The King’s Gambit: Chapter 5 (The Diplomat)

We are all waiting omer!!!

Omer, any idea when you are going to finish the saga you started? For 1.5 years there have been no new episodes....

Rafique #62
Your last post again proves your obsession with the finality of your statement. Now it comes down to, because of personel comment 1, 2 and 3, I will not accept blabh blah blah.

Fine with me. You may write Jhumri Taliya in your next story. I have better things to do than teach you about Delhi.

temporal............60;........your points are well taken........what works in one case does not work in another.........what do you think the best approach should be for this story?............i am trying to concentrate on a factual background with fictional characters and plot and a lot of attention to detail..........

friend.......61;.........as i stated my first effort is to establish the sincere critics from the ones who are more interested in an emotional display or a personal attack........once that is done then it becomes easy to have a discussion with them........i think it is slowly becoming visible who falls in which category........you are not the first delhiiwalla to read these chapters..........i have changed quite a bit of the details before printing based on the inputs of other delhiwalla(s)......but if becomes difficult for me to consider your input sincere when it is prefixed with comments like,

``Otherwise this series just looks like just an extrapolation of Fieldmarshal`s monologues on Pak airforce.``

``I would have concluded that you have not attended your school from first till 10th grade (atleast history lessons), that you have never been outside your home, and have never seen Delhi. I would have concluded you to be one of the dumbest writer.``

.......i am looking for genunie non-patriotic non-personal critiques of what is written.........

#58 Temporal,
I am surprised at the resistance offered to Delhi facts presented by Delhiwalas. Most often than not outsiders are not aware of every nook and corner of a place. I would have expected author to just say ``thank you for information`` and move on. But unwillingness to accept the genuine feedback and talking of references, reviewers, consensus indefinitely just tells me that author somehow made it an prestige issue. And that leads me to believe that author had some motive when writing all making that point.
It would be much simpler, if author just writes the disclaimer at the top and proceeds with his story line.

Rafique #57,
Dear field marshal number 2, It is you who appears to be so attached to a gate that you made it a prestige issue not to budge from your line. As I wrote earlier, you can claim Jhumri Taliya to be India`s national spot. Just don`t say that you got consensus on that.
Anyway this discussion was of use as it gave an opportunity to judge where you are coming from and what will you be direction of your story line.

#59 by Rafique:

[... i find the most interesting fiction plays out in a background which is factual...]

...pls. read umberto eco`s thriller the name of the rose set around 1340s...what works for clancy won`t work for deighton... agree on attention to detail bit...but disagree on the its interpretation...

rgds,

..t

temporal........58;.........we have probably all read and written stories.........but none of us are expert critics......... i find the most interesting fiction plays out in a background which is factual........only keeping the characters and the plot fictional but the tools used by the characters the geo-political situations in which they are operating the military units they belong to the gali mohallas they walk through should be factual........even the subtleties and unthought of ironies should be accurate.......in such a situation attention to the minutest detail is the most important thing.......the color of a person`s eyes......the sharp turn in a road.....a historical landmark......the angle a sattelite is pointed in........this is clancy`s hallmark..........i have thanked the guys who provided the information but i don`t like moving on without having a good discussion about the details.......since i am going to change the second draft based on their comments hence their comments are more than a critique they are input to the story..........so i have to be sure they are accurate and not just emotional........that is the only way to get to the facts............in the same light your input and critique on the story not on how the replies are being discussed would be more helpful from my point of view...........

friend # 56:

...personally the ‘lahori gate’ is a brouhaha in a leaking styrofoam cup…

…Rafique is trying hard for this work of fiction to be faction … see his reasons in reply #54


….if i were doing this…i would thank the guys who commented and move on…unless Rafiique has relevant future uses in the plot for the lahori gate in his novel the energy spent on this is not worth the effort or aggravation…even a fictional Freedom Square (though there is an Azad Maidan in Bombay and Calcutta) would serve equally well…

rgds,

t

friend.......56; .........ok sahib.........you win........i have never seen someone so attached or detached to a gate........i will think about changing the text to not the most nationalistic spot but ``entrance to the most (maybe) nationalistic`` spot in India..........

Rafique # 54
you still didn`t write how you counted your consensus?

Now that temporal is on board, would you like get his judgement on what the consensus on this ``Lahore Gate`` was? Temporal?
That would give us some idea where Rafique is coming from.

#53,

t,
`aap kehtay haiN tau phir theek hi kehtay hoNgay`
regards.

temporal........53; i picked up some syntax errors in this chapter.....so i will look into that some more.......

...........the aim is to separate the sincere knowledgeable constructive critiques from the emotional patriotic ones..........the plot has already been established by Umair and myself.....the aim here is to get the details correct and to see people`s reaction to the story.......i do not believe in ignoring anyone`s critique........it is too easy to do so and to move on..........since people have taken the time to read the chapter they deserve an answer or a return question or an explanation to their comment.........it gives the critic the chance to establish their credentials............and me an opportunity to judge where they are coming from.......

Pankaj..........50; ............``It was on the ramparts of the Lahore Gate, in mid-August 1947, that India`s first Hindu ruler in eight hundred years, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru uttered the now famous words``...........

..............five hundred and twenty years of confirmed Muslim rule (we both agree)..........eighty years of debatable rule between Hindus Muslims and Christians.(we both agree could go either way)......and two hundred years of Christian British rule (we both agree) = 800 years......... => first Hindu ruler in 800 years.......

friend........49; ...........OK.........I requested you to tell me what I should use..........so what would you like the words replaced with.........if you provide a good alternative i will consider it............otherwise i must keep what i wrote and will just take the word, ``most`` out........

#42 by Banjaara:

...as another one who has perhaps even less knowledge your assertions in this post are smack on the nail`s head...except for this...

[...you come into the open garden,on your right would be Naubat Khana,now converted into a museum,...]

...i thought naubat khana/museum building is on the left...

rgds,

t


________________________________________________________

based on reading comments thus far

ps: helpful hint to the author/s of this story...take the comments..graciously thank the commentators and move on...don`t be defensive...focus on the forrest, take comments on trees under advisement...this will perhaps enable you to focus better on the plot and characters and not get bogged down on minor details...also please proof read carefully...

Pankaj #50
Janaab Rafique ke saath koi argument nahin chalne wala. He is from Pakistan Army where whatever army says is gospel truth. I now understand his consensus counting
One Pakistani soldier = 10 indians
And we were only five votes against Rafique`s ten.

Rafique# 48
Aren`t we getting touchy. you are a perfect duplicate of field marshal

``a place that the Indian Prime Minster stands close to independence day for some unknown reason``.......... Which one do you prefer?.......... ;) `` would be fine with me. When are you chaning it?

And do show me how you counted consensus?

