Towards Greater Tolerance

Great article, I agree with it entirely.
One question though- you say that ``...The first man to talk of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations was V.D. Savarkar who coined the word ‘Hindutva’ in a book with the same title in 1923``. Wasn`t it Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who was infact advocating separate seats for Muslims in councils since 1883? As far as I know, he was dead by 1898- after a lifeime of convincing Muslims of the great differneces between them and the hindus. That would cerrtainly make it seem as though he had the idea first...

Forget what the unintelligent, brain dead Indians (I am one of them) think about you. Who are we to judge you. Get rid of the India obsession. I am a guy who admire Imran Khan. I remember him giving an interview to the DD when I was a kid. He clearly told the audience what ``PATRIOTISM`` has done to the human kind. This single word has eroded all human values.

Its ok if you feel happy to say that Kushwanth is the greatest Indian intellectual.

We unfairly blame politicians when in fact the mainstream politicians both in the Congress and Muslim league were in fact largely secular. What was wrong was the way democracy was defined.

The basis of modern government in a diverse and multi-religious region has to be re-defined. Democracy as defined by the rule of the majority cannot be the sole basis for determining the manner in which laws are passed or the nation is governed.

As an example:

If 51 people in group of 100 decide to shave their heads the other 49 are not likely to follow suit simply because the ``majority`` says so. The equation does not change much if the ratio is 66 out of 33 (which was the ratio of Hindus to Muslims in pre-partition India). A classic case is the issue of cow slaughter in India . If a parliament in New Delhi passed a law banning beef it was unlikely that the Naga, Mizo, Khasi tribals in the North East or the Afridis in the North West would change their dietry habits because some MPs had been pressured by sadhus in Allahabad. Today India is the only ``free`` democracy in the world to institute legal dietary constraints on its people although the North eastern tribes actually care very little what the Kumbh Mela sadhus think and say as much. The Afridis, Muslim Bengalis, Muslim Punjabis, Baluchis and Sindhis ar no longer with us to for comment.

The answer was to rule without forcing issues on the basis of religious or cultural agenda.The British realised this 1857 when a trivial cultural oversight of grease on rifle cartridges in the army acted as a trigger for the eruption of a national revolt. There were other issues for the uprising in 1857 but the issue of cultural or religious non-interference was largely driven home to the British. They subsequently became ``tax-collectors`` with a ``Star Trek`` type prime directive of non-interference in religious or cultural affairs.The Radcliffe Plan attempted this solution in a post-partition scenario but was rejected by hardliners in the Congress.

It was realised very belatedly in India that the insistance by the Congress of a simple ``one-man-one vote `` basis has led to tragic consequences.
Becaue the Baluchi feared rule by Delhi which would regulate ( amongst other issues) what he ate we now have come to ridiculous situation where we are ready to nuke each other over the issue. Which is why in post-independence India even with a majority and howls from ``nationalistic`` hardliners not a single religious, cultural or linguistic issue ( cow-slaughter is a notable exception) has been forced on others. Some of the issues are:

-English continues to be used as a link language and Hindi is not used by the
Southern and North Eastern states for official communications. A number
other languages are recognised as official as represented by the number of times
the denomination of the currency note is spelled out in various languages.The only
one of its kind, the Indian rupee note outdoes even the Euro in the number of
languages depicted on it.

-Common Civil Code: This has yet to be adopted despite a constitutional directive
The religious personal laws of the minorities AND of the majority is yet in use.

-Individual state laws: The most common example of this is the status of Kashmir
and some North Eastern tribal states where the ethnic and cultural identity of the
the people are protected from migration from other states of India.


-Partitioning of states. States in India have been partitioned and re-partioned
several times to ensure that the ``aspirations of the people of that region`` are
represented.

India is ultimately going to become a confederation as envisaged by Lord Wavell and Cyril Radcliffe. It is regrettable however that the process will take one century and hundreds of thousands of lives in communal conflict. Added to that is the ever present danger that we may yet have a nuclear war merely over `` a slab of beef``.


Azeemabadi

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

re: Pakistan will be next
Following is the article by Khalid Md from TFT in its entireity. I thought this was so important that i am just pasting it (i usually hate doing this).
I had said in the past that only democracy has the kind of resilence that accomdates for the changing times. The changing times demand that Pak accomodate with India on the question of Kashmir (i am saying accomdate not give up on Kashmir) and move on to build better relations. It benefits Pak immensely to have good trade with one of the biggeste markets next door. But Army ruling Pak has a different agenda. The Army Brass in Pak sing the same tune. It is Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir. There is no policy at all. This is why, there is little hope for Pak`s future, as long as the Army is in control.

The following article suggests that Pak will be the next target, after Iraq. This is not outside the realm of possibilties.
Read on:


``Pakistan will have to be ‘next’


Pakistan lacks the capacity to produce solutions to its problems internally. Just two years ago Islamabad kept offering its Taliban strategy as a policy without alternatives even after admitting that it was hurting Pakistan’s external image and internal security. It was finally overturned, with great loss to Pakistani citizens who were allowed to become pawns in it, simply because of an incapacity to intellectually tackle the problem of total international isolation. Islamabad is becoming globally isolated once again on the question of relations with India. While no one agrees with it, Pakistan is unable to show even the minimum amount of flexibility of approach to prevent an ‘external solution’ from being imposed on it. There is no doubt that Pakistan will be ‘next’ unless Pakistan changes its spots and starts thinking ‘laterally’ for once to save itself from disaster


s America makes ready to invade Iraq, the world is also preparing itself to absorb the shock when it comes. All the regional states have a strategy of coping with the consequences of the invasion. They have acted ‘pragmatically’ by evolving a back-up position if President Bush doesn’t heed their protestations of caution and moderation. The Gulf States are ‘on board’ by giving military facilities to the United States forces. All the states enjoy considerable internal sovereignty to cope with the consequences of the invasion. They enjoy the sort of control over population needed to avoid falling apart under pressure from popular passion. There is practically no terrorist activity in their territories, the random acts against American nationals in them having been taken care of. That leaves Pakistan as the only state where the population is not under control and terrorist activity is far from being conclusively tackled. In fact, in case America succeeds in staging a neat surgical invasion of Iraq, the trouble in Pakistan will become glaring in its incongruity.

The deficit of internal control: When people in Pakistan say that Pakistan will be ‘next’, their subliminal message is that its internal disorder and its external implications would not be easily ignored and some kind of action would be needed to wean the country from aberrant behaviour. The period of ‘pragmatism’ under General Musharraf was at best a period of half measures which satisfied neither the divided groupings inside Pakistan nor the anti-terrorist coalition abroad. After a decade and a half of ‘idealism’ Pakistan discovered ‘pragmatism’ in the face of UN Security Council resolutions following the 9/11 act of terrorism. The army pulled out of its ‘strategic depth’ blunder in Afghanistan and banned the four major jehadi organisations it was covertly supporting. What happened instead was more terrorism. The beginning of the year 2002 saw the inhuman beheading of the American journalist Daniel Pearl, followed by bomb attacks on Christians in Islamabad in February-March and the killing of 11 French technicians in Karachi in May. The following month the American Consulate in Karachi was attacked by the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. In July, General Musharraf himself narrowly escaped being killed through a remote-controlled explosion. The following month Christians were targeted in Murree and Taxila. In September more Christians were found with their throats slit in Karachi. Sectarian killings in Punjab ran parallel to the inferno of Karachi. In December, terrorists were caught planning to kill Americans working in the Karachi consulate, and on Christmas, Christian children were blown up in Daska in Punjab. Despite Pakistan’s denial that Al Qaeda was operating inside Pakistan, its leader Abu Zubaida was captured in Faisalabad and notorious Ramzi al-Shibh was caught from Karachi, while a key figure Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was said to be still at large in the city.

