Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan

Anika Zaidi,

{{If you go on trying to prove casteless ness by proposing to marry every beutiful muslim woman or Man & if they reject you...u start whining about Islam not being practiced... only you r to be blamed for over simplification of things ...he he he}}

Anika,

Your style of post & stupidity of its content makes me believe you are 12 head`s new head.

Give it up, you sick retard..

Veeresh #65 and Zafar #84

Chiniotis of Panjab have similar origins - that is they are descended from Panjabi Hindu castes such as Wadhawan etc. and that they are by far the biggest entrepreneurs of Pakistan and in this case it seems they have even settled down in Bangladesh.

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

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

shankar #96: Answers to some of your questions:

``Dunno why, but I thought your ``native village`` was in IOK! Gee.. that part of Kashmir is really free``

My family village is in Azad Kashmir. My family lived and grew up in Srinigar. But yes, according to the Indian Constitution, and all the maps in India, my family village is officially considered a part of India, by Indians. I guess that makes me an Indian. However, India still requires me to get a visa if I want to go to India. And it does not allow me to cross over the LOC, into IOK from POK, even though on the map, India considers POK a part of India.

Makes a lot of sense, I guess.

``Gang rapes CAN & DO occur in the Army...Indian or Pakistani...Kashmir & Bangladesh are prime examples``

Yes and no. Gang rapes are occuring in Kashmir. This is well documented. And Pakistanis killed a lot of people (and I assumed raped) in Bangladesh.

However, I am not going to just blame the armies of these two countries for these actions. The true blame goes on the govts. that have sent them there. And the people who support the govts. The armymen always end up holding the bag, when govt. policies go wrong (which is what is going to happen to the Indian armymen, once Indian govt. policies in Kashmir fail).

Any soldier sent in to fight civilian populations hates it, and eventually ends up going nuts. There is far too much psychological pressure. If you do your job well, you have to kill civilians. If you don`t do your job well, you are killed by some of the civilians. It is a lose-lose situation for the soldier. I doubt too many Indian soldiers covet an assignment in Kashmir, at the moment. I am sure they would much rather particiapate in a normal war.

Vietnam, Bangladesh and Kashmir are good examples. Individually, these soldiers are to be blamed. But at a policy level, it is the govts` fault.

I don`t think any rapes are carried out in Army bases within India (i.e. Indian soldier raping a poor village girl in Jaipur or something), nor are they carried out in Army bases in Pakistan. Infact, the wars between India and Pakistan, which did not involve civilians (only fought between the militaries) were quite chivalrous, i.e. Pakistani soldiers did not bomb Indian civilians in Delhi, and Indian soldiers did not bomb Pakistani civilians in Lahore. Prisoners of War were treated quite well, also. I have this from confirmed sources.

``You seem to believe that Mushy is going to eliminate the feudal grip on the country.``

Unfortunately no. I wish he would. But he didn`t, or couldn`t. I don`t know why.

Musharraf has however sidelined the top lot. And he has put many of them behind bars. And he has decentralized their executive authority down to the local level. Kind of like kissing one`s sister, but still a hell of a lot better than what anyone else did.

``Well, if only college grads can contest elections, I guess peasants wont be able to run for elections. So, he will throw out the ``old`` bum feudals & bring in newer ones.``

Yes and no. There are reserved seats for peasants and women in the local assemblies. At the national and provincial levels, peasants have zero chance of getting elected, even if they get a Ph.D. Imran Khan cannot beat a feudal, what to talk of a peasant beating one.

The college grad requirement will get rid of the old feudal lot, but will bring in their kids. So you are correct. But something is better than nothing.

``You mentioned that there is a powerful feudal-military alliance that has been made possible through bonds of marriage. So eventhough Mushy`s family maynot have married into the feudal class, a lot of his generals are.``

This alliance is not that much of an alliance any longer. Feudals have now stopped marrying into the military. They don`t send their kids into the military, any longer either. They now marry into expatriates, and foreign trained businessman. Most of the top echelon of the military now, are basically from middle class families.

