Lighting The Nuclear Fire

shankar bhai #451,

we may have lost wars (what are the odds that a smaller country is going to win against a larger country?), but we`re still better looking than you all ;)

Dost-Mitter #452

Your understanding of Muslim law of inter-religious marraiges is incorrect on several accounts. First of all Muslim men are not allowed to marry anyone whom they please. A Muslim man is allowed to marry among the people of the book only i.e. Jews and Christians (book being Torah and Bible). Some Muslim jurists have argued to include Zortostrians as the people of book as well. The pre-condition for such a marriage is that the jew or christian woman must agree to raise the children as Muslims. Some jurists have argued that it must be a formal pre-nuptual agreement before such marriage is commenced by authorities. It is also a general agreement among Muslim jurists that Muslim women can only marry Muslim men, however, there is a minority school of thought (I can`t recall which one) which allowes Muslim women to marry among people of Book. Both Muslim men and women are strictly restricted from marrying with non-Muslims, pagans, atheists, and those who openly show contempt towards Islam and its core principles (like Quadianies).

The reason for this is very simple and very explicit. Islam in its nature, is a religion, that stipulates propogation through conversion. The purpose being that the message of Allah reaches to the far and wide corners of this globe. The inter-religion marriages among people of book promotes goodwill and also as a vehicle for conversion.

Your information that a Muslim women who defies this law and still marries a non-Muslim should be killed is absolutely incorrect. The prescribed ``punishment`` for such an act is social boycott of the couple at all levels. However, if she renounces her religion (i.e. Islam openly) then she is tried under the Law of Apostasy, for which the capital punishment is prescribed. (Sunni school of thought even exempts women from the capital punishment for Apostasy). The ``honor killing`` that takes place, to which you have indirectly reffered to has no basis in religion. Those people who commit this dastardly act (honor killing)are transgressors. In most cases, however, the honor killing is a crime of passion.

The rest of your comments are a value judgement on Islamic law and show only your personal preferences. You prefer your values or system of values over those of Islamic, therefore, you are not Muslim. Your personal like and dislike of a certain law does not invalidate it. So is the case with a value, especially if it is a value of the people who are differnt than you.

Chunkey Chutya,

{{Without Sglph Mukti Bahni ,Manekshaw would be eaten alive by the Khasia like Bangladeshi tribals.}}

Hahahaha!!!

Add this to the looooong list of excuses you Pakis come up with for why you got your asses whupped in every frikking war with India. You guys are WORLD FAMOUS for that..I grant you!

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

AeishA 448

[More Parsis are intermarried with Muslims than Hindians per capita.]

Wrong. How many Pakistani Parsi men have been able to marry Pakistani Muslim girls and accepted as part of Pakistani society?

Parsis are not intermarried with Muslims. Parsi girls have been married to Muslim men and converted to Islam. Daughters of these same Parsi girls will not be allowed to marry Parsis.

This one sided pattern was set by the secular Jinnah who married an underage Parsi girl, got her converted to Islam, and would not accept a daughter born of a Parsi wife to marry a Parsi boy. This is not intermarriage between two communities. This one sided marriage market is called fascism.

Children of that Parsi girl Jinnah forced to convert to Islam do not want to anything to do with Pakistan. They call themselves Indians.

The view from London

By Irfan Husain

(excerpts -- with a few tufseers/tubsaraas)

Just before leaving Karachi, I read in the newspapers that General Musharraf had dispatched a number of envoys around the world to brief leaders and opinion-makers about the Kashmir issue.

Now this might come as a bit of a surprise to our president, but this is precisely what our ambassadors have been doing for the last five decades.

In fact, the mileage racked up by the special envoys sent from Islamabad over the years to brief the world on Kashmir would have filled the large gap in our budget had they been kept home.

I don`t think we have any idea of the profound boredom the mere mention of the word `Kashmir` inspires in the chanceries of world capitals.

(...and the civilized world`s horror -- at the brazen pronouncements of one of these `army envoys` -- like Karamt miaN -- claiming the right and readiness -- to nuclear ``first strike`` -- in ``extreme eventuality`` -- khoda mahfooz rukhkhe ghum ko aise ghum goosaaroN se)

I can understand Musharraf`s dilemma and can even sympathize with him: having dumped the Taliban under American pressure, he is having a hard time doing the same thing to the Kashmiri mujahideen because the Indians are demanding it.