Rafique Sahab

``from your comments the phase between 1712 to 1800 seems to fall in the debatable category........this would put the figure of 800 years within the boundaries of the spectrum of subjectivity.......what do you think?
``

You are right except that the Mughals do not figure amongst the power contenders in this phase. Marathas were dominant between 1730 and 1760 but not afterwards. Mysore under Haider/Tipu between 1761 and 1799 could not be called a dominant power by any stetch of imagination. Even if we accept that Muslim rule was dominant even in this phase, which would be incorrect, the number of years i.e. 1800-1192 become around 600(assuming Turk-Afghans were dominant powers all throughout which is again not true). There are still two complete centuries unaccounted for Rafique Sahab unless we also include the period between 1800-1947 alongwith the 50 year rule of ``Hindu`` Congress under Muslim rule :-) .

friend.........45; ...........as per your popular demand I will think about changing the phrase from ``most nationalistic`` to ``nationalistic`` to ``historically important`` to ``a place that the Indian Prime Minster stands close to independence day for some unknown reason``.......... Which one do you prefer?.......... ;)

pankaj.........; from your comments the phase between 1712 to 1800 seems to fall in the debatable category........this would put the figure of 800 years within the boundaries of the spectrum of subjectivity.......what do you think?

friend

``according to famous software consultant and ex-pilot, Omar Rafique``

I think Omar Rafique is different from Romair aka Omair Raja. The author Mr. Rafique appears a reasonable and sincere person though the same may not be said about Romair. I like the writing style of Mr Rafique as it reminds me somewhat of Jeffrey Archer who I read in my teen days.

Dear Rafique

``the information you have provided is similar to what I have researched..........the only gap is between 1712-1800........between that time whom do you consider the most powerful force in India.........Marathas, Nadir Shah, Tipu, British?
``

Actually there was no dominant power in this time window of 1712-1800. India was in a political mess during this period. Marathas reached closest to the status of a dominant power before they lost to Ahmed Shah Abdali in the third battle of Panipat in 1761. After that, Marathas, Haider/Tipu and British were contestants for power with no dominant player until 1800 when British finally triumphed over the other two. Nadir Shah lead a merely plundering raid and had no impact on the balance of power in the subcontinent. If anything, by taking away the famous peacock throne, he stripped the mughals of whatever little prestige they had for the namesake.

#44,
Dear Rafique,
I counted the ``consensus`` for you. Would you also please show me how you counted the ``consensus``?
Everyone wrote that ``Lahori gate`` is not a nationalistic spot. If you really insist on making it India`s nationalistic spot, just write within brackets in your storyline

``It lay in the fact that India`s most important nationalistic spot the Lahore Gate,(according to famous software consultant and ex-pilot, Omar Rafique), was still named after the most famous city in Pakistan ``

..........A lot of good information........i am hoping there will be more information/critique related to areas other than the Gate and Nehru also..........

AlphaNull.......31; ............i think everything so far is in the spectrum of subjectivity..........out of so many pages only two issues have come up.........and those two are still being debated...........

friend...........30/35/40; ...........the reason I have put this piece on this site is to get a critique and not to avoid it...........that is also why I am reading every reply...........but it is difficult to separate the sincere critique from pure emotion..........

..............here is the address of one of the websites with information on the Red Fort: http://indianvisit.com/monuments-india/red-fort.htm

.................. it describes Red Fort as a, ``Symbol of Indian independence,`` and points out, ``The Lahori Gate is the main entrance to the Red Fort..............The grassy area above this massive gateway and below the tall ramparts of the fort is the place from where the prime minister of India addresses and leads the nation in celebrating the Independence Day...........``

...........to me this definitely makes the Fort a nationalistic spot..........it makes the Gate nationalistic also unless the grassy area and the Gate are two completely separate entities or if there is no particular reason the Indian PM choses this spot on independence day..........

................ This gate is mentioned as Lahore Gate and Lahori Gate depending on which Indian website one hits............from there replies here it seems like Lahori is the correct version...............

Pankaj..........39; ..............the information you have provided is similar to what I have researched..........the only gap is between 1712-1800........between that time whom do you consider the most powerful force in India.........Marathas, Nadir Shah, Tipu, British?

Stuka.........40; ...........I will have to put them up in the Oberoi Maidens..........touring old cities is important.............

Banjaara........41; ..........Good point.........though people have pointed to various other gates which seem to be nationalistic spots...........a roadway to Minar-e-Pakistan would not be a national spot but a main gate to the monument would be..........more so if the President of the country raised a flag from that spot every independence day............if that spot chosen because it is the main entrance then I think it is a national spot............if it is a coincidence because that is the only place the TV cameras can fit or where the sunlight is correct then it is not a national spot...................

................If a mere gate can bring out so many emotions and debates then Chapter 8 is going to be really interesting............that is when we get to Kashmir :-)

Banjaara:

For a Pakistani, your information/knowledge about India is remarkably detailed. I am very envious. I wish I had similar level of knowledge about West Punjab. How much time have you spent in Delhi?

Rafique saheb,
I am a Pakistani who has a little knowledge of India.Your insistance on making Lahori Gate as a nationalistic spot,in my opinion is not right. The Red Fort or its Ramparts may be construed as a nationalistic or most nationalistic spot(that`s for the experts to decide),theLahori Gate happens to be the main entrance to the fort which opens into a large covered
hall where you find many stalls selling tourist junk.Once you cross the hall,you come into the open garden,on your right would be Naubat Khana,now converted into a museum,and other buildings which house para-military offices etc.Straight ahead and on the left side which is west(?) is the Diwan-e-Aam,Diwan-e-Khas,Ldies quarters and the prettiest mosque in India..Moti Masjid.Coming back to the nationalistic spot..viz: The Ramparts: You reach the ramparts through stairs and when you reach the top,you have Chandni Chowk in front of you(south),on your left is the great maidan,at the end of which is the imposing Jama Masjid on a
raised platform.There is also a small masoleum of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad on the eastern edge of the great maidan.
Would a Pakistani consider the approach roads to Minar-e-Pakistan as a nationalistic spot or would it be the Minar-e-Pakistan itself?
Refards.

Rafique:

Nationalistic Spot: Well, as you can see, calling Lahori Gate a ``nationalistic spot`` ruffles feathers, not because of it`s ``Lahore`` connection but because it just does not sit well. In my mind, the term ``nationalistic`` spot is being misconstrued by Veeresh as those connected to the freedom struggle. To me, nationalistic spot is that which embodies the majesty of the ``nation state``. In that case, the one clear spot is India Gate. India Gate leading to Rashtrapati Bhawan through Vijay Path can be compared to the Mall in DC.

Hotel: It depends on the charachterization of the city you want to give. If you want to point out India Gate as the nationalist spot, then it makes sense for them to stay at Centaur or the Airport Radisson (much better hotel) and then drive through portions of New Delhi such as the Prime Minister`s Residence, Delhi Gymkhana Club, India Gate on to North Block. That`ll make more sense from a logical perspective, but the streets here are wide and the city is green.

If, for the purpose of background color, you want to portray the ``Old City`` with it`s bustling bazaars, crowded streets, Mughal monuments etc. then have them stay at the Oberoi Maidens. Might as well mention a few gates such as Lahori, Kashmiri Turkman etc, along with some details on Red Fort. Also, if they are passing through that area, you should definitely mention Jama Masjid as the structure is very imposing.

