Dissing Ideologies

#329 shammi

``and after Gujarat -- a heightened sensitivity that perhaps only a Muslim can have``

Hmmm. The most charitable thing i have to say is bovine excrement! How very condescending and chauvinistic!

``As regards Bidwai`s assertion that `Kalam has many outlandish ideas, including combining the occult with hardcore science, powering airliners with nuclear fission...`, might I add that it was none other than Richard Feynman (Physics Nobel laureate) who proposed exactly the same, and even obtained a patent for a nuclear powered car/plane? And in science, outlandish ideas are desirable. ``

Go to www.uspto.gov, click on search patents / quick search / feynman (under inventor name). What do you get? Surprise!

Combining occult with science is an especial afflication of the subcontinentals - from wielding the power of jinns to studying how saibaba creates something out of nothing. If Kalam is indeed guilty of mixing the two up then even mentioning him in the same sentence with you know who is an abomination. Abdul Kalam, from what has been mentioned here and elsewhere is a good person and an excellent manager. I don`t know what his contribution is to science as such. BJP`s nomination of him smacks of tokenism and frankly i`m sick of all this adulation of him.

hobbyty #340 You say freedom for Kashmiris cannot wait elimination of poverty in Pakistan. This seems like a reasonable point at first sight, and certainly consistent with the standard slogans used in Pakistan, but in fact the point is quite absurd since it has nothing to do with reality.

To understand what I am saying, do this:

First, define what you mean by ``free`` to me (I will accept any definition within reason that you come up with).

Second, put yourself in the shoes of the average Azad Kashmiri (say, a shopkeeper in Muzaffarabad, or a day laborer in the rural areas, or a student) and then in the shoes of the a similar Kashmiri in Indian-Held Kashmir.

Ask yourself honestly: How much more free (per your own definition above) is the former than the latter?

