. Out of 7 responders, 5 were non-brahmins, their rank order being 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 (rank 1 denotes the quickest revelation).

Did brahmins revealed their caste affiliations because they faced ``less`` encouragement than nonbrahmins? Data support just the opposite conclusion.

Thank you.

Data Analysis Notes: In analyzing chowk data mentioned above, I took affirmative action in FAVOR OF hobbyty`s hypothesis, giving it every opportunity to be proven true. Dost-Mittar, the first person to respond to my call, also shared (thank you, DMji) information about many others people, almost all Nonbrahmins. Including these non-brahmin names would demolish both of hobbty`s theses further. But I excluded those names in order to avoid analytical ambiguities. I also counted arjun_m (despite his own delectable uncertainties) among the Brahmins in order to prop up hobbyty`s thesis that all (most) Hindus on Chowk are brahmins. Even after I took these steps, data strongly disproved both of Hobbyty`s theses.



DRUMZ: Bro, you are lucky. Once a person crosses the age of 30, he/she loses all sense of proportion, getting drawn into completely MORONIC debates. All this after REPEATED pledges to oneself about avoiding certain kind of discussions :)

Akash # 415

Would you by any chance know the complete poem

which is one of the most reverred amongst the Yadav`s of UP.

Alha Udal baRe laRRayya

jin se haar gaee talwar

Will appreciate if you or anyone else can complete it.

Regards.

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

Few days away from chowk and looks like we got typecast(e). Ah yes the ``C`` word and the cast(e) of characters is being revealed. Who cast(e) the first stone here?

I could tell you but I really don`t want to...So sorry not casting any votes here.

Akash

Chacha Hobby never asked you what your caste was -he asked Prem what caste he, prem, was - So if you and other non-Brahmins have opted to out your caste affiliation - that is between you and Prem.

As for me, I think caste is - not bad, but evil! and it shames me that persons still find caste affiliation relevent.

I consider myself only as an Indian, nothing more, nothing less. I strictly oppose any sort of caste system in Hinduism. According to me, Swami Dayananda and Vivekananda preached the true essence of Hinduism. But if Chacha Hobby insists, let him know that I belong to the caste of Lord Krishna, the Yadavas. And this caste is enlisted as a ``backward caste`` if this is what you want to know hobby.

Prem, Assorted Hindu and non-Hindu Indians

Thank you for number of posts identifying your caste - if you are representative of most Hindus Indians - then it is fair to say, that most hindu Indians on Chowk are not Brahmins.

Is this the first time you have outed yourselves by caste? Also, I noticed, and may be I a wrong, jujst an observation - Brahmin Hindus do not seem to need a lot of encouragement to out themselves by caste, at least relative to other Hindu caste -is this an observation you share?

Zafar Al-Talib

Zafar, I regret your unwillingness to tackle the issue - The position is not that men and women should not have or do not have rights as human beings - human rights - the issue is how do we understand this given obvious differences between them - eg. A position is open, it requires a physical strength - the employer does not think a woman can handle it - but hires the woman anyway (govt reg.) then it turn out that it is too physical for the woman - Women soldier and the issue of rape.

Before you respond - once again, the issue is not the larger human rights - but the practical, the everyday implication.

And whatever happened to our discussion of caste?

Caste is another human rights issue you say - yes, it is - does that mean it is not an issue connected with Hinduism? Do most Hindus or Indians see caste as a ``human rights`` issue? Or if we discuss caste must we generalize to include all isues of human rights?

To get our conversation back on track, what did you think of the article Alpha posted? What the heck are ``lower caste politics``? and how are they differentiated from ``upper caste politics`` If ``lower caste politics`` attenuates violence between religious communities - how does it do it? and why doesn`t this apply at a national level?

re:Reply #: 402

AAmir,

It is a shame. As an NRI i can tell you i do not support BJP after the Gujarat carnage. USA is full of Gujjus who are pro-BJP. It is a pity that the land where Gandhi was born has become the most violent place in India today.

Sridhar

re: caste

Prem,

I am a brahmin. You would have guessed it if you had read my posts directed at one of the chowkies who has been writing nasty things about brahmins.

Sridhar

MINORITY GROUPS

Hindus, Sikhs say they still face threats in Afghanistan

By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Globe Staff, 5/6/2002

HOST, Afghanistan - They no longer have to wear yellow badges like the Jews under Nazi rule, but little else has changed for Afghanistan`s religious minorities, the Hindus and Sikhs.



One year ago, the Taliban provoked an international outcry with a decree that Hindus and Sikhs must identify themselves to the feared religious police by wearing patches, turbans, or veils of saffron yellow, the holy color of the two religions.

Four months ago, a new government took office, promising equal rights for all Afghans. Yet many Hindus and Sikhs say that life is no better - and in some cases, is worse - under the new Afghan flag.

Despite the end of official discrimination and kind words from the new leaders in Kabul, Sikhs and Hindus have no schools for their children, no access to government jobs or university education, no seats on the commission that set rules for electing a new government, and no protection from warlords who have seized their lands and homes.

``During the Taliban, we were first put in jail and then forced to wear yellow turbans and brown skullcaps, but at least we had law and order,`` said Bajan Singh, 27, a Sikh.

A few months ago, he said, his land and house were confiscated by a local commander in this eastern city near the Pakistani border.

``After the Taliban left, it`s turmoil in this city,`` said Bajan Singh, who like many Sikh men uses the last name Singh, as many women use the last name Kaur. ``By night, burglars rob our houses. By day, thieves steal from us. The police station closest to us harasses us.

``One of my brothers was kidnapped by security guards from this area, and we had to pay ransom,`` he said, lowering his voice to a whisper. ``We are stopped everywhere, and many don`t dare to go out of the house.``

Cooped up in walled compounds, a virtually invisible community that is among the poorest in Afghanistan has been overlooked even by the international aid agencies that came to help the needy after the fall of the Taliban. Programs have been created for women and ethnic minorities who were persecuted under the Taliban, but not for Hindus and Sikhs, the only non-Muslims here in any numbers.

Hinduism in Afghanistan dates back at least to the seventh century, when a Chinese traveler reported Hindu kingdoms in Kabul and Ghazni. In 1992, the community whose ancestors emigrated from what is now India numbered 50,000. When the mujahideen defeated the Soviet-backed regime that year, soldiers ran rampant in minority communities, burning homes and raping women, spurring an exodus to India that continued over the last decade of civil war and Taliban repression. The community dwindled to about 2,000 people in seven cities.

Because of their tiny numbers and related faiths, the Hindu and Sikh communities in Afghanistan have merged, sharing temples and residential compounds, even though their coreligionists in India have often been at odds. Those who remain in Afghanistan say they were simply too poor to flee.

Under the former king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, and later the communist government of the 1980s, Sikhs and Hindus held respected positions as doctors, engineers, and civil servants. They had two parliamentary representatives until the early 1990s, when the Islamic mujahideen government banned them from official jobs and college placements, restrictions that have not yet been lifted.

The situation is particularly bad for the 176 Sikhs and Hindus here in Khost, with Kandahar one of two former Taliban strongholds where authorities succeeded in forcing them to wear yellow last year. (In Kabul, Sikh leaders defeated the decree by threatening to move the entire community out of Afghanistan.) Men here were beaten and jailed for three days and then were marched around the town center wearing the new headgear so everyone would know they were not Muslims.

Looking back on that period, Singh considers the Taliban`s discriminatory dress code ``a minor problem`` compared to his current woes. Like many Afghan Sikhs, he wears a Muslim-style skullcap and ignores his religion`s prohibition against haircutting.

A local commander has seized land and houses, even cemetery plots, of Hindus and Sikhs for his personal use, according to community elders. They say that guards at a nearby checkpoint did nothing when a car was stolen and its driver beaten in front of the compound where Hindus and Sikhs now live.

A dozen Hindus and Sikhs who opened video and music shops to capitalize on the renewed popularity of Indian movies after the fall of the Taliban keep their shutters half-closed since two bombings targeted their businesses. Unsigned pamphlets spread before the February attacks warned that those who sell or use ``things prohibited by Islam will face the consequences.``

Video store owners Jagjeet Singh and Seeda Nand escaped injury, but lost $1,000 each in inventory when their shops were bombed. Despite the danger of a fresh attack, they can`t afford to start new businesses. The front of Gopal Singh`s music shop was destroyed by another bomb, and his terrified landlord terminated his lease, leaving Gopal Singh broke and jobless.

``Like other Afghans, we`d like the right to live somewhere else, not just in this compound,`` said Khost community leader Prakash Lal, 76, gesturing toward the dilapidated mud dwellings of the compound, which stretch for blocks.

They also want a new temple, ``so we can pray freely and comfortably,`` Lal said, gesturing miserably at their bombed-out house of worship. It was sacked by a local commander in 1992 to avenge the destruction of a mosque in India by Hindu extremists.

In Kabul, community leader Autar Singh, 39, is more optimistic than Lal, thanks to a recent visit from interim leader Hamid Karzai. Yet Singh admitted his pleas for assistance have yet to yield any results.

The community`s top wish is for a teacher, because their children can`t go to school without enduring hurled stones and insults. In its heyday, Kabul`s Sikh and Hindu community had a school for 5,000 children; today, they have 100 youngsters and not one teacher.

``In terms of freedom, our lives are much better now, and we have good relations with officials in Kabul,`` said Autar Singh, who displays his loyalty to Afghanistan on his office walls, where framed portraits of Karzai and Northern Alliance hero Ahmad Shah Massood share space with posters of temples in India.

``But economically, our lives are approaching zero,`` he said with a sigh. ``All the other ethnic groups are getting help from the government, the aid agencies, or the United Nations. Why not us?``

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 5/6/2002

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

Prem,

i am Kshatriya

Dost Mittar #395:

I am non-Brahmin and not a Hindu by religion.

--Satyavadi

prem,

It is this urge to know the truth and to accept it is wahat makes an indian different from a pakistani. For a pakistani, none your statistics collection matters, it is the pakistani education system that has been drilled into them in the pak.org history that guides their action, learning in the early childhood that one can see through in YLH, romair and others where higher education makes no difference to their world view.

I have said once before, my family of one brother and four sisters are doctors and engineers, most with masters degrees, thanks to the caste based reservation system. If india has progressed, it is because of the belief of my generation, that you need no connection, no influence and no money to achieve progress, and no family can demonstrate it better than mine, children of illiterate poor parents. And probaly no one can prove it better than my classmate, who walked with me for an hour to go to primary school, and now runs the US$ ten billion Reliance refinary in Jamnagar.

regards

Jay

Me `Vaishya`

Reply Jayparkash #390

``It is the shaheed concept that makes islam unique and ensure that jihadic frontiers will always be a line of bloodshed. The muslims from all over the world converged in afghanistan in large numbers seeking tickets to heaven, so is the case in kashmir, philippines. People have to realise the religious dimension of these frontiers. What the world needs is guidelines and global cooperation to control the jihadic frontiers.``

Wjhyy ou are write to me? Do you knowDeepka?

Whatworldneeding is guidelinea nd globl cooperatings to control DEEPKA!

re jay

``What the world needs is guidelines and global cooperation to control the jihadic frontiers.``

Control? I don`t think so. The word is crush. Not only the physical, but the very ideological and psychological support mechanisms of this cancer need to be destroyed with the mercilessness of Genghiz Khan, the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany combined. Even those who provide `diplomatic` or `moral` support to this cancer should be held fully acountable. This, sir, is one battle that no quarter can be given.

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

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

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

re: Prem

{I therefore, request you to kindly take a minute of your time to tell us the caste you were born into.}

...this is like when you meet most indians in the US, the first question the twits will ask is if you`re gujju, punjabi, sindhi, etc...so irritating...what goddamn difference does it make...that pretty much sums up my feelings about this question as well...sorry...

Prem #395
I am Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaisya, Shudra, Dalit, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Jew, Parsi, commie atheist, dravidian atheist, Nicobar Island headhunter, animist etc(though NOT a scientologist, or Moonie, those guys have to manage without me :)). As an Indian, I am all these.

Vaise, I am a Vaisya/bania.

Stuka, Akash, Hobbyty

I don`t agree with hobbyty`s ideas, but his conclusion that Chowk has only brahmin Indians is intriguing. If that allegation is true, then we are surely in for an unpleasant surprise. This is not a trivial matter. We ought to investigate it.

A REQUEST TO ALL HINDU INDIAN CHOWKIES -

Folks, you are all aware that caste is and has been a major issue confronting us Indians. Irrespective of our individual attitudes toward it, we would acknowledge that the custom of caste does continue to affect Indian society. In this light, whether Hindu Indians on Chowk are only those born in brahmin families (or even mostly so) is NOT a trivial question. And we Indians can never run from the truth, even if it is bitter.

I therefore, request you to kindly take a minute of your time to tell us the caste you were born into. Since your caste per se is of no significance, all we would be interested in knowing is whether or not you belong to a brahmin family.

Name: Brahmin/Non-brahmin

Prem: Brahmin

stuka: ?

Shankar: ?

Shammi: ?

Dost-Mittar: ?

RSaxena: ?

Harimau: ?

Jay: ?

tvarad: ?

arjun_m: ?

Akash: ?

rsridhar:?

soysauce: ?

sadna: ?

subroto: ?

HN: ?

Humbsab:

Roohi: ?

soundmeister:?

ANY OTHER?

Apologies if I have wrongly included your name in the list of Hindu Indians. If your name is not included and you are a Hindu Indian (or a Hindu Pakistani), please count yourself in!

PRIVACY NOTES:

(1) Some of you may be hesitant to publicly reveal information that most of us would deem quite irrelevant. If that is so, PLEASE drop me a one-liner at eklavya786@hotmail.com

(2) Rest assured, I will NOT sell, or in anyway reveal to ANY THIRD PARTY, private information thus acquired.

I am sure you understand that we can not arrive at any meaningful conclusion unless we have information on ALL (or MOST) people. So, do participate.

Come on, folks, it is important to have OBJECTIVE information about who we are. Help me out here.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Akash

You`re such a tease - promise? come get you some.

Chacha Hobby

Tere ko kisne bola mein Brahmin hoon. I am not a brahmin, okay. I am neither brahmin nor baniya. But I will still kick the hell out of you.

Lajwanti ,

It is the shaheed concept that makes islam unique and ensure that jihadic frontiers will always be a line of bloodshed. The muslims from all over the world converged in afghanistan in large numbers seeking tickets to heaven, so is the case in kashmir, philippines. People have to realise the religious dimension of these frontiers. What the world needs is guidelines and global cooperation to control the jihadic frontiers.

regards

Jay

Zafar and Hobbyty

Glad to see you two trying to get to the HEART of the matter. I am keenly following your dialogue.

Zafar Al-Talib

I was not suggesting different human rights - I am agreed that these cannot be different - these are ``Human`` rights.

I was asking for assitance in better understanding, or rather not falling into a trap of saying mean and women are the same - of course they are the same as far ``Human`` is concerned - I do have difficulty in carrying it further, to say, mean are same as women.

having agreed on ``human`` rights - I also, see a problem, with the notion of ``equality`` - not as ``humans`` but in the kinds of space that must be created in our agreement on the meanings of several things, as the equality of womenas huamn persons? makes itself felt to a greater degree in society - here I have in mind, the particular differences beween man and women. Whacha ya think?

Reply Hobbyty #383

“Gender discrinimation - good or bad ? Again - if we take an overarching position, which is the desired - looking at mena and women as the group, humans but I fear the qualifications we seek to avoid will come back to haunt us - if effect we would be saying men are no different from women - and that just is not the case - yes, they are both human but moving away from this group, looking at the as particular - we cannot escape the distictions that again will bring the qualifications into play. What do you think of these objections?”

The fact that adult human beings are DIFFERENT from each other is not a sound basis for saying that they have different human rights.

Equality for all adults does not assume that difference between them is not meaningful or profound. Only that difference does not mean less or more worth or capability, as reflected in rights and obligations.

This IS a different pov from at least traditional understandings of Sharia, where women have fewer rights and also fewer obligations – what seems like a permanent status of legal minority.

??

HobbyTy

``“…Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins – “"

??????? Dude, what makes you think I am a Bamman? No way, Jose. I am a Khatri, as Ali#1 found out eons ago...don`t even remember how. Fully Non Vegetarian, Beef Eating, Pork Eating, Alcohol comsuming Khatri

#379 dost-mittarsaab

“hobbyty#370

The ``Daily Times`` article you posted is right on the money. [Is it an Indian newspaper?]”

….it’s a pakistani newspaper from lahore recently stared by najam sethi….dailytimes.com.pk if you’re interested….

What makes Palestinian suicide bombers tick? Not the Koran, media pundits are quick to say.

They maintain they are martyrs for a political, not religious, cause and are only resorting to such violent extremes to defend against an oppressive Israeli military. The media romanticize the heinous bombings as the desperate struggle of the downtrodden.

Given the alarming toll of innocent Israelis (not to mention Americans) recently slaughtered by Islamic suicide attacks, this is a particularly noxious batch of politically correct swill to swallow.

And those in the media who know better should be ashamed of themselves for peddling it. They are nothing but professional liars. Others too lazy to read the Koran to independently verify the spin of ``moderate`` Muslim scholars are guilty of intellectual malpractice.

If you read the Koran (the Muslim-approved Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation), you discover that martyrdom is the only guaranteed ticket to Paradise for Muslims.

But don`t take my word for it. Listen to a former radical Shiite Muslim tell it.

``The only way Muslims can have assurance of salvation and eternal life is by becoming a martyr for the cause of Islam,`` said Reza F. Safa, author of ``Inside Islam.``

``To a Muslim,`` he added, ``dying and killing for the cause of Islam is not only an honor, but also a way of pleasing Allah.``

That explains how a Palestinian grandmother could proudly pose with her beaming teen-age grandson for a final photograph knowing that just hours later he would strap himself with explosives and eviscerate Israeli ``infidels`` – and himself – in the name of Allah. This adoring old woman was actually celebrating the boy`s imminent death, as if he were about to cross the stage at his high-school graduation ceremony. But to her, a death certificate sealed by Allah meant more than any diploma. She said she was happy – overjoyed that her grandson would soon disembowel himself – because she knew he would be instantly transported to a better place.

Where does she get such faith? From the Koran.

Meanwhile, the pubescent grandson dreamed of the carnal pleasures awaiting him in Paradise – ``Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes ... virgin-pure and undefiled`` – just as the Muslim prophet Muhammad promised in the Koran (Surah 56:22,35-36).

And such Koranic promises explain how the father of another young Palestinian, who set off a bomb on a crowded commuter bus, could gush, ``My son will go to heaven`` – as if he had just scored the winning touchdown at the homecoming game in front of Ivy League scouts. Most fathers would be bawling their eyes out over such a senseless loss.

