Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death

Interesting article, fraught with some hopeful visions, but problematic in some parts as well. This is going to require a closer reading..but the author states:

...Colonized nations should be thankful to Hitler for their emancipation;Hitler made the colonizing powers of Europe weak enough for them to decide

to draw back and tend to their own problems, instead of sucking the color out of other countries.

So colonized nations `should` be thankful to a man who was the leader of a group responsible for engineering the death of millions of Jews, as well as countless non-Jews, for diverting the attention of the Europeans away from looting and dehumanizing us..therefore continuing to tend to their problems just as they always had before? Curious.

--The reason for animosity between the two countries is the mistrust between religious groups.--

This is not the only reason for animosity. The `religion` card has been played again and again, but religion is not the only thing that affects power relations here.

--...Geography defines South Asia as one region.

Underneath the superficial layers of religious and ethnic differences, all South Asians are the same people.--

Are religious and ethnic differences really all that superficial? Do these differences not contribute to the core (for some of us) of who we are as a people? In sameness (if that exists), can we account and allow for difference, and if so, then how? Must difference always be a problematic, or can we not draw on common threads shared by different groups, just as certain Pakistani and Indian women have done in their meetings across the border?

I would address more or the same issues but unfortunately there are time constraints. The author has used some incredibly loaded concepts here..peace, unification, but his (her?) assumptions give me pause...

test

I don`t know which hole did you crawl out of. India already has open borders with some of its neighbors e.g. Nepal. And Nepal has NOT been overrun with `billions of Indians`. In fact it is the other way around - a lot of Nepalese seek to come to India for employment and otherwise. Also -even though India doesnot have open borders with Bangladesh - millions from that country migrate to india in search of greener pastures.

And India is already the economically dominant country in the region. With open borders - it is India which has to worry about migrant flow from its neighbors - not the other way around as you have suggested. Prosperity level of people from India is higher than all other countries in its neighborhood. With GDP growth of over 6% - it is going to grow far and beyond, in years to come.

So - please - have some facts and figures before posting articles like this.

Dear Cemendtaur,

Are you an Indian? Because if you are, and dream of some ``Akhand Bharat`` you must be one extremist lunatic. I haven`t met any such people. Nobody in India thinks of taking over Pakistan, let alone ruling over its population. If you personally know some such people, please do let us know.

The only Akhand Bharat that Indians care about is the Bharat, indivisible, as it stands today.

I share your desire for peace. I am also the biggest proponent of a cultural unity of South Asia - a reality quite independent of what we want to do with it. But other than that, the actual political structure doesn`t matter to me. I do not hanker after any sort of ``confederation.`` If the US and Canada can live in peace as two separate nations, why not India and Pakistan?

Over time, ALL national boundaries are destined to weaken, unless we begin to travel backward in time. But that will NOT come about because the ``world believes in categorization.`` That will happen because human categorization will prove to be more and more difficult, and will just become unworkable...too unwieldy.

Overall, another shallow article, poorly thought out, athough ending in a desire for a peace. That is commendable. We can all look forward to peace.

with all due respect, what kind of BS is this?

confederation of states? in that case, between Pakistani and Indian Punjab, Punjab will dominate and take over all the other little states.....now wouldn`t that be fun. it will be a good looking leadership though. saray jahan tay changa,,,sada Punjabistan

someone correct my Punjabi

Dumb, ill-thought out article. However, I agree with the author on a few points:

- Forget Akhand Bharat, it wont happen.

- Similarly, forget `Muslim rule` of South Asia.

Obviously, Cemendtaur is a Pakistani hence he wishes for a confederation of `small` states, meaning he wishes India to break up. Whether India will break up or not will depend on how well we function as a democracy, with respect for culture, religion, language etc as with some uniformity in economic development. There is strength in numbers, and as long as everybody prospers, people should want to be part of India.

I have previously too opposed any sort of economic or political union of south asia.

India will be fair game for unlimited immigration and will always be accused of playing Big Brother while at the same time being asked to be magnanimous on disputes because we *are * the Big Brother. We dont need that nonsense. Let India seek friendly relations with those neighbours that similarly seek friendly relations with it. SAARC for example is a wasted effort because of Indo-Pak hostility. Hence let there be a regional grouping that does not have one of these countries. BIMSTEC is a good start.

Cemendtaur

Such dangerous honesty.

