The Last Crusade

amazing how much pakistanis are concerned for palestine and there is no recipricocity

OIC`s apathy deplored

Bureau Report

PESHAWAR, June 4: The NWFP president of the Pakistan Muslim League (QA), Salim Saifullah Khan, has deplored the silence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) over the grave situation Pakistan was faced with in the wake of Indian war threats.

In a statement, issued here on Tuesday, he called upon the government to immediately call for an extraordinary meeting of the OIC to deal with the situation.

On the pretext of war against terrorism, Mr Khan said, Indiaand some other countries were denying the Kashmiris their inalienable right to self-determination for which they had been struggling for the more than five decades.

Their just struggle was well known to the world community through numerous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, he said, adding that the freedom struggle in Kashmir was indigenous and Pakistan did not indulge in cross-border terrorism as alleged by India.

He said Pakistan did not want war and wished to settle all its disputes with India through peaceful negotiations, but at the same time it had the right to safeguard its sovereignty through all available means.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

WHERE IS THE UMMAH ?

Question and Answer Details from islamonline.net



Name of Questioner Don`t want to be a racist but... Pakistan

Title Unable to get over the racism of some Arabs towards non-Arabs

Question I am sorry to say that I have developed racism or intolerance towards a number of Arab Muslims. I know that from an Islamic perspective, this is wrong because Islam condemns all forms of racism and nationalism. As a person of Indo-Pakistani background, I have heard of enough instances and experienced firsthand the way a number of Arabs treat non-Arabs, especially those who are darker skinned, even if they are Muslim.

I am tired of the way a number of Arabs think they are better Muslims because they speak Arabic or are Arab. I am tired of the way a number of Arabs think they are the only ones who know Islam because of their Arabness, not necessarily because of their knowledge. Everytime some incident happens where an Arab person shows racism, especially towards fellow Muslims, my feelings of hate and anger become strong.

It is only the fear of Allah which is really stopping me from acting and speaking irrationally Alhamdulillah. But I fear I may not be able to control myself any longer when I see such Jahiliyyah. How can I not hate my brothers and sisters who are Arab, despite the racism a number of them practice? How can I stop generalizing? I have had Arab friends in the past, but in the city I now live in, my anger may be what is stopping me from befriending a fellow Muslim of Arab origin.

Name of Counsellor IslamOnline Counseling Team

Topic Communication

Answer



May Allah (swt) forgive and guide those who you are describing and may He also forgive and guide you to not be racist or intolerant!

You are being very frank and communicating feelings that most people have a difficult time articulating. We appreciate such frankness and in particular, we appreciate your desire to seek help with this rather personal situation.

In this particular case, you are describing a sense of superiority in religious belief that some Arabs you have dealt with might feel solely due to their Arab origins. Despite your negative experiences dealing with Muslims of Arab origin, Allah (swt) has blessed you with an opportunity to start anew in this new community.

The key to really getting along with people from another race or culture is to try and minimize as much as possible the differences and highlight the similarities between your culture and theirs. You must try, as difficult as it might be, to give each Arab brother or sister a chance before judging them or associating them with other Arabs who might be racist. You should make du`a going into each situation for Allah (Swt) to open your heart, to cleanse your mind, and to grant you the love that a Muslim is supposed to show for a fellow Muslim - regardless of his or her background! We are confident that you are capable of doing this insha`allah!

Of course, we do not want you to shy away from dealing with Arabs or anyone for that matter who is being racist or assuming superiority in belief not due to knowledge but due to their Arab origins. You have to keep your intentions clear and try your best to engage that person in a dialogue. The next time you spot a potentially racist or elitist person, ask them in a polite way, to clarify their actions. Let them know you wish to learn about their perspective. Why are they saying or doing what they are doing? Be patient. Be calm and listen to the person`s explanation. More often than not, you will find that they did not mean to be racist. Nor did they mean to be elitist. They were just sincerely advising, though perhaps not in the style or manner of advising.

On the other hand, you might discover as you listen to the person`s explanation, that they are indeed racist and look down upon those people who are not of Arab origin. In this case, you should not try to address them in the same gathering. Be patient. Wait until you see them again, in a more calm state. Then try your best to talk to them about their perspective on whatever situation you had previously encountered. You will be surprised but most people never realize that their comments are being construed in a racist or elitist way! Suggest different ways they might share their advice and how doing so will be less hurtful to people receiving it.

For your part, do your best not to generalize. There are racist, elitist, and generally ignorant people from all races and backgrounds in the Muslim community. It is best to give each person the benefit of the doubt until he or she proves himself to be a racist, elitist or just plain ignorant. And even then, your job will be to help that person come to terms with their negative comments or behavior!

Make du`a to Allah (swt) to help ease your adjustment to your new community and to strengthen the bonds between you and the Arab brothers and sisters especially!

And Allah (swt) knows best.





now tahmed if u had any understanding of politics and hx u would understand that pakistan must portray india as the enemy of islam so it can garber support int he int`l arena and get help from the OIC and isolate india ecnomically and poltically from fellow islamic nations as much as possible india has launched its campaign and branded pakistan the ``epicentre of int`l terrorism`` meanwhile people like u and hobby urge restraint what can u expect from south asianist wanna be indians

if im a mullah vaypayee is an imam

anyone who denies this is denying gujrat , kashmir, as for picking fights not at all i think cross border terrorism should stop and kashmir should be given to india....but this in no way diminishes my belief that india is out to marginalize pakistan and the expression of islam in south asia .............as per my understanding of islam it is limited i agree i never went or saw a mullah in my life i meant india is the enemy of islam in the political sense and if u deny this u are denying reality

hobbyty:

[We must be patient and exert an influence of restraint and restriction; in way, we have to define, to frame, limits for them, as we remain conscious of our own]

- Thanks man. That was hilarious, really cheered me up! You are the most gloriously pompous soul I have ever come across.

take care

-h-

Maharana and Feroze

Apart from what Maharana said, Swastika is also found in many of the old Celtic traditions of Europe as a holy symbol. If I remember correctly Celtic one is exactly as the Indian Swastika.

Fawad

Dear Fawad, please be patient and maintain control over your nerves. It is clear that resolution of the issue of Kashmir`s status is getting closer. Clearly neither India nor Israel are the only enemies Muslims face today. Yet, there is considerable hope that this will not persist. Recall in the case of Israel, it is a population that lives in fear - it is a fear that we as Muslims, should take offense exists.

As for the Indians, again, recall that what we are witnessing from them is nothing new for sociologists: All societies in which the middle class begins to exert itself, also experience a period of fatuation with, of glorification, of those elements of history and psychology that it feels reflect power. With Indians it`s a need to be feel as if they are respected and are powerful. We must be patient and exert an influence of restraint and restriction; in way, we have to define, to frame, limits for them, as we remain conscious of our own.

fawad #478

you ask ``another informal poll for muslims : how many of u think india is the biggers enemy of islam affter israel``

Please spare us these referendum type polls where only your preferred choices are presented.

Please add the following option as well:

How many people think people like fawad are the biggest enemies of muslims (since they would have them pick quarrels with the whole world)?

And the following:

How many people think people like fawad have no understanding of Islam beyond what they learnt at the knee of ``professional muslims`` (the mullahs), and certainly nothing that is in the Quran?

I would vote yes to both of the last two options.

another informal poll for muslims :

how many of u think india is the biggers enemy of islam affter israel

rsrirdhar it is VERY hard for me to believe that ``poll`` it looks like indian propaganda but lets say its true ........i say we freeze the LOC and we make it an intl boundary ........lets have an informal poll

how many of u think the LOC should be the border

how many u think kashmir should go to india

how many of u think india will want pakistan`s kashmir

how many of u think india is creating this war hysteria so it can grab our kashmir

kafir i dont know it ur a paki or not but if u are...........you speak only for urself and not for the majority of pakistanis although ur idea is right

HOW MANY OF U GUYS KNOW THIS

1) jinnah didnt give a sh---t about kashmir

2) in 47 liaquit considered it a shthole full of backward muslims

3) its useless

fuzair #471 Wasnt 13 Lancers the one that, along with 11 Cavalry, spearheaded the attack that took Chhamb and Jaurian in 1965?

My intention is not to be an alarmist - but in the next couple of weeks we are scheduled for high level visits (Donald Rumsfeld, etc.) In the past, EVERY single time a high level visit has taken place, we have had a terrorist incident that takes place against an Indian target, with the clear intention of putting pressure on Pakistan, and also to instigate India to blame/act against Pakistan.