And the alliances are usually built through the top person. Ayub and Zia`s families joined this alliance, and became a part of the system, and part of the problem. Musharraf`s family has not, so far.

``Mushy has now alienated the right wing religionists (by strategic U turns), the middle class (by the bogus referendum), the intelligentsia (by undemocratic amendments to the Constitution) & now the Military-feudal nexus?!``

The first part is correct. But he has made a lot of friends in Pakistan, due to his stance against the maulvi brigade.

I don`t think the second part is correct. Most urban parties, on the whole, still support him. And I haven`t seen a single demonstration against him. Or any uprising etc. I think the people like him better than NS and Bhutto. Or the people just don`t care anymore. The main PPP and PML politicians are however against him. But I don`t think they always represent the wishes of the people.

The intelligensia of Pakistan is somewhat cynical and criticizes everyone. Being critical of the govt. in Pakistan is considered patriotic. The criteria to use here is that they dislike Musharraf less than they dislike NS and BB etc. I think, on the whole, they do realize that Pakistan now has more press freedom than ever before, and is now in a progressive mode. And even Musharraf`s harshest impartial critics have accepted that he is honest, sincere and forward looking, though undemocratic.

``So the only thing thats holding him in office is his friend Bushy & the Indians``

I don`t think this is correct. What is holding him in power is the incompotence of the status quo tried and tested politicians. People may not like Musharraf`s dictatorship, but they are sick and tired of the old politicians also. That is why, cry as they might, the PPP and PML have not been able to move too many common Pakistanis to join them in their protests.

And the fact that the international lending institutions are happy with the direction the Pakistan economy is taking (even before Sep 11).

``Are Pakistani peasants so naieve (or am I)? Why cant they vote for a non-feudal? (I guess every feudal has an opponent running for election too--or is that not so, as well?)``

Pakistani peasants aren`t naive. They are completely powerless and enslaved (in some cases literally in feudal jails) by feudals.

I don`t know much about Indian politics, but I think it cannot be compared with Pakistani feudal politics. Poverty isn`t the main problem in feudal Pakistan, politically. There are urban poor also, in Pakistan. Neither is illiteracy. Both of these are no doubt huge problems, but not the main.

The main problem is land ownership.

The feudal owns all the land that is tilled by the peasants. In that sense, he completely owns the peasants` livelihood, their villages etc. He can legally kick him/her off the land. Over decades and centuries, a system has been put into place, where the feudal (the big ones) even gives judicial judgements in conflicts. They are basically kings.

So the peasants are not only poor, they are powerless. If someone can get kicked off the land, with no skills, can get his daughter abducted, etc., how can they even think of not voting for the feudal. They could all unite, but the feudals ensure that stage never reaches. And the feudals are in the Assemblies, and make all the laws. They will make sure that their lands remain feudal (which in turn means Pakistan remains backwards). Why else do you think all these feudals want elections, and are politicians? Shouldn`t they be into agriculture and not politics?

I think the problem of illiteracy and poverty exists in rural India, but not the problem of massive absentee landlordism. So urban Indian politics can be compared to urban Pakistani politics, but rural Indian politics cannot be compared to rural Pakistani politics. And over 60% of Pakistan is still rural.

In non-feudal villages, like mine, peasants can and have become leaders and politicians. Many of their second generations are now educated.

In some feudal areas (most maybe), there is an opposition. But it is also the local opposing feudal. If you look at the rural wing of PPP and PML, it is nothing but opposing feudals. Leghari was in PPP and Khosas (opposing feudal in same area) are in PML. Abida Hussein and her husband are in PML, while Faisal Hayat (opposing feudal, and one-time candidate as Benazir`s husband) is in PPP. So on and so forth. In many cases, these guys are related (Faisal is the nephew of Abida). In some areas, like Benazir`s Larkana etc., only one feudal dominates. So he/she gets elected unopposed.

