Khaki wisdom -- One-way ticket to Hell

Ustruly,

1. ``sissification`` and ``faggotization`` are words only an ignorant person uses. M`ashallah, given your own country, you`d eclipse the current loony tune in Turkenmenistan...

2. What do you know of how I use my name? I know the concept of ``ethics`` is very slippery and confusing for you, but wrap your ittle bitty brain cells around the fact that I use my Pakistani maiden name.

3. And you still haven`t answered the question; where exactly do you and your worse self Gulab Jamun live?

well I agree that defense forces should not rule a state. But in Pakistan executive and judiciary are not strong enough and qualified enough in their work. So they give way to army to come in and grab the power.

this is not to say that army has credentials to rule a state but it is to say that executive and judiciary are weak. Army is strong institution, well managed and they have clear thinking what they want to do.

May I ask what credentials new PM of Pakistan has ? education wise, work wise ? can he talk in front of world leaders ? can he negotiate ? does he now spellings of FINANCE ? does he knows what problems Pakistan have ?

Now you give argument that let executive and judiciary flourish ? why is this a University where you admit politicians and judges to get TRAINING at the expense of people ?

My dear when you are weak at your work then your colleagues who are good at their work will come and replace you from your seat.

So don`t blame army (only institute left in Pakistan which is doing well) and tell executive and judiciary to get a character and will and then talk.

solve Kashmir dispute, make peace with India, get Pakistani people educated, do land reforms, build roads and army will not come again.

peace.

- bawaqoof

Khaki WISDOM anywhere usually is an oxymoron.

Abrar Akbar, I commend you for the footnote. Believe me, you are not alone when it comes to this request. But Musharraf did not go far enough in ``confessing`` the misdeeds of 1971.

Ras

Urstruly (#25)

Dear Urstuly:

I find your answers are certainly civilized and pertinent, and allow for a civil communication. BTW, I have been living for almost 30-years in the U.S., and far longer than in India. This has given me many opportunities to interact and meet with some of the finest South Asians (including Pakistanis). Indeed, I have read all the Brits (and more) you have mentioned. Brits had an axe to grind and present a biased politics to Indian leadership and masses. My point is that ML leadership believed Congress was the power, and forgot that electorate is the true power. My examples of Churchill to Indira Gandhi was to point out the power of electorate. Many Indian leaders contemporary to Jinnah would have related more to Jinnah than to Hindu fundamentalists.

You do not have to agree with me, but I see parties as mere mechanisms to accumulation and distribution of power in democracy. When Congress was going after Muslim supporters it had rightly recognized the power of electorate. Jinnah made a feeble attempt to go after schedule caste Hindus. The strategy did not work as it was divisionary rather than uniting into a competing block to Congress. All of my reading of Jinnah`s speeches post 1938 election indicate an emptiness toward such a creation. When Nehru was in power he also struggled to face electorate power first in Kerala and later elsewhere. Anyone who understood it too well, like it or not, was Gandhi. He successfully built his constituency and fed it very well by frequently visiting the masses and doing simple things that appealed the masses.

The attempt to organize electorate on religious ground by ML, according to my analysis and my readings, was playing into British hands. I have reprints of Jinnah and others old papers that suggest Brits tried to organize Muslim polity as separate electorate as early as 1900-1910. I have no doubt in my mind that from my analysis and readings if Jinnah had decided to keep India United, he would have been head of entire India, and South Asians, and not just Pakistani Muslims, would have been better off. Somewhere, somwhow Jinnah got hijacked, you and other Pakistanis may say it was Congress and Hindu fundamentalists. I would say that he failed to understand the power of electorate and electoral math. Do you know that one of the first acts of the government of India was to ban RSS and Hindu Mahasabha. ML until last year, could not ban the extremists in Pakistan. I am pointing these out to you to say that reactionary Hindus were banned in 1948, and the act shows differences in India among Hindus. Religion, according to me, is a personal choice and affair. I am also saying that Indians would find their own answers. A fuming Pakistani adds fuel to the fire of hatred in India. Hindu fundamentalist see fuming Pakistani as a sign of their victory. Forget about me, talk to Indian Muslims and you will get their feelings on this issue. Just remember how much African-African could help the cause of African-American. Do you know what helped African-American cause was Martin Luther King who could rise and make key people realize how abhoring the practice of racism was. It still has not died down, but even Bush distancing himself from Lott is reassuring to me that goodness always prevails over evil eventually.