How about extra, extra, EXTRA vigilence this time around??? I just have the feeling there is going to be some such episode with that same convenient timing.

FerozeK # 467,

``Secondly, since we are discussing this issue, could you, or anyone else for that matter,please explain to me the similarity between the swastika and the Hindu symbol of a similar design? What is that Hindu symbol supposed to represensent...because every time I see it, I start thinking of Leni Rifenstahl`s Triumph des Willen and of Nurnberg in 1938 and of the Nurnberg laws..``

Since you addressed this question to everyone, I`ll try to tell you the little I know.

Not very surprisingly Swastika is a household word in a Hindu`s way of life. Every entrance of a Hindu`s house or temple is marked with Swastika. Its a sanskrit word meaning ``to be good``. Different cultures subsequently used it to symbolise the auspicious nature of the divine. What the Nazi`s used was in fact a twisted version, the real Swastika being an upright cross having arms drawn out in a clockwise fashion. Of course it was associated with the Aryan culture as opposed to the Aryan race as propagated by many orthodox western historians. How else could you explain its use in China or even the Americas later on. Nazi`s were desparate to prove themselves as true Aryans. In fact quite a few German historians at that time tried to prove that sanskrit originated from gErmany (no evidence of that as yet).

For many Hindus its difficult to come to grips with the fact that people in a different continent have used a hallowed symbol like Swastika for persecution of another religious group. In India, it has never been used as a symbol of Aryanism or has carried a racial connotation either. Its simply a divine symbol like Om or a Christian`s cross for that matter.

The origins of Swastika date back to the vedic times and more specifically founded by a school of thought called Sankhya Yoga. For further details you could perhaps look up in any literature referring to Vedanta or the knowledge of Upanishads.

I know at least that the clockwise nature of the Swastika depicts the continuous and cyclical motion of time. Time being the only dynamic quality of the Universe and the other 24 qualities being static (as per Sankhya Yoga). Since time is the only dynamic entity in the Universe, it runs through all other qualities to make the Universe dynamic as well.

For a cursorial and historical introduction to Swastika I suggest you read the link given below.

Adios

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa120699a.htm

Re: FerozeK #435

Sorry, did not mean to imply that the war poets
revelled in death or fighting or whatever. My
point was that they were indeed patriotic in the
sense that they recognized their duty and did
it--at great personal cost to themselves. They
would have preferred to be elsewhere but
knew where their duty lay. Surely no other
interpretation of, e.g., ``In Flander`s Fields`` is
possible? Unlike Clinton during Vietnam, they
did not attempt to cloak personal benefit and
selfish reasons under the guise of moral
principle. And neither, like Bush, did they use
connections to get a cushy billet in the rear.

The glorification of war--a la Mussolini (who
was himself a combat veteran and the
Freikorps--which you think I am implying, was
a Nihilistic reaction to the same set of horrific
circumstances which produced the abject
pacifism of the Western democracies.

Years ago I met a PakArmy major who had
stopped a machinegun burst with his left arm
and like almost all old soldiers, remembered
his days at the front as the best time of his life.
Both the Pakistani and the Indian Armies have
never really fought a war, in the sense of
casualties that wipe out entire battalions,
brigades and divisions as a matter of course
and heavy fighting that goes on day in, day out
for weeks and months on end, so I would
doubt very much that ANY Pakistani or Indian
war veteran is anti-war at all. One of my
uncles served in 13th Lancers during both `65
and `71and his memory of the wars is not on
the futility of it all or the dead comrades or but
of the number of errors our so-called high
command made and the only thing he wishes
for is the ability to refight the wars--with the
benefit of 20-20 hindsight. That is, he simply
wishes to do his ``duty`` better. The same
holds true for all other combat veterans that I
know.

PS: If you don`t know, 13th Lancers saw some
of the heaviest fighting during both wars and
suffered particularly heavy (by Indo-Pak
standards) in `71.

Regards.

Kafir Khan #466 you write ``Kashiris need to be nuked``

Thats right. Screw `em (as India and Pakistan have done for 50 years), then nuke `em (as you now propose).

Trouble with Kashmiris is they are simple peasants. If they had warlike traditions like pathans, they would screw both Indian and Pakistanis and chase both b!stards out of their land.

PS And I am no Kashmiri either.

re: kafir k khan

{Kashiris need to be nuked}

...of course it doesn`t matter that the radioactive $hit will fly into india and pakistan too...blow up your neighbor`s seat on an airplane and let us know how the rest of the flight goes...

Kafir saheb...Being so concerned about the Pakistani GDP, and your (and my) country`s welfare as you are, my question is this: Why nuke the Kashmiris, be they crooked or otherwise? How about Pakistan just getting out of Kashmir all together, and leaving the crooked or otherwise Kashmiris to their own fate?

And come on, really, if this is the way to take care of the crooked Kashmiris as you call them, how do you suggest taking care of much of our own crooked Pakistani folk? To borrow from one of my favorite fictional alien characters, `your response is highly illogical.`

Audio Video Radio..you`re right. there is something wrong. I was going to suggest it could be that we don`t drink the same kind of water as our military masters, but I`m quite certain it goes deeper than that.

Re: AUdio-VIdeo-Radio # 456

Just a friendly correction...

Hitler`s strassenkampfers (street fighters) were known as the ``Brown Shirts``. Black Shirts was the term given to Mussolini`s fascetti - facists, because of the color of their uniform.

Secondly, since we are discussing this issue, could you, or anyone else for that matter,please explain to me the similarity between the swastika and the Hindu symbol of a similar design? What is that Hindu symbol supposed to represensent...because every time I see it, I start thinking of Leni Rifenstahl`s Triumph des Willen and of Nurnberg in 1938 and of the Nurnberg laws..

Ciao

Audio-Video #457 Thanks for taking the time to put down your views, and for your kind words to me personally. So far I had read only one liners from you which seemed to be no more than potshots at muslims. In this post you provide a better understanding of your thinking, and I read it with interest. While it may not matter whether we agree or disagree on everything you say (as you indicate), here are a couple of thoughts anyway:

1. You are partly right in saying that muslims tend to have a hostile view of non-muslims: partly right, because SOME muslims certainly have this view. But, I think you are partly wrong as well, since OTHER muslims do not. And muslims are not unique in this: there are people with different mindsets in every community. The evidence is right here on chowk given the variety of ways of thinking that posters show.

2. It is not fair to expect Pakistanis to replace the military government with a civilian one. By definition, a military government is there by force, not by votes. The referendum in Pakistan was meaningless, as Musharaff himself admitted half-heartedly and apologized for in his recent speech (and I give him partial credit for owning up to it). There are two ways to replace a military government: (a) either by street demonstrations - that happens when people are driven to this extreme (in 1966 the Ayub Khan government was brought down by street violence and after the army refused to fire any more on the civilians). (b) Steady evolution of democratic institutions. This is basically the path Musharaff himself is saying he would take. Much will depend on the October elections of the prime minister. My own preference would be an evolutionary path since it does not exact a price in terms of people`s lives.

Hope the above comments make some sense.

re: Kashmiris want to stay in India, at least majority of them.

Url: http://headlines.sify.com/920news5.html

``Fri, May 31, 2002





Majority of Kashmiris want to remain Indian citizens: Poll

London, May 31

As many as 61 percent of the population of Jammu and Kashmir want to remain Indian citizens because they feel they would be thus be politically and economically more secure, while only six percent want to be Pakistani citizens, according to a recent opinion poll.

A large number of them (33 percent) are indecisive. The poll was conducted by FACTS Worldwide, MORI`s affiliate company in India.

Majority of the people are also of the opinion that foreign militants are damaging the `Kashmir cause` and they do not want Kashmir to be divided on the lines of religion and ethnicity.

A whopping majority of 86 percent want an end to militancy and infiltration of militants across the Line of Control (LoC). Two thirds of the population believe that Pakistan`s involvement in the region for the last 10 years has been bad.

The poll also reveals that 80 percent of the people want displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homes in safety. This, they feel, will help bring about peace.

People also believe that, ``The unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir - `Kashmiryat` - should be preserved in any long-term solution.``

Half or more of the population believe that a ``New political party is needed to bring about a permanent solution in Kashmir.``

The poll conducted at the end of April reveals an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris oppose India and Pakistan going to war to find a permanent solution to the Kashmir issue.