Invariably, there are two things common in these feudal areas:

1. The more powerful the feudal/tribal leader, the more backwards the area. My family village, in Kashmir, like I stated, is now decades ahead of Leghari`s feudal areas outside Dera Ghazi Khan, Benazir`s feudal areas outside Larkana, and Abida`s feudal areas outside Jhang (I have lived close to these areas, not counting Larkana, so I know first hand). Even though my family village really has no political significance. It has only sent a few senior leaders into the local Kashmiri beaurecracy. Nothing at the Pakistan level.

2. The feudal or his/her next generation (if the feudal himself is not highly educated) is in big-time Western universities, and live in the poshest areas of urban Pakistan. Leghari is Oxford. Benazir is Harvard/Oxford. Abida`s kids are in Harvard etc.

``Are you suggesting that a non-feudal doesnt even DARE to oppose a Bhutto candidate in Larkhana? Or if he does, the polls are so blatantly rigged that its a waste of time to even run an election?``

The polls are not really rigged. They don`t need to be. But a non-feudal cannot challenge a feudal. He/she will never win. Look what happen to this girl, whose little brother allegedly was seen walking with a girl from another trible. And this incident did not even involve any of the super-feudal families. Do you think, this girl`s family could ever think of voting for someone other than the powerful feudal.

The are historically hardly any cases in Pakistan, in which a fedual has been defeated by a non-feudal. As I stated even Imran Khan has zero shot of defeating local feudals in their areas. So much so, that his (our) party doesn`t even compete in those areas.

Romair#105
On the feudals:
If the Pakistani Army had not denied Awami League power in 1970-71, the stranglehold of the W Pakistani feudals would have been broken once and for all. Why the heck did the Pakistani Army throw away such a valuable chance?

The reason is that casting doubt on the intentions of Bengalis then and that of `feudals` today are only excuses used by the Pakistani Army to deny legitimacy and political space to groups of Pakistanis capable of challenging the Army`s absolute hold on power.

The Army prefered to ally with collaborators/propped-up chamchas than with those with independent sources of power. This was true back in 1970 and now too. Its really sad to see history repeating with absolutely NO LESSONS learned.

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

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

Arjun-m

As long as Muslims are coming from mexico wearing shirts with paki flag on them, they will be ok. You don`t need to loose sleep over it. Relax.

re my own # 81

``It is apparently also the only `Muslim` country that will allow a Sunni mosque to be built in its capital. ``

Please read it as

``It is apparently also the only `Muslim` country that will NOT allow a Sunni mosque to be built in its capital.``

Sorry.

hamidm was visiting Pakistan and went to tribal area to visit his relatives. Now they are not letting him come back. No no! Not because he can help capture Al-Qaida fugitives; because he is the only person with BA or higher degree in that area. They see in him the only possibility of somebody getting elected to National Assembly - unopposed!!!

He is also approached by a match-maker for an excellent proposal for his chowk nemesis. The proposal comes from a very pious, Islamic, traditional, honest and respectful family. The family has produced several martyrs for the cause of Islam in Afghanistan and Kashmir. They don`t even dream about raping any girl and detest the very idea even when ordered by local jirga. Munde da apna ``wood and charcoal`` da karobar ae.

I say, this business of only graduates being allowed to stand for Elections seems to have hit both India and Pakistan at about the same time along the same lines . . . so let me ask the good folks from Pakistan here:- isn`t it easy enough to buy a degree in Pakistan, any degree any old sort?

Just a thought: Isn`t it better to have democratic dictatorships (a la Sharif)? They at least have the advantage of being removable after 5 years. Its own dictatorship, that the army is pushing through in Pakistan, is designed to be pretty much permanent.

I think the general consensus is that the army has been the major player, directly or indirectly, in running Pakistan since its independence. In that time Pakistan has gone through three (and a half?) wars, lost half its territory, had all its institutions destroyed, its economy laid low, witnessed rising poverty, illiteracy and worsening human development indices, and is now facing a growing crisis of governance. How does its previous track record commend the army`s desire to have a permanent say in running Pakistan?