Look, ultimately you can paint a picture of Mughal Delhi (Old City) or British Imperial Delhi (New Delhi) depending on what you want to emphasize. Mind you, if you want to portray Delhi as ``The Capital``, I would then suggest portraying New Delhi.

Hope that makes sense.

#36 Rafique,
Man, can`t you read English!! There is no Lahore gate in Delhi. It is ``LAHORI gate`` ,with a big ``I`` at the end.
And as far as your consensus is concerned.. Everyone is saying ``Lahori Gate`` is NOT A nationalistic spot. Make a list of all respondents and than check what is the consensus
Friend no
veeresh no
alephnull no
Stuka no
Pankaj no

May there is a Pakistani Army way of counting votes that got Mushy his 97%. Just count the votes for me and show me consensus.

Dear Rafique and Stuka

``As your comments are nationality-neutral I will accept them as legitimate critique.............Please continue in pointing out inconsistencies.......your information on the Indian dynasties still seems to put the rule at 800 years.....and I am still not convinced that Lahore Gate is not a naitonalistic spot......``

The Muslim rule in India begins with the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in 1192. We can say it practically ended after Bahadurshah-1 in 1712 AD. In the next decade or so, Marathas swept through the entire western and Central India and also captured parts of Northern India. When Nadir Shah raided Delhi in 1739 he encountered little resistence from an extremely weak Mughal king Muhammad Shah Rangeela. Later on it became famous that Shah Alam`s reign extends from Delhi to Palam(the place where the Delhi airport is present in modern times). Mysore emerged as another strong power undr Haider/Tipu in Southern India in the latter half of the eighteenth century. However after the defeat of Tipu in 1799 and the humiliation of Marathas in the second Maratha war, British became undisputed rulers of India 1800 AD onwards. So my estimate is as follows:

Muslim rule: (1712-1192) = 520 years.
1. Turk-Afghan rule: about 330 years from 1192 to 1526. Period of dominance: about 50-100 years(upper estimate)
2. Mughal rule: (1530- 1712) about 180 years including the brief rule(`15 years) of Suri dynasty that was actually Afghan; Period of dominance: throughout

British rule: 1800-1947 = 150 years approx., Period of dominance: throughout.

Rafique, Lahori gate is not that well known as Red Fort. You can call Red Fort as a nationalistic spot. Amongst the most revered, I would hazard a guess that it is Rajghat(samadhi of Mahatma Gandji). Amongst the most loved, I would say Taj Mahal.

# Rafique,
I would also be interested in the URL of webSite that told you about ``Lahore`` gate being India`s most nationalistic spot. It would be interesting to know the quality of your references!

#36 Rafique,
Man, can`t you read English. Everyone is saying it is not a nationalistic spot. Make a list of all respondent and than check what is the vote
Friend

..........After reading all the comments the consensus seems to be that Lahore Gate is a nationalistic spot in India.............. But it is not the, ``most`` nationalistic spot............ In the next draft the word most will be removed.........Nehru and 800 seems valid so far........India is a large country so what is the most nationalistic spot in most Indians` opinion?.........In Pakistan it would probably be Minar-e-Pakistan............

Brother Veeresh #34
``Hello . . . as a Delhiite, I think the following historical ``gates`` are part of the standard Dilliwalah vocabulary, and also have bus-stops named after them for that final clinching argument . . . India Gate, Kashmiri Gate, Dilli Gate, Ajmeri Gate, Turkman Gate, IIT Gate . . . `` ...

You are not saying that ``gates`` become important nationalistic spots when they have a bus stop named after them ;-) Rafiq will go wild with IIT gate saying ``they passed between two of India`s most prestigigious institutions, ironically, which are in a area dominated by Muslim ruler Qutub`s capital. ``...

Dear Alephnull . . . I find your comments very interesting . . . may I interject on one of them . . . ````However, the *Lahori gate* is never mentioned by name in the press in this connection, so (having spent all of two weeks in Delhi) I`d never heard of it. Excluding toranas (gates) of Buddhist stupas and Hindu temples, I could only come up with the following list of gates or gateways off the top of my head: the Buland Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri, the Gateway of India in Bombay, the India Gate, the Turkman Gate (which I know of because of a notorious firing resulting from Sanjay Gandhi`s family planning depredations during the Emergency), and the Ajmeri Gate (the last three in Delhi).````


Hello . . . as a Delhiite, I think the following historical ``gates`` are part of the standard Dilliwalah vocabulary, and also have bus-stops named after them for that final clinching argument . . . India Gate, Kashmiri Gate, Dilli Gate, Ajmeri Gate, Turkman Gate, IIT Gate . . . Lahori Gate is approached by getting off at Jama Masjid and walking on to the road around the moat, thus since there cannot be a bus-stop there, it never really got named. It surely is a term referred to in the vernacular press as well as by those who move around in those areas. Agreed the English media does not refer to it, but then, the English media in India would probably often not know where or what Chawri Bazar is, either, because it doesn`t have a Pizza King, see?

As far as Lal Qila/Red Fort being the prime national spot, or not, well I guess the author has the right to decide because it would be one of many. To me, in my travels around India, the following places have been national spots . . . Chauri-Chaura, Gowalia Tank, Dandi, Khem Karan, Nagrota, Jallianwala Bagh, Yerwada Jail, Naini Jail, Port Blair Cellular Jail, Tezpur (for `62) . . . but then, I think one of the most important National spots which I have visited and which moved my emotions . . . and that all of us in India & Pakistan & Bangladesh have reason to consider as important . . . would be Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose`s memorial at Renkoji Temple in Japan.

I would be interested in knowing what Pakistanis here know or think of Bose?

Rafique #12

{In return, I would like to request that you read all of this with an open unpatriotic mind, otherwise you will not be able to enjoy it........}

Allow me to ask an obvious, if uncharitable, question - was this *written* without a blinkered patriotic mindset? Note that those in the thrall of such a mindset generally deny that they are so afflicted.

Not that there need be any symmetry between requirements imposed on a writer and those enjoined on the readers. The writer is allowed to be an absolute tyrant with his characters and his plot - but eventually his scenarios have to pass some test of plausibility in the minds of informed readers. Writers of scenarios claimed to be realistic face a much stricter plausibility standard.

{The coming chapters contain a great deal more criticism of Pakistan, India, Israel, USA, Saudi Arabia......... It is not for the faint-hearted and the overly-patriotic..........}

Burning question: will the coming chapters perchance contain trenchant and fearless criticism of that ultimate Pakistani sacred cow - the Pakistan Air Force, its professional competence, and its combat record? Or is the author too faint-hearted and overly patriotic to go down that daring path? Enquiring minds want to know.

{I would like to ask you one question...... From your names, would I be correct in assuming that all three gentelmen are are from India?}

Yes, I am from India ... I thought it was obvious from my post. Not from North India though.

{If you are, could I ask you whether your analysis would have been different had I been an Indian writing exactly the same lines?}

If - big if - you were an Indian writing the same lines, I`d ask you to get your head examined pronto. As you are a Pakistani, I am inclined to attribute your curious views to immersion from early childhood in the dominant discourse of a strongly ideological garrison state. My factual take on your piece would have been the same either way.