Safa says local Muslim clerics recite to such young men the verses from the Koran that promise the reward of Paradise, and all its oddly non-spiritual perks, if they die while fighting the ``unbelievers`` – Jews and Christians – in the name of Allah.

```Are you ready for martyrdom?``` the young man is asked. ```Yes, yes,` he repeats,`` Safa said, explaining the ritual. ``He is then given the oath on the Koran.``

``These young men leave the meeting with one determination: to kill,`` he said.

Of course, the same media pundits who like to pretend Palestinians are fighting a political war for freedom and are only using suicide as a ``cheap defense weapon,`` argue that the Koran forbids suicide. They claim clerics twist the meaning of the salient passages in the Koran to imply martyrdom paves the way to Paradise.

But don`t be fooled. Typical of Islam`s apologists, they are merely cherry picking verses to try to make the Koran seem less violent than it is.

Yes, the Koran tells Muslims not to ``kill or destroy yourselves`` (Surah 4:29) – but only when doing so is outside the cause of Allah. Dying for Allah is not viewed as a waste of life.

In fact, the Koran encourages it. Consider these verses:

``When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks,`` Muhammad commands in Surah 47:4. ``Those who are slain in the way of Allah – he will never let their deeds be lost.``

``Soon will he guide them and improve their condition,`` he continues in Surah 47:5, ``and admit them to the Garden (of Paradise), which he has announced for them.``

And look at Surah 4:74: ``To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall we give him a reward of great (value).``

And Surah 3:157: ``If ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.``

Surah 3:140-143, moreover, glorifies “martyrs” who “enter Heaven” and, at the same time, ribs those who “flinch” from death. That’s followed by Surah 3:170, which says “martyrs” -- suicidal killers who “die in their cause” -- don’t really die, nor should their loved ones “grieve” for them.

Maybe I’m just an ignorant “kaffir” who is misreading the Koran, which I’ve read cover to cover in two translations now.

Or maybe not. Translator Yusuf Ali, respected the world-over by Muslims, reads it the same way in his commentaries.

In footnote 469, he says: “Dying in doing your duty is the best means of reaching Allah’s mercy.”

“Martyrdom is the sacrifice of life in the service of Allah. Its reward is therefore even greater than that of an ordinarily good life,” Ali says in footnote 2839. “The martyr’s sins are forgiven by the very act of martyrdom.”

So in the Muslim faith, the reward for death in the cause of Allah is greater than good works or faith in general. That’s what the Koran teaches, the book that Ali says is “the duty of every Muslim -- man, woman or child -- to read.”

But what of the wives and children left widowed and fatherless, or parents left sonless, by these men of fanatical faith, these duty-bound suicide bombers, these glorified martyrs?

“The dear ones have no cause to grieve at the death of the martyrs,” Ali says in footnote 478. “Rather have they cause to rejoice.”

Like the Palestinian grandmother and father mentioned above.

But cultural relativists among the punditry, such as Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, aren`t convinced.

Goodman recently insisted that the Palestinian suicide bombers are merely ``desperate`` to improve their lot, deluded by the ``despair`` of their impoverished existence. Some politicians call them ``freedom fighters.`` Over the weekend, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell even compared PLO leader Yasser Arafat to Nelson Mandela.

But if Palestinians are deluded into carrying out such wicked acts, it`s not a function of their social or economic condition. It`s a function of their faith.

They are deluded, quite simply, by their holy book, which teaches them to ``fight unbelievers (Jews) who are near to you`` (Surah 9:123) for the cause of Allah.

You never hear of Jewish or Christian suicide bombers for the simple reason the Bible does not encourage murder-suicide in the name of God. The Koran does.

Still not convinced?

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, which according to Safa has helped the Palestinians against the Israelis, has this as its slogan:

``The Koran is our constitution, the prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.``

Greater than land or voting rights. Greater than family or love. Above all, death. This is the enemy Ariel Sharon faces. This, sadly, is now our enemy, too.

Zafar Al-Talib

You have valid points about human rights - and I must say I had not included or I had not looked at caste in that way - On all discrinimations including caste and gender - certainly the argument you present is compelling - but I must let this cook in me for a while - I had not really thought of it in that way - at all.

Gender discrinimation - good or bad ? Again - if we take an overarching position, which is the desired - looking at mena and women as the group, humans but I fear the qualifications we seek to avoid will come back to haunt us - if effect we would be saying men are no different from women - and that just is not the case - yes, they are both human but moving away from this group, looking at the as particular - we cannot escape the distictions that again will bring the qualifications into play. What do you think of these objections?

Arjun

Do, please make an effort to think -

``Unless it is accompanied by a stick, there will be no change on the ground``

Not everyone wishes to think of themseleves as persons who cannot reason.

Bong Dong

You are right - the particular article does not justify the statement that flight testing has been performed.

Dost Mittar

``Daily Times`` is a new English language paper Najam Sethi is publishing.

Akash

Why are are you dumping on me for Ms. Rice`s statement of US policy?

re: Dost-Mittar # 379

DMjee, the Daily Times is new daily brought out by Najam Sethi. Its online version is available at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk

I was a bit ambivalent about that article. It offered a good analysis of the fractious nature of Indian politics and the particular role of Hindutva forces. But I was not sure if the author fully understood the nature of support for secularism in India. That blindspot, IMO, weakened the analysis considerably.

As ylh and I discussed partly once earlier, support for secularism stands on a number of legs:

1. The principle of Moral Rights - This principle posits that it is utterly immoral to create and support arbitrarily discriminatory constitutions. All non-secular constitutions, according to this view, are fundamentally immoral.

2. The Efficiency Principle - According to this principle a secular polity is preferable because it is more ``market-efficient`` than non secular polities. Under conditions of free market conditions, non-secular polities will invariably lose to relatively secular polities.

3. ``Pre-requisite to Public Order`` principle - According to this principle, presence of significant number of minorities leaves no choice other than the path of secularism.

The author of that article is of the view that a country with the majority population of merely 85% could only be secular. That is not entirely true. Consider a few countries -

Country Majority population

Malaysia 55%

Nigeria 75%

Albania 75%

Bangladesh 85%

Syria 87%

Mali 90%

Egypt 93%

Sudan 94%

You will notice that there is no direct or obvious relationship between the size of population groups and the purely secular nature of their constitutions.

The reason for absence of such a clear relationship is that secularism is primarily a moral idea. That is, it can arise and survive only within a universally moral framework. That is why, Hindutva forces pose a deeply moral threat to us all. Secularism is also, as many Chambers of Commerce and investment bankers in India are realizing, an efficacious idea, both in social and market terms. Secularism, thus, is far less a matter of peace and public order than is realized. India is secular because, and will remain so only so long as, the majority of ALL groups share the belief that that is only ``right`` way to govern any nation.

Analyses that leave out this moral component will not fully understand the appeal of secularism to Indians.

Hobby

``US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said India should resume a dialogue with Pakistan and work to reduce months of border tension, following steps by Islamabad to ease the stand-off between the two nations.

``

Blah blah blah blah... Who are you fooling Sir. Pakistan taking steps to ease standoff??? We know pretty well what Mushy has done with the religious leaders he arrested as a smokescreen?? And where are 20 terrorists that India provided evidence against??? Some more blah blah blah. BTW where is your counter list of criminals wanted in pakiland but hiding in India. We are ready to hand over to you any crimiinal that you provide minutest evidence against. And dont utter blah blah this time. And you fools believe that USA can apply pressure on India to talk. Nay it didn`t do that even during cold war... Quit deluding yourself.

re: Hobbyty # 374

If the US policy changes, India will have to take that factor into consideration. The principle remains the same - India or Pakistan - both should and hopefully will adjust their strategic stances to fit demands of the times.

There is no ego involved here, only cold rational strategic analysis.

hobbyty

``No I can`t quote from the article ``Super 7 in Pakistani Marks`` - I tried to find additional stuff on emeralddesign and on kanwa - but no help there either``

So you admit you have no evidence: none, zilch, nada?

So on what basis did you make that remark?

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

Reply Hobbyty # 372

“And I think you are generalizing when you suggest that caste and gender discrimination do not, in an essential sense, differ.”

In the subcontinent caste, and gender and religious discrimination all spring from essentially the same root because the basis for this discrimination is something people are born as, not something they chose, believe or become. (Sociologically, religion and caste certainly function identically. Gender similarly.)

For this reason I think that dealing with these discriminations requires a similar approach, which boils down to: who you are born as should not diminish, or augment, your human rights relative to other people.

Human rights are not dependent on economics.

Human rights are not dependent on whether you are going to heaven or not.

I didn’t know that we were debating whether discrimination on this basis is good or bad, but since you ask, I think it is bad. Now my turn: do you think that discrimination based on caste, religion or gender is good? Without qualifications?

Bong_Dongs #367, 369; Hobbyty various posts from #348 onwards; Prem #366

Will respond to all your posts in a couple of days. Have a great weekend!

Arjun, Alphanell, Dost, Prem

Contours of US policy - and compulsions for India

Talk is better than threatening nuclear war and ``brinkmanship``n - what are your thoughts?

``Rice says India should talk to Pakistan

AFP

New Delhi, May 3

US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said India should resume a dialogue with Pakistan and work to reduce months of border tension, following steps by Islamabad to ease the stand-off between the two nations.

``There is a sense in which as the Pakistanis have tried to be responsive--and they have tried to be responsive, we do believe they are doing some things--that it would be good for India to take some steps too,`` Rice said in an interview with a national daily.

``The important thing, though, is that everybody stay away from brinkmanship, that nobody use force here and that we give diplomacy and the anti-terror campaign and the dismantling of the terrorist organisations time to work,`` she said.

Rice said the United States wanted to work closely with India on the anti-terrorism campaign, just as it was doing with Pakistan.

At the same time, she said Washington expected Pakistan to address the ``legitimate concerns of India over cross-border terrorism.``

``We have been very clear with Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf that we expect to see actions to follow up on his January 12 speech that said Pakistan will end support to extremists.``

India has blamed Pakistan for masterminding a December attack on its parliament by terrorists, following which a million troops from the two countries were deployed to their common borders.

``It would serve no one for India and Pakistan to come to military blows. We need time to work the anti-terrorism agenda,`` Rice said.

``We have urged the Indian government to give diplomacy the primacy here and to give us all time to dismantle the terrorist networks, to begin dialogue over the issues that are at the root cause here and we think that is the way ahead.``

Rice praised Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for showing restraint after the parliament attack.

``It could not have been easy to do what they have done, to keep talking, but we really believe this is the way forward.``

Vajpayee has refused to end the border build-up until Pakistan hands over named terrorists allegedly on Pakistani soil and ends the infiltration of Islamic terrorists into Kashmir.``

Alpahanell, Prem - Arjun

As predicted - with a made by Musharraf and US all over it:

``Hizb offers dialogue to India

ISLAMABAD: A major militant group fighting India`s rule in Kashmir said on Thursday its suggestion for a dialogue to end the 12-year insurgency should not be taken as a truce offer.

Saleem Hashmi, spokesman for the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, told Reuters that armed struggle and peace talks could go side by side. ``Ceasefire cannot be made basis for dialogue.

War and dialogue can go side by side,`` he said. His remarks came after the group`s deputy commander, Moin-ul-Islam, said that the group would give up arms if India began a ``genuine`` peace process.

``Once India takes an initiative with good intentions, she will find us 10 steps ahead of her one step. We will at once give up guns and observe a real ceasefire so that a solution-finding path receives headway,`` Moin said in an article in the Greater Kashmir.

Hizb-ul-Mujahideen declared a ceasefire and started peace talks with India in mid-2000 but they broke down after New Delhi refused to include Pakistan in a three-way dialogue. Hashmi said his group was not averse to dialogue to end the insurgency. ``But the talks should be tripartite (including Pakistan) and open,`` he added. ``We had tested ceasefire but it proved a failure. It has been a bitter experience for us.``

``Let India bear in mind that unless a genuine peace process precedes, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and other United Jihad Council (UJC) constituents would remain wedded to armed struggle,`` Moin said.

``However, if today India begins a genuine process of settlement and peace, we will not wait till tomorrow, we will give up our defensive operation right now.`` The United Jihad Council is an alliance based in Pakistan of most of the militant groups fighting Indian forces in Kashmir and is headed by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.``

Better start digging

``Caste based discrimination is not so different from religion based discrimination in situations (such as in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) where an individual’s religion is in the vast majority of cases a function of descent rather than conviction. That’s also the similarity between caste/religion based discrimination and gender based discrimination. What an individual is born as affects their relative social worth, through no conscious action or decision of their own.``

I think this is a generally descriptive statement

- you do not wish to offer a judgement on these? If we don`t offer a judgement of these, these are issues of ethics, of a moral sense, can we shape them? rather, should we shape them? - If we don`t offer a judgement on these, won`t we be agreeing to continue the way these operate in society or in our lives?

And I think you are generalizing when you suggest that caste and gender discrimination do not, in an essential sense, differ. I agree that the case that Caste and gender discrimination effect the lot of men and women - but I am unconvinced that while this similarity exist, it means that they are the same or esentially the same. I do take your point about discrimination of women between each other, as different class or professional groups - but neither of these has a religious component nor does it have any implications for the concept of redemption - nor it does any implications for the notion of basic equality of persons - any chance you could also comment on the moral or judgement that, in my opinion, your statement does not deal with - and I do think that we cannot move further on the issue, if we do not make a judgement about it - if it`s good, why change it - if it`s bad, how does it operate, how can it be countered?

On Quoting the ``Declartion`` instaed of ``Constitution`` - you might have missed it, but I do agree that I was quoting ``Declaration`` and not ``constitution``.

Reply Hobbyty # 361

[``Given the current situation of women in most of the world (and in all Muslim majority countries) that is debatable. Why else do women face gender based discrimination if not for the fact that they are born female?``

This statement does not help us understand caste any better]

Obviously. The statement is about discrimination against women. Point???

“ for instance women do not face discrimination from other women –“

Of course they do. Rich woman: poor woman. Native born:immigrant. English speaker:non-English speaker, majority religion:minority religion, white:black, married:unmarried, with children:childless and (this is where you smile) upper caste:lower caste.

The question is, does the nature of this discrimination fundamentally differ from situation to situation? In real, as opposed to theoretical, terms? I don’t think so. If you think it does, let me know why. (Remember, in real terms, NOT theory.)

Limiting our discussion of discrimination to that based on caste in traditionalist Hindu society seems to be pointless. These discussions only take on any meaning if we can discern the common pattern of events being played out in different situations – that’s where the insights can be found. Otherwise, why would one bother?

For example, I find it tedious and trite when Indians focus their comments on Honour Killings in Pakistan without seeing the connection of the underlying pattern with Dowry Deaths in India. Whereas if we can see the connection to our own lives/countries/societies we might actually have something valuable to say (ie not trite and tedious), and gain some insights into things which we can actually affect. Sahih?

Caste based discrimination is not so different from religion based discrimination in situations (such as in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) where an individual’s religion is in the vast majority of cases a function of descent rather than conviction. That’s also the similarity between caste/religion based discrimination and gender based discrimination. What an individual is born as affects their relative social worth, through no conscious action or decision of their own.

Zafar

PS Agree to disagree with you re: chuch and state sep. I still think you quoted the Declaration of Independence instead of the Constitution, but jaane do.

alphanell

I came across this editorial from the ``Daily Times`` - help me understand why ``federalist`` parties not popular and why regional or provincial parties, are? - And what does this mean for caste as a political variable?



``More trouble ahead in India

The result of the vote in India’s Lok Sabha where the governing coalition of Mr A B Vajpayee defeated a motion to censure the government for its abysmal handling of the pogrom in Gujarat should surprise no one. Even the fact that the BJP government won the vote with a sizeable margin — 276-182 with eight abstentions — should have been expected. Why?

Two main strands need to be identified here. The first relates to the nature of politicking in India; the second pertains to the evolving nature of the Indian polity. Let us consider both. Since the early eighties, India has been steadily moving away from the context of federalist parties with an all-India outreach to regional political groupings and state parties. This movement has corresponded with the decline in the political fortunes of the Indira Congress. It has also given rise to a plethora of parochial political interests. The Bharatya Janata Party (BJP) did move into the political space vacated by Congress(I) but that development had little to do with its offering of a superior all-India, cohesive political ideology. The BJP’s appeal was simply a reaction to the voters’ growing apathy towards Congress and to the BJP’s communal agenda, though within the political, social dynamics it was difficult to view these two separately and distinctly. In the later phase, especially since 1998, the BJP has been losing its ‘federalist’ sheen without being able to retain power in certain states. Yet that development may strictly be seen in terms of its loss to parochial political interests rather than in terms of any ‘defeat’ for its communal agenda.

This is where the evolving nature of Indian polity comes in. The secularists in India correctly assessed that secularism, the separation of religion from politics, is not an option that can either be exercised or rejected but an absolute necessity. This means that the Indian polity could face fearsome consequences were it to operate on any basis other than secularism. Yet the BJP’s agenda flies in the face of this truism. It is interesting to note here that the BJP, with Mr Vajpayee at its head, has always had a difficult dialectical relationship with the far-right Hindutva parties and groups that are subsumed under the rubric of Sangh Parivar. But the difficulty did not pertain to any ideological differences. Far from it. It related to the BJP’s political imperative of sugar-coating the saffronisation of India and presenting it as an Indian rather than as a Hindutva creed, one on which rested the entire edifice of Indian nationalism. For a time it even succeeded in selling this concept and in the process gathered in its camp Christians, Sikhs and even Muslims. The minorities even thought that states under BJP rule would generally witness a sharp drop in communal violence, a belief that lies shredded and bloodied in Gujarat like the corpses left behind by the pogrom. But this basic contradiction was bound to come to the fore and it has. The Sangh Privar represents the purity of the Hindutva discourse. No attempt by Mr Vajpayee can dilute that discourse or hide the dark reality of it.

The fact that the Gujarat pogrom was perpetrated and is being perpetuated with active connivance of the state government as well as the union government — the latter for not having exercised its authority under article 355 — proves beyond doubt that a combination of rascally politics and Hindutva ideology will ultimately result in the kind of tragedy witnessed by Gujarat. But why has the BJP government survived the vote?

At one level the event relates to the downside of democracy, especially when it is reduced to a game of numbers within a complex political configuration where most players’ first instinct is to survive. Related to this is the fact that even as the BJP’s fortunes have declined, there has been no corresponding rise in the stock of Congress, the only other party which originally had an all-India outreach. Additionally, while some of the BJP’s political partners may not agree with the NDA government’s handling of Gujarat, neither do they want the government to fall because that would mean losing their spoils and perks in addition to preparing for another election. And no one wants another election, including perhaps the opposition. Even though the motion was not a no-confidence vote and could not have resulted in the fall of the BJP government, if passed it could have been a major setback, possibly triggering a process that might have led to the government’s fall.

As things stand, it is clear that the Indian democracy has shown its flipside, not just in terms of the vote but also in terms of the majoritarian consensus that increasingly seems to run along communal lines. True, there has been much protest, but equally true is the fact that it has not resulted in a real headache for the BJP and its allies, frayed though that alliance may be today. In a country that is a congeries of ethnic, sectarian and communal groups, the primacy of one ideology couched as democratic majoritarianism can only breed more trouble.``

Bong Dong

No I can`t quote from the article ``Super 7 in Pakistani Marks`` - I tried to find additional stuff on emeralddesign and on kanwa - but no help there either.

hobbyty

``You did not read any of the material in ``Air Forces Monthly`` about FC1/Super7 - if you had you would have realized that the aircarft is being flight test ``

I find no refernce in that article that says its being flight tested, can you quote?

AlephNull

``As for the J-10, it uses the Russian Lyulka AL-31 engine (also used in the Su-27/Su-30 family of aircraft). The Chinese have not been granted a license to build it, let alone pass it along in aircraft destined for the PAF``

Well, there are some reports of a Chinese development of two new engines (i dont know how credible), the WS-10 is a low bypass turbofan (probably for the J-10) and WP-12(?), a pure turbo (probably for the FC-1).

So it is possible that the Chinese probably intend to manufacture the first batch of J-10`s with the AL-31F (given the 50 engines they have ordered) while pursuing the WS-10.

So maybe sometime in the distant future we may see a Pak J-10.

re: AlephNull # 350

A great post. A couple of thoughts:

There are only two explanations for the kind of decisions Pakistani army has repeatedly made: an institutional incapacity to analyze facts objectively and think long-term, and a deliberate policy of bluff and blackmail using feigned (a better term than ``clamimed``) madness. My casual obervation suggests that both processes operate.

There is plenty of evidence (other that what postings of romair and hobbyty - two admirers of the military - provide in ample measure) for the former. In all of Indo-Pak wars and skirmishes the Pakistani military badly underestimated Indian military`s willingness to hit back. Although this is a theory that I can back up only with some research, I have a feeling that there exists an institutionalized racist/culturist mindset within Pakistani military that views Indians to be incapable of matching their fair ``martial races`` in war. Pakistani army, it seems to me, sometimes begins to believe its own propaganda, propaganda it has to prepare for the healthy consumption of Pakistani people over whom it rules.

With a racist mindset like that, it is difficult to know whether one behaves irrationally because one is truly irrational or feigns irrationality as a bargaining chip. However, Pakistani army (or the government) has long followed the state policy of deniability in both Kashmir and Kabul - a tactic I am sure you are well familiar with. That suggests to me at least SOME attempt at a ``rational`` a cloak and dagger policy not born entirely out of stupidity. I was not old enough to analyze the actions of Zia when he was in charge, but Musharraf does appear to have a penchant for puerile theatrics and kargil-like operations designed to gain him some short-term advantages. Nowhere has his game been more apparent than in his dealings and misdealings with the religious right in his country (although IMO he may be losing his touch there).

Musharraf is, what I call, a secular jehadi. That is, he does not really like religious extremists at all as far as Pakistan is concerned. But he recognizes the enormous power religion can excercise in whipping up popular anger, funnelling money, organizing street protests, and accumulating cannon fodder for his Kashmir war. He very well knows how fundamentally his keeping safe of those 20 terrorists asked for by India is for his continued operations in India. Notice also how caliberated were the protests by religious parties against the US intervention in Afghanistan. Just enough for Pakistan-based American journalists to file reports about the threat they posed to the stability of Musharraf`s hold on power.

Thus what I seem to see is a history of both institutionalized incapacity for rational analysis as well as cloak-and-dagger, too-smart-by-half operations that then invariably come back to haunt Pakistani people (not the military, which awards itself two extra stars everytime).

AlphaNull # 355

``As far as I`m concerned, armed foreign insurgents found in Indian Kashmir by India`s forces are entitled to a plot of land measuring six feet by two, six feet underground; nothing less, nothing more.``

I do hope they are buried all stacked up under ONE plot of land measuring six feet by two feet. We can`t waste too much precious land burying animals.

Alphanell

You did not read any of the material in ``Air Forces Monthly`` about FC1/Super7 - if you had you would have realized that the aircarft is being flight test - and further you would have noted that variants are being developed to target particular export markets.

On whether or not F7PG are an enhancement - Again, Pick up ``Air Forces Monthly`` magazine - June issue will have a special section dealing with the introduction of this aircraft - The May issue of the magazine, also provides coverage of the introduction of F7PG and retirement of F6.

The introduction of F7PG and squadron formation will not take two years, recall we are talking about the PAF not the IASF - One squadron has been formed and by the end of June both squadrons will be operational - why so fast? PAF already operate a variant. By the way if if are interested this month`s issue has a write up of training in the IASF. Also you may be interested to note that PAF instrucutors have arrived in Sri Lanka to train the Lankan Air force - Once the FC1 is ready, I think Pakistan will offer Lanka and Bangladesh the opportunity to participate in training and operation. Pakistan navy have held exercises with Bangla navy and joint Air and naval exercises should be the order of the day in the near future - ceratinly it would mark the beginning of a historic reconciliation.

On a comparison of SU30MK and F7PG - these are very different aircraft used in very different roles. The Flanker variant IASF will use is a high superiority and attack role - the avionic suite IASF intend for their aircraft is also a highly capable suite - F7PG cannot boast the avionic suite of the Indian Flanker - however; whereas the Indian flanker as a threat is a few years away - the F7PG is here and now and in this way it`s introduction is an enhancement. By the time Indian flanker will be ready in force, PAF pilots will have trained against it by studying the Chinese variants envelope.

Re Kashmir, your post was interesting for the ommissions you chose - the captive kashmiri, as far as you are concerned, seems not to exist, yo are of course welcome to such a point of view. A more realistic evaluation would have to conclude that where there is smoke there is fire. But time will tell if the struggle of the captive kashmiri will exist or not - If present atmosphere mitigates against the promotion of the freedom struggle - is it conscieveable that this atmposphere will change again and if it turns out that the struggle of captive kashmiri does get a sympathetic hearing the court of international opinion, or in the councils of international powers - what then? Perhaps a process of a negotiated settelement ought to be promoted.

A seat on the UNSC will be available for a delegate from Asia, for the coming session - do you think the UNSC can facilitate a process of negotiation bewteen the three parties?

Dost Mittar, anybody else interested

Proof? as in ``documented``? maybe this will help:

``India: Gujarat Officials Took Part in Anti-Muslim Violence

New Report Documents Complicity of the State Government ``

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/gujarat.htm

Dost, make sure you go through the picture gallery as well.

Alphanell

Many Interesting posts - I found the article about caste interesting as well - What conclusions did you draw from the article? for instance

``Indeed, the otherwise infamous Bihar was the first northern state to illustrate a longstanding southern ``political law``: the higher the intensity of lower-caste politics, the lesser the likelihood of Hindu-Muslim violence. This inverse relationship between caste and communal politics has been true of Tamil Nadu and Kerala for many decades. Kerala is especially significant as Muslims have constituted over 20 per cent of its population for a long time. Due to the clout of their principal party, the Muslim League, Muslims have received many concessions. Yet there has been virtually no Hindu-Muslim rioting in the state. The Malayalis do not generally associate the Muslim League with communally provocative politics, only with community-based politics.``

What is/are ``lower caste politics``? Is the answer of the rest of the Muslims in India to be a vote block for the Muslim League and in this way, win ``concessions`` for themselves? Do the observations made in a particular state or region, apply nationally? Is there really such a strong degree of similarities of issues in these states? if yes, why are provicial or regional parties as strong as they are - for instance, I would have that if there were such a strong number of similaritiesof issues and electorate, national parties would be dominant and coalition politics, diminshed?

``This inverse relationship suggests another important conclusion. As the significance of lower-caste politics continues to rise in Uttar Pradesh, the state`s historical proneness to communal riots should decline. It will, of course, not be entirely eliminated for some time, but will progressively go down.``

So whatever this ``lower caste politics`` is - it is a general good as for as defeating communalism is concerned - Why? how does this ``lower caste politics`` attenuate communalism?

``Hindu-Muslim violence is primarily urban and locally concentrated. The problem of communalism is much wider than the incidence of communal riots. Thankfully, violence never has a statewide or a nationwide spread. State or national politics simply provide the spark that may touch off or exacerbate rioting, but it is the local-level relationships that the Hindus and Muslims have developed that either deflect that spark or allow it to start a conflagration.``

Amazing! on one level, this scholar concludes that ``lower caste politics`` is intensifying and as it intensifies, incidence of violence decreases - and then genralizes that state or national politics sets off riots. Seems to me this scholar is ensuring that the results of observations, confirm theory - lower caste politics ``good`` - but maybe I`m looking at this wrong - is caste more intensely experienced by those among the upper or lower caste? Is caste not part of a religiosity among the lower caste? can you help me understand this? Also, would I be mistaken if I concluded that the author of the article is usually associated with politics of the left?

Zafar Al-Talib

Zafara

``Given the current situation of women in most of the world (and in all Muslim majority countries) that is debatable. Why else do women face gender based discrimination if not for the fact that they are born female?``

This statement does not help us understand caste any better- for instance women do not face discrimination from other women - whereas in caste they would - Do you think it is the word discrimnation itself that may be problem here? for instance, if we formulate a more precise sentence, to include the fact that caste system is feature unique to Hinduism, that it removes the possibility of social mobility or earthly redemption, I`m also having troubling with the equating of the idea of born to serve others who are born to be served and discrimination against women - any ideas? Give me something that is both factual and allows us to distinguish between the way caste operates and discrimination against women operates - or is it that you really do not see any difference? How should one think of or make sense of caste?

“The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.”

From the website: http://www.usconstitution.net/

``The text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Zafar, do note - no language here such as ``separation of church and state`` instead no official religion and freedom of religion - not in this document, the ``sentiment`` of ``freedom from religion``

``Now WHY would the Constitution address this unless it was to forstall any conflict between the Government and religious groups (like those, for example, in Europe during the Wars of Religion)?``

I will ask a favor, an indulgence - look into the history of the Puritan movement in England and US and the relationship between the movement and the state - recall that the English Monarch was/is also the head of Anglican Church.

Now, I will grant you that the question and justification you offer are reasonable, valid - however; after your inquiry, you will see that the sensibility that informs both the question you pose and it`s justification you offer, can into public discourse much later.

``Point being that upholding freedom of conscience is not only a moral issue, it

contributes to political stability by removing religious observance from the purview of Government, (and also limits the direct influence of unelected religious leaders in Government).``

Again, please look into the history, you will see that the framers held a deep distrust of all government, even as they sought to build a strong government - I `m paraphrasing ``Are we angels that we shall concieve of a perfect form of government`` - you will see this realization was held by the framers. Also you make a most interesting point about ``moral issue`` - and this issue is related both to the distrust of government and the freedon of religion/conscience.

``If the Puritans were interested in freedom of conscience for everybody, even those who disagreed with them, can you tell me why they did not allow (just for example) Catholics or Quakers to settle in their colony (Massachussets)? And who was running the Salem Witch Trials, btw, in which many “nonconformist” Christians were burned for “witchcraft”? The Church or the Government? Or was there some overlap there? (As far as I know this happened before the American Revolution.)``

I think it`s very narrow to want to judge the puritan movement and the two great religious revolutions or revicals it brought to the US and it`s political and social impact by Witch trials of Salem. Think what ``freedom`` in freedom of religion means. The trails, if I am not mistaken preceded the declaration and constitution by more than a hundred years. In my opinion, understanding US society is facilitated by studing and understanding the ideas and impact of the Puritan movement.

Exactly right, and no offense taken, that the document with regard to ``indictment`` is the declaration and not the constitution. Do you make a similar connection with regard to natural law as God`s law and rightsof man as part of natural rights and therefore ``God given rights``? - Do you see the connection Soroush is making when he is taking about ``Freedom`` and ``human rights`` as part of Shariah?

“Even in the discourse of it`s time it was recognized that in the US it was the ``freedom of religion`` as opposed to Europe`s ``Freedom from religion.`` it` s worth examining and I encourage you to do so.”

``The one obviates the other, while without one the other remains a potential source of trouble.``

The freedom of religion obviates freedom from religion? -have I understood you correctly? - very interesting idea. A yin/Yang or balance of sorts? on the other hand consider just for a moment, consider, if you have taken into account the notion of ``freedom`` in the freedom of religion - it`s not an official religion - at the time of these ideas blossom and sadly in many places still, the notion of ``freedom`` itself was (IS) revolutionary - freedomof religion is about the plurality of salvation whereas a very different sensibility informs freedom from religion - or is it that freedom from religion should be seen as a Rousseau- ist? idea - already the beginning of a dialogue seeing material or earthly salvation - a pluralism of material or earthly salvation?

Reply Hobbyty # 348

“…Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins – “

I’m sure that Farzana and Nasah will join me in expressing disbelief, amazement and shock at how you saw through our cunning disguises.

Will you give us a hint?

(Hey you all, next time let’s pretend to be Parsis. Phir dekhenge kaun sherelockgiri karega. Bags I Cyrus, Nasah you are Jungoo, and sorry Farzana, but you have to be Hutoxi. We can the be the Katrak Cousins – sab Catering karechh! - Theek chey, no? Eedoo joyechh anybody? Oops, sorry Binifer…ok, we’ll think of something else...)

Hobbyty # 341

Hobbyty, I think you are quite wrong on several points in this post and Zafar is right in # 338. You write:

{``The separation of church and state was adopted in the Constitution to avoid the troubles experienced in Europe because of the overlap between spritual and temporal authorities.``

This is an entirely misinformed statement. The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.}

The first place I would point to is the Bill of Rights (admittedly not a part of the original 1787 constitution, but practically inseparable because of its early adoption in 1789); and specifically, to the First Amendment, namely:

``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.``

Banning an established state religion while permitting the free exercise of religion seems to me the essence of separation of church and state. What more do you want? Free exercise of course includes the freedom to not exercise, to reject all religions, if that is your preference.