I also disgaree with the notion that muslims were downtrodden. Muslims in fact were the rulers, african americans were downtrodden. Until Sir Syed Ahmad, Muslims ignored the value and importance of western education. You might already know that Benares Hindu University was organized after Aligarh Muslim University. Incidentally, if you are ready to see beyond the glasses of religion you will notice that only few community from few parts of India were chosen to be educated to feed the babu class, and few community, from few regions were chosen to be the cannon fodder and trained accordingly by the Brits. Similarly, the Brits chose only a few community from few regions to trade and prepared them for economy. I would leave it for you to research it out. You would then see the growth in India was not along the religious lines, it was on the lines Brits wanted for Rule Britannia.

Yes, I have read about Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and also heard him speak in Delhi in 1960`s. I have known about Wali Khan of National Awami Party, and G. M. Syyed of Sindh. I do not know much about the last two. Do you also know what happened to these, whereas you may realize that opponents of Gandhi did not end up in Jails, some go power.

Best regards.
ANIL KAPURIA

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

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

re:#7 by Urstruly
Mr Urstruly,
When are you ever going to keep faith with your titile?
When you say
``These clowns could not even dare point their weapons at us, the people of Paksitan, if they did not have a nod and wink from the so called ``champions of freedom and democracy``
you are being too simplistic.
Who put these clowns (the Army) on the high pedestel in the first place? The people, right?
Did US encourage Mushy to stage a coup after the Kargil fiasco? Why did i not hear about a single public rally protesting against the coup? Newspapers, general public welcomed Mushy as if he were a saviour. Today, we know he was saving his own position.
US is only taking advantage of the fact that Mushy is acting alike a ``whore`` to keep his position. It suits US. Ultimately, people of Pak have to decide what they want. If they want a dictator, that is what they will get. If they want a fundamentalist regime, that is what they will get.

Sridhar

Urstruly #20,

Other than you re-writing history, the only freedom Pakistanis have won is to be endlessly brutalized by the the Army and to periodically be sold to the highest bidder.

I wouldn`t wish that kind of freedom on my worst enemy.

Anil # 23

Would you not say that 1938 election was a clear rejection of separation by Muslim electorate, and that Jinnah and ML may have misread the results, and Lahore resolution of 1940 was a reaction to this loss?..............

Yes I would say that, and that is what I wrote in my last post. But you did not understand my point. My point was that it was not the result of the 1938 elections that changed the Muslim mind it was the way congress ran the government after 1938 elections. The longstanding Muslim allegations that Congress was representing Hindus only was voiced also by eminent British personalities, e.g. The Marquees of Lothian in April 1938 termed the Congress rule as a ``rising tide of Hindu rule``. Sir William Barton writing in ``National Review`` in June 1939 also termed the Congress rule as ``the rising tide of political Hinduism``. And when Congress Government was dissolved in 1939, Jinnah declared December 22, 1939, as a Day of Deliverance and thanks-giving in token of relief from the tyranny and oppression of the Congress rule.


You have every right to express that Pakistani Muslims can say their past leaders were right. No one can take that right away. However, according to my reading, ML leaders thought Congress was the power. Whereas the Congress was only a contestant to the power. ML forgot that in democracy parties are only mechanisms of power, and the real power is always with the electorate. Indira Gandhi found out in 1977, Winston Churchill ……..

Your point is irrelevant. It would have been relative had Indira Gandhi been a leader of Muslims in India or Churchill were a leader of Catholic Ireland. The point is that you have to look into the mindset of Muslims through the perspective of not just minority but the oppressed minority. Keep in mind that British took India from Muslims and they made sure that they be put in the right place (as compared to Hindus).


The differences among ``fearsome`` Hindus were very clear even before Jinnah passed away in 1948, when a Hindu zealot murdered Gandhi. Curiously, if Congress leadership could go after ``liberal and orthodox Muslims`` alike for support. Contemporaneously, ML could have done similarly. As the leader of ML, the first thing I would have done was to change its name from being identified as Muslims.