Having supported both extremist groupings (or rather, different manifestations of the same phenomenon) for years, the army is now loath to ditch them.

And on their part, the Indians are offering no quid pro quo, thus making it even harder for Musharraf to break away from the policy he inherited (did anybody asked him to?) and has carried forward during his (illegal) tenure (as a convenient oozre goonaah).

But tough times call for tough decisions, and that`s what leadership is about.

Given the tension on our borders and the very real danger of war with all its imponderable consequences, somebody has to blink first.

Musharraf has said in his otherwise uncompromising speech last week that Pakistan would not export extremism or militancy.

If he can deliver on this pledge, we should welcome his statement of intent.

(If -- now that`s big IF -- for Musharraf miaN -- Irfan Husain saheb -- buqaul Ghalib -- tere waade pe jiye hum....ke khushi se mur na jatey agar etabaar hotaa -- buhurkaif...let`s see)

There has been some talk of joint patrols to ensure that border crossings in Kashmir are halted. If this can be implemented, it could be the first step towards de-escalation.

Perhaps secret talks on neutral territory with third party facilitation would help both countries pull back from the brink.(DAWN)

Hope so -- ok -- We`ll hold our breath.

June 9, 2002, 12:41AM

India`s citizens worry little about Armageddon

Nation that`s never entered nuclear war can`t imagine one

By CLAUDIA KOLKER

Copyright 2002 Special to the Chronicle

NEW DELHI -- It`s a slow day at the temple. Surendra Sharma, a Hindu priest who prays on behalf of worried devotees, has only fielded one request. A couple wants their daughter cured of measles.

No one has bothered asking for a prayer against nuclear war.

In recent weeks, India`s standoff with nuclear rival Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region has gripped many in the West, with at least one world leader, Russia President Vladimir Putin, comparing it to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Yet most Indians themselves are bustling through their days with seeming nonchalance.

The Hindustan Times, a major English-language newspaper here, split its front page the other day between high-level threats from Indian and Pakistani leaders and news of higher gasoline prices. The energy story was given more importance on the page.

There have been few signs of people plotting escapes or arranging extra visits to priests or psychologists.

``I`ve never heard anybody talk about a bomb here,`` Sharma says, his fingers idly draped over the cup of scarlet powder that he uses to give benedictions. ``Nobody`s scared. Most people who come here come to pray for the well-being of their families.``

Adds temple visitor Arun Sharma, who`s no relation to the priest: ``There`s no possibility of a nuclear war at all, because no one on either side will think of destroying an entire generation.``

He says he`s not worried even about nuclear accidents.

Though the prospect has Western countries urging their expatriates home, ``we are not afraid,`` says Sharma. ``Not in the least.``

One magazine, however, described a potential nuclear strike on New Delhi. A single bomb, the report said, would kill 2 million of the city`s 7 million residents in seconds. Three million more would perish in five hours. The city`s temperature would approximate that of the sun. All buildings and life forms within five miles would be erased.

The coolness of a billion people in the face of possible disaster tells much about India`s reality. Indians have not known the carnage that a major conflict like World War II or Vietnam can bring. Most may be even less able to envision a nuclear holocaust. But in a land tormented by flood, plague, and famine, anxiety also has become a part of life.

Certainly some in the West have talked about the possible nightmare. With hundreds of thousands of soldiers mustered along their common border in Kashmir, India and Pakistan`s aggressive talk in recent weeks could easily devolve into a war, say Western analysts. Even if the leaders themselves act responsibly, they add, both countries lack mechanisms to keep their nuclear bombs from extremists or accidental firing.

Rhetoric from the two governments waxes and wanes daily, but the United States is maintaining its call for its 60,000 expatriates to come home at once. Secretary of State Colin Powell has deemed the situation on the subcontinent still ``extremely dangerous.`` In Britain, the country`s former colonial ruler, officials are reportedly planning for 150,000 war refugees.

In New Delhi, however, sociologist Imdiaz Ahmad spends a recent morning calmly writing in his office. Beyond his garden, filled with lime and orange trees, the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University lies quiet.