You continue:

{You will note that the US constitution reads like an indictment - it is an indictment - ``And he has, And he has`` - each an indictment against the King of his violation of natural law, among which is the notion of the natural rights of man, as bestowed by God -}

I regret to have to inform you that you are referring to the US Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. The Declaration was of course penned by Thomas Jefferson, who was at best a deist (as was John Adams), not a theist, let alone a conventional religious believer.

And finally it is the absolute pinnacle of absurdity to describe the Puritan movement as `informing` the freedom of religion, except in the negative sense, as a dreadful example of what to avoid at all costs. The Puritans left England not to establish `freedom of conscience` but to establish a homogeneous community where they could thrust their own odious brand of narrow doctrinaire religious orthodoxy down everybody`s throats. They found easygoing secular Holland much too lax and tolerant of other religious persuasions for their own bigoted tastes. Once ensconced in Massachusetts, they decreed compulsory church attendance, forbade card-playing, made adultery punishable with death, and so on. Sure enough, they generated a steady stream of refugees from their religious persecutions, including dissident Puritans (one of these was Roger Williams, who established a settlement in Rhode Island, genuinely devoted to freedom of worship). In every way they seem like a seventeenth-century version of the Taliban. Several famous east-coast universities have their origins as theological seminaries for Congregationalist orthodoxy, i.e. New World equivalents of the Haqqania madarsa. `Freedom of conscience`, my foot!

Hobbyty, anyone else who might be interested:

Here is a link to an interesting article ``Lumpen Logistics`` by Ashutosh Varshney - someone of impeccable scholarly credentials who -going by his writings - has absolutely no sympathy for communally divisive politics.

http://www.umich.edu/

Hobbyty # 338

{If you would like more information on F7/FC1, please refer to ``Air Forces Monthly`` - April 2002 issue 169 - apparently trials are being run evaluate the matching of the performance of SD-10 BVR missile with the Grifo radar. additionally J10 trials continue and Pakistan is also the primary export market for that aircraft as well.}

Tell me more about the FC-1 when it actually takes to the air. When is it first supposed to do that - June 2003? Still in time for the PAF to acquire theirs in 2-3 years, as you wishfully informed us in January 2002? As for the J-10, it uses the Russian Lyulka AL-31 engine (also used in the Su-27/Su-30 family of aircraft). The Chinese have not been granted a license to build it, let alone pass it along in aircraft destined for the PAF. India, with tens of billions of dollars of business with the Russian defence industry, is going to have veto power over any such proposal. The indigenous Chinese alternative engine is still vapourware at this point.

{Pakistan Airforce has retired F6 aircraft, even as indian forces posture on it`s border (this itself is a reflection of how intimidated Pakistani forces feel) and have introduced F7PG airacrft - in effect it has increaed the size of it`s Air Force, enhanced it`s interceptor and attack capability, and enhanced it`s ground support capablity as well (the ``retired`` F6).}

So you expect the acquisition of 4 dozen F-7PGs to dramatically shift the balance? Take a look at the link below, from April 1998`s Pakistan Defence Journal:

http://www.defencejournal.com/april98/security&defence1.htm

Here you have Air Marshal Ayaz Ahmed Khan fretting that:

``During the last ten years India has invested heavily in air power, and today IAF`s high technology combat and strike capability is more than seven times that of the PAF. The numerical imbalance is three to one.``

And there are oodles of other articles by PAF types plaintively wailing that the yawning combat aircraft gap with the IAF, if not addressed pronto, threatens to become insurmountable.

The net change during the last four years has not improved things much if at all for the PAF. What they`ve done is replace a few dozen ancient F-6s - Chinese knockoffs of the 50`s vintage MiG-19 - with a similar number of F-7PGs - nth generation Chinese copies of an early model MiG-21. They`ve also upgraded the avionics on the Mirage-IIIs/Vs and bought retired Mirages from the Australians and others to cannibalise for spares. Does this indeed represent a quantum jump in the PAF`s capabilities that would intimidate the Indians? Do you realise that the F-7PG acquisition is a stopgap forced by the failure of the FC-1 to materialise? If the F-7PG indeed offers substantial new capabilities, it will take a while - typically a couple of years - for the F-7PG squadrons to be fully operational and integrated into the PAF`s doctrine (at which time India should have 20-30 Su-30 MKIs in hand). I don`t think the F-7PG improves the PAF`s situation much, especially not immediately.

Reply Hobbyty # 341

“Caste discriminates regardless of sex…”

As do nationality, wealth, class, race, religion…

And gender (as opposed to sex) discriminates regardless of all of these.

“In comparing biologically based caste discrimination of Zaat/Jaat we are arguing that some are born in to a particular and unequal station in life that their purpose is to serve those born into a higher station - whereas with discrimination against women we are not positing that they are born into an unequal station or that they must serve others born into a higher station”

Given the current situation of women in most of the world (and in all Muslim majority countries) that is debatable. Why else do women face gender based discrimination if not for the fact that they are born female?

And of course a refusal to discuss the inequality of Muslim women and Muslim men does not mean that you cannot discuss caste based inequality in India.

“The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.”

From the website: http://www.usconstitution.net/

The text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It seems to say that the Government (as per Congressional laws) cannot promote or discriminate against a religion. Now WHY would the Constitution address this unless it was to forstall any conflict between the Government and religious groups (like those, for example, in Europe during the Wars of Religion)? Point being that upholding freedom of conscience is not only a moral issue, it contributes to political stability by removing religious observance from the purview of Government, (and also limits the direct influence of unelected religious leaders in Government).

“As a matter of fact, their position was to ensure the freedom of religion and was informed both by the Puritan movement and the experience in England. The provison that there will be no state religion, is a nod to the notion of freedom of conscience.”

If the Puritans were interested in freedom of conscience for everybody, even those who disagreed with them, can you tell me why they did not allow (just for example) Catholics or Quakers to settle in their colony (Massachussets)? And who was running the Salem Witch Trials, btw, in which many “nonconformist” Christians were burned for “witchcraft”? The Church or the Government? Or was there some overlap there? (As far as I know this happened before the American Revolution.)

“Also you may wish to reconsider your statement to the effect, that Protestantism and within it, the Puritan movement was not the most significant religious and intellectual movement informing the US constitution.”

The Protestant tradition is STILL the most important religious influence in American culture today. (Apologies to NoI and Rev Drumz.) But the fact that it is not the only such influence (and that the Protestant tradition itself is made up of several self-differentiated strands) makes the separation of church and state as relevant and necessary today as it ever was.

“You will note that the US constitution reads like an indictment - it is an indictment - ``And he has, And he has`` - each an indictment against the King of his violation of natural law, among which is the notion of the natural rights of man, as bestowed by God”

Um….I think you are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence…(no offence intended)

“Even in the discourse of it`s time it was recognized that in the US it was the ``freedom of religion`` as opposed to Europe`s ``Freedom from religion.`` it` s worth examining and I encourage you to do so.”

The one obviates the other, while without one the other remains a potential source of trouble.

Regards

Hobbyty # 338

{Sorry - a point I wanted to address - ``cowardly`` support of the Taliban - The decison to support the Taliban as long and in the manner it did, certainly was not a smart move - but given the environment and choices available - Pakistan should have exerted a stronger pressure on the Taliban to move from being a movement based in the Pashtun ethnic group to a more broad, multi-ethnic government. It should have promoted administrative control and cooperation with the US and China. So, I can`t find merit in your characterization of Pakistani efforts in Afghanistan.}

I find your response above unsatisfactory. Pakistan did not merely `support` the Taliban. Pakistani agencies practically created it, `educated` its leadership, armed and provisioned it, stiffened its military operations against the Northern Alliance, had their own personnel fight side-by-side with the Taliban troops, all the way to the bitter end in Kunduz - and tried in short to create a pliant satrapy in Afghanistan. I see in your talk of `administrative control and cooperation with the US and China` the same lack of concern for what the people of Afghanistan - as opposed to a minority of extremists propped up by outsiders - might want to do with their country. OK, perhaps it was not `cowardly`, it was an amoral exercise of state power in support of perceived interests that came badly unstuck. As was the Pakistani army crackdown in East Pakistan on the majority of Pakistan`s own citizens.

{A more apt characterization of cowardly is the behaviour of Pakistani forces against persons who were Pakistani citizens in Bangladesh and the behaviour of Indian forces in Captive Kashmir against persons whom the Indian government describes as Indian citizens. Won`t you agree?}

As far as I`m concerned, armed foreign insurgents found in Indian Kashmir by India`s forces are entitled to a plot of land measuring six feet by two, six feet underground; nothing less, nothing more. I fully support the operations of Indian forces against them. Those Indian citizens - misled or otherwise - who have taken up arms against the state, will have to be satisfied with whatever leniency they can get from the Indian forces. Innocent and law-abiding people should absolutely not be hurt although that often is the regrettable outcome of frequent deliberate tactics by terrorists and occasional heavy-handedness by security forces.

Hobbyty # 338

{If there are person among Indians on Chowk who see merit in the caste system of India or that it has relevance to life today, please educate us. For those Indians who agree that caste serves to distribute inequality, brutality and violence in Indian society - do we not owe it to each other to discuss it openly? I will say it again, ther is no reason to feel that a stick is being used against India - none of the indians on Chowk is the entirety of India and I am confused by the refusal to engage. If you or other Indians think caste does not serve to distribute inequality, that such brutal inequality in turn leads to persons externalizing the brutality they experience and that this may help us to understand the events of Gujrat - Please, explain.}

What do you want me to do - provide you with a straw man by pronouncing myself a hidebound reactionary who insists that `lower` castes be kept firmly in their appointed place? Claim that caste today is anything but a vestigial social organ with nuisance value? I dont think you have any appreciation for the variety of ways in which caste might traditionally have operated in different parts of India, or the difference between secular and religious status, or the extent and rapidity of social change in all strata of Indian society today.

I have observed you - unsuccessfully, IMO - attempt for a while to connect the bloody reprisals against innocent Muslims in Gujarat, and the climate that made this possible, with caste. I have tried my best to see how such a case can be made, and come up empty-handed. If anything, caste seems to be complementary to the current Gujarat mess. It was my impression that significant Muslim minorities in states where caste polarisation is significant, often strike deals with one or other caste-aligned grouping in order to get their share of the spoils. For instance, this has probably been the usual case in Bihar, which has seen probably the worst and most chronic caste violence in recent years - massacres perpetrated by the Ranvir Sena and Dalit Sena on each others` groups - but not much recent communal violence. Are you suggesting that caste groupings in Gujarat - `lower`, `backward` whatever - have externalised their supposed rage against the inequities decreed by caste, and the way it has allegedly brutalised them, and turned this rage against Muslims? Or contrariwise do you claim that `upper` caste groups have funneled their supposed resentment at being denied the privileges traditionally decreed by caste, against Muslims? Can you describe in greater detail the mechanisms - political, social, psychological, whatever - that you posit to explain this phenomenon? Do you have any evidence at all in support of your contentions?

Hobbyty # 338

{reasonable persons will agree, India`s internal problems cannot be attenuated by focusing attention to the creation of external problems. Caste, the inequality and brutality it distributes in Indian society must be tackled by all persons of conscience. I am sure you condemn the odious caste system of India - but it is not enough to merely condemn it - the only way to defeat the evil of India`s caste sytem is to discuss it honestly, to shine the light of reason on the manner in which caste functions to justify biologically and religious ordained inequality - Indians are capable of doing of this, but some how Indians on Chowk, think that democracy and secularism require a sensiblity of denial and defensive group think, instead of the free exercise of conscience, free and honest discussion.}

There you go again. Isolated from any context, your first sentence is a truism. I agree that external and internal problems ought to be dealt with separately, and that on no account should they be allowed to become intertwined, as Pakistan has foolishly managed to do by making their dispute with India over Kashmir a key part of national self-image and subject of perennial public discourse.

I flatly disagree with the implicit premise of your remarks, namely that India has `created` an external problem, with Pakistan, particularly with regard to Kashmir and the massive army deployment, to distract attention from internal problems, such as religious strife and polarisation, instead of attenuating them. The two problems have quite separate dynamics and have so far not been strongly coupled. It is this kind of disconnect from reality (I hope it is not intentional intellectual dishonesty) that has earned you such an unenviable reputation with Indian interactors. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, and you are in all sincerity projecting your knowledge of the experience of Pakistan [where Kashmir, a territorial dispute, has been kept alive by Pakistani armed intervention, intentionally injected into the national consciousness, and the Hindu is demonised in school textbooks and public discourse, thereby creating external problems and enemies to keep the public terrorised and docile under the army jackboot] onto India, in an unsuccessful attempt to understand the Indian domestic scene. The first thing you need to understand is that Pakistan and even more so Kashmir have for the longest time not been a subject of obsessive public concern in India at large, in the way that India and Kashmir are in Pakistan.

India`s problem with Pakistan has its roots in Pakistani irredentism in Kashmir, and even more so in the Pakistani establishment`s radical discontent with the lopsided current - and natural - distribution of power in the subcontinent. It has been driven by Pakistani armed support for insurgency, with the aim of bleeding India at low cost to itself. There are no causal arrows pointing from Babri Masjid/RJB in 1992 or 2002, or Godhra, or the Ahmedabad riots, to the ongoing low-intensity war in Kashmir or the current standoff with Pakistan. The degree of causation in the other direction is debatable. It is at best an open question whether Pakistani agencies had any hand in the Godhra incident, though they did in Bombay in January 1993; they certainly didn`t orchestrate the fallout in Ahmedabad. And while the NDA government, being politicians, would definitely have considered how the deployment would play with the public, they most certainly did not order it for that reason.

Hobbyty #338

{Seems some Indians on Chowk want to discuss anything and everything under the sky as long as it is not the inequality, brutality and violence of Hindu caste system - so let me afford a measure of escape from the reality you find so oppressive you would rather engage in threats of imposing war upon neighbors.}

I gather that you are itching for another ride on your favourite hobbyty-horse, namely caste. Don`t let me stop you, go right ahead, indulge yourself. Oh wait, I see that you`re already off at a gallop again. See a subsequent response below.

{I think Mr. Musharraf, now with a confident 5 more years, will extract a price for allowing Indian forces to withdraw. This price will include a commitment from India to proceed along the lines of a negotiated settlement in captive Kashmir, not an immediate solution, but a process of negotiation, this process will alter those aspects of the freedom struggle that international opinion finds objectionable, that is one in which armed action lead the political dimension, to it`s reverse. I think, Mr. Musharraf will definitely tone down a Pakistani role in the freedom struggle of the captive Kashmiri, but this struggle itself is about to undergo a significant change. While Mr. Musharraf will wait for the monsoon season to cause greater hardship on Indian infantry and armour strike formations - his relationship with the US - based on the Pakistan armed forces and Foreign minstry`s view that the Americans are in Central Asia to stay, that Central Asia will be a substitute for the energy reserves of the Middle East and the economic vision that in order to secure this strategic vision, the US will not want to see another issue - like the Palestine-Israel issue in the middle East, remain festering in Captive Kashmir, and realization that support for militant religious obscuritanist has ceased to pay dividends - continues to afford him latitude and leverage.}

I fear you`re making a virtue out of Musharraf`s dire necessity. Shorn of the euphemisms, you appear to be saying that General Musharraf - fresh from a glorious victory in a farcically rigged `general` election - will plead with the Indians for a face-saving formula for himself and his army. This will presumably enable him to disengage from the armed ``freedom struggle`` in ``captive Kashmir`` without appearing to have capitulated and gotten nothing at all for Pakistan out of all those lost years mortgaged to the sacred Kashmir cause. Sounds like an ambitious plan to me; I`m not sure how he intends to sell it, either domestically or with India. The Indians are certainly not going to gift Pakistan any land that Pakistan doesn`t already control - they may at best agree to LOC=IB, perhaps with minor local realignments for defense purposes, which was on offer from Simla onwards. Even so, it is going to be patently obvious to Pakistanis that their `bloved army` folded after all those years of huffing and puffing and chest-thumping talk, and the Indians could rub it in with taunts from Advani and his ilk. Nor is it clear why Indians should commit to a `negotiated settlement` that includes any role or voice for Pakistan - as opposed to a settlement with elected or electable local J&K politicians, on the lines of Punjab, Assam or a host of other Indian states, which has been the Indian government`s goal all along.

Cross-border terrorism by Pakistan-trained `freedom-fighters` was really Pakistan`s only leverage with India. India just raised the direct costs to Pakistan of the `low-cost option` a thousandfold with the massive deployment of the army. I feel it should be continued long enough - say through the end of the year, and with the imminent threat of future re-deployment - to impose on the Pakistan Army costs and pain severe enough to serve as a salutary lesson. That is the minimum needed to ensure their future good behaviour. It is a pity to have to use Pavlovian conditioning instead of sweet reason, but fools won`t learn any other way. And if it were up to me, I would go out of my way to deny the Pakistan Army and the usurping Great Dictator anything at all that they can display to the populace as a concession. That is the least that India owes to the people of Pakistan and to real democratic rule there.

As for the US - they have Musharraf by the short and curly; they may prefer him for now precisely because he can be pressured quite easily. Haven`t you noticed that they seem less than distraught about the Indian army deployment? Thay have no intention of giving any leverage or latitude to Musharraf and his strategic visionaries to pursue a Central Asian agenda not in line with US interests. Central Asian oil will remains a pipedream unless the US can ensure that all regional players - Russia, Iran, Turkey, India, China etc. - are placated and have their interests protected; otherwise any of them could play spoiler. A very long shot, if you ask me. And while the US might well prefer a Kashmir settlement, they will certainly not jeopardise their burgeoning relations with India by forcing terms not to the liking of the Indians.

{Additionally, while Indian thinking was/is that space exist for successfully enagaing in ``limited war``, several factors have changed. Pakistan Airforce has retired F6 aircraft, even as indian forces posture on it`s border (this itself is a reflection of how intimidated Pakistani forces feel) and have introduced F7PG airacrft - in effect it has increaed the size of it`s Air Force, enhanced it`s interceptor and attack capability, and enhanced it`s ground support capablity as well (the ``retired`` F6). .... So, while any threat and any mobilsation and deployement is expensive and punishes the resources available to the state, resources that could be better spent - and ceratinly Pakistan has a smaller economy and wants to avoid such a cost - the capability that existed on the Indian side is one that incurs diminishing returns - whereas the capablity on the Pakistani side has continued to improve.}

A most questionable conclusion - in the last three years it is India that has been going on a buying spree and upgrading militarily capabilities over and above substantial existing capabilities, to the point that they can inflict disproportionate losses. To mention the F-7PG as indicating comparative improvement in Pakistani relative capability is most risible. See the separate post about aircraft for more.

{Above all, Indian forces will not dare attack Pakistan, knowing, as the incident of an adventurous Indian general who moved strike forces closer to Pakistan border and when India was presented with evidence that it`s movements are being monitored by the Americans, was sent into oblivion - a message heard loud and clear among the sober. In the present situation, the Pakistani armed forces are deployed in a defensive mode and a minimum numerical superiority of 3 to 1 has to be employed by the attacker, in this case, India.}

Whether or not the Indians can successfully carry out offensive operations against Pakistan is not the immediate point. If it comes to a shooting war, it may anyway be far more cost-effective for India to damage infrastructure than grab territory. The point is that Pakistan will find the immediate costs of the buildup ruinous, that the economic climate will remain uncertain and deter foreign investment, and that as a consequence Pakistan`s economy will fall further behind India`s. Growing economic disparity will curtail your ability to compete militarily with the Indians or wield any clout internationally. It will put paid to all grandiose ambitions to go toe-to-toe with India and will sooner or later disastrously affect public morale. All this poses severe difficulties to a Pakistani regime committed to eternal strategic competition with India, never mind Musharraf`s `leverage` and `latitude`.

arjun_m # 330

{you should have read the Nation`s editorial last week. It was hilarious. They claimed that the deployment of paki forces was actually good for the economy.}

I didn`t see that edit in the Nation, though I did idly speculate along those lines. I suppose that the local service economy of otherwise god-forsaken areas where the Pakistan Army gets stationed may see a boost. For instance, the army probably buys meat and some other food items locally. But there has to be an overall negative direct effect of the mobilization on the economy of Pakistan, and the indirect economic effect of political uncertainty has to be factored in as well and may be even worse.

Prem #331

{For the last fifty years Pakistani army has consistently followed the strategy of ``claimed madness.`` The argument has been - we are irrational people, so allow yourself to be blackmailed by us, or else, you know, we are irrational, we will do anything.

This is also the strategy that romair has tried to use on Chowk. Ok, we are crazy people, but YOU must not be crazy.

Deliberately crazy people can only be dealt with in even crazier ways. Indians have figured that out. So, here we have, old outdated warriors totally out of their depths.}

Intentionally feigned irrationality has been advocated by others as well. Henry Kissinger is reported to have advocated that the US deliberately cultivate an image of violent unpredictability (he used the Yiddish word ``meshuggah``, crazy) to strike fear into potential adversaries. Apparently paradoxical behaviour of this nature seem to occur quite frequently in international relations when one attempts to use risky methods such as brinkmanship to reinforce ones credibility.

However, I`m not sure if this accurately describes the behaviour of the Pakistan Army in relation to India. It may very well have been a strategy used by the pre-Independence Muslim League to wrest ever-increasing concessions for themselves, that backfired when Nehru and Patel called their bluff in 1947. I believe that short-sighted opportunism - often without anticipating wider consequences, hence misjudged - is a better characterisation of the Pakistan Army`s typical behaviour than cold-blooded brinkmanship.

In my opinion, the 1947-1948 military action by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir ought to be viewed as opportunistic behaviour that met with considerable success, though not the total success that they wanted. Operation Gibraltar in 1965 seems to be miscalculated opportunism by Pakistan that failed and led to an unwanted wider war. 1971 was a completely different case - Pakistan attacked in desperation in the West a week or two after Indian forces had started full-fledged conventional operations in the East to liberate Bangladesh. Kargil 1999 was once again miscalculated opportunism by the Pakistan Army which backfired badly. The army acted quite rationally once India threatened to widen the conflict, even contriving to make Nawaz Sharif the scapegoat for defeat and withdrawal.

My speculation/hypothesis in this connection is that feigned irrationality if ever a viable strategy, is so only for democracies or at any rate regimes with institutionalised decision-making and a wide distribution of power and responsibility. Because of the distribution of power, the nature of a democratic regime itself is not threatened by a failure to get its way or by the costs of a lost conventional war (though some individuals may lose their jobs). A democracy`s actions when it takes them are seen as well-considered, hence likely to be followed through and and therefore credible. Dictators and juntas preside over far more brittle regimes and are far more vulnerable to the fallout of unsuccessful brinkmanship; are therefore less credible when they try brinkmanship because their adversaries know of their vulnerabilities. It may therefore be the case that dictatorships and regimes with ad hoc decision-making may try to get away with opportunistic moves but cannot credibly use brinkmanship.

I think that Ayub Khan`s military of 1965, egged on by Bhutto, attempting Operation Gibraltar; the Argentine junta`s 1982 attempt to seize the Falklands; and Saddam`s attempt to seize the Shatt-el-Arab from Iran and later to grab Kuwait, all fall under the heading of opportunistic moves by dictatorships that backfired. The one war that India unequivocally lost, against China in 1962, was characterized by ad hoc impromptu decision-making by Nehru and a severe disruption of proper civil-military relations, although within the larger backdrop of democracy. Kargil probably occurred, at least in part, because an inattentive Nawaz Sharif and civilian establishment was effectively kept out of the loop by the Pakistan Army, who failed to consider larger context and miscalculated grievously. I think that Musharraf in the future will continue to opportunistically seek tactical advantage - as in Kargil or Agra - but will try his best to avoid a wider conflict that will almost certainly unseat him and his cabal.

Dost Mittar

You make have the rudiments of Canadian history, especially the recent past - Were you to examine the Puritan movement, from England to the original colonies - you would note that preceding and following the declaration of independence, many ``tory`` left the US for Canada - Remember, the fact that the recent past you cite is not what I was referring to - I had a much earlier history - coterminus with US history prior to the declartion of indepencdence and immediately after it in mind. Please do make an effort to study to study this and you have arrive at a different conclusion than you have.

Arjunm

India will ``talk and talk`` - This would be a hopeful development and I look forward to it. Indians on Chowk may even get around to talking about caste - Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins - are you a Brahmin as well? Do you think caste has a relationship with the brutality and violence in Gujrat? Do you think it`s possible for the kind of pogroms in Gujrat to spread to other areas in India?

Rsaxsena

Alphanell has pointed out and editor Najam Sethi agrees that the change of policy - support for militant obscuritanism - should be carried to it`s logical conclusion - that is support for a negotiated settlement in Captive Kashmir. Clearly this makes sense and most all, on both sides of the border support this - however; soverign nations do not behave as persons, they balance multiple interests and attempt to ensure long term stability, they even introduce calibrated measures, designed to obviate the desirability of stability and normal relations.With this in mind, it`s only realistic and is percieved as responsibile, to extract from India a price to allow it to withdraw - in Kargil, it was forces supported by Pakistan or as charged, Pakistani forces themselves, that had to withdraw, as they were initiators in the perception of the world - in the present scenario - Indians are threatening nuclear war and they must be made and be seen to be made to pay a price for the callous and reckless threats. Don`t you agree, that if allowed to withdraw without paying a price, Indian political parties may see threatening foreign adventures as legitimate venues of diverting attention from domestic failures? Thinking Indians ought to be supportive of any price Pakistan may extract, so that any future threats by India to imposing nuclear war may be balanced with political costs in India.

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

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

re: hobbyty

{ I think Mr. Musharraf, now with a confident 5 more years, will extract a price for allowing Indian forces to withdraw. }

``allowing?``...the garbage you write is baffling...

Dost Mittar

Some more illogic for you - From the Hindu:

A massive cover-up`

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

Washington April 30. Government officials in Gujarat were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims since February 27 and are now in the process of engineering a massive cover-up, Human Rights Watch has said in a new report.

``What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising; it was a carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims,`` the author of the 75 Page report, Smita Narula, has said. ``The attacks were planned in advance and organised with extensive participation of the police and State Government officials,`` the report has argued.``

Reply Sadna # 339

“Dayalu hongi Ms Abla Lajwanti.”

THANX!!!! Behain.

Ia mgladness somebody is noticing. Youal so are very dayalu.

I donotun derstand why Hobbytybai and all keepdefending cast vaghayrah. Hobbyty, thisi sagainst Islamic behaviors. PLZdonot defand like this, ok? do notangry, I am fried, and Ialsothikyo uare fried.

Sadnabehain, thanky oufor helping Hobbyty – his niyati sgood,e venif people arenot taking seriously. EVERYBUDY,PLZ LISTEN TOHOBBYTY!!!!!

Ok, byeeeee!

Zafar Al-Talib

Two excellent points - one on women and the other on separtion of church and state in the US constition - one misguided (I think) and the other misformed.

“Can you also tell me if there are any other religions in the world that organize human society by discrimnating on a biological basis?”

Er…that would include discrimination against women, right? In which case, charity begins at home, no? Mathlab, how many hot dinners have you cooked this week bhaijan?

Excellent - and thank you for engaging. I agree the sentence is worded imprecisely. Caste discriminates regardless of sex - ``Discrimination`` against women is similarly imprecise and it is very broad indeed - but following the dictum, ``if one departure is allowed, why not others`` - it deserves latitude and is an appropriate criticism in my opinion. But I remain uneasy - is there another way to phrase this idea - help me understand this better - Suppose if one were not to take into account physical or emotional differences among the sexes ( we are agreed on these differences on sexes?) would that be biological discrimination? Within these differences, in what activity would the stronger, less emotionally expressive, not gain an advantage? would that be biologically based discrimination? In comparing biologically based caste discrimination of Zaat/Jaat we are arguing that some are born in to a particular and unequal station in life that their purpose is to serve those born into a higher station - whereas with discrimination against women we are not positing that they are born into an unequal station or that they must serve others born into a higher station - it`s not a question of unequal - men are not women - apple are not oranges, yet they are fruit - does the question of equality arise - can you help me understand this? Does discrimination against women exist in Pakistan or Islamic societies as a whole? Most certainly, does that negate a discussion of caste? Charity begins at home? yes, it does - does this negate a discussion of caste and it`s realtionship with brutality and violence in Indian society?

``The separation of church and state was adopted in the Constitution to avoid the troubles experienced in Europe because of the overlap between spritual and temporal authorities.``

This is an entirely misinformed statement. The framers of the US constitution recognize no such thing as a separtion between Church and State, in the way you present it. No such language exist in the US constitution and perhaps someone will take the challenge to offer evidence that such language exists in the US constitution.

As a matter of fact, their position was to ensure the freedom of religion and was informed both by the Puritan movement and the experience in England. The provison that there will be no state religion, is a nod to the notion of freedom of conscience.

Also you may wish to reconsider your statement to the effect, that Protestantism and within it, the Puritan movement was not the most significant religious and intellectual movement informing the US constitution. It is not a mystery why Canada has the history it does, a reason why it has a ``tory`` histroy - Puritan preachers spread the notion of freedom of conscience and God`s law as natural law, in all their range. You will note that the US constitution reads like an indictment - it is an indictment - ``And he has, And he has`` - each an indictment against the King of his violation of natural law, among which is the notion of the natural rights of man, as bestowed by God - The characterization and it`s presentation as the separtion of Church and State in the US came into public discourse more than 100 years after the drafting of the constitution. - . Even in the discourse of it`s time it was recognized that in the US it was the ``freedom of religion`` as opposed to Europe`s ``Freedom from religion.`` it` s worth examining and I encourage you to do so.

Akash, prem

I, as you know support the struggle of the captive Kashmiri to be free - however; I agree with you that the best possible solution is a negotiated settlement that accomodates the interests of all three sides, Captive Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the Indians.

I am convinced that the nature of the struggle in Kashmir will see a shift in the direction of the political over the military.

On who will go bust first - I agree that Pakistan`s economy is smaller - however; lets be realistic, India`s problems will not fade away by pointing to Pakistan as an enemy - Pakistan is an entity indians cannot afford to not be on good or normal terms with - and india is an entity that Pakistan needs good or normal relations with. In order for this normalcy to exist, Indians want Captive Kashmir to be resolved and Pakistan want the issue of captive Kashmir to be resolved, the Cative Kashmiri want to be captive no longer - a negotiated settlement is a reasonable choice.

On Nuclear war, again I agree that Pakistan will be destroyed - I wonder if you or yours will be among those who may survive - indeed, what, honestly, do you think will survive of India? Survivors who suffer radiation illness? an earth unable to produce, rivers polluted? - exactly what are you suggesting? that you are more insane than we are? That your crazies are more crazy than our crazies? We all know the Indian has big ones, perhaps now we should concentrate on solving problems that we both know exist, some sense, some maturity please. Enough denial of the problems that exist. Caste, brutality and the violence it breeds has now added, some Indians are openly saying, to the ranks of those who seek to reject Indian rule - please do see how idiotic it seems to be bleeding and to continue threatening, it`s sad and contrary to what you may think it`s certainly not what I want to see. I have said repeatedly that India`s enemies are the problems Indians refuse to deal with - and I know this is difficult for those Indians who continue to deny their p[roblems have sought refuge in the foreign enemy line. You so called enemy is 1/12 your size - has a miniscule economy caompared to yours - and yet, you do not see how ridiculous it is to keep positing that Pakistan is the enemy? India`s unresolved problems are it`s enemy. If a surging economy was all that is required to gain a standing amomng peoples and nations, why has not China attained such a standing? Because, more and more culture, values, creativity and social responsibility are predictors of sustainable economic growth for nations. I hope you will consider these with care, and I hope you will give a great deal more thought to some of the problems and their relationship with the events in Gujrat - that I have sought to discuss. I remain open to the possibility that my reasoning is incorret or that we do not possess the information to come to authoritative conclusions - but I must tell you, that discussion or debate does not exist in denial nor is irrational bluster, a substitute for an open discussion.

Zafar #335
Well Prem, dost-mittar and shankar deserve every bit of it. Dayalu hongi Ms Abla Lajwanti.

Alphanell, anybody else