In 2003, terrorism is still rampant in the country. (Columnist Inayatullah contested during a discussion on 29 January 2003 in Lahore that there was more terrorism in India than in Pakistan; but the advisories are against Pakistan only, and foreign shareholders meet their Pakistani counterparts in Dubai, while tourism in India is open and foreign investors land in India without fear.) All the leaders banned for their involvement in activities endangering Pakistan’s security are out in the open once again and threatening more Islamic jehad while General Musharraf tries to persuade that it is no longer in the interest of the state to wage mercenary jehad. He says cross-border jehad in Kashmir is at an end but no one really believes him, not even Pakistanis who have knowledge about the activities of the banned but renamed militias. More and more of their activists are caught with weapons and explosives to give the lie to the claim that Pakistan has tamed its local terrorists. Sectarian killings are fewer but still going on. Non-Muslim communities still feel unsafe living in Pakistan and terrorists with plans to hit them have been caught just in time. On the basis of information given to American interrogators by such Arab terrorists as Abu Zubaida, more and more Pakistani doctors and scientists with strict Islamic training are found to be linked to Al Qaeda. More dangerously, Pakistan is seen covertly supporting a Taliban fight-back on the border with Afghanistan in which American troops have suffered casualties.

A threatened reassessment: America seems to be ‘unofficially’ moving towards a reassessment of Pakistan as an ally, given these developments. Seymour M. Hersh writing in New Yorker (27 January 2003) stated: ‘Last June, four months before the current crisis over North Korea became public, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a comprehensive analysis of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions to President Bush and his top advisers. The document, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, was classified as Top Secret, and its distribution within the government was tightly restricted. The CIA report made the case that North Korea had been violating international law—and agreements with South Korea and the United States—by secretly obtaining the means to produce weapons-grade uranium. The document’s most politically sensitive information, however, was about Pakistan. Since 1997, the CIA said, Pakistan had been sharing sophisticated technology, warhead-design information, and weapons-testing data with the Pyongyang regime. Pakistan, one of the Bush Administration’s important allies in the war against terrorism, was helping North Korea build the bomb.’ There is no doubt that Hersh was officially briefed. His report went on to reveal details that effectively indict Pakistan as an unreliable state that would go to any length to persist in its hostile policy towards India. The changing complexion of the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan could stem from Pakistan’s perception of an Indian comeback in the country under the Tajik-dominated Karzai government in Kabul.

During a meeting at Governor’s House, Lahore, General Musharraf complained earlier this month that in the OIC there were fewer and fewer takers for Pakistan’s India policy and that any reference to Kashmir was accommodated by the Islamic world only after Pakistan threatened to leave the organisation. He also disclosed to newspaper editors that there was actually a move within the Islamic bloc to accept India as a member of the OIC. This is a serious loss of international support on India policy. It develops that Pakistan has to first absorb the negative consequences of the Taliban policy it pursued in Afghanistan before 9/11. It had forced Iran to become its regional rival and caused the Central Asian Islamic republics to protest proxy infiltration. The highwater mark of this Islamic reaction against Pakistan came when in 2002, the Turkish prime minister visited India reciting the Bhagwat Gita while pointedly ignoring Pakistan’s protestations of eternal friendship. Iran’s return to the arms of Pakistan has been only partial because of Tehran’s persisting doubts about Islamabad’s sincerity. According to unconfirmed Indian reports, an accord signed between India and Iran on January 19 will allow New Delhi to use Iranian military bases in the event of a war with Pakistan. The agreement will also boost Indian armament exports to Iran and base Indian intelligence, security and military experts in Iran to train their Iranian counterparts. Appropriately, the ‘strategic alliance’ came just days ahead of the January 26 visit to India of Iranian President Muhammad Khatami. What should Pakistan make of this?

Waiting for externally imposed solutions: Indian opinion-writer Raja Mohan ( Daily Times 21 January 2003) stated: ‘Both New Delhi and Tehran were rattled by the policies of the Taliban, which rose to prominence in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. Preventing the territorial consolidation of the Taliban became a shared objective between India and Iran. Besides becoming a key factor in India’s energy security calculus, Iran has emerged as India’s potential gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia and Europe. New Delhi and Teheran are working together to develop transport corridors from India to these destinations through Iranian territory. A missing link in bilateral relations has been defence cooperation. The two sides are now moving to fill that gap. This week the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Madhvendra Singh is in Iran as part of high-level defence exchanges. Ship visits and other military cooperation is expected to follow.’ India doesn’t have to persuade Iran to agree with its policy on Kashmir. While President Khatami offers mediation on Kashmir, the Indians say Khatami’s pipeline dream would be endorsed by New Delhi only if he is willing to get Pakistan to cease its cross-border ‘terrorism’. Even if the news about an Indo-Iranian strategic alliance is unconfirmed, the extent of Indo-Iranian economic and military cooperation points in a direction that will only increase Pakistan’s isolation in the region. Ahmed Rashid writing recently in The Nation about the growing Afghan reliance on Iran for its trade with the world quotes a Western diplomat in Islamabad: ‘Pakistan is losing out because its myopic policies place countering India above trade and stability in Afghanistan’.

The world will soon converge on the central malady of Pakistani strategists and will have to focus on Islamabad’s obsession with India. Many in Pakistan will rejoice when that happens, thinking that such a focus will highlight the Kashmir dispute. The truth of the matter is that, given Pakistan’s extremely weak and dangerous internal condition, such a focus will be similar to the focus that came on Pakistan’s Taliban policy after 9/11. Pakistan lacks the capacity to produce solutions to its problems internally. Just two years ago Islamabad kept offering its Taliban strategy as a policy without alternatives even after admitting that it was hurting Pakistan’s external image and internal security. It was finally overturned, with great loss to Pakistani citizens who were allowed to become pawns in it, simply because of an incapacity to intellectually tackle the problem of total international isolation. As seen in the above developments, Islamabad is becoming globally isolated on the question of relations with India. While no one agrees with it, Pakistan is unable to show even the minimum amount of flexibility of approach to prevent an ‘external solution’ from being imposed on it. There is no doubt that Pakistan will be ‘next’ unless Pakistan changes its spots and starts thinking ‘laterally’ for once to save itself from disaster.``

Sridhar

re:#274 by stuka
I am not denying the Indian American Astronaut her ethnicity. It is for her (or her parents, now that she is no more) to say it. Ylh has no say in this matter. He failed to mention why this Astranaut`s family had to leave their ethnic roots and migrate to India, where her father, by sheer hard work, became a prosperous businessman.
Let us create an atmosphere where such ethnic groups, who are dislodged, can come back. There are many prosperous Sindhi hindus in India and abroad, who would like to visit their native place and may be even invest. Will Pak govt allow them to do so? This talk about ethnic roots make no sense if it is merely a talk.
To answer your question, my great gradma was not a Sindhi. We are South Indians. There were pockets of South Indians scattered over the subcontinent in those days. They were in small numbers but they were there.
Sridhar

RSridhar:

``The Indian American Woman Astronaut was an ethnic Gujrati Punjabi and her grandparents moved from Pakistan in 1947.``

YLH does not say that Kalpana Chawla is Pakistani. He simply (and correctly) states that she was, in an ethnic sense, from Gujrat which is in West Punjab. Her family moved from Pakistan to India. The same goes for my family.

You say your grandmother shuttled from Karachi to Delhi. But was she an ethnic Sindhi?