They believe the proper way to bring about peace in the region is through democratic elections, ending violence, and economic development.

As many as 93 percent believe that peace in Jammu and Kashmir can be established through economic development while 86 percent advocate holding free and fair elections and 87 percent favour direct talks between the Indian Government and the people of Kashmir.

Views are, however, split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55 percent support India and Pakistan granting control as much autonomy as they can to the parts of Kashmir under their control and enable them to govern their own affairs. While the majority in Srinagar and Leh supports this policy, the majority in Jammu opposes it.

Views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces are also varied. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of 10 people believe security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help bring peace, whereas in Jammu the opinions are reversed.

Perceptions also vary regarding the behaviour of the Indian security forces.

``Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64 percent of the population think they are widespread,`` claims the poll.

Even on the matter of human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir, 96 percent of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only two percent of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33 percent believe they are `occasional`).

The poll was conducted between April 20 and 28, 2002. In total, 850 face-to-face interviews were conducted with adults aged 16 and above across 55 localities within Jammu and Kashmir.

This comprised 22 localities in Jammu city, 20 in Srinagar city and 6 in Leh (urban areas) as well as in 3 villages around Jammu and 4 villages around Srinagar (rural areas).

Quotas of subjects for the interview were selected by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region. A random selection procedure was used to select individual respondents.``

Sridhar

saminashah #453 If India and Pakistan come out unsinged and unradiated from the current crisis, attempts will be made by the US and the ``international community`` I think to take them away from the path that leads to these dangerous situations. And domestic public opinion will no doubt do the same the best it can(through press, elections, peace demonstrations).

Right now, both BJP and Musharaff and co. are stuck having to outmacho one another. Let us hope that one of them will back off before it is too late. One thing is for sure - you keep playing chicken (where two kids compete to see who is the last one to dart across the rail lines in front of an incoming train), sooner or later you end up like a nice flat chappati under a train.

soysauce #451 Your points are all well taken. We have an aggressive military general in Pakistan, and an aggressive political party in India. Wagons are being circled on both sides as you say. The war fever takes on it`s own momentum. The international community, and particularly the US and IK, are clearly doing everything they can to cool things down. But as you say, there are people who see a chance to fry their own fish in the fire - during the Iran-Iraq war, I am told there were factories in Europe that would produce weapons that would at the very end of the process be packaged in separate boxes, one destined for Iran the other for Iraq. But the people really cooking big time in the fire are of course inside the subcontinent already - the US has indicated that Al Qaeda is busy trying to create more incidents to provoke a war between the two countries (and has succeeded in diverting the pakistan army`s attention, thats for sure); the mullahs in Pakistan - who used to be considered jokes in Pakistan, the bottom of the society - are now armed with guns and roaming around like rambos; nationalists on both side feed on the tensions, while the voices of peace and reason are quiet. Not a pretty situation.

temporal #455 Both the Indian military and the Pakistan military have generally been quite civilized in their treatment of prisoners and handling of the dead. Wounded prisoners are treated in the same military hospitals as their ex-foes (I once visited five of them in the Nowshehra military hospital, and they were in a room right next door to a Pakistani army officer we have been visiting). At the graveyard next to the race course grounds in Rawalpindi, I remember once seeing the grave of an Indian soldier many, many years ago. Right there alongside dead paki military people. I dont know how he ended up there, but was the grave was clearly marked and I was told this was a temporary burial until the body could be returned.

With nuclear weapons things are vastly different now. There wont be dead bodies to be handed back correctly, since they would have incinerated. And the wounded will quickly overflow not just military hospitals but all medical facilities. And this correct behavior does not extend beyond each other in the two armies (as is probably true for any regular army in the world): paramilitaries of any kind (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever you prefer to call them) certainly do not give or receive similar courtesies from any regular army.

re: M.J.Akbar`s interesting article on Indian muslims and why they will not betray India

Mushy was being ridiculous when he pointed fingers at India`s treatment of minorities and referred to Gujarat carnage. Here is M.J.Akbar dealing with the issue. Url:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=300382

Excerpts:

1. ``A revealing but rarely revealed fact is that Muslims in the rest of India give no support whatsoever to the separatist insurgency in the Muslim-majority valley of Kashmir, that charming bit of paradise that could yet trigger off history`s first nuclear war.``

2. ``Indian Muslims are the only Muslims in the world to enjoy sustained democracy since the freedom of their country from colonial rule. Muslim nations, particularly Pakistan, have been unable to fashion a polity relevant to the modern age, with governments accountable to a democratic process. Kings and dictators across the Islamic map throttle the Muslim street and offer support to George Bush and Tony Blair in exchange for the mantle of ``indispensability``. Bush and Blair give patronage, patronisingly. Blair believes that there is some cultural deficiency among Saudi Arabs that makes them ineligible for the standards of equality and political freedom that he would never deny to the British.``

3. ``Indian Muslims use democracy with vigour and finesse. They control or influence the results of elections in at least a hundred seats in the Lok Sabha – the House of the People – the directly elected part of India`s Parliament, making it virtually impossible for Hindu fundamentalists to fulfil their dream of gaining an absolute majority by themselves and using power to change India`s secular constitution. It is a neat lock.``

Also interesting is M.J.Akbar`s views on Mushy boy.

Read on from the url.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 439

khamkhwa,

The guy who said it is a hardliner. Syed Shahabuddin is no friend of BJP and does not care what BJP thinks about him.

Sridhar

tahmed321 #445:

...cemetery for the kargil dead?…am not aware of any graveyard dedicated to the war heroes in pakistan…as i wrote somewhere…’we respect neither the living nor the dead’…

...damn…

…in the olden days the armies had traditions and gentlemanly conduct even in war…now it is all convenience and politics…our fauji jamadars …if i recall correctly…refused to accept the dead bodies of our soldiers from the indians because ‘officially’ they were in denial…and the indians buried them with full military honors…

…and in the aftermath of ’71…think it was field marshal sam manekshaw…who wrote to the then pakistan army chief to honor a Pakistani solider who fought the indians valiantly in that conflict…

rgds,

t

Ferozk #449 I too have an interest in past wars, even as I pray that the world progresses beyond this stage and we are spared future wars (wars are becoming increasingly destructive due to advancements in technology, and there is enough to go around for everyone anyway). In the US, they have preserved the civil war battlefields, and I have visited all of the major ones in our area. The common theme is not the glory, but the carnage that took place - 19,000 men killed in a single day at Antietem; wave after wave of Southerners mowed down at the wheat field in Gettysburg; hand to hand fighting in the wooded areas at the Wilderness.

When I was in school in Pakistan, I came across a thick book (almost a thousand pages of tiny print, two columns per page) on Napoleon written in the 19th century (by a man named Abbott). While he was obviously an admirer of Napoleon (I think he met him in real life), the one word I still recall that kept recurring in his book was ``sanguine`` (used to mean ``bloody`` even though nowadays it is not often used and means something different, i.e. ``hopeful``). The same theme recurs in books and descriptons of the US civil war battles. And one reads about huge numbers in WWI and WWII (I think almost 30 million Chinese were killed in that war, and perhaps 50 million Germans and an equal number of Russians).

And these are just the well documented or preserved battles. God knows about the misery that people have seen in past wars in the subcontinent - the battles of Panipat and so forth.

And yet, all these killings do not register until you experience it yourself directly or indirectly (as I mentioned in my previous post about 1965 and 1971).

On chowk (which provides an interesting view into the mindset of many people), the person who I think came out first and most loud and clear against dragging both countries into war was Stuka - an Indian poster with a military background. Even as his kin and mine are technically ``enemies`` since they are in opposing armies, and even as both will no doubt do their duty if war starts, I can relate 100% to him and his people and pray for their safe return to their homes as much as I do mine. The empty vessels will keep rattling, but let us hope no one has to see the real thing.

audio-video #447 you write ``Chances of war recede by 50% if LK Advani is sacked and risk of war becomes zero is Musharaf is kicked out. ``

Your post leaves in a state of shock. It actually makes some sense!! You cannot by the audio-video we all thought we had come to know.

Ferozk, Tahmed

Hear hear!

As disturbing as it sounds, it seems that many people would rather resolve conflicts in a never ending cycle of violence rather than the process of negotiating and compromising. The Indian and Pakistani religious right wing/military/conservatives seem to think that they have the legitimacy to ruin the subcontinent.