Ahmad, a Muslim, says he doesn`t know anyone fretting about nuclear war. The subject didn`t even come up last Friday at his mosque.

In Ahmad`s view, the border standoff amounts to nothing more than a political ploy. Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, he theorizes, needs something to overshadow a recent, flawed referendum that kept him in power. And Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is trying to distract from the recent horrifying massacre of Muslims in the state of Gujarat. Kashmir, the Himalayan valley state that both sides have claimed since their partition in 1947, provides the perfect foil, he says.

``From day one, stable, enlightened intellectuals have believed there will be no war,`` Ahmad says. ``If you go and conduct a survey of the average Indian, I`m sure that 60 to 70 percent will say this is a rhetorical war, and a warmongering motivated by domestic issues.``

Many Indians agree, says Anirudh Deshpande, a historian who writes on military issues. He too, doubts the nations will engage in any war exceeding border skirmishes. ``India is not prepared for it,`` Deshpande says.

But, he adds, India`s complacency about nuclear war flows from deep delusion. Though Pakistan and India have been in conflict for five decades, neither has experienced a total war.

``War is, to most people here, a very armchair sort of enterprise,`` Deshpande says. ``Americans have participated in two world wars. They have the experience of casualties on a large, world scale. That is why they are so afraid of body bags.``

Most Indians also misunderstand what a nuclear bomb can do, Deshpande says. Since 1998, the government has celebrated nuclear test blasts as if they were moon landings. The Department of Atomic Energy, he says, furthers the conceit, never reporting accidents.

In contrast to generations of Americans, most Indians have not seen a TV drama imagining a nuclear winter, or a public service ad describing how to protect themselves in event of a nuclear explosion. Many people, Deshpande says, are unclear about exactly what a nuclear bomb is.

``You have no idea of how many kinds of nuclear bombs there are,`` says 22-year-old priest Sharma. ``If it`s the sort that poisons the air, it will affect everyone. If it`s the kind that spews fire, it will burn everything down. But the temple will remain intact.``

For some Indians, the bomb mainly inspires jingoistic fantasies. Kanewar Singh, 76, indulges cheerfully. Visiting with friends inside a tiny clothing store, Singh says that India should nuke Pakistan at once.

``What is there to be afraid of? One day we all have to die,`` he says. ``We have such a big population. If the first 10 million Indians die, we`ll still finish the Pakistanis off. It`s worth it.``

If he seems extreme, he`s not entirely alone. A recent survey indicated that 82 percent of Indians believe that Pakistan would go nuclear in a conflict, yet 74 percent think India should attack.

The New Delhi municipal government hardly seems more pragmatic. The Hindustan Times reported last week that the city has no plan for nuclear attack, and lacks protective bunkers even for the country`s leaders.

Some who grasp the enormity of nuclear disaster say they are not especially preoccupied with it right now. Historian Deshpande admits he`s lost sleep over the prospect of a mishap. But, he says, ``I have been losing sleep over this for three or four years now.``

In Deshpande`s opinion, the region`s nuclear risk isn`t much higher now than usual; only in the case of outright war would it increase.

Accidents, he adds, can occur in any place where nuclear arms are stored.

What could Indians do in case of a strike? Since the Kashmir standoff started in December, prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has voiced her dread of nuclear war in interviews and peace rallies. But, she asks in a recent opinion piece, ``where shall we go? If I go away, and everything and everyone -- every friend, every tree, every home, every dog, squirrel and bird that I have known and loved -- is incinerated, how shall I live on? Who shall I love? And who will love me back?``

But activism, even worry, seem luxuries here. Many Indians simply cannot afford them, says Yogesh Arora, a clothing vendor in a Delhi market. Every day, he says, an average Indian may lose a child to illness, see a home swept off in floods, or fail to pry his food from starved or thirsty fields. The bomb ranks low upon the list of worries.

``Americans try to protect themselves from everything,`` Arora says, as the green and purple tunics that he sells float like veils around him. ``We don`t have time to worry; we have to make a living. We`re going to die, tomorrow or today. And the more you try to protect yourself, the weaker you become.``

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1444515

Houston Chronicle

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

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

POVERTY OF THE MIND,

What is clearly noticeable on the chowk pakistanis and the educatd ones alike is the poverty of the mind. Mushy has now declared that he is against all forms of terrorism, and india has jumped in with an offer of joint patrols of the border. Thas has caught the pakis unaware, they have no response and india is offering this joint patrol as a great concession. In the end, india may even accept indo pak us joint patrol.