For those doubting that Godhra happened or that Godhra was perpetrated by Hindutva-wadis looking for an excuse to kill Muslims, here is today`s news:

[Main Godhra conspirator arrested
Press Trust of India
Godhara, February 6

In a significant development, Railway Police today arrested Mulama Hussain Umarji, allegedly the main conspirator behind last year`s Godhra carnage.

Umarji, a religious priest holding top-most position in the city, was arrested at Signal Falia in the wee hours for allegedly being involved in the burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express on February 27 last year in which 59 Kar Sevaks were killed, Railway Police sources said.

The police action followed after one of the Godhra accused Zabir Behra, arrested earlier, on Wednesday made a confessional statement before the city chief judicial magistrate naming the religious head as the main conspirator for the carnage, the sources said.

According to Behra`s confession, Umarji provoked about 12 Muslim youths, including Behra, and while providing information that Kar Sevaks were returning in Sabarmati Express, planned to attack them, the sources added.

Umarji will be produced in the Godhra court on Thursday for police remand, Railway Police officials, who are investigating the carnage, said.

Meanwhile, District Superintendent of Police, Panchmahals N Komar told PTI over phone that there was no tension in the Muslim dominated areas of Signal Falia after Umarji`s arrest.

Behra, during his confession stated that Umarji had also promised to pay a sum of Rs 1,500 to each of the 12 youths for perpetrating the crime.

The special investigating team of Railway Police, probing the crime, has already arrested in this connection more than 75 persons, including Razak Kurkur, owner of the guest house in front of the Godhra railway station, where these youths had put up before the February 27 carnage.]

Isn`t a maulana supposed to be a religious man teaching his flock to keep to Allah`s commandments? Why was he telling people to kill Hindu pilgrims?

re:#235 by YLH2
``
The Indian American Woman Astronaut was an ethnic Gujrati Punjabi and her grandparents moved from Pakistan in 1947``
Ylh,
Actually, i am a Pakistani. I suddenly realised that. My great grandma used to live in Karachi (in the 20s) and often shuttled between Karachi and Delhi. She moved to India for ever after 1947.
Keep weaving the web, young man. Only, do not get entangled in it. You have to complete your Law and look forward to a great political future in Pakistan.
Sridhar

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

Ref 12-Head #256

[Harami OU

Did you read the crap hindutva propogate.]

No, I don`t. It may come as a surprise to you but I actually prefer to read real history as opposed to doctored versions put out by either the BJP and its minions or by Jawaharlal Nehru University professors. If then my conclusions sound like some Hindutva propaganda to you, then perhaps there is a lot of truth on their side. Have you thought of that?

[You complainabout jehadists YOU NEVER COMPLAIN about the crap from SAMUKTHA ,unsolicited .I could change my E.Mail but i know she can hack it again besides it will apset my whole file of stored favourite places .]

Whoever SAMUKTHA is, he/she doesn`t sendme unsolicited e-mail. So, put some sort of spam guard in your in-box.

Ref PM #258

[``The reason Pakistan does not have pogroms against Hindus is the same reason India does not have pogroms against the Parsis. They are too insignificant too count.``

Ok. You have a point here. The Shias are probably the closest thing to a threat-posing `minority` to orthodox Sunni extremists, and really, it doesn`t take much of a stretch to imagine organized violence upon them, especailly if, say, the bogeyman of a trainload of Sunni ambushed by Shias were thrown in. I knoiw only to well how potent the mob mentality can be, though I cannot see with any certainty, the government of the two more urban provinced acquiesing in any such massacres.]

Right after the Gujarat riots, I pointed out that Modi was doing what he was doing -- let the riots continue -- for political compulsions, damn the legalities. I was excoriated as the Hindutva goon on Chowk for that. Now that Modi got elected, you are all wondering if all of India is going to go the Modi way.

Politicians will do anything to stay in power. The police in Punjab didn`t cover themselves with glory in 1947 during the partition riots. It is hard to believe that the police have improved -- on either side of the border -- after the British left.

PM,
All legal reasons aside, you were right about India not being able to afford any concession on Kashmir. Pakistan had lived with Indian `occupation` of Kashmir until 1987-88. So Pakistan and its military can survive without Kashmir.

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

PM #265,
PM, ``back from where it came``, how do you know where it came from?
Is it not possible that it is your own?

My question with regard to ``India not honoring UN resolutions: statement made by you.
My first request was for you to quote from resolution. My argument is that as per UN resolutions first step is to be taken by Pakistan. In case you accept this position than we have nothing more to argue about this point, except discussing modalities of how Pakistan will meet requirements of Part 1 ..)

(of course I will also ask you for details on other topics .. of your interest)

re. #252 AlephNull:
You quote me:
{.... I have never understood what makes SOME people so terrified of the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy. Could it be the awareness of innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise? ... I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!)}

and then respond:

``This led me to believe that your particular preferences were backed by *theoretical arguments*. I understand and deeply respect the power of abstract arguments. That is why I asked many obvious questions in an attempt to understand your rationale.}

Nothwithstanding a shared respect in the power of abstract argument, sometimes, Aleph, `wonder` means wonder, nothing more! I am not sure to what rationale it is you refer.

``... [The questions] were *directly addressed* to your comments, and to YLH`s. I intentionally kept them abstract for the most part to avoid another futile wrangle about sub-continental politics, Partition, etc. - but you must realise their fundamental relevance.``

Darn, was hoping I could get away feinging ignorance on that one! :)

re. arjun_m #259:
``so enough of this high moral ground sh!t... ``
Chill already humberto! In case you haven`t noticed, the debate has moved to strategic considerations, not moral. (Then again, what would a day be without some paki to curse, eh?)

``Wake up and smell the double skim milk latte..India doesn`t need to negotiate/talk or do anything it doesn`t feel like doing. It`s Pakistan that needs talks/mediation/something/anything. Unless there is pressure on India, it will talk when it feels like talking.. ``

Yeah, until then I`m sure it finds it more worhtwhile stationing 700,000 troops in that state, right?

``And for all the people whining about talks..India did talk..Lahore..Agra..these ring a bell?``

Yes. Were not these the talks in which India reminded Pakistan that Kashmir was off-limits, talks-wise?

friend:
Nothing caustic intended in my sh!tty remarks. :) In ``...back over the fence from where it came``, please consider what the word `back` implies.
And what exactly is it do you expect me to comment on re. the UN resolutions? Please clarify.

P.S. (to Aleph)
found this altogether quite ticklish:
``I only hope that your reason for being coy is something other than an awareness of innate insecurity in your own premises, or lack of substantiation for your preferred conclusions.``

While I will, in due time, hope to dispell your suspicion of any such improriety on my part, I should hope that the conclusions you have reached, if contradictory to my own, would be duly substantiated with more than citation of personally observed empirical data.

And if I may be so audacious as to offer advice, don`t dismiss your `understanding of human nature, which, it would appear is anything but ``limited``.

re. @250 byAlephNull:
Aleph, your post was informative and convincing, a well as patient, for which I thank you. Guess I should have read up more on the issue myself, especially on the finer and/or closed-door aspects of the Shimla agreement.

You write, however, :
``You seem to regard India`s failure to ask Pakistan to honour its end of the bargain as evidence of India`s intent to dishonour the resolution. That is certainly a curious position considering that it is Pakistan that plainly has to move first, which it has manifestly failed to do for half a century.``

It is not, per se, India`s failure to ask Paksitan to honour its end of the bargain that I see as India`s intent to dishonour it -- it is its position that Kashmir is `internal` and therefore non-negotiable -- which is altogether a different position. Unless it is India`s intention to provide reasons for the Army to stay in power Pakistan ( I fail to see what benefit it affords anyone BUT that army), would you not agree that this is not the strategically, to say nothing of legality, most sound stance for India to be taking?