Seems some Indians on Chowk want to discuss anything and everything under the sky as long as it is not the inequality, brutality and violence of Hindu caste system - so let me afford a measure of escape from the reality you find so oppressive you would rather engage in threats of imposing war upon neighbors. - I think Mr. Musharraf, now with a confident 5 more years, will extract a price for allowing Indian forces to withdraw. This price will include a commitment from India to proceed along the lines of a negotiated settlement in captive Kashmir, not an immediate solution, but a process of negotiation, this process will alter those aspects of the freedom struggle that international opinion finds objectionable, that is one in which armed action lead the political dimension, to it`s reverse. I think, Mr. Musharraf will definitely tone down a Pakistani role in the freedom struggle of the captive Kashmiri, but this struggle itself is about to undergo a significant change. While Mr. Musharraf will wait for the monsoon season to cause greater hardship on Indian infantry and armour strike formations - his relationship with the US - based on the Pakistan armed forces and Foreign minstry`s view that the Americans are in Central Asia to stay, that Central Asia will be a substitute for the energy reserves of the Middle East and the economic vision that in order to secure this strategic vision, the US will not want to see another issue - like the Palestine-Israel issue in the middle East, remain festering in Captive Kashmir, and realization that support for militant religious obscuritanist has ceased to pay dividends - continues to afford him latitude and leverage. Additionally, while Indian thinking was/is that space exist for successfully enagaing in ``limited war``, several factors have changed. Pakistan Airforce has retired F6 aircraft, even as indian forces posture on it`s border (this itself is a reflection of how intimidated Pakistani forces feel) and have introduced F7PG airacrft - in effect it has increaed the size of it`s Air Force, enhanced it`s interceptor and attack capability, and enhanced it`s ground support capablity as well (the ``retired`` F6). Above all, Indian forces will not dare attack Pakistan, knowing, as the incident of an adventurous Indian general who moved strike forces closer to Pakistan border and when India was presented with evidence that it`s movements are being monitored by the Americans, was sent into oblivion - a message heard loud and clear among the sober. In the present situation, the Pakistani armed forces are deployed in a defensive mode and a minimum numerical superiority of 3 to 1 has to be employed by the attacker, in this case, India. Also, kargil is now old news for the rest of the international community and they have advised both Pakistyan and India to seek a negotiated settlement in Kashmir, and they have made sure to include, the participation of the people of captive Kashmir as a requirement for a durable peace between Pakistan and India. The current violence and the atmosphere of terror and general instability it has produced in India and in the perception among the international community of the central government`s failure to govern, to maintain public order, to safe guard the lives and property of citizens, has functioned to attenuated both the nature and the capability of the threat emanating from Hindu nationalist government of India to Pakistan.

So, while any threat and any mobilsation and deployement is expensive and punishes the resources available to the state, resources that could be better spent - and ceratinly Pakistan has a smaller economy and wants to avoid such a cost - the capability that existed on the Indian side is one that incurs diminishing returns - whereas the capablity on the Pakistani side has continued to improve. It is immature and reflexive of you, to see refuge in threats.

If you would like more information on F7/FC1, please refer to ``Air Forces Monthly`` - April 2002 issue 169 - apparently trials are being run evaluate the matching of the performance of SD-10 BVR missile with the Grifo radar. additionally J10 trials continue and Pakistan is also the primary export market for that aircraft as well.

The point of these details is to impress upon you that while most Pakistanis do not seek war or conflict with India - a sober evaluation of capabilities is convincing that neither side enjoys an imbalance that may sustain any pretension of success, even in a ``limited war.`` reasonable persons will agree, India`s internal problems cannot be attenuated by focusing attention to the creation of external problems. Caste, the inequality and brutality it distributes in Indian society must be tackled by all persons of conscience. I am sure you condemn the odious caste system of India - but it is not enough to merely condemn it - the only way to defeat the evil of India`s caste sytem is to discuss it honestly, to shine the light of reason on the manner in which caste functions to justify biologically and religious ordained inequality - Indians are capable of doing of this, but some how Indians on Chowk, think that democracy and secularism require a sensiblity of denial and defensive group think, instead of the free exercise of conscience, free and honest discussion.

If there are person among Indians on Chowk who see merit in the caste system of India or that it has relevance to life today, please educate us. For those Indians who agree that caste serves to distribute inequality, brutality and violence in Indian society - do we not owe it to each other to discuss it openly? I will say it again, ther is no reason to feel that a stick is being used against India - none of the indians on Chowk is the entirety of India and I am confused by the refusal to engage. If you or other Indians think caste does not serve to distribute inequality, that such brutal inequality in turn leads to persons externalizing the brutality they experience and that this may help us to understand the events of Gujrat - Please, explain.



Sorry - a point I wanted to address - ``cowardly`` support of the Taliban - The decison to support the Taliban as long and in the manner it did, certainly was not a smart move - but given the environment and choices available - Pakistan should have exerted a stronger pressure on the Taliban to move from being a movement based in the Pashtun ethnic group to a more broad, multi-ethnic government. It should have promoted administrative control and cooperation with the US and China. So, I can`t find merit in your characterization of Pakistani efforts in Afghanistan. A more apt characterization of cowardly is the behaviour of Pakistani forces against persons who were Pakistani citizens in Bangladesh and the behaviour of Indian forces in Captive Kashmir against persons whom the Indian government describes as Indian citizens. Won`t you agree?

Reply YLH # 282

“... have you wondered why historically Secularism has always emerged out of previously homogenous states? You know like Europe... etc? Even America started out as a Homogenously protestant country...”

Hi Yasser

Actually secularism has not emerged out of religiously (I assume you meant) homogenous states.

Europe’s example: The Reformation in Europe was contested bitterly because of the nexus between religious and political authority. The Wars of Religion were bloodily fought, and resulted in a huge number of deaths and much suffering. That was the impetus for eventually separating church and state. Even today the separation of church and state has much deeper roots in countries which suffered through this time (eg Germany, The Netherlands), and have a religiously mixed population, than those which escaped this trouble (Spain, Portugal, Italy). The latter remained homogenously Catholic – and the Church’s temporal influence remains much stronger in those countries to this day as a result of there being no violently adverse consequence of not having a secular polity.

At the time of Independence, the US was not homogenously Protestant – remember why Maryland was so named – and even the differences among Protestant sects were seen as important (Quakers were not allowed to settle in Massachussets, for example, hence Pennsylvania). The separation of church and state was adopted in the Constitution to avoid the troubles experienced in Europe because of the overlap between spritual and temporal authorities.

Secularism has also been used in some more or less religiously homogenous states to strengthen temporal authority vis a vis the church – in France (largely Catholic by this stage) after the Revolution and (you guessed it) in Turkey after the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire – but these were not the areas of its genesis.

Regards.

Reply Hobbyty # 298

“Can you also tell me if there are any other religions in the world that organize human society by discrimnating on a biological basis?”

Er…that would include discrimination against women, right? In which case, charity begins at home, no? Mathlab, how many hot dinners have you cooked this week bhaijan?

Reply Sadna # 305

“Whats all this?? Here is hobbyt expending blood and sweat trying to convince you to cultivate some humanity and here you are STILL vigorously arguing for the preservation of the caste system. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.”

Boss, kuch daya bhi tho karthe na…

Reply uqab # 323

“PS:But this Z is a decaff/diet/fizzless muslim.Never expect any chivalry from him.”

Very true, jaisa “chivalry” there ko mangtha hai apun se math maang. Jaa re, kisi pathan ko sathaa.

(Because even I admit that they say these things better in Bombay.)

Hobby

Did it occur to you tat inspite of our ``outdated weapons``(Pakis obviously have state of the art ones) and our ``ill-equipped army`` in the desert, it is Pakis who are constantly whining. Every other day ou hear Mushy doing all kinds of gymnastics to make India pull her troops. Has Vajpayee ever asked Mush to pull back the troops. You know why? This is because we want to raise the cost of proxy war that pakis have been fighting till now. India is spending around $200 million per month as the cost of deployment and Pakis are supposed to spend around $100 million every month. But our GDP is $ 472 billion compared with GDP of Pak ie $62 billion(latest figures). With our GDP 8 times that of Pak, we are still at a huge comparative advantage vis a vis deployment spending. If you think you guys can use your bogus nuclear threat that is obviously held in contempt in India to keep sending the jihadis across the border, you are wrong. We know that Pak would be the last country to use her n-bomb because it would damage India but completely wipe out Pak. Just we have become candid enough to call your bluff. Let me make one thing clear- if any Paki thinks that their country can aford sending jihadis across the border cheaply, let him know it wont be the case. You will NEVER NEVER get the land you want and any confrontation with India would only inflict much heavier comparative damage upon yourself. When Pakis understand this, the conflict would be over and Indis and Pak can coexist based on the principle of ``Live and let live``.

A most fascinating account.

What else can one expect from the gobargobblers than to deny it.Oh the treachery and cunning of the brahmin.....may he/she be condemned to clean toilets and sewers of the world till eternity. _________________________________________________

Ruling By Fooling

By:

The Truth Detector

Only a short while ago, I had occasion to speak before an august gathering at a banquet in Los Angeles, California. Understandably, the time allotted to each speaker was short, as it had to be, to enable a number of speakers, some coming from faraway lands, to say their say. The occasion was the aftermath of the very successful FHA meetings held prior to the banquet. Each speaker chose his own subject, but the theme was more or less similar, namely, to urge the people of India to wake up. Our current rulers were stealing us blind!

There is a saying: `Ignorance is weakness` followed by another, `Self-inflicted ignorance is suicide`. Then a writer-friend wrote from Oxford, suggesting a third one: `And the mortality rate is very high`. Such is the sad state of affairs today in our ancient land, that should concern every patriotic Indian.

What`s in a Name?

In order to drive home my point to the good and simple people gathered together on the occasion, I put one question to the diners and asked for their reply. The question was: ``Who was the paternal grand-father of Rajiv Gandhi, the late prime minister of India?`` Promptly the reply came:``Jawahar Lal Nehru``. The reply was symptomatic of a reflex action in which one`s brain or thinking faculty had no part. It was when I drew attention of the audience to the fact that each of us has two grand fathers, a paternal and a maternal grand-father, it dawned on the crowd that indeed they did not know who was the paternal grand-father of the prime minister of India who went by the name of Rajiv Roberto Gandhi.

The fact of the matter is that the ruling clique has been overly secretive of the identity of Indira Priyadarshini Nehru`s father-in-law. It is not true that everyone was ignorant of this fact but the ordinary people, the common public of India, were kept uninformed of this valuable

information. The Indian media too played its part in suppressing the name of Nawab Khan, the father of Feroz, who was Motilal`s liquor supplier. The question naturally arises why was it necessary to keep this information hidden from the people? Was it because Nawab Khan was a Muslim? But then we have been told loudly so many times that India is a secular country and the matter of personal religion did not count in such matters. Obviously, it is not so. The matter of religion is very much in the minds of our rulers, the Gandhis and the Nehrus and all their side kicks. They will do anything at all to hide the Islamic roots of India`s rulers just to keep the Indian public, which is overwhelmingly Hindu1; and we know that the centuries-old persecutions meted out by Muslims to the ancestors of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains of India, still rankle the native people of India.

Why was it necessary for the old Gandhi, the apostle of Truth, to force the newly wedded couple in London to change their `Khan` name to `Gandhi` by an affidavit (see K.N. Rao`s THE NEHRU DYNASTY), unbeknown to the people of India? And to make matters `fool-proof` after the civil marriage in London of Feroz and Indira, Jawahar Lal organized a `Vedic` wedding between the two, which was unlawful and a sham; but our people were too polite to ask embarrassing questions to chacha-ji. What was wrong with Indira Khan`s becoming secular India`s prime minister? The facts on this `Vedic` wedding have been described in extenso by Jawahar`s Christian Private Secretary from Kerala, M.O. Mathai, in his books Reminiscences of the Nehru Age and My Days with Nehru (Both books published by the Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.). However, it is not easy to procure a copy of these volumes, thanks to the GoI`s picking up all unsold copies and the threat administered to the publisher that any further printing of the books will be summarily thwarted. Such is the state of our national motto: Satyameva Jayate or Truth will Prevail. The whole idea was to suppress the fact that India was being ruled by Indira Gandhi, a Mussalmani or wife of a Mussalman. (That explains many things including the attack on the Harimandir Sahib!) And the GoI did not want to take any risk of alienating Hindus of India if simple fooling will do the job!

In the mean time, Indira went about with gusto to fool the people some more. Although a married woman with a `Vedic` Hindu husband, she used to visit Hindu temples, all by herself. Quite clearly Feroz could not stand such hypocrisy and had refused to accompany his wife on such visits, with his forehead smeared with vermilion! The first cracks had already appeared in their married life. However, not all Hindu temples were happy to greet Indira with her quaint ways; Puri`s famous Jagannath Temple refused admission to her.

Mind you, a lot of people have tried to hold a brief for such suppression of fact and argued that it was not intended to keep the people ignorant. It is hard to buy that; and the next episode to be related, will prove without a shadow of doubt that here we have a case of sustained effort to cheat the people. And it has been so always only the people did not perceive the body-language of our rulers.

*

Oh! Let us never doubt,

What nobody is sure about!

(Hillaire Belloc)

A children`s encyclopedia was published by a Chicago outift which had featured a section on Rajiv Gandhi. In that section, it had said that Rajiv was a Cambridge student where he studied for three academic years; that at the end of the three years, Rajiv Gandhi, came out of Cambridge as a qualified graduate Mechanical Engineer.

A smart Gujarati school boy in Chicago area did not buy that. He asked his father if it was indeed true that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from Cambridge! The father`s letter, asking the same question in letters column, appeared in a local Weekly. I made inquiries with the encyclopedia publishing company and was brow-beaten by one Mary Norton of that company for having doubted material appearing in print in one of their publications. Didn`t I read about Rajiv`s academic accomplishments, which had been splashed across newspapers like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun etc.? I had a sneaking suspicion that the high priced PR guys like Satchi &;Satchi had perhaps a hand in this trickery.

I wrote a simple letter to the Registrar of the Cambridge University. Pronto came the reply from the Registrar. In three simple sentences, the Registrar of the venerable institution said:

1. Rajiv Gandhi of India was an inmate of the Cambridge University for three years. 2. During these three years, Rajiv did not pass a single examination. 3. Rajiv`s subject of study was NOT Mechanical Engineering but Mechanical Sciences and after the three years he was told to leave Cambridge, which he did sans a single certificate.

I brought this matter to the attention of the encyclopedia company by sending them a photocopy of the Registrar`s letter. All hell broke loose and I received a letter from the top honcho of the publishing company. His letter was full of milk and honey. The gentleman promised that they would change the text of the write up on Rajiv Gandhi in its very next edition, etc. etc. I could, for the first time, see the innate charm in the picturesque Yankee metaphor that describes such situations quite aptly: `to make the s/hit hit the fan`. That is the fastest way to spread the news, unpleasant news, and at a very short time! The Cambridge Registrar`s letter did just that and all the good work done by Satchi &;Satchi or whoever else was paid to do it, went down the drain. Our poor people lost a great deal of money in the bargain. But fool`s gold does not remain with the fool for a long time either! Our simple, honest and God-fearing people could not foresee that they would be victims of such shameless swindlers!

In the meantime, whole of India was agog with the news of Rajiv`s return as a qualified Cantab or Cambridge Graduate. He was portrayed as a bright man of vision, an honest politician, a worthy son of the Nehru dynasty. That India was very fortunate to have such a man at the helm of our country`s affairs! We were told that some day Rajiv would be anointed as India`s first Mr. Clean!

What amazed me at the time was the fact that for three years this young man didn`t study, failed in all his examinations and we all know Cambridge is not situated near Piccadilly Circus where he could have gone out and while away his time attending night clubs! It intrigued me considerably. What was he doing all these, not one, not two but three long years? Some one suggested that perhaps he was a great admirer of British Dailies` comic pages but even comic pages, sooner or later, become stale. What kind of an intellect this future prime minister had? It was later, much later, that I came to know that he was gallivanting around with his Italian girl-friend of unknown pedigree. He met her at a pasta place in the back streets of Cambridge. The girl had come to Cambridge (not the University) to learn spoken English and was working as an `au pair` girl with a local English family, helping the missus with her household duties. (This information too was obtained from the Registrar`s office at Cambridge).

One wondered how in heaven`s name will this man, son of Indira and Feroz, rule a nation

of 900m people of all kinds, if ever such need arose? How much does he know about India, her literature, her traditions, her scriptures, her great and ancient religions and above all her history? To everyone`s relief, Rajiv announced that he was not interested in the business of politics and he was left in peace to work as a co-pilot in Indian airlines and raise a family, (with her Italian woman who still held on to her Italian passport). Let us not ask ourselves how did Rajiv acquire a pilot`s license!

* *

Since Rajiv Ratan Brijesh Nehru Roberto Gandhi was not interested in Indian politics, his younger brother Sanjiv (aka Sanjay) filled the vacuum. Mommy dear was getting old and she needed help and a successor to carry the Gandhi name!

Now the first question that should arise in an inquisitive and healthy mind is how come Sanjiv became Sanjay and that too, all on a sudden, without any previous announcement? It happened this way.

Sanjiv`s buddy in his youth was Mohammad Yunus`s son Adil Shahriyar; yes, he was the guy that Uncle Sam had arrested, tried and put into prison with a 35 year-sentence for felony. With such company Sanjiv became unruly from his early days. In the absence of a strict father in the house (Feroz was sidelined by Indira, in the meantime) and the mother`s free time taken up by the multifarious obligations of the Indian government, the boy grew up like a weed in the jungle, all on his own. No morals, no self-control, no respect for the elders and nothing!

He grew into a youngman whose primary interest was in stealing other people`s cars. And every time he was arrested, Mommy dear would come to rescue him. Sanjiv thus grew up to become a confirmed car-thief and a Lothario besides!

He too was sent to England, the land of spiritual bliss of the Nehrus. But then bad habit dies hard. Sanjiv was caught by the British police for having stolen a car. Unlike the Indian police who always let him go free out of respect for the mother, the prime minister, the London police arrested him and sent him for trial. Mommy dear intervened and Sanjiv was released but the British police impounded the passport so that the youngman could not flee the country like say Ottavio Qattrocchi (of the Bofors swindle), Daud Ibrahim (of the Bombay blasts) or even Al-Saghi (the Arab mechanic of the Ameena notoriety).

Man is practiced in disguise,

He cheats the most discerning eyes.

(Hillaire Belloc)

Once out of prison, Sanjiv, at the advice of his mother, ran to see the Indian High Commissioner in London. That post was held at the time by India`s Defense Minister-to-be, Krishna Menon. By international law even Krishna Menon could not re-issue another Indian passport to Sanjiv. He was told by Menon that the Indian High Commission could issue another (a new) passport to Sanjiv but not in that name. He had to change his name to something other than Sanjiv. But that was no sweat for a boy born and brought up in a family where changing names by affidavits, was no big deal. His own parents had done that. And pronto, Sanjiv became Sanjay (it was important to keep the first initial S for practical reasons) and India received the new incarnation of Sanjiv Gandhi. The purpose for which Sanjiv or Sanjay had been sent to England was, however, not served. He was sent to learn auto-engineering in a reputable automobile manufacturing company. He had to leave for India without learning the trade he had come to learn in England! Thus India was burdened with another costly parasite at the top!

Sanjay became a menace. He used his position of the prime minister`s son, in seducing young ladies, promising marriage to them, and then abandoning them after having made them pregnant. His bad manners, lack of viable education, total lack of respect for even his own mother, whom he once slapped in the face, made life miserable for anyone who had to deal with this abomination.

He made his future wife, a girl from a good Sikh family, also pregnant. Only this time, the father, a colonel of the Indian army, would not take this kind of swine-like conduct lying down. He ordered Sanjay to marry Menaka or face the ultimate consequences. The matter went right upto the ears of Mommy dear. She too sided with Col. Anand and the braggart had to marry Menaka.

(Now, Menaka is the name of a court-dancer of Indra, the King of Gods, in Hindu mythology and this bothered the car-thief! He forced Menaka to change her name to Maneka). Coming from Sanjiv, the car-thief, turned into Sanjay, the phil-anderer, it came as a surprise.

The marriage of Sanjay with Maneka took place in Mohammad Yunus`s house in New Delhi. And eventually, when Sanjay died in an accident for which he only was to be blamed, it was Mohammad Yunus who wept the most. Apparently, Yunus had a Muslim girl in mind for the bride of Sanjay but that was not to be. These incidents and events gave rise to the rumor that Sanjay was the natural son of Mohammad Yunus. No one can prove or disprove such allegations for the simple reason that so many things have been covered up by the Nehrus and the Gandhis that it has now become difficult to make counter claims to remove public perception. Mohammad Yunus used to live in Anand Bhavan as a house guest for many years and it is quite likely that the Pathan had his eyes on the pretty Priyadarshini, now a lonely widow (Read Yunus`s Persons, Passions &;Politics!)

The accidental death of Sanjay was a relief for Indira but then she needed another heir-apparent. Pressure was brought to bear on Rajiv now to take to politics. Willy nilly Rajiv agreed. He was projected as Mr. Clean, the visionary, the great emancipator of India! Now several things happened in quick succession. Sonia Gandhi (née Maino), who was still of Italian nationality, was forced to give up her alien citizenship and accept Indian nationality. This was hard for this woman hailing from a very ordinary Catholic family from Turin (Torino in Italian), whose self-respect is traditionally rooted in their religion, the Pope and of course in the European racial heritage. Sonia thus became the wife of the future prime minister, quite reluctantly. But she did not give up her religion. She had several visits with the Pope and if the current events are any indication, she decided to serve the cause of Rome from New Delhi.

It was about this time that I had the occasion to stop in a village in Bihar. There I happened to meet an old farmer. He was tall, well-built and quite clearly proud of his Hindu heritage. On the subject of Sanjay`s accidental death he had own theory. He explained in good Hindi: ``Woh accident nahin hai, Babu! Woh Bhagwan ke ghusse se mara hai; nahin to is tarah ka nidhan kiska hota hai? Hiranya Kashipu ka hota hai, jo asman men bhi nahin, zameen par bhi nahin, magar in donon ke beech men hua.`` (Babu! It was no accident! It was God`s curse. How can he otherwise die like Hiranya Kashipu died, neither on land nor in the sky, but in between?)

The farmer went on: ``Bhagwan yeh bhi bol rahe hein, `Dekh beti! Samhal ke chal, samhal ke chal; nahin to teri bhi aisi hi halat hogi!``` (By this accident, our God is also telling to Indira, `Listen young girl, behave yourself; otherwise you too will meet the same fate!`) I was thunderstruck. I could feel that Hindutva is still fresh and fully existent among our poor, the grass roots and wondered how come our leaders have not yet been able to inspire these people for the cause of the nation! And no doubt, as we all know, Indira was gunned down just a few years later, in her own residence not by Pakistani agents, not by Chinese communists but by her own guards. The farmer`s reading of the body-language of our leaders proved to be absolutely correct and his prediction quite true!

We will skip here the years of India`s suffering under her own leader, during the Emergency Period, imposed by Indira Gandhi. Apart from anything else, this clearly proved that all talk of `democracy and Nehruvian/Gandhian socialism` was just hogwash. In the case of Nehru, his true undemocratic nature was NOT discovered by the general public, but he too was an autocrat of the first water, exactly like his daughter Indira. And so was the old Gandhi when he blurted out ``Sitaramyya`s defeat is my defeat``, when Subhash defeated Pattabhi in an open contest held democratically inside the Indian National Congress. The things Nehru did to calumniate Netaji Bose (of which we will speak later) behind the public`s back is diabolical! And what kind of democracy is that where the government is underhandedly turned into a dynastic outfit; never mind how unfit the inheritors are!

*

Rajiv Gandhi,

A steak, bigger than the animal.

Rajiv`s installation as the prime minister, soon after his mother`s assassination was a sight for gods to see. There was no election, nothing and the dumb co-pilot of Indian Airlines was put up as the prime minister of some 900m people just like that! True, India had a living president, Zail Singh; it is also true that this president was not an extraordinarily strong man, like Babu Rajendra Prasad for instance. His hands were weakend by virtue of the fact that Indira was gunned down allegedly by two Sikhs and Zail Singh was a Sikh himself. Not that he had a hand in the assassination but his enemies, the criminals like H.K.L. Bhagat et al would have construed any attempt by Zail Singh to establish democratic order as his partiality to the Sikhs. And behind the scenes acted so called leftist intellectuals like Mani Shankar Aiyars, Kumaramangalams, et al.

Be that as it may, this stupid man Rajiv became the new prime minister of unfortuante India. In stead of finding out what really provoked the assassination, what motivated it and who were indeed involved in the killing, the mafia around Rajiv went for an all out extermination campaign against one of India`s valued components, the Sikhs. Wholesale killing started, like in Mughal days, of unarmed men women and children of the Sikh community in Congress-held provinces. No doubt, the country had to pay dearly (and is still paying) for this thoughtless action by men

around Rajiv, ostensibly with his blessing. ``When a big tree falls, smaller plants get crushed``, he said, or something to that effect. The Home Minister then was Pamulaparti Venkataraman Narasimha Rao, who will later earn a name for himself as a soft-porn artist. He just sat around and did nothing to establish law and order.

In fact, Rajiv was an ideal scape goat for string-pullers behind the scene. The same gang that acted like morons in Indira`s court now became invisible, all powerful manipulators from behind the scenes.

Can one imagine that the dumb Rajiv, on his own, would approach Zail Singh to request a presidential fiat enabling him to open private mail? The fellow could hardly write himself. Where did he get this vile idea from? From his behind-the-scene mafia men, of course. Zail refused and since then Rajiv would not talk to him. The country was being handed over on a platter to unholy goons and all that in the name of democracy, Nehruvian/Gandhian socialism!

The country was going through difficult times. The verdict on the Shah Bano case had just been given by India`s Supreme Court and this went in favor of Shah Bano. The Indian Muslims, who are shamelessly pro-Pakistani, were up in arms. One mafia don named Haji Mastan threatened that if the Muslim Personal Law was not passed within two days, Rajiv would be slaughtered, this time by the Muslims, the people of his own grand-father`s faith. Within 36 hours the Muslim Personal Bill was passed into law by the Rajiv Government in contravention of the Supreme Court verdict.

FESTIVAL OF INDIA

Whoever would have imagined that the Netaji Papers had a direct connection with the various Festivals of India, which were instituted by Rajiv. It all happened this way. Jawahar Lal had given custody of the Netaji Papers to Mohammad Yunus, a Pathan family friend. Yunus`s son Adil

Shahriyar was in a Florida prison for felony. He was to serve 35 years there. Father Yunus was very cross and he asked Rajiv (then the prime minister of India) to devise some means, any means, to get Adil out of US jail. Otherwise, Yunus threatened that he would release the Netaji Papers to the public. Clearly, that would be a disaster for the entire dynasty. The entire country would come to know all the vile deeds Jawahar had done against Netaji. Rajiv was at his wit`s end, if he had any wits of his own. The mafia brigade hatched a plan. All the Funny Shankars, Kumaramangalams, Chidambarams got together and hatched a magnificent plan. Now Rajiv had to execute it, if he wanted to save his skin from the wrath of Yunus.

Rajiv immediately started the Festival of India. The country was starving but crores had to be spent to get Adil released. The year-long festivals started almost simultaneously in Britain, France, Germany and North America, ostensibly to teach the westerners the finer points of Kuchipudi, Bharta-Natyam, Dhrupad, Malkaus, etc.

In the US, Rajiv was told by his mafia-men to choose Mrs. Nancy Reagan as the co-chairperson along with Rajiv as the other co-chairperson, for the festival. The lady agreed, not that she had the slightest desire to learn the subtleties of Indian dancing. Millions of dollars were spent and eventually, as all things finally come to an end, the Festivals of India too came to an end.

On that day or thereabout, Rajiv requested Nancy that he wanted to meet President Reagan personally. Nancy is a nice lady. She requested her husband to meet Rajiv.

At the very first meeting with Reagan, Rajiv asked for the release of Adil Shahriyar. Reagan was taken aback with surprise. It is not easy for an elected president of a democracy like America to release a convicted felon before time. But finally Reagan agreed to free Adil under the condition that he would never ever set foot on US soil. And so Adil was released and pronto all activities of the Festival of India were dropped. Rajiv was relieved that the Netaji Papers were still kept away from the people of India, in Yunus`s custody.

*

Gali gali men shor hai,

Rajiv Gandhi chor hai.

No doubt a great deal of money was squandered in the many Festivals of India. No country can sustain that kind of splurge and not diminish the solvency of a nation, much less India, a poor

land exploited for so many years by ruthless aliens. Quite clearly Indian economy was in a shambles. And it must be said that it was God`s blessing that Rajiv and his henchmen were finally dislodged from the position of power to ruin the country, once for all. Even half a dozen Manmohan Singhs could not have helped, even if they were there then!

However, before the final flickering and snuf-fing out of the Rajiv lamp, this `scion` of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty had a last go at winning of the hearts of the people, by fooling them once again of course, and a great noise was made through the captive media that Rajiv was the Mr. Clean that the country had been waiting for.

And behold, as our gods would have it, the Bofors scandal burst forth. Everyone in the country came to know of it, not so much in details but certainly in the outlines. And those who knew the details kept quiet for fear of reprimand from the GoI agencies which were all in the pockets of the Nehru-Gandhi dynastic milieu.

In spite of that, attempts were made by the Door-darshan to hold meetings with school children under the camera, singing hymns in praise of Rajiv. In one such TV scene, when a small kid was asked to recite something in the praise of the prime minister, he recited:

``Gali gali men shor hai, Rajiv Gandhi chor hai`` (All that they talk about, Rajiv`s a thief - no doubt!) This scene was unwittingly broadcast all over the country and it was in fact a repeat of the story of that boy who had cried out ``The King is naked``; that was the beginning and with the crooks all around, the country has still not been able to get at the money. In the mean time, Rajiv`s wife Sonia, has removed the bulk of the loot out of the country!

-

MOHAMMED bin QASEM/HAFEZ al ASSAD & RAJIV ROBERTO GANDHI

-

The mad Arab hostage takers attacked Beirut`s renowned American University and kidnapped a number of Americans. By mistake, they took also an Indian professor wrongly thinking that the gentleman was also an American. He had lived a long time in the US, not as a naturalized citizen but with a legitimate Green Card. The news went out to the world that there was an Indian among the hostages.

That the Arabs would kidnap a citizen of India, the self-proclaimed friendly nation to the Arabs and their cause, was inconceivable to the GoI. But Rajiv, the eternal partisan of the line of least resistance, did not toe that line at all. The GoI, under Rajiv`s mis-direction, announced that the gentleman was a naturalized citizen of the United States and therefore the question of his release devolved on Uncle Sam and NOT Mother India. Rajiv, as was so often the case, had his facts wrong because of his ill-informed advisers. The inevitable shock came when the State Depart-ment publicly announced that the US government will not pursue the question of release of the Indian professor for the simple reason that he was NOT a US citizen. Mind you, the US government had its hands full with so many other bonafide US nationals!

Rajiv was in a jam. Now that it was a clear case of an Indian`s being taken hostage and given the widely advertized claim of Arab friendship for Hindu India, Rajiv was at least morally res-ponsible for his release from the `friendly` Arabs! Huge ads were taken out in practically all important Arab Dailies of the Middle East, re-questing the kidnappers to release the Indian professor explaining that it was all a mistake; India was a friend of the Arabs, and so on. Quite clearly the requests fell on deaf ears! The professor was NOT released. Rajiv`s own prestige was on the line! One can easily imagine the predicament Rajiv was in. The man who in three years could not pass a single test in Cambridge but had the gall to get his name published in US encyclopedias as a qualified Cantab, was steeped in despair. On the advise of his pseudo-secular Mafia think-tank working behind the scenes, he secretly approached Syria`s President Hafez al Assad. Everyone knew that it was Syria that financed the Arab kidnappers; it was hoped that perhaps Assad could be persuaded to get the Indian professor released, not because Rajiv`s government cared a damn about the Indian but only to save its face!

Rajiv secretly visited Assad. No one knows exactly how much Rajiv pleaded at his feet or cried and wallowed in front of him; at long last Assad instructed the kidnappers to release the Indian professor. This news was released in the form of a riddle; it did not specify which one of the hostages was going to be released. Everyone thought, even Ronald Reagan thought, that it was going to be an American who was going to be released first. But lo and behold! It was the Indian professor! Reagan was disappointed and perhaps even a little cross with Rajiv. On that night, Rajiv spoke on Damascus radio. It was beamed toward India (and Asia, of course). What did Rajiv say? Many in India were tuned in to the Damascus radio to listen to Rajiv at the time, the man who could get something done that even the Americans could not do! In that broadcast, in order to praise Syria Rajiv said something to the effect that Mohammed bin Qasem was a great man; that he brought the message of Islam to the shores of India, etc. As soon as it was heard, the All India Radio, shut it off. Those who were listening in, were disappointed. In India, people were prevented from hearing what else this bright star of India had to say about that barbarian bin Qasem, who had destroyed our Somnath Temple. The Nawab Khan`s grand-son was in his elements. He had not heard of Somnath!

Rajiv did not realize what kind of a furor would have been caused in his own country if the entire speech had been beamed toward India. In this case at least, `ignorance was bliss` for the prime minister of India! The people of India were once again fooled by their ruler!

THE PREVARICATOR

Soon after he was made the prime minister of India by the back-door, Rajiv called a press conference in London. In that press conference, buoyed by new found glory, the erstwhile co-pilot of the Indian Airlines announced for the first time, that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, he had already embraced Catholicism secretly in Turin, Italy but asserted that he was a Parsi.

Researchers found out that his grand-mother, Nawab Khan`s wife, was indeed a Parsi woman. But that was BEFORE she married Nawab Khan, a Muslim. Just prior to the Nikah ceremony, she had embraced Islam and thus was married to Nawab Khan as a Muslim woman. This eliminated any claim of Rajiv`s or his dad Feroz`s, to the Parsi faith. But he said that only to fool the people and also, at the same time, to distance himself from the Hindus of India. It was a repeat performance of his maternal grand-dad Jawahar`s assertion that he was western by education, Muslim by upbringing and Hindu only by accident. In any other country, just for that contemptuous comment, chacha-ji would have been thrown out of his `gaddi` of prime minister. No doubt, Hindus are a very polite people; they don`t show it even when badly insulted. Thus Rajiv`s insult went unretributed. No one asked him why did he then, along with his orthodox Catholic wife, go all over the country to visit Hindu temples with large tilaks on their foreheads! Parsis don`t do that! We, Hindus should not repeat that error!

But Rajiv had played the game a little too far. His Italian-born wife (reluctantly made an Indian later) made her hobby now to build, not clinics or hospitals for the poor, with the crores of rupees donated by Hindu outfits, but Catholic convents throughout our ancient land. She took up the challenge to build even more convents than the Albanian nun (as mentioned in Hitchen`s HELL`S ANGEL of the BBC documentary) who is reported to have already surpassed building more than 500 such convents. It was Sonia`s idea to invite the Catholic Pope to India, the `land of the heathen Hindus`. Sonia had perhaps thought that as soon as the Hindus would see the Pope`s face, they would all run for baptism!

Rajiv`s PR outfits, paid from the people`s purse, broadcast the news that Rajiv, although of Parsi origin, will clean the Ganga, unpollute it. What could be more dear to a Hindu heart? From then on, for some time, whatever Rajiv did or said, took on a special flavor, the flavor of a good son of India. It was then announced that the secular government of India had officially invited the Pope for a visit. It was also made clear that the Pope was NOT being invited as the Head of the Catholic creed but as the Head of the City State of the Vatican. Didn`t India have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, we were told? And thus the Pope came and went back and behold the Ganga-cleaning projects, so widely advertized, were summarily abandoned! Once again the Hindus of India let themselves be fooled by the grand-son of Nawab Khan.