ML came into being to safeguard the interests of Muslim minority specifically. If it had done what you said, then ML and Congress would have been just redundant. It fails the purpose of having multi-party system.


As a reader of South Asia, I find that India limps along comfortably to the next stage in its growth - the economic development. Whereas, Pakistan struggles and learns to control its Military power. By 2010, for Indian economy, the cost of defending Kashmir would be no more than the cost of defending Watts Riots or Rodney King Riots in LA for the U.S. economy. This statement does not indicate that I support the Indian army controlling its own citizens in Kashmir. My statement certainly indicates that Indian leaders would not be rattled by sabre-rattling on Kashmir front. Kashmir and Kashmiris would certainly suffer from the impasse, but effect on Pakistani economy would be greater if it survives the prowling by a giant with 5,000 ton bombs and other high tech armaments next door in Afganistan.

I have all the best wishes for your country. However, I do not think that Kashmir is ever going to turn the way you suggested. And I would also say that, in Kashmir’s struggle for independence Paksitan has now become irrelevant. I also think that despite the fact that Paksitan has also found cost effective ways to keep up with India (militarily), the prospects of an armed conflict are diminishing and will disappear altogether in near future. Two of the Paksitani objectives (i) Politicize Kashmir issue and (ii) Internationalize the issue have been met. A military objective is and never was possible. I hope people of India will realize that soon.

You cannot look at today and thank the powers to be of the past. Fuming Pakistani of today looking at the abyssmal conditions of Muslims in India, is a feast to the eyes of ``Narendra Modi`` of India. This reaction only encourages more ``Modis``. Also by doing this you fall in the trap of glossing over the mistakes of your ``ancestors`` and inadvertantly demonstrate eagerness to thank God for a very human disease of hatred.

I don’t understand your convoluted logic in this argument. Modi and Modi-ism is your dragon to slay not ours. As human beings and not just Muslims it is not just our right but duty to condemn the genocide of Muslims in India. Are you suggesting that we should keep quite because that way you get bad governments and bad leaders? And it should somehow be our problem?

In India, you would certainly find enough critics of Gandhi, just as you would find the supporters. But how many critics of Jinnah would you find in Pakistan today? If the answer is not soul searching, then would you not say that Pakistani`s more than Indians have made their leader into a demi-god?

Reading through independent sources and interacting more with Paksitanis may help change your pre-conceived notions. There is no dearth of voices of dissent in Paksitan. To name a few, Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan, G.M. Syyed, Mehmood Achakzai, Mizari, and a whole cadre of fifth columnist former commies who now call themselves liberals are opposed to what Jinnah has done for us. As a matter of fact they have spared no opportunity to dismantle Paksitan. and by any stretch of imagination they are neither pygmies nor pariahs. Have you ever heard these names?

More Pakistani nuclear transfers

---
The Evil Behind the Axis?
A scientist who built Pakistan`s nuclear bomb may have helped alleged efforts by Iraq, Iran and North Korea to develop weapons.
By Maggie Farley and Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writers

January 5 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- If one man sits at the nuclear fulcrum of the three countries President Bush calls the ``axis of evil,`` it may well be Abdul Qadeer Khan.

The 66-year-old metallurgist is considered the father of Pakistan`s nuclear bomb. He is a national hero at home, where hospitals bear his name and children sing his praises. U.S. and other Western officials do not. They say Khan is the only scientist known to be linked to the alleged efforts of North Korea, Iraq and Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

``If the international community had a proliferation most-wanted list, A. Q. Khan would be most wanted on the list,`` said Robert J. Einhorn, who was assistant secretary of State for nonproliferation in the Clinton administration.

U.S. intelligence long has known of Khan`s activities. But the extent of his ties to all three ``axis`` nations became public only recently as North Korea admitted resuming its nuclear weapons effort, satellite photos showed that Iran may be conducting clandestine nuclear work and Khan`s name appeared in a letter offering to ``manufacture a nuclear weapon`` for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Pakistan denies giving nuclear assistance to other countries and insists that Khan has done no wrong. But under intense U.S. pressure, President Pervez Musharraf abruptly removed Khan as head of nuclear weapons development two years ago. Bush administration officials, wary of undermining a partner in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, publicly downplay concerns about Islamabad`s possible role in spreading nuclear knowledge.