``I also regard legalities as being of dubious value in relations between plainly adversarial states.``

When internal pressure is brought to bear, legalities may make the difference between choosing high-cost war and face-losing peace.

re. your #254 dealing with the `tangential` issues. Thanks for the time alotted as well as the stimulating thoughts. I am far from intransigent on the view that that, in practice, large polities/societes are more likely than smaller ones to stifle and constrain individual choice. Off the hip, again, I`d say that individual choice in very large polities tends to give rise to a form of idividualism and lack of identity and moorings that tends to tear at the fabric of the meaningful units of society (family, neighbourhood, town) and this may be a reason that many individuals, or groups of kindred individuals, resist being `swallowed up in a homogenizing superstructure` as it were.

Yes, I`m an anarchist at heart. Hell! in skin too :)

IMO, it takes a great deal of thought, checks and balances, and a tradition of tolerance to create unions in which particular rights of individuals or diverse groups are freely given. I am not sure such can be achieved without a thorough subscription to a philosophy of man; not state, as holding paramount inegrity. Even a society such as the US, with its constitution founded in just such a philosophy felt the need to curtail this right (IMO, rightly in that case, since there was an overriding moral imperative OUTSIDE any consideration of national integrity -- I am referring to the Abolition proclamation. Am I mistaken?).

But I have rambled enough already. Allow me to wipe the dust off my volumes of Locke and Russell and perhaps post a more fitting reply to your interesting queries.

regards,
PM

An aside: I honeslty felt your earleir questions were directed generally to ANY ``votaries of liberty`` that might be lurking in these alleys.

PM #258
As far as need for ``India asserting its supiriority`` in 1951 itself, while waiting for Pakistan to meet its obligations, it conducted elections in J&K. J&K got special status (Article 370) and laws of Indian Parliament have limited applicability in J&K.
On the other hand, Pakistan gifted part of J&K to China, without asking Kashmiri people`s opinion (kindly don`t call it border dispute settlement, if J&K is disputed territory than Pakistan didn`t have any rights to settle its boundary). Nothern part of J&K was just eaten by Pakistan as nothern territories. Those people have no representation and status.

Now, when demography of J&K has changed so much in last 50 years, you want India to go back 50 years and show ``moral supiriority``.!! Can you roll back situation to 1947, make Nothern Areas part of Kasmir and get back territory from China.

All the sides can show this supiriority, Pakistan by refraining from any adventure, direct or indirect and India by taking care of issues faced by Kashmiris (for that matter, by people from all the states).

At this point, imho, converting LOC to IB is sanest (and least cost) solution.

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

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

re. stuka #239
``Is India expected to sit around till the end of time to wait for Pakistan to fufill it`s part??? Maybe the second coming of the Mahdi???``

No. India can tell Pakistan that it can forget about Kashmir until it fulfills its (Pak`s) end of the resolution. That would wonderfully put the ball in Pakistan`s court, exposing the issue for what it really is to Pakistan -- the raison d`etre of the Pak Army, who make sure that masses are reminded cosntantly of Indian expansionist designs and ill-will for Muslims. Apart from Urstruly, few educated Pakistanis believe that the Kashmiri struggle is indigenous, though many believe the issue is historically unresolved.

But no, India needs to assert its superiority in the matter, rather than seek a negotiable settlement in which it would even effectively retain it`s part of Kashmir. It has to show it`s the Alpha male in the region. Perhaps this is understandable: Even a HINT of concession on Kashmir could, no matter what harimau might think, lead to seccessionists rumblings in other parts, which India cannot obviously afford.

``Obviously, if the Pakistanis proceed to wreck havoc with their part of Kashmir (basically treating it as their baap ka maal) and do not make any effort to implement the UN Resolution, then why are we expected to do any different?``

You are not. But just don`t play the ``Kashmir is an integral part of India and that`s a reality`` line. Not only because stating such `realities` is about the intellectual equivalent of Pakistan`s claiming that its part is ``integral`` to it, but because it smacks of provocation. And that is plain dumb to be doing when you already have the card you want in hand and can retain it without having to appear as the Numero Uno of the block.

Unless, of course, you think that India`s current position (`Kashmir cannot be discussed. Period.`) is the stragetically soundest for the Kashmiris as well as Indians.

re. stuka #244
``LOL!!! Pakistan is a bastion of tolerance because the great Patrick Masih said so.``

No. It`s actually a cesspool of intolerance becasue jay, arjun_m and you say so. I bow before your superior knowledge!

(Not that Patrick Masih even made any unqualified statements about the way Minorities, in general, are treated in Pakistan. But I guess reading skills are the first to go when cerished ideas of enemy iniquities are challenged.)

``The reason Pakistan does not have pogroms against Hindus is the same reason India does not have pogroms against the Parsis. They are too insignificant too count.``

Ok. You have a point here. The Shias are probably the closest thing to a threat-posing `minority` to orthodox Sunni extremists, and really, it doesn`t take much of a stretch to imagine organized violence upon them, especailly if, say, the bogeyman of a trainload of Sunni ambushed by Shias were thrown in. I knoiw only to well how potent the mob mentality can be, though I cannot see with any certainty, the government of the two more urban provinced acquiesing in any such massacres.

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

Ref Urs-Stooley #242

[India has secularism and a pluralistic democarcy and yet there are ferocious genocides of minorities on regular basis. According to your thesis it should not happen in India. As compared to them Pakistan seems to be a kingdom of heaven as per your article and posts which are being duly attested by PM.]

Great! I shall immediately go to New Delhi to stand in line in front of the Pakistan High Commission for a permanent resident visa. I am not sure whether the Kingdom of Heaven aka Land of the Pure will grant me 72 houris (please keep the ghilmans to yourselves) when I present my papers at the Wagah checkpost or I will have to settle first in LaWhore. Do you know the answer?

Do you think minorities like me will have a special line at the Pak High Commission? I know the Indian Muslims are already breaking down the doors to get a visa in their bid to move to Pakistan. I wouldn`t want to be caught in a line that is 130 million long.

Ref 12-Head #249

[.Slave ,Kesto Arjun Harimou ,Jay plz get me off your list i never knowingly gave my e-mail to ]

A) I don`t know your e-mail address

B) I don`t write to idiots like you

C) If you now get a deluge of mail, that is payback for all the unsolicited e-mails you had sent to female interactors on Chowk. Just remember, Allah has ordained that you endure this for all the crappy e-mail you had sent to women.

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

PM #225

{Only if we can agree on the idea and extent of autonomy ..... unless we have such agreement, all talk is less than meaningful and not likely to end in agreement. Commonality of premise is a requirement for that of conclusion, right?}

One can try to evaluate the logical soundness or heuristic plausibility of an argument on its own merits, whether or not one agrees with the premises. Such an exercise is valuable - after all, schoolchildren are made to learn Euclidean geometry even though we now believe that spacetime is not flat! That is why I would like to see your detailed premises and conclusions, and at least an attempt at a persuasive argument as to how the latter follow from the former.

{(for me it IS the individual that is paramount, in so far as his liberty/autonomy doesn`t interfere with that of others -- I know, a can of worms in itself!)}

Curiously enough, I too regard the liberty and autonomy of the individual, and his utmost freedom to develop, as paramount. I have grounds to believe that in practice small polities/societes are as likely as, or more likely than, larger ones, to stifle and constrain individual choice,. I admit that I have no rigorous argument in support of this belief - it is based on empirical observation and my limited understanding of human nature.

You seem to have come to different conclusions on theoretical grounds. That is why your comments interest me. We well know that the devil is always in the details, which is why I invited you to elaborate upon your views.