``Colonized nations should be thankful to Hitler for their emancipation;

Hitler made the colonizing powers of Europe weak enough for them to decide

to draw back and tend to their own problems...``

Not a prescription but a statement of fact - bet you a Dollar for your Dime - The so-called ``Liberal`` (read illiberal) will project on this fact. Hitler? wasn`t the world just Muslims, Hindus and the British overlords?

``Pakistan was created because the large Hindu and Muslim communities didn`t trust each other...``

What?! No Muslim to blame for breaking ``OUR`` country? - Much, too much - too honest. And what does it earn you - both extremes on both sides of the divide join in attacking you. No evil TNT to blame Muslims with? No exclusive good and no exclusive bad?

``As Pakistan became more ``Muslim``, India--even despite resistance by the saner elements of that country--became more ``Hindu.``

A common misperception, Pakistan has become less ``Muslim`` and India has become less ``Hindu`` - Murder, rage, sectarianism, theft, greed, brutality are neither ``Muslim`` nor as I understand it, ``Hindu`` - as a matter of fact, these are the anti-Muslim, the anti-Hindu - these are a religiosity that it is difficult to say is Islamic or Hindu, it`s historicism

``Geography defines South Asia as one region.`` A tautologous statement, unworthy of you.

``Underneath the superficial layers of religious and ethnic differences, all South Asians are the same people.``

Rational, human constructs are superficial (religion and ethnic differences) but apparently the construct of geography does not qualify as a rational or human.

``The same people`` - How?, In what way? Cementdaur, more and more ``the same people`` does not make for ``sameness`` - as a matter of fact, the trajectory of history has been one of moving away from ``sameness``. The notion of small confederate states itself suggests that ``sameness`` needs further attention. A realization of differences, brings a realization of similarities - it sounds counter intuitive but it is true. The more we become aware of differences, the more clear the similarities. A reliance on the ``natural``, the ``instinctive`` is more and more taken to be the falsehood that it is - free choices, I suggest, are a more reliable measure, than any ``natural`` reason - are we not more than the ``natural``?

``Pakistanis need to understand that their country being in a continuous fray with India negates its (Pakistan`s) very reason for existence.``

Ah yes, amigo - the sound of one hand clapping. But again a Dollar to your Dime, you will find few Pakistanis who suggest a state of hostility is desirable. Negotiate the freedom of captive Kashmir. No one lives in a vacuum, Pakistanis are aware that their behaviour effects Indians - it`s time commit to negotiations.

``In Pakistan and India, it is almost a slur to call a person an Indian or Pakistani, respectively``

Almost? A friend says I`m naive and I`ve never been a South Asian and doubt if I ever will, but doesn`t mean we can`t share.

A confederation of small states - No imperial India? No Hindu India? No Indian Muslims as hostages? No linear Indian history but histories instead? No ``Indian`` culture but cultures instead? Yikes! How is any of this achievable without a change in our values, without Liberty a the principal guiding value, without a transition from ``duty`` bound to ``rights carrier``?

I suspect more persons share this dream than posts on these boards will reflect.

Dilip D`Souza needs to make a comeback on CHOWK.

He makes a great deal of sense on Rediff at:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/18dilip.htm

Ras

Ref scout #: 5

[confederation of states? in that case, between Pakistani and Indian Punjab, Punjab will dominate and take over all the other little states.....now wouldn`t that be fun. it will be a good looking leadership though. saray jahan tay changa,,,sada Punjabistan]

United Bengal will have a larger population than Punjab, with the additional advantage that Bengali men don`t use black eyeliner.

UP in today`s India, even without merging with Bihar, has a population of almost 200 million and will drag everybody under.

Dear Cementadaur

Its time to come out of these pipe dreams ali. Why must Pakistanis always deceive themselves with the pipe dreams of `South Asianism` or `Pan Islamism`.

Nevertheless you have said many good things in this article... I agree that the best service Pakistan can do itself is to stop stirring any trouble in India...