ISRAEL/KAHUTA/RAJIV

Israel had always wanted and taken action to contain the Islamic bomb anywhere. When Paki stan`s Kahuta atomic station was under develop-ment, the Jewish State offered to bomb it out of existence, exactly like the Ossirak atomic plant of Iraq. But to do the job, Israel needed a refuelling station. India was the natural choice. It was thought that India too wanted to reduce the danger stemming from Islamic Pakistan.

The Israelis requested Rajiv for permit to land and refuel Israeli bombers for the purpose. Unfortunately, Israelis were unaware of Rajiv`s Islamic roots and were disappointed by Rajiv`s unwavering `No`. If Israel had thought that it was doing a good turn to India by knocking out Kahuta, then they were badly disappointed. After all, Kahuta was primarily made to attack India and not Israel, at least not in the immediate future! But Rajiv did more than just refuse refueling rights to Israel. He readily informed the Pakistan government of Israel`s proposal. One sometimes wonders why did not Rajiv receive the Nishan-i-Pakistan award too, like did Morarji from Zia of Pakistan! -

ABE LINCOLN/JAWAHAR LAL

-

Abraham Lincoln was a great American president. He had the vision and the courage to fight out a bloody civil war to keep the country united and emancipate the slaves at the same time. His contribution to America`s future greatness was immense.

Abe Lincoln had small beginnings. Born in a tiny log-cabin, brought up almost in abject poverty, Lincoln grew up to be a great man and a greater leader. All this is nothing new to our readers. Nevertheless, we must not forget the love this country showered on him after his death. The little log-cabin is still preserved for posterity with due care, to serve as a source of inspiration to future generations. Greatness need not necessarily flow from an ostentatious palace; it can have its origins in a log cabin as well! Americans were not ashamed of the fact that their great president was born in a log-cabin; they did not destroy it but on the other hand preserved it for the nation!

Now let us look at Jawahar Lal, a self-proclaimed leader of another great democracy. He was the first prime minister of free India. But the man had something to hide from his own people. Up till now, the people were vaguely told that Nehru was born in the Anand Bhavan in Allahabad (literally, the city of Allah). Now that he had become the prime minister of India, it was more than likely that public attention would be drawn to his beginnings.

As soon as Nehru became the prime minister, he issued orders to demolish a building in Mir Ganj. Not that the building needed to be demolished for structural reasons; it was still in a good condition and tenants were using that bulding for habitation. It transpired later that Nehru was the owner of that building. He had inherited it from his father, Moti Lal. It also further transpired that it was in that building that Jawahar was born. So, what was the problem? Instead of being born at Anand Bhavan, Nehru was born in that building at Mir Ganj! In fact, had Nehru not demolished that building at Mir Ganj, no one would have asked awkward questions!

The fact of the matter is that Mir Ganj was not just any other residential area in Allahabad. It was a notorious red-light district of the town, a brothel area, exactly like Lahore`s Hira Mandi. It is here that Moti Lal, Jawahar`s father had settled down with his second wife, the future mother of Jawahar. Moti Lal`s first wife died at child birth. The first child too had died at child-birth. Jawahar, thus was not Moti Lal`s first child but first living child.

Motilal had two other children who were also born there, both girls. The girls were brought up in that house in the red-light district of Mir Ganj while Jawahar was removed to the house of the nawab of Oudh. He was reared there. At the age of ten, Jawahar was sent to England for studies. It is this background of his life that had once prompted Jawahar to say boastfully that he was educated in the west, reared in Islamic culture but born in a Hindu family just by accident. A man who can heap such contempt to his own people should not have been made the prime minister of India ever, nor honored every year as national chacha-ji!

Nehru came to know later the truth about his birth and no doubt the truth rankled him; suf-fering from a strong inferiority complex, he wanted to hide that fact from his people; and hence the attempt to remove all trace of the building at Mir Ganj! The demolition of the house was Nehru`s first measure in order to rule by fooling!

*

A few words here about the Anand Bhavan. This palatial house was NOT built by Moti Lal, a resident of Mir Ganj. The large building belonged to Mobarak Ali, a renowned lawyer of Allahabad.

Mobarak Ali had the building built for his family. It had a different name then; it used to be called Ishrat Manzil which in Persian means almost the same thing as Anand Bhavan.

Why did Moti Lal change the name of the building from Ishrat Manzil to Anand Bhavan? Was it out of any national pride prompting him to see his house named with a good Indian or Sanskrit name rather than the alien Persian designation? No such thing! The main reason for the change was that at the time, in Allahabad, there was another palatial building which was owned by Akbar Allahabdi, a renowned Muslim resident. That house too was named Ishrat Manzil. In those days, they did not have PIN (or Zip) codes and the mail used to get mixed up, both houses having the same name and that was a nuisance. So, as soon as the house changed hands and Moti Lal became the new owner, the first thing he did was change the name of the building.

*

In England, Jawahar went for the bar. He was not a bright student. His main subject of study was Botany. Has anyone heard of a botanist being a good barrister? In any event, Jawahar returned as a qualified barrister. He decided to start his practice in Bombay. He rented a chamber at the Malabar Hills, not too far from where Mohammed Ali Jinnah plied his trade.

A smart, highly qualified barrister, Jinnah had a roaring practice in Bombay. Jawahar was no comparison and he never had a decent law practice worth the mention. One thing followed another and Jawahar was entrenched in Indian politics. He had certain similarities with M.K. Gandhi, who too was a qualified barrister from England but hardly ever practiced law. He too went into politics. Gandhi took Jawahar under his wings in the Congress party.

There were a number of rich Indian financiers who looked after Gandhi. The eminent ones among them were the Birlas. The Birlas had made a great deal of money by selling opium to China through British merchants. At the time, under the Birlas (and the Tatas too) a lot of opium used to be grown in India for export primarily to China and also to a few other south Asian countries such as Burma, Malay, etc. A huge part of that ill-gotten money went into the coffers of the Congress party. One often wondered later when the sources of income of the Birlas and the Tatas became common knowledge, how come the great humanitarian Gandhi did not have any reservations in accepting that tainted money!

*

Eventually, India became free, not so much because of Nehru`s antics or Gandhi`s non-violence and fasting but primarily because of the rebellion in the Indian navy and of course due to the exploits of Netaji Bose. One has only got to go through what then British prime minister Clement Attlee had said on the subject! The glory of the Azad Hind Fauj (the Indian National Army or the I.N.A.) was reverberating throughout the country. Although Nehru hated Netaji and was extremely jealous of him, he too, in order to benefit from the popular sentiments, started shouting `Jai Hind` in public.

But from the secrecy of his prime minster`s office, Nehru started a letter writing campaign against Netaji.

Here is a letter reproduced verbatim as Nehru had written it to Clement Attle, then the prime minister of Britain:

``To Mr. Clement Attlee,

Prime Minister of Great Britain,

10 Downing Street, London.

Dear Mr. Attlee:

I understand from a reliable source that Subhash Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians. As Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, it should not have been done. Please take note of it and do what you consider proper and fit.

Yours sincerely,

Jawaharlal Nehru.``

The above copy of the letter has been taken from Samar Guha`s (Member of Lok Sabha) NETAJI - DEAD OR ALIVE?, page 16. Mr.Guha continues: ``One has to rub one`s eyes many times to read and then to believe...it appears as unthinkable that Pandit Nehru could stoop down so low as to ask Mr. Attlee to see that `their war criminal Bose` was buried alive in India...``

But then Samar Guha did not quite read the body language of Jawahar Lal. If he had he would have noticed that this man, who never ever visited the battle fronts when India was fighting a mortal combat with the treacherous Pakistan and later with communist China, was spending a great deal of time in bed with Edwina Mountbatten. The subject was an open secret. It even came out in British papers quite openly but our rulers tried their best to keep it a secret from their own compatriots.

Nehru had no self-respect; he showed a great deal of contempt for his countrymen. His abomin able conduct in getting a Hindu nun pregnant and then trying to suppress the entire episode by burning the bundle of letters that the Catholic nunnery (of Bangalore) sent him from the mother of his b/astard son, delivered at the nunnery, clearly displayed the man`s moral bankprutcy. The episode has been written in detail by Nehru`s long-term private secretary, M.O. Mathai, a Kerala Christian, in his two books mentioned in an earlier chapter.

Nehru`s love for communism and socialism was wellknown. But that did not prevent Chou en Lai, the Chinese communist, to see through Nehru`s true nature. In spite of all the Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai slogans, Chou en Lai called Nehru `the running dog of imperialists`. Nothing could be

more apt!

BOE PAIR BABUL KE

AAM KAHAN SE AYE?

(When you plant the cactus,

don`t expect mangoes from it.)

Nehru was a very weak man, both morally and spiritually; he loved to be surrounded by sycophants and incompetent people. One such sycophant (there were many) was Krishna Menon, who eventually rose to be India`s Defense Minister. A confirmed communist and traitor, he immediately set upon changing the Ichapore Gun Factory near Calcutta into a coffee-pot making plant. China was knocking on the door at the north-east, but never mind, Menon was busy with his suicidal project and in Nehru`s full view. The inevitable happened. China grabbed thousands and thousands of our territory and the Indian army was totally demoralized not having supplies from our supply factories.

All these days, Nehru and Menon had been telling lies to the Lok Sabha; they implied that everything was fine and dandy. When the news of the fall of Bongdi-la came, Nehru tried to explain it away to the members of the Parliament that it was not much of a loss. He said:``...after all nothing grows there, not even a blade of grass. We do not have much use for this area...`` And our members did not even ask for his blood! It was a repeat performance of what had happened in Kashmir. There, Nehru, practically on his own, ran to the United Nations to call a cease fire when our army was winning on all fronts. And since then we have Pakistan sitting there like a leech and till now we have not been able to dislodge the enemy. Can one imagine in what kind of predicament India would have been, if Nehru had handled the Hyderabad affair too?

Nehru was once invited by the Indian residents of Singapore to unveil a statue of Netaji Bose. Remember, the Indians of Singapore lent a big helping hand to Netaji`s Azad Hind Fauj and in

fact, Singapore was under the Azad Hind Fauj control during the second World War. Nehru agreed to unveil the statue. People were eagerly waiting for Nehru`s arrival but he never arrived. It transpired that Lord Mountbatten had advised Nehru not to go for the unveiling ceremony. He warned Nehru that soon enough the people of India would not even look at him; they would put a follower of Netaji Bose in charge of India. Nehru developed cold feet and did not turn up. Like a chaprassi, Nehru said ``Ji Huzur`` and went home. Later the British army demolished that statue in front of Singapore`s Indians. And Nehru was witness to that!

AlphaNull,

``In any case, the Indians know that you know that any nuclear exchange will mean the obliteration of Pakistan.``

For the last fifty years Pakistani army has consistently followed the strategy of ``claimed madness.`` The argument has been - we are irrational people, so allow yourself to be blackmailed by us, or else, you know, we are irrational, we will do anything.

This is also the strategy that romair has tried to use on Chowk. Ok, we are crazy people, but YOU must not be crazy.

Deliberately crazy people can only be dealt with in even crazier ways. Indians have figured that out. So, here we have, old outdated warriors totally out of their depths.

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

Harpreet,dost-mittar
Thanks :). I`ve noticed another thing, hobbyt`s accusations of Indians `not discussing caste problems` ALWAYS coincides with a ongoing discussion on the same topic on another board! Its happened 1-2 times before and this time, Gandhi`s approach to caste and varna, Ambedkar`s POV and Indian constitutional provisions were being discussed (with references) on Farzana`s Mahatma board. But still `Indians are not interested in discussing caste and are set on defending it`

chowk interacts are sometimes like the `room of mirrors` (saminashah`s picturesque expression) or speaking into a vacuum, in the weird disconnect between what one posts with honest desire to explain and with as much information as one has access to and the resulting response. Perhaps I am being unfair but the mistake I suspect is in assuming that other party brings up an issue because he is honestly interested in understanding it on merits, when actually its no such thing. Perhaps the other party is more interested in proselytizing for some POV or another, and real thoughtful answers from the targets to leading questions are an inconvenient diversion from the main agenda :).

Hobbyty #321

{You are right Pakistan has lost previous wars with India and most Pakistanis do not want to war with India - One can agrue that it was cowardly to have ordered outrages in Bangladesh, and cowardly to to have accepted such orders.}

There is no reason to believe that the Pakistan Army has changed its colours. It was just as cowardly to foist the vile Taliban regime on helpless Afghanistan. And please note that both previous major wars with India occurred under the rule of military dictators, and both led to their eventual ouster.

{What do you think of the ideas below and what do you think Mr. Musharraf will extract in return for providing the Indian government a fig leaf to allow the Indian government to order their forces back to the barracks?}

Hobbyty, your pathetic delusions never cease to amaze and amuse me. FC-1 `variants` entering service with the PAF in 2-3 years (this was in January 2002); Indian aircraft lacking missiles; T-72 an `international failure`; the evident obsessive concern for potency, beginning with the talk of `intellectual and moral neutering` and proceeding to pumps; the naive belief in Asghar Butt`s fictions about what the Indian MEA spokeswoman said; etc, etc ad amusem. Now comes this latest risible claim about Musharraf supposedly `extracting` something from India to `allow` Indian troops to return to barracks. If the Indians are sooo eager to return to barracks, why is it that the repeated whines are heard only from Pakistanis like you, not from the Indians?

Has it occurred to you that, given the current state of hostility, India might not mind a long-term massive troop deployment that forces a similar deployment from Pakistan? Pakistan, with its finances in poor shape unlike India, is going to have its economy suffer disproportionately from such an exercise. Here are some links along these lines:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020420/43/1m4qc.html

``India tension weakened Pakistan`s growth: World Bank``

Washington, Apr 20 (IANS) The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have warned Islamabad against the adverse impact of the troops build-up along the border with India on Pakistan`s economy.



The World Economic Outlook (WEO), which the World Bank made public Friday, lists ``heightened tensions`` with India as one of the factors for Pakistan`s weakened economic growth last year.



Improvement in the regional security situation should support stronger growth in the period ahead. The World Bank report also says Pakistan`s economic viability and growth would be enhanced by normalisation of ties with India and that it can ``ill afford`` the money it is spending on maintaining troops on the border.

.....



If instead the Kashmir crisis was to be resolved and Indo-Pakistani relations were to be normalised, the benefits would be enormous for both countries, but proportionately larger for Pakistan.``

http://www.dawn.com/2002/04/30/top9.htm

``Border tension hits fiscal recovery``

etc.

The overrun in Pakistan`s defense spending is said to be on the order of 1500-1700 crore for this year alone. Less money to spend on golf courses for the Army and on Chengdu`s R&D!

{Should we war again? Does the fact that both armies include nuclear weapons not suggest a more sober view?}

I can sympathise with your consternation. You evidently imagined that brandishing nuclear weapons would allow Pakistan to continue with its `low-cost` strategy of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir indefinitely. India`s behaviour indicates the contempt with which they view these threats. Ejaz Haider`s article in TFT a week or two ago discussed the problem of Pakistan`s credibility gap with respect to deterrence and the difficulties in doing anything about it. In any case, the Indians know that you know that any nuclear exchange will mean the obliteration of Pakistan; and that even a conventional war will result in the Pakistan armed forces getting badly bloodied, and having their bluff about their supposed competence exposed to their own citizens, as it was in 1971. And they also know that Generalissimo Musharraf will do a great deal to avoid war, given that it will surely mean the end of his reign, as it did for two previous Pakistani military dictators. So India has lots of options to pressure the Great Dictator and the establishment of Pakistan; they happen to have chosen the one with the least cost to themselves, and perhaps also the least human cost to Pakistanis at large. I would suggest giving the strategic visionaries of Pakistan, the Shireen Mazaris and Nasim Zehras, the Ikram Sehgals and Hamid Guls and Brigadier Usman Khalids and others of like persuasion, time to do a cost-benefit analysis at their leisure and compute the actual expenses of their brilliant `low-cost option` suddenly transformed into a high cost option. And then perhaps they can decide whether Supreme Leader Musharraf and the Pakistan Army are really in a position to extract any concessions from India.

Ali1

Ali rest assured I do not have in mind to stuff anyone witrh anything. I think if it`s true that it is the ``brutalized who in turn brutalize``, we should at least explore the role of caste in the cycle of brutalization.

You are right that Indians on Chowk have shown a curious attitude in not discussing items that are unconfortable for them - but the fact that it is uncomfortable to them is because they think it is some sort of secret that only they know of - but of course it is not.

Also, I think such a discussion if it ever got of the ground and away from the defensive hysteria we have witnessed - could be of help to Pakistanis as well. Prem has asserted that it is Pakistan that is the heir to ``Bhramanic racism`` - we must not avoid that we are effected by trends in Indian culture and that the discussion of caste also effects us.

Prem

Dekh, tu mere ko ekdam sharif aadmi lagta. Kaise es hobby ke chakkar mein pad gaya re. Ab yeh hobby tera bheja fry kar ke chicken kee mafik khaa jayega. Bada pakau aadmi hai yeh hobby. Es se pind chuda ke sarpat bhaag ja.

Hobyty, I see that you have stuffed the Hindutva-vadis with Habaneros. Good Job dude! You raise questions that they know the answers to, but wouldn`t acknowledge that these exist or have any significance.

Akash - anyone else interested

You are right Pakistan has lost previous wars with India and most Pakistanis do not want to war with India - One can agrue that it was cowardly to have ordered outrages in Bangladesh, and cowardly to to have accepted such orders.

Should we war again? Does the fact that both armies include nuclear weapons not suggest a more sober view? Why are some indians on Chowk so prickly towards criticism? what are you so afraid of? That the rest of the world will know what you discuss amongst each other in private? is that what you are afrid of - don`t be - everyone one these issues - there is no reason to be afraid or defensive. As you know there has been very little reporting on the conditions of the forces stationed in the Indian desert - Is inquiry, like criticism, also, to be denied? I think most Indians will agree that these issues should be discussed and not treated as a threat, other Indians do discuss these issues, why are Indians on Chowk so defensive, so ready for a fight? What do you think of the ideas below and what do you think Mr. Musharraf will extract in return for providing the Indian government a fig leaf to allow the Indian government to order their forces back to the barracks?:

From the ``Hindu``

``Between war and surrender

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI APRIL 28 . Does the Government have a Plan B if its Plan A does not work on the border with Pakistan? Is the Government thinking of strategic alternatives if its explicit threat to go to war does not persuade the Pakistani leadership to give up on cross-border terrorism?

If the Government, busy this week defending its dismal record in Gujarat, does not quickly concentrate its political energies in dealing with the military situation on the border, the riskiest strategic manoeuvre India has ever initiated is likely to end up in a humiliating political defeat.

After the shocking December 13 attacks on the Parliament House, India threw much of its military might on the border with Pakistan with a very simple message to Islamabad — either end cross-border terrorism or face the consequences. The hints from Gen. Musharraf are that he is ready to call the Indian bluff.

The Indian military mobilisation and the Anglo-American diplomatic intervention nudged the President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, into promising, on January 12, a crackdown on the jehadi forces at home and prevent the use of Pakistani territory to foment terrorism across the border.

India was not ready to believe Gen. Musharraf`s words and wanted to see evidence on the ground which would not come until the snows melted. The first indications are that there is no substantive reduction in cross-border terrorism.

If the next few weeks confirm that Gen. Musharraf has no intention to honour his words, New Delhi will face a stark choice. It will either have to escalate the military pressure on Pakistan with all the consequent risks or tamely concede its willingness to live with a perpetual threat of cross-border terrorism.

A conscious Indian decision to raise the military temperature on the border will have to be accompanied by a serious diplomatic effort to maintain international pressure on Gen. Musharraf and a determined bid to restore the national resolve demonstrated after December 13.

A failure to persuade Pakistan on cross-border terrorism will also have its impact on the elections in Kashmir due later this year. All the planned political initiatives of the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, in Kashmir will go up in smoke if he cannot pursue the coercive diplomacy against Pakistan to its logical conclusion.

Forget for a moment the beating India`s image has taken in the world in the last couple of months of bloodletting in Gujarat. That pain will be nothing compared to the strategic reversals that await India on its borders with Pakistan and in Kashmir. Mr. Vajpayee can either hang on to Narendra Modi or vigorously implement the national security agenda. He cannot do both.

What is a demarche? It is an official representation by a diplomat or a group diplomats from different countries to the host nation. It usually involves a request for action or decision from the host nation on a matter of concern to other governments.

Over the recent years India has received many demarches, mostly on Indo-Pak relations and on its nuclear and missile programmes. Thanks to the BJP Government in Gujarat, India`s internal governance is now up for international scrutiny.``

Sadna# 305:

Sadna, that was hilarious.

-h-

Stuka

Unfair - not, Zafar - please not, Zafar.

Dost Mittar

Something you may not want to see or discuss or be critical of - it could be used as a stick to beat up on India - you better get used this, you are going to one sore Indian, or you can simply discuss it as an adult person:

From ``Daily Nation`` -

``BJP planned anti-Muslim riots

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Members of India’s ruling BJP were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims in the western state of Gujarat, which were pre-planned and could spread throughout the country, Human Rights Watch charged Tuesday.

The New York-based rights group said the state government of Gujarat, led by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Hindu nationalist BJP party, was engaged in a ‘massive cover-up’ to hide its role in two months of communal violence that has left at least 900 people dead.

‘What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising; it was a carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims,’ Smita Narula, Human Rights Watch’s senior South Asia researcher, said in the 75-page report.

‘The attacks were planned in advance and organised with extensive participation of the police and state government officials,’ she said.

Police officials who sought to protect Muslims were removed from their positions, while some police even led distraught victims directly into the hands of their killers, the rights group said.

At the height of the riots between February 28 and March 2, thousands of saffron-clad Hindu hardliners descended on Muslim neighbourhoods ‘guided by voter lists and printouts of addresses of Muslim-owned properties — information obtained from the local municipality.’

‘This is a crisis of impunity,’ Narula said. ‘If charges against members of these groups are not investigated and prosecuted accordingly, violence may continue to engulf the state and may even spread to other parts of the country.’

The rights body said mass graves have been found around Gujarat and that the death toll from the riots could be as high as 2,000.

Human Rights Watch quoted a woman at a mass grave in Gujarat’s commercial capital Ahmedabad who washed female victims’ charred and mutilated bodies before burial.

‘Some bodies had heads missing, some had hands missing, some were like coal — you would touch them and they would crumble. I washed 17 bodies on March 2; only one was completely intact. All had been burned, many had been split down the middle,’ the woman said.

Mansoori Abdulbhai, a 53-year-old resident of Ahmedabad’s Gulmarg Society neighbourhood, said 19 members of his family were killed.

‘First they cut people so they couldn’t run and then they set them on fire. One or two women were taken inside and gang raped. After five hours the police came and brought us here (to a mass grave site). It was so well-planned,’ he said.

Citing witnesses and police reports, Human Rights Watch said the BJP was directly involved in the anti-Muslim violence along with several affiliated Hindu revivalist groups, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council), Bajrang Dal and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

The riots broke out February 27 after a Muslim mob torched a train carrying Hindu hardliners, killing 58 people. Most of the victims since have been Muslims, up to 100,000 of whom languish in displacement camps.

Opposition parties have been demanding that Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi be sacked, but the BJP has refused to accept his resignation, calling on him instead to seek a new mandate in early elections.``

Zafar zafar, Hobbyty is troubling me...pls teach him a lesson :))

HobbyTy

``Only Indians have been responsible for the break up of India``

Well, yeah!!! if you are counting all Pakistanis as erstwhile Indians, then yes, only Indians are responsible for partition

`` - and among Indians, Hindus must own up to their responsibility in breaking up India. ``

True, true. When Jinnah said Partition or Civil War, Hindus shoulda said civil war.

``Iit is Hindus who label Muslims, ``Invaders``,``

What should we label them? guests? They were invaders, even Pakistani history talks about the conquest of Sind. Muslims were not coming to India claiming political asylum.

``it is Hindus who are exclusionary``

True, and you guys are too inclusionary!!

``either way, all those Indians who wish to secure the territorial integrity of India, must be conscious that it`s not possible to secure this objective without the agreement of Muslims and Christians, who are also EQUAL claimants to India, To Life, to Liberty, to a safe present and future``

Not true. we could be territorially be one country, and still fight it out. Yeah?

Hobbyty

``The Indian armed forces in the desert are in a pitiable situation - these servie men do not even have field toilets, and clean drinking water is becoming highly prized, with the coming rainy season, their armour movement will be difficult if not impossible, the new aircraft do not have air to air missiles and only 30 aircraft have avionics required to target precision weapons, T72 tank that form the bulk of Indian armour is an international failure - and you want to convince us they are battle ready against Pakistani armed forces, ``

Mian dum hai to lad ke dekh lo, eent se eent baja denge tumharee. When we thrashed the crap out of you in 1971, we had lesser ammunition. This time with all the ammunition we have, we can make the world forget the place of Pakiland on the map. This is a challenge to the coward Paki army who lost each and every war against us. You lost yesterday, you will lose today, and you will lose to India in future. A bunch of losers you guys are...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/magazine/28LIVES.html

SHE IS`NT MIRA NAIR THE MOVIE PRODUCER/DIRECTOR BUT LITERARY PERSONALITY WHOSE FIRST BOOK OF SHORT STORIES ``VIDEO`` JUST HIT THE BOOK STORE.

A Show of Faith

By MEERA NAIR

here`s a dead Hindu in the building,`` says the Muslim watchman. We are standing inside the gates of my apartment complex in the South Indian town of Hyderabad. Outside, except for a stray dog nosing through a garbage bin and the armed soldiers at the corner, the sun-rinsed street is deserted. The city is under curfew for the eighth straight day, and the soldiers have orders to shoot violators on sight. They announce this fact at intervals, politely, over megaphones.

It is December 1990. Hindu fundamentalists have once again tried to tear down a 400-year-old mosque in Ayodhya. They claim that Babar, the Mogul emperor, razed a Hindu temple to Ram, the Hindu god-king, to build the mosque. The mosque is only slightly damaged. But it is enough to make mythic hatreds between Hindus and Muslims bubble to the surface.

``It was a mistake,`` the watchman says. The dead man was a laborer, newly arrived from North India, one of a gray, overlooked brigade that polished floors. His downfall was that he spoke an unfamiliar rural dialect.

``He was shouting something, but no one understood.`` The watchman is insistent, a town crier with an important proclamation. ``So the Hindus thought he was a Muslim and cut him.``

``Where was he?`` I ask.

``His wife found his body in the alley behind the building,`` he jerks his thumb over his shoulder. ``Fate! What else?`` he cries, trying to answer the unanswerable. ``He had to be there at that time.`` I look away from his darting kohl-rimmed eyes and his rumpled khaki uniform. I didn`t want him to sense my unease.

I want to believe his version -- that it was a tragic misunderstanding. But first, I want him to explain how he knows the details -- the worker`s futile pleadings, the identity of his killers. ``How do you know they were Hindus?`` I ask him.

``They were,`` he replies and starts to walk away. Too quickly, it seems to me.

Did he see it all? The scuffle in the alley, the knives to the belly. Did other tenants stand by, watching from their windows? Letting a man die because he was Hindu? Until that moment, it hadn`t occurred to me to be afraid of my neighbors.

My brother and I were among the few Hindus in a predominantly Muslim complex. We had moved in four months before. We hardly knew anyone in the building. But we liked the place and didn`t mind the smell of biriyani rice in the corridors or the hordes of children playing loud cricket on holidays.

Even when the curfew emptied the streets, I felt safe, surrounded by the ordinary. But that was before the laborer was killed. Now, after, I am afraid of drawing attention to myself and ashamed of my fear. I don`t want to see the changed, severe faces of my neighbors turning to watch me as I walk past the knots of women talking in the courtyard. The escalation of attacks -- women and children, Hindu and Muslim, killed in their beds -- angers me. I can only imagine what it makes my neighbors feel.

We don`t nod hello to each other anymore. How can we? In the streets, our people are doing unspeakable things to one another. There are rumors about the revival of an age-old torment: mobs from both sides stop men at random and demand they declare their religion. Those suspected of lying are forced to undress. Once naked, they are easy to indict or set free -- only Muslims are circumcised.

One evening, our food runs out. During a brief break in the curfew, my brother goes for groceries. We hear the stores are empty. But he must try.

The knock on the door, when it comes, is soft and hesitant. I hear my breath, noisy in my chest. ``Kaun hai?`` I ask in Hindi. ``It`s me,`` my co-worker Muhammed answers. ``And Anwar. Open the door.`` They live 20 minutes away. I have known them for years. Yet for one horrible, shameful instant, I stand in my doorway and wonder if it is safe to invite them in. They must have read my face because they rush to state their purpose. Muhammed`s mother has sent me a gift: potatoes and onions in a string bag. Last year, she showed me how to make sheer korma, the creamy vermicelli dessert she made each year to celebrate the end of Ramadan. I didn`t know what to say.

``Leave the door open,`` Anwar says, as I let them inside. ``This being a Muslim area, we thought it was good to show people that we know your family.`` They stayed for some time and left only when my brother returned.

I`ll never know whether we were in real danger. Were Anwar and Muhammed just playing it safe? Or did they know of actual threats against us? I never could bring myself to ask them. It was a terrible time; and when it was over, none of us wanted to talk about it anymore. So I only told them how wonderful the potatoes had tasted. I never told them that I had eaten dinner that night more terrified and more grateful than I had ever been.

Meera Nair is the author of ``Video,`` a collection of short stories, published this month by Pantheon.

Dost Mittar, Shankar, Sadna, Prem

Here we go again - these series of post are based on the contention that caste serves to distribute inequality in society based on biology - that caste is unique to Hinduism, and the violence associated with Hindutva and it`s organs, suggests that there is a relationship between caste and religious bigotry and violence in India.

The hysterical response of inseucre persons such as yourself has been fun.

You could have chosen to discuss the matter, explain the matter, explore any connection - but instead you are so insecure - you can`t even discuss it like adults. - you will discuss no criticism - too bad, you`re just going to have to deal with it; goes with democracy, secularism and growing up.

All you have come up with in response to criticism is Hobbyty hates Hindus, hobbyty hates caste, we condem caste but are unable to discuss it, for fear that Hinduism relationship with caste will be brought up - hobbyty wants to break India - whine, whine - when all that was require was to discuss the issue like adults. You can whine all you like, but this issue will not go away - as a matter of fact it is a issue of national importance to Indians - not without impact on Pakistan. Grow up, learn to accept and discuss criticism.

Dost-Mitter ji

Eh kide naal sir-khapai karan lage de ho? Eh hai kharh budhi, `Main Na maanu`. Tussi jo marzi kahi jaao, eh record apni jagah to nahi hilna.

Regards

hobbyty,

{{Why are you and Prem and most shocking for me, Shankar, defending the caste system?}}

Yo..butthead! Where the heck was I defending the caste system?! I think it is the greatest mistake hinduism ever made. Dont twist things out of context..

Reply YLH:

``Ladies and gentlemen

REQUEST: Please don`t throw Jay a bone by responding to him.``

Yeah... I second that. Why don`t we just toss YLH to him instead and kill two birds with one stone?

Hee-HAWWWW<

Reply AAmir #272:

Your reply does a lot to redeem you. I am almost ashamed for sounding so shrill in my post. If your intentions are truly as you say they are, and I have no reason to doubt it, then your concern is welcome. Keep posting.

Stuka

I not interested in making meaningless statements about peace between Pakistan and Indina or Muslims and Hindus - Doesn`t mean I don`t want, but I tell it like it is - and that`s uncomfortable to people who will brook no criticism - well, that`s just too damn bad. Only Indians have been responsible for the break up of India - and among Indians, Hindus must own up to their responsibility in breaking up India. It is Hindus who want to fight the wars of history, it is Hindus who label Muslims, ``Invaders``, it is Hindus who are exclusionary - sound too tough - you are a service person - you judge whether it is truth or not - either way, all those Indians who wish to secure the territorial integrity of India, must be conscious that it`s not possible to secure this objective without the agreement of Muslims and Christians, who are also EQUAL claimants to India, To Life, to Liberty, to a safe present and future. I know most Indians on these boards will say this their dream, their vision - and then in the same breath take offence at criticism, in the same breath, defend the odious caste system, in the same breath, defend the most absurd notions of what pluralism, what tolerance and what secularism mean. Stuka, it is a time for reconing; a time to say ``let`s reevaluate our position``, ``let`s live up to what we think is best in us``.

If you should decide to go into defensive or offensive mode with persons such me - remember, While you are giving me huff, puff and bluster, and why you are angry about this or that - the country is disintegrating before your and my eyes. You want to impress me, you want me to take you seriously, own up to responsibility. I know you are from a military tradition, do they teach one to do an ostrich routine, or do they teach looking reality in the eyes, do they teach to cover up problems or solve them? Do they teach to fight an external war while also fighting an internal war? This Hindu/Muslim stuff for good or bad, depending on the choice one will make, will define India - and you do not realize this yet, but the seeds for an internal conflagration have been sown by Hindutva bigots and if a decision is made to ``weed`` out such seeds, it will be a long and violent process.

``The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Social Welfare Organization), which is the BJP`s parent body, demands that all Indians ``should be called Hindus.`` The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Universal Hindu Society), with nearly 2 million members, warns that minority security depends on the majority`s goodwill. Both are urging Hindus to boycott Muslims economically.``

``Muslims are dangerously preparing to fight back, warns a senior Indian police official, Julio Ribeiro, a Catholic who has studied conditions in Gujarat. They have lost all faith in the administration and in their own moderate leaders, and have nowhere to run to.`` PLease do not blame Pakistan, Directorate of ISI or me, for Indian mismanagement, for choosing psychology over reason, for hiding reliogious bigotry in a veil of ``secularism``, Indians, and most especially Hindus, must accept responsibility for-whether they will will acept responsibility or play a blame game, the consequences of their choice will be there for them and the world to judge:

From International Herald Tribune:

Monday April 29, 2002

``A Hindu Laboratory” Frightens Muslims

Sunanda K.Datta-Rau

Calcutta When the British high commissioner, Sir Rob Young, reminded Indian television watchers that there are nearly 600,000 Gujaratis in Britain, it was seen as a warning of possible international legal action against Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, which has been convulsed by violence against Muslims for the last two months.