-narain

-narain

Thanks for all the well-argued replies. The criticisms are, by and large, well-taken. (The praise is even more well-taken! :P ) I agree with many of the criticisms. I will respond briefly to what seem to be the main points.

(Some of the criticisms were perhaps too deep for me to understand on first reading. I didn`t quite get them. Unless there are multiple people using the same username, some people seemed to both praise the article and then decry it a few posts later as nonsense.)

a) ``Ummah? What Ummah?`` - Yes, the Muslim Ummah is theoretical construct with little grounding in reality. I guess it wasn`t clear enough in the article. I supposed the emotionally charged nature of the article obscured my skewering of this notion. That said, I do think that the notion is not entirely empty. The oft-quoted examples of India and Europe are good examples of people with diverse cultures coming together on common interests. This does not mean all Muslim nations should unite to form a single country. However, there is precedent for cooperation among Muslim countries. The EU spent 20+ years trying to get its act together and is still arguably in that process. The simple fact that many non-Muslims paint Muslims with a broad, largely negative brush should provide enough common ground for Muslims to at least stop shooting each other. If Turkey, Israel and the US can get along on so famously, it is so inconceivable that (for example) Turkey, Iran and Pakistan resurrect their regional economic cooperation agreements? Cooperation among Muslim countries does not preclude their sane interaction with non-Muslim countries. I see no reason why they must make a choice between the two.

b) ``What about the poor, oppressed women?`` - Unfortunately, Muslims screw up in so many ways that I left some out by way of forgetfulness and constraints of column length. :)

c) ``Muslim renaissance?! What a joke!`` - When I said we are ``on [its] very doorstep``, I was (I admit) being rather melodramatic. What I meant was that a Muslim resurgence is more than possible if Muslims put their minds to it. Not merely a fantasy resurgence of the Ummah, but of individual countries and, if they choose to cooperate, the lot collectively. We have the resources. Many countries don`t. If Muslim countries use these resources, there is no reason why they cannot do quite well for themselves. What do Taiwan, South Korea and Japan (for example) have that Muslims don`t? The unpleasant truth is: a disciplined and hard-working populace. (Yes, I am overgeneralizing...)

d) ``2 billion Muslims? If you`re counting bearded ones twice, maybe.`` - I got this from a UN population report. The report said 1.6 bil a while ago, 1.9 projected for 2002. Surprised me to no end.

e) ``You are falling into the traps you point out yourself: A siege mentality! Us versus them.`` - I can see why one would say this. Most the article talks about things Muslims should do or don`t do, and how they can work together. I think I will cop out and say that I had great difficulty trying to balance generality with specific issues in the space constraints of a single article. I did not mean to imply that Muslims should erect a Great Hejab of China around themselves or anything of the sort. Personally, I seek to work with Muslim, Jewish and secular organizations on issues which I agree with. If I have the good fortune to meet other groups who wish to work together for positive goals (benefitting anyone, not merely Muslims), I am more than happy to do so.

f) ``Gang rape is bad. Sign this petition.`` - I agree wholeheartedly and have signed said petition (signature # 725). I hope the Pakistani government takes this opportunity to sort out the tribal wildlands of the north. If they want to turn it over to Afghanistan, get it over with. Otherwise, take responsibility for this officially lawless area.

--Asad

Ras - I just recently started reading the replies on this board, and saw your post asking if the author is the same Asad Zaidi from the Progressive days. I can tell you that it is not the same Asad - I was with Asad today and he (emphatically) wanted to pass on the info to you. If you can post an email I will pass on his phone number and email info to you (plus a flyer on a lecture he is organizing for Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmad on ``The Rise of Fundamentalism in South Asia``. So here is a `hello` from Asad.

sadna #110: While your interest in Pakistani politics is appreciated, your knowledge of it quite limited (just like mine of Indian politics is limited). Primarily because you have never been involved in Pakistani politics. And may never have even lived in Pakistan.