{... matters only tangential to my original comments.}

I disagree with your characterization of these matters as `tangential` to your original comments in #55. Let me quote you again:

{{.... I have never understood what makes SOME people so terrified of the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy. Could it be the awareness of innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise? ... I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!)}

This led me to believe that your particular preferences were backed by *theoretical arguments*. I understand and deeply respect the power of abstract arguments. That is why I asked many obvious questions in an attempt to understand your rationale. They were *directly addressed* to your comments, and to YLH`s. I intentionally kept them abstract for the most part to avoid another futile wrangle about sub-continental politics, Partition, etc. - but you must realise their fundamental relevance.

{I am neither blessed with the time, nor imbued with the inclination to expound ...}

I know that in the past you have not hesitated to write fairly voluminous posts when the spirit moved you. I`m prepared to wait until after the end of the World Cup and the Karachi football season if need be.

It is your absolute prerogative to not engage me if you find doing so distasteful or on any other grounds - Romiar does it all the time! I only hope that your reason for being coy is something other than an awareness of innate insecurity in your own premises, or lack of substantiation for your preferred conclusions.

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

PM #237

{Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is simple: Hold the plebescite.}

You do realise, don`t you, that the plebiscite is to be held in the entire territory of 1947 J & K, *after* it has been reunited under Indian control, Pakistani armed forces and non-Kashmir-residents have been expelled, and refugees who fled Kashmir have returned. If you read the UN resolutions, they are crystal clear about what Pakistan needs to do as the first step towards their implementation.

When Pakistanis are apprised of these requirements, they are wont to start bleating about `modalities for simultaneous mutual withdrawal of forces` - something for which no provision exists in the resolutions.

{If India has any intention at all to honour that resolution, it should at least leve the subject open to negotiation -- ask Pakistan to keep its end of the bargain, make sure their militia don`t infiltrate etc. -- so that IT (India) can then begin to think about playing it`s part.}

You seem to regard India`s failure to ask Pakistan to honour its end of the bargain as evidence of India`s intent to dishonour the resolution. That is certainly a curious position considering that it is Pakistan that plainly has to move first, which it has manifestly failed to do for half a century.

Pakistanis cannot simultaneously demand the implementation of the UN resolutions AND seek to renegotiate their provisions to better suit their ends. If you want to invoke the UN resolutions, the letter of the resolutions is what you`ll get. You cannot have it both ways.

PM #224

{And this is the same as the current Indian position that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter and not negotiable, right?}

No, it isn`t the same. The basis of the Indian position after 1972 has been the Simla Agreement, according to which all differences between India and Pakistan (the Kashmir dispute is not specifically named) are to be resolved through *bilateral negotiations or any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon*. This is held to supersede the various UN resolutions.

It is widely held that the Indian intent at Shimla was to formalise the post-1971 Line of Control as the de jure International Border, and that ZAB agreed to this course but pleaded that it not be included in the written agreement, as it would make his position at home as the head of a defeated country untenable. Naturally none of this has any legal force.

-------------

I personally believe that the offer of LOC=IB gives away far too much to Pakistan. As far as I`m concerned the control of any J & K territory currently in India`s possession is not negotiable with any other power, least of all Pakistan. I also regard legalities as being of dubious value in relations between plainly adversarial states.

I mentioned the fine print of the UN Resolutions primarily to demonstrate the hollowness of your facile claim about `India having dishonoured the UN Resolutions`.

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

friend #233 `It is a revelation to know even saner Pakistanis like you also believe those stories of horrible Hindus hijacking there own aircrafts, killing their own citizens, throwing bombs on their own parliaments and in this incident, burning their own Hindu brothers, just to malign Pakistan and Muslims!! Do you really believe such stories to be true? Do you also believe in the theory of Mossad blowing up the trade center?`

Liberal or conservative, for all Pakistanis, these are articles of faith. You should read what Ardeshir Cowasjee wrote about Indians organizing attack on their own parliament building. Irrespective of their educational achievement, more than 90% share this thinking.

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

Ref arjun_m #245

[See what the director of the Pakistan institute of strategic studies thinks..India and the US are strategic partners and Pakistan is just a prophylactic....so much for the ``something gigantic is in the pipeline`` pipe dream..
__________________________________________________________

Yet, it is these developments that reflect the new realities in this region - that, India, as a strategic partner of the US is not to be subjected to any questions on its transgression of international norms and laws. Instead, it is states like Pakistan, who want to create their own space in the region, who are to be put under all manner of pressure and stress. This is the price we have to pay for being in the neighbourhood of the Indo-US strategic game plan and for still wanting to befriend the US with no quid pro quos.]

How neatly these guys turn the truth around to suit themselves! It is well-known that no Indian government has exported nuclear or missile technology to any country. On the other hand, China got away with selling both to Pakistan and Pakistan is strongly suspected of selling nuclear technology to North Korea. All that Powell could say about that was that Musharraf has promised that is has stopped and that he, Powell, was not going to go back to pre-Sep 11 time to analyze events.

But the statement that ``India, as a strategic partner of the US is not to be subjected to any questions on its transgression of international norms and laws``, is the propaganda that is being fed to the masses in Pakistan and that too to the English-speaking elite.

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

LOL!!! Pakistan is a bastion of tolerance because the great Patrick Masih said so.

The reason Pakistan does not have pogroms against Hindus is the same reason India does not have pogroms against the Parsis. They are too insignificant too count. If the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in India in 1947 had been equal to what you did to us, we would not have pogroms either.

re YLH2:
``The point is that PM`s evidence as a successful minority Pakistani notwithstanding, the condition of the Minorities in Pakistan is despicable... ``
Yasser! Successful? hmmm... I think my mom would have a thing or two to say about that! I mean, she`d like me to have a regualr job, even if I can`t afford a brand new Honda Civic. :)
The condition of Minorities in some areas (both geographical and socio-political) is despicable (tho I wonder how much of it has to do with their ecnomic status and how much with their religious affiliation). Personally, as a middle-class Goan (not Syrian, LOL!) Christian living in Karachi, I have often been a ``victim`` of `reverse discrimination`. You could argue that Christians, like Parsis, are favoured in certain employment positions because of the reputation their communities have earned, but how that is different from stereotyping Muslims (albeitly negatively) because of Sept.11, I don;t really understand.
Bottom line, I speak for a vast majority of urban Minorities when I say that negative discrimination is not a major issue.
Having said that... it is only fair to point out that the majority of Christians and I think Hindus too live in rural-to-semirural areas and are often victims of harsh discrimination.

rgds,
PM
hey, my email addy is @hotmail.com. If you`ve forgotten that (swine!!) then send to postmatser@yahoo.com (please not the spelling)

Patrick Masih:

``It is well known that the Truce Agreement provisions require Pakistan, as a first step, to withdraw all its troops from J & K as well as secure the withdrawal of tribesemen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state, and to hand over power to local authorities. ``

And this is the same as the current Indian position that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter and not negotiable, right````

What an idiot....Is India expected to sit around till the end of time to wait for Pakistan to fufill it`s part??? Maybe the second coming of the Mahdi???

Obviously, if the Pakistanis proceed to wreck havoc with their part of Kashmir (basically treating it as their baap ka maal) and do not make any effort to implement the UN Resolution, then why are we expected to do any different?

At least we retained the demographic balance of Kashmir, unlike you lot. If Nehru had brains he would have handed over the valley to Refugee Hindus and Sikhs from West Pakistan and today Kashmir would have been a fertile breadbasket of India rather than an economic basket case. The land would have been developed by Hindus and Sikhs and the Kashmiri Muslims could have earned excellent livlihood as labourers in rice fields and apple orchards. But thanks to his trying to prove points of secularism a basis for future problem was created.