India has known hundreds of religious riots since independence in 1947, but never before has a government been accused, as Modi`s is, of what India`s press, social workers and human rights activists call a pogrom. Significantly, Gujarat is the only one of India`s 26 states to be ruled by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. Hindu zealots call it the laboratory of the future, meaning the Hindu rashtra (state) of their dreams.

Officials say 840 people have been killed in retaliatory violence since Muslims burned alive 59 Hindu men, women and children on Feb. 27, but the Communist Party estimates more than 2,000 deaths. Modi defends the backlash by citing Newton`s third law - every action provokes a reaction.

Muslim homes and shops have been destroyed, women raped and shrines attacked. With an indifferent if not hostile police, the thousands of Muslims who have taken refuge in hastily constructed camps feel unsafe even there. Aggressive Hindus push back those who try to return to their old homes and businesses.

Vajpayee will not hear a word against his protégé Modi. He has given short shrift to opposition and media demands for the chief minister`s removal, and to respected organizations like India`s National Human Rights Commission and National Minorities Commission, which accuse the Modi government of encouraging violence. People fear a bloodbath if he gives in further to the chief minister and withdraws the army from Gujarat. Meanwhile, the psychological pressure is mounting. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Social Welfare Organization), which is the BJP`s parent body, demands that all Indians ``should be called Hindus.`` The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Universal Hindu Society), with nearly 2 million members, warns that minority security depends on the majority`s goodwill. Both are urging Hindus to boycott Muslims economically. Several states have voted against the BJP and its allies since Vajpayee became prime minister in 1998. But party strategists say the BJP would win hands down if elections were held in today`s inflamed atmosphere. ``Kill Muslims and win the Hindu vote`` was a leftist intellectual`s despairing comment.

There is middle-class distaste for Hindu folk cults dominated by superstition, ritual and ``holy men`` with matted locks daubed in ash and vermilion that bear no relation to the profundity of the Vedas, the sacred hymns of Hinduism`s ancient Aryan founders. But the virus of cultural animosity is spreading. Many Hindus see Muslims as a pampered lot governed by their own divorce and inheritance laws and enjoying their own religious schools.

``Scratch a Muslim and find a Pakistani`` just about sums up the sentiment of many Hindus. Muslims are dangerously preparing to fight back, warns a senior Indian police official, Julio Ribeiro, a Catholic who has studied conditions in Gujarat. They have lost all faith in the administration and in their own moderate leaders, and have nowhere to run to. The murder of three British Muslims in Gujarat has incensed Indian Muslim settlers in Britain who are preparing to move the British courts, as well as the International Court of Justice at The Hague, against Modi. Hence New Delhi`s wrath against the British, Canadian, Finnish, Swiss and German governments and the European Union, which have deplored the Gujarat riots. India, like the United States, opposes the proposed International Criminal Court.

As it happens, the danger of serious religious carnage has surfaced in a state that gave birth in the eighth century to the Jain sect, which holds all life sacred and carries ahimsa (nonviolence) to the extent that Gujarati Jains wear gauze gags so that they do not inadvertently swallow even an insect.

The writer, a former editor of the Indian newspaper The Statesman, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.``

RE Zafar # 284

Well you did miss out on the national anthem -

Q. What is the national anthem of Khalistan?

A. Yeh bullet meri jaan manzilon ka nishan

For those not in the know, the above was a popular advertising jingle for Bullet motorcycles (and in this context a reference to the frequent killings carried out those days).

& then there are

Q. What is the Khalistan National Drink?

A. Sarbat Khalsa

btw the National Airlines is Itthe Pacific

Actually moving on how many of you out there are familiar with the Thak Thak jokes (desi Knock Knock). A few samples:

Thak Thak

Kaun Hai?

Mehmood

Mehmood Kaun?

Meh mood may nahi hoon.

Thak Thak

Kaun hai?

Hema Malini

Hema Malini kaun?

Hay ma mali nahi hoon

Thak Thak

Kaun hai?

Agarwal

Agarwal kaun?

Agar wall pay soo soo karoge to pakde jaoge

The one that I like, it was popular in Maharashtra when A.R Antulay was frequently embroiled in some court case or the other

Thak Thak

Kaun hai?

Antulay

Antulay kaun?

A(r)nt u late for court today?

Rajeev Gandhi ko bhi nahi chodte

Thak Thak

Kaun Hai?

Rajeev

Rajeev kaun?

Raj even today Gandhion ka hota hai.

There are soe more but lets hear them from others

-

Subroto

Folks
Whats all this?? Here is hobbyt expending blood and sweat trying to convince you to cultivate some humanity and here you are STILL vigorously arguing for the preservation of the caste system. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.


I haven`t been following this closely enough but hope you are anyways having fun travelling in tight circles on the circular logic express. One round trip takes about two days I observe:)

Whats your opinion of caste---- We condemn casteism----why so defensive, admit it and work for solutions----here are the solutions we are trying out----how can you ignore a problem, will it go awayif you ignore it----we aren`t ignoring it, we just told you about the solutions----why so defensive, it troubles me that you support and defend casteism like this----we condemn casteism----why so defensive, admit it and find solutions---etc-

Dost Mittar - anyone else who cares

Dost, the denial, the excuses, the obfuscation you to want to wallow in, is unworthy. You can achieve a breath through by admitting, first to yourself, that a great deal of the present discourse about secularism in India is a Sham - and in this sham, Caste and exclusivist Hindutva ideology has wormed its way into legitimacy.

In present day India when the word ``minority`` is used - what does it denote? Would it be unfair to say that it denotes Muslims or Christians? After all, are these Muslims and Christians significantly, if at all, ethnically different from the majority of Indians? The honest answer is, no, they are not. What manner of secularism is it when terms that denote ethnic groups in the rest of the world, are, in India, used to denote religious minorities?

The question of caste, secularism are ``uncomfortable`` questions - but they need not be - Why are you and Prem and most shocking for me, Shankar, defending the caste system? Seems to be you lot ought to have been in the forefront of being critical of this evil.

I want to point out to you how you are obfuscating - You argue, inspite of published report to the contrary, that there was no planning involved in the events of Gujrat - even though a report by British diplomats asserts that there was, even though the full scale of the violence began more than 24 hours after the train tragedy.

You say, ``The doubts I was raising were in relation to preplanning; there is a BIG difference between collusion and planning and I would not insult you by thinking that you did not understand that.`` OK, I`ll take you at your word that you did not mean an insult, perhaps you will explain the difference between ``Planning`` and ``preplanning``??

And you wish to libel me and charge me with ``spin``? - Just please explain, why are you defending this? Why are you not trying to find out what kinds of ideas in society are responsible for these events - If God forbid, these events occur else where in India - will you examine the role of caste, it`s relationship with making Hindutva legitimate? What explanation might you offer the dead, for your complacency in this matter?

``I have always been aware of the dangers of where some of the leaders of the Hindutva movement were taking it. I had and have no problems with the promotion of a benign cultural nationalism in India (or in Pakistan for that matter!) as long as it is inclusive and not exclusive.``

I can`t believe what I`m reading - and from a supposedly educated person such as yourself - There is no such a thing as an inclusive nationalism - it`s a bloody oxymoron - nationalism itself is exclusionary. Listen, Dost - just for a minute, think about the psychology that informs your statement - You knew the Hindutva to be an evil, but that was OK with you, as long as it met your needs. ``Benign``?? You have surrendered criticism on the altar of psychology - you even differentiate hate as inclusive and exclusive - I wish I could pick you up and shake you out of the trance you seem to be in - please, wake up! ``Cultural Nationalism`` ??- Please reconsider, reevaluate. Were the ideas of National Socialism in Germany also cultural nationalism?

``My disgust with the saffron brigade is precisely because their movement wishes to

exclude the many contributions of minority groups which makes India such a natural multicultural wonderland. I also have no problem with the Hindus having a greater sense of self-esteem as long as it doesn`t turn into a hatred and debasing the identity of the ``other`` (which, btw, is what YOUR posts are all about!).``

``Minority groups`` - you mean other religious groups? How does one reconcile the part about your disgust with your affinity with cultural nationalism? Is it OK to hate persons outside one`s nationalistic construct?

``Self - Esteem of Hindus``? Self-esteem? More psychology - Dost, it is an evil, sure and true; romanticism and violence are twins, Dost. I`m floored, I think I never realized the depth of attachment that so many, otherwise thinking persons - as in rational, reasoning - can have to ``feelings`` of internalized hate.

``Hatred and debasing the identity of the other`` - what my posts are about? Yet more psychology, no Sir, my posts are about criticism. You view them as hatred and debasement because of your construct of ``self-esteem.`` You have closed yourself to any criticism that conflicts with these notions of ``self-esteem.`` What cultural nationalism is open to criticism? Do you not seem that such attitudes are a danger to democracy and to secularism? Criticism is the most essential quality, the most essential requirement of liberty and democracy - I urge you to give this matter more thought - if one cannot be open to criticism, one is not in a position to make claims about pluralism or secularism - these exist because of and are sustained by criticism.

``Caste...it is not THE defining characteristic of Hinduism;`` give me a break, six, half dozen or the other. You admit it`s ``unique`` - and the use of ``THE`` in denoting the unique is appropriate - even though I did not use it, you did.

On the origins of caste system - it was Shankar who first educated me on this matter, and that it was, as are all the text of Hinduism, a temporal, human creation. You will never find me asserting that the structure of Hinduism is anything but unique, in relation to the structure of other religions. That Hinduism and caste have changed or evolved over the years is not in question - that caste serves to structure inequality in society is my contention - and on this issue, your excuses and explanation are singularly, unconvincing - indeed, you do not even tackle the issue, directly. You also do not acknowledge the role of Zaat/Jaat in justifying inequality - you do not deal with the fact this is a biological basis for discrimination.

If you do not find these supportable and do find these objectionable - why have you chosen to not support my contention, my condemnation of these?? More self-esteem? Dost, please do not engage in discussion where you point out that so and so is a Muslim, and so and so is Dalit - because it reveals the consciousness with regard to caste and ``minorities`` that most persons will find offensive. ``Some of my best friends are ...`` I realize that these may be part of the stock arguments in India, but in the real world, as you are discovering, claims of the lack of consciousness of caste are not justified by pointing to examples of just such a consciousness.

``The most important role the caste is still playing in people`s personal lives is its endogamous character.`` Absurd and unworthy of you - why do you suppose the ``endogamous`` character survives? What can we learn from the adherence to caste in society? - as Hinduism and Caste are evolving, clearly Hindus have and are as well, these are not points of contention. Remember the point is that caste does as it did in eons past, structure inequality in society based on biological basis. Caste still plays a major role in the lives of a majority of Hindus. Most Hindus still live in rural India, do not have a world view and familiarity with the world that the kinds of persons you describe do - is this an untrue statement? Are not newspaper regularly publishes outrages to conscience, related to caste??

``I do not believe that all Hindus hate Muslims. Some do just as much as You hate the Hindus.`` I hate caste and this threatens some who associate hating caste to be the same Hindus - this I cannot do anything about.

``Islam in India had no problem with the caste system and is probably one of the few aspect of the Hindu society that it has accepted. In fact, I have realised after being on Chowk for about four years that the ``caste``/race psyche is more firmly entrenched in Pakistan than in India.``

I, Hobbyty, am not Islam in India or in Pakistan - and to the degree that caste/race psyche is entrenched in Pakistan - it is with utmost shame and horror, that I approach it.

`` Their (those who hate) hatred is more because of the historical factors, including the

unfair burden imposed on India`s Muslims by the TNT and especially because of Islamists like yourself who insist that their belonging to the Muslim Umma somehow puts them in a special category of Indians.``

This your observation and like so much of your observation, is psychology. This is more of a charge, than anything else.

``And I also do not believe that the only alternative is to break-up India.`` Perhaps not ``the only alternative``, but it certainly is, one of many, won`t you agree?

``The problem of not respecting people`s human rights is not limited to Muslims, although they are certainly a major victim of such abuse. The answer lies in forming coalitions with the decent majority of all Indians and especially to convince India`s opinion makers that their country will never fulfil its promise unless it protects the life, property and dignity of all its citizens regardless of their caste, sex, ethnicity or religious beliefs.``

I agree with the general thrust of this statement. Now to specifics: it is not opinion makers but individuals to whom this appeal to reason must be directed. However; an argument or any case that does not admit, does not promote, that caste is inequality in society, is but hollow. Listen here, caste has got to be banished from the minds and hearts of men. It cannot be done by government fiat (it`s been outlawed - did law create it that it imagines it can destroy it)?, but by conscience. If one believes that all men are created, born, equal - is it not the obligation of one to DO their utmost to see that this truth, is made ``flesh,`` to use the language of the ``Good News`` ?? You, Prem and especially Shankar should be first in supporting my criticism of caste, instead of defending it as if you were defending Hinduism. If you find instances in which caste informs a particular practice of Hinduism, it`s your moral obligation to be publicly critical of it.

In a conversation with Zafar, the notion of ``Dignity Deficit`` was explored; I think your idea of ``self-esteem`` is related to exactly this notion of ``Dignity Deficit.`` You have said that hatred compels me, but I would like you to know what I think, compels me. I recognize that much about Islam has come to be distorted and I seek to inject into the discourse about Islam and Muslims, the element of criticism. Ijethad, Ijma and Shurra, I have written about repeatedly - I have also written about the direct relationship between Reason, Liberty, the freedom of conscience, the pluralism within and of religion and the pluralism of salvation. In other words, equality and freedom are synonymous with being a Muslim. This ethical, moral, intellectual and political view informs my attitude to caste, Alphanell had pointed out that this my intellectual bias, I readily admit and embrace this bias and invite you to discard any idea that to attack caste is to attack Hinduism - you yourself admit and agree that it is a construct that may have been relevant to the time and circumstances it was created in - clearly it is neither relevant nor appropriate to these times - why should want to defend it - if, as you admit and agree that Hinduism is changing, just what need does caste, cater to? Should we not distinguish between Psychology and Reason? Has caste not been responsible for inequality in society? How can it not be responsible when it argues that some persons are born to serve others? Is there any human construct more odious, more objectionable?

The ``Dignity Deficit`` both Indians and Pakistanis, regardless of ethnic or confessional affiliation suffer from is related to the lack of assertion in individual and public life that all men are equal, that they are made equal by their creator.

As to your assertion that ``Islamist like`` me wish only to break up India - psychology, your ``enemies`` have been identified, these enemies are not inequality or the lack of dignity, but the ``other`` - What I have repeated asked is for those Indians who argue that secularism (objective or subjective) is the cure for the ills, is to act on their convictions - there can be no secularism or democracy, when ideas such as caste that argue for inequality based on biology, are allowed public space. For once, imagine the shoe is on the other foot - reverse Hindu for Muslim in this narrative - tell me if you see fairness or equality? Tell me, if you were a Muslim, you would not consider a solution in which your life and property and future could be safe guarded? If anybody is responsible for the break up of India it has been and it will be, Indians and Hindus have been and will be in the forefront of responsibility. Everyone is forever acting on you guys - when you wake up to responsibility, You will find that it calls for sobriety, not bloody psychology - not ``self-esteem`` but a willingness to see and hear the other side of the argument, not as enemies, put as persons who have a valid point of view, who want fairness and equality.

Now, Hindutva - If secularism were a national ethic, could ideas such as Hindutva succeed? If ``Dignity`` were not in deficit, could Hindutva succeed? If equality of all men were an idea that is basic to the polity, would Hindutva ever succeed? - You say hatred and debasement is what I am about - your privilege to hold such an opinion of me - but I hope you will awaken to the fact that criticism can lead to solutions - that blaming smoke for the fire, can never lead to solutions.

re: saminashah # 299

Samina, the origins of that complex cuisine are well wrapped in mystery and mythology :)

But you know, when one gets as famished as I sometimes do, EVERYTHING tastes heavenly. In those hurried hungry moments, I could gratefully eat my utensils. Now, when not in such dire straits, I cook reasonably well; but I detest the very thought of doing dishes (even though that simply means placing those dirty dishes inside the dishwasher).

Caste is still a major problem for India, and for Hindus. It still excercises too much power at the social level. The one saving grace is that as an institution it is losing legitimacy. We are not STUCK with it. Widespread consensus is emerging among Hindus that caste is an obsolete and destructive institution that should no more hold the central place it once did, and that too, not very long ago.

Yet, it will take about four or five generations for the institution to really weaken. Ironically, a complicating factor has arisen direcly from the womb of Indian democracy - caste-politics. Such politics, in general, have a huge salutary effect: they empower the traditionally weaker sections, and have had positive effects in redistributing societal resources. The next Chief Minister of my state - UP - will most likely be, again, Mayawati - a dalit. Yet, such politics make it harder to do away with the institution of caste itself, by creating new vested interests around it. There too, democracy has thrown up some remarkable results. For example, caste-based parties have had to reach out to and include members of other castes and Muslims in order to win wider backing. So, there are some positive signs, but the challenge is huge too.

I sometimes envy Muslims - they probably have fewer problems to deal with. IMO they definitely began with a better system thirteen hundred years ago or so (?) than Hindus had at that point in time (is it the ``grass being greener on the other side`` syndrome? :)). But that dynamic is changing now. I guess having bigger problems makes one work harder to address them.

re: Hobbyty # 298

Quit that casteist (not racist) thinking. Your being an achhoot doesn`t necessarily make you incapable of rational thought.

But a serious word, hobbyty. If you present yourself as an achhoot (btw, as an update, achhoots proudly call themselves dalits now), you will find me and many other Hindus far more sympathetic and far more accommodating of your views. I personally never get into long arguments with dalits: we deprived them of their rights for too long for me to argue fine points of religion, ethics, and philosophy with them. They are my equals and I accord them that respect.

On the other hand, I do not bend over backwards with followers of other religions if they are not even Indians. You get a right to lecture us if you have anything to show for yourself. And there is nothing in your particular worldview, or concept of religion that one finds rational or appealing.

Later, dear friend. I will return to answer some of your issues. Keep safe.

Prem,

Per my understanding of history, I see secularism developing in homogenous Christian countries around the time of protestant reformation. Remember the phenomenon of reformation wasn`t seen at the time as `sharp religious difference` but a reform movement to reform catholicism and Papal christianity. Eventhough people argue Spanish inquisition, but they forget that spanish inquisition drove almost all the jews and muslims to other lands. Secularism resulted simply when individual christian states separated themselves from the Church in Rome/Vatican. However The two greatest examples of secularism didn`t even have the protestant catholic differences... US was most protestant when it was formed as a secular state.. and at the time of the French revolution, most of France was Catholic if I am not mistaken. Ofcourse there you have your `social dynamic` for homogenous states.

But lets talk about protestants and catholics and apply the same logic to the modern world.The divergence between protestants and catholics is roughly analogous to various sectarian differences in the Muslim community. Though shia sunni is tempting analogy.. the real analogy lies between the Modernists/rationalists (Afghani, Iqbal,Sir Syed, Ghulam Ahmed Parvez of the rationalists Idealogues of the Pakistan Movement) and traditionalists/literalists (Maudoodi, azad, religious parties of Pakistan etc)... so a relatively homogenous Muslim country with divergent religious beliefs (shias, sunnis, agha khanis, ahmadis, minority christians, minority hindus``) is roughly placed in the same place as the European states were in the protestant reformation.. In any event, such religious diversity is not analogous to say Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (early in the 20th century), and India. In my opinion these are ALL artificial countries, even if they are one geographical unit.

State-secularism however is a very simple phenomenon.. which really is something useful for any society homogenous or multicultural.As per John Locke, the true end of government is to provide law and order and judge impartially between its subjects. It is not the duty of the state to enforce religion or religious interpretation. I would say my support for a secular order was an `efficiency` based for which I started using minorities as an excuse, but somewhere along the way, I realized the promises made to them, and the promises betrayed. Ofcourse then I saw Yohanna play for Pakistan in Australia, destroy Prasad`s bowling, score a match-saving half century and make a trinity while the commentator went excitedly `There is a christian on the Pakistani side`. Something about that just warmed me up to the `moral` justification for `secularism`. Then ofcourse I read Quaid`s speeches in the full, an opportunity most Pakistanis were denied atleast when I was there and I became determined.

Religion is not the only source of tension. As Pakistan has proved, ethnic divides are just as great... but impartial governance takes into account all such factors! Perhaps a new definition of secularism is in order.

-YLH

HobbyTy:

``I have in numerous post said that if Hindus cannot live in peace with Muslims in India and since Hindus are an overwhelming majority and that since Muslims number 120 million - these Muslims must have the option, as must the various Hindus, to form their own soverign states. You got a problem with that?``

Damn right we do. A Muslim state was formed back in 1947. End of story. So tell me, is Pakistan allowing Muslims form Gujarat to apply for refugee status?

Prem,

Ketchup with your tikiya? Is this a Hindustani-Amrika thing? :)

But, I have to admit, the idea of caste makes me uncomfortable as well. Looking forward to the discussion here.

Prem

Now you angry - and I asked you nicely, there is no need to get angry. You are suggesting that I am ignornant of Hinduism and how caste works. I say caste functions on the basis of biologically discriminating against other persons, justify this inequality in society by arguing some perons are born to serve that is their Zaat/jaat.

As i am ignorant can you please explain how caste sytem works in Hinduism. Can you also tell me if there are any other religions in the world that organize human society by discrimnating on a biological basis? Are ther any Hindu societies in Java or Kampuchea that also have caste? if not would it be wrong to say that caste system is unique and thus a defining feature of Hinduism in India?

Now you are saying that I have said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live togther - and you want me to justify this statment - of course I have made no such statement - but I did make the statement that Hindu ethos and Muslim ethos are different. Casye system is a unique and defining feature of Hinduism - it is designed to construct inequality in society. Muslim ethos is that all men are equal. I have in numerous post said that if Hindus cannot live in peace with Muslims in India and since Hindus are an overwhelming majority and that since Muslims number 120 million - these Muslims must have the option, as must the various Hindus, to form their own soverign states. You got a problem with that?

You have argued that Secularism can save both Muslims and Hindus in India - is it too much to say ``show me``, don`t just talk - as yet, certainly not you, but no Hindu has actually been able to stop the killing and burning - why not? if secularism is the answer, why does it not work? How many more must die before you begin to ask whether you should reevaluate Indian secularism? You seem to treat the idea of secularism not as a utility but as some idol before which you offer the lives of innocents. I find this unacceptable. But you are Brahmin and I am an achute Muslim - what do I know? I am ignorant of Hinduism and caste system.

Dost Mittar, Prem and any other defenders of caste system

Indian writer says events in Gujrat and the behavour of politicians in Indian worthy of comparison with Nazi-ism - says bigotry of Hindus comparable to apartheid - says theis is the future of India, if thinking Indians do not confront their ills. Quoting from the Sangh Parivar writers such as H.V. Seshadri and R C Majumdar, Lavakare argues that if the Indian ‘secularists’ want the Hindus of 2002 to accept those Sabarmati shibboleths of non-violence and amity with the Muslims at any cost, they ought to also demand that the red carpet be laid for Pakistan to just stride into Srinagar and all the way down into Sabarimalai (in Kerala) — via Sabarmati.

`` Hindu Rashtra’s Gujarat lab

S P Udayakumar’s Indian Press Review

When all is said and done, how will India with this type of ideology and futuristic programme look like? The simple and direct answer would be: Look at Narendra Modi’s Gujarat, the unfortunate land that also produced Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The recent Gujarat carnage is much more than the worst incident of communal rioting independent India has witnessed. Riots are often described and reported as a sort of ‘action-reaction’ type incidents in which the violence part gets highlighted and noticed. But two specific factors make the Gujarat pogrom quite different from the usual communal riots. The first is the accompaniment of a clear and vehement ideology; the second the envisioning of the future that the perpetrators want to see. In brief, the recent Gujarat genocide is a mini-lab that tests a bigoted ideology and prepares a blueprint.

The bigoted ideology is of course the Hindutva ideology of the Sangh Parivar that is dead set against the minorities in India. It is against the traditional Indian value of secularism. The future blueprint this ideology prepares is soaked in violence. This blueprint works on two different fronts. First, it tries to negate the long and rich Indian heritage of nonviolence that boasts of principles such as Ahimsa, Satyagraha and Sarvodaya. It seeks to hide the foreign policy principles such as Panchshila, and nuclear-free zones etc. Most importantly, it tries to dismiss the powerful nonviolence luminaries such as Buddha, Mahavir, Ashoka, Guru Nanak, Mahatma Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, Mother Teresa and others as unimportant people in the history of India. Second, equipped with a bloody picture of India’s past, this Hindutva blueprint for India’s future envisions a Hindu Rashtra that will be soaked in revenge, remorse, retribution, retaliation, bigotry, blood and more blood.

Arvind Lavakare, a sympathizer of this ideology, explains it in his column in rediff.com, a popular webzine that has several editions in many different Indian languages (“Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence,” April 16, 2002).

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi returned to India towards the end of 1914 and almost immediately plunged into the country’s public life by starting an ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati river, with ‘Truth’ and ‘Non-violence’ as his slogans. The recent fracas in that ashram entailing a physical attack on Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan by a group allegedly led by a BJP youth leader was grist to the mill of Indian ‘secularists.’

These ‘secularists,’ according to Lavakare, used the Sabarmati Ashram incident to rub salt into the wounded Hindu psyche by proclaiming the irony of sustained communal violence in Gandhi country. That derision provokes a retrospective look at Gandhi’s concept of Hindu-Muslim unity, religious tolerance and non-violence.

Lavakare starts with Gandhi’s role in the Khilafat Movement. That movement was sparked by Kemal Pasha’s decision at the end of the First World War to finish off the regime of the autocratic and dynastic Sultan of Turkey, who was titled the Caliph and was looked upon as the temporal representative of Allah as well as the religious head of the entire Islamic world.

Occupying the position of the “right hand and left hand” of Gandhi in his Khilafat agitation were two brothers: Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali. As Gandhi himself explained, he was “seeking the friendship of good Mussalmans...to understand the Mussalman through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives”. These Muslims were the ones who later wrote a letter to the Amir of Afghanistan inviting him to invade Bharat.

Although the Khilafat Movement fizzled out in 1921 itself, propaganda was set afloat among Kerala’s local Muslims—the Moplahs—that the British regime had ended and Khilafat had been reinstated. The time to eliminate all kafirs had come, they were told. The Moplahs followed it up by anointing one Mohommed Haji as their Caliph and proclaimed jihad—against the British first and, after being defeated by the colonialists, against the Hindus. According to the Report of the Enquiry Committee of the Servants of India Society, the number of Hindus murdered was 1,500, the number of those forcibly converted was 20,000 and property looted was assessed at about Rs 30 million, while the molestation and abduction of Hindu women was apparently endless.

Here’s another instance of Gandhi’s ‘logic’ in defence of his Mussalman. On December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhananda, an eminent Congress as well as Arya Samaj leader who had launched a campaign to bring back the converted into the Hindu fold, was shot four times in his sick bed by a Muslim youth, Abdul Rashid. Although hanged for that crime, Rashid was treated by the Muslim community as some sort of martyr deserving of a special namaaz in the masjids and five complete recitations of the Koran. And in the Congress session in Guwahati, 1926, Gandhi himself said, “I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.”

Quoting from the Sangh Parivar writers such as H.V. Seshadri and R C Majumdar, Lavakare argues that if the Indian ‘secularists’ want the Hindus of 2002 to accept those Sabarmati shibboleths of non-violence and amity with the Muslims at any cost, they ought to also demand that the red carpet be laid for Pakistan to just stride into Srinagar and all the way down into Sabarimalai (in Kerala) — via Sabarmati.

When this kind of bigoted ideology supported by a sectarian reading and interpretation of history gives rise to communal divide and violence, a certain type of future is bound to emerge. The desired Hindu Rashtra in this case will hide nonviolence and highlight violence. In order to see that future Hindutva India, it may be worthwhile to see how this ideology in action is viewed from around the world. Sultan Shahin explains (“Gujarat: Return to the Deadly Past,” Asia Times, 26 April 2002) in a recent column how Gujarat’s pogrom politics are destroying India’s image of a secular democracy in the community of nations.

Several Western governments have come out with reports condemning the continuing massacres of Muslims in Gujarat, where in the past two months more than 1,000 people have died and more than 100,000 rendered homeless, their businesses and houses destroyed, as well as their mosques, and other Muslim shrines destroyed or converted into Hindu temples.

The United States fired the first salvo. On April 10 in New Delhi, US Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca, described the communal riots in Gujarat as “really horrible”. She then went on to add, “We are deeply saddened by them. We hope peace and stability soon returns to the state.” Rocca didn’t discuss Gujarat formally because she felt “internal situations are not discussed in bilateral meetings”.

However, the fact that Gujarat had attracted international attention was confirmed at the April 15 press briefing of the US State Department deputy spokesman, Phil Reeker. He said: “Our position on the communal violence that has occurred recently in Gujarat is clear. I can point out that one of the things Secretary Rocca talked about last week in New Delhi was condemnation for the horrible violence in Gujarat, urging all parties to seek a peaceful solution to their differences.”

Spain’s envoy to New Delhi reportedly described the Gujarat incidents as a “state gone berserk”. To the government’s great consternation, the British High Commission leaked to the Hindustan Times (April 15), north India’s largest circulated newspaper, the contents of its “secret” report to the British Foreign Office in London. Among other things, the British report made the following points: the continuing violence in Gujarat is aimed at removing Muslim influence from parts of the state; it placed the death toll at around 2,000; the post-Godhra (train-burning) violence was pre-planned; if the Sabarmati Express tragedy hadn’t happened, another flashpoint would have been created to justify pre-meditated violence as reaction; Muslim establishments and property were specially targeted by the rioting mobs in most places; it questioned the discrimination between the amount paid as compensation to victims/next of kin of the Godhra tragedy (Hindu) and the subsequent riots (Muslim); and conditions in relief camps.

The European Union’s (EU) leaked report (April 21, Indian Express) draws a parallel with apartheid and Nazis. In an even bigger setback to the image of Vajpayee’s government abroad, the EU said that “the carnage in Gujarat was a kind of apartheid...and has parallels with Germany of the 1930s”.

When all is said and done, how will India with this type of ideology and futuristic programme look like? The simple and direct answer would be: Look at Narendra Modi’s Gujarat, the unfortunate land that also produced Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

The writer is a Chinnai-based analyst and political and human-rights activist``

Progressive, Prem, Dost

Request your comments on the artilce below:

``Reapportioning of religious and secular space

Ayesha Jalal

While British perceptions of Indian society as an aggregation of religious communities gave impetus to representations of identity in idioms emphasizing differences, not commonalities, that social engineering on its own cannot explain the intensity of the process marking Indian attempts to deploy the categories of the colonial state to their own social and political advantage

Unlike their Mughal predecessors, the British announced their religious neutrality in matters to do with the governance of India. They instead claimed to have demarcated a ‘secular’ public sphere which was to be regulated by them and kept separate from the private sphere where Indians were to be allowed a measure of autonomy in their religiously informed cultural beliefs and practices. The expressed disinterest of the colonial state in religion had less to do with the ‘secular’ ideal than with the imperatives of ruling a culturally alien society.

Far from desacralizing the political or separating politics from the realms of religion and culture, the colonial state did much in bringing these spheres closer than ever and reshaping them in the process. Indian society was seen as an aggregation of religious communities. The British decision to cap the welter of social identities constituting the colourful mosaic of India with the overarching category of religion had monumental consequences, creating notions of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ communities drawing equally upon a privileging of the religious distinction. Census enumeration based on religion ensured against any neat separation between the material and the spiritual domains. Demands for places in educational institutions, jobs in government and shares of representation all drew on the statistics compiled by colonial census enumerators.

British perceptions of Indian society as an aggregation of religious communities gave impetus to representations of identity in idioms emphasizing differences, not commonalities between those who among other things happened to be Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Yet, British social engineering on its own cannot explain the intensity of the process marking Indian attempts to deploy the categories of the colonial state to their own social and political advantage. Indian subjectivity, whether interpreted in its individual or communitarian colours, constituted an important dimension in the discourse on identity from the late nineteenth century. Frequently accorded the pejorative label of ‘communalism’ in an attempt to distinguish it from the lauded sentiment of ‘nationalism’, this was a subjectivity which drew upon religion as a signifier of cultural difference. If religion as faith was a matter of individual disposition, religion in the service of communitarian culture was as yet a stretch removed from its subsequent uses as political ideology. It is significant that the politically loaded term ‘communalism’ did not command the centre stage of the public discourse on Muslim identity until after the formal introduction in 1909 of separate or ‘communal’ electorates at all levels of representation.

The changes wrought by colonial rule proffered opportunities to Muslims like Sayyid Ahmad Khan who exhorted his co-religionists to take to Western secular learning and tried reinterpreting Islam in the light of modern ideas. Not a religious scholar by training, Sayyid Ahmad’s approach to Islamic theology and jurisprudence earned him the lacerating abuse of orthodox Muslim ulema affiliated with the theological seminary at Deoband, Farangi Mahal in Lucknow and also Barelvi. His promotion of ijtihad or independent reasoning and disapproval of taqlid or adherence to the four authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence set him, and the Aligarh school which he founded, at loggers’ head with the ulema who correctly saw in it a barely disguised assault on their preeminent status as the religious guardians of the Muslim community. For the ulema, reeling under the effects of colonial policies which had effectively stripped them from finding gainful employment in government, Sayyid Ahmad’s policy of collaboration with the British raj was adding insult to injury.