You have hit the nail on the head with this paragraph:

`Interestingly, even while Pakistan was formed to safeguard the rights ofSouth Asian Muslims, its founder wanted to see it function as a secularstate. Unfortunately, the Pakistani rulers could not abide by this visionof the founding father. Three decades after its creation, Pakistan starteddrifting towards Muslim fundamentalism. And this drift had a harmful effecton India. As Pakistan became more ``Muslim``, India--even despite resistanceby the saner elements of that country--became more ``Hindu.```

But I can`t figure out your lament.. What possible reason can be there for any desire for reunification. Why South Asia? Why not the Union of Asia instead? Why must it be so exclusive to the unity that British had once given a troubled, divided and diverse land? Why can`t we look beyond `South Asia`?

You are a reasonable, sane and thinking individual, so I know you will give up these pipe dreams one day, and embrace the cause of `Pakistan-firstism`... because let me make it clear .. South Asia divided will never be reunited... and it is not with regret I say that, I mean that as a resolve, to live in dignity, and our own sovereignty.

The reason I consider you to be a sane individual is your following statement:

``So, whereas, ideally speaking the British should have left South Asia theway they had conquered it (a region of many independent countries), theytried to hand over the power of their huge empire to the local people, to begoverned as a single country. ``

I do believe that one day you will realize that South Asia is an imagined identity, more like hind sight owing to the conquest of the British, and that `South Asia` is unnecessary beyond a geographical identity, that to Pakistanis Pakistan, a modern secular democratic progressive Pakistan, should come first!

Hope you will join me in a new reality. For like Mustapha Kemal Ataturk once said `Away with dreams and shadows, for they have cost us dear in the past`.

Sincerely

Yasser Latif Hamdani

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

SHAHEED-E-AZAADI

I dedicate this poem to the great freedom fighter, son of soil, Shaheed-e-Kashmir Abdul Ghanni Lonn who gave his life today so that the children of Kashmir will see the sun of freedom and independence rising tomorrow. He was murdered in cold blood by the agents of occupational forces of Indian government, today.

We salute you Lonn for your sacrifice; we promise you that we will never break our promises that we make today at your blood; we promise you that we will also lay down our lives just like you to make the dream of freedom that you have shown us. It`s a promise Lonn.



THE MARTYR

I will carry my soul in my hand
And throw it in the valleys of death
It is either a life that makes a friend happy
Or a death that makes an enemy angry
The noble man`s soul has two goals
To die or to achieve its dreams
What is life if I don`t live
Feared and what I have is forbidden to others
When I speak, all the world listens
And my voice echoes among people
I see my death, but I rush to it
This is the death of men
And whoever desires an honorable death
Then this is it
How am I patient with the spiteful
And patient with all this pain?
Is it because of fear?
While life has no value to me!
Or humiliation? While I am contemptuous!
I will throw my heart at my enemies` faces
And my heart is iron and fire!
I will protect my land with the edge of the sword
So my people will know that I am the man


by Abdelrahim Mahmud
1937

Maybe we are going to go to war with each other because we have such sad excuses for governments on both sides.

Maybe out of this will then come some order?

whatever

harimau #9,

thank you, my life would have been incomplete without that information. you`re so smart it hurts.

I have a dream for the Indian subcontinent [talk about South Asia is so much hookey!] - no Pakistan at all. With the tin-pot encsconced for another five years it remains to be seen who achieves this objective faster - the tinpot Messarraff or the Indian Armed Forces!

Cemendtaur should stick to writing those cloying sentimental stories and spare us this trashy analysis

This article is a sophisticated version of the ylh-sarwari line on Pakistan. Its intentions are made clear in its last lines:

[quote]

I have a dream for South Asia. I strongly believe that one day this dream

will come true.I see a united South Asia as a peaceful confederation of small states.

[end-quote]

Notice, the issue isn`t higher educational standards, less sectarianism (the problem here is that residents of a sectarian state can hardly preach this line of thinking!), better economy and social justice. No, the problem is that there aren`t enough small states in South Asia!!

Actually, clues to this attitude are found throughout the article, including this gem:

[quote]

I

understand that the leaders of the Muslim League didn`t want to see the

rights of the Muslims trampled in a unified South Asia under the guise of

democracy.

[end-quote]

So why stop there? If you seriously believe this drivel, then Pakistan should be split up into 200-300 countries, preferably with shifting borders, so that no ones rights are trampled in the ``guise of democracy``.

Oooops, I am sorry, I forgot that special rules apply to Muslim states. They are so advanced that they can be different. At the same time, countries like India, Israel, USA should be strongly criticized for not living upto their ideals.

Talk about nonsense masquerading as wisdom....