Rafique #12

{All novels are written within a, ``spectrum of subjectivity.`` .....That is what makes them interesting..... As long as there can be a Yes or No argument on a point, it is fair game.....}

Well, IMO you are way off in the far ultra-violet region of the so-called ``spectrum of subjectivity.`` Some novels represent themselves quite frankly as fantasy or science fiction. This work in progress makes claims to be a realistic scenario in a recognisable contemporay setting but with glaring and obvious discrepancies from reality.

{3. Is the Red Fort an Indian nationalistic spot?....... Nehru declared India`s independence from there, and the Prime Minister raises the Indian flag from here on independence day........ Doesn`t that make it a national spot?....... This would make it the equivalent of Pakistan`s Minar-e-Pakistan, which is considered a national monument....... Are these the most nationalistic spots?...... Subjectively Yes and subjectively No.}

The Red Fort may indeed be a nationalistic spot. The Prime Minister`s annual Independence Day address is always reported as being delivered from the `ramparts of the Red Fort`. However, the *Lahori gate* is never mentioned by name in the press in this connection, so (having spent all of two weeks in Delhi) I`d never heard of it. Excluding toranas (gates) of Buddhist stupas and Hindu temples, I could only come up with the following list of gates or gateways off the top of my head: the Buland Darwaza at Fatehpur Sikri, the Gateway of India in Bombay, the India Gate, the Turkman Gate (which I know of because of a notorious firing resulting from Sanjay Gandhi`s family planning depredations during the Emergency), and the Ajmeri Gate (the last three in Delhi).

I seriously doubt that too many Indians who weren`t Delhi residents would have heard the Lahori Gate mentioned by name (whereas they would have heard of Qutb Minar, Jama Masjid, Chandni Chowk, Raj Ghat, etc.). It`s impossible for a spot without instant nationwide name recognition to claim to be the `most nationalistic spot`. Do take a poll among Indians and see.

Rafique #12

{3. Is Nehru the first Hindu ruler of India in 800 years?...... Technically, since there was no united country called India before 1947, he is the first.......}

India is first and foremost a civilizational concept whose precise geographical extent may be fuzzy and whose political boundaries have varied through the past. There have been very large past polities incorporating major portions of the civilizational region of India. Using your `technical` POV, you could have said Nehru was the first `Hindu` ruler of India EVER - and you would be absolutely right!

{Were there Hindu rulers of portions of India before? Yes....... Did any one group rule all of what is India right now for 800 years? No...... Even the British gave semi-independent rules to princes and nawabs. And they didn`t rule over Sikh areas till late........ But we still say they were the rulers of India for plus/minus 200 years....... }

The British were the paramount power (which means they ruled either directly or through vassal) in practically all of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, for at leasat 90 years (1857-1947) - which was not the case with either the Mughals or any dynasty before them.

{Similarly, we say the Mughals were the rulers of India, even though they didn`t control all of India......}

The analogy does not hold.
They may have titled themselves the rulers of `Hindustan` ... even when they were essentially limited to the Gangetic plain.. it`s not the same thing as India. I took a look at a `Historical Atlas of South Asia`. The Mughals` dominions at their peak included portions of Afghanistan, which the British never controlled. On the other hand their control of the Deccan at the height of their power in the seventeenth century was an on-again-off-again thing. They did manage to subdue the Muslim kingdoms of Golconda and Bijapur only to have them rebel during Mughal wars of succession, to be subdued again, at which point Shivaji raised the flag of revolt, etc.

{Usually, the most powerful group, or the group with the greatest land under control is refered to as ruler, even if they did not control all the land....... Whom would you say was the most powerful ruler of the land now called India, before the British? I would say, it was the Mughals. ........}

The Maratha confederacy was the group in control of the greatest territory directly prior to the British Take a look at a historical atlas and see. As to `the land now called India`, Ashoka seems to have controlled more of its territory than the Mughals at their zenith (historical atlas again). Ashoka did not control much territory beyond the Indus - land which is however not in present-day India.

{4. Many Pakistanis consider all Muslim rulers of India to be one of their own, and their founding fathers....... It can be seen on Pakistani television shows, articles, books........}

Well, many Indians (including myself) consider all of the history of any part of India to be part of India`s heritage; the Mughals most certainly included. Indians wouldn`t however consider mediaeval rulers the `founding fathers` of either their country or their nation .. the origins of the first are shrouded in the mists of antiquity, those of the second are far more modern.

{This is not due to a heridatory connection...... They feel that had the Muslim rulers not come into India, there would be no Muslims there.....}

Is that so? Well, they`re wrong. There were Muslims in the territory of present-day India (as opposed to Hindustan) a few centuries before there were Turko-Afghan-Persianate rulers in North India. [And similarly, there were Christians in India eleven centuries before any of the powers of European Christendom showed up.]

{If there were no Muslims, there would be no Pakistan........}

In the sense that many Pakistanis seem to regard Pakistan specifically as the successor to Muslim *rule* in India, you have absolutely convinced me that this is true.

Rafique,
Man! you are too sensitive to critique. You claim to have done your research, and present your research to an audience. But you are not open to critique and feedback.
From my side you may declare Jhumri Taliya as most nationalistic spot of India and Toba Tek Singh as of Pakistan. But they are not! And pointing that out should not make it a religious or nationalistic attack.
when I pointed the rapid changes in your statements, your one track mind again brings this ``lahore=Pakistan`` angle. Dear buddy, my mother still remembers with fondness her childhood in Sialkot. Lahorian di hutti is a famous shop in Delhi. Karachi da Halwa is supposed to be delicacy in Delhi. After observing Romair, your reaction further makes me suspicious about the level of intelect of all Pakistani pilots.
Let me again correct your ``facts``,
1. these gates are called ``Lahori gate``, ``Kashmiri gate``, not Lahore gate or Kashmir gate. Any map or guide book of Delhi will give you this simple fact.
2. These gates are not nationalistic spots. They are notorious for traffic jams and people avoid them.
3. If you create any list of 10 nationalistic spots in India, Red Fort will be at bottom of that list. Prime Minister of India visits that place NO MORE THAN once in a year. President perhaps does not visit that spot even once in a year. People do not visit it unless forced.
4. If a foreign dignitary comes, he visits India Gate and Raj Ghat. He is not taken to Red Fort.
5. If kids want to go anywhere, they are taken to zoo or Appu ghar, but rarely to Red Fort.
6. If architecture is to be compared, Agra`s Red Fort is bigger and better than Delhi`s Red Fort. If history is to be seen than Tuglakabad and Old fort are much better.
You may give us any ``fact`` about Pakistan, and I will accept. But I know Delhi and why should your ``research`` go without objection when I know it is wrong.
You gave a smart aleck reply to suka in #28 that guests took the route because they wanted to visit old city. Dear Sir, any cab driver will tell you that old Delhi can not just be visited in a hour long cab drive and you can never ever be sure of meeting yuor appointment once you enter the traffic of old Delhi. Even we Delhi walas book 8-10 hours if we need to visit that area.
And in the end, let me ask you a question,
Do you never see India and Pakistan other than the lenses of hindu and muslim?