Privately, U.S. officials have confronted Pakistani leaders in recent years with the suggestion that Islamabad might not have complete control over its nuclear scientists. However, some analysts and experts doubt that a maverick scientist working alone -- even one as senior as Khan -- could have engineered such sensitive deals with so many governments.

``We know he`s been [to North Korea] at least 13 times, perhaps more,`` Gaurav Kampani, a nuclear expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, said of Khan. ``It`s obviously been sanctioned by institutions within the Pakistani government.``

Khan, with graying wavy hair and a salt-and-pepper mustache, has shrugged off charges that he is a nuclear Johnny Appleseed. Instead, he portrays himself as a scientist, a patriot -- and a pacifist.

``Some people have the impression that because I built a nuclear bomb, I`m some sort of cruel person,`` he told a Pakistani journalist in 2001.

``That`s not the case. I built a weapon of peace, which seems hard to understand until you realize Pakistan`s nuclear capability is a deterrent to aggressors. There has not been a war in the last 30 years, and I don`t expect one in the future. The stakes are too high.``

Unlike two other senior Pakistani nuclear scientists who were questioned by U.S. and Pakistani authorities in 2001 after meetings with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, Khan is not an Islamic radical.

``He is not a fundamentalist, though he is nationalist -- and sometimes nationalism and religion get mixed up in Pakistan,`` said Pervez Hoodbhoy, an anti-nuclear activist and MIT-trained physicist who teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan`s capital. ``He has been in it for the power, the money and the glory.``

Khan has received all three. When he ran Pakistan`s bomb-building program, he reported directly to the nation`s leader and had free-flowing funds at his disposal. U.S. officials say Khan owns several palatial residences. And he is revered not only at home, where he is hailed for putting Pakistan on an equal nuclear footing with rival India, but also in much of the Muslim world, where he is lionized as the man who built the ``Islamic bomb.``

One-upmanship Begins

It began when India tested a nuclear device in 1974 and Pakistan immediately sought to catch up. Khan kick-started the country`s nuclear program the following year, allegedly providing copied plans for gas centrifuges from the Urenco uranium enrichment facility in the Netherlands, where he had worked. He also obtained a list of suppliers that would prove invaluable. Khan ultimately was tried for treason in absentia in the Netherlands, but the case was dropped when prosecutors failed to properly deliver a summons.

``He stole the blueprints,`` said David Kay, who headed nuclear weapons evaluation programs at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna from 1982 to 1992. ``But he`s not a cat burglar who snatched some plans. He`s a very good scientist.``

Khan took charge of Pakistan`s uranium enrichment program in 1976. Using the Urenco designs, his team secretly built gas centrifuges at the A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta, a heavily guarded complex near Islamabad. A separate agency, Pakistan`s Atomic Energy Organization, built the weapons using what U.S. officials believe were plans obtained from China.

Pakistan detonated its first nuclear devices underground in May 1998, shortly after India launched a second series of nuclear tests. But U.S. officials say Pakistan had produced its first nuclear weapon a decade earlier, thanks to Khan`s success at the hardest part of bomb-building: producing fissile material. Islamabad today is believed to have 30 to 60 nuclear weapons.

Khan has proudly recounted how his team procured key components openly from Western companies that were willing to help -- and by subterfuge when they weren`t. Khan said in an interview with Pakistan`s Defense Journal that Western governments tried to prevent his nation from developing nuclear weapons but were foiled by the greed of their own companies.

``Many suppliers approached us with the details of the machinery and with figures and numbers of instruments and materials,`` he said. ``They begged us to purchase their goods.``

For other items, the team used offshore front companies in nations such as Japan and Singapore, sometimes routing the goods through Jordan.

``I am not a madman or a nut,`` Khan told an interviewer in 2001. ``If making nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of safeguarding the existence, independence and sovereignty of your country could be termed madness or fanaticism, there are many thousands in other countries who should be awarded even bigger titles. I am proud of my work for my country. It has given Pakistanis a sense of pride, security, and has been a great scientific achievement.``

But international officials worry that Pakistan, through Khan, has spread that nuclear knowledge to other countries. The strongest evidence appears in North Korea.

U.S. officials say Khan initiated talks with the North Koreans in 1992 to obtain 10 to 12 medium-range Nodong ballistic missiles to help Pakistan boost its military profile against India. The Americans say the deal was finalized during a secret 1993 visit to North Korea by Benazir Bhutto, then Pakistan`s prime minister.