``If the Pakistani Army had not denied Awami League power in 1970-71, the stranglehold of the W Pakistani feudals would have been broken once and for all. Why the heck did the Pakistani Army throw away such a valuable chance?``

This is partially correct. The correct part is that the Awami League should have been allowed to form the govt (though I am no fan of Mujib). And if it had been allowed, the power of feudals may have been reduced.

It was however the Pakistani feudals, who made sure that the Awami League was not allowed to form the govt. Led by our illustrious leader, Z. Bhutto. Please read his comments, on breaking the legs of certain individuals. Why?

Exactly due to the reason, you have mentioned. The feudals would have lost power. Hence, the feudals played their card, under the leadership of Bhutto, and won. The Army is to be blamed for a lot of things, but not being incohoots with the feudals. The Army had other motivations.

I don`t have the time to explain the structure of the Pakistani Army to you. Rest assured, it now has no feudal representation. It doesn`t pay enough of a salary. Feudals do marry into the kids of Generals, now and then; but that is getting rarer now. The Army is now lower middle and middle class individuals. Rich people don`t join in anymore. However, the feudal kids are still in politics.

In 1971, the Army did have feudal reps, i.e. kids of feudals in it. However, how many of them were in power in 1971. I am not sure. You seem to be sure, so could you let me know. Was Yahya Khan from a feudal family? Were any of his advisor Generals? I would be interested in this info.

``that of `feudals` today are only excuses used by the Pakistani Army to deny legitimacy and political space to groups of Pakistanis capable of challenging the Army`s absolute hold on power.``

This is contradictory to your initial statement. First you say, the Army was incohoots with the feudals. Now you say, they are casting doubts on the feudals.

Everyone in Pakistan hates the feudals. Except the feudal`s own off-spring, a few people who receive benefits from the status quo, and apparently a few Indians (including yourself). Find one other group that doesn`t hate them. The problem hasn`t been that the Army is casting doubts on them. If you read my replies, you will notice, that the problem has been that not enough doubts have been cast on the feudals, by the Army, during Martial Laws. Ayub`s family joined the feudal parties. And Zia`s son is a member of the feudal party, PML. Luckily Musharraf`s family hasn`t been influenced by it. Knock on wood.

I am a member of a political party that is trying to change the stats quo, in Pakistani politics. I know the hurdles. If you really think that the feudal parties (PPP and PML) want a change in the status quo, then I am afraid, you are extremely mistaken. Why would PPP and PML want to change the status quo. 62% of the seats go to feudals. If these two feudal parties change the status quo, they will lose their own seats. Infact, they are scared s//itless that the status quo will change, after this elections. That is why their leaders are running from pillar to post, trying to, ``fight`` for democracy.

Non-feudal parties (other than MQM) still have no shot in Pakistan. I am a member of one, and I know how impossible it is to break the status quo of Pakistani feudals, without using, ``non-democratic`` authoritative steps, like land reforms, by a dictator. It is infact the two feudal parties (PPP, PML) which are blocking the other progressive parties. PPP and PML don`t even hold elections within there own parties. They are only doing so now, due to dictatorial steps taken by the current govt. BB is the Chairperson for Life of her party.

Kindly take a look at the portfolios of the feudal members of Pakistan`s parties, and inform me which one of them you consider, ``independent sources of power.`` I would be interested in the list.

Is it Khar, Khosa, Leghari, Makhdoom, Fahim, Fakhr, Abida, Bugti, Jogazai, Junejo, Gillani, Jatoi, Wattoo, Bhutto, Zardari, Saifullah, Achakzai, Hayat.......?

Should I go on? All these individuals are highly tied into status quo feudal based politics of Pakistan. How can they be independent forces? They only independent forces are the small(er) urban parties, and one would have to say the religious parties (I don`t like them, but they are the most democratic and independent). And these urban and religious parties hate the feudals with a passion.

I would be highly interested in info from you to back up your arguments....