#441 tahmed

I don`t think BJP would have waged war without a consensus or at least overwhelming sentiment in india for war. They are certainly driving towards obtaining that consensus because war would be a good diversion. The purpose behind massing the army is to browbeat, pakistan which, you have to admit they did with some success - look back to Mushy`s Jan 13 speech.

``This is what I am saying: For India, the nukes and missiles are militarily redundant and therefore useless. For Pakistan, they are a strategic defense. While in the worst case, both India and Pakistan would suffer terrible losses and long-term effects, for Pakistan an equally bad scenario is occupation by a hostile foreign army. So what we have is an asynchronous situation.``

It`s true that nukes can be an equalizer. As i said i can understand pakistanis taking comfort in the fact that they are not going to be overwhelmed in the next war. However, i do hope that sanity prevails, and that monumental civilizational decisions are not left to politicians and generals who are moved by short-term compulsions. I understand that Mushy has been WEAKENED by the referendum and playing the tough army guy he may be trying to reassert himself - something that may not be good for pakistan in the long run. Both the BJP and the pak army are trying to circle the wagons and they seem to be doing that with some success judging at least by the reactions of the above average crowd here.

Knowing our ``leaders``, the next phase will be one in which india will try to procure/develop technology for the preemptive strike of pak missile & nuclear facilities. The french, israelis, english, swedes & the yankees stand to make a lot of money. It would be a lot simpler (but much harder) to swallow our pride and try to sort things out thru negotiations.

I am absolutely certain about one thing. I am against india strengthening pak military. Negotiating with the military may work in the short term but it`s bad for india (& pak) in the long term. I`d like to see india declare that it is willing to discuss (without preconditions) kashmir and other outstanding issues with an ELECTED GOVERNMENT of pakistan, sidelining pak military. Vajpayee has been making one wrong move after another & i`d like to see him and his lot cast out. There is a time for war and there`s a time for peace. I hope the time for peace is just around the corner.

2800 final count of dead in WTC attack .Instead of panic hysterical reponse of lashing out against muslims all over ,had they Ashcrofoids had been professional enough ,may be even 2800 might have been ALIVE!!!



FBI Admits Lapses Prior to Sept. 11



By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - FBI Director Robert Mueller, acknowledging serious lapses in how the FBI mishandled some information prior to Sept. 11, suggested for the first time that investigators might have detected the terrorist plot if they had pursued leads more diligently.

Mueller`s acknowledgment came amid fresh disclosures of what could be missed hints about threats from suicide hijackings, including efforts by an unidentified Middle Eastern country to buy a commercial flight simulator.

``The jury is still out on all of it,`` Mueller said Wednesday at FBI headquarters. ``Looking at it right now, I can`t say for sure it would not have, that there wasn`t a possibility that we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers.``

Mueller`s remarks came after his announcement of a broad reorganization of the nation`s premier law enforcement agency, partly in response to criticism of the FBI after Sept. 11. The FBI`s new marching orders will focus on terrorists, spies and hackers, in that order.

The Justice Department also is making changes to support the FBI. Attorney General John Ashcroft was to announce new guidelines Thursday lifting restrictions on the FBI`s use of the Internet and public libraries to give agents more freedom to investigate terrorism even when they are not pursuing a particular case.

Under existing rules, FBI agents are not allowed to do general research on the Internet or at public libraries unless the information sought directly relates to a current investigation or to leads being checked out.

Those limits ``extended even to publicly available information that everyone else is free to access, and even to information that could plainly be valuable in generally facilitating investigative activities and preventing terrorism,`` according to a Justice Department memo.

The new rules allow agents to conduct ``general topical research`` and ``pure surfing`` designed to find Web sites, chat rooms or Internet bulletin boards with information about terror, bomb-making instructions, child pornography or stolen credit cards.

The new rules also will make it easier for FBI agents to begin and pursue terrorism investigations without approval from FBI headquarters; give local FBI officials more authority to approve undercover operations in emergency situations; and let agents conduct preliminary investigations for up to six months without special approval from headquarters.

Mueller`s statement represented the first time any senior official in the Bush administration has said counterterrorism investigators might have detected and averted the Sept. 11 hijackings if they had recognized what they were collecting. That question is the focus of a congressional inquiry, and almost certain to come up next week during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the FBI`s reorganization plans.

``Putting all the pieces together, who is to say?`` Mueller said, though he also noted that those pieces amounted to ``snippets in a veritable river of information.`` Mueller took over as FBI director just days before Sept. 11.

``It is critically important that we have that connection of dots that will enable us to prevent the next attack,`` Mueller said Wednesday. ``Headquarters has to assume a responsibility for assuring that information comes in, that information is analyzed and that information is disseminated.``

President Bush has bristled over suggestions that the government had collected enough clues to avert the attacks. ``Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people,`` Bush said earlier this month.

The FBI disclosed two other clues Wednesday that it said might be relevant to the investigation into the September hijackings. A Middle Eastern country where U.S. shipments are restricted sought unsuccessfully before Sept. 11 to buy a commercial flight simulator, and an FBI pilot in 1998 expressed concerns to a supervisor in Oklahoma City about a number of Arab men seeking flight training.

The unidentified pilot told his supervisor ``that he has observed large numbers of Middle Eastern males receiving flight training at Oklahoma airports in recent months,`` according to a copy of the one-page memo, under the heading ``Weapons of Mass Destruction.`` The FBI memo, dated May 18, 1998, was marked ``routine`` and never was forwarded to headquarters.

The pilot added that ``this is a recent phenomenon and may be related to planned terrorist activity.`` He also ``speculates that light planes would be an ideal means of spreading chemical or biological agents.``

The FBI would not identify the country that sought to buy the simulator except to say it was not one publicly connected to Sept. 11. It said the information was given to the FBI by another U.S. agency that it would not identify.

Mueller expressed regret about FBI headquarters mishandling a July 10, 2001, memo from its Phoenix office about a large number of Arabs seeking pilot, security and airport operations training at a U.S. flight school. Midlevel FBI managers should have immediately given the memo to top officials who might have recognized its significance, he said.

He has asked the Justice Department`s inspector general to investigate whether any FBI employees should be punishe

Re: Tahmad321

First of all, thanks for appreciating my thoughts in that poem. I wrote that poem, while I was in the states and thus, did not visit any such last resting place for the victims of Kargil. The sentiments expressed in that poem, were universal and were a reflection of my own personal dismay.

I am, and have been, a keen student of military history for the last 30 years and in particular, I study war as a human and political phenomena. In a really morbid sense, my favorite hobby is the study of war. In the pursuit of this hobby, I have done extensive research into the subject of war. I have talked with the veterans from Pakistan, India, Japan, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany and one really interesting veteran of the Hungarian army, who deserted his unit, when the Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956, by escaping to Austria.

The best such encounter was in 1996, when the American Veterans of Foreign Wars held their convention in Salt Lake City and I met many survivors of Normandy and of Operation Olympus; the American code name for the invasion of southern Japanese islands in the fall of 1945 - which never happened due to the use of nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities in the summer of 1945.

Being so deeply engrossed in the study of war, I have developed over the years a profound hatred for it and I resent this obscenity masqurading as a necessity in our lives. The poem, whose link Temporal gave you, was simply an emotional response to a needless tradedy. The key to the poem, was a feeling, which I had that simply suggested that every soldier, who dies is some mother`s child and was loved by others and loved others in his life; he may be gone, but how will those left behind, will that singular vacuum in their lives.

It is my considered believe that those who are the loudest protagonists for war have never seen its unmitigated horrors and will never experience its suffering. Since they have nothing to lose personally, they are willing to kill others in order to assuage themselves of the nobility of their patriotism. There is a common saying amongst the veterans that you can always tell the difference between a veteran and a recruit. A veteran is a person who is scared at the coming battle and does not wish to fight, for he knows perfectly well what awaits him and a recruit is eager for battle, because he does not know what will happen.

Pakistani and Indians are eager for war, because they do not understand what modern war is likey to be. A Sandhurst trained Indian general, in my opinion, captured this sentiment best by describing the Indian-Pakistani wars as periodic bouts of communal riots with armor! In past, all our wars were limited and in all of them, both the nations suffered no more than 10,000 casualities. Since then, we have a flawed idea that wars can remain limited and this next war will also follow a similar patteren. What both the nations have to understand is that there is no difference between a limited and an all out nuclear war, because the end will be just the same: anniliation.