In April 1998, Pakistan test-fired a knockoff Nodong missile renamed the Ghauri I, which can carry a nuclear payload deep into India. A month later, North Koreans attended Pakistan`s first nuclear tests, according to European diplomats.

In exchange for the missiles, U.S. and other officials say, Pakistan gave North Korea designs for Khan`s gas centrifuges and other assistance needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. After a tense diplomatic standoff with the Clinton administration, North Korea promised to suspend its enrichment program in 1994. It recently admitted that it had broken that pledge, however, and said it would resume its effort to build nuclear weapons.

Khan has also played a notable role in Iran`s nuclear development.

In 1986, Pakistan and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement after Khan visited Bushehr, a nuclear power plant that Tehran is building with Russian help. After subsequent visits by Khan, Western intelligence reported that Iranian scientists received training in Pakistan in 1988 and that Pakistan was helping Iran build a nuclear reactor in 1990. The exchanges seemed to cease by 1993 when Pakistan and Iran became rivals over Afghanistan, said Ibrahim Marashi, a proliferation expert at the Monterey Institute.

Because Iran has abundant oil and other energy sources, U.S. officials long have suspected that Bushehr is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. Concerns increased last month when satellite photos showed construction at two other Iranian facilities, Arak and Natanz, that Iranian dissidents contend are being used for nuclear weapons development. Iran insists that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes only.

Khan`s role with Iraq is less clear. In October 1990, two months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, an intermediary claiming to represent Khan met agents from Baghdad`s secret service. A memo dated Oct. 6, 1990, from Section B-15 of Iraqi intelligence to Section S-15 of the Nuclear Weapons Directorate describes ``a proposal from Pakistani scientist Abd-el Qadeer Khan`` to help Iraq ``establish a project to enrich uranium and manufacture a nuclear weapon.``

The middleman said Khan ``was prepared to give us project designs for nuclear bombs,`` according to the memo. The middleman said he was based in Greece and would oversee shipments from Western Europe, using a company he claimed to own in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, according to sources who have studied the memo.

U.N. weapons inspectors found the memo in 1995 in a cache of documents hidden at a chicken farm near Baghdad. They determined that Iraq had rejected the middleman`s offer, but Iraq refused to identify him.

A letter from the International Atomic Energy Agency to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997 details interviews with agents from Mukhabarat, Baghdad`s secret service, who described Iraq`s clandestine nuclear program, code-named the Petrochemical-3 project. The agents said that ``PC-3 had adopted a policy of avoiding foreign assistance, believing that the risk of exposure (e.g. through `sting` operations) far outweighed the likely technical benefits.``

In 1998, Pakistan`s government investigated the middleman`s letter at the IAEA`s request and declared the offer a fraud. The nuclear agency concluded that charges of Pakistani proliferation were ``inconsistent with the information available,`` but it listed the memo as a key unresolved issue in a 1999 U.N. report on Iraq`s arms programs. Iraq`s recent 12,000-page arms declaration referred twice to the ``unsolicited offer.``

``The memo was taken quite seriously,`` said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq. ``There`s this pattern of leakage out of Pakistan. These people broke almost every country`s law to get their own nuclear components.``

Nuclear Chief`s Ouster

In March 2001, Musharraf removed Khan as head of Pakistan`s nuclear programs and named him a presidential advisor -- a move that nation`s nuclear hero heard about on television and at first refused to accept.

However, U.S. officials suspected that the exchanges with other nations continued, especially after U.S. spy satellites spotted Pakistani military cargo planes picking up missile parts in North Korea last July. The North told U.S. officials that the parts were for surface-to-air missiles, not for a missile that could deliver a nuclear weapon.

In June 2001, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage all but named Khan when he expressed concern that ``people who were employed by the nuclear agency and have retired`` might be spreading nuclear technology to North Korea.

After North Korea confessed last fall that it had resumed its nuclear weapons program, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell again confronted Pakistan`s president about illegal assistance.