Perhaps you will understand my point better after you have gone through this suggested exercise.

``````why, given all our skills, resources and talents, we (Indians), so obviously capable of being the best, settle so often for the worst``.(Kalam-e-Kalam)

Like that criminal Advani -- you mean?

Stuka

``The two statements in summation show that this guy is not a head in the cloud pacificst, but a sane and normal person, who rightly loves his country, but also is not willing to give up the country that he has for some mirage of azaadi for alien people. A true embodiment of ``Pakistan first``

That`s exactly what I want to see. I want Pakistanis to be Pakistanis, not Pan-Islamists fighting as soldiers of Allah to decimate Kafirs. I want them to place Pakistan first and above all, like we place India above everything else. Of Course, they reserve the right to defend their country by whatever means they like. But if they place Pakistan first and foremost, they will realize the Pakistan`s interests are best served by cooperation and peace and not by inflicting thousand wounds on India. Indians and Pakistanis can live together but not Muslims and Kafirs.

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

Tahmed321:

[[[My preferred solution to India-Pakistan political relations would follow from what I think should be the first and foremost goal of governments in both countries: to improve living conditions for all their citizens. In other words, for governments in both countries to change their philosophy from one that center around the state to one that centers around the individual and individual rights. Not only is this goal consistent with the miserable living conditions in both countries, it is also the goal of all mature nations (Japan and Germany learnt this lesson the hard way after WWII).]]]

I think I agree with Tahmed`s articulation about what should be both countries` philosophies.

In all seriousnes, without trying one-upmanship, I think this should be the logical order of things, if such policies are to ever come into existence.

1. Both countries accept each other`s existence as they are today, and renounce supporting secessionsim anywhere in each other`s countries. Which means, Pakistan renounce support to Kashmiri seccesionist, which inludes also MORAL support. Paskitan accept that the current portion of J&K with India, is part of India`s territory. India renounces its claim on POK, pledges to never support MORALLY or otherwise any secessionist movements in Pakistan that might crop up in the future.

1a. India publicy announces again its acceptance of Pakistan as a sovereign country and pledges that no one in official capacity will talk about re-uniting the two countries.

2. India gives more autonomy to J&K, gradually withdraws the army from J&K as the militancy decreases, and severly punishes HR violations by security forces. Before this happens, Pakistan would have ceased all support moral or otherwise to all militants and separatist whether Kashmiri or otherwise.

3. Once Kashmir is resolved and the threat of secessionism of Kashmir is gone, the power base of the extreme Hindutwawadis will start to wane. A large part of their appeal is borne out of constant confrontation with Pakistan and the threat of India`s breakup again on the basis of religion (Islam).

4. Pakistan can crack down on all the Islamic militant organizations, and with Kashmir gone, the general public will not resent that step as much.

5. Both countries decide to purge all of their textbooks etc of hateful and antagonistic references to the others. Also tone down their govt rhetoric about the other country. This will gradually bring about a change in the mentality of the general public.

6. Once all the above are done, both countries can start focussing more on people`s problems, once the threat to their respective existences in their current forms is eliminated.

I for one, do agree with what Musharraf said in Agra, Kashmir IS the core issue between India and Pakistan and is also instrumental in setting a lot of policy and public-mood agendas in both countries. Getting it out of the way, will truly change South Asia as we know today.

What do you think?

----Satyavadi

Anny

In early `90s, the phenomenon of Daulay Shah came under the scrutiny of national as well as international press when claims were made that the kidnapped kids are confined in metal jackets (their heads) to make their heads small. Not only police but international media and NGOS investigated into this allegation thoroughly and a verdict was given that there is no absue of these people as alleged; instead they were suffering from Mongolism - The term was latter christened to Down`s Syndrome to make it politically correct. I think Royal Collge of Physicians to which PMA follows still use the term Mongolism. I cannot provide you any link or other refernce to verify what I have said above, because I haven`t searched it on the web.

One way to look at this Daulay shah`s affair is that, it is a a collective failure of us as a society. The so called choohay are rejects of the society whom even their parents do not want. These unfortunate people find assylum at Daulay Shah`s monastry, where they are fed, clothed, and protected from elements. It is true that they have to live on the alms given to them by people, they are also taken home to home or on bus stations, and railway stations to beg, but what else they can do. Have we done anything for them lately? Have we fulfilled our obligation as a society?

I think Daulay shahs monastry is an assylum, a refuge, a real NGO who has been taking care of un-fortunate people for 2-3 centuries. Instead of criticizing them we should criticize us for failing to develop and modernize these institutes. It is easier to critcize but hard when comes to actually doing something.

Sattar # 321

Once again you have presented your opinion that you find certain ideas absurd instead of refuting what I have said. That is again perfectly fine with me.

Quadianis propogate and confuse the issue regarding the circumstances of ``passing away`` of Jesus Christ for three reasons:

1. It widens the rift between Shia and Sunni schools of thought and thus weakens the base of Muslim faith; Since sunnis and Shias interpret the Ahadith regarding the coming of Messiah differently. The bottom line is that it is a matter of belief, which cannot be proven right or wrong-either you beleive it or you don`t.

2. The second reason is that Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani declared himself that Messiah. While sunni school of thought rejects the notion of coming of Messiah, the Shia school of thought beleives that the Messiah will be from the family of Prophet Mohammad, which Mirza Sahib was not. So Mirza Sahib`s claims of being Messiah are rejected by both schools of thought. In addition, even if we think that the Ahadith that describe the coming of Messiah (to be strong); Mirza Sahib never faught the one eyed monster named Dajjal; he never killed a fire breathing donkey; he did not reform no religion; he rather deformed it by breaking one of the basic tennets of Muslim faith i.e. the finalty of Prophet Mohammad; he could not establish the rule of Allah on this planet as predicted by those Ahadith. The fact of the matter is that Quadianis reject the system of Ahadith altogether cuz Ahadith reject the Prophethood of Mirza sahib; however, they have no problem bringing up weak ahadith which they could twist to rpove the rpophethood of Mirza sahib. They blame Mullah for their misfortune when they fail, as if the Mullah some 1500 years ago knew that there would be a false prophet named Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani coming and the issue will be discussed between sattar and Urstruly. So they thought, lets give Mirza Sahib and sattar a real hard time and lets leave those ahadith which support Urstruly`s point of view. These Mullahs are really something, aren`t they?

3. The third reason Quadianis bring the issue of ``passing away`` of Isa-ibn-Mariam to the fore is because if we accept Muslim version that Jesus Christ (pbuh) passed away before he was crucified, it collapses the whole structure of Cristianity- which professes that Jesus died because of our sins. So Mirza Sahib invented that this Muslim faith is absurd in this regard- because British who were considered the defenders of faith (Christianity) wanted to corrupt this basic Muslim belief that Jesus Christ passed away before he passed away. And they used Mirza Sahib.