We, South Asians, will never progress beyond the shrill political finger pointing if we do not, for a lack of a better word, ``secularize`` the issue of Kashmir from our mutual domestic politics. I had argued, in another article on Chowk, that Kashmir is not a bilateral problem/issue, between India and Pakistan. Kashmir is a domestic issue/problem in both our nations. To solve this issue, there has to a domestic understanding on this issue that it is a political problem of our own engineering. In order to solve Kashmir, we have to stop using it as a political aid to prop up our political interests in a domestic sense. Once Kashmir is removed from the domestic politics, there will be enough political latitude in both Pakistan and India to solve this problem.

However, chances of this happening are nil. The reason being that we have blended this issue with a religious flavor topped by a nationalist ideology, which is uncompromising. On top of this, our common approach to the problem is dictated by an emotionalism compounded by a sense of political paralysis - we are afraid to question the utility of our own historic stance on Kashmir lest our own sense of patriotism might be questioned and we may lose our political ``credit card`` to power.

On the issue of Kashmir, we are so blinded by our common hatred for the other side that we cannot see the reality, which says that Kashmiris want independence and do not wish be aligned with either India or Pakistan.

Ciao

P.S.: Sorry for this long post...:)

temporal #443 I checked the link to Feroz`s poem. It is indeed a touching one, about the young men who died in battle at Kargill. I did not realize we had a cemetery where some of the dead were buried. I wonder if Feroz (in case he reads this) would share the circumstances in which he went there, and where the cemetery actually is.

War is in fact a terrible thing, as is obvious when you listen to people who have actually experienced it. All I have seen first hand growing up in military cantonments is news from the front of the death of someone`s father, someone`s husband, a neighbor or a friend (I still remember the chap who we were told was burnt to a crisp in a tank in Sialkot in 1971, when it seemed only a day before that the two of us had gone to watch the war movie Von Ryan`s Express). And that is bad enough. So far, it is the army people in both countries that have experienced war. And the poor people who are getting killed every day on the border. Let us hope that civilians in the millions dont have to experience the carnage for themselves that takes place and learn the hard way. Full fledged war with modern technology is a miracle cure for jingoism (as the Japanese and Germans discovered the hard way). Let us pray we are all spared this cure.

ALL Muslim & Islam lovers must read this.

Non-muslims welcome too!

__________________________________________________

Victims of prejudice

RAFIQ ZAKARIA



INDIAN Muslims suffer from two traumas today: one, the religious prejudice against them which has historical roots, and has been whipped up by the protagonists of Hindutva and two, their campaign against so-called pseudo-secularism, targeting Indian Muslims as the favoured lot, receiving preferential treatment at the hands of the country?s rulers.

Arising out of these two developments, there is a widespread misconception about Islam, which is presented by its detractors as a backward looking faith, refusing to allow its followers to move with the times. This is a hangover of the calumny against Islam started by the Christian clergy within fifty years of the passing away of Prophet Muhammad; it was mounted with a virulence and hate that is unaparalleled in human annals. The reason was simple. Islam spread in the lands which were under Christian domination and it uprooted the hold of Christianity on the people.

No one has put the case about the phenomenon better than H.G. Wells, one of its bitterest critics, who in his Outline of History wrote: ?Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic peoples, robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated and unorganised and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest and cleanest political idea that had come into actual activity in the world and it offered better terms than any other to the masses of mankind.?

However, to the Christians the shock was too great to bear, both for the rulers and the clerics, as they retreated from the lands they had ruled. They consoled themselves by painting Muhammad as Mahound or the devil and Islam as a false religion. Many eminent Orientalists have now ?exposed the distorted reports of fanatical Christians,? to quote Sir Edward Denis Ross, ?which led to the dissemination of a multitude of gross calumnies.? He pointed out that what was good in Islam ?was entirely ignored? and ?what was not good, in the eyes of Europe, was exaggerated and misinterpreted.?

Until the advent of the British in India, Islam, despite being the dominant power, was free from such distortion or misrepresentation; but during their rule, the same propaganda against it was unleashed among Hindus by both British civilians and clerics. Little has happened even after their departure to change this atmosphere of prejudice against Islam. Indian Muslims continue to be viewed as a drag on India?s progress, an alien community, intolerant, aggressive and uncompromising, ready to break but unwilling to bend, prepared to rot in their ghettos but refusing to adjust to the changing requirements. Is it not strange that a religion which brought about the greatest revolution in the history of the world and changed the shape of mankind, should be condemned as the most retrograde, outlandish and regressive of all religions? Some condescendingly explain that the fault might not lie with Islam but with Muslims. Neither proposition is true.

Islam is fundamentally as progressive or perhaps more than any other religion and Muslims are as good or bad in following its precepts and practices as the followers of other religions. The trouble with Muslims is that they have ceased to be the dominant power and have become the subjugated community; their erstwhile subjects have become the rulers who have no sympathy or consideration for them. The result is that every action of a Muslim is criticised, every move condemned; every reaction misinterpreted, and the whole community is damned for either the fault of a few or the indifference of the many.

The attack against Islam takes a subtle form; it is said that Islam reformed would be no Islam. Better still, that unless Muslims give up their unqualified adherence to the Quran, neither reform nor renewal of their faith is possible. And without these, it is stressed, they are doomed. This, in effect, amounts to asking Muslims to give up Islam. For the Quran is really the basis of Islam; no Muslim can modify or alter it. Those who doubt its divinity cannot remain in the fold.





The Prophet was no more than a transmitter of what is contained in its pages. He does not occupy the same place as does Christ among Christians or Moses among Jews, or Buddha among Buddhists or Krishna among Hindus; Mohammed is neither God nor His incarnation. He is human and has no divinity attached to him; in one of the passages of the Quran he was, in fact, admonished for having frowned upon a beggar. He could falter even though he was the perfect human being. According to a tradition recorded by Imam Muslim, one of the two recorders of the most authentic books of traditions, the Prophet himself had cautioned his co-religionists that though his religious views were, no doubt, binding on them, as these were divinely inspired, but not his worldly opinions which, sometimes, could be erroneous.

The Quran is the pivot around which everything revolves for Muslims. Though revealed in Arabic and addressed to the Arabs, it has a universal message. It is, however, not so much the letter of the Quran but its spirit which is important. Its words have to be construed in their historical perspective. That is why the reasons for the revelations have to be borne in mind; these have, in fact, assumed the nature of a science. There is so much juxtaposition of the local, historical, allegorical and fundamental verses that an uninitiated reader is likely to get confused.





As I have explained in my book Mohammed and the Quran: ?The Quran is a mingling of the spiritual and the material, the divine and the mundane; it covers everything from the sun to the moon. It explains a moral in a verse, which might ordinarily take a whole book; it enunciates a principle from several angles and attacks a wrong from a multitude of directions. And yet its main values are put forth not only unambiguously but in a forceful manner. These are, in a sense its quintessence.?

Maulana Rumi, whose Mathnavi or book of mystical poems has been characterised as ?the Quran in the Persian language? and is held in the highest esteem by the faithful, has expressed this in words which may shock the orthodox:

Out of the Quran I draw the marrow; And throw away the bones to the dogs.

The reference to dogs is to those who quibble unnecessarily on superficial issues; it is not used in a derogatory sense.

The Quran, in its fundamentals, is so broad-based that it has survived the ravages of time and space; even the latest conquests of the sun, the moon and the stars are indicated in it when it says that all these are subject to man and meant for his benefit. Hence, as the great poet-philosopher of modern Islam, Allama Iqbal has observed, in the Quran ?life is a process of progressive creation?; it emphasises change in unequivocal terms:

God does not change the condition of a people; Unless they want to change it by themselves (7:35).





It is wrong, therefore, to blame the Quran for any stagnation of Muslims, and to quote Iqbal again, the Quranic teaching ?necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of their predecessors, should be permitted to solve their problems.? It teaches Muslims to be dynamic and forward-looking; it deprecates status-quoist attitudes and stresses constant struggle. Ijitihad, or independent thinking is a recognised instrument for bringing about the necessary reforms; it was freely exercised by many eminent jurists and theologians in the past. It is based on the Quranic verse: ?And those who exert in Our cause, We show them the right path? (69:29).