Stuka #24 . . . coming from Maiden`s (Q: Does anybody know who the original owners of Maiden`s were?) you can take the route via University, Ridge or via Tees Hazari, Filmistan past Jhandewalan and thence towards Vijay Chowk/South Block but have you seen the metro digging? Also, the cabbie does not take a left at IP College, because he is an old timer and does not see the sense in deviating from the bus route pre-Mudrika, right? And, both the North as well as South Sunken Roads are shut for public (we used to go cycling there, and do skids/wheelies in the gravel up ahead) The road through Parliament House is shut for public (we used to travel on 5 and 22 old DTU buses and the bus stop was on the steps). The roundabout at the junction near the Press Club is all dug up and you cannot get onto Rafi Marg or Vijay Chowk from there. So, our cabbie drives towards ISBT Kashmiri Gate where he does not take a left onto the extra long clover leaf loops (Lothian Road onto Nigambodh is also shut for right turns on Ring Road towards Jamuna Bazar, unless you or yours are a dead body heading for the crematorium in which case - I swear - the Home Guard on duty there permitting bicycles to use the pedestrian crossing will check to see, and often demand that ``prior notice`` should have been given) . . . but heads for GPO, then under Kaudiya Pul to Chandni Chowk from where he goes through Daryaganj and could take a right at Delhi Gate, Asaf Ali past teeming crowds at Turkman Gate, cross over the Modern School Flyover and get stuck trying to cross Barakhamba, Kasturba Gandhi, Janpath . . . so he heads straight onto BSZ Marg, and cannot take right turn onto Rouse Avenue, now he can take a right turn in the morning onto Sikandra Road but he gives his tourists the guided tour around India Gate and thence onto the Central Vista.

Try taking a right onto Rajpath turning heading South on Man Singh, Janpath or Rafi Marg (C Hexagon traffic is now oneway and the road from Rail Bhavan to Parliament is kind of blocked) and you may have sympathy for the elderly ex-NCO Sikh driver`s route?

Pankaj.......14; ......As your comments are nationality-neutral I will accept them as legitimate critique.............Please continue in pointing out inconsistencies.......your information on the Indian dynasties still seems to put the rule at 800 years.....and I am still not convinced that Lahore Gate is not a naitonalistic spot......

stuka....15; .......I will add the points you made to my records.......I chose Lahore Gate as the central spot based on information from an Indian site which mentioned Lahore Gate and Kashmir Gate as the two main entrances out of the fourteen or so entrances......It is definitely a nationalistic spot based on history but many Indians seem to think it is not the, ``most`` nationalistic....What is the most nationalistic spot in India in your opinion?

stuka....18; ......Good catch. We put the guests up in Centaur hotel next to the airport in Chapter 4. At that time it was unknown to us that they wanted to tour the old city. Had we known we would have put them up in the old Oberoi Maidens beyond the Kashmir Gate. Maybe they should have gone their straight from the airport. Any suggestions?

friend.....20; ........Lahore Gate/Red Fort being the most nationalistic spot is within the, ``spectrum of subjectivity,`` making it a vaild comment.......Scales from the Red Fort are one of the four items on the Indian Presidential standard.....Is your issue with the spot being nationalistic or is it with it being named after Lahore?.....

sadna.....26; Thank you for providing the information on the ironies......I will definitely use some of them if you don`t mind.......Pakistan has many other ironies also......its founder was not from Pakistani areas.....he did not speak the national language.......its national anthem is in a foreign language.......its biggest mosque is named after an Arab king.......it shows news in Arabic which no one can understand.....

There is a lot of good information presented in the replies......I want to thank the interactors.....that is the primary purpose of putting the story here, so people can point out any factual inaccuracies, about areas I have not visited........

There will be many points in the future chapters which will be very offensive to overly-patriotic Pakistani readers, Indian readers, American readers....My intention is not to offend anyone intentionally.....As long as the information can be verified as a legitimate opinion from websites, books, I feel it should be presented.....The people who are offended by it may want to skip the chapters......

Well as long as you mention somewhere one or more of the below:(though Nehru will not thank you for calling him a Hindu leader, this is the reward he gets??)

1. ironically there is a Delhi Gate in Lahore, still named after the capital city of the Pakistan`s traditional enemy to the east.
2. ironically, at one time the Pakistani Ambassador in the US was named Abida Hussain and the Indian Ambassador was named Abid Hussain
3. ironically at one time the foreign secretaries of both sides holding peace talks were cousins
4. ironically, not one Pakistani missile is named for anything originating in the land now called Pakistan or the land now called India, they are all named for Afghan and Arab invaders who cruelly ravaged the land which is now Pakistan and went back.
5. ironically leaders of each country were born in the other country
I refuse to name my sources or reveal my nationality

Veeresh:

I did think of the Oberoi Maiden`s but even that is too much of a stretch. Why would you come to Nnorth Block through such a long route? Unless Rafique wants to put some characterization of the cab driver making a bewaqoof of the ignorant goray.

The grounds of India Gate are used for ice-cream and the like, but the specific spot below the canopy is guarded by CMPs all the time. Trying to eat choley there would quickly result in a boot up your arse, thereby defining ``nationalist pastime`` of our nation`s police.

Pankaj:

The figure 1100 was an error. I meant to put 900, after subtracting 1100 from 2000. I was writing in approximates.

Regarding Prithviraj Chauhan, I was ignorant of the fact that he drove the Tomars out of Delhi. I guess I was skipping a dynasty, because I assumed it went from Tomars to Slave Dynasty to Various Turko-Afghans last of which was Lodi and then to Mughals, and then to Angrez and then to us. In any case, your figure is much closer to Rafique`s 800. Tthe statement of Nehru being the Hindu ruler of India after 800 hundred years still stands though right??

I am not clear whether the authors claim to be writing a work of fiction or one of fact? It reads so much like any number of romair`s postings, with an effete literary touch added to it.

Simple honesty requires that one is upfront about one`s intentions. Otherwise, all this is basically a ruse to get away with silly/one-sided historical statements that will be dismissed by anybody of any intelligence within less than a minute.

Basically, what the author shows (it seems like teamwork, in which case, they show) moral cowardice. If he has any knowledge and guts, he should discuss issues that are important to him openly. I don`t have any respect for romair`s intellectual strengths but at least he doesn`t play this dishonest game exclusively. That seems to be Mr. Omar Rafique`s forte.

I hope no one who writes a ``fictional`` account of the life and character of one Omar Rafique and, at the same time, claims to have done ``research`` on him.

Dear Stuka

``In that sense, Nehru was the first Hindu ruler of India in 1100 years, because before the Mughals were the Lodis, before them the slave dynasty, and the turks. The Tomar(Hindu) rulers of Delhi were driven out in the 9th century isf memory serves me right.``

I am aghast at your making so many mistakes on Indian history :-). Sir, the slave dynasty began after the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan, the Rajput king of Delhi in the second battle of Tarrain in 1192 AD. And Tomars were driven out by Chauhans, and not by any Muslim ruler. I have no idea how you got this figure of 1100 even based on your ``Delhi rules India`` argument. The last of these Turk-Afghan dynasties was Lodhi dynasty and its ruler Ibrahim Lodhi lost to Babar in the first battle of Panipat in 1526 AD.