Resentments borne of temporal disabilities found the ulema and their disciples at madrassas and maktabs giving their emphatic support to the Indian National Congress’s anti-colonialism even while directing their emotive energies to the cause of the Islamic ummah. The irony of Muslim ulema shunning ‘secular’ modernists of Sayyid Ahmad’s ilk, who in their different ways continued making overtures to their religiously informed cultural identities, only to end up hitching their wagons to a party wedded to the ideals of Western secularism is writ large on the historical canvass of late colonial India.

The confounding of the ‘religious’ and the ‘secular’, the temporal and the spiritual has made the politics of Muslim identity in South Asia somewhat confusing and confused. Even as individuals from the late nineteenth century sought to construct a coherent Muslim identity, the internal fissures within the community ensured that the narratives of communitarianism would draw more consistently on the theme of religion as a demarcator of social difference than on religion as faith, negating in the process Islam’s integrative world view. This is not deny that religion as faith informed the construction of individual Muslim narratives of identity. But the faith of a few articulate or prolific individuals cannot be a gauge for the religious temperament of an entire community, far less one confronting the challenge of secularization informed by Western colonialism and modernity.

And indeed until the turn of the twentieth century, the narratives of communitarian identity, whether projected in the political arenas of British India or by the press and publications market, emphasized religiously informed cultural difference without elucidating a coherent or distinctively Indian Muslim conception of ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’ based on the principles of the Islamic faith. If anyone can be credited for bringing clarity, if not a dramatic shift, to Muslim conceptions of ‘nation’ and ‘nationality’, and in the process at least trying to bridge the gap separating religion as difference and religion as faith, it was the poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal. He may not have had the profound mystical insights of a Sirhandi or the Quranic knowledge of a Waliullah, men to whom he acknowledged his intellectual debt. But Iqbal was grounded in Western philosophy and had a grasp of Muslim history, philosophy and theology to attempt a reconstruction of Islamic thought that was unprecedented in his own time and remains unrivalled even in our own. As a member of the Muslim ‘minority’ community, Iqbal was irked by Congress’s appropriation of the colonial state’s questionable secular credentials. Claiming to speak on behalf of all Indians, Congress’s inclusionary nationalism was averse not only to claims of religiously informed cultural differences but to any political demands raised on behalf of specific religious communities which were pejoratively dismissed as ‘communal’ and, therefore, illegitimate. This was a perfectly reasonable stance for a party aiming to wrest power from the colonial state. But it clashed with Muslim demands in provinces where Muslims were in a majority that they be allowed to exercise power according to their numerical preponderance. Muslim dominance in Punjab and Bengal was unacceptable to non-Muslims living there. Most Punjabi and Bengali Muslims saw no reason to endorse a variant of nationalism which conferred upon them minority status with no prospect of relief in their regional majority. Inequality of representation was hardly a basis for equality of citizenship.

The nub of Iqbal’s critique of certain variants of western post-enlightenment philosophy and, by extension, of the Congress’s ideal of a secular nationalism was the denial that ‘all human life is spiritual’. The nature of any act, even if ‘secular in its import’ was ‘determined by the attitude of mind with which the agent does it’. Whether an action was inspired by religion or irreligious political motives depended on positionally specific observations since the secular in itself was ‘sacred in the roots of its being’. An act was temporal or profane if it was done in a ‘spirit of detachment from the infinite complexity of life’ and ‘spiritual if it is inspired by that complexity’. This was why the assimilation by the Turkish nationalists of the European idea of the separation of the church and state bordered on profanity. ‘Such a thing could never happen in Islam’, Iqbal asserted, ‘for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Quran a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried...great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation’. Ijtihad allowed Muslims to constantly adjust themselves to social change without abandoning the Islamic path. In contrast to the religious scholars, Iqbal believed that since the institution of the khalifa had ceased to exist the right of ijtihad should be vested in an elected Muslim assembly which ‘in view of the growth of opposing sects’ in Islam was the ‘only possible form Ijma can take in modern times’. In opting for the republican form of government and collective ijtihad by the Grand National Assembly, the Turks alone among the Muslims had asserted the right of intellectual freedom conferred by Islam. Yet in separating the state from religion, the Turks had gone too far.

Iqbal’s philosophical reconstructions of Islam underscore the tensions between a view of Indian nationalism based on keeping religion out of politics and the normative Muslim conception of treating the spiritual and temporal domains in non-oppositional terms. It was precisely because religion as a demarcator of difference was insufficient to sustain Islam as an ethical ideal that Iqbal rejected the possibility of Muslims agreeing to privatize their religiously informed cultural identities in the interest of being considered politically as part of the Indian nation. In the final year of his life he severely castigated Maulana Husain Ahmed Madni - the pro-Congress religious leader of the Jamiat-I-Ulema-I-Hind - for suggesting that Indian Muslims should embrace the vision of an inclusionary Indian nationalism in which they would have complete freedom with regard to their personal law and religious practices. Madni had maintained that the millat was something higher than the nation, likening the relationship to the cosmic one between heaven and earth. Yet in Iqbal’s opinion, the maulana had ‘left no place for millat by preaching to the eight crore Muslims to lose their identity in the country, and therefore in the majority, and to make nation a heaven...ignor[ing] the fact that Islam will thereby be reduced to the status of the earth’.

In Iqbal’s philosophical scheme, religion as social demarcator was an insufficient condition for the future of Muslims in India. Islam demanded the fashioning of a purely human consciousness and could not suffer being turned into pure earth in an artful separation of the temporal and the spiritual, the religious and the secular. If religion as social signifier does not make for religion as faith, then what was the precise role of religion in the politics of late colonial India and the communitarian holocaust of 1947?

Ayesha Jalal is a MacArthur Fellow and Professor History at Tufts University. Her most recent book is, Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam, Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, 2001. This is the third of the four-article series on the religious and the secular in South Asia``

Prem

For your reading pleasure from the Daily Times:

``Indian troops suffer from impotence

NEW DELHI: Indian troops deployed in the world’s highest battlefield in Kashmir have to brave more than harsh weather and enemy fire — the brutal conditions also lead to impotence, a report said on Saturday.

Just 90 days in the most hostile of weather conditions on the Siachen glacier which is 20,000 feet above sea level leaves many soldiers impotent when they return home, the Hindustan Times reported. Temperatures on the Siachen fluctuate between minus 55 degrees Celsius in winter and minus 15 degrees Celsius in summer. However, the army’s research and referral hospital in New Delhi has found a solution to the problem — an inflatable organ implant which uses a bladder and a pump, the report said.

The cost of the implant is expensive at 250,000 rupees but is seen as an important step towards curing “mental stress”. —AFP

Pakistanis, start quaking in your shabby boots!

re: hobbyty # 293

You have avoided the question I repeated twice: what, in your view, are the deep and unbridgeable differences between the ``ethoses`` of Indian Islam (Pakistani Islam and any other variety) and Hinduism that you were telling Zafar bhai about?

It is fair to ask you to clarify the BASIC building blocks of your arguments, right?

What caste am I? I am not sure how that is relevant. I called you a Hindu (which you may or may not be) because you argued, with amazing ignorance, that Hindus were all those people living ``uss paar`` of Sindh.

That is a deliberately created historical and geographical falsehood, used to justify senseless and false ideologies. I pointed out to you that Hindus lived almost all over the land currently known as Pakistan and right upto Afghanistan. There are historical records as well as archeological evidences to back up that assertion, nothing to do with Indians who kept few records anyway.

You did not counter that either.

You boiled your answer down to asking me what my caste was? I am willing to tell you not only what my caste is but also what I eat or don`t, when we take up personal matters. In fact, I will tell you without that reciprocity: I just scrambled some eggs, added plenty of fried onions, green chillies, a bit of salt, and being hungry as hell, ate that up with ketchup, toasted bread, and coffee. Also, my parents are brahmins. I have never had to declare my caste, except under circumstances in which my being born a Brahmin might work to my disadvantage - such as to meet job reservation quotas legally and constitutionally designed to work in favor of the disadvantaged castes in India. When casteist people I don`t wish to offend ask me what my caste is, I tell them I am a brahmin. Otherwise I tell them to go to hell. Non casteists don`t ask each other`s castes. So, hobbyty, you can take your pick.

Again, although your concern for the creature comforts of Indian military is quite touching, we do need to understand the arguments you were making to Zafar.

What, in your view, are the deep and unbridgeable differences between the ``ethoses`` of Indian Islam (Pakistani Islam and any other variety) and Hinduism that you were telling Zafar bhai about?

AGAIN: An answer to this question is important because you suggested that these deep differences between ``Hindu ethos`` and ``Islamic ethos`` imply that the two can not live together (except in Pakistan, perhaps).

Is Islam an inherently, irredemably intolerant, bigoted religion that can not live with other religions?

Is Hinduism an inherently, irredemably intolerant, bigoted religion that can not live with other religions?

Are both inherently, irredemably intolerant, bigoted religions that can not live with other religions?

What, hobbyty, are the differences?

Prem

Please don`t take offence, simply explain your support of casteism. What caste are you? Seems the veneer of civil conviction on you is terribily thin and brittle, flakey really. Underneath is the anti-egalitarian ethos - am I mistaken?

``Hobbyty have to face the terrible fact that you are a Hindu.`` Not just a Hindu, but an Achute - I have no problem with the possibility or the fact that I had ancestors who were among other things, Hindus. Do you?

``These differences in ethoses can be expected to shape the current reality (as opposed to our ambition), right?`` Right! They can be expected to shape both reality and ambition.

``It is clear the hawks in the Indian government are having some effect on the hawk in Pakistani establishment.`` And on the Gujrati Muslims! Soon they may have an effect on other Indian Muslims. Live and learn, howeever; my expectation of you, in such an eventuality would be more of the same verbal condemnation, while you sit on your thumbs.

``Yes, it IS very expensive to keep the army ready to attack...``

The Indian armed forces in the desert are in a pitiable situation - these servie men do not even have field toilets, and clean drinking water is becoming highly prized, with the coming rainy season, their armour movement will be difficult if not impossible, the new aircraft do not have air to air missiles and only 30 aircraft have avionics required to target precision weapons, T72 tank that form the bulk of Indian armour is an international failure - and you want to convince us they are battle ready against Pakistani armed forces, instead of being sick of being stationed in a desert? Stick to what you know, caste - there are hundreds of millions of Indians you have yet to show ``their place`` in Indian society. By all means do try to show the armed forces of Pakistan, ``their place`` - The ``huff and I`ll puff`` bit is difficult to take seriously.

``In any case, please do tell us about the differences between the ``two ethoses`` as you see them.`` As you have suggested that I am ignorant of Hinduism, no need to take offence, just explain how you think the two ethoses are different? Why is the biological inequality of Zaat/Jaat, that you are so protective of, not function to structure inequality in society? What caste are you? Please explain.

Jay

``She had no difficulty in projecting the hatred for the hindu killers of gujarat on to the hindu, manoj, who happened to be infront of her. What she missed in that process is the profound insight. Her hatred should have reminded her of the hatred felt by the hindus when the news came that a few hundred were killed in a train set alight by the muslims. What is important is not the truth or otherwise of the incident, the news and the emptional out burst are the key.``

Jay, I haven`t interacted much with you, and when I have it is usually disagreements, but never mind..I think the above paragraph is perceptive in the extreme. Without getting in to the K for Kafir theme, whatever that means, I think hatred by association is a universal example. When AnNy put her post up, the irony was obvious to me right away. She kicked a friend out her house coz he was Hindu, a Hindu mob burns an individual alive because he is Muslim...it is the same anger. The only variance lies in the extent of self justification. I speak from experience when I say it is universal, not limited to Pakistan

Zafar #284 That has to be the funniest sikh joke I have heard in a long time (Kitthay Pacific). Heh! heh!

And coming to airlines, you must know that PIA stands for ``Please Inform Allah``, BOAC (ancient name for British Air) was ``Better on a Camel``, SAS for ``Sex and Sandwiches``

re: hobbyty # 277

There are so many issues that one has to choose but just one or two.

1. ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND.``

This is startling news. It goes to show that one of us is living a world of make-believe knowledge, of manufactured ignorance, an ignornace that makes communication naturally difficult. That ignorant person could well be me, since I don`t usually focus on the geographical area currently falling under Pakistan.

Where can I find a reliable reference that informs us that Hindus were people known to be living ``us par`` (a phrase made famous by Bhutto?) of the Sindh, and not in and around Sindh, near the river Indus?

I could be grossly mistaken but I thought Hindus lived over an extensive part of the land currently known as Pakistan, even beyond. Many Hindus, I am told, continue to live in Sindh. Our literature makes references to Peshawar, Taxila, and ofcourse Gandhara (Afghanistan), whose kings were said to be in close marital alliances with kings living in and around what is now Haryana and Punjab. Perhaps it is all a figment of our fertile imagination, and may be Hindus only lived ``iss paar`` of Sindh. But then Chinese pilgrims visiting Gandhar noticed a declining Hindu civilization and temples some fourteen hundred years ago. That means a stronger civilization must have flourished even before that. After all, a civilization didn`t grow out of nowhere, built temples and forts overnight. There are these temples that been found in Punjab, even NWFP and (delightfully named) kafirkot areas. Besides, there is equally generously names HinduKush to deal with.

So, the question arises - Did Hindus really live ``iss paar`` of Sindh, is that how outsiders referred to Hindus, or is that a product of your imagination? It does seem like an extremely convenient finessing of History and geography, far more blatant than accusations you have levelled against those poor archeologists following their interests in ancient civilizations. Am I wrong?

2. It is curious that you bring in history to make your points but object to the same tactic used by Hindutva vadis. If we keep focusing history to make judgements about today, then you, Hobbyty have to face the terrible fact that you are a Hindu (of course, you could be an Arab as well, merely living in the ancient land of the Hindus).

In any case, Hobbyty, I think it is very important that you help us understand some issues you repeatedly raise as elements of your stock explanations to all problems. As of now, I would request you to just tell us how you view one aspect of reality.

What are the differences between the ``ethoses`` (Zafar mian, I blame you for creating this monster of a word) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam? If you are not clear about Indian Islam, you could tell us something about the differences between Pakistani Islam, or (what you may prefer, being an Islamist and a believer in one Ummah) Islam in general? These differences in ethoses can be expected to shape the current reality (as opposed to our ambition), right?

Please help us understand how you see this reality?

PS: You conspiratorial fulminations against the massing of Indian army, and of course, those of romair many times earlier, were a treat to read. It is clear the hawks in the Indian government are having some effect on the hawk in Pakistani establishment. Yes, it IS very expensive to keep the army ready to attack or to defend. But then this whole business of terrorism has its costs, which you can`t always expect to avoid.

In any case, please do tell us about the differences between the ``two ethoses`` as you see them.

Dost-Mittar:

India was great, as usual. I was in Punjab when Godhra happened, I have penned an article and submitted it to Chowk.

re: Dost-Mittar # 281

May be I can share my gripe as well. I am less offended by Hobbyty`s utter ignorance of Hinduism (though it does kind of shock one - after all our countries are not that far apart and we HAVE known each other before), but more by his enthusiasm to (1) blame his own problems on Hinduism - again, a tradition that he simply can not tell from the Martian religion, and (2) deploy his ignorance of Hinduism to offer solutions to the problems of India! And these are not even solutions he accepts for himself, nor are these solutions designed to promote peace and understanding among Indians.

All that constitutes an amazing feat indeed.

re: ylh # 282

``true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension..``

Ylh, are you sure your historical observation is correct? Secularism did NOT develop out of the homogeneity of Europe. Just the reverse, it developed out of the need to integrate people belonging to sharply divergent religious persuasions. In this the secularist movement was given a fillip by the rising tide of rationalist egalitarianism that argued that the state must not be in the business of sanctioning religious discrimination in favor of some religous thought over others.

Don`t let the fact that Europe was largely Christian and Jewish mislead you. Christian persecution of Jews had been horrendous. But the real divergence lay within Christianity ITSELF. The singling out and persecution of Catholics and Protestants by each other; as well as the persecution by Christians of those whose beliefs did not meet the tenets of being good Christians (a term Hobbyty uses and that always scares me) convinced the more rational human beings that there was just NO alternative to secularism in any society whose members differ from one another in important religious/cultural ways. Progressive, rational people simply did not want the state to have the power, or the moral incentive, to persecute some or more of members of society merely because of their religion. Thus sustained religious PERSECUTION, not a history of religious amity led to the need to remove religion from matters of the state.

Today, almost every society is multi-ethnic and multicultural. There are two approaches to integrating diverse communities. One is to structurally reduce all but one to the level second class citizens, guranteeing them peace and security in return for their acceptance of second class status. This is the model many Islamic countries follow, and the model that RSS types in India wish to implement. The other is to aim for a secular order. This second route is riskier as well as more promising for minorities. It also is the only system that appeals morally to any any half decent man or woman. There is no third way.

Even logically, it is difficult to see the social dynamic that will lead a peaceful homogeneous society into a secular state. What significant advantages does secularism bring to a completely homogeneous society, advantages that will more than offset significant costs that secularism invariably entails? If we think in evolutionary terms, what is the survival value of secularism? Is it the fear that nonsecular societies will invariably lose out to secular societies in free-market competitions? Even if one accepts that (and that is true), societies that became secular in the West were actually the biggest winners of their times. They were NOT competing against other secular states.

BTW, do you buy into the argument that religion is the only source of tension, or invariably the major source of tension, among different communities? Also, is your support for a secular order a moral one (sanctioning of religious discrimination being morally repugnant) or an efficiency-based one (say, a state that forces all its people to engage in various religious dogamtic rituals is less productive and hence less competitive)?

Zafar Al-Talib

``Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?``

Not necessarily. I`m in complete agreement with you on this point - and also this is an open universe and it is also a diverse universe (duh! I couldn`t think of putting it another way). But, please, please be real for just a minute - most people DO frame ethics and morality in a religious framework.

``I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.``

No, for me it`s not being a decent human being that allows one to a good Muslim or Hindu or whatever - in fact, being a good Muslim or a good Hindu, allows one, teaches one, what a decent human being is and how to be one. If one already knows what ``decent`` is and is acting on it - why be a Muslim or a Hindu or a whatever?

``In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?``

Absolutely NO! In Pakistan or anywhere else, in my opinion, sectarianism can only be countered by being a better Muslim - sectarianism is not so much a political problem as much as it is a problem of religious understanding, of ethics and morality - this is it`s proper, correct, framework. The failure of state does not, should not mean failure of an individual Muslim or Hindu or whatever. The state is the embodiment of coersive power, where as religious faith and understanding is the Reason for the doing of the good.

``Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense``

OK, I agree it`s nonsense - but you sure are making the same ideological point repeatedly in this post, it`s almost as if you are uncomfortable agreeing or lambs to the slaughter; No sweat, the feelings mutual.

By the way, your point about democracy and secularism being reduced to voting - was a gem. I could not agree more.

dost-mittar

Dost, I read, with disgust, in the Tribune, an opinion piece where the author pointed out that most Gujratis, he interviewed were of the opinion that Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence planned the events in Gujrat, that`s right, the all knowing, the all powerful, DISI; Boo! He cautioned that these events are a portend for what is to follow on a national level. Your critical faculties fail you when you make statements that state planning could not be possible - have you not come across reports that state officials had to have been a part of this, that police colluded with the rioters? That Indian Muslim civil servants are seeking transfer out of Gujrat and that others have resigned? Since when are these published reports, my theory???? Well, I suppose time will tell. What I find baffling is that few seem interested to know definitively, what happened and why - maybe it`s too embarrassing right now - maybe investigations will have wait for more enlightened times.

In so far as the people who you mentioned, these are persons of conscience, with whom I differ in the kinds of ideas we find compelling. Sometimes, it takes a 2 by 4 between the eyes to begin to see things in their proper light; it will now be SEVEN, let me repeat, SEVEN weeks that riots and killings are going on. I know you are disturbed, you may view it as an injury to your sense of self - it`s actually worse than that - the power, the will to stop it, seems not to exist or be exercised.

Recall that I had alerted you to the danger of Hindutva last year and for my efforts, the label, bigot was my reward and my warning worthy of dismissal - but it could not be otherwise - the persons you have mentioned could not, in their wildest imagination, conceive that such a thing was possible in India, anymore. Such is the power, appeal of ideas - we can over look or pretend not to see or understand the things we find objectionable. BJP, VHP, RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, etc., have never been secret about their vsion for India and the proper role of ``minorities`` in such an India. They have enjoyed showing the ``minorities`` their place in Hindu but secular India. Yes Hindu and secular seem contradictory today but did not seem contradictory before the riots, it is only confirmation that ``people can change their minds about things``. But the events of Gujrat were not just one day of recklessness or lawlessness, it is now SEVEN weeks. Christian Science Monitor reports that it has become entertainment - people come in cars to see the burning and killing, as if an Indian version of ``drive-in``.

#256

``In all fairness, you have never attacked me personally. And I do not mind criticism whether personal or of my views. But our difference is not just of views but of basic premise. Although you never quite say it in so many words, the implicit premise of your posts is that Casteism is the defining characteristic of Hindus and Hinduism is the defining characteristic of India;``

I won`t let this one pass - Forget the personal stuff, we don`t know one another, we are in no way ``personal`` however; I do enjoy conversing with you - ``Our difference is not just views but basic premises`` - how many rioters have been telling themselves this - as basic as Muslim and Hindu? Different basic premises should not find common ground? What if the answer to that is, no? is there any more justifcation you need to understand that you do not fully appreciate what Liberty, Pluralism, Tolerance and Secularism in society are about? Agree with my basic premises or else? Clearly we agree on some basic premises, that`s what this exchange is about, right?

Are you saying that all the books, authors, scholars are wrong when they posit that

Casteism is a defining, a unique characteristic of Hinduism? - Do you know of any other, can you cite any other religion that involves a social and religious organization of human society, where in persons are organized by caste?

Hinduism is not the defining characteristic of India? I`m sure that`s news to Hindus. Hindus are the overwhelming majority of India, also know in circles with some small familiarity with history, as HINDUstan - ring a bell?

``Hindus hate Muslims because of their caste system and therefore Muslims have no

alternative but to fight to break India into several pieces.``

Are you having a problem with ``Hindus hate Muslims`` or are you disagreeing with ``because of their caste system`` or are you disagreeing with ``therefore Muslims have no...`` - if you are having a problem with the entire statement - don`t assert it.

Caste is a justification of inequality in society based on Zaat/Jaat, that is, on a biological basis, persons who do not see each other as biological equals are not likely to see persons outside the framework of Hinduism, as biological equals. This is the primary reason Hinduism has the appeal it does around the world. Hinduism had spread to Java and Kampuchea - do these people have caste system???? Isn`t it unique to Hinduism in India????

As to alternatives available to Muslims - well, would I be wrong in pointing out that British India/Hindustan, already exist in several pieces, as does Pakistan - would it be not PC of me to say if events of Gujrat are followed by similar events elsewhere in India - a more permanent solution to prevent these outrages will be sought? Imagine the shoe was on the other foot, If it were not Muslims but Hindus who were suffering these outrages, how might they react? would it be acceptable to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and property, so someone else`s ideology would not have to be reevaluated?

``Sorry, with that premise, no discussion is possible, especially with someone whose

knowledge of Hinduism and India seems to be limited to some vague notion of what caste was, is and/or will be.``

OK, but what`s the ``sorry`` for? If no discussion is possible, why be sorry? Things are what they are, right? right?

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

Reply Subroto

okay, okay, inspite of your parsi money I will be generous with my gujuben joke (single):

Q: What did Gujuben say when her car`s radiator sprung a leak?

A: Maruti Susuki.

And I know that Khalistan jokes are very passe, but I enjoyed them so much:

Q: What is Khalistan`s national airline?

A: Kiththay Pacific?

Q: What does a Khalistani mechanic do?

A: Car seva.

Q: What do you call a Khalistani who lives in the water?

A: Jullandar Singh.

Q: What do you call the same Khalistani after he has adapted to his environment?

A: Jullandar Singh Gill.

And my personal fave:

Q: What is Khalistan`s national bird?

A: Tandoori Chicken.

And that`s all folks, except for an endorsement for Maratha Airways where you travel in style with our kashta draped apsaras plying you with Shivaji Regal as they sell you duty free cartons of Benson and Hegde.

You, Subroto, are Roachistan`s answer to Roseanne Barr AND UK`s French & Saunders rolled into one! I salute you.

Jai Roachistan!

Reply Hobbyty #277

Can morality only be framed, or defined, through religion in this day and age?

I agree that Hindutva can only be countered by the majority of Indians asking themselves what it means to be a decent human being - surely a prerequisite to being a good Hindu or a good Muslim - and then acting on it.

(In Pakistan countering sectarianism can also only be done if the majority of the population asks themselves what it means to be a decent human being, which is a prerequisite to being a good Muslim, no?)

Divorcing common decency from definitions of a good Hindu or Muslim makes no sense - and is not condoned by these religions either. It could be argued that divorcing common decency from the popular understanding of what it means to be a good Hindu or a good Muslim is what has allowed Hindutva or Islamism (for want of a better word, but if you can think of one to describe our version of Hindutvawadis let me know) to have their current positions in the subcontinent.

So yes - the issue IS a moral one, and it includes religion though it is not limited to it.

Regards

Zafar,

If you don`t mind my butting in?... have you wondered why historically Secularism has always emerged out of previously homogenous states? You know like Europe... etc? Even America started out as a Homogenously protestant country...

Whereas in artificial countries where warring communities are brought together by force, it has failed disastrously.. ofcourse you know the country I have in mind, but for the sake of balanced argument I will keep it out.. how about Yugoslavia? Czechoslovakia?

In my opinion, true Multiethnic secular democracies always start of as homogenous countries with no tension.. then overtime by virtue of secularism and education they acquire tolerance becoming multicultural and multiethnic.. ok I can`t help myself.. otherwise Gujurats happen!

-YLH

Subroto #264 I enjoyed those jokes that you posted. Looks like the gujjus and mallus and the bongs and (sorry prem) the bhayias are giving the sardars tough competition. Here is one from the most popular topic (among some) on chowk: In Kashmir, the jehadi tries to escape capture by pretending to be dead. Indian soldier kicks him on the side to see if he is really dead. Jehadi angrily tells him ``baywaqoofa, tooN naiN janNa kay shaheedaN nooN tang nai karday naiN?`` (you fool, dont you know that martyrs should not be bothered?).

Zafar Al-Talib

``This implies that secularism is only valid in situations where there are no communal tensions.``

Not at all - It ``implies`` nothing of the sort. What it says clearly is that ``objective secularism`` - the specialization/differentiation of the institutionsof religion and governance, can be said to have been accomplished, only if the institutions of governance are truly differentiated from that of governance. In the case of present day India, such an argument, that institutions of governance in India are differentiated from institutions of religion, is a difficult case to make. It is difficult simply because BJP and other organized units of Hindtva, promote one religion above others.

``I would say that secularism is even MORE necessary in these situations than in

those where communal tensions are minimal or nonexistent.``

The existence of communal violence is partly because the lack of ``objective secularism`` - that is, institutions of governance have promote the interests of a particular religion, as a narrow group in both the institutions of religion and governance, see those interests. In present day India, the discourse on religion has become infused with one that includes history and psychology. Hinduism is no longer just another religion, nor is Islam or is Christianity; Hindutva argues a historical ``injustice`` suffered at the hands of another religion, a religion of ``invaders,`` of non-Indians. Hindutva argues that a ``pacifism`` which it also refers to as ``cowardice`` has been partially responsible for the imposition and sufferance of historic ``injustices.`` So long as such ideas have legitimacy among the majority, there can be little chance that objective secularism can be achieved - because, remember, the ethos of the majority are reflected in the public institutions.

``Where I disagree with you (correct me if I’m wrong) is the assumption that meaningful

categorisation of a population is always by religion...``

I want to remind you, again, ``Indian`` is a relatively new construct - Hindu, is not. The peoples of ``India,`` in languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish and even English, are HINDU or HINDOU, the land ``us par`` of the Sindh, AKA, HIND. You have a valid point, meaningful categorization of a population is not always by religion - however; you fail to acknowledge that such a characterization is meaningful and is in wide spread usage. Our ideal is to not characterize persons by religion - however; Hindus want to be Hindus, Muslims want to Muslims, Catholics want to be Catholics, etc., should these characterizations be denied because some find such characterization, does not fit in with their ideological commitment? - Is that not changing the results of our observation, instead of our theory? After all, are the victims calling themselves Muslims, is the rest of the world calling them Muslims - Are the perpetrators calling themselves Hindu? is the rest of the world calling them Hindu? Shall we not acknowledge reality? How much PC language is enough? If You or others do not wish to be characterized by your religion or lack of it or whatever - please do understand that these are units of organization - they help us organize information - no offense is intended.

``and that the ethoses (yeh lafz hai?) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam are

fundamentally different when it comes to basic issues like justice, education, law and order, etc.``

Yet again, an unwillingness to acknowledge reality - I suggest that we keep our eyes on the ball, in this case, the events in Gujrat - The loss of life and property, the surrender of the state`s will to protect rights, life, liberty and property - as a manifestation of a political struggle of a religio-political movement is meaningful. Clearly those doing the killing and those supporting them have different notions of ``Justice`` - wouldn`t you agree? The argument that ``their people started it`` is also reflective of different notions of, ``law and order,`` wouldn`t you agree? The ``big deal`` here, is that the state is a party to the conflict - any suggestion that such a behavior is ``secularism`` is obscenity.

The other side of the coin is the suggestion that we can create agreement on what ``Justice,`` ``law and order,`` ``education and it`s role in society`` mean - most certainly, others have had success and but for will, it would be possible. Look and see the difference between what can be and what is? - - See, you can get to ``what can be,`` only when you acknowledge ``what is`` -- You and Prem and so many others seem to scared to admit the ``what is`` and seem fixated on ``what can be`` - that`s why I have characterized your attitude as ``Utopian.``

``Whether India’s secular institutions accurately reflect the ethos of the majority of Indians is, however, a valid question – and one which can only be answered by elections. Given the upswing in support for the secular (non-Hindutva) parties in the Hindi heartland and Punjab, there is reason to hope that it does.

Again, some reality, I`m begging - Congress with Sonia as leader is a nonstarter, isn`t it? (what do you think this says about the ethos of the majority of Indians) And is not Mr. Vajpayee on record as saying he is prepared for national elections? And if Congress could challenge BJP, would it not have done so, already? I think, to understand the present situation, one has to begin with Hindutva. If one thinks that Hindutva can be defeated by secularism, in my opinion, it is day dreaming. Hindutva has a strong appeal to the majority - the majority define themselves as Hindus. The only way Hindutva can be over come is for Hindus to ask, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu?`` How Hindus decide to answer this question will determine the course of India and the response of the world.

``In Gujarat, however, there is clearly a large segment (majority?) of the population

whose ethos is NOT reflected in secular institutions.

This a giant giveaway of your ideological commitment and I ask you to revaluate your position. Recall your statement about the ``ethoses`` of Indian Islam and Hinduism? Are they same? your statement above begs if they are the same, why are they not reflected? Can we say that agreement exist as to what ``justice,`` etc., means? Do you know see the concern that those who call themselves ``secularists`` must have? and this concern must begin with the question, ``what went wrong and why?``

``How widespread is this problem? How can we tell?``

Were to be honest, and not defensive, we would have to admit the problem is widespread. But what does wide spread mean in a polity of more than a billion? In my opinion, to suggest that the problem is of such proportions that ``effectively``-Hindutva ideology, is the dominant feature of both governance and attitudes about religion in society.

``I’m not sure I agree with you. In secularism religious INSTITUTIONS do not impact the institutions of Government, but the impact of religion on the consciences (and hence voting decisions) of the electorate is easily accomodated in the system, given the safeguards against discrimination against individuals on the basis of personal belief.``

Please make up your mind - do the ideas of ethics and morality of the majority effect public institutions? I recall you saying, they do. In OBJECTIVE SECULARISM, the institutions of religion are specialized, differentiated, from the institutions of governance - they are subordinate to the institutions of governance, not subservient. Institutions religion most certainly do impact institutions of governments - again, the ethos of the majority are reflected in public institutions. An example: The death penalty, in the US, religious institutions support it - in Europe, the secular humanist prevail on this subject and have co-opted religious authority as well, to withdraw support for the death penalty.

``You seem to imply that freedom of conscience and the electoral choices that informs

for each individual is not compatible with secularism, but I disagree. Secularism is not necessarily atheism, it just is not Mullahism or Panda-raj (however sophisticatedly or crudely these may be presented).``

Please stop engaging in straw man arguments - I have never argued that secularism is atheism and I resent your continued efforts at misrepresentation. Subjective secularism, in which ``profanation,`` the diminishment of religion from culture and conscience, is operational ( as in China, USSR and Europe) is not about Mullahism or such, but rather aimed at creating a system hostile to the practice of traditional organized religions.

``Secularism is the political expression of fairness and equality in multireligious societies, which is indeed an ethical issue.``