There is also the advice given by the Prophet to his newly appointed Governer of Yemen, Ma?az, that where the Quran and the Traditions were silent, he should exercise his own judgment in resolving a dispute. After the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols (1258) and the collapse of the Abbasid Empire, the doors of Ijitihad were closed. Ibn Taiymiya (1263-1328) tried hard to reopen it; so had Ibn Hazm (994-1064) earlier and Suyuti (1445-1505) later, but despite their eminence they could not open the doors of Ijitihad for all time. The orthodox elements went on putting one obstacle after another and insisted on taqlid or imitation.

Iqbal strongly disapproved of this tendency and asked: ?Did the founders of our schools ever claim finality for their reasoning and interpretations?? And replied, ?Never,? adding, ?The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified.? Unfortunately the work of Abduh (1849-1905) in Egypt, Afghani (1838-1897) in Central Asia and Sir Syed Ahmad (1817-1898) in India in the 19th century could not be carried forward; the reformists who followed them lacked the intellectual grip over the Quran and the Traditions and failed to carry their co-religionists with them. However, in early Islam there was free and continuous flow of reforms in every walk of life; that is why its contributions in most fields of human endeavour have been most outstanding.

That was the legacy, which, in fact, Muslims had inherited. In the dark age of the 7th century, when drunkenness was prevalent, the Prophet prohibited the use of alcohol; when work was looked down upon, he taught people to shun lethargy; when indiscipline prevailed, he ordained his followers to pray five times every day; when unity among groups and tribes was non-existent, he told Muslims to congregate every Friday to remember God; when men revelled in feasting, he prescribed a most rigorous, month-long fasting; he gave the right of inheritance to women and restricted men to having only four wives ? against the unlimited number they were used to ? and the Quran declared that this could be done only if each was treated equally in love as well as in every other respect. And that too, with the warning that in effect this was not possible.





He uplifted the poor by giving them equality with the rich; he asked them to assemble at least once in a lifetime in Mecca to perform the Hajj to renew their faith in human brotherhood. He abolished tribal warfare, blood feuds, racial inequality and infanticide. These are only a few of the Prophet?s many achievements. Do these not speak of reform and renewal? The pioneer of rationalism in Europe, Winwood Reade, has rightly observed in his classic, The Martyrdom of Man: ?Instead of repining that Muhammad did no more, we have reason to be astonished that he did so much. His career is the best example that can be given of the influence of the individual in human history.?

The question that then arises is: Why, when the early Muslims were so progressive and dynamic, are they so backward now? Before answering it, we must be clear in our mind as to what is meant by backwardness. Is it political, economic, social or religious backwardness that Muslims are charged with? If it is political, economic, or social, then Islam cannot be blamed because it gives ample scope for progress; and history shows that it was achieved in a spectacular manner.





Until the 19th century no one accused Muslims of being backward; it is only after the onslaught of the West, in its varied manifestations, that older civilizations were criticised and even condemned; in this Hinduism has fared no better than Islam. Moreover, it assumes that western civilization is in every respect better than the other civilizations based on religions other than Christianity. That, I am afraid, is the major weakness in the approach to the concept of reform and renewal. Here logical deductions are also not of much help because civilizations arose out of man?s quest for God and God is a matter of faith and not reason. Even the materialistic western civilization will collapse like a house of cards if its Christian base is knocked out as happened in the former Soviet Union; it would, therefore, be suicidal for any people to tamper with faith or a religion?s basic features. Reforms and renewal have to be within the fundamental framework of that religion; to damage it is to invite its disintegration.

Faith has to evolve with man; in this respect, in the last hundred years or so, Islam has undoubtedly lagged behind others, mainly because of political servitude, economic backwardness and lack of education among its adherents. The orthodox mullahs who have thwarted the advance of their co-religionists in these fields by misquoting scriptures and sticking to outmoded forms and practices are not helping their co-religionists.





Professor Zainaddin Sardar of King Abdul Aziz University of Jeddah has graphically described their negative role: ?By emphasizing the precision in the mechanics of prayer and ablution, length of beard and mode of dress, they have lost sight of individual freedom, the dynamic nature of many Islamic injunctions, and the creativity and innovation that Islam fosters within its framework. They have founded intolerant, compulsive and tyrannical orders and have provided political legitimacy to despotic and nepotistic systems of government. They have closed and constricted many enquiring minds by their insistence on unobjective parallels, unending quibbles over semantics. They have divorced themselves from human needs and conditions. No wonder then that the majority of Muslims today pay little attention to them and even foster open hostility towards them.?

Reforms among Muslims have been an ongoing process ? they have never stopped, though sometimes the pace has been slow. The Islamic contribution to arts and science have been both innovative and revolutionary; their impact was felt in every field. Even the Shariah has changed its shape several times and it is certainly not what it was a century ago. In Saudi Arabia, which is a citadel of orthodoxy, there have been significant modification to it to suit the exigencies of the situation. Many Muslim countries have enacted radical reforms. The orthodox, as everywhere, in every religion, have protested loudly but they have failed miserably in stopping them. The old criminal law has been replaced in many countries by new measures; likewise, the code of civil procedure has been greatly altered; even in personal and family matters many amendments have been introduced. These have been quietly accepted by the faithful.





There is much talk these days of a uniform civil code for India and of the opposition of Indian Muslims to it; I am afraid it will need a separate article to explain the politics behind this entire affair. Suffice it to say that the Muslim Personal Law is, in fact, the compilation of some maulvis at the instance of Lord Macaulay; it is based in many respects on the Fatuhat-i-Alamgiri, the judicial pronouncements in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. It bristles with innovations and is known as Muhammadan law which itself is a misnomer. It has been considerably modified by the decisions of the Privy Council during the British Raj and by some of the legislative measures introduced by Muslim members of the pre-partition Central Assembly. Moreover, some sections of Muslims continued to be governed by the Hindu law of succession for several centuries, some others by customary laws. Similarly, usury, which is prohibited by the Shariah, was widely practised by such orthodox, practising Muslims as the Pathans and the Arab immigrants. The theologians connived at these lapses because of worldly compulsions.





Today, however, it is the protagonists of Hindutva who want the Muslim Personal Law to be replaced lock, stock and barrel by a unified civil code. Why? Not because they are interested in reforming Indian Muslims or helping them out but to force them to give up their identity and to subjugate them to a predominantly Hindu pattern of jurisprudence. These Hindus have little sympathy for the plight of Indian Muslims. Apart from humiliating them what concerns them mainly is the allowance of four wives that Muslims are said to enjoy. They are afraid that soon Muslims might overtake the Hindus in numbers and become the majority in India. However absurd the proposition, which statisticians have exposed convincingly, it seems to have gripped their fertile imagination.

The easiest way to overcome their ill-conceived fear is to bring in legislation making monogamy compulsory for Muslims; eminent jurists like Justice Ameer Ali and noted commentators like Abdullah Yusuf Ali have publicly advocated it. Before Partition, the Indian Legislative Assembly, on the initiative of Jinnah, enacted the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, granting the right of divorce to Muslim women; the measure was universally hailed. Similar reforms can easily be brought forth, provided the Quranic injunctions are not violated. Hence the tirade against the Muslim Personal Law is politically motivated: it aims at denigration and not reformation.

Laws, however, have not reformed societies; child marriages take place despite the Sharda Act and dowries have not stopped in spite of the strict penal provisions. Thus Hindus are as much in need of effective reforms as Muslims; their opposition to any change may not be as articulate but their resistance will be no less real. In the early 1950s, the enactment of the Hindu Code, despite the best efforts of Jawaharlal Nehru for almost five years, had to be ultimately abandoned; its greatest opponent was the first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. So the actual passing of a uniform civil code by our Parliament, if and when it comes about, will not be a smooth affair; it will be bogged down by amendment after amendment by various religious sects and groups.





Unfortunately, Indian Muslims have allowed themselves to be used as a scapegoat; they should play their cards better if they do not wish to be misunderstood and projected as an obstacle to national integration. They cannot deny that their personal law needs to be reformed; even the All-India Personal Law Board has accepted the need for it. Their effort to codify the law has not borne fruit yet; but it will be wrong on their part to delay it or to shut their eyes to realities.