``some were more powerful than the Mughals....the capital of Hindustan was always Dlehi.``

Sir, I never said that ``some were more powerful than Mughals``. Infact none was more powerful than Mughals between 1556 and 1712 AD. And Delhi was not even the capital of mughals till 1639 but Agra. Delhi shone to limelight only under Mughals when the statement that who controls Delhi controls India became popular. As far as I know Delhi was not even the capitals of Mauryas or Guptas. I will refute your argument of ``one who rules Delhi is considered to be the ruler of Hindustan in a separate post`` cuz I have to go for now.

OK, time for me to enter the fray . . . India Gate is currently where assorted tv channels also get permission to film Antakshri programmes featuring all & sundry, hordes come to eat ice-cream at night, car manufacturers hold melas and most recently, have music programmes too, so I dont know about national spot anymore . . . Lahori Gate at the Red Fort ramparts is where the PM delivers his speeches from on some certain days of the year. And there is a certain irony in staying at the Hotel Oberoi Imperial, passing Coronation Park as well as Metcalfe House, and then routing via Red Fort, Chandni Chowk, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ``no right turn onto Sikandra Road``, Tilak Marg, Rajpath/India Gate and up onto Raisina Hill. (Later this year they could use the new Metro, but till then . . .)

By the way, was Nehru a Hindu?

Rafique:

``. It was on the ramparts of the Lahore Gate, in mid-August 1947, that India`s first Hindu ruler in eight hundred years, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru uttered the now famous words,``

I happen to agree with the statement, at least in a technical sense. Whereas Aleph Null and Pankaj are correct that there were other rulers, dynasties etc and some were more powerful than the Mughals....the capital of Hindustan was always Dlehi. It was and is said that he who controls Delhi, controls India. Is it a surprise that the Sepy rebels of 1857 went to Delhi to pay allegience to the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, whose reach didn`t extend beyond Delhi. Yet, he was considered by Indians to be emporor of Hindustan. In that sense, Nehru was the first Hindu ruler of India in 1100 years, because before the Mughals were the Lodis, before them the slave dynasty, and the turks. The Tomar(Hindu) rulers of Delhi were driven out in the 9th century isf memory serves me right.

2. ``It lay in the fact that India`s most important nationalistic spot, the Lahore Gate,``


You confuse Indians when you say this. I am a Delhite, and yes, I am familiar with all the gates of Delhi, be they Turkman Gate, Dilli Gate, Lahori Gate etc. The Red Fort as a whole can be considered a nationalist spot, yes, and it is true that Nehru gave his speech there. But, IMHO, the current ``nationalistic spot`` if you want to call it that is India Gate. It has the names of soldiers of the Indian Army who died in the First World War. The spot is also home to Amar Jawan Jyoti. The Lhori Gate is just one of the many ``gates`` in the walled city, named so because it faces due west in the direction of Lahore. Calling that specific gate ``nationalistic`` becomes a falsehood at worst or misleading at best.

BTW, I am Hindu Indian :)

Rafique

Just an addition to my previous post. The Turko-Afghan rule known as the Delhi Sultanate was often not even the dominant kingdom in India though Mughals certainly could be given this status. When Babar came to India he wrote that the strongest kingdom in the country is that of Bijanagar (Vijaynagar) under the legendary Krishna Deo Rai followed by the Rajput confederacy under Rana Sanga. Apparently he has little regards for the Lodhi dynasty who lost to him in a few hours of war. The source of the above info is ``A history of India`` by John Keay. IMO, Mughal period marks the dominant Muslim rule for around 200 years.

an afterthought: there lies a bigger irony in the fact that ``India Gate`` was built by a foreign ruler. to honor Indians who fought a war for foreigners and gave up their lives in foreign lands. The soldiers of the Indian Army who died belonged to regiments of both India and Pakistan ie Rajput, Punjab, Baluch etc. They fought and died in France and Mesopotamia. It had nothing to do with Indians.

Another thing that is a little bit irritating to me being a Delhitie, where the hell are these guys staying in Delhi? Are they staying in a hotel? There is no place these guys could be staying at where they approach South Block after passing through Red Fort etc which are all in the Walled city ie Old Delhi. They would either stay in Hotels incognito, or at the Army Battle Honors Mess close to the Diplomatic enclave where the IA usually puts up foreign guests. Just something to consider...

an afterthought: there lies a bigger irony in the fact that ``India Gate`` was built by a foreign ruler. to honor Indians who fought a war for foreigners and gave up their lives in foreign lands. The soldiers of the Indian Army who died belonged to regiments of both India and Pakistan ie Rajput, Punjab, Baluch etc. They fought and died in France and Mesopotamia. It had nothing to do with Indians.

Another thing that is a little bit irritating to me being a Delhitie, where the hell are these guys staying in Delhi? Are they staying in a hotel? There is no place these guys could be staying at where they approach South Block after passing through Red Fort etc which are all in the Walled city ie Old Delhi. They would either stay in Hotels incognito, or at the Army Battle Honors Mess close to the Diplomatic enclave where the IA usually puts up foreign guests. Just something to consider...

Rafique,
1. you very quickly modified your statement from
``India`s most important nationalistic spot, the Lahore Gate, ``
to
``Is the Red Fort an Indian nationalistic spot?....... Nehru declared India`s independence from there, and the Prime Minister raises the Indian flag from here on independence day........ Doesn`t that make it a national spot?....... ``

There is a difference between ``most important`` and ``a``. There are many nationalistic spots in India, Red Fort is one among many, and Lahori Gate is not counted anywhere among them. your reviewers were wrong in this regard.
2. Had you been Indian? Yes my analysis would have been different. I would have concluded that you have not attended your school from first till 10th grade (atleast history lessons), that you have never been outside your home, and have never seen Delhi. I would have concluded you to be one of the dumbest writer.
3. Your ignorance of India absolves you from being called dumb. But you can certainly be called naive. It would be much easier, if you give that standard disclaimer ``.. all places, characters and ... bear no resemblance to ...`` and forget talking about research part.

Regards

Dear Rafique

``I would like to ask you one question...... From your names, would I be correct in assuming that all three gentelmen are are from India?....... If you are, could I ask you whether your analysis would have been different had I been an Indian writing exactly the same lines?..... If it would have been different, then maybe you are being overly patriotic``

I am from India and I can assure you that my reaction would have been the same even if an Indian had written the lines in question. Actually Marxist and Communist press in India spews out even more objectionable and subjective opinions, and worse still in the name of history unlike you who doesn`t claim any historicity. So let me tell you that I have actually followed all your chapters up till now and I found your story quite interesting save a few objectionable statements. But then I consider it your prerogative to say or include what you want in your story. I just wrote what I felt was not a proper representation of India with some (incorrect)comments on the Indian history or Nehru being the ``Hindu ruler`` unfair to the Indian political system (democracy).