Can we all please stop this overdone homage-paying to those seven unfortunates who lost their lives over the Texan skies. I mean, they knew full well the risks they were taking for the thrill (face it, being in outer space is a THRILL, first and foremost-- unless someone can convince me that shuttle missions and Hubbles bobbling actually contribute to the general welfare of mankind!) Perhaps us Pakis would do better to save our grief for the seven virtually unnamed innocents who lose their lives everyday to reckless driving by busdrivers while their masters (the traffic cop bigwigs) look th other way!

PM #237,
``Then why did you bother? :) ``
I am surprised at your caustic reply. Aleph will write his own replies but I do have right to write my feedback. Now if you are getting so touchy, just say so and I will desist.
Dear Patrick saheb, you have time & inclination to reply to tangential questions raised to YLH. ``Who is online`` feature & the spread of timestamp of your messages indicate that you are spending enough time on this forum. You claim this ``meri marzi`` only when you run out of arguments!!

w.r.t to yours ``which part of throw it Back``. I really don`t get it. Explain if you can. If you are in sh!t throwing business than all my best wishes are with you.

I will choose to believe BBC, I have seen enough false and biased reports in Pakistani press (Dawn, the News etc) to make that decision.

And yes, I pleaded ``Oh! PM please read UN resolutions`` as I thought that you will take an objective stance. I am now coming to conclusion that I was wrong.

Obviously you have read it, found that first steps was for Pakistan to withdraw from area invaded by her and have no explanations as to why that was not done.

Pakistani position is very simple ``hold the plebescite``. What happened to simple ``step 1`` - ``Pakistan withdrawing from the territories occupied by its forces and tribals and making conditions conducive to plebescite.``?

For fifty years, Pakistan didn`t honor the resolutions but kept harping on ``one muslim equals ten hindus`` and ````making India bleed with thousand cuts`` and having dreams of lunches in ``Jodhpur?`` and dinner in Delhi. Now that policy has shown to be throughly flawed, Pakistan started singing songs of ``at least keep it open to negotiation``. What negotiation you want to do? Kindly elaborate.

And I will wait for your detailed analysis of UN reolutions.

YLH2 : That is precisely why I am such a strong advocate of secularism and pluralistic democracy ... so that we can do away with these blots once and for all... just imagine how much progress we will make in this department...


India has secularism and a pluralistic democarcy and yet there are ferocious genocides of minorities on regular basis. According to your thesis it should not happen in India. As compared to them Pakistan seems to be a kingdom of heaven as per your article and posts which are being duly attested by PM. And this is when Paksitan has neither secularism nor democarcy. So either you are lying about Paksitan or you are beating about the wrong bush.

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

re #friend:
In response to my comment to Aleph: ``Don`t hold your breath. I am neither blessed with the time, nor imbued with the inclination to expound on matters only tangential to my original comments...``
You write in #234:
``I trust Aleph to write his own reply.``
Then why did you bother? :)
``... I am accustomed to observing Romair going in hibernation and YLH pleading ``no time due to demands of ivy league education``. Your adopting same approach is totally unexpected!!``
friend sahib, which part of ``only tangential to my original comments`` did you not understand??

re. my comment, ``But it behoves one to throw cr@p back over the fence when one finds it in one`s backyard. ``

You write in #233:
``And this is really hilarious. So philosophy in Pakistan is that if you have cr&p in your own backyard, throw it over the fence. Dear Patrick, why not just clean it. Even while throwing, you have to touch it.``

So, I am prompted to ask, ``which part of throw it BACK..`` did you not get?

A for you comments on the Bishop taking his life, well, it`s certainly less evil than taking another`s, but silly all the same. It achieved nothing, except some raised eyebrows from his fellow ecclesiatics.

Now, you would be surprised to learn that folks in the inner circles of the churches to which that charitable organization (whose seven workers were killed) was linked know full well that the killings were committed in all likelihood by a rival Christian party. The atmosphere was ideal to deflect attention from themselves. Two months before this horrific incident, the leader of an oppsoing camp in this circle was found beaten, up gagged and left for dead in his office. Of course, you can choose to believe BBC whose headlines, a mere 12 hours following this incident, had somehow ascertained that ``Islamic extremists [had killed] Seven Christians``. Wonderfully objective reportage!

As for my assertion that the theory that the Godhra train was attacked and razed by Muslims has some serious holes, would you like me to post references to the same from the Indian press? And please don`t be so disingenuous as to associate this claim with other obviosuly hogwash ones in future. If you wish to engage in debate, tick to the issues beign discussed.

Now, you plead: ``PM!!!!! Why don`y you start with US resolutions, show us that Pakistani position is correct. Wait till that time to analyze Indian position.``

Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is simple: Hold the plebescite. If India has any intention at all to honour that resolution, it should at least leve the subject open to negotiation -- ask Pakistan to keep its end of the bargain, make sure their militia don`t infiltrate etc. -- so that IT (India) can then begin to think about playing it`s part. But you know India`s position, right? Summed up, it`s ``Kashmir is integral to India, so butt out, Pakistan!``

Hope that helps!

re #231 by rsaxena
[re: PM #229
...nobody cares... ]
Gee you`re sweet! Thanks for caring enough to letme know! :)

PM #223
re. friend #198:
``Gee, someone really hasn`t been reading the papers! Or haven`t you heard-- there are serious questions regarding the authenticity of the Godhra-train story. ``
It is a revelation to know even saner Pakistanis like you also believe those stories of horrible Hindus hijacking there own aircrafts, killing their own citizens, throwing bombs on their own parliaments and in this incident, burning their own Hindu brothers, just to malign Pakistan and Muslims!! Do you really believe such stories to be true? Do you also believe in the theory of Mossad blowing up the trade center?

``And would you also write about that old female who distributed sweets in a piece of paper? Or priest (was that a bishop!!) who had to commit suicide in a church?``

Did he successfully internationalize the plight of Pakistani Christians. Taking one`s own life is a hard decision, much harder than killing innocent people (read ``by your freedom fighters``)Obviously Bishop was not allowed to server his community that`s why he took this drastic step. What about a recent church bombing where only witness who somehow survived was grilled for his possible collusion with killers. Final report I read was that he disappeared. Tell me that this is also a fabricated report.

``But it behoves one to throw cr@p back over the fence when one finds it in one`s backyard. ``

And this is really hilarious. So philosophy in Pakistan is that if you have cr&p in your own backyard, throw it over the fence. Dear Patrick, why not just clean it. Even while throwing, you have to touch it.

Will look forward to your response on ``UN resolutions``.

PM #224
[re. AlephNull #206:
``It is well known that the Truce Agreement provisions require Pakistan, as a first step, to withdraw all its troops from J & K as well as secure the withdrawal of tribesemen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state, and to hand over power to local authorities. ``

And this is the same as the current Indian position that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter and not negotiable, right? ]

PM!!!!! Why don`y you start with US resolutions, show us that Pakistani position is correct. Wait till that time to analyze Indian position.



PM #226
[re. AlephNull#223:

``That was why I had a multitude of questions to ask you in #72. They were NOT rhetorical. I trust you will be forthcoming with answers.``

Don`t hold your breath. I am neither blessed with the time, nor imbued with the inclination to expound on matters only tangential to my original comments. Soccer season is in full swing in Karachi, you see, and then there`s the World Cup starting on the 8th. ;) ]

I trust Aleph to write his own reply. I am accustomed to observing Romair going in hibernation and YLH pleading ``no time due to demands of ivy league education``. Your adopting same approach is totally unexpected!!

Prayers for Dr. Kalpana Chawla in Gujrat Pakistan,

I think it is heartening to note that Gujrat City Pakistan Writers forum held a meeting of condolence recently for the death of the first astronaut from our part of the world... The Indian American Woman Astronaut was an ethnic Gujrati Punjabi and her grandparents moved from Pakistan in 1947.