``Musharraf assured me, as he has previously, that Pakistan is not doing anything of that nature,`` Powell said, though he noted that they did not speak of Pakistan`s past contacts with North Korea. ``The past is the past. I am more concerned about what is going on now. We have a new relationship with Pakistan.``

However, a senior U.S. official says the Bush administration keeps a wary eye on the retired scientist as he oversees philanthropic groups, runs seminars and feeds stray animals in his neighborhood.

``How can you stop the transfer of intellectual property?`` the official said. ``The potential for sharing is always there.``

Urstruly #20

Would you not say that 1938 election was a clear rejection of separation by Muslim electorate, and that Jinnah and ML may have misread the results, and Lahore resolution of 1940 was a reaction to this loss? Would you also not say that the Unionist Government in united Punjab was an example of functional democracy and the law of electoral math in post WW II politics of South Asia (I prefer to call it South Asia)? Was it also not a preview of result oriented compromises and how the democracy could have worked across the community and religious barriers in that part of the world?

You have every right to express that Pakistani Muslims can say their past leaders were right. No one can take that right away. However, according to my reading, ML leaders thought Congress was the power. Whereas the Congress was only a contestant to the power. ML forgot that in democracy parties are only mechanisms of power, and the real power is always with the electorate.

Indira Gandhi found out in 1977, Winston Churchill found out shortly after winning the war, and many leaders in democracies have similarly found out too. Nehru found out in Kerala in the second general election.

The differences among ``fearsome`` Hindus were very clear even before Jinnah passed away in 1948, when a Hindu zealot murdered Gandhi. Curiously, if Congress leadership could go after ``liberal and orthodox Muslims`` alike for support. Contemporaneously, ML could have done similarly. As the leader of ML, the first thing I would have done was to change its name from being identified as Muslims.

Within 10 years of installation of Indian constitution, Kerala became a good example of democracy and the power of minorities; and became a heartache for Nehru. This happened in less than three general elections in India after independence. In the fifth general election Congress lost Madras and Bengal, never to regain there again. In sixth general election, Indira Gandhi lost her power. Illiterate electorates of India showed the door to her, this was the best proof of the power of electoral votes and math in South Asia. Five years earlier, after the Bangladesh war, she was hailed as the Goddess.

While it is true that hindsight is 20/20, but for leaders the vision and not the hindsight is better.

As a reader of South Asia, I find that India limps along comfortably to the next stage in its growth - the economic development. Whereas, Pakistan struggles and learns to control its Military power. By 2010, for Indian economy, the cost of defending Kashmir would be no more than the cost of defending Watts Riots or Rodney King Riots in LA for the U.S. economy. This statement does not indicate that I support the Indian army controlling its own citizens in Kashmir. My statement certainly indicates that Indian leaders would not be rattled by sabre-rattling on Kashmir front. Kashmir and Kashmiris would certainly suffer from the impasse, but effect on Pakistani economy would be greater, if it survives the prowling by a giant with 5,000 ton bombs and other high tech armaments next door in Afganistan.

Indian system more than just leadership (and not just Muslim leadership) must deal with the abysmal condition of its people and their discriminatory tendencies.

You cannot look at today and thank the powers to be of the past. Fuming Pakistani of today looking at the abyssmal conditions of Muslims in India, is a feast to the eyes of ``Narendra Modi`` of India. This reaction only encourages more ``Modis``. Also by doing this you fall in the trap of glossing over the mistakes of your ``ancestors`` and inadvertantly demonstrate eagerness to thank God for a very human disease of hatred.

In India, you would certainly find enough critics of Gandhi, just as you would find the supporters. But how many critics of Jinnah would you find in Pakistan today? If the answer is not soul searching, then would you not say that Pakistani`s more than Indians have made their leader into a demi-god?

Best regards.
ANIL KAPURIA

Ahh the khakis:

The qaumi tarana of what was supposed to be Pakeeza should be:

``In hee logoN ney ley liyaa duppatta mairaa.

Humree naa maanoN ,---- sipahyaa sey poochoh,
jiss ney bajarvaa mein chheenaa duppatta meira.``

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in case the Hindians are playing the armpits:

This is for them:

``Sujj rahee kaisee meree ammaN sunehray gotay mein``
____________________________________________________________

Urstruly:

Thanks for a good laugh....`` kyaa voh dilli ma raataa``?