Now something about the story. You rightly say that a novel is not the narration of facts. Infact it is the subjectivity that provides a personal touch and makes a story interesting. With that in mind you have done a pretty good job till now. Your story seems to have a very long incubation stage where you set the background for the main action or the central theme. I am yet to see a dominant character in your story and IMO, you are attempting to develop too many characters. Just a suggestion :- how about developing a few imp characters before the main action followed by the development of dominant protaganists as the story progresses through the action stage. I am curious about how you would create a situation for the interaction of these varied characters, which should be interesting.

Regards

AlphaNull, Friend, Pankaj.....; You have made some vaild points, and some, in my opinion, which seem invalid. Some answers to the points you have made:

1. I will leave it upto the, ``charlatans`` who are reviewing these chapters to disclose their names, if they want...... Some of them visit this site, now and then. The primary qualification I looked for was that they would not worry about my nationality nor their own......

2. All novels are written within a, ``spectrum of subjectivity.`` .....That is what makes them interesting..... As long as there can be a Yes or No argument on a point, it is fair game..... Novels are not science books, which have to be a Yes from every possible direction.

3. A lover of IBM could make a good point that reorganizing IBM is a much tougher job than reorganizing the Indian military...... An overly patriotic American could argue that the US military is much larger than the Indian military, since the correct criteria for measuring military strength are budgets and not the number of soldiers...... I made the opposite argument in this Chapter....... Am I correct?...... Subjectively Yes and subjectively No.

3. Is the Red Fort an Indian nationalistic spot?....... Nehru declared India`s independence from there, and the Prime Minister raises the Indian flag from here on independence day........ Doesn`t that make it a national spot?....... This would make it the equivalent of Pakistan`s Minar-e-Pakistan, which is considered a national monument....... Are these the most nationalistic spots?...... Subjectively Yes and subjectively No.

3. Is Nehru the first Hindu ruler of India in 800 years?...... Technically, since there was no united country called India before 1947, he is the first....... Were there Hindu rulers of portions of India before? Yes....... Did any one group rule all of what is India right now for 800 years? No...... Even the British gave semi-independent rules to princes and nawabs. And they didn`t rule over Sikh areas till late........ But we still say they were the rulers of India for plus/minus 200 years....... Similarly, we say the Mughals were the rulers of India, even though they didn`t control all of India...... Usually, the most powerful group, or the group with the greatest land under control is refered to as ruler, even if they did not control all the land....... Whom would you say was the most powerful ruler of the land now called India, before the British? I would say, it was the Mughals. ........Will everyone agree. No. But many will.

4. Many Pakistanis consider all Muslim rulers of India to be one of their own, and their founding fathers....... It can be seen on Pakistani television shows, articles, books........ This is not due to a heridatory connection...... They feel that had the Muslim rulers not come into India, there would be no Muslims there..... If there were no Muslims, there would be no Pakistan........ One can provide some legitimate facts to disagree with that, but that doesn`t change the fact that many Pakistanis do think that way.

If you want me to give you the links and references from where all this information was quoted, I can provide them to you.......I do not know enough about India to have come up with it on my own........In return, I would like to request that you read all of this with an open unpatriotic mind, otherwise you will not be able to enjoy it........ The coming chapters contain a great deal more criticism of Pakistan, India, Israel, USA, Saudi Arabia......... It is not for the faint-hearted and the overly-patriotic..........

I would like to ask you one question...... From your names, would I be correct in assuming that all three gentelmen are are from India?....... If you are, could I ask you whether your analysis would have been different had I been an Indian writing exactly the same lines?..... If it would have been different, then maybe you are being overly patriotic...... If not, then you are providing a legitimate critique.

Apologies for the lenghty reply. I hope it addressed your complains satisfactorily........

AlphaNull, Friend, Pankaj.....; You have made some vaild points, and some, in my opinion, which seem invalid. Some answers to the points you have made:

1. I will leave it upto the, ``charlatans`` who are reviewing these chapters to disclose their names, if they want...... Some of them visit this site, now and then. The primary qualification I looked for was that they would not worry about my nationality nor their own......

2. All novels are written within a, ``spectrum of subjectivity.`` .....That is what makes them interesting..... As long as there can be a Yes or No argument on a point, it is fair game..... Novels are not science books, which have to be a Yes from every possible direction.

3. A lover of IBM could make a good point that reorganizing IBM is a much tougher job than reorganizing the Indian military...... An overly patriotic American could argue that the US military is much larger than the Indian military, since the correct criteria for measuring military strength are budgets and not the number of soldiers...... I made the opposite argument in this Chapter....... Am I correct?...... Subjectively Yes and subjectively No.

3. Is the Red Fort an Indian nationalistic spot?....... Nehru declared India`s independence from there, and the Prime Minister raises the Indian flag from here on independence day........ Doesn`t that make it a national spot?....... This would make it the equivalent of Pakistan`s Minar-e-Pakistan, which is considered a national monument....... Are these the most nationalistic spots?...... Subjectively Yes and subjectively No.

3. Is Nehru the first Hindu ruler of India in 800 years?...... Technically, since there was no united country called India before 1947, he is the first....... Were there Hindu rulers of portions of India before? Yes....... Did any one group rule all of what is India right now for 800 years? No...... Even the British gave semi-independent rules to princes and nawabs. And they didn`t rule over Sikh areas till late........ But we still say they were the rulers of India for plus/minus 200 years....... Similarly, we say the Mughals were the rulers of India, even though they didn`t control all of India...... Usually, the most powerful group, or the group with the greatest land under control is refered to as ruler, even if they did not control all the land....... Whom would you say was the most powerful ruler of the land now called India, before the British? I would say, it was the Mughals. ........Will everyone agree. No. But many will.

4. Many Pakistanis consider all Muslim rulers of India to be one of their own, and their founding fathers....... It can be seen on Pakistani television shows, articles, books........ This is not due to a heridatory connection...... They feel that had the Muslim rulers not come into India, there would be no Muslims there..... If there were no Muslims, there would be no Pakistan........ One can provide some legitimate facts to disagree with that, but that doesn`t change the fact that many Pakistanis do think that way.

If you want me to give you the links and references from where all this information was quoted, I can provide them to you.......I do not know enough about India to have come up with it on my own........In return, I would like to request that you read all of this with an open unpatriotic mind, otherwise you will not be able to enjoy it........ The coming chapters contain a great deal more criticism of Pakistan, India, Israel, USA, Saudi Arabia......... It is not for the faint-hearted and the overly-patriotic..........

I would like to ask you one question...... From your names, would I be correct in assuming that all three gentelmen are are from India?....... If you are, could I ask you whether your analysis would have been different had I been an Indian writing exactly the same lines?..... If it would have been different, then maybe you are being overly patriotic...... If not, then you are providing a legitimate critique.

Apologies for the lenghty reply. I hope it addressed your complains satisfactorily........