Gujrat is also the stronghold of kingmaker Ch.Shujaat.


Ok now on to the other issue...


I wonder why Indians think that if we say that minorities are only treated as badly in Pakistan as in India that we are paying ourselves some sort of a compliment...

The point is that PM`s evidence as a successful minority Pakistani notwithstanding, the condition of the Minorities in Pakistan is despicable... and the horrible events of Shantinagar, though nowhere close to the events in Gujurat and other places in India where christians and muslims are massacred mercilessly, are a blot on our conscience.

That is precisely why I am such a strong advocate of secularism and pluralistic democracy ... so that we can do away with these blots once and for all... just imagine how much progress we will make in this department...


Anyway ... for the Pakistani Hindu Perspective please visit:

Pakistani Hindu Patrika

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/7295/

re:

{ISLAMABAD - Pakistan reacted angrily yesterday to India`s reported decision to seek Israeli help in training its special forces troops, describing the cooperation between the two states as being `provocative and hostile`. }

....hahahaha...cry baby..

re: PM #229

...nobody cares...

At he cost of locking horns with the untamables:

#221 by arjun_m on February 3, 2003 6:49pm PT

``Kasuri needs to wear the cufflinks..Anything to take attention away from the fact that his visit has been a huge failure...

How can Kasuri talk about getting an exemption for Paks from the list, when Italy announced 28 Pakistanis being detained with a plot to kill British Police chief, bomb various facilities, etc? ``

I understand why are you so frustrated and angry. I symathise with your circumstances. I know that you read my message on Pakistani arrests before. I told you that 6 Pakistanis were also arrested By Kenya on similar charges, but were later released. So will be these Pakistanis. And how about the shoe bomber? Rest assured you will be wrong here too. HOW?

Did not you say that India has good relations with all the neighboring countries? Well, read the newspapers and find out about your relationship with Bangladesh now.

Or with Iran did you say?

Your Governemnt turned down Iranian gas line proposal, whereas Pakistan has executed an agreement with Iran for cooperating in the Indian ocean and other defense pacts, including naval exercises. Cosmetic of attending parades does not mean anything. Determine the main reason for the visit of Iranians to your country and then find out what was the achievement against that target.

Sorry, I did not want to hurt your feelings. See you next time angry man.

re. my various wrong referencing of posts.
Since my LAN server seems intent on serving me pages from it`s cache, and I can`t bypass it while browsing, I`m trying to cheat it by fiddling with the passed variables` values. This is resulting in skewed numbering of posts.
Any suggestions (short of killing my LAN admin to enable proxy bypass) would be welcome.

re. my various wrong referencing of posts.
Since my LAN server seems intent on serving me pages from it`s cache, and I can`t bypass it while browsing, I`m trying to cheat it by fiddling with the passed variables` values. This is resulting in skewed numbering of posts.
Any suggestions (short of killing my LAN admin to enable proxy bypass) would be welcome.

re. AlephNull#223:
``I would like to know WHY you consider ``every-village-a-nation`` to be the ideal degree of devolution of sovereignty. For starters, ideal with respect to WHAT? What is it that you seek to maximise - `individual freedom/autonomy`, `social coherence`, `participatory democracy/self-government`, `material wealth`, `safety from violence`, `shared historical consciousness`; some other factor; a weighted combination of one or more of the above? When you mention autonomy above, are you referring to the autonomy of the individual, or of social groups? If it is a social group, HOW is it chosen as deserving of autonomy, and what makes its claims more deserving than those of all other possible groupings, from single individuals to multicultural multiethnic megastates?``

Consider this a preliminary, more or less of the top-off-my head reply. Extent of autonomy and devolution is always problematic in philosophy, and I am guessing consitutes differences in fundamental political theory/philosophy. So, in that sense, if you`re looking for an answer the whole world can agree on, you will be disappointed. (Admittedly, not being a Political Science student, I might be mistaken, but not likely so).

Only if we can agree on the idea and extent of autonomy (for me it IS the individual that is paramount, in so far as his liberty/autonomy doesn`t interfere with that of others -- I know, a can of worms in itself!)-- unless we have such agreement, all talk is less than meaningful and not likely to end in agreement. Commonality of premise is a requirement for that of conclusion, right?

``That was why I had a multitude of questions to ask you in #72. They were NOT rhetorical. I trust you will be forthcoming with answers.``

Don`t hold your breath. I am neither blessed with the time, nor imbued with the inclination to expound on matters only tangential to my original comments. Soccer season is in full swing in Karachi, you see, and then there`s the World Cup starting on the 8th. ;)

rgds,
PM

harimau, re. #223
Amen, bro!

Ana,
Sorry if the `obscure` characterization offended. It was meant to connote the distance from maisntream culture (or educated anyway, no matter how GhalibZaman would chose to define that word :) )
Your ``home away from home ...`` I am doubly saddened to hear that lives indeed were lost. If only becuase it would comment on the integrity of media reportage, I wonder if you could tell us, if it doesn`t open old wounds, some of the accounts of those deaths. Were there lynchings, maimings?
regards,
PM

re. AlephNull #206:
``It is well known that the Truce Agreement provisions require Pakistan, as a first step, to withdraw all its troops from J & K as well as secure the withdrawal of tribesemen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state, and to hand over power to local authorities. ``

And this is the same as the current Indian position that Kashmir is entirely an internal matter and not negotiable, right?

re. friend #198:
[PM #204
``Residents were given the opportunity to flee. ``
wow! what a great proof of tolerance. Residents were allowed to flee!!...
Certainly we have our bands of crooks, but coming from Pakistan, such comments look ridiculous.``]

Can it already! We were discussing respective modes of organized violence against Minority communities.

``Wonder if they wanted to give such a chance to ``flee`` to Godhra train passengers too. Perhaps those passengers didn`t take that chance.``

Gee, someone really hasn`t been reading the papers! Or haven`t you heard-- there are serious questions regarding the authenticity of the Godhra-train story.

``And would you also write about that old female who distributed sweets in a piece of paper? Or priest (was that a bishop!!) who had to commit suicide in a church?``

Sorry I can help with the old lady incident (perhaps I was out of the country then), but I can tell you what many Christians (clergy included-- or mostly!) think of Bishop John Joseph`s suicide. P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L stunt. He could have served thecommunity better LIVING to fight another day.``

``PM, perhaps we should not be competing on ``whose sh!t stinks more``. We all stink.``

True, friend. And I am quick to point out that Pakistan is far from angelic. But it behoves one to throw cr@p back over the fence when one finds it in one`s backyard.

Will get back to you on the UN resolutions later in the week.
(Thanks for the pointers, Aleph)

rgds,
PM

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

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

Umer #213.
yaar, i wish i had read that when i was a kid all those years ago, then perhaps I wouldn`t be alone, and i`d still have a sitar, perhaps an even bigger one than the one I smashed to pieces-- an insult to the craftsmen on Ratan Chand Road, and my parents` checkbook!!!!

all levity and jokes aside...yes, wouldn`t it be nice if we could ALL go back to nursery, and we ALL had teachers who taught us more positive ways of responding to tearing a page, throwing a holy book on the ground, being ignored, what have you? From what i remember of being in school though...sometimes the positive teachers made little to no impact...
:-)

Ref PM #204

[Duh! A majority of Pakistan`s 5 million (handful?) Christians and Hindus live in religiously homogenous townships. The nearest thing to an organized riot against a minority community occured in an obscure Punjabi Christian rural township called Shantinagar in `96. In response to a call from an unpaDh mullah citing blasphemy, a mob of equally ignorant Muslims from surrounding towns basically burnt the town to the ground. Despicable, no doubt. But no lives were taken. Residents were given the opportunity to flee.]