I rest my case. Objective secularism is born of ethics of Protestant Christianity - it is related to ethics but only those who argue for Subjective secularism will posit that it is ethics, a new religion displacing the traditional organized religions. I agree that objective secularism is about fairness and equality and assert that such fairness and equality is not possible without the freedom of religion.

``Perhaps we could have a more straightforward interaction if you spelled out what you thought the problems with the Indian version of secularism are (there are many many such, no argument) and also which solutions you see to them (extreme or otherwise).``

It is indeed complex, but in my opinion, Hindutva is a problem for objective secularism in India - and there is precious little the forces of secularism can do about it - Hindutva does not really operate in the framework of a secular framework, so how can secularism effect it unless, by becoming subjective secularism - deny the freedom of religion - something most in India will take exception to. Hindtuva is really a problem for the realm of religion and the realm of governance - yet it effects governance directly. This problem is reflective of the giant debate to come - and be assured it will come - as to what is Indian secularism to be? Objective or Subjective?

But this debate is in my opinion a symptom of a larger problem that governance in India itself has yet to come to grips with (exactly the same social problem exists on the other side of the border) - social justice - No group of persons will succumb to Obscuritanism (and Hindutva ideology is just that) if they think and feel, they live in a just society. Obscuritanist live on the ``dignity deficit`` that characterizes societies in the subcontinent and else where - look for yourself, where ever there is the sentiment of injustice, Obscuritanism has adherents.

Another problem for Indian secularism is it`s failure to generate agreement in society on exactly what is meant by ``justice,`` ``a level playing field`` for all sections of society. It has sought to cut all kinds of regional, provincial, deals that have allowed the larger interests of India to be sacrificed in favor of smaller, party or personal interests. It has tried to deal with the curse of caste and it cannot succeed because caste does not operate in the realm of governance - it is deeply connected with both the question, ``What does it mean to be a Hindu`` and it`s answer.

Success for Indian secularism? It goes without saying that keeping together a civil and just India, is no easy task. To be honest, I am more focused on the problems - - How should we know we have succeeded? after all every problem we solve creates a new problem. Talk of success is just more psychology but I recognize the morale factor.

``Do you see a connection between where the Indian Army is now, and the situation of secularism in India today? (The Armed Forces are perhaps the most uncommunal of all large organisations in India. They are certainly the most widely respected.)``

The report that the events of Gujrat had been planned months ago raises suspicions, alarm bells with me. I am becoming more convinced that the events of Gujrat and the political reactions would not be possible were the armed forces not deployed as they are and without the creation of a a war hysteria. I do not know whether you realize what it takes to keep close to a million men armed and primed for action - can you even imagine the logistics and cost of supply and procurement for such an extended period? Do you realize the munitions packed in grease have to be degreased and then maintained on a daily basis - in a desert? Maintenance of air assets on a daily basis in a desert? I very suspicious of a now 5 month deployment, while a section of the country where law and order has disintegrated, where there are internal refugee camps, and a threat of retaliation and reprisal exists nationwide - I mean what Pakistani is quaking in their boots, thinking ``these guys are going to implode``?

``Have you read an Indian newspaper recently?``

Daily - but the difference is that I can discern action from talk - not everyone does, you know

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

Ladies and gentlemen

REQUEST: Please don`t throw Jay a bone by responding to him.

dost-mittar #248 I must admit I did not have this impression of hobbyty. But then, I read only the hobbyty posts in the three or four times that we have debated an issue (generally having to do with interpretation of Islam) only (since even I, hard though it may seem given the frequency of my posts on chowk, cant spend the time needed to read all posts, particularly the lengthy ones). So: I will take you at your word on hobbyty. The fact that you think 2 jay = 1 hobbyty while I think it is 1 jay = 2 hobbyty is possibly an indication of the difficulty we have as humans in taking a totally fair view of anyone. And you are at least as fair, and probably more so, than I am.

Soysauce,

``Speaking of dilemmas and contradictions, i`m always puzzled by the legends and stories where a selfless and detached person is rewarded at the end with gold and other goodies. If that`s not a real contradiction what is?``

I do not think many indian stories say that. But the point is that a disinterested person will be able to attain what ever he chooses, and if it happened to be gold and other goodies, so be it, But it is very unlikely.

Now to a story, real story. Thakkral Group is a major property group in Singapore/ Australia owning many prestigeous hotels. The wealth was built by an sardar based in singapore. While in sydney, some journalists asked him, now that you have significant investment in australia, how about buying a sea side property in sydney. The man in his typical punjabi village accesent said, `` oh goodness, I still live in a one bedroom house in singapore where I lived for the past forty years, the best food is still the sukka chaptty my wife makes and the best sleep is still in my old bed. If I leave that everything will be lost``. In australia he owns three five star hotels including hayat and sheraton. The man is no saint, but he is ten percent there, and he likes to own hoels, not that he likes them, but he chooses to own them.

regards

Jay

Brain drain ( from dawn of today)

There is general anxiety over getting suitable jobs, especially in the minds of students. Many of my colleagues are of the opinion that staying in Pakistan is useless. Thus, there is an opinion prevalent in the university where I study that anyone who can afford going out, should do so. This means that the problem of brain drain will continue.

As a student, I would like to ask the government as to what have they done in this respect?

AMEER HAMZA

Karachi

My dear Ameer,

What you are expressing is a stereotyped view. On chowk I have met many pakistanis, the types whose absence from pakistan you allege is a loss. No not at all, if these are the types leaving pakistan, it is a blessing that these with warped minds are out of your country.

Look at YLH, he is carrying a taxidermal jinnah and uttering his word in ventriloquist style so that many he thinks will believe that jinnah is alive, he is stabing gandhi from the back unknowing that godse has done the job for him.

Then you have umair, who has turned the ferocious tiger niazi into a rabitt, turned the indian born musheraff to turkish born ataturk, and keeps an eagle eye on all of the military so that none are are corrupt and he has proof of their non-corruption which conceptually is an absurdity.

The above are not the average that have escaped from pakistan, YLH is from the most prestigeous rutgers, many in pakistan or the rest of the world have heard of, it is so exclusive. Of course umair refused field marshal position to save his brain the preserves of the US.

No, Ameer, pakistan only gains by the departure of the ilk I identified above.

regards

Jay

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

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

Tahmed # 252

Hmmm! You may have read Dost Mittar`s post at # 248. Just check out. I get a feeling that may be a better and more real assessment of the personality. But I still admire Jay`s self restaint. May be because of national affinities.

Chalo chhado, maiN keha si tuhade naal bahas nahi karni. Tussi nek aadmi ho.

Regards. Have a great day.

Jay<

Thumbs up remain.

re: tahmed321 # 253

Damn, I am a mattarwa? How disgusting of me! :)

dost mittar,

#248

I agree 100% with your post.

I think people who are polite & well mannered are sometimes the worst & most dangerous people on earth.

I dont think Jay, Hobbyty or even OBL ever speak rudely to anyone. I think in Indo-Pak cultures, speaking derogatorily about others is ``allowed`` as long as you say it politely. ``What you say`` is less important than ``how you say it``.

I would`nt mind having a drink with buttheads like Saxena & Ali1...at least they are blunt about how they feel & one knows where you stand with them. In the process we could even have a nice time trading witty insults

Hobbyty, in my book, has replaced Farangi_Kush as the most disagreeable Pakistani that I would ever NOT have anything to do with in ``real`` life.

The only thing worse than an idiot is a sanctimonious idiot. I thought I was the only one who would read hobbyty`s posts, scratch my head & wonder ``what the HELL is this guy saying?!`` Thankyou hamidm who expressed the same sentiment:)

What hobbyty is implying is Islam is a superior religion & hindusism & hindus are ``morally neutered``. He wont come out and say it bluntly , but it sure as heck comes through. He`s a prejudiced, sanctimonious SOB, who uses gol mal sophomoric language--so he always has an ``out`` by saying ``I never said that``.

I think I`m going to have more fun cursing him than getting into any meaningfdul conversation or debate with him:) Ofcourse, he can always proclaims that as being ``defensive``..hey whatever turns him on:)

Prem

``India is passing through a murderous period; some groups of people have been engaged in systematically maligning Indian Muslims; state machinery has failed; and all this must worry Indians a great deal, who must step forward to take concrete steps in order to advance a stronger corporate vision). But we differ from you in our interpretations of those facts, and in our judgement of the total universe of other related facts that should be taken into account``

I want to be open to understanding your point and to help me, perhaps you may tell me how your interpretation of the events of Gujrat differs from mine - We both clearly agree on the observations - so what do these events mean to you and how are they different from what they mean to me?

``other related facts should be taken into account`` What are these other related facts? and what do they mean?

Have you had a chance to read valsom thampu`s opinion piece where he suggests that the events of Gujrat are best thought of as a lab test - that they are designed to evoke a reaction, to be followed by a nation wide response, he counsels Indian Muslims to keep their composure and not allow themselves to be baited - perhaps there is a logic to keeping Indian troops in deserts and mountains for months on end, other than intimidating a ``racist`` enemy, across the border? Just consider it - time and a different political party in power, will tell.

Reply Hobbyty # 241

Mian

“I argued against Utopias, secular or otherwise. In objective secularism, religious groups are not at each others neck - the specialization or differentiation of religion and governance is designed to ensure no religious group is favored over another,”

This implies that secularism is only valid in situations where there are no communal tensions. I would say that secularism is even MORE necessary in these situations than in those where communal tensions are minimal or nonexistant.

“…however; it would be a denial of reality if we were to not admit that in a representative form of government, institutional values are representative of the ethos of the majority”

There is nothing wrong with institutional values being representative of the ethos of the majority. Where I disagree with you (correct me if I’m wrong) is the assumption that meaningful categorisation of a population is always by religion, and that the ethoses (yeh lafz hai?) of Indian Hinduism and Indian Islam are fundamentally different when it comes to basic issues like justice, education, law and order, etc.

(I like to think that I share the same ethos as Prem and Sadna, despite having a different religion. I do not share the ethos of Urstruly, for which he questions my religion. But then, I also think I share the ethos of Tahmed and anNy. Heck, call me presumptuous but I hope I share – or aspire to share - the ethical ethos of Mary Robinson or Nelson Mandela. So where does that leave us in terms of the essentials of religious and national ethos being so particular and so different? Perhaps decent people are similar the world over?)

Whether India’s secular institutions accurately reflect the ethos of the majority of Indians is, however, a valid question – and one which can only be answered by elections. Given the upswing in support for the secular (non-Hindutva) parties in the Hindi heartland and Punjab, there is reason to hope that it does. In Gujarat, however, there is clearly a large segment (majority?) of the population whose ethos is NOT reflected in secular institutions. How widespread is this problem? How can we tell?

“In subjective secularism, institutions would not reflect such an ethos. In fact, religion would find no space in culture or conscience - and it is this that I was refering to when I asserted one would not be able to tell Hindus from Muslims.”

I’m not sure I agree with you. In secularism religious INSTITUTIONS do not impact the institutions of Government, but the impact of religion on the consciences (and hence voting decisions) of the electorate is easily accomodated in the system, given the safeguards against discrimination against individuals on the basis of personal belief. You seem to imply that freedom of conscience and the electoral choices that informs for each individual is not compatible with secularism, but I disagree. Secularism is not necessarily atheism, it just is not Mullahism or Panda-raj (however sophisticatedly or crudely these may be presented).

“You and Prem, like many other Indians on these boards who seem to regard secularism not as a utility but a more elevated form of ethics”

Secularism is the political expression of fairness and equality in multireligious societies, which is indeed an ethical issue.

“…refuse to recognize problems in Indian version of secularism, nor do you remain open to solutions - which I will grant, are extreme –“

Perhaps we could have a more straightforward interaction if you spelled out what you thought the problems with the Indian version of secularism are (there are many many such, no argument) and also which solutions you see to them (extreme or otherwise).

“A convincing case for the ideal of different persons living civil lives together, cannot be made when these same differing groups are at each others throats and the state itself is a party to the conflict, intervening on a one side. Recognition that Indian version of secularism does not stand the test is not necessarily mean chuck the concept of objective secularism out the window, but it does call for reevaluating what went wrong and why”

Some starter questions:

How did secularism fail in India, and where? [Gujarat and ??] Why?

Where has it succeeded, and why?

“You have missed a point I thought you would realize, these events point to a structural weakness and a weakness in the process itself - and like in present day Pakistan - soon a period of reevaluation and reform is going to descend upon the Indian.”

Indians have been complacent and smug about the strength of secularism in the country and you are right – a lot of questions are going to be asked, and answers demanded, or new answers formulated. The structural weaknesses HAVE become apparent – IMO these lie overwhelmingly in the political process of an election-focussed definition of democracy, the cultivation of vote banks based on religious or caste divisions (which involves pandering to the most reactionary and prejudiced parts of each “community”) and the resultant fear of (and opposition to) the erosion of vote-bank boundaries.

“I think like many others outside India, perhaps Indians should begin to ask exactly what and why, it`s armed forces on the borders of India are doing”

That is one of the few issues on which there seems to be a consensus in the country. Do you see a connection between where the Indian Army is now, and the situation of secularism in India today? (The Armed Forces are perhaps the most uncommunal of all large organisations in India. They are certainly the most widely respected.)

“Reevaluation and reform is not necessarily a process characterized by unanimty or harmony – “

Have you read an Indian newspaper recently? Unanimous and harmonious tact is not really the compound adjective that comes to mind. (You must be going by the elevated discourse Indians are so well known for on Chowk.)

“delicacy, tact and the creation of a national awareness of the problems and generating support for solutions will take as much as a decade or longer “

That is depressing. I think the problem is being felt too urgently by too many for us to wait that long to start.

“- Is Pakistan, no lesson to you in this regard?”

Bhai, many Indians have a bad attitude about learning from Pakistan, but I think we should swallow our pride (apparently somewhat unwarranted, I think many of us would admit now) and learn from whichever successes there are in dealing with problems like our own.

Regards,

Zafar

PS I’m sorry I called you a schmuck and some other rude and unpleasant things. It was totally un-necessary, and I hope you accept my apology. Muaf?

Reply Soundmeister # 246

“Gujaratis have traditionally been a people enamoured by money power. You see them in Mumbai: tons of money, zero class. They spit pan masala out their Opel Astras for Godssakes.”

Aur aap apne Opel Astra ke andar thoonkthe hain kya?

(It was simply irresistable. No offence intended to you or to Gujus or to Opel Astras and their owners.)

Re TAhmed # 253

``I think it is great if people can joke about other communities (and much more so, their own community) without taking it seriously. I think in the subcontinent, the Sikhs get first prize for being able to laugh at themselves, and hats (or turbans) off too them. ``

TAhmed sahib privately most Indians do have a capacity to laugh at themselves and other communities without malice. Unfortunately sometimes these jokes become sensitive as some idiot politician try to extract mileage out of them.

But lets go on to the jokes section anyway:

And as you said ``Sikhs get first prize``

A Bihari was waiting for his bus at the bus stop. Finally the bus arrives and he gets in. The bus is fully loaded with sardarjis. One sardarji orders Bihari to tell a joke. Now, the Bihari thinks he`s in big trouble because he knows only sardar jokes!

After thinking for some time he decides to substitute all references to `sardars` in his joke with `Biharis`. He starts the jokes with, ``There was once a Bihari...``

And suddenly he gets a major blow on his back from one of the sardarjis who shouts, ``Kyon be! Sab sardar mar gaye hai kya?``

Now what shall we do without a little Southern spice?

Once it so happened in a flight that, James bond was sitting besides a Telugu guy (from the state of Andhra Pradesh, in case u didnt know).

Both were traveling to US. Telugu Guy: ``Hello, may I know your name please?``

James Bond: I am Bond...James Bond. and you?

Telugu Guy: ``I am Sai...

Venkata Sai...

Siva Venkata Sai...

Laxminarayana Siva Venkata Sai...

Srinivasula Laxminarayana Siva Venkata Sai...

Rajasekhara Srinivasula Laxminarayana Siva Venkata Sai...

Sitaramanjaneyula Rajasekhara Srinivasula Laxminarayana Siva Venkata Sai...

Bulusupalli Sitaramanjaneyula Rajasekhara Srinivasula Laxminarayana Siva Venkata Sai...``

Bond takes a parachute and jumps off the plane!!!!

``..I haven`t finished yet Mr Bond, where r u going...``

Q. What is the most famous jingle in A.P. ?

A. ``A.P. days are here again ...``

Q. What do you call a very rich Malayalee?

A. MillionIyer.

Q. What is a smart Malayalee called?

A. Debo-nair.

And here is a classic from Hyderabad (the one in India not Pakistan).

A father and a son go to a movie theatre. Just before the movie starts

the lights go dim to which :

Son: Baba, Baba ! Yeh lightsan aise kyo hallon se dimmu hotha hai ?

Dad: Yeh kya hain ki beta ! Woh plugsan haina plugsan usko halloo se nikalthee so !

(Son: Dad ! Why do these lights slowly go dim like this ?

Dad: Son ! They remove the plugs slowly)

And on to Gujrat, but first a question-

Q. With the prevailing maddness in Gujrat wonder what we will do with the Gujju jokes?

A. Laught at them ;-0

So onto the jokes

Q. What do you call a gujju with 6 guns?

A. Chagan

Q. What do you call the same gujju who sports a bad suntan?

A. Chagan Lal

Q. What do you call the same gujju with a bag over his head?

A. Chagan Lal Mistry

Q. Why did the Gujju go to Rome?

A. Cos he wanted to hear Pope Music

Q. Why did the Gujju try to balance two perfume bottles one on top of the other in the exam hall?

A. Cos he wanted to get scent per scent marks.

and the oldest one

Q. Why did the Gujju go to London?

A. To neet the Big B(h)en.

What about the Bawa (Parsi) jokes. I read (on chowk anyway) that there are more of them in Pakistan.

Q. What do you call a Parsi test tube baby?

A. Batliboy

Q. What do you call a dead drunk Parsi ?

A. Bejan Daruwaala.

Q. What do you call a Parsi pimp ?

A. Nari Contractor.

Now should I tell some more or be parsi-monious?

Ah the memories of Pune and the Marathi & Ghati jokes. Did you know one of the world`s best jeans are Maharashtrian. Haven`t you heard of the Wranglekars? And the world beating Marathi criket captain - no not Sachin, it apna Steve Waugh

Q : Which is the highest office occupied by Maharashtrians in the U.S.A.?

A : That of the Vice-President - Dan Quayle (Kale) & Al Gore

Aare o babua humaar Bihari jokeva nahi sunoge ka!

A Bihari after coming back from a three hour long class says ``Saala pura body headache maar raha hai``.

Jab naam bengali hai to ...

Q. What did one Bengali voyeur ask another?

A. Keyhollo.

Q. What do you call a bong who talks a lot, sometimes without making sense?

A. Mr. Chatter Jee.

For my friends across the border:

A Bengali farmer brought his pride rooster to sell in the market. ``What do you feed that bird that he is so big?`` asked a Pathan soldier of the Pakistan army. ``I feed it rice, Sir,`` replied the farmer. ``How dare you waste rice on the bird while we are short of food?``

The Pathan Seized the bird

The next day the farmer brought another rooster to sell. ``What do y6u feed` that bird that he is so big?`` demanded a Baluch soldier of the Pakistan army ``Sir, I feed it with ghee;`` replied the farmer. ``How dare you waste ghee on a bird while we are short of food!`` swore the Baluchi as he seized the bird.

The next day the poor farmer brought his last remaining rooster to the market. This time a Punjabi Mussalman soldier asked him, ``What do you feed that bird that it is so big?``

The Bangla farmer joined the palms of his hands and pleaded, ``Sir, I don`t give him any feed. I just give him two paise every day to buy whatever he likes in the market.``

And this one for Prem

Q. What is a person who lives near a bridge called?

A. Bridge-wasi.

Dost Mittar

You have said that the events of Gujrat have disturbed you - the violence has left all sides confused - yet a new report suggests that the violence inGuhrat was planned months ago - perhaps thinking Indians will want answers to what really happened in the parliament attack, who planned and executed these attacks - why are the armed forces been sent to sit out the events of Gujrat in the deserts and in Kashmir?, however; these questions are ultimately answered, the need of the hour is action, to put an end to the violence.

from ``The Daily Nation`` - dtd today:

`` UK report says Gujarat riots were pre-planned

By Our Monitoring Desk

A British Government report on the rioting in the Indian state of Gujarat says the violence between Hindus and Muslims was pre-planned and carried out with the support of state govt, BBC reported on Thursday.

British govt officials based in India have added weight to demands by Indian opposition parties for an independent inquiry into the violence in Gujarat in which at least 800 people were killed.

The violence was pre-planned and had all the hallmarks of ethnic-cleansing, the report says. The report is the result of an investigation into the Gujarat violence by British officials in India.

The document is the damning indictment of the state govt. The violence, far from being spontaneous, was planned months in advance and carried out by an extremist Hindu organisation with the support of the state govt.

The aim, according to the report, was to purge Muslims from Hindu areas and it says at least 2,000 people died.

Reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims will be impossible as long as Gujarat Chief Minister Modi remains in power, the report concludes.``

Reconciliation ``impossible`` between Hindus and Muslims as long as Modi remains Chief Minister - but is the removal of Mr. Modi enough, if eveidence suggests that BJP as a governing party, colluded with the planning and executing of these riots, what would Indians of conscience do with the BJP?

re shankar 236

``What have the Palestinians ``won`` in these last 50+ yrs?! ``

An eternal synonimity with the word `terrorist`. In the next edition of the Oxford Dictionary, look for the black keffiyeh next to the word.

Dost

``Jay has a twin on the Pakistani side and he is none other than the redoubtable Prof. hobbyty. Both are generally polite and very intelligent. Both make some valid points. Neither of them ever uses a foul word or language``

And Prof often says as much in a very very polite way. His politeness is almost disarming. You have to read him regularly to read between the lines his message. He is far more dangerous than Ali1 or Urstruly who dont hide their hatred of Hinduism.

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

arjunm

Thanks for the reply.

I don`t watch Indian movies. I don`t have time to waste...

-ylh

Re: Jay, #243

It took a while for you to compose! I wonder why! Honey-coated inane philosophy to impress the uninitiated does take a little time, doesn`t it!

Wrong, again, Jay! How do you suppose the world view is changed? It is precisely taking an ``egoistic`` decision one can overcome many demons, not only of hatred. That`s how the world view is changed.

Yes, Jay, you know very well that writings can fan the flame. That`s why many politicians hate the newspapers. That`s why you don`t see any hateful, or even negative, articles against the blacks in the American newspapers. That`s why David Dukes are prevented from writing hate in America. We all know what Mein Kampf did to the Jews. Mere writing, eh?

I`m very sure, and you confirmed it in this post of yours, that you delight in spitting venom against Pakistan, and Islam, on Chowk and see those who love that country and the religion bleed. A very big and wise man you are, Jay! As for your abstraction crap, well, seen from another angle, everything in this world is an abstraction, isn`t it? ``maya`` you call it. An illusion. So spare me of the ``abstraction`` you are talking about.

Alright, so you are a very kind-hearted and generous person, giving only to beggars, sparing only left over paisa and not the rupee bill, mind you; and not to a charity because they would just take your money and buy booze with it! Well, God bless you!!! Good Karma!!!

And Jay, if I come from a society where thousands could be herded to die for a piece of real estate, then you also come from a country where thousands, nay millions (given the population), could be herded to kill, maim, rape, and set houses on fire of those who believe in a different God, have a different way of life, and have a history that you loathe. If you cannot ``imagine`` the society where I hail from, I can very well ``see`` the society you hail from. I don`t need to fantasize to witness Gujrat!

Re: tahmed321, #252

``If there were no Pakistanis, Jay would simply come up with some other target of his hate.``

That`s not true! If there were no Pakistan, Jay would lose the reason for his being. He`ll have no purpose in life.

You got it right. Jay has been exposed real well at Chowk. It appears that he is the only one, along with his uninitiated fans, at Chowk who doesn`t know that!

Re: Apparition, #249

``where do you live man ?????``

In a world the Hindus call ``maya``! It`s a world of abstractions! Ask Jay, he`ll tell you!!!!!

Re: Lajwanti, #222

``Aap kissy aur say poochiyay``

Why would a third person know a word that came from your tip of the pen better than you would?

Soundmeister

``What is happening in Gujarat is a disturbing sociological phenomenon that needs to be analysed carefully so that such things can be prevented in future. To casually attribute it to ``Hindu psyche`` isn`t serving anyone`s cause``

Agreed that it is indeed a complex phenomenon in Gujrat - you may find this interesting reading: http://csmonitor.com/2002/0425/p06s02-wosc.html

``The violence comes in a state that pro-Hindu parties consider a laboratory of the philosophy of Hindutva, or Hindu-ness, and where Hindu politicians increasingly tell the Muslim and other minorities to know their place.``

Isn`t knowing your place - the essence of caste?

You have a valid point in suggesting that attributing the violence to ``Hindu psyche`` does not help - but does it help to deny such a possibility without examining it?

Prem and Zafar argue that we must reach for the ideal of peoples living civil lives in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society - what choice is there? other than an extreme one? Can it be acceptable that hundreds of innocents have been killed by rioters and the state, so that a majority can be psychologically buffetted -so that Indian secularism shall remain unexamined?

Who wants ``minorities`` to know their place? Why is it important that minorities ``know their place``? What is the religious justification of these ideas in Hindu society?

On the other hand, when one begins to deny critical examination, one is only creating, promoting, the ``complex phenomenon`` to remain unexamined. Do present day Hindu attitudes have nothing to do with the tragic events in Gujrat? Is examination of these events to be reduced to ``their people started it first`` - should similar views and actions be initiated against Hindus in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Bangladesh or Lanka? Obviously, the more we remain closed to examining just what kinds of ideas and attitudes and what kinds of religiosity are propelling this violence, the more it is gauranteed to continue. Already international media are suggesting that India is ``ungovernable`` - these media are not Pakistani, but Western, and it`s time for responsible persons to reflect, to examine the ideas, attitudes and religiosity that fuel this disintergration.

Dost Mittar

I regret that you seem unable to view criticism as anything but personal attcak. You have for too long given in to psychology - while not all criticism is valid, being open to criticism can only help. Won`t you agree?

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

unakl jay!

``anNY is one of the adorable persons on chowk.``

hai sachee? :):) haiii :):) i also think ure very adorable..:0):0)

``The case she said on chowk about manoj is typical of many and I was using that only as an example, not as an attack on anNY as a person.``

dontcha worry about manoj..i bought him kit kat and behuda insaan forann theek hogya

you take care now you hear? :)

Prem #238 The gults, bongs and mallus is something new I have learnt. I think it is great if people can joke about other communities (and much more so, their own community) without taking it seriously. I think in the subcontinent, the Sikhs get first prize for being able to laugh at themselves, and hats (or turbans) off too them. In Pakistan of course, Panjabis and Pathans tend to have similar put downs of one another (panjabis are ``daal khowr``, i.e. lentil eaters and pathans are ``khar damagh``, i.e. ass brained, as you must have heard), and yes, UPites are also called ``Bhayias`` in Pakistan as in India (also ``mattarwa`` is a term designed to get the UPite chap really, really upset). No harm done, as long as people use such terms jokingly.

Hamsab #239 you ask ``Jay ever said anything derogatory about low caste Hindu converts?`` While Jay keeps his focus on Pakistanis, sometimes he slips and writes something about other groups - I clearly recall his exposing his contempt for low caste hindus in one post when, in the heat of putting down Pakistanis, he called them converts from low caste hindus. Obviously that was not meant as a compliment, and therefore the standing of low caste hindus in his mind was clearly exposed. A couple of times, incidentally, he has also switched focus for a second, and thus exposed his hatred for north indians in general as well. Nor am I surprised: hate-mongerers love no one (not even themselves, I think). Once their favourite target is not available, they turn on those they claim to speak for. Jay is in a special category because he is not an idiot who uses foul language to diminish his own views, but at the same time is too clever to realize that you cant fool people forever: if you stick around long enough on chowk (or anyplace else), your true character comes out. And jays constant ``advice`` and put-downs of Pakistanis cannot hide his hatred for Pakistanis and the joy he feels at every piece of bad news (including ordinary crime news) that he can pick up on Pakistan. If there were no Pakistanis, Jay would simply come up with some other target of his hate.

re Godot # 204

well .... yes .....the ``adult`` in me really doesn`t see a point in hating an anonymous user on a website .......

and all that stuff about writing things to make them bleed ......... where do you live man ?????

dost-mittar#227

Sat-Sri-Akal

I know Tipton, the town that was featured in the New York Times article you posted. I know it well. It isnt even a Muslim town like Bradford. Most of the Asians there are Sikhs, probably 80%. In fact that whole region, what is known as the Black Country, Wolverhampton, Dudley all those towns and cities are heavily populated with Sikhs. There are lots of Punjabi pubs and shops there. When this news first broke there were bunches of ignorant journalists turning up on the doorsteps of the local Gurudwaras asking questions about al-Qaida!

On a social level there is practically no interaction between young Pakistani`s and Sikhs in fact there is occasional hostility.

Each group has its own ways of dealing with questions of identity and culture in todays England. Its just that the Punjabi youth are more likely to form Bhangra groups and go to pubs as well as going towards their religion.

Either way, those kids have been sold down the line big time. I hope the Muslims of Tipton kick the sorry hides of the people that enticed them into trouble if they ever show their faces round there again (they agitate against Sikhs and Hindus too). I feel sorry for them and their families.

-h-

``People from the South(all of them): Madrasis``

That is perhaps the MOST infuriariting remark to date on this web site !! And coming from a fellow Indian!! Ignoramusesesses : )

re: semipreciousme # 196

``….she’s one lucky lady ``

Luck, my dear SPM, can often be just another name for overrated misfortune :)

But thank you. You indeed are a generous and kind person.

Regards.

Read AAmir #218:

``Question

Can please explain something the hindu psyche that I am trying to understand. During their stuggle with the british they resorted to non-violant means in addressing there oppression. During the partition of India and Pakistan they resorted to violance towards their muslim countrymen. Since then they have dealt with the muslims in such fashion. Why is it that they chose to stuggle against their real oppressors(British) non violently, yet deal with their own muslim countrymen withy such hatred``

Abey baara-sar,

I know you are ignorant- your posts reveal that amply, but this public display of your absolute idiocy is embarrassing. First of all, it`s convenient how you have made the freedom struggle a ``Hindu`` thing. Are you saying Muslims and (present-day) Pakistanis were not involved in the freedom struggle? Better not go there.

Secondly, if you think we ``chose`` to stuggle against our real oppressors non-violently, you are missing the point. You have to view such things in perspective. We had enough hotheads- Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Jatin Bagha etc.- who were only too eager to shed blood for freedom. Not to forget Subhashchandra Bose who actually started a whole army of his own to make that happen. They get their 1.5 pages in the history textbooks, but the thing is it was Gandhi and his ahimsa that made the most news, or at least, were given the most PR thanks to 40+ years of post-independence Congress rule in India. So today fools like you believe that all of the freedom struggle was passively non-violent. I don`t think your small brain is capable of gauging the merits of civil disobedience vs. armed resistance, esp. when those who control the resources are not benefited by freedom, so I`ll leave that out.

I seriously resent your presenting the killings in Gujarat as a product of the ``Hindu psyche``. What is happening in Gujarat is a disturbing sociological phenomenon that needs to be analysed carefully so that such things can be prevented in future. To casually attribute it to ``Hindu psyche`` isn`t serving anyone`s cause. Ever notice how normal Muslims (and I mean the kind that don`t go crash themselves into skyscrapers) jump up hotly to deny any implication that it is their religion that requires reform, claiming instead that a ``few misguided elements`` are responsible for whatver sh1t happens in the name of Islam. Well, I`ll use that argument for now, if you please.

What is happening in Gujarat is a product of several factors, not the least of which is the stark reality that it one of those states in which almost the entire means are controlled by prosperous Hindus. Muslims are poor and unorganised. Gujaratis have traditionally been a people enamoured by money power. You see them in Mumbai: tons of money, zero class. They spit pan masala out their Opel Astras for Godssakes. Hindu-Muslim disharmony is nothing new in Gujarat. Disrespect for the law is the norm - how else can one explain the flourishing liquor industry in a state legally under prohibition? To compound things, most Gujaratis are staunch Hindus, something the RSS/VHP has capitalised on by using, as some newspapers have suggested, the state as a ``laboratory for their pro-Hindutva experiments.`` The administartion is weak and ineffectual- we have heard of how police personnel abandoned their posts and fled when confronted with mobs. Small-minded bigots are in powerful places, morale in law-enforcement circles is at its ebb what with transfers of posting at the drop of a hat. To top it all, the state is ``blessed`` with a Chief Minister who can do no right. Not only is he doomed in everything he does (or does NOT do), he is cursed everytime he opens his mouth. The heritage of Gujarat as ``Gandhiji`s land`` isn`t helping his cause. His own party is either too afraid of him (unlikely) or actually suspects dismissing or censuring him may work against them (a real tragedy, if true, but one I can readily believe given how ignorant the ``average`` Indian is, Hindu or Muslim).

To compound this mess, the last thing we need is some semi-literate jehadi from across the border asking stupid questions about our collective psyche. I seriously think it`s time to take responsibility for ourselves and our first responsiblity is to dismiss morons like 12-head, slicing their vituperative heads off wherever they arise.

If you haven`t got the point yet, ``we Hindus`` would appreciate if you`d just SHUT UP.

Regards.

Humsab,

anNY is one of the adorable persons on chowk. The case she said on chowk about manoj is typical of many and I was using that only as an example, not as an attack on anNY as a person. If I were in any other field than the aircraft where military civilian boundries are thin, I would have had closer interactions with the pakistanis on chowk. Once I was asked about chowk. Pakistan at least at present is not a good country to have contacts in.

regards

jayaprakash

hobbyty # 231

Hobbyty, I have read some of your posts but not others. So, if I missed something, feel free to correct me.

You claimed that Zafar and I are making strawman arguments. We are not. What we do notice is that our ideals and our sense of reality are fundamentally different from yours. Perhaps that is why Zafar and I do not make sense to you and vice versa, despite your very elegant and eloquent postings. Zafar and I agree with you on many facts (India is passing through a murderous period; some groups of people have been engaged in systematically maligning Indian Muslims; state machinery has failed; and all this must worry Indians a great deal, who must step forward to take concrete steps in order to advance a stronger corporate vision). But we differ from you in our interpretations of those facts, and in our judgement of the total universe of other related facts that should be taken into account. Not surprisingly, if Zafar and I differ radically from you in our visions, attitudes, and modes of apprehending reality, we will always reach different conclusions than you will.

My pointing out that you follow an inconsistent set of doctrines and principles was not so that I could use your obvious inconsistencies as a justification to dismiss your ideas. Rather, in our view, your principles, doctrines, and modes of apprehending reality are themselves the root cause of strife in India (or in other parts of the world). It matters little if your ideas and perceptions are held by Hindus, Muslims, or