However that may be, I fail to appreciate the hue and cry for the enactment of a uniform civil code; it smacks more of a hypocritical stance than a genuine desire for reform. In a multi-religious, caste-ridden society like ours, there are many more important issues which need to be urgently addressed such as compulsory universal education at the primary level, the right to work and equal pay for equal work ? all these and many more are an essential part of the Directive Principles in our Constitution. Why is there no agitation for their implementation? Is it because some people revel in presenting the Muslim as the only drag on the country?s transformation from a backward to a progressive society?

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

Fuzair and Tahmed:

my friend is stricken with modesty...pls.check out his poem: Gardens of Stone at

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?fkhan_aug2699


rgds,

t


ps: feroz, what was it you once mentioned in the `war games` scenario the target that would wreck the most havoc would be a mountain top...the melting flowing radio-active water would sspread the damage farther away?...

Rsaxena #436 I cant speak for anyone`s intent - maybe BJP wants to see Musharaff stamp out the terrorists as you say, or maybe BJP would stamp out Pakistan. The facts are clear though: India has put an army of one million men on Pakistan`s borders; they have been sitting there for months now. The BJP government has blown hot and cold (e.g. Vajpayee called for a ``decisive victory`` and then two days later went off on vacation). And BJP has a clear ultranationalist indeology. I can only conclude that all that stands between Pakistan and occupation by a hostile force is the not-so-thin red line provided by its military technology and 600,000 man army. It is simple equations, not arrogance (and I hope you are not just tossing the term ``arrogance`` back at me, since I was using it just a few days back with chowk posters who were certain that India was now going to walk all over Pakistan as if it was a doormat).

soysauce #437

You write: ``1) It`s no news to india or anyone else that pak has missiles. If this was a reminder, it was one aimed at reassuring pakistanis. Apparently that has worked judging from your remarks.``

Your guess is as good as mine concerning the audience the general was aiming for. From all indications, though, it has had a salutary effect on the Indian decision makers and general public too: I am certain that the million man army sitting on our borders for several months now, would have attacked if the BJP government was not afraid of the Pakistani response. As I mentioned earlier, wars often take place through miscalculation (as I mentioned, Hitler miscalculated UK/French response to Polish invasion given prior policy of appeasement; Given confusing signals from US, communists assumed US would not respond in case of attack on South Korea; closer home, Ayub Khan miscalculated Indian response to attack by Pakistani forces in Kashmir in 1965; and so on). All I am saying is that by firing warning shots, Musharaff is making clear Pakistan`s capacity and intentions to the Indian decision makers as well as the Indian public (the latter, from all indications I have seen, does not really believe Pakistan has the capacity to hit back hard and where it hurts (not on the front trenches, but in big cities and other such targets). Musharaff`s actions wont endear him to the Indian public, but it may save their lives. (``may``, not ``will``, since we may still have to learn our lessons the hard way in Pakistan and in India). That is all I am saying.

You write: ``(2) ...Either you believe that indians were unwilling to use the missiles for some special reasons or that pak would be more willing if india were attempt raids into pak...Is this what you`re saying or am i missing something?``

This is what I am saying: For India, the nukes and missiles are militarily redundant and therefore useless. For Pakistan, they are a strategic defense. While in the worst case, both India and Pakistan would suffer terrible losses and long-term effects, for Pakistan an equally bad scenario is occupation by a hostile foreign army. So what we have is an asynchronous situation.

I have discussed a bit more the last part above:

(a) In case of an Indian conventional attack, Pakistan would use missiles as tactical battlefield weapons (thereby neutralizing the threat of massed armored formations that India would need to achieve a breakthrough). The value of this weapon against a defensive force is limited. (This is accepted military doctrine as I understand it, and used by NATO during the cold war in Europe, e.g.). Advantage: Pakistan.

(b) At some point, Pakistan could deliver nukes on Indian cities. India could do the same. Advantage: Neither (Death wins over both).

(c) Fallout from nukes would be ``blownback`` and blownaround the subcontinent. Pakistan has less territory, India has more. So more of the fallout would end up on Indian soil. In addition, this time of the year, the winds are blowing west to east. Advantage: Pakistan.

The above is purely a layman`s understanding of the military situation. I am not condoning or condemning anyone. I am praying that we come through this crisis without any of the doomsday scenarios above coming true. And I agree fully with you that Musharaff needs to clamp down on the armed bands of religious fanatics in Pakistan, and that he should hand over the 20 thugs sitting in Pakistan that India wants. I have always said that. But at this time, it is the defense of Pakistan that must come first.

Roohi #438 ``Wish they could go back to talking people to people contacts, cultural exchanges, trade links etc.``

Amen! Such things had started to take place. How much of a setback the current crisis has given to the normalization of relations(in months, years, or decades), God only knows. In fact, God only knows how the current crisis will end.

We already have victims - poor people with houses destroyed, children killed, due to cross-border shelling. And the less obvious victims: the children of poor people who wont go to schools now since money for schools has gone to make guns. Houses can be rebuilt, but there is only one life. And even rebuilding houses is easier said than done. Particularly for people who have to build their own houses.

tahmed321 #434

``The only way to get rid of Pakistan as an enemy is to make it a friend``

YES INDEED :-)!!!

Could I add - The only way to get rid of India as an enemy is to make it a friend ?

Am I wrong or do many Pakistanis subscribe to the Nuke It and/or Dismember It options ? Also how do you make friends with someone who is permanantly teed off with you ?

Wish they could go back to talking people to people contacts, cultural exchanges, trade links etc. - one Janoon is worth a trainload of diplomats IMHO.

rsridhar

``re: ``We do not need your sympathies`` say minorities from India``

What did you expect them to say? Anything else and

a couple of thousand would be taught the``Gujarat`` doctrine.

PS: Mubarik ho!!! Gujarat Government has arrested

``Three`` alledged rioters, one each belonging to VHP, Bajrang dal and BJP.Victory for democracy and

secularism.

PPS: They have arrested only SIXTY muslim rioters

involved in Godhara Train Burning.

Kinda evens out.. Three Hindus for sixty muslims!

tahmed321

I can fully understand you taking comfort in the fact that pak possesses missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

I just wish to make 2 points: (1) It`s no news to india or anyone else that pak has missiles. If this was a reminder, it was one aimed at reassuring pakistanis. Apparently that has worked judging from your remarks. (2) Since india & pak exploded the bomb and carried out various missile tests, kargil happened. Either you believe that indians were unwilling to use the missiles for some special reasons or that pak would be more willing if india were attempt raids into pak. In either case, you seem to be saying that pak is more irrational than india. India has it but won`t use for fear of retaliation even tho india herself did not retaliate. Is this what you`re saying or am i missing something?

re: TAHmed #433

you are rather arrogantly and foolishly assuming that india`s strategy is indeed to attack but it is afraid of pakistan...what if india gets what it wants without attacking?...what if india knows that?...why should it waste its money and lives?...last i checked every major foreign leader was squeezing musfarraf`s neck to control your rats....how long can musharraf hold back?...what are the consequences of ignoring the entire international community?...

Re: Fuzair # 411

Fuzair, the poetry of World War I was about the futility of the war and the need to question its usefulness. Yes; Owen was killed on the Sambre sector, leading a patrol. Still, despite the fact that he was in the Manchester Rifles, he questioned war. Sasson and Graves, both in the Welch Fusiliers, served in the Ypres sector and in the Somme sector. Graves was so disgusted by England`s role in the war, that he wrote in his autobiography, A Goodbye To All That`` that ``I have lost all interest in my race and England to me is a hopless place``.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to equate their poetry as a reflcction of their patriotism, because they were combat soldiers. Questioning the utility of war; what one is fighting for, does not lessen one`s sense of patriotism.

I know alot of Americans, who questioned the effacy of the Vietnam war, but still served multiple tours of duty there. The German soldiers, whom you admire, served brilliantly on the Eastern Front, but still questioned the purpose of German strategy in that war.

The world has changed in many ways since Tennyson`s immortal line, ``our is not to reason why, ours but to do and die``. I had written an article for Chowk on the topic of war poetry of World War I and our perceptions of war, but Chowk in its infinate wisdom decided not to publish it! In hindsight, it was a good decision, because it would be wasted on the average Chowkster, filled with hate and thristing for blood.