This will seriously curtail the jihadic operations, if the americans are there, definitely there will be attacks against them. Now it self, in the guise of chasing the al-quaida, pakistani jihadists are being betryed.

It is this intelectual ability to look into the political ramifications that lead to the defeat in kargill and the disgrace to the nation. Prime minister of a country taking a delegation of 150 to washington and declaring the unconditional with drawal, with out even having a photo opportunity with the man whom they came to meet is a disgrace in the diplomatic annals.

The educated of pakistan has to accept responsibility for this national disgrace. Now it is the turn for betraying the pakistani people, the slaughter of the jihadits in their own country.

Pakistan`s crisis of destiny

By Ayaz Amir

(excerpts)

It is a measure of our diplomatic ineptitude that no one believes us.

We are being painted as liars (that`s what the State Dept. calls Musharraf now) and supporters of terrorism while India, which has yet to live down the infamy of the communal carnage in its state of Gujarat, is coming off as the aggrieved party in Kashmir.

In any defensive battle the Pakistan army is more than a match for the Indian army.

What do the textbooks say? That, in order to gain a decisive victory, an attacking force shouldhave a 3-to-1 superiority over the enemy (at least at the point of attack).

With the scalesabout evenly matched along our eastern frontier, India does not have this kind of advantage.

So why is Pakistan so fearful of a conventional war?

(excellent question Ayaz Amir -- why must then some Moron Generals of Pakistan Military go on blabbering the vulgarity of ”nuclear first strike” -- all over Europe?)

Pakistan has already lost the propaganda battle so completely that even within the country any reference to military statistics is read as evidence of jingoism and of disregard for the consequences of a nuclear war.



Who is talking of a nuclear exchange and why should things come to that pass?

So what should Pakistan be focusing on? On the symptoms or the root causes of the present crisis?

___________________________________________

Without the military easing its stranglehold on power and politics there is no way of getting out of this mess.

___________________________________________

But against institutional sentiment we must balance the weight of individual ambition.

This is the problem we face today: the country made hostage to the whims or, more charitably, the limited vision of a few individuals.

Seen in this light, the referendum was a gift from the gods for the people of Pakistan for it achieved the impossible: reducing the level of arrogance and cockiness flying about in Islamabad.



Referendum say pehlay (before the referendum) and referendum kay baad (after the referendum) are two different stories.

Who could have imagined a military overture to the political parties before the referendum?

Now as former heresy becomes present necessity, certain desperation is perceptible in the invitation to the political parties to come to Islamabad.

So what is to be done?

The political parties must reach out to the men now in control for the sake of national unity. But the military rulers must also reach out to the political parties for the same purpose.

None of the above means we should have been on the side of the Taliban or exported `jihad` across the LoC. These policies should have been re-examined a long time ago, much before September caught up with our delusions.



But failing to do the needful on our own, we have been arm-twisted and pushed into falling in line.



With such a record of failure any dispensation would lose the Mandate of Heaven.



This is what has happened with the Musharraf regime whose ability to govern stands impaired with the conjoining of two fatal circumstances: (1) the folly of the referendum and (2) the perception of weakness in the face of Indian threats.

But we have to be mindful of realities.

No one surrenders power voluntarily and Gen Musharraf is not about to set an example in this regard.



Taking Pakistan into safer waters has to be a joint undertaking. Reaching out to each other, the military and the political parties must cover common ground in preparation for the October elections.

Let the people choose whom they will for the task of running the country

______________________________________________

While all concerned can agree to keep Gen Musharraf as president: safely out of harm`s way in the vast spaces of the presidency and in no position to do more harm to the country.

_________________________________________________

God knows Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were epic disasters in their own right, blowing their chances and ruining the prospects of democratic rule.

But if the truth be told, their excesses pale before the achievements of military rule.

The military then should not be reinforcing failure, a cardinal violation of military strategy.

``They also serve who only stand and wait...`` said Milton.

In like manner, often the highest patriotism is to know when to quit.````(DAWN)

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

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

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