Rafique #7,
I will agree with Pankaj and AlephNull,
you are are using names of real counteries and also claim to have done research. If this is based on reasearch than counter facts must be entertained.

Most of us in India would consider Shahjahan and Jahangir as our own and indicating then as ````property`` of some other nation does indicate a bias.

And like other interactors, Lahori Gate being most nationalistic spot would be a surprise for a Delhite like me. I would have thought of perhaps Jaliana Wala Bagh or India Gate and people from other cities would have perhaps have other symbols. I would wonder if 90 percent of people even know of Lahori, Turkman, Ajmeri and numbers of other gates of old Delhi.

Otherwise this series just looks like just an extrapolation of Fieldmarshal`s monologues on Pak airforce.

Dear Rafique

``One must read a novel with an open mind, not a patriotic one......Otherwise you will not enjoy it, and you will ruin the enjoyment of others also.......Many of us, especially me, are ignoramuses about our own countries......All the text presented here is researched in detail from books, Indian websites and so on``

Kindly Sir, would you please reveal the names of the charltans who reviewed the ``researched`` material of this chapter. It is not about the novel but about the unbased propaganda presented as ``fact`` in this novel. You obvously have the ``poetic license``, but please dont claim that ``research`` was done before writing it. I can not imagine that any person with a modicum of knowledge about Indian history can approve the following comments-

1. ``. It was on the ramparts of the Lahore Gate, in mid-August 1947, that India`s first Hindu ruler in eight hundred years, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru uttered the now famous words,``

The esteemed author is probably unaware that India had independent Hindu rulers in every age. The muslim rule of India began after 1192 AD and at best continued till 1750. In eighteenth century Marathas were the major power. Between thirteenth century and sixteenth century before the arrival of Mughals, the Turko-Afghan Sultanate comprised of merely UP, Bihar and Delhi alongwith some portions of Central India and tempoarily Bengal. The South during this period was ruled by Hindu kings, Cholas at first followed by Vijaynagar Empire. Muslim Sultanate could never subdue the indomotable Rajputs who remained independent during this entire period barring occasional reverses. The parts of Southern India were free from Muslim rule even during Mughals. After the death of Aurangjeb, Marathas were the dominant power and later British. Now kindly try subtracting 1750 from 1192 and tell me if the answer was 800.


2. ``It lay in the fact that India`s most important nationalistic spot, the Lahore Gate,``

This, certainly Sir, is news to me :-)


3. ``Pakistanis considered Jehangir and Shah Jehan one of their own and amongst the founding great-grandfathers of their nation. ``

Really! Any evidence that modern day Pakistanis are in any way related to Jehangir and Shah Jahan. I thought their ancestors lived in India. Kindly do some research into the origins of modern day Pakistanis and what they were in the past.


PS Sir, you can write whatever you want since it is your novel. If you feel my comments call for some editing or at least a deeper research, take them in the right spirit else discard them. Wish you good luck with your novel.

...you guys are doing a great job of sustaining interest what with sporadically appearing chapters and loads of technical details...keep it up...

AlphaNull.....6; One must read a novel with an open mind, not a patriotic one......Otherwise you will not enjoy it, and you will ruin the enjoyment of others also.......Many of us, especially me, are ignoramuses about our own countries......All the text presented here is researched in detail from books, Indian websites and so on......It is then sent to individuals in Delhi, London, Islamabad, and San Jose (the co-author of Chapter 1) for review......So far I have been impressed with the knowledge and patriotic neutrality they have shown while providing feedback.....I think I, and all the readers, would like to request the same neutrality from you.......

Chowk Staff: Please feel free to move all the previous chapters from my name to Omer`s name, since they were written by him. I just reviewed and submitted them. Currently, they do not show up under his name.

From the article:

{It was on the ramparts of the Lahore Gate, in mid-August 1947, that India`s first Hindu ruler in eight hundred years, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru uttered the now famous words ...}

{It lay in the fact that India`s most important nationalistic spot, the Lahore Gate, was still named after the most famous city in Pakistan - India`s traditional Muslim enemy to the west. Pakistanis considered Jehangir and Shah Jehan one of their own and amongst the founding great-grandfathers of their nation.}

and from Rafique #5:

{......I thought Nehru was the first Hindu ruler in the past 800 years before independence? - the Mughals started in 1527.....Before them were other dynasties like Lodhis, slaves, and so on....}

The mindset that underlies these remarks is perverse in not one but several ways.

Going by Rafique`s use of `eight hundred years`, Prithvi Raj Chauhan, ruler of Indraprastha, was the `last Hindu ruler of India` before Nehru ... and Bahadur Shah Zafar was the `last Muslim ruler of India.` This is incorrect because (except perhaps in the wistful heartsick imaginations of Mughal scions) India is not synonymous or coterminous with the polity ruled from or containing Delhi, Old or New. The latter territory went through repeated cycles of expansion and contraction over the millenia ... When Bahadur Shah Zafar turned in his papers in 1857, his writ barely extended past the city of Delhi; the Mughals had been reduced to puppets long before. Post 1715, the predominant power in the Indian subcontinent was first the Maratha confederacy and then the British. The latter did not even make Delhi the seat of their power until 1911. That New Delhi is the capital of today`s India is a contingent, not a necessary, fact.

As for Nehru, he was not a ruler in the sense of the monarchs of bygone days, merely the Prime Minister of the elected government of a democratic country. I suppose he was a Hindu by default.

I begin to comprehend though how those who consider `Jehangir and Shah Jehan one of their own and amongst the founding great-grandfathers of their nation` could make the mistakes that Rafique has.

Anyway, I suppose I should be grateful to this work in progress for informing me that ``India`s most important nationalistic spot`` is the Lahore Gate. I`d never heard of it before - I must be a complete ignoramus about my own country!

Once again, my thanks to the Chowk Staff for printing Chapter 5.

rozaiba 1/2...; Good catch....Carl Davis is based on a combination of a few well-known African-American leaders - JC Watts being the second amongst them.....I will leave it to you to guess who is the first...

bharatvaasi 3...; Thanks for the compliment....There will be side swipes against a lot of countries in the next chapters.....Any side swipes at India are unintentional.....The text on India is actually reviewed by a gentlemen in India, before it is sent in to Chowk......I thought Nehru was the first Hindu ruler in the past 800 years before independence? - the Mughals started in 1527.....Before them were other dynasties like Lodhis, slaves, and so on....

Urstruly 4.....; Badshaho, thoda sabar karo......Punjabi is a good lead in, since two out of the next three chapters are based in Punjab, Pakistan.......

The political choices the VP has to make and their likely ramifications are add a lot to this story.

Is Carl Davis Jr. supposed to be based on JC Watts? Watts was of course a QB for the Sooners. And later became a minister i think.

Very good read. The authors have to be commended for this....

With the usual side swipes at India - well what else acn be expected. and yes Nehru was not indias first hindu ruler. He was Indian`s first Prime Minister in the post British era. Atleast get your facts staright.

This was a very goood read.

yaar Rafique Sahib

hun tussi oh sap kad hi lo

This is really really good.

To gather all these characters expectedly heading in one direction is an art.