People like Mirza, Brithish and sattar, however, forget that we Muslims have an unalterable beacon of guidance, the Qura`n which cannot be corrupted, cannot be changed, and cannot be edited. Because Allah himself has promised to protect it. That is the reason, every divine book of any religion in the world have their books corrupted, edited and changed which is admitted by their own followers. However, these very people grudgingly admit that Quran is the book which has not changed even by a semicolon or a coma or a period.

Toehold on a Long Trek to Heal India-Pakistan Rift

By SETH MYDANS

ARACHI, Pakistan, June 16 — American diplomacy in Pakistan and India this month has produced a tiny victory for each side in the struggle over Kashmir, a toehold on which to proceed. But the car bomb that killed 11 people outside the American Consulate here on Friday made clear that the road to any long-term solution will be difficult and dangerous.

High-level visits to both countries this month succeeded in pulling them back from the brink of war. They opened the way for tentative steps that could address the roots of their long-running conflict over Kashmir.

But a total of one million soldiers remain on alert on both sides of the frontier of the two countries. Shelling and gunfire continue in that disputed Himalayan territory. In a worst-case scenario, both countries have nuclear weapons.

In Pakistan, Islamic militants who feel betrayed by the government`s abandonment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and now by its clampdown in Kashmir are fighting back with the only weapon they have, more violence.

If they can destabilize the government of President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or provoke retaliation by India, they could undermine the fragile process begun with the visits of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In concrete terms, those visits produced only modest gestures and assurances. But analysts said both sides seemed now to be seeking a way to end the confrontation that, as Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized, is exhausting both of them militarily and economically.

``It could be that this is just a pause in what would be seen as a perpetual crisis in South Asia,`` said Philip Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

On the other hand, he said, ``Sometimes out of a crisis you get a moment when both sides can move freely.

``Let`s hope this is such a moment,`` he added. ``The United States is uniquely placed now, as never in history, to do something.``

Its close economic and military relations with both countries have put it in a position to act as an impartial broker, or at least as an honest messenger between them.

The small victories won by each side addressed important concerns.

India won the support of the United States, as well as other nations, for its position that Pakistan has actively been aiding the infiltration of militants across the border and that General Musharraf could therefore cut them off.

``India has squeezed him and been successful in turning the rest of the world against him,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a leader in Pakistan`s antiwar movement. ``So he`s really feeling the heat.``

As the American officials shuttled back and forth between the capitals, Pakistan gained too. Without any formal declaration, a foreshadowing of the dialogue it had been seeking over Kashmir had begun.

India has ruled out negotiation, saying the subject of Kashmir was already closed. The large portion of Kashmir that it controls, it insists, is part of India and neither Pakistan nor any other country has any role to play there.

But it is precisely this delicate game of message-carrying that opens the possibility of an eventual resolution to a deadlock of counterclaims over mostly Muslim Kashmir that has persisted since Pakistan and India were partitioned in 1947, and has already caused two wars between them.

``If left to themselves, given the personal animosities on both sides, it is hard to imagine Indian and Pakistani leaders getting together and making serious progress,`` said George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Two weeks ago, General Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India were at an international conference in Kazakhstan and refused not only to shake hands but even to look at each other.

Days later, Mr. Armitage visited both leaders and carried statements of their positions back and forth between them.

``This is not mediation,`` Mr. Perkovich said. ``Let`s be clear about that. Does a telephone wire mediate? No. It basically carries messages. That`s the kind of role the United States can play.``

Part of this role will be to assure India that Pakistan is keeping its word to halt infiltration by militant groups over the border into the Indian part of Kashmir. Both countries are considering an American offer to provide technical surveillance that could include motion sensors, satellite images and observation by unmanned aircraft.

If he keeps his pledge to seal the border — to move from the military to the diplomatic arena — General Musharraf risks accusations at home that he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.

To survive a domestic backlash, from opposition parties or disaffected military men, he needs to be able to show that he has won concessions from India — a softening of its military posture and a dialogue on Kashmir.

A first hint came today that India might relax its alert status along the border. Even though there have been attacks in Kashmir in the last 24 hours that have killed a dozen people, Indian military officials said that for the first time since their Kashmir buildup began in December, some soldiers and officers would be permitted to go on leave.

As both sides maneuver delicately, they both must watch the calendar.

The crucial month is October, when local elections will be held in the Indian portion of Kashmir and national parliamentary elections will be held in Pakistan.

Indian officials have said they do not expect to remove their troops from the border before then, guarding against violence by Pakistan-backed militants bent on disrupting the Kashmir vote.

Analysts said India was determined to complete the election before opening any real dialogue with Pakistan and to use what it expected to be a favorable vote as a bargaining piece.

If war can be averted until then, Kashmir`s early snows will be likely to delay it further, making both infiltration and military action difficult and unlikely.

In that case, the next crisis may come as it did this year — or be averted by a new era of statesmanship — when the snows melt next spring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/asia/17STAN.html

shammi #329 Based on what you say, then, Kalam may not be so bad after all. And let us hope so. Sometimes people grow with the job, and maybe Kalam will do too.

re: tahmed

{``To those who think the appointment of Kalam is a good thing, I recommend reading this editorial in the Hindustan Times ... Kalam is not the golden boy - the guy is a nut, and a dangerous one``}

...if he`s a dangerous nut, other south asian leaders are nazis...i don`t know about pakistan, but in india there`s no more humble leader...as a bharat ratna winner, he gets free first class air travel, but always pays for them...shuns vip facilities and stands on lines like everyone else, is known to return gifts, and lives in a simple room without a tv...warned his assistant never to turn away children who want to meet him...u think that`s a nut?...

Rsridhar #330 you write ``Rest of the country does not agree with the likes of Praful Bidwai.``

You mean YOU dont agree with the likes of Bidwai. He is obviously not afraid to see reality the way it is, and I am sure there are many more intelligent, courageous people like him in India. And they are the wave of the future. Not people like you who are content to glorify India while belittling Pakistan. Since reality wont change simply because you refuse to face it.

shammi #332 My preferred solution to India-Pakistan political relations would follow from what I think should be the first and foremost goal of governments in both countries: to improve living conditions for all their citizens. In other words, for governments in both countries to change their philosophy from one that center around the state to one that centers around the individual and individual rights. Not only is this goal consistent with the miserable living conditions in both countries, it is also the goal of all mature nations (Japan and Germany learnt this lesson the hard way after WWII).

This goal would then provide the basis for defining relations between the two countries where political issues would become irrelevant, and cooperation in economic and human development becomes very relevant.

nasah #333 I think the president`s post can exert significant influence on the government, though.

Arundhati Roy:(part III)