Ciao

AlephNull #422

you write ``And BTW, the rest of the world - from the UN to the US to the EU - seems to be echoing the Indian demands about Pakistan needing to put a complete stop to cross-border terrorism, NOW.``

I am not denying that. I would add that most people within Pakistan would like to see the last of the terrorists too. No issue here.

you write ``In that context, it is impossible to regard Pakistan`s behaviour of the moment as `mature`. Would you regard Saddam`s behaviour the week before Desert Storm as `mature`?``

In the broader context, I agree that the derailment of the Lahore Process via Kargill put India-Pakistan relations on the wrong road. All I am saying is that in the context of the immediate situation, I think Musharaff is handling the system as best as could be expected given the belligerent talk from the Indian leaders. Musharaff is no Saddam - the latter did not have the brains to realize that he could not stand up to the US and so suffered the ``mother of all defeats`` (one which has left Iraq in a limbo for years). Musharaff has the brains to realize that and is now seen as an important ally by the west, while Saddam is in the doghouse.

you write ``It would also be utter delusional foolishness on your part or that of any Pakistani to regard the Indian government`s moves as motivated by domestic political considerations and not supported by the populace. If anything, the NDA government is way behind Indian public opinion in hawkishness.``

I know that (reading posts from Indian chowkies tells me that too). I have no delusions about this. It just means that both the Indian public and the leadership needs to be more of the reality - which is that taking on Pakistan today is very different from taking on Niazi and his men in 1971 who were isolated in a hostile population, with an airforce of six F-86 planes. Behind the missiles there is a large conventional army, behind that is a population that will never surrender to India. The only way to get rid of Pakistan as an enemy is to make it a friend. When the Indian public and politicians realize that, the military in Pakistan will lose it`s sole claim to political power in Pakistan.

you write ``It`s a moot point, BTW, whether any missiles were actually launched in the last week. Why would Pakistan do this and deplete their stock of imported Chinese M-9s and North Korean Nodongs?``

Again and again I must remind you (as I have to remind other friends from India) to make an effort to see reality: Face reality. Those missiles did get launched last weekend. They were made in Pakistan, and there are plenty more rest assured. While it is emotionally satisfying to denigrate Pakistan in various ways, the fact is that Pakistan is more than a match for India. Perhaps the only way people will find this out is the hard way - with tragic loss of life on both sides, and incalculable economic damage.

you wtite ``My own guess is that one missile of each type, suitably spray-painted in Pakistani colours, was tested at some time in the past, with the launches filmed from multiple angles, and the various images are produced at different times whenever a test of a `new` `indigenously developed` Pakistani missile needs to be announced.``

Heh! Heh! I suggest you inform Mr. Vajpayee of this, so he can come back from his sudden vacation (which I assume is at a safe distance from any major Indian city).

Rsaxena #413 As I mentioned earlier to rsridhar, these ``north korean firecrackers`` as you call them have so far proved sufficent to keep at bay a million man army taking orders from politicians who have made no secret of their desire to destroy Pakistan. Nice firecrackers to have. (not to mention the conventional military and paramilitaries that are there to defend Pakistan).

These are the kinds of realities that I see Indian decision makers ignoring when they talk about ``decisive victories``, and then backing off two days later when it becomes impossible to avoid reality. The reality is that neither India nor Pakistan has so far proved capable of any original invention (the Indian missile and nuclear technology is no more indigenous than the Pakistani technology, I hope you realize, even though it is quite irrelevant who invented missile technology - you could trace it from north koreans to russians to germans to ancient chinese if you wanted to, and it would be still irrelevant). And the reality is that it does not matter one bit.

Missile technology and nukes have fundametally changed the military equation in South Asia, and while the Indian rulers (and some chowk posters) seem to realize that intellectually they seem unable to accept it emotionally. (A few months ago I was calling the decision to go nuclear one of the biggest blunders in history - brought about by arrogance and dreams of becoming a ``Great Power``, not by realities - and I was roundly criticized by many posters from India. I hope you will agree that the passage of time is increasingly proving my point).

Fuzair #411 Wilfred Owen`s generation of European men was wiped out in the millions in WWII. Given the undoubted contributions to science and technology of Europeans in the 20th century, one can only guess at what might have been if these millions of young men, many highly educated and talented, had had the chance to live productive lives. What I find incredible is that it took two world wars, not one, to teach Europeans to live in peace.

Will we learn the same lesson the hard way too, with 15 million dead in the first few minutes of a nuclear exchange? Let us hope to God no. Life is miserable enough as it is for the poor in both countries. And the jingoism never stops on the Indian side, nor the fixation with Kashmir on the Pakistan side.

To me the poem that comes to mind in the current situation is the one that has the lines ``Who`s in charge of the clattering train`` which I have posted a couple of times on chowk, so apologies if you have read it enough already:

``Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

And Sleep has deadened the driver`s ear;

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For Death is in charge of the clattering train.``

Churchill is said to have referred to this back in 1935 before the House of Commons.

Another interesting poem I remember is from schooldays is The Battle of Blenheim (by Robert Southey). It talks about the death and destruction in this battle in the middle ages between the French and the British, with an old man relating this to a child. It ends this way:

``And everybody praised the Duke

Who this great fight did win.``

``But what good came of it at last?``

Quoth little Peterkin.

``Why that I cannot tell,`` said he,

``But `twas a famous victory.``

We need fewer dukes, and more dull politicians.

Fuzair #411 Wilfred Owen`s generation of European men was wiped out in the millions in WWII. Given the undoubted contributions to science and technology of Europeans in the 20th century, one can only guess at what might have been if these millions of young men, many highly educated and talented, had had the chance to live productive lives. What I find incredible is that it took two world wars, not one, to teach Europeans to live in peace.

Will we learn the same lesson the hard way too, with 15 million dead in the first few minutes of a nuclear exchange? Let us hope to God no. Life is miserable enough as it is for the poor in both countries. And the jingoism never stops on the Indian side, nor the fixation with Kashmir on the Pakistan side.

To me the poem that comes to mind in the current situation is the one that has the lines ``Who`s in charge of the clattering train`` which I have posted a couple of times on chowk, so apologies if you have read it enough already:

``Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

And Sleep has deadened the driver`s ear;

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For Death is in charge of the clattering train.``

Churchill is said to have referred to this back in 1935 before the House of Commons.

Another interesting poem I remember is from schooldays is The Battle of Blenheim (by Robert Southey). It talks about the death and destruction in this battle in the middle ages between the French and the British, with an old man relating this to a child. It ends this way:

``And everybody praised the Duke

Who this great fight did win.``

``But what good came of it at last?``

Quoth little Peterkin.

``Why that I cannot tell,`` said he,

``But `twas a famous victory.``

We need fewer dukes, and more dull politicians.

is about a famous battle in the

FerozeK

Thanks for a very enlightening reply

-h-

re: ``We do not need your sympathies`` say minorities from India

This was in reply to his now ``infamous`` speech where the Supreme Whore had shed crocodile tears for India`s minorities.

Url:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/27mush2.htm

``We have not appointed him our advocate,`` prominent Muslim politician and All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Syed Shahabuddin told the Press Trust of India. ``We are competent to deal with our problems. Any such statements from Pakistani leaders will only prove counter-productive.``

Sridhar

re: Pakistan: an anomaly?

Pakistan is an artificial creation, for the benefit of landlords to maintain a stranglehold on the helpless population. How have the muslims in the Paksistan gained since breaking away from India in 1947? The following article talks about the progress especially in literacy that Bangladesh has been able to achieve since its liberation from the clutches of despots and landlords in 1971: Url: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2002/nf20020523_2647.htm

Excerpts:

1. ``Bangladesh offers a model for what can happen when women are given a greater role in such societies. According to A. Tariq Karim, a former Bangladesh ambassador to the U.S., when the country split off from Pakistan in 1971, both countries had literacy rates of 32%. The population of Bangladesh was 75 million, while Pakistan`s was 65 million.``

2. ``AGENTS OF CHANGE.`` Today, Pakistan`s literacy rate is about the same, while Bangladesh`s has doubled to 64%, Karim says. Pakistan, with a birth rate of 3.2%, is larger than Bangladesh, whose birth rate is 1.6%. And in the Bangladesh election in October, in which 76% of eligible voters turned out, 56% of the voters were women, says Karim, who declares: ``Women cannot be left out of the development process.``

Sridhar

Nasah

It for people such as you (for whom conscience, liberty, is a source of pride and challenge) that I have posted the article of Dr. kwaja Masud - because it is persons such as yourself who will understand it, and persons such as yourself who will derive joy, in the affirmations, in a see