So, it is okay for ignorant Muslims to burn property down for an unproved charge of blasphemy but Hindus are not supposed to avenge the burning to death of some 60 pilgrims?

Does anyone even remember that of the 1200 dead in the Gujarat riots, quite a few were Hindus? Or, have they all been admitted to The True Faith posthumously so that they can receive the 72 houris and 24 ghilmans?

I remember posting statistics that showed that PROPORTIONATELY (based on population ratio) there were more Hindus displaced by the riots. I remember the deafening silence with which that statistic was greeted on Chowk.

Patrick

I am not contending your assertion ``India also shares the blame`` but not in the sense you mean. Had Mr. Jinnah not shown the avarice to take the entire Kashmir by force, Paistan would have got the valley while Jammu/Laddakh would have gone to India. Like Punjab and Bengal, Mr. Jinnah attempted to take the entire Kashmir instead of demanding its division according to demographics and failed. You may also perhaps know that the idea of plebiscite was rejected by Jinnah. This is not to ``blame`` Mr. Jinnah. He was doing what he thought would serve the interests of his newly created nation. When it comes to the international diplomacy, it is not the morality but the interests that are important and Mr. Jinnah was doing exactly that. But then you also have no right to complain about his miscalculation/failure.

PS India does indeed share the blame on account of its multiple mistakes and we both know it.

#110 Arjun:

Good link.

Is this the same Mr Ijaz(Fox news-``analyst-cum-security expert``?)
If so, when did he get his doctorate (now he is Dr Mansur Ijaz)

One article mentioned that Kasuri was all ``decked with cufflinks, polished shoes, three-piece suite and all that``; I thought the 3-piece suit was passe`. Cufflink/bracelet??? My, My....The last time I saw someone sporting a cufflink, bracelet is a used-car fasttalking salesman smelling of burnt cheap coffee. Was he also wearing a ``Polka`` tie, ``power``(red) tie? polka is long passe`, power tie is a big no/no....he could worn
plain dockers/polo t-shirt.

How can Kasuri talk about getting an exemption for Paks from the list, when Italy announced 28 Pakistanis being detained with a plot to kill British Police chief, bomb various facilities, etc?

Forget about the list, Mr Haider(TFT fame) also was detained while taking a smoke break according to news report.

PM

``But things were always going to get ugly when India dishonoured the UN Resolutions. War is never pretty, ven if it`s proxy. My point: India shares the blame. ``

Alas! you lost it there Patrick. Two things- 1) UN resolutions came after the Pak army assisted tribal attack on Kasmir ( which Mr. Jinnah denied of course) and 2) even a cursory reading of UN resolutions may tell you that India never ``technically violated`` it.

Ref PM #201

[As for your reckoning of India as the EEC`s dream come true, the parallel is severely limited-- unless you can imagine any of the states being granted accession if and when a politcal majority so decided they wanted it.]

That will come to pass in another 100 years. But by that time, the idea of pocket-sized countries becoming independent will be gone.

Hundreds of thousands died in the US Civil War to maintain the unity of the nation. Britain did unspeakable things to Ireland, Wales and Scotland to create the United Kingdom. Today, the Welsh don`t want to leave the UK. One could cite their poverty but Scotland brimming with North Sea oil is not seeking independence. It takes a long time to create a sense of unity among disparate people and hence my comments about having to wait another 100 years. But you must acknowledge that at least in India we haven`t wiped out any language like Britain did to Gaelic or Welsh, no matter what the Urduwallahs might say. Heck, we haven`t even undertaken a systematic hunting of any type of dissidents like Britain did to the Scots after the Battle of Culloden.

I will be the first one to say that none of this is due to the generosity of Hindus, which was what Jinnah wanted. He wanted guarantees that privileges, if agreed upon and granted at the time of independence to Muslims, be written into the law. On the other hand, this is the fruit of democracy. If Jinnah had figured out that the people will prevail in the long run, he would have had no hesitation in agreeing to a united India.

Can one Pakistani explain how is it possible for the 80% Muslim population of Sindh, the 95% Muslims of Balochistan and NWFP, the 60+% majority Muslims in Punjab and Bengal, to be deprived of their rights in a united India? If Kerala with 25% Christian population can elect AK Anthony to be its Chief Minister overriding the 30+% Muslims and 45% Hindus of that state, what would have prevented the provinces of today`s Pakistan from electing Muslims to positions of authority? On the other hand, if the concern was the 30% minority Muslims strewn across the rest of India, isn`t the correct solution to offer them rights of residence in Pakistan? Once you understand the contradictions inherent in the Pakistan ideology, there is only one thing Pakistanis can do: start saying that Pakistan exists and cannot be wished away.

No one wishes away Pakistan; no one in India wishes it ill. We wish your common man can be freed from the yoke of the army. The people would then take care of the mullahs on their own.

PM #193 writes:

{re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. In the real world, however, consideration is to be given to defence and economic needs for which folks will sometimes, or often, subordinate claims to autonomy at the altar of pragmatic consolidation/centralization.}

I would like to know WHY you consider ``every-village-a-nation`` to be the ideal degree of devolution of sovereignty. For starters, ideal with respect to WHAT? What is it that you seek to maximise - `individual freedom/autonomy`, `social coherence`, `participatory democracy/self-government`, `material wealth`, `safety from violence`, `shared historical consciousness`; some other factor; a weighted combination of one or more of the above? When you mention autonomy above, are you referring to the autonomy of the individual, or of social groups? If it is a social group, HOW is it chosen as deserving of autonomy, and what makes its claims more deserving than those of all other possible groupings, from single individuals to multicultural multiethnic megastates?

In PM #55 you referred to `the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy` and to `innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise`. So it was reasonable to infer that you actually had some coherent argument based on clear principles (AKA theory) to support your position; that it was not merely an idiosyncratic personal preference, that it was somehow based on more solid foundations that other peoples` innately insecure nationalistic premise.

That was why I had a multitude of questions to ask you in #72. They were NOT rhetorical. I trust you will be forthcoming with answers.

Dear Ana,

I read what PM wrote and your post in Unplugged flashed into my mind. For some weird reason, I knew it was your mother`s village.

Now the strange thing is, I was going through Dawn today and went through the young world section (never done it before until now - all a part of the typical avoidance behaviour exhibited by students) and I read this. Again, your post came to my mind. They should let the adults read this too. Alas, illiteracy is a problem that has yet to be handled by the short and curlies...

[Hi kids!


By Editor

What would you do if your younger sibling tore a page from your book or misplaced your pen? Or the servant, while cleaning your room, accidentally broke one of your toys? Of course, you will lose your temper and shout and scream at the poor soul from entering your room or touching your things. You think you are right in your action as anyone who commits a mistake ought to be punished. But for a while think what you will gain from all this. You will not get your things back and your relationship with the people around you will be damaged. You might miss enjoying the free time with your sibling; and do all your work yourself as the servant is barred from entering your room.

Yes, a culprit should be punished but this doesn`t mean that you should lose your temper and shout and scream around the house. Instead you should act calmly and select a punishment which should teach the erring party a lesson but not hurt his feelings. Plus losing your temper is not a good habit. It tarnishes your image and gives you a bad name. If you are in the habit of frequently losing your temper over petty things you will soon lose your friends and will find yourself all alone in this vast world. People tend to put up with a lot of things among friends but not bad or short temper. Keeping your temper in control while in anger is one of the most difficult but praise-worthy qualities. Look around for ways to do so and you will find many which are not too difficult.

Have a nice weekend!

Bye! ]

We should all check ourselves back into the nursery :)

Umer M

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