````Over the past 50 years, ordinary citizens` modest hopes for lives of dignity, security and relief from abject poverty have been systematically snuffed out.

Every ``democratic`` institution in India has shown itself to be unaccountable, inaccessible to the ordinary citizen, and either unwilling, or unable, to act in the interests of genuine social justice.

And now, corporate globalisation is being relentlessly and arbitrarily imposed on an essentially feudal society, tearing through its complex, tiered social fabric, ripping it apart culturally and economically.

There is very real grievance here.

And the fascists did not create it. But they have seized upon it, upturned it and forged from it a hideous, bogus sense of pride.

They have mobilised human beings using the lowest common denominator - RELIGION.

People who have lost control over their lives, people who have been uprooted from their homes and communities, who have lost their culture and their language, are being made to feel proud of something.

Not something they have striven for and achieved, not something they can count as a personal accomplishment, but something they just happen to be.

Or, more accurately, something they happen not to be.

And the falseness, the emptiness of that pride, is fuelling a gladiatorial anger that is then directed towards a simulated target that has been wheeled into the amphitheatre.

How else can India explain the project of trying to disenfranchise, drive out or exterminate the Muslims, the second-poorest community in the country, using as its foot soldiers the very poorest (Dalits and Adivasis)?

How else can India explain why the Dalits in Gujarat, who have been despised, oppressed and treated worse than refuse by the upper castes for thousands of years, have joined hands with their oppressors to turn on those who are only marginally less unfortunate than they themselves?

One hundred and thirty million Muslims live in India.

Hindu fascists regard them as legitimate prey.

Do our governing politicians think that the world will stand by and watch while they are liquidated in a ``civil war``?

Press reports say that the members of the European Union and several other countries have condemned what happened in Gujarat and likened it to Nazi rule.

The Indian government`s portentous response is that foreigners should not use the Indian media to comment on what is an ``internal matter`` (like the chilling goings-on in Kashmir?).

What next? Censorship? Close down the internet? Block international calls? Kill the wrong ``terrorists`` and fudge the DNA samples?

There is no terrorism like state terrorism.

But who will take them on?

Fascism itself can be turned away only if all those who are outraged by it show a commitment to social justice that equals the intensity of their indignation.

Are we ready to get off our starting blocks? Are we ready, many millions of us, to rally not just on the streets, but at work and in schools and in our homes, in every decision we take, and every choice we make? Or not just yet . . .

If not, then years from now, when the rest of the world has shunned us (as it should), like the ordinary citizens of Hitler`s Germany, we too will learn to recognise revulsion in the gaze of our fellow human beings.

We, too, will find ourselves unable to look our own children in the eye, for the shame of what we did and did not do.

For the shame of what we allowed to happen.

This is us. In India. Heaven help us make it through the night.(AR)

What eloquence!!

Arundhati Roy you ARE the Conscience of Modern India.

You ARE -- Mother India.

````The nation requires role models in leadership who can inspire youngsters.````Abdul Kalam

How about ------- Modi and Advani.