Anil # 15

No one leaves Paki Pakai Plate - no matter how stupid. Muslim religious leadership was well aware of this fact and hence opposed the creation of separate homeland - their contention was to have faith in the system if you can`t have faith in Hindus but what really broke camel`s back was the Congress dominated Government of 1938. That really made the case of unionists weak. It actually opened the eyes of Muslims and gave them the glimpse of future to come. That resulted in Lahore Resolution of 1940 where the case for a seprate Muslim homeland was approved by the majority. But keep in mind that it was not without dissent. In 1946 when Cabinet Mission Plan was put forth the case for a separate homeland was still in infantile stage but CMP posed a catch 22 situation. Congress was not ready to grant any more concessions to ML because they correctly assumed that in either case they - whether India is divided or not - they hold the royal flush; meaning that if India remains united being a majority they keep all the cards and if it is divided the new Muslim state would not survive past six months. On the Muslim side there was an experience of 1938 and other option was to take their chances. The genocide of Muslims in Bengal in 1946 left them with no option but to accept the formula of division as laid out by CMP.

The point is that anyone can be wise after the fact, the real test is how you decide at the time. And now when after the fact we are wise and we can see the abyssmal condition of Muslim in India we thank God that our ancestors made the right decision.

As far as going to the ``colonial powers`` for aid is concerned, I think that at the time Muslim leadership made the right decision. We must look at it through the perspective of post Second World War era international politics and how world was rapidly changing to bipolar blocks. What chances a fragile state had when it also had to face the openly hostile and sworn enemy of a neighbor.

But now times have changed. A time has finally come when Paksitan can claim its freedom. Freedom comes with a cost - we will pay.

Urstruly #13

I disagree with Usruly that India had better institutions in 1947.

Most of the Indian states did not exist until 1956-1960. There was no Gujurat - part of the Bombay Presidency There was no Tamilnadu - part of the Madras Presidency.

India had a higher population density and more ethnic diversity. In 1947 Punjab had the best irrigation system in India. It is still better than the irrigation system in some Indian states.

If there was any advantage that existed in India it was political leadership. whatever their shortcomings Nehru, Sardar Patel ... were a notch or two above the pygmies that ruled Pakistan.

.... the mongols are reponsible for all this

........ yea .... ever since the mongol invasion and the fall of baghdad things have not been the same ...... and then there were the bloddy russians who took over central asia and the french who absolutely destroyed us in egypt - may the fleas of a thousand camels infest the armpits of napolean`s great grandsons ! .........and then there were the horrible british who set up all those factories in bombay and put sikander hayat in charge of punjab and introduces miswar to the pathans so that they could get stoned and chase the boys .......... and then there is the bania who stole the oil from our diyas and lighted up his mandirs ........ and the parsis who wouldn`t give us any money when we needed it ......... and the bohras and the khojas who were in cahoots with the british and the anglo-indians to keep the beralvis and the deobandis in servitude ......... and then there were the biharis who swamped karachi with their hindoo ways ........... and the dutch with nestles and the finns with nokia and the chinese with their chinsey tinker toys and bad mao suits and socialist ideas who corrupted our young and set bhutto on the wrong path ......... and they were followed by the nefarious south koreans and taiwanese with their cheap washing machines that turned the great industrial city of gujarat into a ghost town ..........

............ everyone and their nephew has worked hard to keep us down, and now it the americans with their stale bic macs and daisy cutters and promiscuous women ............. hoolywood and bollywood together with texaco and general motors is out to destroy us .........ever since the mongols invaded baghdad ............. there is only one way to save ourselves - we must start praying five times a day a............. yea, that`s it - if only we would pray five times a day ................

Arjunm

``....., are you planning to head across the border into canuckistan? ``


No actually I am planning to change my name like all others e.g. saminashah now calls herself Suddenly Susan and hamidm is planning on changing his name to Leroy Jackson. Whereas I think hamdim should change his name to Al Ben Dover; with this name and his pink pathan behind he can easily pass for a jew. And me......I am changing my name to Ganpat Roy. Next time when I will be waiting in security check up line at an American Airport with red paint on my forehead and a red neck immigration officer will yell my name in southern accent ``Gaand Putt Raa ayy?``, I with a smile on my lips will say in my heart ``not any more`` whereas my lips would say ``Yes SirI Ji Hazoor``.